Difference between language and style

Try asking yourself this simple question: is there a style of a language or the language of a style?
In plain words, I would say: style is the way an author uses language.
Generally, the definition of language is determined and "universally" shared. In the most abstract and formal sense, we could say that language is a set of rules applied (syntax) to a set of primitive and simple elements (alphabet). Style is not as immediate to define. For the most part, it is identified by the reappearance in an author's works of what are called "stylemes": for example, it could be a preference for a certain cadence, or a preference for a certain type of modulation...
Therefore, one could say that modality is a language, and different authors use it with different styles. However, consider that modality can also contribute to the definition of a stylistic trait (see, for example, what happens in Mikrokosmos - even the 4th mode of the ascending melodic minor scale is also called the Bartók mode).... so one could extend the definition I gave you above to:

style is the way in which an author "chooses" and "uses" a certain language

... although the story doesn't end here, I hope I have begun to give you an idea

Well done Bianca

I also share Bianca's post. Chopin and Schumann used tonality in their own way. Same language but different results, what changes? The style

Very interesting Bianca, thank you! And does the story continue for much longer? I would have continued reading it with pleasure

Anyway, if I understood correctly, if style is the way in which a musical language is used, can I assert that the orchestration, the "recurring" rhythmic and harmonic-contrapuntal choices in one or more works by an author (I am thinking of Orff, for example) concern the style?

It's a bit like spoken language, in the end everyone expresses themselves in their own way despite Italian always being the same; everything contributes Mathisdermaler. Obviously there are themes that, compared to language, are a bit more transversal, such as orchestration. For example, I could love the bassoon madly and use it even in a nocturne, but the nocturne could be written in different languages. Surely the presence of the bassoon can provide a "my" sonority... but it's not enough. It is the combination of many elements that creates a style.

And there are even "multi-style" composers (or "multi-language"?); see Stravinsky. In these cases, it would be interesting to find the "common thread"

mathisdermaler wrote:

Very interesting Bianca, thank you! And does the story continue for long? I would have continued reading it with pleasure.

Anyway, if I understood correctly, if style is the way in which a musical language is used, can I assert that the orchestration, the "recurring" rhythmic and harmonic-contrapuntal choices in one or more works of an author (I am thinking of Orff, for example) concern the style?

It all depends on the definitions we start from, which is why those are what must be agreed upon before beginning a reasoning process. What is advisable to do is follow a practice, when one exists, otherwise borrow from other fields. Providing definitions is important and fundamental to avoid confusion and misunderstandings; however, keep in mind that in the end, regardless of how much effort is made, it can always happen that the conclusions drawn reach a point where a revision of the definitions themselves becomes necessary.

In the study of music, there is no chapter that tells you: up to here it is about language, from here on it is about style. This is also because there is disagreement regarding the very possibility of defining music as a language. This is because behind it lies an entire centuries-old debate on what music can or cannot express. Exploring this path, as you can well realize, is an arduous and tortuous task. But this mention says much about the difficulty the human intellect finds in overcoming certain types of obstacles.

Thus, when a definition is requested, one always performs a potentially dangerous and destabilizing social act. Conversely, when a definition is provided, one should do nothing else, precisely, but propose an agreement, a truce that allows for the collaborative exploration of a field of consequences.

I therefore wish to specify that having defined language as a set of rules applied to a set of elements, it has not been established that music is a language, nor that it is not. At most, by specifying which rules and which elements are involved when speaking of music, one can assert that music has a language—indeed, even more than one.

Language as understood here serves "simply" to determine whether a certain sentence belongs or does not belong to that same language. Therefore, we could say that there exists a tonal language, a serial language, modal languages, and so on... At this point, however, it happens that the definition of language alone is, in a sense, too weak to manage all aspects of the issue. What would happen, in fact, when more than one of these "languages" were used within the same work? Because in music, obviously, this can happen. How do we establish, without too much confusion, the correctness or incorrectness of a certain sentence? It is true that overly pushed mixtures can also be judged as "incorrect," somewhat like a text written ungrammatically, with all the necessary distinctions. In any case, in my opinion, it is more convenient to introduce another concept, namely that of structure, with its relative definition: structure is a set of relationships between elements or sets of elements. Think, for example, of the "conduct of parts" (voice leading); rather than as language, this lends itself to being considered as structure. In fact, in the conduct of parts, what is fundamental to keep under control are precisely the relationships between the parts, and the rules that must be respected are predominantly rules of relationship. It then becomes more advantageous to consider modality, serialism, etc., not as simple languages, but rather as structures. From this perspective, aspects such as orchestration also belong to the structure rather than the style. If you think about it, a style can be recognizable even regardless of the orchestration with which it is presented. Certainly, one could also say that there is a style in orchestrating in one way or another, if nothing else when the characteristics are so particular as to be recognizable and traceable to a certain author rather than another. Parenthetically, so far we have spoken of style as a characteristic of a work, but the term can also refer to a period; for example, one speaks of Baroque style or Neoclassical style.

That being said, we can (still provisionally) reformulate the definition of style given previously: style is that which distinguishes and makes recognizable the way in which an author/period "chooses" and "uses" the structures of a certain language.

Now, however, so as not to digress into overly edifying matters, it would be nice to think of some examples of style. In a forum like this, it wouldn't be a bad thing if some contributed to putting together a sort of collection of stylistic elements (stylemi) organized by author—let's say the main ones or those with which one is most familiar. Regardless of all"}

the speculations regarding it, it could also be a useful initiative for those who deal with music in practice.