[jacobolus]

> While nobody knows for sure, it is believed that when music began, the most dominant if not the only element was rhythm. No melody, no harmony – just rhythm. At first it may have been random objects, and later drums. This may have been thousands of years ago, but at the time, that was it.

What is the evidence for this theory? People sing in all sorts of societies all around the world. Are there even examples of human societies without singing?

It’s hard for me to imagine some time “thousands of years ago” when there was no singing or other melodic music of any kind, but only drumming on “random objects”.

If there are direct examples of 35,000 year old flutes, https://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/25/science/25flute.html then presumably this “thousands of years ago” referred to is considerably older than that.

> Melody was probably the next element that came into play, mostly through the various religious chants; in most cases with little to no rhythmic or harmonic context.

Chanting and singing are two significantly different forms, and chanting does not necessarily have much if any melodic content. It does not seem to me that one is obviously primary; people continue to do singing and religious chanting side by side in many cultures.

Maybe there’s some better evidence about this somewhere? It would be nice to see something more convincing.

[todd8]

For those interested in prehistoric instruments, I suggest the research by Dr. Lana Neal. It is a book (based on Dr. Neal's Ph.D. thesis) on the Paleolithic flute. The evidence includes, quite naturally, radiocarbon-dated instruments and fragments, but most interesting to me where the cave paintings that include quite clear depictions of flute players.

[1] https://www.amazon.com/Earliest-Instrument-Fertility-Paleoli...

[kleer001]

IMHO there can be no direct evidence, only speculation.

My thought is that it's easier to make sounds in a rhythm (on/off) than it is to control the pitch of those sounds (relative to previous sound).

Also thousands, I think, is probably an underestimate by a couple orders of magnitude.

[jacobolus]

It is very weak to say “it is believed that ...” and then make some very large (frankly implausible) claims without describing who believes this or why.

I would maybe give this idea some credibility if it were changed to “millions of years ago before the evolution of vocal anatomy capable of complex speech”.

But even then... completely speculative.