Music as Biology: The Tones We Like and Why

by Dale Purves

The universality of musical tones has long fascinated philosophers, scientists, musicians, and ordinary listeners. Why do human beings worldwide find some tone combinations consonant and others dissonant? Why do we make music using only a small number of scales out of the billions that are possible? Why do differently organized scales elicit different emotions? Why are there so few notes in scales? In Music as Biology, Dale Purves argues that biology offers answers to these and other questions on which conventional music theory is silent.

When people and animals vocalize, they generate tonal sounds―periodic pressure changes at the ear which, when combined, can be heard as melodies and harmonies. Human beings have evolved a sense of tonality, Purves explains, because of the behavioral advantages that arise from recognizing and attending to human voices. The result is subjective responses to tone combinations that are best understood in terms of their contribution to biological success over evolutionary and individual history. Purves summarizes evidence that the intervals defining Western and other scales are those with the greatest collective similarity to the human voice; that major and minor scales are heard as happy or sad because they mimic the subdued and excited speech of these emotional states; and that the character of a culture’s speech influences the tonal palette of its traditional music.

Rethinking music theory in biological terms offers a new approach to centuries-long debates about the organization and impact of music.

Genres: Music, Science, Biology, Psychology

176 pages, Hardcover

Published February 1, 2017

About the author

Dale Purves (born March 11, 1938) is Geller Professor of Neurobiology Emeritus in the Duke Institute for Brain Sciences where he remains Research Professor with additional appointments in the department of Psychology and Brain Sciences, and the department of Philosophy at Duke University. He earned a B.A. from Yale University in 1960 and an M.D. from Harvard Medical School in 1964.

Reviews

[Chris · Rating 3 out of 5]

It's rare to read a scientific book that flaunts it's bias so proudly. The author offers many interesting insights into how we listen to music but very little as to actually why music is as it is. It's obvious that the author understands music in a very superficial way, has learned about it on a scientific level and has limited understanding of its practice, development and diversity (also, some of these experiments presented are just baffling in their stupidity). The worst offense, though, is how the most insightful observations are not based on biology at all but on culture, yet still presented as biological...

Also the author seems to have a weird obsession about how music theory cannot provide answers as to why music is as it is, as if music theory even tries to give such answers...

There's still something to take from this book, and biology (obviously) is critical in our deeper understanding of the phenomenon of "music", but this is not a book with answers (despite it's bold claims).

You do get some answers thought: if you want to tell your friends how major scales don't use minor intervals as much as minor scales you now have some charts showing in a very complex way what a first-year music theory student can tell you. You'll also learn that we tend to prefer the frequencies we can hear!

Seriously though, if this book demonstrates something loudly and clearly is that only a dialectical, cross-disciplinary approach can provide answers to a phenomenon that involves and is born by both biology, history and culture.

[Uyar · Rating 5 out of 5]

A rather short book but Full of huge information.. a very intense book indeed.. you cannot get into it unless you know some musical information in advance.. a few tips:
Understanding music maybe better informed by its biological framework rather then based on mathematics or physics..
The elements of language learning in school are not Natural units of speech production or auditory processing...
I’m so impressed with the scientific background well just look at the Author..

[Brooke Schatz · Rating 2 out of 5]

I wanted to like this so badly. The biology and music did not feel well integrated. Adding “in biological terms” before discussing musical scales does not make that science rather than music. Also no one should ever be “confident” readers will have “fun” in a book with that many figures and references. 2.5/5

[Diana Olivares · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting perspectives of music from a biological/neurological standpoint. Very nice (informative) graphs.

[Macropsalis · Rating 4 out of 5]

Πολλή και ωραία πληροφορία για μουσικόφιλους

[Arihant Chawla · Rating 1 out of 5]

Very biased and myopic.

[Isaiah Fabbro · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was an interesting phase of my life.

[Mills College Library]

781.1 P9866 2017