"But no well informed person ever called the picking of the mandolin music." New York Times, 1897
Wow ! - What a question. Listening to some genres of music it's hard to credit that humans did invent it. Re.the basic question - i think that we all have an in-built sense of rhythm,some to a greater or lesser extent than others.Given that there are so many other human inventions that aren't anything to do with our in-built senses,it's not surprising that something so intrinsically natural to our being,would find a way out & also to evolve. What was the first instrument ?.For me,it's hard to think that it wouldn't be something 'percussive',maybe simply banging 2 rocks together or 'whatever'. Once 'music' or man-made patterns of rhythm if you like,were discovered to give pleasure,(it was hardly likely to evolve much if it wasn't pleasurable,you certainly couldn't eat or wear it !) then it was just a matter of time before our brains got to work on it,& so...........,
Ivan
Weber F-5 'Fern'.
Lebeda F-5 "Special".
Stelling Bellflower BANJO
Tokai - 'Tele-alike'.
Ellis DeLuxe "A" style.
As long as nobody says what exactly music is, we'll never know whom to blame for the invention.
the world is better off without bad ideas, good ideas are better off without the world
I'm pretty sure I heard the birds singing this morning .....
David A. Gordon
yes, along with the spoken word - probably as a result of the fermentation process
I on numerous occasions, have heard a chorus of frogs!
Dignity, Respect and Love, for who they are, not what they are.
Don't know nothin bout that, but i still contend a pair of harmony tones were the first primative drug. OOOOOoooooohhhhhmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
I will humbly submit track 15 "Marais la Nuit" off Neko Case's Middle Cyclone to this debate. Music seems a logical progression on vocalization and language.
Jamie
There are two things to aim at in life: first, to get what you want; and, after that, to enjoy it. Only the wisest of mankind achieve the second. Logan Pearsall Smith, 1865 - 1946
+ Give Blood, Save a Life +
I see no one has read the article, but feels free to respond to the question posed in the title. Par for the course, I reckon, and that being the case, I might as well chime in, too. Why miss out on the fun?
Humans may not have invented music, but they definitely invented the concept of it - that is, that the perception of sounds created in a way that satisfies the definition of music (also a human invention) means that music has been created. So the "singing" of birds, the "chorus" of frogs, the "chirping" of crickets, the "howling" of wolves, the "crying" of seagulls, the "babbling" of brooks, and so forth, which are all merely mating calls or territorial markings, are perceived by humans as music. People even go so far as to anthropomorphize these constructs; that is, to interpret them in human terms, regardless of how irrelevant such a consideration is. This is because they satisfy the definition of music - they contain at least two of the three basic elements of music - rhythm, melody, harmony (this last, not so much) - regardless of the reason for their creation. That is why I emphasize the importance of perception - it doesn't matter to humans why a series of sounds has been created, if it sounds like music, it is.
With that in mind, I'm pretty sure that humans are the only animals that create music simply for pleasure, not purpose - or if not, then to such an extent. I can"t quite explain why mockingbirds devote so much time to running through their repertoire of bird calls, but it may well come down to the two purposes I mentioned earlier. Meanwhile, I sure do enjoy hearing them all over the place as I bike around town. But then, I'm only human.
OK, that'll do for now. I'll pipe up again after I read the article.
But that's just my opinion. I could be wrong. - Dennis Miller
Furthering Mandolin Consciousness
Finders Keepers, my duo with the astoundingly talented and versatile Patti Rothberg. Our EP is finally done, and available! PM me, while they last!
I got about half through the article before I was shaking my head, but then, I'm apparently older than the scientists, who seemed to feel that electronics were the end result of musical evolution and that, since they've only been around for a little bit of human existence, then music itself can't be all that old.
I think, like Journeybear mentioned, a lot has to do with the definition of music. The guys being interviewed seemed to think that music as we know it wasn't around more than 1,000 years ago, yet Gregorian Chants date back longer. The prayers that I chant during religious services had their beginnings more than 5,000 years ago. The idea that the ancient Egyptians didn't use musical instruments is belied by tomb drawings. I mean, seriously. And if it comes to created instruments, they talk about bone flutes from 35,000 years ago as if they arose spontaneously, forgetting that the old tombs of our pre-ancestors are only a very small bit of what their civilization was like and it's only chance we have seen as many as we have considering how many people were not buried in tombs that survived the millenia. I think their definitions need more clarity. They talked about learning music as a chore, like learning math, forgetting that any kid near a keyboard will pound just for the love of it. Music is more than lessons, after all.
The debate over why humans have music is different also from whether we invented it. They were debating its creation as some sort of genetic tag or a learned response based in mating rituals, tied irrevocably to speech. I wonder where austic humans fall on that line, since I've known some that were entirely without speech as we know it, but spent time humming to themselves in ways that were obviously not meant to connect with other human beings. (although on second thought, we're talking evolution, not individual anomalies).
Anyway, those are just some thoughts after skimming the top half. Subject to correction when I read it further!
--------------------------------
1920 Lyon & Healy bowlback
1923 Gibson A-1 snakehead
1952 Strad-o-lin
1983 Giannini ABSM1 bandolim
2009 Giannini GBSM3 bandolim
2011 Eastman MD305
After i waited through the nuicance spam, i read the debate. How can they say harmony has only been around a thousand years, when Tibetan throat singers have been at it or at least 2500? Who knows how long the Nomads have been at it?
Having over 90% common DNA with a chimp, one seems presumptive to think we are so singularly gifted. If we are so smart, why can't we simply ask a mockingbird, or a coyote?
I can't participate in such shortsited presumptions, and besides, this flea isn't going to scratch itself. And im hungry. Jonesing for some bananas.
Randi - I think they made the connection between music and video games because these activities utilize similar area of the brain. This is something I never would have done, as I have no experience nor interest in video games. The article is more about brain function than creativity - probably since that's their field of expertise, even though they approach the subject from different viewpoints. Perhaps the title should reflect this, something more like "Did The Human Brain Invent Music?" Since they are psychologists, not philosophers, they do not touch on the really important question - did music invent humans? After all, it needed some kind of being to exist in order for it to be produced. Much as Tom Robbins proposed - animals were created by water as a means for transporting it from place to place.
They don't really say so, despite their mention of the possibility of Neanderthals singing, but I think music predates the invention of bone flutes and other instruments by a long time - that is, music existed, but people needed to devise a way to construct artifacts in order to express it. There was another interesting point in there, that harmony is an invention and only about a thousand years old. (The timeline is open to debate, but I think the point is valid.) I have been aware of the three basic elements of music (mentioned before: rhythm, melody, harmony) for quite some time, but I hadn't thought about this before. Rhythm and melody are natural creative products, able to be produced fairly easily by a good many animals and other means, but it takes some doing to create harmony, be it through social interaction or by a more complex instrument. It is not naturally occurring, and had to be invented. Very interesting. That's my big take-away from this article, and I'm going to be turning it around in my head for a while.
But that's just my opinion. I could be wrong. - Dennis Miller
Furthering Mandolin Consciousness
Finders Keepers, my duo with the astoundingly talented and versatile Patti Rothberg. Our EP is finally done, and available! PM me, while they last!
We won't find anything but artefacts, and those if we're very very lucky. So it could go back as far as anyone may speculate, no one will have any definitive proof on the origins of using sound in a way we would consider music. We could look at singing from a physical point of view, but we'd be back to the chicken and egg scenario. Then maybe we were drumming or blowing down a reed or a bone long before we got the internal vocals sorted, who knows?
We only know of our own concept of music, bird song to a bird could be as mundane drab and utilitarian as monotonous speeches are to us. So far any study can only presume a common function / awareness and hope that that assumption is correct.
Eoin
"Forget that anyone is listening to you and always listen to yourself" - Fryderyk Chopin
It sounded like they were talking about scientists searching for physiological evidence in Neanderthal skull structure that would indicate a capacity to sing. What that is, I have no idea. They did make a point differentiating between the genetic configurations for music production and appreciation. Hadn't occurred to me. But it does lend credence to the theory that music critics are far less evolved than musicians.
And yes - what we think of as bird song or whale song could indeed have a merely mundane purpose (most likely, actually), but we silly, romantic humans perceive them as beautiful and evocative. I think it is more accurate to term them "calls" than "songs," as they are probably just conversing. Which is not to say that they can't be appreciated that way, nor that when the Paul Winter Consort interacts with a wolf howl or whale call it can't be thrilling, but we have to be mindful of the animal's purpoe in sound production, which is probably not musical.
But that's just my opinion. I could be wrong. - Dennis Miller
Furthering Mandolin Consciousness
Finders Keepers, my duo with the astoundingly talented and versatile Patti Rothberg. Our EP is finally done, and available! PM me, while they last!
Why they asked about music in the prehistoric record but didn't ask anyone who knows the prehistoric record is beyond me.
They fail to have a larger perspective of what the change from Homo erectus and neanderthal variants to full-on Homo sapiens sapiens entails. Neanderthals buried their dead with flowers, they cared for arthritic elderly ... they're a lot more than most people imagine [as are many mammals, we are finding].
Despite that fact, with modern humans appearance in the archaeological and fossil record we see a number of significant additions that invite comparison to music. Let me list a couple:
- Aesthetics displayed on stone tools - symmetry and post-shaping processes used to add functionless beauty [f-style stone tools ]
- Beads, jewerly, and pigments come into common use.
- Cave painting appears, as does carving bone/horn/wood into animal and other forms.
- Depictions of masks being worn, as well as shamanic and human/animal depictions.
- Long distance trade of materials.
- Fishing, primitive boats. [Australia settled via sea 40k+ years ago]
It is generally thought among archaeologists that music likely is part of this package.
Some also argue that domestication of dogs happened at/after this point - no good evidence, though it is clear that we domesticated dogs long long before agriculture or villages.
Our archaeological record from the early modern humans is a few fragments, it's only when modern humans hit the African coasts and enter the Near East/Europe where they start living places that doesn't rot their stuff away. There, we see the full package of abovementioned traits and start finding bone instruments as wood and animal products [hide, string] don't preserve except in ultra-rare contexts.
I'd argue pretty strongly that the development of modern humans and the set of aesthetic and cultural changes that co-occur included a significant increase in the complexity of song, turning it from the natural melody of the world into planned, repeated, structured music.
I'll leave it to the biologists, psychologists, and musicologists to argue about how exactly the brain changed to facilitate this and who exactly invented harmony. I feel it's short-sighted to discuss the development of music without also considering the other major aesthetic developments that also suddenly appear at the same time.
Collings MT2
Breedlove OF
Ellie eMando
Schmergl Devastator
Markus, you Schmergl Devastatored that article. Nice.
Jamie
There are two things to aim at in life: first, to get what you want; and, after that, to enjoy it. Only the wisest of mankind achieve the second. Logan Pearsall Smith, 1865 - 1946
+ Give Blood, Save a Life +
To me the main problem is that this debate is that it is between two phychologists. I think it would be a more interesting debate if a cultural anthropoligist had been involved.
"Put your hands to the wood
Touch the music put there by the summer sun and wind
The rhythms of the rain, locked within the rings
And let your fingers find The Music in the Wood."
Joe Grant and Al Parrish (chorus from The Music in the Wood)
try this guy - booze started it all:
http://reignofterroir.com/2010/10/13...mcgovern-pt-1/
The funny thing is that I'm aware of the work of both guys interviewed and find their other ideas very interesting.
I'm unsure why the Atlantic went where they did without a early-human archaeologist who could have moved the discussion on to the more fruitful and interesting discussions they spend less time on.
It is a fascinating topic, and our developing understanding of the brain, genetics, mammal communication/cognition, and human history makes it rife for discussion. At least in the 90's, the archaeological community was quite fond of beer-fueled discussions of these topics as there's limited objects to prove/disprove anyone. It's been a over decade since my research area became too dangerous to work in and I moved from the field ... but I refuse to give up beer/coffee fueled discussions.
Collings MT2
Breedlove OF
Ellie eMando
Schmergl Devastator
Bill, Terrence McKenna argued that big-game hunting humans used various psychoactive fungi they found in ungulate dung, and this had a similar culture-stimulating effect. Given there's a neanderthal burial covered with poppy pollen, it would be no surprise that mind-altering drugs were part of this package or developed later.
Alcohol/brewing certainly held an important place in most cultures once they settled down to village life. Whether beer was a motivating factor to intensify agriculture I'm not sure, but to people living on the outreach of settled societies the regular presence of booze probably made moving to the city a bit more appealing.
I'm not sure there are fact there, but I bet it would work on both of us
Anyway ... back to mandolins.
Collings MT2
Breedlove OF
Ellie eMando
Schmergl Devastator
Male chimpanzees have been observed drumming in the wild, sometimes accompanied by hoot vocalizations. Each individual seems to have his own signature rhythm.
Now as to whether drumming constitutes music is a whole different discussion!
I think its safe to say that humans did not invent music, but rather discovered it. The tones, pitches, scales and harmony all occur naturally, we simply recognized and observed various relationships and then catogorized them in a way that fit within our constraints and constructs. That's like saying we invented electricity. We discovered it, harnessed it, and exploited it, but it has always been there.
We have a winner!I think its safe to say that humans did not invent music, but rather discovered it. The tones, pitches, scales and harmony all occur naturally, we simply recognized and observed various relationships and then catogorized them in a way that fit within our constraints and constructs. That's like saying we invented electricity. We discovered it, harnessed it, and exploited it, but it has always been there.
Bobby Bill
Thanks Markus. I also enjoy x fueled conversations too.
Jamie
There are two things to aim at in life: first, to get what you want; and, after that, to enjoy it. Only the wisest of mankind achieve the second. Logan Pearsall Smith, 1865 - 1946
+ Give Blood, Save a Life +
Bookmarks