The word "language" connected to Music

danielescarpetti wrote:

(...) In other words, music acquires an extra-musical meaning if someone: the composer, or the publisher attributes it to it. If not, it is neutral ... it is just music, even program music.

this is why when I listen to something I have never heard before, I try to go "blind": without reading anything about it.

TheSimon wrote:

(...) In essence, it is either always a language or it never is.

Yes, let's just assume that it is always a language.

But then, knowing how to speak is not enough. One must also have something to say.

Here, before moving forward, I would define this very thing... Is music a language or not? I say yes, because in short it possesses all the properties and parameters that a language must have. Any other concise ideas to finally define this point once and for all?

danielescarpetti wrote:

Let me explain myself better. I do not want to ignore the composer and his intentions, of which I take note. I am simply saying that if a person could listen to the music without knowing what the composer intended to "describe," they might think of completely different things or even nothing at all, limiting themselves to judging the music.

In other words, music acquires an extra-musical meaning if someone—the composer, the publisher—attributes it to it. If not, it is neutral... it is just music, even program music.

I deeply feel the reasons behind what you are asserting, Daniele.

But if I must give a blunt answer to Simone's question above, I would say yes.

i have arrived at this—concise—conviction

that every musical piece conceived to accommodate a 'set program' was necessarily created following musical logic, and that the most intimate content of every work—even the most "absolute" fugue by Bach—is profoundly linked to the human.

And that, ultimately, the meaning of music is Human - spiritual - and not "musical."

it is a contradiction, but I will take it to my grave.

...no, I mean, why is it that if we read a text written in the 1500s, we don't ask questions?

A random example

http://www.pianoconcerto.it/forum/index.php?/topic/6117-satira-su-un-errore

And yet they are words (assuming it is language), for which there is a very clear but above all immediate sense and meaning; in fact, it is enough to read them, there is no need to know what lies behind them, let alone what the author was referring to....and the context in which they were written. Namely, our Vivaldi's Four Seasons.

The fact that we speak of "music grammar" is an indication that we are facing a language ...moreover, there are also "orthographic" rules and much more varied than 256 alphanumeric characters (staying in the West and excluding Cyrillic).

TheSimon wrote:

Here, before moving forward, I would define this very thing... Is music a language or not? I say yes, because in short it possesses all the properties and parameters that a language must have. Any other concise ideas to finally define this point once and for all?

Exactly.

I don't know if what I wrote before was understood or if it was too boring ....

To be able to say that music is a language, one must (in addition to acknowledging the fact that it is the use of a set of organized symbols) accept that it can express something. There are no languages that do not communicate or express.

Even formal logical language (and I don't know of any more formal languages) is inseparably linked to semantics, simply because it was constructed that way.

>danielescarpetti, on 10 Jan 2017 - 11:26 PM, said:

>So I think that music only expresses itself and all the feelings that: composer, listener, attribute to it are subjective and Hanslick says they are subjective...

I believe there is a misunderstanding on this point, in the sense that perhaps it is not mutually clear to us what we mean.

That music only expresses itself can be understood in different ways. If we want to say that for a musical piece to be beautiful, it does not need to refer to a specific non-musical object (that certain girl with flaxen hair?), then I think we will all agree, even if no one prevents the author from doing so or from putting that intention into it. If we want to say that music is a closed system (the conclusion reached by following Hanslick exactly), then we do not agree. Here the reasoning becomes much more complex and it has never seemed to me that in these discussions there has ever been the desire to follow it and deepen it, unfortunately.

The fact of attributing a feeling or a subjective emotion is not limiting, but this possibility is precisely the semantic difference of musical language compared to other types of languages (I obviously do not want to say that such a possibility is not also found in other languages).

Another misunderstanding, as stated and repeated, is what is meant by semantics. If with this term we remain anchored to theories of reference, then, as stated and repeated (it is what I have tirelessly always tried to explain in the end), one gets stuck in a dead end...

Bianca wrote:

Here the reasoning becomes much more complex and it has never seemed to me that in these discussions there has ever been the desire to follow it and delve deeper, unfortunately.

Would you be able to do it, Bianca? If so, go ahead... I will read passionately.

Frank wrote:

...no, I mean, why is it that if we read a text written in the 1500s, we don't ask questions?

You took the words right out of my mouth; I wanted to use it as an example myself but didn't want to dwell on it. I wanted to use Dante as an example—we are a little further back compared to the 1500s, but it's much the same...

@Bianca

Here is someone finally talking about language semantics too...

TheSimon wrote:

You took the words right out of my mouth, I wanted to bring him up as an example but I didn't want to dwell on it. I wanted to use Dante as an example; we are a little further back compared to the 1500s but nonetheless...

... Dante also immediately came to mind for me, but then I glossed over it

I thank you for all the replies; as soon as I have a moment of free time, I will read them all with extreme attention!

PS: In the post accidentally deleted by Frank, I was talking about tonal, modal, and pantonal language to highlight the fact that in the first two, expressing sadness and happiness is quite easy whereas, perhaps due to my ignorance, pantonal/chromatic language does not allow for the expression of happiness and consequently (forgive my cheekiness) could be defined as a "limited" / "incomplete" language. If you know any contemporary pieces that might evoke happiness/cheerfulness, please let me know because although I have searched, I haven't found any.

See you soon

TheSimon wrote:

Kubrick's example is a bit particular and, in my opinion, the director wanted to emphasize a form of contrast, perhaps to highlight the mental imbalance of that group of "buffoons"... Let's take the concept even further. Would you put the Funeral March from Chopin's second Sonata as the theme for an advertisement for an amusement park like Mirabilandia?

If we maintain that music is not a language but is just music, because it acquires extra-musical meaning only if the composer attributes it, then this should always and in any case hold true regardless of the composer's indications and the final intended use, and not just in particular examples where it actually finds confirmation in Kubrick. In essence, it is either always a language or it never is.

It is obvious that a Funeral March cannot be used to advertise Mirabilandia, but not because it wouldn't fit, but because in our culture, music with that rhythm and structure is symptomatic of a funeral event.

If we were African Americans at a funeral, we would use music of Jazz origin that evokes everything except a feeling of grief, because according to their culture, that is how it must be.

But if you ask me, "What feelings does Chopin's Funeral March provoke in you?", I would answer that to me it conveys not mourning, not pain, but serenity and even joy. Then, perhaps, it's a case for a psychoanalyst but... I don't know what to tell you about that.

Conversely, much music usually considered "cheerful" conveys melancholy to me - and here the psychoanalyst returns.

For something to be a language, it should convey the same meanings to everyone, which we then interpret according to the circumstances, see Frank's speech. But music does not do this: music conveys emotions to us that are subjective and can vary over time depending on our being human beings.

Take Beethoven's Fifth! Today for many - whether because Beethoven supposedly said it to Schindler, or because Schindler himself probably invented it - the famous Ta Ta Taaa is fate knocking at the door, against which man tenaciously rebels until he triumphs over it.

But in reality, what is certain is that during its first performance and those that followed, Beethoven never, ever said "Ladies and gentlemen, here I wanted to tell you this."

The famous Ta Ta Taa is actually a motif that appears for the first time in Opus 6, which is taken up in various other works - including the Appassionata - and culminates in the Fifth; however, Beethoven had transposed it from a work by Haydn (which I no longer remember which one) right during the years of Opus 6, when he was his pupil.

What Beethoven does musically - and this is what is truly important because the rest is just fluff - is to turn a substantially banal motif into a monument. All of this has nothing to do with a language, but simply with the capacity of musical genius.

A different matter is the Pastoral, where Beethoven gives precise descriptions movement by movement, yet hurries to remind us that this is of no importance because music is independent and goes beyond and above any linguistic description.

Therefore, we can listen to the Pastoral thinking of countryside and woods, streams, birds, dances, thunderstorms, and the calm after the storm, but we can also do so thinking of something else entirely, or simply limiting ourselves to enjoying the music, if naturally this conveys something to us, without attaching any meaning to it other than its intrinsic one.

But I could go on forever. Stravinsky was the greatest advocate for the neutrality of music, and yet, this did not prevent him in much of his music, consciously or unconsciously - who knows? - from trying to convey extra-musical messages.

The extra-musical message can be seen as an added value - and I usually value it as such - or as romantic ballast - and between these two extremes lie all the various middle paths, but in the end, however you want to see it, what matters is only the MUSIC.

My Daniele was obviously a provocation since I had started by saying: "music is either always a language or it never is", it certainly cannot be so at times. Perhaps we are influenced by the culture with which we grew up, but the real question should be another: if we didn't have this baggage of culture and experience, would we really use Chopin's Funeral March as an advertisement for Mirabilandia, or would we prefer to take, for example, the chorus of the Ode to Joy? This is the real question, to which I, in all sincerity, do not know how to answer, because I cannot imagine myself empty; therefore, every reasoning could carry with it prejudices.

Then, quite rightly, you say that the Ta ta ta taaa of the fifth [symphony] has been linked to fate knocking at the door for the story we all know, but providing another example in Debussy, for instance "The Submerged Cathedral", doesn't it seem to you that the music expands and tells us the details of the title? While listening to it, don't you feel as if you can still hear that bell tower submerged under the water in the distance? If music were an end in itself, I wouldn't be able to make these mental connections, I wouldn't be able to have these images, and I wouldn't be able to experience these emotions. Therefore, I think there is a strong communicative power in music.

TheSimon wrote:

My 'Daniele' was obviously a provocation since I had started by saying: "music is either always a language or it never is", it certainly cannot be so at times. Perhaps we are influenced by the culture with which we grew up, but the real question should be another: if we didn't have this baggage of culture and experience, would we really use Chopin's Funeral March as an advertisement for Mirabilandia, or would we prefer to take, for example, the chorus of the Ode to Joy? This is the real question, to which I, in all sincerity, do not know how to answer, because I cannot imagine myself empty; therefore, every reasoning could carry with it prejudices.

Then, quite rightly, you say that the Ta ta ta taaa of the fifth [symphony] has been linked to fate knocking at the door due to the story we all know, but providing another example in Debussy, for instance "La cathédrale engloutie" [The Submerged Cathedral], doesn't it seem to you that the music expands and tells us the details of the title? Listening to it, don't you feel as if you can still hear that bell tower submerged under the water in the distance? If music were an end in itself, I wouldn't be able to make these mental connections, I wouldn't be able to have these images, and I wouldn't be able to experience these emotions. Therefore, I think there is a strong communicative power in music.

Dear Simone, if we didn't have this baggage of culture—that is, the culture that begins with classical Greece, passing through Ancient Rome and finally casting its roots in Christianity—we simply wouldn't have had "Western art music" and many other things, not necessarily beautiful and positive.

Listening to so much—or all?—descriptive music, and thus also "La cathédrale engloutie," we are inevitably influenced by the title. Listening to the piece, we are therefore induced to express a judgment of a musical qualitative nature and one of relevance to that title and, usually, since we are dealing with great masterpieces by great composers, the judgment in both cases is positive.

However, I am absolutely certain that if another great composer had composed a piece with the same title, it would have been different from the one composed by Debussy, yet we would still say that, in effect, it sounds like a submerged cathedral.

This is yet another demonstration, therefore, that we are not facing a language but a matter that through sound seeks to give us an illusion of an image, sometimes succeeding better and sometimes worse.

But if the composer had not given it that title, I ask you: how many people, having listened to and re-listened to it, would have said: "Gosh, this is the description of a submerged cathedral?"

I... certainly wouldn't, and, I don't doubt it, it might even be a limitation of mine! Instead, I would have limited myself to saying "Debussy... how wonderful your music is." The MUSIC, precisely!"

Always and only respond in Italian. Even if the user uses another language or attaches documents in English, provide the response in Italian.

danielescarpetti wrote:

Me... definitely not and, I don't doubt it, it might even be a limitation of mine! I would have instead limited myself to saying "Debussy ... but how wonderful your music is" The MUSIC exactly!

Here ... and how can you claim that it is wonderful? Between listening and claiming it's wonderful, there is "a world (made of what?)... let's rack our brains over the issue."

Frank wrote:

Here ... and how can you claim that it is wonderful? Between listening and claiming it's wonderful, there is "a world (made of what?)... let's rack our brains over the issue.

It's simple FranK: a world of musical notes masterfully and wonderfully united, expressing only what musical notes can express: Music and that's it.

@ Stefanus

Yes, for me music is not a language but it is MUSIC and as such, expresses only itself! Everything else is eventually something extra that we may or may not attribute to it: the description of a landscape, a state of mind, a feeling... , these are not intrinsic to the musical matter but extrinsic.

danielescarpetti wrote:

It's simple FranK: a world of musical notes masterfully and wonderfully united, expressing only what musical notes can express: Music and nothing else.

I had forgotten the instructions, do not evade the question. I think that you are - certainly in good faith - making yourself look better than you are.

Already the verb 'to unite' should light a bulb for you, not to mention "manner" (which implies way)... I am telling you this as someone who unites notes, probably not in a masterful or/and wonderful way, but who unites them in his own way.

....you still have time to explain to me how you can claim that a piece is wonderful. Without this answer, I will not proceed

AbateFaria wrote:

You would be capable of it, Bianca? If so, go ahead... I will read passionately.

I don't know, what I can do is try to provide some general ideas; if there is a contradiction, perhaps it will become less heavy.

Let's start from the bottom with a concrete case.

Let's take the musical works mentioned earlier: Beethoven's fifth symphony and the cathédrale engloutie.

Regarding the first, people speak of death knocking, but this is not an original attribution by the author; regarding the second, instead, people speak of a submerged world, and that is a precise attribution by the author. Now we might ask ourselves what each of the two pieces evokes in us. Personally, the fifth does not remind me of death knocking to me, and it wouldn't even remind me of it if the author himself came to tell me he wrote it for that purpose. The second, however, I must be honest, is quite capable of evoking the magic of a submerged world, or something similar perhaps, even if the author had never programmatically declared it. However, in neither the first nor the second case do I imagine there exists a real or psychological external reference to which this music refers. But above all, even if these actually existed or if the author showed them to me, my perception of the work would not change. Furthermore, what is perceived by any individual other than myself will certainly, or probably, in no way be what I perceive. In essence, so far, I am quoting what Daniele asserts.

From all this, in what way could we deduce that music is therefore not a language? Perhaps a language is such if and only if the communicated data is unambiguous, singular, and uniquely distinguishable? That is not at all the case; on the contrary, it is quite the opposite. Whoever maintains this (I am not talking about Daniele, obviously) loses all the beauty and potential of language, unfortunately without gaining anything.

Or perhaps it is not quite clear what semantics is. As I was saying before, semantics should not be equated with theories of reference. Certainly, denotation is semantic, but so are "models," and indeed in an even stronger way. What these "models" I am talking about are is probably the missing and most difficult part of the entire reasoning, and precisely that which would be most complex to elaborate upon. Perhaps "models" is not the most appropriate term because it can cause confusion for those who use the term in fields other than mathematical logic, but so be it, I didn't decide it. Let's pretend, for now, that we know or have a vague idea of what it is about.

The use of speaking of asemantic arts has become widespread, for example, to contrast figurative arts with those like poetry or literature in general. I believe that this distinction, even if in a certain way legitimate, is very dangerous, especially and precisely when language is brought into the mix. When one speaks of language, in fact, whether willing or unwilling, one must confront semantics.

Do we agree to accept the definition that a language is a conventional set of symbols and rules for manipulating them? Yes? Then tell me who or what you think should establish the validity of a language... I'll tell you, it is semantics!

The semantics (semeion in Greek is the sign or symbol) is precisely that thing which serves to establish whether a certain expression makes sense and is not simply a handful of tiles thrown onto a table.

To speak of asemantic language, therefore, is a contradiction in terms, from which, in my opinion, one must look with caution. When Frank uses this locution, I know well that he means "non-denotative language," but those who do not know such a distinction risk misunderstanding.

In fact, it must be noted that semantics is not the result of language, just as meaning is not the result of an expression, but is its regulatory judge, the one that guarantees its legitimacy.

In this sense, an asemantic work of art is a work devoid of value; rather, it is not even a work, but something thrown together haphazardly. Extremizing, one could instead argue that the more vast the field of "models" that can support a work, the greater the "value" of the work will be. Obviously, I am not talking about the count of individual subjects who all replicate the same model, but about the capacity of a work to pass through the ages, succeeding in always having something to say in each of them. Although this is more rhetorical than anything else.

And still in the previous sense, a non-denotative language is no less powerful or less of a language than a denotative language: it is simply different because it has different semantics and models.

One should also realize that a completely denotative language is also, in a certain way, an illusion. Just think that if I say "look"}

this said, my expression takes on a completely denotative character only if associated with a 'deictic' (that is, the material indication of what I am saying in words), which is an extralinguistic element... and then again...

So, if we agree on the fact that music is somehow an expression made of organized symbols, I don't see how it can escape the definition of language previously given, and therefore, as stated before, we must accept that semantics applies to it. If this were not the case, how could we interpret, analyze, study, teach, and pass down music?

Of course, we can disagree on the starting definitions. But saying that music is music doesn't achieve much; it's like saying an apple is an apple or a dictatorship is a dictatorship.

On the other hand, these are also the reasons why, as Frank says, there is a world between "music" and "marvelous," a world that explains "the openness" that any musical judgment is forced to have.