HemeolaMan -> RE: Thoughts? (Nov. 29 2009 15:20:59)
|
As a scholar of music, I must emphasize how hard it is to write about why music "does" or "evokes" anything. I think the more pertinent point is to ask why people associate things with music. For that matter, try to explain why people try to explain music... A quest for context? Much like literary criticism, as seen best with J.D. Salinger, I find that so much extramusical association is simply self serving. The point is, if it is in the music, its in the music. If it is not in the music it is not in the music. No solea or bulerias falseta has any intrinsic meaning without an association with a human being, whether that human is playing or listening. Now, the real question is, if a falseta is composed in total serialism (serial rows of both notes and rhythms) by a computer and played back in total isolation with no human involvement, does it still carry meaning? No, of course not. Why does that differ than any other music? It doesn't. Music derives meaning from the listener's context. If that were not true, then everyone who heard a piece of music, regardless of context, would think feel or understand it in the same way. Thus, Music is not a universal language, nor does it carry intrinsic meaning. quote:
"It is frequently asserted that "music is a universal [or international] language," a "meta-language" that expresses universal human emotions and transcends the barriers of language and culture. The problems with this analogy are many. First, music is not a language, at least not in the sense of conveying specific meanings through specific symbols, in standard patterns analogous to syntax, and governed by rules of structure analogous to grammar. While attempts have been made to analyze music in linguistic terms, these ultimately fail because music is of a totally different realm than language. Second, it is questionable whether music really can transcend linguistic barriers and culturally determined behaviors, through some form of emotional communication so fundamentally human that all respond in the same way. What we have seen does not support this idea, unfortunately, and we do not believe such a concept to be useful in examining the world's musics." Miller and Shahriari, The Center for Study of World Musics, Kent State University. I also think, and i am not alone, that Rhythm must have some bio/physiological significance to most people as evidenced by basic human cycles (circadian rhythms etc). I don't know if that includes rhythm in music, or simply biologically programmed and naturally regulated rates of decomposition etc. But, It's far more relevant to examine the cultural impact of rhythmic importance. Some cultures are rhythm oriented, some are not. For example, most west European "common practice" music is indeed, rhythmically uneventful. However, it is arguably one of the most Harmonically complex and melodically varied. Indian music has a cyclic rhythm structure and various raga's (think of them as modes and motivic patterns) for melodic exploration. One could argue that it is harmonically rich, but I would attribute that to trans-cultural proliferation that is more recent than the "traditional" music we are referencing. Still more confusing, Javanese and Balinese gamelan music. These are intensely polyrhythmic and intensely harmonic. The harmonies, however, are individual melodies. So, Where is the most emphasis? Hard to say. What i can say is that anyone born in an african tribe that participates in cultural drumming is going to be far more rhythmically aware than someone who does little else but listen to Enya. So where does that leave us? is rhythm in fact a nature and non nurture thing? I heartily disagree. I am certain that most of my life I have had a disparity between my rhythmic execution and my ability to understand rhythm. My mental understanding has always been far more accurate and complex than my ability to physically execute. But, to you I may have seemed rhythmically unsophisticated, but I may in fact be composing incredibly sophisticated poly rhythms with lush harmonies in my head. Of course, these days I am far better and far more stable in my rhythmic execution because I practice and am now interested in music where part of the culture is RHYTHM!!! quote:
"A semiotic view of music asserts that the musical sound itself is a "neutral" symbol that has no inherent meaning. Music is thus thought of as a 'text' or 'trace' that has to be interpreted. In a process called the poeietic, the creator of the music encodes meanings and emotions into the "neutral" composition or performance, which is then interpreted by anyone listening to the music, a process called the esthesic. Each individual listener's interpretation is entirely the result of cultural conditioning and life experience. Obviously, then, when the creator and listener are from completely different backgrounds, miscommunication is almost inevitable. When, for example, an Indian musician performs what is called a raga, he or she is aware of certain emotional feelings or meaning associated with that raga. An audience of Europeans with little knowledge of Indian music or culture must necessarily interpret the music according to their own experience and by the norms of their society's music. They are unlikely to hear things as an Indian audience would, being unaware of culturally determined associations between, say, specific ragas and particular times of the day. Such miscommunication inevitably contributes to the problem of ethnocentrism: the assumption that one's own cultural patterns are normative and that those that differ are 'strange,' 'exotic,' or 'abnormal." Terry E. Miller & Andrew Shahriari "World Music, A Global Journey" Routledge, New York, NY 2006
|
|
|
|