credits to: youtube.com
Monday, December 20, 2010
Why Do We Like Music?
Why do we like music? Our culture immerses us in it for hours each day, and everyone knows how it touches our emotions, but few think of how music touches other kinds of thought. It is astonishing how little curiosity we have about so pervasive an "environmental" influence. What might we discover if we were to study musical thinking?
Have we the tools for such work? Years ago, when science still feared meaning, the new field of research called 'Artificial Intelligence' started to supply new ideas about "representation of knowledge" that I'll use here. Are such ideas too alien for anything so subjective and irrational, aesthetic, and emotional as music? Not at all. I think the problems are the same and those distinctions wrongly drawn: only the surface of reason is rational. I don't mean that understanding emotion is easy, only that understanding reason is probably harder. Our culture has a universal myth in which we see emotion as more complex and obscure than intellect. Indeed, emotion might be "deeper" in some sense of prior evolution, but this need not make it harder to understand; in fact, I think today we actually know much more about emotion than about reason.
Certainly we know a bit about the obvious processes of reason–the ways we organize and represent ideas we get. But whence come those ideas that so conveniently fill these envelopes of order? A poverty of language shows how little this concerns us: we "get" ideas; they "come" to us; we are 're-minded of" them. I think this shows that ideas come from processes obscured from us and with which our surface thoughts are almost uninvolved. Instead, we are entranced with our emotions, which are so easily observed in others and ourselves. Perhaps the myth persists because emotions, by their nature, draw attention, while the processes of reason (much more intricate and delicate) must be private and work best alone.
The old distinctions among emotion, reason, and aesthetics are like the earth, air, and fire of an ancient alchemy. We will need much better concepts than these for a working psychic chemistry.
Much of what we now know of the mind emerged in this century from other subjects once considered just as personal and inaccessible but which were explored, for example, by Freud in his work on adults' dreams and jokes, and by Piaget in his work on children's thought and play. Why did such work have to wait for modern times? Before that, children seemed too childish and humor much too humorous for science to take them seriously.
Why do we like music? We all are reluctant, with regard to music and art, to examine our sources of pleasure or strength. In part we fear success itself– we fear that understanding might spoil enjoyment. Rightly so: art often loses power when its psychological roots are exposed. No matter; when this happens we will go on, as always, to seek more robust illusions!
I feel that music theory has gotten stuck by trying too long to find universals. Of course, we would like to study Mozart's music the way scientists analyze the spectrum of a distant star. Indeed, we find some almost universal practices in every musical era. But we must view these with suspicion, for they might show no more than what composers then felt should be universal. If so, the search for truth in art becomes a travesty in which each era's practice only parodies its predecessor's prejudice. Imagine formulating "laws" for television screenplays, taking them for natural phenomenon uninfluenced by custom or constraint of commerce.
The trouble with the search for universal laws of thought is that both memory and thinking interact and grow together. We do not just learn about things, we learn ways to think about things; then we can learn to think about thinking itself. Before long, our ways of thinking become so complicated that we cannot expect to understand their details in terms of their surface operation, but we might understand the principles that guide their growth. In much of this article I will speculate about how listening to music engages the previously acquired personal knowledge of the listener.
It has become taboo for music theorists to ask why we like what we like: our seekers have forgotten what they are searching for. To be sure, we can't account for tastes, in general, because people have various preferences. But this means only that we have to find the causes of this diversity of tastes, and this in turn means we must see that music theory is not only about music, but about how people process it. To understand any art, we must look below its surface into the psychological details of its creation and absorption.
If explaining minds seems harder than explaining songs, we should remember that sometimes enlarging problems makes them simpler! The theory of the roots of equations seemed hard for centuries within its little world of real numbers, but it suddenly seemed simple once Gauss exposed the larger world of so-called complex numbers. Similarly, music should make more sense once seen through listeners' minds.
credits to: http://web.media.mit.edu/~minsky/papers/MusicMindMeaning.html
Why Does Music Make Us Feel?
As a young man I enjoyed listening to a particular series of French instructional programs. I didn’t understand a word, but was nevertheless enthralled. Was it because the sounds of human speech are thrilling? Not really. Speech sounds alone, stripped of their meaning, don’t inspire. We don’t wake up to alarm clocks blaring German speech. We don’t drive to work listening to native spoken Eskimo, and then switch it to the Bushmen Click station during the commercials. Speech sounds don’t give us the chills, and they don’t make us cry – not even French.
But music does emanate from our alarm clocks in the morning, and fill our cars, and give us chills, and make us cry. According to a recent paper by Nidhya Logeswaran and Joydeep Bhattacharya from the University of London, music even affects how we see visual images. In the experiment, 30 subjects were presented with a series of happy or sad musical excerpts. After listening to the snippets, the subjects were shown a photograph of a face. Some people were shown a happy face – the person was smiling - while others were exposed to a sad or neutral facial expression. The participants were then asked to rate the emotional content of the face on a 7-point scale, where 1 mean extremely sad and 7 extremely happy.
The researchers found that music powerfully influenced the emotional ratings of the faces. Happy music made happy faces seem even happier while sad music exaggerated the melancholy of a frown. A similar effect was also observed with neutral faces. The simple moral is that the emotions of music are “cross-modal,” and can easily spread from sensory system to another. Now I never sit down to my wife’s meals without first putting on a jolly Sousa march.
Although it probably seems obvious that music can evoke emotions, it is to this day not clear why. Why doesn’t music feel like listening to speech sounds, or animal calls, or garbage disposals? Why is music nice to listen to? Why does music get blessed with a multi-billion dollar industry, whereas there is no market for “easy listening” speech sounds?
In an effort to answer, let’s first ask why I was listening to French instructional programs in the first place. The truth is, I wasn’t just listening. I was watching them on public television. What kept my attention was not the meaningless-to-me speech sounds (I was a slow learner), but the young French actress. Her hair, her smile, her mannerisms, her pout… I digress. The show was a pleasure to watch because of the humans it showed, especially the exhibited expressions and behaviors.
The lion share of emotionally evocative stimuli in the lives of our ancestors would have been from the faces and bodies of other people, and if one finds human artifacts that are highly evocative, it is a good hunch that it looks or sounds human in some way.
As evidence that humans are the principal source of emotionality among human artifacts, consider human visual signs. Visual signs, I have argued, have culturally evolved to look like natural objects, and have the kinds of contour combinations found in a three-dimensional world of opaque objects. Three-dimensional world of opaque objects? Nothing particularly human about that, and that’s why most linguistic signs – like the letters and words on this page – are not emotionally evocative to look at.
But visual signs do sometimes have emotional associations. For example, colors are notoriously emotionally evocative, and arguments about what color something should be painted are the source of an alarming number of marital arguments. And “V” stimuli, such as that yield sign on the street, have long been realized (within the human factors literature) to serve as the most evocative geometrical shape for warning symbols. But notice that color and “V” stimuli are plausibly about human expression. In particular, color has recently been argued to be “about” human skin and the exhibited emotions – which is why red grabs our attention, since it's associated with blushing and blood - and “V” stimuli have been suggested to be “about” angry faces (namely, angry eyebrows).
Which brings us back to music and the Logeswaran paper. Music is exquisitely emotionally evocative, which is why a touch of happy music makes even unrelated pictures seem more pleasant. In light of the above, then, we are led to the conclusion that the artifact of music should contain some distinctly human elements.
The question, of course, is what those elements are. One candidate is our expressive speech – perhaps music is just an abstract form of language. However, most of the emotion of language is in the meaning, which is why foreign languages that we don’t understand rarely make us swoon with pleasure or get angry. That’s also why emotional speech from an unfamiliar language isn’t featured on the radio!
But there is a second auditory expressive behavior we humans carry out – our bodily movements themselves. Human movement has been conjectured to underlie music as far back as the Greeks. As a hypothesis this has the advantage that we have auditory systems capable of making sense of the sounds of people moving in our midst – an angry stomper approaching, a delicate lilter passing, and so on. Some of these movements trigger positive emotions – they conjure up images of pleasant activities – while others might be automatically associated with fear or anxiety. (The sound of running makes us wonder what we’re running from.) If music were speech-driven, then it is missing out on the largest part of speech’s expressiveness – the meaning. But if music sounds like human expressive movements, then it sounds like something that, all by itself, is rich in emotional expressiveness, and can be easily interpreted by the auditory system.
Regardless of whether music is emotional intonation from speech or a summary of expressive movements – or something else altogether – the new research by Logeswaran and Bhattacharya adds yet more fuel to the expectation that music has been culturally selected to sound like an emotionally expressive human. While it is not easy for us to see the human ingredients in the modulations of pitch, intensity, tempo and rhythm that make music, perhaps it is obvious to our auditory homunculus.
credits to:http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-does-music-make-us-fe
But music does emanate from our alarm clocks in the morning, and fill our cars, and give us chills, and make us cry. According to a recent paper by Nidhya Logeswaran and Joydeep Bhattacharya from the University of London, music even affects how we see visual images. In the experiment, 30 subjects were presented with a series of happy or sad musical excerpts. After listening to the snippets, the subjects were shown a photograph of a face. Some people were shown a happy face – the person was smiling - while others were exposed to a sad or neutral facial expression. The participants were then asked to rate the emotional content of the face on a 7-point scale, where 1 mean extremely sad and 7 extremely happy.
The researchers found that music powerfully influenced the emotional ratings of the faces. Happy music made happy faces seem even happier while sad music exaggerated the melancholy of a frown. A similar effect was also observed with neutral faces. The simple moral is that the emotions of music are “cross-modal,” and can easily spread from sensory system to another. Now I never sit down to my wife’s meals without first putting on a jolly Sousa march.
Although it probably seems obvious that music can evoke emotions, it is to this day not clear why. Why doesn’t music feel like listening to speech sounds, or animal calls, or garbage disposals? Why is music nice to listen to? Why does music get blessed with a multi-billion dollar industry, whereas there is no market for “easy listening” speech sounds?
In an effort to answer, let’s first ask why I was listening to French instructional programs in the first place. The truth is, I wasn’t just listening. I was watching them on public television. What kept my attention was not the meaningless-to-me speech sounds (I was a slow learner), but the young French actress. Her hair, her smile, her mannerisms, her pout… I digress. The show was a pleasure to watch because of the humans it showed, especially the exhibited expressions and behaviors.
The lion share of emotionally evocative stimuli in the lives of our ancestors would have been from the faces and bodies of other people, and if one finds human artifacts that are highly evocative, it is a good hunch that it looks or sounds human in some way.
As evidence that humans are the principal source of emotionality among human artifacts, consider human visual signs. Visual signs, I have argued, have culturally evolved to look like natural objects, and have the kinds of contour combinations found in a three-dimensional world of opaque objects. Three-dimensional world of opaque objects? Nothing particularly human about that, and that’s why most linguistic signs – like the letters and words on this page – are not emotionally evocative to look at.
But visual signs do sometimes have emotional associations. For example, colors are notoriously emotionally evocative, and arguments about what color something should be painted are the source of an alarming number of marital arguments. And “V” stimuli, such as that yield sign on the street, have long been realized (within the human factors literature) to serve as the most evocative geometrical shape for warning symbols. But notice that color and “V” stimuli are plausibly about human expression. In particular, color has recently been argued to be “about” human skin and the exhibited emotions – which is why red grabs our attention, since it's associated with blushing and blood - and “V” stimuli have been suggested to be “about” angry faces (namely, angry eyebrows).
Which brings us back to music and the Logeswaran paper. Music is exquisitely emotionally evocative, which is why a touch of happy music makes even unrelated pictures seem more pleasant. In light of the above, then, we are led to the conclusion that the artifact of music should contain some distinctly human elements.
The question, of course, is what those elements are. One candidate is our expressive speech – perhaps music is just an abstract form of language. However, most of the emotion of language is in the meaning, which is why foreign languages that we don’t understand rarely make us swoon with pleasure or get angry. That’s also why emotional speech from an unfamiliar language isn’t featured on the radio!
But there is a second auditory expressive behavior we humans carry out – our bodily movements themselves. Human movement has been conjectured to underlie music as far back as the Greeks. As a hypothesis this has the advantage that we have auditory systems capable of making sense of the sounds of people moving in our midst – an angry stomper approaching, a delicate lilter passing, and so on. Some of these movements trigger positive emotions – they conjure up images of pleasant activities – while others might be automatically associated with fear or anxiety. (The sound of running makes us wonder what we’re running from.) If music were speech-driven, then it is missing out on the largest part of speech’s expressiveness – the meaning. But if music sounds like human expressive movements, then it sounds like something that, all by itself, is rich in emotional expressiveness, and can be easily interpreted by the auditory system.
Regardless of whether music is emotional intonation from speech or a summary of expressive movements – or something else altogether – the new research by Logeswaran and Bhattacharya adds yet more fuel to the expectation that music has been culturally selected to sound like an emotionally expressive human. While it is not easy for us to see the human ingredients in the modulations of pitch, intensity, tempo and rhythm that make music, perhaps it is obvious to our auditory homunculus.
credits to:http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-does-music-make-us-fe
Music and Your Body: How Music Affects Us and Why Music Therapy Promotes Health
Research has shown that music has a profound effect on your body and psyche. In fact, there’s a growing field of health care known as Music Therapy, which uses music to heal. Those who practice music therapy are finding a benefit in using music to help cancer patients, children with ADD, and others, and even hospitals are beginning to use music and music therapy to help with pain management, to help ward off depression, to promote movement, to calm patients, to ease muscle tension, and for many other benefits that music and music therapy can bring. This is not surprising, as music affects the body and mind in many powerful ways. The following are some of effects of music, which help to explain the effectiveness of music therapy:
Brain Waves: Research has shown that music with a strong beat can stimulate brainwaves to resonate in sync with the beat, with faster beats bringing sharper concentration and more alert thinking, and a slower tempo promoting a calm, meditative state. Also, research has found that the change in brainwave activity levels that music can bring can also enable the brain to shift speeds more easily on its own as needed, which means that music can bring lasting benefits to your state of mind, even after you’ve stopped listening.
Breathing and Heart Rate: With alterations in brainwaves comes changes in other bodily functions. Those governed by the autonomic nervous system, such as breathing and heart rate can also be altered by the changes music can bring. This can mean slower breathing, slower heart rate, and an activation of the relaxation response, among other things. This is why music and music therapy can help counteract or prevent the damaging effects of chronic stress, greatly promoting not only relaxation, but health.
State of Mind: Music can also be used to bring a more positive state of mind, helping to keep depression and anxiety at bay. This can help prevent the stress response from wreaking havoc on the body, and can help keep creativity and optimism levels higher, bringing many other benefits.
Other Benefits: Music has also been found to bring many other benefits, such as lowering blood pressure (which can also reduce the risk of stroke and other health problems over time), boost immunity, ease muscle tension, and more. With so many benefits and such profound physical effects, it’s no surprise that so many are seeing music as an important tool to help the body in staying (or becoming) healthy.
Using Music Therapy:
With all these benefits that music can carry, it's no surprise that music therapy is growing in popularity. For more information on music therapy, visit the American Music Therapy Association's website.
Using Music On Your Own:
While music therapy is an important discipline, you can also achieve benefits from music on your own. This article on music, relaxation and stress management can explain more of how music can be an especially effective tool for stress management, and can be used in dailly life.
credits to: http://stress.about.com/od/tensiontamers/a/music_therapy.htm
Brain Waves: Research has shown that music with a strong beat can stimulate brainwaves to resonate in sync with the beat, with faster beats bringing sharper concentration and more alert thinking, and a slower tempo promoting a calm, meditative state. Also, research has found that the change in brainwave activity levels that music can bring can also enable the brain to shift speeds more easily on its own as needed, which means that music can bring lasting benefits to your state of mind, even after you’ve stopped listening.
Breathing and Heart Rate: With alterations in brainwaves comes changes in other bodily functions. Those governed by the autonomic nervous system, such as breathing and heart rate can also be altered by the changes music can bring. This can mean slower breathing, slower heart rate, and an activation of the relaxation response, among other things. This is why music and music therapy can help counteract or prevent the damaging effects of chronic stress, greatly promoting not only relaxation, but health.
State of Mind: Music can also be used to bring a more positive state of mind, helping to keep depression and anxiety at bay. This can help prevent the stress response from wreaking havoc on the body, and can help keep creativity and optimism levels higher, bringing many other benefits.
Other Benefits: Music has also been found to bring many other benefits, such as lowering blood pressure (which can also reduce the risk of stroke and other health problems over time), boost immunity, ease muscle tension, and more. With so many benefits and such profound physical effects, it’s no surprise that so many are seeing music as an important tool to help the body in staying (or becoming) healthy.
Using Music Therapy:
With all these benefits that music can carry, it's no surprise that music therapy is growing in popularity. For more information on music therapy, visit the American Music Therapy Association's website.
Using Music On Your Own:
While music therapy is an important discipline, you can also achieve benefits from music on your own. This article on music, relaxation and stress management can explain more of how music can be an especially effective tool for stress management, and can be used in dailly life.
credits to: http://stress.about.com/od/tensiontamers/a/music_therapy.htm
The Fall of Hip Hop Music
In the early days of Hip Hop, most notably around the last fifteen years of the 20th century, there had always been an underlying, but often vocal, opposition to popular American music, or "pop" music. The idea was always that, by surrendering the people's music, designed for the downtrodden inner-city, to corporate America, Hip Hop contradicted everything it stood for. However, that which the soothsayers of rap feared has come true, and those cunning profiteers, who take control of every potential cash-crop they detect, have commandeered the music so seamlessly that the glory days of yesteryear and the code under which they operated, are all but forgotten. Back then, the unwritten code implied that an artist must "pay dues", such as battling other MC's in the streets or hosting parties held in city parks or apartments, before they can be respected as a true rap artist. This code was enforced musically and collectively by those already anointed, rather effectively destroying the fragile careers of artists who had bypassed these rites of passage and crossed over into the mainstream by way of a marketing strategy.The two most notable causalities were MC Hammer and Vanilla Ice, both of whom won Grammy Awards, at a time when such honors was considered a scarlet letter in the music's culture. Such brutal attacks proved that the music was, indeed, larger than any man, and no feelings would be spared to safeguard the musical frontier which had refused to join the empire
Today, we see events like the annual Hip Hop Honors, which decided to commemorate The Dirty South for their “dominance” in rap music over the last decade, a dominance measured by sales, not talent, and is clearly a result of the over-exposure that comes from squeezing a successful product for everything it's worth. The landscape has been mangled. Artists that were previously banished are now celebrated, like the actor-turned-rapper and exemplar of pop star, Drake, who has shrewdly conformed to the south's unique interpretation of rap music and has seamlessly integrated with its clique, despite the fact that he hails from Canada, thousands of miles away.
In 2010, Drake, the canuck, who has outrun a sure exile by about fifteen years, wears his mainstream accolades with pride and is adored by fans, which are appearing more and more like the crowd at the Mickey Mouse Club and less like a classic "park jam". Just like Ice, who was harshly vilified and torn from grace, he has bypassed the code and has been inserted into the chain-wearing, campaign-popping world of dancing floozies and big rims. Most certainly under a team of business advisers, he masquerades as a tried and true member of the Dirty South and whistles "Dixie" all the way to the Canadian bank.It is truly a sad state of affairs, and the real victims are the abandoned artists who are still out there. Much like the Samurai of the far east, whose ideals were smothered by their countries' desire to join the industrial surge of the west in the 19th century, they remain on the fringe and never receive what's rightfully theirs. These forgotten souls, remnants of the original colonies and second-generation frontiersman, like Slum Village, Guilty Simpson, Aesop Rock, Madlib, Oh-No, MF Doom, Kool Keith and Del the Funky Homosapien press on, following the original commandments of hip hop, equipped with the technology of the day and a skill set that's 30 years evolved.They receive no support from major radio stations, which are in the pocket of the evil syndicate and only serve as a promotional tool for the mainstream acts, and they certainly are not honored with an award show honoring their "dominance". They aren't even invited. Their fan base consists of hip hop romantics, and their work fits the description of cult classic. Like most of our distorted perceptions of history, the present time period will be remembered as the era of the Dirty South and artists such as Drake, while those who has taken the art where it should be melt into obscurity. So, if you enjoy the new breed, understand that you are perfectly normal. Many have adopted the music that was hijacked and taken from the ghetto by the same people who use all of their interests to control them. However, just know that when you claim to be a fan of hip hop, the music you enjoy is not in it's pure state but rather, is a deformed mutation of it.To the rest of the fans, keep it real.
credits to: http://blogcritics.org/music/article/the-fall-of-hip-hop-music/
Today, we see events like the annual Hip Hop Honors, which decided to commemorate The Dirty South for their “dominance” in rap music over the last decade, a dominance measured by sales, not talent, and is clearly a result of the over-exposure that comes from squeezing a successful product for everything it's worth. The landscape has been mangled. Artists that were previously banished are now celebrated, like the actor-turned-rapper and exemplar of pop star, Drake, who has shrewdly conformed to the south's unique interpretation of rap music and has seamlessly integrated with its clique, despite the fact that he hails from Canada, thousands of miles away.
In 2010, Drake, the canuck, who has outrun a sure exile by about fifteen years, wears his mainstream accolades with pride and is adored by fans, which are appearing more and more like the crowd at the Mickey Mouse Club and less like a classic "park jam". Just like Ice, who was harshly vilified and torn from grace, he has bypassed the code and has been inserted into the chain-wearing, campaign-popping world of dancing floozies and big rims. Most certainly under a team of business advisers, he masquerades as a tried and true member of the Dirty South and whistles "Dixie" all the way to the Canadian bank.It is truly a sad state of affairs, and the real victims are the abandoned artists who are still out there. Much like the Samurai of the far east, whose ideals were smothered by their countries' desire to join the industrial surge of the west in the 19th century, they remain on the fringe and never receive what's rightfully theirs. These forgotten souls, remnants of the original colonies and second-generation frontiersman, like Slum Village, Guilty Simpson, Aesop Rock, Madlib, Oh-No, MF Doom, Kool Keith and Del the Funky Homosapien press on, following the original commandments of hip hop, equipped with the technology of the day and a skill set that's 30 years evolved.They receive no support from major radio stations, which are in the pocket of the evil syndicate and only serve as a promotional tool for the mainstream acts, and they certainly are not honored with an award show honoring their "dominance". They aren't even invited. Their fan base consists of hip hop romantics, and their work fits the description of cult classic. Like most of our distorted perceptions of history, the present time period will be remembered as the era of the Dirty South and artists such as Drake, while those who has taken the art where it should be melt into obscurity. So, if you enjoy the new breed, understand that you are perfectly normal. Many have adopted the music that was hijacked and taken from the ghetto by the same people who use all of their interests to control them. However, just know that when you claim to be a fan of hip hop, the music you enjoy is not in it's pure state but rather, is a deformed mutation of it.To the rest of the fans, keep it real.
credits to: http://blogcritics.org/music/article/the-fall-of-hip-hop-music/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)