Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!usc!samsung!emory!emcard!gatech!artsnet!mgresham
From: mgresham@artsnet.UUCP (Mark Gresham)
Newsgroups: comp.music
Subject: Re: Semantics of Music?
Message-ID: <856@artsnet.UUCP>
Date: 5 Jun 90 11:45:37 GMT
References: <2370@aipna.ed.ac.uk> <16576@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>
Reply-To: mgresham@artsnet.UUCP (Mark Gresham)
Organization: ARTSNET  Atlanta, GA  USA
Lines: 35

In article <16576@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> eliot@winnie.Princeton.Edu (eliot handelman) writes:
>In article <2370@aipna.ed.ac.uk> geraint@aipna.ed.ac.uk (Geraint Wiggins) writes:
>>Maybe I've
>>been missing out on the discussion, but I only saw a claim, not an example or
>>counter example. 
>
>Fine. I'm unaware of semantics in Pithoprakta. Happy now?

A different kind of counter-example:
Notice the tune with which Americans associate
the text "My Country, 'Tis of Thee" and British
associate "God Save the Queen."  Different responses
for each when the tune is heard without text.
That's an oversimplified example, and doesn't account for
a person who hears the tune for the first time without
ever hearing the words.   However,...

Another example is a very, very serious traditional
Japanese court music (with a name I cannot pronounce)
which is some of the *most* serious music in the world by
*intention*.  However, the response of most Westerners on
first hearing (without prior lecture) is to laugh.
If there is a semantic "seriousness" in the music itself,
why doesn't it communicate?  (If music is a universal "language,"
which I contend it is not.  It is not a "language" of any kind.)

Cheers,

--Mark

========================================
Mark Gresham  ARTSNET  Norcross, GA, USA
E-mail:       ...gatech!artsnet!mgresham
or:          artsnet!mgresham@gatech.edu
========================================