The 5 magnificent delusions regarding musical elitism

[Nothinggod]

My belief is that it is cultural, pedagogical, and psychological conditioning. I think to a limited extent there may be some "psycho-scientific" factor involved, in that certain sounds or colours, for example, effect us in a physiological way that is seperate to conditioned response, though I for the most part think that is less a factor. In this matter I also believe that it only takes one exception to break the rule.

An object can only have objective traits. It is the way that the subject percieves those traits based on experience and analogous association that forms the basis of emotional association and a sense of aesthetic. There was this guy called Pavlov, he had a dog, and they pretty much referee the point I am making.

 

[Manbient]

It is the way that the subject percieves those traits based on experience and analogous association that forms the basis of emotional association and a sense of aesthetic.

This is the part i'm interested in. I think it's possible to change your interpretation of things by adjusting certain parameters. In fact, that whole idea is the basis of how i judge music these days. It's too easy to go "this sucks, i just don't like it, and there's no point in thinking about it because music is subjective". I'd rather take the time to understand where the people who DO enjoy the music are comming from, and seeing if i can replicate it myself so i may enjoy it. It's very possible, and unless i'm just delusional, i've certainly been able to broaden my appreciation for music doing exactly this.

There are immediate parameters too, which don't have to take a lifetime to develop. I think there's things you can do to change your opinion on a piece of music that are simple. Things like environment you listen, frame of mind when listening, and also the areas of the piece you are focussing on. It's very easy to not like something when you're looking for the same things you always do in music, but they don't exist or are unimportant to the particular piece you are listening to.

 

[derbeder]

My belief is that it is cultural, pedagogical, and psychological conditioning. I think to a limited extent there may be some "psycho-scientific" factor involved, in that certain sounds or colours, for example, effect us in a physiological way that is seperate to conditioned response, though I for the most part think that is less a factor. In this matter I also believe that it only takes one exception to break the rule.

An object can only have objective traits. It is the way that the subject percieves those traits based on experience and analogous association that forms the basis of emotional association and a sense of aesthetic. There was this guy called Pavlov, he had a dog, and they pretty much referee the point I am making.

The psychology of music appreciation is not so simple to be understood on the basis of classical conditioning. Indeed very little human or animal psychology and behavior can be understood in that way.

 

[i aint play this]

K

 

[Nothinggod]

The psychology of music appreciation is not so simple to be understood on the basis of classical conditioning. Indeed very little human or animal psychology and behavior can be understood in that way.

Explain.

 

[Nothinggod]

This is the part i'm interested in. I think it's possible to change your interpretation of things by adjusting certain parameters. In fact, that whole idea is the basis of how i judge music these days. It's too easy to go "this sucks, i just don't like it, and there's no point in thinking about it because music is subjective". I'd rather take the time to understand where the people who DO enjoy the music are comming from, and seeing if i can replicate it myself so i may enjoy it. It's very possible, and unless i'm just delusional, i've certainly been able to broaden my appreciation for music doing exactly this.

There are immediate parameters too, which don't have to take a lifetime to develop. I think there's things you can do to change your opinion on a piece of music that are simple. Things like environment you listen, frame of mind when listening, and also the areas of the piece you are focussing on. It's very easy to not like something when you're looking for the same things you always do in music, but they don't exist or are unimportant to the particular piece you are listening to.

I pretty much agree with you. I don't believe that conditioning is archival. I am constantly conditioning myself in various aspects with regard to music. How many times have you bought a record with music on it you never heard before and after listening to it a few times you felt that it had become more familiar? That is one type of conditioning. I am not saying that conditioning is necessarily a limitation either just that it has a tendency to make us associate with something more readily if we are already conditioned to. Also, environmental factors are referencial in terms of aesthetic association and therefore are subject to conditioned responses.

 

[derbeder]

Explain.

Classical conditioning (Pavlov's experiments being an example) is a very elementary type of associative learning. The subject is presented with pairs of stimuli, the unconditioned stimulus and the conditioned stimulus. The subject's response to the unconditioned stimulus is automatic - and usually reflexive - and is not learned by the subject. The conditioned stimulus does not elicit a response from the subject at the beginning of the training, but learns a conditioned response by the end of the experiment after the two stimuli are paired many times. The subject associates the two stimuli and when the unconditioned stimuli is taken away, the subject still elicits the conditioned response.
In Pavlov's experiment, the unconditioned stimulus is the sight of food and the unconditioned response to this stimulus is salivation. The conditioned stimulus could be many things, eg. the sound of a bell. The dog does not salivate to the sound of the bell at the beginning of the experiment. After sufficient number of pairings of the stimuli, the bell is registered by itself without any food and the dog ends up salivating to the sound of the bell (or behaving excitedly etc.). It has learned the association of food and the bell.

In this type of learning, there is no reinforcement or punishment. These come in in another type of learning called operant conditioning. The initial response of the subject in this type of learning is voluntary and not reflexive in the way the unconditioned response is in classical conditioning. The responses of people listening to music are not properly called automatic or reflexive (some responses to some sounds are reflexive but this doesn't generalize), so we cannot explain the psychology of music appreciation on the basis of classical conditioning. It might be thought that operant conditioning will help explain these things, but operant conditioning can only be used to explain very little psychological phenomena. Cognitive psychology developed in the 1960s in direct response to claims by some behavioral psychologists that all psychological explanations can be given in terms of classical and operant conditioning (roughly). Rather complex cognitive mechanisms are now posited for many mental phenomena like memory and mental imagery. It is most likely that music appreciation involves even more complex mechanisms.

 

[Nothinggod]

What I meant was explain how musical appreciation can't be explained in those terms and what other factors you believe are responsible. One of my main arguments for this is that as children we are subjected to the ditatonic tension and release mechanism in the form of nursery rhymes. "Twinkle Twinkle, Little Star," "Baa Baa Black Sheep," and so on are constantly sung or played for us and are the classic example of I IV V . This type of diatonalism is the mainstay of most western music. The conditioned response of childhood association and why that would be significant in aesthetic association, I would think, should be obvious in most cases.

On another note, consider that Western Chromaticism is not by any means a universal and that even the paradigm of the 12 tone division of an "octave" is culture specific. So it is not really correct to believe that this association with the I IV V progression is universal to everyone.

 

[ViCyniC]

Conclusion: opinions != facts

oh and 1 + 1 = 2 lol this is so much fun.

Wowow!! I didn't know this before Kthx.

 

[Sadguru]

Classical conditioning (Pavlov's experiments being an example) is a very elementary type of associative learning. The subject is presented with pairs of stimuli, the unconditioned stimulus and the conditioned stimulus. The subject's response to the unconditioned stimulus is automatic - and usually reflexive - and is not learned by the subject. The conditioned stimulus does not elicit a response from the subject at the beginning of the training, but learns a conditioned response by the end of the experiment after the two stimuli are paired many times. The subject associates the two stimuli and when the unconditioned stimuli is taken away, the subject still elicits the conditioned response.
In Pavlov's experiment, the unconditioned stimulus is the sight of food and the unconditioned response to this stimulus is salivation. The conditioned stimulus could be many things, eg. the sound of a bell. The dog does not salivate to the sound of the bell at the beginning of the experiment. After sufficient number of pairings of the stimuli, the bell is registered by itself without any food and the dog ends up salivating to the sound of the bell (or behaving excitedly etc.). It has learned the association of food and the bell.

In this type of learning, there is no reinforcement or punishment. These come in in another type of learning called operant conditioning. The initial response of the subject in this type of learning is voluntary and not reflexive in the way the unconditioned response is in classical conditioning. The responses of people listening to music are not properly called automatic or reflexive (some responses to some sounds are reflexive but this doesn't generalize), so we cannot explain the psychology of music appreciation on the basis of classical conditioning. It might be thought that operant conditioning will help explain these things, but operant conditioning can only be used to explain very little psychological phenomena. Cognitive psychology developed in the 1960s in direct response to claims by some behavioral psychologists that all psychological explanations can be given in terms of classical and operant conditioning (roughly). Rather complex cognitive mechanisms are now posited for many mental phenomena like memory and mental imagery. It is most likely that music appreciation involves even more complex mechanisms.

Very informative. Thanks.

 

[Braighs]

I had a conversation over lunch with a "philosopher" yesterday. He said that emotions caused by music are due to classical conditioning. Like: You watch horror movie with a certain type of music and then you are frightened by that music afterwards. It can't be that simple, can it? Why was that music used in the first place? Chicken and Egg shit imho.

 

[Seance]

good lord

 

[Braighs]

lol, did you actually read the whole thread?

 

[Demilich]

Most times in life when two groups of people argue over whether X or Y is responsible for some phenomenon, its both. This thread is stupid, but not because of Sadguru's topic or his contributions. Damn.