Social Question

9doomedtodie's avatar

What do you think? If harmonious or melodious or loud or noisy music is played, do trees dance or sleep?

Asked by 9doomedtodie (3113points) January 4th, 2010

I think trees like any kind of music or sound.They get pleasure by listening music or sound.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

17 Answers

Grisaille's avatar

Trees do not have sensory organs that enable them to “listen” to anything.

They do not get pleasure by listening to music or sound. They are trees.

Tink's avatar

They might feel the vibration of the music being played, but they cannot hear. Especially dance. wtf.

Dr_C's avatar

Trees are capable of adapting to their immediate environment in that they grow in the direction of sunlight, will grow from an odd position and still verticalize, and can slowly mold the earth around them with their roots. Will grow thicker in parts in order to be more stable and will grow more trees and leaves to obtain a larger area for photosynthesis. Having said this there is no evidence of any funtion in their physiology which reacts to vibration (in relation to sound) or any voluntary movement.

Like zen said. they are trees.

Dog's avatar

It appears that despite the lack of sensory organs there have been studies that suggest that plants are indeed effected by music. The study below indicated that plants have a preference for classical music and a total distaste for Zeppelin and Hendrix.

(However I would want more data since this was done in the era where Rock and Roll was considered “The Devil’s Music”)

Study from the Dovesong Foundation

In 1973, a woman named Dorothy Retallack published a small book called The Sound of Music and Plants. Her book detailed experiments that she had been conducting at the Colorado Woman’s College in Denver using the school’s three Biotronic Control Chambers. Mrs. Retallack placed plants in each chamber and speakers through which she played sounds and particular styles of music. She watched the plants and recorded their progress daily. She was astounded at what she discovered.

Her first experiment was to simply play a constant tone. In the first of the three chambers, she played a steady tone continuously for eight hours. In the second, she played the tone for three hours intermittently, and in the third chamber, she played no tone at all. The plants in the first chamber, with the constant tone, died within fourteen days. The plants in the second chamber grew abundantly and were extremely healthy, even more so than the plants in the third chamber. This was a very interesting outcome, very similar to the results that were obtained from experiments performed by the Muzak Corporation in the early 1940s to determine the effect of “background music” on factory workers. When music was played continuously, the workers were more fatigued and less productive, when played for several hours only, several times a day, the workers were more productive, and more alert and attentive than when no music was played.

For her next experiment, Mrs. Retallack used two chambers (and fresh plants). She placed radios in each chamber. In one chamber, the radio was tuned to a local rock station, and in the other the radio played a station that featured soothing “middle-of-the-road” music. Only three hours of music was played in each chamber. On the fifth day, she began noticing drastic changes. In the chamber with the soothing music, the plants were growing healthily and their stems were starting to bend towards the radio! In the rock chamber, half the plants had small leaves and had grown gangly, while the others were stunted. After two weeks, the plants in the soothing-music chamber were uniform in size, lush and green, and were leaning between 15 and 20 degrees toward the radio. The plants in the rock chamber had grown extremely tall and were drooping, the blooms had faded and the stems were bending away from the radio. On the sixteenth day, all but a few plants in the rock chamber were in the last stages of dying. In the other chamber, the plants were alive, beautiful, and growing abundantly.

“Chaos, pure chaos”: plants subjected to Led Zeppelin and Jimi Hendrix didn’t survive

Mrs. Retallack’s next experiment was to create a tape of rock music by Jimi Hendrix, Vanilla Fudge, and Led Zeppelin. Again, the plants turned away from the music. Thinking maybe it was the percussion in the rock music that was causing the plants to lean away from the speakers, she performed an experiment playing a song that was performed on steel drums. The plants in this experiment leaned just slightly away from the speaker; however not as extremely as did the plants in the rock chambers. When she performed the experiment again, this time with the same song played by strings, the plants bent towards the speaker.

Next Mrs. Retallack tried another experiment again using the three chambers. In one chamber she played North Indian classical music performed by sitar and tabla, in another she played Bach organ music, and in the third, no music was played. The plants “liked” the North Indian classical music the best. In both the Bach and sitar chambers, the plants leaned toward the speakers, but he plants in the Indian music chamber leaned toward the speakers the most.

She went on to experiment with other types of music. The plants showed no reaction at all to country and western music, similarly to those in silent chambers. However, the plants “liked” the jazz that she played them. She tried an experiment using rock in one chamber, and “modern” (dischordant) classical music of negative composers Arnold Schönberg and Anton Webern in another. The plants in the rock chamber leaned 30 to 70 degrees away from the speakers and the plants in the modern classical chamber leaned 10 to 15 degrees away.

I spoke with Mrs. Retallack about her experiments a few years after her book was published, and at that time I began performing my own experiments with plants using a wood-frame and clear-plastic-covered structure that I had built in my back yard. For one month, I played three-hours-a-day of music from Arnold Schönberg’s negative opera Moses and Aaron, and for another month I played three-hours-a-day of the positive music of Palestrina. The effects were clear. The plants subjected to Schönberg died. The plants that listened to Palestrina flourished.

In these experiments, albeit basic and not fully scientific, we have the genesis of a theory of positive and negative music. What is it that causes the plants to thrive or die, to grow bending toward a source of sound or away from it?

Note: I find it a bit odd that the plants shared Dorothy Retallack’s taste in music….

deni's avatar

BUT IN AVATAR THAT TREE WAS LIKE, ALIVE…..anythings possible!!

Dr_C's avatar

@deni in my back yard the trees are like… alive. But they don’t dance. Even the Ents in LOTR didn’t dance. But they can really tear a place down when they want to!

Grisaille's avatar

@Dog This was tackled in an episode of Mythbusters.

Here are the results.

Talking helps plants grow.

plausible

Seven small greenhouses were set up on the M5 Industries roof. Four were set up with stereos playing endlessly looping recordings (as having the Mythbusters actually talk to the plants could contaminate the samples with their expelled carbon dioxide): Two of negative speech, two of positive speech (Kari and Scottie each made one positive and one negative soundtrack), a fifth with classical music and a sixth with intense death metal music. A seventh greenhouse, used as a control sample, had no stereo. The greenhouses with the recordings of speech grew better than the control, regardless of whether such talk was kind or angry. The plants in the greenhouse with the recording of classical music grew better, while the plants in the greenhouse with the recording of intense death metal grew best of all.

Common complaints from random internet guy:

Unfortunately, Mythbusters consulted no trained botanists on camera, just a garden center employee who thought that supposed benefits of talking and music on plant growth was an old wive’s tale.

Among the problems in the Mythbusters experiment were the following:

1. No statistical analysis.

2. There was only one small greenhouse per treatment so no real replication to take differing environments into account. A plus was that there were ten pots with one seed per pot in each greenhouse.

3. One seed per pot was an unwise technique because some of the pots ended up with no plants due to germination failure. The usual technique for an experiment of this type would have been to plant three seeds per pot and then thin to one seedling per pot.

4. Not all greenhouses were oriented in the same direction so light patterns within the shaded structures could have differed and affected the results.

5. An LA rooftop in mid-summer provided poor growing conditions for plants, especially for peas, a cool season crop.

6. The control greenhouse was in the center of the roof. The treatment greenhouses were closer to the edges. That could have resulted in significant temperature differences.

7. The automated irrigation system failed midway through the experiment so plants were harvested early and fresh weights measured. Plants in some treatments were clearly affected by lack of water more than others so that skewed the results. It would have been more logical to measure plant dry weights because about half the leaves on some plants were dead and dry.

8. There was no attempt to determine a mechanism that would explain why plants would grow better with sound.

Their experimental errors indicated how easy it is for students to do experiments on plants and sound incorrectly and reach wrong conclusions.

I think you’re absolutely correct – there might be truth that certain vibrations, frequencies, and genres of music can culture plant growth better, but the evidence just doesn’t support it at this point in time. Sadly.

Judi's avatar

Trees know everything! Didn’t you watch Avatar?

9doomedtodie's avatar

@Judi @deni :But it’s fantasy not truth.

Sampson's avatar

I’m amazed that this question is still up…

9doomedtodie's avatar

@Sampson :it is still up..coz nobody entered new question..No need to get amazed.. :)

Sampson's avatar

It has nothing to do with adding a new question… I’m surprised someone hasn’t flagged this question. I personally find nothing wrong with it, but there are some real sticklers on this site.

belakyre's avatar

I really don’t know where you got the idea that trees get pleasured by music.
Maybe you worded the question wrong or something? Or did you get the idea by reading a children’s picture book with a smiling tree with wavering notes above it…?

nebule's avatar

why would anyone think the question is not a valid one?

I’ll put my money on sleep! :-)

deni's avatar

@Dr_C hey watch it sassypants

Dr_C's avatar

@deni i kid because i love

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther