This chapter deals largely with one of the bigger concepts discussed in class last thursday - that of music and its universality. I relates music with language and points out their undeniably analogous structures. Each, in a sense, can be used as a template to help better understand the other. For example, renowned American ethnomusicologist Mantle Hood took on the idea, approach, and practice of linguists who would immerse themselves in a new language and culture in order to better understand it and applied it to music. He named his new concept "bimusicality" out of which came "the development of fieldwork in which a scholar would learn to participate - as a performer and maybe composer - in the music he or she was studying, developing competence somewhat analogous to being bilingual" (Netttl 58).
This need for bimusical study and practice essentially negates the possibility of music being something that is "universally understood" by putting it on the same level as language. For it to be the "universal language" as conjectured in class, it would have to be above language in scope and "greatness" in that it would have to be the language that accomplished what all languages tried and failed to achieve, i.e. a complete and total unanimously understood means of communication. But if it is, in fact similar to language in the way that it is perceived, practiced, passed on, etc. then just as there is no such thing as a universally understood spoken language, there cannot be such a thing as a universally understood music sound or practice. Sure, there are similar structures and sounds within specific music styles that can form bridges and connect with other (not always so similar) musical traditions, but just because a language may have a similar phonetic alphabet as another doesn't mean that the two are mutually understood.
I wonder if it is easier (or harder) to become bimusical than to be bilingual. Also, has the emotive & evocative aspect of music been included in much analysis of the linguistic properties in music? Perhaps music can be 'universal' in its ability to communicate SOME kind of essence or emotion - I mean, sometimes words don't do descriptive justice to some things like strong emotions. Even if it may not be universally & fluently understood, there may be aspects of music practice/performance that don't have to be studied to create some connection. Though bimusicality seems to assume universality through the study/practice of a different musical style, I (argue/speculate?) that it may not be necessary to be bimusical in order to understand different types of music to an extent.
ReplyDeleteAs I was reading the response that sayasaurus gave I was wondering the exact same thing that Eunah pointed out. Is it easier to be bimusical than bilingual? I asked one of my roommates who is a non-music major this question and he said, "It's way easier to be bimusical than bilingual". He said the simple fact that you can play music from different regions of the world and express a certain emotion with it answers that question.
ReplyDeleteWithout giving it much though, I feel like becoming bimusical would be easier than becoming bilingual. I think I'm inclined to answer this way because it seems like a lot of musicians that I've met know how to play various styles of music and seem to have learned those styles of music with a lot more ease than they would with learning a new language. However, that said, I think it could be difficult distinguishing whether or not some of them have some level of understanding of the culture that music is from. A flamenco guitarist who learned blues guitar may very well know nothing besides how to play blues guitar. I guess maybe said guitarist wouldn't be as bimusical as I thought.
ReplyDeleteI think the idea of being bimusical versus bilingual also depends on the similarity of the instruments/languages. While we can say learning two instruments is easier than learning two languages, we are also often learning two related instruments. If I play piano and flute, I still use the same notation to understand both. Imagine Europeans- they often speak multiple languages fluently, and aside from early exposure, it may also because many of these languages have Latin roots that retain familiarity throughout them. Learning musics of very different cultures is a bit more difficult I imagine. One must understand the new notation, or lack of notation, to get a solid grasp of it. Transcribing an instrument to match a notation you are familiar with may detract from the "musical fluency and versatility" in my opinion. However, although learning different musics may still be easier than learning different languages, I believe it is also because music and language are not equitable in how they are utilized.
ReplyDeleteComing from two very different backgrounds in music, I find that the concept of bimusicality is true in some respects. The notion of immersing oneself within a particular style of music in attempts of better understanding the music, its composition, and performance can eventually lead to an understanding, appreciation, and fluency of the music close to that of a learned language. When applied to multiple styles of music, bimusicality can be reached.
ReplyDeleteHowever, when comparing bimusicality to bilingualism, I find the two very different. Sure, I mean, once a language is learned, it should, in theory, be easy to take concepts and apply them to learning another language; which is what occurs during the process of learning another musical style. For music though, it is easy to apply concepts of harmony, rhythm, phrase structure, instrumentation, and methods of notation to better understand how a style of music functions. It is these concepts that have qualities of universality to them, as they can be applied to every style of music and understood by everyone. In language, there are many more factors to take into consideration to fulfill the requirements of becoming truly fluent such as grammatical structures, writing systems (the type of alphabet used), comprehension, and translation. What is difficult about the comparison of bimusicality and bilingualism is that the spoken (and written) languages of the world today have so many possibilities and forms in which they can function that it is much harder to become universal in terms of being able to be understood at the same degree by everyone EVEN IF one were to immerse oneself in a culture and language. English is a Germanic language, being closely related in terms of structure and word composition to German, Swedish, and Dutch; English is very different from Chinese, which has very different structural elements as well as an additional tonal element in which the inflection and articulation of a sound completely changes the meaning of it even though they might be read the same way (to us at least).
With this in mind, bimusicality is something far more different and perhaps less complex than that of multilingualism as the concepts within all musics can be understood to certain degrees by everyone whereas the components that make up a language can vary largely between groups of people around the world showing evidence of their exclusivity and thus debunking (on one front) the analagousness of bimusicality and bilingualism.
I disagree that "all the concepts within all musics can be understood to certain degrees by everyone" - I know there are people who find it difficult enough learning one music theory/style/practice let alone multiple. True fluency/facility in a single style requires a great deal of commitment & there is the cultural aspect that I feel is integral to styles (that can be hard, if not hardest to learn within a music practice). I agree with you that bilingualism & bimusicality are different concepts but also that they are similarly difficult/complex for people to learn.
DeleteI agree with Jordan in that there are a few aspects that if learned can help in the acquiring of another musical form, for I have also switched from learning one type of music to another, but the complexity of learning another language, to me, is a lot more difficult. Not only because of the syntactical difference but also the social context to use the language. That being said, I am not saying that learning music styles is easy. It takes years to master a music from another culture, and I would also tie in learning the language as part of learning the music for a better social/ cultural context for the music. My point is that I do not feel that bilingualism and bimusicality should be compared, instead should be understood as their own separate entities, both with are which difficult to learn.
DeleteI think in some part ease of becoming bimusical or bilingual is dependent on the person in question. Some people can pick up languages quickly and I feel like this is not dissimilar from people who pick up other musical styles very quickly. For example I'm not one of those people that can move outside of my favored musical style with any amount of ease but over the course of years of study I do have a certain degree of knowledge and competency in understanding Western European Classical music. So I think there is a relation between the idea of bimusicality and bilingualism and as it is harder to learn two languages that are constructed differently it is also harder to learn two musics that have large cultural differences.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the concept of bimusicality negating the 'universal factor': Nettl limits it to 'human music'. In fact, he limits music in general to be inherently human. I personally don't think this is the case, though for humans, music definitely has a different function. But then again, music of different cultures often have different functions as well. What about birdsong? I don't understand why he doesn't categorize this as music. They sing for mating purposes. For some species, they learn the song when they are young, practice until it is perfected, and sing their beautiful songs throughout the rest of their lives to attract mates. I'm sure we can find some humans who attempt to do the same (any teenage boy who attempted to pick up the guitar...just kidding). Their songs don't attract humans in the same way. Messiaen often used birdsong in his compositions. I would be very surprised if he found mates in the same way as the birds did. But then that could also be that he was never fluent in birdsong. He was not bimusical.
ReplyDeleteI think that bimusicality is a concept that is familiar to most people in the United States because of their ethnic origins. For example, my family is Armenian so I grew up in an Armenian household and listened to Armenian music. I was also exposed to western classical music and of course popular music because of culture in the United States itself. The melting pot that we live in is a breeding ground for multiculturalism and in turn, bimusicality.
ReplyDeletewould you really say "most". What do you think is the difference between "melting pot" and multiculturism?
Delete