We know details of ancient classical music of India thanks to a
very old tradition of musicological scholarship. Dating as early as the
beginning of the Christian era, there is a crescent number of extant treatises
in Sanskrit dealing with all aspects of music theory, musical practice, dance,
and aesthetics. Indian scholars, in combining studies on the technical and
aesthetical features of music, have made clear a semiotic preoccupation, that of
understanding the meaning of music. Conversely, we find in the treatises
attribution of meaning to ragas, talas, and musical forms, implying also a
normative function to the theory of music. However, what was established in the
treatises has not corresponded perfectly to the music as practiced in courts and
temples. New treatises were in constant demand of being composed to adjust the
theory with the current practice.
The Western scholarship on the music of India has often employed the methods
of ethnology. Yet, this approach has been poor in creating better understandings
on issues with which Indian scholars have been concerned for millennia—in
particular, the meaning of music. It is my view that the general theory of
signs, as proposed by Charles Peirce, can be used as a theoretical instrument
that gives to the analyst precise concepts for the study of musical
signification. The advantage of this approach consists in operating with a
system that enables the study of the traditional Indian music in accordance with
its own logic. However, I believe that, between the general theory of signs (a
normative science) and the subject matter—music (consisting of acoustic
relations and facts of culture)—there must be an intermediate theory, or an
applied theory—namely, a theory of musical semiotics. My purpose in this
conference is to demonstrate how Indian music was studied with the semiotics of
Peirce, the semiotic theory of music built for that, and the results thereof.