The Two Sides of Music
Jack H. David Jr.
Austin Community College
Spring 1994
TCM 1603.7495
Austin Community College
Spring 1994
TCM 1603.7495
Music is a phenomena that is experienced differently by
different people. Each person who hears music is influenced by
his or her own individual personality, knowledge, and life
experiences. People with little or no musical training, who
represent the vast majority of the listening audience, perceive
music in a totally different way than the actual musicians who
create the music. The human brain processes the experience of
hearing music in two different ways; the process involved is
different for musicians and nonmusicians. If a professional
musician wishes to create music that the nonmusician majority
will comprehend, enjoy and pay money to hear, the musician must
understand this difference of perception between musicians and
nonmusicians. It is also the responsibility of teachers of
music to understand this concept to properly prepare the
musicians of the future.
Before we can understand the difference in the perception
of music between musicians and nonmusicians, we must understand
the source of that perception, the human brain. First, we will
briefly examine the brain and how it works in general; then we
will discover how the brain processes the experience of music.
The human brain weighs about 1600 grams (three pounds) and
somewhat resembles a soft, wrinkled walnut. Yet despite this
insignificant appearance, the human brain can store more
information than all the libraries in the world. It is also
responsible for our most primitive urges, our loftiest ideals,
the way we think, even the reason why, on occasion, we
sometimes do not think at all, but simply act (Restak 1). For
some reason no one fully understands, we actually have two
brains. To be more precise, our cerebral hemispheres look
almost as if someone slipped a mirror down the center of our
skulls so that one hemisphere reflects the other. Although
detailed inspection reveals that the two hemispheres are not
precisely alike, they appear very similar to the untrained
observer (Restak 10). The two hemispheres of the brain are
connected by a four-inch-long, quarter-inch-thick, pencil-
shaped bundle of nerve fibers called the corpus callosum, which
integrates information from the two
sides of the brain (Restak 245-247).
Clinical and experimental evidence suggests that the left
hemisphere of the brain is specialized for speech activity and
the right hemisphere is specialized for many non-linguistic
functions. Investigators of hemispheric asymmetry appear to
agree on the fundamental nature of the processing differences
between the two sides of the brain. Thomas G. Bever, of the
department of psychology at Columbia University states: "the
left hemisphere is specialized for propositional, analytic, and
serial processing of incoming information, while the right
hemisphere is more adapted for the perception of appositional,
holistic and synthetic relations" (537). In most people, the
left side of the brain deals with logic, language, reasoning,
number, linearity, and analysis, etc., the so called "academic"
activities.
While the left side of the brain is engaged in these
activities, the right side of the brain is in the "alpha wave"
or resting state. The right side of the brain deals with
images and imagination, daydreaming, color, parallel
processing, face recognition, and pattern or map recognition,
and the perception of music (Buzan 14). It has been claimed
that these differences clearly reflect the traditional dualisms
of intellect versus intuition, science versus art, and the
logical versus the mysterious. It has also been suggested that
lawyers and artists use different halves of the brain in the
work and that the differences between the halves show up in
activities not related to their work (Springer 6-7). In figure
1, we see some of the specific mental areas of the left and
right hemispheres. Joseph E. Bogan, a neurosurgeon involved in brain
research, believes that research on hemispheric differences has
important implications for education. He argues that the
current emphasis on the acquisition of verbal skills and the
development of analytic thought processes neglects the
development of important nonverbal abilities. As a result,
Bogan claims, we are starving one half of the brain and
ignoring its potential contribution to the whole person
(Springer 7). The most important thing to consider is how the
two hemispheres work together. Einstein and other scientists
would seem to be predominately "left-brain" dominant, while
Mozart, and other artistic people would appear to be "right-
brain" dominant.
Einstein, however, failed mathematics in school, and
enjoyed such things as violin playing, art, sailing, and
imagination games. Einstein claims to have achieved many of
his more significant scientific insights through the use of his
imagination; for example, while daydreaming on a hill on a
summer day, he imagined riding sunbeams to the far extremities
of the universe, and upon finding himself returned,
"illogically" to the
surface of the sun, he realized that the universe must indeed
be curved and that his previous "logical" training was
incomplete. The numbers, formulas, equations, and words he
wrapped around this new image gave us the theory of relativity-
a left and right brain synthesis (Buzan 15).
One of the greatest composers, and musicians, who ever
lived was Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. The miracles of his
childhood read like legends, yet they have all been
substantiated. At the age of three he could tune a violin
perfectly, and was so sensitive to intonation that he would
become physically ill if he heard music out of tune. He had an
indelible memory and an infallible instinct; after hearing a
melody once he could reproduce it without error. He could
identify tones and chords blindfolded; today we would call that
"perfect pitch". He read a piece of music at sight the way
others played it after hours of practice. When he was five,
Mozart wrote two minuets for harpsichord; at seven he wrote a
complete sonata, and at eight he wrote his first symphony
(Cross 513-514). Mozart was not only fluent in his native
German, but also in French, Italian, and English, indicating
that his left hemisphere was as active as was his right. The
greatest possible human potential, then, can only be realized
by the use of both sides of the brain.
Some authors have emphasized the importance of the right
hemisphere in music, while others have pointed to the
importance of the left (Gates 403). Music is often contrasted
with language as a highly structured, meaning-endowed, yet non-
verbal system (Segalowitz 98). Since music is analogous to
language without involving speech directly, it has generally
been considered a right hemisphere skill. Musical skills,
however, form a mixed set, some of which require left
hemisphere integrity, and some of which require right
hemisphere functioning (Segalowitz 31). Research has shown that
neither cerebral hemisphere is totally "dominant" for music,
but rather that both hemispheres are involved (Gates 403).
The left hemisphere is apparently very important for
musical abilities which share properties with speech, such as
temporal order, duration, simultaneity, and rhythm and would
therefore take a greater role when the sequential and analytic
aspects of music are more important; however the right
hemisphere is very important in many other aspects including
perception of loudness, timbre, intonation and the expression
of emotion (Gates 404,406,408). In one case, a person in whom
the entire left hemisphere had been removed was able to sing
familiar songs with few articulatory errors and it was
concluded that in this case the right hemisphere controlled the
neuromuscular aspects of singing (Gates 405). In a normal
music situation, perception depends on the synthesis of pitches
and rhythms; both processes are involved, not in terms of the
specialization of one hemisphere that is "dominant" for music,
but as an interaction of both hemispheres, each operating
according to its own specialization, in the complex process of
music perception (Gates 423). In figure 2, we see some of the
specific mental areas of the left and right hemispheres as they
apply to music. There is a medical test called the Wada Test that is used
to determine which cerebral hemisphere controls certain
functions, some of which can vary from person to person.
Sodium amobarbital, a barbiturate, is injected into the carotid
artery on one side of the patient's neck. The result is that
only the hemisphere on the side of the injection is "put to
sleep" (Springer 22). When the right hemisphere was sedated by
the drug, subjects were asked to sing familiar songs. The
rhythmic element remained unaffected but the melody was gone;
the subjects had lost all ability to distinguish one note from
another (Bogan 524-525).
Maurice Ravel (1875-1937), a French composer, suffered a
stroke in the left hemisphere while at the peak of his career.
Many of Ravel's musical skills remained intact; for example, he
could recognize melodies and notice the smallest mistakes in
performed music, and he maintained the keenest awareness of how
well a piano was tuned. In contrast, however, he experienced a
substantial loss in his ability to identify notes and recognize
written music. He also could not play the piano or write
music, even by dictation. Ravel's career as a composer had
come to an end (Alajouanine 229-241).
An experiment was conducted at Columbia University where
groups of musicians and nonmusicians listened to simple
melodies of 12 to 18 notes followed by shorter melodic
fragments. This was done in either the left ear alone or the
right ear alone (Bever 538). Just as a given hemisphere
controls the opposite hand, each of our ears also send the
strongest, clearest signal to the opposite hemisphere (Springer
80-81). In each case, the subject was asked if the fragment
was a part of the melody. The nonmusicians scored better in
samples heard by the left ear, but the musicians scored better
in the right ear samples. The conclusion that was drawn from
this experiment was that a musically sophisticated subject can
organize a melodic sequence in terms of the internal relation
of its components. Dominance of the left hemisphere for
analytic functions would explain dominance of the right ear for
melody recognitions in experienced listeners; as their capacity
for musical analysis increases, the left hemisphere becomes
more involved in the processing of music (Bever 539).
In another study, a group of non-musicians were observed
to have a greater relative increase of blood flow in the right
hemisphere while listening to a recording of classical guitar
music compared to when they were listening to speech. In still
another study, the amount of EEG alpha recorded over the right
side decreased, indicating greater activation, when subjects
sang a song as apposed to just speaking the words of the song.
In all these experiments, it was found that this right
hemisphere dominance in association with musical experiences
only occurred with the nonmusicians, implying that trained
musicians do not engage in the same mental process during
musical tasks (Segalowitz 98). Nonmusicians perceive music in
the right hemisphere because they are not analyzing what they
are hearing; they simply experience it. Musicians, on the
other hand, have analytical knowledge about what makes music
work and they approach music more intellectually; therefore,
they use their left brain to a greater extent.
As long ago as 1868, John Hughlings Jackson, a leading
British neurologist proposed the idea that "in most people, the
left side of the brain is the leading side or the side of the
so called will, and that the right is the automatic side"
(Springer 13). Donald A. Norman, of the University of
California at San Diego, suggests that conscious awareness is
limited in all aspects of seeing, hearing, perception, memory,
thought, emotion, and action. You may believe that you control
your actions, but in fact you have control only at the highest
level of intention. You can not and do not monitor each muscle
of the body. For example, if you clench your hand into a fist,
thumb on top of the fingers, you are not aware of the muscle
control, only of the intention and the result. If you were
asked if your thumb initiated its movement before or after the
fingers moved when you closed your fingers to make a fist, it
is likely that you can answer only if you observed your own
actions. If the thumb happens to be in the way of making a
fist, it moves smoothly aside, lets the fingers clench, and
then goes back on top, all without the need for conscious
guidance or even awareness (14).
As skill develops, a task appears to be done with more
smoothness, with less effort. Moreover, the expert often does
the task automatically, without conscious awareness of exactly
what has been done. When you walk, you don't think about the
placement of your legs, but where you wish to go. Flying an
airplane or driving an automobile is done in that same way.
When you learned to drive, you concentrated on how to move your
arms and legs, then you worried about the smoothness of your
activities. Eventually you reached the point where you simply
thought of turning and your actions took care of themselves.
The skilled walker just walks to the other side of the room; he
skilled driver just goes somewhere; the skilled airplane pilot
no longer manipulates controls and watches instruments, but
simply flies. The person is walking, driving or flying; the
legs or the automobile or the airplane are incidental tools to
the activity (72-73).
This right brain function of automaticity is crucial to
the development of a good musician. The left brain may hold
the programming or the "instruction manual", but a true
musician must be able to use those instructions by instinct
using the right brain. Norman cited examples of automaticity
in walking, driving, or flying an airplane; these same
principles apply to musical skills as well. When we are
learning to play a musical instrument, we must consciously
think about everything we are doing. For example, a beginner
on the piano would see the note "D" on the music and think
"O.K., treble clef, fourth line from the bottom... uh... let's
see... every good boy DOES... that's a "D"... uh... the white
key between the 2 black keys. An experienced pianist who has
never taught a beginner may laugh at my narrative of all those
mental steps just to play a "D", but we all had to think each
step out when we were beginners. An experienced musician does
not have to consciously think about each step; the right brain
ability of automaticity makes it possible to simply make the
music happen; the fingers just seem to move "by themselves".
Nonmusicians watch their favorite musicians and it looks
easy. If you watch a video of a rock guitarist, for example,
he looks so relaxed that it is hard to believe he could play
those fast and complex licks with such little effort. The
thing that a nonmusician may not understand, is that before the
right brain can go to "autopilot", the knowledge of how to play
the instrument must be painstakingly programmed into the left
brain. Playing an instrument is indeed a lot of fun, but
practicing scales, arpeggios, etc., is usually not very much
fun.
Singing is a skill that requires the exact same process;
just as an instrumentalist uses muscular control in the
fingers,
lips, etc., a singer must control his or her throat, oral
cavity, lungs, diaphragm muscles, etc. If a singer is able to
sing in tune with a good sound and good enough diction that the
listener can clearly understand the words, that singer has
spent considerable time learning those skills. After the
singer's left brain has learned how to manipulate his or her
body properly, the singer can use the right brain to sing
without thinking about the mechanical process involved. Also,
singing is a dual hemispheric skill in another way; verbal
language is a left brain skill but melody, intonation, timbre,
etc. are right brain processes. Singing words with a melody
would therefore require the use of both hemispheres.
One of the most important contributions of the right
hemisphere is the expression of emotion in music. It is the
single most difficult thing for a music teacher to teach
because the student's individuality is so important. Just as
the flaws in a diamond give it its beauty, the subtle
"imperfections" in a musical performance express emotion. That
is the reason that music programmed into a computer often
sounds cold and devoid of feeling; it is too perfect! The
subtle changes in dynamics, rhythm, tempo, articulation, etc.
are what gives music its beauty. This is true in all forms of
music.
The ability to express emotion in music is a very
important skill for a musician to develop. As stated earlier,
nonmusicians perceive music primarily in the right hemisphere;
therefore they are most influenced by the emotional aspects of
music rather than the intellectual ones.
I have heard many classically trained musicians that had
amazing technique and exhibited astounding virtuosity, but
showed little or no emotion in their performance. Even in the
classical music field, when there is an opening in a symphony
orchestra or opera company, quite often an individual with less
impressive technique, but with the ability to invoke an
emotional response in the listener will get the job.
One of the most important ways a musician can play with
emotion is in the way he or she interprets music that was
written by the composer. Classical music, for example, which
was written on paper by the composer, is generally expected to
be played exactly as written, without any improvisation by the
performer. If the performer only plays exactly what he or she
sees on the paper, however, the result will be painfully
boring. Dr. David Pino, professor of clarinet at Southwest
Texas State University, wrote the following:
I have encountered many musicians who proudly claim that they take
great pains to play music according to all the printed markings on the page,
with no exceptions right down to the last detail. This attitude is what I call
literal-mindedness; it is characterized by an almost belligerent adherence to
the idea that if the composer had intended anything more, he would have written
it in. Or, that if the composer had intended anything less, he would have
written it differently or would have entirely omitted it. When listening to a
performer who works from that philosophy I am always struck again by the fact
that he is yet another player who is "doing a workmanlike job," but who is
definitely not an artist. He has missed the point: Musical notation, even
today, is imperfect at best and, at worst, inadequate (118-119). One of the most important elements of music is
improvisation, which could be defined as "spontaneous
composition" or "making it up as you go along". Much of the
music in the world was created in this way and was passed from
generation to generation without being notated in a written
form. Improvisation is both the most widely practiced of all
musical activities and the least acknowledged and understood.
While it is today present in almost every area of music, there
is an almost total absence of information about it (Bailey 1).
Improvisation was an important part of European music through
the Middle Ages, Renaissance, and Baroque eras. Manuscripts
and printed scores of the Baroque era, for example, give us
only the vaguest notion of how the music sounded in actual
performance. The composer considered his written score as an
outline to be interpreted, in full, by the performer. Great
improvisation was considered one of the highest forms of
musical art, and the ability to improvise, a performer's
crowning artistic asset. Even later European composers, such as
Beethoven, who were known for their written compositions, were
accomplished improvisers. Czerny, a student of Beethoven, said
of the master: "His improvisations were most beautiful and
striking. In whatever company he might chance to be, he knew
how to produce such an effect upon every hearer that frequently
not an eye remained dry and many would break out into loud
sobs" (Ostransky 51-53).
Musical improvisation is all but forgotten today in the
world of classical or "serious" music. Improvisation is,
however, a vital part of virtually every other style of music
in the world. Jazz, for example, is an art form heavily
dependant upon improvisation. There is no doubt that the
single most important contribution to the revitalization of
improvisation in Western music in the 20th century was that
made by jazz (Bailey 64).
Because early jazz musicians had little or no musical
training, they created a type of music that was almost totally
based upon improvisation. In fact, these early jazz musicians
were proud to say that they "played by ear", and they were
somewhat suspicious that theoretical training might stifle the
excitement and mystery (Coker 54). Jazz was, in my opinion, a
"right brain" kind of music; they didn't think about it; they
just did it. In the years that followed, there were more and
more written "charts" and jazz gradually became more
complicated and required more formal training; however,
improvisation was, and is, the "lifeblood" of the music.
In university music schools today, jazz music, including
improvisation, is taught in a very theoretical and analytical
manner. This music which was born of instinct and raw emotion
is now broken down into chord symbols, modal scales and
rhythmic patterns, and is taught in such a sterile way that the
emotional factor is often lost. I was in a college jazz
improvisation class a while back where the instructor, or the
textbook, was prone to say things such as: "observe how Charlie
Parker skillfully utilizes the tritone substitution by playing
the mixolydian mode with a flat-5 and flat-9 over the ii-V-I
harmonic progression." Excuse me, but give me a break! I
really don't believe that Charlie was thinking about much more
than the good looking woman he was checking out across the
room; he just played. Parker was well versed in the available
theoretical knowledge of the day, but when he improvised, I
believe that he did it by sheer instinct. I have never heard a
college professor say something like: "just let yourself go,
clear your mind, close your eyes, feel the music inside
yourself, ride the changes like you are riding a wave, tap into
your soul and let the raw emotion flow like a mighty river
breaking through a dam, don't think about it, just do it..."
You may think this sounds like some kind of weird zen/hippy
philosophy, but it is the way real musicians improvise, at
least the ones that I would want to hear. I have often heard
improvisation that was flawless in every conceivable
theoretical way, but that was very boring to listen to because
it was totally devoid of feeling.
In today's music, emotional improvisation is extremely
important. Not only jazz, but blues, funk, soul, country, and
rock-&-roll, to name a few, are heavily dependant upon
effective improvisation. One example of very emotional
improvisation is the rock classic, "Black Magic Woman" by
Santana. The guitar solo is not flashy, or filled with
intricate licks, but is very emotional. Carlos Santana plays
very subtle musical ideas, such as "bending" notes or playing
one note with syncopated rhythmic patterns over several chord
changes, creating tension and resolution in such a way that is
truly artistic.
University music schools expend so much energy analyzing
the component elements of music, and teaching the theoretical
intricacies of music, that they often "don't see the forest for
the trees". Professional classical musicians, who are
successful, have mastered the art of performing with emotion;
those same individuals who also teach at universities often
fail to effectively teach the concept of emotion in music to
their students. They expect and even demand that students play
with emotion, but offer little assistance in that quest.
Many "educated" musicians do not appreciate music unless
it is "profound", whereas nonmusicians, who are in the
majority, usually prefer music that makes them simply "feel
good". A musician may write or perform a piece of music that
is extremely complex and difficult to play, and that is
heralded by the academic music world as a masterpiece; but that
same piece of music if heard by "the average guy on the
street", could be perceived as "boring", or "too cerebral". Of
course the "educated" musician could then consider the
nonmusician to be an "idiot" who doesn't know good music when
he hears it. So... the musician goes to college for 10-12
years, gets 3 or 4 degrees and is self-satisfied in his
knowledge that his music is the only "real" music and that
anyone who cannot comprehend this profound
music is a "cretin". But what does that properly educated
musician do now to support himself? He does the only thing he
can do; he goes back to college and teaches music to a new
generation that will in turn reject anything but "proper" music
and the cycle starts all over again.
Jazz music, which was originally created by African
Americans and was to a great extent, a fusion of European and
African music is now virtually dominated by music professors
who try to force rigid European standards of analysis on a form
of music that was created without a written "language". Jazz
is a type of music that was born of raw emotion and instinct
and was based primarily upon improvisation. In their quest to
be accepted by the classical/ university music school
"establishment", jazz educators have developed intricate "left
brain" explanations for a form of music that, in my opinion,
defies rational explanation. The "intellectual" jazz played at
colleges today only faintly resembles the "real" jazz music
that can still be heard, if you know where to look.
In fairness, I must say that there are many musicians that
go too far the other way. There are musicians, or people that
at least think they are musicians, that are totally ignorant,
often by choice, of music theory of any kind. These are the
people that can not read music, do not understand musical form,
can only play in two or three keys, do not know how to properly
tune their instruments, and can only play cover songs that they
have learned by ear by listening to the record over and over
again. They play these worn out standards, for the most part,
as close to the record as possible and have little
understanding of creativity or individuality. Some of these
people can actually make some money playing in funky old beer
joints. They dream of stardom, but few of them will ever
achieve it. If you were playing with them and said: "O.K.,
we're going to do 12-bar blues in F minor, from the five, and
watch me for the breaks"... the only response you would get is
a stupid look on their faces. There are rare cases of
individuals with extraordinary natural talent that play very
well, by instinct, despite their lack of training; sooner or
later, however, they will have to learn some music theory if
they hope to co-exist with real musicians.
The human brain is very complex in the way it perceives
information that it receives through sensory input. The two
cerebral hemispheres perform different functions; the left
hemisphere processes information that requires analysis or some
type of language to comprehend, and the right hemisphere deals
with the symbolic, non-verbal and emotional portion of what we
call reality. If we have to "think" about something, we are
using our left hemisphere, but if we simply act by "instinct",
we are using our right hemisphere. The human experience of
emotion is also a function of the right hemisphere.
Musicians tend to perceive the experience of music
primarily in the left hemisphere because their training and
experience makes them inclined to think about the music they
are playing or hearing. Nonmusicians, on the other hand,
usually do not analyze music, but simply experience it, in
which case they are using the right hemisphere. The
nonmusician majority, that tends to perceive the experience of
music in the right hemisphere, is more interested in how the
music makes them feel, than how intellectually profound it is.
A common thing for a nonmusician to say is: "I don't know much
about music, but I know what I like."
Many musicians, myself included, also consider the
expression of emotion to be a very important element of good
music. I've heard so many musicians that it takes a lot to
really impress me, but a musician that plays with emotion and
can create an emotional response in his or her audience is much
more likely to get my attention. It is possible for a person
to think like a musician while actually performing, then to
"switch gears" and listen to other musicians and simply
experience the music without analyzing it. After I play a
solo, and it is another musician's turn to play, I often step
to the side, turn my back on the audience and become part of
the audience by watching and listening to the other musician.
Each musician has to decide what is most important in his
or her quest to be a good musician; is it more important to
achieve great educational goals and create profound music that
only other musicians can appreciate, or is it more important to
understand what it is that the nonmusician majority wants to
hear, and actually make some money. There are many people that
have found a way to do both of these things, but it is often
a very
difficult thing to do.
It is the responsibility of teachers of music to
understand the difference of perception between musicians and
nonmusicians and to give their students a view of the real
world and of the employment possibilities available. It is the
responsibility of a professional musician to entertain and
bring joy to average
everyday people, and hopefully to earn a living and find
personal fulfillment as well. I have been told that a truly
dedicated musician will seek fulfillment in the creation of the
music and will not seek to whore his or her talent to the
masses for money. This is known as the "art for art's sake"
philosophy. I personally believe that this concept is nothing
but plain stupid. The lights are low; there's magic in the air; so sit back,
chill out, and enjoy the show.
Works Cited
Alajouanine, T. "Aphasia and Artistic Realization," Brain 71
Bailey, Derek. Musical Improvisation. Englewood Cliffs, New
Bogan, Joseph E., H.W. Gordon. "Musical Tests of Functional
Bever, Thomas G., Robert J. Chiarello. "Cerebral Dominance in
Buzan, Tony. Use Both Sides of Your Brain. New York: E.P.
Coker, Jerry. The Jazz Idiom. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey:
Cross, Milton. Encyclopedia of the Great Composers and Their
Gates, Anne, John L. Bradshaw. "The Role of the Cerebral
Norman, Donald. Learning and Memory. San Francisco: W.H.
Ostransky, Leroy. Understanding Jazz. Englewood Cliffs, New
Pino, David. The Clarinet and Clarinet Playing. New York:
Restak, Richard M. The Brain. New York: Bantam, 1984.
Segalowitz, Sid J. Two Sides of the Brain. Englewood Cliffs,
Springer, Sally P., Georg Deutsch. Left Brain, Right Brain, 3rd Ed.
I. The Two Brains
II. Music: A Dual-Hemispheric Skill
III. Musicians and Nonmusicians
IV. Automaticity
V. Emotion
VI. Musical Interpretation
Musical interpretation is the manner in which the performer's own
ideas are substantively fused with the composer's obvious ones to achieve the
greatest musical result. There is nothing magical or secretive about any
particular interpretation of a piece of music. Two equally great performances
may be very different from each other. This fact, in itself, proves that there
is never only one right way to play a piece of music.
VII. Improvisation
VIII. The Music Establishment: Left Brain Bias
IX. Garage Bands: Right Brain Bias
X. Conclusion
