Is Music a Language?-Part 3
At this point in our discussion one may legitimately ask, “Why does it matter if music is or is not a language?” Certainly all serious philosophers are greatly concerned about whether music is or is not music is a language or a meta-language or no language at all. Depending on whether a philosopher music is a formalist, referentialist, or symbolist, different conclusions will be drawn, but they all are deeply concerned about music’s meaning and how and what it communicates in either a closed, symbolic or referential manner.
At this point in our discussion one may legitimately ask, “Why does it matter if music is or is not a language?” Certainly all serious philosophers are greatly concerned about whether music is or is not music is a language or a meta-language or no language at all. Depending on whether a philosopher music is a formalist, referentialist, or symbolist, different conclusions will be drawn, but they all are deeply concerned about music’s meaning and how and what it communicates in either a closed, symbolic or referential manner.
It seems that it is mostly contemporary
Christian musicians who do not seem to struggle with music’s meaning. They seem to be able to function without a
clear understanding of the nature of the music part of music in relationship to
what it is or is not capable of communicating.
When one does not have a clear understanding of the nature of music, the
simplest philosophical praxis is to ignore music’s power to communicate
anything at all. So they choose to
blindly ignore the efficacy of the music part of music by denying that is a
language or a meta-language.
Unlike the serious music philosopher who spends a lifetime studying the nature and value of every aspect of the music part of music, they, without any written scholarly basis, purport that only words are efficacious. I have noticed that their writings do not consider, with philosophical basis, the nature and value of the formal properties of the music part of music. This seems strange and illogical since their main thesis is purported to be communication.
What one believes about the music part of music’s communicating power will affect the entire process by which a Christian musician approaches music ministry. If a Christian musician naively assumes that the music part of music doesn’t communicate anything at all, then he or she will ipso facto erroneously suppose that the music part of music doesn’t matter.
Unlike the serious music philosopher who spends a lifetime studying the nature and value of every aspect of the music part of music, they, without any written scholarly basis, purport that only words are efficacious. I have noticed that their writings do not consider, with philosophical basis, the nature and value of the formal properties of the music part of music. This seems strange and illogical since their main thesis is purported to be communication.
What one believes about the music part of music’s communicating power will affect the entire process by which a Christian musician approaches music ministry. If a Christian musician naively assumes that the music part of music doesn’t communicate anything at all, then he or she will ipso facto erroneously suppose that the music part of music doesn’t matter.
No comments:
Post a Comment