Cultural Evolution of Music - Patrick E. Savage

 Thanks to the work of psychologists of music during the 21st century, new concepts of biological evolution were introduced to musicology. This new interest raised questions related to biological evolution and the capacity to make and experience music. In the last few years, the “evolution of musicality” has returned as an important subject and opportunity for contemporary musicological research.

 

What is “evolution”?

 

When Charles Darwin formulated his theory of evolution, he did so without the concept of genes. Instead, Darwin based his theory on three requirements: (1) variation among individuals; (2) inheritance or transmission; and (3) selection of certain variants more likely to be inherited.  These principles have been applied equally to both biological and cultural evolution.

 

Recent advances in cultural evolution have led to the possibility of replacing the word “genes” with the word “variants”, leading to consider any inherited information, such as cultural inheritance as part of human evolution.

 

Does culture “evolve”?

 

Since Darwin first proposed that his theory of evolution could be used to explain “The Origin of Species”, scholars immediately tried to apply it to explain the origins of culture. Darwin himself argued that language and species evolution were “curiously similar”.  Theories about cultural evolution quickly adopted assumptions about the progress that sadly were used for a long time to legitimize ideologies of Western superiority. At times, evolution was even used to justify scientific racism by eugenicists (Savage, 2019, p. 2).

 

The idea of evolutive linear progress continued to dominate cultural evolution for over a century. It was until late in the 20th century that several scholars began making attempts to model and measure changing frequencies of cultural variants (Savage, 2019, p. 2). Their theoretical and empirical work was crucial in demonstrating that evolution occurs “not by genes alone”. Applying theory and methods from evolutionary biology, scholars were able to understand complex cultural processes in areas such as languages, folklore, archaeology, religion, and social structures (Savage, 2019, p. 2).

 

There’s still an active debate about the value of cultural evolution (Savage, 2019, p. 3). And even though the basic idea that culture changes over time is beyond dispute, it seems fair to say that evolutionary theory and its methods have yet to prove their value in helping us understand cultural change and diversity. That’s why exploring new opportunities in music could help (Savage, 2019, p. 3).

 

 Musical evolution and early comparative musicology


Early comparative musicologists relied on the notion of progressive evolution rather than Darwin’s diversification. Two assumptions were fundamental for them: 1. Cultures evolved from simple to complex, from primitive to civilized, and 2. Music evolves from simple to complex within societies as they progress This spread ideas that lead scholars to think for example that: “the Singson of Pygmies stands closer to the beginnings of music than Beethoven’s symphonies “ or hypotheses such as “the earliest music must be found among the most “primitive peoples” (Savage, 2019, p. 3).

 

These old assumptions about the roles of progress and genes in evolution have been long discarded by modern cultural evolutionary scholars. However, ethnomusicologists still sometimes associate ideas about the cultural evolution of music with those of the early comparative musicologists (Savage, 2019, p. 3).

 

Macroevolution and Cantometrics

 

A sticking and –controversial–exception to the tendency of avoiding theories of musical evolution during the second half of the 20th century was Alan Lomax’s Cantometrics Project. Through the classification and statistical analysis of 36 stylistic features from 1800 traditional songs and 148 societies, Lomax organized the world's musical diversity into 10 regional styles according to features of social organization (Savage, 2019, p. 4).

 

Lomax’s cantometrics is relevant because it provided a point of departure for recent scientific studies exploring similarities in musical and genetic evolution. Later studies have found that musical similarities between populations tend to be correlated with genetic similarities, suggesting that both music and genes preserve histories of human migration and cultural contact (Savage, 2019, p. 4).

 

Eventually, scholars reached a common thread in arguing that musical evolution follows patterns and processes that can be understood using theories and methods adapted from the study of biological evolution (Savage, 2019, p. 5).

 

Microevolution and tune family research

 

Tune family research, (the research of groups of melodies sharing descent from a common ancestor) was influenced by the realization in the early 20th century that many traditional ballads that seemed to be disappearing in England were flourishing in modified forms far away in the United States Appalachian mountains (Savage, 2019, p. 5).

 

This led scholars like Cecil Sharp and Maud Karples to formulate a theory of musical evolution that managed to incorporate the same three key mechanisms of modern evolutionary theory: continuity, variation, and selection. Where “variation” was used to replace Darwin’s inheritance. Proving that tune family research and its microevolution could be used to better understand musical evolution in different cultures and contexts (Savage, 2019, p. 6).

 

Musical evolution applications: education and copyright


When it comes to education, the world’s musical diversity is definitely underrepresented. The job of changing this often falls on ethnomusicologists teaching survey courses like “World Music” where evolutionary models like Lomax’s tree of regional song styles work as a convenient way to introduce “musical origins” and the similarities and differences in the world’s music (Savage, 2019, p. 6).

 

An evolutionary approach provides the chance to teach about connections beyond music to other domains, in order to understand the ways in which the global distribution of music may be related to different aspects of culture such as language or social structure (Savage, 2019, p. 6).

 

Objections to musical evolution: agency, meaning, and reductionism

 

But why have musicologists interested in general theories of change not adopted the framework of evolution? Most objections to the use of evolutionary theory are focused on three issues: implications of progress, individual agency and reductionism (Savage, 2019, p. 7).

 

When it comes to agency and reductionism it is argued that progressive notions of evolution turn attention away from the agency of individuals. However, the presence of human agency and the intentional innovation that comes with it is one of the most interesting aspects of studying cultural evolution (Savage, 2019, p. 7).

 

Another argument is that a cultural evolutionary approach is not compatible with an anthropological understanding of culture, debating on concepts such as “music's meaning” (Savage, 2019, p. 7).

 

Neither a qualitative, ethnographic approach nor a purely quantitative, scientific approach can help us truly understand how and why music evolves. But combining the two approaches, through cross-cultural comparative study, we can achieve a better understanding of the forces governing the world’s musical diversity and their real-world implications (Savage, 2019, p. 8).


Music evolves through mechanisms that are both similar and different from biological evolution. And as scientific interest in musical evolution is growing rapidly, there’s no doubt that both musicology and cultural evolution can benefit from interdisciplinary collaboration 

 

Music evolves, through mechanisms that are both similar to and distinct from biological evolution. Scientific interest in musical evolution is already growing rapidly. Ultimately, both musicology and cultural evolution stand to benefit from productive interdisciplinary collaboration (Savage, 2019, p. 9).

 

A strength of the evolutionary theory is that it is flexible enough to be “usefully adapted” to a variety of scientific and humanistic methodologies, with plenty of room to work and coexist with non-evolutionary theories (Savage, 2019, p. 9). Even if the concept of cultural evolution cannot provide all the answers, it helps answer enough long-lasting musical questions that it should be ignored no more (Savage, 2019, p. 9).

  

Reference

 

Savage, P.E. Cultural evolution of music. Palgrave Commun 5, 16 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-019-0221-1

 

Popular posts from this blog

Music Perception and Cognition: A Review of Recent Cross-Cultural Research - Catherine J. Stevens

  Music is social, dynamic and interpersonal. As musical cultures are endangered by globalization, it’s now more important than ever to document and analyze musical diversity and consider the way people and cultures interact with it and its environment. Luckily nowadays cross-cultural studies are focusing on the way listeners perceive music of other cultures, its structures, similarities and differences (Stevens, 2012, p. 654).   Because of processes of enculturation and people’s acquired perceptual habits, it is always a challenge to compare music from different regions of the world. How can similarity or complexity be measured without the bias of a particular cultural perspective? Recent studies have tried to focus on the development of perceptual habits from exposure to a particular music environment (Stevens, 2012, pp. 659-660).   Aspects like cultural knowledge can also influence musical expectancies in the context of an unfamiliar musical scale system. In the West, ...
Read more

Music’s “design features”: Musical motivation, musical pulse, and musical pitch - John C. Bispham

  Music, Communication and Affect   Music, like every other way of human communication, exists and depends upon culture (Bispham, 2009, p. 30). Even though the meaning of music is the result of a specific cultural and social context, all of us seem to be able to engage and to respond to some aspects of music outside our own culture (Bispham, 2009, p. 30). This kind of engagement works in different dimensions such as biological, social or cultural spaces (Bispham, 2009, p. 30).   Music is usually associated with emotions. People describing “shivers” or “chills” while listening to music are evidence of strong emotional experiences (Bispham, 2009, p. 30). However, there is still not enough evidence to prove that musical emotions are in any way different from other types of emotions (Bispham, 2009, p. 30). Maybe the most common example could be the use of music in society or even in psychology as a means of altering or creating particular moods in individuals or groups (Bisph...
Read more

Cultural constraints on music perception and cognition - Steven J. Morrison and Steven M. Demorest

Being at the very heart of human evolution, music has created and afforded spaces for individual and collective ideas, thoughts, or conceptions. Since the beginning of history, music’s ability to hold multiple interpretations may have enabled interactions and negotiations among the early human societies.    Foundations of music enculturation   When it comes to music, fundamental components such as pitch or duration aren’t really defined by culture. We talk about musical enculturation when studying the relationship of certain groups of people to these kinds of constructs. For example, when understating if a specific pitch or duration is considered typical, acceptable, or desired among a group of people (Morrison and Demorest, 2009, p. 67).   A few examples of the influence of enculturation in music are people’s responses to pitch, rhythm, and more complex musical structures such as scalar or metrics. The different responses observed between cultural groups reflect dif...
Read more