WHY do we Like Music? What After all IS Music...?
It generates billions of dollars in revenues. It drives hit TV shows. It drives armies to battle. It moves partners to intimacy. Indeed it moves the world. But just what IS it…and WHY is it…and why do so few ask?
After vast vats of ink have been spilled over music theory, advertising and criticism, I’ve never found a satisfying answer to the question – why do we like music in the first place? After all, we can understand why we like to speak, why reading and writing are useful, why math has a place in the firmament of human capabilities. But what the heck good is music? You can’t eat it, you can’t touch it, you can’t hold it (Ipods excluded), and you can’t spend it. It gives you a “feeling” and “connects you with
So, after much thought and almost no research, I’ve come to the following conclusion which I believe but cannot prove:
We are imprinted with music in the womb. During gestation as our senses come alive, the first things experienced are rhythms – the rhythms of our mother’s heart, her breathing and hormone secretions. These rhythms are at a counterpoint to our own heartbeat, and these “hearings” are both auditory and tactile…we feel them directly – uncluttered by light and vision - as they permeate our bodies. They are the first patterns directly perceived by the emerging entity in the womb and thus the imprinting must be incredibly strong…so strong in fact that our bodies are driven to match the rhythms of our mothers in the womb – as we learn from the hormones the “meaning of the music”...which teaches the first lessons of emotion.
Now, layer on top of these observations the dynamic range of the experience. When the mother is in distress, her heart rate increases, her breathing speeds up – and very interestingly, she begins to secrete hormones that are shared with the fetus – ourselves – such that an indelible correlation is henceforth made that faster patterns are more exciting and perhaps dangerous … causing us to realize at a deep level “I’m ALIVE”. Conversely, when the mother is in a resting state, the slower more regular pattern of heart and breath associated with sleep hormones will forever after guide the new human to associate such patterns with peace, sleep and rest.
As these patterns become more strong with time, the infant begins to mimic the responses – and in fact becomes attuned to actual voices and music that can be heard from outside the womb…and the sympathetic responses that the infant’s body has learned from the mother’s interior music are now actualized by this disconnected external music.
From these fundamental defining experiences in the womb, the panoply of non-visual patterning, emotional responses, rhythms, life cadences, dancings and the general non-visual pattern and response interface with our world arise.
So, the next time you listen to the inspired contrapuntal of Beethoven’s Ninth, the acoustic fireworks of the 1812 Overture, the driving cadence of a Sousa march or the placid hope of John Lennon’s “Imagine” – think back to your time in the womb where it all started. Oh – and - Thanks Mom!
Now perhaps the above is old hat to some...or perhaps it's wrong...that's why I love Speculist - you can speculate!
P.S. I've been asked "So Ben, who are you?" Like the Unknown Comic from the Gong Show, I'm an anonymous writer who hopes what's presented is enjoyable and useful.
Comments
Well, Ben, at least we don't make you wear a brown paper bag over your head!
Something that might add to the effect -- music that we hear while in the womb. I think we pick up on a lot more of what's happening in the world than we realize. A friend of mine told me that she started reading Merton's Seven Storey Mountain some years ago and found it completely familiar, as though she were reading it for the second time -- but she knew she had never read it before. She later learned that her mother read the book while carrying her.
Posted by: Phil Bowermaster
|
June 27, 2007 02:18 PM
Some of my favorite music has extreme tempo changes - Rush's "Spirit of Radio" is a good example.
Steppenwolf's "Magic Carpet Ride" actually has two separate tempos going at the same time several times during the song. It should be a complete mess, but somehow it's still music.
Posted by: Stephen Gordon
|
June 27, 2007 02:25 PM
Most mammals must go through a similar experience, and I don't see my cat jamming to the music I play. So I'm not sure it's our experiences in the womb.
Indeed, the only other animal I've noticed that really seems to enjoy music are birds, who don't have this womb experience (I've watched birds sway to music).
I think our love of music is similar to theirs: humans have abnormally large brains, the sort of evolution run amok that only happens when crazy sexual inclinations are involved (like those extinct deer/mmose/whatever they were in Ireland that had the obscenely huge antlers, whose soul purpose in life seemed to be finding a mate).
But how do you show off the power of your brain? By doing clever things. Music is very clever. It shows a powerful range of vocal muscles, strength of lungs (and thus metabolism), and it shows how clever you are. Humans particularly like anything that shows the complexity of the brain. Things like jokes and religion have multiple layers of meaning that tend to sparkle the pleasure centers of our brain. Harmonic music is the same way, and while a man crooning to a woman is pleasing to her, two men crooning against each other and with each other in this dynamic, comflicting, contributing works to really get her juices flowing.
Put another way, I think this is definitly a natue thing (ie, a result of our evolution) not a nurture thing (its not something that comes from the circumstances of our birth, ie, if you could grow a kid in a silent vat, I don't think he would have no appreciation of music).
WHAT music we like and what we consider music certainly seems to be nurture, but THAT we like music, in my opinion, is not.
Posted by: Vadept
|
June 28, 2007 09:57 AM
Hi Vadept - There are many experiences that humans and other mammals go through in the womb that do not yield similar outcomes. It is quite apparent that the potentiation for music is built into our genes - I think Ben is simply saying that the experience in the womb activates that potential. It is also very clear that humans do respond in the womb to speech and music. The hypothesis is testable/falsifiable, so it has that going for it :-)
Posted by: da55id
|
June 28, 2007 10:32 AM
If Vadept's theory is correct then we would see musicians getting all the women...
Posted by: doctorpat
|
July 2, 2007 03:06 AM
Don't they? I thought that's what being a rock star was for. :)
-Jim
Posted by: Jim Strickland
|
July 3, 2007 04:11 PM