# Classic Music Does - It Is Absurd to Think it Does Not



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

Paying attention to classical music will make a person more intelligent, it is absurd to think it won't. 

What is one essentially doing when they pay attention to these sounds? Answer, they are following patters. These patters vary in their complexity, but needless to say, they are generally not simplistic.

The fact is, we have not done the right kind of experiments to prove the benefits of classical music. 

In every case, wherein I have introduced a young neophyte to classical music, the results have always ended in an increase of intelligence, but there are more benefits than this...


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Klassic said:


> Paying attention to classical music will make a person more intelligent, it is absurd to think it won't.
> 
> What is one essentially doing when they pay attention to these sounds? Answer, they are following patters. These patters vary in their complexity, but needless to say, they are generally not simplistic.
> 
> ...


How have you quantified the increase in intelligence that you have always found when you have introduced the neophytes to classical music? I'd like to know more about your experimental techniques. Have you done double-blind testing?


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

Strange Magic said:


> How have you quantified the increase in intelligence that you have always found when you have introduced the neophytes to classical music? I'd like to know more about your experimental techniques. Have you done double-blind testing?


I at no point said these cases were scientific, what I said is: 'we have not done the right kind of experiments to prove the benefits of classical music.' My experience is limited.

I think the real question you seem to be getting at is, how do I measure the increase of intelligence? I think the answer here has something to do with comprehension. And here I am not simply referring to the comprehension of music.

But what do you think my friend? Is classical music neutral, positive, negative, does it impact the intellect?


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

"How do I (you) measure the increase in intelligence?" That is my question to you. I'll await proper experiments to see whether classical music impacts the intellect.


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

Strange Magic said:


> "How do I (you) measure the increase in intelligence?" That is my question to you. I'll await proper experiments to see whether classical music impacts the intellect.


Yes, but you're missing the point. One does not have to wait to intelligently speculate on this hypothesis.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

I shall leave the speculating then to my betters. Carry on.


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

Strange Magic said:


> I shall leave the speculating then to my betters. Carry on.


It is seems strange to me that people take offense at this notion. Doesn't reading make us smarter?


----------



## bioluminescentsquid (Jul 22, 2016)

It's hard to do double blind testing on this :lol:

And as for increasing your intelligence (a very arbitrarily defined thing, beyond some simplistic tests), I think there are more worthwhile things to do than listen to Classical music.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

I'm sure it does--but what I really want to know is whether playing the Goldberg Variations constantly in the background while I'm doing other things and not really paying attention to the music also makes me smarter.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

How about defining exactly what is and what is not classical music as the rest is meaningless until that is done. Does John Cage count? How about Toru Takemitsu? Hildegard of Bingen? William Gilbert and Arthur Sullivan? Johan Strauss? George Gershwin?


----------



## Richannes Wrahms (Jan 6, 2014)

It only makes you more intelligent at finding musical patters, and maybe mod12 arithmetic.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Klassic said:


> In every case, wherein I have introduced a young neophyte to classical music, the results have always ended in an increase of intelligence...


Wow, that is a real stretch! You have no way of knowing whether that neophyte would have been just as smart w/o the classical music. Heck, fwiw, the so-called Mozart Effect whereby playing Mozart while pregnant results in a smarter child was debunked some time ago.


----------



## helenora (Sep 13, 2015)

Klassic said:


> Paying attention to classical music will make a person more intelligent, it is absurd to think it won't.
> 
> What is one essentially doing when they pay attention to these sounds? Answer, they are following patters. These patters vary in their complexity, but needless to say, they are generally not simplistic.
> 
> ...


I have no proofs, neither do I want to find any, no wish to do it, no need , but I agree with you....

what I think is rather intuitive , perhaps it doesn´t count in our age of science believers


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Three blind John Cage Mice, Three blind John Cage Mice, Three blind John Cage Mice see how they run...........

Done tested and proven- IQ raised, simple.


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

Some people perhaps think this question doesn't matter, not true, what we pay attention to and how it affects us, always matters.


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

Klassic said:


> Paying attention to classical music will make a person more intelligent, it is absurd to think it won't.
> What is one essentially doing when they pay attention to these sounds? Answer, they are following patters. These patters vary in their complexity, but needless to say, they are generally not simplistic.
> 
> The fact is, we have not done the right kind of experiments to prove the benefits of classical music.
> ...


Perhaps, if you actually _listen_ to the music, with the purpose of trying to make sense of it. In such a scenario, perhaps it will be good practice for the listener's pattern recognition skills. Won't help much to just put up Mozart as background to your dinner though, any more than you will get better at math by having someone read a math textbook at you as background noise.


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

brianvds said:


> Perhaps, if you actually _listen_ to the music, with the purpose of trying to make sense of it. In such a scenario, perhaps it will be good practice for the listener's pattern recognition skills. Won't help much to just put up Mozart as background to your dinner though, any more than you will get better at math by having someone read a math textbook at you as background noise.


Yes, but that's because Mozart doesn't help much with anything, apart from being a child.


----------



## SeptimalTritone (Jul 7, 2014)

Richannes Wrahms said:


> It only makes you more intelligent at finding musical patters, and maybe mod12 arithmetic.


LOL. It is clear that one needs the various symmetries of the tone row to know why the exact notes were chosen for, say, the flashy kaleidoscopic patterns in the third variation of Webern's op 21 mv 2. This part beginning here 




But two things. One, just listening and feeling the patterns is 100% enough to comprehend it _fully_. And second, and more technically, the point of the op 21 mv 2 _is not_ the various degrees of perfect/imperfect symmetry, palindromes, and whatever in the tone row contrapuntal complexes. This part of the analysis, while it does point out the notes on the page, is only a part of the musical story, and in fact the symmetry of this movement is really overblown.

The point of that movement is how the rate of motion, that is, the linear/harmonic/textural _throttle_ of the variations are all so different and contrasting, and yet the whole ride feels right. Symmetry provides that currency of throttle i.e. it provides beginnings and endings at the micro/macro level, but that's just behind-the-scenes stuff.

More important is the contrast between the extremely quick undulations of that third variation, with say, the complete stasis of the fifth variation with the strings just sitting there playing the same notes and the harp providing its figure on top... while feeling that the harp figure in variation 5 relates to the clarinet/string/horn figures in variation 3, even though the textural throttle is so different. Also important is the contrast between semi-imitative (although that semi-imitation is imperceptible) linear polyphony and percussive ostinato/patterning, and how one realizes over the course of the movement that those feel similar even though in theory those two kinds of textures are so different.

Musical _patterns_ and mod12 _arithmetic_ are so unimportant! Much more important is the extreme contrasts in throttle and texture that go far beyond what triadic tonality can contrast... far beyond at least to those who enjoy Webern. I know you are joking and being cheeky, but a lot of mid/late 20th century academic analysis drowned itself way too much in the symmetries of mod12 arithmetic without seeing the bigger picture, and it is an easy trap to fall into.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

In your threads you often make vague pronouncements, preemptively denounce all counterarguments as stupid, and then proceed to speak in yet more vague pronouncements for the rest of the thread, at least when you stick around long enough for conversation to develop. If you were to engage in discussion instead of merely holding court, your threads might actually be worth participating in.

Edit: I know this has nothing to do with the topic, and I know that I'll probably receive an infraction for this, but I feel that it needs to be said.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

I feel certain that it's listening to classical music that makes us the brilliant geniuses we are. I mean, what else could it be?


----------



## Genoveva (Nov 9, 2010)

................................


----------



## bz3 (Oct 15, 2015)

KenOC said:


> I feel certain that it's listening to classical music that makes us the brilliant geniuses we are. I mean, what else could it be?


Maybe it's the odious company we make that relegates us to communing over centuries old music with like-minded souls across the globe as we sit comfortably in darkened rooms with little more swathe than what Adam began with. Or yeah maybe we're brilliant.


----------



## Guest (Sep 29, 2016)

helenora said:


> I have no proofs, neither do I want to find any, no wish to do it, no need , but I agree with you....
> 
> what I think is rather intuitive , perhaps it doesn´t count in our age of science believers


Well I have no proof either - but my intuition tells me to doubt Klassic's assertion. What now?


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Listening to classical music more than likely develops one's listening sensibilities, making one more refined and discerning to well composed art music.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Klassic said:


> Paying attention to classical music will make a person more intelligent, it is absurd to think it won't.


If you want "intelligent speculation" on your statement, this is not the best way to start it. Just saying.


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

Klassic said:


> Paying attention to classical music will make a person more intelligent, it is absurd to think it won't.


It's playing that makes the difference not listening. See http://www.apa.org/monitor/jun06/iq.aspx or the work on the Harmony Project


----------



## Guest (Sep 29, 2016)

Taggart said:


> It's playing that makes the difference not listening. See http://www.apa.org/monitor/jun06/iq.aspx or the work on the Harmony Project


Further searching for research throws up this, from http://pss.sagepub.com/content/15/8/511.short



> The idea that music makes you smarter has received considerable attention from scholars and the media. The present report is the first to test this hypothesis directly with random assignment of a large sample of children (N = 144) to two different types of music lessons (keyboard or voice) or to control groups that received drama lessons or no lessons. IQ was measured before and after the lessons. Compared with children in the control groups, children in the music groups exhibited greater increases in full-scale IQ. The effect was relatively small, but it generalized across IQ subtests, index scores, and a standardized measure of academic achievement. *Unexpectedly, children in the drama group exhibited substantial pre- to post-test improvements in adaptive social behavior that were not evident in the music groups.*


Now I'm not sure what 'adaptive social behaviour' is, but it sounds as though it might be a desirable thing - at least as desirable as a relatively small increase in measured IQ (itself not an unquestionable 'good').


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Thank you MacLeod! Now we're getting somewhere--somewhere beyond intelligent speculation, and the whiff of THC.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

Surely it must be better for your intelligence than watching MTV or TLC.


----------



## Bartfromthenetherlands (Sep 29, 2016)

Isn't music, music?


----------



## Guest (Sep 29, 2016)

I would often listen to Mozart's Canon for 6 Voices in B-flat major, K.231/382c "Leck mich im Arsch" before finals at university and would pass them swimmingly - an obvious proof that classical music makes one more intelligent indeed.


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

I propose an empirical test for ALL the members of TC. Let us switch over to rap for the next 30 days and see where we come out. 

If you have children, encourage one of them to listen to rap for the next 30 days, encourage the other to listen to Bach, observe, see what happens.

It is preposterous to think, that the reading of a certain kind of literature, will not increase your intelligence; it is equally preposterous to think the music we listen to has no affect on our intellect.


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

My last comment makes me think. 'Perhaps we all have personality types that are predisposed to classical music from the outset.' If so, this means we share certain personality traits, and indeed we must! How else do we all groove to the bold expressions of Beethoven. Lovely, this is just lovely.


----------



## Razumovskymas (Sep 20, 2016)

I think there actually is scientific research that proofs that listening to classical music improves cognitive thinking


----------



## Guest (Sep 29, 2016)

Klassic said:


> My last comment makes me think. 'Perhaps we all have personality types that are predisposed to classical music from the outset.' If so, this means we share certain personality traits, and indeed we must! How else do we all groove to the bold expressions of Beethoven. Lovely, this is just lovely.


Only if the liking of music was some kind of fundamental trait. I have a lot in common with my work colleagues - we're all in the same business of education, and we all have much the same views about the subject. But we have radically different tastes in other things and are quite different personality 'types'.

For me, having a taste in CM in common with others here means nothing more than I have a taste in CM in common with others here. I'll go no further than that.

As for the 'preposterous' ideas, the one that seems to imply that we'll cause a decline in our intellect if we listen to rap for 30 days takes the biscuit.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

A recent British study showed that listening to classical music increased IQ almost as much as watching Ren and Stimpy.


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

KenOC said:


> A recent British study showed that listening to classical music increased IQ almost as much as watching Ren and Stimpy.


Yes, but if you would have read me carefully you would have seen that I already addressed this: 'we have not done the *right kind* of experiments to prove the benefits of classical music.'


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

Klassic said:


> Yes, but if you would have read me carefully you would have seen that I already addressed this: 'we have not done the *right kind* of experiments to prove the benefits of classical music.'


The right kind of experiment is practically impossible to do. One would have to eliminate all other factors from playing a role in influencing intelligence. How do you ensure two independent study groups do everything identical expect for one group listen to classical music while the other doesn't.

If one were to believe in the premise of OP, it would have to be through reasoning and surmising; there would never be an experiment to confirm or deny the hypothesis.


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> The right kind of experiment is practically impossible to do.


This is not true. Nearly all scientific experiments fall within the parameters of probability.

The kind of experiments that have been done to date are a joke. In fact, they really only serve as negative propaganda against classical music. I know for a fact that classical music has made me smarter. (I am not here claiming to be some kind of genius, and neither am I claiming that this positive influence is off-limits to other people). (Many other things I am not claiming).


----------



## Guest (Sep 29, 2016)

ArtMusic said:


> Listening to classical music more than likely develops one's listening sensibilities, making one more refined and discerning to well composed art music.


Has it worked for you?


----------



## Guest (Sep 29, 2016)

Klassic said:


> Yes, but if you would have read me carefully you would have seen that I already addressed this: 'we have not done the *right kind* of experiments to prove the benefits of classical music.'


So what is the basis for your claim, other than simply your belief (which of course is actually no basis of support at all?)


----------



## Guest (Sep 29, 2016)

*1) Assumptions:*
To be completely serious and honest, there surely is some correlation between listening to classical music and one's intellectual traits (notice that I'm not saying intelligence or intellect!). What I came to understand throughout years, and were able to empirically confirm to the extent that satisfies me, is that there's one trait that often indicates intelligence - person's curiosity. I will risk saying that intelligent people are overwhelmingly curious individuals. They seek out understanding, check everything, try different things, read books, learn languages, and try all sorts of other activities. There is likely some double correlation-causation relationship between one's intelligence and his or her curiosity. That much I take for granted.

*2) The setting:*
Now, as we have set the assumptions straight, let's move to classical music. We live in times where one has to usually go out of one's way to experience art. Sure, the availability of music and other types of art is unprecedented, and the average exposure is surely above anything in the past, but I would also assume that the average sophistication among people who do have access to music is quite low, much lower than it used to be. To put it simpler, what is the averaged value of endless free recordings of beautiful classical music available on YouTube if the majority of people stop their musical explorations at some pop radio station, or MTV, or Top 10 from Billboard. As it is often put when this type of discussion begins - in the past, music was a lot less available - limited to royal courts and nobility - but at the same time those that did have access to it were much more sophisticated, learning to sing, play instruments and read music sheets. Today it is crushingly not the case anymore.

*3) The theory:*
An intelligent person will not stop at pop radio or MTV. He or she will continue exploring by checking out other genres, including classical music. That same curiosity may push the person more and more into the music as its breadth and depth are a product of hundreds of years and as such allow for a lot of digging and checking, and tasting. That's what curious people like the most. This is where the causality-correlation between intelligence and curiosity shows up again; you are a smart person, therefore you explore more, therefore you end up where the exploration is most difficult, but also very rewarding. This is as much as you can say really. Notice that I don't imply causation or correlation between one's intelligence and taste in music, rather between a personal trait (curiosity) with one's behaviour (a rather natural assumption) that may or may not lead to some differences in intelligence between people, but I am not rushing to draw any definite conclusions.

*4) The reality?*
The question raised and the preposition postulated by the OP isn't properly defined. Will my intelligence increase by some number if I listen to a defined amount of classical music? What is intelligence anyways? My math problem-solving capabilities? My sensibility and degree of affection (emotional intelligence)? I am pretty sure none of those would be significantly changed if I were to randomly select a group of people and expose them to either classical music or, say, rap. It may very well be so that some of them will be more sensitive after hearing some rap lyrics touching social issues. Some others may be truly touched by a sonata from a romantic period. To my knowledge, we don't currently have enough understanding of human brain to draw conclusions from such simple tests, objectivity of which would be a hard sell. No, the reality is that we can only look at humans and ask ourselves: what makes that person like this kind of music above some other? Is it its complexity, emotional impact, ludic value? I believe in simple, behavioural explanations. No, it is unlikely that classical music makes us smarter; it is us, curious people, that go out of our way in the world where a 10-minute 'track' is too long already and a song for two voices is too complicated, and look for value to fulfill our need of excitement, exploration, finding patterns, emotions. We may end up finding those in jazz, progressive rock, symphonice or avant-garde metal, dark post-punk genres, or indeed in classical music. Some of the most intelligent people I know do not in fact listen to classical music and find all they need in other genres. Not listening to this or that genre of music does not seem to weaken their fascinating minds. On the contrary, it is often them that experiment the most instead of clinging to their favourite genre.

That's how I see it.


----------



## Guest (Sep 29, 2016)

Threads like these are why I constantly have to comfort myself with a fundamental understanding of the Dunning-Kruger effect.


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

When a man or woman of genius writes a masterpiece in literature and you read it, understand it, you get smarter! It is no different with the works of Bach or Beethoven.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Klassic said:


> When a man or woman of genius writes a masterpiece in literature and you read it, understand it, you get smarter!


Do you mean our IQ increases? Interesting thought. With all our masterpieces over the centuries, we must be a lot smarter than out distant ancestors! But reading Homer or the Greek tragedies, it's hard to see those people as dullards. Very strange, very strange indeed.


----------



## Guest (Sep 30, 2016)

Klassic said:


> When a man or woman of genius writes a masterpiece in literature and you read it, understand it, you get smarter! It is no different with the works of Bach or Beethoven.


I too am plagued with low self esteem, so when I say that creating a fantastical facade is not the answer, you know I say it as a friend and ally.


----------



## Guest (Sep 30, 2016)

Leman said:


> *1) Assumptions:*
> To be completely serious and honest, there surely is some correlation between listening to classical music and one's intellectual traits [etc etc]


In other words, "I listen to classical music because I'm smart", not, "I'm smart because I listen to classical music."


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

I listen to classical music because I am smart, and I am smarter now than before because my listening sensibilities have improved.


----------



## Chronochromie (May 17, 2014)

Too funny. Hilarious.


----------



## Guest (Sep 30, 2016)

Klassic said:


> Paying attention to classical music will make a person more intelligent, it is absurd to think it won't.


You make two assertions here. The first may be true, though the evidence from studies isn't strong. Since IQ is arguably not a sufficiently comprehensive indicator of 'intelligence', there's more to be done to establish conclusively any causation. But the question is amenable to investigation.

The same can't be said of the second assertion and should be dismissed as mere rhetoric.


----------



## helenora (Sep 13, 2015)

Taggart said:


> It's playing that makes the difference not listening. See http://www.apa.org/monitor/jun06/iq.aspx or the work on the Harmony Project


it depends on HOW we listen. Many people don´t listen at all , they just think they do ...


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

MacLeod said:


> In other words, "I listen to classical music because I'm smart", not, "I'm smart because I listen to classical music."


By my reading Leman actually said we listen to classical music because we are curious and that curiosity tends to be correlated with intelligence. So, not a direct causal relationship.


----------



## Genoveva (Nov 9, 2010)

EdwardBast said:


> By my reading Leman actually said we listen to classical music because we are curious and that curiosity tends to be correlated with intelligence. So, not a direct causal relationship.


That seems to be only part of the story. By my reading, Leman said:

- intelligent people are very likely to be people with inquisitive minds;

- people with inquisitive minds are more likely to seek out increasing levels of complexity in their pursuit for greater knowledge;

- insofar that music is concerned, those with inquisitive minds are more likely to take an interest in classical music (because it is generally more complex than various other genres), but not necessarily so as their ambitions may be fulfilled by other music genres which takes them up to the upper margin of the complexity that their intellects can sustain;

- hence intelligent people may or may not take an interest in classical music.

I infer from the above that he would agree that the taking up of an interest in classical music by anyone who does not have an inquisitive mind is unlikely to increase their intelligence or inquisitiveness.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

My IQ dropped five points after reading this thread.


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

There are things in the world that make us smarter. If done properly classical music is one of those things.

The only objections to this seem to be 1) the present scientific studies have not conclusively proven this. (My reply is that the tests were bogus, they contained the wrong emphasis and the wrong observation). A proper test cannot simply play classical music for 30 days. What really needs to happen is that we need to examine *long term listeners* before and after their exposure to classical music. This has not been done!

I can tell you, in my case, I would be very much less of an intellect if I did not start listening to classical music. It has completely revolutionized my life. See here: How Classical Music Ruined My Life

2) There is an ad hominem claiming that this issue is being raised because I have some kind of self-esteem problem.

Let me state it clearly. I always strive to tell the truth. The reason I raise this issue is because I know what classical music has done in my life, and, I want other people to be able to experience its positive effects.

You cannot find pleasure in Beethoven and Mahler without being altered in your mental state.

More could be said...


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

I notice that the question of where one draws the lines between what is and what is not classical music has yet to be addressed. How about movie music written by composers who also wrote symphonies? How about the 'classical' music written by Paul McCartney? How far back in history do we go and still consider it classical? What about music from non-western traditions? You can't make sweeping statements until you constrain your terms.


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

Becca said:


> I notice that the question of where one draws the lines between what is and what is not classical music has yet to be addressed. How about movie music written by composers who also wrote symphonies? How about the 'classical' music written by Paul McCartney? How far back in history do we go and still consider it classical? What about music from non-western traditions? You can't make sweeping statements until you constrain your terms.


Beethoven, Bach, Mahler, Mozart, Shostakovitch, Brahms, Ravel, Debussy, Tchaikovsky, Rachmaninoff, Schnittke, Liszt, Chopin, Scriabin, Bruckner, Wagner, Schubert, Stravinsky, Vivaldi, Bartok, Schoenberg, Grieg, Sibelius, Elgar. These should be good enough.


----------



## Pat Fairlea (Dec 9, 2015)

helenora said:


> I have no proofs, neither do I want to find any, no wish to do it, no need , but I agree with you....
> 
> what I think is rather intuitive , perhaps it doesn't count in our age of science believers


Now then, 'science' needs intuition, without which how do we frame the postulations that become testable hypotheses? And that's the point about a scientist's approach to assertions such as "Classical music makes you smarter". Maybe it does: how do we test that without assuming it a priori or accepting that assertion because of the authority with which it is said? More to the point, how would be prove that classical music does NOT make one smarter? And before attempting to test that, we would have to define 'smarter' in some objective, measurable way. 
And another thing... I get really uneasy when 'science' and 'belief' occur together. Is this an age of 'science believers'? As someone who is happy to be described as a scientist, I do not 'believe in' science any more than I 'believe in' differential calculus. They are both useful ways of trying to understand the world. So is music, so is poetry. 
And that's enough quasi-philosophical codswallop from me.


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

Pat Fairlea said:


> Now then, 'science' needs intuition, without which how do we frame the postulations that become testable hypotheses? And that's the point about a scientist's approach to assertions such as "Classical music makes you smarter". Maybe it does: how do we test that without assuming it a priori or accepting that assertion because of the authority with which it is said? More to the point, how would be prove that classical music does NOT make one smarter? And before attempting to test that, we would have to define 'smarter' in some objective, measurable way.
> And another thing... I get really uneasy when 'science' and 'belief' occur together. Is this an age of 'science believers'? As someone who is happy to be described as a scientist, I do not 'believe in' science any more than I 'believe in' differential calculus. They are both useful ways of trying to understand the world. So is music, so is poetry.
> And that's enough quasi-philosophical codswallop from me.


This is an intelligent contribution.


----------



## Kivimees (Feb 16, 2013)

Klassic said:


> Beethoven, Bach, Mahler, Mozart, Shostakovitch, Brahms, Ravel, Debussy, Tchaikovsky, Rachmaninoff, Schnittke, Liszt, Chopin, Scriabin, Bruckner, Wagner, Schubert, Stravinsky, Vivaldi, Bartok, Schoenberg, Grieg, Sibelius, Elgar. These should be good enough.


These "should be good enough"? I would think that one wishing to be "scientific" would be somewhat less cavalier.


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

Pat Fairlea said:


> More to the point, how would be prove that classical music does NOT make one smarter?


That classical music can make one smarter is not an unfalsifiable premise.

1) Long term listeners can examine the impact this music has had on their lives.

and

2) We could examining a group of long term listeners.

A general question we should ask ourselves: How has classical music impacted your life? Has there been zero intellectual increase from the experience of this intellectual exercise? Indeed, that must in fact be the case, if classical music _does not_ make one more intelligent.


----------



## Pat Fairlea (Dec 9, 2015)

Klassic said:


> This is an intelligent contribution.


Thank you - I was listening to Debussy.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Before I listened to classical music I just wandered around Manchester, chunnering incoherently and hitting myself on the head with a shovel. Over 50 Beethoven cycles later I am a teacher. I can speak whole sentences and have progressed to hitting myself on the head with a metre-rule. 

PS. Was this theory preened from an article in the Daily Mail or was it something someone posted on Facebook?


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

Merl said:


> Before I listened to classical music I just wandered around Manchester, chunnering incoherently and hitting myself on the head with a shovel. Over 50 Beethoven cycles later I am a teacher. I can speak whole sentences and have progressed to hitting myself on the head with a metre-rule.


And you are not the only one, we must get more people to listen to Beethoven. It will make the world a more intelligent place.


----------



## Guest (Sep 30, 2016)

EdwardBast said:


> By my reading Leman actually said we listen to classical music because we are curious and that curiosity tends to be correlated with intelligence. So, not a direct causal relationship.


I wasn't replying directly to Leman's post. I was making a generalised observation that took account of a couple of others who'd said the same thing, or the opposite!


----------



## Guest (Sep 30, 2016)

Klassic said:


> That classical music can make one smarter is not an unfalsifiable premise.


You are literally "The Antiscience". I love it.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

Fwiw, I think that trying to understand how classical or any other kind of music works--whether one does so primarily by listening carefully, by studying scores, or by learning to play it--probably does make one smarter. As long as one happens to have a brain that's still on the upward curve of the developmental process, of course. But then I hasten to add that I'm not a cognitive scientist. 

As an aside, Oliver Sacks' Musicophilia is a pretty entertaining popular book for anyone interested in music and the brain.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

I don't think just listening will make you smarter . With classical music, you need to know some background information about the music to understand it . Otherwise, you have no context, no frame of reference . 
If someone who knows nothing about classical music is asked to listen, say, to Debussy's "La Mer" and not told anything about the programmatic meaning of the work, he or she won't understand it . It might sound nice to them, but they have no frame of reference . 
Or the Richard Strauss symphonic poems, or Beethoven's Eroica , the Ride of the Valkyries etc . 
One problem is that most people associate music with Rock or pop songs . They know little or nothing about purely instrumental music . They don't know what a symphony, a concerto, a sonata or an art song are . 
This is one reason why many people new to classical music call Beethoven's 5th symphony a "song", even though a song is something for the human voice. They equate music with Rock and pop songs .
The removal of classes introducing kids to classical music fromAmerican public schools has done a lot of damage. Of course, you can't "make" someone like classical music, and when they had such classes, many kids were apathetic and even hostile to them. I remember this from junior high school myself . 
I had already begun to be a classical music freak on my own, but other kids on the whole just weren't interested.
There was always the possibility that some kids might become enthusiastic in some cases, but a lot depends on the quality of the teaching . If the teacher isn't good and stimulating, the kids can easily be turned off for life to classical music.
When I was a substitute music teacher for various schools on Long Island, I was sometimes able to get across to the kids how terrific classical music is .


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT (Oct 25, 2010)

Blancrocher said:


> I'm sure it does--but what I really want to know is whether playing the Goldberg Variations constantly in the background while I'm doing other things and not really paying attention to the music also makes me smarter.


I'm playing the Goldberg Variations as I type, and I'm pretty sure I'm getting smarter by the minute
I'm playingtheGoldbergVariationsasItype
asItype
asItypeandI'm
as I type and I'm pretty sure
etunimehtby terrams gnitteg m'I
g e t t i n g s m a r t
smar
ter
b y t h e
minute


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

I listened to so much classical music that my brain swelled up in size. It’s now kept in a large bell jar, where it pulsates noticeably as I extend my mental control over those within a few blocks. By the end of next month, I should have control over most of the state.

My greatest fear is that somebody will sneak in and play rap, causing my brain to shrivel almost instantly.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

Reichstag aus LICHT said:


> I'm playing the Goldberg Variations as I type, and I'm pretty sure I'm getting smarter by the minute
> I'm playingtheGoldbergVariationsasItype
> asItype
> asItypeandI'm
> ...


For all our sake, I hope that nobody will seek out expert opinions about the cognitive effects of posting on public music forums.


----------



## Kivimees (Feb 16, 2013)

KenOC said:


> I listened to so much classical music that my brain swelled up in size. It's now kept in a large bell jar, where it pulsates noticeably as I extend my mental control over those within a few blocks. By the end of next month, I should have control over most of the state.


Yeah so? I listened to so much classical music, I was able to build a perpetual motion machine.


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT (Oct 25, 2010)

Kivimees said:


> I listened to so much classical music, I was able to build a perpetual motion machine.


I don't know what I'd do without my perpetual motion machine; it's the only thing that keeps me going.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

KenOC said:


> I listened to so much classical music that my brain swelled up in size. It's now kept in a large bell jar, where it pulsates noticeably as I extend my mental control over those within a few blocks. By the end of next month, I should have control over most of the state.
> 
> My greatest fear is that somebody will sneak in and play rap, causing my brain to shrivel almost instantly.


So it's your brain in the bell jar and not that of W.H. Donovan? I'll have to edit my copy of _Donovan's Brain_, the 1942 classic SF novel by Curt Siodmak.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Strange Magic said:


> So it's your brain in the bell jar and not that of W.H. Donovan? I'll have to edit my copy of _Donovan's Brain_, the 1942 classic SF novel by Curt Siodmak.


Well, I left out the pulsating glow, like in the 1953 movie, because I figured nobody would believe it.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

Blancrocher said:


> Fwiw, I think that trying to understand how classical or *any other kind of music works*--whether one does so primarily by listening carefully, by studying scores, or by learning to play it--probably does make one smarter. As long as one happens to have a brain that's still on the upward curve of the developmental process, of course. But then I hasten to add that I'm not a cognitive scientist.
> 
> As an aside, Oliver Sacks' Musicophilia is a pretty entertaining popular book for anyone interested in music and the brain.


Does it still work with rap?


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

KenOC said:


> Well, I left out the pulsating glow, like in the 1953 movie, because I figured nobody would believe it.


In all seriousness, the book is a masterpiece, and reads just as well today as when it was written. The movie(s) are another, sadder story.

"Amid the mists and icy frosts,
he thrusts his fists against the posts,
and still insists he sees the ghosts."


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

KenOC said:


> I feel certain that it's listening to classical music that makes us the brilliant geniuses we are. I mean, what else could it be?


This post belongs in the redundancies thread.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

The whole "nature vs. nurture" is a vast topic, but supposedly scientists have said that actual intelligence and aptitude are only genetic and not environmental in nature, according to recent studies. This means that no matter what we do or what kind of upbringing we had, that didn't necessarily affect our ability to absorb stuff from that environment.

On that topic, I've strongly believed that classical music doesn't make one smart, but that it _attracts _intelligent people because of its features. Classical music is _enriching_, but doesn't increase IQ, do you know what I mean? Classical music gives us the impression that it's making us smarter due to it tickling our senses, but it probably hasn't increased the sensitivity that was already there. And sensitivity grows and changes with age more than simply exposure to environment.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

I have seen studies that claim performing music, even singing songs in grade school, helps academic achievement. Could well be. But listening to music, I have my doubts about that!

BTW it's true that the idea that intelligence is largely determined by inheritance (nature not nurture) seems pretty well agreed in research into cognition. Nobody much talks about this for various reasons, at least in my country.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms (Jan 6, 2014)

People don't want to admit they are average or just plain stupid. "I am intelligent but have wasted my potential" is a self refuting idea. Often it is the same people citing the "theory" of multiple intelligences which is perhaps better to keep just for the sake of improving pedagogy.


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

There were once two dogs. The first dog had a kind master, he would speak softly to the dog, he was patient and gentle. This dog grew up to be very docile and loving toward humans. 

The second dog had a cruel master, he would speak harshly and loudly to the dog, and if he flew into a rage, he would beat the dog. This dog grew up to be wild and unpredictable toward humans. 

The influences we have in life do shape who we are; lucky is the young man who stumbles upon Beethoven!


----------



## Kivimees (Feb 16, 2013)

"Classical music has done wonders for my IQ. After this Beethoven symphony is over, I'll get started on those differential equations." - Rover


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Klassic said:


> There were once two dogs. The first dog had a kind master, he would speak softly to the dog, he was patient and gentle. This dog grew up to be very docile and loving toward humans.
> 
> The second dog had a cruel master, he would speak harshly and loudly to the dog, and if he flew into too much of a rage, he would beat the dog. This dog grew up to be wild and unpredictable toward humans.
> 
> The influences we have in life do shape who we are; lucky is the *dog* who stumbles upon Beethoven!


In the name of consistency with conclusions.


----------



## Kivimees (Feb 16, 2013)

Discovering Beethoven changed my life - it's absurd to think it did not.


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

Thread derailment in 

3, 
2, 
1, 
....


----------



## Guest (Oct 1, 2016)

Klassic said:


> That classical music can make one smarter is not an unfalsifiable premise.
> 
> 1) Long term listeners can examine the impact this music has had on their lives.
> 
> ...


So your suggested research is of better quality than any carried out thus far? It doesn't look like it, though asking people to reflect on these questions is entirely legitimate.


----------



## Guest (Oct 1, 2016)

Klassic said:


> Paying attention to classical music will make a person more intelligent, it is absurd to think it won't.


To have another bite at this thread...

Paying attention to classical music is fun, it is absurd to think it isn't. /thread?

Honestly, this topic has been discussed thousands of times here and in other places (Quora, for example). I've been reading these topics and marvelling at people's desire to reassure themselves. It's music, made for enjoyment, appreciation, broadening of horizons. Just because you listen to classical doesn't mean you are smart or that you get smarter by listening to it. I'm pretty damn clever, but I was a clever boy well before I dived into art music genres.

People still contemplating this topic are advised to listen to Mahler's 6th symphony so that it pummels them back to Earth from their intellectual orbits, and so that they can again enjoy the music without overthinking its effects on their intellect.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Klassic said:


> Paying attention to classical music will make a person more intelligent, it is absurd to think it won't.
> 
> The fact is, we have not done the right kind of experiments to prove the benefits of classical music....


Going back to the OP, this is where the scientific research train easily is derailed. When one is already 100% convinced that something is true, and then calls for or sets up the "right kind" of experiments to "prove" to those doubting others that our convictions were correct, the situation requires the utmost rigor in conducting said experiments without inherent bias and with coldly impartial supervision.


----------



## helenora (Sep 13, 2015)

Klassic said:


> *The influences we have in life do shape who we are*; lucky is the young man who stumbles upon Beethoven!


yes, it definitely shapes, no doubt of it. 
especially if not taken as an intellectual entertainment, at least not just as entertainment .


----------



## Genoveva (Nov 9, 2010)

According to various studies in science/medical journals that I have glanced at online, the primary determinant of IQ is genetics and hereditary factors. A wide variety of other possible influences - such as ethnicity, affluence, education, climate, general health levels, exposure to infectious diseases, etc - would appear to be of secondary importance in varying degrees depending on which study one looks at. 

On a fairly quick glance, I have not found any study that has included exposure to classical music (or any other music genre, for that matter) and found it to be a significant determinant of IQ in addition to any of the above factors. 

This doesn't surprise me at all. I suspect that this is partly because it would be very difficult to devise a suitable test to measure any such "musical" effect from a variety of other affluence/education factors with which it is correlated. More importantly, I doubt that any serious academic researcher would even bother testing for any such musical effect, given that it is most unlikely to have an exogenous influence on IQ levels but is rather a manifestation of IQ levels otherwise determined.


----------



## Pat Fairlea (Dec 9, 2015)

Strange Magic said:


> Going back to the OP, this is where the scientific research train easily is derailed. When one is already 100% convinced that something is true, and then calls for or sets up the "right kind" of experiments to "prove" to those doubting others that our convictions were correct, the situation requires the utmost rigor in conducting said experiments without inherent bias and with coldly impartial supervision.


Which is why I spent years telling students "If you think something is so, set up a well-controlled experiment to prove that it isn't"


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Genoveva said:


> According to various studies in science/medical journals that I have glanced at online, the primary determinant of IQ is genetics and hereditary factors. A wide variety of other possible influences - such as ethnicity, affluence, education, climate, general health levels, exposure to infectious diseases, etc - would appear to be of secondary importance in varying degrees depending on which study one looks at.
> 
> On a fairly quick glance, I have not found any study that has included exposure to classical music (or any other music genre, for that matter) and found it to be a significant determinant of IQ in addition to any of the above factors.
> 
> This doesn't surprise me at all. I suspect that this is partly because it would be very difficult to devise a suitable test to measure any such "musical" effect from a variety of other affluence/education factors with which it is correlated. More importantly, I doubt that any serious academic researcher would even bother testing for any such musical effect, given that it is most unlikely to have an exogenous influence on IQ levels but is rather a manifestation of IQ levels otherwise determined.


This makes good sense. If the original 'gray matter' is high quality, then if those other factors you mentioned are present, chances are good you'll have a reasonably bright individual. Fwiw, there is one other complication that can interfer and that is various mental illnesses or personality disorders.

It has always amazed me to see how a young potentially bright child (2-5) who is brought up in an environment of love, happiness and safety absolutely soaks up intellectual input. They are the ones who often read and comprehend basic math early.


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

The individual already has confirmation of this. One does not have scientific proof that ingesting certain vitamins or reading certain literature will make one healthy or smart, and yet...

Further, one admits that (p) gives pleasure, but why is pleasure all it gives? 

What is in error here is that people think I am trying to use this premise to prove that I am so much smarter than other people, this is false. I am smarter because I have no interest in all these petty games. I know what classical music can do, and I know what classical music has done (in my life). Just because many are ignorant of the power of external forces, does not mean that external forces do not shape our lives. Your mind is the kind of thing that responds and learns from sensory stimulation. 

If I played loud, crashing, abrupt, invasive, unpleasant, violent sounds, every day since the time you were a child, these sounds would wreak havoc on your mind and disposition. Can sounds make you afraid? Can they confuse our thoughts, can they prohibit the development and clarity of our thoughts?


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

People would like to "objectify" those qualities of music which they feel are beneficial, or healthy, just like I tried to do on the "Religious" can be a structural term which transcends and supercedes other ideas" thread. They speak of these qualities off-handedly, humorously, but are hesitant to attempt to define them logically, as KenOC does, or assume they exist for their specific agenda, as Klassic has just done.

Whatever suits their agenda works for them, and they will not question these assumptions until they become explicit, or oppose some detail of their mindset.

Yes, I do think that there are universal qualities which music can embody, which are congruent with human physiology, and can produce certain effects in people; and at least I have been bold enough to attempt to state these general qualities explicitly, and take the heat for it, without falling back on easy-outs, like humor and opaquely short aphoristic answers.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

millionrainbows said:


> ...They speak of these qualities off-handedly, humorously, but are hesitant to attempt to define them logically, as KenOC does, or assume they exist for their specific agenda, as Klassic has just done.
> 
> ...and at least I have been bold enough to attempt to state these general qualities explicitly, and take the heat for it, without falling back on easy-outs, like humor and opaquely short aphoristic answers.


IMO, discussing classical music is supposed to be a positive, uplifting and even fun endeavor. Unfortunately, sometimes thread subjects and discussions are taken far too seriously (and I'm sure that includes me sometimes ). KenOC's humorous asides bring us back to reality when you would think we were arguing over the origin of the universe.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

DaveM said:


> IMO, discussing classical music is supposed to be a positive, uplifting and even fun endeavor. Unfortunately, sometimes thread subjects and discussions are taken far to seriously (and I'm sure that includes me sometimes ). KenOC's humorous asides bring us back to reality when you would think we were arguing over the origin of the universe.


I am familiar with KenOC's thought-style. In many cases, his "reality" you speak of (as if it were consensus) is almost always a status quo assumption.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

millionrainbows said:


> I am familiar with KenOC's thought-style. In many cases, his "reality" you speak of (as if it were consensus) is almost always a status quo assumption.


You're missing the point.


----------



## R3PL4Y (Jan 21, 2016)

And we wonder why people think classical music is elitist.


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

R3PL4Y said:


> And we wonder why people think classical music is elitist.


But you must think about what you're saying, if you want to see elitism have a look at this thread: Beethoven and Thematic Instability in the Appassionata Sonata

Is saying that study makes you smarter elitist? Well then, paying heed to classical music is really no different in this sense.


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

Klassic said:


> If I played loud, crashing, abrupt, invasive, unpleasant, violent sounds, every day since the time you were a child, these sounds would wreak havoc on your mind and disposition.


Mrs Hermit would say Beethoven fits this description. Many of those who have heard Beethoven might also agree (although, plainly, 'we' do not).

so, according to Klassic, the 'loud, crashing, abrupt, invasive, violent sounds' of Beethoven increase 'intelligence' but the 'loud, crashing, abrupt, invasive, violent sounds' of non-classical music decrease intelligence.

Hmm ... test that, please, Doctor!


----------



## Guest (Oct 2, 2016)

Headphone Hermit said:


> Mrs Hermit would say Beethoven fits this description. Many of those who have heard Beethoven might also agree (although, plainly, 'we' do not).
> 
> so, according to Klassic, the 'loud, crashing, abrupt, invasive, violent sounds' of Beethoven increase 'intelligence' but the 'loud, crashing, abrupt, invasive, violent sounds' of non-classical music decrease intelligence.
> 
> Hmm ... test that, please, Doctor!


Made me think... Listening to many contrapuntal works of Bach, Mozart and Beethoven left me hearing voices. I think I'm crazy.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

The central problem is that people don't want to admit that they are more similar than different. They want always to emphasize those "unique" qualities which distinguish them, when in reality they would be much happier and easier to get along with if they just let all that stuff go.

There are many qualities which connect us as humans, and these can be seen as almost "objective" qualities which successful artists see, identify with, and tap-in to, in order to create effective music. It's not rocket science, but neither is "being a full human being" an easily attainable task, either.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> The central problem is that people don't want to admit that they are more similar than different. They want always to emphasize those "unique" qualities which distinguish them, when in reality they would be much happier and easier to get along with if they just let all that stuff go.
> 
> There are many qualities which connect us as humans, and these can be seen as almost "objective" qualities which successful artists see, identify with, and tap-in to, in order to create effective music. It's not rocket science, but neither is "being a full human being" an easily attainable task, either.


I'm half-full at the moment, but some more food in my belly will rectify the situation.:tiphat:


----------



## Guest (Oct 2, 2016)

We all have the same problems only the clothing is different.What state of mind has a person who admit that it is clever to enrich yourself trough the misfortunes of other people? Maybe it is clever but than you set yourself apart of society, it gets worse. he wants to speak for the nation as the future president.

Are people deaf,do they not hear what I hear.Where are we as human beiings that such a person can be our role model? We are busy with marketing ,thats our new religion.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Traverso said:


> We all have the same problems only the clothing is different.What state of mind has a person who admit that it is clever to enrich yourself trough the misfortunes of other people? Maybe it is clever but than you set yourself apart of society, it gets worse. he wants to speak for the nation as the future president.
> 
> Are people deaf,do they not hear what I hear.Where are we as human beiings that such a person can be our role model? We are busy with marketing ,thats our new religion.


Well, you must admit that our schools and hospitals are being pushed to the limit by "undocumented" persons.


----------

