evolution

>>Within a tonal context, we do read 400c as 5/4, but 400c still has a
>>sound of its own. Weather that sound fits within any discernable musical
>>system as itself is another question. I doubt if it could to any human
ears >>(at least at this stage of our aural evolution. Who knows what the
next few
>>thousand years may bring!)
>
>Evolution happens because of survival of the fittest. What kind of
>eugenics program do you forsee that will wipe out those with poor aural
>resolution?

Evolution works because of mutation and survival. Fitness is very hard to
define, unless you say it's what survives, which is redundant. Even
survival is not the whole story, as many systems that tend towards
extinction are more successful that traditionally "fit" systems (they wipe
out the "fit" system, and then themselves). Then there is the lemming
reflex, where suicide is selected to preserve the population. Observing
this behavior in human cells (esp. immune system cells) is very
interesting. The thing opens up a whole new reason to get picky about
one's definition of "time".

Anyway, I think it's safe to say that humans have reached the point where
what we think is a critical part of our "genome". And so we can evolve
just by thinking. Language is perhaps the earliest and most glaring
example. Music is also important. I think music can be a powerful
learning tool; I believe it "works" by imitating symmetries found in
nature, ones we use for problem-solving and memory. We have emotional
responses to music because we think we're learning -- the primary role of
emotion is the reinforcement of learning.

To answer your question Paul, looking closely at life on earth reveals to
me a surprising lack of 1:1 relationship between selected traits and
fitness. There's all kinds of piggybacking (porkbarrel legislation :) and
the like. But, assuming you disagree with the above, what kind of eugenics
program can you see to select for those who enjoy music at all? That is,
if it has come this far, why not to the point where 400 cents can have an
independent harmonic meaning?

And putting the evolution thing aside for a sec, what about just over the
course of a song? While your probabilistic approach to harmony makes the
most sense of any I know of, I think that compositional practice may narrow
down the options real fast; what about a song that makes a point of
emphasising the difference between 400 cents and 5/4?

Carl

Carl & Paul
The idea of Evolution when applied to music sets up for of music as
being better. I believe Margo in her last post was addressing this
question in regard to Medieval and 16th century music. Evolution is a
myth that could apply to a single scale development as with Yasser yet
can lead to dangerous conclusions if not safely guarded!
-- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
www.anaphoria.com