Music without words is one way to present music entirely for the interpretation of the listener. Another way is music whose words cannot be understood by the listener.
I have a CD I enjoy quite a lot, on which there are a number of songs with lyrics entirely in Gaelic — of which I understand absolutely nothing. I searched around for a clue to the lyrics of one, and found that they were little more substantive than those of “La Bamba” (and bearing no relationship I’ve ever been able to find, to its title), yet the song is one of my favorites because the music, along with the singer’s voice, is simply beautiful.
I avoid thinking about the lyrics when I listen to the song. Nor am I considering trying to learn Gaelic as it will almost certainly ruin the song for me.
I am likewise somewhat timid about learning lyrics to my favorite (non-hymn) songs–even in cases such as Ode to Joy, whose translation I suspect I would appreciate–out of fear of disappointment or disillusionment.
As far as “do songs mean things without words” goes… I have to say yes. I think it’s silly to ban Ave Maria in this case, and no “hidden meaning” is probably *intended*, but could it ever be assumed that there is no hidden meaning in the hypothetical case of a band insisting on playing the Soviet anthem at every performance?
If if didn’t we wouldn’t listen.
I think the only way to figure out if “X” piece of music is “religious”, which is the issue here, it would have to be played, sans any possible words, for people who’ve never heard it, and without telling them the name first.
And of course music has meaning. Music without meaning is an absurd concept. Even really bad music has meaning to somebody, if only to the person that wrote it.
Not to mention the knuckle heads blasting the base line, of said bad music, through 5ooo watts of speakers, behind me, at the stop light.
Actually, we’ve got a boatload of people who appear to think words don’t mean anything without music.
Music can imply lyrics, but if I want to imply something, I’ve got to rely on what someone else already knows. If I play a novel piece of music, the listener might not find much meaning beyond musical concepts. Some commenters here are focusing on the nature of that meaning, but I’m going to comment on the issues related to lawsuit. If I play a well-known work like “God Save The King” on the piano in the UK, and my audience doesn’t know I’m American, I can count on the listeners to think that I’m implying the words to “God Save The King”. If I play the same piece in the USA, the typical American audience will assume I’m implying “My Country, ‘Tis of Thee”. Since Ave Maria is well-known, the plaintiff in this case can argue that the school band is implying a religious message, If the student body is too ignorant for it to be plausible that the students would infer such a message, the plaintiff might not have a case, but the school might want to strengthen its humanities curriculum.
If the student body is too ignorant for it to be plausible that the students would infer such a message, the plaintiff might not have a case, but the school might want to strengthen its humanities curriculum.
How could it do that if it’s not allowed to play religious music in schools? The people who are familiar with Ave Maria are the least likely to be offended by its religious connotations, and if you’re not familiar with it, where would be the offense…?
Rand, the answer to your question is context. You have to ask: Is religion being advocated, celebrated, or just studied? I was the only Jewish kid (and one of only a few clearly non-Christian kids) in my high school. I voiced all sorts of protest over religious displays as blatant as Naitivity scenes, and as seemingly innocuous as Christmas trees. But that was because they displays were intended to celebrate Christmas. In class, in an academic setting, I had no problem studying the bible as literature, nor did I object to learning about various paintings and musical numbers which were inspired by Christianity. Learning about something that contributed to your culture is different than having it advocated.
Ooops. I didn’t mean to call Ave Maria “a musical number”. Heh.
“Ooops. I didn’t mean to call Ave Maria “a musical number”. Heh.”
It is in Fantasia (original version), and proof music can be made to mean something else other than what it is supposed to mean originally– not that the Fantasia version is that far removed from the religious, but it clearly is not religious.
Context does matter, pro and con. I can no longer listen to Copland’s Rodeo without “Beef: It’s what for dinner” popping up, and Gershwin is now permanently linked to American Airlines, unfortunately. Land of Hope and Glory is no longer recognized as such, and if you played it trying to evoke the original context people might think you were instead doing a satire on college graduations, and would miss the meaning entirely. On the plus side, the fourth movement of the Pines of Rome is made stronger by knowing what it is supposed to represent.
But you don’t necessarily need a connotation, though it truly helps. Vaughan Williams Sinfonia Antarctica is powerful and evocative even by itself, even though I have never seen the movie the score was written for. And I do not know what great sorrow Beethoven was trying to evoke with the second movement of the Seventh Symphony, but my mind has supplied scenes enough. Music is the calculus of the soul. No words are needed. Every human emotion, every human thought can be brought forward via pure music, and can be made ultra powerful with but a slight connection to a visual picture, even if in but the mind’s eye. And that naturally leads me to wonder if analog vibrations are somehow the fundamental unit of human thought, instead of digital bits.
Of course music can have a message – but it has to be taken in cultural context, which can change.
Two examples: John Philip Souza’s “Liberty Bell”, which used to be a perfectly respectable military march tune but is now somewhat of a joke since the Monty Python team appropriated it. And as an example of music being used to convey a subtle message (in this case an insult), see if you can find footage on YouTube of a British military band announcing the arrival of the King of Mordor a.k.a. Saudi Arabia at a diplomatic function, with music. The tune selected? The Imperial March.
British Army event organisers and musical arrangers do not do anything by accident; pomp and ceremony are one of the few things we do better than anyone else – except maybe the US Marines drill team and that is a matter of opinion. So the choice of music was a subtle insult. Of course, the arrangers denied it.
Music is the calculus of the soul.
Two words, Rand: Dick Dale.
Music without words is one way to present music entirely for the interpretation of the listener. Another way is music whose words cannot be understood by the listener.
I have a CD I enjoy quite a lot, on which there are a number of songs with lyrics entirely in Gaelic — of which I understand absolutely nothing. I searched around for a clue to the lyrics of one, and found that they were little more substantive than those of “La Bamba” (and bearing no relationship I’ve ever been able to find, to its title), yet the song is one of my favorites because the music, along with the singer’s voice, is simply beautiful.
I avoid thinking about the lyrics when I listen to the song. Nor am I considering trying to learn Gaelic as it will almost certainly ruin the song for me.
I am likewise somewhat timid about learning lyrics to my favorite (non-hymn) songs–even in cases such as Ode to Joy, whose translation I suspect I would appreciate–out of fear of disappointment or disillusionment.
As far as “do songs mean things without words” goes… I have to say yes. I think it’s silly to ban Ave Maria in this case, and no “hidden meaning” is probably *intended*, but could it ever be assumed that there is no hidden meaning in the hypothetical case of a band insisting on playing the Soviet anthem at every performance?
If if didn’t we wouldn’t listen.
I think the only way to figure out if “X” piece of music is “religious”, which is the issue here, it would have to be played, sans any possible words, for people who’ve never heard it, and without telling them the name first.
And of course music has meaning. Music without meaning is an absurd concept. Even really bad music has meaning to somebody, if only to the person that wrote it.
Not to mention the knuckle heads blasting the base line, of said bad music, through 5ooo watts of speakers, behind me, at the stop light.
Actually, we’ve got a boatload of people who appear to think words don’t mean anything without music.
Music can imply lyrics, but if I want to imply something, I’ve got to rely on what someone else already knows. If I play a novel piece of music, the listener might not find much meaning beyond musical concepts. Some commenters here are focusing on the nature of that meaning, but I’m going to comment on the issues related to lawsuit. If I play a well-known work like “God Save The King” on the piano in the UK, and my audience doesn’t know I’m American, I can count on the listeners to think that I’m implying the words to “God Save The King”. If I play the same piece in the USA, the typical American audience will assume I’m implying “My Country, ‘Tis of Thee”. Since Ave Maria is well-known, the plaintiff in this case can argue that the school band is implying a religious message, If the student body is too ignorant for it to be plausible that the students would infer such a message, the plaintiff might not have a case, but the school might want to strengthen its humanities curriculum.
If the student body is too ignorant for it to be plausible that the students would infer such a message, the plaintiff might not have a case, but the school might want to strengthen its humanities curriculum.
How could it do that if it’s not allowed to play religious music in schools? The people who are familiar with Ave Maria are the least likely to be offended by its religious connotations, and if you’re not familiar with it, where would be the offense…?
Rand, the answer to your question is context. You have to ask: Is religion being advocated, celebrated, or just studied? I was the only Jewish kid (and one of only a few clearly non-Christian kids) in my high school. I voiced all sorts of protest over religious displays as blatant as Naitivity scenes, and as seemingly innocuous as Christmas trees. But that was because they displays were intended to celebrate Christmas. In class, in an academic setting, I had no problem studying the bible as literature, nor did I object to learning about various paintings and musical numbers which were inspired by Christianity. Learning about something that contributed to your culture is different than having it advocated.
Ooops. I didn’t mean to call Ave Maria “a musical number”. Heh.
“Ooops. I didn’t mean to call Ave Maria “a musical number”. Heh.”
It is in Fantasia (original version), and proof music can be made to mean something else other than what it is supposed to mean originally– not that the Fantasia version is that far removed from the religious, but it clearly is not religious.
Context does matter, pro and con. I can no longer listen to Copland’s Rodeo without “Beef: It’s what for dinner” popping up, and Gershwin is now permanently linked to American Airlines, unfortunately. Land of Hope and Glory is no longer recognized as such, and if you played it trying to evoke the original context people might think you were instead doing a satire on college graduations, and would miss the meaning entirely. On the plus side, the fourth movement of the Pines of Rome is made stronger by knowing what it is supposed to represent.
But you don’t necessarily need a connotation, though it truly helps. Vaughan Williams Sinfonia Antarctica is powerful and evocative even by itself, even though I have never seen the movie the score was written for. And I do not know what great sorrow Beethoven was trying to evoke with the second movement of the Seventh Symphony, but my mind has supplied scenes enough. Music is the calculus of the soul. No words are needed. Every human emotion, every human thought can be brought forward via pure music, and can be made ultra powerful with but a slight connection to a visual picture, even if in but the mind’s eye. And that naturally leads me to wonder if analog vibrations are somehow the fundamental unit of human thought, instead of digital bits.
Of course music can have a message – but it has to be taken in cultural context, which can change.
Two examples: John Philip Souza’s “Liberty Bell”, which used to be a perfectly respectable military march tune but is now somewhat of a joke since the Monty Python team appropriated it. And as an example of music being used to convey a subtle message (in this case an insult), see if you can find footage on YouTube of a British military band announcing the arrival of the King of Mordor a.k.a. Saudi Arabia at a diplomatic function, with music. The tune selected? The Imperial March.
British Army event organisers and musical arrangers do not do anything by accident; pomp and ceremony are one of the few things we do better than anyone else – except maybe the US Marines drill team and that is a matter of opinion. So the choice of music was a subtle insult. Of course, the arrangers denied it.