# Classical music good for health and functioning?



## Joris (Jan 13, 2013)

Do you guys here believe in the Mozart-effect and all; that classical music aids or memory and even health (widing blood vessels, brain connections etc.)?
Of course there have been scientific experiments on this..but they won't publish contradicting results etc. etc. so maybe you guys have a more sober look on it


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

Joris said:


> Do you guys here believe in the Mozart-effect and all; that classical music aids or memory and even health (widing blood vessels, brain connections etc.)?


Widening blood vessels? That's a new one on me.



Joris said:


> Of course there have been scientific experiments on this..but they won't publish contradicting results etc. etc. so maybe you guys have a more sober look on it


That...is not how science works.

First off, the original result had nothing at all to do with "Mozart makes you smarter", let alone "widening blood vessels". The original result was that listening to Mozart as an adult makes one marginally better at origami for the next quarter of an hour compared to listening to repetitive relaxation music or nothing. This has nothing whatever to do with memory or vascular health.

Second, "they" will and did publish contradictory results. The balance of current evidence suggests that the "better at origami" result mentioned above has nothing to do with classical music, and is instead related to a temporary boost in one's spacial reasoning skills after performing an enjoyable activity. One study found that some people (who don't like Mozart) got _worse_ at spatial reasoning after listening to his music; and another found that they could produce an identical boost by reading Stephen King at their subjects.

TL;DR: there is probably no Mozart effect.


----------



## Joris (Jan 13, 2013)

ahammel said:


> Widening blood vessels? That's a new one on me.


Yes with music that is non-stressful (as opposed to heavy metal and rap) and has some kind of uniform tempo.
But of course classical music _can_ be stressful.

And I kinda overexaggerated with the science bit yeah.


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

Joris said:


> Yes with music that is non-stressful (as opposed to heavy metal and rap) and has some kind of uniform tempo.


_[citation needed]_


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

It's all nonsense!!


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Inasmuch as listening to music often happens sitting down, and being sedentary harms your health... 
I only know I've got much, much lazier since joining TC!

But I think listening to Mozart, or any other non-violent music that you enjoy, can destress you & lower blood presssure; as does owning a pet. 
So maybe it's a choice between Mozart and a Pomeranian?


----------



## StevenOBrien (Jun 27, 2011)

Well, it keeps me sane, so I'd have to say yes.


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

Ingenue said:


> So maybe it's a choice between Mozart and a Pomeranian?


Mozart - you don't have to walk him and he won't bark or lick your face first thing in the morning!


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

I agree with Ingenue. Classical has nowhere near the health benefits of leaping around my living room to very loud hard rock, which I do when I get a little bored with the treadmill.


----------



## CypressWillow (Apr 2, 2013)

Maybe some of these studies are worth looking into.

http://www.wqxr.org/#!/articles/top-5-105/2011/nov/10/top-five-studies-classical-music-and-health/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/19/health.classicalmusicandopera

http://www.livestrong.com/article/156814-how-does-the-brain-respond-to-classical-music/

I don't think I'd be too quick to dismiss the psychological and physiological effects of music.


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

CypressWillow said:


> Maybe some of these studies are worth looking into.
> 
> http://www.wqxr.org/#!/articles/top-5-105/2011/nov/10/top-five-studies-classical-music-and-health/
> 
> ...


Those boil down to 1) music helps one relax, which is not in dispute and 2) the temporary boost in spatial reasoning dealt with above.

Not sure what to make of the crime one, though. I'd like to see that repeated.


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

ahammel said:


> Not sure what to make of the crime one, though. I'd like to see that repeated.


See the LA Times for more - that's fairly recent. There's also an old BBC story. Some of it is a bit anecdotal but seems genuine enough.


----------



## Chrythes (Oct 13, 2011)

Next time when you are having your intestines checked bring a Mozart CD.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111031114955.htm


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

Taggart said:


> See the LA Times for more - that's fairly recent. There's also an old BBC story. Some of it is a bit anecdotal but seems genuine enough.


It basically says that the yobs don't like Classical so they leave when it's played.

ADD: they could play Justin Bieber to the same effect. Thuggish teens don't like him either.


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

GreenMamba said:


> It basically says that the yobs don't like Classical so they leave when it's played.
> 
> ADD: they could play Justin Bieber to the same effect. Thuggish teens don't like him either.


Neither would the majority of their customers either!


----------



## Guest (May 21, 2013)

*side-effects*

So let's talk about sex for a second.

Sex is good for health and functioning, too, but how many people engage in that particular activity *in order to* be more healthy?

When my father started having problems with his prostate, the doctor suggested that he and mom have more sex. Her very sensible response was to object that that made it seem so "clinical."

Clinical and sexual are not altogether compatible.

In short, what I object to most in these studies (which means that I do object to what everyone else has been objecting to, too) is that they elevate side-effects to the status of effects. When that happens, all sorts of absurdities can come strolling arrogantly through the door. It makes it very difficult to talk about the genuine purposes of art, especially the genuine purposes of contemporary art, when we are caught up in the side-effects of older (assimilated) art.

Maybe listening to Mozart can make one healthier and more adept at origami for a few minutes. But so what if it does? That's no reason to listen to Mozart. And what about Xenakis? What does that make one? It's too easy to dismiss newer art, which is only doing *one* of its legitimate jobs, as it were, which is to shock and jolt and dismay, for not producing some precious side-effect or other like assimilated art can so consistently do. Never mind that it's not all that consistent, either, as a few people have already tried to point out. What if you don't happen to like Mozart? Indeed!

It's odd. We want art to be so all-fired important, and so to legitimize it we trivialize it. Wow. That really just doesn't seem quite the thing, now, does it?


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

some guy said:


> n short, what I object to most in these studies (which means that I do object to what everyone else has been objecting to, too) is that they elevate side-effects to the status of effects. When that happens, all sorts of absurdities can come strolling arrogantly through the door. It makes it very difficult to talk about the genuine purposes of art, especially the genuine purposes of contemporary art, when we are caught up in the side-effects of older (assimilated) art.


Just so we understand each other, are you saying that these researchers _should not_ have checked to see if music is effective in helping people relax pre-op on the grounds that it trivializes the music? Because I definitely disagree there.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Ingenue said:


> Inasmuch as listening to music often happens sitting down, and being sedentary harms your health...
> I only know I've got much, much lazier since joining TC!
> 
> But I think listening to Mozart, or any other non-violent music that you enjoy, can destress you & lower blood presssure; as does owning a pet.
> So maybe it's a choice between Mozart and a Pomeranian?


Get rid of the dog--they should be banned or eaten , buy a goldfish they are really relaxing.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

StevenOBrien said:


> Well, it keeps me sane, so I'd have to say yes.


I've always thought you were very sane! (Considering).


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

Taggart said:


> See the LA Times for more - that's fairly recent. There's also an old BBC story. Some of it is a bit anecdotal but seems genuine enough.


If scum of all kinds fears our music, that makes it even more worthy of admiration.


----------



## KRoad (Jun 1, 2012)

I thought the "Mozart Effect" was something only for children whose brains were still in the process of developing... Would Bach's polyphony lead to schizophrenic tendencies I wonder?


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

KRoad said:


> I thought the "Mozart Effect" was something only for children whose brains were still in the process of developing.


You and lots of other people, but there is not now and never has been any evidence for that.


----------



## Whipsnade (Mar 17, 2011)

Didn't Mozart's own health and functioning go bad pretty early?


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

moody said:


> Get rid of the dog--they should be banned or eaten , buy a goldfish they are really relaxing.


What, cleaning out its tank, managing its weed, trying not to overfeed it? No thanks.
I'll play Handel's Water Music instead.


----------



## Arsakes (Feb 20, 2012)

Weston said:


> I agree with Ingenue. Classical has nowhere near the health benefits of leaping around my living room to very loud hard rock, which I do when I get a little bored with the treadmill.


Hard Rock sucks, Soft Rock is tolerable.


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

Arsakes said:


> Hard Rock sucks, Soft Rock is tolerable.


It's OK as long as it has "Great Yarmouth" all the way through!


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Arsakes said:


> Hard Rock sucks, Soft Rock is tolerable.


Blackpool Rock beats them both !!!


----------



## Yardrax (Apr 29, 2013)

Arsakes said:


> Hard Rock sucks, Soft Rock is tolerable.


It's the opposite for me. Any music which is very obviously attempting to be pleasant or relaxing, whether it's new age music or soft radio rock, tends to really get under my skin. It feels like a very stern schoolteacher telling me upfront that I should relax and be a happy and productive member of society, and given that I still have the brain of an ill-tempered adolescent, my natural reaction is to raise my middle finger. I connect much better and more immediately with music which is very visceral in it's effect, I find regular hard rock even a bit too bland most of the time. Give me Bathory or Manilla Road any day.

Anyway I agree with some guy basically. Maybe listening to classical music is good for my health, I don't really care, I want to be challenged artistically.


----------



## Guest (May 21, 2013)

ahammel said:


> are you saying that these researchers _should not_ have checked to see if music is effective in helping people relax pre-op on the grounds that it trivializes the music?


Clearly I am not.


----------



## Novelette (Dec 12, 2012)

StevenOBrien said:


> Well, it keeps me sane, so I'd have to say yes.


Quite agreed, Steven!


----------

