generally Unilateral Music Perception?

If interested in these questions, check out this link:

http://www.psych.mcgill.ca/labs/levitin/research/Vines_Cognition.pdf

can you explain it to a layman? I am interested but dont really have the time to read it! :)

I know the article has an abstract, but I'm not aware of any forum that allows you to post, "If you're interested in this link, then discuss..."

That's just a "web etiquette" thing, though. It's an interesting read, but I'm more interested in your thoughts about it so I can see if I agree.

Then we can -discuss- the article.

I know the article has an abstract, but I'm not aware of any forum that allows you to post, "If you're interested in this link, then discuss..."

That's just a "web etiquette" thing, though. It's an interesting read, but I'm more interested in your thoughts about it so I can see if I agree.

Then we can -discuss- the article.

Well, if it is true that humans consistently perceive phrases/cadences as well as a sense of hierarchy or 'form', it seems that aesthetic value may not be relative. If we define aesthetic value as that which, after having acquired the categorical perception for the musical material, generate in the listener a strong positive preferential response, we can argue that, at least from a human perspective, aesthetic value is indeed not all relative, and that certain forms and phrases have more value than other forms and phrases and that this is generally consistent across populations of varying backgrounds and culture, as can be evidenced by the studies in the article.

Thus, it seems as if by understanding these cognitive processes of music cognition and perception, we could learn, POTENTIALLY, what POSSIBLE models of music composition generate in human beings positive or potentially preferential responses, and avoid musical languages which typically engender negative or non-receptive responses or that expect listeners to hear what actually is imperceptible, i.e., extreme serialism in its most mathematical, procedural and perceptually unconcerned form, as well as some new complexity (not all, as there are valuable pieces of music which use serialist techniques and/or are procedurally very dense)

Well, if it is true that humans consistently perceive phrases/cadences as well as a sense of hierarchy or 'form', it seems that aesthetic value may not be relative. If we define aesthetic value as that which, after having acquired the categorical perception for the musical material, generate in the listener a strong positive preferential response, we can argue that, at least from a human perspective, aesthetic value is indeed not all relative, and that certain forms and phrases have more value than other forms and phrases and that this is generally consistent across populations of varying backgrounds and culture, as can be evidenced by the studies in the article.

Thus, it seems as if by understanding these cognitive processes of music cognition and perception, we could learn, POTENTIALLY, what POSSIBLE models of music composition generate in human beings positive or potentially preferential responses, and avoid musical languages which typically engender negative or non-receptive responses or that expect listeners to hear what actually is imperceptible, i.e., extreme serialism in its most mathematical, procedural and perceptually unconcerned form, as well as some new complexity (not all, as there are valuable pieces of music which use serialist techniques and/or are procedurally very dense)

This line of thought is just dangerous for so many reasons. It's music, I know, but it sets precedents for art in a world that is already suffering from bureaucrats trying to "standardize" education, as though education is this extended training period to prepare people to enter the system as "productive workers." Now, I'm all for getting some answers. What I'm not interested in are propositions that seek to embrace one thing and avoid another. In art, this is just not practical. We should be embracing everything, soaking it up like sponges soak up spilled water. There is no need for preferential treatment of one system of music over another because the musical universe is infinite. We don't need to pick and choose what should be in it and what should not.

If we take this line of thinking to the slippery slope of the bureaucratic climate, we're talking about people who know nothing about music and only cast judgment on it because they don't enjoy it. This judgment would not only 'avoid' a series of musical languages that are significant to Western music of this century... it would also risk banning the study of these languages in an already curriculum-regulated school environment. This just won't do, and even though I have no interest in the serial idiom, I'd stand by those composers who do.

Think of music as an extension of our individuality in much the same way as money (free-trade) and what we do with it is an example of individuality. If someone told you, "Spending your money on music software/equipment/scores is not a practical use of your money, so you should not spend money on things that help you write music..." you might tell them, "Well, it's my choice to spend money on music equipment. It's my money." And when someone says, "You're only allowed to spend money on things that make you more money. If you compose and make no money, you're not allowed to buy things that will help you compose," you might understand how your line of thought on this takes us down a road no one wants to go down.

In my view, all this study shows is how much music is deeply entrenched in its tradition throughout society, so much so that there are expectations which almost appear to be imprinting on us. It's not a 'good' or 'bad' thing, it's not a question of 'embrace this, avoid that', it's just another observation that helps us understand ourselves and how we relate to our environment. It's not much, but that's the safest thing I think we can say about this article in my opinion.

Thus, it seems as if by understanding these cognitive processes of music cognition and perception, we could learn, POTENTIALLY, what POSSIBLE models of music composition generate in human beings positive or potentially preferential responses, and avoid musical languages which typically engender negative or non-receptive responses or that expect listeners to hear what actually is imperceptible.

since i'm very sensitive political being with optimistic sceptic lurking in my anarchist corners, i will refer to one old lithuanian philosopher, who said something like that : 'the ancient greeks were the first and the last ones to value individuality before/above universality, all else is decadence', but, since i'm not very good in knowing so much about history, i will only happilly (and romantically) say: fukc possible potential models, bring me some REAL THINGS.

I am not sure if I am understanding this correctly....but surely POP MUSIC is selling the most and "communicating" to the most people.

If you watch a blockbuster movie however... the orchestral soundtrack is usually extremely chromatic and dissonant, yet people just accept this and don't complain and ask for there money back!

So I am not sure what the question is about..... :hmmm: