On Fri, 27 Aug 1999 13:19:15 -0400 (EDT) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>
> I always thought Philip Glass was a strange control
> condition for the original Rauscher studies. In the
> article that follows Ken Steele's (Nantais, K.M. &
> Schellenberg, G. (1999) The Mozart Effect: An Artifact
> of Preference. Psychological Science, 10, 370-373.) they
> used Schubert (I believe) and also a passage of prose
> reading (a Stephen King passage) in two separate
> studies. The "Schubert effect" was as great as the
> Mozart effect. In their second study there was no
> overall difference between listening to Mozart vs
> Stephen King, but, there was an effect for whatever
> people preferred. If people liked Stephen King more,
> their scores went up. For those that preferred Mozart,
> their scores went up.
>
There has been almost no rationale for the use of the Glass
selection as the control condition. If you have not heard this
selection before then you should go to one of the web audio
stores and listen to a sample. Musical preference or
familiarity would be an obvious alternative explanation.
A much-better control group would have been a selection from the
classical period which lacked the supposed special properties
of the Mozart selection.
> For the rat research, there should also be a range of
> control groups, including other classical music, and
> other music. But is such a program of research worth the
> effort? Lots of things will temporarily boost scores on
> any DV. Stare out the window and breath deeply for 10
> minutes and you'd probably see the same effect. If the
> effects are fleeting, is it worth pursuing any more?
> Besides, if you read Ken's article (same issue p.
> 366-369) there is even a question about the basic effect
> being replicated under conditions that are supposed to
> produce it (nice article, Ken).
>
If you read the original article (and later articles) then you
will notice that there is very little that connects the effect
with their theory. On the one hand, you have a simple
behavioral experiment where exposure to some condition is
supposed to produce a short term effect on a spatial task and,
miles away in conceptual space, a resonance model in which areas
of your brain (unspecified locations) are activated (unspecified
physical method) by special patterns (vaguely exemplified with
terms like "complexity" and "symmetry").
>
> From a musical standpoint, it never made sense to me
> that the effect should revolve around Mozart in
> particular. Sure, Mozart was great - perhaps the most
> gifted composer known to us. But his compositions
> are not that different from those of Hayden. And if
> Mozart was singled out because it tweaked our spatial
> sense, J.S. Bach would be a better choice. Mozart is
> noted for his ability to blend German (spatial) harmony
> and Italian melody. There is nothing unique about his
> counter-point - it's just more pleasant than Bach for
> most people. I have not listened to this particular
> Glass piece, but I would imagine that its lacks the
> pleasant quality of Mozart's pieces.
>
Even the specific sonata chosen does not represent either the
typical Mozart sonata or the apex of Mozart's composition.
This particular sonata is only one of two 4-hand sonatas
composed by Mozart. It was composed to reward a wealthy
patron's support and featured Mozart playing the piece with the
wealthy patron's daughter.
The first 3 books about Mozart piano sonatas I consulted did not
even list this particular sonata.
Ken
(Sorry for the tardy comments but the ASU email system has been
SNAFU.)
----------------------
Kenneth M. Steele [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Associate Professor
Dept. of Psychology
Appalachian State University
Boone, NC 28608
USA
