But Birdsong is not obviously
hitting the intervals of the chromatic scale and they're many of course other
animal vocalizations that are also harmonic series.
That if you took a spectrogram of a frog or
of many other examples of animals that are communicating socially.
For purposes of mating and other biologically significant reasons,
you find harmonics in many animal vocalizations.
But they're not musical in the sense that we've been talking about.
Why is that?
Well, the answer is not known, but I think the inferences that would follow from that
are that any animal that vocalizes in a harmonic series has in principle,
the wherewithal to be musical.
And probably what's lacking is not the essence in the vocalization of musically
and the importance of recognizing that vocalization, as specific.
But the failure of sufficient socialization and the cultures that we,
over those many thousands of years and, presumably, before that ancient flute
was discovered, that human beings had music based on our recognition
of the melodies that come when we sing a song, and
particularly the music that arises when more than one individual sings it,
and the melodies are combined as intervals that define a chromatic scale,
and the scales that we use in popular music.
Bottom line is that the relative lack of music, evidence for music in
other species, including birds, it's not that they don't have the wherewithal, but
that they don't have cultural sufficient socialization to make it biologically
useful the way we have to generate music and all that follows from it.
Going back to Darwin, you remember that he was the first.
But it seems a reasonable explanation that part of the reason that we like music so
much Is it's role in courting and
love, why so many songs that are popular are about love.
I mean, if you really were to do an empirical study of popular songs today
you'd find that the vast majority are about love and
one of it's many complex aspects.
So, again other animals can be musically