This is your brain on Music - Daniel Levitin

Marina9

Marina9

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
I came across this video from the neuroscientist Daniel Levitin. After reading Oliver Sack's "Musicophilia," I think all the science behind what music does to our brains, and how it is used to treat people with dementia, Alzheimer's, depression and various mental health issues, is IMO really interesting.

I wanted to share the video with you guys and the summary of his book on the topic, haven't read it, but it's now part of the list hehe :)


Here is a summary of the book http://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/298964/this-is-your-brain-on-music-by-daniel-j-levitin/9780452288522/:

What can music teach us about the brain? What can the brain teach us about music? And what can both teach us about ourselves?

In this groundbreaking union of art and science, rocker-turned-neuroscientist Daniel J. Levitin (The World in Six Songs and The Organized Mind) explores the connection between music – its performance, its composition, how we listen to it, why we enjoy it – and the human brain. Drawing on the latest research and on musical examples ranging from Mozart to Duke Ellington to Van Halen, Levitin reveals:

  • How composers produce some of the most pleasurable effects of listening to music by exploiting the way our brains make sense of the world
    Why we are so emotionally attached to the music we listened to as teenagers, whether it was Fleetwood Mac, U2, or Dr. Dre
    That practice, rather than talent, is the driving force behind musical expertise
    How those insidious little jingles (called earworms) get stuck in our head

Taking on prominent thinkers who argue that music is nothing more than an evolutionary accident, Levitin poses that music is fundamental to our species, perhaps even more so than language. A Los Angeles Times Book Award finalist, This Is Your Brain on Music will attract readers of Oliver Sacks and David Byrne, as it is an unprecedented, eye-opening investigation into an obsession at the heart of human nature.
Click to expand...
 
I'm quite familiar with Levitin's book, since I used it as one of my referential works in my Master's degree (pro gradu) many years ago. From what I remember, the things he say are "easy to digest", perhaps a bit cliche-sounding to anyone familiar with the subject. Good to see he's still active, although he seems to be a bit stuck in his old topic (the book is from 2007).

But yes, it's amazing how music can have a profound effect on people's health, brain activity, mood etc. It's good to remember, that it goes "both ways"; certain type of music can also have an detrimental effect, and even used for manipulating our minds.

Better stick to Mozart... :D
 
Aragorn said:
But yes, it's amazing how music can have a profound effect on people's health, brain activity, mood etc. It's good to remember, that it goes "both ways"; certain type of music can also have an detrimental effect, and even used for manipulating our minds.

Better stick to Mozart... :D
Click to expand...

I agree Aragorn, it's very sad to compare music from the past so to speak, with what we hear nowadays in pop music for example, lyrics and beats that don't have a positive impact on the people, it kind of reminds me of art in the past, beautiful paintings compared to pieces of squares with plasters of colour and nonsense things.. such a pitty how art representations have been distorted in such ways :(
 
Marina9 said:
Aragorn said:
But yes, it's amazing how music can have a profound effect on people's health, brain activity, mood etc. It's good to remember, that it goes "both ways"; certain type of music can also have an detrimental effect, and even used for manipulating our minds.

Better stick to Mozart... :D
Click to expand...

I agree Aragorn, it's very sad to compare music from the past so to speak, with what we hear nowadays in pop music for example, lyrics and beats that don't have a positive impact on the people, it kind of reminds me of art in the past, beautiful paintings compared to pieces of squares with plasters of colour and nonsense things.. such a pitty how art representations have been distorted in such ways :(
Click to expand...

Thank you for sharing Levitin's work, Marina. Maybe if we understand what happens to us when listening to different musical styles we could protect ourselves from the detrimental effects and appreciate it better. Until then, as Aragorn wrote, better stick with Mozart...

This thread reminded me of what is said about music in Plato's Republic...Here is the quote that shows how the ancients (as I read it) knew how powerful and influential music could be:

"(...)Of the harmonies I know nothing, but would have you leave me one which can render the note or accent which a brave man utters in warlike action and in stern resolve; and when his cause is failing, and he is going to wounds or death or is overtaken by disaster in some other form, at every such crisis he meets the blows of fortune with firm step and a determination to endure; and an opposite kind for times of peace and freedom of action, when there is no pressure of necessity, and he is seeking to persuade God by prayer, or man by instruction and admonition, or when on the other hand he is expressing his willingness to yield to the persuasion or entreaty or admonition of others. And when in this manner he has attained his end, I would have the music show him not carried away by his success, but acting moderately and wisely in all circumstances, and acquiescing in the event. These two harmonies I ask you to leave; the strain of necessity and the strain of freedom, the strain of the unfortunate and the strain of the fortunate, the strain of courage, and the strain of temperance; these, I say, leave.

from: https://theoryofmusic.eu/2008/08/04/music-in-platos-republic/

I haven't read Davitin's book yet, but from what I've read about it I'm curious to compare it to Joe Dispenza's book Breaking The Habit of Being Yourself...Maybe I'm feeling the need to listen to different songs...!
 
This excerpt is also significant, I guess:

"Then let us now finish the purgation, I said. Next in order to harmonies, rhythms will naturally follow, and they should be subject to the same rules, for we ought not to seek out complex systems of metre, and a variety of feet, but rather to discover what rhythms are the expressions of a courageous and harmonious life; and when we have found them, we shall adapt the foot and the melody to words having a like spirit, not the words to the foot and melody. To say what these rhythms are will be your duty – you must teach me them, as you have already taught me the harmonies.
But, indeed, he replied, I cannot tell you. I know from observation that there are some three principles of rhythm out of which metrical systems are framed, just as in sounds there are four notes out of which all the harmonies are composed. But of what sort of lives they are severally the imitations I am unable to say.
Then, I said, we must take Damon into our counsels; and he will tell us what rhythms are expressive of meanness, or insolence, or fury, or other unworthiness, and are to be reserved for the expression of opposite feelings. And I think that I have an indistinct recollection of his mentioning a complex Cretic rhythm; also a dactylic or heroic, and he arranged them in some manner which I do not quite understand, making the rhythms equal in the rise and fall of the foot, long and short alternating; and unless I am mistaken, he spoke of an iambic as well as a trochaic rhythm, and assigned to them short and long quantities. Also in some cases he appeared to praise or censure the movement of the foot quite as much as the rhythm; or perhaps a combination of the two; for I am not certain what he meant. These matters, however, as I was saying, had better be referred to Damon himself, for the analysis of the subject would be difficult, you know?
Rather so, I should say."
Click to expand...
(My emphasis, also from: https://theoryofmusic.eu/2008/08/04/music-in-platos-republic/)

Quite like the approach of Gurdjieff towards a conscious "art"?

"At the core of his aesthetics is the position that no form of artistic expression possesses value in itself; no art is appreciable for its intrinsic value alone. Because of his premises concerning the meaning and purpose of human existence, all “art” for Gurdjieff, and consequently all literature as an art-form, must be functional or didactic. The value of an art work resides in its potentiality to transform or metamorphose the art appreciator. Insofar as a work of literature, a piece of music, a painting, or any other potential art form aids humans in the process of their spiritual evolution, that object or activity earns the designation “art” for Gurdjieff and possesses what he refers to as “soul.”

Gurdjieff’s use of terminology to espouse his aesthetics and other branches of his philosophy frequently involves his supplying old terms with new meanings. Consequently, we are forced when approaching his writings to temporarily abandon old associations of key words used in his discussions. Such is the case with the terms “soul,” “objective” and “subjective,” “conscious” and “unconscious.” “Subjective art,” for example, in Gurdjieff’s terminology, refers to most of what is commonly interpreted as art. Most twentieth-century art in its various forms, according to his standards, would fall into this category. But subjective art is not authentic art for him; it is the result of mechanical, unconscious human activity, and most of humanity is unconscious according to Gurdjieff. For the same reason, he refers to subjective art as “soulless” in that it results from little or no consciousness on the part of the would-be artist. In his introduction to Meetings with Remarkable Men, he asserts that contemporary civilization is unique in history in its massive production of soulless, pseudo art.

On the other hand, “objective art” is authentic art in that it results from deliberate, pre-meditated efforts on the part of a conscious artist. In the act of creation, the true artist avoids or eliminates any input which is subjective or arbitrary, and the impression of such art on those who experience it is always definite. To the degree that objective art is the result of consciousness, it inherently possesses “soul.” As one example of soulful art, Gurdjieff cites the paintings of Leonardo da Vinci; as another he refers to the Taj Mahal. Both constitute objective works of art."
Click to expand...

From http://www.gurdjieff.org/challenger2.htm
 
Thanks for sharing this.

I find it quite amazing how music has such an effect on you. Personally I tend to communicate with others using music. I have watched movies just for the music :P.

I feel there's depth and beauty in Mozart, Beethoven and Vivaldi. But like he said, it truly depends on what you're in the mood for so to speak. Sometimes hard rock or country might do the job, sometimes a truly complex symphony. And sometimes a jingle :P

It also made me think about our unconscious enjoyment of music. Sometimes without being consciously aware of our inner world we enjoy a sad song, it happens to me a lot, and it isn't until the song plays that let's say a memory comes to the front of our minds.

So what I was thinking was that music could be used to back-engineer our emotions, perhaps a good way to diagnose ourselves emotionally is by observing what music we enjoy without an apparent emotion as a precursor.

Rather than, I'm sad I want to listen to sad music, it would be more like, I'm enjoying this sad song... I must be unaware of my sadness. Does that make sense?
 
"At the core of his aesthetics is the position that no form of artistic expression possesses value in itself; no art is appreciable for its intrinsic value alone. Because of his premises concerning the meaning and purpose of human existence, all “art” for Gurdjieff, and consequently all literature as an art-form, must be functional or didactic. The value of an art work resides in its potentiality to transform or metamorphose the art appreciator. Insofar as a work of literature, a piece of music, a painting, or any other potential art form aids humans in the process of their spiritual evolution, that object or activity earns the designation “art” for Gurdjieff and possesses what he refers to as “soul.”

Gurdjieff’s use of terminology to espouse his aesthetics and other branches of his philosophy frequently involves his supplying old terms with new meanings. Consequently, we are forced when approaching his writings to temporarily abandon old associations of key words used in his discussions. Such is the case with the terms “soul,” “objective” and “subjective,” “conscious” and “unconscious.” “Subjective art,” for example, in Gurdjieff’s terminology, refers to most of what is commonly interpreted as art. Most twentieth-century art in its various forms, according to his standards, would fall into this category. But subjective art is not authentic art for him; it is the result of mechanical, unconscious human activity, and most of humanity is unconscious according to Gurdjieff. For the same reason, he refers to subjective art as “soulless” in that it results from little or no consciousness on the part of the would-be artist. In his introduction to Meetings with Remarkable Men, he asserts that contemporary civilization is unique in history in its massive production of soulless, pseudo art.

On the other hand, “objective art” is authentic art in that it results from deliberate, pre-meditated efforts on the part of a conscious artist. In the act of creation, the true artist avoids or eliminates any input which is subjective or arbitrary, and the impression of such art on those who experience it is always definite. To the degree that objective art is the result of consciousness, it inherently possesses “soul.” As one example of soulful art, Gurdjieff cites the paintings of Leonardo da Vinci; as another he refers to the Taj Mahal. Both constitute objective works of art."
Click to expand...

From http://www.gurdjieff.org/challenger2.htm

[/quote]

Interesting...I somehow link this idea to the fact that I always like to work with concepts when creating a piece of music. So that text is link to the music. Instead of just doing random notes, when you have a text to build the music on the music serves as a conduit to express the idea. Instruments and arrangements will be selected in function to the text.

Another reason to do it this way, for many song writers, the music will be build around the vocalist's range. So working with singer in mind before starting to compose is considering the surrounding you are working with, selecting notes carefully according to the elements you are working with. Thus I see this as being part of the objective as well.
 
Alejo said:
Thanks for sharing this.

I find it quite amazing how music has such an effect on you. Personally I tend to communicate with others using music. I have watched movies just for the music :P.

I feel there's depth and beauty in Mozart, Beethoven and Vivaldi. But like he said, it truly depends on what you're in the mood for so to speak. Sometimes hard rock or country might do the job, sometimes a truly complex symphony. And sometimes a jingle :P

It also made me think about our unconscious enjoyment of music. Sometimes without being consciously aware of our inner world we enjoy a sad song, it happens to me a lot, and it isn't until the song plays that let's say a memory comes to the front of our minds.

So what I was thinking was that music could be used to back-engineer our emotions, perhaps a good way to diagnose ourselves emotionally is by observing what music we enjoy without an apparent emotion as a precursor.

Rather than, I'm sad I want to listen to sad music, it would be more like, I'm enjoying this sad song... I must be unaware of my sadness. Does that make sense?
Click to expand...

Could'nt the sadness be triggered by the song itself ? It's like thinking about the past, always thinking about a sad moment is not helping IMO. If it is to comprehend what happened to you at this moment of your life then I guess it makes sense. But just to make you feel sad is more like torture.

So in the same order of ideas, I think a lot of songs will make you feel melancholic. I try to avoid this kind of feeling although it's very appealing and tempting to fall into it , I somehow see it as a trap to stop you from being creative in the now present moment as you are stuck in the past probably thinking how your life used to be good in those days and preventing you from creating this very moment that could be as much if not more enjoyable. This is not the same as remembering a pleasant event and making you feel good about it, there is a nuance here...

We can try to see here what is the objective behind the sad song ? Does it give you a way out ? Happy ending or solution ?
Or is it just to make you feel as sad as the author ? (misery loves company, I can already see the audience caught up in it Oooo it's so beautifull....ya sure ! :shock: )
 
The way I see it, if the objective art is the potentiality to transform or metamorphose the art appreciator, it as to be 'lived' by the artist. For exemple if you write a song about joy hoping to share the vibe with the listeners, you actually need to feel it to communicate it. Or you are just making ...noise ! (pun intended).

On the other hand, a band on stage performing a crappy song with no sense lyrics, could very well be having fun and make you have a great evening just by their presence and intent! But of course why brainwash yourself with crappy lyrics when you can choose the opposite it's just to bring up the point of intent in that the same song performed by a different artist can very possibly have different results in our lifes.

This brings me to another point: Free will. I always felt and seen music has a tool or medium to have an immediate impact on people. A bit like magic or something like that. I remember Ozzy in an interview saying about his music: "It's like Voodoo with electric guitars".
Most of the time I guess we choose to listen to music but when scanning the radio it's a bit like being open to anything and it can be a while before finding something usefull. A bit like finding a good channel....(yes pun intended again :P )
 
This is a bit confusing - maybe the type of music makes a difference. From my experience, music ungrounds me. Puts me too much in my head and out of my body- like it dissipates energy.

I used to listen to Chris Brown type of music and Hip Hop and a whole range of other music.

Don't know about the regular Christmas carols and Abba, grew up listening to those but have not listened to them in ages. Also not too sure about classical music.

I stopped listening to music for some time and noticed the effect, clarity and focus builds up.

What's your experience?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Trending content

Back
Top Bottom