Audiences hate modern classical music because their brains cannot cope

[DavidW]

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's actually were we started because people posted to decry the article because the writer of the article was trying to assert that people are not built to enjoy atonal music, which is where Abe came in later on.  We've actually been on topic the entire time.

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.

Is that the only reason that you replied?  Why do so at all then?  That point was made much better by James awhile back.

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.

Don't be too mystified, if I see you mostly posting on threads about classical and romantic era composers, I tend to think that's what you like.  I remember when I was doing a great exploration of 20th century music and was bugging the board alot, you were nowhere to be seen.  I'm not guessing, nor am I stalking you, it's a small board and we've both been on it for several years.  You're not posting on here like some of the others to save the music that you love from being denigrated (your words really, and it's not being denigrated), you don't even care.  You do it because you want to fight, well you have it.

But, I will put in my two cents when I see people making arguments against it that don't hold water, IMO.

Just like I said.  Well I put in my two cents because I actually care.  And you know what?  All of your replies that I've ever seen to the arguments that you don't like always skim the surface and quickly back off.  For wanting to tear down arguments that you think don't hold water you sure do a piss poor job of it.  Why even bother if you are so ineffectual?  Why not just post on stuff that you care about?

[Bulldog]

Today, atonal/serial music is shoved down the throat of classical music audiences at concerts on an "affirmative action" basis: the audience comes for Brahms, Tchaikovsky, Beethoven, and from a sense of duty and obligation some awful contemporary or serialist/atonal music is thrown in, usually in the middle of the program so the audience can't leave early.

I'd call it variety of programming which is a good thing, no?

[Franco]

That's actually were we started because people posted to decry the article because the writer of the article was trying to assert that people are not built to enjoy atonal music, which is where Abe came in later on.  We've actually been on topic the entire time.

Is that the only reason that you replied?  Why do so at all then?  That point was made much better by James awhile back.

Don't be too mystified, if I see you mostly posting on threads about classical and romantic era composers, I tend to think that's what you like.  I remember when I was doing a great exploration of 20th century music and was bugging the board alot, you were nowhere to be seen.  I'm not guessing, nor am I stalking you, it's a small board and we've both been on it for several years.  You're not posting on here like some of the others to save the music that you love from being denigrated (your words really, and it's not being denigrated), you don't even care.  You do it because you want to fight, well you have it.

Just like I said.  Well I put in my two cents because I actually care.  And you know what?  All of your replies that I've ever seen to the arguments that you don't like always skim the surface and quickly back off.  For wanting to tear down arguments that you think don't hold water you sure do a piss poor job of it.  Why even bother if you are so ineffectual?  Why not just post on stuff that you care about?

You're right, I do hang out in the Haydn and Classical threads mostly, those are the ones I have set up on Notify.  I post in the Classical threads more because I like the people there and enjoy that period a lot and like to learn what others have to say about it.  But I probably listen to more 20th C. and newer music than any other.  I also have posted in threads concerning 20th C. music or specific composers, but less so since the discussion tends to turn sour fairly often with someone complaining about the style of the music.  I actually started this thread since I found the article provocative and was interested in seeing how the forum would respond.  I think if you took the time to revisit how I've contributed to this thread you would find a consistent view - but I don't expect you to do that, nor is it important.

I don't know if I "care" about any of this in the same way you do.  I sure don't "care" enough to express impatience or anger at someone because I don't agree with them, or don't like their argumentation - maybe that's why you think I "skim the surface and quickly back off" or do a "piss poor job" - I am not trying to win an argument, I'm just expressing an opinion and learning from other people's opinions.  So, maybe I do back off when I feel a discussion is turning into an argument, or is becoming circular.  I am here for only one reason: to discuss music I am interested in.  When the discussion turns sour, I drop out.

[Franco]

This reminds me of a thread I wanted to start: http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,15905.0.html

In this case, the thread title was the headline of the article I posted.  But I take your point.

[some guy]

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

This is what I always thought, too, but it is simply not true. It is distinctively a 19th century phenomenon. In the early 19th century, the idea of a canon grew up, and along with it concerts that were homogeneous and that featured dead composers, the latter a trend that increased until around the 1870s. After the 1870s, aggressive work by contemporary composers dropped the percentages back down a little bit, but the mindset of the nineteenth century towards canonical (dead) composers has continued to the present day.

[Elgarian]

I have a problem with you taking on the role of mediator.  You're not.

For the record (and then I'm done), I too would have a problem with my taking on the role of mediator. I was not trying to find middle ground, nor even making any conscious attempt to be fair. I was in fact disagreeing with your comments, as mildly and respectfully as I was able, and even acknowledging that I wasn't certain of my ground. My aim was not to mediate, but to explain why I thought you were wrong.

I'll contribute no further to this thread.

[Scarpia]

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.

I agree with you completely.  However, I sometimes find myself reacting against those who subscribe to the opposite view and equally silly view, that atonal music is not popular because it is suppress by a conspiracy of the narrow minded establishment. 

[some guy]

While I enjoy his contributions immensely, I think Elgarian's decision a wise one.

The problem is pretty simply really. You have a bunch of people who use an undefined term (atonal) to simply bash a category of music that really isn't a category because the term is undefined. Or, it IS a category, and that category is "music I (and others like me) happen to dislike."

To really work as a conversation, this thread really needs to get down to specifics. Otherwise, you just get people* bashing "atonal" music and then naming a bunch of composers they supposedly listen to more than anyone else does, composers who all wrote stuff that could be described as "atonal."

As long as we use a term that's a moving target, we will never get any farther than a slanging match--and the people who truly love music will never win.

*Yes, this is a reference specifically to DavidW, who has very adeptly described his own m.o., "the intellectually dishonest way...of asserting a position based purely on one' own personal feelings and then...pretending to be fair and open minded." Though James and Franco and Karl and a few others have done yeoman's work in countering the bad arguments of the opposition, David and a few others will never let any of us win in this one. The shifting targets will continue to shift forever. So maybe we should just join Elgarian now and keep our sanity, eh? I think I'll cleanse my mind and spirit with some Zbigniew Karkowski right now. Yes, that should do the trick. Plus, it's really cool music, too!

[Ten thumbs]

That false perception you have will be overcome the more you listen to it & dig in, it's not designed to be so easily digested and simplistic. If all music (& art) was like that, things would be sooo boring! It's a feast for the ears & mind to absorb! It's part of the pleasure of great, deep & rich art, it warrents re-visiting and is open to constant discovery.

As I said, I know it is a false perception and I am aware that there is a great deal of modern music of value that I'm missing. However, my time is limited and there is plenty of other music that is similarly difficult to understand immediately and I am constantly making new discoveries.

[karlhenning]

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.

Yikes!  And I know you for no r. a.-m., Andrei.  Try the Lontano again in five years, if you are game;  it's one of my favorite Ligeti pieces, and in all events, it's one in whose sound I simply exult.

[Scarpia]

Scarpia ...no one said it was a conspiracy ... it's just laziness that's all

Oh really???  I only had to search for "Mozart" and "establishment" to pull up this gem from one of your posts.

And I think that they (EC & KS) would both agree with the fact that a lot of terrific new stuff is being left by the wayside by the "establishment" who continues to cash in on safe & popular Mozart, who wrote some fine stuff but who is way too overhyped to a suffocating effect that it's simply beyond parody & ultimately it stagnates the artform and turns it into a dusty museum.

[jochanaan]

...Classical music may be a relatively small market, but it is self supporting...

Uh, have you looked at the budget for any major orchestra lately? Orchestras, at least, are NOT self-supported entities.  Most of the ones around the country are either volunteer or paid a nominal fee, and a significant portion of their budget funds comes from corporate or government assistance.  The only orchestra I know of that might actually earn its own keep without national/state or corporate support is the London Symphony Orchestra, and it has to play all those movie soundtracks...

I think that the situation is a little better for soloists and chamber groups, at least the top ones.  And some of them, such as the Kronos Quartet, often play that very "atonal" stuff that gets so often derided and defended in these forums!

[Scarpia]

Uh, have you looked at the budget for any major orchestra lately? Orchestras, at least, are NOT self-supported entities.

By self-supporting I included donations by well-heeled contributors.  It was my impression that government support has dwindled to nearly nothing these days.

[jochanaan]

The best argument against atonal/serial music is the fact it has utterly failed to catch on after all these years. After a hundred years, maybe it's time to stop blaming audiences and consider that there's something fundamentally wrong with the music itself, or that those who appreciate the music are neurologically different from those who don't.

Today, atonal/serial music is shoved down the throat of classical music audiences at concerts on an "affirmative action" basis: the audience comes for Brahms, Tchaikovsky, Beethoven, and from a sense of duty and obligation some awful contemporary or serialist/atonal music is thrown in, usually in the middle of the program so the audience can't leave early.

Also, the so called "canon" has become ingrained all the more because of the failure of composers from the last 70 years to create enduring and popular works (an exception here or there notwithstanding.) The more modern composers failed at creating enjoyable, popular works, the more audiences clung to the music that preceded these modernists.

Right now too many music professors, critics, and living composers have too much of a stake in the status quo. They don't want to hear that the human brain, on average, isn't built to appreciate 12-tone music, and that this might be an obvious explanation for why the works of Schoenberg/Berg still remain obscure. This would mean that they are wrong and engaged in a futile task, that no serialist work will ever become as endearing to audiences as mozart's k 364, or LvB's Septet, etc. Orchestras will continue on relying on the "canon" to draw audiences in. Radio stations will likewise do the same. Somehow classical audiences will remain educated and informed enough to appreciate mozart's k 364 and LvB's septet, but not quite educated enough to appreciate a Shoenberg concerto.

If that's your best argument, it still hasn't convinced me. There are too many variables in audiences and society, as I said in my first post on this thread, to determine the ultimate worth of Schoenberg and Co.'s music by audience demand.

By self-supporting I included donations by well-heeled contributors.  It was my impression that government support has dwindled to nearly nothing these days.

That last is true, but you're changing definitions.  Self-supporting, by definition, includes only income based on actual work; in the case of musicians, that's concert ticket sales, recording revenues including online download sales if any, and whatever tips they get during performances.  I don't see any real difference between government grants and corporate ones; in fact, I've been saying for decades that the real rulers of this country sit on Wall Street, not in Washington.

[Franco]

Ensemble InterContemporain
Arditti Quartet
Bang On A Can

If you Google "new music ensemble" you will find dozens of groups devoted to new music, much of which is no doubt atonal.

My guess is most are as self-supporting as your local symphony orchestra.

[jochanaan]

...My guess is most are as self-supporting as your local symphony orchestra.

And probably more so.

[Scion7]

I think the problem is, for every atonal composer who really accomplished something sublime and knew what they were doing (Schoenberg, Berg, Webern, etc.) many - read most - of those that came in their wake were not inspired and you get mud. 

If the piece is wonderful and entertaining - for example, BARTOK's third and fourth string quartets - I don't care if it is "serial music" or ultra-modern - but if you're a charlatan just grinding it out, I'll respond accordingly. 

[Jo498]

I think the problem is, for every atonal composer who really accomplished something sublime and knew what they were doing (Schoenberg, Berg, Webern, etc.) many - read most - of those that came in their wake were not inspired and you get mud. 

Isn't this also true for a lot of (usually deservedly) forgotten late/neo-romantic music from the last 120 years? I fail to see who the existence of lots of less inspired or downright bad art incriminates difficult and daring avantgarde art compared to more conservative/traditionalist art.
Even if doing avantgarde was always more "risky" it could be worth lots of "misses", i.e. the "hits" are so much more interesting than attempts that did not strive for something risky and interesting.

[The new erato]

Isn't this also true for a lot of (usually deservedly) forgotten late/neo-romantic music from the last 120 years? I fail to see who the existence of lots of less inspired or downright bad art incriminates difficult and daring avantgarde art compared to more conservative/traditionalist art.
Even if doing avantgarde was always more "risky" it could be worth lots of "misses", i.e. the "hits" are so much more interesting than attempts that did not strive for something risky and interesting.

Probably true. It's just that bad tonal music is just banal and boring, while bad modern music is an earsore (have I invented a new term?)or whatever.

[Karl Henning]

Is every new piece which is not clear to our ear on first hearing "mud"? I ask only for information.