Can't agree with those who are assuring you this is bunk. This one is effectively impossible to prove or disprove. Have a hundred kids listen to any arrangment of music, and then go ahead and analyze them when they're thirty to see if it had any effect (profound or otherwise). Have fun sorting out the confounding factors.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Classical Music and Babies
- Thread starter Legend
- Start date
I don't think I understand your logic, or I misunderstand the wording...
Since you can't prove or disprove, whatever you think is unprovable, how did you deduce that you could not agree with those saying it is bunk...? I'm confused as to on what you base your assurance.
I'm sorry, but the article made so many claims and with no citations to follow up, it is pure fluff...
Perhaps all of the article is true or not. I might use it as a starting point for inquiry, but its not where I'd hang my hat...
This may have been mentioned before, but P&T did a segment on that notion. They spoke to the person who performed the study on classical music and memory. All of the subjects were adults, not a single child or infant. The studies showed that it helped memory, but the effect was very short-term, a 10-15 minutes if that.
http://www.sho.com/site/video/brigh...=1305032885&bclid=1349536010&bctid=1349141778 is the relevant clip from the show.
http://www.sho.com/site/video/brigh...=1305032885&bclid=1349536010&bctid=1349141778 is the relevant clip from the show.
Harpyja
Irrepressible Buzzard
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2008
- Messages
- 653
Another personal anecdote: I had a girlfriend who liked to , harumph, you-know-what to the strains of Ravel's Bolero. No babies resulted from this practice; would Mozart (Horn Concerti?) have made a difference?
Yours is far more interesting. Perhaps it's just a result of the inherent properties of Bolero - the musician playing the first solo here seems to be enjoying himself a bit, eh?
I'm not talking about the article itself. I'm talking about people saying this theory is definitely bunk. There is no way to say that with assurance, as we can't do the necessary studies that it would take to conclusively prove it one way or the other. It may be bunk, or it may be accurate, but there is no way anyone can say anything definite about it one way or the other.
Last edited: