This is an article the Magazine New Scientist are running about examining Music in terms of speech patterns. I thought it might be of interest to people here, although it doesn't mention Traditional Irish Music.
Thankyou for drawing this article to my attention. I get the paper New Scientist but am always at least 4 editions behind in my reading. I will get to this one ASAP.
There was an interesting article in the month old edition I'm reading at the moment about the fury with which Social Scientists respond to population work done by physisists who treat people as just another unit to study in aggregate using statistical methods and physical laws. The conclusion was that the behaviour of people really is too complicated to treat in this way.
I am inclined to suggest for the same reason that subtle social constructs like music are too complex to be summed up by neuroscientists, though they migh have some insights. What does anyone else think?
I think I agree with you, Gallopede. There is a "spotlight" theory of human knowledge which goes along the lines that once one thing is lit up and understood, something else is forgotten. And there does seem to be a tendency for people to assume that Science knows pretty much everything and is just filling in the blanks, which I think is very far from the case. But I liked the idea of the patterns of music following the patterns of speech. I've often thought the same thing myself.
Sorry, Donough! They used to do it differently, and anyone could view the current week's article. I read it in my hard copy, and simply didn't notice. Nuts!
This is the way the Internet is going. More and more has to be paid for.
I agree entirely with you that speech is important to music.
Put English words to a Gaelic melody and you need redundant vocal twiddles at the ends of the lines, or extra nonsense syllables ("Bonnie Lassie-O", for instance) to mop up the soft endings in the music.
But what about the complexity of all the other influences? There is an ancient tradition of instruments built outside to be sounded by the wind. We love fountains and the sea and we copy animal and bird calls. I remember hearing a recording - Swedish I think - where the purcussion was provided by a man sawing a piece of wood. We just pull in whatever is around or in us, twiddle it a bit, and give it back.
I think science can do a lot - and already has done a lot - in the assessment of the efficacy of teaching and learning methods but it can by unhelpful to art. Richard Dawkins in "Unweaving the Rainbow" makes a good case that understanding the rainbow doesn't spoil its beauty for us - only I don't quite believe it.
Music as Speech
Music as Speech
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/mg18725071.200
This is an article the Magazine New Scientist are running about examining Music in terms of speech patterns. I thought it might be of interest to people here, although it doesn't mention Traditional Irish Music.
# Posted on July 13th 2005 by Innocent Bystander
Re: Music as Speech
Thankyou for drawing this article to my attention. I get the paper New Scientist but am always at least 4 editions behind in my reading. I will get to this one ASAP.
There was an interesting article in the month old edition I'm reading at the moment about the fury with which Social Scientists respond to population work done by physisists who treat people as just another unit to study in aggregate using statistical methods and physical laws. The conclusion was that the behaviour of people really is too complicated to treat in this way.
I am inclined to suggest for the same reason that subtle social constructs like music are too complex to be summed up by neuroscientists, though they migh have some insights. What does anyone else think?
# Posted on July 13th 2005 by LowProfile
Re: Music as Speech
I think I agree with you, Gallopede. There is a "spotlight" theory of human knowledge which goes along the lines that once one thing is lit up and understood, something else is forgotten. And there does seem to be a tendency for people to assume that Science knows pretty much everything and is just filling in the blanks, which I think is very far from the case. But I liked the idea of the patterns of music following the patterns of speech. I've often thought the same thing myself.
# Posted on July 13th 2005 by Innocent Bystander
Re: Music as Speech
I'd love to read the article but your link is only for paid subscribers.
# Posted on July 13th 2005 by Donough
Re: Music as Speech
Sorry, Donough! They used to do it differently, and anyone could view the current week's article. I read it in my hard copy, and simply didn't notice. Nuts!
# Posted on July 13th 2005 by Innocent Bystander
Re: Music as Speech
This is the way the Internet is going. More and more has to be paid for.
I agree entirely with you that speech is important to music.
Put English words to a Gaelic melody and you need redundant vocal twiddles at the ends of the lines, or extra nonsense syllables ("Bonnie Lassie-O", for instance) to mop up the soft endings in the music.
But what about the complexity of all the other influences? There is an ancient tradition of instruments built outside to be sounded by the wind. We love fountains and the sea and we copy animal and bird calls. I remember hearing a recording - Swedish I think - where the purcussion was provided by a man sawing a piece of wood. We just pull in whatever is around or in us, twiddle it a bit, and give it back.
I think science can do a lot - and already has done a lot - in the assessment of the efficacy of teaching and learning methods but it can by unhelpful to art. Richard Dawkins in "Unweaving the Rainbow" makes a good case that understanding the rainbow doesn't spoil its beauty for us - only I don't quite believe it.
# Posted on July 13th 2005 by LowProfile