--------------D9A2E3A3775EE0E06325AA60
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by mailbox4.ucsd.edu id g89EOtfu084304
I've been following the thread on music as language with interest.
I had a prof in grad school, Bill Malm of the University of Michigan,
who would get visibly irritated when people brought up that old saw
about music being the international language. He would go on to use it
as a foil for a lecture he gave on noh music that was intended to show,
at first at least, that music was anything but immediately
understandable, and that you needed grounding in a culture at least,
and in some cases a quite explicit training, to "understand" music. (I
put "understand" in scare-quotes because the issue of what constitutes
understanding itself is worth thinking about, although I won't go into
that here.)
I think Malm's point is a good one. Classical traditions are highly
self-conscious and require explicit training as well as listening
experience for one to pass beyond an understanding that is based merely
on the lure of exoticism: "Wow, what a wierd sound! Cool!" That exotic
thing cloys quickly.
Popular tradition MAY be somewhat less demanding in terms of explicit
training, but they probably require a solid experiential sense of
context before they mean much. (Here the problem of "World Music"
comes up, and the controversy about whether it really is a kind of
transnational or transcultural music or whether it's merely the
exploitation of "native" instruments within what is intellectually and
aesthetically simply Western pop. I won't get more into that either
here.)
But back to the question of music and language. I think there are some
really fascinating problems here. For one: language is inherently
involved in communicating meaning. (And of course one could get into
the deconstructive maze with the mention of "meaning," but let's not go
there.) Let's say for the present purpose that meaning involves, among
other things, the telling of stories. Now, how would that relate to the
comparison of language and music. There are musical pieces like
Beethoven's Sixth Symphony and Shika no t=F4ne which can be heard to tell
a story (however simple), but if that's all we can get out of the
comparison between music and language, then it doesn't get us too far.
The stories are far too simple to be of much significance by themselves,
and the quality, the complexity, the wonder of the music seems to
overwhelm them very quickly. So where else can the comparison take us?
(I must admit to a professional interest here, since I'm going to teach
a course in the second term this year on literature and the arts, and
the comparison between music and literature is something I want to put a
good deal of time into.)
Yoroshiku,
Tom Hare
--------------D9A2E3A3775EE0E06325AA60
<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
I've been following the thread on music as language with interest.
<p>I had a prof in grad school, Bill Malm of the University of Michigan,
who would get visibly irritated when people brought up that old saw about
music being the international language. He would go on to use it
as a foil for a lecture he gave on noh music that was intended to show,
at first at least, that music was anything but immediately understandable,
and that you needed grounding in a culture at least, and in some
cases a quite explicit training, to "understand" music. (I put "understand"
in scare-quotes because the issue of what constitutes understanding itself
is worth thinking about, although I won't go into that here.)
<p>I think Malm's point is a good one. Classical traditions are highly
self-conscious and require explicit training as well as listening experience
for one to pass beyond an understanding that is based merely on the lure
of exoticism: "Wow, what a wierd sound! Cool!" That exotic
thing cloys quickly.
<p>Popular tradition MAY be somewhat less demanding in terms of explicit
training, but they probably require a solid experiential sense of context
before they mean much. (Here the problem of "World Music" comes
up, and the controversy about whether it really is a kind of transnational
or transcultural music or whether it's merely the exploitation of "native"
instruments within what is intellectually and aesthetically simply Western
pop. I won't get more into that either here.)
<p>But back to the question of music and language. I think there
are some really fascinating problems here. For one: language
is inherently involved in communicating meaning. (And of course one
could get into the deconstructive maze with the mention of "meaning," but
let's not go there.) Let's say for the present purpose that meaning
involves, among other things, the telling of stories. Now, how would
that relate to the comparison of language and music. There are musical
pieces like Beethoven's <u>Sixth Symphony</u> and <u>Shika no tône</u>
which can be heard to tell a story (however simple), but if that's all
we can get out of the comparison between music and language, then it doesn't
get us too far. The stories are far too simple to be of much significance
by themselves, and the quality, the complexity, the wonder of the music
seems to overwhelm them very quickly. So where else can the comparison
take us? (I must admit to a professional interest here, since I'm
going to teach a course in the second term this year on literature and
the arts, and the comparison between music and literature is something
I want to put a good deal of time into.)
<p>Yoroshiku,
<br>Tom Hare</html>
--------------D9A2E3A3775EE0E06325AA60--
____________________________________________________
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Feb 03 2003 - 09:09:53 PST