mr dave

What a thread, great topic at the start, some good replies, some loopy surrealistic metaphysics that get singled out as 'bad' while sycophantic shenanigans go unabated but whatever (it IS the norm of webforums after all).

I'm no professional, just an internet deep thinker (read: stoner).

But music is one of those topics I've given deep thought towards. Lots of deep thought. I think one of the main issues plaguing this discussion is some member's inability to distinguish music as made by the human species over its existence and the music they consider good as individual humans (note the abundance of "NO! My music is not all 'durr hump hump hump' this biology theory is stupid!" type replies). As a result I find myself in full agreement with Lucifer Sam's statement about EXPRESSION over DISTINCTION.

Though at the same time it's rather ironic that music has recently very much become a means of individual distinction. Then again it's not like it didn't serve to distinguish cultures prior to that.

Much in the same way that I believe in both evolution and creationism, I think music evolved to serve both a biological and communicative function, I also disagree with the idea that music is a spandrel of language and actually believe the opposite. I have no qualms accepting song (especially modern song) as a spandrel of language, but music comes first. Consider a baby singing its heart out to the world before they're even able to say "Mama or Dada" it serves as a means to communicate base ideas and feelings in ways where the complexity of spoken language often fail.

Music came first.

As for the biological angle I don't necessarily buy into the whole 'making it happen to hook up'. Though, people arguing against the idea that the majority of 19 year old boys starting bands or learning instruments aren't using it as an angle to pick up girls are a little delusional. The function though isn't necessarily coupling but to bring together people in groups, with a common side effect being well... you know...

I'm surprised no one brought up the concept or behaviour of dance (if anyone did I'm sorry I missed it). Music and dance are intrinsically tied together as forms of individual artistic impression, though, in my eyes, the base purpose of dance is to display an individual's motor skills as well as to attract a mate (watch a pop video on mute and tell me it doesn't look like a porn shoot warm up...). It seems to stand to reason then that music would also have developed as a way to reach those ends but that doesn't mean it's the exclusive purpose. Though as mentioned by Satchmo music would cover an even wider range of potential aspects of development both mental and physical with the individual's musical prowess being an example of their ability to control those respective faculties of their being.

Where there is so much more to music than the sound you hear with the memories it provides, the images it creates of experiences you've never had, the change in mood or attitude, it's impossible to say it only came about for the booty. Though it's impossible to deny that booty is a factor in music, especially not after the socialization and individualization of music over the last few decades. Where it's heading after this who knows, I hear a lot of new songs, not a whole lot of new music, lots of people too busy 'trying' to actually end up 'doing'.

Now I'm rambling so I'll digress.

For me music will always be the sound of the light resulting from the friction between the infinite ego of want vs the eternal need of the self for control of the individual as refracted through their soul. How that fits into evolution or whatever? Who cares. Eric Dolphy said it best "When you hear music, after it's over, it's gone... in the air, you can never capture it again."


bliss (the piece starts after 20 seconds and reaches the limits of the sublime around 10 minutes).

__________________
i am the universe