You would enjoy Godel-Escher-Bach... at least the Bach parts (and probably the others, but the Bach parts relate most to this topic). Coincidentally, the chapter I just read the other day had to do with implicit meaning and message types. It explored the idea through music, specifically the hypothetical situation of a record containing one of Bach's symphonies being sent into space and being interpreted by an alien intelligence. It was only tangentially related, but it discussed how - if the alien intelligence were able to make the record play the symphony - the meaning might not come out because the music might not cause the same emotional effect upon an alien intelligence that it does on a human intelligence.
I've thought a good bit about why we do what we do (writing songs, poems, painting, drawing, making music). I had an interview with my pastor for a reference letter he was writing for me. We talked a lot about our band (he wants to come to the show, but he's busy that weekend). We were discussing it in the context of what I want to "do with my life." The conversation reached (or, at least, I reached) the conclusion that the purpose behind those art mediums - on poems meant to be read and songs meant to be heard - is communication. Music has the power to create not only emotional but also physiological changes in the listener (never gotten goosebumps listening to a song?) And, I think, that humanity - at least our culture - is "programmed" to respond to certain progressions of chords in certain ways.
Not, of course, that simply playing the chords would be enough. Godel-Escher-Bach talked about this too, music must be understood in the context of time (listened to sequentially) to produce its effect. And, not only that, but it's difficult if not impossible to associate "this chord" with "this emotional response"... rather, it's the cavalcade of music acting together to produce the effect.
All that is to say, I think that theory should be secondary to the music - which is to say, secondary to the communication.
I agree with Micah in that music (and, indeed, all art mediums) is utilized to communicate something to someone, but I believe that theory has a more integral part in that communication.
I think a good way to understand the position that theory holds in music is to examine another form of art and communication that is often considered to solely be embodied in the latter, and rarely in the former: language.
Language is indeed a form of communication. I don't think any one could actually physically tell me that language is not used for communication and not appear ridiculous. But language is also a form of art. It's difficult to say that poetry and literature are not a form of art that a person can appreciate, both of which are completely embodied in language.
To parallel language and music, theory is to music as grammar is to language. While some may discredit the study of language as rather futile, one glance at the state of communication on the internet does not give one comfort in people's ability to artfully use their own tongue. The situation is simple: actual communication of language without the understanding of what makes up English is impossible. People believe that grammar is unimportant, but they must utilize even a rudimentary knowledge of grammar to say, "lol u r soo dumb to leern gramer!1!" Knowledge of the tools to use language are necessary to utilize language.
The same applies to music. Without an understanding of musical theory (the grammar of music), communication through music become cumbersome. You can make something sound good, but you don't understand why it sounds good, and you have no way of knowing whether it can be done again. The entire process become a trial and error until the musician accidentally stumbles upon something that "sounds good". A complete lack of "music theory" would result in simple silence.
So my *sort of* answer is that there should be no hierarchy in music. Without theory, musical communication becomes futile. But without real musical communication, theoretical expertise become pointless.
These are good thoughts Johnathan, but I have to disagree (perhaps only partially) on at least some points.
I am by no means discounting the value of theory - in language or in music. But I see theory as being secondary to the actual effectiveness of the communication. That is to say, it is more important that you communicate your meaning effectively than that you communicate it grammatically. Now, as far as language goes, it is expected that effective communication will be grammatical communication because the rules of grammar were created based upon communication which was commonly effective in communicating its meaning.
Effective communication preexisted the rules of grammar which attempt to describe it.
At the same time, I think that the rules of grammar are only approximations, and not to be followed so strictly that the goal - their goal - of effective communication is damaged. I think there are times when grammar should be ignored for the sake of communication. This is very often the case in poetry and dialog which emulates actual human speech. Naturally, theory can't be abandoned altogether or the result would be nonsense - but that is because the goal is communication, and grammar outlines the... averages of communication.
A Year Of Questions is a project begun on March 22, 2010, by seven teens who want to be better at asking questions and articulating answers. This blog exists to make it easier to discuss these questions (because a 500 character limit on YouTube comments is rather limiting). Enjoy!
3 comments:
You would enjoy Godel-Escher-Bach... at least the Bach parts (and probably the others, but the Bach parts relate most to this topic). Coincidentally, the chapter I just read the other day had to do with implicit meaning and message types. It explored the idea through music, specifically the hypothetical situation of a record containing one of Bach's symphonies being sent into space and being interpreted by an alien intelligence. It was only tangentially related, but it discussed how - if the alien intelligence were able to make the record play the symphony - the meaning might not come out because the music might not cause the same emotional effect upon an alien intelligence that it does on a human intelligence.
I've thought a good bit about why we do what we do (writing songs, poems, painting, drawing, making music). I had an interview with my pastor for a reference letter he was writing for me. We talked a lot about our band (he wants to come to the show, but he's busy that weekend). We were discussing it in the context of what I want to "do with my life." The conversation reached (or, at least, I reached) the conclusion that the purpose behind those art mediums - on poems meant to be read and songs meant to be heard - is communication. Music has the power to create not only emotional but also physiological changes in the listener (never gotten goosebumps listening to a song?) And, I think, that humanity - at least our culture - is "programmed" to respond to certain progressions of chords in certain ways.
Not, of course, that simply playing the chords would be enough. Godel-Escher-Bach talked about this too, music must be understood in the context of time (listened to sequentially) to produce its effect. And, not only that, but it's difficult if not impossible to associate "this chord" with "this emotional response"... rather, it's the cavalcade of music acting together to produce the effect.
All that is to say, I think that theory should be secondary to the music - which is to say, secondary to the communication.
Hmmm... very interesting.
I agree with Micah in that music (and, indeed, all art mediums) is utilized to communicate something to someone, but I believe that theory has a more integral part in that communication.
I think a good way to understand the position that theory holds in music is to examine another form of art and communication that is often considered to solely be embodied in the latter, and rarely in the former: language.
Language is indeed a form of communication. I don't think any one could actually physically tell me that language is not used for communication and not appear ridiculous.
But language is also a form of art. It's difficult to say that poetry and literature are not a form of art that a person can appreciate, both of which are completely embodied in language.
To parallel language and music, theory is to music as grammar is to language.
While some may discredit the study of language as rather futile, one glance at the state of communication on the internet does not give one comfort in people's ability to artfully use their own tongue.
The situation is simple: actual communication of language without the understanding of what makes up English is impossible. People believe that grammar is unimportant, but they must utilize even a rudimentary knowledge of grammar to say, "lol u r soo dumb to leern gramer!1!"
Knowledge of the tools to use language are necessary to utilize language.
The same applies to music. Without an understanding of musical theory (the grammar of music), communication through music become cumbersome. You can make something sound good, but you don't understand why it sounds good, and you have no way of knowing whether it can be done again. The entire process become a trial and error until the musician accidentally stumbles upon something that "sounds good". A complete lack of "music theory" would result in simple silence.
So my *sort of* answer is that there should be no hierarchy in music. Without theory, musical communication becomes futile. But without real musical communication, theoretical expertise become pointless.
In LD terms, my view is a Balanced Negative. ;)
These are good thoughts Johnathan, but I have to disagree (perhaps only partially) on at least some points.
I am by no means discounting the value of theory - in language or in music. But I see theory as being secondary to the actual effectiveness of the communication. That is to say, it is more important that you communicate your meaning effectively than that you communicate it grammatically. Now, as far as language goes, it is expected that effective communication will be grammatical communication because the rules of grammar were created based upon communication which was commonly effective in communicating its meaning.
Effective communication preexisted the rules of grammar which attempt to describe it.
At the same time, I think that the rules of grammar are only approximations, and not to be followed so strictly that the goal - their goal - of effective communication is damaged. I think there are times when grammar should be ignored for the sake of communication. This is very often the case in poetry and dialog which emulates actual human speech. Naturally, theory can't be abandoned altogether or the result would be nonsense - but that is because the goal is communication, and grammar outlines the... averages of communication.
Post a Comment