Audiences hate modern classical music because their brains cannot cope

[Florestan]

M. Croche, if I understand you correctly, what you basically say is that Berlioz, Mendelssohn, Liszt, Dvorak, Mahler, Richard Strauss, Sibelius, Debussy, Elgar, Bax, Delius, Vaughan Williams etc (actually, whoever ever wrote a tone poem or assigned a title to a work, Vivaldi for instance) were either not knowing themselves what they were doing, or deceiving the audience, or simply following a vogue (in many cases long after it had gone) and that in reality not a single one of those tone poems or works bear the slightest relation to what the composer declared, explicitly or implicitly, to be its extramusical inspiration or intention. Is this right, or did I misunderstand you?

Two things here: First the piece Sibelius called 'The Wood Nymph' does intentionally have an extra-musical component, and listening to it with the narrative in mind can provide a very rich not-entirely-musical experience. So I  disagree that we'd be better off without it. Secondly, I'm just a bit worried about promoting the idea that 'the listener would be better off without it'. I think you mean that you'd be better off without it, and that's perfectly reasonable. But I would see it as a real loss, myself. Prescribing 'what's best for others' in art troubles me as much as using the word 'lowbrow' troubles you.

+ 1.

[Karl Henning]

Interesting discussion, chaps.

[Monsieur Croche]

I don't think it can ever be said that music exists in a vacuum. It's created within a culture, and we make associations with that surrounding culture whether or not the composer made explicit associations with titles and programmes and so forth.

There are also aspects of musical style that are recognisably associated with particular places and/or times. Later composers in fact will consciously exploit those associations.

Interestingly, there's also some evidence that language affects music, thereby creating stylistic imprints so that, e.g. the music of a French-speaking composer will have certain 'French' traits. I suspect at least some of it has to do with the setting of vocal music will (if the setting is any good) be affected by the speech patterns of the text, and this can influence the style even of instrumental music.

The associations you mention are usually after the fact of the music itself [but this could as easily be a chicken or egg question] and yes, there is often a sort of collective consensus as to the extramusical which becomes associated with a piece. I would never discount that.

These aspects, including the natural inclination to think of rhythm and rise and fall of phrase and shorter words, even, in accord with the rhythms and inflections of ones native speech, to come to bear on instrumental music, all fall under that broad concept of the semiotic, things we pick up as recognized and having meaning without having been taught. Every culture's people have semiotic associations, and expectations, of, say, what a house is and looks like, and applies also to  music, uses of harmony, rhythm, and even specific gestures and intervals and what we have come to associate with as 'their meaning.'

Most artists are aware of these, and some will use them for the effect they are known to have. Everyone in western culture recognizes a 'horn call' as a signal of some sort, and that recognition is then also of anything similar, without being a horn or without using the more archetypical simpler triadic notes of the older style calls: signal-like becomes clear enough.

These semiotic associations are a result of acculturation and habituation. Since they take decades and a century or more to settle in to the collective consciousness and are therefore quite subtle and often unrecognized for what they are. Many people mistakenly think of them as a given, something natural or downright organic which should not or can not be controverted. More concretely, scales, tunings, modal, tonal, leading tone, etc. are all conceits which have been worked with and become part of the culture that people come to think they are the [only] way things are / should be, a / the natural order, etc. There is nothing immutably organic' about any of that; they are not unbreakable laws, but simply mere conventions. Their movement through time and mutation is constant, as are the meanings which people assign to them, though the speed of change of the semiotic perceptions is more glacial than anything else.

When artists step out of that semiotic sensibility, a little or a lot, we get that circumstance where less of a general audience will willingly follow, with even supposedly more visionary critics attacking a work that departs too far from the status quo as not being valid or worthwhile. Artists who step beyond those boundaries are usually more than aware they have done so, and know that far fewer people will respond to their work. They do what they do, and don't whinge about lack of recognition, whether it is Beethoven grumbling that he can 'wait fifty years' for the public to catch on to one of his pieces vs. 'writing another way' to please the public of his own time, or later artists who also step outside those boundaries.

Think of all the [now antique] criticism and generic complaints and argumentative points leveled against non-tonal or atonal, modern and contemporary music, both the complaints and the music now one century old, all mainly saying the problem with those more modern works is they are not like the old stuff to which most are generally accustomed, arguing the newer music is 'unnatural,' or more ridiculously, that the human ear is physiologically not built to take in those sounds, [ironically, a lot of the old stuff was often nearly as upsetting enough to its contemporary audiences when first presented] and you'll have it. The semiotic associations people hold change very slowly, indeed, and those notions hold sway over much of the population, making them generally less adventurous and less willing to step outside of those limits if something is presented to them that is not adherent to their general semiotic notions of convention.

This is where you get the kind of silliness where a whole segment of listeners will claim 'the old boys' wrote legitimate music which communicates wonderful things and were the 'only' great composers while the modernists are nowhere near as valid or great [some of the later composers are as valid and great as past great composers, of course.] You can safely bet that in another hundred years, long enough for whatever the old semiotic 'truths' are to morph and change among the general populace [the larger and heavier the object, the longer it takes to be moved], there will hardly be anyone, professional or amateur, who runs around saying Beethoven was great and Berio composed nothing of the same merit and his music is mere noise. While there is, surprisingly, plenty of that attitude still floating about at the moment.

It may be that people now in their teens or twenties will live long enough to notice the shift, be part of it, but with others still able to say with genuine conviction things like "Stravinsky ruined music when he composed that nasty dissonant and atonal Le sacre du printemps." I wouldn't think to see such a general shift in the next few decades only, while I'm convinced that shift will happen eventually, and it won't be, in later retrospect, just a tiny one.

Whether in this current time or far into the future, I imagine, too, there will always be some for whom music must adhere to the Orphic myth and they will not consider anything outside of that as music, i.e. no matter how abstract, it must have a quality that will have the listener thinking it could be sung or danced: I'm near equally certain there will always be a kind of composer to supply music within that parameter, as certainly as there will be artists who still make only highly representative images.

[Madiel]

These semiotic associations are a result of acculturation and habituation, too. Since they take decades or centuries to settle in to the collective consciousness and are therefore quite subtle, many people mistakenly think of them as a given, something 'natural' or downright 'organic' which should not or can not be controverted. More concretely, this is rather like scales, tunings, modal, tonal, etc. They are all conceits which have been worked with and become part of the culture that people think they are 'the way things are / should be,' 'a / the natural order,' etc. where in reality, there is nothing immutably 'organic' about them. They are not unbreakable laws, but simply mere conventions. Their movement is constant, and mutates, though the speed of change is more glacial than anything else.

When artists step out of that semiotic sensibility, a little or a lot, we get that circumstance where less of a general audience will willingly follow, with even supposedly more visionary critics attacking a work that departs too far from the status quo as not being worthwhile. Artists who step beyond those boundaries are pretty aware that far fewer people will follow. They do what they do, and don't whinge about lack of recognition, whether it is Beethoven grumbling that he can 'wait fifty years' for the public to catch on to one of his pieces vs. 'writing another way' to please the public of his own time, or later artists who also step outside those boundaries.

I've no argument with any of that. The only thing I'd say is that the majority of artists will in fact continue to follow most of the semiotic associations they grew up with. Certainly, the ones that we later label as greats because they were the first to do something different will break some of the associations, but they don't go outside all of it. Beethoven was still writing tonal music and using sonata form and rondos and theme and variations and fugues.

I think for something to be recognised as different and 'wrong' and 'breaking the rules', it still has to be close enough to the 'rules' so that the frame of reference is recognised. If something is just completely different, it's not thought of as wrong, it's thought of as alien.

[Karl Henning]

Call this a modification rather than a denial;  the Rules do expand, and the artists' awareness of the expansion always outpaces that of the general public.

Also, per M. Croche's others still able to say with genuine conviction things like "Stravinsky ruined music when he composed that nasty dissonant and atonal Le sacre du printemps":  These will always be with us.  And they are distinct from the listeners who (so to speak) struggle respectfully.

[Monsieur Croche]

M. Croche, if I understand you correctly, what you basically say is that... whoever ever wrote a tone poem or assigned a title to a work, Vivaldi for instance) were either not knowing themselves what they were doing, or deceiving the audience, or simply following a vogue (in many cases long after it had gone) and that in reality not a single one of those tone poems or works bear the slightest relation to what the composer declared, explicitly or implicitly, to be its extramusical inspiration or intention. Is this right, or did I misunderstand you?

You misunderstood that.

A Tone Poem Without A Title Or Program Is Like A Fish WIthout A Bicycle

What I meant, and hope I covered [apology due if I did not] is that for many a composer, those titles may be what they actually 'were writing about,' while for others the title may have been a fleeting and tangential analogue idea which helped direct their work, helped to determine the form [especially if the work is not formalist, i.e. Symphony, Passacaglia, etc.] as well help them determine the general tenor of emotional tone, and where, strategically, events within the piece would be.

In other words, all of the associative things may have been mere analogue working devices, whatever the inspiration, and then, well, heigh-ho, why not name it that, it seems to help people access the music itself more readily, and it is both in fashion and therefore more marketable and 'sexy' if titled. [This is where the possibility of "in reality not a single one of those tone poems or works bear the slightest relation to what the composer declared, explicitly or implicitly, to be its extramusical inspiration or intention." comes in, lol.]

Were many of them sincere when titling their pieces, and did they think the pieces actually evoked something related to the title? If they wrote that themselves, somewhere other than what is written on the score, and music historians have those documents from the horses' mouths in writing, who can argue?

Certo, if a composer has given a title, please, feel free to run with it. I advocate that you are also free to ignore it, that is all. It is just a title, and the listener is not waiting, like sometimes happens in a play, for that moment when they hear the title spoken in one of the actor's lines. Better, have your cake and eat it too. Listen to the piece without knowing the title or program, guess what that title or program might be, listen to it again to see if what you have guessed 'fits' and is cohesive parallel with the tone and series of musical events, and only then learn what the title is. Nice and fun exercise, which I'm certain would make just about anyone wonder if that tone poem was, really, about a swan, for instance.

I was not and am not telling anyone to ignore what a composer has done as far as the title or given program, though I highly distrust what many a composer says about their own music, simply because, like many other people, "they meant it at the time they were saying it."

There are other considerations:
A composer has written a piece of music...
~ Should you or do you want a verbal title or guide to influence or color your perceptions of that piece? Isn't that a bit like signing up to be told what to think?
~ If music is a communicative art, has the artist somehow done less than the job expected if they feel the need to give you a suggestive title or accompanying program?
~ Shouldn't the listener be able to 'supply' their own title or program via their personal reaction to the piece?
I dunno, those are just questions.

As long as people don't run around thinking that Beethoven titled one sonata "Pathetique", [completed and presented to his publisher as Sonata No. 8 in C minor, Op. 13, who then suggested the title] and another "Moonlight," Sonata No. 14 in C-sharp Minor, Op. 27, No. 2: Sonata quasi una fantasia [named by a publisher's poet son well after Beethoven's death], or an "Emperor" concerto, or that Chopin ever titled any of his Etudes or Preludes other than by form and opus number, and that Liszt's Les Preludes was titled after the fact of that work being completed, etc. I'll be happy... [not that making me happy should be the concern of any member of this forum.]

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

Or Penderecki's masterpiece: '8 minutes 37 seconds'

which was given a very different title much later on!

[Madiel]

~ Should you or do you want a verbal title or guide to influence or color your perceptions of that piece? Isn't that a bit like signing up to be told what to think?

We sign up to be told what to think all the time. When's the last time you read a book called "Book no.3"? When's the last time you saw a film called "Film"?

[some guy]

~ If music is a communicative art, has the artist somehow done less than the job expected if they feel the need to give you a suggestive title or accompanying program?

I kiss the ground you walk on, truly I do. Or would if I was anywhere where you had been walking. As a sign of my vast respect.

We sign up to be told what to think all the time. When's the last time you read a book called "Book no.3"? When's the last time you saw a film called "Film"?

I'm on my third novel at the moment--and for many moments to come, if the other two are any indication. I have unfortunately already named it, but I feel very much like the next one should be called "Book no. 4," now.

Either that or "Film." I'm torn.

Pretty sure that my next painting is going to be called "Painting," though. And why the hell not? (Well, maybe because my next painting will be called "Loudest Book no. 3 for cello." It could happen. Lime green!)

[Madiel]

I'm on my third novel at the moment--and for many moments to come, if the other two are any indication. I have unfortunately already named it, but I feel very much like the next one should be called "Book no. 4," now.

Either that or "Film." I'm torn.

Pretty sure that my next painting is going to be called "Painting," though. And why the hell not? (Well, maybe because my next painting will be called "Loudest Book no. 3 for cello." It could happen. Lime green!)

Rene Magritte? Is that you?

[some guy]

Haha, I wish!!

[Monsieur Croche]

We sign up to be told what to think all the time. When's the last time you read a book called "Book no.3"? When's the last time you saw a film called "Film"?

Please, let's not mistake the word-centric and word dependent media for or as music, eh?

[Karl Henning]

Music is a communicative art, but.

(that is all)

[Monsieur Croche]

I've no argument with any of that. The only thing I'd say is that the majority of artists will in fact continue to follow most of the semiotic associations they grew up with. Certainly, the ones that we later label as greats because they were the first to do something different will break some of the associations, but they don't go outside all of it. Beethoven was still writing tonal music and using sonata form and rondos and theme and variations and fugues.

I think for something to be recognised as different and 'wrong' and 'breaking the rules', it still has to be close enough to the 'rules' so that the frame of reference is recognised. If something is just completely different, it's not thought of as wrong, it's thought of as alien.

Does Alien exclude the possibility of beautiful or exciting, or finding 'meaning'?

I do know what you mean, but my question is a good one, and I think the answer to it is, "no."

[Monsieur Croche]

Music is a communicative art, but.

(that is all)

After having smoked music all the way down, what remains are art butts.

[Karl Henning]

Chewing music is not a safe alternative.

[Madiel]

Please, let's not mistake the word-centric and word dependent media for or as music, eh?

A lot of film directors and critics would argue with you, quite forcefully, that film is a visual medium rather than a word dependent one.

Music is certainly a more abstract art, but I would be cautious indeed about asserting that music is total abstraction that should somehow be "freed" from anything that is "extra-musical".  For one thing, it smells of all those ideological battles in the 19th century that insisted that true music must be one thing or the other. There is a considerable range to music and that the purpose of it varies enormously.

Heck, we've got a ballet thread at the moment with debates about whether the music is best digested on its own or together with the visuals of dance.

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

We sign up to be told what to think all the time. When's the last time you read a book called "Book no.3"? When's the last time you saw a film called "Film"?

Waaaait a minute....aren't they made up of words and images that are intended to represent things that can actually be represented in words and images?

When was the last time you listened to a piece of music that objectively represents a tree, a slice of cake, Victorian furniture, a cup of coffee?

[Madiel]

Waaaait a minute....aren't they made up of words and images that are intended to represent things that can actually be represented in words and images?

When was the last time you listened to a piece of music that objectively represents a tree, a slice of cake, Victorian furniture, a cup of coffee?

Depends.

And after encountering Rene Magritte, now it's like Magritte never happened.

As I've already said, I agree that music is one of the most abstract of the arts. But it's a mistake to declare that music IS abstract, or that there's no overlap.

As for when the last time was that I listened to a piece of music that represents a tree, I'm not sure. I confess Beethoven didn't quite specify whether the blindingly obvious birds that appear in the 2nd movement of the 6th symphony were arboreally situated. I always assumed that they were, but I'm no ornithologist and can't swear to the living habits of the species in question.

[Karl Henning]

As I've already said, I agree that music is one of the most abstract of the arts. But it's a mistake to declare that music IS abstract, or that there's no overlap.

Agreed.  I exult in the ambiguity and the overlap.