Musical styles as they relate to cultures

[Taylor Livingston]

I'm not one to accept things that just "are they way they are"; rather, I'm very interested in how things came to be the way they are, specifically in human culture. I'm curious about how particular musical styles, and entire musical systems, developed in their respective cultures, and what effect the other aspects of culture have had on the development of music.

I'm not talking so much about lyrics. While it is an interesting subject, I think it's usually pretty transparent why certain subjects are popular in the lyrics of people from certain cultures, such as poor cultures being heavily focused on class structure and material gain.

Most people, I think, have some vague idea that the concepts of "consonance" and "dissonance" are mostly objective - that is, two notes that are 4 semitones apart make a pleasant, cheerful sound, and that this is empirically true. The reality is that the concept of a major third (and the underlying structure, the division of an octave into 12 equal parts) is a man-made structure, and our perception of it may have as much to do with our societal background as anything natural about the geometry of music. We westerners have 12 tone equal temperament deeply embedded in our psyche.

But this is only because of where we come from. To most Americans, Indonesian gamelan music would likely sound like an awful racket (I happen to be pretty fond of it myself) but to Indonesians, not only is it not an indecipherable racket, but it isn't bizarre or arresting as it is to its western fans. This music uses two different tuning systems which differ completely from western tonality. In their culture, gamelan is the equivalent of the pipe organ music you'd hear in a church. Arabic music uses a complex tonal system, which is loosely an octave divided into 24 equal tones (the actual notes played are more like a just intonation than an equal temperament). Arabic music, as well as that of India and other cultures in that area, is mostly monophonic. There isn't any harmony other than a drone - the emphasis is on melody, which is usually extremely ornamented. Unlike in western music - where the human voice is expected to learn to sing like an organ, in discrete pitches - in these cultures, the musicians are expected to play their instruments as if they were singing - a sarod or veena player generally does not play stepped notes; they play everything with glissandi, and elaborate ornamenting of notes to mimic a qawwali singer. These styles are sometimes pretty jarring to western ears, sometimes very weird or even creepy-sounding, but the music is often very traditional and religious, and in their culture it is not meant to be some weird art music as it would be here.

Even within the more familiar context of 12 tone equal temperament, it is easy to play a scale that sounds foreign, by using flat seconds, or major thirds combined with minor sixths. These scales might sound Klezmer-ish or latin to us.

This is the sort of thing you could write a book about, so its scope may be too large to really delve into here, but does anyone have any thoughts as to why these sounds have become so closely connected to particular cultures? What about Indian culture makes it so much more interested in melodies than harmony or rhythm? What about Africa makes it so much more rhythmic? Why did Europeans, and by extension Americans, decide that 12-equal was "right"*, but Indonesians decide that 5-sort-of-equal was "sort of right" (being that they have other tunings as well)? What about American culture makes a flat second sound so weird, when the flat second is common in Klezmer music, which is often very upbeat dance music? Why have westerners traditionally been less interested in complex rhythm as compared to Bulgarian or Balinese music?

*I know how 12-equal came about, and its evolution; I'm just asking about the cultural reasons that it became so popular in this part of the world.

[pklima]

A lot of it is probably plain ol' random drift where cultures which don't interact much will become more different from each other with the passage of time.

Part of it may be that some cultures had social institutions and infrastructure better able to support large ensembles and very large instruments (pipe organs, for example) and these cultures were more likely to develop polyphony. Part of it may be how many people could pursue music full-time or make a significant part-time effort and not starve - those cultures would tend to drift away from others at a faster pace.

Here's an interesting hypothesis about melody vs. harmony and verbal vs. visuo-spatial intelligence: http://akinokure.blogspot.com/2006/0...e-profile.html and a followup: http://akinokure.blogspot.com/2007/0...t-singing.html

[jomahu]

it'd be really really hard to write a book om culture. that's like trying to stop an ocean or something...it would depend on region, class, history, present, etc...

it's nice to see the links, though. trippy to think that almost every single rhythm known to man came from the same source.

[Taylor Livingston]

Originally Posted by pklima

A lot of it is probably plain ol' random drift where cultures which don't interact much will become more different from each other with the passage of time.

Part of it may be that some cultures had social institutions and infrastructure better able to support large ensembles and very large instruments (pipe organs, for example) and these cultures were more likely to develop polyphony.

But if we look at, say, Indian music, the instruments used (sitar, sarod, tanbura) are all as capable of polyphony as the western equivalent, the guitar. It's true that the tuning system does not facilitate modulation, and the equal temperament that we use was the impetus for western music's emphasis on modulation. But where Germanic people used the tools they had to develop complex harmony in Baroque music, Indians used very similar tools to make music that has much more complex melody.

Part of it may be how many people could pursue music full-time or make a significant part-time effort and not starve - those cultures would tend to drift away from others at a faster pace.

This is very likely true; more developed cultures have more time to pursue things like music which are not necessary for survival. I would think the result here would be more about the difference between complex music and "simple" music. However, if we look at Indonesian people, whom I would guess have historically had less leisure time, their music is extremely complex, in all aspects: rhythmically, harmonically, melodically, and in texture or timbre. Then we can look at Americans, who have tons of leisure time, and historically have had pretty simple music (blues, rock and roll, hip hop), although America may be too young of a culture to evaluate. There's also jazz, which defies that logic.

Here's an interesting hypothesis about melody vs. harmony and verbal vs. visuo-spatial intelligence: http://akinokure.blogspot.com/2006/0...e-profile.html and a followup: http://akinokure.blogspot.com/2007/0...t-singing.html

This is an interesting article; thanks for posting it. I'm not sure if I agree with his interpretation of the evidence, though, for instance, he categorizes jazz as a predominantly melodic style, whereas I would say jazz is at least as much about harmony, if not more. Similarly, he categorizes throat singing as being harmonic, even though it is really just a melody over a drone; I would call it just as non-harmonic as Indian music, which similarly uses a melody over a drone.

[tkozal]

Get some books on Ethnomusicology. The answers to your questions are much longer than the reply boxes here will allow for. Learn about the "deep beat" of Africa, and the overtone series from Pythagoras, etc...the lack of harmony in North Indian Music, etc..

signed guy with an undergrad major in Ethnomusicology.....

[pklima]

Originally Posted by conical johnson

But if we look at, say, Indian music, the instruments used (sitar, sarod, tanbura) are all as capable of polyphony as the western equivalent, the guitar. It's true that the tuning system does not facilitate modulation, and the equal temperament that we use was the impetus for western music's emphasis on modulation. But where Germanic people used the tools they had to develop complex harmony in Baroque music, Indians used very similar tools to make music that has much more complex melody.

But did Indian society ever develop large ensembles? I would think large ensembles (of, say, ten or more - as long as they aren't all drummers, of course) lead to the development of polyphony just to give the musicians something to do beyond duplicating what everyone else is doing. I suspect Europe's large choirs of monks were the key to the early development of polyphony in Europe. You had a certain number of monks in the monastery, and all had to sing, so... a few centuries later out comes polyphony!

Indonesia has large ensembles and polyphony, right? And what little Indian music I've heard was only a few performers.

Originally Posted by conical johnson

This is an interesting article; thanks for posting it. I'm not sure if I agree with his interpretation of the evidence, though, for instance, he categorizes jazz as a predominantly melodic style, whereas I would say jazz is at least as much about harmony, if not more. Similarly, he categorizes throat singing as being harmonic, even though it is really just a melody over a drone; I would call it just as non-harmonic as Indian music, which similarly uses a melody over a drone.

I would interpret the idea slightly differently: styles which involve a lot of improvisation (extremely quick thinking) tend to be developed by peoples with a higher verbal IQ; styles which involve a lot of organization (lots of disciplined thinking well in advance) tend to be developed by peoples with a higher visuo-spatial IQ. Does it make more sense when you look at it that way?

And yeah, all this has probably been written about in books by people who dedicated their lives to studying it, but still it's fun to think about. I've played in one band with a couple of ethnomusicologists...

[funkalicious101]

Another interesting thing about indian music is that there are no specific notes. Everything is interval based. You just tune everything to a specific interval in relation to the main drone.

I think it adds a lot of freeform to the music, and allows a lot of different moods to a single piece.

[Taylor Livingston]

Originally Posted by pklima

But did Indian society ever develop large ensembles? I would think large ensembles (of, say, ten or more - as long as they aren't all drummers, of course) lead to the development of polyphony just to give the musicians something to do beyond duplicating what everyone else is doing. I suspect Europe's large choirs of monks were the key to the early development of polyphony in Europe. You had a certain number of monks in the monastery, and all had to sing, so... a few centuries later out comes polyphony!

Indonesia has large ensembles and polyphony, right? And what little Indian music I've heard was only a few performers.

I would guess there aren't a lot of Indian restaurants in Poland (though I could be way off here), but whenever you go into one here, you hear Indian dance music, which involves a lot of drumming, of course, but also a group of string players. They all play in unison. I don't know if this music is really Indian or just "tourist" music made for Americans, but even in these large ensembles, there isn't really any harmony, just unisons. Tikka masala is awesome, BTW.

I would interpret the idea slightly differently: styles which involve a lot of improvisation (extremely quick thinking) tend to be developed by peoples with a higher verbal IQ; styles which involve a lot of organization (lots of disciplined thinking well in advance) tend to be developed by peoples with a higher visuo-spatial IQ. Does it make more sense when you look at it that way?

Yeah, I agree with that, but that doesn't seem to be what that article was saying. Anyway, though I'm not a jazz fan, I would say that it involves vertical thinking (what the hell notes am I going to play when we get to that dim7?) in addition to horizontal, sequential thinking. To me this is spatial as much as verbal. After all, a sax solo that is a great "monologue" to use verbal terms won't be great if it isn't thought of in the spatial context of the underlying chords.

Anyone have any ethnomusicology books to recommend? There seems to be a lot on this subject, and I'd like it to be written from the perspective of music rather than anthropology, if possible - that way the author doesn't have to tell me a bunch of stuff I already know about music but won't assume I have any knowledge of anthropology.

[CrazyArcher]

More about choirs and polyphony: has anyone heard Georgian male choirs? They sing amazing stuff, delivering 3-voiced polyphony and rich harmonies, and all that without any musical training whatsoever.

[pklima]

I eat food I cook myself except on business trips and at official work-related dinners. That'll make ya culturally ignorant!

But the other side of the question would be: did any society develop polyphony without large ensembles? Few cultures have true polyphony beyond melody+drone so it shouldn't be hard to make a complete list.

Originally Posted by conical johnson

Yeah, I agree with that, but that doesn't seem to be what that article was saying.

Right, it's completely different conclusion. Though I wonder how the verbal vs. visuo-spatial IQ looks for Indonesians.

Originally Posted by conical johnson

Anyway, though I'm not a jazz fan, I would say that it involves vertical thinking (what the hell notes am I going to play when we get to that dim7?) in addition to horizontal, sequential thinking. To me this is spatial as much as verbal. After all, a sax solo that is a great "monologue" to use verbal terms won't be great if it isn't thought of in the spatial context of the underlying chords.

Haha, I blame my inability to play jazz on being too analytical in my thinking. I can play a simple walking line for maybe 8-16 measures before my brain wants to explode and then I have to revert to 1-2-3-5 or completely fall apart. I don't think improvising over a complex harmony properly requires a lot of analysis, just knowing what it sounds/feels like and going with the feeling. But then again I can't do it so I could be wrong!

Besides, a lot of the jazz standards had very simple harmonies as they were originally written for Broadway musicals; they've been elaborated on and altered by musicians who might or might not have been doing that using a lot of conscious analysis. But jazz didn't have complex harmonies when it was first created. So I'd still say it's a primiarily "verbal" music.