sign in sign up
<<
Home , Body culture studies, Historical linguistics, Human evolution, Peter Richerson, Ruth Mace

1 Cultural of Music

2 Patrick E. Savage

3 Keio University, Shonan Fujisawa Campua 4 Abstract. The concept of was fundamental to the foundation of 5 academic musicology and the subfield of comparative musicology, but largely 6 disappeared from discussion after World War II, despite a recent resurgence of 7 interest in cultural evolution in other fields. In this article, I draw on recent advances 8 in the scientific understanding of cultural evolution to clarify persistent 9 misconceptions about the roles of and progress in musical evolution and 10 review literature relevant to musical evolution ranging from of 11 global song- to of tune families. I also address criticisms 12 regarding issues of musical agency, meaning, and reductionism, and highlight 13 potential applications including music copyright, , and sustainability. 14 While cultural evolution will never explain all aspects of music in , it offers 15 a useful theoretical framework for understanding diversity and change in the 16 world’s music. 17 ------18 The concept of evolution played a central role during the formation of academic 19 musicology in the late nineteenth century (Adler 1885/1981; Rehding 2000). 20 During the twentieth century, theoretical and political implications of evolution 21 were heavily debated, leading evolution to go out of favor in musicology and 22 cultural (Carneiro 2003). In the twenty first century, refined concepts 23 of biological evolution were reintroduced to musicology through the work of 24 psychologists of music to the extent that the biological evolution of the capacity to 25 make and experience music ("evolution of musicality") has returned as an important 26 topic of contemporary musicological research (Wallin, Merker, and Brown 2000; 27 Huron 2006; Patel 2008; Lawson 2012; Tomlinson 2013; Honing 2018). Yet the 28 concept of cultural evolution of music itself ("musical evolution") remains largely 29 undeveloped by musicologists, despite an explosion of recent research on cultural 30 evolution in related fields such as . This absence has been especially 31 prominent in , but is also observable in historical musicology and 32 other subfields of musicology1. 33 One major exception was the two-volume special edition of The World of 34 Music devoted to critical of Victor Grauer's (2006) essay entitled "Echoes 35 of Our Forgotten Ancestors" (later expanded into book form in Grauer 2011). 36 Grauer proposed that the evolution and global dispersal of song-style 37 parallels the evolution and dispersal of anatomically modern out of Africa, 38 and that certain groups of contemporary African hunter-gatherers retain the 39 ancestral singing style shared by all humans tens of thousands of ago. The 40 two evolutionary biologists contributing to this publication found the concept of 41 musical evolution self-evident enough that they simply opened their contribution 42 by stating: "Songs, like genes and , evolve" (Leroi and Swire 2006:43). 43 However, the musicologists displayed much concern and some confusion over the 44 concept of cultural evolution. 45 My goal in this article is to clarify some of these issues in terms of the 46 definitions, assumptions, and implications involved in studying the cultural 47 evolution of music to show how cultural evolutionary theory can benefit 48 musicology in a of ways. I will begin with a brief overview of cultural 49 evolution in general, move to cultural evolution of music in particular, and then end 50 by addressing some potential applications and criticisms. Because this article is 51 aimed both at musicologists with limited knowledge of cultural evolution and at 52 cultural evolutionists with limited knowledge of music, I have included some 53 discussion that may seem obvious to some readers but not others. 54 What is “evolution”? 55 Although the term “evolution” is often assumed to refer to directional 56 progress and/or to require a genetic basis, neither genes nor progress are included 57 in contemporary definitions of evolution. Furthermore, while it is true that the 58 discovery of genes and the precise molecular mechanisms by which they change 59 revolutionized , Darwin formulated his theory of evolution 60 without the concept of genes. 61 Instead of genes, Darwin's theory of evolution by 62 contained three key requirements: 1) there must be among individuals; 2) 63 variation must be inherited via intergenerational transmission; 3) certain variants 64 must be more likely to be inherited than others due to competitive selection (Darwin 65 1859). These principles apply equally to biological and cultural evolution (Mesoudi 66 2011). 67 Evolution did often come to be defined in purely genetic terms during the 68 twentieth century, but recent advances in our understanding of cultural evolution, 69 epigenetics, and ecology have led to a new inclusive definition of evolution as: 70 'the process by which the frequencies of variants in a population change 71 over time', where the ‘variants’ replaces the word ‘genes’ in order to 72 include any inherited information….In particular, this…should include 73 cultural inheritance. (Danchin et al. 2011:483-484)

2 74 Note that there is nothing about progress or direction contained in Danchin et al.'s 75 scholarly definition quoted above: evolution simply refers to changes in the 76 frequencies of heritable variants. These changes can be in the direction of simple 77 to complex - and it is possible that there may be a general trend towards complexity 78 (McShea and Brandon 2010; Currie and Mace 2011) - but the reverse is also 79 possible, as are non-directional changes with little or no functional consequences 80 (Nei, Suzuki, and Nozawa 2010). 81 Does culture “evolve”? 82 From the time Darwin (1859) first proposed that his theory of evolution 83 explained “The Origin of Species”, scholars immediately tried to apply it to explain 84 the origin of culture. Indeed, Darwin himself explicitly argued that and 85 species evolution were "curiously parallel…the survival or preservation of certain 86 favoured in the struggle for existence is natural selection" (Darwin 1871:89- 87 90). Scholars of cultural evolution have tabulated a number of such curious 88 parallels, to which I have added musical examples (Table 1). 89

3 90 Table 1. A simplified comparison of biological, linguistic, and musical 91 evolution. Biological evolution and linguistic evolution columns are adapted 92 from Atkinson and Gray (2005:514) and Pagel (2016:2).

Biological evolution Linguistic Musical evolution evolution Discrete heritable units (e.g., Discrete heritable Discrete heritable amino acids, genes) units (e.g., units (e.g., notes, , words) phrases) DNA copying Teaching, learning Teaching, learning and imitation and imitation Mistakes, sound Mistakes, changes embellishment, composition Lexical , Melodic cognates, language families tune families Natural selection Selection by and trends audience, performers, judges, consumers, etc. Hybridization (e.g., horse Creoles (e.g., Syncretic music (e.g., with zebra) Surinamese) Métis fiddle music) Ancient texts Ancient notation, audio/video recordings Repertoire loss

93 94 Theories about cultural evolution quickly adopted assumptions about 95 progress (e.g., Spencer 1875) linked with attempts to legitimize ideologies of 96 Western superiority and justify the oppression of the weak by the powerful as 97 survival of the fittest (Hofstadter 1955; Laland and Brown 2011; Stocking 1982)2. 98 It is no accident that Zallinger's famous drawing showed a 99 gradual lightening of the skin from dark-skinned, -like ancestors to light- 100 skinned humans: evolution was used to justify scientific by eugenicists

4 101 (Gould 1989). Although both the lightening of skin and the linear progression from 102 are inaccurate (Gould 1989), this image unfortunately remains 103 extremely enduring and is commonly adapted to represent all kinds of evolution, 104 including musical evolution (see Figure 1).

105 106 Figure 1. An example of an inaccurate but widespread representation of 107 evolution as a linear march of progress. Source: 108 http://www.mandolincafe.com/archives/spoof.html (retrieved October 14, 109 2016) 110 Ideas of linear progress through a series of fixed stages continued to 111 dominate cultural evolution for over a century (see Carneiro 2003 for an in-depth 112 review). For example, Morgan (1877) proposed a universal set of stages of cultural 113 evolution, beginning with different gradations of “savagery” and “barbarism” until 114 reached “civilization”. Around the 1930s, scholars of biological evolution 115 such as Sewall Wright and Ronald Fisher began to develop more sophisticated 116 concepts based on careful modeling and measurement of changing frequencies, 117 which became known as the “Modern Synthesis”. However, cultural evolution 118 maintained an emphasis on theories of progress for many decades after the Modern 119 Synthesis (e.g., White 1959; Sahlins and Service 1960), even as contradictory 120 evidence was mounting from ethnographic fieldwork pioneered by 121 (1940) and his disciples.

5 122 It was not until late in the 20th century that several teams of scholars 123 including Charles Lumsden and Edward O. Wilson (1981), L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza 124 and Marcus Feldman (1981), and Robert Boyd and (1985) began 125 making attempts to model and measure changing frequencies of cultural variants 126 analogous to the Modern Synthesis. Although Boyd and Richerson’s work was 127 published later, it ultimately became the most influential as they and their students 128 have continued to develop and refine these concepts3 (Richerson and Boyd 2005; 129 Henrich 2016). 130 This work came soon after (1976) coined the term “” 131 as a unit of cultural evolution analogous to the “gene” in biological evolution. 132 Ultimately, however, controversy about the degree of similarity between genetic 133 and cultural evolution led to much debate but little new contributions from the field 134 of memetics4, and most scholars of cultural evolution now prefer to avoid the term 135 “meme” and to emphasize the differences as as the similarities between 136 biological and cultural evolution (Henrich, Boyd, and Richerson 2008). 137 The theoretical and empirical work of cultural evolutionary scholars that 138 emerged from this tradition has been crucial in demonstrating that evolution occurs 139 "Not by Genes Alone" (Richerson and Boyd 2005). Scholars have applied theory 140 and methods from evolutionary biology to help understand complex cultural 141 evolutionary processes in a variety of domains including languages, folklore, 142 archeology, religion, , and politics (Mesoudi 2011; Levinson and 143 Gray 2012; Whiten et al. 2012; Fuentes and Wiessner 2016). The field has now 144 blossomed to the extent that researchers founded a dedicated academic : the 145 Cultural Evolution Society (Brewer et al. 2017). Its inaugural conference in 146 September 2017 at the Max Planck Institute was attended by 300 researchers from 147 40 countries (Savage 2017)5. 148 The evolution of basic vocabulary has proven to be particularly amenable 149 to evolutionary analysis. For example, applying phylogenetic methods from 150 evolutionary biology to standardized lists of 200 of the most universal and most 151 slowly changing words (e.g., numbers, body parts, terminology) from 152 hundreds of existing and ancient languages has allowed researchers to reconstruct 153 the timing, geography, and specific mechanisms of change by which the 154 descendants of proto-languages such as Proto-Indo-European or Proto- 155 Austronesian evolved to become languages such as English, Hindi, Indonesian and 156 Maori that are spoken today (Levinson and Gray 2012). These evolutionary 157 relationships can be represented as phylogenetic trees or networks (with some 158 caveats, c.f. Doolittle 1999; Gray, Bryant, and Greenhill 2010; Le Bomin, Lecointre, 159 and Heyer 2016; Tëmkin and Eldredge 2007). Such phylogenies can in turn be 160 useful for exploring more complicated evolutionary questions, such as regarding

6 161 the existence of cross-cultural universals (including universal aspects of music 162 [Savage, Brown, et al. 2015]) or gene-culture (e.g., the coevolution of 163 lactose tolerance and dairy farming [Mace and Holden 2005]). 164 Although modern cultural evolutionary theories have made many of the 165 earlier criticisms about cultural evolution obsolete (e.g., assumptions of progress or 166 of memetic replicators directly analogous to genes), there is still an active debate 167 about the value of cultural evolution, with critics coming from both the sciences 168 and the . For example, evolutionary psychologist (2012) 169 still maintains that “the concept of cultural evolution is simply a metaphor”, 170 echoing similar criticisms made by historian Joseph Fracchia and geneticist Richard 171 Lewontin (1999, 2005). Biological anthropologist Jonathan Marks has also strongly 172 criticized cultural evolution as being based on “false premises” (Marks 2012:40) 173 and adding little value beyond traditional explanations from . 174 It seems fair to say that, while cultural evolution is making a comeback and the 175 basic idea that culture changes over time is beyond dispute, the idea that 176 evolutionary theory and methods can enhance our understanding of cultural change 177 and diversity has yet to unambiguously prove its value. Perhaps music might be 178 one area that could help? 179 Musical evolution and early comparative musicology 180 Savage and Brown (2013) have previously outlined some modern cultural 181 evolutionary theory as part of one of five major themes in a "new comparative 182 musicology", including the relationships between cultural evolution and the other 183 four themes (classification, human , universals, and biological evolution)6. 184 Early comparative musicologists, however, relied on Spencer's notion of 185 progressive evolution rather than Darwin's of phylogenetic diversification 186 (Rehding 2000)7. Two assumptions were fundamental to much of the work of the 187 founding figures of comparative musicology: 188 1. evolved from simple to complex, and as they do so they move 189 from primitive to civilized. 190 2. Music evolves from simple to complex within societies as they progress. 191 (Stone 2008:25) 192 For example, in The Origins of Music, Carl Stumpf wrote of "the most 193 primitive songs, e.g. those of the Vedda of Ceylon…. One may label them as mere 194 preliminary stages or even as the origins of music." (Stumpf 1911/2012:49). As late 195 as 1943, Curt Sachs wrote of "the plain truth that the singsong of Pygmies and 196 Pygmoids stands infinitely closer to the beginnings of music than Beethoven’s 197 symphonies and Schubert’s lieder…the only working hypothesis admissible is that

7 198 the earliest music must be found among the most primitive peoples" (Sachs 199 1943:20-21). Scholars from the “Berlin school” of comparative musicology such 200 as Stumpf, Sachs, and Erich von Hornbostel created the Berlin Phonogram-Archiv, 201 the first archive of traditional music recordings from around the world, motivated 202 in part by the belief that they could use these recordings to reconstruct the cultural 203 evolution of complex Western art music from the simpler music of hunter-gatherers 204 (Nettl and Bohlman 1991; Nettl 2006). 205 Although as the previous section made clear, old assumptions about the 206 roles of progress and genes in evolution have been discarded by modern cultural 207 evolutionary scholars, ethnomusicologists still often equate ideas about the cultural 208 evolution of music with those of the early comparative musicologists. Rahaim 209 opens his response to Grauer by noting that his use of “the unfashionable language 210 of human and evolutionary biology” would lead many ethnomusicologists 211 to be suspicious: 212 Would the "echoes of forgotten ancestors" turn out to be echoes of Social 213 Darwinism? Was this to be a retelling of the story of modern Europe's heroic 214 musical ascent above the rest of the world? (Rahaim 2006:29) 215 Likewise, Mundy's response to Grauer states that "the conception of progress 216 inherent in evolution creates its own hierarchies" (Mundy 2006:22). Elsewhere, 217 Kartomi (2001:306) rejected the application of evolutionary theory in classifying 218 musical instruments because "the concepts of evolution and lineage are not 219 applicable to anything but animate beings, which are able to inherit genes from their 220 forebears"8. Overall, since changing its from comparative musicology to 221 ethnomusicology during the middle of the 20th century, the field has largely avoided 222 discussion of musical evolution, and recent advances in our understanding of 223 cultural evolution have yet to make a substantial impact on ethnomusicology. 224 Macroevolution and 225 One striking exception to the general tendency to avoid theories of musical 226 evolution in the second half of the twentieth century was 's 227 Cantometrics Project (Lomax 1968, 1980, 1989; Lomax and Berkowitz 1972). 228 Although mostly (in)famous for its claims for a functional relationship between 229 song style and social structure, another controversial aspect was Lomax's 230 evolutionary interpretation of the global distribution of song style itself (for detailed 231 critical review of the Cantometrics Project, see Savage 2018). 232 Through standardized classification and statistical analysis of 36 stylistic 233 features from approximately 1,800 traditional songs from 148 cultural groups 234 (Lomax 1980)9, Lomax classified the world's musical diversity into 10 regional

8 235 styles. Although this classification was not itself based on any evolutionary 236 assumptions, Lomax proceeded to organize and interpret these 10 styles in the form 237 of a crude : 238 This tree of performance style appears to have two roots: (1) in and 239 (2) among African Gatherers. The Siberian has two branches: one into 240 the Circum-Pacific and Nuclear America, thence into Oceania through 241 Melanesia and into , the second branch to Central Asia and 242 thence into Europe and Asian High Culture...the main facts of style 243 evolution may be accounted for by the elaboration of two contrastive 244 traditions…. As their cultural base became more complex, these two root 245 traditions became more specialized: the Siberian producing the virtuosic 246 solo, highly articulated, elaborated, and alienated style of Eurasian high 247 culture, the Early Agriculture tradition developing more and more 248 cohesive and complexly integrated choruses and orchestras. West Europe 249 and Oceania, flowering late on the borders of these two ancient 250 specializations, show kinship to both. (Lomax 1980: 39-40) 251 Although this tree retains some aspects of progressivism (e.g., contemporary 252 African gatherers occupying the "roots" while other traditions "became more 253 complex", West Europe "flowering late"), it also shows more sophisticated 254 concepts such as the possibility of multiple ancestors (polygenesis) and of 255 borrowing/merging between lineages (horizontal transmission). With some 256 modifications, it can be converted into a phylogenetic model as a working 257 hypothesis for future testing/refinement (see Figure 2)10.

258 259 Figure 2. A simplified phylogenetic model of global macroevolution of 10 song-

9 260 style regions. Adapted from Fig. 2 of Lomax (1980:39), which is based on an 261 analysis of ~1,800 songs from 148 cultural groups using 36 Cantometric 262 features. Lomax originally placed cultures at different stages along the vertical 263 axis, but here all cultures are represented at the present time and the distance 264 along the phylogenetic branches instead represents approximate time since 265 diverging from a shared ancestral musical style. Dashed represent 266 horizontal transmission (borrowing/) between lineages. Lomax's song- 267 style region varied - here I chose the most geographically descriptive 268 names from Lomax's 1980 and 1989 publications (e.g., "Eurasian High 269 Culture" instead of "Old High Culture"). 270 Cantometrics provided the major point of departure both for Grauer's essay 271 (Grauer was heavily involved in the Cantometrics Project as both the co-inventor 272 of the Cantometric classification scheme and primary coder of the Cantometric 273 data) and for a series of recent scientific studies exploring parallels in musical and 274 genetic evolution. Some of these studies have directly compared patterns of musical 275 and among populations of certain regions (e.g., Sub-Saharan 276 Africa [Callaway 2007], [Pamjav et al. 2012], Taiwan [Brown et al. 2014], 277 Northeast Asia [Savage, Matsumae, et al. 2015]), while others have analyzed 278 musical change using theories and methods from evolutionary biology (e.g., tracing 279 the rise and fall of Western popular [Serrà et al. 2012; Mauch et al. 2015] and 280 classical [Zivic, Shifres, and Cecchi 2013] music styles). Although the details differ 281 greatly, these studies share a common thread in arguing that musical evolution 282 follows patterns and processes that are similar, but not identical, to genetic 283 evolution. 284 Like Cantometrics, most of these studies are more interested in the 285 macroevolutionary relationships between cultures/genres than in 286 microevolutionary relationships among songs within cultures/genres11. This makes 287 them more amenable to broad cross-cultural comparison with domains such as 288 and linguistics, as focusing on ethnolinguistically defined 289 populations has proved useful in other fields of cultural and biological evolution. 290 However, one drawback to such studies is that it is difficult to reconstruct the 291 precise sequence of small microevolutionary changes that may have given risen to 292 these large cross-cultural musical differences (Stock 2006). 293 Microevolution and tune family research 294 One area of research strikingly absent from the discussion of musical 295 evolution surrounding Grauer's essay was the extensive research on microevolution 296 of tune families (groups of melodies sharing descent from a common ancestor or 297 ancestors). Tune family research was particularly influenced by the realization in

10 298 the early twentieth century that many traditional ballads that had become moribund 299 or extinct in England were flourishing in modified forms far away in the US 300 Appalachian mountains (Sharp 1932). Cecil Sharp's folk song collecting led him to 301 formulate a surprisingly modern theory of musical evolution incorporating 302 essentially the same three key mechanisms recognized by modern evolutionary 303 theory: 1) continuity, 2) variation, and 3) selection (Sharp 1907; note that Sharp 304 used the term “continuity” rather than the modern term “inheritance” discussed 305 above). These three principles were later developed by Sharp’s disciple, Maud 306 Karpeles, who helped draft an official definition of folk music adopted in 1955 by 307 the International Folk Music Council (the ancestor of today's International Council 308 for Traditional Music12) that explicitly invoked evolutionary theory: 309 Folk music is the product of a musical tradition that has been evolved 310 through the process of oral transmission. The factors that shape the 311 tradition are: (i) continuity which links the present with the ; (ii) 312 variation which springs from the creative impulse of the individual or the 313 group; and (iii) selection by the community, which determines the form or 314 forms in which the music survives. (International Folk Music Council 315 1955:23, emphasis added) 316 317 The general mechanisms proposed by Sharp and Karpeles for British- 318 American tune family evolution were explored more thoroughly by scholars such 319 as Bertrand Bronson (1959-72, 1969, 1976), Samuel Bayard (1950, 1954), Charles 320 Seeger (1966), Anne Shapiro (1975)13, Jeff Titon (1977), and James Cowdery 321 (1984; 2009). In some cases, the melodic parallels were made explicit by aligning 322 notes thought to share descent from a common ancestor and by verbally 323 reconstructing the historical process of evolutionary changes. For example, Bayard 324 used a series of melodic alignments to illustrate the "process, often conceived but 325 seldom actually observed... of a tune's having material added onto its end and also 326 losing material from its beginning", giving "evolution of one air out of another by 327 variation, deletion, and addition" (Bayard 1954:25). Charles Boilès (1973) even 328 proposed a formal method for reconstructing ancestral proto-melodies, based on the 329 linguistic for reconstructing proto-languages. Bronson 330 attempted to automate such attempts on a vast scale. His attempts to use punch- 331 cards to mechanically sort thousands of melodic variants of Child ballads and other 332 traditional British-American folk melodies into tune families (Bronson 1959-72, 333 1969) represented one of the first uses of computers in musicology, even preceding 334 Lomax’s Cantometrics Project14. 335 During my own studies in Japan, I learned that scholars of Japanese music 336 had developed similar approaches based on alignment of related melodies to 337 understand musical evolution, although without explicit reference to tune family 338 research. For example, Kashō Machida and Tsutomu Takeuchi (1965) traced the

11 339 evolution of the famous folk songs Esashi Oiwake and Sado Okesa from their 340 simpler, unaccompanied beginnings in the work songs of distant prefectures, and 341 Atsumi Kaneshiro (1990) developed a quantitative method that he used to test 342 proposed relationships within Esashi Oiwake's tune family. Meanwhile, Laurence 343 Picken and colleagues traced the evolution of modern Japanese gagaku melodies 344 for flute and reed-pipe back over a thousand years to the simpler and faster ancient 345 melodies of China's Tang court (Picken, Wolpert, and Nickson 1981-2000; Marett 346 1985). 347 Tune family scholarship has not been limited to British-American and 348 Japanese music - those just happen to be the two traditions I am most familiar with. 349 Elsewhere, scholars such as Béla Bartók (1931) and Walter Wiora (1953) studied 350 tune family evolution in European folk songs, and Joep Bor (1975) and Wim van 351 der Meer (1975) made detailed arguments for treating North Indian ragas as 352 evolving "melodic species" (Bor 1975:17). 353 Recently, scientists have attempted to apply microevolutionary methods to 354 a variety of Western and non-Western genres in the form of sequence alignment 355 techniques adapted from molecular biology (Mongeau and Sankoff 1990; van 356 Kranenburg et al. 2009; Toussaint 2013; Windram, Charlston, and Howe 2014; 357 Savage and Atkinson 2015). Such techniques make it possible to automate things 358 like quantifying melodic similarities and identifying boundaries between tune 359 families (Savage and Atkinson 2015), making analysis possible on vast scales that 360 would be impossible to perform manually. 361 In addition, some scientists have explored musical microevolution in the 362 laboratory, using techniques originally designed to explore controlled evolution of 363 organisms and languages. Thus, one group mimicked sexual reproduction by 364 having short audio loops recombine and mutate, then used an online survey to allow 365 listeners to mimic the process of natural selection on the resulting music, finding 366 that aesthetically pleasing music evolved from nearly random noise over the course 367 of several thousand generations solely under the influence of listener selection 368 (MacCallum et al. 2012). Using a different experimental paradigm similar to the 369 children's Telephone, other groups found that melodies and rhythms became 370 simpler and more structured in the course of transmission, paralleling findings from 371 experimental language evolution (Ravignani, Delgado, and Kirby 2016; Jacoby and 372 McDermott 2017; Lumaca and Baggio 2017). Like biological evolution and 373 language evolution, our knowledge of musical evolution can be enhanced by 374 combining ecologically valid studies of musical evolution in the wild (i.e., in its 375 cultural context) with controlled laboratory experiments. 376 So far, the microevolution of tune families has been investigated largely 377 independently in a variety of cultures and genres, without much attempt at 378 comparing them to explore general patterns of musical evolution. One reason for 379 this is that a broader cross-cultural comparison would require standardized methods

12 380 for analyzing and measuring musical evolution in different contexts. In my 381 dissertation (______2017), I proposed such a method and applied it to several of 382 the cases studies discussed above. Figure 3 shows an example of this method using 383 a well-known example of melodic microevolution: Simon & Garfunkel's version of 384 Scarborough Fair.

385 386 Figure 3. An example of analyzing tune family microevolution through 387 melodic alignment. The opening two phrases of Simon and Garfunkel's (1966) 388 phenomenally successful version of Scarborough Fair (bottom melody) and its 389 immediate ancestor, Martin Carthy's (1965) version (top melody) are shown, 390 transposed to the common tonic of C (cf. Kloss 2012 for a detailed discussion 391 of the historical evolution of this ballad). In (b), the melodies are shown using 392 standard staff notation, while in (c) they are shown as aligned note sequences, 393 with letters corresponding to notes as shown in (a) (following Savage & 394 Atkinson 2015). See [name omitted] (2017) for a detailed explanation of how 395 this evolution can be quantified (percent melodic identity = 81%; mutation 396 rate = 0.25 per note per ) and discussion of the mechanisms of note 397 substitutions (red arrows) and deletions (blue arrows) shown here. 398 By demonstrating consistent cross-cultural and cross-genre trends in the 399 rates and mechanisms of melodic evolution, my dissertation showed that musical 400 evolution, like biological evolution, follows some general rules. For example, notes 401 with stronger structural function are more resistant to change (e.g., rhythmically 402 accented notes more stable than ornamental notes), and notes are more likely to 403 change to melodically neighboring notes (e.g., 2nds) than to distant ones (e.g., 7ths; 404 cf. Figure 3). This suggests that a general theory of evolution may prove a helpful 405 unifying theory in musicology, as it has in biology. 406

13 407 Musical evolution and applied musicology: Education, copyright, 408 sustainability 409 All musicology is in some sense applied through our research, teaching, and 410 outreach, but some is more explicitly applied for the benefit of those outside of 411 academia (Titon 1992). In this article, I argue that cultural evolutionary theory can 412 provide a useful unifying theoretical framework to apply to research on 413 understanding and reconstructing musical change at multiple levels (both macro 414 and micro) across cultures, genres, and time periods. I now briefly discuss three 415 other ways it can be more directly applied: education, copyright, and sustainability 416 (especially of intangible cultural heritage). 417 Education 418 The world's musical diversity is woefully underrepresented at all levels of 419 education. Often the job of correcting this falls to ethnomusicologists teaching 420 survey courses on "World Music". As Rahaim notes, "as teachers, we often find 421 ourselves in situations that require us to say something in short-hand about 422 [musical] origins, and have few models at hand apart from evolution" (Rahaim 423 2006:32). Evolutionary models like Lomax's world phylogenetic tree of regional 424 song style (see Figure 2) provide a simple and convenient starting point for teaching 425 about similarities and differences in the world's music, and are flexible enough to 426 adapt to diverse contexts such as conservatory classrooms, instrument museums, or 427 pop music recommendation websites. Such coarse models can be further improved 428 and/or nuanced by following them with microevolutionary case studies of musical 429 change in specific cultures. An evolutionary approach further provides the chance 430 to teach about connections beyond music to other domains in order to understand 431 the ways in which the global distribution of music may be related to the 432 distributions of the people who make it and to other aspects of their culture such as 433 language or social structure (Lomax 1968; Savage and Brown 2013; Brown et al. 434 2014; Grauer 2006). 435 Copyright 436 Since almost all music is influenced by the past in at least some way, 437 whether such influence is within norms of creativity and tradition or amounts to 438 plagiarism is connected to an understanding of processes of musical evolution. US 439 copyright law resembles concepts of tune family evolution in that the core 440 copyrightable essence of a song consists of its representation in musical notation, 441 and that the degree of overall melodic correspondence at structurally significant 442 places between two tunes is a primary criterion for deciding whether the level of 443 similarity constitutes plagiarism (Cronin 2015; Fruehwald 1992; Müllensiefen & 444 Pendzich 2009; Fishman 2018). Thus, one famous case concluded that the melody

14 445 of George Harrison's My Sweet Lord (1970) was similar enough to the Chiffons' 446 He's So Fine (1962) as to constitute subconscious plagiarism (Judge Owen 1976). 447 Savage et al. (2018) use new evolutionary methods involving sequence alignment 448 to confirm that the two tunes share 56% identical notes and that this is extremely 449 unlikely to be due to chance (p < .00001). Using a sample of 20 court cases 450 including He’s So Fine, they show that this method is a strong predictor of decisions 451 regarding copyright infringement, accurately predicting 16 out of the 20 cases. 452 However, the concept of individual ownership by composers in copyright 453 law differs from concepts of folk song tune families, where traditional tunes are 454 usually considered to be general property of the community. They are also different 455 from conceptions in many non-Western cultures in which the essence of song 456 ownership may be considered to lie not in its notated melody but in the performance 457 style, performance context, or other extra-melodic features (A. Seeger 1992). 458 The interpretation of copyright law can dramatically affect the livelihoods 459 of musicians and communities around the world. Thus, a holistic understanding of 460 general dynamics of musical evolution (including the many aspects beyond melodic 461 evolution) and their specific manifestations in various musical cultures and genres 462 may prove crucial to a more cross-culturally principled interpretation of concepts 463 of creativity and ownership. 464 Sustainability 465 The issue of safeguarding and promoting the endangered musics of the 466 world has been fundamental to ethnomusicology since the founding of the Berlin 467 Phonogramm-Archiv at the turn of the twentieth century. Sustainability was again 468 a central part of Lomax's (1977) "Appeal for Cultural Equity". But it has taken on 469 renewed interest and urgency in the twenty first century with UNESCO's 470 "Convention on the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage" (UNESCO 471 2003). The core purpose of the UNESCO convention is to provide resources to 472 allow cultural traditions, including music and other performing arts, to continue to 473 evolve by adapting to changing social contexts and avoiding cultural extinction. 474 UNESCO has also adopted similar policies for the conservation of 475 biodiversity and linguistic diversity15. Catherine Grant (2014) has made a powerful 476 case for adapting UNESCO's Language Vitality and Endangerment framework into 477 a Music Vitality and Endangerment Framework (MVEF) to apply to the challenge 478 of music endangerment and sustainability, drawing on theoretical and 479 methodological concepts of standardized comparative measurements that show 480 some similarities with Lomax's Cantometrics. In his foreword to Grant’s book, 481 Anthony Seeger praises the MVEF as a "model for applied ethnomusicology", 482 noting that:

15 483 The twelve factors in the MVEF...recognize that musical traditions depend 484 on transmission, continuity, change, and interested audiences, but also that 485 these take place in a context of emerging mass media, the involvement of 486 outsiders, and the often unpredictable actions of local and national 487 governments. The measures allow for the charismatic actions of an 488 individual passionate actor and also for the results of media attention, 489 national cultural policies, and tourism. (Grant 2014: ix) 490 Seeger's summary succinctly captures the three key evolutionary mechanisms of 491 "continuity [inheritance], change [variation], and interested audiences [selection]" 492 as well as their dynamic relationships with individual agency and cultural context. 493 I believe that musical sustainability initiatives such as Grant's could be 494 further nuanced through a theoretical framework of musical evolution, just as 495 biodiversity and linguistic diversity sustainability initiatives have been informed by 496 a theoretical understanding of biological evolution and language evolution 497 (Hammarström 2016). For example, Grant's MVEF depends crucially on the key 498 unit of "music genre", for which she gives an in-depth case study of Vietnamese ca 499 trù. The ambiguity of differentiating such genre units from finer-grained sub-genres 500 and/or coarser-grained super-genres is thus a major challenge for Grant's MVEF. 501 Such differentiation has parallels in the distinction between species and varieties 502 that motivated Darwin's Origin of Species, as well as the distinction between 503 languages and that is central to linguistics, and could likewise benefit from 504 an evolutionary framework. An evolutionary framework might help Grant to clarify 505 the multiple levels of relationships between ca trù performers as they compete with 506 one another, with rival ca trù groups, other closely related genres of Vietnamese 507 traditional music, and with global popular music, just as an evolutionary framework 508 for linguistics helps clarify the nested relationships among individual speakers, 509 dialects, languages, and language families. Ca trù is on UNESCO's List of 510 Intangible Cultural Heritage in Need of Urgent Safeguarding, and thus decisions by 511 UNESCO about optimal resource allocation may benefit from an evolutionary 512 framework in which the sustainability of ca trù is seen as interconnected with the 513 sustainability of related sub-genres and super-genres. 514 515 Objections to musical evolution: Agency, meaning, and reductionism 516 Musical evolution has been and continues to be of interest to musicologists 517 and non-musicologists alike. In fact, many of the processes I discuss are 518 immediately recognizable to many under the terminology of musical change, for 519 which musicologists have long sought a rigorous theory. Merriam (1964:307) 520 argued that ethnomusicology "needs a theory of change". Over a half century later, 521 Nettl (2015:292) summarizes that "there have been many attempts to generalize

16 522 about change but no generally accepted theory". Why haven't musicologists 523 interested in general theories of change adopted the framework of evolution (which 524 is, simply put, a formal theory of change)? 525 I have presented versions of this argument at national ethnomusicology 526 conferences in the USA and Japan, receiving a variety of responses. Most 527 objections to the use of evolutionary theory focused on three issues: implications 528 of progress, individual agency, and reductionism. Since I have already clarified 529 misconceptions about progress at length above16, I will focus here on agency and 530 reductionism. 531 Agency 532 Echoing arguments against cultural evolution by the evolutionary biologists 533 Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Lewontin, Rahaim (2006:36) argues: "Perhaps 534 most importantly for ethnomusicologists, metaphors of both situated and 535 progressive evolution turn attention away from the agency of individuals". But does 536 the concept of musical evolution negate the agency of individuals to create their 537 own music any more than the concept of biological evolution negates individual 538 free will? In each case, our cultural/genetic inheritances are the product of long 539 evolutionary processes shaped by historical factors, but cannot be simply reduced 540 to or wholly explained by such factors. 541 Musicians are often free to compose their own music or modify the existing 542 repertoire in whatever ways they see fit (within the physical limits imposed by 543 acoustics, neurobiology, etc.). But whether their creations will appeal to others and 544 be passed on through the generations depends on a variety of factors beyond their 545 control, including the sociopolitical context and the perceptual capacities of the 546 audience. Thus, the role of the individual musicians in this process and their 547 relationships with other actors (audiences, composers, accompanists, producers, 548 judges, etc.) are in fact central to understanding the cultural evolution of music. 549 My dissertation focused on identifying general constraints that apply across 550 many individuals, but this does not mean that other studies must or should do so. 551 For example, one potentially productive area for exploring the role of individual 552 agency in musical evolution might involve comparing different performers 553 attempting to create their own signature versions of music originally composed 554 and/or performed by others. This could easily apply to a variety of cultures and 555 genres, including art (e.g., the same symphony performed by different orchestras), 556 popular (e.g., cover songs), and folk (e.g., folk song variants; cf. the Scarborough 557 Fair example in Figure 3). 558 In fact, the presence of human agency and the intentional innovation that 559 comes with it is one of the most exciting and interesting aspects about studying 560 cultural evolution. In genetic evolution, natural selection provides the major 561 explanatory mechanism due to the fact that is arbitrary (i.e., 562 genetic are not directed towards particular evolutionary goals). However,

17 563 in cultural evolution, both selection and variation can be directed consciously and 564 unconsciously through a much broader range of mechanisms than typically found 565 in genetic evolution. To accommodate this complexity, cultural evolutionary 566 theorists have proposed dizzying array of mechanisms to expand the terminological 567 framework of evolutionary biology to cultural evolution (e.g., transmission biases 568 based on prestige, aesthetics, or conformity/anti-conformity; guided variation 569 driven by and/or emotion; Richerson and Boyd 2005; Mesoudi 2011; 570 Fogarty, Creanza, and Feldman 2015). The relative strengths of these different 571 types of evolutionary mechanisms and their implications for musical evolution in 572 particular and cultural evolution in general are hotly debated (Claidière, Kirby, and 573 Sperber 2012; Leroi et al. 2012). Thus, this is an area where musicologists and 574 cultural evolutionary theorists could both learn much from one another. 575 Meaning 576 An anonymous reviewer of an earlier iteration of this article flatly stated 577 that my cultural evolutionary approach “is not compatible with an anthropological 578 understanding of culture, and seems instead to describe changes in the surface 579 structures of music (tune families and the like)…”. This criticism seems to echo 580 Rahaim’s concerns about agency discussed above, but also goes even further into 581 the longstanding debate regarding the roles of sound vs. behaviour, process vs. 582 product, etc. in ethnomusicology (Merriam 1964; Rice 1987; Solis 2012). In 583 particular, it follows criticisms by Blacking (1977) and Feld (1984) of Lomax’s 584 attempts to use Cantometrics to understand cultural evolution. As Blacking puts it: 585 “Lomax compares the surface structures of music without questioning whether the 586 same musical sounds always have the same "deep structure" and the same 587 meaning”. 588 Unlike language, music generally lacks clear referential semantic meaning 589 (Meyer 1954; Patel 2008), and this crucial difference is one reason we must be 590 cautious about uncritically borrowing linguistic concepts wholesale to apply to 591 music (Feld 1974). While I agree that a full understanding of the cultural evolution 592 of music will require integrating understanding of both sound structures and their 593 meanings, I can’t accept the implication that the study of musical structures such as 594 tune families are not an appropriate of musicological inquiry. Here I can 595 only respond by quoting the final published by Alan Merriam (1982): 596 “ethnomusicology for me is the study of music as culture, and that does not preclude 597 the study of form; indeed we cannot proceed without it.". 598 599 Reductionism 600 Another critique I would like to mention is a broader but related one 601 regarding reductionism and . This criticism was levelled at cultural 602 evolution in general by Fracchia and Lewontin (1999:507): "the demand for a 603 theory of cultural evolution is really a demand that cultural anthropology be

18 604 included in the grand twentieth-century movement to scientize all aspects of the 605 study of society, to become validated as a part of 'social science'". 606 One version of this criticism appeared in response to one of the studies cited 607 in this review entitled “Measuring the Evolution of Contemporary Western Popular 608 Music” (Serrà et al. 2012). In response, Fink (2013) made a persuasive refutation 609 of the papers central finding of decreasing musical diversity and the newspaper 610 headlines touting it (“Modern Music too Loud, All Sounds the Same.”), pointing 611 out that the finding of musical homogenization didn’t reflect trends in the music 612 but simply the overly reductionistic methods used to measure it that relied on over- 613 processing of previously extracted features that failed to include rhythm. 614 Nevertheless, the same reductionistic science that made the study flawed was also 615 a reason it made headlines: 616 “"as reporters rush to assure us, they are newsworthy because, for the first 617 time, the conclusions are backed with hard data, not squishy aesthetic 618 theorizing. The numbers don’t lie. But research can only be as good as the 619 encoded data it’s based on; look under the surface of recently reported 620 computer-enabled analyses of pop music and you’ll find that the old 621 programmer’s dictum—“garbage in, garbage out”—is still the last word." 622 I completely agree with Fink’s criticism in this case. Although science does 623 generally require some level of reductionism, the goal is to be “as simple as 624 possible, but not simpler” (Einstein? 2011). In this case, Serrà et al. failed to achieve 625 this goal. Indeed, a more nuanced scientific study that also measured evolution of 626 Western popular music over a similar time period using less reductionistic methods 627 that also included rhythmic features came to the opposite conclusion: musical 628 diversity actually increased after a brief decline during the 1980s. This case 629 highlights both the value of quantifying the cultural evolution of music and the 630 importance of critical thinking in interpreting the reductionism inherent in such 631 studies. 632 Charges of reductionism were also leveled directly at Savage and Brown's 633 (2013) proposal that included cultural evolution as one of five major themes in a 634 new comparative musicology. In a thorough and nuanced review entitled "On Not 635 Losing Heart", David Clarke approved of the call for more cross-cultural 636 comparison, but worried about its "strongly empiricist paradigm": 637 Lomax's particular mode of integration "between the humanistic and the 638 scientific" [was] fuelled by a politics that had an emancipatory motive. In 639 the metrics and technics of the new comparative musicology proposed by 640 Savage and Brown, traces of any such informing polity melt into air….A 641 political neutrality that is the correlate of an unalloyed empiricism is 642 problematic….My own predilections here are perhaps more attuned to 643 ethnomusicologists who are interested in the particularities of a culture and 644 the actual experience of encounter in the field. By contrast, Savage,

19 645 Brown, et al. advocate different epistemological values with a different 646 ethos, based on the abstraction of music and people into data. To 647 characterize that ethos as a recapitulation of Lomax, only without the heart, 648 might be an unfair caricature. For the various statistical representations 649 and correlations emerging from their research may well be sublimating a 650 lot of passion, and Savage and Brown’s own day-to-day dealings with 651 musicians and musicking may be no less affective than anyone else’s (it’s 652 just that they exclude this from their research)17. (Clarke 2014: 6, 11-12) 653 654 While Clarke argues that a "political neutrality that is the correlate of an 655 unalloyed empiricism is problematic", I believe it may be valuable to maintain a 656 relatively neutral political stance, in large part to avoid the problems of 657 confirmation bias that were leveled at Lomax. With Cantometrics, Lomax sought 658 to scientifically validate his strong political views regarding "cultural equity" 659 (Lomax 1977). One of the concerns that doomed Cantometrics was that Lomax's 660 analyses were viewed as being too strongly biased by his political views (Maranda 661 1970; [Savage 2018; Szwed 2010; Wood 2018). Personally, I strongly share 662 Lomax's views about the value of cultural equity18, and I, too, see quantitative data 663 as a helpful in arguing for the value of all of the world's music, particularly in 664 today's political climate of evidence-based policy. However, I believe it is 665 legitimate to try to limit political aspects in one's published work, and it may well 666 be a more effective long-term strategy for the types of applications described in the 667 previous section. 668 Certainly, neither a purely qualitative, ethnographic approach nor a purely 669 quantitative, scientific approach will succeed in advancing our knowledge of how 670 and why music evolves. But by combining the two approaches through cross- 671 cultural comparative study, we can achieve a better understanding of the forces 672 governing the world's musical diversity and their real-world implications (Savage 673 and Brown 2013). For instance, the My Sweet Lord plagiarism case mentioned 674 above gives a clear example where quantitative measurements of the degree of 675 melodic similarity (56%) between two tunes and its qualitative interpretation in the 676 context of copyright law has major practical implications in which millions of 677 dollars are at stake. Although perhaps less easily quantified in terms of dollar values, 678 an understanding of the mechanisms of evolution of traditional folk songs may be 679 just as valuable to traditional musicians struggling to protect their intangible 680 cultural heritage. 681 682 Conclusion

20 683 Music evolves, through mechanisms that are both similar to and distinct 684 from biological evolution. Cultural evolutionary theory has been developed to the 685 point that it shows promise for providing explanatory power from the broad levels 686 of macroevolution of global musical styles to the minute microevolutionary details 687 of individual performers and performances. Musical evolution shows potential for 688 applications beyond research to such disparate domains as education, copyright and 689 sustainability. 690 However, I am aware that my review is inevitably incomplete and I have 691 only been able to highlight a tiny fraction of the types of situations and 692 methodologies through which the evolutionary framework can be fruitfully applied 693 to music. To me, that incompleteness highlights the broad explanatory power of 694 evolutionary theory, and broad explanatory theory is something that musicologists 695 such as Timothy Rice (2010) have argued we are sorely in need of today. 696 Scientific interest in musical evolution is already growing rapidly, and will 697 continue with or without the involvement of musicologists. Here again, we can 698 learn from language evolution. Several high-profile articles on language evolution 699 were published by teams of scientists without close collaboration with linguists, 700 resulting in bitter disputes and accusations of "naïve arrogance" (Campbell 701 2013:472) that have limited what could have been mutually beneficial collaboration 702 (Marris 2008). A similar pattern seems to be playing out in the recent controversy 703 regarding a team of Harvard scientists analyzing ethnographic recordings around 704 the world to construct a “Natural History of Song” (Mehr, Singh, York, Glowacki 705 and Krasnow 2018; Marshall 2018; Yong 2018). I share concerns about scientists 706 studying music and evolution without collaborating with musicologists, but I 707 believe that ultimately both musicology and cultural evolution stand to benefit from 708 productive interdisciplinary collaboration. I have chosen to try to avoid such pitfalls 709 by being proactive in initiating collaborations on musical evolution with cultural 710 evolutionary scientists to combine our knowledge and skills [names/dates omitted]). 711 I do not intend by any means to imply that the predominantly quantitative 712 approach I have presented here - strongly informed as it is by my collaborations 713 with scientists studying cultural and biological evolution, as well as my own earlier 714 training in psychology and biochemistry - is the only way to study musical 715 evolution. One reason I focused in my dissertation on a rigorously quantitative 716 approach modeled on molecular genetics is that such quantitative approaches have 717 shown success in rehabilitating cultural evolutionary theory after much criticism of 718 earlier incarnations such as as lacking in empirical rigor (Laland and 719 Brown 2011; Mesoudi 2011). But I believe that one of the strengths of evolutionary 720 theory is that it is flexible enough to be usefully adapted to a variety of scientific 721 and humanistic methodologies, with plenty of room to coexist productively with

21 722 non-evolutionary theories. As Ruth Stone (2008:225) has noted, "there is no such 723 thing as a best theory. Some theories are simply more suited for answering certain 724 kinds of questions than others" (emphasis in original). Even if the concept of 725 cultural evolution cannot provide all the answers, I believe it helps to answer 726 enough musical questions of abiding interest that it should be ignored no more. 727 Acknowledgments 728 I thank my PhD supervisory committee (Yukio Uemura, Yasuko Tsukahara, 729 Atsushi Marui, and Hugh de Ferranti), Steven Brown, Thomas Currie, Quentin 730 Atkinson, and four anonymous reviewers for constructive comments on previous 731 versions of this article. This research was supported by a Japanese Ministry of 732 Education, Culture, , Science and (MEXT) scholarship, a 733 Startup Grant from the Keio Research Institute at SFC, an Individual Grant from 734 the Keio Gijuku Academic Development Fund, the Japanese Society for the 735 Promotion of Science (JSPS) Ikushi Prize, and the Hirayama Ikuo Arts and 736 Culture Prize. 737 738 Notes

1 For reasons of space and expertise, I will focus here primarily on the ethnomusicological literature, but the concept of cultural evolution of music should also be applicable to other sub-fields, not least the evolution of contemporary Western classical music from medieval Gregorian chant over the course of the second millennium AD. 2 Although this movement came to be known as “Social Darwinism”, it was in fact not very reflective of Darwin's ideas, but rather the ideas of Herbert Spencer (1875), who coined the term "survival of the fittest". While Darwin's own feelings about the way his ideas were adopted are debated, today's scholars of cultural evolution unequivocally reject such political misappropriation of evolutionary theory (Laland and Brown 2011; Mesoudi 2011; Richerson and Boyd 2005). 3 In 2017, Peter Richerson was elected as the inaugural President of the Cultural Evolution Society. 4 See Jan (2007) for an application of memetics to music.

22

5 Two of these presentations were about music: my own about the evolution of British-American and Japanese folk song melodies and one about the evolution of steelpan instrumental layouts in Trinidad and Tobago. 6 Due to space limitations this article will not delve into the fascinating and productive areas of biological evolution and gene-culture evolution of musicality (Honing 2018; Tomlinson 2013). 7 Of the musicologists responding to Grauer's essay, only Rahaim (2006:29) carefully distinguished between these two, using the terms "progressive" and "situated" evolution, respectively. 8 Kartomi has since changed her views, writing "I now think that music has evolved in a measurable way, as long as 'evolved' is not defined as 'improved'" (personal communication, June 10th 2016 email). 9 Discrepancies in published numbers and further details are explained in Savage (2018). 10 Although not shown here, finer-scale relationships within and among groups can also be modeled using evolutionary methods (cf. Fig. 3 of Lomax 1980:41; Rzeszutek, Savage, and Brown 2012; Savage and Brown 2014). 11 Macroevolution generally refers to changes among populations (e.g., species, cultural groups), while microevolution generally refers to changes within populations. 12 Lineages of organizations, composers, performers, etc. are a potentially productive area of studying musical evolution, but I will not discuss them in detail here due to limitations of space and expertise. 13 Unfortunately, Shapiro’s dissertation was never published and is not available for interlibrary loan. 14 The research leading to the articles republished in book form in Bronson (1969) was begun several decades earlier, with one article laying out the basic idea of “Mechanical Help in the Study of Folk Song” published as early as 1949. 15http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/endangered- languages/biodiversity-and-linguistic-diversity/

23

16 Unfortunately, the association of evolution with progress is particularly entrenched where I live in Japan, where the characters used to translate evolution ( 進化 [shinka]) literally mean "progressive change" (the English word evolution itself evolved from the Latin evolutio, meaning "unfolding"). In my opinion, musicologists avoiding the term "evolution" because of misconceptions about its meaning are contributing to this popular misconception. Instead I believe concerted effort by musicologists and others to correct this misconception for future generations is in order. 17 Personally, I do feel a lot of passion for the world's musicians and see one of my 's goals as being advocating for their value. My interest in folk song evolution was motivated not only by theoretical concerns about mechanisms of cultural microevolution, but on my own experiences learning and performing British-American and Japanese folk songs and my hopes that my (Japanese-New Zealand-American) children will be able to sing these songs that have been handed down to them over the course of hundreds of years from their ancestors on opposite sides of the world. I have won trophies in a number of Japanese folk song competitions, so questions about agency in performance and what types of musical (and extra-musical) variation are selected for or against are not merely academic but affect me personally. Do I think that all of these factors can be perfectly quantified? Absolutely not. But I do believe that theories of musical evolution informed by quantitative data could have a positive influence on musicology and beyond. As Clarke (2014:12) later admits: "in fairness, the empirical and the metric have as much potential as any other paradigm to work to humanistic ends". 18 Language evolution provides another good analogy. Much work in language evolution focuses on the evolution of basic vocabulary due to its resistance to change and amenability to evolutionary analysis (Pagel 2016). However, broader theories of language evolution incorporate many complex cognitive and social factors, including race, and class (Labov 1994-2010).

24 REFERENCES

[name omitted]. 2017. “音楽の文化的進化を測る ――ブリティッシュ・アメ リカンと日本の民謡・ポップス・古典音楽の事例を通して―― [Measuring the Cultural Evolution of Music: With Case Studies of British- American and Japanese Folk, Art, and Popular Music].” PhD dissertation, [university name omitted]

Adler, Guido. 1885/1981. “The Scope, Method, and Aim of Musicology.” Translated by Erica Mugglestone. Yearbook for Traditional Music 13: 1–21. Atkinson, Quentin D., and Russell D. Gray. 2005. “Curious Parallels and Curious Connections: Phylogenetic Thinking in Biology and Historical Linguistics.” Systematic Biology. Bartók, Béla. 1931. Hungarian Folk Music. London: Oxford University Press. Bayard, Samuel P. 1950. “Prolegomena to a Study of the Principal Melodic Families of British-American Folk Song.” Journal of American Folklore 63 (247): 1–44. ———. 1954. “Two Representative Tune Families of British Tradition.” Midwest Folklore 4 (1): 13–33. Blacking, John. 1977. “Some Problems of Theory and Method in the Study of Musical Change.” Yearbook of the International Folk Music Council 9: 1–26. Boas, Franz. 1940. Race, Language, and Culture. New York: Macmillan. Boilès, Charles L. 1973. “Reconstruction of Proto-Melody.” Anuario Interamericano de Investigacion Musical 9: 45–63. Bor, Joep. 1975. “Raga, Species and Evolution.” Sangeet Natak: Journal of the Sangeet Natak Akademi 35: 17–48. Boyd, Robert, and Peter J. Richerson. 1985. Culture and the Evolutionary Process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Brewer, J., M. Gelfand, J. C. Jackson, I. F. MacDonald, P. N. Peregrine, P. J. Richerson, P. Turchin, H. Whitehouse, and D. S. Wilson. 2017. “Grand Challenges for the Study of Cultural Evolution.” Ecology and Evolution 1 (70): 1–3. doi:10.1038/s41559-017-0070. Bronson, Bertrand H. 1959-72. The Traditional Tunes of the Child Ballads: With Their Texts, according to the Extant Records of Great Britain and America [4 Volumes]. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. ———. 1969. The Ballad as Song. Berkeley: University of California Press. ———. 1976. The Singing Tradition of Child’s Popular Ballads. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Brown, Steven, Patrick E. Savage, Albert Min-Shan Ko, , Ying- Ko, Jun-Hun Loo, and Jean A. Trejaut. 2014. “Correlations in the Population Structure of Music, Genes and Language.” Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 281: 20132072. Callaway, Ewen. 2007. “Music Is in Our Genes.” Nature News. doi:10.1038/news.2007.359. Campbell, Lyle. 2013. Historical Linguistics: An Introduction. 3rd ed. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Carneiro, Robert L. 2003. Evolutionism in Cultural Anthropology: A Critical History. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Cavalli-Sforza, L. Luca, and Marcus W. Feldman. 1981. Cultural Transmission and Evolution: A Quantitative Approach. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Claidière, Nicolas, Simon Kirby, and . 2012. “Effect of Psychological Bias Separates Cultural from Biological Evolution.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109 (51): E3526. Clarke, David. 2014. “On Not Losing Heart: A Response to Savage and Brown’s ‘Toward a New Comparative Musicology.’” Analytical Approaches to World Music 3 (2): 1–14. Cowdery, James R. 2009. The melodic tradition of Ireland. (Kent, OH: Kent State University Press, 2nd ed.). Cowdery, James R. 1984. “A Fresh Look at the Concept of Tune Family.” Ethnomusicology 28 (3): 495–504. Cronin, Charles. 2015. “I Hear America Suing: Music Copyright Infringement in the Era of Electronic Sound.” Hastings Law Journal 66 (5): 1187–1254. Currie, Thomas E., and . 2011. “Mode and Tempo in the Evolution of Socio-Political Organization: Reconciling ‘Darwinian’ and ‘Spencerian’

26 Evolutionary Approaches in Anthropology.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 366: 1108–17. Danchin, Etienne, Anne Charmantier, Frances A. Champagne, Alex Mesoudi, Benoit Pujol, and Simon Blanchet. 2011. “Beyond DNA: Integrating Inclusive Inheritance into an Extended Theory of Evolution.” Nature Reviews Genetics 12: 475–86. Darwin, Charles. 1859. The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. London: John Murray. ———. 1871. The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex. London: John Murray. Dawkins, Richard. 1976. The Selfish Gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Doolittle, W. Ford. 1999. “Phylogenetic Classification and the Universal Tree.” Science 284 (5423): 2124–28. Einstein, Albert?, Louis Zukofsky?, Roger Sessions?, William of Ockham? Anonymous? 2011. “Everything Should Be Made as Simple as Possible, but Not Simpler.” Https://Quoteinvestigator.Com/2011/05/13/Einstein-Simple/. Erickson, Edwin E. 1976. “Tradition and Evolution in Song Style: A Reanalysis of Cantometric Data.” Cross-Cultural Research 11 (4): 277–308. Feld, Steven. 1974. “Linguistic Models in Ethnomusicology.” Ethnomusicology 18 (2): 197–217. ———. 1984. “Sound Structure as Social Structure.” Ethnomusicology 28 (3): 383–409. Fink, Robert. 2013. “Big (Bad) Data.” Musicology Now, August 25. http://musicologynow.ams-net.org/2013/08/big-bad-data.html. Fishman, Joseph P. 2018. “Music as a Matter of Law.” Harvard Law Review 131 (7): 1861–1923. Fogarty, Laurel, Nicole Creanza, and Marcus W. Feldman. 2015. “Cultural Evolutionary Perspectives on Creativity and Human Innovation.” Trends in Ecology & Evolution 30 (12): 736–754. Fracchia, Joseph, and Richard C. Lewontin. 1999. “Does Culture Evolve?” History and Theory 8: 52–78.

27 ———. 2005. “The Price of Metaphor.” History and Theory 44 (February): 14–29. Fruehwald, E. Scott. 1992. “Copyright Infringement of Musical Compositions: A Systematic Approach.” Akron Law Review 26 (1): 15–44. Fuentes, Agustin, and Polly Wiessner. 2016. “Reintegrating Anthropology: From Inside Out - An Introduction to Supplement 13.” Current Anthropology 57 (S13): S3–12. Gould, Stephen J. 1989. Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History. New York: Norton. Grant, Catherine. 2014. “Music Endangerment: How Language Maintenance Can Help.” New York: Oxford University Press. Grauer, Victor A. 2005. “‘Cantometrics - Song and Social Culture’: A Response.” Musical Traditions 159. http://www.mustrad.org.uk/articles/cantome2.htm. ———. 2006. “Echoes of Our Forgotten Ancestors.” The World of Music 48 (2): 5–58. ———. 2011. Sounding the Depths: Tradition and the Voices of History. CreateSpace: http://soundingthedepths.blogspot.com/. Gray, Russell D., David Bryant, and Simon J. Greenhill. 2010. “On the Shape and Fabric of .” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 365: 3923–33. Hammarström, Harald. 2016. “Linguistic Diversity and Language Evolution.” Journal of Language Evolution 1 (1): 19–29. Henrich, Joseph. 2016. The Secret of Our Success: How Culture Is Driving , Domesticating Our Species, and Making Us Smarter. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Henrich, Joseph, Robert Boyd, and Peter J. Richerson. 2008. “Five Misunderstandings About Cultural Evolution.” Human Nature 19 (2): 119–37. Hofstadter, Richard. 1955. Social Darwinism in American Thought. Boston: Beacon Press. Honing, Henkjan, ed. 2018. The origins of musicality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press Hughes, David W. 2008. Traditional Folk Song in Modern Japan: Sources, Sentiment and Society. Kent: Global Oriental.

28 Huron, David. 2006. Sweet Anticipation: Music and the Psychology of Expectation. Cambridge: MIT Press. International Folk Music Council. 1955. “Resolutions: Definition of Folk Music.” Journal of the International Folk Music Council 7: 23. Jacoby, Nori, and Josh H. McDermott. 2017. “Integer Ratio Priors on Musical Rhythm Revealed Cross-Culturally by Iterated Reproduction.” Current Biology 27: 359–70. Jan, Steven. 2007. The Memetics of Music: A Neo-Darwinian View of Musical Structure and Culture. Hants: Ashgate. Judge Owen. 1976. Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music 420 F. Supp. 177 (S.D.N.Y. 1976). Vol. 177. Kaneshiro, Atsumi. 1990. “Kashi onretsuhō ni yoru Oiwakebushi no hikaku [Comparison of Oiwake Melodies through Lyric-Note Alignment].” Minzoku Ongaku 5 (1): 30–36. Kartomi, Margaret. 2001. “The Classification of Musical Instruments: Changing Trends in Research from the Late Nineteenth Century, with Special Reference to the 1990s.” Ethnomusicology 45 (2): 283–314. Kloss, Jurgen. 2012. “‘... Tell Her To Make Me A Cambric Shirt’: From the ‘Elfin Knight’ to ‘Scarborough Fair.’” http://www.justanothertune.com/html/cambricshirt.html. Labov, William. 1994-2010. Principles of Linguistic Change [3 Volumes]. Oxford: Blackwell. Laland, Kevin N., and Gillian R. Brown. 2011. Sense and Nonsense. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press. Lawson, Francesca R. Sborgi. 2012. “ Revisited.” Ethnomusicology 56 (1): 86–111. Le Bomin, Sylvie, Guillaume Lecointre, and Evelyne Heyer. 2016. “The Evolution of Musical Diversity: The Key Role of Vertical Transmission.” PLoS ONE 11 (3): e0151570. Leroi, Armand M., Robert M. MacCallum, Matthias Mauch, and Austin Burt. 2012. “Reply to Claidière et Al.: Role of Psychological Bias in Evolution Depends on the Kind of Culture.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 109 (51): E3527.

29 Leroi, Armand M., and Jonathan Swire. 2006. “The Recovery of the Past.” The World of Music 48 (3): 43–54. Levinson, Stephen C., and Russell D. Gray. 2012. “ from Evolutionary Biology Shed New Light on the Diversification of Languages.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences 16 (3): 167–73. Lomax, Alan, ed. 1968. Folk Song Style and Culture. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science. ———. 1977. “Appeal for Cultural Equity.” Journal of Communication 27 (2): 125-138. ———. 1980. “Factors of Musical Style.” In Theory & Practice: Essays Presented to Gene Weltfish, edited by Stanley Diamond, 29–58. The Hague: Mouton. ———. 1989. “Cantometrics.” International Encyclopedia of Communications. Lomax, Alan, and Norman Berkowitz. 1972. “The Evolutionary of Culture.” Science 177 (4045): 228–39. Lumaca, Massimo, and Giosuè Baggio. 2017. “Cultural Transmission and Evolution of Melodic Structures in Multi-Generational Signaling .” Artificial Life 23: 406–23. Lumsden, Charles J., and Edward O. Wilson. 1981. Genes, and Culture: The Coevolutionary Process. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. MacCallum, Robert M., Matthias Mauch, Austin Burt, and Armand M. Leroi. 2012. “Evolution of Music by Public Choice.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 109 (30): 12081–86. Mace, Ruth, and Clare J. Holden. 2005. “A Phylogenetic Approach to Cultural Evolution.” Trends in Ecology and Evolution 20 (3): 116–21. Machida, Kashō, and Tsutomu Takeuchi, eds. 1965. Esashi Oiwake to Sado Okesa: Min’yō genryūkō [Folk Song Genealogies: Esashi Oiwake and Sado Okesa; 4 LPs]. Kawasaki: Columbia. AL-5047/50. Maranda, Elli Kongas. 1970. “Deep Significance and Surface Significance: Is Cantometrics Possible?” Semiotica 2 (2): 173–84. Marett, Allan. 1985. “Togaku: Where Have the Tang Melodies Gone, and Where Have the New Melodies Come From?” Ethnomusicology 29 (3): 409–31.

30 Marris, Emma. 2008. “The Language Barrier.” Nature 453: 446–48. Marshall, Alex. 2018. “Can You Tell a Lullaby from a Love Song? Find out Now.” New York Times, January 25. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/01/25/arts/music/history-of- song.html. Mauch, Matthias, Robert M. MacCallum, Mark Levy, and Armand M. Leroi. 2015. “The Evolution of Popular Music: USA 1960-2010.” Royal Society Open Science 2 (5): 150081. McShea, Daniel W., and Robert N. Brandon. 2010. Biology’s First Law: The Tendency for Diversity and Complexity to Increase in Evolutionary Systems. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Mehr, Samuel A., Manvir Singh, Hunter York, Luke Glowacki, and Max M. Krasnow. 2018. “Form and Function in Human Song.” Current Biology 28: 356–68. Merriam, Alan P. 1964. The Anthropology of Music. Evanston: Northwestern University Press. Merriam, Alan P. 1982. “On Objections to Comparison in Ethnomusicology.” In Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Music, edited by Robert Falck and Timothy Rice, 175–89. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Mesoudi, Alex. 2011. Cultural Evolution: How Darwinian Theory Can Explain Human Culture and Synthesize the Social Sciences. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Meyer, Leonard B. 1956. Emotion and Meaning in Music. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Mongeau, Marcel, and David Sankoff. 1990. “Comparison of Musical Sequences.” Computers and the Humanities 24: 161–75. Müllensiefen, Daniel, and Marc Pendzich. 2009. “Court Decisions on Music Plagiarism and the Predictive Value of Similarity Algorithms.” Musicae Scientiae 13 (1 Suppl): 257–95. Mundy, Rachel. 2006. “Musical Evolution and the Making of Hierarchy.” The World of Music 48 (3): 13–27.

31 Nei, Masatoshi, Yoshiyuki Suzuki, and Masafumi Nozawa. 2010. “The Neutral Theory of in the Genomic Era.” Annual Review of Genomics and 11 (1): 265–89. Nettl, Bruno. 2006. “Response to Victor Grauer: On the Concept of Evolution in the History of Ethnomusicology.” The World of Music 48 (2): 59–72. ———. 2015. The Study of Ethnomusicology: Thirty-Three Discussions. 3rd ed. Champaign: University of Illinois Press. Nettl, Bruno, and Philip V. Bohlman, eds. 1991. Comparative Musicology and Anthropology of Music: Essays on the History of Ethnomusicology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Pagel, Mark. 2016. “Darwinian Perspectives on the Evolution of Human Languages.” Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. doi:10.3758/s13423-016-1072- z. Pamjav, Horolma, Zoltán Juhász, Andrea Zalán, Endre Németh, and Bayarlkhagva Damdin. 2012. “A Comparative Phylogenetic Study of Genetics and Folk Music.” Molecular Genetics and Genomics 287 (4): 337–49. Patel, Aniruddh D. 2008. Music, Language and the Brain. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Picken, Laurence Ernest Rowland, R. F. Wolpert, and Noël J. Nickson, eds. 1981- 2000. Music from the Tang Court [7 Volumes]. London: Oxford/Cambridge University Press. Rahaim, Matthew. 2006. “What Else Do We Say When We Say ‘Music Evolves?’” The World of Music 48 (3): 29–41. Ravignani, Andrea, Tania Delgado, and Simon Kirby. 2016. “Musical Evolution in the Lab Exhibits Rhythmic Universals.” Nature Human Behaviour 1 (0007): 1–7. doi:10.1038/s41562-016-0007. Rehding, Alexander. 2000. “The Quest for the Origins of Music in Germany circa 1900.” Journal of the American Musicological Society 53 (2): 345–85. Rice, Timothy. 2010. “Disciplining Ethnomusicology: A Call for a New Approach.” Ethnomusicology 54 (2): 318–25. Richerson, Peter J., and Robert Boyd. 2005. Not by Genes Alone: How Culture Transformed Human Evolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

32 Rzeszutek, Tom, Patrick E. Savage, and Steven Brown. 2012. “The Structure of Cross-Cultural Musical Diversity.” Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 279 (1733): 1606–12. Sachs, Curt. 1943. The Rise of Music in the Ancient World: East and West. New York: Norton. Sahlins, Marshall D., and Elman R. Service, eds. 1960. Evolution and Culture. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Savage, Patrick E. 2017. “‘Deep Diversity’ and Other Reflections on the Inaugural Cultural Evolution Society Conference.” Seshat: Global History Databank Blog. September 25. http://seshatdatabank.info/cultural_evolution_society/. Savage, Patrick E. 2018. “Alan Lomax’s Cantometrics Project: A Comprehensive Review.” Music & Science 1: 1–19. doi:10.1177/2059204318786084. Savage, Patrick E., and Quentin D. Atkinson. 2015. “Automatic Tune Family Identification by Musical Sequence Alignment.” In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Music Information Retrieval (ISMIR), 162–68. Savage, Patrick E., and Steven Brown. 2013. “Toward a New Comparative Musicology.” Analytical Approaches to World Music 2 (2): 148–97. ———. 2014. “Mapping Music: Cluster Analysis of Song- Frequencies within and between Cultures.” Ethnomusicology 58 (1): 133–55. Savage, Patrick E., Steven Brown, Emi Sakai, and Thomas E. Currie. 2015. “Statistical Universals Reveal the Structures and Functions of Human Music.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 112 (29): 8987–92. Savage, Patrick E., Charles Cronin, Daniel Müllensiefen, and Quentin D. Atkinson. 2018. “Quantitative Evaluation of Music Copyright Infringement.” In Proceedings of the 8th International Workshop on Folk Music Analysis (FMA- 18). http://fma2018.mus.auth.gr/files/papers/FMA2018_paper_4.pdf. Savage, Patrick E., Hiromi Matsumae, Hiroki Oota, Mark Stoneking, Thomas E. Currie, Atsushi Tajima, Matt Gillan, and Steven Brown. 2015. “How ‘Circumpolar’ Is Ainu Music? Musical and Genetic Perspectives on the History of the Japanese Archipelago.” Ethnomusicology Forum 24 (3): 443– 67.

33 Seeger, Anthony. 1992. “Ethnomusicology and Music Law.” Ethnomusicology 36 (3): 345–59. Seeger, Charles, ed. 1966. Versions and Variants of the Tunes of Barbara Allen [1 Casette]. Washington, DC: Archive of American Folk Song, Library of Congress. AFS L 54. Serrà, Joan, Álvaro Corral, Marián Boguñá, Martín Haro, and Josep Ll. Arcos. 2012. “Measuring the Evolution of Contemporary Western Popular Music.” Scientific Reports 2 (521): 1–6. Shapiro, Anne Dhu. 1975. “The tune-family concept in British-American folk-song scholarship”. Ph.D. diss., Harvard University. Sharp, Cecil J. 1907. English Folk Song: Some Conclusions. London: Simpkin. ———. 1932. English Folk Songs from the Southern Appalachians. London: Oxford University Press. Solis, Gabriel. 2012. “Thoughts on an Interdiscipline: Music Theory, Analysis, and Social Theory in Ethnomusicology.” Ethnomusicology 56 (3): 530–54. Spencer, Herbert. 1875. “Progress: Its Law and Cause.” In Illustrations of Universal Progress: A Series of Discussions, edited by Herbert Spencer, 1–60. New York: D. Appleton & Company. Stock, Jonathan P. J. 2006. “Clues from Our Present Peers? A Response to Victor Grauer.” The World of Music 48 (2): 73–91. Stone, Ruth. 2008. Theory for Ethnomusicology. Upper Saddle, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall. Stocking, George W., Jr. 1982. Race, Culture, and Evolution: Essays in the . New Edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Stumpf, Carl. 1911/2012. The Origins of Music. Translated by David Trippett. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Szwed, John. 2010. Alan Lomax: The Man Who Recorded the World. New York: Viking. Tëmkin, Ilya, and Niles Eldredge. 2007. “ and Material Cultural Evolution.” Current Anthropology 48 (1): 146–54.

34 Titon, Jeff Todd. 1992. “Music, the Public Interest, and the Practice of Ethnomusicology.” Ethnomusicology 36 (3): 315–22. ———. 1977. Early downhome blues: A musical and cultural analysis. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Tomlinson, Gary. 2013. “Evolutionary Studies in the Humanities: The Case of Music.” Critical Inquiry 39 (4): 647–75. Toussaint, Godfried. 2013. The Geometry of Musical Rhythm: What Makes A “Good” Rhythm Good? Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. UNESCO. 2003. Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage. http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/en/convention. van der Meer, Wim. 1975. “Cultural Evolution: A Case Study of Indian Music.” Sangeet Natak: Journal of the Sangeet Natak Akademi 35: 49–65. van Kranenburg, Peter, Anja Volk, Frans Wiering, and Remco C. Veltkamp. 2009. “Musical Models for Folk-Song Melody Alignment.” In Proceedings of the 10th International Society for Music Information Retrieval Conference (ISMIR), 507–12. Wallin, Nils L., Bjorn Merker, and Steven Brown, eds. 2000. The Origins of Music. Cambridge: MIT Press. White, Leslie A. 1959. The Evolution of Culture: The Development of Civilization to the Fall of Rome [2016]. New York: Routledge. Whiten, Andrew, Robert A. Hinde, Christopher B. Stringer, and Kevin N. Laland. 2012. Culture Evolves. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Windram, Heather F., Terence Charlston, and Christopher J. Howe. 2014. “A Phylogenetic Analysis of Orlando ’s Prelude in G.” Early Music 42 (4): 515–28. Wiora, Walter. 1953. Europäischer Volksegesang: Gemeinsame Formen in Charakteristischen Abwandlungen. Cologne: Arno Volk. Wood, Anna L. C. 2018. “‘Like a Cry from the Heart’: An Insider’s View on the Genesis of Alan Lomax’s Ideas and the Legacy of His Research: Part I.” Ethnomusicology 62 (2): 230–64. Yong, Ed. 2018. “A Study Suggests That People Can Hear Universal Traits in Music: But Some Music Scholars Have Doubts.” The Atlantic, January 25.

35 https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/01/the-search-for- universal-qualities-in-music-heats-up/551447/?utm_source=fbb. Zivic, Pablo H. Rodriguez, Favio Shifres, and Guillermo A. Cecchi. 2013. “Perceptual Basis of Evolving Western Musical Styles.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 110 (24): 10034–38.

36