A really neat similarity pointed out by Robert Nettl in his book, The Study of Ethnomusicology is the phenomenon of creating rules to play a type of music then improvising by those rules to create something new. Bernstein had his Norton lectures where he speaks of music and linguistics that’s interesting but ultimately I’m influenced by Nettl in that music may not be so universal as there are Native American cultures that don’t have a word for music, but a different concept all together, tied into a sort of spiritual communion.
11:10 "Divisions of the octave". Let me be clear that I do not consider music to be a universal language. But the matter gets somewhat confused due to the existence of a few intercultural norms. Octave equivalence is one of those norms. Not all music depends upon octave equivalence. But almost all of it treats octaves as equivalent in some way. It's also worth noting that while real octaves do not have a fixed intercultural size, there is more tolerance for octaves larger than 2:1 than smaller than 2:1. In this sense, even deviation can be somewhat typified. I point this out in order ro distinguish the claim that music is not a universal claim from the straw man claim, which stands to be offered in place of this claim, that nothing typifies music inteculturally or can be fairly understood as interculturally normal. Yes, there are musical elements that are somewhat interculturally intelligible. No, this does not make music a universal language.
Very interesting. I do agree that music is not a universal language, but I have argued that music is universal. What I mean by that is: barring those with amusia, which is a very small percentage, most of the world loves at least one kind of music, and many can relate to music. Music has the power to transcend all boundaries and can be used to bring many types of people together.
I like the video! Just a though. The story about Grażyna Bacewicz and the Concert with the soprano feels like a lack of knowledge on how to perform the western classical music as a languange, compared to the Indian classical music where you could actually hear the prosody of the indian language in there music. It exist in western classical music also, but most people dont talk so much in detail about the linguistics in music, unless it's early music.
7:57 You state that language can convey meaning in an absolute, guaranteed way. I am not a linguist, but the linguists I read would not agree. The interpretation of music, like language, requires a perspective informed by a degree of cultural orientation in order to determine certain specific details or particular symbols from signs, as you insist. However, I would argue that there are universal standards from which music is derived, as it seems to be in the case with language. Although the motivation behind their origin is up for debate, they seem share a common purpose. Anyone who shares this conclusion might be more apt to relate to the general themes they share in common. While the context may not be exact, the structure can at least be recognized. I noticed your adorno shirt. I am a fan. Adorno insists in his lectures on aesthetics that all true art shares a common virtue. And if this virtue can be said to permeate every culture due to its expression through the arts, it can be argued that music as an art conveys a universal standard. The narrative of this upload seems to exploit the strawman argument that the music of any given cultural disposition could be interpreted exactly, independent of an informative experience with its causal apparatus. Obvious bullshit. Noone believes this anymore and your exposure of this archaic idea only signifies pedantic virtue-signalling at its worst.
In my eyes language can only be seen as a precursor to most methodologies that enable dialectic reasoning, a sort of basis if you will, but it is sadly a bit too easily distorted when it comes to really any form of objectivity. In the end language is only really based on our collective experience of reality
We do not understand music as a possible language because we no not know the rules that could exist to truly transmit a message. Let's take for example the any known language. For the very beginning children had been teach to understand certain sounds (words) and their meaning. Let´s say "mother". The world mother has a specific sound in English, and learning by listening hundreds of times, that sound meaning is memorise by the brain with the associated meaning. That is a language. By the same token IF we take the sound of several sequence of notes, let´s say "do, mi, do" and teach a child that that sequence is "mother", music certainly could be use as an universal language. For humans having hundreds of languages only impose very big difficulties to understand each other. Using "do, mi, do" will not cause any difficulties to teach and can be used universally. The combinations of sounds and tempos could be used perfectly as a language. The fact that anybody could create music is the proof that the human mind is capable of use music as a universal language, IF, everybody learns the meaning of infinite combinations of sounds. Right now we work as humans using combinations of sounds as a language, so a wise step in the distant future is using music as a universal language.
A really neat similarity pointed out by Robert Nettl in his book, The Study of Ethnomusicology is the phenomenon of creating rules to play a type of music then improvising by those rules to create something new. Bernstein had his Norton lectures where he speaks of music and linguistics that’s interesting but ultimately I’m influenced by Nettl in that music may not be so universal as there are Native American cultures that don’t have a word for music, but a different concept all together, tied into a sort of spiritual communion.
11:10 "Divisions of the octave". Let me be clear that I do not consider music to be a universal language. But the matter gets somewhat confused due to the existence of a few intercultural norms. Octave equivalence is one of those norms. Not all music depends upon octave equivalence. But almost all of it treats octaves as equivalent in some way. It's also worth noting that while real octaves do not have a fixed intercultural size, there is more tolerance for octaves larger than 2:1 than smaller than 2:1. In this sense, even deviation can be somewhat typified. I point this out in order ro distinguish the claim that music is not a universal claim from the straw man claim, which stands to be offered in place of this claim, that nothing typifies music inteculturally or can be fairly understood as interculturally normal. Yes, there are musical elements that are somewhat interculturally intelligible. No, this does not make music a universal language.
Is intercultural equivalent a term that is kinda like an isomorphism?
I love that the cat is perched in the background so much! Thanks for another great video!
Would love to see a video in which you give some reading recommendations for people seeking to educate themselves in musicology
Great idea! I'll be happy to do a quick video on an intro reading list!
@@cultofmusicology Yay! Looking forward to it!
Music is what gets people grooving to the same groove. Assuming they are familiar with that type of groove
Very interesting. I do agree that music is not a universal language, but I have argued that music is universal. What I mean by that is: barring those with amusia, which is a very small percentage, most of the world loves at least one kind of music, and many can relate to music. Music has the power to transcend all boundaries and can be used to bring many types of people together.
I like the video! Just a though. The story about Grażyna Bacewicz and the Concert with the soprano feels like a lack of knowledge on how to perform the western classical music as a languange, compared to the Indian classical music where you could actually hear the prosody of the indian language in there music. It exist in western classical music also, but most people dont talk so much in detail about the linguistics in music, unless it's early music.
How very interesting information.
7:57 You state that language can convey meaning in an absolute, guaranteed way. I am not a linguist, but the linguists I read would not agree. The interpretation of music, like language, requires a perspective informed by a degree of cultural orientation in order to determine certain specific details or particular symbols from signs, as you insist. However, I would argue that there are universal standards from which music is derived, as it seems to be in the case with language. Although the motivation behind their origin is up for debate, they seem share a common purpose. Anyone who shares this conclusion might be more apt to relate to the general themes they share in common. While the context may not be exact, the structure can at least be recognized.
I noticed your adorno shirt. I am a fan. Adorno insists in his lectures on aesthetics that all true art shares a common virtue. And if this virtue can be said to permeate every culture due to its expression through the arts, it can be argued that music as an art conveys a universal standard.
The narrative of this upload seems to exploit the strawman argument that the music of any given cultural disposition could be interpreted exactly, independent of an informative experience with its causal apparatus. Obvious bullshit. Noone believes this anymore and your exposure of this archaic idea only signifies pedantic virtue-signalling at its worst.
And it only serves to worsen the divide that you seem to be attempting to bridge.
In my eyes language can only be seen as a precursor to most methodologies that enable dialectic reasoning, a sort of basis if you will, but it is sadly a bit too easily distorted when it comes to really any form of objectivity. In the end language is only really based on our collective experience of reality
new video :D
We do not understand music as a possible language because we no not know the rules that could exist to truly transmit a message. Let's take for example the any known language. For the very beginning children had been teach to understand certain sounds (words) and their meaning. Let´s say "mother". The world mother has a specific sound in English, and learning by listening hundreds of times, that sound meaning is memorise by the brain with the associated meaning. That is a language. By the same token IF we take the sound of several sequence of notes, let´s say "do, mi, do" and teach a child that that sequence is "mother", music certainly could be use as an universal language. For humans having hundreds of languages only impose very big difficulties to understand each other. Using "do, mi, do" will not cause any difficulties to teach and can be used universally. The combinations of sounds and tempos could be used perfectly as a language. The fact that anybody could create music is the proof that the human mind is capable of use music as a universal language, IF, everybody learns the meaning of infinite combinations of sounds. Right now we work as humans using combinations of sounds as a language, so a wise step in the distant future is using music as a universal language.