9/15 HW

Music is not a language, since not everything that falls under the category of “communication” also falls under that of “language.”

In terms of communication, music has its pros and cons when compared to language. (Absolutely awful as a thesis statement, I know. It’d be pretty much impossible to argue that it DOESN’T have its pros and cons.) While it isn’t any good for something as specific as my now timeless “pass the salt” example, it is able not only to communicate fundamental emotions, but to induce them as well. Language, even if it is a foreign language one does not understand, can easily communicate a feeling of anger or sorrow; it is not as good, however, as inducing the listening to experience these emotions. Music, however, can both make people cry and beat the living crap out of each other in mosh pits at really awful rock concerts. (It’s always been my personal view that the reason people in mosh pits are so violent is because they realize how terrible the music they’re listening to is and they want their money back.)

Reflecting on the Gombrich quotation, I’d say his example proves how art is NOT like language. While a language made out of entirely new words would be gibberish, art made out of materials or instruments one has never before experienced would still have both aesthetic and emotional meaning.

Sometimes, there is music in language. Often a time, when women seek to attract men verbally, they do not do so with the content of what they say, but rather with a seductive tone that sometimes even has a musical quality to it. Again, if there were two people who did not speak a language in common, it would be difficult for them to ask to pass the salt verbally, but it may be easier to communicate a tone that says “I want to sleep with you.” Or is tone an integral part of language, and separate from music completely in this case? Now that I think about it, I’m not sure. But I worked hard thinking and typing all that, so I refuse to delete it.

As to the question of which matters more, original thought or interpretation, it’s hard to say. For the audience, its interpretation of the work is of course the most important; when evaluating a work itself, its original intent and different ways of being interpreted are almost inseparable; text based religions are all about the interpretation, and even laws that are passed don’t mean much until they are interpreted by judges. The Russian leader Nikita Khrushchev in infamous for taking off his shoe at one meeting, banging it on the table, and shouting to the Western world: “We will bury you!” I once read someone observe (I paraphrase): “The translator got it wrong. He was really shouting, ‘These are not my shoes! Who took my shoes?!'” If Khrushchev shouting was artistic, what would be more important, the perceived threat of nuclear annihilation, or the intended outrage about stolen footwear?