# Where does musical sensitvity come from?



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

This is something that has been on my mind lately.

When I was getting into Classical Music, I remember one of the pieces I really ended up liking eventually was Tchaikovsky's 6th symphony. My favorite part when I was young (12 or 13) was at the end of the development of the first movement, that huge build up:





 (starting at 13:01 coming to a mini climax at 13:18 and finally coming to an ultimate climax at 13:51.

The harmonic surge and the sustained tension built up through nearly a minute was something I felt in my gut. I felt like I had to hold my breath during that section and finally let it go when it was done.

I felt so sure that this passage was so strong that anyone that heard it would be overwhelmed with emotion like I was. So I took it to my parents and made them listen to that passage with a lot of the preceding material so they could hear it in context.

And....nothing.

They didn't hear it, feel it, at they end they just sort of said "Oh ya, that was nice". Like almost nothing had happened at all. I was so confused why they didn't hear and feel what I heard and felt. And I realized after a while that it seems that some people, like myself and I'm sure many of you, have some sort of 6th sense when it comes to music. Something that other people seem to not have.

But where does it come from? This musical 6th sense. Is it something we're born with? Is it something that is learned at a young age? Is it something that can be learned at a later age? And if so, how do you "teach" someone to "feel" music?

Even the seemingly smallest of musical gestures can get to me in big ways and send my feelies to ecstasy, like this small chromatic descending line in the viola at 4:06: 




Ah, just so beautiful.

Lot's of questions. I'm not sure if I have any answers. Discuss? Maybe? Perhaps?


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

I've been thinking about that too. For a long time. And how it comes and goes within myself. Sometimes I can intellectually understand things, but feel dead inside. It's really frustrating.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms (Jan 6, 2014)

Curiously Tchaikovsky's 6th often loses my interest after the intro.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

As I read the OP, I've a quote from Edison at the back of my mind, saying that his work was "1% inspiration and 99% perspiration". Violadude, would you agree that not all things in such music move you like that? And would you also agree that you either did some fishing to find that sensation, or that you found Tchaikovsky's Pathetique early on and were not as impressed by another similar piece afterwards?

While I don't think this explains all of what's going on, I think part of how we *built* musical sensitivity is that we put some sustained effort into it. Yes, it seems that there are people like ourselves who are predisposed to think just as you've described in the OP, but there is an element of repeated exposure and making an effort to think about the music. Other people think about the music they like, but they don't exactly put in the same intensity and duration of time into thinking about it.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Damned if I know. In me it was clearly inborn, and it sounds like that was true for you as well. 

My mother tells me that when I was too small to reach the crank on our Victrola (yes, 78rpms, early 1950s) I would stand alongside the phonograph completely absorbed and entranced by the sounds coming out of it. The capacity to be awakened to a higher state of consciousness by a sequence of suspensions or by a cadence delayed through a turn into the Neapolitan, when we have never experienced these things before and have no context for them in our everyday lives, seems to be in some people's genes. I don't think there's any explaining it otherwise. 

This is not to say that musical sensitivity can't be enormously enlarged with practice. It can. Some people just seem to have it substantially at the start. Right, Wolfie and Felix?


----------



## Gaspard de la Nuit (Oct 20, 2014)

I think some of it is inherent to the soul of the individual, some of it is carried on from past lives, and some of it is the phenomenon experienced during your life expanding your consciousness.

If you think that means that I think that humans these days are wiser or more sensitive than they've ever been on average.....yeah, that's the implication, though there are always people who stand out in any given era one way or another.


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

I've always thought I'm extremely sensitive so music. It's just that I've also always thought that I don't really understand music at all. That puts me in a strange place. I must love this thing, and I just misunderstand it all the time. But I don't care. I love it anyway and this love is enough for me.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Xaltotun said:


> I've always thought I'm extremely sensitive so music. It's just that I've also always thought that I don't really understand music at all. That puts me in a strange place. I must love this thing, and I just misunderstand it all the time. But I don't care. I love it anyway and this love is enough for me.


If it's enough for you, it's enough.

:tiphat:


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

Violadude, I hope it doesn't depress you that I sort of had the "yeah, that was nice" reaction to that passage. Well, actually it was a lot more positive reaction than that, but not quite the climactic life changing event you are describing. However I _do_ know what you are talking about and have had the exact same thing happen to me with other pieces and with people not hearing the same significance in them I hear. It's frustrating!

I guess it boils down to everyone having billions of neurons linked in different ways, reacting to impulses from the same senses, yes, but sculpted by hormones and dopamine differing slightly from individual to individual. While my reaction may have been close to yours, we are all ultimately alone in our heads -- at least until technology can link people more intimately than perhaps I care to experience yet.

Maybe someday people will be able to truly share these experiences.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

Okay, you're all going to roll your eyes at this, but this thread reminds me of an old Rush song "Entre Nous" that addresses this very topic:

_We are secrets to each other
Each one's life a novel
No one else has read
Even joined in bonds of love
Linked to one another
By such slender thread
. . . .

Just between us
I think it's time for us to recognize
The differences we sometimes fear to show
Just between us
I think it's time for us to realize
*The spaces in between
Leave room for you and I to grow*_

[My bold and with several verses missing, but that's the gist.]


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Weston said:


> Violadude, I hope it doesn't depress you that I sort of had the "yeah, that was nice" reaction to that passage. Well, actually it was a lot more positive reaction than that, but not quite the climactic life changing event you are describing. However I _do_ know what you are talking about and have had the exact same thing happen to me with other pieces and with people not hearing the same significance in them I hear. It's frustrating!
> 
> I guess it boils down to everyone having billions of neurons linked in different ways, reacting to impulses from the same senses, yes, but sculpted by hormones and dopamine differing slightly from individual to individual. While my reaction may have been close to yours, we are all ultimately alone in our heads -- at least until technology can link people more intimately than perhaps I care to experience yet.
> 
> Maybe someday people will be able to truly share these experiences.


Yeah, I'm not ready to be embarrassed that much by technology


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

I don't know where it comes from, but I know I have it in spades and my SO doesn't have it at all.

Whenever we are watching a movie and the dialog ceases and the music begins, the SO thinks this means she can talk, since the musical interlude is meaningless to her; drives me up a wall.

All I can do is dedicate both our brains to science and let them figure out which part of the brain either makes it or doesn't make it happen.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

I think it is learned. I grew up listening to hard rock (ask HBtC :lol and, in the space of about 6 years, gravitated to Pink Floyd, then Zappa, then Tangerine Dream and, finally, classical. I had no background. Initially, I was into the more unusual contemporary pieces, likely because they gave my young brain the sought-after jolts. After a few years of this exposure, my taste broadened and I began to hear more 'conventional' classical as emotionally overwhelming. I believe I had to learn the vocabulary.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

A lot of good stuff here:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4107937/


----------



## helenora (Sep 13, 2015)

I think the more one listens to the more one develops this "musical sensitivity". Of course it's inborn to some extend, some people have more of it than the others, but still we can improve even what we have .



> They didn't hear it, feel it, at they end they just sort of said "Oh ya, that was nice". Like almost nothing had happened at all. I was so confused why they didn't hear and feel what I heard and felt. And I realized after a while that it seems that some people, like myself and I'm sure many of you, have some sort of 6th sense when it comes to music. Something that other people seem to not have.


this happened to me many times and then I just gave up realized that not everyone is equal and yes, there is such a thing as "musical sensitivity". And if some people don't want to develop it, then leave them alone  The problem is when these people are close ones, then it's a pity we can't share with them.....


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Musical sensitivity comes from the notes itself by the great composers. Bach's famous Air from Orchestral Suite no.3 is filled with musical sensitivity.


----------



## Gouldanian (Nov 19, 2015)

Comes from God.


----------



## Gaspard de la Nuit (Oct 20, 2014)

Gaspard de la Nuit said:


> I think some of it is inherent to the soul of the individual, some of it is carried on from past lives, and some of it is the phenomenon experienced during your life expanding your consciousness.
> 
> If you think that means that I think that humans these days are wiser or more sensitive than they've ever been on average.....yeah, that's the implication, though there are always people who stand out in any given era one way or another.


After thinking about the second paragraph a little bit, that might not be true; humans these days are also over-stimulated, so it might cancel out some of the past-life sensitivity that might have been gained.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Gouldanian said:


> Comes from God.


Most often inspired by religion but it comes from the creative minds of the great composers like Bach.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

IMO, there is just inevitable individual variation in which moments of music hit us most powerfully. We can hopefully learn to appreciate better what moves each other, but there will always be something that I think is amazing that someone else either thinks is "nice" or doesn't even like.


----------



## Gaspard de la Nuit (Oct 20, 2014)

science said:


> IMO, there is just inevitable individual variation in which moments of music hit us most powerfully. We can hopefully learn to appreciate better what moves each other, but there will always be something that I think is amazing that someone else either thinks is "nice" or doesn't even like.


I agree.....makes me think of Wagner, some of his words suggest that he didn't have any sensitivity to the tonal architecture of classical-era music, which makes his disbanding of any kind of tonal plan seem like less of a deliberate advance and more of him just following his own sensitivity (or deficiency, however you look at it).


----------



## Stavrogin (Apr 20, 2014)

violadude, the way you tell that story makes me think that you excluded the possibility that your parents have this "musical sensitivity" because of their reaction to that specific part. What if they had other pieces of music resonating with them so intensely, while you barely care for those? 
What if such pieces were parts of Beatles' songs?


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

Perhaps you can imagine it like a fingerprint: no 2 people have the exact same taste. No 2 brains are wired perfectly the same, it's impossible. Also, no 2 people have the same experiences in their lives. All of this culminates with an enormous diversity of palette, which is pretty amazing in its own right.

Oh cruel world...  (I say this because I'm often having existential angst that nobody sees Glazunov like I do, which isn't exactly true because I've met some incredible people recently online, but then again, still the feeling of isolated angst...)


----------



## Lucifer Saudade (May 19, 2015)

Maybe it's just emotional sensitivity and a certain inborn musical predisposition... I have a hunch this is related to dopamine and other neurotransmitter differences between people, but really it comes down to genes and the experiences gained from listening to a lot of music.

I do wonder if you're talking about emotional reactions to music or the ability to analyse music and be sensitive to the little details most people would not be paying attention to.


Also, people have different tastes and have a different experience/ reaction to a piece at any given time that is subject to change - you know how you show a YT vid to someone you find amusing only to find they don't share your reaction and vice versa? Just because one particular passage didn't inspire someone doesn't automatically make them less sensitive then you are.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

ArtMusic said:


> Most often inspired by religion but it comes from the creative minds of the great composers like Bach.


And partly as a result of fantastic inspirational material that Bach had. Let's not forget the crucial role that Picander played in making Bach so great, the lyrical meter that compliments his work perfectly.


----------



## Dedalus (Jun 27, 2014)

I think a lot of it has to do with exposure, and how you are exposed to a piece of music. If you listen to a piece that is in a similar vein to music you're used to then you're more likely to enjoy it and "get" it. Also, I think for some people finding a piece on their own makes them more likely to pay attention and enjoy it than if somebody is showing you a piece expecting you to like it. It's almost like they feel under pressure to like it, and that makes some people uncomfortable. That's not the case for me personally, as I love being shown music that people love and really like to figure out what there is to love about it, since somebody else clearly loves it.

But if a person only listens to rock and metal for example (as I once did) showing them Tchaikovsky might not hit them emotionally simply because they aren't used to the musical language in it. But with exposure this can change as it has for me, and without a doubt others as well. It doesn't even have to be as far apart as somebody use to rock and metal and not classical. It can be somebody used to certain periods of classical music, but have had little exposure to other periods of classical, modern music being the obvious example. But just the same, I think with exposure one can understand and enjoy the modern stuff.


----------



## Janspe (Nov 10, 2012)

violadude said:


> And....nothing.
> 
> They didn't hear it, feel it, at they end they just sort of said "Oh ya, that was nice". Like almost nothing had happened at all.


I once played the third movement of Beethoven's C-sharp minor sonata for my dad, her partner and her children. Now I'm not a professional player, and I certainly know that my playing is far from ideal when it comes to such repertoire, but I honestly thought I pulled it off rather neatly that day - no major slips, a good overall grip on the big picture of whats going on, and a rather energetic tempo indeed. But they left the room while I was nearing the end, having apparently lost their interest and opting for a nice talk in the kitchen accompanied by quaint background music.

I myself was overwhelmed with tension and passion - I do think that the sonata in question really is a terrific piece, even though it's often frowned upon as a cliche - and couldn't believe that someone could just .. _not be involved._ I actually heard one of them ask my father why I choose to play such loud pieces - wasn't something calm and beautiful better? Ouch... My dad at least defended my repertoire choice; I guess he learned something back then, listening to my playing when I lived at home.

I've also tried to play recordings (of great pieces of music that I love) to my friends, often to no avail. A friend of mine once said, upon hearing parts of the Sibelius violin concerto, that he doesn't really enjoy music that use instruments in a mere virtuoso manner, with little melodic material. How someone can say something like that of that particular concerto is beyond me...

On a brighter note, my mom has turned out to be quite the observant listener - we've gone to a lot of concerts together, and she's been honestly fascinated by a lot of music, even some difficult repertoire, like Ligeti's _Ramifications_. With zero musical education, I think it's heart-warming to see how excited she is - this only goes on to prove that one doesn't need to be educated in classical music to enjoy it.


----------



## kartikeys (Mar 16, 2013)

From the soul. Classical music is eternal. The emotions that it espouses match those of life. So you can connect to the princess/pauper of the 15Th century while listening to a classical piece. 
Same with beautiful words spoken by beautiful people. The emotions they arouse (that make us feel good) connect to the soul, the everlasting soul. 
Classical connects to the soul of life. And that is magic.


----------



## Guest (Dec 10, 2015)

Lukecash12 said:


> While I don't think this explains all of what's going on, I think part of how we *built* musical sensitivity is that we put some sustained effort into it. Yes, it seems that there are people like ourselves who are predisposed to think just as you've described in the OP, but there is an element of repeated exposure and making an effort to think about the music. Other people think about the music they like, but they don't exactly put in the same intensity and duration of time into thinking about it.


My own experience confirms this: listening to some pieces many times before achieving the kind of sensation that I think violadude describes. However, there must be something going on in the first place to compel me to listen repeatedly in the first place...I don't know what that is.



Woodduck said:


> The capacity to be awakened to a higher state of consciousness





Gaspard de la Nuit said:


> I think some of it is inherent to the soul of the individual, some of it is carried on from past lives, and some of it is the phenomenon experienced during your life expanding your consciousness.


I probably wouldn't go this far in explaining my experience, but sometimes the intensity can be quite overwhelming.



Weston said:


> I guess it boils down to everyone having billions of neurons linked in different ways, reacting to impulses from the same senses


This is probably more akin to my way of thinking. My wife says she likes some of the music I play, but she never "gets it". Luckily, she still has neurons wired in an attractive way!



Weston said:


> *we are all ultimately alone in our heads* -- at least until technology can link people more intimately than perhaps I care to experience yet.
> 
> Maybe someday people will be able to truly share these experiences.


Alas, yes, we are. I'd love it if one day I could make her feel what I feel.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Humans are hardwired to create and enjoy music. It's just another way of communicating. And as much as harmonies and tension and release move us, as well as beautiful melodies, they're not even necessary. Rhythm alone will do it.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

I think it's inborn - we inherit it. I have that sort of sensitivity towards traditional music, Scottish in particular - when I play a strathspey for my fiddle teacher, I 'just know' exactly how it should go, and he notices that. When I am playing baroque music, even though I love it, I feel as if I'm walking in the dark. When I was a very young child, I'd sing nursery rhymes to myself in my cot - none of my five siblings did.

But I think that any inborn musical sensitivity can be developed - and if ignored for years, I suppose eventually it would die.


----------



## Gaspard de la Nuit (Oct 20, 2014)

Janspe said:


> On a brighter note, my mom has turned out to be quite the observant listener - we've gone to a lot of concerts together, and she's been honestly fascinated by a lot of music, even some difficult repertoire, like Ligeti's _Ramifications_. With zero musical education, I think it's heart-warming to see how excited she is - this only goes on to prove that one doesn't need to be educated in classical music to enjoy it.


My Mom who has no classical music expertise whatsoever also likes Ligeti! I forget which piece it was that we heard (it was an orchestra piece). She likes some of the 20th century pieces we hear on the radio in the car, the last one I can remember was musica celestis by aaron kernis. She didn't like Brahms violin concerto and she doesn't really care for Mozart's piano sonatas at all. She loves the music of Richard Strauss. She also likes my music.

But if given the choice I'm sure she'll always listen to Coldplay.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Great thread!

I won't attempt a general answer, but for me what you call musical sensitivity manifested as a tendency to internalize what I was hearing, to feel it as an extension of an inner voice. In the terms Edward T. Cone used in _The Composer's Voice_, I strongly identified with the _personas_ of musical works, that is, (paraphrasing) with _the fictional subjects whose experience the narrative, play or reverie is thought to be_. The music became my internal experience for the time I was listening to it. Physiologically speaking, I could feel my brain sending etiolated commands to my vocal chords, as if it were somehow possible for me to sing a whole orchestra or rock band, and I felt what I imagined (intuitively and unconsciously) I would be experiencing if those sounds were in fact my own vocalizations forced from my body by emotion or some other inner impulse. If it was a blues guitar solo, I would feel those howls and bends and sudden chokes as if my mind were caught up in a smoky torment that cried for expression. And I too was caught up on the rising tides of Tchaikovky's and others' crescendos to the point where it affected my pulse and breathing.

So for me I guess it comes down to internalization, the intuition that in those sounds is where life in its most vivid forms resides.

Edit: Okay, sorry, couldn't resist:






About thirty seconds into this video the development section of Tchaikovsky 6/i is quoted. Those cows and sheep milling mindlessly about is such an absurd counterpoint to the urgently purposeful music. Always sends me into a laughing fit.


----------



## jenspen (Apr 25, 2015)

I just thought of a couple of excellent musicians who came from very unmusical backgrounds, who had no musical instruments to express themselves with till they were past the age when we are told that musicians need to begin developing their talents. In these cases the passion to pursue music was entirely self-motivated, seemed to have sprung from nowhere. Two examples led me to make that remark - the Australian conductor and musical educator, Richard Gill and the British pianist, Paul Lewis. 

I don't know what to make of them, am just awed.


----------



## hagridindminor (Nov 5, 2015)

Well to be fair, certain songs, passages, and notes speak to us at different times. Generally whenever someone shows me a song, I don't really feel it but I pretend to and say its a sweet song. That song has to hit you on a personal level for you to appreciate it. A song can only hit you on a personal level if you're in the mood for it and you listen to it in a certain way


----------



## Lyricus (Dec 11, 2015)

Every piece in Disney's Fantasia blew young-child-me away before I was able to build up a sensitivity. I think some things are objectively beautiful, and rather we learn to not love them, or perhaps to love something else more to their detriment.


----------



## Pat Fairlea (Dec 9, 2015)

I don't have a simple answer. There was very little classical music in the house when I was growing up and neither of my elder sisters was much interested. But when I first stumbled across some Greig and Borodin, I think, on some old 78s, that was it. Hooked. Something down in the basement of my brain had been waiting for those complex, flowing sounds and couldn't get enough. Music makes me laugh, cry, relax and all the other emotional reactions. No idea why!


----------



## Richannes Wrahms (Jan 6, 2014)

From the stomach.


----------



## kanishknishar (Aug 10, 2015)

Weston said:


> Okay, you're all going to roll your eyes at this, but this thread reminds me of an old Rush song "Entre Nous" that addresses this very topic:
> 
> _We are secrets to each other
> Each one's life a novel
> ...


Well, I'll be damned! Someone quoting Rush on TalkClassical!


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

You're right: Rush are in a category unto themselves--_sui generis!_


----------



## Varick (Apr 30, 2014)

Richannes Wrahms said:


> Curiously Tchaikovsky's 6th often loses my interest after the intro.





brotagonist said:


> I think it is learned. I grew up listening to hard rock (ask HBtC :lol and, in the space of about 6 years, gravitated to Pink Floyd, then Zappa, then Tangerine Dream and, finally, classical. I had no background. Initially, I was into the more unusual contemporary pieces, likely because they gave my young brain the sought-after jolts. After a few years of this exposure, my taste broadened and I began to hear more 'conventional' classical as emotionally overwhelming. I believe I had to learn the vocabulary.





helenora said:


> *I think the more one listens to the more one develops this "musical sensitivity". Of course it's inborn to some extend, some people have more of it than the others, but still we can improve even what we have .*
> 
> this happened to me many times and then I just gave up realized that not everyone is equal and yes, there is such a thing as "musical sensitivity". And if some people don't want to develop it, then leave them alone  The problem is when these people are close ones, then it's a pity we can't share with them.....





Gouldanian said:


> Comes from God.





kartikeys said:


> From the soul. *Music is eternal *[fix.t]. And that is magic.


Excellent thread. A topic that I, and it appears almost everyone here in CT, often think about. So much has been said and so many great points have been made. I believe what I bolded above by Helenora pretty much sums it up.

This is what I love about music: No matter who you are, almost EVERYONE has some type or moment(s) of music that moves them. I remember one of my Aunt's & Uncle's never had a stereo or decent radio in their house. They had a transistor radio and that was all. I asked them one day when I was about 12 years old if they ever listened to music. They both said that they don't enjoy music (to which I shuddered in horror). I then asked if there was any TYPE of music they enjoyed. My Aunt paused for a moment, and said every now and then if she hears it or if she's at a football game (American football), she like to hear marching band music (Again... shudder). But it goes to show, that there was still SOMETHING musical that got to her.

I can't stand country, metal, and house/club music, but I know so many who are so moved by these genres. For them, it is visceral, and I enjoy watching people positively react to music, even if I can't stand what I'm hearing.

I have a tough time with most of Schubert's piano sonatas. My ears often glaze over after a few minutes and it takes deliberate effort and concentration to get through them, yet there are many here who listen to his Sonatas and are moved to the core. I don't get it, but I'm glad they do. I don't think my music sensitivity is any less than anyone else's here because there are certain pieces and moments in music where the reaction would be the exact opposite between them and me.

I also believe there is a divinity about the nature of music. For Evolutionists (Those who believe every aspect of human behavior can be explained via evolutionary necessity and that there is no God) are absolutely stumped by music. They have never come up with any evolutionary reason for music. I don't believe they ever will.

There is a transcendence in music, and no evolutionary, neurological, or scientific explanation will ever encompass the *whole* experience of this wonderful thing called music.

V


----------



## Pat Fairlea (Dec 9, 2015)

Varick said:


> "I also believe there is a divinity about the nature of music. For Evolutionists (Those who believe every aspect of human behavior can be explained via evolutionary necessity and that there is no God) are absolutely stumped by music. They have never come up with any evolutionary reason for music. I don't believe they ever will."
> 
> I don't agree that Evolutionists are 'absolutely stumped' by music, any more than I would accept this reductionist definition of Evolutionists. However, as music is one of the few absolutely worldwide attributes of human behaviour, it has to derive from something deep in our past, and to have been necessary or at least a little advantageous at some point in that deep past. For most people around the world and back into recorded history, music is/was collective, and even today's concerts can be seen as a shared experience. Coupled with music's characteristics of structure and rhythm, the collective singing, clapping, banging sticks, whatever serves as a form of group mood recalibration, getting everyone onto the same thought pattern and wavelength. In many societies, music is associated with events at which people come back together, or with regular points in the daily/weekly schedule.
> 
> That leaves the question of the solitary CD-listener. What collective mood-calibration does s/he get? Not enough. Maybe that's why so many music listeners like me take to the interweb to share our thoughts, and encourage others to share the music that we love. We 'evolutionists' are not 'stumped': we're just fascinated and we don't pretend to have all the answers. Unlike religionists?


----------



## Guest (Dec 18, 2015)

It's never clear to me why asserting that there's a divinity involved in music must also entail a minor thesis on why "evolutionists" are wrong.


----------



## Stirling (Nov 18, 2015)

It is unZen thing. they want to push out with the moral sense, rather than in.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Pat Fairlea said:


> For most people around the world and back into recorded history, music is/was collective, and even today's concerts can be seen as a shared experience. Coupled with music's characteristics of structure and rhythm, the collective singing, clapping, banging sticks, whatever serves as a form of group mood recalibration, getting everyone onto the same thought pattern and wavelength.


I think that the collective howling of dogs and wolves may show that the social bonding mechanism extends beyond Homo sapiens. I was reminded of this a few days ago when a police car raced by with siren blaring, and every dog along its route one by one began to howl, whether seen by one another or no. One can easily envision a scenario early in the evolution of "language" wherein one individual experimentally mouths/utters some sound that another or others find resonant and repeats back to the first, and it then is uttered/sung by all in growing unison, perhaps with happy, glowing faces.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Varick said:


> I also believe there is a divinity about the nature of music. For Evolutionists (Those who believe every aspect of human behavior can be explained via evolutionary necessity and that there is no God) are absolutely stumped by music. They have never come up with any evolutionary reason for music. I don't believe they ever will.
> 
> There is a transcendence in music, and *no evolutionary, neurological, or scientific explanation will ever encompass the whole experience of this wonderful thing called music.*
> V


This isn't true on several levels. "Evolutionists" don't believe "every aspect of human behavior can be explained by evolutionary necessity." Nor are they absolutely stumped by music. Some have suggested that musical capacities are an unintended consequence of verbal capacities. You might have heard, for example, that perfect pitch is far more common among speakers of tonal languages, those in which meaning often depends on melodic factors, that is, differences in pitch and inflection. And in many cultures, including ours, music has long been used as a mnemonic aid in learning basic information and as a source of group cohesion in work and ceremonial settings. And melodic content has always been an essential way of communicating with preverbal children and babies. This is plenty enough explanation for the existence and prevalence of music in evolutionary terms.

As for the bolded portion: Of course not, because our art music requires aesthetic explanations, not evolutionary, neurological or scientific ones. Why would anyone think otherwise?

Edit: I see others have already responded in similar terms. Guess I should read to the end of a thread before going on a rant …


----------



## Gaspard de la Nuit (Oct 20, 2014)

EdwardBast said:


> This isn't true on several levels. "Evolutionists" don't believe "every aspect of human behavior can be explained by evolutionary necessity." Nor are they absolutely stumped by music. Some have suggested that musical capacities are an unintended consequence of verbal capacities. You might have heard, for example, that perfect pitch is far more common among speakers of tonal languages, those in which meaning often depends on melodic factors, that is, differences in pitch and inflection. And in many cultures, including ours, music has long been used as a mnemonic aid in learning basic information and as a source of group cohesion in work and ceremonial settings. And melodic content has always been an essential way of communicating with preverbal children and babies. This is plenty enough explanation for the existence and prevalence of music in evolutionary terms.
> 
> As for the bolded portion: Of course not, because our art music requires aesthetic explanations, not evolutionary, neurological or scientific ones. Why would anyone think otherwise?
> 
> Edit: I see others have already responded in similar terms. Guess I should read to the end of a thread before going on a rant …


I disagree to an extent - it does seem like, whenever a human trait or behavior is observed, the first thing people do, at least on the internet, is frame it within the paradigm of evolution, even though doing that is in no way scientific and is nothing more than sheer and utter speculation being used to buttress an already widely-believed hypothesis. In many of these instances it seems apparent to me that the progenitor of the phenomenon could just as easily be cultural, yet it is always framed in the most simplistic (and culturally re-affirming) ways; "men are this way because it was advantageous for survival because xyz and women because abc"....you get the idea. This happens EVERY time, it seems like....so while you're probably right that not everyone in the sciences is about this, it is _very_ prevalent.

Secondly......even some of the most reductive thinkers will say that music appears to be the hedonistic icing on an otherwise utilitarian cake (analogy not mine). All of the explanations you listed seem like they *could* explain why music exists as an art form.......but to me it seems very strange that music could elicit the depth of response and magnitude of impact that it does, which, I will say it - far exceeds that of the other arts. People's response to visual art is usually proportional to corresponding visual stimulus in real life, or less heightened. Sound's relationship to music seems quite different; the most intense emotional response experienced is fear (I remember some german-speaking philosopher calling the ear 'the organ of fear'), like *gasp* "What was that?" when you hear a strange noise at night. In terms of experiencing sound as beauty, I've never experienced anything beyond a mild interest or curiosity in response to any sound that I've heard in real life. There are harmonics that people subconsciously emphasize in their voice when they want to express something a certain way, but for most, hearing someone speak, no matter what they are saying, is very unlike musical experience.

So it seems unusual, not that music exists, but that it takes people so far beyond their ordinary experience of sonic phenomena, and that for many of us it is among the most profound experience we may ever have.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

The first sounds we hear may be random fluid sloshings in the womb, but the first sound to strike us as charged with meaning is our mother's voice. I will suggest that in that voice is one of the primary origins of music, and perhaps the most powerful.

Mothers, we've all observed, speak to babies in tones. They improvise a kind of music, based on naturally felt intonational patterns which seem naturally "understood" by the child. The expressive "melody" traced in the rise and fall of the mother's voice might well make a deeper and more permanent impression on us than any music we will hear subsequently, and may prepare us in some important way for that music. As we hear other sounds in the world, their rhythms and other qualities will provoke various experiences in our bodies and minds, and these will serve as foundations for the more complex combinations we will later create and enjoy as composed music. But I'll wager that no sound will tap into our emotional centers and evoke emotion so readily as our mother's voice did in our most formative years. I would guess that this is why people can be deeply affected by certain simple melodies, sometimes more so than by complex musical works. 

Perhaps the musically sensitive were fortunate enough to have mothers who vocalized and sang to them a great deal. I know mine did.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Gaspard de la Nuit said:


> I disagree to an extent - it does seem like, whenever a human trait or behavior is observed, the first thing people do, at least on the internet, is frame it within the paradigm of evolution, even though doing that is in no way scientific and is nothing more than sheer and utter speculation being used to buttress an already widely-believed hypothesis. In many of these instances it seems apparent to me that the progenitor of the phenomenon could just as easily be cultural, yet it is always framed in the most simplistic (and culturally re-affirming) ways; "men are this way because it was advantageous for survival because xyz and women because abc"....you get the idea. This happens EVERY time, it seems like....so while you're probably right that not everyone in the sciences is about this, it is _very_ prevalent.
> 
> Secondly......even some of the most reductive thinkers will say that music appears to be the hedonistic icing on an otherwise utilitarian cake (analogy not mine). *All of the explanations you listed seem like they *could* explain why music exists as an art form.......but to me it seems very strange that music could elicit the depth of response and magnitude of impact that it does, which, I will say it - far exceeds that of the other arts. * People's response to visual art is usually proportional to corresponding visual stimulus in real life, or less heightened. Sound's relationship to music seems quite different; the most intense emotional response experienced is fear (I remember some german-speaking philosopher calling the ear 'the organ of fear'), like *gasp* "What was that?" when you hear a strange noise at night. In terms of experiencing sound as beauty, I've never experienced anything beyond a mild interest or curiosity in response to any sound that I've heard in real life. *There are harmonics that people subconsciously emphasize in their voice when they want to express something a certain way, but for most, hearing someone speak, no matter what they are saying, is very unlike musical experience.*
> 
> So it seems unusual, not that music exists, but that it takes people so far beyond their ordinary experience of sonic phenomena, and that for many of us it is among the most profound experience we may ever have.


Your first paragraph is misdirected. My main hypothesis was not that music exists because it confers an evolutionary advantage, but pretty much the opposite: that it exists for the same reason sickle-cell anemia does, because it is an inevitable (initially) inert genetic byproduct of something that does confer a major advantage, speech in one case and resistance to malaria in the other. Thus one probably does not have to find a good evolutionary reason why music is adaptive, although, as I demonstrated with my other examples, humans have made much of it.

Your second paragraph shows that you have misread me. I was not offering an explanation for why music exists as an art form. As I said at the end of my post, "our art music requires aesthetic explanations, not evolutionary, neurological or scientific ones." I was addressing only the scientific ones, as raised by Varrick.

And you also apparently failed to read the bit about tonal languages: In some languages it is essential to comprehend musical qualities because many differences in meaning depend on pitch relations. Haven't you ever wondered about the huge difference in the frequency of perfect pitch in the speakers of tonal languages (a number of Asian tongues in particular) versus non-tonal ones?


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> Perhaps the musically sensitive were fortunate enough to have mothers who vocalized and sang to them a great deal. I know mine did.


Fortunate, if they can carry a tune! There was a family of six in my neighborhood, all brilliant in their way, but all hopelessly tone deaf. One was a pretty good drummer. Woe to ye sons and daughters of tone deaf mothers.


----------



## Guest (Dec 19, 2015)

Gaspard de la Nuit said:


> it does seem like, whenever a human trait or behavior is observed, *the first thing people do*, at least on the internet, is frame it within the paradigm of evolution, even though doing that is in no way scientific and is nothing more than sheer and utter speculation being used to buttress an already widely-believed hypothesis. In many of these instances it seems apparent to me that the progenitor of the phenomenon could just as easily be cultural, yet it is always framed in the most simplistic (and culturally re-affirming) ways; "men are this way because it was advantageous for survival because xyz and women because abc"....you get the idea. *This happens EVERY time*, it seems like....so while you're probably right that not everyone in the sciences is about this, it is _very_ prevalent.


So, your response to is to be equally definitive? Ah, well, I'm sure there's an evolutionary reason for that...


----------



## Gaspard de la Nuit (Oct 20, 2014)

EdwardBast said:


> Your first paragraph is misdirected. My main hypothesis was not that music exists because it confers an evolutionary advantage, but pretty much the opposite: that it exists for the same reason sickle-cell anemia does, because it is an inevitable (initially) inert genetic byproduct of something that does confer a major advantage, speech in one case and resistance to malaria in the other. Thus one probably does not have to find a good evolutionary reason why music is adaptive, although, as I demonstrated with my other examples, humans have made much of it.
> 
> Your second paragraph shows that you have misread me. I was not offering an explanation for why music exists as an art form. As I said at the end of my post, "our art music requires aesthetic explanations, not evolutionary, neurological or scientific ones." I was addressing only the scientific ones, as raised by Varrick.
> 
> And you also apparently failed to read the bit about tonal languages: In some languages it is essential to comprehend musical qualities because many differences in meaning depend on pitch relations. Haven't you ever wondered about the huge difference in the frequency of perfect pitch in the speakers of tonal languages (a number of Asian tongues in particular) versus non-tonal ones?


 I read the part (and was already well aware) about tonal languages and perfect pitch and I didn't think it different enough from your other examples to respond to specifically. I know what you were arguing and I was responding to the subtext, which was that music is ultimately explainable via adaptive traits one way or another, and I'm saying this doesn't account for the excessive depth of musical experience. You said that not all proponents of evolution demand everything be framed in terms of the evolutionary paradigm, and I'm saying that regardless of what you're saying, it happens *a lot*. You're saying that in spite of music being the result of an adaptive trait, no one is saying that it needs a scientific explanation, and I'm saying that people definitely think of perception of beauty as being functional among the aforementioned group of people who desire the evolutionary paradigm to be all-encompassing.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Gaspard de la Nuit said:


> Typical defensive response of someone who doesn't like to have their already socially dominating opinion be challenged. I read the part (and was already well aware) about tonal languages and perfect pitch and I didn't think it different enough from your other examples to respond to specifically.
> 
> I responded to what your writing was implying, and now you're going back and adding details to it to clarify things you didn't clarify so you can make it seem like my opinion is not valid. This happens all the time.


You mean _what you imagined_ I was implying. In fact, I wrote what I meant and I did it pretty clearly. You simply misread and/or misunderstood. And the example of tonal language and perfect pitch _is_ different, because it would seem to be direct evidence that musical and verbal abilities are closely related.


----------



## Abraham Lincoln (Oct 3, 2015)

Not really on topic, but the glaring typo in the title makes me itch a little.


----------



## Guest (Dec 19, 2015)

Might sound elitist but I would say that most people are not that sophisticated. You have to develop that kind of sensitivity to appreciate any art form. 

It's not that people are not sensitive at all. We can all be moved by a sad movie or a popular song with a beautiful melody and lyrics that we can relate to. But most people just don't have enough context to fully appreciate a piece of classical music. 

When you hear Tchaikovsky or any other music that you love, you hear a hundred times more details than a person who never listens to classical music and has never taken the time to develop that sensitivity. You hear the music in its context. You feel the emotional impact. You understand that it's going somewhere. You have let go of many "Hollywood movie" associations. You hear more instruments, the counterpoint, you follow the melody line, you notice themes when they occur again, you notice when themes have been transformed, you are amazed by the compositional skills, you feel the spiritual inspiration... you FEEL what the composer wanted you to feel! 

You naturally think that people are hearing the same things you are hearing... sadly they are not! They hear the melody. One or two instruments. But I'm afraid the rest is somewhat of a blur. 

Some people with little musical education naturally have a better ear and will be able to notice more details and perhaps will be naturally more sensitive to music. 

But for most, it takes time and patience to learn to appreciate music. The first time I heard the Bartok string quartets, I was shocked by their modernity and didn't quite know what to think of the music. Now it's just MUSIC! (And great music that I love!) My ears have adapted to the musical language that seemed shocking and even ugly at first. 

I used to get enthralled by certains songs by Coldplay or U2. Now I want to smash the speakers whenever I hear this music because I think it's so bad. My sensitivity towards this music has changed. It annoys me that those artists can't come up with anything better. (However, some pop songs are truly great but they are a rare exception). 

Anyone can develop musical sensitivity but sadly musical education is now considered an optional luxury for well-off or well-meaning parents who want to brag to their friends that their kid is taking piano lessons. 

There was a time when a classical education (science, languages, art and literature) was considered the backbone of building a sane society. Now we think it's more important to have kids play with tablet computers and learn a computer programming language that will be obsolete in 5 years. Our common cultural heritage is that we've all watched House of Cards! 

Hollywood has also appropriated classical music to create cheap effects, so most people, upon first hearing the Rite of Spring, will associate the music with the lower rip-offs by score composers and used in fight or flight scenes of various movies we've all seen...


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

,


DoReFaMi said:


> Might sound elitist but I would say that most people are not that sophisticated.....
> 
> I used to get enthralled by certains songs by Coldplay or U2. Now I want to smash the speakers whenever I hear this music because I think it's so bad. My sensitivity towards this music has changed. It annoys me that those artists can't come up with anything better. (However, some pop songs are truly great but they are a rare exception)..


I was with you up until the "I used to" part. It is possible that your elitism is of the common, quotidian variety, the everyday elitism of the recent convert. My elitism is of the rarer and higher sort, the select elitism of those who do not repudiate their past enthusiasms but rather enfold them into an ever-growing structure of artistic appreciation and experience, grounded in a strong sense of self-acceptance.

Meanwhile, I'd like to learn more about the pop songs that are truly great.


----------



## Guest (Dec 19, 2015)

Strange Magic said:


> ,
> 
> I was with you up until the "I used to" part. It is possible that your elitism is of the common, quotidian variety, the everyday elitism of the recent convert. My elitism is of the rarer and higher sort, the select elitism of those who do not repudiate their past enthusiasms but rather enfold them into an ever-growing structure of artistic appreciation and experience, grounded in a strong sense of self-acceptance.
> 
> Meanwhile, I'd like to learn more about the pop songs that are truly great.


Mmm... good for you then to be in the elite of the elite! I have a BA in classical guitar but didn't pursue music after, and went into another line of work. Now 39 years old so I don't think my enthusiasm for classical is that of the recent convert! But overtime the percentage of pop in my active listening has progressively decreased to the point where it's very little now.

I do enjoy the music of Steven Wilson and have great things to say about his last album (Hand.Cannot.Erase). This is ENTIRELY subjective but here are some songs I think are truly great:

- Many songs by David Bowie (Heroes, Space Oddity, etc.)
- Many songs by the Beatles and the Beach Boys (my favorite by the Beach Boys: Wouldn't It Be Nice and Good Vibrations)
- Ok some U2 songs too! (Haven't Found What I'm Looking for, One). It's the new stuff I can't stand. 
- In all fairness Coldplay has some great songs "The Scientist," "Yellow." Again I just think they haven't been able to reinvent themselves and put out half-decent material for a long time
- I think Adele is a great songwriter although I personally don't care so much for the style
- I do enjoy a lot of French songs such as the ones by Joe Dassin, although they haven't all aged like a fine wine I still love them! 
- I must say I have a weakness for the NY band "The Bravery" It's not great by they're catchy and I like their sound.

There's a lot more I can't remember right now.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Strange Magic said:


> I think that the collective howling of dogs and wolves may show that the social bonding mechanism extends beyond Homo sapiens. I was reminded of this a few days ago when a police car raced by with siren blaring, and every dog along its route one by one began to howl, whether seen by one another or no. One can easily envision a scenario early in the evolution of "language" wherein one individual experimentally mouths/utters some sound that another or others find resonant and repeats back to the first, and it then is uttered/sung by all in growing unison, perhaps with happy, glowing faces.


You're on to something quite fascinating here. Where does sensitivity towards not just timbre and pitch, but articulation, gesticulation, and implication come from? I think the roots of musical sensitivity have everything to do with language and it's development.

It's often taken for granted in discussions on language how remarkable and sophisticated are one's hyoid bone, it's myriad of adjoining muscles, and the vocal chords. What are the medial stages? How does one go from mutually sharing something, as you've observed, to developing an actual language? Linguists do interesting work but there are times when one has to wonder what is the physical basis, what is the reason for language in the first place.

Presumably there were advantages every step along the way that the hyoid bone was becoming the most remarkably sophisticated bone in the animal kingdom, but of what sort? What does a minimal amount of language development look like and what are the stages along the way? Hard to answer, but I think it has everything to do with why we are enthralled by music.


----------



## senza sordino (Oct 20, 2013)

I know I am particularly sensitive to music, I get an emotional response listening. It makes me feel good. I can feel my heart change pace and pressure. Music can send shivers down my spine. It's like a drug.

My father used to call me lazy when I was growing up for just sitting still when the music was playing. I could sit there and just listen to music, really listen. To him, music is something to have on in the background while you are doing other things. As a teen, I guess I was doing "drugs" right in our living room when listening to music.


----------



## jenspen (Apr 25, 2015)

Strange Magic said:


> ,
> 
> I was with you up until the "I used to" part. It is possible that your elitism is of the common, quotidian variety, the everyday elitism of the recent convert. My elitism is of the rarer and higher sort, the select elitism of those who do not repudiate their past enthusiasms but rather enfold them into an ever-growing structure of artistic appreciation and experience, grounded in a strong sense of self-acceptance.


Yeah, but... I repudiate loads of my past enthusiasms (I've got plenty of past) - loads and loads. Mention any area of life you like and you can find it littered with my discarded enthusiams

"Repudiated" is not always the the mot juste, more often it's "got bored with" or "had exhausted its possibilities" "found more alluring interests". And, certainly, casting off old enthusiasms gives us more time for the new ones.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

jenspen said:


> Yeah, but... I repudiate loads of my past enthusiasms (I've got plenty of past) - loads and loads. Mention any area of life you like and you can find it littered with my discarded enthusiams
> 
> "Repudiated" is not always the the mot juste, more often it's "got bored with" or "had exhausted its possibilities" "found more alluring interests". And, certainly, casting off old enthusiasms gives us more time for the new ones.


Here may be common ground: the act of pruning. When I encounter a new genre, activity, enthusiasm, my first action is to immediately begin to select what resonates with me, and to discard--prune away--that which pleases me not. I find that I do retain all of my old enthusiasms, but trim away with the passage of time the marginal, the ephemeral, the not-quite-the-thing. Compression, if you will. Best of both worlds, really.


----------



## xuantu (Jul 23, 2009)

Strange Magic said:


> Here may be common ground: the act of pruning. When I encounter a new genre, activity, enthusiasm, my first action is to immediately begin to select what resonates with me, and to discard--prune away--that which pleases me not. I find that I do retain all of my old enthusiasms, but trim away with the passage of time the marginal, the ephemeral, the not-quite-the-thing. Compression, if you will. Best of both worlds, really.


I too recognize that pruning process in my listening. Strange Magic says he tend to select what resonates with him (don't we all). That sounds exactly like an evolutionary mechanism to me. I am not saying that the development of musical sensitivity has anything to do with evolution. In fact, I think it's quite the opposite. The reason why some people don't seem to have musical sensitivity, is because it's utterly useless for day-to-day life, and confers no quantifiable advantage. However, it is ever possible for those who do have musical sensitivity to shape or reinforce it using the very evolutionary mechanism that has taught us to eat and drink. What resonates with us and creates ecstatic feelings, the brain remembers it and wants more. The mystery, here, is that initial sparkle of musical sense. I wouldn't be surprised if it is something random or insignificant.

That our musical sensitivity varies from person to person is something to be celebrated. Otherwise, we'd be listening to works composed in one style and interpretations thought out in one mold. Horrible!


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

xuantu said:


> I too recognize that pruning process in my listening. Strange Magic says he tend to select what resonates with him (don't we all). That sounds exactly like an evolutionary mechanism to me. I am not saying that the development of musical sensitivity has anything to do with evolution.


The selection process--pruning--that we describe here is an evolutionary process, but we must be clear that we do not imply any false notion of "progress" toward some ideal; that we'll end up with a collection of "better" choices in any sense other than that we individually like them better.

Regarding the development of musical sensitivity as having something to do with evolution: The jury will be out on that for a long, long time. By happenstance, though, I am deep into Jared Diamond's wonderful book, _The World Until Yesterday_, his book comparing traditional societies with modern ones. In it, he has an engrossing chapter on the origins and usages of religions in human society throughout time and place, and I am hoping that his insights might be applicable to our thinking about music and its origins.


----------



## xuantu (Jul 23, 2009)

Strange Magic said:


> The selection process--pruning--that we describe here is an evolutionary process, but we must be clear that we do not imply any false notion of "progress" toward some ideal; that we'll end up with a collection of "better" choices in any sense other than that we individually like them better.


I agree wholeheartedly.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Woodduck said:


> The first sounds we hear may be random fluid sloshings in the womb, but the first sound to strike us as charged with meaning is our mother's voice. I will suggest that in that voice is one of the primary origins of music, and perhaps the most powerful.
> 
> Mothers, we've all observed, speak to babies in tones. They improvise a kind of music, based on naturally felt intonational patterns which seem naturally "understood" by the child. The expressive "melody" traced in the rise and fall of the mother's voice might well make a deeper and more permanent impression on us than any music we will hear subsequently, and may prepare us in some important way for that music. As we hear other sounds in the world, their rhythms and other qualities will provoke various experiences in our bodies and minds, and these will serve as foundations for the more complex combinations we will later create and enjoy as composed music. But I'll wager that no sound will tap into our emotional centers and evoke emotion so readily as our mother's voice did in our most formative years. I would guess that this is why people can be deeply affected by certain simple melodies, sometimes more so than by complex musical works.
> 
> Perhaps the musically sensitive were fortunate enough to have mothers who vocalized and sang to them a great deal. I know mine did.


This would be something worth testing, because my experience was different than yours, and I also had marked language delays; in spite of that I find myself musically sensitive. Surely it, or something like it, has been tested for.


----------

