The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Synths for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Music vs. sound? Virtual Instrument Plugins
Old 8th April 2010
  #481
Lives for gear
 
grumphh's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by monomer View Post
Except that their conclusion was only a premise and they continued for quite some more.
You've just taken that conclusion out of context.
Troll. heh

A conclusion can not be taken out of context. It embodies all the contexts discussed in the essay it is the conclusion of.
Old 8th April 2010
  #482
Lives for gear
 
grumphh's Avatar
 

Nighty night.
Bedtime in the land where the streets are paved with willing blondes and social security cheques - now behave while i get my much deserved rest...
Old 8th April 2010
  #483
Lives for gear
 
Beermaster's Avatar
 

Night Night Grumphy ! x x

Night night Slutz
Old 8th April 2010
  #484
Lives for gear
 
monomer's Avatar
 

Here are some more random goole links:
Language Of Music Really Is Universal, Study Finds
http://eamusic.dartmouth.edu/~larry/music1052008/readings/Patel_2003_Nature_Neuroscience.pdf (interesting one, links music to language through neurobiology!)
The Secret Language of Music
Old 8th April 2010
  #485
Lives for gear
 
monomer's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by grumphh View Post
Troll. heh

A conclusion can not be taken out of context. It embodies all the contexts discussed in the essay it is the conclusion of.
Then why did they put that conclusion so prematurely? (about 1/6th of the way through).

Also note that this is an article from 1992, almost 20 years ago.
Since then we have learend a lot more about how humans process both language and music.

There realy is a neurological basis for calling music a kind of language.
But musicians could have told you this centuries ago.
Old 8th April 2010
  #486
Lives for gear
 
monomer's Avatar
 

Yeah, bedtime...

nightynight all!
Old 8th April 2010
  #487
Lives for gear
 

Very long thread that started interesting (for me). I skipped a few pages as it got kind of repetitive. I could argue with some points , but, here is a bit of music that might interest some in context of noise, melody, timbre etc.:

Old 9th April 2010
  #488
Lives for gear
 
crufty's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by grumphh View Post
]
We must also bear in mind that symbolic representation is not the only means of expression. Music can, by its very form (that is, the abstractions we derive from its form), express abstract or visual concepts, or it may present a visceral, immediate appeal to our senses (our unconscious response). These are not modes of expression that depend upon language, yet few would deny their existence in music.
hmmmm

Can music convey meaning in the same way as language? : Cognitive Daily

"Koelsch et al. conclude that for these examples, at least, music conveys semantic meaning in the same manner as words. While in some cases listeners weren't as accurate at determining when musical primes were related to the target words (compared to linguistic primes), when the meaning was correctly established, it had the same priming effect as language."

Old 9th April 2010
  #489
Lives for gear
 
droolmaster0's Avatar
 

I don't even have to read this. Obviously, you can set up some kind of mapping in which music transmits meaning in the same way as words. But it doesn't in general, and that's what the issue is.

Why am I still posting in this thread to people who don't understand the basic issues? I'm not sure. Too much beer, I guess.

Quote:
Originally Posted by crufty View Post
hmmmm

Can music convey meaning in the same way as language? : Cognitive Daily

"Koelsch et al. conclude that for these examples, at least, music conveys semantic meaning in the same manner as words. While in some cases listeners weren't as accurate at determining when musical primes were related to the target words (compared to linguistic primes), when the meaning was correctly established, it had the same priming effect as language."

Old 9th April 2010
  #490
Lives for gear
 
grumphh's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by crufty View Post
hmmmm

Can music convey meaning in the same way as language? : Cognitive Daily

"Koelsch et al. conclude that for these examples, at least, music conveys semantic meaning in the same manner as words. While in some cases listeners weren't as accurate at determining when musical primes were related to the target words (compared to linguistic primes), when the meaning was correctly established, it had the same priming effect as language."

Quote:
Originally Posted by droolmaster0 View Post
I don't even have to read this. Obviously, you can set up some kind of mapping in which music transmits meaning in the same way as words. But it doesn't in general, and that's what the issue is.

Why am I still posting in this thread to people who don't understand the basic issues? I'm not sure. Too much beer, I guess.
Well, i did read it - after all it is just a boiled down abstract of a study - and yes, the priming is what creates the effect of correlating words to music.

Without verbal priming - no dice...

There are observations of brain activity that apparently correspond to patterns that occur when hearing speech - but i don't see any shred of evidence that those patterns are linked to understanding music as one would a language.
Old 9th April 2010
  #491
Lives for gear
 
grumphh's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by monomer View Post
Then why did they put that conclusion so prematurely? (about 1/6th of the way through).

Also note that this is an article from 1992, almost 20 years ago.
Since then we have learend a lot more about how humans process both language and music.

There realy is a neurological basis for calling music a kind of language.
But musicians could have told you this centuries ago.
You seem to lack some basic skills in reading comprehension.

After establishing that music in itself it not at all a language he describes systems of notation (midi and conventional notes) that indeed have many properties of languages.

But he stresses that the representation is not the represented (the part i marked in red for you previously).

I'll repeat, veeeery slowly:
Notes do represent music but they are not the actual music.
Old 9th April 2010
  #492
Lives for gear
 
monomer's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by droolmaster0 View Post
I don't even have to read this. Obviously, you can set up some kind of mapping in which music transmits meaning in the same way as words. But it doesn't in general, and that's what the issue is.

Why am I still posting in this thread to people who don't understand the basic issues? I'm not sure. Too much beer, I guess.
How would you know if you don't speak the language?
I mean, there are accomplished musicians on this thread telling you that it is a language.
Why can't you accept it for a fact?
Old 9th April 2010
  #493
Lives for gear
 
monomer's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by grumphh View Post
You seem to lack some basic skills in reading comprehension.

After establishing that music in itself it not at all a language he describes systems of notation (midi and conventional notes) that indeed have many properties of languages.

But he stresses that the representation is not the represented (the part i marked in red for you previously).

I'll repeat, veeeery slowly:
Notes do represent music but they are not the actual music.
He also discusses the need for musical education to learn the language of music.

In any case, this is an old paper.
Much more recent studies show that there is actual neurophysical evidence that music is process at least in part through the same pathways as language.
These are not the syntactic parts but the parts that assign meaning to words.

And again, acomplished musicians have been telling you that they see music as a language.
Old 9th April 2010
  #494
Lives for gear
 
grumphh's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by monomer View Post
He also discusses the need for musical education to learn the language of music.
You have gotten that backwards. heh


Quote:
And again, acomplished musicians have been telling you that they see music as a language.
That is because they have not actually studied what languages really are.

To use internet speak: They are doing it wrong.

After all they are musicians, not linguists.

That they don't have the specific knowledge needed to be able to distinguish between communication and language is quite acceptable to me just as i can accept that their knowledge of harmonic theory vastly exceeds mine.

The question is wether they can recognize their lack of knowledge themselves...
Old 9th April 2010
  #495
Lives for gear
 
monomer's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by grumphh View Post
You have gotten that backwards. heh
I agree with you up to some point.
Like the earlier example of a child learnig to speak.

But what you suggest is that education will not add anything to your understanding of a language.
That what a child learns from it's environment is all there is to learn.

A big part of musical training is listening and reproducing, just like learning a natural language.
There is nothing special about that.

Yes, you can learn music by just doing it, and you can get pretty far, but proper education will teach you all the nuances that have been developed over the centuries which are not always obvious.

I don't understand why you are dissing that.
Old 9th April 2010
  #496
Lives for gear
 
grumphh's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by monomer View Post
I agree with you up to some point.
Like the earlier example of a child learnig to speak.

But what you suggest is that education will not add anything to your understanding of a language.
That what a child learns from it's environment is all there is to learn.
Grammar is indeed not necessary to learn a language to perfection.

I speak three languages without knowing the grammar of any of them.

However it can be a tool for those who do not absorb (and thereby learn) languages by hearing them in daily use.
It is also a useful tool for analysis.

Quote:

A big part of musical training is listening and reproducing, just like learning a natural language.
There is nothing special about that.

Yes, you can learn music by just doing it, and you can get pretty far, but proper education will teach you all the nuances that have been developed over the centuries which are not always obvious.

I don't understand why you are dissing that.
Back to the theory discussion again. heh

As for the usefulness of theory in general:
Even the most ardent theory proponents here have admitted that classical training is of little to no use in a jazz context, and presumably vice versa.
But both have many years of formal studies of theory behind them.

Any formal training in music is in the end limited, and can never encompass all musical knowledge. (To believe otherwise is just arrogant...)

You don't get to be a great Shakuhachi player by studying western harmonic concepts.
Neither does western theory help you learning gamelan nor classical indian ragas.

However, being a good musician in general definitely helps you in learning other cultures music.

So i'll repeat myself one last time:
An education in musical theory is necessary for some styles of music and useless for others.
Personally for what i do i have no use for any musical theoretical concepts i have come across.

....

The real world proves that: There are lots of people making music that do neither have a formal theoretic background nor theoretic knowledge.

Of course you could easily dismiss their music as being "primitive" or "lacking" - but in the end a statement like that only reflects the ignorance of the person making that statement and says nothing about the people happily making their music despite the frowns from "those that know better"...
Old 9th April 2010
  #497
Lives for gear
 

Interesting. Opinions.
Music could be seen as language but it is not a language as say English is. Musical piece does not tell you: "could you get me some pepper?"

Music is there to speak to your emotions directly. And bring you to emotional spaces not accessible by other means.

"scientific" research as mentioned in some posts above is trying to reduce music to something else and as such is missing the point entirely.
But you know that intuitively anyway, just trust yourself. Why do you listen to music? Simply because it feels good, or has some effect on your emotions that you need/want. And since we are all different, and different at different times, we like different types of music.

As for the theory and so on, you just learn what you need to create your music.
That is why I posted example of the shakuhachi player above. It is a very sophisticated piece of music. No harmony, no beat as I know it, I cannot discern any "tune" as such and knowledge of western theory would not help you to play it one bit. But I do not think it would be possible to play it without a lot of training and some kind of knowledge. Those pieces are written down in Japanese notation.
Old 9th April 2010
  #498
Lives for gear
 
droolmaster0's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by monomer View Post
How would you know if you don't speak the language?
I mean, there are accomplished musicians on this thread telling you that it is a language.
Why can't you accept it for a fact?
This is unbelievable.
First - how do you know what my skills are or aren't as a musician? You don't.

Secondly, why should I expect 'accomplished musicians' to understand philosophical type arguments? Whether music is or isn't a language is not something that is a musical matter....

Now - whether you are or aren't a troll is quite obvious, and I had forgotten here that I was just going to ignore you.
Old 9th April 2010
  #499
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by faramita View Post


The music starts at about 1:30. This piece was written by Luciano Berio in 1966. During the performance you can see parts of the score over the player's shoulder.
Old 9th April 2010
  #500
Lives for gear
 
crufty's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by faramita View Post
As for the theory and so on, you just learn what you need to create your music.
That is why I posted example of the shakuhachi player above. It is a very sophisticated piece of music. No harmony, no beat as I know it, I cannot discern any "tune" as such and knowledge of western theory would not help you to play it one bit. But I do not think it would be possible to play it without a lot of training and some kind of knowledge. Those pieces are written down in Japanese notation.
I agree completely!

If we can look at knowledge, I think there are several levels:

observation
The first level is knowledge based upon empirical evidence of a person: learning by doing. I hear that, therefore I think this. I like the way this sounds, I shall try again. I don't like the way that sounds, let me go back to this.

taught
The second level is knowledge transferred as a result of empirical evidence: learning from teaching. A short cut from trial and error. here, try this out, I tried it out and it sounded pretty good. There you go! that sounds good too. Hmm, a little different, but i like it. Maybe we can try it again this way. ah, even better then where we started!

unobservable
The third level is knowledge gained as a result of speculation. This is something I can't try out, I speculate it to be true. Say, what do you think about this? Yeah, I know, can't do it now, but it seems right. And if it is right, maybe we can try these things over here that we CAN do.

I say three levels because not to say one level is superior method then another, but rather the society that supports the third level is superior to the second. I am far from an expert on any of this stuff, definitely a first level knowledge kinda guy! But for a field of study to be fully realized in terms of potential, I think it needs those three levels.

I think the language of music is in the third level. The language, by all agreement, is undefined (or doesn't exist)! Yes, we have notes, but that is the language of recording.

Think of words, we put words to paper. this entire trainwreck of a thread, all these words, as soon as we put them down on paper there is meaning--even if its unintentional! Like christianrock calling me a stoner (I'm not offended btw), don't think there was any real malice there. But it came across like he doesn't like me! A person who I've never met, reading my words, has come to the conclusion, perhaps, I don't like him, or have said something offensive, or whatever--no intention on my part.

I just tried an experiment: I put a simple, repeating melody on three tracks, and flipped through orchestral presets. Looking at the notes, there was no meaning. But as soon as I started flipping through the presets, i started associating meaning to the track.

Funny, as I switched through inst presets, the meaning didn't really change.

Could it be that all composition is communicating with us? That as soon as we put words on paper, as soon as we say words, it doesn't matter what we say or write, meaning is expressed? Noun verb noun

horses compose oxygen

immediately, what do you think? Is it any different with music? As soon as we hear more then one sound, if the sounds conform to our innate grammar of music, we associate meaning? That is the point btw of the study I posted: the brain waves for associating meaning are the same for speech and music.
Old 9th April 2010
  #501
Here for the gear
 

I realise this has turned into the mother of all debates, but I'd like an answer to my (admittedly slightly rhetorical) question:

What is the difference between a rising sync sweep on a synth, and a rising flute glissando?

One is a sequence of partials, the other a sequence of individual notes; one is classed as "sound design", the other "musical composition"; but in terms of overall compositional utility and emotional potential, they are two halves of the same coin.
Old 9th April 2010
  #502
Lives for gear
 
steelyfan's Avatar
 

Listening to THE METERS is about all one needs to know about language that communicates. Again, you either get it or you don't.

If you must keep talking about it, sounds like ALOT of language and little communication.heh
Old 9th April 2010
  #503
Lives for gear
 
droolmaster0's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by steelyfan View Post
Listening to THE METERS is about all one needs to know about language that communicates. Again, you either get it or you don't.

If you must keep talking about it, sounds like ALOT of language and little communication.heh
Mostly because people like you absolutely refuse to listen and understand what's being said. If you did, you'd realize that a single example of good music or bad does nothing to illustrate whether music is a language.

At this point, I'm just coming to grips with the fact that most people on this board are really not into linguistic/philosophical issues like this, and simply want to embrace their cliches and ooh and ah emotionally.
Old 9th April 2010
  #504
Lives for gear
 
crufty's Avatar
msg attached
Attached Files

wav.mp3 (919.1 KB, 28 views)

Old 9th April 2010
  #505
Gear Head
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dusk1983 View Post
I realise this has turned into the mother of all debates, but I'd like an answer to my (admittedly slightly rhetorical) question:

What is the difference between a rising sync sweep on a synth, and a rising flute glissando?

One is a sequence of partials, the other a sequence of individual notes; one is classed as "sound design", the other "musical composition"; but in terms of overall compositional utility and emotional potential, they are two halves of the same coin.
First of all, I am NOT entering either the theory, or the even more rancorous "Is music a language" debate, so please hold your fire. One way that I think is a subtle difference between the two has to do with the greater human interaction in the flute example. When other players are involved, you always get their perspective and musical personalities and interpretations, even if all the notes are written down. Sometimes I miss the interaction part if I am spending a lot of time behind a computer designing sounds. Just my perspective. YMMV.

Best,
John
Old 9th April 2010
  #506
Lives for gear
 
steelyfan's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by droolmaster0 View Post
Mostly because people like you absolutely refuse to listen and understand what's being said. If you did, you'd realize that a single example of good music or bad does nothing to illustrate whether music is a language.

At this point, I'm just coming to grips with the fact that most people on this board are really not into linguistic/philosophical issues like this, and simply want to embrace their cliches and ooh and ah emotionally.
Wow, loosen up man.....you're a diamond industry waiting to happen.

THE METERS example was a joke, just to lighten the mood, an example of learnt information from books versus some people's real world experiences.....which seem to be in short supply round these parts.

The fact that you consider my comment serious is kinda disconcerting..

By the way, there's nothing philosophical about these "issues", it's common sense. And the fact that it's still being discussed is an unitelligible
phenomenon.

but..... I'll let you serious people continue your research and get to the bottom of all this, cause it's so important. Good luck!

cheers,
steelyfan
Old 9th April 2010
  #507
Lives for gear
 
Beermaster's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by steelyfan View Post
Wow, loosen up man.....you're a diamond industry waiting to happen.
Drooly is a sensitive type... a clap of thunder would set him off - but we love him all the same !
Old 9th April 2010
  #508
Lives for gear
 
droolmaster0's Avatar
 

Well, I didn't listen to the clip, so I couldn't tell it was a joke. No indicators other than it wasn't funny, I guess.

And no, it isn't common sense, because so many people here have it wrong. Sometimes, if you want to get something right, you just have to think about it. But I agree, that can be a burden at times.



Quote:
Originally Posted by steelyfan View Post
Wow, loosen up man.....you're a diamond industry waiting to happen.

THE METERS example was a joke, just to lighten the mood, an example of learnt information from books versus some people's real world experiences.....which seem to be in short supply round these parts.

The fact that you consider my comment serious is kinda disconcerting..

By the way, there's nothing philosophical about these "issues", it's common sense. And the fact that it's still being discussed is an unitelligible
phenomenon.

but..... I'll let you serious people continue your research and get to the bottom of all this, cause it's so important. Good luck!

cheers,
steelyfan
Old 9th April 2010
  #509
Lives for gear
 
Beermaster's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by droolmaster0 View Post
Mostly because people like you absolutely refuse to listen and understand what's being said. If you did, you'd realize that a single example of good music or bad does nothing to illustrate whether music is a language.

At this point, I'm just coming to grips with the fact that most people on this board are really not into linguistic/philosophical issues like this, and simply want to embrace their cliches and ooh and ah emotionally.
Did you every consider, for a second that perhaps... just perhaps..... you might not be the center of the universe ?

I dare not spout the phrase 'Elitist' because one shouldn't make fun of people under medication. . . ." Nurse Grenader - do we have any Miltons ?"
Old 9th April 2010
  #510
Lives for gear
 
grumphh's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by steelyfan View Post

By the way, there's nothing philosophical about these "issues", it's common sense.
Of course you can just look at the world and explain everything you see with the lowest common denominator - "common sense" - but that view comes at the expense of discovering new stuff.

Communication is a very important aspect of our lives, so it is not surprising that some people have started thinking about it and tried to find out how it works.
Communication studies.

Amongst other things they have created some fairly solid theories on why a language works as it does and what actually constitutes a language and more importantly, what not.

Now, you can of course choose to remain ignorant about communication theory (as i choose to be with music theory), after all no man can know everything and knowledge of communication forms certainly is not important for musicians, but you should not dismiss the fact that there are people who know more about this than you do.

To make a simple analogy (yet again):
If i claimed that the note c# does not belong in the circle of fifths because i never use it and it is a boring note anyway - common sense, right? - you would know that i haven't got the faintest clue what the circle of fifths is, right?

It is the same as you claiming that music is a language.
You simply show that you have not studied communication to those that have.

The main difference between us at this point is recognizing the lack of knowledge we have.
I know that i don't know music theory but you do not seem to know that you don't know communication theory.

Explaining phenomena with "common sense" is for the intellectually lazy.
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
lovecapacitor / Electronic Music Instruments and Electronic Music Production
2
hey_mavis / So much gear, so little time
21
navitus / Music For Games
1

Forum Jump
Forum Jump