The sound of music… is irrelevant

http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/08/the-sound-of-music-is-irrelevant/

I'd say this is pretty pathetic

Autechre has it done right playing concerts in pitch blackness

  Quote

What makes a truly great live musical performance? Most people would say it's the subtle, spontaneous changes in tone and tempo that convey emotion and creativity. Most people, as it turns out, would be wrong. That, at least, is the conclusion of a researcher at University College London who studied people's evaluations of classical musicians performing during competitions.

Both experts and novices alike were given clips from performances at a musical competition and promised $8 if they could accurately guess the winner based on the clips. Across all the experiments, those given the chance to view muted, video-only clips from the competition consistently performed the best when asked to identify the winner.

This is a bit of a surprise, given how much most of us consider music to be an auditory experience. But as the study's author, Chia-Jung Tsay, notes, "people can lack insight into their own preferences and cognitive processes." She considered it possible that we actually overvalue the audible portion of a performance simply because we believe that's what we're evaluating.

In her study, Tsay obtained complete audio and video recordings of 10 different classical music competitions, each of which featured three different finalists. At the end of each competition, a panel of expert judges had chosen a winner based on these performances. Tsay then divided these up into shorter clips, some of which featured audio, some video, and others both. She then recruited a large panel of volunteers (some of them professional musicians) who, as we already noted, were promised $8 if they could identify the performance that won the competition.

Going in, most people predicted that the audio recording would provide the clearest means of identifying the winner—in fact, she noted that the pros who were given visual-only clips sometimes mentioned that they expected they'd be completely incapable of identifying the winner. Novices were given the option of paying $2 to get the full clips or were given either audio-only or visual-only clips for free. Sixty percent chose the sound-only, while another 25 percent chose to pay $2 to have the full performance.

When given the full performance, the novices performed about as well as the experts—and that turned out to be not well at all. With only three clips, they'd be expected to choose the winner a third of the time due to random chance alone. With the full performance, they only managed to guess correctly 35 percent of the time. Those who were given audio-only clips did even worse, getting it right 29 percent of the time.

But the surprise came from those given only visual clips. They got it right 46 percent of the time.

Pros generated similar numbers. Although the number of participants was small and the precise numbers varied from experiment to experiment, having the full audio and visual performance left everyone near random chance when it came to guessing the winner; those with audio-only clips did worse, while those with video of the performance did better. When novices were given either audio-only or visual-only clips, the ones given the visuals doubled the accuracy of the people who were stuck with only sound.

How could visual information count for so much of a musical performance? Tsay looked at this in a couple of different ways. To get at the performer's movements, she applied an image filter that turned the clips into a black-and-white cartoon in which everything but the outlines of the performer and instrument was faded to white. Even a six-second clip of this modified silent video was enough to allow people to guess the winner at a rate well above chance. So the motion of the performer appears to be enough to convey something significant about the performance.

What's it conveying? Participants were shown silent clips and asked to rate the performance on a variety of factors, such as passion and creativity. High ratings for a number of factors—passion, involvement, motivation, creativity, and uniqueness—were all associated with an improved chance of picking the contest winners. (It seems notable that all of these factors are very subjective and difficult to define.)

Tsay suggests that the emphasis on visuals comes because a musical performance provides a lot to take in, placing a significant burden on our cognitive resources. Given the option of focusing on any sensory input, most people default to the visuals. The focus on visuals is something that happens in a variety of contexts, so it shouldn't be a surprise that novice musicians do it. What is somewhat surprising, according to the paper, is that it happens with the pros, too: "It is unsettling to find—and for musicians not to know—that they themselves relegate the sound of music to the role of noise."

ever wondered why popular rock/rap acts are attractive people while their music is unlistenable?

apparently we needed a university study to spell this out.

pretty misleading topic title. this is only relevant to performed music, which isn't really just music now is it? it's a performance, so obviously the visual element plays a role. and lopez's point is a good one.

people like things that look good. go figure.

So they only got to watch shortened clips? Well that's not an accurate representation of the full performance. Perhaps it would be different if they watched and listened to the whole performance?

I sure don't hope people are being paid for studying this kind of useless crap.

  On 8/21/2013 at 7:11 AM, Friendly Foil said:

I sure don't hope people are being paid for studying this kind of useless crap.

This isn't useless crap

It can shed new light on psychological concepts we haven't yet discovered which may have implications on very important things like neurology or simulated reality.

All pieces of information are equally important. There's not a single field of study with no potential value

I went to a Purity Ring concert. The opening act, Evian Christ, had music that was way better, but he performed with the room mostly lit and no visuals, whereas Purity Ring had pretty hanging lights and other fun stuff. Overall, Purity Ring was a better show even though I liked Evian Christ's music much more.

In that situation, however, it makes sense. I can see why this study would be more disheartening in light of other contexts.

  On 8/21/2013 at 8:01 AM, Zeffolia said:

 

  On 8/21/2013 at 7:11 AM, Friendly Foil said:

 

I sure don't hope people are being paid for studying this kind of useless crap.

This isn't useless crap

 

It can shed new light on psychological concepts we haven't yet discovered which may have implications on very important things like neurology or simulated reality.

 

All pieces of information are equally important. There's not a single field of study with no potential value

Yah, there really is a lot to the human experience with regards to experiencing other humans. Especially with live musical performance, looks and body movement also convey emotion. Or like in the IDM electronic acne basement scene, every single artist has a persona, and that is subconsciously part of the experience in the music. If you listen to some unidentified track and think it's RDJ, it's prolly gonna sound better than if you thought it was someone unknown, due to listening deeper to the music. So with all art kinda shit, we're taking in as much as we can to try to form some sort of wholesome image of the creator.

It's ironic that there are YT comments criticizing guitarists for moving around too much and being too rocky, when really that is part of it. It's also surprising to watch some blind guitarists just kill a guitar solo or improv hardcore, because their bodies tend to be still like mannequins. When watching blind guitarists, the mind's studying of body movement emotional cues really becomes apparent. Cuz the music is tight, but it can still feel cold. Because of this, I believe Stevie Wonder was trained to sway his body.

Music is not just music.

  On 8/21/2013 at 9:43 AM, Friendly Foil said:

 

  On 8/21/2013 at 8:01 AM, Zeffolia said:

 

  On 8/21/2013 at 7:11 AM, Friendly Foil said:

I sure don't hope people are being paid for studying this kind of useless crap.

This isn't useless crap

 

It can shed new light on psychological concepts we haven't yet discovered which may have implications on very important things like neurology or simulated reality.

 

All pieces of information are equally important. There's not a single field of study with no potential value

No, all pieces of information are not equally important.

 

Perfect!

I think The Sound Of Music, though a little whimsical, is still relevant as it highlights the strength of the family in today's cynical and violent world.

  On 8/21/2013 at 9:43 AM, Friendly Foil said:

 

  On 8/21/2013 at 8:01 AM, Zeffolia said:

 

  On 8/21/2013 at 7:11 AM, Friendly Foil said:

I sure don't hope people are being paid for studying this kind of useless crap.

This isn't useless crap

 

It can shed new light on psychological concepts we haven't yet discovered which may have implications on very important things like neurology or simulated reality.

 

All pieces of information are equally important. There's not a single field of study with no potential value

No, all pieces of information are not equally important.

 

Yes they are

Your mom is ugly.

How important is that piece of information?

Posting in a "The Sound of Music" thread.

This showtune's way overrated, and I agree, it's very irrelevant to today's musical climate. Often, people of older generations continue to praise the importance of showtunes such as The Sound of Music, South Pacific and Annie, and how they've somehow had a major influence on me, and it's "important" that I listen to them and respect them. Growing up, my family always tried to convince me that they're something special, but really, I think they breeded some nice harmonies and a few decent hooks- most of which I preferred Me First and The Gimme Gimme's versions of, btw.

A lot of people don't know this, but this shot was actually from the rushes of The Shining. Julie Andrews was added afterwards with special effects.

  On 8/21/2013 at 7:51 PM, MadameChaos said:

 

A lot of people don't know this, but this shot was actually from the rushes of The Shining. Julie Andrews was added afterwards with special effects.

Wow, that's rad.

Where did you find that out?

That's awesome, though.. Kinda makes the whole thing surreal.

Lol.

Also, though, the following things make that study ridiculous:

1) sample size, sample size, sample size. "Number of participants was small" - I'm no statistician, but if you're only doing 10 people, a 10% difference seems like a typical rate of error.

2) The control sucks. Do we trust the "expert judges"? Especially when the study's own "experts" disagreed so much. In fact, all this study tells us is that people disagree on which performance is the best.

I hear http://small-sample-size.com is a really enlightening source on MRA issues, actually.

  On 8/21/2013 at 9:11 PM, A/D said:

Lol.

 

Also, though, the following things make that study ridiculous:

 

1) sample size, sample size, sample size. "Number of participants was small" - I'm no statistician, but if you're only doing 10 people, a 10% difference seems like a typical rate of error.

 

2) The control sucks. Do we trust the "expert judges"? Especially when the study's own "experts" disagreed so much. In fact, all this study tells us is that people disagree on which performance is the best.

 

I hear http://small-sample-size.com is a really enlightening source on MRA issues, actually.

That's funny considering lots of MRA issues are based on evidence provided by non-MRAs which is misinterpreted by feminists.

Like the myth of the wage gap.

Then lots of well known but publicly not acknowledged knowledge like the job death rate gap and similar.

whats MRA? male rights advocacy? if we are talking about zeffiola.

  On 8/21/2013 at 8:17 PM, Lane Visitor said:

  On 8/21/2013 at 7:51 PM, MadameChaos said:

 

A lot of people don't know this, but this shot was actually from the rushes of The Shining. Julie Andrews was added afterwards with special effects.

 

Wow, that's rad.

 

Where did you find that out?

 

That's awesome, though.. Kinda makes the whole thing surreal.

I read it on the interwebs so it must be true.

  On 8/21/2013 at 8:17 PM, Lane Visitor said:

 

  On 8/21/2013 at 7:51 PM, MadameChaos said:

 

A lot of people don't know this, but this shot was actually from the rushes of The Shining. Julie Andrews was added afterwards with special effects.

 

Wow, that's rad.

 

Where did you find that out?

 

That's awesome, though.. Kinda makes the whole thing surreal.

 

FUCKING LOL

Thread humorously easy to derail! Ok, on with my day now. *whistles cheerfully

  On 8/21/2013 at 9:38 PM, A/D said:

Thread humorously easy to derail! Ok, on with my day now. *whistles cheerfully

>makes unsubstantiated comment

>sees it refuted

>tries to be funny and leaves

On a completely serious note: its relevant!

When it comes to Scriabin's piano works to me Pogorelich always comes first but there's something special in this performance:)