BLOG
Music and
Meaning in Reality TV competition finals.
During the last three months Reality TV music competitions
have received a lot of attention in the public media. For example millions have
viewed the finals of the Eurovision Song Contest and BBC Young Musician and,
following these, there was copious feedback on Channel 4’s “Gogglebox “, on Facebook
and in Twitter about Conchita’s “drag” act and Martin James Bartlett’s facial
expressions. Arguably such cursory comments, though often interesting, fail to delve
deeply enough into the possible musical meaning of Reality TV competitions.
They also fail to properly consider the input to the musical meaning of such areas
as semiotics , age and gender ,the ethnic identities of performers and the
influence of industry and commerce-
In my article:
i)
I draw attention
to some different understandings of the
terms “meaning”, “music” and “meanings
of music”
ii) I relate these to four different
stages of reception of Reality TV music
competitions
a) anticipation of performance
b) actual performance
c) audience reception of performance
d) adjudication of performance
iii)
I consider whether such Reality TV music
competitions have an important and lasting
musical meaning and how
their influence and benefits can be increased.
i) The word meaning
has five definitions in the “Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English” (2012)
all of which can refer to music;
·
Meaning, according to the semiotic analyst, Ferdinand
de Saussure (de Saussure, 1966) , can relate to signs in music or language comprising a
combination of concepts and sound images. As regards the area of music,
concepts can, for example, be the
names of notes or pieces of music (for
example the names for the notes “ F “
and “A” and the title “Rhapsody”, and sound
images can firstly comprise the sounds of the notes “F” and “A” and
secondly the actual performance and sounds
of a particular “rhapsody” . In the case of music those responsible for
the signs are termed signifiers. Different examples of signifiers include
singers, players, conductors and creators of sound effects. They are
responsible for interpreting the signified
components, namely the musical ideas. This first definition of meaning, laying
particular emphasis on the signs of music, reveals the need for performers and
producers to encode the meaning of the signs they are presented with so that
they can mediate them to the listeners.
·
Meaning can also relate to the thoughts and
emotions expressed in music by a composer or performer, for example the
thoughts and feelings relating to the songs “Congratulations” sung by Cliff
Richard and “Erwartung” by Arnold Schoenberg.
As Ian Cross
(2004, Cross) points out, music presents “an infinite
range of complex patterns relating to spaciality and tactility as well as to
historical, ethnic and social location”.
·
Meaning can relate to composition or performance
-value as indicated in such as
those by David Biermann(Biermann,2014)
“Bernard Shaw and Paul Heise have both written informative articles about the
allegorical meaning of Wagner’s Ring Cycle” and “Bartlett’s virtuosic
performance gave ‘Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini” special meaning .”
·
Meaning can relate to the nature and importance
of a particular composition or performance. I recently read the following Twitter
comment which seems partly to imply that the writer believes that some pieces
of music do not bear repetition “ We
hear Elgar’s Cello Concerto so often that we seem to have forgotten its true
meaning”.
·
Meaning can relate to understanding of a type of
music or a manner of performance.
Again the contents of two recent comments on radio revealing the use of
this definition of “meaning”(Anon, 2012), namely “Very few listeners understand
the meaning of the twelve-tone row” and “the real meaning of Morricone’s
‘Mission’ cannot be fully realised by just reading the graphic score ” deserve
our consideration
Second, it
is necessary for us to define the keyword “music”. In the “Longman Dictionary of Contemporary
English” (2012) there are three definitions. There can surely be very little
dispute about two of the three, namely 1) “a set of written marks representing
the length and pitch of sounds” and 2) the art of playing or singing sounds”
but the description used in 3), that is “a series of sounds made by instruments
in a way that is pleasant or exciting” is surely much more debatable. You might
decide that this series of sounds is pleasant or exciting whereas I might find
them awful. I believe that the following
definition of music as defined in ‘What is Music?’, namely “music is what is for me, pleasant sound” (Biermann, 1994) “me” is a universal
who can be young or old, man or woman, music lecturer or student and European
or Asian.
According to
this definition if Oliver Cundy , editor of BBC Music,likes a performance of a
particular piece, it is for him pleasant sound and therefore it is music for
him. If Simon Cowell does not like the same performance, it is for him
unpleasant sound and it is therefore not music. My definition allows for
differences of taste and, as a direct result, it democratizes music.
Third, how can we best define “the meaning of music”? As Jenefer Robinson (Robinson,1997) points out
in her book “Music and Meaning” there have
been two contrasting views for many years, one
stating that music itself has intrinsic value and that only instrumental music comprising
musical forms progressing tonally constitutes music with real meaning , and
the other, that music has both intrinsic and extrinsic value,
and that these, in combination, comprise its meaning. Those holding the former
view included Professor Eduard Hanslick (Hanslick, 2008) who writes in “Vom Musikalisch-Schoenen” that only
instrumental music is pure music. Contemporary supporters of Hanslick’s view
include Roger Scruton in “Aesthetics of Music” (Scruton,
1999)
and Malcolm Budd (Budd,1992)who both believe that instrumental music has
intrinsic value and expresses the pure and the absolute in sound.
In contrast to
this view Susan McClary (McClary, 1991) sees the contents of all kinds of music as
having contextual relationships , for example the off- beat chords in the
development section of Beethoven’s 3rd symphony show the composer’s
sexual exploits, not merely his musical wishes. The widely- believed importance
of extra-musical connections to compositions stems of course from writings of twentieth
century music scholars including those of Susanne Langer (Langer,1953) and
Leonard Meyer (Meyer,1956).According to Langer one of the principal meanings of
music is to transmit in sound, to an audience, direct or intuitive knowledge of
life’s patterns and feelings and emotions, which ordinary language is unable to
convey.
Meyer shares Langer’s view that one of the meanings of
music is to express human emotions, but that music with both intrinsic AND
extrinsic values are equally important. He names intrinsic –value music as ABSOLUTIST MUSIC, i.e. music stressing that the meaning of which lies exclusively
within the context of a work itself. And extrinsic-values music as REFERENTIALIST MUSIC: which is concerned
with the wider, extra -musical world of concepts, actions, emotional states,
and character. The “Rhapsody on a theme by Paganini” can be seen as Absolutist
and Conchita’s “Rise from the Phoenix” can be seen as Referentialist. Nowadays
the majority of music analysts would use the term “programme music” instead of
“Referentialist Music”.
I now propose
to relate music and meaning to the different stages of audience reception of TV
music competitions, namely
a) anticipation
b) performance
c) audience reception
d) adjudication.
Anticipation
of an event, be it a football match or a music competition, is the earliest
stage of music reception. TV audiences are nowadays not merely gained as a
result of press and media advertising and promotion, but also by Internet advertising,
blogs, twitter exchanges and verbal and visual priming, all of which seek to promote
participants into celebrities. At a later stage these might eventually not
merely perform their music but might also become presenters of music and other
programmes. Once TV faces are accepted
by the public there is often no limit to the areas of TV presentation which
might be open to them. Obviously prospective viewers must be provided with some
information about a programme’s performers, presenters and music in order to
persuade them to watch it, so careful prior advertising either in the press or
on TV is important.
Stephen
Davies (Davies, 1994) writes of there
being a “predictive coherence” in TV audience/ viewer’s expectations and the
meaning of the music for viewers is naturally associated with both expectations
and realisations
I recall
attending an informative series of lectures at Cambridge in 1965/6 when Dr Nicholas Temperley (1965) ,Senior
Lecturer in Music at Cambridge informed us about four different kinds of
audience/viewers’ anticipation prior
to watching/listening to music
programmes.
*Non- anticipation where audiences have
no previous memories or knowledge of what kind of musical performance will happen
next in a programme,
*Stylistic-anticipation where prospective
audiences know that a programme will contain certain styles of music, for
example, hip hop, reggae and klezmer. Certain signature tunes and will access
particular presenters and judges, certain sequences of events.
*Partial- anticipation particularly where
competitors have to repeatedly perform the same pieces or sections of these
pieces in heats and in the Final
*Total anticipation where everything about a future performance is
known by the audience.
It is useful
to consider Temperley’s divisions (1965) and relate these to the “priming” of
TV audiences watching Reality TV competitions such as “Eurovision Song Contest”
and “BBC Young Musician. In neither competition will there be Non-anticipation
as the organisational ground- rules in both competitions have existed for many
years. Stylistic anticipation
contributes a great deal to the meaning of both competitions. For example, “BBC
Young Musician” has always contained solo performances of “classical” music
with accompaniment and “Eurovision Song Contest” has always contained popular
songs either with live or with recorded accompaniments.
The amount
of Partial anticipation that occurs depends on the frequency that entire pieces
or extracts are repeated and also, to what extent, previous performances are remembered
and compared with ones currently being viewed. Total anticipation is usually
regarded by programme producers as a “viewer turn-off” except where play-backs
of extracts are considered by judges prior to their summings-up. Total
anticipation is impossible as the listeners’ earlier experiences may differ
depending upon their age, on their moods, on the time of day and who is
performing the piece.
Temperley’s
lectures describing the four different stages of anticipation relate
interestingly to Leonard Meyer’ earlier comments (1956) on Information Theory
written ten years earlier. Meyer writes that musical performances are sequences
of events, which can be illustrated and summarized in complex-looking algebraic
formulae known as Markov chains. Analysis of sequences of noteswas earlier done
on SNOBOL and is now being done using AWK and Perl. By examining these, researchers
can predict the mathematic probabilities as to what will next happen in a
particular chain of events. Additionally all viewers of Reality TV music
competitions can assume that programme
presenters will try to provide positive
introductions and feedback, that performers’ family histories will be shown, that snatches of conversation between
performers, teachers, friends and
relations will be heard, that their own reactions and those of judges will be
almost immediately relayed to the viewers. The mass media producing CD, DVD and
recordings and music will be aware of the fact that global sales of winning
performances will increase dramatically following announcement of the
competition winner. In this connection it is important to remember Tim Wall’s (Wall, 2013) comment that
consumers feel that they listen to or watch the very same piece of music
whether this piece be on television, radio, IPlayer, mp3 or on computer download.
More
recently Kendall Walton (Walton, 1994) in “Listening with
Imagination” has written of an interesting development of the theories of
Anticipation and Information Theory mentioned above, namely the importance of
visual and musical sound props in
performances. .According to Walton these props generate fictional truths in an
imaginary game (namely “a game of visual make believe” in which production
teams, performers and viewers all take an active part)) In my view Walton’s
“props” reveal the increased significance nowadays of unnecessary visual contextual elements in TV broadcasts of music . Regarding the
former, viewers awaiting the result of the BBC Young Musician Final in 2014
first saw footage of the nervous candidates behind stage, after that an
apparently exactly –timed suspense shot showing a picture of the head judge,
then shots of all three competitors prior to the camera finally zooming in on
Martin James Bartlett as he was declared winner. Regarding the latter, namely
the Final of the Eurovision Song Contest the winner’s, tall figure, long cloak
and elaborately coiffured locks were elaborate visual props which suggested
that the singer wished to portray that he was an Old or New Testament prophet.
b) Performance.
In the previous section I indicated that
a large amount of visual, spoken and musical information is available to
prospective viewers prior to and also during Reality TV music competitions.
About a week prior to performances, advertising material for the shows under
discussion featured:
“aide-memoire”
inserts, for example tropes such as “you can watch the finalists of x, y or
z on BBC2 tomorrow ” and visuals
comprising rapidly-changing close-ups of the finalists of “Young Musician”.
*reveille-like reminders of the theme tunes of the shows.
*clips featuring short visual sequences of winners of
previous years.
* flashing captions containing large multi-coloured
texts.
It is important to
note that a variety of orchestral instruments (including recorder and varied
percussion) were performed on this year’s “Young Musician “and many types of
popular music including ballads, hip-hop and disco were sung in the “Eurovision
Song Contest “. All competition performances aimed to appeal to global
audiences, naturally to a far greater extent for the “Eurovision Song Contest”
than for “BBC Young Musician”. Claudia Gorbmann (Gorbmann,
1987)
mentions three types of musical performance, namely:
*diagetic music-
that is music specifically created for and performed on television, video or online
namely competitors’/performers’ choice of music as well as signature tunes and
links. . Generally the sources of sounds are visible (these include sols
performed by guest performers on TV music competitions).
*intra-diagetic
music- additional music used within the TV narratives-for example music
accompanying voice-overs as well as other
background music.
*non -diagetic music-
additional music often comprising play-backs using freeze-frames, nowadays
frequently used to provide viewers with aural mementoes. Generally the sources
of the sounds are not visible.
The term “diagetic” is here used to define the link
between the TV performer and his/her musical output.
Some writers question whether TV is as successful as
radio in mediating music. According to Simon Frith (Frith, 2002)
“TV consumes music rather than conveys it meaningfully”. In the view of Michael
Chanan (Chanan, 2002) TV sound is inferior
to that of Radio and “TV music is aural pollution”. In TV’s defence , one can, with
justification , point out that, it has brought competitive performance in music
to a greater number of people of different ages different ethnic and social groups than ever before. There is also now a greater
variety of TV music competition formats and distinct musics being promoted (for
example programmes such as “the Voice” and “BBC Young Jazz Musician” – the new
cultural narrative on BBC4).Now more viewers can access TV through personal
media, wireless access and high speed broadband. Finally more and more
programmes are attempting to “highlight” music and promote their competitions
by Inviting viewers to select their chosen performers on the phone or online.
For the competitors there are undoubted benefits of TV
mediation. According to Janice Hadley, Head of BBC4, TV programming of music
allows the introduction of an intelligent and discerning audience to new and
challenging music.
On the other hand can TV music ever be regarded as real
rather than, to quote Jean Baudrillard’s term “hyper real”? Prior to viewers watching
competition programmes, performance passes through so many different programme
controls which determine length and position of musical extracts, sound
controls, camera shots, editing, time manipulation, types of sound and
lighting. It is my belief that the real ingredients of music are being subsumed
by “bake offs” where the musical performances of the competitors are being
“re-packaged” so as to hopefully attract large TV audiences who provide
business for global and internet marketing. Further it might be argued that the
cultural contexts of the programme- controls mentioned intervene in the
viewers’ perception of the real music so that performers’ interpretations are
perhaps adversely affected.
c) Audience reception of reality TV music competitions is
of key importance. For a show to be successful viewers must both accept and “take
to their hearts” at least one or two of the competitors. As regards reality
shows in general Peter Dahlgren (Dahlgren, 1995) writes of there
being a four-fold relationship between the media and the audience –
·
A reliance on the importance of one-way
communication, although as we shall see later, multi-way communication is
becoming more important.
·
special segregation of production from reception
·
repeatability of musical content
·
orientation towards an indefinite, now possibly
global range of potential recipients
As regards “one-way communication” Ang Lee , Film
Director, was recently reported on a BBC4 as being of the opinion that the media organisations
select specific audiences to receive particular types of broadcasts. In so
doing they are acting as panoptical dictators.
In contrast, one might argue, as does Fred Everett Maus (Maus, 1997) , that there has
never been one-way communication between TV and viewers as each viewer will
personalise his/her own experience of
viewing”. According to Maus, when we watch performers on TV, we actually become
them “in spirit”. For a short period we take on their identities and skills,
while at the same time we are aware that we are also sharing our viewing and
listening experience with others.
Even if we do not
accept Maus’s argument, it is the case that an audience feedback for Reality TV
music competition is becoming more prevalent In addition to “Gogglebox” which
is subject to all the visual, text and sound alterations carried out by Channel
4 , independent ratings sites can be found on the web as well as global social
media outlets including blogs, tweets, Facebook comments and Youtube excerpts
of competitors and imitators. In many areas “dial “and “cable” –testing are
carried out to ascertain viewers’ opinions of the performers
As regards the Eurovision
song contest final a complex interactive system involving phone-ins of viewers within
all the Eurovision countries takes place. On the face of it, this appears that
the system is not totally “fool proof” as national judges and audiences may
have different phone-in facilities in the different countries. No one can check
the sources of the input of all the calls received. At this moment the result
of the BBC Young Musician does not depend on viewers’ immediate feedback, though
there is little doubt that this will eventually be requested in many more music competitions/.
Studio audiences of TV competitions are much more
demonstrative and vociferous than they used.to be. This may have been led by
present-day producers’ wishes for immediate feedback from performers and
viewers in the form of oral and visual feedback and the apparent need for show
the TV world one’s feelings and emotions. Audience shouting and cheering have
partly replaced clapping in both TV competitions under discussion, but to a
greater extent in the Eurovision Song Contest.
Robin Maconie (Maconie,1990) refers to all the
above-mentioned areas of audience appreciation in his “Music Listening and
Applause”.
The following five points have particular relevance to
music and meaning on Reality TV.
First, there is apparently a strong relationship between
the physical movement shown towards the end of TV musical, performances and the physical movement plus volume of the
ensuing applause and cheering.
Second, audience applause and cheering constitute the
behaviour of the mass and viewers’ wishes to embrace the performers “with
sound”.
Third, they undermine the usual perceptual strategies we
employ to build up a sense of space/distance and as a direct result, assist us
to participate in the musical event shown, whether we are part of the live or
TV audience.
Fourth, audience clapping and cheering awaken our sense
of our own individual identity after the period of immobility during which we
watch a particular competitor.
Fifth, the juxtaposition of musician’s performance to the
sound of the applause or cheering “scrambles” the image of the music which we
have received and allows us to fill an unpleasant sound-void which would
otherwise have been created.
All the above points seem to relate to short-term rather
than long-term appreciation. For example we cannot remember the exact period of
time that audiences applauded or cheered particular items however we can
remember the musical performances concerned for much longer periods of time.
It is not the case that our long-term memories of
performances are shortened or lengthened by applause or cheering. –or indeed by
Mexican waves.
d) Adjudication. Prior to “Studying Popular Music
Culture” (Wall, 2013) writers on TV music competitions have infrequently
mentioned the selection, roles and duties of music judges on TV. They have been
selected and employed by the media organisations, using guidelines set down by
their employers. Since the arrival of the “X Factor” the music industry has
taken a greater part in selecting judges and promoting performers who have
proved that they possess musical and personal skills to become TV personalities.
Wall (2013) uses the term “judge-mentor” to describe the present duties of an “X
Factor” judge, namely to judge and to provide a role model for a contestant. In
the “X Factor” the viewers are invited to vote by phone or text for their favourite
artist thus providing a “Vox-Pop” role. Online Forums, texts and Twitter
exchanges emphasise the importance of the public working together with judges
to select the best performers.
In contrast to the “X Factor” and also “Eurovision Song
Contest” organisers of “BBC Young Musician” still employ, as judges, selected
“experts” from the music profession, universities and colleges. For example a
competition heat featuring “string players” will contain at least one string
player in the panel of judges. The process of selection is carried out in
private and must be extremely difficult as performers not only perform
different solo instruments but also different musical programmes of apparently different lengths. Prior to the announcement
of the results, the announcer and chosen members of the live viewing audience
are invited to say how excellent particular performances have been. In
contrast, almost no adverse feedback is ever shown even following the
announcement by the main adjudicator of the heat or competition winner. In
short “X has won” and there can be no argument or “re-run”.
There are three main differences between the adjudication
of “Young Musician” and “Eurovision Song Contest”. In “Young Musician” the adjudicating panels meet
at the main competition venue and compare and contrast the performances of the
different contestants. In contrast, Eurovision markers meet in their own
countries and send their results to the host country of the contest. The arcane
marking system they employ means that there is no way of calculating the number
of votes given by one country to entries from other countries. Also, in
contrast to “Young Musician”, the judges remain anonymous.-hardly surprising as
there are many millions of them. A final large difference is that “Young Musician”
is adjudicated with regard to performers’ musicianship whereas in the
“Eurovision Song Contest”, the reasons for votes being allocated or not often depend
on particular countries’ political or economic influence and also their views
on gender issues.
III) As regards our final question as to whether Reality
TV music competitions have an important and lasting musical meaning for viewers
and performers Firstly, as regards viewers, it has been argued by Arnie Cox (Cox, 2001) and more recently by Windsor and Bezenac (Windsor,W.Luke
& Christophe de Bezenac, 2012) that viewers are not merely passively-affected
but also “mimetically” -affected by the visual musical performances. Both
writers base their ideas on what they term “affordances”, comprising music-psychological,
ethnomusicological and neuroscientific evidence which points to mutuality of perception and action between
environments (in the case of
music-concert halls ,TV studios or screens) and
organisms (in the case of received-music-,listeners, instruments, voices
and TV screens). Both authors believe that viewers of Conchita and Bartlett in
the TV competitions actually think that they ARE Conchita and Bartlett and
“mimetically” take part in their performances. According to Windsor, “the links
between performance, composition and reception are underpinned by the mutuality
of perception and action” during TV performances, however there is no actual
proof that there is any long-term, detrimental effect on viewers.
How about other important and lasting musical meanings for
performers and viewers? Might Reality TV music competitions actively support
the existence and continuation of our globally “diverse and ever-changing
society- incapable of being summed up in any simple formula” (Obelkevich and
Catterall, 1994)?. On the one hand It might be so argued as, since the first
showing of “the Eurovision Song Contest” in 1956 , the competition has grown
both in size of audience and in
importance for music, featuring
increasing numbers of different race, class and gender performers of
soul, funk, hip hop and rave numbers. On the other hand the performers of the
music on “BBC Young Musician” have been almost entirely white and middle class
and their music has been planned to appeal to primarily upper- and middle-class
audiences .Indeed only one black performer, namely17 year old Isata Kanah-Mason was invited to appear on this
year’s BBC Young Musician” and the
network’s newly-created sister programme “BBC Young Jazz Musician” featured no
black finalists at all in the recent Final.
Also, with reference to our
“diverse and ever-changing society” could TV music competitions do more to
interest more viewers to compose and perform new types of music? Frequent
attempts have been made in “BBC Young Musician” to show that students in
comprehensive schools are just as capable of performing abstruse Modernist
music as are those in Music academies such as Chethams and the Purcell School.
Despite the increasing number of Reality TV music competitions such as “The
Voice” and “The Choir” there has not as yet been a mass movement to interest
all school students in music making and composing. Indeed ,until now, many
primary schools in UK and other countries throughout the world have been unable
to afford music teachers and musical instruments for their pupils.
Finally, what do such Reality
Music competitions mean for the winners and losers? They can mean, of course,
instant celebrity- either on a global scale as in “Eurovision” or on a smaller
scale as in “Young Musician”. This does not just mean that their lives and
music become “household names” but also
that their lives become connected to popular and classical music, to recording
companies and producersr and ,often, to daily products such as different types
of coffee and perfume. Ideally the financial gains that winners make should be
to promote their musicianship, namely to find better music teachers, better
facilities, better opportunities. They also
have to learn how to deal with instant fame and to carefully evaluate their own
skill and knowledge. This is best done by listening to their own
performances-totally devoid of accompanying commentaries and
artificially-produced sounds and visuals. For the losers (that is 99% of
participants) there is often immediate sadness and contrition. Why did they
lose? What did they do wrong? In the two competitions in question apparently
little feedback is provided by judges in “Young Musician” and none at all in
“Eurovision”. Reality Music competitions would mean so much more for performers
and for viewers if judges’ decisions were explained in full to them. Many more
musical openings should be available to the losers and indeed to the viewers of
all ages and abilities..
In conclusion, I believe that
music should have a wider meaning on reality TV and , leading from that, that
TM music shouldn’t just revolve around competition. For example, Channel 4 is
currently staging a series of programmes entitled “My Last Summer” in which
terminally ill patients are being invited to speak about their lives. Could
this lead the way to the media’s greater use of Reality TV as a therapeutic
means (Frith, 1983) in which people of
all ages and abilities are encouraged to participate together in creating and
performing music rather than just competing against one another? May we hope
that the “Victory for the ISM’s Protect Music Education campaign” announced by
Deborah Annetts on July 22nd will not merely protect music education
but will also bring it to more people.
©David Biermann 7.7.2014
______________________________________.
Bibliography
Anon., 2012. Longman Dictionary of Contemporary
English. 5th ed. London: Pearson Longman.
Ball, P., 2010. The
Music Instinct. London: Bodley Head.
Berger, A. A., 2012. Media
Analysis Techniques. 4th ed. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Biermann, D., 1994. Switched
On. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Budd, M., 1992. Music
and the Emotions. London: Routledge.
Budd, M., 2008. Aesthetic
Essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chanan, M., 2002.
Television's Problem with Classical Music. Popular Music, 21(03), pp.
pp 367-374.
Cook, N., 1990. Music
,Imagination and Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cox, A., 2001. The
Mimetic Hypothesis and Embodied Musical Meaning. Musicae Scientiae, 5(no
2), pp. 195-212.
Cross; Cross, Ian;,
n.d. Music and Meaning,ambiguity and evolution. s.l.:s.n.
Dahlgren, P., 1995. Television
and the Public Sphere. London: Sage.
Davies, D. S., 1994. Musical
Meaning and Expression. New York: Cornell University Press.
de Saussure, F.,
1966. Course in General Linguistics. New York: McGraw-Hill.
ed.Hesmondhalgh, D.
& Hesmondhalgh, D., 2006. Media Production. Maidehead: Open
University Press.
Frith, S., 1983. The
Industrilisation of Music. New York: Routledge.
Frith, S., 2002. TV
and Popular Music. Popular Music, Volume 21, pp. pp 245-248.
Gorbmann, C., 1987. Unheard
Melodies. s.l.:BFI.
Gorbmann, C., n.d. Unheard
Melodies. s.l.:s.n.
Hamilton, A., 2007. Aesthetics
& Music. s.l.:Coninuum International Publishing Group.
Hanslick, E., 2008. vom
Musikalsich-Schoenen. Leipzig: Leipzig.
Long, P., 2008. Only
in the common people-The Aesthetics of Class in Post-War Britain. Cambridge:
Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Maconie, R., 1990. Music
Listening and Applause. s.l.:s.n.
Maus, F. E., 1997. Music
and Meaning. New York: Cornell University Press.
McClary, S., 1991. Feminine
Endings: Music, Gender and Sexuality Part 5. Minnesota: University of
Minnesota Press.
Meyer, L. B., 1956. Emotion
and Meaning in Music. 1st ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Obelkevich, J. &
Cattarall, P., 1994. Introduction: Understanding British Society. In: J.
Obelkevich & P. Cattarall, eds. Understanding Post-war British
Society. London: Routledge, p. 1.
Robinson, J., 1997. Music
And Meaning. New York: Cornell University Press.
Scruton, R., 1999. Aesthetic
of Music. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Scruton, R. &
Scruton, R., n.d. Aesthetics of Music. s.l.:s.n.
Sharpe, R., 2000. Music
and Humanism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Susanne, L., 1953. Feeling
and Form: a Theory of Art. New York: MacMillan.
Tagg, P., 2012-2013. Music's
Meanings. Huddersfield: Mass Media Music Scholars' Press.
Temperley, N., 1965. Music
Reception [Lecture to BA Music, Year 2]. Cambridge University: October
1965.
Wall, T., 2013. Studying
Popular Music Culture. 2nd ed. London: Sage Publications.
Walton, K., 1994.
Listening with Imagination. Is Music representational?. Journal of
Aesthetics & Arts Criticism, Volume 52(i), pp. 47-61.
Windsor,W.Luke &
Christophe de Bezenac, 2012. Music and affordances. Musicae Scientiae.
