Re: Music's place in evolution
From: Malcolm (malcolm_at_55bank.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: 12/20/04
- Next message: Perplexed in Peoria: "Re: "Genes are followers not leaders". Was: Birds of feather..."
- Previous message: syvanen_at_ucdavis.edu: "Re: Exactly what are "recessive genes"?"
- In reply to: Michael Laschober: "Music's place in evolution"
- Next in thread: EKurtz99: "Re: Music's place in evolution"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2004 21:39:05 +0000 (UTC)
"Michael Laschober" <stlpiano@mindspring.com> wrote
>
> In what ways can evolution explain the existence of music? There does not
> even seem to be a selective advantage to simple pitch recognition. Is
music
> better explained through memetics rather than genetics?
>
No, because the meme has got to have something to work on. If I give you a
random string of phonemes
F-TH-O-L-G-R-SH
you are not going to be able to recall them in 24 hour's time. If I play you
the opening notes of a newly released pop-song, there is quite a high chance
that you will be found humming them the next morning.
Every culture has music. We don't know exactly what role it plays, but it is
a good way of co-ordinating the movements of large groups of people. I call
this the "heave-ho" theory. A lot of music also mimics the rhythm of sexual
intercourse, so I call this, rather rudely, the "rumpy-pumpy" theory.
- Next message: Perplexed in Peoria: "Re: "Genes are followers not leaders". Was: Birds of feather..."
- Previous message: syvanen_at_ucdavis.edu: "Re: Exactly what are "recessive genes"?"
- In reply to: Michael Laschober: "Music's place in evolution"
- Next in thread: EKurtz99: "Re: Music's place in evolution"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
