Scientific Research about The Benefits of Music
( especially from Making Music by Improvising It )
I'm just beginning to develop this page — that supplements my home-page for Improvising Music by Using a Colorized Keyboard — so {iou} its content & quality will improve during April-May 2024. Due to the abundance of scientific research, plus its variety and complexity, this developing will take awhile, and {disclaimer} the page will remain very incomplete. But I'm confident that what is here will be useful.
From the introduction in homepage, here are two why-reasons for teaching improvisation:
Why? Emotionally, people enjoy the many ways music is wonderful. It's fascinating and fun, can be beautiful & dramatic, familiar & mysterious, relaxing & exciting, inspiring us mentally, emotionally, and physically. Music is one of the best things in life.
Why? Scientifically, we are discovering the many ways music is beneficial. Most people, both young and old, get major benefits (mental, emotional, physical) when they listen to music, and also when they make music. When people make music – especially by creatively improvising it [using a process involving many parts of the brain] – the young can more effectively develop more of their full potential for what they could become; and the old can more effectively maintain more of what they have become, or even add to it.
The page-introduction also explains why my system of keyboard colorizing – with colors showing the three main chords – is useful for improvising harmonious melodies, and it describes some benefits of using this keyboard system.
Here is the homepage-section that is an introductory overview of Scientific Research about The Effects of Music:
Scientific Research (about The Effects of Music)
I've begun searching, and there is a LOT of research. { some of what I've found is summarized in [the page you're now reading] }
Overall when all things are considered, modern science strongly supports many claims (but not all that have been made)* for the benefits that people — especially juniors & seniors (the young & old), plus people with neurological diseases — get from listening to music and making music that has been pre-composed or is being self-composed by improvising. Currently I'm fairly confident in claiming that "most people, both young and old, get major benefits (mental, emotional, physical) when they listen to music, and also when they make music. When people make music – especially by improvising it – the young can more effectively develop more of their full potential for what they can become; and the old can more effectively maintain more of what they have become, or even add to it." But... I want to learn more – so I can tell you more – about the claims that seem to have strong support (or weaker support, or none) based on scientific research.
* There is support for many claims, but not all. This can be confusing. Therefore my goal – in all I write about this aspect of life – will be to accurately describe the research (experiments & observations) and the interpretations, regarding the differing levels of support for different claims. When we're evaluating claims, instead of binary conclusions (either yes or no) it's often useful to think about theory status – our estimates of a theory's plausibility – that can range from very low to very high. { I've described theory status in a short summary and longer summary from my PhD work about Scientific Method(s) that use Reality Checks to evaluate scientific research. } But...
I think it will be wiser — because it will be easier for me, and more effective for you, thus a win-win that's better for all of us — if I delegate this responsibility. I need to find people who know more than I ever will know, who already are much more expert than I can become. Maybe they have written a summary of the kind I want this page to be. Or they know someone who has done this. Ideally their summary would have levels: • an introductory "big picture" overview, written in plain language so it's easy for an intelligent non-expert to understand; • an intermediate level providing more details, with clear explanations that skillfully teach a reader what they need to know in order to understand, and with links to resources (web-pages, videos, podcasts) where they can find more information; • an advanced level, maybe in the same page or (more realistically?) in linked-to pages, written by the same author or (more likely) by a team of authors who can combine their expertise in various areas. / How? In this area – trying to understand the benefits of music – there should be funding grants for science projects (to discover pieces of the puzzle) and also for education projects (to show people “what the puzzle looks like” when its pieces are logically organized into a coherent whole, so they can see the big picture and learn how to understand it).
experimenting and interpreting: The process of doing-and-interpreting scientific research is complex and difficult. One complicating factor (among many) is the difference between showing correlation and (more difficult) showing causation. For example, many studies show that k-12 students who do music activities – especially by playing an instrument – “do better” in a variety of important ways, inside & outside school, in the short term and long term. But when interpreting these studies, we should consider the factor of self-selection and how it affects our conclusions about cause-and-effect. Are the music-playing students doing better because they're playing music (so playing music causes doing better), or do better students choose to play music more often (so the better students are more likely to play music, thus causing the observed correlation)? Each kind of causal relationship is plausible, and certainly both are happening to some extent. Therefore it's important to do well-designed experiments, and logically interpret all experiments, so we can determine “how much of each kind” is happening. I think (but will check to be sure) the experimental results are that “both do occur,” but playing music does help young students – on average, with "all other things being equal" – develop their abilities more fully, helping them achieve better outcomes in school, and generally have a better life. / And many other important factors contribute to the complexity of scientific research; this makes it more difficult to skillfully do the research, and then interpret its meaning & significance.
running with music: One example from personal experience, also confirmed by scientists, is how Synchronous Running with Tempo Music produces physical-emotional-mental-motivational benefits, with improved physical performance, emotional enjoyment, mental attitudes, motivated perseverance.
iou – Later, I'll develop-and-improve this page. Eventually most of it will be general scientific research about music. But currently much of it is specialized, like my "speculation" in the section below (about general "brain activities...") plus two disadvantages (one certain, another possible) in traditional two-hand playing of a keyboard.
brain activities while playing music
Using modern high-tech brain scans, scientists have observed that playing music stimulates neural activity in many parts of the brain — in both hemispheres, in the visual & auditory & motor cortices,* and in areas for cognition, memory, and emotions — that we use for seeing & hearing & doing, and (both consciously & subconsciously) for thinking, remembering, and feeling. There is evidence that playing music produces beneficial multimodal interactions between multiple areas; and it promotes many kinds of neuroplasticity at all ages, but especially for the young.
a speculation about multimodal interactions: Maybe... improvising music while using my colorized keyboard is especially productive for stimulating some kinds of multimodal interactions because this way to improvise is extremely visual. It requires searching (visually) for notes to play and deciding which notes to play {subconsciously & consciously, with cognition based on previous memories - cognitive, emotional, motor - plus current visual and auditory information, regulated by the musical taste of the keyboard player, guided by artistic goals} and playing notes (motor), then using immediate feedback (auditory) for adjusting while continuing to see-decide-play.
it's a speculative “maybe” theory: Except for the first step (visually searching for notes to play) the overall process (of deciding-playing-adjusting) is similar when playing any instrument, probably with similar benefits. Does this unique step (of visually searching) make playing a colorized keyboard "especially productive for stimulating some kinds of multimodal interactions" because it's "extremely visual," and would this be especially beneficial in some ways? Maybe. There are reasons to think “yes”, but I don't know. And we don't know, AFAIK now, with "we" including those who are experts, knowing a lot more than I do. Therefore I want to learn more about this, from those who know more.
what I'm discovering: My early web-searching hasn't led to research with observations of significant “visual activity” when improvising self-composed melodies. (or when “playing by ear” to reproduce pre-composed music) I have seen some references to visual activities, although I don't yet know the important details. I haven't yet asked experts about this, and my searching (online & in journals) has been very incomplete, so if relevant observations do exist, probably I wouldn't know this. Of course, vision IS actively involved when a musician reads sheet music to reproduce pre-composed music, but this isn't relevant because it isn't improvising, it isn't "searching {visually} for notes to play and deciding which notes to play." My teaching method seems (afaik) to have not been used before, or at least it isn't commonly used. Therefore I'm sure there have been no studies of the "extremely visual" improvising with a colorized keyboard,* so specific evidence about my speculation is absent, but that doesn't mean it's negative; the absence is just “no evidence” rather than “evidence for no.” {* My system of colorizing adds red-blue-green to show how the main chords form musically logical patterns, adding important information to the useful visual & cognitive meanings we get from a traditional black-and-white keyboard. }
cortices (visual, auditory, motor): In a TED Video – How Playing An Instrument Benefits Your Brain (2014) – Anita Collins (with a PhD in Neuroscience & Music Education and lifelong love for music) explains that "While listening to music engages the brain in some pretty interesting activities, playing music is the brain’s equivalent of a full-body workout. The neuroscientists saw multiple areas of the brain light up simultaneously processing different information in intricate, interrelated, and astonishingly fast sequences. Playing a musical instrument engages practically every area of the brain at once, especially the visual, auditory, and motor cortices. As with any other workout, disciplined structured practice in playing music strengthens those brain functions allowing us to apply that strength to other activities.” The video is accompanied by a page with Additional Resources to Explore (I think they're all fairly old, from a decade ago in 2014) but I haven't yet checked these.
Also, my section about Cognitive-and-Functional Knowledge used to include...
an appropriately humble disclaimer: I don't claim that my descriptions of interactions are totally accurate – re: neurophysiology, etc – so if someone who knows more suggests any changes I'll be happy to listen, learn, and change.
Therefore, if you do "know more" please tell me about any changes I should make, to be more accurate. { and should I put the disclaimer back into that section? }
funneling and fanning: While writing a "Strategies for Problem Solving" booklet in 1978, I developed a metaphor of funneling (when multiple ideas are involved in a central idea, contributing to it in various ways) and fanning (when the central idea produces multiple results). This might be a useful way to think about the health benefits of music. How? In a few of many possibilities, we can consider the different ways to experience music (with listening that's passive or active, by singing or playing an instrument, playing melodies from sheet music or memory or by ear, and improvising melodies, making music alone or with others) leading to a variety of neurological effects ("stimulating neural activity in the visual, auditory, and motor cortices" and in other areas of the brain) leading to many important benefits as in the "cognitive, perceptual, and psychosocial advantages" described by Johnson & Limb, et al, and to other advantages. So far this metaphor of funnel-and-fan hasn't been highly developed, and hasn't been applied for research about how music affects us; but maybe this can inspire some useful thinking about “how all of it (in causes & effects,...) fits together” with many kinds of interconnections.
One relevant study – Impact of Music Improvisation Training on Brain Function and Cognition among Older Adults – was done (2021-2023) by Julene Johnson & Charles Limb,* et al. Why? The proposal says (with my italics), "... Music interventions are a promising strategy to address late-life cognitive inactivity. Music training can change brain structure and function in non-musician adults, thereby leading to cognitive, perceptual, and psychosocial advantages. These changes in cognitive function are thought to occur because the multimodal, complex nature of music facilitates training-induced neural plasticity. However, the mechanisms are not yet understood, and most studies used traditional or rote keyboard training techniques. Music training based on improvisation principles – the spontaneous generation of musical melodies and rhythms – will likely have more potent effects on cognition and brain function. Improvisation facilitates cognitive flexibility, self-monitoring, novel idea generation, execution of unplanned motor sequences and entrance into a state of flow. Biologically, improvisation is associated with distinct neural patterns involving activation of prefrontal networks and other brain networks that are affected by aging. As a mechanism of behavior change, it is likely that improvisation training will uniquely improve self-regulation (the ability to monitor and control one’s own behavior, emotions, or thoughts and modify to situational demands). Yet, no research has tested whether improvisation training can improve self-regulation and facilitate maintenance of cognitively challenging activities among older adults with and without MCI [mild cognitive impairment]." {details of project} / * Julene Johnson & Charles Limb are co-directors of Sound Health. Each has roughly 100 publications, with research mainly about health benefits of music for older people (Johnson) and (Limb) ear physiology & medical treatments, but also creativity in musical improvisation as he explains in Ted Talks, lectures, and events [links will be available soon]. Both are at UC San Francisco; Julene Johnson is Professor of Cognitive Neuroscience in UCSF Institute for Health & Aging; Charles Limb is Professor of Otolaryngology (and Neurosurgery), does surgeries, is director of several medical divisions in UCSF.
Can people improvise more skillfully with one-hand playing?
This question is asked in my home-page for Improvising Music by Using a Colorized Keyboard where it's partially answered, with some basic ideas plus iou's for "more" with a link to this section. Below are two related parts of the homepage, an introduction that is followed by an examination ("Focusing on Creative Melody-Improvising") with more depth.
considering benefits-and-costs
The complexity of two-hand playing offers benefits, but it requires costs, and (as discussed below) both should be considered. Two costs are the time required to develop two-hand skills (this is definite, certain) and (this is speculative, is uncertain but possible) its limitations for creatively skillful improvising.
Due to the extreme difficulty of two-hand playing, here is an observation and a question:
• an uncontroversial observation: I think musicians & educators generally agree (with logical justification) that if a person wants to achieve similar levels of skill with M (playing Melodies with one hand) or CM (playing Chords & Melodies, using two hands), they will have to invest much more time to become skillful with the two-hand playing of CM. Players (and educators) should consider the time-and-life benefits produced by colorizing and also by M-goals.
• a controversial question: I think there will be disagreements (with logical justifications) about a possibility that should be considered, when we recognize that humans have limited capacities for processing information and doing actions. Maybe the extreme difficulties of CM (with two-handed playing) push a player's capacities to near the limits, so they have less “unused capacity” that can be used to do creative improvising of Melodies. Therefore, can a musician improvise more creatively when they focus on playing Melodies (M) instead of two-hand playing (CM)? Maybe. / While we're thinking about this important question, answering “yes” might be justifiable for two reasons: • our "limited capacities for... doing actions" that may hinder creative improvising during CM, and • the practicing time that is required for “automating into the subconscious” many two-hand tasks (as explained in a brief video) so their “automating of non-improvising tasks” lets a player be more effective – but probably less effective than with 1-hand playing? – in coping with the challenges of "limited capacities" during CM. {discussing challenges of improvising with two-hand playing} {this observation & question are copied from the main page}
Focusing on Creative Melody-Improvising
Regarding two goals for playing — M (only Melodies) and M (Chords + Melodies) — and the complexity of traditional two-hand playing, here is an idea to consider: Humans have limited capacities – for processing information and doing actions – so maybe a musician can more skillfully use a keyboard for innovative melody-making when their total focus is only playing melodies (with right hand) instead of also playing chords (with left hand) in two-hand playing. Or maybe not. I don't know.
a general principle: Scientists have discovered that everyday multi-tasking (with most combinations of tasks) causes each task to be done less effectively. So does this also occur when a pianist combines left-hand playing and right-hand playing?
humility and speculations: I don't know whether this possibility is valid, but I want to know. iou – I didn't begin thinking about this until recently in October, and in the near future I'll be searching for what others have learned, and discussing in forums. / Here are some tentative speculations: Maybe two-hand playing is like multitasking, with each task (if one task is creatively innovative melody-improvising) being done less well? Or maybe there is a creatively productive “synergy” involving cooperation between the left & right brain-hemispheres when both hands are actively involved in the same musically related task? I don't know which "maybe" is more accurate, so I need to (and want to) learn more.
The following ideas might be relevant for these questions.
singing without words: This possibility (of improving melody-making by focusing on it) could be related to my self-observation that when I sing without words it's easier to intuitively improvise in creative ways; a section where I try to understand why describes possible reasons, including "because my brain doesn't have to ‘multitask’ by doing both nonverbal and verbal, I can use more of my mental resources to focus more completely on making nonverbal music."
slow experimenting: My paragraph about inventing beautiful melodies says "you may find (as I have) that slow experimenting often is productive. Playing slowly can help you break out of familiar habit-ruts, because you have more time to intentionally try unfamiliar sequences-of-notes, so you're using the notes in new ways, and this makes it more likely that you'll discover new ways to make music."
keyboarding and composing: Many skillful composers were pianists. A long list includes Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Chopin, and Debussy, plus my two favorites from the 20th Century, George Gershwin and Duke Ellington. Although correlation isn't causation, cause-effect relationships seems likely. What might they be? Maybe one causal factor is that a pianist can (by themselves) play the chord-harmonies that inspire their harmonious melodies? If yes, maybe – as in my own experience – a colorized keyboard (because it shows chord notes and non-chord notes) also might inspire a creative inventing of harmonious melodies that mix chord notes with non-chord notes? / I wonder how often piano-playing composers stopped playing left-hand chords (so they could focus on right-hand melodies) while they were inventing some of their best melodies. Or maybe the melodies simply “flowed out” during their playing of chords-and-melodies with left & right hands, stimulated by musically creative cooperations between their left and right hemispheres. I wonder, but don't know.
iou – Later, what's in this section will be more (and better), as explained above. This part of the page will continue with "much more" about these ideas, maybe including (after lots of revising) some of these ideas:
with two-handed playing may over-stress these limitations. so maybe a musician can more skillfully use a keyboard for innovative melody-making when their total focus is only playing melodies (with right hand) instead of also playing chords (with left hand) in two-hand playing. Or maybe not. I don't know.
---- [[ two reasons, due to 1) being able to reach a high level of skill with equal amounts of practice time with M, 2) due to the high CNS-demands required by CM's multitasking, Melody-making might be easier with M, or with "temporary M" when a CM-player chooses to focus on doing only-M or mainly-M so they can be more effective in making Melodies. ]] for example, video explaining why "pianists don't multitask" because most of what they're doing is "automated" by moving into their subconscious, but... the process-of-automating requires a huge amount of practicing time with CM, but with M this practicing time could be devoted to developing skills with playing Melodies; and if colorizing allows specializing in two keys, the time-efficiency is
making Melodies can be any of the options described in "many ways to make music" -- playing pre-composed Melodies with sheet music or by ear, or improvising Melodies that are variations of pre-composed Melodies and/or are harmonious melodies that "fit well" the chord being played.
iou – I recently began writing this paragraph, so it needs a lot of developing & revising: Playing with a high level of two-hand skill is challenging, in two ways: (2) it requires a lot of "CNS-resources for processing" to do everything that's happening; and (1) developing the skill requires a huge investment of practicing time to develop; therefore we can ask two controversial questions: Can a person play melodies (pre-composed) better and play self-composed more creatively... 1) if they specialize in one-hand playing of melodies (M not CM) so they can devote more of their limited practice time to improvising melodies? 2) if while playing, M is their total focus instead of multitasking with the complex two-hand playing of CM?
goals of a music program (e.g. for a keyboard lab) for k-12 or seniors (in center or facility)
in a limited time, whole-life goals, goals-for-life, many aspects of life (Ben Franklin) if limited amount of playing time, focus on M?
instantaneous multitasking, with left-hand chords plus right-hand melody (motor skills