Audiences hate modern classical music because their brains cannot cope

[Scarpia]

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.

[Franco]

I don't think anyone would claim that a work by Schoenberg is random. 

Here is the comment I was responding to:

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

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.

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."

[Franco]

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.

[Scarpia]

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. 

[jochanaan]

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.

[Scarpia]

It's meaningless.

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

[Franco]

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.

[Franco]

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.

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.

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.

[Scarpia]

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.

[Franco]

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.

[Scarpia]

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.

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.

[Franco]

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.

[Scarpia]

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. 

[Ten thumbs]

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.

[Scarpia]

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.

[some guy]

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.

[Franco]

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.

[jochanaan]

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.

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.

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

[lisa needs braces]

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.

[some guy]

The 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?