minimalism is over

[nasenmann]

Shamans made music to get in contact with ghosts and gods, not to get more sex. Music has a spiritual quality, too.

Sex has a spiritual quality, too.
Every f**king thing has a spiritual quality when experienced by spirit.

[Tricky-Loops]

Shamans made music to get in contact with ghosts and gods, not to get more sex. Music has a spiritual quality, too.

Sex has a spiritual quality, too.
Every f**king thing has a spiritual quality when experienced by spirit.

Do you want to prove how primitive men are?

[Jace-BeOS]

I'm still believing there must be something deeper in music than sexuality. Just because birds are singing to find a partner, doesn't mean that musicians are only making music to find a sex partner, too.

Of course not. That's not what the study has suggested. It suggests that music is an outgrowth of sexual competition.

[Tricky-Loops]

I'm still believing there must be something deeper in music than sexuality. Just because birds are singing to find a partner, doesn't mean that musicians are only making music to find a sex partner, too.

Of course not. That's not what the study has suggested. It suggests that music is an outgrowth of sexual competition.

Which is nonsense because if you'd show the women paintings or wardrobes or candles, they would choose the complexest ones, too, as long as they have to be selective. That's human nature, as most females have to choose one man from several ones, and of course, they'll choose the one which seems to be the most successful (i. e. has the most money for their childs)...

In this case they don't know the composers, so they can only choose the complexest tracks. In real life they would prefer David Guetta over someone like Richard Clayderman because he has more money...

I'm speaking of AVERAGE women, not some artist women who might have different standards and care about more things than wealth and money.

[Jace-BeOS]

Shamans made music to get in contact with ghosts and gods, not to get more sex. Music has a spiritual quality, too.

Sex has a spiritual quality, too.
Every f**king thing has a spiritual quality when experienced by spirit.

Do you want to prove how primitive men are?

Do you have some kind of negative feeling toward sex? i'm not sure why this seems to be bothering you so much. i'm sincerely curious... because...

...Growing up, i hated males. Mostly because of how they treated me and how they treated females. Obnoxious. i assumed sex was a primitive and animalistic mindlessness that was focused on only by ignorant moron jerk males. Males disgusted me, in general. All i had exposure to were bad males at school and the females that reinforced the negative attitudes toward males. i saw males as just a bunch of nasty brutish monkeys that women didn't want to deal with.

What i found out later on: women DO like sex, DO want sex, and sex is REALLY freaking important. It is not to be discounted as some unimportant primitive foolishness (just like music isn't to be discounted as some "artsy fartsy nonsense" that has no value compared to "practicality"). Sex isn't everything, but it IS a central feature of BEING ALIVE! (unless you're asexual, and that happens, but please don't assume the rest of us are or should be) You can embrace sexuality and still be intellectual, soulful, etc. i wish i had embraced that when i was younger because i feel like i missed out.

There's so much damn taboo and oppression around sex. It makes people crazy. They need it like they need air, water, and food, but are terrified of it. It's part of being HUMAN and alive!

So i find this article to be of interest because it shows how important music is to the basic functionality of human life!

As for why women make music too... sure it can have to do with sex... OR NOT! Sex traits aren't black and white; they aren't divided between the genders in any absolute manner, and YES, music can exist outside of sexuality! Males have nipples, right? You know why? Because women do. That's pretty much it. One gender can have the traits of the other gender simply because it is a HUMAN trait. That doesn't mean music = sex, or that women make music because of sex. The article is talking about the ORIGINS of human behaviors, not their ultimate final function in modern human society.

[Jace-BeOS]

I'm still believing there must be something deeper in music than sexuality. Just because birds are singing to find a partner, doesn't mean that musicians are only making music to find a sex partner, too.

Of course not. That's not what the study has suggested. It suggests that music is an outgrowth of sexual competition.

Which is nonsense because if you'd show the women paintings or wardrobes or candles, they would choose the complexest ones, too, as long as they have to be selective. That's human nature, as most females have to choose one man from several ones, and of course, they'll choose the one which seems to be the most successful (i. e. has the most money for their childs)...

I'm speaking of AVERAGE women, not some artist women who might have different standards and care about more things than wealth and money.

Wait, what? You just proved the point of the article by suggesting that women respond similarly to art, and other decorative items, as they do to music. Yes, this is sexual competition. So much of human culture is rooted in it. It's what we are. There are some incredible birds that create actual sculptural art installations to impress females to win them over (this actually brought me to tears to see, because it showed just how SIMILAR they are to US, despite humans assuming they're just stupid primitive mindless meat!). The article suggests that this is where art/music comes from, only it is specifying MUSIC in this case. The fact that we can intellectualize art and music, and analyze it down to the deepest emotional and experiential level, is NOT cheapened by the sexual competition origins of it in the species. It's actually pretty fascinating to think that artistic ability could be just as much a development of sexual competition as sportsmanship. It still doesn't cheapen it.

i'm still confused about what has got you irritated here. i'm not trying to fight with you i find this all very fascinating!

As for "average women vs artist women that care about more than wealth and money"... tread carefully there

[Doug1978]

Wot a load of bollocks.

[Tricky-Loops]

@ Jace-BeOS

I'm not against sexuality at all but there are so many weird studies out there which convey that the most, best and longest sex were the ONLY important thing in human life.

Really, I can listen to music for some hours or hiking in nature or sitting on a bank or meditating without permanently thinking about sex. It's possible.

And I can make music without thinking about sex, too.

Sex is a part of our life but it isn't the only one...

[Jace-BeOS]

@ Jace-BeOS

I'm not against sexuality at all but there are so many weird studies out there which convey that the most, best and longest sex were the ONLY important thing in human life.

Really, I can listen to music for some hours or hiking in nature or sitting on a bank or meditating without permanently thinking about sex. It's possible.

And I can make music without thinking about sex, too.

Sex is a part of our life but it isn't the only one...

But... none of this is claimed by the study that the initial post shared here. It just seems like you're reacting to something that's not present in this article, so i'm kinda stunned.

[Doug1978]

Actually I've always thought that minimalism would suit the post-orgasmic bliss period.

Maybe dub reggae should be played at the start of love-making to go with the slow steadiness, then building into hip-hop as 'confidence' rises, swaggering pop-rock as the pace and patterns increase, some dirty dubstep wobbling (metaphor not needed), then finally a bit of furious banging gabba.

Maybe classical music for the foreplay.

Jazz as a compilation of outtakes from a series of our best moments.


Though one thing's for sure. As I (and you) are currently engrossed in this thread, there sure ain't no music or love being made by us currently.

Roger and out.

[Jace-BeOS]

To your "Wot a load of bollocks" post, i was just about to say "Luckily, science is also there for you to prove the study to be totally wrong"

To your last point, though, you're so dead on The only reason i'm here on this site is that i'm lonely and don't want to be. i should be working on music, but i'm too lost in my situational context. Stupid internet "social" networking.

[Doug1978]

Pah! Science is powerless in the face of mock-indignation and good old British slang

And here, apropos of nothing, is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOAz4nPNvLI

[nasenmann]

Jace: your post on sex was a bit on the ranty side considering what inspired it, but it's still a very good post in itself.

[Tricky-Loops]

And now let's take the study finally to our real life:

How many women can choose between a relationship to 10 composers in their life?

Maybe one of hundred. The rest will choose craftsmen, construction workers, bankers, social workers (and many professions more) as partner...

To know about sexual competition, I don't need a study, that's something I already realized when I was 13 and fell in love for the first time...

[jancivil]

I don't think I ever made any study. My experience was girls go for musicians. I go for girls, and I was always 'lucky'.
The females I've known in my life that I was not involved with like that were just as apt to go for a complete loser bad boy even as a partner. One woman I loved sought stability and a friend in a mate in preference to drama, and I totally see that. If your experience was 'all normal women seek money', maybe it's universal in some way - such as I believe that a breeder woman wanting security from a mate is normative for them, just as I think the male that seeks a viable child-bearer is normative for them - but the quality of your statement looks like 'Women are basically whores'.

And I suspect you won't get on that well with the females based in a construction like that, it looks like a child's self-centered lack of empathy to me.