Audiences hate modern classical music because their brains cannot cope

[Madiel]

I simply cannot get past your idiotic assertion that my microwave beeping 3 times has no meaning beyond the fact that it beeped 3 times.

I don't create some storyline in my head about little people working away in my microwave ringing a bell. But that's the kind of caricature you're presenting.

[Monsieur Croche]

So, basically, you close your complaint about how people react to your opinion by creating a caricature of theirs.

EDIT: I simply couldn't have been any clearer that I am not a 'Romantic' and am not given to creating specific stories/images to go with music that was not assigned it by the composer.

There is absolutely no 'complaint' in that post. Anyone would unquestionably know if I were complaining about anything, and that post was not it 

[Madiel]

There is absolutely no 'complaint' in that post. Anyone would unquestionably know if I were complaining about anything, and that post was not it 

Fine. Let's just call it a condescending put-down of anyone who doesn't agree with you. It still contains a complete caricature of why people might disagree with you.

[Monsieur Croche]

I simply cannot get past your idiotic assertion that my microwave beeping 3 times has no meaning beyond the fact that it beeped 3 times.

Dude, several people chimed in on that one [pun intended] and each saying clearly something about the conditioned response to sounds. "Food Ready" is a conditioned response, an exact parallel to the classic and archetypal behaviorist experiment conducted by Pavlov, concerning dogs, a bell, and food.

Without the conditioning, "Food Ready" disappears and what is left is "Ding Ding Ding" without specific or associative meaning.

If you prefer to 'not get it,' that is something to which you have every right.


Best regards

[Monsieur Croche]

Fine. Let's just call it a condescending put-down of anyone who doesn't agree with you. It still contains a complete caricature of why people might disagree with you.

You're going to call it whatever you prefer to call it, but you know that, too, I think.

[Mirror Image]

I can hear the mods locking thread shut at any time.

[Madiel]

Dude, several people chimed in on that one [pun intended] and each saying clearly something about the conditioned response to sounds. "Food Ready" is a conditioned response, an exact parallel to the classic and archetypal behaviorist experiment conducted by Pavlov, concerning dogs, a bell, and food.

Without the conditioning, "Food Ready" disappears and what is left is "Ding Ding Ding" without specific or associative meaning.

If you prefer to 'not get it,' that is something to which you have every right.


Best regards

Why do you think the manufacturer's of the microwave made it beep when the timer reaches zero? Eh?

Come on, I'm waiting. I'm waiting for a convincing explanation as to why the associative meaning isn't exactly the purpose.

No. You know what? I'm done here. I'm going to go back to my reviews of Holmboe, Brahms and Dvorak in the respective composer threads, surprisingly free of the magic stories that you seem to think that I must be so fond of.

But I won't be surprised if one day I hear you perished in a fire, because you insisted that the alarm had no meaning without association, that you were resistant to such conditioning, and that what really mattered was that the alarm was producing a slightly out of tune C sharp.

[kishnevi]

I can hear the mods locking thread shut at any time.

I have been avoiding this thread on purpose. 

I gave in to temptation...
Mea culpa.

[Monsieur Croche]

Why do you think the manufacturer's of the microwave made it beep when the timer reaches zero? Eh?

Come on, I'm waiting. I'm waiting for a convincing explanation as to why the associative meaning isn't exactly the purpose.

Uh, the brochure tells you what that signal means, and you will have the association that then means "Food ready?" The sound and association connection stated, and knowing it works well from the groundbreaking work done by Pavlov, made coming up with the idea of making the microwave signal for 'done' nothing in the way of new invention.

Or something much like the above, of which we are both sure, while I think you and I may forever have very different ideas of not what sound is, but what it can do, associative or otherwise.

... and Vive la difference!

And especially YES to I first looked at the thread because it was 'contentiously' about modern /contemporary music, and went side-tracked all too readily. Back to that topic, yes and please.

[Mirror Image]

I have been avoiding this thread on purpose. 

I gave in to temptation...
Mea culpa.

Orfeo is a very intelligent guy and if he says he's done talking about something ---- I believe he truly means it. Now, let's see if Monsieur Croche can just let it go.

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

Orfeo is a very intelligent guy and if he says he's done talking about something ---- I believe he truly means it. Now, let's see if Monsieur Croche can just let it go.

I don't know about you, but I find the interaction very interesting to read indeed. Of course, I have always had my own opinion of this topic in particular for as long as I can remember, so I'm fascinated to hear what orfeo, Monsieur Croche and others have to say. Although I must admit, I agree with both on the most part and disagree with both on some arguments they've made on the side.

[Florestan]

Some seem to not only think, but believe, that if they do not know of that scene or illustration printed on the tin, the date and history of the picture printed on the tin, the history of society in relation to the making of that picture and tin, and do not eat the cookie that is in that tin along with the tin [which includes the picture and all those ancillary bits of history] while thinking about 'the rest of all that,' then the eating of that cookie is going to be less than the full experience of the eating of the cookie. Go figure.

You´re quite good at making false analogies.

The listener knowing those references can add another dimension of interest for the listener, while none of those references on their own can in any way strengthen whatever is innate to the piece itself.

There is nothing innate to any piece, except in the case the piece wrote itself or appeared out of the blue sky on the paper. Each and every pìece of music is composed by somebody and is ipso facto, naturally and inescapably, an expression of that somebody´s thoughts, feelings and imagination, all of which in their turn are influenced and informed by the society and the times he lives in.

In my book, any piece of music has to stand completely on its own apart from 'all of that' to be given a listen by 'the open ears,' and if a piece is in any way dependent for its success on its extramusical / non-musical contexts, or any 'references' it makes, it is an inherently weak[er] as a piece of music. All the 'contextual asides' associated with a piece, the history or 'sociology' of it, the composer's biography, etc. i.e. anything but the piece itself, are mere props.

The logical practical outcome of this philosophy is that CDs should be released not only without any liner notes, but also without any reference whatsoever to the composer and performers. Just the music on its own.

[Elgarian]

Now, as I understand (and to whatever agree accord with) the objection to music's expressing anything, the reality is that (to pluck a number out of the air) in 87% of the cases, the composer is powerless to convey to the listener his own non-musical associations, other than by non-musical means.

On the face of it, you're right Karl. But there is something about the act of 'putting it out there' that carries along with it a certain hope, isn't there? A hope that if there is some non-musical component which the composer wishes to convey, there might be some listener(s) out there who will pick it up? Certainly I experience something of this with my writing - I know that most readers will read some essay of mine and get the 'facts' alright, because I've taken care to be clear about the things I can be clear about. But there's often something else, something in between and beyond the words, which I hope may be found by the sensitive reader, and which sometimes (very rarely) is. When that happens, the joybells ring.

[Elgarian]

But you keep going to the extreme of declaring that any extramusical associations are somehow a weakness. And this is the part that makes me want to bang my head against a wall. No, they're not a weakness. They are in fact inevitable. Even if you avoid the road of giving pieces titles and programs and all that stuff which I, too, think is rot if someone besides the composer did it, no sane composer produces their music unaware of the things that their music will evoke in listeners, and evoking something is the entire bloody point.

Very well said. Yes, this is the source of the heat this discussion is generating. We can all agree that there's no certainty of conveying extramusical associations reliably, through music. The problem is arising, I think, precisely because of what you've identified here. To declare a crucial part of many people's music listening to be a weakness is not merely an extreme view to take, and not merely a bit silly, but also, when forcibly expressed, lacking in empathy. 'Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.'

[some guy]

I know I'm coming back into this late, after the water that was under the bridge for a second is now clear out in the ocean, but there's a pattern here that I have seen, and deprecated, many many times in these kinds of discussions, a pattern that doesn't often get seen because the participants are quite busily participating.

I hope y'all think it's worthwhile to pay attention to the pattern, in the assuredly fond hope that it can be broken.

...it's the flavour of absolutism in your posts that is getting a reaction from me.

This gave me pause. There is little or no absolutism inside M. Croche's posts, as he has already pointed out, to little avail. But I get the strongest of strong flavour of absolutism in practically every post of orfeo's. (Par example: "...no sane composer produces their music unaware of the things that their music will evoke in listeners, and evoking something is the entire bloody point.")

It's not the flavour of absolutism that orfeo is finding objectionable, I would posit, it's that someone disagrees with him. It's the flavour of disagreement that's getting him worked up--to the extent of even shouting his absolutism, with vocabulary like "inevitable," and with loaded terms like "sane" and emphatic terms like "bloody" (in this case doubly emphasized by being put into italics.)

Now, it is probably impossible to break that pattern. It is probably inevitable. Certainly people who react so strongly to disagreement will not themselves be likely to be interested in breaking that pattern. But a conversation that consists of people sayin "NO!! YOU'RE WRONG!!" alla time is not so much a conversation as it is a yelling match. It's all about, as Elgarian just alluded to, about being right. Not about constructing an argument, with assertions and supports, with opinions and facts, with logic and humour, even, maybe. Certainly not about doing what Elgarian and I have done in the past, explain positions on matters and attempt to understand contrary positions.

No. It's all about winning. And even Karl, who is very possibly not even trying to be "right" but to think and to understand, as is his wont, is characterised as being "right." Well at least on the face of it.

And not even about winning, but simply bludgeoning one's opponents into submission by any means possible, fair or foul. It's the world of all-in quarrelling, with lots of doubling down and not a hint of concession or even understanding. It's not a world for learning or for understanding. It's not a world for intelligence. It's a world for being right. Or "right."

And just you wait. What will be the inevitable conclusion about what I just said, from people who disagree with me on other topics? Even with this prediction right here inside this post. Yep, that I'm trying to set myself up as some sort of argument dictator, deciding what's legitimate and what's not, not on any logical grounds, of course, but just as caprice. And so, capriciously, the true forces of caprice will be all over this modest plea. In fact, its modesty will just enrage the hounds of caprice as they tear into it with the fangs of derision and self-righteousness.

Ouch!

[Madiel]

There is little or no absolutism inside M. Croche's posts, as he has already pointed out, to little avail.

"Ding Ding Ding," can only express and mean "Ding Ding Ding."

[Madiel]

It's not the flavour of absolutism that orfeo is finding objectionable, I would posit, it's that someone disagrees with him.

Kindly don't try to read my mind.

You can say whatever you like about what you think of what I've posted and the views I've put forward - and at this point in time I'm simply not going to reply to any of that. But suggesting that you know what I'm really thinking, and that it's different from what I say I'm thinking, is crossing a line.

In fact, it's pretty much what got me so angry earlier today.

[Florestan]

And just you wait. What will be the inevitable conclusion about what I just said, from people who disagree with me on other topics? Even with this prediction right here inside this post. Yep, that I'm trying to set myself up as some sort of argument dictator, deciding what's legitimate and what's not, not on any logical grounds, of course, but just as caprice. And so, capriciously, the true forces of caprice will be all over this modest plea. In fact, its modesty will just enrage the hounds of caprice as they tear into it with the fangs of derision and self-righteousness.

Ouch!

Talk about "Head I win, tail you lose!"... 

[Mirror Image]

I don't know about you, but I find the interaction very interesting to read indeed. Of course, I have always had my own opinion of this topic in particular for as long as I can remember, so I'm fascinated to hear what orfeo, Monsieur Croche and others have to say. Although I must admit, I agree with both on the most part and disagree with both on some arguments they've made on the side.

It is great to read other people's opinions on this matter, but while there's always going to be arguing a point from both sides, I believe that both parties should take two steps back and catch their breath. As some guy mentioned, and I agree with, is often these kinds of arguments just turn into yelling matches with each side trying to prove how right they are. Personally, I have no need, nor care, to argue with anyone about music. I think the most important thing in a discussion like this is that everyone respects each other's opinions whether they disagree with them or not. You don't have to like another person's opinion, but there's no need in escalating the argument as both party's are more than likely not going to change their mind.

This said, my opinion on the matter is pretty simple: I'm a Romantic at heart even though I sometimes wear Modernist clothing. I like music that has melody, harmony, rhythm, and some kind of structure. Those are the basic foundations for music in my opinion. I think music should express something and I'm not of the opinion that Stravinsky held that music expresses nothing but itself. This couldn't be further from the truth even when a composer is setting texts for an oratorio or cantata as the texts are meant to convey an atmosphere and some kind of meaning and the music that accompanies the texts reacts according to the dramatic narrative that's within those texts. That's just one out of a thousand examples. When you have more abstract forms like a symphony or a concerto --- this becomes a bit harder to decipher, but, still, there's a lyrical quality in the music that pulls you along on a journey. For me, the best music does create these kinds of atmospheres where your following some kind of story. These stories are figments of my imagination in many cases, but that's what great music does to me --- it invites your own personal interpretation. For better or for worse, this is how I feel and, as I mentioned on another thread, there is no right or wrong way to listen to music and everyone should be left to believe what they want. If this helps us get closer to the music, then it can never be a terrible thing.

[Karl Henning]

On the face of it, you're right Karl. But there is something about the act of 'putting it out there' that carries along with it a certain hope, isn't there? A hope that if there is some non-musical component which the composer wishes to convey, there might be some listener(s) out there who will pick it up? Certainly I experience something of this with my writing - I know that most readers will read some essay of mine and get the 'facts' alright, because I've taken care to be clear about the things I can be clear about. But there's often something else, something in between and beyond the words, which I hope may be found by the sensitive reader, and which sometimes (very rarely) is. When that happens, the joybells ring.

Yes, hope is indeed operable at various levels for the composer