Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper makes an interesting read and the theory presented with a range of references backs up the arguments presented effectively. The theory is interesting and, as far as I am aware, such a theory has not been previously published. It offers a unique perspective on why humans respond so well to music. 

It should be noted that quite a few research articles do exist on the evolution and role of music in human life. However, the current article offers a novel perspective on the role of music in our lives and, thus, contributes a unique theoretical study to the field. 

It might be helpful to add a paragraph on the biological processes of listening to music and then link this to the theoretical argument of the paper. It would also be interesting to see a paragraph on music in different cultures and whether singing is used differently in varied cultural contexts. 

 

 

 

Author Response

Thank you for positive comments.

I have added a brief paragraph on how we process sounds in the Introduction. The paragraph fits with subsequent discussion on why we appreciate music. As to music and singing in different cultures, I feel that the topic falls outside the scope of the present text.

Reviewer 2 Report

I have problems with this paper as is. Have potentials ? yes a lot!!

*.  The title: Using "obsession" always means "not normal" or "unreasonably"(Oxford or Britannica Dictionaries),and there is nothing   more normal around human behaviour than  music, as the author is trying to demonstrate it  in the paper.!!.

*there are so many assumptions, not supported ,that  this paper should not be accepted in a scientific ,peer review publication.

Examples going  line to line :

lines  40  :  aesthetic experience only in seen and hearing????

          49-50:  No basis and controversial

           59 : sending the reader to  ref (9)?: must be briefly explained in text 

            69. : must be explained in text .

           111-112:      Assumptions??

           115:    Mood 300M years ago: Please explain in the paper.

           121-127 :   Again too much generalization, with no basis.

           130-140:   bases bases

           227-230: Assuming?

            362-368: need robust data.

            370-374: same problem more data.

This paper have potentials.But need more scientific data supporting the many interesting suggestions by the author.

 

l

 

Author Response

Thank you for finding potential in my paper.

The title has been changes to: “The human passion for music”.

As to unsupported assumptions, this reviewer takes a rather different stance compared to reviewer #1. I have addressed the concerns as they are listed:

40: The text read: “Humans have a variety of senses, including vision, hearing, touch, and smell. Stimulation of any of our senses can activate rewards and punishment, in the form of pleasure and pain, where pain is used for any type of negative experience. Aesthetic experiences are primarily restricted to hearing and seeing.” I do not see any claim that aesthetic experience is ‘only in seen and hearing’, but I have changed the text to “primarily related to” rather than “primarily restricted to”.

49-50: The text read: “All mammals have a capacity to hear, but only in humans have it evolved into an extremely intricate and highly adaptive function in the form of oral language. Although music can serve a communicative intention, the spoken word seems to be vastly superior for that purpose.” I fail to see why this is controversial or without basis, but I have omitted the word ‘vastly’.

59: The point of including ref 9 is that I did touch on the subject in a book first published in 2002. I thought it fair to point that out although there is limited overlap.

69: The text read: “The model of the brain I shall use, and the accompanying terminology, are explained in more detail elsewhere [11].” The following paragraph started with Briefly, … and went on to offer an explanation. In order to make the point clearer, the present version reads: “The model of the brain I shall use, and the accompanying terminology, are briefly explained below. For a more detailed account, see [11].”

111-112: The text read: “Moreover, we may follow the call of the reward module even when we dislike where it takes us, as exemplified by drug addicts and other forms of compulsory behavior.” I would think it unnecessary to substantiate that drug addicts have problems with their addictions.

115: I have added a brief indication as to why the reference to 300 mya.

121-127: I have tried to clarify the point I want to make.

130-140: The text read: “In order to understand music, it is important to describe why the brain tends to process certain forms of auditory stimuli in a way that causes the activation of the reward module. The particular quality of sounds required are referred to as aesthetic elements. The list of elements should be restricted to those that are reasonably universal, and thus likely to reflect innate tendencies, rather than those that apply only to certain individuals or certain cultures. The activation of the reward module suggests that catering to these sounds offered an adaptive advantage at some point in our evolutionary past.” It is unclear to me what the reviewer means by “bases bases”.

227-230: The paragraph was: “The ability to produce pure sounds is found in animals where auditory signals are the main form of communication, a list that includes most birds and whales. Pure sounds presumably are less ambiguous and travel further. Consonance reduces ambiguity. It is easier to interpret a message with distinct frequencies compared to more random sounds.” The points made were considered too basic to warrant a reference, but in the present version I have included a reference.

362-368: The text read: “The reward model of music is supported by the observation that music can take on an addictive character [48]. For some people, listening to music is reminiscent of the maladaptive behavior associated with addictive substances; for example, they knowingly insist on playing music so loud that it results in a loss of hearing, or so often that it prevents the execution of more important tasks. Stimuli that release agreeable sensations tend to initiate excessive consumption if they are easily accessible; in present societies, music is readily available.” Here the information is covered in the reference given, except for the last sentence, which I would think does not require a specific reference.

370-374: The paragraph was: “Although some of the aesthetic elements suggested above may be relevant for animals, such as the calming effect, humans are likely to be the only species that really appreciate music. Birds sing and may very well be rewarded both for practicing their own vocal capacity and for learning to interpret what they hear; yet their oral communication appears to be largely based on preprogrammed systems.” I have added relevant references.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is very interesting and reads well. The minor corrections definitely refined it nicely. 

Since different cultures were mentioned in the original manuscript, as a reader, it would have been helpful to have a figure showing an example of the type of music that was referred to in the text. I do not mean that you would need to elaborate on music and singing in different cultures. For instance, to have a one line figure showing a snippet a music that was referred to in the text. I think that this would make the paper even stronger and easier for the reader to understand. 

Author Response

I am not sure what the reviewer means by "a one line figure showing a snippet a music that was referred to in the text," but I have added a sentence to example cultural use of music.

Reviewer 2 Report

Can be published  now

Author Response

The reviewer does not require additional changes.