Is music a language?

[Euan Mackinnon]

There are many definitions of what a language is.

For the purposes of this posting I would like to define a language as 'a system that allows order to be placed on stimuli' where ‘order’ means 'information that is or could be communicated to other humans'.

Given this definition is music a language? And if so what is the nature of the information that is communicated?

[Peter]

Well under that narrow definition it wouldn't qualify, except in a very limited sense. However music is the greatest language of the emotions and spirituality - it communicates often what cannot be said in words and transcends national barriers by the nature of its universality.

[Enrique]

I take it the stimuli would be the sounds reaching my ear when somebody is speaking. And my brain is able to put an order on those sounds. This in the case of a language whose vehicle is sound. I think the answer is yes. What I see is that music, like the natural languages, has to do with logic. In some way it must obey certain rules, which I think are logic rules. It can communicate emotions but, these emotions in part come from a purely intelectual satisfaction. Yes, no doubt. It is the same kind of satisfaction experimented when understanding a mathematical proof. I think it is becouse of the inner logic in its music that the classical period is so appealing.

[Euan Mackinnon]

Peter, Enrique

Thank you for your replies.

You both refer to music conveying emotions (Peter - music is the greatest language of the emotions and spirituality; Enrique – [Music] can communicate emotions but, these emotions in part come from a purely intelectual satisfaction) and of course I entirely agree with this.

But my definition of a language was 'a system that allows order to be placed on stimuli' where ‘order’ means 'information that is or could be communicated to other humans' and it is the second part of this definition that I feel is a ‘problem’ where music is concerned. Can the emotions conveyed by music to person A be communicated to other humans by that person as can be done with other languages such as spoken/written languages, mathematics, and so on?

In short, while one can talk (or write) about music (as we do on this forum), the information that is thus conveyed does not, and cannot, convey the information music itself conveys. This is obviously not the case with the major languages I have cited here. In fact only painting and just possibly poetry immediately spring to mind (doubtless there are others) as languages where the information received by person A cannot be conveyed on to another person.

Hence I would argue that music is not a language in the sense of my original definition. And if that is so I think there are implications for at least one major area of human activity, namely education.

Of course this raises at least two further questions: Is the definition correct? What is meant by information, anyway?

Euan Mackinnon

Incidentally, Peter, I do not think my definition is ‘narrow’, in fact quite the opposite since it covers a wide range of systems for conveying information from person to person.

[EternaLisa]

Is music a language? Can you teach a language? Why yes.....it is...in it's own right...just as beauty is its own reason for being...

xoxox

E

[Peter]

Peter, Enrique

Thank you for your replies.

You both refer to music conveying emotions (Peter - music is the greatest language of the emotions and spirituality; Enrique – [Music] can communicate emotions but, these emotions in part come from a purely intelectual satisfaction) and of course I entirely agree with this.

But my definition of a language was 'a system that allows order to be placed on stimuli' where ‘order’ means 'information that is or could be communicated to other humans' and it is the second part of this definition that I feel is a ‘problem’ where music is concerned. Can the emotions conveyed by music to person A be communicated to other humans by that person as can be done with other languages such as spoken/written languages, mathematics, and so on?

In short, while one can talk (or write) about music (as we do on this forum), the information that is thus conveyed does not, and cannot, convey the information music itself conveys. This is obviously not the case with the major languages I have cited here. In fact only painting and just possibly poetry immediately spring to mind (doubtless there are others) as languages where the information received by person A cannot be conveyed on to another person.

Hence I would argue that music is not a language in the sense of my original definition. And if that is so I think there are implications for at least one major area of human activity, namely education.

Of course this raises at least two further questions: Is the definition correct? What is meant by information, anyway?

Euan Mackinnon

Incidentally, Peter, I do not think my definition is ‘narrow’, in fact quite the opposite since it covers a wide range of systems for conveying information from person to person.

Well I think that music, art and poetry all convey information from one person to another - on a different and deeper level which is why there is much difficulty not only in appreciation but in understanding. In music obvious examples are the 'word painting' of the madrigalists, the songs of Schubert, the operas of Mozart.

[Enrique]

What is meant by information, anyway?

Euan Mackinnon

A single note: this conveys no information at all (to be rigorous it would have to be a sinusoidal wave. A conventional instrument would provide information, namely, the energy distribution over frequency of that sound. But musically, there is no information here, except I could spot the instrument playing it.)

The same note, but this time as quarter, quarter, quarter: there is information here. A time relationship.

The same note, followed by a higher note: there is information too. A frequency relationship.

I can tell a person: I've just heard a quater, followed by a quarter, followed by a quarter. The notes were G, E flat, C. So, I can convey the information received by me to another person, can't I?

[Euan Mackinnon]

Peter, Enrique

Again, thank you for your replies.

To start with you, Enrique, and to examine your posting point by point.

A single note: this conveys no information at all (to be rigorous it would have to be a sinusoidal wave. A conventional instrument would provide information, namely, the energy distribution over frequency of that sound. But musically, there is no information here, except I could spot the instrument playing it.)

I agree with the first part but not, I suspect in the way you intended. The words ‘a single note’ convey no musical information at all. The sound of ‘a single note’ does provide some very limited musical information even if produced on a synthesiser of some sort.

The same note, but this time as quarter, quarter, quarter: there is information here. A time relationship.

I don’t agree with this. The words ‘quarter, quarter, quarter’ provide a sequence and only in that sense do they indicate time. What I suggest you are doing when you write that ‘quarter, quarter, quarter’ provides information - that of a ‘time relationship’ - is mentally to picture the notation for a ‘quarter, quarter, quarter’ (as in a musical score) and thus derive a time relationship from that. The recipient of your words would have to form the same mental image in order to get some sense of the time relationship you describe.

I can tell a person: I've just heard a quater, followed by a quarter, followed by a quarter. The notes were G, E flat, C. So, I can convey the information received by me to another person, can't I?

This is where we come back to Peter. No I don’t think you can convey any musical information by telling someone that you ‘just heard a quater, followed by a quarter, followed by a quarter. The notes were G, E flat, C’.
As Peter has said (and I agree with the thrust of his argument) musical information is about emotion and spirituality. You cannot convey any of that information through words even when the words are a substitute for musical notation.

There are many equivalent cases.

Take mathematics, for example. I once asked a professor of mathematics if, in principle, one could make a mathematical argument entirely in words since all mathematics rests on axioms which are already, or can be, in words. He agreed that, yes, in principle, one could make any mathematical argument in words. But just imagine trying to do so. It is clear that (exactly as with a musical score) there is something intrinsic in the structure, disposition, meaning, etc of mathematical symbols that allows mathematical arguments to be made and, more important in the context here, to be transmitted from person to person to person.

Or take another example (I have tried this on several people). Take a set of drawing instruments (pair of compasses, protractor, ruler, pencil, rubber, etc) and a blank piece of paper. Then ask another person - your subject - to give you precise (oral) instructions that you will then slavishly follow such that what you draw is (say) a bicycle. The results are very revealing. You (the drawer) will understand all the words and will accept that you are carrying out exactly what your subject intends (i.e. information has been efficiently conveyed). But, except in very rare cases, the result won’t look much like a bicycle.

And this brings me to my original definition and question.

Language is 'a system that allows order to be placed on stimuli' where ‘order’ means 'information that is or could be communicated to other humans'

Under this definition (which, as I said in an earlier post, is a wide one and covers many languages) I still take the view that music is not language. So, while I agree with Peter:

I think that music, art and poetry all convey information from one person to another

I see this as a bilateral. If we let the producer of the music be A and the recipients be B, C, D, etc, then A passes to B and separately to C and separately again to D musical information but (i) the information that B, C and D receive could be very different one from another and, crucially, none of B, C or D could convey this information on to F, G, H, etc except by taking the place of A where, once again, what was received by F, G, H is not the same one to another nor, indeed, the same if A repeated the whole exercise.

This is completely different from spoken/written languages, or mathematics, or diagrams (of bicycles), and so on.

In short, many languages can transmit the same (or a good approximation of the same) information through many levels. This is especially true of mathematics, Conversely, I would argue that musical information can only be transmitted one level and, even here, what is transmitted will be different person to person and time to time even if the notes are identical.

And if that is so it raises other questions such as, for example, why teach music in schools?

Euan Mackinnon