Janszoon

Just an FYI, the guy you're saying all this to is actually a professional scientist who is quite well educated.

__________________
A Night in the Life of the Invisible Man

Time & Place

25 Albums You Should Hear Before the Moon Crashes into the Earth and We All Die

last.fm

SIRIUSB

I'm going to comment on the OP and avoid getting in the middle of all this turmoil.

Concerning the Darwinian evolution of music, I wouldn't agree that 'music' as we define it today has evolved by natural selection, but rather that 'sound' did and in a very esoteric definition of music (the organization of sound and silence in time) perhaps could have evolved by natural selection.

One of my favorite ideas concerning Cymatics is that after the Big Bang there existed a soup of cosmic dust so to speak, and resulting from this tremendous super nova there also was put into motion the Primordial Vibration.

Called the Word in the Judeo-Christian Bible, Hindu Scriptures call it Naad and Shruti, Persian scriptures Sraosha, Kalma in Muslim scriptures, ‘the Sonorous Light' in Buddhism, Naam or Shabd by the Sikhs, in Patanjali Yoga Darshan, the God/dess Ishwara is a Being expressed by this original vibration (Pranav) and Madam Helen Blavatsky and the Theosophists call it ‘the Voice of Silence'.

The most popular word for this is OM, and through the influx of vibration all things in the physical Universe were created through sacred geometry such as the Fibonacci sequence, the Golden Mean.

Salami

Thanks. I've been trying to tell him this.

blankety blank

I'm sure he is. I don't have an issue. But, the fact is that I was not completely ignorant and totally off-topic. Simply, because I addressed something that was not posted as a consideration on the part of 'scholars', who wish to study the human brain's capacity to create music as if it were an organism, that evolved from a phylum to a sub sub species, and does not impress me; and, I posted an opinion that was completely valid as it applies to contemporary music did not call for the response I received.

I may have made some light-hearted jabs, but, they were not malicious in intent, as, I know the reply I received was. If you're going to call someone out as stupid, and completely ignorant of the topic at hand, have some class. Or, expect a reply.

I may have responded with what appeared to be equal malice, but, only what I felt as humorous, and not malicious in intent. I'm sure everyone here is well qualified to post.

However, he did claim that I posted something entirely different than what I actually wrote, so, when you do not agree, or wish to make a point, then, don't just call someone a stupid, ill-informed moron who does not understand the topic. Provide some evidence as to how I failed to address any portion of the topic at hand, or just ask for clarification. It's called discussion, not a grade school game of who's the moron.

I know I'm stupid, I didn't need anyone to reiterate that point

The thread did address contemporary music, and, how musicians are motivated and influenced on the content of their prose. I just brought up a reality that was 'overlooked' by the so-called 'experts'.

I'm over it as of before I even replied, so, I harbor no ill feelings. And, relay to the gentleman that I hope he feels the same.

Does this song sound like it has evolved as a primate mating ritual, or, have you heard this sound for many years, despite the fact that this 'idol' never penned a word of it?



Is this 'evolution'? Or, marketing appeal?

peace

steve

__________________
The passing traveler stops for food and music.

Guybrush

You completely misunderstand the author - and the point of the thread - and continue to do so even when I've pointed out your obvious mistake several times.

What the author means is that whatever it is in our biology that makes us have a capacity to create and enjoy music is still evolving - as in the genetic makeup that code for those traits are still changing with each generation and he's saying, perhaps a bit clumsily, that people with musical skill on average have higher fitness today than the non-musical. Genres and culture is not part of that statement. It's about evolving DNA.

When he's writing about the evolution of music, what he means is the evolution of man's cacapity and desire to create and listen to music and the role that it plays from an evolutional point of view. Why did it evolve and is it still evolving for the same reason?

You write stuff like how music was made to appease the gods. If you knew anything about evolution at all, you would know that appeasing the gods, unless they actually exist and reward you with sex, is not something that will reward you with increased fitness. And so, as an argument against evolution, it's completely worthless.

The point of the authors is that in our history, and this is something that would have gone on for thousands upon thousands of years, musical people have had higher fitness. They've on average had more offspring. Their suggested explanation is that women find men who are musical more attractive. The reason it's women who find men attractive and not vice versa is because females, carrying babies around in their bodies who use their resources and then feeding them milk after birth, have a tremendously high parental input into offspring compared to what men can get away with and so they have to make sure they get good sexual partners. Men can shoot their load and take off. In evolution, this is extremely important and has far reaching consequences.

If you really think that music is not evolving, you should make a proper argument that has to do with evolution. And, just so you know, mankind never stops evolving and so claiming music doesn't evolve will automatically make you wrong.


Now, the reason I call you stupid is really because you come here, don't know what the hell the thread is about, posts like you think you do and then do it in the douchiest, most pretentious way possible, suggesting Pedestrian through away the book as you know better, claiming the authors are wrong and trying to score cred by boasting about your psychology minor. If that's not being a stupid, douchy idiot, I don't know what is.

No, but I am a biologist with a master's degree in biology so I've studied evolution and so, unlike you, understand the subject of the thread.

edit :

That's funny.

Classy

__________________
Something Completely Different

Salami

And then:

I think that this is ridiculous. I think there's nothing productive in that at all. I hope tore feels patient enough to deal with you, because I don't like this kind of derision followed by hypocritic excuses.

Moving back to the topic, I think tore said some useful stuff concerning evolution and the changing abilities and capacities of the human brain. To add to his argument I'd like to say specifically that the capacity for creativity and hence ingenuity demonstrated in music is exactly the same as the capacity for invention, engineering and the desire for inquiry, hence from an evolutionary perspective the humans with larger creative capacity would be "fitter" (using tore's words), and if so more likely to pass on that capacity in it's DNA.

Paedantic Basterd

Tore is the number one person I was hoping this would lure into discussion.

blankety blank

The stupidest post written by someone who lacks understanding and pretends he is not stupid.

Gee, that's not insulting. How inconsiderate of me to respond to these kind words. I'm sure there was no malice intended.

I've addressed this, so, I will simply bow out of this thread, because, I am obviously not qualified, and, I appear to be the villain. My reply was no more insulting than this, I simply tried to make it humorous.

I did end mine by saying 'peace to you brother', and I meant it. My reply was not malicious in intent.

Again, I offer a handshake, and, no hard feelings. It's over. Why do I need to be portrayed, or made to seem like I committed a crime here?

I defended my position with a valid argument, and, also provided the evidence that I was misquoted.

I will bow out of this thread, so, everyone wins. I am not here for contentiousness. I get plenty on other forums on which I address serious issues.

This is my fun forum, so, fun's over on this thread

Someone did forget to mention something when they posted how sound and musical harmony(I guess) evolved from Big Bang. There was no mention of the nine Muses, daughters of Zeus and Mnemosyne, which included:

Euterpe (Music)
Polyhymnia (Hymns)
Terpsichore (Dance)

I am certain that the various scriptural accounts are much more viable as scientific fact, but, as for the Biblical account, I believe it was Tubal-cain who was the instructor of men in all artifices of brass and stringed instruments. I do not know who his vocalist was, but, David apparently was a singer, and his psalms I don't believe were meant as a means to impress chicks. Unless, the LORD was actually Eve. I have some pretty good evidence that he was a she.

Sorry I addressed this on your post, but, as I am exiting I did not want to waste anymore space

I am smiling, so, please do not think for a moment that I am being anything less than light-hearted and cordial. Sarcasm is only malicious if it is intended to be, and, mine is not.

Since this thread is discussing the psychology and evolution of something, I will leave with a song. It is 'psychobilly', and is sung by a Reverend.

It is not a mating call, however.



peace my brother

steve

__________________
The passing traveler stops for food and music.

Guybrush

Unlike Steve, I don't really know that much about the subject, although I will say that the bit Pedestrian posted about music happening in many regions of the brain indicating that music is piggybacking other developed traits, like language - makes sense to me. It doesn't mean I'm not open to a good counter argument if someone provides one.

Songbirds are a good example that have taken this "males sing for females" strategy to the extreme. In some species of birds, probably a lot of them really, you can make them sing more by giving them testosterone. If in 50 million years, something like intellectually and culturally advanced birdmen exist, they could potentially trace the origin of music back to when the first bird started singing. But only if bird song is considered music (it's instinctual rather than intentional), so .. for the purposes of this thread, defining what we mean by music might also be useful! If it's an ape bashing a log to make cool sounds, then one might have to go back very far.

edit :

The idea that, evolutionary speaking, men make music to attract women doesn't mean every song is a mating call. It just means men who make music are more attractive and so their own intellectual justification or whatever for making the music in the first place isn't necessarily important. What's important is that chicks think it's hot. As long as they do, making music is a good strategy for maximizing fitness.

Anyways, peace Steve!

__________________
Something Completely Different

Paedantic Basterd

The book defines music in the opening chapters as "Organized sound". However, that leaves a gray area for language, and an even grayer area for bird language.