close
more_vert

I've just written a short article for the Heritage Journal, about a personal association of a 'megalithic event' with a piece of music:
Very nice feature Mr g.

Your -

"We should occasionally consider, perhaps, the respective significance of message and monument, within ritual. The circles, tombs and rows, that we gaze at now, may have been an integral part of the stage, part of the cast, even, but no more than that; sight without sound. Beautiful, precious, sometimes sublime, yet only a fragment of the scene."

Reminded me of Rupert Till (writing here - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/4108867/Stonehenge-was-giant-concert-venue.html ) that -

"The most interesting thing is we managed to get the whole space (at Maryhill) to resonate, almost like a wine glass will ring if you run a finger round it.

"While that was happening a simple drum beat sounded incredibly dramatic. The space had real character; it felt that we had gone somewhere special."

Didn't Devereux also say something on this...?

Littlestone wrote:
Didn't Devereux also say something on this...?
He wrote a book with someone else called 'Stonehenge SoundTracks'....

Did anyone see the program on BBC 4 last night about the Nubians in the Sudan...it started off with stones you could play tunes on..like bells...that's what you call music from megaliths

Mr H

Thanks LS :)

And thanks to everyone who has responded to this thread, or who may do so in the future.

It's a good illustration, in its own way, I suppose, of how powerful a stimulus music can be and of how improbable it is that any rituals/ceremonies around the stones would have taken place in silence. If the tool for forming the greatest possible mental impression was easily available, via voice or frame-drum, bones or stringed bow, flute, whistle or hollow horn, why, indeed, wouldn't you use it?

...of course, that doesn't mean that I've any desire to have someone banging a tune in my ear if I'm out somewhere ;)

As I also stressed in the article and particularly in the case of consideration of ancient monuments, visible context is king. Our judgement of a site's vibe, character or importance, is formed subjectively, by what we see of the object and what's in place around it; picture and frame if you want to think of it like that. I was just anxious to emphasise that there may have been a lot more going on, in each case, (if you'll excuse the use of the phrase) than meets the eye.