The book I read was in your eyes...

Musicophilia: Tales of Music and the Brain


I'm not normally into book reviews, but this book is an exception. I originally read Musicophilia: Tales of Music and the Brain by Oliver Sacks for a university module.... I soon grew to love this book as it is devoted to the cognitive miracles of music.
I never thought about it before reading this book, but it's amazing that if I merely type "the Mission: Impossible theme tune" or "Beethoven's Fifth", you will probably start humming these tunes to yourself.


It's something we all take for granted, but how is it possible? What is going on in our brains? Oliver sacks says "It really is a very odd business that all of us, to varying degrees, have music in our heads."


Oliver Sacks's interesting and sympathetic study is about the pathologies of musical response and what they might teach us about the "normal" faculty of music. It reports that a musician's brain is easily distinguishable on a scan from those of others; and the passage from ear to brain is not a one-way conduit, but works both ways. Mostly Musicophilia is about the more mysterious, and currently inexplicable ways in which music affects the brain, for good or worse. 


Musicophilia outlines some very remarkable stories about those with profound Amnesia, or Alzheimer's disease, for whom music can "restore them to themselves". Also, People with aphasia can be taught to speak again through singing. On the other hand, previously healthy people begin to have "musical hallucinations" and others have seizures in response to music. As a musician, the thought of developing any kind of "musicogenic epilepsy" both scares and intrigues me.


There is, of course, a continuum between the pathological states that Musicophilia discusses and everyday experiences of music. The phenomenon of irritating tunes and jingles that get lodged in our heads is only one step away from a full-blown musical hallucination and Oliver Sacks also compares it to the obsessive ticcing of Tourette's syndrome. It is intriguing, too, to wonder where on the continuum certain historical figures could be placed. Here, for example, is Tchaikovsky as a child: "This music! It is here in my head. Save me from it!" Was he suffering from vivid musical hallucinations, which he learned to manage by writing them down?


At the other end of the continuum are those Sacks describes as "amusic", who do not seem to understand or feel music at all, this is a condition that is completely alien to me. He considers with pity the case of Vladimir Nabokov, who famously said he experienced music merely as "an arbitrary succession of more or less irritating sounds". Another lady also described her experience of listening to music as "knives and forks falling to the ground".


Another part of the book which caught my attention were the stories of people who were awakened to profound musical powers after some kind of brain injury. For example, a 42-year-old man struck by lightning suddenly experiences an unquenchable thirst for music, learns to play the piano, and becomes a composer.


I recommend this book to anyone, It has really got my brain going!

I could just be pop’s latest fad.

Although I am not a massive X Factor fan, I tend to watch the performances and keep up to date with what's going on. After watching a results episode tonight, I was left slightly annoyed at the whole concept of the reality TV 'singers'. What annoyed me even more was Justin Bieber's miming performance. Considering the amount of fans he has, you would think he'd at least be able to sing one song. But no, he mimed his way through an awful pop song, which he obviously didn't write himself. From the way he acted and his gestures towards Cheryl Cole after his performance, you would think he was some kind of musical genius. He clearly is not. It makes me wonder why I even bother studying music when so many people like boring talent less songs, such as his.

           I feel that the music industry is suffering for the sake of entertaining TV series. These programmes do not produce important or lasting musicians and are just made for ratings, money and that 'five minutes of fame'. Many of the people who get this exposure don't ultimately succeed because they don't have the work ethic for permanent success - their lack of technique, repertoire and craft are soon exposed. They have their moment of fame and get money because of the hype generated by the media and the tendency of the tabloid reader to follow the crowd. It just seems like bad karaoke to me, why don't any of the contestants write their own songs?

          I could go on for ages moaning about X Factor but basically... out of the thousands of people in this country, surely they could find someone better than Wagner? I could probably name at least 5 people I personally know, that would be better than all of this years contestants!

        Hopefully this phase of over-hyped and over-manufactured artists will fade within time. In 10 years The Beatles will still be listened to, whereas Gareth Gates will not be a recognised name and the only known Wagner will be the German classical composer.

However.. I am able to put up with all of that, just to be able to perve on Dermot O'leary!

I put the 'metro' in metronome.

Okay so, the metronome's basic use is to give the beat of an intended tempo and to check rhythmic accuracy. I am split on wether a metronome is a helpful tool or just a mechanical device that ruins the 'groove' of the music. I have had teachers that strongly support the use of a metronome in order to create a strong sense of pulse and rhythm. However, I've also had teachers that focus on developing the human, or 'inner' metronome. I think both arguments are equally creditable.

                Musicians obviously need to distinguish the correspondence between rhythm and pulse and need to be able to play accordingly. It is also a great tool for correcting complicated rhythm's and personally I've used it to stop me speeding up. On the other hand, Time is considered fluid, not robotic and metronome markings do not leave space for tempo to be altered within a song.

                Personally, I think it depends what genre of music is being played. For example, I would use a metronome to practice a rigid piano piece, probably renaissance Baroque and early classical. But for a romantic and emotional piece, tempo would possibly want to be 'pulled about' and therefore a metronome would be a hindrance rather than an advantage.

              Within a group environment I think a metronome is extremely beneficial when a drummer or percussionist is not present. It keeps everyone at the same tempo, therefore creating a 'tight' sound. However, if a drummer is accessible I would prefer to use them. Even though they are probably not as precise as a metronome, they can keep the beat in an un-rigid way.

               Overall, I think a metronome is a good tool for practicing solo. But I wouldn't recommend it for a group or for 'pulled about' songs.

We are but men.... ROCK!

Just listened to a Tenacious D album for the first time in ages. I forgot how incredible those guys are! I've decided that Jack Black is a genius and I really can't think of anything that sounds remotely similar to what he does. It's no mere comedy record, the instrumental ability is clearly of a seriously good standard and Jack Black's impressive vocals are used with initiative. I love how they break away from the serious singer-songwriter mentality and incorporate typical classic rock cliches. Overall, anyone that shows great instrumental ability, humour, powerful solo's and massive vocal ranges within an awesome rock song, is a winner for me.

"Now go my son and rockkkkkkkkkkk!"

To blog or not to blog...

I've always thought about starting one of these, as I always have far too much to say and an opinion on everything. So here it is, My blog.