Music in Language (cont.)
This is more evidence that the framework for language is music, especially rhythm and meter. This would have to eventually occur because the tendency would be to make things as short as possible in order to remember them. (Things became longer because we developed technologies to record them, perhaps to shorten them at some later time.)
(If language is necessary for thinking, then universal languages may imply universal thoughtforms. This is something that is both exciting and troubling, as the idea of a diversity of culture is something we have gotten used to. AI may be the ultimate machine for this universality, but there is something dystopian about that in terms of who or what controls the data, and how 'universal' is defined).
Regardless of length, there seems to be a natural limit for sentence length (in spoken language), which may have a correlation with note groupings and meter in music. Music notation is really a system of hierarchical groupings. For example, arpeggios are also a way to group ideas, but they are more about music than spoken language. Music has "sentences" but it is more of a stretch to think we can speak in arpeggios. Phil Glass suggested arpeggios are one of the primary building blocks of music in that they use melody, harmony, and rhythm simultaneously. Languages can have similar conceptual groupings, and you can use the arpeggio as a metaphor in the way of using some aspect simultaneously with others.
The best way to explore the connection between language and music is to attempt to write a song yourself. Whichever comes first (words/music) will affect the song accordingly. In my experience, writing music from existing lyrics is more of a challenge, with the words suggesting a metric and rhythmic structure. But it's the music that ultimately controls language, and perhaps the intended meaning. Wrapping/rapping words over existing music is more tricky, and tends to be more abstract and less "wordy" so as to make more room for the music. In this case, an analysis may or may not be useful in any general sense. I would think that ambiguity is what might be more compelling than establishing or resolving meaning.
There is also the effect of genre, i.e. that certain musical forms possess a greater capacity for storytelling, such as folk, rap and opera. The first two push the music to the background, but obviously opera is the ultimate container for elaborate narrative (and analysis). I always found that Bruce Springsteen songs were too wordy, but it may be because he wouldn't compromise the words for the music. Imagine never hearing Born to Run and just hearing the tracks sans vocals. How could you squeeze words into it, let alone meaning? In some ways, how Springsteen did the vocal is close to recitative in opera, and more of a rap or scat. I attempted to find a notated version of the melody and could not find one. Perhaps no one would bother trying to transcribe it because it naturally defies it.
A few days ago I searched for Floyd Cramer videos on YouTube, and found Behind Closed Doors, a country hit from the 70s where Charlie Rich is playing in the style of Floyd Cramer. The search also found a song of the same title by the band Pop Evil. If you listen, they sing the phrase with almost the same rhythm, as if they were quoting it.
As we move away from typing towards dictation, we'll actually be doing less writing, but it won't matter because we'll always be re-interpreting and reshaping it.
Mark Twain’s Life on the Mississippi is thought to be the first typewritten book. But apparently he dictated that book to a secretary, that was then edited by a staff of editors and proofreaders.
It's interesting how the spoken (or sung) words move back to editable text. The natural language gets more refined through the text itself and how it is shaped over time.
