Note: Preparation of individual for making music begins in infancy. Discussion on how to rate levels of seamlessness. Double descent, double seamlessness, and complementarity associated with hot music. Murdock doesn't recognize bi-lateral descent, calls it something else. We can rate seamlessness, networking, compound organization variation at following levels: household, kindred (exogamy), neighborhood (settlement pattern, non-in-law), community (size, complexity, no longer possible to know everybody), polity (involves what's outside the community). In a complex society a "mature" person must function (know what is appropriate) at all levels. Can keep secrets, knows the social score. Naïve people can't distinguish people inside from those outside (will "blurt out" inappropriately). In a closed culture, everybody knows everything about the ritual. They may took tense but know how to perform. When you get new people, initiates, you need "Robert's Rules of Order." Simultaneous division of labor, as in an orchestra. Players know how to do separate things at the same time. Many-layeredness seems to be a good indicator of the number of instruments. Example: Sotho - seamless at family and kindred level. Network at neighbor and community level. Compound at polity level. Conception that orchestras occur when seamlessness is low. They could intermesh and cooperate, but they did not at the non-vocal level because some bigshot was filling up the main musical front. Another notion is that some of our polyphony responded to alternate leadership (before orchestras). In very simple group-oriented society groupiness doesn't even show. Among Pygmies alternate leadership is so quick that doesn't get recorded as leadership. Complementarity is complete, so seamless it doesn't show as seamless. China and Japan have several seamless layers and many compound ones at the bottom. Javanese orchestras: very simple unstratified villages, but low seamlessness. Surprising when compared to Chinese and Japanese.