# Classical Music and Memory



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

I was just wondering if any of you think that there might be a connection between a preference for classical music over any other genre and a good (probably short-term) memory.

Of course, I don't mean to suggest that having a good memory is the _chief_ reason why one would gravitate towards classical music, nor is it the _best_ reason; but I thought it might perhaps be one reason, if a shallow one.

Even though my main reason for listening to classical music (or, better still, 'art music') is the insight it offers me into both my own life and our shared humanity, I can't help but feel that maybe I find it more accessible because I have a better memory than others.

Often, when I'm asked about why I don't like popular or contemporary music - putting aside commercial and cultural reasons - I'm always struck by the dull, often repetitious nature of such music. It all leaves me feeling utterly empty because there is simply no juicy _development_ for me to grab hold of and follow as the music progresses.

In art music, we are most usually presented with music that lasts much longer than any contemporary music, and this allows for some kind of complex or at least interesting form beyond verse - chorus - verse _etc._ One of the most pleasing experiences I have with music is when a theme or leitmotif is returned to - perhaps after more than 10 minutes after its last occurrence - but with a completely different guise. It's recognisable as a familiar idea, but it gives a completely different feeling after having experienced the immense development that has occurred between.

Contemporary music seems to utterly lack this wonderful device. The short and repetitive songs with little development - other than a half-way-through-key-change - that make up the majority of its canon seem to embody a desire for instant gratification. It's the sheer, unrelenting exploitation of a stumbled-upon rhythm or melody that is in some way catchy. It's thrown about again and again, always in the same form, and it ends just before it might get boring for its listeners.

Is this because you need a better short term memory to appreciate the development of art music because you need to be able recall extracts heard a while before?


----------



## danae (Jan 7, 2009)

That's a very interesting subject you've started here. I don't have time to write everything I'm thinking right, but I can start by asking you one thing: why do you distinguish between "art" music and contemporary music? What about contemporary art music?


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

I think this is an interesting theory. I for one have a terrible short term memory, or my memory performance is inversely proportional to the amount of stress I'm under. Yet I have always gravitated toward classical. 

I gravitate toward non-classical too, but those pieces are the rare exceptions to the verse, chorus / ABACAB rule, so in many ways they might still be considered art music, but that's beside the point. As a rule of thumb, Polednice's assessment of popular music is accurate, I'd say.

I wonder if it's really brought about by a willingness to focus, more so than by memory. Or rather if focus promotes memory. We live in a world of music as wallpaper. Along the way we may have lost the focus people once had when concerts were big events and that was almost the only way to experience music. I know there are many alive today who don't understand the concept of only listening to music with no other activities going on.


----------



## munirao2001 (Mar 2, 2009)

Music is recognized and becomes'Classical' mainly due to its celebration of excellence and meeting the chief goals of music. The chief goals of music are; total satisfaction on body centric, mind centric and intellect centric, the ultimate. The values in each category differ. Total understanding, appreciation and the satisfaction derived, is memorized-analytical mind memory-long memory. Music with values of novelty and excitement is also memorized-temporal memory-short memory. While the memory of the first kind is deep and requires effort to recall the pleasure, with ease, the second kind can be recalled in quick time. Its human experience of memory of hurt, pain and sorrow ready to constantly kindle the memory, but the joy, happiness and pleasure experiences/moments are hard to recall. 
Classical music, having delivered the total satisfaction or bliss, memorized, gives recall satisfaction at every time with the same intensity of the first feelings or emotions. We recall perpetuating the memory for continuity. We will for the preservation of the blissful experiences and its lasting values.
We loose the memory of the experiences of other genre consciously, when the new experience attracts or strike us and keeps us engaged. We only focus with absence of the will, due to its temporal values.


----------



## Artemis (Dec 8, 2007)

I had not previously thought about any possible connection between a person's short-term memory capability and the propensity to enjoy classical music as against enjoyment of lighter forms of music entertainment such as pop. If there is such an effect I would guess that it must be a very small one in comparison with the totality of influences that have a bearing upon the determination of one's musical preferences. 

I am not aware of any conclusive study with any degree of respectabilty (as opposed to rubbish opinions, or various half-baked or even fully certified nonsense that tend to proliferate on the internet) that explains how peoples' preferences for any of the aesthetic pleasures are determined. There is presumably both a social influence (upbringing, exposure etc) and an innate influence (genes, etc). Heaven knows how all these factors intermingle in a typical individual. 

I suppose one way of testing the theory as posited in the OP might be to check out with a sample of Alzheimer victims to test whether or not those who previously enjoyed classical music still do so after the onset of their condition. The trouble with any such research is that it would be difficult to control all the other influences at work with patients undergoing this mental decay process.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

danae said:


> That's a very interesting subject you've started here. I don't have time to write everything I'm thinking right, but I can start by asking you one thing: why do you distinguish between "art" music and contemporary music? What about contemporary art music?


Sorry - I was more confusing than I meant to be! I'll reword that bit... When I said 'art music', it was intended to encompass contemporary art music as well, while my shoddy use of 'contemporary music' was supposed to refer to 'contemporary commercial music' shall we say...

However, now that you've raised that, it makes me think. Is this notion of memory as necessary for contemporary art music? Much of modern art music is far less reliant on clear forms and memorable themes than its predecessors...



Weston said:


> I wonder if it's really brought about by a willingness to focus, more so than by memory. Or rather if focus promotes memory. We live in a world of music as wallpaper. Along the way we may have lost the focus people once had when concerts were big events and that was almost the only way to experience music. I know there are many alive today who don't understand the concept of only listening to music with no other activities going on.


That's an interesting idea. I like the thought of focus promoting memory, but I'd be careful of truly considering it as a need to 'focus' because I feel it's too active. Indeed, it's true that you need to listen to the music (and do nothing else) to achieve the feelings evoked by craftsmanship of form that I before described, but it's a passive action (which I consider to be aided by short term memory). 'Focusing' almost implies an intense, deliberate attempt to memorise and recall certain motifs when necessary.

And Artemis, you summed up my initial feelings better than I did  The potential experiment regarding Alzheimer's sounds intriguing too. Would it also work to simply take a (large enough) sample of the 'normal' population (_i.e._ people without problems in brain function) and see if there is any significant positive correlation between a preference for classical music and a high score in some kind of short-term memory test?

Whatever the case, I agree that it's not one of the biggest things that drives people towards art music - at least, it's certainly not a conscious one. But then perhaps it's a subconscious necessity that we fail to notice.


----------



## Artemis (Dec 8, 2007)

Polednice said:


> And Artemis, you summed up my initial feelings better than I did  The potential experiment regarding Alzheimer's sounds intriguing too. Would it also work to simply take a (large enough) sample of the 'normal' population (_i.e._ people without problems in brain function) and see if there is any significant positive correlation between a preference for classical music and a high score in some kind of short-term memory test?


The answer to your specific question is that I don't know. People with Alzheimer's are at the other end of the age spectrum that I can lay any proper claim to have any special knowledge of. I suppose that with regard to a sample taken from the population at large it may be more difficult to isolate the effect, if any, of short-term memory capability upon preference for classical music from the many other factors, than would be the case with a sample of people who are known to have had such a preference in the past. Even with the latter, it would still be very difficult to isolate the effects of specific attributes because we wouldn't know if they are symmetrical with respect to possession of, and loss, of memory respectively. For example, it could be that people with good short term memories who liked classical music may still like it after acquiring Alzheimers (or dementia more generally) because every mental activity has become that much more difficult.


----------



## handlebar (Mar 19, 2009)

I also have a horrid short term memory but do retain music quite well for the most part. My problem is associating the music with who composed it. I can remember complete symphonies,the thematic development and theory associated with said works. But sometimes remembering WHO composed it is tough. Mahler is an exception as I have been a GM student for 25 years and know them backwards and forwards. But others are tougher for me.

I chalk it up to too many composers,too many works and never enough time to study them all!

As for contemporary works, I do OK with retaining them. Tonal differences don't bother me. 

Now if i can just remember where my car keys are....


----------



## ConcertVienna (Sep 9, 2009)

I don't really know, I think there should be some scientific research done on this question. In my case, I don't notice any correlation.

Your question reminds me of the Mozart Effect discussion....

My personal theory explaining those phenomena is not exactly politically correct. People interested in classical music tend to be well educated. I would be very happy, if all taxy drivers start paying Rachmaninov and Vivaldi instead of pop folk. But this is not very likely.


----------



## JemsRoker (Jan 13, 2010)

Thanks Polednice, for ur interesting theory,We live in a world of music like family. Along the way we may have lost the focus people once had when concerts were big events and that was almost the only way to experience music.

I think that there may be some scientific research should done on this your submission. But I am not sure.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

This man might be relevant to this discussion:

Clive Wearing


----------



## MisquotedTeabag (Jan 24, 2010)

I agree with the thesis you're suggesting. I think there is a massive correlation, although dependent on other factors, such as understanding of music or how acute your concentration is, between one's short term memory and one's appreciation of music. I do not see how one can perceive and decipher certain qualities in music from the macroscopic elements of thematic development to the more microscopic motivic sequencing etc.etc. Yes, prerequisite knowledge of the piece would sufficiently fill any inadequacy brought about a certain lack of comprehension that one will have to suffer if one's memory of the antecedent phrase dwindles as the next developed phrase comes along. 

Certain conventions in music such as form, proves the listener with a template that will indeed aid in retaining more information about its thematic content and subsequent development. As time went by of course our preconceptions of music were more and more destroyed by the abortive gestures that drove music into the Romantic era. I strongly believe, in lieu of what I've said, as complications in music increase one's ability to retain certain information about it is of paramount important to understand the piece. Understand, when the first Romantic audiences flocked into the premier of the 9th, they did not have, for the most part, any idea of what they were to expect. In this sense, listening to a piece, without any knowledge of it does sometimes dull one's appreciation of it, less one can retain more, and thus grasp more.

Of course mere retention would not yield any positive appreciation if one did not know what to look for in the first place. The act of comprehending a piece in the end, in my opinion, is an act of almost divine intuition, that we all muster, in stringing together what precedes with what follows and thus if successful, deriving what we call appreciation. This act of almost intuitive analysis is a direct result of our ability to remember information as a piece carries on. If one's short term memory is at fault, the act of making connection will almost certainly fail, thus hindering our, almost spontaneous appreciation of music. The remedy of course is to study the score, analyse it and be ready for what you'll get; but this too is an act of memorization; or atleast an act of seasoning one's mind for the musical hotpot that will follow. Of course, I am aware that without employing a score and straining over it for hours, no matter how proficient one's memory is one can only perform rudimentary tasks of analysis; but my point, I hope remains clear.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Polednice said:


> I was just wondering if any of you think that there might be a connection between a preference for classical music over any other genre and a good (probably short-term) memory.
> 
> Of course, I don't mean to suggest that having a good memory is the _chief_ reason why one would gravitate towards classical music, nor is it the _best_ reason; but I thought it might perhaps be one reason, if a shallow one.
> 
> ...


Actually, you could think of this the other way around. I could easily assert that my memory is the result of my extensive studies in music. It also helped build sensible logic, nurture emotional maturity (although I'll never be all that mature  ), and taught me an awful lot about patience. So you might say that maybe I didn't start out as the right person for music, but it improved me so that I could take part in it.


----------



## Jeremy Marchant (Mar 11, 2010)

I haven't read all the posts in detail (sorry) but I think it's important to differentiate many types of memory associated with music.

I can think of at least five
- technical, muscle memory associated with playing an instrument
- memory of performances (a very feeling/emotional/kinaesthetic memory)
- memory of musical structure 
- memory of low level content, figuration, shape of melodies etc
- memory of information about musical pieces (instrumentation, key and so on).

These could be used in the very short term, while a piece is still being performed in front of you, or the very long term, the way we remember songs form our childhood (eg the theme to _The magic roundabout_, for those of us of a certain age).


----------

