Bob Draper writes, re the "Mozart Effect":

>I would like to know a bit more about this and just how scientifically it
>was done.  Was there a proper control group? Was the test conducted across
>all socio-economic groups? Were checks made for a pleceabo effect caused by
>increased parental expectation among the groups exposed to the music? How
>big was the sample size? Were the results statistically significant?
>
>There is so much pseudo science around nowdays that one remains
>unconvinced.

I agree.  I'd like to know more about this, too.  In particular, I'd like
to know why it was popularised as the "Mozart Effect".  IIRC, the original
research tested three groups, CM, "popular" music and no music.  I don't
know why they used Mozart as their example of CM; they may have had a
reason, or it may simply have been that a Mozart CD was to hand at the
time.  I haven't read of any experiments to assess the relative benefits,
if any, of Byrd, Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Sibelius, ...  Given that there's
reasonable evidence that Mozart's music has a temporary beneficial effect,
I'd have thought this an obvious follow-up study, but what happened instead
is that the press seized on the idea that "Mozart is good for unborn
children".

I could probably find plenty of anecdotal evidence that the "Beethoven
effect" is stronger.

Peter Varley
[log in to unmask]