

The Wall Street Journal recently ran an article that referenced a study by John Sloboda that found people experienced emotional reactions to music when it contained appoggiaturas, a musical device whose definition seems to be as hotly debated as the science and rationale behind the article itself. The WSJ article describes an appoggiatura as "a type of ornamental note that clashes with the melody just enough to create a dissonant sound." Despite being a songwriter, I'm not a music theory buff. So for a short auditory definition of the appoggiatura and a taste of the controversy surrounding its application to Adele, I'll refer you to this piece from NPR entitled, "Another take on the 'Appoggiatura.'"

But the definition of the appoggiatura isn't the only thing that is currently being debated. A number of articles have popped up recently protesting the reduction of tear-jerker songs to a simple formula. Of course, not everyone finds the same songs emotionally compelling, and as Isaac Schankler points out on NewMusicBox, the reasons for this can range from cultural to personal. Below is one quote I'd like to pull from his essay (though you should read the whole thing):



While scientific studies will probably never produce a formula for a song that elicits an emotional response in everyone who hears it, the beauty in studies like this is the "wondering why" coupled with the attempt to get a little closer to figuring it all out.

Besides, if science did come up with a proven formula to produce universal teary-eyed listening, the formula would be churned out so often that many people would become inoculated to its effects. The beauty of music lies in its unexpected twists and turns -- the shape-shifting that is the basis of what Sloboda says exists in the appoggiaturas in Adele's song. These constant and slight musical innovations is what will keep new songs constantly surprising us, and yes, bringing us to tears.


"Cry Me a River" by Flickr user sk8geek under Creative Common licensing.