This Is Why People Hate Modern Classical Music
More than one new music aficionado brought to my attention an article from the Telegraph regarding the cognitive difficulties presented by contemporary music. If you haven’t read it, please do.
As far as I can tell, the work it describes is a credible piece of social science: David Huron and Ani Patel, two music cognition specialists whose opinions I respect, are called upon to corroborate Philip Ball’s book The Music Instinct, and they give it their respective stamps of approval. However, there are a couple of criticisms I’d like to level at the statements made in this article. For one thing, as Timothy Jones points out, cultural conditioning may account for some of Ball’s findings. Moreover, is Ball’s conclusion really so revolutionary? Of course music with readily perceptible patterns is easier to grok. Crossword puzzles consisting of thematically related clues are, I imagine, easier to complete than the other kind.
I’m perfectly willing to concede that tonal music, with its reliance on conventionalized expectation-forming patterns derived, in not very direct ways, from the harmonic series lends itself more naturally to human apprehension than post-common-practice music. But that’s beside the point of music’s importance as a human endeavor, isn’t it?
Arguments that one type of music or another is the most “natural” don’t carry a whole lot of weight with me. As Schoenberg put it in a letter to Joseph Yasser, if you were to go out into the street and behave “naturally”—tearing off your clothes and shoveling squirrels into your mouth with your hands—people would think you were a lunatic. We do a lot of things that aren’t natural, often with good reason; it’s natural to allow weak children to die, for instance.
I would submit that the natural and the humane are sometimes at odds in music as well: Respecting the intelligence of one’s audience, trying to furnish listening situations that prompt speculation and the consideration of new perspectives, may be unnatural—but it’s exceedingly human.
Happy Birthday!
So tonal music is nakedly shoveling squirrels into your mouth on the street, or killing babies?
I’m confused, and as a somewhat tonal composer, I need to know in order to adjust my behavior at once!
I hope it’s not babies, but those squirrels are pretty cute too.
Perhaps we should just not worry about any of it, and write whatever you believe in and let the chips (and squirrels) fall where they may. People will enjoy what they do, and not what they don’t. Brainwaves are interesting, but at the moment they’re not much more than some jiggly lines. We understand so little of their meaning that trying to apply them to a state OTHER than change is close to meaningless. If you do things like learn a new language, your brainwaves are changed, in a measurable way..but the meaning and repercussions of that change are almost entirely a mystery. I know they have to publish papers and make a splash, but for now perhaps we should just write.
So tonal music is nakedly shoveling squirrels into your mouth on the street, or killing babies?
Not at all – rather, valorizing any music (tonal, spectral, primitivist, etc.) on the basis that it’s most “natural” is problematic, is what I’m saying. I’ve been spending a lot of time lately with Haydn keyboard sonatas, all wholly tonal and very engrossing but none especially “natural,” in any meaningful sense.
Yup, I think you bring up an important point about the natural and humane being two completely different worlds. The rule of nature is survival of the fittest — it’s ruthless, indifferent to our needs and motions, and it largely doesn’t care whether we live or die on this hunk of rock we call the Earth, despite what films like March of the Penguins might tell you. You may occasionally see cooperative behavior in nature, but it’s usually because the two or more groups have something to offer one another, tit-for-tat.
This is, oddly enough, simlar to how capitalism works. If we’ve emulated nature, we’ve definitely done a very good job it, no doubt. Things we value as human beings (or should, anyway), like compassion, charity, altruism — these are all “artifical” concepts that originated from religious teachings of the past. Atheist types like to dog on religion for being “fake” but they usually miss the point that it’s important precisely because it’s supernatural — the real world is just too violent, too chaotic, and too sad for it to serve as a social model for society if you ask me.
Though the article makes the same false correlation between intelligence and modern music that composers have been doing for decades on end now — the community probably likes to think itself as some sort of intellectual elite, but then again so does everyone else and their moms nowadays so that point is largely moot. After hanging out with a lot of intellectuals and scholars, I don’t see any correlation between the two — people seem to do fine even without, so they don’t blink an eye when they see government officials seriously considering abolishing the NEA all together. And we’re all left with fighting over the scraps.
The problem is that a lot of modern music is complicated in the same way my credit card contract is complex — sure, it has a lot of information and all, but it’s (often deliberately) written in an unclear manner in order to get me to buy into something I don’t really need. You could argue that this sort of thing happens anyway and that composers are simply reflecting the world around them, but this discounts the possibility that musicians are capable of providing alternative visions of the future that might be a better place than we are right now. The question is if composers really, I mean, really, know what they are saying when they write a piece of music and present it to the public. I’d take a sincere, naive piece over a complex, disingenuous one anyday.
At this point atonal music just reinforces the status-quo anyway, so it’s not really providing a “challenge” as the article attempts to imply. Transparency is what’s radical right now, but most people aren’t willing to take the vulnerabilities that come with taking that type of approach.
Hayden is a wonderful example, and I’d agree with you 100%. There’s much that isn’t so “natural”, as with much of Bach. Sure, many times lesser minds made rules based upon their work in order to explain it, but still you can hear the most modern things happening inside the work to this day.
I’d suggest also that any thought given to ‘status-quo’ or ‘progress’, or ‘radical’ will lead to an engaging but ultimately intellectual dead end.
Write what you want, while still remembering you’re an artist communicating to others. But don’t sacrifice to either end.
Ohh, that’s just lovely, a science correspondent informing the public that the “modern” music of Schoenberg and Webern (circa 1930s – ’40s) is typical of what still goes on in music today. Just what we need. Maybe I’ll contact The Telegraph and ask them to let me write a guest editorial on my profound musings about heredity versus environment, or orgone accumulators, or some other piece of outdated scientific crap.
But how do I contact a publication locked in a 70-year time warp? Telegram?
This quote from the article interested me:
“We measured the predictability of tone sequences in music by Arnold Schoenberg and Anton Webern and found the successive pitches were less predictable than random tone sequences.
“For listeners, this means that, every time you try to predict what happens next, you fail. The result is an overwhelming feeling of confusion, and the constant failures to anticipate what will happen next means that there is no pleasure from accurate prediction.”
I always felt this about these works which we studied in school, those atonal works that followed specially ordered tone rows. Carefully organized structures and patterns would be revealed after close scrutiny of the score, but I maintained that no listener would be able to grasp the underlying unity of the piece. It may be a strongly unified work ON PAPER, but to the listener it sounds like chaos, and then what’s the point?
As for Dr. Timothy Jones, who had this choice quote:
“I would question how much of the familiarity with the music of Mozart and Bach has to do with culturalisation rather than an innate cognitive inability to understand the music of composers like Schoenberg. Certain people can learn to appreciate it.”
Certain people, as in the special people who belong to the elite cadre, and if you’re not one of us then you can fuck off. At least that’s the vibe I get from comments like that. To address the question, though, maybe he’s right, maybe the fact that we’re simply accustomed to tonality leads us to be more likely to follow music where the melody is close to tonal melodies, and where the structure is clearly audible. So, are we as composers trying to re-program the human brain with our complex hidden structures, and if so, why?
Also, as pathetically ignorant and culturally illiterate as the Telegraph article is, the rejoinder that the intricacies of classical sonata form are hardly “natural” doesn’t seem pertinent. Obviously what the article obliquely tries to say without the proper terminology is that tonality is more conducive to structural intelligibility than atonality, or specifically than the 12-tone system. This is certainly more true or less true depending on compositional context, but it is difficult to deny as a gross generality. Fred Lerdahl has written about cognitive constraints on music, to the effect that our brains aren’t set up for perceiving permutational identities; Ben Johnston has written a lot about ratio organization being more clearly intelligible than ordinal and interval organization. In short, without falling for the simplistic “tonality = natural” and “natural = good” platitudes that the Telegraph seems to think pass for intellectual discourse, the article’s feebly-stated points are roughly paralleled by some legitimate and more nuanced arguments made by distinguished and experienced composers and theorists.
And Ryan, the crescendo of your last two paragraphs to a lovely point was just beautiful.
Any elementary music teacher can tell you that its easier to learn music that has obvious patterns over music that doesn’t. That says nothing about the music at all.
As far as “naturalness” goes I found the use of rock music, and Deep Purple in particular curious because…
I remember when “they,” the experts, said that rock music caused juvenile delinquency. Further, I also remember Deep Purple being mentioned by the Guinness book of records as “the worlds loudest band.”
I suppose going deaf is a small price to pay to for mental clarity.
Phil Fried, A Phil Place No Sonic Prejudice!
Would it be fair to say that one problem is that in the modern world we think the sole raison d’ etre for music is to entertain? So either contemporary classical music entertains or it is severed from modern culture?
I re-discovered classical music after college after being brought up in a milieu where it was prized but where I was convinced it was thoroughly ideological. It was only after rediscovering that 20th and 21st century classical music let me better hear the world that I lived in that I could go back to the giants of the 18th and 19th centuries.
Contemporary classical music in fact gives us a critical ear which is why it has more affinities with electronica (maybe even hip-hop) than, for example, pop or rock, I think…
The best info I have seen on how people perceive music (and therefore appreciate/understand/enjoy it) was in Leonard B. Meyer’s “Emotion and Meaning in Music.” Check it out.
So, are we as composers trying to re-program the human brain with our complex hidden structures, and if so, why?
Mind control comes to mind. That last statement might sound ridiculous on the surface but the emergence of psychoacoustics correlates directly with the timeline when the CIA was experimenting with mind control techniques (programs such as MK-ULTRA) using psychoactive drugs and psychological experiments on test subjects. Some of the “styles” that emerged during that period never had a willing audience at any point in time, but was able to survive artificially through government funding. Where do you think it was coming from? Patronage from benevolent forces? Probably not.
Occasionally I will hear composers say that they’re testing some theory or idea out in their latest work and they are going to “see what happens” to the subjects..er, I mean, audience, when exposed to these types of sounds. The mindset is too eerily similar to lab testing to deny the correlation between the two. The practical result of all this? Riot control. So far psychoacoustics has only really managed to produce varying degrees of annoyance, but that’s good enough to use as a weapon, at least. But this has no possibility of ever becoming a pleasurable experience no matter how much intellectual spin you might put on it, mostly because the process is inherently exploitative.
I’m not really sure if most people who approach music in this way understand how ugly the concert scenario can be since they seem to be unaware of the implications of what they are doing. They will avoid talking about meaning, probably in order to avoid having to confront the fact that their participation in these projects destroys whatever noble intensions they might have had in the beginning. Claiming that they are being “radical” or “revolutionary” on top of the whole thing is like an extra twist in the knife right there. Maybe we need to start introducing ethics courses into music curricula like the business schools are doing now. To me, the reasons why people hate modern music is pretty obvious. In many cases it’s also rational to do so as well.
Some composers I meet seem a little too delighted when people start squirming in their chairs or become really annoyed by what’s being played. “Any reaction is a good one”, they will say. At least in the field of science they have the decency to compensate the participants for their time, but somehow classical musicians still seem to have the hubris to demand the public to willingly subjugate themselves to these types of experiments. We should be paying them to come hear us, if anything.
“As Schoenberg put it in a letter to Joseph Yasser, if you were to go out into the street and behave “naturally”—tearing off your clothes and shoveling squirrels into your mouth with your hands—people would think you were a lunatic. We do a lot of things that aren’t natural, often with good reason; it’s natural to allow weak children to die, for instance.”
So utter animalism is man’s natural state? I don’t think that’s a tenable position. Now I understand that we live in absurdly relativistic times — where man-on-squirrel carnage could easily be a justifiable art exhibit in your local gallery — but I reject the notion that animalism is our natural state. Sociology itself argues differently, showing us that man’s “natural” predisposition is to attempt to organize and understand the world around us.
Following this, many would argue that what is most “natural” is the man is his pursuing of his natural capacity for achievement and nobility. If the previous quote is indicative of Schoenberg’s view of humanity, I believe that he began his artistic “revolution” from a flawed perspective on the human condition. I can’t help but think of Schoenberg’s gloomy self portraits as further indication of his overall pessimism.
If Schoenberg — and his heirs — view man as merely an animal upon which any construct can be justifiably heaped, little wonder that they balk at the notion that certain aesthetic choices may be more “natural” than others. Theirs is a rather fascist aesthetic legacy which has only managed to further alienate modern music from the common audience.
Schoenberg said a lot of outrageous things. More than most composers, but certainly not enough to get into the book of World Records. If we spend all our Schoenberg-related energies parsing his silliest quotes in order to discredit him as an artist, then we are wasting our time.
[M]any would argue that what is most “natural” is the man is his pursuing of his natural capacity for achievement and nobility.
Based on what evidence, for crying out loud? The twentieth century? Definitely not.
addendum
I am heartened to see that people still read Leonard B. Meyer’s book from the 1950′s. But, uh, it’s not “the best information on how people perceive music.” It has no information about how people actually perceive music. It is pure speculation in that regard. To me, the book reads like an elegantly argued, very compelling treatise on how Leonard B. Meyer listened to music. Those who identify with his experiences will see the book as good information. Now, over half a century later, there’s a large body of scholarship on music perception that is much more even-handed, I think.
Based on what evidence, for crying out loud? The twentieth century? Definitely not.
Definitely not is right. In fact, the reason Schoenberg “and his heirs” started writing dissonant music to begin with was in order to criticize that type of head-strong mindset that lead Europe into two World Wars. Feelings of “achievement and nobility” might sound nice on the surface but if you look at history it clearly shows that these sentiments were largely used as a way to inspire nationalistic fervor in its audience. The Japanese were guilty of this too — which is why many of the post-WW2 composers of that country turned to modernism in order to try to get away from the mistakes of the past. Even though I’m very critical of it at this point, modernism was a very important development in classical music and shouldn’t be discounted.
I do agree that these types of musics can be excessively pessimistic though, which is why I’ve spent the last few years looking for something different. I understand where composers are coming from, but I think the bleakness of the aesthetic has a tendency to turn into a self-fulfilling prophecy, destroying even the things that might be worth keeping. There must be some things worth being optimistic about, despite all the problems out there? There’s enough sadness out there in the world, really — people go to concerts with the expectation that it will provide something different. If we can provide such a thing, I do think that our relationship with the public will improve tremendously.
I don’t believe in writing whatever and letting the “chips fall where they may”, because that, to me, seems a little complacent. Most of us here have made the decision to study music seriously as a profession, so think it’s reasonable to expect our aesthetic decisions to be a relatively conscious one. If not, Hollywood will overrun the rest of us because most of them actually know exactly what they are doing. The only thing is, their efforts are almost exclusively geared toward making money.
Well as a Serial Composer nothing brightens my day like the fresh natural taste of squirrel.
My Fav’s
Phil Fried, relatively happy since 1988!
Phil’s not very Vegan Page
In fact, the reason Schoenberg “and his heirs” started writing dissonant music to begin with was in order to criticize that type of head-strong mindset that lead Europe into two World Wars.
#&$*%@ really? Where are you getting that? From another Schoenberg quote? He may have been a Jew and seen which way the wind was blowing in the 1930′s, but he was just as invested in the social hierarchy of his time as the next guy.
I also don’t accept that modern music is uniformly intended to be bleak. There’s a difference between being critical of society and being merely pessimistic about where it’s headed.
Dear Phil,
I feel really silly, because I visited your website (for the first time) thinking that perhaps you were hinting that you, like me, eat squirrel. However, it was an interesting site that I’ll be visiting again, but alas not in hopes of the family Fried’s ancient squirrel recipes. (if anyone wants Nels Gustav Pettersson’s squirrel recipe, I’ll gladly give it. I still shoot squirrels with his 1907 Remington bolt-action .22)
I pretty much fed myself on squirrel in Indiana from August -Oct 15 (first day of deer bow season) in 2006 and 2007. I don’t know what that means about me as a composer and I don’t really care.
I find it interesting how much of this site’s “chatter” seems to revolve around whether or not music should be political (or at least purposefully so), ideas of the importance of audience perception, or both. Hard for us to get away from these arguments. Probably are significant philosophical divides between many people here. That’s OK.
I just had a spring chamber opera premiere here in Sweden cancelled because a singer(s) found the piece too controversial (don’t worry, we’re getting it done with another group in the fall). It was a great learning experience in myriad ways. It was shocking; I view myself as “safe,” and seemed to be the last to get the memo that I’m a “controversial” composer.
My trite point in all of this, is that I have to just do what I do, “natural” and “aesthetics” and “atonal v. tonal” (what a useless dichotomy) be damned (I do care, however, about being “human”, whatever that means) So I’ll keep eating squirrels and writing chamber operas as I see fit. Please feel free to disagree violently or request squirrel recipes. Or both.
#&$*%@ really? Where are you getting that? From another Schoenberg quote? He may have been a Jew and seen which way the wind was blowing in the 1930′s, but he was just as invested in the social hierarchy of his time as the next guy.
From Adorno, who had championed Schoenberg until the very end. If you read the philospher’s writings about music, it is fairly clear that he believes that music can serve a “critical purpose”, much in the same way words can. 12-tone music can be seen as a type of Marxist criticism against the status quo of traditional tonality — I think operas like Berg’s Wozzeck makes this type of connection undeniably clear. Like most types of Marxist ideologies, though, irony is inherent in the process since its audience are mostly of the upper-class…so it has a tendency to contradict itself on so many levels. I notice that most Americans are unable or unwilling to make this type of connection even though it seems pretty obvious — I’m guessing it has something to do with Cold War politics since it’s relatively socially unacceptable to talk about the subject in most places in the States.
But lets face it — from an emotional standpoint atonality came out of bitterness and resentment against one thing or another. Schoenberg’s 2nd string quartet, for example, is often referenced as the “beginning” of atonality, where he just shucked the idea of keys out the window and started composing by intervals. Read the text…not exactly something that you’d listen to to brighten up your day. It was written while his wife was cheating on him, by the way.
Going back further, Schoenberg owes a lot of his ideas from Wagner, who was practically revered as a god during his own life time, yet was chronically depressed. Atonality currently may no longer have the type of rage that it had in the past, but lets not pretend that it has had its roots in optimism or hope — it’s inherently pessimistic and continues to perpetuate that type of aesthetic. Not that pessimism is in itself is a bad thing, but it can be damaging when it becomes self-fulfilling. That’s all I’m saying here…composers have a tendency to cross that line too often without being aware of it.
…by Richard Grey. I’m reminded of this study:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/1405449.stm
Why no coverage of SXSW this year? Literally thousands of chamber ensembles playing almost exclusively contemporary music, with representatives from every deep corner of the industry in attendance.
I can’t imaging a small niche winery expecting to engage with the ‘current scene’ would miss a similar event in their industry.
Lisa X,
Were you at SXSW? If so, we’d be delighted to publish a report from you!
Thanks,
FJO