Natural rhythms?

[herodotus]

I think the only 'nature' involved is human nature.

But if anything a human does is natural, the concept of 'natural rhythms' becomes meaningless.

Perhaps. But it stimulates an interesting dialogue.

I propose that musical rhythms which are grounded in our familiar biological rhythms are most 'natural,'

But 'our' biological rhythms are not universal. Some of us are old. Some of us are young. Some are of us healthy, some of us are unhealthy, and some are athletes. In all of these cases, the biological rhythms are quite different. And then there are further irregularities like heart murmurs and lung ailments.

but unfamiliar variation from those rhythms creates interest, and that is also 'natural' because we are biologically attracted to novelty!

We are also biologically inclined to use language, which is perhaps the most definitive and universal human characteristic. This little bit of nature throws an even bigger monkey wrench into the mix.

[jancivil]

Perhaps the concept of tension <> resolution in tonal music is also related to certain rhythms and relations being more natural so that difference is defined as deviation.

Which certain rhythms and relations?


How exactly does a certain natural rhythm, or natural relation govern the dominant-tonic paradigm?
Where does this 'difference' occur here, then?

"tonal music" is 12-tones to an 'octave' any way you cut it. The quest for 12 may be an effort to uncover something in nature, I don't want to get too bogged down here.
Except this: 12 tone equal to an octave; the math here is irrational, 12th root of 2. I tend to doubt this occurs before it did, and then by strenuous work seeking to make it happen.
Some reading:
A comparison of the musical scales of the
ancient Chinese bronze bell ensemble
and the modern bamboo flute

Temperament means that nature was being modified or subverted, to put that simply.


The tension, V - I: is this supposed to be natural because... I don't know, the overtone series? In that here is partial #3 and partials #1 and 2. Not really enough I'd say, as the tension is contextual in tonal music. More tension which produces this requirement to resolve in some way is the V7 harmony. Due to the tritone. Now, before I deconstruct further, I'll state my basic view here: I believe this to be a construct that is quite artificial, the tensions aren't like that in musics we know from until they are, to put it in a simple statement.

The tritone itself in nature, confer overtone series again: where? 11th partial, I like it! But note well, it's just about a quarter tone off of a tritone for tonal music. It doesn't seem to produce tonality. If that is supposed to be true, why did it take so long to uncover it?


As to our natural body rhythms... ok, heartbeat. Mama heartbeat, heard that one before, both as a celebration and a diss. Probably something to it! Except...

[Michael L]

We are also biologically inclined to use language, which is perhaps the most definitive and universal human characteristic. This little bit of nature throws an even bigger monkey wrench into the mix.

The latest linguistic theories (eg Everett) find there is no innate language structure (as Chomsky famously proposed) but all language is learned and thus the only natural/innate trait is our ability to learn. Which leads us to:

the tensions aren't like that in musics we know from until they are

which seems true not only in music. AFAIK all indigenous languages reflect their environmental sounds and speakers emphasise "we speak the language of this place" so that for example bird names echo their calls, and tribal musical rhythms reflect local animal rhythms (the book "Bug Music").

Continuing the tradition, early minimalist composers 'learned from' the sounds of NYC, while synthesists 'learned from' the properties and limitations of circuits... but perhaps 'interacted with' is more correct (Steve Reich<>tape machines). In a parallel natural world, Hollis Taylor composed a 2-CD set based on the songs of the Pied Butcherbird, she plays live interactive dawn duets with the birds, and her research book "Is Birdsong Music?" demonstrates that aesthetics is also inherent in birds.

So based on the above, nothing can be considered 'unnatural' because the creative process itself is deeply embedded in more-than-human nature.

That leads to the question, Which of all possible creative relations are aesthetic? Tymoczko presents one clue in his evidence that dissonant intervals are musical when they consistently follow his five rules, which reminds me of Max Martin's 'mathematical' pop song rules. Whether these preferences reflect our ancient need to find patterns and novelty in our environment, or are just apophenia, both are 'natural.'

However in our brains' evolution, cognition was built on the foundation of emotion. So perhaps rhythms are 'natural' when they evoke emotions that we want to feel, when the rhythms of a performer 'resonate' with the natural rhythms of the listeners bodies.
rhythms / when we / love 'em / they are / - - / nat-u-ral

[woggle]

not going to get in to an academic argument here but for those thinking Everett has somehow or other disproved Chomsky see https://www.lavocedinewyork.com/en/2016 ... is-innate/ and follow the relevant papers mentioned

[Michael L]

^^^ No argument. In that interview, Chomsky's false statement that the Piraha are fluent in Portuguese shows he has not read Everett but relies on secondary sources and hearsay; while reframing his theory as only claiming a "genetic component" is simply untrue. BTW, search out the cool research on how syntax (word order = meaning) evolved independently in birds and people, and the similar ways we learn to talk/sing. Something 'natural' in that!

[woggle]

easy for those interested to pursue, no need to believe any old random on the net http://news.mit.edu/2016/data-amazonian ... ebate-0309

[Michael L]

[jancivil]

We are also biologically inclined to use language, which is perhaps the most definitive and universal human characteristic. This little bit of nature throws an even bigger monkey wrench into the mix.

[...]
no innate language structure [...]
but all language is learned and thus the only natural/innate trait is our ability to learn. Which leads us to:

the tensions aren't like that in musics we know from until they are

which seems true not only in music. AFAIK all indigenous languages reflect their environmental sounds and speakers emphasise "we speak the language of this place" so that for example bird names echo their calls, and tribal musical rhythms reflect local animal rhythms (the book "Bug Music").

Continuing the tradition, early minimalist composers 'learned from' the sounds of NYC, while synthesists 'learned from' the properties and limitations of circuits... but perhaps 'interacted with' is more correct (Steve Reich<>tape machines). In a parallel natural world, Hollis Taylor composed a 2-CD set based on the songs of the Pied Butcherbird, she plays live interactive dawn duets with the birds, and her research book "Is Birdsong Music?" demonstrates that aesthetics is also inherent in birds.

So based on the above, nothing can be considered 'unnatural' because the creative process itself is deeply embedded in more-than-human nature.

I showed that the tensions in "tonal music" are not from nature, but an artifice 'deeply imbedded' in culture which is quite removed from what you suggested is true. Relations with something something from natural? And the basis is in somebody's maths. Well, physically there was work done to literally temper nature and reshape the materials *aesthetically*. Music Theory may arise in antiquity out of acoustical principles, someone observed what dividing a string produces and did some arithmetic, but "tension and release in tonal music" is a very small portion of what has happened in the world's music, and even at any given time. Arabic, Indian Classical music, there is no "tonal tension and release". There is no harmony in the sense all westerners know from. Most music has some form of 'tension and release' if we want to talk broadly, but 'tonal music tension and release' is less natural than most music if anything. You swept right by the actual point, and that I'd refuted your notion, just to use it to do that.

That leads to the question, Which of all possible creative relations are aesthetic?
Tymoczko presents one clue in his evidence that dissonant intervals are musical when they consistently follow his five rules, which reminds me of Max Martin's 'mathematical' pop song rules. *Whether these preferences reflect our ancient need to find patterns and novelty in our environment, or are just apophenia, both are 'natural.'

Sod this: "evidence that dissonant intervals are musical when they follow his rules."
That is what we call an opinion, opinion is not evidence. This is garbage, I'm sorry to have to be so blunt. That's beyond a stretch. Whether what preferences are...?
The sentence "Tymoczko presents one clue in his evidence that dissonant intervals are musical when they consistently follow his five rules" Is absurd. Why would one rely on his _rules_ for what is 'musical'?
Apophenia is non-sequitur, randomly finding connections in unrelated things out of psychosis is what which artist has done there? Ok, psychosis is natural, why not.*

I'm well aware of the material in demonstration of certain birdsong crafted for an effect, mating for instance. And that birds with poor tutelage have less going on, et cetera.

Your argument is: Mockingbirds doing cell phones and buzzsaws etc. Because birds are doing what comes naturally...*

You want things which occur through choices made by artists to be strictly from nature.
Sounds of NYC? Cars, traffic, sirens? Natural, eh? Because the artists are just being mockingbirds.*

I've actually studied birdsong fairly extensively, and used that recently. The music I made from it involved intention, it didn't happen naturally. I made choices that are probably not so birdlike.

the only natural/innate trait is our ability to learn. Which leads us to:

* Circular arguments, ie., only giving us your premise reiterated a number of ways as though a proof. "no innate linguistic structural principles" has not been demonstrated (there is no consensus, as Greg indicated with his link, Chomsky's assertion has not been refuted just through another assertion) so it's fallacious to be conclusive here. And this is the fatal flaw in your argument, this is central to 'learning is nature' and then every proof is a reiteration of that premise. It's a non-sequitur (learning in language is nature because there is no natural property of language) using a non-fact, so we have nothing to circle back to. It's as though 'learning is the only nature' is so good that the fact that we have all of this phenomena which is artificial vanishes.

The use of the word 'unnatural', as though everything has to be natural or 'unnatural' is a tactic. I don't need to say what is done, what I've done is "unnatural", I have no use for the word as you put it here. (I did quote Frank Zappa as having said "4/4 is the most unnatural thing in the world"; but for purposes of discussion here, where is 4/4, in itself, found in nature? Is marching natural? I would have to say no. Regimented beat, in nature? Where.)

I have my own rules. Whenever I stray from the overtone series I have subverted the nature. So all I would argue is that people have intent when they create music. They can make up their own rules. What music did this Tymnoczko make with those rules, I wonder. I tend to doubt this is a person with any immersion in music, it's all theorizing in the abstract. The thrust to reduce music to mathematical formulae definitely has always struck me as fear of music.

There are weasel words strung throughout here. EG: 'which of all possible creative relations';
none of them? All of them. Half? 28%. I'm guessing here.

And: 'Whether these preferences reflect our ancient need to...' Which preferences? Who has preferred to do what, over some other thing?

Then we have two choices: our ancient need vs randomly found notions from unrelated areas because we're psychotic, all of which is our nature.

The topic was, natural rhythm out of the notion the thing some find to be natural was said not to be at all.
Now it's innate traits of animals.

[Doug1978]

For me, the most natural rhythms to play are the 3-2 Clave and the 2-3 Clave, eg:




Actually, scrap that...
The most natural rhythms are surely found in John Cage's 4'33" ?

[Michael L]

I did quote Frank Zappa as having said "4/4 is the most unnatural thing in the world"; but for purposes of discussion here, where is 4/4, in itself, found in nature?

Everywhere!
Since the beginning of life on earth...

What music did this Tymnoczko make with those rules, I wonder. I tend to doubt this is a person with any immersion in music, it's all theorizing in the abstract

From Wikipedia:
"Dmitri Tymoczko is a composer and music theorist. His music, which draws on rock, jazz, and romanticism, has been performed by ensembles such as the Amernet String Quartet, the Brentano Quartet, Janus, Newspeak, the San Francisco Contemporary Players, the Pacifica Quartet, and the pianist Ursula Oppens."

PS. I don't have vast musical knowledge, I just find the topic interesting.

[jancivil]

I'm sorry, maybe I'm not being fair and the disposition you show isn't in itself unreasonable.
I'm extremely irritated by the premise that maths is the basis for music, to begin with, though.

Music is culture and decisions made to express things which are particular; the differences of Arabic intonation to 12tET, to give an example, is significant. It's ethnicity. I would celebrate differences. Nature expands into infinite differences. There is no simple explanation available to me, anyway.

The argumentation, though, as I got really into, I really didn't like. I don't need some guy saying there is "musical" dissonance vs not, and having five rules and you stated that as evidence. I personally find that quite beside the point, that individual's position as you state it strikes me as bad egotism leading to bad ideas. "Musical" is contextual (and subjective, it's opinion, & some people are narrow-minded), there aren't rules from pure abstraction. Some people are so smart they're stupid. That is a stupid idea.

This all started from questioning what people largely take for granted in one small segment of the world and culture. 4/4, I saw it at this subforum, the heart beats in 4/4 so it's the most natural time signature. (FZ's position was speech, conversational speech rhythm is more natural and 4/4 is not something you do naturally. I think speech rhythm has more interest, and birdsong rhythm has more interest, in itself, than sticking to a meter has, in itself.)

So I'm not disposed well to that kind of thinking and your whole post, Michael, felt like that. It's my nature to be explorative with music, it's not everybody's thing.

[deastman]

I think this whole premise of “natural” rhythms is a red herring. The bottom line is that our brains are wired for finding patterns in the chaos, and we’re really good at it. We love identifying and anticipating temporal patterns of discreet events. I find myself really drawn to glitchy beat music a la Aphex Twin, Autechre, etc. because I can almost find the pattern in the chaos but it continues to confound and surprise me. Does that make it natural or unnatural? The answer, of course, is “neither”. It’s just something our brains are wired to do.

[woggle]

It’s just something our brains are wired to do.

which makes it natural. The point for a science type researcher like me is - what are the bounds on that innate system. Are all rhythms as easy to learn as each other and so on. Turns out that there are are all sorts of limits, many of which are learned, even as early in utero - eg maternal singing influences listening preferences in newborns, crtical periods for learning rhythms and partitioning pitch into discrete series are similar to those for learning languages. Lots of stuff. There is a literature out there which is fairly accessible

[jancivil]

Imma just leave this one here