Audiences hate modern classical music because their brains cannot cope

[Karl Henning]

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

[starrynight]

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.

[Scion7]

I fail to see who ....

Did you mean "how," there?

[(poco) Sforzando]

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?

[Karl Henning]

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.

[The new erato]

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.

[Karl Henning]

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:) 

[Jo498]

  Did you mean "how," there?

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

[Jo498]

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.

[Karl Henning]

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.

[Karl Henning]

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.   

[Mr. Three Putt]

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.

[Karl Henning]

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     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 . . . .

[North Star]

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. 

[jochanaan]

...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.

[Ken B]

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.

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

[kishnevi]

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.

[Mandryka]

The dead artists are the foundation of our culture, and everything builds on top of them. 

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

[Mandryka]

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.

[71 dB]

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

Hah!