Question Numbers (9 to 12): The passage below is
accompanied by a set of questions. Choose the best
answer to each question.
Humans today make music. Think beyond all the
qualifications that might trail after this bald statement:
that only certain humans make music, that extensive
training is involved, that many societies distinguish
musical specialists from nonmusicians, that in today’s
societies most listen to music rather than making it,
and so forth. These qualifications, whatever their local
merit, are moot in the face of the overarching truth that
making music, considered from a cognitive and
psychological vantage, is the province of all those who
perceive and experience what is made. We are, almost
all of us, musicians — everyone who can entrain (not
necessarily dance) to a beat, who can recognize a
repeated tune (not necessarily sing it), who can
distinguish one instrument or one singing voice from
another. I will often use an antique word, recently revived,
to name this broader musical experience. Humans are
musicking creatures….
The set of capacities that enables musicking is a
principal marker of modern humanity. There is nothing
polemical in this assertion except a certain insistence,
which will figure often in what follows, that musicking
be included in our thinking about fundamental human
commonalities. Capacities involved in musicking are
many and take shape in complicated ways, arising from
innate dispositions . . . Most of these capacities overlap
with nonmusical ones, though a few may be distinct
and dedicated to musical perception and production. In
the area of overlap, linguistic capacities seem to be
particularly important, and humans are (in principle)
language-makers in addition to music-makers —
speaking creatures as well as musicking ones.
Humans are symbol-makers too, a feature tightly bound
up with language, not so tightly with music. The species
Cassirer dubbed Homo symbolicus cannot help but
tangle musicking in webs of symbolic thought and
expression, habitually making it a component of
behavioral complexes that form such expression. But
in fundamental features musicking is neither languagelike
nor symbol-like, and from these differences come
many clues to its ancient emergence.
If musicking is a primary, shared trait of modern
humans, then to describe its emergence must be to
detail the coalescing of that modernity. This took place,
archaeologists are clear, over a very long durée: at least
50,000 years or so, more likely something closer to
200,000, depending in part on what that coalescence
is taken to comprise. If we look back 20,000 years, a
small portion of this long period, we reach the lives of
humans whose musical capacities were probably little
different from our own. As we look farther back we reach
horizons where this similarity can no longer hold —
perhaps 40,000 years ago, perhaps 70,000, perhaps
100,000. But we never cross a line before which all the
cognitive capacities recruited in modern musicking
abruptly disappear. Unless we embrace the incredible
notion that music sprang forth in full-blown glory, its
emergence will have to be tracked in gradualist terms
across a long period.
This is one general feature of a history of music’s
emergence . . . The history was at once sociocultural
and biological . . . The capacities recruited in musicking
are many, so describing its emergence involves following
several or many separate strands.
Which one of the following statements, if true, would
weaken the author’s claim that humans are
musicking creatures?