Fruition and production in musical learning

This article wants to define the relation between biology and culture (Frauenfelder, 1983, 1986; Santoianni and Frauenfelder, 2002) for a focused contribution to the theoretical and pragmatic conceptualization of Music Education (Colwell, 1992; Delalande, 1998, Swanwick, 2002; Reimer, 2004). Music is a transformative and educational knowledge which contributes to learning construction through the development of brain plasticity and neuronal synaptic systems to generate complex joints and new perspectives of educability (Santoianni, 2006; Reybrouck, 2005, 2012). This article aims to investigate the possibilities that a music education may offer in engaging learning experiences in their cognitive, emotional, and empathetic aspects, in order to transfer its potentialities in a wide range of areas of human education (Kallopiuska and Ruòkonen, 1986; Schubert, 2009; Odena, 2012; Moretti, 2014; Ciasullo, 2015). The attempt of this research is to open new perspectives to music education according to bioeducational sciences and neuroscience horizons to overcome the gap between theory and practice (Santoianni, 1998, 2003, 2011). In the musical field, the technical and emotional expressions in addition to a large series of antinomies (Paddison, 1997; Enwezor, Condee & Smith, 2008) – may constitute a significant repository to be analyzed to deeply comprehend what kind of processes are activated in music processing (Peretz & Colthert, 2003; Peretz & Zatorre, 2005) to enhance the teaching and learning relation. In particular, the focus on bioeducational sciences and neuroscience is a synthesis that could sustain the identification of principles and parameters for educability to develop research on the identification of neuralmatricesinvolvedinmusicalprocessesandrelatedmusicalactions (Santoianni, 2016; Changeux, 1998; Changeux, 2013; Boulez, Changeux and Manoury, 2016). This paper tries to describe structural processes of musical learning to deeply understand how they epigenetically shape the mind and its processes of musical fruition, production, and learning. A special attention is dedicated to relationship between brain and sound stimuli, and mind and musical stimuli (Ginsburg & Ginsburg, 2014; Breidbach, 2013; Zanasi, 2001). Learning is then re-considered (Gordon, 2003; Jaffurs, 2004). The re- thinking of a univocal and widely shared idea of the whole range of pos- sibilities of comprehension, assimilation, and categorization that music may offer leads to two new interpretative perspectives (Abrahams, 2005; Gordon, 2007). The sense music needs both the formative dimensions to be realized – you can talk about music because someone or something has created the existence in compounding, playing, organizing the sound material – but it is a product of education and determines in itself proper elements of trans- formation in who listens to, plays, analyses the compositive structures. One refers to the biographic and biosocial dimension of musical nar- rative (Almén, 2008) as a properly human experience; on the other hand, music can be seen has an aware cultural interiorization, which role may be codified, learned, interpreted and re-interpreted, embodied by musi- cians and experts in the field (Han, Northoff, Vogeley, Wexler, Kitayama, & Varnum, 2013; Ciasullo, 2014). The pedagogical function of music, the- refore, does not run out in the exclusive formation of musicians but also determines, in its formal and conceptural dimension, the “implicit” and spontaneous acquisition of knowledge mechanisms underlied to it, which are the synthesis of the belonging cultures