Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!samsung!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!uflorida!mephisto!gatech!artsnet!mgresham
From: mgresham@artsnet.UUCP (Mark Gresham)
Newsgroups: comp.music
Subject: Re: Semantics of Music?
Message-ID: <884@artsnet.UUCP>
Date: 2 Jul 90 17:45:30 GMT
References: <2370@aipna.ed.ac.uk> <2394@aipna.ed.ac.uk>
Reply-To: mgresham@artsnet.UUCP (Mark Gresham)
Organization: ARTSNET  Atlanta, GA  USA
Lines: 88

In article <2394@aipna.ed.ac.uk> geraint@aipna.ed.ac.uk (Geraint Wiggins) writes:
>Yes of course it is. But the point is that there exist some low level atoms,

I have strong doubts about that.

>regardless of what you call 'em, from which some higher level stuff MIGHT be
>composed. That's all I'm saying.  And your point about finding the right words
>is indeed correct.

Nor do I think the "right words" to parallel a a statement in a
"music language" worsk either, as music is not a language (where
with the "correct" interpretation or knowledge of the language,
you understand what's being "said", emotionally or otherwise.)

>The point of my example of keys is that certain keys give certain very lowlevel
>sensations, which are perceived on some subliminal level. I'd be interested on
>other netters views on this - I'm VERY surprised to hear you claim that these
>associations are arbitrary. David Burge, for example, claims that these "tone
>colours" run down to the individual note level, and are what give rise to
>absolute pitch. Having followed part of his pitch training course, I'm inclined
>to agree.

But lots of different kinds of metaphors are handy tools for
learning things like 'perfect pitch.'  That doesn't mean there's a
"colour-ness" to particular frequency/pitch.  (And how is it
affected by timbre, BTW?)  I sang in a choir for several years
in which the warmups began by the entire ensemble singing an
A-natural without being given a pitch.  They practiced it weekly,
and frankly were able to do it and have a decent unison at the
same time.  No "tone colours" or hints of such a concept, it was a
slow development of a particular 'long-term' memory (like
remembering the face of a relative).  Perfect pitch, I believe, is
a particular kind of identification in long-term memory.  One
person I knew with perfect pitch could only identify pitches
correctly when played on the piano, but never on other
instruments.  Another has perfect pitch, but can only identify the
pitch 'on top' and identifys pitches as either naturals or sharps
as she never learned what was meant by 'flat.'  Another who was
unable to say which of two pitches was higher or lower, but has an
incredible sensitivity to timbre and the 'beating' of two pitches
against each other.  Yet another who had 'perfect pitch' but was
unable to listen to the classical music of India or non-tempered
Western instruments without becoming extremely annoyed.

I think Burges' "tone-colours" is a 'halfway house' or a system to
learning 'perfect pitch' that works, but I don't believe that the
"tone-colours" are an intrensic part of the 'nature' of the pitches.

>Aside from that, I have always been taught that the IS such a
>widespread perception, and have used it (with, as far as I know, the desired
>results) in my own compositions.

That and a few other things are still (erroneously, I think)
taught, in spite of the fact that it the notion
was theoretically evacuated long ago.  Sometimes, educators take a
long while to catch up.

>So what do people think on this one?
>
>> At which measure does the smell start? [...]
>
>Again, yes of course I am. I'm talking about my (subconscious) interpretation
>of the piece (= assignment of semantics?). It is still not clear to me that if
>I can assign soemthing like that, other people can't and, if they can that the
>two are necessarily different or unreconcilable.

Again, I don't consider 'having semantic value' and 'assignment'
are the same thing.  Surely you can assign association, as you can
assign associations to the image of a sunset or the smell of a hamburger
cooking, but does that make either of those a 'language'?  No.
Nor does it mean that others will make the same assignment as you
to either of those, though many may make *similar* ones or (and more
accurately) assign similar verbal descriptions to them.

>Incidentally, nobody said anything about a FORMAL language.

No one's distingushed the two yet in this discussion, but I would
still say music is NOT a language, formal or informal.

Cheers,

--Mark

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