WEEK 5: Musical Preference and Taste: 3.3, The Listener

North and Hargreaves consider multiple variables on musical preference and taste in this chapter, including ethnicity, social class, socioeconomic status, “taste publics,” massification, religion, age, sex, and personality. They also discuss the same topics in non-humans. Rather than giving clear opinions, they authors present a vast body of research on these areas, with rather little commentary upon methodology etc. of the research they cite. They often present conflicting points of view, and it can be difficult to know which studies were more convincing based on the presentation. Nonetheless, the reader acquires a clear overview of research into the topic and is left to make their own educated decisions and opinions.

Concerning the effect of ethnicity on musical preference and taste, the authors basically conclude that there is little research that has examined this area. However, they do cite one 1993 study where Black people had a statically stronger preference for music by people whom they identified as Black, while White people had no significant difference between their preference in music between Black and White performers. Research in this area is tentative at best.

While discussing social class, the summary of the research presented is that those of higher socio-economic class prefer art (or “classical”) music, while those with lower ones prefer pop music. They note, wisely, that much of the research is tentative and doesn’t control for other possible variables effecting the research. The role of the recording industry in preventing diversity of music is discussed directly: why would the recording industry take chances with a diverse range of music when they can make more money by simply doing the same thing that is already bringing them money. The authors argue that this may lead to a “massification” where musical tastes in our culture have become more homogeneous.

Research on “taste cultures,” that is, groups of people who “express values and standards of taste and aesthetics,” (p. 103) is reviewed. The cited research identified five main American taste cultures: high-culture, upper-middle culture, lower-middle culture, low culture, and quasi-folk-low culture. They cite research that shows that the largest variables that effect musical preference were religious preference and social class. The authors point out the lack of consideration that such studies have show for varying uses of music by different social groups, which could have profound findings.

Regarding the topic of age, a model by LeBlanc is offered (1991): “(a) younger children are more open-eared, (b) open-earedness declines as the child enters adolescence, (c) there is a partial rebound of open-earedness as the listen matures from adolescence to young adulthood, and (d) open earedness declines as the listener matures to old age.” Various other studies conflicts or affirming this model is presented. The importance of late adolescence and young adulthood (to about age 24) is considered an important age for developing musical tastes, according to much of the research presented. The authors present the possibility and implications of musical development in the womb.

Regarding sex and musical taste and preference, the authors state that research indicates that girls generally like music more, though this is changing as technology is used in music more – a domain where boys apparently feel more comfortable. One interested study by North, Hargreaves and O’Neill (1998) showed that boys were more likely to listen to music for impression management on others, while girls were more likely to listen to music to meet emotional needs.

Regarding personality, the authors discuss the possibility of using music as a compensation mechanism (introverts use music to calm down, etc.), and also the possibility of music as a way to reflect personality (introverts use music to reflect their inner moods, etc.). Listening strategies are discussed, and listeners are basically divided into “objective-analytic”/”cognitive” listeners, or “affective”/”associative” listeners – definitely an exercise in reductionism.

Regarding music responses in non-humans, various studies are cited where animal welfare has been altered using music and the musical response of different animals. The results are interesting but tentative.

I found this to be a good overview of the existing research in this area, though I would have liked to have know more about the methodologies involved in the various research cited so that I could make informed decisions about which studies are more rigorous.