Leading article: Musical chairs
Friday, 5 September 2008
Some might say that the researchers of Heriot-Watt University in Edinburgh have come up with an explanation of the blindingly obvious in their study that shows music taste is linked to personality type.
Many will question whether it is really a surprise that indie rock fans tend to have low self-esteem but are often creative, that reggae lovers are supremely relaxed, that those who enjoy dance music are extroverts, or that heavy metal aficionados have a well developed appreciation of the grandiose? But not us, though. We are more interested in the potential practical applications of these findings. If personality influences musical taste, perhaps music can influence personality. Perhaps doctors could use music to ease mental disorders, in the same way that they presently use therapy or drugs?
Symptoms of anxiety? Prescribe some Bob Marley. Depressed? Take Sly and the Family Stone twice a day. Chronic shyness? A month-long course of Fatboy Slim (and strictly no Coldplay). Not very creative? Total immersion in The Killers. It would certainly cut down the NHS drugs bill.
-
Print Article
-
Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2008 Independent News and Media Limited
Oops. In my previous post I meant that there are as many differences *within* an individual supposed 'genre' as there are between that genre and other genres.
Posted by AP | 05.09.08, 10:11 GMT
This sounds like an incredibly poorly constructed study. They wanted to find out what people were like and so they asked them to 'describe' themselves. What? Self-descriptions are more about what you *want* to be than what you are.
The divisions of music they highlight are essentially meaningless. There are as many differences between types of rap or indie music than there are between them. It's far more likely that someone who likes The Roots will also like nu-metal than that someone who likes The Roots will listen to 50 Cent, for example. It's not about the genre so much as the way someone explores that genre.
Posted by AP | 05.09.08, 10:06 GMT
Ian, my thoughts pretty precisely. Even taking the last 500 years of so-called 'classical' music, far far more is contained than in the other categories of the report, which have been created out of the last century or so of popular music. I have very differing favourites (Bach, Brahms, early English choral music etc), and I found the report fairly pointless.
Outgoing? not sure - no problem strking up a conversation with a stranger though.
Posted by Maggie | 05.09.08, 09:46 GMT
Surely, while this research has a lot to say about how we label ourselves, it has no bearing whatever on music?
For me, "Classical" means the short period between the Galant and early Romantic styles; for the researchers it seems to span a thousand years and six continents. Since it alone is more varied than all the (10? 20? 40?) categories which cover commercial popular music even when they are lumped together together, it is meaningless as a _musical_ category; its only significance is _social_. Indeed, since I like Baroque but not Classical, I can't even classify myself within their taxonomy.
Then there's the issue of cause and effect -- classical music lovers shy? Of course they are - they were beaten up at school!
Posted by Ian Kemmish | 05.09.08, 09:05 GMT