tenor said:
Pythagoras discovered the ratio of intervals ages ago. Are you now saying that math and ratio are a language that carries meaning?
The important point was the universal
perception of the relationships, and the fact that all cultures gave these notes names all meaning the same thing, i.e., dominant, sub-dominant & keynote/tonic. The kicker is that these relationships were perceived and the names were coined by people "without accoustical knowledge." That means they didn't have to have the learning of Pythagoras to discern it, or even utilize it.
Music is something that is discovered, not invented.
Don't forget that is not the only scale in the world. The most primal (simple) scale is the pentatonic, not the major.
"Primal" is an assumption, but a telling one, and I'll say why in a minute. The pentatonic scale exists on our 20th-Century keyboards. They're the black keys, and music which can be universally recognized as happy or sad, solemn or dithyrambic can still be played in the pentatonic scale. (How many of you as kids learned a portion of the Tennesee Waltz using your fist and thumb on the black keys?) I'm not saying that we can't become accustomed to certain things, but our responses to music are not culturally conditioned.
But it is assumed to be "primal" 1) because it is limited in the range of emotions it can evoke. No movie producer who wanted to make money would hire a fella to write a score in the pentatonic scale. And 2) it's common in ancient cultures. Why the third and the seventh notes were dropped out of the official scales (or never included in the first place) is a matter of conjecture. But the third and seventh notes were still utilized.
In early music of Scotland, Ireland and the Orient one can often find the missing 3rd and 7th notes of the scale being used not as part of the official scale, but as passing notes or leading tones. That is, they are notes in the gaps that 'lead' 'to the fourth or 'pass over into' the octave. In different cultures the names for this are different, but have similar meaning. The Pien tones in Chinese pentatonic scales mean 'becoming' that is, a 7th 'becoming' the octave, in a sequence of melody or scale notes. The words are different, the concept and usage is similar. This is widely reported among musicologists and anthropologists.
http://www.greenwych.ca/natbasis.htm
It doesn't matter how you slice it, it still comes out
do, re, mi. The thing to keep in mind is the universal recognition of the relationships in the notes of a scale. No one would describe C and D played together as harmonious or pleasant. No one. No
healthy person, anyway.
Also the major scale was a very late development and functional harmony was even later. Functional harmony did not become the norm until the late 17th Century.
Actually, several archaeological discoveries of the last three decades has caused musicologists to rethink long-held and widely accepted assumptions in music history. The "oldest song in the world," a 3500 year old Ugaritic hymn utilizes harmony and the diatonic, do-re-mi scale.
The tablets date back to approximately 1400 B.C. and contain a hymn to the moon god's wife, Nikkal. Remarkably, the tablets also contain detailed performance instructions for a singer accompanied by a harpist as well as instructions on how to tune the harp.
From this evidence, musicologists have produced a credible realization of the hymn performed in harmony with thirds, sixths, fourths, and fifths. This rare example of polyphony in ancient music appears to shatter the long held belief that harmony did not evolve in human musical expression until the middle ages.
http://www.syriamuseum.com/2004/06/the_oldest_song.html
So are you saying that since Oriental music does not use the western diatonic scale, that it is evil and inherently flawed?
No, I'm saying that the human response to music is universal and innate, not culturally conditioned.
Aaron: No one is saying that [one man's preference is the standard of good music]. Music must be defined by God's standards of decency.
tenor: How is a "beat" or a "melody" evil without its context? Don't forget the third (the primary basis of our harmony) was considered evil during the Middle Ages.
Who said anything about beats or intervals? God is the One who said all things--ALL things--must be done
decently and in order. The music must be of a demeanor that is
seemly in the worship of Almighty God. Music falls under the category of "all things." Therefore, music must be defined by God's standards of decency, which go well beyond verbal expressions.
Aaron: Folks were engineering musical instruments since Jubal, the seventh from Adam. I doubt very seriously the wide variety of instruments used in the Levitical choirs and orchestras instituted by David were so that they could all sing and play the same note at the same time with no depth, ornamentation or harmony.
tenor: There you go agiain putting a 2oth Century, western slant on the definition of music.
Not at all. I'm putting a human slant on it. People were no different 3000 years ago than they are today, and
there is nothing new under the sun. The same flowers and spices that smelled sweet to them smell sweet to us, and in 6000 years of human history, poop still stinks. Why would we assume that our responses to music are any different?
When Saul's attendants sought one who was skilled on the harp, they knew exactly who to go for. Is it reasonable to think that his playing would sound less relaxing to us? Any instrument in the hands of a skilled musician is beautiful. You can't expect us to think that David's skill was akin to that of an elementary school child on a recorder.
Moderen day Middle Eastern music is monophonic, actually the proper term is heterophonic. Monophony does not negate ornamentation.
Modern Middle Eastern cultures are ravaged and fragmented. They are a people in bondage to their shallow, superstitious religions. Their music will follow suit. We cannot think that the cultural icons we see there are the apex of millennia of development. Just the opposite, I think. We are seeing them on the downhill side. And that's also what we see in the synagogal traditions. A nation that was ravaged, fragmented, scattered and never raised to the glory it once was. There is no connection between the music of the Levitical choirs, and what we see in the synagogues today.
When I speak of the music of David, I'm speaking of a music that is borne of a culture that is coming into its prime. Much of the Middle Eastern music is not played for pleasure or relaxation, and for good reason. It's anything but. It's purpose is primarily liturgical. Ancient Israel had music for leisure, Amos 6:5. My point in bringing this up is that there was ample peace and stability in its culture for some to specialize and devote themselves solely to music. There are virtuosos today who can really smoke a violin. There weren't any in all Israel who could play a viol?
Again, it's the
human slant I'm putting on it.
Anyway the trumpets of the anicient could only play the basic fundamentals due to their technology.
You mean much like a modern bugle?
Also, most of the instruments mentioned in the Bible are percussion instruments.
Perhaps technically. Technically a harp is a percussion instrument. The harpist "strikes" the harp. So, harp, psaltery and lyre are technically percussion instruments, but they're not percussion in the sense that most folks think of percussion intruments like drums and cymbals. There is the trumpet, and not just the ugly-sounding blat from a ram's horn. I mean an engineered pipe. Then there's the viol, which was much like a violin according to Josephus' description. It was played with a bow.
Let's see, you've got horns of many shapes and sizes, viols, harps, cymbals, drums--well, bless my soul! You've got a whole orchestra! Just think of the music on the high holy days if there were actually some skilled musicians playing those things!
But you're forgetting the most important instrument. The human voice. You put ten people together and there isn't a scale or harmony that couldn't have been sung, and sung beautifully.
And we have not notation or recordings of the actual music, just educated guesses.
Why guess that people didn't know beautiful music when they heard it?
Personally, I feel the music of the Hebrews probably sounded like that of their neighbors or we would have strcit, specific instructions as there are for other aspects of worship and life.
I feel just the opposite. I think Hebrew music was unique, and the "Psalm" a uniquely Hebrew form. You're forgetting that Jerusalem was destroyed almost completely by the Babylonian armies, and ravaged constantly by their neighbors till Nehemiah was allowed to rebuild the walls. Who knows what was lost? However, there are those who believe the te-amim in the Masoretic texts of the Old Testament preserves an ancient musical notation.
If this is true than why are not all people affected the same way? The tone poem, "The Moldau" by Smetana is and example. This was written to illustrate the love of the Bohemians for this river in their country. I see what he is doing mainly because the "story" was told to me before hand. I probably would not draw this conclusion otherwise.
I'm well familiar with
The Moldau. It is simply one of the most beautiful pieces of music ever written. Especially the river theme, althought the night time segement is really impressive too.
What people will
recognize without learning
about the Moldau and the different themes Smetana included is that the Czechoslovakian wedding sounds festive, the river theme majestic, nighttime peaceful, and St. John's Rapids tumultuos. And everyone will feel that way despite their cultural backgrounds.
[ September 22, 2005, 04:11 AM: Message edited by: Aaron ]
