Conference hydra::dejavu

    
    What do you mean that it is the closest tone in relation to the
    root of the scale?  If you look at a circle of fourths/fifths a
    fourth would be as related.  It would then depend on direction.
    What does "closest" mean in this context?
    
    Guy

    The 5th (dominant) is considered most closely related to the tonic,
    due at least in part to the natural harmonic sequence of overtones.  If
    you play a tone in the right kind of circumstances, you can easily hear
    the sequence of overtones, which runs:
    
    tonic (1 octave above the note played)
    5th (dominant)
    4th
    6th (I'm not 100% certain of this end of the sequence...may go 3rd,
    than 6th)
    3rd
    2nd
    
    It is because of this sequence that cadences almost always follow a
    4-5-1 sequence.  
    
    Another reason the 5th is considered closest to the tonic is because
    the dominant chord contains the "leading" tone (i.e., the 7th) which
    naturally leans into the tonic.
    
    A simple way to hear the overtones is with a piano in a room with good
    acoustics or that is an "echo chamber" type room (i.e. no carpeting on
    floors).  Gently press down and hold the damper pedal.  When the piano 
    is absolutely silent, select a key (about halfway between the middle
    and bottom of the range) and press firmly.  Keeping the damper pedal
    depressed, listen carefully.  As the tone you press fades, you will
    hear it 1 octave up, than the 5th, and so on.  Each successive tone
    becomes more difficult to hear, so you must listen carefully.  Any
    exterraneous noise can interfere, especially with the damper pedal
    pressed down.

     
    That's very interesting.  It almost seems like it follows a natural
    order similar to that of the order of intervals from the most
    concordant to the most discordant....if that doesn't follow the
    accepted definition then I propose a new one. ;-)  It kind of 
    makes sense that as the magnitude of the fundamental decreases that
    you would hear successively less concordant harmonics...sorta...
    maybe...???
    
    
    Guy 

    You might want to be careful. I have a good friend who is into music
    and its metaphysical meaning. She wrote an article about the pentegram.
    In this she was talking about power of the pentegram and the relivence
    of 5. Unfortunately it was too much for her poor system. Her external
    hard disk gave up the ghost. There was too much power in the 5 for the
    system to handle.

    Guy,
    
    Could you give a person with NO musical background a better
    understanding of harmonics. I have heard that there are people trained
    in voice that can hit two notes at the same time. This I was told was
    harmonic music. I had at one time tried to find an example of this, but
    never had any luck. 
    
    Thanks
    
    Jerry

    .3  Guy,
    
    Maybe!  Or maybe Westerners have learned through constant exposure to 
    think of music as discordant or concordant (dissonant and consonant, 
    in music-speak).
    
    Remember that Eastern music does not follow the Western, 12-tone scale,
    and its resultant harmonies, but has its own sound.
    
    re: .5
    
    The gyoto (sp?) buddhist monks have a technique whereby they are able
    to sing 2 tones at once.  Its not a technique that you will normally
    find taught in music school.
    
    Harmony is the combination of 2 or more notes into "chords."  It can be
    created on a single instrument (as in the case of the monks, or, more
    commonly, on a piano) or by a combination of instruments (a band, a
    trio, a quintet, an orchestra, etc.)

    I assume this music lover has read P. D. Ouspensky's "In Search
    of the Miraculouss".  I have never gotten through the entire book
    (because of laziness mostly).  In the book he discusses the seven
    notes, ocataves etc. etc.  I am sure you have read it.
    
    I am also interested in this meaning behind the number five or the
    pentagram.  The number five has the meaning in mysticism and the
    occult as being the number of man in relation to the four forces
    of the earth.  Note that a good witch will wear a pentagram with
    the point up, putting the influence of man above the forces of nature
    while a not so good practitioner (Satanists etc.) will wear the
    point down placing man as a slave to the earth.
    
    I picked this up in a book call "The new magus" published by the
    Llewelyn Press in MN.

    
    David Hykes & the Harmonic Choir  have released a few records and
    CDs... they also perform live...  They use techniques derivative of
    the monks',  and produce some hauntingly beautiful music.
    
    At least some of their work is available from Celestial Harmonies
    (in Connecticut, I believe).   I'll try to remember to post catalog
    numbers and disk titles...
    
    /bruce

     re: .5 (Jerry)
    
    I believe that harmonics and harmonies are two entirely different
    things.  If someone knows how they are related please correct/inform
    me...
    
    Harmonics are found in most any vibrating object.  A string vibrating
    on a guitar theoretically is vibrating in an infinite number of
    harmonics at once.  You don't hear them all though, because the
    higher the frequency of the harmonic the smaller its amplitude.
    The reason different instruments have different tones is because
    of how efficiently they reproduce certain harmonics.  I don't know
    a good way to explain the why behind harmonics in this medium. 
    If you want to contact me offline I'd be willing to give it a try,
    given some time.
    
    A "throat singers" vocal chords are also capable of  accenting 
    harmonics.  These folks have learned how to (I think) accent another
    harmonic that is higher than their "normal" singing voice.  These
    throat singers are from the western part of Mongolia and a country
    that borders it that I believe is called Tuvin which is now part
    of the USSR.  I wish I had a recording....
    
    thanks for letting me massacre this topic....;-)
    
    Guy

    Guy,
    
    I think the definition of "harmonics" is a little broader than you 
    imply, and simply means anything relating to sound.  
    
    The tone quality of different instruments is determined by the overtones 
    produced and how strongly they appear.  Wind instruments tend to have 
    the purest tones (particularly the flute), while strings have the most 
    overtones.  I believe it has to do with the "sympathetic vibrations" 
    incurred in the strings when any tone is produced.  It is the "sympathetic
    vibrations" that enable you to hear overtones in the piano experiment
    that I mentioned earlier.  Basically, what happens is that when a sound
    is produced, nearby objects vibrate "in sympathy" as they are struckby
    the passing sound waves.  In the piano experiment, when you strike a
    particular tone, the other piano strings begin to vibrate as a reaction
    to the sound waves.  As they vibrate, they then create a tone.  So, for
    example, if you play the C below middle C, then the middle C will
    vibrate most strongly and first and you hear that tone.  The string for
    the 5th above middle C (G) also begins to vibrate and you hear that tone.
    An so on, through the entire progression.
    
    My guess is that the quality of wind instrument tones varies with the
    design of the reed (which, of course, the flute doesn't have).  Strings
    vibrate the most easily, which is why string instruments have the most
    overtones--the strings not being played or damped have the most freedom
    to vibrate in sympathy.
    
    Jerry - I don't know which music lover you were referring to, but this
    one got her music education by studying theory, history and performance
    in school, and by performing chorally.  

CDs:
    
The Harmonic Choir
   Hearing Solar Winds        Ocora C.558607  (dist. by Harmonia Mundi)

David Hykes & Harmonic Choir
   Harmonic Meetings          Celestial Harmonies CD 013/14 (one disk)

I have another album on vinyl, but I haven't unpacked my records
since I moved 6 months ago.  I have not yet seen that one (I forget
its name) on CD).  I think I got both these disks at the Harvard Coop
some years ago;  I have not seen them there recently.


Celestial Harmonies
POBox 673
Wilton CT 06897


Harmonic Arts Society
1047 Amsterdam Ave
NYC 10025

From the liner notes of _Hearing Solar Winds:_

    The Harmonic Choir was formed by David Hykes in 1975.
    An accomplished experimmental filmmaker with a deep
    interest in traditional and sacred music, Hykes had already
    acquired broad familiarity with the music of West and Central
    Asia when he first herad the Hoomi singing (literally "throat
    singing") indigenous to western Mongolia, and the overtone chanting
    of Tantric Tibetan Buddhism.

    In the Hoomi tradition, singers producea  fundamental tone in
    the bass or baritone ranged, and then by extremely precise
    modulation of the abdominal muscles, chest and vocal
    apparatus _ larynx, tongue, jaws, cheeks and lips _ project
    simultaneously a higher tone or tones, related in frequency
    to the fundamental tone by whole number ratios. These higher
    frequencies are called "overtones" or "harmonics."  In
    producing harmonics, the voice acts like a kind of sonic
    prism, "refracting" sound along a frequency  spectrum which
    extends upward from the fundamental tone.

    Each fundamental tone has potentially infinite harmonics. 
    For any starting frequency, which can be called "one," the
    first overtone or second harmonic (the two are identical) is
    "two," or twice the rate of vibration of "one." The third
    harmonic, or "three," is three times the frequency of "one,"
    and so on.  In the Choir's music, harmonics are used in
    several different ways.  First, harmonics which range from 5
    to 15 times the frequency of a fundamental tone may be joined
    together to produce high flute-like melodies of the sort
    heard in [this record].  Second, lower harmonics _ "two,"
    "three," "four," and "five" are projected from a cluster of
    fundamental notes, creating a gossamer shimmering of beating
    tones, as in [].  Third, harmonics may be transposed down
    from their own octave into the harmonic void between "one"
    and "two," where as fundamental tones, they are used to
    construct sustained chords and contrapuntal polyphonies.  The
    tuning of the entire system thus reflects the whole number
    "Pythagorean" frequency rations intrinsic to the harmonic
    series.

    Hykes' music has diverged in several important respects from
    that of the Mongolian and Tibetans who inspired hiim. Most
    significant is his identification and active manipulation of
    five different levels of "harmonic music," as follows:
      Level 1: The singer holds a steady fundamental note and a
    steady harmonic, as in Tibetan sacred chantt.
      Level 2: The singer moves the fundamental note melodiclly and
    the harmonic moves in parallel with it, as found en passant
    in some wester sacred music, i.e. Bulgarian chant, organum.
      Level3: The singer holds a steady fundamental note and
    creates melodies with the harmonics as in Mongolian Hoomi
    singing.
      Level 4: The singer holds a harminic steady and moves the
    fundamental note.
      Level 5: The singer moves both the harmonics and the
    fundamental.

    For David Hykes, the significance of the harmonic series as
    both a source and an aesthetic standard for a musical
    composition lies in its organic lawfulness and proportion. 
    His work begins at the point where a singer can articulate at
    will various harmonics in the series.  From there, it moves
    towards a living research into the unexplored realms of sound
    made accessible by harmonic singing, where acoustical order
    can become truly iconic to what is at once a more precise and
    a more universal world of number.
    

    Whoa there:
    
    "Harmonic" has two meanings: as an adjective it means "of or relating
    to musical sounds", as a noun it means something like, "multiples of
    the fundamental frequency of vibration in a sound wave, and by extension
    other forms of vibration".  "Harmonics" is either the plural of the
    noun form or means the "study of musical sound."
    
    The sound of most musical instruments can be described fairly well as
    consisting of a fundamental frequency and a series of harmonics.  This
    is made more complex in practice by each notes "envelope" which causes
    this analysis to change -- sometimes radically -- over the course of
    the note.  This simple analysis applies because these are the
    characteristic of vibrating strings and "columns" of air when not
    pushed "too far".  The human ear tends to hear tones which consists
    of this simple structure as pleasant.  Sounds which vary from this
    pattern sound somewhat discordant -- though not necessarily
    unpleasently so.
    
    Overtones are any components of the sound which are greater than the
    basic frequency (undertones also occur but are less important) whether
    harmonic or not.
    
    The quality of a sound is determined by the number and pattern of
    relative strengths of its overtones.
    
    Chords which reinforce the basic "harmonic sequence" tend to sound
    more pleasent than chords which do not (in a sense they are also
    blander).  In the West for a while, this discovery got turned into
    a fetish with inharmonic chords being virtually forbidden in formal
    music.  Artists managed to cope with this restriction -- as artists
    always will -- but music is much better off without it.  What sounds
    good to you depends heavily on your culture and what you are used to,
    but that is modulating some fundamental characteristics of human
    hearing which results in some degree of constancy across all cultures
    -- you will find all cultures recognizing the importance of the octave
    as basic (its the first overtone = second harmonic; the first
    being the fundamental itself), and almost all recognize the fifth
    (third harmonic reduced by an octave) as "harmonious", but attach
    different amounts of significance to it.  (All this applies only
    approximately to the "tempered scale" generally used today in the
    West for technical reasons).
    
    The "standard" western instrument with far and away the most number of
    harmonic overtones is the french horn.
    
    The snare drum, and to lesser extent other drums, is the instrument
    with the least "harmonic" sound.
    
    Pianos derive some of their rich texture from slightly non-harmonic
    sounds.  Check inside a piano and you'll find that the lower notes have
    three strings for each note.  Each of these three are deliberately tuned
    to a very slightly different pitch.
    
    The piano "trick" does work by sympathetic vibration.  With the pedal
    down all the piano strings are free to vibrate, and they are coupled to
    each other via the backboard.  So with the pedal depressed strings
    whose fundamental pitch are overtones (harmonic) of the struck note
    pick up some of the sound energy and vibrate (this is the principle of
    the "drone" strings used in some Eastern instruments).  Since the
    higher strings are physically lighter, they tend to vibrate longer,
    and so you continue to hear them as the sound of the primary note
    dies away.

    					Topher 

    Topher,
    
    You've totally lost me in paragaph 2.  What do you mean by a notes
    "envelope?"
    
    What do you mean by pushing vibrating strings and "columns of air" too
    far?
                                                   
    What simple structure is perceived as pleasant??
    
    Huh???
    
    
    Also, with the exception of one specific chord--the augmented
    fourth/diminished 5th (diabolis in music)--I don't believe that 
    dissonance was "forbidden" so much as "not done."  I don't remember 
    what specifically led to the movement away from the different modes 
    (which naturally contain some dissonance) to focus on only two (the 
    major and minor modes--I forget their greek column names), but I'm 
    certain it wasn't forced by rules.
    
    In any event, I'm not certain that music is better off without
    restrictions.  Just different.  The interesting paradox about 
    restrictions are that they can serve as a structure, which can 
    actually be very freeing.  Truly great musicians are able 
    to transcend the existing structures, whereas the second rate and 
    below musicians lean on it as a crutch (formula writing).  When 
    musical (or other artistic) growth exceeds that allowed by the
    current structure, then the structures are torn down by the current
    greats and new structures evolve.
    
    On the other hand, the total absence of structure can lead to total
    cacophony.  Just witness some John Cage! (oops, sorry Cage lovers! ;-)
    
    Structure is what makes the difference between music and noise.
    
    Also, my understanding has been that the flute has the fewest 
    overtones (and makes the purest tone) and that the violin has the most.  
    However, I don't remember where I heard this.

    Topher,                                      
    
    I looked at your note again and still couldn't make sense of the 2nd
    paragraph.
    
    I do think, however, that you've got one thing backwards.  Chords which
    reinforce the harmonic sequence sound more pleasant to western ears
    because we are used to hearing them, not because there is something
    intrinsically more pleasing about them.*  We are used to hearing them
    because western musicians focused so heavily on the harmonic sequence. 
    The development of the tempered scale was one outcome of this focus. 
    It allowed composers to modulate from one key to another "midstream"
    providing a wonderful device that helped fuel the progress of western
    musical development.
    
    
    * For example, the music of Debussy is considered very consonant by
    today's standards (i.e. by what we are currently accustomed to hearing),
    but at the time of its introduction, its "dissonance" led to near riots
    at concerts. 
    
    
    

    
    The last time I tried to tune a piano I could have sworn that the
    lower notes had only *two* strings each while the higher ones had
    three....
    
    Guy

    Sometimes the fingers are quicker than the mind.
    
    I've *never* tuned a piano myself, though I've often watched it done --
    but not in a very long time.  Don't the lowest notes only have one
    string?  (I skipped the intermediate 2 string notes for simplicity, and
    then screwed up and said it backwards; but maybe I'm wrong about the
    lowest notes only having one string).
    
    					Topher

RE: .13 (Mistovich)
    
    > You've totally lost me in paragraph 2.
    
    Sorry, I guess I didn't make myself very clear.
    
    > What do you mean by a notes "envelope".
    
    The envelope of a note is most clearly seen by looking at the loudness
    of the note over very short periods of time.  If you look at the wave
    form and cut out everything below the center line, then connect the
    peaks you will have enclosed the wave in an "envelope".
    
    Take a piano note as typical.  At the beginning the envelope goes from
    zero, and goes up very swiftly to its loudest point and then
    immediately drops back to an intermediate point of loudness.  It looks
    a bit like a church steeple.  This is called the notes "attack".  Then
    comes the "steady-state" or "body" of the note, where the loudness is
    almost but not quite constant (it slowly decreases in intensity, and
    may, for some instruments fluctuate around the constant value a bit).
    Finally there is the "decay" (I may not be rembering all the terms used
    for each of these, they are not entirely standardized, although the
    electronic musicians who have to build these by hand are working on it)
    where the loudness drops back to zero, generally not quite so steeply
    as the attack rises.
    
    Although the envelope refers principally to the change in loudness
    (amplitude) the harmonic (and non-harmonic) relationships also change
    over the course of the note.
    
    > What do you mean by pushing vibrating strings and "columns of air"
    > too far.
    
    Let's look at strings.  If you pick up a physics textbook, you will
    find an explanation for why a vibrating string produces sound which
    follows a simple harmonic sequence.  The string has natural resonances
    which make it look like a sine wave, each such resonance corresponds
    to one of the harmonics.
    
    That mathematical explanation assumes, however, that the tension in the
    string is not increased when the string is pulled to the side during the
    vibration.  This is not really true but it is reasonably true if the
    vibration is not too intense.  If the vibration *is* too intense, then
    the increased tension pulls the string back from going quite as far
    as it would if there were no extra tension.  The natural mode of
    vibration becomes a "flattened sine wave".  Our ear, which is a
    *harmonic* analyzer, hears that distortion as additional faint tones,
    or as a "buzzing", "sawing-sound" or whatever depending on the details.
    The physicist talks about "non-linearities" and the musician talks
    about "unwanted overtones".  
    
    Similar non-linearities occur for wind instruments.  Much of what a
    musician learns on any musical instrument is how to play it in such a way
    as to get reasonable volume without producing the "bad tone".
    
    > What simple structure is percieved as pleasant?
    
    Sounds which are relatively easy to analyze in terms of one or a few
    harmonic sequences tend to be perceived as more pleasant (though
    perhaps also, too boring, depending on what you are looking for).
    
    > -- I don't believe that dissonance was "forbidden" so much as "not
    > done."
    
    I meant "forbidden" aesthetically not legally.
    
    > I don't remember what specifically led to the movement away from the
    > different modes (which naturally contain some dissonance) to focus
    > on only two...
    
    My understanding was the difficulty of writing polyphonic music which
    avoided the dissonances.  Sequential disonance -- a single voice making
    a dissonant step in moving from one note to another -- was considered
    acceptable, indeed, was the point of the modes.  They were extensively
    used with the old single voice music such as the Gregorian chants. 
    With the rise of polyphony, however, it was considered aesthetically
    undesirable to have dissonant chords.  It was very hard to write modal
    music but maintain "harmony", so composers generally didn't bother.  Of
    course, with composers not writing the music, people didn't hear it,
    and modal music became "alien" and unfamiliar, so that the tendency was
    reinforced.
    
    > In any event, I'm not certain that music is better off without
    > restrictions.
    
    I was making a personal value judgement on one particular restriction:
    the limitation of chordal patterns to certain arbitrary "harmonic
    chords".  These pattern was *not* based on modern knowledge of the
    harmonic sequence but on the Pythagorean harmonic sequence of simple
    whole number ratios.  The fourth -- by itself -- was given a prominance
    which it would not have in a theory based on the harmonic sequence.
    
    Disonance can be used for effect, but it was pretty much forbidden
    (aesthetically) for any purpose by scholastic edict.
    
    Yes genius (and less than genius) can overcome restrictions the
    limitations of restrictions (I said something to that effect myself)
    and some restrictions, even arbitrary restrictions, seems to help
    creatativty.  But too much restriction, forces the genius to spend too
    much creative energy fighting the limitations, and some near-geniuses
    who might otherwise have created something of lasting value, will fail
    to make the grade.
    
    I don't recommend the erasure of the distinction between harmony and
    disonance, by any means.  I simply believe that we are better off by
    composers being given aesthetic permission to use the specfic tools
    of disonance and non-classic harmony when appropriate.
    
    John Cage makes statements about music by demonstration, IMHO, rather
    than making music -- he might even agree with that statement, although
    not too loudly since that would blunt the power of the demonstration.
    
    > my understanding has been that the flute has the fewest overtones ...
    > and that the violin has the most.
    
    You may well be right about the flute, although I would have guessed
    the piccolo.  I'm moderately certain about the french horn, however.
    
    We may be talking about slightly different things, though.  A violin
    string is always played on its fundamental, which is changed by
    effectively shortening the string length.  A note is selected on a
    natural horn (a french horn without valves) or equivalently on a horn
    with a particular set of valves pressed, by stimulating with the
    breath one of the natural harmonics of the tube -- that harmonic whose
    frequency corresponds to the pitch desired.  Only on the lowest, rarely
    played, notes would the full set of dozens of harmonics actually be
    there.  A typical violin note might therefore have more harmonics than
    a typical french horn note, although the french horn itself has many
    more harmonics intrinsically.
    
    						Topher

RE: .14
    
    > I do think, however, that you've got one thing backwards.  Chords
    > which reinforce the harmonic sequence sound more pleasant to western
    > ears because we are used to hearing them, not because there is
    > something intrinsically more pleasing about them.
    
    Ah, nature vs. nurture, the old debate.
    
    I think that the resolution is the usual one -- both play a part.
    
    I think that there is an intrinsic component to harmony, but that it is
    modified -- sometimes to unrecognizability -- by culture, which is as
    it should be.
    
    The ear is basically a harmonic analyzer.  It tries to put sounds which
    it hears into one or more harmonically structured individual sounds.
    This is not a result of training but is intrinsic to the physical and
    neurological structure of the inner ear.  And it makes sense, since
    many of the sounds of importance to "primitive" humans are pretty
    close to being harmonic sources.  If you play a bunch of sine waves
    arranged in harmonic sequence to someone, regardless of the culture
    they were raised in, it will sound like a single note.
    
    Two harmonically structured tones, one of which is pitched on a
    harmonic of the other, will seem to partially "blend".  The two notes
    become difficult to distinguish from one another, and the "tone and
    color" of each will be affected by overtones supplied by the other.
    Except under special conditions (e.g., the notes are pure sine waves)
    some of the overtones of the higher will not correspond to harmonics
    of the lower ones fundamental, so they do not blend completely into
    one note (especially since it is unlikely that the pitches are
    perfectly on pitch and remain that way), but perceptually it becomes
    somewhat difficult to tell where one pitch lets off and the next one
    begins.  This is the basis of what might be called "natural harmony".
    
    Listen to non-western music, especially "folk-music" (i.e., music not
    derived from "formal" training) and you will hear mixed with the
    strangeness and the foreign scales, familiar, simple harmonies: the
    octave, the fifth and the third.
    
    The Pythagoreans, and later the medival Europeans built an (incorrect)
    theory of "natural harmony" on this real basis.  This theory was not
    based on harmonic sequences in the modern sense, but on the assumed
    naturallness of any simple whole number ratio in fundamental frequency.
    This became elaborated way beyond any real justification, and became
    our western formal theory of harmony, which to some extent (mostly
    through the offices of the church choir and ensemble) prevaded all of
    western musical culture.  Our scale was developed and refined on the
    basis of that theory.  The theory had to be set aside, however, for
    the tempored scale to be developed from it.
    
    "Natural harmony" is not all there is, however.  It only presents a
    basic acoustic effect which really only applies (except weakly) to
    chords -- notes played or sung simultaneously.  It is culture which
    determines what that acoustic effect means, what the relative weights
    of weak harmonies are, what non-harmonies mean, what notes are
    available to be played/sung, what sequential intervals are used, and
    when, etc.  The basic acoustics of the ear is only the raw material
    which culture shapes into a musical aesthetic.
    
    						Topher

    Re:  .18 (Topher)
    
    Nature vs Nurture....agreed, elements of both
    
    But I still don't think that musicians need to be "given permission" to
    break out of the established structures.  (Who would give them
    permission anyway?  They've already got mine!  Oh, I'm referring to
    open societies.  I realize that in certain countries they DO need
    permission.)  They simply need to be ready to advance.(Of course, I've
    always been a bit of a rebel)  It just takes a while for society to 
    catch up.
    
    Mary
    
    

    
    re: Topher
    
    the lowest notes may only have one string, I can't remember....I
    guess your point about them being slighly out of tune with one
    another still holds of course....
    
    Guy

RE: .19 (Mary)
    
    That's very much a 20th century American idea.  Musicians spend their
    life learning the cultural standards -- which means to a great extent
    being "brainwashed" into accepting those standards.  The education is
    necessary, but it has its consequences.  Even those of genius never
    really overcome this except in minor ways.  Artistic revolutions are
    almost always made by reversing a single culturally determined rule,
    and following up with the minimum changes necessary to support that
    single basic change.  Real change only comes in tiny increments, which
    the "revolutions" frequently serve to make obvious.  Even if someone
    were to really step outside the restrictions; who would listen -- they
    would be speaking their own made up language which no one else could
    even start to understand.
    
    To a large extent, the evolution of western music *was* done by fiat.
    Those in power to buy music (by which I mean, support composers) --
    mostly the churches -- were trained by the Church University system,
    and were trained to believe that certain musical relationships were
    "valid" (as proven by the use of wholly arbitrary musical theories
    derived mostly without bothering to listen to music) and others were
    not.  Music which violated those rules was not bought, was not recorded
    and was not performed; it was guarenteed to be lost.  Meanwhile, the
    folk got a careful dose of what the "approved of" music sounded like
    every week, and this inevitably had its effects even on "folk music".
    
    Western music isn't bad, and rules which specify what is "normal" are
    inevitable and good.  Composition rules which are overly "intellectual"
    and which are supported by the social system *to the exclusion* of all
    other systems are generally not the best choices.
    
    Keep in mind that our concept of the "artist" as distinct from the
    "crafter" (craftsman for those whose consciousness has not yet been
    raised :-) for hire is a late 19th century western concept.  The
    composer was a skilled person whose skills were for hire.  He
    (generally he of course) saw himself that way, as did everyone else.
    There was no essential difference between the composer and the
    bricklayer in the "spirituallity" of what they did, except for the
    greater education needed to work within the highly artificial system
    of composition which had been developed.  Innovation for its own sake
    had no point -- innovation was commedable only if it resulted in music
    (or whatever) which better served its purpose -- glorification of God
    or distraction of the nobles or whatever.
    
    					Topher

    re: .21 (Topher)
    
    That's true, it is a 20th century American idea. On the other hand,
    this effects not only music, but all the arts, the food eaten, the
    clothes worn, do you marry, who do you marry, where do you live, how do
    you live, and everything else.
    
    But I think we're getting back to a nature vs nurture type of argument. 
    Do people need to be "given permission" to be whatever, or do they need
    to take it upon themselves?  For example, in the Eastern Bloc countries
    today, are the people being given permission by their governments to
    throw those governments out and change the rules, or are they taking it
    upon themselves to do so?
    
    I think there are actually elements of both.  They are being "given
    permission" in that Soviet tanks haven't been unleashed upon them, when
    they've taken it upon themselves to throw out their governments (excpet
    of course Rumania, where their government tried to deny permission and
    still failed).
    
    And yes, change happens incrementally until critical mass is reached 
    enabling more complete or at least overt change.
    
    Mary

    	
    Visions of Picasso's Violin keep coming to mind during this discussion.
    
    Cindy

    Seemingly related...
    
    A recent NOVA, on the general subject of music, had a segment on
    research on the possibility of links between sounds/tones and emotional
    states.  The researcher, and Australian, felt he had established
    certain "universal" relations between the amplitude and frequency
    of "musical" (not noisy) sounds.  Subjects were asked to press
    on a button, varying the pressure as they saw fit, as a researcher
    called out various "basic" emotions:
    	sadness, fear, joy, sex, anger...  (memory fades).
    The subjects were unable to see the "caller", so their responses
    were taken to be spontaneous.  Subjects were from various cultural
    backgrounds.
    
    The results were felt to show that certain patterns _were_ universal
    and cross cultural.  The pressure patterns were transposed to
    loudness variations of tones, and tested with additional subjects.
    The fresh subjects (again, cross cultural) matched the loudness
    patterns to the predicted emotional states.  The final test shown
    involved taking tape recorded copies out into the "Outback" and trying
    the test with Australian Aborigines.  They, too, identified the
    loudness variations with the predicted emotional response...
    
    thanks
    dwp
    
    (Footnote:  The testing was shown as concealing subject from researcher,
    to prevent the subject picking up "body language" as to the "right"
    response.  A memory of Topher's(?) comment, somewhere back in here,
    roughly:
    
    	If "telepathy" exists, its going to invalidate a LOT of
    	experimental behavioral studies.
    
    flickered through my mind...)