Perfect Pitch? Neuroscience in music? and more???

[keithjfuller]

i just heard something on the radio the other day and i had to share it with everyone. it is honestly one of the coolest things i've ever heard, and seeing as its all about music i thought, why not share it with everyone here?

the show is broken up into segments, and they are all incredibly interesting. the first is about how we sing in normal speech without realizing it and goes into tonal languages (mandarin chinese). they realized that something like 75% of people in beijing have perfect pitch, and its probably due to the way they talk.

the second is about the neuroscience behind why certain sounds make us feel certain emotions (this is probably the coolest part). they actually recorded the electrical signals going on in your brain when you hear perfect fifths as opposed to minor seconds and stuff. they used this to try and explain the riots after Stravinsky played the Rite of Spring at its opening in Paris.

there are some other things in it that are fascinating as well, but i don't want to ruin it for anyone wanting to listen. anyway, the show is from Radio Lab thats on NPR in most places (i know i just posted another Radio Lab link the other day, but this was too good to pass up). i really hope you all find this as incredible interesting as i did, and if anyone knows any specifics about this stuff please do share.

enough of my jibba jabba ==> Episode Link (http://www.wnyc.org/shows/radiolab/episodes/2007/09/25), .mp3 file (http://audio.wnyc.org/radiolab/radiolab092507pod.mp3)

[Aziraphal]

after Stravinsky played the Rite of Spring at its opening in Paris.

Aw come on. If weird intervals caused riots, then 20th century would be full of wars and violenc ... e ... um ... er .. uh, lemme read that part again :D

BTW: Perfect pitch? I've beein to China and heard them do karaoke. No offence to Chinese members of this forum, there was no evidence of perfect pitch in any karaoke bar. :D

[keithjfuller]

Aw come on. If weird intervals caused riots, then 20th century would be full of wars and violenc ... e ... um ... er .. uh, lemme read that part again :D

i'm assuming you simply read what i wrote as opposed to listening to the show, so i'll go ahead and explain that. no one is saying that it is weird intervals that caused the riots, it was the fact that it was something peoples' brains couldn't figure out.

what they showed is that when you hear sounds the neurons in your auditory cortex fire electrical signals (which they recorded). when you hear something thats familiar or consonant the signals sound like they have a steady beat and not much happens. BUT, this is the cool part, when you hear dissonant or unfamiliar sounds they start firing off very sporadically, and you can actually hear the difference in the electrical signals. now after a little while, usually very quickly the pattern becomes normal. this is because your brain is learning to accept the sounds and find patterns in them. it is your cortical fugal network that actually changes the chemistry of your neurons in an attempt to figure out these noises.

if your brain can't figure it out the neurons start giving off dopamine to calm you down. the problem is if it goes on for too long, too much dopamine is released and it has an adverse effect. it causes a small stint of schizophrenia - literally schizophrenia.

so, what the show is saying is that up until this point no one had even heard anything like this before. they had been listening to the Romance Era composers, and were going into this assuming the same. when the Rite of Spring became loud and dissonant it never returned to a "normal" state, it just kept going like that. they think that people were soooo distracted by the fact that it was something they had never heard before that their brains couldn't find any music in it. and after 3, 4, then 5 minutes of complete dissonance and loud rhythmic garbage in their ears they couldn't take it. their brains had release way too much dopamine in an attempt to calm them down and they rioted. and they literally rioted - hitting people, throwing things, screaming, yelling, etc. the police had to come in and calm everything down. and all because of the music.

now whats interesting also is that less than a year later Stravinsky returned to the same theater and had the Rite of Spring performed again. it was sold out and he received a standing ovation. people then proceeded to pick him up on their shoulders and carry him out. so what happened differently this time? people came into it knowing what to expect. they weren't thrown off guard thinking they were going to see something completely different. (imagine if when the last lord of the rings came out it was just 3+ hours of car crashes and violent images with hammering going on. people would have gone nuts, literally nuts. but after a week or so, when everyone found out it wouldn't have a crazy effect on them).

so in short, it was just the fact of something crazy and new that drove people off the deep end, not the fact that it had dissonance and strange intervals.

[robh]

Even after all these years, every time I hear a Madonna song, I feel like bashing someone's head.:)

Rob

[qccowboy]

And again, let us clear up the myth regarding the first performance of Sacre du Printemps:

The "riot" was due to the dreadful choreography, and the fact that the dancers were completely lost (try counting to 13 in Russian... not easy to do fast). It had NOTHING, and I will repeat for emphasis N-O-T-H-I-N-G to do with the dissonance of the music.

Sacre du Printemps was performed "sans danse" a few months later to HUGE success. It has remained a VERY popular concert work ever since.

Please, can we once and for all put to rest this myth of Sacre du Printemps' riots being caused by the music itself.

And to add more detail to the story... PART of the riot was due to SOME people whistling and cat-calling, while other were screaming "bravo". The "riots" in fact broke out as a result of fights between audience members, and not as a direct result of the music.

[keithjfuller]

And again, let us clear up the myth regarding the first performance of Sacre du Printemps:

The "riot" was due to the dreadful choreography, and the fact that the dancers were completely lost (try counting to 13 in Russian... not easy to do fast). It had NOTHING, and I will repeat for emphasis N-O-T-H-I-N-G to do with the dissonance of the music.

Sacre du Printemps was performed "sans danse" a few months later to HUGE success. It has remained a VERY popular concert work ever since.

Please, can we once and for all put to rest this myth of Sacre du Printemps' riots being caused by the music itself.

And to add more detail to the story... PART of the riot was due to SOME people whistling and cat-calling, while other were screaming "bravo". The "riots" in fact broke out as a result of fights between audience members, and not as a direct result of the music.

i'm not saying you're right or wrong, but i have always heard otherwise. from music teachers in high school all the way through college i've heard that people rioted because they hated the music. i've also heard that the dancing was bad, because people were yelling and screaming.

either way this doesn't detract from the point that something went on that caused people to riot for no rational reason. i don't think you can say that it had "N-O-T-H-I-N-G" to do with the music, and it was all the dancing. if that were the case why was it only after a few minutes into the music getting crazy did people start to riot? why wasn't it after the first 2 minutes while the music was still relatively peaceful? maybe the dancing started people getting angry and the music is what really added fuel to the fire until it burst out of control.

anyway, i'm just curious if you could point out where you heard that it had nothing to do with the music, because i've always heard otherwise.

[qccowboy]

I say this from reading first-hand retelling of that performance, and from Strawinski's own retelling of the events.
And if the music WAS so dramatically violent that it could cause a riot, why did the subsequant performance without the dance NOT cause said riot?

[keithjfuller]

I say this from reading first-hand retelling of that performance, and from Strawinski's own retelling of the events.
And if the music WAS so dramatically violent that it could cause a riot, why did the subsequant performance without the dance NOT cause said riot?

well if you read what i wrote or listened to what i posted then that question is answered. i can understand if you don't agree with it, but i'd like think that neuroscientists kind of know what they are talking about.

also, the point of the story isn't the Rite of Spring premier, rather what goes on inside your head when you listen to music. this is just being used as a way to try and help explain what happened that night, not the end all be all.

it would be nice if you would listen to something before you bash it is what i'm trying to say. and sorry i stepped on your toes, i just felt like posting something that i thought was extremely interesting.

[qccowboy]

well if you read what i wrote or listened to what i posted then that question is answered. i can understand if you don't agree with it, but i'd like think that neuroscientists kind of know what they are talking about. it would be nice if you would listen to something before you bash it is what i'm trying to say. and sorry i stepped on your toes, i just felt like posting something that i thought was extremely interesting.
what I object to is not the idea of the neurological reaction to various auditory stimuli such as music, or how the brain reacts to consonance/dissonance.

What I object to is the way the myth of Sacre's first performance gets repeated and ends up being used as a quazi-proof for what would otherwise be very interesting scientific principles.

Simply because teachers repeat the myth does not make it any less a myth. Besides, since when are neuroscientists references for matter musicological? I'm more likely to believe the composer who was present at the premiere, or the choreographer's biographer, than neuroscientists.

And if you, in turn, read what I wrote, I did not object in any way to your post of very interesting scientific exploration. I objected to a too often repeated myth, which has taken on a life of its own. I do not disagree that music can (and more than likely DOES) cause measurable neurological responses in subjects.

And do note, that the repeat performance where Le Sacre was received with enthusiasm by the audience was not because the audience had grown accustomed to the dissonance. It was because it was a "concert version" of the work. Without dance. And chances are, that the audience for a dance show and that for a concert were quite different as well. Things to take into account before jumping on the "Le Sacre is an unrelentingly dissonant work" bandwagon. Unless you haven't listened to the entire score, you would be aware that the work is far from being non-stop dissonance.

[fiziwig]

...
What I object to is the way the myth of Sacre's first performance gets repeated and ends up being used as a quazi-proof for what would otherwise be very interesting scientific principles.


I am reminded of "The Eskimo's hundred words for snow" (or 200 words, or 400 words, depending on which version you've heard.) In fact, they have four words for snow, yet their mythological hundred words for snow is cited as proof of one wacky linguistic theory or another even by people who should know better.

[keithjfuller]

in response to qccowboy i will say this. i apologize for for not making myself clear, because i think then this semi-argument would have been averted had i done so. let me begin by saying i am in no way saying that the music was the only cause. i am simply saying that knowing what we know now it is sort of difficult to totally discard this as an aiding factor to the riots. first off, no composer in history will ever say that his music caused a riot because it was so displeasing to the ear, and no choreographer will admit to causing a riot because his creation was so displeasing to the eyes. as a long time student of history i have learned that often times the biographer is the worst person to hear a story from. i am sure he blamed the dancing, and the choreographer blamed the dancers. i'm sure if the dancers wrote a biography they would say that it was the music or the choreography as opposed to their performance. the point is, biographers are the last to accept blame. also, how would stravinsky or anyone for that matter know anything about the science behind what was going on. this is a totally up and coming field, with new discoveries almost daily.

i propose that if there was no music and simply dancing people probably would not have rioted, and possibly the same for the music being performed solo at its opening. what i am saying is that there was so much "newness" happening to these people that they were not able to focus on the music. for example, when you watch a movie, you don't really notice the music all that much, but it is at least 50% responsible for the feelings that you have. but you would probably attribute that to great performances and script writing, and directing. unless you are a musician you won't say anything about the music, in fact it would proably be dead last - behind costume designers and sound engineers.

what i am saying is that there are chemical reactions going on in your brain when you listen to music, dopamine being released to be exact, and that changes your actual feelings. you can attribute it to whatever you want it to, but the fact remains that the music actually does chemically change your mood.

to give another analogy, a while back darwin was criticized for his views on evolution (although he himself did not believe that we evolved from apes or anything along that scale). people believed that the bible was the end all be all to what happened, and why shouldn't they? but knowing what we do now, it is widely accepted that evolution is what happened because the science backs it up. i am by no means equating this to the same level of importance as the theory of evolution, i am using to make a point which is - people will explain things through what the know. stravinsky "knew" that it was not his music, so why would he or anyone say that. science had to idea that it had a chemical affect on your mood. if people are suffering from dementia and no one knows this, an outburst of anger might be attributed to someone running into them, not the physical disease. but really dementia would be the cause. science now shows that any wild or new sounds over a a continuous duration will cause serious chemical reactions, and combined with other stimuli it might become too much to handle.

for example, if you woke out to loud noises going on and you were in a dark room, it might freak you out at first but you'd probably calm down. if there was loud banging along with people running around in front of you and things falling it would most likely cause you to panic. you almost certainly wouldn't panic if someone told you it was about to happen, like in a fire drill. so it is the sum of all the parts.

i am not saying that the music was totally to blame, or even remotely to blame. but i do think that knowing what we know now we should at least give it a fair chance as opposed to simply dismissing it and scientific nonsense.

once again, i do apologize for not making myself clear, and i do respect your belief that it is 100% false. i on the other hand think it lends some insight into what happened, and thats simply a difference of opinion.

p.s. - i loved your symphony in c

[KeithW]

I would posit that there is no such thing as perfect pitch, any more than a parrot can really "talk"- both phenomenon are based on the brain's ability to record and playback what it hears. Some can do it better than others, but there is no pitch out of context. Take A440. It wasn't that way until 1939. Before that, it was all over the map at 404Hz to 455Hz. If you play a piano that is in relative tune but tuned to, lets say, 444Hz (like it is in some places in Europe,) I bet 99 out of 100 people would still think it was "in tune."

Keith W.

[Paul Blankenau]

Some parrots (http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/pepperberg03/pepperberg_index.html) have passed rather stringent tests of their language abilities.

[germancomponist]

I have worked together with many different people from many different places all over the world.

All I have to say about this is: It`s not true!

Gunther

[Aziraphal]

Keith - I'm sorry if my reply offended you.

I'll allow the possibility that the music was one of the factors in the riots - but not a significant one.

Of course, the use of music to influence emotions is as old as mankind - the first use being of course for military purposes. As brilliantly put by Gilbert & Sullivan -

When the foeman bares his steel,
Tarantara! tarantara!
We uncomfortable feel,
Tarantara!
And we find the wisest thing,
Tarantara! tarantara!
Is to slap our chests and sing,
Tarantara! tarantara!
For when threatened with emeutes,
Tarantara! tarantara!
And your heart is in your boots,
There is nothing brings it round
Like the trumpet’s martial sound,
Like the trumpet’s martial sound!

I still don't buy the perfect pitch theory though.

[Von Richter]

"Perfect Pitch" is a misnomer and I wish people would stop insiting on using it as a synonym for the very un-perfect phenomenon of Absolute Pitch.

It just creates confusion, like the post equating out-of-tune karaoke with "perfect pitch". The ability to sing or play in tune relative to other sounds is a function of relative pitch, not absolute pitch.

No sound is "in or out of tune" unless related to another sound.

Absolute pitch is the ability to "know" the pitch of a sound independent of reference to another sound. It comes in all degrees of accurancy. Much research shows that nearly everyone has the ability to some degree, however small.

For example, randomly thinking of a recording of a song you have heard lands even non-musical people at or close to the actual pitch of the recording at well above chance statistics.

At any rate, it has no effect on musical talent/genius/skill/ability. Certainly it's of no concern to composers. :)

[qccowboy]

random comedy comment:

but I don't think it's the single out of tune musician they are talking about.
from my understanding of the comments of those "perfect pitch musical geniuses", the thing that bothers them is not one musician out of a group being out of tune. It's the entire group being in a different "reference pitch" to the one they have internalized as "the right tone". For example, if their ear tells them that A 440 is the "reference", if the entire orchestra is perfectly in tune at A 435, then to their ear it all sounds wrong.

[Von Richter]

random comedy comment:

but I don't think it's the single out of tune musician they are talking about.
from my understanding of the comments of those "perfect pitch musical geniuses", the thing that bothers them is not one musician out of a group being out of tune. It's the entire group being in a different "reference pitch" to the one they have internalized as "the right tone". For example, if they're ear tells them that A 440 is the "reference", if the entire orchestra is perfectly in tune at A 435, then to their ear it all sounds wrong.

My post is clearly talking about pitch relationships, not their absolute reference. People can and do complain about "perfect pitch" supposedly making them better able to hear tuning discrepencies between, say, 2 violins in unison, or the harmonic beating of a triad. To take that seriously would be to bar anyone without absolute pitch from any type of quality ensemble work. Which of course is ridiculous.

You have us on a different subject now, but one that, as you point out, also causes some people to express frsutration.

What all of that means when you have pieces modulating all over the place, different orchestra tunings, and the significant raising of the standard pitch over the last several centuries is anyones guess.

One thing is certain... there is no "correct key". There is only a CHOICE of key.

[qccowboy]

just to be clear: I do NOT have perfect pitch (except where it concerns a bonfire and a set of bagpipes)!

and I ALSO agree with you, 100%, that it's misplaced elitism to whine about perfect pitch making people more sensitive to "out of tune" musicians.

there... and back on track... I STILL found the idea of the ability of sound to generate physiological/neurological responses in a subject's brain interesting.

If crashing noises, or soothing sounds, can affect response from a subject, then why not various types of music?

I'm actually pretty sure that if those researchers used people with a very wide range of muscial tastes for their experiments they might find some interesting results... I, for one, find Sacre du Printemps an immensely enjoyable experience. Likewise, many other considerably more dissonant works.

I would love to know if my brain is reacting the same way as that of those for whom this music is a "shock".

I also wonder, since Haydn grates on my nerves no end, if they would see the same neurological response in my brain using that sound as they did with dissonant music in their test subjects'?

[keithjfuller]

Aziraphal - no offense whatsoever. sorry if my response came off that way, i just read over it and i could definitely see what you mean.

talking about "shocking" music affecting your mood is discussed in the show, and they came up with an interesting conclusion. music that is different, or dissonant, or complicated, or whatever - as long as its something different from what you're used to it will only have that strange effect on your mood the first time or two that you hear it. they showed that the electrical signals in your brain start to calm down after they "figured the music out," so in a way you'll never feel that way about the piece again. its actually a really enlightening and somewhat sad take on why some things just lose their pizzazz after a few listens.

and about perfect pitch, it sounds to me like people are angry over it. i've never heard people talk about it this way, its very interesting. i don't know if people are mad about the idea or just the name its been given - "perfect"? either way, its an incredible phenomenon. in college there were some kids in some in my jazz performance classes who had what i called perfect pitch. they knew if my bass what just a tad bit flat or sharp. they could hear the florescent lights' pitch in the practice rooms, and it would honestly bug them sometimes on quiet parts of tunes. and to say it doesn't give an advantage, i couldn't disagree more. when we were transcribing solos it took these kids 1 hour whereas it would take us normal kids 4 days!!! and they weren't smarter musicians, or necessarily better players, just had the most amazing ears - so there was no effort being put into it, which helps you articulate your musical ideas.

its like we know red when we see it, we know white when we see it. we can tell if its dark red, or if its a creamy white. we don't need a color chart to compare them to - and thats how it is with people who have perfect (absolute) pitch - they just know? some peoples' pitch is obviously better than others, but i would say either way its still a very real thing, and i don't think that its an elitist thing, just a lucky thing.

[Von Richter]

just to be clear: I do NOT have perfect pitch (except where it concerns a bonfire and a set of bagpipes)!

and I ALSO agree with you, 100%, that it's misplaced elitism to whine about perfect pitch making people more sensitive to "out of tune" musicians.


However there are legitimate scenarios which are a profound difficulty for some people with absolute pitch.

I can't tell you why it's a problem for a few, yet an advantage for many. Apparently some people just can't "turn it off" when needed and can't follow ensemble drift or different tuning standards than what they grew up with, in other words "go with the flow".

[qccowboy]

talking about "shocking" music affecting your mood is discussed in the show, and they came up with an interesting conclusion. music that is different, or dissonant, or complicated, or whatever - as long as its something different from what you're used to it will only have that strange effect on your mood the first time or two that you hear it. they showed that the electrical signals in your brain start to calm down after they "figured the music out," so in a way you'll never feel that way about the piece again.

I wonder... were they seeing "musical comprehension" at work?

[Von Richter]

and about perfect pitch, it sounds to me like people are angry over it. i've never heard people talk about it this way, its very interesting. i don't know if people are mad about the idea or just the name its been given - "perfect"? either way, its an incredible phenomenon.

Angry? ROFL. Please just do a little research on the subject.

Again, "perfect" is a misleading misnomer. You gave the usual starry-eyed examples, but the reality is vastly more complicated, with a spectrum of ability in this area that is nowhere near being fully understood.

Do some research and you will find that the scientific reality is far more interesting than the black-and-white picture you painted.

You can start with wiki for a quick crash-course:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_pitch

[KE Peace]

I have not listened to the show yet, but this is just fascinating! Well we know the brain "builds" new pathways in response to stimuli. I know that when I listen to a style of music that is unfamiliar, it is uncomfortable at first. But on each successive listen, it is more pleasant and also I am able to perceive more of it, i guess because my brain is not saying "noise! block it out" as much (something else the brain knows how to do).

There is a field called psychoacoustics (sounds like a heavy-metal band doesn't it? *() :D ) that studies how music affects us. I use a CD called the Delta Sleep System to help me stay asleep (insomniac that I am), It contains within the music sound waves that oscillate at the same frequency as those of the brain in deep sleep ("delta waves"). It helps me alot! I've also been a music volunteer in a hospice setting, where they used music alot for its healing properties. And in that setting it is indeed familiar music that is soothing to patients. The most remarkable thing I had happen once was I was playing and singing something familiar (Amazing Grace I think) for a lady who was unresponsive. She was not in a coma, just not responsive though apparently aware at some level (I'm not a nurse and not a licensed music therapist either so take all this with a grain of salt). And totally unexpectedly, she started singing with me! I was amazed.

Music continues to surprise me all the time! )(~

[KE Peace]

reading these posts, i also thought back to my days as a software engineer. when confronted with some entirely new model or paradigm, there would, for me, be this period of mental confusion which could be frustrating, even angering. It was the brain turning around in circles trying to make sense of the new model presented to it. I wonder if it is similar with new music. I also think of those "magic eyes" pictures which you stare at unfocused for awhile and eventually, another 3-D picture is seen. Maybe a similar mechanism in the brain turns the "unfmailiar" into the familiar in the music realm too? Just thinking out loud...

[drjazz]

Let's take another look at the premier performance of "Rite of Spring."
I also heard a re-run of the RadioLab show on NPR; it was suggested that the the "riot" at the performance in question was due to the neurological effects of dissonant (i.e., unfamiliar) sounds, but a year later they had become familiar and acceptable. The repeat performance yielded great acclaim for Stravinski.
The tale intrigued me, but I was skeptical about the neurological explanation accounting for all of the effect. Was the 1st anniversary audience identical to the premier's? That would be an interesting experiment, but I am certain this was not the case.
The key figure in this urban myth is probably Serge Diaghilev, who had a touch of P.T. Barnum to him. The impresario had booked the theater for 7 performances. For the premier night he carefully selected the invitees to include a number who disliked Stravinski and his music, others who were appeciative.
When the audience became very restive, Stravinski dashed backstage to find Diaghilev switching the hall lights on and off in order to "calm the audience." A most peculiar way to calm an audience!
Diaghilev later said that the result of his efforts in staging the premier were "just what I wanted."
The show went on as planned for the next 6 nights without incident and a few weeks later played in London, also without incident.
The dancing probably played into the riot; Stravinski said that Nijinski did not understand music and it is clear from descriptions that what was choreographed was not the expected classical ballet.

[qccowboy]

thank-you Drjazz.

While I am very open to the idea of unfamiliar sounds having quantifiable psycho-neurological effects on a listener, I am extremely doubtful that that is the particular effect that was at play in the Sacre du Printemps case.

As has been said numerous times, the subsequant performances of Sacre as a concert work was in front of different audiences, elswehere, and not "years later" but weeks and months later. These different audiences had NOT had the time to become accustomed to the dissonance, and yet still acclaimed the work as a masterpiece.

If the psycho-neurological effect of "unfamiliar sounds" were truly responsible for the riots at the very first performance, then by all rights, this should have been the case at ANY and ALL subsequant performances where the majority of audience members had not been present at an earlier performance. This would mean ALL "first" performances in different cities.

This, and THIS ALONE, is my objection to the repeating of the myth of the riots at the premiere. The myth being the reason for the riots, not their existance.