# Anthony Storr's "Music and the Mind"



## Guest

Rather than have to keep referencing this in the different threads about the meaning, purpose, value of music, I thought I'd start a thread where some of its contents could be considered.

The book was first published in 1992, but the copy I have is the 1997 paperback (Harper Collins).

Storr is a psychiatrist by trade, not a musicologist or music historian, or composer or (so far as I know) a player. In his introduction (pp xi-xii) where he explains the purpose of the book, he says,



> It is true that those who have studied the techniques of musical composition can more thoroughly appreciate the structure of a musical work than those who have not. It is also true that people who can play an instrument, or who can sing, can actively participate in music in ways which enrich their understanding of it. [...] But even listeners who cannot read musical notation and who have never attempted to learn an instrument may be so deeply affected that, for them, any day which passes without being seriously involved with music in one way or another is a day wasted. In the context of contemporary Western culture*, this is puzzling. Many people assume that the arts are luxuries rather than necessities. [...] The idea that music is so powerful that it can actually affect both individuals and the state for good or ill has disappeared. [...] Both musicians and lovers of music who are not professionally trained know that great music brings us more than sensuous pleasure, although sensuous pleasure is certainly part of musical experience. Yet what it brings is hard to define. This book is [...] an attempt to discover what it is about music that so profoundly affects us, and why it is such an important part of our culture.


*He makes clear at the outset that his book "reflects his personal preference" in that it is "primarily concerned with classical or Western 'art' music rather than with 'popular' music" (and he regrets that these two types have become so divergent).

So, 

he asserts the validity of the opinions and responses of the amateur listener, as well as of the composer/player
he argues for the 'essential' nature of music (but without going as far as implying that 'essential' here means, literally, a matter of sustaining life.
he establishes the rightful place of 'sensual pleasure' among the things that music provides.

I realise that an objection to this thread is that unless you have access to a copy of the book, you can't really check that what I represent Storr as saying is true. I guess you'll either buy the book, ignore the thread, or trust me!

Anyone like to offer a thought in response so far?


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Sounds like a very boring book. I won't be reading nor buying a copy.


----------



## Guest

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Sounds like a very boring book. I won't be reading nor buying a copy.


You forgot to insert a  or two!

:lol:


----------



## bigshot

That's all pretty self evident isn't it?


----------



## Guest

bigshot said:


> That's all pretty self evident isn't it?


Is it?.....

.....what is?


----------



## PetrB

Sounds incredibly banal and uninteresting (to me).

I recommend to you Oliver Sachs' "Musicophilia" for something more substantial in a similar vein.

For that subject of people's empowerment -- or the more social 'issue' that audience response 'validates' what is or is not good (classical) music, I find that whole area beyond dubious, so do not follow what may be written about it - and have nothing to recommend there.

I do think you will really enjoy reading the Sachs 'Musicophilia' though.


----------



## bigshot

Every one of the points you highlight there seem to be pretty basic and obvious. I don't know exactly how to commment on it because I don't see anything more along those lines that needs to be said.


----------



## Guest

bigshot said:


> Every one of the points you highlight there seem to be pretty basic and obvious. I don't know exactly how to commment on it because I don't see anything more along those lines that needs to be said.


That's good then. As it's only the introduction, there should be more of substance inside. In fact, at the time I started this thread, the points I've extracted were being contested in other threads. There was even a whole thread devoted to arguing about whether the personal responses of the amateur listener were at all valid.

http://www.talkclassical.com/20856-expert-compared-enthusiastic-listener.html

At the end of his first chapter, which explored the origins and functions of music, Storr concludes (p. 23),



> It will never be possible to establish the origins of human music with any certainty; however, it seems probable that music developed from the prosodic exchanges between mother and infant which fosters the bond between them. From this, it became a form of communication between adult human beings. As the capacity for speech and conceptual thought developed, music became less important as a way of conveying information, but retained its significance as a way of communicating feelings and cementing bonds between individuals, especially in group situations. [...] for most of its history, music has been predominantly a group activity.


What he establishes is that what was once a participative activity which supported communal activities such as religious ceremonies and warfare became, from the late 17th C onwards, an activity in itself, where the act of performing and listening to music _was _the essential activity. As the importance of the concert hall grew, so did the differentiation between performer and listener. The individual listener's response is a principal theme of the book.


----------



## PetrB

PetrB said:


> Sounds incredibly banal and uninteresting (to me).
> 
> I recommend to you Oliver Sachs' "Musicophilia" for something more substantial in a similar vein.
> 
> For that subject of people's empowerment -- or the more social 'issue' that audience response 'validates' what is or is not good (classical) music, I find that whole area beyond dubious, so do not follow what may be written about it - and have nothing to recommend there.
> 
> I do think you will really enjoy reading the Sachs 'Musicophilia' though.


ADD: I think the general reaction here, 'boring' 'obvious' are due to presenting this book 'to the choir' as it were.

If there is a real need and audience for this book, then it is more than hugely regrettable some apologia seems due to John and Jane Q average listener, that they need to be reassured that it is O.K. to like classical music and that neither John or Jane need a university degree -- or even one college level music appreciation course which has cursorily explained 'sonata-allegro' and 'symphonic form' -- in order to be able to access this repertoire prior listening to it. If that is the case, then it is an effin' tragedy, really, and has something to do with a real or -- unreal but merely perceived -- social intimidation.

The reaction that has seemed to spawn is this populist notion that composers have some 'social obligation' to write to and for 'the people.'

It is strong enough in the States: it seems to me perhaps stronger in the U.K. and their more still-directly connected descendent nations of Canada and Australia (no intended offense, folks, butcha are...), and, interestingly, not so big a class issue, at least, in continental European cultures. where music has sometimes been heavily politicized, considered a social responsibility, but seemingly without that huge class rift.

There is probably a really decent topic somewhere in there if anyone cares to whip it up into shape to post... it is to be hoped in a cool and detached manner, of course


----------



## minddancing

Storr presents the idea that music is "essential". If this is an idea that the "choir" finds too obvious, may I suggest that the choir is doing a pretty poor job of coherently getting the message across to educators. Thank you for posting this introduction to Storr's work.


----------



## PetrB

_BUMP!_

40,000 Years of Music: Man in Search of Music ~ Jacques Chailley

Chailley, for about the first third of this book, limns out what seems the most feasible history of the who and why of music, how it was first used by a community:
appeal to / appease weather, as per the hunt or farming and crops -- which became associated with spirit(s) or god(s), rite and ritual / then for kings as entertainment outside of ritual -- and trickling further down the hierarchy to the lesser nobles, then the merely wealthy or well to do / then finally, to the vast majority, all us everyday beings.

I'd borrow it rather than buy it, I think, but that first part, at any rate, might be of general interest to all.

If he does not point it out, his "history" shows how essential music is to people, though it is technically "impractical."


----------

