MUSIC
I. WHAT IS MUSIC?
Among animals, only birds and men can produce music. Possibly, of these,
men only can appreciate it. It is not agreed as to whether birds can
appreciate music. They respond to it, and even imitate it, as in the
case of the mocking bird, but we cannot be sure that their singing is
for “pure joy,” or for the love of the melody rendered. With the
majority of men we know that musical tones arranged in melody or harmony
act as original satisfiers, by and in themselves. “Music hath power to
soothe the savage breast.”
The analysis of capacity for musical performance, and the study of
individual differences in this respect, were preceded by monumental
studies of tone-psychology, rhythm, pitch-discrimination, and acoustics.
In these researches psychologists, physiologists, and physicists have
joined efforts. As Mead says in discussing Meyer’s theory of melody,
“The search for the basis of music is centuries old; it antedates the
search for the philosopher’s stone, the Holy Grail, and the North Pole.”
Nevertheless, in spite of all their searching, scientific men have not
discovered the basic psychology of harmony and melody. Meyer, a lifelong
student of the problem, concludes that, “Where we hear a succession of
different pitches, we are affected in a certain way which cannot be
described, but has to be regarded as an elementary psychological fact.”
The satisfaction experienced by the typical person upon hearing a
harmony, and the annoyance experienced by him upon hearing a discord,
remain among the mysteries, perhaps unfathomable, of human psychology.
II. THE VARIOUS KINDS OF MUSIC
There are many different kinds of music, requiring certain differences
in psychophysical equipment for their execution, severally. For
instance, singing requires certain equipment which may be lacking in a
highly gifted organist. An organist must have characteristics which are
possibly dispensable to the harpist.
To sing, to play the piano, to play the violin, to play the trombone, to
compose a symphony, to write musical criticism—these are by no means all
necessarily possible to the same person. A complete inventory of musical
talent will rest upon knowledge of how all the various kinds of music
are related as regards the capacities required in each, and of how the
violinist may differ from the singer, and the drummer from the conductor
of an orchestra.
III. THE ANALYSIS OF MUSICAL TALENT
Since about the year 1915, psychologists have turned somewhat from the
study of the nature of music to the investigation of the musical person.
They have raised the questions: In what way does the musician differ
from others in his psychophysical equipment? Why are some persons unable
to produce or appreciate music?
The pursuit of these questions led immediately to an analysis of musical
talent, for it was evident at once that a great variety of subsidiary
functions contribute to any kind of musical performance. These may first
of all be classified under three general categories: (1) _the acoustic
functions_, the abilities involved in perceiving musical sounds, (2)
_the motor functions_, the abilities involved in executing musical
sounds, and (3) _the intellectual functions_, ability to interpret
musical compositions, and to originate new ideas.
It is in the United States and in Germany that the significant studies
of musical and unmusical persons have been made. Rupp, Bernfield, the
Pannenbergs, Révész, Schussler, and Seashore and his students have all
made contributions to the subject.
Révész studied children who were extremely gifted in music, and proposed
that in analysing musical talent the following abilities must be
considered: (1) to compose, (2) to reproduce, (3) to hear, (4) to
remember musical elements, (5) to transpose, (6) to improvise, (7) to
modulate, (8) to play at sight. In addition Révész stipulated that
observations must be made with regard to intelligence, interest, and the
“artistic nature” of the child. Later, in 1920, Révész proposed eight
tests devised for the identification of the musical. These were for (1)
the sense of rhythm, (2) absolute pitch, (3) octave recognition and
transposition, (4) relative pitch, (5) harmony, (6) memory of a melody,
and (7) playing by ear.
The most complete inventory of musical talent that has been proposed is
that of Seashore, who, with his numerous students, has made the most
important contributions in this field. Seashore would include tests of
all the following functions in the complete musical psychograph:
I. Musical Sensitivity
_A._ Basic Capacities
1. Sense of pitch 2. Sense of intensity 3. Sense of time 4.
Sense of extensity
_B._ Complex Capacities
1. Sense of timbre 2. Sense of rhythm 3. Sense of consonance
4. Sense of volume
II. Musical Action Natural capacity for skill in accurate and
musically expressive production of tones (vocal or instrumental
or both) in
1. Control of pitch 2. Control of intensity 3. Control of
time 4. Control of timbre 5. Control of rhythm 6. Control of
volume
III. Musical Memory and Imagination
1. Auditory imagery 2. Motor imagery 3. Creative imagination
4. Memory span 5. Learning power
IV. Musical Intellect
1. Musical free association 2. Musical power of reflection 3.
General intelligence
V. Musical Feeling
1. Musical taste: likes and dislikes 2. Emotional reaction to
music 3. Emotional self-expression in music
Seashore has succeeded in devising, standardizing, and making available
for practical purposes scales of measurement for five of the basic
capacities of musical sensitivity. These are for pitch, intensity, time,
consonance, and tonal memory. Research is under way to bring the other
elements of musical talent similarly within the province of mental
measurement.
Attempts to study movement as an element in musical talent are
exemplified by the recent investigations of Gatewood and of Hansen.
Gatewood studied finger-movement in a number of persons, and found that
there exist those who, even with great amounts of practice, do not
approximate the speed and accuracy which others show on the first trial.
However, the investigation of the motor elements in musical talent has
not progressed as yet to a point that would enable us to make positive
statements useful to educators; but it is obvious that for guidance they
are fully as important as the acoustic elements are.
IV. RELATION AMONG VARIOUS ELEMENTS OF MUSICAL TALENT
Correlation has proved that sense of pitch and sense of time are largely
independent of each other. Persons may stand high in one and low in the
other. We know even now, therefore, that the elements of talent are
independent or partially independent variables, and that excellence in
one may be accompanied by inferiority in another. The successful
musician is he who combines the necessary elements in high degree. Most
children combine the elements in moderate or typical degrees of each,
and are able to learn music and enjoy it in the ordinary manner. Only a
few are capable of becoming professional performers. Schussler concluded
that 5 to 10 per cent of the pupils examined by him might be justly
classified as unmusical. A similar percentage would doubtless be
classified as very musical, of whom a small proportion would be capable
of outstanding musical achievement.
V. RELATION BETWEEN MUSICAL TALENT AND GENERAL INTELLIGENCE
It is somewhat difficult to compare musical talent with general
intelligence, within a group of individuals, by test, because the tests
which have been devised are to an extent dependent on intelligence for
their execution. In order to perform them, it is necessary to follow
somewhat complicated directions, and to do this requires the exercise of
intelligence. Seashore’s tests cannot be reliably carried out with
persons whose general intelligence level falls below about nine years.
Within the range of intellect which is sufficient for understanding and
carrying out the directions, musical sensitivity as regards pitch,
intensity, time, and consonance shows no reliable correlation with
general intelligence. This is what we should expect from test results,
on the basis of the relationships shown previously between ability in
music and ability in school work on the whole. For instance, Schussler
found that of pupils classified by his criterion (grades received in
singing) as “unmusical,” 41 per cent reached the grade norms in school
work. Of those classified as “semi-musical,” 57 per cent reached the
norms. Of the “musical,” 79 per cent reached the normal status. The
average standing in marks of the “musical” fell 15 per cent above that
of the “unmusical,” while the “semi-musical” showed an average rating
6.6 per cent higher than the “unmusical.”
When we consider that school marks in singing, as in drawing, are given
not only for musical capacity, but for a heterogeneity of factors,
including effort, attendance, ability to comprehend directions, and so
forth, we should at once expect from these figures that by actual test,
musical ability would be likely to show marked independence of general
intelligence. Nearly half of the distinctly “unmusical” children reached
or exceeded the grade norms, in general school work. This is not far
from what is true of children taken at random, regardless of musical
talent. That a disproportionately large number of pupils who did very
good work in music reached or exceeded the typical performance in school
work on the whole, might be expected from the extent to which school
marks in music are probably given for general superiority of the
organism, as suggested above.
The present findings from actual tests of sensitivity, above the minimum
of intellect required for carrying out test directions, are that
correlations closely approach zero as regards musical sensitivity and
general intelligence. Therefore, educators may expect to find a number
of pupils, who fail in nothing but music, and others who succeed in
nothing but music. As Witmer has said, in discussing the specialization
of musical gifts, “Were society so organized that success in life in
every sphere of activity were dependent upon a good enough ear to turn a
tune, many persons who are now doing useful work in the world, would
have to be relegated to the class of imbeciles.”
In view of the facts, the wisdom seems doubtful of requiring all
teachers in the elementary schools to qualify in singing before being
certified, as is now done in some places. There will be a goodly number
of students, in the normal schools, who are fitted by original endowment
to become excellent teachers, except that they will never be able to
sing. In the case of a gift so specialized, it seems advisable to have a
special teacher wherever possible, rather than to disqualify from
teaching persons who cannot sing, but are otherwise well fitted to
educate the young.
Tests show that musical talent is specialized, but this is not to say
that eminence in music can be attained by the stupid. The achievement of
eminence in any endeavor calls for a grasp of life situations and a
farsighted fidelity to sustained effort, which are functions of general
intelligence. Also, for eminence in a musical career the intellectual
functions which have to do with composition and interpretation are
doubtless indispensable. A survey of the general intelligence of eminent
musicians would probably reveal a median well above the average; and
this would probably hold true even for singers.
VI. ABSOLUTE PITCH
By absolute pitch is usually meant the power to recognize a single
musical note when heard, without comparison with any other tone, either
objective or subjective. It seems to be an hereditary gift, and probably
cannot be acquired by training. (Some doubt has, however, been recently
cast upon the latter conclusion by the researches of Gough, who was
apparently able to educate persons in this respect to a limited extent.)
Statements regarding the frequency of those who possess this
idiosyncrasy vary, from that of Boggs, who says that only a few persons
have the gift, to that of Seashore, who declares that “the ability to
name notes of a familiar keyed instrument on hearing a single tone is
rather common among trained musicians, and may show itself very early in
childhood.” Perhaps the discrepancies of statement arise through lack of
complete agreement as to what should be meant by “absolute pitch.” If
the definition is insistently limited to that often given, namely, “the
power to name a single musical note when heard, without comparison with
any other tone,” then no doubt the gift belongs to very few people, even
those otherwise musically well endowed.
Seashore holds that in these cases, it is probably not pitch as such
which is recognized, but rather the timbre of the note. “The timbre of
the low notes is entirely different from that of the higher notes, and
the evidence seems to show that it is easier to remember a
characteristic timbre than pure pitch in itself.”
The gift of absolute pitch is a great advantage to a musician. It is
included as a valuable asset in the talent-inventory of Révész.
VII. TONE DEAFNESS
Certain anomalies of structure in the ear give rise to tonal “gaps” and
“islands.” The ear does not discriminate among pitches, in certain
segments of the scale for pitch. Such a condition may occur in but one
ear of a given individual, the other ear then hiding the defect.
The child who is extensively deaf to tones has, of course, no means,
save the testimony of others, of knowing whether he is or is not singing
properly (unless he sees his singing on a tonoscope). He cannot be
taught to sing in key, because the receptors which would enable him to
profit by training are absent from the structure of the ear. Many a
tone-deaf child has doubtless suffered much from persistent,
conscientious efforts to make him sing.
VIII. RANGE OF INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES
In a previous chapter it has been pointed out that quantitative
psychology is still struggling toward the invention of scales which
shall measure mental traits in terms of units, every one of which shall
be equal to every other, as every inch is equal to every other inch.
Until this is achieved, we cannot use “times as” comparisons in speaking
of the relation of one individual to another, in respect to a function.
We can now say that one person is three times as heavy as another
person, because we can measure them in pounds, each one of which is
equal to every other. But we cannot yet say that one person is three
times as intelligent as another, because we have not captured the unit
which would enable us to do so.
In some of the traits which go to make up musical talent, it is possible
to use the “times as” comparison, because we have physical units whereby
the differences may be gauged. Pitch, for instance, may be measured
thus. It depends physically upon the frequency of vibrations, proceeding
from a sounding stimulus, and is measurable in terms of the constant
number of double vibrations per second. Seashore has found variations in
power of discrimination from one-fourth of a double vibration to fifty
double vibrations per second. This means that there exist individuals
who are at least two hundred times as sensitive as others to pitch, in
terms of the physical unit.
Other elements in musical sensitivity cannot be so readily measured in
stimulus units, so that the “times as” comparison cannot be made. The
great diversity of sensitivity to pitch may, perhaps, be regarded as a
token of the range of individual differences in musical sensitivity,
especially since pitch is a fundamental capacity. It is probably no
exaggeration to say that, in an ordinary class in the elementary school,
children are being taught together, some of whom are at least a hundred
times as musical as others. If children of the same age differed as much
from each other in height as they do in sense of pitch, it would be
impossible to teach them in unassorted groups, for some would be two
hundred times as tall as others. The diversity in mental traits, so much
greater than in physical traits, leaves us complacent, for the eye
cannot behold the incongruities, as it can in physical matters. The eye
cannot see the waste of time, effort, and joy which follows from the
attempt to train, equally and together, children of such widely
differing capacities for learning.
IX. CAN MUSICAL CAPACITY BE INCREASED BY EDUCATION?
Musical sensitivity is inborn, and probably cannot be increased in any
respect by training. If the various elements are not present in amount
and combination suitable for a given degree of achievement in music, no
course of training will supply the lack. This is not to say that
ultimate achievement, for those who do possess capacity, does not depend
on training. Achievement depends upon both training and capacity, but
the latter cannot be supplied except by hereditary endowment.
The question of improvement through education becomes especially
important in a case where the psychograph is excellent, but for one
element. Much depends, of course, upon what the inferior element is, and
the degree of the inferiority, as to whether the person will be able to
succeed in a given musical career.
Inferiorities that appear in capacity for musical _action_ are possibly
much more susceptible to improvement by training than are inferiorities
of _sensitivity_.
For example, there are persons whose psychographs show excellent musical
talent, except that they falter from the pitch in singing. The voice may
be excellent in range, quality, and volume, yet with a falter in control
which leads to “flatting” or “sharping.” This is a defect in musical
action, an inaccuracy of movement.
It has long been known that the control of movement is brought about not
only through the kinæsthetic sensations, but through aid from the other
special senses as well. Vision is a first rate aid to the acquisition of
motor control. It is a more efficient aid than hearing, because much
finer differences can be detected by vision. The problem, then, in an
endeavor to improve by training those who “flat” or “sharp,” is to
devise some method whereby visual aid may be administered to control.
Such a method has been found in the tonoscope, an instrument which
registers visually every pitch movement of vocal chords, or other
sounding body. Practicing with the tonoscope, the musician can see what
his errors are, and learn what motor reaction will bring correction. The
control of the eye is thus introduced into practice, as it is in tennis,
writing, or other form of precise motor learning. Singers of all degrees
of talent show improvement in pitch after practice with this instrument,
and the improvement continues after the instrument has been laid aside.
The gain made with the help of the eye remains in motor control, just as
once having learned to write by aid of the eye, we can easily write in
the dark or with eyes closed.
The susceptibility to improvement in other forms of musical action has
not been shown experimentally, this whole field being practically
unstudied as yet by experimental method.
X. THE INHERITANCE OF MUSICAL TALENT
The inheritance of musical talent has been investigated by Copp and by
Stanton. The latter has made measurements of specific musical capacities
in relatives of musicians, using Seashore’s tests. This is the beginning
of adequate study of the inheritance of musical talent, as the method,
though laborious, is correct.
Four of the Seashore measures of musical talent were given to
eighty-five members of six unrelated family groups, starting in each
group with a person conspicuously known as a musician. These
measurements were supplemented by a set questionnaire, covering musical
endowment, musical education and training, musical activity, musical
appreciation, musical memory and imagination, the questionnaire
including a larger number of relatives.
From these data, a study was made of the tendency of offspring to be
musical or unmusical, in accordance with parentage and more remote
ancestry. The results show that musical talent is inherited, and the
investigator believes it not improbable that the formula of inheritance
may be Mendelian. Much wider research would, however, be avowedly
necessary, in order to establish the formula. It may or may not be
Mendelian.
The offspring of a mating of musical with unmusical, of musical with
musical, or of unmusical with unmusical, may thus inherit from either
parent or from both parents, and apparently without regard to sex. Sex
differences do not appear, either, in any of the tests of musical
sensitivity, which have been standardized.
XI. PSYCHOGRAPHIC STUDY OF INDIVIDUALS
In order to illustrate concretely the way in which musical talent may or
may not accompany other mental capacities, a few psychographic studies
of individuals are presented, as follows.
The first is the psychograph of a girl, whom we may call G, aged 14
years. It shows her status in percentile ratings, on various mental and
motor tests. G is of average, or typical, general intelligence, with
superior rating in musical capacity, and in drawing.
G was brought for mental tests because she did poorly in the school
where she was attending, receiving good marks in music and drawing only.
The difficulty in keeping up to grade in general was readily explained,
when the facts of school history were elicited. G was in a very
exclusive private school, where the median IQ of the pupils is about
120, instead of 100 as among unselected pupils. This child, on account
of the social status and educational traditions of her father’s family,
had been competing all her school life in a highly selected group of
children, and was now considered dull by teachers, by parents, and by
herself. All were astounded to learn of G’s average intellectual
capacity.
[Illustration:
FIG. 25.—Psychograph of G, showing special ability in music and
drawing. (Percentile values for speed in tapping, and strength of
grip have been approximated by estimate.)
]
It may be remarked in passing that this is the school history of many an
average child, born into a group where the family median is above the
average. The problems of the son of an eminent man, who fails to inherit
superior endowment and is but average in capacity, are especially acute,
for he is usually expected to undertake tasks for which he is
unqualified by original nature. The miseries of a boy of average
ability, expected from babyhood to pass through Harvard or Yale, the
distresses of a girl of ordinary intelligence, destined openly from
childhood for a college of very high standards, are peculiarly poignant
to the person who sees human nature in the light of all the facts which
we have been recounting. The case of G, and scores of others like it in
this respect, should lead parents to a policy of reticence concerning
their expectations of their children, until it is certain that these
expectations have a chance of being realized. Fortunately, the great
majority of children of very successful parents never have a problem of
this kind, because of the tendency to selective mating and the laws of
heredity. Most of the children of gifted parents are themselves
sufficiently gifted to perform the expected tasks as a matter of course.
Not all children of gifted fathers are, however, gifted, because other
ancestors, some of whom may be but average persons, are likely to
contribute to the mental status of the child. Yet according to the
customs of our country, it is usually the ability of the father that
determines the social _milieu_ and the educational tradition to which
the children are subject. Thus, the son of a corporation lawyer, who has
inherited the intelligence of a stupid but handsome grandmother and the
educational traditions of a brilliant father, is in a sorry plight,
unless the facts of human nature are expertly and sympathetically
understood in his family.
In the case of G, the special talents in drawing and music, combined
with average intellectual ability, made it possible to suggest very
satisfactory adjustments. The idea of college was abandoned, and plans
were made to pursue education in art and music, which had already been
undertaken in a limited way, with excellent success. From the point of
view of heredity, it is interesting to know that one of G’s
grandfathers, a chemist by profession, played a church organ every
Sabbath as a recreation, and spent leisure hours making drawings, many
of which are still kept as ornaments.
The psychograph of M shows special defect in musical capacity, combined
with very superior general intelligence. M, a schoolboy, was recently
brought for mental tests at the age of 10 years, because of disagreement
among his teachers as to his mental ability. The regular classroom
teacher believed M should be given a double promotion because of his
brilliant work in reading, arithmetic, and elementary science. The
teacher of music held that he should repeat the work of the grade in
which he then was, as an utter failure from her point of view. The shop
teacher took a midway position, saying that his work seemed fair, and
warranted promotion, but no more, to the grade above, in due order.
[Illustration:
FIG. 26.—Psychograph of M, showing special defect in music, combined
with very superior general intelligence.
]
M’s psychograph explains the differences of opinion thus expressed by
teachers. It is seen that in intellect he ranks well up in the top
percentile of all children born, while in musical capacities he ranks in
the lower percentiles. The difficulties in shop work arose from the fact
that M is left-handed, and was at that time being trained into
right-handedness by the teachers. This made him awkward in shop work,
which he cordially detested.
M’s IQ is 151, which accounts for his superiority in reading, science,
and arithmetic. He will not be able to learn music, or to appreciate it,
and to deprive him of his double promotion on this account seems
contrary to his best interests.
XII. CAPACITY TO APPRECIATE MUSIC
Though it is probably true that those who can produce good music usually
appreciate music also, the reverse need not be true. There are many who
are sensitive to music and are greatly satisfied by it, who have not the
ability to become musicians.
Music as taught in the schools is concerned chiefly with learning to
sing. It would seem that some time might profitably be devoted to
hearing good music, and learning to form preferences.
The keen satisfaction which comes to the extremely sensitive has been
expressed by some of them in words. Schumann said of another musician,
“He who has once heard Henselt can never forget his playing; these
pieces still haunt my memory like the recollection of a parterre of
flowers.” And again, “The veiled enjoyment of music which one does not
hear, has something magical in it.” Berlioz has given us this glimpse of
his delight: “Last night I dreamt of music, this morning I recalled it
all and fell into one of those supernal ecstasies.... Believe me, dear
friend, the being who could write such miracles of transcendant melody
would be more than mortal.”
Stanton questioned the talented and untalented relatives of musicians as
to the rôle played by music in their daily lives. Many showing superior
talent reported that music in some form seemed vital to their program of
living. It was referred to by them as “a daily relaxation from
business,” “a great source of courage, a spiritual tonic,” and as
“absolutely paramount.” One person used the word “hunger,” in describing
the longing which ensued upon being deprived of music. There may be
people capable of such satisfaction in music, that they would choose
between bread and music, if hard put to it, not without a struggle.
REFERENCES
AGNEW, M.—“The Auditory Imagery of Great Composers”; _University of
Iowa Studies, 8. Psychological Monographs_, 1922.
BERNFIELD, S.—“Zur Psychologie der Unmusikalischen”; _Archives für das
gesammte Psychologie_, 1915.
BOGGS, L.—“Studies in Absolute Pitch”; _American Journal of
Psychology_, 1907.
COPP, E. F.—“Musical Ability”; _Journal of Heredity_, 1916.
EDGREN, J. G.—“Amusie (Musikalische Aphasie)”; _Deutsche Zeitschrift
für Nervenheilkunde_, 1894.
GATEWOOD, E. L.—“Individual Differences in Finger Reaction”;
_Psychological Monographs_, 1920.
GAW, E. A.—“A Survey of Musical Talent in a Music School”; _University
of Iowa Studies, 8. Psychological Monographs_, 1922.
GAW, E. A.—“Some Individual Difficulties in the Study of Music”;
_Journal of Educational Research_, 1922.
HANSEN, C. F.—“Serial Action as a Basic Measure of Motor Capacity”;
_University of Iowa Studies, 8. Psychological Monographs_, 1922.
KNOCK, C. J.—“Visual Training of the Pitch of the Voice”; _University
of Iowa Studies, 8. Psychological Monographs_, 1922.
KRIES, J. VON—“Ueber das absolut Gehör”; _Zeitschrift für
Psychologie_, 1907.
LEE, V.—“Varieties of Musical Experience”; _North American Review_,
1918.
PANNENBERG, H. J., and W. A.—“Die Psychologie des Musikers”;
_Zeitschrift für Psychologie_, 1915.
PLATT, W.—_Child Music_; Simpkins, London, 1905.
RÉVÉSZ, G.—“Prüfung der Musikalität”; _Zeitschrift für Psychologie_,
1920.
RÉVÉSZ, G.—“Das musikalische Wunderkind”; _Zeitschrift für
pädagogische Psychologie_, 1918.
RÉVÉSZ, G.—_Nyviegyhazi: Psychologische Analyse eines musikalisch
hervorragenden Kindes_; Veit u. Co., Leipzig, 1916.
RICHET, C.—“Note sur un remarquable précocité musicale”; _Congrès
Internationale de Psychologie_, 1901.
RUPP, H.—“Ueber die Prüfung musikalischer Fähigkeiten”; _Zeitschrift
für angewandte Psychologie_, 1914.
SCHUSSLER, H.—“Das unmusikalische Kind”; _Zeitschrift für angewandte
Psychologie_, 1916.
SEASHORE, C. E.—_The Psychology of Musical Talent_; Silver, Burdett
and Co., New York, 1919.
STANTON, H. M.—“The Inheritance of Special Musical Capacities”;
_University of Iowa Studies, 8. Psychological Monographs_, 1922.