Talk:Music and the brain

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neurology. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the talk page.
Start	This page has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance assessment scale

I think that a connection to Orpheus should be made in the article if his picture is to be put at the top of it.

Some of this is innaccurate.

Somebody added "<-- most of this is BS." after the 2nd paragraph of "Auditory Cortices". So maybe somebody that knows why should fix it to be more accurate, instead of just complaining about it. (Also, I noticed that paragraph refers to the results of some studies, but doesn't even given an example of any such study, so I'm not sure I trust that the supposed findings of these studies are real.)

[edit] Interesting

Very interesting. Wikipedia must be the second greatest website on the internet, behind the almighty google. Both make me smart. Wikipedia good for brain.

Cheers for that, mate =D --Malgalad 02:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] actively taught students?

"same parts of the brains light up": say what parts.

"actively taught students" "passivly": say what these two teaching methods are.

[edit] Sub-Par

I'd love to fix up this page but it may be better to start from scratch... for instance, I do not believe lyrics are one of the three main components of music. Gray 2001 is not the correct source to cite when speaking of avian fitness. Whales and Birds are probably not some of the most phylogenetically complex groups of animals, (what that has to do with music, I am not sure...). Linguistics and music have interesting similarities, but the section on linguistics neither references nor connects to the rest of the article and should probably be removed or re-written. The auditory processing section is promising and could be expanded on; particularly useful would be a connection to what we know about avian brains. A section on vocal learning is a jarring omission to this article and should be added.

yeah I agree. I thought about trying to fix it up a while back but it's in a pretty sad state that I wasn't sure it was worth trying to fix what was here already. I suspect that the original was a copyvio anyway, given the nature of the inroduction. My main point is that I don't think anyone would object to a total overhaul, so go ahead if you're feeling brave. Also, and if you need any info about auditory processing and grouping that isn't really neuro based let me know, I have refs galore. Sparkleyone 03:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

ok, I've done a bit of editing now and I think the article is better than before. Quite a few things are covered, however, that I don't know enough about to feel comfortable editting, so it'd be nice if someone else would take a go at the latter parts of the article. I may come back to this in time but i'm probably about done for now.--bill 07:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)Williamemersonwood

I don't think this article is very good, but I don't have the time or expertise in this area :( 69.54.27.38 22:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I know a little about this subject, but not enough to really fix concepts/science presented here. I could, however, attack the grammar and style. I'm not sure if that would be worth doing at this stage for this article, though. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.113.221 (talk) 20:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I was only looking at Pitch for some ideas on something and can see quite a few issues. Apart from a general lack of citation, it appears to me that much of it is not verifiable: 'in India there are many notes in between what we call a C and a C sharp' - firstly is this limited to just India itself or the Indian subcontinent? This is an ambiguous statement to say the least. I’d be interested to know is this true and also know more about it.

Reference is made to a researcher Petr Janata but what does he research? Is he qualified to research?

From the little I’ve read the article does need a major overhaul that encompasses various theories. If there are several ‘camps’ then why not put under a heading provided the(ir) work is verifiable. The current state is sad because it could be a very interesting and informative article. --Gingerzilla (talk) 00:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)