Are you sure that we possess such a thing or just a better mathematical justification for such a thing?

Not completely sure, that's why I said probably. But I assume the very first humans to use sound communication had less potential than we have now after a few million years of using this in our species. I would have thought our brains would have developed in that time to become attuned to musical aspects of sound.

not criticizing what you're saying, just sort of food for thought. Personally, I've always seen rhythm as the domain of humanity. As it's something that we've owned and developed entirely through experimentation, and it's the one try defining trait of a genre.

I've actually seen a special on this awhile back and they say that of all of the instrument types(woodwind, brass, strings, etc.) the only one that finds itself generally universal is percussion. Of course, an obvious exception to this would be gregorian chant, but I digress...

If anything, I think a large portion of music's potential has been lost in the increasing demand of 'perfection'. IE. 100% even metronomic/drum machine rhythms all of the time. I think something gets lost in the translation process when music development comes further, and further away from staring by 'banging on something with a stick until you like it'.

With that said, music knowledge is at a pinnacle with the speed, and size of the Internet. So, I can fully see where you're coming at with increased potential. Just feel that there were advantages to the more humble, primitive, approach of the old days.

I mean, after all, I read a section in a Bela Bartok book a bit back where he was explaining that utilizing his infamous repertoire of native Hungarian music, that he actually had to simplify it quite a bit for an orchestra to pull it off. Even if Hungarian folk music is a generally sophisticated form than others, it's definitely not constrained by the metronomic perfection of it's Viennese inspired 'classical', and not considered anywhere as mature.

I also think for that reason(IE. folk music sometimes actually being the resulting roots that enhance the potentials of more developed music) that music cannot be an accident. I also have to bring up the fact of birds. I've heard musicians all the way from Beethoven to Eric Dolphy were inspired by imitating birds for melodies, a fixture of nature, that's fairly universal to all cultures.

Perhaps, in that way, music is man's way of communicating his relationship to nature, and is less an accident, but a way to imitate things word's can't truly describe.

Given that "music" is different than "sound", then music is a language created/developed by Man in order to communicate originally to each other/gods/nature/etc.

Another thought is that "music" was developed as a creative outlet, an expression of the Self . . . a high form (if not the highest form) of Art.

I'm not sure if rhythm is just a human thing, it is something within nature itself (from the heartbeat, the ebb and flow of the surf etc).

And replying to SIRIUSB I really think sound is music, our mind puts together music from sounds. More experimental music can use found environmental sounds to create a kind of music. The idea of music as an expression of self, and just as importantly the listener using music they hear to somehow feel it reflects themselves I feel is possibly a more modern development. Of course the focus on the individual may well have been prominent in some earlier societies too, but it might be much more prevalent now.

And to Ska Lagos Jew Sun Ra I agree that the obsession with perfection doesn't really help music, it gets in the way of expression. I'm not sure there is an issue of complexity v simplicity, both can and should have their place. Sometimes I wonder if some rock critics worship simplicity just for the sake of it, and then they only worship the kind of simplicity that fits their agenda (certain blues, early r'nb artists for instance). The integration of folk elements into all kinds of music can be interesting, but maybe it's easier for popular music artists to do that than to integrate other things like classical styles. Music is ultimately one giant soup of styles, however much people obsess now over the strict rules they want for narrow genres music doesn't really know boundaries and as a creative art it would be detrimental to limit itself.

I might say that all music is sound, but not all sound is music. Music being sound & silence organized in time and space.
- *1 *2 - excerpts from a book I have been writing.

The 20th century though did see some people use elements previously seen as just noise into musical works, sugggesting they saw those sounds as musical in some way.

Oh good, the discussion goes there. Voice quality is linked to facial symmetry, which I suppose in turn is linked to bilateral symmetry and athletic ability. Therefore, in a sense, singing demonstrates physical attractiveness and fitness indicators. (Also, ill people usually cannot sing well.) My suspicion is that in the animal kingdom and human history, singing is partly an opportunity for someone's appearance to be evaluated at length. It might have been a popular method a few hundred years ago, when for example maidens would sing for royalty.

I'd be careful about this. I could easily have outrun Pavarotti, but his voice is unquestionably superior.

Well, okay, but historically sexual selection has been concentrated early in life, and it was rare that people would become quite overweight before middle age (if they lived that long). I've never seen pictures of Pavarotti as a young man nor do I know whether he did sports as a young man, but my guess is that he would have done fine at that. He looked like an athlete gone fat.