Paedantic Basterd

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?

CitySlickCaptain

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

Salami

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.

blastingas10

Every time you play piano, you're just expressing your desire to mate with a partner.

Just kidding, I completely agree, salami.

I believe that some things are out of reach of the arm of science. I find it to be quite annoying that scientists believe that they have an answer for everything, such arrogance.

Janszoon

Scientists DON'T believe they have an answer for everything. If they did there'd be no such thing as research.

__________________
A Night in the Life of the Invisible Man

Time & Place

25 Albums You Should Hear Before the Moon Crashes into the Earth and We All Die

last.fm

blastingas10

True, but I didn't really mean it in that context. Today, scientists believe they are on the verge of having the theory of everything - String theory and M-theory. Some scientists start to believe that they've finally got it figured out and the conclusion can be drawn. Others aren't so arrogant. And it's those others who go on to make more discoveries that challange the current thinking of the scientists who believe they've got a definitive answer.

For example, most scientists are sure that there is no god and life is just an act of chance. At a scientific conference at City College of New York, a student in the audience rose to ask the panelists an unexpected question: "Can you be a good scientist and believe in God?" Herbert A. Hauptman, who shared the Nobel prize in chemistry in 1985 for his work on the structure of crystals , quickly answered "No!"

On the other hand, you have scientists like Roger Penrose, who shared the Wolf Prize in physics with Stephen Hawking for their contribution to our understanding of the universe.

To quote Mr. Penrose: ""I think I would say that the universe has a purpose, it's not somehow just there by chance ... some people, I think, take the view that the universe is just there and it runs along–it's a bit like it just sort of computes, and we happen somehow by accident to find ourselves in this thing. But I don't think that's a very fruitful or helpful way of looking at the universe, I think that there is something much deeper about it."

As Penrose said, some people take the view that the universe is just there, and it just happened by chance. A lot of people who think that tend to draw the conclusion there. However, you have people, like Penrose, who think that there is something much deeper about life. And it's those people who don't arrogantly conclude that continue to push the envelope, rather than sealing it and moving on.

MoonlitSunshine

Woah, hating on the scientists there :P There is quite a large portion of the scientific community that believe that the more they discover about the universe, the more wonderful and fantastic it seems. In my experience, there are two types of people, best described using their reaction to magic tricks:

The first group are those who love magic tricks for the show. They love watching them, they think they're amazing, and they don't want to know how it works - for them, to reveal the "trick" would be to ruin the show.

The second group are your "Scientists". These people love the tricks, but for them, the burning need to understand how it works isn't because they want to ruin it, but because knowing how would just make it better. The why is important to them, because the whys are what make the world wonderful to them.

Anyone who says they are a scientist, and that they have an answer for everything, is not a scientist. One of the fundamental aspects of scientific method is the disregard for anything that does not follow from rigorous logical steps. If anything, we claim to know the "answer" to less, by virtue of the fact that we do not accept divine intervention (for the most part) as an answer.

Music is a language. It's one of the most universal languages, which is part of what makes it so beautiful. No matter what language the song is in, no matter the culture of the composer of the piece, it has a unique ability to transcend cultural boundaries. Did it evolve? I would be inclined to say yes. It seems to fit with... it fits. It's a form of expression which fills what would otherwise be a void in our methods of expression. Did anyone ever have to teach you what different musical pieces meant? It just makes sense.

The next question for me is why. I agree with your rebuttal of the concept of it evolving as a sexual "bird call". It doesn't negate the possibility that is started in that manner, but it's unlikely. If I were to hedge a theory, I would think it was the result of a spontaneous need for expression, inherent in our being - why? Because of the fact that music seems to have independently sprouted up in so many different parts of the world, Just as languages did. From there, it blossomed, because it is so wonderful a method of expression. We have music in our bones, in our blood. That it survived to grow as it did is just as obvious as the reason that language has blossomed. And like language, it has certainly evolved from its simple beginnings.

Can we pin it down to a biological, geneological trait that has survived the ages? I'm... not so certain. There are books that I need to read - This is your Brain on Music has been on my shortlist for some time. I haven't studied it enough, and I wouldn't presume to have the answer

__________________
"I found it eventually, at the bottom of a locker in a disused laboratory, with a sign on the door saying "Beware of the Leopard". Ever thought of going into Advertising?"

- Arthur Dent

Ska Lagos Jew Sun Ra

I never liked this idea. I don't think music is a language, I think it's a multitude of languages. Music is an expression of language like speaking, or writing. It can't be serialized to a particular language.

Trust me, if there's one thing that mb has taught me, is that it's definitely not universal.

__________________
Al Pacino = God

Salami

Do you think we agree?

lucifer_sam

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.

__________________
first.am