# why listeners listen



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

We had a really good discussion of why creators create. But the process of creating music (or any other art) seems less problematic to me than the consumption of it. After all, we can all make our own music, we can all participate in the process. But instead most of us choose an almost completely passive role as we receive the fruits of other people's labor.

I'll hypothesize that this way of relating to music began back in the early days of agricultural societies, when a few people managed to control enough resources that they were able to employ professional musicians to entertain them. Musical talent became a resource like almost any other, distributed upward by the implicit force of the state. The consumption of music, like the other arts, became a way for the elite to distinguish themselves from the masses, a way to legitimize their privilege when traditional religion no longer did the job persuasively. They could even pretend to be the servants of their musicians, though given all the other class-markers available, no one would be fooled by this mock inversion. Later, when industrial capitalism began to create more wealth, increasingly more people became able to consume music. And now, here we are, all of us here, living like kings, or at least like aristocracy-aping bourgeois, conspicuously consuming music, although of course our musicians usually serve us via recorded sound.

I don't know. Is this why we _listen_?


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

I listen for musical pleasure. What is musical pleasure? That may vary from individual to individual but we listen to music because we are seeking some kind of musical pleasure. There may be other times we listen for other reasons, for study, for cultural discovery (even if we know up front we may not enjoy the music), for other reasons. But it's all pure and simple.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

I think music was the most wonderful idea humanity has ever had. And yes, I think music is an idea more than anything. It was the whole act of _listening_ to (not just simply hearing) the sounds around us that _music_ was created. We create our own sounds that we like and we listen to them, or we just listen to the natural world around us, and that is music.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

I listen because:

_I wanna be, the very best. Like no one ever was. To hear them is my real test, to listen is my cause! I will travel, across the land, searching far and wide. Each music works, to understand, the power that's inside!!!_


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Was and cause don't rhyme.


----------



## Guest (Nov 15, 2015)

It's called "assonance" and the source of one of the funnier lines in _Educating Rita,_ which is that rarest of rare Hollywood movies, a sensible and intelligent look at one of the arts.


----------



## helenora (Sep 13, 2015)

violadude said:


> I listen because:
> 
> _I wanna be, the very best. Like no one ever was. To hear them is my real test, to listen is my cause! I will travel, across the land, searching far and wide. Each music works, to understand, the power that's inside!!!_


absolutely! thank you for this nice piece of poetry  "I wanna be the very best" - some people "want to sing a better song"


----------



## Guest (Nov 15, 2015)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Was and cause don't rhyme.


They do when the guys from Dragonforce wail them. Some sort of black magic...


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

science said:


> . . . the process of creating music (or any other art) seems less problematic to me than the consumption of it.


  Oh?



science said:


> After all, we can all make our own music


You clearly haven't heard mine!

Okay, now that I've recovered from these alarming statements (and I _do_ know what you mean in context), I'll give you a rather crude quote from a visual artist whose name I've sadly forgotten. "When I hang other artists' paintings on my walls it's love. When I hang my own, it's ************ [word for self gratification the forum engine censored]."

Nothing wrong with either, but the latter gets lonely after a while.


----------



## Guest (Nov 15, 2015)

For the chicks, obvy.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

I found an interesting article online, The psychological functions of music listening, that discusses this question in great detail. The article has two parts - an extensive review of the literature, which lists a large number of potential listening functions, and an empirical study based on results of the literature review.

The study identifies three general functions of listening above all others: _self-awareness_ (who am I? and who would I like to be?), _background entertainment and diversion_ (take mind off of things, get oneself in cheerful mood, help relax), and _social relatedness_ (feel closer to others and express one's identity). The first two were considered significantly more important than the third.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

Whatever that study suggests, I can honestly say that I have (almost) never deliberately listened to music to change my mood. Distraction, sure. Background, regularly. But consciously trying to have a different mood that the music is supposed to give me? No.

I think 'social relatedness' is very much a facet of listening to popular music in the teens and early adult years. I believe that I really did like the music, quite a lot, even, but the social aspect was a big part in defining my identity and the group (intellectual, educated, cultured, world-aware, open, experimental...) to which I belonged. I guess that seems to overlap with 'self-awareness' and this could be a basis for my interest in classical music, although I had not thought about it like that. 'Background entertainment and diversion' are obvious.

I think the study misses some other aspects, that I am not sure I can precisely express, but which I feel are extremely important with respect to classical music appreciation, as ArtMusic has already stated. There is more entertainment value to be gleaned from non-background listening, as far as I am concerned. This can be cultural and historical and academic exploration, but also operate on a subjective level—I understand this, this composer speaks my language, etc.

Yes, I agree with the OP that there is also creating music. I have spent countless happy and mindful hours engrossed in doing just that, with the aid of various computer programs, playing my creations back, looping them, etc., but it's nice to find someone who knows more than just how to play chops  Maybe that's why I listen.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

brotagonist said:


> Whatever that study suggests, I can honestly say that I have (almost) never deliberately listened to music to change my mood. Distraction, sure. Background, regularly. But consciously trying to have a different mood that the music is supposed to give me? No.
> 
> I think the study misses some other aspects, ...


My very brief discussion of the study left an enormous amount out. They include lists of diverse listening functions from almost 50 studies. My post summarizes the 3 most identified generic functions from their survey. They do not assume that those functions apply to everyone, and some functions not in the top three may be relevant to other people as well.


----------



## Dim7 (Apr 24, 2009)

nathanb said:


> They do when the guys from Dragonforce wail them. Some sort of black magic...







Damn, I just found myself genuinely, non-ironically liking the song.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

I


mmsbls said:


> I found an interesting article online, The psychological functions of music listening, that discusses this question in great detail.


Many thanks for finding and posting about this excellent article. I read it right away and believe the authors have distilled the primary reasons we listen to music, overall. Our individual personalities and histories will account for much of any variation in any individual's unique set of "motives". In my case, for example, I very rarely am aware, right at any given moment, what music the general audience for Rock and Pop is auditing--I come upon these musics often decades after their zenith of current popularity, and so treat them as another variety of "classical music", existing outside of time, such as our enjoyment of Bach can be fresh and immediate though I'm told he is quite dead and has been for many years. Similarly, I can discover, say, Kate Bush or Rush some 10 years after their arrival on the scene, and be quickly drawn into their music. Or I can listen to Doo-*** from 1955 and like it as much now as whenever. For me, time does not exist in quite the same way as it may for other listeners.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

We listen to other people's music and other musicians for the same reason we don't all bake our own bread, weave our own baskets, sew our own clothes, write our own novels, or build our own furniture: because some people do it better than we do, and life is too short to do everything when we all have disparate talents. It's called division of labor and it gave rise to civilization. That's not to say we can't all enjoy noodling around on the piano or violin or kazoo, or some other instrument we have attained a degree of proficiency on, or whistling or singing or pounding sticks against a tree. But it would be senseless not to enjoy a good piece of music we couldn't have created ourselves -- or a good glass of wine we couldn't have made, or a croissant that's beyond our baking ability, or a sweater that I can't knit. Class struggle has nothing to do with it.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

MarkW said:


> We listen to other people's music and other musicians for the same reason we don't all bake our own bread, weave our own baskets, sew our own clothes, write our own novels, or build our own furniture: because some people do it better than we do, and life is too short to do everything when we all have disparate talents. *It's called division of labor and it gave rise to civilization.* That's not to say we can't all enjoy noodling around on the piano or violin or kazoo, or some other instrument we have attained a degree of proficiency on, or whistling or singing or pounding sticks against a tree. But it would be senseless not to enjoy a good piece of music we couldn't have created ourselves -- or a good glass of wine we couldn't have made, or a croissant that's beyond our baking ability, or a sweater that I can't knit. Class struggle has nothing to do with it.


This is a good post, but I bolded this one sentence because I'd bet the causation ran the other direction.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

science said:


> This is a good post, but I bolded this one sentence because I'd bet the causation ran the other direction.


I think we have a chicken and egg situation here -- but that doesn't invalidate your point. Cheers --


----------



## TradeMark (Mar 12, 2015)

Hmm, well I listen to music because I like listening to music. But I guess that doesn't really answer the question though.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

TradeMark said:


> Hmm, well I listen to music because I like listening to music. But I guess that doesn't really answer the question though.


It does answer it very well as far as I am concerned. There is nothing "complicated" about why we listen to music.


----------



## Muse Wanderer (Feb 16, 2014)

This has been a question that personally fascinates me and what is written below is my thoughts and subjective opinions. 

Why do I need to listen to music from so many eras with so much intensity?

Why do Josquin Desprez, Palestrina, Monteverdi, JSBach, Beethoven, Mozart, Schubert, Wagner, Schoenberg, Sibelius, Ligeti, Feldman, and so forth instill this profoud need irrespective of era, mode of writing, values or instrumentation used?

It is not just for pleasure, it is much deeper than that.

I listen because I need to. 

There is a connection that is difficult to describe, but it exists. 

The composer that writes the music has imbued his own ideas, personality, culture, values, pain, pleasure, theology, desires, judgement, knowledge and emotion into a towering structure of melody, harmony, rhythm, timbre, orchestration, counterpoint and form. 

Philosophically, it feels as if the 'soul' of the composer still exists in the notated notes, and those notes are the key towards that 'composer's soul' becoming metaphorically 'alive' again in the mind of the listener. 

Neurophysiologically, there is a flow of information after the sound is perceived by the ear and changed into electrical signals. These are then processed by the inner primitive areas of the brain resulting in reactions that are beyond our conscious control. That is why, in my opinion, it feels so visceral. These areas serve as part of the 'flight or flight response' that is so important in evolutionary terms for survival of the species. 

So many areas of the brain are involved with so many connections including the subconscious spatial (hippocampus), emotional (limbic system), short- and long-term memory (temporal), even before the higher areas of the cortex start to make sense of them especially the most 'human areas' such as the frontal cortex. The brain wave activity may even alter according to the music that is listened to. 

All this brain activity probably is the reason that a person 'feels' the music before knowing why. 

The composers that managed to compose such music, with the right information and codified ideas, that elicited such a varied response within the minds of the listeners are the ones that are highly regarded in our time. They have transcended their own time in a way, and the listener is the privileged person who can feel that information in their own subjective manner. 

In a way, this human interaction, binds us to the past and points the way to the future artistically, culturally and socially.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Because I want to get high.


----------



## Celloman (Sep 30, 2006)

We listen because we yearn for the transcendent. Music has the power to lift our spirits and give us a strong sense of value and purpose. The performance and experience of music is a central part of what separates us from the apes.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Muse Wanderer said:


> This has been a question that personally fascinates me and what is written below is my thoughts and subjective opinions.
> 
> Why do I need to listen to music from so many eras with so much intensity?
> 
> ...


Love this post. And it accurately describes what listening to music is for me too!


----------



## TresPicos (Mar 21, 2009)

I wish my reasons for listening to classical music was mainly pleasure and curiosity, but it seems to be more about self-medication, albeit with _some _involvement of pleasure (when the medication takes effect) and curiosity (to get more medication).


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

I listen because I think it is boring to listen to the rain my own breaths cars driving my neighbours having an argument the ventilation or whatever I else would hear.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

some guy said:


> It's called "assonance" and the source of one of the funnier lines in _Educating Rita,_ which is that rarest of rare Hollywood movies, a sensible and intelligent look at one of the arts.


That's where I learned that word. That's also where I learned that you would just die without Mahler.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Muse Wanderer said:


> This has been a question that personally fascinates me and what is written below is my thoughts and subjective opinions.
> 
> Why do I need to listen to music from so many eras with so much intensity?
> 
> ...


For me, the best part of this is about the human connection between you and the composer. However, I think there's a lot more there: when we listen, we do not encounter the composer directly, but as part of a community that includes the performers, our fellow audience members and/or people who worked on the recording, past performers and past audiences, publishers, scholars - all the people who have enabled the work to get from the composer's pen to our ears.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Music is about life. It is not mere pleasant stimulation. We know this, but struggle to understand or explain it. How much of life we find in music depends on the music and depends on us, on what we're capable of finding in it. We don't all find the same things, some of us find more in it than others, and most of us can learn to find more in it with time and practice. Thus our answers to the question of why we listen will vary, but will not negate or exclude each other. We are all embarked upon the quest for meaning - for making sense of life - and wherever we are in the journey, it's the same journey. And music will accompany us, will awaken, provoke, challenge, support, and comfort us, if we wish, to journey's end.

For me, life did not always make sense, and in some ways it still doesn't and never will. But it always made sense when I listened to music.

_Du holde Kunst, in wie viel grauen Stunden,
Wo mich des Lebens wilder Kreis umstrickt,

Hast du mein Herz zu warmer Lieb' entzunden,
Hast mich in eine beßre Welt entrückt,
In eine beßre Welt entrückt!

Oft hat ein Seufzer, deiner Harf' entflossen,
Ein süßer, heiliger Akkord von dir

Den Himmel beßrer Zeiten mir erschlossen,
Du holde Kunst, ich danke dir dafür!
Du holde Kunst, ich danke dir!_

You, lovely art, in how many grey hours,
When life's mad tumult wraps around me,

Have you kindled my heart to warm love,
Have you transported me into a better world,
Transported into a better world!

Often has a sigh flowing out from your harp,
A sweet, divine harmony from you

Unlocked to me the heaven of better times,
You, lovely Art, I thank you for it!!
You, lovely art, I thank you!

- _An die Musik_ (music by Franz Schubert, poem by his friend Franz von Schober)


----------



## kartikeys (Mar 16, 2013)

I share from my blog entry

*Your soul is classical
*
"Ask yourself, how come you like some style of music you have never heard before?

You listen to a tune and immediately connect with it. Why? That's your soul speaking, and it is suppressed. Your soul always liked that music. Your soul is older than you. It's been alive since the beginning of time. It has seen wars and famines and blooming hibiscus flowers and children who thought they were immortal. 
Your soul knows music.
It connects with emotions of life that classical music espouses.

Your soul is classical."


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

@Woodduck & kartikeys, do you think these feelings are unique to listeners? Couldn't performers feel them as well?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

science said:


> @Woodduck & kartikeys, do you think these feelings are unique to listeners? Couldn't performers feel them as well?


Definitely, with the added privilege of passing them along. I've performed music most of my life, and I can't think of a single thing more meaningful and satisfying.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

As described above "music is about life". Mozart's operas, Bach 's church cantatas, Beethoven's 9th symphony and Puccini's Turandot - all great masterpieces about life. Pure and simple.


----------



## Donata (Dec 28, 2013)

I listen because I like to, nothing more complex than that most of the time.


----------



## Claireclassical (Nov 19, 2015)

I listen for musical pleasure - hard to describe


----------



## Guest (Nov 19, 2015)

Oh dear. Another questionnaire-based study with questionable premises. Hmm. Why did I start with "Oh dear"? Perhaps i should have started with "Oh, goody!" for this type of situation is a good opportunity for thinking. And thinking is something I enjoy. Perhaps a scientist would be able to tell me why....

Anyway, here's the basic conclusion: "Principal component analysis suggested three distinct underlying dimensions: People listen to music to regulate arousal and mood, to achieve self-awareness, and as an expression of social relatedness."

The first thing I notice is the none of the reasons I listen to music fit into any of these categories, and these are supposed to be the most basic distillation of motives from various lists of dozens of reasons. Which means that the second thing I notice is that I'm starting to question the idea.

"The aim of the present study is to use the extant literature as a point of departure for a fresh re-appraisal of possible musical functions."

I would have been happier, myself, with a fresh re-appraisal of the idea of "musical functions." Which they totally could have done, given their admission of listening being an outlier: "Music listening is one of the most enigmatic of human behaviors. Most common behaviors have a recognizable utility that can be plausibly traced to the practical motives of survival and procreation. Moreover, in the array of seemingly odd behaviors, few behaviors match music for commandeering so much time, energy, and money."

This could have turned into something really revelatory. But they are married to the function idea, and so the opportunity is lost. But I am not. And what I think is that something is deeply flawed with the function idea.

This next thing efficiently reveals the flaw: "A prominent approach is the “uses-and-gratifications” approach (e.g., Arnett, 1995). This approach focuses on the needs and concerns of the listeners and tries to explain how people actively select and use media such as music to serve these needs and concerns." That is, it places music over here and needs and concerns over there, so that music is seen as a means to achieving those ends. Far as I can tell in my own life, music is an end, not a means. That is, for me, music is not a thing I use to accomplish other aims. It is the thing itself. It is what I want.

Here's a good example of getting close but still being quite obviously wrong: "music can be used to activate associations, memories, experiences, moods, and emotions." Yes, music can activate these things, and so yes, music can be used to activate them. But is that really why we listen to music, to activate non-musical things? It is so easy to confuse ends and means and to construct elaborate but useless structures based on the confusion. I'd say we listen to music for A and oh by the way in the process of achieving A, B and C also happen.

Of course, as many different people will be able to assure you, yes, indeed lots of people use music to activate things. And yes, indeed, that's why "I" listen to music. Or maybe it's "that's clearly why "we" listen to music. OK, I think there's another possibility, which is that studies of this sort, thinking of the type that produces studies of this sort, have trained people to listen in this way, to use music to achieve non-musical ends. I was lucky enough to have escaped this way of thinking, by the simple means of being pretty thoroughly isolated when I was first discovering classical music. Sure, I had album covers, but I only had a few physical albums, owing to poverty, and so did most of my early exploring of classical music via the radio. And the one station I had simply presented music. It didn't have a staff of explainers. I'm not even sure there were live announcers. That is, I listened for myself, without any training. And so even though I fairly early did run across the idea that music was something people used to accomplish A, B, or C, I was already hooked by the music. I had no interest then nor at any time later to use music to accomplish anything. Music was and is itself. Sufficient. A plenitude.

Well, back to the article.

"By way of summary, extant empirical studies have used either an open approach—trying to capture the variety of musical functions in the course of surveys or questionnaire studies—or predefined collections of functions as they resulted from specific theoretical approaches or from literature research. These different approaches have led to quite heterogeneous collections of possible musical functions." 

Not surprising, eh? You go out looking for functions, and et voila you find functions. Quite heterogeneous collections, even.

Nor is this: "Principal component analysis revealed three distinct dimensions behind the 129 items (accounting for about 40% of the variance), based on the scree plot. This solution was consistent over age groups and genders. The first dimension (eigenvalue: 15.2%) includes statements about self-related thoughts (e.g., music helps me think about myself), emotions and sentiments (e.g., music conveys feelings), absorption (e.g., music distracts my mind from the outside world), escapism (e.g., music makes me forget about reality), coping (e.g., music makes me believe I'm better able to cope with my worries), solace (e.g., music gives comfort to me when I'm sad), and meaning (e.g., music adds meaning to my life)." 

Well, yeah. If you ask particular kinds of questions, you'll get particular kinds of answers. But none of these fits any of the reasons I listen to music, not that I'm aware of, anyway. Some people like to work the "hidden motivations" pretty hard. Unsurprisingly, as that gives them complete control over the results. Any conclusion they draw will be correct, regardless. But if my awareness is complete, then what's wrong with all this, far as I can tell, is the whole idea of functions being important for understanding why people listen to music. I don't think it is. But I am not surprised that given a questionnaire that assumes function the responses reveal a plethora of functions.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

One of the greatest things about enjoying music is not having to explain why I like to do it.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

some guy said:


> Oh dear. Another questionnaire-based study with questionable premises. Hmm. Why did I start with "Oh dear"? Perhaps i should have started with "Oh, goody!" for this type of situation is a good opportunity for thinking. And thinking is something I enjoy. Perhaps a scientist would be able to tell me why....
> 
> Anyway, here's the basic conclusion: "Principal component analysis suggested three distinct underlying dimensions: People listen to music to regulate arousal and mood, to achieve self-awareness, and as an expression of social relatedness."
> 
> ...


You take so much pride in being exceptional; it's obvious the study wasn't about you.


----------



## Guest (Nov 19, 2015)

Wait. The study has to be about me before I can comment on it?

I did not know that.

I must have missed a memo.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

some guy said:


> The first thing I notice is the none of the reasons I listen to music fit into any of these categories, and these are supposed to be the most basic distillation of motives from various lists of dozens of reasons. Which means that the second thing I notice is that I'm starting to question the idea.


Maybe you fit several of the many other categories. Why would you have to fit the main categories? There are many dozens of reasons in the many studies reviewed.



some guy said:


> I would have been happier, myself, with a fresh re-appraisal of the idea of "musical functions." ...
> This could have turned into something really revelatory. But they are married to the function idea, and so the opportunity is lost. But I am not. And what I think is that something is deeply flawed with the function idea.


I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. The article says, "The implications of these results are discussed in light of theories on the origin and the functionality of music listening..." They are interested in the origin of music and functionality of music listening (i.e. when one listens to music what functions does that listening perform for you?). I'm not sure how else to understand the origin of music without investigating the functions music performs. How would you do it differently?



some guy said:


> This next thing efficiently reveals the flaw: "A prominent approach is the "uses-and-gratifications" approach (e.g., Arnett, 1995). This approach focuses on the needs and concerns of the listeners and tries to explain how people actively select and use media such as music to serve these needs and concerns." That is, it places music over here and needs and concerns over there, so that music is seen as a means to achieving those ends. Far as I can tell in my own life, music is an end, not a means. That is, for me, music is not a thing I use to accomplish other aims. It is the thing itself. It is what I want.


The thing itself probably isn't actually the thing people want at least at a fundamental level. If someone were asked why she eats food, she might say it diminishes hunger and tastes good. But those truly interested in understanding why we eat look much deeper. They discovered that food gives us energy, proteins, vitamins, and other necessary ingredients. We evolved hunger in order to signal us to get those nutrients, and certain foods evolved to taste good precisely because they supply good nutrients. So hunger and taste are superficial, but fascinating, aspects of why we eat. These scientists are digging a bit deeper.



some guy said:


> I'd say we listen to music for A and oh by the way in the process of achieving A, B and C also happen.


And the scientists might say, "A is fine, but the really interesting stuff is B and C" just like learning about the nutrients in food.



some guy said:


> Some people like to work the "hidden motivations" pretty hard. Unsurprisingly, as that gives them complete control over the results. Any conclusion they draw will be correct, regardless.


I've known a lot of scientists and never have I encountered the desire to control the results. Maybe some do, but it's rather poor practice. Scientists want to know. Really badly. They don't want to constrain their knowledge.

This work builds on the work of dozens of scientists working for decades using various tools to understand a particular aspect of reality. You characterized their work as "deeply flawed" and "obviously wrong". There could be issues with their work, but I highly doubt either of those characterizations is accurate.

You criticized the study, but I don't have a sense of what you would do differently to gain insight into the problems the researchers wished to solve. Functionality seems vitally important to me to gain the insights they want. To truly understand why we eat food, the taste is basically irrelevant. I wonder if the specific sounds of music are relevant at all to understanding why we started listening to music.


----------



## Guest (Nov 19, 2015)

No ad hominems, if you please.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

I have an aunt who listens to "favorite arias" from the great opera _Carmen_ by Bizet, every weekends in the mornings. Her reasons are because it lovely music and suits what she does during those hours.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

mmsbls said:


> The thing itself probably isn't actually the thing people want at least at a fundamental level. If someone were asked why she eats food, she might say it diminishes hunger and tastes good. But those truly interested in understanding why we eat look much deeper. They discovered that food gives us energy, proteins, vitamins, and other necessary ingredients. We evolved hunger in order to signal us to get those nutrients, and certain foods evolved to taste good precisely because they supply good nutrients. So hunger and taste are superficial, but fascinating, aspects of why we eat.
> 
> Functionality seems vitally important to me to gain the insights they want. To truly understand why we eat food, the taste is basically irrelevant. I wonder if the specific sounds of music are relevant at all to understanding why we started listening to music.


I like this. It suggests that the OP's question - _Why do we listen?_ - consists of two interrelated questions: _1.) What human needs does music exist to fill?_ And _2.) What is the experience of music which directly motivates us to listen to it?_

By analogy to food, the first question asks about music's "nutritional value," and doesn't assume that we are necessarily conscious of that value when we listen. The second question asks about music's "flavor" - the things we're conscious of in consuming music and how that consciousness motivates our desire to listen and our choices of what to listen to.

In approaching the first question, a scientist might aim to establish an objective (though not necessarily rigid) hierarchy of "nutritional needs" which music can fulfill, on the assumption (which would need to be proved) that music evolved to meet actual biological needs, certain of which may be more critical to human evolution, development, and welfare than others. In approaching the second question, objective needs, if they still exist, would presumably be of underlying importance (need being the fundamental source of motivation whether we're conscious of it or not), but, as with food, individual appetite and taste (influenced by aptitude, knowledge, acquired capabilities, personality, and external influences) may prove the primary direct motivators in listening behavior.


----------



## Stavrogin (Apr 20, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> I like this. It suggests that the OP's question - _Why do we listen?_ - consists of two interrelated questions: _1.) What human needs does music exist to fill?_ And _2.) What is the experience of music which directly motivates us to listen to it?_
> 
> By analogy to food, the first question asks about music's "nutritional value," and doesn't assume that we are necessarily conscious of that value when we listen. The second question asks about music's "flavor" - the things we're conscious of in consuming music and how that consciousness motivates our desire to listen and our choices of what to listen to.
> 
> In approaching the first question, a scientist might aim to establish an objective (though not necessarily rigid) hierarchy of "nutritional needs" which music can fulfill, on the assumption (which would need to be proved) that music evolved to meet actual biological needs, certain of which may be more critical to human evolution, development, and welfare than others. In approaching the second question, objective needs, if they still exist, would presumably be of underlying importance (need being the fundamental source of motivation whether we're conscious of it or not), but, as with food, individual appetite and taste (influenced by aptitude, knowledge, acquired capabilities, personality, and external influences) may prove the primary direct motivators in listening behavior.


That's very well written and I agree.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> In approaching the first question, a scientist might aim to establish an objective (though not necessarily rigid) hierarchy of "nutritional needs" which music can fulfill, on the assumption (which would need to be proved) that music evolved to meet actual biological needs, certain of which may be more critical to human evolution, development, and welfare than others. In approaching the second question, objective needs, if they still exist, would presumably be of underlying importance (need being the fundamental source of motivation whether we're conscious of it or not), but, as with food, individual appetite and taste (influenced by aptitude, knowledge, acquired capabilities, personality, and external influences) may prove the primary direct motivators in listening behavior.


The question of whether music evolved as an adaptive trait was partially discussed in this thread, and I think it's a fascinating question. Either way, music clearly satisfies some fundamental human needs given its ubiquitous nature. I suspect that very few are aware of these needs and "simply" respond to the more primary direct motivators.

As music has changed and become more complex and more varied, has its ability to satisfy basic needs changed? One would imagine that a simple chant would interact quite differently with one's brain than a Wagner Opera, but it's not obvious to me that the purely musical aspects of Wagner would necessarily satisfy different needs or satisfy them more fully. For certain people perhaps more attuned to and experienced in details of Wagner's music, the opera likely has a stronger and more profound effect, but I wonder if that would be true of inexperienced listeners. Can a simple melody produce very similar effects to part of a Beethoven symphony?


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

some guy said:


> Wait. The study has to be about me before I can comment on it?
> 
> I did not know that.
> 
> I must have missed a memo.


You could've commented in many ways, but most of your comments were that the study didn't describe you.

Which might be true. But as you know and often work hard to make sure we know, you're not exactly the typical person who listens to music. Most of Spotify and most radio and most stadium concerts and most racks of CDs at Walmart don't serve you.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Well there are recording of Luc Ferrari on Spotify and I think some guy likes Luc Ferrari.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Well there are recording of Luc Ferrari on Spotify and I think some guy likes Luc Ferrari.


I'll bet that's not where Spotify makes its money.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Also: a meteorite landed on a kitchen table, some tigers perform in circuses, and some people get in bathtubs with rattlesnakes. I think we can reasonably discus kitchen tables, tigers, and bathtubs without mentioning such things.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

I haven't had a bath in years...














...but I have regular showers.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

mmsbls said:


> The question of whether music evolved as an adaptive trait was partially discussed in this thread, and I think it's a fascinating question.


It is indeed. Some musicians, from Liszt through the present, attract groupies, which suggests a possible role of musical genes in passing along the ol' DNA. But some, such as Beethoven and Schoenberg, seem to have missed that particular boat. In one of the two cases, it was a shame.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

I plan on having groupies. What would a composer be without them? Beethoven? Deaf and single and only a handful of his works are given regular performances!


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

As one of Ludwig's love interests said, "He's ugly and half crazy. You've gotta be kidding!" Haydn did better in the groupie department, even with his nose issues.

Cosima Wagner was a bit unattracted to Brahms, too. "In the evening a soiree with the Hellmesberger Quartet, I make the acquaintance of Herr Brahms, who plays a piano quartet of his own making. A red-faced, crude-looking man, his music dry and stilted."


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

KenOC said:


> It is indeed. Some musicians, from Liszt through the present, attract groupies, which suggests a possible role of musical genes in passing along the ol' DNA. But some, such as Beethoven and Schoenberg, seem to have missed that particular boat. In one of the two cases, it was a shame.


Only one of those two people ended up marrying...twice.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Mahlerian said:


> Only one of those two people ended up marrying...twice.


Hah! I knew you were out there, lurking, waiting for any slur on Schoenberg! Yes, he had two children with his first wife, so he seemingly bested Beethoven in the passing-along-the-DNA department. Of course, who knows what Ludwig was up to _sub rosa_?


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Hah! I knew you were out there, lurking, waiting for any slur on Schoenberg! Yes, he had two children with his first wife, so he seemingly bested Beethoven in the passing-along-the-DNA department. Of course, who knows what Ludwig was up to _sub rosa_?


He still has children living from his second marriage, including Nuria Schoenberg-Nono:


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Schoenberg-Nono?! Avant-Garde orgy much!


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Mahlerian said:


> He still has children living from his second marriage, including Nuria Schoenberg-Nono:


Indeed. On checking I see four children: Ronald Schoenberg (Son) · Nuria Schoenberg (Daughter) · Lawrence Schoenberg (Son) · Georg Schönberg (Son)


----------



## kartikeys (Mar 16, 2013)

science said:


> @Woodduck & kartikeys, do you think these feelings are unique to listeners? Couldn't performers feel them as well?


performers are the primary listeners. So I say yes to your question.


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

KenOC said:


> Hah! I knew you were out there, lurking, waiting for any slur on Schoenberg! Yes, he had two children with his first wife, so he seemingly bested Beethoven in the passing-along-the-DNA department. Of course, who knows what Ludwig was up to _sub rosa_?


Maybe this might interest you Kenneth - they were real people y'know:






Actually, unrelated of course, but I feel like Arnold Schoenberg has left behind a particularly "human" legacy out of all the great composers. Partly because of his recentness and his family and living in America, but also partly because he just seemed like a man of passions and imperfections and quite the sort of person I would like to be friends with


----------



## Guest (Nov 20, 2015)

science said:


> You could've commented in many ways, but most of your comments were that the study didn't describe you.
> 
> Which might be true. But as you know and often work hard to make sure we know, you're not exactly the typical person who listens to music. Most of Spotify and most radio and most stadium concerts and most racks of CDs at Walmart don't serve you.


Every one of us here talks about ourselves and our experiences. However, my comments on this thread were not that the study did not describe me. My comments were that the premises of the study were invalid. I got to that conclusion partly by noticing that the categories they came up with did not include any of my reasons for listening to music.

Again, means and ends are being swapped. I used my personal listening as a means to achieve the end of questioning the premises of the study. Questioning the validity of the study was my end. I mentioned my own listening experiences to show how I got to my conclusions. That's a very simple model: assertion/support.

I didn't think this context needed typicality, either. When the situation calls for it, I use typicality. But this situation called for exceptions. "Does the function idea cover all possibilities with no exceptions? No. Here are some of the exceptions." So typicality would not serve any purpose in that context.


----------



## Stavrogin (Apr 20, 2014)

some guy said:


> Every one of us here talks about ourselves and our experiences. However, my comments on this thread were not that the study did not describe me. My comments were that the premises of the study were invalid. I got to that conclusion partly by noticing that the categories they came up with did not include any of my reasons for listening to music.
> 
> Again, means and ends are being swapped. I used my personal listening as a means to achieve the end of questioning the premises of the study. Questioning the validity of the study was my end. I mentioned my own listening experiences to show how I got to my conclusions. That's a very simple model: assertion/support.
> 
> I didn't think this context needed typicality, either. When the situation calls for it, I use typicality. But this situation called for exceptions. "Does the function idea cover all possibilities with no exceptions? No. Here are some of the exceptions." So typicality would not serve any purpose in that context.


I would like to ask you what are your purposes then (because you wrote a lot here, but I think you never stated them, unless I missed them), but I think you would just ignore my question on the basis of false premises.


----------



## Guest (Nov 20, 2015)

Yes, I did state them. To question the validity of the study. (That's from the bit you quoted.) To point out that limiting music to functions not be able to explain why music is so enticing.


----------



## Stavrogin (Apr 20, 2014)

some guy said:


> Yes, I did state them. To question the validity of the study. (That's from the bit you quoted.) To point out that limiting music to functions not be able to explain why music is so enticing.


Sorry, it seems I cannot see them in the bit I quoted. My bad. Can you maybe bold them or isolate them in a further quotation?


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

some guy said:


> Yes, I did state them. To question the validity of the study. (That's from the bit you quoted.) To point out that limiting music to functions not be able to explain why music is so enticing.


Why is music enticing to you?


----------



## Guest (Nov 20, 2015)

Hah.

Stavrogin and I were at cross-purposes, which we sorted out in PMs. What he wanted to know was why I listened to music, not why I slammed that study.

And here's isorhythm, right on cue, as it were, with the same question.

Ahem.

Simple answer, I don't know. I don't know why I like girls, either, or food or paintings or sculpture or ballet or architecture. I just do. I might do a little better with specifics, why I prefer Spanish girls or spicy food or abstract (non-representational) art or whatever.

Slightly less simple answer, I don't feel like I need to know. Most of the time. Every once and awhile, I wonder about the whys. But the whats are so interesting, there's not that much call, for me, to go into the whys. One thing I do know for sure, however, and that is that I have never felt any need to use any thing for other purposes. Take food, for example. I eat healthy food. How do I know? Because everyone keeps telling me. Do I eat to be healthy? No. I eat because food is tasty. Just so happens that the foods I like, fruits, vegetables, nuts, grains, habanero peppers, are really healthy. I just lucked out.

So yeah. I fail, I guess. 

Music is the coolest thing I know. Always has been. And I do like the arts generally more than most other things. I do prefer ballet to baseball and opera to Oprah. (Sorry. Couldn't resist.) I've always been drawn to literature and classical music and fine art generally. But it's a mystery. I'm pretty sure what it's not. But I stumble rather if I try to explain what it is. I suppose to keep up a reputation for erudition at TC, I should really make more of an effort to figure out why.


----------



## Rapide (Oct 11, 2011)

We like what we like, as long as it is not perversion and or causing bodily harm and or degenerates the fabric of art.


----------



## Guest (Nov 20, 2015)

Rapide said:


> degenerates the fabric of art.


Intriguing. I cannot for the life of me imagine what this would look like. I guess one problem for me is understanding in what way art consists of a "fabric." If I could "get" that, I suppose I'd still have to struggle with "degenerate," though that would be easier if I could get the fabric metaphor. Not completely sure about the easier, though. Fabric can be ripped or cut. It can even, buried in some damp soil, decompose or disintegrate. Otherwise....

Bodily harm is at least straight-forward enough....


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

some guy said:


> Intriguing. I cannot for the life of me imagine what this would look like.


When I read Rapide's comment, I thought of starting a thread asking, "Can a composer act in a way to degenerate art/music?" I thought about the question for awhile trying to imagine what could bring about such degeneration. But then I thought of a possible simple answer. Suppose all composers started to compose aiming at getting a huge audience of adoring fans. In other words, they composed to please the most people. Contemporary classical music would be rather different. I think some would say that classical music had degenerated from its lofty status.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

^I wasn't asking for an underlying reason for liking music so much as a description of your subjective experience of music - what your liking music consists of. What kind of experience do you get from music (thoughts, feelings, states of consciousness, whatever)?


----------



## Rapide (Oct 11, 2011)

The real diagnosis is when you think _own_ a genre of music (often because you support it financially and or other direct means), it can give you an illusory right of voice on all matters even remotely related to it. I once knew a patron of an orchestra who donated significant sums to support it, a noble cause, but dictated to those who disagreed with his thinking about what music "should be played". In reality, the music itself would do just fine without any blank checks of support - the listeners over time always win. Always.


----------



## Gaspard de la Nuit (Oct 20, 2014)

I thought about it for a little after reading science's post.

I think, ultimately, the reason why I listen to music is to experience some part of myself that is not being stimulated in real life. 

I often listen to get a surge of energy, to experience beauty, to satisfy curiosity/ need for novelty, to move my imagination in a specific direction, or to feel like my emotion is justified by listening to music that mirrors it.

But all of those reasons have at their genesis a feeling of needing something that I don't have enough of....needing a more intense experience than my circumstance offers me.

I have to curb some of what I would like to say because I think there are things that are too intense to just post on an online discussion board, but to shorten the word count by a lot, without music I think I would've stopped eating and drinking a long time ago.


----------

