Ian Cross eloquently reveals the contrasting approaches between science and musicology, on music. Scientific research, an active and productive contributor to the research field of music has brought with it, neuroscience. A leader in the field is cognitive psychologist, Carol Krumhansl (Cognitive Foundations of Musical Pitch, 1990). Many of her experiments have provided researchers with information regarding the pitch organization of individuals, distinguishing regularities in pitch based on previous experience. Similarly, Dennis Drayna has conducted experiments in the genetic implications of musical disposition (Science, 2001). His findings claim that ‘musical ability is largely genetic’, the result of which could have a multitude of negative connotation for music education.
On the musicological side, various research has been conducted contrasting vastly from the reductionist standpoint of science. Musicologists have incorporated culture and considered both culture and history in their research.
‘…the sciences must as some point address music as grounded not only in biology but also in culture. And musicology, in particular ethnomusicology, has seen an increasing need to deal with music not only as a cultural but also as a biologically grounded phenomenon’ (153)
Cross sets out to establish a broad definition for music that takes into account both fields of research on music. He confirms several point:
1) Music is present in every culture
2) Music and movement are closely associated
3) The recognition of pulse in music
4) Ambiguity of music (contrasting greatly with language)
He developed this hypothesized definition of music, ‘music embodies, entrains, and transposably intentionalizes time in sound and action’ (155).
Children’s predisposition to engage in music-activities from birth has been hypothesized as playing an integral part in the ambiguous application of music that unlike language, is quite unique. It also enhances exploratory behavior and social development.
I thoroughly enjoyed Cross’s perspective of music in evolution. His views that perhaps the extended childhood of homo sapiens as opposed to homo habilis, heidelbergensis, and ergasterhas, contributed to man’s need to maintain child-like behavior/ambiguous music through adulthood both as a need for mediation and accommodation.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
A side thought….
ReplyDeleteI read Kyle Gann’s blog ‘Postclassic’ religiously and yesterday, he referenced the same New York Times interview with Patel ‘Exploring Music’s Hold on the Mind’ (May 31, 2010) that you had mentioned, Todd. So I went back and read it again. It’s fascinating how enlightening the same reading can be after you have learned more about the topic. Upon reading it the second time, I was able to connect Cross’s broad definition of music in Snowball’s recognition of beat (one of Cross’s confirmed human behaviors in music, the recognition of pulse in music).
Cross hypothesized a broad definition of music ‘music embodies, entrains, and possibly intentionalizes time in sound and action’ which in Snowball’s case, is highly applicable…Go Snowball!!
I found this article very informative and well-written. I had already sensed the seeming disconnect between the scientific literature we are reading and the traditional musicological literature, so Cross’s attempt at clarifying a definition that encompasses both was interesting and useful. I wonder was exactly he means by his inclusion of “intentionality” in this definition, and perhaps he could have explored that further. His discussion of evolution and the usefulness of music for maintaining an outlet for ambiguous behavior (which has perhaps become more important and humans have evolved and had larger periods of time in adolescence) was insightful and shows promise; designing research to support this hypothesis would be difficult, but seems possible as brain scans, etc. become more prominent in the field of music psychology.
ReplyDelete