Audiences hate modern classical music because their brains cannot cope

[jochanaan]

21st century music is dank pass the dutchie

[Karl Henning]

I confess to puzzlement 

[some guy]

And bewilderosity.

[Karl Henning]

Can my brain cope?...

[Cato]

Can my brain cope?...

Yes, because you do not hate modern classical music,and therefore obviously can cope!  0:)

[jochanaan]

Yes, because you do not hate modern classical music,and therefore obviously can cope!  0:)

In other words, he's not a music troll!

[Elgarian]

Fascinating, because I have been writing something precisely about that: how some (most?) people hear "nothing," when e.g. a Bach fugue is played.  They shrug and wonder what all the fuss is about.  Others are charmed from the start, and find "something" that touches them in the sounds.

And then there are some who, having been in the "shrugging" first group, one day join the "charmed" group.

I think that's applicable to all the arts. The artist presents his work, as it were, in a box; and as long as we remain outside the box, we're likely to be baffled and/or indifferent; once we find a way of climbing into the box, everything changes, like a light coming on. The trick is how to find the way in (or at least, to want to get in badly enough to bother trying). Sometimes it's instantaneous and intuitive; sometimes it takes time and work. I've spent most of my life passing from 'shrugging' groups to 'charmed' groups, but I'm delighted to say I don't think I've ever moved the other way (from 'charmed' to 'shrugging').

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

[/font][/size][/i]

Fascinating, because I have been writing something precisely about that: how some (most?) people hear "nothing," when e.g. a Bach fugue is played.  They shrug and wonder what all the fuss is about.  Others are charmed from the start, and find "something" that touches them in the sounds.

And then there are some who, having been in the "shrugging" first group, one day join the "charmed" group.

The 'shrug-to-charm' phenomenon is rather common when it comes to opening up to modern classical music. However, there are some instances I've heard of where the modern stuff is immediately found to be the most enjoyable or breathtaking of al music once heard for the first time. I think it comes down to personal expectations of what music is all about in different people's minds.

[North Star]

The 'shrug-to-charm' phenomenon is rather common when it comes to opening up to modern classical music. However, there are some instances I've heard of where the modern stuff is immediately found to be the most enjoyable or breathtaking of al music once heard for the first time. I think it comes down to personal expectations of what music is all about in different people's minds.

And remember that e.g. Brahms is easier to appreciate if you know e.g. Palestrina, Bach, Mozart, Beethoven and Schumann, whereas some contemporary music might be much more visceral and not so much linked to tradition, so not knowing anything about the older composers doesn't mean you get less out of it than others. The person expecting to hear Brahms or Beethoven, on the other hand, will probably be disappointed.

[Rinaldo]

Sometimes it's instantaneous and intuitive; sometimes it take time and work.

That's what puzzles me, because my experience is quite different. The majority of music I like falls into the 'instantaneous' charm category and doesn't require much work at all (except for taking the time to sit down and focus on listening). Getting to know the complexities of a piece (or its performance) might help me appreciate it more but in the end, while I don't disparage its beauty, I'm not interested in the 'maths' behind the music. For example, learning about fugues doesn't help me to feel something in most of Bach, other than, well, he was a meticulous guy. But then I hear a few pieces of his I do enjoy tremendously and BAM, the music hits me immediately. There are exceptions when studying the context of a piece opens it up for me in a new way but they are exceptions and don't involve music theory at all.

[Cato]

I think that's applicable to all the arts. The artist presents his work, as it were, in a box; and as long as we remain outside the box, we're likely to be baffled and/or indifferent; once we find a way of climbing into the box, everything changes, like a light coming on. The trick is how to find the way in (or at least, to want to get in badly enough to bother trying). Sometimes it's instantaneous and intuitive; sometimes it take time and work. I've spent most of my life passing from 'shrugging' groups to 'charmed' groups, but I'm delighted to say I don't think I've ever moved the other way (from 'charmed' to 'shrugging').

And for the music lover trying to proselytize a friend or relative or anybody, catalyzing that desire, that wanting, is the key.  And how does one do that?  I suspect it will vary from person to person.  Most of the time, I have found, my modest efforts and suggestions fall upon fallow ground.

Occasionally I am happily surprised! 

[Mirror Image]

I can't really explain why I dislike a lot of contemporary classical music but I think it stems from the fact that these aren't the kinds of sounds my soul and mind seeks out. When I listen to a piece of music, whether straightforward or complex, I want to feel some kind of gratification and want to feel compelled to listen again. Things of this kind of subjective nature shouldn't be overanalyzed and really thought about as we all gravitate towards a certain sound-world, which is why we have our own favorites. I don't think anyone can really explain why they like the music they do because this would be to tap into something inside of us that can't be put into words whether spoken or written down.

[Chaszz]

Many of the observations here seem to boil down to, if it doesn't immediately appeal, study will open it up to you. But it is difficult to study something that doesn't appeal. If one is in school or on the job, one must study a subject whether one likes it or not. On one's own time, it is pretty difficult. I have little trouble studying a work that draws me in initially, say a complex one like the Musical Offering. Atonal works that initially strike my ear as noise don't arouse the desire to know them more intimately. And in the few instances where I've forced myself to listen to such a work say, three or four times, the effort has been unrewarded. 

The canard that modern music of the late 19th century was unappreciated in its time is wrong, as by the time Brahms and Wagner were old men they were adulated by great masses of the public. Wagner's death train was mobbed all along its route as it brought his body home from Italy, and Brahms was cheered wildly in his last public appearance in the audience at a concert.

Also in line with earlier epochs one might expect the more difficult 20th century works to have by this time plowed a field where their particular or characteristic soundscape(s) have become more accepted by some kind of broad section of the public, whatever one might mean by the word public. Yet even a professional musician I know grits her teeth when her ensemble has to perform a twelve-tone work by Schoenberg.

 

[James]

Most people don't care for art or classical music, regardless of era. They most likely have heard of all of the older names of composers but they don't care. It's too old, long and boring. It's not 'cool'. You will most likely never fit in liking this stuff, it's a niche interest, deviating from mainstream pop culture. People have been raised on commercial sound bite music that requires very little mental or listening effort. Learning from or knowing about music on a deeper level isn't apart of their vernacular. The newer art music (20th century onward) hasn't had as much longstanding 'publicity' (perhaps not the best word) so its completely obscure to most. Most folks listen to music for it's surface (color, or even production values), and the expression (what the words are saying, the attitude, ego/personality, etc.) .. they don't really pay much attention or notice the actual music (loose ideas of melody, harmony, rhythm, form, textures, performance practices etc.), so their appreciation only goes so far and is mostly surface .. Most folks don't like things that deviate too far from the norm, they like hearing things they are familiar with or recognize. Music is mostly about having fun & feeling good, little else. Pursuit of knowledge or enlightenment? Forget that. Generally any music that really pushes the envelope or is on the vanguard (so to speak) will have a relatively small, but loyal cult following (which is good enough), this has been the case throughout history for the most part, there are always a few exceptions. I think this sums up the majority - at least in the western world.

[Florestan]

I can't really explain why I dislike a lot of contemporary classical music but I think it stems from the fact that these aren't the kinds of sounds my soul and mind seeks out. When I listen to a piece of music, whether straightforward or complex, I want to feel some kind of gratification and want to feel compelled to listen again. Things of this kind of subjective nature shouldn't be overanalyzed and really thought about as we all gravitate towards a certain sound-world, which is why we have our own favorites. I don't think anyone can really explain why they like the music they do because this would be to tap into something inside of us that can't be put into words whether spoken or written down.

Agreed 100%.

[Karl Henning]

Many of the observations here seem to boil down to, if it doesn't immediately appeal, study will open it up to you.

If we substitute familiarity with study, I agree.  Or make it familiarity and/or study.  Without necessarily requiring the chore vibe of study, just continuing to listen to a piece can open it up to us sub-consciously over time.

[Karl Henning]

"The kinds of sounds my soul and mind seek out" changes over time, generally expands.  And musical gratification comes in more than one form.

To play the Devil's Advocate, the logical extension of this line of thought is the narcissistic, ossified What does this piece do for ME, NOW? attitude whose classic proponent is the narcissistic, ossified "Pink Harp/Homo aestheticus."

[Florestan]

Many of the observations here seem to boil down to, if it doesn't immediately appeal, study will open it up to you. But it is difficult to study something that doesn't appeal. If one is in school or on the job, one must study a subject whether one likes it or not. On one's own time, it is pretty difficult. I have little trouble studying a work that draws me in initially, say a complex one like the Musical Offering. Atonal works that initially strike my ear as noise don't arouse the desire to know them more intimately. And in the few instances where I've forced myself to listen to such a work say, three or four times, the effort has been unrewarded. 

Agreed 100%.

[Mirror Image]

"The kinds of sounds my soul and mind seek out" changes over time, generally expands.  And musical gratification comes in more than one form.

To play the Devil's Advocate, the logical extension of this line of thought is the narcissistic, ossified What does this piece do for ME, NOW? attitude whose classic proponent is the narcissistic, ossified "Pink Harp/Homo aestheticus."

Sure, I agree, musical gratification comes in many forms, but you seek out different things in music than I do, Karl. We're not affected by music in the same way and that's pretty much my whole point. Of course, when I speak of such things, I only speak for myself and no one else.

[Karl Henning]

Sure, I agree, musical gratification comes in many forms, but you seek out different things in music than I do, Karl. We're not affected by music in the same way and that's pretty much my whole point. Of course, when I speak of such things, I only speak for myself and no one else.

That's fine, of course.  We're not affected by music in the same way is kind of a yes-&-no proposition, I think, which is why we all find it valuable to discuss music (why some of us find the copy-&-paste activity valuable, I cannot say  ).  I think it's no great distance from the idea that, of all our personalities, each of us is unique as a totality, but probably none of us is unique in any one particular.