Autistic people and music

[lordlance]

I was prompted to make this thread because I read someone listening to a Mahler/Bruckner? work and commenting how it truly felt like a journey of redemption. (Can't remember specifics.) I can't tell if it's my autism but admittedly I've never really had any visuals or sense of "journey" in classical (that also is why I have difficulty seeing how in a real sense these gigantic 80 minute pieces are truly connected -- perhaps bits and bobs of theme from other movements?)

For me, I must confess the idea of (purely instrumental) programmatic music itself seems dubious. Trying to ascribe meaning to the sounds based on what the composer wants you to listen into it... is fine? But doesn't really seem like something that's intrinsically true. What I mean by that is Romeo and Juliet is a romantic tragedy. It cannot be called a farce. Whereas to me, I think reading about programmatic music feels like making yourself read into things. Wanting to believe things is how the Pathetique Symphony can be misconstrued as being some sort of suicide note when Tchaikovsky himself was actually incredibly happy with the piece.

All of this to say that essentially classical music is completely abstract to me and there is no greater meaning and no visual imagery -- just sound (in my head when listening it'll be images of the instruments themselves.) 

The question to other autistic people is if they feel the same way?

[DavidW]

I don't know if your experience is necessarily tied to neurodivergence.

Many people struggle with identifying the elements of programmatic music that sound frankly abstract, and it has been discussed ad nauseam on this forum.

Also, the question of whether music has emotional content baked in has also been discussed before. Frankly, though, I don't agree with your example. Tchaikovsky being happy with the work and its reception doesn't make the work itself happy. When you hear the author of A Little Life talk about her work, she does so with sarcasm, wit, and humor. But I don't think anyone would say that the novel itself wasn't the most miserable, sad affair that they have ever read.

As far as not hearing the narrative structure, that is very common for people to only hear and respond to melody at first. I found that a music appreciation course does wonders to teach about form. And listening to classical era works that are focused so tightly on form will also help.

There is nothing wrong with how you personally engage with music because you are passionate about it, and that is all that matters. However, there is always room to grow, as long as you are open to the idea that not hearing elements that others are sensitive to is something for you to work on and not dismiss as fake.

[lordlance]

I don't know if your experience is necessarily tied to neurodivergence.

Many people struggle with identifying the elements of programmatic music that sound frankly abstract, and it has been discussed ad nauseam on this forum.

Also, the question of whether music has emotional content baked in has also been discussed before. Frankly, though, I don't agree with your example. Tchaikovsky being happy with the work and its reception doesn't make the work itself happy. When you hear the author of A Little Life talk about her work, she does so with sarcasm, wit, and humor. But I don't think anyone would say that the novel itself wasn't the most miserable, sad affair that they have ever read.

As far as not hearing the narrative structure, that is very common for people to only hear and respond to melody at first. I found that a music appreciation course does wonders to teach about form. And listening to classical era works that are focused so tightly on form will also help.

Also are you saying that typically even those who do enjoy all these pieces if they do not have any musical training, they too would experience them as purely abstract instead of having imagery like nature/sea/etc.? That part is what made me associate it with autism possibly.

There is nothing wrong with how you personally engage with music because you are passionate about it, and that is all that matters. However, there is always room to grow, as long as you are open to the idea that not hearing elements that others are sensitive to is something for you to work on and not dismiss as fake.

I wouldn't dismiss it as fake -- just puzzling.

Also the _work_ might be morose but it isn't some sort of musical suicide note. From whatever I read, we don't really know. Tchaikovsky died shortly after the work's premiere.
 

[71 dB]

I was prompted to make this thread because I read someone listening to a Mahler/Bruckner? work and commenting how it truly felt like a journey of redemption. (Can't remember specifics.) I can't tell if it's my autism but admittedly I've never really had any visuals or sense of "journey" in classical (that also is why I have difficulty seeing how in a real sense these gigantic 80 minute pieces are truly connected -- perhaps bits and bobs of theme from other movements?)

For me, I must confess the idea of (purely instrumental) programmatic music itself seems dubious. Trying to ascribe meaning to the sounds based on what the composer wants you to listen into it... is fine? But doesn't really seem like something that's intrinsically true. What I mean by that is Romeo and Juliet is a romantic tragedy. It cannot be called a farce. Whereas to me, I think reading about programmatic music feels like making yourself read into things. Wanting to believe things is how the Pathetique Symphony can be misconstrued as being some sort of suicide note when Tchaikovsky himself was actually incredibly happy with the piece.

All of this to say that essentially classical music is completely abstract to me and there is no greater meaning and no visual imagery -- just sound (in my head when listening it'll be images of the instruments themselves.)

The question to other autistic people is if they feel the same way?

I have self-diagnosed mild high-functioning autism (Asperger's), but I struggle to understand what you actually mean. What kind of visual imagery are we talking about? Elgar's music gives me moods and feelings just as certain pictures could, but the connection to visual imagery is nevertheless vague.

I am not much into Mahler or Bruckner, so I won't comment on those.

[Brian]

The question to other autistic people is if they feel the same way?

This is very interesting and I think it shows the diversity and variety of autistic and neurodivergent experience. I have recently gotten to know a former orchestra musician who is mildly autistic (not noticeable when you first meet them). To them, music constantly conjures up images, but usually not the composers' intended ones. This person thinks in pictures so the music is constantly creating some kind of picture, based on whatever is happening. Since 71 dB asks - the pictures are like scenes from a silent film: chases, clowns, people fighting, sometimes large animals like elephants or small skittering animals like mice.

This musician also has an unusually large direct reaction to the energy of music - e.g., more energetic when hearing early Beethoven, suddenly sleepy if a slow jazz ballad comes on.

Interestingly, as a player they much preferred virtuoso, technically challenging music to play because it was an interesting problem to solve, and excelled at the most difficult passages. But they hated having to play slow melodic solos.

[lordlance]

A side-note... this was also prompted by Liszt's Die Ideale... For the kicks I read the (translated) poem by Schiller and I think it's rather wonderful (despite personally not liking poetry):

Are you leaving me, unfaithful one,
With all your magical fantasies—
All the thoughts that bring joy or sorrow?
Will you fly away forever with them?
Can nothing stop your forward rush,
You golden time of youthful dreams?
No! Eternity's vast ocean
Endlessly swallows your flowing stream.

The bright suns that enchanted my youth
Have set in endless night;
Those blessed ideals are gone now,
That filled my heart with wild joy.
The child of my dreams has died,
My faith in existence is lost;
The godlike hopes I once held
Are now crushed by harsh reality.

Like Pygmalion, full of longing,
Who hugged his own statue
Until the cold marble warmed,
And life flowed through its body,
So I, fired by young passion,
Wrapped my arms around Nature,
Until, pressed to my inspired chest,
She began to breathe and glow too.

Proving my fiery passion,
Though silent, she soon told her story,
Returned every loving kiss I gave,
Read the beats of my heart.
Then every tree and flower seemed alive,
The waterfall sang sweetly,
And even lifeless things in that moment
Shared in heaven's total bliss.

For then a whole world was bursting
From my heart's narrow cage,
Thirsting to exist
In actions, words, shapes, and sounds.
How huge I thought this world
Before its flowers could bloom!
When open, how small it seemed!
That smallness, how mean and cold!

How happy, bold with courage,
The youth first walked life's twisted path—
No worries weakening his strength,
Blessed in his sweet dream visions!
The faintest star in the sky
Seemed reachable for his flight;
His young, eager wings
Soared beyond what mortals see.

Joyfully climbing toward heaven,
Was anything too far for his bright hopes?
The airy guides attending his steps,
How they danced around life's shining chariot!
Soft love was there, bringing rewards,
Fortune with her golden crown,
Fame wearing her starry wreath,
And truth in unmatched majesty.

But while the goal was still ahead,
The unfaithful guides started to wander;
They grew tired of their task,
Then one by one they fell away.
Quick-footed Fortune fled first,
Then wisdom's thirst went unquenched,
While heavy storms of doubt pounded
The path lit by truth's glow.

I saw fame's sacred crown
On the heads of the unworthy;
And oh! How soon love's happy dawn
Vanished when spring was gone!
More silent, more weary,
The desert path I walked became;
Even hope cast only a dim, sad light
On the gloomy road.

Of all that joyful group,
Who stays faithful to the end?
Who will cheer my sadness now,
And walk with me to the grave?
You, Friendship, fairest of guides,
Who gently heals every hurt;
Who shares all life's heavy loads,
You, whom I found early!

And Work, your loving neighbor,
Who calms the heart's rising storms;
Who never tires of her effort,
And builds slowly without destroying;
Who adds just grains of sand
To swell eternal heights,
Yet wipes away minutes, days, years
From time's dreadful count!

'swell eternal heights': Add to timeless greatness.

'contributes to eternity': Builds lasting legacy.

{Wanted to keep this inside a contracted quote block. Can't find the option.}

Perhaps now I shall try to find which lines correspond to what. The problem for me personally is that I know the music rather well - not musicologically, not the exact bar or the exact terminology but the sound or the structure (at least my idea of it) - and I wish I could find analyses which just used timestamps. From what I know that's what Carragan did for the Bruckner Red Book.

[Opus131]

I wouldn't be so quick to ascribe a difficutly in grasping this music on some kind of neurodivergence.

First of all, the idea of programmatic music was controversial even back then and there was a literal war between those who favored programmatic music and those who championed "absolute" music as some people like to call it.   

Second, composers like Bruckner and Mahler are difficult to grasp because they are actually difficult. Bruckner in particular takes a lot of listening to try to understand where exactly he is going most of the time. Part of the reason is that those composers were attempting to wrestle themselves out of the constraints of form so the "journey" being difficult to grasp is a FEATURE of their work.

As for Mahler, he is actually more in the middle. The difficulty with him is that he just threw so much into his symphonies that they have a big learning curve even though the structure is quite logical and not as wayward as some of the others in this style.

I'm not "autistic" but it took me a long time to appreciate programmatic composers (especially Lizt) and my main problem was not so much the difficulty in understanding where exactly they were going but it had more to do with the fact i didn't have a great affinity with an "expression" that was based on some kind of extra-musical narrative rather than some direct personal or individual feeling the composer was attempting to communicate.

Even to this day programmatic music is less interesting to me though eventually i did develop a taste for it.

[Opus131]

BTW, this was my entry to Bruckner:

It's a springly perfomance which for one reason or another managed to finally make Bruckner "click" in my head. Perhaps it might you help you as well you never know.

[lordlance]

BTW, this was my entry to Bruckner:

It's a springly perfomance which for one reason or another managed to finally make Bruckner "click" in my head. Perhaps it might you help you as well you never know.

I have been a Bruckner cultist for several years now. I don't necessarily see adagios as being Transcendental but I know the music at least.

Despite the trials and tribulations of coming to terms with the giant symphonic canvas, I instantly liked 9.II and then 6.I... Much like Tchaikovsky 6.II...

One senses a pattern...

[71 dB]

This is very interesting and I think it shows the diversity and variety of autistic and neurodivergent experience. I have recently gotten to know a former orchestra musician who is mildly autistic (not noticeable when you first meet them).

Is this person a woman or a man? Autistic females are very good at masking their autistic traits.

To them, music constantly conjures up images, but usually not the composers' intended ones. This person thinks in pictures so the music is constantly creating some kind of picture, based on whatever is happening. Since 71 dB asks - the pictures are like scenes from a silent film: chases, clowns, people fighting, sometimes large animals like elephants or small skittering animals like mice.

To me music almost never conjures the type of images you list here. Music makes me "feel" the presence of something: I feel tension and relaxation. I feel structures. Simple music = simple structure. Complex music = complex structure. If I "see" these structures in my mind they are hazy, like large objects in thick fog. I don't see people or animals. It is all inanimate objects or trees. I don't think I need to "see" silent movies in my mind while listening to music. To me, music complements visuals. I like the combination of music and visuals as in how music is used in movies. For me it is not rare to listen to music while watching random stuff on TV without sound. I like the combination of visuals and music, but the visuals must exist on their own. My mind doesn't generate them from the music.

[Brian]

Is this person a woman or a man? Autistic females are very good at masking their autistic traits.

A woman. "Masking" implies an intention maybe - it is also simply harder to detect in women because outward symptoms can be subtler.

[71 dB]

A woman. "Masking" implies an intention maybe - it is also simply harder to detect in women because outward symptoms can be subtler.

Masking for autistic people is not so much an intention, but a way to cope with social situations that are challenging for autistic people. It is a skill that develops because there is a "need/demand" for it allowing autistic people look more like "fitting in" the social interactions created by neurotypicals. Autistic people would rather not mask at all, but that would require a very different world.

[Spotted Horses]

I find this thread to emblematic of everything that is wrong with the current obsession with Autism as a cultural phenomenon. Any reasonable definition of Autism should include the statement that it is a physiological brain disorder (not a constellation of psychological quirks). Autism has been connected to the failure of the brain to prune neural networks during development, to deleterious mutations to genes involved in brain development in the fetus, and to abnormal hormone levels during fetal development. The current "spectrum" which ranges from individuals with mild social awkwardness to people who are profoundly disabled has made the definition of Autism so nebulous that it is meaningless. It has given rise to the myth that there is a epidemic of Autism, when the reality is that the definition of autism has been so dramatically broadened that it can be diagnosed in 1 in 50 in stead of 1 in 10,000. It has led to the popular canard that Autistic people "just process information differently," which is like saying that diabetic people "just process sugar differently." It has led to the phenomena of individuals self-diagnosing Autism as a rationalization of their experience or feeling of social awkwardness. And a person who has Autism, according to any meaningful definition, cannot "mask" their Autism.

[71 dB]

I find this thread to emblematic of everything that is wrong with the current obsession with Autism as a cultural phenomenon.

I don't care about autism as a cultural phenomenon. For me this has been a slow (and mildly shocking) realisation about myself and about finding answer to why my experiences in life are what they are. I wish there was nothing "autistic" about me. This World is for the most part* neurotypicals. It would be convenient to be one.

* Autistic people can succeed in life, some such as Elon Musk even brilliantly, but for most autistic people not being a "normie" is a burden.

Any reasonable definition of Autism should include the statement that it is a physiological brain disorder (not a constellation of psychological quirks). Autism has been connected to the failure of the brain to prune neural networks during development, to deleterious mutations to genes involved in brain development in the fetus, and to abnormal hormone levels during fetal development.

All of this are things people with autism never had any control over.

The current "spectrum" which ranges from individuals with mild social awkwardness to people who are profoundly disabled has made the definition of Autism so nebulous that it is meaningless.

I agree. The spectrum feels ridiculous. People with severe autism and intellectual disabilities are nothing like people with high functioning autism who appear more or less normal thanks to masking.

It has given rise to the myth that there is a epidemic of Autism, when the reality is that the definition of autism has been so dramatically broadened that it can be diagnosed in 1 in 50 in stead of 1 in 10,000.

Yeah, why not broaden the term to include anyone who is "introverted" and have half of all people be autistic?  In my opinion the definition of autism should include severe intellectual disability. People with normal or higher intelligence, but some other autistic traits such as social awkwardness  should be called something else (Asperger's is a fine term imho).

It has led to the popular canard that Autistic people "just process information differently," which is like saying that diabetic people "just process sugar differently." It has led to the phenomena of individuals self-diagnosing Autism as a rationalization of their experience or feeling of social awkwardness. And a person who has Autism, according to any meaningful definition, cannot "mask" their Autism.

Well, people do process information differently. I didn't know/understand this until I got into personality types and autism. This alone explains so much to me. Now I know why many people vote for conmen in elections for example. It is because there people process information differently and can't detect the BS conmen feed to them. Apparently my brain is very good at detecting BS. That's why for me it has been a mystery how so many people - even smart ones - fall for conmen, but not anymore. Now I know why. On the other hand, those same people have strengths on other areas I struggle with. Perhaps they are sporty? Perhaps they are great at social networking? It comes from how people process information.

If autism is not the explanation for social awkwardness then what is? You could propose trauma caused by abuse in childhood, and in some cases that may be the reason, but most people self-diagnosing themselves as autistic didn't suffer abuse in their childhood. I didn't. I had a pretty good childhood, but for some reason I struggle hard in the type of social situations that autistic people struggle with. It is pretty hard to believe autism isn't the explanation, especially when I am not aware of any other serious explanation.

Sure, some people may have self-diagnosed themselves wrongly/too hastingly, but for me this has been a process that has taken many many years and careful thinking. I never wanted to be autistic. I always thought I am just very introverted and weird* and that's it. Turned out the reason why I am like that is high functioning autism.

* While each individual is unique, I noticed at young age in school, that most children/classmates around me seem to be more similar to each other than with me. They were like different shades of green or perhaps yellow while I was purple. To me this was a big mystery. Where were blue, red etc. people? If those existed, I wouldn't have felt so different as a purple person, but since everyone else were green or yellow, I looked quite different compared to others. Later in life I found out that other purple people do exist, but they are so rare that I was the only one in my class. Take 100 or more people and you start to see other purple people and even those blue and red ones! It is just that green and yellow people are "normies", the big majority of us all.

[Florestan]

I find this thread to emblematic of everything that is wrong with the current obsession with Autism as a cultural phenomenon. Any reasonable definition of Autism should include the statement that it is a physiological brain disorder (not a constellation of psychological quirks). Autism has been connected to the failure of the brain to prune neural networks during development, to deleterious mutations to genes involved in brain development in the fetus, and to abnormal hormone levels during fetal development. The current "spectrum" which ranges from individuals with mild social awkwardness to people who are profoundly disabled has made the definition of Autism so nebulous that it is meaningless. It has given rise to the myth that there is a epidemic of Autism, when the reality is that the definition of autism has been so dramatically broadened that it can be diagnosed in 1 in 50 in stead of 1 in 10,000. It has led to the popular canard that Autistic people "just process information differently," which is like saying that diabetic people "just process sugar differently." It has led to the phenomena of individuals self-diagnosing Autism as a rationalization of their experience or feeling of social awkwardness. And a person who has Autism, according to any meaningful definition, cannot "mask" their Autism.

Thread winner.

[Florestan]

high functioning autism.

That's nonsense. I have a friend whose son was professionally diagnosed with autism and besides interacting with his parents in ways which only they can understand, he can't function socially even at low levels, let alone high ones. And it's not like he's intellectually disabled, he reads popular science books and know by heart all the capitals of the world. The whole "autistic spectrum" thing is pure hogwash, just like saying there's a "schizophrenic spectrum". If you are socially functional you're not autistic and vice versa. "Masking" is not something genuinely autistic people are interested in, let alone capable of. They are what they are and can't mask it in any way, not in the least because they probably don't even perceive their condition as abnormal. You most likely confuse "autism" with introversion.

[Spotted Horses]

I will only comment on on Elon Musk's claim that he is Autistic. I have seen nothing indicating that he has been medically diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder. I would not pretend to diagnose Mr. Musk, since I am not a medical professional and do not know him personally. But his public behavior suggests disregard for social norms, laws, and the feelings or wellbeing of others. These traits line up with a antisocial personality disorder rather than with Autism Spectrum Disorder. Such people are often very charming and manipulate others for their personal gain. Autistic people struggle to recognize and project social cues. They don't use insincere social cues to manipulate others.

[Brian]

It has given rise to the myth that there is a epidemic of Autism, when the reality is that the definition of autism has been so dramatically broadened that it can be diagnosed in 1 in 50 in stead of 1 in 10,000.

I'd just like to add here that, as with all disorders affecting the mind, diagnoses are also increasing merely because more people know about them now. In past decades or past centuries, somebody might have been seen merely as weird, antisocial, "nervous," "antic," a "fool," Isaac Newton, etc. whereas today they might be counted among the diagnoses.

The whole "autistic spectrum" thing is pure hogwash, just like saying there's a "schizophrenic spectrum". If you are socially functional you're not autistic and vice versa.

I find that this goes too far. I do agree that "masking" is a poor word for it since "masking" implies an intention to conceal. But I also think that the notion of a spectrum is useful. For example, some people who are fully capable of social function still have some of the sensory elements of the autistic brain (e.g., finding certain fabrics intolerable to wear, feeling overcome by sensory overload at a concert or movie or loud bar). There are many, many, many disorders that present along a spectrum. Schizophrenia can start out fairly slowly before presenting in full on adulthood. Depression comes in different degrees and intensities, anxiety disorders do not always manifest as crippling panic attacks, cancer comes in stages, etc.

[Spotted Horses]

For example, some people who are fully capable of social function still have some of the sensory elements of the autistic brain (e.g., finding certain fabrics intolerable to wear, feeling overcome by sensory overload at a concert or movie or loud bar).

That's Sensory Processing Disorder.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensory_processing_disorder

[JBS]

That's nonsense. I have a friend whose son was professionally diagnosed with autism and besides interacting with his parents in ways which only they can understand, he can't function socially even at low levels, let alone high ones. And it's not like he's intellectually disabled, he reads popular science books and know by heart all the capitals of the world. The whole "autistic spectrum" thing is pure hogwash, just like saying there's a "schizophrenic spectrum". If you are socially functional you're not autistic and vice versa. "Masking" is not something genuinely autistic people are interested in, let alone capable of. They are what they are and can't mask it in any way, not in the least because they probably don't even perceive their condition as abnormal. You most likely confuse "autism" with introversion.

It's far more complicated than that, and your friend's son is a good example. (Can I ask how old he is?) I had to learn social functioning rather like I learned math or history, but complicated by the fact that I needed to do it on my own. And I do mask--meaning I intentionally adopt a number of behaviors that are not natural to me but allow me to pretend I'm normal when I'm around other people--and revert when I'm alone. Being with other people for any extended period of time (say more than five minutes) is a huge stress for me, and it goes a lot deeper than mere introversion. There are also other non social traits, like the inability to visualize, a very literal thinking, and what Spotted Horses referred to as sensory process disorder,involved--my brain has a hard time prioritizing one noise over another, so it's hard to have a conversation in a crowded space because my brain is processing all the conversations and noise around me instead of focusing on the people I'm actually talking to.  That's over and above the basic complications of having a conversation.
These things differ from individual to individual, in differing combinations--that's why it's called a spectrum.