glasfen
11-10-2008, 09:34 PM
This is a short musing I wrote on music recently. It's a bit wordy but I think it raises some interesting concepts.
~
How, why, and when did music originate? Apparently, as is obvious from its ubiquity, the question of who first created music is not appropriate. All cultures exhibit musical forms and appreciation. With a form of creativity this accessible and widespread, it begs the question: is music a result of our humanness? Do humans, as a species, gravitate towards the creation of music? Or is it a fluke, an evolutionary misfire, that led to a world of organized sound?
These questions take us to the definition of music. It is often described as I have already noted, "organized sound". This is simplistic, to be certain, as a large part of music is also cultural and, ultimately, subjective. For the present discussion, however, this definition will suffice. How, then, did music come into being? The natural world is full of pleasant sounds from which our ancestors may have derived their inspiration. This is assuming that the creation of music was spontaneous and unrelated to our DNA. One could argue for a genetic basis that animals have their own counterparts to what we recognize as music: birdsong, whalesong, crickets chirping, apes beating on logs, etc. But is this merely an acoustic pareidolia, an interpretation of sound by our musically-conscious brains? In other words, do we identify animal communication as music because it matches our concept of music? Obviously, we cannot inquire if these creatures are exhibiting creativity (which requires intelligence and self-awareness) or simply conversing. Nor can we assume that music sprung into existence without influence or growth. But we do know one thing for certain: humans can create and enjoy music. Otherwise, OCR would be... well, pretty pointless.
Why, then, did music become a feature of every human culture, past and present? We take for granted that it is used in many, many situations, including celebrations, recreation, travel, toil, and family bonding (lullabies, for example). Without music, humankind would still have its rites-of-passage, its long walks, and its hard work. Music is not necessary to be human or to live well. Its exclusion may remove much from what we consider a modern human experience, but one does not die from a lack of music. That said, it is possible that music was not developed until humans had the time and the minds to create and appreciate it. For, if the mind was unable to create or understand music, it was unlikely to have existed. Instead, it would not have offered any benefit to mankind, and would, therefore, present a waste of time and energy, as well as a possible attractant to predators.
Perhaps evolution led to the creation of music. Humans as a species are gregarious, as the apes before us. The development of social grouping led to division of labor, which led to better nutrition, which led to longer lives, which led to increased intelligence, which led to higher levels of social grouping. As our wisening ancestors left the jungles and savannas, they developed language, which probably consisted, first, of rudimentary sounds and gestures. It is possible that, in this time of burgeoning intelligence and creativity, music was born also or in tandem with language. This would imply that we have had music for at least 50,000 years.
In contrast, music may be more than a natural manifestation of intelligent creativity. It may be a feature unique to our human nature, a product of the human spirit, tempered by our experiences and birthed of our emotions. Either that or a deep-seated passion kindled by the divine spark. While no one could prove a sublime origin of music, it certainly affects our species in such a way to believe a numinous genesis to be possible.
Though the topic may never find a sufficiently satisfactory answer, this discussion does lead to a number of interesting hypothetical situations which could test the origin of music. Consider, for example, a person with no knowledge of music who lives alone for their entire life. Would this person be capable of creating music? Or is musical creativity a social process, based on knowledge and the appreciation for musical sounds and styles that seems to be hard-wired in the human mind. If our hypothetical test subject was to create music, what form would it take? How much of musical creativity is constrained by the individual's own abilities, and are these gene- or experience-based, or some combination of the two?
Regardless of scientific or philosophical findings, past, present, and future, on the subject, I think we can all agree that music is an important part of humanity and well worth our time and investment as creators or patrons. Why else would you be here?
Thank you for reading. Long live OCR!
Sources:
http://www.answers.com/topic/history-of-music
http://www.answers.com/topic/prehistoric-music http://www.answers.com/topic/evolutionary-musicology
http://www.answers.com/glottogony
~
How, why, and when did music originate? Apparently, as is obvious from its ubiquity, the question of who first created music is not appropriate. All cultures exhibit musical forms and appreciation. With a form of creativity this accessible and widespread, it begs the question: is music a result of our humanness? Do humans, as a species, gravitate towards the creation of music? Or is it a fluke, an evolutionary misfire, that led to a world of organized sound?
These questions take us to the definition of music. It is often described as I have already noted, "organized sound". This is simplistic, to be certain, as a large part of music is also cultural and, ultimately, subjective. For the present discussion, however, this definition will suffice. How, then, did music come into being? The natural world is full of pleasant sounds from which our ancestors may have derived their inspiration. This is assuming that the creation of music was spontaneous and unrelated to our DNA. One could argue for a genetic basis that animals have their own counterparts to what we recognize as music: birdsong, whalesong, crickets chirping, apes beating on logs, etc. But is this merely an acoustic pareidolia, an interpretation of sound by our musically-conscious brains? In other words, do we identify animal communication as music because it matches our concept of music? Obviously, we cannot inquire if these creatures are exhibiting creativity (which requires intelligence and self-awareness) or simply conversing. Nor can we assume that music sprung into existence without influence or growth. But we do know one thing for certain: humans can create and enjoy music. Otherwise, OCR would be... well, pretty pointless.
Why, then, did music become a feature of every human culture, past and present? We take for granted that it is used in many, many situations, including celebrations, recreation, travel, toil, and family bonding (lullabies, for example). Without music, humankind would still have its rites-of-passage, its long walks, and its hard work. Music is not necessary to be human or to live well. Its exclusion may remove much from what we consider a modern human experience, but one does not die from a lack of music. That said, it is possible that music was not developed until humans had the time and the minds to create and appreciate it. For, if the mind was unable to create or understand music, it was unlikely to have existed. Instead, it would not have offered any benefit to mankind, and would, therefore, present a waste of time and energy, as well as a possible attractant to predators.
Perhaps evolution led to the creation of music. Humans as a species are gregarious, as the apes before us. The development of social grouping led to division of labor, which led to better nutrition, which led to longer lives, which led to increased intelligence, which led to higher levels of social grouping. As our wisening ancestors left the jungles and savannas, they developed language, which probably consisted, first, of rudimentary sounds and gestures. It is possible that, in this time of burgeoning intelligence and creativity, music was born also or in tandem with language. This would imply that we have had music for at least 50,000 years.
In contrast, music may be more than a natural manifestation of intelligent creativity. It may be a feature unique to our human nature, a product of the human spirit, tempered by our experiences and birthed of our emotions. Either that or a deep-seated passion kindled by the divine spark. While no one could prove a sublime origin of music, it certainly affects our species in such a way to believe a numinous genesis to be possible.
Though the topic may never find a sufficiently satisfactory answer, this discussion does lead to a number of interesting hypothetical situations which could test the origin of music. Consider, for example, a person with no knowledge of music who lives alone for their entire life. Would this person be capable of creating music? Or is musical creativity a social process, based on knowledge and the appreciation for musical sounds and styles that seems to be hard-wired in the human mind. If our hypothetical test subject was to create music, what form would it take? How much of musical creativity is constrained by the individual's own abilities, and are these gene- or experience-based, or some combination of the two?
Regardless of scientific or philosophical findings, past, present, and future, on the subject, I think we can all agree that music is an important part of humanity and well worth our time and investment as creators or patrons. Why else would you be here?
Thank you for reading. Long live OCR!
Sources:
http://www.answers.com/topic/history-of-music
http://www.answers.com/topic/prehistoric-music http://www.answers.com/topic/evolutionary-musicology
http://www.answers.com/glottogony