If music be the food of love, play on...

February 13, 2009 10:15 AM

Why music?Music is a human universal, but why did we evolve a desire to create, perform, and enjoy it? From a biological standpoint, does it contribute to survival or, more likely, mate selection and reproduction?
posted by rocket88 (51 comments total)

Eponysterical.
posted by jckll at 10:24 AM on February 13

Because the universe is built on harmonics? Because we must?
posted by Roach at 10:27 AM on February 13

I think if it was a form of communication, it could be seen as a mechanism of survival. But since us humans generally don't use singing/dancing in situations where we feel endangered (except this), we can say it has more to do with reproduction. Think of all the couples who have an "our song", or the people that end up connecting because of similar tastes in music.
posted by hal_c_on at 10:32 AM on February 13

Picking up a guitar infinitely increases your odds for reproduction.
posted by malocchio at 10:34 AM on February 13

Why music as a survival mechanism? For some of us, it is almost the only thing that keeps us from going truly insane. (Unless you're in the music business, which for some of us, is the same as insanity only a lot more painful.)
posted by Seekerofsplendor at 10:35 AM on February 13

I'm gonna go with choice C — it doesn't increase our fitness, it just came along as a side effect of other useful stuff.

(I was happy to see this point of view represented in the article, but I wanted to point it out since it wasn't mentioned in the post.)
posted by nebulawindphone at 10:37 AM on February 13

Picking up a guitar infinitely increases your odds for reproduction.

Unless you play like I do.
posted by Bearman at 10:39 AM on February 13

If writing about music is like dancing about architecture, then The Economist writing about music must be like Scientology about ketchup.
posted by The Card Cheat at 10:40 AM on February 13 [16 favorites has favorites]

friendship, joy, comfort, knowledge, religion and love
posted by sandking at 10:42 AM on February 13

> Picking up a guitar infinitely increases your odds for reproduction.

I knew a few guys in university who learned and played guitar solely for this reason. One even admitted to me that he couldn't have cared less about music. Ironically enough, he was a great singer and guitarist. Maddeningly, his ploy worked.
posted by you just lost the game at 10:45 AM on February 13

Like the beat beat beat of the tom-tom
When the jungle shadows fall
Like the tick tick tock of the stately clock
As it stands against the wall

Like the drip drip drip of the raindrops
When the summer shower is through
So a voice within me keeps repeating
You, you, you

Essential Tones Of Music Rooted In Human Speech.
posted by nickyskye at 10:49 AM on February 13 [2 favorites has favorites]

I'm going to have to agree with the third hypothesis as well: that it is probably an enjoyable byproduct of something else. Not necessarily because I believe it must be right, but rather because I hate the reductio ad Darwinum of things. This especially goes for the 'substitute for penis-waving' explanations and all the male-centred bullshit which goes with it.

I don't believe in gods or souls, but I do believe in the sublime. You know, something in a piece of art which really moves me. I enjoy that feeling, and engage with music/painting/poetry/whatever just to find it. Even if it has a reason or a mechanism of action, I think my life would be impoverished were I to know it. Let's be obscurantists for once, as who would profit from knowing?
posted by Sova at 11:06 AM on February 13 [3 favorites has favorites]

Some people think that humans (and their cousins) used onlyh music to communicate.
posted by KokuRyu at 11:07 AM on February 13

Being able to produce music is a fitness indicator. It shows that you're mentally coordinated, having a good memory and motor control. Being able to produce music in a band is another fitness indicator. It shows that you're mentally healthy, of good social standing, and capable of coordinating with other people on a complex task.

Pretty much every hobby that people have that's not directly related to survival is for showing off reproductive fitness.
posted by mullingitover at 11:08 AM on February 13

Not to slag your point, mulling, but you must explain how WoW shows off reproductive fitness.
posted by echo target at 11:23 AM on February 13 [1 favorite has favorites]

Picking up a guitar infinitely increases your odds for reproduction.

Well then thank god for Songsmith! Or . . . not. (For the love of all that is holy, do not stare to long at the Songsmith industrial . . . )
posted by The Bellman at 11:31 AM on February 13

Baaah! I'm all for evolutionary explanations of human behavior, and I'm sure these ideas merit study, and so forth. But not everything has to come down to survival and reproduction. echo target is right. Sometimes we do things for the sheer pleasure of doing them, and it's a stretch to try to link it to avoiding predators, seeking mates, etc. Umm, yeah, my level 47 barbarian is preparing me for the rigors of combat in the real world. Right.

Evolutionary psychologists are myopic and are great at coming up with post hoc explanations that aren't easily verifiable.

former psych major who thinks his sex life has been negatively impacted by reading way too many evolutionary psych texts :-)
posted by wastelands at 11:36 AM on February 13 [2 favorites has favorites]

echo target "Not to slag your point, mulling, but you must explain how WoW shows off reproductive fitness."

Video games require memory and fine motor skills. WoW is multiplayer, and the multiplayer aspect is the reason for its popularity. This brings us back to sociability as a fitness indicator.

I'm not saying that WoW is a great fitness indicator, it's generally low-margin in terms of return on investment. However, video game skill is a reflection of mental acuity and given that humans have a tremendous evolutionary investment in the brain, this is important.
posted by mullingitover at 11:36 AM on February 13

Many other species - birds in particular - use musical signals to attract mates. It shows a certain level of biological fitness, mental acuity and physical dexterity.
I think it's the sublime elements of it that are the happy accident.
posted by rocket88 at 11:36 AM on February 13

Sometimes we do things for the sheer pleasure of doing them

Happiness has it's own fitness advantages.
posted by kuujjuarapik at 11:42 AM on February 13

Not to slag your point, mulling, but you must explain how WoW shows off reproductive fitness.

It certainly shows that you have way too much time on your hands that you don't have to devote to survival. Showing off surplus resources is a sign of reproductive fitness, e.g. peacocks show that they have plenty of resources available to grow ridiculous feathers that don't help them survive at all. Now, WoW might not tend to get you laid, but not every evolutionary strategy attempted is a working evolutionary strategy.

Considering it differently, WoW is making Blizzard rich as fuck, which increases their reproductive fitness, while decreasing the reproductive fitness of WoW players.
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 11:48 AM on February 13

well, i'd agree with earlier comments about reproductive fitness, but also add that it seems to me music making is useful in that it exercises certain mental faculties that are more generally useful--abstract pattern recognition, etc.--which may also contribute positively to survival.

although i've known plenty of extraordinarily talented musicians who seemed forever poised right on the brink of complete personal meltdown, i've also known many more who went on to become successful in complex technical fields (one guy i know who's a programmer at neversoft springs to mind, and another guy who until recently was a database programmer for morgan stanley, too).

i don't think music is purely a bi-product of other useful adaptations; i think its sort of the intellectual equivalent of playing sports. a way to practice performing mental functions that are useful in other ways. i don't think music as a behavior is completely unique in this regard, but it may be unique in the specific kinds of mental functions it engages and in the highly abstracted way it engages them.
posted by saulgoodman at 11:51 AM on February 13

Perhaps this is a little backwards of me, but I don't think about (and don't want to consider, even) mankind's enjoyment of music in terms of evolution. We enjoy music because it is objectively awesome, not because we were evolved to perceive it that way. Plants can enjoy music too, I've heard.

Maybe it's silly of me to think that way, but come on. Even a pool of slime can appreciate a rockin' guitar solo. I believe this no matter how ridiculous it is.
posted by Rinku at 12:02 PM on February 13

Because it rocks?
posted by Navelgazer at 12:03 PM on February 13

This has been one of my favorite questions ever since I read the Romantic Manifesto by Ayn Rand, in which she concludes (ridiculously) that music lacks ability as a communicative art.

I believe that music is unique as an art form in that it's essentially abstract, and its meaning relies on a mixture of biological emotional content (even as infants we respond to rhythm tone and melody) and insanely complex social and cultural content that must be learned. ONe of the reasons people get snobby about music is that it really IS an indicator of subtle social intelligence. Knowing what sounds represent what people, what traditions, and what identity is what appreciation for music is all about. This is why mixes and mashups are such great brain candy. Our social mind delights at experience of different musical identities converging while our lizard brain digs the beat and the hook.

As for evolutionary psychology, music ties up all of my favorite things about the deeloped human brain: pattern recognition, innate response to the biologically familiar, social grouping and relations, and of course hooting and hollering to impress a fine-ass mate.
posted by es_de_bah at 12:05 PM on February 13 [4 favorites has favorites]

Perhaps this is a little backwards of me, but I don't think about (and don't want to consider, even) mankind's enjoyment of music in terms of evolution.

I kind of feel that way, too; but hey, that's what's being talked about here, so in that context I think es_de_bah nails it.
posted by saulgoodman at 12:22 PM on February 13

Music exists so executives with no musical ability can make a ton of money which they can then use to buy cocaine.
posted by Joey Michaels at 12:26 PM on February 13 [1 favorite has favorites]

If you want to hear about how abstract music is, there's a mathematical technique called wavelets which is used for time-frequency representations of signals. It's pretty recent, the word "wavelet" itself only being a few decades old.

It turns out that traditional Western music notation is basically wavelets with trivial differences from the rigorous mathematical definition of "wavelet." And I only say Western music notation because I know even less jack shit about other music notations, but they're probably basically wavelets too.
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 12:29 PM on February 13

ONe of the reasons people get snobby about music is that it really IS an indicator of subtle social intelligence.

So...does the same thing go for wine? Coffee? All kinds of other crap?
posted by adamdschneider at 12:38 PM on February 13

kuujjuarapik, that's exactly what I'm talking about. It's all circular logic with evolutionary psych people. They start with the assumption that any given behavior must be tied to fitness and work backward. They assume the thing they set out to prove ("begging the question" fallacy).
posted by wastelands at 1:59 PM on February 13 [1 favorite has favorites]

Some people think that humans (and their cousins) used onlyh music to communicate.

People still take meaning of it past that of the words themselves. As evidenced by propaganda campaigns, placing otherwise horrible ideas to desirable musical prose, sells the idea to the masses. The tones themselves communicated an idea, or imbued an associated feeling that remains attached to the idea.

I've always been a bit frightened by people dancing to music. Sure, there are various reasons people choose to dance, but the majority seem to dance because 'they feel the need to dance' particularly when the dancers include younger women (men are more oft to feel the need to dance to the four-four beat of the military drum). I presumed it was just a weird turn of phrase until I started asking friends when they stated this. The responses consistently reflected that it was an urge and not a choice, that the moment certain music came on it was telling them they had to move in these strange ways. This could fit the sexual bill as the music could be saying hey it's mating time, start moving your body in erotic manners to seduce a mate as dancing does lead to fornication at least 100% of the time. Regardless of whether it is for mating or not, it seems to be communicating on a subliminal level, perhaps as some ancestral leftover.
posted by kigpig at 2:11 PM on February 13 [1 favorite has favorites]

So...does the same thing go for wine? Coffee? All kinds of other crap?

Totally. If one produces a beverage where research and refinement based on opinions result in popularity, a social process was responsible. Similarly, formulaic music finds the largest audience. The flip side involves foodies so in love with acidity, hops, their 'top notes'...composers with modulations and tonal philosophies or cheap equipment and hard clipping...with whatever, that they frighten off all casual aesthetes. This is where obscure connosseiurisms spawn.
posted by Monstrous Moonshine at 2:30 PM on February 13

This interests me too, it's mad interdisciplinary and music seems to touch on everything we do *doffing cap to es_de_bah for the expose*. I'll side with the theory that "musical" abilities (as in basic building blocks of music, language, movement, sequence, rhythm, ...) were evolutionary useful as a precursor to language. As already pointed out above, they helped the first mammalian societies to get along (a bit like the SPORE creature stage, but not really). According to my crazy speculation, art music is only the tip of an iceberg of communication and basic social interaction. Bonus thought: Imagine a society in which reading and writing music was taught with priority over reading and writing words - they can't all read and write, but everybody gets along massively well and music is a form of everyday communication.
posted by yoHighness at 2:52 PM on February 13

Picking up a guitar infinitely increases your odds for reproduction.

I like this theory, except that it doesn't explain why drummers haven't yet gone extinct.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 3:27 PM on February 13 [1 favorite has favorites]

"I like this theory, except that it doesn't explain why drummers haven't yet gone extinct."

I just want to point out, purely from a standpoint of science and logic, that this comment is hilarious coming from someone who is openly homosexual (and I'm only making this comment because I believe you did that intentionally, to let you know it was appreciated).
posted by Eideteker at 3:59 PM on February 13

(Also, my father was a drummer, and one of his sons is gay. Coincidence?)
posted by Eideteker at 3:59 PM on February 13

Humans didn't make music, music made humans?
posted by fuq at 4:09 PM on February 13

We are music.
posted by marble at 4:24 PM on February 13 [2 favorites has favorites]

Humans like music because we've got soul and we're superbad.
posted by orme at 4:29 PM on February 13

this whole boring, sophmoric article can be summed up by the 1st sentence of the last paragraph:

The truth, of course, is that nobody yet knows why people respond to music.
posted by Espoo2 at 5:16 PM on February 13 [1 favorite has favorites]

"Music is a human universal." Therefore deaf people aren't human? Therefore music isn't sound? Most of the time, "____ is a human universal" is a mistake. I make many mistakes every day.
posted by eccnineten at 6:55 PM on February 13 [1 favorite has favorites]

We are music.
posted by marble

Huh. I heard we are all made of stars.
posted by six-or-six-thirty at 7:40 PM on February 13

"Music is a human universal." Therefore deaf people aren't human?

eccnineten: i don't know about that. your experience might be different, but actually, all of the deaf kids i've gotten to know over the years (which is a few) "listened" to music. they just did it differently. they would either place their faces against the speaker and feel the vibrations of the sound against their cheeks, or place the palms of their hands down on the speaker, feeling the vibrations of the music that way. now, sure, they weren't listening to music in the ordinary way. but they were listening to it in their own way.

if any mode of human expression qualifies as universal, i'd think it would be music. (although there are lots of different idioms.)
posted by saulgoodman at 8:24 PM on February 13

Well, I'll give it a go, after one (large) Bunnahabhain. I like the vocal mimicry theory for melodic music, but it may be that mostly rhythmic music is a different animal.

Why does rhythmic music make us want to move? This is a mystery.

Playing bass years ago, I sometimes had the impression at those beautiful moments of 'grooving' when time seemed to stand still, that, well, time was standing still. And that feeling seemed pretty significant. I have struggled for years with how to put the feeling into words. It seemed like a small window into the actual state of the universe, and the sloughing off of the pervasive illusion that time passes. Everything actually happens right now, and is always happening right now. It was as if all of a sudden the notes (or more rightly, beats) that you think of as coming and going were standing still. You didn't have to make them happen on time. They were always there and your playing was still.

To sum up. I think rhythmic music allows people an insight into the true nature of space and time, and that is why it is exciting.

That is all. Good night.
posted by Mei's lost sandal at 8:30 PM on February 13 [1 favorite has favorites]

If we're going the evolutionarily-fit explanation you can say that the reason mad skillz in WoW don't get you mates when musical skills do is that watching someone play WoW is about the dullest thing to do in Dulltown. Whereas someone who's a decent musician or singer is actually doing something for a listener.

I mean, music requires both a player and a listener...it is thus inherently communication, and thus a singer/player is giving a gift (or attempting to) to their audience. I don't think it has a thing to do with "looking reproductively fit"--Jesus, have you seen some of the pasty, dog-faced emo types who perfom to screaming fans? It has much more to do with the fact that the singer/player is entreating you, with their performance, to go on an emotional trip with them, using compelling melodies and (possibly) lyrics. Which is also why so many songs are about love--love is exciting, love is fun, love is pleasurable, everyone wants to experience it--and so songs about love are popular. Songs about car-washing (with one funky 70s exception) not so much. Other popular topics include rage, grief, and loneliness, which are also experiences that cause great surges of emotion that take you out of yourself.

Then there is music where lyrics/subject is entirely irrelevant, (classical, funk) and the emotional experience is supposed to be based strictly on the music itself. Funk (and classical waltzes) have the added benefit that you can dance to it, can join in the experience even more deeply by emphasizing the melody/rhythms with your body. Thus making the connection between you and the music--and often, the musician(s) deeper. Music is intimate in a strange way, it's not just the screech of a healthy peacock, at all.
posted by emjaybee at 9:01 PM on February 13 [1 favorite has favorites]

'dog-faced emo types who perfom to screaming fans'

wild guess, tokio hotel?

basically, no matter how u look at it, music at most occasions is the purest form of expression
posted by Kennerd at 9:41 PM on February 13

I tend to be skeptical of any reductionist statements on music. I see it as kind of like the whale in Moby Dick or the rocket in Gravity's Rainbow - essentially unknowable, and above any one simplistic definition. After all the deep revelations and insights I've experienced through listening, loving, composing, and performing music, I'm a bit offended that to some people, it all boils down to "get laid, bro!"
posted by naju at 12:07 AM on February 14

I've always been a bit frightened by people dancing to music.

I halfways expected empath to have responded to this already, but I feel genuinely sad for you in being unable to appreciate dancing for yourself.

I totally understand feeling weirded out by people dancing. Most of the time watching people dance at "normal" clubs and events makes feel like I'm observing an alien species. People mostly dancing to be seen, to dance with some girl. Not Dancing For Themselves.

Yes, I am filthy hippie raver boy. And I'm forever unable to explain to my "normal" friends why dancing isn't something I do with someone else, but is simultaneously entirely for me and with the entire floor. But it is one of the most sublime things in my life.

The responses consistently reflected that it was an urge and not a choice, that the moment certain music came on it was telling them they had to move in these strange ways

I think it took a while to open up this part of me, but there is absolutely no question in my mind that there is an urge far beyond choice in dancing. It used to take alcohol or something else to remove enough inhibitions, but now... There are so many times that I've been entirely sober at a party, walking past the dancefloor on some mission or another, and been hit by a bassline that was just not possible to ignore. More than once I've literally turned on my heel, met eyes with someone else who felt the same thing, and lost myself for the next few minutes. Sometimes the next few hours. I'm jaded and cynical as all hell, but some joy can't be suppressed.

"Dancing is active meditation"
posted by flaterik at 12:54 AM on February 14

I'm always interested in these articles, even though they never say anything new. Frederick Turner's Beauty, though, is an exceptional piece of work on evolutionary aesthetics.

I did learn that in all those gigs I've done over the years I was just "lekking."
posted by kozad at 9:00 AM on February 14

I'm surprised so many have overlooked the utilitarian features of music in a tribal, hunter-gatherer world (like how things like sharing joy and sorrow, etc., are quite important, especially in small, isolated communities). It seems the problem isn't finding solid reasons why humans have music, but rather understanding which among myriad reasons is most fundamental, and most likely the driving force in its earliest development.

KokuRyu linked to Mithen's book, and it's a fascinating idea that is gaining acceptance. If indeed humans sang before we spoke, then all verbal and written languages could be subsets of music, not the other way around.
posted by LooseFilter at 1:27 PM on February 14

Maybe music, in its various idiomatic forms, is a highly abstract embodiment of the elusive Universal Grammar.
posted by saulgoodman at 7:53 PM on February 14