Psychology of Music

I have been putting forward the notion below, for probably well over a year. I have occasional replies from people who say there may be a good idea buried in here. I think that, if some neurological study starts to substantiate what I suggest, this would strengthen a perspective in the criticism of the "culture" of modern music.  Here goes:

      Psychology of Music

Social and Cognitive Functions of 3 and 4 time in Processing of Music

I am a retired psychologist - having been mostly a researcher –

      in Africa on "cross cultural" matters and then

      back in London, in a weird field called Broadcasting Audience Research.

I am interested, still, in many things including the Social Psychology of Music. 

Within this field a hypothesis has occurred to me, on which I have offered:

          reasons why it would be of interest and important, and

          ways in which the hypothesis could usefully be explored.

The hypothesis is rooted in the observations that: most music has a rhythm of either three time,   or 2 or 4 time.

2 and 4 time are essentially similar and even boil down in many presentations to "one in a bar" time.

The majority of the popular music of today is in 2 time. This has 'defeated' or at least virtually replaced the world of 3x.

Here then are the hypotheses; first the neurological part:

Music in 2 time is processed in the brain (experienced) in different parts and shall we say at a lower level than is music in 3 time - where also the lifelong internal rhythms of heartbeat and then walking and running are registered. This region of “perception” requires no “thought”. It is only if and when a heartbeat becomes distorted (or one has to try to learn to do a waltz) that thought has to break in to the otherwise thoughtless world of 2 time.

Music in 3 time finds no corresponding internal counterpart in day to day physiological processes. It is therefore experienced – and interpreted in a different part of the brain - where other realms of meaning are encountered. 3 time music is likely perceived in those realms of the brain where conscious thought occurs.

Now comes the social part ....

Music in 2 time is conceptually less challenging than 3 time (let alone complex times such as 3 + 2, whatever...).

Colloquially, it might be said these 2 and 4 time musics engage what a long ago sociolinguist called a restricted code

and what popular journalists might describe as 'dumbed down'. 

In the worst case marching music lends itself to evocations of a totalitarian spirit.

Of course of course the human spirit rises to its best in 4 time in cases where

exalted compositions have led us there - Beethoven's 9th choral theme for example.

BUT

the tramp of nuremberg rallying and such military displays more often banish the finer feelings, all in 2 time.

Music in 3 time offers a path to grace. Much of the richest Irish and Scottish "folkloric" music operates in 3 time.

Try the Eriskay Love Lilt ....this sensibility is virtually absent in today's POP music.

(   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BfpyPy2Cc8       3x  Paul Robeson

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=KhGsQk_3tZY              3x   Joan Baez

3 time operates in a world of curves. 2 time operates in a world of corners ;  

   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQoy-W6i_F4       3x   Ray Bethell

but contrast:

   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIooCk59mKU     4x  Army March

I have collected evidence at a cultural level on these lines

but

though I have looked as far as I can in the web literature I can find no studies that MAY "anchor" the locus of the world of music in 2x, in parts of the brain which MAY be different from those which receive and elaborate music in 3x.

If a scanning study could be done to examine where the brains of listeners to 2 and to 3 time "light up"

and if it does indicate, as I hypothesise, different locations, this would offer at the very least food for thought about the functions of these two rhythms. 

As I said above, I am retired and never had nor will have facilities to look at this question.

If the cutting edge of modern neurocognitive science can spare a moment to look at the matter - it may well be quite rewarding.

PS  I have had versions of well known tunes prepared in 3 time AND in 4 time which offer a degree of "control” over the matter of whether it is the line of melody, or rhythm, that might make the differences I envisage. Frankly, “Happy Birthday" in 4 time is not all that different from HB in 3x (its real time). But I have other presentational samples

which sound more different.....

I’m Forever Blowing Bubbles is murdered here in 4 time

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kn7NGJezKSQ

Doris Day manages IFBB much better in 3 time …

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6SXi4I47Qw

and the West Ham crowd do occasionally manage it (mostly) in 3 time – and I suggest it is quite exceptional to find a football ‘mascot’ tune anywhere else, in 3 ….

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRNzn1lBZt0

what would be gained if and when one discovers that 3 time is processed differently from 2 time?

I suggest we would be on our way towards an “effects” analysis of the bulk of “popular” music and what it may do to the sensibility of the population at large.

It would suggest that elements of music education involving attention to more diverse rhythmic structures might be a “civilizing” influence.

Do we want a civilizing influence? – that’s another matter…..

Psyc