Does thinking about music ruin it a bit?

[James W]

Music is the use of pitch, dynamics, space, inflection, order of statement, dialogue, cooperative interaction, individual statement in a form of human expression over time...
...
There is the element of inflection, time, speed, breath, dynamics...all extrinsic to what we are taught is language, but let's face it, it's just a string of words without these elements. These are musical elements; the same melodic aspects that inform emotion in a string of words, when taken from the formality of words and extended into anything from utterance to a mother humming to a baby, to a nonsense song sung by kids, to a song that blues is based on, to a vocalese, to conversational scat... THAT's the pure nature of music. Expressive language in a formal sense is the word informed by the elements we call musical. Music we know can be a language (system of rules) that is dedicated to something purposed to something besides "Could you please pick that up?"

I think the term you're looking for is 'prosodic features'.

Language is a code of words informed by music. Languages have different dialects that impart very different community spirits to those same words, they are the enculturated elements of dynamics, nuance, space, pitch...that we can label 'musical elements'.
There are languages that are specialized for function. Look at a specialized work force, for example. There may be a shorthand that sounds like "dirty water", "motor oil", a term that expresses the thought of NOW, and it's linguistically functional. No you wouldn't speak that to teach a class in sociology, but it IS a metalanguage.
Music as we know it, improvisation or real time creative composition is a very pure specialized and formalized language of expression. That's its function. It CAN even be adapted to convey the urgency of a cup of coffee to a greasy spoon cook.

It's just the way I see it of course, but I see the music I study and play as a very real branch of the linguistic phylogenic tree of our need for human connection through sound. The song is me. The song is you.

You seem to be confused - no one would doubt that speech/language's prosodic features exist, and that these can be musical. Likewise, no one doubts that music can be expressive, but it inhabits a realm that is necessarily abstract. You can describe it for sure in objective terms, but the mystery to me of music is its ineffability. 'Convey the urgency of a cup of coffee' seems to me to be more comparing music to a caffeine rush rather than as a language.

I will resist the temptation to ask you to create some music that 'translates' specifically everything you wrote in this post.

[Jimmy blue note]

Truth be told, you have to do an awful lot of thinking about music to get to the place where you don't have to think about music.

Amen

[Jimmy blue note]

I think the term you're looking for is 'prosodic features'.



You seem to be confused - no one would doubt that speech/language's prosodic features exist, and that these can be musical. Likewise, no one doubts that music can be expressive, but it inhabits a realm that is necessarily abstract. You can describe it for sure in objective terms, but the mystery to me of music is its ineffability. 'Convey the urgency of a cup of coffee' seems to me to be more comparing music to a caffeine rush rather than as a language.

I will resist the temptation to ask you to create some music that 'translates' specifically everything you wrote in this post.

Semantics

[Jimmy blue note]

Talking about differences can be like playing the same thing from two different scores.

[Lionelsax]

If you think more than you play maybe it does.
Thinking is not so bad, when you play you think, sometimes it's empty thought.
Thinking ruins the perception and the feeling.

[randal]

Of course we don't inhabit a binary world. There are efforts to bind thought with sound/music, just as there are to reject thought with sound/music. And everything in between.

I love to hear new things - in fact I'm addicted to novelty. Why I love new music so much.

[jameslovestal]

Of course we don't inhabit a binary world. There are efforts to bind thought with sound/music, just as there are to reject thought with sound/music. And everything in between.

I love to hear new things - in fact I'm addicted to novelty. Why I love new music so much.

Yes, we don't inhabit a binary world, but way too often people pretend we do.

Most of the time the binary questions posed at this forum are best answered by "depends".

[emanresu]

Yes, we don't inhabit a binary world, but way too often people pretend we do.

Most of the time the binary questions posed at this forum are best answered by "depends".

Um.. "a bit" is yes, binary... but also "somewhat" hehe. But I got one awesome answer from here, this topic worked for me already.

edit: we think a lot by ourselves but thats where it gets stuck occasionally. Nothing bad in asking binary questions when stuck.

[pauln]

If music's not a language, how'd it become full of
phrases, slurs, accents, articulation & vocabulary?

[James W]

If music's not a language, how'd it become full of
phrases, slurs, accents, articulation & vocabulary?

Two things I can think of:

1) Those things aren't exclusive to languages

2) Words like 'vocabulary' are used in an analogical sense.

[starjasmine]

To be fair, my current obsession is making an acoustic guitar sound like a snare drum.

A little trick I picked up from Rey De La Torre:
1) Loosen your low E and A strings so that they are floppy, not at pitch. Loosen them enough that you can cross them over each other.
2) Tap those strings while they are crossed.

[randal]

Yes, we don't inhabit a binary world, but way too often people pretend we do.

Most of the time the binary questions posed at this forum are best answered by "depends".

Yes humans rush to fill the mystery with ideological 'solutions' to assuage the uneasiness of freedom of mind.

Hallucinogens are so much healthier - they won't make you want to kill the rest of the world so that the ego can survive.

[rpjazzguitar]

Thinking is a better idea in the practice room than on the bandstand.

[jameslovestal]

Um.. "a bit" is yes, binary... but also "somewhat" hehe. But I got one awesome answer from here, this topic worked for me already.

edit: we think a lot by ourselves but thats where it gets stuck occasionally. Nothing bad in asking binary questions when stuck.

I didn't mean to imply this thread is bogus\useless because of the question asked. I did have to go back and read your initial post. You use the term "we" but what you imply in the OP, was not my experience.

I learned about music at the same time I started listening to it; Taking lessons to learn how to play classical music (on the violin), music theory, etc.. and listening to the classical music songs I was required to learn, years before I listened to any pop (non-classical) music.

I'm able to think about music while I listening to it, without it ruining the experience as well as NOT think about music. I.e., it is situational. E.g. I get more out of listening to an instrumental jazz standard or original, if I know the chord changes. The first one or two times I'm listening to the song I'm thinking about the "music" (the changes, and how the soloist deals with them). Thus, thinking about the music increases what I get from said music. After that I no longer have to think about those things.

Generally for music I'm not going to play, I don't think about it.

[emanresu]

You use the term "we" but what you imply in the OP, was not my experience.

The first encounter was priceless. We knew nothing about it yet we did try to... "try" is the wrong word.
We went for it.

Is "we" the wrong word?

First encounter, we knew nothing about it. Now, we think about it endlessly.

The "we" can be problematic, yes.

[RLetson]

Yow--a lot of responses before I even noticed the original post.

My immediate reaction (before scanning the whole thread) was, "What do you mean, 'thinking about'?" Is it just noticing (as when one first notices and isolates a musical pattern), or noticing-with-naming (I'm gonna call that a "walkdown"), or noticing-naming-organizing (that walkdown thing is how the song moves from one harmonic territory* to another)?

I probably started paying attention to music--noticing patterns--at around age ten, when I took very basic guitar lessons and had to connect chords with song structures. Before that, I had no problem "understanding" songs well enough to sing them. Since that early time, I've never stopped "thinking about" music, and it certainly hasn't interfered with the primal pleasure of hearing it.

For example, I remember reading about the sonata-allegro structure that was supposed to account for, say, Mozart and Beethoven symphonies and quartets, but I never could quite connect the technical descriptions to the music that I was enjoying and absorbing. Decades later, I'm still not sure that I could parse a Haydn symphony according to those articles--but I feel right at home and oriented in the music--it seems utterly clear to me. I'm still noticing, even when I'm not naming. On the other hand, I can name and explain most of what's going in much of the music I play. That's a particular kind of thinking-about, and it doesn't take anything away from the enjoyment of hearing and playing.

BTW--as a language guy, I have to agree with James W about the metaphorical nature of a lot of our descriptive talk about music (and other structured activities). The semantic machineries of music are not the same as those of language--that's why we have semiotics.** Frank Zappa on dancing about architecture notwithstanding, it is possible to anatomize*** music--and to understand that the discourse about the thing is not the thing itself.

* And exactly when did I notice that harmonic territory thing? My ear told me something was going on with chord changes, even before a classmate explained keys and chords and such to me.

** For example: I have noticed that the famous Barber Adagio movement is associated with mourning, but the first time I saw it used in a film, it was the underscoring for the very intense and erotic love scene in Nicholas Roeg's Don't Look Now, where it struck me as absolutely "about" sex. Which of those "meanings" is "correct," semantically?

*** See what I did there?

[jameslovestal]

The first encounter was priceless. We knew nothing about it yet we did try to... "try" is the wrong word.
We went for it.

Is "we" the wrong word?

First encounter, we knew nothing about it. Now, we think about it endlessly.

The "we" can be problematic, yes.

I still don't know who you mean by "we"; E.g. the friends you had when you were young? Fellow band members?

Yes, "we" is problematic when it isn't clear who the "we" are. Since you used "we" instead of "I", I have to assume you were referring to more than one person.

[emanresu]

I still don't know who you mean by "we"; E.g. the friends you had when you were young? Fellow band members?

Yes, "we" is problematic when it isn't clear who the "we" are. Since you used "we" instead of "I", I have to assume you were referring to more than one person.

I meant "we" the people. I am a guitar teacher in kid's music school and I see it all the time - when occasionally trying to explain
what is happening there in the score, or even some method that would make practice easier - they really don't care. When asking
questions about why would they think that something would help, then they have to really think hard to come up with a good answer.
For example "why is learning scales in many keys a good thing" - "to get faster fingers".. and nothing more. Up to some age, they just play.
Never think about such things. When they have to think, it even looks funny - like a damn annoying test or something

Same was for me. When learned those 10ish basic chords on guitar (at the age 14), I had no clue and didn't care at all "why" or "how"
exactly they worked. Got a list of chords without knowing anything at all about the theory behind them but it was a blast to combine
them and just toy with them. I back then I made a bunch of songs that way, some got even used 10-20 years later.

[lawson-stone]

There is a famous process of moral and spiritual growth that is documented in many writings, the most well known being Paul Ricoeur in, I think, The Symbolism of Evil. Put in a spiritual or religious context, the idea is we start out with Naivete. We accept that our speech and thoughts about matters of good, evil, god, etc. are directly connected. We speak of them the same way, and with the same certainty, as we speak of objects in the world. But then as we reflect, analyze, question, and ponder, we reach a second stage, Critical Awareness. Now we know how loose the connection is between our thoughts and words, on the one hand, and the things we speak of or think about, on the other. We say "god" now and realize we actually don't know what or who god is. We speak of good and evil, but realize "compared to what?" and "Where did I get my notions of good and evil?" There opens then a distance between us and the very beliefs and values we once spoke of so freely and easily, so directly. But then as we continue on that road, we realize that even our critique is naive! Our analysis and critique are just as ultimately uninformed and uncertain as our original naive beliefs! What if there really is good, evil, god, etc? At this point it becomes possible to enter the Second Naivete. We return to many of our original beliefs, statements, and ideas, and we believe they do in some genuine way point to things that are real, but we have a certain distance, a certain... humility... in doing so. We believe, but all the while, we know our unbelief.

I think this happens in many, if not most domains. Being in love, for example. Or Mark Twain for example--he spoke so romantically about the life of the river-boat pilot, until he trained to become one. Then he realized how dangerous it is. Every swirl in the river that he thought beautiful now he knows might conceal a sand bar or other hazard to his vessel and passengers. He actually says nobody who really knows the river would ever want to be a riverboat pilot. BUT... he is writing this in retirement beside the river, admiring the boats as they go up and down the river, and loving the river about which he wrote for his entire life. You can see the 3 stages right there.

So many music? We start out all feeling, intuition, ears and (some) chops. But to grow, we have to learn, analyze, critique, and struggle. Soon we become distanced from the very things we love about this music. But continuing on the search, the journey, one day we realize that all those slogans about "learn you theory then forget that shit and just play" were true, but only true of the "third stage" where you have have done your homework, stepped back from your own playing a thousand times, pondered just giving up, but always coming back. Then one day you realize that you have been playing mainly from intuition and interaction with what you're hearing, but with all that learning and pain behind it, driving it.

Anyhow, something to ponder. Or roll your eyes at, or just laugh out loud can call BS.

[jameslovestal]

I meant "we" the people. I am a guitar teacher in kid's music school and I see it all the time - when occasionally trying to explain
what is happening there in the score, or even some method that would make practice easier - they really don't care. When asking
questions about why would they think that something would help, then they have to really think hard to come up with a good answer.
For example "why is learning scales in many keys a good thing" - "to get faster fingers".. and nothing more. Up to some age, they just play.
Never think about such things. When they have to think, it even looks funny - like a damn annoying test or something

Same was for me. When learned those 10ish basic chords on guitar (at the age 14), I had no clue and didn't care at all "why" or "how"
exactly they worked. Got a list of chords without knowing anything at all about the theory behind them but it was a blast to combine
them and just toy with them. I back then I made a bunch of songs that way, some got even used 10-20 years later.

Thanks for explaining your experience (and we assume those of most people).

As you can see from my initial reply I learned to think about music before I ever really listened to it. I got violin lessons, learned to play scales in all, reading notation, etc.... before I ever listened to classical music and the selections I had to play once I joined the jr. high orchestra. Later I got into jazz and playing jazz guitar. I always thought about music in musical terms before trying to play it.

[randal]

Ya I'm sure you all covered it - the direct 'felt' experience and all that. Much is made of music/SOUND in some old cultures - I'm quite fond of those terms. Certainly many many of my experiences have lived up to the billing of how good it can be. I've always been one for semiotics, poetry.

[AaronMColeman]

I think the term you're looking for is 'prosodic features'.



You seem to be confused - no one would doubt that speech/language's prosodic features exist, and that these can be musical. Likewise, no one doubts that music can be expressive, but it inhabits a realm that is necessarily abstract. You can describe it for sure in objective terms, but the mystery to me of music is its ineffability. 'Convey the urgency of a cup of coffee' seems to me to be more comparing music to a caffeine rush rather than as a language.

I will resist the temptation to ask you to create some music that 'translates' specifically everything you wrote in this post.

I'm a linguist and musician so I have a lot of thoughts on the connections between language and music. Linguists are very broadly speaking, divided into two camps on language development: 1) Noam Chomsky and those who see language as specific to the human brain and that the brain must have a unique language portion, and 2) Those who think language is just an extension of human cognition and our incredible ability to find and make patterns.

I fall into the second. Language arose due to some human need and is simply one of the highest examples of human cognition. Music I think is a lot like this. It originated from human needs and is an extension of our pattern detection abilities. Making music and language a simple clinical extension of the brain's ability to recognize and use patterns may take away from the magic for some. To me it just enhances it. Music is wired into our brains!

[RLetson]

Not an official linguist, but a former English teacher whose courses necessarily included the basics. I recall from my own undergrad coursework (c. 1965) that humans do not have unique "organs of speech"--all the physical speech-producing parts our anatomy (larynx, tongue, teeth, lips) have other basic uses, and speech-production is an "overlaid function." I suspect that this extends to the neurological end of things as well--our neurological language-generating machinery has been adapted and extended from older structures and functions. And I suspect a similar process produced our musical abilities. (Research on how birds learn their songs and how our primate cousins communicate vocally is also interesting, as is research into human speech acquisition.)

What's intriguing is how music functions in individuals and in society. Music and dance seem to be universal features of human societies, but their utility is not as obvious as the usefulness of language. (Add the urge to make images and you just add to the mystery.) The unique-to-humans cliches used to be tool-making and language, but now we know that birds use tools (and solve problems) in recognizable ways, and that other species produce elaborate utterances that seem to be at least proto-linguistic. But making art does seem to be pretty much our own turf. (On the other hand, what are all those sound-mimicking birds--mynahs and starlings--up to? And why do parrots seem to enjoy Zoom calls to other parrots?)

[Christian Miller]

There is a famous process of moral and spiritual growth that is documented in many writings, the most well known being Paul Ricoeur in, I think, The Symbolism of Evil. Put in a spiritual or religious context, the idea is we start out with Naivete. We accept that our speech and thoughts about matters of good, evil, god, etc. are directly connected. We speak of them the same way, and with the same certainty, as we speak of objects in the world. But then as we reflect, analyze, question, and ponder, we reach a second stage, Critical Awareness. Now we know how loose the connection is between our thoughts and words, on the one hand, and the things we speak of or think about, on the other. We say "god" now and realize we actually don't know what or who god is. We speak of good and evil, but realize "compared to what?" and "Where did I get my notions of good and evil?" There opens then a distance between us and the very beliefs and values we once spoke of so freely and easily, so directly. But then as we continue on that road, we realize that even our critique is naive! Our analysis and critique are just as ultimately uninformed and uncertain as our original naive beliefs! What if there really is good, evil, god, etc? At this point it becomes possible to enter the Second Naivete. We return to many of our original beliefs, statements, and ideas, and we believe they do in some genuine way point to things that are real, but we have a certain distance, a certain... humility... in doing so. We believe, but all the while, we know our unbelief.

I think this happens in many, if not most domains. Being in love, for example. Or Mark Twain for example--he spoke so romantically about the life of the river-boat pilot, until he trained to become one. Then he realized how dangerous it is. Every swirl in the river that he thought beautiful now he knows might conceal a sand bar or other hazard to his vessel and passengers. He actually says nobody who really knows the river would ever want to be a riverboat pilot. BUT... he is writing this in retirement beside the river, admiring the boats as they go up and down the river, and loving the river about which he wrote for his entire life. You can see the 3 stages right there.

So many music? We start out all feeling, intuition, ears and (some) chops. But to grow, we have to learn, analyze, critique, and struggle. Soon we become distanced from the very things we love about this music. But continuing on the search, the journey, one day we realize that all those slogans about "learn you theory then forget that shit and just play" were true, but only true of the "third stage" where you have have done your homework, stepped back from your own playing a thousand times, pondered just giving up, but always coming back. Then one day you realize that you have been playing mainly from intuition and interaction with what you're hearing, but with all that learning and pain behind it, driving it.

Anyhow, something to ponder. Or roll your eyes at, or just laugh out loud can call BS.

beautiful!

[ccroft]

Nice one Lawson! Your post reminds of something I read by a jazz somebody. Maybe a Redman or a Corea? You start out not knowing how much you don't know, so you're free and full of bravado. Then as you learn and play with those in the know you start to realize how much you don't know. A little paralysis can creep in. Then in the next stage you're playing with those in the know and not actually thinking about it. Maybe somebody has the quote? It's a lot shorter :-)

Here's what I think about thinking about music: If it was in even slightly bad, nobody here would be able to play a note!