Monday, January 02, 2006

More Music

An uncomfortable set of ideas has been floating around in my head over the Christmas/New Year.

I happened to catch a Richard Attenborough (Blessed be his Blue Shirts) show soon after my last post - all about music and animals.

Certain very disturbing facts seemed to pop out:
  • Music could be much older biologically in us than language.
  • It developed as a way of marking and fighting for territory.
  • It became more complex as a sex/fitness link became attached.
  • Music is a Male domain.
  • In certain monkey species the male and females have different 'music'.
  • Chimps use it to form male hunting groups.

Could it be that the male of the species is biologically fitter to create music? Whether it be the very basic urges of the Great Tit, or the much more sophisticated singing Whales, it is the male at the forefront: Has this been translated into our own genetic make-up?

The territoriality, gender, fitness - we make a noise as a basic sign of who we are: I am moved by certain Christmas songs because they touch on the collective in me, they hint at belonging and place? But I have to sing - I am compelled to express my position too.

And what am I now to make of Black Eyed Peas? I watched, fascinated, their video, 'Humps'.

The absolute Maleness of the Music but the sexual allure of the Female - not passive, not delicate - very, very strong, but receptive. Not inferior, but different.

Could it be that there never will be a female Beethoven?

And are there so many males in the world of music precisely because of the music being a fundamental (genetic) sign of strength and sexually prowess? Does music make a man sexy?

Certainly the ultimate mate must be a conductor - they live for ever, don't they? And what about the sex drive of Hayden, Mozart, Beethoven?

I know from personal experience, there is a tremendous power in delivering a song to an audience: Even in Kareoke.

Oh, I think I better go and lie down . . .

No comments: