Evolution as a word is sometimes used to just mean simply the development of something though, and I think broadening out a discussion is a good thing. Just looking at things purely from an evolutionary biological perspective seems a bit limiting. And if you are questioning that as being the only way things develop you are bound to bring in other points from other areas.

Good point Duga!

You're pointing out the obvious. I know that people use the word "evolution" to mean more than a change in genetic makeup over the course generations, but if you read the first post, you'll see it deals with human evolution according to the biological term. The evolution of modern styles of music, for example, is not the topic and when someone believes that it is, they're misunderstanding the thread.

I know it started out on that, but as I said it can be interesting broadening the thread out into other areas.

And whatever the reason music was originally started we may have added various other reasons over time for us to make and listen to music as human culture has changed.

I feel like I'm at a bit of a disadvantage having not read the book that is the subject of this thread, but I'll interject a few points/questions.

The idea of musical ability as a desirable genetic trait for the purpose of reproduction is plausible for me if I take the idea of it being an indicator of overall physical fitness and narrow it down to those specific traits which musical ability seems to exemplify, mainly catharsis and creativity, or respectively emotional health, (also possibly the ability to communicate effectively and intuitively), and intelligence. Would these two specific traits (if they can even be qualified as genetic traits for the purposes of this discussion) fall under the catchall of physical fitness, or is musical ability an indicator of the presence of other traits which are largely closer tied to survival and purely physical fitness?

At the end of the millennium it became almost a running joke that women were becoming more interested in men that were "in touch with there feelings". Is it possible that this was always a desirable reproductive trait even as far back as human prehistory? or did the desirability of the traits itself evolve as pure survival became less paramount and we built civilizations thus becoming more sociologically complex?

It's interesting that you mention this, because it's a topic that does come up briefly in the book, and I'll paraphrase what was said on the matter.

During the study wherein women were asked who they found more attractive during stages of their cycle, when most fertile they preferred the "fit" artist, but during the remainder of the cycle, they preferred the wealthy (resourceful, stable) average man.

It is implied in the novel that fit creative types are preferred for reproduction, and average types who are able to provide for the family are preferred to raise the offspring.

It is noted that 10% of European women admit to raising a child their spouse mistakenly believes is their own, and that 50% of spouses have reported cheating on their significant other.

Well, every culture on Earth has developed music(of it's own specialized cultural rules), so it cannot be an accident.

I think a lot of the music we like as individuals, different styles, genres, etc. Is developed mostly when we are young, say from..early childhood and on into our teens and early 20s. Just a personal assumption, nothing more.

By the way, its good to see you back Ska Lagos Jew Sun Ra.;)

Thanks, man.

I suppose it developed initially as a means of communication, whether that was by accident or not I don't know but it really doesn't matter does it? It's discovery must have simultaneously coincided with the uses it could be put to and will then have developed over time according to various other purposes which could be found for it. Over the ages I suppose this ability for the human brain to understand sound has developed and been passed on through genes, so making us very different from the earliest humans. We probably possess far more innate musical understanding than the earliest humans.