Calling Rduke55!

[Borodog]

And anyone else who is interested.

I have a theory that music (both the ability and the appreciation of it, obviously) evolved through sexual selection. But I don't know of any literature on the subject; it's just a gut feeling.

I think dance may have coevolved with music, but then again it may be that dance is really just physical control of the body utilizing coopted rhythm centers of the brain (whatever they may be) that evolved specifically for music.

But I'm really just talking out of my ass here. Are there any plausible theories, and how could they be tested?

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
I have a theory that music (both the ability and the appreciation of it, obviously) evolved through sexual selection. But I don't know of any literature on the subject; it's just a gut feeling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes I agree. Must be that rythmic wet squishy sound.

[godBoy]

I have a theory that music is God's form of communication and has the power to impact/change people.
Guido D'Arezzo was the founder of music theory, a monk. Since then the spread of music has grown into what we have now.
The activity that people do more than any other - listening to music. Not trying to upset - But there are many theories.

[Copernicus]

I believe that you will find that dance preceded instrumental music, and probably vocal music as well, unless you include rhythmic grunting that may have accompanied dance. Since primitive dance would most likely be celebratory (eg the Krablar danc lol) it would have been an expression of power and victory, which of course are desirable traits in a mate and therefore sexual.

[Borodog]

My gut instinct is that the first thing to develop was rhythm. So it may well be that dance predates the other features of music.

[tolbiny]

A lot of animals have rythmic movements in mating rituals- they may very well be the basis of dance- with cracking together of sticks/rocks accompanying it to garner more attention, which would support you thoery. I don't have any idea how you could prove or even support the idea that music or dance came first.

[madnak]

Sounds interesting. Music has always been an enigma to me, and is one of the main cultural tendencies that I haven't been able to find a biological reason for.

[Rduke55]

I've been to exactly one talk on the evolution of music in my career and it was 4-5 years ago.

I think that the common idea is that it has to do with some social bonding stuff that came out of territorial and maternal call-type stuff.

I like the idea of sexual selection, especially when you consider mating stuff in other animals such as birdsong (and dancing!), but the differences in mating strategies between solitary or paired males in birds and other mammals (including some primates) and the strategies in typical primate group or band organization would kind of kills this IMO. Not saying that mate selection couldn't be involved in some aspects of this, but I'd think the other explanations would fit better for the bulk of it.
I'm definitely not up on the literature though but that's my, hopefully educated, opinion.

[Zygote]

what field of science is your specialty?

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
what field of science is your specialty?

[/ QUOTE ]

Brain evolution.

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
what field of science is your specialty?

[/ QUOTE ]

Brain evolution.

[/ QUOTE ]


awesome choice. is this a hobby or profession?

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
what field of science is your specialty?

[/ QUOTE ]

Brain evolution.

[/ QUOTE ]



awesome choice. is this a hobby or profession?

[/ QUOTE ]

Profession.

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
what field of science is your specialty?

[/ QUOTE ]

Brain evolution.

[/ QUOTE ]



awesome choice. is this a hobby or profession?

[/ QUOTE ]

Profession.

[/ QUOTE ]

okay, thats fantastic. please be prepared to address many questions from me, since i find this topic highly interesting.

also, any suggested layman readings? I've already gone over "the moral animal by robert wright", which i thought was very good, but am looking to expand beyond that.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
what field of science is your specialty?

[/ QUOTE ]

Brain evolution.

[/ QUOTE ]



awesome choice. is this a hobby or profession?

[/ QUOTE ]

Profession.

[/ QUOTE ]

okay, thats fantastic. please be prepared to address many questions from me, since i find this topic highly interesting.

also, any suggested layman readings? I've already gone over "the moral animal by robert wright", which i thought was very good, but am looking to expand beyond that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually two of my favorite books are texts I used. They aren't real jargon=ry or technical.

"Principles of Brain Evolution" by Georg Striedter

"Animal Behavior: An Evolutionary Approach" by John Alcock. Not a book dedicated to brains (although there's a nice chapter on the neuroscience) but the brain is teh organ of behavior and it's absolutely one of the greatest books I've ever read and you'll get a lot out of it. They're currently on the 8th edition. The 6th edition and previous ones had the best text. 7 and 8 have the best figures but poorer text but any of them are great.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
I've been to exactly one talk on the evolution of music in my career and it was 4-5 years ago.

I think that the common idea is that it has to do with some social bonding stuff that came out of territorial and maternal call-type stuff.

I like the idea of sexual selection, especially when you consider mating stuff in other animals such as birdsong (and dancing!), but the differences in mating strategies between solitary or paired males in birds and other mammals (including some primates) and the strategies in typical primate group or band organization would kind of kills this IMO. Not saying that mate selection couldn't be involved in some aspects of this, but I'd think the other explanations would fit better for the bulk of it.
I'm definitely not up on the literature though but that's my, hopefully educated, opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm. I don't understand. Can you elaborate some on these other mechanisms and explain why they're better than sexual selection?

And thanks for the response, as always.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I've been to exactly one talk on the evolution of music in my career and it was 4-5 years ago.

I think that the common idea is that it has to do with some social bonding stuff that came out of territorial and maternal call-type stuff.

I like the idea of sexual selection, especially when you consider mating stuff in other animals such as birdsong (and dancing!), but the differences in mating strategies between solitary or paired males in birds and other mammals (including some primates) and the strategies in typical primate group or band organization would kind of kills this IMO. Not saying that mate selection couldn't be involved in some aspects of this, but I'd think the other explanations would fit better for the bulk of it.
I'm definitely not up on the literature though but that's my, hopefully educated, opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm. I don't understand. Can you elaborate some on these other mechanisms and explain why they're better than sexual selection?

And thanks for the response, as always.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not saying that sexual selection couldn't have played a role. I can imagine some examples where it could. But based on what I know about ape social structure there usually isn't as much stress on female choice as there is in birds, etc.
Sexaul selection in many species of ape is basically creating a hierarchy through conflict and the alpha copulates preferentially with females. So, like in wolves, much of the vocalizations and other sounds are to establish or maintain dominance over the other males, not neccessarily attract a mate.
Whereas, also like in wolves, the group vocalizations may be used for bonding, keeping the pack together, etc. which would fall more into the natural selection category as opposed to sexual selection.
It's an interesting thought since they found that flute that was dated shortly after tool use came about so it seems like it's been around forever (in human evolution terms).

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I've been to exactly one talk on the evolution of music in my career and it was 4-5 years ago.

I think that the common idea is that it has to do with some social bonding stuff that came out of territorial and maternal call-type stuff.

I like the idea of sexual selection, especially when you consider mating stuff in other animals such as birdsong (and dancing!), but the differences in mating strategies between solitary or paired males in birds and other mammals (including some primates) and the strategies in typical primate group or band organization would kind of kills this IMO. Not saying that mate selection couldn't be involved in some aspects of this, but I'd think the other explanations would fit better for the bulk of it.
I'm definitely not up on the literature though but that's my, hopefully educated, opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm. I don't understand. Can you elaborate some on these other mechanisms and explain why they're better than sexual selection?

And thanks for the response, as always.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not saying that sexual selection couldn't have played a role. I can imagine some examples where it could. But based on what I know about ape social structure there usually isn't as much stress on female choice as there is in birds, etc.
Sexaul selection in many species of ape is basically creating a hierarchy through conflict and the alpha copulates preferentially with females. So, like in wolves, much of the vocalizations and other sounds are to establish or maintain dominance over the other males, not neccessarily attract a mate.
Whereas, also like in wolves, the group vocalizations may be used for bonding, keeping the pack together, etc. which would fall more into the natural selection category as opposed to sexual selection.
It's an interesting thought since they found that flute that was dated shortly after tool use came about so it seems like it's been around forever (in human evolution terms).

[/ QUOTE ]

Would it seem reasonable for sexual selection to possibly play a greater role in musical evolution in humans than other primates because bipedal locomotion freed up the hands?

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I've been to exactly one talk on the evolution of music in my career and it was 4-5 years ago.

I think that the common idea is that it has to do with some social bonding stuff that came out of territorial and maternal call-type stuff.

I like the idea of sexual selection, especially when you consider mating stuff in other animals such as birdsong (and dancing!), but the differences in mating strategies between solitary or paired males in birds and other mammals (including some primates) and the strategies in typical primate group or band organization would kind of kills this IMO. Not saying that mate selection couldn't be involved in some aspects of this, but I'd think the other explanations would fit better for the bulk of it.
I'm definitely not up on the literature though but that's my, hopefully educated, opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm. I don't understand. Can you elaborate some on these other mechanisms and explain why they're better than sexual selection?

And thanks for the response, as always.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not saying that sexual selection couldn't have played a role. I can imagine some examples where it could. But based on what I know about ape social structure there usually isn't as much stress on female choice as there is in birds, etc.
Sexaul selection in many species of ape is basically creating a hierarchy through conflict and the alpha copulates preferentially with females. So, like in wolves, much of the vocalizations and other sounds are to establish or maintain dominance over the other males, not neccessarily attract a mate.
Whereas, also like in wolves, the group vocalizations may be used for bonding, keeping the pack together, etc. which would fall more into the natural selection category as opposed to sexual selection.
It's an interesting thought since they found that flute that was dated shortly after tool use came about so it seems like it's been around forever (in human evolution terms).

[/ QUOTE ]

Would it seem reasonable for sexual selection to possibly play a greater role in musical evolution in humans than other primates because bipedal locomotion freed up the hands?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that freeing up the hands definitely increased musical ability because we got more dexterity but I'm not sure how that would make a case for sexual selection for music in early man. I'm still liking the other reasons more.

[purnell]

[ QUOTE ]
Sounds interesting. Music has always been an enigma to me, and is one of the main cultural tendencies that I haven't been able to find a biological reason for.

[/ QUOTE ]

Having recently shopped at the supermarket while softly singing "Your Man" (a bit of country fluff by Josh Turner), I have to go with sexual selection. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[laurentia]

[ QUOTE ]
And anyone else who is interested.

I have a theory that music (both the ability and the appreciation of it, obviously) evolved through sexual selection. But I don't know of any literature on the subject; it's just a gut feeling.

I think dance may have coevolved with music, but then again it may be that dance is really just physical control of the body utilizing coopted rhythm centers of the brain (whatever they may be) that evolved specifically for music.

But I'm really just talking out of my ass here. Are there any plausible theories, and how could they be tested?

[/ QUOTE ]

Since musical ability correlates with intelligence it is evolutionarily advantageous to have it.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And anyone else who is interested.

I have a theory that music (both the ability and the appreciation of it, obviously) evolved through sexual selection. But I don't know of any literature on the subject; it's just a gut feeling.

I think dance may have coevolved with music, but then again it may be that dance is really just physical control of the body utilizing coopted rhythm centers of the brain (whatever they may be) that evolved specifically for music.

But I'm really just talking out of my ass here. Are there any plausible theories, and how could they be tested?

[/ QUOTE ]

Since musical ability correlates with intelligence it is evolutionarily advantageous to have it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, based on birth rates, it's not advantageous to be too smart.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Since musical ability correlates with intelligence it is evolutionarily advantageous to have it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ya mean rap & stuff? LOL

[laurentia]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Since musical ability correlates with intelligence it is evolutionarily advantageous to have it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ya mean rap & stuff? LOL

[/ QUOTE ]

I am sure they are smarter than their audience.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Since musical ability correlates with intelligence it is evolutionarily advantageous to have it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ya mean rap & stuff? LOL

[/ QUOTE ]

I am sure they are smarter than their audience.

[/ QUOTE ]

nh /images/graemlins/smile.gif