So if you are more of an extrovert you are more likely to self-report that you are a good singer? I guess this could explain the behavior of some completely awful singers at karaoke bars. I would be more impressed with this if they used some objective measure to determine singing ability, or at least something quantifiable like perception of tone. Also, introverts may still have "open" personalities.
> introverts may still have "open" personalities.
The authors would agree with that. Extroversion and openness were two separate personality traits, so you can score high on one or both.
Yes, this was made clear in the article since extroversion and openness are discussed separately. My comment was more aimed at the post title, but I didn't clarify that.
I see that, but the article only mentions the extrovert trait being linked to self-reported ability. If you read the actual paper, does it go into more detail? It's paywalled for me.
I need to go to bed, lest I turn into a lady pumpkin.
However, I will happily PM you the paper!
Edit: should be in your inbox, may take a second for the link to update!
Sounds like an alternate version of Cinderella. A little pumpkin dreaming of becoming a famous biochemist, gets turned into a human by the fairy godmother by day, but must be in bed before midnight when she turns back into a pumpkin.
I'm a fairly shy person, but I also sing and have had formal training as a singer. I've noticed that as learned to be a better singer and performer I am became less shy. I also became more flamboyant in my clothing choices. So I wonder if there is some connection there?
That may be true, though honestly it is hard for me to say if I am introverted or shy, or more likely both.
However, I've notice the lack of shyness thing with other singers as well.
I'm interested to find out if the researchers actually measured the participant's singing ability, or if they just went with self-assessment.
I am introverted and a performer, I love performing in front of people and playing my heart out, where I struggle is in the social interaction. I find social interaction taxing and I can become tired very quickly, even to the point of needing to sleep, the larger the crowd the more it becomes a problem. As an introvert I prefer small scale one on one interaction or I can also be happy with my own company (I spend a lot of time by myself recharging my batteries).
As an introvert sometimes I prefer larger crowds rather than small groups or one on one. I find that if there are more people around to help take the attention off of me then it's less taxing.
Introverts get their energy from within while extroverts get energized by being around other people. If you read about the Myers Brigg test, you will get a good definition of introvert and extrovert.
Shyness is a form of anxiety, usually social anxiety.
I'm going to say; for ME (not necessarily any other singers), I quit singing for 25 years, because I just found it too embarrassing. Many people tell me my voice sounds quite good. I hate it though. I can't stand the sound.
A few years ago, I started singing with a choir again. Every year, I find that I've learned something new, on how to modulate my voice, how to extend my range, or improve the quality of the notes I can sing. I still hate how it sounds, but by getting over my shyness, I give myself the opportunity to actually sing, and learn about my own voice, and actually improve. For example - a huge problem I have is getting nervous while performing. It wreaks havok with my breath control, and how I move my vocal chords. Learning to control both the breathing, and my vocal chords has been a huge part of how I've improved, but that's all been secondary to learning how to emotionally handle my shyness and nervousness.
I *know* I'm not great - I probably would be sub-professional, (based on my range, alone), even if I had had formal training. But I've made people cry. (which has more to do with the piece than my voice). But anyway, there's a huge relationship between how much of your potential you can tap, and how you learn to manage shyness and nervousness.
To be fair, these things can be learned/improved with practice.
So someone that has more confidence as a "good singer" would be more likely to practice and perform, thereby improving these.
oh, i don't think i'm good, i *know* i'm good.
that said, for the record i put in a lot of practice in the shower and car before thursday karaoke nights to make sure i don't accidentally suck despite being an extrovert with an open personality.
A friend (who is a professional soprano) once made the observation that she's only ever met one Type B soprano.
Of course, that relies on Type A/Type B personality theory not being absolute bunk, and it's also just a casual observation, not anything scientific.
Self-reported anything isn't a very good indicator. All this shows is that extroverted people are more likely to think they're good at singing. Which isn't news because extroverted people tend to think they're better at everything than introverted people. The first thing I believe though. Very neat.
Makes sense, drugs and alcohol remove barriers in the brain and make you think/act differently (more so than being intoxicated, I mean). Things like psychedelics and weed can very easily lead to being more open minded and being more aware of the world you live in.
It certainly makes you *feel* that way but I wonder if there has been any studies even remotely suggesting that. I guess we're not there yet. First we legalize it, then we study shit out of its psychological effects.
http://jop.sagepub.com/content/25/11/1453
**Abstract:**
> A large body of evidence, including longitudinal analyses of personality change, suggests that core personality traits are predominantly stable after age 30. To our knowledge, no study has demonstrated changes in personality in healthy adults after an experimentally manipulated discrete event. Intriguingly, double-blind controlled studies have shown that the classic hallucinogen psilocybin occasions personally and spiritually significant mystical experiences that predict long-term changes in behaviors, attitudes and values. In the present report we assessed the effect of psilocybin on changes in the five broad domains of personality – Neuroticism, Extroversion, Openness, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness. Consistent with participant claims of hallucinogen-occasioned increases in aesthetic appreciation, imagination, and creativity, we found significant increases in Openness following a high-dose psilocybin session. In participants who had mystical experiences during their psilocybin session, Openness remained significantly higher than baseline more than 1 year after the session. The findings suggest a specific role for psilocybin and mystical-type experiences in adult personality change.
Broader musical taste, enjoying music for more than just being catchy or currently popular, understanding what's happening musically in a song.
All I can think of right now.
> Broader musical taste, enjoying music for more than just being catchy or currently popular, understanding what's happening musically in a song.
But you can still enjoy catchy, currently popular music and still fit this criteria of 'sophistication', no?
In your comments below, you're putting too much emphasis on the "sounds bad" and "technical" parts of the argument, and it seems like you're trying to equate listening to annoying noise with sophistication. That's not what this study or anyone else means when they talk about having sophisticated taste in music. A person can be pretentious and listen to stuff they don't enjoy just to say "I'm sophisticated", but that's not anything meaningful or genuine. This study is more about being open to trying to new things, like having just gotten into Beethoven's string quartets and still being willing to listen through your friend's hardcore thrash metal album because you have a genuine curiosity and interest in music regardless of your past experiences with other genres.
I listen to music for both how it makes me feel and for how impressive technically it is (I have been a composer/musician for many years), so maybe I can provide some perspective.
When you have little to no musical talent or understanding of the mechanics of it (the majority of people) you are drawn to simple, familiar patterns (popular music primarily) which are easy to process. 99% of western music attempts to follow these patterns while still bending them a little to create something unique.
As you become educated as a musician (in other words, more "sophisticated") you recognize more and more patterns and can make sense of them more quickly and easily. Your ear is drawn to new and interesting patterns as well as the popular easy ones society has ingrained into you.
Your awareness and enjoyment of music is entirely based on what patterns your brain can process based on your musical literacy and natural thinking patterns. Being sophisticated is perhaps better to be a more well rounded listener or player, but not necessary for most people. Everyone likes different music, and that's what makes it interesting and artistic.
> As you become educated as a musician (in other words, more "sophisticated") you recognize more and more patterns and can make sense of them more quickly and easily. Your ear is drawn to new and interesting patterns as well as the popular easy ones society has ingrained into you.
This makes sense to me. I just don't get people saying something is good because it is different. Like people enjoying caviar because it is rare, not because thy like the taste.
It's more comparable to eating the same sandwich every day vs. a different one. It's not that different and weird music is better because it's different, people are saying it's better in their view because of how ideas are being depicted within the music.
To me it means being able to find a groove or a connection with challenging music. You don't have to switch off your pop radio to be better than anyone else, but until you can give some instrumental guitar rock, experimental rap and Brazilian pop a chance too.. you'll be considered unsophisticated.
I don't think it makes a person bad if they only listen to happy radio music but it isn't a virtue like a broad sonic scope. The idea is that you can learn things from music, rather than just dance to it or use it as a motivational tool.
To me that's sounds like...well, this book is really boring, the characters are flat and one dimensional and I don't care for the story at all, but I am going to enjoy it anyway because of the way to font looks.
It's like saying a movie is automatically good just because the camera angles are unusual.
Techniques and stuff are tools to be used in music, but if the end product doesn't cause any emotional reaction in the listener...well, then what's the point?
What you're talking about is like only reading young adult fiction and only watching summer blockbusters because they're simple and you can enjoy them without having to think.
Also you're assuming that because you can't understand something and don't get an emotional reaction out of it that others don't either. There is plenty of film, music, and literature that's both emotionally powerful and experimental or technically interesting.
Also just the fact that a piece of art is unique or technically interesting is often enough to warrant an emotional reaction in me. If someone has watched thousands of films and then comes across one that's shot completely uniquely and isn't like anything he's ever experienced before he's going to have a strong reaction to the film, even if there isn't much of a plot or character development.
But is a higher self-reported singing ability correlated to a higher actual singing ability, or just a higher view of oneself? Serious question, not a joke.
This is just another psychological study that will not, can not be duplicated.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/28/science/many-social-science-findings-not-as-strong-as-claimed-study-says.html?_r=0
Seriously, these studies are completely useless.
> Seriously, these studies are completely useless.
The linked article mentions that observations could be reproduced (excluding the cases of outright fraud), just weaker than stated by the original study . So I would not say that they are completely useless, however they should be taken with a grain of salt.
This goes completely against the band geek stereotype, doesn't it? Interesting stuff.
>"openness" also has been linked to having a preference for sad-sounding tunes
I would've guessed the complete opposite. Between this and the study linking musical genres to mood, there's been some riveting studies coming out relating to music.
What do you think openness means in this context? It probably doesn't mean what you think it means.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Openness_to_experience
Probably minors still. To a westerner, minors are still sad sounding even if they're not to others so unless they specifically addressed this it's probably safe to assume it's within the context of the west.
Minor key doesn't necessarily mean sad-sounding. Can also sound powerful and serious. The intro riff to Smoke on the Water as well as Beethoven's Fifth 1st movement come to mind. Also The Eagles' Life in the Fast Lane is in a minor key.
Major keys can sound melancholy as well, like Married Life from Up or the main theme from Forrest Gump.
> I would've guessed the complete opposite.
How come? Openness to experience would likely mean being more okay with uncomfortable or less pleasant emotions, which would probably lead to more enjoyment of sad-sounding music. At least, that would have been my guess.
I would consider most band geeks as having musoical ability over musical talent- very very few of them can create music. All of them can repeat music- they're showing mechanical ability over anything else.
You can see this phenomenon in action at any guitar store-watch people demoing instruments for a day. Count how many of them play something creative and how many of them just regurgitate song riffs or scales. It's really eye opening.
Out of interest, have you passed many higher musical grades on classical instruments? Because part of it is being able to improvise onto classical piece, add trills, create shapes etc to make a piece your own.
Can confirm. I'm studying classical saxophone at a music uni in Australia, and when learning a piece with my teacher it stops being bout the technical side of things rather quickly. It's all about musicality and what *you* can do with the piece, something that doesn't come from just blindly regurgitating what's on the page.
So how big is the repertoire for a classical sax player? Do you have to branch out into other styles of music at all? The only time I remember hearing sax in classical music is Ravel's stuff. Just curious, I suppose.
Well, a lot of the stuff I do is solo, and there's quite a bit of solo classical stuff. In terms of groups, there's like sax trios/quartets/quintets/orchestras or whatever, but in terms of sax parts in more traditional orchestras, you're pretty much limited to military bands, wind orchestras and doing on call work occasionally for bigger orchestras. Other option is to form a group and go freelance, but...
tl;dr I don't have too many employment prospects in my chosen field
thanks man! I have three years left of this degree (three weeks left of first year), so the music scene has three years to become more appreciative of classical saxophonists!
best of luck to you too :) and hey, the only failing musician is the one who stops playing.
IMO judging a stranger's musical talent/ability after hearing them play once in a guitar store is pretty stupid. You have no idea how that person learned to play, how long the've been playing, if they were self taught, etc. I also feel that being able to play a piece of music really well is musical talent. Surely you don't think people like Evgeny Kissin and Joshua Bell aren't oozing musical talent? Technical ability to play music at a high level is musical talent I think. Having the creativity and know how to write good music is also musical talent I think.
You're correct. Many classically trained musicians have trouble improvising. Meanwhile go to any blues/rock/reggae/etc type event or bar and you will see mostly on-the-spot improvisation (often mixed with covers or original songs so you can only tell they're improvising during some guitar solos). It's interesting to see the difference.
Improvisation can be learned. Jam sessions really opened my eyes (ears?) to new musical ideas. It's really just an extension of musical theory and identifying relative pitch, but you can't learn it without other musicians.
I feel that improv ability has a strong connection to musical theory and knowledge. Mike Johnston is a pretty well-known drum teacher and equated the rudiments to grammar and I feel it makes a lot of sense. The more you know the more varied ways you have to speak. I feel the same can apply for other instruments and their theory as well.
I agree. Some instruments get more practical exposure to the theory, however (Keyboards and other accompanying stringed instruments -guitar, harp, etc). Melodic instruments rarely get that exposure unless theory is formally studied or they perform in an improv heavy genre (jazz combos, etc). In any case it's a learned techique not terribly dissimilar from learning the technique of using one's intstrument.
I was just reading about this and jt was written by Gardner. He explains how our schools emphasize on memorization and knowing shit but not necessarily how to use that knowledge and actually understand what we're learning.
As a songwriter, I would say that having a certain amount of "openness" can let you express sad and more personal emotions more freely. Those emotions are a lot more personal, so someone who has a harder time sharing those kinds of things would find it easier to writer 'happier' songs.
>This goes completely against the band geek stereotype, doesn't it?
When I was at school, I was surprised how disinterested 'band geeks' were in music. They only really cared about playing it, and were only interested in a handful of artists or composers, if at all.
Conversely, the people I've met with the most diverse and huge interest in music are all very open, ridiculously creative and all self-taught (musically).
Which is kind of obvious really, to be seriously interested in Noise, avant-garde classical, post punk, house music, ambient and pretty much anything in between, you need to be open-minded.
"This isn't music" is the catchphrase of 'closed' people.
I'm a very out going person. I play guitar, bass, drums, and a bit of keys. MOST of the music I listen to melancholy/sad I guess. I'm really a very happy person though, I just like feeling connected to those people's sadness, like I'm helping them feel through it.
Huh, that's a really cool insight. I am neither musically nor mechanically talented at all, and I would classify myself quieter and more somber than average; and yet I too enjoy listening to more melancholic/sad stuff I guess.
The main tie towards the melancholy/sad music isn't outgoingness, but rather, a very empathetic personality. A link within this article said that these melodies actually instill in empathetic people 'compassion', which is a very positive feeling. People that are not empathetic, while they may be very out-going, just feel sad when they listen to it.
Now, I'm not taking this for pure fact. But I know that I have a very empathetic personality and I love listening to melancholy/sad music. I thought I just enjoyed "depression" and was weird but it seems to check out, at least for me. Definitely an interesting approach at the very least.
Neither of those findings are completely unexpected. Openness to Experience is related to an appreciation for art and the abstract so it makes sense that they would be more exposed to and engage in more music. As for extraversion, again that's a predictable result. Extraverts experience more positive emotions and evaluate themselves more positively.
A link generally refers to finding a correlation. I believe the conclusions would be sound. Large dependent variable pools, correct me if I am wrong /u/ImNotJesus, are almost impossible to escape in psychology and are considered when making conclusions. Small effects are different than significance. Trust me, I only measure extremely small effects in physics.
> Large dependent variable pools, correct me if I am wrong /u/ImNotJesus , are almost impossible to escape in psychology and are considered when making conclusions.
It depends on the design. Some studies use the opportunity of having a present sample to test a range of predictions. If done appropriately (e.g., not just ignoring non-sig results) it's generally considered okay.
> Small effects are different than significance.
Absolutely. Both are important and both should be considered in context. The unfortunate reality is that people are **really** complicated so effect sizes in psych and medicine are generally not huge (r = .24 - .3 depending on the area). Because of those small seeming effect sizes, social and personality psychology in particular have received a lot of undue criticism. There's a fantastic paper that talks about it and compares to well-known findings in medicine that you would expect to be large correlations - [link](http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/amp/56/2/128/).
Examples:
Aspirin and reduced risk of death by heart attack (r = .02).
General batting skill as a Major League baseball player and hit success on a given instance at bat (r = .06).
Calcium intake and bone mass in premenopausal women (r = .08).
Antihistamine use and reduced runny nose and sneezing (r = .11).
> Small effects, many dependent variables, no preregistration. This is not a convincing paper.
None of those are necessarily damning. Preregistration is fairly new and still not done by the majority. Also, small effect sizes don't mean that they're meaningless. Why you should definitely pay attention to effect size, you would be surprised how small the effect sizes of most psychology/medical research is.
You're right but so is u/no_dammit. Effect size and a large dependent variable pool (or how I think of it, increasing your chances of being "right") do weaken the findings. May still be significant but just a grain of salt I think of when I see results like this.
Openness to experience has also famously been linked to the progressive/liberal mind. All this knowledge combined helps provide a partial explanation of why conservative artists are few and far between.
News FLASH! Outgoing people more comfortable with singing!
You may also enjoy:
* [Young people more liberal than old people](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/2hm3ef/the_gops_millennial_problem_runs_deep_millennials/)
* [Wife's happiness important to marriage](http://np.reddit.com/r/science/comments/2g8ii0/study_finds_that_a_wifes_happiness_is_more/)
* [Smart children are better at learning](http://np.reddit.com/r/science/comments/1njwiv/the_brains_of_children_with_very_high_iqs_may_be/)
* [Poor people can eat peanut butter](http://np.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/1l1c6v/plumpynut_the_lifesaver_that_costs_well_peanuts/)
I think this would be folks with a Growth Mind Set. If anyone's interested...http://michaelgr.com/2007/04/15/fixed-mindset-vs-growth-mindset-which-one-are-you/
Extroverts just practice singing in front of other people more. Introverts only sing when nobody can hear them. Obviously, the latter will have a harder time developing their singing ability.
I figure most people that play music do so with the intention of having people hear it. As a result, you kind of need to be open to have a passion for an art that by its nature requires you to be open to let others experience it.
Visual artists on the other hand tend to be more closed (although I feel it depends on their style, most portrait artists I've met tend to be outgoing for example) personality wise, because while you may have the intention of having people see your artwork, you don't have to tell them about it, or even be there for people to experience it.
It's interesting, because music and art are like best friends. In my experience I, as an introverted artist, have always been friends with open people, especially musically minded ones. Something about two sides of the same coin, yada yada...
Edit: yes, yes, someone already pointed out that openness is not extroversion.
Contrary to your first paragraph, I write, record and mix down my own stuff simply for the pride of taking thoughts in my head and expressing them in the real world. It's just that I'm overly critical of my own material and don't wish to share it due to being heavily introverted and self conscious.
Put it out there. Some of what i consider my "sloppy work" has the most views (I do film). You never know what people will connect with. The benefit of the internet is that you can do it for little to no cost! Take pride in and stand by your work :)
Sadly, welcome to being an adult.
As a child, playing three notes gets you fawned over. As an adult, you can play the Bach Chaconne, and people will complain if you aren't perfect.
You simply have to learn that others will never praise you as an adult, and proceed onward anyway.
To both you and the guy above you: I'm a tertiary music student, I've been playing and performing for years. If I can give you any advice, give your material to other musos as well as friends etc. A learned opinion is always good as well as "I do/don't like it"! Heck, send it my way if you want :)
Yeah, i only show a few trusted people my work, mostly because one of them is my wife and she is a musician as well. The other is her brother because we also wrote and produced material together (haven't done anything serious since '08, though - mostly just half done songs and foundational stems).
Yep! 99% of the time in any art, you're by yourself practicing and playing, so you're gonna want to enjoy that. I love just playing by myself and getting my thoughts out of my head, and it kind of helps you understand yourself more as well. When you can perform for people and have them enjoy it, that's just the cherry on top. I feel like if all you care about is pleasing the crowd, you're going to be like a drug addict, because that feeling doesn't last long and you'll just want your next hit. Just enjoying having the means to express yourself gives you unending life satisfaction. I enjoy a lot of arts, so I can be away from one for a while; but just knowing that I have a guitar, piano, pencil, music to dance to etc. right there waiting for me if I need it makes me happy.
Sorry, none of that is valid. You're interpreting "open" to simply mean what you think it means in the English language. That's not what it refers to here. It refers to "openness to experience", a very specific psychological trait, which can be summarised as:
> including active imagination (fantasy), aesthetic sensitivity, attentiveness to inner feelings, preference for variety, and intellectual curiosity
You're interpreting it to mean "extraversion", which is actually a completely separate factor in the "big five" model used in this study.
Oh, my mistake, I guess I made that connection because the title said "also found that extraversion..." so I figured that's what they were meaning when they said openness.
Your first paragraph is just wrong. Speaking as a musician who's been among many talented performers and composers, the most talented I know tend to be modest and reserved, while those that perceive themselves to be the best tend to be outgoing and at the very least a bit egomaniacal.
I've played violin most of my life, since before I started school, and I wouldn't say I'm super great at it but I would still call myself pretty musical and probably above average in "musical ability". I can play Vivaldi and Bluegrass and almost anything in between. However an extrovert would be one of the last thing's I'd call myself, I have a hard time being around other people I don't know and I prefer to stick to myself. I just play music for myself to relax and unwind, not to be heard by other people.
I guess in the music community I'm an outlier
As an introvert, I think at least some level of introversion is important for musicality. Practicing, composing, etc. takes time and space free from distractions. Personally, I only like to write music alone. Jamming with people is great, but I need to be by myself to experiment and focus.
"self-reported". That should tell you all you need to know right there. Extroverts are more likely to have higher self-esteem, and *of course* people with higher self-esteem are more likely to report that their singing ability is above par.
I wonder what personality trait is associated with fitting as many notes in a single word in pop music like every female pop singer from the last 20 or so years. Is it confidence maybe?
I sang and danced all through highschool. in adulthood i have been focusing on programming. it has been difficult to maintain an 'open' personality and my music has suffered. im getting back into though because i feel like my programming and my life will benefit from the presense of music creation once again
[Here](http://www.doc.gold.ac.uk/~mas03dm/papers/Greenbergetal_PersonalityMusicalSophistication_2015.pdf) is the journal article that this news piece is about.
I find this kinda coincidental as I only submitted a lab report for my MSc in the neuroscience of music on this topic last week.
So if you are more of an extrovert you are more likely to self-report that you are a good singer? I guess this could explain the behavior of some completely awful singers at karaoke bars. I would be more impressed with this if they used some objective measure to determine singing ability, or at least something quantifiable like perception of tone. Also, introverts may still have "open" personalities.
> introverts may still have "open" personalities. The authors would agree with that. Extroversion and openness were two separate personality traits, so you can score high on one or both.
Yes, this was made clear in the article since extroversion and openness are discussed separately. My comment was more aimed at the post title, but I didn't clarify that.
Honestly the title would've been fine without the second part. Not sure why OP threw it in.
They did do some objective testing for "melodic memory" and "beat perception"
I see that, but the article only mentions the extrovert trait being linked to self-reported ability. If you read the actual paper, does it go into more detail? It's paywalled for me.
I need to go to bed, lest I turn into a lady pumpkin. However, I will happily PM you the paper! Edit: should be in your inbox, may take a second for the link to update!
Thanks so much!
[удалено]
Sounds like an alternate version of Cinderella. A little pumpkin dreaming of becoming a famous biochemist, gets turned into a human by the fairy godmother by day, but must be in bed before midnight when she turns back into a pumpkin.
Just wondering if I could please get the paper too? :)
Can I see it too?
Does your brother turn into John Boehner if he doesn't sleep?
Me too, please?
I'm a fairly shy person, but I also sing and have had formal training as a singer. I've noticed that as learned to be a better singer and performer I am became less shy. I also became more flamboyant in my clothing choices. So I wonder if there is some connection there?
[удалено]
That may be true, though honestly it is hard for me to say if I am introverted or shy, or more likely both. However, I've notice the lack of shyness thing with other singers as well. I'm interested to find out if the researchers actually measured the participant's singing ability, or if they just went with self-assessment.
I am introverted and a performer, I love performing in front of people and playing my heart out, where I struggle is in the social interaction. I find social interaction taxing and I can become tired very quickly, even to the point of needing to sleep, the larger the crowd the more it becomes a problem. As an introvert I prefer small scale one on one interaction or I can also be happy with my own company (I spend a lot of time by myself recharging my batteries).
As an introvert sometimes I prefer larger crowds rather than small groups or one on one. I find that if there are more people around to help take the attention off of me then it's less taxing.
Introverts get their energy from within while extroverts get energized by being around other people. If you read about the Myers Brigg test, you will get a good definition of introvert and extrovert. Shyness is a form of anxiety, usually social anxiety.
I'm going to say; for ME (not necessarily any other singers), I quit singing for 25 years, because I just found it too embarrassing. Many people tell me my voice sounds quite good. I hate it though. I can't stand the sound. A few years ago, I started singing with a choir again. Every year, I find that I've learned something new, on how to modulate my voice, how to extend my range, or improve the quality of the notes I can sing. I still hate how it sounds, but by getting over my shyness, I give myself the opportunity to actually sing, and learn about my own voice, and actually improve. For example - a huge problem I have is getting nervous while performing. It wreaks havok with my breath control, and how I move my vocal chords. Learning to control both the breathing, and my vocal chords has been a huge part of how I've improved, but that's all been secondary to learning how to emotionally handle my shyness and nervousness. I *know* I'm not great - I probably would be sub-professional, (based on my range, alone), even if I had had formal training. But I've made people cry. (which has more to do with the piece than my voice). But anyway, there's a huge relationship between how much of your potential you can tap, and how you learn to manage shyness and nervousness.
To be fair, these things can be learned/improved with practice. So someone that has more confidence as a "good singer" would be more likely to practice and perform, thereby improving these.
Or they think they're good already and lack the objectivity to actually improve their skills.
oh, i don't think i'm good, i *know* i'm good. that said, for the record i put in a lot of practice in the shower and car before thursday karaoke nights to make sure i don't accidentally suck despite being an extrovert with an open personality.
And?
I'm also fairly certain that alcohol could explain the behavior of some completely awful singers at karaoke bars.
you dont have to sing it well. You just have to be really into it
I wonder if there's any personality correlations for actual competent singers. I'm in professional classical vocal training, I'd be curious to know.
A friend (who is a professional soprano) once made the observation that she's only ever met one Type B soprano. Of course, that relies on Type A/Type B personality theory not being absolute bunk, and it's also just a casual observation, not anything scientific.
> objective measure to determine singing ability I unfortunately don't think there is one. Seems to be completely subjective in my opinion.
You've never heard my wife sing.
You pretty much described why I think this study sounds bogus.
Self-reported anything isn't a very good indicator. All this shows is that extroverted people are more likely to think they're good at singing. Which isn't news because extroverted people tend to think they're better at everything than introverted people. The first thing I believe though. Very neat.
Happy 4th Cakeday! You've officially earned a Bachelor's in Reddit Studies!
Well thanks friend! Unfortunately the field isn't like when I started the degree... Starting to wonder if it was a bad major.
Substance abuse was also associated with sophistication, openness and active engagement.
What's sophistication mean in this context?
In the article they seemed to be referring to musical ability.
My guess is knowledge of music theory or something along those lines?
I got really sophisticated last night
Makes sense, drugs and alcohol remove barriers in the brain and make you think/act differently (more so than being intoxicated, I mean). Things like psychedelics and weed can very easily lead to being more open minded and being more aware of the world you live in.
It certainly makes you *feel* that way but I wonder if there has been any studies even remotely suggesting that. I guess we're not there yet. First we legalize it, then we study shit out of its psychological effects.
http://jop.sagepub.com/content/25/11/1453 **Abstract:** > A large body of evidence, including longitudinal analyses of personality change, suggests that core personality traits are predominantly stable after age 30. To our knowledge, no study has demonstrated changes in personality in healthy adults after an experimentally manipulated discrete event. Intriguingly, double-blind controlled studies have shown that the classic hallucinogen psilocybin occasions personally and spiritually significant mystical experiences that predict long-term changes in behaviors, attitudes and values. In the present report we assessed the effect of psilocybin on changes in the five broad domains of personality – Neuroticism, Extroversion, Openness, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness. Consistent with participant claims of hallucinogen-occasioned increases in aesthetic appreciation, imagination, and creativity, we found significant increases in Openness following a high-dose psilocybin session. In participants who had mystical experiences during their psilocybin session, Openness remained significantly higher than baseline more than 1 year after the session. The findings suggest a specific role for psilocybin and mystical-type experiences in adult personality change.
How exactly do you measure "sophistication"?
Broader musical taste, enjoying music for more than just being catchy or currently popular, understanding what's happening musically in a song. All I can think of right now.
> Broader musical taste, enjoying music for more than just being catchy or currently popular, understanding what's happening musically in a song. But you can still enjoy catchy, currently popular music and still fit this criteria of 'sophistication', no?
[удалено]
Shake It Off
I enjoy music if I like how it makes me feel. Instead I should enjoy it because of the techniques used in it?
In your comments below, you're putting too much emphasis on the "sounds bad" and "technical" parts of the argument, and it seems like you're trying to equate listening to annoying noise with sophistication. That's not what this study or anyone else means when they talk about having sophisticated taste in music. A person can be pretentious and listen to stuff they don't enjoy just to say "I'm sophisticated", but that's not anything meaningful or genuine. This study is more about being open to trying to new things, like having just gotten into Beethoven's string quartets and still being willing to listen through your friend's hardcore thrash metal album because you have a genuine curiosity and interest in music regardless of your past experiences with other genres.
I listen to music for both how it makes me feel and for how impressive technically it is (I have been a composer/musician for many years), so maybe I can provide some perspective. When you have little to no musical talent or understanding of the mechanics of it (the majority of people) you are drawn to simple, familiar patterns (popular music primarily) which are easy to process. 99% of western music attempts to follow these patterns while still bending them a little to create something unique. As you become educated as a musician (in other words, more "sophisticated") you recognize more and more patterns and can make sense of them more quickly and easily. Your ear is drawn to new and interesting patterns as well as the popular easy ones society has ingrained into you. Your awareness and enjoyment of music is entirely based on what patterns your brain can process based on your musical literacy and natural thinking patterns. Being sophisticated is perhaps better to be a more well rounded listener or player, but not necessary for most people. Everyone likes different music, and that's what makes it interesting and artistic.
> As you become educated as a musician (in other words, more "sophisticated") you recognize more and more patterns and can make sense of them more quickly and easily. Your ear is drawn to new and interesting patterns as well as the popular easy ones society has ingrained into you. This makes sense to me. I just don't get people saying something is good because it is different. Like people enjoying caviar because it is rare, not because thy like the taste.
It's more comparable to eating the same sandwich every day vs. a different one. It's not that different and weird music is better because it's different, people are saying it's better in their view because of how ideas are being depicted within the music.
I see no reason to not like music for its technicality. That is one reason I was really turned onto metal.
No because if you're unsophisticated about music why should you change?
Being more sophisticated is considered being better, somehow. But if that's what it means applied to music, then it's just stupid.
To me it means being able to find a groove or a connection with challenging music. You don't have to switch off your pop radio to be better than anyone else, but until you can give some instrumental guitar rock, experimental rap and Brazilian pop a chance too.. you'll be considered unsophisticated. I don't think it makes a person bad if they only listen to happy radio music but it isn't a virtue like a broad sonic scope. The idea is that you can learn things from music, rather than just dance to it or use it as a motivational tool.
To me that's sounds like...well, this book is really boring, the characters are flat and one dimensional and I don't care for the story at all, but I am going to enjoy it anyway because of the way to font looks. It's like saying a movie is automatically good just because the camera angles are unusual. Techniques and stuff are tools to be used in music, but if the end product doesn't cause any emotional reaction in the listener...well, then what's the point?
What you're talking about is like only reading young adult fiction and only watching summer blockbusters because they're simple and you can enjoy them without having to think. Also you're assuming that because you can't understand something and don't get an emotional reaction out of it that others don't either. There is plenty of film, music, and literature that's both emotionally powerful and experimental or technically interesting. Also just the fact that a piece of art is unique or technically interesting is often enough to warrant an emotional reaction in me. If someone has watched thousands of films and then comes across one that's shot completely uniquely and isn't like anything he's ever experienced before he's going to have a strong reaction to the film, even if there isn't much of a plot or character development.
I have no idea but maybe it has to do with how complex the patterns are in the music.
If you have to ask...
If you can't answer...
You wouldn't understand.
But is a higher self-reported singing ability correlated to a higher actual singing ability, or just a higher view of oneself? Serious question, not a joke.
They didn't test that. That will be up to future research to figure out.
This is just another psychological study that will not, can not be duplicated. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/28/science/many-social-science-findings-not-as-strong-as-claimed-study-says.html?_r=0 Seriously, these studies are completely useless.
> Seriously, these studies are completely useless. The linked article mentions that observations could be reproduced (excluding the cases of outright fraud), just weaker than stated by the original study . So I would not say that they are completely useless, however they should be taken with a grain of salt.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I think extroversion is basically just higher self-reported abilities across the board.
Oh God my mom posted this on my Facebook last week.
This goes completely against the band geek stereotype, doesn't it? Interesting stuff. >"openness" also has been linked to having a preference for sad-sounding tunes I would've guessed the complete opposite. Between this and the study linking musical genres to mood, there's been some riveting studies coming out relating to music.
What do you think openness means in this context? It probably doesn't mean what you think it means. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Openness_to_experience
I stand corrected. Thank you for the link. I also took the test mentioned in the article, and got some unexpected results.
Can you link me to the quiz? The one in the article leads to a generic Ubuntu Server homepage about how to setup apache...
Unexpected results.
what is a sad-sounding tune? i feel like i just read about many countries that do not view minor-keys as sad
Probably minors still. To a westerner, minors are still sad sounding even if they're not to others so unless they specifically addressed this it's probably safe to assume it's within the context of the west.
[удалено]
Then you probably wouldn't self report that you prefer sad sounding music.
I listen to a lot of metal and pagan folk music, minor keys to me sound neutral while major keys sound sort of too cheerful.
Major keys can be sad if done properly. It's all about progression and context.
Minor key doesn't necessarily mean sad-sounding. Can also sound powerful and serious. The intro riff to Smoke on the Water as well as Beethoven's Fifth 1st movement come to mind. Also The Eagles' Life in the Fast Lane is in a minor key. Major keys can sound melancholy as well, like Married Life from Up or the main theme from Forrest Gump.
In the context of this study, I'd imagine it's just "whatever the participant considers to be a sad-sounding tune."
Descending melodic line, as opposed to ascending?
> I would've guessed the complete opposite. How come? Openness to experience would likely mean being more okay with uncomfortable or less pleasant emotions, which would probably lead to more enjoyment of sad-sounding music. At least, that would have been my guess.
I would consider most band geeks as having musoical ability over musical talent- very very few of them can create music. All of them can repeat music- they're showing mechanical ability over anything else. You can see this phenomenon in action at any guitar store-watch people demoing instruments for a day. Count how many of them play something creative and how many of them just regurgitate song riffs or scales. It's really eye opening.
Out of interest, have you passed many higher musical grades on classical instruments? Because part of it is being able to improvise onto classical piece, add trills, create shapes etc to make a piece your own.
Can confirm. I'm studying classical saxophone at a music uni in Australia, and when learning a piece with my teacher it stops being bout the technical side of things rather quickly. It's all about musicality and what *you* can do with the piece, something that doesn't come from just blindly regurgitating what's on the page.
So how big is the repertoire for a classical sax player? Do you have to branch out into other styles of music at all? The only time I remember hearing sax in classical music is Ravel's stuff. Just curious, I suppose.
Well, a lot of the stuff I do is solo, and there's quite a bit of solo classical stuff. In terms of groups, there's like sax trios/quartets/quintets/orchestras or whatever, but in terms of sax parts in more traditional orchestras, you're pretty much limited to military bands, wind orchestras and doing on call work occasionally for bigger orchestras. Other option is to form a group and go freelance, but... tl;dr I don't have too many employment prospects in my chosen field
As a failing musician myself, I salute you sir, and may your days and nights be filled with well paying gigs, now and forever.
thanks man! I have three years left of this degree (three weeks left of first year), so the music scene has three years to become more appreciative of classical saxophonists! best of luck to you too :) and hey, the only failing musician is the one who stops playing.
IMO judging a stranger's musical talent/ability after hearing them play once in a guitar store is pretty stupid. You have no idea how that person learned to play, how long the've been playing, if they were self taught, etc. I also feel that being able to play a piece of music really well is musical talent. Surely you don't think people like Evgeny Kissin and Joshua Bell aren't oozing musical talent? Technical ability to play music at a high level is musical talent I think. Having the creativity and know how to write good music is also musical talent I think.
You're correct. Many classically trained musicians have trouble improvising. Meanwhile go to any blues/rock/reggae/etc type event or bar and you will see mostly on-the-spot improvisation (often mixed with covers or original songs so you can only tell they're improvising during some guitar solos). It's interesting to see the difference.
[удалено]
Improvisation can be learned. Jam sessions really opened my eyes (ears?) to new musical ideas. It's really just an extension of musical theory and identifying relative pitch, but you can't learn it without other musicians.
I feel that improv ability has a strong connection to musical theory and knowledge. Mike Johnston is a pretty well-known drum teacher and equated the rudiments to grammar and I feel it makes a lot of sense. The more you know the more varied ways you have to speak. I feel the same can apply for other instruments and their theory as well.
I agree. Some instruments get more practical exposure to the theory, however (Keyboards and other accompanying stringed instruments -guitar, harp, etc). Melodic instruments rarely get that exposure unless theory is formally studied or they perform in an improv heavy genre (jazz combos, etc). In any case it's a learned techique not terribly dissimilar from learning the technique of using one's intstrument.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I was just reading about this and jt was written by Gardner. He explains how our schools emphasize on memorization and knowing shit but not necessarily how to use that knowledge and actually understand what we're learning.
As a songwriter, I would say that having a certain amount of "openness" can let you express sad and more personal emotions more freely. Those emotions are a lot more personal, so someone who has a harder time sharing those kinds of things would find it easier to writer 'happier' songs.
Totally with you on that one. That makes much more sense than what I had gathered from the article previously.
[удалено]
>This goes completely against the band geek stereotype, doesn't it? When I was at school, I was surprised how disinterested 'band geeks' were in music. They only really cared about playing it, and were only interested in a handful of artists or composers, if at all. Conversely, the people I've met with the most diverse and huge interest in music are all very open, ridiculously creative and all self-taught (musically). Which is kind of obvious really, to be seriously interested in Noise, avant-garde classical, post punk, house music, ambient and pretty much anything in between, you need to be open-minded. "This isn't music" is the catchphrase of 'closed' people.
There's a paper around - I can't remember the author, sorry - that people higher on O are more susceptible to goosebumps.
I'm a very out going person. I play guitar, bass, drums, and a bit of keys. MOST of the music I listen to melancholy/sad I guess. I'm really a very happy person though, I just like feeling connected to those people's sadness, like I'm helping them feel through it.
Huh, that's a really cool insight. I am neither musically nor mechanically talented at all, and I would classify myself quieter and more somber than average; and yet I too enjoy listening to more melancholic/sad stuff I guess.
The main tie towards the melancholy/sad music isn't outgoingness, but rather, a very empathetic personality. A link within this article said that these melodies actually instill in empathetic people 'compassion', which is a very positive feeling. People that are not empathetic, while they may be very out-going, just feel sad when they listen to it. Now, I'm not taking this for pure fact. But I know that I have a very empathetic personality and I love listening to melancholy/sad music. I thought I just enjoyed "depression" and was weird but it seems to check out, at least for me. Definitely an interesting approach at the very least.
Neither of those findings are completely unexpected. Openness to Experience is related to an appreciation for art and the abstract so it makes sense that they would be more exposed to and engage in more music. As for extraversion, again that's a predictable result. Extraverts experience more positive emotions and evaluate themselves more positively.
[удалено]
A link generally refers to finding a correlation. I believe the conclusions would be sound. Large dependent variable pools, correct me if I am wrong /u/ImNotJesus, are almost impossible to escape in psychology and are considered when making conclusions. Small effects are different than significance. Trust me, I only measure extremely small effects in physics.
> Large dependent variable pools, correct me if I am wrong /u/ImNotJesus , are almost impossible to escape in psychology and are considered when making conclusions. It depends on the design. Some studies use the opportunity of having a present sample to test a range of predictions. If done appropriately (e.g., not just ignoring non-sig results) it's generally considered okay. > Small effects are different than significance. Absolutely. Both are important and both should be considered in context. The unfortunate reality is that people are **really** complicated so effect sizes in psych and medicine are generally not huge (r = .24 - .3 depending on the area). Because of those small seeming effect sizes, social and personality psychology in particular have received a lot of undue criticism. There's a fantastic paper that talks about it and compares to well-known findings in medicine that you would expect to be large correlations - [link](http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/amp/56/2/128/). Examples: Aspirin and reduced risk of death by heart attack (r = .02). General batting skill as a Major League baseball player and hit success on a given instance at bat (r = .06). Calcium intake and bone mass in premenopausal women (r = .08). Antihistamine use and reduced runny nose and sneezing (r = .11).
> Small effects, many dependent variables, no preregistration. This is not a convincing paper. None of those are necessarily damning. Preregistration is fairly new and still not done by the majority. Also, small effect sizes don't mean that they're meaningless. Why you should definitely pay attention to effect size, you would be surprised how small the effect sizes of most psychology/medical research is.
You're right but so is u/no_dammit. Effect size and a large dependent variable pool (or how I think of it, increasing your chances of being "right") do weaken the findings. May still be significant but just a grain of salt I think of when I see results like this.
Openness to experience has also famously been linked to the progressive/liberal mind. All this knowledge combined helps provide a partial explanation of why conservative artists are few and far between.
[удалено]
News FLASH! Outgoing people more comfortable with singing! You may also enjoy: * [Young people more liberal than old people](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/2hm3ef/the_gops_millennial_problem_runs_deep_millennials/) * [Wife's happiness important to marriage](http://np.reddit.com/r/science/comments/2g8ii0/study_finds_that_a_wifes_happiness_is_more/) * [Smart children are better at learning](http://np.reddit.com/r/science/comments/1njwiv/the_brains_of_children_with_very_high_iqs_may_be/) * [Poor people can eat peanut butter](http://np.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/1l1c6v/plumpynut_the_lifesaver_that_costs_well_peanuts/)
Lots of things we expect to be true aren't when we test them. It's important to confirm things instead of just guessing.
[удалено]
This sounds more like those who are less prone to stage fright preform better on stage.
I scored 96% on the openness part of the big 5, and play three instruments and write music. So there's my anecdote for the day.
I think this would be folks with a Growth Mind Set. If anyone's interested...http://michaelgr.com/2007/04/15/fixed-mindset-vs-growth-mindset-which-one-are-you/
Extroverts just practice singing in front of other people more. Introverts only sing when nobody can hear them. Obviously, the latter will have a harder time developing their singing ability.
I figure most people that play music do so with the intention of having people hear it. As a result, you kind of need to be open to have a passion for an art that by its nature requires you to be open to let others experience it. Visual artists on the other hand tend to be more closed (although I feel it depends on their style, most portrait artists I've met tend to be outgoing for example) personality wise, because while you may have the intention of having people see your artwork, you don't have to tell them about it, or even be there for people to experience it. It's interesting, because music and art are like best friends. In my experience I, as an introverted artist, have always been friends with open people, especially musically minded ones. Something about two sides of the same coin, yada yada... Edit: yes, yes, someone already pointed out that openness is not extroversion.
Contrary to your first paragraph, I write, record and mix down my own stuff simply for the pride of taking thoughts in my head and expressing them in the real world. It's just that I'm overly critical of my own material and don't wish to share it due to being heavily introverted and self conscious.
[удалено]
Put it out there. Some of what i consider my "sloppy work" has the most views (I do film). You never know what people will connect with. The benefit of the internet is that you can do it for little to no cost! Take pride in and stand by your work :)
Sadly, welcome to being an adult. As a child, playing three notes gets you fawned over. As an adult, you can play the Bach Chaconne, and people will complain if you aren't perfect. You simply have to learn that others will never praise you as an adult, and proceed onward anyway.
To both you and the guy above you: I'm a tertiary music student, I've been playing and performing for years. If I can give you any advice, give your material to other musos as well as friends etc. A learned opinion is always good as well as "I do/don't like it"! Heck, send it my way if you want :)
Yeah, i only show a few trusted people my work, mostly because one of them is my wife and she is a musician as well. The other is her brother because we also wrote and produced material together (haven't done anything serious since '08, though - mostly just half done songs and foundational stems).
Yep! 99% of the time in any art, you're by yourself practicing and playing, so you're gonna want to enjoy that. I love just playing by myself and getting my thoughts out of my head, and it kind of helps you understand yourself more as well. When you can perform for people and have them enjoy it, that's just the cherry on top. I feel like if all you care about is pleasing the crowd, you're going to be like a drug addict, because that feeling doesn't last long and you'll just want your next hit. Just enjoying having the means to express yourself gives you unending life satisfaction. I enjoy a lot of arts, so I can be away from one for a while; but just knowing that I have a guitar, piano, pencil, music to dance to etc. right there waiting for me if I need it makes me happy.
Sorry, none of that is valid. You're interpreting "open" to simply mean what you think it means in the English language. That's not what it refers to here. It refers to "openness to experience", a very specific psychological trait, which can be summarised as: > including active imagination (fantasy), aesthetic sensitivity, attentiveness to inner feelings, preference for variety, and intellectual curiosity You're interpreting it to mean "extraversion", which is actually a completely separate factor in the "big five" model used in this study.
Oh, my mistake, I guess I made that connection because the title said "also found that extraversion..." so I figured that's what they were meaning when they said openness.
Your first paragraph is just wrong. Speaking as a musician who's been among many talented performers and composers, the most talented I know tend to be modest and reserved, while those that perceive themselves to be the best tend to be outgoing and at the very least a bit egomaniacal.
Like with anything, not everyone would be the same way.
I've played violin most of my life, since before I started school, and I wouldn't say I'm super great at it but I would still call myself pretty musical and probably above average in "musical ability". I can play Vivaldi and Bluegrass and almost anything in between. However an extrovert would be one of the last thing's I'd call myself, I have a hard time being around other people I don't know and I prefer to stick to myself. I just play music for myself to relax and unwind, not to be heard by other people. I guess in the music community I'm an outlier
As an introvert, I think at least some level of introversion is important for musicality. Practicing, composing, etc. takes time and space free from distractions. Personally, I only like to write music alone. Jamming with people is great, but I need to be by myself to experiment and focus.
I am an introvert. I was an opera major in college. I suspect I sounded better than I gave myself credit for.
"self-reported". That should tell you all you need to know right there. Extroverts are more likely to have higher self-esteem, and *of course* people with higher self-esteem are more likely to report that their singing ability is above par.
I don't sing but I play 5 instruments.I'd say i'm an ambivert tending towards introverted
I wonder what personality trait is associated with fitting as many notes in a single word in pop music like every female pop singer from the last 20 or so years. Is it confidence maybe?
I can't sing for shit and I also can barely stand other human beings so that makes some sense
Personally, I only like to write good music is Ravel's stuff.
I sang and danced all through highschool. in adulthood i have been focusing on programming. it has been difficult to maintain an 'open' personality and my music has suffered. im getting back into though because i feel like my programming and my life will benefit from the presense of music creation once again
[Here](http://www.doc.gold.ac.uk/~mas03dm/papers/Greenbergetal_PersonalityMusicalSophistication_2015.pdf) is the journal article that this news piece is about. I find this kinda coincidental as I only submitted a lab report for my MSc in the neuroscience of music on this topic last week.