I was wondering: Is there an evolutionary reason why we like music? Did people that liked the way certain sounds were put together somehow have an advantage? Why exactly do we like music? Anyone who's played an instrument (or anyone else for that matter) can tell when a song or note is out of tune. Did our distant ancestors like the in tune ones and dislike the out of tune ones? If so, what, if any purpose did it serve? Am I asking too many questions? Did I have to much coffee at work tonight?
Simple guesswork here (not one of my specialities) but my suspicion is first priority was development of sound discrimination (which involves components of music and non-music such as tone, frequency, amplitude, timing and allows us to identify good and bad (safe/unsafe) things and conditions. Once these are in place and time available at some point imitating these sounds leads to doing so not to learn or mimic the only but to do variations of them.
Then jazz!!
Then jazz!!
Yeah, fuelair's explanation is good. Basically, it sounds like what Gould called a "spandrel", meaning that it's the by-product of something else that was selected for (or the by-product of a by-product of a by-product). Something along the lines of "we like music because we like sounds that are clear, easy to hear, evocative of certain types of environment, or just happen to do strange things to our brain chemistry (in the same way that certain drugs do)".
That last part might have to do with the most efficient ways to analyse sounds, particularly the ones that occurred in the environment of our evolution.
Of course, it might be interesting if there were some adaptive reason behind music. The best speculation I can come up with off the top of my head is that it had something to do with sexual selection:
The ability to produce music requires both good auditory discrimination (being able to hear what sounds good well enough to know if the music you are producing sounds good to others), as well as fine motor control (if you're using some sort of instrument) or vocal control (for singing and wind instruments). All of these might be good advertisements of a mate's quality (from the perspective of natural selection of course).
So there might evolve a preference for mates who were better at producing music than for those who weren't. If this preference was strong enough (to make things simple I'll imagine we're dealing with females choosing males, but it could easily go the other way) those females with a better mechanism for judging a male's musical performance (liking music of higher quality, not liking music of poor quality) would have more successful offspring, and thus be selected for. So why, then, would males also "like music"? A few reasons. 1. The females would likely pass this trait on to both male and female offspring.
2. They need to be able to "like music" in order to produce it.
3. It's quite possible that both sexes were "choosing" mates based upon musical ability.
Basically, human music would exist for much the same reason that bird-song does.
Okay, so that's all wild speculation. I find it rather unlikely, mainly because music doesn't seem to play that much of a role in mate choice in the societies that we have knowledge of. Then again, it may have in the past, so I think we'd need more evidence to rule it out, but right now there's very little to support it. It's what some people call a "just-so story".
That last part might have to do with the most efficient ways to analyse sounds, particularly the ones that occurred in the environment of our evolution.
Of course, it might be interesting if there were some adaptive reason behind music. The best speculation I can come up with off the top of my head is that it had something to do with sexual selection:
The ability to produce music requires both good auditory discrimination (being able to hear what sounds good well enough to know if the music you are producing sounds good to others), as well as fine motor control (if you're using some sort of instrument) or vocal control (for singing and wind instruments). All of these might be good advertisements of a mate's quality (from the perspective of natural selection of course).
So there might evolve a preference for mates who were better at producing music than for those who weren't. If this preference was strong enough (to make things simple I'll imagine we're dealing with females choosing males, but it could easily go the other way) those females with a better mechanism for judging a male's musical performance (liking music of higher quality, not liking music of poor quality) would have more successful offspring, and thus be selected for. So why, then, would males also "like music"? A few reasons. 1. The females would likely pass this trait on to both male and female offspring.
2. They need to be able to "like music" in order to produce it.
3. It's quite possible that both sexes were "choosing" mates based upon musical ability.
Basically, human music would exist for much the same reason that bird-song does.
Okay, so that's all wild speculation. I find it rather unlikely, mainly because music doesn't seem to play that much of a role in mate choice in the societies that we have knowledge of. Then again, it may have in the past, so I think we'd need more evidence to rule it out, but right now there's very little to support it. It's what some people call a "just-so story".
I'll add to Robo's excellent speculation with my own;
We associate particular stimuli with emotional states. For instance, a particular smell is a strong emotional stimulator (grandma's cookies = comfort, a particular perfume = a bad break-up). Complex sounds, too, can be associated with the emotions felt in a particular situation.
This is why we all don't like the same music, even though (for previously mentioned reasons) we all share a like of some sort of music. I like Nirvana and similar styles because I get a good feeling when I hear it. Likewise, Johnny Cash or Neil Diamond evokes a sense of familiarity, as I heard it growing up. I don't like hip-hop, as hearing it makes me think of particular events or people who I didn't feel good about.
This is why pop-music does so well; the same chords and melodies keep coming up, as they have a higher chance of appealing to a particular market.
Athon
We associate particular stimuli with emotional states. For instance, a particular smell is a strong emotional stimulator (grandma's cookies = comfort, a particular perfume = a bad break-up). Complex sounds, too, can be associated with the emotions felt in a particular situation.
This is why we all don't like the same music, even though (for previously mentioned reasons) we all share a like of some sort of music. I like Nirvana and similar styles because I get a good feeling when I hear it. Likewise, Johnny Cash or Neil Diamond evokes a sense of familiarity, as I heard it growing up. I don't like hip-hop, as hearing it makes me think of particular events or people who I didn't feel good about.
This is why pop-music does so well; the same chords and melodies keep coming up, as they have a higher chance of appealing to a particular market.
Athon
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Dance does seem to play a role, and that is almost certainly going to involve music of some sort.
The Singing Neanderthals by Steven Mithen has some interesting ideas about the possible origins of music, one of which is that it might play the role you have suggested.
Mojo is close. Dance is important. It goes like this:
Sex is more or less rubbing your body against another person. We like sex for the obvious evolutionary reasons.
Dance is more or less rubbing your body against another person. If it isn't, it typically is a way to show off that your body is one that others would like to rub against.
In order to synchronize this rubbing of bodies, some sort of clock is needed. A simple drum.
Once you have the drum to keep rythm, you can rub in more interesting ways, also you can vary the rubbing by varying the rythm of the beat.
If you rub well enough, you may want to "sing", so having a vocal response while there is music, would be a natural extension.
Later, other types of clocks were added, this gave the possibility to vary the music more, and therefore it would give the more advanced rubbers an advantage, as they could demonstrate their skills by rubbing in many different ways.
The rest is history.
We still see this today, as people still go to dances/discotheques/whathaveyous in order to demonstrate their rubbyness, rub and then get laid.
Mosquito - less of an expert than thou
Sex is more or less rubbing your body against another person. We like sex for the obvious evolutionary reasons.
Dance is more or less rubbing your body against another person. If it isn't, it typically is a way to show off that your body is one that others would like to rub against.
In order to synchronize this rubbing of bodies, some sort of clock is needed. A simple drum.
Once you have the drum to keep rythm, you can rub in more interesting ways, also you can vary the rubbing by varying the rythm of the beat.
If you rub well enough, you may want to "sing", so having a vocal response while there is music, would be a natural extension.
Later, other types of clocks were added, this gave the possibility to vary the music more, and therefore it would give the more advanced rubbers an advantage, as they could demonstrate their skills by rubbing in many different ways.
The rest is history.
We still see this today, as people still go to dances/discotheques/whathaveyous in order to demonstrate their rubbyness, rub and then get laid.
Mosquito - less of an expert than thou
cyborg
deus ex machina
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2005
- Messages
- 4,981
We like patterns. Music has a lot of patterns in it. Anyone who has studied musical theory will know this.
I therefore disagree with Athon. The reason pop-music does so well is that it does, on the whole, use a lot of strong pattern based musical structure and does not experiment a lot with dissonance, atonal sounds and such as other genres are more likely to do. It is generally in a 4/4 time signature, has a repeating AB structure and uses a lot of harmonic chord combinations.
I therefore disagree with Athon. The reason pop-music does so well is that it does, on the whole, use a lot of strong pattern based musical structure and does not experiment a lot with dissonance, atonal sounds and such as other genres are more likely to do. It is generally in a 4/4 time signature, has a repeating AB structure and uses a lot of harmonic chord combinations.
I agree with all the reasons given so far.
Just want to add on to what Athon said about positive associations. While positive emotions can be associated with many things (grandma's cookies, yum
), there is something about music that is conducive to arousing more intense emotional states from us. Prehistoric bands that used that and as a result forged more intense emotional bonds had yet another reason to thrive. I'm not talking about just romantic and sexual bonds, but also bonds between other family members (children, grandparents, cousins, etc.) and loyalty bonds to others within the tribe. We still use music in this way at major life events (weddings, funerals, etc.), martial music to arouse patriotism, school bands to arouse team spirit at sporting events, music at churches to arouse stronger religious feelings, etc.,
I'll also toss in another minor and less obvious reason why we like music. Listening to some types of music seems to put us into a semi-trance state. And it appears, for whatever reason, that humans like that state and find it enjoyable and relaxing. In post caveman times watching TV and playing video games give a similar semi-trance like effect. I'm not sure what selection value that adds though, umm unless it was good to be able to chill and relax even back in caveman times? Possibly, an eat or be eaten economy must have been incredibly stressful. Or perhaps it's strictly a spandrel that Robo mentioned in his post.
Just want to add on to what Athon said about positive associations. While positive emotions can be associated with many things (grandma's cookies, yum
), there is something about music that is conducive to arousing more intense emotional states from us. Prehistoric bands that used that and as a result forged more intense emotional bonds had yet another reason to thrive. I'm not talking about just romantic and sexual bonds, but also bonds between other family members (children, grandparents, cousins, etc.) and loyalty bonds to others within the tribe. We still use music in this way at major life events (weddings, funerals, etc.), martial music to arouse patriotism, school bands to arouse team spirit at sporting events, music at churches to arouse stronger religious feelings, etc.,I'll also toss in another minor and less obvious reason why we like music. Listening to some types of music seems to put us into a semi-trance state. And it appears, for whatever reason, that humans like that state and find it enjoyable and relaxing. In post caveman times watching TV and playing video games give a similar semi-trance like effect. I'm not sure what selection value that adds though, umm unless it was good to be able to chill and relax even back in caveman times? Possibly, an eat or be eaten economy must have been incredibly stressful. Or perhaps it's strictly a spandrel that Robo mentioned in his post.
Last edited:
Overman
Master Poster
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2006
- Messages
- 2,629
Pretty good summary there Robo!!!
Footnote...I do believe that Rythm is biological...It would seem to make sense there are certian functions (heartbeat, Breathing) that just seem to be very rythmical...
To explore on Robo's post a bit....
Now, if we have evolved to the point where biological functions (size of body/body parts, aggression) matter less in mating than functions of the mind (creativity, art) then is this a natural progression toward homosexuality?
If humans have evolved to search for mates more by what people can do with their brain than what their bodies look like, than isn't homosexuality a direct result of evolution?
Footnote...I do believe that Rythm is biological...It would seem to make sense there are certian functions (heartbeat, Breathing) that just seem to be very rythmical...
To explore on Robo's post a bit....
Now, if we have evolved to the point where biological functions (size of body/body parts, aggression) matter less in mating than functions of the mind (creativity, art) then is this a natural progression toward homosexuality?
If humans have evolved to search for mates more by what people can do with their brain than what their bodies look like, than isn't homosexuality a direct result of evolution?
@ wilks: Try listening to different types, and give each type more than 5 mins. I think Yahoo has unlimited music you can download for $5 a month, and there is always your local library (they lend music, not just books.)
There's an extremely wide range of music out there, much more than whats available on commercial radio. I've no doubt there will be at least one type you'll enjoy.
There's an extremely wide range of music out there, much more than whats available on commercial radio. I've no doubt there will be at least one type you'll enjoy.
Last edited:
Overman
Master Poster
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2006
- Messages
- 2,629
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist., Moderator
I'd like to add that saying that humans like "music" is already begging half of the question.
There are certain tonal combinations that we consider "music" and there are certain ones that we consider a disonant cacophany. Why are some combinations pleasing and others displeasing?
Certain relationships between tones are considered by humans to be harmonic while others are not. Here is a link to a very advanced article on the whole thing.
It turns out that simple ratios like 5/4 and 4/3 produce pleasing harmonies for people. These ratios are interesting because they are small whole integer ratios. The universe, meanwhile, has no problem incorporating irrational numbers into its functioning (pi, e, etc.).
The aesthetics of harmony show that the human brain may be hard-wired to enjoy simple paterns and low-number relationships even when the relationships are not easily explainable or apparent.
Before we discuss what evolutionary reason there might be for enjoying music, I think we need to settle the question of what evolutionary reason there might be for considering some things to even be music.
There are certain tonal combinations that we consider "music" and there are certain ones that we consider a disonant cacophany. Why are some combinations pleasing and others displeasing?
Certain relationships between tones are considered by humans to be harmonic while others are not. Here is a link to a very advanced article on the whole thing.
It turns out that simple ratios like 5/4 and 4/3 produce pleasing harmonies for people. These ratios are interesting because they are small whole integer ratios. The universe, meanwhile, has no problem incorporating irrational numbers into its functioning (pi, e, etc.).
The aesthetics of harmony show that the human brain may be hard-wired to enjoy simple paterns and low-number relationships even when the relationships are not easily explainable or apparent.
Before we discuss what evolutionary reason there might be for enjoying music, I think we need to settle the question of what evolutionary reason there might be for considering some things to even be music.
Crazycowbob
Bovine Overlord
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2006
- Messages
- 1,384
If that's true, why do women flock to rock stars, or even rock star wannabes? (or men, as the case may be)
Crazycowbob
Bovine Overlord
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2006
- Messages
- 1,384
Why we like harmonies is probably some unconsious desire for order, as the interaction in the sound waves is either constructive or complementary for sounds that we would consider "pleasing", while sounds we don't like tend to have wave forms that are destructive or erratic. Even though we can't see the waves without machines, we still put them together in our head
andyandy
anthropomorphic ape
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2006
- Messages
- 8,377
Shera said:
Like the Rolling Stones?
Sorry, couldn't resist.
Overman said:
andyandy said:Jurassic 5 perhaps?
My pun deserved far worse.
Last edited:
