Musical style...

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

From this thread

It's been my considerable experience that very few scientists are able to speak coherently about music, and those who can generally are severely challenged at applying critical thinking to it.

The cause of this seems to be sheer unfamiliarity with the wide variety of musics people have made.

This unfamiliarity leads scientists to propose grand universals from the narrow subset of music with which they are familiar, such as "Major mode = happy", and "Canon = Tesselation of the plane". That's sometimes okay, because it sometimes leads to testable hypotheses, but those hypotheses already HAVE been tested and they don't work--music is a cultural phenomenon with an even smaller fixed neurological component than language has, not an aspect of physics nor neurology. Those of us who actively study music would much rather move on and leave the discovery of the wide world of human musicmaking to beginner ethnomusicology classes rather than spinning our wheels referring professors of physics back to those classes over and over again.

All that having been said, I do find a lot of really weird mysticism in music pedagogy, and it's just useless. Singers especially think their lowest-pitched way of beating their vocal chords has something to do with their chest resononances, and their highest-pitched way of doing it has something to do with their head resonances--wait a minute, some of them are empty-headed enough that there might be something to that.

One of these days I'll put together a lecture on how my students inadvertently deconverted me from being a believer in talent, into a believer that almost anybody can compose decent music or maybe even "great" music if they just put in the hours.

OK, that gives me the chance to ask a few questions!

I have a vague sense that I can tell Russian classical music from other genres; my piano teacher agreed when I suggested that my newest practice piece sounded "American"; panish music seems readily identifiable.

What are the features of music that give pieces their overall flavour? Is there something I can read that gives an insight into what is going on?

I've asked both my piano teacher and a friend who writes music commercially for film, TV and advertising and neither has been able to give any kind of succinct answer, which may mean there is no answer, I have asked a daft question, or I need to ask someone else. So, here I am doing that third thing.

Be gentle, I'm struggling away with Grade 3 piano and didn't study music at all at school after dropping the compulsory elements at the age of 13.

 

[Chris Haynes]

Oh, wow... this is a subject I've been curious about for a long time!

I am in worse shape, I had two months of piano and went through two teachers! Okay, to be truthful, I had some guitar before (guitars are much easier to transport than pianos... I'm an Army brat and moving was just part of life).

With the use of chords in guitar, and then the sneaking ahead of the Beginner Piano book on chords... Plus the "Music Theory" college course I took to satisfy the "Humanities and Social Studies" requirements for my engineering degree --- I noticed that there is a certain "feeling" associated with certain combination of frequencies.

I have worked with structural dynamics, including random vibration analysis... but this does not help at all with why certain combination of frequencies, rhythms, etc invoke some specific neurological responses. I mean why does some songs sound sad, others happy... and why did I feel the sexual tension when Siegfried meets Brunhilde in Wagner's Ring Cycle.

I read a bit about what happens in Ramachandran's A Brief Tour of Human Consciousness : From Impostor Poodles to Purple Numbers , http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0131486861/ ... he does mention that his next book will include some study in how "art" is processed in the brain.

edited to fix some formatting

 

[Mercutio]

For those interested in scientific approaches to music, I have two recommendations. First...a friend of mine is one of the contributers to The Topos Of Music http://www.springeronline.com/sgw/cda/frontpage/0,11855,1-40106-22-1544648-0,00.html?changeHeader=true, which is a mathematical analysis of virtually every aspect of music imaginable. This is a remarkable book, although it is still only a beginning--I have had the most amazing talks about experimental aesthetics with this author/friend, and she is convinced that this book is a very meaningful foray into a real understanding of music and what it is to us.

The other book...Robert Jourdain's Music, the Brain, and Ecstasy http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/books/Jourdain97.html. I found this book impossible to put down; it is accessible to everyone (IMO), but especially to either musicians or experimental psychologists. Jourdain is a science journalist rather than a scientist, and writes for the public. But the information is almost all accurate (no, not perfect), and is presented well enough that I have borrowed from it for intro psych lectures...

 

[Chris Haynes]

Cool, thanks Merc... the second book looks like what I am most curious about.
(only musical smilies I could find)

 

[Mercutio]

I'd loan it to you, but have not gotten it back from a music prof. I loaned it to already...I think you will like it.

 

[Chris Haynes]

Thanks, but I will try the libraries (city, county and possibly university if I have to) first.

 

[Soapy Sam]

Is this not simply a cultural generation thing?
Any history of physics in the pre WWII period is full of scientists who were good musicians. Many of them were European Jews who came from musical families.

 

[Psi Baba]

OK, that gives me the chance to ask a few questions!

I have a vague sense that I can tell Russian classical music from other genres; my piano teacher agreed when I suggested that my newest practice piece sounded "American"; panish music seems readily identifiable.

What are the features of music that give pieces their overall flavour? Is there something I can read that gives an insight into what is going on?

You mention Russian music--remember that Shostakovich was criticized by the state at least once for not "sounding Russian enough." Certainly there are cultural characteristics that show up in a composer's music, particularly in old world cultures like Russia, Spain, central Europe, or other regions where the composer is likely to adopt folk songs which often use a limited melodic and harmonic vocabulary. A music professor at Penn State University who studied Irish folk music came to the conclusion that there are only six different melodies in all of Irish folk music. Now of course classical music isn't all about melodies but the idea is that when a composer relies on a certain palette of musical phrasings and devices, the end result often reveals the sources of these elements, particularly if that composer learnt his craft from the same teachers and traditions as his fellow countrymen.

I don't know if there is a list of specific "features" that give music it's overall flavor or feel, but the key to understanding what makes one piece of music vastly different from another is to remember that music is not about the notes at all. It's about the intervals. The effect of music on your ear and brain is caused by the change from one note to the next. Why some intervals affect our brains differently than others is a much deeper study. It may be part neurology; it may be part cultural. We know, for example, that tritones (which were labelled in the Middle Ages as "musica diablo" or "the devil in music") are very attention-getting and are used for vehicle sirens, particularly in Europe. I would like to know if the tritone has the same effect on, say Asians or Polynesians or central Africans, as it does on people of European ancestry. We already know that most westerners don't tolerate microtonal music, which is commonplace in the East. Are these effects hardwired into the human brain, or were they "programmed" into us through cultural custom, just as those in the English-speaking world have been programmed to hear a difference in words used to describe body parts and sexual activities: those of Anglo-Saxon or Dutch origin (with their hard consonants) being perceived as vulgar while those of French or Latin orgin are viewed as more palatable euphemisms. If I'm reading Dr. Matt's quote correctly, I'm inclined to agree with his assessment that with music it's more cultural than neurological.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

I don't know if there is a list of specific "features" that give music it's overall flavor or feel,

Thanks for that.

A list of the type you describe is what I was hoping for, so that even if one spent time coming up with all the exceptions to its rules it would provide a starting point. Maybe no one has tried it, but what do all those musicology graduate students do?

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

Hofstadter writes alot on this, as it is a subject of Artificial Intelligence. i.e, can you algorithmatize the recognition of different styles of music.

My friends and I play the game of Name The Composer quite a bit, and have gotten quite good. We can almost always at least get the time period reasonably correct, and often the country in which the composer lived.

I believe that rhythm is the most basic element of any musical style. In jazz music, for example, the harmonic and melodic content is subservient to the rhythm. Other hints include the harmony, the scales used and, of course, the timbres involved.

With modern music, composers and performers often try and emulate older styles. Some go as far as using older, or period, instruments and intentionally recording in lo-fi. Also, modern music has seen alot of intentional fusing of styles.

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

We know, for example, that tritones (which were labelled in the Middle Ages as "musica diablo" or "the devil in music") are very attention-getting and are used for vehicle sirens, particularly in Europe. I would like to know if the tritone has the same effect on, say Asians or Polynesians or central Africans, as it does on people of European ancestry. We already know that most westerners don't tolerate microtonal music, which is commonplace in the East.

These are interesting questions, and I am sure they have been explored by many musicologists. On thin to note is that there is a mathematicall relationship between notes that are an octave apart: Since we know an A sounds at 440hz, we also know that the sounds of a wavelength of 220hz or 880hz will produce a sound with a pitch of A. Also, a string vibrating at 880hz will produce certain overtones and sympathetic vibrations in other strings tuned to different pitches. This explains why, for example, the harmonic interval of the first and fifth notes of the major scale played or sang at the same time will sound consonant. (the major scale being do-re-mi-fa-so-la-ti-do)

I believe this interval will sound consonant to anyone who hears it due to the mathematical relationship of the interval.

Dissonance, on the other hand, is an acquired taste. Much of the early jazz that sounded so dissonant at the time does not jolt us in the least today. I guess it is like learning to like dry red wine. Frank Zappa once said the listening to music without dissonance is like watching a movie with only good guys in it, or like eating cotage cheese.

 

[Chris Haynes]

I'd loan it to you, but have not gotten it back from a music prof. I loaned it to already...I think you will like it.

Good news, my local library has a copy... and there are other people in line to check it out! (well, one... but still!)

 

[Orwell]

Most of the scientific people I know who play instruments don't play classical music. They're either jazz or rock players, and they often play electrically amplified instruments. They typically know quite a lot about the physics of their instruments and amps, but they're not too strong on music theory.

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

they often play electrically amplified instruments...but they're not too strong on music theory.

Sounds alot like the guy in your avatar.

 

[Orwell]

Sounds alot like the guy in your avatar.

Yep. Sounds a lot like me too, actually...

 

[Batman Jr.]

Style is basically defined by a few things:

1) Melodic contours

2) Chordal progressions and contrapuntal techniques

3) Instrumentation and orchestration technique/"color" in general

4) Form

5) Rhythmic devices

It really depends on what styles you're talking about when trying to figure out what is most determinative of a distinctive style being distinctive. For instance, minimalism often uses very pedestrian musical ideas that have been used by composers for generations before, but it defines itself by repetitive formal structure. Beethoven most clearly distinguishes himself from his musical forbears by his heavy textures, although that is not to discount his originality to be found in other aspects of his style. Even in his "lighter" pieces, you can still recognize him. Debussy can perhaps be most succinctly defined in his pioneering use of the whole-step scale and his dreamy washes of sound. In the end, it's really a gestalt coming together of all these things that makes a style.

 

[Jorghnassen]

Beethoven most clearly distinguishes himself from his musical forbears by his heavy textures, although that is not to discount his originality to be found in other aspects of his style. Even in his "lighter" pieces, you can still recognize him.

There's a touch of grandiose in all of Beethoven's pieces which you can't find with any other composer. OK, that's not very objective or explicit, but it's true.

Orwell: I find it interesting that you say most scientific people you know who play music aren't into classical music. From my own experience, I've found that, at least for the math types (whether pure or applied), it's usually the opposite (and appreciation for classical often comes with a decent background in musical theory). Maybe there's a musical divide between the mathematicians and the hard sciences/engineering inclined.

/I wish I knew more music theory and history. And had more musical talent...

 

[Batman Jr.]

There's a touch of grandiose in all of Beethoven's pieces which you can't find with any other composer. OK, that's not very objective or explicit, but it's true.

Beethoven's heavy textures in his orchestral music are attributable in great deal to his habit of octave doubling, tripling, and sometimes even quadrupling. He also increased the number of players in his orchestra relative to the normative size of a symphony during his time. There is a lot of stuff involved in a certain textural quality, but all of these things can be explicitly identified through instrument combinations, etc. It's just that there is a lot to go through when talking about any aspect of music. We take a lot of music's intricacies for granted. Even when you work in music, most of the things you're doing are intuitive and subconscious, so when you're confronted by someone to explain all of the little details involved, it's hard because you yourself aren't constantly thinking about them. It's like someone walking up to you and asking you to codify all of the rules of English grammar off of the top of your head. You know how to speak English, but that doesn't mean you necessarily understand all of the small details involved in expressing any number of ideas you are capable of articulating.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Beethoven's heavy textures in his orchestral music are attributable in great deal to his habit of octave doubling, tripling, and sometimes even quadrupling.

Small point of clarification: does that mean playing the same basic melody simultaneously separated by one and more octaves?

Even when you work in music, most of the things you're doing are intuitive and subconscious, so when you're confronted by someone to explain all of the little details involved, it's hard because you yourself aren't constantly thinking about them. It's like someone walking up to you and asking you to codify all of the rules of English grammar off of the top of your head. You know how to speak English, but that doesn't mean you necessarily understand all of the small details involved in expressing any number of ideas you are capable of articulating.

and, clearly, interesting and pretty sounds were made by people long before music was formally turned into a system, which of course brings up the subject of wired-in neurological responses.

 

[Batman Jr.]

Small point of clarification: does that mean playing the same basic melody simultaneously separated by one and more octaves?

What Beethoven would do was write a particular musical line and then write that same line for several octaves above and adjacent to the original line or below and adjacent. He might, for instance, write a middle C and then beef it up with two notes of the same pitch in the two octaves directly below. Other composers did double up on octaves, but Beethoven took the practice to a then unheard-of extreme. Another thing which contributed to his gritty sound was his tendency to play densely-crowded harmonies in the lower registers (e.g. the opening C-minor chord in the "Pathetique" Sonata or the beginning "pecking" figures in the first movement of the "Waldstein"). If you contrast this with, say, Mozart, you'll see that most of the time, Mozart would limit his musical figures played in the low-bass registers to single notes or octaves. This gives Mozart's music a much cleaner and much less-violent sound.

and, clearly, interesting and pretty sounds were made by people long before music was formally turned into a system, which of course brings up the subject of wired-in neurological responses.

Exactly! Even now, we still don't really understand why something can seem appealing musically or why a particular musical idea will make "sense" to us. I think the best hypothesis as to what music actually is neurologically is that music is an evolutionary spandrel of our ability to comprehend others' emotional states through inflections in their speech. If you consider how you respond to certain sounds in a person's voice and how you respond to music, you begin to see many parallels.