Tonality - A force of nature?

"Why tonality as we know it should be thrown out altogether, I can't see. Why it should always be present, I can't see."

--Charles Ives

The end.

That quote actualy explains wonders about his style. Thanks for that! :thumbsup:

Ives was awesome.

- The Indians have always used the Diatonic modes or diatonic-like scales like harmonic-minor?

They haven't.

For perspective, I find it absolutely fascinating that Eudoxus (Greece, 3rd century BC) and Liu Hui (China, 3rd century AD) independently arrived at the Method of Exhaustion, which is the seminal idea behind Calculus.

I wouldn't call it that. It's more a method of numerical approximation related to calculus than the idea behind it, in that it omits the concept of limits, which is the key to calculus.

Also, music by definition (assuming this is a widely accepted definition of music) is "conscious organisation of sound(s) in time".

That's just one definition, but in any case, it's not really important either what music is defined as if he's not defining what "natural" is supposed to mean. Gardener already said it, you have to first define THAT or there's no argument.

And, of course, similarities prove nothing by themselves. You have to prove they are not coincidences and have a consistent cause for them to be "proof" of anything.

Nevermind that this is the typical case of "I already believe this, how do I find stuff to "prove" it?

"And why is everything ELSE so jarringly different?"

The same reason why Bach and Vivaldi are so jarringly different.

The same reason why Bach and Vivaldi are so jarringly different.

But you see, they are extremely similar, especially considering all the different world musics. They have similar structures, similar tonal implications, all that sort of thing.

Compare Bach to say, japanese court music from the contemporaneous period in culture -- then lets talk.

By Pentatonic I usually mean scales like CDEGA, of course I know that there are other 5-note-scales for example minor(CDEbGAb) and dorian(CDEbGA) pentatonic scales in eastern asian music.

What do you mean by "pentatonic function"?

I mean that there are tonal implications in Western Pentatonic which do not exist in other cultures.

But you see, they are extremely similar, especially considering all the different world musics. They have similar structures, similar tonal implications, all that sort of thing.

Compare Bach to say, japanese court music from the contemporaneous period in culture -- then lets talk.

Precisely, Bach and Vivaldi not only lived in the same overall culture (Western/Roman) but both their cultures if you want to narrow it down to German/Italian had a LOT of exchange over the years, enough so that the same aesthetics got carried over as well as musical traditions. The similarities in the details of Vivaldi and Bach can be attributed not to coincidence, but to all of this historical context!

They are different, still, but they are VERY similar and should as well be similar since they share a lot of the cultural baggage that would invariably make these composers write music that, when compared to the other examples Ferk named, is quite alike and not just superficially.

We can also clearly explain what part of their music is culture/tradition and what part is composer/aesthetic preference. :>

But, the key is, take away this historical context and THEN we'll have a puzzle. If Bach was, say, Chinese and yet wrote the exact same music without ANY contact to the western world, then something is up. But considering not only this is isn't the case but it's pretty much very unlikely such a thing can happen, we can dismiss it without worry.

If there are any similarities THAT great (such as Vivaldi/Bach) across cultures that don't have anything to do with eachother in the slightest, then that's worth studying. But, well, alas, there's nothing like that. At best it's "Well this culture has X which is SORT OF LIKE Y, if you squint." Not good enough, lol.

Precisely, Bach and Vivaldi not only lived in the same overall culture (Western/Roman) but both their cultures if you want to narrow it down to German/Italian had a LOT of exchange over the years, enough so that the same aesthetics got carried over as well as musical traditions. The similarities in the details of Vivaldi and Bach can be attributed not to coincidence, but to all of this historical context!

They are different, still, but they are VERY similar and should as well be similar since they share a lot of the cultural baggage that would invariably make these composers write music that, when compared to the other examples Ferk named, is quite alike and not just superficially.

Actually this example supports the opposite argument. Notwithstanding a certain degree of similarities, why is the music of Bach and Vivaldi still different, even though historically German and Italian cultures were mutually influential?

In other words: when even mutually influential cultures produce different music, it's not at all surprising that ethnic music is distant from Western music. In fact, the baseline expectation is that they SHOULD be different. In this context, what's remarkable is the similarities.

Actually this example supports the opposite argument. Notwithstanding a certain degree of similarities, why is the music of Bach and Vivaldi still different, even though historically German and Italian cultures were mutually influential?

In other words: when even mutually influential cultures produce different music, it's not at all surprising that ethnic music is distant from Western music. In fact, the baseline expectation is that they SHOULD be different. In this context, what's interesting is the similarities.

What opposite argument?

A CERTAIN degree of similarities? These are similarities orders of magnitude bigger than ANYTHING you can find between the dozens of non-western cultures mentioned already in the thread. Hell, the baroque affects by themselves and so on, the voice movement rules, ETC ETC, even the instruments are VERY similar if not downright identical.

Saying Bach and Vivaldi are different when put in context of how different other cultures' music are to western music is sort of silly. They are similar enough that you can group them together in various ways, not only historically but stylistically. The point at which Bach stops being the same as Vivaldi is much further up in the details than the point where Indian music stops being the same as Western classical(cough) music.

In any case, I think it's a lot more interesting to see the differences rather than try to compare similarities, as, again, they're just coincidences. If you're going to argue they're not coincidences, you have to then get into details and see why they're similar (and LOL same problem as always, how similar IS really similar enough? What is causing the similarities if they are similar enough and it isn't a product of cultural influence, etc?)

Think of it as musical culture being a byproduct of a lot of other things. A composer around Bach or Vivaldi's time simply wrote with what they were "allowed" to write given their musical tradition, that is, they were given a limited set of things and they had to arrange/manipulate them. Obviously that is going to produce a lot of similar music (and it did!) It's almost the same thing in every other culture save for what happens in the 20th century onwards western/global(?) culture, where basically there's no "allowed" musical material, everything goes, etc.

The fact that a LOT of people went in that direction with modern art is indication that not only is our concept of art itself plastic but we'll just about twist and shape it to fit whatever it is we want, despite culture or tradition. The fact we can do that and not only enjoy it but find it inspiring shouldn't be considered shameful (O NOES WE HAEV GENEETIX PROBLAMS!!

In any case, I think it's a lot more interesting to see the differences rather than try to compare similarities, as, again, they're just coincidences. If you're going to argue they're not coincidences, you have to then get into details and see why they're similar (and LOL same problem as always, how similar IS really similar enough? What is causing the similarities if they are similar enough and it isn't a product of cultural influence, etc?)

I see the point of contention is this: you are convinced that similarities between ethnic and western music are purely coincidental. I'm not. The evidence is compelling enough that I'm open to other plausible explanations.

I see the point of contention is this: you are convinced that similarities between ethnic and western music are purely coincidental. I'm not. The evidence is compelling enough that I'm open to other plausible explanations.

Well there can be TONS of explanations to similarities between cultures. Take the fact that a lot of cultures have flute-like wind instruments and drums. These are instruments which can be manufactured with few technological resources, so you can bet they'll show up first if a culture is developing instruments. Likewise, you can chalk up similarities in scales when they exist to scales themselves being an influence of language (again, no surprise that a lot of the more primitive music is chanting/singing rather than instrumental.)

It's an interesting thing to study, no doubt. But, technically plays no role today since we can disregard that and our condition today has nothing to do with what these cultures had when their respective musical traditions developed. We don't have a single dominating tradition today.

And all this is assuming that there was no exchange between the cultures to allow for simple cultural evolution through memes.

But, in the end, it's entirely possible (and sometimes likely) that a culture can simply shoot off in an entirely different direction because the things that would make it similar to the western (if we're using that as reference) canon simply aren't there (circumstances are different.) Modern art is a good example as always of that happening right in front of our eyes.

Though, even if you can trace the similarities to actual plausible reasons why cultures share something, it still doesn't mean that the reason is itself shared, only that the end product which we observe is similar.

Well there can be TONS of explanations to similarities between cultures. Take the fact that a lot of cultures have flute-like wind instruments and drums. These are instruments which can be manufactured with few technological resources, so you can bet they'll show up first if a culture is developing instruments. Likewise, you can chalk up similarities in scales when they exist to scales themselves being an influence of language (again, no surprise that a lot of the more primitive music is chanting/singing rather than instrumental.)

It's an interesting thing to study, no doubt. But, technically plays no role today since we can disregard that and our condition today has nothing to do with what these cultures had when their respective musical traditions developed. We don't have a single dominating tradition today.

And all this is assuming that there was no exchange between the cultures to allow for simple cultural evolution through memes.

But, in the end, it's entirely possible (and sometimes likely) that a culture can simply shoot off in an entirely different direction because the things that would make it similar to the western (if we're using that as reference) canon simply aren't there (circumstances are different.) Modern art is a good example as always of that happening right in front of our eyes.

Though, even if you can trace the similarities to actual plausible reasons why cultures share something, it still doesn't mean that the reason is itself shared, only that the end product which we observe is similar.

Just a gander through random musicological studies and websites devoted to discussion of historic musicology proves many of your claims here wrong SSC. Most musicologists, the vast majority, find many evolutionary similarities between music of primitive time and music of today. Alot of primitive music consists largely of drums and very little chanting/singing. This is largely due to the fact that rhythm itself was one of the first musical forms discovered by early man (archaeology backs this up... many times over.) Wind instruments were the next discovery in music (some cultures saw wooden flutes being introduced at different intervals - for instance, the ancient Jomon peoples in Japan... this culture has roots as far back as 80,000 b.c.e on the island. Musical finds from this period are largely ceremonial drums. Around 45,000 b.c.e flutes began appearing. Much later in the chronology, around 1,000 b.c.e there is evidence of some other instruments being introduced - most of this based on archaeological excavation throughout the islands of Japan! Another good example, is the African continent, there drums still have a predominant role in musical expression - even though other instrument finds dot the continent from various archaeological periods.) There is also consensus among most historians that musical instruments and musical evolution was largely separate from the gathering of resources. To elaborate on that, I'll use the native americans as examples. The native americans, largely a hunting/gathering people, did not harvest resources in the same fashion as those of more sedentery peoples - such as European tribes (if one wants to look at similarity in culture... from the time of the cave paintings in france). The two different cultures, however, share the same types of musical expression (drums, wind instruments, vocal music, and yes scalar basis). There are two differences between the resource gathering of both these peoples: 1. the native americans for the most part did not quarry stone AND also did not farm on a large scale. 2. Early european tribes did quarry stone and did large scale farming. Other resource harvesting differences were in the uses of wood and other more readily available resource: the native americans took largely what they needed and could store for a short period. The european's more sedentery lifestlye, allowed for the harvesting of many more resource types: marble, stone, wood, clay, etc. If one takes your outlook on this SSC, then one would expect in the early European tribes to see a more 'diverse' instrument availability - however, the archaeological record clearly shows that the same primitive instruments as those in early Native American cultures, Indonesian cultures, african cultures, and even the Aboriginal cultures (drums, flutes). The introduction of string instruments, however, comes much later in western tradition than in other cultures - even though the western tradition was far more stable in comparision (a good example of this is in the music of the Indian subcontinent, a region which throughout the course of the last 100,000 years has seen numerous conquests, famines, population decreases, etc. - yet, musically the rooted traditions remain constant throughout much of the history). Its also interesting to note on India, in regards to natural resource relation to musical instrument development, that the very same resources used in manufacturing instruments are the same as other locations... even in the more technological west, where string instruments were introduced first around 1000 b.c.e and then again 1400 a.c.e (relative date on the latter, as harp, guitar, and lute instruments were already around at the time of the development of the first gambas). That the subcontinent used similar string instruments as early as Mehrgah Phase II (circa 9000 b.c.e) is very well attested to in the archaeological record. To restate this: the archaeological record shows that instrument usage predates singing by a good length. It also shows that different cultures, remote in both time and place (centuries and remote islands) developed identical musical beliefs independent of each other - and, this is a fact that has been identified and proved over and over again in many studies carried out over the course of 100 years. The reasons for this range from both the development of the human mind AND the need for man to communicate via music.

What role does all this play to modern composers and modern music itself? A great deal, I think. Having a clear understanding of past styles and traditions and the evolutions of your craft serve first to give us a chance to see ourselves in the big picture of things. Where do we as composers fit in with the history of music? Second, it helps us understand how others perceive music - from culture to culture. The usage of the intervals may be different... and different harmonic patterns, progressions, mutations, etc may exsist... but the fundamental roots of music are identical from culture to culture (if an asian and an african divide a vibrated string of the same length in half they will achieve the exact same pitch!) If they hit a drum of the same size and construction it will produce the same sound. To say that humans from 300000 years ago produced different types of sounds and musical ideas is liking saying that oil dissolves in water... the truth is, they didn't...

In regards to your last paragraph, I don't think modern art really is a good example... since currently the big fad is 'shock' art - art that is meant for the sole purpose of bucking established norms, etc. We just had a piece installed here in the city which, while to me not shocking, was removed because of it's supposed indecency. The artist of today is far removed from the artist of yesterday in several arenas... BUT the tools used are largely the same.. the difference: the motive of the art.

My fist is a force of nature! :ninja:

If you wanted truly "natural" music you should listen to Bartok's compositions based upon the Fibonacci sequence, since that's the ratio most often found in nature.

I agree that we, as listeners, beg for some sort of center (even if it shifts), but who can say that this is a matter of nature? Give me a child raised only on truly atonal music (as in, no tonal center, all pitches used given equal treatment) and see if they think the music sounds bad or wrong. See if they feel like it's unnatural. If they do, give me a call and we can talk.

Comparing Indian, Javanese, or Indonesian scale systems to the Western scale system is a joke. A raga is an undefined number of pitches. Okay, so they use a collection of pitches; this does not equal a key or tonality. Javanese and Indonesian music was traditionally played on percussion instruments with only one possible pitch, so of course they had to organize their pitches. Again, the music is "centered" in a collection of pitches by circumstance.

Even comparing early European music to tonality is difficult, since thirds/sixths were considered dissonant for a few hundred years. Take a long line and harmonize it in perfect fifths; does this sound "tonal"?

In regards to your last paragraph, I don't think modern art really is a good example... since currently the big fad is 'shock' art - art that is meant for the sole purpose of bucking established norms, etc. We just had a piece installed here in the city which, while to me not shocking, was removed because of it's supposed indecency. The artist of today is far removed from the artist of yesterday in several arenas... BUT the tools used are largely the same.. the difference: the motive of the art.

I skimmed the rest of it, sorry. But this paragraph interests me because I think it's a sham to call "shock art" as anything but a logical progression from the bleak realism of baroque art. Compare the combination of the vulgar and high-brow in ... I think it's Flemish painting from that time... to shock art's juxtaposition -- I think you'll find very similar artistic reasons for inclusion.

Comparing Indian, Javanese, or Indonesian scale systems to the Western scale system is a joke. A raga is an undefined number of pitches. Okay, so they use a collection of pitches; this does not equal a key or tonality. Javanese and Indonesian music was traditionally played on percussion instruments with only one possible pitch, so of course they had to organize their pitches. Again, the music is "centered" in a collection of pitches by circumstance.

See, but this is the wrong way to think about it. It's great to try and wrap your head around this music -- I see rag as analogous to dodecaphony in many ways, and comparisons to sonata allegro form can be made. I made a post in another thread about how, if the source is to be believed, a rag with the same notes as a major scale was said to have an affect resembling joy. The issue is when you say that it IS dodecaphony, sonata allegro, or a major scale.

BTW, what's a key if not a subset of notes that is used to provide structure to the melody? And what about the rebab in Indonesian music -- that's certainly got pitch to it, and likely is a kissing cousin to a vast number of instruments, not the least of which is the violin.

I skimmed the rest of it, sorry. But this paragraph interests me because I think it's a sham to call "shock art" as anything but a logical progression from the bleak realism of baroque art. Compare the combination of the vulgar and high-brow in ... I think it's Flemish painting from that time... to shock art's juxtaposition -- I think you'll find very similar artistic reasons for inclusion.

See, but this is the wrong way to think about it. It's great to try and wrap your head around this music -- I see rag as analogous to dodecaphony in many ways, and comparisons to sonata allegro form can be made. I made a post in another thread about how, if the source is to be believed, a rag with the same notes as a major scale was said to have an affect resembling joy. The issue is when you say that it IS dodecaphony, sonata allegro, or a major scale.

BTW, what's a key if not a subset of notes that is used to provide structure to the melody? And what about the rebab in Indonesian music -- that's certainly got pitch to it, and likely is a kissing cousin to a vast number of instruments, not the least of which is the violin.

I just disagree that one should look at modern art when analyzing the music of the past, ferg. I clearly see evolution from previous forms in today's art... BUT... I'm not going to take today's art and use it as a frame in which to analyze the musical conditions of the past. Technically, that should be done vice versa. And certainly, one similarity between the fad of shock art today and previous periods is that there is an inherent attempt of the artist to go against established norms.

Also... I bought a rebab a few years ago... I love it!!!

Binomial distribution is a discrete probability distribution describing the probability that exactly n successes is observed out of N independent trials, where the chance of success in each trial is p.

Binomial Distribution -- from Wolfram MathWorld

For example, consider successive coin tosses. The chance of seeing tails in each toss is half (p = 0.5). If you do it five times (N = 5), here is the probability distribution of seeing tails exactly n number of times:

n = 0, P = 3.1%

n = 1, P = 15.6%

n = 2, P = 31.3%

n = 3, P = 31.3%

n = 4, P = 15.6%

n = 5, P = 3.1%

The more times you toss the coin, it's becoming more and more unlikely that you see all tails (or all heads). If you toss the coin 10 times (N = 10), the probability that you observe all 10 tails (n = 10) is P = 0.1%. In other words, it becomes more and more unlikely that it's just a coincidence.

Now going back to the original post. If the following are true:

1. Music of Indian, Eastern Asian, Native American, Middle Eastern and African origin evolved independently (N = 5).

2. Without exception, all of them share the concept of tonic (n = 5).

3. Each culture has a 50% chance of arriving at the concept of tonic (p = 0.5; this is difficult to assess, but more on this below).

Then the probability of 'this is all just a coincidence' is 3.1%. But what if you think that the 50% chance is too high (isn't this just a coincidence?). Actually, if for whatever reason the chance is lower, the resulting binomial probability will be even lower! For example, if a culture has only 10% chance of developing the concept of tonic (p = 0.1), the probability that all of them in fact developed the concept of tonic is 0.001%.

It's all just a coincidence. Is it?

That's all fine and good, but having a tonic is not tonality; the fact that music gravitates towards something recognizable, which generally (but neither necessarily nor sufficiently) includes repetition of notes does not constitute a compatible system to tonality.

So, your analysis might be correct (my prob-stat days are over, sadly), but your assumptions aren't.

This actually ties into the discussion about art earlier: I viewed "shock art" as an extension of previous ideas because I looked at it in a temporally backward way. You're kind of doing the same thing, only with "world" musics and tonality. It's certainly not a wrong way to look at it, but I think it glosses over important details in this case.

Sadly, real study is the only way to settle this, and I've got work I get credit/paid for, so I can't really tell you to go find some evidence...

K, so let's start posting sources for the claims then. 100 year studies surely have lots of sources, right?

Oh and since you hate wikipedia, Jaw, post only from actual scientific journals and musicology studies.

Then there's scraggy like:

Most musicologists, the vast majority, find many evolutionary similarities between music of primitive time and music of today.

Most? Who, exactly?

The usage of the intervals may be different... and different harmonic patterns, progressions, mutations, etc may exsist... but the fundamental roots of music are identical from culture to culture (if an asian and an african divide a vibrated string of the same length in half they will achieve the exact same pitch!) If they hit a drum of the same size and construction it will produce the same sound. To say that humans from 300000 years ago produced different types of sounds and musical ideas is liking saying that oil dissolves in water... the truth is, they didn't...

What the hell are the "fundamental roots of music" again? And, again, sources? The truth is, you should define your terminology before you bother to walltext. I'm not really going to bother answering to the HUGE paragraph before that one precisely because, honestly, I skipped it the moment you started "omg SSC IS WROANG."

Nevermind that you're making some rather extreme claims yourself and saying you're backed by "musicology" studies, I guess I never came across all these wonderful studies then. Where are you getting your information from?

If one takes your outlook on this SSC, then one would expect in the early European tribes to see a more 'diverse' instrument availability

What the hell? Why would anyone expect that? I never said anything even remotely in that direction.

In regards to your last paragraph, I don't think modern art really is a good example... since currently the big fad is 'shock' art - art that is meant for the sole purpose of bucking established norms, etc. We just had a piece installed here in the city which, while to me not shocking, was removed because of it's supposed indecency. The artist of today is far removed from the artist of yesterday in several arenas... BUT the tools used are largely the same.. the difference: the motive of the art.

Oh please, give me a break. So the current big fad is something that happened all over the 20th century? We can't tell what the "big fad" is because nobody can look at the current zeitgeist in retrospective and make any sort of claim. We'll have to wait some 20 or 30 years until we can really say what were the big trends in the early 2000s. Nevermind that the artist today isn't using the same tools as the artist of yesterday, but then again what do you mean with tools again?

I don't know if you really understood what I was saying at all, lol. I don't think you did. But honestly, I'm "wrong" in my "claims," right. OK. Jeesh thread failed indeed.

Oh, and one more thing:

2. Without exception, all of them share the concept of tonic (n = 5).

3. Each culture has a 50% chance of arriving at the concept of tonic (p = 0.5; this is difficult to assess, but more on this below).

Tonic, eh? Sources plz that these cultures had a tonic in WESTERN SENSE. Yes! Otherwise why are you calling it that? Not "concept," I want to see perfect C major I-V-I cadences in every one of these cultures. Otherwise your approach to approximation can be as well faulty and bring down your claims to nothing. How "tonic-like" is "tonic-like" enough?

Same problems over and over again, come on.

Not "concept," I want to see perfect C major I-V-I cadences in every one of these cultures.

Why? I didn't even include western music in the population.

Why? I didn't even include western music in the population.

But you talked about tonic. That's good enough for me. If you want to exclude the comparison directly, define what you mean with tonic EXACTLY, and why it applies to all these other cultures. Don't use the word "tonic" unless you're SPECIFICALLY talking about the western traditional canon definition, otherwise words stop meaning anything.

K, so let's start posting sources for the claims then. 100 year studies surely have lots of sources, right?

Oh and since you hate wikipedia, Jaw, post only from actual scientific journals and musicology studies.

Then there's scraggy like:

Most? Who, exactly?

What the hell are the "fundamental roots of music" again? And, again, sources? The truth is, you should define your terminology before you bother to walltext. I'm not really going to bother answering to the HUGE paragraph before that one precisely because, honestly, I skipped it the moment you started "omg SSC IS WROANG."

Nevermind that you're making some rather extreme claims yourself and saying you're backed by "musicology" studies, I guess I never came across all these wonderful studies then. Where are you getting your information from?

What the hell? Why would anyone expect that? I never said anything even remotely in that direction.

Oh please, give me a break. So the current big fad is something that happened all over the 20th century? We can't tell what the "big fad" is because nobody can look at the current zeitgeist in retrospective and make any sort of claim. We'll have to wait some 20 or 30 years until we can really say what were the big trends in the early 2000s. Nevermind that the artist today isn't using the same tools as the artist of yesterday, but then again what do you mean with tools again?

I don't know if you really understood what I was saying at all, lol. I don't think you did. But honestly, I'm "wrong" in my "claims," right. OK. Jeesh thread failed indeed.

Oh, and one more thing:

Tonic, eh? Sources plz that these cultures had a tonic in WESTERN SENSE. Yes! Otherwise why are you calling it that? Not "concept," I want to see perfect C major I-V-I cadences in every one of these cultures. Otherwise your approach to approximation can be as well faulty and bring down your claims to nothing. How "tonic-like" is "tonic-like" enough?

Same problems over and over again, come on.

I'll start with the fundamental roots, since obviously you don't seem to understand. Music is produced in several ways and via several different means: string vibration, wind manipulation, and striking of different objects. These are fundamental roots available to every culture - not to complex to grasp, i hope. To go further, as I stated in my first response: two people remotely removed from each other will produce the same exact tone from a vibrated string the same length, divided at the same node; two people remotely removed from each other will produce the same tone from a drum the same size and made of similar material. This is what I mean by fundamental roots - the basic production of musical sound is identical from culture to culture and ruled in part by the physics of production (string, wind, and drum respectively - in laymans terms). Obviously, I assumed that you knew what I was talking about - my assumptions were wrong, my apology.

As for musical studies, I present the following short bibliography of selected works:

Musicological & Music Psychology Resources:

Curt Sachs, The Rise of Music in the Ancient World, East and West (New York: W.W. Norton & Co., Inc., 1943)

A.H.F Strangways, The Music of Hindostan(London: Oxford University Press, 1943)

Winthrop, Sargeant, "Types of Quechua Melody', Musical Quarterly (1934)

J. Kunst, Music in Java (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1949)

Alain Danielou, Northern Indian Music (London: Chistopher Johnson, 1949)

Leonard B Meyer, Emotion and Meaning in Music(The University of Chicago Press, 1956)

Archaeological Resources (too many to list, though a good introduction can be found:

The International Study Group on Music Archaeology; Welcome

I hope that is a sufficient start for you. As I've said before, I research my claims quite in depth and am always eager to share my sources. In regards to your latter comment regarding modern fads: l think the phase of shock art is indeed a fad, as have been previous fads of similar identification - if you take that as being ill-informed or misconstrued based on anything is completely your subjective opinion. I never said that 'shock-art' encompassed the entire 20th century either - It did not, in fact. Before you parse words and dig into me for my statements, i suggest you reread what I said.

I have no problem with modern music, nor do I have a problem with traditional music - I like both to varying degrees. I am free however to label something a fad just as much as you are free to disregard the past's relation to modern music.

But you talked about tonic. That's good enough for me. If you want to exclude the comparison directly, define what you mean with tonic EXACTLY, and why it applies to all these other cultures. Don't use the word "tonic" unless you're SPECIFICALLY talking about the western traditional canon definition, otherwise words stop meaning anything.

The concept of tonic or tonal center can be defined without a priori frame of reference.

http://www.youngcomposers.com/forum/what-tonality-atonality-means-me-post272606-17942.html#post272606

As we are considering music of non-western origin, I find it dubious to expect that they conform to western ideals.

*waits for SSC to write him off*

Ok, so you dumped a lot of literature there. Great. Mind pointing out from where you took what, specifically? I mean, I have no access to those resources at all from where I am so chances are I can't look at them, so that's why if you could provide more details that'd be wonderful. What did those books say that you used?

And, as far as the fundamental roots, that could mean a WHOLE LOT of things, I hope you realize. That's why I rather not assume and you should be clearer.

In any case, I really don't see the point in discussing any of this anymore since:

A: leaps of logic aside, there whole thing with tonality being natural is insane. It requires defining "natural" to begin with, which is already a problem. It requires defining "tonality" which is an even bigger problem. If "proof" is to be found in non-western cultures we can't even start calling these "tonalities" "tonal" in the same western sense, etc. Using terminology outside of what it's intended to explain will only cause problems as it negates the meaning they should have, as well as all the context they depend on. It's just a subjective judgment really. I can say a dog barking sounds like a C major I-V-I cadence, so sure enough tonality must be somehow linked to dogs as well!

B: Cultures can have things in common for a whole lot of reasons, but that doesn't mean the reasons are necessarily the same. Those reasons CAN be both governed by chance or necessity, it can go either way. This doesn't imply anything other than what it sounds, to make it mean anything you have to add an extra layer of meaning and that's usually where the problem starts. It's why, again, people have consistently failed to pin down aesthetics in music as a sort of genetic trait, or that the origin of music itself is nothing more than result of evolutionary processes not really related to music at all. But, really, that's been dealt with in other threads enough as it is.

C: We have almost none of the limitations these cultures had back then, and not only that but the frame in which art stands is so flexible that we can purposely make art to have NOTHING to do with what these past people did (either by direct opposition, or simply by going into completely different directions.) Hell, I'm have my doubts that music must necessarily exist outside of the mind, and that the imagination is any less "musical" than the actual process of hearing.

So, I don't know what the point of the thread is anymore. Until someone figures it out, I'll stop posting lol.

PS:

The concept of tonic or tonal center can be defined without a priori frame of reference.

Nope. I'm not going to bother enumerating the huge number of problems with what you're proposing, just try to do that on your own for now.

PS2: Turns out I already said a lot of what I would've said in that same thread you posted, LOL.