The first time I heard the siamang loud call, it seemed as if the sheer naked power of the ape’s vocalization stripped away thousands of years of cultural conditioning in a matter of minutes. Despite the confinement of the human-constructed ape’s abode, or perhaps in large part because of it, the unbridled expression of the voice, coupled with the extraordinary muscular acrobatics of the animal, remain one of the most dramatic "musical" events I have experienced to this day.

 

 

By Dusan Bogdanovic The world we inhabit is built out of innumerable interlocked timelines. As it is true that “some of our molecules remain copies of the molecules formed in ancient times” (Jacob, 1973), so some of the most profound realities we experience are the living history of our species, and by accepting that history, we are accepting the literal life of those ancient forms that is still vibrant within us. The unbridgeable chasm we feel between our closest primate kin and ourselves is to a large extent directly proportionate to the extent of our alienation from our own nature and from the environment in which we evolved. It is in this spirit that I have approached the writing of this article, relying not only on the scientific information, but also on my own intuition as a composer and fellow-primate. According to Frans de Waal (1996), “cognitive evolution does not invent new categories of behavior. It works with, rather than replaces the ancient emotional infrastructure, transforming it by an ever-greater understanding on the part of the actors.” Some of the behavioral patterns such as empathy, sympathy, identification, imagining the emotional states and actions of fellow primates, and others, represent an obvious infrastructure without which the creation of art and culture in general would have been impossible. Emotional contagion (vicarious arousal by the emotions of others), empathy (identification and understanding of others), as well as sympathy (identifying and caring about others without loosing one’s identity) are at the roots of primates’ expressive communication. If these features led through a long line of evolutionary development to the expressive aspects of human interactions, then other behavioral complexes such as identification, imitation, purposeful deception of others, and replacement of one action by another, led to the symbolic aspects of human existence thereby simultaneously creating individual and group awareness. These two aspects of human interactions: 1) emotional expression and 2) symbolic activity remain fundamental modes of human interactions upon which the entire edifice of human culture has been constructed. The arts in particular, owe their existence to these naturally selected behavioral complexes that have been indispensable for our continued survival as individual and social beings (Dissanayake, 1992). Considering that people in many societies do not even have a word for “art” or “music”, it is apparent that a concept such as “primate art” would be entirely inappropriate and obfuscating to an already puzzling and obscure subject. Nevertheless, there is ample reason for examining primate behaviors that are analogous to what we conceive of as artistic. Although the separation between expressive and symbolic activities seem intuitive, I think that it might be useful to emphasize that this view is held in retrospect and that the original unity of these behaviors remains as much true for the primates as it does for most indigenous cultures. This is also apparent as regards music in particular, whose origins are understood here as being essentially multimodal, “composed of movement and mime as well as sound” (Dissanayake, 2001). Instead of specific artistic or musical behaviors among the apes, we are facing what Ellen Dissanayake designated as protomusical (or protoartistic) behaviors. Among many suspect “musical” activities, the stereotyped loud call seems to be characteristic for most primate species. As described by Thomas Geissmann, the features of this call include: 1) loudness, 2) acceleration of note rhythm (common in chimpanzees and gorillas), 3) a final slow-down in rhythm (chimpanzee), 4) higher intensity in the central section of the call (in all species of great apes, except orangutans), 5) biphasic notes consisting of alternating exhalation and inhalation (absent in gorillas), 6) higher frequency in the central section of the call, pure tone of notes (most prominent in chimpanzee), and 7) frequent accompaniment with piloerection and a locomotor display that may include leg kicking, stomping, branch shaking, vegetation slapping or throwing, jumping, running, chest beating or ground thumping (Geissmann, 2000b). Loud calls are also produced by all species of great apes, for instance the hoot (gorilla) and pant-hoot (chimpanzee). Both of these calls begin softly with low pitches, and through gradual acceleration and rise in pitch and loudness reach peaks that resemble a scream (chimpanzee) or a bubbling growl (gorilla). Various functions-which are not mutually exclusive- have been proposed for primate loud calls, including functions in intra-group cohesion and territorial spacing involving mate defense (Cowlishaw 1996; Halloy and Kleiman 1994; Oates and Troco 1983; Oates et al., 2000; Sekulic 1982; Waser 1977; Whitehead 1987) and resource defense (Sekulic 1982; Mitani 1990), and mate-attraction (Mitani 1985; Waser 1977). A special place among ape vocalizations belongs to the solo song bouts and the duet song bouts performed by the gibbons or small apes. They do not require much imagination to be called songs, as they are long, loud, of pure tone and consist of different types of phrases. Song bouts develop through increasing pitch and tempo as well as general complexification of structure (Geissmann, 2002). Solo song bouts may serve to defend resources (territory, food, trees, mate), mate-attraction, and advertisement of fitness. Duet song bouts are produced by mated pairs and may have additional functions such as advertisement of the pair status, and mate guarding. One gibbon species, the siamang gibbon (Symphalangus syndactylus) produces particularly complex duet song bouts (Geissmann, 2000a). These complex duets may additionally serve strengthening the pair bond and advertising the strength of the pair bond (Geissmann, 1999; Geissmann and Orgeldinger, 2000). If much of protomusical behaviors we have touched upon so far might represent a foundation for human music making in general, the drumming among the chimpanzees could present one of the rudiments of human group performance. In captivity, chimpanzees often drum on hollow or dead trees and they are also known for the so-called rain dance shown close to rainfalls or during thunder or rain (van Lawick-Goodall, 1975). Gibbons, Bonobos and various bird species also produce antiphonal calls, which resemble so-called hocket technique common in much of the world’s folk music (to mention Balinese kecak, African horn ensembles or Medieval Western music among others). While Table 1 shows possible basic correlation between protomusical and musical behaviors, Table 2 demonstrates more complex interrelationships between what could be protomusical and musical universals and their ethological origins.

 

Table 1. Possible basic correlation between protomusical and musical behaviors
Protomusical behaviors	Musical behaviors
Individual vocalizations (loud call, pant-hooting)	Individual singing
Synchronized group vocalizations (vocal duets, staccatto-hooting, pant-hoot chorusing)	Group singing
Locomotor displays (rain dance, jumping, running, shaking, ground thumping)	Dance

 

Table 2. Interrelationships between protomusical and musical universals (behaviors, elements, forms and parameters) and their ethological origins.
Protomusical behaviors	Ethological function	Musical elements and forms	Musical parameters
Biphasic vocalization		Motif and phrase	Rhythm, pitch, articulation, dynamics, timbre
Loud call	Interindividual and intergroup communication	Solo song	Rhythm, pitch, articulation, dynamics, timbre
Duet singing (gibbons)	Monogamous pair bonding	Duet (call and response)	Harmony, counterpoint

 

The biphasic vocalization (inhalation/exhalation) functions on an elementary, irreducible level of structuring the musical time; it is an action, which simultaneously defines the rhythmical duration and its formal counterpart-the rhythmic phrase. Combined with a pitch (grunt, pure note, scream or growl), biphasic vocalization is a likely candidate for being one of the musical universals. In another theoretical text, I have attempted to establish a comprehensive classification of transformative processes (Bogdanovic, 2006). Motif was chosen as the building block of any musical structure. A simple motif was defined by two essential parameters: a) rhythm and b) pitch (melody), a complex motif was defined by derivative parameters: c) harmony, d) counterpoint, or descriptive: e) articulation, f) dynamics, and g) timbre. While this classification seems comprehensive enough from a musical theoretical perspective, additional categories will be crucial for a description of a protomusical motif viewed from a multidisciplinary perspective. A protomusical motif would then need added dimensions, such as its ethological description as well as its psychosocial function (see Table 3). Biphasic vocalization, for example, could be viewed as a structural stepping-stone (motif) towards a larger architectural entity-a loud call (song form). Through process of emotional amplification via physiological excitation (development through tempic acceleration, dynamic and pitch increase), the call would reach its peak manifesting in locomotor display and expressive discharge (climax). The psychosocial function of a loud call would be presumably interindividual and intergroup long distance communication.

 

Table 3. Protomusical and musical universals
Process	Structural prototypes
Acceleration and deceleration of notes	Tempic transformation
Slow tempo in the beginning and at the end of the call with acceleration towards the central part	Rhythmic and tempic transformational prototype
Low pitch in the beginning and at the end of the call, high pitch in the central part	Melodic structural prototype
High intensity in the central part of the call	Dramatic structural prototype

 

It does not take a great stretch of imagination to see the connection between protomusical and musical categories shown here. While biological and psychosocial strata remain fundamental to both phenomena, whole new hierarchies are set in motion to produce new layers that are subsequently complexified and refined. To quote the French biologist François Jacob again: “...with living being as with inanimate objects, there are wheels within wheels. There is not one single organization of the living, but a series of organizations fitted into one another like nests of boxes in Russian dolls...Each level of organization thus brought to light leads to a new way of considering the formation of living beings”. (Jacob, 1973) Necessarily when viewing complex phenomena such as music, we get overwhelmed by, and infatuated with every single layer of the structural hierarchy. However, if every layer demands an exclusive focus and attention, we should not loose the larger perspective. In that sense, the discontinuity we see between protomusical and musical phenomena is a result of our own bias and not of the existing state of affairs. The form of an arc with climax in the middle, for example, certainly represents one of the prototypic musical formal schemes. From Indian raga to the Classical Sonata the essential dramatic and architectural outline remains essentially the same as that of the primate loud call. Viewed from this perspective, music appears to be one of the virtual realities that incorporate philogenetically inherited layers, as creator and creation of music might well be one of the unique human phenomena capable of reconnecting us to the very origin of our history as a species. Acknowledgments I am profoundly indebted to Thomas Geissmann for his generosity, invaluable help and assistance in writing of this article. I am also grateful to Ellen Dissanayake for her generous sharing of time and insights, and to Frans de Waal for helpful comments concerning the subject.

 

References Bogdanovic, Dusan, 2006, Ex Ovo (A Guide for Perplexed Composers and Improvisers), Doberman-Yppan, Saint-Nicolas, p. 84-85 Cowlishaw, G. (1996). Sexual selection and information content in gibbons song bouts. Ethology 102: 272-284. de Waal, Frans, 1988, The communicative repertoire of captive bonobos (Pan paniscus) compared to that of the chimpanzee, Behavior 106: 183-251 de Waal, Frans, 1996, Good Natured, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, p. 78 Dissanayake, Ellen, 1992, Homo Aestheticus, The Free Press, New York, p. 34-38 Dissanayake, Ellen, 2001, An Ethological View of Music and its Relevance to Music Therapy, Nordic Journal of Music Therapy 10(2): 167 Geissmann, T. (1999). Duet songs of the siamang, Hylobates syndactylus: II. Testing the pair-bonding hypothesis during a partner exchange. Behaviour 136: 1005-1039. Geissmann, T. (2000a). Duet songs of the siamang, Hylobates syndactylus: I. Structure and organisation. Primate Report 56: 33-60. Geissmann, T. (2000b). Gibbon songs and human music from an evolutionary perspective. In Wallin, N. L., Merker, B., and Brown, S. (eds.), The origins of music, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, pp. 103-123. Geissmann, T. (2002). Duet-splitting and the evolution of gibbon songs. Biological Reviews 77: 57-76. Geissmann, T., and Orgeldinger, M. (2000). The relationship between duet songs and pair bonds in siamangs, Hylobates syndactylus. Animal Behaviour 60: 805-809. Halloy, M. and Kleiman, D. G. (1994). Acoustic structure of long calls in free-ranging groups of golden lion tamarins, Leontopithecus rosalia. American Journal of Primatology 32: 303-301. Jacob, François, 1973, The Logic of Life, Princeton University Press, New Jersey, p. 300 Mitani, J. C. (1985). Sexual selection and adult male orangutan long calls. Animal Behaviour 33: 272-283. Mitani, J. C. (1990). Experimental field studies of Asian ape social systems. International Journal of Primatology 11: 103-126. Oates, J. F. and Trocco, T. F. (1983). Taxonomy and phylogeny of black-and-white colobus monkeys. Inferences from an analysis of loud call variation. Folia Primatologica 40: 83-113. Oates, J. F., Bocian, C. M. and Terranova, C. J. (2000). The loud calls of black-and-white colobus monkeys: Their adaptive and taxonomic significance in light of new data. In Whitehead, P. F. and Jolly, C. J. (eds.), Old World monkeys. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 431-452. Sekulic, R. (1982). The function of howling in red howler monkeys (Alouatta seniculus). Behaviour 81: 38-54. van Lawick-Goodall, Jane, 1975, The Quest for Man, Phaidon, London, p. 131-169 Waser, P. M. (1977). Individual recognition, intragroup cohesion and intergroup spacing: Evidence from sound playback to forest monkeys. Behaviour 60: 28-74. © 2006 by Dusan Bogdanovic