Music vs. words...

[nadroj1985]

Talking about the labels we place on music in the Radiohead/Oasis thread reminded me a bit of a bit of Arthur Schopenhauer's philosophy on music, as he presents it in "The World as Will and Idea." While it would probably be helpful if everyone knew Schopenhaueran philosophy well, and what music really means to him, I don't think it's necessary to debate the topic. Here's the particular section that I think displays the idea fairly well:

Thus, it [music] expresses not this or that particular and definite joy, this or that sorrow or pain, or horror, or delight, or merriment, or peace of mind; but it expresses joy, sorrow, pain, horror, delight, merriment, peace of mind themselves, to a certain extent in the abstract, their essential nature, without incidentals and so also without the motives for these emotions. Yet we understand them perfectly in this extracted quintessence. Hence our imagination is so susceptible to music, and now seeks to give form to that invisible yet lively spirit-world which speaks to us directly, and clothe it with flesh and blood, i.e. to embody it in an analogous model. This is the origin of the song with words... [which] should for that very reason never forsake this subordinate position in order to make themselves the main subject, and the music a mere means of expressing it. This would be a great misconception and a piece of utter perversity, for music always expresses only the quintessence of life and of life's events, but never these themselves, and therefore their differences do not always affect it. It is just this universality - which is the exclusive property of music; and hers in spite of her precise delineation - that gives music its high value as the panacea for all our woes. Thus if music tries to attach itself too closely to the words, and tries to mold itself to episode and instance, it is striving to speak a language that is not its own.

Emphasis mine.

It's not necessarily important that we discuss whether music does indeed, as Schopenhauer claims, express emotions in themselves rather than particular emotions. It would be enough to start with a generalization of Scho's theory, a belief (which I hold) that music's value lies in a certain something beyond what mere words can describe, and that forcing it to serve as merely a representation of the words accompanying it is a disservice to the music. Sorry if this is too abstract for anyone, I'm a philosophy major and a big fan of music so I think about this kind of thing a lot

So, does anyone want to discuss it?

 

[Western Deity]

I don't think so. Maybe it's because I grew up/ am growing up with hip-hop and not "rock" (or similar) like many others do, but, in my mind, the imagery created by a good writer surpasses anything that can be done with a guitar or trilling violins.

Maybe I'm missing a lot, because, as you stated, this is kind of abstract. Not only that, but Mr. Schopenhauer obviously like creative language .

On a semi-related note, how do you define "music"?

 

[DMBfanLongliveStrongBad!]

i don't think that you can say words are better than the music, or vise versa.

and example:
two bands that i love and admire are DMB and phish. Dave has an amazing ability to communicate with words. he just says things beautifully with his lyrics, in a thought-provoking way. Phish, on the other hand, is much better with the music. The band communicates with notes. they speak to eachother. The lyrics to phish's songs are sometimes brilliant, but many times they're silly, and i just can't wait until they start jamming the song out. Music flows freely through trey as he plays guitar. Beautiful words flow freely through Dave as he writes and sings.


i don't think there's an answer to whether one is better than the other though.


I've had a hard time defining music myself. it's wierd. God is definately a wierd thing, and uh... very creative. i mean that will all respect.

 

[Murmur]

I tend to like the music much better.

Just listen to some Aphex Twin or some Orbital. The music speaks volumes.

 

[absolutely_lost_86]

i think music speaks louder than words

 

[Nico]

i have some ideas. i may get into tangents, so bear w/me. i'm gonna try really hard to remain coherent.

i think music without words tends to be more universal. without lyrics it is able to be more abstract, allowing the listener to attach their own personal meanings and emotions. lyrics can, at times, be more directive and tell the person what to think, what the subject is, what the emotions are, etc. without lyrics music, the same song, can touch each person differently and samely, but in a way that allows the individual to "describe" the music and feelings through his own subconcious and ownership of the music.

words are just as much an art form as sonic art and visual art. lyrics allow a person to tap into a narrative, a world, a belief and truly visualize it; just as one would with non-musical poetry. interpretation can most definitely still exist, especially when the lyrics are more abstract, but less so than in music w/o lyrics. a person can still take what he wishes from the song, and even if a song is about one thing, it could resonate inside of him in a completely different way than what was intended. furthermore, since we are hearing the words being sung, they have a value that adds to the sonic qulity of the song--irregardless of the meaning behind that word. the way in which word is sung, the beat, the lilt, the harmony, how it reacts to the other words around it, etc. is independant of the meaning of those very words and so, the voice in fact is like an instrument as well. i see this most w/foreign (to me) music when i don't understand the words. i find the way the words are sung, the sound of the letters, how one word plays off the other fascinating. it all becomes "instrumental" to me and the same abstract quality of non-lyrical music is in effect. i can still ascertain the mood and guess the subject matter to a certain degree--this song is melancholy, this song is happy, this song seems to be about loss, etc.

music can loose a bit of its universality when words are attached to it. it is natural to latch on the value of these words and not go beyond that. i do think it's possible to push past that and maintain a level of abstractness that schopenhauer praises w/non-lyrical music, though. i wouldn't say one is greater than the other, though.

 

[ps139]

I've never heard of Schoepenhauer before but wow, he is so right. That the essence of music is the music.

Although it should be said that with someone like Dave Matthews, while his lyrics are great - I think that his voice (think of Dave's voice as another instrument) is as important in conveying the meaning of the lyrics as the lyrics themselves. For example, I think if I did not speak English I could understand him. I use him as an example because his name was brought up, this could apply to a lot of people.

When I hear the song "Ave Maria" in Latin, even though I do not understand all the words, I can totally feel what the song is meant to convey. A lot of songs are like this.

Too often we forget, with lyrics (I have often been guilty of this myself) that the voice is first and foremost an instrument. I've slowly been realizing this as I've been listening to better vocalists.

 

[nadroj1985]

A couple apologies; first, I was in Columbus all weekend for a couple concerts, so I couldn't respond 'til now, and second, the title of this thread is horrible. I didn't mean to present the idea that instrumental music is a higher form of art than words, although Schopenhauer might say it was. I just meant that there's a certain place for each of them, and using music only as a representation of a particular set of words is doing disservice to the music. Sorry if it's not clear, but as I said above the topic's a bit abstruse.

Anyway....

On a semi-related note, how do you define "music"?

Great question. I would say any sound that contains either pitch or rhythm, without the necessary addition of words. The gray areas are things like poetry (has rhythm, but needs words), simple percussion (no pitch, per se), and ambient (no rhythm). The definition is made the way it is to accomodate for that, because I think simple percussion and ambient are music forms, while poetry is not. Does that work?

i don't think that you can say words are better than the music, or vise versa.

Yeah, see the second apology above. Sorry about the bad title; you, WesternDeity, Murmur, and absolutelylost responded with that issue in mind.

i think music without words tends to be more universal. without lyrics it is able to be more abstract, allowing the listener to attach their own personal meanings and emotions. lyrics can, at times, be more directive and tell the person what to think, what the subject is, what the emotions are, etc. without lyrics music, the same song, can touch each person differently and samely, but in a way that allows the individual to "describe" the music and feelings through his own subconcious and ownership of the music.

Yes, exactly. That's precisely what I see Schopenhauer getting at in the segment I posted; it's truly one of the reasons I love music so much.

words are just as much an art form as sonic art and visual art. lyrics allow a person to tap into a narrative, a world, a belief and truly visualize it; just as one would with non-musical poetry. interpretation can most definitely still exist, especially when the lyrics are more abstract, but less so than in music w/o lyrics. a person can still take what he wishes from the song, and even if a song is about one thing, it could resonate inside of him in a completely different way than what was intended.

Another good point. Just as an aside, I'm not trying to downplay the artistic value of words here (not saying you took it that way). But yes, the artistic movements that make words more interpretational make them more musical in a way; Symbolist poetry comes to mind.

furthermore, since we are hearing the words being sung, they have a value that adds to the sonic qulity of the song--irregardless of the meaning behind that word. the way in which word is sung, the beat, the lilt, the harmony, how it reacts to the other words around it, etc. is independant of the meaning of those very words and so, the voice in fact is like an instrument as well.

Yes!!! This was an issue I had in mind while I was writing the OP. Because, the main thing I'm condemning is placing music in servitude to the words, but I don't want to go so far as to condemn the song form, because to be quite honest most of my favorite works of art are in this form. I think you explained very well a moderation between those two extremes: voice is used as another instrument, and doesn't just state the words, but adds a little of music's universality to the words. Yeah, I really like that, actually.

i see this most w/foreign (to me) music when i don't understand the words. i find the way the words are sung, the sound of the letters, how one word plays off the other fascinating. it all becomes "instrumental" to me and the same abstract quality of non-lyrical music is in effect. i can still ascertain the mood and guess the subject matter to a certain degree--this song is melancholy, this song is happy, this song seems to be about loss, etc.

Yep, I thought immediately of Sigur Ros as you were saying this. They're really the best example. Since they sing in Icelandic, I obviously can't understand the lyrics, but you really get a sense not only that the voice is another instrument, but also that it is a really special instrument, able to display an amazingly wide array of emotions - perhaps even more than one in just one note. Sigur Ros' singer is a great example of this, too; he has a wonderful voice.

music can loose a bit of its universality when words are attached to it. it is natural to latch on the value of these words and not go beyond that. i do think it's possible to push past that and maintain a level of abstractness that schopenhauer praises w/non-lyrical music, though. i wouldn't say one is greater than the other, though.

I try to stay away from comparing the different forms of art; the general idea to me is that music used only as a representation of the words is not using music to the fullest extent. But, perhaps that piece of art is focusing on the words as the artistic element, and everything else is subservient. Schopenhauer might argue that music should never be subservient, as it is the highest form of art in his system, but I don't think that's universally true, even though I do enjoy music more than any other art form.

I've never heard of Schoepenhauer before but wow, he is so right. That the essence of music is the music.

Although it should be said that with someone like Dave Matthews, while his lyrics are great - I think that his voice (think of Dave's voice as another instrument) is as important in conveying the meaning of the lyrics as the lyrics themselves. For example, I think if I did not speak English I could understand him. I use him as an example because his name was brought up, this could apply to a lot of people.

When I hear the song "Ave Maria" in Latin, even though I do not understand all the words, I can totally feel what the song is meant to convey. A lot of songs are like this.

Too often we forget, with lyrics (I have often been guilty of this myself) that the voice is first and foremost an instrument. I've slowly been realizing this as I've been listening to better vocalists.

Yep, you got it I covered pretty much all of this in response to Nico, I think.

 

[Western Deity]

I didn't mean to present the idea that instrumental music is a higher form of art than words, although Schopenhauer might say it was. I just meant that there's a certain place for each of them, and using music only as a representation of a particular set of words is doing disservice to the music. Sorry if it's not clear, but as I said above the topic's a bit abstruse.

The two go hand in hand; to say that music used simply to accentuate or accommodate lyricism is a disservice to music is akin to saying music has a possible service outside of accommodating a set of lyrics, and puts music "above" lyricism, or so to speak. I simply disagree- music has no purpose other than to moderately accentuate lyricism.

Of course music is universal, in the same way colours are universal; a man can paint a picture in many shades of blue and make one feel sad, yet I am disinclined to call that man an artist. Essentially what I'm saying is that I agree with you as to what music does (or doesn't, as it may be), however, in my mind, it isn't nearly as enjoyable as what it does (albeit very little) as a foundation for lyricism. Which, like I said, is probably just as a result of the type of "music" I have been growing up around.

On another sidenote, if we use music to describe, for lack of a better term, the "instrumental" part of a track, what do we call the final track (ie. "music" + lyrics)? For example, I grew up/ am growing up around rap. If I say, "the type of music I have been growing up around", I am referring to rap, yet rap is also defined as "music" + monologue. What we have then is music being defined in terms of music, which is very confusing . Maybe your thread could have been entitled "Instrumentals vs. Words...", because even though the way you defined "music" is fine, the way you apply it is very ambiguous.

 

[nadroj1985]

The two go hand in hand; to say that music used simply to accentuate or accommodate lyricism is a disservice to music is akin to saying music has a possible service outside of accommodating a set of lyrics, and puts music "above" lyricism, or so to speak. I simply disagree- music has no purpose other than to moderately accentuate lyricism.

Of course music is universal, in the same way colours are universal; a man can paint a picture in many shades of blue and make one feel sad, yet I am disinclined to call that man an artist. Essentially what I'm saying is that I agree with you as to what music does (or doesn't, as it may be), however, in my mind, it isn't nearly as enjoyable as what it does (albeit very little) as a foundation for lyricism. Which, like I said, is probably just as a result of the type of "music" I have been growing up around.

Well, I don't really think we can argue any further, actually. The statement "music has no purpose other than to moderately accentuate lyricism" is so different from the way I look at music that I don't think we can really discuss it. To be honest, I can't even imagine thinking that. I'm not trying to say that it's a silly opinion or anything, but it's just fundamentally different from my whole view of art.

On another sidenote, if we use music to describe, for lack of a better term, the "instrumental" part of a track, what do we call the final track (ie. "music" + lyrics)? For example, I grew up/ am growing up around rap. If I say, "the type of music I have been growing up around", I am referring to rap, yet rap is also defined as "music" + monologue. What we have then is music being defined in terms of music, which is very confusing . Maybe your thread could have been entitled "Instrumentals vs. Words...", because even though the way you defined "music" is fine, the way you apply it is very ambiguous.

I would say that a song is a combination of words and music. If that doesn't answer your question then I'm not sure what you're asking.

Rap, I think, includes music to much less of an extent than most of the artists I listen to, so that's where our disagreement is coming from.

 

[stonetoflesh]

Cool thread, Nadroj... I'm a big fan of thinking about music-as-communication and universal expression. I wish I had that Schopenhauer essay when I was in grad school; I wrote a paper on the subject and I probably could have mined this for all it was worth...
Music, Language, & Communication
http://besser.tsoa.nyu.edu/impact/f01/Papers/Vasche/is209paper.htm

The two go hand in hand; to say that music used simply to accentuate or accommodate lyricism is a disservice to music is akin to saying music has a possible service outside of accommodating a set of lyrics, and puts music "above" lyricism, or so to speak. I simply disagree- music has no purpose other than to moderately accentuate lyricism.

Perhaps a case could be made for this if it were specifically aimed at western pop/rock music; I don't know if this is what you were getting at, but I'm guessing that it is. Otherwise, how would symphonic music fit into this? Bebop? Minimalism? Taiko?

 

[nadroj1985]

Perhaps a case could be made for this if it were specifically aimed at western pop/rock music; I don't know if this is what you were getting at, but I'm guessing that it is. Otherwise, how would symphonic music fit into this? Bebop? Minimalism? Taiko?

Yeah, that's why I said I don't know how much I could discuss music with WD. Are Mozart, Stravinsky, Miles Davis, John Coltrane, etc. to be viewed as meaningless?

 

[ps139]

Come on Nadroj, obviously WD knows more about music than Mozart!

 

[Western Deity]

Are Mozart, Stravinsky, Miles Davis, John Coltrane, etc. to be viewed as meaningless?

As far as my music tastes go, yes. Of course they're not meaningless in the sense that I must have given, because there are heaps of people that enjoy them, and the fact that we're discussing them gives them meaning. But you are correct, it is a fundamental mindset difference, and a gap that isn't going to be bridged.

how would symphonic music fit into this? Bebop? Minimalism? Taiko?

Drink coasters, I guess.

Rap, I think, includes music to much less of an extent than most of the artists I listen to, so that's where our disagreement is coming from.

I guess what I'm trying to say is the way you separate lyrics from the "music" is entirely pointless and arbitrary. You define "music" as sound that contains either pitch or rhythm, without the necessary addition of words, and then say rap (or any song, I guess) is "music + words". Why do you choose to separate the lyrics? Why not include lyrics in your definition of music and separate the drumline, and let a song be "music + drumline"? What do lyrics not share with all the other elements of "music"?

Come on Nadroj, obviously WD knows more about music than Mozart!

Thanks champ .

BTW, sorry if my last post seemed cryptic or odd, but it is difficult for me to really argue anything while trying to subscribe to your definition of music, nadroj.

 

[Nico]

I guess what I'm trying to say is the way you separate lyrics from the "music" is entirely pointless and arbitrary. You define "music" as sound that contains either pitch or rhythm, without the necessary addition of words, and then say rap (or any song, I guess) is "music + words". Why do you choose to separate the lyrics? Why not include lyrics in your definition of music and separate the drumline, and let a song be "music + drumline"? What do lyrics not share with all the other elements of "music"?

i kinda understand your point when you refer to rap; however, just to stay focused here, the original question posed was distinctly about lyrics and music. and i guess i would argue that while one could make the question about "music + drumline", but "music + words" is unique in the sense that words offer a sonic quality to the music by way of harmony, rythm, etc., etc., but remain different from all the elements in that they have another meaning that is very profound to us in and out of the context of the song. no other element really is that way for us when isolated.

it is interesting about what you bring up about rap, a form that is so relient on words; yet it still is very much a musical artform. have you listened to foreign rap? how does that change (or not) for you?

 

[nadroj1985]

As far as my music tastes go, yes. Of course they're not meaningless in the sense that I must have given, because there are heaps of people that enjoy them, and the fact that we're discussing them gives them meaning. But you are correct, it is a fundamental mindset difference, and a gap that isn't going to be bridged.

Yep, there isn't a point in arguing it. Arguing preference is usually pointless, and this argument that we've got going really has to be about preference. As much as your preference is incomprehensible to me, it is no less valid than mine.

I guess what I'm trying to say is the way you separate lyrics from the "music" is entirely pointless and arbitrary. You define "music" as sound that contains either pitch or rhythm, without the necessary addition of words, and then say rap (or any song, I guess) is "music + words". Why do you choose to separate the lyrics? Why not include lyrics in your definition of music and separate the drumline, and let a song be "music + drumline"? What do lyrics not share with all the other elements of "music"?

Ah, I see the problem now. I might make the same distinction Schopenhauer makes, that the music conveys the universal, while the words are hopelessly bound to the particular. Or even that words are limited by the language they are in, the concepts that produced them, etc. It seems to me that words are necessarily limited in a way that music is not. Granted, music has its limits, but I think it can go places words cannot. Does that make more sense?

BTW, sorry if my last post seemed cryptic or odd, but it is difficult for me to really argue anything while trying to subscribe to your definition of music, nadroj.

Well, I'm open to a better definition, if you can think of one; music is a tough thing to define.

 

[ps139]

Here is my thought:
A picture says a thousand words; music says a million, without speaking one.


(Maybe if I refine the phrasing it'll become a classic quote in 50 years )

 

[nadroj1985]

Here is my thought:
A picture says a thousand words; music says a million, without speaking one.


(Maybe if I refine the phrasing it'll become a classic quote in 50 years )

Nope Or at least it doesn't convey what I'm trying to say here. I'm saying music doesn't have to have anything to do with words, whether there is one or a million of them. It gets at what any number of words cannot get at.

 

[Western Deity]

Ah, I see the problem now. I might make the same distinction Schopenhauer makes, that the music conveys the universal, while the words are hopelessly bound to the particular. Or even that words are limited by the language they are in, the concepts that produced them, etc. It seems to me that words are necessarily limited in a way that music is not. Granted, music has its limits, but I think it can go places words cannot. Does that make more sense?

I think you're still drawing a firm line where there is in fact a smooth gradient... do you know the origins of music? I don't, but my speculation (and luckily for me, Wikipedia's speculation ) is that "Most likely the first instruments were percussion instruments, maybe a hollow trunk, stones hit together, or other things that are useful to create rhythm, but not always melody." What would this have conveyed? Very little? As music gets more complex, it conveys more and more, to the point where music has evolved from being able to convey little to being able to convey certain actions or feelings or emotions- an orchestra can convey a pretty neat cat + mouse situation . Wouldn't it be reasonable to say that lyrics are the natural extention of music, because music has been moving away from universality and ambiguity constantly?

And I don't really agree that music can "can go places words cannot"...

Well, I'm open to a better definition, if you can think of one; music is a tough thing to define.

I don't think you can define anything objectively, so I would say music is an sound that is perceived as pleasurable or enjoyable. Is that OK?

i kinda understand your point when you refer to rap; however, just to stay focused here, the original question posed was distinctly about lyrics and music. and i guess i would argue that while one could make the question about "music + drumline", but "music + words" is unique in the sense that words [snip] remain different from all the elements in that they have another meaning that is very profound to us in and out of the context of the song. no other element really is that way for us when isolated.

Really? I would say the drumline, the vocals, whatever else is sampled (eg. violins) all convey something, all with varying degrees of specificity. The drumline may convey very little, while the violins may present anger or sadness. It seems very odd to point out lyrics as "specific"; I would be more inclined to say "more specific".

it is interesting about what you bring up about rap, a form that is so relient on words; yet it still is very much a musical artform. have you listened to foreign rap? how does that change (or not) for you?

Yes, it makes no sense to me, and is therefore not really enjoyable.

Here is my thought:
A picture says a thousand words; music says a million, without speaking one.

I think simple music says a few words, maybe "sad" "happy" or something like that, and as music gets more and more complex, the blanks start to get filled in, until we reach lyricism, which presents something intelligible.

 

[stonetoflesh]

Well, I'm open to a better definition, if you can think of one; music is a tough thing to define.

I'd say that music is impossible to define beyond a certain degree (i.e. "a combination of pitch, silence and duration") since it's qualities are so subjective within the contexts of cultural standards and individual tastes.