Talk:Evolutionary musicology

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Music theory Low‑importance

	Music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Music theory, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of music theory, theory terminology, music theorists, and musical analysis on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Music theoryWikipedia:WikiProject Music theoryTemplate:WikiProject Music theoryMusic theory articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

See also Talk:Musilanguage and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Musilanguage.

The musilanguage theory by Brown (2000) is only one (small) aspect of evolutionary musicology. The article should primarily consider the important question of adaptive functions of musical behaviour. There are three important theories: (1) mother-infant-communication (motherese), (2) sexual selection, (3) group functions of music. See Wallin, Merker, Brown (2000) The Origins of Music. Cambridge MA: MIT Press

This is a fantastic article, I have a lot to add to it! J —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.18.121 (talk) 18:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a few edits to try to put the "musilanguage" portion of this article into context. The treatment of the "musilanguage" hypothesis is still far too long compared to the treatment of other areas and hypotheses in the field. It should be edited down unless other concepts within evolutionary musicology can be fleshed out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.124.220.49 (talk) 23:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

following links in the references-section have no content anymore: - Bruno Tucunduva Ruviaro (2004-06-03). The Spell of Speech, 'The Musilanguage model'. - Ball, Philip (2005-07-09). "Music: The international language?". New Scientist. - Nechvatal, Tony (2005-08-06). "Musical talk". New Scientist. plus: here is the mit-paper from steven brown online available. - http://www.sfu.ca/psyc/brown/musilanguage.pdf via http://www.sfu.ca/psyc/brown/ thanks. adrian.Adrianoesch (talk) 14:49, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But tonal languages were not necessarily tonal originally[edit]

Serious problem with this sentence: "Tonal languages such as Thai and Cantonese, wherein the lexical meaning of a sound depends heavily on its pitch relative to other sounds, are seen as evolutionary artifacts of musilanguage. Non-tonal, or "intonation" languages, which do not depend heavily on pitch for lexical meaning, are seen as evolutionary late-comers which have discarded their dependence on tone." Cantonese descends from Old Chinese, which was not tonal. So much for that theory ...--98.111.164.239 (talk) 00:33, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this highlighted?[edit]

Why is this line highlighted? "Since music may facilitate social cohesion, improve group effort, reduce conflict, facilitate perceptual and motor skill development, and improve trans-generational communication,[12] music-like behavior may at some stage have become incorporated into human culture."

Also it doesn't really seem to answer the question. Its circular. Humans developed a capacity for music because humans found that it was helpful to other humans after we developed a capacity? There is no origin in that hypothesis. The fundamental question is why the human brain developed a capacity for music and why the brain finds stimulation in it. --RobertGary1 (talk) 17:43, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]