Evolution of Song and Music..

AND THE ORIGIN OF STONE AGE SONGS ON THE RADIO!

In the November 2004 Scientific American, author Norman W. asks, "If music surrounds us-and we wouldn't have it any other way- why is music so important to us?" Would its emergence have enhanced our survival in evolution somehow such as by aiding courtship, or did it originally help us by promotion of cohesion of societies?" Or is music just, "auditory sweetener" an accident of evolution that just tickles the brain (wow! Marge Levins must have a sweet brain!).

My explanation is that in evolution many sounds were in usual life, many of worth, some of woe, with a large store of this established in the memory of our ancestors, so Margie and me believe the sound of music was more pleasing than otherwise, because an organization that's well unified is more of worth generally than a union that's disorganized. This would mean in normal healthy people, music of onomatopoeia (from evolution's own boombox) would be considered somewhat more of worth than the same music without the imitation of natural sounds as it was in evolution. And how much more so would be based on the import of the sound to our survival and so forth in the old days.

If we were able to close our ears as easily as we close our eyes music wouldn't be like an emotional storm of passion. That we can close our eyes but not our ears was because of the advantage of hearing for safe survival at night, so prehistoric life may be the cause of the evolution of music.

To the suprise of audiologists and moms, it's now seen in MRI that the brain has no specialized center for music. Rather, music uses many areas distributed throughout the brain, and other areas that are normally used in other kinds of cognition. Music would use the whole brain because it was more important to survival at night, 50% of our life or more. So music would use the same areas twice that are used in recognizing animals, mates, and competitors for more awareness of this advantage and to make the most use of it.

Another reason music may seem emotional is that noise in physics is defined as change of sound, not how loud, so even sounds that are relatively quiet make us aware, and also would make it a more emotional event. In evolution we were without a volume control either, so control of what we hear also would make feel more in control here too .

That music may have won more courtship or social cohesion by way of the control of sounds may be why it fascinates us so much. If it involves the entire brain, the control of sound music has is good, so it stimulates our brain; this would boost our survival. If so all the explanations cited, about music being a sweet dish, and it's worth in cohesion and courtship and so on may be right. However, because music uses so many areas of the brain a general feeling of control would be of most import and from which the rest may have evolved to reflect the worth of the music, and the other explanations while derived from this general one would still be good uses of music and why they too have much influence on what is achieved for us by music. The many uses and the one use of music of feeling in control of sound would have been more powerful in combination; so much about the secondary uses of music and the main use of control of sound being with sound all the time may both be true. The local uses go to the main, but the main use to control sound is more of worth.

About courtship and music, the twist and other stone age rock'n roll moves have been found to use many of the skills that would aid survival in evolution, good coordination, and exercise. Obviously wanting to control sound and courtship were around millions of years before music. That music was invented may be no more proof it evolved than if the women think you're more in control because you drive a ship machine in Fla. is proof we evolved with machines of sail. All I say here about the evolution of music in truth I think of more as the way music reflects the wish we have had for control of sound, not the music itself, which may not have been with us for much of our evolution, no more than the wheel was. Even so since it's so general and of so much worth it may be reflected in our brain in the MRI as if we evolved with it because it may fill an important need, in truth just as we can become one with other machines, we may be one with music even though just as with say a TV we haven't evolved with it and it changes your brain in a definite way. It may reflect the earlier evolution well, so we can speak of music as if it evolved somewhat independantly which would be how they find distinctions of music in brain research not seen in other activities.
..
Sharing may be a good use of music, this is why people with good songs like to play the boombox just for you and me alone to hear so we'll know what a great song is when merging with the road, like singing at 65 up the superhighway. On my site how to write music I find the essence of a common sound motif and to make a good song, throw it to the good side by a tiff, combine it with another then find the main idea of the second motif, throw it, and repeat this method. Suprises are throughout the song, one suprise, and another. (As in MY CAUSOLOGY OF COMEDY) comedy is believed by some in this field to be the sharing of finds (math proves if you wear your hat in the shower you save on Conditioner!) in a sort of group celebration that would have boosted us in evolution. This may not the highest sort of comedy or music because it says nothing about what the shared motif is about, which would have caused loss of control and so loss of survival advantage in evolution. Thus the idea that music may have evolved for worth of social cohesion wouldn't necessarily have been as much of worth as the control of sounds to the individual. Groups were later in evolution, e.g there was no war among the american indians before 1000 AD. And music if caused by wanting to be in control would have been ahead of this and more the foundation of the use of music for group cohesion than otherwise. The evolution of music may have been, first hopes to control the sound, then music, then use of it when we were more numerous.
..
If music aided survival via control of sound it may be provable by experiment. if first the music was found via MRI to boost the brain the most for the person and then some sort of stress was used to test the hearer's endurance, resistance to depression, and so on, what is strengthened the most? What type of strength would have been the most of worth in evolution? If music increased this strength the most, this would be evidence for the idea that music isn't just sweetener or of other worth that may not be as good. Giving the people in the research control over the sound would be of value to see if this was why we find music of worth. Finding answers to questions like this may improve musicians and all who listen, the listeners with control could use it in OTC strength. If this was not best for us (due to the discomfort, but many positive experiments may be of worth) since mice are known to have mice songs at a high frequency we can't hear, perhaps mice music would be invented (like the Bee Gees after the early hits!) and this could be used to prove the real worth of the evolution of music. Because our minds and bodies are an image of our lives in millions of years of evolution, by finding out about the worth of music this may tell us about how many wild animals were making this or that sound each day (by what sounds we like or disagree with) and see if this goes with other evidence, e.g. if an animal we lived with in common contention, the sounds of music like that type of bison or deer makes would perhaps goes with the music we like the most more than just by luck.
.
Since whales and many other higher animals have songs, this idea of cyber music may also help us learn what they're saying. Whales have a language where they say like "don't" instead of "do not" and many other motifs like our own and this is both like gossip and drummers.


Another use of this idea that music is calming because it's control over sounds we couldn't close our ears to in evolution may be in helping animals to feel good or do what we want. If this value of music is in organized sounds we like, dogs, cows or other animals that also can't close their ears may also much appreciate the feeling of power and comfort a special music just for them would be. Like where they play Mozart for cows and they give "moo" milk, an advanced "whey" to improve this could be to find out the sounds cows like and make synthesized computer music so the cows would give more milk, or the dog would learn what the trainer wants with more control for the person. I wonder what dog music would sound like, dogs barking jingle bells in tune? We read where a dog saved a woman's life the other day in that 1800 emergency by dialing for information 100 a minute number in 1987 perhaps!

Even if control of the sound explains the general worth of music via evolution, the songs we sing are not the same as other animals and (other than camels to stop sand in the desert) they can't close their ears either. So a more indepth explanation is needed. The beach is deep, on the side where the shore is! As good musicians say, some notes are more of worth to author a song than others, 1 3 and 5 are the most definite like consonants in a major or minor scale, and 2, 4, 6, and 7 are more like vowels in the speech beach, the 2, 4, 6 and 7 are used to balance the 1, 3 and 5 which are used with more emphasis. This is like a visual editor (who first draws the line and edits to the general area) and who then adds the extreme good hues and then balances them in with the more moderate hues and so on. By this method of choosing power colors or tones relatively early in the creation of the work, the whole range from shade to light is added in a song or picture, and this is important to depth in a picture, and a way to achieve depth without loss of sharp edges. If you use more power it's important to know just where the power is, power of whatever sort is of worth to use well. I know this because I'm a musician and an artist. Zoom Link. Music How to Site..While the main elements of 1,3, and 5 are the components like consonants and the other notes are used to balance these basic elements and make them more supri-sing, it's tough to make a song out of just three elements.. Van Gough said about how to paint, "avoid the obvious" and by defining the song then via the main notes and then balancing them well so it's not so obvious, it's a higher level of the sound.

I think this motif of the main consonant and more fickle notes must have been derived in evolution from the physics of sound. The scale is cosmic in the world, they find the Maya had instruments they dug up that have an 8 tone scale like our own. The most important notes of 1, 3 and 5 have even numbers of the wavelength and frequency, this means they travel through the air well and this would have helped our survival because they would carry farther. Another reason our song is unlike other animals is because our ears and speech both have another mechanics and physiology than that of other animals so even while the general physics of the air is the same for us, our song is often not like that of other life in evolution.

You often hear comments by abstract painters who say painting a splotch on the wall is good because it's like music and there's no need for it to look real any more than a tune has to be real to be of worth. What's named abstraction isn't actually necessarily even abstract by the original definition of the latin word abstrahere, abstract, which means "mindless". The word abstract would obviously mean having reduced or no worth, and music, being founded in physics and evolution would have worth, and essentially by this important definition good music isn't abstract. Like the gold standard, I think it's better to define life, music and painting in terms of its survival value in evolution; music was the best evolution had to offer even if "abstract" (so is sleep) and what we see with zooms around us is more in sharp enough focus to know what's actually going on is a good sign, what you hope for more often than not. Being able to visualize the life and terrain around us would have advantage to survival so visual worth would be concrete. This would be a major part of life in our evolution, to see what's safe and to defend our life. To say painting a blob is good because it's abstract like music is not a substianted claim because music only seems abstract, and the true spirit of visual life would be the same as music. So whether modern art is abstract or not, I think it's not of as much worth to its followers as more real creativity like the greek or other ancient motifs were. I'm not a fan of visits with a blob on the wall for 40,000 at the show, if you just sit in the right area of the room your sofa cushion is just right, the foam is a computer to watch that may make you rich!
.
Here are some examples of my own mixed media for you (CLICK HERE FOR MORE!)