17 ms·

We know music is pleasurable, the question is why?

143 points by tintinnabula 8y ago

mesarvagya 8y ago
Its because of Dopamine. I think everyone knows this. The same is true for Social media as well.
- phyzome 8y ago
  Isn't that like saying "because genetics" or "because chemistry" or "because biology"? It doesn't really answer the question that the article is asking.
  - amelius 8y ago
    Yeah, and also the brain's dopamine levels are not homogeneous. Your dopamine can be low in one part of the brain and high in another. Also, dopamine receptors can have low/high count in different areas.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - shawn 8y ago
    That's a bit like saying that Newton's gravity law doesn't explain why the planets move. It's true that "because genetics" doesn't tell you why it happens, but it might be the deepest answer possible. We are servants to our genes.
    - trukterious 8y ago
      >We are servants to our genes If so then how do you explain phenomena like suicide and celibacy?
      - shawn 8y ago
        It is commonly assumed that evolution tries to maximize its outcome using a greedy algorithm. In fact it seems to be a random walk across all possibilities, with unviable branches dying out over time. Suicide may also be a second order effect of other factors. For example, suicide usually has a cultural basis: you feel some sort of shame, or maybe you think your future outcomes aren't good culturally. But that means you care about society. Therefore suicide may be an indication that we have evolved to optimize society rather than ourselves. If we didn't care about society, perhaps there would be less suicides, but it would also make humans less dominant.
        trukterious 8y ago
        >Suicide usually has a cultural basis Yes -- hence copycat suicides. But cultural, not genetic. Ideas, not genes.
        shawn 8y ago
        I would argue that culture is incorporated into our genes. For example, humans show signs of domestication, just like certain animals. But domestication is another name for cultural genetics.
        perl4ever 8y ago
        Wouldn't it be accurate to say apoptosis is incorporated into our genes?
      - perl4ever 8y ago
        If evolution is the changing of statistical distributions of genes within a population, then reproduction isn't the only aspect of life that is germane. That's because your children are just one example of people whose genes correlate with yours. Practically anything you do affects other people in society who have some genes in common and therefore impacts the future distribution of genes. This is why being menopausal, infertile, homosexual, celibate, or whatever does not place you outside of or make you irrelevant to evolution.
  - mesarvagya 8y ago
    Well I didn't meant it to be in negative way. Sorry its answering the `how` part of question not `why`, but whatever be the reason of `why`, the final thing that brain finds pleasurable is because of dopamine. For example, lets say a person like classical music but might dislike rap or metal. This is because his brain is accustomed to classical music and the more he listens to it, the more dopamine is released. However, in case of other genres, brain is not accustomed to it and thus the pleasure hormone might not work.
- martin-adams 8y ago
  It's a curious question. Here we have music, which produces sound waves, which gets received in our ears and through vibrations on the skin. Specific frequencies of that sound wave can cause dopamine. But other frequencies don't. Why the difference? Could it be related to memory, having experienced a happy time in your childhood that music brings you back to. What about sad memories? Could it be related to the memories of movies where you had a strong empathy to the emotion of a story and the music was the soundtrack? And what about music you've never heard before. Is there a mathematical rhythm that creates a pattern in the brain that releases dopamine? This is how I think of the question. I am not experienced in any of these subjects to really know the answer.
- Raphmedia 8y ago
  That's the answer to "how" not "why".
  - jhayward 8y ago
    In science and nature, there is only "how".
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
- crazynick4 8y ago
  Yes but why does some music elicit dopamine and some does not? If I just play random notes for you, even if I do it with some sense of rhythm, will your body still produce dopamine?
  - mesarvagya 8y ago
    The theory of dopamine is that there has to be strong local connections on brain for the activity the person is being kept under. Think of a song that you initially disliked but when you hear the same thing again and again, the neural connections gets stronger. When this happens, brain will release dopamine enabling brain get its reward.
    - crazynick4 8y ago
      I think there is more to it then that. By that argument alone, I should enjoy a song more, the more I listen to it. Then why do we get tired of old music and look for new music?
      - noisem4ker 8y ago
        You probably start to tolerate a song you don't like better the longer you are exposed to it. Of course, at some point boredom kicks in. You find pleasure both in what sounds familiar (thus harmless, cozy) and in what sounds novel (a new experience, an opportunity for gaining knowledge).
- Grue3 8y ago
  I love The Dopamines! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kI_n3flJDL0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kI_n3flJDL0
lqet 8y ago
Related: recent studies have shown that there are people with "musical anhedonia", and that this condition may affect 3 to 5% of the world population [1]. These people "get" music, meaning that they can learn to sing or play an instrument, remember and recognize melodies etc., but they are completely unable to receive any pleasure from it. As someone who gets a significant amount of his daily joy from listening to music and who always believed in music to be a universal language, I find this astonishing. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musical_anhedonia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musical_anhedonia
- rimunroe 8y ago
  Whoa! I had no idea this was a thing! I'd always thought it was just some weird thing about me. I don't really get a whole lot of pleasure out of music, or get moved by music much. I almost never listen to music. When I do listen, it's usually to drown out external noise or help me focus, but in that case I usually just listen to the same song on a loop.
  - throwaway8879 8y ago
    I'm really curious about this. Have you ever fiddled around, learnt or messed about with any musical instrument, and if so, how did you feel? I recall that when I was learning my first instrument, and started learning a lot of songs, a lot of the other instruments didn't really make sense. For instance, if I was learning a guitar part from a rock song, the bass/drums/keys sort of sounded like a background mix that I couldn't identify into their individual instruments/parts.
    - rimunroe 8y ago
      I played the viola and sang in chorus in middle school. I really enjoyed both--especially the viola--but I think my enjoyment was more of the mechanics of it rather than the actual music we were making. I also really enjoyed playing Guitar Hero in college in the same way. I've thought about taking up the guitar or piano since then, but haven't ever gotten around to it.
cryptozeus 8y ago
I had similar question few days ago and posted this on HN https://www.quora.com/Why-does-music-make-you-want-to-move-dance?share=1 https://www.quora.com/Why-does-music-make-you-want-to-move-d... "It has been noted that rhythm is a built-in part of every human being so the urge to move is very natural and it comes from deep inside. There has been a lot of suggestions that this would develop during child’s growth in the uterus, since hearing is the sense that develops close to its final stage before birth. This way the child absorbs the sounds of environment along with mother’s steady heartbeat that could be seen as a steady pulse in music."
- snarf21 8y ago
  It may be junk science but I remember reading something long ago that said the bpm of a song that is closest to a human heart beat is more pleasing than one much faster or slower. I'm now off to see if I can find the reference...
  - citation_please 8y ago
    Hmm, electronic genres are definitely clustered around 128, 140, and 170 (+/-2), and those are all reasonable heart rates when you're partying...But a "human heart beat" can be literally anything so I'm not convinced.
    - throwaway8879 8y ago
      Perhaps they mean the average non-stressed, slightly relaxed rate of around 100 or so? I'm not convinced either, but it is interesting to think about. Tempo and rhythm/beat has such a profound effect on the emotional response to music.
      - csihar 8y ago
        Incidentally, 100 bpm is around the average tempo for reggae.
  - andresgottlieb 8y ago
burp3141 8y ago
My father loves music. Famously miserly, he wouldn't mind a monthly paycheck on an audio system. I on the other hand have never enjoyed music. I think it's a rebellion thing. But also that sad music made me despondent but happy music didn't affect me to the same extent. The way my father managed to reel me in was to ask me to predict where the musician would take the song. In things like Jazz or improvised music, this is pretty hard. But even in well known classical pieces, this kind of prediction and correction is a pretty interesting exercise. My takeaway from this kind of exercise is that I enjoy music as a pattern matching exercise. It's like a good joke - when you run into an unexpected punchline.
- jamesjyu 8y ago
  When I was in high school, I spent a lot of time improvising on the piano. I had been taking classical music lessons for years, but always loved to play around on the piano, composing little pieces for myself—mostly they were pop inspired pieces, nothing complicated. One day, some researchers worked with my school to administer a test to find out if there was a connection between standardized test scores (in our case, the ACT) and musical aptitude. Pattern matching was the way they decided to test this. They set a tape recorder in the middle of the room and gave us a multiple choice sheet. First, they played the beginning of a melody, which stopped abruptly. Then, they played four different ways the melody could resolve. Our goal was to choose the most likely. Sometimes, the pieces would be something classic, like Mozart or Beethoven. Other times, they were more contemporary. I glanced around the room to see the reaction of the other students. The choices all seemed very obvious to me. Afterwards, I asked around and most people said they had to guess on most of them. The next day, the teacher pulled me aside and told me that I had scored the highest in the school. I never did follow up to see what the results of the research was, but to this day, I believe I wouldn't have done that well if I had not spent a lot of time listening to music and tinkering with melody lines in my free time.
- Jeff_Brown 8y ago
  > I enjoy music as a pattern matching exercise Me too, writ very broadly. I'll hear a melody reflect the way a thought or a story develops, instrumentation reflecting the way conversation or traffic behaves. It's completely abstract and yet I feel like music reflects reality, and its deviations from the "truth" comment on reality. I might just be weird. But if in fact a lot of people derive pleasure from the correspondence between music and reality, then part of a composer's job is to create such correspondences, bearing in mind that every listener is going to draw different ones. They have to look for the "average interpretation". It's a weird job.
citation_please 8y ago
Hmm, I was hoping for something more contemporary that I could relate to, but was disappointed that it focused on pieces written centuries ago...like most formal musical theory. Anyway, this passage stuck out to me: """There is something that still rings true of Mattheson’s general idea. We do tend to associate some musical features with being uplifted and others with melancholic reflection, both of which might afford a certain subsequent pleasure to listeners. Just think of how we use music in our everyday lives: some tunes help us to work out or to get something done, while others allow us to cry.""" Composers aren't the only ones who have ever tried to manipulate the crowd. I'm not sure how pop stars/rock bands etc. plan out their sets, but one thing that any DJ[0] worth his salt pays attention to is "harmonic mixing"[1]. Taking things "darker", or trying to bring up the energy, are common strategies taken into account when planning a harmonic transition. I've personally bore witness to plenty of incredible sets that take you from the very top to the very bottom, and it's funny to me that the same ideas are masked behind hoighty-toighty music theory terminology that is used almost exclusively in reference to...music that was composed hundreds of years ago. [0] By DJ I mean someone who does more than weddings, and certainly doesn't take requests. [1] https://music.stackexchange.com/questions/14291/what-is-harmonic-mixing-mix-in-key https://music.stackexchange.com/questions/14291/what-is-harm...
- LyndsySimon 8y ago
  > it's funny to me that the same ideas are masked behind hoighty-toighty music theory terminology that is used almost exclusively in reference to...music that was composed hundreds of years ago. I'm just coming up to speed on music theory, but my impression so far is that it's reactive, not proactive. We already have music that we like; music theory is about trying to tear it down, identify why we like it, establish base principles that can be used to guide composition, and then use those to create something new. Fairly recently, this had led to "generative music". I'm finding music theory to be useful to build a more accurate mental model of the instruments I'm playing, which I believe will eventually improve my ability to improvise and play by ear. I think that people who are musical prodigies have an intuitive understanding of those things, but I'm having to build my own understanding explicitly.
  - 8y ago
lbriner 8y ago
I find that certain musical expressions invoke the same feeling as something very real like the feeling of seeing the New York skyline for the first time or the feeling of taking off in a light aircraft for the first time, almost as if the music was pressing the same buttons. The interesting difference is that the music buttons seem to get pressed every time I hear the same music (i.e. I never get tired of certain music) whereas visual stimuli quickly become mundane as we get used to them?
- LyndsySimon 8y ago
  > the same feeling as something very real like the feeling of seeing the New York skyline for the first time I think that feeling is highly variable depending on the person. I remember the feeling I had the first time I drove over the bridge on I-40 into Memphis as an adult - the industry along the Mississippi River was awe-inspiring to me. Ugly, sure, but it also represented a huge amount of human accomplishment; it took thousands of years of learning, engineering, building, and improving to build those petroleum tanks and the infrastructure that they support (and that supports them). Seeing the NYC skyline for the first time made me really anxious, almost to the point of anger. So many people in such a small area, living and working together packed so tightly. All I wanted to do was finish what I had to do there and leave as quickly as possible. Out of curiosity - have you ever seen the Milky Way from a truly dark location with no light pollution? I think that probably inspires a very similar feeling that you've described.
  - lbriner 8y ago
    I'm sure the feelings are different for each person and maybe different music presses those scary buttons as much as the nice ones!
    - LyndsySimon 8y ago
      Another commenter wondered if the feelings that music evoke are cultural or inherent. I think that's really an interesting question! I wonder if there exists music that makes individuals feel differently based on their background and preferences, or if it goes even further - are there certain chords or progressions that don't have a consistent emotional association? I'm not aware of any, but I'm not an expert in the field.
singularity2001 8y ago
Music became evolutionary advantageous because of social bonding and more
default-kramer 8y ago
> There is something that still rings true of Mattheson’s general idea. We do tend to associate some musical features with being uplifted and others with melancholic reflection, both of which might afford a certain subsequent pleasure to listeners. I have always wondered if we know how much of the emotion associated with music is learned from culture. To put it another way, is a sad song inherently sad? Or is it sad because the culture we grew up in tells us that it is sad? (The answer is probably some combination of both.) There must have been studies about this, but I haven't come across any yet.
- civility 8y ago
  I have the same question about major and minor keys. It's pretty easy to play something somber in C-major, and something happy in A-minor... This is opposite to the conventional wisdom about keys, and I think it's a cultural thing. When you play them right on top of each other, the three notes which are a half step lower do seem to sound sadder in comparison, but I think that says more about descending vs ascending tones rather than the key itself.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - kaoD 8y ago
    Given your second paragraph... are you perhaps confusing tonality with chord quality? Amin (the chord) is a diatonic chord of C major (the tonality). Also, it's easy to play "random" chords from a tonality and end up in a different mode without even realizing it. E.g.: A minor (the key, also known as A aeolian) has the exact same diatonic chords as C major (but the reference, i.e. tonal center, is A instead of C). A large part of tonality is chord position in the piece, which is also greatly influenced by dynamics, melody, accompanying instruments, harmony, harmonic progression (both immediate/local and global)... Also: Cmaj7 (the chord) is C-E-G-B and Emin6 is E-G-B-C (notice the similarity?), but E-G-B-C can also be interpreted as Cmaj7 in first inversion depending on context. Sometimes roots are omitted from chords so E-G-B (Emin at first sight) could be interpreted as Cmaj7(no root). Just like C-E-G could be a rootless Am7 (A-C-E-G with omitted A). They are often used as substitutes of one another in jazz. Music is just too complex and musical language (chord names etc.) is just a hack developed around traditions and conventions, not science. It's mostly notation of intention, since everything can be twisted to mean something else. The more music theory I know, the less definite answers to musical questions are.
cJ0th 8y ago
Because it's beyond the jaded world of "why?".
crazynick4 8y ago
This article did not mention overtones: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overtone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overtone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonic_series_(music) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonic_series_(music) Combinations of frequencies that form simple integer ratios are naturally perceived as being consonant, no culture or upbringing needed. As the ratios begin to involve higher integers and become more complex, the intervals they produce are considered more dissonant. For instance, in ancient Greece, the scales were constructed by combining intervals where the integer ratios have a prime number no higher than 3. The result is a very consonant but almost bland music. Something you could easily fall asleep to. The major and minor scales from which classical music is composed are made by combining intervals with a prime no higher than 5. This adds more dissonance and makes things a bit more interesting. Scales based around higher prime numbers (7,11,13,..) are outside the scope of mainstream music although jazz is said to approximate the scales that could be built off the '7-limit' intervals, which explains its more dissonant nature (heavy use of tritone which has a ratio of 7:5, and the 'minor seventh' approximates the interval with a ratio of 7:4). That covers consonance, but it doesn't explain emotional affect. I think one example that is at least a part of the explanation can be seen in the distinction between the overtones and undertones. The major scale (and more specifically the major chord) of today's western music is generally considered to be happy, confident, uplifted, etc. The major chord appears naturally in the harmonic series of overtones (any 3 notes played together whose frequency ratio is 4:5:6). The minor chord, on the other hand, appears naturally in the undertone series which is just an inversion of the overtones (1/4:1/5:1/6). It also occurs in nature like the overtones, although less frequently. I may have flubbed some details as I'm writing off the top of my head mostly but I think it covers the gist of how harmony can contribute to the perception of music. There is of course also the rhythm and the sense of expectations/irony involved in writing as well.
- chimeracoder 8y ago
  > Combinations of frequencies that form simple integer ratios are naturally perceived as being consonant, no culture or upbringing needed. As the ratios begin to involve higher integers and become more complex, the intervals they produce are considered more dissonant. This is only true for a definition of "consonant" and "dissonant" that is literally tautological. Yes, one can distinguish between consonant and dissonant, but the assignment of those as "pleasurable" and "not pleasurable" (which is the topic of the article) are incredibly culturally contextual. That is, you can construct a distinction between harmonies that one might label as consonant and dissonant, but the interpretation of that distinction is not universal. In fact, the relevance or applicability of that distinction is not even universal, because there are plenty of musical traditions where this wouldn't apply at all, and therefore couldn't be used to distinguish "pleasurable" and "not pleasurable" music. In reality, in the grand scheme of musical traditions, the classical European model of consonant, simple integer ratios is an outlier.
bobosha 8y ago
"Laughter (and humor) involves the gradual build-up of expectation (a model) followed by a sudden twist or anomaly that entails a change in the model -- but only as long as the new model is non-threatening -- so that there is a deflation of expectation." [1] My theory is that music provides pleasure in the same way that we get from our hobbies & interests via "familiar surprises": from poetry through rhyme, from dance through rhythm, from movies through plot-twists. Our brains are pattern recognition systems and constantly distinguishing friend from foe, and listening to music we grew up with is a part of that "IFF" system. The "familiar" - usually we listen to a few genres at most and stick to them throughout our life., and the "surprises" are the slight variations and nuances in a song - with the assurance that all is well - that give us our dopamine shot. This is very similar to wordplay in poetry, humor in comedy. I think they are all closely related neuronally. [1] "The neurology and evolution of humor, laughter, and smiling: the false alarm theory" Prof. V S. RAMACHANDRAN edit: added a reference to VSR's article and some grammar
sigi45 8y ago
Increasing complexity in harmony. You listen to pop and enjoy it to it harmony and change your music style or extend it when you are ready for more.
Ascetik 8y ago
Because it is rightly ordered beauty (most of it) and pleasing to the intellect. The intellect delights in that which is good, beautiful and true. Certain types of music elicit a more base response, catering to the passions, such as EDM, or pop, tribal beats, etc. Other types of music cater to the intellect, such as classical, baroque, and certain types of folk and other genre's. Then you have sacred music, which is also prayer, such as gregorian chant and polyphony, these cause one to contemplate divine things. Music is pleasurable in all these facets because it touches upon different operations of the soul, which in turn gives pleasure to the body, such as calmness or dopamine, etc.
exabrial 8y ago
We're able to recognize simple ratios instantly. The fact is without number the actual digits, we know they instantly simplify into a handful of fractions. That is mind blowing. What's even more mind blowing is Adam Neely's explanation of pitch ratios and how they're related to tempo. The short incorrect explanation is if you layer beats 4:4, 5:4, 6:4 ratios (which is the ratio of pitches against the root in a major chord), then speed it up to a ridiculous frequency, our ears hear a major chord. It would seem that Tempo and Pitch are very much intertwined and our brains decipher that very quickly without evening consciously dividing the frequencies. Major chord demo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JiNKlhspdKg&t=24m15 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JiNKlhspdKg&t=24m15
deltron3030 8y ago
Imagination. Sounds connect with you deeply, and even deeper than visuals. You can sing and make melodies without physical movements, without moving your lips, just in your mind. Your inner voice that you "hear" when you think is an artist that grows through immersion, exposure to things. The real difficulty is translating that into physical movements through your body, making it real, this can only be done through practice. If you listen to good musicians amd really like what you hear, they basically talk to your inner artist on the same skill level.
twelvechairs 8y ago
Nobody attempting seriously and succintly to answer the question here even the article. As far as i understand pattern recognition is basically what the cortex (in all its various divisions) does. Which is basically one of our most important higher functions and what sets mammals apart from other animals intelectually. Recognising a melody is not so different from recognising the voice of a friend or the route to walk home. Except for different input types. Except the fact that music and melody/harmony is not just 'match a pattern' but is designed essentially to tease, test and develop the pattern recognition function by taking simple clear ratios then finding ways to make them a little on edge mathematically in different ways. So we shouldnt find it weird that music can give most of us pleasure itself because its literally the same mecahnism as things that are finding food or a good partner to mate with. Then theres lyrics and the social side of music which puts a whole different twist on it. The above is pure rhythm and pitch only enjoyed individually.
scns 8y ago
Music touches me deeply. It gives me joy when it matches my mood but makes it nearly intolerable noise when it does not. I feel great excitement when i discover new music like, endorphins en masse. I think we do not derive pleasure from music but the feeling that there is another human being that feels the same way we do.
mafuyu 8y ago
I recommend checking out Adam Neely's channel, where he touches on some similar concepts: https://youtu.be/6c_LeIXrzAk https://youtu.be/6c_LeIXrzAk https://youtu.be/9q4MWdHhgfM https://youtu.be/9q4MWdHhgfM https://youtu.be/V5WfgMVtueo https://youtu.be/V5WfgMVtueo
agumonkey 8y ago
For harmony I have no clue, but for rhythm I have a serious belief that it's a side product of our mechanical balance processing unit (and also why dance goes with it). Just data from years of learning drumming, de-synchronization (ability to think about and move different limbs in ~parallel) is extremely valuable in every activity. You're probably smarter and more efficient because you process your movements and your perception quite differently.
ilovetux 8y ago
so much emphasis on melody. I find the answer is that music is a more true language than any that are spoken. This is all conjecture by the way which is shaded by my own beliefs and experience. melody is one part of a trinity. equally important are rhythm and harmony. I believe that rhythm, melody and harmony relate to the body, mind and spirit respectively. Rhythm is analogous to our physical form and not just in the obvious sense of our heart beat but indeed every atom of our being has a rhythm all it's own and they are in sync one way or another with every other part of our body from microcosm to macrocosm. a coherent melody matches our thoughts in a way that can convey the colors of emotion. indeed lyrics are often set to a melody and convey thoughts and emotions together in a way that's so natural that it is sometimes quite eerie. harmony is how melodic threads relate to each other. our spirits are also the most adequate way of relating to others. harmony is the basis of all combined human endeavour and spirits are what allow us to define relations beyond familial in an abstract way in which we can intuitively find our own place.
skookumchuck 8y ago
For those who enjoy music - if you take dance lessons until you get comfortable dancing, dancing smoothly to music you like greatly intensifies the enjoyment of the music. Bobbing and swaying to the music also increases the enjoyment, but doing a structured dance with a partner cranks it up to 11.
woodandsteel 8y ago
I think the article took a strange approach. It focused on a complex piece by Bach. But most people don't find Bach pleasurable, and simple melodies can be very pleasurable, at least to most people. It would make much more sense to try to understand the simple cases, and then later try to figure out the more complicated ones. Also instead of explaining musical pleasure in terms of non-musical concepts like emotion and openess, might it be at least in part to evaluations in the brain that are unique to music? We don't think that, for instance, tastes are pleasurable or unpleasant due to their connection to other matters, so why could this not be the case for music?
beliu 8y ago
Leonard Bernstein gave his answer on the question in a series of lectures titled "The Unanswered Question." Draws analogies to concepts in linguistics and CFGs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fHi36dvTdE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fHi36dvTdE
JoshMnem 8y ago
We're the way we are because our ancestors had these traits and they were the ones who survived. Music is a system for encoding knowledge, especially across generations.[1] Humans appear to sexually select for musical ability.[2][3] We like music, because being able to encode encyclopedic knowledge across generations without written language is a successful adaptation for survival. [1] https://www.allenandunwin.com/browse/books/general-books/popular-science/The-Memory-Code-Lynne-Kelly-9781760291327 https://www.allenandunwin.com/browse/books/general-books/pop... [2] http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0305735613482025 http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0305735613482025 [3] Ask a musician.
skookumchuck 8y ago
Long before writing, people had oral histories. Those were more reliable using rhyme (sort of an error-correction scheme). Setting it to music made it even less error-prone, and so better transmission of information gave a survival advantage. Hence, we like music.
Tycho 8y ago
The universe is in a process of entropic decay. Entropy is death. Life is the opposite. Life creates order, reverses the decay. Music is spontaneous order, but nuanced, like life. Music is a celebration of life.

143 points by tintinnabula 8y ago

mesarvagya 8y ago

Its because of Dopamine. I think everyone knows this. The same is true for Social media as well.

phyzome 8y ago
Isn't that like saying "because genetics" or "because chemistry" or "because biology"? It doesn't really answer the question that the article is asking.
- amelius 8y ago
  Yeah, and also the brain's dopamine levels are not homogeneous. Your dopamine can be low in one part of the brain and high in another. Also, dopamine receptors can have low/high count in different areas.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- shawn 8y ago
  That's a bit like saying that Newton's gravity law doesn't explain why the planets move. It's true that "because genetics" doesn't tell you why it happens, but it might be the deepest answer possible. We are servants to our genes.
  - trukterious 8y ago
    >We are servants to our genes If so then how do you explain phenomena like suicide and celibacy?
    - shawn 8y ago
      It is commonly assumed that evolution tries to maximize its outcome using a greedy algorithm. In fact it seems to be a random walk across all possibilities, with unviable branches dying out over time. Suicide may also be a second order effect of other factors. For example, suicide usually has a cultural basis: you feel some sort of shame, or maybe you think your future outcomes aren't good culturally. But that means you care about society. Therefore suicide may be an indication that we have evolved to optimize society rather than ourselves. If we didn't care about society, perhaps there would be less suicides, but it would also make humans less dominant.
      - trukterious 8y ago
        >Suicide usually has a cultural basis Yes -- hence copycat suicides. But cultural, not genetic. Ideas, not genes.
        shawn 8y ago
        I would argue that culture is incorporated into our genes. For example, humans show signs of domestication, just like certain animals. But domestication is another name for cultural genetics.
        perl4ever 8y ago
        Wouldn't it be accurate to say apoptosis is incorporated into our genes?
    - perl4ever 8y ago
      If evolution is the changing of statistical distributions of genes within a population, then reproduction isn't the only aspect of life that is germane. That's because your children are just one example of people whose genes correlate with yours. Practically anything you do affects other people in society who have some genes in common and therefore impacts the future distribution of genes. This is why being menopausal, infertile, homosexual, celibate, or whatever does not place you outside of or make you irrelevant to evolution.
- mesarvagya 8y ago
  Well I didn't meant it to be in negative way. Sorry its answering the `how` part of question not `why`, but whatever be the reason of `why`, the final thing that brain finds pleasurable is because of dopamine. For example, lets say a person like classical music but might dislike rap or metal. This is because his brain is accustomed to classical music and the more he listens to it, the more dopamine is released. However, in case of other genres, brain is not accustomed to it and thus the pleasure hormone might not work.
martin-adams 8y ago
It's a curious question. Here we have music, which produces sound waves, which gets received in our ears and through vibrations on the skin. Specific frequencies of that sound wave can cause dopamine. But other frequencies don't. Why the difference? Could it be related to memory, having experienced a happy time in your childhood that music brings you back to. What about sad memories? Could it be related to the memories of movies where you had a strong empathy to the emotion of a story and the music was the soundtrack? And what about music you've never heard before. Is there a mathematical rhythm that creates a pattern in the brain that releases dopamine? This is how I think of the question. I am not experienced in any of these subjects to really know the answer.
Raphmedia 8y ago
That's the answer to "how" not "why".
- jhayward 8y ago
  In science and nature, there is only "how".
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
crazynick4 8y ago
Yes but why does some music elicit dopamine and some does not? If I just play random notes for you, even if I do it with some sense of rhythm, will your body still produce dopamine?
- mesarvagya 8y ago
  The theory of dopamine is that there has to be strong local connections on brain for the activity the person is being kept under. Think of a song that you initially disliked but when you hear the same thing again and again, the neural connections gets stronger. When this happens, brain will release dopamine enabling brain get its reward.
  - crazynick4 8y ago
    I think there is more to it then that. By that argument alone, I should enjoy a song more, the more I listen to it. Then why do we get tired of old music and look for new music?
    - noisem4ker 8y ago
      You probably start to tolerate a song you don't like better the longer you are exposed to it. Of course, at some point boredom kicks in. You find pleasure both in what sounds familiar (thus harmless, cozy) and in what sounds novel (a new experience, an opportunity for gaining knowledge).
Grue3 8y ago
I love The Dopamines! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kI_n3flJDL0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kI_n3flJDL0

lqet 8y ago

Related: recent studies have shown that there are people with "musical anhedonia", and that this condition may affect 3 to 5% of the world population [1]. These people "get" music, meaning that they can learn to sing or play an instrument, remember and recognize melodies etc., but they are completely unable to receive any pleasure from it. As someone who gets a significant amount of his daily joy from listening to music and who always believed in music to be a universal language, I find this astonishing. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musical_anhedonia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musical_anhedonia

rimunroe 8y ago
Whoa! I had no idea this was a thing! I'd always thought it was just some weird thing about me. I don't really get a whole lot of pleasure out of music, or get moved by music much. I almost never listen to music. When I do listen, it's usually to drown out external noise or help me focus, but in that case I usually just listen to the same song on a loop.
- throwaway8879 8y ago
  I'm really curious about this. Have you ever fiddled around, learnt or messed about with any musical instrument, and if so, how did you feel? I recall that when I was learning my first instrument, and started learning a lot of songs, a lot of the other instruments didn't really make sense. For instance, if I was learning a guitar part from a rock song, the bass/drums/keys sort of sounded like a background mix that I couldn't identify into their individual instruments/parts.
  - rimunroe 8y ago
    I played the viola and sang in chorus in middle school. I really enjoyed both--especially the viola--but I think my enjoyment was more of the mechanics of it rather than the actual music we were making. I also really enjoyed playing Guitar Hero in college in the same way. I've thought about taking up the guitar or piano since then, but haven't ever gotten around to it.

cryptozeus 8y ago

I had similar question few days ago and posted this on HN https://www.quora.com/Why-does-music-make-you-want-to-move-dance?share=1 https://www.quora.com/Why-does-music-make-you-want-to-move-d... "It has been noted that rhythm is a built-in part of every human being so the urge to move is very natural and it comes from deep inside. There has been a lot of suggestions that this would develop during child’s growth in the uterus, since hearing is the sense that develops close to its final stage before birth. This way the child absorbs the sounds of environment along with mother’s steady heartbeat that could be seen as a steady pulse in music."

snarf21 8y ago
It may be junk science but I remember reading something long ago that said the bpm of a song that is closest to a human heart beat is more pleasing than one much faster or slower. I'm now off to see if I can find the reference...
- citation_please 8y ago
  Hmm, electronic genres are definitely clustered around 128, 140, and 170 (+/-2), and those are all reasonable heart rates when you're partying...But a "human heart beat" can be literally anything so I'm not convinced.
  - throwaway8879 8y ago
    Perhaps they mean the average non-stressed, slightly relaxed rate of around 100 or so? I'm not convinced either, but it is interesting to think about. Tempo and rhythm/beat has such a profound effect on the emotional response to music.
    - csihar 8y ago
      Incidentally, 100 bpm is around the average tempo for reggae.
- andresgottlieb 8y ago

burp3141 8y ago

My father loves music. Famously miserly, he wouldn't mind a monthly paycheck on an audio system. I on the other hand have never enjoyed music. I think it's a rebellion thing. But also that sad music made me despondent but happy music didn't affect me to the same extent. The way my father managed to reel me in was to ask me to predict where the musician would take the song. In things like Jazz or improvised music, this is pretty hard. But even in well known classical pieces, this kind of prediction and correction is a pretty interesting exercise. My takeaway from this kind of exercise is that I enjoy music as a pattern matching exercise. It's like a good joke - when you run into an unexpected punchline.

jamesjyu 8y ago
When I was in high school, I spent a lot of time improvising on the piano. I had been taking classical music lessons for years, but always loved to play around on the piano, composing little pieces for myself—mostly they were pop inspired pieces, nothing complicated. One day, some researchers worked with my school to administer a test to find out if there was a connection between standardized test scores (in our case, the ACT) and musical aptitude. Pattern matching was the way they decided to test this. They set a tape recorder in the middle of the room and gave us a multiple choice sheet. First, they played the beginning of a melody, which stopped abruptly. Then, they played four different ways the melody could resolve. Our goal was to choose the most likely. Sometimes, the pieces would be something classic, like Mozart or Beethoven. Other times, they were more contemporary. I glanced around the room to see the reaction of the other students. The choices all seemed very obvious to me. Afterwards, I asked around and most people said they had to guess on most of them. The next day, the teacher pulled me aside and told me that I had scored the highest in the school. I never did follow up to see what the results of the research was, but to this day, I believe I wouldn't have done that well if I had not spent a lot of time listening to music and tinkering with melody lines in my free time.
Jeff_Brown 8y ago
> I enjoy music as a pattern matching exercise Me too, writ very broadly. I'll hear a melody reflect the way a thought or a story develops, instrumentation reflecting the way conversation or traffic behaves. It's completely abstract and yet I feel like music reflects reality, and its deviations from the "truth" comment on reality. I might just be weird. But if in fact a lot of people derive pleasure from the correspondence between music and reality, then part of a composer's job is to create such correspondences, bearing in mind that every listener is going to draw different ones. They have to look for the "average interpretation". It's a weird job.

citation_please 8y ago

Hmm, I was hoping for something more contemporary that I could relate to, but was disappointed that it focused on pieces written centuries ago...like most formal musical theory. Anyway, this passage stuck out to me: """There is something that still rings true of Mattheson’s general idea. We do tend to associate some musical features with being uplifted and others with melancholic reflection, both of which might afford a certain subsequent pleasure to listeners. Just think of how we use music in our everyday lives: some tunes help us to work out or to get something done, while others allow us to cry.""" Composers aren't the only ones who have ever tried to manipulate the crowd. I'm not sure how pop stars/rock bands etc. plan out their sets, but one thing that any DJ[0] worth his salt pays attention to is "harmonic mixing"[1]. Taking things "darker", or trying to bring up the energy, are common strategies taken into account when planning a harmonic transition. I've personally bore witness to plenty of incredible sets that take you from the very top to the very bottom, and it's funny to me that the same ideas are masked behind hoighty-toighty music theory terminology that is used almost exclusively in reference to...music that was composed hundreds of years ago. [0] By DJ I mean someone who does more than weddings, and certainly doesn't take requests. [1] https://music.stackexchange.com/questions/14291/what-is-harmonic-mixing-mix-in-key https://music.stackexchange.com/questions/14291/what-is-harm...

LyndsySimon 8y ago
> it's funny to me that the same ideas are masked behind hoighty-toighty music theory terminology that is used almost exclusively in reference to...music that was composed hundreds of years ago. I'm just coming up to speed on music theory, but my impression so far is that it's reactive, not proactive. We already have music that we like; music theory is about trying to tear it down, identify why we like it, establish base principles that can be used to guide composition, and then use those to create something new. Fairly recently, this had led to "generative music". I'm finding music theory to be useful to build a more accurate mental model of the instruments I'm playing, which I believe will eventually improve my ability to improvise and play by ear. I think that people who are musical prodigies have an intuitive understanding of those things, but I'm having to build my own understanding explicitly.
- 8y ago

lbriner 8y ago

I find that certain musical expressions invoke the same feeling as something very real like the feeling of seeing the New York skyline for the first time or the feeling of taking off in a light aircraft for the first time, almost as if the music was pressing the same buttons. The interesting difference is that the music buttons seem to get pressed every time I hear the same music (i.e. I never get tired of certain music) whereas visual stimuli quickly become mundane as we get used to them?

LyndsySimon 8y ago
> the same feeling as something very real like the feeling of seeing the New York skyline for the first time I think that feeling is highly variable depending on the person. I remember the feeling I had the first time I drove over the bridge on I-40 into Memphis as an adult - the industry along the Mississippi River was awe-inspiring to me. Ugly, sure, but it also represented a huge amount of human accomplishment; it took thousands of years of learning, engineering, building, and improving to build those petroleum tanks and the infrastructure that they support (and that supports them). Seeing the NYC skyline for the first time made me really anxious, almost to the point of anger. So many people in such a small area, living and working together packed so tightly. All I wanted to do was finish what I had to do there and leave as quickly as possible. Out of curiosity - have you ever seen the Milky Way from a truly dark location with no light pollution? I think that probably inspires a very similar feeling that you've described.
- lbriner 8y ago
  I'm sure the feelings are different for each person and maybe different music presses those scary buttons as much as the nice ones!
  - LyndsySimon 8y ago
    Another commenter wondered if the feelings that music evoke are cultural or inherent. I think that's really an interesting question! I wonder if there exists music that makes individuals feel differently based on their background and preferences, or if it goes even further - are there certain chords or progressions that don't have a consistent emotional association? I'm not aware of any, but I'm not an expert in the field.

singularity2001 8y ago

Music became evolutionary advantageous because of social bonding and more

default-kramer 8y ago

> There is something that still rings true of Mattheson’s general idea. We do tend to associate some musical features with being uplifted and others with melancholic reflection, both of which might afford a certain subsequent pleasure to listeners. I have always wondered if we know how much of the emotion associated with music is learned from culture. To put it another way, is a sad song inherently sad? Or is it sad because the culture we grew up in tells us that it is sad? (The answer is probably some combination of both.) There must have been studies about this, but I haven't come across any yet.

civility 8y ago
I have the same question about major and minor keys. It's pretty easy to play something somber in C-major, and something happy in A-minor... This is opposite to the conventional wisdom about keys, and I think it's a cultural thing. When you play them right on top of each other, the three notes which are a half step lower do seem to sound sadder in comparison, but I think that says more about descending vs ascending tones rather than the key itself.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- kaoD 8y ago
  Given your second paragraph... are you perhaps confusing tonality with chord quality? Amin (the chord) is a diatonic chord of C major (the tonality). Also, it's easy to play "random" chords from a tonality and end up in a different mode without even realizing it. E.g.: A minor (the key, also known as A aeolian) has the exact same diatonic chords as C major (but the reference, i.e. tonal center, is A instead of C). A large part of tonality is chord position in the piece, which is also greatly influenced by dynamics, melody, accompanying instruments, harmony, harmonic progression (both immediate/local and global)... Also: Cmaj7 (the chord) is C-E-G-B and Emin6 is E-G-B-C (notice the similarity?), but E-G-B-C can also be interpreted as Cmaj7 in first inversion depending on context. Sometimes roots are omitted from chords so E-G-B (Emin at first sight) could be interpreted as Cmaj7(no root). Just like C-E-G could be a rootless Am7 (A-C-E-G with omitted A). They are often used as substitutes of one another in jazz. Music is just too complex and musical language (chord names etc.) is just a hack developed around traditions and conventions, not science. It's mostly notation of intention, since everything can be twisted to mean something else. The more music theory I know, the less definite answers to musical questions are.

cJ0th 8y ago

Because it's beyond the jaded world of "why?".

crazynick4 8y ago

This article did not mention overtones: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overtone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overtone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonic_series_(music) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonic_series_(music) Combinations of frequencies that form simple integer ratios are naturally perceived as being consonant, no culture or upbringing needed. As the ratios begin to involve higher integers and become more complex, the intervals they produce are considered more dissonant. For instance, in ancient Greece, the scales were constructed by combining intervals where the integer ratios have a prime number no higher than 3. The result is a very consonant but almost bland music. Something you could easily fall asleep to. The major and minor scales from which classical music is composed are made by combining intervals with a prime no higher than 5. This adds more dissonance and makes things a bit more interesting. Scales based around higher prime numbers (7,11,13,..) are outside the scope of mainstream music although jazz is said to approximate the scales that could be built off the '7-limit' intervals, which explains its more dissonant nature (heavy use of tritone which has a ratio of 7:5, and the 'minor seventh' approximates the interval with a ratio of 7:4). That covers consonance, but it doesn't explain emotional affect. I think one example that is at least a part of the explanation can be seen in the distinction between the overtones and undertones. The major scale (and more specifically the major chord) of today's western music is generally considered to be happy, confident, uplifted, etc. The major chord appears naturally in the harmonic series of overtones (any 3 notes played together whose frequency ratio is 4:5:6). The minor chord, on the other hand, appears naturally in the undertone series which is just an inversion of the overtones (1/4:1/5:1/6). It also occurs in nature like the overtones, although less frequently. I may have flubbed some details as I'm writing off the top of my head mostly but I think it covers the gist of how harmony can contribute to the perception of music. There is of course also the rhythm and the sense of expectations/irony involved in writing as well.

chimeracoder 8y ago
> Combinations of frequencies that form simple integer ratios are naturally perceived as being consonant, no culture or upbringing needed. As the ratios begin to involve higher integers and become more complex, the intervals they produce are considered more dissonant. This is only true for a definition of "consonant" and "dissonant" that is literally tautological. Yes, one can distinguish between consonant and dissonant, but the assignment of those as "pleasurable" and "not pleasurable" (which is the topic of the article) are incredibly culturally contextual. That is, you can construct a distinction between harmonies that one might label as consonant and dissonant, but the interpretation of that distinction is not universal. In fact, the relevance or applicability of that distinction is not even universal, because there are plenty of musical traditions where this wouldn't apply at all, and therefore couldn't be used to distinguish "pleasurable" and "not pleasurable" music. In reality, in the grand scheme of musical traditions, the classical European model of consonant, simple integer ratios is an outlier.

bobosha 8y ago

"Laughter (and humor) involves the gradual build-up of expectation (a model) followed by a sudden twist or anomaly that entails a change in the model -- but only as long as the new model is non-threatening -- so that there is a deflation of expectation." [1] My theory is that music provides pleasure in the same way that we get from our hobbies & interests via "familiar surprises": from poetry through rhyme, from dance through rhythm, from movies through plot-twists. Our brains are pattern recognition systems and constantly distinguishing friend from foe, and listening to music we grew up with is a part of that "IFF" system. The "familiar" - usually we listen to a few genres at most and stick to them throughout our life., and the "surprises" are the slight variations and nuances in a song - with the assurance that all is well - that give us our dopamine shot. This is very similar to wordplay in poetry, humor in comedy. I think they are all closely related neuronally. [1] "The neurology and evolution of humor, laughter, and smiling: the false alarm theory" Prof. V S. RAMACHANDRAN edit: added a reference to VSR's article and some grammar

sigi45 8y ago

Increasing complexity in harmony. You listen to pop and enjoy it to it harmony and change your music style or extend it when you are ready for more.

Ascetik 8y ago

Because it is rightly ordered beauty (most of it) and pleasing to the intellect. The intellect delights in that which is good, beautiful and true. Certain types of music elicit a more base response, catering to the passions, such as EDM, or pop, tribal beats, etc. Other types of music cater to the intellect, such as classical, baroque, and certain types of folk and other genre's. Then you have sacred music, which is also prayer, such as gregorian chant and polyphony, these cause one to contemplate divine things. Music is pleasurable in all these facets because it touches upon different operations of the soul, which in turn gives pleasure to the body, such as calmness or dopamine, etc.

exabrial 8y ago

We're able to recognize simple ratios instantly. The fact is without number the actual digits, we know they instantly simplify into a handful of fractions. That is mind blowing. What's even more mind blowing is Adam Neely's explanation of pitch ratios and how they're related to tempo. The short incorrect explanation is if you layer beats 4:4, 5:4, 6:4 ratios (which is the ratio of pitches against the root in a major chord), then speed it up to a ridiculous frequency, our ears hear a major chord. It would seem that Tempo and Pitch are very much intertwined and our brains decipher that very quickly without evening consciously dividing the frequencies. Major chord demo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JiNKlhspdKg&t=24m15 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JiNKlhspdKg&t=24m15

deltron3030 8y ago

Imagination. Sounds connect with you deeply, and even deeper than visuals. You can sing and make melodies without physical movements, without moving your lips, just in your mind. Your inner voice that you "hear" when you think is an artist that grows through immersion, exposure to things. The real difficulty is translating that into physical movements through your body, making it real, this can only be done through practice. If you listen to good musicians amd really like what you hear, they basically talk to your inner artist on the same skill level.

twelvechairs 8y ago

Nobody attempting seriously and succintly to answer the question here even the article. As far as i understand pattern recognition is basically what the cortex (in all its various divisions) does. Which is basically one of our most important higher functions and what sets mammals apart from other animals intelectually. Recognising a melody is not so different from recognising the voice of a friend or the route to walk home. Except for different input types. Except the fact that music and melody/harmony is not just 'match a pattern' but is designed essentially to tease, test and develop the pattern recognition function by taking simple clear ratios then finding ways to make them a little on edge mathematically in different ways. So we shouldnt find it weird that music can give most of us pleasure itself because its literally the same mecahnism as things that are finding food or a good partner to mate with. Then theres lyrics and the social side of music which puts a whole different twist on it. The above is pure rhythm and pitch only enjoyed individually.

scns 8y ago

Music touches me deeply. It gives me joy when it matches my mood but makes it nearly intolerable noise when it does not. I feel great excitement when i discover new music like, endorphins en masse. I think we do not derive pleasure from music but the feeling that there is another human being that feels the same way we do.

mafuyu 8y ago

I recommend checking out Adam Neely's channel, where he touches on some similar concepts: https://youtu.be/6c_LeIXrzAk https://youtu.be/6c_LeIXrzAk https://youtu.be/9q4MWdHhgfM https://youtu.be/9q4MWdHhgfM https://youtu.be/V5WfgMVtueo https://youtu.be/V5WfgMVtueo

agumonkey 8y ago

For harmony I have no clue, but for rhythm I have a serious belief that it's a side product of our mechanical balance processing unit (and also why dance goes with it). Just data from years of learning drumming, de-synchronization (ability to think about and move different limbs in ~parallel) is extremely valuable in every activity. You're probably smarter and more efficient because you process your movements and your perception quite differently.

ilovetux 8y ago

so much emphasis on melody. I find the answer is that music is a more true language than any that are spoken. This is all conjecture by the way which is shaded by my own beliefs and experience. melody is one part of a trinity. equally important are rhythm and harmony. I believe that rhythm, melody and harmony relate to the body, mind and spirit respectively. Rhythm is analogous to our physical form and not just in the obvious sense of our heart beat but indeed every atom of our being has a rhythm all it's own and they are in sync one way or another with every other part of our body from microcosm to macrocosm. a coherent melody matches our thoughts in a way that can convey the colors of emotion. indeed lyrics are often set to a melody and convey thoughts and emotions together in a way that's so natural that it is sometimes quite eerie. harmony is how melodic threads relate to each other. our spirits are also the most adequate way of relating to others. harmony is the basis of all combined human endeavour and spirits are what allow us to define relations beyond familial in an abstract way in which we can intuitively find our own place.

skookumchuck 8y ago

For those who enjoy music - if you take dance lessons until you get comfortable dancing, dancing smoothly to music you like greatly intensifies the enjoyment of the music. Bobbing and swaying to the music also increases the enjoyment, but doing a structured dance with a partner cranks it up to 11.

woodandsteel 8y ago

I think the article took a strange approach. It focused on a complex piece by Bach. But most people don't find Bach pleasurable, and simple melodies can be very pleasurable, at least to most people. It would make much more sense to try to understand the simple cases, and then later try to figure out the more complicated ones. Also instead of explaining musical pleasure in terms of non-musical concepts like emotion and openess, might it be at least in part to evaluations in the brain that are unique to music? We don't think that, for instance, tastes are pleasurable or unpleasant due to their connection to other matters, so why could this not be the case for music?

beliu 8y ago

Leonard Bernstein gave his answer on the question in a series of lectures titled "The Unanswered Question." Draws analogies to concepts in linguistics and CFGs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fHi36dvTdE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fHi36dvTdE

JoshMnem 8y ago

We're the way we are because our ancestors had these traits and they were the ones who survived. Music is a system for encoding knowledge, especially across generations.[1] Humans appear to sexually select for musical ability.[2][3] We like music, because being able to encode encyclopedic knowledge across generations without written language is a successful adaptation for survival. [1] https://www.allenandunwin.com/browse/books/general-books/popular-science/The-Memory-Code-Lynne-Kelly-9781760291327 https://www.allenandunwin.com/browse/books/general-books/pop... [2] http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0305735613482025 http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0305735613482025 [3] Ask a musician.

skookumchuck 8y ago

Long before writing, people had oral histories. Those were more reliable using rhyme (sort of an error-correction scheme). Setting it to music made it even less error-prone, and so better transmission of information gave a survival advantage. Hence, we like music.

Tycho 8y ago

The universe is in a process of entropic decay. Entropy is death. Life is the opposite. Life creates order, reverses the decay. Music is spontaneous order, but nuanced, like life. Music is a celebration of life.