Music has many universals. It can be found in every
culture in history from any time period. Everywhere, social
identity and borders are reinforced with music. It is universally
used for spiritual enlightenment, atheistic expression, and
religious ceremony. However, it is not a
universal language.
Webster 1913 defines language as
"any means of conveying or communicating ideas". The idea that music can convey ideas regardless of society or culture is flawed. Just as spoken
languages differ, so do so musical languages. Just as an Indonesian
wouldn't understand English, he wouldn't understand the
awesome power of a Jimi Hendrix guitar solo or the
lyrical genius of John Lennon. Just as most Americans would
hear nothing more than tonal babbling when someone is speaking
Japanese, they would not understand the subtle, philosophical
implications of Japanese Sankyoku. Just as a Sub-Saharan
African drummer would find many Western modern rock
drummers pounding out uninteresting, repetitive beats, we would
find a disturbing lack of harmony and chords in Chinese
Peking Opera. From a Western point of view, classical Indian
music is well admired for many reasons, such as the lightning
quick fingering of sitarists and the insanely fast, complex
drumming beats on the tabla. However, those native to Indian
music appreciate the creativity of improvisation more than
musical accuracy or speed.
In short, no culture really
understand another culture's music. While music can seemingly
communicate between cultures, it is interpreted as if it were
made for listener's culture. Personal expectations and
assumptions of music distort what a foreign piece may be trying
to express. Music as a universal phenomenon would be more
accurate than a universal language.