Audiences hate modern classical music because their brains cannot cope

[Cato]

Solution: modern composers earn their living some other way.

Benefit #1: The composer is at complete liberty to write what he pleases, and for whatever reason.

Objection #1: Modern composers earning a living by some other means, therefore have limited time to devote to their art.

Benefit #2: The modern composer is therefore driven to efficiency.  Having limited time for his creative work, he has a greater motivation to do his best work.

Charles Ives started an insurance firm for his daily bread.  Karl - who just turned 29 years old yesterday! -  is following a fine tradition!

It's interesting how the situation is so very different in plastic arts - here in London Tate Modern has more visitors than Tate Britain for example - people love arguing about New British Artists, Gilbert and George make the news etc.

Same in architecture. And drama.  Music seems to be stuck, like novels.

Anyway your post inspired me to listen to Arvo Part's When Sara was 90 years old. I need to think about it.

The meditative aspects of the work are not for everyone, and I can understand why my wife calls it "dripping water" music.   

Concerning the earlier comments on general audience intelligence by "Some Guy"...one would - should?- assume that somebody who attends a concert by a symphony orchestra or chamber group has a modicum of intelligence, and that they do not attend specifically to denigrate a new work by a 21st-century composer through a lack of intelligence or open-mindedness.

And yet we do know that such things have happened: audiences have come prepared to hoot and holler and protest at a premiere.

What does the composer do as a result?  The composer follows the music from his soul: the audience is free to follow or to stay in previous centuries.

[Mandryka]

The meditative aspects of the work are not for everyone, and I can understand why my wife calls it "dripping water" music.   

Oh but they are for me! It would be interesting to have a thread on meditative music. I hear the influence of Grisey and of Stockhausen. I like it all except the end, especially the climax, which seems kitsch.

.  Karl - who just turned 29 years old yesterday! -  is following a fine tradition!

I had no idea, and happy birthday. Next year's a big one!

[Karl Henning]

I had no idea, and happy birthday. Next year's a big one!

Thank you!

(And 29 is a wee joke there, though perhaps specific to the US.  I shan't see 29 again)

[Cato]

Thank you!

(And 29 is a wee joke there, though perhaps specific to the US.  I shan't see 29 again)

My mathematics may have been off just a little!   0:)

[Ken B]

Solution: modern composers earn their living some other way.

Benefit #1: The composer is at complete liberty to write what he pleases, and for whatever reason.

Bravo.

[some guy]

There´s nothing so sweet as fighting the stench of the grave with the odor of smugness and the scent of superciliousness, ain´t it?

You realize, of course, that when you stoop to ad hominems, you have conceded the argument.

Concession accepted.

Otherwise, let me point out that I was not giving my view of the audience in my post--except maybe to suggest that it (it!) is not as stupid as the scientists and some of the other posters seemed to describing. What I was noting, that is, is that certain posters and all the scientists involved in this studious activity were describing an almost completely inept entity. None of them seemed aware that that was what they were doing. What they thought they were doing was talking about what qualities of music make for an unsatisfactory listening experience. A null set. What they actually did, I suggest, is describe a group of people who have few or no listening skills. Then, after finishing that cake, they put some nice icing on it, to whit, judging the quality or the listenability of the object on the basis of the experiences of people that they have described as purely unable to have those experiences.

That seems daft to me.

If my perception of daftness seems to you to be just me being smug, "oh well." I'm not trying to be smug. I'm trying to puzzle out what seems a completely absurd situation. Sorry if my efforts to make sense of it seem supercilious to you. They certainly seem futile to me, I can tell you that, particularly when they are taken to be evidence of smugness in my self.

[Jo498]

The problem is this: how are modern composers going to earn a living from their music?

This is not a new problem. Many composers in the past earned their living mainly as performing musicians, not as composers. For a long time one job usually involved the other. But I am pretty sure neither Bruckner nor Mahler could have been living on the royalties from their symphonies. Bruckner taught and later received stipends and grants from several sources and Mahler was conductor and opera director.

And before that, composers did not have to please a huge audience, they just had to be pleasing or interesting enough for one prince or count to hire them. The Leipzig churchgoers could not have easily sacked Bach if they had found his cantatas too old-fashioned (or too modern or whatever).

[Karl Henning]

. . . judging the quality or the listenability of the object on the basis of the experiences of people that they have described as purely unable to have those experiences.

That seems daft to me.

Q.E.D.:

You know what I'm going to say, it's certainly true that most audiences haven't a clue about the internalization of music to access its aesthetic content and it just washes over them, but only tonal music in the broadest sense is internalizable.

[Cato]

What they actually did, I suggest, is describe a group of people who have few or no listening skills. Then, after finishing that cake, they put some nice icing on it, to whit, judging the quality or the listenability of the object on the basis of the experiences of people that they have described as purely unable to have those experiences.

That seems daft to me.

And it would be daft, if the premise were true.  As mentioned earlier, I am skeptical that audiences at classical concerts have "few or no listening skills," because if that were the case, they would not be at the concert to begin with!

This is not a new problem. Many composers in the past earned their living mainly as performing musicians, not as composers. For a long time one job usually involved the other.

True, the problem of earning the daily bread remains.  I have always admired Charles Ives on that basis.

[some guy]

Cato, you have bolded two bits of my post that don't belong together.

I am not saying that I think that audiences, which consist of people with few or no listening skills, are daft, nor am I saying that people with few or no listening skills are daft.

What I am saying is that the premise of the study and of several posters to this thread that audiences cannot cope is daft.

There are people who cannot cope, clearly. There are people who can. Equally clear.

Neither group contributes one iota to either a description of or to the valuation of the music itself, which probably shouldn't be valuated anyway but listened to. I also find it quite odd that certain people report as being interested in valuating everything they hear, as if that were the point. Really? Music is for listening to, not for valuating. Of course, each individual listener will like some things and dislike others. But so what?

[Elgarian]

Last time I posted in this thread I got my fingers burned, so I venture in again, tentatively, looking to right and left ...

Thing is ... I'm not really interested in the original question, but I am interested in the discussion of it, and in the way it's discussed. And it just happens that I've been dipping recently into a book on the nature of painting from which I'm going to misquote, replacing the word 'painting' with the word 'music' - and it works just as well if you use a more general term like 'art'. Here goes:

"We are all prone to be nagged by the anxious question 'Is this music good?'; yet we all know that the good we get from a certain piece of music - the stimulus or pleasure it offers us - changes, and may indeed evaporate, as we grow. If some music is indeed 'good' this is simply to say it dependably draws listeners in, to pursue this stimulating or pleasurable cycle of involvement, repeatedly through the listeners' lifetimes, but we should not let the term fix us down in reactions we do not feel."

Art is a contentious concept by its very nature. We can't even decide among us consistently what it is or what it isn't, because it's growing all the time as (some) artists tease at its edges. Ultimately, we each decide what aspects are rewarding and what aren't. I'm not persuaded this has much to do with intelligence (regardless of the original question), though it must often be something to do with a willingness to look at or listen to something in a new light. Even that isn't definable as good or bad. If I decide that Music X isn't likely to reward the time spent in listening to it, that's not (necessarily) an unintelligent choice. Knowing myself tolerably well, it may in fact be an intelligent one: we all have limited time, and choices have to be made about how we might most profitably fill it.

I suspect that intelligence might be relevant not so much to what we listen to, but how we listen. I don't think I listen to music very intelligently even at the best of times, but I know I can bring a range of depth of intelligence to bear on the same piece of music. I can just let Elgar's violin concerto wash over me, if I want (and sometimes I do); or I can hang on every nuance of every note, trying to connect it all together in satisfying ways. And here's the rub: I can bring a similar range of attention to the sound of the sea.

The point is: we choose, sometimes intelligently, sometimes not. I don't believe what we listen to is a sensible measure of intelligence at all.

[Elgarian]

I also find it quite odd that certain people report as being interested in valuating everything they hear, as if that were the point. Really? Music is for listening to, not for valuating.

Oh yes. Yes, I say. Yes, I say again.

[Pat B]

You realize, of course, that when you stoop to ad hominems, you have conceded the argument.

Concession accepted.

Otherwise, let me point out that I was not giving my view of the audience in my post--except maybe to suggest that it (it!) is not as stupid as the scientists and some of the other posters seemed to describing.

This makes sense but was not at all clear (to me, at least) from your previous post -- I initially had the same reaction as Florestan. Thanks for clarifying.

[Karl Henning]

Last time I posted in this thread I got my fingers burned, so I venture in again, tentatively, looking to right and left ...

Thing is ... I'm not really interested in the original question, but I am interested in the discussion of it, and in the way it's discussed. And it just happens that I've been dipping recently into a book on the nature of painting from which I'm going to misquote, replacing the word 'painting' with the word 'music' - and it works just as well if you use a more general term like 'art'. Here goes:

"We are all prone to be nagged by the anxious question 'Is this music good?'; yet we all know that the good we get from a certain piece of music - the stimulus or pleasure it offers us - changes, and may indeed evaporate, as we grow. If some music is indeed 'good' this is simply to say it dependably draws listeners in, to pursue this stimulating or pleasurable cycle of involvement, repeatedly through the listeners' lifetimes, but we should not let the term fix us down in reactions we do not feel."

Art is a contentious concept by its very nature. We can't even decide among us consistently what it is or what it isn't, because it's growing all the time as (some) artists tease at its edges. Ultimately, we each decide what aspects are rewarding and what aren't. I'm not persuaded this has much to do with intelligence (regardless of the original question), though it must often be something to do with a willingness to look at or listen to something in a new light. Even that isn't definable as good or bad. If I decide that Music X isn't likely to reward the time spent in listening to it, that's not (necessarily) an unintelligent choice. Knowing myself tolerably well, it may in fact be an intelligent one: we all have limited time, and choices have to be made about how we might most profitably fill it.

I suspect that intelligence might be relevant not so much to what we listen to, but how we listen. I don't think I listen to music very intelligently even at the best of times, but I know I can bring a range of depth of intelligence to bear on the same piece of music. I can just let Elgar's violin concerto wash over me, if I want (and sometimes I do); or I can hang on every nuance of every note, trying to connect it all together in satisfying ways. And here's the rub: I can bring a similar range of attention to the sound of the sea.

The point is: we choose, sometimes intelligently, sometimes not. I don't believe what we listen to is a sensible measure of intelligence at all.

What an artful, enjoyable, engaging, good post.

[North Star]

What an artful, enjoyable, engaging, good post.

+1.

[Cato]

Cato, you have bolded two bits of my post that don't belong together.

I am not saying that I think that audiences, which consist of people with few or no listening skills, are daft, nor am I saying that people with few or no listening skills are daft.

Well, the final part sure seems to be a conclusion from the preceding.  If you do not mean what I thought it obviously meant, fine.

This makes sense but was not at all clear (to me, at least) from your previous post -- I initially had the same reaction as Florestan. Thanks for clarifying.

Amen!   0:)

Concerning Elgarian's comments:

What an artful, enjoyable, engaging, good post.

Amen again!   0:)

[Ken B]

Well, the final part sure seems to be a conclusion from the preceding.  If you do not mean what I thought it obviously meant, fine.

You were perfectly correct. He did not call the audience daft, and you did not imply he did. What he described as daft is drawing conclusions based on the reactions of those who have no listening skills. You objected only to the premise, that the audience had no listening skills, you were explicit it about it, and you offered a cogent objection to it.

[Rinaldo]

I can just let Elgar's violin concerto wash over me, if I want (and sometimes I do); or I can hang on every nuance of every note, trying to connect it all together in satisfying ways. And here's the rub: I can bring a similar range of attention to the sound of the sea.

Beautiful!

[jochanaan]

You know what I'm going to say, it's certainly true that most audiences haven't a clue about the internalization of music to access its aesthetic content and it just washes over them, but only tonal music in the broadest sense is internalizable.

False.  I for one have deeply internalized a lot of contemporary classical music, including nearly the entire works of Edgard Varese!  (I'm hearing in my head now his Integrales.  Great music!)

[Mirror Image]

Last time I posted in this thread I got my fingers burned, so I venture in again, tentatively, looking to right and left ...

Thing is ... I'm not really interested in the original question, but I am interested in the discussion of it, and in the way it's discussed. And it just happens that I've been dipping recently into a book on the nature of painting from which I'm going to misquote, replacing the word 'painting' with the word 'music' - and it works just as well if you use a more general term like 'art'. Here goes:

"We are all prone to be nagged by the anxious question 'Is this music good?'; yet we all know that the good we get from a certain piece of music - the stimulus or pleasure it offers us - changes, and may indeed evaporate, as we grow. If some music is indeed 'good' this is simply to say it dependably draws listeners in, to pursue this stimulating or pleasurable cycle of involvement, repeatedly through the listeners' lifetimes, but we should not let the term fix us down in reactions we do not feel."

Art is a contentious concept by its very nature. We can't even decide among us consistently what it is or what it isn't, because it's growing all the time as (some) artists tease at its edges. Ultimately, we each decide what aspects are rewarding and what aren't. I'm not persuaded this has much to do with intelligence (regardless of the original question), though it must often be something to do with a willingness to look at or listen to something in a new light. Even that isn't definable as good or bad. If I decide that Music X isn't likely to reward the time spent in listening to it, that's not (necessarily) an unintelligent choice. Knowing myself tolerably well, it may in fact be an intelligent one: we all have limited time, and choices have to be made about how we might most profitably fill it.

I suspect that intelligence might be relevant not so much to what we listen to, but how we listen. I don't think I listen to music very intelligently even at the best of times, but I know I can bring a range of depth of intelligence to bear on the same piece of music. I can just let Elgar's violin concerto wash over me, if I want (and sometimes I do); or I can hang on every nuance of every note, trying to connect it all together in satisfying ways. And here's the rub: I can bring a similar range of attention to the sound of the sea.

The point is: we choose, sometimes intelligently, sometimes not. I don't believe what we listen to is a sensible measure of intelligence at all.

A great post, Elgarian! A complete joy to read. Oh, and I feel the same exact way you do about Elgar's Violin Concerto as you do.