.Thurs, 22 Nov 2001,
Michael
John Finley <mjfinley@shaw.ca> wrote:
This thought occurs [about] an
"extension"
to the "flute," and assumes that the idea of using an extension
required some sort of extra mental or technological leap beyond making
a "simple flute." But this is actually a rather ethnocentric
notion--- Our flutes are usually made in one piece, but there is
no real reason why a flute has to be conceived this way. Neanderthal's
instrument could equally well be called "a flute in
two pieces," and maybe making it that way was at least as natural
to Neanderthal as making it in one piece. Neanderthal was quite used to
making compound tools --- e.g. a spear consisting of a stone point hafted
on a wooden shaft. Maybe the "natural thing to do" for one with
his/her technology and mind-set was to make the flute in two pieces. Maybe
the real genius was the person who finally thought "hey, I can make
both the part with the holes and the mouth piece in a single bone if I
find one long enough!"
Two "just so" scenarios
that
would fit this hypothesis:
(1) Perhaps available materials in the Middle
Paleolithic just didn't lend themselves to 1 piece construction. Never
having seen either a modern flute or a suitable bear bone long enough,
it never occurred to Neanderhals that flutes should be 1 piece.
(2) Maybe the flute was preceded by some
sort
of bone or wooden whistle. A Neanderthal genius noted that he/she could
change the pitch of the whistle by sticking a hollow bone into the whistle,
and that the pitch depended on the length of the bone. Next step was the
discovery of a "variable pitch" whistle made by making holes
in the bone. I'm not asking anyone to accept either of these stories --
they are merely plausible. The point is that they are just as plausible
as the story that flutes are characteristically 1 piece items. We should
drop all speculations that would make invention of an extension either
more or less plausible than a 1 piece flute.
Of course, none of this removes the problem
that
we have only 1 piece of the 2 piece instrument (if that is what it is),
which makes any conclusion about its nature more speculative than we'd
wish. BUT we should NOT assume that a 2 piece flute is somehow INHERENTLY
less probable or less likely to be within the capacity of Neanderthals
than a 1 piece flute.
-- Mike Finley
Sat, 23 Dec 2000
Serge Laforest
[red5@videotron.ca] wrote:
"I will try not to sound too
impolite.
"I agree with some of your critics in
calling
your approach 'amateurish'.
"You claim you yourself have made
Irish
whistle and simple flutes.
"I am amazed how totally it escaped
you,
the tremendous difficulty of getting the fingerhole placement right so
the scale will be in tune.
"That simple diagram you have in your
article
claiming Re-hole should be 9/10th from the blowing end etc. is UTTERLY
ridiculous. Those ratios are applicable only for when you cut off the tube
at that particular spot, not for puncturing holes significantly smaller
in diameter than the bore diameter. Tonehole diameter, wall thickness,
and the interior bore shape are absolutely crucial in determining the
pitch."
All of those criteria, you dismiss by simply
saying something like - "the errors cancel each other and will not
affect the end result much"!
Even for a perfectly cylindrical tube, if you
puncture relatively small ( compared to the bore diameter ) holes where
the acoustic ratios seem to suggest, so long as the wall is not paper thin,
the resulting pipe will be out of tune beyond any hope of remedy unless
you enlarge some of the holes twice or three times as large as others.
Creating a pipe with fingerholes all more or less of same size is an art,
and to accomplish this, the ratio of Do to Re etc. is merely the crudest
beginning. You have to calculate all sorts of correction factors to make
them in tune, and the most important variables in this calculation are
: finger hole diameter, wall thickness, bore shape ( how much taper and
where ), bore diameter and the bore length. All but the last one, the bore
length, you seemed to have had the audacity to ignore and disregard in
your original conclusion.
I do not argue about the possibility of the bone
having been a flute. I just think the way you wanted to conclude that it
played the diatonic scale was too naive and amateurish, like that of someone
who never tried to hand-build a flute from scratch, calculating hole locations
using Benade's correction factors, etc.
Sat, 23 Dec 2000, Bob Fink to Serge
Laforest:
Dear Serge:
You wrote:
"I will try not to sound too
impolite.
"I agree with some of your critics in
calling your approach 'amateurish'.
"You claim you yourself have made
Irish
whistle and simple flutes.
"I am amazed how totally it escaped
you,
the tremendous difficulty of getting the fingerhole placement right so
the scale will be in tune.
"That simple diagram you have in
your
article claiming Re-hole should be 9/10th from the blowing end etc. is
UTTERLY ridiculous. Those ratios are applicable only for when you cut off
the tube at that particular spot, not for puncturing holes significantly
smaller in diameter than the bore diameter. Tonehole diameter, wall thickness,
and the interior bore shape are absolutely crucial in determining the
pitch."
I wish I had found an expert like you way
back
when I was first writing the essay. Even at this late date I still need
the data you seem to possess, as I tried in 1997, for months, in contacting
flute-makers, reading books, and so on, to make up for the lack of knowledge
I had when I first tried to analyze the Neanderthal Flute. Few of the people
who replied to me had answers to many of my questions, answers which I
now hope you have.
Just a side point: Of course, I am an
"amateur."
I hope you realize so was Edison, Galileo, Einstein and most of the people
whose ideas, however un-academically presented, made major breakthroughs
in their sciences. I'm not comparing myself to Einstein, but my essay has
had a major international impact. I hope you might recognize that
"amateurishness"
is not the issue -- only whether I am scientifically right or wrong should
matter, especially to the many readers of the essay & debate.
Getting back to that, as I am seriously open
to learning from your knowledge, I have some preliminary questions, if
you'll be so kind as to answer.
* How do you define "in tune" in
what
I quote from you above? Are you talking about an exactitude within a hundreth
of a Pythagorean comma? -- Or what tolerance do you allow?
This is important when dealing with ancient
people
whose raw material differs from one bone to another; and whose technical
knowledge and measuring skills cannot be significant enough to withstand
the standards of modern orchestral tunings [or to go beyond what you call
the "crudest beginning" for tuning & placing holes]. It also
gives definition your words "crucial to pitch" or to comments
I made about what "matters" and "doesn't matter" regarding
being "in tune."
* More specifically, regarding the 4 holes in
the bone flute, which are all about the same diameter, how much pitch change
(in terms of the percentage of a whole-tone) takes place if the hole diameter
is 25% larger or smaller (all other things remaining equal)?
This is one point of data I have tried to
discover
for years. If I can get the specific answer (or educated opinion based
on your experience) to that, I would have a lot that I'm seeking.
I'll ask other questions later, e.g., like about
the 9/10th figure, etc., as we proceed, if you're willing to help me
out.
Also would you be willing to have this
correspondence
placed in the debate section, as is, because readers learn more from the
pros & cons -- which is why I like to publish my critics rather than
my "supporters." The debate makes corrections that more closely
cut to the truth of a matter, no matter how far off the original essay
might be. I'm not interested in preserving my ego, but in improving and
correcting my presentations to be more accurate.
Looking forward to your reply & help.
Bob Fink
Sat, 23 Dec 2000, Bob Fink to Serge
Laforest
-- postscript:
Dear Serge:
While awaiting your answers to my first few
questions
I thought I'd write and fill you in on why I wrote what I did. Looking
more closely at your letter, I realize you may have rushed to judgement
mistaking the purpose for which I made the "model" flute in my
essay -- and "model" was perhaps a poor choice of words, misleading
you.
The acoustic ratios I used in that model were
based on the original findings from Helmholtz ("The Father of
Acoustics")
and, despite refinements since he wrote, they are ratios that are re-affirmed
by others, including Benade. [More about your comments on ratios
later.]
The modern craftsperson's bias of refined
tuning
of the scale is of course absolutely necessary if you want to craft a fine
well-tuned instrument.
But we are not here concerned with making a
modern
flute, but rather:Imitating the making of a flute 5o,ooo years
ago by an early human, who (if seeking to match a diatonic sound) would
"tune" it only in the (as you put it) "crudest" manner.
[I prefer the term "rudimentary."]
Thus I made a "model" flute as
if
its tolerances could be no better than a crude bamboo cylinder, and as
if I was stuck with using only crude flint tools for making holes. Applying
any refined corrections or construction techniques too sophisticated for
the time would have been a form of being ethnocentric.
Obviously, it's not enough to simply say
"out
of tune" or "in tune" without defining the tolerances for
it that also would be relevant to that long-ago time.
You cannot write about a savage's flute and
hole
diameters, wall thickness, etc., as if they could have known nor have discovered
the effects of these aspects on pitch (which I never denied do exist),
considering how the bone's bore, flare, wall, and ancient hole-drilling
accuracy itself varied widely enough to obliterate any noticeability
of these effects from bone to bone. If you can't notice them, you can't
discover them, and certainly not discover anything like Benade's refinements,
which are designed for tuning only a modern & very standard scale.
We don't even know if Neanderthals had language, much less algebra!!
We therefore can only use those ratios and
effects
that exist in nature, both now and also back then. We can only judge the
pitch and "in-tune"-ness of the artifact by the
"crude"
tolerances that reflect that time, not ours (and by using the physiological
averages regarding pitch perception of any non-trained human
ear).
I'm sure you'll agree one should not transport
modern tuning tolerances onto an examination of the ancient past.
Keeping all this in mind, regarding mine or
anyone's
definition, of what "in tune" means, please note this is
unavoidably
a subjective or almost arbitrary matter:
As you probably know, many people with
perfect
pitch [PP] even find a perfectly tuned tempered scale on a modern piano
absolutely and insufferably always "out of tune" -- and of course,
it IS out of tune. That's what "temperament" means. But the
"insufferableness"
of it, of course, is not nearly as present for most people without
PP.
Therefore, I had to assume Neanderthals, like
us, were a population few of whom had PP, and whose tolerance of what we
call "out of tune" would have to be considered at least as large
as, or larger than, our average person's ears today. (About one Pythagorean
comma before we can say it was "out of tune" for them, or for
any average ear.)
Certainly, as we are musically trained people,
their tolerance would be even larger than yours or mine. Indeed, modern
people have even been long-trained and conditioned to well-tuned standard
scales, unlike the ancients. Ancient peoples often had music (and rudimentary
scales) for centuries without having any idea of a "standard"
tuning for their scale.
So I limited myself to what Helmholtz and
others
have termed the most rudimentary and the most dominant aspect of
pitch -- namely the placement of holes at the nodes representing the ratios
of length on an approximately cylindrical tube, and, as you say, I took
the "audacity" to dismiss the other effects being not as
significant
to the problem, settling for what is (again, as you say) the "crudest"
form of tuning -- which, as you probably know, is all that could have
existed back then.
Your comments are most welcome and
challenging
in a way that should be informative to any of my critics and readers. I
await any specific data corrections that you may be able to
demonstrate.
I already have copies of the Benade formulas
on hand here. I just don't have any ancient Cave Bear cub femurs on hand
so as to experiment and input their measurements into the Benade formulas
in order to actually prove how significant (or not significant)
a small change in wall thickness, or hole diameter, etc., would be, as
a percent of a whole tone change in pitch. That specific information
or opinion is what I seek from you if you already know.
The largest change in pitch that my own prior
experiments have shown is that of location along the tube, all others being
small enough to justifiably disregard as not significant -- not insignificant
relative to modern tuning requirements, but insignificant only to what
can be expected from a Neanderthal's tuning.
It is surprising how close to being in tune is
the actual playing of the ancient bone in Slovenia, even without adding
any extended length to the bone. These musical test results are recorded
in an article in a recent book from the Smithsonian Institute, called the
"Origins of Music."
You will find similar results from the 9,ooo
year old still-playable flute found in China, which also is judged
as (relatively) diatonic to most researchers, although a couple of its
notes exceed as much as a quarter-tone off from any modern standard. See:
[ADDED NOTE: In looking at a 7-note scale
in
an ancient culture, can we only say they had an acoustically-based
diatonic scale if their artifact instruments were in tune by an amount
plus or minus no more than 100th of a tone? That would be an absurd conclusion,
in that the ancients probably weren't capable of that kind of accuracy
on an irregular bone. Nor do moderns, who can be that accurate,
really care if we are, considering that we tolerate tempered tuning on
keyboard instruments -- or worse -- which are not nearly that accurate.
We must set a tolerance based on physiological averages for human ears
to easily and consistently discern differences in pitch, and if the ancient
scale is in tune within those limits, then it is fair to say that they
"had the diatonic scale."]
Regarding the 9/10 ratio for "Re,"
that is based on Helmholtz' basic acoustic measurements, in which there
apparently are two possible acoustical or natural "Re"
tunings, one that is 8/9ths and the other 9/10ths. Which one to use [in
relation to the Neanderthal flute] is based only the possibility that,
like the ancient Greeks, the scale may have been played downward, using
a flatter Re as a downward "leading tone." Thus I chose the 9/10ths
ratio -- but that is just an educated guess, with very little else to support
either one over the other ratio for Re.
Thanks,
Bob Fink
.
Sat, 31 Dec 2000, Bob Fink to Serge
Laforest
-- postscript:
Dear Serge:
More about the 9/10
"Re."
In reading your letter, I took your word that
I had used the 9/10ths "Re." After three years since I wrote
it, I didn't remember.
Now I realize, looking at all my writings on
the Internet, that, after all, I never used any ratio in the published
material for "Re" other than the 8/9ths ratio.
I *do* have notes at home in which I
toyed
with using the 9/10th ratio, and I may have discussed a "downward
leading tone" with someone in the discussions -- but NOWHERE have
I used the 9/10 ratio in any diagram or anywhere else!
So I am now truly perplexed as to where you
got
that figure?
Can you enlighten me?
Bob
Sun, 28
Jan 2001 Serge Laforest [red5@videotron.ca]
Dear Bob,
I apologize for my tardiness in replying to
your
second letter. I was designing/constructing more flutes and didn't check
my mail box regularly enough.
You're right in wondering about the figure. I
believe it's a typo. I DID mean 8/9th for Re-hole etc. i.e. hole locations
striclty following the ratio of the wave lengths, and I DO stand by my
original opinion with this correction added, that is "It is too simplistic
to believe that the hole arrangement following the sequence of the wave
length ratios, 8/9, 4/5, 3/4, 2/3 etc. would result in the actual tone
sequence of Re, Mi, Fa, Sol, etc."
As for your first letter, I chose not to reply
as I wasn't sure what to make of your question about if I demand the exactitude
within hundredths of comma in my tuning.
That level of precision, as far as my
experience
goes, is something purely theoretical and of no practical
importance.
I believe now that you were probably defining
one extremity in terms of what one could possibly ask for from tunung,
and hoping that I would fall within the normal range, i.e. not that extreme.
In case of any confusion, I state here that I normally try to tune within
a comma using an electric tuner ( in other words, tempered scale ), and
usually as small deviation as possible with no strenuous adjustment at
the embouchure end, I'd say within ten cents. Only when the ergonomics
demands it, would I allow the deviation of up to a comma, approx. 25 cents,
and I add also that this is normally only for the notes using alternative
fingerings. Whenever it's possible, I try to make plus-minus-10-cents-in-tune
instruments which does not require blowing pressure adjustment to make
them more in tune.
You inquired about what effect 25% increase
in
diameter would have, I wouldn't be surprised if the reason few people,
from whom you requested this information, could give you a satisfatory
answer is the same as mine. The formulae to calculate the correction factors,
as explained by Benade, is a recursion process, approximating the ideal
answer at each step. From my experience, it happens quite regularly, that
one runs into a numerical problem, in which cases, the only thing I could
do was to make a guess, what I consider to be reasonable, but with little
scientific basis, and hope for the best. Most of the time, I had to significantly
undercut, bevel, or thin the wall to bring it in tune, or make a second
pipe anew altogether.
Because the formulae is recursive, as far as
I'm aware of, there's no mathematically worked out formula to solve it
the other way around, i.e. instead of solving it for the location, given
the note, hole diameter etc., try to solve it for the pitch of the note,
given the location ( the same ), hole diameter ( +25% ), other factors
( kept the same ).
To get some idea, albeit there's no guarantee
that it would be representative of all the cases, is for you to choose
the factors, i.e. wall thickness, bore length, bore diameter, location
of the other holes, and calculate first for a hole with diameter, say 'D',
and obtain the location for it, say 'x'.
Recalculate this time using 1.25xD, and see
how
far down the new location will be ( measuring from the blow end ). What
this correction factor ( the amount by which we had to move the hole downward
) means(approximately), is that the pitch of the hole ( of the diameter
1.25xD at the original location ) would be as sharp as coming from a hole
with the diameter D but further up the tube by that correction factor.
So if we could identify the pitch of the note from a hole of diameter D
but further up than the original by the correction factor, then we're done.
Unfortunately, as I said earlier, I don't know how to solve the formula
backwards, but what IS possible numerically, is to guess a few pitches
above the original note, say 100cents above it, and calculate for its location.
Do this for several guesses and compare their locations with what the original
correction factor suggests, then you get some idea where the note from
the hole with 25% increase in diameter at the original location
falls.
You asked for my opinion based on my
experience
about the effect of the tone hole diameter increase. The following is my
experience.
I've built flutes from as low as bass flutes
in D ( whole step above the concert bass flute ) to piccolos in D ( the
same as concert piccolo ), using bores as wide as two inches and as narrow
as 1/2 inch, in lengths as long as 4 feet or less than a foot, wall thickness
varying between 5mm and 2mm. I build simple flutes without recourse to
keys, so the finger hole diameter has the definite upper limit of, say
14mm for them to be sealable by the pads of my fingers. This creates acoustic
problems, esp. in the overblown register and hence the flutes using the
bore diameter bigger than 11/2 inches cannot really play more than 11/2
octaves (because their tone holes are too small relative to the bore diameter
).
I remember most vividly about the effect of
the
hole diameter increase in the mid range ( because that's the range I worked
most on ), say, bore length between a foot and a half to 2 feet and a half,
bore diameter between 14mm to 25mm, wall thickness about 3mm, the bell
note around the middle C on piano, plus minus major 3rd. I drill the holes
using a small bit of diameter 3 to 4mm and widen them afterwards using
a knife, constantly checking for the pitch sharpening, using the tuner.
In most cases, after I ream the hole with the knife for the first time,
(effectively doubling the diameter to, say, 6 to 8 mm), I see the rise
in pitch by anywhere between a semitone and a wholetone plus 50cents. After
that, the rise slows down, and I cannot raise the pitch much more than
by a semitone, even if I significantly bevel the hole.
I don't know how you wish to interpret this
quite
crude testimonial, but I'd say because the doubling ( 100% increase ) resulted
in approx. a whole tone rise, at least in the beginning, it is reasonable
to assume that 25% increase could change the pitch by 50 cents, a quater
tone, at least, when the hole is rather small realtive to the bore
diameter.
I read your reply to somebody, explaining how
the acoustics can derive the major diatonic scale. I agree with your argument
in general, however, I felt several points in it were misleading, though
it may suffice as an explanation to a novice to the theoretical side of
music.
In short, I do not believe the acoustics, the
science of sounds, can derive the major scale (Ionian mode), independently
of influences of culture, taste, etc.
And if you intend to contend that the
reasoning
you gave for this process of deriving the major scale "only using
the acoustic principles" can give you the right to claim that the
major scale is something independent of cultural influences and thus universal,
I have to say, I completely disagree.
I do agree with you and in fact find your
process
of deriving the major scale out of overtones of Do, Fa and Sol, quite neat
and elegant, let alone it being absolutely scientific and
culture-independent.
What I DO find objectionable is to mask the
fact
that your choice of Do, Fa and Sol as the starting point notes is already
influenced by your cultural bias. In fact, there's no basis at all for
considering those three to be universally primary. For example, you could've
chosen Do, Sol and La. This would give : Do, Sol, Mi, Sib; Sol, Re, Si,
Fa; La, Mi, Do#, Sol. Using only the strongest overtones, we get Do, Re,
Mi, Sol, La, Si. The only catch is that Fa will be weak and that Do# appears
strongly, which suggests that this 'major-diatonic' requires to be harmonized
bearing in mind the ambiguity of the 4th note and that the octave might
not be exact.
It is true that the perfect 5th is considered
most fundamental after octave by many cultures, but choosing the perfect
4th as the next most fundamental is, to my mind, not at all culture/taste
independent [ the fact that the perfect 4th IS the interval between the
second overtone Sol and the third, Do 2 octaves above the fundamental,
is ONLY one reason to favour it over other choices].
As I illustrated above, it is possible to derive
the 'major-diatonic' using three notes other than Do, Fa and Sol ( albeit
imperfectly, from the stand point of someone wishing to harmonize using
the [ European ! ] standard chordal progression of I, IV and V ).
An offshoot of this is that the reverse is also
true. You illustrated yourself that by replacing two ( Mi and Si ) of the
three weaker overtones ( Mi, La and Si ) by two of the next strongest overtones
( Sib, Mib and Fa ), you get a minor-sounding scale.
In effect, not only that there's no universal
'scientific' reason to choose which notes to be the most fundamental, there's
no basis either to strictly correlate those chosen fundamental notes to
a particular scale, unless you have a particular chordal progression in
mind, which is BTW culturally influenced. This is just another way of saying
the age-old fact that one could compose a minor sounding tune using a 'major'
scale, or its opposite, compose something cheerful using the so-called
'minor' scales.
What would we get then, if we restrict
ourselves
only to the two most fundamental notes, Do and Sol and their stronger overtones
?
We get Do, Sol, Mi, Sib and Sol, Re, Si, Fa.
I would take two first (different) overtones of Do and only one overtone
of Sol ( because the reason Sol is considered to be the second most fundamental
is that it IS the first (different) overtone of Do, and because the overtone
series diminish in intensity the higher it goes ), which gives Do, Re,
Mi, Sol.
This is the pentatonic scale from northern
Asia
( with which, incidentally I'm familiar with, as I do throat singing a
la Tuvan style ).
Now, we have a choice, to let in Sib ( the next
overtone of Do ) or Si ( the second different overtone of Sol ). Choosing
the former makes the scale sounds 'Mixolydian' as the leading tone to the
tonic Do is a whole tone lower than the tonic, while the latter choice
makes it sound more Ionian ( major ). I'm familiar with the Irish music
where the Mixolydian mode, or the mode with the semi-flat 7th note ( called
'blunt' ) were/are once very popular and common. This fact plus the fact
that the maqam "JiharKah" ( basically the major diatonic except
that the seventh is half-flattened ) is one of the primary modes in the
Middle Eastern Music, seem to give us the right to claim that at least
in those parts of the world, the Mixolydian mode ( by choosing the third
different overtone of Do, 'Sib', and the third different overtone of Sol,
'Fa' ) was more primary than the ionian, the major diatonic. Possibly,
the pure Mixolydian appeared first, but the quality of its leading tone
was uncertain due to human (this seems to be quite common, though I'm not
sure how universal it is ) preference for the leading tone to be at least
as close to the tonic by a semitone, and later, this preference forced
the Mixolydian to become Ionian.
This is merely my speculation,
BTW.
Perhaps, when you used the term
"major"-scale,
you were refering to the so called "major-sounding" scales in
general i.e Ionian, Mixolydian, Lydian etc., and in that case, I feel less
objection. [Incidentally, what you wrote as the "minor" scale
resulting from substituting Mi and Si by Mib and Sib, is also, strictly
speaking, not the natural minor, "Aeolian". It is Dorian, what
you get when you play from D to D on the white keys of the piano. It IS
considered "minor-sounding" by many. ]
Over all, when I used the word
"amateurish",
I was refering to what seemed to me to be the case: you are dealing with
too many uncertainties. Scientific investigations are possible only when
one could somehow restrict the number of variables by convincingly presuming
certain of those variables to be irrelevant and focusing on only one variable
at a time and do the experiment using 'controls' to compare and measure
the effect of the change in this variable. I see three major variables
in your investigation: the embouchure type, the overall bore length and
the original ( pre-erosion ) hole size. [I would give you that much that
the original wall thickness can somehow be estimated, and that the original
location of the centres of the holes are reliably established]. You seemed
to be attempting to concentrate on the third variable while neglecting
the first two, which are, to me, much more important, in the given
order.
Shakuhachis ( the Japanese end-blown flute )
are notorious for being able to 'bend' the pitch by the embouchure adjustment
alone, by major 3rd ! The concert flute, on the other hand is more limited,
perhaps a semitone and 50cents at the most.
I believe the effect at the embouchure end is
the most deciding factor in the hole placement design. I can tell you many
frustrations I expereinced trying to duplicate an in-tune flute by making
an identical one but for a thicker lip plate. I subtracted the additional
thickness of the new lip plate from the original distances of each hole
from the blow hole, and thought that would work. I was totally wrong !
Because the blow hole is significantly narrower than the bore itself, the
flattening effect of the additional thickness of the lip plate was considerably
more than I thought. At the end I had to resort to 'trial and error' before
I found the right location.
It might seem reasonable also ( once the
embouchure
type is ascertained ) to assume a constant pressure at the embouchure end,
but it's not so simple here either. Perhaps not as much as for the double
reed instruments, but the upper notes of flutes DO require faster air stream,
even before we go to the over blown register, esp. when the tone holes
come significantly closer to the blow hole. And this is why it is quite
tricky to predict the scale meant to be played on an unknown flute. One
could say, in case of that 9000 yrs old Chinese flute which was still playable,
that assuming that the ancients constructed it to be played with more or
less constant ( disregarding a minor, but steady increase in the air stream
speed, which is quite naturally controllable for any competent flutist
) embouchure control, it can lead us to believe that so-and-so scales were
played on it.
In the case of the Neanderthal flute, the
uncertainties
regarding the embouchure and the bore length, render the whole investigation,
in my mind, a speculation at the best.
I'm not saying because it's a speculation, it's
not interesting. On the contray, I find the whole story extremely fascinating,
but I would not try to turn this 'speculation' into a rather far-fetched
claim that the major diatonic, aka Ionian mode, is somehow THE logical
scale for hominids, universally and independent of culture, taste,
etc.
I feel I expressed too much of my criticism
over
your endeavour, I hope you don't take this in a wrong way ( BTW you're
welcome to post this on your site, I just wasn't sure where to put it,
that's why I'm simply using the 'reply'-function of Messenger ).
I may in fact have one good news for the
cause
of your speculation/investigation.
I think you might find it interesting, if you're
not aware of it yet, to learn about the Basque fipple flute called
"Txistu".
It is less than 40cm and plays two octaves diatonically ( chromatics
possible with half-hole-ing ), but it's played with the left hand alone
since it has only four holes including the thumb hole ! The bell-note
plus the four holes give Do, Re, Mi, Fa and Sol, which are in fact already
in the overblown register ( similar to Arabic nays ), and for La, Si and
the next Do, they play by overblowing the 5th above Re, Mi and Fa ( of
course, this Do can be played as the octave above the bottom Do as well
), and we continue in a similar manner for another octave. Obviously, the
higher one goes, more alternate fingering options. [Emph added --
Ed.]
Pushing this idea to its extreme, one could
imagine
a flute with only three holes, which plays Do, Re, Mi and Fa as the first
overtones, Sol, La, Si and the next Do as the 5th above Do, Re, Mi and
Fa, etc.
The only requirement for such a flute is that
in order to facilitate the overblowing ( remember, the bottom octave is
already played by overblowing ), the bore diameter has to be small in comparison
to its length, and possibly, some internal webb-ing, as in nays made from
reed, which may function as wave guides to facilitate higher notes.
I have no idea how narrow or wide a typical
bone
can be, but if it's possible to assume it be narrow enough, perhaps, you
can dispense with the idea that the bone fragment under consideration had
a further extension with more holes on it, which idea, I must admit, seems
like presupposing a tad too many if's.
From the picture of a Txistu that I saw ( I
never
played one and haven't built one yet either ), the three finger holes seem
to be located fairly close to the bell-end while the thumb hole was relatively
further up. So, even if it's possible to assume that all the holes are
concentrated near one end, one probably still need some extra length to
connect that portion to the blow-end. Again, the missing tube. The difference
this time is, as I said above, we don't need to assume that this missing
tube also had holes, it could be just any tube of the right diameter and
length. This assumption seems to take less effort to swallow, if one wants
to 'speculate' !
Good luck with your research ! --
KS
Sun, 28 Jan 2001, Bob Fink to Serge
Laforest
Dear Serge:
Thank you very much for your very
informative
reply.
I honestly bow to your knowledge of this
subject,
and if I ask sometime in the future a few questions about the effects that
a thumbhole can have, I hope that you will have the time to reply.
In the meantime, just a few points, based on
what you wrote.
My only actual "conclusion" in the
Neanderthal Flute Essay was that the hole spacings of the 4 holes were
"consistent" with those that might be found on a diatonic flute
-- and I grant all the rest was speculation -- I prefer "educated
guessing."
However, I have concluded that the major,
minor
& pentatonic scales have a natural foundation, but not
from the evidence of only the Neanderthal bone, but from
a whole host of other matters, from acoustics, history of musics, to the
latest 9,ooo year old playable flute from China, as well as Prof. Anne
Kilmer's interpretation of the most ancient known song as
diatonic.
I came to write the Neanderthal Flute Essay
already
holding this bias. Lacking any other explanation (by anyone) for the hole-spacings
on the Neanderthal bone, its ability to suggest a diatonic scale series
was a good fit to prior information and to my bias, which I didn't
try to hide in the essay text.
There is one clarification: My assumption that
an extension might have existed to this flute did not include
assuming it had extra holes at all. Simply that an added mouthpiece might
have been more comfortable than that larger bone's end, and long enough
also to bring it closer in tune (if) the holes were "meant" to
play a do-re-mi-fa series.
I accepted in the essay that it could have been
a short bone with a 4 or 5 note scale. I am no paleontologist, so I hesitated
to conclude anything longer.
There is evidence that the length of the
original
juvenile cave bear femur bone might have been longer than its discoverer,
Ivan Turk, has concluded. Several museum experts much earlier independently
confirmed for me (before I wrote the essay) that the bone could have reached
the required length (appended). Whether to assume an extension, or not
need to, depends on whether they are more right than Turk.
There is an inconclusive opposing
"hole"
that might be a thumbhole, and what a flute player could do (to play a
diatonic series) on a short bone, using a thumbhole, I know nothing about
(yet).
Best wishes, and thanks very much -- Bob
Fink
======================APPENDED ( from
April-May,
1997)
From: Boylan P., P.Boylan@city.ac.uk
"Since
[my letter] of 11 March, I managed to work on quite a few immature cave
bear bones in the collections of the Zarodny (National) Museum in Prague
and there's no problem about getting your required length [37cm] so far
as I can see from various bones from the same region."
From: treasure@CTCnet.Net Organization:
Treasures
of The Earth Ltd. "Thanks for the clarification [of me offering
Jay the width dimension]. Yes, a juvenile bear femur could be 37cm or
longer."
--Jay (Treasures of The Earth Ltd.)
From: Wm Nolen Reeder,
wreeder@Traveller.COM
"According to both our mammal curator and our director, the femur
of a black bear cub (less than two years old) would easily be long enough.
A two year old cub is about two thirds grown but still remains with the
mother so therefore is still considered a cub." --Wm Reeder, Birmingham
Zoo Webmaster
==================================================
