Unraveling the Mystery of How Music Evokes Emotions

[BenG549]

Forget that you might be criticized by someone who disagrees with your definition and define what you personally respond to as being "music". (Like: If you know something is pornography, you don't have to pretend it's art just because that label could be upheld in court with enough insistence and recourse to legal technicality here.)

To be fair, if we are trying to establish how music causes emotion, we don't really need to get too bogged down in a discussion over the personal definitions of what music is, beyond the one we have i.e. what ever someone might conceivably describe as music; we know it's subjective so isn't it a bit of a side issue? I guess we're basically asking what mechanism is responsible for invoking emotion given audible stimuli (after all however we define it, that is essentially what music is), and what are the reasons for it i.e. is there any evolutionary basis for how we react to complex sounds? ... personally I'm not a neuroscientist or an evolutionary biologist though, so any thoughts on that might be interesting... for me anyway.

 

[zoobyshoe]

So are you saying that the timbre etc. of a persons voice is musical, however the "information content" i.e. the dialogue, is out side of what you would describe as music?

Information as information is not music. For example, this is not music:

Every body perseveres in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a right line, unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed thereon.

Projectiles persevere in their motions, so far as they are not retarded by the resistance of the air, or impelled downwards by the force of gravity. A top, whose parts are perpetually drawn aside from rectilinear motions, does not cease its rotation, otherwise than as it is retarded by air. The greater bodies of the planets and comets, meeting with less resistance in more free spaces, preserve their motions both progressive and circular for a much longer time.

It's a piece of text composed such that the purely informational aspect of the words should completely dominate how it is received.

When someone is speaking we can abstract some element of what they are saying as purely informational, and what's left will be the music: the tell tales that let us know their mood, how they feel about what they are saying, and that also tell us about the texture of their personality, etc.

This non-verbal side of speech has a name:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paralanguage

The catch here is that you have to be speaking to be speaking in paralanguage, so it's rarely separate from words. Music is, I think, a medium in which we can directly communicate paralanguage without words.

Jerry Lewis doesn't say a word in that clip, but he speaks volumes. We know everything about the type of bossy man-in-charge he's rendered into a cartoon there because the music takes the place of the words and speaks man's paralanguage.

If so, its a reasonable point, but I'd still disagree, there are plenty of musical forms that directly "reference the verbal aspects of speech" any rap, hip hop or grime for instance is primarily focused on lyrical content over the "non-verbal" aspects. People still relate to it emotionally, and to pick up on AlephZero's point, people call it music, despite if there is any other "musical accompaniment".

Hip hop and all that is low on melody but rich in rhythm, and rhythm is an essential component of music. In a sense these forms (rap, et al) are verbal percussion more than songs or poems. The lyrics are usually words that make you feel you're being beaten with a stick or stone (or at least threatened with them). Words heavily laden with paralanguage. There's a closer tie to ritual war music than anything else in rap.

You won't understand a word of this clip, but I bet you can figure out what they're saying:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFUf9dP1sWY

 

[zoobyshoe]

To be fair, if we are trying to establish how music causes emotion, we don't really need to get too bogged down in a discussion over the personal definitions of what music is, beyond the one we have i.e. what ever someone might conceivably describe as music; we know it's subjective so isn't it a bit of a side issue? I guess we're basically asking what mechanism is responsible for invoking emotion given audible stimuli (after all however we define it, that is essentially what music is), and what are the reasons for it i.e. is there any evolutionary basis for how we react to complex sounds? ... personally I'm not a neuroscientist or an evolutionary biologist though, so any thoughts on that might be interesting... for me anyway.

The answer would be that what makes us respond to music is the same thing that makes us respond to the paralinguistic aspects of speech, by my take.

We've been bullied into accepting a lot of junk noise as music by the 20th Century avant guardists: 12 tone, John Cage, etc. But that time is past and we no longer have to pretend we love The Emperor's New Music.

I, personally, hate most Country-Western music, and I'm not very fond of Mariachi, either, but I don't claim they're not music. 12 tone, though, was never really music, and neither was John Cage. I don't accept that I have to accept as music whatever someone else presents as music. I think we can distill a good definition of music from what everyone agrees is music, (provided people don't exclude what they recognize to be music but don't enjoy).

 

[AbbyLayne]

Here is an old file I found in my PDF library from College. Maybe it applies to this question of music.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Here is an old file I found in my PDF library from College. Maybe it applies to this question of music.

It's a very long paper, but I read the first few pages and I like it. It echos a lot of what Sacks says in Musicophilia, especially the point that music is very much more basic and important than it's often given credit for.

 

[AbbyLayne]

It's a very long paper, but I read the first few pages and I like it. It echos a lot of what Sacks says in Musicophilia, especially the point that music is very much more basic and important than it's often given credit for.

Yea, I only understood about 50% of the thing, but it sounded like they were talking about how the music makes people feel emotions, so I thought it might be relevant to the thread :)

 

[BenG549]

When someone is speaking we can abstract some element of what they are saying as purely informational, and what's left will be the music: the tell tales that let us know their mood, how they feel about what they are saying, and that also tell us about the texture of their personality, etc.

Yeah OK that makes a lot of sense, just to play devils advocate, do you not think that information can be artistic? after all a lot of the time is it created (in a not breaking the 2nd law of thermodynamic sort of way) you produce the information and if that information is verbal could you not describe it as music... I don't know, maybe not. Anyway like I said I do see your point, and I agree that the tonal and temporal features of speech are the more 'musical elements' of what we hear

The catch here is that you have to be speaking to be speaking in paralanguage, so it's rarely separate from words. Music is, I think, a medium in which we can directly communicate paralanguage without words.

Yeah this was going to be my point, they are very intertwined, and the created by the same mechanisms, so it is hard to really distinguish them, or discuss them as separate things (in my mind anyway lol)

Jerry Lewis doesn't say a word in that clip, but he speaks volumes. We know everything about the type of bossy man-in-charge he's rendered into a cartoon there because the music takes the place of the words and speaks man's paralanguage.

I'd say it was more to do with his body language, which is a form of information. But I get the point this time!

Hip hop and all that is low on melody but rich in rhythm, and rhythm is an essential component of music.

Yeah that is very true, to a certain extent. I do feel that the information content goes some way to invoking emotion though, it allows us it empathise, when we hear a song about love most of us understand, or have had comparable feelings, that allow us to relate to the song, that's purely about information content and our inherent desire to feel attached or connected to people. That is information invoking emotion and in that context I would say it was musical, or at least part or the musical experience.

Although just to add to that I wouldn't argue that a sense of rhythm is an essential part of music.

 

[zoobyshoe]

...just to play devils advocate, do you not think that information can be artistic?

It's conceivable, but I didn't quite follow what you said next. Do you have an example of information you feel is artistic?

Yeah this was going to be my point, they are very intertwined, and the created by the same mechanisms, so it is hard to really distinguish them, or discuss them as separate things (in my mind anyway lol)
I'd say it was more to do with his body language, which is a form of information. But I get the point this time!

Speaking of intertwined, body language is very hard to separate from the information and the paralanguage. In the case of that clip we know the music preceeded the body language. There's no telling what Count Basie had in mind exactly, but Lewis heard a distinct, vivid paralanguage and supplied the body language to support what he heard so he could share it with the audience. Once you take the informational aspects away you have a more basic, primal thing that every individual hearing it can fill out according to his own confirmation bias.

I do feel that the information content goes some way to invoking emotion though, it allows us it empathise, when we hear a song about love most of us understand, or have had comparable feelings, that allow us to relate to the song, that's purely about information content and our inherent desire to feel attached or connected to people. That is information invoking emotion and in that context I would say it was musical, or at least part or the musical experience.

Adding lyrics is a way for the composer to prompt the listener to have a much more specific reaction to the paralanguage. It still ends up accommodating a huge variety of interpretations. What I like about the Lewis clip is that he clearly understood the music to be a voice speaking with a lot of attitude. The exact place he took it was just one of a multitude of potential places where a voice speaks with a lot of attitude. I could see it done as a dialog with two people going at each other with attitude, just as well.

Although just to add to that I wouldn't argue that a sense of rhythm is an essential part of music.

You must be some kinda crazy person, then. Hehe.

 

[BenG549]

It's conceivable, but I didn't quite follow what you said next. Do you have an example of information you feel is artistic?

I would probably say that the way we use speech is personally exclusive enough to argue there is some artistic quality do it. Creative use of mathematics may be considered artistic by some,... actually for fear of getting into a debate about the definition of art I think I'll just retract that question, it was not really worth answering anyway lol, bit off the point.

You must be some kinda crazy person, then. Hehe.

lol, generally speaking I'm inclined to agree with what you've been saying, but you could write music that has no consistent rhythmical structure

The last movement of Schoernberg's second string quartet, Opus 10, has no time signature; Gregorian chant use free rhythm; Performances of Carnatic music (South Indian classical music) frequently begin with a type of improvisation called alapana (melodic exposition) in free rhythm without percussion; Steve Reich's Tehillim, a musical setting of four psalms in Hebrew, is composed in free rhythm.

This article* details the fact that, although the term 'free rhythm' is not specifically defined, unmetred music is common in many cultures including some western examples... I'm not the only crazy person out there lol!

*http://oro.open.ac.uk/17650/1/FreeRhythm.pdf

 

[vappole]

Just as any other sensory input, sound can stimulate pathways in the brain associated with pleasure and/or pain. Music is sequences of sounds that are studied to stimulate either of these particular responses. A great example of this is music used in movies, where sound can be used to create an ambience of tension and fear as much as one of romance and affection, or hatred and so forth, depending on the particular scene of the movie. There are people whose neural connections are a bit stranger than the norm and who mix up sensory information, thus 'seeing' sounds or hearing colors. These people probably have an even more interesting experience when hearing music.

 

[BenG549]

Just as any other sensory input, sound can stimulate pathways in the brain associated with pleasure and/or pain.

This might be a bit of a side issue, if so feel free to ignore this post, but is the threshold of pain w.r.t noise, not down to mechanical rather than neurological reasons... i.e. the reason you experience pain is not to do with your perception of the sound pre se, but because your ear drum is being deflected beyond what is comfortable or excessive vibration on the basilar membrane, I know there are muscles in the inner ear that react to loud impulses, effecting the position of the ossicles and reducing the transmission though the bones, but I'm not sure what actually causes the pain... Although I've studied acoustics we didn't do a lot on aural physiology or noise induced pain and hearing loss... Any knowledge would be appreciated.

 

[atyy]

Yeah OK that makes a lot of sense, just to play devils advocate, do you not think that information can be artistic?

It's conceivable, but I didn't quite follow what you said next. Do you have an example of information you feel is artistic?

Some attempts are described on Dubnov's 18th slide. I believe the perspective is related to Huron's essay mentioned earlier by 256bits in post #9. http://musicweb.ucsd.edu/~sdubnov/SixthFun1.htm

 

[zoobyshoe]

...you could write music that has no consistent rhythmical structure

 

[BenG549]

Hahaha nice touch... although I did provide examples of how that was true.

 

[atyy]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGovCafPQAE

The text is key. The setting of the words is exquisite.

 

[zoobyshoe]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGovCafPQAE

The text is key. The setting of the words is exquisite.

OK, I get it. This fits the criteria of having no consistent rhythmic structure.

I am asking myself why, though, it doesn't at all suggest a lack of rhythmic sense. I think it is because all the little pieces of different rhythm (which have their own rhythmic integrity) are arranged in sequence with a definite eye (ear) to creating an overall structure that is actually quite satisfying. There's a good balance of slow rhythm, rapid rhythm, and silence. I feel like the composer had good instincts about varying that which is similar with that which is novel such that it comes off as deliberate and "composed".

I wouldn't call this music, but I would call it art. Maybe: "Rhythm Collage."

I couldn't follow the text at all, so I stopped trying. I think if text is the key, it's up to the composer to make sure it's easily accessed. I guess I'm an a hole that way.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Hahaha nice touch... although I did provide examples of how that was true.

I looked for the Schoenberg but YouTube didn't have the piece you mentioned, so I was done with that quest. If the piece Atty posted is representative of what you're talking about I'd have to say this kind of thing is in the realm of "experimental" art and is an anomalous side eddy occurring at one particularly strange build up of old logs and rocks on one bank of the larger river that you can't use to characterize the main flow. I think a sense of rhythm is vital to music. The first non-vocal instruments must have been percussion, don't you think? Like you said, two rocks. (But more likely stick on log.)

 

[BenG549]

I looked for the Schoenberg but YouTube didn't have the piece you mentioned, so I was done with that quest. If the piece Atty posted is representative of what you're talking about I'd have to say this kind of thing is in the realm of "experimental" art and is an anomalous side eddy occurring at one particularly strange build up of old logs and rocks on one bank of the larger river that you can't use to characterize the main flow. I think a sense of rhythm is vital to music.

the final movement of Schoernberg's second string quartet "Opus 10" (not sure if you thought I meant Schoenberg's sting quartet and Opus 10 as different things) but yeah this is written with no time signature.

The first non-vocal instruments must have been percussion, don't you think? Like you said, two rocks. (But more likely stick on log.)

lol yeah, based on the complexity of whacking something against the complexity of developing or using resonant cavities attached to stings or even blow holes makes that assertion likely. Not sure it's totally relevant though. Just because it happened to be a big part of the way we used to do things, does that mean it has to be an integral part of how we do things now?

I wouldn't call this music, but I would call it art.

Could 'audible art' not qualify as a definition for music? On face value it seems rather fitting as a definition actually.

 

[atyy]

OK, I get it. This fits the criteria of having no consistent rhythmic structure.

I am asking myself why, though, it doesn't at all suggest a lack of rhythmic sense.

I'm not sure if BenG549 would agree, but let me try to explain why it's no big deal not to have a "consistent rhythmical structure". I think it's like the "rhythm" of prose or of free verse. While both are unmetred, the best authors clearly care about the rhythm of their prose or free verse. In the sense that music is heightened speech or narrative, then it need not have the "consistent rhythmical structure" that BenG549 mentioned. Many old forms such as Gregorian chant and the Baroque recitative very naturally have no "consistent rhythmical structure". I think it is also interesting to consider speech as a form of movement. Some movements such a jump for joy or changing bed sheets have no obvious repeated structure, but many such as heart beats, breathing, walking, running and ballroom dancing do. So we would expect all of these "rhyhms" to feel natural.

http://www.lphrc.org/Chant/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recitative

Incidentally, the text for Berio's sequenza III is by Markus Kutter.

Give me a few words for a woman
to sing a truth allowing us
to build a house without worrying before night comes

 

[Pythagorean]

I also think it should have some consistent thytmical structure. I wouldn't say Gregorian chant had NO consistent rhythmical structure, just very little (as it says in your link).

But Gregorian chant is right on the cusp between no music and music... (it's often considered the first music) so you might argue it's pseudo music.. underdeveloped music.

 

[atyy]

How could Gregorian chant be the first music? Didn't the Sumerians have music? Isn't dance mentioned in the Old Testament?

 

[Pythagorean]

Yeah, I must have missed some qualifier from my humanities class. Maybe oldest western, or oldest western written music. I didn't realize Gregorian was so recent in human history. Didn't even know it was Christian music.

Anyway, remove the confusion of specific instances, same argument. Music developed from stuff that didn't have rhythm or integer ratios. Certainly the more integer your ratios, the more people are bound to like it (i.e. pop music with the I-IV-V, a small excerpt of the circle of fifths).

 

[BenG549]

I think it's like the "rhythm" of prose or of free verse. While both are unmetred, the best authors clearly care about the rhythm of their prose or free verse. In the sense that music is heightened speech or narrative, then it need not have the "consistent rhythmical structure" that BenG549 mentioned. Many old forms such as Gregorian chant and the Baroque recitative very naturally have no "consistent rhythmical structure". I think it is also interesting to consider speech as a form of movement. Some movements such a jump for joy or changing bed sheets have no obvious repeated structure, but many such as heart beats, breathing, walking, running and ballroom dancing do. So we would expect all of these "rhyhms" to feel natural.

That's quite an interesting point, I certainly wouldn't disagree.

Yeah, I must have missed some qualifier from my humanities class. Maybe oldest western, or oldest western written music. I didn't realize Gregorian was so recent in human history. Didn't even know it was Christian music.

lol, you should probably at least run a quick google search to clarify your arguments before posting them. Other wise you are pretty much just making stuff up ;) .

Certainly the more integer your ratios, the more people are bound to like it (i.e. pop music with the I-IV-V, a small excerpt of the circle of fifths).

In western culture maybe, the musical concepts we are 'used to' are not ubiquitous across all cultures, some have very different ideas of what constitutes 'pleasing' music... there are examples posted above. Gamalan is one of the first that springs to mind*, and this article** is one i posted earlier about the cultural differences in rhythmical structure in music as an example of how musical 'ideas and methods' are cultural... it's not necessarily that their music is 'less evolved' than ours.

* http://oro.open.ac.uk/17650/1/FreeRhythm.pdf

(no nice II-V-Is or I-IV-V chord structures in this, but things like this are written to be emotion invoking aids in Indonesian theatre)

**http://oro.open.ac.uk/17650/1/FreeRhythm.pdf

 

[Pythagorean]

lol, you should probably at least run a quick google search to clarify your arguments before posting them. Other wise you are pretty much just making stuff up ;) .

That's great advice, but for me it's more about impulse control. I know what I *should* do, but often don't realize until after the action. That's a much more general problem of mine. Probably not something any amount of information will change, just practice (and old age, maybe). Anyway, impulsive people have their place in society. There will always be the donkey jumping off the cliff and the elephant too stubborn to move.

In western culture maybe, the musical concepts we are 'used to' are not ubiquitous across all cultures, some have very different ideas of what constitutes 'pleasing' music... there are examples posted above. Gamalan is one of the first that springs to mind*, and this article** is one i posted earlier about the cultural differences in rhythmical structure in music as an example of how musical 'ideas and methods' are cultural... it's not necessarily that their music is 'less evolved' than ours.

* http://oro.open.ac.uk/17650/1/FreeRhythm.pdf

(no nice II-V-Is or I-IV-V chord structures in this, but things like this are written to be emotion invoking aids in Indonesian theatre)

**http://oro.open.ac.uk/17650/1/FreeRhythm.pdf

Western-influenced pop music is the most popular music world wide. You might argue this is just because they (we) developed a stronger media faster, but you have to admit that it's a strange coincidence that it's so popular and also has such perfect ratios... and humans are known for their love of symmetry.

Nobody's making an argument for less evolved, btw. I don't think fish are less evolved than humans. However, I will note that our common ancestor looked a lot more like fish than humans :)

 

[BenG549]

Anyway, impulsive people have their place in society. There will always be the donkey jumping off the cliff and the elephant too stubborn to move.

lol, I totally agree. Pretty impulsive myself, nice analogy.

Western-influenced pop music is the most popular music world wide. You might argue this is just because they (we) developed a stronger media faster, but you have to admit that it's a strange coincidence that it's so popular and also has such perfect ratios.

Yes that is exactly what I would argue. It's not a strange coincidence at all. For example there has never been any Korean pop music in the charts in the UK. You might conclude that people in the UK don't like Korean pop, it's not popular, but after major radio stations like Radio 1 played PSY's Gangman style tune for a few weeks it was number one and won a freaking MTV Award. People just buy what's fed to them, marketing sells.

And in this society we have incrementally developed a "liking" for certain musical intervals etc. because that's what's sold to us, but that's not to say that music as we know it couldn't have developed differently. People widely enjoy and accept different genres and types of music around the world, you can't really say they're enjoyed less just because they aren't as "widely popular", they might just not get the same marketing and radio coverage, it's not feed to the masses so to speak.

Nobody's making an argument for less evolved, btw. I don't think fish are less evolved than humans. However, I will note that our common ancestor looked a lot more like fish than humans :)

Sorry I didn't mean "evolved from" in a human evolutionary sense... I was referring to this comment you made:

Music developed from stuff that didn't have rhythm or integer ratios.

Should have made that clearer, sorry.

 

[zoobyshoe]

lol yeah, based on the complexity of whacking something against the complexity of developing or using resonant cavities attached to stings or even blow holes makes that assertion likely. Not sure it's totally relevant though. Just because it happened to be a big part of the way we used to do things, does that mean it has to be an integral part of how we do things now?

It would be a big argument in favor of it being basic, intrinsic, primal, hard wired, is my point.

Could 'audible art' not qualify as a definition for music? On face value it seems rather fitting as a definition actually.

I know an artist here who makes amusing little surreal gizmos. They're audible when they're running, and they're art. They're not music, though.

Edit: I could take that "CRAZY" drawing and install a thing where you pressed a button and heard maniacal giggling. I could then easily call that "Audible Art" but it wouldn't be music.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I'm not sure if BenG549 would agree, but let me try to explain why it's no big deal not to have a "consistent rhythmical structure".

I actually already get this just from having heard the example. My question was half-rhetorical and I went on to sketch out my answer. When you say, " I think it's like the 'rhythm' of prose or of free verse. While both are unmetred, the best authors clearly care about the rhythm of their prose or free verse." you haven't described what might constitute rhythm in prose or free verse. I think I got more specific about it than you: "I think it is because all the little pieces of different rhythm (which have their own rhythmic integrity) are arranged in sequence with a definite eye (ear) to creating an overall structure that is actually quite satisfying. There's a good balance of slow rhythm, rapid rhythm, and silence. I feel like the composer had good instincts about varying that which is similar with that which is novel such that it comes off as deliberate and 'composed'." The "art" here is editing, just as it is in collage or flower arranging: given an set of random elements, arrange them relative to each other such that there's an artistic structure to the overall picture.

Rhythm is an extremely important part of visual art, but it's not a matter of metering. I'm damned if I can define it, but I know it when I see it:

I can, therefore, accept a sound composition having that kind of rhythm rather than the usual associated with music. At any rate, though, look what Ben's original statement was: "Although just to add to that I wouldn't argue that a sense of rhythm is an essential part of music." What this says is a person doesn't even have to be able to keep time. Which is pretty crazy.

 

[BenG549]

When you say, " I think it's like the 'rhythm' of prose or of free verse. While both are unmetred, the best authors clearly care about the rhythm of their prose or free verse. You haven't described what might constitute rhythm in prose or free verse."

OK well I guess that the temporal characteristics of speech; varying rate of speech for dramatic (or at least, non robotic) effect and not just speaking one word per beat in 4/4 time does give it some sense of rhythm it's just not strict. So in a sense I guess I'm actually starting to agree with you when you say "I think it is because all the little pieces of different rhythm (which have their own rhythmic integrity) are arranged in sequence". Watch out this doesn't happen too often lol!

So can we say that any music has to be in essence rhythmical, however, there are varying degrees of "Rhythmical integrity". So we can say that some of the examples posted above are rhythmical, but just to a far lower degree than, say, a drummer playing a beat. Because that works for me. Having said that, even though we haven't actually defined how you would measure "rhythmicality", we would have to say that you can measure the rhythmical qualities of any audible sound (i.e. time varying signal) whether our measure be subjective or objective, I'm not sure you could say in this sense that things have no rhythm, because it would be very hard to define the boundary between a low rhythmicality and not rhythmical.

OK how about this of a draft definition: Music must contain of both rhythmical and tonal components, to some degree. For something to be considered 'very musical' it will have a high degree of both, however something with very low "rhythmicality" that has a high degree of tonality (or vise versa) will be 'more musical' than something with a low degree of both. As an example.

Low(Rhythmicality)Low(Tonality) - White Noise
Low(Rhythmicality)High(Tonality) - A singe tone or filtered noise (used far more in western music than white noise)
High(Rhythmicality)Low(Tonality) - Drumming your hands on a desk
High(Rhythmicality)High(Tonality) - A tune played on a piano in a strict time signature. It's a bit loose weave as a definition but are we on a potential line of agreement?

you haven't described what might constitute rhythm in prose or free verse.

Rhythm is an extremely important part of visual art... I'm damned if I can define it, but I know it when I see it:

In the same way that everyone can hear the rhythmical qualities of a voice speaking prose or free verse, but most people can't define them? we don't all sound like robots after all. Plus, that was a bit of double standard you're laying out there. You haven't described what might constitute rhythm in art.

When I look at that picture I don't see "rhythmical" qualities, I don't really know what you mean by that (but it's a bit of a side issue i guess)

At any rate, though, look what Ben's original statement was: "Although just to add to that I wouldn't argue that a sense of rhythm is an essential part of music." What this says is a person doesn't even have to be able to keep time. Which is pretty crazy.

By my draft definition I would probably suggest that someone playing in time would be objectively more musical than someone playing out of time, but playing out of time can (and evidently is, given the above examples in this thread) a part of what a lot of people would consider musical.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

How could Gregorian chant be the first music? Didn't the Sumerians have music? Isn't dance mentioned in the Old Testament?

Considering that there have been musican instruments dated as far back as 40,000 years the times you mention would be very recent http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic_flutes

Coming late to this so apologies if this has already been discussed but doesn't singing count as music? If so the origin of music could be very nebulous, especially given that other human species had the potential to make the same sounds as us:

A Middle Palaeolithic human hyoid bone
B. ARENSBURG*, A. M. TILLIER†, B. VANDERMEERSCH†, H. DUDAY†, L. A. SCHEPARTZ‡ & Y. RAK*

THE origin of human language, and in particular the question of whether or not Neanderthal man was capable of language/speech, is of major interest to anthropologists but remains an area of great controversy1, 2. Despite palaeoneurological evidence to the contrary3, 4, many researchers hold to the view that Neanderthals were incapable of language/speech, basing their arguments largely on studies of laryngeal/basicranial morphology1, 5, 6. Studies, however, have been hampered by the absence of unambiguous fossil evidence. We now report the discovery of a well-preserved human hyoid bone from Middle Palaeolithic layers of Kebara Cave, Mount Carmel, Israel, dating from about 60,000 years BP. The bone is almost identical in size and shape to the hyoid of present-day populations, suggesting that there has been little or no change in the visceral skeleton (including the hyoid, middle ear ossicles, and inferentially the larynx) during the past 60,000 years of human evolution. We conclude that the morphological basis for human speech capability appears to have been fully developed during the Middle Palaeolithic.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v338/n6218/abs/338758a0.html

 

[atyy]

@Ryan_m_B, yes singing is universally believed to be the first music. Some people distinguish between speech and music based on the categorical perception of speech sounds, and the specialization of some areas of the brain for speech. However, I prefer an ideology that music is organized sound for communication, and would consider speech a subset of music (controversially). At the very least, prosody in speech has, I think, a claim to be "musical".

 

[BenG549]

However, I would consider speech a subset of music (controversially). At the very least, prosody in speech has, I think, a claim to be "musical".

Yeah I said something like this a few pages back, it got mixed responses lol... mainly negative. To be honest I'm still very much of the opinion that anything audible could be considered music, I think my definition above could work reasonably well, bar the lack of objectivity in assessing rhythm. But even using that definition, you can't really have audible sound that isn't, to some degree, musical.

Although the origins of music are possibly vocal, and we can discuss when speech developed and how the brain deals with speech (I say we, I mean people that know anything about it, which excludes me lol) but it would be interesting to know when vocals were first used in an intentionally artistic and creative way. This obviously bares a few problems, for a start, how do we define creative and when did we even develop "creativity", for example 2.33 to 1.4 million years ago* Homo habilis started creating simple, single faced, stone tools; "these were functional but simple and unspecialised, and by our standards, not very creative"** and they didn't exactly have the means of recording sound a million years ago so we are unlikely to find any real evidence of "creative" use of language...

Anyway, went off on a bit of a side note there.

My point was just that I would consider speech musical.

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_habilis

** Cambrudge Handbook of Creativity (2010) edited by Kaufman and Sternberg

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...&q=first evidence of human creativity&f=false

That second link is really rather interesting!

 

[zoobyshoe]

OK well I guess that the temporal characteristics of speech; varying rate of speech for dramatic (or at least, non robotic) effect and not just speaking one word per beat in 4/4 time does give it some sense of rhythm it's just not strict. So in a sense I guess I'm actually starting to agree with you when you say "I think it is because all the little pieces of different rhythm (which have their own rhythmic integrity) are arranged in sequence". Watch out this doesn't happen too often lol!

I think we are starting to converge toward something.

Let me develop my model further:

Objectively, one whole note equals four quarter notes. It also equals thirty two thirty second notes, and so on.

In speech there are other things going on besides counting time that allow a "whole note" to be balanced psychologically by, say, only twenty four thirty second notes. In particular, emotional valence. We can try to emulate that with sound. We could make up for the eight missing notes by having the 24 played louder than the whole note, by having them crescendo in volume as they also rise in pitch, or by playing them on some vastly different instrument than the whole note which calls attention to itself. Anything we do that psychologically makes up for the apparently missing "weight" of the twenty four thirty second notes will suffice. I think this sort of thing is going on in speech all the time. It's very hard to put your finger on and define, but we all know a nice, satisfying prose sentence when we hear it, and it certainly does not involve one syllable per beat according to some time signature, as you pointed out. Balance is being created by balancing things of different species. Apples are as good as oranges, and can be brought into balance psychologically. Two apples = one orange, if the apples are dusty and muted in color and the orange is polished and bright. And so on, in the same vein.

So can we say that any music has to be in essence rhythmical, however, there are varying degrees of "Rhythmical integrity". So we can say that some of the examples posted above are rhythmical, but just to a far lower degree than, say, a drummer playing a beat. Because that works for me. Having said that, even though we haven't actually defined how you would measure "rhythmicality", we would have to say that you can measure the rhythmical qualities of any audible sound (i.e. time varying signal) whether our measure be subjective or objective, I'm not sure you could say in this sense that things have no rhythm, because it would be very hard to define the boundary between a low rhythmicality and not rhythmical.

I'm with you, except that I think you're taking it in the wrong direction to call speech-like rhythms examples of "lower" rhythmicality. I'd actually characterized them as more sophisticated. More complex. If we think of conventional rhythm as many stacks of, say, 4 equal weights (4/4 time with each stack representing a measure) balanced against various stacks of whole, half, quarter, eighth, sixteenth, thirty second, etc, notes, all in different proportions but each stack, again, equaling one measure, then we can imagine speech as being just as balanced, but balanced by all kinds of sophisticated irregular considerations, none of which have to literally be weight. A short, sudden crescendo of 8 sixty-forth notes might, psychologically, turn out to be just as "heavy" as two mildly sounded whole notes joined by a tie. If they do balance, then the rest of the two measures (the remaining unsounded 64th notes) might be required to be silence. I heard something like this going on all over the place in the piece linked to by atyy.

I think this mobile by Calder is a good analogy:

http://www.vmfa.state.va.us/uploade...-Century_Art/Calder_51_20_s1_TF_200910_XL.jpg

One side balances the other, but both sides consist of irregularly measured weights and shapes.

I would argue that we're naturally tuned into this kind of balance when it's translated to sound sequences, and that when it doesn't happen, we know it.

The rhythm is right in that mobile, even though it's unmetered. Same with the Duchamp, though that one is not literally hanging in balance to prove it.

By my draft definition I would probably suggest that someone playing in time would be objectively more musical than someone playing out of time, but playing out of time can (and evidently is, given the above examples in this thread) a part of what a lot of people would consider musical.

Consider the difference between the "wrong" proportions in a good caricature, and the wrong proportions in a portrait done by someone who can't get the hang of proportion.

 

[zoobyshoe]

If someone wanted to argue that speech is a form of music, I think they could make a good case for it.

However, I prefer an ideology that music is organized sound for communication, and would consider speech a subset of music (controversially). At the very least, prosody in speech has, I think, a claim to be "musical".

Yeah I said something like this a few pages back, it got mixed responses lol... mainly negative. To be honest I'm still very much of the opinion that anything audible could be considered music, I think my definition above could work reasonably well, bar the lack of objectivity in assessing rhythm. But even using that definition, you can't really have audible sound that isn't, to some degree, musical

The problem with what you're saying, Ben, is that by your criteria we can call a tree falling over, or thunder, or an avalanche "music". Also, a guy shaving, the sound of a book page being turned, the sound of a car door closing, the sound of a plastic bowl being set on a kitchen counter, a guy belching, and a guy coughing. I don't think any of those sounds is music or musical. The reason we glom onto SHM exiting resonant cavities and keep working with that, is exactly because that has audible properties which are unlike the sounds I mentioned.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

The problem with what you're saying, Ben, is that by your criteria we can call a tree falling over, or thunder, or an avalanche "music". Also, a guy shaving, the sound of a book page being turned, the sound of a car door closing, the sound of a plastic bowl being set on a kitchen counter, a guy belching, and a guy coughing. I don't think any of those sounds is music or musical. The reason we glom onto SHM exiting resonant cavities and keep working with that, is exactly because that has audible properties which are unlike the sounds I mentioned.

I don't see a problem with this. It's like art, it can literally be anything yet we still have a use for the word. The way I see it music and art are so loosely defined (not necessarily a bad thing) that it's isn't unreasonable to apply them to almost anything however they are still very useful as words because when we use them we're normally referring to a narrow range of things that we would collectively think of first.

IMO it's because there isn't necessarily any similarity between two recordings that people would call music or two objects that people would call art. It's the classic "music today is just noise" problem where for some people certain things count as music and for others they can literally be nothing but a collection of noises. Place what the latter think is music next to the former and you don't necessarily find similarities.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I don't see a problem with this. It's like art, it can literally be anything yet we still have a use for the word. The way I see it music and art are so loosely defined (not necessarily a bad thing) that it's isn't unreasonable to apply them to almost anything however they are still very useful as words because when we use them we're normally referring to a narrow range of things that we would collectively think of first.

IMO it's because there isn't necessarily any similarity between two recordings that people would call music or two objects that people would call art. It's the classic "music today is just noise" problem where for some people certain things count as music and for others they can literally be nothing but a collection of noises. Place what the latter think is music next to the former and you don't necessarily find similarities.

You're a biologist, right? If art can be anything, then biology is art. If biology is art, art must also, therefore, be biology. Therefore, I, as an artist, am a biologist. I honestly can't tell you what an enzyme is, but since everything is everything else, I am a biologist.