The Mozart Effect

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


Beethoven did, however, spend a great deal of his time writing jingles.


I'm not a KISS fan, either. But it is hard to argue with this.

[edit on 31-8-2009 by JayinAR]

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by obilesk
What do you think?

The questions you pose towards me are the reasons I opened the thread. Im not sure. Ive experimented with different types of music for different types of ocassions. And softer classical music seems to be the only music that is no annoyance no matter for which ocassion.

Maybe its "channelled" or "divinely inspired"...then again, maybe all music and all artforms are "channelled" to an extent.

Maybe its to do with being harmonious.

Whats certain for me is that many other types of music have positive effects. But different.

What do YOU think?

LOL yeah I know that my questions seem to be essentially what you started the thread with, but I guess I was specifically wondering, despite the positive yet different effects of the varied types of music out there, not only why classical has such a universal effect on people, but why similar timing, complexity, harmonics, tone, and length fall short when certain instruments are used in place of the orchestra. I should have been more clear.

For example, the following video shows two amazing (IMO) guitarists playing a transcription of "Night on Bald Mountain" (Mussorgsky). It is a wonderful piece, and played very well, but lacks something in comparison to a full orchestra. Obviously, a full orchestra can add an amount of strength and volume that a pair of acoustics cannot, but does that mean that a piece of music is more than the notes and timing and layers, etc.? It seems to me that the more instruments, the "better" the music. And because of the fact that classical music's composition is laid down for an orchestra, it inherently contains a "something" that allows it to stand above other types of music.

reply to post by obilesk


Just look at Metallica's Symphony album.

Most definately music becomes something more when played with an orchestra. Metallica's pieces, which stand alone as good works, become emotional powerhouses with a symphony orchestra playing counter-melodies.
But try as Metallica might, No Leaf Clover is NO Moonlight Sonata.

reply to post by JayinAR


Exactly. It seems no matter how seemingly epic a piece is, if an orchestra is applied, it becomes something greater. Orion, The Call of Kthulu, and To Live is to Die (Metallica) are great examples of musical genius that stand on their own, but when an orchestra is brought in as accompaniment, a new level of greatness can be achieved. I believe this is another piece of the puzzle in the Mozart Effect. Possibly the piece.

Another point to consider is the lack of vocals in classical (mentioned before). This allows us to internalize the music and let it affect us in personal ways, whereas songs with vocals use the music to back up the message of the song. Might this explain why classical has such universal appeal?

reply to post by obilesk


I understand your point, and I agree to a point.
Where I don't agree is that anything written by Metallica can be compared to anything written by Mozart. Not even in the slightest.

Here is one of my favorite pieces. Stand alone as a single guitar piece is outstanding.
However, in this case, I think it actually digresses with an orchestra. Listen to the piece with and without.

In any event, I think it has everything to do with the composer's ability to structure a piece theoretically. And depends on how well they understand the theory.



What little I can bang through on the guitar is thoroughly enjoyable to play. More fun than anything else I can think of. It is a powerhouse piece, but it is no Fur Elise!
Beethoven was on another plane. And that is because HE CREATED this foundation that all these others build on.

reply to post by JayinAR


There is no doubt that Mozart too is a Master in which hardly one comes around in a lifetime. In a way that is what made Vienna during that period of the Renaissance so unique as Mozart's career was just beginning to wind down as Beethoven's was just beginning to take off with them both vieing for dominance over the musical scene for a few brief years.

The Renaissance was an incredibly explosive period in artistic development as artists like Mozart and Beethoven were able to push past all the boundaries on art that had been imposed so long during the dark ages during the Papacy.

A lot of great art came out of the period as those previously repressed were finally free artistically to express themselves.

Science too had long been supressed and it's amazing to think how far the world has come in 500 years, and little the Western World devolped for the 1,000 years before that during the dark ages, and before that how many advances in science and technology and art made over the near 1,000 years of the Roman Republic and then Roman Empire and the Greeks before them were wiped out and lost.

It makes you wonder where we would be today had it not been for that 1,000 years of cultural supression enfoced by the Holy Roman Catholics and the Holy Roman Empire.

What I think is even more interesting to look at is the fact that it could be argued that since the start of the Renaissance science has gotten more and more impressive and keeps making amazing breakthroughs where it could be argued it was during the height of the Renaissance that the greatest Composers, Musicians, Playwrights, Painters and Authors had their high watermark and in some ways it seems to digress.

I sometimes wonder if it is the advent of science that is causing art to digress, because art immitates life and the easier and more mundane and routine life becomes because of the aide of science the less 'struggle' of soul takes place to reflect in art?

I really do like Mozart too by the way, but I admire Beethoven's work musically more, and I find Beethoven's often conflicted soul and controversial and haunting personal life to be far more fascinating, which in part lends credence to my belief that the more tragedy and adversity an artist is touched by the greater the feeling and depth of conviction they place into their art.

Rich White musicians had to steal their blues, the poor Black musicians they often stole it from had to live their blues.

Technology might be screwing up art!

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


I have enjoyed reading your contributions to this thread, as always.

I was merely poking at you with remarks about Beethoven. If you notice, almost every piece I have referenced in this thread was Beethoven's, except the one.

Interesting speculations regarding advancements in Science vs. Decline in art.
Something worth pondering. I mean, "modern art", at least in my eyes, can't hold a candle to the Sistine Chapel work.
Same with music.
I don't know if it is technology, or technology's influence.
I mean, I may be talented as all heck as a guitarist, but if I find a catchy riff that will make me millions, I can just lay on that riff, rather than produce a masterpiece work...

Eh, I don't know, it is worth thinking about. But remember, nearly everything you hear today is just a sample of something that one of these greats already laid down hundreds of years ago.

Originally posted by JayinAR
reply to post by obilesk

 

I understand your point, and I agree to a point.
Where I don't agree is that anything written by Metallica can be compared to anything written by Mozart. Not even in the slightest.

I am not sure why one would say objectively that Beethoven's or Mozart's use of music theory and subsequent composition of say, Symphony No. 5 in C Minor, Op. 67, 1st movement could not be compared to some of Metallica's "orchestralized" offerings, like this. Certainly there are differences and similarities. But I personally think that while Mozart and Beethoven are Masters, their pieces lose a little something when they are reproduced on a few guitars in a small band or on a keyboard with an electronic medium. And great bass- or guitar-based music is lifted up when an orchestra tackles them.

In any event, I think it has everything to do with the composer's ability to structure a piece theoretically. And depends on how well they understand the theory.

Yes! I agree completely. However it would seem that many enjoy classical over contemporary strictly because it's ancient and primarily orchestral, and not necessarily because it's always better (though it usually is, at least, in theory )

Beethoven was on another plane. And that is because HE CREATED this foundation that all these others build on.

Absolutely. There can only be one creator of a standard within any given industry. And Beethoven was Music's "inventor of the wheel".

reply to post by LiveForever8


I have actually always like Bach myself, especially Little Fugue in G minor, on harpsichord. Just because our musical teacher used to to break down so we can hear each segment for ourselves. Then advanced to pieces that isolate certain instruments. It was a clever way to learn to understand classical music.

Originally posted by obilesk

Another point to consider is the lack of vocals in classical (mentioned before). This allows us to internalize the music and let it affect us in personal ways, whereas songs with vocals use the music to back up the message of the song. Might this explain why classical has such universal appeal?

I think that the lack of vocals just adds to the depth of emotions being strung throughout our heart and soul, further allowing us to appreciate every pitch, every tone, every harmonizing note followed after...
Each tone creates a re representation of a particular emotion within ourselves. Stringing these tones or "emotions" together allows us to feel a group of emotions in a series, therefore greating a soothing harmonic relaxing stimulation of our brain. I can do this on a guitar , without knowing how to hold any chords.... maybe i should of studied/took up some music lessons growing up instead of playing sports. Oh well, my lifes far from over

I feel dumber when i hear Lady Gaga belting out her junk. I feel intelligent when i listen to classical music, but i think its all in my head.... just like the voices.

reply to post by obilesk


Orion is one of my favorite pieces by Metallica. It is awesome.
I think the Orchestra did it justice, and then some.
However, while I agree that adding strings and horns as accompaniment makes the sound better, I still think it misses the point.
It is still simply expounding on a melody that was sampled off of something much greater.

All music today is simply a sample of music that was created long ago.

reply to post by obilesk


oops


[edit on 31-8-2009 by JayinAR]

Originally posted by JayinAR


All music today is simply a sample of music that was created long ago.

like... when reverberation was discovered?

reply to post by TheFaiThfulSkepTic





Reverberation is the PERFECT way to describe it!

Hi sky
Can you show me how the Mozart effect has influenced places like Hati, Rwanda,
Sudan, Colombia, Juarez, Israel?

Originally posted by JayinAR
reply to post by TheFaiThfulSkepTic

 

Reverberation is the PERFECT way to describe it!

If what we create as music today is merely the reverberation of matter within a certain range of frequencies in regular, identifiable patterns over a length of time, then obviously all music at all times fit this definition.

But,

reply to post by JayinAR


I would take your opinion to mean that anything we hear now has somehow already been written in classical somewhere along the time-line, and that not a single bit of music, taken in its entirety, is original?

If that is true, and it may be, I would love to hear where someone at sometime in the past laid down the basic measure or riff for Tool's "Jambi", Trent Reznor's "Eraser", or Snoop Dog's "Gin n Juice".

Music theory has definitely been what it is for centuries, but actual compositions continue to be original. Maybe I am misunderstanding you?

great thread skyfloating ! i myelf am a massive massive fan of classical music my collection is vast.

where do you think the rumors of playing classical music for infants came from

here is one of my favorites, i could post hundreds but this came time mind instantly. Has a little opera feeling, my favorite.



also some newer classical sounding music


and dont forget



[edit on 31-8-2009 by phi1618]

reply to post by obilesk


Oh geeze, that would require way too much investigation. If you don't agree, so be it.

Who listens to white noise every day for 2 months? By "white noise," I think those researchers meant top-40 rock music.

By "silence" I hope they meant a control group, because it would be weird to create a completely silent environment for a uterus.

There is complex music from many genres, even top-40 pop. Of course, those researchers probably haven't even heard of anything besides Mozart, and My Chemical Romance.