Are musicians better language learners? | Hacker News Reader

Are musicians better language learners?

theguardian.com

51 pointspyduan46 comments

Yes, there seems to be a massive obvious correlation here: people who are good at learning difficult skills over time (an instrument and musicianship) are good at learning difficult skills over time (a new language). I doubt there's any real link/cross-sharing between music and language here.

Some people enjoy investing time into something that they will be bad at for a very long time and then become good at, and some people hate it. If you went through that with music as a child, you're probably more likely to have the confidence to want to go through it again as an adult with a language, because you know that it's something you've done before successfully. Programming's in the same category.

Well, I did check into this as part of advanced study, and your doubts are misplaced - there is a real link/cross-sharing between music and language...because there's an observable link/cross-sharing between music and overall intellectual development. Here's a quick summary citing the study that I think I used in my own inquiry[1]:

Confirming the belief that the relationship between music and academic performance is positive, “researchers have found that music instruction actually enhances student achievement in areas outside music” (Kelstrom, 1998, para. 12). It is believed that “music develops critical thinking skills and improves skills in reading, writing, and math. Music develops and improves spatial intelligence, which transfers to high-level math and science. It develops perceptual skills necessary in many academic areas” (Kelstrom, 1998, para. 31-32). According to this study, music has a strong influence, because it produces and develops skills needed for many academic processes.

[1]http://www.kon.org/urc/v5/fujita.html

Personally, as both a musician, person who successfully learned a foreign language, and was, for a time, on a professional track to become a programmer, I can say that programming is very low on the totem pole. It is predominately mechanical in nature deriving from logic comprehension, compared to music, which is a highly expressive and dynamic format. Or, to put it another way, I've never seen a "collaborative jam session" in programming that wasn't anything but chaos, because the format simply doesn't allow for it. Programming is great to understand how machines work, but to build the machines, the mind should be expanded via music and the arts to enable practical creativity.

> I've never seen a "collaborative jam session" in programming that wasn't anything but chaos

I've been a part of very organized hackathons.

In fact, I've been to hackathons that blow away any jazz I've heard in terms of artistic merit by my judgement.

Perhaps you're making the confusion of meaning "coding" when you say programming. Coding is indeed a very rote and chaotic medium. I'd hesitate to call it art.

Programming and computer science, much like pure math, are artforms of themselves which surpass any other art humanity knows.

The only thing I subjectively see in the value of music is the lengthy amount of time that the formalism of it's language has survived. Otherwise I typically listen to the same songs on repeat until they have turned into a drone like noise for me to block out the rest of the noise in the world. Sometimes I do appreciate variation in music, and I have spent a lot of time devoted to studying classical music. But still, a particularly well known sonata might as well be a recursively constructed formalism of white noise to me, because that is how I remember the piece. It is beautiful in that regard, but I just do not consider myself educated enough in music to understand anything about it otherwise.

I find code and mathematics to be much more delicate, intricate, fundamental; to my own personal comprehension. I remember playing the piano a couple of times to think about how a computer might experience the progression of it's thoughts. The thing with creativity is it has no walls.

> because there's an observable link/cross-sharing between music and overall intellectual development.

No, you've totally missed the point, I'm afraid.

There is a correlation between participating in musical extracurricular activities and intellectual development. There is also a correlation between learning new languages and intellectual development.

This does not mean that languages and music have anything in common other than that choosing to participate requires the kind of mindset that is statistically more likely to result in increased intellectual development.

It does not mean that being musical makes you better at learning languages. It means that if you are the type of person who is musical, you are likely to also be the type of person who learns languages well.

The link you provided (and the study it cites) agrees with this claim of mine, but you cited it as if it would refute it.

Both my parents are/were (dad is retired now, mother still teaches) University German professors for over 40 years each. Both of them have claimed for years that they can spot the music majors in the first day of class just by noticing how much better at pronunciation they are than the other students. Neither of them have done anything serious with their observations beyond notice that their musician students are often far better in the language than the non-musicians. It's anecdotal for sure. But it's quite a lot of anecdotes, for whatever that's worth.

It's also worth pointing out that a better pronunciation from a set of students can skew the teacher's view of the students' actual abilities in the language. That is, two students could have roughly identical mechanics, vocabulary, etc., but the student with better pronunciation will be perceived as having a better grasp of the language. You can argue that the way the words sound is a part of the language, so this isn't really a skew. But you get my point. On paper, they are the same; in speech one comes across as better.

Pronunciation, spelling or grammar shows an ability to discriminate and classify things with precision. It's not a strong case, dyslexia for instance deceptively fooled caretakers into thinking one was subpar when he/she was not, but it still is a very good sign.

My personal experience definitely agrees with this. I think it might have something to do with a "trained" ear or a better discernment or attention paid to small variations in sound.

> they can spot the music majors in the first day of class just by noticing how much better at pronunciation they are than the other students

It makes sense. I can see at least two explanations. First musicians are used to listening to sounds in order to reproduce them accurately. Second, less obvious reason, is that they are less shy to "perform". Maybe I'm wrong and generalizing my own case, but I think that sometimes people are just too shy to work on their accent. As kids, we used to make fun of those that were trying to have a correct accent.

It always blows my mind to listen to songs from my childhood, which was before I learnt to play music. When I was a kid I was effectively tone deaf– didn't recognize pitches, harmonies, bass, etc. Now I hear the nuances, and it's interesting to look at old things with sharper eyes. Makes sense that it would affect language skills.

Hm, that's interesting. I've been a musician since I was in middle school (not super-skilled, mostly recreational) and I took German as an undergraduate. All my teachers always complimented my pronunciation, and even comparing myself to other students in the class I was definitely better at it. I was pretty terrible at the language altogether though; I'd be hard pressed to do anything more complicated than ordering a beer and I wasn't much better when I was actively learning it.

I play the piano and the guitar and I am great at pronunciation (Italian, French, German) but I have miserable word recall and I can barely hold a conversation in these languages. I would definitely say this is true.

Vocal music major here. It is quite likely that by the time they reach university age, students who are majoring in vocal music have had years of experience singing in a variety of languages. These would typically be Latin, Italian, French and German, along with their native language. This might include choral and solo performance experience.

I suspect they have a combination of experience, learned 'coachability', and a greater than average awareness of how to produce the correct sounds.

Anecdote: I'm an English speaker, and traveled to The Netherlands on business a few years ago. It was my impression that just about all the Dutch speak English ( and a few other languages ) and it is very difficult for a non-native speaker to attempt to engage them in a conversation in Dutch. They will usually just flip over into English. After a bit of practicing on the plane, I was able to do a few things like order tickets for a movie, and some snacks, and even order food in a restaurant in Dutch (I cheated a bit here, it was a Mexican place, so all the food was in Spanish :) ). It is possible they were just being polite, but my perception was that I came off like a maybe-fluent non-native speaker. In fact I knew about 20 words, but I had a pretty good accent.

This is a specific case which is part of a broader fundamental principle. This principle might sound reduntant, and it's basically that "people who learn how to learn are better learners".

Learning how to play a musical instrument is something that never permeated our general culture as much as it should've had, which implies that doing so requires the acquisition of -in some level- unconventional skills.

This ability to acquire unconventional skills can be extrapolated to any other area of knowledge. For example in my case, the shift was from music to CS.

EDIT: BTW, I speak 3 languages.

Looking at my own history, it makes sense. As a kindergartner, I was playing a toy organ with play-by-number song books, and later in grade school I played clarinet. Big mistake: quitting in eight grade. As a side note, whenever I looked up words in the dictionary, I always paid attention to the etymology as well as the definition.

The only subject that I aced in college was Spanish, and the teacher was very good (and a native speaker), but not easy. We started Spanish 101 with 30 students, and ended Spanish 104 with just seven.

Now, 30+ years later, it's a bit rusty, but I can still read it pretty well, and can sort-of understand written Portuguese as well. I can drive down Collins St. in Joliet and easily read the signs on the businesses.

But wait, there's more! One Sunday, in 1993, I walked down to a neighborhood church that I had never visited before, and sat down, as it turned out, behind the music director. She heard me singing the hymns, and asked me immediately after the service if I'd be interested in joining the choir. Then, the next week, the handbell choir was playing, and I was hooked -- I ended up joining both.

More recently, I joined a community chorus that sings a wide range of pieces, and a great many of the old masterworks are not in English. I've found that I could pretty readily pick up pronunciation for a variety of languages, and even though I've never taken German lessons, I can almost figure out what's being sung in Bach or Mozart works -- and when I read an English translation, the relationships between English and German almost jump off the page for me. I still wouldn't be able to put together a coherent sentence in German, though.

If I had the time and money, I'd consider taking German, and maybe even Russian (I taught myself the Cyrillic alphabet at one point, so the alphabet would be the least of my problems).

> Now, 30+ years later, it's a bit rusty, but I can still read it pretty well, and can sort-of understand written Portuguese as well.

I don't want to be picky. But I would not attribute your ability to read Portuguese to your musical background, but to your Spanish. My experience is that most Spanish speakers can read Portuguese to a certain degree and vice-versa. Never having studied French, I was able to read some child comics.

This is true. I'm Portuguese and I can read full texts (even books) and I never had a course, or even a lesson, of Spanish.

I can understand Italian at some degree as well, due to the same reason.

Be careful, that's a huge fallacy. Just because you can notice the etymology that doesn't make you a prodigy at a language. Everybody can do that, the tricky stuff is in actually learning the language.

"Be careful, that's a huge fallacy"

Interesting, Are there fallacies bigger than others?

If you want a subjective, personal view as anecdotal evidence on this:

music IS another language.

There are regional variations (Western vs oriental) with their own phonetics (scales...) and grammars (rules of harmony, chord progressions). Not to mention that quite a few musicians describe it as a means to express themselves.

Reading sheet music is not much different from reading in a different alphabet, music theory is the equivalent of grammar study, and BTW playing by ear is pretty much like the natural language acquisition (the way kids pick up their mother tongue).

You'd be surprised how many parallels both in the nature and in the learning process you'll find. Learning music is like learning another language [Source: I'm a multilingual who just started learning to play piano as an adult.]

EDIT: formatting

Yeah, music is another style of communication.

The industrialisation of music has destroyed a really joyful way for people to express themselves and to communicate with people around them.

When musical literacy is lacking in a person it is truly sad. I read somewhere musical illiteracy is around 95% of the USA now. Which is a pretty good market for people who have to buy all their music! When you combine this with no knowledge of food preparation, and no knowledge of the environment, it makes for a pretty poor existence IMHO.

Oh well :(

> When musical literacy is lacking in a person it is truly sad.

As a member of the musically illiterate, I ask why?

From my perspective, it feels like being musically illiterate is like being unskilled in the ceramic arts (which I also am). It's absolutely true that I cannot make music of my own and would be forced to buy all my music. It's also true that I cannot make porcelain figurines of my own and have to buy all of those as well. My inexpensive solution has been to simply not own any porcelain figurines or music.

Honestly, between the two, I'd be more interested in learning the ceramic arts at the moment. Not that I really need figurines, but it sounds like more fun and I have some ideas for bathroom fittings. Why should I learn music instead?

I'm probably coming off as a bit abrasive and I apologize for that. People have been making music for thousands of years, so there's obviously something neat going on there that I'm missing.

Why don't you just try both?

do you have a tutor or are you learning on your own? can you point me to resources you're using for piano learning for adults?

The /r/piano FAQ (https://www.reddit.com/r/piano/wiki/faq) is a great starting point. There's a ton of resources available online, so the trouble is actually in picking the really good ones. Still, if you want to play well, you should probably get a teacher.

As for myself: I've started lessons about 6 months of trying on my own. The teacher's role is to point out the small things one does not even notice when learning on one's own -- and those can really make a huge difference. But in the end it is all about the learning process -- seeing what works for you at any given stage, filling the gaps, re-evaluating periodically if your approach should change. And it's a long-time project. Most people become comfortable after 10 years or so of daily practice. So either you're extremely committed/desperate/forced/enjoy the learning process with the long-term goal in mind, or you quit.

The specific resources I can recommend are:

  - Lypur's video courses on youtube (both piano + music theory)
  - "Piano Handbook" by Carl Humphries
  - "All About Music Theory" by Mark Harrison
  - http://www.musictheory.net
  - Willi Schneider's "Klavierfibel"

One important note on teachers: they make you play with the proper form and that makes a huge difference. It makes you less likely to develop an injury, and after you get over the initial hurdle of learning how to make your hands stay in the appropriate positions it makes it much easier to play. Bad technique makes even relatively simple music hard to play.

I'd quibble with this a little. I don't think music qualifies as another language in the way that we're talking about. I'd say it qualifies about as much as a programming language does. I don't think anyone would suggest that knowing C++ or Python will make it easier for you to learn Russian. [Source: I was a professional violinist for 25 years before I got into programming.]

As a professional musician, classicaly trained, who just recently (I wasted a lot of time living in terminal and emacs while playing with linux distros) started learning programming from ground up I find Lisp, S-expressions and more functional approach attractive and comparable to music composition. If we take for example Bach fugues of Beethoven Sonatas we can see functional approach of may I say multiparadigm: development of motives, objects, augmentation, expanding themes(functions) that contain smaller themes (closures) etc.. The beauty and magic of SICP lectures and their may I say musical approach to composing higher abstractions is just plain better than pure python or javascript tutorials that I tried learning from. Not to mention amazing talks and writings from Alan Kay, Guy Steele, Pg, Norvig and other hackers who for me define the essence of hacking and programming. The whole point of writing lisp in itself is like some strange Bach or Mozart read/eval loop that never stops. I am far from being an average user of lisp but I keep doing it day and night. It is not easy though. The only sad thing is so many people dismiss lisp and I see finding a job will also not be an easy thing. By the way I am open for internships in some lisp shops, I would work for free. I dont know how much I can contribute but I could at least clean extra parentheses (thats a joke! :)))

This doesn't match my personal experience. I learned music at five and have been an active musician all my life, but languages have always bee hard for me.

I believe that music is much more related to computer languages - just instructional notations as opposed to natural languages.

But do you play by ear? I don't think sight reading would help at all. I had been playing music for years, sight reading, and had picked up no musical ear.

Now, I can happily play along with the radio, and pick up languages by sound quite well.

Except for German. And I live in Germany. German is just... schmooshy.

I'm not down with your link between music and computer languages.

Music is performative while what makes success with computer languages is the ability to juggle abstractions at different levels of zoom. I don't see an overlap there other than the nominal "they are both langauges".

I think there's a disconnect in our statements. By music, you seem to refer to the artistic, creative, performance oriented activity. My reference, as I thought TFA was about, was to the notational aspect of written music. Listen to Bach if you want an example of "juggling abstractions at different levels of zoom".

It matches my experience too, much to my frustration. I've studied music theory and composition for years and have composed a fair number of pieces. I can play piano and sing but have no interest in being a performer. My instrument is pen and paper (or midi controller, Finale, and Ableton).

I'm 3 credits short of a bachelor's degree because I've never been able to pass any foreign language course. 10 attempts. Languages go through my head like sand through a sieve. I even took a language proficiency test and the proctor said I did so badly that I could have achieved a better score through blind chance, randomly selecting answers.

I'm now married to a fluent Japanese speaker. Even with her help it doesn't make any difference, it just won't "stick" no matter how hard I try. She tells me my pronounciation is excellent, however.

The college I went to will not accept any substitutions, thus the frustration.

And yet I learn programming languages quickly.

My experience tells me that there are no correlation between these variables: one of my best friends is a great musician (pianist) and is terrible with foreign languages despite having had several language courses.

IMHO, would make more sense to rephrase it as:

Are singers better language learners?

So based on one counter-example you're implying that a correlation doesn't exist?

I think it depends what 'great' means and how he learned. I'm a self-taught (by ear, by eyes, barely no "theory"[1]) failed musician, therefore not great, but after years of failed intuitions on what was and how to make music, I had moments where I felt the grace of being 'on' the music.

That taught me a few things:

  - Sometimes there are things that were completely invisible to you.
  - These things looked complex and painful, in reality they aren't.
  - The right approach was too foreign for your (my) brain.
  - Years of failing aren't waste, you learn patience and faith (yes faith).
  - It is often summarized as `make haste slowly`
  - Learning another weird thing won't ever be the same

[1] Music theory is a notation for experiences, don't learn theory until you felt what is described carnally a little. Beside they're only restricted abstractions. I knew chord progressions, modes, counterpoint, yet it wasn't until a day where my mind and ears just clicked that all these ideas suddenly became obvious, the symbols mapped my feelings one to one and understanding/remembering them was free.

Apparently music is maths, but despite being confortable in maths and reading the music notation, I'm terrible playing the piano.

Another thing that doesn't make sense to me is that my friend has a terrible memory: somebody says something to him today, tomorrow he will not remember (unless is something that he "feels" somehow). By the other hand, if it is music, he remembers/plays it after listening just once sometimes even years later.

Music is just maths, but so far I've never ran into the correct formula. Progressions, rubato, ... I don't know a lot, but none explained to me why some movements felt good and others didn't.

Music notation is mostly wrong to me, it doesn't explain a lot. You learn more by trying to do anything offbeat. It breaks the notion of time. Same for harmony, most of the beauty in music comes from slippery progressions that aren't transcribe on the score.

From my experience, the sensation of beauty in music has more to do with physic notions like momentum, and complex rotations more than well tampered scales. That's why no amount of theory will make you a good player, because then it's about feeling the physics, the subtlety, the sensitivity, inertia, acceleration...

And you last point just resonates a lot to my previous comment. Music ain't that complicated, that's why when you see it correctly, the complexity fades away and you can remember an apparent "whole lot" easily. It's a very abstract function thus tiny, something you either get, or learn through years of deep listening.

ps: that's the programmer speaking obviously, but I cannot help but to see a strong resemblance between asm - higher level programming languages, music theory - actual music understanding. A few combinators in Haskell, or APL get you to express vast amount of logic, that would take pages to write down in assembly (or a score ;).

As a wannabe musician and beginner jazz player, I feel music is explained all wrong. Unfortunately there's a lot of baggage from older eras where music wasn't well understood and was mostly a collection of heuristics. The fact that harmony understanding is usually explained in a chronological fashion probably doesn't help.

The problem (and I guess you know this already) is that although music is analyzable with math, how we experience music isn't entirely formalizable.

Music isn't math, just like physics isn't math. Math is just the tool we use to formalize and study them.

> Music notation is mostly wrong to me, it doesn't explain a lot.

Just like words don't explain a lot by themselves: their relationships with each other, the whole text, and your tacit knowledge and reasoning do explain far more.

Take this chord chart (excerpt from a jazz tune):

    C6 | F7 F#º7 | C6/G F9 | Em7 A7

It doesn't explain anything itself, but with a bit of analysis (and tacit knowledge) you can see patterns. E.g., there's a voice which goes in chromatic ascension and then is held (hinted by the C6 with a G bass and the explicit 9th in F9):

    C-[E]-G-A                   |
    [F]-A#-C-Eb  [F#]-A#-C-Eb   |
    C-E-[G]-A    F-A#-C-Eb-[G]  |
    E-[G]-B-D    A-C-E-[G]

Or only the ascending voice:

    E | F F# | G G | G G

But it can also be seen (and interpreted) as a purely ascending voice (though not chromatic):

    E | F F# | G A# | B C  (though I'm not convinced with that G to A# gap)

That line is found in the chord chart too (check it yourself). Which one is correct? None. And both. And there are many more hidden.

It isn't obvious, but those relationships are there, and they're important, and you're supposed to be able to see them with your tacit knowledge (and highlight any of them in your playing if you want to!).

Of course it could be explicitly remarked and it sometimes is, specially in classical music or when the composer wants to highlight it himself. But then you lose a lot of what's jazz, like how different people view the same standard and express the subtleties as their music.

Also, there are so many hidden subtleties that the small chord chart would explode into a huge collection of remarks and explanations (imagine explaining what each word in a story means!) and those would probably differ depending on who did the analysis (like what exactly metaphors and allegories mean in text).

And that's why you've never found the correct formula: there isn't. If Einstein would've sworn by classical mechanics formulas, we would've never had relativity. Knowing those formulas is good though: each of them strengthen your understanding little by little. Einstein wouldn't have come up with relativity without classical mechanics.

The beauty here is that those relationships work because notes are just multiples of each other. Why do C and C# sound "awful" (unless you intend them to sound like that) played together while C and E (a major 3rd) sound beautiful? Because of their interference pattern:

C+C#: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%28sin%28261.63*x%29+%2...

C+E: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%28sin%28261.63*x%29+%2...

Is this math? Yes. Is your brain doing the math? Nope. But the math explains why your brain likes C+E more: their interference pattern is less chaotic (i.e. more harmonic) in the short term. Also, C+C# generates a weird long-term beat frequency[1]. Of course this doesn't explain the cognitive part (why does my brain like harmonic interferences?) but you get my point.

Do players/composers think about these interference patterns? Nope, because they use music notation, which highlights their properties without the burden of interpreting the sound wave frequencies. I can instantly recognize a major 3rd in C+E, not so much in sin(261.63 * t) + sin(329.63 * t).

The musical staff seems weird but it is comfortable too: chords formed with stacked thirds (the classic way of making chords) will always have their notes either on lines or spaces but not both, regardless of whether the thirds are major or minor. The oddball (like a chord with a 9th) really stands out. It also makes it easy to see if a chord is major or minor: three consecutive stacked thirds with a D bass and a # on the second third will be D major (D is minor in the key of C, thus why its second third has to be raised).

Sorry for the rambling :P This is what happens to my brain on music.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beat_%28acoustics%29

----

Did you study jazz theory? Something tells me you'd love it, and breaking with pre-jazz analysis definitely expanded my horizons. I'm slowly learning it (self-teaching jazz isn't easy, 2 years already and I still feel like a beginner) but it's definitely rewarding.

Here's some theory to get started if you're interested, both classical and jazz:

http://www.musictheory.net/

http://www.cs.uml.edu/~stu/JazzTheory.pdf

IMO breaking chords into moving lines (~counterpoint) is already a better start (and I've seen other guys saying that's how they digested harmony) than learning names, modes and such. It's a constructivist way to teach. Start with a line, then ask the person to harmonize over it. Name don't matter until this is fixed in your head.

Yes there's probably a strong relationship between frequencies ratios. Simple ones (3rd, 5th) are good to anybody, but you love jazz, don't tell me you don't get high on 13th and dissonant bits too. With time I started to enjoy following subtle and non trivial melody lines in harmonies (gospel tunes are full of it, fusion also, jazz obviously).

And that's just harmony. What about rhythm ? and grooves ? How do you write funk or swing on a score ? AFAIK it's not except by a little side comment; even though this tells you more about rhythm than anything else.

People measured relationship between notes, but I've never seen it done to 'beats'. I have a feeling that there's also ratios hidden in sequences of strokes that make or break a groove. Placing an almost unheard dead notes at an odd time before a strong beat will change the feeling so much. Counterpoint, for rhythm.

> IMO breaking chords into moving lines (~counterpoint) is already a better start

Jazz kinda breaks the deal, I found counterpoint a mooter-point (hehe) in jazz. There is so much freedom you'd have to analyze each performance individually. Even in the same recording of a song, two identical sections' counterpoint can vary wildly (or not have counterpoint at all!) Parallel fifths/octaves are a no-no in classical music (they break the counterpoint) while they're liberally used in jazz.

You can't even canonically analyze a chord chart. Is that C6 a C6 or an Amin7? (exactly the same notes: C E G A) It's both and it depends on the composer/performer and which one they want to emphasize.

What I mean is, chord charts are mostly a way to print standards in books :P Just like the word tree isn't a tree, a C6 isn't a C6.

> What about rhythm ? and grooves ? How do you write funk or swing on a score ?

Definitely a great point.

That's traditionally been left to the performer, even in classical music. Jazz brought that freedom to melody and harmony too.

Coincidentally, just yesterday I saw some discussion about it in a jazz forum, some good points there: http://www.jazzguitar.be/forum/theory/38021-why-there-more-b...

> People measured relationship between notes, but I've never seen it done to 'beats'.

It's been done and is pervasive in traditional music theory (not so much in pop music). E.g. syncopation is a formal relationship between beats, or ornaments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ornament_%28music%29), or even pulses, beats and bars (which are just a take on rhythm formalization).

There have been efforts to accurately transcribe rhythm and feel, but it mostly gets in the way (e.g. the comments here about swing transcription http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swing_(jazz_performance_style)#...). Rhythm seems to be more innate, while note relationships are easier to hear than to produce. If you got rhythm, you can tap swing feel so a side note should be enough (and allows for personal feel, just like tempo wasn't transcribed as BPMs and they used allegro, grave, moderato...) Improvising/transcribing melody/harmony isn't that easy though (I attribute it mostly due to the available variety compared to rhythm.) I guess that's why pop/rock songs transcribe notes/chords but rhythm is usually left as an exercise.

I personally like it the artsy-jazz way: do whatever you feel sounds good and express yourself through music. Theory is cool, but ear is king.

No, no, no.

It would make better sense to rephrase as "Does fluency in a second language make it easier to learn a third?" and assume that music is a second language in that question, and that "fluency" in music is more than just "can carry a tune".

Singers have no more connection to music than any other musician (and it could be argued that they, as a group, have less connection to music than musicians of more harmonic or chordal instruments, but let's ignore that for now).

Music, as a language, has considerably more depth and scope than the words that someone sings. Suggesting that singers are the only musicians who would benefit linguistically is entirely missing the point.

I suggested singers because they have more control on voice and that can (possibly) help on pronunciation of some sounds present in foreign languages that don't exist in their native language.

From personal experience/observation. I have zero musical talent, my wife gives me a hard time for not being able to hold a beat by simply tapping the table. However, I can pick-up foreign languages with relative ease. I have never become fluent any foreign language, but have been able to read/conversant in Turkish, Russian, Italian, French and Spanish. I will admit East Asian languages are extremely difficult reference their tonal aspects; I have a hard time understanding/speaking those types of languages.

Yes, if you are good at singing in various styles. Singing in various styles teach a few things about voice quality and tunes.

1. Every language has its voice quality. So, learning phonemes alone does not help us one to acquire a new accent or language. Voice qualities vary within a language itself: compare the southern accents, midwestern accents, New York accent, British accents. Yes, there are phonemic differences between accents within a language: but there is a change in the voice quality.

2. Academic research about the voice quality in languages have not reached beyond what John Laver had said (check his phonetic description of voice quality). And of coure, IPA has incorporated some symbols like 'breathy voice', etc, which you can see in the extended IPA. To me, voice quality should be the first thing one shud master before getting into phonemes, lexical stress, intonational stress, etc.

Academics are too busy with their instrumental (acoustic) phonetics. Even majority of phoneticians are just into instrumental phonetics. Ian Catford, a great phonetician, advised students of linguistics in general to master how to use their vocal apparatus.

3. Joe Estill, an opera singer turned a voice teacher, did a great research on how to train anyone to sing. Her focus is on how to acquire voice quality. She calls such steps as 'figures'. They are like thin voice, thick voice, breathy voice; then adding other combinations to them: high larynx, low larynx, Aryepiglottic sphincter, etc. Such skills help a singer to sing in various styles. Even if you want to do pitch match properly, you should do it in a thin voice (not with the speaking voice, which is thick voice for Americans, kinda semi-thick(breathy) for Indians in the south Asia, etc.

4. There is another thing singers and instrument players are good at: how to remember tunes. Even though speech is not like a song, you can find possible tunes of a language. In linguistics, it is called "intonational phrase". So, one does not need to master phonemes of a target language in order to imitate the tune units (tunits or intonational phrase) of any language. How many language training materials teach this?

Most, if not all, language training materials subordinate the voice quality and the tunits to phonemes and lexical stress/lexical tone. Whereever they touch about tunits, they spend 4 pages on the intonation of the target language.

But this be fixed by taking sodium valproate?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6973842

Reply on news.ycombinator.com