Salami

Do you think we agree?

MoonlitSunshine

Every language has dialects. Not all music is the same language, indeed. Different music "speaks" to different people. However, the genres of music that are most likely to result in that lack of universal understanding are those more modern styles of music, where, like art, music has begun to be an abstract form of expression as well as an (purely) emotional one. The old, old forms of music, in my experience, do not tend to have that vagueness.

__________________
"I found it eventually, at the bottom of a locker in a disused laboratory, with a sign on the door saying "Beware of the Leopard". Ever thought of going into Advertising?"

- Arthur Dent

Rubato

It's just my unprofessional opinion.

I have to disagree on the link between our feelings and sound, It's the movement of frequencies, rather than the frequencies themselves that are important. you can transpose a sad piece of music to any key you want, it will still be a sad piece of music.

Salami

Don't be like that! If people listen to my opinions, yours are equally important.
True. It's just for some reason, certain keys seem more sad. This response is purely emotional and subjective, though.

blastingas10

True, but I didn't really mean it in that context. Today, scientists believe they are on the verge of having the theory of everything - String theory and M-theory. Some scientists start to believe that they've finally got it figured out and the conclusion can be drawn. Others aren't so arrogant. And it's those others who go on to make more discoveries that challange the current thinking of the scientists who believe they've got a definitive answer.

For example, most scientists are sure that there is no god and life is just an act of chance. At a scientific conference at City College of New York, a student in the audience rose to ask the panelists an unexpected question: "Can you be a good scientist and believe in God?" Herbert A. Hauptman, who shared the Nobel prize in chemistry in 1985 for his work on the structure of crystals , quickly answered "No!"

On the other hand, you have scientists like Roger Penrose, who shared the Wolf Prize in physics with Stephen Hawking for their contribution to our understanding of the universe.

To quote Mr. Penrose: ""I think I would say that the universe has a purpose, it's not somehow just there by chance ... some people, I think, take the view that the universe is just there and it runs along–it's a bit like it just sort of computes, and we happen somehow by accident to find ourselves in this thing. But I don't think that's a very fruitful or helpful way of looking at the universe, I think that there is something much deeper about it."

As Penrose said, some people take the view that the universe is just there, and it just happened by chance. A lot of people who think that tend to draw the conclusion there. However, you have people, like Penrose, who think that there is something much deeper about life. And it's those people who don't arrogantly conclude that continue to push the envelope, rather than sealing it and moving on.

Paedantic Basterd

You interpret my meaning incorrectly, Salami. When I say music is a spandrel of language, I don't mean that it is literally language, or necessary for the function of language, or anything of the sort.

What I mean is that music is a convenient, pleasurable side effect of all of the tools that we use to comprehend language.

People posting in this thread seem to have either taken the topic too literally or too ambiguously. I get the feeling most people in this discussion haven't read and comprehended all of the content in the first post, because a lot of ideas are being thrown around that the information presented contradicts, or that simply have nothing to do with the root topic.

This is why I've pretty much shut up since Tore posted, because I agree with Tore (so there's not much to argue about), and because most other posters seem to have missed the point whilst skimming the page (or jumping to the tldr).

Re: Moonlight, there's an extent to which I both agree and disagree with you on music being a universal language. Music is largely cultural. We gravitate towards that which we are exposed to at a young age, and other cultures of music tend to be a bit of a lost cause for us. They don't communicate the same things to the same people across cultural boundaries. I believe you pointed this out however, saying that "uplifting" or "sad" music isn't inherently such; our culture has defined it that way.

Stephen

According to this article on NewScientist music actually pre-dates the development of language.

"...music is a living reminder of an earlier stage of human evolution, preceding true language."

The Evolution of Language (pdf)

Salami

Sorry about that. I know I read your original review, but I might not quite have understood you correctly. When I said things like:

...I probably ought to have made it clear that the idea of language is itself an expression, and music is using the same process to be an expression too. Although that isn't really putting it clearly.

Paedantic Basterd

I'm going to try and get to that after I'm done listening to an album. I apologize if I'm feeling lazy by that time and don't end up reading it, but I've got it open and would like to see what it says.

starrynight

To me music is universal in many ways, the barriers are actually breaking down more now with the internet and the greater availability of music from many areas, and I try and listen and understand music from everywhere.

Some scientists can come across as arrogant as some religious people can. Of course that doesn't mean all are like that, but some can be too caught up in their own beliefs to be willing to question them or accept easily that we don't understand some things fully.

__________________
non-cliquey member of every music forum I participate on