While I do not, perhaps, need to know WHY I like Romantic music, I am still intrigued by this new study that suggests that it is due to being culturally conditioned that we like the music we do:
http://news.mit.edu/2016/music-tastes-cultural-not-hardwired-brain-0713 (http://news.mit.edu/2016/music-tastes-cultural-not-hardwired-brain-0713)
Not having read the study, it appears to be rather self-evident. Various other studies have demonstrated how being exposed to music increases one's chance of becoming interested in it oneself - in other words, it is part of your cultural background. Likewise, a preference for a particular kind of music is likely triggered by cultural background. But there can be other factors in play. But in the case of classical music, it may well be social aspiration, for instance. A good example is how classical music has long been part of the "curriculum" of socially upward people in South-East Asia.
I agree, the findings do seem highly predictable. Experience tells us that our individual taste for dissonance vs consonance or musical "roughness" can change within our lifetime. Over the period of western history during which music has been notated and practices recorded we know that the fashion changed from monophonic to polyphonic with a broadly increasing degree of harmonic complexity, certainly too fast for the "hard wiring" of the brain to evolve by a process of natural selection. Music seems to be to some degree like language in that we have an instinct to adopt whatever styles and idioms we are most exposed to, particularly at a young age.
Interesting article. It is not written by a very competent journalist ("a combination of C and G is often called a perfect fifth"). It is about liking consonance over dissonance. They tested people unaccustomed to Western music (one can find those in Brazil apparently) to see if they found one more pleasant than the other. And they did not--Western subjects did. I.e. the meaning of consonance and dissonance is culturally acquired (and of course almost all music styles popular these days use the distinction in the same way as classical music does. It is important to state that the test subjects were shown to be able to distinguish between consonance and dissonance even as they failed to notice a difference in their ability to please them. Apparently consonance/dissonance is hardwired only the meaning of it in today's Western music isn't. The original paper is in Nature apparently (no precise quote given; that would have been work), so if you have access you can read it there.
Of course practically all Western music is built on the difference between consonance and dissonance--even most of the 20th century stuff outside of the area we are dealing with on this forum. And the part that has discarded the concept is still dependent on its existence, if only in defiance. So the study does little to answer the question why somebody likes romantic (or baroque etc.) music.
As Ilja suggests, there are various psycho-social factors that may influence our preference for one musical type over another. Those that might change our ways of thinking over a period of a few years are precisely the cultural factors that the experiment is intended to isolate, but other short-term influences are left to come out in the statistical wash. After hearing a highly dissonant piece I'd probably "prefer" to listen next to something less ear-stretching. Given a straightforward choice between a concord and a discord, I wouldn't be inclined to express a preference at all!
I'm not sure I fit any stereotypes. I enjoy a vast range of music that falls way beyond the remit of this forum. Yes, I enjoy music from the Romantic period, but I also enjoy exploring everything from the Medieval 'Ars Nova' to new music still wet on the page. I also enjoy music of other genres such as rock (especially progressive rock), jazz, pop and film music.
While I realise everyone is different (and halleluia to that!), I am still surprised when I encounter people who steadfastly only listen to one type of music (or period) and refuse to listen to anything new. I love the fact that, even if I live to be 200, there will always be music to explore I have never heard before. What a joy!
Interesting topic, indeed. I would also say that it relates to early exposure. My father listened to classical music, and so do I today. Most people who I know to love classical music have parents with the same music taste.
However, I am also fascinated by the time when the music that I like was created, such as the end of 19th century and early 20th century.
What this study appears to have shown (I do not have access to the full version in Nature) is that, unlike finding the golden section to be naturally 'given', preferring consonance over dissonance is not something that all humans have somehow 'in them' from birth – and that surprised me. I would have expected harmonious music and the golden section in nature, and also in, say, architecture or art, to be something that all humans inherently like.
A lot might depend on exactly how the question was posed. I presume the subjects were presented with two 2-note chords sequentially, randomized as to whether the "consonant" chord came first or second. If the question was simply "which do you like best?", my own response might vary according to how much wine I'd drunk the night before! On an average day, however, I'd find it very hard to express a preference - one I might consider more "mellifluous" but the other more "interesting" (something else we haven't been told - just how discordant were the dissonant chords?). On the other hand if the question was "which do you find more pleasant?" I'd probably go for the blander consonance. A crucial thing for me is; might not the Tsimane (who were presumably addressed in their indigenous language), the Spanish-speaking Bolivians and the English-speaking Americans have understood the question slightly differently? Brian Moore whose classic textbook An Introduction to the Psychology of Hearing I have on my shelves seems to think the study was well-designed, so I presume this potential confounding factor was taken care of somehow,
Even in Western music the notions of consonance that we seem convinced are intuitive have fairly obviously changed with time, no? Or would a jazz/showtune minor 9th final cadence, to say nothing of the rest of the piece/song, have fit well in a Dufay chanson?
Sorabji, in an exchange of letters early in his career with an established critic about beautiful melody (the horizontal parallel to the vertical question), used the example of raga (that is, he quoted one, I think, and I think his argument - which he elaborated further- was good.)
An interesting article. Since my first work that got my attention was Tchaikovsky's Hamlet Fantasy Overture you know how my roots were formed.
As a youngster I had no substantial exposure to "classical music", apart from cartoons, and films such as Hans Christian Andersen (my father had a bluegrass band that toured around the southern USA). But for whatever reason I naturally gravitated to it, via albums from second-hand shops - and hearing my uncle play a piece by Brahms on the guitar. A seminal experience.
I love all music, from Machaut to Ligeti, but I do admit an affinity to the creations of the nineteenth century. Every composer discovered is a new planet to explore. Pixis, A. Fesca, and Kalkbrenner have exceeded my expectations. Others have not.
All genres have worth - except for "hip hop", which I consider damaging both to society at large, and to the individual participants. My 'umble opinion :)
The nature-nurture debate rumbles on. As usual, there is evidence for both 'sides'. For the nurture side, our own experience tells us that our tastes have been significantly affected by our upbringing and cultural context, and this is easy to demonstrate through social research. For the nature side, however, the evidence is 'hidden' and demonstrable only through sophisticated scientific research. There is a body of research which shows that Asian musical taste - and specifically the musical taste of Chinese people - is associated with brain 'wiring' that is different to that of 'Westerners'. It has been researched in depth and used to explain why someone in China appreciates Beijing opera, for example, while Westerners usually find it unpleasant. Apparently it concerns the location and nature of auditory processing centres in the brain. I am not a scientist so can't say how good the science is, and - of course - the usual chicken & egg arguments can be trotted out on behalf of both sides of the debate.
All this seems a long way from UC's remit, however!
Quote from: matesic on Friday 15 July 2016, 15:51
A lot might depend on exactly how the question was posed. I presume the subjects were presented with two 2-note chords sequentially, randomized as to whether the "consonant" chord came first or second. If the question was simply "which do you like best?", my own response might vary according to how much wine I'd drunk the night before! On an average day, however, I'd find it very hard to express a preference - one I might consider more "mellifluous" but the other more "interesting" (something else we haven't been told - just how discordant were the dissonant chords?). On the other hand if the question was "which do you find more pleasant?" I'd probably go for the blander consonance.
The problem is one of context. A bunch of suspended chords in succession would just sound bizzare, yet a properly placed one gives a very satisfying sound. The dissonant chords at the end of Mozart's 'A Musical Joke' have a hugely different context than someone by Boulez.
Then there's, say, Debussy's use of 9th chords in succession for color, vs using them rarely because of counterpoint.
Etc etc.
I believe the researchers got answers for the wrong question. This kind of test might be useful if we were discussing issues of tempering but overall (IMO) irrelevant for what I'd call music.
Explicitly, depending on how sober I am I might prefer the sound of an F13 chord over G major but that's so beyond the point. It is the combination of harmony, melody, rhythm and tempo what makes or breaks a piece, independently if it is a Western or Chinese one.
Put the same population comparing extracts of the Rach 2 or Beethoven 6th vs the avant garde boys. We can talk after that :D
like your response
This research has nothing to do with Beethoven vs. the "avant garde boys". It is about physiology, specifically about how the brain works when processing music.
Music when it hits the eardrums is a complex pattern of minute variations in air pressure. If you plotted a graph of it it would look completely meaningless (I believe it is what is recorded on CD's (and older technologies) and then turned back into sound by the player). It is the inner ear and the brain that performs some sort of Fourier transformation on it and singles out the individual frequencies of which a chord is made up and follows that through time. The distinction consonance / dissonance somehow occurs in this context--and is apparently innate (unlike the preference for either) according to these results--and the scientific importance must be discussed in the same context.
The study does indeed nothing to account for preferences in musical taste. It applies to the "avant garde boys" as much as to Beethoven (and to Chinese opera as well!).
As to the experiment of testing unaccustomed subjects on their preferred musical taste: I wouldn't be too sure about the outcome. "Rach2" and Pastorale are highly complex and long pieces; I believe we can consider it a settled fact that they are an acquired (or learned) taste. So I would be surprised if subjects would gravitate to these "monsters" who are unfamiliar even with music with more than one voice.
Quote from: Double-A on Monday 18 July 2016, 21:39
The study does indeed nothing to account for preferences in musical taste. It applies to the "avant garde boys" as much as to Beethoven (and to Chinese opera as well!).
I essentially agree with your point. Maybe I kind of confused the discussion by comparing the two musical currents. But, thing is, look at the headline of the article:
"Why we like the music we do
New study suggests that
musical tastes are cultural in origin, not hardwired in the brain."
Sure, musical tastes have a largely learnt component, doubly so for complex pieces. But to conclude from research which essentially looked if there's a preferred interval or chord as listened in isolation that musical
tastes are cultural, is at least IMO, a non sequitur. It is almost like giving blind sample tastes of basil and wasabi to find out if there's an "innate" preference for a cuisine. Sure, we learn to love/hate food in accordance to what we've been exposed but you wouldn't arrive to that conclusion by comparing the response of blindfolded subjects to pepper and cardamom.
I am pretty much convinced that much of what we had come to love in music has indeed come for external influences, culture, even the memories of the times when we've first heard it. But again, I wouldn't come to that conclusion from observing that people with no previous musical background at all found more or less all chords equivalent. Music is not that, it is what you later do with those chords/intervals.
I agree with all of this. It is important to note that the headline came from either the journalist who wrote the article (and who is practically completely innocent when it comes to musical theory) of from the editor. In either case not from the author of the study. Personally I find the question fascinating if the distinction consonance / dissonance (or indeed basil / thyme) is learned or innate, but that is just me.
Thinking some more of this: It occurs to me that the first question to ask is the definition of "dissonance" used in this research. The distinction occurs on a continuum and the "border", traditionally set between thirds and sevenths or their inversions, can be seen as arbitrary (indeed in earlier music theory thirds appear to have been counted as dissonance if I remember my school days correctly).
So: What exactly did the test subjects get to listen to? The possible spectrum for dissonance goes from the dominant seventh chord to half tone clusters. If the subjects heard a difference in quality between thirds and sevenths: This would go a long way to establishing that the concept is hardwired into the brain. Not so much if the examples were octaves and half tone clusters.
P.S. I would feel more comfortable if we all could avoid disparaging terms for musical styles we don't like. This forum is restricted to romantic music for practical reasons; we are not defending a fortress.
What I want to know is: when they played an interval of a fifth, C and G (and that's not a chord), what tuning did they use? Equal temperment as on a piano isn't the pure 5th of Pythagorean tuning. Every piano is out of tune - that's just the way it is with a fixed string and equal temperment. If a good orchestra is playing the interval C - G is distinctly NOT what a piano would sound like. Maybe it makes no difference to the study. I have listened to western classical music for 60 years and cannot make the leap to microtonal music - it just sounds out of tune. I don't see how players do it. Of course, one orchestra I play with plays everything with microtonality - even our unisons are dissonant!
Anyone who thinks further useful insights might be gained from this discussion (don't raise your hopes!) will find more information in Nature's own editorial article:
http://www.nature.com/news/the-people-who-don-t-get-eleanor-rigby-1.20244
which links to the paper's initial paragraph. Unfortunately there it stops, so without a subscription to Nature or access to a library we are still in the dark about the methodological details that are so necessary in order to understand exactly what it is the authors have established, if anything!
The problem is compounded by the fact that Nature's editorialist thinks it fit to give the study his or her own highly debatable slant; The people who don't get 'Eleanor Rigby'. Happy music and sad sounds are not universal. Even the experimenters themselves seem to display considerable scientific and musical naivete; as early as the second sentence they imply that "consonant" (an objective physical property, although of course arbitrary and requiring careful definition in the exact context of the study) is synonymous with "pleasant" (an emotional response), and "dissonant" with "unpleasant"! Then the editor equates this with "happy" and "sad"!! The fact that the Tsimane rated consonant and dissonant sounds as equally pleasant is apparently taken to mean they couldn't tell the difference between consonance and dissonance in the abstract. The editorial writer adds a further small but revealing semantic error of his own - apparently the Tsuimane "detect no difference between consonant and dissonant sounds" which if literally true means that to them all chords sound exactly the same! OK, we might assume "in the abstract" to be implied, but there are other examples of imprecise or mistaken comprehension which suggest to me this influential journal should stick to easier topics, like quantum mechanics...
Quote from: MartinH on Tuesday 19 July 2016, 02:41
Of course, one orchestra I play with plays everything with microtonality - even our unisons are dissonant!
There you go!
Seriously, I do not think temperment matters for this kind of study: Most people do not hear the difference.
Thanks for the detective work, Matesic; I was too lazy to do it. You are right, that first paragraph is not very telling except that it seems to reveal that the authors don't know enough music theory--including even the physics of sound--for this work. The lead author is indeed a brain physiology guy (at MIT, no less), the other three are apparently anthropologists judging from their addresses.
The editorial is obviously the main source for the article that got this thread started. It (the editorial) reads like written by someone who browsed through a musical history book and now is able to present random facts more or less loosely related to the topic of the paper. An academic equivalent of name calling.