# Does Humanity Benefit from Classical Music?



## Truckload (Feb 15, 2012)

I love classical music. Obviously most TC members do also. I believe in the intrinsic value to humanity of classical music, and I hope other TC members do also. So my answer to the title of this thread is firmly, yes, humanity does benefit from classical music.

I was born in 1953, and while growing up students were steadily reminded of the value to ourselves and to our culture of the fine arts. Music, Visual Art, and Literature were a fundamental part of our education and I believe my generation benefited as a result.

I sincerely believe humanity does benefit from Classical Music and that all of us who love Classical Music should be prepared to share with others why Classical Music is a good thing for our culture. Sadly, Classical Music is not doing very well in maintaining, let alone growing, audiences. Fewer and fewer schools offer ongoing musical education, and thus the future audience for Classical Music is not being created.

Regardless of the "cure" for this problem each of us might advocate, the first step is to increase awareness of the benefits of classical music to our society. If people do not see any benefit, nothing further is possible.

So below I will try to add some information to state the case for the benefits of classical music, and I hope others will do so as well. By all of us being more aware of the benefits of classical music, hopefully we can have an impact on the direction of our culture.


----------



## Truckload (Feb 15, 2012)

The educational benefits of a classical music education have been well documented by research. There is tons of information about this on the internet. Here is a link to a well reasoned appeal for music (and all Fine Arts) education that I believe states the case very well, and better than I could state it.

http://www.katyisd.org/dept/finearts/Pages/The-Importance-of-Fine-Arts-Education-.aspx


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

Of course its beneficial, it keeps riffraff away from public areas when played on loudspeakers..

http://www.d-ddaily.com/images/8-6-15%20Weaponizing%20Classical%20Music%20Crime%20Prevention%20and%20Symbolic%20Power%20in%20the%20Age%20of%20Repetition%20Jirsch%202007.pdf


----------



## Truckload (Feb 15, 2012)

The empirical evidence to support Classical Music education is massive. But what about society as a whole? This is much harder to prove, as we must rely on logic and reason to convince others, not objective studies. Once again, there are well reasoned and elegantly worded sources on the internet, making the case far better than I.

There is a marvelous collection of essays by Donald Vroon, "Classical Music in a Changing Culture: Essays from the American Record Guide."









The entire book is worth a read, but in particular I offer this one quote to give a taste for the contents. There are many benefits western civilization has given the world. "And among the greatest is classical music, which is taught all over the world as the pinnacle of musical achievement. It offers anyone who gets to know it deep satisfaction, and it will retain its value over time and continue to return joy and pleasure for a lifetime, while other kinds of music become popular for a moment and then die away. If we fail to pass on such rich sources of value, we are certainly failing a whole generation, no matter their cultural background."

Although not as talented as Vroon, I will paraphrase one line of argument. By exalting what is best, most noble, most beautiful, we enrich the human spirit and make our society a better, more civilized place. If we let the ugly and vulgar drive out the noble and beautiful our society will indeed sink into barbarism.


----------



## Truckload (Feb 15, 2012)

Fugue Meister said:


> Of course its beneficial, it keeps riffraff away from public areas when played on loudspeakers..
> 
> http://www.d-ddaily.com/images/8-6-15%20Weaponizing%20Classical%20Music%20Crime%20Prevention%20and%20Symbolic%20Power%20in%20the%20Age%20of%20Repetition%20Jirsch%202007.pdf


Interesting essay, but not sure why you are posting the link. So what are you trying to say?


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

Truckload said:


> By exalting what is best, most noble, most beautiful, we enrich the human spirit and make our society a better, more civilized place. If we we let the ugly and vulgar drive out the noble and beautiful our society will indeed sink into barbarism.


What is ugly and vulgar to some may not be seen as such by all... so let's all be nice! 

Anyway, yes, I think classical music greatly benefits those who take the time to listen to it regularly enough to develop a taste for it. It is a part of our shared Western heritage. It is important to me, not just for its entertainment value, but for the connection to my culture and roots. Apparently, it can make the brain better, too, so why not listen? :tiphat:


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

Truckload said:


> Interesting essay, but not sure why you are posting the link. So what are you trying to say?


I posted it so you can see I'm not just whistling dixie, it's a thing..


----------



## Ivanbeeth (Nov 30, 2015)

I believe humanity does benefit from classical music because the sense of deepness it expresses. Its thematic development, harmonic complexity and melodic longwinded arches mirrors our own human complexity, and I believe this expands or capacity to feel and to contemplate beauty, which is the only purpose of life.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Classical music is part of western civilization's heritage. It is what transpired over the centuries reflecting so many things, religion being one and social-political ones the other. I really cannot imagine what we would be like today if none of this great heritage existed. Not all are necessarily good in the sense that it everything ever written is still remembered today but what we do celebrate today with is largely "the best". It is all good.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Well, it benefits me, and I'm part of humanity (at least, I think I am).


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

In the sense that it brings pleasure to a lot of us, yes.


----------



## Guest (Feb 8, 2016)

I would say that 'society' benefits from anything that part of it does that is not harmful. Society benefits when I'm occupied listening to music and not out making a nuisance of myself.

I'm not sure what this bit means



Truckload said:


> The empirical evidence to support Classical Music education is massive. But what about society as a whole? This is much harder to prove, as *we must rely on logic and reason to convince others, not objective studies*. Once again, there are well reasoned and elegantly worded sources on the internet, making the case far better than I.


Doesn't an 'objective study' use reason and logic?


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Yes, classical music does benefit humanity, but I suppose the question is should it be prioritised over any other given non-harmful activity that makes participants happy?

Great literature (for your only personal value of "great", of course!) is also of benefit to humanity, but basic literacy is much more beneficial. So when it comes to education, I'd say that a more general musical education is valuable, and classical can be part of that, but doesn't have to be.

Bottom line is, I'm always a little wary when people claim that their own enthusiasms should be a priority for the rest of the world.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Perhaps the question is: Does classical music benefit humanity more than other endeavors that the same amount of wealth might be spent upon? Not sure what the answer is, but I suspect the answer might depend on where you exist on the spectrum of misery.

"I'm sure your 283rd recording of Beethoven's 9th is quite fine, but could you spare a few cents for my kids' food?"


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Ivanbeeth said:


> I believe humanity does benefit from classical music because the sense of deepness it expresses. Its thematic development, harmonic complexity and melodic long-winded arches mirrors our own human complexity, and I believe this expands or capacity to feel and to contemplate beauty, which is the only purpose of life.


Wise words, nothing to add :tiphat:


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

I'd like to take it wider: music benefits humankind. Whether it is Western-style classical music, jazz, pop, rock, Chinese opera, gamelan, tuva throat singing, or what else floats your boat.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

It is a baffling shame that classical music remains a minority interest.
I doubt very much whether attempts to popularize classical music have had much impact - the knife carrying ghetto boys of london suburbs - are always going to prefer rap - performers and music that resonates with their culture. It is also important to remember that what we call junk culture is to others - their classical music.
I used to run a classical cd/lp shop and one day an aging rock star type person came into the shop looking bemused at the arrays of mozart and beethoven cds. he asked - do you have any hank marvin - i said sorry we only sell classical - well he's a classic to me - he said - and left. I think that sums it up.
having said that - I have had pop only fans admit to me that classical is the best - but they just dont have the patience for it.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

"...and I believe this expands or capacity to feel and to contemplate beauty, which is the only purpose of life."

The view of somebody with a full belly and an easy life. Many would place survival somewhat higher.


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

science said:


> In the sense that it brings pleasure to a lot of us, yes.


Agreed.

However, I do not see *empirical* evidence that there is a causal relationship between classical music and 'benefits to society'.

Yes, I love music. Yes, I think it would be nice if others shared my enthusiasm. Yes, I think we should reach out with our music to those who haven't experienced it. But there are lots and lots of examples of people who liked classical music and who are not models that I would wish 'society' to emulate.


----------



## Truckload (Feb 15, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> Doesn't an 'objective study' use reason and logic?


Certainly, but also the scientific method is used in an objective study, which if followed rigorously and honestly is even more trustworthy than reason and logic. In educational studies, thousands and thousands of children have been included. Far greater numbers than a sufficient data set to be accurate using mathematical analysis (statistical significance). In addition the available studies span every continent, every race and many different cultures.

Children who receive ongoing music education (i.e. band, orchestra, chorus) are far less likely to drop out of school, they are significantly less likely to be involved in juvenile criminal activities, they are less likely to become addicted to drugs, less likely to commit suicide, they get better grades in school and show significant difference in IQ development. These studies are all based on actual data accumulation and therefor I believe very trustworthy.

I put less faith in sociological studies, as they are based on surveys as opposed to hard mathematical data, but these indicate that students with ongoing musical education are happier, socially more well adjusted, and better able to cope with adversity.

Reason and logic are great, but hard data is even better.


----------



## Mal (Jan 1, 2016)

I think classical music is bad for humanity, it makes those who are good at it think they are ubermensch, and invading Poland is the next step. (I still love it though, call it a guilty pleasure...)


----------



## Truckload (Feb 15, 2012)

Nereffid said:


> Yes, classical music does benefit humanity, but I suppose the question is should it be prioritised over any other given non-harmful activity that makes participants happy?
> 
> Great literature (for your only personal value of "great", of course!) is also of benefit to humanity, but basic literacy is much more beneficial. So when it comes to education, I'd say that a more general musical education is valuable, and classical can be part of that, but doesn't have to be.
> 
> Bottom line is, I'm always a little wary when people claim that their own enthusiasms should be a priority for the rest of the world.


Of course reading, writing, mathematics, science and history are the core areas of knowledge and skill that must take first priority. Interestingly, music education has been proven to increase the efficacy of education in these other, vital areas.

I also am wary of people making claims regarding their own enthusiasms. That is why educated people like ourselves should put our greatest reliance on hard data.


----------



## Truckload (Feb 15, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Perhaps the question is: Does classical music benefit humanity more than other endeavors that the same amount of wealth might be spent upon? Not sure what the answer is, but I suspect the answer might depend on where you exist on the spectrum of misery.
> 
> "I'm sure your 283rd recording of Beethoven's 9th is quite fine, but could you spare a few cents for my kids' food?"


I agree that all of humanity must first have basic needs met: food, clothing and shelter. Once those needs are met, each of us then has options. And I think classical music is one of our better options.


----------



## Truckload (Feb 15, 2012)

Headphone Hermit said:


> Agreed.
> 
> However, I do not see *empirical* evidence that there is a causal relationship between classical music and 'benefits to society'.
> 
> Yes, I love music. Yes, I think it would be nice if others shared my enthusiasm. Yes, I think we should reach out with our music to those who haven't experienced it. But there are lots and lots of examples of people who liked classical music and who are not models that I would wish 'society' to emulate.


You are correct that there are no empirical studies that prove the value of classical music, or visual arts, or literature to a mature society. I think it would be great if someone or some university or group would do studies in that area. However, in the interim, we must rely on reason and logic, and if my fellow classical music lovers are doubtful, it is no wonder that the public at large is wary.


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

Truckload said:


> You are correct that there are no empirical studies that prove the value of classical music, or visual arts, or literature to a mature society.


Hang on .... you infer in post #20 that there is abundant evidence of an empirical nature that does do that.

Surely, you can't have it both ways?


----------



## Truckload (Feb 15, 2012)

Headphone Hermit said:


> Hang on .... you infer in post #20 that there is abundant evidence of an empirical nature that does do that.
> 
> Surely, you can't have it both ways?


There is abundant empirical evidence to support the value of ongoing classical music education for young people.

There is no empirical evidence of which I am aware to support the value of classical music for mature individuals or a mature society at large.

However, I believe reason and logic would dictate that if children are proven to benefit so greatly from classical music, then it should follow that society at large would also benefit.


----------



## Guest (Feb 8, 2016)

Truckload said:


> There is abundant empirical evidence to support the value of ongoing classical music education for young people.
> 
> There is no empirical evidence of which I am aware to support the value of classical music for mature individuals or a mature society at large.
> 
> However, I believe reason and logic would dictate that if children are proven to benefit so greatly from classical music, then it should follow that society at large would also benefit.


So unless you're trying to have your cake and eat it, should your OP assertion be more narrowly referring to "young people's education", rather than "humanity"?


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

Truckload said:


> There is abundant empirical evidence to support the value of ongoing classical music education for young people.
> 
> There is no empirical evidence of which I am aware to support the value of classical music for mature individuals or a mature society at large.
> 
> However, I believe reason and logic would dictate that if children are proven to benefit so greatly from classical music, then it should follow that society at large would also benefit.


I am prepared to accept that *if* children benefit from classical music, then it *might* be reasonable to suppose that those benefits extend beyond the period of formal education.

So, please can you point us to some of the "abundant empirical evidence to support the value of ongoing classical music education for young people" so that we can consider the evidence. Thank you in advance.


----------



## Truckload (Feb 15, 2012)

dogen said:


> So unless you're trying to have your cake and eat it, should your OP assertion be more narrowly referring to "young people's education", rather than "humanity"?


There really is no reason for a discussion of the value for young people. That is factually proven. The need for the discussion is to hopefully get my fellow classical music enthusiasts thinking about the value to society at large, hence the question mark.

I had noticed in other threads on other topics that many TC members seemed ambiguous or even hostile to the idea that classical music, something they value for themselves, was worthy of being valued by our society at large. Hence the thread.

If the Sierra Club members are unaware or indifferent to the value of environmental preservation, who will advocate for the environment?

If TC members are unaware or indifferent to the value of classical music, who will advocate for classical music?


----------



## Truckload (Feb 15, 2012)

Headphone Hermit said:


> I am prepared to accept that *if* children benefit from classical music, then it *might* be reasonable to suppose that those benefits extend beyond the period of formal education.
> 
> So, please can you point us to some of the "abundant empirical evidence to support the value of ongoing classical music education for young people" so that we can consider the evidence. Thank you in advance.


Thanks, your caution is admirable. Below is a link to some information on a very successful program in Venezuela. I do have a life beyond TC, so I am going to try to add more links and more information each day to help us build up a knowledge base of information to help us advocate for classical music. I hope other TC members who are interested will participate in adding to the information.


----------



## Truckload (Feb 15, 2012)

Here is a fantastic video about a very successful classical music education program in Venezuela.


----------



## Truckload (Feb 15, 2012)

Here is a fun little summary video. Tomorrow I will post some links to actual research papers, if anyone is interested.


----------



## Mal (Jan 1, 2016)

There is no doubt from the 18th century until the early 20th century Germany was (far and away) the leading culture as regards classical music (especially if you throw in Austria...) Yet two centuries of wonderful musical creativity did nothing to stop the German people from voting in Hitler. OK there are a lot of variables here, so you might argue other factors caused the problem, and overpowered any positive benefits music might have had. But, really, there is no evidence that humanity (on the whole) has benefited from classical music. The only reason to listen to classical music is that it gives you, personally, more pleasure than anything else you can think of doing at the moment.


----------



## Truckload (Feb 15, 2012)

Mal said:


> There is no doubt from the 18th century until the early 20th century Germany was (far and away) the leading culture as regards classical music (especially if you throw in Austria...) Yet two centuries of wonderful musical creativity did nothing to stop the German people from voting in Hitler. OK there are a lot of variables here, so you might argue other factors caused the problem, and overpowered any positive benefits music might have had. But, really, there is no evidence that humanity (on the whole) has benefited from classical music. The only reason to listen to classical music is that it gives you, personally, more pleasure than anything else you can think of doing at the moment.


Hopefully as this thread progresses we will explore lots of reasons to value classical music. Did you look at the video above regarding the children of Venezuela?

The National Socialist German Workers Party and Hitler have been written about and studied so extensively that it is hard to imagine any aspect of the subject being left unexplored, but I can't remember anyone previously trying to blame classical music for Hitler. Germany pre-National Socialism was also one of the most advanced, if possibly not the most advanced, scientifically. Surely you would not suggest an aptitude for science was to blame. I could go on with other comparisons but I would hope there really is no need. It is far more probable that the sad events in question were the result of the economic conditions, punitive Armistice ending World War I, and intolerance for other races, religions and ideas.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Truckload said:


> Hopefully as this thread progresses we will explore lots of reasons to value classical music. Did you look at the video above regarding the children of Venezuela?
> 
> The National Socialist German Workers Party and Hitler have been written about and studied so extensively that it is hard to imagine any aspect of the subject being left unexplored, but I can't remember anyone previously trying to blame classical music for Hitler. Germany pre-National Socialism was also one of the most advanced, if possibly not the most advanced, scientifically. Surely you would not suggest an aptitude for science was to blame. I could go on with other comparisons but I would hope there really is no need. It is far more probable that the sad events in question were the result of the economic conditions, punitive Armistice ending World War I, and intolerance for other races, religions and ideas.


Surely Mal's point was that the existence of classical music as a significant force in German culture did not prevent the rise of Hitler. Doesn't mean classical music is to blame - just that its benefits to humanity don't necessarily extend very far. It turns out that people can happily listen to "Alle Menschen werden Brüder" while sending others to death camps.

_Sorry, this post is a real downer! I still think that classical music's a good thing._


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

Post deleted -- not really on-topic, and I don't even feel like discussing what was in it myself :lol:


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

Children who get regular instruction in music tend to go to better schools and live in richer neighborhoods. I don't think we can infer anything from their life outcomes.

The Nazis are of course relevant. German culture was always perhaps more devoted to music than any other. It appears this had no morally ennobling effect.

In my own life, I don't find people who like classical music, or any fine arts, to be kinder or more virtuous than others, on average.

It is good for humanity because it's inherently good - not because of any effects it may or may not have.

Edit: For a really good argument on the other side, I recommend Elaine Scarry's _On Beauty and Being Just_: https://blogs.aalto.fi/researchinart/files/2012/10/scarryBEAUTY.pdf The relationship she posits between beauty, truth and virtue is much more subtle and complex.


----------



## Truckload (Feb 15, 2012)

Nereffid said:


> Surely Mal's point was that the existence of classical music as a significant force in German culture did not prevent the rise of Hitler. Doesn't mean classical music is to blame - just that its benefits to humanity don't necessarily extend very far. It turns out that people can happily listen to "Alle Menschen werden Brüder" while sending others to death camps.
> 
> _Sorry, this post is a real downer! I still think that classical music's a good thing._


As a fellow Celt, by ancestry, I am well aware of the historical failings of the English, so please let's not go there with this thread. But it is true that Great Britain (and Ireland) and it's peoples have a rich and deep association with classical music. During World War II the Beethoven Fifth Symphony (V for Victory) became a sort of theme song for the resistance to National Socialism and was played quite extensively on BBC radio to raise morale. So perhaps it was classical music that gave freedom loving people the strength of will and determination to resist tyranny?

I do not believe that classical music is a panacea for every ill of humanity. Nor do I suggest that everyone who loves classical music is a perfect human being. I do assert that classical music is a civilizing influence that contributes to a better society for everyone.

Glad we can agree that classical music is a good thing.


----------



## Truckload (Feb 15, 2012)

isorhythm said:


> Children who get regular instruction in music tend to go to better schools and live in richer neighborhoods. I don't think we can infer anything from their life outcomes.


That is a frequently held misconception about classical music instruction. Studies have actually found the opposite. The children who benefit the most from continuing music education are disadvantaged children. Musical study helps develop improvements in IQ, improve grades in other subjects, encourage staying in school, etc. The data makes it very clear that one of the best ways society can help disadvantaged children to succeed in life, in addition to providing for basic needs, is to provide continuing education in music.

I don't know what else to say about the entire Hitler reference. I just don't see it as relevant or predictive.

I will look at the link you included.


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

Truckload said:


> Thanks, your caution is admirable. Below is a link to some information on a very successful program in Venezuela. I do have a life beyond TC, so I am going to try to add more links and more information each day to help us build up a knowledge base of information to help us advocate for classical music. I hope other TC members who are interested will participate in adding to the information.


Thanks for the link, but .... sorry - I thought you were going to provide empirical research evidence - the sort of stuff that would be published in a peer-reviewed research journal.

I would genuinely like to see the empirical research evidence that supports the claims that have been made in this thread. Do you have any, please?


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

Truckload said:


> That is a frequently held misconception about classical music instruction. Studies have actually found the opposite. The children who benefit the most from *continuing music education *are disadvantaged children. Musical study helps develop improvements in IQ, improve grades in other subjects, encourage staying in school, etc. The data makes it very clear that one of the best ways society can help disadvantaged children to succeed in life, in addition to providing for basic needs, is to provide continuing education in music.


Is that any music education, or specifically Classical? And how much is the difference between playing and just listening?

My understanding is that playing a musical instrument is the largest benefit. I also suspect that learning music theory helps in the same way learning any (challenging) theory helps our minds.

The "Mozart Effect" stuff hasn't really held up to scrutiny, however.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

While the example of Venezuela is worth following, there is an example which is far more compelling and it comes from Paraguay, from a village built on a garbage dump/landfill where the residents make a living by selling recycled materials. In doing so they discovered that instruments can be made from things found in the garbage and have created a music program for the kids, giving the children instruments made from recycled materials. Yes it is obviously true that food, shelter, etc., is the first priority, but music can give meaning to their lives. As a young girl says in this video "Without music my life would be worthless."

Landfill Harmonic, The Recycled Orchestra...


----------



## Truckload (Feb 15, 2012)

Headphone Hermit said:


> Thanks for the link, but .... sorry - I thought you were going to provide empirical research evidence - the sort of stuff that would be published in a peer-reviewed research journal.
> 
> I would genuinely like to see the empirical research evidence that supports the claims that have been made in this thread. Do you have any, please?


I was going to wait for Tuesday to post more information, but I don't want you to be disappointed. See my post below with link to peer reviewed study.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Nereffid said:


> Great literature (for your only personal value of "great", of course!) is also of benefit to humanity, but basic literacy is much more beneficial. So when it comes to education, I'd say that a more general musical education is valuable, and classical can be part of that, but doesn't have to be.


I think that musical literacy (and not just western) is almost as valuable as what we consider to be basic literacy.


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

Becca said:


> While the example of Venezuela is worth following,


Yes, a beautiful, heartwarming video. I've seen this before, but heartily recommend it to those who haven't seen it :tiphat:


----------



## Truckload (Feb 15, 2012)

Peer reviewed scientifically valid research is published in specialized journals. Usually a subscription to the journal, or a visit to a good library, is required to access these studies. Please find below a link to a study which I have saved in PDF format to my box.net account. If I set it up correctly, you should be able to download and save this.

https://app.box.com/s/fteecqtjwznhiw9yus3phacxhnlup9gt

This article from the International Journal of Music Education summarizes available research as of 2010. Subsequent research continues to validate the conclusions mentioned in this peer reviewed paper.

Please note the extensive citations (references) to more studies found at the end of the article. The authors have used very careful wording and frankly mention any and all possible flaws in the research they reviewed. I know this is dry stuff, but the information content is exciting and compelling for those of us who advocate for music.


----------



## Truckload (Feb 15, 2012)

GreenMamba said:


> Is that any music education, or specifically Classical? And how much is the difference between playing and just listening?
> 
> My understanding is that playing a musical instrument is the largest benefit. I also suspect that learning music theory helps in the same way learning any (challenging) theory helps our minds.
> 
> The "Mozart Effect" stuff hasn't really held up to scrutiny, however.


The most significant positive effects are derived from continuing music education. The Mozart Effect proposed that students taking a test had better achievement if the music of Mozart was being played while they took the test. It was not a study of long-term continuing education. Even on a short term basis, some studies have found benefits to listening to classical music. However, results are as yet, at least as far as I know, not conclusive.

Playing an instrument has been found to be of the most value, followed by singing.

The style of music may not be determinant in the positive results, I'm not sure. However, the positive results do depend on the music being notated, as opposed to playing "by ear." In learning music, no one starts off with the most advanced classical compositions. Usually instruction progresses from simple to gradually more and more complex, and will usually quickly lead to classical music, because it is notated and timeless. I am not aware of any studies that have specifically excluded classical music from the students repertoire.

I believe you are correct that the study of any subject tends to stretch our brains and improve mental abilities. The interesting thing about musical study, is that it is proven to be of help in all other subjects. I don't think there are any studies that show a similar effect from, say, math. Studying math is a good thing and will exercise the brain, but no studies have shown that math study helps in reading, or history. At least none of which I am aware.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Perfect point - that learning how to play an instrument and or sing can certainly benefit an individual! Even children with autism can something produce prodigious talent at playing instruments.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Humanity benefits *from the humanities in general*.

WCM, and other well developed musical traditions, are microcosms of everything in the humanities, which can be observed in the rest of the humanities. Like every humanity, there is a vibrant thematic relationship with the philosophy of the age, and most every avenue of thought is fair game that can be used with less rigid constraints than other traditional inquiries into those avenues. The humanities impress upon their admirers a sense of the kaleidoscopic enormity of feelings and intellectual notions out there in the world.

While the humanities don't require that devoted consumers dig into every last element, they naturally stimulate curiosity. It is this curiosity that I see oftentimes in the members here, and I would say that that is the benefit of WCM to humanity. This is a culturally broad and culturally sensitive/excitable atmosphere, and I'm certain WCM has something to do with it. There are not only expansive but seriously inquisitive and abiding interests on display at TC, in history, etc.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Truckload said:


> Certainly, but also the scientific method is used in an objective study, which if followed rigorously and honestly is even more trustworthy than reason and logic.


It's well worth mentioning here that science itself is predicated on reason and logic. The Scientific Revolution was a movement in philosophy by great figures that primarily called themselves philosophers. Newton, for example, described himself as a "natural philosopher".There are no academic disciplines which epistemology does not have a fundamental relationship with. See here.









Hard data cannot be acquired outside the context of reason. The idea of "data" cannot be defined outside of reason either. Whether or not they are rigorously acquainted with it, every person uses epistemology of some level of sophistication when they form ideas. Just as it is not requisite for us to have any great degree of knowledge about our limbic system and prefrontal cortex to reason, or be deeply affected by something, neither is it requisite for every academic of a different stripe to understand that philosophy is a meta-category over every discipline, that they are strictly speaking a kind of philosopher themselves, etc.

It is my belief that an extended exposure to the humanities will stimulate the intellectual and emotional excitability of a person, and a broad, accessible exposure to academia in general can give great substance for that excitability to chew upon.


----------



## Truckload (Feb 15, 2012)

Lukecash12 - I am forced to admit I had a hard time following your post #50, but I think I agree.

In my own personal experience, I first noticed myself feeling empathetic towards others in response to Great Literature. By Great Literature I mean books assigned as reading in school, not the sort of thing I would have decided to read on my own. 

Similarly Classical Music has opened up realms for me that otherwise I believe would have remained closed to me. I don't think I am alone in these experiences.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

OP: Of course not. Music of any kind is entertainment. It makes one feel good. It does nothing for humanity in general.

Hitler loved classical music and opera. Did he make the world a better place? Did it "raise" his morality?

The band played Mozart's Eine Kleine Nachtmusik as the prisoners were being herded into the "showers" at Auschwitz.

Music is fine, even noble at times, but like everything else it seems, becomes rotten when humans get their hands on it.


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

Truckload said:


> Peer reviewed scientifically valid research is published in specialized journals. Usually a subscription to the journal, or a visit to a good library, is required to access these studies.
> 
> Please note the extensive citations (references) to more studies found at the end of the article. The authors have used very careful wording and frankly mention any and all possible flaws in the research they reviewed. I know this is dry stuff, but the information content is exciting and compelling for those of us who advocate for music.


Thank you for this.

I can access journals like this at work and so I can download them and read them when I get time - I look forward to reading this and following up on the references when I get the time. Cheers!


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Truckload said:


> Lukecash12 - I am forced to admit I had a hard time following your post #50, but I think I agree.


I understand that some of the expressions I used, and general ideas I alluded to, are foreign even to educated individuals like yourself. If you're interested, I can take the material out of it's packaging and demonstrate that in essence what I was saying reduces down to something quite simple. You have merely to share with me what wasn't so clear for you. Having seen some scintillating dialogue here from you, I've no doubt that you would be a great individual to discuss such issues with; this matter of the interrelatedness of academic subjects has great bearing, I think, on the OP.



> In my own personal experience, I first noticed myself feeling empathetic towards others in response to Great Literature. By Great Literature I mean books assigned as reading in school, not the sort of thing I would have decided to read on my own.


If you don't mind sharing, it would be fascinating to see you delineate a little more of what you mean by that. I think your own experience is demonstrative of what the humanities in general have a propensity to do to people.



> Similarly Classical Music has opened up realms for me that otherwise I believe would have remained closed to me. I don't think I am alone in these experiences.


Absolutely. What I'm trying to key into here is that the very nature itself of the humanities and academic sciences (by that I mean "science" in the original Aristotelian sense of _scientia_, or "formal inquiry") is not just expansive but deeply interrelated. People, when made aware of such connections, are stimulated to look at the whole kaleidoscope, instead of a few colorful grains.

Classical music in particular is a humanity that is especially apt to stimulate a person in various directions, because there are mathematical elements to learning it, a plethora of philosophical ideas encapsulated in musical themes, and so on.

It is hard *not* to be excited in the direction of other interrelated inquiries because the music is evoking so many different things at once. Want to know about the composer? Your interest in historiography is being prompted. Want to know about the music theory? Math, history once again, and a variety of other areas become involved. Are you only interested in that moment with the simplest, affective elements of the music, thinking merely of what you're hearing and how you feel and think about it? There is a greater context yet again, which was birthed in philosophy, and irrespective of your formal awareness of it you are reflecting notions bound up in existentialism, humanism, postmodernism et al.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Fugue Meister said:


> Of course its beneficial, it keeps riffraff away from public areas when played on loudspeakers..
> 
> http://www.d-ddaily.com/images/8-6-15%20Weaponizing%20Classical%20Music%20Crime%20Prevention%20and%20Symbolic%20Power%20in%20the%20Age%20of%20Repetition%20Jirsch%202007.pdf


Yeah, so they can't make rap videos outside convenience stores. Although where there is a will there is a way and better that than straight hustlin' without an artistic product to show for it.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

violadude said:


> Well, it benefits me, and I'm part of humanity (at least, I think I am).


Yeah I think you are. I think I am too. Do the sinister reptilian people among us benefit from it too? Hopefully not because hopefully they don't exist.


----------



## Guest (Feb 8, 2016)

Lukecash12 said:


> It's well worth mentioning here that science itself is predicated on reason and logic. The Scientific Revolution was a movement in philosophy by great figures that primarily called themselves philosophers. Newton, for example, described himself as a "natural philosopher".There are no academic disciplines which epistemology does not have a fundamental relationship with. See here.
> 
> View attachment 81195
> 
> ...


Here's a crazy thought: when Newton's "natural philosophy" of the scientific process effectively won the Battle of Understanding, did this leave philosophy as a term for enquiring with no subject to enquire about? So then it morphed into myriads of the "philosophy of....X."


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

dogen said:


> Here's a crazy thought: when Newton's "natural philosophy" of the scientific process effectively won the Battle of Understanding, did this leave philosophy as a term for enquiring with no subject to enquire about? So then it morphed into myriads of the "philosophy of....X."


Actually, the most similar original iteration to the modern Scientific Method is the Baconian Method, formed by Francis Bacon (1561-1626). The basic idea of science's privileged status when it comes to truth claims, and the whole idea of what science is and how it is to be done, is still a lively area of debate. Science is still very much a part of philosophy and philosophy is still very much a part of science. See here for an excellent summary of the subject.


----------



## Truckload (Feb 15, 2012)

Lukecash12 - I don't understand this concept, "Hard data cannot be acquired outside the context of reason. The idea of "data" cannot be defined outside of reason either." I have always thought of hard data as being a factual proof that we might use when using reason, but existing outside of and independently of its manipulation by reason. A fact independent of it being observed by man. Sorry, that is probably completely wrong.

At the risk of being boring and maudlin I will share a bit more about the experience I alluded to above. The novel was Silas Marner by George Elliot. I would never have read that book by my own choice. In fact, all of my friends hated the book. Not just my friends, everyone seemed to hate the book. But I immediately felt a connection with Silas from the very first moment. I felt empathy. And suddenly it wasn't fun to make fun of other kids anymore. Never again would it be fun to push around my little brother. This was in ninth grade, my freshman year in high school.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

isorhythm said:


> Children who get regular instruction in music tend to go to better schools and live in richer neighborhoods. I don't think we can infer anything from their life outcomes.
> 
> The Nazis are of course relevant. German culture was always perhaps more devoted to music than any other. It appears this had no morally ennobling effect.
> 
> ...


I can second that.

Stalin was so moved by Mozart's pc 23 (Yudina perf) that he had Yudina and the orch make him his very own rec in the middle of the night. By all accounts he softened for some weeks - but that didnt last.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

stomanek said:


> I can second that.
> 
> Stalin was so moved by Mozart's pc 23 (Yudina perf) that he had Yudina and the orch make him his very own rec in the middle of the night. By all accounts he softened for some weeks - but that didnt last.


When he died the record was on the turntable.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Truckload said:


> Here is a fantastic video about a very successful classical music education program in Venezuela.


There have been recent cautionary voices to this story

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/...-Sistema-does-reality-match-the-rhetoric.html


----------



## bz3 (Oct 15, 2015)

Count me in the camp deeply committed to the idea that great art (defined in any sort of narrow sense) and music are vital to the lifeblood of a culture - certainly to Western culture which I personally feel is worth defending. 

Though I am a technically-trained professional I had significant musical education and studied literature in university. While dogged by some today for their lack of marketable skill producing careers I find them an invaluable part of my enjoyment to life - which can sometimes drift into anhedonism without proper mental stimulation. Do think I every person should focus on the arts and humanities as I did before my professional training? Certainly not, there are some people who will never have the willpower, patience, or dedication to enjoy or appreciate it. However I do feel that for anyone so dedicated there are few among our culture that would not benefit from an exploration into art forms beyond the popular realm.

If it sounds like I am denigrating popular art then perhaps I am to a degree. I am not opposed to people enjoyed what they wish, however I will not consider the proposition that low-brow art has the same intrinsic merit as higher forms. Cultural relativism can be pushed only so far in my mind, and just as I will never consider an ordered society that stones its outcasts and obliges rape to be inherently equal to the Western social order I will not consider Miley Cyrus to be of equal merit as even the lowliest of composers in my personal view - say Cage for instance. If it's a prejudicial viewpoint to some people then I am fine with that, but I do not try to push my personal view onto others.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Lukecash12 said:


> Hard data cannot be acquired outside the context of reason. The idea of "data" cannot be defined outside of reason either.


Assuming that I understand what you are saying here (and that is a big assumption!) I cannot possibly agree with it, nor do I suspect that most in the hard sciences would acquiesce. Facts in the physical world exist irrespective of any reasoning being and the data to determine those facts is not about to change whether we are here or not. The half life of an isotope is a fact, the transition rate of a Cesium-133 atom doesn't care about reason.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Becca said:


> Assuming that I understand what you are saying here (and that is a big assumption!) I cannot possibly agree with it, nor do I suspect that most in the hard sciences would acquiesce. Facts in the physical world exist irrespective of any reasoning being and the data to determine those facts is not about to change whether we are here or not. The half life of an isotope is a fact, the transition rate of a Cesium-133 atom doesn't care about reason.


In science reason seeks to interpret the data it has gathered. Of course, the effect music has on a person generally resists hard data. It can also go beyond reason.


----------



## Guest (Feb 8, 2016)

Becca said:


> Assuming that I understand what you are saying here (and that is a big assumption!) I cannot possibly agree with it, nor do I suspect that most in the hard sciences would acquiesce. Facts in the physical world exist irrespective of any reasoning being and the data to determine those facts is not about to change whether we are here or not. The half life of an isotope is a fact, the transition rate of a Cesium-133 atom doesn't care about reason.


A fact is "a thing that is known or proved to be true." The universe (including decaying Caesium) exists whether minds do or do not, but facts do not.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

dogen said:


> A fact is "a thing that is known or proved to be true." The universe (including decaying Caesium) exists whether minds do or do not, but facts do not.


It sounds like you are talking about a statement of fact rather than the fact itself. The definition of fact goes far beyond that to include those things that have actual existence so facts exist whether we do or not. We are not talking about a quantum mechanical collapse, our appearance in this universe and observations did not serve to bring them into existence.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Becca said:


> Assuming that I understand what you are saying here (and that is a big assumption!) I cannot possibly agree with it, nor do I suspect that most in the hard sciences would acquiesce. Facts in the physical world exist irrespective of any reasoning being and the data to determine those facts is not about to change whether we are here or not. The half life of an isotope is a fact, the transition rate of a Cesium-133 atom doesn't care about reason.


There is no such thing as an useable brute observation. Appealing to brute observation alone falls flat when subjected to Cartesian doubt. A fact is a provable notion, not a proven notion. The concepts of "fact", "data", "phenomena", "hypothesis', 'theory", and "law" were all honed to their current fineness during a century and a half long discussion known as the Scientific Revolution.

Unfortunately, much like every other academic term that is inevitably given free reign in the popular vernacular, the idea of a "fact" is over time beginning to be morphed into something anachronistic. These are the definitions which Newton, Bacon, Galileo, Mill, Leibniz, Descartes, and Locke would have assented to (a perceptive reader will notice that I am invoking names on both sides of the debate between Empiricism and Rationalism, in all of it's not necessarily polarized variety):

Data- information recorded in relation to a phenomenon.
Phenomenon/phenomena- an observed event.
Fact- a logically derived assessment of a phenomenon and it's data, which can be either sound or not sound.
Hypothesis- a supposition that is posited as an educated guess in order to direct new investigation.
Law- an universally observed sequence of phenomena.







Theory- a meta narrative of an aggregate of facts.








These six elements are all part of the methodology of science, but not every area of science actually has a consistent epistemology on the subject of Rationalism vs Empiricism with every other area. The Stanford article on the Scientific Method that I cited earlier can confirm all of this.

An example from Newton's Principia, both using some of and questing towards these definitions:

_Rule I: No more causes of natural things should be admitted than are both true and sufficient to explain their phenomena._
_Rule II: Therefore, the causes assigned to natural effects of the same kind must be, so far as possible, the same._
_Rule III: Those qualities of bodies that cannot be intended and remitted and that belong to all bodies on which experiments can be made should be taken as qualities of all bodies universally._
_Rule IV: In experimental philosophy, propositions gathered from phenomena by induction should be considered either exactly or very nearly true notwithstanding any contrary hypotheses, until yet other phenomena make such propositions either more exact or liable to exceptions.
_


Becca said:


> It sounds like you are talking about a statement of fact rather than the fact itself. The definition of fact goes far beyond that to include those things that have actual existence so facts exist whether we do or not. We are not talking about a quantum mechanical collapse, our appearance in this universe and observations did not serve to bring them into existence.


This idea here, that facts exist irrespective of persons, is not self evident. It is a notion that must be arrived at through reason. Without any basic, fundamental understanding of the reasoning involved in all of this, one's ideas about science are more a matter of custom, and a ubiquitous element of culture, than anything that could arguably be qualified as a JTB (justified true belief); in referring back to a JTB here I am referencing the previously cited Stanford article on epistemology.



Truckload said:


> Lukecash12 - I don't understand this concept, "Hard data cannot be acquired outside the context of reason. The idea of "data" cannot be defined outside of reason either." I have always thought of hard data as being a factual proof that we might use when using reason, but existing outside of and independently of its manipulation by reason. A fact independent of it being observed by man. Sorry, that is probably completely wrong.


See the material above. There's no reason for a sensible, inquisitive, and well educated person to be sorry for frankly sharing their thoughts. That *isn't* destructive, it's *productive*. 



> At the risk of being boring and maudlin I will share a bit more about the experience I alluded to above. The novel was Silas Marner by George Elliot. I would never have read that book by my own choice. In fact, all of my friends hated the book. Not just my friends, everyone seemed to hate the book. But I immediately felt a connection with Silas from the very first moment. I felt empathy. And suddenly it wasn't fun to make fun of other kids anymore. Never again would it be fun to push around my little brother. This was in ninth grade, my freshman year in high school.


What you've decided to post here is hardly boring or maudlin, and I appreciate your sharing it. The humanities have a way of seeming inaccessible one moment, and immediate the next. They greatly expand our perspective and can help mature and ennoble people.

Sure, Stalin may have liked Mozart. Stalin was also an ignorant individual, that definitely didn't benefit in the variety of ways that he could have from Mozart, capable of complex affectations/moods but not so capable of understanding them in a healthy way.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

stomanek said:


> I can second that.
> 
> Stalin was so moved by Mozart's pc 23 (Yudina perf) that he had Yudina and the orch make him his very own rec in the middle of the night. By all accounts he softened for some weeks - but that didnt last.


I actually read a variation on that. Yudina was performing the Mozart and Stalin was listening on the radio. Pleased, he then got a message to the radio station to cut a disc of it immediately but although the station had broadcast the performance they hadn't actually recorded it. Panic-stricken, the station directors had to get the orchestra and Yudina back into the studio immediately and play it again so they could record it. They then had this performance put onto disc and had it delivered to Stalin hoping he wouldn't know any different. The deception seemed to have worked. That's what I call pressure.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Lukecash12 said:


> A fact is a provable notion, not a proven notion.


With all respect, a fact cannot be proved, only disproved. What we call science results in a set of hypotheses that may be supported by many observations and may have predictive power, but are all waiting for that single contrary observation that will disprove them.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Lukecash12 - Might I inquire what your academic background is? I would guess would be, without intending to disparage in any way, that it has something to do with the philosophy of science. You may answer in PM if you prefer.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

KenOC said:


> With all respect, a fact cannot be proved, only disproved. What we call science results in a set of hypotheses that may be supported by many observations and may have predictive power, but are all waiting for that single contrary observation that will disprove them.


You seem to be confusing fact and theory.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Yes, the story goes that Stalin liked this recording so much that he had Yudina sent a large sum of money. She wrote back, "I thank you, Joseph Vissarionovich, for your aid. I will pray for you day and night and ask the Lord to forgive your great sins before the people and the country. The Lord is merciful and He'll forgive you. I gave the money to the church that I attend."

Stalin's reaction is not recorded. Anyway, this story is recounted in Volkov's _Testimony_, supposed the verbal memoirs of Shostakovich. Many believe the book is, to one degree or another, a fake. But it's a good story!


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Becca said:


> You seem to be confusing fact and theory.


Not at all. I'm saying that what people customarily call "facts" do not exist. There are merely theories, or what science likes to call hypotheses. A "fact" is merely a notion that is generally accepted and hasn't yet been disproven. In some cases, theories are disproven (multiple times) and many people will still call them facts! But that's dangerous territory to get into, as Galileo found out.

If you or I had recited a list of what we thought were "facts" a couple of hundred years ago, I suspect we'd get a good chuckle out of reading them today.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

KenOC said:


> With all respect, a fact cannot be proved, only disproved. What we call science results in a set of hypotheses that may be supported by many observations and may have predictive power, but are all waiting for that single contrary observation that will disprove them.


 While your reasoning here is admirably descriptive of how scientists regard facts, that is different from how they use them methodologically. However, I'm not sure that you're solid on the definition of hypotheses, both historically and as scientists use the expression today. Hypotheses are tentative guesses that direct further inquiry. Theses/theorems, on the other hand, possess compelling explanatory power.

It is an understandable, yet mistaken, notion that theories are subject to change because of a single observation. Theories describe a wide range of observations, such that solitary observations to the contrary must be vetted and supported over time before a new theory can be formulated. We're perfectly free to disagree with this last sentence here, but what I am describing is what scientists actually write. I can guarantee you with no small measure of certitude that my explanations so far would all have left Durock, Planck, and Feinman nonplussed alike.

You're free to doubt my claims, and I am always pleased to document something if a person would like for me to. As I've said a few times now, the articles from Stanford I cited are a great place to start. Other reputable encyclopedias and journals abound, and are as accessible as our fingertips.



Becca said:


> Lukecash12 - Might I inquire what your academic background is? I would guess would be, without intending to disparage in any way, that it has something to do with the philosophy of science. You may answer in PM if you prefer.


 My most extensive studies have been done in history, theology, philosophy of science, and epistemology. As for my actual academic profession? As I've shared before here, I write historical literature.



KenOC said:


> Not at all. I'm saying that what people customarily call "facts" do not exist. There are merely theories, or what science likes to call hypotheses. A "fact" is merely a notion that is generally accepted and hasn't yet been disproven. In some cases, theories are disproven (multiple times) and many people will still call them facts! But that's dangerous territory to get into, as Galileo found out.
> 
> If you or I had recited a list of what we thought were "facts" a couple of hundred years ago, I suspect we'd get a good chuckle out of reading them today.


As I've already shared, a fact is an assessment derived from the relationships between phenomena and their attendant data, as opposed to a notion imperiously touted to be infallibly true. A multiplicity of facts must build upon one another, in order for a substantial meta-category like a theory to be formed.

However, I *do* agree with your explanation of what people *customarily* are calling "fact" today.


----------



## OperaChic (Aug 26, 2015)

Lukecash12 said:


> While your reasoning here is admirably descriptive of how scientists regard facts, that is different from how they use them methodologically. However, I'm not sure that you're solid on the definition of hypotheses, both historically and as scientists use the expression today. Hypotheses are tentative guesses that direct further inquiry. Theses/theorems, on the other hand, possess compelling explanatory power.
> 
> It is an understandable, yet mistaken, notion that theories are subject to change because of a single observation. Theories describe a wide range of observations, such that solitary observations to the contrary must be vetted and supported over time before a new theory can be formulated. We're perfectly free to disagree with this last sentence here, but what I am describing is what scientists actually write. I can guarantee you with no small measure of certitude that my explanations so far would all have left Durock, Planck, and Feinman nonplussed alike.
> 
> You're free to doubt my claims, and I am always pleased to document something if a person would like for me to. As I've said a few times now, the articles from Stanford I cited are a great place to start. Other reputable encyclopedias and journals abound, and are as accessible as our fingertips.


Are you familiar with the writings of Karl Popper?


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

OperaChic said:


> Are you familiar with the writings of Karl Popper?


Yes, and he was a first rate thinker. His rejections of Foundationalism and the Inductive Method, while significant, do not represent the historical standard up to this day in philosophy of science. While it would make for a scintillating discussion indeed, I have no intentions to derail the thread any further.

All I had originally meant to express was that the humanities and sciences stimulate mutual interest, and they are intimately interconnected. Their very nature itself demonstrates their potential benefit towards any person. I had meant that as a complimentary consideration to the direction Truckload was taking.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Lukecash12 said:


> While your reasoning here is admirably descriptive of how scientists regard facts, that is different from how they use them methodologically. However, I'm not sure that you're solid on the definition of hypotheses, both historically and as scientists use the expression today. Hypotheses are tentative guesses that direct further inquiry. Theses/theorems, on the other hand, possess compelling explanatory power.


I agree that most would consider a theory as being better supported than a hypothesis, but either is subject to disproof and always will be.

BTW, if a hypothesis becomes a theory through observation and acceptance, and it has explanatory or predictive power, than it had that power equally as a humble hypothesis. I can't easily accept that as a differentiation between the two.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

I would describe the energy levels of an electron as fact whereas the Standard Model in particle physics is a theory. The possible existence of a paired particle for the Higgs Boson is a hypothesis (and one which could possible upend the Standard Model.)


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

The energy levels of an electron are in accord with observations thus far and provide predictive power (from what I understand). Whether they will be seen as a "fact" in future times is up in the air -- few so-called facts have long lives, no matter how obvious they may appear at some point in time.


----------



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

Truckload said:


> The empirical evidence to support Classical Music education is massive. But what about society as a whole? This is much harder to prove, as we must rely on logic and reason to convince others, not objective studies. Once again, there are well reasoned and elegantly worded sources on the internet, making the case far better than I.
> 
> There is a marvelous collection of essays by Donald Vroon, "Classical Music in a Changing Culture: Essays from the American Record Guide."
> 
> ...


 I regularly read the American Record Guide. I have read Vroons editorials through the years, which are fundamentally all the same. I sympathize with his message (which appears to be the OPs as well), but it's pointless to force-feed people on Classical Music if they don't want to hear it. I have found it more useful to try to convey my enthusiasm and see if people are interested. I've converted many people whom I never would have thought would have cared, but not because I tell them that they ought to like it, but rather that I love it and this is why and follow me if you are interested; if not, it doesn't mean that you are somehow lacking, but that it just doesn't click.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Becca said:


> I would describe the energy levels of an electron as fact whereas the Standard Model in particle physics is a theory. The possible existence of a paired particle for the Higgs Boson is a hypothesis (and one which could possible upend the Standard Model.)


I fail to see any substantial difference between your examples and my cited definitions. Of course it may not be your intention to contradict them. In any case, thanks for the illustration provided here, and both of you for your contributions thus far.


----------



## Guest (Feb 9, 2016)

We may argue over what is a fact, introducing doubt into every corner of human experience, yet reference the great philosophers as if their thinking were as incontrovertible as the weather outside my window, which is not subject to Cartesian doubt!

Looking again at the OP it seems to presume some kind of homogeneous mass (humanity) that can be discerned as a discrete body subject to influence in the same way as a single individual. It implies that if only humanity was to listen to classical, or play an instrument, the beneficial effect would resolve its problems.

It also presupposes we know what 'benefit' means, when in fact, there are many ways to lead a 'beneficial life' that are more than just a core set of values to which we might all aspire.

As I indicated in my earlier reply, an individual _may _'benefit' from the enjoyment of music, but I don't think we can simply 'multiply up' from that to humanity, not least because the question of cause and effect comes into play. Put crudely, those who learned to play a musical instrument may already have been predisposed to a more 'humane' way of life: playing music didn't make them a better human being.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

dogen said:


> A fact is "a thing that is known or proved to be true." The universe (including decaying Caesium) exists whether minds do or do not, but facts do not.


The facts exist whether or not processed by our minds.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

KenOC said:


> The energy levels of an electron are in accord with observations thus far and provide predictive power (from what I understand). Whether they will be seen as a "fact" in future times is up in the air -- few so-called facts have long lives, no matter how obvious they may appear at some point in time.


At the basis of everything is uncertainty.


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

Truckload said:


> I have always thought of hard data as being a factual proof that we might use when using reason, but existing outside of and independently of its manipulation by reason. A fact independent of it being observed by man.


Yes, that is what many people think - and many of the posts in this thread appear to share this confidence in the independence of 'fact' to 'reason'

However, many 'facts' are actually very difficult to establish - and not just because they are difficult to observe or to measure.

For example, in theory, the average weight (mass) of a Blackbird should be easy to determine - just weigh the birds and divide by the number of birds. *BUT* ... it is impossible to catch every Blackbird .... so a sample must be used. The 'fact' then depends upon the representativeness of the sample - if the sample is not absolutely representative of the whole population, then the 'fact' is only an approximation.
*BUT* Blackbirds do not have constant weights - the weight of an individual varies from season to season. The weight of an individual also varies vary from day to day (for example, they can increase their weight by up to 30% in the days before a severe cold-spell as they store fat to tide them over a spell, and then lose the weight when the cold spell has gone). The weight also varies according to the time of day in a complex way. Male and female Blackbirds have different weights. Juveniles weigh more than adults at some stages of their life cycle and less than adults at other stages. 
*AND* Blackbirds in different countries have different weights - the northern ones are heavier than the southern ones, but in Britain (at least) they are partial migrants - some of the birds we have in Winter have come from Norway, but some of ours have left in winter to go to France and Spain, and some stay there all year - so we can never be sure that 'our' birds are .... 'our' birds .... and so we don't know how representative the sample is of the wider population
*AND* Blackbirds in different habitats have different weights - urban birds differ from those in upland woodlands - but they move about a lot .... and again, we don't know how representative the sample is of the wider population

and so on .... in short, the 'fact' of the average weight of Blackbirds is much less precise than common understandings of 'fact' would imply .... and the data that are gathered from weighing Blackbirds have to be defined within boundaries that reveal that the data are individually precise, but that those data need reasoning in order to become of use.

So, 'facts' are not as straightforward in their conceptualization as some people assume.


----------



## Guest (Feb 9, 2016)

DavidA said:


> The facts exist whether or not processed by our minds.


Unsurprisingly, we shall remain in disagreement.


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

clavichorder said:


> Yeah I think you are. I think I am too. Do the sinister reptilian people among us benefit from it too? Hopefully not because hopefully they don't exist.


Oh, your one of _those_ people... :devil:


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

dogen said:


> Unsurprisingly, we shall remain in disagreement.


Now this is a fact and I second it.


----------



## Truckload (Feb 15, 2012)

Triplets said:


> I regularly read the American Record Guide. I have read Vroons editorials through the years, which are fundamentally all the same. I sympathize with his message (which appears to be the OPs as well), but it's pointless to force-feed people on Classical Music if they don't want to hear it. I have found it more useful to try to convey my enthusiasm and see if people are interested. I've converted many people whom I never would have thought would have cared, but not because I tell them that they ought to like it, but rather that I love it and this is why and follow me if you are interested; if not, it doesn't mean that you are somehow lacking, but that it just doesn't click.


You are completely on point with your points.  (A little stupid humor on my part). But seriously, yes I agree with you. I think all of us who love classical music find it beneficial for ourselves. And if we care about other people, we want to share the benefits of classical music with others. I think the first step towards bringing more people into the enjoyment of classical music, is for those of us who love it to be aware of the benefits of classical music. We can hardly be effective advocates if we ourselves do not believe in the benefits.

In fact, that was the main reason I started this thread. I could tell that many TC members were skeptical or hostile to the idea that classical music has benefits to individuals and mankind beyond the mere sensual pleasure it provides.


----------



## Truckload (Feb 15, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> We may argue over what is a fact, introducing doubt into every corner of human experience, yet reference the great philosophers as if their thinking were as incontrovertible as the weather outside my window, which is not subject to Cartesian doubt!
> 
> Looking again at the OP it seems to presume some kind of homogeneous mass (humanity) that can be discerned as a discrete body subject to influence in the same way as a single individual. It implies that if only humanity was to listen to classical, or play an instrument, the beneficial effect would resolve its problems.
> 
> ...


I can understand your point of view. I agree that I, and other advocates for classical music, need to define and describe the "benefits" not just allude to vague notions. That is one reason for this thread. I hope that together we can explore what these benefits are, and why they are important.

Above I included a link to a peer reviewed article from 2010 summarizing hard data accumulated through research into the benefits of a continuing education in classical music for young people. The measurable improvements in brain function and scholastic achievement attributable to music education are very clear. And ongoing research continues to verify and even amplify observed efficacy of music education to improve educational outcomes. If we value an educated populace, we should value classical music education.

If classical music is so helpful to the minds of young people, is it not logical that it is also helpful to adults and the populace at large?

In your post you express doubts that classical music would make people more 'humane.' Behavioral and attitudes changes in people are indeed much harder to accurately measure or even verify at all. And I for one am not sure we would desire a uniform alteration of behaviors and attitudes. Society needs many different sorts of people. We need detail minded pragmatists to coordinate our food supply and keep us clothed. We need egotistical actors to entertain us. We need empathetic care givers for the sick and needy. We need warriors to defend us from less civilized and less peaceful societies. We need the most intelligent and skilled doctors to keep us alive and healthy. And on and on.

As I said, I hope that together, we can explore and define the benefits of classical music. Towards that end, I have added additional material below that I hope will be useful.

If those who love classical music, and benefit from it, do not advocate for classical music, who will?


----------



## Truckload (Feb 15, 2012)

Headphone Hermit said:


> So, 'facts' are not as straightforward in their conceptualization as some people assume.


The Blackbird example was intriguing. Very thought provoking. I am certainly no philosopher of science. And I suppose that at some level, quantum physics perhaps, one is required to think in that manner to make progress in advancing knowledge.

I function and think on a much more mundane and pragmatic basis. I own and operate a small business. I am forced to accept certain facts in order to successfully schedule deliveries, budget for expenses, and stay in compliance with government regulations.

Similarly, the facts to which I allude are more in the nature of practical, day to day facts that can be beneficial to us in making practical decisions. Do you want to avoid senility and make the most of your senior years? If so, then research indicates you need to keep your brain active and exercised. Mentally challenging activities like playing chess, pursuing intellectual interests, or playing a musical instrument are likely to help you avoid senility.

As interesting as the conjectures upon the nature of factual evidence might be, I hope we can stay focused on classical music or even just music in general.


----------



## Truckload (Feb 15, 2012)

In this video the positive impact of classical music in promoting understanding, dialogue and friendship between individuals of differing nations, races, and cultures is explored. Anecdotal evidence like this video is not hard data. But it is worth our consideration and functions to help us derive a more complete understanding of the value of classical music to humanity.


----------



## Truckload (Feb 15, 2012)

In this video, Dr. Alice Cooper of Australia tells us about the results of her doctoral thesis research into the effects on young people of music education. Primarily it is a straightforward talk by Dr. Cooper. But there are also some fun animations, and the research results presented are powerful evidence for the benefits to humanity of classical music education.


----------



## Mal (Jan 1, 2016)

Truckload said:


> I can't remember anyone previously trying to blame classical music for Hitler.


I'm not trying to blame classical music for Hitler, but just pointing out that a culture steeped in classical music produced Hitler, so I greatly doubt the humanising effect of classical music.


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock (Jul 6, 2013)

Yes, humanity definitely benefits. We hear the sounds of human beings who have given everything to achieve the perfect manifestation of aural form - great classical works are equivalent to great works of architecture. We learn to them and are improved by them.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

Indeed, with the exception of modern dentistry I can think of nothing so unambiguously beneficial to humanity as classical music.


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

Mal said:


> I'm not trying to blame classical music for Hitler, but just pointing out that a culture steeped in classical music produced Hitler, so I greatly doubt the humanising effect of classical music.


This is false and ridiculous, Hitler himself may have been obsessed with Wagner's operas but the society around him however much the classical music was part of the culture had nothing whatsoever to do with his rise to power. Hitler would have risen to power if the prevailing music of his day had been yodeling, he was an egomaniacal monster who made sure through blackmail and backdoor dealings that he would achieve absolute power and had massive amounts of help from like minded black souls looking to achieve positions of prestige within his political framework.

Stalin was even more of a monster and the same thing happened there in Russia where the classical music culture was not as prominent as it was in Germany. Sometimes horrible things just fall into place.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Fugue Meister said:


> This is false and ridiculous, Hitler himself may have been obsessed with Wagner's operas but the society around him however much the classical music was part of the culture had nothing whatsoever to do with his rise to power. Hitler would have risen to power if the prevailing music of his day had been yodeling, he was an egomaniacal monster who made sure through blackmail and backdoor dealings that he would achieve absolute power and had massive amounts of help from like minded black souls looking to achieve positions of prestige within his political framework.
> 
> Stalin was even more of a monster and the same thing happened there in Russia where the classical music culture was not as prominent as it was in Germany. Sometimes horrible things just fall into place.


Exactly, Meister._ Post hoc ergo propter hoc_, correlation does not equal causation. What WCM has clearly been shown to cause so far, is educational benefits.



Truckload said:


> I function and think on a much more mundane and pragmatic basis. I own and operate a small business. I am forced to accept certain facts in order to successfully schedule deliveries, budget for expenses, and stay in compliance with government regulations.


And that's an eminently reasonable way to think, of course. At the same time, monsieur, you love and wish to advocate classical music. The benefits of science as well are not immediately obvious, within the process, but the contribution that it makes to posterity is greatly manifest. Here's a wonderful, admittedly hyperbolic quote from Max Planck:

_Scientific discovery and scientific knowledge have been achieved only by those who have gone in pursuit of it without any practical purpose whatsoever in view._



> Similarly, the facts to which I allude are more in the nature of practical, day to day facts that can be beneficial to us in making practical decisions. Do you want to avoid senility and make the most of your senior years? If so, then research indicates you need to keep your brain active and exercised. Mentally challenging activities like playing chess, pursuing intellectual interests, or playing a musical instrument are likely to help you avoid senility.


I would propose the consideration here that the pursuit of something that may not always seem so practical... can have practical benefits after all, can't it? Of course, I'm not saying you should be a scientist or philosopher, Truckload, and I'm sure you are well aware of that. What I am trying to illustrate is the value of WCM by comparing humanities to _episteme_/sciences.



Headphone Hermit said:


> For example, in theory, the average weight (mass) of a Blackbird should be easy to determine - just weigh the birds and divide by the number of birds. *BUT* ... it is impossible to catch every Blackbird .... so a sample must be used. The 'fact' then depends upon the representativeness of the sample - if the sample is not absolutely representative of the whole population, then the 'fact' is only an approximation.


Marvelous post, Hermit. I'm curious to know if you're aware that you're trudging through the exact same tracks as Aristotle here. Aristotle, being the world's first recognized protozoic Empiricist, struggled to arrive at universals through particulars. What can one learn about the whole universe by merely staring at a pencil and describing the pencil?


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Music stimulates, and thus improves it's own specific set of abstract reasoning skills:

http://jn.physiology.org/content/108/12/3289.abstract
http://www.jneurosci.org/content/26/34/8647.abstract?sid=93c98e48-e04d-4ae8-b452-66f0bb21cc5e

Music not only improves a child's ability to think mathematically, but verbally:

http://www.jneurosci.org/content/34/36/11913.abstract?sid=93c98e48-e04d-4ae8-b452-66f0bb21cc5e



> To date, however, no studies have evaluated biological changes following participation in existing, successful music education programs. We used a randomized control design to investigate whether community music participation induces a tangible change in auditory processing. The community music training was a longstanding and successful program that provides free music instruction to children from underserved backgrounds who stand at high risk for learning and social problems. Children who completed 2 years of music training had a stronger neurophysiological distinction of stop consonants, a neural mechanism linked to reading and language skills. One year of training was insufficient to elicit changes in nervous system function; beyond 1 year, however, greater amounts of instrumental music training were associated with larger gains in neural processing. We therefore provide the first direct evidence that community music programs enhance the neural processing of speech in at-risk children, suggesting that active and repeated engagement with sound changes neural function.


Here's something germane when thinking of older adults, Truckload, that demonstrates how music has an appreciable affect on speech comprehension and response:

http://www.jneurosci.org/content/33/45/17667.abstract?sid=93c98e48-e04d-4ae8-b452-66f0bb21cc5e

I highly recommend FSN as a journal for diverse reading purposes related to neurology. Their work is fantastic and they are constantly delving into neglected areas like this. I dug around for a while, mostly in my other favorite journal (the Royal Society: http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/), and was pleasantly surprised to find FSN actually published something on music and adults.

What's clear here is that music accentuates neuroplasticity, and that it improves verbal comprehension.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Young adults and musical meter:

http://www.jneurosci.org/content/35/45/15187.abstract?sid=93c98e48-e04d-4ae8-b452-66f0bb21cc5e

Music improves general reasoning abilities (even visuo-spatial reasoning), by stimulating the associations between various brain regions:

http://www.jneurosci.org/content/21/16/6329.abstract?sid=e40b8ccf-71b1-4747-920d-9709da53dce5


----------



## Truckload (Feb 15, 2012)

Lukecash12 - Awesome post! I am so grateful to you for posting this information. I love music, so when I embarked on my investigation into the benefits I had high hopes, but little factual knowledge. The more real world information I read, the more astonished I am with the benefits of music.

My wife is still teaching. She teaches 6th grade math. For years she has said, "why is it that all the smartest kids are in band or orchestra?" I guess we have our answer. It is not that the smartest kids join band or orchestra, the truth is that band and orchestra help develop participants into the smartest kids!

I also really appreciate the information about benefits for adults and seniors. I have been told that there are some very exciting longitudinal studies in progress but it will be additional years before anything is published. I need to spend more time looking at this area.

Thank you again!


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

OP: Here we are in an environment where 100% of the folks like or love classical music.

One big happy family of humanity?

I rest my case.


----------



## Truckload (Feb 15, 2012)

Music, and specifically classical music, offers provable benefits to health and well being. Here is a link to an article which reviews some of these benefits. Some pertain to all types of music, some only to classical music.

http://www.emedexpert.com/tips/music.shtml


----------



## Truckload (Feb 15, 2012)

Benjamin Zander is entertaining, witty, knowledgeable, funny, talented and a marvelous advocate for classical music. I don't think I have enjoyed any other speaker as much since the days of the Bernstein lectures and young peoples talks. In the video below he discusses the transformative power of classical music. Great stuff, and just as important, great fun.


----------



## Truckload (Feb 15, 2012)

hpowders said:


> OP: Here we are in an environment where 100% of the folks like or love classical music.
> 
> One big happy family of humanity?
> 
> I rest my case.


Humanity is full of flaws and shortcomings. I don't expect to ever meet a perfect person in my lifetime on earth. The question is not, does classical music create perfect people. It does not. Nothing does. I have taken courses on philosophy and read a lot about religions and theology. I don't think even religions or philosophies claim to make all of its participants into perfect people.

The question is, does classical music benefit humans? Does it help us in some specific ways? It might be a small benefit or a large benefit. I am not sure anyone has actually discovered all of the benefits. But it seems to me that without question there are benefits. Improvements in education, health, and well being will not make people perfect. But I for one will be grateful for all the help I can get.


----------



## Guest (Feb 10, 2016)

Truckload said:


> In your post you express doubts that classical music would make people more 'humane.'


I don't think I did. I was speculating that the example offered is open to more than one possible interpretation: that people who are already humane are predisposed to join an orchestra, as well as that joining the orchestra made them humane.

Since I believe that music has an 'improving' effect on me, I'm hardly going to doubt that it might have an improving effect on anyone else. My doubts are to do with the problem of defining 'humanity' in any useful sense. We might have been able to inoculate whole populations against smallpox, but the benefits of NOT catching a disease are much easier to establish than the possible benefits of taking a dose of Debussy.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

I think it would be quite strange to think the arts in general does not benefit humanity.


----------



## Haydn man (Jan 25, 2014)

To try to answer the original question
I think this little bit of humanity benefits from classical music, and I hope that helps those I live and work with


----------



## Truckload (Feb 15, 2012)

Here is a brief article about the book Violins of Hope which explains how classical music helped save lives and give hope in the terrible conditions of World War II era concentration camps.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-a-grymes/when-music-saved-lives_b_5696042.html


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Truckload said:


> Here is a brief article about the book Violins of Hope which explains how classical music helped save lives and give hope in the terrible conditions of World War II era concentration camps.
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-a-grymes/when-music-saved-lives_b_5696042.html


Not wishing to dismiss the article, but when people have been herded into concentration camps by a totalitarian government, I don't think "let's make sure they have an orchestra" should be anywhere near the top of society's responses.
Pop music certainly saved lives in famine-struck Ethiopia in the 1980s, but it's worth remembering that the group was called Band-Aid, not The Cure.


----------



## Truckload (Feb 15, 2012)

Nereffid said:


> Not wishing to dismiss the article, but when people have been herded into concentration camps by a totalitarian government, I don't think "let's make sure they have an orchestra" should be anywhere near the top of society's responses.
> Pop music certainly saved lives in famine-struck Ethiopia in the 1980s, but it's worth remembering that the group was called Band-Aid, not The Cure.


Thanks for looking at the article. The actual book goes into a lot more detail about positive emotional support that the musicians and listeners derived from the music. The captors were not trying to help their victims by allowing music. The captors had their own evil agenda. Despite the evil all around them, music helped the victims survive and maintain hope.

Certainly no camps and no evil would have been better. But the power of music to benefit humanity was displayed even in the most horrible of situations. There are many books and videos about this phenomena. I will post another below later. Just one item among many to consider.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Nereffid said:


> Not wishing to dismiss the article, but when people have been herded into concentration camps by a totalitarian government, I don't think "let's make sure they have an orchestra" should be anywhere near the top of society's responses.
> Pop music certainly saved lives in famine-struck Ethiopia in the 1980s, but it's worth remembering that the group was called Band-Aid, not The Cure.


The Nazis enjoyed "irony", from the sign above the camp entrances, "Arbeit macht frei" to having a camp orchestra play "Eine Kleine Nachtmusik" and the like as the inmates either went to be worked to death or to the showers.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Truckload said:


> Humanity is full of flaws and shortcomings. I don't expect to ever meet a perfect person in my lifetime on earth. The question is not, does classical music create perfect people. It does not. Nothing does. I have taken courses on philosophy and read a lot about religions and theology. I don't think even religions or philosophies claim to make all of its participants into perfect people.
> 
> The question is, does classical music benefit humans? Does it help us in some specific ways? It might be a small benefit or a large benefit. I am not sure anyone has actually discovered all of the benefits. But it seems to me that without question there are benefits. Improvements in education, health, and well being will not make people perfect. But I for one will be grateful for all the help I can get.


I can only speak for myself. Classical music has gotten me through a lot. A bad marriage. The deaths of my parents and dog. Many failed relationships. Betrayals by "friends". Without it, I'm sure I would have become a hopeless drunk or drug addict.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

Does it feed the hungry? Clothe or shelter the poor? Eliminate disease? Liberate the oppressed? Of course not.

All it can do is sooth, uplift, and inform us, and make us proud to be human beings. I would submit that's enough.


----------



## Truckload (Feb 15, 2012)

Alice Herz-Sommer, 109 years old. What more can one say about such a beautiful soul beyond, "thank you."


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

I have (amazingly enough) decided that I can't speak for humanity.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Ukko said:


> I have (amazingly enough) decided that I can't speak for humanity.


AWWW....go on. Give it a shot. Pretend you are a presidential candidate.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Music has a complex relationship with evolutionary traits, and may arguably have been part of the process behind the development of modern H. Sapiens' intelligence, because the limbic/emotional affective elements of it associated the reward centers of the brain with abstract reasoning:

http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/370/1664/20140089

From this it could reasonably be surmised that WCM in particular is quite beneficial, because it is reportedly *very* affective and demonstrably *very* abstract. It is a sumptuous cheesecake that promotes, at various times, a great portion of the most beneficial kinds of brain activity.


----------



## Truckload (Feb 15, 2012)

Of course all music has benefits for us, not just classical music. Music Therapy is helping to improve the lives of many people, and in a number of different ways, as described in this video.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Even compared to most every thread I've seen in all of my time here, this is still one of my favorite threads.


----------



## Guest (May 22, 2016)

Lukecash12 said:


> Young adults and musical meter:
> 
> http://www.jneurosci.org/content/35/45/15187.abstract?sid=93c98e48-e04d-4ae8-b452-66f0bb21cc5e
> 
> ...





Lukecash12 said:


> Music stimulates, and thus improves it's own specific set of abstract reasoning skills:
> 
> http://jn.physiology.org/content/108/12/3289.abstract
> http://www.jneurosci.org/content/26/34/8647.abstract?sid=93c98e48-e04d-4ae8-b452-66f0bb21cc5e
> ...


Thanks for these helpful links.

However, one or two of them are written in such recondite technical language, it's difficult for the layman to understand what's being said. For example:



> We studied the usefulness of a relatively new measure, called similarity index to detect asymmetric interdependency between two brain regions. Spontaneous EEG from two groups-musicians and non-musicians-were  recorded during several states: listening to music, listening to text, and at rest (eyes closed and eyes open). While listening to music, degrees of the γ band synchrony over distributed cortical areas were found to be significantly higher in musicians than non-musicians. Yet no differences between these two groups were found at resting conditions and while listening to a neutral text. In contrast to the degree of long-range synchrony, spectral power in the γ band was higher in non-musicians. The degree of spatial synchrony, a measure of signal complexity based on eigen-decomposition method, was also significantly increased in musicians while listening to music. As compared with non-musicians, the finding of increased long-range synchrony in musicians independent of spectral power is interpreted as a manifestation of a more advanced musical memory of musicians in binding together several features of the intrinsic complexity of music in a dynamical way.


http://www.jneurosci.org/content/21/16/6329.abstract?sid=e40b8ccf-71b1-4747-920d-9709da53dce5

These have the virtue of at least summarising in plain English and providing a link to a source:



Truckload said:


> Music, and specifically classical music, offers provable benefits to health and well being. Here is a link to an article which reviews some of these benefits. Some pertain to all types of music, some only to classical music.
> 
> http://www.emedexpert.com/tips/music.shtml


As expected, some of the findings show that classical is not alone in providing benefits.

The suggestion that listening to, though more importantly playing music improves memory skills seems obvious. Is there a study that compared the various ways in which memory skills can be improved?


----------

