Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!apple!sun-barr!newstop!sun!bartok.Eng.Sun.COM!bradr
From: bradr@bartok.Eng.Sun.COM (Brad Rubenstein)
Newsgroups: comp.music
Subject: Re: Semantics of Music?
Message-ID: <136794@sun.Eng.Sun.COM>
Date: 6 Jun 90 23:59:44 GMT
References: <2370@aipna.ed.ac.uk> <16576@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> <856@artsnet.UUCP>
Sender: news@sun.Eng.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
Lines: 26

In article <856@artsnet.UUCP> mgresham@artsnet.UUCP (Mark Gresham) writes:
>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.)

This is not unique to music.  A Japanese speech synthesis program of
marginal quality "utters" a series of sounds that japanese speaker
understands as (roughly) "you are very welcome, honorable sir", but
which an english speaker understands as "dont'cha touch your
moustache".  [ the sounds are roughly /doo-i-tashi-mashite/ ] The
sounds invoke a "serious" response in the japanese speaker, and a
"comic" (or perhaps "confused") response in the english speaker.

Together, these demonstrate that the meanings assigned to sound (or the
referents of sound-as-sign) are culture-specific.  I don't take this to
be a revelation.  :-)

Brad

--
---Brad Rubenstein-----Sun Microsystems Inc.-----bradr@sun.com---