I dunno nuth'n about music but I know wot I like - oh, and I like blokes who aren't gutless broflakes so compete with women as equals in pay, promotions and respect. What distinguishes humans from the other animals is that we are the only species that has their arseholes on top. Bring-on the new attitude and new music revolution.
SEVEN THEORIES ON WHY WE EVOLVED TO LOVE MUSIC
1. To Get The Girl.
“What brings anyone anywhere? Why do men build bridges, why are there jets? I was hoping to have sex tonight.” This insight comes from the brilliantly warped mind of Jack Donaghy, a character on NBC’s 30 Rock. Darwin’s theory of sexual selection is grounded in a similar ideology. For the same reason that men flex their muscles or shower or even get up in the morning, they play music to get girls. Said Darwin: “Primeval man probably first used his voice in producing true musical cadences as do some of the gibbon-apes at the present day; and we may conclude…that this power would have been especially exerted during the courtship of the sexes.”
2. To Keep In Synch.
Have you ever noticed that when you walk with someone, you synchronize your footsteps with theirs? The subconscious need to walk in rhythm served an evolutionary function for our ancestors. When humans walk, we make noise. For early humans, that was a problem. The sound of footsteps could potentially mask the sound of a predatory animal or other sounds signaling danger. Our ancestors may have learned to synchronize their steps in order to create predictable sounds as a group, improving their ability to recognize external rhythms.
3. To Identify Your Tribe.
Most athletic events begin with a song. Most teams have a chant that fans use to identify themselves as fans. According to the “adaptionist” theory of evolutionary musicology, these fans may be doing the same thing that coyotes do when they howl in the woods: maintaining their status as part of the pack.
4. To Maximize Flow.
If you’ve ever lost yourself on the dance floor or ignored a green light due to excessive singing along, you’ll understand this perspective on music evolution. Instead of sexual selection, Marcus holds that over time, innovative musicians have evolved their understanding of what makes human beings tick, reverse-engineering the human psyche to enhance the sheer joy of music. Eventually, musicians developed a taste for what psychologist Csíkszentmihályi Mihály called “flow” – a joyful state of immersion, wherein one loses all sense of time.
5. To Feel Emotions.
Music and language have a lot in common. As Gary Marcus told us, both are infinitely generative systems. Learn a finite number of words, and you can create an infinite number of sentences. Marcus also identified one important distinction between the two: “Music is much more emotional than language.” Some scientists (not Marcus) theorize that music and language evolved from a common “musiclanguage” ancestor, with music evolving to tackle emotional meaning and language evolving to handle referential meaning.
6. To Intimidate Predators.
When our evolutionary ancestors descended from the trees, they discovered a new kind of risk in ground predators. Evolutionary musicologist Dr. Joseph Jordania suggests that “rhythmically well-organized loud noise” – the predecessor of choral singing – was initially established as a means to intimidate large ground predators in the African savannah.
7. Survival of the Funkiest.
This one’s fresh out of the oven, but interesting to consider. If Darwinism explains the organic world of animals, plants, and other organisms, why can’t it explain human culture? That’s the idea behind DarwinTunes, a project that tasks participants with selecting songs and “mating” them with other tunes to create “music offspring.” If the offspring are selected by other players, they “survive” and the music “species” lives on. The project is rooted in the theory of “cultural evolution,” the idea that people copy cultural artifacts – from words to songs to visuals – from other people. Each time an artifact is copied, it is mutated. Most die, but some are successful. These catch on and become a success, the victors of cultural evolution.
OK, SO: If you read this far, I'll let you in on my scoring pattern... 1 or 2 stars: I never give them since my job is not to vote anyone down, I'll just skip your tune, nothing personal. 2.5 -3 stars means its not completely terrible (to me) but lacks polish and maybe is a bit annoying. "More Please" = 'try harder, you've got potential.' Sometimes I give 2.5 - 3 stars if I can see it was voted too highly by lots of fake profiles; tut-tut. 4 stars, I'm liking it but production is low or its a bit too avant guard, even for me. 4.5 stars thats about as high as I go unless I think its exceptional radio-ready quality and I'm the first to vote so want others to discover it then I'll give it a 5. I'll Like any song that's 4 or more and I'll follow the artist if is a 4.5 or more. But hey, you didn't write music for me, did you? So who cares what it scores - as long as it's meaningful to you. If you made the world a better place, you deserve every bit of the sense of self-satisfaction that creativity bestows on us. Go forth and "more please." Wishing I was creative like you...