Len wrote:
>A dictionary is only useful to people who already understand most of
>the basics of a given language. For example, a French dictionary is
>useless to me. I would need a French/English dictionary, and even then my
>translations would be seriously flawed absent any understanding of French
>grammar. The only way I will learn Friench is by reading, in English, a
>description of French grammar, and hearing French spoken in a context where
>I can make useful associations between the sounds I hear and things I
>already understand.
I fail to see why this same process can't be used for music you can't
immediately understand.
>So, if music is a "language", what is its grammar? What are its words? What
>do these words mean? How reliably does music communicate these meanings?
At the risk of sounding pedantic, a good definitin of 'language' from
www.m-w.com is:
A systematic means of communicating ideas or feelings by the use of
conventionalized signs, sounds, gestures, or marks having understood
meanings.
I think this applies to music in many ways. The problem would be with the
term 'conventionalized', which, naturally, becomes difficult when dealing
with composers who are perhaps working with a musical language that is
unconventional. But this is what is so great about an artform as abstract
as music is. The gestures, sounds, textures of a piece of music in a new
language can have a personal meaning unique to each listener.
As one listens to more and more new music, certain gestures, harmonies,
textures, etc. become more and more apparent in all music and their
meanings and the reactions assigned to each event become, as in language,
more 'systematic'. With very recent works, and for listeners just coming
to new music, it takes some time, and sometimes a very long time, for such
an outcome, and I would never suggest that this happens in all cases. I've
listened to tons of new music and on I still hear pieces that cause me to
rethink what the 'grammar' of music, as I understand it, is. For some
people that can be extremely daunting and frustrating, but I find it
completely refreshing. There are so many contemporary pieces out there
(in the literal sense of the word 'contemporary') that an introduction
to new music is available for every listener. I would recommend asking
friends (or the list) who have a very thorough knowledge of new music
to give you a starting point based on a turn of the century (or earlier)
composer that you enjoy very much. If you like Ravel or Debussy, try
starting with Dutilleux or Takemitsu. If you like Shostakovich, try
Schnittke or Gubaidulina. If you like Copland, try Rouse or Torke. There
will always be composers and pieces you dislike (as in any genre), but I am
a firm believer that if you find the right portal into contemporary music,
you will appreciate it all the more.
Cheers,
Marcus Maroney
[log in to unmask]
http://www.geocities.com/marcus.maroney
|