Prime Time Replay:
Joseph Swain
Colgate University music professor and
author of Musical Languages
MsgId: *brain_storm(1)
Date: Fri Sep 19 22:01:59 EDT 1997
From: Rob_Killheffer At: 205.198.117.99
Good evening and welcome to another edition of Brainstorms. I'm your host, Rob Killheffer, and with me this evening is Joseph Swain, associate professor of music at Colgate University and author of the new book "MUSICAL LANGUAGES." Welcome, Dr. Swain!
MsgId: *brain_storm(2)
Date: Fri Sep 19 22:02:59 EDT 1997
From: Joseph_Swain At: 149.43.151.98
Thank you for your invitation to talk with you.
MsgId: *brain_storm(3)
Date: Fri Sep 19 22:04:31 EDT 1997
From: Rob_Killheffer At: 205.198.117.99
Glad to have you here. The introduction to your book begins with the question "How is music like language, and so what if it is?" Let's leave the second part of that question for later -- first, can you give us some idea of the similarities between language and music, and the research that demonstrates the likeness?
MsgId: *brain_storm(4)
Date: Fri Sep 19 22:07:20 EDT 1997
From: Joseph_Swain At: 149.43.151.98
The range of similarities is quite large, even enormous, but let's start with the basics of linguistics. Traditionally, the study of language is divided into phonetics and phonology, which studies the elementary sounds used in a language, syntax, which studies the relationships among the words of a language, and semantics, which studies meaning . . . Music has analogies with all three of these areas, to different degrees. To my mind, the strongest analogue is in the area of syntax, the "grammar" of musical constructions and their effects on listeners.
MsgId: *brain_storm(6)
Date: Fri Sep 19 22:10:42 EDT 1997
From: Rob_Killheffer At: 205.198.117.99
I've followed the study of linguistics and research into the mechanisms of language in the brain, but I'm not very well learned when it comes to music. (I'm one of those "I know what I like" types, I guess.) So perhaps you could explain in more detail how musical syntax works -- and how it's like the syntax that relates nouns to verbs and prepositions to objects and so on.
MsgId: *brain_storm(7)
Date: Fri Sep 19 22:13:06 EDT 1997
From: Joseph_Swain At: 149.43.151.98
First let's speculate a bit about what syntax in language is for (all languages have it). Two reasons: the control of information, so that random bits are not hurled at the listener, and second, to mediate relationships "out there" in the world. In other words, such things as the distinction between the boy hitting the baseball and being hit by the baseball . . . Now what we need to have a syntax is 1) discreet elements; in language these are the basic sounds, the phonemes; in music, these are the available pitches that make up a culture's scale. Second, we need rules or conventions that allow these elements to combine into hierarchical structures, or utterances that have different levels . . .In natural language, this is the grammar, the word order, and all the complicated conventions we use to construct sentences. In music, these are the conventions of chord construction, harmonic progression, meter, and other such organizations. The main difference between natural language syntax and musical syntax is that music does not say things about relationships "out there" in the world, at least not normally; instead, musical syntax mediates the rise and fall and kind of musical tension, which is the soul of music's aesthetic effects.
MsgId: *brain_storm(11)
Date: Fri Sep 19 22:19:52 EDT 1997
From: Rob_Killheffer At: 205.198.117.99
I can see the similarity, but I'm wondering how deep it goes. That is, syntactic rules in natural language seem to me to be much more rigid than those in music. Again, I'm not a musician or a composer, so perhaps I'm just ignorant of the complexities and rigidity of the conventions, but it seems to me that the syntax of music as you describe it is more arbitrary -- cultures may develop conventions of harmonic progression and such, but they're not restricted in the same way that language is, in that language has to attempt to relate to things in the external world.Ah, I jumped the gun there -- thought you were done, and you went ahead and answered the question I was asking even as I typed it. . . .
MsgId: *brain_storm(13)
Date: Fri Sep 19 22:22:33 EDT 1997
From: Joseph_Swain At: 149.43.151.98
It is difficult to compare the rigor of natural language syntax and musical syntax, but one thing that people don't realize is that natural language syntax is quite flexible in speech, much more so than in written language, which is a much more stylized and formal means of communication. For example, it is very easy to take any word that normally acts as a noun, e. g. "computer" . . .
MsgId: *brain_storm(14)
Date: Fri Sep 19 22:22:34 EDT 1997
From: Rob_Killheffer At: 205.198.117.99
But let me follow it up with a more specific angle: given that difference between musical and linguistic syntax, how firmly determined are musical syntaxes? Do they vary sharply from culture to culture, or does there seem to be some fairly universal rule system, shared by all humans?
MsgId: *brain_storm(15)
Date: Fri Sep 19 22:24:17 EDT 1997
From: Joseph_Swain At: 149.43.151.98
And make an adjective out of it "computerish," or a verb "computerize" and do all sorts of things that would normally seem irregular, but which in a particular context are perfectly understood. This is one of the most important similarities about music and language in general, and about syntax in particular: they are very responsive to context.
MsgId: *brain_storm(16)
Date: Fri Sep 19 22:25:30 EDT 1997
From: Rob_Killheffer At: 205.198.117.99
I see. That's quite right -- maybe it's easier to see the likeness when we think about spoken language. Did you see my previous question, that I fired off before you were done? Scroll back if you didn't catch it.
MsgId: *brain_storm(17)
Date: Fri Sep 19 22:26:24 EDT 1997
From: Joseph_Swain At: 149.43.151.98
Your hunch is correct. Musical syntaxes vary tremendously from culture to culture, and that is why it is so difficult to make sense of a "foreign" music with which we have little experience, just as it is impossible even to isolate the individual words, never mind the meaning, of a language that we don't understand . . . The only universals in music are extremely general ones: all musical systems use discreet pitches (to make syntax); all make use of the octave; virtually all have something that we could call a musical "phrase." But in terms of comprehension, the differences far outweigh the similarities.
MsgId: *brain_storm(19)
Date: Fri Sep 19 22:30:15 EDT 1997
From: Rob_Killheffer At: 205.198.117.99
The comparison between music and language brings to mind an obvious question: we're all familiar with how language "communicates" -- that it "means" something -- but how does music do that? I mean, I enjoy listening to music immensely, and I've done it all my life, but I'd be hard put to say what information or message it conveyed, and how that message arises from the parts and the syntax.
MsgId: *brain_storm(20)
Date: Fri Sep 19 22:32:17 EDT 1997
From: Joseph_Swain At: 149.43.151.98
Yes, well, this question has been pondered for centuries. My response, in brief: that just as a common word has a range of meaning -- think of all the things that "run" can mean -- so does a passage or piece of music have a range of meaning . . . The difference is that the semantic range of music is much larger than that of a word in a language. So in most instrumental music, everyone is free to interpret rather broadly and we can articulate only the vaguest of translations of the experience . . . However, when the context of that same passage is sharply defined by an added text, as in a song, or action on stage, as in a musical play or opera, then the passage can take on a meaning that is very specific indeed. . . . But there is one kind of meaning that music will always have for its community of listeners -- the effect of its syntax, the tensions and relaxations that its syntax produces. In simple terms, the irreducible meaning of a passage is the effects it makes on us listeners.
MsgId: *brain_storm(24)
Date: Fri Sep 19 22:37:41 EDT 1997
From: Rob_Killheffer At: 205.198.117.99
Can you think of an example that could illustrate the point -- something most of us would be familiar with, so we could see how the syntax, those tensions and relaxations, are working?
MsgId: *brain_storm(25)
Date: Fri Sep 19 22:39:57 EDT 1997
From: Joseph_Swain At: 149.43.151.98
Let's think about the end of an exciting piece, say Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture or the Beethoven Ninth Symphony with the Ode to Joy theme. The meaning of those passages is, at least in part, is the sense of excitment that the musical tensions convey to us.
MsgId: *brain_storm(26)
Date: Fri Sep 19 22:41:42 EDT 1997
From: Rob_Killheffer At: 205.198.117.99
So it sounds like musical language is best at conveying emotional messages, rather than "information" in the way its usually conceived. It's a kind of sympathetic communication, directly conjuring sensations in the listener.
MsgId: *brain_storm(27)
Date: Fri Sep 19 22:43:45 EDT 1997
From: Joseph_Swain At: 149.43.151.98
Yes, I would agree with you there, as long as we don't conceive of "emotional messages" as being limited to our everyday list of named feelings such as anger, love, frustration, etc. Many times the effects of syntax are much less tangible, but no less beautiful for their being nameless.
MsgId: *brain_storm(28)
Date: Fri Sep 19 22:46:23 EDT 1997
From: Rob_Killheffer At: 205.198.117.99
Absolutely -- in fact, it might seem that those complex, untranslatable emotions are best expressed -- only expressed -- musically. That words like "anger, love, frustration" are not precise or evocative enough because they're part of the other kind of language. . . .Let's turn in a different direction for a moment: Researchers have put a lot of time into studying how the brain interprets and produces language, and though it's still something of a mystery, certain broad links -- the involvement of Broca's and Wernicke's area, for instance -- have been established. Have there been any studies examining how the brain interprets music, and if so, do they show the involvement of some of the same regions used for language?
MsgId: *brain_storm(30)
Date: Fri Sep 19 22:49:39 EDT 1997
From: Joseph_Swain At: 149.43.151.98
Yes and no. As your readers probably know, language is generally thought to be a left-brain phenomenon. Music is more often associated with the right brain, except in the case of trained musicians, whose particular skills associate with the left brain. It seems as though as the ability to produce and articulate music increases, its cognition becomes more language-like.
MsgId: *brain_storm(31)
Date: Fri Sep 19 22:52:47 EDT 1997
From: Rob_Killheffer At: 205.198.117.99
So for someone like me, untrained in music and not very adept at analyzing it, it's probably a lot less language-like in my brain. Which makes sense if my previous statement were true: that music -- like other forms of artistic expression -- "communicates" in a very different way. Though it may share structural elements with language, it's operating on a different part of the brain, a part language can't really reach. Music can capture a feeling, a sensation, a gestalt, that no amount of verbiage could adequately convey.
MsgId: *brain_storm(32)
Date: Fri Sep 19 22:55:28 EDT 1997
From: Joseph_Swain At: 149.43.151.98
I guess it's fair to say that untrained listeners understand music more as a whole, a gestalt, as you say, because they don't have to worry about relating the parts as musicians do. But that is no disadvantage in my mind, because the intuitions are obviously present at some level.
MsgId: *brain_storm(33)
Date: Fri Sep 19 22:57:08 EDT 1997
From: Rob_Killheffer At: 205.198.117.99
Certainly. But perhaps that's why some kinds of music have remained more beloved of musicians and musicologists than of the public at large -- just as some kinds of literature remain favorites of academics but not general readers. Perhaps some kinds of music require more syntactic training to really enjoy.
MsgId: *brain_storm(34)
Date: Fri Sep 19 22:59:33 EDT 1997
From: Joseph_Swain At: 149.43.151.98
That is probably true. But that may or may not have much to do with the aesthetics of the matter. As I say in the book, the reasons why simple melodies are beautiful are still mysterious, and the gift to be able to compose them is great indeed.
MsgId: *brain_storm(35)
Date: Fri Sep 19 23:00:39 EDT 1997
From: Rob_Killheffer At: 205.198.117.99
No doubt about that -- as with so much else about human cognitive and creative abilities, music remains pretty mysterious at the core. We're just about out of time, so I'd like to thank you for appearing here on Brainstorms with me, Professor Swain, for a very interesting talk. I'll close with one tangential question, something of interest to me but that you may have no information about. I've read here and there about a connection between music and math -- that ability in one frequently correlates with ability in the other, and even that students who have learned to play an instrument often score higher on math tests. Any idea, from your linguistic point of view, why that might be?
MsgId: *brain_storm(36)
Date: Fri Sep 19 23:02:20 EDT 1997
From: Joseph_Swain At: 149.43.151.98
Yes, I do have an idea about that. Listening to music means processing abstract relations in pitch and rhythm. What could be better training for mathematicians? Thank you very much, and good night!
MsgId: *brain_storm(37)
Date: Fri Sep 19 23:03:12 EDT 1997
From: Rob_Killheffer At: 205.198.117.99
Thanks again, Professor Swain. This is Rob Killheffer saying goodnight for Brainstorms, until next week!
Home || Prime Time || Live Science || Machine Dreams || Project Open Book || SF-Fantasy-Horror
Continuum || Antimatter || Mind-Brain Lab || Interactive IQ || Gallery || OMNI ToonsQuestions, comments and suggestions can be mailed to the webmaster.
Copyright © 1998 by Omni Publications International, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.