The Evolution of Music: Accident, or Adaptation?

duga · 12-12-2011, 09:48 AM

I read his first long one with the hope that maybe he would get to a point that I could actually respond to. Now I skim them and laugh to myself.

Salami · 12-12-2011, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by duga

I read his first long one with the hope that maybe he would get to a point that I could actually respond to. Now I skim them and laugh to myself.

I just skimmed over this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by steveeden888

And, since you don't believe what I think, then you are less than intelligent, stupid, a moron, and a host of other positive terms.

Followed by....

Quote:

Originally Posted by steveeden888

And, never would call anyone names. I write sarcasm to myself. I know how stupid I am.

Make some sense of that.

blastingas10 · 12-13-2011, 12:43 AM

Me and Steve have come to know each other quite well. We didnt really see eye to eye at first, but from my experience he's a pretty nice guy. He can be pretty hard to understand, but there's a chance that there might be some deep wisdom in his comments that we are failing to understand, haha. Who knows. I don't know how anyone could just think of all the stuff he says without it meaning anything. Maybe I'm being too gullible. My first impression of him was "this guy is so full of ****." haha

Guybrush · 12-13-2011, 01:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr dave

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.

When reading your post and thoughts like these, I can't help think again that music needs to be properly defined in order to facilitate this discussion in a proper way, even if that definition isn't like the standard one. The standard definition, according to this thread, is that sound is organized sound. That makes music incredibly hard to differentiate from language which is, basically, organized sound. (Side note : also biologically, it makes sense that the part of our brain that deals with language (organized sound) will help us understand music (organized sound).)

Generally speaking, I would like to disagree with you and say that newborn babies don't make music. The problem doing so is again the definition which I feel makes stuff like crying a grey area. I don't like to think of it as music. Although children certainly learn to manipulate adults with crying, the first time it happens, it is a purely instinctual act with no intentional design behind it. When they're not crying, the sounds they make may be trying to learn how to talk. All healthy humans are capable of spoken language. Not all humans are very musical. For example, all healthy adult humans can retell a simple sentence that they've heard, but not all can hum a tune they just heard. Language is a much better way to communicate, a more generally human skill and is more crucial to our survival.

I think for the purposes of such discussion, music could be defined as a deliberate, artistic act using sound for example. It's not necessarily much better, but it helps separate music and language I think.

blastingas10 · 12-13-2011, 01:56 AM

I prefer tore's definition of music. What qualifies the cry of a baby as music?

starrynight · 12-13-2011, 06:21 AM

Well yeh obviously music is a deliberate artistic act, though there would still be the question of do other animals make music in that case. There is also the question of when a traditionally thought non-musical element is introduced in a piece of music and so is then seen in a musical context.

Guybrush · 12-13-2011, 06:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by starrynight

Well yeh obviously music is a deliberate artistic act, though there would still be the question of do other animals make music in that case. There is also the question of when a traditionally thought non-musical element is introduced in a piece of music and so is then seen in a musical context.

If (for the simple purposes of this discussion) accepting my suggested definition of music, as a deliberate artistic act using sound, then I would say that animals instinctively making noises is generally not music. Their sounds may be deliberate, but in most cases, it will be better described as language - a means of communication - and not an attempt at anything artistic. Just what artistic means is also hard to say, but it's useful even if it means it's something more than simply talking. Making a particular sound because you like listening to it is something I could consider artistic (and perhaps there are animals that do this), but probably not a mating call which is more like saying "Yo! Let's have sex!" .. In other words, language!

starrynight · 12-13-2011, 06:37 AM

It can be more than just what is said though, the invention can be in the way it is said.

**Scarlett O'Hara** · 12-13-2011, 07:09 AM

I'm a bit late to this thread, but Pedestrian, I disagree with his bird theories. I'm not an expert in biology but know that birds use song to court and to communicate, human brains are very different from that of birds and we use language as a way to communicate (as well as body language etc). Before I read the quotes I thought that a human hearing a bird sing or whistle may have stimulated song to a passing human in early times, well before music was evident. Thoughts?

In terms of women in music, I think there is some thought lacking in his theories. I can see how a male creating music would be considered courting in some respect because it can bring out emotion and sexual stimulation in women, but why not both ways?

Do we really know that there is more men creating music than women? Is it possible that men dominate the music industry both by record labels and performers themselves?

Paedantic Basterd · 12-13-2011, 11:30 AM

Tore: The book does mention that babies "sing" syllables as they are learning to form sounds, and the "singing" is part of exploring those sounds. I think Dave was more referring to the strings of baby babble than the crying (possibly the least musical sound I can think of).

Vanilla: I think what you've said is really valid, and haven't seen many people address women's role in music here.

12-12-2011, 09:48 AM	#141 (permalink)
duga MB quadrant's JM Vincent Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Washington, DC Posts: 3,762	I read his first long one with the hope that maybe he would get to a point that I could actually respond to. Now I skim them and laugh to myself. __________________ Confusion will be my epitaph...

12-13-2011, 12:43 AM	#143 (permalink)
blastingas10 Music Addict Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 2,126	Me and Steve have come to know each other quite well. We didnt really see eye to eye at first, but from my experience he's a pretty nice guy. He can be pretty hard to understand, but there's a chance that there might be some deep wisdom in his comments that we are failing to understand, haha. Who knows. I don't know how anyone could just think of all the stuff he says without it meaning anything. Maybe I'm being too gullible. My first impression of him was "this guy is so full of ***." haha Last edited by blastingas10; 12-13-2011 at 01:04 AM.*

12-13-2011, 06:21 AM	#146 (permalink)
starrynight Music Addict Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 937	Well yeh obviously music is a deliberate artistic act, though there would still be the question of do other animals make music in that case. There is also the question of when a traditionally thought non-musical element is introduced in a piece of music and so is then seen in a musical context. __________________ non-cliquey member of every music forum I participate on

12-13-2011, 06:37 AM	#148 (permalink)
starrynight Music Addict Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 937	It can be more than just what is said though, the invention can be in the way it is said. __________________ non-cliquey member of every music forum I participate on

12-13-2011, 07:09 AM	#149 (permalink)
Scarlett O'Hara Make it so Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 6,181	I'm a bit late to this thread, but Pedestrian, I disagree with his bird theories. I'm not an expert in biology but know that birds use song to court and to communicate, human brains are very different from that of birds and we use language as a way to communicate (as well as body language etc). Before I read the quotes I thought that a human hearing a bird sing or whistle may have stimulated song to a passing human in early times, well before music was evident. Thoughts? In terms of women in music, I think there is some thought lacking in his theories. I can see how a male creating music would be considered courting in some respect because it can bring out emotion and sexual stimulation in women, but why not both ways? Do we really know that there is more men creating music than women? Is it possible that men dominate the music industry both by record labels and performers themselves? __________________ "Elph is truly an enfant terrible of the forum, bless and curse him" - Marie, Queen of Thots

12-13-2011, 01:56 AM	#145 (permalink)
blastingas10 Music Addict Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 2,126	I prefer tore's definition of music. What qualifies the cry of a baby as music?

12-13-2011, 11:30 AM	#150 (permalink)
Paedantic Basterd Music Addict Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 5,184	Tore: The book does mention that babies "sing" syllables as they are learning to form sounds, and the "singing" is part of exploring those sounds. I think Dave was more referring to the strings of baby babble than the crying (possibly the least musical sound I can think of). Vanilla: I think what you've said is really valid, and haven't seen many people address women's role in music here.