Audiences hate modern classical music because their brains cannot cope

[Elgarian]

It's all about winning.

There is an element of that often in these discussions, and it's true that it's best to try to avoid that particular 'winning' motivation, but as I said in one (several?) of my posts above there's another issue at work here, which is not so much about being right or wrong, but more about things like the frustration of not being properly understood, or of seeing one's treasures being trashed, or of being condescended to (sometimes the manner of what's being said can be significantly more riot-inciting than the content).

I don't see what's wrong or derisable or intellectually invalid about accepting musical expression as a kind of metaphor. We express things in terms of other things all the time. I was thinking about the closing minutes of Sibelius 5, which we were discussing somewhere else a few days ago, and whilst it's true that listening to the musical turmoil and resolution that goes on in those few minutes is a complete activity in itself, it can, without any absurdity, be regarded as a symbol or metaphor for other kinds of turmoil and resolution that occur in life, and in general we value that type of activity as a helpful mode of expression and communication. One accepts the metaphoric or symbolic extension, or not, according to temperament. Issues of right and wrong don't come into it, really - so when we behave as if they do, we know we've lost the plot.

[Florestan]

I don't see what's wrong or derisable or intellectually invalid about accepting musical expression as a kind of metaphor. We express things in terms of other things all the time. I was thinking about the closing minutes of Sibelius 5, which we were discussing somewhere else a few days ago, and whilst it's true that listening to the musical turmoil and resolution that goes on in those few minutes is certainly a complete activity in itself, it can, without any absurdity, be regarded as a symbol or metaphor for other kinds of turmoil and resolution that occur in life, and in general we value that type of activity as a helpful mode of expression and communication. One accepts the metaphoric or symbolic extension, or not, according to temperament. Issues of right and wrong don't come into it, really - so when we behave as if they do, we know we've lost the plot.

Or let´s take Schumann´s Kreisleriana. If one experiences it as "just the music on its own", without any awareness of, or interest in, its extramusical inspiration and connotations, one often ends in bafflement: what´s the point of all this hodgepodge? what is the logic which binds together all those disparate elements or is there any logic at all? why did he group them in that order and not in any other of the many permutations available? why Kreisleriana and not just Suite for piano? and who the heck is this Kreisler guy, anyway?.

Now, there are two possible ways out of this (legitimate) bewilderment.

1. Simply leave it at that. It´s not one´s cup of tea and one is not going to give it much further attention.

2. Schumann was a cultivated man with a strong penchant for literature. He must have something in mind when composing it and there must be more to it than a seemingly disparate collection of pieces arranged in an apparently meaningless order. If one wants to discover Kreisleriana´s true message, one must embark upon studying its extramusical context.

While the first route is perfectly understandavle and reasonable, it is the second which is the most intellectually and artistically rewarding and the effort pays huge dividends. In the process, one discovers the fascinating and multifaceted personality and writings of E. T. A. Hoffmann (author of the first detective story in literature, featuring a female detective no less); his surprisingly modern, delightfully fanciful and compellingly thought-provoking novel The Life and Opinions of the Tomcat Murr ; the uncannily similarities between the imaginary Kapellmeister Kreisler and Schumann himself; one has the revelation of the stringent logic knitting together in admirable coherence the pieces of which Kreisleriana is made up, and the way it wonderfully reflects, as in a mirror game, a novel inspired by the life of an imaginary musician which in its turn inspires a real musician to compose a work about his literary counterpart; and if one digs further and deeper in Hoffmann´s world and work, one finds new and illuminating ways of looking at, and listening to, other musical works, such as The Nutcracker, Coppelia and Les contes d´Hoffmann, or his hugely influential essay The Instrumental Music of Beethoven (in which he makes points strikingly similar to those of Monsieur Croche --- go figure!) --- in short, one´s literary and musical horizon expands considerably and one´s being emerges enriched.

Now, there are people out there who will actually have neither of those ways, but follow a third.

If Kreisleriana does not stand on its own, as pure music in itself, then there´s no point in it and no logic and there cannot possibly be, because music is its own justification. Trying to find meaning and coherence in it is a waste of time: there is none at all.  At best it is bad music, at worst it is nothing more than sham and trickery.

To which one can reply, paraphrasing Antoine de Saint-Exupery: It is only with the heart that one can hear rightly; what is essential is inaudible to the ear.  

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

I'm a fan of Kreisleriana and I don't know the extramusical associations of the work. I don't need to in order to enjoy it in my own way. Once I know something like that, I could feel that I associate the music with something determined by others and not my own imagination, like my imagination is suddenly being 'used.' My interest in the pure music as a composition (I study a lot of music for the sake of learning more about technique in composition!) has a chance of being lost....

On the other hand, something like learning about the extramusical side of a composition ends up being as interesting to me as trivial knowledge and doesn't affect my enjoyment of a piece of music at all. It just depends.

[some guy]

ComposerOfAvantGarde's post appeared before I was done with the following, and I'm afraid it's not much more than a lengthy gloss on that post. Oh well. I've already written it, and pressing "Post" takes practically no effort at all, so...

Or let´s take Schumann´s Kreisleriana. If one experiences it as "just the music on its own", without any awareness of, or interest in, its extramusical inspiration and connotations, one often ends in bafflement: what´s the point of all this hodgepodge? what is the logic which binds together all those disparate elements or is there any logic at all? why did he group them in that order and not in any other of the many permutations available? why Kreisleriana and not just Suite for piano? and who the heck is this Kreisler guy, anyway?.

Now, there are two possible ways out of this (legitimate) bewilderment.

One, as I have said many times before, once on this very thread as ever it is, I would never put "just" in front of "the music." For you to keep putting it that way is to continue to present a false image of my position on this matter. Why do you keep doing that? I have a position on this matter. I have articulated it. Whenever you refer to it, either specifically by citing one of my posts or generally by posting on this thread, you present a capsule, distorted version of the position you oppose. That is, you never actually oppose the position, at least not the one I have articulated, but a simulacrum that presents something other than the position. Can't you deal with the position itself, as articulated, or can you only deal with it by presenting another "it," one over which you have complete control and which you can thus utterly smash and destroy with ease.

Leaving the actual position, need I point out, entirely untouched and unaffected by your ingenious postings.

Two, what about Kreisleriana is in any way baffling? It's a nice piece. There's nothing about it that's particularly bewildering or puzzling. How is it a hodgepodge? Explain yourself. That is, do something more than simply repeat "hodgepodge" with a synonym, "all those disparate elements."

You say that there are two ways out of this legitimate bewilderment. Actually, you say that "there are two possible ways out of this (legitimate) bewilderment," suggesting that there might be some impossible ways, which made me grin. But neither of your ways, possible or not, had anything to do with any experience I have ever had with this charming piece. I've never known any of the backstory, having quite early dispensed with program notes as completely irrelevant to what I was actually hearing when I listened to music. And I never thought "it's not my cup of tea; I'm not going to give it much further attention."

I liked the piece when I first heard it, probably around fifty years ago, and I've enjoyed it many times since then. I never thought of it as a disparate collection of pieces arranged in an apparently meaningless order. It has always made perfect sense to me. (I wonder if we are even hearing the same piece. If you find Kreisleriana baffling, what must you think of Boulez's piano sonata no. 2?) And so I never felt the urge to discover its true message. Why would I? It already made perfect sense.

Which brings us to your third, surprise option, which doesn't look much different from your option number one, but "whatever."

If Kreisleriana does not stand on its own, as pure music in itself, then there´s no point in it and no logic and there cannot possibly be, because music is its own justification. Trying to find meaning and coherence in it is a waste of time: there is none at all.  At best it is bad music, at worst it is nothing more than sham and trickery.

Nope. I don't see anything there that aligns with anything I have ever heard or thought while listening to Kreisleriana.

It has always, for me, been a pleasant piece of music which I enjoy listening to. There's every kind of point to it--every note makes sense as it happens, every phrase, every shift from fast to slow or slow to fast, every loud bit, every soft bit. Perfectly logical, musically. I do agree with one point, though, I have to say, trying to find meaning and coherence in it is a waste of time. It's meaning and its coherence are perfectly plain. No trying is necessary.

And I did find your paraphrase of Antoine de Saint-Exupery to be quite revealing: It is only with the heart that one can hear rightly; what is essential is inaudible to the ear.
[/quote]Yes, that is the thing for you, isn't it? That what's essential to music is inaudible. A strange position and not one I find any sense in. As well say that what's essential to painting is invisible, and for all I know that is what you think.

Well, I don't. I trust my ears and I trust my eyes--and, regardless of your attempts to deny this (you're rather adept at guessing what other people think, yourself, aren't you?), my eyes and my ears are part of an integrated system of mind and memory and intellect. Anyway, I'm going to keep enjoying music, thoroughly. It's fun!

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

It is great to read other people's opinions on this matter, but while there's always going to be arguing a point from both sides, I believe that both parties should take two steps back and catch their breath. As some guy mentioned, and I agree with, is often these kinds of arguments just turn into yelling matches with each side trying to prove how right they are. Personally, I have no need, nor care, to argue with anyone about music. I think the most important thing in a discussion like this is that everyone respects each other's opinions whether they disagree with them or not. You don't have to like another person's opinion, but there's no need in escalating the argument as both party's are more than likely not going to change their mind.

This said, my opinion on the matter is pretty simple: I'm a Romantic at heart even though I sometimes wear Modernist clothing. I like music that has melody, harmony, rhythm, and some kind of structure. Those are the basic foundations for music in my opinion. I think music should express something and I'm not of the opinion that Stravinsky held that music expresses nothing but itself. This couldn't be further from the truth even when a composer is setting texts for an oratorio or cantata as the texts are meant to convey an atmosphere and some kind of meaning and the music that accompanies the texts reacts according to the dramatic narrative that's within those texts. That's just one out of a thousand examples. When you have more abstract forms like a symphony or a concerto --- this becomes a bit harder to decipher, but, still, there's a lyrical quality in the music that pulls you along on a journey. For me, the best music does create these kinds of atmospheres where your following some kind of story. These stories are figments of my imagination in many cases, but that's what great music does to me --- it invites your own personal interpretation. For better or for worse, this is how I feel and, as I mentioned on another thread, there is no right or wrong way to listen to music and everyone should be left to believe what they want. If this helps us get closer to the music, then it can never be a terrible thing.

I love this post because of how personal it sounds, it's all about how you experience music in a very Mirror Image kind of way.

Rereading some of the other posts in this thread, however, I feel as if some members are trying to say that there is a right and wrong way to experience music, and especially that learning about the extramusical/biographical/program elements of a composition is the only way one would be able to come to terms with some pieces. Honestly, these kinds of posts make me less inclined to listen to music altogether. I would rather not be dictated by other people's rules!

But reading about personal experiences with music, no matter if the experience comes from enjoying the music through what it evokes, what it (objectively) is as a composition (like, the more technical composition/theory aspects) or what a member has read about the composer's life to enjoy the music, is all still interesting to me. What I often like to say is that I would read anyone's autobiography no matter who it is or how 'famous/important' they are because I am always fascinated with how different everyone is in the world.

[Elgarian]

in short, one´s literary and musical horizon expands considerably and one´s being emerges enriched.

That's a fine example, and yes this is very much the kind of outcome that appeals to me  ... gosh that sounds ridiculously bland and inadequate, so let me say it with more fervour: chasing this kind of multi-faceted outcome has been a powerful motivator in my approach to the arts for most of my adult life. Of course one has to follow one's nose in this: life is short and art is long, and one can't pursue every avenue.

It reminds me of Elgar's composition of the Enigma Variations. He was perfectly content for them to be accepted as a series of musical variations, and thought the identification of them with friends was more of a private matter than a public one - but if I remember correctly he would play them to Alice and ask 'who does this remind you of?' Even Dora Penny's stutter is given a musical equivalent in her variation. And this sprang not from a wish to bamboozle or flimflam, but from a real affection for, and interest in, the characters of his friends, and in some cases the sharing of a musical jape.

What's relevant here is that Elgar himself clearly didn't mind how the music was listened to. He was aware of, and seems to have accepted, both approaches.

[Florestan]

One, as I have said many times before, once on this very thread as ever it is, I would never put "just" in front of "the music." etc etc etc etc etc etc

You´re dead wrong in thinking that my last post was directed at you. Whenever I feel the need to address you specifically, I do it by quoting your posts, as I am doing right now.

[Florestan]

I'm a fan of Kreisleriana and I don't know the extramusical associations of the work. I don't need to in order to enjoy it in my own way. Once I know something like that, I could feel that I associate the music with something determined by others

The others in this case being precisely the composer. So what you basically say is that you have no interest in what he actually wanted and have no use for his imagination.

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

The others in this case being precisely the composer. So what you basically say is that you have no interest in what he actually wanted and have no use for his imagination.

Ah but I do find what he has to say interesting, even if it isn't relevant for me to enjoy the music itself. What I'm more interested in is idiomatic writing for the piano, uses of key and modulation and counterpoint and so on, which Schumann was very good at and are all things which play a much more important role in my understanding and enjoyment of his piano music.

[Monsieur Croche]

The others in this case being precisely the composer. So what you basically say is that you have no interest in what he actually wanted and have no use for his imagination.

what he actually wanted ended up as a piece of music, a bunch of notes, dinnit?

The composer's musical imagination might have been catalyzed by, say, a favorite walk in a landscape with its curves, and that yielding various views from different perspectives [one person's hypothesis , taken from some letters by the composer, as then thought to be the catalyst for one of Elgar's Enigma Variations, while the composer was not content to name the specifics.]

Other composers may have intended, literally, to make a piece which actually manifests the more literal illustration, while again -- they may not.

Many a composer is well aware that the general audience, including the more devoted, have little knowledge or truck with the specifics of form, and truly, as often or not, those titles which some people think are quite exactly what he actually wanted are given as a helpful guide to the listener who can not, or chooses not to, listen to a piece 'simply as just music.' Composers know that many listeners clamor for this 'more' about a piece other than just the notes, and they will and do, without a hint of condescension, accommodate the audience by supplying such titles to aid the listener along in what otherwise is but a forest of notes.

What all composers actually want first and foremost is to assemble notes to make a piece which they hope people want to listen to. They hope the music satisfies the listener, and I'm sure they also hope the music is somehow taken as 'expressive,' i.e. that it will evoke something in the listener less clinical than a formal Roman numeral analysis of the piece. They're well aware of the evocative quality of music, as well as being hyper aware [most of them] that conveying anything more specific than a bunch of notes is well-nigh impossible without resorting to non-musical media and methods.

I still maintain that just because the composer supplied a title, that is not a shoo-in proof of what the composer actually wanted the listener to hear. Titles, imo, are more a guideline to help the listener find their way through the piece, since the listener is not, not unexpectedly, versed in all that is formal music theory and analysis.

Considering a title as more a composer-given tool or guideline to the lay listener -- a layman's chart to the musical terrain -- is, I think, more the truth of the matter than assuming the label the composer put on the tin proclaims exactly the ingredients of the the cookie in the tin, or the cookie itself and what it actually is.

I don't know why there are reactions which seem to think if this is so that the composer is then some sort of charlatan who has outright lied to his audience... they simply used all the tools, their craft of composition first and then verbal dressing as well, to help ensure their piece is as accessible to their audience as possible.

* A small plaintive footnote: Is not most of this particular subject, music with a title having extra-musical 'meaning,' really near solely about mid-to-late romantic era works and / or those handfuls of works written later that are in a similar vein of 'romantic?'

[Monsieur Croche]

I'm a fan of Kreisleriana and I don't know the extramusical associations of the work.

I don't think you need to know anything at all about Kreisler or know any of his music to fully -- i.e. to the fullest -- enjoy Schumann's Kreisleriana. It baffles me that some seem to think knowing all that is somehow a prerequisite to enjoying the Schumann piece, or that somehow if you enjoy it without knowing anything else about it, that you are 'sorely missing' something of the experience.

[Gurn Blanston]

I don't think you need to know anything at all about Kreisler or know any of his music to fully -- i.e. to the fullest -- enjoy Schumann's Kreisleriana. It baffles me that some seem to think knowing all that is somehow a prerequisite to enjoying the Schumann piece, or that somehow if you enjoy it without knowing anything else about it, that you are 'sorely missing' something of the experience.

In the same vein, I am a huge fan of Mozart, and yet I have listened to Tchaikovsky's orchestral suite 'Mozartiana' as many as 30 times without Mozart even once entering my mind. Odd thing, that...

[Monsieur Croche]

In the same vein, I am a huge fan of Mozart, and yet I have listened to Tchaikovsky's orchestral suite 'Mozartiana' as many as 30 times without Mozart even once entering my mind. Odd thing, that...

Lol. Many is the time I've been listening to a work, hommage or not, which for me too closely reminds me of some other composer, enough that while listening I begin thinking of specific works or composers I end up thinking I would rather listen to other than the music by the composer at hand.

Then we get a composer of enough strengths that while they are 'working with' Kreisler, Mozart, or any other composer or period style, we are not enough reminded of stronger or better music other than their piece, so even if we know their take-off point or reference to another period or style, we happily listen through without anything distracting or detracting from what they've written.

[jochanaan]

Many on this thread speak of "music" as some monolithic thing.  It is more a tapestry of a myriad threads.  Some music is absolute, not needing nor wanting any external reference to enhance our experience of it; some music has a program by design; some is meant to concur with a drama or a film or a worship service or some other thing; and some many have some extramusical reference of a completely different sort.  All is legitimate, and a fulfillment of "the purpose of music," at least, the purpose of that particular music.

So what are we arguing about, again?

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

Many on this thread speak of "music" as some monolithic thing.  It is more a tapestry of a myriad threads.  Some music is absolute, not needing nor wanting any external reference to enhance our experience of it; some music has a program by design; some is meant to concur with a drama or a film or a worship service or some other thing; and some many have some extramusical reference of a completely different sort.  All is legitimate, and a fulfillment of "the purpose of music," at least, the purpose of that particular music.

So what are we arguing about, again?

I agree with this but I think it even goes further, and can ultimately end up being more about how we perceive music based on what associations are given to us by the composer, publisher, biographies, anecdotes and so on. In the end, when it comes down to listening to and discussing music on this forum we really can talk about and enjoy all these different pieces in different ways with or without without following any such notion as 'this piece is program music (for example) therefore it is best to know the program to get the most out of the music,' which seems to be a notion that some here advocate.

[jochanaan]

I agree with this but I think it even goes further, and can ultimately end up being more about how we perceive music based on what associations are given to us by the composer, publisher, biographies, anecdotes and so on. In the end, when it comes down to listening to and discussing music on this forum we really can talk about and enjoy all these different pieces in different ways with or without without following any such notion as 'this piece is program music (for example) therefore it is best to know the program to get the most out of the music,' which seems to be a notion that some here advocate.

No argument here.  It is legitimate not to pay any or much attention to the program if it exists, and still love the music for itself.

[Mirror Image]

I love this post because of how personal it sounds, it's all about how you experience music in a very Mirror Image kind of way.

Rereading some of the other posts in this thread, however, I feel as if some members are trying to say that there is a right and wrong way to experience music, and especially that learning about the extramusical/biographical/program elements of a composition is the only way one would be able to come to terms with some pieces. Honestly, these kinds of posts make me less inclined to listen to music altogether. I would rather not be dictated by other people's rules!

But reading about personal experiences with music, no matter if the experience comes from enjoying the music through what it evokes, what it (objectively) is as a composition (like, the more technical composition/theory aspects) or what a member has read about the composer's life to enjoy the music, is all still interesting to me. What I often like to say is that I would read anyone's autobiography no matter who it is or how 'famous/important' they are because I am always fascinated with how different everyone is in the world.

Thanks, Avant. I think some members are making this matter much more complicated than it actually needs to be and this really shouldn't be happening, but that's the way things go on GMG sometimes and when the going gets wordy and just over-the-top, that's when I bow out, because I'm simply not going to read a 1,000 word essay on why someone thinks this or that way of listening is the only viable way to experience music. Frankly, people can listen to music however they want just don't drag me into it! Haha. Anyway, whatever gets you closer to the music on a personal level is much more important than arguing or trying to make your point heard the loudest. A cliched phrase, but life's just too short for all of that.

[Florestan]

I don't know why there are reactions which seem to think if this is so that the composer is then some sort of charlatan who has outright lied to his audience...

You mean reactions such as the one below, right?

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.

[Elgarian]

I don't know why there are reactions which seem to think if this is so that the composer is then some sort of charlatan who has outright lied to his audience...

I don't recall any instance of anyone putting forward such a notion, except for the chap who said this:

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.

[Elgarian]

Well you've got to laugh! I was so busy trying to find that post about conmen that I didn't stop to see what Florestan had been doing meanwhile.

I'll leave my post there, as part of the fun.