Audiences hate modern classical music because their brains cannot cope

[jochanaan]

Karl, is it time for 'James Bingo' again?

Or maybe just a gentle reminder that this is a public forum.

[Mirror Image]

Or maybe just a gentle reminder that this is a public forum.

Exactly. The nerve of someone butting into a conversation? How dare they!

[71 dB]

Maybe we should make our life less hectic and more secured in order to allow out brains cope deeper things. People are worried about a lot of things. People don't have extra energy for art music (the first thing to be dropped to save time and energy for more mandatory things).

[Elgarian]

Did you ever ask yourself why etc. while this was happening?

I've spent my whole life asking myself why things happen the way they do. I don't exclude music from that.

When you were in the disagreement phase, listening and noticing things .. as in, what specific moments or qualities of what you were hearing were not connecting or turning you off?

It was a long time ago, but actually I remember it very well. I was very slow to appreciate works involving the human voice in classical music, and Gotterdammerung offered me the first glimmerings of a way into that - I think it was the intertwining of orchestra, voice, and myth that drew me in. Also it takes time to recognise the leitmotives in Wagner, and each time I listened I was able to recognise more of them, and how they tied both the music and the drama together. I couldn't do that first time through, but must have caught just enough of it to make me keep trying.

Sounds like to me that where you were at as a listener (a real skill) just wasn't up to where the music was (most often the case).

Yes, of course. It's still true. I am never up to where the music is. It always calls for more from me, as listener. That's one of the recognisable qualities that great art has. Just when I think I might have got it sorted, it surprises me and invites me to go further.

Art/classical music especially requires more time and repetition, there is more often than not more to listen-for, much more .. and beyond surface and expression .. the first encounter is like a mere flirtation.

Yes, of course.

[Karl Henning]

I've spent my whole life asking myself why things happen the way they do. I don't exclude music from that.

I don't mind admitting that I was wrong.

James is not the only soul on GMG brave enough to ask himself why.


Cheers, Alan!

[Karl Henning]

Sounds like to me that where you were at as a listener (a real skill) just wasn't up to where the music was (most often the case).

It takes courage to admit that where you are as a listener just isn't up to where Mozart's music is, James.  I respect that.

[James]

I don't mind admitting that I was wrong.

James is not the only soul on GMG brave enough to ask himself why.


Cheers, Alan!

I never claimed to be the only person who did that, either. I was very specifically trying to talk to a member here. But you have to butt in and be all dramatic. I wonder is this apart of your ongoing self-promotion plan? You know, bringing attention to yourself and whatnot.

It takes courage to admit that where you are as a listener just isn't up to where Mozart's music is, James.  I respect that.

Stop being a child. I explained very precisely and clearly the qualities/characteristics of Mozart's music (and that era) that I didn't like as listener, even offering comparisons to music that I love. I even credited qualities of his music that are obviously very successful. Too bad I deleted those posts. And no, I'm not going over that old ground again. Perhaps next time, read everything someone says on a topic more carefully .. not just the part where they say "I don't like .. " and forget all the rest.

[James]

It was a long time ago, but actually I remember it very well. I was very slow to appreciate works involving the human voice in classical music, and Gotterdammerung offered me the first glimmerings of a way into that - I think it was the intertwining of orchestra, voice, and myth that drew me in. Also it takes time to recognise the leitmotives in Wagner, and each time I listened I was able to recognise more of them, and how they tied both the music and the drama together. I couldn't do that first time through, but must have caught just enough of it to make me keep trying.

I can relate to having gone through periods like this with music, its great that once you break through those barriers (working out your ears, musical perception) how you can hear more music and take this with you. Vocals in art music is a big hurdle for many folks I find .. so many just don't hear the music and/or go in with a lot of preconceived notions. And it is quite an adjustment for people raised on simple pop tunes.

Yes, of course. It's still true. I am never up to where the music is. It always calls for more from me, as listener. That's one of the recognisable qualities that great art has. Just when I think I might have got it sorted, it surprises me and invites me to go further.

Musical analysis would help sorting it out, if you have the time. Also, if possible, trying to play some of it yourself.

[Scion7]

aneurism: an excessive localized enlargement of an artery caused by a weakening of the artery wall, ready to rupture at any time during stress . . .

Seems that might happen over on this thread, too!

[James]

aneurism: an excessive localized enlargement of an artery caused by a weakening of the artery wall, ready to rupture at any time during stress . . .

Seems that might happen over on this thread, too!

No worries, that certainly is not the case.

[Elgarian]

Cheers, Alan!

Cheers Karl, as ever.

Just between you and me, there are times when I think the question 'Why?' - however irresistible we may find it to ask - may, most of the time, be one of those category errors we sometimes talk about (like a heavily-disguised version of 'Is the King of France bald?')

Within the context of a specific work of art, it's possible to ask 'why?' and often we do, and often we even make a judgement of the merits of the work according to the answers we find; but the reasoning is no more secure than the premises from which the argument begins, and I find myself less and less willing to trust them. I'm more inclined these days to accept the work as something that simply is: something which I'm invited to attend to, and which may attract or repel, intrigue or stultify, regardless of any arguments one way or the other. I don't think anyone ever argued me into enjoying a work of art. On the other hand, being shown certain things about it can work wonders (eg with Brian's famous and brilliant unravelling of Sibelius's 7th symphony, here on this very forum a few years ago, and which I was reminded of just the other day).

At any rate, that's what I think today. I didn't think like this a few years ago. Whether that's real personal growth or mere fluttering in the wind, I'm not in a position to say.

[some guy]

I must say I quite like the idea of person growth as fluttering in the wind.

If I were in therapy, I would totally take that in to my next session: "Yes, I think I did some pretty serious fluttering in the wind this past week."

[James]

Just between you and me, there are times when I think the question 'Why?' - however irresistible we may find it to ask - may, most of the time, be one of those category errors we sometimes talk about (like a heavily-disguised version of 'Is the King of France bald?')

Within the context of a specific work of art, it's possible to ask 'why?' and often we do, and often we even make a judgement of the merits of the work according to the answers we find; but the reasoning is no more secure than the premises from which the argument begins, and I find myself less and less willing to trust them. I'm more inclined these days to accept the work as something that simply is: something which I'm invited to attend to, and which may attract or repel, intrigue or stultify, regardless of any arguments one way or the other. I don't think anyone ever argued me into enjoying a work of art. On the other hand, being shown certain things about it can work wonders (eg with Brian's famous and brilliant unravelling of Sibelius's 7th symphony, here on this very forum a few years ago, and which I was reminded of just the other day).

At any rate, that's what I think today. I didn't think like this a few years ago. Whether that's real personal growth or mere fluttering in the wind, I'm not in a position to say.

Excuse me, but since you put it out there .. this is all very wishy-washy insecure talk. Asking why, what, how, etc. isn't an error it is simply trying to uncover what it is about what you are hearing that is causing disagreement. Through this process we no doubt learn more about "it" and us. You should be more confident in your discoveries, its not as cryptic as you make it out to be!

[Elgarian]

I must say I quite like the idea of person growth as fluttering in the wind.

If I were in therapy, I would totally take that in to my next session: "Yes, I think I did some pretty serious fluttering in the wind this past week."

I think I was putting them forward as either/or: personal growth OR fluttering in the wind. Do we change as a tree, or as a cloud? Hard to tell sometimes, amid all the fluttering.
Cheers!

[Elgarian]

this is all very wishy-washy insecure talk.

Very likely.

Asking why, what, how, etc. isn't an error it is simply trying to uncover what it is about what you are hearing that is causing disagreement. Through this process we no doubt learn more about "it" and us. You should be more confident in your discoveries, its not as cryptic as you make it out to be![/size][/font]

Actually I was talking specifically to Karl, referring broadly to the kind of philosophical issues he and I have been involved in at times in the past when questions like 'Why?' come up. There are times when things that look like sensible questions turn out to be not sensible when you start unwrapping them. There's a particular philosophical term that describes them: they're called 'category errors', and that's what I was referring to.

But in truth it didn't relate much to what you'd been saying. It was more to do with my general thinking about art (hopefully in the conect of the main topic of this thread), and my gradual realisation over the years of the futility of arguing about it.

[Florestan]

I'm more inclined these days to accept the work as something that simplyis: something which I'm invited to attend to, and which may attract or repel, intrigue or stultify, regardless of any arguments one way or the other.

That has been my experience ever since I started to listen to classical music in my early teens. All the music I love / like / do not dislike was love / like / not dislike at first sight hearing.

My very first encounter with classical music was at about 13, I think, when I overheard on radio a cleverly engineered pot-pourri of classical "hits" that started with Grieg´s PC first movement then proceeded to Tchaikovsky´s 1812 Overture to Mozart´s 40th Synphony first movement to Suppe´s Light Cavalry Overture to a bunch of others I can´t remember and maybe not necessarily in that order --- but I heard it once, twice, thrice and further more (it was broadcasted daily) and it got my attention. Needless to say, at the time I had absolutely no idea whatsoever about what was being played, or by which composer.

Then one day out of the blue air my 6th grade music teacher came in class with a turntable and had us listening through... Grieg´s Piano Concerto! After the first bars, to the teacher´s astonishment, I ejaculated enthusiastically: "Ah, I know that!" and listened attentively till the very end --- and I might very well have been the only pupil to do so.

That was the very day and hour that I was sold to classical music for life.

The next complete thing I heard, that very year in the house of a friend of my father and at the latter´s request, was Tchaikovsky´s 1st Piano Concerto, which had me transfixed --- even today, after so many listenings, the opening bars send shivers to my spine.

Then, in the house of another friend of my father, I heard Chopin´s Polonaise op. 53 and I had the same reaction --- awe, excitement and an unrepressible desire to hear more and more and more of that kind of music.

The final blow was struck on me by watching "Carmen", the movie with Placido Domingo and Julia Migenes-Johnson. I actually saw it thrice and every time I was hooked, spellbound, transfixed and whatever of the sort. The overture in its entirety, the children´s chorus, the habanera, the seguidilla, the toreador´s aria and a host of other numbers got stuck in my head until now.

One might say, ah, see! that´s why you´re drawn mainly to Romanticism --- that´s the first music you´ve ever heard. It might be true, but I do wonder: is it me that I found Romanticism or is it Romanticism that found me? Since then I have widely expanded my musical horizons yet to this very moment I write this post my favorite period in music history is 1800 - 1900 with 75% of my favorite composers´ lifespan or creative periods falling within this timeframe. Not only that, but also Romantic poetry or painting struck chords in me that no other period does so oftenly or so deeply. Not only that, but also when it comes to Baroque or Classical music (two periods which I adore as well), I prefer it romanticized --- rather more than less vibrato, rather on the piano / fortepiano than on the harpsichord, rather legato than staccato and rather sentimental and passionate than intellectual and austere (to give you an idea, my favorite JS Bach´s keyboard partitas are performed by Maria Tipo and my favorite Mozart´s violin sonatas are performed by Anne-Sophie Mutter & Lambert Orkis).

Why this is so, I cannot tell --- at least not in rational terms. People might say that a lot of factors were at play in shaping my preferences and that if the first impulse had been different, I would have had different preferences now. They might be right, but the fact remains that I am what / how I am and no amount of external reasoning will prevent my soul from being what / how it is.

Now, to "modern" classical music. I could compile a long list of 20-th century composers whose music I love / like / do not dislike. I could also compile an equally long list of 20-th century composers whose music I cannot stand, meaning that I feel a compelling physical (aural) urge to turn it off. Which are the modern ones and which are the oldfashioned ones? This is a question that only the despicable intellectual terrorism, nay, totalitarianism, of Boulez and his ilk could answer.

I guess --- nay, I am pretty sure --- it all boils down to what we expect / want from music in order to love / like / not dislike it. AFAIC and as an unabashed Romantic what I expect / want is: life, passions and feelings, expressed by those elements which constitute the very essence of music: melody, harmony and rythm (not necessarily in that order, but necessarily all of them). Others might want / expect different things: a sense of order and structure or an intellectual understanding of the whole or any other thing. Different strokes for different folks. What I have never understood, and I never will, is the need to bash, belittle or hate precisely that kind of music which does not appeal, or conform to, one´s own feelings of, or ideas about, what music should be and sound. I love Chopin but I couldn´t care less for Xenakis; somebody else might adore Boulez and not care less about Mendelssohn --- do we have to fight about it?

And mind you, it is not only "modern" (in the Boulezian sense) music that doesn´t do anything for me. The other night I was listening to Antonio de Cabezon´s keyboard music played by Claudio Astronio on organ and harpsichord. I certainly did not feel the urge to turn it off but neither did it touch me in any way. Layer upon layer of chords without any apparent meaning and, above all, no melody at all, except very brief fragments and cells. I am sure, though, that this music does have a meaning and if I read about, and listen to it, long enough, I might be able to discern it and begin to enjoy it --- but the question is, do I feel the need to do so? When I know with the utmost certainty that there is plenty of music I can surely enjoy at first listening and I have yet to hear, do I feel the need to fill my limited time with trying to make heads or tails of music that I did not love / like / not dislike at first listening, being aware of the particular fact that all music I love / like / do not dislike was love / like / not dislike at first listening? The answer is a resounding NO! After Cabezon I turned to Tartini´s violin concertos and it was already like a warm blanket in a cold winter night outside, and when eventually I played a disc of Mendelssohn´s songs and duets I felt like I was sitting in my favorite armchair in the front of my home´s hearth.

Just my two cents.

[Elgarian]

Why this is so, I cannot tell --- at least not in rational terms. People might say that a lot of factors were at play in shaping my preferences and that if the first impulse had been different, I would have had different preferences now. They might be right, but the fact remains that I am what / how I am and no amount of external reasoning will prevent my soul from being what / how it is.

As I said above, I share your doubts about the effectiveness of 'external reasoning' when it comes to making serious change to my attitude to a work of art, but that's not to say that external factors don't contribute at all (it may not be the same for you as for me, of course). The friend at one's shoulder, saying 'hear that?' or 'listen to this theme and remember what you heard 5 minutes ago' - that can be really valuable to me: pointing out the things I'd missed.

What I have never understood, and I never will, is the need to bash, belittle or hate precisely that kind of music which does not appeal, or conform to, one´s own feelings of, or ideas about, what music should be and sound. I love Chopin but I couldn´t care less for Xenakis; somebody else might adore Boulez and not care less about Mendelssohn --- do we have to fight about it?

Well said.

Just to continue a little, because it's fun to talk: I remember a friend once taking me to task for buying an abstract picture, on the grounds that he couldn't see what it meant. I replied that it didn't mean anything. It just was it was, like an oak tree. You can find such a tree beautiful/awesome/majestic/fascinating in various ways, but you don't ask what it means. [In fairness I should add that he replied: Yes,  but the tree comes free, and you were daft enough to pay money for that ....']

But when all's said, a piece of music or a painting is a 'thing' or a 'process' that the artist is showing us, and one can only take it on its own terms, bringing whatever sensibilities we can muster, and see what happens. When Mozart scatters notes like jewels, casting sparkling surprise after sparkling surprise into the air during one of his piano concertos (I have a mental image of him in an open carriage, strewing the road behind him with stars as he rides along], there's no point in arguing the case for its wonderfulness to someone who is left indifferent by it. You can point out particularly fine jewels that have fallen by the roadside, but he has to be interested for it to make any impact. I remember reading somewhere recently, and chuckling at, the idea that a theory of firework displays doesn't make much difference if you just don't like fireworks.

[Jo498]

But have you not encountered music that you found boring/pointless/not very attractive at the first (few) listening(s)?

There is a lot of music from Bach to Bartok I liked immediately. But there is also quite a bit I could hardly connect with at all although I usually did not find it strongly repulsive.

E.g most of Bach's keyboard music were boring chains of (usually) fast notes without melody for me, even after I had loved the Brandenburg concertos (and lots of Mozart or Beethoven) for years. But a few years later this became some of my favorite music.

Debussy was a "wall of sound" with hardly distinguishable motives or structure, not to speak of melodies. This is still a composer where I do not react very strongly but I do like some pieces and they do not sound like melody-less sound-clouds anymore.

When I first heard Mahler's 9th in the radio with 17 or 18 I found the beginning downright ugly because of the muted horn and the strange sounds. Two years later or so it had become a favorite piece.

[Elgarian]

But have you not encountered music that you found boring/pointless/not very attractive at the first (few) listening(s)?

Yes, we were talking about that earlier on - one point of view was that repetition and familiarity can play a very important role. But I suggest that there has to be some initial spark of interest for one to move onto a second or third listening.

[Jo498]

Sorry, this overlapped, I was actually addressing what Florestan wrote, but of course you are welcome to answer.

I once had the idea that great works of Art are in some respects like persons. One should treat them with respect and as autonomous beings not as means for one's own ends (like pleasure or relaxation). Sure, there might be some with whom we will not get along. But if we expect them to serve our purpose we should expect that we will not experience the full scale of what they are.