Savage et al. start with making the important distinction between musicality as a set of traits that allow us to perceive, produce, and appreciate music, and music as a social and cultural construct “generated by and for music making” (sect. 1, para. 3). This distinction seems trivial, but it adds a powerful level of explanation to the study of the origins of musicality as a phenomenon with both a cultural and a biological basis (Fitch, Reference Fitch and Honing2018; Honing, Reference Honing2018b). As such, a good starting point for the search for these origins would be musicality, rather than music.
Although the cross-cultural study of the structure of music (melodic patterns, scales, tonality, etc.) has offered exciting insights (Mehr et al. Reference Mehr, Singh, Knox, Ketter, Pickens-Jones, Atwood and Glowacki2019; Savage, Brown, Sakai, & Currie, Reference Savage, Brown, Sakai and Currie2015), the approach used in these studies is indirect: the object of study here is music – the result of musicality – rather than musicality itself. Hence, it is difficult to distinguish between the individual contributions of culture and biology. For example, it is not clear whether the division of an octave into small and unequal intervals in a particular musical culture results from a widespread theoretical doctrine or from a music perception ability or preference.
All this is an important motivation to study the structure of musicality (the capacity for music), its constituent components (see Table 1), and how these might be shared with other animals, aiming to disentangle the biological and cultural contributions to the human capacity for music (Honing, ten Cate, Peretz, & Trehub, Reference Honing, ten Cate, Peretz and Trehub2015).
The two target articles address the origins of music and musicality in complementary ways. Savage et al. aim for an overarching theory that proposes music to be a relatively recent cultural invention that then further evolved through gene-culture coevolution. In contrast, Mehr et al. present a single hypothesis capturing the biological origins of musical behaviour, suggesting a long evolutionary history.
The first thing to note is that both articles base their arguments on overt musical behaviour (i.e., music production), with little or no attention to the perception and appreciation of music. This is surprising because there is quite a body of research that aims to identify the core constituent components of musicality by focusing on the perception and cognition of music (see Table 1). This in support of the important realization that we all share a predisposition for music: Even those of us who can't play a musical instrument or claim to lack a sense of rhythm can perceive and enjoy music (Margulis, Reference Margulis2019; Rentfrow & Levitin, Reference Rentfrow and Levitin2019). As such, music production is not necessarily a good proxy for the perception and appreciation of music (cf. Trehub, Weiss, & Cirelli, Reference Trehub, Weiss, Cirelli, Rentfrow and Levitin2019).
Second, both target articles struggle with identifying the role of language in how musical behaviour evolved.
Savage et al. decided to avoid a strict focus on musicality (“We make no claim that the mechanisms discussed here are entirely specific to music,” sect. 6.1, para. 3). This could be considered a methodological weakness. Of course, music and musicality have been and will continue to be influenced by a variety of non-musical factors. Nevertheless, to be able to pinpoint what is essential to musicality, what components we share with other nonhuman animals, and what its potential evolutionary history is, it seems a more fruitful strategy to restrict oneself to those components of musicality for which it can be argued that they are not linked or useful to language (for instance, beat perception or tonality; see Table 1).
Mehr et al. are less explicit in what their hypothesis says about language versus music. A large proportion of the arguments appear to be equally applicable to the origins of speech. In fact, the credible signalling hypothesis is resonating with the idea of a “musical protolanguage” (Darwin, Reference Darwin1871; cf. Fitch, Reference Fitch, Bolhuis and Everaert2013) in interesting ways. Charles Darwin argued that language does not depend on the skill of being able to articulate sounds, but “obviously depends on the development of the mental faculties” (Darwin, Reference Darwin1871, p. 54). Hence, the credible signalling hypothesis could be improved by making explicit which core musical building blocks (i.e., those of lesser or no use to language) are linked to which music-specific mental faculties. As such making precise what is special about music.
Although the relation between language and music has been a topic of much debate (Arbib, Reference Arbib2013), in the current context it appears to be less relevant what these two domains have in common. What should be the focus is what makes the capacity for music distinct from that of language: the study of musicality is in need of its own research agenda.
Although both target articles note that some components of musicality overlap with non-musical cognitive features, this is in itself no evidence against musicality as a separately evolved biological set of traits. Theories that suggest musicality to be an epiphenomenon of language (Pinker, Reference Pinker1997) have to demonstrate that the components of musicality are not domain specific, but each cognitively linked to some non-musical mental ability.
As in language, musicality could have evolved from existing elements that are brought together in unique ways, and that system may still have emerged as a biological product through evolutionary processes. As such there is no need for musicality to show a modular structure (Fodor, Reference Fodor1983). Alternatively, converging evidence suggests music-specific responses along specific neural pathways (Albouy, Benjamin, Morillon, & Zatorre, Reference Albouy, Benjamin, Morillon and Zatorre2020) and it could be that brain networks that support musicality are partly recycled for language (Peretz, Vuvan, Armony, Lagrois, & Armony, Reference Peretz, Vuvan, Armony, Lagrois, Armony and Honing2018). This could imply that both language and music originate from musicality. In fact, this is one possible route to test the Darwin-inspired conjecture that musicality precedes music and language (Honing, Reference Honing and Honing2018a).
Savage et al. start with making the important distinction between musicality as a set of traits that allow us to perceive, produce, and appreciate music, and music as a social and cultural construct “generated by and for music making” (sect. 1, para. 3). This distinction seems trivial, but it adds a powerful level of explanation to the study of the origins of musicality as a phenomenon with both a cultural and a biological basis (Fitch, Reference Fitch and Honing2018; Honing, Reference Honing2018b). As such, a good starting point for the search for these origins would be musicality, rather than music.
Although the cross-cultural study of the structure of music (melodic patterns, scales, tonality, etc.) has offered exciting insights (Mehr et al. Reference Mehr, Singh, Knox, Ketter, Pickens-Jones, Atwood and Glowacki2019; Savage, Brown, Sakai, & Currie, Reference Savage, Brown, Sakai and Currie2015), the approach used in these studies is indirect: the object of study here is music – the result of musicality – rather than musicality itself. Hence, it is difficult to distinguish between the individual contributions of culture and biology. For example, it is not clear whether the division of an octave into small and unequal intervals in a particular musical culture results from a widespread theoretical doctrine or from a music perception ability or preference.
All this is an important motivation to study the structure of musicality (the capacity for music), its constituent components (see Table 1), and how these might be shared with other animals, aiming to disentangle the biological and cultural contributions to the human capacity for music (Honing, ten Cate, Peretz, & Trehub, Reference Honing, ten Cate, Peretz and Trehub2015).
Table 1. Potential candidates for a multicomponent model of musicality (cf. Honing, Reference Honing and Honing2018a)
The two target articles address the origins of music and musicality in complementary ways. Savage et al. aim for an overarching theory that proposes music to be a relatively recent cultural invention that then further evolved through gene-culture coevolution. In contrast, Mehr et al. present a single hypothesis capturing the biological origins of musical behaviour, suggesting a long evolutionary history.
The first thing to note is that both articles base their arguments on overt musical behaviour (i.e., music production), with little or no attention to the perception and appreciation of music. This is surprising because there is quite a body of research that aims to identify the core constituent components of musicality by focusing on the perception and cognition of music (see Table 1). This in support of the important realization that we all share a predisposition for music: Even those of us who can't play a musical instrument or claim to lack a sense of rhythm can perceive and enjoy music (Margulis, Reference Margulis2019; Rentfrow & Levitin, Reference Rentfrow and Levitin2019). As such, music production is not necessarily a good proxy for the perception and appreciation of music (cf. Trehub, Weiss, & Cirelli, Reference Trehub, Weiss, Cirelli, Rentfrow and Levitin2019).
Second, both target articles struggle with identifying the role of language in how musical behaviour evolved.
Savage et al. decided to avoid a strict focus on musicality (“We make no claim that the mechanisms discussed here are entirely specific to music,” sect. 6.1, para. 3). This could be considered a methodological weakness. Of course, music and musicality have been and will continue to be influenced by a variety of non-musical factors. Nevertheless, to be able to pinpoint what is essential to musicality, what components we share with other nonhuman animals, and what its potential evolutionary history is, it seems a more fruitful strategy to restrict oneself to those components of musicality for which it can be argued that they are not linked or useful to language (for instance, beat perception or tonality; see Table 1).
Mehr et al. are less explicit in what their hypothesis says about language versus music. A large proportion of the arguments appear to be equally applicable to the origins of speech. In fact, the credible signalling hypothesis is resonating with the idea of a “musical protolanguage” (Darwin, Reference Darwin1871; cf. Fitch, Reference Fitch, Bolhuis and Everaert2013) in interesting ways. Charles Darwin argued that language does not depend on the skill of being able to articulate sounds, but “obviously depends on the development of the mental faculties” (Darwin, Reference Darwin1871, p. 54). Hence, the credible signalling hypothesis could be improved by making explicit which core musical building blocks (i.e., those of lesser or no use to language) are linked to which music-specific mental faculties. As such making precise what is special about music.
Although the relation between language and music has been a topic of much debate (Arbib, Reference Arbib2013), in the current context it appears to be less relevant what these two domains have in common. What should be the focus is what makes the capacity for music distinct from that of language: the study of musicality is in need of its own research agenda.
Although both target articles note that some components of musicality overlap with non-musical cognitive features, this is in itself no evidence against musicality as a separately evolved biological set of traits. Theories that suggest musicality to be an epiphenomenon of language (Pinker, Reference Pinker1997) have to demonstrate that the components of musicality are not domain specific, but each cognitively linked to some non-musical mental ability.
As in language, musicality could have evolved from existing elements that are brought together in unique ways, and that system may still have emerged as a biological product through evolutionary processes. As such there is no need for musicality to show a modular structure (Fodor, Reference Fodor1983). Alternatively, converging evidence suggests music-specific responses along specific neural pathways (Albouy, Benjamin, Morillon, & Zatorre, Reference Albouy, Benjamin, Morillon and Zatorre2020) and it could be that brain networks that support musicality are partly recycled for language (Peretz, Vuvan, Armony, Lagrois, & Armony, Reference Peretz, Vuvan, Armony, Lagrois, Armony and Honing2018). This could imply that both language and music originate from musicality. In fact, this is one possible route to test the Darwin-inspired conjecture that musicality precedes music and language (Honing, Reference Honing and Honing2018a).
Acknowledgments
I thank the members of the Music Cognition Reading Group for sharing their views on this topic, and Bas Cornelissen and Andrea Ravignani for their feedback on the manuscript improving its presentation.
Conflict of interest
None.