The Nature of Music from a Biological Perspective
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Cognition 100 (2006) 1–32 www.elsevier.com/locate/COGNIT The nature of music from a biological perspective Isabelle Peretz * International Laboratory for Brain, Music and Sound Research (BRAMS), University of Montreal, Montreal, Que., Canada Available online 17 January 2006 Abstract Music, as language, is a universal human trait. Throughout human history and across all cultures, people have produced and enjoyed music. Despite its ubiquity, the musical capacity is rarely studied as a biological function. Music is typically viewed as a cultural invention. In this paper, the evidence bearing on the biological perspective of the musical capacity is reviewed. Related issues, such as domain-specificity, innateness, and brain localization, are addressed in an attempt to offer a unified conceptual basis for the study of music processing. This scheme should facilitate the study of the biological foundations of music by bringing together the fields of genetics, developmental and comparative research, neurosciences, and musicology. Ó 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Keywords: Musical capacity; Innateness; Specificity; Brain; Modules; Universals; Predispositions; Emotions 1. Introduction Music is generally regarded as an exquisite art form, a refined product of human culture. Such a perspective has led many cognitive scientists to characterize music as the product of a general-purpose cognitive architecture (Bregman, 1990; Handel, 1989; Krumhansl, 1990) or as assembled from other faculties that were not originally designed for its purposes (Pinker, 1997). In a sense, contemporary composers and * Fax: +1 514 343 5787. E-mail address: [email protected]. 0010-0277/$ - see front matter Ó 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2005.11.004 2 I. Peretz / Cognition 100 (2006) 1–32 ethnomusicologists reinforce this cultural perspective on music. Modern Composers argue that musical preferences are culture-specific and can be modified by exposure alone (Scho¨nberg, 1984). Musicologists typically study music as a social construct that varies from culture to culture, rejecting cross-cultural quests for universals underlying the diversity (Blacking, 1990). Yet, common principles may underlie the world’s diverse musical cultures. These principles may also be guided by innate mechanisms. In other words, music might be in our nature. The consideration of music as a biological function rather than a cultural invention is relatively recent (Wallin, Merker, & Brown, 2000) and hence, is far from established. The objective of this special issue is to consider the different perspectives and sources of evidence regarding the biological1 foundations of music. Humans are, by definition, biological organisms. As a consequence, anything that the human brain creates might be considered biological. However, the human brain is also a highly flexible system that can learn and invent codes and skills that can be transmitted to others by nongenetic mechanisms. The Morse code is such an inven- tion. The question here is whether music is such a cultural product or is in ‘‘our genes’’. Obviously, music is not a recent product. Unlike the Morse code, music was not invented at one time and one location and then spread to others. Throughout human history and across all cultures, individuals have produced and enjoyed music (Mer- riam, 1964). Music has emerged spontaneously and in parallel in all known human societies. Although we do not know when music emerged because there are no fossil records of singing, archeological evidence shows a continuous record of musical instruments, dating back to at least 30,000 years (D’Errico et al., 2003). Thus, music is an ancient capacity rather than the recent creation of a single intelligence. Music appears to transcend time, place, and culture. Paradoxically, the musical capacity appears to be fully developed in only a minor- ity of humans who can make music. Becoming a proficient musician requires thou- sands of hours of practice and, in most case, explicit transmission. This is often taken as an argument against the notion that the musical capacity is innately determined. If genes were responsible for the human musical capacity, then everyone should be able to engage in musical activities. In fact, everyone does. Nearly everyone can carry a tune (Dalla Bella, Gigue`re, & Peretz, submitted) and move to music. The problem arises from the association of music-making with an elite of professional musicians. What is usually forgotten is that music is meant for the ears of the majority. Every- one from all walks of life and all cultures is musical to some extent. Unless they are tone-deaf, all humans exhibit a precocious inclination for music. In short, music appears as natural as language is. Music is more mysterious than language because its raison d’eˆtre remains unset- tled. Music has no obvious utility. Music is also difficult to define. Everyone knows what music is but cannot delimit its boundaries. The concept of music is variable, and some cultures have no separate term for music, including dance and music in 1 The biological-cultural distinction refers to the nature-nurture, innate-acquired distinctions. I selected the term ‘‘cultural’’ because for most people, music is part of culture like other forms of arts, and has little to do with biology. I. Peretz / Cognition 100 (2006) 1–32 3 the same category. Regardless of definitional problems, the musical capacity can be studied rigorously. Contributions from leading scientists from the life sciences, including psychology, animal biology, cognitive neuroscience, linguistics, and musicology, are gathered in the present issue. Their positions lie between two extremes. At one extreme, the capacity for acquiring musical abilities is seen as an evolutionary adaptation, shaped by natural selection and governed by genes. At the other extreme, musical abilities are viewed as the result of general-purpose learning capacities that are shaped by the environment – the ‘‘blank slate’’ or the tabula rasa scenario (Pinker, 2002). Consideration of music as arising from natural endowment or from culture is not a question for academic circles alone. These opposing views of the emergence of musicality have radically different evolutionary explanations of music. They also have a profound impact on how scientists study musical abilities, how clinicians use music and assess musical abilities, and how education policy incorporates music in the curriculum. Let me illustrate the importance of theory with the condition of tone-deafness. Tone-deafness is a life-long inability to appreciate and engage in musical activities. For almost a century, there have been voices that have denied its existence (Kazez, 1985). Some music educators, for example, consider tone-deafness as resulting from either lack of motivation or from improper training. They believe that all individuals can learn music if given the opportunity. Yet, it is estimated that 4% of the general population might suffer from tone-deafness (Kalmus & Fry, 1980). Adherents of a biological perspective would predict such a prevalence of tone-deafness, simply on the basis of natural variation, like other developmental disorders such as specific-lan- guage-impairment and developmental prosopagnosia. This could be the cost of developing a highly modularized brain for most functions including music (see below). Ignoring the existence of tone-deafness may not only ostracize those affected but may also occlude a rich source of information about the roots of musicality as well as its neural and genetic underpinnings. Likewise, fundamental questions regarding musical abilities have been largely neglected until recently because these were considered of limited utility. For example, there is little research on critical periods (Trainor, 2005), on universals, on animal roots (Hauser & McDermott, 2003), on genes in relation to music. Nevertheless, there have been remarkable advances in uncovering the musical abilities of infants (e.g., Trehub & Hannon, this volume) and of nonmusicians in general (e.g., Bigand & Poulin-Charronat, this volume), and in exploring the musical brain (e.g., Peretz & Zatorre, 2005) and musical emotions (e.g., Juslin & Sloboda, 2001). These sources of evidence make it possible to pose questions about the nature of music. 2. How musical are humans? Nearly half of the English and American population has learned to play an instru- ment in childhood, according to a recent British survey (North, Hargreaves, & O’Neill, 2000) and the American Gallup survey. Sixty-four percent of those ques- 4 I. Peretz / Cognition 100 (2006) 1–32 tioned began musical training between the ages of 5 and 11, when the brain exhibits its greatest plasticity. These children spent more time in music training and practice than in second language learning, gymnastics, arts, and other educational activities. Therefore, many have been trained musically and nearly everyone remains musically inclined and avid consumer of music in one form or another. Thus, the ordinary adult listener is a musical expert, although s/he may be una- ware of this. To reveal this expertise requires the exploitation of indirect methods, as Bigand and Poulin-Charronat (this volume) illustrate. Such indirect tests reveal that nonmusicians and proficient musicians appreciate music in a very similar man- ner. To take an example from our own recent work (Dalla Bella & Peretz, 2005), musicians and nonmusicians alike distinguish the styles of classical music (e.g., Bar- oque, Romantic).