GMG Classical Music Forum

QuotePhilip Ball, author of The Music Instinct, has drawn on the latest scientific findings from neuroscientists to show structure and patterns in music are a fundamental part of musical enjoyment.

He said: "Many people still seem to find modern classical music challenging. If that is the case, then they can relax as it is challenging for a good reason and it is not because they are in some way too musically stupid to appreciate it.

"The brain is a pattern seeking organ, so it looks for patterns in music to make sense of what we hear. The music of Bach, for example, embodies a lot of the pattern forming process.

"Some of the things that were done by those composers such as Schoenberg undermined this cognitive aid for making music easier to understand and follow. Schoenberg's music became fragmented which makes it harder for the brain to find structure.

"That isn't to say, of course, that it is impossible to listen to, it is just harder work. It would be wrong to dismiss such music as a racket."

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

QuoteAudiences hate modern classical music because their brains cannot cope

Crap!

QuoteMr Ball believes that many traditional composers such as Mozart, Bach and Beethoven subconsciously followed strict musical formula to produce music that was easy on the ear by ensuring it contained patterns that could be picked out by the brain.

More crap!

Testify, Andrei!

Quote from: Florestan on February 23, 2010, 09:56:06 AM
Crap!

The state of newspaper headlines all over the world.

As so often happens, the cited expert is more nuanced than the headline would suggest:

"That isn't to say, of course, that it is impossible to listen to, it is just harder work. It would be wrong to dismiss such music as a racket."

He's right, isn't he?

Actually, in reading a review of the book  (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/bookreviews/7264909/The-Music-Instinct-How-Music-Works-and-Why-We-Cant-Do-Without-it-by-Philip-Ball-review.html) (a different article in the same edition of the Telegraph) it sounded somewhat interesting. 

The real subject of the book is not why audiences do not take to atonal music.

The first sentence is a sweeping generalization: "audiences" (which ones?) "hate" (oh really?) "modern classical music" (oxymoron notwithstanding, Bartok, Enescu or Prokofiev are just as modern as Schoenberg or Webern, yet their musical idioms are a world apart) "because their brains can't cope" (oh yes, they are genetically programmed morons).

The second sentence adds sheer nonsense to sweeping generalization: "Bach, Mozart and Beethoven subconsciously" (forget about the creative personality of an artist, everything boils down to subconsciousness) "followed strict musical formula" (oh yes, Beethoven is the epitome of formulaic music, while Schoenberg is the champion of free expression) "to produce music that was easy on the ear" (The Art of Fugue, anyone? Too many notes, Mozart!, anyone? Eroica or The Great Fugue, anyone?) ""by ensuring" (ensuring implies purpose and intention, and as such it can't be subconscious) "it contained patterns that could be picked out by the brain. " (sure, Mozart was the founder of neuroscience).

As I said: crap!

Quote from: Opus106 on February 23, 2010, 10:05:49 AM
The state of newspaper headlines all over the world.

:)

Quote from: Velimir on February 23, 2010, 10:08:07 AM
"That isn't to say, of course, that it is impossible to listen to, it is just harder work. It would be wrong to dismiss such music as a racket."

He's right, isn't he?

This is pretty bad, actually.  Two elements are the soft bigotry of double-negatives . . . don't say it's impossible to listen to! . . don't dismiss it as a racket!

The third element is in affirmative voice, but at a 87% derogatory angle:  It's harder to listen to.  What, for everyone?  And, why does this matter?  Is music a labor-saving device?  (Well, for some listeners, yes . . . .)

And, as Andrei points out, as a sweeping generality, it is ultra-piffle.

Interesting how ahistorical such studies are, or at least how ahistorical the conclusions are, and how ahistorical discussions about "modern" music continue to be.

Audiences started to hate modern classical music, noticably and with malice aforethought, around 1810, and really hated it (contents of "it" different by then) by 1860. By then, audiences hated anything new, both avant garde and the consciously regressive. Writing like Mozart in the mid nineteenth century got you nowhere. (Writing like Brahms or even Sibelius in the early 21st century gets you everywhere!!)

The reasons for the hate were many and various, and none of them had to do (or maybe I should say "few of them had to do") with their brains being unable to cope. Besides, look at the modern music that people were hating then. Aside from the stuff that's disappeared, this is Schumann and Liszt and Wagner, folks like that. Bread and butter to today's listener, and apparently just chock-full of patterns to recognize.

Otherwise, I want to point out in regard to this thread's title, that Mr. Ball concluded in his study that listeners do NOT have trouble because their brains cannot cope!! ("...it is not because they are in some way too musically stupid to appreciate it.) That's the assertion we should be/could be talking about! [As Karl just did in the post that appeared while I was writing this.]

I do enjoy Vivaldi, his music doesn't demand any of my attention . . . .

My daughter sent me the article some days ago, and I just did not have the time to start a topic.

The ultimate point is that any "patternizing" imposed by the brain is subjective, and yes, takes concentration!  Poor babies!   8)

I was reminded of a book by a certain Professor William Thomson called Schoenberg's Error.

You can sample it here:

http://www.questia.com/library/book/schoenbergs-error-by-william-thomson.jsp (http://www.questia.com/library/book/schoenbergs-error-by-william-thomson.jsp)

And you thought Schoenberg had not made any errors at all!
:o

Quote from: Cato on February 23, 2010, 11:08:33 AM
. . . And you thought Schoenberg had not made any errors at all!
:o

Well, he caught most of them in the galleys . . . .

   I suppose it's human nature for people to often be hostile to things that are new and unfamiliar. It's no different in music. 
  It's not only modern music. Some one who is altogether unfamiliar with classical music will often rect with incomprehension and hostility to it.
  Also, people like what they are famiiar with, and often don't want to try something new, not only in music. 
  In my classical music appreciation class at a nursing home in New Rochelle, there's one lady who loves classical music, and her favorite composer is Rachmaninov, especially his piano concertos. She also loves Tchaikovsky and 19th century Romatic music in general.
  She absolutely hates anything "modern", and sometimes walks out on me,unlike the other members of my group.
  She doesn't even like Mahler!  If I play anything by Prokofiev,Shostakovich, Bartok, etc, she can't stand it.
Once,I played the very entertaining Khatchaturian piano concerto, not a difficult piece to listen to at all, and she hated it and called it"atonal, even though it's no more atonal than Brahms.  I explained to her that it's in the unusual key of D falt major.
The other listeners are always much more willing to try unfamiliar works, and I try to provide as much variety as possible.
Recently,I played the Schoenberg concerto first, and then the Rachmaninov 2nd piano concerto, which is one of her favorites. I tried to explain that this was like eating your vegetables first,and then having desert! Every one laughed! Of course, this lady did not like the Scheonberg, but was delighted to hear the Rachmaninov.

Quote from: Superhorn on February 23, 2010, 11:56:48 AM
   I suppose it's human nature for people to often be hostile to things that are new and unfamiliar. It's no different in music. 
  It's not only modern music. Some one who is altogether unfamiliar with classical music will often rect with incomprehension and hostility to it.
  Also, people like what they are famiiar with, and often don't want to try something new, not only in music.

Quote from: Woodrow WilsonIf you want to make enemies, try to change something.

Quote from: Superhorn on February 23, 2010, 11:56:48 AM
    I tried to explain that this was like eating your vegetables first,and then having desert! Every one laughed!

Some people don't actually like sweets, and are on a steady diet of veggies.  :D

  How do you like my new horn avatar?

Quote from: Superhorn on February 23, 2010, 12:12:14 PM
  How do you like my new horn avatar?

Sweet! 

Quote from: Superhorn on February 23, 2010, 11:56:48 AMI suppose it's human nature for people to often be hostile to things that are new and unfamiliar.

Are you saying I'm not human????

CAUTION: LONG BUT FASCINATING POST

The German newspaper Die Zeit published a more nuanced and much more interesting article on a similar subject several months ago. Near the end, it also presents a fascinating idea for the presentation of new music to audiences.

Here is a translation to English by my father, for me:

QuoteToo Crooked for Our Brains

New Music is hard work.  Neuroscientists and musical scientists research, why the sounds of Schőnberg, Stockhausen, and Cage only appeal to a tiny minority.
Christoph Drősser
Die Zeit, October 15, 2009 Issue
This translation was done on the plane and at DFW, so don't expect too high quality.

At the beginning of the 20th century, the composer Arnold Schőnberg is supposed to have said that in 50 years, people would be whistling his music on the streets.  This hope was not without foundation: revolutionaries such as Beethoven ran at first into incomprehension and rejection, before the Ode to Joy became a worldwide hit.  But Schőnberg has been dead for 58 years, and his twelve tone series have no more found their way into popular culture than the electronic experiments of Karlheinz Stockhausen or the sound collages of Pierre Henry.

New Music has gotten old in loneliness, and the contemporaries of "contemporary classical music" are slowly dying off.  The tiny audiences for New Music, who often only come to the concert because it is part of a series, often sits in incomprehension before this music.  Almost everyone knows the "Hurz" sketch by Hape Kerkeling, who makes fun of the deep divide between musicians and the public, which apparently accepts any nonsense as art.

The situation is completely different in contemporary art and sculpture: it is also often inaccessible, experimental, absurd, and ready to break every convention, but the museums of modern art are overrun with visitors.  What is different about contemporary classical music?

This weekend (the paper is dated 15 October 2009) this question will be discussed in Kempten in Allgäu – with participation of science.  At the Zeitklänge-Festival (roughly Time Sound or Contemporary Sound) they will play new music, and in parallel musical scientists, brain researchers, and philosophers will give their views of the phenomenon.  And in fact, new research results can contribute to the clarification of the question.

Unlike what one might perhaps expect, in these debates the absolute characteristics of music are rarely discussed, for example, whether modern sounds are "dissonant" or "not harmonic".  This isn't adequate, and suffers from the fact that consonance and dissonances are difficult to define.  Since the time of Pythagoras, people have attempted to define desirable musical sounds in terms of integer multiples of frequencies, but this effort is doomed to failure already for mathematical reasons.  After all, cultures outside of Europe show that our Western tone scale is by no means a fundamental natural law, nor is harmony based on sharp and flat.  Indonesian Gamelan music and Indian Raga scales sound wrong to European ears.

Only in recent years have the German researchers Gerald Langner and Martin Ebeling developed a complicated mathematical theory of consonance that can be tested against actual events in the brain.  "But even if you apply this consonance theory, modern music is not ad absurdum", says the musical scientist Herbert Bruhn from Flensburg.  Babies do show a preference for desirable sounds, but in the course of our lives we also listen with pleasure to music with dissonance such as Bach's harmonic games or the sometimes crooked sound painting of the Romantic era.  The researchers are astonished, how plastic our brains are.  The brain can "tune in to" the most different musical styles, and it changes constantly in the course of doing so.

The brain researchers have two explanations for this apparent variety: the first is "statistical learning", in which we pick up different musical styles in a similar way to learning a new language.  The second explanation lies in the game of fulfilling or disappointing expectations, a game which Homo sapiens apparently enjoys greatly.

Statistical learning happens when we extract rules and structure out of sensual impressions, without having anyone expressly explain them.  A small child learning to talk has no other choice: he has to distill out of the spoken sounds that stream into him, those that belong to his mother tongue (German has a different supply of phonemes than English).  The next step is to divide the continuous stream of sounds into sensible sections, such as syllables, words, and sentences.  Our brains do this automatically, in that it prefers those sounds and combinations that it hears especially often.

This is exactly how we learn music.  At first, we isolate out of the many possible tonal scales the one that dominates in our culture.  This becomes a preference that we can hardly escape from.  The brain is especially good at noticing small melodic elements – a musical phrase – which occurs again later in the piece.  The recognition of repetition is an experience of success that lets us understand the music.

It is precisely these experiences of success that New Music denies the listener.  The twelve tone composers who followed Schőnberg demand for example that in a so-called series all twelve tones of the western scale must be used before the first tone can be repeated.  Then the series is shifted by a couple of notes, played backwards, or played in mirror image.  It is quite a task to recognize such figures.  It is not just like remembering a 12 digit phone number, but also to recognize it when it is repeated with four added to each digit.  Psychological experiments have shown that only very experienced fans of this musical genre who have spent years on the task are able to do this.  The short term memory of most people is simply overwhelmed.

Eckart Altenműller or the college of music and theater in Hannover describes the paradox of New Music: "We can understand New Music better, if we listen to it more often – but it is composed in such a way that most people are not attracted to listen more often."  Specialists often do not understand why the public reacts with rejection, since their own brains have long since become trained to recognize the corresponding musical rules.

Do Schőnberg, Stockhausen & Co. leave us cold because we have been calibrated to simple musical rules by children's songs and radio pop music?  This alone cannot provide an explanation.  There are other highly complex musical directions, from Bach's fugues to modern jazz, which sound foreign at first, but are sufficiently fascinating that many people are attracted to them.  Why doesn't New Music manage it?  Here the game of expectations plays a role.  Our brains get great pleasure from the expectation game, and modern composers systematically make it difficult for the brain.

Music takes place in time.  Therefore, we apply our "future sense" to music, as the musical psychologist David Huron puts it.  In our evolution, it was important to be able to constantly predict the future from the present.  The person who recognized that a certain sound in the bushes meant that a saber tooth tiger was about to pounce, found it easier to avoid being eaten.  The better a person could predict the future, the better his chances of survival.  This is why we are calmed and satisfied, when our predictions prove true, and we are upset, sometimes even panicked, when our predictions go wrong. Music, Huron says, is a sort of dry run for this sense of the future.  With music we sharpen our ability to predict, without having to fear serious consequences if we fail.  A musical surprise does not induce panic, but it still registers in brain signals.  The musical researcher Stefan Koelsch, who now teaches in Brighton, proved at the Max Planck Institute for Cognitive and Neurosciences in Leipzig that even small violations of musical "grammar" lead to measureable brain activity – even in people who consider themselves not interested in music.

Interesting music is characterized by satisfying our sense of the future on the one hand, but then frequently intentionally violating it and thus creating excitement and tension.  Completely predictable music is boring, while completely unpredictable notes are not even recognized as music, but rather only as strange sounds – and nobody has fun with that.  "We cannot make music", writes David Huron, "that does not stimulate the machinery of human pleasure, and expect that people will in some mysterious way find the music irresistible."

"I also get goose bumps, when I recognize a twelve-tone series again"

Precisely this "pleasure principle" was for many modern composers a thorn in the eye, especially for the philosopher Theodor W. Adorno, who made a name for himself as a musical theorist.  He hated everything beautiful and pleasing in music, he condemned (without qualification) the emotionality of jazz music, and he expected continuous "innovation" from music. 

Modern music may fulfill these criteria without effort.  But is it in return intentionally without pleasure, simply an intellectual game?  Those who have made the effort to learn to listen can certainly be emotionally moved.  "I also get goose bumps, when I recognize a twelve-tone series again", says Eckart Altenműller.  "But this comes from decades of practice in New Music.  I wouldn't expect that of my secretary."  The secretary agrees unconditionally.

With their continual striving for innovation and for new sounds, composers leave the broad public behind – a bizarre characteristic of Western classical music.  In other cultures and in other styles of music, the existing is repeated in ever new variations, often with improvisatory elements.  In "serious" music there is an amazing contradiction: the music of the old masters from previous centuries is repeated again and again with exquisite precision, but if a modern composer were to use notes in the manner of Mozart, he would immediately be accused of kitsch.  "Mozart and Bach completely exhausted central European music", says Herbert Bruhn.  Since there is nothing more to add, one lands automatically in the world of experimental classical at some point, and experimental music sees itself obliged to dissolve all melodic and harmonic structures.

The British music scientist John Sloboda sees the reason for the poor acceptance of experimental music not just in the avant garde structures, but in the social interaction with the music.  Sloboda draws a comparison to modern art: in a museum the visitor can freely choose which picture to look at for how long, he can discuss it with friends or stop for a coffee to process his impressions.  "But if you go into a concert hall, it's like a prison".  The listener is stuck in a seat for hours, motionless and mute, while others determine the program.  "The modern public finds this unacceptable."

We look at abstract pictures – atonal music must also be seen

Can the form of the presentation perhaps help us to better hear the difficult to digest?  Sloboda tells enthusiastically about a very successful presentation of modern music in a museum in Manchester.  The listeners could wander between several rooms and stages, and only stayed if they felt really affected.  In this situation, emotions could freely flow between the musicians and the public.

Fans of new music like Altenműller say that a live experience contributes to the understanding of inaccessible sound worlds.  In a live presentation, an additional strength of our brain comes into play – empathy, the ability to put oneself into the world of feelings of another.  "Through expressions, posture, breathing and movement, in short by the actions of the interpreter (musician) who is dealing with the music", the piece becomes comprehensible.  Herbert Bruhn agrees: "I won't listen to this music on CD – the eye has to listen along".

Quote from: Brian on February 23, 2010, 12:27:26 PM
CAUTION: LONG BUT FASCINATING POST
The German newspaper Die Zeit published a more nuanced and much more interesting article on a similar subject several months ago. Near the end, it also presents a fascinating idea for the presentation of new music to audiences.

Please thank your father for a brilliantly translated piece, the contents of which make perfect  sense to me and opens it up to a wider English speaking audience.  I have printed it off for future reference - and for me, there is a great idea in placing 'new' music with corresponding or equally evocative images / art.  There is a very good chance I would listen to Schoenberg and his cronies a lot more working through this idea.

Quote from: Brian on February 23, 2010, 12:27:26 PMa more nuanced and much more interesting article

And more full of error!

QuoteNew Music is hard work.  Neuroscientists and musical scientists research, why the sounds of Schőnberg, Stockhausen, and Cage only appeal to a tiny minority.

All art music, even the older stuff, is hard work, then, as is pointed out later in this same article, apparently with no sense of contradiction. It certainly appeals to only a tiny minority. (Three out of a hundred is tiny, right?)

QuoteSchőnberg has been dead for 58 years, and his twelve tone series have no more found their way into popular culture than the electronic experiments of Karlheinz Stockhausen or the sound collages of Pierre Henry.

All of these sounds and patterns have found their way into movies, as James just pointed out. You can't get more "popular culture" than the movies, eh?

QuoteNew Music has gotten old in loneliness, and the contemporaries of "contemporary classical music" are slowly dying off.

I'm not dead, yet! (I'm getting better!!)

QuoteThe tiny audiences for New Music, who often only come to the concert because it is part of a series, often sits in incomprehension before this music.

Wow. The generalities and assumptions of this article are truly breathtaking!

Quote...they will play new music, and in parallel musical scientists, brain researchers, and philosophers will give their views of the phenomenon.  And in fact, new research results can contribute to the clarification of the question.

Well, not until someone gets serious about identifying WHO they play the music to. (And what, particular music they're playing. What, specifically does "new music" refer to? This whole thing sounds very UNscientific to me.)

Quote...actual events in the brain.

A chimera. Sure there are actual events in brains. But as to what those are or what they mean.... And there certainly is no such thing as "the brain," as witness the vast difference between the actual event in my brain when live electronic improv (read "non-repetitious, complex sounds, non-sequential") is going on and the actual event in someone else's brain who's not um quite as taken with random noises as I am.

QuoteThe researchers are astonished, how plastic our brains are.

"Howls of derisive laughter, Bruce!" How extraordinary. Researchers into the human brain astonished at its plasticity. Wow. (News flash: Scientists in Antarctica astonished at how cold it is down there.)

But agreed

QuoteThe brain can "tune in to" the most different musical styles, and it changes constantly in the course of doing so.

Quote...this is how we learn music. At first, we isolate out of the many possible tonal scales the one that dominates in our culture.  This becomes a preference that we can hardly escape from.  The brain is especially good at noticing small melodic elements – a musical phrase – which occurs again later in the piece.  The recognition of repetition is an experience of success that lets us understand the music.

    It is precisely these experiences of success that New Music denies the listener.

Yes. We could really use a workable definition of "New Music" here. Or, better, an acknowledgement that perhaps "New Music" is not going to be a useful term for this particular discussion. Just taking "new music" to mean "twelve tone" (what? that old stuff? apparently), that music is full of clearly discernable patterns and repetition.

QuotePsychological experiments have shown that only very experienced fans of this musical genre who have spent years on the task are able to do this.  The short term memory of most people is simply overwhelmed.

Hmmm. What experiments could these have been? What were their assumptions? How did the experimenters go about setting up the experiment? And how did the "very experienced fans" get to be fans in the first place? What was their motivation? Must have given them pleasure somehow, even before the "very experienced" part happened. Must have been that way for the "very experienced" part to have even happened. That seems such obvious and simple logic....

Quotewhy the public reacts with rejection

There's that old ahistoricity thing I mentioned earlier. The historical record shows that "the public" was rejecting "new" music in the middle of the NINEteen century, and rejecting "neo-classical" pastiche as well as avant garde. If it was recent, merely, it was rejected. Nothing to do with brains recognizing things after training or anything. (And, again, how do the trained brains get that way? Must be something pleasurable in "new music" or the "training" would never happen.)

QuoteDo Schőnberg, Stockhausen & Co. leave us cold because...

Um. Schoenberg, Stockhausen & Co. do not leave "us" cold.

QuoteThere are other highly complex musical directions, from Bach's fugues to modern jazz, which sound foreign at first, but are sufficiently fascinating that many people are attracted to them.

Well, damn. Ain't that what I was just tryin' ta say? (When did the "tiny" minority turn into "many people"? Jeepers!!)

QuoteWhy doesn't New Music manage it?

Ah. That new music thing doesn't include modern jazz apparently. Well, of course, New Music does manage it.

QuoteOur brains get great pleasure from the expectation game, and modern composers systematically make it difficult for the brain.

Hmmm, let's see. Our brains get pleasure from all sorts of things. And one person's brain gets pleasure where another person's brain gets only pain. "Modern composers" (who are apparently as monolithic as "the public"!!) do nothing of the sort.

Quotecompletely unpredictable notes are not even recognized as music, but rather only as strange sounds – and nobody has fun with that.

First (in Superhorn's generalization) I'm not human. Now I'm nobody. What a downer this day is turning out to be!! 

Quote"We cannot make music", writes David Huron, "that does not stimulate the machinery of human pleasure, and expect that people will in some mysterious way find the music irresistible."

We cannot limit what stimulates human pleasure to only a few things, writes some guy, and expect to get useful results. Find the people who find "new music" irresistible and then perhaps pay attention to them and their experience (rather than either marginalizing or ignoring it). That will lead to very different conclusions, at the very least!

Quote...is [modern music] intentionally without pleasure, simply an intellectual game?

Is chess intentionally without pleasure, simply an intellectual game? (Note to Christoph Drősser: Games are fun!!)

QuoteThose who have made the effort to learn to listen can certainly be emotionally moved.

Good point. Now think one more thought: how did it come about that "those" made the effort in the first place? (And why is that crucial question--the crucial question for this discussion--always left unasked?)

Quote"I also get goose bumps, when I recognize a twelve-tone series again", says Eckart Altenműller.  "But this comes from decades of practice in New Music.  I wouldn't expect that of my secretary."  The secretary agrees unconditionally.

The time scale here seems completely whacked to me. I first started listening to twentieth century music in 1972 with Bartok's Concerto for Orchestra. In a matter of days, I was listening to his Miraculous Mandarin as well. In a matter of weeks, I was entranced by Stravinsky's Les Noces.In a matter of months, I was being fascinated by Carter's double concerto and Variations (oh, and that delightful Sonata for Flute, Oboe, Cello and Harpsichord). By 1982 (there's a decade for you--one), I was listening to music written in 1982. And everything between 1943 and 1982, too. Mumma, Eimert, Cage, Stockhausen, Oliveros, Galas, Reich, everything. (And a fair bit of that old timey stuff, too. You know, Schoenberg, Berg, Webern, Varese....)

QuoteWith their continual striving for innovation and for new sounds, composers leave the broad public behind – a bizarre characteristic of Western classical music.

A bizarre observation. The broad public rejected "new music" several decades before Schoenberg. Before Schoenberg was even born.

Quote...the music of the old masters from previous centuries is repeated again and again with exquisite precision...

This only really got going around 1820 or so, peaking in 1860 or 70, but continuing pretty strong right up to 2010.

Quote...if a modern composer were to use notes in the manner of Mozart, he would immediately be accused of kitsch.

Mozart would be the most perplexed were he able to witness such a thing. The idea in Mozart's time was that you wrote new things, things which simply supplanted the old things. That's just how it was then. 

And, at long last--Brian, please thank your father for me (for us?) for translating this article. That was a lovely thing for him to have done. I am (we are?) most appreciative!

     Certainly the thesis is correct. There's nothing wrong with either the audience or the music except that you get a mismatch when audiences expect one level of difficulty and get another. And I don't think the problem is hostility to the new, because difficulty can extend beyond unfamiliarity, especially as in the case of the ultras who intended it to be so. Utopian ideas about the infinite plasticity of human tastes and perceptions play an obvious role.

     As for why difficult music is accepted in films, it's a matter of a wider context in which music is playing a supporting role.

     

Quote from: some guy on February 23, 2010, 10:30:41 AM
Interesting how ahistorical such studies are, or at least how ahistorical the conclusions are, and how ahistorical discussions about "modern" music continue to be.

Audiences started to hate modern classical music, noticably and with malice aforethought, around 1810, and really hated it (contents of "it" different by then) by 1860. By then, audiences hated anything new, both avant garde and the consciously regressive. Writing like Mozart in the mid nineteenth century got you nowhere. (Writing like Brahms or even Sibelius in the early 21st century gets you everywhere!!)

The reasons for the hate were many and various, and none of them had to do (or maybe I should say "few of them had to do") with their brains being unable to cope. Besides, look at the modern music that people were hating then. Aside from the stuff that's disappeared, this is Schumann and Liszt and Wagner, folks like that. Bread and butter to today's listener, and apparently just chock-full of patterns to recognize.

Otherwise, I want to point out in regard to this thread's title, that Mr. Ball concluded in his study that listeners do NOT have trouble because their brains cannot cope!! ("...it is not because they are in some way too musically stupid to appreciate it.) That's the assertion we should be/could be talking about! [As Karl just did in the post that appeared while I was writing this.]

      Yet in time people come to accept and even love some new music. So the answer must lie in the common characteristics of music which is not accepted after, say, half a century. What do you think? Could it be that some difficulties can be resolved and others can't?

      The problem is ideological at bottom. If you think that art can't be wrong then the audience is. If you think the audience can't be wrong the art, or artist, is. Either one is simplistic in my view. Art isn't wrong if I don't like it, it's intended for someone else, perhaps, and I might guess correctly in some cases it's intended for an idiot, or an art snob, or someone else who isn't like me. Then again I change my mind, too.

Quote from: some guy on February 23, 2010, 10:30:41 AM
Interesting how ahistorical such studies are, or at least how ahistorical the conclusions are, and how ahistorical discussions about "modern" music continue to be.

Audiences started to hate modern classical music, noticably and with malice aforethought, around 1810, and really hated it (contents of "it" different by then) by 1860. By then, audiences hated anything new, both avant garde and the consciously regressive. Writing like Mozart in the mid nineteenth century got you nowhere. (Writing like Brahms or even Sibelius in the early 21st century gets you everywhere!!)

The reasons for the hate were many and various, and none of them had to do (or maybe I should say "few of them had to do") with their brains being unable to cope. Besides, look at the modern music that people were hating then. Aside from the stuff that's disappeared, this is Schumann and Liszt and Wagner, folks like that. Bread and butter to today's listener, and apparently just chock-full of patterns to recognize.

I don't think this is true at all.  Wagner, Schumann, Liszt unpopular?  Um no.  Even Mahler's alleged unpopularity in his time is a myth, he was actually well received.  In fact composers at that time had a popularity not established ever before.  These weren't the days where a composer spent most of their time in private employment to only be heard and known by a small local audience.  No languishing in a church writing cantatas or symphonies in an estate, no we are talking about composers writing symphonies and operas to be noticed by many.  They were the 19th century equivalent of rock stars.

The obsession with performing and listening to old music instead of new is more of a 20th century phenomenon.

I think it could be commercial.

Quote from: James on February 23, 2010, 03:40:36 PM
Dave you're wrong about Mahler ...for the most part it took time and decades of championing to get him established & understood by the public on the circuit so to speak.

Well Alex Ross' book debunked it as a myth.  He had good turnouts for his premieres, not always good, but more often than not.  And conductors kept playing him throughout the years.  Certainly he is more popular now than he was then, but he wasn't really as reviled or unpopular as many make him out to be.  It's more of a romanticized image of him than reality.

David, the obsession with performing and listening to old music instead of new began quite early in the nineteen century. 1810 or so. And grew until it peaked in the 1860s and 70s, depending on which city you're looking at.

This is all a matter of public record, as gathered together in William Weber's The Great Transformation of Musical Taste: Concert Programming from Haydn to Brahms. The underlying assumption of the 18th century, that music was something for today, were replaced in the 19th century with the idea of a canon. That music was something from the past to be revered. The four or five people we consider "the greats" were all canonized in the first three decades of the nineteenth century, which is when the term "classical music" entered the lexicon, by the way, 1810+ for Germany and 1835/36 for England. And we don't seem to have replaced those particular idols, all of whom would doubtless have been very perplexed by the idolatry. Except maybe that one guy. (You know!)

We think all these things about audiences complaining about new music and the notion that composers were being purposely obscure were twentieth century phenomena. I did, too.

Apparently not.

Quote from: James on February 23, 2010, 05:17:50 PM
In fact, Scorsese's latest (Shutter Island) uses music from Cage, Ligeti, Feldman, Scelsi, Adams, Penderecki etc.

Just wanted to say that the bit from Penderecki's 3rd (the main theme for the movie) is awesome.  Really dark and menacing.  There are other musical pieces used that were achingly melancholic and beautiful.  Say what you want about the film, but the musical choices were pretty darned good. 8)

Quote from: DavidW on February 23, 2010, 03:47:47 PM
Well Alex Ross' book debunked it as a myth.  He had good turnouts for his premieres, not always good, but more often than not.  And conductors kept playing him throughout the years.  Certainly he is more popular now than he was then, but he wasn't really as reviled or unpopular as many make him out to be.  It's more of a romanticized image of him than reality.

A bit off-topic and random, but what about Bruckner? I've heard that most people hated his music, but is this just a myth, too?

Quote from: Greg on February 23, 2010, 06:31:25 PM
A bit off-topic and random, but what about Bruckner? I've heard that most people hated his music, but is this just a myth, too?

I was actually reading about that this very week in the Vintage Guide to Classical Music ;D and Swafford seems to think that alot of it has to do with his boorish behavior, and his third symphony only had like 20 people attend the premiere, but he still just managed to get an audience by his late works.  That might be too simplistic though, I'm sure a Brucknerian would know more in detail.

Quote from: Greg on February 23, 2010, 06:31:25 PM
A bit off-topic and random, but what about Bruckner? I've heard that most people hated his music, but is this just a myth, too?

He was a pretty unfortunate personality. Not in the actively annoying sense, but in the sense that the poor guy wasn't exactly suited to being well-known. Depressed, without confidence, reclusive. Other composers overcame more acute personality obstacles on their way to stardom, of course...

Since the big snow in the DC area has been melting and I have been expected to go back to work, I haven't had as much time to keep up with GMG as I'd like, so I have just now read this topic, slogging through from the first entry to the most recent. 

The discussions and the articles quoted have led me to reflect on myself as a listener.  I grew up with sounds of Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven in my ears--along with Motown, the Beatles, Johann Strauss, Elvis, John Philip Sousa, George Gershwin and Cole Porter.  Oh, and probably Rogers and Hammerstein, as well.  These sounds created in my mind and in my ear some sense of "normal", some ideas of what music is, and some expectations of what goes with what, musically speaking.   I think that a lot of my reactions to music as an adult have been influenced by this musical heritage from my childhood.  If a piece of music used similar patterns to music I was accustomed to, and if it satisfied the expectations that I had of music, I was likely to accept it and like it.  If it did not match any pattern in my mind, if it did not satisfy my expectations, I was much more likely to reject it.  I usually wouldn't have had a terminology to describe my reasons for rejecting some music--I would just have said "I don't like it." 

My musical tastes for most of my life have been pretty conventional.  But recently, in the last couple of years or so, I have been listening to more 20th century music, and I think I have been building new neural pathways in my mind, recognizing new patterns in music.  For example, music of Shostakovitch has been speaking to me in the past year or so, whereas if I had heard it even 5 or 10 years ago, I would have said "Oh, please put on some Mozart or Beethoven."   Something that was once so unfamiliar to me that I could not recognize beauty in it has now become more familiar, familiar enough to be beautiful.  Obviously, the music itself has not changed, so I assume that I have changed, or evolved, as a listener.   

Quote from: Cato on February 23, 2010, 11:08:33 AM
The ultimate point is that any "patternizing" imposed by the brain is subjective

Nonsense of course, but there's no point in arguing. If you want to believe 2 + 2 = 5, who am i to interfere?

Quote from: some guy on February 23, 2010, 04:07:28 PM
David, the obsession with performing and listening to old music instead of new began quite early in the nineteen century. 1810 or so. And grew until it peaked in the 1860s and 70s, depending on which city you're looking at.

This is all a matter of public record, as gathered together in William Weber's The Great Transformation of Musical Taste: Concert Programming from Haydn to Brahms. The underlying assumption of the 18th century, that music was something for today, were replaced in the 19th century with the idea of a canon. That music was something from the past to be revered. The four or five people we consider "the greats" were all canonized in the first three decades of the nineteenth century, which is when the term "classical music" entered the lexicon, by the way, 1810+ for Germany and 1835/36 for England. And we don't seem to have replaced those particular idols, all of whom would doubtless have been very perplexed by the idolatry. Except maybe that one guy. (You know!)

We think all these things about audiences complaining about new music and the notion that composers were being purposely obscure were twentieth century phenomena. I did, too.

Apparently not.

The four or five people we consider "the greats" were all canonized in the first three decades of the nineteenth century, which is when the term "classical music" entered the lexicon, by the way, 1810+ for Germany and 1835/36 for England. And we don't seem to have replaced those particular idols, all of whom would doubtless have been very perplexed by the idolatry. Except maybe that one guy.

So Brahms and Tchaikovksy were canonized as among "the greats" before they were born, and Beethoven before his late period was underway...
Well, that's an interesting concept.  (Unless he's using the term  "Classical" in its most restricted sense, to refer to the music of the generation or two that immediately preceded Beethoven).

On the main topic, I can explain very quickly why I don't like most serialist/serialist style music--it gives me a headache.  Literally.

I think part of the problem is that serialism, in essence, wanted to throw out all the important elements of Euro-American music and replace it with something else.  And the public wasn't ready to follow them. 

I think it works better with smaller instrumental forces than with larger groups.   That struck me when I was listening to the Warner Ligeti box, having purchased not long before Aimard's recording of his Etudes and the Artemis Quartet recording of the String Quartets.  I could follow the music rather easily with the solo piano and the quartets, but on the large scale works all I ended up with was a long wash of sounds blending into each other endlessly until a dissonance decided to rumble into view and send everything screeching away in a new direction that became equally boring.  And further experimentation with other composers has confirmed that idea.  (Although even on the small scale works I sometimes don't find much to interest me.  For instance, Quartet for the End of Time, despite numerous listenings.)

Quote from: James on February 23, 2010, 05:38:49 PM
I love Scorsese (Kubrick too), he's remarkably consistent and all over the map ... even if it's not his greatest film (a tall measure!) it's probably 10x better than most else out there right now! I plan on seeing it this weekend... and i'll be listening for the music on this one!

Perfect post on Scorsese, James.

Quote from: kishnevi on February 23, 2010, 07:41:22 PM
The four or five people we consider "the greats" were all canonized in the first three decades of the nineteenth century, which is when the term "classical music" entered the lexicon, by the way, 1810+ for Germany and 1835/36 for England. And we don't seem to have replaced those particular idols, all of whom would doubtless have been very perplexed by the idolatry.

None of which is even remotely true. I wonder where you people get this type of information.

Quote from: Bogey on February 23, 2010, 07:45:13 PM
Perfect post on Scorsese, James.

The Departed still sucked huge amounts of ass.

Quote from: James on February 23, 2010, 05:38:49 PM
I love Scorsese (Kubrick too), he's remarkably consistent and all over the map ... even if it's not his greatest film (a tall measure!) it's probably 10x better than most else out there right now! I plan on seeing it this weekend... and i'll be listening for the music on this one!

I actually liked the movie, I saw it last weekend.  Not his best, but the only thing that got me out to the theater since the year started. :)

Quote from: James on February 23, 2010, 07:50:31 PM
I saw it at the theatre ... loved it.

I'm sure you did. It still was a gigantic failure of a film, an entirely sub-par effort compared to some of his previous work.

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on February 23, 2010, 07:51:14 PM
I'm sure you did. It still was a gigantic failure of a film.

(http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:jQXcH6tf-F4DGM:http://www.uwm.edu/Libraries/media/blog/uploaded_images/scorsese-766259.jpg)

Quote from: kishnevi on February 23, 2010, 07:41:22 PM
I could follow the music rather easily with the solo piano and the quartets, but on the large scale works all I ended up with was a long wash of sounds blending into each other endlessly until a dissonance decided to rumble into view and send everything screeching away in a new direction that became equally boring.  And further experimentation with other composers has confirmed that idea.  (Although even on the small scale works I sometimes don't find much to interest me.  For instance, Quartet for the End of Time, despite numerous listenings.)

I have the same experience too.  Love piano, chamber works, and selected chamber orchestra works (thinking Carter here), but the overwhelming complexity of a full blown atonal orchestral piece leaves me confused and dismayed.

Quote from: DavidW on February 23, 2010, 07:52:18 PM
I have the same experience too.  Love piano, chamber works, and selected chamber orchestra works (thinking Carter here), but the overwhelming complexity of a full blown atonal orchestral piece leaves me confused and dismayed.

You have to admit though, it did work for Goldsmith in Alien. ;D

Have we adequately considered the changes in society over the last several hundred years?  There is now a greater mix between the "intelligentsia" and other folks than ever before--but that also means that more "untrained" folks are hearing new and challenging music, thanks to various recording technologies; and now, thanks to the Web, their "untrained" opinions are spread worldwide.  Also, the "powers that be" have changed over the years; through the 19th century in Europe most real power and influence still lay with the royalty and nobility, but now it lies mostly with corporations and politicians, who may or may not (I tend to think mostly "not) have any sense of noblesse oblige.  I'd venture to guess that "Mad" King Ludwig of Bavaria did more than any other human to speed Wagner's eventual canonization. :o But there is no King Ludwig to perform a similar function for Schoenberg.  (Arnold tried Hollywood, and from comments I've read, it was a deservedly forgotten attempt.)  And the corporations now won't take any chances on new and challenging music unless then can foresee a clear and present profit. ::)  So it falls to organizations like National Public Radio and the BBC (which still have some noblesse oblige), and forums like this, to carry the torch.

(I'm always amused when people describe Schoenberg's music as "free association" and "unorganized."  He, more than any other modern composer, was conscious that music needs organization; that's why he developed the twelve-tone serial method. 8))

A couple more thoughts on this subject.

Like contemporary music, contemporary poetry appeals to a very small audience.  Given their druthers, most literate Americans would prefer the verse inside a Hallmark card to any poetry published this year.  The Hallmark verse probably at least has meter and rhyme!    Even among college educated readers, tastes would be stuck somewhere in the past--Frost, perhaps, e. e. cummings, Sylvia Plath, or William Carlos Williams--some poets they had studied in college.  Only a small percent of people who studied poetry in college continue to study and read contemporary poetry.  Heard anyone discussing The Dream of the Unified Field at any cocktail parties recently?  But that lack of name recognition doesn't mean that Jorie Graham isn't a better poet than the nameless hacks who pen doggerel for Hallmark.  It's just that such poetry is an acquired taste, and acquiring it requires effort and education. 

Which bring me to my next point--how do we acquire tastes?  Certainly, some tastes may be inborn, but I think a great many are acquired, and usually the acquisition is accomplished with the help and support of other people.  We usually don't acquire tastes by being forced into new experiences.  Rather, we are invited by admired friends or loved ones to explore new experiences, and we are supported and encouraged in the process, and gradually we develop a "taste" for these new experiences and come to choose them freely on our own.  Since I seem to be in a confessional mood tonight, I'll give a personal example.  I didn't always have a taste for beer.  In fact, when I was a good deal younger, I actively disliked the stuff.  But a group of friends, dedicated beer lovers all, took me in hand and made it their purpose in life for a few months to help me learn to love beer as they did.  They coaxed me to try a little of this, a little of that, all the while telling me what it was they especially liked about each beer.  Gradually, I learned a fair amount about different types of beer and eventually I even came to enjoy drinking some of them.  Left entirely to my own devices, I'm sure I would have just said "Oh, I don't like that!" and been done with it. 

I think acquiring a taste for new music is sometimes like that for me.  I might not seek it out on my own, but when a friend I trust recommends something to me, I am inclined to try it, and to try it with as open a mind as I can muster.  And if that friend accompanies me and serves as guide and educator, and, most of all, makes the experience fun, I may actually develop a liking for the stuff, surrounded as it eventually is by good feelings and happy memories. 

Excellent points, Jochanaan.

In a truly plebian society, from where would the idea of "noble" spring?
Who would understand the idea of King in a Shakespearian play?

Grandeur in art is not unrelated to temporal glory, and I believe that there is probably more freedom in a benign autocracy than in society reduced to a common denominator where not only one's actions are subject to scrutiny, but thoughts as well.

I am now reading the third volume of Alan Walker's EXCELLENT biography of Liszt.
It is uncommon for a colleague to support the work of another to the degree that he did for Wagner. When Liszt went to Bayreuth in the 1870's he became an appendage to his son-in-law. But this was the fate of others sucked into Wagner's sphere of influence.

ZB

Quote from: secondwind on February 23, 2010, 07:26:28 PMSomething that was once so unfamiliar to me that I could not recognize beauty in it has now become more familiar, familiar enough to be beautiful.  Obviously, the music itself has not changed, so I assume that I have changed, or evolved, as a listener.

Beauty!! (The bolding is mine.)

kishnevi, the four or five I was thinking of are Bach, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven. As for your headaches, read the quote from secondwind, above!!

Josquin, how dare you make me break my oath never to respond to any of your posts!! The information you mistakenly attributed to kishnevi, but which was my distillation, is from a work of history that relies largely, if not solely, on primary sources. None of this information is well known, yet. But it's right there, in the record.

jochanaan, the nineteenth century was a time of great instability, of ceaseless revolution and counter-revolution. It was the time when the power began to shift inexorably to "the people." We think of the twentieth century as volatile; the nineteenth was equally so. (Otherwise, loved your post, just by the way!!)

secondwind, Jorie Graham also reads her own poetry like an angel and looks like a goddess. Huge crush on her back in the day!! Your idea about listening to music with friends came to me just today, about the same time you were typing out your post. Must be something in the air. It's a great idea. A lot of animosity and antagonism would vanish were that idea carried out with any regularity and consistency.

Quote from: secondwind on February 23, 2010, 07:26:28 PM
Something that was once so unfamiliar to me that I could not recognize beauty in it has now become more familiar, familiar enough to be beautiful.  Obviously, the music itself has not changed, so I assume that I have changed, or evolved, as a listener.

Just echoing Michael's comment here. This is a key realisation. I'm reminded of some trouble my grandfather once had with his false teeth - he took them back to the dentist and said that after many years they'd become uncomfortable and must have changed in some way.

I can't see why 'modern music' should be singled out as a 'brain not coping' situation. One of the most valuable insights I've gained is the recognition that my brain doesn't cope too well with a whole range of stuff. It spent an awful lot of years not coping with Mozart, but now it's learned how to. It spent several years not coping with Cezanne's paintings until one day it shrugged its shoulders and said 'OK, I get it now. Enjoy'.

The numbers game doesn't seem relevant here. It doesn't matter (except commercially) whether two or two thousand people's brains cope with a particular piece of art. For the two people who get it (I mean, really get it), they know something that we don't. Their brains have coped, and ours haven't (though we may or may not care about our not-coping). I'd guess that more people today listen to Schoenberg than read Milton, because largely our brains are forgetting how to cope with epic poetry. The 'brain not coping' syndrome works backwards as well as forwards.

But having said all this ... weeping my way through La Boheme last night at the Lowry theatre, I reminded myself of the intensely rewarding experience offered by the kind of music that 'seems' effortlessly to hand itself over to me, compared with the music that I have to battle towards, sometimes against the odds.

Quote

Eckart Altenműller or the college of music and theater in Hannover describes the paradox of New Music: "We can understand New Music better, if we listen to it more often – but it is composed in such a way that most people are not attracted to listen more often."

That good ol' chap Rossini preceded Herr Altenműller by 150 years: "One can't judge Wagner's opera Lohengrin after a first hearing, and I certainly don't intend to hear it a second time"

Quote
"Mozart and Bach completely exhausted central European music", says Herbert Bruhn.  [...] there is nothing more to add [...]

OMG! I just cannot believe that an apparently educated and moderately intelligent person can speak such nonsense.

Quote from: zamyrabyrd on February 23, 2010, 09:27:26 PM
I believe that there is probably more freedom in a benign autocracy than in society reduced to a common denominator where not only one's actions are subject to scrutiny, but thoughts as well.

Agreed.

Quote from: kishnevi on February 23, 2010, 07:41:22 PM
I think part of the problem is that serialism, in essence, wanted to throw out all the important elements of Euro-American music and replace it with something else.  And the public wasn't ready to follow them.

Perhaps Darmstadt serialism, but when Schoenberg began to write 12-tone music, very little in fact changed in his music. He continued to use orchestration and rhythm that was pretty typical of Vienna at the turn of the century. There are waltzes everywhere in his music. Where I live, Schoenberg is programmed quite regularly, because audiences perceive him to jive fairly well with Brahms and other late Romantics.

QuoteI think it works better with smaller instrumental forces than with larger groups.   That struck me when I was listening to the Warner Ligeti box, having purchased not long before Aimard's recording of his Etudes and the Artemis Quartet recording of the String Quartets....

Ligeti did not write serialist music, and a good half of those orchestral works are not even totally chromatic.

QuoteI could follow the music rather easily with the solo piano and the quartets, but on the large scale works all I ended up with was a long wash of sounds blending into each other endlessly until a dissonance decided to rumble into view and send everything screeching away in a new direction that became equally boring.

And yet Ligeti is one of the few avant-garde composers to really appeal to a wide audience. Fans of other musical genres -- rock, jazz, IDM, the Detroit or Japanese noise scenes -- respond pretty well to the sound masses of Ligeti or (even more so lately) Xenakis.

Not only do you make the mistake of bringing up Ligeti in a discussion of serialism, but you try to use this fairly successful figure to illustrate reasons for a lack of success.

Quote from: Cato on February 23, 2010, 12:08:33 PM:


The ultimate point is that any "patternizing" imposed by the brain is subjective

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on February 23, 2010, 07:35:46 PM
Nonsense of course, but there's no point in arguing. If you want to believe 2 + 2 = 5, who am i to interfere?

Then shut up!  0:)

To believe that a pattern which one person finds in a piece of music will always be heard or agreed with by another is "nonsense."

Maybe they will agree that such a pattern exists, maybe they will not.

Without such subjectivity, if you have not noticed, Monsieur, Good Music Guide would not exist!


And many many thanks to the incredible demolition job by Some Guy on the article from Die Zeit!

And what exactly is a "musical scientist" anyway?   :o

Quote from: CRCulver on February 24, 2010, 02:18:52 AM
And yet Ligeti is one of the few avant-garde composers to really appeal to a wide audience. Fans of other musical genres -- rock, jazz, IDM, the Detroit or Japanese noise scenes -- respond pretty well to the sound masses of Ligeti or (even more so lately) Xenakis.

Not only do you make the mistake of bringing up Ligeti in a discussion of serialism, but you try to use this fairly successful figure to illustrate reasons for a lack of success.

He was talking in the first person.  It means that he was describing his personal reaction.  Your reply really doesn't make any sense.  Let me rephrase it simpler to show you how it reads to me--

Kishnevi: I personally don't enjoy Ligeti's orchestral music.
CRCulver: Wrong, many people enjoy those works, and thus you fail to make your point (ZING!).

??? :-\

Quote from: CRCulver on February 24, 2010, 02:18:52 AM
Perhaps Darmstadt serialism, but when Schoenberg began to write 12-tone music, very little in fact changed in his music. He continued to use orchestration and rhythm that was pretty typical of Vienna at the turn of the century. There are waltzes everywhere in his music. Where I live, Schoenberg is programmed quite regularly, because audiences perceive him to jive fairly well with Brahms and other late Romantics.

Ligeti did not write serialist music, and a good half of those orchestral works are not even totally chromatic.

Whenever someone says that they don't enjoy atonal music, but they're sloppy with how they express it, confusing serial with all atonal music or labeling something polytonal or simply excessively dissonant it is certainly a blunder, but not cause for simple dismissal of what they have to say.  I say this because it happens on every one of these threads on this forum.  The antimodernists will not know the precise way you distinguish and classify various forms of music that they don't enjoy because they don't care to. 

My point is that the "I don't like it" opinion is still valid, even when described the wrong terms.  Too often the anti-antimodernist brigade ;D pushes glasses up and says [nasally] "well actually..." as if that was all there was to it, as if they somehow expect the poster to say "oh you're right, I magically love that music now that I understand the correct language to describe it as". ??? 

Now you say that Schoenberg jives well with Brahms, Mahler etc in terms of orchestration and rhythm.  Okey doke.  But the thing is that what we associate with romantics is not those things, it's the harmony.  When we hear chromatic music we think of Strauss, when that rule is broken it doesn't sound romantic anymore.  The harmony is the key defining feature of music.  Schoenberg's early works sound romantic because they are.  His later works sound very different because they are.  Let me give an example that illustrates how overwhelming important harmony is: Alot of people can listen to and enjoy Bax (he can actually receive radio play) even though he is rhythmically more complex/strange than a traditional romantic, and that is because he is harmonically closer to that chromatic sound than more avant garde composers.

Quote from: Cato on February 24, 2010, 04:04:39 AM
The ultimate point is that any "patternizing" imposed by the brain is subjective

That kind of sweeping generalization is just as bad what JdP said. :-\

QuoteTo believe that a pattern which one person finds in a piece of music will always be heard or agreed with by another is "nonsense."

Person A: "look it's variations on a theme!"
Person B: "I strongly disagree!  No way am I hearing that."
Person A: "It's called Variations on a Theme by Haydn."
Person B: "I'm still right!!"
Person A: "Well look the theme is played, but next time it's played again, but a little bit different.  As if they're varying the theme."
Person B: "I'm not listening!!!"

What like that?  I'm fine with sometimes it's subjective, but you absurdly claimed that it's always subjective:

Quote from: Cato on February 24, 2010, 04:04:39 AM
The ultimate point is that any "patternizing" imposed by the brain is subjective

And to say that people can't hear or agree on patterns on music would make centuries of music based on harmonic consonance/dissonance merely a confusing mess of notes instead of something that most people intuitively understand and enjoy.  Which do you think more likely?  The "everything is subjective! what is knowledge anyway?" kind of meaningless, pseudo-deep pontification signals the death of the discussion.

Quote from: Florestan on February 24, 2010, 01:43:33 AM

Quote from: Herbert BruhnMozart and Bach completely exhausted central European music.

OMG! I just cannot believe that an apparently educated and moderately intelligent person can speak such nonsense.

That citation really is the most signally pin-headed remark to appear in this thread.

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on February 23, 2010, 07:35:46 PM
Nonsense of course, but there's no point in arguing. If you want to believe 2 + 2 = 5, who am i to interfere?

Nonsense of course, but there's no point in arguing. If you want to believe that the perception of music is reducible to tidy mathematical equations, who am I to interfere?

Tonics and Dominants.
Melody.
I don't need much more than that to keep me happy.

  There's another factor in why audiences often have extremely negative reactions to difficult 20th and 21st century music. When they hear something at a concert, they get only one hearing ,but it often requires repeated hearings to grasp an unfamiliar work.
  That's why recordings are so valuable. The same listener who might be puzzled or upset by hearing one of Schoenberg's 12 tone works in concert might come to understand it or the composer's other works by giving a recording repeated hearings.
  This can be true even with works like the late Beethoven quartets , which are anything but easy to grasp on first hearing.This has happened to me so many times with recordings. A work which seems confused an incoherent on first hearing often comes to make perfect sense with repeated hearings.
  Years ago, I played a performance of Webern's "Six Pieces For Orchestra" at a concert.  As the rehearsals progressed, this esoteric music started to make much more sense to me,and it even came to seem melodious!

Quote from: John on February 24, 2010, 06:33:32 AM
Tonics and Dominants.
Melody.
I don't need much more than that to keep me happy.

Heck yeah. :)  But I would add a thumping rhythm.  Bartok baby! :-*

Quote from: DavidW on February 24, 2010, 04:26:16 AM
That kind of sweeping generalization is just as bad what JdP said. :-\

Person A: "look it's variations on a theme!"
Person B: "I strongly disagree!  No way am I hearing that."
Person A: "It's called Variations on a Theme by Haydn."
Person B: "I'm still right!!"
Person A: "Well look the theme is played, but next time it's played again, but a little bit different.  As if they're varying the theme."
Person B: "I'm not listening!!!"

What like that?  I'm fine with sometimes it's subjective, but you absurdly claimed that it's always subjective:

And to say that people can't hear or agree on patterns on music would make centuries of music based on harmonic consonance/dissonance merely a confusing mess of notes instead of something that most people intuitively understand and enjoy.  Which do you think more likely?  The "everything is subjective! what is knowledge anyway?" kind of meaningless, pseudo-deep pontification signals the death of the discussion.

I said nothing like that: you and Josquin have misunderstood the word "patternize."

By no means is "everything subjective" at all!  We agree!   :D

"Patternize" is the invention of patterns, not their discovery. 

The result therefore leads to the "difficulties of perception" mentioned in the article.

Quote from: DavidW on February 24, 2010, 06:39:25 AM

Quote from: JohnTonics and Dominants.
Melody.
I don't need much more than that to keep me happy.

Heck yeah. :)  But I would add a thumping rhythm.  Bartok baby! :-*

Bartók, of course, would have chafed at being restricted to tonics & dominants.

Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on February 24, 2010, 07:32:18 AM
Heck yeah. :)  But I would add a thumping rhythm.  Bartok baby! :-*


Bartók, of course, would have chafed at being restricted to tonics & dominants.

Let's hear it for MINOR NINTHS!    8)

Not to mention the   >:D  Diabolus in Musica!!!    >:D

Quote from: DavidW on February 24, 2010, 04:12:19 AM
...Now you say that Schoenberg jives well with Brahms, Mahler etc in terms of orchestration and rhythm.  Okey doke.  But the thing is that what we associate with romantics is not those things, it's the harmony.  When we hear chromatic music we think of Strauss, when that rule is broken it doesn't sound romantic anymore.  The harmony is the key defining feature of music.  Schoenberg's early works sound romantic because they are.  His later works sound very different because they are.  Let me give an example that illustrates how overwhelming important harmony is: Alot of people can listen to and enjoy Bax (he can actually receive radio play) even though he is rhythmically more complex/strange than a traditional romantic, and that is because he is harmonically closer to that chromatic sound than more avant garde composers.

Remember that Wagner and Liszt had both taken tonality to its outer limits with increasingly chromatic, indeterminate harmony.  Schoenberg's atonality and twelve-tone method were only the next inevitable step. :)

Aside from the usually piffle that fills these threads, the research makes an interesting point (at least in the more nuanced version that Brian posted).  An important element of "classical" music is predictability.  When we listen to music at any given music we have a feeling we know what comes next, dissonance gets resolved, one chord tends to progress to another, we feel one note naturally leads to another in a melody.  It is not a a mathematical certainty, but it allows the composer to chose between surprising us or giving us what we expect at each point in the work.  (And of course there are an infinite number or ways to surprise us.)  This can be described by probabilities.  Surprise happens when we hear a note that there is a low probability of hearing in a given musical context.   The researchers found that this characteristic, that one note is more likely than another to follow in a given musical situation, is not found in some forms of modern music.    This suggests that this characteristic of music, predictability and the perception of surprise, is absent from some forms of music.  If this statistical analysis is correct (and it may be a difficult to assess if their analysis is exhaustive enough) this would indicate something missing from some forms of modern music that no amount of listening or familiarity will remedy.

Now, the very speculative conclusion I would propose is that people who find serial music as interesting as tonal music are not, as they would have us believe, more musically astute, but are less musically astute.  The "predictability" of tonal music escapes them, so they do not notice that it is missing in atonal music.  It is like a color blind person who thinks a black and white photograph is just as vivid as a color photograph.    ;D

Quote from: some guy on February 23, 2010, 10:42:58 PM
jochanaan, the nineteenth century was a time of great instability, of ceaseless revolution and counter-revolution. It was the time when the power began to shift inexorably to "the people." We think of the twentieth century as volatile; the nineteenth was equally so. (Otherwise, loved your post, just by the way!!)

That's very true, of course; but the nobility and royalty had not yet been quite reduced to the powerless figureheads they are now, despite the revolutions in the air and streets. :)

Quote from: Scarpia on February 24, 2010, 07:58:10 AM
...Now, the very speculative conclusion I would propose is that people who find serial music as interesting as tonal music are less musically astute.  The "predictability" of tonal music escapes them, so they do not notice that it is missing in atonal music.  It is like a color blind person who thinks a black and white photograph is just as vivid as a color photograph.    ;D

Present company excepted, I suppose. ;D

I find it a bit interesting that prior to 1700 and after 1850 what we think of the "tonal system" was much less entrenched, and really only the Classical Period composers (1730-1830) can be said to fully exploit the relationships of keys and tones that are the hallmark of "tonality".  This is not to say that J.S. Bach did not compose in the tonal system, just that his treatment of keys was different than Haydn, Mozart or Beethoven, among others, whose exploitation of the relationships of key centers led to the development of the sonata form, which I think of as the quintessential formal expression of tonality.

Yes there is a physics of the tone which produces the basic foundation of the tonal system - but all the notes are there in the array of harmonics, the upper regions are quite dissonant.

The composers after 1850 began a concerted effort at stretching the relationships that Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven brought to an apogee, which over time led to a complete abandonment of the principles of compositional organization using a hierarchal system of keys or key centers.

Arnold Schoenberg attempted to codify this abandonment with a new system of organization based on twelve equal tones.

I consider his system to be a major achievement in musical composition both as a summing up of what had come before and a stage setter for what came after.  But his was by no means the only technique composers chose in the wake of the demise of tonality.

I find listening to atonal music very rewarding - and always been somewhat surprised that it is the focus of such scorn.

Quote from: Scarpia on February 24, 2010, 07:58:10 AM
. . .  An important element of "classical" music is predictability.

Sure.

And another equally important element in art of all media is (let's call it, in light of present discussion) unpredictability.

Nobody (or, hardly anyone) need music which, even when they hear it for the very first time, they can tell you everything that's going to happen, before it happens.

Undeniable interest in the actual, non-tendentious science notwithstanding, attempts to scientify the aesthetics fall on their white-smocked faces (to mix metaphors), IMO.

Quote from: Franco on February 24, 2010, 08:08:57 AM
. . . I find listening to atonal music very rewarding - and always been somewhat surprised that it is the focus of such scorn.

Hear, hear.

Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on February 24, 2010, 08:09:36 AM
Sure.

And another equally important element in art of all media is (let's call it, in light of present discussion) unpredictability.

Nobody (or, hardly anyone) need music which, even when they hear it for the very first time, they can tell you everything that's going to happen, before it happens.

Undeniable interest in the actual, non-tendentious science notwithstanding, attempts to scientify the aesthetics fall on their white-smocked faces (to mix metaphors), IMO.

The investigators fully appreciated the importance of unpredictability in music, which is why they employed a statistical approach.  If you reach a point in a score and there is a 90% chance that a certain note will follow (6 4 inversion in Mozart) there is a big distinction between hearing an expected note and an unexpected note.  If you reach a point where there are many subsequent notes that are equally likely, (an unstable harmony in a development section) then you are an unpredictable juncture.  In tonal music the full spectrum is employed.  In Mozart there are points where you feel you know exactly what's coming and it does, or when you feel you know exactly what is coming and something else happens instead, and points where you have no idea what is coming.  The composer is playing with you in that way.  If, in some modern music, predictability is absent, that aspect of music is simply missing.

Quote from: Scarpia on February 24, 2010, 08:24:24 AM
If, in some modern music, predictability is absent, that aspect of music is simply missing.

Thank you for focusing on the shortcomings of the scientology here.  There is always context to predictability.

I think, too, that depending on how one quantifies predictability, the allegations of it being an essential aspect are open to question.

Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on February 24, 2010, 08:27:52 AM
Thank you for focusing on the shortcomings of the scientology here.  There is always context to predictability.

I think, too, that depending on how one quantifies predictability, the allegations of it being an essential aspect are open to question.

If I understand correctly, the researchers did not impose any model of predictability, they simply looked for mathematically correlations among notes in the score.    When they ran a Bach Fugue through their program, correlations were detected, when they ran some modern music through, no significant correlations were detected.   The discretion of the researcher only comes into play when they assume that the obvious correlations they find are significant.

I did misspeak in saying that the analysis excludes predictability in general, it only address harmonic predictability.  Predictability can also be associated with rhythm, dynamics, orchestration, and other features not covered by the analysis.

Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on February 24, 2010, 08:27:52 AM
I think, too, that depending on how one quantifies predictability, the allegations of it being an essential aspect are open to question.

I don't think it's open to question, it's already well known that the majority of people want an element of predictability in entertainment and art.  Let me talk about movies, because I know 'em.  That's why movie trailers have spoilers: more people will actually go to see a movie that they know what's going to happen vs. being surprised.  Blockbusters will always succeed by simply vomiting out the Campbell's hero journey.

Music is a dialogue, if you don't understand what the composer is telling you because you don't understand his language, you're not really appreciating the music.  Those that say just let the music wash over you, well congratulations, you've just taken the Eric Anderson route of music appreciation! :D

Now I say there is good modern music and there is bad modern music.  Good modern music preserves that sense of dialogue, that is the ideal of classicism is still present.  Completely unpredictable music is garbage.  Without a sense of narrative you might as well waste time reading postmodernist drivel instead.

Quote from: DavidW on February 24, 2010, 08:45:44 AM
. . . Those that say just let the music wash over you, well congratulations, you've just taken the Eric Anderson route of music appreciation! :D

Yes, whether it's the Unpredictability Wash, or the Predictability Wash.

Quote from: DavidWCompletely unpredictable music is garbage.

Is completely unpredictable music even possible?

Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on February 24, 2010, 08:53:20 AM
Is completely unpredictable music even possible?

Well if you give a double blind test about predicting notes in a piece of music, and the participants perform statistically no better than just guessing, then I think one can conclude that the music is completely unpredictable. :)

Is that Best Practice? ; )

I think we may be limiting the scope of predictability and unpredictability, so that we are dooming ourselves to rotate, predictably, forever, without ever catching that elusive tail of ours.

Let me try to break us out of that cycle.

In any music, you can go up or down or stay the same. ("Up" and "down" are, of course, metaphors.) You can go louder or softer or stay the same. You can go from one sound to another sound or to no sound. You can go from one line to many lines (or one sound at a time to many sounds at a time). You can go from tight harmonies to loose ones or stay the same. All these motions/changes are as true for free laptop/turntable improv as they are for a Bach cantata.

In limiting the study to pitch (to synchronous pitch), I think the researchers have lost sight of all the things going on in any music. The "scientists" we've been talking about seem only interested in whether "people" can predict the next note or not. But that's only a very small part of the vast, complex web of things that can happen in music at any given time.

In any event, however random a "piece" of music is, our brains are not random. We humans can "make sense" of anything we perceive. (Can, note. Not that all humans are going to actually do it!)

Quote from: some guy on February 24, 2010, 09:18:13 AM
I think we may be limiting the scope of predictability and unpredictability, so that we are dooming ourselves to rotate, predictably, forever, without ever catching that elusive tail of ours.

That is a predictable behavior in these threads.

Could be what some of us find enjoyable or essential about them . . . .

Indeed!! ;D

Quote from: some guy on February 24, 2010, 09:18:13 AM
In limiting the study to pitch (to synchronous pitch), I think the researchers have lost sight of all the things going on in any music. The "scientists" we've been talking about seem only interested in whether "people" can predict the next note or not. But that's only a very small part of the vast, complex web of things that can happen in music at any given time.

I disagree.  In science one can only test one part at a time, not all parts at a time.  You seem too close to saying that it's too complex to be studied, and that's an anti-intellectual copout.  Life, the universe and all of its parts will always be more intricate than we can perceive in full, but that doesn't mean that knowledge and understanding can't be gained through simplistic analyses of it.  In fact all of science is done that way.  This is no different.

QuoteIn any event, however random a "piece" of music is, our brains are not random. We humans can "make sense" of anything we perceive. (Can, note. Not that all humans are going to actually do it!)

I disagree, the study shows otherwise.

Quote from: DavidW on February 24, 2010, 08:58:13 AM
Well if you give a double blind test about predicting notes in a piece of music, and the participants perform statistically no better than just guessing, then I think one can conclude that the music is completely unpredictable. :)

If one group is "guessing" what is the other group doing to predict notes in a piece of music?

Predictability... mathematical correlations... patterns... neuroscience...

All this leaves me as cold as dead. It's music we're talking about: a form of art, not of science.  :D

If it sounds good (i.e, if it touches my soul, if it captures my attention, if it makes me thoughtful, sad, melancholy, joyous, pensive or dancing) --- then it's good music for me and I couldn't care less whether it's modern or antiquated, tonal or serial, Boccherini or Bartok.

I'm a musical anarchist.  :D

Quote from: Franco on February 24, 2010, 11:08:09 AM
If one group is "guessing" what is the other group doing to predict notes in a piece of music?

Uh no.  The whole point is that each person would be given a sample and then asked to make a prediction.  There is no guessing group, you simply compare to the average score that would be attained from simply guessing.  If it's more than a standard deviation apart (higher) from the score from guessing, then one might conclude that they can actually correctly figure what is happening next.  You could apply this to pop music, classical era, romantic, baroque, modern etc etc If nothing interesting happens with pitch, test for other aspects.  Design similar tests.

Quote from: DavidW on February 24, 2010, 11:22:57 AM
Uh no.  The whole point is that each person would be given a sample and then asked to make a prediction.  There is no guessing group, you simply compare to the average score that would be attained from simply guessing.  If it's more than a standard deviation apart (higher) from the score from guessing, then one might conclude that they can actually correctly figure what is happening next.  You could apply this to pop music, classical era, romantic, baroque, modern etc etc If nothing interesting happens with pitch, test for other aspects.  Design similar tests.

IMO, they are all guessing.

Quote from: Franco on February 24, 2010, 11:29:17 AM
IMO, they are all guessing.

I think that's actually the problem with some of you.  You don't want to learn or know these things, you simply want to assert your truth and have it be universeal.  The way that you guys rail against any kind of scientific inquiry is very much like a religious fundamentalist would.

edit: duh wrong word

Quote from: DavidW on February 24, 2010, 11:31:11 AM
I think that's actually the problem with some of you.  You don't want to learn or know these things, you simply want to assert your truth and have it be universe.  The way that you guys rail against any kind of scientific inquiry is very much like a religious fundamentalist would.

Well, if you can describe the difference between "predicting" as opposed to guessing, I'd like to know what it is.

Quote from: DavidW on February 24, 2010, 11:31:11 AM
I think that's actually the problem with some of you.  You don't want to learn or know these things, you simply want to assert your truth and have it be universe.  The way that you guys rail against any kind of scientific inquiry is very much like a religious fundamentalist would.

Is it not permitted to question the methods and suppositions of the scientific inquiry? ( ← rhetorical question)

Quote from: Florestan on February 24, 2010, 11:09:53 AM
Predictability... mathematical correlations... patterns... neuroscience...
If it sounds good (i.e, if it touches my soul, if it captures my attention, if it makes me thoughtful, sad, melancholy, joyous, pensive or dancing) --- then it's good music for me and I couldn't care less whether it's modern or antiquated, tonal or serial, Boccherini or Bartok.
:D

This is the best thing said in this thread, it resonates a truth within!    0:)

Quote from: James on February 24, 2010, 11:59:13 AM
Predictability = problem, boredom & stagnation.

Well, nor is it that simple.

Quote from: DavidW on February 24, 2010, 10:49:14 AM
Life, the universe and all of its parts will always be more intricate than we can perceive in full, but that doesn't mean that knowledge and understanding can't be gained through simplistic analyses of it.  In fact all of science is done that way.  This is no different.

The danger, though, is that very, very often those original limitations - which as you say are so necessary for the control of variables - are subsequently overlooked when the 'meaning' of the results is deduced. Someguy is doing exactly what he should when he reminds us of the limitations of the enquiry. That doesn't invalidate the findings - it just insists on placing  them closely in the context from which they emerged. I wearied this forum's patience some while ago by quoting Whitehead over and over again, but he is entirely right when he says that  'every entity is only to be understood in terms of the way in which it is interwoven with the rest of the universe'. The impossibility of complying with that doesn't mean we have to give up - it means that we must always be aware of the limitations imposed by our selection procedures when we do our simplified experiments.

Quote from: Elgarian on February 24, 2010, 12:52:28 PM
. . . I wearied this forum's patience some while ago by quoting Whitehead over and over again, but he is entirely right when he says that  'every entity is only to be understood in terms of the way in which it is interwoven with the rest of the universe'.

Well, you didn't weary me.

Quote from: Elgarian on February 24, 2010, 12:52:28 PM
The danger, though, is that very, very often those original limitations - which as you say are so necessary for the control of variables - are subsequently overlooked when the 'meaning' of the results is deduced. Someguy is doing exactly what he should when he reminds us of the limitations of the enquiry. That doesn't invalidate the findings - it just insists on placing  them closely in the context from which they emerged. I wearied this forum's patience some while ago by quoting Whitehead over and over again, but he is entirely right when he says that  'every entity is only to be understood in terms of the way in which it is interwoven with the rest of the universe'. The impossibility of complying with that doesn't mean we have to give up - it means that we must always be aware of the limitations imposed by our selection procedures when we do our simplified experiments.

So you get what I'm saying.  And I'll agree with you that we must have limitations in mind when interpreting results.  And conclusions can be drawn from results within that context.  I just want to make it clear that having these limitations does not mean that no conclusion should be drawn.  That implicit message in Some Guy's post is what I was disagreeing with.  What is the real problem?  The problem is that the author of that fluff piece in the Telegraph went onto an unwarranted conclusion about modernist music being unlistenable.  What we can talk about is the lack of predictability of modern music, which is the actual claim of the study.

Now here is what I think, there are different elements to music.  And having an unpredictable thematic development is but one of them, it can be in simple 4/4 time and then the rhythm is well understood.  The thing is that doesn't undermine the point, because if any element of music is unpredictable, than the music itself is unpredictable.  To establish music as really being predictable, you would have to establish it as such in each element, while it only takes one element to say that the music loses the audience (in terms of following along).

Quote from: Franco on February 24, 2010, 11:34:20 AM
Well, if you can describe the difference between "predicting" as opposed to guessing, I'd like to know what it is.

I already did.  It's making those choices with an average score at least one standard deviation better than random guessing. 

Quote from: James on February 23, 2010, 08:34:17 PM
That's a myth and untrue it's based-on & grew from what came before ... odd how you have an avatar of Mahler but don't hear connections found the 2nd Viennesse School. i.e. Schoenberg-Berg-Webern. Try Berg's Violin Concerto ... you may like it.

Been there, done that.  It's not that  I dislike the Berg Concerto (or the Schoenberg);  rather there's nothing I like about it; it leaves me cold.  Every so often I dig out the CD, and try it again, and it still leaves me cold--which is why the Mahler connection doesn't work for me, I think.   Perhaps it's simply one neurotic Jew appreciating the work of another neurotic Jew :) but what draws me to Mahler is the emotional expression.  It's probably not a coincidence that I have a similar, albeit not so intense, reaction to Shostakovich.

Quote
Keep exploring & listening... there is surely some stuff that will grow on you and you will love. Have you heard Ligeti's Lontano for orchestra? Soft edged, smooth ... very beautiful. For Messiaen perhaps try Et exspecto resurrectionem mortuorum for wind, brass & percussion. Great piece.

Lontano is part of the Warner box I mentioned (which is probably a must have if you're a Ligeti fan, like the Sony box, if only for Ligeti's liner notes).  Again, like the Berg, there was nothing I actually disliked about most of the music in that box;    but most of it bored me and none of it I enjoyed except the Romanian Concerto (hmm, wonder why :) ), and from time to time the massed up sound actually did give me a headache.

The piano etudes and the string quartets, on the other hand, get a positive reaction from me.  (I even went ahead and bought a second recording of the quartets today).  I think the core difference is that, with the smaller number of instruments, it's much easier for me to follow the musical argument: my head has an easier job of keeping track of the different musical lines.    You may object that "traditional" classical music has just as much going on in the way of different musical lines--but the job is easier there because the link to "traditional" harmony, melody, etc. is maintained in some form.   There is a good chance that I will end up getting the Sony Ligeti box. 

So I try to approach 20th century music through smaller ensembles.  You'll see on the "Purchases" thread I got some of Carter and Tippett's string quartets.  (Actually, I'm totally unfamiliar with the work of either composer.) I have the Carter disc on now;  first impression ranges from neutral to interesting enough to warrant a second hearing; certainly nothing I dislike.

Oh, wait, the CD's over.  Well, the Fourth Quartet ends rather abruptly, I see.
Time for the Tippett.  From the opening, he's apparently more in the Britten/Bartok side of 20th century music, the side I have no problem with.

Quote from: James on February 24, 2010, 02:41:32 PM
I love the quality of spontaneity & mystery, if things are too predictable, easy, obvious, derivative, generic etc...those qualities are lost also.

Exactly why I don't like most popular music.

Quote
Many composers have analyzed, broken down and studied the nature of sound and it's many many properties etc. Not to mention acoustics etc. Especially in the 20th century. They understand it more than scientists! Since their whole existence is entrenched with sculpting & presenting it so to speak. So there is a strong understanding and usage of that side too in music making. We're talking about an artform here tho, not the universe or the meaning of life etc... there are musical correlations & an inner musical logic and coherence involved in what is being crafted here by the artist. It's not some naive thing with high level musicians & composers. Quite the contrary, esp. with advanced 'composition' ...

I suppose you are talking about the spectral composers.  8)
Good stuff.


Kishnevi, ever try Penderecki, Lutoslawski, Gorecki, or Xenakis?  ;D

Quote from: James on February 24, 2010, 02:41:32 PM
I love the quality of spontaneity & mystery, if things are too predictable, easy, obvious, derivative, generic etc...those qualities are lost also.

That explains the late Miles' posts. (http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:2f9LxsUtty_hOM:http://storage0.allofme.com/c493d276/92f3288c/7434b3ea/6f46afd1/MD_44.png)

Quote from: Greg on February 24, 2010, 06:09:05 PM



Kishnevi, ever try Penderecki, Lutoslawski, Gorecki, or Xenakis?  ;D

Penderecki--yes, and the difference between large scale and small scale works holds here. I particularly like the Sextet and the work for solo 'cello (don't remember the title of the piece) which is included on the Naxos recording of the Sextet.

Lutoslawski--mmeh.  From what I've heard of his work, nothing grips me for good or for ill.

Gorecki--discovered the Symphony of Sorrowful Songs was a good cure for insomnia, and haven't gone looking for more since then.  (Perhaps it have helped if I understood enough Polish to follow the texts as they were being sung...)

Xenakis--nothing, for the simple reason I was under the impression that  his stuff more properly belonged in the "New Age" category.

And two others:

Part--same as Lutoslawksi, with some of the problems of large scale Ligeti (the washes of sound, for instance) present.  Not in a rush to get more of him

Taverner--Protecting Veil is extremely good; for the rest, I would say he is similar to Part and Lutosklawski.

There's also the fact that I have enough other musical interests that 20th century music has a low priority.    Better a Renaissance motet or bel canto opera that I know I will have a high probability of enjoying than a modern piece I've heard little or nothing about and which I will quite possibly end up disliking.

Good to see someone else who thinks highly of The Protecting Veil!

Quote from: DavidW on February 24, 2010, 02:29:50 PM
So you get what I'm saying.  And I'll agree with you that we must have limitations in mind when interpreting results.  And conclusions can be drawn from results within that context.  I just want to make it clear that having these limitations does not mean that no conclusion should be drawn.  That implicit message in Some Guy's post is what I was disagreeing with.  What is the real problem?  The problem is that the author of that fluff piece in the Telegraph went onto an unwarranted conclusion about modernist music being unlistenable.  What we can talk about is the lack of predictability of modern music, which is the actual claim of the study.

Yes, I agree with this - though as ever, I'd want to add a couple of extra words like 'provisional' and 'contingent' here and there to make sure they're not overlooked. What folk tend to forget is that today's scientific conclusions are only as good as yesterday's results (and yesterday's selection criteria). Tomorrow, it's a new experiment, with everything to play for.

QuoteNow here is what I think, there are different elements to music.  And having an unpredictable thematic development is but one of them, it can be in simple 4/4 time and then the rhythm is well understood.  The thing is that doesn't undermine the point, because if any element of music is unpredictable, than the music itself is unpredictable.  To establish music as really being predictable, you would have to establish it as such in each element, while it only takes one element to say that the music loses the audience (in terms of following along).

Nice point, elegantly made.

Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on February 24, 2010, 12:54:07 PM
Well, you didn't weary me.

That's nice to know, but I think you were the only one left awake, Karl!

Quote from: Elgarian on February 25, 2010, 01:06:14 AM
That's nice to know, but I think you were the only one left awake, Karl!

Wouldn't be the first time in my life!

Quote from: Elgarian on February 25, 2010, 01:01:45 AM

Quote from: DaveyNow here is what I think, there are different elements to music.  And having an unpredictable thematic development is but one of them, it can be in simple 4/4 time and then the rhythm is well understood.  The thing is that doesn't undermine the point, because if any element of music is unpredictable, than the music itself is unpredictable.  To establish music as really being predictable, you would have to establish it as such in each element, while it only takes one element to say that the music loses the audience (in terms of following along).

Nice point, elegantly made.

Hear, hear.

Reading through the above discussion, I was reminded of Stravinsky's sighing criticism of Der Rosenklavier: hours and hours of music "and not one syncopation!"  0:)

Could he have predicted that?!   0:)

Quote from: DavidW on February 24, 2010, 02:32:27 PM
I already did.  It's making those choices with an average score at least one standard deviation better than random guessing.

No one listens to music and uses random guessing.  Everyone listens and begins to expect something from the music because of what the composer has set us up to expect.  Often the composer will produce what most people would expect him to do, but just as often the composer will alter the expected result slightly (or not so slightly) in order to create a surprise.  How well a composer handles the balancing act of producing surprises as opposed to an expected result is what produces bad, average, good or great music.

Music that only produces surprises frustrates an audience, and music that produces no surprises bores an audience.  And as has been pointed out, there and many variables in music that produce surprise or an expected result besides pitch selection.  And I think we enjoy hearing "a well prepared surprise" over and over, kind of like enjoying seeing some movies again even though we know how they turn out. 

A possibly relevant fact is that no matter how often we hear the same work, say the Beethoven 9th Symphony, and know what to expect 100% - many people still enjoy it.  I have doubts that the ability to predict what pitch will happen in a piece of music is a strong indicator if the music is good or not, or even if someone will use that as a factor in judging whether they enjoyed the music or not.

Because of all this, I find the study this article describes rather limited in advancing an understanding of music and how people respond to it. 

Quote from: Franco on February 25, 2010, 05:08:05 AM
No one listens to music and uses random guessing.  Everyone listens and begins to expect something from the music because of what the composer has set us up to expect.  Often the composer will produce what most people would expect him to do, but just as often the composer will alter the expected result slightly (or not so slightly) in order to create a surprise.  How well a composer handles the balancing act of producing surprises as opposed to an expected result is what produces bad, average, good or great music.

Music that only produces surprises frustrates an audience, and music that produces no surprises bores an audience.  And as has been pointed out, there and many variables in music that produce surprise or an expected result besides pitch selection.  And I think we enjoy hearing "a well prepared surprise" over and over, kind of like enjoying seeing some movies again even though we know how they turn out. 

You haven't said anything that contradicts what I've said so far.

QuoteA possibly relevant fact is that no matter how often we hear the same work, say the Beethoven 9th Symphony, and know what to expect 100% - many people still enjoy it.  I have doubts that the ability to predict what pitch will happen in a piece of music is a strong indicator if the music is good or not, or even if someone will use that as a factor in judging whether they enjoyed the music or not.

If you recall I already said that the writer of the article was wrong to equate predictability with quality, but the study indicates a different interesting question: is modern music unpredictable?

QuoteBecause of all this, I find the study this article describes rather limited in advancing an understanding of music and how people respond to it.

Illogical conclusion.  Because of everything that you said, logically you should be interested in the specifics of the study instead of simply dismissing it for no good reason.

Quote from: DavidW on February 25, 2010, 05:51:02 AM
If you recall I already said that the writer of the article was wrong to equate predictability with quality, but the study indicates a different interesting question: is modern music unpredictable?

Since they were only measuring pitch selection, then they created a study that was biased against atonal music, which does not rely on the kind of expectations most people have learned from the majority of music they have heard.  Because they did not study other elements such as rhythm, sequencing, phrasing, etc., then their study is ill-equipped to form any conclusions about anything other than tonal music.  Speaking personally, I find my ability to predict tonal or atonal music is about the same, but this is not how I consciously listen to music (and doubt anyone else does) - what happens on a subconscious level is what the study is attempting to get at, and the elements which produce pleasure at hearing music are vastly more subtle and nuanced than predicting pitches.

Quote from: DavidW on February 25, 2010, 05:51:02 AMIllogical conclusion.  Because of everything that you said, logically you should be interested in the specifics of the study instead of simply dismissing it for no good reason.

See above why I dismiss this study.

I am more interested in reading the book, which covers more territory than a study designed to test the predictable-ness of music.  The book, discusses the importance of music for people beyond this narrow subject.

Even so, I doubt I will actually get around to reading the book.  I'd rather spend that time listening to music, tonal and atonal.

Quote from: Franco on February 25, 2010, 06:09:54 AM
Even so, I doubt I will actually get around to reading the book.  I'd rather spend that time listening to music, tonal and atonal.

Music is not to be understood. It is to be listened to. - Hermann Scherchen

Quote from: Franco on February 25, 2010, 05:08:05 AM
Because of all this, I find the study this article describes rather limited in advancing an understanding of music and how people respond to it.

and then DavidW said:

QuoteIllogical conclusion.  Because of everything that you said, logically you should be interested in the specifics of the study instead of simply dismissing it for no good reason.

He's not dismissing it though, David - well, not here in so many words, though I see in a later post he goes further. But here he's only saying it's rather limited. And I think that's right - it is. Interesting perhaps, to some, and perhaps indicative of a way future research might go - but limited in the conclusions we can draw from it, in itself.

Quote from: DavidW on February 24, 2010, 02:29:50 PM
...it can be in simple 4/4 time and then the rhythm is well understood...

LOL I've played some stuff in 4/4 time that was so unpredictable the conductor had to come up with a new way of beating time for it! ;D

Quote from: Franco on February 25, 2010, 05:08:05 AM
...A possibly relevant fact is that no matter how often we hear the same work, say the Beethoven 9th Symphony, and know what to expect 100% - many people still enjoy it.  I have doubts that the ability to predict what pitch will happen in a piece of music is a strong indicator if the music is good or not, or even if someone will use that as a factor in judging whether they enjoyed the music or not...

But Beethoven's Ninth, with many other musical masterpieces "classical" and "modern," is so rich in every element of music--pitches, dynamics, instrumental tonal variations, even verbal meanings--that despite long acquaintance over nearly four decades, I discover new beauties in it every time I listen or study the score, or get reminded of something that I've forgotten.  And, speaking as a performer, every performance brings out something different.  One orchestra may have string players who can dig deep into every note, another may have a sparkling woodwind section, another group might have choristers who sing all those high notes effortlessly and flawlessly... Do you see?  There's so much in even the acknowledged masterworks that they are new every time you play, listen, or study.

Karl brought out an excellent point earlier when he asked if it were admissible to question the scientific method itself.  Now, music is as much a science as an art--but it is also as much an art as a science.  Its elements can be quantified to a degree, but its total effect on humans--well, we'd need to know a lot more about who we are in our inner spaces to quantify the total effect.  Studying its elements in isolation, mechanistically, cannot answer the deep questions.  But that doesn't mean they're unanswerable.  Perhaps if somebody, or some people, obtain mastery in several different disciplines and bring them all to bear...

   I like this quote by the distinguished music critic Andrew Porter. 
    He once declared that he prefers the music of Elliott Carter to that of Philip Glass, because "he would rather have his mind challenged than his patience".





8)                        8)                          8)                        8)

Quote from: jochanaan on February 25, 2010, 07:13:45 AMKarl brought out an excellent point earlier when he asked if it were admissible to question the scientific method itself.  Now, music is as much a science as an art--but it is also as much an art as a science.  Its elements can be quantified to a degree, but its total effect on humans--well, we'd need to know a lot more about who we are in our inner spaces to quantify the total effect.  Studying its elements in isolation, mechanistically, cannot answer the deep questions.  But that doesn't mean they're unanswerable.  Perhaps if somebody, or some people, obtain mastery in several different disciplines and bring them all to bear...

You act as though this is unique to the study of music.  All science makes use of one or more simplifying paradigms to characterize one aspect of a more complex phenomena.  The goal is to distill out the essence from the myriad details.  It is certainly valid to question whether the statistical test applied is being applied appropriately.   However the details required to do this are not available here, and what we have are people dismissing the results without having a clear idea of the methodology, which indications that they are simply giving voice to their prejudices.

Quote from: Scarpia on February 25, 2010, 07:54:56 AM
However the details required to do this are not available here, and what we have are people dismissing the results without having a clear idea of the methodology, which indications that they are simply giving voice to their prejudices.

No, we have a group of people not nearly so simple;  some of us are raising questions about the methods and front-loadings, as the discussion is progressing.

I honestly fail to see what is so egregious about this.  If I am at fault, I should happily learn why.

This whole thing reminds me of musicologists in the past being dismissed and even kicked out of conferences for daring to present their research on authentic performance practice.  Musicians are naturally intolerant of anyone infringing upon their territory, even if it's to address issues that they can't.  Case in point, this discussion has not even touched on the details of the study yet, and most likely never will.

Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on February 25, 2010, 08:18:07 AM
No, we have a group of people not nearly so simple;  some of us are raising questions about the methods and front-loadings, as the discussion is progressing.

I honestly fail to see what is so egregious about this.  If I am at fault, I should happily learn why.

Nope.  You and others are providing a smoke screen to prevent the discussion from progressing.  We're still talking about the same thing that we were on page 1.

Quote from: DavidW on February 25, 2010, 08:18:28 AM
Case in point, this discussion has not even touched on the details of the study yet, and most likely never will.

Perhaps, as a scientist yourself, you might assist in this?

Quote from: DavidW on February 25, 2010, 08:19:15 AM
Nope.  You and others are providing a smoke screen to prevent the discussion from progressing.  We're still talking about the same thing that we were on page 1.

I do not accept the accusation that I am throwing smoke;  but thank you for the suggestion.

Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on February 25, 2010, 08:20:43 AM
Perhaps, as a scientist yourself, you might assist in this?

I've provided a reasonable definition of pitch predictability in a statistical survey and it's been ignored twice.  And no one that has dismissed the survey (without knowing the details) has tried to constructively build a thought experiment on what statistical survey would work, or even how to either qualify or quantity predictability.

Quote from: jochanaan on February 25, 2010, 07:13:45 AMBeethoven's Ninth, with many other musical masterpieces "classical" and "modern," is so rich in every element of music--pitches, dynamics, instrumental tonal variations, even verbal meanings--that despite long acquaintance over nearly four decades, I discover new beauties in it every time I listen or study the score, or get reminded of something that I've forgotten. 

This is precisely what I was trying to point out.  Since interest in Beethoven 9 is not weakened despite being able to predict with absolute certainty which pitches will play - that aspect of it is not important.  Obviously there is more to Beethoven 9 than the series of pitches that make it up.

By constructing a study based on giving subjects a "test" in which they are played various musical selections and asked to predict what the next pitch or series of pitches or harmonic progression might continue after the selection has ended will not produce what I would consider useful information about music.

It may likely produce a result that a majority of subjects were alike in what they predicted concerning tonal music over atonal music - but this piece of information is not of value, IMO.  Since what makes music interesting, all music - tonal and atonal, is not just the series of notes defining a melodic phrase or line or the harmonic progress and the knowledge that the melodic or harmonic patterns of some music is easier to predict than other, verges on being so superficial as to be worthless.

It certainly will NOT offer any worthwhile conclusion about atonal music and why fewer people seem to enjoy it compared to tonal music.  Something I don't understand either, but also am not too worried about.

Quote from: Franco on February 25, 2010, 09:14:19 AM
This is precisely what I was trying to point out.  Since interest in Beethoven 9 is not weakened despite being able to predict with absolute certainty which pitches will play - that aspect of it is not important.  Obviously there is more to Beethoven 9 than the series of pitches that make it up.

Even if you become familiar with a work you can still distinguish between a "standard" passage where the composer does just what is expected and a "deceptive passage" where the composer does something out of the ordinary (like the sudden shift of harmony in the big cadence that leads to the Turkish March).   And I'd be surprised that someone would claim that such passages don't make a peculiar impression the first time you encounter them that is not duplicated after hearing them for the 100th time.

Quote from: Scarpia on February 25, 2010, 10:30:46 AM
Even if you become familiar with a work you can still distinguish between a "standard" passage where the composer does just what is expected and a "deceptive passage" where the composer does something out of the ordinary (like the sudden shift of harmony in the big cadence that leads to the Turkish March).   And I'd be surprised that someone would claim that such passages don't make a peculiar impression the first time you encounter them that is not duplicated after hearing them for the 100th time.

I can only speak for myself and I can say with some confidence that my enjoyment is in hearing the music not in knowing in my mind what it will do.  It is the actual realization of the music, the sound as it is happening that is enjoyable, and this does not change whether it is the first time or 100th time I've heard any work I love.  I wrote in an earlier post that a well written/prepared "surprise" is enjoyable no matter how often it is experienced, at least this is true for me.

There is a short piece written by William Walton from his film score for Henry V, Touch her soft lips and part, that is very beautiful and touching - and I can listen to it over and over, even in one sitting, and not find the 5th hearing any less effecting than the first.

Quote from: DavidW on February 24, 2010, 08:58:13 AM
Well if you give a double blind test about predicting notes in a piece of music, and the participants perform statistically no better than just guessing, then I think one can conclude that the music is completely unpredictable. :)

From another writer earlier:

Quote
In any event, however random a "piece" of music is, our brains are not random. We humans can "make sense" of anything we perceive. (Can, note. Not that all humans are going to actually do it!)

DavidW wrote:

I disagree, the study shows otherwise.

How can the study know that people actually CANNOT find a pattern, rather than being unwilling to expend the energy do so?


I am also reminded of the following analogy from Physics:

QuoteBy placing both stochastic and deterministic in the same definition, the mathematicians have formed a bridge between the two sciences - two sciences that were regarded as mutually exclusive until then. Chaos is the study of deterministic systems that are so sensitive to measurement that their output appears random.

Edward Lorenz found out all of that the hard way. In 1961, he had managed to create a skeleton of a weather system from a handful of differential equations. He kept a continuous simulation running on an extremely primitive computer that would output a day's progress in the simulation every minute as a line of text on a roll of paper. Evidently, the whole system was very successful at producing ``weather-like'' output - nothing ever happened the same way twice, but there was an underlying order that delighted Lorenz and his associates.


...Line by line, the winds and temperatures in Lorenz's printouts seemed to behave in a recognizable earthly way. They matched his cherished intuition about the weather, his sense that it repeated itself, displaying familiar patterns over time, pressure rising and falling, the airstream swinging north and south.[8, p.15,]
What Edward Lorenz had discovered was a chaotic system. Even though a computer had control of the simulation, and certainly possessed the capability to generate random numbers at will, there was nothing random about any portion of the way the simulation was supposed to work.

From: http://www.gweep.net/~rocko/sufficiency/node10.html

Could one therefore say that the seemingly "random nature" of Le Marteau by Boulez is belied by the existence of the systematically organized score itself?

Therefore, like Edward Lorenz observing clouds and the weather, is it perhaps not true that the listener must become more aware of the subtle nature of what is heard, rather than saying there is no rhyme nor reason?

Quote from: James on February 25, 2010, 11:10:21 AM
High level composers & musicians have frightening ears....

Captain Ahab in Universe X: "Aye Starbuck, I seek the maker of the music, whose sonic atoms and twirbling tones dared to smite and shatter and sunder my leg from my soul!"

Starbuck of Universe X: "So we seek the Great White Wailer after all!  But how, Captain, how canst thou know that the musician, if thou hast the right to find him, whom we hunt will be the right one?"

Ahab: "How?!  HOW?!!! Starbuck, do ye not know that granted from the terrible depths of Gehenna itself, the Great White Wailer has been possessed of...the frightening ears?!"

Cato, yes I understand chaos.  And yes we are talking about chaos.  12 tone row composition has a logical set of rules that result in music that appears random to the listener.  I completely agree. 8)

The music of Arnold Schoenberg, or Alban Berg or much other 12-tone music does not sound random to me.  Far from it.  Not that there isn't music which was designed to sound random, and there is nothing wrong with that either, and it is very enjoyable to hear as well.

Quote from: kishnevi on February 24, 2010, 08:07:41 PM
Penderecki--yes, and the difference between large scale and small scale works holds here. I particularly like the Sextet and the work for solo 'cello (don't remember the title of the piece) which is included on the Naxos recording of the Sextet.

Lutoslawski--mmeh.  From what I've heard of his work, nothing grips me for good or for ill.

Gorecki--discovered the Symphony of Sorrowful Songs was a good cure for insomnia, and haven't gone looking for more since then.  (Perhaps it have helped if I understood enough Polish to follow the texts as they were being sung...)

Xenakis--nothing, for the simple reason I was under the impression that  his stuff more properly belonged in the "New Age" category.

And two others:

Part--same as Lutoslawksi, with some of the problems of large scale Ligeti (the washes of sound, for instance) present.  Not in a rush to get more of him

Taverner--Protecting Veil is extremely good; for the rest, I would say he is similar to Part and Lutosklawski.

There's also the fact that I have enough other musical interests that 20th century music has a low priority.    Better a Renaissance motet or bel canto opera that I know I will have a high probability of enjoying than a modern piece I've heard little or nothing about and which I will quite possibly end up disliking.

Ah, okay, I was just wondering...  :)
btw, I'm sure you'll come to find out Xenakis isn't quite "New Age".  :D (though i guess you could say there may be elements of that in some of his music)

Quote from: Franco on February 25, 2010, 01:55:53 PM
The music of Arnold Schoenberg, or Alban Berg or much other 12-tone music does not sound random to me.  Far from it.  Not that there isn't music which was designed to sound random, and there is nothing wrong with that either, and it is very enjoyable to hear as well.

I don't think anyone would claim that a work by Schoenberg is random.  Leaving aside the psychological elements of the issue, what was shown is that a certain well-defined statistical test failed to show predictability in some music, meaning the statistical rule could not predict the next note in a certain piece better than a random guess.   This does not exclude the possibility that a more sophisticate statistical analysis perform better than random chance.  I think the analogy to chaos is less direct than an analogy to a pseudo-random process.  There are mathematical algorithms which produce a sequence of numbers that appear to be random when characterized by subject to certain statistical tests.  This does not mean that they are truly random, they can't be since they are produced by a deterministic algorithm.   It is a matter of judgment whether the statistical criteria which was applied to the music is a reasonable approximation of what an attentive person could perceive while listening to music.

Quote from: Scarpia on February 25, 2010, 02:38:38 PM
I don't think anyone would claim that a work by Schoenberg is random. 

Here is the comment I was responding to:

Quote12 tone row composition has a logical set of rules that result in music that appears random to the listener.

Quotewhat was shown is that a certain well-defined statistical test failed to show predictability in some music, meaning the statistical rule could not predict the next note in a certain piece better than a random guess.

And you consider this a worthwhile investigation?

While there are probably a few composers who working with computerized serialism, using the kind of mathematical algorithms or you described or aleotoric methods, who may have attempted to randomize the process to a great deal - I would still argue that composers do not write random music.  If it sounds random, that is their goal, and when I have listened to a work that "sounded random" I was aware that it was composed, and even discounting that fact, I would quite possibly enjoy the sound of the music I was hearing.

If I am told by someone conducting this kind of study that they found that their subjects were more successful in predicting the next pitch in tonal music than atonal music, I would respond as Brahms did when someone remarked that one of the themes in his first symphony sounded very much like a theme in Beethoven's 9th, he is purported to have said "Well, any ass can see that."

Quote from: James on February 25, 2010, 04:34:53 PM
2nd Viennesse School is essential listening. Webern made the strongest & most consistent case for the serialist technique, his pieces are so tight and incredibly focused & concentrated... every note has purpose and value to the whole. Nothing is secondary. Purity. The results are beautiful & profound. A genius ... passionate, way ahead of his time.

Cage ... used randomness as a basis for composition ... the results irrational and anarchic. He lost his credibility ... it was a blind-alley and a failure producing nothing in value. He himself realizing this eventually ... returned to more organizational methods in the last 20yrs of his life, leading to more pretty arbitrary stuff... ie. number pieces. dear me.

Just because a composer changed direction at the end of his career is no proof that he judged his earlier work wrong-headed.    And, I certainly do not think that the works Stravinsky wrote later in life meant he had disavowed his early methods.  Composers, and musicians like Miles Davis, set themselves creative challenges to solve at one stage of their lives and when they have exhausted their interest in that problem move on to other kinds of creative challenges that are to be solved using different techniques.

Quote from: Franco on February 25, 2010, 04:43:25 PM
Here is the comment I was responding to:

And you consider this a worthwhile investigation?

While there are probably a few composers who working with computerized serialism, using the kind of mathematical algorithms or you described or aleotoric methods, who may have attempted to randomize the process to a great deal - I would still argue that composers do not write random music.  If it sounds random, that is their goal, and when I have listened to a work that "sounded random" I was aware that it was composed, and even discounting that fact, I would quite possibly enjoy the sound of the music I was hearing.

You are missing the distinction between random and apparently random.   The investigators have found a simple statistical test which seems to correspond to the measured response of listeners to different types of music.  (i.e., difficulty experienced by listeners corresponded to lack of statistically predictability.  I find it a very interesting investigation.

Finally, I don't see any particular relationship between the algorithms I was describing and serial composition techniques or computer composed music. 

Quote from: Franco on February 25, 2010, 09:14:19 AM
This is precisely what I was trying to point out.  Since interest in Beethoven 9 is not weakened despite being able to predict with absolute certainty which pitches will play - that aspect of it is not important.  Obviously there is more to Beethoven 9 than the series of pitches that make it up.

By constructing a study based on giving subjects a "test" in which they are played various musical selections and asked to predict what the next pitch or series of pitches or harmonic progression might continue after the selection has ended will not produce what I would consider useful information about music.

It may likely produce a result that a majority of subjects were alike in what they predicted concerning tonal music over atonal music - but this piece of information is not of value, IMO.  Since what makes music interesting, all music - tonal and atonal, is not just the series of notes defining a melodic phrase or line or the harmonic progress and the knowledge that the melodic or harmonic patterns of some music is easier to predict than other, verges on being so superficial as to be worthless.

It certainly will NOT offer any worthwhile conclusion about atonal music and why fewer people seem to enjoy it compared to tonal music.  Something I don't understand either, but also am not too worried about.

It seems I have not made my point clearly enough.  Pitch is an important dimension of music--but it's only ONE dimension.  Any musical research that studies only pitch can't help but come to insufficient conclusions, because its parameters are so limited.  In the aforementioned Beethoven Ninth, for instance, what would the opening be like if it were played loudly on, say, trumpets and clarinets, instead of very softly on violins and horns?  Rather different? :)

Speaking of which, I feel compelled to point out that atonality and serialism were not Schoenberg's only musical innovations.  He also developed the concepts of Klangfarbenmelodie, literally "tone-color melody," in which instrumental color is more important than the pitch, which seldom or never changes--this concept is given voice in the Third of Five Pieces for Orchestra, Opus 16--and Sprechstimme, in which the human voice does not sing the pitch but rather speaks on pitch, as in Pierrot Lunaire and "A Survivor from Warsaw."  These concepts are just as radical as atonality but for some reason get much less discussion. :o

Quote from: James on February 25, 2010, 11:16:14 PM
It's meaningless.

To those who lack the intellectual capacity to understand it, I'm sure it is.

Quote from: jochanaan on February 25, 2010, 07:55:36 PM
It seems I have not made my point clearly enough.  Pitch is an important dimension of music--but it's only ONE dimension.  Any musical research that studies only pitch can't help but come to insufficient conclusions, because its parameters are so limited. 

You and I are in complete agreement and are arguing from the same position.  I can only assume I too was not making my points clearly enough.

:)

Quote from: Scarpia on February 25, 2010, 07:43:38 PM
You are missing the distinction between random and apparently random.   The investigators have found a simple statistical test which seems to correspond to the measured response of listeners to different types of music.  (i.e., difficulty experienced by listeners corresponded to lack of statistically predictability.  I find it a very interesting investigation.

Finally, I don't see any particular relationship between the algorithms I was describing and serial composition techniques or computer composed music.

What you are missing is (from what I have read) there have been composers who have used algorithms and computers to produce music in an attempt to randomize all the elements of a composition.  I can't name these composers, since I am not very interested in this process, but am aware that this kind of experimentation has been done.

QuoteThe investigators have found a simple statistical test which seems to correspond to the measured response of listeners to different types of music.  (i.e., difficulty experienced by listeners corresponded to lack of statistically predictability.

From what I can see their statistical test was not sophisticated enough to really calculate what makes a piece of music predictable or not - it ought to be obvious that just the series of pitches that make up a work is not all that should be accounted for.

But what is really being said is that atonal music has a smaller audience than tonal music.  Okay.  Is this an indictment of atonal music?  I don't think so.  Classical music has a smaller audience than Rap.  I don't' thank anyone would agree that this is an indictment of Classical music.  And no, I am not saying that atonal music is only appreciated by people with a more refined taste, as some might argue that fans of Classical music possess as opposed to Rap lovers.

Quote from: Franco on February 26, 2010, 06:22:48 AM
You and I are in complete agreement and are arguing from the same position.  I can only assume I too was not making my points clearly enough.

:)

I think the authors of the study are well aware of the fact that their algorithm does not address other aspects of the music and would agree with you.  They were limiting themselves to the harmonic element in music.  (I also mentioned that point myself somewhere above.)  I don't think they make any pretense the atonal music is random, only that one element which is prominent in traditional music is absent.  People can argue and legitimately disagree as to how important that element is, but the statistical test is well defined and correlates with the reaction that people have to the music.    One can certainly argue that too much importance is attached to this result, but to say that it is of no value is a foolish statement, in my opinion.   If you have a fever it is an indication that you may be sick.  It does not tell the whole story, but that does not mean that it is useless information.

Quote from: Scarpia on February 26, 2010, 06:38:18 AM
I think the authors of the study are well aware of the fact that their algorithm does not address other aspects of the music and would agree with you.  They were limiting themselves to the harmonic element in music.  (I also mentioned that point myself somewhere above.)  I don't think they make any pretense the atonal music is random, only that one element which is prominent in traditional music is absent.  People can argue and legitimately disagree as to how important that element is, but the statistical test is well defined and correlates with the reaction that people have to the music.    One can certainly argue that too much importance is attached to this result, but to say that it is of no value is a foolish statement, in my opinion.   If you have a fever it is an indication that you may be sick.  It does not tell the whole story, but that does not mean that it is useless information.

While this may be true, I think their study does not offer the kind of benefit as measuring body temperature which in most cases indicates an underlying condition of ill health.  Not being able to predict pitch sequences in atonal music is not an indication of an underlying problem with the music.  This aspect of atonal music is not a defect, as a high body temperature usually is.  Being able to measure one element of a musical composition, that will not tell us anything of value about the music, is not worthwhile no matter how well designed it may be.

Quote from: Franco on February 26, 2010, 06:36:44 AMBut what is really being said is that atonal music has a smaller audience than tonal music.  Okay.  Is this an indictment of atonal music?  I don't think so.  Classical music has a smaller audience than Rap.  I don't' thank anyone would agree that this is an indictment of Classical music.  And no, I am not saying that atonal music is only appreciated by people with a more refined taste, as some might argue that fans of Classical music possess as opposed to Rap lovers.

I don't have the patience to read all the posts on this thread, but I do not see where the authors of the study say that atonal music is inferior.  What they do say is that the lack of acceptance of atonal music is not simply a matter of familiarity.  They have made a case for the idea that their statistical test measures the basic correlations that most listeners perceive, and show that those basic correlations are gone.  Of course there must be more subtle correlations, but the dictates of the tone row, etc, abolish the simple correlations.

Quote from: Scarpia on February 26, 2010, 06:46:37 AM
I don't have the patience to read all the posts on this thread, but I do not see where the authors of the study say that atonal music is inferior.  What they do say is that the lack of acceptance of atonal music is not simply a matter of familiarity.  They have made a case for the idea that their statistical test measures the basic correlations that most listeners perceive, and show that those basic correlations are gone.  Of course there must be more subtle correlations, but the dictates of the tone row, etc, abolish the simple correlations.

In fact they make a point to say that their study does not speak to the quality of the music.  But this is a beard.  They attempt to "explain" why audiences reject atonal music.  But in fact atonal music has a avid audience and needs no apologists.  There are many people, myself included, who love both tonal and atonal music, but there are many people who love tonal music but detest atonal music.

I can live with that.

This study attempts to scientifically document why people detest atonal music, and I find it similar to a study that offered a rationalization of why people might be racists.   Not that detesting atonal music and being a racist are in any way connected.

Quote from: Franco on February 26, 2010, 06:45:06 AM
While this may be true, I think their study does not offer the kind of benefit as measuring body temperature which in most cases indicates an underlying condition of ill health.  Not being able to predict pitch sequences in atonal music is not an indication of an underlying problem with the music.  This aspect of atonal music is not a defect, as a high body temperature usually is.  Being able to measure one element of a musical composition, that will not tell us anything of value about the music, is not worthwhile no matter how well designed it may be.

Again this pronouncement that "it will not tell us anything of value."  Speak for yourself.  You have decided it tells you nothing of value.  I think it might tell me something that I would value. 

Quote from: Franco on February 26, 2010, 06:45:06 AM
While this may be true, I think their study does not offer the kind of benefit as measuring body temperature which in most cases indicates an underlying condition of ill health.  Not being able to predict pitch sequences in atonal music is not an indication of an underlying problem with the music.  This aspect of atonal music is not a defect, as a high body temperature usually is.  Being able to measure one element of a musical composition, that will not tell us anything of value about the music, is not worthwhile no matter how well designed it may be.

Indeed it tells you little about the music as it is quite possible for atonal music to contain predictable patterns and tonal music may contain unpredictable passages. I find the most off-putting element in some modern works is the absence of an overall feeling of structure. Structure is after all one of the basic building blocks of nature.
Note that I say 'feeling' and this problem may possibly be overcome by repeated hearings. However, this requires the sacrifice of time and with so much music available, time is precious.

Quote from: Ten thumbs on February 26, 2010, 08:35:29 AM
Indeed it tells you little about the music as it is quite possible for atonal music to contain predictable patterns and tonal music may contain unpredictable passages. I find the most off-putting element in some modern works is the absence of an overall feeling of structure.

That is the entire reason it tells you something.  It tells you if music has predicable patterns despite the fact that it is formally atonal.  That is perhaps the reason Berg's violin concerto has achieved a measure of popular success which has eluded Schoenberg's atonal compositions.  Also, an unpredictable passage within a context of predictable music is different from music which is universally unpredictable.

I wonder if it's too late to point out that all references to "the study," including my own :-[, are references to nothing. No study has been cited in this thread. A couple of reports claiming to be based on studies have been cited, one in its entirety, but there's been no single study to talk about, no statistical probabilities, no double-blind tests, no specifics, no conclusions. Where the discussion so far has been valuable is where it has addressed the assertions in the two reports, where it has questioned the utility of neuroscience for saying anything important about music, and where it has asked everyone, neuroscientists, reporters, posters to this thread, to define their terms.*

Which is all prelude to this question, what does "atonal" mean? In specific, what does Scarpia mean when he/she says "formally atonal"? (I ask this because Scarpia referred to Schoenberg's atonal pieces. According to one way of defining "atonal," that would refer only to a very few early pieces around 1909. According to another way, that would refer to everything he wrote but a few of the earliest pieces (before 1908) and a few very late pieces.)

*One of which, oddly enough, is the word "music"--I have yet to see any study of music or report on studies of music that have done any more than assume that everyone knows what "music" is. Since the researchers all base their studies on what they think music is--and a fairly narrow thing that always is--they only look at a few things, and thus come up with conclusions that only apply to a very small subset of Music.

Quote from: James on February 26, 2010, 11:31:47 AM
atonality doesn't exist ... Schoenberg, Berg, Webern ... disliked the word applied to their music. Their music is harmonically advanced and the gist of it simply modulated note by note (in the horizontal/vertical dimensions) thus it's center constantly changed or was in flux so to speak....all notes of the chromatic scale (12-tone) having equal importance. the music is chalk full of melody, harmony, texture, rhythm, tone-color ... all the basics elements are there.

if folks stop wasting time & energy on these lazy cop-out scientific studies (which miss the point completely!) and spend more time taking-in and unlocking (listening) & understanding the art itself the better. those of us here that have did that, can only scratch our heads at this bogus fluffy scientific approach to understanding something as deep, rich and varied as art music (or art period)! great art can challenge and expand our perceptions & understanding ...always has, always will and we benefit from it.

I basically agree with you, and certainly agree with you that no scientific study could ever unlock the incredibly complex nature of how people respond to music.  But I would argue that there is meaning to terms such as tonal and atonal. 

Music written in the tonal system of organization exploits a hierarchical system of keys, and the relationships between tones within those keys, or key centers, atonality does not operate within that hierarchical system and exploits the relationships that are self selected by the composer between intervals among tones.  These are inherently different kinds of organizational processes and produce music of different kinds, not just of degree of dissonance, but of a different kind of music.

It is because of that difference in kind between tonal and atonal music that any study that uses the framework of predictability of tone selection, which is relevant only within the tonal system using the hierarchical relationship of tones within keys and which act according to well defined roles that we all have absorbed from exposure to that system for hundreds of years, will tell us nothing about how people react to atonal music.

Quote from: Franco on February 26, 2010, 06:22:48 AM
You and I are in complete agreement and are arguing from the same position.  I can only assume I too was not making my points clearly enough.

:)

No problem. :)

Quote from: Scarpia on February 26, 2010, 06:38:18 AM
I think the authors of the study are well aware of the fact that their algorithm does not address other aspects of the music and would agree with you.  They were limiting themselves to the harmonic element in music.  (I also mentioned that point myself somewhere above.)  I don't think they make any pretense the atonal music is random, only that one element which is prominent in traditional music is absent.  People can argue and legitimately disagree as to how important that element is, but the statistical test is well defined and correlates with the reaction that people have to the music.    One can certainly argue that too much importance is attached to this result, but to say that it is of no value is a foolish statement, in my opinion.   If you have a fever it is an indication that you may be sick.  It does not tell the whole story, but that does not mean that it is useless information.

I'm not saying the study has no value; only that it has insufficient value.  Many diseases evoke fevers. :)

And actually, thinking about my own reactions to contemporay classical music, atonal or otherwise, I find it refreshing to listen to something where NOTHING is predictable!  Then I can apply my own notions of predictability, or just listen and enjoy.  But I freely admit that I'm unusual in this. :D

BTW, Schoenberg and co. tended to prefer the term "pantonal" to "atonal," since the latter, interpreted literally, would mean "music without tone." :o ;D

The best argument against atonal/serial music is the fact it has utterly failed to catch on after all these years. After a hundred years, maybe it's time to stop blaming audiences and consider that there's something fundamentally wrong with the music itself, or that those who appreciate the music are neurologically different from those who don't.

Today, atonal/serial music is shoved down the throat of classical music audiences at concerts on an "affirmative action" basis: the audience comes for Brahms, Tchaikovsky, Beethoven, and from a sense of duty and obligation some awful contemporary or serialist/atonal music is thrown in, usually in the middle of the program so the audience can't leave early.

Also, the so called "canon" has become ingrained all the more because of the failure of composers from the last 70 years to create enduring and popular works (an exception here or there notwithstanding.) The more modern composers failed at creating enjoyable, popular works, the more audiences clung to the music that preceded these modernists.

Right now too many music professors, critics, and living composers have too much of a stake in the status quo. They don't want to hear that the human brain, on average, isn't built to appreciate 12-tone music, and that this might be an obvious explanation for why the works of Schoenberg/Berg still remain obscure. This would mean that they are wrong and engaged in a futile task, that no serialist work will ever become as endearing to audiences as mozart's k 364, or LvB's Septet, etc. Orchestras will continue on relying on the "canon" to draw audiences in. Radio stations will likewise do the same. Somehow classical audiences will remain educated and informed enough to appreciate mozart's k 364 and LvB's septet, but not quite educated enough to appreciate a Shoenberg concerto.

Quote from: -abe- on February 27, 2010, 09:17:02 PMThe best argument against atonal/serial music is the fact is has utterly failed to catch on after all these years.

Really? That's your best argument?

Utterly?

Abes argument seems to resonate well with me...but I go back to Catos analogy earlier with his 'Lorenz' weather experiment exposition, where it was discovered in a primitive computer simulation that while the weather appeared random, over time it was found to follow repeated familiar patterns, and after all was said and done the dimensions and patters of the 'randomly' generated computer weather experiment were recognisable and as regular as the earths.
This make me believe what Daniel Barenboim said on the matter of atonal music: "You have to listen to it.  Then you have to listen to it again.  Once you have listened to it a few times, everything will become clear."  He described it like a book, not one which stays in your memory forever, but one which you have to keep picking up again and again.
So...while Abes argument above makes perfect sense to me, it is necessary to prove this to myself one way or another.  I will take the 'Lorenz Cure' and the thoughts of Barenboim and over the next year or so go through a re-appraisal of the music, most of which I think of as not music at all...so I'll think of it as music, take the medicine, and play some stuff a few times over the next year...see what happens.

Quote from: some guy on February 27, 2010, 09:55:41 PM
Really? That's your best argument?

Utterly?

It is. What explanation can you offer for why serial/atonal music has failed to become mainstream within the classical music community after a HUNDRED years? Initially, composers of the music of this kind had the hope that one day it would be embraced as mainstream. They have been painfully wrong. They made a bet against human nature and failed.

I do not doubt the sincerity of composers of atonal/serial music. But, it could be the case that those who create works like this and those most receptive to it could have a unique neurological property that isn't evenly distributed among the population, so that those who reject this music are just as sincere as the fans. It isn't for lack of trying but rather a matter of inherent capacities.

Quote from: -abe- on February 27, 2010, 11:28:18 PM
It is. What explanation can you offer for why serial/atonal music has failed to become mainstream within the classical music community after a HUNDRED years? Initially, composers of the music of this kind had the hope that one day it would be embraced as mainstream. They have been painfully wrong. They made a bet against human nature and failed.

The explanation I offered in an earlier post is that atonal music has a small audience, but an avid audience of people who find something in it worthwhile.  Whether this audience comprises a majority of Classical music listeners or not is irrelevant.  One could make your argument about Classical music in general saying that after hundreds of years, it is still only a small percentage of people who choose to listen to Classical music, preferring Pop, therefore Classical music is a failure.

Quote from: Franco on February 28, 2010, 03:30:01 AM
The explanation I offered in an earlier post is that atonal music has a small audience, but an avid audience of people who find something in it worthwhile.  Whether this audience comprises a majority of Classical music listeners or not is irrelevant.

Yes it is. Contemporary classical music was the norm in the 19th century and before. What makes atonal/serial music so perennially on the fringe?

QuoteOne could make your argument about Classical music in general saying that after hundreds of years, it is still only a small percentage of people who choose to listen to Classical music, preferring Pop, therefore Classical music is a failure.

I agree: just because something is unpopular does not mean it's bad, but it sure is curious that classical music audiences overwhelmingly prefer to listen to music composed before the 1940s. Today's pop audience listen to today's music, just like the pop audiences of previous generations listened to the music of their time, whereas classical music audiences overwhelmingly listen to the music of the past and desperately cling to a canon that is unchanging. I wonder what went wrong.

Quote from: -abe- on February 27, 2010, 11:28:18 PM
They made a bet against human nature and failed.

Quote from: James on February 27, 2010, 10:55:03 PM
The truth is that it had to be done & it had an enormous impact on the musical world. Period.

These two sentences are not mutually exclusive.

I second John: abe's remarks resonate with me.

Case in point: Ligeti's Lontano. Yesterday I forced myself to listen through the whole of it, but I just couldn't. After two or three minutes I just had to stop, and I mean it: hitting the STOP button was a physiological necessity, and an urgent one at that. I do not question the sincerity of, or the aural pleasure experienced by, those who love this kind of music. I'm just not one of them.

For measure, I am not a rabid anti-modernist: I never feel the urge to stop the music of, say, Bartok or Stravinsky.

Quote from: -abe- on February 28, 2010, 04:43:56 AM
Yes it is. Contemporary classical music was the norm in the 19th century and before.

This is not quite correct. As someone pointed out above, research shows that the hostility against anything "new" or "modern" started to take shape among the audience as early as the mid-19th century.

Also, before the early 19th century (i.e. the time when permanent municipal orchestras and ensembles started to appear, and the audience broadened greatly), there really wasn't much of what we would call a "classical music audience." It was much more of a private or elite thing than it became subsequently. So it's rather difficult to make comparisons.

I much prefer listening to the Beatles or the Rolling Stones over the so called modern classical music ...

Quote from: Velimir on February 28, 2010, 05:42:32 AM
Also, before the early 19th century (i.e. the time when permanent municipal orchestras and ensembles started to appear, and the audience broadened greatly), there really wasn't much of what we would call a "classical music audience." It was much more of a private or elite thing than it became subsequently. So it's rather difficult to make comparisons.

Well, yes and no. We must take into account that the gulf between the music of the "elite" and the music of the "people" was not quite as wide as it is today: a band performing at a peasant's feast used pretty much the same instruments and the same musical language as that of Eszterhazy's orchestra and Haydn himself (along with many others) came of a peasant stock. There was constant exchange between "pop" music and "elte" music back in those times: witness the countless folk tunes and dances to be found in the music of all great composers from Haydn to Mahler and Bruckner. When Liszt visited Moldavia, he spent hours listening to the music of Barbu Lautaru, a Romanian fiddler who could play at first hearing the most difficult passages of his own music and before whom he bowed with respect. The Viennese "gypsy" "pop" bands left their mark on Liszt and Brahms just as much as the Jewish "pop" music can be heard virtually anywhere in Mahler's symphonies.

A clear, detectable and conscientious gap between "elite" and "pop" music is a distinctively modern phenomenon.

Quote from: -abe- on February 28, 2010, 04:43:56 AM
Yes it is. Contemporary classical music was the norm in the 19th century and before. What makes atonal/serial music so perennially on the fringe?

I'd say it depends on who you ask.  For many people, myself included it is not on the fringe.  Really the only Classical music which seems to define your mainstream is Baroque, Classical and Romantic periods.  There is a lot of music that is left out of these broad categories, Early music for example probably has about the same size audience as atonal, or new music.

Quote from: -abe- on February 28, 2010, 04:43:56 AMI agree: just because something is unpopular does not mean it's bad, but it sure is curious that classical music audiences overwhelmingly prefer to listen to music composed before the 1940s. Today's pop audience listen to today's music, just like the pop audiences of previous generations listened to the music of their time, whereas classical music audiences overwhelmingly listen to the music of the past and desperately cling to a canon that is unchanging. I wonder what went wrong.

Nothing went wrong.  Speaking for myself (you seem to want to attribute your own responses to modern Classical music to the audience at large) I grow tired of almost any music, with the exceptions of Miles Davis and Igor Stravinsky.  If I listen to nothing but Classical period music (Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven) after about a week I am tired of it and want to listen to something else.  But the styles of music I seem to be able to listen to for longer periods of time before wanting something completely different are post-Bop jazz and modern Classical music.

Go figure.

Atonal music does have an audience, you may not be in it - but there are lots of people who don't think of it as you do.

Quote from: Franco on February 28, 2010, 03:30:01 AM
One could make your argument about Classical music in general saying that after hundreds of years, it is still only a small percentage of people who choose to listen to Classical music, preferring Pop, therefore Classical music is a failure.

This is the second time I've seen this said.  But it's wrong.  Quite a few listen to classical music, only a small fraction of those people obsessively collect cds but that's not the same thing.  A large number of people listen to classical on the radio and occasionally attend a concert.  It's still popular to be taught classical pieces when learning an instrument.  Many people listen to classical music, and frankly it is immersed in our culture.

The argument doesn't even make sense.  If I accept your claim that only a minority of listeners enjoy classical (which I don't), then you are saying that atonal music is a success because a minority of a minority listen to 'em.  How can one be a financial success with such an exceedingly small audience?  The truth is that they are not.  They suffer the same fate as the also unfashionable PI performances of Classico-romantic era music, and have their recordings done on small labels go out of print within months.  Just to be clear I'm not talking about the first Viennese school, I'm talking about the current crop of avant garde composers.

No Franco you're guilty (again) of judging something a success or failure based purely on your personal response.

Quote from: DavidW on February 28, 2010, 08:03:10 AM
The argument doesn't even make sense.  If I accept your claim that only a minority of listeners enjoy classical (which I don't), then you are saying that atonal music is a success because a minority of a minority listen to 'em.  How can one be a financial success with such an exceedingly small audience?  The truth is that they are not.  They suffer the same fate as the also unfashionable PI performances of Classico-romantic era music, and have their recordings done on small labels go out of print within months.  Just to be clear I'm not talking about the first Viennese school, I'm talking about the current crop of avant garde composers.

No Franco you're guilty (again) of judging something a success or failure based purely on your personal response.

It is a fact that Classical music CDs sell fewer copies than Popular music CDs.  Do you deny this?  I am not judging anything a success or failure, I am responding to others who claim that atonal music is a failure using an argument that atonal music was a colossal mistake because it has failed to enter the Classical music mainstream. 

Also, you folks who insist on denigrating atonal music continue to minimize the fact that atonal music does enjoy an avid audience.  For sure, you may not be among that audience, but just like all those people who don't like Classical music and prefer Pop - their opinion is irrelevant to your enjoyment of Beethoven.

Quote from: Franco on February 28, 2010, 08:11:38 AM
It is a fact that Classical music CDs sell fewer copies than Popular music CDs.  Do you deny this?

Do you have reading comprehension problems?  Or do you simply delight in strawmanning all replies made to your posts?  My point was that a large minority enjoy classical, not a small minority.  Pointing out that popular music is more popular than classical hardly undermines my point. ::)

QuoteI am not judging anything a success or failure, I am responding to others who claim that atonal music is a failure using an argument that atonal music was a colossal mistake because it has failed to enter the Classical music mainstream. 

That argument suggests that as long as you and a few others like it, it's not a failure.  That is (a) narcissistic, and (b) ridiculous, what is a failure then?  Must the agreement of the entire human race to never perform the music ever again be considered the only time music can be considered a failure?  That is so extreme and unreasonable a declaration that you've made that it seems as if you think that the word "failure" should be banned because it's not nice.

QuoteAlso, you folks who insist on denigrating atonal music continue to minimize the fact that atonal music does enjoy an avid audience.  For sure, you may not be among that audience, but just like all those people who don't like Classical music and prefer Pop - their opinion is irrelevant to your enjoyment of Beethoven.

What do you mean you folks?  How long have we been posting on this forum?  And you don't know that I enjoy Schoenberg, Berg, Webern, Carter, Ligeti, Frankel, Kurtag and many others?  I probably enjoy them more than you do, you hardly listen to them! :D

You have built up a facade of "the man" telling you that you can't listen to and enjoy atonal music.  That is not what is going on here AT ALL.  You can enjoy the music and admit that it has failed to be taken up and enjoyed by people as a whole (the same can not be said of classical).

Quote from: Franco on February 28, 2010, 03:30:01 AM
The explanation I offered in an earlier post is that atonal music has a small audience, but an avid audience of people who find something in it worthwhile.  Whether this audience comprises a majority of Classical music listeners or not is irrelevant.  One could make your argument about Classical music in general saying that after hundreds of years, it is still only a small percentage of people who choose to listen to Classical music, preferring Pop, therefore Classical music is a failure.

The point is this.  Classical music may be a relatively small market, but it is self supporting.  The money raised by people buying tickets and from rich people willing to donate money to orchestra foundations is sufficient to support the salaries of the musicians and the people who manage the orchestra.   I don't think atonal (or whatever you want to call it) is able to support itself.   It is only heard because atonal pieces get stuck into programs of music have wider appeal.  An orchestra that played only atonal music would never be able to fill a hall on a regular basis.  So, it not subsidized by proper music, you fans of atonal music would be restricted to ensembles that can subsist on your support.  I suspect that would restrict you to string trios, maybe the occasional wind quintet.  Or perhaps a semi-annual global convention with a special concert by the New Jersey Philharmonic.   :P

Quote from: DavidW on February 28, 2010, 08:29:49 AMThat argument suggests that as long as you and a few others like it, it's not a failure.  That is (a) narcissistic, and (b) ridiculous, what is a failure then?

I'm not entirely sure (this discussion has had so many twists and turns that it's hard to steer a course through it), but I think you're responding to what you think he said, rather than what he's actually saying, David. He says, specifically, 'I am not judging anything a success or failure'. I don't see anything narcissistic or ridiculous in his position. It isn't narcissism to suppose that an art can have real value to 'the happy few' who enjoy it , even if one is among them; neither is it ridiculous for one's approach to art not to be governed by ideas of 'success' or 'failure'.

Quote from: Elgarian on February 28, 2010, 08:53:57 AM
I'm not entirely sure (this discussion has had so many twists and turns that it's hard to steer a course through it), but I think you're responding to what you think he said, rather than what he's actually saying, David. He says, specifically, 'I am not judging anything a success or failure'. I don't see anything narcissistic or ridiculous in his position. It isn't narcissism to suppose that an art can have value to 'the happy few' who enjoy it , even if one is among them; neither is it ridiculous for one's approach to art not to be governed by ideas of 'success' or 'failure'.

I don't think that you're understanding me.  He can say that he is not "judging anything a success or failure" but it's a lie.  Why?  He posted to refute Abe's post saying that atonal music is a failure.  My reply that you're responding to is me calling him out on that lie.  If Franco is truly not judging, then also he should have no problem with what Abe said.  But then why did he reply to disagree then?  I am tired of the intellectually dishonest way that he, you, and others make of asserting a position based purely on one' own personal feelings and then quickly withdrawing and pretending to be fair and open minded.

Furthermore, I don't perceive you as fair and open minded, and I reject you as arbiter.  Jump into the debate, or leave it be but don't try to play negotiator, it's obviously a role that you are not meant for and have no business doing Elgarian.

I just can't understand why some of you treat atonal music as a dangerous virus to be stamped out.  It's just music - it's not improper and talk about its success or failure is foolish. 

Quote from: DavidW on February 28, 2010, 09:04:30 AM
I am tired of the intellectually dishonest way that he, you, and others make of asserting a position based purely on one' own personal feelings and then quickly withdrawing and pretending to be fair and open minded.

Furthermore, I don't perceive you as fair and open minded, and I reject you as arbiter.  Jump into the debate, or leave it be but don't try to play negotiator, it's obviously a role that you are not meant for and have no business doing Elgarian.

Where's all this hostility coming from? If you make a public post, I don't see any reason why I may not respond (even if I'm wrong, because believe it or not, I've actually been trying to follow this convoluted argument). It's a bit much to be accused of intellectual dishonesty and pretension in such a bad-tempered way.

Quote from: DavidW on February 28, 2010, 08:29:49 AM
Do you have reading comprehension problems?  Or do you simply delight in strawmanning all replies made to your posts?  My point was that a large minority enjoy classical, not a small minority.  Pointing out that popular music is more popular than classical hardly undermines my point. ::)

It wasn't you who made the argument that atonal music is a failure because a most Classical music fans do not like it.  I don't buy this kind of argument and explained why.   This thread has diverged from the starting point which was discussing the validity of a scientific study about predictability of music and what this said about whether atonal music would ever find a large audience among mainstream Classical music lovers.  I have said that I don't think the study was constructed in a way to adequately measure atonal music.  That discussion had at least some objective context, the alleged study, but now the discussion has sunk to the level of "most people don't like it so it must be a failure".

Quote from: DavidW on February 28, 2010, 08:29:49 AMThat argument suggests that as long as you and a few others like it, it's not a failure.  That is (a) narcissistic, and (b) ridiculous, what is a failure then?  Must the agreement of the entire human race to never perform the music ever again be considered the only time music can be considered a failure?  That is so extreme and unreasonable a declaration that you've made that it seems as if you think that the word "failure" should be banned because it's not nice.

Again, I am not claiming atonal music a success or failure - this is not a burning question for me.   I am responding that for all those people who enjoy it, it offers them what no other music can.  It does not matter how many people decry the failure of it.

Quote from: DavidW on February 28, 2010, 08:29:49 AMWhat do you mean you folks?  How long have we been posting on this forum?  And you don't know that I enjoy Schoenberg, Berg, Webern, Carter, Ligeti, Frankel, Kurtag and many others?  I probably enjoy them more than you do, you hardly listen to them! :D

"You folks" are the people in this thread who have expressed their opinion that atonal music is somehow not natural and will not enter the mainstream as has music from earlier periods.  I am mystified that you think you know how much I listen to what kinds of music.  I don't know if I listen to Carter or Schoenberg more or less than you - frankly, I don't care.

Quote from: DavidW on February 28, 2010, 08:29:49 AMYou have built up a facade of "the man" telling you that you can't listen to and enjoy atonal music.  That is not what is going on here AT ALL.  You can enjoy the music and admit that it has failed to be taken up and enjoyed by people as a whole (the same can not be said of classical).

You are going a bit off. I don't imagine anyone telling me I can't listen to atonal music, and I also don't concern myself with whether atonal music has failed to be taken up and enjoyed as a whole - because someone else does not enjoy it is irrelevant to my own enjoyment of it.  But, I will put in my two cents when I see people making arguments against it that don't hold water, IMO.

Quote from: Elgarian on February 28, 2010, 09:15:42 AM
Where's all this hostility coming from? If you make a public post, I don't see any reason why I may not respond (even if I'm wrong, because believe it or not, I've actually been trying to follow this convoluted argument). It's a bit much to be accused of intellectual dishonesty and pretension in such a bad-tempered way.

I don't have a problem with you responding to my posts.  I have a problem with you taking on the role of mediator.  You're not.

Quote from: Franco on February 28, 2010, 09:22:48 AM
That discussion had at least some objective context, the alleged study, but now the discussion has sunk to the level of "most people don't like it so it must be a failure".

That's actually were we started because people posted to decry the article because the writer of the article was trying to assert that people are not built to enjoy atonal music, which is where Abe came in later on.  We've actually been on topic the entire time.

QuoteI am responding that for all those people who enjoy it, it offers them what no other music can.  It does not matter how many people decry the failure of it.

Is that the only reason that you replied?  Why do so at all then?  That point was made much better by James awhile back.

QuoteI am mystified that you think you know how much I listen to what kinds of music.  I don't know if I listen to Carter or Schoenberg more or less than you - frankly, I don't care.

Don't be too mystified, if I see you mostly posting on threads about classical and romantic era composers, I tend to think that's what you like.  I remember when I was doing a great exploration of 20th century music and was bugging the board alot, you were nowhere to be seen.  I'm not guessing, nor am I stalking you, it's a small board and we've both been on it for several years.  You're not posting on here like some of the others to save the music that you love from being denigrated (your words really, and it's not being denigrated), you don't even care.  You do it because you want to fight, well you have it.

QuoteBut, I will put in my two cents when I see people making arguments against it that don't hold water, IMO.

Just like I said.  Well I put in my two cents because I actually care.  And you know what?  All of your replies that I've ever seen to the arguments that you don't like always skim the surface and quickly back off.  For wanting to tear down arguments that you think don't hold water you sure do a piss poor job of it.  Why even bother if you are so ineffectual?  Why not just post on stuff that you care about?

Quote from: -abe- on February 27, 2010, 09:17:02 PM

Today, atonal/serial music is shoved down the throat of classical music audiences at concerts on an "affirmative action" basis: the audience comes for Brahms, Tchaikovsky, Beethoven, and from a sense of duty and obligation some awful contemporary or serialist/atonal music is thrown in, usually in the middle of the program so the audience can't leave early.

I'd call it variety of programming which is a good thing, no?

Quote from: DavidW on February 28, 2010, 09:40:37 AM
That's actually were we started because people posted to decry the article because the writer of the article was trying to assert that people are not built to enjoy atonal music, which is where Abe came in later on.  We've actually been on topic the entire time.

Is that the only reason that you replied?  Why do so at all then?  That point was made much better by James awhile back.

Don't be too mystified, if I see you mostly posting on threads about classical and romantic era composers, I tend to think that's what you like.  I remember when I was doing a great exploration of 20th century music and was bugging the board alot, you were nowhere to be seen.  I'm not guessing, nor am I stalking you, it's a small board and we've both been on it for several years.  You're not posting on here like some of the others to save the music that you love from being denigrated (your words really, and it's not being denigrated), you don't even care.  You do it because you want to fight, well you have it.

Just like I said.  Well I put in my two cents because I actually care.  And you know what?  All of your replies that I've ever seen to the arguments that you don't like always skim the surface and quickly back off.  For wanting to tear down arguments that you think don't hold water you sure do a piss poor job of it.  Why even bother if you are so ineffectual?  Why not just post on stuff that you care about?

You're right, I do hang out in the Haydn and Classical threads mostly, those are the ones I have set up on Notify.  I post in the Classical threads more because I like the people there and enjoy that period a lot and like to learn what others have to say about it.  But I probably listen to more 20th C. and newer music than any other.  I also have posted in threads concerning 20th C. music or specific composers, but less so since the discussion tends to turn sour fairly often with someone complaining about the style of the music.  I actually started this thread since I found the article provocative and was interested in seeing how the forum would respond.  I think if you took the time to revisit how I've contributed to this thread you would find a consistent view - but I don't expect you to do that, nor is it important.

I don't know if I "care" about any of this in the same way you do.  I sure don't "care" enough to express impatience or anger at someone because I don't agree with them, or don't like their argumentation - maybe that's why you think I "skim the surface and quickly back off" or do a "piss poor job" - I am not trying to win an argument, I'm just expressing an opinion and learning from other people's opinions.  So, maybe I do back off when I feel a discussion is turning into an argument, or is becoming circular.  I am here for only one reason: to discuss music I am interested in.  When the discussion turns sour, I drop out.

Quote from: jlaurson on February 28, 2010, 11:02:56 AM
This reminds me of a thread I wanted to start: http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,15905.0.html (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,15905.0.html)

In this case, the thread title was the headline of the article I posted.  But I take your point.

Quote from: Florestan on February 28, 2010, 06:14:15 AMA clear, detectable and conscientious gap between "elite" and "pop" music is a distinctively modern phenomenon.

This is what I always thought, too, but it is simply not true. It is distinctively a 19th century phenomenon. In the early 19th century, the idea of a canon grew up, and along with it concerts that were homogeneous and that featured dead composers, the latter a trend that increased until around the 1870s. After the 1870s, aggressive work by contemporary composers dropped the percentages back down a little bit, but the mindset of the nineteenth century towards canonical (dead) composers has continued to the present day.

Quote from: DavidW on February 28, 2010, 09:23:46 AM
I have a problem with you taking on the role of mediator.  You're not.

For the record (and then I'm done), I too would have a problem with my taking on the role of mediator. I was not trying to find middle ground, nor even making any conscious attempt to be fair. I was in fact disagreeing with your comments, as mildly and respectfully as I was able, and even acknowledging that I wasn't certain of my ground. My aim was not to mediate, but to explain why I thought you were wrong.

I'll contribute no further to this thread.

Quote from: Bulldog on February 28, 2010, 09:13:52 AM
I just can't understand why some of you treat atonal music as a dangerous virus to be stamped out.  It's just music - it's not improper and talk about its success or failure is foolish.

I agree with you completely.  However, I sometimes find myself reacting against those who subscribe to the opposite view and equally silly view, that atonal music is not popular because it is suppress by a conspiracy of the narrow minded establishment. 

While I enjoy his contributions immensely, I think Elgarian's decision a wise one.

The problem is pretty simply really. You have a bunch of people who use an undefined term (atonal) to simply bash a category of music that really isn't a category because the term is undefined. Or, it IS a category, and that category is "music I (and others like me) happen to dislike."

To really work as a conversation, this thread really needs to get down to specifics. Otherwise, you just get people* bashing "atonal" music and then naming a bunch of composers they supposedly listen to more than anyone else does, composers who all wrote stuff that could be described as "atonal."

As long as we use a term that's a moving target, we will never get any farther than a slanging match--and the people who truly love music will never win.

*Yes, this is a reference specifically to DavidW, who has very adeptly described his own m.o., "the intellectually dishonest way...of asserting a position based purely on one' own personal feelings and then...pretending to be fair and open minded." Though James and Franco and Karl and a few others have done yeoman's work in countering the bad arguments of the opposition, David and a few others will never let any of us win in this one. The shifting targets will continue to shift forever. So maybe we should just join Elgarian now and keep our sanity, eh? I think I'll cleanse my mind and spirit with some Zbigniew Karkowski right now. Yes, that should do the trick. Plus, it's really cool music, too! ;D

Quote from: James on February 26, 2010, 11:57:26 AM
That false perception you have will be overcome the more you listen to it & dig in, it's not designed to be so easily digested and simplistic. If all music (& art) was like that, things would be sooo boring! It's a feast for the ears & mind to absorb! It's part of the pleasure of great, deep & rich art, it warrents re-visiting and is open to constant discovery.

As I said, I know it is a false perception and I am aware that there is a great deal of modern music of value that I'm missing. However, my time is limited and there is plenty of other music that is similarly difficult to understand immediately and I am constantly making new discoveries.

Quote from: Florestan on February 28, 2010, 05:27:58 AM
Case in point: Ligeti's Lontano. Yesterday I forced myself to listen through the whole of it, but I just couldn't. After two or three minutes I just had to stop, and I mean it: hitting the STOP button was a physiological necessity, and an urgent one at that. I do not question the sincerity of, or the aural pleasure experienced by, those who love this kind of music. I'm just not one of them.

For measure, I am not a rabid anti-modernist: I never feel the urge to stop the music of, say, Bartok or Stravinsky.

Yikes!  And I know you for no r. a.-m., Andrei.  Try the Lontano again in five years, if you are game;  it's one of my favorite Ligeti pieces, and in all events, it's one in whose sound I simply exult.

Quote from: James on February 28, 2010, 02:00:17 PM
Scarpia ...no one said it was a conspiracy ... it's just laziness that's all

Oh really???  I only had to search for "Mozart" and "establishment" to pull up this gem from one of your posts.

QuoteAnd I think that they (EC & KS) would both agree with the fact that a lot of terrific new stuff is being left by the wayside by the "establishment" who continues to cash in on safe & popular Mozart, who wrote some fine stuff but who is way too overhyped to a suffocating effect that it's simply beyond parody & ultimately it stagnates the artform and turns it into a dusty museum.

Quote from: Scarpia on February 28, 2010, 08:38:01 AM
...Classical music may be a relatively small market, but it is self supporting...

Uh, have you looked at the budget for any major orchestra lately? :o Orchestras, at least, are NOT self-supported entities.  Most of the ones around the country are either volunteer or paid a nominal fee, and a significant portion of their budget funds comes from corporate or government assistance.  The only orchestra I know of that might actually earn its own keep without national/state or corporate support is the London Symphony Orchestra, and it has to play all those movie soundtracks...

I think that the situation is a little better for soloists and chamber groups, at least the top ones.  And some of them, such as the Kronos Quartet, often play that very "atonal" stuff that gets so often derided and defended in these forums! ;D

Quote from: jochanaan on February 28, 2010, 03:55:32 PM
Uh, have you looked at the budget for any major orchestra lately? :o Orchestras, at least, are NOT self-supported entities.

By self-supporting I included donations by well-heeled contributors.  It was my impression that government support has dwindled to nearly nothing these days.

Quote from: -abe- on February 27, 2010, 09:17:02 PM
The best argument against atonal/serial music is the fact it has utterly failed to catch on after all these years. After a hundred years, maybe it's time to stop blaming audiences and consider that there's something fundamentally wrong with the music itself, or that those who appreciate the music are neurologically different from those who don't.

Today, atonal/serial music is shoved down the throat of classical music audiences at concerts on an "affirmative action" basis: the audience comes for Brahms, Tchaikovsky, Beethoven, and from a sense of duty and obligation some awful contemporary or serialist/atonal music is thrown in, usually in the middle of the program so the audience can't leave early.

Also, the so called "canon" has become ingrained all the more because of the failure of composers from the last 70 years to create enduring and popular works (an exception here or there notwithstanding.) The more modern composers failed at creating enjoyable, popular works, the more audiences clung to the music that preceded these modernists.

Right now too many music professors, critics, and living composers have too much of a stake in the status quo. They don't want to hear that the human brain, on average, isn't built to appreciate 12-tone music, and that this might be an obvious explanation for why the works of Schoenberg/Berg still remain obscure. This would mean that they are wrong and engaged in a futile task, that no serialist work will ever become as endearing to audiences as mozart's k 364, or LvB's Septet, etc. Orchestras will continue on relying on the "canon" to draw audiences in. Radio stations will likewise do the same. Somehow classical audiences will remain educated and informed enough to appreciate mozart's k 364 and LvB's septet, but not quite educated enough to appreciate a Shoenberg concerto.

If that's your best argument, it still hasn't convinced me. :) There are too many variables in audiences and society, as I said in my first post on this thread, to determine the ultimate worth of Schoenberg and Co.'s music by audience demand.

Quote from: Scarpia on February 28, 2010, 03:59:06 PM
By self-supporting I included donations by well-heeled contributors.  It was my impression that government support has dwindled to nearly nothing these days.

That last is true, but you're changing definitions.  Self-supporting, by definition, includes only income based on actual work; in the case of musicians, that's concert ticket sales, recording revenues including online download sales if any, and whatever tips they get during performances.  I don't see any real difference between government grants and corporate ones; in fact, I've been saying for decades that the real rulers of this country sit on Wall Street, not in Washington. :o

Ensemble InterContemporain
Arditti Quartet
Bang On A Can

If you Google "new music ensemble" you will find dozens of groups devoted to new music, much of which is no doubt atonal.

My guess is most are as self-supporting as your local symphony orchestra.

Quote from: Franco on February 28, 2010, 04:10:25 PM
...My guess is most are as self-supporting as your local symphony orchestra.

And probably more so. 8)

I think the problem is, for every atonal composer who really accomplished something sublime and knew what they were doing (Schoenberg, Berg, Webern, etc.) many - read most - of those that came in their wake were not inspired and you get mud. 

If the piece is wonderful and entertaining - for example, BARTOK's third and fourth string quartets - I don't care if it is "serial music" or ultra-modern - but if you're a charlatan just grinding it out, I'll respond accordingly. 

Quote from: Scion7 on October 05, 2015, 11:07:50 PM
I think the problem is, for every atonal composer who really accomplished something sublime and knew what they were doing (Schoenberg, Berg, Webern, etc.) many - read most - of those that came in their wake were not inspired and you get mud. 

Isn't this also true for a lot of (usually deservedly) forgotten late/neo-romantic music from the last 120 years? I fail to see who the existence of lots of less inspired or downright bad art incriminates difficult and daring avantgarde art compared to more conservative/traditionalist art.
Even if doing avantgarde was always more "risky" it could be worth lots of "misses", i.e. the "hits" are so much more interesting than attempts that did not strive for something risky and interesting.

Quote from: Jo498 on October 06, 2015, 12:29:40 AM
Isn't this also true for a lot of (usually deservedly) forgotten late/neo-romantic music from the last 120 years? I fail to see who the existence of lots of less inspired or downright bad art incriminates difficult and daring avantgarde art compared to more conservative/traditionalist art.
Even if doing avantgarde was always more "risky" it could be worth lots of "misses", i.e. the "hits" are so much more interesting than attempts that did not strive for something risky and interesting.

Probably true. It's just that bad tonal music is just banal and boring, while bad modern music is an earsore (have I invented a new term?)or whatever.

Is every new piece which is not clear to our ear on first hearing "mud"? I ask only for information.

(This thread almost appears to echo discussion in another thread, which might go by the heading: Audiences Hate Shakespeare Because Their Brains Cannot Cope.)

The article this thread is based on seems to be stating the obvious to me.  But it's hardly just about classical music you could say the same about various forms of popular music that some people's brain aren't adapted to.  It's just that in most cases people can't be bothered to put the effort in to adapt their brains, they want to understand something very quickly and don't have patience.

Quote from: Jo498 on October 06, 2015, 12:29:40 AMI fail to see who ....

Did you mean "how," there?

Quote from: Scion7 on October 05, 2015, 11:07:50 PM
I think the problem is, for every atonal composer who really accomplished something sublime and knew what they were doing (Schoenberg, Berg, Webern, etc.) many - read most - of those that came in their wake were not inspired and you get mud. 

If the piece is wonderful and entertaining - for example, BARTOK's third and fourth string quartets - I don't care if it is "serial music" or ultra-modern - but if you're a charlatan just grinding it out, I'll respond accordingly.

And who is a charlatan? How do you identify one? Or is that just a catch-all term you use for music you don't like?

Quote from: The new erato on October 06, 2015, 01:47:21 AM
Probably true. It's just that bad tonal music is just banal and boring, while bad modern music is an earsore (have I invented a new term?) or whatever.

I'll agree to this in principle.  Few of us, perhaps, have the talent for unerringly identifying the bad modern music on a single hearing.  Unless we simply mean "music one does not like";  that is certainly an inarguable snap judgment.

Quote from: karlhenning on October 06, 2015, 03:29:43 AM
Few of us, perhaps, have the talent for unerringly identifying the bad modern music on a single hearing. 

Definitely. The "filter of time" rights many wrongs.

Quote from: karlhenning on October 06, 2015, 03:29:43 AM
Few of us, perhaps, Only Sean seems to have the talent for unerringly identifying the bad modern music on a single hearing.

A plausible alternative?  0:)  ;)

Quote from: Scion7 on October 06, 2015, 02:59:28 AM
  Did you mean "how," there?

Of course. I thought the brain could be relied on to figure out the meaning despite such mistakes.

Quote from: The new erato on October 06, 2015, 03:39:23 AM
Definitely. The "filter of time" rights many wrongs.

But it also seems almost consensus that the "filter of time" creates some wrongs. Hence the many "underappreciated" and "underestimated", "forgotten" composers and pieces being dug up.

Quote from: Jo498 on October 06, 2015, 03:47:17 AM
But it also seems almost consensus that the "filter of time" creates some wrongs.

Lo! Artistic evaluations are subject to subsequent review.

Yet another reason to be cautious about giving one's voice to This modern piece is rubbish! calls.

Quote from: karlhenning on October 06, 2015, 04:03:28 AM
Lo! Artistic evaluations are subject to subsequent review.

I mean: artistic evaluations other than Sean's.  It just so happens that he is right, and anyone else, wrong.   ::)

I find it interesting that people yearn for music of old, as in wishing to see Beethoven perform or Mendelssohn conduct (I'm guilty of this to an extent), yet have living, breathing composers around them who will be yearned for someday. Imagine if these same people lived 100-120 years ago and missed out on Mahler conducting his own works or Rachmaninoff performing his own works because, "This modern rubbish will never live up to Mozart or Haydn." I think it's amazing that I can (hypothetically) walk up to Philip Glass and shake his hand, or ask Pierre Boulez (with caution) what he was thinking when he composed Sur Incises. 100 years from now, perhaps people will long for these type moments and envy our generation. Todays creations are truly tomorrow's treasures. I also find it interesting when people dismiss the whole of modern music after being repulsed by the 10 second clip they heard from Schoenberg, Stockhausen, Xenakis, or Cage (who all happen to be modernly dead). I've never once been told I'm listening to the wrong music but I've seen it mentioned that "work and effort may be required" to enjoy certain music. In that case, to each his or her own. If you want something instantly accessible, there's always Boccherini's Stabat Mater or even (gasp!) Schoenberg's Gurre-lieder. Very little "work" required there. If you're willing to make that effort, you may enjoy the fruits of your labor, so to speak. I just don't see the need to constantly impose our preferences on others. This debate is as fresh and as effective as protesters screaming at each other, outside an abortion clinic.

Quote from: Mr. Three Putt on October 06, 2015, 04:28:33 AM
I find it interesting that people yearn for music of old, as in wishing to see Beethoven perform or Mendelssohn conduct (I'm guilty of this to an extent), yet have living, breathing composers around them who will be yearned for someday. Imagine if these same people lived 100-120 years ago and missed out on Mahler conducting his own works or Rachmaninoff performing his own works because, "This modern rubbish will never live up to Mozart or Haydn." I think it's amazing that I can (hypothetically) walk up to Philip Glass and shake his hand, or ask Pierre Boulez (with caution) what he was thinking when he composed Sur Incises. 100 years from now, perhaps people will long for these type moments and envy our generation. Todays creations are truly tomorrow's treasures. I also find it interesting when people dismiss the whole of modern music after being repulsed by the 10 second clip they heard from Schoenberg, Stockhausen, Xenakis, or Cage (who all happen to be modernly dead). I've never once been told I'm listening to the wrong music but I've seen it mentioned that "work and effort may be required" to enjoy certain music. In that case, to each his or her own. If you want something instantly accessible, there's always Boccherini's Stabat Mater or even (gasp!) Schoenberg's Gurre-lieder. Very little "work" required there. If you're willing to make that effort, you may enjoy the fruits of your labor, so to speak. I just don't see the need to constantly impose our preferences on others. This debate is as fresh and as effective as protesters screaming at each other, outside an abortion clinic.

Agreed  :)

Was one chap who wrung his hands constantly about modern music, but he (a little mindlessly, it must be admitted) fauned over Debussy.  Of course, he readily deceived himself into imagining that, had he lived in Debussy's time, naturally he would have had the musical mind to appreciate Debussy's music, fresh off the press   8)  But we all know he would have been wringing his hands over those impenetrable harmonies, and wondering why composers couldn't write beautiful music like Mendelssohn's anymore . . . .

Quote from: Mr. Three Putt on October 06, 2015, 04:28:33 AM
I find it interesting that people yearn for music of old, as in wishing to see Beethoven perform or Mendelssohn conduct (I'm guilty of this to an extent), yet have living, breathing composers around them who will be yearned for someday. Imagine if these same people lived 100-120 years ago and missed out on Mahler conducting his own works or Rachmaninoff performing his own works because, "This modern rubbish will never live up to Mozart or Haydn." I think it's amazing that I can (hypothetically) walk up to Philip Glass and shake his hand, or ask Pierre Boulez (with caution) what he was thinking when he composed Sur Incises. 100 years from now, perhaps people will long for these type moments and envy our generation. Todays creations are truly tomorrow's treasures. I also find it interesting when people dismiss the whole of modern music after being repulsed by the 10 second clip they heard from Schoenberg, Stockhausen, Xenakis, or Cage (who all happen to be modernly dead). I've never once been told I'm listening to the wrong music but I've seen it mentioned that "work and effort may be required" to enjoy certain music. In that case, to each his or her own. If you want something instantly accessible, there's always Boccherini's Stabat Mater or even (gasp!) Schoenberg's Gurre-lieder. Very little "work" required there. If you're willing to make that effort, you may enjoy the fruits of your labor, so to speak. I just don't see the need to constantly impose our preferences on others. This debate is as fresh and as effective as protesters screaming at each other, outside an abortion clinic.

Well, there is more to this than just thinking that art was better in the old days. The dead artists are the foundation of our culture, and everything builds on top of them. It's not necessarily any matter of having less respect for the other tortoises if you desire to see the bottommost one.  8)

Quote from: Scion7 on October 05, 2015, 11:07:50 PM
...atonal composer...BARTOK's third and fourth string quartets...

Perhaps I'm being pedantic, but, for the record, Bartok was not an "atonal" composer.  All of his music, no matter how dissonant, actually has a tonal center. 8)

Quote from: jochanaan on October 06, 2015, 07:06:57 AM
Perhaps I'm being pedantic, but, for the record, Bartok was not an "atonal" composer.  All of his music, no matter how dissonant, actually has a tonal center. 8)

Not pedantic at all, it's a crucial distinction.

Quote from: Mr. Three Putt on October 06, 2015, 04:28:33 AM
I find it interesting that people yearn for music of old, as in wishing to see Beethoven perform or Mendelssohn conduct (I'm guilty of this to an extent), yet have living, breathing composers around them who will be yearned for someday. Imagine if these same people lived 100-120 years ago and missed out on Mahler conducting his own works or Rachmaninoff performing his own works because, "This modern rubbish will never live up to Mozart or Haydn." I think it's amazing that I can (hypothetically) walk up to Philip Glass and shake his hand, or ask Pierre Boulez (with caution) what he was thinking when he composed Sur Incises. 100 years from now, perhaps people will long for these type moments and envy our generation. Todays creations are truly tomorrow's treasures. I also find it interesting when people dismiss the whole of modern music after being repulsed by the 10 second clip they heard from Schoenberg, Stockhausen, Xenakis, or Cage (who all happen to be modernly dead). I've never once been told I'm listening to the wrong music but I've seen it mentioned that "work and effort may be required" to enjoy certain music. In that case, to each his or her own. If you want something instantly accessible, there's always Boccherini's Stabat Mater or even (gasp!) Schoenberg's Gurre-lieder. Very little "work" required there. If you're willing to make that effort, you may enjoy the fruits of your labor, so to speak. I just don't see the need to constantly impose our preferences on others. This debate is as fresh and as effective as protesters screaming at each other, outside an abortion clinic.

My problem reduces to this: that for a whole era of music, say 1950-1990, the amount of work and effort involved is large and tends to yield only banalities.  Interestingly, it is the best known composers of that era, Carter, Boulez, Ligeti, who are worth the labor for me, although Stockhausen is the epitome of not worth the work.  Perhaps the filter of time is doing its work.

Quote from: North Star on October 06, 2015, 05:00:38 AM
The dead artists are the foundation of our culture, and everything builds on top of them.  8)

I never imagined before that "our culture" was like a building, with foundations stopping it all from crumbling.

Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on October 06, 2015, 07:53:18 AM
My problem reduces to this: that for a whole era of music, say 1950-1990, the amount of work and effort involved is large and tends to yield only banalities. 

The one's which have so far defeated me are the late romantic ones - Busoni, Rachmaninov, Shostakovich  . . . Carter seems really intuitively appealing to me. And Stockhausen seems far from banal - quite the contrary in fact.

My point is that our experiences aren't generalisable and no conclusions about quality can be drawn. What needs effort depends on what your expectations are, and on what listening skills you already have in place.

Quote from: karlhenning on October 06, 2015, 04:12:44 AM
I mean: artistic evaluations other than Sean's.  It just so happens that he is right, and anyone else, wrong.   ::)

Hah!
;D

Quote from: Mandryka on October 06, 2015, 08:06:33 AM
I never imagined before that "our culture" was like a building, with foundations stopping it all from crumbling.

I didn't quite mean it like that myself either...

Quote from: Mandryka on October 06, 2015, 08:12:14 AM
What needs effort depends on what your expectations are, ...

Expectations are the enemy of enjoying art. It's difficult to get rid of expectations, but it always pays off.

Jeffrey's is a good underlying point, though, from the individual listener's viewpoint:  when one has made the effort, does the payoff justify the expenditure (so to speak)?

The counter-argument that I cannot generalize from my own experience is well taken — but is no consolation to the listener who personally finds no reward in the music.

Also, I find myself perhaps agreeing with Jeffrey that the filter is largely a success with the period 1950-1990 — most of the names I should have supplied are also well known. Still I personally might consider that composers such as Mennin, Schuman, & Piston have fared poorly by the filtration.

Quote from: North Star on October 06, 2015, 08:26:30 AM
I didn't quite mean it like that myself either...

That's a shame because it would have been an interesting position to try to explore, like Descartes view of human understanding.

Here's my viewpoint and I'm going to make it rather brief: I cannot speak for an audience, I can only speak for myself when I say that, whenever I hear a new piece of music, I want to come away feeling glad I listened to the work. If something is just dissonant and discordant for its own sake, then that's not going to be something I'm interested in hearing. I suppose, for me, it comes back to the old tonal vs. atonal battle. I believe a work, especially nowadays can contain both, but at some point there's still a part of me that wants to be satisfied with the music. There has to be some kind of access point I think, but sometimes I like music just for the sound of it like Scelsi or even some of Xenakis' works, but, ultimately, these composers are dead-ends for me as I don't get anything emotionally gratifying from their music. It's just an onslaught of sound that really has no kind of journey or musical narrative. At the end of the day, if I don't feel something for music, then there's no possible way for me to 'cope' with it at all.

Quote from: jochanaan on October 06, 2015, 07:06:57 AM
Perhaps I'm being pedantic, but, for the record, Bartok was not an "atonal" composer.  All of his music, no matter how dissonant, actually has a tonal center. 8)

There are many pieces of his that are, in fact, atonal.  But that isn't really the point, as the topic is on modern classical music, not just "serial" music.

Quote from: Scion7 on October 06, 2015, 09:45:23 AM
There are many pieces of his that are, in fact, atonal.  But that isn't really the point [...]

But it's a good ancillary discussion:  what exactly is "atonality"?

Quote from: Mirror Image on October 06, 2015, 09:35:37 AM
Here's my viewpoint and I'm going to make it rather brief: I cannot speak for an audience, I can only speak for myself when I say that, whenever I hear a new piece of music, I want to come away feeling glad I listened to the work. If something is just dissonant and discordant for its own sake, then that's not going to be something I'm interested in hearing. I suppose, for me, it comes back to the old tonal vs. atonal battle. I believe a work, especially nowadays can contain both, but at some point there's still a part of me that wants to be satisfied with the music. There has to be some kind of access point I think, but sometimes I like music just for the sound of it like Scelsi or even some of Xenakis' works, but, ultimately, these composers are dead-ends for me as I don't get anything emotionally gratifying from their music. It's just an onslaught of sound that really has no kind of journey or musical narrative. At the end of the day, if I don't feel something for music, then there's no possible way for me to 'cope' with it at all.

This is both well stated and completely reasonable. I was vague as to my actual preferences for a reason. Truth be told, I agree with you on both Stockhausen and Xenakis. I don't like mushrooms and I won't ever order food containing mushrooms, yet I won't pick them off a pizza. Eating them won't ruin my day but there are so, so many other foods I do enjoy, why would I ever work, or put effort into liking mushrooms? That's basically how I view "atonal" or even extremely dissonant music as well. I believe it's a sound and reasonable perspective and much less abrasive than saying , "That music just sucks." This is completely different from claiming to only want to hear beautiful things. The time and effort I put into Mahler and Bruckner have paid huge dividends for me. I found neither to be instantly gratifying.

Last night I was going through my 20 disc, Romantic Piano Concertos box and being blown away by music I'd never heard before. THAT'S why I listen and explore new music. I must admit when I see a disc from a composer I'm unfamiliar with, and I see they were born in the 1700s and died in the 1800s, I get a bit excited because that's my sweet spot. When I see they were born in 1952, I'm slightly less interested and they don't get top priority. That's not to say I won't get to them. It's just I'm not even 100% familiar with my very favorite composers and that's where my priority lies. The point I was making was I'm not going to dismiss an entire era/genre because of a few bad experiences. I'd still rather meet Schubert than Philip Glass but only one is possible and it would be an extreme honor. I adore most of Glass' (Glasses? ;) ) music and think his 3rd String Quartet is a timeless masterpiece. I guess, in summary, I'm a big fan of open-mindedness.

Well, speaking for myself, I define "atonality" as the serial / 12-tone row theory as developed by Schoenberg and his two closest students-associates-coleagues, Berg and Webern.  Not all stretching-the-envelope modern classical music is atonal, of course.

I define "charlatan" as per the OED. 

:-)

Quote from: Mr. Three Putt on October 06, 2015, 10:02:26 AM
[...] I guess, in summary, I'm a big fan of open-mindedness.

I salute you, sir!

(And I find my ears "grow larger" over time.)

Quote from: Scion7 on October 06, 2015, 10:05:48 AM
Well, speaking for myself, I define "atonality" as the serial / 12-tone row theory as developed by Schoenberg and his two closest students-associates-coleagues, Berg and Webern.

Then you agree with jochanaan that Bartók did not write atonal music, is how I read you.  Do I mistake?

Quote from: Mirror Image on October 06, 2015, 09:35:37 AM
It's just an onslaught of sound that really has no kind of journey or musical narrative.

I think one of the most far reaching effects of "mainstream" music has been to set people's expectations where yours are stuck, with the result that non narrative musics are hard to listen to.  I remember feeling exactly as you do now with Xenakis when I first started to pay attention to Schubert (D840/i for example.) It was when I started to listen to chant, and to Feldman, that I finally saw how limiting the narrative/journey conception of music is. That there's more things you can do in a listening experience than look for movement forward, for tension and release, for consequence. You can enjoy the ramble, the flânerie. Aimless walking -- that's another model of music than a story with beginning middle and end.

By the way, one of the problems with some Xenakis is that it's spacialised -- if you're not in Cluny it's not really possible to enjoy the polytope.

And you say "an onslaught of sound that really has no kind of journey or musical narrative" as if it's a bad thing . . . .

http://www.youtube.com/v/4fWTc6_-90I

Sorry, but I have lots of literature besides my own eardrums that state Bartok wrote some serial pieces.  I find the 3rd and 4th string quartets definitely in that area.  Shrugs.

Quote from: Scion7 on October 06, 2015, 10:43:04 AM
Sorry, but I have lots of literature besides my own eardrums that state Bartok wrote some serial pieces.

I crave your patience. If there is so much literature on your shelf, there should be no difficulty bringing us a citation, yes?  I am highly interested.

I have studied the scores of the third and fourth quartets;  pace your eardrums, these quartets are not serial works.

Perhaps we need to expand our ancillary discussion:  What exactly is serialism?

A quick and dirty Google with the keywords serialism and Bartók yielded the following abstract of an article in Music Theory Spectrum:

QuoteThe paper explores a class of compound interval cycles, full statements of which run though the tones of the aggregate two, three, four, and so on, times, and in which like pcs are distributed as evenly as possible throughout the cyclic ordering. Such cycles, called maximally-distributed, multi-aggregate cycles, maximize chromatic diversity over their spans while constraining harmonic variety. The paper examines the role of maximally-distributed, multi-aggregate cycles (or segments thereof) as compositional determinants in a variety of Bartók's works. In particular, the paper considers how cyclic unfoldings are used in conjunction with the technique of near-aggregate completion, how cycle adjacencies are often treated as salient harmonic entities in passages that feature cyclic unfoldings, and how the periodic intervals of such cycles are often manifest as salient transformational intervals in works that unfold those cycles.

The title of the article (which drew my search) is "Multi-Aggregate Cycles and Multi-Aggregate Serial Techniques in the Music of Béla Bartok."

I'll say this:  whether or not my brain can cope with that abstract, is a question I happily leave untried.  I certainly agree that the late quartets of Bartók are rich, and we can broadly agree that they display maximized chromatic diversity and constrained harmonic variety (though I should feel very funny using such terms when speaking to anyone, however subtle his musical understanding, of my own music, for instance).

I can speculatively assent to the thesis Did Bartók manage his pitch-world in ways which may have parallels in serial music?  But there are no tone-rows in the third and fourth quartets.  There is not a single governing twelve-tone row in either piece, such that all the pitch material in the piece is derived from some version of that pitch set.

Wow!  I was wondering how this zombie-topic was still walking around!   :laugh:

Looking at the title again after 5 years, I still wonder whether modern audiences have brains unable to "cope" with e.g. Stockhausen or Carter or Ferneyhough.

Listen to the latter's La Terre and once you get past the primordial chaos of the opening you - perhaps - will sense (c. 3 minutes) some sort of structure.  Some people may hear "mud" I am sure: but there are some exciting things here.

https://www.youtube.com/v/qxbpF_aW4vU

One must, however, realize that in its chromosomes percolate the genes of Charles Ives, Penderecki, Vermeulen, Ligeti, Stockhausen, Messiaen just to name a few.  Ferneyhough's style is not something produced ex nihilo: the style's ancestry is clear.

Now, has the Charles Ives of the Fourth Symphony or the Vermeulen of the Second Symphony become as popular as Mozart and company?  No.

As Thomas Mann's devil notes to (fictitious) composer Adrian Leverkuehn in the novel Doctor Faust: "Composing today is difficult, devilishly difficult."  The quest NOT to sound like Mahler, or Rimsky-Korsakov or any of the other composers considered "classic" is indeed "devilishly difficult" in the obvious sense that e.g. Beethoven was not competing against himself, nor against the archived and recorded achievements of the last 1000 + years, if one starts with the anonymous piece of two-voiced organum from c. 900 A.D.

Harry Partch and Alois Haba and Ivan Wyschnegradsky and microtonalists of all divisions have tried to solve this "devilish" problem by using the sounds outside of the 12 found in our scale.  Have their works invaded the popular or even semi-popular consciousness?  No.

New instruments using electronics have opened up new possibilities: in which direction, however, after over 60 years of possibilities in that field, will the audience migrate among the choices of Beethoven's Seventh Symphony or Vladimir Ussachevsky's Wireless Fantasy or Stockhausen's Hymnen?

And so: is "coping" really the problem?  Have audiences given the "new music" a proper shot, 100 + years after Schoenberg's Five Pieces for Orchestra and simply rejected it?  Or have they not given it a proper and fair hearing and rejected it out of hand?

Both would seem to be true, but I have always had a sense that the latter group is larger.  And so the problem remains: how do 21st-century composers avoid the bizarre to distinguish themselves and break out of the herd?  Or can they embrace the bizarre in such a way that they can sell it to the audience?   Certainly you have Arvo Paert saying "get back to basics," although a work like When Sara Was 90 Years Old may easily strike audiences as bizarre, and not worth their time.

I find the title of an article from The Music Review in 1957: "Tonality, Symmetry, and Latent Serialism in Bartok's Fourth Quartet" by Colin Mason.  I bet that is an article I should enjoy reading.  It is worth noting that Mason modifies Serialism with the adjective latent, and that the first word in the title is Tonality.

Quote from: Scion7 on October 06, 2015, 10:43:04 AM
Sorry, but I have lots of literature besides my own eardrums that state Bartok wrote some serial pieces.  I find the 3rd and 4th string quartets definitely in that area.  Shrugs.

Actually, you see, where I was hoping to go with that is the fact that [ "atonal" music ] (allowing yet for an interesting, I think, discussion of just what atonal can mean) is a broader set than [ twelve-tone music ].  For instance, Schoenberg, Berg and Webern all wrote "atonal" music which pre-dates Schoenberg's discovery of the twelve-tone "method."

Quote from: Scion7 on October 06, 2015, 10:05:48 AM
Well, speaking for myself, I define "atonality" as the serial / 12-tone row theory as developed by Schoenberg and his two closest students-associates-coleagues, Berg and Webern. 

Ah, you're a disciple of Humpty Dumpty, I see  ;D

When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."

As a lay person it is always difficult to enter such a discussion. But as someone who has listened to Bartok quite a lot I have to say that his middle quartets definitely sound very different to me when compared with the last two of Schönberg which for me are typical 12-tone compositions or those of Boulez, Carter or Kurtag which are considered serial works. Bartok 3 and 4 are pretty dissonant but I don't think they are atonal or serial. But whatever they are, THEY ARE VERY EXCITING.

Quote from: Scion7 on October 06, 2015, 10:43:04 AM
Sorry, but I have lots of literature besides my own eardrums that state Bartok wrote some serial pieces.  I find the 3rd and 4th string quartets definitely in that area.  Shrugs.

You may shrug all you like. Bartok never wrote serially.

Quote from: Wieland on October 06, 2015, 11:49:01 AM
As a lay person it is always difficult to enter such a discussion. But as someone who has listened to Bartok quite a lot I have to say that his middle quartets definitely sound very different to me when compared with the last two of Schönberg which for me are typical 12-tone compositions or those of Boulez, Carter or Kurtag which are considered serial works. Bartok 3 and 4 are pretty dissonant but I don't think they are atonal or serial. But whatever they are, THEY ARE VERY EXCITING.

Thank you, your comment is on point.

Quote from: Wieland on October 06, 2015, 11:49:01 AM
As a lay person it is always difficult to enter such a discussion. But as someone who has listened to Bartok quite a lot I have to say that his middle quartets definitely sound very different to me when compared with the last two of Schönberg which for me are typical 12-tone compositions or those of Boulez, Carter or Kurtag which are considered serial works. Bartok 3 and 4 are pretty dissonant but I don't think they are atonal or serial. But whatever they are, THEY ARE VERY EXCITING.

Finally, a sensible post! :)

Quote from: mc ukrneal on October 06, 2015, 11:52:38 AM
Finally, a sensible post! :)

Agreed. Let me just add that Elliott Carter did not adopt serialism either.

Quote from: karlhenning on October 06, 2015, 10:37:01 AM
And you say "an onslaught of sound that really has no kind of journey or musical narrative" as if it's a bad thing . . . .

http://www.youtube.com/v/4fWTc6_-90I

I didn't say it was a bad thing, you did. :-\

In German "Serialismus" is usually reserved for the post-Webern extension of "series" for parameters beyond pitch (duration, dynamics, whatever). 12-Tone-composition is called "Zwölftonmethode" or "-Technik", sometimes "Reihentechnik" (because "Reihe" = series in the narrower sense usually refers to the 12 tone series). So I am always slightly confused if "serialism" is applied to 1930 Schoenberg rather than 1950 Boulez (or wherever it fits). The pre-dodecaphonic atonality (like "Erwartung") is often referred to as "free atonality"/"freie Atonalität".

For me as a layman it is usually impossible to tell. Berg wrote several movements in the Lyric suite with dodecaphonic method but not all of them and I could probably never tell from listening (AFAIR the first and the last are dodecaphonic, and at least another one as well. I think the part with the Zemlinsky quote is not.) There are fairly "tonal" sounding pieces using dodecaphonic techniques by Liebermann (Concerto for Band and Orchestra), Martin (Petite Symphonie Concertante) and the Co-inventor Hauer. It depends on the series used, sometimes they will lead to some kind of tonal centers.

In any case this very different music composed with that (and other "atonal") methods shows that it was, at least for several decades not a strait jacket but "just" a technique that could be employed for rather different results.

Quote from: Jo498 on October 06, 2015, 12:22:19 PM
In any case this very different music composed with that (and other "atonal") methods shows that it was, at least for several decades not a strait jacket but "just" a technique that could be employed for rather different results.

One of the ironies here is that Schoenbergian serialism, far from sounding radical, often sounds like late Romanticism pushed one step further. Mid-century serial symphonies, like Rochberg 2, Rautavaara 3, and the ones by Frankel, really don't sound anywhere near as avant-garde as the stuff being produced at Darmstadt around the same time.

Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on October 06, 2015, 12:38:15 PM
One of the ironies here is that Schoenbergian serialism, far from sounding radical, often sounds like late Romanticism pushed one step further. Mid-century serial symphonies, like Rochberg 2, Rautavaara 3, and the ones by Frankel, really don't sound anywhere near as avant-garde as the stuff being produced at Darmstadt around the same time.

That's certainly true, which reminds me I still have all of my Rochberg Naxos recordings still sealed and I bought these years ago! :-[

Quote from: Jo498 on October 06, 2015, 12:22:19 PM

For me as a layman it is usually impossible to tell.

... it was, at least for several decades not a strait jacket but "just" a technique that could be employed for rather different results.

And so the question will always be the same: do you like what you hear?  The technique can be irrelevant to the listener.

Quote from: Cato on October 06, 2015, 11:06:42 AM
Wow!  I was wondering how this zombie-topic was still walking around!   :laugh:

Looking at the title again after 5 years, I still wonder whether modern audiences have brains unable to "cope" with e.g. Stockhausen or Carter or Ferneyhough.

Listen to the latter's La Terre and once you get past the primordial chaos of the opening you - perhaps - will sense (c. 3 minutes) some sort of structure.  Some people may hear "mud" I am sure: but there are some exciting things here.

https://www.youtube.com/v/qxbpF_aW4vU

One must, however, realize that in its chromosomes percolate the genes of Charles Ives, Penderecki, Vermeulen, Ligeti, Stockhausen, Messiaen just to name a few.  Ferneyhough's style is not something produced ex nihilo: the style's ancestry is clear.

Now, has the Charles Ives of the Fourth Symphony or the Vermeulen of the Second Symphony become as popular as Mozart and company?  No.

As Thomas Mann's devil notes to (fictitious) composer Adrian Leverkuehn in the novel Doctor Faust: "Composing today is difficult, devilishly difficult."  The quest NOT to sound like Mahler, or Rimsky-Korsakov or any of the other composers considered "classic" is indeed "devilishly difficult" in the obvious sense that e.g. Beethoven was not competing against himself, nor against the archived and recorded achievements of the last 1000 + years, if one starts with the anonymous piece of two-voiced organum from c. 900 A.D.

Harry Partch and Alois Haba and Ivan Wyschnegradsky and microtonalists of all divisions have tried to solve this "devilish" problem by using the sounds outside of the 12 found in our scale.  Have their works invaded the popular or even semi-popular consciousness?  No.

New instruments using electronics have opened up new possibilities: in which direction, however, after over 60 years of possibilities in that field, will the audience migrate among the choices of Beethoven's Seventh Symphony or Vladimir Ussachevsky's Wireless Fantasy or Stockhausen's Hymnen?

And so: is "coping" really the problem?  Have audiences given the "new music" a proper shot, 100 + years after Schoenberg's Five Pieces for Orchestra and simply rejected it?  Or have they not given it a proper and fair hearing and rejected it out of hand?

Both would seem to be true, but I have always had a sense that the latter group is larger.  And so the problem remains: how do 21st-century composers avoid the bizarre to distinguish themselves and break out of the herd?  Or can they embrace the bizarre in such a way that they can sell it to the audience?   Certainly you have Arvo Paert saying "get back to basics," although a work like When Sara Was 90 Years Old may easily strike audiences as bizarre, and not worth their time.

An addendum: there have been rather conservative attempts to reinvigorate technique, so that it might sound "new" and yet avoid the criticism of "it sounds like the orchestra is tuning up or something."  I refer among others to Alexander Tcherepnin's interpoint alternative to counterpoint, to Tibor Serly's puckishly named Modus Lascivus, and Avenir de Monfred's New Diatonic Modal Principle of Relative Music.

Certainly Tcherepnin was the most successful of these.  The others' ideas have perhaps  not been fully explored, although the latter is a variation on the theme of polymodality.

Karl discussing "a meaningless onslaught of sound"? This Mennin 8 week in Boston?

;)

Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on October 06, 2015, 11:50:48 AM
You may shrug all you like. Bartok never wrote serially.

Actually there is one single tone row that appears in the Violin Concerto as a melodic idea. In total (exposition & recap) it adds up to about forty seconds of dodecaphony, although accompanied by a pedal note that acts as a modal centre and prevents it from being truly Schoenbergian. Some people have (presumably with tongue firmly in cheek) referred to this as Bartók's serial phase.

@Jo498 As far as I can recall from high school, all of Berg's Lyrische Suite is dodecaphonic, although it took analysts some time to figure out exactly how he wrote it; he uses three different tone rows, and manipulates them pretty extensively. Berg was an extreme constructivist, and even in the "free" non-serialised pieces he's generally doing something mathematical-like with bar numbers and beats or whatever. Mind like a sink as they say

Quote from: Cato on October 06, 2015, 11:06:42 AM
Wow!  I was wondering how this zombie-topic was still walking around!   :laugh:

Looking at the title again after 5 years, I still wonder whether modern audiences have brains unable to "cope" with e.g. Stockhausen or Carter or Ferneyhough.

Listen to the latter's La Terre and once you get past the primordial chaos of the opening you - perhaps - will sense (c. 3 minutes) some sort of structure.  Some people may hear "mud" I am sure: but there are some exciting things here.

https://www.youtube.com/v/qxbpF_aW4vU

One must, however, realize that in its chromosomes percolate the genes of Charles Ives, Penderecki, Vermeulen, Ligeti, Stockhausen, Messiaen just to name a few.  Ferneyhough's style is not something produced ex nihilo: the style's ancestry is clear.

Now, has the Charles Ives of the Fourth Symphony or the Vermeulen of the Second Symphony become as popular as Mozart and company?  No.

As Thomas Mann's devil notes to (fictitious) composer Adrian Leverkuehn in the novel Doctor Faust: "Composing today is difficult, devilishly difficult."  The quest NOT to sound like Mahler, or Rimsky-Korsakov or any of the other composers considered "classic" is indeed "devilishly difficult" in the obvious sense that e.g. Beethoven was not competing against himself, nor against the archived and recorded achievements of the last 1000 + years, if one starts with the anonymous piece of two-voiced organum from c. 900 A.D.

Harry Partch and Alois Haba and Ivan Wyschnegradsky and microtonalists of all divisions have tried to solve this "devilish" problem by using the sounds outside of the 12 found in our scale.  Have their works invaded the popular or even semi-popular consciousness?  No.

New instruments using electronics have opened up new possibilities: in which direction, however, after over 60 years of possibilities in that field, will the audience migrate among the choices of Beethoven's Seventh Symphony or Vladimir Ussachevsky's Wireless Fantasy or Stockhausen's Hymnen?

And so: is "coping" really the problem?  Have audiences given the "new music" a proper shot, 100 + years after Schoenberg's Five Pieces for Orchestra and simply rejected it?  Or have they not given it a proper and fair hearing and rejected it out of hand?

Both would seem to be true, but I have always had a sense that the latter group is larger.  And so the problem remains: how do 21st-century composers avoid the bizarre to distinguish themselves and break out of the herd?  Or can they embrace the bizarre in such a way that they can sell it to the audience?   Certainly you have Arvo Paert saying "get back to basics," although a work like When Sara Was 90 Years Old may easily strike audiences as bizarre, and not worth their time.

It's interesting how the situation is so very different in plastic arts - here in London Tate Modern has more visitors than Tate Britain for example - people love arguing about New British Artists, Gilbert and George make the news etc.

Same in architecture. And drama.  Music seems to be stuck, like novels.

Anyway your post inspired me to listen to Arvo Part's When Sara was 90 years old. I need to think about it.

What a strange thread to have been resurrected. And what a stench of the grave still hangs about its cerements.

But that's as may be.

What struck me most reading through the entire thread, gasoline-soaked handkerchief to my nose, of course, was what a cloth-eared dunderhead this "audience" entity is, to be sure. What some scientists, and some posters, seem to think they're doing is talking about the putative difficulties of certain types of music. What they end up doing in actual fact is describing a group of people with practically no skills who are terminally stupid as a group and who should never go to concerts or buy CDs because listening to music is such a foreign thing for them. It's a continual struggle, for sure.

And speakiing of "people," that category, which includes way more people (!) than the "audience" category, doesn't seem to include very much intelligence or perceptivity, either.

Some posters have pointed out that there are audience members who do not struggle with music, some individual members of "people," even who are perfectly ept.

Defining a group by its most inept members seems a trifle off to me. ;)

Passing judgment on certain types of music by considering only the inept members of a group is just daft.

There´s nothing so sweet as fighting the stench of the grave with the odor of smugness and the scent of superciliousness, ain´t it?

I tend to agree. It is a little like confronting barely literate persons with a tiny vocabulary with Shakespeare. Or complaining that differential calculus was too hard for people who were never taught math beyond elementary school. It's just that after a century of overwhelmingly dominant popular music we apparently think that music is fundamentally "different" and that

Wouldn't one get analoguous results if one presented high school kids who grew up on nothing but rap and hip hop with, e.g. Bach's b minor mass or Mozart's Figaro? A minority might like it but most will probably be bored, puzzled and heartily dislike the cooing and fiddling.

I never really understood why it should be a problem that only a small minority listens to e.g. Webern or Rihm when it's only a (larger but still fairly small) minority that listens to Monteverdi or even Mozart? Why is a minority of 10% (guesstimate for classical music listeners) unproblematic (or shows superior taste) whereas a minority of 0.1% 20/21st cent. avantgarde fanciers is supposed to show that "brains cannot cope"?

You know what I'm going to say, it's certainly true that most audiences haven't a clue about the internalization of music to access its aesthetic content and it just washes over them, but only tonal music in the broadest sense is internalizable.

Quote from: Jo498 on October 07, 2015, 12:46:05 AM

I never really understood why it should be a problem that only a small minority listens to e.g. Webern or Rihm when it's only a (larger but still fairly small) minority that listens to Monteverdi or even Mozart? Why is a minority of 10% (guesstimate for classical music listeners) unproblematic (or shows superior taste) whereas a minority of 0.1% 20/21st cent. avantgarde fanciers is supposed to show that "brains cannot cope"?

The problem is this: how are modern composers going to earn a living from their music?

Quote from: Mandryka on October 07, 2015, 01:40:58 AM
The problem is this: how are modern composers going to earn a living from their music?

Solution: modern composers earn their living some other way.

Benefit #1: The composer is at complete liberty to write what he pleases, and for whatever reason.

Objection #1: Modern composers earning a living by some other means, therefore have limited time to devote to their art.

Benefit #2: The modern composer is therefore driven to efficiency.  Having limited time for his creative work, he has a greater motivation to do his best work.

Quote from: karlhenning on October 07, 2015, 02:32:59 AM
Solution: modern composers earn their living some other way.

Benefit #1: The composer is at complete liberty to write what he pleases, and for whatever reason.

Quote from: karlhenning on October 07, 2015, 02:37:47 AM
Objection #1: Modern composers earning a living by some other means, therefore have limited time to devote to their art.

Benefit #2: The modern composer is therefore driven to efficiency.  Having limited time for his creative work, he has a greater motivation to do his best work.

Charles Ives started an insurance firm for his daily bread.  Karl - who just turned 29 years old yesterday! 8) -  is following a fine tradition!

Quote from: Mandryka on October 06, 2015, 10:30:31 PM
It's interesting how the situation is so very different in plastic arts - here in London Tate Modern has more visitors than Tate Britain for example - people love arguing about New British Artists, Gilbert and George make the news etc.

Same in architecture. And drama.  Music seems to be stuck, like novels.

Anyway your post inspired me to listen to Arvo Part's When Sara was 90 years old. I need to think about it.

The meditative aspects of the work are not for everyone, and I can understand why my wife calls it "dripping water" music.   ;)

Concerning the earlier comments on general audience intelligence by "Some Guy"...one would - should?- assume that somebody who attends a concert by a symphony orchestra or chamber group has a modicum of intelligence, and that they do not attend specifically to denigrate a new work by a 21st-century composer through a lack of intelligence or open-mindedness.

And yet we do know that such things have happened: audiences have come prepared to hoot and holler and protest at a premiere.

What does the composer do as a result?  The composer follows the music from his soul: the audience is free to follow or to stay in previous centuries.

Quote from: Cato on October 07, 2015, 03:52:24 AM



The meditative aspects of the work are not for everyone, and I can understand why my wife calls it "dripping water" music.   ;)

Oh but they are for me! It would be interesting to have a thread on meditative music. I hear the influence of Grisey and of Stockhausen. I like it all except the end, especially the climax, which seems kitsch.

Quote from: Cato on October 07, 2015, 03:52:24 AM

.  Karl - who just turned 29 years old yesterday! 8) -  is following a fine tradition!

I had no idea, and happy birthday. Next year's a big one!

Quote from: Mandryka on October 07, 2015, 07:44:03 AM
I had no idea, and happy birthday. Next year's a big one!

Thank you!

(And 29 is a wee joke there, though perhaps specific to the US.  I shan't see 29 again)

8)

Quote from: karlhenning on October 07, 2015, 09:08:51 AM
Thank you!

(And 29 is a wee joke there, though perhaps specific to the US.  I shan't see 29 again)

8)

My mathematics may have been off just a little!   0:)

Quote from: karlhenning on October 07, 2015, 02:32:59 AM
Solution: modern composers earn their living some other way.

Benefit #1: The composer is at complete liberty to write what he pleases, and for whatever reason.

Bravo.

Quote from: Florestan on October 07, 2015, 12:05:40 AM
There´s nothing so sweet as fighting the stench of the grave with the odor of smugness and the scent of superciliousness, ain´t it?

You realize, of course, that when you stoop to ad hominems, you have conceded the argument.

Concession accepted.

Otherwise, let me point out that I was not giving my view of the audience in my post--except maybe to suggest that it (it!) is not as stupid as the scientists and some of the other posters seemed to describing. What I was noting, that is, is that certain posters and all the scientists involved in this studious activity were describing an almost completely inept entity. None of them seemed aware that that was what they were doing. What they thought they were doing was talking about what qualities of music make for an unsatisfactory listening experience. A null set. What they actually did, I suggest, is describe a group of people who have few or no listening skills. Then, after finishing that cake, they put some nice icing on it, to whit, judging the quality or the listenability of the object on the basis of the experiences of people that they have described as purely unable to have those experiences.

That seems daft to me.

If my perception of daftness seems to you to be just me being smug, "oh well." I'm not trying to be smug. I'm trying to puzzle out what seems a completely absurd situation. Sorry if my efforts to make sense of it seem supercilious to you. They certainly seem futile to me, I can tell you that, particularly when they are taken to be evidence of smugness in my self.

Quote from: Mandryka on October 07, 2015, 01:40:58 AM
The problem is this: how are modern composers going to earn a living from their music?

This is not a new problem. Many composers in the past earned their living mainly as performing musicians, not as composers. For a long time one job usually involved the other. But I am pretty sure neither Bruckner nor Mahler could have been living on the royalties from their symphonies. Bruckner taught and later received stipends and grants from several sources and Mahler was conductor and opera director.

And before that, composers did not have to please a huge audience, they just had to be pleasing or interesting enough for one prince or count to hire them. The Leipzig churchgoers could not have easily sacked Bach if they had found his cantatas too old-fashioned (or too modern or whatever).

Quote from: some guy on October 07, 2015, 09:53:20 AM
. . . judging the quality or the listenability of the object on the basis of the experiences of people that they have described as purely unable to have those experiences.

That seems daft to me.

Q.E.D.:

Quote from: Sean on October 07, 2015, 12:51:42 AM
You know what I'm going to say, it's certainly true that most audiences haven't a clue about the internalization of music to access its aesthetic content and it just washes over them, but only tonal music in the broadest sense is internalizable.

Quote from: some guy on October 07, 2015, 09:53:20 AM
What they actually did, I suggest, is describe a group of people who have few or no listening skills. Then, after finishing that cake, they put some nice icing on it, to whit, judging the quality or the listenability of the object on the basis of the experiences of people that they have described as purely unable to have those experiences.

That seems daft to me.

And it would be daft, if the premise were true.  As mentioned earlier, I am skeptical that audiences at classical concerts have "few or no listening skills," because if that were the case, they would not be at the concert to begin with!

Quote from: Jo498 on October 07, 2015, 10:59:48 AM
This is not a new problem. Many composers in the past earned their living mainly as performing musicians, not as composers. For a long time one job usually involved the other.

True, the problem of earning the daily bread remains.  I have always admired Charles Ives on that basis.

Cato, you have bolded two bits of my post that don't belong together.

I am not saying that I think that audiences, which consist of people with few or no listening skills, are daft, nor am I saying that people with few or no listening skills are daft.

What I am saying is that the premise of the study and of several posters to this thread that audiences cannot cope is daft.

There are people who cannot cope, clearly. There are people who can. Equally clear.

Neither group contributes one iota to either a description of or to the valuation of the music itself, which probably shouldn't be valuated anyway but listened to. I also find it quite odd that certain people report as being interested in valuating everything they hear, as if that were the point. Really? Music is for listening to, not for valuating. Of course, each individual listener will like some things and dislike others. But so what?

Last time I posted in this thread I got my fingers burned, so I venture in again, tentatively, looking to right and left ...

Thing is ... I'm not really interested in the original question, but I am interested in the discussion of it, and in the way it's discussed. And it just happens that I've been dipping recently into a book on the nature of painting from which I'm going to misquote, replacing the word 'painting' with the word 'music' - and it works just as well if you use a more general term like 'art'. Here goes:

"We are all prone to be nagged by the anxious question 'Is this music good?'; yet we all know that the good we get from a certain piece of music - the stimulus or pleasure it offers us - changes, and may indeed evaporate, as we grow. If some music is indeed 'good' this is simply to say it dependably draws listeners in, to pursue this stimulating or pleasurable cycle of involvement, repeatedly through the listeners' lifetimes, but we should not let the term fix us down in reactions we do not feel."

Art is a contentious concept by its very nature. We can't even decide among us consistently what it is or what it isn't, because it's growing all the time as (some) artists tease at its edges. Ultimately, we each decide what aspects are rewarding and what aren't. I'm not persuaded this has much to do with intelligence (regardless of the original question), though it must often be something to do with a willingness to look at or listen to something in a new light. Even that isn't definable as good or bad. If I decide that Music X isn't likely to reward the time spent in listening to it, that's not (necessarily) an unintelligent choice. Knowing myself tolerably well, it may in fact be an intelligent one: we all have limited time, and choices have to be made about how we might most profitably fill it.

I suspect that intelligence might be relevant not so much to what we listen to, but how we listen. I don't think I listen to music very intelligently even at the best of times, but I know I can bring a range of depth of intelligence to bear on the same piece of music. I can just let Elgar's violin concerto wash over me, if I want (and sometimes I do); or I can hang on every nuance of every note, trying to connect it all together in satisfying ways. And here's the rub: I can bring a similar range of attention to the sound of the sea.

The point is: we choose, sometimes intelligently, sometimes not. I don't believe what we listen to is a sensible measure of intelligence at all.

Quote from: some guy on October 07, 2015, 11:27:49 AM
I also find it quite odd that certain people report as being interested in valuating everything they hear, as if that were the point. Really? Music is for listening to, not for valuating.

Oh yes. Yes, I say. Yes, I say again.

Quote from: some guy on October 07, 2015, 09:53:20 AM
You realize, of course, that when you stoop to ad hominems, you have conceded the argument.

Concession accepted.

Otherwise, let me point out that I was not giving my view of the audience in my post--except maybe to suggest that it (it!) is not as stupid as the scientists and some of the other posters seemed to describing.

This makes sense but was not at all clear (to me, at least) from your previous post -- I initially had the same reaction as Florestan. Thanks for clarifying.

Quote from: Elgarian on October 07, 2015, 11:40:57 AM
Last time I posted in this thread I got my fingers burned, so I venture in again, tentatively, looking to right and left ...

Thing is ... I'm not really interested in the original question, but I am interested in the discussion of it, and in the way it's discussed. And it just happens that I've been dipping recently into a book on the nature of painting from which I'm going to misquote, replacing the word 'painting' with the word 'music' - and it works just as well if you use a more general term like 'art'. Here goes:

"We are all prone to be nagged by the anxious question 'Is this music good?'; yet we all know that the good we get from a certain piece of music - the stimulus or pleasure it offers us - changes, and may indeed evaporate, as we grow. If some music is indeed 'good' this is simply to say it dependably draws listeners in, to pursue this stimulating or pleasurable cycle of involvement, repeatedly through the listeners' lifetimes, but we should not let the term fix us down in reactions we do not feel."

Art is a contentious concept by its very nature. We can't even decide among us consistently what it is or what it isn't, because it's growing all the time as (some) artists tease at its edges. Ultimately, we each decide what aspects are rewarding and what aren't. I'm not persuaded this has much to do with intelligence (regardless of the original question), though it must often be something to do with a willingness to look at or listen to something in a new light. Even that isn't definable as good or bad. If I decide that Music X isn't likely to reward the time spent in listening to it, that's not (necessarily) an unintelligent choice. Knowing myself tolerably well, it may in fact be an intelligent one: we all have limited time, and choices have to be made about how we might most profitably fill it.

I suspect that intelligence might be relevant not so much to what we listen to, but how we listen. I don't think I listen to music very intelligently even at the best of times, but I know I can bring a range of depth of intelligence to bear on the same piece of music. I can just let Elgar's violin concerto wash over me, if I want (and sometimes I do); or I can hang on every nuance of every note, trying to connect it all together in satisfying ways. And here's the rub: I can bring a similar range of attention to the sound of the sea.

The point is: we choose, sometimes intelligently, sometimes not. I don't believe what we listen to is a sensible measure of intelligence at all.

What an artful, enjoyable, engaging, good post.

Quote from: karlhenning on October 07, 2015, 12:29:38 PM
What an artful, enjoyable, engaging, good post.

+1.

Quote from: some guy on October 07, 2015, 11:27:49 AM
Cato, you have bolded two bits of my post that don't belong together.

I am not saying that I think that audiences, which consist of people with few or no listening skills, are daft, nor am I saying that people with few or no listening skills are daft.

Well, the final part sure seems to be a conclusion from the preceding.  If you do not mean what I thought it obviously meant, fine.

Quote from: Pat B on October 07, 2015, 12:14:41 PM
This makes sense but was not at all clear (to me, at least) from your previous post -- I initially had the same reaction as Florestan. Thanks for clarifying.

Amen!   0:)

Concerning Elgarian's comments:

Quote from: karlhenning on October 07, 2015, 12:29:38 PM
What an artful, enjoyable, engaging, good post.

Amen again!   0:)

Quote from: Cato on October 07, 2015, 12:34:36 PM
Well, the final part sure seems to be a conclusion from the preceding.  If you do not mean what I thought it obviously meant, fine.

You were perfectly correct. He did not call the audience daft, and you did not imply he did. What he described as daft is drawing conclusions based on the reactions of those who have no listening skills. You objected only to the premise, that the audience had no listening skills, you were explicit it about it, and you offered a cogent objection to it.

Quote from: Elgarian on October 07, 2015, 11:40:57 AMI can just let Elgar's violin concerto wash over me, if I want (and sometimes I do); or I can hang on every nuance of every note, trying to connect it all together in satisfying ways. And here's the rub: I can bring a similar range of attention to the sound of the sea.

Beautiful!

Quote from: Sean on October 07, 2015, 12:51:42 AM
You know what I'm going to say, it's certainly true that most audiences haven't a clue about the internalization of music to access its aesthetic content and it just washes over them, but only tonal music in the broadest sense is internalizable.

False.  I for one have deeply internalized a lot of contemporary classical music, including nearly the entire works of Edgard Varese!  (I'm hearing in my head now his Integrales.  Great music!)

Quote from: Elgarian on October 07, 2015, 11:40:57 AM
Last time I posted in this thread I got my fingers burned, so I venture in again, tentatively, looking to right and left ...

Thing is ... I'm not really interested in the original question, but I am interested in the discussion of it, and in the way it's discussed. And it just happens that I've been dipping recently into a book on the nature of painting from which I'm going to misquote, replacing the word 'painting' with the word 'music' - and it works just as well if you use a more general term like 'art'. Here goes:

"We are all prone to be nagged by the anxious question 'Is this music good?'; yet we all know that the good we get from a certain piece of music - the stimulus or pleasure it offers us - changes, and may indeed evaporate, as we grow. If some music is indeed 'good' this is simply to say it dependably draws listeners in, to pursue this stimulating or pleasurable cycle of involvement, repeatedly through the listeners' lifetimes, but we should not let the term fix us down in reactions we do not feel."

Art is a contentious concept by its very nature. We can't even decide among us consistently what it is or what it isn't, because it's growing all the time as (some) artists tease at its edges. Ultimately, we each decide what aspects are rewarding and what aren't. I'm not persuaded this has much to do with intelligence (regardless of the original question), though it must often be something to do with a willingness to look at or listen to something in a new light. Even that isn't definable as good or bad. If I decide that Music X isn't likely to reward the time spent in listening to it, that's not (necessarily) an unintelligent choice. Knowing myself tolerably well, it may in fact be an intelligent one: we all have limited time, and choices have to be made about how we might most profitably fill it.

I suspect that intelligence might be relevant not so much to what we listen to, but how we listen. I don't think I listen to music very intelligently even at the best of times, but I know I can bring a range of depth of intelligence to bear on the same piece of music. I can just let Elgar's violin concerto wash over me, if I want (and sometimes I do); or I can hang on every nuance of every note, trying to connect it all together in satisfying ways. And here's the rub: I can bring a similar range of attention to the sound of the sea.

The point is: we choose, sometimes intelligently, sometimes not. I don't believe what we listen to is a sensible measure of intelligence at all.

A great post, Elgarian! A complete joy to read. Oh, and I feel the same exact way you do about Elgar's Violin Concerto as you do. ;)

Quote from: karlhenning on October 06, 2015, 10:37:01 AM
And you say "an onslaught of sound that really has no kind of journey or musical narrative" as if it's a bad thing . . . .
http://www.youtube.com/v/4fWTc6_-90I

(http://cloud3.graphicleftovers.com/12204/3233850/3233850_125.jpg)



https://www.youtube.com/v/JuZiVf6oVDE

Quote from: some guy on October 07, 2015, 09:53:20 AM
You realize, of course, that when you stoop to ad hominems, you have conceded the argument.

Oh, please!

Quote from: Merriam-Webster
smug: having or showing the annoying quality of people who feel very pleased or satisfied with their abilities, achievements, etc.

supercilious: having or showing the proud and unpleasant attitude of people who think that they are better or more important than other people.

Exhibit A:

Quote from: some guy on October 06, 2015, 11:18:55 PM
What struck me most reading through the entire thread, gasoline-soaked handkerchief to my nose, of course, was what a cloth-eared dunderhead this "audience" entity is, to be sure.

Exhibit B:

Quotea group of people with practically no skills who are terminally stupid as a group and who should never go to concerts or buy CDs because listening to music is such a foreign thing for them.

Exhibit C:

Quotethat category, which includes way more people(!) than the "audience" category, doesn't seem to include very much intelligence or perceptivity, either.

Exhibit D:

QuoteDefining a group by its most inept members seems a trifle off to me. ;)

I rest my case.

Quote from: some guy on October 07, 2015, 11:27:49 AM
I am not saying that I think that audiences, which consist of people with few or no listening skills, are daft, nor am I saying that people with few or no listening skills are daft.

Maybe, but you formulated it in such a way that two other posters beside me inferred exactly that.

And what do you mean by listening skills? Skills are needed for car repairing and brain surgery; what skills does one need in order to get your skilled-listener stamp of approval?

Quotethe music itself, which probably shouldn't be valuated anyway but listened to.

Amen!

Quote
each individual listener will like some things and dislike others. But so what?

Amen again!

Quote from: Elgarian on October 07, 2015, 11:40:57 AM
If I decide that Music X isn't likely to reward the time spent in listening to it, that's not (necessarily) an unintelligent choice. Knowing myself tolerably well, it may in fact be an intelligent one: we all have limited time, and choices have to be made about how we might most profitably fill it.

Thread winner and (possibly) post of the year.

Quote from: Jo498 on October 07, 2015, 10:59:48 AM
This is not a new problem. Many composers in the past earned their living mainly as performing musicians, not as composers.

I suppose a big difference now is that, with streaming, it's hard to make a living performing.

Florestan, before I respond I promise you that this will be my last word about the original post you're responding to.

First, yes, an ad hominem is an admission of failure insofar as it substitutes something about the person you're arguing with for a response to the argument itself.

Next, I know what the words "smug" and "supercilious" mean. Your dictionary definitions simply convey information I already have. All the rest of us, too. (The next step would be to show how my post exemplifies those two qualities, but that would be, I'm sure you realize, the same substitution as before.)

Otherwise, your exhibits consist entirely of conclusions I have drawn about the assumptions of the scientists and of some of the posters to this thread about the audience they're pretending to describe. None of them are my conclusions about the audience. Indeed, you and I very probably agree wholeheartedly that these characterizations of "the" audience are all entirely false and delusory and rude.

That's what makes the whole "scientific" endeavor and several of the GMG responses to it daft.

It is not the audience being stupid that is daft--the audience is not a monolith and so consists of several individuals with several levels of intelligence; it is the assumption by the scientists that the audience is both monolithic and stupid that is daft. And further, the scientists' lack of awareness that they have even made this particular assumption that is also a part of the daftness.

I would agree that the scientists and several of the GMG posters have certainly exhibited smugness and superciliousness in this characterization of "the" audience.

Quote from: some guy on October 08, 2015, 12:24:23 AM
Indeed, you and I very probably agree wholeheartedly that these characterizations of "the" audience are all entirely false and delusory and rude.

Yes, we do. Wholeheartedly, as you say.

Quote
It is not the audience being stupid that is daft--the audience is not a monolith and so consists of several individuals with several levels of intelligence; it is the assumption by the scientists that the audience is both monolithic and stupid that is daft.

We agree on that, too.

Okay, it´s obvious now that I and others have misunderstood you and inferred from your post a view which was not your own. I for one apoiogize, but you see, everytime I see a subset of classical music lovers labeled this or that just because they like or dislike this or that music I tend to go berserk. We all like what we like and it´s not a matter of coping or not coping, or skills or no skills, it´s a matter of personal taste, preferences  and personalities. We seem to agree on this point, too and I am relieved we do.

Friends?   0:)

Quote from: Cato on October 06, 2015, 12:48:30 PM
And so the question will always be the same: do you like what you hear?  The technique can be irrelevant to the listener.

+1

One interesting thing is that "technique" is almost exclusively discussed in the context of Schoenberg and later. People throw around "atonal", "dodecaphonic" or "serial" without understanding what it means (in another forum someone once claimed Schreker and Zemlinsky were atonal, so it was hardly a wonder they were not as popular as Richard Strauss...).
Usually, those listeners have, of course, no clue about tonal techniques, harmony or counterpoint either.
They simply look for a label they can use to dismiss music they do not like. But why should technique suddenly matter in the 1920s whereas listeners can safely ignore it in music from the Renaissance, Bach, Beethoven or Brahms which is often as "technical" as e.g. dodecaphonic music.

If one does not like a certain piece or style of music, one should be free to say so. But not pretend to know anything about the connection of certain techniques and musical result. Especially people who cannot even play a scale on the recorder or piano.

Quote from: Jo498 on October 08, 2015, 03:30:42 AM
If one does not like a certain piece or style of music, one should be free to say so. But not pretend to know anything about the connection of certain techniques and musical result. Especially people who cannot even play a scale on the recorder or piano.

True, and it also applies to other styles: people who can´t play a scale on the recorder or piano often dismiss Mozart, or Haydn, or Boccherini, or you name it.

But they usually do not claim that Boccherinis music is "bad because evil freemason 18th cent. musical technique" whereas they try to find a pseudo-objective foundation in their dismissal of some or all modern music (if one thinks Schreker or Hindemith are "atonal" one is obviously not fond of minute distinctions) with the dubious claim that it was based on some kind of maths and therefore "unmusical"

Quote from: Florestan on October 07, 2015, 11:19:23 PM
Oh, please!

Exhibit A:

Exhibit B:

Exhibit C:

Exhibit D:

I rest my case.

Maybe, but you formulated it in such a way that two other posters beside me inferred exactly that.

And what do you mean by listening skills? Skills are needed for car repairing and brain surgery; what skills does one need in order to get your skilled-listener stamp of approval?

Amen!

Amen again!

Some guy, taking a break from abusing logic, is now abusing logical fallacies. Ad hominem is a fallacious form of argument, "you are a bad person hence your argument is wrong." Andrei did not do that. He made (insulting) observations about some guy's behavior and persona. Well justified ones IMO: the passages Andrei quotes certainly seems smug and supercilious to me.

Quote from: Florestan on October 08, 2015, 01:01:23 AMFriends?   0:)

I very much hope so, yes!!

Quote from: Florestan on October 08, 2015, 01:01:23 AM

Friends?   0:)

Quote from: some guy on October 08, 2015, 06:14:48 AM
I very much hope so, yes!!

Well ... I go away for a couple of days (really lovely days too), and I come back, and here are two of the most rewarding, entertaining, thought-provoking, articulate GMG posters, having had a jolly good energetic and noisy bar-room brawl about something I never quite understood in the first place, sunning themselves quietly together in the corner sharing a pot of tea and a bun. It does my heart good.

Quote from: Mirror Image on October 07, 2015, 05:37:21 PM
Oh, and I feel the same exact way about you Elgar's Violin Concerto as you do. ;)

I know you do, John, I know you do. And it just so happens that yesterday I attended the most staggeringly-heartbreakingly-riveting performance of it that I've ever heard. But more about that in the Elgar thread in due course.

Don't worry, modernist composers will displace the ancient composers who are the bread and butter of orchestral seasons any day now.

Just you wait!

Yeah, just like Mozart displaced Bach and Beethoven displaced Mozart and Berlioz displaced Beethoven and Schumann displaced Berlioz and Tchaikovsky displaced Berlioz and Brahms displaced Tchaikovsky and Mahler displaced Tchaikovsky.

Yep. It's the old "there ain't enough room in this town for the two of us" theory of the arts. It's good for creating a lot of paranoia but not for much else.

Quote from: some guy on October 10, 2015, 02:18:34 AM
Yeah, just like Mozart displaced Bach and Beethoven displaced Mozart and Berlioz displaced Beethoven and Schumann displaced Berlioz and Tchaikovsky displaced Berlioz and Brahms displaced Tchaikovsky and Mahler displaced Tchaikovsky.

Yep. It's the old "there ain't enough room in this town for the two of us" theory of the arts. It's good for creating a lot of paranoia but not for much else.

Exactly. Forms may evolve over time but artists not so much.  The great ones are great with the materials of their time.  Offering times, different art,  good for us to have them all available.

Quote from: some guy on October 10, 2015, 02:18:34 AM
Yeah, just like Mozart displaced Bach and Beethoven displaced Mozart and Berlioz displaced Beethoven and Schumann displaced Berlioz and Tchaikovsky displaced Berlioz and Brahms displaced Tchaikovsky and Mahler displaced Tchaikovsky.

I'm just trying to follow this through ... and yes, I think I have it now: Brahms and Mahler, being the only contestants left standing, are the winners.
(Tchaikovsky got a double pounding, I see.)

That's called "who's editing my posts?"

Or, rather, "who's just been fired for editing so poorly?"

::)

But let it stand. It IS funnier that way.

I hate this thread - my brain cannot cope with it.

Quote from: Ken B on October 10, 2015, 07:55:51 AM
Exactly. Forms may evolve over time but artists not so much.  The great ones are great with the materials of their time.  [Differing] times, different art,  good for us to have them all available.

I heartily endorse this  8)

Quote from: some guy on October 10, 2015, 02:18:34 AM
Yeah, just like Mozart displaced Bach and Beethoven displaced Mozart and Berlioz displaced Beethoven and Schumann displaced Berlioz and Tchaikovsky displaced Berlioz and Brahms displaced Tchaikovsky and Mahler displaced Tchaikovsky.

All those are composers who part of the bread and butter of the orchestral repertoire, something that modernist works (like those by Boulez and Schoenberg) can't achieve, perhaps because the music of the latter two is against human nature. History is a fine judge and after a hundred or so years it's fair to consider musical modernism mostly a failure and a dead-end.

Quote from: -abe- on October 10, 2015, 12:59:04 PM
All those are composers who part of the bread and butter of the orchestral repertoire, something that modernist works (like those by Boulez and Schoenberg) can't achieve, perhaps because the music of the latter two is against human nature. History is a fine judge and after a hundred or so years it's fair to consider musical modernism mostly a failure and a dead-end.

I'm putting on my helmet and buttoning down the hatch.

I think history will expose much current music but I don't think classical will be in that lineup. I also doubt Schubert anticipated his portrait on my mantle or his biography on my desk. Furthermore, it's a funny thing what we remember, and more importantly, why. History was once controlled by the educated minority and information took time. Now things are nearly instantly provided and future generations just might not care enough to judge anything from this era.

Quote from: -abe- on October 10, 2015, 12:59:04 PM
All those are composers who part of the bread and butter of the orchestral repertoire, something that modernist works (like those by Boulez and Schoenberg) can't achieve, perhaps because the music of the latter two is against human nature. History is a fine judge and after a hundred or so years it's fair to consider musical modernism mostly a failure and a dead-end.

That's a pretty neat trick for two humans to make music that's against human nature. How did they do that?

And all those humans who enjoy their music (and other "modernist" works by Xenakis and Karkowski and the like); they're going against their nature, too?

Hmmm. I just had an idea. Perhaps it's the notion of what "human nature" is that's flawed here.

Quote from: some guy on October 10, 2015, 02:06:37 PM
That's a pretty neat trick for two humans to make music that's against human nature. How did they do that?

And all those humans who enjoy their music (and other "modernist" works by Xenakis and Karkowski and the like); they're going against their nature, too?

Hmmm. I just had an idea. Perhaps it's the notion of what "human nature" is that's flawed here.

+1 :)

Quote from: -abe- on October 10, 2015, 12:59:04 PM
. . . it's fair to consider musical modernism mostly a failure and a dead-end.

Keep that little dream alive!

Quote from: karlhenning on October 10, 2015, 05:27:50 PM
Keep that little dream alive!

Strange how when exploring this "dead end road," new vistas keep opening up in our minds...

Quote from: jochanaan on October 10, 2015, 05:37:12 PM
Strange how when exploring this "dead end road," new vistas keep opening up in our minds...

That's because you're off the road.

Where we go, we don't need roads . . . .

Quote from: karlhenning on October 10, 2015, 05:45:15 PM
Where we go, we don't need roads . . . .

;D 8) ;D

Non hay caminos, solo caminar!

Caminante, son tus huellas
el camino y nada más;
Caminante, no hay camino,
se hace camino al andar.
Al andar se hace el camino,
y al volver la vista atrás
se ve la senda que nunca
se ha de volver a pisar.
Caminante no hay camino
sino estelas en la mar.

Thanks, I am sometimes bad with remembering fragments and quotations and usually too lazy to check.
What I probably meant was already a change or misquote from Machado's poem, namely "No hay caminos, hay que caminar" by Nono.

Quote from: some guy on October 10, 2015, 02:18:34 AM
Yeah, just like Mozart displaced Bach and Beethoven displaced Mozart and Berlioz displaced Beethoven and Schumann displaced Berlioz and Tchaikovsky displaced Berlioz and Brahms displaced Tchaikovsky and Mahler displaced Tchaikovsky.

Yep. It's the old "there ain't enough room in this town for the two of us" theory of the arts. It's good for creating a lot of paranoia but not for much else.

Lol, but then Mendelssohn brought back Bach and confused music history so much that orchestras play the old stuff to get bums on seats because they think everyone is Mendelssohn. But I'm not Mendelssohn. I wrote pretty lame fugues when I was 14, but of course, they are better now (albeit not in any specific key). Not in any specific key? How bout a fugue made up primarily on klangfarbenmelodic principles and metric modulation!!!!!!

lol

lol

lol

$:)

I think our brains are already coping just a little better . . . .

I don't know about "our" brains, but mine is coping much better after a session with Messiaen's Eclairs sur l'au-dela. ;D

21st century music is dank pass the dutchie

Quote from: ComposerOfAvantGarde on October 12, 2015, 05:55:21 AM
I wrote pretty lame fugues when I was 14, but of course, they are better now.

When I was 14 I didn't really listen to any kind of music. I heard music, but only "passively", dad playing jazz jne. I didn't know what a fugue is, of course. When I was 17, I discovered acid house genre (1988) and got suddenly VERY interested of (that kind of) music. When I was 26, I discovered classical music and eventually learned about what fugues are. I found out I love fugues. I guess 99 % of all people live their life without ever hearing about the existence of fugues or even hearing one. People are educated, but mostly on things not related to music.

Quote from: 71 dB on November 26, 2015, 11:30:28 PM
When I was 14 I didn't really listen to any kind of music. I heard music, but only "passively", dad playing jazz jne. I didn't know what a fugue is, of course. When I was 17, I discovered acid house genre (1988) and got suddenly VERY interested of (that kind of) music. When I was 26, I discovered classical music and eventually learned about what fugues are. I found out I love fugues. I guess 99 % of all people live their life without ever hearing about the existence of fugues or even hearing one. People are educated, but mostly on things not related to music.

What I find particularly wonderful about the world is the diversity of thought, people, styles of music, everything! It knowing what a fugue is, well, that's basically meaningless to the lives of so many on this earth, but learning about people's perception of sound and its aesthetics is meaningful and so much more important stuff can be learnt that way I believe. Also, I love reading stories about people's past experiences with music. I'm rarely able to relate (because everyone is so different) but that's what makes me all the more curious.

Perhaps this is the reason why my favourite music is generally written after the year 1900...the sheer diversity of it all! It reflects humanity more than any other period of classical music in history.

Quote from: ComposerOfAvantGarde on November 27, 2015, 02:41:13 AM
...Knowing what a fugue is, well, that's basically meaningless to the lives of so many on this earth, but learning about people's perception of sound and its aesthetics is meaningful, and so much more important stuff can be learnt that way, I believe. Also, I love reading stories about people's past experiences with music.

[/font][/size][/i]

Fascinating, because I have been writing something precisely about that: how some (most?) people hear "nothing," when e.g. a Bach fugue is played.  They shrug and wonder what all the fuss is about.  Others are charmed from the start, and find "something" that touches them in the sounds.

And then there are some who, having been in the "shrugging" first group, one day join the "charmed" group.

Quote from: ComposerOfAvantGarde on November 26, 2015, 08:59:21 PM
21st century music is dank pass the dutchie

??? ???

I confess to puzzlement  8)

And bewilderosity. ???

Can my brain cope?...

Quote from: karlhenning on November 27, 2015, 02:52:46 PM
Can my brain cope?...

Yes, because you do not hate modern classical music,and therefore obviously can cope!  0:)

Quote from: Cato on November 27, 2015, 03:55:04 PM
Yes, because you do not hate modern classical music,and therefore obviously can cope!  0:)

In other words, he's not a music troll! :laugh:

Quote from: Cato on November 27, 2015, 05:07:47 AM


Fascinating, because I have been writing something precisely about that: how some (most?) people hear "nothing," when e.g. a Bach fugue is played.  They shrug and wonder what all the fuss is about.  Others are charmed from the start, and find "something" that touches them in the sounds.

And then there are some who, having been in the "shrugging" first group, one day join the "charmed" group.

I think that's applicable to all the arts. The artist presents his work, as it were, in a box; and as long as we remain outside the box, we're likely to be baffled and/or indifferent; once we find a way of climbing into the box, everything changes, like a light coming on. The trick is how to find the way in (or at least, to want to get in badly enough to bother trying). Sometimes it's instantaneous and intuitive; sometimes it takes time and work. I've spent most of my life passing from 'shrugging' groups to 'charmed' groups, but I'm delighted to say I don't think I've ever moved the other way (from 'charmed' to 'shrugging').

Quote from: Cato on November 27, 2015, 05:07:47 AM
[/font][/size][/i]

Fascinating, because I have been writing something precisely about that: how some (most?) people hear "nothing," when e.g. a Bach fugue is played.  They shrug and wonder what all the fuss is about.  Others are charmed from the start, and find "something" that touches them in the sounds.

And then there are some who, having been in the "shrugging" first group, one day join the "charmed" group.

The 'shrug-to-charm' phenomenon is rather common when it comes to opening up to modern classical music. However, there are some instances I've heard of where the modern stuff is immediately found to be the most enjoyable or breathtaking of al music once heard for the first time. I think it comes down to personal expectations of what music is all about in different people's minds.

Quote from: ComposerOfAvantGarde on November 28, 2015, 03:21:27 AM
The 'shrug-to-charm' phenomenon is rather common when it comes to opening up to modern classical music. However, there are some instances I've heard of where the modern stuff is immediately found to be the most enjoyable or breathtaking of al music once heard for the first time. I think it comes down to personal expectations of what music is all about in different people's minds.

And remember that e.g. Brahms is easier to appreciate if you know e.g. Palestrina, Bach, Mozart, Beethoven and Schumann, whereas some contemporary music might be much more visceral and not so much linked to tradition, so not knowing anything about the older composers doesn't mean you get less out of it than others. The person expecting to hear Brahms or Beethoven, on the other hand, will probably be disappointed.

Quote from: Elgarian on November 28, 2015, 02:13:58 AMSometimes it's instantaneous and intuitive; sometimes it take time and work.

That's what puzzles me, because my experience is quite different. The majority of music I like falls into the 'instantaneous' charm category and doesn't require much work at all (except for taking the time to sit down and focus on listening). Getting to know the complexities of a piece (or its performance) might help me appreciate it more but in the end, while I don't disparage its beauty, I'm not interested in the 'maths' behind the music. For example, learning about fugues doesn't help me to feel something in most of Bach, other than, well, he was a meticulous guy. But then I hear a few pieces of his I do enjoy tremendously and BAM, the music hits me immediately. There are exceptions when studying the context of a piece opens it up for me in a new way but they are exceptions and don't involve music theory at all.

Quote from: Elgarian on November 28, 2015, 02:13:58 AM
I think that's applicable to all the arts. The artist presents his work, as it were, in a box; and as long as we remain outside the box, we're likely to be baffled and/or indifferent; once we find a way of climbing into the box, everything changes, like a light coming on. The trick is how to find the way in (or at least, to want to get in badly enough to bother trying). Sometimes it's instantaneous and intuitive; sometimes it take time and work. I've spent most of my life passing from 'shrugging' groups to 'charmed' groups, but I'm delighted to say I don't think I've ever moved the other way (from 'charmed' to 'shrugging').

And for the music lover trying to proselytize a friend or relative or anybody, catalyzing that desire, that wanting, is the key.  And how does one do that?  I suspect it will vary from person to person.  Most of the time, I have found, my modest efforts and suggestions fall upon fallow ground.

Occasionally I am happily surprised!  8)

I can't really explain why I dislike a lot of contemporary classical music but I think it stems from the fact that these aren't the kinds of sounds my soul and mind seeks out. When I listen to a piece of music, whether straightforward or complex, I want to feel some kind of gratification and want to feel compelled to listen again. Things of this kind of subjective nature shouldn't be overanalyzed and really thought about as we all gravitate towards a certain sound-world, which is why we have our own favorites. I don't think anyone can really explain why they like the music they do because this would be to tap into something inside of us that can't be put into words whether spoken or written down.

Many of the observations here seem to boil down to, if it doesn't immediately appeal, study will open it up to you. But it is difficult to study something that doesn't appeal. If one is in school or on the job, one must study a subject whether one likes it or not. On one's own time, it is pretty difficult. I have little trouble studying a work that draws me in initially, say a complex one like the Musical Offering. Atonal works that initially strike my ear as noise don't arouse the desire to know them more intimately. And in the few instances where I've forced myself to listen to such a work say, three or four times, the effort has been unrewarded. 

The canard that modern music of the late 19th century was unappreciated in its time is wrong, as by the time Brahms and Wagner were old men they were adulated by great masses of the public. Wagner's death train was mobbed all along its route as it brought his body home from Italy, and Brahms was cheered wildly in his last public appearance in the audience at a concert.

Also in line with earlier epochs one might expect the more difficult 20th century works to have by this time plowed a field where their particular or characteristic soundscape(s) have become more accepted by some kind of broad section of the public, whatever one might mean by the word public. Yet even a professional musician I know grits her teeth when her ensemble has to perform a twelve-tone work by Schoenberg.

 

Most people don't care for art or classical music, regardless of era. They most likely have heard of all of the older names of composers but they don't care. It's too old, long and boring. It's not 'cool'. You will most likely never fit in liking this stuff, it's a niche interest, deviating from mainstream pop culture. People have been raised on commercial sound bite music that requires very little mental or listening effort. Learning from or knowing about music on a deeper level isn't apart of their vernacular. The newer art music (20th century onward) hasn't had as much longstanding 'publicity' (perhaps not the best word) so its completely obscure to most. Most folks listen to music for it's surface (color, or even production values), and the expression (what the words are saying, the attitude, ego/personality, etc.) .. they don't really pay much attention or notice the actual music (loose ideas of melody, harmony, rhythm, form, textures, performance practices etc.), so their appreciation only goes so far and is mostly surface .. Most folks don't like things that deviate too far from the norm, they like hearing things they are familiar with or recognize. Music is mostly about having fun & feeling good, little else. Pursuit of knowledge or enlightenment? Forget that. Generally any music that really pushes the envelope or is on the vanguard (so to speak) will have a relatively small, but loyal cult following (which is good enough), this has been the case throughout history for the most part, there are always a few exceptions. I think this sums up the majority - at least in the western world.

Quote from: Mirror Image on November 28, 2015, 05:59:00 AM
I can't really explain why I dislike a lot of contemporary classical music but I think it stems from the fact that these aren't the kinds of sounds my soul and mind seeks out. When I listen to a piece of music, whether straightforward or complex, I want to feel some kind of gratification and want to feel compelled to listen again. Things of this kind of subjective nature shouldn't be overanalyzed and really thought about as we all gravitate towards a certain sound-world, which is why we have our own favorites. I don't think anyone can really explain why they like the music they do because this would be to tap into something inside of us that can't be put into words whether spoken or written down.

Agreed 100%.

Quote from: Chaszz on November 28, 2015, 06:41:30 AM
Many of the observations here seem to boil down to, if it doesn't immediately appeal, study will open it up to you.

If we substitute familiarity with study, I agree.  Or make it familiarity and/or study.  Without necessarily requiring the chore vibe of study, just continuing to listen to a piece can open it up to us sub-consciously over time.

"The kinds of sounds my soul and mind seek out" changes over time, generally expands.  And musical gratification comes in more than one form.

To play the Devil's Advocate, the logical extension of this line of thought is the narcissistic, ossified What does this piece do for ME, NOW? attitude whose classic proponent is the narcissistic, ossified "Pink Harp/Homo aestheticus."

8)

Quote from: Chaszz on November 28, 2015, 06:41:30 AM
Many of the observations here seem to boil down to, if it doesn't immediately appeal, study will open it up to you. But it is difficult to study something that doesn't appeal. If one is in school or on the job, one must study a subject whether one likes it or not. On one's own time, it is pretty difficult. I have little trouble studying a work that draws me in initially, say a complex one like the Musical Offering. Atonal works that initially strike my ear as noise don't arouse the desire to know them more intimately. And in the few instances where I've forced myself to listen to such a work say, three or four times, the effort has been unrewarded. 

Agreed 100%.

Quote from: karlhenning on November 28, 2015, 06:55:46 AM
"The kinds of sounds my soul and mind seek out" changes over time, generally expands.  And musical gratification comes in more than one form.

To play the Devil's Advocate, the logical extension of this line of thought is the narcissistic, ossified What does this piece do for ME, NOW? attitude whose classic proponent is the narcissistic, ossified "Pink Harp/Homo aestheticus."

8)

Sure, I agree, musical gratification comes in many forms, but you seek out different things in music than I do, Karl. We're not affected by music in the same way and that's pretty much my whole point. Of course, when I speak of such things, I only speak for myself and no one else.

Quote from: Mirror Image on November 28, 2015, 07:03:24 AM
Sure, I agree, musical gratification comes in many forms, but you seek out different things in music than I do, Karl. We're not affected by music in the same way and that's pretty much my whole point. Of course, when I speak of such things, I only speak for myself and no one else.

That's fine, of course.  We're not affected by music in the same way is kind of a yes-&-no proposition, I think, which is why we all find it valuable to discuss music (why some of us find the copy-&-paste activity valuable, I cannot say  8) ).  I think it's no great distance from the idea that, of all our personalities, each of us is unique as a totality, but probably none of us is unique in any one particular.

Quote from: karlhenning on November 28, 2015, 07:09:00 AM
That's fine, of course.  We're not affected by music in the same way is kind of a yes-&-no proposition, I think, which is why we all find it valuable to discuss music (why some of us find the copy-&-paste activity valuable, I cannot say  8) ).  I think it's no great distance from the idea that, of all our personalities, each of us is unique as a totality, but probably none of us is unique in any one particular.

No argument here. We're all in the same boat but thankfully that boat sways in different directions. :) I know I should limit my Jamesian cut-and-paste activity but I suppose I'm just trying to share my enthusiasm in some way.

Quote from: karlhenning on November 28, 2015, 07:09:00 AM
each of us is unique as a totality, but probably none of us is unique in any one particular.

This implies by necessity that the whole is different, and more important, than the sum of its parts --- and while it might be good psychology, it can open a whole (pun intended) can of sociological, economic and political worms.  :D

Quote from: Florestan on November 28, 2015, 07:21:49 AM
This implies by necessity that the whole is different, and more important, than the sum of its parts

Why by necessity, in what way more important, and why should we need to apply the idea to other spheres without adjustment?  8)

Quote from: karlhenning on November 28, 2015, 07:55:05 AM
Why by necessity, in what way more important, and why should we need to apply the idea to other spheres without adjustment?  8)

Answering all those questions would highjack the thread and I´m not sure our brains can cope with that.  ;D >:D :P

Quote from: Mirror Image on November 28, 2015, 05:59:00 AMWhen I listen to a piece of music, whether straightforward or complex, I want to feel some kind of gratification and want to feel compelled to listen again.

Yeah, me too (among other things).

But I like quite a lot of contemporary classical music.

I.e., whatever may be true for you and Karl, you and I appear (appear)* to want the same (broad) things from music, and yet....

See, the sub-text, no matter what you may protest on the surface level, still does appear to be saying that contemporary music is in and of itself less gratifying.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

*I suspect at this broad level, you two are not really out to get different things from music.

Quote from: Chaszz on November 28, 2015, 06:41:30 AM

  Yet even a professional musician I know grits her teeth when her ensemble has to perform a twelve-tone work by Schoenberg.

Quote from: Chaszz on November 28, 2015, 06:41:30 AM
Atonal works that initially strike my ear as noise don't arouse the desire to know them more intimately. And in the few instances where I've forced myself to listen to such a work say, three or four times, the effort has been unrewarded. 

When I was much younger (I have related the story here before), Schoenberg's tonal work Pelleas und Melisande did not gel for me at all!  But knowing that Schoenberg was a great composer, I kept trying, and suddenly after the fourth try, and some months of not trying, Herbert von Karajan and company made everything come together.  Most probably the unconscious was assembling things for me during the pause, a not unknown phenomenon.

Oddly, I had no trouble grasping the Five Pieces for Orchestra, Erwartung, Die Glueckliche Hand etc.!  And that was during my attempts to comprehend Pelleas und Melisande.

Quote from: karlhenning on November 28, 2015, 06:51:40 AM
If we substitute familiarity with study, I agree.  Or make it familiarity and/or study.  Without necessarily requiring the chore vibe of study, just continuing to listen to a piece can open it up to us sub-consciously over time.

As proven above!  But this can work in broadening the ears to begin with: Alexander Tcherepnin's main advice to me was always "listen to more kinds of music!"  Simple, but true!  And if repeated acquaintance still does not change the opinion, then the kind of music may not be for you!

Quote from: Cato on November 28, 2015, 08:20:58 AM
if repeated acquaintance still does not change the opinion, then the kind of music may not be for you!

Indeed, simple but true.  :)

Quote from: karlhenning on November 28, 2015, 06:51:40 AM
If we substitute familiarity with study, I agree.  Or make it familiarity and/or study.  Without necessarily requiring the chore vibe of study, just continuing to listen to a piece can open it up to us sub-consciously over time.

Yes yes, that's exactly what I meant in my earlier post by 'taking time and/or work'. 'Work' was a poor choice of word on my part. Sometimes sheer repetition is all that's needed, as you say (though that can be a 'kill or cure' method).

That initial siren call, though, can be hard to hear sometimes - there has to be something that's interesting enough to draw me back after that first listen, and often it's no more than a mere niggle - an itch that I need to scratch.

It's when there's no niggle at all that the situation is probably doomed.

Quote from: Elgarian on November 28, 2015, 08:32:28 AMThat initial siren call, though, can be hard to hear sometimes - there has to be something that's interesting enough to draw me back after that first listen, and often it's no more than a mere niggle - an itch that I need to scratch.

Can you be more specific about this, relate to your own experiences  ..

Quote from: some guy on November 28, 2015, 08:10:06 AM
*I suspect at this broad level, you two are not really out to get different things from music.

We may or may not be.

Quote from: James on November 28, 2015, 09:04:44 AM
Can you be more specific about this, relate to your own experiences  ..

The most memorable example was the discovery of Wagner a long, long time ago - mid-late 1970s. I had this collection of Gotterdammerung highlights, listened to it, and really struggled to get anything from the experience at all. But a couple of days later, for no reason I could explain except that something unidentifiable was niggling, I listened again. This kept on happening until maybe two weeks later, after  half a dozen listenings, I was enjoying chunks of the stuff and getting quite carried away. Couldn't believe it. Within a few months I'd bought  a set of the whole Ring (quite something, because I hadn't much cash to spare), and I was well away.

My reaction to several composers has followed a similar patterm: initial not-quite-indifference but no great enthusiasm ... but something I can't define just prodding away and whispering 'go on, just try that again' - leading eventually to total 'conversion'.

Quote from: Elgarian on November 28, 2015, 01:02:28 PM
The most memorable example was the discovery of Wagner a long, long time ago - mid-late 1970s. I had this collection of Gotterdammerung highlights, listened to it, and really struggled to get anything from the experience at all. But a couple of days later, for no reason I could explain except that something unidentifiable was niggling, I listened again. This kept on happening until maybe two weeks later, after  half a dozen listenings, I was enjoying chunks of the stuff and getting quite carried away. Couldn't believe it. Within a few months I'd bought  a set of the whole Ring (quite something, because I hadn't much cash to spare), and I was well away.

My reaction to several composers has followed a similar patterm: initial not-quite-indifference but no great enthusiasm ... but something I can't define just prodding away and whispering 'go on, just try that again' - leading eventually to total 'conversion'.

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

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.

Quote from: James on November 28, 2015, 01:39:51 PM
Did you ever ask yourself why etc. while this was happening?

No, James. You are the only soul here at GMG brave enough to ask yourself "why?"

Modern (post-tonal) music is not the only kind of music that can require work/study/repetition to appreciate. 

Quote from: sanantonio on November 28, 2015, 02:36:16 PM
Modern (post-tonal) music is not the only kind of music that can require work/study/repetition to appreciate.

Excellent observation.

Quote from: sanantonio on November 28, 2015, 02:36:16 PM
Modern (post-tonal) music is not the only kind of music that can require work/study/repetition to appreciate.

As shown by Elgarian's experience with Wagner.

Quote from: karlhenning on November 28, 2015, 02:17:31 PM

No, James. You are the only soul here at GMG brave enough to ask yourself "why?"

I did not realize that!  8)

On Schoenberg:

I love the String Trio, but Pelleas and Melisande I too seem to like less. Perhaps it is familiarity, perhaps it's easier for me to listen to the String Trio because that kind of music is what people generally think of when they think of Schoenberg, and his late-romantic tonal music is less so.....I think expectation is a stronger argument than familiarity when it comes to liking a piece or a genre.

Quote from: sanantonio on November 28, 2015, 02:36:16 PM
Modern (post-tonal) music is not the only kind of music that can require work/study/repetition to appreciate.

Pantonality is tonal still just more influx and not as obvious in terms of polarity .. but anyway, the gist of what you are saying was certainly the case for me .. there was a bit of an adjustment going from song-form popular music(s) & jazz .. to modern/20th century art music (thorough composed extended forms, more elaborate textures, broader colors) but I found that the older stuff (Romantic, Classical, Baroque etc.) was much harder to appreciate and get into at first (more time), especially compared to the newer more current art music of our time with all it's savage rhythms, percussion, dissonance, electronics, abstraction etc.

Quote from: ComposerOfAvantGarde on November 28, 2015, 04:19:06 PM
On Schoenberg:

I love the String Trio, but Pelleas and Melisande I too seem to like less. Perhaps it is familiarity, perhaps it's easier for me to listen to the String Trio because that kind of music is what people generally think of when they think of Schoenberg, and his late-romantic tonal music is less so.....I think expectation is a stronger argument than familiarity when it comes to liking a piece or a genre.

That's a nice change from the "the only Schoenberg I like is Verklärte Nacht" table  8)

Quote from: James on November 28, 2015, 05:06:38 PM
I wasn't talking to you asshole. I was inquiring further to get some real specifics from Elgarian, if there are any. Butt out.

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

Quote from: Mirror Image on November 28, 2015, 06:27:56 PM
Karl, is it time for 'James Bingo' again? ;D

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

Quote from: jochanaan on November 28, 2015, 06:49:39 PM
Or maybe just a gentle reminder that this is a public forum. :)

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

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).

Quote from: James on November 28, 2015, 01:39:51 PM
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.

QuoteWhen 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.

QuoteSounds 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.

QuoteArt/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.

Quote from: Elgarian on November 29, 2015, 01:29:46 AM
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!

Quote from: JamesSounds 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.

Quote from: karlhenning on November 29, 2015, 03:52:15 AM
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.

Quote from: karlhenning on November 29, 2015, 03:54:26 AM
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.

Quote from: Elgarian on November 29, 2015, 01:29:46 AMIt 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.

Quote from: Elgarian on November 29, 2015, 01:29:46 AMYes, 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.

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!

;)

Quote from: Scion7 on November 29, 2015, 06:50:42 AM
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.

Quote from: karlhenning on November 29, 2015, 03:52:15 AM
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.

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."

Quote from: Elgarian on November 29, 2015, 08:50:32 AMJust 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!

Quote from: some guy on November 29, 2015, 09:13:45 AM
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!

Quote from: James on November 29, 2015, 09:52:56 AM
this is all very wishy-washy insecure talk.

Very likely.

QuoteAsking 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.

Quote from: Elgarian on November 29, 2015, 08:50:32 AM
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.

Quote from: Florestan on November 29, 2015, 12:05:25 PM
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.

QuoteWhat 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.

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.

Quote from: Jo498 on November 29, 2015, 12:45:37 PM
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.

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.

Quote from: Jo498 on November 29, 2015, 12:45:37 PME.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.

So what helped you to 'break those chains'? Familiarity? Studying the individual compositions? Acid? >:D

Quote from: Jo498 on November 29, 2015, 12:54:30 PMI 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.

Bravo!

Quote from: Elgarian on November 29, 2015, 12:49:20 PMBut I suggest that there has to be some initial spark of interest for one to move onto a second or third listening.

Yes, and in my case, that spark doesn't have to come from listening to the music itself. I kept giving Mahler a try, just because of all the specific Mahlerian glee I've encountered here on GMG. Trying to hear what others hear or simply get an idea where they're coming from.

Quote from: Rinaldo on November 29, 2015, 01:03:56 PM

Yes, and in my case, that spark doesn't have to come from listening to the music itself. I kept giving Mahler a try, just because of all the specific Mahlerian glee I've encountered here on GMG. Trying to hear what others hear or simply get an idea where they're coming from.

"All we are aaaasskiiing

Is give Mahler a chaaaance!"  0:)

Very interesting thoughts, class!  Very nice!  Many thanks for your analyses of your experiences!

Allow me to quote two reactions from people of very different ages (18 and 56) to a piece of Kammermusik:

Quote "I like the selection of instrumentation, along with the soprano, of course, it all yields a very disturbing composition, both in tone and texture.  There's definitely a ... signature sound — and the text I believe enveloped around the music as much as the music wove through the text."  (Age 56)

"I...was extremely emotionally riveted by it!... -- Supreme emotion is essential to all superlative music!!!"  (Age 18)

Which era did the work in question hail from?

The summer of...

2015: From the Pit of a Cave in the Cloud by Karl Henning

Karl's style of course is unique, but for these listeners at least, the first hearing convinced them of the presence of a highly emotional expression.

What is it that attracted them?  I suspect even they cannot say, except the totality of the sounds and the words combined to hit them in some way.

Their brains could cope!   8)

Quote from: Rinaldo on November 29, 2015, 01:03:56 PM
So what helped you to 'break those chains'? Familiarity? Studying the individual compositions? Acid? >:D

In most cases I cannot really tell. It was probably just familiarity, that is listening despite rather indifferent reactions. In the case of Bach's piano music this worked with a few works like the Goldberg variations and some of the partitas but overall I think that one reason was that I played arrangements of some of these pieces on the clarinet with my teacher.

With Mahler's 9th I probably got used to the strange sound of the beginning or it did not sound so strange when I tried a different recording and once one got used to it, the emotional impact was almost overwhelming. I had heard other Mahler like the symphonies 1,2,4 and 5 before, so I was not completely unfamiliar with the style.

Of course, in cases like Bach, Mahler, Debussy there is such a strong consensus that this is great music that one has a motivation to keep trying.

Quote from: Rinaldo on November 29, 2015, 01:03:56 PM
... in my case, that spark doesn't have to come from listening to the music itself. I kept giving Mahler a try, just because of all the specific Mahlerian glee I've encountered here on GMG. Trying to hear what others hear or simply get an idea where they're coming from.

Oh yes - that can be important for me too. Sometimes you just don't want to be left out of the party; and although that desire may not be enough in itself (I don't think I was ever able to persuade myself that I could enjoy a piece of music just because someone else did), it can provide the motivation to give the music 'one more try'. For me, that persistence is the thing - something, anything, that encourages the one-more-try syndrome.

Merely trying it again may not bring anything new to the experience.  Even if indefinably, a fellow listener's enthusiasm and remarks can be illuming.

Quote from: Jo498 on November 29, 2015, 11:20:26 PM

With Mahler's 9th I probably got used to the strange sound of the beginning or it did not sound so strange when I tried a different recording and once one got used to it, the emotional impact was almost overwhelming. I had heard other Mahler like the symphonies 1,2,4 and 5 before, so I was not completely unfamiliar with the style.

The fragmentary nature of the opening has made me wonder how much of an effect it may have had on Anton Webern.  But parts of the Seventh Symphony (e.g. the Nachtmusik) have that fragmentary element also.

Familiarity might have helped, since the opening elements are woven throughout the work, e.g.  the four-note motif of the beginning also re-appearing, and struggling to do so, at the end.

I do not know enough Webern, but I also think that Mahler's 9th symphony was very important for Schoenberg, Berg and Webern, although these guys were already well "on their way" with their own brand of strange sounds by 1910.

And the muted horn passage definitely sounds "weirder" in some interpretations than in others.

I think because the way pattern recognition and similar stuff seem to work in the brain, mere repetition can explain quite a bit.

Quote from: karlhenning on November 30, 2015, 01:29:38 AM
Merely trying it again may not bring anything new to the experience.  Even if indefinably, a fellow listener's enthusiasm and remarks can be illuming.

There is also, of course, torture by comfy cushions as a means of persuasion. Few can withstand that.

I stayed in the Comfy Chair until lunch time, with only a cup of coffee at eleven, and I was powerless to resist.

Quote from: Jo498 on November 29, 2015, 12:45:37 PM
But have you not encountered music that you found boring/pointless/not very attractive at the first (few) listening(s)?

I suppose you mean Baroque, Classical or Romantic music.

Of course I did. Something like "This has been going on for too long, it's high time that it ends!" (reaction to Dvorak's SQs) or "What's the point of all this, I wonder?" (reaction to Niels Gade's Symphonies). But it was never something like "I must turn it off right now!" or "I'm done with this work / composer for good and I won''t be listening to it / his music ever again!"

Quote
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.

Well, exactly. If it's not strongly repulsive, I usually give it a second try, or even third.

Quote
E.g most of Bach's keyboard music were boring chains of (usually) fast notes without melody for me,

When played on harpsichord it fits in your description exactly, but on piano there is quite a different matter. I instantly liked Maria Tipo, or Rosalynd Tureck, or Murray Perahia or Sviatoslav Richter.

Quote
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.

Can't say he is among my faves but I like his music --- like, not love, mind you.

BTW, my first reaction to music falls basically into 5 categories:

1. Love: "Wow! This is absolutely great and I wouldn't want to be without it!"

2. Like : "This I'm certainly going to listen to at least a second time!"

3. Not dislike: "If I ever feel like listening to it again I will!"

4. Mild rejection, Rossini manner: "this is too intricate to be judged at a first hearing, but I shall not give it a second."

5. Outright rejection, Florestan manner: "This is garbage and I'll be damned if I ever waste my time on it anymore."

Quote
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.

The first Mahler I've ever heard was the 3rd Symphony and I was instantly enthralled. To this day it is my favorite. I confess, though, that I'd rather hear Mahler live in concert hall than recorded --- there is a huge difference between the two experiences.

You know, for a moment there, my brain coped.

Quote from: karlhenning on November 30, 2015, 01:29:38 AM
Merely trying it again may not bring anything new to the experience.  Even if indefinably, a fellow listener's enthusiasm and remarks can be illuming.

I think there may be a certain attitude associated to the liking of any certain music (and this applies for ALL music, not just modern classical music). It's where we put aside any 'expectations' or biases from other opinions or comparisons with works we usually hear. Once the mind is clear of those things, it is easy to learn to love any sound. I am of the opinion that there is no such thing as a bad sound, let alone bad music, unless the sound is produced with the intent of causing harm of course. I embrace sounds and enjoy the way human beings can create such individual aesthetics in their compositions, their organisations of such sounds. Merely trying a piece again only brings nothing new if the listener chooses to keep their mind closed. I have made this mistake (especially regarding Vaughan Williams, Rachmaninov, Sibelius, Brahms and Elgar) but once this mistake on the listener's behalf is made apparent, it is easy to change.

Quote from: Elgarian on November 30, 2015, 01:06:33 AM
...(I don't think I was ever able to persuade myself that I could enjoy a piece of music just because someone else did)...

That depends on who the someone is.  If it's a person I just met on the street, and I can tell s/he has no musical training and little experience, I would not give their suggestions any weight unless they agreed with my own curiosity; but if, say, our estimable Karl Henning were to suggest a piece, I might waste no time looking it up. 8)

Quote from: jochanaan on November 30, 2015, 04:24:55 PM
That depends on who the someone is.  If it's a person I just met on the street, and I can tell s/he has no musical training and little experience, I would not give their suggestions any weight unless they agreed with my own curiosity; but if, say, our estimable Karl Henning were to suggest a piece, I might waste no time looking it up. 8)

Oh yes certainly. I didn't say that the recommendations of others weren't helpful (I owe an enormous debt to such recommendations down the years). My comment was a more trivial and obvious one: that if I were struggling to enjoy some particular piece of music, I wouldn't be able to persuade myself that I did merely by reflecting that Karl (or any other valued chum) recommended it. (Though that knowledge might help me to persist a little more.)

Quote from: Florestan on November 30, 2015, 06:57:09 AM
When played on harpsichord it fits in your description exactly, but on piano there is quite a different matter. I instantly liked Maria Tipo, or Rosalynd Tureck, or Murray Perahia or Sviatoslav Richter.

The sound of piano makes it easier to follow the counterpointal lines, I believe. All of the notes begin to make sense.

Quote from: 71 dB on December 01, 2015, 01:53:03 AM
The sound of piano makes it easier to follow the counterpointal lines, I believe. All of the notes begin to make sense.

Interesting.  I actually find the opposite to be true; I hear the lines more clearly when played on harpsichord. 8)

I honestly can't tell what I think of a piece on first listen. I don't struggle to listen to it, but my taste always changes and expands over time anyway, so my opinion naturally always changes about any piece of music.

I should mention something about coping:

I have occasionally played parts of Carter's Symphonia Sum Fluxae Pretium Spei to my 8th Grade Latin classes, after they have translated parts of the Latin poem, which Carter used as his inspiration.

The reaction to this (especially for them) unusual work has been in general positive, (although I suspect none of them rushed to download it. ;)  )  Comments as to how the music related to the text were interesting.

They coped quite well!  And no obvious "struggle" occurred.

Quote from: Cato on December 02, 2015, 05:54:40 AM
I should mention something about coping:

I have occasionally played parts of Carter's Symphonia Sum Fluxae Pretium Spei to my 8th Grade Latin classes, after they have translated parts of the Latin poem, which Carter used as his inspiration.

The reaction to this (especially for them) unusual work has been in general positive, (although I suspect none of them rushed to download it. ;)  )  Comments as to how the music related to the text were interesting.

They coped quite well!  And no obvious "struggle" occurred.

There's an English teacher on another forum I used to visit who would play all sorts of music in the classroom every now and then. The biggest hit? Black Angels by George Crumb.

Quote from: ComposerOfAvantGarde on December 04, 2015, 01:47:02 PM
There's an English teacher on another forum I used to visit who would play all sorts of music in the classroom every now and then. The biggest hit? Black Angels by George Crumb.

;D 8) ;D

Quote from: Cato on December 02, 2015, 05:54:40 AM
I should mention something about coping:

I have occasionally played parts of Carter's Symphonia Sum Fluxae Pretium Spei to my 8th Grade Latin classes, after they have translated parts of the Latin poem, which Carter used as his inspiration.

What poem is that? (If I search for the title, I only get hits for the Carter piece). And what does it mean: I am the price of the flow of hope? does not really make sense...

Quote from: Elgarian on November 29, 2015, 11:39:32 AMIt was more to do with my general thinking about art (hopefully in the connect of the main topic of this thread), and my gradual realization over the years of the futility of arguing about it.

Futility? .. Nah discourse on it is very useful/vital, and a big part of it's bread and butter.

Quote from: Elgarian on November 29, 2015, 12:49:20 PM
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.

Analysis & playing it yourself also helps.

Quote from: Jo498 on December 05, 2015, 11:11:42 PM
What poem is that? (If I search for the title, I only get hits for the Carter piece). And what does it mean: I am the price of the flow of hope? does not really make sense...

Close, but "no prize"! :) It's "I am the prize of flowing hope." It's from a  Latin poem, "Bulla" ("Bubble") by a 17th-century English writer, Richard Crashaw.  One of Carter's greatest works, imnsho.

Quote from: Florestan on November 30, 2015, 06:57:09 AM
I suppose you mean Baroque, Classical or Romantic music.

Of course I did. Something like "This has been going on for too long, it's high time that it ends!" (reaction to Dvorak's SQs) or "What's the point of all this, I wonder?" (reaction to Niels Gade's Symphonies). But it was never something like "I must turn it off right now!" or "I'm done with this work / composer for good and I won''t be listening to it / his music ever again!"

Well, exactly. If it's not strongly repulsive, I usually give it a second try, or even third.

When played on harpsichord it fits in your description exactly, but on piano there is quite a different matter. I instantly liked Maria Tipo, or Rosalynd Tureck, or Murray Perahia or Sviatoslav Richter.

Can't say he is among my faves but I like his music --- like, not love, mind you.

BTW, my first reaction to music falls basically into 5 categories:

1. Love: "Wow! This is absolutely great and I wouldn't want to be without it!"

2. Like : "This I'm certainly going to listen to at least a second time!"

3. Not dislike: "If I ever feel like listening to it again I will!"

4. Mild rejection, Rossini manner: "this is too intricate to be judged at a first hearing, but I shall not give it a second."

5. Outright rejection, Florestan manner: "This is garbage and I'll be damned if I ever waste my time on it anymore."

RE: #5.  I am old and filled with the recollection of composers and works that I formerly - foolishly, erroneously, often embarrassingly - disdained and now embrace (read "yum-up") wholeheartedly. Consequently, I like to think my wee brain has learnt something : I have banished the word "hate" from my listening vocabulary and if I dislike a work now realize my response prob. says something more about me than the work in question - often, it's worth reflecting on my response.  More often than not, this process is rewarding (psychologically, self-knowledge, banishment of stupid prejudices) and can even alter first impressions (expanding my field of interest and musical delight) and making for a more positive attitude generally.  It's also compelled a greater tolerance for those whose opinions I don't share. How like me, unfortunately, they are.

Quote from: ZauberdrachenNr.7 on December 06, 2015, 07:21:47 AM
RE: #5.  I am old and filled with the recollection of composers and works that I formerly - foolishly, erroneously, often embarrassingly - disdained and now embrace (read "yum-up") wholeheartedly. Consequently, I like to think my wee brain has learnt something : I have banished the word "hate" from my listening vocabulary and if I dislike a work now realize my response prob. says something more about me than the work in question - often, it's worth reflecting on my response.  More often than not, this process is rewarding (psychologically, self-knowledge, banishment of stupid prejudices) and can even alter first impressions (expanding my field of interest and musical delight) and making for a more positive attitude generally.  It's also compelled a greater tolerance for those whose opinions I don't share. How like me, unfortunately, they are.

Just to clear off any possible misunderstanding:

1. I don´t *hate* any music. It´s just that in 30 years of listening I have learned enough about my tastes and preferences to know what I am probably going to like or dislike: all these years, not a single work that I initially rejected ever ended up as likeable, let alone a fave. And I agree wholeheartedly that this says more about me than about the work in question.

2. My general attitude is rather on the serene and cheerful side: I never had insomnia over not being able to like a musical work, nor did I ever hold a grudge against people who do like it. Raum für Alle hat die Erde.

Quote from: Florestan on December 07, 2015, 12:49:42 AM

I have learned enough about my tastes and preferences to know what I am probably going to like or dislike: all these years, not a single work that I initially rejected ever ended up as likeable, let alone a fave.

You're still young yet. ;)

Quote from: Jo498 on December 05, 2015, 11:11:42 PM
What poem is that? (If I search for the title, I only get hits for the Carter piece). And what does it mean: I am the price of the flow of hope? does not really make sense...

Quote from: ZauberdrachenNr.7 on December 06, 2015, 06:32:04 AM
Close, but "no prize"! :) It's "I am the prize of flowing hope." It's from a  Latin poem, "Bulla" ("Bubble") by a 17th-century English writer, Richard Crashaw.  One of Carter's greatest works, imnsho.

The poem is fairly long, and Carter picked just a few lines as inspirations for his work.

Check this for the entire Latin text:

https://books.google.com/books?id=z0JTAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA217&lpg=PA217&dq=Richard+Crashaw+%22Bulla%22&source=bl&ots=HNB7UH2-lN&sig=L7Ne3l1iiJyL9ie_LCRICm44jRM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjX6qb958nJAhXjjIMKHUspAT8Q6AEILzAC#v=onepage&q=Richard%20Crashaw%20%22Bulla%22&f=false (https://books.google.com/books?id=z0JTAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA217&lpg=PA217&dq=Richard+Crashaw+%22Bulla%22&source=bl&ots=HNB7UH2-lN&sig=L7Ne3l1iiJyL9ie_LCRICm44jRM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjX6qb958nJAhXjjIMKHUspAT8Q6AEILzAC#v=onepage&q=Richard%20Crashaw%20%22Bulla%22&f=false)

Well, I think we could usefully adapt the film ratings practice.

John Rutter's music, Rated G

Mine, Rated R (Wilful Dissonance, and Frequent Lack of Extra-Musical Narrative)

Quote from: karlhenning on January 04, 2016, 11:33:47 AM
Well, I think we could usefully adapt the film ratings practice.

John Rutter's music, Rated G

Mine, Rated R (Wilful Dissonance, and Frequent Lack of Extra-Musical Narrative)

Antonio Soler´s music for two harpsichords, rated XXX (copulation on public bulidings).  :D

Quote from: karlhenning on January 04, 2016, 11:33:47 AM
Well, I think we could usefully adapt the film ratings practice.

John Rutter's music, Rated G

Mine, Rated R (Wilful Dissonance, and Frequent Lack of Extra-Musical Narrative)

:laugh:  :laugh:  :laugh:

Q: I imagine along with John Rutter you include under that G-rating the likes of Morten Lauridsen?

Q: Does this rating system have a "G+" rating, you know, for things like John Williams' Star wars, all of Karl
Jenkins, etc?

Q: Is there a special rating category for that type of cotton candy pink modernism ala Eric 'Whitachords' Whitacre?


Best regards.

P.s. "Extramusical narrative." I've never understood how a non-translatable bunch of notes, which can't even be transliterated convincingly either, can truly import much of anything extramusical.
Extramusical:
lying outside the province of music
Extrinsic to a piece of music or outside the field of music
Well, good luck with that!

Quote from: karlhenning on January 04, 2016, 11:33:47 AM
Well, I think we could usefully adapt the film ratings practice.

John Rutter's music, Rated G

Mine, Rated R (Wilful Dissonance, and Frequent Lack of Extra-Musical Narrative)

:laugh:

Mine music needed to be heavily toned down in order to get that R rating 8)

Quote from: Florestan on January 04, 2016, 11:43:31 AM
Antonio Soler´s music for two harpsichords, rated XXX (copulation on public bulidings).  :D

More like two skeletons copulating on a tin roof!

That's interesting because I've heard like a million times people dismissing modern stuff as "horror film music", to which I usually reply: "What's wrong with horror, in your view?" It seems that some people hear dissonances, irregular rhythms, quarter-tones and so on like a kind of aural equivalent of old-fashioned blood and gore.

Quote from: ComposerOfAvantGarde on January 04, 2016, 01:44:30 PM
:laugh:

My music needs to be heavily toned down in order to get that R rating 8)

Then we have the likes of former prodigy Emily Bear, the PR surrounding her as a child making of her the umpteenth "Next Mozart," whose largest job and claim to fame as an adult to date has been composing for Disney films.... G-rated all the way.

Quote from: Abuelo Igor on January 04, 2016, 01:51:25 PM
That's interesting because I've heard like a million times people dismissing modern stuff as "horror film music", to which I usually reply: "What's wrong with horror, in your view?" It seems that some people hear dissonances, irregular rhythms, quarter-tones and so on like a kind of aural equivalent of old-fashioned blood and gore.

The modern and contemporary are not even 'horror,' or horror movie music, though horror movies are where many first heard anything like modern or contemporary classical music, and the choice of using that modernist vocabulary in horror / mystery / suspense films has [morphing more currently into 'had'] a sound psychological basis.

Music 'like that' was consciously chosen because its, harmony, rhythm, texture, was wholly unfamiliar to most of the general film-going public. If you want to underscore a film and create that psychic atmosphere in your audience, choose the most unfamiliar and unknown the most unlike that with which they are familiar. It is all about presenting something which is going to strongly disorient the viewer-listener that keeps them off-balance in a manner where that the darkest bit of common practice late romantic fare would not.

Ergo, "that's where they heard anything like first,' and wherefrom their associations of 'horror / mystery / suspense' comes. If that is your first impression, with those associations, that will linger.

If you already know a lot of that kind of repertoire and are generally familiar with its style, harmony and syntax before you ever heard it used to those purposes in a movie, then the intended effect of that kind of score on the part of the film makers is foiled, or defaults in a way to being "absent", and that makes for some inadvertently funny or downright distracting moments for those modern-contemporary informed viewers where that sort of music is used in various scenes of the film. This has led to many times where I would be watching a film with friends, and was laughing where no one else thought there was anything to laugh about.

Quote from: Monsieur Croche on January 04, 2016, 01:53:39 PM
Then we have the likes of former prodigy Emily Bear, the PR surrounding her as a child making of her the umpteenth "Next Mozart," whose largest job and claim to fame as an adult to date has been composing for Disney films.... G-rated all the way.

She is composing for Disney films? Why am I not surprised.....

Quote from: ComposerOfAvantGarde on January 04, 2016, 03:18:41 PM
She is composing for Disney films? Why am I not surprised.....

Sorry, I was mistaken. There are comments from other musicians, including her teachers who work in prestigious music schools, that 'So much of her compositions are like movie soundtracks,' and she was approached by Disney about writing a soundtrack in 2014.

Quote from: Monsieur Croche on January 04, 2016, 03:28:54 PM
Sorry, I was mistaken. There are comments from other musicians, including her teachers who work in prestigious music schools, that 'So much of her compositions are like movie soundtracks,' and she was approached by Disney about writing a soundtrack in 2014.

Well the girl is 14 so maybe we could cut her a little slack, eh?

Quote from: Mirror Image on January 04, 2016, 05:19:09 PM
Well the girl is 14 so maybe we could cut her a little slack, eh?

Actually, no. Works are already out there, performed, recorded, marketed, in her jazz genre as well as these rather lounge-music sensibility 'very like filmscore' pieces, and all that shows an innate and very strong inclination towards which has very little promise of any radical shift of musical direction.

Put it up, especially at a professional level, commercially promote it and sell it, and well, you're fair game for any and all comments.

I'm of a mind that none of these alleged prodigies, or even merely more precocious than usual young musicians, should be presented to a wide public, let alone the wider broadcasting via other media, until they are well into at least their very late teens, and actually can play / compose not only at an adult level of skill but with more than a small degree of adult emotional and interpretive depth being present as well. Before that, limited exposure, live performances, and no broadcasting or news articles may, just may, allow them to develop -- if they will -- into something more truly interesting than a freakishly talented kid who is being presented more like a performing monkey than being allowed to develop into a mature being.

So it is with -- in descending order from oldest to youngest -- Nathan Green, Emily Bear, and as of late, Alma Deutscher.

Really, Emily Bear's approach to music is in a world were creativity is unfortunately influenced by capitalism, business, marketing and popularity. It was never cool to be part of the 'cool kids' because human beings are capable of so much more....

Anyway, because of the world we live in, there will always be people like Emily Bear even if she pursued a path in classical music rather than in pop culture.

Quote from: Monsieur Croche on January 04, 2016, 05:28:57 PM
Actually, no. Works are already out there, performed, recorded, marketed, in her jazz genre as well as these rather lounge-music sensibility 'very like filmscore' pieces, and all that shows an innate and very strong inclination towards which has very little promise of any radical shift of musical direction.

Put it up, especially at a professional level, promote it, sell it, and well, you're fair game for any and all comments.

I haven't heard a note of this girl's music but since she's 14 years old, I really have no interest either. She clearly hasn't matured and her future, regardless of what you think or feel, is really undetermined. Unless you can somehow see into the future, we should take what you say about this girl with a grain of salt.

Quote from: Mirror Image on January 04, 2016, 05:37:09 PM
I haven't heard a note of this girl's music but since she's 14 years old, I really have no interest either. She clearly hasn't matured and her future, regardless of what you think or feel, is really undetermined. Unless you can somehow see into the future, we should take what you say about this girl with a grain of salt.

You actually make one point I have made, and am keen on: no matter what she is doing, I too, am not much interested at all in following the career of any fourteen year old prodigy. I'll wait, thank you, and if I pop my clogs before the youngster later delivers their first adult utterance, I'm just plum out of luck.

One never really knows, does not have a crystal ball, but as a former mildly precocious student, and later a teacher, I can tell you that many a pro can pretty well guestimate the basic nature, personal musical inclinations, and 'musical personality,' of a youngster ca. age fourteen and then quite cannily project into the future as to what these prodigies will later produce when they are nearer to or have attained a more adult age.

Quote from: ComposerOfAvantGarde on January 04, 2016, 01:45:09 PM
More like two skeletons copulating on a tin roof!

That´s precisely what I meant.

Quote from: Monsieur Croche on January 04, 2016, 12:46:04 PM
"Extramusical narrative." I've never understood how a non-translatable bunch of notes, which can't even be transliterated convincingly either, can truly import much of anything extramusical.

And yet so many composers and listeners seem to think so. A large number of people associate (say) Sibelius's 1st symphony with snow, ice, cold wind, fir trees, and frozen landscapes, whether or not it's been suggested that any such link was intended. And there are very many titled pieces where the composer deliberately invites the listener to make 'extramusical narrative' associations: Enigma Variations, The Wood Nymph, Scheherazade, The Planets, to name but four. Then we have anecdotes like Elgar the conductor inviting his orchestra to 'play this like something you heard down by the river' - well, I don't need to go further. You get the idea.

I often detect a hint (sometimes more than a hint) that the bringing of such associations to music is somehow lowbrow, perhaps even an insult to the purity of the music. But why? Human beings are very very good at relating things that may seem unrelatable (whether as creators or receivers), and imaginatively combining different arts to make composite art. How else would we get songs, operas, illustrated books, ballet, (and indeed) movie soundtracks), etc.?

Quote from: Elgarian on January 05, 2016, 01:00:07 AM
And yet so many composers and listeners seem to think so. A large number of people associate (say) Sibelius's 1st symphony with snow, ice, cold wind, fir trees, and frozen landscapes, whether or not it's been suggested that any such link was intended. And there are very many titled pieces where the composer deliberately invites the listener to make 'extramusical narrative' associations: Enigma Variations, The Wood Nymph, Scheherazade, The Planets, to name but four. Then we have anecdotes like Elgar the conductor inviting his orchestra to 'play this like something you heard down by the river' - well, I don't need to go further. You get the idea.

I often detect a hint (sometimes more than a hint) that the bringing of such associations to music is somehow lowbrow, perhaps even an insult to the purity of the music. But why? Human beings are very very good at relating things that may seem unrelatable (whether as creators or receivers), and imaginatively combining different arts to make composite art. How else would we get songs, operas, illustrated books, ballet, (and indeed) movie soundtracks), etc.?

Excellent post.

Quote from: Elgarian on January 05, 2016, 01:00:07 AM
I often detect a hint (sometimes more than a hint) that the bringing of such associations to music is somehow lowbrow, perhaps even an insult to the purity of the music. But why? Human beings are very very good at relating things that may seem unrelatable (whether as creators or receivers), and imaginatively combining different arts to make composite art.

Yes, which is why I am happy to let the listener find his own relations (as it were) in (for instance) the 10-wind piece I'm finishing up (The Young Lady Holding a Phone in Her Teeth).  The background to some of my recent comments here includes my mild discomfort at having "[my] version of the story" requested of me;  and also a rather unnecessarily unpleasant meeting at which two fellow composers played at being inquisitors, because they adjudged my Thoreau in Concord Jail guilty of the impardonable sin of being "abstract."  I could practically hear the shade of Khrennikov whisper the noun Formalism.

Quote from: Monsieur Croche on January 04, 2016, 01:53:39 PM
Then we have the likes of former prodigy Emily Bear, the PR surrounding her as a child making of her the umpteenth "Next Mozart," whose largest job and claim to fame as an adult to date has been composing for Disney films.... G-rated all the way.

Whereas, of course, 14-year-old Mozart was writing full-on adult music. [/irony]

Quote from: orfeo on January 05, 2016, 02:55:40 AM
Whereas, of course, 14-year-old Mozart was writing full-on adult music. [/irony]

She has a Wikipedia article.  I do not.  Clearly her work is more important than mine.

Quote from: karlhenning on January 05, 2016, 02:59:33 AM
She has a Wikipedia article.  I do not.  Clearly her work is more important than mine.

Well, one could write whole essays on the similarities and differences between "important" and "noticed". But it's also a question of hindsight, and even hindsight is constantly changing. The world is full of things that weren't noticed at the time, and were very much noticed later. Similarly, the world is just as full of things that were of tremendous 'importance' at the time and which have been largely forgotten.

Quote from: orfeo on January 05, 2016, 02:55:40 AM
Whereas, of course, 14-year-old Mozart was writing full-on adult music. [/irony]

Actually, he was.

Quote from: orfeo on January 05, 2016, 03:03:01 AM
Well, one could write whole essays on the similarities and differences between "important" and "noticed". But it's also a question of hindsight, and even hindsight is constantly changing. The world is full of things that weren't noticed at the time, and were very much noticed later. Similarly, the world is just as full of things that were of tremendous 'importance' at the time and which have been largely forgotten.

Indeed.

Well, the Child Prodigy wing of Music Marketing flourishes, anyway.

Quote from: Florestan on January 05, 2016, 03:10:13 AM
Actually, he was.

You spend a lot of time listening to works from the start of the Kochel catalogue, do you? Works with a K number less than 100? If so, you're pretty darn unusual. Most people spend a heck of a lot more time with the later stuff or with the music of other composers.

Quote from: orfeo on January 05, 2016, 03:15:38 AM
You spend a lot of time listening to works from the start of the Kochel catalogue, do you? Works with a K number less than 100? If so, you're pretty darn unusual. Most people spend a heck of a lot more time with the later stuff or with the music of other composers.

First, I couldn't care less what most people do, and second, most people not listening to Mozart's juvenilia is hardly an indication about their quality (or lack thereof). His early violin sonatas, for instance, are as fine as any written by adult composers of the time. So is Galimathias Musicum. So is Bastien und Bastienne. So are the early church sonatas. So are the early piano concertos and symphonies. Don't forget that the kid was a genius.

Quote from: Florestan on January 05, 2016, 03:49:05 AM
most people not listening to Mozart's juvenilia is hardly an indication about their quality (or lack thereof)

In terms of public perception, it's exactly what it is. Again, whole essays could be written about the difference between being important and being noticed, but in terms of what is paid attention to, Mozart's adult works leave his juvenilia for dust.

Quote from: orfeo on January 05, 2016, 04:14:32 AM
In terms of public perception, it's exactly what it is. Again, whole essays could be written about the difference between being important and being noticed, but in terms of what is paid attention to, Mozart's adult works leave his juvenilia for dust.

Have you ever listened to them? Do you have a personal opinion on them based on actual listening, not on public perception?

Quote from: Florestan on January 05, 2016, 04:18:51 AM
Have you ever listened to them? Do you have a personal opinion on them based on actual listening, not on public perception?

I don't see why my opinion would be more persuasive than either your own, or anyone else's. I've played some of the piano pieces. I don't have any recordings.

You're perfectly free to take the view that Mozart's works at the age of 14 are as good as any adult composers, but it's just that: a view. My own view is that Mozart's music continued to improve in quality pretty much throughout his entire career.

Quote from: orfeo on January 05, 2016, 04:26:26 AM
I don't see why my opinion would be more persuasive than either your own, or anyone else's. I've played some of the piano pieces. I don't have any recordings.

I just wanted to know if you do have  an informed opinion on the topic, be it positive or negative, persuasive or not. It turns out you actually don't.

Quote
You're perfectly free to take the view that Mozart's works at the age of 14 are as good as any adult composers, but it's just that: a view.

(Any adult composer of the time when Mozart was 14). Of course it is just that, but at least it's based on listening, not on paying attention to public perception (pun intended).

Quote
My own view is that Mozart's music continued to improve in quality pretty much throughout his entire career.

I'm okay with that.

Quote from: Florestan on January 05, 2016, 04:42:09 AM
I just wanted to know if you do have  an informed opinion on the topic, be it positive or negative, persuasive or not. It turns out you actually don't.

Actual experience playing music doesn't count. Duly noted.

Night.

Quote from: orfeo on January 05, 2016, 04:49:52 AM
Actual experience playing music doesn't count. Duly noted.

You haven't paid attention (another pun) to what I wrote, have you?

Quote from: Florestan on January 05, 2016, 03:49:05 AM
His early violin sonatas, for instance, are as fine as any written by adult composers of the time. So is Galimathias Musicum. So is Bastien und Bastienne. So are the early church sonatas. So are the early piano concertos and symphonies.

Quote from: Florestan on January 05, 2016, 04:53:30 AM
You haven't paid attention (another pun) to what I wrote, have you?

Well, if you had asked whether I had an opinion about those specific pieces, I would've said that no, I didn't. Your question didn't come across as asking me whether I had an opinion on the particular pieces, it came across as a more general question about Mozart's childhood compositions.

I believe I've heard some of the early piano concertos at some point, but as I don't actually own recordings of them I wouldn't claim enough familiarity to have much of an opinion.

You are under no obligation to get acquainted with them, much less to like them. My point is that they are of a much higher quality than one would think judging solely by Mozart's age when composing them. Of course they are not masterpieces on a par with his late stuff but for a child of 14 or less it's pretty damn good music.

Quote from: Florestan on January 05, 2016, 05:04:18 AM
You are under no obligation to get acquainted with them, much less to like them. My point is that they are of a much higher quality than one would think judging solely by Mozart's age when composing them. Of course they are not masterpieces on a par with his late stuff but for a child of 14 or less it's pretty damn good music.

I'm not disputing that they're good "for a child of 14 or less". But as soon as you add that qualifier you're moving away from the claim that he was writing good music for an adult.

And that's where this all started. It in fact started with a remark about Emily Bear, and fundamentally it's about whether one should judge the music of a 14-year-old on the grounds that it's good for a 14-year-old, or whether one should simply judge whether it's good. And a statement that the music of Mozart as a child is "not on a par with his late stuff" is immediately saying that it's not, actually, full-on adult quality music.

Which is exactly what I said before you decided to jump in and disagree. So now you've reversed to agree with my original point.

Quote from: orfeo on January 05, 2016, 05:12:55 AM
I'm not disputing that they're good "for a child of 14 or less". But as soon as you add that qualifier you're moving away from the claim that he was writing good music for an adult.

What I said, and I stand by it, is that Mozart composed at 14 music which stands any comparison with similar music written by adult composers of that time, ie around 1760. If you get it right, fine, if you don't, fine too.

*shrug* There are very few adult composers from around 1760 that anyone listens to in the broad scheme of things, either.

Quote from: orfeo on January 05, 2016, 05:35:51 AM
*shrug* There are very few adult composers from around 1760 that anyone listens to in the broad scheme of things, either.

Oh boy! I am a contrarian myself but I humbly bow before you and acknowledge you as prince, king and emperor of the contrarians.

Over and done.

I'm not trying to be obtuse, I'm trying to understand just what your point was. And if your point was that Mozart was producing some of the best music of the 1760s, then fine, but that simply wasn't a topic I had in mind. I've never set out to specifically consider music of the 1760s, and in my head 1760s Mozart isn't competing with other 1760s music, it's competing with other Mozart and/or other classical music generally.

In other words, the claim you seem to have been wanting to make in responding to my original remark just isn't a claim I had on my radar or wanted to dispute.

Quote from: karlhenning on January 05, 2016, 01:30:38 AM
Yes, which is why I am happy to let the listener find his own relations (as it were) in (for instance) the 10-wind piece I'm finishing up (The Young Lady Holding a Phone in Her Teeth).  The background to some of my recent comments here includes my mild discomfort at having "[my] version of the story" requested of me;  and also a rather unnecessarily unpleasant meeting at which two fellow composers played at being inquisitors, because they adjudged my Thoreau in Concord Jail guilty of the impardonable sin of being "abstract."  I could practically hear the shade of Khrennikov whisper the noun Formalism.

And this morning I recall that the soprano who withdrew from performing the Op.129 challenged me (of course, her emotions ran high at the time) to write music which people other than I myself might enjoy . . . .

Quote from: karlhenning on January 05, 2016, 01:30:38 AM
The background to some of my recent comments here includes my mild discomfort at having "[my] version of the story" requested of me;  and also a rather unnecessarily unpleasant meeting at which two fellow composers played at being inquisitors, because they adjudged my Thoreau in Concord Jail guilty of the impardonable sin of being "abstract."  I could practically hear the shade of Khrennikov whisper the noun Formalism.

All my sympathies old chap. My humble feelings towards those who insist that THIS is the way someone else should create, and that THAT is not, are best expressed by, say, imagining filling their socks with mashed potato, and then writing a sonnet to celebrate the incident.

May you always have a dish of mashed potato at hand, for such future emergencies. I tip m'hat to you, Sir, as ever!

I'm always open to a variety of responses from listeners (up to and including The worst Viola Sonata in the world).  But fellow composers telling me I'd committed sins against the audience, was a bit thick.

Quote from: Elgarian on January 05, 2016, 01:00:07 AM
And yet so many composers and listeners seem to think so. A large number of people associate (say) Sibelius's 1st symphony with snow, ice, cold wind, fir trees, and frozen landscapes, whether or not it's been suggested that any such link was intended. And there are very many titled pieces where the composer deliberately invites the listener to make 'extramusical narrative' associations: Enigma Variations, The Wood Nymph, Scheherazade, The Planets, to name but four. Then we have anecdotes like Elgar the conductor inviting his orchestra to 'play this like something you heard down by the river.'

Not denying or arguing this, but you do know the majority of pieces with titles like Enigma Variations, The Wood Nymph, Scheherazade, The Planets [whether the literal intent of the composer, or an idea more tangential which helped the composer find both the tenor and form of their piece] was a vogue during the mid to late romantic era, along with the 'genre' most associated with like titles, the tone poem. That particular style of title and supposed context or contextual associations were a fashion that waxed and waned through the era, with some of that sensibility trickling into the 20th century.

After the romantic, with titles like those you listed, we get a return to pieces titled by form, Symphony in c, and a huge shift of the nature of the 'alleged' titled subject the likes of wood nymph to things like Pithoprakta; Adjustable Wrench, Music for Eighteen Musicians, Common Tones in Simple Time, Dharma at Big Sur, In Vain, Piano and String Quartet, Blue Cathedral, Fearful Symmetries etc. Some titles from the post romantic eras I think are near arbitrary as given by the composer because the piece can not be readily named after any particular form, and / or the title is somewhat of a tongue-in-cheek red herring as a block to someone other than the composer naming the piece, that intent being a sort of preemptive, "If I don't name it someone else will."

Quote from: Elgarian on January 05, 2016, 01:00:07 AMI often detect a hint (sometimes more than a hint) that the bringing of such associations to music is somehow lowbrow, perhaps even an insult to the purity of the music. But why? Human beings are very very good at relating things that may seem unrelatable (whether as creators or receivers), and imaginatively combining different arts to make composite art. How else would we get songs, operas, illustrated books, ballet, (and indeed) movie soundtracks), etc.?

If we did not know Sibelius lived in Finland, would a lot of listeners still think it so specifically evoked nordic landscapes and weather? Toscanini, rehearsing a Debussy piece and becoming that the players were not getting the feeling he wanted in a particular passage no matter what he said, ultimately took his pocket handkerchief from his pocket, tossed it high up in the air, pointed to it as it wafted to the floor, and then said, "play it like that."

These types of directives, like the Elgar anecdote, are common enough when talking about music and how to render it; these analogues are used because music itself is not a language. This brings up the great dichotomy and irony; we often have to use what we have that is not music to talk about music. I believe when it comes to titling, that is very much the case; we can never fully be sure if the composer given title is really what the piece is about. [I would confidently add, "even if the composer said that was what they had in mind."]

The fact you used the word, "lowbrow," is enough to drive me up the wall while grinding my teeth. It is simultaneously demeaning and / or reeks of a very negative sort of condescension, neither of which I am declaring that you bear, while I do think it a virulent endemic as used when discussing 'art.' I am vehemently agin it, because even in casual usage, the word is freighted with an implicit and highly unattractive social one-upsmanship of which one party is either the dispenser or the recipient. I advocate eliminating it from the vocabulary altogether  :)

My thoughts on a composer providing a program for a piece is that it could rather presume the audience is so 'lowbrow,' that they need a little help to simply listen to the music unfold, and that carries the implicit sub-text that the listener is, indeed, too thick to receive the music without first being given a floor plan, so to speak.

Whatever the composer's inspiration and whether or not that intent was fully realized, for the listener, that piece may be something completely different, ergo, specificity about the extramusical can close doors of the imagination.

Every piece of music is an aural Rorschach blot [save music with sung text, and even that can be as open-ended if the listener doesn't pay attention to, or doesn't know, the language.] If the piece has in any way a coherence or its episodes make a kind of sense to the listener then the listener, if so inclined, will have and make their own associations - story - imagery, and to them those stories, images, etc. will also be cohesive and make a kind of sense.

Essentially, I 'feel' and think that a piece titled Woodland Nymph really needs no title, and that the listener is better off hearing that piece without it, maybe because I have more faith in 'John and Jane Q. listeners than what many might credit them with other than being 'lowbrow' and simple-minded. I know that is an opinion only, that others, both composers and listeners, feel the same, while others do not :)

Quote from: karlhenning on January 05, 2016, 06:43:24 AM
And this morning I recall that the soprano who withdrew from performing the Op.129 challenged me (of course, her emotions ran high at the time) to write music which people other than I myself might enjoy . . . .

Well, we all know about some singers, and for some reasons sopranos are more like this than singers with another Fach.

To steal directly from Anna Russell 'speaking to one such soprano,'
"That's all right dear. You are a singer because you have resonance where your brain ought to be."

Excellent post M. Croche. Reminds me of Takashi Murakami, and amazing Japanese artist, who even wrote quite a bit on the topic of 'meaninglessness' in art—something which can be directly translated to the world of music. He repeatedly titles his artworks things that purposely have no relation to the art itself, until someone else comes along and tries to work out a connection. I've been doing this for years with my own compositions before discovering Murakami, so I guess it could be common knowledge in the art world!

Quote from: ComposerOfAvantGarde on January 05, 2016, 02:21:16 PM
Excellent post M. Croche. Reminds me of Takashi Murakami, and amazing Japanese artist, who even wrote quite a bit on the topic of 'meaninglessness' in art—something which can be directly translated to the world of music. He repeatedly titles his artworks things that purposely have no relation to the art itself, until someone else comes along and tries to work out a connection. I've been doing this for years with my own compositions before discovering Murakami, so I guess it could be common knowledge in the art world!

If you are the composer, and would really like to know what the listener gets from your work, then you will omit making known anything remotely like specificity of title, explanation of intent [the ghastly, "Artist's Statement,"] or voicing out loud or in print any musings on your particular aesthetic, etc.

Currently in art galleries, an exhibiting artist is expected / required to also post an 'artist's statement,' defining the meaning of their work, intent, and their aesthetic. The statement is usually up on the wall, alongside the actual pieces on exhibit.
But hey, and, Doh! The artist's "statement" is already up and hanging on those walls -- and so it is, I think, when a piece of music is the 'artwork.'

The sculptor Rodin had a routine shtick bit of business whenever someone asked him "what he meant" about a particular piece. He would counter their question with, "What do you think it means?" He would then listen and at least appear to be highly attentive.

When the person was through talking about what they thought the meaning of the piece was, Rodin would remain silent, look pensive while stroking his long beard a few times, and after a few beats say,
"You may be right."

Quote from: Monsieur Croche on January 05, 2016, 04:21:12 PM
If you are the composer, and would really like to know what the listener gets from your work, then you will omit making known anything remotely like specificity of title, explanation of intent [the ghastly, "Artist's Statement,"] or voicing out loud or in print any musings on your particular aesthetic, etc.

Currently in art galleries, an exhibiting artist is expected / required to also post an 'artist's statement,' defining the meaning of their work, intent, and their aesthetic. The statement is usually up on the wall, alongside the actual pieces on exhibit.
But hey, and, Doh! The artist's "statement" is already up and hanging on those walls -- and so it is, I think, when a piece of music is the 'artwork.'

The sculptor Rodin had a routine shtick bit of business whenever someone asked him "what he meant" about a particular piece. He would counter their question with, "What do you think it means?" He would then listen and at least appear to be highly attentive.

When the person was through talking about what they thought the meaning of the piece was, Rodin would remain silent, look pensive while stroking his long beard a few times, and after a few beats say,
"You may be right."

Was Kipling who said: A writer may be allowed to invent a fable, but he is not allowed to know its moral? I recall this quote translated into Spanish, so it is not remotely close of being literal... 

:)

Quote from: Monsieur Croche on January 05, 2016, 04:21:12 PM
If you are the composer, and would really like to know what the listener gets from your work, then you will omit making known anything remotely like specificity of title, explanation of intent [the ghastly, "Artist's Statement,"] or voicing out loud or in print any musings on your particular aesthetic, etc.

Currently in art galleries, an exhibiting artist is expected / required to also post an 'artist's statement,' defining the meaning of their work, intent, and their aesthetic. The statement is usually up on the wall, alongside the actual pieces on exhibit.
But hey, and, Doh! The artist's "statement" is already up and hanging on those walls -- and so it is, I think, when a piece of music is the 'artwork.'

The sculptor Rodin had a routine shtick bit of business whenever someone asked him "what he meant" about a particular piece. He would counter their question with, "What do you think it means?" He would then listen and at least appear to be highly attentive.

When the person was through talking about what they thought the meaning of the piece was, Rodin would remain silent, look pensive while stroking his long beard a few times, and after a few beats say,
"You may be right."

The whole 'artist's statement' is silly, which is probably what Takashi Murakami is critical of in his exhibitions and parodies in the eccentric titles of his works. The whole 'it's subjective' retort works in every situation! :laugh:

For my own work it does at least help to work out what aesthetics I like in my music, what I hear in other music that I would like to learn from and implement in an original work, and stuff like that. One project I am working on is a series of 6 preludes for solo cello (they're etudes in disguise as it has turned out!) which I've written with no title in mind until each prelude is finished. The placement of the title—after the final bar line—is so that the cellist can think of the music as music first and foremost, with the title being a secondary element which she can interpret in her own way.

Another piece I wrote once for a guitar duo is called 'Please Do Not Feed The Fish,' titled that because of a sign I saw in a pond in a park once (in no way was the piece inspired by the sign or the scene). I asked my dad when listening to it what he thinks of the piece, and he tried to come up with his own non-musical interpretation of how the title is linked to the music itself. I like it when people think of music in this way because it's adds a completely subjective listener's imagination to sounds that were made by someone else. Thus, the music becomes a kind of collaborative experience in the end.....

Quote from: ComposerOfAvantGarde on January 05, 2016, 10:05:37 PM
The whole 'artist's statement' is silly....

Artist's statements were formerly only a student exercise, assigned only in order to make the developing artist [especially those in the non-verbal arts] clarify for themselves their intent, and yea, their aesthetic.
I doubt 'back then' that either student or teacher would have thought those bits of laundered underwear would in another time be expected to be on public display on either gallery walls or concert programs and the liner notes of a CD.

Quote from: ComposerOfAvantGarde on January 05, 2016, 10:05:37 PMFor my own work it does at least help to work out what aesthetics I like....

As abstract as 'aesthetic' is, I think it beyond useful to know for yourself some defined manner of approach. Besides, there is always this, true of both art and life: If you don't know exactly what you want, knowing more and more what you do not want is more than useful.  :)

Quote from: ComposerOfAvantGarde on January 05, 2016, 10:05:37 PMI am working on is a series of 6 preludes for solo cello... written with no title in mind until each prelude is finished. The placement of the title after the final bar line is so that the cellist can think of the music as music first... with the title being a secondary element which she can interpret in her own way.

You're replicating exactly what Debussy did with his two books of Preludes. The index lists them by number only, as is the first page of each only titled by number.

The alternate titles appear after the double bar, i.e. seen after the first read-through. This convinces me they are there as those typical analogous musical directives for those performers who do not quite get what is needed from the score, which happens ALL the time. It also means the titles are more an alternative directive than 'what the piece is about.'

Quote from: ComposerOfAvantGarde on January 05, 2016, 10:05:37 PMI titled a piece because of a sign I saw in a pond in a park once (in no way was the piece inspired by the sign or the scene). I asked my dad when listening to it what he thinks of the piece, and he tried to come up with his own non-musical interpretation of how the title is linked to the music itself. I like it when people think of music in this way because it's adds a completely subjective listener's imagination to sounds that were made by someone else. Thus, the music becomes a kind of collaborative experience in the end.....

Music is a collaborative experience. The composer works, the performers work...
I find it rather unfortunate that some listeners are unaware they are working, too.
Some music consumers, quite remarkably, seem to think any efforts between them and art are done with when they have paid for the recording or purchased a ticket, made it to the hall, and found their seat, lol.

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. Theories as to why this might be the case vary, 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 that this can influence the style even of instrumental music.  Of course, there are cases of composers who consciously and deliberately sought to have their music reflect the rhythm of their language, such as Janacek.

Quote from: Monsieur Croche on January 05, 2016, 02:13:01 PM
Not denying or arguing this [my highlight], but you do know the majority of pieces with titles like Enigma Variations, The Wood Nymph, Scheherazade, The Planets [whether the literal intent of the composer, or an idea more tangential which helped the composer find both the tenor and form of their piece] was a vogue during the mid to late romantic era, along with the 'genre' most associated with like titles, the tone poem. That particular style of title and supposed context or contextual associations were a fashion that waxed and waned through the era, with some of that sensibility trickling into the 20th century.

I take what you say about the swings of fashion, but don't see how they significantly address the issue I was raising. My point (which you seem to agree with, judging from your first few words) is that people often do make these associations (today as well as yesterday), and that this is neither a good nor a bad thing. A composer is at liberty to supply titles and/or programmes; the listener is at liberty to invent them. The frequency of this practice seems odd in the face of the suggestion that there's no objectively discernable true relation between music and non-musical things - the feeling persists for many folk that there is some relation.

QuoteIf we did not know Sibelius lived in Finland, would a lot of listeners still think it so specifically evoked nordic landscapes and weather?

I don't know. I'm not proposing a scientifically testable, predictive model. I don't think the case I'm making depends on how people come to make these extramusical associations - only on the fact that they (we) do.

QuoteThe fact you used the word, "lowbrow," is enough to drive me up the wall while grinding my teeth. It is simultaneously demeaning and / or reeks of a very negative sort of condescension, neither of which I am declaring that you bear, while I do think it a virulent endemic as used when discussing 'art.' I am vehemently agin it, because even in casual usage, the word is freighted with an implicit and highly unattractive social one-upsmanship of which one party is either the dispenser or the recipient.

Well I couldn't agree more. I speak not de haut en bas, but as one who has occasionally encountered suggestions that there is something intellectually weak about associating nonmusical ideas with music (something I frequently do). I'm wondering if in fact you've misunderstood the position I'm taking, here.

QuoteMy thoughts on a composer providing a program for a piece is that it could rather presume the audience is so 'lowbrow,' that they need a little help to simply listen to the music unfold, and that carries the implicit sub-text that the listener is, indeed, too thick to receive the music without first being given a floor plan, so to speak.

This seems unnecessarily cynical. We know, for example, that Elgar really did make such associations himself. I'm happy to go along with that, and don't consider myself in any way condescended to by the composer.

QuoteWhatever the composer's inspiration and whether or not that intent was fully realized, for the listener, that piece may be something completely different,

Yes, certainly ...

Quoteergo, specificity about the extramusical can close doors of the imagination.

I don't see this. It may redirect the imagination, but that's what artists do.

QuoteIf the piece has in any way a coherence or its episodes make a kind of sense to the listener then the listener, if so inclined, will have and make their own associations - story - imagery, and to them those stories, images, etc. will also be cohesive and make a kind of sense.

Yes, that's what I'm saying. Listeners often do make associations between the non-musical and the musical. It's an aspect of 'the listener's share', which we'd both agree is an essential part of the encounter with the music, but I'm not at all sure about the ink blot comparison. Engagement with a work of art isn't the same as engaging with an inkblot.

QuoteEssentially, I 'feel' and think that a piece titled Woodland Nymph really needs no title, and that the listener is better off hearing that piece without it

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.

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?

Quote from: Elgarian on January 06, 2016, 12:36:06 AM
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.

Interesting discussion, chaps.

Quote from: orfeo on January 05, 2016, 11:56:08 PM
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.

Quote from: Monsieur Croche on January 06, 2016, 01:15:23 AM
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.

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.

Quote from: Florestan on January 06, 2016, 12:53:58 AM
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.
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.]

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

which was given a very different title much later on!

Quote from: Monsieur Croche on January 06, 2016, 02:42:58 AM

~ 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"?

Quote from: Monsieur Croche on January 06, 2016, 02:42:58 AM~ 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.

Quote from: orfeo on January 06, 2016, 03:01:22 AM
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!)

Quote from: some guy on January 06, 2016, 03:11:43 AM
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?

Haha, I wish!!

Quote from: orfeo on January 06, 2016, 03:01:22 AM
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?

Music is a communicative art, but.

(that is all)

Quote from: orfeo on January 06, 2016, 01:32:08 AM
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."

Quote from: karlhenning on January 06, 2016, 03:26:18 AM
Music is a communicative art, but.

(that is all)

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

Chewing music is not a safe alternative.

Quote from: Monsieur Croche on January 06, 2016, 03:25:32 AM
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.

Quote from: orfeo on January 06, 2016, 03:01:22 AM
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?

Quote from: ComposerOfAvantGarde on January 06, 2016, 03:40:53 AM
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.

Quote from: orfeo on January 06, 2016, 03:48:12 AM
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.

Quote from: orfeo on January 06, 2016, 03:48:12 AM
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.

Aha! Those 'birds' of which you speak are imitations in sound of their sound. This is something that CAN happen in music! Having sounds represent things other than sound is impossible.

Quote from: ComposerOfAvantGarde on January 06, 2016, 03:55:54 AM
Aha! Those 'birds' of which you speak are imitations in sound of their sound. This is something that CAN happen in music! Having sounds represent things other than sound is impossible.

For someone who is a composer, your lack of imagination is troubling.

Tell me, if sounds cannot represent things other than sound, what exactly is the purpose of a police siren or fire alarm? How do you respond to a ringing phone? And why do quiz shows, computer programs and a myriad of other things use one kind of sound to indicate a correct answer, and a different kind of sound to represent an incorrect answer?

Now, if you'll excuse me, my microwave has just beeped 3 times - according to you signifying nothing, but according to me it represents cooked food.

Quote from: orfeo on January 06, 2016, 04:03:21 AM
For someone who is a composer, your lack of imagination is troubling.

He's young, his musical mind is still forming;  allow the chap his liberty  :)

Quote from: karlhenning on January 06, 2016, 03:35:15 AM
Chewing music is not a safe alternative.

I'll make a note of that.

Quote from: orfeo on January 06, 2016, 04:03:21 AM
For someone who is a composer, your lack of imagination is troubling.

Tell me, if sounds cannot represent things other than sound, what exactly is the purpose of a police siren or fire alarm? How do you respond to a ringing phone? And why do quiz shows, computer programs and a myriad of other things use one kind of sound to indicate a correct answer, and a different kind of sound to represent an incorrect answer?

Now, if you'll excuse me, my microwave has just beeped 3 times - according to you signifying nothing, but according to me it represents cooked food.

These are signals which we have trained ourselves to respond to in specific ways. If you were an alien from another planet you may have a completely different understanding of these sounds altogether really, but in terms of hearing sounds as music then sirens, alarms, bells etc. could work in very different ways for the composer and the listener. That's what is amazing about music! It's abstract. Different people connect with sound in different ways due to the wonderfully unique ways everyone's imaginations work. I only have one imagination, which I use when composing and listening to music. Perhaps there are things I lack as a person, but I'm apparently not as old as a number of others on this forum so I would love to see how it develops over time. :)

This last bit of conversation has suddenly reminded me of a song by my friend Sally Whitwell called "Flatworm's Heaven". On her album "I was flying" which is available on various places such as Amazon, iTunes, Spotify.

[asin]B00XF8EC4E[/asin]

The reason it's reminded me of it is that the I think the song is hilarious, and in particular the first 3 notes are completely hilarious... and when I told Sally this a little while after the album had been released, she told me that I was only the 3rd person to get the joke.

I recommend checking it out to see if you get the joke.

Quote from: orfeo on January 06, 2016, 04:03:21 AM
For someone who is a composer, your lack of imagination is troubling.

Tell me, if sounds cannot represent things other than sound, what exactly is the purpose of a police siren or fire alarm? How do you respond to a ringing phone? And why do quiz shows, computer programs and a myriad of other things use one kind of sound to indicate a correct answer, and a different kind of sound to represent an incorrect answer?

Now, if you'll excuse me, my microwave has just beeped 3 times - according to you signifying nothing, but according to me it represents cooked food.

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
Who are you behind that screen name and avatar, one of Pavlov's dogs?
Remember them?

They were conditioned by association with, "Ding Ding Ding" = "Food Ready."

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

Quote from: ComposerOfAvantGarde on January 06, 2016, 04:11:42 AM
It's abstract. Different people connect with sound in different ways due to the wonderfully unique ways everyone's imaginations work

Those two sentences are not equivalent.

And I would like to suggest to you, ever so gently, that you're not writing music for aliens. Unless you're intending to push the notion of "writing for future generations" to logical extremes that are in practice likely to have you in poverty.

Quote from: Monsieur Croche on January 06, 2016, 04:17:19 AM
"Ding Ding Ding," can only express and mean "Ding Ding Ding."

This is just nonsense.

By the same logic, the fact that I decide to place 5 symbols in order that look like this:

m

u

s

i

c

Can only express and mean that I decided to draw a few squiggly lines on a page or liked an arrangement of pixels on my computer. You are, while having this argument with me, using symbols that express and mean far more than their actual shapes. You are in fact using abstractions that in the original semitic alphabet were little abstracted pictures of particular objects, and your purpose in writing an "a" has precisely nothing to do with the image of an ox head from which it derives.

One of the quotes I have up at work is that "words are only pictures of ideas on paper".  What they express and mean has absolutely nothing to do with the 26 (or 52, allowing for capitalisation but I'm not going to try and work out how many different punctuation marks we're utilising here) squiggles that I'm using to convey those ideas.

You are effectively proposing that all written language should be abandoned in favour of Emojis.

Quote from: orfeo on January 06, 2016, 04:18:17 AM
Those two sentences are not equivalent.

And I would like to suggest to you, ever so gently, that you're not writing music for aliens. Unless you're intending to push the notion of "writing for future generations" to logical extremes that are in practice likely to have you in poverty.

I thought the whole point of the 'abstract' in art is that it doesn't represent reality, but rather the interpretation of it is up to whoever is consuming this art. Music can imitate sounds of birds, for example, when a composer wishes, but it can't represent reality in the way words and images can (that's what words and images were designed to do). And no, I don't intend to write music for aliens, I write for musicians, but aliens are always welcome. ;)

Quote from: ComposerOfAvantGarde on January 06, 2016, 04:26:59 AM
(that's what words and images were designed to do)

Honestly, at this point Rene Magritte is crying into his pipe.

Quote from: ComposerOfAvantGarde on January 06, 2016, 02:57:58 AM
Or Penderecki's masterpiece: '8 minutes 37 seconds'

which was given a very different title much later on!

Hmm, I feel I should already know this?  Google isn't being very helpful.  Which Penderecki work is this?

OK, I now know it was Threnody....

I'm about to go to bed, but there's one last thing that I was suddenly reminded of and thought was worth mentioning.

Or one person, really.

Haydn.

Not one of Haydn's "jokes" or "surprises" works without semiotics. Without semiotics, there is nothing inherently amusing about a bassoon loudly blaring at the end of a softening and slowing sequence. There is no reason to laugh when a string quartet goes on a few bars longer than predicted. There is no reason to think there's anything odd about the 16th bar of a theme in a symphony having a chord that is much louder than anything in the preceding 15 bars.

I just can't accept any notion that semiotics is something separate and apart from the music, because to do so would be to imply that Haydn did not intend for any of these things to be funny. That he wasn't attempting to get a kind of reaction from his audience. And I can't recall anyone ever seriously suggesting that any of these effects are accidental.

But that's where this conversation is going. It's heading towards assertions that a loud bassoon note can only express pitch and volume.

If sounds can really only express sounds . . . why bother?

Sounds do stuff to your brain. Manipulation of sound does cool stuff to your brain...sometimes.

Brainz . . . .

Quote from: orfeo on January 06, 2016, 04:22:48 AM
This is just nonsense.

By the same logic, the fact that I decide to place 5 symbols in order that look like this:
m
u
s
i
c
Can only express and mean that I decided to draw a few squiggly lines on a page or liked an arrangement of pixels on my computer. You are, while having this argument with me, using symbols that express and mean far more than their actual shapes. You are in fact using abstractions that in the original semitic alphabet were little abstracted pictures of particular objects, and your purpose in writing an "a" has precisely nothing to do with the image of an ox head from which it derives.

One of the quotes I have up at work is that "words are only pictures of ideas on paper".  What they express and mean has absolutely nothing to do with the 26 (or 52, allowing for capitalisation but I'm not going to try and work out how many different punctuation marks we're utilising here) squiggles that I'm using to convey those ideas.

You are effectively proposing that all written language should be abandoned in favour of Emojis.
[/size]

extramusical:
lying outside the province of music;
Extrinsic to a piece of music or outside the field of music.

Words, titles, programs assigned to a piece of music which is otherwise without any other text are extramusical.

The entire above post, how vowel sounds from the spoken word meaning OX became a written symbol, then a group of letters spelling any word become an icon, etc. etc. is all about written language and words, which, by the way, are learned as associated with a symbol for thing or idea, and then by repetition until that association with their meaning is securely set in mind.

All of that is entirely not on the point of a grafted-on title or program on the side to be associated with a piece of music. The only tangential connection is that if you accept a title or program as attached to the music, keep it in mind while you are listening to that piece, and repeat that several times, the listener who does that might come to think -- by association -- that that piece of music is inseparable from the acquired associations.

There is no way that a medium without a specific verbal linguistic construct, or a medium of images, can do anything but remotely evoke words or images.

A bell is a bell is a bell, and until you have repeatedly associated it with something not a bell, it signifies nothing other than a sound produced by a bell.

Music is not birdsong, but it at least shares with music pitch, duration and intensity, those the most basic elements of music. Since both share that, music can give a damned good facsimile of bird song, though not in the exact pitches birds use, but as approximated using the tones of our scale. Bird-song like, enough to conjure up birds in the imagination of the listener. Beyond that, "Hmmm, bird song, must be spring or summer, or..." is only arrived at via the vagaries of an individuals imagination, which because of association of actual bird song, is supplying [and supplanting] the real experience for the facsimile of the real thing. If it is spring, and the composer says its spring, that too, becomes spring by directive and then association.

I'm afraid that tone poems and other program music is, within the medium, the greatest conman of all music; it is all sham, trickery, deceit, and a lot of smoke and mirrors.

In a way, music is only capable of being 'emoticons.' Though I argue music itself can not 'express' anything, it unquestionably has a tremendous power to evoke a hell of a lot in listeners. What this or that sort of music does evoke, if somewhat consistent among its listeners, is also an acquired meaning learned via association.

Yes, music, at its most specific, is that unspecific.

Quote from: orfeo on January 06, 2016, 04:18:17 AM

And I would like to suggest, ever so gently, that you're not writing music for aliens.

Some of us who do compose get flare signals from reading certain posts, which convince us more and more that we are composing music for aliens.

Quote from: Monsieur Croche on January 06, 2016, 02:42:58 AM

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

No. A tone poem without a title or program is like a bike without wheels.

Quote
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.

And how are you able to tell the difference?

Quote
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.

May have been qua, may have been la, may have been su, may have been giu...

You do realize this is pure speculation, don't you?

Quote
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?

Ah, I see. So, if Richard Strauss did not explicitly mention anywhere or to anyone that Don Quixote is really about Don Quixote, we have good reasons to believe it is not. (I don't know if he did mention it or not, I just took the first example that came into my mind)

Quote
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.

That would indeed be an interesting exercise but unfortunately it is impossible, at least for me. I cannot unlearn titles like, say, Sheherezade, The Swan of Tuonela or 1812, listen to these works as they had no title and come up with my own program (incidentally, in the last case I'm pretty sure I'd come as close as it gets to the original). One might try the experiment with someone completely unaware of the title, but then good luck in finding the person who both ignores the program and is willing to take the test.

QuoteI highly distrust what many a composer says about their own music

I can see that. My question is: why? Do you have any palpable evidence that many a composer were / are just a bunch of liars?

Quote.
~ Should you or do you want a verbal title or guide to influence or color your perceptions of that piece?

What I want is completely irrelevant in this case. I am presented with a work which the composer has chosen, for whatever reason, to assign a title or program to. I can only judge if he was successful or not in matching the music to the title / program, or viceversa.

Now, I agree that there are titles which cry out loud "tongue in cheek!" or "only a fool would take me literally or pay any attention to me!" but any person with a modicum of discerning powers detects them instantly.

Quote
Isn't that a bit like signing up to be told what to think?

Orfeo already answered that. I can only add that "think" is not exactly how I react to music. "Feel" is more appropriate a term.

When listening to La Mer, do I "feel" the same way I would, or actually did, in the presence of the real sea? If yes, then Debussy was successful, if not, he wasn't. (He was). When listening to the March to the Scaffold, do I "feel" like it's me who is going to be beheaded, or am I frightened or "feel" the terror and fear of the hero? If yes, then Berlioz was successful, if not, he wasn't. (He wasn't.) Etc.

What my feelings would have been if the music had no title, or if they had been exactly the same is again irrelevant. The composer presented his work titled and there is no way to escape that.

Quote
~ 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?

If they felt the need to give it a title or program, then they felt the need to give it a title or program, period. I don't see why I should be ruminating about why and how or about whether it would have been better not to. I listen to it with the title or program in my mind. If they match, fine, if they don't, fine again.

Quote
~ Shouldn't the listener be able to 'supply' their own title or program via their personal reaction to the piece?

The listener is perfectly able and at liberty to do that regardless whether the work has a title / program or not. 

Quote
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,

Well, there you have excellent examples of listeners who supplied their own titles and programs via their personal reactions, a practice you seemed to encourage above. Now you seem to actually object to that. What am I missing?

Quote from: orfeo on January 06, 2016, 04:40:45 AM
I'm about to go to bed, but there's one last thing that I was suddenly reminded of and thought was worth mentioning.

Or one person, really.

Haydn.

Not one of Haydn's "jokes" or "surprises" works without semiotics. Without semiotics, there is nothing inherently amusing about a bassoon loudly blaring at the end of a softening and slowing sequence. There is no reason to laugh when a string quartet goes on a few bars longer than predicted. There is no reason to think there's anything odd about the 16th bar of a theme in a symphony having a chord that is much louder than anything in the preceding 15 bars.

I just can't accept any notion that semiotics is something separate and apart from the music, because to do so would be to imply that Haydn did not intend for any of these things to be funny. That he wasn't attempting to get a kind of reaction from his audience. And I can't recall anyone ever seriously suggesting that any of these effects are accidental.

But that's where this conversation is going. It's heading towards assertions that a loud bassoon note can only express pitch and volume.

Finally, I agree, and strongly for that matter, on something with you, Orfeo. Who'd have thought?  ;D :P :D

Quote from: orfeo on January 06, 2016, 04:40:45 AM
I'm about to go to bed, but there's one last thing that I was suddenly reminded of and thought was worth mentioning.

Or one person, really.

Haydn.

Not one of Haydn's "jokes" or "surprises" works without semiotics. Without semiotics, there is nothing inherently amusing about a bassoon loudly blaring at the end of a softening and slowing sequence. There is no reason to laugh when a string quartet goes on a few bars longer than predicted. There is no reason to think there's anything odd about the 16th bar of a theme in a symphony having a chord that is much louder than anything in the preceding 15 bars.

I just can't accept any notion that semiotics is something separate and apart from the music, because to do so would be to imply that Haydn did not intend for any of these things to be funny. That he wasn't attempting to get a kind of reaction from his audience. And I can't recall anyone ever seriously suggesting that any of these effects are accidental.

Of course there is something based on the semiotic of the era is present, and I think it impossible for any artist to get away from 'the full set.' [Who totally dismissed semiotics, anyway?] But, the likes of Haydn, playing with the general semiotic is only partially accurate, because he would set up his own little world, direct the listener by way of what he wrote, and build up within the piece itself a construct and syntax which set the listener up with those expectations, then he misled the listener and messed with those expectations he had set up, ergo, surprise. Ditto Mozart. Ditto Beethoven. Ditto Stravinsky, all composers who can make you laugh without resorting to the type of buffoonery we hear in music as often used in underscoring cartoons.

Most of the greats had / have this bit of business down cold. It is only partially based in semiotics, for the rest, they make their own semiotic with which the listener gets familiar, and then they pull the animal out of the hat. [If they did not invent their own, the jokes would remain near the same and have gone stale.] Like I said, there is a lot of sham, trickery and deceit, smoke and mirrors, present in many a good piece of classical music.

Quote from: orfeo on January 06, 2016, 04:40:45 AMBut that's where this conversation is going. It's heading towards assertions that a loud bassoon note can only express pitch and volume.

That is pitch, duration and volume, and yes, that is something it can play. There is no 'pouring your emotions out through your instrument,' while via a great command of technique, there is the ability to play it so musically and in any manner and number of ways the composer desires that it will have a strong affect on listeners and evoke some emotion. Players and composers are usually quite concentrated and busy when they play and compose; the romantic notion of their pouring out their soul as they play or compose is just that, a romantic notion.

Musical expression, composing or playing, is technique; without it, you have little hope of composing anything 'expressive' or playing anything 'expressively.'

Quote from: orfeo on January 06, 2016, 04:30:58 AM
Honestly, at this point Rene Magritte is crying into his pipe.

But that pipe is not really a pipe, is it.

Quote from: Monsieur Croche on January 06, 2016, 05:44:20 AM
A bell is a bell is a bell, and until you have repeatedly associated it with something not a bell, it signifies nothing other than a sound produced by a bell.

Except that (1) bells were not born in a social vacuum, or gratuitously and (2) the sound of a bell is posterior to the existence of that bell. Bells were invented precisely because they were needed for a specific function. Their birth and use is inseparable from that function. The reason why bells are associated with pastoral or religious scenes, moods and feelings is not that an individual, or more, first made (arbitrarily) this association and then forced it, by repetition, on all others. On the contrary, the association was there from the start: bells were created precisely for identifying and locating herds, or for calling people to the divine service.

Quote"Hmmm, bird song, must be spring or summer, or..." is only arrived at via the vagaries of an individuals imagination, which because of association of actual bird song, is supplying [and supplanting] the real experience for the facsimile of the real thing.

Well, regardless of any vagaries of imagination, that birds do sing in summer and spring, and that summer and spring are especially propicious for birdsong are two natural facts, and the association between birdsong and summer or spring is a natural one as well. No individual, or group of individuals, no matter how long and hard they tried would have been able to persuade people to associate them if they had not been in association from the beginning.

Quote
I'm afraid that for me, tone poems and other program music is,  within the medium, the greatest conman of all music; it is all sham, trickery, deceit, and a lot of smoke and mirrors.

Fixed. I hope you didn't want to make it sound like a universally valid truth.

QuoteI argue music itself can not 'express' anything,

I took it from another post of yours that you compose music. May I ask what is your purpose in so doing?

Quote from: Monsieur Croche on January 06, 2016, 06:17:33 AM
Musical expression, composing or playing, is technique; without it, you have little hope of composing anything 'expressive' or playing anything 'expressively.'

Technique without expression is blind, expression without technique is lame.  :D

Alfred Cortot was notorious for his flawed technique yet his recordings are monuments of musical expression...