Today, after watching the week’s lectures for my coursera class on the music of the Rolling Stones, I was struck by the scientific implications of the way in which musicians who write their own music behave. One of the lectures this week focused on the stylistic continuity of the band from its original covers through the early 1970’s, focusing on genres like country, soul, gospel, rock, blues, and psychadelic. Despite the fact that we may listen to an album and try to label it as a particular genre, it is far more common that a band reaches fairly early its general range of styles, and then revisits and refines the same themes and concerns over time, or they gradually shift with age and maturity. This is a natural process, and one that we see consistently. It is one of a small set of organic patterns that we see over and over again, and that is worthy of comment.

Let us note here that we are speaking about bands or singers that write their own material. The organic process of gradual change within somewhat narrow bounds, or rapid development of genre and slow development and elaboration within those genres, or of oscillation between a small set of approaches, is what we see when we look at the geologic record of life. The Cambrian explosion set up nearly all of the large scale genres for life to fit in, and everything else was largely elaboration within those limits. Likewise, the change over time of finch beak size is not in one direction but is oscillation within a range is based on environmental conditions, and there are constraints on either side as to how much variation is permissible beyond which a creature will not go. Whether we are talking about Beck albums or finch beak sizes or powdered moth coloration, this pattern of oscillation within narrow bounds is observed.

What this suggests is that there really is something organic about people writing their own music and lyrics. Art is an organic process. Even where it does not become stuck in a rut, there is a certain comfort to the way artists behave after a long time. There is only so much variation that is naturally present within the same genome or the same individuals, and so after a while one has seen it or read it or heard it before. Occasionally, the pressure of external circumstances or a sudden flash of insight or connection may create new elaborations, but this requires a consistent devotion to improvement and development that is not present in nature without the aid of conscious design and effort. Yet the behavior of musicians and artists in general has not generally been seen as part of the same pattern of behavior of the larger world of life.

This is somewhat puzzling. If there is a fairly narrow bound beyond which individuals and small groups do not go beyond once they have set their initial conditions, unless there is conscious design and effort and overcoming resistance to change, a process that is difficult and laborious and often immensely time and effort-intensive, then why should we expect undirected processes without teleological qualities or conscious effort to produce miracles. We do not see miracles in our own lives from time without effort. If we are estranged from people who do not speak to us or care for us, or think well of us, time will not erase that enmity and replace it with fond feelings or even a desire to start over unless that enmity is consciously addressed and overcome, or forgiven and the slate is wiped clean. Time alone creates no miracles.

Yet time itself can provide a context by which effort can be useful with planning and design. At the beginning of their career, the Rolling Stones performed tours and shows at a relentless pace, but those shows were short, and the band’s early efforts were heavy on cover songs and songs that were clearly inspired by other songs without a great deal of originality. Yet after a little bit of time, they had become well-practiced enough to charge confidently into a few genres and themes (like dissatisfaction or the fickleness of love) that they returned to over and over again with elaboration and refinement. There would be different emphases at different times, but within the same range. So it is with anyone who creates; there are consistent concerns that are returned to over and over again with a slightly different emphasis but with the same general patterns. We see in nature what we see in art; therefore, we see the process of creation rather than having the benefits of design apart from the occasionally undesirable existence of a Designer.