Subject: Re: Fw: animals and music From: Richard Nance <rnance(at)DMU.AC.UK> Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2005 00:46:41 -0000I took my first piece of real acousmatic music over to mys sister's house and put it on the stereo. Her dog, Janet ran in the room and stared betwen the speakers the whole 5.5 minutes. The cat looked at it a while too, but eventually wandered off. rick -----Original Message----- From: Lowel P. O'Mard To: AUDITORY(at)LISTS.MCGILL.CA Sent: 3/5/2005 8:28 PM Subject: Re: Fw: animals and music Hi People, We as humans have a tendency towards elitism with regard to the capabilities of other animals. Just because they do not seem moved by human music as much as humans can be, does not mean that they are incapable of being so moved. Nonetheless the following URL is an investigation of the effect of music on the neurochemistry of rats. It shows that music "shifted the physiology of rats clearly towards relaxation or recreation". http://web.telia.com/~u57011259/Sutoo.htm I think that most of the time other animals just don't understand our music - just as some contemporary classical music, heavy metal and jazz is beyond me. ...Lowel. On Wed, 2005-03-02 at 20:12 +1100, Nikki Rickard wrote: > > No one is likely to claim that nonhuman animals appreciate music just as > > humans do, but the extent to which they do (or, more importantly, do not) > > can teach us which aspects of music do make it uniquely human. Be careful > > to prejudge as we see how "fur" we can get with these issues! > > > > Cheers, > > Stew Hulse > > (and a chicken's favorite composer? Bach, bach bach bach....) > > I think Prof Hulse's point above is a good one - the study of how animals > respond > to music can be a valuable contribution to understanding human responses to > music. I think animal models may become useful in differentiating the > 'direct' effect on neurological circuits/chemical release s. 'indirect' > effects via higher order processing (e.g. via musical preferences, past > experience). The former may be common to a range of listeners, including > possibly comatose patients, foetuses and animals, while the latter may be > reserved for humans (note the 'may'!). > > Our work with chicks show that their memory is significantly improved by > *rhythmic* auditory stimuli but not by non-rhythmic stimuli - which means > they are cognitively sensitive to at least one musical universal. > Toukhsati, S., & Rickard, N.S. (2004). Journal of Comparative Psychology, > 118 (1), 65-70. > Toukhsati, S., & Rickard, N.S. (2001). Journal of Comparative Psychology, > 115(2), 132-139. > > > my 2 feathers, > Nikki >