What, if anything, is universal to music cognition? (2024)
nature.com
nature.com
"Universal music cognition" requires a strong exclusionary premise about what counts as music and more importantly what doesn't count as music.
Sure maybe you don't consider 4'33" music. That does not mean other people do not experience it as music in the normal ways people can experience music such as buying tickets, putting on fancy clothes and sitting in a performance space at an appointed time and as an excuse to go out to dinner and/or on a date.
But if your musical interest extends much beyond a Methodist hymnal, there are probably people who will opine that the subject of those interests are not "real" music.
To be clear, I am not opining that *4'33" is or isn't "real" music. Only that in a scientific context, there is no objective way to distinguish between music and non-music. Some cultures have practices that we can label "music" but within the culture they do not play a language game that includes the label "music."
Which is to say that any ecumenical approach to music in a scientific context is so broad as to be meaningless.
Trying to classify things as music is a normative approach - saying what music should be. There's always exceptions to rules, as you point out, and people will always disagree and find exceptions.
The article is a descriptive approach - it studies what people think music is.
You can treat music as information. If it's not information, it's just noise.
Sometimes it has a low information density. People like to sing along to stuff they recognise. Sometimes it has higher density - a surprise bit of syncopation or an unusual note. Music is a variation in pitch and rhythm (etc) that is boring enough (in the context of the priors) to be familiar, but not too boring.
OTOH look at how tone poems flopped. There are patterns that are naturally easier to learn - rhythms (in the article) and maybe scales and harmonies (though this is clearly a bit more complex - not every culture has the old Mesopotamian diatonic scales that the Pythagorians formalised). But like Chomsky theorised with grammar, there might be defaults (or a range of defaults) that humans are naturally drawn to as the priors.
In information theory we have:
A message has maximal information content if (and only if) its symbols are statistically indistinguishable from random noise.
Noise or noise-like elements are also important part of many kinds of music.
Of course, I'd argue Bach and Debussy are very information-dense too but they somehow manage to stay uncluttered. The really great thing about music is that encodes information on many different levels, Claude Shannon notwithstanding
Imagine a chef making a dish of just an empty plate. It is just stupid. Even the biggest food hipsters wouldn't fall for something that stupid.
At some point one should have listened to enough music in their life to call 4'33" out for the bullshit that it is.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Argumen...
it dives into many ways that humans interact with and experience music, using the foil of classical western concert music against many other forms of traditional and popular music (including the popular phase of what's now considered classical).
really interesting stuff!