Three little bones

Shortly after Elizabeth's ascension to the throne, and paralleling the development of the transistor as I have outlined before, a boy was born, a boy who loved mud, dirt and making things.

Aided by a trip to Woolworths where his father purchased battery, flashlight bulb, switch and wire, he became infatuated with all things electricity. Meanwhile, out in the world, Moore's law was making its interminable progress

As a boy he loved to take things apart to "see how they worked". Regrettably he was not equally good at reassembling them, so in consequence he amassed (and probably still does) a vast stock of bits and pieces. On one, well-remembered occasion he attempted to build a radio using these parts. The chassis was made of Meccano and there was an ear phone and a volume control somewhere in the mix, but these and many other pieces he joined together without much understanding and somewhat randomly. He reasoned that the stuff had once constituted a working radio so why not again? To his upmost disappointment it did not work. He got better at this sort of thing over time although probably still reveres the age old method of trial and error mixed with a good portion of hope which gave Edison the light bulb.

Later he was taken to an amateur showing  see the Moody Science Institute Faith and Faith film "Dust or Destiny" which explored the wonders of the human body. He was, of course, fascinated, hooked, even infatuated. Then it was in 16mm acetate medium and the projector interested him almost as much as the content. Now-a-days you can watch these films on Youtube. 

At that time in school biology he happened to be studying the five senses and recalls handing in some homework in which he had reproduced material from the film in graphic detail: he got full marks but also a caution about keeping to the question...

But the workings of the ear (to take one example) are indeed amazing. Here's a picture of the three bones of the inner ear, which carry out impedance matching to maximise the transfer of energy from airborne sound to vibrations in the inner ear fluid.  Striking a tuning fork and then pressing its foot onto a wooden surface amplifies the sound in a similar way. All fine and dandy in theory, but if I were to design a microphone with inner workings that looked this messy I can be pretty sure it would fall on deaf ears so to speak.

Three tiny bones in the middle ear

Quote: The malleus and incus are suspended by two ligaments that provide an axis of rotation so that the middle ear bones pivot when the tympanic membrane vibrates. The footplate of the stapes inserts into the oval window of the inner ear whence nerve endings detect what we perceive as sound.

And then there's the cochlea or organ of Corti, the inner ear which transfers these vibrations into nerve impulses. All told, the ear surpasses most if not all man-made microphones in terms of sensitivity (quote the sensitivity of the ear is close to the ultimate limit at which it would begin to detect the noise fluctuations in the air) and dynamic range (around 120dB).

Quote: The inner ear is divided into two fluid filled chambers... The fluid in the two chambers differs on the basis of the kind of salt that each contains. The fluid in the outer or bony chamber is filled with a sodium salt solution (called perilymph) that resembles the salt composition in the blood or the fluids found in the brain. The inner or membranous chamber is filled with a potassium salt solution (endolymph) that resembles the fluid that is normally found inside the cells of the body. Specialized cells that line parts of the membranous chamber and “pump” potassium into the membranous chamber maintain the difference in concentration between the two chambers. The difference in the chemical composition of these two fluids provides chemical energy (like a battery) that powers the activities of the sensory cells. 

The inner ear organs must be small because any increase in their size would increase their mass... [which would] decrease the sensitivity... The mass of the cochlear sensory epithelium is further reduced because it has only a small number of blood vessels... reduced by a unique system for converting the metabolic energy from sugar and oxygen in the blood into an electrical potential... the auditory system is sensitive enough to “hear” the vibrations associated with blood moving through blood vessels. It is fortunate they are located away from the organ of Corti.

There's much more detail freely available on the internet. You can find papers that purport to explain such workings of the human body and the implied evolutionary process but they often seem to me to use highly specialised terms only to obfuscate, for example (my emphasis):

All reptiles and birds have only one middle ear ossicle [bone], the stapes or columella. How these two additional ossicles came to reside and function in the middle ear of mammals has been studied for the last 200 years and represents one of the classic example of how structures can change during evolution to function in new and novel ways. From fossil data, comparative anatomy and developmental biology it is now clear that the two new bones in the mammalian middle ear, the malleus and incus, are homologous to the quadrate and articular, which form the articulation for the upper and lower jaws in non-mammalian jawed vertebrates. The incorporation of the primary jaw joint into the mammalian middle ear was only possible due to the evolution of a new way to articulate the upper and lower jaws, with the formation of the dentary-squamosal joint, or TMJ in humans. The evolution of the three-ossicle ear in mammals is thus intricately connected with the evolution of a novel jaw joint, the two structures evolving together to create the distinctive mammalian skull. 

Suffice it to say the design of the human ear is remarkable. Some would see this as evidence for an Intelligent Creator but then what or who designed the creator? By introducing God the need for intelligent design has simply been shifted. That all reptiles and birds have only one middle ear bone whilst we have three implies an evolutionary step which creationists contest. I am not endorsing either view (frankly I do not know) but I do marvel at how a bunch of bones, tissues, blood and gore could possibly detect sound with a sensitivity sensitivity close to the theoretical limit and enable us to communicate and to enjoy the emotional depths and artistry of music. Could a random assembly of electronic components ever become a first class radio receiver?

When I am laid in earth

When I am laid, am laid in earth, may my wrongs create

No trouble, no trouble in thy breast;

Remember me, remember me, but ah! forget my fate.

Remember me, but ah! forget my fate.

The occasion: Dame Janet Baker performing, in 1966, the role of Dido from Purcell's opera Dido and Aeneas. Apparently it is widely considered to be one of the greatest expositions of tragedy in modern operatic history.

The reason? One of the zillion or so O-levels I did at PSS was music. Our teacher was Harold Perkins. I excelled in music theory but my lack of understanding of the plot cost me dearly - I passed but did not have a good grade. I remember two set works, one was Dido and Aeneas and the other Brahms Saint Anthony Variations. I had not a clue as to what was expected of me as far as understanding these works, but I enjoyed the music and this many years later still do. So, if I am at all musical, it is only a very simple sort of musical. But as long as I don't try to be something I am not, I think that is OK.

What this post is meant to be drawing attention to is the beauty, the poignancy, the emotion in Dido's lament, which has haunted me ever since. Well not exactly haunted, but stayed with me at least. Which is all the more remarkable because as a rule I dislike opera - I do not like the highly trained voices, as a result the lyrics are hard to make out and if you do the plots are often imbecile - in short it is music at its worst, rather like putting raisins in rice pudding. This of course is IMHO and if you happen to like opera I salute you for your endurance.

Here is a more recent performance which includes some sheet music and words.

Whilst writing, here's what I did this afternoon. I attacked Silsean from its backside as an alternative access - so I cycled up the road behind Knockalt and parked the cycle in the forestry area. That oblique line on the map represents a fence. The fence posts are there (concrete too!) but no wire. One wonders what the purpose is or was!

Silsean from Garryknock forestry

Me atop the cairn

The cairn atop the mountain

Mediocre

"Well, sir," said the Cabby very slowly, "a chap don't exactly know till he's been tried. I dare say I might turn out ever such a soft 'un. Never did no fighting except with my fists. I'd try -that is, I 'ope I'd try - to do my bit."

Mediocre - adj. of only average quality; not very good.

Thus, by definition, most people are mediocre. Me too. "He's putting himself down again", I hear you say or, "talking about himself again"... Well, it is my blog and you do not have to read it. Anyway I am just saying what's true. I might be a jack of all trades but I am master of none. I think my dad was much the same so maybe he's to blame.

I love (some) music but my understanding, repertoire and ability is very limited.

I love good food and even once cooked a meal in a startup restaurant. But maybe because I don't like stuff one is meant to like (under-cooked cow, sea-bugs, broccoli, olives...) I could never become a chef.

I love making or mending things but I don't have the patience to become a craftsman.

I enjoy running and the solitude and time with God it affords, this being the only "sport" I have ever found remotely enjoyable let alone been able to do. But even at school I clocked in only average in the annual cross country race, and nowadays youngsters whiz past me on foot or bike.

True, I excelled in Physics and Maths at school, left Oxford with honours and a got prestigious engineering job but even there my abilities were eclipsed by that of some of peers.

Since then I've earnt a living doing contract design work but I'm not rich yet. And I thought I was good at programming until I read about SOLID.

I thank God for my four wonderful children and what they have achieved, each experts in their field, but, although I meant well, I cannot take credit and sometimes I cringe when I look back.

I get involved in our local church out of what I hope is a right desire but only God knows how effective this is for I don't see much evidence.

Not that I'm complaining, being happy enough to let the world go by. Maybe if I had persevered at music, or tackled post graduate work at Oxford, or not resigned from the BBC, or had a few more children to practice parenthood on, or gone to seminary to become a preacher...

I wonder - is it OK to be only of average quality and not very good at anything at all?

American football coach George Allen noted that "most men succeed because they are determined to". Sure - I'm not giving up yet!

Something inside reminds me that "Jesus, looking at him, loved him, and said to him, 'You lack one thing: go, sell all that you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.' Disheartened by the saying, he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions."

Taste

We humans are remarkably similar - especially in our baser respects many of which can be summed up as one or another expression of self-gratification. And so it can come as a bit of a surprise when our tastes differ so much.

Mowgli: You eat ants?
Baloo: You better believe it. And you're gonna love the way they tickle. 

Or olives, lettuce, avocado, prawns (I call them bugs), black (blood) pudding... not that I won't eat those things but they wouldn't exactly be my favourite. Snails and frogs legs I haven't even tried, nor do I intend to.

I may have mentioned that I live in a community - there are about 35 of us. There can be some interesting clashes of taste especially with décor and household goods. Having said that we have largely learnt to push through such differences, otherwise we wouldn't still be living together. But I still ponder how one person can specifically choose an item that is distasteful, even abhorrent, to another.

Music can be defined as "vocal or instrumental sounds (or both) combined in such a way as to produce beauty of form, harmony, and expression of emotion" but Wikipedia adds that defining music turns out to be more difficult than might first be imagined. Because here the range of tastes is so wide that any one person might not, even with the best will, be able to squeeze all that is labelled music into his or her personal understanding of the word. Even within the community here, which is relatively conservative, the range of tastes is wide enough to include (not wishing to offend) sound that, to me, is just jangling noise.

We (not me) bake our own bread so that, at lunch time, the bread served is often fresh out of the oven. This alone is a compelling reason for remaining part of the community. Furthermore, folk ahead of me in the queue often leave the crusts and thus I get to have the very best part of the loaf! So I find that differing tastes can actually work in one's favour. The key here is to decide to like something that few others do.

I was reminded of such things when I read this review of Bruckner's music (my emphasis):

His music doesn’t titillate, it doesn’t go in for surface excitement, and you’ll be hard pressed to find a single whistleable tune in his entire output. His orchestration isn’t glamorous, he doesn’t employ seductive harmonies and, what’s more, his symphonies last up to an hour-and-a-quarter in length.

Thankfully a David Singerman of Birmingham City University adds the following comment to the web-site which so admirably sums up my own response:

You made the absurd statement that you can't find a single whistleable tune in his entire output. Bruckner, in fact wrote some of the most beautiful melodies in the 19th century. Just listen to the opening of the 7th symphony, or the numerous beautiful themes in the second movement. The moderato theme in that movement is in my opinion the most beautiful melody ever written. The second theme of the slow movement of the 5th symphony was called by Robert Simpson in "The Essence of Bruckner" as one of the world's great melodies. Or listen to the Benedictus of the F minor mass. Throughout his music, Bruckner wrote one beautiful melody after another.

Or in another damning review:

Amsterdam's Concertgebouw, who visit London's Barbican... to perform three Bruckner symphonies, will unleash sounds of orchestral ugliness and visions of existential disturbance that will - that should - have you quaking in your seats.

Granted you are unlikely to hear Bruckner on Lyric-fm or in any performance in the National Concert Hall but there are plenty of recordings available to make up for this sad omission. I am happy enough that so few have any taste for Bruckner, or fresh crusts, or evaporated milk, because it helps to keep these things sacrosanct for those of us that really appreciate them.

Noise

Music ought to be but not always is the epitome of wanted sound. In contrast, according to Wikipedia, noise is any unwanted sound. But that cannot always be true.

In most cases noise is not only unwanted but it is also impossible to eradicate. In electronics, noise it is that "hiss" you hear from the speaker even when no music is playing. It is most likely thermal noise and is caused by the random fluctuations of electrons. Every resistor (and an electronics circuit has many) must exhibit thermal noise. The analog in hearing is the hiss that young ears can just about hear due to Brownian motion of air molecules hitting the ear-drum. The only way to eradicate either example of noise is to reduce the temperature to absolute zero but for most of us this is impractical. Much effort is devoted in electronics to minimizing noise or to extracting the wanted "signal" from the inevitable noise "floor". Because it is unwanted, "noise" by definition carries no information. Whereas "signal" by definition most decidedly does carry information. As an electronics engineer I suppose that a good part of my life is spent fighting noise in order to extract signal.

Because we are not used it, total silence can be unnerving. Personally I like it to be quiet. That is one reason why I like living in the country and to do stuff like climbing mountains. Although I dislike man-made noise I love to hear the wind, rain or sea. Some people like to imitate such sounds to help them sleep.

My son and his family have recently moved from the USA to live in Ireland. His girls apparently are so used to noise that they cannot sleep without a noise machine and so they brought one with them. Having suffered the inevitable from plugging it into 230V mains I had opportunity to open it up and discovered with surprise that it consisted simply of an electric fan (so I replaced the motor).  Surprise, because the same thing could have been achieved with some simple electronics and I reckon the manufacturing cost might be and certainly the running cost would be less. To think that they are paying good money for electricity to generate noise which the majority of us are trying to eradicate!

Television Centre

Back in the days of analogue TV the video electrical signal was distributed via coaxial cable. Simplistically, the blood, sweat and tears of a TV production was sent to the transmitter and thence to its millions of viewers via such a cable. In a tea-time discussion when I was working for the BBC the philosophical question was raised - what if the transmitter were replaced by a 75-ohm resistor? Television Centre with its coaxial cable output would be none the wiser. In this way the highly ordered signal that conveyed and thus was the essence of this production would be all "used up" or dissipated in that resistor. Which is kind of the inverse of a resistor generating thermal noise.

Song of Albion and Sushi

When I started my Song of Albion series on music I thought I would keep posting on the subject - I have plenty more material - and perhaps I will sometime - but I have kind of run out of steam because, well let me explain the connection with sushi.

The idea of eating cold raw fish has never appealed to me so sushi would not be something I would choose. Any more than jellied eels or cold borscht. Give me fish and chips or cheese on toast or a bacon butty any day. But yesterday my daughter invited me to her home-brew sushi party and kindly assured me she had prepared sushi made with chicken to soften my experience. I had no problem with the seaweed or the special sushi rice - the taste was OK - but everything on my plate was so cold and clammy. And why spend all that time chopping stuff up small and packing it into strange cylindrical shapes? I don't get it. And yet the rest of the party apparently enjoyed their raw fish versions. And other folk across the globe apparently enjoy the sushi experience. So either they are all putting on a show or else I am weird.

And if I am weird (by which I mean having very peculiar tastes) then what is the good of me making any comment whatsoever on a subject like music which is so subjective?

Song of Albion 5

To start at the beginning of this series of posts on music click here. The title "Song of Albion" in an allusion to Stephen Lawhead's trilogy - chosen because his concept echoes some of my own thoughts.

Have you noticed how, in community singing, people rarely give the last note of a phrase its full musical measure? To the point that, if you do, you feel totally out on a limb? You may also have noticed that kid's recorder playing can be painful? And yet a recorder consort can make a surprisingly beautiful noise, for example:

In a recent post I pointed out that you can get away with low resolution colour in video provided outlines in the picture portrayed are sharply defined. Edges, boundaries, have great importance. "Remove not the ancient landmark which thy fathers have set". Children, indeed all of us, need clear boundaries for living. In science at least (what do I know of other subjects?) concise definitions are essential for the development of argument, and a definition limits a concept within a boundary. So it is with music. Without boundaries to say how long a note should be played, or at what pitch or intensity, music would be chaos. "If even lifeless instruments, such as the flute or the harp, do not give distinct notes, how will anyone know what is played?" Correct intonation is what differentiates the good musician from the masses. "Correct", of course, does not necessarily imply rigid time or even perfect pitch because music is not mechanical - it breathes life from its creator.

Boundaries and edges imply variation. If all parts of a picture were the same colour then there would be no edges and it could hardly be called a picture. The amount of variation will of course vary according to mood. Turner (one of my favourite artists) uses this to great effect by exaggerating lack of definition to emphasise the edges of his subject. Presented with chaos the eye tries to find definition. That's how my mother reckoned she could see all many of shapes in cloud formations, shapes that I could never see.

"Rain, Steam and Speed", J. M. W. Turner

The "Fighting Temeraire", J. M. W. Turner

The master knows just where to place an edge to full effect. I used to teach people to drive. When sitting in the passenger seat it becomes quickly obvious whether the student has good control of the car or not. The car obeys a good driver and one feels safe. Conversely the car seems to have a mind of its own and takes the bad driver by surprise: it is uncontrolled, no edges. I know when my piano playing is good because, at those (rather rare) times, I find the sound it makes is exactly what I want.

In community singing (for example praise and worship in church) we may not be wanting a "performance" but I see no reason why the music should not be "good".  Why should our singing always be as loud as possible but the last notes of each phrase be curtailed, why not embrace more variety in rhythm and style, and in instrumental accompaniment? Should we not strive to increase the beauty in all that we do?

Mind you, I remember a man in the church my grandparents went to - Smee was his name I think - he sang the hymns with a loud and raucous voice hopelessly out of tune and, when challenged on the subject, I remember him saying that he knew he couldn't sing well but his over-riding desire was to use whatever he had, voice included, to give glory to his God and no-one was going to stop him. And at the time I bought that argument, and I still do. Nevertheless I long for something better...

Previous post
Next post

Song of Albion 3

Historically the concept of musica universalis described the way in which the heavenly bodies were thought to relate harmoniously - the "music of the spheres". Likewise the terms musica divina "music of the gods" and musica humana - of the human body suggest that order exists in all these areas. That the music we listen to is somehow based on, indeed caused by this intrinsic "music". I have already mentioned how this idea is suggested in the Bible, is the theme in the Song of Albion trilogy and the creation of Narnia.

In the darkness something was happening at last. A voice had begun to sing. It was very far away and Digory found it hard to decide from what direction it was coming. Sometimes it seemed to come from all directions at once. Sometimes he almost thought it was coming out of the earth beneath them. Its lower notes were deep enough to be the voice of the earth herself. There were no words. There was hardly even a tune. But it was, beyond comparison, the most beautiful noise he had ever heard. It was so beautiful he could hardly bear it. (The Magician's Nephew, Lewis).

So - what is music and why or how is it important to us?

In effect it might be "Vocal and/or instrumental sounds combined in such a way as to produce beauty of form, harmony and expression of emotion". Mechanically it is true that the pitch and timing of the sounds that make up music are related by whole-number ratios, indeed these ratios are almost synonymous with the term "harmony".

Many people say they listen to music for its emotional effects but I think it can go deeper than that.

Michael Card has noted that "Socrates once said, "when the soul hears music, it drops its best guard." That, for me, is one of the best descriptions of the power that music has. With music it is 
possible to open a door in the heart of the listener... It has the power to transport us, can rob us of ability to listen to the lyrics... Therefore, we must pass on to our children a biblical value system which is shaped by an awareness of the power and true purpose of music. We must listen along with them."

Some would say that the primary purpose of music, or when music does its best, is in worship of God. 

Considered a simpleton by his contemporaries, the composer Bruckner showed remarkable boldness when he said "They want me to write differently. Certainly I could do, but I must not. God has chosen me from thousands and given me, of all people, this talent. It is to Him that I must give account. How then would I stand there before Almighty God, if I followed the others and not Him?" 

Music is a major part in the activities of most Christians (and those of other religions) - in our church meetings we typically start with half an hour of "praise and worship" followed by the "word" or preaching. Why would we want to spend all that time messing with music if it were not a vehicle for our convictions?

And yet not all music has the same effect. Music can be constructive or destructive, can lift our spirit or push us down, can evoke peace or incite trouble. What makes the difference? Do a web search and you will come up with all manner of conspiracy type theories about back beat, rock music, backmasking, but my quest was to find what works or doesn't work for me. I am not at all sure that I have found my quest but I found some interesting stuff along the way...

next post Song of Albion 2

previous post Song of Albion 4

Song of Albion 2

My title is from Stephen Lawhead's trilogy - chosen because his concept echoes some of my own thoughts. I started this study on music following negative comments I have heard in our church about certain genres of music. I wanted a better understanding concerning music. I quickly realised how little I know about the subject and therefore how unqualified I am to judge. But the study was fun and I use these posts to summarise some of my findings. But first, here are my conclusions:

• Music has hidden power that can touch not only your emotions but also your spirit / innermost being - see here
• Nothing is unclean of itself - it is your involvement with it that may or may not be good, see Act 11:7-9 and Rom 14:14
• Whilst I do well to check out how music affects me, I have no right to be judgmental regarding your views, see Rom 14:4-5
• My duty not to offend others should affect what I do with music, see Rom 14:3 and Mat 22:36-40

If you do not like my conclusions maybe you should read no further - but I would be interested to hear what you think so do please consider leaving a comment.

What is music?

You'll find plenty of and disparate definitions but here is mine: "music is an ordered sequence of sounds that generally include notes. A note is one of an ordered set of tones (a 'scale'). A tone is a sound having musical pitch." A bit convoluted but then I am an engineer.

Music thus is ordered in both in time sequence and in choice of sounds. This order is what distinguishes it from noise. As a reaction against this status quo some exploratory avant garde musicians have tried to remove all semblance of order from their music, like John Cage in his 4'33" - three movements of silence...

and his Imaginary Landscape no.4. which uses random noise from transistor radios...

One has to try a bit harder to define music in such as way as to include these examples!

If you were able to travel back in time to the middle ages or before you would find very different music. Likewise the music of the orient with its quarter-tones might sound alien to western ears. Even in my lifetime church music has changed radically. And then there are all those musical genres to suit different tastes. I would be wary indeed to pounce of one such flavour and pronounce it diabolic without very good cause.

Notwithstanding there is "music" that I personally find objectionable, music that I find very appealing but something within me warns me not to allow myself to become immersed in it - maybe this is my upbringing, maybe not. Anyway I do not see why I or anyone else should not have personal choice in music any less than in colour or food.

Go to previous page
Go to next page

Song of Albion

"Before the sun and moon and stars were set in their unchanging courses, before living creatures drew breath, from before the beginning of all that is or will be, the Song of Albion was sung. The Song upholds this worlds-realm, and by it all that exists is sustained."

This concept, that music is somehow at the heart of, is somehow responsible for all that exists, is the subject of many articles. For example Rubino, reminding me of Douglas Adams' 42, claims that:

Ray Tomes asserts that "The universe, believe it or not, is nothing other than a giant musical instrument with a very special but predictable pattern of harmonically related oscillations which determine the structure of everything from galactic clusters to subatomic particles...The universe consists of a wave which develops harmonics and each of these waves does the same."

The concept is also suggested, though perhaps not explicitly, in the Bible in passages like:

Where were you, Job, when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell if you have understanding! Who has set its measurements, for you know? Or who has stretched the line on it? On what are its bases sunk, or who cast its cornerstone, when the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy? (Job 38:4-7)

Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. (Heb 1:1-3)

The ability to appreciate and to make music seems to be core in human experience through the ages. The fact that it serves no obvious Darwinian advantage suggests that it might have a higher source. Passages in Ezekiel and Isaiah suggest that Lucifer, otherwise Satan or the devil, was once the angel presiding over music in the heavens so it is hardly surprising that "the devil has all the best tunes".

Thus sets the scene for music (in its broadest sense) as the or at least a language of God, as inextricably entwined in His creation, but perverted by the fallen angel Lucifer.

I intend that this will be the first of a series of posts on the 'Song of Albion' aka "the extraordinary spiritual power of music".