Why do the note names go from A to G but... [Archive]

JonR

10-13-2011, 01:36 PM

the piano and music notation are centered around the note "C" instead of "A"?

Why not just call that note "A"?

I googled around on this and could not find an answer. Probably some historical accident but I bet some of you probably know.I've wondered about this for years and never found a good answer.

It's certainly true that the major scale (or rather the ionian mode) is a relatively recent invention - well after the note letters were assigned.

Here's a very brief and approximate history from what I know:

1. The Ancient Greeks invented the modal system, based on pairs of 4-note groupings called "tetrachords". AFAIK, they used letters to label their notes, but they counted scales downwards, not upwards, and would - of course - have used Greek letters (alpha etc).

2. Around 600 AD, the Catholic church adopted a simplified version of the Greek modal system, and this is really where the history of our music theory begins. They used four modes: Dorian, Phrygian, Lydian and Mixolydian, which correspond with those modes of C major as we know them now (but not with the Greek definitions of those modes).
They also used what was known as a "plagal" variant of each mode (with a "hypo-" prefix), which ranged a 4th below the "finalis" (keynote).
This means that if we assign the letters we use now, the lowest note in use would be A. These church modes ran as follows (lowest first):

Hypodorian = A B C D E F G A
Hypophrygian = B C D E F G A B
Hypolydian = C D E F G A B C
Dorian and Hypomixolydian = D E F G A B C D
Phrygian = E F G A B C D E
Lydian = F G A B C D E F
Mixolydian = G A B C D E F G

NB: Hypodorian looks like Aeolian, but its keynote was D, not A. Likewise, Hypolydian's keynote was F, not C.
And the difference between Dorian and Hypomixolydian is that they have different keynotes (rather as our C major and A minor do)

Still, the fact that the lowest note they used corresponds to A (equivalent to open 5th string on guitar) suggests that's a reason for the letter names: they just started labelling them from the lowest one in their system.
In addition, that A is roughly the lowest pitch that most men can sing comfortably. (Reference pitches have of course changed over the years, but IMO it's logical that music designed for monks to sing would be geared towards the male vocal range; there would be no point in using scales that went lower than most men could reach.)

Dorian, btw, was labelled mode I, which may be down to its symmetry. Look at a piano keyboard: D is central between 2 black notes, and the pattern spreads symmmetrically out from there. (Of course they didn't have black notes in the early modal era, but they knew the scale structure.) D is also damn near the dead centre of the keyboard - middle C is to its left.
(However, of course staff notation treats C as central: piano double stave has the G clef above and the F clef below - so now the symmetry is between dominant and subdominant.)

It wasn't until a theoretical treatise of 1549 that Ionian and Aeolian modes (and their "hypo" variants) were officially added. (Locrian was added then too, although considered theoretical only.)
By that time, however, Ionian (at least) had been well known for some time in folk and secular music (used by the troubadours), and as far back as 1000 AD, Guido D'Arezzo had developed a hexachord system (6-note scales), with notes labelled in solfege ("ut re mi..." to begin with, "do" coming later).
These hexachords were capable of transposition by using Bb and F# accidentals, and the "ut re mi" scale was in fact what we would recognise as a major scale, just missing the 7th (which could vary between B and Bb). But it seems "C" (or its equivalent) began to be seen as a potential keynote back then, centuries before Ionian was officially recognised.
Also, Guido's system extended the range down to G, or "gamma". Hence "gamma-ut", leading to our word "gamut" meaning a whole range.

But it wasn't until the 17th century that the "major-minor key system" began to develop and establish itself, eventually supplanting the modal system - although the transition was long and gradual. (Likewise, it was a surprising length of time before all accidentals were recognised and accepted. Still, full key transposition and modulation wasn't possible until Bach's "well temperament" in the early 18thC, a precursor of modern equal temperament.)

It was really the development and increasing sophistication of harmony through the early Renaissance that led to the abandonment of the modal system. Early modal harmony was very crude, beginning with just unison or octave, then allowing 4ths and 5ths, with major 3rds considered a dissonance for a long time. It turned out that the new triadic harmony suited Ionian mode very well, with the most dissonant interval (the tritone) capable of resolution to the tonic and its major 3rd.
(The major-minor system even altered Aeolian to behave more like Ionian, with a raised 6th and 7th when ascending.)

IOW, the medieval modal system lasted for around 1000 years. The key system, in contrast - often known as the CPE (Common Practice Era, because of the convergence between composers' styles) - lasted less than 300 years - through the Baroque, Classical and Romantic periods - before most classical composers felt it was exhausted (over 100 years ago).
Of course, popular music still uses keys, but even in jazz they got bored with keys (so-called "functional harmony": "chord progressions" to you and me) after 50 years.

More good history here:
http://www.medieval.org/emfaq/misc/modality.html
http://www.midicode.com/tunings/medieval.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregorian_chant
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guido_d%27Arezzo

BTW, the other thing worth bearing in mind about our major-minor key system (and its attendant "functional harmony" of triadic chords and progressions) is that it's not only a relatively brief blip in the history of music, but was also peculiar to Europe, mostly aligning with its imperial and industrial phases, and supported by its religion and class systems. In the rest of the world - and throughout the rest of musical history - harmony is practically unknown. In other cultures, melody, rhythm and timbre rule!
You still get hints of arrogance from some aficionados of classical music, who regard that as the zenith of all world musical culture, with other cultures being "primitive". They can only hold that view by regarding harmony as a sole criterion of sophistication. In fact, for harmony to succeed, other factors (such as melody, rhythm and timbre) need to be simplified. It's an exchange, IOW. Most African music is way ahead of European classical music in terms of rhythm; Indian raga is melodically way more sophisticated than our crude scale systems. The fact they lack harmony enables (even demands) that they develop sophistication in other areas.

Sorry for the gratuitous rant! :D

BluesForDan

10-13-2011, 01:37 PM

no No NO, don't make me go through that all over again. I thought I had finally resolved myself to accepting it because I had no choice to, it is endemic in the world of music. There's no fighting against it. It is almost like asking why is water called wet, or fire called hot. It just is.

It has taken me nearly 30 years to get over it. Please, I'm too old to go back and do that shit all over again. :bonk:rotflmao

anderson110

10-13-2011, 01:41 PM

Now is a good time to realize that getting too hung up on the reasoning

Agreed. It's just a question, not a hang-up.

anderson110

10-13-2011, 01:50 PM

I've wondered about this for years and never found a good answer.

Great post as usual, JonR. Thanks for the history lesson.

I'm not losing any sleep over it, but I wondered if there was a clear answer. It looks like the history of it is complex enough that it just sort of "evolved" that way due to many interacting factors.

Thanks!

Sandy Cheeks

10-13-2011, 01:55 PM

One thing to take away from this is that the major scale is a cultural thing.

JonR

10-13-2011, 02:04 PM

Great post as usual, JonR. Thanks for the history lesson.

I'm not losing any sleep over it, but I wondered if there was a clear answer. It looks like the history of it is complex enough that it just sort of "evolved" that way due to many interacting factors.Exactly. If anybody had actually sat down and designed our musical system, it would look a lot different. And probably make a lot more sense.:)

As it is, people just went with what they thought sounded good (with some guidance from Greek and Christian moral philosophy). It was the poor theorists who had to come along later and work out what the hell was going on... :D

rotren

10-13-2011, 02:42 PM

Hey let's just change C to A - it will make a lot more sense for everyone!

If enough people do it, we could rewrite (music) history! :D :D :D

Repeat after me: A has no flats or sharps, A has no flats or sharps, A has no flats or sharps....

Sandy Cheeks

10-13-2011, 02:55 PM

The short answer is it was A originally, that's why it's called A but A aeolian has no major V chord.

That's okay. Aeolian does not rely on the dominant-tonic functionality of a major key.

vhollund

10-13-2011, 04:50 PM

A very valid question

The ansver to why C and not A is:
Because a large percentage of all written music and all schoolbooks and living musicians would have to be converted and rewritten
Because of history

History of note names

Music notation systems have used letters of the alphabet for centuries. The 6th century philosopher Boethius is known to have used the first fifteen letters of the alphabet to signify the notes of the two-octave range that was in use at the time. Though it is not known whether this was his devising or common usage at the time, this is nonetheless called Boethian notation.
Following this, the system of repeating letters A-G in each octave was introduced, these being written as minuscules for the second octave (a-g) and double minuscules for the third (aa-gg). When the compass of used notes was extended down by one note, to a G, it was given the Greek G (Γ), gamma. (It is from this that the French word for scale, gamme is derived, and the English word gamut, from "Gamma-Ut", the lowest note in Medieval music notation.)
The remaining five notes of the chromatic scale (the black keys on a piano keyboard) were added gradually; the first being B, which was flattened in certain modes to avoid the dissonant tritone interval. This change was not always shown in notation, but when written, B♭ (B-flat) was written as a Latin, round "b", and B♮ (B-natural) a Gothic or "hard-edged" b. These evolved into the modern flat and natural symbols respectively. The sharp symbol arose from a barred b, called the "cancelled b".
In parts of Europe, including Germany, the Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary, Norway, Finland, and Russia, the natural symbol transformed into the letter H (possibly for hart, German for hard): in German music notation, H is B♮ (B-natural) and B is B♭ (B-flat). Occasionally, music written in German for international use will use H for B-natural and Bb for B-flat (with a modern-script lowercase b instead of a flat sign). Since a Bes or B♭ in Northern Europe (i.e. a B elsewhere) is both rare and unorthodox (more likely to be expressed as Heses), it is generally clear what this notation means.
In Italian, Portuguese, Greek, French, Russian, Flemish, Romanian, Spanish, Persian, Arabic, Hebrew, Bulgarian and Turkish notation the notes of scales are given in terms of Do-Re-Mi-Fa-Sol-La-Si rather than C-D-E-F-G-A-B. These names follow the original names reputedly given by Guido d'Arezzo, who had taken them from the first syllables of the first six musical phrases of a Gregorian Chant melody Ut queant laxis, which began on the appropriate scale degrees. These became the basis of the solfege system. "Do" later replaced the original "Ut" for ease of singing (most likely from the beginning of Dominus, Lord), though "Ut" is still used in some places. "Si" or "Ti" was added as the seventh degree (from Sancte Johannes, St. John, to whom the hymn is dedicated). The use of 'Si' versus 'Ti' varies regionally.
In a newly developed system, primarily in use in the United States, notes of scales become independent to the music notation. In this system the natural symbols C-D-E-F-G-A-B refer to the absolute notes, while the names Do-Re-Mi-Fa-So-La-Ti are relativized and show only the relationship between pitches, where Do is the name of the base pitch of the scale, Re is the name of the second pitch, etc. The idea of so called movable-do, originally suggested by John Curwen in the 19th century, was fully developed and involved into a whole educational system by Zoltán Kodály in the middle of the 20th century, which system is known as the Kodály Method or Kodály Concept.

stevel

10-13-2011, 07:33 PM

Still, the fact that the lowest note they used corresponds to A (equivalent to open 5th string on guitar) suggests that's a reason for the letter names: they just started labelling them from the lowest one in their system.

Comes from the Greek Greater Perfect System, where "Alpha" is the lowest note.

Dorian, btw, was labelled mode I, which may be down to its symmetry.

More likely, due to the "stacking" of two identical disjunct diatonic tetrachords - which by then had become the "primary" type of tetrachord.

Also, Guido's system extended the range down to G, or "gamma". Hence "gamma-ut", leading to our word "gamut" meaning a whole range.

Right - the Gamma was added below the "Alpha"

So A is A because that's where A has always been basically.

The fact that we're so "C-Centric" now doesn't have anything to do with how notes were named originally.

Steve

markbosko

10-14-2011, 09:10 AM

History of note names
Music notation systems have used letters of the alphabet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alphabet) for centuries. The 6th century philosopher Boethius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anicius_Manlius_Severinus_Boethius) is known to have used the first fifteen letters of the alphabet to signify the notes of the two-octave range that was in use at the time. Though it is not known whether this was his devising or common usage at the time, this is nonetheless called Boethian notation.
Following this, the system of repeating letters A-G in each octave was introduced, these being written as minuscules (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lower_case) for the second octave (a-g) and double minuscules for the third (aa-gg). When the compass of used notes was extended down by one note, to a G, it was given the Greek G (Γ), gamma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma). (It is from this that the French word for scale, gamme is derived, and the English word gamut (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexachord), from "Gamma-Ut", the lowest note in Medieval music notation.)
The remaining five notes of the chromatic scale (the black keys on a piano keyboard) were added gradually; the first being B, which was flattened in certain modes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mode_(music)) to avoid the dissonant tritone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tritone) interval. This change was not always shown in notation, but when written, B♭ (B-flat) was written as a Latin, round "b", and B♮ (B-natural) a Gothic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gothic_alphabet) or "hard-edged" b. These evolved into the modern flat and natural symbols respectively. The sharp symbol arose from a barred b, called the "cancelled b".
In parts of Europe, including Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany), the Czech Republic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czech_Republic), Poland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poland), Hungary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungary), Norway (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway), Finland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finland), and Russia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia), the natural symbol transformed into the letter H (possibly for hart, German for hard): in German music notation, H is B♮ (B-natural) and B is B♭ (B-flat). Occasionally, music written in German for international use will use H for B-natural and Bb for B-flat (with a modern-script lowercase b instead of a flat sign). Since a Bes or B♭ in Northern Europe (i.e. a Bhttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/23/Doubleflat.svg/8px-Doubleflat.svg.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Doubleflat.svg) elsewhere) is both rare and unorthodox (more likely to be expressed as Heses), it is generally clear what this notation means.
In Italian, Portuguese, Greek, French, Russian, Flemish, Romanian, Spanish, Persian, Arabic, Hebrew, Bulgarian and Turkish notation the notes of scales are given in terms of Do-Re-Mi-Fa-Sol-La-Si rather than C-D-E-F-G-A-B. These names follow the original names reputedly given by Guido d'Arezzo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guido_d%27Arezzo), who had taken them from the first syllables of the first six musical phrases of a Gregorian Chant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregorian_Chant) melody Ut queant laxis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ut_queant_laxis), which began on the appropriate scale degrees. These became the basis of the solfege (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solfege) system. "Do" later replaced the original "Ut" for ease of singing (most likely from the beginning of Dominus, Lord), though "Ut" is still used in some places. "Si" or "Ti" was added as the seventh degree (from Sancte Johannes, St. John, to whom the hymn is dedicated). The use of 'Si' versus 'Ti' varies regionally.
In a newly developed system, primarily in use in the United States, notes of scales become independent to the music notation. In this system the natural symbols C-D-E-F-G-A-B refer to the absolute notes, while the names Do-Re-Mi-Fa-So-La-Ti are relativized and show only the relationship between pitches, where Do is the name of the base pitch of the scale, Re is the name of the second pitch, etc. The idea of so called movable-do, originally suggested by John Curwen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Curwen) in the 19th century, was fully developed and involved into a whole educational system by Zoltán Kodály (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zolt%C3%A1n_Kod%C3%A1ly) in the middle of the 20th century, which system is known as the Kodály Method (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kod%C3%A1ly_Method) or Kodály Concept.

Seraphine

10-14-2011, 09:29 AM

Exactly. If anybody had actually sat down and designed our musical system, it would look a lot different. And probably make a lot more sense.:)

As it is, people just went with what they thought sounded good (with some guidance from Greek and Christian moral philosophy). It was the poor theorists who had to come along later and work out what the hell was going on... :D

This I'm not sure of.... The history, even of western music, goes back furthur then many expect. Pythagoras is considered the "Father" of modern music and though Pythagoras didn't leave any writings, his school did....

A strange thing though is that Pythagoras studied 40 years in Egypt and then in Babylon. HIs understanding of "music" came from ancient history...

The "science" involved was indeed science and most of "our" music's foundations are based on it. Pythagoras showed ( from his ancient taught knowledge ) that a string would vibrate in certain ways... This denoted the harmonics and mathematics of musical and sonic "laws" and intervals...

Ancient flutes from Ancient Egypt, predating Pythagoras's time over a thousand years have revealed the same intervals and "scales" he illustrated in his "teaching" ( which was basic science ).... As well ancient flutes from South and Central American cultures have shown the same intervals and understanding.

The western music system is based on more than guesswork or what sounded good, as a foundation. The understanding and knowledge of Octaves and Intervals were understood even in very ancient times.

Sandy Cheeks

10-14-2011, 09:40 AM

Wow, we've made it this far without a reference to the Lydian Chromatic Concept Of Tonal Organization!

vhollund

10-14-2011, 11:13 AM

Again
When the compass of used notes was extended down by one note, to a G, it was given the Greek G (Γ), gamma. (It is from this that the French word for scale, gamme is derived, and the English word gamut, from "Gamma-Ut", the lowest note in Medieval music notation.)

Eb instruments play a C note when they see an A
But the relative intervals stay the same

tiktok

10-14-2011, 04:41 PM

Seraphine

10-15-2011, 12:08 AM

This is why I prefer to not play in bands where two members think they 'know' music theory. Someone makes an off-hand reference to a mode or the name of some chord and next thing you know, thirty minutes of arguing have gone by and no music has been played....

Good One!!! lol....

to quote Genesis in Super's Ready....

Pythagoras with a Looking Glass
Reflects the Full Moon
In Blood
He's Writing The Lyrics.....
Of a Brand New Tune........................

KRosser

10-15-2011, 12:56 AM

The better question, I think, is why doesn't our alphabet start with C?

vhollund

10-15-2011, 01:45 AM

Exactly !
And finish with B

JonR

10-15-2011, 08:59 AM

A very valid question

The ansver to why C and not A is:
Because a large percentage of all written music and all schoolbooks and living musicians would have to be converted and rewritten
Because of historyExcellent, v, thanks! Nice to have one's guesswork cleared up with some proper info - I'm sure I've read all that at somepoint, it just got buried in my brain under a load of other stuff.:)

JonR

10-15-2011, 09:18 AM

This I'm not sure of.... The history, even of western music, goes back furthur then many expect. Pythagoras is considered the "Father" of modern music and though Pythagoras didn't leave any writings, his school did....Yes, true, but in medieval Europe, the Catholic music authorities still picked out of that (and Boethius's interpretation of it) what they wanted to use. There was no "science" as such - as we understand it - that wasn't connected to mysticism and philosophy of some kind. Pythagoras's cultural view was concerned with the harmony of the spheres, and his investigations were governed by that understanding. It was considered religiously significant that simple ratios produced harmonious sounds. (They had no way of measuring frequency then, even though I suspect they knew about vibration frequency in principle.)

A strange thing though is that Pythagoras studied 40 years in Egypt and then in Babylon. His understanding of "music" came from ancient history...Again, yes, I'm sure that's right. As I've read, he got most, if not all, of his math from Babylonian culture too.

The "science" involved was indeed science and most of "our" music's foundations are based on it. Pythagoras showed ( from his ancient taught knowledge ) that a string would vibrate in certain ways... This denoted the harmonics and mathematics of musical and sonic "laws" and intervals...Well, that much of it - the measurement - is science as we know it. But my point is that music theory and practice pays little or no attention to the scientific facts of the harmonic series. Instruments (and voices) are tuned this way or that to sound good in context, which usually means diverging from harmonic precision to some degree. Our modern system of equal temperament would not work if our ears didn't accept a threshold of tolerance either side of harmonic exactness.

IOW, the physical fact of the harmonic series (and ratios of factors of 2, 3 and 5) lie at the root of perceptions of consonance, of the blending of pitches or "family relations" between pitches: but only at the root. The superstructures of music as made in the real world (in any culture) diverge from that to various amounts, because of other cultural forces (religiousl, moral and/or aesthetic).

Ancient flutes from Ancient Egypt, predating Pythagoras's time over a thousand years have revealed the same intervals and "scales" he illustrated in his "teaching" ( which was basic science ).... As well ancient flutes from South and Central American cultures have shown the same intervals and understanding.AFAIK, not the exact same intervals. I'd like to see references for any conclusions to that effect.

The western music system is based on more than guesswork or what sounded good, as a foundation. well, "sounding good" is not guesswork. "Sounding good" is the governing principle of all music, worldwide. But different cultures have different criteria. Much of it - such as the octave - is shared (and can be traced to the harmonic series); much is different.

ricepr

10-15-2011, 10:36 AM

Hell just capo up 3 frets, A->C

Next you'll be sayin thars a difference twixt Cb and B..... :-)

projam619

10-15-2011, 11:51 AM

the piano and music notation are centered around the note "C" instead of "A"?

Why not just call that note "A"?

I googled around on this and could not find an answer. Probably some historical accident but I bet some of you probably know.

In my mind, the answer seems less to be based on music theory than historical contingency. Western music is not founded upon piano music. The piano/harpsichord/clavier or any keyboard did not preexist the organization of modes. Its a contingent fact, not a necessary fact, that the key of C has no sharps or flats on the piano, based upon whomever first organized the keys. Musical notes are universal - how they are arranged to be played on an instrument are not...

stevel

10-15-2011, 02:37 PM

Western music is not founded upon piano music.

Or, more accurately, Western Music was not founded on the Major/minor Key concept.

Simply put (as has already been a couple of times), the note names pre-dated the concept of keys.

Thus A was chosen for the first, or lowest note of the system. It has nothing to do with "C Major" because that concept didn't even exist when the notes were named.

Steve

vhollund

10-15-2011, 05:07 PM

If i understood It right the lowest note was given the Greek letter Gamma
G
From where the French term for scale "Gamme" derives
But the C system we know os probably not that old

JonR

10-17-2011, 04:32 AM

If i understood It right the lowest note was given the Greek letter Gamma
G
Yes, but as already mentioned, that was an extension below the previous lower limit of A (alpha) - right?
After all, it would make little sense to begin naming a scale system from the 7th letter (no more than it would to start from C...;))

JonR

10-17-2011, 04:34 AM

Hell just capo up 3 frets, A->C

Next you'll be sayin thars a difference twixt Cb and B..... :-)In theory, there is.;) (Otherwise both would not exist.)

vhollund

10-17-2011, 08:23 AM

Yes, but as already mentioned, that was an extension below the previous lower limit of A (alpha) - right?
After all, it would make little sense to begin naming a scale system from the 7th letter (no more than it would to start from C...;))

It seems so Yes
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/gamut
noun
(the gamut) 1 the complete range or scope of something:the whole gamut of human emotion
2 Musica complete scale of musical notes; the compass or range of a voice or instrument.
historical a scale consisting of seven overlapping hexachords, containing all the recognized notes used in medieval music, covering almost three octaves from bass G to treble E.
historical the lowest note in the gamut scale.

Music notation systems have used letters of the alphabet for centuries. The 6th century philosopher Boethius is known to have used the first fifteen letters of the alphabet to signify the notes of the two-octave range that was in use at the time. Though it is not known whether this was his devising or common usage at the time, this is nonetheless called Boethian notation.
Following this, the system of repeating letters A-G in each octave was introduced, these being written as minuscules for the second octave (a-g) and double minuscules for the third (aa-gg). When the compass of used notes was extended down by one note, to a G, it was given the Greek G (Γ), gamma. (It is from this that the French word for scale, gamme is derived, and the English word gamut, from "Gamma-Ut", the lowest note in Medieval music notation.)

Seraphine

10-17-2011, 08:37 AM

Jeremy_Green

10-17-2011, 10:14 AM

I am always confiscated when people on discussion forums refer to discussions like this as arguments. It is a very good and valid question. Hell, I have learned a whole bunch from this thread which is what it is all about no?

For me, stuff like this I am less inquisitive about. I seem to take no issue with accepting things as they just are. Not that it is wrong to ask the question! Just that I seldom ask it myself. In my experience anything that is really OLD like music, will have some oddities to it.

Thanks for some of the great answers folks! Some real valuable mental assets round these parts!

JonR

10-17-2011, 07:49 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Seraphine http://img.thegearpage.net/board/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.thegearpage.net/board/showthread.php?p=11626749#post11626749)
Ancient flutes from Ancient Egypt, predating Pythagoras's time over a thousand years have revealed the same intervals and "scales" he illustrated in his "teaching" ( which was basic science ).... As well ancient flutes from South and Central American cultures have shown the same intervals and understanding.

AFAIK, not the exact same intervals. I'd like to see references for any conclusions to that effect.

*******

HI JonR... I haven't found the ref for the flutes tested. It was hardcopy / book from years ago... Need to have time to nail it... I have found some online whatnots for ref of various researchers and findings etc....

Sacred Music In Antiquity
http://www.rakkav.com/biblemusic/pages/sacred.htm

*******

This one you might particularly appreciate...

ON THE DISCOVERY OF THE ANCIENT EGYPTIAN MUSICAL SCALE
http://egyptsound.free.fr/fathi.htm
Thanks, that 2nd one is fascinating, mainly because it features sound samples of two of the flutes in question being played. The sound is amazingly evocative - and the text reads like a good piece of scientific research and measurement (from the little I know of such things); but unfortunately the sound files don't correspond to the printed results, so I can only assume they got their flute numbers mixed up.
Eg, flute 69817 is claimed to have something close to a diatonic A minor scale (A dorian to be precise). But the audio labelled as that flute doesn't match up. They claim the scale is A B C D E F# G, with the D a little flat.
In fact, the audio - taking A as its reference pitch - gives the notes Bb, C, something in between D and Eb, E, F and G. The last 3 are all somewhat sharp (between 10 and 50 cents), and the C is a little flat.
Admittedly there is quite a wide vibrato on most notes, with pitch fluctuating up to around 60 cents. The "A" "E" and "F" are the worst, the "C" and "G" only moving around 10-20 cents.
It's certainly interesting that this is a 7-note scale (not a pentatonic), but even with the most generous interpretation it has no clear relationship with any kind of pure ratios or intonations.
One possible interesting detail is that there are two perfect 5ths: A-E and Bb-F, which are reasonably in tune (allowing for that vibrato); but the other pitches don't relate so neatly - certainly not to simple Pythagorean ratio factors of 2 or 3, nor to later European 5-limit factors.
One observation I'd make is that the "C" is about the same distance above the Bb (around 3/4 of a whole step) as the "D" is below the E; leaving 3 half-steps (very roughly) between "C" and "D". Here's a little chart of how the pitches line up with A:
A..........Bb.........B..........C..........C#.... .....D..........Eb.........E.........F..........F# .........G.........Ab
_____ ____ __ __ ______ ______ __
The horizontal lines represent the flute's pitches, as played by the researcher. (The width of the lines is the approximate extent of the vibrato in the sample: some of the notes were played 2 or 3 times, giving much the same result each time.)
Of course, this researcher has no idea how the Egyptians might have played the instrument! Did he deliberately add vibrato? If so, why? (Vibrato seems to be an affectation of western classical music.) Perhaps the Egyptians overblew (to get higher octaves and harmonics)? Perhaps they used fingering techniques such as half-covering holes to get other pitches, or to bend notes? Perhaps this flute was not used for its full 7-note scale but as an instrument capable of 2 or more pentatonic scales? (Much as our chromatic 12-note instruments tend to be used with just 7 notes at a time.)
IOW, we can draw very limited conclusions from the raw pitch data (even assuming we can agree on what pitches they actually are! ;)). (Using pitches other than A as reference makes no difference of course; other notes are still "out of tune", according to any system I'm aware of.)

One thing it seems we certainly CAN say is that these intervals are not Pythagorean! As for the (rough) perfect 5ths in there, that's not too surprising, because these are intuitive intervals - many cultures perceive them (like octaves) as "natural". Pythagoras wouldn't have been unique in attaching significance to the P5 - and he wouldn't have had to have been influenced by other cultures to hear it as a strong consonance.

Seraphine

10-17-2011, 09:26 PM

One thing it seems we certainly CAN say is that these intervals are not Pythagorean! As for the (rough) perfect 5ths in there, that's not too surprising, because these are intuitive intervals - many cultures perceive them (like octaves) as "natural". Pythagoras wouldn't have been unique in attaching significance to the P5 - and he wouldn't have had to have been influenced by other cultures to hear it as a strong consonance.

I wish I had the hardcopy source for the ancient flutes tested when they were found....

This second link though, dealing with flutes, is grist for the mill though... Oddly enough Pythagoras was said to shun flutes and stressed never to listen to them, but to use "strings"....

One note to always keep in front is that Pythagoras didn't leave any writings... It was hand me down "school of Pythagoras" writings and philosophy that was often enhanced as time went....

Yet it's wise to also consider his 40 year experience learning in Egypt. This is obviously where he "learnt it all"... I wonder of the Vibrato or Overtones etc with some of these flutes... Maybe they were something of a flavor with added instruments... such as strings.

The issues you point out would be worthy of contacting the original researchers... I wonder they are referring to the ancient pitches ( rather then modern ) or some such calibration factors.... I instantly thought of The Allman Brothers "Whipping Post' and how a run in it is often claimed an A minor run when in fact it's A Dorian..... So it's worth sorting out lol....

These weren't the flutes I meant... They were some Tomb flutes newly found and quickly ( on site ) tested... It was in a hardcopy book and it might take a miracle to dig it up for you lol.... I'll keep my eye on it though...

I think it was said to be Solon that was famous for never lying.. a quite reliable lad.... I think he mentioned an Egyptian Priest that said...

"Just think, we taught these upstarts ( Greeks ) everything they know"...

frankthomson

10-17-2011, 10:24 PM

in my best Nigel voice, "...bbut it starts on A"

vhollund

10-18-2011, 03:14 AM

If You google 'sound of 35 000 year old flute"
You will hear a nice phrygian scale
There is also a fine mamut flute with pemtatonic scale

JonR

10-18-2011, 04:38 AM

I wish I had the hardcopy source for the ancient flutes tested when they were found....

This second link though, dealing with flutes, is grist for the mill though... Oddly enough Pythagoras was said to shun flutes and stressed never to listen to them, but to use "strings"....Right. Perhaps because he found those Egyptian flutes - or their relatives - too dissonant for his (and his fellow Greeks') ears?
Strings are of course a lot easier to experiment with to find those pure ratios from scratch. But the difference with Pythagoras's theories must be down to the Greek cultural preferences.
Judging from the sounds produced by that Egyptian flute, they favoured intervals that were not simple pure ratios. (Much as many Eastern cultures still do.) There may have been some mysterious theoretical/religious justification for the choice of those intervals. What is wrong is to try and fit the reality of that flute into our mindset of simple ratios, perfect 5ths etc.
Ancient Greek culture made different choices, based on a simple mystical philosophy of the "harmony of the spheres". The legend (Plato's story I think?) is that Pythagoras heard some blacksmiths' hammers making musically consonant sounds: and found that the weights of the hammers were in simple ratio to one another. He made that connection between pure sounds (different pitches that blended smoothly) and simple ratio - of weight, string length, or pipe length (concealing an underlying ratio of vibration frequency). Their philosophy was that music came from God (where else?), and beauty was simplicity, and God was a mathematician. So it all fitted together. So "good" music had to be based on those simple ratios.
We in the Christian west inherited that mindset (thanks to Boethius and Pope Gregory, originally). We think music using simple ratios sounds more "pure", and therefore more "holy" or "sacred" than music with dissonant intervals. (Blues was called the devil's music until relatively recently, and I think many of us still feel that distinction, even as we enjoy it. IOW, we don't like rock'n'roll because it sounds more "pure", but precisely because it sounds "dirty" and "rebellious" or "primitive". This is a cultural thing, not something inherent in the sounds themselves.)

One note to always keep in front is that Pythagoras didn't leave any writings... It was hand me down "school of Pythagoras" writings and philosophy that was often enhanced as time went....

Yet it's wise to also consider his 40 year experience learning in Egypt. This is obviously where he "learnt it all"... I wonder of the Vibrato or Overtones etc with some of these flutes... Maybe they were something of a flavor with added instruments... such as strings.Well, who knows? ;) He may well have partly accepted and partly rejected what he learned in Egypt. And of course, the way those flutes sound in the mouth of a 20th (21st?) century researcher may not be the way they sounded in the mouths of ancient Egyptians. The minds of the ancient Egyptians and Greeks - the way they heard those sounds - certainly was different from the way we hear musical sound. We only have to read Plato's musings on the psychological effects of the various musical modes to feel bemused - and amused - that simple scale choices could have - or were believed to have - such power. (Even the medieval "diabolus in musica" is a harmless old friend today, an indispensible part of our musical culture, even of quite bland music.)

The issues you point out would be worthy of contacting the original researchers... I wonder they are referring to the ancient pitches ( rather then modern ) or some such calibration factors.... They're quite clear about calibration, if you read the links and associated tables. (They're naming pitches in the modern way, and measuring frequency in Hz and cents.)
I'm not suggesting they got all their measurements wrong - the research seems meticulous - only that something along the way (between research and website) has got "lost in translation", as it were.
And I don't particular care enough to try contacting them to get it put right. (I mean, if they don't care - by not checking - why should I? ;))
I just like hearing the sounds, and wondering...

I instantly thought of The Allman Brothers "Whipping Post' and how a run in it is often claimed an A minor run when in fact it's A Dorian..... So it's worth sorting out lol....Yeah, maybe we should call the Allmans as well...
"Hey guys, some crazy people are running around claiming that run of yours is A minor, not A dorian! :nuts Put them right for chrissakes!!"
:D

Seraphine

10-18-2011, 05:13 AM

JonR did you read the first link? ....

As far as Pythagoras... anyone interested can find many free online ol' books concerning Pythagoras... One excellent one which includes some of what JonR has mentioned, such as the Hammer and weights to the ear of Pythagoras... can be found in this famous book...

The Secret Teachings Of All Ages ~ Manly P Hall

Here is the relevant section..
The Pythagorean Theory of Music and Color

http://www.sacred-texts.com/eso/sta/sta19.htm

*******

"Just think, we taught these upstarts ( Greeks ) everything they know"...

Seraphine

10-18-2011, 05:23 AM

Right.think?)

And I don't particular care enough to try contacting them to get it put right. (I mean, if they don't care - by not checking - why should I? ;))
:D

Ok we'll take that out of the book of life... you can thank us later lol....

JonR

10-18-2011, 06:41 AM

If You google 'sound of 35 000 year old flute"
You will hear a nice phrygian scaleThat Egyptian one seems to be closer to Phrygian than any other contemporary mode - assuming its low A is the keynote of course... ;)
That's always the stumbling block with these assumptions about scales of ancient instruments. How do we know what note was considered to be keynote? (if any). Does it have to be the lowest note the instrument produces? Maybe they had things like plagal modes in those days?
IOW, does it mean anything useful or interesting to say the scale produced by an ancient flute is "like phrygian, IF we measure from the fundamental"?

Here's the sound sample I was analysing, btw, so to save anyone going through the site Seraphine linked to:

http://egyptsound.free.fr/sounds/EgyptSound_RealAudio/01_Flute_69817.ra

An undeniably beautiful sound (from this person's 20th/21st century way of thinking anyway), just interestingly "out of tune" - according not only to modern equal temperament, but also to other historical 7-note systems (AFAIK).

I've just realised when I analysed it first, I missed off the first few notes, so here's a re-examination of it (although it doesn't really change anything). The lowest pitch played (which is the middle one of the final group of three) is close to A (about 30-40 cents flat of the A below middle C), so, making that our zero fundamental reference pitch, the pitches played are as follows:
A.........Bb........B.........C.........C#........ D.........Eb........E..........F.........G#....... .G.........G#........A
___ _____ ____ ____ ___ ___ ___ ___

So, this just confirms my previous measurements. (Most pitches played, btw, are in the upper octave. Only the last 3 notes range down to the Bb-A-Bb in the lower octave.)
We still get something like a phrygian scale - although only assuming the lowest note is the keynote, which is an arbitrary assumption.
(That low A is presumably the fundamental pitch of the flute, with all holes closed, although the website isn't clear on that. It doesn't specify the length of this particular flute, but says three of the samples were 90 cm, and one was 75. A 90 cm flute should produce a pitch of F#/G, while 75 cm would be more like Ab-A (below middle C): bingo! so we guess this one is the 75 cm one.)

As you can see (as before) - if we're generous with that wide vibrato - the b2 is not too far out, the minor 3rd is flat, the perfect 4th and 5th are sharp (some way from "perfect"!), the b6 is a little too flat, and the minor 7th is sharp. Take whatever you like from that...
Eg, the researcher playing the flute finishes with Bb-A-Bb, making Bb sound like a tonic, but the other notes don't line up too well with any kind of Bb key or mode. (If we centre the scale on a tuned Bb, then we get a well tuned whole step to C, and also a good perfect 5th to F; but the 3rd is closer to Eb than D, and the 4th is in between E and F; we get a note midway between G and G#/Ab, and a slightly sharp major 7th.)

JonR

10-18-2011, 07:23 AM

JonR did you read the first link? .... I did. But I found it hard to follow the description of the picture of the lute players. The image is too low-res to be able to make out any of the detail they're talking about; and I wasn't clear on their justification for the assumptions they were making about what the image represented. (I assume they have other writing to back it up.)
Eg, what evidence is there that it shows a group of lute players, and not a comic-strip type sequence of one player, eg, playing a tune note by note? (IMO, it's more likely it is a troupe of players, because of the other instruments, but you never know.))
And anyone who - like Curt Sachs quoted - who thinks this image is of "almost photographic accuracy" does not deserve to have his observational skills trusted, IMO! (It sounds like an over-excitable researcher keen to prove his own pet theories.)
We can see that the players have their hands in different positions, but as for how he knows which strings they are plucking, and how those strings are tuned... and why it means they were using a pentatonic scale...

IOW, as far as I can tell, that relief on its own shows nothing of the kind. It might just be (flimsy) evidence of some contemporary theoretical writing that talks about pentatonics, but that site clearly says:
"The famous mural in Asshurbanipal's palace depicting an Elamite court orchestra shows the Elamites were also familiar with the pentatonic scale"
- my emphasis.
Um, no it doesn't! How could it? (I just have to trust that Herr Sachs had other evidence besides this relief.)

As far as Pythagoras... anyone interested can find many free online ol' books concerning Pythagoras... One excellent one which includes some of what JonR has mentioned, such as the Hammer and weights to the ear of Pythagoras... can be found in this famous book...

The Secret Teachings Of All Ages ~ Manly P Hall

Here is the relevant section..
The Pythagorean Theory of Music and Color

http://www.sacred-texts.com/eso/sta/sta19.htm
Yes, an interesting exposition of the amusing mysticism of the Greeks. Somewhat heavy going for me. Pythagoras's faith in number is touching, and seems to mark him as ahead of his time (as a proto-scientist in the modern sense), but of course the numerology is pure mysticism. He was struggling to fit the data into his worldview, not vice versa - so an anti-scientist in that respect.

I prefer this site:
http://www.midicode.com/tunings/index.shtml
- and here's the intervals of the Greater Perfect System, with a late medieval illustration of the Pythagorean legendary method:
http://www.midicode.com/tunings/greek.shtml#2.6

Seraphine

10-18-2011, 08:47 AM

Any musician should understand Math Geometry and Music..... Even if only by proxy of the subconscious lol... this is also illustrated in "Nature" let alone something like the Great Pyramid....

Harmony, System and Balance... Like listening to nature wake up before the dawn and as the dawn rises... Listening to various night creatures... cicadas... crickets.. listening to a bird actually "singing" <--- I love that one... some birds actually make tunes early in the morning and a lone bird can outright catch a musicians notice lol....

The idea of some sort of mysticism or "meaning" beyond the shallow seems quite acceptable... The shortest day of the year... the longest... the equal night... the numbers involved... the precession of the equinox... the snowflakes and 6... certain minerals and their numerical aspects... The world is filled with these things... including music... Especially if one thinks of music as Vibration.... Everything vibrates.

I love the whole "beyond" some peoples senses thing... Think Dolphins... whales.... hear beyond most humans range.... There's an entire world of MUSIC and sound going on that many hear... and many don't. lol

Meanwhile psycho-acoustics... how the Brain as well as Mind works... People hearing voices? something wrong or something merely not usual for a mundane world where so many people can't hear thier wife even when she is talking to them?

What was that?

To be conscious? Pythagoras didn't leave any writing... Much of what has been attributed to him has been enhanced to say the least. A body of knowledge was passed along though, through the "philosophy".. Knowledge obviously "imported" to the next growing and coming "civilisation".

Gurdjieff had encounters and introductions to secret societies of ancient heritage, using music and dance in philosophy and in TEACHING... There's music writen by Gurdjieff as illustration etc... Robert Fripp has long been involved in this and has worked with the Gurdjieff philosophy for many years... It's used in Fripp's music and playing...

There is a long history and case for mysticism and spiritual use of music. Heck man... even the science of brainwashing uses it... for everything from selling pepsi to selling a war.... lol

Listen... hear the war drums? Hear the bells toll?

"Doctor Livingston! Those drums talk... I swear... I just wish I knew what they were saying!" grrrrrrr

Clifford-D

10-18-2011, 09:27 AM

I think Fred would be a good name

vhollund

10-18-2011, 09:57 AM

Listen to the 35.000 year old pentatonic vulture flute

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8117915.stm

@Jonr I cant play the file in your link

kimock

10-18-2011, 10:29 AM

Here's a brief description of an intonation test of a modern flute for comparison purposes.
Of interest, the idea that the intonation not be reckoned from the lowest note, which has come up a couple of times now.

http://www.mcgee-flutes.com/RockstroAnalysesRRflute.htm

JonR

10-18-2011, 10:35 AM

Any musician should understand Math Geometry and Music..... Even if only by proxy of the subconscious lol... this is also illustrated in "Nature" let alone something like the Great Pyramid....Well, we see patterns where we want to see them... ;)

Harmony, System and Balance... Like listening to nature wake up before the dawn and as the dawn rises... Listening to various night creatures... cicadas... crickets.. listening to a bird actually "singing" <--- I love that one... some birds actually make tunes early in the morning and a lone bird can outright catch a musicians notice lol....Indeed.

The idea of some sort of mysticism or "meaning" beyond the shallow seems quite acceptable... The shortest day of the year... the longest... the equal night... the numbers involved... the precession of the equinox... the snowflakes and 6... certain minerals and their numerical aspects... The world is filled with these things... including music... Especially if one thinks of music as Vibration.... Everything vibrates.Yes, but does it "mean" anything?
If I've learned anything about math and music over the last 40+ years, it's that they have a very arms-length relationship. Pattern, symmetry, ratio and similar sorts of order have a natural human appeal (home sapiens is a pattern-seeking animal), but music tends not to fit into any of the neat boxes we might imagine. Even Pythagoras knew about the "comma"...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagorean_comma
- European music struggled for centuries with various ways of dealing with that little fly in the ointment - only very recently accepting the inevitable imperfect compromise of equal temperament. (Inevitable given the artificial harmonic structures we wanted to impose on nature.)

In addition, experiments have shown that people don't perceive exact octaves as being in tune. They (we) seem to prefer an octave that is slightly sharp. (I can't make sense of that either...)
IOW, not only the by-definition out-of-tune equal tempered intervals, but even the "perfect" octave is subject to the vicissitudes of human perception.
We clearly have a threshold of acceptability by which intervals and chords can be technically out of tune (according to any mathematical principle we like) and yet still sound fine. In fact, sometimes - it seems- an out-of-tune interval is preferred (actually sounds more "in tune" subjectively) over a technically in-tune one.

So put that in your numerological pipe and smoke it! :D
(no offence! :))

There's still mystical appeal, I guess, to this literally unfathomable aspect of music (that defeats scientific explanation). But the answer clearly doesn't lie in reducing sounds to simple numbers, or aligning them with any magical number system.
As Einstein said, we should try to reduce everything to the simplest form possible - but no simpler.
I love the whole "beyond" some peoples senses thing... Think Dolphins... whales.... hear beyond most humans range.... There's an entire world of MUSIC and sound going on that many hear... and many don't. lolWell, if we can't hear it, it isn't "music", by any sensible definition. Music is a human invention, an artificial construct, not a natural thing.
The calls of birds or animals can be heard as music if we choose - by relating them to sounds we define as "music" - but of course they don't make the sounds for any artistic purpose. (Although I'm open to the idea that many creatures makes sounds for pure pleasure at least some of the time. But then they wouldn't necessarily be aware of any longer-term purpose anyway; it would be largely instinctive.)

Meanwhile psycho-acoustics... how the Brain as well as Mind works... People hearing voices? something wrong or something merely not usual for a mundane world where so many people can't hear thier wife even when she is talking to them?There's a difference between psycho-acoustics and hearing voices. The former is a scientific discipline. The latter is a psychological (and/or psychiatric) phenomenon.
I suspect there's an overlap, however. It's a thin line between sane and mad - and it shifts all the time... ;)

To be conscious? Pythagoras didn't leave any writing... Much of what has been attributed to him has been enhanced to say the least. A body of knowledge was passed along though, through the "philosophy".. Knowledge obviously "imported" to the next growing and coming "civilisation".Sure. Plato wrote about Pythagoras. Roman scholar Boethius studied the Greek writings on music (among other things). Then the medieval Catholic church drew on Boethius to establish the system of ecclesiatical modes. But somewhere along the way - either deliberately or through some kind of Chinese whispers, or mistranslation - the system was changed. Medieval phrygian is not Greek phrygian, nor do any of the other modes match their Greek counterparts. Essentially, the names changed around.
Either the medieval religious authorities misunderstood the Greek characterizations of the modes, or decided they preferred to promote different characterizations; or they just liked different sounds. (Christian moral philosophy is of course different from Ancient Greek moral philosophy - many ideas are shared but many are not.)

Gurdjieff had encounters and introductions to secret societies of ancient heritage, using music and dance in philosophy and in TEACHING... There's music writen by Gurdjieff as illustration etc... Robert Fripp has long been involved in this and has worked with the Gurdjieff philosophy for many years... It's used in Fripp's music and playing...

There is a long history and case for mysticism and spiritual use of music. Oh sure. I just have little time for it. Some famous musicians are scientologists, for heaven's sake (or for Heaven's sake!;)).
I have no need of religion in my life, so I don't need it in music either.
I guess you could say music takes the place of spirituality in my life. I certainly enjoy the mysterious sense of meaning it imparts. As Stravinsky (I think) said, "if music is a language, it's an untranslatable one." Another thing he (definitely) said was "music expresses nothing but itself" - which I agree with. (Using it to express non-musical sentiments is prostituting it, selling it short.)

Heck man... even the science of brainwashing uses it... for everything from selling pepsi to selling a war.... lol

Listen... hear the war drums? Hear the bells toll?There you go. It's used to sell religion too, of course. ;)
Music's trance-inducing power may be its oldest known function. If music is done right, you don't need drugs.:)

JonR

10-18-2011, 10:37 AM

JonR

10-18-2011, 10:41 AM

Listen to the 35.000 year old pentatonic vulture flute

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8117915.stm

@Jonr I cant play the file in your linkAh, it's a real audio file. You'd need to download and convert it, I guess.
Thanks for the above, though - definitely sounds close to a major pentatonic (in Eb), at least the way it's played. (I'll check out the exact frequencies later.)

Hey, doesn't The Vulture Flutes make a great band name! :D

Seraphine

10-18-2011, 11:08 AM

... As Stravinsky (I think) said, "if music is a language, it's an untranslatable one." Another thing he (definitely) said was "music expresses nothing but itself" - which I agree with. (Using it to express non-musical sentiments is prostituting it, selling it short.)

ok Jon now I'm on the verge of confusion... talk about untranslatable lol....

So you are only refering to "music" and not lyric or choir or singing? Does singing = the "sound' of the voices as an instrument... or the words as well? The "meaning" is somehow NOT part of the "Music"?

Are you separating the two? Granted singing can be music without any instrumental accompaniment and an instrumental can have no lyric content etc... But the meaning of a "song" isn't part of the music?

Isn't music often used to express the lyrics? Used to sell it? Is how something said different to what is said? As in don't say it, sing it? Is the lyric and singing music? So the melody is musical yet the meaning of what is being sung has nothing to do with music?

There's a hundred spin-offs from your one-liner lol... Music can send chills up someones back man... it can reach into someones heart as well as a woman or loved one... it can touch places within people that are beyond the mind. Is using music to caress the soul of someone prostitution?

These are very, very real affects... call it reality. Very real heartbeats are changed... emotions pulled out that make the body and mind shiver... this is what? selling people short somehow? Selling the music short itself?

Maybe the lyric without the music can do same... but that would be rare indeed... music does it... it's the bridge between the finite and the infinite... in the middle of epic music... time stands still.... This I would bet you have experienced... In fact I would venture you've experienced all of these things....

This one statement of yours has tickled a sleeping dragon man lol.... Very interesting it is....

JonR

10-18-2011, 02:17 PM

ok Jon now I'm on the verge of confusion... talk about untranslatable lol....

So you are only refering to "music" and not lyric or choir or singing? Does singing = the "sound' of the voices as an instrument... or the words as well? The "meaning" is somehow NOT part of the "Music"?

Are you separating the two? Granted singing can be music without any instrumental accompaniment and an instrumental can have no lyric content etc... But the meaning of a "song" isn't part of the music?Well, obviously we need to separate out lyrics if we're going to be talking about music itself having meaning.

Stravinsky's point - I think - was that there is some kind of pure ideal state of music where it does have some kind of expression, but that expression is totally self-contained and not related to any other realm of expression. It is a language quite separate from any other, IOW. What it expresses can't be expressed in words - if it could, then there would be no point in it being music in the first place!

It's true that there are certain common cultural associations we make with certain musical sounds. Eg, a minor key is supposedly "sad". These are acquired habits of perception, not inherent qualities in the sounds themselves.
I think what Stravinsky is saying (and we need to bear in mind the kind of music he liked to make ;)) is that one shouldn't use music just to evoke those easy emotions. "Oh we want to make them feel sad, so let's play something in a minor key" Music has much more important and deeper jobs to do than just push those buttons, stimulate those kind of knee-jerk responses.
Personally, I'm less strict about this than our chum Igor. I'm OK with knee-jerk responses myself. Music for me is about having fun, as much as anything deeper than that, and I'm perfectly OK (some of the time anyway) with shallow music. I certainly don't want to listen to Stravinsky all the time! :bonk

Isn't music often used to express the lyrics? Used to sell it? Is how something said different to what is said? As in don't say it, sing it? Is the lyric and singing music? So the melody is musical yet the meaning of what is being sung has nothing to do with music? OK, if you're talking about songs, and popular songs in particular, then they're all about evoking those cultural signifiers: sounds we recognise as meaning this or that. Such as a slow tempo and a handful of maj7 chords for a wistful ballad with a nostalgic theme (in the lyrics).

Popular music can get quite sophisticated in how its sounds communicate emotional states. The Beatles "Strawberry Fields Forever" is one of my favourites, where the sound of the music (chord changes, structure, rhythmic shifts, orchestration, etc) is all of a piece with the theme of the lyric. That's what makes it a "masterpiece", IMO. Most of the really great and long-lasting popular songs have that parallel between lyric and music.

"Art" music (of the kind Stravinsky and his contemporaries were exploring) is not interested in those easy and superficial effects. It's "music about music", if you like. In this sense, it parallels the 20thC abstract art movement, which is "art about art" - an abstract painting means nothing beyond itself. It is what it is, no more, no less. The business of an abstract painter is not to make a representation of the real world - we have cameras that do that well enough. A painting (he would say) has its own job to do: about how we see things, how we use our eyes, about how colour or form works; it can be an object of contemplation, to which we can all bring our own meaning and response. Music - in the Stravinsky view as I understand it - should be the same. We shouldn't look for interpretable meaning in it: that's too shallow. It's both less and more than that.
Music speaks somehow to our subconscious, our primal nature, in ways we can't deal with or adequately express in verbal language. It's as if music predates language - and I think that's a very appealing anthropological view: that early man might have been making music of a kind before he learned to use verbal language: perhaps using rhythm or pitched sounds for communication, for spiritual stimulation, or just for fun.

Music for me is an "art of time" - as you said before, everything vibrates. I think that's a really profound phrase - because it's absolutely true, even though we're mostly not aware of it. We can think of the wave form of the electron, "brownian motion" in small particles, up to our vocal chords, then bigger oscillations like heartbeats, breathing, ocean waves, even bigger ones like diurnal rhythms, tides, weather and seasons.
From that perspective, music mediates time: deals with it all in a very simple system of organisation, serves it up to us in a way we can contemplate. It starts with rhythm, analagous to heartbeats, walking or running. On the larger scale, it moves up to formal structure, as things lke verses and choruses alternate. On the smaller scale it goes down to pitch, which is of course a rhythm too fast for us to perceive the single beats, and which blends into a smooth pitch. Everything vibrates, as you say. But unlike life, which is full of chaotic vibration, music is organised vibration.
In that way, it's a way of making sense of an important aspect of the world and our experience of it, which we can't really deal with in any other way. Eg, we make art to help us deal with (and organise) visual perception and our understanding of space. So, we make music to help us deal with our perception of movement and natural vibration and repetition in the world.

There's a hundred spin-offs from your one-liner lol... Music can send chills up someones back man... it can reach into someones heart as well as a woman or loved one... it can touch places within people that are beyond the mind. Is using music to caress the soul of someone prostitution?No, that's my point. To "reach into the heart" or to "caress the soul" is not something that verbal language can do - not unless you are an extremely gifted poet perhaps. But even quite simple music can do that, almost effortlessly. When your "soul is caressed", can you put that into words? I suspect not. At least you would struggle to describe all the things that the music is communicating to you.
That's really what I'm talking about - the way music infiltrates our psyches beneath the level of words.

We seem to have come a long way from "Why do the note names go from A to G..." :rolleyes: