World Shakuhachi Discussion / Go to Live Shakuhachi Chat
You are not logged in.
Here's an interesting report of a 35,000 year old end-blown bone flute.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news … ument.html
I asked baroque flutemaker Rod Cameron how one blows such a flute. Here's his reply,
"Notched flutes are very common in ancient bone flutes and I have made replicas that are now in Scottish museums. The notch is a fast way to produce a rough Shakuhachi blowing edge. It gives a focused breath target and is blown exactly as you would your flutes, end blown and hunt for the sweet spot. Hold it exactly as you would your own designs."
Alan
Offline
Ive made flutes from leg bones of deer that I shot, killed, gutted, packaged and ate... yummy food and good flutes... I used a dremmel to make them.. they are really loud and prolly best heard from a distance such as outdoors on a hill serenading the village below...yea loud!!
Offline
The assumption is that these instruments were used for music, but I question this. similar instruments were uses by the Maori here in Aotearoa, New Zealand to lure birds.
I can accept they were used as a tool for communication, but to go further and assume Music would require more evidence.
Kel.
Offline
Karmajampa wrote:
The assumption is that these instruments were used for music, but I question this. similar instruments were uses by the Maori here in Aotearoa, New Zealand to lure birds.
I can accept they were used as a tool for communication, but to go further and assume Music would require more evidence.
Kel.
sound = music
music = sound
Offline
I am a little more discriminating than that.
I don't regard the sound of my flatulence as music, nor the rumble of city traffic.
Neither do I regard Music as always an Art, or entertainment.
But regarding this find, I wonder what the scientist that comments on it being used for Music is thinking.
I would ask "what is my intent in producing that sound" ?
Kel.
Offline
Others may not ask that question, and still hear music simply because they were listening.
Offline
Karmajampa wrote:
The assumption is that these instruments were used for music, but I question this. similar instruments were uses by the Maori here in Aotearoa, New Zealand to lure birds.
Kel.
Hi Kel
- How many holes did those have? Then,
- Would they be capable of playing music? How capable? (Here I'm thinking this depends largely on what variety of pitch they are capable of producing). Finally,
- Is it known whether the Maori ever also used them for music/entertainment? (I'm thinking, if I had a flute which was made for hunting but had the ability to play music, when I wasn't hunting I would surely use it for playing music!)
Last edited by Justin (2009-06-30 00:48:19)
Offline
Are we equating the Maori with 35,000 year old cavemen?
Do NOT answer that, it was a joke.
I am going to record w/ a Maori dude next week! Awesome drummer.
Offline
madoherty wrote:
Others may not ask that question, and still hear music simply because they were listening.
I think I smell John Cage's ghost draggin' his chains around in here....
Offline
In the study of ethnomusicology, music is usually defined as 'humanly organised sound' (quote from John Blacking). I think this is a good thumb rule to remember as the discussion of what 'music' is, can be very emotional and personal. What is music for Mr Smith may not be music for Mrs Hansen. And what is music for one group of humans in the world is howling for another group of humans.
So, I'd say the Maori flute is creating music in a certain way - with a distinct purpose, of course. But who said music needs to be for something else such as recreation (as you already mentioned, Kel)?
I don't know if I am getting myself into trouble here, but in a way, if blowing zen is not music but doing zen - it has perhaps something in common with bird luring - it can still be heard and perhaps experienced as music.
Then the discussion can always go onto: Is birdsong music? Perhaps not before Messiaen wrote them down?
Kel, I think your question is a good one to ask. It is not sure these 35,000 year old flutes were used for recreational music as we know of today. They might have had a certain purpose such as bird luring - but we will probably never know. But then on the other hand perhaps they were singing and playing.... That we will never know either. But then again, music is one thing that all groups of humans in the world do (as far as I know) - so music have started somewhere.
BTW with the bird life in New Zealand - no wonder the Maoris still use the traditional flutes to lure birds. I loved the little birds coming so close to you and all the birds that don't fly.... I stayed in NZ for about a year and almost immigrated there.... Wonderful country!
Last edited by Kiku Day (2009-06-29 02:37:24)
Offline
I willrephrase my point, to avoid a sticky.
reading http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8117915.stm the implication is that music was the intended use, I don't argue that that may be so, though the search for evidence continues.And that is fascinating. However my contribution to this picture is that similar instruments, made of albatross bone, were used for a specific purpose, to lure birds. Different materials were crafted to produce the different bird sound. Some were strung with flax and spun to produce a whirring. others were made by blowing through a narrow blade of grass. Some are like the occaron with a small number of holes to produce the few notes that bird made. The 'poi' is a ball of flax on a cord that is hit onto the shoulder and can sound like a bird in flight. That is used in modern Maori dance. The 'noseflute' I hear in song also.
Birdsong is musical, I don't argue with Messian.
Kel.
Last edited by Karmajampa (2009-06-29 03:21:40)
Offline
edosan wrote:
madoherty wrote:
Others may not ask that question, and still hear music simply because they were listening.
I think I smell John Cage's ghost draggin' his chains around in here....
not a ghost. not Cage. but perhaps the influence... perhaps - nice cat catch Edosan.
Last edited by madoherty (2009-06-29 03:52:43)
Offline
I thought alot of music was repetitive... so if you can be repetitive on your choice of instrument then you can have music? like the heart beat is repetitive so we can have life? Good music breaks the repetition even as it conjoins it together?
Ive made some really crappy flutes before.. not in tune with themselves at all or anything else..experimental hole placements...lol
I could still be repetitive with the notes and find notes that sounded good one after another before I burned them and tried to make a better flute.
Offline
Karmajampa wrote:
I willrephrase my point, to avoid a sticky.
reading http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8117915.stm the implication is that music was the intended use, I don't argue that that may be so, though the search for evidence continues.And that is fascinating. However my contribution to this picture is that similar instruments, made of albatross bone, were used for a specific purpose, to lure birds. Different materials were crafted to produce the different bird sound. Some were strung with flax and spun to produce a whirring. others were made by blowing through a narrow blade of grass. Some are like the occaron with a small number of holes to produce the few notes that bird made. The 'poi' is a ball of flax on a cord that is hit onto the shoulder and can sound like a bird in flight. That is used in modern Maori dance. The 'noseflute' I hear in song also.
Birdsong is musical, I don't argue with Messian.
Kel.
sorry, but I just had to say some of them were made out of two hands cupped together with the breadth of life creating an interesting sound...hand cooing in the owls... note changes according to size and shape of cupped hands and opening and closing the hands just right to raise and lower the tone. I pratice handcooing alot lately
Offline
Kiku Day wrote:
In the study of ethnomusicology, music is usually defined as 'humanly organised sound' (quote from John Blacking). I think this is a good thumb rule to remember as the discussion of what 'music' is, can be very emotional and personal.
Hi Kiku
Interesting view. For some reason it conjures to my mind the shouts of army sergeants yelling commands at their squad. Their shouts are humanly organised. But I don't hear them as music. Or the beeping of traffic lights to signal we can cross. These sounds are organised to provide function, but I cannot imagine them being called music.
I agree that it is difficult to talk about music in definitive terms, but for me, that is because music is personal, by necessity. And for me it is connected, or rooted, in an intention. I wouldn't label that intention as entertainment (although it could be) - for example I think music in worship is quite fundamental. For lack of a better expression, I would say their has to be "musical intent" for me to call it music. Of course I can still enjoy unintentional sounds with a musical-like appreciation. But mere imitation with intent to trap, I would think of as something different. (Indeed perhaps even dry imitation of "music" I might not call music but that is another story!) The way I was taking your line of thought, Kel, was concerning music as being with musical intent. I think it's an interesting and significant question. Even, the lines between the two may blur (the dry violinist, the inspired Maori trapper!)
Karmajampa wrote:
[...]similar instruments, made of albatross bone, were used for a specific purpose, to lure birds. Different materials were crafted to produce the different bird sound.
How many holes?
Karmajampa wrote:
Some were strung with flax and spun to produce a whirring. others were made by blowing through a narrow blade of grass. Some are like the occaron with a small number of holes to produce the few notes that bird made. The 'poi' is a ball of flax on a cord that is hit onto the shoulder and can sound like a bird in flight.
Those seem like perhaps they would be more limited to the task of specific imitation (which may limit them then in a more broad sound creativity) than the looks of the flute recently found. By the looks of this recent find, it can produce many different notes and so has wide musical potential. My logic and sense tells me that would be intentional and if I were to imagine myself in the place of the maker of that which the picture displays, I imagine my intent to be musical. Then even if it wasn't, I think it a near impossibility that such an instrument of wide potential would not be used, played with, experimented with, and the results found pleasing and repeated. Even a child finds fascination in the sounds of a flute it may happen upon. But more likely than that, I expect it to be the product of an older ancestor, from a still farther history of music.
Justin
http://senryushakuhachi.com/
Offline
In discussing cultures where there was/is no conceptual distinction between science and religion/magic, playing a "song" (however primitive or complex) with the intent of calling god/s or spirits, or facilitating childbirth, or easing the passage of the spirit after death, or whatever, was done with no less literally pragmatic intent than a hunter using a bird call to attract prey - because spirits, souls, and gods being called existed in the same literal sense that the birds being hunted existed.
Is "music" defined by intent or form?
I hear Luigi Russolo calling!
Last edited by ABRAXAS (2009-06-29 11:54:55)
Offline
So when Stockhausen includes factory noises and locomotives in his music, do the industrial sounds become musical because of the change in intention or were they musical in the first place and only Stockhausen knew it?
If I imitate John Coltrane we would all agree that that is musical but if I imitate a bird apparently some would feel it is not music. So exactly where would you draw the line between bird calls and music?
Offline
Jim Thompson wrote:
So when Stockhausen includes factory noises and locomotives in his music, do the industrial sounds become musical because of the change in intention or were they musical in the first place and only Stockhausen knew it?
If I imitate John Coltrane we would all agree that that is musical but if I imitate a bird apparently some would feel it is not music. So exactly where would you draw the line between bird calls and music?
Olivier Messiaen?
Offline
ABRAXAS wrote:
Olivier Messiaen?
Heitor Villa-Lobos?
A guy standing next to a Buddhist temple imitating its' sounds with a shakuhachi?
Offline
Exactly!
But then I'm one of those people who thinks anything that sounds good, intentional or unintentional, is "music."
For several years my favorite music was an old air conditioner, sometimes in harmony with an electric fan.
Offline
For me the most interesting part of this thoroughly fractured thread is the human erring desire( my own included) to get everything classified and nailed down. What is the motivation or purpose of establishing walls where none exist? Things just don't want to stay in the little boxes I've given them. It's frustrating. One can get quite exercised about it.
Offline
Jim Thompson wrote:
For me the most interesting part of this thoroughly fractured thread is the human erring desire( my own included) to get everything classified and nailed down. What is the motivation or purpose of establishing walls where none exist? Things just don't want to stay in the little boxes I've given them. It's frustrating. One can get quite exercised about it.
Word!! Word UP, even.
It's the *ALT* version of the goddam jignashi thread...
Last edited by edosan (2009-06-29 13:12:01)
Offline
edosan wrote:
It's the *ALT* version of the goddam jignashi thread...
I believe the key combination is control/alt/delete.
Offline
Oh shit'o Ed! I fell asleep and woke up in a jinashi thread. Help! Help!
Offline
Chris Moran wrote:
edosan wrote:
It's the *ALT* version of the goddam jignashi thread...
I believe the key combination is control/alt/delete.
Chrispy, you should know by now that that don't work here, ever.
Offline