Why does music exist?

It's been suggested that music predates human language; and that singing/song helped form bonds, pass and keep information in a way that was easy to remember.

And that may have been just how we evolved and why it evokes such strong responses from us.

Social conditioning

>More specifically, what is the evolutionary advantage to humans enjoying music? I've asked several people this question, and none of them have been able to provide a more satisfactory answer than "it sounds right."
Escapism and vapid stimulation to distract from the existential black hole of the world we live in. We think less about our impotent rage when we got some cool sounds to remedy that we're basically alone and helpless in a universe that's trying to kill us.

All forms of art are just reflections upon reflections intended to trigger catharsis to simulate experience or feeling. Baudrillard's Simulacra, essentially.

We pretend it has intrinsic weight because of what it means to us personally, but in the end it's just vibration with some degree of intent behind it, ultimately indistinguishable from celestial currents of radiation in deep space dissipating into nothingness.

there is the interesting aspect that evolution doesn't necessarily = advantage

certain adaptions can persist just cuz. we might like music simply because of an evolutionary fuckup.

>in the end it's just vibration with some degree of intent behind it, ultimately indistinguishable from celestial currents of radiation in deep space dissipating into nothingness.
You could say the same thing but with a totally different connotation:
>Naw nigga, music is more and greater than what you realize. In fact it is nothing less than the sound of the universe occurring. It allows you to conceive of things beyond what your natural senses can perceive: celestial currents of radiation in deep space dissipating into the infinite beyond.

Well there is music for commercial and social purposes and then there is music for artistic purposes and all are created for different reasons.
The former is mostly because capitalism.
The latter is harder to explain.
As for why I like music, I don't even know where to begin.

The capitalism aspect is irrelevant. Music is only profitable because we fundamentally agree on its value.

You can use food and the threat of pain to manipulate any non-human animal and bend it to your will, but you can't lure it with dope beats unless it's a Homo S.

Even so, you're trying to commoditize an *experience* so it's a sketchy market at best. Traditionally art has to be commissioned by wealthy patrons; in the last 100 years mass production has created all sorts of weird bubbles like the record industry.

/science

I'm just not sure how much useful information can be conveyed in such a primal medium as music. I mean, music can unsettle us, invigorate us, and depress us, but what does "this will not kill you if you eat it" sound like?

$ex & romanti$m

Depends on whether existentialism or nihilism resonates more with you personally.

The fact is that none of it is inherently worthwhile. The intrinsic value or lack thereof is dependent on whose perception you're speaking in regards to.

I wouldn't say it's irrelevant at all. It is the reason that some music exists, to make money.
Granted, people liked music before it was commoditized.

Music also exists in a purely formal sense independent of any observer. You argue that it's equivalent to a tree falling with no one to observe its fall, but how can you actually verify that the formal entity has no inherent meaning?

I agree that the relationship between art and commercialization is super interesting and relevant and should not be dismissed, my bad

>Music also exists in a purely formal sense independent of any observer.
This is false.

Devoid of an intellectual filter by which to distinguish music from abstract vibration, it's just more noise in the hubbub of the universe.

Remember, vibration is a fundamental property of matter.
>how can you actually verify that the formal entity has no inherent meaning?
How do you figure that it does?

Let me ask you, does wind exist?

>More specifically, what is the evolutionary advantage to humans enjoying music?
The mere fact that we have the capacity to enjoy music (and all forms of art) is an evolutionary advantage. A bird has no sense of tune or notation, it's just clicks and whistles instead of words and syllables. Other animals make noises, but have no sense of rhythm or spend their free time practicing hitting sticks to produce beats simply to listen and enjoy.

Basically the enjoyment of music is a byproduct of our evolution towards making sense of abstract concepts.

Stop with your philosophical bullshit and watch Howard Goodal BBC music documentary.

it is confirmation of your own capabilities, so people enjoy it. Information and communication are very simply being able to categorize everything, which is done by recognizing the unique patterns in everything. By recognizing and replicating sound patterns like hitting on a drum consistently, you are pretty much making an analogy with being able to recognize patterns (and therefore being intelligent in general) and proving that you are capable of doing it.

it is an interesting activity since it is not so much making your life better than it is recognizing that you're able to make your life better. Perhaps those two are what work and art stand for respectively although that might be dumb because i haven't given it any thought

u sir, are an idiot

>philosophical
I really don't think you know what that word means

>distinguish music from abstract vibration
What is the function that does this? Why is it only observers who enjoy access to it?

>Remember, vibration is a fundamental property of matter.
Exactly, music is there whether or not we are there to observe it.

Mah nigga

>Let me ask you, does wind exist?
Yes, wind has an absolute and fundamental platonic identity independent of the cast shadows that we observe in the cave of perception.

I would take you more seriously if you didn't use $ instead of S

I think it's an extension of our verbal communication. It also certainly can't help your chances of living and mating to be able to throw down a mad bone flute solo at the solstice campfire gathering. It served as a way of sexually selecting a mate, an effect that still manifests itself to this day.

> (You)
>>distinguish music from abstract vibration
>What is the function that does this? Why is it only observers who enjoy access to it?
Because it takes a mind to distinguish music from vibration. "Music" is only an active frame of consumption. You're reciprocating the intent for organization in forms of harmony and rhythm with the intent to listen and analyze.

It takes a mutual exchange of sentience for this to occur.
>Exactly, music is there whether or not we are there to observe it.
It's there but relegated to an abstract form without the intent to extrapolate substance from the vibration.

If a tree falls in the woods and nobody is around to hear it, can two Cred Forumstants argue whether or not a field recording of the tree falling can be considered music?
>Yes, wind has an absolute and fundamental platonic identity
How do you know that? How do you perceive that wind exists? What makes you think that?

This is a nice post. 10/10

Repetition is good for survival (if you survive long enough to repeat something, and it doesnt kill you a second time, there is a good chance it is good/not dangerous). Music is about repetition... just ask Drake

My thoughts be provoked, my alcohol receptors increasingly stoked, but nonetheless let me reciprocope:

>How do you perceive that wind exists?
For 2 reasons, 1 for the anecdotal ( i sensed that wind ) and 2 for the authoritative ( the scientific community agrees that wind exists because of a set of natural causes ). the 2nd is what leads me to believe it persists independent of observance

But why that specific selections of sounds? Why not the sound of a rock hitting against another rock at 2 minute intervals?

.
this makes me think of the contextualization of field recordings into music, and the differentiation of the two. or even listening to pure field recordings as music.

interesting how one might think about spontaneous bird song in the wild, compared to a recording of the same mixed with a piece of composed music.

why shouldn't we inveigle a bunch of birds into a concert hall and buy tickets to listen to them sing with great interest? we've already listened to fucking amplified cactus, let's not be precious.

>For 2 reasons, 1 for the anecdotal ( i sensed that wind ) and 2 for the authoritative ( the scientific community agrees that wind exists because of a set of natural causes ).
Reality is relegated to perception, of which, only one of two perceptions is your own.

The agreements of the scientific community means nothing if you don't personally rationalize that it exists?
>( i sensed that wind)
How did you sense it? Did you taste the wind? Did you smell the wind? How do you know it's there?

music is only a thing because animals wanted to get laid, and humans were like, "oh lets rip off this perfectly innocent species way of communication". all music we make is species appropriation

I don't know what's real and what's bait anymore

Better question
Why do I have no gf?

>perception, of which, only one of two perceptions is your own.
No, experiences are shared. This is a primary function of art. Consider the example of the security camera footage vs the art film. One literally and exactly depicts reality, one is a metaphor for reality. Humans typically can contrive "truth" more easily from the artistic representation than the security camera.

>How did you sense [the wind]?
Primarily through the tactile sensation. But if I were somebody who lacked the sense of touch, I would still believe in the existence of the tactile world because of the overwhelming evidence of shared experience.

>No, experiences are shared.
In a more pragmatic sense, sure.

But no, sensations and perceptions are not shared. Not in and of themselves anyhow. We can listen to an album together and you can attempt to articulate how the album made you feel and what specifically resonated with you, but I'll never fully grasp what you felt and how you felt experiencing it in that moment.

Experiences are capable of being shared in a worldly sense because of the rigid guidelines of expression dictated by verbal communication that leads us to the same choice thesaurus words, but no, the experiences themselves are not shared. We are all stuck in our bodies.
>Primarily through tactile sensation.
Exactly. The wind and its presence thereof is defined by how it interacts with the affected surface.

You stand in the middle of a field and your hair is tossed about and you reason that it's wind, but you don't look to the sky and observe the exchange of air currents at different temperatures. You can look to an adjacent field and see how the grass tosses and sighs like the wisps of your hair and reason that it's the same wind, but in either case, you're not actually perceiving the wind. This is just how you read the surface which it affects.

The same is true for music.

Your enjoyment of the music you listen to isn't intrinsic of the music itself, rather your brain's reaction to that organization of sound and texture is where the enjoyment facet stems.

Do you get what I'm saying?

Okay good shit

Firstly, in terms of 'shared experience' i'm talking more about normal curves wherein most people see the same blue, hear the same C#, etc.

There's an *objective reality* and we have strong evidence of it.

Not just from physical senses: we can (by our power of abstraction) emulate the perspective of (eg) geological formations, atomic particles, etc.

We can use this power of abstraction to ascertain the true nature of reality, and continually revise our theories as we become more observant and learn more. And make no mistake, you are living on the pivot of an exponential curve in terms of what we are figuring out.

>Your enjoyment of the music you listen to isn't intrinsic of the music itself, rather your brain's reaction to that organization of sound and texture is where the enjoyment facet stems.
I think this is a tough one to answer
1) music is somewhat universal in the sense that ever culture does it. on average if you are a homo sapien, you like a good beat. Yes that's the product of *your brain*, but so is it of ever other humans.

2) i want to say more but i'm p fucked up at this point and i would rather leave you with something than nothing. i appreciate you though, 9/10 would debate with again anytime

Escapism isn't an evolutionary advantage though.

I don't think it does OP. Art in some way lets us express ourselves, but that has a very barebones connection to survival given how art evolved.

So, why do we enjoy it?

Because humans aren't just a bunch of genes that are passed down generation through generation nor are we simple organisms that look for survival of the species.

We trascended that centuries ago.

>what is the evolutionary advantage to humans enjoying music?
Maybe there is none beyond it aiding the socialisation process. Enjoying music may not even be a biological thing, it may be something that we learn as children and has become embedded in the fabric of our culture.

>Firstly, in terms of 'shared experience' i'm talking more about normal curves wherein most people see the same blue, hear the same C#, etc.
There are discrepancies of "truth" even in those instances. What about for individuals who are color blind? Tone deaf? The point being that there's no right answer. We can reason that blue is blue and C# is C# because the majority of people with functioning senses agree it to be so, but there really is no right answer.
>There's an *objective reality* and we have strong evidence of it.
>Not just from physical senses: we can (by our power of abstraction) emulate the perspective of (eg) geological formations, atomic particles, etc.
>We can use this power of abstraction to ascertain the true nature of reality, and continually revise our theories as we become more observant and learn more.
This fails to substantiate whether or not the simulation exists outside the minds of either of us or the waking dreams of the God from which we're created.

For the sake of agreement and fundamentals of rational thinking, I humor that there is an objective world, but I really have no evidence for it at all.
>1) music is somewhat universal in the sense that ever culture does it. on average if you are a homo sapien, you like a good beat. Yes that's the product of *your brain*, but so is it of ever other humans.
"Good" is an arbitrary term in this case. "Beat" in the sense of having a designated tempo is a fundamental property of music, which you're right to point out, is practiced by all cultures.

I'm saying that different music would resonate with you had you been born into a culture different from the one you inhabit now. If you grew up in Indonesia, you might have an inclination to gamelan. If you grew up in India, perhaps you would have an inclination to sitar music and so on.

You on Twitter, fäm?
>Escapism isn't an evolutionary advantage though
How do you figure?

>we learn as children

Babies can enjoy music too.

why is op a fag

But why this particular set of sounds? What makes a sonata diffrent from traffic?

>Babies can enjoy music too.
How do you know they're enjoying it? Perhaps such a thing is learnt before even language so that it merely appear as if we've had it all of our lives.

>He doesn't enjoy traffic

The listener that can distinguish between the two.

In an abstract sense, both are just different forms of vibration. Music ceases to be music without the consumption of the individual.

Alright, so why does music appeal to humanity?

>How do you figure?

Escapism can only be done with executive functions, animals have none of those.

Or how would you define escapism? I understand it as a way to fullfill wishes or in some way forget about reality with something that doesn't exist in the physical reality, like fiction.

Well, a sonata has a guideline that has to be met in some way before being considered a sonata, so there's that.

Actually answering your questions though... tonality is something we invented when we decided arbitrary rules for it, in the one we use contemporarily it is A5 (IIRC). In some way, this is relative because we could make A5 any frequency we wish.

As for everything else, though... I dunno. I'm not gonna pull a "God did it" card but it's definitely something that can't be explained from a purely hard scientific standpoint IMO.

I'm no expert though.

youtube.com/watch?v=_Pd5TTezaHU
this is some good shit right here

Our reality is characterized by our perception, so we project our pathologies and intellectuallism onto the mediums by which we experience the world.

The brain has a natural penchant for tone / harmony / beat / rhythm / etc
>Or how would you define escapism? I understand it as a way to fullfill wishes or in some way forget about reality with something that doesn't exist in the physical reality, like fiction.
Same definition, I just fail to understand how this isn't an evolutionary advantage when it's codependent of our sentience to contemplate the meaning of our existence to begin with.

When the latter forgoes the former, why would anyone be interested in continuing in this world as a conscious human being?

I feel like if we knew that, the scientists who discovered what makes us like music would be very rich.

>it may be something that we learn as children and has become embedded in the fabric of our culture.
No, they've proved this wrong by playing music for people from uncontacted tribes

Did these tribes have their own musical traditions?
I may well be wrong but I am extremely sceptical of any biologically deterministic accounts of human psychology.

Sentience is not related to survival. If it was you'd see more species with sentience.

>Sentience is not related to survival.
Oh?

I argue that sentience is directly counterintuitive to survival.

Find me one animal species that commits suicide at a rate even approaching the extent by which humans do.

>I argue that sentience is directly counterintuitive to survival.

Well, I meant to say that sentience doesn't make much sense in an evolutionary standpoint, i.e. if it was purely just evolution we wouldn't have develop sentiency.

So we are in agreement. My point was that there isn't an evolutionary advantage to music, because there isn't an evolutionary advantage to sentiency in the first place, and sentiency predates music.

Finally they went full synthpop and the results were great

While I am not certain it is the correct answer, one that is fairly well elaborated on in a book named The World in 6 Songs is that music is of several different types each with their reason. The book is well researched so its statements hold some weight.

Let me try to go over these 6 types of music and quickly explain the reason for their creation as detailed in the book.

>Friendship
This type of music is best linked to creating coordinated movement in groups much like the work songs, social bonding, and emotional bonding.

Tribes/groups that used this music were less likely to fail due to their strong unity. So an evolutionary advantage.

>Joy
This type of music is best linked to communication and forging bonds. The big thing is trust.

Much like language those that could communicate and make bonds are more likely to breed. Once again evolutionary advantage. Also good dopamine regulation which joy songs have been linked to healthier immune systems.

>Comfort
Its comfort songs, things like lullabies and the such. Lullabies actually don't only comfort the child but also the mother as seen with slowing of much too fast heart rate due partially due to their beat.

Better raised children means the genes go further.

>Knowledge
The big thing about this type of music is that it helps with memory and learning.

The human brain is better wired to remember and learn with music, giving those that were able to use such music an advantage.

>Religion
While the name might be a bit ehh, this sort of music is more ritualistic.

Such rituals conferred mental stability to those that used it by removing worry over the unknown. So advantage.

>Love
The weirdest of the bunch is the love song.

Such songs can send an honest signal to the recipient, helping with trust and getting more kids.

TLDR :: Music can be linked to evolution and natural selection allowing those that liked it advantages over others.

Ooh? What happens with sad or angry music then?

>evolutionary advantages are imperative to things existing

ugh

it's comfort to the sad and angry, i guess

Sad music - Comfort music, when you stand on the edge its nice someone is right there with you.

Angry Music - Best linked to friendship.

Both depend really, but they can be categorized using combos of the 6 types if needed.

Honestly my summary was skin deep, the book goes into better detail.