Klarinet Archive - Posting 000254.txt from 2002/09

From: w8wright@-----.net (William Wright)
Subj: [kl] Hearing vs. sight in art (and education)
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 06:22:48 -0400

All other things being equal (which they never are), the combination of
hearing and sight creates more emotion than either stimulus alone.

Examples: (A) movies without background music don't have the same
emotional power as movies with background music; and (B) a live concert,
where you see the musicians as well as hear them, delivers more emotion
than a recording does --- and this is only partly because the sound
quality of a recording can never equal the real thing.

It is reasonable to ask: Does the combination of visual and aural art
lose more of its emotional power if the sound portion is eliminated or
if the visual portion is eliminated?

Certainly movies without background music (recorded sights only)
wouldn't sell very well, whereas CDs (recorded sounds only) do.
Another example: recorded musical art sells in greater volume than
painted art or sculptured art or photographic art.

Practical issues make a direct comparison difficult. Example: movies
already have sound tracks for the dialog, to which music can be added
relatively easily; and movie audiences expect to be in a situation where
they can listen as well as watch. This is not true for musical
recordings, which do not have a 'vision track' to which sights can be
added easily; and recorded music is designed for situations --- such as
driving a car or performing manual labor --- where both watching and
listening would be impractical or dangerous or both.

So here's my question:

Is it correct to say, as Anthony Storr does in "Music and the Mind":
[the asterisks signify italics]

"What seems certain is that there is a closer relation between *hearing*
and emotional arousal than there is between *seeing* and emotional
arousal."

Storr cites examples similar to those that I have listed above, and a
few more:

"A love scene in a film is almost inconceivable without music. [my
thought: even though we usually (?) make love without music in the real
world]

"Even in the days of silent films a pianist had to be hired to intensify
and bring out the emotional significance of the different episodes.

"A friend of mine, visiting the Grand Canyon for the first time, found
himself disappointed at the lack of his response to this awesome sight.
After a while, he realized that he had seen the Grand Canyon many times
on the cinema screen and never without music. Because his sight of the
real thing lacked such musical accompaniment, his arousal level was less
intense than it had been in the cinema.

[my thought: how does Grofe's Grand Canyon Suite suite compare with the
real thing? I've experienced both, and I must admit that the music
produces more *emotion* in me, but delivers less information to my
intellect.]

"Seeing a wounded animal or suffering person who is silent may produce
little emotional response in the viewer. But once they start to
scream, the onlooker is usually powerfully moved.

"People who become profoundly deaf often seem to be more cut off from
others than those who are blind. Certainly [Storr is a practicing
psychiatrist] they are more likely to become suspicious of their nearest
and dearest."

============

Is it true that [quoting Storr] "at an emotional level, there is
something 'deeper' about hearing than seeing." ???

If so, does this say anything about the value of music in education?

---------------------------------------------------------------------