Kirsty Guster

With the rise in various scientific cross-disciplinary studies into the secondary benefits of music, advocates for music are now finding themselves able to discuss the value of music in terms of educational outcomes. Yet how valid are these arguments and do they really support the case for music? Kirsty Guster makes a critical journey through the brain, oranges and intangibles

"Music plays so central a role in the lives of many people that there can be no doubting how highly it is valued" states the legendary Groves Dictionary of Music and Musicians (Davies, 2006). If only this were so. It would appear that music advocacy has become increasingly necessary for the survival of music in our education system. As Gary McPherson, past Australian President of the International Society of Music Education (ISME) confirms, "almost universally now, music educators seem to be taking on the task of advocating for their programs" (McPherson, 2005).

With music competing with other subjects for limited resources and time, music advocacy arguments have to present the value of music within the context of broader educational goals. As Hallam writes in her report The Power of Music, "increasing pressures on the curriculum have led musicians to search for evidence to defend its place through its role in enhancing other skills. One strand of research has explored the effects of music on intellectual skill" (2001, p. 20). This evidence increasingly relies on presenting one's worth in facts and figures: a realm that music has not been historically well equipped to deal with. But with recent advances in science, computer technology and cross-disciplinary fields, new 'evidence' for the touted benefits of music is proving very useful for music advocacy groups.

Educational benefits

There are numerous studies to show the benefits of music, and music advocacy groups are making great use of them: benefits to the brain, critical thinking skills, literacy, academic scores, physical and psychological well being and social skills etc. The website of the American Music Conference outlines the increasing interest in, and the effect of this new resource for music advocacy:

The pace of scientific research into music making has never been greater. New data about music's relationship to brainpower, wellness and other phenomena is changing the way we perceive mankind's oldest art form, and it's having a real-world effect on decisions about educational priorities. (AMC, 2006a)

In a 2000 survey of all studies from 1950-1999 (published and unpublished in English) that have tested the claim that studying the arts leads to some form of academic improvement, 11,467 articles, books, theses, conference presentations, technical reports, unpublished papers, and unpublished data were found (Winner & Hetland, 2000). Today, a Google search for "music advocacy" will yield almost 50,000 results, providing numerous online forums for presenting this research. Results that appear in scientific journals are guaranteed extensive circulation and appear in many guises.

In one comprehensive music advocacy guide, promoted on the websites of both the American Music Conference (AMC, 2006b) and the Australian Music Educators' National Conference (AMENC, 2005), "Music Advocacy Top Ten Lists" (separately compiled for directors, parents, students and administrators) include the following arguments in support of music. Parents are informed that according to Nature (May 23, 1996), studying music strengthens students' academic performance, with studies indicating that sequential, skill-building instruction in art and music integrated with the rest of the curriculum can greatly improve children's performance in reading and math." This is confirmed by a UCLA report that "a ten-year study indicates that students who study music achieve higher test scores, regardless of socio-economic background." Parents are also told that "music training - specifically piano instruction - can dramatically enhance children's spatial-temporal reasoning skills, the skills crucial for greater success in subjects like math and science" (as reported in Neurological Research 1997).

Other "Top Ten" lists are equally informative; profiles of college SAT tests takers in 1998 show that "students with coursework/experience in music performance scored 52 points higher on the verbal portion of the SAT and 36 points higher on the math portion than students with no coursework or experience in the arts." And in an evaluation of the achievement in reading and arithmetic of pupils in elementary school instrumental music classes, it was found that skills such as reading, anticipating, memory, listening, forecasting, recall, and concentration are developed in musical performance, and these skills are valuable to students in math, reading, and science. And to cover all bases, the 1999 Champions of change federal study, reports that "In academic situations, students in music programs are less likely to draw unfounded conclusions."

It would appear that these arguments from music advocacy have been reaching their target audience, at least in the US. In a survey of "American Attitudes Toward Music" run by NAMM (International Music Products Association, 2000) it was reported that eighty-one percent of people responding believe that participating in school music corresponds with better grades and test scores. This is an increase of fourteen percent over the 1997 results for the same question (ibid.) Yet, despite this show of confidence, there are reasons to suggest that music advocacy groups would be wise not to get too excited about scientific findings of 'instrumental' or extrinsic benefits of music. In fact, finding the value of music through its ability to enhance other intellectual skills is proving to be 'extremely controversial' (Hallam, 2001, p. 20).

According to Gary McPherson, who "doesn't have much time for the glitzy reports suggesting that music makes you smarter", some of the research concerned with the so called 'Mozart effect' is "just plain embarrassing" (McPherson, 2005). His antipathy is understandable given the following explanation of this phenomenon in The Skeptics Dictionary:

The Mozart effect is an example of how science and the media mix in our world. A suggestion in a few paragraphs in a scientific journal becomes a universal truth in a matter of months " Others, smelling the money, jump on the bandwagon and play to the crowd, adding their own myths, questionable claims, and distortions to the mix " We then have books, tapes, CDs, institutes, government programs, etc. Soon the myth is believed by millions as a scientific fact. In this case, the process met with little critical resistance because we already know that music can affect feelings and moods, so why shouldn't it affect intelligence and health? It's just commonsense, right? Yes, and all the more reason to be skeptical. (Carroll, 2006)

Winner & Hetland are two of the more practical 'skeptics' examining the controversy. As part of REAP (Reviewing Education and the Arts Project, 1997-2000), they conducted ten meta-analytic reviews on the state of the evidence for transfer of arts learning to non-arts cognitive achievement. From 188 reports they found only three areas in which clear, reliable causal links could be demonstrated. Interestingly, just to spur on the controversy, two of those showing links are related to the 'Mozart effect': Listening to music and spatial-temporal reasoning, and learning to play music and spatial-temporal reasoning (with the third found between classroom drama and verbal skills). Yet despite this link, the authors conclude that there is "a danger in such reasoning":

These mixed findings should make it clear that, even in cases where arts programs add value to non-arts academic outcomes, it is dangerous to justify arts education by secondary, non-arts effects. Doing so puts the arts in a weakened and vulnerable position É Anyone who looks closely, as we have done, will see that these claims do not hold up unequivocally. Those who live by instrumental claims risk dying by such claims.

They insist instead, that even when the arts contribute secondary benefits, "arts educators must build justifications based on what is inherently valuable about the arts themselves" (Winner & Hetland, 2000).

There are similar critical voices in the UK. In a comprehensive study of research into the 'other values' of music, titled The Power of Music, Professor Sue Hallam reviewed over 200 authoritative articles. In regards to music in formal education she summarises the problem somewhat more conservatively:

While taking music was positively related to better performance in other subjects, this does not necessarily mean that it was the cause of it. From our current level of knowledge it is not possible to draw firm conclusions about the effects of listening to or active involvement in music making on other intellectual skills. The jury remains out. (Hallam, 2001, p.20)

Music for music's sake

While the jury is out, it is worth considering here the 'music for music's sake' argument, because sensitivities surrounding the use of scientific discoveries do not just seem to be aimed at the lack of consistency or validity of scientific results, which may be expected in the process of discovering any new knowledge. They also seem to involve a concern with the underlying philosophy and suitability of current scientific approaches for appreciating the intrinsic or inherent values of music.

There are many ways in which to pose questions about value in relation to music, and many ways to interpret the answers. What may begin as a seemingly simple question can give way to a host of philosophical and ideological issues. Such books as Who needs classical music? (Johnson, 2002) and What good are the arts? (Carey, 2005) bring into view the tip of the iceberg. These questions are not just of interest to musicians or artists, but are ones that play a crucial role in the way our society operates, from decisions on curriculum in our school systems, to government funding of the arts, and the motivating factors that lead people to participate in arts and culture.

In a report examining museums, galleries and the arts in the U.K., Selwood outlines issues that are also increasingly relevant in society's evaluation of music, specifically the tendency to value culture for its 'impact' rather than its intrinsic value. In the UK, the first attempt to collect and analyse statistics about the arts was made 20 years ago. Selwood notes that "this exercise inevitably attracted the scorn of those who believed that the concept of the arts, is, by definition, 'elusive and indefinable and that any attempt to measure it cannot begin to represent its essential quality'". She adds that since then "not much has changed" (2002, p. 1-2). The complexity of these issues, when dealing with value in music and the arts, is highlighted by the following quote from an article titled Intangible, inflatable and irreducible: "Value is a slippery concept, muddled by economic thinking with its two basic concepts of 'use value' and 'exchange value'"(Kimble, 2004).

Yet perhaps by un-entangling the question of music's value from its complex context, we may be able to get closer to this 'elusive and indefinable' but 'essential' or 'intrinsic' quality many are speaking of. One way may be to remove all related context completely, and consider the notion of 'value' through some other means. While many may consider music to be unique, there are a few other things in life that we may appreciate or place value on, but also find difficult to describe, quantify or provide evidence for: the concepts of love, a delicious taste, or colour for example. And some of these need advocacy. The orange, as it turns out, delivers a surprisingly relevant analogy.

Music and Oranges

Just as there are many segments to the orange, there are many ways that we can value it. Perhaps the most intrinsic value as far as nature is concerned, is to facilitate procreation by spreading the orange seed. At the basic human level, the orange is a food source that provides valuable sustenance in the form of potassium, folic acid, vitamin C and other antioxidants. At another level however, many of us may be of the opinion that this is an added bonus to a fruit that we enjoy eating and drinking for its taste, texture or refreshing qualities, or even find aesthetically pleasing to regard. Then there is another layer of appreciation (brought to us through sophisticated marketing), in which we see orange juice as the ingredient that brings the smiling family together at the breakfast table; the elixir that holds the goodness of the golden sunshine that bathed the orchard in which the fruit grew.

Like the orange, there are many ways to approach, dissect, or understand the value of music. Yet, why would musicians be sensitive to certain approaches to promoting music. If music does increase the size of the corpus callosum, or enhances spatial temporal reasoning skills, what could possibly be wrong with saying so? To return to the orange: scientists say that the orange provides 70 mg of vitamin C per average slice. What might be a little disturbing for lovers of the orange however, is if suddenly we stopped considering oranges for anything other than their vitamin C content. If you think about it, the threat is real: science pointed to the existence of vitamin C in the orange, and the relevance of vitamin C to the body. Then it found a way to manufacture vitamin C without needing the orange at all. And this is perhaps what musicians fear.

Indeed, it would seem this scenario has just arrived, with the following report from London's Guardian unlimited in August this year:

The human orchestra, immaculately dressed in bow ties and elegantly dressed is facing an unprecedented challenge from the heap of wires and microchips in the corner of a room. It is quicker and cheaper, hits every note to perfection and never makes a mistake. The age of the computer composer has arrived. A program developed in Vienna mimics human musicians in the performance of greats such as Bach, Beethoven and Mozart so convincingly that a casual listener to Classic FM would be unable to tell the difference" (Smith, 2006).

An ominous note, as one US reporter concluded, "today, it's possible to create and perform music without calling on a musician to blow or bow a single note" (Shulgold, 2006). Perhaps musicians can take courage from the knowledge that despite vitamin C tablets, the orange is still with us.

Yet it would appear that this has not been without much effort behind the scenes. A Google search of "orange growers advocacy" yields almost twice as many orange as music advocacy groups (110,000 results) and they are currently facing a fairly fierce battle. The parallels are striking and worth considering here for a moment. Just like music, the orange industry has always had its challenges: weather and disease destroying citrus groves, competition from other fruits and juice drinks on supermarket shelves. But orange advocacy scored extremely well when the concept of vitamins was introduced to the public in the early twentieth century. The Washington Post reports that "Americans became convinced during this time that their health depended on orange juice each morning" (Weinraub, 2004). What a great coup that would be for music advocacy - Mozart before or during breakfast, every morning - and this is not far from what marketers of the Mozart effect have been trying to achieve.

But there are a few more significant parallels. At first that juice on the tables was freshly squeezed, but during the 1920s the focus shifted to canned juice. Then came the development of frozen concentrate, and even powdered juice (one is reminded of canned music and the rise of the recording industry). Yet, while the vitamin attraction was still strong, the Washington Post reported in 2004, under the heading 'OJ gets squeezed,' that orange juice sales are plummeting and consumption is at an all-time low. The reason? The low-carb diet. The orange juice industry, at the mercy of new scientific findings, is facing the advocacy battle yet again. One nutritionist summed up the problem quite well: "When you look at foods through a low-carb lens, you miss the big picture" (Weinraub, 2004.)

Just as our interest in the orange is not explained by the vitamin C content alone, what may cause sensitivity amongst musicians or music lovers, is not that others take an interest in our field, but that looking at and valuing music through an extrinsic (non-musical) lens alone will 'miss the big picture'. In his History of western philosophy, Bertrand Russell has touched on a similar sentiment: "Science tells us what we can know, but what we can know is very little, and if we forget how much we cannot know we become insensitive to many things of very great importance" (Russell, 1945, p. 14). What then are these values that might be drowned out if we focus too narrowly on current scientific insights?

Intangibles

The new Grove handbook of music on Analysis points out that, "like all artistic media, music presents a problem, inherent in the nature of its material. Music is not tangible and measurable as is a liquid or a solid for chemical analysis" (Drabkin, 1987, p. 5). The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians also highlights this intangible quality, listing the basic elements of musical performance as "understanding, actuality and the ineffable". The author adds that "the 'ineffable' can be discussed under many different rubrics – artistry, charisma, inspiration, magic, star quality – none of which can ever quite capture a quality to which performers would nevertheless not aspire if they did not believe that audiences were acutely sensitive to it" (Dunsby, 2006). In The Value of Music, Goldman goes even further to say that "the peculiar and most inclusive value of music lies precisely in its presenting to us an alternative world, in which we can be actively, but not practically, engaged. The way in which this world is truly alternative or different connects with the felt ineffability of musical experience, with the very difficulty we have been having in expressing in words its value" (Goldman, 1992, p.39).

While difficult to 'capture' or express, nevertheless, whether in classical, jazz or popular styles, many musicians refer to intangible elements in either the music they play, or the ideal that they strive for. From initial efforts to identify themes, the following references to intangible realms emerge: expression of emotion; mystery; artistry; creativity; mystery; peak experience; flow; space; silence; spirituality; and finally, the intangible as delicate balance between cognition and emotions, intellect and intuition, or body and spirit. To provide a very small sample, from a variety of sources: The American composer Edward MacDowell referred to music as a language, "but a language of the intangible, a kind of soul-language'"(Pesce, 2006). Beethoven is reputed to have said that "Music is the one incorporeal entrance into the higher world of knowledge which comprehends mankind but which mankind cannot comprehend (See Sullivan, 1949). More recently, UK composer Howard Goodall suggests "this sense in which music seems to come from beyond the frontiers of our knowledge and understanding is key to its place in our lives" (Goodall, 2001, p. 225). For Chopin, the intangible was crucial, for in his opinion "nothing is more odious than music without hidden meaning" (Chopin, 1910). And in considering the purpose of artistic pursuit, Glen Gould spoke of a "gradual, life-long construction of a state of wonder (Gould, 1984, p.246).

The skills involved in performing music are also far from tangible. On Australian soil, in a lecture about intangibles in music, Sydney Conservatorium Director Kim Walker stated that music is " about trying to make the unknown known" but "keeping the unknown just out of reach". To success as a performer she argues, one must "step into the intangible" (Walker, 2005). Pablo Casals spoke also of an unquantifiable element, noting "it has always been my viewpoint that intuition is the decisive element in both the composing and the performance of music" (Casals, in Kahn, p. 96). For Schnabel this hidden meaning is found between the notes: "The notes I handle no better than many pianists. But the pauses between the notes? Ah, that is where the art resides!" (Schnabel, 1958). And Charles Rosen speaks of a balance between tangible and intangible, noting that what interests him most of all "is the relation of the physical act of playing to those aspects of music generally considered more intellectual, spiritual, and emotional, the different ways that body and spirit interact" (Rosen, 2002, prelude).

While many references to intangibles can be found, this is not to say that dealing in the intangible is without its sensitivities, difficulties or obstacles. Juslin & Sloboda speak of a resistance in musicological circles to embrace the important and quite intangible element of emotion, calling it the "gravitational inertia of traditional historical musicology" (2001, p. 458). Many of the authors who contributed to the landmark publication Music and Emotion express "a general perplexity that it has taken so long for emotion to gain even a foothold in the arena of academic discourse about music (from whatever disciplinary perspective)" (ibid., p. 457). In a review of the recently translated Music and the Ineffable (1961) by French philosopher Jankélévitch, Johnson offers one explanation for this resistance by noting that "all of our theoretical discourses around music add up to a kind of avoidance of something more urgent, a way of holding music's power at arm's length, an ordering in rational networks or what might otherwise be too disturbing" (Johnson, 2004, p. 643). The space demanded by the 'ineffable', it would seem, can be too confusing and confrontational to the desires and tendencies of an analytical or sophisticated mind. Or is it just that we are uncomfortable or embarrassed by what we may discover or disclose?

It is interesting to note what we hear when we hand the baton to children to express what we are perhaps too embarrassed to say for fear of sounding too 'simple' or 'ineloquent'. "When I hear lovely music I feel that I can fly"(age 6), when I play music, I enjoy it with my musician soul"(age 11), "Music is for me like my second heart. I will never interrupt my music lessons even if my parents force me to" (age 9). "Music is wonderful, because music helps you to cry and to laugh" (age 13). All of these are taken from an ISME publication on Advocacy for Music Education (2005, p. 179-181). These are in stark contrast to statistics that point to measurable, often intellectual outcomes, or some of the rhetoric we encounter, such as the following conclusion on the value of music education: "Music education plays its particular role in children's education. It fulfils an ethical doctrine to develop and consolidate a given potential to the best possible extent" (ibid. p. 101).

While such language or statistics may appeal to some government policy makers and education criteria, one wonders to what extent either of these will help to motivate musicians, young or old, amateur or professional? There may be hope however, if we jump from the age of 7 to over 70. In August, arts patron and philanthropist Barbara Blackman received the APRA/AMC Outstanding Contribution by an Individual Award for her support to fine music in Australia. In her acceptance speech at Sydney Theatre, broadcast on ABC radio, she declared, without hesitation, her ideas on the value of music. It is, she said, all about love.

Is this the value of music? We may never know: like music, love is not easily measured or defined. Just as we wouldn't try to scientifically prove the value of love or its effects, in our efforts to advocate music, we may find that trying to quantify, measure or pin down what music does too closely is a bit like squeezing the orange too hard – the juice runs out.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Altenmüller, E. (2003). Music education as a powerful stimulus for brain plasticity. Retrieved December 1, 2005, from http://www.isme.org/article/articleview/179/1/26/

AMC (American Music Conference). (2006a). Research briefs. Retrieved July 18, 2006, from http://www.amc-music.org/research_briefs.htm

AMC (American Music Conference). (2006b). Essential advocacy resources for music. Retrieved July 5, 2006, from http://www.amc-music.org/advocacy/resources.htm.

AMENC (Australian Music Educators' National Conference). (2005). Arts advocacy websites. Retrieved July 5, 2006 from http://www.anu.edu.au/music/conference/links.php

Carey, P. (2005). What good are the arts? London: Faber and Faber.

Carroll, Robert, T. (2006). Skeptics dictionary. Website based on Carroll, R. T. (2003). The skeptic's dictionary - A collection of strange beliefs, amusing deceptions, and dangerous delusions. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. Retrieved August 5, 2006, from http://skepdic.com/mozart.html http://skepdic.com/mozart.html. Retrieved

Chopin, F. (1910). Le courrier musical. Cited in "Music history and literature III –music of the twentieth century. Retrieved August 4, 2006, from www.public.coe.edu/~wcarson/musicquotes.htm.

Davies, S. (2006). Philosophy of music, §IV: Anglo-American philosophy of music, 1960–2000. Grove music online. Retrieved March 3, 2006, from http://www.grovemusic.com.

Drabkin W. & Bent, I. (1987). Analysis. New Grove Handbook in Music. London: Macmillan

Dunsby, J. (2006). Performance. Grove music online. Retrieved March 11, 2006, from http://www.grovemusic.com

Goldman, A. (1992). The value of music, The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 50(1) Winter, 35-44.

Goodall H. (2001). Big Bangs: The Story of Five Discoveries that Changed Musical History by Howard Goodall. London: Vintage

Hallam, S. (2001). The power of music report. Commissioned by the Performing Right Society. Pdf document retrieved March 3, 2006 from www.prs.co.uk/powerfofmusicreport/.

ISME. (2005). Children's voices: quotes from children about music and its importance. International Journal of Music Education, 23(2), 179-181.

Johnson, J. (2002). Who needs classical music? Cultural choice and musical value. New York: Oxford University Press.

Johnson, J. (2004). Review of Jankélévitch, V. (2003). Music and the Ineffable. (Translated by Carolyn Abbate. Princeton University Press: Princeton.) In Music & Letters, 85(4), 643-647.

Juslin, P. N. & Sloboda, J.A. (2001). Music and Emotion: Theory and Research (Series in Affective Science). New York: Oxford University Press.

Kahn, Albert E. (1970). Joys and sorrows: Reflections by Pablo Casals. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Kimble, L. (2004). Intangible, inflatable, irreducible. Published online by The Artists Information Company, November 2004. Retrieved on March 5, 2006 from www.a-n.co.uk/cgi-bin/db2www.exe/tour.d2w/input

a-n.co.uk

Leung, B.W. (2005). Resources for music education advocacy. International Journal of Music Education, 23(2),167-174.

Pesce, D. (2006). Macdowell, Edward. Grove music online. Retrieved February 2, 2006, from http://www.grovemusic.com

McPherson, G. (2005). Born rather than made? Music in Action, 2(4). Retrieved June 7, 2005 from http://www.musicinaction.org.au/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=282&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

Rosen, C. (2002). Piano Notes: the world of the pianist. New York: The Free Press (Simon & Schuster, Inc.)

Russell, B. (1945) The history of western philosophy. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Selwood, S. (2002), Measuring culture. Edited version of a paper given at the symposium Statistics in the wake of challenges posed by cultural diversity in a globalisation context, UNESCO Institute for Statistics and l'Observatoire de la culture et des communications de l'Institut de la Statistique du Quebec. Retrieved November 12, 2005 from www.spiked-online.com/Articles/00000006DBAF.htm.

Schnabel, A. (1958, June 11). Chicago Daily News. Cited in Piano Music: Key resources, State Library of Western Australia. Retrieved August 5, 2006, from www.liswa.wa.gov.au/pianomus.html

Schumann, R. (1832). Letter to Ritzhaupt, August 14, 1832

Shulgold, M. (2006, September 2). New, virtual orchestra sounds ominous note. Rocky Mountain News. Retrieved September 10, 2006 from http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/spotlight_columnists/article/0,2777,DRMN_23962_4961912,00.html.

Smith, D. (2006, August 20). Virtual virtuoso takes a bow. Guardian unlimited. Retrieved September 5 2006, from http://arts.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,1854371,00.html.

Sullivan, J.W. (1949), Beethoven: His spiritual development. New York: Mentor Books.

Walker, K. (2005). Intangibles in music, Lecture given as part of Queensland Conservatorium, Griffith University Lecture Series, September 13 2005.

Weinraub, J. (2004, June 23). OJ sellers feel squeeze in low-carb diet trend. The Washington Post. Retrieved March 4, 2006 from http://www.thenewstribune.com/ae/restaurants/story/3880998p-3482804c.html.

Winner & Hetland (2000). The arts and academic achievement: What the evidence shows; executive Summary. Retrieved, January 23, 2005 from www.pz.harvard.edu/Research/Reap/REAPExecSum.html.