# Is vocal music more human than instrumental music?



## deprofundis (Apr 25, 2014)

Before i discover really vocal music i did not thhink mutch of it or i was ignorant, than when i discover vocal music sutch has madrigal and motets i had a hard time switching back to instrumental.Aldous Huxley said he lisen to Mozart in c minor piano concerto his first movement and got borred because his impression of instrumental music was cold music and Gesualdo madrigals were a return to life he 
said Gesualdo was more human than Mozart, this is a bold statement to make, what to make out of all this, i agree whit Huxley but Mozart is still Mozart(i never implicitely advocate Mozart was borring).

:tiphat:


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Sure it is. We've been hearing and reacting emotionally to the human voice since we were born, and even before. Instrumental musicians strive to match its eloquence. It's no accident that stringed instruments, capable of minute nuances of expression, have been central to classical music for centuries, and that the saxophone plays a similarly central role in jazz. To say that an instrumentalist makes his instrument sing or speak is a great compliment.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

^ But I still prefer instrumental music, because I can hear it in a way that is not literal.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

No. Birds can sing, but they can't play a saxophone.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

brotagonist said:


> ^ But I still prefer instrumental music, because I can hear it in a way that is not literal.


Yes, the indefiniteness and suggestiveness of instrumental music is expressive in itself.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

starthrower said:


> No. Birds can sing, but they can't play a saxophone.


Thank God. Can you imagine waking up to the sound of saxophones in every tree?


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> Thank God. Can you imagine waking up to the sound of saxophones in every tree?


HaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

UuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH.

I'm

DY-

IIIIIIIIIIIIIINNNNNNNNNNNNG.

Gimme air. 
_
Toujours perdrix. _

I just had a flashback to that scene in the_ Talented Mr. Ripley_ where Dickie's dad has a temperamental outburst at the irritating sound of some Italian guy playing the saxophone while he is trying to talk.

So, 'yeah'- imagine walking early one morning by some trees by the beach where its nice and pristine-quiet. . . and then you hear that irritating thing.

Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

The human voice has always been the sublime source of inspiration throughout the history of music. All classical music composers aspire to write for the voice, if not then vocal in idiom in instrumental music. This includes contemporary composed music of course, although arguably to a lesser extent than older music.


----------



## Guest (Sep 2, 2015)

Er, no .


----------



## Guest (Sep 2, 2015)

Er, no and up to 15 characters.


----------



## shangoyal (Sep 22, 2013)

Yes, I think vocal music is more directly human - it's easier to connect with. Instrumental music is a language we learn slowly, but once we do, it can be very expressive.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

Almost by definition.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

I don't know. I've heard some voices that sound pretty inhuman.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

I don't agree.

First - the assumption seems to be that music that communicates in the most direct, visceral, emotional way possible is "more human" than music that communicates in a more abstract or intellectual way. But intellect and abstract aesthetic sensibility are also part of human nature.

Second - even if we do see take human voice as the ideal, an instrument in the right hands can also sing.

Also Huxley was tripping on mescaline when he made that observation.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

isorhythm said:


> I don't agree.
> 
> First - the assumption seems to be that music that communicates in the most direct, visceral, emotional way possible is "more human" than music that communicates in a more abstract or intellectual way. But intellect and abstract aesthetic sensibility are also part of human nature.
> 
> ...


Human voices speak too. Recitative & co. I find speach more communicative than song, which somehow seems unnatural. And I think that machines, instruments, can speak.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

I don't know about more human. After all, humans play the instruments too. But I sure like the human voice (some anyway) and the voice is the greatest musical instrument. 

I once got a CD of piano works that was produced using a computerized piano. It was creepy and I got rid of it. Just didn't seem human, or should we say the human element was more distant. 

So that gives a way of looking at it:

Voice: Direct Human Input
Instrument: One step removed from direct because human via instrument to ear.
Computer music: At least two steps removed for human, program, instrument, ear

If we add the differences of live vs recorded we can add more steps separating the human element from the ear.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

No - the violin in the right hands is 'more human than the humans'.


----------



## Guest (Sep 2, 2015)

I'm happy for the question to be asked, but it needs a little clarity about what is meant by "human". I know this is tiresome for some members, but it is not going to stop my asking. 

One of the things that makes us human is our ability to manipulate tools (and instruments), setting us apart from the animals. Why assume that we have to set ourselves apart from the robot or machine (the artificial)?


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

There's an idea in Aristotle's Politics which also may be important here. He talks about how the rudder of a ship becomes an extension of the master of the ship - he means an extension of the master's body. If a violin is a tool, then in the hands of the violinist, it becomes part of the violinist's somatic network, no more or less than vocal chords etc are part of the somatic network of the singer.

Another idea which also comes to mind is in the later Wittgenstein, where he's discussing language. If I remember correctly he considers the possibility that we've evolved to have certain responses to certain sounds. For example, it may be that we know innately the meaning of a cry of distress from a baby. 

If that's right, and there are these types of innate ideas, preprogrammed reactions to certain vocal sounds, there may indeed be something more human about the voice. 

Just random ideas here, I've never thought about this intetesting question before.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Ingélou said:


> No - the violin in the right hands is 'more human than the humans'.


And in the wrong hands is a device of torture!


----------



## KRoad (Jun 1, 2012)

Is vocal music more human than instrumental music? 

Succinctly put... Yes! 

For the past three years I have been listening to more and more opera for this very reason. An unexpected collateral of this was an increasing appreciation of String Quartetts (from the Hydan/classical perspective of creating a balanced dialogue/conversation between the four instruments involved).


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

I think that instrumental music is much more voice-like, human and less abstract than it would like to be.


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

starthrower said:


> No. Birds can sing, but they can't play a saxophone.


:lol:

The saxophone is certainly reminiscent of a human noise- from which orifice, I couldn't possibly say!


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

The saxophone can sing like nothing else.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

isorhythm said:


> The saxophone can sing like nothing else.


This is what got me interested in Jazz.


----------



## krampster2 (Aug 4, 2015)

If the lyrics of a vocal piece include the phrase "I'm sad and lonely" then those lyrics need to be backed up with a melody to suit. If the phrase "I'm sad and lonely" is sung in a jolly tune then it will not sound melancholic, but rather the opposite. This goes to show that as everyone knows, in music it is the melody that holds greater expressive importance, not lyrics. So it should not matter if that melody is sung, or played on an instrument, to me it's equally as expressive.

I'm not sure whether or not the OP was making the point that vocal music is more human because of lyrics, but if not I still don't think that it is, it's just another instrument to me.


----------



## Dim7 (Apr 24, 2009)

Of course it's more human. I think this is so even though currently I listen to more instrumental than vocal music.


----------



## Lucifer Saudade (May 19, 2015)

Of course the human voice is more human than an instrument. 

But that's all it is really. The reason we have instruments is because the human voice can't express *everything* we want or fulfill all our demands. A great guitar solo is much better at what it does then what a vocal solo could achieve. Every instrument has it's own unique sonic quality and they all contribute to enrich and expand our musical experience in one way or another. 

Ideally speaking, the human voice should be the most attractive sound overall... but that's ideally :lol:


----------



## Guest (Sep 4, 2015)

Florestan said:


> If we add the differences of live vs recorded we can add more steps separating the human element from the ear.


And the ear? It's always completely human, eh?

It really doesn't matter about the various sources for the sounds we hear. We're all humans, and we listen with human ears.

The end.


----------

