Jul 31 2009
We’ve spent some wonderful time in Hawaii again this year, visiting friends on Oahu, enjoying the breathtaking landscape of Kauai, and attending Ben Verdery’s annual masterclass on Maui. We had the pleasure of performing in three concerts, and premiered the new piece Thomas Donahue wrote for us, Scientiphilicity. It has been wonderful once again to have had the opportunity to study and perform in this beautiful setting. I’ve posted some photos of the islands to our gallery page.
I’ve been struck this year once again by the physical beauty of the islands, but also, as I’ve read about their geologic history, by just how rare and special this place is. The islands arose from the movement of tectonic plates, resulting in the creation of huge volcanic mountains, some of which rise over 30,000 feet from the ocean floor. The combination of the extreme geographic isolation of the islands — over 2,400 miles from the nearest land mass — and the persistent trade winds has created the remarkable climate that shaped — and continues to shape — the landscape. The winds bring moist ocean air from the east; as the air encounters the volcanic mountains and travels upward, it cools and brings rain. This process occurs continually, so that regions at high elevations receive abundant rainfall. Mt. Wai’ale’ale on Kauai, for example, is one of the rainiest spots on earth, with over 400 inches of rain annually. As the air continues to the west side of each island, it is depleted of moisture, resulting in dry conditions on the leeward side.
The rain results in significant erosion, which is one of the forces that has created the magnificant terrain on Kauai and the other islands. Eventually, erosion and other physical, chemical and biological forces will take their toll, and each island to sink below the surface of the ocean. The oldest of the main islands, Kauai, is only 5 million years old, but in another 2 – 3 million years it will be reduced to a much smaller island, similar to the small, uninhabited islands that extend to the northwest along the Hawaiian Archipelago.
The youngest of the islands, the Big Island of Hawaii, is less than half a million years old, and is still forming from active lava flow. Maui is only 1.3 million years old, but it, too, in a few million years, will be gone. To put that in some perspective, consider that the earliest humans — not Homo sapiens, but closely related hominids — already existed when Maui was forming. Or imagine the history of the earth compressed into one day: Maui would have existed for only the last 30 seconds of that day, and in another few minutes, would be gone.
But as older islands die, new ones are born, each unique, each beautiful in its own particular way. We as humans are fortunate to exist in this period of geologic history when we can enjoy this truly incredible place.
Notes
The geologic information above is from Kauai’s Geologic History by Chuck Blay and Robert Siemers, published in 2004 by TEOK Investigations.
Email this post
Apr 12 2009
Left: Albert Einstein in 1905.
On a recent trip to Boston, we had the pleasure of meeting Edvin Østergaard, Ph.D., a Norwegian composer and scientist. He is currently a visiting scholar at Harvard University, where he is working on a choral piece based on a text by Charles Darwin. Edvin has composed several pieces that use science as inspiration, and has also written on the connections between science and art. He published a paper in 2006 entitled “Composing Einstein: exploring the kinship of art and science,” in which he discusses his composition The Einstein Resoundings, commissioned by the Norwegian Society of Physics in 2005 for the centenary celebration of the publication of Einstein’s papers on special relativity and the particle nature of light.
In the paper, Edvin discusses complementarities of art and science, as well as differences. One particularly interesting section is his consideration of creativity:
This leads us to a final question concerning differences between art and science: Do scientists discover, while artists create? There are deep-rooted and equally problematic prejudices in both directions: The scientist is supposed to discover, that is to say reveal, unwrap something already existing, whereas the artist’s creation is unique. A common view of the artist is of someone who creates what did not exist beforehand. However, as Gunther Stent argues, we find uniqueness in both artistic and scientific work. It is evident that the exact synthesis of the elements of physics in the 1905 papers would not have existed without Einstein, no more than Fünf Klavierstücke would have existed without Schoenberg. On the other hand, a theory of relativity would most likely have been developed even if Einstein had failed to do so in 1905, and dodecaphony would most probably have been formulated even if Schoenberg had not got there first. Michelangelo talked of his sculpture in terms of removing superfluous marble covering the immanent form of the stone. The form of the statue is already there, he claimed, waiting to be dis-covered. Is it thus more relevant to define art as well as science as both commonplace and unique?
Both scientific and artistic creativity operate within certain bounds. Scientific insights must be tested by others and verified experimentally. Artisitc creations, while not subject to empirical verification, do have to pass a test of sorts. In a piece of music, for example, the composer must express something that others will respond to — the music must, in however abstract a way, communicate something true, something human.
Edvin concludes:
Creation is an ongoing process that has always existed and will continue to go on. Art and science are inextricably connected to the will to bring to expression. Although artistic and scientific expression themselves may be totally different — in terms of form, language, and aesthetic — there nevertheless seems to be a common striving to bring to the surface. And although what is brought into the world may seem new, fresh and innovative, the process itself is of archetypal dimensions. In this sense the world is not finished — it is open.
Maybe the most characteristic common hallmark of art and science is the resounding imperative of opening — by always questioning accepted truths.
Notes
Edvin’s paper is Østergaard, E. (2006) Composing Einstein: exploring the kinship of art and science. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews 31:261–274.
The reference to Gunther Stent in the quoted section above is to Stent, G.S.(1983) Creation in art and science. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews 8:371–378.
Apr 1 2009
There has been a good deal of research done on music and the brain, some of which is described in recent books such as Daviel J. Levitin’s This Is Your Brain on Music: The Science of a Human Obsession and Oliver Sacks’s Musicophilia: Tales of Music and the Brain. The areas of the brain involved in processing music are well understood, and anatomical differences in the brains of musicians and non-musicians have been described. Far less research has been done on what happens within the brains of musicians while they are performing. One reason for this is no doubt due to a practical difficulty — pianos and guitars don’t fit into MRI instruments. However, a few recent studies that examine the brains of musicians provide some interesting insights.
Only one of these studies examines the brains of musicians while they are actually playing. Charles Limb of the NIH and Alan Braun of Johns Hopkins University devised an experiment that would allow them to see changes in activation of specific brain regions in experienced jazz musicians in the act of improvisation. They were interested in determining if particular patterns of neural activity were associated with spontaneous musical performance. They used functional MRI (fMRI), a non-invasive technique that measures blood flow to different areas in the brain. They contrasted what they observed when the musicians improvised with what happened when they played memorized musical passages.
They found that improvisation involved a deactivation of some brain regions and an activation of others. Specifically, the areas deactivated were those typically involved in self-monitoring and self-evaluation, while areas activated were those that play a role in self-expression and the creation of internally-motivated, stimulus-independent behaviors. It appears that these musicians were shutting down regions that would inhibit the free, creative, uncensored expression of musical ideas. This certainly makes sense — experienced improvisors would have to have this ability, to allow the free flow of creativity — but it’s remarkable that it can actually be observed at the level of blood flow within the brain. It would be interesting to know whether musicians who are less experienced or less effective at improvisation would show this same pattern.
Another interesting recent study was performed by Elizabeth Margulis and colleagues at the University of Arkansas. Rather than observing actual performance, they used fMRI to examine neural responses when musicians listened to music played on their own particular instrument of expertise, or on another instrument. The study was designed to explore whether extensive experience playing a particular instrument — in this case, either violin or flute — affects the neural response when listening to music played on that instrument.
They found that musicians had more extensive and complex neural responses to music played on their instrument compared to music performed on another instrument. Brain areas activated under these circumstances include those related to sense of self, motor control and the suppression of unwanted movements. Margulis is quoted as saying that “some of the brain activation suggests that they could detect more subtle differences in sound when listening to their instrument of expertise.” These findings are perhaps not unexpected, but they do highlight just how engaged the brain becomes when hearing music that one has a long, intimate, physical connection with. And they suggest that the response is learned — an innate ability to process music in this way would not likely be instrument-specific.
And finally, another recent study looked at musicians’ brains while performing non-musical activities. A team at Vanderbilt University used near infrared spectroscopy to monitor blood flow to cortical regions when individuals — either musicians or non-musicians — were given problems to solve that required creative thinking. They found that, compared to non-musicians, musicians showed a greater capacity for creative, or “divergent,” thinking, and observed a greater degree of bilateral frontal cortical activity while problem-solving — that is, musicians showed more use of both hemispheres. One of the researchers, Bradely Folley, said that “there seems to be a qualitative difference in how [musicians] think about this information.” An interesting question that arises from this study is the origin of this difference: are people with this bilateral pattern more likely to become musicians, or does long experience with the highly complex activity of making music train the brain to adopt a bilateral approach to problem-solving?
Notes
The study on neural activity when listening to different instruments is described in Margulis, E.H. et al. (2009). Selective neurophysiologic responses to music in instrumentalists with different listening biographies. Human Brain Mapping 30:267-275. Further information can be found in a news account at the University of Arkansas web site.
The research on brain regions active during jazz improvisation was published in Limb, C.J. and Braun, A.R.(2008) Neural Substrates of Spontaneous Musical Performance: An fMRI Study of Jazz Improvisation. PLoS ONE 3(2): e1679.
The study on cortical activity patterns during problem-solving can be found in Gibson, C., Folley, B.S., and Park, S. (2009) Enhanced divergent thinking and creativity in musicians: A behavioral and near-infrared spectroscopy study. Brain and Cognition 69:162-169. An account of the research can also be found at physorg.com.
Email this post
Mar 14 2009
This year marks the 200th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin, as well as the 150th anniversary of the publication of On the Origin of Species, the book in which Darwin first presented his theory of evolution by natural selection. Darwin’s ideas profoundly changed our thinking about our physical origins and our place in the natural world. In the context of Darwin, it is interesting to consider what evolutionary theory has to say about the origins of music and its role in human development. What did Darwin have to say about music? What is the current thinking about the role of music in human evolution? In short: why does music exist?
This isn’t a question that is asked very often. Music is so ubiquitous in our culture that most of us take it for granted. And for musicians, music feels so much a part of us that to wonder about where it comes from and why it exists takes us into unfamiliar territory — contemplating a world before music, or a world where music never came to be.
However, the question has been asked, by Darwin himself and by many researchers after him, and the subject continues to be an active area of research. And while there are many theories, there is not yet — and perhaps cannot ever be — a definitive answer.
The simplest explanation is that there is nothing to explain — that there is nothing special about music. It doesn’t serve any big purpose, it hasn’t played any important role in human evolution; instead, it is an accident, a parasitic phenomenon that lives off of other, more important cognitive abilities like language. In the words of Steven Pinker, it is “auditory cheesecake” — pleasurable, but nothing more.
To many people, and probably most of all to musicians, this view doesn’t make much sense — music feels to important to be an accident, a mere by-product of language or other human abilities. And several more objective observations would seem to support this objection. For example, music is universal, existing across the world in all cultures. And it has been around for a long time — what appear to be musical artefacts have been discovered that are estimated to be 40,000 years old. If the first music used voices or simple percussion, it could be much older since those activities would have left no trace. Music could be as old as Homo sapiens itself.
Music is also a major human activity, something we devote considerable energy to. Tied closely to dance and movement, music literally costs energy — and evolution doesn’t tend to keep things around that are costly without benefit. It is also interesting to note that musical ability may have a genetic component; the rare condition known as amusia, in which an individual is unable to recognize music as anything other than noise, is in some cases heritable. And finally, proto-musical abilities appear very early, showing up in infancy.
If music is more than an accident, then what is it? Here, there are many theories. Darwin thought it had to do with courtship and mate attraction, like a peacock’s plume — the better the chops, the more attractive the guitarist and the more offspring to pass those skills along to. It has also been thought of as a special language important for mother-infant bonding. It has been suggested to play a role in human cognitive, motor, and social development, and to be important for social cohesion.
It seems clear that music is a type of language, but it is distinct from spoken language. Different parts of the brain are used in the two activities. And while music, like spoken language, is communicative, it is not so in a direct, informational way. Its capacity for emotional communication and transformation lends support to a role in promoting group cohesion, something that would be tremendously important for the development of a social species such as our own. In this regard, a recent study is interesting. Researchers at Northwestern University found that musicians were better than non-musicians at picking up on auditory emotional cues. They noted that “musical training enhances the perception of vocally expressed emotion.” So music may prime us to read emotions better, and music itself may be an effective way to communicate emotion, particularly in group settings.
So while there are no clear conclusions and much speculation, research into the role of music in human evolution continues. What is clear — both objectively and subjectively — is that, whatever its origin, music is a fundamental part of what it means to be human.
Notes
Daviel J. Levitin’s fascinating book, This Is Your Brain on Music: The Science of a Human Obsession (Dutton, 2006) contains an interesting chapter on music and human evolution.
A review of theories of cognitive evolution and the role of music in human evolution can be found in article by Ian Cross entitled “Is music the most important thing we ever did? Music, development and evolution,” published in Music, Mind and Science (Seoul National University Press, 1999, edited by Suk Won Yi).
An article by Alan R Harvey entitled “Music and Human Evolution,” published by the Music Council of Australia, contains pictures of a “bone flute” dated at 40,000 years old and includes images of brain areas activated during music listening.
The research paper on the enhanced ability of musicians to read emotional sound cues is: Strait, D. L. et al. Musical experience and neural efficiency — effects of training on subcortical processing of vocal expressions of emotion (2009). European Journal of Neuroscience 29:661-668.
A recent article in The Economist contains a general account of current theories.
Email this post