Go here:
The Two Sides of Music
In my constant search for info on classical improvisation, i stumbled upon it, and while the bias is blatant, it actually makes it easier to pick out the valuable information. Near the end, the author harps on the the idea of how overintellectualizing improvisation can make it mechanical (agreed) when people try to "force rigid European standards of analysis on a form of music that was created without a written "language"".
What is a written language, if not a visual representation of the sounds we produce to communicate. We learn to listen to and speak language long before we write it down, just as we hear music, hum along, sing with mommy Long before we learn the names for intervals, note names and whatnot. The author is implying that the method by which one attempts to explain what they are hearing/playing puts limitations on the ability for this creation (thus he dooms the world of university jazz). As much as I have trouble arguing that university jazz is a self righteous inflation of lowered inhibitions in a forward thinking musical environment, I feel we must remind ourselves that the the language comes afterwards.
I will sit in theory class, and when I learn something new, it is not that I say "oh, now that I have seen on paper this arrangement of intervals... I can introduce that sound to my ear"... Rather, I am finally able to name a sound that has been known to me for some while. Likewise, when I am taught about different spellings of a 4-note chord of Major-minor-minor third structure either as V7 of a key, or as the French Augmented Sixth chord of another, It teaches me to hear that chord in a different way, It explains to me why it sounds correct to my ear to resolve it either way.
Bascially, when I sit at the keyboard and improvise, I do not think first about the form and key of what I will play. My fingers are following the instructions of my ear, which granted is infulenced by my knowledge of such things, but certainly is not limited
The author calls 'playing by ear' a right-brain activity. Are we really to believe that simply because someone might not be referring to musical ideas and gestures by their names, that they are not understood by their musical function? or is it possible that the addition of names to this theoretical understanding actually inhibits the brain by bringing in the other side of the brain? I really do want to hear some feedback on this, I realize now that im partially arguing against my bias against solfege, so ya, let me know what you all think.
3 comments:
Well, I read the article and thought it was rather interesting. I would think that every individual would hear the music differently, including, as the article explains, the composer and the audience. Perhaps it is that any person may be taught musical thoery and learn to distinguish what is happenning musically, but only few are born with the gift of being able to write music themselves. I'm thinking that learning musical throey is much like learning english grammar- it helps to understand why we speak the way we do, but as you explained Mork, it is not necessary in order to speak. I really like the idea of music being a language all on its own- something maybe you musically inclined people have known all along. Anyhoo! Time to go bust a move in the shower
thank you anonymous reader, thank you for your input! You write very eloquently, have you ever thought of working on a thesis?
Anyway, Im glad you picked up on the music as a language thing, it certainly is a strong undercurrent in the world of music theory, and the learning of harmony and counterpoint in music is the same as that of syntax and grammar in language. I sort of agree with your statement that you don't need to write in order to speak... but I wonder if our manner of speaking would be as eloquent or complex if there was not the kind of permanance in the language that comes in the written form. Generally, the way books are written or papers are written is more complicated than spoken language.
My question is, does anyone agree that such a permanance elevates the level of a language?
This also brings up the issue of the performance of music being so intangeable because it exists only in the moment, versus the other arts which are slightly more permanant...
My theory, regarding the complexity of written versus spoken language, is that the written tends to be not necessarily more complicated - at least not in a content sense - but more accurate and thorough.
If you and I are sitting across a table I am forced to improvise. I compose as I am speaking and in an attempt to communicate my idea, I may compose in a "get it done" fashion. The advantage to this situation is that if you didn't understand what I meant, I am still sitting there and can clarify or otherwise help you to understand.
If I am writing a paper or a letter, that writing is my only shot at having the reader understand what I mean so I take more time and put more thought into the construction of the writing. I chose more specific words that more accurately describe exactly what it is that I am thinking of, so as to eliminate as much chance of misunderstanding as possible.
I don't know how or if this applies to your thoughts on musical improvisation, but that's my thought on the written versus spoken language idea...
Post a Comment