Cross-cultural data shows musical scales evolved to maximise imperfect fifths John M. McBride1,* and Tsvi Tlusty1,2,* 1Center for Soft and Living Matter, Institute for Basic Science, Ulsan 44919, South Korea 2Department of Physics, Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology, Ulsan 44919, South Korea *[email protected], [email protected] June 2, 2020 Musical scales are used throughout the world, but harmonicity follows from the idea that exposure to harmonic the question of how they evolved remains open. Some sounds in animal vocalisations may have conditioned humans suggest that scales based on the harmonic series are to respond positively to them [9, 10]. Musical features related inherently pleasant, while others propose that scales to harmonicity – harmonic intervals [11–13], octave equivalence are chosen that are easy to communicate. How- [14, 15], a link between consonance and harmonicity [16–18] – ever, testing these theories has been hindered by the are indeed widespread, although their universality is disputed sparseness of empirical evidence. Here, we assimilate [19, 20]. One study attempted to explain the origin of scales data from diverse ethnomusicological sources into a as maximization of harmonicity [8], however the universality cross-cultural database of scales. We generate pop- of their findings is limited by the scope of cultures considered ulations of scales based on multiple theories and as- [21]. sess their similarity to empirical distributions from the The vocal mistuning theory states that scales, and intervals, database. Most scales tend to include intervals which were chosen not due to harmonicity, but because they were are close in size to perfect fifths (“imperfect fifths”), easy to communicate [22, 23]. We perceive intervals as cat- and packing arguments explain the salient features of egories [24–27], and due to errors in producing [22, 28, 29], the distributions. Scales are also preferred if their in- and perceiving notes [30–34], musical intervals are not exact tervals are compressible, which may facilitate efficient frequency ratios, but rather they span a range of acceptable in- communication and memory of melodies. While scales terval sizes. Any overlap between interval categories will then appear to evolve according to various selection pres- result in errors in transmission. This theory appears promis- sures, the simplest imperfect-fifths packing model best ing, but it has not yet been rigorously investigated. fits the empirical data. These two theories were proposed separately, yet they are How and why did humans evolve to create and appreciate not mutually exclusive. In this paper, we modify, integrate music? The question arose at the dawn of evolutionary the- and expand upon these ideas to construct a general, stochastic ory and been asked ever since [1–4]. Studying musical fea- model which generates populations of scales. Our aim is to test tures that are conserved across cultures may lead to possible which model best mimics scales created by humans. To this answers. [5, 6]. Two such universal features are the use of dis- end, we assembled the most diverse and extensive database of crete pitches and the octave, defined as an interval between two scales from ethnomusicological records. By comparing model- notes where one note is double the frequency of the other [7]. generated theoretical distributions with the empirical distri- Taken together, these form the musical scale, defined as a set butions, we find that the theory that best fits the data is of intervals spanning an octave (Fig. 1A). Musical scales can the simplest. Most scales are arranged to maximise inclusion arXiv:1906.06171v2 [cs.SD] 1 Jun 2020 therefore be considered solutions to the problem of partitioning of imperfect fifths – perfect fifths with a tolerance for error. an octave into intervals, and thus can be treated mathemat- Scales are often found to be compressible, which may make ically. Examination of scales from different cultures can help them easier to transmit. Adding more detail, beyond fifths, to elucidate the basic perception and production mechanisms that harmonicity-based theories decreased their performance, which humans share and shed light on this evolutionary puzzle. suggests that only the first few harmonics are significant in this One theory on the origin of scales suggests that the fre- context. quency ratios of intervals in a scale ought to consist of simple integers [8]. After the octave (2:1), the simplest ratio is 3:2, re- ferred to in Western musical theory as a perfect fifth. Frequen- Results cies related by simple integer ratios naturally occur in the har- Harmonicity Models monic series – a plucked string will produce a complex sound with a fundamental frequency accompanied by integer multi- The main assumption underpinning the harmonicity theory is ples of the fundamental. The theory that scales are related to that human pitch processing evolved to take advantage of nat- 1 ural harmonic sounds [37]. For example, harmonic amplitudes A typically decay with harmonic number [9, 15], and correspond- ingly, lower harmonics tend to be more dominant in pitch per- ception [38]. Thus many proxy measures of harmonicity con- tain parameters to account for harmonic decay [39]. However, CDEFGAB C to minimize a priori assumptions and model parameters, we avoid explicitly modelling harmonic decay. Instead, we test two simple harmonicity theories which differ in how they treat higher order harmonics. The first harmonicity model (HAR), assumes that there is no harmonic decay, for which the model of reference [8] is ap- 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 Interval size / cents propriate. This model scores an interval f2/f1 defined by two frequencies, f1 and f2, based on the fraction of harmonics of f2 B that are matched with the harmonics of f1 in an infinite series. Humans do not notice small deviations from simple ratios [40– 42], and the model accounts for this by considering intervals as categories of width w cents; intervals are measured in cents score Harmonicity such that an octave is 1200 log f2 = 1200 cents. Intervals are 2 f1 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 assigned to a category according to the highest scoring interval Interval size/ cents within w/2 cents. The resulting template (Fig. 1B) is used to C calculate the average harmonicity score for each scale across i ii iii all N (N 1) possible intervals, apart from the octave; N is the× number− of notes in a scale. We make no assumptions about tonality, and thus all intervals are weighted equally. The 0 100 200 0 100 200 0 100 200 HAR model assumes that scales evolved to maximise this har- monicity score. The second harmonicity model (FIF) considers the limiting Figure 1: A: The major scale starting on a C shown on a piano case of high harmonic decay. As harmonic decay increases, (equal temperament), and as interval sizes (in cents) of each eventually a few intervals in a harmonic series become dom- note measured from the first note. Intervals between adjacent inant (SI Table 1), in the order of unison, octave, fifth, etc. pairs of notes are denoted by IA. B: We use a harmonicity tem- Thus, this model assumes that due to harmonic decay, only plate to assign harmonicity scores to intervals [8]. The highest the octave and the fifth significantly affected the evolution of scoring intervals (frequency ratios are shown for the top five) scales. Given this, we simply count the fraction of intervals act as windows of attraction, whereby any interval in this win- that are fifths, out of all N (N 1) possible intervals – we dow is assigned its score. In this case the maximum window do not count the octave, and× we make− no assumptions about size is w = 40 cents. C: Adjacent interval, IA, sets for the tonality. We allow a tolerance for errors, w, and thus define major scale in equal temperament (i) and just intonation (ii & “imperfect fifths” as intervals of size 702 w/2 cents. The ± iii). Boxes indicate interval categories, where the width repre- FIF model assumes that scales evolved to maximise the num- sents the error, and boxes with similar colours are related by ber of imperfect fifths that can be formed in a scale. a common denominator: (i) is losslessly compressed; a similar compression of (ii) is lossy; (iii) is uncompressed and therefore Transmittability Model costs more to transmit. The transmittability theory assumes that intervals are per- ceived as broad categories, and the humans make errors in both production and perception of intervals. Intervals must thus be munication of melodies. An example of a compressible scale large enough to avoid errors in transmission due overlapping is the equal temperament major scale (Fig. 1A). We can rep- interval categories (SI Fig. 1). This is not sufficient, how- resent this scale using its notes (C, D, etc.) or as a sequence ever, to explain the considerable convergence in scales across of adjacent intervals, IA: 200, 200, 100, 200, 200, 200, 100. The cultures. We can further consider that scales are optimized most compressed representation uses an alphabet size of one for minimizing errors in transmission by favouring the use of by encoding the large interval (200) in terms of the small one large intervals, however this bias exclusively favours equidis- (100) (Fig. 1Ci). However for the just intonation tuning – tant scales (SI pg. 4). While equidistant scales do exist [43–46], IA: 204, 182, 112, 204, 182, 204, 112 – this code is lossy (Fig. they are a minority [47], so additional mechanisms are needed 1Cii). Lossless compression would require a three letter alpha- to explain the origin of scales. bet (Fig. 1Ciii). When humans encode continuous audiovisual information With this in mind, we create a third model (TRANS) to such as speech, musical rhythm, brightness, or color, there test whether scales evolved to be compressible.