Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

We know music is pleasurable, the question is why?

aeon.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 180 posts

Re: We know music is pleasurable, the question is why?

#91

Post by Balgair »

KozmoNau7 wrote: post #78
lqet wrote: post #2

Related: recent studies have shown that there are people with "musical anhedonia", and that this condition may affect 3 to 5% of the world population [1]. These people "get" music, meaning that they can learn to sing or play an instrument, remember and recognize melodies etc., but they are completely unable to receive any pleasure from it. As someone who gets a significant amount of his daily joy from listening to mu…

I absolutely love music as well, I can't imagine living without it, and I generally go to 4-5 concerts every month. The idea that something I find so pleasurable does absolutely nothing to some people is really interesting to me.

(I think) I'm anhedonic and it's interesting to me that you can get pleasure out of just the music. To me, it's nice to have things on in the background, or to watch people do something they love. Sometimes, when the lyrics of a song are good and the setting is right (like when driving) that's good too. Like, you can sway the car to the beat, and that's fun. But otherwise, I dunno, there really isn't anything there for me, it's the same as a washing machine, or a desk fan, or the birds singing. I've twiddled with a guitar before, and getting the chords right is pretty neat, but more from a 'look, I did a thing' sorta way. I think I've felt the hedonia before, but only a handful of times, and only in extreme environmental/psychological settings.

If it helps, I REALLY like to dance and have alright rhythm, but I like the dancing not the music. Dancing without music is just as enjoyable to me, personally, but I understand that music hides a lot of the sounds my body makes and that makes it better. Something about the swaying is fun to me: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/01/opinion/slomo.html

Re: We know music is pleasurable, the question is why?

#92

Post by ilovetux »

so much emphasis on melody. I find the answer is that music is a more true language than any that are spoken.

This is all conjecture by the way which is shaded by my own beliefs and experience.

melody is one part of a trinity. equally important are rhythm and harmony. I believe that rhythm, melody and harmony relate to the body, mind and spirit respectively.

Rhythm is analogous to our physical form and not just in the obvious sense of our heart beat but indeed every atom of our being has a rhythm all it's own and they are in sync one way or another with every other part of our body from microcosm to macrocosm.

a coherent melody matches our thoughts in a way that can convey the colors of emotion. indeed lyrics are often set to a melody and convey thoughts and emotions together in a way that's so natural that it is sometimes quite eerie.

harmony is how melodic threads relate to each other. our spirits are also the most adequate way of relating to others. harmony is the basis of all combined human endeavour and spirits are what allow us to define relations beyond familial in an abstract way in which we can intuitively find our own place.

Re: We know music is pleasurable, the question is why?

#93

Post by skookumchuck »

For those who enjoy music - if you take dance lessons until you get comfortable dancing, dancing smoothly to music you like greatly intensifies the enjoyment of the music.

Bobbing and swaying to the music also increases the enjoyment, but doing a structured dance with a partner cranks it up to 11.

Re: We know music is pleasurable, the question is why?

#94

Post by irrational »

tsumnia wrote: post #88
irrational wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, if I neither like, nor dislike music, but simply don't care whether it exists or not, then that is anhedonia?

Medically diagnosed apathy was the term I was thinking of while driving

Musical apathy? This really only applies to music. I derive great pleasure from other artistic works, just not anything auditory. On a perhaps related note, I can recall almost 100% of what I read, but I can recall only about 10% of what I hear, no matter how closely I am paying attention. Someone can tell me something, but it won't make sense. But if I read the exact same words I will have complete comprehension and recall.

Re: We know music is pleasurable, the question is why?

#95

Post by woodandsteel »

I think the article took a strange approach. It focused on a complex piece by Bach. But most people don't find Bach pleasurable, and simple melodies can be very pleasurable, at least to most people. It would make much more sense to try to understand the simple cases, and then later try to figure out the more complicated ones.

Also instead of explaining musical pleasure in terms of non-musical concepts like emotion and openess, might it be at least in part to evaluations in the brain that are unique to music? We don't think that, for instance, tastes are pleasurable or unpleasant due to their connection to other matters, so why could this not be the case for music?

Re: We know music is pleasurable, the question is why?

#96

Post by thomasfortes »

LyndsySimon wrote: post #31
citation_please wrote: post #12

Hmm, I was hoping for something more contemporary that I could relate to, but was disappointed that it focused on pieces written centuries ago...like most formal musical theory. Anyway, this passage stuck out to me: """There is something that still rings true of Mattheson’s general idea. We do tend to associate some musical features with being uplifted and others with melancholic reflection, both of which might affor…

> it's funny to me that the same ideas are masked behind hoighty-toighty music theory terminology that is used almost exclusively in reference to...music that was composed hundreds of years ago. I'm just coming up to speed on music theory, but my impression so far is that it's reactive, not proactive. We already have music that we like; music theory is about trying to tear it down, identify why we like it, establish…

I've been playing bass and guitar occasionaly (as an amateur musician) since I was 15 and I'm now in my early 30s, I studied a bit of theory when I was learning and already knew how to build chords and also have a reasonable ear, last months I decided to learn how to read sheet music and study musical theory and jazz a bit more deeper, what I found is that now I'm way more confortable with my improvisation not being repetitive and over the same scales again and again and that I have a way better knack at finding the next note on songs that I haven't heard before, so my experience is similar to yours.

As an aside, I'm pretty certain that I'm suffering from frequency ilusion, I frequently find musical theory discussions at every place that I am used to read, where in the past it seems that this things were not that prevalent.

Re: We know music is pleasurable, the question is why?

#97

Post by civility »

kaoD wrote: post #83
civility wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have the same question about major and minor keys. It's pretty easy to play something somber in C-major, and something happy in A-minor... This is opposite to the conventional wisdom about keys, and I think it's a cultural thing. When you play them right on top of each other, the three notes which are a half step lower do seem to sound sadder in comparison, but I think that says more about descending vs ascending t…

Given your second paragraph... are you perhaps confusing tonality with chord quality? Amin (the chord) is a diatonic chord of C major (the tonality). Also, it's easy to play "random" chords from a tonality and end up in a different mode without even realizing it. E.g.: A minor (the key, also known as A aeolian) has the exact same diatonic chords as C major (but the reference, i.e. tonal center, is A instead of C). A…

Sorry, I should have compared C-major and C-minor keys. If I play a C-major scale, and then a C-minor scale, C-minor sounds sadder in comparison. But if I just play ascending thirds (R 3 2 4 3 5 4 6 5 7 6 R) in C-minor, it doesn't sound sad to me. Moreover, it's easy to make C-major sound sad by playing descending thirds (reverse of above).

Re: We know music is pleasurable, the question is why?

#98

Post by moyya »

irrational wrote: post #62
rimunroe wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whoa! I had no idea this was a thing! I'd always thought it was just some weird thing about me. I don't really get a whole lot of pleasure out of music, or get moved by music much. I almost never listen to music. When I do listen, it's usually to drown out external noise or help me focus, but in that case I usually just listen to the same song on a loop.

You're not alone. I'm just glad I now know the name for my "condition" (which I sincerely hope there is no cure for).

Just curious why you explicitly "hope there is no cure"? Seems like an odd wish. If music has little to no effect on you now, why would you even care? Furthermore if a "cure" did exist, what would be the downside of trying it?

Re: We know music is pleasurable, the question is why?

#99

Post by shawn »

trukterious wrote: post #87
shawn wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is commonly assumed that evolution tries to maximize its outcome using a greedy algorithm. In fact it seems to be a random walk across all possibilities, with unviable branches dying out over time. Suicide may also be a second order effect of other factors. For example, suicide usually has a cultural basis: you feel some sort of shame, or maybe you think your future outcomes aren't good culturally. But that means…

>Suicide usually has a cultural basis Yes -- hence copycat suicides. But cultural , not genetic. Ideas, not genes.

I would argue that culture is incorporated into our genes. For example, humans show signs of domestication, just like certain animals. But domestication is another name for cultural genetics.
Post reply on HN