Tonality - A force of nature?

Ok, so you dumped a lot of literature there. Great. Mind pointing out from where you took what, specifically? I mean, I have no access to those resources at all from where I am so chances are I can't look at them, so that's why if you could provide more details that'd be wonderful. What did those books say that you used?

And, as far as the fundamental roots, that could mean a WHOLE LOT of things, I hope you realize. That's why I rather not assume and you should be clearer.

In any case, I really don't see the point in discussing any of this anymore since:

A: leaps of logic aside, there whole thing with tonality being natural is insane. It requires defining "natural" to begin with, which is already a problem. It requires defining "tonality" which is an even bigger problem. If "proof" is to be found in non-western cultures we can't even start calling these "tonalities" "tonal" in the same western sense, etc. Using terminology outside of what it's intended to explain will only cause problems as it negates the meaning they should have, as well as all the context they depend on. It's just a subjective judgment really. I can say a dog barking sounds like a C major I-V-I cadence, so sure enough tonality must be somehow linked to dogs as well!

B: Cultures can have things in common for a whole lot of reasons, but that doesn't mean the reasons are necessarily the same. Those reasons CAN be both governed by chance or necessity, it can go either way. This doesn't imply anything other than what it sounds, to make it mean anything you have to add an extra layer of meaning and that's usually where the problem starts. It's why, again, people have consistently failed to pin down aesthetics in music as a sort of genetic trait, or that the origin of music itself is nothing more than result of evolutionary processes not really related to music at all. But, really, that's been dealt with in other threads enough as it is.

C: We have almost none of the limitations these cultures had back then, and not only that but the frame in which art stands is so flexible that we can purposely make art to have NOTHING to do with what these past people did (either by direct opposition, or simply by going into completely different directions.) Hell, I'm have my doubts that music must necessarily exist outside of the mind, and that the imagination is any less "musical" than the actual process of hearing.

So, I don't know what the point of the thread is anymore. Until someone figures it out, I'll stop posting lol.

I agree with overall the statements made in A. Music tonality in the western tradition is exclusive to the evolution of music in the western tradition itself and should not be used to identify or corroborate (?) the music of non-western traditions - I believe that i've said that myself in other threads.

In regards to B, I think the similarities in culture can easily be explained by one thing: technology. Every culture historically moves through different phases of civilization - we all should be familiar with stone age, new stone age, bronze age, etc. We see this even today in some of the more remote regions of the world - tribes at different levels of civilization evolution. As new technology is introduced all aspects of the culture are gradually changed - including music. In the west, we've seen this in the introduction of new instruments throughout the course of the last 2000 or so years. In the east, it's witnessed over a much longer time scale. Technology and time to explore artistic possibilities are the prime movers of musical evolution - no matter what culture. And again, technology is the reason for the similarities.

And I'm not even gonna touch upon your comments on C, due in large to the personal ideas of yours embodied in those words. Can't argue against or for your ideas.. as they are uniquely yours.

In regards to B, I think the similarities in culture can easily be explained by one thing: technology. Every culture historically moves through different phases of civilization - we all should be familiar with stone age, new stone age, bronze age, etc. We see this even today in some of the more remote regions of the world - tribes at different levels of civilization evolution. As new technology is introduced all aspects of the culture are gradually changed - including music. In the west, we've seen this in the introduction of new instruments throughout the course of the last 2000 or so years. In the east, it's witnessed over a much longer time scale. Technology and time to explore artistic possibilities are the prime movers of musical evolution - no matter what culture. And again, technology is the reason for the similarities.

Well, technological evolution, so to speak, is not an always progressive line for all cultures. It's governed my MANY MANY factors, hence why not all cultures have the same levels of technology to begin with (and hell, some cultures were destroyed entirely.) It's these factors that I mean are seemingly random. I already said that technology plays a big role in the post before where you said I was wrong. :/ Did you even read it?

PS: Not only that, but just to extend how these outside factors can influence the course of musical evolution, you can certainly imagine a king or authority figures declaring that X music style is important over everything else, effectively locking that culture "in place," just by the fact that that authority had a taste for that music. Or it could be religious reasons, etc etc. There are many things that play with traditions which can render them very, very different amongst eachother given a certain degree of technology, and, hell, even at the most basic level as well.

/me wonders why this thread is still active. This is a pointless discussion! Who cares? It is what it is, let it be as such.

Now, lets all go write a Symphony! Go!

Well, technological evolution, so to speak, is not an always progressive line for all cultures. It's governed my MANY MANY factors, hence why not all cultures have the same levels of technology to begin with (and hell, some cultures were destroyed entirely.) It's these factors that I mean are seemingly random. I already said that technology plays a big role in the post before where you said I was wrong. :/ Did you even read it?

Again, your wrong. Technological evolution, on a cultural basis, is progressive and well recorded - even in cultures that were destroyed. A culture does not have to achieve the same level of technological ability as other cultures for this to be proven (many cultures have not). And as I said, in remote parts of the world there are cultures that haven't even reached the technologies that comprise the bronze age.

Is birdsong natural?

Is birdsong tonal?

I'm tempted to agree with JT.

Again, your wrong. Technological evolution, on a cultural basis, is progressive and well recorded - even in cultures that were destroyed. A culture does not have to achieve the same level of technological ability as other cultures for this to be proven (many cultures have not). And as I said, in remote parts of the world there are cultures that haven't even reached the technologies that comprise the bronze age.

Uh? So really, let's ignore the dark ages, or any other period in any given civilization where technology was simply barred from progressing for completely arbitrary reasons...

Maybe you didn't understand what I meant with linear and progressive. But, honestly, who cares?

Nope. I'm not going to bother enumerating the huge number of problems with what you're proposing, just try to do that on your own for now.

Please, humor me. What huge number of problems do you mean?

Uh? So really, let's ignore the dark ages, or any other period in any given civilization where technology was simply barred from progressing for completely arbitrary reasons...

Maybe you didn't understand what I meant with linear and progressive. But, honestly, who cares?

Let's ignore history and pull stuff out of our donkey? Nice comeback. I'm done arguing with someone who clearly has no knowledge of history itself.

Let's ignore history and pull stuff out of our donkey? Nice comeback. I'm done arguing with someone who clearly has no knowledge of history itself.

But you're wrong. Pandas are not birds, they are bears!

I'm beginning to think you have difficulty reading people's posts. In any case, I said I was opting out of the thread and I'll make good on that before insults start flying, yay.

But you're wrong. Pandas are not birds, they are bears!

I'm beginning to think you have difficulty reading people's posts. In any case, I said I was opting out of the thread and I'll make good on that before insults start flying, yay.

No, I read your last post and completely understood what you said: you said So really, let's ignore the dark ages, or any other period in any given civilization where technology was simply barred from progressing for completely arbitrary reasons... That is just completely ludicrous and not even historically accurate. No reason to even comment more on it really.

I'm not gonna insult you for any of this, why even bother? Most I'll say is this, from my short time on the forum - all I see from you is that you are stubbornly held to your own theories of music (and art in general). Nothing wrong with that, as i've said before. However, to pass your ideas off as the be all and end all of musicological expertise is just ridiculous - particularly when your ideas aren't the sole idea nor the most subscribed too. Take instance this post, you asked for me to back up my sources on things - so I give a brief citation... at which you just brush off because you know none of them. Another instance, when a person goes into great detail explaining their position for you to read - as many have done before, you ignore the entire paragraph and then post some stupid quip of yours. MOAR!

This ain't 4chan... we ain't anonymous...

I enjoy intelligent discussion and enjoy partaking in it in hopes of learning something new... not being insulted by you and your stubborn ignorance of history.

Jaw's serious business rant.

You done? I hope that made you feel better.

In any case, I thought I should mention, I wasn't really disagreeing with what you were saying for most part.

But you were looking for a fight. Honestly, this specific history discussion is completely uninteresting to me, I don't want to talk about it and honestly you're probably better informed about it than I am. I think all that happened is that communication failed somewhere along the way since apparently now I insulted you, and god knows what else. Nevermind you kept misinterpreting me or assuming you knew what I was trying to say, but it wasn't the case.

As for the sources, what do you expect? I live in GERMANY of all places, I can't just go and look these things up that easily (if at all!) Plus, again, it's not a discussion I really care about so I might as well take your word for it, right? That's why I asked you to be more specific, in the interest of information and my own personal curiosity.

As for the TL;DR stuff, well, it's a case-specific thing isn't it? If I don't see huge problems with an argument in the first four sentences I MIGHT read the wall of text, but if answering to it will take writing another wall of text I'm just not seeing the point anymore. SPECIALLY when it's just repeating the same things over and over and over.

But hey, whatever. Take a chill pill.

You done? I hope that made you feel better.

In any case, I thought I should mention, I wasn't really disagreeing with what you were saying for most part.

But you were looking for a fight. Honestly, this specific history discussion is completely uninteresting to me, I don't want to talk about it and honestly you're probably better informed about it than I am. I think all that happened is that communication failed somewhere along the way since apparently now I insulted you, and god knows what else. Nevermind you kept misinterpreting me or assuming you knew what I was trying to say, but it wasn't the case.

As for the sources, what do you expect? I live in GERMANY of all places, I can't just go and look these things up that easily (if at all!) Plus, again, it's not a discussion I really care about so I might as well take your word for it, right? That's why I asked you to be more specific, in the interest of information and my own personal curiosity.

As for the TL;DR stuff, well, it's a case-specific thing isn't it? If I don't see huge problems with an argument in the first four sentences I MIGHT read the wall of text, but if answering to it will take writing another wall of text I'm just not seeing the point anymore. SPECIALLY when it's just repeating the same things over and over and over.

But hey, whatever. Take a chill pill.

I'm not upset, and in many instances I don't disagree with you. My main reason for going into the historic side of it is that you mentioned in the post i replied to that primitive cultures chanted/sang versus used instruments - which was innaccurate. I went into depth on it, largely to bring up instances and examples to 'back up' what I was saying. I didn't reply to the thread prior because I felt DAI's question was worded inappropriately and taken out of context to great degree by those who replied in the first 2 pages of the thread. And after rereading the entire thread again, I think many here misread what DAI was suggesting - and I think DAI worded his question in the wrong way. The overall gist of his question was why do all cultures seem to come upon diatonic organization for their scales? To use the word tonality itself in this query was mistaken - since the usage of scales is not necessarily relevant to the development of tonal center in the western sense. Interestingly, in a later response you actually 'briefly' touched upon a good answer to his query BUT since the query was written wrongly you didn't go into detail.

The overall gist of his question was why do all cultures seem to come upon diatonic organization for their scales?

Wait, so the question is: why did cultures pick specific notes to build compositions around as opposed to using every single note possible? What else is there?

Even in 12-tone works, you're still only using a specific subset. Even in white-noise works, you're still only using a subset of the tonal spectrum (ie 20hz-20khz, or lower or higher if you're using psychoacoustics to do stuff). Even in Baroque counterpoint, adding in the partials out to infinity provides frequencies well above 20khz...

My point is that the question is silly if its taken in the context you're suggesting, and wrong if it's taken in the context that was previously suggested.

Wait, so the question is: why did cultures pick specific notes to build compositions around as opposed to using every single note possible? What else is there?

Besides that, what about cultures that had no written music or established "tone systems" so to speak, just traditions passed orally which alluded to no particular order or hierarchy of tone organization? I can think of some South American examples for that right away, and I'm sure there are many others.

I'm also not really sure that many cultures treated their tone systems, if they had them consciously as such, as we treat our western systems. Seems to me that a lot of the middle east/south american/etc music which involves quarter tones and other such varying intervals and tones aren't really using much of a system but more like a "general area" where people just freely split the octave into whatever it is they want within their established aesthetic preferences.

I also wonder if in analyzing these other cultures there is a danger of unconsciously superposing the western view on them as an attempt to "make sense" out of it, or rationalize it, when in reality there's no actual system there in the same way we find in the western traditional canon.

As a side note, I was having a conversation today with someone over old baroque tuning systems and so on, and it wouldn't be a stretch to say that the western tradition has also dealt with quarter tones and many different ways to split up those 12 tones over the octave. Hell, there was even an attempt, when enharmony wasn't standard in keyboard instruments, to have extra keys for, say, Eb and D#, or what was more typical, keys that were divided (typically Eb/D#) in two so players could opt between Eb or D#.

Also interesting how keys that got more use, such as A minor, C major, D major, etc would lead to having instruments usually tuned like C# Eb F# G# Bb (black keys only of course.) So when you wanted to play, say, a b major chord, that Eb there would sound rather "atrocious" since Eb and D# were actually different.

And, interestingly, there's Kuhnau that in one of his biblical sonatas (the one about David and Goliath) used a "wrong" chord specifically to symbolize Goliath falling. I'm not sure which chord it was, but it was like the example above. Having a B major chord but instead of having D# you had Eb and it sounded entirely differently. It's not unimaginable for composers to use these tuning differences also in other ways and to cause other effects.

Far removed from the immutable tempered A 440 concert tuning standard, eh?

PS:

and here's the score: http://imslp.org/wiki/Musicalische_Vorstellung_einiger_Biblischer_Historien_(Kuhnau%2C_Johann) Yay. OH, in case anyone was wondering, the "wrong" chord is the F minor chord that shows up with the Ab, where the tuning doesn't really follow since the piece needs a G#, not an Ab. It ONLY shows up until that point in Goliath's fall.

PS: More interesting stuff:

Here is I think a very relevant example of ethnic music - the Adhan or Islamic call to prayer, equivalent to the Nicene creed of Christianity. The text should be familiar to >1 billion muslims around the world. Musically, I believe the recitation is treated as improvisation by the Muezzin (reciter), there appears to be no set notation.

Here are two very different versions of the Adhan - what do you think?

Version 1

Version 2

Wait, so the question is: why did cultures pick specific notes to build compositions around as opposed to using every single note possible? What else is there?

Even in 12-tone works, you're still only using a specific subset. Even in white-noise works, you're still only using a subset of the tonal spectrum (ie 20hz-20khz, or lower or higher if you're using psychoacoustics to do stuff). Even in Baroque counterpoint, adding in the partials out to infinity provides frequencies well above 20khz...

My point is that the question is silly if its taken in the context you're suggesting, and wrong if it's taken in the context that was previously suggested.

I don't think its a silly question... at least not if one wants to look at the early history of music expression. Its interesting, to me at least, in the sense that it is from these very early choices that the entire theory started from. What if the choice was made to use other pitches... a different intervalic relationship... this would've no doubt changed the course of music evolution, i'm sure all could agree.

At any rate, this is an interesting discussion that prolly won't lead anywhere... since the entire idea of the query is to analyze historic choices made in musical organization....fascinating, none the less.

I speak in ignorance of many things, but I believe the "nature" of music is double edged, so to speak. Humans desire things and events to be predictable, patterned, and familiar, but they also want novelty, freshness, innovation, surprise.

These traits we posses contradict one another, but not without reason. Imagine yourself doing the same thing over and over again: assembling something, playing the piece of music you've learned for the two hundred and fifty-second time, or watching some movie way too much. OK, now imagine never knowing what what going to happen next, always anticipating something, and always lacking the understanding to go through with all of these new things. Neither of these scenarios is desirable.

I speak from personal experience when it comes to music: a happy balance of understanding what you're listening to and hearing what is profound or 'sensational' to *you* according to that understanding is paramount to enjoyment of the music.

I used to dislike Bach's music because I found it unpredictable and really almost random; now that I have a better understanding of music, Bach is probably my favorite composer at the time being. Now I can't stand 'pop' music (yes, an entirely different discussion) or much music that is any simpler than Chopin or Schumann (I love Chopin's music, though); before you comment on my displeasure toward simple music, I do understand that maybe I'm taking it a little too far.

You know, if you look at the production of music itself in one way... there is something 'natural' about it. Musical sound is production by vibration (whether its a struck vibrating the air around it, or wind being vibrated inside a tube, etc.)... vibration in this sense is natural (like for instance the audible rumble heard during an earthquake).

Or if you look at it as a bigger picture, it would all be natural since it all occurs within the confines of "nature" (when nature is taken to mean just plainly the world around us, lawl.)

Here is the sonogram of the Adhan version 1 I posted earlier:

http://www.cygnusdei.com/adhan.jpg

There are twelve phrases, every one of them ends with either one of two pitches: a lower one (green line) or a higher one (red line). Guess what? The two pitches are approximately 660 and 880 Hz, or e' and a'.

But of course it's all just a coincidence, right?

Although I haven't been following this discussion... I don't think anyone would call the existence of perfect fifths in separate musical systems a coincidence--for reasons we should all be familiar with, although the numbers 660 and 880 (and their relationship) is a clue. Drawing from that any conclusions about tonality is a bit of a stretch, though, isn't it?

Okay, a working definition of Tonality is desperately needed for this discussion. The definition most people try to apply is the familiar 'harmonic hierarchy' of triads that create a tonal center. Let's do away with the 'rules' that accompany the common practice of tonality (triads, modulation, voice leading, etc.) and stick to the idea that a tonality, any tonality, is the aural presence of one or more tonal centers by means of creating some harmonic hierarchy. In simpler terms, tonality is the presence of one or more tonics created by some type of dominant (not necessarily V-I). The challenge to this might be that V-I is the only way to apply a 'dominant' relationship to a tonic. The response to this is that the diversity among intervals of different harmonies across the full world of music is too complex to negate other forms of dominance in establishing a tonal center.

Working with this definition of tonality at least somewhat intact, the next question that needs to be answered is, "What is natural?" This implies the application of nature to some component of music. Sound is a component of music. The composer is another component of music. The performer is a third, the instrument a fourth, and the audience is another (and so on...). Seems to me the question addresses the nature of composition specifically, not sound. Similarly, the nature of the performer is another issue, as is the instrument. So, we're left with the composer and the audience as the components to which nature appears to refer to in the discussion.

That said, let's narrow our focus more. Are we talking about 'tonality' as a force of nature in composition, or a force of nature for the listener? Sure, both can apply rather mutually, but let's be clear about where nature applies here, lest we veer completely off course into the nether void of musicological meandering. The topic is composition, the subject is tonality, and the argument is that tonality is a force of nature in composition (the way I read it). Within this context, I would have to agree, considering the similarities among different cultures in developing their own individual syntax for creating music.

The syntax need not be identical to lead us to see something natural within each syntax. After all, it may hold some deeper insight into the nature of tonality (as was argued earlier). Suffice it to say that while some societies may have co-mingled to create some cross-fertilization of their styles, there are potentially thousands of other nomadic tribes that never encountered the styles of other tribes, yet still managed to develop nearly identical pitch organizations used in a variety of ways.

There are some distinct similarities that have already been mentioned (scales and modes, just to address a few). What we can determine from the fundamental understanding (not the generalized association with common practice) of tonality is whether a natural force could be at work. Clearly, examining the other components of music, specifically sound, nature clearly is NOT at work in tonality. But this does not necessarily mean tonality is not a force OF nature in the COMPOSITION of music, which the OP clearly seems to argue.

If all we can say is music is only natural when we don't compose it, then we're really saying nothing at all. In the composition of music and the study of how music was composed in the past, there are certainly signs of natural and mutually similar growth in the organization of sounds among cultures, and this growth occurs in similar ways independently through different cultures in different time periods.

So, it would be hasty to say that there is no natural force at work in tonality, working with a definition like the one above. If no natural force was at work, then tonality would be as 'natural' as sound itself. This just isn't the case. Now, what that natural force is could be human intuition, cognitive reasoning, or it could be linked to a thousand other things. I don't think it needs to be taken as far as determining what biological and sociological factors drove composers to create such similarities within the syntax of their musical traditions. Abstraction at that level seems more speculative than conclusive. Acknowledging the possibility is about as close as I think we'll get, at least in this thread.

-----------------------------------------------

Note: The argument that specific instances of dominants resolving to tonics must exist in most or all of the works of different cultures, intact without diversion, in order to 'prove' that tonality is a force of nature creates a variety of logical fallacies, including but not limited to:

Burden of Proof

Confusion of Cause and Effect

Ignoring a Common Cause

Misleading Vividness

- taken from Fallacies

Just in case anyone wanted to know...

Ah, fine, let's have at you AA, shall we? For ol' time's sake.

-----------------------------------------------

Note: The argument that specific instances of dominants resolving to tonics must exist in most or all of the works of different cultures, intact without diversion, in order to 'prove' that tonality is a force of nature creates a variety of logical fallacies, including but not limited to:

Burden of Proof

Confusion of Cause and Effect

Ignoring a Common Cause

Misleading Vividness

- taken from Fallacies

Just in case anyone wanted to know...

Nice little attack. :>

But completely misunderstood the point. If you had taken more time actually reading what I wrote (hilarious, I know) instead of waiting for the opportunity to point out "logical fallacies," cough, you'd see that what I said is simply a demonstration of my point which was "how tonal IS tonal enough." For me it's not enough that there are "maybe sort of like" western tonal elements, because free interpretation can go both ways and it doesn't establish anything since it's just a matter of opinion.

But you're also extremely vague and your definition of tonality as tonal centers and so on is completely arguable, as you're not specific enough. Is a tonal center a chord? A specific note (through repetition maybe?) A register maybe? A scale? Any of those things? All those things? Different answers here, of course, change everything. Also, isn't this, again, trying to perceive all music through a western filter? Why must other cultures necessarily HAVE tonal centers at all? Why should we expect this?

I've said it before, insisting on applying terminology where it simply doesn't fit and wasn't DESIGNED to fit is retarded. Tonic and Dominant are harmonic FUNCTIONS, that exist only within a SPECIFIC context. Otherwise, we can say that dogs barking also resemble I-V-I relationships and the sound of traffic is tonal (as it has a tonal (sound) center.) If it's just a matter of interpretation, it's a non-argument.

Plus, like Voce pointed out, the fallacy of using "nature" here is simply because we can just point out that EVERYTHING EVER is natural since, well, everything is allowed BY nature and provided BY nature, and even the fact we can "artificially" create anything is allowed BY nature using natural things (sound waves, etc.) So, hilariously, you can create a definition so broad that, well, anything is natural without that being wrong at all.

---

Anyways, I've also said before that all these arguments only lead to arguments about genetic predisposition to specific musical elements. It's really the entire point.

Look at food, for example. Across all cultures, you are definitely GOING to find dishes that conform to the way the tongue works and how taste functions (according to the evolutionary necessities that made those functions and how they work.) It's not hard to predict, then, that since we know how the tongue works, that the vast majority of cultures must have sweet foods, for example. The answer is very simple since we have a concrete reason that spans all cultures as it's a feature of the human anatomy.

Now, these "nature" and so on bullshit arguments all go the same way. What is meant isn't "nature," is "genetics." What is meant by "tonic" isn't tonic, is "western aesthetics." Replace those terms and now the argument starts making some sense.

The proposition of the OP, if properly worded and exposed, sounds like:

"There must be a genetic disposition to certain musical elements, as through comparison across different cultures we can find similarities which can only, presumably, be explained by this disposition which guides humans to perceive (and form) aesthetic preferences in similar ways despite any cultural process which may oppose it."

Now we have something!

Good, now with a real argument on our hands, which SOUNDS plausible at the very least, we can do some research and come to some conclusions.

First point is, for similarities between cultures to be non-coincidental, they have to share the same origin (which in this case we assume is genetic.) However, as Jaw showed, there are other reasons why cultures may have similarities such as technological developments and progressions being more or less the same (It would seem to follow the order: Drums, Singing, etc come first. Violins and other such instruments come a little later and apparently entire systems of tone organization and hierarchy come last.) Plus, there can be purely coincidental/random elements that throw things off, such as my example with the king banning X type of music on a whim.

So, alright, do aesthetics fall in the same playing field?

Assuming that genetics from humans in these cultures are similar, of course, and have not mutated significantly over the span of the development of said cultures, we can model our base subject on the modern human for reference.

So, with that in mind, we can draw from the entire span of human history for our examples. Again, under the assumption (which may be wrong) that we share the same genetic disposition to aesthetic preference (in this case, musical) as our predecessors, we need to explain not only for the differences in the early (worldwide) cultures, but for the development of modern aesthetics as well altogether. I'll focus on the latter.

This is a rather important problem that needs to be solved and where the entire argument can also fall apart depending on the conclusion. So, let's look at our options:

1) We consider that aesthetics can change over time influenced by different factors, such as political/sociological/psychological pressures or mechanisms. Main deal is, aesthetics are relative, so whatever link to genetics they have must be insignificant OR easy to override with other things. Similarities that appear across cultures can be explained through other means (when they're found to not be coincidental,) without breaking this criteria (IE, the technology argument for the instruments, etc.)

This explains the changes in art history and across different cultures quite well, at the expense of not providing an answer in itself for those specific changes. Instead, it simply means that the specific answers are dependent on situation and that there are numerous things to take into consideration.

In the case that we allow for a minor genetic bias in music, we can attempt to further explain primitive cultures' similarities through this. Though, I'm a little skeptical since that'd require these biases to exist today as well, no matter how minimal they are.

or

2) We consider that aesthetics are hard-wired, therefore, just like the food example above, it predictable that all cultures will share traits in some form or another. More specifically, we can attribute that certain musical elements (usage of scales, repetitions, rhythm of various kinds) appear BECAUSE of this genetic disposition. Of course, implications of this extend much further beyond music or why cultures shared musical concepts and this is the problem with this argument.

It would mean that a deviation on this aesthetic (genetically defined) norm means that a genetic mutation must be the cause. Likewise, this causes further problems as it then should be impossible in theory for someone to change their aesthetic preferences without changing their genetic disposition.

Furthermore, it would ALSO mean that people with different aesthetic preferences are simply born that way and stay that way their entire lives. However, there are more than enough examples that people can change these preferences and if that means that each change in aesthetics changes their genetic makeup, then we can deal away with the genetic aspect having any weight what so ever as it's so easy to alter it becomes irrelevant (point 1.) Nevermind the hellish time this type of theory would have to explain rapidly changing artistic currents in the 20th century, which span generally much less than a lifetime of an individual, or indeed, composers like Stravinsky having "phases."

---

I don't see point 2 being any use in explaining anything, as it causes more problems than it solves. Point 1, though, doesn't really explain much at all does it? You have to still find the answers to those questions, but at least you're pointed in the right direction.

(Warning: I'm not exactly a biologist and I MAY be wrong on some things here, so point them out if that's the case. It shouldn't really be more than a detail but just in case.)

A good way of thinking of it is, like I mentioned already, the food example. That's what a biological/genetic bias looks like, and that's how it works. We can take it apart, study it, and trace back this bias to plausible sources such as evolutionary advantage. The work trying to do the same with art, however, when it comes to other senses and mind faculties, is much more arduous and for good reason. Our ears, for example, are used for a much wider range of functions than our tongues, which impedes specialization (which is what we're looking for.)

Or from the bottom up: for a bias like the one in our tongue to develop in our ears, we need to find a good reason why such bias would be favored in natural selection. But, what we find is simply that the ear is awfully neutral. It just reports what it hears to the brain, where other cognitive functions take hold of that information.

More so than in the tongue, which works with first off with chemical reactions and therefore does the work much quicker (while still passing the information to the brain of course, however the information passed already is "biased" for interpretation.)

To illustrate how different these things are, imagine the following example: A hunter-gatherer community in Africa, which puts us in our evolutionary test-bed, so to speak, would have more to gain from their ears being neutral and context-sensitive. Let's say they recognize the sound of a tiger or other such dangerous animal. The ear is only going to tell them that the sound is there, and the brain may then go in numerous ways depending on context:

a) The tiger noise is expected; they're hunting. They become alerted to its presence and move in to kill it or at least try to.

or

b) They're not expecting it, it poses a threat. They become alerted to its presence and take action fleeing.

Clearly, a hearing apparatus that favors only one of the outcomes from the get-go is doomed. They need to have that context-sensitive flexibility in order to best function in that environment. (Always fleeing would net them no food, always fighting would get them killed.)

Now, imagine the following example: The same tribe/group discovers the rotting corpse of a large animal. It's got enough rotting meat on it to feed the group and they are in need of food with some measure of urgency. Their noses/tongues are going to pick up on the chemicals that point to the animal's rotting condition. Same as before, it could go both ways:

a) They simply distribute the rotting meat and eat it. They of course become horribly sick and since hospitals haven't been invented, they die wiping their group out. The senses let them decide based on context: Hunger won and since they had no knowledge of getting sick and dying (as they were all still alive) from eating rotten meat, their experience couldn't be held accountable for their fatal error and nobody survived to learn from the mistake.

or

b) Their senses alert them that the food isn't in a good state and they avoid the carcass, putting off the hunger as the senses would make eating the rotting meat a very unpleasant experience that would not satisfy that hunger at a glance.

Clearly senses that favor the b outcome 10 out of 10 times are CRUCIAL, otherwise, well, they'll die off rather quickly.

Considering the above examples, it's easy to see why an automatic preference for any given sound isn't desirable given the dynamic nature of context and how sounds can have multiple functional meanings. It is imperative that we evolved to be able to assign context and meaning to sounds as we see fit in order to survive and adapt to environments.

The same can't be said to the taste apparatus, which is doing something very specific: 1) identifying chemicals that don't kill us from the ones that do) and 2) Identifying substances within those that don't kill us that are favorable for eating and thus beneficial to our body. There's not much room for context and interpretation, and there's not much adaptation going on as the chemicals/substances we need for our survival aren't decided based on context or preference.

---

So, with all that, I'm personally very skeptical that we have fixed aesthetic preferences when it comes to music as it simply wouldn't make any sense from an evolutionary perspective. I don't see how they could've developed and even if they existed, they fail to explain modern music/art/etc and also the differences across cultures.

We CAN derive the creation of music what so ever from evolutionary processes, sure. Much like we can derive the creation of cakes and candy from our preference for sweets. That's what Pinker called "auditory cheesecake." Since sounds are neutral as far as our hearing apparatus is concerned, we can supply all sorts of meanings to these sounds, including what we assign to music.

Plus, it's not unthinkable that language indeed has influenced music and the creation of such in large ways, despite the centers in the brain not being the same (a side effect of the cognitive processes being different in the processing of that information.)

---

So, well, I'm sorry for the wall of text but I figure it's important to be much clearer on the matter if it's to get anywhere... and I wanted to point out the tiger/etc argument since it's rather great.

I find myself strongly agreeing with the OP's sentiment. What do you think tonality is based on? Where you do you think the original "creator" of tonality got the idea? With a very low level of technology, a number of primitive cultures could have concurrently discovered the harmonic/overtone series. Why not assume this? The ratios between what we call "octaves" "fifths" and pure major and minor "thirds" as a part of tonality in Western music all exist in nature - the harmonic series, be it a string fastened at two points, or a hollowed branch through which could be blown in a fashion or another. Any harmonic series has a base. Is it just coincidence that the ratios we use for notes in relation to a tonal tonic happen to be the same ratios from note to note in relation to the base or first and lowest note of any harmonic series? I don't think so. I think the argument here is much more simple than those involved in heated discussion here have made it. Tonality, I believe, is a force of nature because humans will tend to realise that they can use the harmonic series prevalent in nature as a basis for solving a musical scale. When it comes to things like perceived "out of tune" harmonics, namely 7, 10, 11, and others, it's just tweaking on human's part. We realised we could use more than one series at a time in a piece of music, say the one starting on a figurative note 'C' and another on another, 'F'. However, since some of the notes do not directly coincide, we've adapted a scale in which we could play almost combination of series together and have not too much difference between one and another. Over time we perfected this further and further until people decided equal temperament was the way to go, a "perfected pure", if you will.

Therefore, it goes without saying, even though I'll say it anyway, that my point of view makes things such as serial and 12 tone music more unnatural than tonality, and further, modes like dorian and phrygian more unnatural than the purest mode, ionian, since the major/ionian scale is the only one to have it's base note coincide with the base of any harmonic series. To say the base of the harmonic series is the 9th partial is unnatural in comparison to saying the first (or arguably, 8th). What I won't say, is that 12-tone music or modes other than ionian ARE UNNATURAL. I said they where comparatively more unnatural. I believe they are essentially natural because they all use the same set of notes and ratios we came up with through the natural harmonic series. Now if you want to go on and prove that the harmonic series is unnatural and explain its undue prevalence in this thing called natural physics, be my guest, however I won't be sticking around much to argue back and try to refute. Unlike some of you I don't have an ego the size of Wagner's that drives me to defend my point.

Unlike some of you I don't have an ego the size of Wagner's that drives me to defend my point.

So you'll recognize right away the problem with what you're saying, namely, tuning systems.

I already posted pretty good example of a time where there were no enharmonics, etc etc. Any argument that stems from "overtone series" has to support its case by claiming that the tuning system used for good'ol "tonality" actually follows the overtone series, which really ain't the case for equal temperament tunings and so on. In fact, tuning in perfect 5ths (natural interval as everyone claims) nets you the good'ol Pythagorean coma issue.

Hilariously, there's also the problem that there's no natural "A 440" concert pitch, we have to arbitrarily define where in the entire spectrum we place our divisions. The only thing you can get out of the overtone sequence is the 5th, octave, and so other intervals in their "natural" state, but they are rarely if ever used as such.

So, I hardly see what's so "natural" (ugh) anyways, since no tuning system is without adjustments within the western tradition, thus deviating from the "natural" overtone progression ratios. That it may have been inspired by it is one thing, but that's very much nothing to do with tonality. Hell, traditional "tonality" if we're talking about Mozart onwards DEPENDS on this non-overtone tuning!

I don't see what's the big deal, people could've figured out the overtone series, so what? The leap of logic from that to making a system based on it consciously is huge, and it isn't really the case. That some intervals are recognized through all cultures prove absolutely nothing either, it's not an argument for tonality or none of that, it simply means that ...they've recognized it. Wow.

Good'ol euro-centric view.

Oh, and speaking of which, a lot of people rather like the non-equal temperament (me included) system. So saying it (the equal temperament sys) stuck around because it was "better" is nonsense, it simply allowed people to modulate freely between keys (creating real enharmonics) so it became popular by consequence of its versatility. Of course, it killed the specific characters of each key by consequence, so the baroque affects where considerably less effective.

Anyway, even if you disregard all of this, I can just point out that all is natural ever and it's only your opinion that atonality and so on are "less" natural by comparison.

Jeesh.