Summary:
The WHY YOU LIKE IT Notes section is devoted to detailing both bibliographic citations and more fine-tuned details arising from the discussion in the main text. On this webpage, then, are yet additional details and citations that further clarify or enhance the note entries. References are likewise given to the relevant discussion in the main text.
Supplements:
( Supplement to n. 19, a discussion and dialogue on the biological validity of expression “Music Genome Project” )
Technically, a genome is “generative”—meaning that the genes themselves give rise or “generate” the organism, whereas an organism does not yield its genes by some sort of reverse-mapping or post-hoc analysis. By contrast, a “phenotype” is the observable traits and characteristics of an organism. Lest we forget, moreover, songs and works are not biological organisms, but man-made constructions. See, for example, Morrison, David et al. “The Music Genome Project is No Such Thing” (blog post), March 27, 2013.
Further, below is a part of an email communication between Professor Mark Slobin (see Interlude F) and Dr. Gasser on the use of “genome”, “genomic”, and “genotype” to discuss music and musical taste:
Professor Slobin: “… I find ‘genome’ a very problematic metaphor for musical knowledge, which, unlike in biology, is constantly changing, an open-ended system that may have some inherited predilections from family life, but no determinative factors. Your [Pandora] algorithm captures a snapshot of current taste, and every taxi driver and undergrad I talk to talks about variety, choice, and the joy of musical openness… when it comes to a set of “species,” (which just seem to be standard genre labels), I’m afraid there’s no convincing evidentiary basis for any particular set of categories, as musics comprise so many independent variables that often overlap in specific works or careers, so any closed system such as yours leaves out too many exceptions…”
Dr. Gasser: “… The use of the ‘genomic’ nomenclature to refer to taste profiles—as fickle as they may be—has in fact become fairly widespread in its adoption since Pandora started using it around 2000; there are "genomes" in dozens of taste-base arenas / businesses, from books to wine to fashion to video, etc. As I explain in my book, my own approach to defining the Music Genome Project was deeply grounded in several key scientific principles of genomics, for better or worse. Of course, musical taste is not a determinative biological phenomenon; our ability to continually change our preferred playlists, to expand the boundaries and nuances of our music preferences, and the joy we get by discovering new favorites are all ingrained into the very concept. These, moreover, are some of the key tenets of my book, and part of my continual counsel to my reader. And while one’s musical “genotype” does not have the quasi-fixed dimensions of one’s biological ‘genotype’ (by a long shot), I would argue that the former also does not shift willy-nilly from day to day, but rather changes slowly, by ‘evolution’—via gradual exposure, education, changing priorities, etc.”
Your thoughts are welcome. Email: feedback@WhyYouLikeIt.com
( Supplement to n. 20, on Pandora’s patents )
A full listing of Pandora’s patents can be found at:
https://patents.justia.com/assignee/pandora-media-inc
( Supplement to n. 29, on Classical Archives )
Pierre Schwob founded Classical Archives ( www.classicalarchives.com ) in 1994, initially as a repository of user-supplied MIDI realizations of classical music; starting in 2000, the site began incorporating actual audio files, initially from users, later from the labels. I worked as the site’s Artistic Director from 2002 to 2012, where among other things I developed a universal approach to classical metadata, whereby classical works would be identified by proper and normalized information from one recording or rendition to another. As an aside, a lack of standardized metadata across all musical genres is, to my mind, a serious handicap to musical commerce.
( Supplement to n. 15, more on Napster )
Beyond Napster’s role in initiating the “end of the album era”, and a return to a 1950s-like focus on the “single”, Napster also inaugurated a radical new public perception, one from which it has never fully recovered: music should be free. This latter orientation, however, also spelled Napster’s eventual demise, as in December 1999 it received the first of many lawsuits by labels and artists on copyright infringement.
( Supplement to n. 18, more on the Human Genome Project )
Incidentally, further evidence of the currency of the Human Genome Project, and its potential application to a music technology venture is found in a rather remarkable coincidence: independently, in 2000, Israeli computer scientist Dan Gang founded a company called MusicGenome, Ltd.—attempting to mix artificial intelligence with musical taste via questionnaires, etc. The company folded in 2007.
( Supplement to n. 49, on musical term “sequence” ):
It will be noted, for the serious music student, that the word “sequence” also refers to a musical genre: a monophonic Latin chant, part of the late Gregorian tradition, which flourished from about 850 to 1150.
( Supplement to n. 54, on the technique of the ‘melisma” versus the “vocalese” ):
Technically, the melisma is distinct from a “vocalese”. The latter is when a vocalist sings a string of notes on an untexted syllable like “ooh” or “ah”. Here the voice acts rather like a non-vocal instrument, whereby it can demonstrate the virtuosity of the singer—as seen in a pop context in Figures 3.49 and 3.50. Famous classical music examples include vocaleses by Fauré, Rachmaninov, and Villa-Lobos ( Bachianas brasileiras, No. 5 ). Examples are also common in jazz, by such singers as Bobby McFerrin and the Swingle Singers, and occasionally in rock, such as in Pink Floyd’s “Great Gig in the Sky”, sung by Clare Torry. Further, vocaleses are not to be confused with scat singing, a jazz and sometimes rock technique where vocalists (e.g., Louis Armstrong, Ella Fitzgerald, Kurt Elling, and Dave Matthews) sing “nonsense” words, usually as an improvised solo.
( Supplement to n. 81, from Morley’s study on vocal evolution ):
As Morley notes, “Aural and vocal sophistication appear to have developed in tandem, beginning with full bipedalism around 1.75 million years ago, until a vocal apparatus similar to the modern was present in Homo heidelbergensis 400,000–300,000 years ago.”
( Supplement to n. 92, full quote from Darwin ):
Darwin’s full text reads: “When we treat of sexual selection we shall see that primeval man, or rather some early progenitor of man, probably used his voice largely, as does one of the gibbon-apes at the present day, in producing true musical cadences, that is in singing… The capacity and love for singing or music, though not a sexual character in man, must not here be passed over. Although the sounds emitted by animals of all kinds serve many purposes, a strong case can be made out, that the vocal organs were primarily used and perfected in relation to the propagation of the species.”
( Supplement to n. 93, full quote from James ):
James’ full quote reads: “These may be reactions which are purely mechanical results of the way in which our nervous centres are framed, reactions which, although permanent in us now, may be called accidental as far as their origin goes. In fact, in an organism as complex as the nervous system, there must be many such reactions, incidental to others evolved for utility’s sake, but which would never themselves have been evolved independently, for any utility they might possess. Sea-sickness, the love of music, of the various intoxicants, nay, the entire aesthetic life of man, we have already traced to this accidental origin.”
( Supplement to n. 108, on Levitin’s support of the adaptationist position ):
Levitin notes, for example, how our deep engagement melody and rhythm “bridges our cerebellum (our motor control, primitive little brain) and our cerebral cortex (the most evolved, most human part of our brain).” At the same time, Levitin acknowledges that other parts of our neurobiology—such as “mirror neurons” (that fire both when an animal acts and when that action is observed in another)—may suggest that some dimensions of our musical identity are purely cultural in origin.
( Supplement to n. 155, on the typical allusivity cited in definitions of swing ):
Robinson (“Swing”, Grove Music Online) : “Though basic to the perception and performance of jazz, swing has resisted concise definition or description. Most attempts at such refer to it as primarily a rhythmic phenomenon, resulting from the conflict between a fixed pulse and the wide variety of accent and rubato that a jazz performer plays against it. However, such a conflict alone does not necessarily produce swing…”
( Supplement to n. 158, examples of Turkish music using this metric pattern ):
The 2+2+2+3 metric patterning is standard, for example, to a Thracian wedding dance (the “ diachovo horo ”); see Toussaint, Godfried T. The Geometry of Musical Rhythm: What Makes a “Good” Rhythm Good? Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press: 240.
( Supplement to n. 166, more on historical use of rubato ):
As discussed in the Hudson article, the term rubato could refer, as it did in the mid-18th century opera arias, for example, to a technique whereby the melody could proceed in a kind of “free tempo” while the accompaniment (and global tempo) remained constant. As used in our book, as generally today, however, the term suggests shifts in the global tempo of the music (both melody and accompaniment).
( Supplement to n. 182, on the road from free to strict rhythm ):
The road to strict rhythm in a polyphonic context is naturally complex: it began with a series of limited options via a system of 6 triple-meter “rhythmic modes” developed during the “Notre Dame School” (fl. 1170-1260)—as in the organa, clausulae, and conductus of Leonin and Perotin. A revolution of greater rhythmic flexibility then arose in the 14th century: following Aristotle’s notion that time can be conceived of as any “measure of movement”, musical rhythm was no longer limited to triple (“perfect”) meter, but could also include duple (“imperfect”) meter.
( Supplement to n. 184, on the Lerdahl-Jackendoff theory ):
GTTM is a complex, hierarchical 4-part system whereby an “experienced listener” uses his or her cognitive processes to gain an intuitive understanding of the music they are hearing—from note to motive to phrase to “period” to section to work, all articulated along rhythmic lines.
( Supplement to n. 155, on the typical allusivity cited in definitions of swing ):
Robinson (“Swing”, Grove Music Online) : “Though basic to the perception and performance of jazz, swing has resisted concise definition or description. Most attempts at such refer to it as primarily a rhythmic phenomenon, resulting from the conflict between a fixed pulse and the wide variety of accent and rubato that a jazz performer plays against it. However, such a conflict alone does not necessarily produce swing…”
( Supplement to n. 158, examples of Turkish music using this metric pattern ):
The 2+2+2+3 metric patterning is standard, for example, to a Thracian wedding dance (the “ diachovo horo ”); see Toussaint, Godfried T. The Geometry of Musical Rhythm: What Makes a “Good” Rhythm Good? Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press: 240.
( Supplement to n. 166, more on historical use of rubato ):
As discussed in the Hudson article, the term rubato could refer, as it did in the mid-18th century opera arias, for example, to a technique whereby the melody could proceed in a kind of “free tempo” while the accompaniment (and global tempo) remained constant. As used in our book, as generally today, however, the term suggests shifts in the global tempo of the music (both melody and accompaniment).
( Supplement to n. 182, on the road from free to strict rhythm ):
The road to strict rhythm in a polyphonic context is naturally complex: it began with a series of limited options via a system of 6 triple-meter “rhythmic modes” developed during the “Notre Dame School” (fl. 1170-1260)—as in the organa, clausulae, and conductus of Leonin and Perotin. A revolution of greater rhythmic flexibility then arose in the 14th century: following Aristotle’s notion that time can be conceived of as any “measure of movement”, musical rhythm was no longer limited to triple (“perfect”) meter, but could also include duple (“imperfect”) meter.
( Supplement to n. 184, on the Lerdahl-Jackendoff theory ):
GTTM is a complex, hierarchical 4-part system whereby an “experienced listener” uses his or her cognitive processes to gain an intuitive understanding of the music they are hearing—from note to motive to phrase to “period” to section to work, all articulated along rhythmic lines.
( Supplement to n. 230, more on universality of variation ):
As Van der Merwe writes: “All music is variation, in the sense of recording variety with sameness; only the proportions of the two elements differ. Even in the most primitive music, where sameness overwhelmingly predominates, there will be some variety…”
( Supplement to n. 241, a common variant of blues form harmony ):
Among common variants of the 12-bar blues include moving to the VI7 chord in bar 8 (sometimes preceded by a iii7, the V of VI), moving to the ii7 in bar 9 (prior to the V7), and moving to the #iv o 7 in bar 6.
( Supplement to n. 243, from the congressional pronouncement on the blues ):
In the words of Representative Cummings, the proclamation “recognizes the importance of the blues with appropriate ceremonies, activities, and educational programs.” He continued by noting: “the blues is the influential native form of music in the United States.” This echoes what his colleague Max Burns (Georgia) stated in the same session: “The blues is America’s music. The blues celebrates life, it celebrates growth, it celebrates struggles; but I think most of all it celebrates America’s progress.”
( Supplement to n. 255, more on Marx’s discussion of sonata form ):
Marx’ discussion of sonata form ( Sonatenform ) is presented as the culmination of his larger review of musical forms—following rondo; its distinction is the use of the second “development” section, which can inform the entire form without strict repetition.
( Supplement to n. 258, more on Rosen’s thoughts on the rise of sonata form ):
As Charles Rosen writes: “In my judgment, it is a mistake to view the history of sonata forms as the development of a single form from a single binary pattern… ‘Sonata’ is a technique of creating a new texture and a new articulation for all these forms [like overture, aria, concerto, rondo, and minuet].”
( Supplement to n. 263, on inharmonicity in instruments and overtones ):
Not only gongs and chimes, but also plucked instruments like pianos, guitars, and harpsichords—produce upper partials that are not perfectly “harmonic”, but rather “inharmonic” (e.g., X, 1.3X, 2.46X, 3.1X, etc.). If the inharmonicity becomes too pronounced—as with cymbals, snare drums, or cowbells—it can be difficult or impossible to discern a pitch. Most pitched instruments, however, produce partials that are either precisely harmonic, or nearly so—such that we do hear the fundamental as a clear and well-defined pitch.
( Supplement to n. 264, further clarification on the influence of overtones on the timbre of instruments ):
Sometimes, moreover, the fundamental isn’t even the most intense harmonic. When a flute loudly blows the A above Middle C (440 Hz), the 1st and 2nd partials can be more intense than the fundamental. How, you may ask, would we know which is the true fundamental in this instance? The answer lies in the harmonic (overtone) series and the integer multiples discussed in Interlude B: if the flute plays the A above Middle C, the fundamental is at 440 Hz; the 1st partial is thus at 880 Hz (2X), sounding an octave above, while the 2nd partial is at 1320 Hz (3X), sounding a fifth above that (see Figure B.8). Regardless of the intensity of the fundamental, however, the ear (and brain) will still hear it as such because of the integer multiple relationship of the partials (X, 2X, 3X, etc.). That is, if the 1st partial (880 Hz) were the fundamental, the next partial would be at 1760 Hz (2X); but because it is at 1320 Hz instead, the ear knows that the fundamental must be at 440 Hz. Thus, you hear the pitch as A at 440 Hz. Indeed, even in cases where the fundamental is entirely absent (generally by electronic manipulation), the ear “fills in” the fundamental, by virtue of this relationship. Tricky stuff, admittedly.
( Supplement to n. 345 on the biological validity of expression “Music Genome Project” ):
See the supplemental note to Chapter 1, n. 19 (page 662) on this website, which explains the author’s rationale for using the expressions “genome” and “genotype” with regard to music and includes a spirited debate between Dr. Gasser and musicologist Professor Mark Slobin.
( Supplement to n. 373, on Leonard Bernstein’s lecture on musical theater and the Dr. Gasser’s initial thoughts on the validity of identifying “Broadway” as a distinct musical “species”, on par with rock, jazz, and classical ):
Bernstein’s lecture was presented for the Omnibus television series on October 7, 1956, and was entitled “American Musical Comedy”. Dr. Gasser will have more to say on both the composer and his 1956 lecture in Chapter 15. All of this, moreover, raises a question that the Broadway aficionados among you may be wondering: does Broadway constitute a distinct musical “species”, on par with rock, jazz, or classical? While the answer suggested in this book is “no”—given the realm’s chameleon-like musical language over its 100-year history, changing and evolving in concert with the overarching “vernacular” styles around it, as just discussed—an argument to the contrary can also be made. That is, there does exist what can be demonstrably called a “Broadway sound” that is distinct from any of these other “species”, and especially as heard in the songs of the realm’s most influential composers: Richard Rodgers, Frank Loesser, Stephen Sondheim, John Kander, Andrew Lloyd Webber, Cy Coleman, Stephen Flaherty, Stephen Schwartz, etc. Musicologically, this has yielded distinct, and often rather complex, approaches to melody, harmony, rhythm, form, and sound—even if directly indebted to those originating in other, vernacular “species”. Who knows, perhaps he’ll return to the question of a “Broadway genotype” in a subsequent book.
( Supplement to n. 381, additional quotes on ubiquity of repetition in music ):
Other similar statements to Schoenberg’s on repetition include ethnomusicologist Bruno Nettl: “All cultures make some use of internal repetition and variation in their musical utterances” (Nettl, The Study of Ethnomusicology: Thirty-one Issues: 46); famed folklorist Alan Lomax: “Song may be recognized and defined as more frequently redundant at more levels than any other kind of vocalizing” (Lomax, Alan. Folk Song Style and Culture . London: Routledge, 2017: “The Cantometrics Experiment”); and musicologist Elizabeth Margulis: “Music is a strikingly repetitive stimulus” (Margulis, Elizabeth Hellmuth. "Musical repetition detection across multiple exposures." Music Perception: An Interdisciplinary Journal 29, no. 4 (2012): 377).
( Supplement to n. 384, detail on the academic focus of music theorists with regard to repetition ):
Namely, form in the writings of Stewart Macpherson (1910s) and Wallace Berry (1960s); melodic themes / motives in the writings of Schoenberg (1960s) and famed theorist Heinrich Schenker (1930s); rhythm / meter in the “generative” theories of Fred Lerdahl and Ray Jackendoff (1980s); pitch-based patterns (within serial or 12-tone music) in the writings of Allen Forte (1970s) and David Lewin (1980s), etc. A few theorists, then, have taken a somewhat broader, structural view of repetition, such as Alfred Pike (1960s) and Edward Cone (1970s).
( Supplement to n. 390, on Peter Kivy’s theory on repetition and music ):
The first two models (“literal” and “organism”), Kivy argues, have historically been used to substantiate music’s high aesthetic value: in the 18th century, instrumental music was commonly invoked in association with one of three literary types: “discourse” (like an argument), “dramatic” (like a play), or “narrative” (like a novel); sonata form, for example, was alternately ascribed with all three, given its rich thematic / formal schema of exposition-development-recapitulation. In the 19th century, however, an obsession with music as “continual flow” led to descriptions that conjured up notions of a living organism : continually evolving and developing—as with Beethoven’s motivic development. This is the model embraced by influential theorists like Schenker, and praised by proponents of the progressive techniques in the instrumental music of Beethoven, Brahms, Wagner, and Mahler.
( Supplement to n. 403, detail on the academic focus of music theorists with regard to musical development ):
Namely: melodic intervals in the writings of Schenker (1930s); melodic contour in the writings of David Epstein (1980s); and “secondary” parameters (orchestration, dynamics, etc.) in the writings of Lawrence Zbikowsky (1990s), etc.
( Supplement to n. 410, on Plato’s ideas about the symmetry and the elements ):
The tetrahedron (fire), for example, was associated with the perfect symmetry in the entire Universe.
( Supplement to n. 458, on Evans’ devotion to the music of Bud Powell ):
As Evans wrote in the forward to a Powell: “He was so expressive, such emotion flowed out of him! It's a feeling we sometimes get from Beethoven... It's not that it's beautiful in the sense of pretty or brilliant, it's something else, something much deeper.” See Paudras, Francis. Dance of the Infidels: A Portrait of Bud Powell . Boston: Da Capo Press, 1998: ix.
( Supplement to n. 464, on Dr. Gasser’s composition the World Concerto ):
Dr. Gasser’s process involved listening to, transcribing, and studying hundreds of recordings—by Min Huifen (erhu), Pandit Ram Narayan (sarangi), and Simon Shaheen (oud), among many others; he tried to internalize the most common modes / scales, melodic ornaments, harmonic shifts, and rhythmic / metric permutations in each of these languages.
( Supplement to n. 489, on the use of the expression “boundary-less” for infant musical hearing ):
The notion of “boundary-less” is best understood by comparing the kinds of deviations an adult can detect versus those an infant can detect: an adult Westerner, for example, will readily detect subtle changes in melody or harmony that effect the syntactical definition of the music (e.g., changing a b-natural to a b-flat in a melody in G major) but may not detect a similarly subtle change that has no impact on that syntax (e.g., changing the b-natural to d-natural). An infant, by contrast, will recognize both changes equally well—thus showing that syntactic considerations (Western harmony, in this case) will play no influencing role. Dr. Gasser thanks Professor Erin Hannon for her clarifications in personal communication.
( Supplement to n. 491, on research observations concerning infant detections of violations with native versus non-native scales ):
Some studies have suggested that infants as young as 6-months old perform better in detecting violations with native scales than with non-native ones; see also Lynch, Michael P., and Rebecca E. Eilers. "Children's perception of native and nonnative musical scales." Music Perception: An Interdisciplinary Journal 9, no. 1 (1991): 121-131.
( Supplement to n. 498, on the problems of the famed study by Thomas Fritz ):
For one, it is a clear example of a “partially comparative” study, since the two groups heard only Western-based examples, with none created from a Mafa perspective—or from any objective third culture. Next, the music examples were all computer-generated, and not drawn from any “organic” repertoire. Third, although both groups did successfully recognize the three emotions “above chance level”, the Western listeners “had higher hit rates than Mafa listeners”.
( Supplement to n. 549, more on the school and approach of minimalism ):
As Leonard Meyer put it, “within any [minimalist] musical segment there may be some sense of direction, but frequently the segments fail to lead to or imply one another. They simply follow one another.” See Meyer, Leonard B. Music, the Arts, and Ideas: Patterns and Predictions in Twentieth-Century Culture , Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994: 326. The term “minimalism” was first coined with regard to painting in the early 20th century and applied to music around 1968 by composer Michael Nyman. Minimalism, moreover, has had its share of fierce critics—perhaps most colorfully avant-garde composers like Pierre Boulez and Elliott Carter; the latter, for example, compared its constant repetition to fascism, junk mail, and senseless commercials about cat food; see Fink, Robert. Repeating Ourselves: American Minimal Music as Cultural Practice . Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005: 62-63.
( Supplement to n. 579, more on Henry Ford’s ugly bias against immigrant—that is Jewish—influenced music ):
Ford’s bigoted words were written for The Dearborn Independent in the early 1920s, as part of a 4-volume set of anti-Semitic pamphlets he later published under the title “The International Jew: The World’s Foremost Problem”—such as “The song pluggers of the theater, vaudeville, and radio are the paid agents of the Yiddish song agencies. Money and not merit dominates the spread of this moron music which is styled Jewish, jazz and swing. Non-Jewish music is stigmatized as high-brow.”
( Supplement to n. 560, on famous music-based rivalries in history ):
To be sure, Dr. Gasser and his middle school friend Mitch are not are not the only ones to have waged a Kiss-Queen rivalry—as seen in multiple online forums (Quora, Yahoo, etc.). A cursory look at some of the famous classical music rivalries (Artusi-Monteverdi, Wagner-Brahms, among others) is discussed in Barone, Brian. “The Greatest Music Beefs in History.” The Awl (website), August 7, 2015. See also Lester, Joel, “Structure and effect in Ave Maris Stella .” In Perspectives on Peter Maxwell Davies , ed. Richard McGregor. London: Routledge, 2000: 66. By contrast, an in-depth review of the Beatles-Stones rivalry can be found in McMillian, John. Beatles vs. Stones . New York: Simon and Schuster, 2014.
( Supplement to n. 659, on Bernstein’s 1956 lecture program on the Omnibus series ):
The presentation is also of interest for its inclusion of a young Carol Burnett singing “Ooh-La-La” from Cole Porter’s DuBarry Was a Lady . For Bernstein, his appearances on the Omnibus TV series formed a sort of precursor to his Young People’s Concerts, which began in January of 1958. The Omnibus series itself ran from 1952 to 1961 (successively on CBS, ABC, and NBC), hosted by Alistair Cooke, and featured an array of prominent figures in the arts and sciences—including Frank Lloyd Wright and Orson Wells. Bernstein first appeared in November 1954, with a lecture on Beethoven’s 5th Symphony .
( Supplement to n. 679, on Fauré’s criticism of Debussy’s “dearth of musical ideas” ):
To wit, Fauré continued his rather petty attack of Debussy’s adventurous inclinations: upon hearing the latter’s operatic version of Pelléas , Fauré famously exclaimed, “If that was music, I have never understood what music was!” Orledge. "Fauré's' Pelléas et Mélisande'”: 172. This, incidentally, makes for a rather quizzical “full circle”—as we conclude our purely musical discussion with a critical attack against Debussy reminiscent of that lobbed against his tone poem La Mer by New York Tribune music critic Henry Krehbiel, with which we began the Introduction: “This music is the dreariest kind of rubbish.” Apologies to Monsieur Croche—“Mr. Eighth-note”, Debussy’s pseudonym as an outspoken music critic—for highlighting these attacks: who knew his music could arouse such disdain?
( Supplement to n. 698, more on Juslin’s emotional coding theory ):
Like Robert Hatten and Stephan Koelsch with their semantic coding types, Juslin too draws upon the proto-semiology of Charles Sanders Peirce in devising his three types of emotional coding (see Interlude C). There are thus strong parallels between the two—with Hatten’s “indexical” (syntactical) and “symbolic” (arbitrary) corresponding to Juslin’s “intrinsic” and “associative”, respectively. Naturally, there are distinctions as well: where Hatten and Koelsch delimit the registering of mood and psychological state to indexical coding, Juslin aligns emotional registration with all three coding types.
( Supplement to n. 713, more on Emery Schubert’s 2004 study ):
The Schubert study—using Romantic-era classical works—simply revealed that changes in tempo and especially loudness corresponded to changes in perceived arousal level: increased tempo or volume with increased arousal, decreased tempo or volume with decreased arousal. As with Juslin and Laukka’s study Schubert also found a slight correlation between a rising melodic contour and positive valence, and between a falling melodic contour and negative valence.
( Supplement to n. 717, more on Huron’s misattribution studies—see also page 609 ):
The Schubert study—using Romantic-era classical works—simply revealed that changes Huron elucidates his theory by relaying an experiment conducted in the 1970s by Donald Dutton and Arthur Aron of the University of British Columbia: an attractive female guide took one group of men across a wobbly wood and cable foot bridge and a second group across a stable concrete bridge, whereupon she invited both groups of men to call her with follow-up questions; those who crossed the foot bridge were significantly more likely to call the experimenter—suggesting to Dutton and Aron, as well as to Huron, that the men who telephoned were “misattributing” their actual heightened arousal arising from the vertigo bridge experience onto the female experimenter (p. 136).
( Supplement to n. 736, more on the Big Five model and related “inventory”—see also page 613 ):
To clarify a bit: as a model alone, the Big Five is not a vehicle with which to conduct research. Instead, a measurement tool is needed. To wit, Paul Costa and Robert McCrae developed a Big Five “inventory”—which today is utilized as the Revised NEO (Neuroticism-Extroversion-Openness) Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R). In this capacity, the Big Five has become a favorite tool of many music preference studies. The full inventory consists of 60 self-reported questions—12 “items” per trait. The revised NEO PI-R version was first introduced in 1990, and has been updated several times since, most recently in 2010. See Costa, Paul T., and Robert R. McCrae. "The revised neo personality inventory (neo-pi-r)." The SAGE handbook of personality theory and assessment 2, no. 2 (2008): 179-198.
( Supplement to n. 742, on the curious discrepancy between Rentfrow’s 2011 and 2012 studies—see also page 615 ):
One curious thing about the progression between these two articles by Rentfrow and colleagues is that although both utilize the convenient anagram MUSIC, the constituent factors are not fully consistent; in the 2011 study they are: Mellow, Urban, Sophisticated, Intense, and Campestral (meaning “rootsy”)—thus distinct from the 2012 study in the 2nd and 4th factors. Oddly, I have found no explanation or even acknowledgement of this discrepancy.
( Supplement to n. 750, on a meta-analysis yielding a negative conclusion on the link of music preference factors and the Big Five model—see also page 619 ):
As a bit of preview of Dr. Gasser’s more nuanced and forward-leaning response later in Interlude G, here may be mentioned a 2017 meta-analysis (a “study of studies”) overseen by Thomas Schäfer—that sought an over-arching answer to this question: more specifically, whether personality traits from the Big Five (or the Sensation-Seeking trait) alone can reliably predict an individual’s profile among the MUSIC music-preference factors. The meta-analysis looked at 28 relevant studies, including those mentioned here, and in essence came down with a negative—or at best lukewarm—response. Among the Big Five traits, only Openness to Experience saw a statistically significant association with any of the MUSIC factors: highest with Sophisticated, lesser with Mellow and Intense, respectively; Sensation-Seeking saw a correlation only to Intense. The conclusion drawn by these results, therefore, was that “personality traits barely account for inter-individual differences in music preference”. In part, the meta-analysis pointed to the frequent problem of small sample sizes in many of these studies (15 of 28 had less than 200 participants)—an issue, indeed, that Professor Rentfrow likewise pointed out to me in private correspondence as contributing to the inconsistent results. Although suggesting possible validity for predicting one’s general “browsing behavior”, as opposed to the specific music one might like, the authors main take-away is that other factors beyond personality—e.g., age and especially function—need to be added to the mix in order to accurately predict an individual’s music preferences; this, as it turns out, is just where our own discussion is heading. See Thomas Schäfer and Claudia Mehlhorn, "Can personality traits predict musical style preferences? A meta-analysis." Personality and Individual Differences 116 (2017): 265-273.
( Supplement to n. 752, on the use of other factors, such as demographics, in defining variables tied to music preferences—see also page 619 ):
As noted in Adrian North’s 2010 study, one variable category at times included in these discussions is demographics—such as gender, age, and income. One curious thing I have found in my research is the complete disconnect between music scholars working in the field of subculture / interculture and those in the psychology space—extending even to psychology-based studies that directly tackle group-based attributes. North, for example, makes the familiar Bourdieusian argument that older and higher-income listeners are more likely to prefer complex and “high art” musical styles—though without referencing Bourdieu, omnivore, etc. The most widely discussed demographic factor by music psychologists is gender—by North, Dunn, and the Indian researcher Durgesh Upadhyay, whose study we’ll discuss below. Their findings range from showing a demonstrable preference by females for “softer” music styles and “emotional listening” (North, Upadhyay) to finding no real distinctions based on gender (Dunn).
( Supplement to n. 756, more on Greenberg’s 2015 study—see also page 620 ):
More specifically, Greenberg utilized a 38-question inventory on broad musical skills, and 2 more nuanced “behavioral” tests—on melodic memory and rhythmic or beat perception.
( Supplement to n. 761, more on William Fleeson’s “whole trait theory”—see also page 625 ):
The “whole trait theory” was developed principally by William Fleeson. In short, this theory attempts to integrate the two sides of the “great debate” within modern personality psychology—between the trait-based approach, such as Big Five, and the so-called “social-cognitive” approach. The latter embraces more the notion of situational “states”, that our trait manifestations are notoriously inconsistent, changing from situation to situation, and thus poor predictors of our behavior.