Our class discussion today reminded me of an article I read this summer. Paul McCartney came to Atlanta and played for a sold-out audience of about 55,000 in Piedmont Park. Of course the amount of speakers and video screens required to enable everyone to see and hear was an enormous undertaking, but most people probably didn't give it a second thought. What interested me most was an article I came across about another McCartney appearance in Atlanta- with the Beatles in 1965. The article explained how this particular show was one of the first where McCartney and the Beatles were actually able to hear themselves sing over the ambient noise of the crowd, screaming fans and blasting music. I didn't understand all the tech-y details, but basically sound technicians were able to point microphones back toward the speakes- they used microphones that could reject ambient noise from the sides and bottom and only pick up on the music coming from the speakers. What type of difference would that have made? It certainly would've increased crowd interaction, and perhaps made the music sound better, as the musicians could actually hear what they were doing. Or did having the original sounds the Beatles made bounced off multiple speakers change it in some way? The article can be found here:

http://www.accessatlanta.com/atlanta-music/beatles-atlanta-show-made-109...

As a student of both a hard science and of the literary arts, the opening quote by Sapolsky resonates on a personal level for me. I have often felt an odd sense of criticism, in both my chemistry and english classes, of my 'other' field of study.
Considering how the brain works to create our thoughts, feelings, love, and art provides a perfect example of just how interrelated these classes of thought may ultimately become. I can almost imagine the incredible complexity of the kaleidoscope of chemicals responsible for the neural network that is our consciousness. Or maybe its incredibly exquisite simplicity. We are still waiting to find out and I think it's fascinating. Maybe music will provide some insight into these questions, and if not I can't think of too many places more pleasant to start.

The introduction to the book seems very interesting. I have been playing bass guitar since the summer before ninth grade and played in two bands in high school and a jazz combo at UNC for a semester. Listening to and playing music have two of my favorite activities since my childhood and how humans process music as listeners and create music as musicians are very interesting processes that this book seems to focus on.

I have taken a few music theory classes so the science behind music has always added an extra level of interest for me to the subject of music. The formulaic chord progressions of Western classical music like piano chorales from the seventeenth and eighteenth century revolve around chords resolving into other chords which is based on the speed that the musical notes vibrate at which I always thought was interesting. This idea is interesting because it shows how the human brain can process musical complexities like the frequency at which sound waves vibrate in order to tell what chord resolve into other chords in a pleasing or satisfying way. The connection between science and music is an excellant way to explore how the brain works.

Reading this introduction really made me reflect on the effect of music in my own life. I have grown up listening and playing music in my spare time but have never really thought about the scientific aspect of music until now. Music really does have a power over all of us. When I am in a sad or lonesome mood, just listening to one of my favorite rock or pop songs can virtually revive me and make me forget about my previous mood. Just look at the amount of music that is used in television and movies, the music is used consistantly to signify the mood the director is trying to portray. Without music these would all seem bland and uninteresting. Almost like reading a book, if we hear one of our favorite songs it seems to take us into another world that we normally dont get to experience. This introduction makes me want to read the rest.
Here is an interesting article on a similar topic:
http://www.cerebromente.org.br/n15/mente/musica.html

The begining of the piece music and science hits very close to home for me. My sister attended LA Recording School where she received a degree in sound engineering. Even in high school she always had a home studio where she layered music and created beats using only a keyboard and her computer. It amazes me how you can create an entire song on basically one machine. The most interesting part to me is how you can manipulate sound. She has the ability to controll what part of the underlying beat (lay the snare for example) comes out of which speaker, giving an amazing surround sound affect. Pro-tools, the engineering program she works with is an incredible mechanism that I can only wish I fully understood. (I wanted to find a cool video or website that would explain how to operate protools so you could see what I meant by layering sound. I think the best way to get this across is just with this picture i found http://www.zanesville.ohiou.edu/emedia/images/protools%20screen%202.jpg If there are music people in our class you would certainly know how to explain this better than I).

The later part of this article addresses a question I have wondered for a long time. Why is it so hard for the human mind to memorize historical dates or note cards we need for class tests but we can still recall the complete lyrics of songs our kindergarden teachers sung to us. If i'm listening to my ipod and my favorite song comes on from 8th grade I still remember all the words, but if you ask me to recite certain names I had to memorize just last semester for my Greek Religion and Culture class I would draw a complete blank. "Music listening, performance and composition engage nearly every area of the brain that we have so far identified, and involve nearly every neural subsystem." Perhaps this is why.

I enjoy how he compares the worlds of science and music which and I think a great deal of what he says is summed up in this line found in the middle of the document.

"The work of artists and scientists is ultimately the pursuit of truth, but members of both camps understand that the nature of truth is that it is contextual and changeable"

When thinking about science, it is sometimes easy to mistake hypothetical claims with the outright truth. The majority of scientific knowledge we have today is basically an educated individuals best guess at why things are the way they are. Practices like medical treatment and the history of evolution are always changing, and what we learned in highschool about biology and chemistry, will likely change into subjects we can hardly define by the time we have children.

I think it is interesting to think about this in regards to how music changes as well and why some people seem to get stuck in a rut when it comes to their musical tastes. Understanding a new genre of music or application of an instrument is probably frustrating much in the same way as it was when my father or mother attempted to help me with my science homework in the 7th grade.

Reading the introduction to the this book made me want to read the whole thing. I think anyone who enjoys music probably recognizes musics ability to change mood and affect performance, but it is so interesting to me how scientist are working on pin pointing the actual physical locations in our brains that music affects. Here is an article that discusses music's affect on athletes and some other amazing powers of music.
http://www.livescience.com/health/081015-music-power.html

This article reviews a book that delves into the question "Why do we like music?". The author includes some interesting considerations including music as "playing with sound" and examining the "mind's ear" and how each plays into our enjoyment of music.

http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/comm/steen/cogweb/Abstracts/Zatorre_on_Jourda...

For a less scholarly approach to understanding music, check out a website designed by a CalTech PhD student which correlates favorite music genre with SAT scores.

http://musicthatmakesyoudumb.virgil.gr/

All of these articles are so fascinating-- it's hard to find something unique to post on. I decided to call attention to something a lot of us take for granted: Pandora. The psychic radio on your computer or phone is an invention that many music lovers cannot go without. Pandora uses the Music Genome Project to pick out certain characteristics of your favorite song/artist and connects you to songs with similar traits. As you use that new "station," it starts to play only music you like.
This seems to fit well with Levitin's article, especially the part about everyone having different musical tastes that are difficult to define or quantify. Now, Pandora thinks it has done just that. Do you agree?

Check out
http://vator.tv/news/show/2009-07-08-evolution-of-radio-and-music-genome... for general information

or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Music_Genome_Project_attributes for a list of all the possible music attributes.

A great article! Music can also be used to treat depression (an older article but still worth the read):

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080122203158.htm

I want to start out by saying that it's amazing how once I started to think about the different points these various articles make, I discovered how true they are in relation to myself. Now that I think back, when I drive to work in the mornings and listen to certain playlists, it wakes me up, puts me in a good mood, and totally affects my energy level. I'll have to make sure to have a "positive/energetic" playlist for the mornings.

http://www.musicforautism.org/
I have attached a link to a website that I find fascinating. Even though there are few "musical scientists" many people recognize the very physical and real benefit of certain types of music. Music for Autism is a program that provides interactive concerts for children with autism in order to allow them the opportunity to hear, react, and respond in a spontaneous manner. Even children with severe autism are deeply affected by music, some even becoming savants.

There is no age/time/place limit to who can be affected and moved by music. It truly is the universal language.

Here is an article from the New York Times from 2006 that talks more about Daniel Levitin's book. It is pretty interesting and gives some more information about "This is Your Brain on Music".

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/31/arts/music/31thom.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

Here is an interesting blurb regarding the findings of a psychological experiment conducted regarding the seven ways that music can alter your mood.
http://www.spring.org.uk/2007/03/seven-ways-music-influences-mood.php

As Levitin says in the introduction to his book, "The power of music to evoke emotions is harnessed by," movies, advertisements, sporting events, and mothers. The correlation between music and mood is studied and proven.

But all of this is about the effect music has on our moods, and not the effect our moods have on our music. However, thanks to the fine people of Musicovery, you can now control a form of webradio based solely on your mood and musical preferences, letting your attitude dictate the songs you hear, as opposed to the songs you hear dictating your attitude.
http://musicovery.com/index2.php?ct=us

Here's an interesting article about a recent study done in the U.K. It demonstrates how people can often make assumptions about someone's personality, values, social class and ethnicity based on their musical preferences:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/6067389/You-are-what-you...

I think it's presumptuous to try and glean other aspects of a person's life from their musical taste alone, yet I feel like plenty of us do this all the time. It's interesting to think of music functioning in our society this way. Perhaps we gravitate toward people who enjoy the same music as we do? Or do we sometimes subconsciously gravitate to certain types of music based on how we think it will cause people to perceive us?

http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2001/03.22/04-music.html

This is an interesting article from the Harvard Gazette that explains how the capacity to comprehend and appreciate music is innate and that musical taste is shaped by culture at a very early age. It then goes on to explain the "biology of music" and particular areas of the brain involved in processing music.