Who cares if I listen? A study of dodecaphonic music enjoyment

[accmacmus]

As I have promised in the other thread, let me share with you the results of the «Dodecaphonic survey»: Who cares if I listen? A study of dodecaphonic music enjoyment.
No time to read? Have this executive summary:

• take a brief dodecaphonic piece, let us call it D;
  
• modify 10% of the notes in D by changing their pitch. Let us call this new piece DM;
  
• have an audience of people who appreciate dodecaphonic music listen to D and DM;
  
• there is no evidence that the listener's enjoyment is lowered from D to DM. In other words, dodecaphonic enthusiasts seem not to care that the notes being played are "wrong".
  

I want to thank everyone who took the survey and commented on in in the survey thread (and the one before that, obliterated due to server crash).

[71 dB]

Thanks for reporting about the findings of this study! The results make a lot of sense to me. When I did the test I really "hated" two of the samples (DOD original and DOD corrupted apparently) while one sample was a bit annoying (TON corrupted apparently) and one sample was superior to the other three (TON original).



The funny thing is according to this study you can potentially improve dodecaphonic piece of music by simply playing it wrong. 

[accmacmus]

Thanks 71 db. The study is conceptually simple but as all things it takes a bit of labour to devise/code/write, so your feedback — and everyone's — means a lot.

I believe people who really "enjoy" dodecaphonic music do it to feel intellectually superior to people enjoying tonal music rather than getting a real superior enjoyment out of dodecaphonic music. Of course dodecaphonic music can offer "something different" after you have listened to Mozart for 700 hours  Personally I listen to dodecaphonic music hardly at all and if I do it's Alban Berg. There is a reason why most music is tonal, why we have tonal centers and so on.

My conclusion is narrower: I believe that there is value in atonal (pardon the inexect word) music — in the end I personally enjoy some Schönberg, Berg, etc. from time to time —, it is just that the whole twelve-tone «scaffolding» does not add to the composition as much as was thought.

The funny thing is according to this study you can potentially improve dodecaphonic piece of music by simply playing it wrong.

I was puzzled by the data and had to double check it was not a plot error!

[some guy]

I believe people who really "enjoy" dodecaphonic music do it to feel intellectually superior to people enjoying tonal music rather than getting a real superior enjoyment out of dodecaphonic music.

Ah, this old chestnut, again.

And since we're talking about beliefs, here's mine: the people who believe this chestnut cannot understand how anyone can like something that they themselves do not like. The easiest way to deal with the situation is to simply deny that the people who enjoy something that you do not enjoy are not really enjoying it. They're just pretending. (Why this bit of self-deception would comfort anyone, I have no idea.)

And, to move away from beliefs for a moment and indulge in a spot of logic: I enjoy some pieces that are dodecaphonic. I enjoy some pieces that are tonal as well. That means, I suppose, that I listen to the one in order to feel intellectually superior to... myself? Hmmm. That seems a trifle off, somehow, doesn't it?

As for the "study" itself, there's a lot to unpack there, and little or nothing of value to gain from the unpacking. It starts with its conclusion and ends with it as well, dispensing with things like premises, which are pesky creatures that insist on getting in the way. Aside from reiterating my earlier comment from before the crash that dodecaphony is no longer new, in any sense of the word, I'll only mention that the concept of "wrong notes" cannot be applied equally to tonal and dodecaphonic musics. Tonal music has been around for a bit longer than dodecaphonic music, for one. It is ingrained to the extent of seeming natural (and not itself a complex and continually evolving system). That is, the sense of "right" in tonal music, as it is more familiar, is stronger than the sense of "right" in dodecaphonic music. Stronger, but even so.... Here are couple of counter examples from my own short (sixty years) experience with music (of all types). One is from my high school band teacher, who said once that most recordings of (tonal) classical music contain dozens of cuts that most listeneres simply do not notice at all. I'm not saying he was correct, mind. I cite him to point out that people who listen to tonal music can be seen as not being all that astute about mistakes themselves. The second gives different perspective. "When the British composer Charles Villiers Stanford heard Johannes Brahms play his Second Piano Concerto, he observed that the composer 'took it for granted that the public knew he had written the right notes, and did not worry himself over such little trifles as hitting the wrong ones. . . . [T]hey did not disturb his hearers any more than himself.'" (I don't remember where I found this wee gem.)

That is, "wrong notes," given the right (!) circumstance, needn't ruffle anyone's feathers.

[71 dB]

Thanks 71 db. The study is conceptually simple but as all things it takes a bit of labour to devise/code/write, so your feedback — and everyone's — means a lot.

Yes, I read the study in the link and I can see that this is normal scientific study, which takes effort. I know, because I used to do scientific research for a few years long ago until the funding ended. The study included arranging listening tests of how people hear room modes (as they are/corrected) below 200 Hz.

My conclusion is narrower: I believe that there is value in atonal (pardon the inexect word) music — in the end I personally enjoy some Schönberg, Berg, etc. from time to time —, it is just that the whole twelve-tone «scaffolding» does not add to the composition as much as was thought.

Sure, nothing wrong with listening to atonal music, but the fact is if dodecaphony was such a powerful tool there would be much more of it and much less tonal music in the World.

I was puzzled by the data and had to double check it was not a plot error!

Of course it's good to double-check your results before publishing your work, but as I said, the results make a lot of sense to me.

[Mahlerian]

I believe people who really "enjoy" dodecaphonic music do it to feel intellectually superior to people enjoying tonal music rather than getting a real superior enjoyment out of dodecaphonic music.

Or...because it's good music? The technique really isn't important. And why would I want to feel intellectually superior to a group that includes myself? It makes no sense.

Of course dodecaphonic music can offer "something different" after you have listened to Mozart for 700 hours  Personally I listen to dodecaphonic music hardly at all and if I do it's Alban Berg. There is a reason why most music is tonal, why we have tonal centers and so on.

Most music is not tonal. Tonality was a relatively short-lived phenomenon, as these things go (about 300 years), and everything else is...not tonal. The 12-tone method hasn't had time to last that long, but a lot of great music has been produced using it.


Years ago I took an online quiz/poll thing that asked whether I could tell the differences between piano music by Cage (Music of Changes, which used chance procedures), Boulez (the Second Sonata I think?), and Stockhausen (some of the Klavierstucke). I hadn't had all that much experience listening to that repertoire, and I could still tell the composers apart decently well (I think I got something like 75% correct). Contrary to the intent of the quiz, I came away convinced that the results of each composer's method, whether serial or chance, reflected a distinct and recognizable aesthetic.

Moreover, if you want to be disturbed by how little people are disturbed by "wrong notes," just check out the most popular Beethoven Symphony 5 video on Youtube, and then look at the comments:
https://www.youtube.com/v/fOk8Tm815lE

[accmacmus]

That is, the sense of "right" in tonal music, as it is more familiar, is stronger than the sense of "right" in dodecaphonic music.

Always amusing reading your post and the quoted part is indeed a worthy of consideration for future experiments.

Years ago I took an online quiz/poll thing that asked whether I could tell the differences between piano music by Cage (Music of Changes, which used chance procedures), Boulez (the Second Sonata I think?), and Stockhausen (some of the Klavierstucke). I hadn't had all that much experience listening to that repertoire, and I could still tell the composers apart decently well (I think I got something like 75% correct). Contrary to the intent of the quiz, I came away convinced that the results of each composer's method, whether serial or chance, reflected a distinct and recognizable aesthetic.

Interesting quiz, do you happen to know whether it is still online (and running)?

[Karl Henning]

I believe people who really "enjoy" dodecaphonic music do it to feel intellectually superior to people enjoying tonal music rather than getting a real superior enjoyment out of dodecaphonic music.

Secondly, I do not find that my enjoyment of dodecaphonic music is "superior" to my enjoyment of tonal music, nor vice versa.

Firstly, none of my enjoyment of any music of any stripe, involves any feellng of superiority to anyone else, whatever.

Your "belief" here is tosh.

[Mahlerian]

Interesting quiz, do you happen to know whether it is still online (and running)?

This might be the same thing:
https://lukedahn.wordpress.com/2014/04/22/aleatory-quiz/

(In the interest of transparency, I did the above again, and I mixed up one each of the Cage and Stockhausen excerpts with each other, but got the rest correct. The fact that Boulez's Second Sonata is a piece I know pretty well made identifying those excerpts easy.)


My biggest issue with the kind of test you ran (and any similar ones), is that it compares two completely different kinds of things: one pair of excerpts contrasts with notes that are outside of the expected diatonic context, while the other pair contains only notes that are from within the same fully chromatic context. If you want a fairer comparison, you can use either diatonic notes for the former (as I note you take note of on your page) or add quarter-tones etc. for the latter.

I've heard Schoenberg et. al. played well, and I've heard them played badly, I've played Babbitt's easiest piece on piano (Duet) myself, and let me tell you, I prefer all of the above played well rather than not.

[accmacmus]

My biggest issue with the kind of test you ran (and any similar ones), is that it compares two completely different kinds of things: one pair of excerpts contrasts with notes that are outside of the expected diatonic context, while the other pair contains only notes that are from within the same fully chromatic context. If you want a fairer comparison, you can use either diatonic notes for the former (as I note you take note of on your page) or add quarter-tones etc. for the latter.

Correct and indeed in the «Limitations» paragraph I noted:

[W]e could have corrupted the tonal pieces respecting tonality (i.e. shuffling notes on a diatonic scale rather than chromatic one).

Thank for the link, I will listen to the tracks now!

[Crudblud]

I believe people who really "enjoy" dodecaphonic music do it to feel intellectually superior to people enjoying tonal music rather than getting a real superior enjoyment out of dodecaphonic music.

There are people who believe that those who listen to or profess a liking for classical music only do so in order to appear intellectually superior to others. If you think that is a ridiculous position to hold, I invite you to reconsider what you have written here. I hasten to add that I do so as someone who currently has Haydn, Schumann, Bach, Lutyens, Schoenberg, and late Stravinsky in regular rotation.

[71 dB]

There are people who believe that those who listen to or profess a liking for classical music only do so in order to appear intellectually superior to others.

Yes, definitely! On some forums I am called an elitist when I list my CD purchases... 

If you think that is a ridiculous position to hold, I invite you to reconsider what you have written here. I hasten to add that I do so as someone who currently has Haydn, Schumann, Bach, Lutyens, Schoenberg, and late Stravinsky in regular rotation.

Well, I do listen to Alban Berg. Not often, but I do. Sometimes even Schoenberg and Webern. However, an elistist or intellectually superior I am not... 

[71 dB]

Secondly, I do not find that my enjoyment of dodecaphonic music is "superior" to my enjoyment of tonal music, nor vice versa.

Firstly, none of my enjoyment of any music of any stripe, involves any feellng of superiority to anyone else, whatever.

Your "belief" here is tosh.

I did not mean people like you. Clearly your enjoyment of dodecaphonic music is genuine and not a product of feeling superior.

[71 dB]

Or...because it's good music? The technique really isn't important. And why would I want to feel intellectually superior to a group that includes myself? It makes no sense.

Music being "good" is subjective. If something is "good" for you then great! Enjoy it! You don't need to get triggered by my post if you don't feel  intellectually superior. I meant people who do feel intellectually superior, not everyone who likes dodecaphonic music. Clearly I did not make this clear, sorry.

Most music is not tonal. Tonality was a relatively short-lived phenomenon, as these things go (about 300 years), and everything else is...not tonal. The 12-tone method hasn't had time to last that long, but a lot of great music has been produced using it.

Maybe 99 % of the music I listen to is tonal. For me tonality seems to be an attractive thing so that only 1 % of my listening in not tonal. A lot of contemporary composers choose tonalism. I wonder why? Why didn't Englund go dodecaphonic? As far as I see it tonalism is doing fine and it's dodecaphonic music that is "struggling". Where is the great dodecaphonic music composed during the last 50 years? Have I missed some great music here?

[Mahlerian]

Maybe 99 % of the music I listen to is tonal. For me tonality seems to be an attractive thing so that only 1 % of my listening in not tonal. A lot of contemporary composers choose tonalism. I wonder why? Why didn't Englund go dodecaphonic? As far as I see it tonalism is doing fine and it's dodecaphonic music that is "struggling". Where is the great dodecaphonic music composed during the last 50 years? Have I missed some great music here?

Properly speaking, most music of the 20th century (which I believe is mostly what you listen to) isn't tonal. Pop music isn't really tonal, minimalism isn't really tonal, impressionism certainly isn't tonal, and the so-called "neotonality" of people like Hindemith, Shostakovich, and Stravinsky isn't really tonal either.

Tonality, in that sense, is the specific set of hierarchies and musical norms that characterize common practice music of the 17th-19th centuries, and the above practices, while they may share some features in common with tonality, lack those particular norms.

I also see people bandying about a different definition of tonal that relates the word to "having a center" or something, but that really doesn't help to create a distinction, because 12-tone music also tends to have centers, even if they don't function in the same way. So then you would be contrasting two things that are actually overlapping categories, like dogs and mammals.

[Crudblud]

Yes, definitely! On some forums I am called an elitist when I list my CD purchases... 

Well, I do listen to Alban Berg. Not often, but I do. Sometimes even Schoenberg and Webern. However, an elistist or intellectually superior I am not... 

So, if it is ridiculous to call you an elitist for listening to classical music, in what sense is it legitimate to say that people who listen to twelve-tone music are only doing so to be "intellectually superior"?

[71 dB]

Properly speaking, most music of the 20th century (which I believe is mostly what you listen to) isn't tonal. Pop music isn't really tonal, minimalism isn't really tonal, impressionism certainly isn't tonal, and the so-called "neotonality" of people like Hindemith, Shostakovich, and Stravinsky isn't really tonal either.

Tonality, in that sense, is the specific set of hierarchies and musical norms that characterize common practice music of the 17th-19th centuries, and the above practices, while they may share some features in common with tonality, lack those particular norms.

I also see people bandying about a different definition of tonal that relates the word to "having a center" or something, but that really doesn't help to create a distinction, because 12-tone music also tends to have centers, even if they don't function in the same way. So then you would be contrasting two things that are actually overlapping categories, like dogs and mammals.

Well, how I have understood it, tonal music uses scales such Minor, Phrygian, Ultralocrian, Pentatonic or 6/8-note variations of these where a "spicy passing note" has been added (e.g. Blues scale) so that there is a clear root note/chord creating the tonal center ( hence tonal music). I believe pretty much all pop music is like that and for example Mixolydian scale has been popular in rock music. Am I mixing up tonal and modal music? I was never given good education of these concepts and I and trying to firuge things out by myself. I am not sure I know about the "norms" of common practice whatever they are.

[71 dB]

So, if it is ridiculous to call you an elitist for listening to classical music, in what sense is it legitimate to say that people who listen to twelve-tone music are only doing so to be "intellectually superior"?

Whether you are doing it to be "intellectually superior" or you are doing it for some other reason. I could be listening to classical music to feel "intellectually superior", in which case calling me an elitist would be accurate, but I am not. In fact, I openly tell how I also listen to "dumb" music such as Katy Perry.

Same goes to twelve-tone music.

[Mahlerian]

Well, how I have understood it, tonal music uses scales such Minor, Phrygian, Ultralocrian, Pentatonic or 6/8-note variations of these where a "spicy passing note" has been added (e.g. Blues scale) so that there is a clear root note/chord creating the tonal center ( hence tonal music). I believe pretty much all pop music is like that and for example Mixolydian scale has been popular in rock music. Am I mixing up tonal and modal music? I was never given good education of these concepts and I and trying to firuge things out by myself. I am not sure I know about the "norms" of common practice whatever they are.

Scales are really a secondary product, not a determiner of anything. You can find excerpts of Bach or Mozart that use the complete chromatic in a tonal context and of Debussy that use only the diatonic collection without tonal functionality.

Bach fugue in which the subject uses all twelve chromatic notes:
https://www.youtube.com/v/ryu7WcPV7fg

Debussy prelude which is largely diatonic but without any tonal functionality:
https://www.youtube.com/v/Eym3nCRxev0

Common practice tonality is a particular set of harmonic hierarchies and voice leading norms that held sway in the time frame of those few centuries which span the Baroque, Classical, and Romantic eras. Everything is oriented towards the dominant-tonic relationship and all harmonies/progressions are heard in terms of their distance or closeness to that relationship. That level of layered interconnection is something that's specific to tonality and doesn't really exist in either pre-tonal (modal) music or post-tonal music.

Rock and pop music tend to be triadic (using major and minor chords) and diatonic (as you said above, using 7-note scales like minor or Phrygian), but that sense of interdependence and more importantly of dominant-tonic hierarchy are not generally present, except as an occasional effect (which effect also appears in a good number of 12-tone pieces). Just as crucially, centricity in these musics is contextual and mutable. A classical sonata form that begins in one key and ends a step higher would seem strange; a pop song that does the same is banal.

[some guy]

Time to revisit what 71 db actually said:

I believe people who really "enjoy" dodecaphonic music do it to feel intellectually superior to people enjoying tonal music rather than getting a real superior enjoyment out of dodecaphonic music....

The funny thing is according to this study you can potentially improve dodecaphonic piece of music by simply playing it wrong. 

What's funny is your repeated attempts to insist that you did not really say what you really said. There is no wiggle room in this original statement. It is unequivocal.