How Did Music Evolve?

Thanks for that article, Michel.

ladylazarus said:

Anything created has evolved, because the brain that created it had to evolve.

Click to expand...

Ok, you've been thinking about it for a while. Here are some more things to think about.

If by evolve you mean "a process of change in a certain direction " (Merriam Webster) then certainly music has evolved. The oldest musical instruments found date back 8 to 9 thousand years ago (http://www.archaeology.org/9911/newsbriefs/flute.html) and music has taken enormous strides in moving in a certain direction since then. Or theorist believe that prehistoric development of music among humans occurred against the backdrop of natural sounds. It was, in all probability, influenced by birdsong and the sounds other animals use to communicate (sort of what I said- music came from the sounds of creation). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_music#Prehistoric_music

If by evolution you mean "a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations" (Merriam Webster) then there lies a chance to prove this in at least two areas.

One, is there really evolution of this type (which I deny but will accept it for this discussion). If so, then there is a burden of proof that music has evolved because man's brain has evolved. Recent evidence would show that music has progressed along the lines of the first definition without any noticable evidence of the later definition of evolution, ie. man's brain hasn't evolved, physiolgically, in 8-9 thoousand years. As an example I give the changes in musical instruments from the earliest discovered bone flutes.

Now as final side argument to your premise, your statement said that anything created has evolved, because the brain that created it had to evolve. I reject this because I accept that God created all things and He is the same yesterday, today and forever. This precludes evolution, even by your premise.

Mull it over.

YmirGF said:

I tend to side with ladylazurus on this one....
I think man learned that he could IMPART what he was FEELING via music......

Click to expand...

Didn't LadyLazurus state that music evolved. You are stating that it is learned. I missed the agreement. Is that what you wanted to say?

:tsk: Oh Faint What It Means Is That Your Still In The Physical You Must Remove Yourself Mentally From Such Carnal Thoughts And Then You Will Be Free,oh Faint In All Seriousness Life Is Much More Deeper Than Groupies......blessings To You Beloved.

fatmop said:

I know I don't have much of an explanation of my own, but music is an exceedingly complicated thing. How do you even define it? Is bird song included? If you're talking about natural/sexual selection, it should be.

Click to expand...

Worth noting the musical quality of speech, fatmop.

Not my speech, Mr. Guy. Why do you think I post on these forums?

oh Faint In All Seriousness Life Is Much More Deeper Than Groupies

Click to expand...

Whoa.. deeper than groupies? Man, you have never had groupies, have you?

man's brain hasn't evolved, physiolgically, in 8-9 thoousand years.

Click to expand...

Are you being serious? 8-9 thousands years isn't enough time for significant evolution, but if you accept the premise that the theory of natural selection is correct, there is no such thing as "not evolving."

ladylazarus said:

Are you being serious? 8-9 thousands years isn't enough time for significant evolution, but if you accept the premise that the theory of natural selection is correct, there is no such thing as "not evolving."

Click to expand...

Ok, am I wrong in thinking that your assertion is that man's brain has evolved therefore music has evolved with it? If so there has been too dramatic a change in music (evolution according to the first definition I offered) in the last 8-9 thousand years that does not correspond with any significant (observable or quantifiable) change in the evolution (according to the second definition offered) of man's brain.

While what you presented might qualify as a nice thought there seems to be no substance with which to prove it.

you have also made no counterclaim to what I offered in that the earliest forms of music probably started with a mimicing of the sounds of nature, ie. creation.

sandy whitelinger said:

Ok, am I wrong in thinking that your assertion is that man's brain has evolved therefore music has evolved with it?

Click to expand...

Nope.

If so there has been too dramatic a change in music (evolution according to the first definition I offered) in the last 8-9 thousand years that does not correspond with any significant (observable or quantifiable) change in the evolution (according to the second definition offered) of man's brain.

Click to expand...

The brain size of recognized "geniuses" can vary from 1000 cc to 2000 cc in modern humans.

The reason that the dramatic changes in the human brain are not quantifiable is because they are so miniscule. Just a few neurons can alter the course of human activity forever. Neurobiology is a very young science, and has only been in the mainstream for about 30 years. We are simply not advanced enough in that field to map out in detail these kinds of tiny neurological changes.

However, any neurobiologist or psychologist will tell you that tiny, microscopic changes in the human brain can produce drastic changes in human action and ability.

Also, what makes you think that music has evolved so dramatically? I don't think we can say for certain that it has, as we have nothing to compare it to. We are the only species we have come in contact with which produces organized music (except for the most basic musics of bats & dolphins (echolocation) and birds). Personally, I get the distinct feeling that if there were an alien species which had evolved very similarly to humans, but started off 100,000 years earlier, they would look at our art and music and see it the same way we see cave paintings.

Also, I have a question for you. How is it that music has evolved if not through evolution of the human brain? Are you arguing that some supernatural force creates it or am I missing something (which is a definite possiblity).

you have also made no counterclaim to what I offered in that the earliest forms of music probably started with a mimicing of the sounds of nature, ie. creation.

Click to expand...

I agree with you that the earliest music probably came from mimicing nature. However, the only reason we became able to mimic nature was because our brains (and hands, and vocal chords, etc.) had evolved to a point where that was possible.

ladylazarus said:

The reason that the dramatic changes in the human brain are not quantifiable is because they are so miniscule. Just a few neurons can alter the course of human activity forever. Neurobiology is a very young science, and has only been in the mainstream for about 30 years. We are simply not advanced enough in that field to map out in detail these kinds of tiny neurological changes.

Click to expand...

So there is no proof to back up your assertion?

ladylazarus said:

However, any neurobiologist or psychologist will tell you that tiny, microscopic changes in the human brain can produce drastic changes in human action and ability.

Click to expand...

Those changes owerwhelmingly cause adverse changes do they not?

ladylazarus said:

Also, what makes you think that music has evolved so dramatically? I don't think we can say for certain that it has, as we have nothing to compare it to .

Click to expand...

Gee, I thought that the change from the earliest form of musical instruments found by archeologist compared to present instruments would be some form of proof that music has evolved.

ladylazarus said:

Also, I have a question for you. How is it that music has evolved if not through evolution of the human brain?)..

Click to expand...

I believe I explained that music has evolved by the first definition of evolution I offered (a process of change in a certain direction). It's a learning process not a species change. The evolution of an inantimate object cannot be explained in terms that an evolutionary change (supposed) happens to a biologic species (ie. genetic change).

I hope I'm not going to have to go do an indepth study of musical changes over the last 8 thousand years to get you to understand that perhaps music has progressed in a certain direction in that time.

ladylazarus said:

Are you arguing that some supernatural force creates it or am I missing something (which is a definite possiblity).

I agree with you that the earliest music probably came from mimicing nature. However, the only reason we became able to mimic nature was because our brains (and hands, and vocal chords, etc.) had evolved to a point where that was possible.

Click to expand...

My original statement was that man created music by imitating the sounds of nature (which I believe were created by God). I don't believe that man has evolved. that aside you are using the premise that music evolved because man has evoled. I reject that by saying that music has evolved significantly without any specific evidence that man (or his brain) has.

Simple enough? BTW, Merry Chrismas and a Happy New Year (translation from the Greek, "Peace on earth and goodwill towards men.")

sandy whitelinger said:

So there is no proof to back up your assertion?

Click to expand...

That depends what you need for proof. We don't have photographic evidence, but there is evidence in the fact that humans don't think the same things. Coupled with a basic understanding of the physiology of the human brain, this leads to the conclusion that human mental faculties are continuing to evolve.

Those changes owerwhelmingly cause adverse changes do they not?

Click to expand...

No, they do not. Only severe changes tend to cause adverse reactions such as schizophrenia.

Gee, I thought that the change from the earliest form of musical instruments found by archeologist compared to present instruments would be some form of proof that music has evolved.

I believe I explained that music has evolved by the first definition of evolution I offered (a process of change in a certain direction). It's a learning process not a species change. The evolution of an inantimate object cannot be explained in terms that an evolutionary change (supposed) happens to a biologic species (ie. genetic change).

Click to expand...

I never said that music hasn't evolved. I said that the evolution of music, by your first definition, is the direct result of the evolution through natural and sexual selection of the human brain.

My original statement was that man created music by imitating the sounds of nature (which I believe were created by God). I don't believe that man has evolved. that aside you are using the premise that music evolved because man has evoled. I reject that by saying that music has evolved significantly without any specific evidence that man (or his brain) has.

Click to expand...

Well I think that's the problem. Why don't you believe man has evolved? Have you read Darwin's The Descent of Man?

ladylazarus said:

That depends what you need for proof. We don't have photographic evidence, but there is evidence in the fact that humans don't think the same things. Coupled with a basic understanding of the physiology of the human brain, this leads to the conclusion that human mental faculties are continuing to evolve.



No, they do not. Only severe changes tend to cause adverse reactions such as schizophrenia.



I never said that music hasn't evolved. I said that the evolution of music, by your first definition, is the direct result of the evolution through natural and sexual selection of the human brain.



Well I think that's the problem. Why don't you believe man has evolved? Have you read Darwin's The Descent of Man?

Click to expand...

Hi Lady. I won't answer piece by piece but will say this. Let's pick the change in musical instruments and the change in the human brain (evolutionary speaking) in the last 6,000 years.

Assuming that there was a change that happened to the brain 6,000 years ago that affected music. These questions need be answered. Did this occur in more than one person? How did this change percolate throughout the human race in only 6,00 years or at least through enough of the human race to make the associated change in music recognizable and accepted by such a widespread majority of the human race.

My point would be that the evolution of music is a response to the cumulative thinking of the generations of a mind that is not physiologically different. An example would be to watch the learning curve, musically speaking, of an adult student learning music for the first time.

When a person learns something, their brain changes physiologically.

No offense you two, but i think we're skipping a beat here.

I don't know why one requires a relatively new "brain evolution" to account for a musical one. Music is often rhetorical, and once a musical "argument" is learned it can be applied to any (dare i say) so-called "genre", much like language nuances. I would think that implying recent genetic brain alteration is a little like supposing chinese babies are always going to speak the best chinese, regardless of their environment.

Sunstone said:

Looks like I agree with Darwin on this one.

As I see it, musical ability is evidence that we did not evolve solely to meet the needs of natural selection (e.g. "survival of the fittest"), but also to meet the needs of sexual selection.

Sexual selection may also account, at least in part, for such things as love.

Click to expand...

Agreed; you see it through nature. Birds singing, Dolphins 'speaking' ; all animals make noises. Noises re-aranged to be pleasant - that's music.

Sunstone said:

How did musical ability evolve in humans?

Musical ability seems to have no advantages for survival, so how would natural selection select for the ability?

But is this an example of sexual selection (as opposed to natural selection). What makes me wonder is the plain fact that many women are attracted to male singers and musicians. Think groupies. So, perhaps, women are responsible for musical ability in humans by mating with men who had some talent for it.

What do you think?

Click to expand...

Bang it. Bang it. Bang on that log, quick and regular like running. Let's jump with it; let's sway to it. Let it move our blood, enchant our bodies, and make us strong. We are strong, and we move with that beat as our guide.

Let's whistle like the birds. Let's whistle, and bring them to us. Those birds and their eggs will nurture us and make us strong. Let's whistle with that bangbanging, and let's dance. It makes us strong.

We like the music because it connects us with our bodies. We dance to it for a reason. Motor development is important, and young people who spent a lot of time drumming and dancing would have been more able to feed and defend a tribe as men and women. We're animals of movement, and music gives us an excuse to move.

This is only part of the riddle, though. Where did we learn to sing? Why do we serenade our mates? It might be related to the tailfeathers of a male peacock. The patterns in those tailfeathers are mesmerizing to the females. Singing in humans might have had the same purpose. If there's already an advantage to being susceptible to getting wrapped up in a tune, a side effect would be that being able to produce a melody would entrance a potential mate to a certain extent, turn off its thought for just a few moments, perhaps long enough make it a little more agreeable.

Rythmic syncronization could have been a good social co-ordinater, i suppose. It's neat thinking about the function of something like a backbeat; it's half the equation.

ladylazarus said:

When a person learns something, their brain changes physiologically.

Click to expand...

I'm not quite sure I understand this. Could you explain?

sandy whitelinger said:

I'm not quite sure I understand this. Could you explain?

Click to expand...

Brains are made up of neurons and synapses. When we get sensory input and learn something, these neurons and synapses are rearranged. Bear in mind that there are around 100 billion neurons in your brain. If your neurons and synapses didn't do this, there would be no such thing as thought, learning, feeling, or essentially, experience. The physiological changes are very small, but they certainly happen.

So then the question becomes, what is the human brain physiologically capable of learning? I would suggest that in the case of music, among other things, some of the more complex concepts would have been simply incomprehensible to people thousands of years ago, in the same way the concept of an afterlife would have been incomprehensible to Neanderthals and the concept of general relativity would have been incomprehensible Plato. Their neurons and synapses did not possess the same capabilities of arrangement that ours do today.

That said, it's important to understand that music really hasn't evolved as dramatically as it would seem. We have developed new instruments with different timbres, rearranged and expanded scales and keys, and developed more complex relations between notes, but there isn't much that's new about music that didn't exist since we first developed instruments. I would say that the primary changes in the human brain as pertains to music occured when we developed instruments other than percussive ones, and developed musical language. The only real changes in music have been in music texture, where we've progressed from monophony (pre-4,000 B.C.) to monodnic and micropolyphonic textures. These changes would require only very, very miniscule changes in the overall physiology of the human brain. Interestingly, in modern Western music, particularly blues and folk, there has been a return to more simplistic textures that would have been much more accessible to people living in the ancient world than the complexities of classical music.

ladylazarus said:

Brains are made up of neurons and synapses. When we get sensory input and learn something, these neurons and synapses are rearranged. Bear in mind that there are around 100 billion neurons in your brain. If your neurons and synapses didn't do this, there would be no such thing as thought, learning, feeling, or essentially, experience. The physiological changes are very small, but they certainly happen..

Click to expand...

My understanding of physiology and the definition of it is this: the organic processes and phenomena of an organism or any of its parts or of a particular bodily process.

Now while I will agree that any learning will cause what you mentioned but I don't see how the process changed.

ladylazarus said:

So then the question becomes, what is the human brain physiologically capable of learning? I would suggest that in the case of music, among other things, some of the more complex concepts would have been simply incomprehensible to people thousands of years ago, in the same way the concept of an afterlife would have been incomprehensible to Neanderthals and the concept of general relativity would have been incomprehensible Plato..

Click to expand...

Actually at the time it was presented very few people understood general relativity. The Indian-American physicist Subramanyan Chandrasekhar, when, early on, it was commented to him that only three people in the world understood relativity said, "I can't think of who the third could be." Now has the brain evolved and that evolution been passed on to so many who now understand relativity in the past 90 years?