Brains Cannot Cope!

[Ataraxia]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/7279626/Audiences-hate-modern-classical-music-because-their-brains-cannot-cope.html

[Karl Henning]

Well, I had better be careful, then, not to write music which makes the audience feel 'stupid' for not 'understanding' it!

Friendly Atonal Honking!

[Ataraxia]

We need patterns!

[Karl Henning]

They're in there!

[TheGSMoeller]

That article was written with such an odd structure that I couldn't figure out what the heck it was trying to explain.

[DavidW]

I think this is a bunch of bull, contradicting previous research as commented upon in Oliver Sacks book.  The real deal is that there are unique elements of our neural activity that light up when we hear familiar music that we enjoy.  But that music can be Bach or it can be Xenakis.  For instance Sacks himself had his brain scanned while listening to Bach (his favorite composer), and the way that his brain behaves is completely different from listening to Beethoven, a composer he never really grew to love.

And if you don't carefully choose your subjects to be sure that you have an unbiased group (instead of just having people in the audience come up, that's not even science that's vaudeville) you can't really draw any conclusions.

But then we have the real problem-- confusing the interpretation of anticipation with enjoyment.  I can anticipate what the next verse is in Chumbawamba's Tubthumping, but I would rather take a brick to the face than hear any more of that song!  Meanwhile the clever twisting of expectations that the great composers are known for bring a smile to my face.

[Elgarian]

I think the article is too simplistic, but I wouldn't dismiss it as entire nonsense. I can only speak from my own experience of listening to music, but on that basis I know for sure that the search for, and recognition of, pattern is central to my engagement. But the real pleasure and insight doesn't come from the satisfaction of being able to predict - as the article suggests - what comes next. Mostly, that sort of music may not survive a single listening. No, it comes mostly from the subtle subversion of that expectation; I'm led to water and allowed to drink - but mostly drink not quite what I expected. It's this delicious play on my expectations that draws me in again and again: the composer is saying to me, 'You thought it would be A, but actually it's B, and now try C for size. And alright, here's A after all, just to keep you with me, so I can now deliver D, and E, and surprise you again.'

Point is - he can only do that if I succeed in perceiving the pattern in the first place. I have to expect A in order to perceive the significance of B, C, D and E. If I fail (and I often do fail, because I'm musically illiterate to a considerable degree), I become lost, lose interest, and turn to my book - and this is true whether the music be old or new, tonal or atonal, or just a random collections of plinks and plonks and bangs on a drum. By all means connect me up to a brain machine and tell me what my neurons are doing if you must, but I think I prefer the less reductive approach of just contemplating what I thought was happening while I listened.

[Ataraxia]

I think the article is too simplistic, but I wouldn't dismiss it as entire nonsense. I can only speak from my own experience of listening to music, but on that basis I know for sure that the search for, and recognition of, pattern is central to my engagement. But the real pleasure and insight doesn't come from the satisfaction of being able to predict - as the article suggests - what comes next. Mostly, that sort of music may not survive a single listening. No, it comes mostly from the subtle subversion of that expectation; I'm led to water and allowed to drink - but mostly drink not quite what I expected. It's this delicious play on my expectations that draws me in again and again: the composer is saying to me, 'You thought it would be A, but actually it's B, and now try C for size. And alright, here's A after all, just to keep you with me, so I can now deliver D, and E, and surprise you again.'

Point is - he can only do that if I succeed in perceive the pattern in the first place. I have to expect A in order to perceive the significance of B, C, D and E. If I fail (and I often do fail, because I'm musically illiterate to a considerable degree), I become lost, lose interest, and turn to my book - and this is true whether the music be old or new, tonal or atonal, or just a random collections of plinks and plonks and bangs on a drum. By all means connect me up to a brain machine and tell me what my neurons are doing if you must, but I think I prefer the less reductive approach of just contemplating what I thought was happening while I listened.

Good post, as usual. 

[some guy]

I think the article is too simplistic,

Boy howdy!

but I wouldn't dismiss it as entire nonsense.

OK, utter nonsense then. Really, read it again. There's not a statement in there that's even close to right. (Probably because the main premise, that brains are all the same, is wrong. Probably because the minor premise, that what Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven wrote "followed strict musical formula to produce music that was easy on the ear." Yes. That's what made them all so different from each other, not to mention.

No, it comes mostly from the subtle subversion of that expectation; I'm led to water and allowed to drink - but mostly drink not quite what I expected. It's this delicious play on my expectations that draws me in again and again: the composer is saying to me, 'You thought it would be A, but actually it's B, and now try C for size. And alright, here's A after all, just to keep you with me, so I can now deliver D, and E, and surprise you again.'

Yeah. That's some good stuff. Not the only stuff, but good stuff nonetheless.

Point is - he can only do that if I succeed in perceiv[ing] the pattern in the first place.

Hmmmm. Humans do seem to be able to perceive patterns. Whether they are "really there" or not is, I think, irrelevant. What does "really there" really mean? If you perceive a pattern, you perceive a pattern. (The really good stuff is that the composer does some things, and the listener does some things. It's a partnership, eh?)

[Karl Henning]

Mind you, Alan never posts as if what he has to say is the only stuff.

Being responsible for good stuff is enow.

[Polednice]

The article certainly over-simplifies and confuses a complex topic which is nevertheless worth consideration. As has been pointed out already, part of the problem is what the patterns are, where they are, and how we perceive them. I'm fairly certain that if we listen hard enough we will find patterns in most music - even ever-maligned serialism is fundamentally based on patterns, but instead of it depending on a regular set of harmonic progressions, it depends upon a defined tone-row.

The real issue is not about listeners actively looking for and enjoying certain patterns, it's all about unconscious pattern recognition. We may love a great deal of music for reasons other than the patterns within it, but our ability to find it satisfying in the first place is often aided by the underlying pattern-based structure. The near-universality of pop music no doubt owes a lot to its immensely repetitive formulas, but that kind of repetition is obviously not what we want from thought-provoking contemporary classical music.

Nevertheless, I think there are arguments to be made in favour of certain "audience-friendly" styles which aren't boringly populist and don't require compositional compromises. To appeal to the kind of unconscious pattern recognition that the brain relishes, we do not need to use equal temperament or common practice period harmonies. There are many briefly or not-at-all explored tonal systems that give rise to a sense of patterns and centre while simultaneously sounding unlike anything we've heard before. However, in order to appreciate them, they do require a deal of repeated exposure and effort, which is something that many listeners are not willing to give to a full Beethoven symphony, let alone something a little more challenging and modern.

[some guy]

Here's Steven Stucky:

"Trying to imagine how other people will react to music, and then tailoring your music to elicit these reactions, is equivalent to writing advertising jingles. It may be honest work; it may even have some value to society; but it's not art, it's business. (A recent counterexample should still be fresh in our memories. In many of the formerly Communist countries, officials spent 30 years pressuring composers to write music aimed deliberately at the common man, tunes that could be readily understood by every factory worker. The results were disastrous. We would do well to keep that experiment in mind.)"

The whole article is very good.

http://www.stevenstucky.com/ListeningtoComtempMusic.shtml

[Elgarian]

Really, read it again.

Ooh, I'd do a lot for you, old chap - but I'd rather not read it again. I didn't say it was a good article!

There's not a statement in there that's even close to right.

Well I haven't considered all of them. What I was did was pick up one aspect of the pattern-perception part of what the article said, and ran with it in a different direction to see what happened. I tested one (only one) of its statements by comparing it with my own listening experience, and found it inadequate. (As you suggest, one of the reasons I love Mozart is for his continual subversion of what I expect.) Still, as you say, brains are not all the same, and I'm not suggesting that my listening process is like yours.

Hmmmm. Humans do seem to be able to perceive patterns. Whether they are "really there" or not is, I think, irrelevant. What does "really there" really mean? If you perceive a pattern, you perceive a pattern. (The really good stuff is that the composer does some things, and the listener does some things. It's a partnership, eh?)

It's definitely a partnership - you know I agree completely with you about that.

May I expand a bit on this pattern-perceiving process? A pattern is perceived if one can predict the next step. So to reduce the whole thing to its most simplistic form: 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 - next step is 12, yes? How nice. How secure we feel. But if we see 2, 4, 6, 8, 11, we experience something slightly disconcerting, and it's those kinds of shifts that I'm talking about - where an expectation is established, and then (deliberately) not fulfilled - but not fulfilled in an interesting way. So for example, suppose the sequence continued like this:

2, 4, 6, 8, 11, 12, 14, 16, 18, 21, 22, 24, 26, 28, 31, 32 ... etc

When we recognise that there's a pattern within the pattern (ie every fifth number has been increased by one), we might feel something different yet again. I know this is an absurd example, but that sort of thing, writ larger and more complex, is what I'm talking about. By contrast, if I see this:

4, 3, 8, 9, 12, 12, 16, 15, 20, 18, 24

then I may fail completely to see the pattern (yes, there is one), and walk away feeling rather irritated. As far as I'm concerned all I see is a jumble (even though I've been told it isn't, actually). And that makes me lose interest.

[Speaking of losing interest, did anyone make it to the end of this dreary and overlong post of mine?]

[Karl Henning]

(* raises his hand *)

[Elgarian]

(* raises his hand *)

(*Pins on a medal.)

[chasmaniac]

[Speaking of losing interest, did anyone make it to the end of this dreary and overlong post of mine?]

I'm sorry - did you say something? 

[Karl Henning]

(Glad I wore my plush vest.)

[Szykneij]

The whole article is very good.

http://www.stevenstucky.com/ListeningtoComtempMusic.shtml

Yes, I agree. I like his perspective.

Let's go back now to the first question. Assuming the best will in the world, how do you get the most out of listening to unfamiliar new music? Let me offer five short pieces of advice: (1) don't expect the wrong things; (2) be prepared for discontinuity; (3) don't try too hard; (4) expect new instruments, new sounds, and new influences from other cultures; and (5) give yourself permission to dislike what you hear.

[Karl Henning]

Yes, I agree. I like his perspective.

Let’s go back now to the first question. Assuming the best will in the world, how do you get the most out of listening to unfamiliar new music? Let me offer five short pieces of advice: (1) don’t expect the wrong things; (2) be prepared for discontinuity; (3) don’t try too hard; (4) expect new instruments, new sounds, and new influences from other cultures; and (5) give yourself permission to dislike what you hear.

Pithy excellence.

[Polednice]

Of course, for satisfaction to be derived from subverting patterns, you've got to have a pattern in the first place. This is why my argument was that it's not the compositional or conscious aspect that should adhere to certain patterns (that's instead where subversion comes in), but the fundamental, unconscious structure (where we gain a sense of pattern without realising that can then be manipulated for various purposes).