Idiotic response, it isn't the stimuli themselves which are pleasurable in music. 'Dude probs evolved for it lmao! how? Errr, I dunno...'
Music which was sublime and considered something like the voice of the angels prior to the fall is offensive to modern ears. We have no reason to presume that there's some pre-existing pattern which we like which music simply finds.
> I don't think the preference is an intellectual one, or one that needs any processing by the brain, rather a physical one in the ear itself.
Yes, the ear and not the brain is involved in making and listening to music... riiight.
Musicology isn't a reason, it's a description of music.
That's because the audience shares the same culture, they're used to the same music and expectations. But it's the same with classical music, for instance, which is totally different and so has different listeners, whose musical anticipation is different.
>calming or pleasurable sounds mimicing environmental responses for a chimp is equivalent to human music
>Ask physicists. Biology is not a science also ask chemists.
Idiot alert.
youtube.com/watch?v=nEhTkF3eG8Q
My cats wake up and come to me purring in response to me humming or whistling.
Music is clearly a synthesis of the human imagination, forming whole forms of sound, which are united in the imagination as a single temporal experience, forming a rhythmical language which doesn't denote directly but which allows human emotional experience to reach a symbolic, rhythmical language.
A more likely source for the human receptivity to music could take for instance the human experience of time which emerges by an auto-affection of the nervous system in physical time, a similar auto-affection being at work of course in the womb when we're children, in the form of hearing our own heartbeats and the heartbeats of the mother in the body, and remembering this unconsciously.
