-
...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?Last edited by emanresu; 03-01-2026 at 06:03 PM.
-
03-01-2026 05:47 PM
-
Haha, I don't get it. But I was thinking about something Christian said, and it makes me think learning Jazz is like learning a foreign language.
Originally Posted by emanresu
The analogies are that if you hear a foreign language you will hear the sounds but have no idea of the meaning of those sounds or how to string them together in a coherent sentence.
Imagine transcribing a speech in a language you are completely unfamiliar with. It would be a slow process. But then you learn some words and phrases (cells and licks) and can eventually string together simple sentences.
In addition, listening/transcribing becomes easier as you recognize common units.
The difference with language is that there is semantic meaning associated with these patterns and phrases whereas in music there isn't.
-
There is meaning but you can't decipher it - we are "speaking in tongues." Originally Posted by charlieparker
But I'm out when they bring in the rattlesnakes... then again, playing jazz guitar is often like handling a rattlesnake.
P.S. - Cymbals? Seriously? Everyone knows that snakes despise cymbals, do you really want to piss them off while you're fondling them?!!
Last edited by Mick-7; 03-02-2026 at 03:38 PM.
-
I spent hours today "discussing" this matter with AI. Originally Posted by Mick-7
It avoided the word "meaning" the entire time.
There is no "meaning" in music. Unless somebody says it out loud.
edit: i consider AI as a fancier version of copy/paste. it evaded it because the master theorists are evading it.
-
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.
-
A language is a vessel. Music is not a vessel.
-
It is a vessel.
-
nope
-
Yup. (Re)read my post #5, that is the explanation.
-
from n#5: that correlates the medium in reality directly with the precise emotional meaning.
meaning is a conveyeable message. a strict solid thing. conversible, manipulatable.
there is nothing alike in music.
-
It does that, you just don't understand that it's a specialized language. It can't fully explain all information like alphabetical language. So you get to act like the know it all then? But people replying to your OP can't? :P
-
The word "meaning" needs a strict solid input/value to make any sense at all.
That is all the word is about. If you want to make me stumble, use something else.
-
Lmao, he's getting arrogant. I could google translate into French and make more sense than you.
There is a strict input vs meaning in music. The medium in reality correlates directly with the emotional meaning. People reading alphabetical language interpret things subjectively also. There's no absolute correlation between what's inscribed to what's understood.
-
This is an interesting question, thanks, and it reminded me of an old academic debate on the question of music and meaning
It involved an exchange in the 1960s between Leonard Meyer, a musicologist, and Charles Keil, an ethnomusicologist. Meyer wrote an article on “emotion and meaning in music,” to which Keil replied with an article, “motion and feeling through music.” For Meyer, coming from a classical perspective, music was a fixed product; for Keil, coming from a blues, jazz and world music perspective, music is a process.
-
The world "meaning" is the closest to a computer variable of any word in extistance. Originally Posted by Strat-itis
It basically is the "X=" combo.
When using the word in another context, it get's stretched badly.
But it doesn't work in music at all.
There are no solid "="s in music. Or arts in general.
-
That's not a required parameter for the definition of language. A definition of language is a system of communication.
-
Whenever a conversation gets uncomfortable, you lift the level to more generic to be able to foam it up. Originally Posted by Strat-itis
-
That's literally a chief definition of the word lol!
From definition #1:
a nonverbal method of expression or communication.
language definition - Google Search
-
A link to the definition of nonverbal communication is your retort. Ok, see you around.
-
Ok cya. Yup, like citing the definition of a word to support myself is poor form, but you're all good just retreating to being irrational.
-
You did nothing to shake my take of the word "meaning".
You did a link and a sarcastic goodbye. What a knight.
-
Are you drunk? You make an arrogant OP, written out childishly to 1st grade level, and then accuse me of poor form when I refute you?
I cited that the definition of language doesn't require exact meanings to be a language. It just has to be a system of communication that directly correlates the meaning with the symbols. Music does that.
-
Now i feel offended.
edit: you like me feeling offended?
-
Language uses things to convey a message. Musical sounds do not convey anything extraneous, it is direct. Instant. No "meaning" Originally Posted by Strat-itis
-
Agree Originally Posted by emanresu
Disagree.Musical sounds do not convey anything extraneous, No "meaning"
Music — A system of communication where sound (symbols) correlates directly with emotional reality (the medium). Every variation in sound produces a precise corresponding shift in emotional meaning.
Math — A system of communication where symbols and numbers correlate directly with quantitative relationships in reality (the medium). Every variation in symbol produces a precise corresponding shift in quantitative meaning.
Alphabetical Language — A system of communication where symbols and sounds correlate with descriptions of reality. The mapping is precise but indirect — it describes the medium rather than expressing it directly.
Control — Dog Bark — A signal but not a language. There is no systematic range of symbols that correlate variations in the bark with precise variations in meaning. Interpretable but not compositional.
Reply With Quote
Calling you Framus folk
Yesterday, 09:38 PM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos