Is Music a Language?

It seems contradictory to say that only a conscious being can create music, while also saying that music is a perception of the mind of the listener.

I didn't say that music is a perception of the mind of the listener. I said that a conscious being is the only thing that is capable of creating music. I said nothing about the listener. The musician creates the music in reality by playing/singing, and it might or might not be perceived by a listener, it doesn't matter.

Oops, you're right. I didn't read your original comment carefully enough. Sorry

Music has four characteristics: melody, rhythm, harmony, and timbre or tone color. A bird song has melody, rhythm, and tone color, but it seems that you have to have more than one note at a time for harmony. But that definition would also exclude any solo wind instrument.

Some composers have incorporated bird songs into their works. Mahler's first movement of his First Symphony is based on the two-note call of the cuckoo. The two-note call isn't the primary theme, but it starts it. He has also used the nightingale call extensively in his works. Now, if Mahler thought bird songs were music, that's good enough for me.

Annecdotal accounts exist about composer Leos Janecek standing under trees listening to bird songs and notating them on paper to be used later in his compositions.

excellent

I recall having played Claude Daquin's "Le Coo Coo" on the piano. (think that's the name)

I'm impressed, Letty.

I have that piece on a vinyl LP, a collection of harpsichord music, and it's very nice. None too easy, either. Good for you.

I haven't looked it up, but I think in French it's rendered as "Le Cucu".

McT

I haven't read this thread but notice the family resemblance with one of mine - http://able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=30837
Music and the brain.

Not to mention bird calls... as I talk about Yma Sumac, who sings like a crazed bird.

Ok, I promise to go back to the first post here and read...

Well, folks. There was a cacophony here last night, somewhat akin to the 1812 overture.

Hey, osso and McTag. Wouldn't you two like to come to Florida and take a look see? It's called:

Debris!

Letty: Welcome back! I'm so relieved that you're safe and well.

Way out here they have a name for rain and wind and DEBRIS
The rain is Tess, the debris is Woe and they call the wind Bad Charlie
Now Charlie blows the stars around and sets the clouds a-flyin'
And though I'm brave and wear a smile, if I said it's been fun I'd be lyin'.

Hang in there, my friend.

Thank you, Raggedy dear. You are indeed music to my ears.

i must comment on these perceptive comments, Thalion;

Almost every night at midnight, i listen to a regular CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) show, by the name of "Brave New Waves", dedicated to new sounds, and music that is absolutely 'current' and 'experimental', in every way. There is no attempt to choose anything of a 'popular' nature, but music that is stretching the boundaries and the very 'definition' of what music is!
While admittedly there are nights that i turn it off in annoyance, as i don't find the particular addition to the airwaves to be, in my opinion, worth having been attempted, frequently i find sounds of a fascinating nature that absolutely capture my imagination, and add to my existence!

While i thing i disagree about the birdsong, and other natural sound phenomena, they are at best 'primitive, and music as you imply, seems to require an intelligence behind it, and at the best of times, an emotional content that raises it to the level of art.

From what I remember the experience of Music employs more areas of the brain than most other mental activities. It's experience can be considered among the most primeval considering that SOUND existed billions of years before the 1st grunt or word of Homo sapien ever announced itself. Because its so organic its far more nuanced almost like smelling out emotions on a more primitive level. Why can one feel a music or its conception even if you don't hear the sound when other things are contemplated like nature itself in every disguise or our own arts and sciences. It's not usually apparent to those who relate music to sound only that it's a type of universal feedback mechanism and that they are as much influenced by it's "soundless aspect" as others can be by the overt Art of Sound. Gravity itself is a kind of waltz in "relative time" that keeps the dance going at least for the time being!

very compelling nts;

next time i listen to Holtz's "The Planets", i will listen for the 'pulse of gravity' throbbing in the background.

Absolutely.

Music is a form of communication. What it communicates is a feeling. It casts a message out into the crowd. This message is, "come together, be human, let go and dance". What this does is strip down the individual of their usual defense mechanisms so they can let go and be with other humans in a more primitive and natural state of being. This state leads to a bonding which manifests itself as a form of community. This community is very tite-knit because it's formation happened in the presence of a very pure and primitive state of mind. Nobody was looking to "gain" anything by "letting go", apart from having a "good time", and so the community wasn't built by a bunch of individuals looking to set out and stake their own seperate claim, it was built upon a group experience and state of mind. This state of mind supposedly being the alpha state which is entered into following repetitive sound or thought processes.

This is what I have noticed anyway. I'm talking about dance music, tribal rhythms, drums, etc. Natives have for centuries used these repetitive sounds to get into a kind of trance. Done so in a group setting this leads to a group trance and so, group bonding at the minds most primitive levels.

I think the importance of this is that it is very hard to truly bond with someone if you are speaking with words. When we use verbal communication it is very hard to be in communion because we are placing our own values and beliefs and translations upon the other persons words as they enter through our filters and into our minds. Most often we only hear what we wish to hear or only what we are capable of hearing based upon our conditioning, and not what the other person is trying to say. We are far more in "tune" with one another if we are " feeling" at each other rather than "thinking" at each other. If we can enter into a state in which feelings trump thoughts, and with other human beings, then that is a most sublime space to be. Perhaps music is one way to get us there.

Check out a book entitled "Noise" by Jacques Attali. It talks about revolutions in music and how they preclude major changes within a society. Worth a look if you're interested.

Interesting take Killer!

Part of our discussion involved the question of wfhether bird calls are music or not. In the South, mockingbirds are known mimics of, not only other bird calls, but other sounds as well. It is not out of the question that a mockingbird would mimic a person whistling or playing on a flute a simple tune. In that case would the bird call be music?

It's quite possible, if not likely, that humans were first inspired to produce melody by listening to bird calls. So birds mimic humans who were first mimicing birds. I think it's wrong, if not arrogant, to say that only humans can produce music.

Possibly, but it might be anthropomorphic to claim birds produce music.

So if a human mimics a bird, it's music, but if a bird mimics a human, it's anthropomorphic? This sounds a bit anthropocentric if you ask me.

I stand by my musings. I have a parrot that can mimic the theme from Battlestar Galactica, but it's not producing music.