benjobuks's review against another edition
3.0
Pretty good book. A panoply of interesting stories about neuropsychological abnormalities which trigger the brain to have wildly strange or exaggerated responses to music. Definitely light on the neuro side of things and more in-depth about what Sacks has observed. I was hoping for some more neuro (or even psych) but it was still interesting to read how deeply music is programmed into our brains.
Disclaimer: Music only really means classical music in this story. It appears Sacks largely only spoke to old white people and thus only recorded relationships to classical music.
Disclaimer: Music only really means classical music in this story. It appears Sacks largely only spoke to old white people and thus only recorded relationships to classical music.
ablotial's review against another edition
4.0
If you haven't heard of him, Sacks is a neurologist who writes books describing his more interesting patients (for instance, the man who mistook his wife for a hat). This one describes neurological issues that have an effect on a person's musicality, for instance musical hallucinations, a sudden musical brilliance brought on by head injury, or amusia, which is not being able to hear music as any more than a bunch of random noise. It also describes patients with other neurological non-music related problems who are helped by music, patients with alzheimers and other forms of dementia, parkensons, tourettes, autism, etc. The book can be quite repetaitive at times, it's as if he didn't edit it and forgot that he already talked about this patient in an earlier chapter... but VERY interesting to me, and kind of scary to be honest.
ablotial's review against another edition
I got this paperback copy back from Mom.
nikotta's review against another edition
informative
reflective
slow-paced
4.25
si todo el libro hubiera estado escrito como los tres últimos capítulos, de seguro no me hubiera tomado más de DIEZ meses acabarlo.
ashrafulla's review against another edition
1.0
I know this book is cute to its readers because it makes them feel intelligent. "Hey look at me now I understand music from a brain perspective." This book is far far too narrow to pull that off. It's actually a terrible message to send to readers that music is inherently related to brain damage. The obvious question to ask is whether every good musician is mentally damaged, a question to which Sacks would answer yes apparently. He continually insinuates that great musicians probably had small mental issues which were a side effect of their genius.
That is just bad bad storytelling. I am not knocking anecdotal evidence; anecdotal evidence is very strong because unlike controlled experiments anecdotal evidence is data found in real-life with the conditions of real-life rather than contrived conditions. I am knocking the construction that Sacks makes between music and deformed brain conditions. This doesn't account for the numerous musicians who do not have a defect yet still show the same musical abilities. The lack of a counterfactual is because Sacks is a neuroclinician; he's not going to see people who have non-pathological brains.
This is a very frustrating point to make because it is fairly obvious to me. If a mental condition is associated with music it implies that a) music requires the sacrifice of mental faculties, and b) those who have non-pathological brains are insinuated to be "lesser" musical beings. Neither of these things are true and neither of these things make any sense whatsoever. Yet somehow Sacks and his readers (the book I read was a new edition with notes from multiple readers) find it fascinating that there is this association which doesn't exist. I disliked the entire message of this book, which is why I downgraded it so much.
That is just bad bad storytelling. I am not knocking anecdotal evidence; anecdotal evidence is very strong because unlike controlled experiments anecdotal evidence is data found in real-life with the conditions of real-life rather than contrived conditions. I am knocking the construction that Sacks makes between music and deformed brain conditions. This doesn't account for the numerous musicians who do not have a defect yet still show the same musical abilities. The lack of a counterfactual is because Sacks is a neuroclinician; he's not going to see people who have non-pathological brains.
This is a very frustrating point to make because it is fairly obvious to me. If a mental condition is associated with music it implies that a) music requires the sacrifice of mental faculties, and b) those who have non-pathological brains are insinuated to be "lesser" musical beings. Neither of these things are true and neither of these things make any sense whatsoever. Yet somehow Sacks and his readers (the book I read was a new edition with notes from multiple readers) find it fascinating that there is this association which doesn't exist. I disliked the entire message of this book, which is why I downgraded it so much.
boomerdell's review against another edition
emotional
informative
inspiring
medium-paced
sellnow_hannah's review against another edition
emotional
hopeful
informative
inspiring
reflective
relaxing
slow-paced
5.0
Oliver Sacks is one of my favorite authors and this book is no exception. This is a compilation of fascinating stories of the various ways music impacts our brains including the brains of those with Parkinson’s, dementia, and other neurological processes. This book made me think being a music therapist would be a lovely and rewarding career.