TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Music Discussion
-- Musical preferance and IQ
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

Musical preferance and IQ

I've heard a BUNCH of weird theories on this, and I've been digging around on the internet for ages and not been able to find anything.. maybe someone can help me out.


Anyways, what genre of music you like is reflexive (if that's a word!) of your personality. I've heard theories like people who listen to Trance have a higher average IQ, while those who listen to hip-hop or rap score 2-3 points lower on the IQ chart. Also, things like lab rats who listened to classical improved their time in a maze, while those who listened to rock ended up killing each other.


I was looking for some "real" evidence on this, like maybe a chart or the like.. anyone have any links for me?

unfortunately there are just as many idiots that like trance as there are idiots that like hip hop...i don't think there is any correlation

quote:

Originally posted by Floorfiller unfortunately there are just as many idiots that like trance as there are idiots that like hip hop...i don't think there is any correlation

Yeah, all you have to do is read this board for 5 minutes to figure that out.

quote:

Originally posted by Floorfiller unfortunately there are just as many idiots that like trance as there are idiots that like hip hop...i don't think there is any correlation

On the whole though, I'm sure there's some truth to it. As I stated... your music choice is a relection of your personality, just like, say, the way you dress or talk or act.

quote:

Originally posted by MindsDesire On the whole though, I'm sure there's some truth to it. As I stated... your music choice is a relection of your personality, just like, say, the way you dress or talk or act.

i think it's just something that people that like EDM like to tell themselves.

quote:

Originally posted by MindsDesire On the whole though, I'm sure there's some truth to it. As I stated... your music choice is a relection of your personality, just like, say, the way you dress or talk or act.

Load of crap, if you think about it. How people dress/talk/act/do anything is reflective of the society they live in. Someone at a university may well dress and talk and listen to different music than the man on the street, but that's only because they spend most of their time exposed to these influences. That they're intelligent is only why they're at the university.

This is a stupid theory, and surely it would only work if people only ever liked one genre of music anyway.

What about people that like trance AND rap?
What about trance and rock?
Or rock and rap?

I'm sure there's no correlation. I perhaps have more respect for someone who likes more underground music, as it shows they've put more effort in to discover it, but I don't think doing so makes them any more intelligent. Just less lazy, more open-minded, or more intrigued as to what music has to offer.

And I think we all know that some of the smartest people out there can also be the most narrow-minded, ignorant ****s you'd ever meet.

I said this in one of my threads. Cutnpaste here (J, shut up...it saves me time, okay):

Dance music is dance music, okay. It is stupid, formulaic sample/loop-based music, and has never been anything but, and we love it for that stupid fact. It has never been anything but disposable, feather-lite pap. It is not complicated, it is not sophisticated, and it is not something deep and meaningful that requires a high intelligence to appreciate, so stop patting yourself on the back about how smart and intellectual you think you are.

Musical complexity, if you really want to argue that, is all about QUALITY, not QUANTITY. Dance music is not complex. If you want complex music, you would try for really odd or bizarre time signatures like 9/13 (Zappa was a master of this), and really avant-garde scales like Archytas' Enharmonic 8-tone scale or the 19-equal scale or Harry Partch's really fucked up 43-tone scale, which sounds practically atonal to the western ear trained to the standard 12-tone scale, and completely out of sync if you try to count the measures in multiples of 4.

Just because a form of music has more layered instrumentation or tons of little squiggling, arpeggiating melodies doesn't make it deep and complicated. Trance is not more highly evolved because it has busy harmonies. At the root level it is still 4/4 timed music, just like hip hop, and it is still loop and sample based, just like hip hop. That makes it the simplest and most dreadfully straightforward music in the world, no matter how many layers you stuff on the track. Which is all dance music ever has been. So please: knock it off with the chinstroking and back-patting.


/loves Crunk music

If you're referring to the standard 4/4 discussed here, then I will agree but there is dance music which pushes into the 6/8 and 3/4 realms, it's just not something you're going to find in a very prevalent fashion because of its avant-guarde tendency.

Then you have the existence of IDM-lovers (I enjoy lots of IDM), who might use similar argumentation to argue their music's superiority.

yeah yeah yeah, I know. I have some music in triplet timing. But that's just a small sliver of the edm spectrum as to be negligent.

And let's be realistic here: fucked up IDM or downtempo music set to bizzare time signatures isn't what the poster was getting at, was he?

quote:

Originally posted by Ishkur Just because a form of music has more layered instrumentation or tons of little squiggling, arpeggiating melodies doesn't make it deep and complicated.

But likewise, just because a piece of music is in an unconventional time signature, doesn't necessarily make it deep or complicated either.

First post in months. A for Effort.

I used to believe that a person's music was a reflection of their personality, and that people partially formed their idendity through the music that they chose.

But the more people I meet, and the more they share with me the music that they listen to, the more I realise that that assumption does not hold up. Music has nothing to do with who you are as a person, neither in your personality, identity, nor intelligence.

Al that stuff is cultural, based on your surroundings, which is only loosely connected with musical choice.

Time signatures aren't the only thing that makes music complex. Layers of simple elements make something complex. In that sense, Dance music is generally some of the most complex music I've ever heard, beat only by Jazz (generally speaking). You can just look at the ammount of elements and partitions present in a track. In a rock band you'd have something like two guitars, a singer, a drummer... 4 or 5 partitions total. In a trance track you could have anywhere from 20 to a hundred.

Anyways - as for the IQ thing, it's complete bullshit. Not only is IQ not really a good measure of anything to begin with, I really doubt anyone would have any credible research data that could correlate something like musical taste to IQ. There's just way too many factors in play; acessibility, exposure, culture, social context, economic context, you name it.

didn't you just read where he stated why busy harmonies don't make it complex? jeez.

BUT NO NO IT DOEZNT, HERE'S FIVE OF MY FAVORIT TARNCE AN PORGRESSSIVE ARTISTS WHOM MAKE MUZAK WITH BUSY HARMONIES HENCE ARE COMPLEX!

quote:

Originally posted by Ishkur yeah yeah yeah, I know. I have some music in triplet timing. But that's just a small sliver of the edm spectrum as to be negligent. And let's be realistic here: fucked up IDM or downtempo music set to bizzare time signatures isn't what the poster was getting at, was he?

Hell if I know, I won't claim to know of the entirety of his original intentions.

And to that other poster who mentioned BT/Chicane: If you're going to make mention of them as putting more effort into music-making in the realm of dance music, then you have to mention Way Out West as well, whose music has crossed several sub-genres of dance music and they've done it (and still do) with a grace and talent at least on a level comparable to the above two.

However, all of the above artists have been guilty of loop-based works and sticking to the 4/4 time signature completely...but I don't think that makes them unintelligent, just more approachable and more listenable.

quote:

Originally posted by vinnie97 And to that other poster who mentioned BT/Chicane: If you're going to make mention of them as putting more effort into music-making in the realm of dance music, then you have to mention Way Out West as well, whose music has crossed several sub-genres of dance music and they've done it (and still do) with a grace and talent at least on a level comparable to the above two.

Yeah WOW too. I deleted my post because I knew it was going to turn into a flame fest/argument as people misinterpret and twist what I say on here all the time (don't like to deal with it). A lot of the artist that have put more emphasis on compositions based around albums, and not based around just singles, are what I was talking about. But the other artists have potential too, those who don't put emphasis on albums, but just release singles. Maybe "complex" isn't exactly the right word, but they are certaintly more sophisticated and in some instances "complex" then some of the other dance music out there...

quote:

If you want complex music, you would try for really odd or bizarre time signatures like 9/13 (Zappa was a master of this), and really avant-garde scales like Archytas' Enharmonic 8-tone scale or the 19-equal scale or Harry Partch's really fucked up 43-tone scale, which sounds practically atonal to the western ear trained to the standard 12-tone scale, and completely out of sync if you try to count the measures in multiples of 4.

If you're trying to suggest that a piece of music like Take 5 is more complex than a tune like Underworld - Spikee, you realy need to check your definition of complex. A song can have a novel time signature, but if the time is the only point of the song, then it's just that: novelty.

As to whether it's more sophisticated or not, I suppose that's really up to the listener anyway, in which case, the OP's point kind of makes sense. A person's taste in music is somewhat related to their personality, or at least what they view as sophisticated and if they care whether they're sohpisticated or not. A person can think themself sophisticated for listening to Wilco, or Sasha, or Richie Hawtin, or 65 Days of Static, for all I care. Are they sophisticated? Maybe, maybe not. Then again, there are people (*cough*Ishkur*cough*) who think they're even more sophisticated because they've realized that music doesn't make you sophisticated, and so tout their tastes in shitty music to show that it really doesn't matter to them. There are also the people that genuinely don't care and listen to whatever the radio plays for them. They may be the most sophisticated of us all; after all, they're not arguing about this bullshit on the internet.

and so they lived...happily ever after

It's funny how these tests never show the numbers. I bet you the points are either above or below 5, that's not really a big gap in intelligence.

I personally think IQ tests don't work. They're culturally biased, and the human brain is complex.

And I also agree on what thoughtless has said.

Orchestral has us owned as far as complexity. Plus they actually have to play shit, on time, in tune. I personally would argue it takes the most intellegence to comprehend/write/play.

I like to think of trance as orchestral for the digital generation, which is both good and bad.

Or maybe I'm on crack. Good thread though.

i agree that classical/orchestral/symphonic is the most complex of all music. it has one important aspect that electronic lacks: the acoustic imaging and staging of a hundred analog instruments which deliver nuance that give $100,000 speakers a reason to exist.

quote:

Originally posted by Aquarian Layers of simple elements make something complex.

No they don't. Key changes and melodic drift create complex melodies. But none of that is found in trance, which generally only uses one key/melody which loops every 8-16 bars, 64 times. In other words: The melodic drift never evolves beyond a simplified, predictable pattern. That's not complexity, that is the musical equivalent of a Dick & Jane primer to english literature. See Dick Run. Run Dick run. Jane sees Dick run.

You want complex harmonies and melodic key changes, go listen to classical music.

quote:

Originally posted by thoughtlessjex A song can have a novel time signature, but if the time is the only point of the song, then it's just that: novelty.

I never said that an avant-garde time signature is the only way to make complex music, but it's a good start.

My beef was only with the OP who insisted that his loop-and-sample-based music was more sophisticated than other people's loop-and-sample-based music. Which is wrong, not to mention stupid.

http://musicmavericks.publicradio.o...intonation.html

There's some samples of Harry Partch.

At the end of the day, the guy didn't ask whether or not trance was complex, he just asked if there was a correlation between IQ and trance.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.