Music and Other Sign Systems

Abstract

[1] The great significance of the dictum 'the meaning of music is ineffable'-as well as the experience the dictum conveys -manifests itself in the continuity with which it has shaped Western discourse on music since its emergence in its modern version two centuries ago. (1) Although this significance is undebatable, there has been a vital and controversial discussion of its precise meaning since the nineteenth and-more intensely-during the late twentieth century, with critics asking in which particular way music can be considered ineffable and what (or what kind of meaning) it is that we cannot put into words. (2) This article does not contribute to this debate on the content of the dictum. Instead, it will focus on how the dictum and related concepts operate, that is, what this formulation and related formulations in their present shape explicitly 'say' and what they keep secret. This approach has been taken because I believe that the controversy of the past decades has not been caused by the enigmatic 'nature' of music itself, but by the rhetorical strategies implied in the formulation of the dictum. Carrying out a kind of critique, I will make visible values, hierarchies, and schemes the dictum and related concepts imply.[2] To this end, I will, first, analyze the dictum (section I) and, second, cross-check and compare it with other, similar theorems and concepts from diverse, not exclusively musical, contexts (sections II and III). This will serve as the basis for the development of an alternative theory that suggests different values, hierarchies and orders (section IV). http://www.mtosmt.org/issues/mto.14.20.4/mto.14.20.4.kutschke.php KEYWORDS: music and ineffability, 'translation of music,' semiotics and similarity, cultural critique ABSTRACT: Past scholarship has often investigated what we mean when we say that music is ineffable; it has also explored issues surrounding whether music can-or cannot-be translated. In contrast, this article shifts the focus from music and its meaning to the relationship between music and other sign systems, including verbal language. One of its key hypotheses is that the dictum of music's ineffability, though apparently describing the 'nature' of music, in fact only defines the relationship between music and verbal language. As I will argue, the apparent plausibility of the dictum of music's ineffability is an effect of our (Western-cultural) habit of attributing primary status to verbal language in comparison with other sign systems. Consequently, in the final section of this article, I will investigate the relationship between music and other sign systems. This latter investigation is founded on the consideration of our world of meaning as an infinite spectrum of diverse sign systems, sign constellations, and sign procedures, each of them valuable in itself. I. Ineffablity -quality vs. relation

The Philosophical Study of Music as the Influence Factor on the Social Environment

“…A. D. Patel carried out a deep and detailed study in this area. In his book "Music, Language and Brain", he compares two unique sound systems inherent in humanslanguage and music, comparing empirical data and data from cognitive neuroscience 4 .…”

“…<www.mtosmt.org/issues/mto.99.5.3/ mto.99.5.3.temperley.html> (2021, June, 10). 4 Patel, A.D. (2008). Music, Language and the Brain.…”

“…Music and Other Sign Systems. Music Theory Online, 20 (4). <http://www.mtosmt.org/issues/mto.14.20.4/mto.14.20.4.kutschke.php>.…”

“…Tones, like words, have certain properties that, with the help of certain rules, allow you to build unions that are more complex. Thus, the melody can be understood as a sentence 4 .…”