Are there any cons to listening to music?

[Anonymous No.15056509]

Is there any scientific evidence that music can be bad for you? If there aren't any cons, why don't the world elites listen to music? (eg Trump, Elon, Gates, any billionaire/politician)

[Aether king of sci No.15056512]

Music if listened to once has the greatest effect.

[Anonymous No.15056517]

>>15056509
>why don't the world elites listen to music?
They do, though. High art is and always has been the domain of the rich.
The entire genre of classical music exists because the wealthy and powerful would spend extravagant amounts of money on music, on top of learning to play themselves.

Of course, wealthy people don't listen to the same music that poor people listen to (e.g. rap, pop), but that doesn't mean they don't listen to music.

[Anonymous No.15056545]

>>15056517
That begs the question. Why is it that rich and intelligent people listen to classical, while the plebs and retards listen to things like (c)rap?

[Anonymous No.15056553]

>>15056545
Hm, well this is just an assumption, but classical music does seem to have a lot more dignity/reverence for the 'human spirit' than rap. Rap is pretty vulgar in how it expresses things, mostly material gain/sex.

[Anonymous No.15056568]

>>15056545
Higher buy-in (monetarily and mentally).
Literally anybody can rap. You just need a beat to start rhyming with. Meanwhile, classical requires expensive, specialized instruments with trained musicians in a full orchestra. The required time and money to produce the music is much higher, which filters out poorfags.
Also, classical symphonies are often designed to take their full time, so they have long build-ups and wind-downs and can get lots of depth in a way 3-5 minute songs can't. That makes it harder to get into, though.

Basically, classical music is what you get when 16th-20th century European elites had tons of time and money to spend and created a genre just for themselves.

[Anonymous No.15056570]

>>15056517
Even if this is true, this is completely different to how most people listen to music (aka nearly everyday for hours). The wealthy may listen to music occasionally but they aren't listening to some classical music while doing work for example. Why is that?

[Anonymous No.15056575]

>>15056570
>The wealthy may listen to music occasionally but they aren't listening to some classical music while doing work for example.
How do we know this?

[Anonymous No.15056578]

>>15056509
I don't like music with lyrics because it puts other peoples' thoughts into your brain. Music evokes emotion in people; it's a hack, or rather a weakness, an exploit. When you have words with the music, the words are the attack, the payload delivered through the exploit. It's how they programmed black people to be criminals starting in the 90's, so they could collect tax dollars by putting them in prison. The same organizations were on the boards of the music labels and the prisons.

As far as scientific evidence, good luck, but I think you're going to be stuck with common sense.

[Anonymous No.15056655]

>>15056517
>spend extravagant amounts of money on music, on top of learning to play themselves.
You have never been at a networking event, have you? Aristocrats were often bored/fell asleep during concerts. They just came for opportunistic reasons.
Are there any smart and powerful people who openly listen to goyslop music (e.g. rap and pop)?

[Anonymous No.15056656]

>>15056578
Dunno about you, but epic orchestral music actually does inspire me to get shit done and fight uphill battles.
So not all types of music would be created equally

[Anonymous No.15056761]

>>15056509
Hearing loss and tinnitus

[Anonymous No.15056800]

>>15056578
>Music evokes emotion in people; it's a hack, or rather a weakness, an exploit.
>feeling emotions!? that’s an exploit! humans aren’t supposed to feel emotions!
more evidence for my theory that autism is a maladaptive response in humans to being (wrongly) treated like machines in the post-industrial world— humans bred to covet the life of a machine. sadge.

[Anonymous No.15056810]

>>15056800
He is right, however. Words, in general, directly influence your thinking. I'm in your head now, idiot, try to get me out. They can be as positive as they are negative. It's why upbeat, motivational music is used for working out, rock, metal; whereas, sad, lovesick music will invoke sadness.
Which one do you think is better to expose yourself to longer over time? Not that taking out your emotions through music is a bad thing.

[Anonymous No.15056838]

>>15056509
is music was given to man by fallen angels who followed Lucifer in rebellion then how can it be good for us?

[Anonymous No.15056845]

>>15056578
>the words are the attack, the payload delivered through the exploit. It's how they programmed black people to be criminals starting in the 90's, so they could collect tax dollars by putting them in prison.
I'm not even sure which retarded part of this is funnier: the idea that blacks weren't criminals before the 1990s, or the idea that having them around makes anyone money.

[Anonymous No.15057119]

>>15056838
Because god is gay and so are you

[Anonymous No.15057401]

>>15056845
In the 70's yeah, but they were collectively pulling out of it in the 80's; for example getting good movie roles where they were just characters, like say Predator, not blaxploitation caricatures like 70's movies had or the wakanda bullshit like today where they use an actor's blackness like a weapon. It's not like there was some gestalt decision to bring them back down, someone just smelled money. There was even another black societal recovery in between, or at least a plateau, but then Occupy Wall Street happened and it was decided by our corporate rulers that it was necessary to play Americans against each other so we can't team up against them. And here we are.

Black and white birthed America, and no one else. The cotton and crops they harvested clothed and fed the soldiers that successfully fought the British. America was 1/8 black when it was born and it's 1/8 black today, they should 1/8 of the credit. You should think of us as divorced parents, who only hurt their child when they fight.

[Anonymous No.15057487]

>>15056509
>Musk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-4yOx1CnXE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBWmijC09Y4

[Anonymous No.15057863]

Im a musician and now for roughly ~3 years a concsious person regards any sounds.

At some point you aren't listening anymore ... it's just a habit. Professional or normie.

Also while the world got quite 'loud', it turned also into a constant phenomenon.

Change nothing in your life, except eliminating loud noises and music as much as possible and I guarantee you, you may feel less stressed after just 1 week and pretty surely after 2 weeks.

If the overall and obvious sense overload is not evident for you, sry can't cite a study here, but I'm sure any search engine will help you to solidify that.

[Anonymous No.15058920]

>>15056509
>Is there any scientific evidence that music can be bad for you?
no real evidence because it's all in your mind, but yes it's terrible.

[Anonymous No.15058945]

>>15056509
>>15056553
The main difference between classical and pop/rap and even rock, is that classical is 99% instrumental music while almost every other (new and old) genre is vocals.
In other words listening to instrumental music is beneficial, one just has to find the right instrumental genre that fits their character (classical, modern classical, various rock, metal and electronic etc instrumentals), while anything with lyrics literally makes people retarded

[Anonymous No.15058946]

>>15056509
>>15056545
>>15056570
U have no evidence for this
>>15056575
We don't all we know is OP is a faggot

[Anonymous No.15058949]

>>15058945
80's rock is pure soul but sure keeping listening to ur boring-ass instrumentals in the hope it will increase ur iq by 0.01 points hahaha

[Anonymous No.15058976]

>>15058949
Its not bad but instrumental music is better than music with lyrics

[Anonymous No.15058980]

>>15058949
I don't think rock is for normal people, metal rock and such is for faggots pidoras and trannies like you.

Kill yourself

[Anonymous No.15059874]

>>15056509
idk once in a while i lay on my bed and listen to prog rock music and don't move a muscle
it's a powernap on crack to me

[Anonymous No.15060298]

>>15057401
Ok boomer

[Anonymous No.15060366]

>>15056509
Japs studied it, music reduces concentration. Nothing wrong with it but at the end of the day it's just excess information, if you want to operate at absolute peak then you should get into the habit of working in silence. ktvmzg

[Anonymous No.15060734]

>>15058945
>In other words listening to instrumental music is beneficial, one just has to find the right instrumental genre that fits their character (classical, modern classical, various rock, metal and electronic etc instrumentals), while anything with lyrics literally makes people retarded
I would say this whole "instrumental good, vocal bad" thing is nonsense, and I say it as someone who listens pretty much exclusively to classical music (mostly instrumental, though nowhere near 99%). There are tons of dumb, uninspired instrumental music (think generic techno) and huge amounts of great music that include vocals (I'm almost embarassed to mention it, but take Beethoven's 9th as an extremely well-known example).
Forgive my autism, but in my opinion, what makes most modern, popular music inferior is that, among other things, pretty much every single piece is a song with the same structure (e.g. intro, verse, chorus, verse, chorus, bridge, verse, chorus, verse, chorus, chorus). The framework is predictable and boring, the individual elements rarely combine towards a greater whole - listening to a popular song is less like watching someone transform a blank canvas into a complex painting and more like watching someone build a simple house out of lego bricks - the approximate result is known to the listener long before they even begin listening. Furthermore, the individual building blocks often hold no musical interest either - the chord progressions are repetitive and there rarely is any harmonic/rhytmic/textural complexity going on. Needless to say, both vocal and instrumental music can display all of these characteristics, and they can also display none of them.
In other words, being instrumental is a superficial quality that does not inherently make any particular piece of music superior. Listening purely to instrumental music doesn't guarantee that you are listening to worthwhile music.

[Anonymous No.15060747]

>>15056509
>If there aren't any cons, why don't the world elites listen to music? (eg Trump, Elon, Gates, any billionaire/politician)
The con is that it takes time. If you are a worcoholic fully preoccupied with their career, you obviously don't want to spend time doing something this unproductive.

[Anonymous No.15060769]

>>15056509
I am pretty sure if you listen to rap mostly you dumb down. Either that or it shows that you are already dumb

[Anonymous No.15060771]

>>15060734
patrician detected, jam this one in your ear
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQ1N5XVuHxI&t=66s

[Anonymous No.15060798]

i exclusively listen to classical music and death metal

[Anonymous No.15060850]

>>15060771
Hey, that's pretty cool, I don't normally listen to this kind of music, but I like to broaden my horizons, so I'm bookmarking it for later. It's interesting to see what people can do within such a limited framework, and needless to say, it doesn't seem to suffer from what I mentioned earlier.

Since I was originally defending vocal works, here's a random choral symphony. It's not the most intellectual thing ever written and the last movement can drag on a bit, but I guess it goes well with my point and overall it's a pretty exciting and extroverted piece right from the beginning.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BT0BlZK7lgA

[Anonymous No.15060852]

>>15060734
The point is listening to vocals is not beneficial in any way in neurological sense, it only may be a great song and one might enjoy listening to it, that is it, while an instrumental music is beneficial in more ways than just sounding great/pleasant.

[Anonymous No.15060863]

>>15056509
It's clear people in this thread haven't been around members of the actual elite. Whether it's finance douchbags listening to trap music to hype themselves up or normal wealthy people taking a break from their relentlessly busy lives to transcend to something like this, music is something almost everyone in the 21st century listens to. Not listening to music is uncommon. I'd argue one of the only good things about living in this day and age is the wide availability of music, people just don't know what to look for because they're impatient bugmen. Listen to this, in full:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9ubPc0u0To

[Anonymous No.15060868]

>>15060852
I don't know, I guess it depends on how you define "beneficial in a neurological sense". I see voice as just another instrument and the fact that it can carry extra information through lyrics doesn't really seem that significant, neither musically speaking nor in in terms of a supposed neurological beneficiality. I'd agree that music whose only point is to deliver text rarely is good music, but removing the voice would make it even worse in this case, so again, good music has to be decided by other qualities than presence/absence of vocals.

[Anonymous No.15060914]

>>15060868
The sound of most instruments is unique and normally not something that occurs naturally in nature (I guess a flute may sound like a songbird but few mainstream instruments are like that) however by adding vocals most and I mean MOST people will concentrate on vocals and lyrics and focus wise will mostly ignore the music. Thats the beauty of pure instrumental music, by listening to it there is no lyrics to take up most of the focus. By listening to instrumental music the listener will probably hear music for the first time, the attention will be on those unique sounds that simply do not appear in nature and more imporantly useless noise (vocals) that we are surrounded by almost constantly.
Myself as someone who has not been musically inclined ever, after listening to purely instrumental music I started differenciating and separating between different (and even same) instruments without even any mental effort, it just became so much clearer. At one point I could even make up simple tunes in my mind (which was not a memory of existing tune). These sort of mental skills are specific towards music however anything that can train and enable the brain to fucntion in some new way is beneficial neurologically. Adding vocals pretty much negates all of this, vocals will attract all our attention and are like noise that will hide the depth of individual instruments.

[Anonymous No.15060976]

>>15056578
I half agree half disagree. While I agree with it putting others people's words in your head and evoking emotions, I don't think it necessarily puts their ideas in your head more than a conversation does.
As long as you can separate whomever is singing from yourself, it's just like watching a movie or reading a book. It's when you start to project yourself into the music that it becomes more dangerous, were what was in your head before the song and what you've heard and not questioned to keep the flow mix up. Well, of course music is a bit more persuasive because it can evoke emotions with the words.
But yeah, even a conversation can influence someone, so it's still a problem. Like >>15056845 said, blacks had problems before rap music, but Rap still helps normalize those actions, helps people bond over that shared culture, etc. It's like a catalyst.

>>15060734
I agree, most music I dislike have that problem. They're predictable in all forms. I like some familiarity now and then, but those songs abuse it so much it's annoying. Still, good lyrics can elevate a song as long as you're interested in the message, since they can evoke ideas that are novel and entertaining.

>>15060868
I also agree, the voice is just another instrument in a good song. Many songs would feel empty without it.

>>15060852
Are we sure the correlation is not the other way around? Smarter people are more prone to enjoy classical? By sure I mean, have we observed the phenomena of listening to instrumental leading to an increase in intelligence in many instances and studies?

[Anonymous No.15060996]

>>15056509
If music and language are the same thing distinguished by space/break/dividers, is there any scientific evidence constant chatter/speech can be bad for you?

[Anonymous No.15061017]

>>15060914
Well, I guess I can kind of see your point now. I understand how someone could perceive voice as an element that takes all of their focus and places it on lyrics instead of the actual music. I can also see how someone could only gain appreciation towards music once this element was removed. Still, I'd argue that it's not necessarily a fault of the music itself, and furthermore I'd argue against the notion that any kind of instrumental music can give you that appreciation (a good portion of instrumental music out there will only give you a massive headache). That being said, this point came a long way from "instrumental music is beneficial . . . while anything with lyrics literally makes people retarded" which I originally argued against.
Also, now that you appreciate music the way you are supposed to, I would encourage you to not reject everything only because it has vocals in it because you had already overcome the negative effects. In the end, it's your call, but I can at least promise it will not make you retarded on its own or make you forget what instrumental music made you realize in the first place. I still prefer instrumental music myself, but personally, I think I would be missing out if I completely rejected vocals of any kind.

[Anonymous No.15061025]

>>15060976
listening to music is exactly opposite of having conversation, you conciously participate in the conversation, but music is just words being said out loud, most often you don't question them (in your mind) and if the beat is good and catchy they might even get stuck in your mind for a long time, there is also a strong subconcious element to listening to vocals.
I personally don't care too much about the deep meaning behind lyrics that most artists supposedly have, but I know others concentrate a lot on lyrics, like the lyrics and the meaning is the most importart part of the song for them, if the song as a whole is catchy or good the person likely will not discuss the good/bad lyrics with anyone else, they will just accept it because its "just a song"

>Are we sure the correlation is not the other way around? Smarter people are more prone to enjoy classical? By sure I mean, have we observed the phenomena of listening to instrumental leading to an increase in intelligence in many instances and studies?
No, have no studies or data, talking only from personal experience, also when I say instrumental music, it a general term and I am including classical music (which instrumental with no vocals)

[Anonymous No.15061033]

>>15061017
As I said before one has to find instrumental music that they like and which will not give then a headache, it is subjective, some people will like classical, others may like modern piano performances, others still instrumental rock or metal, there are many different genres, and again I said there are many great songs (with vocals) one can listen for entertainment and enjoyment (which I also do) but anything with vocals will not really bring in any mental benefits (other than enjoyment and relaxation)

[Anonymous No.15061035]

>>15061025
>listening to music is exactly opposite of having conversation...
I guess this is sort of true, but it does depend on the person. I tend to analyze what I'm listening to, but you could easily just let it in. Still, if you debate the ideas in your head, it should be more similar to a conversation, even if there's no feedback.

>but I know others concentrate a lot on lyrics
To be fair, those are the ones least likely to be influenced subconsciously, because they're actually contemplating the content their hear. Those who listen but don't think should be the ones at risk.

>No, have no studies or data, talking only from personal experience
My problem with this is that while personal experience is great for deciding what to do yourself, it might be less precise when giving advice or judging effects on a population. It's useful to have something like a "mean response" and "common deviations" when we want to understand how this kinds of stuff act on big scales. I mean, I do agree with some of the things you said though, like how classical makes you pay attention to the instruments and you learn to separate them because I experienced it too, but at the same time I know most of my experiences are far from the norm.

>when I say instrumental music...
Yeah don't worry me too

[Anonymous No.15061039]

>>15056545
About 90% of people lack the ability to perceive melody. They just don't have the cognitive faculties to comprehend what it is and receive sensation from it. It's the same reason why they're plebs. Low intelligence. Most of the time they like just the lyrics and the sheer lack of musicality inherent to modern day tunes is proof of it. That's why they'll post Facebook wall notes of lyrics. Search the song and you'll find in to be shit but to subhuman (130 and under) proles, they think it's amazing because it's meaningful to them. Even simple Beatles songs are melodic. Modern music lacks it severely and it's been on a downward trajectory for some time.

[Anonymous No.15061050]

>>15061035
>To be fair, those are the ones least likely to be influenced subconsciously, because they're actually contemplating the content their hear. Those who listen but don't think should be the ones at risk
that would be me, thing is most songs/lyrics do not directly say what they actually mean, what is the meaning behind the song (if there is one), I let it all in and its like a background noise, I don't really hear or connect sentences together, or analyse the meaning, what I don't understand doesn't really affect me conciously or sunconciously(or another listener like me), it would be similar to listening to song in foreign language that I don't understand/speak or speak a little.

>My problem with this is that while personal experience is great for deciding what to do yourself, it might be less precise when giving advice or judging effects on a population.
I am pretty average person in most aspects so what applies to me, mostly applies to other people too.

[Anonymous No.15061071]

>>15061033
>As I said before one has to find instrumental music that they like and which will not give then a headache, it is subjective . . .
Sure, I agree with that.
>. . . anything with vocals will not really bring in any mental benefits (other than enjoyment and relaxation)
Yeah, and I still think this is nonsense as a general statement. It only makes sense to me if you simultaneously happen to be not very musically inclined and not yet past the point of realizing that music is more than just vocals; and if the supposed mental benefits specifically pertain to "realizing there is more to music than vocals". Are you trying to pass if off as a general statement, or are you specifically talking about a similar scenario? Maybe I'm just confused by what you are trying to argue.

Anyway, case in point, Shotakovich's 13th Symphony. The piece can be pretty challenging to listen to, and there's a lot of musical appreciation to be gained from it if it happens to be your thing. Despite that, the lyrics are an integral part of the piece and they do improve the experience once you know the meaning behind them. The part from 10:21 onwards is pretty metal, just by the way.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4_FhDp0UGc

[Anonymous No.15061086]

>>15056810
>Words, in general, directly influence your thinking
Anything can do this, even a fist.

[Anonymous No.15061095]

>>15061086
Right, and beating someone up while filling their head with insults is bound to effect their psyche in some abstract way beyond just speaking as well.

[Anonymous No.15061111]

>>15061071
the mental benefit I am talking about is brains ability to better process, understand, categorise etc, music and sounds, I would say it increases or stimulates neuroplasticity, and that could be related just to music/sound processing in the brain but most likely brain as a whole benefits from it. Listening to songs with lyrics does not have this effect (or maybe it does but to a much lesser degree).

>Anyway, case in point, Shotakovich's 13th Symphony. The piece can be pretty challenging to listen to, and there's a lot of musical appreciation to be gained from it if it happens to be your thing. Despite that, the lyrics are an integral part of the piece and they do improve the experience once you know the meaning behind them. The part from 10:21 onwards is pretty metal, just by the way.
what do you mean when you say lyrics improve the experience?
lyrics completely change the piece, if its just music then its beat, rhythm, melody, instruments, there is no meaning, adding lyrics to a classical piece is just unnecessary, it will change what a piece is (from pure music to lyrics with meaning) ofcourse a modern pop songs probably have real crappy music so lyrics and meaning probably do improve them.
The piece in yt vid is not something I would listen to. Its a product of its time (and that has implications) and again its subjective but I find hard to believe many people would listen to it for enjoyment, I guess for musicians and compositors it has value in technique and stuff like that.

[Anonymous No.15061119]

>>15061095
Anything can affect our thinking in a violent way. One half of the way of the world is violence. And that is fine, but to say music is unique here is ignorant.

[Anonymous No.15061155]

>>15060914
This is also why I enjoy listening to music in a different language, the voices become instrumental and are not tied up in “concepts” as something in my own language is.

[Anonymous No.15061170]

>>15061111
>what do you mean when you say lyrics improve the experience?
>lyrics completely change the piece, if its just music then its beat, rhythm, melody, instruments, there is no meaning, adding lyrics to a classical piece is just unnecessary, it will change what a piece is (from pure music to lyrics with meaning)
Well, classical music can be divided into two broad categories - absolute music, which doesn't have any non-musical meaning behind it, and programatic music which does (without necessarily needing lyrics to achieve that). The first one is much less prevalent than you'd think, and many classical pieces across all historical periods attempt to tell a story. People have been arguing about which category is superior for ages to no avail. What I'm trying to say is that the notion of music, even purely instrumental music, being more than just the sum of musical elements is nothing outlandish.

Now, what I like about programatic music is simply that there is more than just one layer to it and you can judge it both for how good it is musically, and how well it utilizes its musical elements to paint a scene. For example, you can appreciate how well a snare drum roll fits into a certain passage and given the context, you can realize that it is probably imitating gunfire.
I'd liken it to understanding and appreciating symbolism in movies - it has the potential to make the experience a little more intellectually stimulating and even emotionally rewarding.
In my example, the context is a bit too complex to learn just from the music, so the lyrics are there to tell you what's going on, unlocking this extra level of depth.

>The piece in yt vid is not something I would listen to. Its a product of its time (and that has implications) and again its subjective but I find hard to believe many people would listen to it for enjoyment
I guess it's like a historical movie. It's not for everyone, but plenty of people find some sort of enjoyment in it.

[Anonymous No.15061173]

>>15061155
It still splits attention and most of your attention will still be on vocals (because no multitasking).
If you listen to foreign songs you can't understand then you shouldn't have any difficulties listening to purely instrumental music.

[Anonymous No.15061178]

>>15061111
>the mental benefit I am talking about is brains ability to better process, understand, categorise etc, music and sounds, I would say it increases or stimulates neuroplasticity . . .
I still don't see how this is only exclusive to instrumental music unless the listener is in a very specific mental state, but don't really feel like continuing to argue about it today, it's pretty late where I live and I should probably go to bed. I like to discuss music from all sorts of perspectives though, so I really appreciate us having this conversation, even though we might not see eye to eye on certain points. See you around, anon.

[Anonymous No.15061182]

>>15061173
I do but I like the sound of human singing

[Anonymous No.15061200]

>>15061170
I see... I understand and can appreciate your perspective now.

>>15061178
My main argument is that vocals and listening someone talking same couple of lines repeatedly (not having a conversation) does not really stimulate brain in in neurological way that is beneficial. When listening to a song there are music and the vocals. Attention is split and focused on vocals, this is natural and almost everyone does it, most people will subconciously focus on speech. When the attention is on speech then it is not on music.
If the focus is on vocals then the part of brain that process music is not really fully engaged and activated.

>>15061182
Can you not like both?