How did Music originate?

The view that music evolved from animal calls is psychologically implausible. I would suggest the evolutionary pathway is as follows.

The mechanism that permits human speech is a tiny bone called the hyoid, which anchors the glottis and makes its usage consistent and reliable for the vocal articulation, as opposed to mere vocalisation. Obviously human language evolved from similar survival requirements evident in other animal ‘languages’. But beyond this  an evolutionary byproduct of the earliest bicameral brain would have been the capacity to become aware of and articulate the reflexive sensations of pleasure /pain /attraction /disgust – which might be called proto-aesthetics.

I would hazard that the discovery of Song can be traced to enjoyment of the duality between the speech and calling - and the discovery that sustained vocalisation by its psychological nature induced a heightened awareness which, when used in a ’safe’ context, was amplified by listeners’ inner responses to the emotional vibrations (or intention) encoded onto it by the caller/singer.

Again, bicamerality has to lie behind the other major characteristic of Music: rhythm. No animals have access to continuous metricality, because it is an acquired skill wholly dependent on aesthetic discipline. Animals and children perform ‘musical’ actions by virtue of physical responses to brain impulses, and the nature of these impulses is conditioned by motor response (muscular energy) to the passing mental focus motivating it. It depends entirely on the evolution of bicamerality to be able to conceive of the existence of a right or wrong way of performing an action other than in terms of immediate pain or reward. And without that conception of a beat as existing abstractly from our own gesture/s, rhythmicality is impossible. I think one can see within the difference between single percussive sounds and sustained coherent rhythmic activity a very similar psychological mechanism unlocking the aesthetics of entertainment (or entrainment, if you will).
For further thoughts on the relationship between of timbre & consciousness

Many years ago, in VHS days, St Attenborough made a TV film exploring Animal ‘Music'. Essentially his conclusion, which I paraphrase, was that while animals make sounds for many purposes, there are no real examples in nature that would correspond to the self-reflexive intentionality which lies within human Music. (Well, some of it!)

Some animals, elephants for instance, can be trained to drum a beat just as they can be trained to paint pictures; but it is manifestly impossible for them to understand or attach emotional significance to actions which they would never have performed naturally - since the mental circuitry by which they could have invented them autonomously is not present within their limbic system.
We learnt from Blue Planet II this week that whales appear to be the only non-human species where sustained vocalisation (song) is shared equally between genders, and not an evolutionary trait of males. 

But there’s a further reason why birds or animals can’t be seen as the origins of music; and that is because if they were we’d still be doing it like them. Whereas the near-universal bedrock of evolved musical languages is a version of the stepped scale. 

What happens after death?

Where to start answering such a question?
    Where does knowing come from? How do we know anything? What distinguishes knowing from believing?
    Possibly it comes from the sense of having penetrated to beyond surface experience to an archetypal level that transcends conventional consciousness? In this sense that Jung famously answered John Freeman’s question "Are you a believer?" with “I don’t believe, I know.”
    What then distinguishes such a claimant from a madman? Absolutely nothing. I make that as a personal disclaimer.

My first way into the question is to say that all the highest expressions of religious awareness depict life as a continuum which dips into and out of terrestrial existence for the traction it offers for soul growth. ‘The only planet of choice.’ The literalness of physical existence reduces the limitless fluidity (or airyfairyness) of spirit existence to hard facts which act as quern stones to grind the spiritual flour out of the physical corn. Or to take another analogy, where and how we focus our lifegoal/s represents the tip of the pole a vaulter practices placing in order to leap over the bar.

So what is that bar and its metaphysical implication/s?
    If each human consciousness is in essence a seed kernel, then as Christ said, to germinate its protective enclosure has to ‘die’, ie be broken. If this is in fact one of the objectives of an evolved life perception, then it’s unsurprising that the unevolved fear the loss of ego identity as much as death itself – indeed they fear death for the same reason. Because to those whose consciousness is body-wired there can be no (cap L) Life except throu sensation.
    But for those who use their incarnation to accept soul-(re)wiring there is the opportunity to leap off the earthplane altogether - to be finished with needing a body to process and decode perception.

So as I see it, a post-incarnation existence within the multi-dimensionality of ultra-consciousness is not essentially different to terrestrial life except without the anchor point of bodily or material forms. The difference between discarnate souls is that those who achieved understanding of what is to come by spiritual practice in this life will know where they are, and why they’re there, and be ready to move on - whereas the others don’t. And indeed can’t, for the reasons given.

So what then is moving on?
    The nature of the Source of all Life can barely be glimpsed on /from the earthplane. S/he exists beyond all duality and the capacity of human consciousness to understand, let alone to describe. To be ready to step onto the lowest plane of non-duality requires us to have been purged of all anger, (self-)hate, misery, lust for objects, power, money or even (selfish) love. In fact, I believe, it is like stepping into your most exalted dreamstate where everything makes sense and you are embraced by the love and fulfilment of everyone and everything you have ever wanted.
    It’s my belief (which I hope I’m not called upon to prove!) that martyrdom and mortal sickness are gifts enabling those with the appropriate consciousness to surrender all attachment to their physical form, and so to vault to immense ‘heights’.
    The consciousness with which we pass over is tremendously important to our spiritual trajectory and initial level within the hierarchy of non-duality. We are all immediately embraced, but those who are unprepared for the nature of the embrace will find it as hard to accept there as they do here.
    Nevertheless, to those who can is offered the pathway to whatever intensity of union with the Source of Existence that their ongoing karma (moral perception as defined by multi-life choice/s) and creative imagination are preparing them for.

So, finally, what may we find beyond the veil?
    The same truth Jung articulated: the unconscious always shows us the face we show it. People will find whatever their heart has truly yearned for. Men and women of goodwill are certain to find others of like mind, just as the Trumps of this world will. Each to their own! The difference is, marvellously for the pyramid of Existence, the latter will be utterly impotent; whereas the spiritual power of the former will equip them to full-fill roles as angels and ministers of grace in the great unfolding of evolutionary love which is the story of creation and the emergence of conscious lifeforms.

Two further things come to me to add. 

    I have used height & depth metaphors because it’s easier linguistically, but really the appropriate imagery is a scale or index of density. The spiritual-evolutionary process, I believe, involves relinquishing frivolity, self-interest and disconnectedness from the needs of other life-forms (everything that money is used to buy) and acceptance of becoming a molecule attuned to, embedded within, and vibrating with the mighty cloud or swarm of consciousness whose nuclear epicentre is the Source of Life. 

    Whereas in life we may be attracted by a manifestations or aspects of this cloud, yet we can do little more than glimpse its nature while we are embodied. And only when we are disembodied, naked, and have purified our motivations throu conscious actions (karma) can we begin to understand the organic functioning /breathing /living /instantaneous interaction of this mighty cloud or swarm of like-minds that sustains and supports all life throughout the multiverses. In this matter, words are worse than useless, and can only serve to misrepresent.

Secondly: What is the role of Christ and of ‘salvation’?

    If you discount nearly everything that the church & evangelicals tell you, then I think the figure or persona of Christ does offer is a unique real-isation or vision of a route-map to the noblest ways of being human. The caveats are that the noblest way/s of being are not ‘Christian’ any more than the property of any other sect or religion, even tho each religious thought-form does have a unique ethical timbre. Secondly the realisation does not immediately hand you a free pass to ‘heaven', as Born Agains teach, but gives you a vision to cherish and follow. It’s not that it overrides karma, so much as give guidance on the ethical priorities that enable us to move quickly throu the bewildering range of moral choices that can bog people down.

    There is an interesting psychological factor about the role of a white-robed teacher. I think we all have embedded within us the idea of a pastor bonus, someone who will have compassion on our confusion and lead towards the light. And I think our expectations are broadly that this is a male figure because the incisive use of the logos principle relates to the male end of gender spectrum. But it’s interesting that this image is found in all religions; and this leads me to believe that, as with medieval art, it is not the literal personality of Christ that matters – as if we could ever know who he was – so much as a Christ (or Buddha et al) shaped space of innate inner wisdom which this persona invokes. 

The ethical difficulty for us today is that by objectifying Christ as a both literal and super-human religions have A) ossified that image so that it's no longer dynamic; and B) failed to take into account the culture-driven way in which the ethical ‘shape’ of the subjective space of innate inner wisdom has evolved so that the ancient ‘verities’ are no longer congruent with contemporary folks' moral compass.