Enough with comparing music to a spoken language...

[GuyBoden]

*please do not behave as you know everything in this thread*

Music might not be a language but it definitely ain’t physics

Edit: I think it is physics:

Music is the precise manipulation of vibrations.

These precise manipulations of vibrations create pressure disturbances that travel through the air in sound waves, when these waves reach our ears, they can be interpreted by our brains as music or just noise. Take your pick.

But, personally, I know extremely little about any subject, especially music.

[John A.]

...it is time to steal the good bits from a spoken language. (I am very green in this matter, but I try)

1. Music is not language
2. Music is very much like a language
3. Music itself contains many "languages"

*please do not behave as you know everything in this thread*

It is not anything new but I honestly have not seen it done this way.
"it" - comparison of music to a spoken language.
...inhale...

I am completely dissatisfied with jazz improvisation. It is generally abstract, aimed to impress, hipness.
There are many many occasions when it works so well. But sadly, most of it is not so good.
That is just me.

But here it is:
We got some techincal means, some "Q/A way of producing", a motif development.
We got massive amounts of technical suggestions, ways to arrange the notes.
All robotic, if applied by the book.

Let's steal from spoken language. Let's steal from the books and poetry.

Exercise nr 1: Do a 16 bar improvised solo. Done like a 4-line rhyming poem you would tell Santa Claus to get a present. Can you do it? Or rather, have you ever done that? (please comment)

Exercise nr 2: "Where is John?". "I think John is walking the dog in the park". "I didn't know he had a dog" - can you perform that with your solo?

Exercise nr 3: "I AM HERE". "who the f$% are you?" "I AM ME!"

Do you get the idea?

I do not get the idea. Music may or not be language (I can go either way with the analogy), but one thing is for sure: language is language. It seems to me that your level of fluency in one particular language (English) is not up to conveying the idea you’re trying to communicate and spark the discussion you want. Also, you fairly consistently say strange things about jazz and improvisation that convey the sense that you don’t like it or know how to play it.

Sorry, and I’m not intending to be rude, but you’re just not making much sense on this thread. I’ve read all your comments a couple of times, and all I get is “what the heck is this guy going on about?”

I think (?) you’re trying to suggest that people try using spoke phrases to seed motifs in improvisation (?). If that’s the case, instead of debating people who clearly are not reacting the way you want them to, try demonstrating that idea with a recording or video. The most direct and unambiguous way to present a musical concept is with music, not words (even if the language analogy is valid).

[Tal_175]

Language is the superficial part of musical expression. You can learn to imitate the language of a style without a meaningful artistic content. In fact you can train AI to pass the Gypsy jazz or Bebop "Turing test" easily. A lot of human musicians do just that. It can still sound good in a background kind of way.

[emanresu]

I do not get the idea. Music may or not be language (I can go either way with the analogy), but one thing is for sure: language is language. It seems to me that your level of fluency in one particular language (English) is not up to conveying the idea you’re trying to communicate and spark the discussion you want. Also, you fairly consistently say strange things about jazz and improvisation that convey the sense that you don’t like it or know how to play it.

Sorry, and I’m not intending to be rude, but you’re just not making much sense on this thread. I’ve read all your comments a couple of times, and all I get is “what the heck is this guy going on about?”

I think (?) you’re trying to suggest that people try using spoke phrases to seed motifs in improvisation (?). If that’s the case, instead of debating people who clearly are not reacting the way you want them to, try demonstrating that idea with a recording or video. The most direct and unambiguous way to present a musical concept is with music, not words (even if the language analogy is valid).

Oh, thanks for that.

I do like awesome pieces of jazz. That is my thing. I like awesome pieces of any kind of music.
I do not "not like" jazz at all. The genre is most welcome to plant an impro on anything, on cool chords. What is there to "not like"?

I think the reason for not making sense with OP is not about my English skills. I cannot even articulate this well in my first language.

To clarify, the closest to the topic is the motif development but it runs heavily on the technical side of things... Again, hard to put in words.
Put the face on like you doing music and develop some motifs. Finish your scales and now get busy mutating some motifs. Just another technical thing.
To compare this to something written and in need of making it better somehow, it would be like "ok, you got this converstation written down, now lets do 100 variations of that and see if we got a better version"

This is the difficult part. I am not learned well enough to be writing about weird stuff

Thing is. When a convo is written in a book, it has logical development. The words do matter a lot but the meaning has to be intact. And the same mentality can be used on impro.
A convo in a book cannot be random, cannot be "free". It has a purpose. And this can be taken over to the musical expression.
So your solo is not "free", every note in the solo serves a purpose of carrying a...damn.. a musical meaning (awful and wrong term).
This really is doable, using the notes the same way that someone writes text for a book.

But it is hard to explain - how and why. Even a good explanation won't be enough, I guess.
If not even tested, tried out, you can't even form a proper opinion about the matter.

[pamosmusic]

Yep lol. Well I came up with it and he helped me draft it. I do think it's wild. That's why I feel so strongly about music being a language. That direct correlation between the informational syntax - the sound/music, and the medium in reality - the emotion.

I am not convinced that direct correlation exists. I might even be easy to convince that it doesn’t.

[James W]

I am not convinced that direct correlation exists. I might even be easy to convince that it doesn’t.

Yes. I mean, shall we continue this conversation in the language of music?

The notion obviously doesn't make any sense.

[charlieparker]

I think the language analogy is good for learners. Becoming intimately familiar with the elements of jazz or bebop, to be more specific, will enable you to hear and recognize those things when others play them whether that is a chord progression, tune, or common melodic device.

And they will be available to you to combine in your own way when you speak/play.

It goes to the problem with some traditional ear training divorced from the repertoire. It's like learning the basic phonemes/syllables. You won't get very far without learning what actual words sound like, or at least I haven't.

[Aiq]

These days I’m not so sure “ language has an objective agreed upon meaning.”

[John A.]

Oh, thanks for that.

I do like awesome pieces of jazz. That is my thing. I like awesome pieces of any kind of music.
I do not "not like" jazz at all. The genre is most welcome to plant an impro on anything, on cool chords. What is there to "not like"?

"I am completely dissatisfied with jazz improvisation. It is generally abstract, aimed to impress, hipness.
There are many many occasions when it works so well. But sadly, most of it is not so good.
That is just me."

Those words sure make it seem as though you don't much like jazz (or don't understand what the players you are listening to do).

I think the reason for not making sense with OP is not about my English skills. I cannot even articulate this well in my first language.

What this suggests is that you literally don't know what you're talking about. If you don't know, how can you expect someone else to understand you?

To clarify, the closest to the topic is the motif development but it runs heavily on the technical side of things... Again, hard to put in words.

Then don't put it in words. Put it in an example of your playing, and then try to explain what you played in words.

Put the face on like you doing music and develop some motifs. Finish your scales and now get busy mutating some motifs. Just another technical thing.
To compare this to something written and in need of making it better somehow, it would be like "ok, you got this converstation written down, now lets do 100 variations of that and see if we got a better version"

That's actually a little clearer to me (?). It seems like you're saying that you're imagining you're practicing constructing a solo as a series of statements and responses between two people speaking. If that's what you mean, I'd say that's a valid approach that a lot of people apply to soloing (and composition). It's often expressed as "question and answer" or "call and response". But I think that's a little different from what most people mean when they talk about analogies between jazz (or other music) and language. I think more often "language" refers to the vocabulary (e.g., phrases, devices, what notes to play in what what contexts) and grammar (theory, rules of thumb, musicianship concepts, etc.) people draw from. But I could be wrong about all of this.

This is the difficult part. I am not learned well enough to be writing about weird stuff
Thing is. When a convo is written in a book, it has logical development. The words do matter a lot but the meaning has to be intact. And the same mentality can be used on impro.
A convo in a book cannot be random, cannot be "free". It has a purpose. And this can be taken over to the musical expression.
So your solo is not "free", every note in the solo serves a purpose of carrying a...damn.. a musical meaning (awful and wrong term).
This really is doable, using the notes the same way that someone writes text for a book.

But it is hard to explain - how and why. Even a good explanation won't be enough, I guess.
If not even tested, tried out, you can't even form a proper opinion about the matter.

Don't write. Play.

[emanresu]

"Those words sure make it seem as though you don't much like jazz (or don't understand what the players you are listening to do)."

No. I dislike most music. Most of jazz too. Because it makes me feel bad. Almost physically.
But I love the pieces that stick out. But it has nothing to do with the genre.
Genre-wise, jazz offers me more than anything else out there - the things I am after with my own playing.

Dunno how to put it more clearly. Just have to stick it on my forehead I guess: I don't "hate" any genre. Neither love everything in any genre.
Let's just drop that.

[James W]

Once that human experience is conveyed, music can impact the listener just as much as words can (written/spoken) or symbols can (linguistic/non-linguistic).

Just as much? Even more I'd say.

[Christian Miller]

Edit: I think it is physics:

Music is the precise manipulation of vibrations.

These precise manipulations of vibrations create pressure disturbances that travel through the air in sound waves, when these waves reach our ears, they can be interpreted by our brains as music or just noise. Take your pick.

But, personally, I know extremely little about any subject, especially music.

It’s not physics.

The physical nature of sound does not encapsulate the nature of music. Saying music is physics is like saying visual art is optics. I mean it’s not totally irrelevant and impacts things like instrument design and tuning systems. But that’s it.

OTOH studying music is totally different from studying science.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Christian Miller]

Sometimes instrumental music literally is a language, such as West African talking drum traditions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[John A.]

It’s not physics.

The physical nature of sound does not encapsulate the nature of music. Saying music is physics is like saying visual art is optics.

OTOH studying music is totally different from studying science.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I haven't studied as much as science as you (by a long shot), so grains of salt ... I think that music has some commonalities with formal systems (which makes me think that there's a better analogy between formal logic and/or computer programming and composition/improvisation/music-theory than between music and natural language). So while the method of making music is not at all like the scientific method, music theory is not like scientific theory, etc., there's something about the thought processes and cognition that's similar. I think that's why a fair number of musicians are good at math, programming, and engineering and vice versa. My (admittedly totally non-representative and subjective) sense is that there's probably more crossover between sciences and music than between other fields and music.

[James W]

Sometimes instrumental music literally is a language, such as West African talking drum traditions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Literally is a language? I know nothing about West African talking drum traditions so you'll have to explain, bearing in mind that instrumental music is abstract by definition so I'm sceptical to say the least.

[Christian Miller]

Literally is a language? I know nothing about West African talking drum traditions so you'll have to explain, bearing in mind that instrumental music is abstract by definition so I'm sceptical to say the least.

Why? Language is abstract sound unless you understand it.

I’m sure you can find out more if interested. Talking drums were used to convey messages over long distances. It does imitate the character and prosody of human speech to some extent…

… I think you could say that bop lines also imitate the prosody of speech, for example. This has been remarked on by Steve Coleman for example.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Christian Miller]

I haven't studied as much as science as you (by a long shot), so grains of salt ... I think that music has some commonalities with formal systems (which makes me think that there's a better analogy between formal logic and/or computer programming and composition/improvisation/music-theory than between music and natural language). So while the method of making music is not at all like the scientific method, music theory is not like scientific theory, etc., there's something about the thought processes and cognition that's similar. I think that's why a fair number of musicians are good at math, programming, and engineering and vice versa. My (admittedly totally non-representative and subjective) sense is that there's probably more crossover between sciences and music than between other fields and music.

They are completely different, from my experience.

Music is not an intellectual pursuit, it's a trade.

Learning to play music requires the mastering of a great many physical skills. Musicians are experts in tacit knowledge, not explicit knowledge

They might of course be intellectuals and have a lot of explicit knowledge, but this is far less relevant to their profession than I think a lot of outsiders assume.

I think a lot of people - especially highly educated people - find this hard to get their heads around. It took me about a decade to work it out. I think the attitudes and ways of thinking I'd learned as a physics student actually worked against me as a musician. But professional music, at whatever level, sort of drums it into you, because you learn it through experience - often through public failure haha. That's the apprenticeship.

There is some truth to the fact that many people with maths aptitude seem to be good musicians, but I would say that the majority of musicians don't seem to demonstrate any particular aptitude for or interest in maths A lot of them have a lay interest in science, but that's not the same thing of course.

[James W]

Why? Language is abstract sound unless you understand it.

I’m sure you can find out more if interested. Talking drums were used to convey messages over long distances. It does imitate the character and prosody of human speech to some extent…

… I think you could say that bop lines also imitate the prosody of speech, for example. This has been remarked on by Steve Coleman for example.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

1) Yes but understanding a language and understanding (a) music are quite different sorts of understanding, don't you think? You don't have to arduously study harmony texts to eventually understand Beethoven - that is much more intuitive. But I do have to arduously study German grammar and vocab to appreciate Goethe.

2) yeah but imitating prosody and 'literally being a language' are two different things.

[pauln]

That's actually a little clearer to me (?). It seems like you're saying that you're imagining you're practicing constructing a solo as a series of statements and responses between two people speaking. If that's what you mean, I'd say that's a valid approach that a lot of people apply to soloing (and composition). It's often expressed as "question and answer" or "call and response". But I think that's a little different from what most people mean when they talk about analogies between jazz (or other music) and language. I think more often "language" refers to the vocabulary (e.g., phrases, devices, what notes to play in what what contexts) and grammar (theory, rules of thumb, musicianship concepts, etc.) people draw from. But I could be wrong about all of this.

Hmm... I wrote yesterday in the "using only one string" thread about the "A Suffusion Of Yellow" solo I call the "conversation between the dolphins and seagulls"... using one string and lots of reverb and volume swells.

When I do that, it is music used to indicate third party foreign communication, but since it is in dolphin and seagull sounds the listener is not meant to grasp any linguistic meaning in the sounds other than as communication.

For that matter, I would assume the dolphins and seagulls do not even share a common language, and I'm not fluent in either of them, so actually no one involved (me, the audience, the imaginary dolphins and seagulls) is employing any language to communicate; yet the music itself communicates.

[Christian Miller]

(I also think musicians like to ascribe a cosmic significance to music.)

[Christian Miller]

2) yeah but imitating prosody and 'literally being a language' are two different things.

Talking drum traditions use drums to communicate messages etc.

If that wasn't clear from my post above.

[Jonah]

Well… musical semantics definitely exists. Otherwise we would not be able even to distinguish one piece from another.

comparison with spoken language is to certain degree a metaphor.

Music is an artistic language as well as visual arts or high literature ( though it uses spoken language as a material).

Musical systems can have very direct vocabulary sometimes but in most cases as any art it is very ambivalent or polyvalent.

Meaning is not words, words are also mediums. So when you compare music with language you should not expect music to tell you: the chair is in the next room, bring it please…

poetry and literature are also not busy with this… but they can tell you a lot and much much more that you probably cannot transfer into conventional verbal language adequately.
But it does not mean there is no meaning or contents

[emanresu]

Well but with the notes you can do plenty what language does.
Present, introduce, contrast, elaborate, mimic, mock, impress, evolve, etc. these kinds of things.
When improvising, we hardly think of that with those terms, but it can be quite obvious.

[djg]

wayne shorter on lester leaps in and the lick where everyone knew what it meant.

[lawson-stone]

Music is a language, it's just specialized and can't explain anything like an alphabetical language. It's a language because it's a continual stream of information that correlates the medium in reality directly with the precise emotional meaning. Another language that does this is math.

One of my favorite "thinkers" is the late George Steiner. He claimed that humanity has basically four modes of expression, four fairly independent ways of externalizing our inward being: language, music, mathematics, and visual art. Two physicists with no common language can spend days working out equations on a blackboard, in full communication though not speaking. Musicians conversant in the same idioms can commune richly despite not knowing each others' language.

Maybe it is a mistake to try to use one mode as a grid or pattern for understanding the other?