Audiences hate modern classical music because their brains cannot cope

[Franco]

Uh no.  The whole point is that each person would be given a sample and then asked to make a prediction.  There is no guessing group, you simply compare to the average score that would be attained from simply guessing.  If it's more than a standard deviation apart (higher) from the score from guessing, then one might conclude that they can actually correctly figure what is happening next.  You could apply this to pop music, classical era, romantic, baroque, modern etc etc If nothing interesting happens with pitch, test for other aspects.  Design similar tests.

IMO, they are all guessing.

[DavidW]

IMO, they are all guessing.

I think that's actually the problem with some of you.  You don't want to learn or know these things, you simply want to assert your truth and have it be universeal.  The way that you guys rail against any kind of scientific inquiry is very much like a religious fundamentalist would.

edit: duh wrong word

[Franco]

I think that's actually the problem with some of you.  You don't want to learn or know these things, you simply want to assert your truth and have it be universe.  The way that you guys rail against any kind of scientific inquiry is very much like a religious fundamentalist would.

Well, if you can describe the difference between "predicting" as opposed to guessing, I'd like to know what it is.

[karlhenning]

I think that's actually the problem with some of you.  You don't want to learn or know these things, you simply want to assert your truth and have it be universe.  The way that you guys rail against any kind of scientific inquiry is very much like a religious fundamentalist would.

Is it not permitted to question the methods and suppositions of the scientific inquiry? ( ← rhetorical question)

[mahler10th]

Predictability... mathematical correlations... patterns... neuroscience...
If it sounds good (i.e, if it touches my soul, if it captures my attention, if it makes me thoughtful, sad, melancholy, joyous, pensive or dancing) --- then it's good music for me and I couldn't care less whether it's modern or antiquated, tonal or serial, Boccherini or Bartok.

This is the best thing said in this thread, it resonates a truth within!    0:)

[karlhenning]

Predictability = problem, boredom & stagnation.

Well, nor is it that simple.

[Elgarian]

Life, the universe and all of its parts will always be more intricate than we can perceive in full, but that doesn't mean that knowledge and understanding can't be gained through simplistic analyses of it.  In fact all of science is done that way.  This is no different.

The danger, though, is that very, very often those original limitations - which as you say are so necessary for the control of variables - are subsequently overlooked when the 'meaning' of the results is deduced. Someguy is doing exactly what he should when he reminds us of the limitations of the enquiry. That doesn't invalidate the findings - it just insists on placing  them closely in the context from which they emerged. I wearied this forum's patience some while ago by quoting Whitehead over and over again, but he is entirely right when he says that  'every entity is only to be understood in terms of the way in which it is interwoven with the rest of the universe'. The impossibility of complying with that doesn't mean we have to give up - it means that we must always be aware of the limitations imposed by our selection procedures when we do our simplified experiments.

[karlhenning]

. . . I wearied this forum's patience some while ago by quoting Whitehead over and over again, but he is entirely right when he says that  'every entity is only to be understood in terms of the way in which it is interwoven with the rest of the universe'.

Well, you didn't weary me.

[DavidW]

The danger, though, is that very, very often those original limitations - which as you say are so necessary for the control of variables - are subsequently overlooked when the 'meaning' of the results is deduced. Someguy is doing exactly what he should when he reminds us of the limitations of the enquiry. That doesn't invalidate the findings - it just insists on placing  them closely in the context from which they emerged. I wearied this forum's patience some while ago by quoting Whitehead over and over again, but he is entirely right when he says that  'every entity is only to be understood in terms of the way in which it is interwoven with the rest of the universe'. The impossibility of complying with that doesn't mean we have to give up - it means that we must always be aware of the limitations imposed by our selection procedures when we do our simplified experiments.

So you get what I'm saying.  And I'll agree with you that we must have limitations in mind when interpreting results.  And conclusions can be drawn from results within that context.  I just want to make it clear that having these limitations does not mean that no conclusion should be drawn.  That implicit message in Some Guy's post is what I was disagreeing with.  What is the real problem?  The problem is that the author of that fluff piece in the Telegraph went onto an unwarranted conclusion about modernist music being unlistenable.  What we can talk about is the lack of predictability of modern music, which is the actual claim of the study.

Now here is what I think, there are different elements to music.  And having an unpredictable thematic development is but one of them, it can be in simple 4/4 time and then the rhythm is well understood.  The thing is that doesn't undermine the point, because if any element of music is unpredictable, than the music itself is unpredictable.  To establish music as really being predictable, you would have to establish it as such in each element, while it only takes one element to say that the music loses the audience (in terms of following along).

[DavidW]

Well, if you can describe the difference between "predicting" as opposed to guessing, I'd like to know what it is.

I already did.  It's making those choices with an average score at least one standard deviation better than random guessing. 

[kishnevi]

That's a myth and untrue it's based-on & grew from what came before ... odd how you have an avatar of Mahler but don't hear connections found the 2nd Viennesse School. i.e. Schoenberg-Berg-Webern. Try Berg's Violin Concerto ... you may like it.

Been there, done that.  It's not that  I dislike the Berg Concerto (or the Schoenberg);  rather there's nothing I like about it; it leaves me cold.  Every so often I dig out the CD, and try it again, and it still leaves me cold--which is why the Mahler connection doesn't work for me, I think.   Perhaps it's simply one neurotic Jew appreciating the work of another neurotic Jew but what draws me to Mahler is the emotional expression.  It's probably not a coincidence that I have a similar, albeit not so intense, reaction to Shostakovich.

Keep exploring & listening... there is surely some stuff that will grow on you and you will love. Have you heard Ligeti's Lontano for orchestra? Soft edged, smooth ... very beautiful. For Messiaen perhaps try Et exspecto resurrectionem mortuorum for wind, brass & percussion. Great piece.

Lontano is part of the Warner box I mentioned (which is probably a must have if you're a Ligeti fan, like the Sony box, if only for Ligeti's liner notes).  Again, like the Berg, there was nothing I actually disliked about most of the music in that box;    but most of it bored me and none of it I enjoyed except the Romanian Concerto (hmm, wonder why ), and from time to time the massed up sound actually did give me a headache.

The piano etudes and the string quartets, on the other hand, get a positive reaction from me.  (I even went ahead and bought a second recording of the quartets today).  I think the core difference is that, with the smaller number of instruments, it's much easier for me to follow the musical argument: my head has an easier job of keeping track of the different musical lines.    You may object that "traditional" classical music has just as much going on in the way of different musical lines--but the job is easier there because the link to "traditional" harmony, melody, etc. is maintained in some form.   There is a good chance that I will end up getting the Sony Ligeti box. 

So I try to approach 20th century music through smaller ensembles.  You'll see on the "Purchases" thread I got some of Carter and Tippett's string quartets.  (Actually, I'm totally unfamiliar with the work of either composer.) I have the Carter disc on now;  first impression ranges from neutral to interesting enough to warrant a second hearing; certainly nothing I dislike.

Oh, wait, the CD's over.  Well, the Fourth Quartet ends rather abruptly, I see.
Time for the Tippett.  From the opening, he's apparently more in the Britten/Bartok side of 20th century music, the side I have no problem with.

[greg]

I love the quality of spontaneity & mystery, if things are too predictable, easy, obvious, derivative, generic etc...those qualities are lost also.

Exactly why I don't like most popular music.

Many composers have analyzed, broken down and studied the nature of sound and it's many many properties etc. Not to mention acoustics etc. Especially in the 20th century. They understand it more than scientists! Since their whole existence is entrenched with sculpting & presenting it so to speak. So there is a strong understanding and usage of that side too in music making. We're talking about an artform here tho, not the universe or the meaning of life etc... there are musical correlations & an inner musical logic and coherence involved in what is being crafted here by the artist. It's not some naive thing with high level musicians & composers. Quite the contrary, esp. with advanced 'composition' ...

I suppose you are talking about the spectral composers. 
Good stuff.


Kishnevi, ever try Penderecki, Lutoslawski, Gorecki, or Xenakis? 

[Bogey]

I love the quality of spontaneity & mystery, if things are too predictable, easy, obvious, derivative, generic etc...those qualities are lost also.

That explains the late Miles' posts.

[kishnevi]

Kishnevi, ever try Penderecki, Lutoslawski, Gorecki, or Xenakis? 

Penderecki--yes, and the difference between large scale and small scale works holds here. I particularly like the Sextet and the work for solo 'cello (don't remember the title of the piece) which is included on the Naxos recording of the Sextet.

Lutoslawski--mmeh.  From what I've heard of his work, nothing grips me for good or for ill.

Gorecki--discovered the Symphony of Sorrowful Songs was a good cure for insomnia, and haven't gone looking for more since then.  (Perhaps it have helped if I understood enough Polish to follow the texts as they were being sung...)

Xenakis--nothing, for the simple reason I was under the impression that  his stuff more properly belonged in the "New Age" category.

And two others:

Part--same as Lutoslawksi, with some of the problems of large scale Ligeti (the washes of sound, for instance) present.  Not in a rush to get more of him

Taverner--Protecting Veil is extremely good; for the rest, I would say he is similar to Part and Lutosklawski.

There's also the fact that I have enough other musical interests that 20th century music has a low priority.    Better a Renaissance motet or bel canto opera that I know I will have a high probability of enjoying than a modern piece I've heard little or nothing about and which I will quite possibly end up disliking.

[karlhenning]

Good to see someone else who thinks highly of The Protecting Veil!

[Elgarian]

So you get what I'm saying.  And I'll agree with you that we must have limitations in mind when interpreting results.  And conclusions can be drawn from results within that context.  I just want to make it clear that having these limitations does not mean that no conclusion should be drawn.  That implicit message in Some Guy's post is what I was disagreeing with.  What is the real problem?  The problem is that the author of that fluff piece in the Telegraph went onto an unwarranted conclusion about modernist music being unlistenable.  What we can talk about is the lack of predictability of modern music, which is the actual claim of the study.

Yes, I agree with this - though as ever, I'd want to add a couple of extra words like 'provisional' and 'contingent' here and there to make sure they're not overlooked. What folk tend to forget is that today's scientific conclusions are only as good as yesterday's results (and yesterday's selection criteria). Tomorrow, it's a new experiment, with everything to play for.

Now here is what I think, there are different elements to music.  And having an unpredictable thematic development is but one of them, it can be in simple 4/4 time and then the rhythm is well understood.  The thing is that doesn't undermine the point, because if any element of music is unpredictable, than the music itself is unpredictable.  To establish music as really being predictable, you would have to establish it as such in each element, while it only takes one element to say that the music loses the audience (in terms of following along).

Nice point, elegantly made.

[Elgarian]

Well, you didn't weary me.

That's nice to know, but I think you were the only one left awake, Karl!

[karlhenning]

That's nice to know, but I think you were the only one left awake, Karl!

Wouldn't be the first time in my life!

Now here is what I think, there are different elements to music.  And having an unpredictable thematic development is but one of them, it can be in simple 4/4 time and then the rhythm is well understood.  The thing is that doesn't undermine the point, because if any element of music is unpredictable, than the music itself is unpredictable.  To establish music as really being predictable, you would have to establish it as such in each element, while it only takes one element to say that the music loses the audience (in terms of following along).

Nice point, elegantly made.

Hear, hear.

[Cato]

Reading through the above discussion, I was reminded of Stravinsky's sighing criticism of Der Rosenklavier: hours and hours of music "and not one syncopation!"  0:)

Could he have predicted that?!   0:)

[Franco]

I already did.  It's making those choices with an average score at least one standard deviation better than random guessing.

No one listens to music and uses random guessing.  Everyone listens and begins to expect something from the music because of what the composer has set us up to expect.  Often the composer will produce what most people would expect him to do, but just as often the composer will alter the expected result slightly (or not so slightly) in order to create a surprise.  How well a composer handles the balancing act of producing surprises as opposed to an expected result is what produces bad, average, good or great music.

Music that only produces surprises frustrates an audience, and music that produces no surprises bores an audience.  And as has been pointed out, there and many variables in music that produce surprise or an expected result besides pitch selection.  And I think we enjoy hearing "a well prepared surprise" over and over, kind of like enjoying seeing some movies again even though we know how they turn out. 

A possibly relevant fact is that no matter how often we hear the same work, say the Beethoven 9th Symphony, and know what to expect 100% - many people still enjoy it.  I have doubts that the ability to predict what pitch will happen in a piece of music is a strong indicator if the music is good or not, or even if someone will use that as a factor in judging whether they enjoyed the music or not.

Because of all this, I find the study this article describes rather limited in advancing an understanding of music and how people respond to it.