Nettl ultimately asserts that "music is not the universal language" after an overview of different methodologies of studying "universals" in music & the unavoidable complexities of trying to compare music with language. He starts with an attempt to define music but ends up identifying characteristics that can be generalized as "universal" to music across cultural/practical boundaries.
I can see why identifying universals can be helpful in the study of music and ethnomusicology because it can make comparative analysis easier when there are certain comparable elements within which one may identify differences. But in this chapter the different kinds of "universals" identified by Nettl seem so exceedingly broad to the point where I wonder if they are ultimately that useful...for example, "anything present in every instant of music" as a definition of music or that "musical utterances" are universal. The third approach asks if "there is a way in which all musics are [...] in some way alike." Is it just me or do these seem like givens?
Reading this chapter has made me a bit apprehensive about the idea of "universals." In seeking universality isn't there the danger of missing out on what actually makes different kinds of musics special or unique? Universality seems to imply trying to find commonalities against which differences may be identified. But wouldn't this lead to the generalizations of music traits to fit these "universals" rather than expand categories so as not to exclude elements that someone may arbitrarily dismiss as less significant in ethnomusicological studies?
I found this article pretty interesting although I do not agree with Nettl about music not being a universal language. In my opinion everyone can enjoy music. Music is something that is felt from within. At least with me I can listen to say Korean pop and I may not understand it but I like it. Its a universal feeling from within us.
ReplyDeleteAs I was reading this article I was watching one of my favorite shows, The Voice. There was an artist who sang in Spanish and Blake (The Country Artist) turned his chair around for her and said "I have no idea what any of the words you said mean but I liked it..." Then Shakira turns around and says to her "Music is a universal language" and I completely agree with her.
I am on the fence about whether music is an "universal language." I do understand that all music has the potential to be enjoyed and might share some commonalities among each other but other then that I believe it should be studied (and understood) in its own context. To me saying music is a "universal language" only generalizes musics and doesn't bring to light the difference between musics which can also be appreciated as much, if not more so.
DeleteI'm with Brent on this one. I'm also on the fence in regards to music being a universal language. If we take a broad definition of "universal language", then yes, music can be in a sense a universal language going by what you said, Manuel. That kind of definition probably has its place in some other study, but for ethnomusicography, we'd run into the described by Brent. Here, it'd be better to go with Nettl's idea of calling each society's music "music's dialects" and learn it on its own terms and context.
DeleteI think there needs to be a distinct division made between enjoyment and understanding. When one says that a language is universal, it is implied that it is understood. You can understand something, but not like it and you can like something, but not understand it.
DeleteFor something like Korean pop, it is the language that you are focusing on not understanding and not the music itself. You may "understand" the music, however, because Korean pop actually borrows heavily from American pop in the sense of boy bands, R&B, hip hop and such.
I just listened today to Eliott Carter's String Quartet No. 1 for music theory class. I actually enjoyed it, but I could not even begin to say that I understand it. Or any of Schoeberg's serialism pieces. I definitely don't enjoy this music, but I can sometimes understand it. (Though many would argue that this is not music at all! haha)
For music of other cultures, I may enjoy listening to it, but I wouldn't have understanding of its societal impact or historical meaning.
Basically, I don't think music can really be compared to language in such a straight analogy and Nettl does touch on that. I agree with Eunah that the focus on these broad universals is unnecessary.
"Music dialects" is a great idea in which each society's music is an extension on a certain... language or style of music, unique to one region slowly developing their own styles and tendencies. A good example of this can be the traditional musics of Eastern Asia - China, Japan, and Korea. They are all very similar in some aspects, and we can say that they drew heavily from the influences of one another. In the broad sense, Eastern Asian music an be considered a 'language' and the respective cultures' musics can be considered dialects, spreading even further when looking at geographical locations and their own unique perceptions on the music.
DeleteI liked the quote in which Nettl says, "music is not the universal language, but musics are not as mutually unintelligle as languages." I am inclined to agree with you, Eunah in that seeking universals is perhaps not as useful as commonalities, and that his cited examples are too broad to be of any real use, but I feel that they are a necessary starting point. I think that a reasonably open minded and observant person can usually (I am shy about using universals) can recognize music within a culture, regardless of how foreign it may be to their own's. In this case, I concede that music is somewhat universal.
ReplyDeleteIt is in calling it a universal language that I take issue. We can say that music communicates--I don't understand a lick of French, yet I understand that Je Veux Vivre, Juliet's Waltz from Gounod's Romeo and Juliet is definitely pre-tragedy and expressing her joy. We can tell from the upbeat rhythm and major key, but what about from a musical style without our modal connotations? The lyrics (if there are any) wouldn't mean anything to me, and I doubt I would be able to glean much from the instrumentation or musicality without familiarity with the style. How can it be a universal language if it can't communicate something with everyone?
I think that it is important to question why we as human beings want to find universality. Is it because we want to simplify, almost homogenize, concepts such a love and music? I personally don't think it's quite that simple. In my opinion, the reason people intrinsically seek universals is to connect with one another. To find a common ground with another human being is a feeling we're all familiar with, even if it doesn't have to do with music.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, I think that Nettl brings up a good point when he mentions that we should "study the music of each society in its own terms and learn it individually." He referred to Herzog when pointing out that music of a society can be viewed as a dialect rather than a language. This implies that musics of the world are interconnected in some way (as in a language), but have nuances between different cultures that make them distinct, but not unintelligible.
I believe that finding universals are not necessarily to connect with one another but to better understand the underlying concept to any particular object being studied. The universal found in language is its purpose: language is used as a form of communication. Language is defined as the method of human communication. What is music though? Once we can answer that question, we will find a universal.
DeleteI found it interesting that in searching for the commonalities between various musics, there is potential for these universals to become even broader. He uses rhythmic structure, having a beginning/ending, and repetition as vague guidelines for commonalities in musics. However, as we delve further into understanding what music is, it seems we also try to push the boundaries. The limited experience I have with experimental music at UCSD often times sounds quite bizarre and doesn't incorporate these universals. So how do we categorize experimental music as common to Nettl's definition?
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, "experimental music" inherently existed to push and test the idea(s) of what music is. From what I understand, these universal musical commonalities are simply theoretical and are put in place merely to establish a root definition for what music "may" be ... not necessarily what it is. One has to begin somewhere. No one can (at least without sounding pretentious) state that they "know" what music is. I don't even know if music is something that can be defined. Nevertheless, the idea that creating and/or playing music should be something separate and different from say, eating, sneezing, or coughing is a relevant one. In order to understand the universal phenomena of what we call "music" we must at least strive for a kind of universal if not definition, then understanding of what it is in relation to other things. How is it different? In following, it only makes sense to try and uncover its uniqueness by starting out with its commonality.
DeleteI agree with sayasaurus that by looking at the commonality of musics we can find what is truly unique in each music. I also agree with Nettl that music is not a 'universal language', because there are musics that if I hear I don't understand the purpose or the intent of, not unlike listening to a foreign language. I think it is important, as Brent said, that music should be understood in its own context, but I think it may be interesting to see the interaction of musics. As cultures interact with each other I think musics from different cultures interact as well, so it is possible that in finding similarities that the dialogue between cultures and musics might be easier.
ReplyDelete