Psychology of Music- part 5 gazillion

[greg]

just wrote this last night...................


I've finally verified what I've been wanting to know for years- i've written threads about this, but hopefully i can offer some new ideas/insight to everyone. In fact, I have a few points about atonal music and why people might like it (or at least why I do). 

I think the reason you like the music you do is because it reflects something about you, though it's hardly ever obvious. It's impossible to know whether someone will like music they've never heard or not, and still very hard for yourself unless it's a genre you hate. When I say that it reflects something about you, I mean that it reflects certain aspects of you that are strong, but i'll try to my theory in literal terms.

There has to be certain places in the brain that, when activated chemically (i don't the details of how this works), it's pleasurable. Other areas aren't pleasurable. Some are in-between. So, subconciously you try to achieve balance and pleasure by doing activities which activates those parts of the brain- it's sorta like feeding areas of the brain that are hungry. You might work out, play basketball, read, whatever. It's the same with music- some music activates parts of the mind which are pleasurable, and that's the music you like.

The phenomenon of "developing taste" might actually be a slight change in personality based on changes in the brain. Mostly, though, i think there's 2 main causes:

1- paying attention to certain aspects of the music. You might like the fuzzy sound of the recording. You might like the insistent rhythms, but before you were paying attention to the orchestration more. Music is made up of a gazillion parts/aspects put together, and you can pay attention to any one aspect and emphasize it over the other  aspects and that changes the way you percieve the whole piece.

2- association with another thought/idea. Just read Cato's topic, it explains a lot. It's basically thinking of something else, not the music, and tricks your mind into thinking "I like/dislike it" based on the associated idea instead.



Here's my favorite composers (all of you guys must know them by heart now, lol) and how they reflect myself, and the "personalities" I can get into:

Prokofiev- his music is so quirky, you know when I post random threads in the Diner about nothing? How about Ubloobideega? Anyone read my A Stories? (that's the ULTIMATE in quirky/weird). If I post random threads about nothing, it just means I was in a Prokofiev mood, and by that I mean the Prokofiev of the finale of the 5th symphony, Peter and the Wolf, the March from the 2nd Piano Concerto- characterized by active, but stumbling rhythms and harmonies, and lots of accent on the augmented 4th interval. But usually in the end it smiles, though sometimes in a mocking way.

Mahler- when you think about a girl realize it's just thoughts and nothing else- this is a Mahler mood. Ex- 9th symphony, 6th symphony 3rd movement. It's like Saudade or World-Weariness, which are both similar (we had that discussion). The 10th symphony sounds more world-weary to me, when you realize how it can never be perfect and you accept it.

Brahms- non-specific melancholy (2nd symphony, 1st Piano Trio). The Brahmsian, refined expressive sound- to me, like Mahler but more refined. It's the thought of imagining traveling to places, yet realizing it's all just thoughts and you're not really there. Hard to describe specifically, though.


Ok, now on to atonal music.......
so here's the big question. Why is it that this music is so pleasant to some when it is so painfully harsh and chaotic to others (actually, most people)? Are we secretly serial killers? Nah, most of us are actually pretty easygoing.... (first of all, here i will only be referring to the intense, loud, active, dissonant, full of notes music by guys like Xenakis, Boulez, Lindberg, Carter, Varese, whatever, you get the point- but NOT stuff like Takemitsu or the ridiculously gorgeous slow movements of Schoenberg's op.15). Looking at how I've related the above 3 composers to the moods i can get into in real life, it took awhile to make a connection with atonal music but I've realized it now.

To some people loud, atonal stuff can be complete chaos that reminds them of people yelling at them. Natural, because it is sorta like that. But to me, it reflects a certain mood i can get into. There's 2 observations I've made. The first one was when I was at the library working, for no reason I just got into a mood. I wanted to work fast, shove all the books onto the shelf, and no I wasn't mad- I was very happy. I felt like shelving 6 carts in an hour and shout, "Yeah! This is fun!" Then I had the ending to Penderecki's De Natura Sonoris #1 playing in my head, and it matched my mood exactly! I think workaholics are like this but almost all the time. Another example is when I've actually copied down full books from the library in a notebook, just to save $10 or $20. Most people would complain from the writing, but it was FUN!!!! Years ago, I even copied down an entire Kanji book with 2000 Kanji, their readings, and examples for every word. Right now, I'm still learning them and whenever I'm in a certain mood, I just wanna keep on going ahead because it's too much fun.

My theory is that somehow people can't get into that mood or just don't have it in them, so they interpret atonal stuff as what you feel when someone is cussing you out (that's why there were all those riots back in Schoenberg and Stravinsky's day). Those moods are very similar, maybe they are parts in the brain that are very close together?

Moods I can't get into...... well, here's a few phrases that just trigger the wrong emotions that leave me disgusted. "Smell the Flowers". "That's life". "Nothing you can do about it." "Pretty little piano songs."
When I listen to certain music, the same areas in the brain light up or whatever, and hearing the words "smell the flowers" is like listening to some cheesy Elton John song- it makes me want to puke so hard that i just die. But why doesn't the phrase remind me of Brahms' music? It actually does seem like it could relate to, say, the slow movement of the 2nd piano concerto. Then, maybe, I might start to like the phrase "Smell the flowers", who knows. This is also association......


So, everyone, I'd like for you to explain how your favorite music/composers reflect certain aspects of your personality- not how you behave in front of others, but how you really are- and that's exactly what music shows- who you are, really (and that's why people take verbal attacks on their favorite composers personally- because in a way, they ARE those composers).

[DavidW]

I disagree, expressiveness is only element of musical appreciation.  I think, Greg, that your post is basically just the fallacy of equating the two.  This is analogous to Eric equating musical appreciation to the sensual element only.

Copland divided it into three, the third is the music itself.  He had a neat analogy which I'll repeat here.  If you go to the theater to see a play, and you only concentrate on the sensual element then it's like you're amazed at the bright costumes and the props.  If you only concentrate on the expressive element, then you are sensitive to the emotional moods portrayed by the actors.  And the third category-- well that's the plot.  An attentive theater goer is paying attention to all three at once, and considers each element integral to the whole.

That's how it should be with music listening.  The emotional reaction and extra-musical associations should form only one part of the listening experience.  Reveling in the sound itself and the tonal shading should be another, and finally, and very importantly do not neglect following the development, it is the plot of the music.

I love Copland's How to Listen to Music, you should give it a read Greg.

[karlhenning]

I love Copland's How to Listen to Music, you should give it a read Greg.

Heed, David, Greg! He speaks wisdom here!  0:)

[greg]

I disagree, expressiveness is only element of musical appreciation.  I think, Greg, that your post is basically just the fallacy of equating the two.  This is analogous to Eric equating musical appreciation to the sensual element only.

Copland divided it into three, the third is the music itself.  He had a neat analogy which I'll repeat here.  If you go to the theater to see a play, and you only concentrate on the sensual element then it's like you're amazed at the bright costumes and the props.  If you only concentrate on the expressive element, then you are sensitive to the emotional moods portrayed by the actors.  And the third category-- well that's the plot.  An attentive theater goer is paying attention to all three at once, and considers each element integral to the whole.

That's how it should be with music listening.  The emotional reaction and extra-musical associations should form only one part of the listening experience.  Reveling in the sound itself and the tonal shading should be another, and finally, and very importantly do not neglect following the development, it is the plot of the music.

I love Copland's How to Listen to Music, you should give it a read Greg.

i've seen it at a bookstore and read a few pages, but haven't gotten to read the whole thing.

Can't all those three be combined into one? That's what makes it unified, and people judge their tastes based on all the details and everything together, all in one- "color", "expressiveness", "development of the whole thing over time". Making it 3 things is just like taking it apart and only focusing on one aspect.

I'm not exactly addressing the theoretical aspects of music either, by the way, the stuff that goes to the left part of the brain....

[DavidW]

Greg, I'm at a complete loss as to why you think forming an opinion based upon a multitude of factors unifies those factors.  I simply don't understand you.

Whenever you judge something by multiple factors, the factors don't become unified by the sheer act of considering them at once!

[greg]

Greg, I'm at a complete loss as to why you think forming an opinion based upon a multitude of factors unifies those factors.  I simply don't understand you.

Whenever you judge something by multiple factors, the factors don't become unified by the sheer act of considering them at once!

i think we're both lost   

[Scriptavolant]

So, everyone, I'd like for you to explain how your favorite music/composers reflect certain aspects of your personality-

People who know me tend to notice I'm quite unwilling to express my inner feelings; that aspect of my personality reflects in my music preferences, which are substantially oriented towards (neo)classicism and the rejection of such thing as emotion-centred forms and or sentimental poetics in favour of more introverted languages. Same things for other forms of art, for example Thomas Elliot is my favourite poet, he summarizes my ideal of a fusion between objectivity and metaphysics.

You may say I'm a dreamer but I'm not the only one..

[sonic1]

I disagree, expressiveness is only element of musical appreciation.  I think, Greg, that your post is basically just the fallacy of equating the two.  This is analogous to Eric equating musical appreciation to the sensual element only.

Copland divided it into three, the third is the music itself.  He had a neat analogy which I'll repeat here.  If you go to the theater to see a play, and you only concentrate on the sensual element then it's like you're amazed at the bright costumes and the props.  If you only concentrate on the expressive element, then you are sensitive to the emotional moods portrayed by the actors.  And the third category-- well that's the plot.  An attentive theater goer is paying attention to all three at once, and considers each element integral to the whole.

That's how it should be with music listening.  The emotional reaction and extra-musical associations should form only one part of the listening experience.  Reveling in the sound itself and the tonal shading should be another, and finally, and very importantly do not neglect following the development, it is the plot of the music.

I love Copland's How to Listen to Music, you should give it a read Greg.

I have this book and I love this analogy. Thanks david I need to give that book another read. But there is just one thing this idea neglects: some of us listen to music while we go to the bathroom. How does THAT fit into your theator analogy.

[BachQ]

Brahms- non-specific melancholy (2nd symphony, 1st Piano Trio). The Brahmsian, refined expressive sound- to me, like Mahler but more refined. It's the thought of imagining traveling to places, yet realizing it's all just thoughts and you're not really there. Hard to describe specifically, though.

.............I understand ......... And yet ......... I don't understand ...........

[sonic1]

I guess my music listening habits tend to reflect my personality disorder: where I am unable to be loyal to any particular tribe or group, and instead am promiscuous in my associations.

[btpaul674]

[greg]

People who know me tend to notice I'm quite unwilling to express my inner feelings; that aspect of my personality reflects in my music preferences, which are substantially oriented towards (neo)classicism and the rejection of such thing as emotion-centred forms and or sentimental poetics in favour of more introverted languages. Same things for other forms of art, for example Thomas Elliot is my favourite poet, he summarizes my ideal of a fusion between objectivity and metaphysics.

You may say I'm a dreamer but I'm not the only one..

I guess my music listening habits tend to reflect my personality disorder: where I am unable to be loyal to any particular tribe or group, and instead am promiscuous in my associations.

thanks, that was what i was looking for on this thread- how you can see music you like as a reflection of yourself, or how you behave.

.............I understand ......... And yet ......... I don't understand ...........

hahahaha Brahms must mean something different to you. Anything specific, ever, like a thought that it accompanies REALLY well?

[greg]

thanks for the suggestion! reading about the book now, sounds cool

i've found another book, too, that's similar, and it's actually at my library so i should check it out sometime:

Emotion and Meaning in Music (Phoenix Books) (Paperback)
by Leonard B. Meyer

[btpaul674]

thanks for the suggestion! reading about the book now, sounds cool

i've found another book, too, that's similar, and it's actually at my library so i should check it out sometime:

Emotion and Meaning in Music (Phoenix Books) (Paperback)
by Leonard B. Meyer

I have Emotion and Meaning in Music, and though its a good book, its a bit outdated in the cognitive field. However it is a staple in the music psychology literature. It is a very fun read, however.

[greg]

I have Emotion and Meaning in Music, and though its a good book, its a bit outdated in the cognitive field. However it is a staple in the music psychology literature. It is a very fun read, however.

I've looked through the index of both books, and the most modern composer they talk about is Stravinsky. No Schoenberg, Prokofiev, Mahler, Shostakovich- (and Shosty and Mahler are some of the 2 most psychologically interesting composers ever). Kinda dumb when the references don't even include those 2.... but it should be interesting anyways.

[schweitzeralan]

just wrote this last night...................


I've finally verified what I've been wanting to know for years- i've written threads about this, but hopefully i can offer some new ideas/insight to everyone. In fact, I have a few points about atonal music and why people might like it (or at least why I do). 

I think the reason you like the music you do is because it reflects something about you, though it's hardly ever obvious. It's impossible to know whether someone will like music they've never heard or not, and still very hard for yourself unless it's a genre you hate. When I say that it reflects something about you, I mean that it reflects certain aspects of you that are strong, but i'll try to my theory in literal terms.

There has to be certain places in the brain that, when activated chemically (i don't the details of how this works), it's pleasurable. Other areas aren't pleasurable. Some are in-between. So, subconciously you try to achieve balance and pleasure by doing activities which activates those parts of the brain- it's sorta like feeding areas of the brain that are hungry. You might work out, play basketball, read, whatever. It's the same with music- some music activates parts of the mind which are pleasurable, and that's the music you like.

The phenomenon of "developing taste" might actually be a slight change in personality based on changes in the brain. Mostly, though, i think there's 2 main causes:

1- paying attention to certain aspects of the music. You might like the fuzzy sound of the recording. You might like the insistent rhythms, but before you were paying attention to the orchestration more. Music is made up of a gazillion parts/aspects put together, and you can pay attention to any one aspect and emphasize it over the other  aspects and that changes the way you percieve the whole piece.

2- association with another thought/idea. Just read Cato's topic, it explains a lot. It's basically thinking of something else, not the music, and tricks your mind into thinking "I like/dislike it" based on the associated idea instead.



Here's my favorite composers (all of you guys must know them by heart now, lol) and how they reflect myself, and the "personalities" I can get into:

Prokofiev- his music is so quirky, you know when I post random threads in the Diner about nothing? How about Ubloobideega? Anyone read my A Stories? (that's the ULTIMATE in quirky/weird). If I post random threads about nothing, it just means I was in a Prokofiev mood, and by that I mean the Prokofiev of the finale of the 5th symphony, Peter and the Wolf, the March from the 2nd Piano Concerto- characterized by active, but stumbling rhythms and harmonies, and lots of accent on the augmented 4th interval. But usually in the end it smiles, though sometimes in a mocking way.

Mahler- when you think about a girl realize it's just thoughts and nothing else- this is a Mahler mood. Ex- 9th symphony, 6th symphony 3rd movement. It's like Saudade or World-Weariness, which are both similar (we had that discussion). The 10th symphony sounds more world-weary to me, when you realize how it can never be perfect and you accept it.

Brahms- non-specific melancholy (2nd symphony, 1st Piano Trio). The Brahmsian, refined expressive sound- to me, like Mahler but more refined. It's the thought of imagining traveling to places, yet realizing it's all just thoughts and you're not really there. Hard to describe specifically, though.


Ok, now on to atonal music.......
so here's the big question. Why is it that this music is so pleasant to some when it is so painfully harsh and chaotic to others (actually, most people)? Are we secretly serial killers? Nah, most of us are actually pretty easygoing.... (first of all, here i will only be referring to the intense, loud, active, dissonant, full of notes music by guys like Xenakis, Boulez, Lindberg, Carter, Varese, whatever, you get the point- but NOT stuff like Takemitsu or the ridiculously gorgeous slow movements of Schoenberg's op.15). Looking at how I've related the above 3 composers to the moods i can get into in real life, it took awhile to make a connection with atonal music but I've realized it now.

To some people loud, atonal stuff can be complete chaos that reminds them of people yelling at them. Natural, because it is sorta like that. But to me, it reflects a certain mood i can get into. There's 2 observations I've made. The first one was when I was at the library working, for no reason I just got into a mood. I wanted to work fast, shove all the books onto the shelf, and no I wasn't mad- I was very happy. I felt like shelving 6 carts in an hour and shout, "Yeah! This is fun!" Then I had the ending to Penderecki's De Natura Sonoris #1 playing in my head, and it matched my mood exactly! I think workaholics are like this but almost all the time. Another example is when I've actually copied down full books from the library in a notebook, just to save $10 or $20. Most people would complain from the writing, but it was FUN!!!! Years ago, I even copied down an entire Kanji book with 2000 Kanji, their readings, and examples for every word. Right now, I'm still learning them and whenever I'm in a certain mood, I just wanna keep on going ahead because it's too much fun.

My theory is that somehow people can't get into that mood or just don't have it in them, so they interpret atonal stuff as what you feel when someone is cussing you out (that's why there were all those riots back in Schoenberg and Stravinsky's day). Those moods are very similar, maybe they are parts in the brain that are very close together?

Moods I can't get into...... well, here's a few phrases that just trigger the wrong emotions that leave me disgusted. "Smell the Flowers". "That's life". "Nothing you can do about it." "Pretty little piano songs."
When I listen to certain music, the same areas in the brain light up or whatever, and hearing the words "smell the flowers" is like listening to some cheesy Elton John song- it makes me want to puke so hard that i just die. But why doesn't the phrase remind me of Brahms' music? It actually does seem like it could relate to, say, the slow movement of the 2nd piano concerto. Then, maybe, I might start to like the phrase "Smell the flowers", who knows. This is also association......


So, everyone, I'd like for you to explain how your favorite music/composers reflect certain aspects of your personality- not how you behave in front of others, but how you really are- and that's exactly what music shows- who you are, really (and that's why people take verbal attacks on their favorite composers personally- because in a way, they ARE those composers).

Was reviewing various threads and noticed this one rendered a couple of years back.  Important but very vast subject.  Unfortunately, I never could get ahold of any significant books written on the psychology of music, although there must be several books and related academic articles on the subject.  Too much for me to go into here; suffice to say there is much psychological reaction to music on my part; the most subtle are the Proustian sense impressions, or involuntary memories that fuse and come and go quickly.  Very deep!

[greg]

lol, I totally forgot this thread even existed. When I saw the thread title, I was surprised to see that I was the one who made it.

[schweitzeralan]

lol, I totally forgot this thread even existed. When I saw the thread title, I was surprised to see that I was the one who made it.

It's a very significant subject.  Opinions will vary on this one.  Many already have.

[greg]

I'm surprised I knew the Brahms 1st Piano Trio well enough two years ago to mention it. 

[schweitzeralan]

I'm surprised I knew the Brahms 1st Piano Trio well enough two years ago to mention it. 

My own memory fails me now from time to time; it surely ain't what it used to be.  Yet I always remember the music.  It never fails me.  Galling enough though, when I hear a piece of music on WCLV when I'm driving, I'll hear a work and remember  the work in its entirety.Yet in many instaces I cannot, on occasions, recall exactly the name of the piece. Just yesterday  while I was driving home I heard a Rach symphony and of course knew it by heart.  Yet I could not determine which of his three symphonies was playing. I had to wait until the end before I finally recognized it (from the announcer)that it was the 3rd.  That's a psychological disaster!