Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Thursday, Oct 18, 2007
Google



Sci Tech
Published on Thursdays

Features: Magazine | Literary Review | Life | Metro Plus | Open Page | Education Plus | Book Review | Business | SciTech | Friday Review | Cinema Plus | Young World | Property Plus | Quest | Folio |

Sci Tech

Printer Friendly Page Send this Article to a Friend

The music that animals like

The question whether aesthetic response to music is uniquely human is yet to be unravelled

— Photo: PTI

Bird’s choice: It has been shown that sparrows have musical preferences

From time to time science throws up issues that engage society at large. Some of these raise ethical and even moral concerns — such as a grandmother becoming a surrogate mother, in order to help her daughter get a child. Some others are less intense, yet illuminating.

The monkey example

A recent example of this kind adorns the pages of the journal Science. Isabelle Peretz titled her article in the 3rd August 2007 issue thus: ‘Monkeys have tin ears.’ She was summarising recent research by the MIT-Harvard duo Josh McDermott and Mark Hausen.

They have concluded that new world monkeys such as the marmoset and the cotton-top tamarins dislike music, but if they are forced to hear music, they prefer slow tempos rather than fast ones. Further, when presented with a choice between slow tempo music (say lullabies) and silence, they prefer silence. In contrast humans, when similarly tested, prefer music over silence.

Startling result

This is an interesting, if somewhat startling, result because the physiological mechanisms for sound and tempo perception in monkeys, apes and us humans are quite similar.

Thus, these researches have concluded that “The motivational ties to music are uniquely human.” Hence Isabelle’s pejoration of monkeys.

Is the aesthetic response to music uniquely human? What are the origins of music? This question has been a long-standing puzzle yet to be unravelled. Music, if any, of monkeys and apes has been studied by several people, with the idea that it might offer evolutionary insights into the origins of human music. Chimpanzees pant and hoot; while some do this, others pat tree trunks. Gibbons and the Nilgiri Langurs engage in great whooping calls. Gorillas ‘chant’ together.

But the German Zoologist Thomas Geissmann notes that long, uninterrupted vocal bouts that we could define as music are, however, not known for any of these species. He further notes that the increasingly complex phrases “sung” by gibbons are for a purpose — such as mating or alarm calls. They are not abstractions, uttered and enjoyed on their own.

And the fact that when forced to hear, or ‘bribed’ to hear, as when animal music researchers set up their experiments, slow tempo and not fast ones are preferred is interesting.

How these experiments are done is interesting in itself. The tamarins and marmosets face a V-shaped tunnel. At the end of each side is a loudspeaker through which the chosen music is played. One side plays slow lullabies or a folk song played on the flute. The other side had an excerpt from the track ‘Nobody Gets Out Alive.’

A piece of food is placed midway on each track of the tunnel and a pulley used to lift the entrance door to either side. After some initial training, the preference of the monkey to one side to the other is recorded, based on repeated trials.

Why do the marmosets and tamarins prefer silence to music? Is it because, unlike us, they do not find music pleasurable or relaxing? And why, given the choice, the preference for slow tempo over faster ones?

Is it because differences in temperament could cause the monkeys to find arousing stimuli alarming and worrisome, whereas to humans they are merely stimulating? Answers to these questions are awaited. In any event, that they at least bear with, or are soothed by (if not actually enjoy), slow music suggests that they do not have tin ears.

In a response to Isabelle Peretz, Dr. Austen Gess writes in the 28 September 2007 issue of Science that birds like music too.

He points out to the work by the Japanese duo S. Watanabe and K. Sato in 1998 and 1999, which showed that some sparrows like music, and prefer music of the classical composer J. S. Bach to that of the modern composer Schoenberg.

They prepared a chamber with three perches. One of the end perches had music by Bach playing while the other perch had Schoenberg. Here again the bribe was a few grains of millet and some water. The birds stayed significantly longer on the Bach perch, and retained their preference to other compositions of Bach, and again avoided other pieces of Schoenberg.

These results suggest that sparrows have musical preferences. It is not that birds like music; they also make music — solo, duet and choruses, and in rich repertoire. Some examples are the nightingale, starling, chaffinch, warblers, koel, mynah (and the chakravaham, after which a ragam is named). But is bird song music?

Bird song’s rhythm

As the U.K. evolutionary biologist Peter Slater writes, this depends on the definition. Bird song has rhythm, melody; and it perhaps has more than what is strictly necessary for biological function. In other words, birds may sing for their own pleasure as well. In this we humans are similar to them.

Neurologists have compared the brain anatomy of songbirds and humans, and find some commonality. This has to do with the ability for vocalization, language and music.

The evolution of language and music seem intimately related. Certain birds such as the parrot even learn to not just to ‘parrot’ or mimic human words, but learn to express themselves in human words, when they are reared as pets.

An outstanding example is the parrot Alex, reared by the scientist Irene Pepperberg, which died recently at the ripe age of 31. (The Economist, in a tribute, carried an obituary column on Alex). During these years of living with her, Alex understood and used concepts of ‘bigger,’ ‘smaller,’ ‘same’ and ‘different,’ and learnt to count up to six.

These, until now, had been thought to be the abilities of only primates. Birds, unfortunately, have not been given the respect they deserve; to call someone bird-brained is ironically a compliment.

Finally, now that we know that nonhuman animals also respond to, and perhaps even enjoy, music we need to dismiss the human arrogance of the man who rewrote Barthruhari’s Niti Satakam thus: “Sahitya Sangita Kala Viheenam……Manushya Roopena Mrigascharanti.”

D. BALASUBRAMANIAN

dbala@lvpei.org

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail



Sci Tech

Features: Magazine | Literary Review | Life | Metro Plus | Open Page | Education Plus | Book Review | Business | SciTech | Friday Review | Cinema Plus | Young World | Property Plus | Quest | Folio |


The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription
Group Sites: The Hindu | Business Line | Sportstar | Frontline | Publications | eBooks | Images | Home |

Comments to : thehindu@vsnl.com   Copyright © 2007, The Hindu
Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu