#1
I have a project at my school thats required for senior graduation and I chose a topic thats giving me a little trouble. I have to write a 7-10 page paper on how music affects the brain(more specifically in teens) and I was wondering if anyone knew anything about music and its effects on our thinking/psyche/whatever. Anything helps.
Forgive them Father, they know not what they do.
#2
I don;t think I can help you too much... but I think it would be interesting if you wrote about how people believe that Metal causes aggression in listeners, but then also talk about how surveys show that teens with a higer IQ tend to favour more complex genres over mainstream radio and rap.
I can't find you any citations, but if you use google you should find the right websites
GENERATION 10: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.
#3
Different Genres will effect people different ways right? Like if you listen to Metal you're gonna get pumped but then if you listen to smooth jazz you will get relaxed.
#4
Quote by The Fret-Dancer
I have a project at my school thats required for senior graduation and I chose a topic thats giving me a little trouble. I have to write a 7-10 page paper on how music affects the brain(more specifically in teens) and I was wondering if anyone knew anything about music and its effects on our thinking/psyche/whatever. Anything helps.


dunno ... well music obviously affects your emotions when listening to it and maybe it could differ (slowly ofc) your look on certain things. i would say a lot of teens dress sense change to their music taste
Fender Jaguar 1994
Gibson Thunderbird

Fender Hot Rod Devile 4x12

Zvex Fuzz Factory
EHX Big Muff
Zvex Box of Rock
Joyo Tremolo
Digitech Whammy
EHX Cathedral
Boss DD3
Boss TU3
#5
My Deviantart

Great Minds Think Alike
Quote by Son.Of.TheViper
You sigged me, AND had an idea the same as mine!
I like you.

About my Lady Gaga/Pokemon parody
Quote by Mike50227
XD not bad

Quote by ExOblivione
You're my hero.

Quote by myevilside
I must say, i love it!
Last edited by guitar-guy01 at Jul 29, 2009,
#6
Teens musical taste is often inspired by their surroundings.

Although I always loved music from videogames in my child years, I did listen to mainstream songs back in early years highschool.

Downloading music wasn't that big back then (if it was even possible), and there was no youtube etc, so I didn't have much choice.

Things have changed since then.

Maybe you should find a neurologist and make a test of how your brain reacts to different music (which chemicals released, which part of the brain is stimulated etc.)

Should give you a nice grade, and it would be interesting if you posted the results.

That is, if you are able to do it.

The "Re-incarnation of Plato" Award 2009
(most intelligent)
The "Good Samaritan" Award 2009 (most helpful)

[font="Palatino Linotype
Who's Andy Timmons??
#7
Go out and read:

This is your Brain on Music

Musicophilia

The World in Six Songs.


All of these books discuss the impact of music on our neurocognitive development.
There may be times when it is impossible to prevent injustice, but there should never be a time when we fail to protest it.


Take a trip down the Scenic River


Call me Charlie.
#8
Thank you all very much. Also I'd like to use something along the lines of "does popular music affect teens or do teens affect popular music?". Any thoughts you could give me on that would be nice.
Forgive them Father, they know not what they do.
#9
Quote by The Fret-Dancer
Thank you all very much. Also I'd like to use something along the lines of "does popular music affect teens or do teens affect popular music?". Any thoughts you could give me on that would be nice.



It goes both ways.

People in the business look for what is popular at the time (so the teens unknowingly affect music), and then they provide music to satisfy that.

The "Re-incarnation of Plato" Award 2009
(most intelligent)
The "Good Samaritan" Award 2009 (most helpful)

[font="Palatino Linotype
Who's Andy Timmons??
#10
Quote by The Fret-Dancer
I have a project at my school thats required for senior graduation and I chose a topic thats giving me a little trouble. I have to write a 7-10 page paper on how music affects the brain(more specifically in teens) and I was wondering if anyone knew anything about music and its effects on our thinking/psyche/whatever. Anything helps.



Get a copy of the book called Musicophelia from your library. It is a best selling novel about the interactions between the two. You will be able to find lots of citations and cases of Amusica, or psychological studies. It is also an absolutely amazing book.
#11
idk, i do though that when i secretly listen to music during school i do better, thats why i always listen to it during tests, specifically Bob Marley
#13
to say that "metal makes people aggressive" or "jazz makes people relax" isn't really true, you have to already be in a heightened state of whatever emotion or mood it is that said music invokes, I'm not saying that music has absolutely no affect on the brain what so ever, because it definitely does, but just that in order for it to affect a person in a major way that person has to want said affect

and no, people's dress does not affect their taste in music, that is a pathetic stereotype, just because people choose to fit in to social categories, dress a certain way, listen to certain music, shop at certain stores, etc.. does not mean that any of that affects anything else, it is something they choose, taste in music and taste in apparel often do coincide, but that does not mean they are in any way linked, people can dress in any manner and listen to any type of music that they like
#14
Quote by The Fret-Dancer
Thank you all very much. Also I'd like to use something along the lines of "does popular music affect teens or do teens affect popular music?". Any thoughts you could give me on that would be nice.


The spirit of the times often inspires great music, but this music also inspires the spirit of the times. A kind of chicken - egg argument with no wrong answer. It's almost a simultaneous creation.
#15
Quote by Cyberbob
The spirit of the times often inspires great music, but this music also inspires the spirit of the times. A kind of chicken - egg argument with no wrong answer. It's almost a simultaneous creation.



This is also what I meant.

They both inspire each other.

The "Re-incarnation of Plato" Award 2009
(most intelligent)
The "Good Samaritan" Award 2009 (most helpful)

[font="Palatino Linotype
Who's Andy Timmons??
#16
Quote by Cyberbob
The spirit of the times often inspires great music, but this music also inspires the spirit of the times. A kind of chicken - egg argument with no wrong answer. It's almost a simultaneous creation.


I don't want to be that guy, but the egg came first.
"His name is Robert Paulson"
#17
Quote by Unlockitall
I don't want to be that guy, but the egg came first.


As long as we're playing: The question itself is flawed, as species aren't discrete categories. The chicken is the product of millions of years of evolution, and their is no specific point at which what we now know as the "Chicken" emerged.
Someones knowledge of guitar companies spelling determines what amps you can own. Really smart people can own things like Framus because they sound like they might be spelled with a "y" but they aren't.
#18
Quote by Archeo Avis
As long as we're playing: The question itself is flawed, as species aren't discrete categories. The chicken is the product of millions of years of evolution, and their is no specific point at which what we now know as the "Chicken" emerged.

But there must be some definition of the word chicken so whatever that definition is (and it really doesn't matter what exactly it is), so there must have been one generation where the animal laying the egg did not fit into the definition of a chicken but the animal that came out of the egg did.

On topic, wasn't there a study about mice that listened to classical music doing better at some maze than mice that listened to metal. Try and find that study or similar studies to talk about.
#19
But there must be some definition of the word chicken so whatever that definition is (and it really doesn't matter what exactly it is), so there must have been one generation where the animal laying the egg did not fit into the definition of a chicken but the animal that came out of the egg did.


There is no sufficiently exclusive definition. Any definition that exclusive would as a result be baseless and arbitrary.

More on topic: Psychoacoustics is a complicated subject. Most popular books on the subject (e.g. This is your brain on music) misrepresent the field or are filled with inaccuracies. Your best bet is to start searching through academic journals or looking for the position of an organization dedicated to research in the field. You may be better off picking an easier subject.
Someones knowledge of guitar companies spelling determines what amps you can own. Really smart people can own things like Framus because they sound like they might be spelled with a "y" but they aren't.
#20
The question is not flawed but a simple question that is used to describe the paradox of circular causality in a way that almost everybody can understand.

If taken literally as proposed here there are a few options.
Does it even have to be classified as a chicken egg or could the egg be any kind of egg? I would assume eggs were around long before birds arrived on the scene. If the question implies the egg is a chicken egg as I take it to mean then is the egg defined by what hatches from it or is it defined by what lays it? Either way it's hard to imagine one generation to not fit the classification of chicken and the next generation to be a chicken.

Taking it so literally is pointless. What is of more interest is the underlying concept of apparent circular causality which ultimately it becomes a question of first cause.

EDIT:
Quote by 12345abcd3
listened to classical music doing better at some maze than mice that listened to metal. Try and find that study or similar studies to talk about.
That's quite interesting. There must be so many variables involved. Are there particular artists they were playing from each genre?

If anyone finds this study please link it.

It's a fascinating topic.

I was watching the Daily Show with John Stewart and he had a guy on there who had MRI's of his brain while he was listening to Bach and another while he was listening to Beethoven.

Bach lit up a massive area of his brain. Beethoven lit up a tiny bit. He went on to say that the results were pretty much a reflection his personal tastes. He said listening to Bach was for him one of the best experiences he could experience and had he been a Beethoven fanatic the results would have been the opposite.

There was a series or documentary the guy was making but I don't know any more about it.

Best of luck with your paper.
Si
Last edited by 20Tigers at Jul 30, 2009,
#21
Quote by Seryaph
Go out and read:
This is your Brain on Music
I read this book on somebody on UG's recommendation (possibly yours, Seryaph) and I must say it is a gem. Here's the author's website. He used to be a fairly successful music producer who asked himself that same question, Fret-Dancer, and got a PhD in behavioral neuroscience. In his lab he conducted several interesting experiences and in this book he cross-referenced his findings with all the research done in the field by collegues.

If you liked Musicophilia too, Seryaph I guess I'll have to order it. Thanks.
Quote by 12345abcd3
so there must have been one generation where the animal laying the egg did not fit into the definition of a chicken but the animal that came out of the egg did.
Unless the crucial mutation happened during the embryonic state, while the near-chick was still in its egg?
#23
The question is not flawed but a simple question that is used to describe the paradox of circular causality in a way that almost everybody can understand.


It's purpose is obvious, but the question itself assumes the existence of discrete categories of organisms. It's not really a problem, since the message is still successfully conveyed, but the question is still flawed.

If taken literally as proposed here there are a few options.
Does it even have to be classified as a chicken egg or could the egg be any kind of egg?


It's a chicken egg. That's the whole point. Chickens hatch from eggs, but those same eggs are laid by chickens, which hatch from eggs...

Taking it so literally is pointless. What is of more interest is the underlying concept of apparent circular causality which ultimately it becomes a question of first cause.


If we take it as symbolic of a causal loop, as it's meant to be, then it works just fine. If, however, we actually read the thread, we find that Unlockitall playfully responded to the question in a tongue-in-cheek fashion, taking it literally and asserting that the egg came first. Since we're taking it literally, we inevitably run into the fact that species are not discrete categories, and so one cannot observe a boundary after which the "first" chicken or egg is observed. But that's only if we read the thread...

I read this book on somebody on UG's recommendation (possibly yours, Seryaph) and I must say it is a gem. Here's the author's website. He used to be a fairly successful music producer who asked himself that same question, Fret-Dancer, and got a PhD in behavioral neuroscience. In his lab he conducted several interesting experiences and in this book he cross-referenced his findings with all the research done in the field by collegues.


A book on psychoacoustics written by an author who incorrectly defines the term "octave" and claims that Mozart wrote Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star has no credibility on any subject more complex. The book is riddled with amateurish mistakes that suggest the author has absolutely no grasp of music theory (or evolutionary biology).

so there must have been one generation where the animal laying the egg did not fit into the definition of a chicken but the animal that came out of the egg did.


No. Species are not discrete categories.
Someones knowledge of guitar companies spelling determines what amps you can own. Really smart people can own things like Framus because they sound like they might be spelled with a "y" but they aren't.
Last edited by Archeo Avis at Jul 30, 2009,
#24
Quote by Archeo Avis
No. Species are not discrete categories.
They are in counterpoint
Si
#25
Quote by 20Tigers
He's also worked in the music industry as an engineer, producer, and musician.

Well I haven't read the book but if Archeo says the author has no credibility and has judged the book to be "riddled with amateurish mistakes" which he argues suggests that the author has "absolutely no grasp of musich theory) then I better think twice before wasting my time.

Hmm who's credibility should I question?
A distinguished and respected professor on the subject that also has a successful career in the music industry on his resume, or a maths undergrad that trolls the internet in his spare time giving students keen to learn music theory a hard time because they don't ask about modes.

Gee that's a tough one.


Math undergrad? Do you even pay attention to who you're responding to?

Lets take a look at some gems from the book, shall we...

- Gives multiple, contradictory definitions of acoustic terms like volume and pitch, describing them as objective properties of sound in one chapter, and completely psychological constructs with no basis in objective reality in another.

- Discusses A-440Hz and proceeds to describe higher octaves of A as having frequencies "two, three, four, or five..." times higher (even someone like you can figure out that an increase of an octave involves doubling the frequency, not increasing it by a fixed amount)

- Claims that Mozart wrote Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star when he was a child (No)

These mistakes would get a first year music students laughed at. From an expert in the field, they are inexcusable. I don't think the man is an idiot, but it's clear that his book was not proofread or reviewed before it was released.

giving students keen to learn music theory a hard time because they don't ask about modes.


...what?
Someones knowledge of guitar companies spelling determines what amps you can own. Really smart people can own things like Framus because they sound like they might be spelled with a "y" but they aren't.
Last edited by Archeo Avis at Jul 30, 2009,
#26
^post removed. (that was meant to say "that ask about modes". It started as a different sentence and forgot to overwrite the "dont" when I changed it.
Si
#27
Quote by 20Tigers
They are in counterpoint




The "Re-incarnation of Plato" Award 2009
(most intelligent)
The "Good Samaritan" Award 2009 (most helpful)

[font="Palatino Linotype
Who's Andy Timmons??
#28
Quote by whysky
there is a documental about that with sting in natgeo
You can view it on his site too. I must say I was a bit disappointed about it. I guess I expected more information.
Quote by Archeo Avis
A book on psychoacoustics written by an author who incorrectly defines the term "octave" and claims that Mozart wrote Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star has no credibility on any subject more complex. The book is riddled with amateurish mistakes that suggest the author has absolutely no grasp of music theory (or evolutionary biology).
I looked up the errors you mentioned. On page 29 he talks about octaves as "This relationship, a frequency ration of 2:1 or 1:2 is called an octave" and "(...) the perceptual sense that we've come home each time we double a tone's frequency.". I've scanned briefly through the .pdf but didn't find any wrong definitions. Maybe you can point me to some?
Discusses A-440Hz and proceeds to describe higher octaves of A as having frequencies "two, three, four, or five..." times higher.
Ok, it is wrong. But it is also a figure of speech. That doesn't make him unknowledgeable. I mean, ask students in music what an equal tempered scale is. I'm sure many can't explain it. Some smart-ass might tell you to take a metallury workshop. :-) I doubt most musicians in professional orchestra's (let alone rock bands) know that sound volume increases logarithmically. That doesn't make them bad musicians. And I know many physicians who prescribe antibiothics to cure a common cold. Does that make them quacks?

But, indeed, on page 60 he states that Mozart wrote Twinkle Twinkle Little Star at the age of six. It is lousy fact-checking, I agree, but in other parts of his book he shows a better knowledge of the man's life and work. Personally I hear more stupid comments than that daily on the 20:00 o'clock news. I don't think you can judge a person's credibility on a few mistakes.
describing them as objective properties of sound in one chapter, and completely psychological constructs with no basis in objective reality in another.
no basis... I don't know about that, but the notion that music has this dual set of properties, partly wave physics, partly evolutive behavioral science, is an essential theme in his research.

You've obviously analysed his book(s) closely, but can you honnestly tell me you found no value in his neurological experiments, or in his comparisons with other research?

I don't want to pick a fight with you Archeo. I appreciate the way you look at things. But "no credibility", aren't you being a bit too harsh here?
#29
Quote by Seryaph
Go out and read:

This is your Brain on Music

Musicophilia

The World in Six Songs.


All of these books discuss the impact of music on our neurocognitive development.



"this is your brain on music"
i heard this book was not actually that informative. but i didnt read it.
[[////////:_Race in///_o)))


(((o_\\\Race: Out_:\\\\\\\\]]


= = = Forming Future Foundtions = =
^ Song in Profile.=
#31
Quote by Withakay
And I know many physicians who prescribe antibiotics to cure a common cold. Does that make them quacks?


No, not necessarily, but I wouldn't take any chances by trusting them. Same goes for reading a book with the mistakes Archeo posted. I've never read the book nor do I know anything about psychoacoustics or what ever it is called, so I make no other comment.
i don't know why i feel so dry