7 minute read
Music is NOT a universal language
Dr Liz Stafford sets out the argument for retiring a misleading phrase
This article could have been titled ‘Is music a universal language?’, except for one factor; I am absolutely certain that it isn’t! This statement has been bandied about for years, with even Ofsted trotting it out in their recent Music Subject Report, but it is really just a meaningless platitude. And in fact it’s not just a platitude, but a culturally insensitive one at that! To prove it, let’s break this phrase down into its component parts: music, universal and language, with the help of some musicians and teachers who chatted with me about this on social media.
Music
We all think we know what we mean by music, right? But when using the phrase ‘music is a universal language’ we need to consider the following. What music? Whose music? All music? Whenever I see or hear this phrase being used, it is never attached to a world music tradition, it is always used to describe Western music, either pop or classical. As Katherine Firth (Threads @katherinefirth) pointed out to me: “Western Classical music is founded upon theoretical assumptions about happy/sad/turbulent/complete which do not map at all onto other musics (including many European folk musics further afield). Worse, these assumptions have been used to dismiss other musics as ‘noise.’ I guess western music is ‘universal’ if that is the only kind that counts!!!” This summarises for me the fact that the idea of music as a universal language is heavily influenced by colonialism, even if those who use this phrase don’t really realise it. As Alan Duguid (X @Aduguid82) commented, “Ignoring the linguistic reference for a moment universality suggests a dominance of the WCT, othering not only so many cultural contexts but also perpetuating the symbolic violence and tension with an evolving world. The culturally-situated nature of how music is perceived and understood is not fixed or static; universality contains such strong neo-colonial undertones ” Basically, by saying that ‘ our ’ music is universal we are dismissing the importance of ‘their’ music, and in effect doing the very opposite of what the phrase is trying to suggest.
Setting the music of other humans aside, what about the music that exists in nature? Is birdsong or whale song ‘music’, and if so does that mean it is ‘a universal language.’ Do we really think we understand what is going on in a bird or mammal’s mind from the music that it makes? And how could we ever be sure? Your average fairytale princess seems to think they can, but I’m not entirely sure this translates across reliably to the real world…
Universal
Name a musical style that everyone in the world likes and understands. You can’t Therefore music is not universal. I was tempted just to stop there, but this point of view probably needs some more explanation!
Carol Jane (X @hebe jane) shares “If it were universal, children wouldn’t need to learn the language I spend a lot of time teaching listening skills and by Y1 they’re not giggling or squirming when they hear an operatic aria or Indonesian music. Only children new to school (and adults within earshot) do that!” This highlights for me the main issue with the ‘universal’ moniker, there are too many different types of music in the world to say that all music is universal, and then when you add the additional layer of personal preference, you cannot possibly justify the use of the word. People often actively dislike certain types of music; for me it’s definitely heavy metal music, which actively gives me anxiety symptoms, never mind just not being pleasing to my ear. For others it could be classical, or acid jazz, or drill. The fact that people have different preferences and responses to different types of music therefore means that music cannot be said to be universal.
However, it is definitely worth considering Richard Jeffries’ (X @RichMJeffries) point of view, “By definition, universal means ‘relating to or done by all people in the world or in a particular group,' and music is in every known culture. I think perhaps the phrase ‘universal language’ isn’t meant to be taken literally, but illustrates its universal qualities ”
Richard may well be right that this phrase is being misused. The earliest use of this phrase I can track down is the poet Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, whose statement ‘music is the universal language of mankind’ certainly could be interpreted in that way. Although if any form of music, however disparate, can be considered universal, then surely it follows that ‘the universal language of mankind’ is in fact, er, language (which like music comes in many different disparate forms).
Language
Language is communication system, and you could also argue that music is a communication system, but with one big difference. As long as you speak the language, you will understand the exact meaning (allowing for nuance, inflection, and pitch where these are relevant to the particular language of course) of that language when spoken to you. Music, however, has no fixed definitions, it can only ever be ‘interpreted’ not ‘understood.’ As Dr Rob Upton (X @robupton) surmises; “Even in performance, we each interpret the gestures differently meaning that ‘the same’ notes can create vastly differing interpretations. Music has no fixed nodes of meaning.”
That there is no objective meaning in music is something which I have written about before, and therefore if it is a language, it’s a pretty useless one! The mysteriously titled AC (X @castomusic) summed this up very well I thought; “It’s not a universal language. It has no power as a cognitive language unless we use it to concoct unique soundbytes and codify them. And once we’ve done that it’s still not universal It’s just an exclusive language for those that know the code.”
As Professor Martin Fautley (X @DrFautley) shares, “I’ve always said that music isn’t a language as it lacks lexical indication. You can’t say ‘can I have a cheese sandwich’ in music!” You can’t communicate anything with any certainty in music without adding words, which is summed up in Dr Ally Daubney’s (X @AllyDaubney) pithy response to my request for comments on this subject, “Do you want my response in notation or will an audio recording do?” I laughed so much I nearly choked on my cheese sandwich!
Why is there this obsession with music being a ‘language’ in the first place? Chris Philpott (X @ChrisPhilpott5) may have the answer: “Is music a universal language? No – but the ideology of literacy = notation perpetuates this.” Of course this makes perfect sense when you think about it, we talk about being musically literate, reading, and writing music, so of course it would therefore follow that music should be classified as a language. But to what end? What would this be helpful for?
Perhaps the last word on this subject should go to Lynn Holman-Fox (X @holman_fox): “If it is [a universal language], what does it say? Why the necessity to attach such a label? Its ontogenetic complexity defies such a reductive description ” (And yes, I needed to look up ‘ontogenetic.’ Turns out music isn’t the only language that has problems with universality!) Why do we even need to label music as anything other than ‘music’, particularly with a label that is so flawed? I hope you agree that it is definitely time that we quietly retired this phrase!
