Music. - Why?

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Most of this discussion seems focussed on the melodic and harmonic elements of music. What I have not seen mentioned (apologies if I missed it along the way) is Rhythm.

Most 'primitive' music (and I use that term loosely) has a strong rhythm and very primitive melodic and harmonic structure. The beat is the heart of music and echoes the natural rhythms found in our bodies - both that of the heart and the rhythms of sex. The earliest musical instruments were almost certainly drums of some kind - possibly utensils such as gourds and bowls, put to other uses for festive / religious occasions.

Listening to Native American music (which as far as I know is one of the oldest forms of tribal music still played) I would certainly agree. However, archaeology suggests music may have developed beyond rhythm fairly early in our history. Even before the dawn of civilisation we were creating melodies. Interestingly the article also points to the possibility of music bringing us as species closer together, so perhaps music may have been more social and day-to-day for early humans as opposed to being used uniquely for religious and celebratory events.

As for eastern music I've always loved the Sitar. Ragas have had a much more profound effect on my playing than western music, which can sound rigid in comparison to the rich, almost kaleidoscopic sounds of eastern music. That's not to say together they can't sound beautiful:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNohgbLF ... re=related[/youtube]

Lovely music. It's the first section of Raga Piloo from the album West Meets East Volume 2 - Ravi Shankar & Yehudi Menuhin. Both volumes are great, containing Shankar tackling western themes as well as Menuhin playing ragas.

[Bert62]

Hi, Bri.
There must be tomes written on this subject. In spite of that no one could accurately tell you why you may or may not like the color blue, or red. I don't know if somehow music reminds us of the sounds of nature and somehow reminds us of our primitive selves (?) I think music may bring us joy because it reminds us of our mothers humming to us as infants (?) Why Chinese music sounds so non-Western is because it was forged before the world became more and more homogenized. In addition, people hold onto their cultures. I listen to Beethoven's piano sonatas everyday (practically). They are amazing. People who "dis" Beethoven are jaded and jealous.

[lofuji]

I have to say that eastern music does sound a little alien to me and in some ways it just sounds 'Eastern' and I'm sure I'm missing out on something that only a person from that culture can fully grasp.

I'm not Chinese, but I am a 'fan' of most of the Ancient Chinese philosophies.
Only guessing here, but I would think that most Chinese music echoes from martial arts.

When I hear [stereo]typical music of Eastern cultures, my mind conjures up images of martial combat or martial art movements - typically, Tai Chi movements.

I have studied various martial arts (predominently Kung Fu), and the movements and stances are based upon the animal kingdom - preying mantis, fighting eagle, and so on - indeed, the world-reknown Chinese fighting Dragon and Lion dances accompany those [stereo]typical eastern sounds.

The 'encounter' stage of the dance is portrayed in broken sounds - caution, intrigue, awareness.
The 'battle' stage of the dance portrayed in flurries of instruments.
The 'stand-off' stage, and so on.

I wonder if we took the time to fully understand the 'story' behind the dance (and so the music that accompanies it), we would better appreciate the tones and inflection that we sometimes find baffling.
After all, if I listened to Chinese music on its own, it wouldn't make as much sense as it would if I listened to the same piece whilst a team of dancers acted out the 'story' in front of me.

The first thing to say is that Chinese music is not based on the Pythagorean scale, so it's bound to sound strange to western ears. And there is a link between some types of Chinese martial art and Chinese music, but for Chinese "classical" music, involving instruments such as the shang, erhu, pipa and bamboo flute, there is no connection, and the birdsong hypothesis is more likely [the Chinese like to keep caged songbirds]. Mind you, there are a lot of birds with very strange calls round here, mostly discordant to my ears.

Incidentally, not all kung fu styles are based on animal forms. What about wing chun, choi lei fat and pa kua, for example? You're thinking of Shaolin kung fu. I couldn't resist posting this pic, which shows our local lion dance troupe performing outside our house on New Year's Day this year. Note that the accompaniment is entirely percussion: three sets of cymbals, a gong and a bloody big [and loud] drum. The lion is up a pole off-camera to the left:



There is no doubt that the training required for lion dancers is akin to the training done by martial artists, but I do not believe that the dragon dance is kung fu-related. I plan to post more pics in the coming new year.

lofuji

[Mephistopheles]

Ummmm...apart from shoving in a mandatory 1:2 ratio for every octave and establishing a different arbitrary value for "C," the Pythagorean method of tuning is the same as that used in Chinese pentatonic music. 4/3 the frequency up, 2/3 the frequency down, repeat. Of course, since this produces pretty complex ratios as you increase the frequency, western music is determined by either just tuning (simplified fractions) or equal temperament tuning will sound flat compared to Chinese music. That, and their equivalent of an "octave" is a tad larger than that determined by western tuning, so even if they did share a common tone, they'd diverge past a point where even semitones and quartertones couldn't account for the disparity between the two.

[Beatsong]

At the risk of starting a serious topic, I was wondering:-

What natural capacity present in humans is it that allows us to enjoy music so much. - Language, perhaps?

Does the capacity for complex language alone - with all it's tones, inflections etc. really allow us to draw such vivid imagery from a series of consecutive and concurrent tones without even hearing a single spoken word?

One theory is that there is an art-form for each of the five senses, and these art-forms are ultimately rooted in the need to exercise the senses, to develop them to their full capacity, as part of their role in survival apart from anything else.

Language certainly enters into it, but I think deeper than that are innate patterns in our environment, that we can perceive through our ears, bodies and minds. Some of these are physical patterns like the harmonic series. Others are abstract patterns like repetition, symmetry etc. We are basically investigating our environment using our ears, and reacting with pleasure to the discovery of predictable and controllable patterns in that environment.

Different cultures of course vary in their manifestations of this, as with all art forms.

If I listen to, say, Beethoven's Pastoral then it really does 'sound' like a ride through beautiful countryside on a lovely summer's day to my ears. - Does the same piece of music evoke the same imagery or emotion for people from different (I suppose I mean Eastern) cultures?

Actually it doesn't. It makes you think of a ride through beautiful countryside, which is a completely different thing. And it's debateable whether it would even do that if you weren't aware in advance that it was called the Pastoral Symphony, and had learnt what it was supposed to be about.

[nonverbal]

What natural capacity present in humans is it that allows us to enjoy music so much. - Language, perhaps?

Steven Pinker suggests that music was an evolutionary accident for humans--a byproduct of adaptation processes.

From How the Mind Works:

[pg. 528]: As far as biological cause and effect are concerned, music is useless. . . . Compared with language, vision, social reasoning, and physical know-how, music could vanish from our species and the rest of our lifestyle would be virtually unchanged. . . . [page 534]: I suspect that music is auditory cheesecake, an exquisite confection crafted to tickle the sensitive spots of at least six of our mental faculties.

Pinker devotes eleven pages to a discussion of music and cognition, yet he dismisses music's evolutionary significance and claims that it's a spandrel. (To my ear, Spandrel implies some adherence to superstitious ways of pondering hoped-for results through the passage of time, but obviously that's another topic.) At least Pinker closes the discussion with some honesty: "This analysis of music is speculative, . . ." Nice of him to say.

Here's a bit of what Daniel J. Levitin says about Pinker's guess, in This Is Your Brain on Music:

Might music play a role in sexual selection? Darwin thought so. In The Descent of Man he wrote, "I conclude that musical notes and rhythm were first acquired by the male or female progenitors of mankind for the sake of charming the opposite sex. Thus musical tones became firmly associated with some of the strongest passions an animal is capable of feeling, and are consequently used instinctively. . . ." In seeking mates, our innate drive is to find--either consciously or unconsciously--someone who is biologically and sexually fit, someone who will provide us with children who are likely to be healthy and able to attract mates of their own. Music may indicate biological and sexual fitness, serving to attract mates.

[Svartalf]

I suspect we took it from nature. Bird songs would have been the MTV of the stone-agers.

So why would Chinese music sound Chinese and European music sound European?

Whereas the ability to recognize and enjoy music (a harmonious set of sounds) may be argued to be an inborn ability within the human (or possibly higher vertebrate) brain, the specifics of music are purely cultural and conventional.

We develop a Western system of tones and musical scales, while the Chinese independantly developed a different one, and the difference is sufficient for the different styles to be recognized.
For instance, Indian music may seem monotonous and droning to us, mainly because it is scaled to differences that in Western terminology are quarte tones, so what they perceive as chords and variations rely on sounds that we deem to close to be differenciated.

[Svartalf]

Most of this discussion seems focussed on the melodic and harmonic elements of music. What I have not seen mentioned (apologies if I missed it along the way) is Rhythm.

Most 'primitive' music (and I use that term loosely) has a strong rhythm and very primitive melodic and harmonic structure. The beat is the heart of music and echoes the natural rhythms found in our bodies - both that of the heart and the rhythms of sex. The earliest musical instruments were almost certainly drums of some kind - possibly utensils such as gourds and bowls, put to other uses for festive / religious occasions.

That too, but if you want to discuss rhythm, you have to ask my brother, he's the percussion man whereas I'm the melody guy.