Thoughts on Music as Language

From http://music.arts.uci.edu/dobrian/CD.music.lang.htm#as

Music expresses, at different moments, serenity or exuberance, regret or triumph, fury or delight. It expresses each of these moods, and many others, in a numberless variety of subtle shadings and differences. It may even express a state of meaning for which there exists no adequate word in any language. In that case, musicians often like to say that it has only a purely musical meaning. They sometimes go farther and say that all music has only a purely musical meaning. What they really mean is that no appropriate word can be found to express the music's meaning and that, even if it could, they do not feel the need of finding it.

My own belief is that all music has an expressive power, some more and some less, but that all music has a certain meaning behind the notes and that that meaning behind the notes constitutes, after all, what the piece is saying, what the piece is about. This whole problem can be stated quite simply by asking, "Is there a meaning to music?" My answer to that would be, "Yes." And "Can you state in so many words what the meaning is?" My answer to that would be, "No." Therein lies the difficulty.

From Garry L. Hagberg, Review of Themes in the Philosophy of Music by Stephen Davies:
(Also posted by DKJ on Daily Phlog)

The fact that music is not a semantic system the coherence of which is ordered by syntactic rules should not blind us to the fact that there is such a thing as melodic coherence as an (perhaps rough, but potentially nevertheless illuminating) analogy to the much-discussed unity of the proposition. There are antecedent-consequent melodic structures that function, in thematic terms, dialogically. There are analogues to syntactic rules that function as coherence-preservers -- and this itself would be wide ranging, from diatonic harmony to serial ordering. There are thematic analogies to Wittgensteinian language-games, where a given move is made possible by prior ordered moves within the circumscribed limits of the game. There are structural analogues in composition to metaphorical restatement in language beyond Goodmanian issues of exemplification. There are deep analogies between our ways of speaking about aspects or parts of language that directly mirror our ways of speaking about music (shown in Davies' own insightful discussion of transcriptions, where he rightly concludes that transcriptions are of independent value in their own right even where we have the original to hand precisely because the transcription functions as a commentary on the original.) There are countless intricate ways -- far more intricate, and I think far more interesting than the rather blunt semantic-syntactic point -- where the analogy between the arts and language misleads (and has historically misled) aesthetic theory. And there are very many more such avenues for explanation that are prematurely closed by the semantic-syntactic point. (And of course that point itself is not as bluntly factual as it may seem -- music, as no one would dispute, can and has often been representational, also in numerous ways, so the link between mimetic content and semantic function deserves at the very least mid-length shrift.) Moreover, the characterization of language upon which the semantic-syntactic point is based is itself highly reductive and oversimplified: language does countless things, and again it would be a considerable pleasure to see a thinker of Davies' gifts treat these matters fully. Writing of the problem of musical ontology, Davies says: "The totality of musical works from culture to culture and from time to time do not have any single ontological character. Some musical works are thick with properties, others are thinner -- some works include the performance means as part of their essential nature, and much more besides, whereas others are more or less pure sound structures" (p. 77). Should we expect the primary "home" of meaning -- language -- to be any less diversified?

Abby’s Question - How does music shape our perception of the world?

This is a response to Abby’s Question - How does music shape our perception of the world?

Now that I have reflected on Abby’s question, I have to say that I use the sentient being-produced music I hear in the world to accrue information about the music maker and others of their kind producing similar music.

How non-human sentient beings' music shapes my perception of the world:

I listen for the message of the music maker in their sound. I invariably find myself smiling (at least inwardly) when listening to the music of birds and frogs as they lustily belt oust their songs. I am intrigued by their music making capacities. I wonder how much, if any of their music making springs from some form of cognitive intent.

Are they cognitively aware on some level, of using music as a tool to produce some desirable outcome born out of a need for companionship or communion with others of their kind? Alternatively, is music making for non-human sentient beings strictly biologically driven; created and received absent of any psychological, emotional, or cognitive weavings? Dare we judge dogs, cats, horses, dolphins, elephants, pigs, parrots, and other non-human sentient beings as completely incapable of cognition? Would it then follow that cogitating animals are capable of intentionally producing music to communicate desires, and that they intentionally employ music as a tool to fulfill desire?

How human-created music shapes my perception of the world:

I believe the music produced by any culture has the capacity to encapsulate the iconic nature of the creating culture in one of humankind’s two most powerful forms. A culture’s art (visual and literary) and music (which is, of course, a sound form of art) generates insight into the heart, mind, and soul of their creators’ culture. When I traveled, I always brought home musical instruments made, and used by, the native peoples for my children. It was not a cognitive decision on my part to purchase these items. It was an intuitive awareness of the roles musical instruments hold in cultural heritage.

Music of America – it informs my perception categorically. Some “music” I choose not to relate to, as I perceive no art in it. For me, music that has been intentionally created for the purpose of accruing money falls into this category.
Some music is too culturally unperceivable for me to substantively relate to, especially when the lyrics are in a language not found in my historical dictionary. Music using rhythm and/or instruments historically absent from my prior experience leaves me significantly deprived of opportunity for meaningful perception without great effort on my part – which I may choose not to attempt.
Music that I can sufficiently relate to informs me of the music maker and composer and thus, expands my perception of the world. Music that I cannot relate to sufficiently informs me of my areas of perceptual weaknesses.

How music generated from non-sentient forms shapes my perception of the world:

Music generated from non-sentient forms, like rushing waters, blowing wind, rain falling on reflecting surfaces, and rustling leaves informs my perception of my surroundings. Often, this awareness of my surroundings leads me inward, to briefly perceive my internal world.

MY QUESTIONS:
Do you think non-human animals, who are capable of cognition, can also be
capable of intentionally producing music to communicate desires? Do you think they might intentionally employ music as a tool to fulfill desire?

Do you think the causality of our relationship with music is biological/physiological evolution, historical/cultural, spiritual/creative, innately creative, or other?

Do you think non-sentient forms create music?

Does Music Need Its Own Category?

I find interesting that we animate music-making, music-listening, music-appreciating beings relationally consider and speak of music. We speak of its impact on us, how it makes us feel, and our relationship with it. We discuss music as often in terms of its agency as we do in terms of its instrumentality. In class, and it classmates' blogs we acknowledge the significance and necessary role of music in a human life. Some have asked could we live without music? Is life without music imaginable?

Davies’ position about why and how we respond emotionally to music, the value of such responses, and why we choose to listen to music that elicits ‘negative’ responses from us has to do with emotional ‘appearance’.” He states that we are the ones descriptively attributing emotions to music by creating a counterfeit physiognomic profile for music. Davies believes music’s patterns of dynamic movement present the appearance of emotions “without being external indicators of inner perturbations” that music does not and cannot emote (180-185).
Music has the capacity to engage us with varying intensity and on multiple levels, emotionally, physically, and energetically. Davies said, “Music is the focus of attention and perceptual object of the (emotional) response”. He credits Matravers with the claim that “our response to music is a feeling, not an emotion, because it lacks the cognitive contents characteristic of emotions - the response is not an object-directed, cognitively founded emotion. Music can arouse only rather general feelings…and is capable of expressing only a limited range of emotions” (188).

Davies believes that we have anthropomorphized music because it moves in ways that fit the emotionally descriptive terminology we use for human action-description. I think he does not give us or the vibrational relationship that music creates with us sufficient credit.

MY QUESTIONS:
1. Bird songs can elicit emotional responses from other conspecific and interspecific birds (within their own specie and between other bird species).
Can Davies theory of ‘appearance’ is applied to birds’ emotional responses to other birds’ songs? If not, how does this affect Davies’ theory?

2. Davies states, “any theory of musical expressiveness must acknowledge and respect the phenomenological vivacity and particularity” of manner with which emotion is expressed by music (175). In this statement Davies gives agency to music as the expressor of music. Is he conferring animate-like status to music?
Should music be classified in a unique category since it has characteristics of both animate and inanimate essences?

Musical Instruments and Moral Patient Status

I find it interesting that audiences comprised of non-professional musicians generally view musical instruments as deserving the same respect and potential beingness as professional musicians. I agree with Davies that this perception is more than the awareness of the monetary, historical, or artistic value of the instruments. Davies supplies us with the historical and ethical aspects involving human relationships with musical instruments. I wonder if there is also a neurobiological component contributing to the ability of people to meld with musical instruments. Levitin found that hearing a piece of music activates the same parts of a listener's brain as it does in the brain of a musician playing the piece. In a study funded by the National Institutes of Health, a functional MRI was used to examine the effect of experience with a type of music on listeners' neural responses to the music. (Margulis et al. 2007. "Selective Neurophysiologic Responses to Music in Instrumentalists with Different Listening Biographies.") This study found that practice, training and experience develop a musician's ear and abilities. When violinists listened to the violin and flutists listened to the flute, they engaged many more areas of the brain related to sense of self, motor control and suppression of unwanted movements. They found “auditory self-relevance and expertise was a mechanism of perceptual-neural plasticity, and implicate neural tuning that includes and extends beyond acoustic and communication-relevant structures”. I believe this is neurophysiological evidence supporting the anecdotal evidence Davies presented that musicians’ have dissolved at least some of the boundaries between themselves and their instruments. However, I do not think this study can be extrapolated to include non-musicians.
I think the nature of our musical aesthetic includes social and ethical constructs born from neurophysiological responses to the vibrations of the sounds produced from all instruments, and includes all music producing beings.

My Question
Davies claims that “Musical instruments retain an autonomy and independence of the musicians who use them,” and that “the instrument extends the musician’s body and inner life.” Given that instruments possess an inherent pattern facilitating active partnership in the co-creation of music, should their creative potential be sufficient to ensure their freedom from abuse? Do musical instruments qualify for moral patient status?

Comment on Keane's Comment

I can understand Cage's willingness to roll dice. I do the same thing some times with something I'm passionate about - animals. From a lifetime of observing animals, I can often predict what their response will be under certain circumstances. These days I often find myself pushing a boundary with animals - moving from unobtrusive observer to inserting a minute element of myself into the environment equation, and watching for their response. I feel I'm growing in understanding wildlife, I'm proactively learning and when they stay - it is exhilarating; when they depart it is humbling. But I found another boundary and it was a learning experience. Not knowing the outcome of playing with some thing you love creates great excitement and I believe, keeps the intensity in one's passion.