Music Generates Feelings That Are Only Weakly Bound to the Music
whatismusic.info
whatismusic.info
But I've only noticed this with songs that conjure relatively benign associations. Stuff from times and places I really don't want to evoke I also avoid.
There are songs I can't listen to like before anymore after some conversations (eg lightning crashes by live) or some time (Champagne supernova by oasis).
But likewise, there are places I don't have the energy to hang around anymore.
Though I mostly enjoy travelling back in time through music, including to high school. Fortunately these years were not traumatising for me. Specific songs are particularly strong for that.
Some songs are strongly associated with specific emotions that were not very enjoyable at the time, but are strangely comforting...ish today. I hope someone gets this and formulates it better / differently. This is probably a kind of nostalgia, but not really in the sense that it was better back in the day.
It took me over 10 years before I could listen to the song without feeling sick. It's fine now though.
I'm not a therapist but this sounds like something I would try on myself if I were in this situation.
also morrowind since somehow I managed to accrue 250+ hours of play time on that despite spending about 16 hours out of every day that I wasn't at school (those days were more like 8-10 hours ಠ_ರೃ) playing halo 2 online.
oh my god
It's fun deciding to imprint yourself in that way, it feels like a conscious decision to re-wire. That said, the most deeply-seated ones are the ones I didn't really decide on.
DOOM had Smashing Pumpkins in it first: the cheat IDSPISPOPD ("smashing pumpkins into small piles of putrid debris") gives you the chainsaw due to some inside joke. The Smashing Pumpkins sample is a nod to this.
If anything, our brains taint and alter memories over time, which causes them to be misaligned with photographs. The photograph doesn't lie. The brain lies to us and often.
I'd rather have my own memories, however faded and worn, though there are strategies (like music association) that can help minimize that. Nonetheless, however distorted, they're principally distorted by my own emotions and desires; they're faded by my own lack of interest; they're mine, which I'd argue is the very definition of a personal memory.
Many people couldn't care less. And that's fine. And if you don't know (or believe) this happens to you, then I suppose it doesn't matter, either.
[1] I want to say that losing the personal visual memory might be related to losing the memory of other aspects, like the emotional experience, but that's more of a fear than anything I'm confident I've experienced personally or have read in the literature.
I would guess that having as many associations as possible is the healthiest for any memory. This is also the principle behind mind palaces and other memorization techniques.
Now, If I ever hear any of the tracks from that album, I have a flood of memories that come back, and I think that is the reason why I remember that trip so well.
Entirely baseless speculating here, but I wonder if music as notes, instruments and structure aren't stored in memory more similar to spatial memory which I also find to be rather permanent.
The same way getting food poisoning after eating a certain dish (and vomiting it back up) can make you avoid the dish for years, even when cooked at home or at other restaurants where it's no more likely to make you sick than anything else.
Our "emotional" brain draws connections completely independently of our "rational" brain. There is extensive literature on this.
So this is one small example of that broadly established phenomenon.
almost never true, when discussing memories.
Not trying to be difficult here but what does this mean? What is an imagined perception vs a real one?
Afterwards you go outside and it's a blazing hot summer day. You put on the soundtrack to the movie but in this case, it doesn't make you feel any cooler. Or conversely it's freezing cold outside, but even so the wintry music doesn't actually make you feel any colder than you already do.
In the situations described above, the music was able to affect your imagined perceptions, not your real ones.
I can, for the most part, now produce goose bumps without thinking of any music. I just feel the feeling that produces them (lovejoycompassion*awe), and they pop up, often accompanied by a lump in the throat and/or catch in the breath.
The subconscious has little ability to distinguish between imagination and reality, in the sense of, e.g. one who has a fear of flying will display the same physiological manifestations whether he's boarding a plane, or just imagining boarding a plane. The subconscious reacts the same to the perception regardless of whether that perception is through the mind's eye or the physical eye. This is how NLP works. By inducing the reaction in a safe space, it can be minimized or eliminated. Once minimized/eliminated in the office (or wherever), it remains minimized in the triggering circumstance.
To explain the attributes of the brain some of these hypotheses allude to, in terms of programming, imagine you have a class. It consists of a list of data members and some member functions that are called by the user (the brain) in order to parse given (sensory) inputs.
For each sensory input, a separate object is created, and so the returned outputs, after some computation, are inherently associated with the object. So, it happens that when you see a blue circle, the member functions are crunched using the .shape and .color data members, that are set to circle and blue respectively, say in the constructor of the ``blue circle`` object.
Suppose this model for processing all kinds of sensory inputs; we might have to imagine complicated classes, lots of member functions so that all kinds of sensory inputs can be parsed. The author makes the interesting claim that there are additional arguments in the member functions that are influenced by whether there is music at the time of sensory object creation.
These arguments distort the outputs (the parsed sensory inputs). The member functions are black boxes, but common experience gives us some insight, based on the observed correlations of inputs and outputs (eg. "sad story" as a sensory input without music is parsed as "sad story", with Bach's Chaconne, is parsed as "extremely depressing, weirdly poignant story").
One other claim that is made in the article, that is very interesting, is that there is a feedback, through evolution. Suppose the brains of human beings have performed Bayesian updates on the outputs of the black box member functions. When the Bayesian brain creates music, does it harness its updated function so as to amplify desired effects?
When we hear music, we perceive things like pitch, timbre, duration. We don’t perceive sadness in music. Rather, certain types of music tend to cause certain types of feelings in listeners. The parts of music we do perceive are strongly bound to the music in the way the author defines. That’s how we can pick out individual instruments or have a conversation while music is playing.
Feelings are, well, more layered and do combine with those created from other perceptions. They also can last beyond the immediate perception.
Theres a great radio lab episode [1] about music, language, perceiving sound, and the connection between music and emotion. It’s such a fascinating topic.
[1] https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolab/episodes/91512...
Great radio lab episode!
re: hearing something awful becomes pleasant with repetition The first time I heard this (composed using non-chromatic scale with 16 pitches to the octave) was somewhat uncomfortable, but after hearing it a few times, it became quite pleasant.
https://kylegann.com/FracturedParadise.mp3
The explanation: https://kylegann.com/Fractured.html
We're not feeling the "feeling it". We're just enjoying the new and potentially song-improving alterations that often come from a performer getting deep into a performance. If you were to take a pre-recorded piece with those exact same alterations, with no live performer (but could hypothetically make the audio quality the same as a live performance), I bet the audience would feel it just the same when you play the recording. All that matters is what the music sounds like.
Conveying emotion probably has many extra factors when it comes to vocalizing, so I'd agree on that point.
When it comes to purely instrumental music I won't usually attach emotions to it ... unless it was designed to be 'programmatic' or 'paint a picture' by the composer. Even then, there's no need to play along. I don't buy the "major = happy, minor = sad', that can be more than a little naive.
Instrumental music is a rich, rich language, and - for me at least - it often arouses emotions I've never felt before. I'm not so sure that it 'generates' those feelings; I suspect that it CONVEYS them. Which is why the greatest music (in any culture) endures for centuries.
I don't think it's obsolete at all - it's intonation. Music is just hacking intonation perception.
How you say something completely affects its meaning. You use a different voice for happy news or sad news or serious things or loving things or sarcasm. A good actor could make the same phrase mean 100 different things.
I often think about this with voice recognition and claims of 99% accuracy. Yeah but it didn't get ANY of the intonation, and that's where most of the information was.
I think it's also definitely true that a good musical soundtrack enhances any movie/tv show/game/etc. even if you're encountering both for the first time. Without the music, it just isn't nearly as frightening/exciting/romantic/funny/ triumphant/etc..