Music and language

[hohosantakiller]

mod note: split from "if you play an instrument, can you read music?" located here: http://ihatemusic.noquam.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=2689" onclick= "window.open(this.href);return false; -snailed

If you think of music as a language and think of how you learned your native tongue; first you learn how to make sounds by imitation and then you learn the symbols/letters that go with the sounds and learn how to write them down. Once you know how some symbols/letters sound together you can see how a new symbol/word might sound without having previously heard it. You can also write something down and get someone else to say exactly what is written (if they understand your language) without having to say it to them first. No-one can read long complicated words the first time they see them! You need to familiarise yourself with the reading/writing system before you can hazard a guess. The longer the word the more practise is needed.

If you can read music you can teach yourself and converse with others.

In saying that, there are many ways to read/write/converse in music. Each instrument and genre has it's own favourite method. Gtr TAB, chord symbols, standard notation, "when we get to the 'dunernerner bap dunernerner bap' we go to the B section and have the fierce drum fill".

Each instrument also has individual physical challenges to playing the same musical phrases.
A 'C Major' scale will have different fingerings from a guitar to a tenor sax to marimba.
In this way, reading music is as much about being familiar with the physicality of your instrument as it is the notes and rhythms on the page. Knowing how to get from one note to the next without tripping yourself up.

I can sight read drum music and understand treble and bass clef enough to work through it slowly. If I practised regularly, I would be better.

I can read a newspaper but don't have to have one in front of me to speak!

[faster]

If you think of music as a language...

Why would you want to do that?

[barry]

If you think of music as a language...

Why would you want to do that?

for example to a) tell a story, b) take your listener on a journey, c) communicate with fellow musicians

[faster]

If you think of music as a language...

Why would you want to do that?

for example to a) tell a story, b) take your listener on a journey, c) communicate with fellow musicians

a) words are much, much more effective for this

b) huh? what does that have to do with language? are trains language?

c) you can do this without superimposing linguistic logics on the music

[david papapostolou]

Fully agree, taking music as a language sounds like a very restrictive approach to me.

As stated above, i think (at least i am sure the intention was there somewhere), rules and conventions are limiting the extend of possibilities one musician can explore ("if i make that sound then you have to understand that my intention is THAT and nothing else, if you don't then you are stepping out of our pre-established language"). Language, by definition, relies on rules and accepted conventions. I guess it depends on your approach, but overall i'd agree with Joe, words would have to be used at some point in order for all parties (musicians, audience) to understand the intention/story, and would do a better job at telling a story.

Actually, even in improvised music words are often a starting point, before any sound is played, to establish and agree on a some sort of loose frame. In eai type stuff, making the decision to play with A or B is already part of the compositional act. But then the exchange through spoken language (spoken or not actually) takes place before the music happens. It is merely a way to open possibilities as far as i am concerned, quite the opposite as what you (hohosantakiller) have in mind, if i am getting you right.

[hohosantakiller]

If you think of music as a language...

Why would you want to do that?

Simple answer - that's what this whole thing's about! Refer to the title "If you play an instrument, can you READ music?

What is language? Is it not a group of noises/sounds that are made in relation to interact with other people?
All your doing is expelling air and telling your muscles to make your mouth/tongue/lips make a certain shape at the same time. Same as playing a wind/brass instrument.
If you play piano/gtr/drums/whatever; all you're doing is turning movement into sound. If you write this down for others to interpret (READ), in whatever understandable form, it becomes a language.

Language
noun
"the system of communication used by a particular community"

[hohosantakiller]

Fully agree, taking music as a language sounds like a very restrictive approach to me.

As stated above, i think (at least i am sure the intention was there somewhere), rules and conventions are limiting the extend of possibilities one musician can explore ("if i make that sound then you have to understand that my intention is THAT and nothing else, if you don't then you are stepping out of our pre-established language"). Language, by definition, relies on rules and accepted conventions. I guess it depends on your approach, but overall i'd agree with Joe, words would have to be used at some point in order for all parties (musicians, audience) to understand the intention/story, and would do a better job at telling a story.

Actually, even in improvised music words are often a starting point, before any sound is played, to establish and agree on a some sort of loose frame. In eai type stuff, making the decision to play with A or B is already part of the compositional act. But then the exchange through spoken language (spoken or not actually) takes place before the music happens. It is merely a way to open possibilities as far as i am concerned, quite the opposite as what you (hohosantakiller) have in mind, if i am getting you right.

Language doesn't have to mean words! Language is basically a set of rules adhered to by a group of people to communicate ideas. Computer languages aren't there to replace French or Spanish, as much as classical notation and TAB aren't, but they are needed to communicate information and the ideas of many people to others.

My earlier point wasn't to put words into music - although it is quite an important part of some music (Opera, Rock, etc.) -but to suggest that however you convey your ideas to others via transcript you are essentially writing and reading music.

[david papapostolou]

Sure, but not everyone needs his/her music to be played by others. I think one of the points in the thread title is that not every music is per se written music. Would you transcribe "Good Morning Good night", what would be the point of creating an appropriate language for this record. Doesn't it exist solely as a record, the meeting of three musicians in a studio which has been edited and mastered in order to make it as a CD release? In that sense, the documentation of a meeting, to be enjoyed as such?
What would transcribing it add to the music? Is it necessary? Or would we rather ask the question in terms of the musicians' intention, which i believe goes way further than the collection of sounds on the CD?

[faster]

If you think of music as a language...

Why would you want to do that?

Simple answer - that's what this whole thing's about! Refer to the title "If you play an instrument, can you READ music?

You don't have to think of music as language to read music.

What is language? Is it not a group of noises/sounds that are made in relation to interact with other people?

That's a lousy definition of language--just ask the deaf.

Language
noun
"the system of communication used by a particular community"

Also a pretty bad definition--since any act communicates something--but at least it includes the key term "system." The Wikipedia page does a little better job trying to define language, but really, that's not even beside the point.

No need to be so defensive; I'm not attacking the use of written music. Go for it. Write it, read it, tattoo it on your lower back, whatever. But when people talk about thinking of music as language, I can't help but get a little disappointed, you see.

It's so much more than that.

[hohosantakiller]

Sure, but not everyone needs his/her music to be played by others. I think one of the points in the thread title is that not every music is per se written music. Would you transcribe "Good Morning Good night", what would be the point of creating an appropriate language for this record. Doesn't it exist solely as a record, the meeting of three musicians in a studio which has been edited and mastered in order to make it as a CD release? In that sense, the documentation of a meeting, to be enjoyed as such?
What would transcribing it add to the music? Is it necessary? Or would we rather ask the question in terms of the musicians' intention, which i believe goes way further than the collection of sounds on the CD?

Transcribing it would mean that you could play it. Why wouldn't you want to figure out a way of of playing it on stylophone, tuba and shoe? It might change your life.

As Lou Reed said about Metal Machine Music - 'Okay? ZEITKRATZER gets in touch with me, ‘Can we play Metal Machine Music live?’ I said, ‘It can't be done.’ They said, ‘We transcribed it. Let us send you a few minutes of it and you tell us.’ They sent it, I listened to it, and the results were unbelievable. I said, ‘My God! Okay, go do it.’
Full Transcript:
http://www.asphodel.com/releases/view.php?Id=100" onclick= "window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick= "window.open(this.href);return false;

[david papapostolou]

Transcribing it would mean that you could play it. Why wouldn't you want to figure out a way of of playing it on stylophone, tuba and shoe? It might change your life.

can't see your point sorry, that sounds pretty pointless anyway.

About the metal music machine re-working for orchestra, are they not just doing something else there, shifting the focus from the original to make another work in its own write? Sorry but, is there more than just a nerdy transcribing exercise there? For those who read french, i'd call that a "concours de bite".
Besides, why would you like to put limitations to something that is inherently open?

[snailed]

Not getting into this, but a relevant quote from Mr. Xenakis, whether you agree with it or not:

"Music is not a language. Any musical piece is akin to a boulder with complex forms, with striations and engraved designs atop and within, which men can decipher in a thousand different ways without ever finding the right answer or the best one"

I'll probably split this topic if this goes on.

[hohosantakiller]

Besides, why would you like to put limitations to something that is inherently open?

Where are the limitations? You don't have to stick to the music if you don't want to.
Musical notation is a guide to timbre, pitch, rhythm, tempo, etc.
If you walk down the street you don't have to read the signs but they're there if you need them.

If you ask the same person to play the same piece of music on different days it will sound different.
Small differences like humidity effecting tuning and tiredness effecting movement and larger differences like different amplification, different instrumentation and playing different improvisations all effect the end result.

It is still the same piece of music only a different version.

The only limitations one has are the limitations one decides to put upon oneself.

Written music is an aid to the most important bit - making noises either alone or in a group.
You don't have to read, but it can be a great ability to possess in certain situations.

[hohosantakiller]

relevant quote from Mr. Xenakis, whether you agree with it or not:

"Music is not a language. Any musical piece is akin to a boulder with complex forms, with striations and engraved designs atop and within, which men can decipher in a thousand different ways without ever finding the right answer or the best one"

Nice!

Linguistic philosophers continue to argue that probably music is not a language, that is in the philosophical debate. Another point of view is to say that music is a very profound language.
- Robert Fripp

[Dohol]

What is music? Or language for that matter..A great many musicians use the term " language" metaphorically. "He invented his own language" "I like her language" " Music is the language of God" It goes on and on..My trouble in using the term language in relation to music, is that the term language implies the transmission of meaning. A sentence. A paragraph. A novel. An essay...I doubt that music means much of anything concrete ( is that a heresy?) And a great deal of music and sound has no meaning, or as Xenakis stated, as many meanings as listeners. ( I perhaps paraphrase )

[faster]

If you walk down the street you don't have to read the signs but they're there if you need them.

This is untrue. If you look at a street sign, you can't help but read it. The shapes of the letters, in an abstract sense, no longer exist, having been superseded by signification. For street signs, that's good--you don't want to accidentally get run over by a truck because you were distracted by the beauty of the "Don't Walk" sign and didn't notice its meaning--but if music worked like that it would be poetry.

[david papapostolou]

Where are the limitations? You don't have to stick to the music if you don't want to.
Musical notation is a guide to timbre, pitch, rhythm, tempo, etc.

yep everyone would agree with that.
It sounds like in your opinion, music only exists if it is written down in a way or another, right? Hence the need for a conventions and an agreed-upon-all syntax. It is clearly not my opinion. As a musician this is very far from my field of exploration, i assume yours relies on, at least partly, the use of scores?

Another point of view is to say that music is a very profound language.

is that saying anything at all What if i say "music is baked beans", is there more or less truth in my statement?

[Charon]

"music is baked beans"

whoa......deep, dude.


seriously though I too have little interest in viewing music as language in the sense of conveying information or concrete concepts to others, as Joe says 'It's so much more than that'

The idea of tying music down to notation or scores or analysing it purely on the basis of the pitches and dynamics etc. such as found in, say, a transcription of a jazz solo, is not particularly useful in this area of music which is far more concerned with sound as sound and other far less academic concepts. Yes, you could say that when I set a feedback drone going underneath textural sax playing, pitches are interacting with each other and intervals produced, which are therefore open to notation and analysis, but this isn't really the focus of the music so such analysis is missing the point. In this sense I don't see why a knowledge of music notation or the strictures of more conventional music is necessarily essential to playing this sort of music. For me, it's not so much about the making of 'music' but the act of improvising (in sound)

[joe grimm]

the relationship between music and language is an interesting question for me. I prefer to think of a spectrum between two poles:

music as architecture: dealing with formal qualities of sound as if it the music were an object in itself, to be sculpted (xenakis's perspective, more common in composition). The sound is treated in the third person, as it were.

music as utterance: dealing with sound as a para-language, where the players "speak" in sound (more common in improvisation). Sounds are uttered, in the first person. Obviously it lacks the systematic grammar and representational qualities of spoken language, which is a system of reference (although systematic grammars can also exist in music, even improvised music). But on some elemental level, the paralinguistic qualities are undeniable.

Music can tilt more towards architecture or more towards utterance, but both aspects are always present.

[bryan]

An intriguing perspective was that of music coming first, and language coming out of music. Intuitively, it makes sense to me.

Our early manipulative use of sound gets so dominated by language. It's as if there's music (with a "voice"), and then there's the instrumentals (backdrops).

I was going to go on about re-training my listening in order to not have to seek meaning but all that would be a moot point because in the future a telecommunications firm will recognize EAI for its efficient and visionary use of noises, pointing ahead to a very economical and robust means of transmitting information. You think your bandwidth is slow now? Yep... the future: ALL noise becomes signal, the noise/signal ratio is nonexistent.


yeah, i am half-serious here.. or maybe devil's advocate (or not)