Why collective music-making is sometimes rare: A study of four indigenous societies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Current prominent music evolution theories suggest music evolved as a participatory group activity, whose adaptive functions were strengthening and/or signaling social cohesion. However, the prevalence of collective music-making varies substantially across societies, and in some cases is exceptionally rare. Here, we consider hypotheses for three factors which could attenuate collective music-making: diminished collective action more generally, an emphasis on musical expertise, and solo-oriented musical styles. We examine data related to these hypotheses in four societies in which collective music-making is rare: the Tsimane of lowland Bolivia, the Ache of eastern Paraguay, the Ayoreo of Bolivia and Paraguay, and the Tuvans of the Russian Republic of Tyva. Our results suggest that the scale and religiosity of collective action are the most important factors related to the overall degree of collective music-making in these cultures. The effect of musical expertise was mostly limited to the dominance of shamans in religious contexts, while well-developed solo musical styles did not necessarily prevent group performance in other social settings. We also note the importance of cultural loss due to influence of invading colonial and imperial forces in diminishing indigenous forms of collective music-making. Notably, in all the cases we consider, episodes of some form of collective music-making do (or historically did) occur during important social events, a fact which supports the group-functionalist view. Our findings also point to the centrality and ubiquity of the religious function of music, and suggest this aspect of musical behavior needs to be better addressed by evolutionary theories of music.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".