Celso Cintra

INTERVIEW ALAIN DANIÉLOU’S MUSICOLOGICAL WORK

Q: Celso Cintra, it is not so usual to find a Brazilian musician and scholar of music who has worked systematically on Alain Daniélou’s philosophy and theory of music as well as his views on musical cognition. Brazil is a country extremely rich in musical traditions of different kinds and Daniélou’s work seems to be quite distant from that world. What is the reason for your choice?

A: I was raised in a family that was very fond of music, especially of Brazilian music – my father listened to a lot of choro¹ and samba² and my mother listened to a lot of Roberto Carlos³ and Jovem Guarda⁴. In time, I became more and more seriously interested in music due to punk rock, especially in my teens. Rock music touched me with its lyrics. The most politicized songs as well as the most poetic ones went through my pores, my mind, my emotions. I never had the same kind of experience again until years later when I became acquainted with Indian music. I ended up not only listening to rock music but delving into everything that was related to it: concerts, magazines, TV programs, etc. I once read in an interview with Ian McCulloch, the vocalist of the band Echo and The Bunnymen, a particular comment on his song The Killing Moon, in which he said that for him music still needed “magic and mystery”. Years later, as an adult, I read the book O Som e o Sentido [The Sound and the Sense]⁵ by José Miguel Wisnick, in which Wisnick quotes Alain Daniélou. I don’t know why, but for me the way he quoted Daniélou and the passage he had selected somehow brought me back to that phrase by McCulloch. I had the impression, that Daniélou could in a certain way explain what the phrase “magic and mystery” meant and how it could become real. This event led me, in the 1990s, to my bachelor’s degree in Composition and Conducting. I wanted to find out what the “secret” of music was. But that ambition had to be postponed for a long time, until the beginning of the 2000s, when I finally read Alain Daniélou’s books. When I realized that he talked not only about Western music but also about Indian music, and even more: that he had lived in India and studied a very special Indian instrument, the Rudra Vina, his writings and his experience in that culture ended up being a special inspiration and motivated me to follow his traces by means of profound research.

Q: One of the first things that strikes the reader as surprising in reading Daniélou’s musicological work concerns the question on the nature of music. Even if he accepts the existence of different musical languages, he does not share the relativistic answer (which is the most usual today) concerning the nature of music. The relativistic position states that there are different epistemologies according to each cultural complex, and that there is no underlying “nature of music”. Daniélou, on the contrary, seems to be convinced that we can find invariants underlying musical languages and a kind of natural anchorage of the musical phenomenon. Do you share that view?

A: Daniélou was a man of his time, in the same way in which I am a man of my time. We should not forget that he was a pioneer in the field of Ethnomusicology, which at that time was called ‘Comparative Musicology’. For my part, I do not believe that there is a ‘nature of music’ underlying all cultural sound phenomena. There are cultural groups which don’t even have the idea of ​​music in the way we understand and postulate it. However, we must bear in mind that Daniélou’s work focuses on musical languages ​​that do allow that kind of analysis. We see this, for example, in his book Music and the Power of Sound (1995, revised edition of his Introduction to the Musical Scales from 1943). Here he describes some musical languages, namely Indian, Chinese, Ancient Greek and Western Classical, whose similarities are based on the idea of the discrete division of musical space and have the octave as a common element.

Q: According to Daniélou, sound relations cannot be understood without numerical symbolism, and the more clarity we gain about that symbolism, the better our understanding not only of the production but also of the reception of sound. Daniélou is convinced that if we ignore such relations, we fall into irrational and degenerate ways of making and reasoning about music. What is the place of mathematics in his musical theory? Is it a discipline enabling the quality of sound to be measured, or is it also a key to seeing a kind of pre-empirical arrangement of sound? Mathematics, in Daniélou’s work, is used as a kind of common language that permits the analysis of the common aspects of different musical languages. However, he always stresses that mathematics is worthless without bearing in mind the phenomenon of audition, and that usually the most experienced musicians achieve more accuracy by listening than by calculating. In this sense, mathematical analysis would grasp what musicians perceive temporally (when they listen to sounds), but independently of the time factor. Regarding numerical symbolism, this can be approached mathematically, but there is also a temporal side to it, for example when we listen to successive or simultaneous intervals. In this sense, I understand mathematics more as something complementary to audition. It enables a confluence of time and space, since the mathematical relations of intervals leads to a geometrical visualization of numbers, a pre-empirical combination of sound, so to speak.

Q:In Daniélou’s theory, the opposition of modal and harmonic music is seen as a contrast between a “natural” and an “artificial” system. What makes a melodic framework like the Indian rāga “natural” and the twelve-tone technique “artificial”? In other words, what authorizes Daniélou to add in his descriptive arguments about musical systems what seems to be a severe judgement of value?

A: In the text L’Agression harmonique [Harmonic Aggression, 1974]⁶ Daniélou defends Schoenberg, the father of ‘Twelve-Tone Music’, and other experimental and avant-garde composers of the 20th century, such as Webern, Satie, Stravinsky, Ives, Cage and Stockhausen. He says that these composers created a type of music that was no longer based in the harmonic teleology of the tonal system. As such, their new form of composition could provide the Western ear with musical perception devoid of harmonic audition. In this way, it is possible for the Western listener to appreciate Eastern music with less prejudice, since this kind of music was negatively understood in the West, usually looked down on as a primitive phenomenon. However, Daniélou argues that, in music, there should be a close connection between theory and sound phenomenon, and in his eyes Twelve-Tone Music – and later ‘Integral Serialism’ – is responsible for their separation. This criticism can also be found in the West among composers and music analysts. For Daniélou, the Western harmonic musical theory, based on modulation and transposition, allowed the progressive adoption of ‘equal temperament’ and little by little lost touch with sound phenomenon. His evaluation is centered on how far or close the musical theory of each system is from its own respective sound phenomenon.

Q:The phenomenon of sound, that is, its realization and possibility of being perceived, presupposes the notion of interval in the sense of a variation (in pitch) implying difference and relation (between notes). According to Daniélou, the content of that formal relation between notes seems to be not so much the material realization of differentiated sound, but mainly the effect of that realization on the hearer, whether it is a sensation, an emotion, or an image. What is the nature of that content within the framework of Daniélou’s theory? Is it human (that is, psycho-physiological) or non-human (a metaphysical meaning related to a cosmic arrangement), or both?

A: According to Daniélou it is both: human and non-human. He wrote two books to treat this issue, which he himself considered his most important works: Music and the Power of Sound (1995, revised edition of his Introduction to the Musical Scales from 1943) and Sémantique Musicale [Musical Semantics, 1967]. In the first, he deals with the aspect most related to the non-human dimension or to the dimension that is exterior to human phenomena, i.e., the metaphysical relationships related to cosmic principles concerning each musical system. In the second, he deals with aspects related to the human being in his/her own individuality, for example, he describes the psycho-physiological effect of music, he explains how and why a certain effect occurs in our audio-mental apparatus, he goes from the physical capture of sound by the ear to the psychological consequences of this capture in the brain and in the mind.

Q: Daniélou had his problems with the notion of “ethnomusicology”. This discipline was in his eyes problematic from the very beginning, mainly due to its tendency to treat very rich and complex systems of music (such as Iranian music, Gamelan music from Bali or the music of Tibetan Lamas) as primitive and exotic. However, from the perspective of ethnomusicology, Daniélou’s approach could be criticized as lacking in specificity (that is, understanding the music of the others in itself) and, despite his anti-colonialist efforts, still ethnocentric, since the parameter of the comparison remains the elitist music systems of the West (whether one includes Indian or Iranian classical music within that parameter or not). It is perhaps for this reason that, since the publication of Alan Merriam’s The Anthropology of Music (1964), Daniélou’s comparative approach was considered old-fashioned. What are your views on this question?

A: Merrian’s contribution established a ‘new paradigm’ in Ethnomusicology, in the sense that Thomas S. Kuhn gives to this expression in his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962). In this sense, despite Daniélou’s contributions to the field, especially if we think of the huge number of records he produced for the UNESCO Collection of World Music, his approach has become outdated. However, when I came across his work, I noticed that there was still much to reap from it. The point is to understand his work in a new way. It would be necessary to elaborate a new interpretation, to ‘redescribe it’ – in the Rortian⁷ sense of redescription – to broaden not only his research, but also our own understanding of Western music. That is why I argue that there are many contributions to be reconsidered in the field of Composition, Musical Theory, and Philosophy of Music.

Workshop conducted by prof. Celso Cintra: Alain Daniélou’s Musical Dialogue, March 24-25, 2023. Photo by Bishal Diganta.

Q: If we follow Daniélou’s reasoning, especially his views on the difference between modal and harmonic music, the loss of the tonic is the entrance to the realm of the arbitrary. Why are simple harmonic relations (that is, the combination of different intervals as well as the relationship between each interval and the tonic) non-arbitrary and what would “non-arbitrary” mean in that context? Does non-arbitrary mean “necessary”, “motivated” or “fixed by convention”?

A: When Daniélou refers to arbitrariness, he mainly points to it in the context of his interpretation of sound and musical effects at the time of listening to music. He advocates objective music, the effects of which (on the listener) can be exactly controlled by the composer and the performer. Such objectivity would be impossible with equal temperament or with very complex interval relationships because it would go beyond the capacities of our brain to process such intervals. For Daniélou, the human brain works simultaneously with binary, ternary, and quinary languages. This means that whatever lies outside these languages ​​would be reinterpreted (by the brain) in an unpredictable way, both arbitrarily and randomly. Ultimately, the brain tries to adapt musical relations to one of those three languages. This would lead us to the idea that the appreciation of music is not only subjective, in other words: it is not motivated by taste or a circumstantial state of mind, but also by the physical conditions of the body of the listener at the time of listening. However, if these relationships are carried out by the musician with the necessary precision using simple harmonic relationships, there would be no possibility of any arbitrary interpretation because the brain would not be led to a ‘mental fatigue’ of reinterpreting what it hears. In this sense, I think that Daniélou would consider a non-arbitrary interpretation of music as something necessary, although in Western music there are non-arbitrary cases established by convention, such as the ‘theory of affects’ of the Baroque period.

Q: In his Sémantique musicale, Daniélou states that the psychological effect of modal forms and their influence on the personality and character of human beings is like entering the realm of magic. In referring to ecstasy and trance, he says that such states are not at all mysterious but are the result of a repeated use of specific sound groups. We are once again confronted with the question of intervals, and one might think that Daniélou limits the magic effect (strictly speaking within a sacred context) to modal music, but that is not the case. In fact, polyrhythmic drumming in Africa or the cycle of fifths in China are, in Daniélou’s reflections on the psychological effects of music, cases of systems with remarkable individual and collective influence. One could also say that just intonation and equal temperament are not without “magical effects” on the listeners – for example, if we think of Georg Friedrich Handel or Johann Sebastian Bach. What is the specificity of musical effects in musical systems alien to just intonation and equal temperament?

A: Firstly, we must distinguish between just intonation and pure or just interval. Just intervals are those found in the harmonic series. The Indian modal system and the Chinese system use just intervals, since both intervals are found in the harmonic series. Just intonation, which was proposed by Gioseffo Zarlino in the XVI century, is also based on the harmonic series. However, when the Western harmonic system applies just intonation, it inevitably modifies each set of chords, since the notes used for the construction of the chords do not coincide with the notes used in the construction of the scale. In this way, there is a continuous change in the pitch of the notes to keep the just intervals. These continuous changes would not allow the brain to accurately fix the sound relationships between the notes, since they change the pitch and consequently the interval relationships. This undermines a precise interpretation (by the brain) of the interval relationships between the notes. As for the music of Bach and Handel, they were created when equal temperament was not hegemonic. At that time, some unequal temperaments, so-called ‘good temperaments’, were used, which kept some intervals pure and others tempered. The tempered ones were used for short passages of modulation. In this way, when stable tones were reached, it was possible to hear pure intervals again. So, we have basically two situations: With just intonation there is a continuous change of notes to keep just intervals. With equal temperament we constantly have the same notes and the same intervals, but they are not just. Neither of the two uses allows the brain to process the intervals as objective and continuous information. This situation would not happen with Indian modal music or Chinese modulatory music, since their pure intervals are unambiguous and continuous.

Q: In the framework of his “Shaivite-Dionysian” conception of religion, Daniélou denounces the human being’s loss of a link with the different levels of being (which for him makes sense of the term “religion”), beginning with a concrete interaction with Nature in its non-objectified manifestation. For the purpose of re-establishing that link, he announces, in his book Shiva et Dionysos, a program for the future where certain phenomena like reconnection with one’s own sexuality, the ritual use of entheogens or an increasing awareness of sacred places are seen as larval stages of a renewal. There seems to be a similar consideration in his theory of music. His denunciation of the “harmonic aggression” in the West is quite clear, but in some essays he values American folksongs, Jazz or the Negro spiritual and even the musical background of the hippie world (giving as its shining example the funeral march at the end of the film Hair). What makes those styles so special for him?

A: Daniélou was a staunch critic of the modern interpretation of classical music, especially that of the romantic period. For him, sentimental interpretations were wrong due to their misunderstanding of the musical text and to the performer’s personal interpretation. On the other hand, an interpretation based strictly on technique, he considered cold and without content. So, from my point of view, what Daniélou appreciates in these musical manifestations such as Jazz, Rock, Negro Spiritual, Disco, and Popular Song is their vitality, their freshness, their direct connection with the feelings and emotions of the performers and listeners.

Q: You have been working on Alain Daniélou’s musical theory for decades, and you are yourself a musician. But your music, with which you familiarized us during the workshop you recently held at the Labyrinth, does not follow the Indian classical modal system, nor is it afraid of radical innovations mindful of John Cage’s musical experiments. Is there a place for Alain Daniélou in your musical art?

A: Alain Daniélou and John Cage were very important for my musical training: The first for his way of poking into certain questions or ‘putting his finger in the wound’, so to speak. In doing that, he managed to show the contradictions between the theory and the practice of Western music. The second, John Cage, is also important because he cast aside Western music and tried something completely alien to our tradition. Daniélou was the subject of my doctoral thesis, John Cage was the author I worked on for my master’s degree. When I compose music with defined pitch as its main material, I always have Daniélou and his research on sound relations in mind. Cage emerges when I compose something a little more conceptual or experimental. I never compose music to express myself. Sometimes, to quote Cage, “I make music just to listen to it”. For sure, there is also room for Alain Daniélou in my musical art.

Dinner time at the Labyrinth, part of the Workshop conducted by prof. Celso Cintra: Alain Daniélou’s Musical Dialogue, March 24-25, 2023. Photo by Bishal Diganta.

Q: In the last chapter of your book “Alain Daniélou and his Musical Labyrinth” [Alain Daniélou e seu labirinto musical. São Paulo: Novas Edições Acadêmicas, 2020] you point to three shortcomings in Alain Daniélou’s musicological work. The first one is related to musical cognition. You state that Daniélou’s excessive confidence in the physical or natural aspect of musical perception ends up being detrimental to the cultural aspect. The second one concerns the relationship between music language and cybernetics. You say that Norbert Wiener’s cybernetics, on which Daniélou’s views on the human audio-mental device is based, is not a psychological or cognitive theory but a theory of communication. The third one is linked to the exclusivity of natural tuning as a vehicle for the objective communication of ideas. Could you expand a little on these shortcomings in Daniélou’s thought?

A: I have been doing research on Daniélou mainly from the perspective of Musical Cognition because he makes an effort to describe how the brain understands musical language, as he clearly shows in his book Sémantique Musicale [Musical Semantic]. Although his arguments are coherent and logical, one must understand that, since the first publication of that work, much has been developed in this field – in addition to what has been done in the field of Music Psychology. With regard to Daniélou’s excessive reliance on physical or natural aspects, it is important to mention two authors who suggest two possible universals in the study of music: Leonard B. Meyer with regard to nature and culture, and Enrico Fubini with regard to nature and history. Even though Daniélou’s research focuses on music from specific civilizations, as he shows in Music and the Power of Sound, he does not address the cultural issue from the point of view of habits and customs, but from the perspective of metaphysical correspondences. Because of that, he attempts to describe the common origin of intervals used by the music of different civilizations. He also associates these intervals with their origin of the harmonic series, which is closely linked to the idea of ​​resonance as a natural phenomenon. In his book Sémantique Musicale [Musical Semantic], he approaches this subject from the psycho-physiological perspective and deals with the effects of musical sound on the individual’s brain – once again a natural aspect. It is clear, in both books, that we can identify and differentiate natural intervals from tempered ones on the level of audition, but this interpretation of interval effects would be merely cultural. The type of sensation elicited by the intervals in an Indian listener would be different from that of a European or of a Chinese or a Greek, so there are cultural differences and, in a certain way, cultural relativism. However, Daniélou asserts that the effects of modal music are absolute, so he thinks ultimately in terms of invariants. The second weakpoint in Daniélou’s work, as far as I am concerned, is his use of cybernetics. At first sight it seems right, since he begins with the principle that music is a language and, as a consequence of this, has the capacity to transmit something susceptible of being understood. Cybernetics as a theory of communication would therefore provide an explanation of that function. However, if we bear in mind the latest developments in the field of musical cognition, we see that the complexity of the musical phenomenon goes beyond all possible elucidations provided by cybernetics. Despite certain advantages of cybernetics as an explanatory device, it cannot account for phenomena such as the appreciation of music by deaf people, the effect caused by music on people with Parkinson’s disease, the use of music in treating autistic patients or people with ADHD (Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder), for example. It was a first step, but it is not enough at present. The third shortcoming concerns Daniélou’s exclusive emphasis on natural intonation as objectively capable of communicating the ‘musical sense’. Daniélou privileges modal music because its intervals and notes do not change during its execution. But this privilege is not impartial. His preference for modal music is due to the fact that he studied Indian music very deeply. This was a great contribution, but we can nevertheless pose this question: Is the privileged status of Indian music due to objective parameters or is it a consequence of Daniélou’s personal preferences? This aspect is not sufficiently clear in his work.

1. Choro (cry or lament) is an instrumental popular urban music genre originated in the 19th century in Rio de Janeiro. Its main characteristics are improvisation, modulations and counterpoint.
2. Samba is the name for several rhythmic variants mostly originated in the Afro-Brazilians communities of Rio de Janeiro and Bahia in the early XX century. It is one of the Brazil’s most distinctive symbols.
3. Roberto Carlos (1941) is one of the most popular Brazilian singers and songwriters.
4. Jovem Guarda was at first a Brazilian musical television show broadcast in 1965 by Rede Record. The term soon expanded to designate the entire movement and style surrounding it. It was influenced by the American rock n’ roll of the late 1950s and by the British Invasion bands of the 1960s. The music became in many cases softer, and more naïve versions were produced with light and romantic lyrics aimed at teenagers. Among its exponents are Roberto Carlos, Erasmo Carlos and Wanderléa.
5. José Miguel Wisnik. O Som e o Sentido. Sao Paulo: Companhia das Letras, 2017.
6. Cf. Alain Daniélou, Origines et pouvoirs de la musique, Paris 2005, pp. 69-76.
7. Celso Cintra refers to the American philosopher Richard Rorty (1931-2007) and his radical relativistic claim that anything can be redescribed to look good or bad. In Rorty’s view, redescription is more an imaginative activity than a procedure based on strictly factual parameters. This is no shortcoming but rather a redeeming aspect of thought in the face of the unfortunate crave for certainties, in other words: a contribution to pluralism and tolerance.