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.

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

Paedantic Basterd

I'm not religious by any means, if anything I'm the quintessential agnostic believer, but something about giving music a biological imperative felt very violating to me, equal to a debunking of faith.

I would prefer music to have been a spandrel of language in the end, because it then retains its soul and beauty of creative genius. I was surprised to find myself agreeing more with the initial theory that outraged me than the provided alternative. This was not an outcome I anticipated.

Salami

Well, they are taking something that is a deeply personal expression of someone's own feelings, and attempting to reduce it to purely naturalistic causes. I think that they grossly underestimate what is really involved in the human brain. They consider every aspect of human life to be merely an elaborate development of a basic, primordial, and ultimately chemical urge. I think that is not only wrong, but deeply undermines the value of any expression of art.
Not only that, but there isn't a shred of evidence for it. Not everyone is a reductionist, Pinker.

Paedantic Basterd

As I think about it, my distaste is less about a reason behind art's existence, and more about the reason Levitin provided; reproduction. Perhaps this comes down to personal biases, but I would be more accepting of music as having a purpose in social bonding or cognitive development (two points made that I did not refute). Perhaps it's because I see reproduction as such a selfish and animalistic imperative, I would hate for my love of it to boil down to a manipulation of my senses for genetic gain. The very notion sits poorly with me.

Creativity as a whole should have been considered, and which I think has a very practical purpose evident today. Our entire progression as a species has resulted from human ingenuity. Without our curiosity and innovation, we would still be animals.

Salami

This is the key bit for me. He as a psycologist is deriding the very mental ability which was essensial for our species development. I cannot believe that he could claim that creativity is "biologically useless". He didn't say that in so many words, but denying that music isn't a form of creativity is nonsensical.

Paedantic Basterd

I feel I may have confused you at some point, Salami. My post contains two opposing theories on the origin of music, Pinker's spandrel theory, and Levitin's adaptation theory. The majority of the post is criticizing Levitin's rebuttal of Pinker's theory, and while I think Pinker was a bit of a short-sighted weiner in the way he phrased his points, ultimately, the spandrel theory is the more acceptable to me.

I would be interested to see if we as a group can produce other theories in opposition of these two.

Guybrush

Pedestrian, in regards to music as a way to attract mates, that doesn't mean men will only play music in order to attract females. In essence, what it means is that evolution has rewarded men who were musical with higher fitness because females found them more attractive. Them actively pursuing women with music could (or would) of course be a strategy, but it doesn't have to. Thus, despite the quotation, I doubt the guy seriously means men only play music in order to attract females, but rather that music has the place it has in culture today because of it's related fitness benefits in our evolutionary history. On average, musical guys had more kids, regardless of why they performed (and remember this is way back then when they probably didn't have bands and go on tour). In this situation, it would still be likely for men to develop a general strategy serenading women of course.

It's just hard to formulate it perfectly in the space of a sentence.

As for what I believe, I believe music has piggybacked our capacity for communication. Our ability to vocally communicate has increased and our capacity for music with it. At some point, when music has been discovered and spread through a population, music itself could be selected for and so then it could go from being merely a "spandrel" to becoming an adaptation in itself, just like birds have specialized wings adapted for various forms of flight. When or if that ever happened, I don't know .. I guess I'd want to read a book or see a lecture on it before making up my mind about it!

edit :

As a side note, I'm sure if song birds had ever become as intelligent and culturally advanced as people, they would like music too

__________________
Something Completely Different