"Music is my ANTI-drug" used to be the saying. But this month, the saying has become "Music is my DRUG"--literally. According to the hype, a new type of digital "music" can induce a drug-like state in the mind, a process that is cheekily termed "I-Dosing." It's real and on retail at http://www.i-doser.com. The altered state of mind achieved by I-Dosing is caused by binaural beats, in which one ear hears a pitch that is only slightly off key from the pitch played in the other ear. This small difference in pitch causes an eerie fluctuating sound, so that you can hear something like wavering "beats" in the continuous tone (musicians will be familiar with this sound, as it is similar to the fluctuations in sound heard when two instruments are slightly out of tune from each other).
The question is, is I-Dosing dangerous? Probably not. It creates a brain state more similar to that of meditation. In fact, binaural beat therapy to treat anxiety had been in use long ago. However, like many things in life, the thing that makes all the difference is one's perception. With the media portrayal of I-Dosing as a type of "drug music", it has automatically set I-Dosing up for adolescent interest, and along with it, parental concern.Yes, it should really just be called "meditative music," but of course that just isn't interesting enough for the press.
Showing posts with label music and the brain. Show all posts
Showing posts with label music and the brain. Show all posts
Saturday, August 28, 2010
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Musicophilia: Tales of Music and the Brain
It all starts with a book...
Yes, it's cliche, but for me, very true. It all started with Musicophilia: Tales of Music and the Brain.
My senior year of high school, my AP Psychology teacher recommended this book to me, and, as the music fanatic I am, I eagerly picked it up. It wasn't the neuroscience, it wasn't the psychology, it was the music that first attracted me. Back then, I was reading What to Listen for in Music by Aaron Copland, and The Mozart Guide, and some history of western music book. I was, in short, a music nerd. (...still am.) I was totally unsuspecting of how it would draw me into a field I never knew I never knew: music and the brain.
Musicophilia proceeded to open my eyes to This is Your Brain on Music by Levitin, and later Proust was a Neuroscientist by Lehrer, within a few months. And now, here I am today.
So I must warn you: Unless you want to become a crazy fanatic over music and the brain matters, do not read this book!
Read Musicophilia on Google books
Related link:
Blogging for a Good Book: A Suggestion a Day from the Williamsburg Regional Library
~about Musicophilia
Yes, it's cliche, but for me, very true. It all started with Musicophilia: Tales of Music and the Brain.
My senior year of high school, my AP Psychology teacher recommended this book to me, and, as the music fanatic I am, I eagerly picked it up. It wasn't the neuroscience, it wasn't the psychology, it was the music that first attracted me. Back then, I was reading What to Listen for in Music by Aaron Copland, and The Mozart Guide, and some history of western music book. I was, in short, a music nerd. (...still am.) I was totally unsuspecting of how it would draw me into a field I never knew I never knew: music and the brain.
Musicophilia proceeded to open my eyes to This is Your Brain on Music by Levitin, and later Proust was a Neuroscientist by Lehrer, within a few months. And now, here I am today.
So I must warn you: Unless you want to become a crazy fanatic over music and the brain matters, do not read this book!
Read Musicophilia on Google books
Related link:
Blogging for a Good Book: A Suggestion a Day from the Williamsburg Regional Library
~about Musicophilia
Monday, July 26, 2010
When Music Meets Brain?
I came across this beautiful picture, titled "When Music Meets Brain." But I'm craving to know, what is it? A neural structure involved in music processing, or an artistic rendering of a creative mind?
Though I can't quite understand it, we can still glean something from it. It's another example of the philosophy of neuroaesthetics: Understanding the science behind the art allows us to enhance our appreciation of both science and art.
Though I can't quite understand it, we can still glean something from it. It's another example of the philosophy of neuroaesthetics: Understanding the science behind the art allows us to enhance our appreciation of both science and art.
Friday, July 16, 2010
World Science Festival 2009: Notes and Neurons
The full program of the World Science Festival 2009: Notes and Neurons: In Search of the Common Chorus is available online, in five convenient parts. For now, I just want to share a video excerpt from this program featuring Bobby McFerrin titled The Power of the Pentatonic. It's a fun clip that conveys the universality of music in humans, and speaks to music as being hard-wired in the brain. Watch and enjoy these three minutes.
World Science Festival 2009: Bobby McFerrin Demonstrates the Power of the Pentatonic Scale from World Science Festival.
Program Excerpt:
Bobby McFerrin demonstrates the power of the pentatonic scale, using audience participation, from the June 12, 2009 World Science Festival event "Notes & Neurons: In Search of the Common Chorus". Also on stage are panelists Jamshed Bharucha, Provost and Senior Vice President of Tufts University; the James McGill Professor of Psychology and Neurosciences at McGill University, Daniel Levitin; Professor of Cognitive Neuroscience at the University of Sheffield, Lawrence Parsons; and host of WNYC’s music/talk show Soundcheck, John Schaefer
World Science Festival 2009: Bobby McFerrin Demonstrates the Power of the Pentatonic Scale from World Science Festival.
Sunday, July 11, 2010
The Elusive "Groove"
What is groove? I asked my 12-year-old sister and she casually responded, "Anything that is groovy has groove". I asked her what groovy meant, and she answered, "It has rhythm...and it's funky. I mean not funky, but, um...." and became silent. Why is groove so easy to feel yet so hard to define?
I was first inspired to look into the meaning of "groove" after listening to a contemporary concert by Steve Mackey (contemporary composer and chair of the Princeton Music Department) and his students. Mackey is a brilliant modern composer, I recommend listening to his A Beautiful Passing. Anyway, I wondered what science had to say about groove, and found this:
JSTOR: Music Perception: An Interdisciplinary Journal, Vol. 24, No. 2 (Dec., 2006), pp. 201-208
The paper titled "Experiencing Groove Induced by Music: Consistency and Phenomenology" from Music Perception by Guy Madison discusses an experiment that tries to probe into the role of groove in music by having subjects rate pieces of music on various characteristics such as “groove, driving, simple, flowing, happy...bouncing, having swing”. Here is the abstract:
It’s interesting how science often seems to reduce and then expand artistic concepts. The paper starts by clearly defining “groove” as "wanting to move some part of the body in relation to some aspect of the sound pattern," but ultimately reveals that groove isn’t clearly attributable to any characteristic. So, I guess in the end, it all goes back to the elusiveness of “groove.”
I was first inspired to look into the meaning of "groove" after listening to a contemporary concert by Steve Mackey (contemporary composer and chair of the Princeton Music Department) and his students. Mackey is a brilliant modern composer, I recommend listening to his A Beautiful Passing. Anyway, I wondered what science had to say about groove, and found this:JSTOR: Music Perception: An Interdisciplinary Journal, Vol. 24, No. 2 (Dec., 2006), pp. 201-208
The paper titled "Experiencing Groove Induced by Music: Consistency and Phenomenology" from Music Perception by Guy Madison discusses an experiment that tries to probe into the role of groove in music by having subjects rate pieces of music on various characteristics such as “groove, driving, simple, flowing, happy...bouncing, having swing”. Here is the abstract:THERE is A QUALITY OF MUSIC THAT makes people tap their feet, rock their head, and get up and dance. The consistency of this experience among listeners was examined, in terms of differences in ratings across 64 music examples taken from commercially available recordings. Results show that ratings of groove, operationally defined as " wanting to move some part of the body in relation to some aspect of the sound pattern," exhibited considerable interindividual consistency. Covariance patterns among the 14 rated words indicated four prominent factors, which could be labeled regular- irregular, groove, having swing, and flowing. Considering the wide range of music examples used, these factors are interpreted as reflecting psychological dimensions independent of musical genre and style.They discovered that groove contributed to the second largest proportion of variation among all ratings, pointing to the importance of groove as a dimension of music (although they only included “music with a beat” in their music samples). And, they found that groove has no simple relation to tempo, or “having swing."
It’s interesting how science often seems to reduce and then expand artistic concepts. The paper starts by clearly defining “groove” as "wanting to move some part of the body in relation to some aspect of the sound pattern," but ultimately reveals that groove isn’t clearly attributable to any characteristic. So, I guess in the end, it all goes back to the elusiveness of “groove.”
Saturday, June 19, 2010
The Subjectivity of an Objective Sound: Is the Length of a Note Definite?
Is the length of a note definite? Yes...and no.
In the video "Physics of Sound: Daniel Barenboim on the Duration of Notes" from PBS's The Music Instinct, the acclaimed conductor and pianist, Daniel Barenboim, speaks to the definite nature of the duration of notes. Unlike the subjective quality of a sound, such as a "beautiful" sound, Barenboim points out that the duration of a sound is objective and definite: "the duration of sound and it’s relation to silence is a very objective thing."
And that got me thinking, is the duration of a sound definite? Why, yes, it seems so simple--a sound has a definite start and end, explained by the laws of physics. So why I am still not convinced? Because as a musician, as a pianist, I believe that my body expression, my hand and arm movements and gestures, may shape a listener's perception of the music. Now the question is, does it?
An article by M. Schutz and M. Kubovy from the University of Virginia, titled "Seeing Music: Do We Hear Silent Gestures?" describes a study that addresses the question: Can gestures change the duration of a musical note? The article includes videos of the gestures and easy-to-understand figures, and is also described in more detail at M. Schutz's website. The experiment is described below:
When the subjects were shown a video of the gesture and told to listen to the note (visual and auditory), they rated it correspondingly shorter or longer than when only told to listen to the note (only auditory). Furthermore, a similar study that involved monitoring brain activity of subjects showed that the auditory areas of the brain actually lighted up for correspondingly longer or shorter periods of time with the gesture than without the gesture. This means that in the case of a long gesture, the listeners didn't just think the note sound longer, but actually heard the note as longer.
There's a difference between asking, "Is the duration of a sound definite?", and "Is the duration of a musical note definite?" The answer is yes and no, respectively. The brain aims to understand the world around us, often sacrificing accuracy for understanding, distorting reality in order to process it better. In the case of a pure sound, a sound that isn't processed by a brain, the duration of the sound is definite. But in the case of music, in the case of a musical note that is processed by a brain (for any sound that isn't processed by some listener wouldn't be called music) , the length is subjective. After all, the brain distorts reality, as evidenced by the phenomenon of visual capture--the dominance of visual information over auditory information. In the end, all human experience is subjective, and the question becomes a distinction between laws of nature and laws of human nature.
Is the length of a note definite? Perhaps we should first ask the proverbial question, "If a tree falls in the woods, does it make a sound?"
In the video "Physics of Sound: Daniel Barenboim on the Duration of Notes" from PBS's The Music Instinct, the acclaimed conductor and pianist, Daniel Barenboim, speaks to the definite nature of the duration of notes. Unlike the subjective quality of a sound, such as a "beautiful" sound, Barenboim points out that the duration of a sound is objective and definite: "the duration of sound and it’s relation to silence is a very objective thing."
And that got me thinking, is the duration of a sound definite? Why, yes, it seems so simple--a sound has a definite start and end, explained by the laws of physics. So why I am still not convinced? Because as a musician, as a pianist, I believe that my body expression, my hand and arm movements and gestures, may shape a listener's perception of the music. Now the question is, does it?
An article by M. Schutz and M. Kubovy from the University of Virginia, titled "Seeing Music: Do We Hear Silent Gestures?" describes a study that addresses the question: Can gestures change the duration of a musical note? The article includes videos of the gestures and easy-to-understand figures, and is also described in more detail at M. Schutz's website. The experiment is described below:
We recorded a world-renowned percussionist performing notes using long and short gestures on a professional quality marimba (a percussion instrument similar to a xylophone), a sample of which is shown in Figure 1. Participants then rated the duration of each note twice: once with the gesture (audio-visual), and once without (audio-alone). In the audio-visual condition they were instructed to ignore visual information and base their ratings on the sound alone.Video of 1) A Long Stroke 2) A Short Stroke
As shown in Figure 2, although notes produced by long and short gestures were indistinguishable when presented as audio alone, these same notes were judged to be significantly different when presented with the corresponding gesture. This effect occurred despite instructing participants to ignore visual information when making their ratings. Our results indicate that while gesture fails to alter the sound of the note, it (serendipitously) alters the way the note sounds.
When the subjects were shown a video of the gesture and told to listen to the note (visual and auditory), they rated it correspondingly shorter or longer than when only told to listen to the note (only auditory). Furthermore, a similar study that involved monitoring brain activity of subjects showed that the auditory areas of the brain actually lighted up for correspondingly longer or shorter periods of time with the gesture than without the gesture. This means that in the case of a long gesture, the listeners didn't just think the note sound longer, but actually heard the note as longer.
There's a difference between asking, "Is the duration of a sound definite?", and "Is the duration of a musical note definite?" The answer is yes and no, respectively. The brain aims to understand the world around us, often sacrificing accuracy for understanding, distorting reality in order to process it better. In the case of a pure sound, a sound that isn't processed by a brain, the duration of the sound is definite. But in the case of music, in the case of a musical note that is processed by a brain (for any sound that isn't processed by some listener wouldn't be called music) , the length is subjective. After all, the brain distorts reality, as evidenced by the phenomenon of visual capture--the dominance of visual information over auditory information. In the end, all human experience is subjective, and the question becomes a distinction between laws of nature and laws of human nature.
Is the length of a note definite? Perhaps we should first ask the proverbial question, "If a tree falls in the woods, does it make a sound?"
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
The Music Instinct: Science and Song
The Music Instinct: Science and Song is a fascinating 2-hour documentary on the science of music, and premiered June 24, 2009 on PBS. It is a co-production of Thirteen for WNET.org. In this documentary, J. Levitin (author of This is Your Brain on Music and The World in Six Songs) "leads a group of researchers as they investigate music’s fundamental physical structure; its biological, emotional and psychological impact; its brain altering and healing powers and its role in human evolution."
The DVD is available for sale for $24.99 at the online PBS shop here, if you're interested. But even better, you can watch short video clips for free, featuring demonstrations and interviews with Oliver Sacks, Yo-Yo Ma, Bobby McFerrin, Evelyn Glenni, Daniel Barenboim, and many many more. The videos, though short, give great sparks for further exploration, and there are many of them. They are categorized into interviews, music and evolution, music and medicine, music and the brain, performance, and physics of sound--enough to satiate many varied appetites!
Expect to hear more about individual video clips here at the synapse in the near future! Finally, thanks again PBS for bringing us such great programs.
The DVD is available for sale for $24.99 at the online PBS shop here, if you're interested. But even better, you can watch short video clips for free, featuring demonstrations and interviews with Oliver Sacks, Yo-Yo Ma, Bobby McFerrin, Evelyn Glenni, Daniel Barenboim, and many many more. The videos, though short, give great sparks for further exploration, and there are many of them. They are categorized into interviews, music and evolution, music and medicine, music and the brain, performance, and physics of sound--enough to satiate many varied appetites!
Expect to hear more about individual video clips here at the synapse in the near future! Finally, thanks again PBS for bringing us such great programs.
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Concerts from the Library of Congress: Music and the Brain
The Library of Congress is having a 2-year series of lectures (08-09, 09-10) relating to new research on music and the brain, and has put up 15-25 minute podcasts previewing each lecture. The topics include music and religion, music and memory, music and crime, to music and language, music and emotion, music and evolution, music and medicine, and more. The speakers include Daniel Levitin, author of This is Your Brain on Music, and his new book, The World in Six Songs (discussed in the podcast), and researchers such as Dr. Patel from UCSD, just to name a few. These podcasts are very interesting, I highly recommend them! Download them to your mp3 and enjoy.
2008-2009: http://www.loc.gov/rr/perform/concert/0809-musicandthebrain.html
2009-2010: http://www.loc.gov/rr/perform/concert/0910-brain.html
Unfortunately, there don't seem to be any podcasts for the 2009-2010 season.
I wish the full lectures were made readily available. If you find any of those, please share. Thanks!
2008-2009: http://www.loc.gov/rr/perform/concert/0809-musicandthebrain.html
2009-2010: http://www.loc.gov/rr/perform/concert/0910-brain.html
Unfortunately, there don't seem to be any podcasts for the 2009-2010 season.
I wish the full lectures were made readily available. If you find any of those, please share. Thanks!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)




