The Evolution of Music: Accident, or Adaptation?
 

I've recently finished reading Daniel J. Levitin's research novel This is Your Brain on Music: The Science of a Human Obsession, and while most of the book was highly interesting and informative, providing thought-provoking research on aspects of our musical mind that we take for granted every day, the final chapter of the book left me (as the final chapters of most research-based novels tend to do) with a great deal of skepticism and questions on the theories last presented. I thought it would be interesting to summarize this chapter's contents, and see them evaluated by the book's target audience: we fanatics of listening.

At this point in reading, I have paused to become very irritated with the direction of the research. I'm having my passion belittled, condescended as a flippant variable. How can such an esteemed man, to an audience of 250 of music's top researchers, accuse one of the most enriching and rewarding facets of human life of being utterly worthless? But the further I read into the alternatives, the more I began to reexamine this poorly phrased, but potentially valid opinion.

This is the point wherein I become disappointed with Levitin's opinion and research for the first time reading this novel. I suppose at some point, all scientists believe every aspect of human nature comes down to one thing only; propagation of the species, and while the convenient conclusion is tempting, I take great issue with it. I feel that cooking music down to biology ultimately strips it of its mystery, its intrigue, and its power. When aspects of my humanity are tied down to genetics and reproduction, I find myself feeling like nothing more than a biological machine, and it's a feeling I don't much care for. This is where my criticism of Levitin's opinion begins.

Levitin cites a handful of human behaviours in regards to sexual selection, including the sexual exploits of rockstars, as flaunting their qualities to potential mates. He theorizes that early man would have performed song and dance to prove physical stamina and mental sharpness to potential mates, and furthermore, having enough time to perfect trivial acts would prove he had such an abundance of resources as to have all kinds of spare time. He goes on to cite the peacock as an example of this behaviour; who develops its fan of feathers purely for show, but only if it has metabolism to waste.

This is where I begin to find Levitin's research a bit sloppy, even sexist. Has no one considered that fewer men aged 40 begin bands more because of the strenuous lifestyle than because of "sexual bolstering"? The lifestyle of a young musician is exhausting and insecure. There is no guarantee of success and a constant level of hard work must be maintained to make any footing in an industry that was already on the collapse in 2006 when the book was published. Is it not just as likely that 40 year old men aren't physically inclined to spent weeks cramped in a van on the road, performing nightly, sleeping on floors? Is it not possible that men of this age have families to support and consider, to be away from, on a career path that guarantees no financial stability?

I find the second half of his statement completely irrelevant. If young males are creating music to attract mates, then what is the point of them devouring new music themselves? If the basis of music is sexual attraction, why do men enjoy the musical works of other men, often much more than they enjoy the work of women?

And finally, I know that this forum above all recognizes the musical contributions of women; poll results show a landslide acknowledgement of female talent in music. Miller's point is that there are vastly more men performing music than women, which is accurate, but misguided. Did Miller or Levitin pause and consider that worldwide, there are more men excelling in pretty much every single field outside of the household? Could the lack of women in music not be attributed to the very recently abolished (in terms of evolution) paradigm that a woman's role is that of caretaker?

Furthermore, Miller's point is a double-edged sword. If women were the target audience of music created by men for sexual selection, then would women not form the vast majority of music's audience, and ultimately be biologically "better at listening" to music than men? Balderdash.

Levitin goes on to cite a study done in which women at varying stages of their ovulation cycle were asked a question of sexual preference: Do you find a poor artist more sexually appealing than a wealthy man of average creativity? The study found that at the peak of fertility, women were more likely to select the creative man over the wealthy one. I find this study flawed in two major aspects.

First, no medium of art was specified for the "artistic male". Automatically, it can't be assumed that women were considering musicians when polled. What would the study have looked like when women were asked to select between poets, visual artists, and musicians at the height of fertility?

Second, why weren't men polled in a similar manner as the women? This study is one-sided, and fails to account for the role of women in art, and what effect that may have on a man's interest during his own hormonal fluctuations, over a time and age range.

Levitin states multiple times in previous chapters that it has only been in very recent (the last hundred or so) years, that music has become a spectator's activity, and that previously, it was an all inclusive social act. Does he not contradict his very own words by then placing women in the role of spectators throughout history?

The first two points I don't immediately disagree with, but I find his forth argument flawed when he goes on to explain that animals also use vocalization in courtship. In the very first chapter, What is Music?, Levitin explains that music is the cognitive result of outside stimulus to the air particles in our environment. Particles vibrate in a manner that our brains interpret as sound; music is purely a mental construct, and does not exist outside of our minds.

I think it's fairly obvious that a bird's brain has little in common with ours. Who is to say that a birdsong is not heard vastly differently by a bird's brain? Levitin himself says we can't allow ourselves to apply human constructs to animal behaviour (and cites a dog rolling in grass as an example; we see the dog rolling and interpret it as play, whereas the dog is cloaking himself in a scent to assure his dominance over other dogs). Music is a human construct, and Levitin at no point discusses how animals may process the same vibrations in a much different manner. Without a first hand perspective of the working's of an animal's mind (or for that matter, even some thorough research on the matter), I find it a poor example in favour of adaptation indeed.

Levitin also fails to consider the impact of other mediums of artwork on the human mind. Visual art for instance, has absolutely nothing to do with physical stamina. Why should one form of art be condemned as a spandrel, but not another so similar?

If the production of music is a testament to the creator's sexual value, then what is taste? Taste is a variable so profound, I can't begin to see how it works in favour of courtship. Some artists make me want to rip their faces off, rather than my clothes, while retaining huge followings of fans. Furthermore, Levitin discusses in Chapter 7, What Makes a Musician? how it is an accumulation of 10,000 hours of practice that makes an expert in any field, regardless of talent. He cites a study done where students were secretly segregated into two groups based on a professor's perception of their talent, and after an extended period of time, it was the students who practiced the most who outperformed the rest, regardless of the group they were initially a part of. Expertise thus, is not genetic, so how can it indicate fit genes for reproduction?


In spite of my heavy criticism of the final chapter, this book has proven one of the most interesting and informative reads I've ever picked up, and has given me a lot of insight into music and listening as a whole. Ultimately, I think I prefer not to know the absolute source of music in our species; I don't want an answer to deflate the intrigue of one of life's most valuable aspects, but it's amusing to consider and discuss the possibilities without settling on one or having one handed directly to me.

TL; DR So, what do you think? Where do you believe music has evolved from?

I would imagine boredom had a lot to do with it.

I'd treat the claim that music's biological function is purely a sexual one as being extremely dubious. The whole point of starting a band when you are nineteen is that you are old enough to make your own decisions, you feel a sense of awe in what you are discovering and you are finding new talents. Also, a desire to create something hich is aesthetically pleasing to behold is the cornerstone of art, not just music. Deriding this is to claim that human creativity is "biologically worthless", which in turn shows a complete disregard to culture. I also think you were right to feel insulted by Pinker's belittling of music.It is preposterous to think that it is only a natural desire to mate drives us to this. I personally like nothing more than to stroll down on saturday mornings, seat myself at the piano and play some Scott Joplin piano rags for an hour or so. No one will ever hear me. So why do I do it? I have an urge, intrinsic to all humans, to be creative and express the soul. I don't do it because I want to find a partner, nor would I select a partner through their ability to play an instrument.
If you believe in God, you should be even more offended by this, because the human desire to be creative is something God probably loves.
Music is, in the words of CS Lewis, "an acceleration in celestial experience."

Overall, that was a very interesting review. As for where do I believe music evolved from, I think it probably stems from the fact that the desire for harmony and to express oneself in sound is closely linked to the rest of art, except through another medium, ie. sound. I think that the very first cave paintings, which might be the first form of recorded art, show that people want to express themselves, and if they can do that, they can make music.

Awesome thread!

I can't address all the points you made (doing so would be mental suicide), but the biggest one I want to rebut is this notion that art & music should have some sort of cognitive mysticism about its roots.

I understand that a lot of people balk at the idea for there being rhyme or reason behind art, because they think that implies there is something prescribed to an individual about the artistic direction of their choice. It is this notion of individualism in art that needs wholesale abandonment: it was, is, and will continue to be a means of EXPRESSION, not DISTINCTION.

It's pretty easy to grasp from there why demonstratively creative people pose an evolutionary advantage over others who lack certain such characteristics.

Music is math.

I'm not religious by any means, if anything I'm the quintessential agnostic believer, but something about giving music a biological imperative felt very violating to me, equal to a debunking of faith.

I would prefer music to have been a spandrel of language in the end, because it then retains its soul and beauty of creative genius. I was surprised to find myself agreeing more with the initial theory that outraged me than the provided alternative. This was not an outcome I anticipated.

Well, they are taking something that is a deeply personal expression of someone's own feelings, and attempting to reduce it to purely naturalistic causes. I think that they grossly underestimate what is really involved in the human brain. They consider every aspect of human life to be merely an elaborate development of a basic, primordial, and ultimately chemical urge. I think that is not only wrong, but deeply undermines the value of any expression of art.
Not only that, but there isn't a shred of evidence for it. Not everyone is a reductionist, Pinker.

As I think about it, my distaste is less about a reason behind art's existence, and more about the reason Levitin provided; reproduction. Perhaps this comes down to personal biases, but I would be more accepting of music as having a purpose in social bonding or cognitive development (two points made that I did not refute). Perhaps it's because I see reproduction as such a selfish and animalistic imperative, I would hate for my love of it to boil down to a manipulation of my senses for genetic gain. The very notion sits poorly with me.

Creativity as a whole should have been considered, and which I think has a very practical purpose evident today. Our entire progression as a species has resulted from human ingenuity. Without our curiosity and innovation, we would still be animals.

This is the key bit for me. He as a psycologist is deriding the very mental ability which was essensial for our species development. I cannot believe that he could claim that creativity is "biologically useless". He didn't say that in so many words, but denying that music isn't a form of creativity is nonsensical.

I feel I may have confused you at some point, Salami. My post contains two opposing theories on the origin of music, Pinker's spandrel theory, and Levitin's adaptation theory. The majority of the post is criticizing Levitin's rebuttal of Pinker's theory, and while I think Pinker was a bit of a short-sighted weiner in the way he phrased his points, ultimately, the spandrel theory is the more acceptable to me.

I would be interested to see if we as a group can produce other theories in opposition of these two.

Pedestrian, in regards to music as a way to attract mates, that doesn't mean men will only play music in order to attract females. In essence, what it means is that evolution has rewarded men who were musical with higher fitness because females found them more attractive. Them actively pursuing women with music could (or would) of course be a strategy, but it doesn't have to. Thus, despite the quotation, I doubt the guy seriously means men only play music in order to attract females, but rather that music has the place it has in culture today because of it's related fitness benefits in our evolutionary history. On average, musical guys had more kids, regardless of why they performed (and remember this is way back then when they probably didn't have bands and go on tour). In this situation, it would still be likely for men to develop a general strategy serenading women of course.

It's just hard to formulate it perfectly in the space of a sentence.

As for what I believe, I believe music has piggybacked our capacity for communication. Our ability to vocally communicate has increased and our capacity for music with it. At some point, when music has been discovered and spread through a population, music itself could be selected for and so then it could go from being merely a "spandrel" to becoming an adaptation in itself, just like birds have specialized wings adapted for various forms of flight. When or if that ever happened, I don't know .. I guess I'd want to read a book or see a lecture on it before making up my mind about it!

edit :

As a side note, I'm sure if song birds had ever become as intelligent and culturally advanced as people, they would like music too :)

I'm probably just choking on my own rage here!
I think both men have got it wrong. I don't like the attempts either has at reducing music to a primordial instinct. I think music is far more subtle than that, dealing with aspects of the brain that aren't properly understood. I'm probably not alone here in feeling a little insulted the feeling is when the art you respect and put so much effort into is treated by these people in such a cursory way.

Re: Tore's side note: Perhaps though, an evolved songbird would perceive music from much different sources than we do?

I've got to be off to work soon, apologies for the short reply.

Tore, being a biology graduate, will be warmly welcomed on this thread!!

Well, thanks for the review, Pedestrian, I've got to go to bed soon!

Music evolves along with the culture/society that feeds it, I'd say. I think it's more of an adaptation than accident.

Wow, the correlation between music and evolution was the topic of discussion in my Psychology of Music class this morning. I'll come back to this thread once I've read through it.

Music invokes massive amounts of emotions in people, it catalyzes endorphin release and elevates seratonin production/levels in the brain. When thinking in terms of the correlation between biological mechanism and sensual/emotional effects I see it as a shared evolutionary memory necessary to well-being. Somewhere along the line all species devleop the need to express themselves musically, or aurally in some way. Birds and whales are a primary example of this, they develop intricate, unique, and beautiful sounds even in isolation, and humans are no different. Slaves in the Deep South used songs not only as means of communication but as a coping mechanism to deal with the harsh reality of life. If our brains are wired to respond to tonal melodies then that is proof enough to me that music is a necessity, rather than a useless luxury.

Biologically, I'm fairly sure people, and even some animals, are acute to frequencies. Pitches and their harmonies resonate a certain way that lines up, and splits, lines up, then splits. It's pleasing to the ear. Not sure why.

All I know is that I'd be plenty bored without it.

It is far too late in the night for me to write a huge post regarding this subject but the simple fact that there is a specific area in our brains that produces and/or digests music is enough for me to regard it as a massively important part of evolution.

Music is art and expression and I think it's an integral wheel in the cog that makes humans what they are.

Music is communication on many levels and rarely have I ever seen any other form of expression unite and delight so many people no matter their age or creed.

I personally feel sorry for people that don't find music an exhilarating experience.

Looking forwards to this in particular.

Music is processed by many regions of our brain at once. Some of these regions overlap with the regions that process language and speech, which is where the bit about "piggybacking on language" came about.

Appendix A of the book provides a visual aid and lists the following involved regions of the brain.

Motor cortex: movement, foot-tapping, dancing, playing instruments.
Prefrontal cortex: Creation of expectations, violation and satisfaction of expectations set by music.
Cerebellum: Movement as covered by the motor cortex, also involved in emotional reactions to music.
Visual cortex: Involved in reading music, or watching a performer's movements (including one's own).
Auditory cortex: The first stages of listening to sounds, the perception and analysis of tones.
Sensory cortex: Tactile feedback from playing an instrument and dancing.
Nucleus Accumbens: Emotional reactions to music.
Amygdala: emotional reactions to music.
Hippocampus: memory for music, musical experiences, and context.

As you can see, music is processed far and wide throughout the brain, and all of these regions are responsible for performing many other operations in the mind, so in that manner, I don't think it's fair to say that music has its own developed region.

The book spends many chapters going in to greater depth about all of these sections and what tasks they perform in regards to music, and I regret that I can't just copy them out for the information of anybody interested. I couldn't even find a PDF of the book, I typed all this out manually, haha.

Ahh! Now I'll have to write something that will blow you all out of the water! Just hang on, I'm finishing a 12 page essay :)

No rush!

It's 20 past ten over here and I'm tired of waiting, Burning Down. But I really want to read this!!!

I would advise that you just forget all that 'information', and discard it. Free that portion of the brain for more music. Music has always reflected 'cultural' ideals, and, tribal cultures usually used music as an appeal or appeasement to the various 'gods'.

Mating rituals in humans were rarely individual rites. And, as for animals, i.e birds, science understands them less than they understand us.

Your comments appear to address the issues with far more logic and reasoning than the comments quoted by the various 'sources'. It seems that the authors fail to take into account the biggest influence on modern music. Money. Record companies create 'sex idols', and pop music is designed to appeal to teenage girls. And, that all began with Elvis, who never wrote or co-wrote a song his entire career. And, he is the 'king'?

I won't rant. I agree with most of your comments. I would, however, toss the book in the trash file. Music has not 'evolved'. It has undergone several changes, which, then simply are classified under different or new genres.

Disco did die a quick death, thank heaven:) But, it can still be heard in techno dance pop. If one were to consider that 'evolution', I suppose that would be a valid opinion. And finally, it is said that 'emo' grew out of the post-hardcore punk scene, but, I cringe whenever I read that:)

Oh well. I suppose I could write a book here, but, I digress:)

peace


steve

I'm impressed! :clap:

Although this is a good point, and one I do agree with, I think that on the other hand the art of music in it's most basic form is a desire to be creative. That may be influenced by sex, and more importantly money, but at the end of the day it is exactly the same cerebral process as designing computers: creativity.

The thread is about the evolution of music so it is not about the present as much as it is about our evolutionary history and why we evolved a capacity and desire to create and enjoy music. Generally speaking, any ideas involving the stress of touring, record labels, money and other present day stuff will just be irrelevant.

I would not disagree with that wholeheartedly. There are 'artists' who desire only to be creative, and, then there are the corporate 'song slingers', who churn out hits for the Justin Biebers and all the New Kids on the Blocks.

I have a lot of respect for Lady Ga Ga. Can't stand the music, but, she is an artist.

What separates an artist from a performer is simple for me. Do they create their own music? If so, then, kudos to them. If not, they belong in the same trash heap as the 'king'.

Make sense?

peace

At this point I would just like to note that the remaining 8 chapters of the book are very informative and factual, and completely worthwhile. Typically books such as this one end in the air, as the research has come to an end and they are looking to the future of discovery on the topic. I just happened to disagree with Levitin's hypothesis.

I think there are probably a bit of both accident and adaptation at work. My guess is that music is an adaptation/ extension on the development of language. Enjoying it on a deeper emotional level may be an accident of brain chemistry. Maybe a common form of synesthesia where it accidently triggers pleasure centres in the brain?

So, is chapter 9 the last chapter, or, are there 17 chapters? You say remaining, so, I would assume 8 more, but, I can't assume. You know what that does:)

I'm glad you found it informative and worthwhile. It would have sucked if you read it, and, found it worthless, right:)

I personally have rather negative views concerning psychoanalysis. I minored in psychology, and, would have been better served to minor in underwater basket weaving.

I just have this thing about science and attempting to analyze the brain, when man has evolved into a sub sub species.

Single-cell organisms can carry the whole genetic code, and then some, and man still offers sacrifices to gods he created, and goes to war, because my god is better than your god.

We're dumb dumbs on the lowest rung of the dumb dumb scale. I bet somewhere someone is betting on how long it takes us to blow ourselves up, and laughing their cosmic as*es off.

It's all mind dude. If we do not evolve Spiritually and mentally, we're done. Stick a fork in us, and, feed the buzzards.

Rant is over:) I do respect one maybe two in the field. Jung. And, Jung. And, Nietzsche was actually pretty heads up on things. Freud, Reich....wackjobs. But, to each his own opinion, right?

I respect your insight, and, your capacity to critically think, so, we can agree on the fact that neither of us fall into that category:)

This just reminds me a great song. I wonder how the creativity of Alice Cooper can be measured. I gotta start a thread on Alice. He was a maniac. And, I have not seen one reference on this forum to his creativity.:)



peace

I think that a lot of people see and hear the theatrical side to Alice Coopers music and never really sit down and actually listen to the the creative genii behind Alice Coopers music, anything other than his more popular material anyway like, "No More Mr Nice Guy" etc.

One of my favorite albums, his 1978 release "From The Inside". Lyrics written by Alice Cooper in collaboration with Bernie Taupin.

Looking forward to your thread.

Perhaps I should point out, clearly this time, that this is the stupidest post I've read so far in the thread.

"the authors fail to take into account the biggest influence on modern music. Money."

The thread is not about the evolution of modern day music into various genres. Try and understand the thread instead of just pretending that you do and get on topic, please!

Wow. I remember the LP. I did not know he collaborated with Taupin. I'll start with Killer, and you can post some from this one. I'll get it started.

peace.....thanks for the friend request. You broke my cherry:)

This is the kind of thing we ought to be discussing. It is wise for you to have pointed out that our desire to create music has existed long before the pressures of money and touring were around.
And even the title of the thread is "The Evolution of Music: Accident, or Adaptation?"

Boy I sure feel stupid. "In contemporary society, Music evolved and continues to function as a courtship display, mostly broadcast by young males to attract females"........HMMMMM

I believe I stated a disagreement with the idea that contemporary music has NOT evolved, it has simply undergone changes, and has been re-categorized into various or different genres.

The last I checked, Classical is still Classical. Jazz is still Jazz. Blues are still Blues. Opera is still Opera. And, I believe Country still is Western. Classic Rock is still Classic Rock. Bluegrass yep.

But, pop is now techno, emo, brit pop, dream pop, indie pop, math rock, ska punk, neo-glam, ambient pop, space pop, lo-fi, noise pop, chamber pop...blah blah blah...

And, that is just a smidgen.

Here is a link for you, in case you would like a couple hundred more examples.

Explore: Pop/Rock | AllMusic

So, the fact that some author states that contemporary music has evolved and continues to function as a courtship display. And, I say no it hasn't, I disagree, I do not believe that. I have another opinion. Gee, how ignorant of me to have an opinion that is totally valid and poignant to the fact of just how contemporary music is influenced by powerful record moguls, who mold and shape performers for profit, rather than how it has 'evolved' and continues to function as some primate mating ritual.

Maybe, I need some stupid pills. Could you recommend a good stupid doctor?

Perhaps I should point out clearly that before you go around calling someone stupid, you might want to put down the PBR, and consider finishing 5th grade.
The third time's the charm they say.

I'm just guessing, however, I have no idea. You may be 12 or 13, who knows?
I never checked your profile, so, you may not read English so well.
I certainly don't mean to assume you are stupid like me.

But, since I do actually have a degree in psychology, I feel like I am qualified to have a different opinion on the subject. How about you? I'm sure you have a PhD, right?

peace my brother:)

No one criticizes tore's credentials. After his biology degree he became the only man in history to win the Nobel prize twice.

I probably should not have. I looked at his upload. He looks more like Thor. I think I will delete my location now:)

On a serious note, tore is extremely well qualified for this.

I don't usually get in the middle of disagreements between other members, but I am shocked by some of your statements toward tore.

To be honest, I just don't see someone with a degree in psychology making such obtuse statements.

Peace. ;)

I've just re-read that. This is very obnoxious even by Internet standards. And do you think that by accusing tore of being 11 or 12 sounds like the argument of a winner?
As a matter of fact, tore used to be a mod on this site, and posts regularly constructive, persuasive and well mannered comments. I think your accusations are completely unnecessary.