Music, Music for a while.

This blog post is about the characteristics of Baroque music. I personally love Baroque music and consider it my favourite period of music. Baroque is the name given to the period of music between 1600-1750. 1600 can be given as an estimated start to the period, in Italy at least, because this was the birth of opera. 1750 can also roughly be given as an end date as Handel, a Baroque giant, passed away in 1749.

            The word ‘Baroque’ is literally defined as ‘decorative’. I also found that, interestingly, synonyms for the word ‘Baroque’ are extravagant, bizarre, elaborate, ornate, embellished, and flamboyant. Antonyms for the word ‘Baroque’ are plain, unadorned and undecorated. I find this interesting because, in my opinion, these synonyms accurately describe the music of the Baroque period. Therefore, the period is named well and these words alone give an incline into the kind of music that was written.

The music written in this period had some very distinctive characteristics. The Appoggiatura, Trill, Mordent and Turn are the most commonly used ornaments in Baroque music and can be thought of as characteristics. One heavily important feature of this music is the use of ornamentation. It is thought that to be able to play or perform a good interpretation of Baroque music, a good knowledge of how these ornaments should sound is needed. However, a lot of these ornaments were not noted in the music and it was common for performers to improvise ornamentation on a given melodic line. A singer performing an Aria, for instance, would sing the melody relatively unornamented the first time, but decorate it with additional flourishes the second time through. For example in Music For A While From Purcell’s Opera Oedipus, a gentle descending line closes the middle section on the dominant, as preparation for the return to the tonic key. Purcell’s return to the home key brings with it a return of the opening melody and text. When performing this part for the second time, trills, mordents and auxiliary notes can be added.

However much one studies baroque ornaments, this instinctive placement of it is something that is hard to learn. These extra flourishes need to be thought about intensely to ensure that they fit with the time period and stylistic techniques. Basically, the music embellishment should not be applied thoughtlessly. It is merely opinion that defines whether embellishment is correct or not. 

Baroque composers used many Trills within their compositions. A ‘Trill’ is the name given to the rapid alteration between two notes, which are normally a tone or semitone apart from another. For example Bach’s Zerfliesse from his St John Passion contains many trills within the piano part, which are often placed at the end of the instrumental ‘breaks’. The singer also has a lovely trill in bar 48. The trills used in this era do differ from, for example, Jazz music. The standard baroque trill does not start on the principal note, but on the note above.

One of Baroque music’s most characteristic marks was the use of the basso continuo, also known as figured bass. This provided the harmonic structure of the whole piece of music. Any instrument that produced chords such as a harpsichord, organ, guitar, lute or harp or was the lowest sounding instrument such as a cello, bass, double bass or bassoon could perform the continuo. Often the harpsichordist played from a score or single bass line, with small numerals written under it. 

These figures below the music indicate what harmonies to use as the music unfolds. It was the job of the continuo player to ensure the required harmonies were complete and clear. It is worth noting that music founded on a clearly defined bass line puts a comparable emphasis on the melody above and the outer parts become slightly polarized. The understanding of basso continuo is critical to an understanding of how Baroque composers thought about their music.

The turn is a versatile ornament that revolves around the principle note and is similar to the first four notes of a descending trill. The interpretation depends largely on the tempo of the music; for example, a turn can be used instead of a trill in faster pieces of music. A turn can, however, be played slowly with a pause on the main note in slow movements.

Another stylistic convention of Baroque music is the use of vertical harmony. When listening to, for example, any mass by Palestrina (A renaissance composer), you can hear separate lines that flow horizontally in interwoven melodies. They of course create Vertical harmony, but their principle role is melodic. They can then be compared to, for example, Monteverdi’s Orfeo.

Monteverdi marked the transition from renaissance to the baroque period. You can hear the baroque sound developing with the clearly identifiable chords, which they then used in progressions. These extracts show the progression of vertical harmony.  This ‘vertical harmony’ way of thinking enabled the baroque composers to use dissonance in highly charged and expressive ways. 

 A significant trait of Baroque music is the dotted rhythms. Descending passages that descended in thirds would contain passing notes, which were unaccented appoggiaturas. Which would look like this:

Generally, the sound performed of the above would be this:

However, in Baroque music, composers such as Bach and Quantz would make appoggiaturas a part of the preceding note and notate them like this:

When performing the above notation, the actual sound would have the dots lengthened and the six-tenths shortened. This is a distinctive sound and a way of hearing the difference between, for example, Baroque and Classical music. This performed sound would be this:

Another stereotypical convention of Baroque music is the rhetorical power of music. Much of it reaches out to communicate strong passions and persuasive emotions. An example of this is an upward leap of exclamation, a rising scale to indicate a question, or a falling chromatic scale of sadness. Musical rhetoric was a way of creating specific passions such as fear, love, hatred, anger and joy.

Baroque music is supposed to move you intensely. This is something that needs to be thought about in depth when performing Baroque music because one aria or movement will normally focus on one emotion and once this mood is established, it will generally be sustained throughout. 

This week my blog has hit 20,000 views, so I want to thank everyone who reads this and I hope some people find it interesting or helpful! :) I have a performance of Baroque music tomorrow and I am hoping to post videos of this in a future post. On a personal note, I finish University tomorrow, so I look forward to having more time to blog over the summer. I also have a place to do teacher training in september and I will be posting about my journey to becoming a music teacher! (Scary, I know)

My last few blog posts have been extremely long and serious, so this is just a short informal post! I received a load of Chopin sheet music in the post yesterday and now I seem to be completely obsessed. It has resulted in me staying awake till a ridiculous time in the morning playing the piano. So here is something for you to enjoy, and if you don't enjoy it you are probably a Justin Beiber loving retard...

“Should classical singers sing pop – and vice versa, or should they stick to one genre?”

I am blogging on this topic because I feel it relates to me and I have a lot of questions that I’d like to find answers to!  For example, I’d like to know how different singing techniques could harm a singer, what people perceive as good singing, what stereotypical conventions of singing genres there are and whether there are existing singers that sing more than one genre of music.

As a classically trained singer I have been advised not to sing pop or rock because these genres generally require a belting voice, which is believed to be vocally damaging. Similarly, popular music tutors have told me I am more suited to blues or pop and that they believe a classical sound is weak and feeble. I have found that generally people put you into either a classical or contemporary stereotype and I would like to find out whether being able to perform both of these opposite genre’s is a skill or a hindrance.  

When I first started to sing, before engaging in singing lessons, I only used my belting voice. This was the only way I knew how to sing and I only sang Pop, Rock and Show tunes. I struggled with high notes, which was a great hindrance and I couldn’t possibly sing classical music. When I tried to sing high notes, I felt tightness in my throat and I often felt pain. I also struggled with singing for long periods of time and often lost my voice. As I was young, I did not have any knowledge or worries about the damage I could cause to my voice, but just enjoyed singing. Now that I have grown up and will rely on my voice as part of my career, I think it’s important that I know the limits and strengths of my voice and how to not damage it for the future. The subject of belting is a matter that causes controversy among singers, singing teachers and methodologies.

The ‘Belting’ voice was initially a way of female singers to use their low- middle range and to be heard over instruments before microphones were used or available. It is also known as the ‘Broadway belt’; however, belting is no longer needed because of the amplification used today. Therefore, it is assumed that belting is still used today in the ‘non-classical’ singing world because there is a quality in the sound that the audience likes and now expects to hear.

It seems that there is a misconception that belting needs to be constantly performed at 110% power and volume, this is what I believe causes the hype about vocal damage. From speaking to a popular music vocal teacher, I was told that it isn’t the style of music that damages the voice, but rather how it is sung.

Modifying the natural open voice by tensing the throat, tongue and jaw and shortening the vocal tract creates belting.  As a classically trained singer, this idea of ‘tensing’ any muscle apart from my diaphragm seems like it would be a hindrance to the quality of sound produced.  I have known belting to be described as a ‘soft yell’, which, in itself causes me to worry. I notice that singers that sing with a belting technique often tense their shoulders and neck, thinking this is giving them some support to higher notes. However, I believe this is one of the main contributing factors to vocal damage. 

As I previously stated, I only ever used this belting technique when I was younger. I desperately wanted to be able to sing higher, and at the age of 16, I starting singing lessons. This enabled me to begin to correct any self-taught bad techniques.

As I learnt to sing in a classical style, I noticed no pain or tension in my throat. The loss of my voice was less frequent and I could sing notes that were over an octave higher than I had ever sang before. I did however still prefer the ‘sound’ of my contemporary voice, to my classical voice.  This was partly down to the type of music I wanted to sing at this age and I also felt my contemporary voice had a more powerful sound.

At this early stage of learning classical singing, however much I was told that it sounded good, I still felt my voice sounded ‘harsh’. My music teacher explained that although it sounded shrill in my head, it did not sound the same to others and she was right. I now use the analogy of a guitar when explaining this to others. For example, a guitar sounds pleasant to most people and the guitarist, but imagine if you were inside the guitar. If you were inside a guitar it would sound shrill and harsh because of the resonance that was happening within the instrument. This is exactly how the voice works within your body. Singers have a disadvantage in the fact that they cant hear the ‘true sound’ of their instrument. Once I had become accustomed to my voice and accepted this fact, I started to enjoy and love singing classical music.

            I completely agree that a classical approach to singing is far less damaging and comfortable to sing. I do however still use a belting technique, when it is needed. I know my limits and avoid singing in this way for prolonged amounts of time and if I feel any pain or tension, I stop straight away. I think some people probably feel more comfortable when belting than others and it is important to know the limits of your natural voice.

Through listening to and reading various musicians’ opinions, I have got the impression that most musicians approach my initial question from a “Classical vs. Pop” point of view. When talking to classically trained singers, they talk about classical music being “angelic” and “spiritual”. Similarly rock and pop singers describe the songs they like to be “emotional” and “pleasant to listen to”.

            The very fact that people describe their preferred music as “emotional” or “spiritual” shows they believe this genre of music or singing has something that another genre does not.

           It is common knowledge that the general pubic listen to contemporary music more than classical. To me this shows that although I believe contemporary singing to be, at times, damaging for the voice, the sound created must be desirable to most people.  I wrote an essay about this topic for university, in which I conducted a survey for. I asked people to list a singer they believed to be talented. The list contained the following artists:

·      Christina Aguilera

·      Adele

·      Robert Plant

·      Florence Welch

·      Lady Gaga

·      Jessie J

·      Olly Murs

·      Paolo Nutini

·      Ed Sheeran

·      Jared Leto

·      Tom Delonge

Christina Aguilera was a repeated choice six times and Adele five, so I decided to focus on the techniques these two artists used and what people find admirable in their voice.  

When first listening to Christina Aguilera’s voice, I noticed that she is great at vocal runs and jumping between different parts of her range. Her voice sounds at the most comfortable when she is in her mid range and using her belting ‘chest voice’, however she does have a good ‘head voice’ ability. On her recorded songs I thought the transition between her head and chest voice was fluent and the break between the two voices was hardly noticeable. I also thought her head voice was fantastic, but unusually strong.

However, when I listened to live recordings of her voice, I noticed that the un-edited version of her voice had a less fluent break and that her head voice was not as strong as her recorded version. I also noticed that although she has a head voice ability, she often sings high notes in her chest voice that, at times, sounds forced and unhealthy. I found a lot of performances where she missed out the high-recorded parts completely, or sang an alternative lower version.

I found a list of all the performances she had cancelled due to ‘vocal strain’ and there were plenty. In most of these cases it is reported that she was purely told not to sing for six weeks and then to carry on as normal. This strikes me as alarming because I would assume that repeatedly straining your voice would cause some kind of long-term damage. In an interview I had read, Christina Aguilera said:

 “I’ve had vocal strain in the past because I do sing live.”

This is a worrying statement because it seems she believes vocal strain is something that every 'live' singer suffers from, which is not the case.

Christina Aguilera uses a lot of melisma within her singing and this is what I think draws people to like it.  The actual tone and effect created with her voice is desirable and the recorded versions of her songs sound seamless. However, I think without the aid of technology her records would be less pleasant to listen to and it will be interesting to see if she is still singing in 20 years time.

The second vocalist that was repeatedly chosen was Adele. She, again, uses the belting technique and has a strong chest voice. The lower part of her voice is thick and resonant, however this strength deteriorates in the higher register.  

One song she is famous for is the song ‘Someone like you’. In the recorded version of this song, she sings the high notes in a belting voice and they stand out with an emotional impact. However, I noticed that when singing live, she sometimes misses this part of the song out completely and sings an alternative lower version. On the performances where she did choose to sing the higher notes, they sounded strained and forced, but this is hidden by the emotional edge the notes are given.

Adele’s vocal damage has been widely reported in the media. MTV.com’s report said she had suffered hemorrhaged vocal chords and that she has had surgery. They reported that Dr. Young, who specializes in working with professional singers, said

“He's seen plenty of artists who have dealt with the same sort of issues Adele is suffering through, and usually, the path that led to their injury is the same.”

He believes that her vocal damage started with her acquiring laryngitis and not resting her voice during this period.

TheNational.ae asked the question:

“So how was one of the great musical hopes of the decade reduced to a state where her greatest asset was almost ruined?”

They again reported that she contracted laryngitis and did not rest her voice for the required period. They also reported that other famous singers such as Elton John, Steve Tyler and Julie Andrews had undergone a similar surgery to the one she will receive.

Despite the fact that I believe she is a prime example of how this over singing belting technique is unsafe, I do like the sound she produces and I believe she is more of an emotional singer than a technically perfect one, which draws audiences to listen. When watching a reality Television show (not entirely sure which one) I remember hearing someone say:

“In contemporary music it is often the imperfections in a voice that make it perfect to listen to”

There are so many cases where vocal damage has been in the media and I have found that when researching, this is normally documented in contemporary style vocalists. Despite this, there are many contemporary singers that do not suffer from any vocal issues.

The fact that there are less classical style singers reported with vocal damage could simply be because classical singers are not in the media as much as pop singers. In the same survey I conducted for Uni, I questioned those who participated to name a classical style singer they thought was talented. There was a limited response and the list contained the following artists:

·      Katherine Jenkins

·      Russell Watson

·      Susan Boyle

·      Tarja Turunen

·      Sarah Brightman

·      Hayley Westenra

·      Charlotte Church

The two vocalists that were repeatedly listed were Susan Boyle and Katherine Jenkins. The first, Susan Boyle, rose to fame on the reality Television show ‘Britain’s got talent’.  I would personally put her in the classical cross over genre because the songs she performs are normally show tunes or well-popularized classical anthems. The fact that she was a top choice shows that the people that took my survey do not have a good knowledge of classical music, or have much interest in it. She is automatically classed as a classical singer because she uses a classical technique and does not use the belting chest voice.

            Similarly, Katherine Jenkins is of the classical cross over genre and performs operatic arias, popular songs, musical theatre and hymns. She rose to fame through modeling along side a musical career, in which it could be assumed her image helped her to be noticed by the general public. She again, does not use a belting voice and is therefore associated with ‘classical’ music. She has also taken part in various reality television shows such as ‘Pop Star To Opera Star’ and “Dancing With The Stars”.

‘Pop Star To Opera Star’ has caused controversy in the operatic singing world. Katherine Jenkins and Meat loaf are amongst the judges, which have resulted in opera singers complaining that these vocalists are not qualified to be discussing opera techniques. People have noted that calling these artists ‘opera’ singers on a widely viewed television show gives out the wrong impression and will add to the myth that anyone who sings without a belting technique, is automatically an opera singer. Rebecca Evans, who appears regularly with the Welsh National Opera and the Royal Opera said:

"They will be calling more people opera singers when they are not opera singers – it's television gone mad. Being an opera star is working in an opera house where you spend six weeks in a rehearsal room planning for the production. Opera singers are like athletes – you have to have stamina. It takes years of hard graft and dedication to become an opera singer. The series will give the wrong impression."

It’s interesting to note that most of the people that took my survey were musicians or music students themselves and could not name a single classical singer. I personally do not enjoy listening to this cross over genre of singing, as I find the songs to be slightly garish and corny. I do however love true classical music and I think if more people were exposed to classical arias and operas, they would be more appreciated.

The last question on the survey was asking the reader to name a singer that crosses two different genres. The list of artists that were mentioned is as follows:

·      Charlotte Church

·      Serj Tankian

·      Gareth Gates

As you can see, this list is rather sparse and shows how most people struggle to think of such artists.

Charlotte Church rose to fame in her childhood as a classical cross over singer. ‘Voice of an Angel’ was the name of her first album, which contained arias, sacred songs, and traditional pieces. She was the youngest artist with a No. 1 album on the British classical crossover charts at that time. After her success as a classical singer, she then decided to perform pop music. 

Charlotte’s classical voice is that of a soprano and has a light crisp tone. It is a simple sound with not much vibrato and most of the recordings of her singing in this genre are of her at a young age. Her pop voice however, is quite the opposite and she uses her belting voice with an airy tone. The opposite voice she has acquired may have been the result of her getting older, but I would suspect that she could still sing in a classical style if she chose to do so. Unfortunately there is less of an audience for classical music, which I assume is the reason for her changing to popular music. I have also read reports that have suggested her classically trained voice has now gone due to smoking and belting. Whether this is true or not, I am not entirely sure.

A singer that was mentioned previously (in the list of talented vocalists) my survey produced, was Tarja Turunen. Before the survey I had previously not been aware of her or her existence. Tarja is a classically trained, strong sounding soprano and has the vocal range of three octaves.  However, she is the lead singer of a metal band, Nightwish. 

When reading this, I was intrigued to find out what this collaboration sounded like and whether it ‘worked’ or not. My first thoughts would be that she would use a head voice in a contemporary style, however I was wrong. She uses a classical technique and style, which results in her having a very strong head voice. Surprisingly, her lower notes are also strong and well supported.

In regards to the music genre, I believe her voice fitted well. The tone and high register of her voice allowed it to soar above the distorted guitars and rock instruments, which enabled her to be heard. The use of her high thick sounding soprano, teamed with the powerful sounds of a metal band seems to go together very well. I think these two unsuspecting musical techniques team up to provide an emotional and interesting musical partnership. I personally enjoy Nightwish’s cover of ‘Phantom Of The Opera’:

Through my investigation I believe that classical singers should sing contemporary music if they choose to do so, as long as they do this safely. I think it is important to remember contemporary singing does not have to be belted all of the time and to avoid straining to higher notes is a necessity. Ideally a mixture of a head and chest voice can be used, but to disguise the break in the voice takes a lot of practice and training. I also think contemporary singers should try classical singing because it enables a singer to learn precise technique, especially when it comes to articulation and breathing. Voice placement is an on going musical issue and will continue to cause controversy.  I think overall is it important to know what is safe for the individual and to sing what comes naturally.

I would love to hear peoples views on this topic!

She's hearing voices...

Amusia is a disorder, which is often called ‘musical deafness’. The sufferer cannot process musical pitch or rhythm or both. There are two types of Amusia; Acquired Amusia and Congenital Amusia. Congenital Amusia is when you are born with the defect and Acquired Amusia is when Amusia is developed, often due to an accident or event.

            As someone who includes music into most attributes of my life, even the thought of developing Amusia both scares and intrigues me. I can’t even image how much it would affect my everyday life.

            Musicophilia states, “Many people are unable to sing or whistle in tune, though usually we are very conscious of this” It also states “Five per cent of the population” have it and people who suffer from it “can veer off key without realising it”.  Amusia is also known as “tone deaf”.

            When I was reading about Amusia, I found a lot of the symptoms remind me of my mother. I have made jokes about her being “tone deaf” before, but did not realise that she may actually be it.  There is a difference between Amusia and bad singing, so I wanted to test my mother.

            I started by asking her to sing notes I played on the piano. She only got one note right, which she wasn’t aware was correct. I then asked her to listen to me sing two songs; one that was in tune and one that I sang with sharp notes thrown in. I then asked her which she preferred. When asked she said she “liked both” and could not tell me what was pleasant or not pleasant about either.

            I have always thought it was strange that she does not listen to music and when she has been to performances and concerts with me, she could never tell who was singing well and who was not. She has also never understood why I have such an interest in music and Amusia has made me realise that she possibly does not hear music with as much intensity as I do.

            Severe Amusia sufferers cannot recognise, for example, the tune of Happy Birthday. I am not sure if my mother does have Amusia or not because she can recognise some tunes, but I definitely think this shows that people hear things in different ways.  

When the child was a child, It didn't know it was a child...

This topic has always interested me as I feel it personally relates to me. As someone that did not have any music tuition until the age of 16, I have never agreed with the statement “music has to be learnt as a young child” which I have heard many times from music teachers and also from people with no musical interest. This topic recently arose in a discussion I had with some teachers, that agreed with the statement. I however had a different opinion and have always believed anyone can learn an instrument at any age, although I have also always wondered if studying music earlier would have had an effect on me.

I was made aware of The Tillman/Swanwick spiral whilst doing uni research. From researching I have learnt that this is a Helix development model that describes and measures the musical development. According to the Swanwick/Tillman spiral 0-4 year olds are concerned with materials, 4-9 years olds are concerned with expressions, 10-15s with form and older children with value. I do think the Swanwick/Tillman spiral has a degree of scientific realism and the studies show the helix model is accurate. I also think the spiral is helpful when teaching children as it shows the tasks their brain will be more focused on.

However, I believe that this purely shows the ways in which certain ages may learn best. Therefore I believe this doesn't show that being a certain age holds a person back, but merely means they may need to learn in a different way to a child, in the similar way a 0-4 year old child learns differently to a 10-15 year old child.

            The Psychology of Music; Second Edition states “During their second year, children begin to recognise certain melodies as stable entities in their environment and can identify them even after a considerable delay”  It also states “Children begin to sing spontaneously somewhere around the age of 9 months or a year.”

It seems that children develop musical skills naturally. I couldn’t initially decide whether “spontaneous singing” qualifies as musicality, but I definitely decided it was relevant. However, The Psychology Of Music; Second Edition also says “When a child sings it is readily distinguishable from speech in terms of its patterns of pitch and rhythm.”

Music development during the early years of childhood has been researched since World War II. (Pillsbury studies 1937-1958) It was believed that learning music would enhance a child’s ability to learn and even their ability to speak. For example, musical ability starts off as simple phrases or chords. These then develop into intricate melodies and in song writing simple chords can turn into complicated songs. These methods are similar to language in the fact that simple words are learnt, which turn into sentences, which turn into paragraphs and so on.

            Alvaro Pascual-leane at Harvard says:

“Playing a musical instrument demands extensive procedural and motor learning that results in plastic reorganization of the human brain. These plastic changes seem to include the rapid unmasking of existing connections and the establishment of new ones. Therefore, both functional and structural changes take place in the brain of instrumentalists as they learn to cope with the demands of their activity.”

It’s obvious that learning an instrument takes more than just knowledge of ‘what to do’. Although an obvious statement, practice is essential and I believe ‘willingness’ to practice cannot be taught, but is something that comes from an individual. People such as Alvaro Pascual-leane suggest that when an instrument is practiced, the ‘musical brain’ is developed. Alvaro says “Learning to play the piano changes your brain”.

Alvaro Pascual-Leane’s experiment reveals that use of the motor skills to play the piano correctly is associated with reorganization in the cortical motor outputs to the muscles involved in the task. When learning to play the piano, new connections are made in the brain and previously existing connections are unmasked.

            If the studies are correct and learning music at a young age does develop some kind of ‘musical brain’ would this be an advantage or a hindrance?  Musicophilia, tales of music and the brain’states: “Musicality, like other gifts, can create its own problems”. Musicophilia talks about a young boy who started to play the piano and compose at the age of four and who, by the age of seven, “could reproduce long and elaborate pieces of music”. This little boy was told he was going to be a musician, and this was accepted at a young age. This little boy as an adult said he felt “his musicality controlled him, rather than the other way round”.

            From experience I have had of teaching music to children, I have generally found that unless the child wants to learn, they wont. I believe this is because music is something that can’t necessarily just be learnt, but comes from someone’s willingness to express themselves. So surely you can find a new way to express yourself at any age?

            Although there is a lot of corresponding evidence that shows the relationship between brain development and age, being older could also be an advantage as an adult may have more willingness and a more structured way of practice.

            I do believe learning music at a young age is extremely beneficial. However I do think it is completely possible for an adult to learn an instrument, but it would realistically take longer than it would have if they had learnt whilst their brain was developing. Despite my own personal opinion, I do believe there are solid arguments both for and against the beginning statement.

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!