"Mozart Effect" Has A Molecular Basis

pingbak writes "The 'Mozart effect,' where students were observed performing better after being exposed to a Mozart sonata, appears to have a basis in reality. According to New Scientist, two researchers have found the underlying biomechanics in mice stimulated by the effect. They don't know the details why Mozart's sonatas really cause this effect, but they know where to look. Guess I'm going to have to switch Shoutcast streams now..."

Underlying biomechanics?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just the opposite. They seem to have found some end results of this process in some gene expression. How the hell listening to Mozart could cause this has yet to be explained.

Re:Duh.

[Professor Cool Linux]

Which rats the RIAA (and its followers) or the test subjects

Mozart can't be that special...

[Anonymous Coward]

This sort of phenomenon has to be triggered by something _other_ than Mozart. Like the pitch or frequency or some voodoo like that. But not because Mozart wrote it. I'm sure the same thing works with lots of classical music.

Specifics ?

[Jtoxification]

That's all well and good, but regardless, can someone at least give the name of the sonatas in question ? Even if the report is to be believed, (and heck, if one reads the linked article, it makes sense, especially the part about mouse toys) there are a lot of compositions by Mozart ... to say they do better than other music in general, is, in and of itself, too vague and unscientific. I'd like titles, please ?

And while we're at it, shouldn't we examine what makes them so powerful ? We certainly have no shortage of great minds: every University and College *I know of* has an incredibly grueling music theory degree, and after taking a simple piano appreciation class, this CS student knows better than to take any more music courses regarding song analysis!

PS - (I'm actually *shocked* no one has said it yet, but... this story reminds me of Neal Stephen's book, Snowcrash !)

The science of beauty...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm reading so many comments about the way listening to Mozart may affect genetic expression or the firing of neurons, etc., and it's seems fairly obvious that the spiritual side is being left out of this discussion. For those who don't believe in Creation, there is still the classical definition of the soul of man (gender inclusive) - see Aristotle.

The point to be taken is that the physical and spiritual are tightly integrated in human being, such that an influence on one necessarily affects the other. Styles or categories of music affect us differently. It's universally recognized that some music relaxes us, while another type gets us pumped up. Given this, it seems hyper-logical to me, to the extent that it's really boggling that we even question it's validity.

The only explanation I can think of is that maybe we don't want to admit that we have tastes that don't contribute to our fullest potential, and that recognizing such would imply some responsibility to reassess our listening habits?

On a related vein of thought, there is the argument that there is an objectiveness to beauty, and the beauty has degrees. Assuming it to be true, this certainly is related to the above.

"The qualities of measure and proportion invariably constitute beauty and excellence."

Plato (Philebus).

Re:Mozart can't be that special...

[Tackhead]

> hmmm, maybe it's *complex* music of any kind that has this effect? Most popular music is very simple in structure and lyrics. As an aside, there are animals that make more complex songs than most rap "music".

I tend to agree. Someone mentioned Juno Reactor - a good case in point; it's techno that features lots of interwoven beats, three or four different strands of music being played simultaneously, and I find I'm more productive when listening to it.

As for rap, ditto. Hip-hop today grates on me - I can't even read for comprehension when someone's blaring it within earshot - and the music seems to be engineered to maximize the range of "earshot" per decibel.

That wasn't always the case. Old-school (thinking Public Enemy, ca. 1987-1989) rap used to feature a lot of sampling/looping and very strange/innovative rhythms. Try You Gonna Get Yours or She Watch Channel Zero for a taste. Once the lawsuits started flying and sampling was effectively banned (Caught, Can I Get a Witness?), rap slid into a downward creative spiral that's culminated into today's simple basslines that appear to function only as a broadcast of territorial markers: "This is our territory now, and if you think you can listen to your music - even in headphones - while you're in our territory, think again."

I'd love to do a study that correlates the reinforcement of stereotypical black culture with the influx of major record label interest in hip-hop music. I mean, who benefits most from the portrayal of "yo, fuck da ho's, kill whitey, bein' a thug iz all u can hope 2 be" as "authentic" black culture?

Hint: It sure as fuck ain't the blacks.