I agree with Howard's remarks. You can find an abundance of Mozart and similar in freshman music theory classes, the reason being the hallmarks of the "classical style": functional harmony, motivic development, antecedent-consequent phrasing, etc. which clearly define a syntax of music.
Influenced by Noam Chomsky's groundbreaking work in linguistics, Leonard Bernstein explored this theme in a series of lectures he delivered at Harvard University in the 70's. As Bernstein might put it, in studying music we begin with Mozart rather than Schoenberg, just as in literature we begin with "See Spot run" rather than excerpts from Finnegan's Wake or some such. It's a similar situation with classical economics, classical architecture, classical physics, etc. The "classical" version establishes a fundamental set of parameters for understanding a field of study, which are elaborated and departed from by more advanced study and practice. I am reminded of a remark from Schoenberg, that the only people who don't understand atonality are those who don't truly understand tonality (paraphrasing, and please don't ask me to document that). If I recall correctly, research in congnition and personality development has established that there is a specific period during childhood when language skills are developed, through exposure and practice. If this opportunity is missed, it becomes increasingly difficult to acquire these skills; the vocabulary and grammatical tools for understanding and expressing complex ideas come less easily. It seems plausible to me that a group of developing children continuously exposed to a police siren would have limited musical skills in comparison to another group exposed to Mozart. So, if musical skills have any relevance in measuring intelligence... -----Original Message----- From: Howard Posner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 12:07 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: lutelist Subject: [LUTE] Re: Music Therapy David Rastall wrote: > My point, though, was that this "effect," whatever it may be, would be > the same no matter which composer's name was atttached to it. But its proponents make specific claims about the structure of Mozart (and, in rather a leap of logic, its effect on children) that would not be true of Bach, Scriabin, Shostakovich, Hindemith, Machaut, Dowland, or Gesualdo. They're not true of Mozart in many cases, of course. On Friday, Jan 6, 2006, at 08:58 America/Los_Angeles, Craig Allen wrote: > This is from the FAQ on the Mozart Effect web site; > > Q. Why is Mozart's music beneficial for learning and health? > A. Mozart's music is the most popular and researched music for > helping modify attentiveness and alertness. The structural and not > overly emotional expression helps clarify time/space perception. It is > not overstimulating I'm guessing they weren't using the Requiem, Don Giovanni, the last symphonies and concertos, the slow movement of the clarinet quintet, the final scene of Figaro, the C minor mass, the Queen of the Night's arias... To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
