Hi Harry, I'm glad you've enjoyed the discussion betwen Ed and me regarding Huntington's "Clash of Cultures". However, that seems to have come to an end. Huntington's ideas must be left dangling for now.
Still with my pot of tea before me (now half empty) let me dwell on your last sentence where you wrote: <<<< I do think that civilization produces the culture, rather than being it. As a civilization advances, I would expect many more people who can work on Bach sonatas. I would also expect a lot more Bachs. But then - that's impossible isn't it? >>>> Yes -- but not for the reason that you may think. I think we can expect a lot more people with Bach's intellectual and artistic brilliance. But we can't expect another musician with Bach's entrepreneurial brilliance. The fact is that Bach consolidated a particular technical 'fix' on the choice of musical notes within the natural octave. He did this by writing a sort of technical manual, "The Well Tempered Clavier", in which he showed that tuning an octave into 12 notes not only produced a reasonably acceptable sequence of notes but also which could also be shifted upwards or downwards into different sequences (scales of the different keys). Many of the scientists of those times (roughly 1550-1700), such as Galileo, Kepler and Huygens had been trying to investigate the 'science' of music based on Pythagoras' original discovery that halving the length of a strong produces an octave (sounding harmonious to us), and a 2/3 fraction produces what we now know as a fifth (also sounding harmonious to us). From these, many musicians were trying to produce a practical system of notes in between. Hugyens himself suggested an octave containing 31 tones. Bach chose a 12-tone scale not only because it produced a reasonably acceptable set of chords that are not too dissonant but also because it was playable by the normal hand on a keyboard. He publicised this by writing "The Well Tempered Clavier" containing preludes and fugues in all the major and minor keys. He produced a standard for the clavier (piano) makers of his day, and also for his fellow composers. Thus, besides being a musical genius, he was also a sucessful entrepreneur in getting his particular (arbitrary) choice of tones acceptable by the rest of the musical profession. (If he'd been alive today he'd be as rich as Bill Gates and several others billionaires combined.) Many others have tried to establish other systems. Even in modern times some have tried, such as Fokker (1887-1972) with 31 tones per octave, Partch with 43, Handschin with 19, and so on. None have succeeded. Bach's choice of a 12-note system remains predominant in music. And, since the development of electronic instruments and the fixing of the central note A, at 440 Hz (roughly in the middle of our normal speaking and singing range), it's hardly likely that there'll be any further variations in the pitches and notes of a scale. The 12-tone octave wasn't perfect, but it was practical. And the same applies to rhythm in music. Probably 95% of all music is of a 2,3 or 4 rhythm nature -- corresponding to the natural activities of walking, dancing and running. Some composers (particularly modern ones) like to have the occasional 5, 6, 7 (or even more!) beats, but these usually serve as breaks within 'normal' music because they can't be comfortably sustained for long periods. Music is like several other great skills that were finally and fully developed in Medieval times, such as pottery-making, folk-dancing, painting, sculpture and several more. They'll all be subject to embellishments and variations for long into the future because they're so satisfying. But intrinsically, and technically, there's no further way to go. So you're right. Bach and his contemporaries fixed music for all time and we'll never see the like again. Keith At 12:36 16/10/01 -0700, you wrote: >Keith, > >This discussion with Ed is delightful. I have been enjoying it. It looks as >if civilization to Huntington is culture in the sense of a bunch of >whit-haired blokes in bathrobes sitting around thinking and communicating >great thoughts. > >He describes civilization as synonymous with culture, which I would suggest >is not too helpful, for cultures can be so different. So "civilizations" >will be different. > >I prefer to equate civilization with cooperation. A civilization can have >multiple races, every type of religion, a bunch of languages, many peculiar >political systems, but so long as they are all linked by peaceful trade, >they may call themselves a civilization. (Though they probably wouldn't.) > >Inasmuch as cooperation between people is increasing and free movement and >free exchange become the norm, it may be called an advancing civilization. > >Yet, as barriers to cooperation are erected, and coercion becomes the norm, >so can a civilization be considered in decline. > >I do think that civilization produces the culture, rather than being it. As >a civilization advances, I would expect many more people who can work on >Bach sonatas. > >I would also expect a lot more Bachs. But then - that's impossible isn't it? > >Harry > > >****************************** >Harry Pollard >Henry George School of LA >Box 655 >Tujunga CA 91042 >Tel: (818) 352-4141 >Fax: (818) 353-2242 >******************************* > > > > > ___________________________________________________________________ Keith Hudson, General Editor, Calus <http://www.calus.org> 6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England Tel: +44 1225 312622; Fax: +44 1225 447727; mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ________________________________________________________________________
