Re: art not music

Subject: Re: art not music
Date: Sun Feb 27 2005 - 15:40:25 EST

So, what did music evolve from?
Was the first lullaby necessarily musical?

Music Language Other

ALthough it's not exactly clear yet, I have recently come to a new
understanding of EA. The general root EA branches into music, language and
other. I understand EA as sound-based understanding.

There are things within sounds that we are inately programmed to respond to,
and there are things within sounds that we are socially conditioned to respond
to. This is all EA.

Now if we were to consider animal sounds...
Wolves howling. Birds singing. Water Falling. Are these musical or EA? Of
course, we can't experience a wolf's cry from its point of view. From our
perspective, we could choose to listen musically or not, but the fact that it's
EA remains, (there is meaning in that sound). When a bird squeeks, it is OUR
ears that make that sound into music, if we so choose to. Again, there is
nothing inately musical about a sound.

I believe "man" created "song". -- Humans created music.
It follows that, for a time, humans existed without a concept of music, and it
makes sense because there is no Real point to music other than social. So
as "man" "civilized", so did the human concepts of music and language progress.


Quoting Richard Wentk <>:

> At 19:03 26/02/2005, you wrote:
> >I don't believe there was a "mother #1" : Eve. or Noah's wife?
> >You choose to assume that song existed for as long as "man" existed. But
> did
> >not "man" create song?
> Bird song, whale song, cicada song and a billion or so years of pre-human
> noise making predated the first lullaby.
> Music and art have their roots in evolutionary development. The differences
> between what humans do and animals do seem to be more a question of degree
> than of anything completely unique and revolutionary.
> Richard


This archive was generated by hypermail 2b27 : Sat Dec 22 2007 - 01:46:06 EST