Charles Darwin was baffled by music - in 1871 he wrote that music 'must be ranked among the most mysterious' of our qualities because it could not offer an evolutionary advantage.

But, but, but... Karen Schrock in Scientific American has shown that human responses to melody are strikingly similar, having the effect of binding us together. This holds true across all mankind regardless of culture.

A team from the Max Planck Institute in Leipzig visited members of the Mafia tribe in Cameroon, who were asked to listen to a series of classical piano pieces and judge them happy, sad, scary or peaceful. They had never heard western music before, and their answers were the same as western volunteers.

 Separate research shows us that music stimulates the premotor brain areas that prepare us for action. It stirs us emotionally, keeping us in synchronised responses (look at pop concerts or classical last night of the proms).

Put all this together, and you see why our genetic code makes music a key element of our human culture and evolutionary success. So listen to music from the charts to enjoy the top music around! Click here for more...

I was reading a Guardian book review about the history of religious practice in many different cultures, arguing that in the good old days and purest forms they all come to much the same thing.

They use devices of ritual, mystery, drama, dance and meditation in order to enable us better to cope with the vale of tears in which we find ourselves. Religion is therefore properly a matter of a practice, and may be compared with art or music.

We come out of the art gallery or concert hall enriched and braced, elevated and tranquil, and may even fancy ourselves better people, though the change may or may not be noticed by those around us.

Tha is why music lovers say that a Chopin Nocturne of 3 minutes can 'contain' as much music as a Mahler Symphony of 90 minutes - the length is not the point, it is the quality of the feeling.

It seems to me that the days of record companies charging so much for an hour of music (on an album or CD) are well over. The famous story is of the EMI 'tob brass' executives who asked some youth (young people) to come in and talk about how they listen to music. It was a very well organised meeting, they were given drinks, and an expensive company was hired to manage the discussion.

Afterwards, when the 'yuth' filed out they were offered 2 CDs of EMI's best artists each as thanks from the executives. NONE of the youth took the CDs - they can get the music on the internet.

Now, that is amusing, but I understand that other people (youth) are young and making new music, so how will they get paid? Is it a return to the 19th century, when there was not copyright, so Chopin and Liszt sheet music was not protected, and anyone could print their Nocturns and Rhapsodies? They made their money from live concerts.

Perhaps - but I believe that people like a service, something that finds them great music at a low price. That is why I like the classical.com subscription package (I know I should not plug it, but there you go, I really do like it. Listening now to my top recommendation today which is http://www.classical.com/album/FC16567)

After Michael Jackson went solo with 'Off the Wall' he made about 5 albums. Adding in other tracks from History etc. perhaps 6 albums at the most. The amazing thing for me is that with all the supposed unhappiness in his life, the beatings from his father, the gruelling training, his music is so happy - you just have to listen for a few minutes, and the songs lift your mood.

But... think about it

Mozart wrote 180 CDs. That is a massive number compared to pop stars, include any pop start you wish. The Mozart compositions are compelling, joyful and reach some of the regions men have rarely touched.

Can Michael Jackson with just 5 CDs possibly compare?