-
About music as language... I always try to defferentiate that it is artistic language.
Comparison with lingustic conventional languages is not quite correct. The correct one will be comparison with high literature.
Jazz improvization is not similar to just talking spontaneously on some topic in some language, it is like improvizing a poem... a good poem... with reference to form and maybe to tradition... big differentce, right?
Language is a derivative of thought, not thought itself; thought comes before and ultimately manifests in many final interpretive forms, only one of which is language.
And of course music has semantics. This skit is partly built on semantics of European music that audience - even non-musical - clearly understands...
I always give this video as representation of obvious semantics in music - not even what he says but how he plays - you can hear clearly how it all unfolds... what he says is not just nice romantic comparisons ....
''You need to dream this piece rather than play it''... and he clearly shows how music transcends the border betwenn reality and dream...
first time I saw this video I almost could touch the music... it was even scary...
Becasue it was not sounds, it was meanings expressed.
-
08-28-2019 06:42 AM
-
-
That's the first time I've enjoyed Schumann.
-
Originally Posted by christianm77
-
Originally Posted by christianm77
'is learning music similar to learning French'
I think it is , but hey
re the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis ....
that's never chimed true for me
think of all that can be conveyed in non verbal ways
Tons of stuff ... Through pictures , cartoons , paintings
facial expression , dance , music etc etc
perhaps the proponents of Sapir-Whorf hypothesis
would say 'yes but these are all languages'
in which case , for me it's just an argument over semantics
and does not have much substance ....
i remember reading Wittgenstein and being quite annoyed
by him saying effectively
'if you don't have a language , you can't think'
That's got to be massive BS
-
The Homeric 'wine dark sea' is a classic example - while I don't think the ancient Greeks perceived the sea as dark red, their lack of a word for blue created this (to us) rather odd descriptive device, and categorised dark colours as the same sort of thing in a way that is strange to a modern English speaker.
For example Chealsea uniform would rather be called 'siniy' and Italian national team uniform is 'goluboy' though the difference is not that big really.
Of course English speaking person will also define it as dark-blue or light-blue maybe in direct comparison - when he sees them both at the same time and asked to compare.
But Russain would call this 'siniy' and that 'goluboy' even when he sees them separately.
I think these things reflect some national cultural processes, importance of distinguishing some qualities in some period maybe.
Until we percieve something it does not exist for us. I just think we do not see the same thing actually. And it is not only about nations. But about every person too.
The things are what we call them.
-
Originally Posted by pingu
-
Originally Posted by christianm77
i saw a Felix the cat cartoon once where
felix is watching a chef cooking a big fish
he wants the fish ,
he swaps the fish with a wooden model fish from a display case
felix eats the fish and the chef goes red in the face
trying to cook the wooden fish
no words or captions
but a story with motivations , feelings , humour etc
seems easy to show that meaning can be conveyed without words
maybe I'm not understanding the contention properly though
-
Originally Posted by pingu
It is likely language and abstract thought are deeply connected... but perhaps it is possible that one can exist without the other.
-
seems easy to show that meaning can be conveyed without words
maybe I'm not understanding the contention properly though
Octavio Paz said: 'The mechanism or poetry is in releasing the meaning of the word'
Great writers have to work with garbage or words and make them express real beauty.
People often do not hear music at all... sometimes I listen music with someone and I understand that what for me is full of complex multi-layered meanings, sophisticated passionate thelogical essay (like Bach), or a real novel with characters, story line (like late Romatic symphonies) for others often just more or less harmonious sounds (and they are happy if there are not too many dynamics changes!!)
I like renaissance music... and I found out that many people like it becasue it is relaxing they treat like meditation nature sound... somtimes it is crazy (or funny?) becasue they actually use for that very dramatic music
I think European musical language is generally built on a few elements:
1) general harmonic turnarounds/cadences and their meanings within a form - how composer put them together, combine them
2) recognizeable genres and style references - like using sarabande for death reference, or French horn signal for 'far call', of how Tchaikovsky used clarinet is definitely connected with Mozartian clarinets and creats a reference of warmth and childish feeling of home safety or C-minor is definitely referential in classical music and so on
3) Not clearly musical references like letter- based motives or even quotes recognizeable by contemporary local audience, also textual references (which Bach used intensively for example... when the instrumental melodic line is similar with texts from other vocal works (or even harmonic turnarounds behind it)...
With great composers all this works in a very sophisticated system - like with Bach or Mozart where these elements are intervened with combination of harmony, rythmic shifts, time, polyphony etc. etc. that allow them to make music as complex as human nature is and to express the most subtle feelings, doubts and thoughts, allows them to create life.
But there are things that most people understand... this Rowan Atkinson sketch is partly bulit on these recognizeable things
Check 02:28, it is the most idiomatic example!
-
Originally Posted by christianm77
maybe by showing the mr bean
movie or
the felix cartoon to someone
without language , then teaching them to speak ... a child maybe ?
my contention is that they would
understand the piece completely
even without language ...
i even believe dogs can think
to a limited extent
”if i open this box , i can get to
my food”
” if i hold my lead at the front door
she will understand that i want to go out” etc etc
ie they can and are thinking
if language was a prerequisite for
thought . how could we think in the
abstract ?
how could we think about music
for example ?
but it i admit , a proof is difficult
-
Sorry to derail ....
the original question is interesting too ....
i saw saw a Jim Mullen YouTube where he said
learning was ....
getting the time delay between hearing a thing
and playing that thing ...
down and down to as short as possible
-
Originally Posted by pauln
-
Originally Posted by christianm77
We don't even need language to call the tune; I might start by slowly playing through chords and melody lines that form a musically coherent but unknown song (because I'm making it up). After about 20 seconds I firm up, turn up, speed up, and the improvised songish thing gently blends, morphs, and becomes recognizable as one of our tunes and off we go. The bass and drums enjoy initiating songs themselves this way, too; so we don't all know what song we may be playing until we hear and catch on... it keeps us on our toes.
-
Originally Posted by pingu
looks like John Berryman's poem... especially whe I read this " saw saw a Jim Mullen YouTube where he said
learning was ...."
and "down and down to as short as possible"
-
Since I studied linguistics in the eighties - "language" meant any kind of sign system at this point. This was of course influenced by Wittgenstein, but also by Saussure, Derrida, the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis...
It's not just verbal language. If we keep dicsussing this topis, I suggest to bear that in mind, or explicitly write "verbal language" to exclude other sign systems (of which music is one).
I think you'd be hard pressed to argue that thought is possible without signs.
-
Originally Posted by docsteve
My original point is consistent with music being a language with its own “grammar” etc, but, as in verbal conversation, that grammar must be internalized way before the real time usage of it in conversation (musical or verbal).
When I speak (poorly) in French, I must hesitate, try to remember what the future perfect of “etre” (to be) is etc. This stops the flow of speech in its tracks, which wouldn’t happen in English for me. The same concept applies analogously for musical improv; you must have internalized the “grammar” way before performance time in order to react “in the moment” for example because the tune is unfolding, the drummer is keeping time, here comes the bridge, etc. You have to play by ear because you don’t have time to rummage in your mind for scales, chord substitutions, etc. At least that’s the ideal in my opinion.
-
Originally Posted by Rsilver
Actually I will go even farther... comparison with foreign labguage in my opinion is a bit risky.
Today it is very often that people want to be someone else... and I can quite often hear (and seems I do say it myself too occasionally) that 'they thought in a different way', 'we understand it in a different way'...
'my culture here does not belong to jazz'... 'in renaissance they understood harmony in different way'
it is foreign.. it is foreign.. we should sturdy the foreign lanbguage. It sounds very often...
Though many of these statements are correct, I still think it is risky to apply it arts so straightforowardly as it often happens today.
First thing I do not like is that it referes often to 'we' and 'they' - though I think that art is about 'I' and 'You' and the fact that someone today says that 'we do not understand something' can be good for historical orcultural analysis bit no good for musical performance - becasue in that case it is just 'I' and 'I' is always in question individually now or 300 hundreds years ago.
I do love and play jazz or renaissance and baroque becasue it is NOT foreign to me. I believe that actually it is quite the other way around... it is in some sense my language if I intuitively respond to that art.
But understanding is one thing and creating is another (I think I understand European visual arts very well but I have no illusions about my abilities to create something in it).
Again I generally understand what you mean and agree with you but I just think that this moght need some detalizations. I may seem minor unmportant issues but I thinl it is important.
-
Language - the musical part is the accent and tone and choice of words when the rhythm of the phrase is important.
Music - the language part is the references that are not musical ideas.. musical meanings.. by themselves. "sounds like jazz" doesn't tell anything about the musical ideas at all. Just refers to what we're used to hear as jazz.
It's not too hard to keep those two terms separated if so desired.
-
Originally Posted by Jonah
-
[QUOTE=Drumbler;936371
Without knowledge of scales, chord tones or anything like that?
How could you do it if you can't hear what to solo over?[/QUOTE]
I am a singer first. I can harmonize (singing) over anything “tonal” the first time I hear it, as I hear it. I do this without knowing the key or scale. I hear the harmonies, but can’t name them. I can “hear” harmonies that are not expressed when listening to a new melody for the first time. So, to answer the question, your head simply makes up the harmonies for the melody, and then you improvise against the melody and the imagined harmony.
The same thing happens when I write a song — I can “hear” the harmonies, but then have to hunt around on an instrument to find what I am “hearing” in my head so that I can write it down.
Now...when trying to do the same thing with guitar or piano (not voice), I fall apart. I would like to be able to do with an instrument what I can do vocally.
Question about All of Me / Ella Fitzgerald version
Today, 01:31 PM in The Songs