 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Koo Young Chung
Date: 2007-03-20 05:02
Playing music sharpens hearing?
Are you kidding?
The author of this article apparently didn't know music is about listening and hearing SOUND.
I think smart person plays musical instruments not the other way around.
Too many pseudo-science stuff out there.
To prove those things rigorously is extremely difficult,you cannot just do
some experiments and interprete whatever way you want.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: joannew
Date: 2007-03-20 08:40
You must not be familiar with the work of Alfred Tomatis, then. He was an extremely insightful Parisian ear-nose-throat specialist, most well known for treating opera singers with voice pathologies. Interestingly enough, he didn't treat the voice, but the ear: he developed methods to train the ear to be more sensitive to particular frequency ranges, which had the effect of improving pitch control and voice timbre. His work expanded to a wide and very detailed understanding of the role of the ear in language acquisition (as a child, or learning second languages) and in motor skills, and he demonstrated how important it is to MAKE sound (whether by voice or instrument) in order to fully develop your ear, and therefore have better mastery over language, voice, movements (= perceived intelligence). His work is now carried on in clinics all over the world, which use ear training (through sound production) to treat voice pathologies, dyslexia, attention-deficit disorders, and to facilitate learning a second language. This all comes from his understanding of the ear and how we listen and interpret sound. I think it's very clear from his work that people who regularly make music have the opportunity to acquire many skills to a higher level than those who do not make music.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Hank Lehrer
Date: 2007-03-20 13:32
Koo Young Chung,
I am fascinated by your statements: "I think smart person plays musical instruments not the other way around. Too many pseudo-science stuff out there."
Could you enlighten me as to the scientific basis for your assertions, please? If you can not, how am I to know that your statements are not just more "pseudo-science stuff?" Or, are these just personal beliefs?
HRL
Post Edited (2007-03-20 14:40)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: skygardener
Date: 2007-03-20 14:35
saying 'studying music improves hearing' is like saying 'learning painting improves vision'.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: tictactux ★2017
Date: 2007-03-20 14:42
> saying 'studying music improves hearing' is like saying 'learning painting
> improves vision'.
It does, doesn't it?
Learn how to photograph (not just press the shutter) and you'll see the world with different eyes. Learn how to read and play music, and you will hear things you maybe didn't notice before.
Only a part of hearing is a mechanical thing, the rest is the sound processor between our ears, and it has to be trained as well.
--
Ben
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: skygardener
Date: 2007-03-20 15:17
or maybe, people with naturally good ears study music more.
think about runners. everyone has one leg a bit longer than the other. I would expect that runners have less asymmetry than the average person. was it all the running that caused the legs to be the same length? have you ever seen a runner with a limp?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: William
Date: 2007-03-20 15:49
Back in the early 90's, my middle school got a grant which allowed us to hire a music therapist to work with a group of students who had a variety of special needs--attention deficit disorder, behavioral issues, etc. None of the students were in our school's major music classes--band, chorus or strings. The music therapist engaged these students in a variety of rhythmic and singing activities and the response from these "problem" kids was amazing. They were able to concentrate, control their behaviors and accomplish tasks as a group and as individuals. And the regular classroom participation and work also improved, as noted by their teachers. Too bad that grant ran out. The kids really looked forward to music class and we all were sorry to see the therapist leave, but the school districts decision was final--no money was available in the budget to sustain the program. After all, none of the other schools in our district had "music therapy" classes--why should we have the "luxury"? So much for our school's motto, "If its good for the kids......." As a result of those music therapy classes, ome of those "problem" kids actually joined our regular band and chorus classes and did well, but too many just returned to their old habits the next semester. The music therapist (college masters degree) could not find work in our city, but fortunately--as a master jazz musician--has opened up a Center For the Creative Arts which provides a place for all members of our community to come together and join in a variety of musical activities. His avant-garde Artet combo performs there ruglarly, as do other local and "national" musical groups. But the main emphasis is on our community and it's artistic well being--just as his music therapy classes were for "those kids" at my old middle school.
More school administrators and school board members should read CPW's posting. But unfortunately, it probably would take some music therapy for them to understand........................
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2007-03-20 16:11
William wrote:
>
The question is:
Was it the therapy, the music, or the music therapy?
Generally people of all kinds with problems can benefit from therapy. I would hope that music therapy is the answer because I love music, but your anecdote doesn't really show that at all. Painting therapy, sports therapy, or almost any other therapy might show the same, lesser, or greater results.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: William
Date: 2007-03-20 19:07
The music therapy classes I observed envolved many rhythmic and singing activities using a variety of equipment--balls, drums, sticks, call & response, vocalizations, etc. Was it the "therapy" or the "music" or "all of the above"?? Being only a band and strings teacher (MS MU & ED) and not a trained music therapist--as our resource person was--I cannot offer any clinical data to support my obervations. I only know that learning is measured in terms of behavioral change as a result of experiance and my point was simply that whatever he did in his sessions with those kids made positve differences in terms of behavioral and concentrative issues.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Hank Lehrer
Date: 2007-03-20 20:45
Hi William,
I was not finding fault with your assertions but too often, the effect I mention is really the result of attention being given to the recipient (ala Hawthorne Effect). We have gotten positive reinforcement and thus respond in many of th ways that B. F. Skinner (one of my personal heroes) demonstrated.
I do not agree though with "learning is measured in terms of behavioral change as a result of experiance" (sic). That has been the definition that the FAA has offered for years and it is really a not a totally valid explanation.
Learning does not always result in a change in behavior and we do not always need an experience for us to learn. I base my position on many years of study and work in educational curriculum development and a goodly amount of reading in educational psychology. See the link below for some neat ideas.
Not knowing the complete research protocol for the study mentioned above or for the way the work of the music therapist was evaluated, I am a bit skeptical and do not really expect anything magical to have happened. I have just tried to offer a humble/reasonable explanation though for the phenomena that occurred.
Various models of learning theory, each a bit different but some fascinating notions.
http://www.infed.org/biblio/b-learn.htm
HRL
Post Edited (2007-03-20 20:52)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2007-03-20 21:03
Willima,
I too am not disagreeing with what you saw, but the cause of the change in behaviour is difficult to ascertain even in controlled condtions.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Koo Young Chung
Date: 2007-03-21 02:21
To:Hank
To prove someone become smarter is not that simple at all.
It would take hundreds of people(if not thousands) and several years, if not decades,to do a scientifically meaningful experiment such as this.
Yet many doctors and 'scientist' devise some experiment with a small
sample and they claim such and such things as if they were proven.
Even in physics or material science where you can control all the parameters precisely and take measurements relatively easily.it usually takes long time to prove or disprove seamingly simple phenomena.
When you're doing something not generally accepted in scientific community,I say it is 'pseudo science'.
We see those thing all the time in news media,one day coffee is good for you,next they they say it's bad for you.
I know a little bit about scientific research,I did physics experiments
at the U of Pennsylvania many years.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2007-03-21 02:33
Koo Young Chung wrote:
> To:Hank
>
> To prove someone become smarter is not that simple at all.
You totally missed Hank's point! You said:
"I think smart person plays musical instruments not the other way around. Too many pseudo-science stuff out there."
The first sentence proves your second point. What you think has no bearing on the facts - it's a hypothesis only.
All you did in your statement was reverse an argument, which ends up being just as invalid as the first argument. Hank was asking you (somewhat pointedly) why your conclusion would be any more valid that the first conclusion. It appears as if you're fulfilling your own definition of "pseudo-science".
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Hank Lehrer
Date: 2007-03-21 10:06
Hi Mark,
Nice analysis above.
(Somewhat pointedly) It seems that Koo Young Chung has confused the scientific process with personal beliefs. I have had a few graduate students afflicted in the same manner. However, there is a cure which is a good adviser or if that fails, a cleansing research proposal defense before a faculty committee. The second is a little more traumatic.
HRL
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: William
Date: 2007-03-21 18:51
Through life experiances (all stimuli from birth on) we gain knowledge which helps us develop attitudes (pro or con) which affects our behaviors (choices pro, con, or non) by which the educator evaluates the success or failure of ones "learning".
Hank, I read the data you provided in your posting and I saw little or nothing that contradicts my statement. We are probably in disagreement regarding symantics rather than theory. Also, I must stand by my report regarding the music theropy classes, but must agree that there probably was a bit of the "Hawthorne" effect in play in addition to the musical activities. This certainly is all quite hypothetical and very difficult to accurately analyse without years of controlled study and collected data for reference. But for the "short" term, I felt that the music theropy did seem to positively impact upon the students behaviors and, therefore, it was good for them.
Now back to more important matters--I just got some new Eb Legere's that need testing............which I hope will be a "postive learning experiance" ;>}
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: tictactux ★2017
Date: 2007-03-21 19:00
> But for the "short" term, I felt that the music theropy did seem to positively
> impact upon the students behaviors and, therefore, it was good for them.
If it does have a positive effect - why bother about the cause? For each "case", what counts is the solution, but it might not work everywhere. So what? Look at pharmaceutics, the very same pill doesn't automatically work for every person.
--
Ben
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2007-03-21 19:19
tictactux wrote:
> If it does have a positive effect - why bother about the cause?
Cost/Benefit ratio - finding the cause may greatly influence the benefit and/or size of the population deriving benefit for a given cost.
Cost of course may or may not be measured in financial terms.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: tictactux ★2017
Date: 2007-03-21 19:43
>> If it does have a positive effect - why bother about the cause?
> Cost/Benefit ratio - finding the cause may greatly influence the benefit
> and/or size of the population deriving benefit for a given cost.
Yes, of course. But then we could as well give'm Prozac or some other chemical easy-way-out. (because they go after the effect and not necessarily the cause, and often yield quick results. I do not mean to say that is generally a bad thing, don't get me wrong)
I meant "compared to other, similar time-consuming therapies (eg painting)".
It may be a Hawthorne effect indeed, but this might just show that these people need attention and guidance more than others do. Maybe pottery would yield a similar result, but I reckon the "cost" would be more or less the same. Music challenges body and brain alike, and doing that in a group probably leverages that effect.
--
Ben
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Hank Lehrer
Date: 2007-03-21 21:12
Hi Ben,
When you use words like probably, reckon, may, indeed, maybe, etc. my COP (Crusty Old Professor) hat comes out. I'm not sure also about your statement that "this might just show that these people need attention and guidance more than others do."
William, semantics are important and all too often, an area of mis-understanding. The fact that the therapy (or was it the therapist) "did seem to positively impact upon the students behaviors" is certainly a result that no one will argue. However, the question is why? Without a control group and a truly experimental research approach, the answer is elusive. The we have Type I and II errors with which to content.
I could spend days talking about this stuff since it is almost as much fun as playing the bassoon or the bari sax!
HRL
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: skygardener
Date: 2007-03-22 09:02
I have read the article again to be sure I know what it means. Firstly, the sample size is too small to draw any reliable conclusions.
The researchers have jumped to amazing huge conclusions. They basically said, "people that have some training differentiating sounds, are better at differentiating sound than those without said training." And then from that point they say it might help literacy and other brain functions.
Am I missing something?!? Doesn't that seem a bit of a leap to anyone else??
From the article- "We think music engages higher level functions in the cortex that actually tune the brainstem."
So, they really have no idea at all. It's a BIG maybe!!!
I think that there is something to "nature" as well as "nurture"; some people are naturally better at different things, right?? Using music as an example- a person with naturally poor listening abilities might get frustrated in music classes quickly and stop taking the class. Those that have naturally good ears enjoy the success that they get from the class and continue. Does that mean that the music CAUSED the improvement???
Another example- I was always bad at sports when I was young. So, I avoided the classes if I could.
Maybe- 1. if I put in the effort I would have become an Olympic gold medalist.
or- 2. I would never have become a great athlete no matter how I tried.
The point is- they only have an observation of correlation (A and B occur in the same person), not an observation of CAUSE (A causes B).
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: joannew
Date: 2007-03-22 09:39
"When you're doing something not generally accepted in scientific community,I say it is 'pseudo science'."
I don't think its fair to equate research that is outside of mainstream science with pseudo-science. Pseudo-science is poor quality work which jumps to unfounded conclusions. Ideas outside of the mainstream science world can be pursued in a fully scientific manner (or not). In fact, our science as a whole moves forward thanks to scientists who choose to study phenomena outside of our current way of thinking.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Hank Lehrer
Date: 2007-03-22 11:24
Joannew,
Extremely well said.
If the Wright Brothers, Thomas Edison, etc. (and all the great visionary researchers/inventors that "push the envelope") had not chosen "to study phenomena outside of our current way of thinking" where would we be today? While it easier to stay within comfortable research and critical thinking boundaries, one must reach a little to further the collective body of knowledge. As an FAA Administrator said many years ago "reach for the stars even though you end up with a handful of mud from time to time."
Poor research design and execution usually yields results that are faulty. The scientific process (Problem, Hypothesis, Data Gathering, Analysis, and Conclusions) is still an effective paradigm. Quantum leaps in logic and and in interpretation of results is not acceptable.
HRL
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: bawa
Date: 2007-03-22 13:45
I sometimes find that its the lay report of the research in the media which is also partly at fault. The original research may include details of all the assumptions, arrive to possible cautious conclusions, but when it is given out as a media story, things get reduced to absolutes.
I do not know if that is the case in this story, of course.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Koo Young Chung
Date: 2007-03-22 23:52
Thinking outside of box is critical for science.
But out-of-box researching methodology is pseudo-science.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: catina
Date: 2007-03-23 02:12
Back to Koo Young Chung's original statement:
"I think smart person plays musical instruments not the other way around. "
What if the child never had access to musical instruments? What if Leopold was a cheese-maker and not a well-reknowned violinist, composer and teacher? Would Wolfgang have found instruments on his own and still achieved the same level of genius?
Catina
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Hank Lehrer
Date: 2007-03-23 10:48
Catina, this is where you must use at least an ANCOVA to account for previous differences that existed. And then you have the issue of "smart person" to deal with. As measured by what intelligence test (there are many different test, each one with a different validity and/or reliability).
Koo Young Chung has many research problems in the statement as originally offered.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
