The Origin of Music

Almeyda, I'm assuming you've heard a birdsong at some point in your life. What about a whalesong?Non-human 'music' exists, and evolved. Just because you don't see an "obvious advantage", does not mean one doesn't exist.Birdsongs are of enough evolutionary interest that a study on them just made the July 22nd cover of the journal Nature.Birdsongs are of enough musical interest that Mozart lifted their melodies for use in his compositions.

So what is the boundary you have set between noise and music? You say later that you enjoy metal and rock, so why are they music while hip-hop is not?What about acid jazz? Many people wince and cover their ears when I play John Coltrane's Stellar Regions...

Well, you've given us a working definition of "music", though we now need definitions of "melody", "rhythm", and "harmony". I'm sure there's lot of stuff out there that does not meet a strict requirement for "harmony" that most would consider music. Does "Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star" pecked out on a piano with a single finger have harmony? Does it qualify as music? Be careful making such broad generalizations based on style - to say that there is no such thing as hip-hop with harmony is downright absurd. (Maybe you just haven't been exposed to good hip-hop yet...) Style or genre shouldn't define music (the requirements of music should). Perhaps. But just because Coltrane is less "noisy" than Mitchell doesn't mean that all Coltrane compositions immediately qualify as music.Just about everyone I've played Stellar Regions for complains that it is just noise, and I'm sure they would say that it lacks melody, rhythm, and harmony. Have you listened to Stellar Regions?

That's fine, it just seemed that if the thread was really going to work on "The Origin of Music," as described in the title, then we better have a definition. I'm not arguing with you because I disagree with you, but in order to work out the limits of music. Also, it will be the boundary between "music" and "non-music" that is most pertinent to this discussion, which is why I am pressing the idea of "borderline" cases.From a personal standpoint, I am not sure that complete chord structure is necessary to consider something music - such distinction would eliminate much primitive and world music. It may be more of a distinction of European music.If I only considered the hip-hop that gets mainstream radio-play here in the US, I would probably agree that there is little if any musical value there. However, there is some exciting rap/hip-hop out there, usually refered to as "underground" or "experimental" because it is not heard in the mainstream. There are some labels - Mush, DefJux, Ninjatune are the ones I can think of now, putting out interesting work, much of it infused with jazz, or performed by artists that are involved in both the jazz and hip-hop communities. I believe the jazz label BlueNote has even picked up a couple of these artist recently.

I believe the same thing can be stated for art in general. Some have thought it ridiculous that I've used the bower bird's ornate construction of its breeding bower as an example of animal art - yet what are the ultimate consequences of a human's act of creating art? The consequences are just what you list above, "communication, for sexual purposes or bonding, stimulating, comforting, and building relationships."These consequences are the same for the bower bird as they are for the human.

Perhaps a 'dance sequence' is planned, but that does not make all dancing planned - I don't plan when I dance, I try to give myself over to the music. Your statement might be true for a square dance, but not for a mosh pit. Ever hear of Action Painting? Jackson Pollock and his contemporaries?Jazzlover - you seem to argue a lot by generalization (as in, no such thing as rap music with 'harmony'). In these sorts of discussions I think it more interesting to look not at the 'average', but at the extremes, where the boundaries of 'art' are pushed. Do you have a source for this bold statement or is just your opinion? By your definition, Beethoven, Igor Stravinksy, Paul McCartney, and Miles Davis were/are not professional musicians...Why must a professional musician have a bachelor's degree? A professional musician simply is one who gets paid to create music - I would guess that if you took an accounting of the great professional musicians, historically or presently, a minority of them would have advanced degrees in music.Besides, how does a BS in music qualify someone to discuss the evolution of art? It's like arguing against old earth geology by telling me to ask ten preachers in my town what they think...Regarding musicians and sex: are you asserting that "groupies" don't exist? That professional musicians are not more attractive to the opposite sex as a result of their musical skills?Also, keep in mind that just because a scientist believes that music originated as a means to create social/mating connections does not mean that the scientist is not a musician or someone deeply moved by music.The initial origins of music do not change the power of music to move the spirit.