Hearing, hearing as, and interpretation

Wittgenstein's rabbit/duck example

I'm introducing this post with a famous example from Wittgenstein of the difference between seeing and seeing-as that has some interesting applications in music. When you look at the above picture you see a simple line-drawing. But you can see it as two different animals, a rabbit or a duck. There is a difference between seeing and seeing-as.

There are musical applications because we can both hear and hear as. Take theory class for example: the professor might play two chords and ask "which one do you hear as the tonic?" And what about this progression? Composers can, with context, make it obvious what chord is the tonic and what the dominant. But they can also make it ambiguous and in the case of a modulation from one key to another, we may only hear something as a tonic in retrospect.

Music adds the interesting element of temporal context to the hearing-as aspect. Wittgenstein uses that term "aspect" to describe, say, the two different interpretations of the drawing. In one aspect it is a duck and the other a rabbit. In popular music sometimes there is an ambiguity between tonic and dominant--or is it sub-dominant? If your usual context is Classical style, then a pop song might sound like it is ending on the wrong chord.

But the hearing-as issue extends far beyond simple harmonic function. For example, a passage may be played and heard as introductory when near the beginning of a piece, like this from the Bach Chaconne.

But might have a quite different expressive effect when heard several minutes later in the piece where its function now is to recall the opening and prepare for a modulation to the parallel major:

This example is close to the duck/rabbit one as the two passages are, at first, identical. But we can expand the concept quite a bit. The Chaconne is a splendid example of organic unity in music. The whole piece, roughly fifteen minutes in length, is based almost entirely on this eight measure theme:

Click to enlarge

A chaconne, at this point in music history, usually consists of a set of variations over a short harmonic progression, often in the form of a repeating bass line. Due to the length of this piece, while there are many instances of the same bass line, Bach often departs from it. The basic harmonic progression persists, however. But each variation brings out difference nuances or aspects of the theme. For example, the example above is the whole of the eight measure theme. Notice that it starts on the second beat and ends on the first. The progression is i, iv, V6/5, I, VI, iv, i6/4, V6, i with a slightly different and more conclusive cadence in the second half.

When we hear it at the beginning it has an introductory feel but with two what we might call sub-texts: there is just a hint of the French overture (especially if you add some ornaments as I do) and a hint of the sarabande, which emphasizes the second beat, as this theme does. That French overture feel continues with a couple of variations emphasizing a dotted-note figure:

But there are lots of sub-texts or aspects in play. For example, a bit later Bach alludes to a typical element in fugue texture by inserting a multi-voice stretto, most unusual in a piece for solo violin:

I am using examples from my transcription for guitar, but apart from some added bass notes it is identical with the violin original. Later on there are allusions to dance:

And in this passage I hear an extreme expression that has the feeling of a lament, communicated through chromaticism and texture:

Then, modulating to D major, this passage sounds to me like a deeply meditative chorale:

Bach uses variation form and technique to reveal different possible aspects of the basic harmonic progression, ones referencing different musical styles and genres as well as different kinds of emotional expression. I'll stop here, because I am still learning the piece and haven't thought about later sections.

What I do when I play the piece is look beyond the notes to see the different aspects that they reveal. In that sense I am interpreting the piece according to different aspects. Of course, someone else could see entirely different aspects.

Here is a performance of the piece by Jean Rondeau on harpsichord: