An interesting study would be to see if listening to classical music frequently over a relatively LONG time period would have a more noticeable or more permanent effect on intelligence.
If a runner does one workout, his/her best time isn't likely to improve very much. But if workouts are done more frequently, times will improve a lot. And the higher fitness level will provide increased stamina in a wide variety of other athletic pursuits.
Does listening to classical music have the effect of "training the brain" so that it will do better at other things not related to classical music?
You'd probably have to ensure that listeners were actively focusing on the music and not just treating it as background filigree.
Of course, we'd have to define "classical music" -- is it only something written between 1750-1825, or does it cover pretty much anything written for a traditional orchestra and choirs etc?
Originally posted by MelanerpesIn its strictest definition it is only from 1750-1825. Don't forget the studies worked better IQ-wise with Bach keyboard music. I am not sure they adhered to definitions. The noticeable rise in IQ was from what is known as absolute music, i.e., sans orchestra. It remains to be seen if someone takes up a study like that.
An interesting study would be to see if listening to classical music frequently over a relatively LONG time period would have a more noticeable or more permanent effect on intelligence.
If a runner does one workout, his/her best time isn't likely to improve very much. But if workouts are done more frequently, times will improve a lot. And the higher fi ...[text shortened]... or does it cover pretty much anything written for a traditional orchestra and choirs etc?
Bach died in 1750 - so I guess he wouldn't "count" as a classical composer?
Bach might actually be the best composer to study - he incorporated a lot of mathematical ideas into his music (canons, fugues etc). And the Baroque Era as a whole might be the best time period.
does "absolute music" mean only one instrument? - or can it include multiple instruments such as a wind or string ensemble? Hard to imagine a canon made up of only one instrument.
Originally posted by scacchipazzo"Absolute music" normally means music that doesn't represent, describe or try to evoke something else, e.g. a story, an image or a scene from nature; i.e. music that stands for itself. It doesn't have anything to do with how many or what kind of instruments are used.
The noticeable rise in IQ was from what is known as absolute music, i.e., sans orchestra.
Originally posted by Nordlysso I guess Vivaldi's Four Seasons doesn't count - (bummer - it's one of my favorite "classical music" works)
"Absolute music" normally means music that doesn't represent, describe or try to evoke something else, e.g. a story, an image or a scene from nature; i.e. music that stands for itself. It doesn't have anything to do with how many or what kind of instruments are used.
But when the composer doesn't give any clues, how do we tell whether or not the music is supposed to represent something?
Originally posted by NordlysSurely such music is bound to evoke the idea of 'music that stands for itself', an idea that may interfere with absolute listening.
"Absolute music" normally means music that doesn't represent, describe or try to evoke something else, e.g. a story, an image or a scene from nature; i.e. music that stands for itself.
Originally posted by NordlysAbsolutely correct! However, in its strictest form less instruments are less likely to detract from music's absoluteness. For music to stand for itself reducing the number of voices helps eliminate programmatic writing.
"Absolute music" normally means music that doesn't represent, describe or try to evoke something else, e.g. a story, an image or a scene from nature; i.e. music that stands for itself. It doesn't have anything to do with how many or what kind of instruments are used.
but why must we be looking for the holy grail of music that doesn't represent anything -- I don't think it's possible to ever find it -- if nothing else, a given piece will represent the instrument or synthesizer that's playing it.
and besides that - if "classical music" does have an affect on intelligence, why should it matter that the music evokes flowers in spring, or the French Revolution, or the background music at a museum?
Originally posted by MelanerpesThat's what makes music so great! It could evoke a host of things then some. Association is like that. I cannot help but think of Monument Valley in Utah in the late August sun and partial overcast skies every time I hear Das Lied von der Erde by Mahler. I bought the CD then went camping and brought it for the long drive from Texas. I listened to Wagner on the way and once in Utah I cracked the new CD open and listened. I had never heard this work before and got it only because I read it was Mahler's masterpiece, different and written while in the absolute whitest heat of musical creativity. It met every expectation, yet it is simply not the same without the magical setting. Neither are Navajo tacos any good without Mahler!
but why must we be looking for the holy grail of music that doesn't represent anything -- I don't think it's possible to ever find it -- if nothing else, a given piece will represent the instrument or synthesizer that's playing it.
and besides that - if "classical music" does have an affect on intelligence, why should it matter that the music evokes flowers in spring, or the French Revolution, or the background music at a museum?