Talk:Music cognition

Wikipedia Ambassador Program assignment
This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Davidson College supported by WikiProject Psychology and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program&#32;during the 2011 Q3 term. Further details are available on the course page.

Above message substituted from on 15:31, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

"Music cognition" and "Personality Psychology of Music"
Personality traits are not traditionally considered part of cognition. This separation is reflected in Wikipedia's basic organization of the Psychology topic (e.g. Outline_of_psychology). Personality psych is its own subfield of psychology, independent of cognitive psych, so it is quite strange to have a "Music Cognition" article that primarily discusses personality traits. Unfortunately, it looks like much of the real cognitive research on music is instead reviewed in the "Cognitive Neuroscience of Music" article. I suggest merging Music Cognition with "Cognitive Neuroscience of Music", and renaming this article something like "Personality Psychology of Music". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.143.94.25 (talk) 12:39, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

"Music Psychology" and "Music Cognition"
Shouldn't these two articles be integrated into one single article?


 * I'm not sure how relevant this is, but I'm having trouble differentiating between psychoacoustics, Musical acoustics, and Music Cognition from their respect articles. Should something be written about this in the articles? Perhaps someone can someone simply respond to this comment at least? =)


 * I think, it is not possible to differntiate between psychoacoustics, Musical acoustics, and Music Cognition, because these terms are overlapping.
 * Psychoacoustics describes the human perception and cognition of acoustical events, regardless, whether these acoustical events are music or not. Many psychoacoustical findings are therefore relevant, for music, like the perception of loudness, pitch, sound etc.
 * Musical acoustics describes the acoustics of music, it includes the physical acoustics of music as well as psychoacoustics of music.
 * Music Cognition describes the perception of music, it includes the psychoacoustics of music as well as the

cognition theoretical and psychological aspects of music, too, like remembrance, emotion etc.
 * Or, saying it simple:
 * Musical acoustics = psychoacoustics of music + physics of music
 * Music Cognition  = psychoacoustics of music + psychology of music
 * Skyhead E (talk) 23:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think this is correct. I agree that the lede of the article fails to distinguish music cognition from cognitive neuroscience of music, music psychology, cognitive musicology and psychoacoustics. CharlesGillingham (talk) 18:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Dubious statement
It is written in here and marked as dubious that "[i]t could well be that music cognition will evolve into a prominent discipline contributing to our understanding of music just as much as more traditional analytic frameworks." Would anyone care to discuss why this is dubious, or what some more evidence for this claim might be? Eflatmajor7th (talk) 01:55, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Music Cognition: Article Thoughts
This article could use more sources. After the topics of the field were presented, the two paragraphs directly below it have no sources cited. I would like to know where this information came from. Also, the only title placed in this article is "History" and that is not the only information that is given about music cognition. It makes it seem as though the history is the most important part of music cognition. Additional titles should be added throughout as the subject matter changes. This would improve the structure of the article and its clarity. In the article it states, " Topics in the field include the following and others." It would help the structure of the article if these "others" were defined as well. Finally, the lead section of this article could use more information. That way the reader knows exactly what will be discussed throughout. Lie46840 (talk) 19:41, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with everything you said. I have been working on an "Areas of Research" section for this article. What I had in mind were just a few basic categories: Rhythm and Beat, Tonality, Emotion and Music, Evolution and Music, and the Neuroscience of Music (which kind of already has its own article: Cognitive Neuroscience of Music). I am almost finished with the Rhythm and Tonality sections. Would you or anyone be willing to work on some or all of the other Areas of Research sections, so that we might coordinate a big update to this article? Eflatmajor7th (talk) 19:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Minor editing for my cognition class
I made two adjustments. One in the first paragraph as the last sentence using this citation: http://faculty.mercer.edu/spears_a/studentpages/webpagesfall09/musicandcognition.html. Also I made a change in the history section using this citation: http://www.uu.edu/personal/jveltman/research/cognition/cognition.html. Maddie1013 (talk) 02:53, 18 September 2012 (UTC)Maddie1013

Minor editing for my cognition class
I made two adjustments. One in the first paragraph as the last sentence using this citation: http://faculty.mercer.edu/spears_a/studentpages/webpagesfall09/musicandcognition.html. Also I made a change in the history section using this citation: http://www.uu.edu/personal/jveltman/research/cognition/cognition.html. Maddie1013 (talk) 02:53, 18 September 2012 (UTC)Maddie1013

Minor editing for my cognition class
I made two adjustments. One in the first paragraph as the last sentence using this citation: http://faculty.mercer.edu/spears_a/studentpages/webpagesfall09/musicandcognition.html. Also I made a change in the history section using this citation: http://www.uu.edu/personal/jveltman/research/cognition/cognition.html. Maddie1013 (talk) 02:53, 18 September 2012 (UTC)Maddie1013


 * I took down that edit because personal web pages are not good encyclopedia sources. Please chime back in if you can get some peer-reviewed sources for your ideas. Eflatmajor7th (talk) 03:58, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Music and humans
This statement in the article "music is a uniquely human capacity that arguably played a central role in the origins of human cognition" may be true in that only humans are equipped to write music, but I do not think they are the only species which can appreciate music. It is well known for example that certain animals (cats, dogs, etc.) respond to classical music, such as baroque, in a quite significant, usually calming manner. I have been to local vets which play classical music in their waiting rooms for this reason. I also notice my own pets response to music. They hate lound and unmelodic music, and seem to melt when hearing melodic music. Animals do have personalities, and do have emotional responses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by []) 17:52, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Effects of personality on musical preference
Overall things:
 * I would definitely include an introduction section to define personality since you are talking about the Big 5 throughout your section. You might briefly define what each measures (or do so in the subheadings for each trait). Even linking to the Big Five personality traits article.
 * Make sure to get rid of the extra space between citations, and citations should go after the period. Blah Blah.[1][2] Next sentence.
 * I would have liked to see more about the methods in general. You cite plenty of examples in which personality seems to play a role in music tastes and uses, but don’t really talk about how those results were found.
 * Careful in the extraversion section when you mention cross-cultural generalizations. You say “many musical preferences” but you only mention one study/view of musical preferences.
 * Good point in conscientiousness section about opposing views on the correlation, but expand on what exactly those points are.
 * Is it agreeable or agreeableness? Just make sure you are consistent.


 * I think the gender and age section is nice, but wouldn’t that fall under a different category than “effects of personality?” It seems like you are defining personality as the Big 5, which is good, so then gender and age aren’t personality traits…
 * While it would be great to use the actual methods and results found, you probably don’t need things like “researchers found”
 * It also might not be necessary to note the studies took place in England or Canada unless specifically focusing on cross-cultural things
 * you don’t cite much specific research for changes related to age, though you mention it. I think that’s a great line of thinking, and would love to see more about it!

Alex Wyse (talk) 23:00, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The situational influence section could definitely benefit from more specific research examples/manipulations.
 * The sentences also get a little more vague here, try to be concise but also have a “fact” in everything you say
 * The complexity and familiarity bits are cool, but also seem randomly thrown into the situation subsection. It might be worth making another subheading.
 * I can see more clearly the overall points that you’re making at the end of the section, but be sure to include enough detail that each section can stand alone. Good info, though!

Recommendations

Violetta Bogopolsky (talk) 18:50, 9 November 2012 (UTC)Violetta Bogopolsky
 * Clean up the citations a bit. I think wiki style is: sentence, period, and then citation.
 * Maybe think about starting with some kind of introduction about personality and music preference before jumping right into the specifics
 * In the first section I would either define the major personality traits or link a wiki page to them (if one exists)
 * You don’t really mention any empirical evidence in the article. Adding information from some studies might make it more scientific and the support stronger
 * You could also have more wiki links (such as for neuroticism and extraversion)
 * Use named references so you don’t have multiple citations for the same article
 * Gender and age sections had some very interesting information, but seems to just jump from one point to another without connection
 * Gender and Age, Self Views, and Situational Influences don’t seem to fit under personality and music preferences. Maybe you can add a separate section for those three
 * Clean up the language a bit in the article, sometimes a bit wordy
 * Pretty cool info though, I defiantly learned a lot!


 * I agree with all of the suggestions for the recent edits. Is Lindy Williams or anyone else able to execute these suggestions? Eflatmajor7th (talk) 09:30, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Areas of Research
I am still looking for someone to help me with a new "Areas of Research" section. I have in mind "Rhythm and Beat", "Tonality", "Emotion and Music", and "Evolution and Music". I already have the rhythm and tonality sections mostly written. Is anyone willing to contribute a couple paragraphs for the emotion and/or evolution sections? Thanks! Eflatmajor7th (talk) 09:33, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Totaly crazy article. Does not define WHAT the personality traits are, jumps around them in a totaly non linear way. There's no attempts made to define the genres, define what is meant by personaly traits or explain how the tests were done. Even when statements are made,they are rarely elabroated upon or justified to give meaning or context. Needs a serious re-write. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.77.71.133 (talk) 16:00, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Merge with Music Psychology
This is a vague article that is far too narrow in focus for its title and replicates existing content. Most of the information can be moved to the Psychology of music preference page and broader Music psychology page. Unless there is any opposition I am going to migrate the useful information over then put this page up for deletion. geordie (talk) 22:21, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Update - Rather than delete the page I will probably use it as a redirect to Music psychology to avoid a mess of broken links. geordie (talk) 15:04, 12 April 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅ geordie (talk) 09:59, 22 April 2014 (UTC)