Len Fehskens wrote:

>Karl Miller challenges my disputation of the "music as language" metaphor:
>
>>In music analysis, we often refer to the phrase, "harmonic vocabulary."
>>Why is it not possible to consider serialism, pantonality, polytonality,
>>quartal harmony, etc.  different in the same sense as French is different.
>
>They are different, but not in the same sense that French differs
>from English.  They are stylistically different.  They are not different
>phonemic representations of the same thing.  They are not different in the
>same sense that the words "wine" and "vin" are different.  Both words mean
>essentially the same thing.  I challenge you to find an analogous state of
>affairs with respect to distinct musical styles.  To do so you will first
>have to wrestle with the question of the "meaning" of music, a question
>about which much has been written but precious little ascertained.

I can only say that on a subjective level I find that both Bach
and Schoenberg can be found expressing the same thing using different
"vocabularies." For me Christus lag in Todensbanden by Bach shares many
of the same meanings as can be found in Penderecki's Entombment of Christ.
On the question of language, there is also meaning in the sound of the
language.  To my ear (especially when it comes to German), a beautiful
thought can be expressed in a word that, to my ears, sounds very
unbeautiful.  Yet one can speak of horrible things in French, and
to my ears they can sound beautiful.

>>There are notions of proportion and such that have often be applied to
>>both music and the visual arts.
>
>If you can come up with an objective definition of musical proportion that
>most everyone can agree with, I'll concede you this point.  Then I will
>challenge you to continue this objectification of aesthetics.

For me this has always been a question.  Having written about music, both
commentary and criticism, I find it difficult to assign a "value" to any
music expression.  I find that I can describe it some, but...one might
fault one composer for a very slow moving harmonic rhythm, yet in the case
of a Philip Glass, that is central to his music.

>>My dictionary offers the notion: sensitivity-The capacity of an organism
>>or of a sense organ to respond to stimulation...I find that I can respond
>>to stimulation emotionally, intellectually, both of which often can have
>>some physical manisfestation.
>
>Sensibility is not the same as sensitivity.  By human sensibility I
>meant relevance to our internal, emotional lives.  While I often respond
>emotionally to "purely intellectual" concepts, it is a qualitatively
>different kind of response than I get from looking at my cats or listening
>to Mahler.  Tensors are not part of the "human condition", at least the way
>I think of it.  They are a beautiful and powerful concept, but my life
>would not be significantly impoverished if I didn't know of their
>(abstract) existence.

Perhaps that is where our notions differ, for I would find it difficult to
imagine any aspect of human activity as being purely intellectual.

Karl