Our society constantly asks us to quantify our abilities.

• Tests at school.

• Performance reviews at work.

• Endless stats for any sport.

• Financial credit scores, for whatever reason.

It’s a way to categorize us into different boxes and decide how to perceive and interact with us.

But what happens when we take it to an extreme?

Take the Twilight Zone episode “Examination Day” as an example.

It shows a dystopian view of a society where children are subjected to intelligence tests with severe consequences. The government has a monopoly on testing facilities and uses them to determine the worth or potential of individuals. That sole test determines your life from there on.

The core thought is that specific abilities can and should be measured for societal benefit.

While less extreme, what if we used music in a similar capacity?

This idea isn’t new or hypothetical.

In the early 20th century, a psychologist named Carl Seashore took the concept of measuring musical abilities to an extreme with his advocacy for music eugenics. Here’s how he shattered the conventional boundaries between art, science, and society.

Seashore measures of musical talents

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, psychologists, including Carl Seashore at the University of Iowa, were focused on quantifying talent.

The obsession with measuring human abilities and characteristics came from the transition of Psychology into a scientific discipline. The broader scientific trend of empiricism (i.e. knowledge based on observation and experimentation) was gaining strength. The good old days of a philosophical approach were gone.

Music was the Seashore’s specialty. Like many others, he wanted to apply this new concept of scientific objectivity to determine if someone had musical skills.

The Seashore test

In 1915, he released the “Seashore Measures of Musical Talent”, a series of tests focused on determining people’s appreciation of basic music elements.

Children as young as three years old would listen to 6 sound recordings. One each for pitch, intensity, time, memory, consonance, and rhythm.

For instance, in the rhythm test, the child has to perceive, remember, and replicate rhythms accurately. They’re shown a series of rhythmic patterns, usually played on a simple percussion instrument. After listening to it, they have to replicate it as accurately as possible, either by tapping it out or using an instrument. They’re judged based on the timing, consistency, and ability to maintain the tempo and pattern. The final assessment shows the person’s innate rhythmic sense.

He thought these tests could objectively measure musical talent.

Criticism

His approach was flawed for several reasons, which different authors attested to over the years.

• The test’s reliability (i.e., measuring the same individuals twice) and validity (i.e., measuring what it claims to measure) were low.

• The tests were likely to favor individuals familiar with or trained in European classical music.

• The tests focused on specific aspects of musical ability, like the ability to discern pitch or rhythm differences, and ignored many other elements like creativity, emotional expression, or cultural context.

• The test results discouraged individuals who did not score highly from pursuing music any further. Since music was an inherent ability, according to Seashore, there was nothing you could further do to improve, underestimating the impact of education.

• He claimed these musical elements couldn’t improve with practice, allowing him to capture his innate musical ability. But today, we know that we can improve these musical elements (e.g. pitch) with practice.

If this were all, it would be just another exciting anecdote in the history of psychology.

But it took a dark twist.

Implications

He believed that musical ability was something you were born with and could be measured. And as a natural capacity, you could use it to study racial differences.

His biased approach favored those who fit into his narrow view of what musical talent looked like. This not only affected who was encouraged to pursue music but also shaped the kind of music that was valued and taught.

It was a novel approach at the time. People didn’t quantify musical abilities before that. Armed with this knowledge, schools changed their music curriculum:

• Elementary schools disregarded teaching rhythm (whether you had it or not) and favored vocal training.

• In post-secondary education, the effect was even worse. For instance, at Eastman School of Music, Seashore’s tests contributed to the discrimination of race and class after they were used for admission and during enrollment. Some students were encouraged to pursue advanced musical studies; others were kicked out.

Then, his ideas became even more widespread, encouraged by the Eugenic movement. Since he believed musical abilities were innate and the Eugenic movement was getting more popular in the US, he shaped these tests, thinking they could guide eugenic policies.

Remember that eugenics is founded on the idea that we need controlled breeding for desirable traits to improve the human population. If we are born with these traits, then it’s easy to assume some people are superior to others in terms of the genes they come with, which also includes musical talent.

So, with Seashore’s tests, society could identify and cultivate “innate” musical abilities for the betterment of society. Those who have it are welcome, everybody else please get out of the way.

Seashore didn’t come up with these ideas by himself. The Eugenics movement in the US was strong then and continued as late as the 1940s. More than 64,000 Americans were forcibly sterilized in the US because of this movement. So what he did pales in comparison.

Are we limiting society’s intelligence level?

The Twilight Zone episode also made me think of something else happening in our society.

Several countries have significantly reduced the number of hours dedicated to learning music at school.

• USA: Budget cuts and the No Child Left Behind Act have reduced arts education in many public schools across the country.

• UK: Introducing the English Baccalaureate (EBacc) has decreased school time and resources allocated for arts and music.

• Spain: music education in secondary schools has been affected by the Education Law (LOMLOE), where music is only mandatory in the first year of secondary education and becomes optional. This marks a significant reduction from the previous legislation.

And there are certainly more countries in this pool. Is your country one of them?

When kids engage in music, they’re not just learning scales; they’re enhancing their brain development. A recent meta-analysis shows that learning to play an instrument benefits cognitive skills and academic achievement, so why do we cut funding for such a brain boost tool?

We’re starving a generation of critical and creative thinking skills.

Here’s a fun fact. According to a study from Michigan State University, Nobel laureates in the sciences are significantly more likely to be engaged in the arts compared to other scientists.

Coincidence?

I think not.

We’re depriving children of one of the fundamental tools that foster out-of-the-box thinking by cutting children off from music and the arts.

It looks like societal sabotage to me.

Fostering unity and innovation

Music bridges gaps, builds communities, and connects cultures.

When we take it out of an individual’s learning experience, we create a generation less equipped to understand, empathize, and connect. The world is already divided. Let’s not make it even more so.

We’re on a direct path to a less intelligent, less empathetic, and less innovative society.

Here’s how we mute our society from one of its dearest cultural expressions:

• We believe that music is an inherent ability.
  The rest don’t dare to come near it.

• We believe that only certain people should pursue it.
  Why have untalented people screeching on that violin?

• Music is dispensable.
  Let’s focus on more practical courses like math and technology.

If we’re serious about shaping a better future, it’s time to get serious about the role of music in society.

Takeaways

Seashore’s tests, developed in the early 20th century, were groundbreaking in their attempt to quantify musical abilities.

People learned to distinguish between different musical elements and used that knowledge in the selection process at music programs across the country.

Elementary schools focused on music elements that could be improved (e.g. singing) while disregarding those that came naturally (e.g. rhythm). You either had them or did not. High schools adopted discriminatory practices in selecting participants for their music programs. Racial and socioeconomic differences became more evident.

But these ideas were not without their share of pushback.

Researchers later criticized Seashore for favoring those exposed to European classical music and overlooking important elements like creativity and cultural context.

While some still view musical talent as innate, a growing consensus recognizes that education and practice can significantly enhance and develop musical abilities.

But even with this view shift, music education is at risk. Fewer people are enrolling in music programs, and funds are being cut off from public schools.

It’s a musical nightmare.

This will not only affect the music world but also limit critical and creative thinking skills among young people.

Let’s keep this noble art alive.

It’s our best shot at a more harmonious future.