Audiences hate modern classical music because their brains cannot cope

[mahler10th]

Abes argument seems to resonate well with me...but I go back to Catos analogy earlier with his 'Lorenz' weather experiment exposition, where it was discovered in a primitive computer simulation that while the weather appeared random, over time it was found to follow repeated familiar patterns, and after all was said and done the dimensions and patters of the 'randomly' generated computer weather experiment were recognisable and as regular as the earths.
This make me believe what Daniel Barenboim said on the matter of atonal music: "You have to listen to it.  Then you have to listen to it again.  Once you have listened to it a few times, everything will become clear."  He described it like a book, not one which stays in your memory forever, but one which you have to keep picking up again and again.
So...while Abes argument above makes perfect sense to me, it is necessary to prove this to myself one way or another.  I will take the 'Lorenz Cure' and the thoughts of Barenboim and over the next year or so go through a re-appraisal of the music, most of which I think of as not music at all...so I'll think of it as music, take the medicine, and play some stuff a few times over the next year...see what happens.

[lisa needs braces]

Really? That's your best argument?

Utterly?

It is. What explanation can you offer for why serial/atonal music has failed to become mainstream within the classical music community after a HUNDRED years? Initially, composers of the music of this kind had the hope that one day it would be embraced as mainstream. They have been painfully wrong. They made a bet against human nature and failed.

[lisa needs braces]

I do not doubt the sincerity of composers of atonal/serial music. But, it could be the case that those who create works like this and those most receptive to it could have a unique neurological property that isn't evenly distributed among the population, so that those who reject this music are just as sincere as the fans. It isn't for lack of trying but rather a matter of inherent capacities.

[Franco]

It is. What explanation can you offer for why serial/atonal music has failed to become mainstream within the classical music community after a HUNDRED years? Initially, composers of the music of this kind had the hope that one day it would be embraced as mainstream. They have been painfully wrong. They made a bet against human nature and failed.

The explanation I offered in an earlier post is that atonal music has a small audience, but an avid audience of people who find something in it worthwhile.  Whether this audience comprises a majority of Classical music listeners or not is irrelevant.  One could make your argument about Classical music in general saying that after hundreds of years, it is still only a small percentage of people who choose to listen to Classical music, preferring Pop, therefore Classical music is a failure.

[lisa needs braces]

The explanation I offered in an earlier post is that atonal music has a small audience, but an avid audience of people who find something in it worthwhile.  Whether this audience comprises a majority of Classical music listeners or not is irrelevant.

Yes it is. Contemporary classical music was the norm in the 19th century and before. What makes atonal/serial music so perennially on the fringe?

One could make your argument about Classical music in general saying that after hundreds of years, it is still only a small percentage of people who choose to listen to Classical music, preferring Pop, therefore Classical music is a failure.

I agree: just because something is unpopular does not mean it's bad, but it sure is curious that classical music audiences overwhelmingly prefer to listen to music composed before the 1940s. Today's pop audience listen to today's music, just like the pop audiences of previous generations listened to the music of their time, whereas classical music audiences overwhelmingly listen to the music of the past and desperately cling to a canon that is unchanging. I wonder what went wrong.

[Florestan]

They made a bet against human nature and failed.

The truth is that it had to be done & it had an enormous impact on the musical world. Period.

These two sentences are not mutually exclusive.

I second John: abe's remarks resonate with me.

Case in point: Ligeti's Lontano. Yesterday I forced myself to listen through the whole of it, but I just couldn't. After two or three minutes I just had to stop, and I mean it: hitting the STOP button was a physiological necessity, and an urgent one at that. I do not question the sincerity of, or the aural pleasure experienced by, those who love this kind of music. I'm just not one of them.

For measure, I am not a rabid anti-modernist: I never feel the urge to stop the music of, say, Bartok or Stravinsky.

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

Yes it is. Contemporary classical music was the norm in the 19th century and before.

This is not quite correct. As someone pointed out above, research shows that the hostility against anything "new" or "modern" started to take shape among the audience as early as the mid-19th century.

Also, before the early 19th century (i.e. the time when permanent municipal orchestras and ensembles started to appear, and the audience broadened greatly), there really wasn't much of what we would call a "classical music audience." It was much more of a private or elite thing than it became subsequently. So it's rather difficult to make comparisons.

[Coopmv]

I much prefer listening to the Beatles or the Rolling Stones over the so called modern classical music ...

[Florestan]

Also, before the early 19th century (i.e. the time when permanent municipal orchestras and ensembles started to appear, and the audience broadened greatly), there really wasn't much of what we would call a "classical music audience." It was much more of a private or elite thing than it became subsequently. So it's rather difficult to make comparisons.

Well, yes and no. We must take into account that the gulf between the music of the "elite" and the music of the "people" was not quite as wide as it is today: a band performing at a peasant's feast used pretty much the same instruments and the same musical language as that of Eszterhazy's orchestra and Haydn himself (along with many others) came of a peasant stock. There was constant exchange between "pop" music and "elte" music back in those times: witness the countless folk tunes and dances to be found in the music of all great composers from Haydn to Mahler and Bruckner. When Liszt visited Moldavia, he spent hours listening to the music of Barbu Lautaru, a Romanian fiddler who could play at first hearing the most difficult passages of his own music and before whom he bowed with respect. The Viennese "gypsy" "pop" bands left their mark on Liszt and Brahms just as much as the Jewish "pop" music can be heard virtually anywhere in Mahler's symphonies.

A clear, detectable and conscientious gap between "elite" and "pop" music is a distinctively modern phenomenon.

[Franco]

Yes it is. Contemporary classical music was the norm in the 19th century and before. What makes atonal/serial music so perennially on the fringe?

I'd say it depends on who you ask.  For many people, myself included it is not on the fringe.  Really the only Classical music which seems to define your mainstream is Baroque, Classical and Romantic periods.  There is a lot of music that is left out of these broad categories, Early music for example probably has about the same size audience as atonal, or new music.

I agree: just because something is unpopular does not mean it's bad, but it sure is curious that classical music audiences overwhelmingly prefer to listen to music composed before the 1940s. Today's pop audience listen to today's music, just like the pop audiences of previous generations listened to the music of their time, whereas classical music audiences overwhelmingly listen to the music of the past and desperately cling to a canon that is unchanging. I wonder what went wrong.

Nothing went wrong.  Speaking for myself (you seem to want to attribute your own responses to modern Classical music to the audience at large) I grow tired of almost any music, with the exceptions of Miles Davis and Igor Stravinsky.  If I listen to nothing but Classical period music (Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven) after about a week I am tired of it and want to listen to something else.  But the styles of music I seem to be able to listen to for longer periods of time before wanting something completely different are post-Bop jazz and modern Classical music.

Go figure.

Atonal music does have an audience, you may not be in it - but there are lots of people who don't think of it as you do.

[DavidW]

One could make your argument about Classical music in general saying that after hundreds of years, it is still only a small percentage of people who choose to listen to Classical music, preferring Pop, therefore Classical music is a failure.

This is the second time I've seen this said.  But it's wrong.  Quite a few listen to classical music, only a small fraction of those people obsessively collect cds but that's not the same thing.  A large number of people listen to classical on the radio and occasionally attend a concert.  It's still popular to be taught classical pieces when learning an instrument.  Many people listen to classical music, and frankly it is immersed in our culture.

The argument doesn't even make sense.  If I accept your claim that only a minority of listeners enjoy classical (which I don't), then you are saying that atonal music is a success because a minority of a minority listen to 'em.  How can one be a financial success with such an exceedingly small audience?  The truth is that they are not.  They suffer the same fate as the also unfashionable PI performances of Classico-romantic era music, and have their recordings done on small labels go out of print within months.  Just to be clear I'm not talking about the first Viennese school, I'm talking about the current crop of avant garde composers.

No Franco you're guilty (again) of judging something a success or failure based purely on your personal response.

[Franco]

The argument doesn't even make sense.  If I accept your claim that only a minority of listeners enjoy classical (which I don't), then you are saying that atonal music is a success because a minority of a minority listen to 'em.  How can one be a financial success with such an exceedingly small audience?  The truth is that they are not.  They suffer the same fate as the also unfashionable PI performances of Classico-romantic era music, and have their recordings done on small labels go out of print within months.  Just to be clear I'm not talking about the first Viennese school, I'm talking about the current crop of avant garde composers.

No Franco you're guilty (again) of judging something a success or failure based purely on your personal response.

It is a fact that Classical music CDs sell fewer copies than Popular music CDs.  Do you deny this?  I am not judging anything a success or failure, I am responding to others who claim that atonal music is a failure using an argument that atonal music was a colossal mistake because it has failed to enter the Classical music mainstream. 

Also, you folks who insist on denigrating atonal music continue to minimize the fact that atonal music does enjoy an avid audience.  For sure, you may not be among that audience, but just like all those people who don't like Classical music and prefer Pop - their opinion is irrelevant to your enjoyment of Beethoven.

[DavidW]

It is a fact that Classical music CDs sell fewer copies than Popular music CDs.  Do you deny this?

Do you have reading comprehension problems?  Or do you simply delight in strawmanning all replies made to your posts?  My point was that a large minority enjoy classical, not a small minority.  Pointing out that popular music is more popular than classical hardly undermines my point.

I am not judging anything a success or failure, I am responding to others who claim that atonal music is a failure using an argument that atonal music was a colossal mistake because it has failed to enter the Classical music mainstream. 

That argument suggests that as long as you and a few others like it, it's not a failure.  That is (a) narcissistic, and (b) ridiculous, what is a failure then?  Must the agreement of the entire human race to never perform the music ever again be considered the only time music can be considered a failure?  That is so extreme and unreasonable a declaration that you've made that it seems as if you think that the word "failure" should be banned because it's not nice.

Also, you folks who insist on denigrating atonal music continue to minimize the fact that atonal music does enjoy an avid audience.  For sure, you may not be among that audience, but just like all those people who don't like Classical music and prefer Pop - their opinion is irrelevant to your enjoyment of Beethoven.

What do you mean you folks?  How long have we been posting on this forum?  And you don't know that I enjoy Schoenberg, Berg, Webern, Carter, Ligeti, Frankel, Kurtag and many others?  I probably enjoy them more than you do, you hardly listen to them!

You have built up a facade of "the man" telling you that you can't listen to and enjoy atonal music.  That is not what is going on here AT ALL.  You can enjoy the music and admit that it has failed to be taken up and enjoyed by people as a whole (the same can not be said of classical).

[Scarpia]

The explanation I offered in an earlier post is that atonal music has a small audience, but an avid audience of people who find something in it worthwhile.  Whether this audience comprises a majority of Classical music listeners or not is irrelevant.  One could make your argument about Classical music in general saying that after hundreds of years, it is still only a small percentage of people who choose to listen to Classical music, preferring Pop, therefore Classical music is a failure.

The point is this.  Classical music may be a relatively small market, but it is self supporting.  The money raised by people buying tickets and from rich people willing to donate money to orchestra foundations is sufficient to support the salaries of the musicians and the people who manage the orchestra.   I don't think atonal (or whatever you want to call it) is able to support itself.   It is only heard because atonal pieces get stuck into programs of music have wider appeal.  An orchestra that played only atonal music would never be able to fill a hall on a regular basis.  So, it not subsidized by proper music, you fans of atonal music would be restricted to ensembles that can subsist on your support.  I suspect that would restrict you to string trios, maybe the occasional wind quintet.  Or perhaps a semi-annual global convention with a special concert by the New Jersey Philharmonic.   

[Elgarian]

That argument suggests that as long as you and a few others like it, it's not a failure.  That is (a) narcissistic, and (b) ridiculous, what is a failure then?

I'm not entirely sure (this discussion has had so many twists and turns that it's hard to steer a course through it), but I think you're responding to what you think he said, rather than what he's actually saying, David. He says, specifically, 'I am not judging anything a success or failure'. I don't see anything narcissistic or ridiculous in his position. It isn't narcissism to suppose that an art can have real value to 'the happy few' who enjoy it , even if one is among them; neither is it ridiculous for one's approach to art not to be governed by ideas of 'success' or 'failure'.

[DavidW]

I'm not entirely sure (this discussion has had so many twists and turns that it's hard to steer a course through it), but I think you're responding to what you think he said, rather than what he's actually saying, David. He says, specifically, 'I am not judging anything a success or failure'. I don't see anything narcissistic or ridiculous in his position. It isn't narcissism to suppose that an art can have value to 'the happy few' who enjoy it , even if one is among them; neither is it ridiculous for one's approach to art not to be governed by ideas of 'success' or 'failure'.

I don't think that you're understanding me.  He can say that he is not "judging anything a success or failure" but it's a lie.  Why?  He posted to refute Abe's post saying that atonal music is a failure.  My reply that you're responding to is me calling him out on that lie.  If Franco is truly not judging, then also he should have no problem with what Abe said.  But then why did he reply to disagree then?  I am tired of the intellectually dishonest way that he, you, and others make of asserting a position based purely on one' own personal feelings and then quickly withdrawing and pretending to be fair and open minded.

Furthermore, I don't perceive you as fair and open minded, and I reject you as arbiter.  Jump into the debate, or leave it be but don't try to play negotiator, it's obviously a role that you are not meant for and have no business doing Elgarian.

[Bulldog]

I just can't understand why some of you treat atonal music as a dangerous virus to be stamped out.  It's just music - it's not improper and talk about its success or failure is foolish. 

[Elgarian]

I am tired of the intellectually dishonest way that he, you, and others make of asserting a position based purely on one' own personal feelings and then quickly withdrawing and pretending to be fair and open minded.

Furthermore, I don't perceive you as fair and open minded, and I reject you as arbiter.  Jump into the debate, or leave it be but don't try to play negotiator, it's obviously a role that you are not meant for and have no business doing Elgarian.

Where's all this hostility coming from? If you make a public post, I don't see any reason why I may not respond (even if I'm wrong, because believe it or not, I've actually been trying to follow this convoluted argument). It's a bit much to be accused of intellectual dishonesty and pretension in such a bad-tempered way.

[Franco]

Do you have reading comprehension problems?  Or do you simply delight in strawmanning all replies made to your posts?  My point was that a large minority enjoy classical, not a small minority.  Pointing out that popular music is more popular than classical hardly undermines my point.

It wasn't you who made the argument that atonal music is a failure because a most Classical music fans do not like it.  I don't buy this kind of argument and explained why.   This thread has diverged from the starting point which was discussing the validity of a scientific study about predictability of music and what this said about whether atonal music would ever find a large audience among mainstream Classical music lovers.  I have said that I don't think the study was constructed in a way to adequately measure atonal music.  That discussion had at least some objective context, the alleged study, but now the discussion has sunk to the level of "most people don't like it so it must be a failure".

That argument suggests that as long as you and a few others like it, it's not a failure.  That is (a) narcissistic, and (b) ridiculous, what is a failure then?  Must the agreement of the entire human race to never perform the music ever again be considered the only time music can be considered a failure?  That is so extreme and unreasonable a declaration that you've made that it seems as if you think that the word "failure" should be banned because it's not nice.

Again, I am not claiming atonal music a success or failure - this is not a burning question for me.   I am responding that for all those people who enjoy it, it offers them what no other music can.  It does not matter how many people decry the failure of it.

What do you mean you folks?  How long have we been posting on this forum?  And you don't know that I enjoy Schoenberg, Berg, Webern, Carter, Ligeti, Frankel, Kurtag and many others?  I probably enjoy them more than you do, you hardly listen to them!

"You folks" are the people in this thread who have expressed their opinion that atonal music is somehow not natural and will not enter the mainstream as has music from earlier periods.  I am mystified that you think you know how much I listen to what kinds of music.  I don't know if I listen to Carter or Schoenberg more or less than you - frankly, I don't care.

You have built up a facade of "the man" telling you that you can't listen to and enjoy atonal music.  That is not what is going on here AT ALL.  You can enjoy the music and admit that it has failed to be taken up and enjoyed by people as a whole (the same can not be said of classical).

You are going a bit off. I don't imagine anyone telling me I can't listen to atonal music, and I also don't concern myself with whether atonal music has failed to be taken up and enjoyed as a whole - because someone else does not enjoy it is irrelevant to my own enjoyment of it.  But, I will put in my two cents when I see people making arguments against it that don't hold water, IMO.

[DavidW]

Where's all this hostility coming from? If you make a public post, I don't see any reason why I may not respond (even if I'm wrong, because believe it or not, I've actually been trying to follow this convoluted argument). It's a bit much to be accused of intellectual dishonesty and pretension in such a bad-tempered way.

I don't have a problem with you responding to my posts.  I have a problem with you taking on the role of mediator.  You're not.