Rticle: Fitch WT. 2015 Four principles of bio-musicology. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 370: 20140091. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2014.0091 One contribution of 12 to a theme issue `Biology, cognition and origins of musicality’. Subject Areas: evolution, neuroscience, behaviour Keywords: musicality, bio-musicology, comparative approach, rhythm, dance, popular music Author for correspondence: W. Tecumseh Fitch e-mail: [email protected]. Introduction: bio-musicology and `musicality’In April 2014, I purchase RWJ 64809 presented a short `position statement’ on the first day of the Lorentz Conference on Musicality (cf. the introduction to this issue by Honing et al. [1]). My goal was to present several principles that I believed were necessary foundations for a future discipline of bio-musicology, but that I also thought might be HM61713, BI 1482694 molecular weight controversial and spark discussion. To my surprise, however, with few exceptions these proposed principles were readily accepted by the very diverse set of academics assembled at that conference. I present these principles and briefly explore some of their implications for current and future bio-musicological research in the following sections.(a) Defining the object of study: `musicality’ versus music`Bio-musicology’ is the biological study of musicality in all its forms. Human `musicality’ refers to the set of capacities and proclivities that allows our species to generate and enjoy music in all of its diverse forms. A core tenet of biomusicology is that musicality is deeply rooted in human biology, in a form that is typical of our species and broadly shared by members of all human cultures. While music, the product of human musicality, is extremely diverse, musicality itself is a stable aspect of our biology and thus can be productively studied from comparative, neural, developmental and cognitive perspectives. The biomusicological approach is comparative in at least two senses: first that it takes2015 The Authors. Published by the Royal Society under the terms of the Creative Commons AttributionLicense http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/, which permits unrestricted use, provided the original author and source are credited.as its domain all of human music-making (not privileging any one culture, or `art music’ created by professionals) and second that it seeks insight into the biology of human musicality, wherever possible, by looking at related traits in other animals. Note that there is no contradiction in seeing musicality as a universal aspect of human biology, while accepting the vast diversity of music itself, across cultures or over historical time within a culture. While the number of possible songs is unlimited, singing as an activity can be insightfully analysed using a relatively small number of parameters (Is singing done in groups or alone? With or without instrumental accompaniment? Is it rhythmically regular or not?, etc.). As Alan Lomax showed in his monumental cantometrics research programme, such a classification can provide insights into both the unity and diversity of music, as instantiated in human cultures across the globe [2?]. Furthermore, the form and function of the vocal apparatus that produces song is shared by all normal humans, from a newborn to Pavarotti [5], and indeed the overall form and function of our vocal apparatus is shared with many other mammal species from mice to elephants [6,7]. While ethnomusicology traditionally focuses on the form and social function of songs (and other.Rticle: Fitch WT. 2015 Four principles of bio-musicology. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 370: 20140091. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2014.0091 One contribution of 12 to a theme issue `Biology, cognition and origins of musicality’. Subject Areas: evolution, neuroscience, behaviour Keywords: musicality, bio-musicology, comparative approach, rhythm, dance, popular music Author for correspondence: W. Tecumseh Fitch e-mail: [email protected]. Introduction: bio-musicology and `musicality’In April 2014, I presented a short `position statement’ on the first day of the Lorentz Conference on Musicality (cf. the introduction to this issue by Honing et al. [1]). My goal was to present several principles that I believed were necessary foundations for a future discipline of bio-musicology, but that I also thought might be controversial and spark discussion. To my surprise, however, with few exceptions these proposed principles were readily accepted by the very diverse set of academics assembled at that conference. I present these principles and briefly explore some of their implications for current and future bio-musicological research in the following sections.(a) Defining the object of study: `musicality’ versus music`Bio-musicology’ is the biological study of musicality in all its forms. Human `musicality’ refers to the set of capacities and proclivities that allows our species to generate and enjoy music in all of its diverse forms. A core tenet of biomusicology is that musicality is deeply rooted in human biology, in a form that is typical of our species and broadly shared by members of all human cultures. While music, the product of human musicality, is extremely diverse, musicality itself is a stable aspect of our biology and thus can be productively studied from comparative, neural, developmental and cognitive perspectives. The biomusicological approach is comparative in at least two senses: first that it takes2015 The Authors. Published by the Royal Society under the terms of the Creative Commons AttributionLicense http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/, which permits unrestricted use, provided the original author and source are credited.as its domain all of human music-making (not privileging any one culture, or `art music’ created by professionals) and second that it seeks insight into the biology of human musicality, wherever possible, by looking at related traits in other animals. Note that there is no contradiction in seeing musicality as a universal aspect of human biology, while accepting the vast diversity of music itself, across cultures or over historical time within a culture. While the number of possible songs is unlimited, singing as an activity can be insightfully analysed using a relatively small number of parameters (Is singing done in groups or alone? With or without instrumental accompaniment? Is it rhythmically regular or not?, etc.). As Alan Lomax showed in his monumental cantometrics research programme, such a classification can provide insights into both the unity and diversity of music, as instantiated in human cultures across the globe [2?]. Furthermore, the form and function of the vocal apparatus that produces song is shared by all normal humans, from a newborn to Pavarotti [5], and indeed the overall form and function of our vocal apparatus is shared with many other mammal species from mice to elephants [6,7]. While ethnomusicology traditionally focuses on the form and social function of songs (and other.