Thread: Hypotheses on why certain people truly enjoy dissonant and/ atonal music

Personally, it is hard for me to accept the idea that some people are incapable of enjoying music that is dissonant or atonal or highly chromatic or with irregular rhythms...

Rather pretentious, don't you think? Others might suggest that it is hard to accept the idea of someone who cannot fully appreciate Mozart.

I don't think it is insurmountable for anybody else to come to a true understanding of this kind of music and derive the kind of passion they do from other music. I can listen to this sort of music and enjoy just as much as I enjoy rock music and tonal classical and jazz music, and that is because I gradually grew to understand the music and what it had to say. I am not without sympathy for those who have difficulty with some of the music. Total serialism and indeterminate and aleatoric music are extremely difficult to really get into. The syntax of that kind of music is extremely complex and difficult to understand, but that doesn't mean it is terrible music, it is just very challenging music.

Some undoubtedly dislike atonal music because they don't understand it... but seriously, it is no more complex or challenging than any number of other works of music. I suspect that there are more than a few who dismiss even trying to come to terms with atonal music because they are put off by this sort of attitude: "If you were willing to put forth the effort... if you weren't afraid of something just because it is intellectually challenging... if you were like me..." The reality is that some fully understand atonal music and still dislike it.

As far as music like that of Stravinsky, Schoenberg, Messiaen, Cage's work from the 40's, and even to an extent composers like Crumb, Varese and Ligeti, I don't have much sympathy for people who can't grasp that music. It may be difficult at first, but there are so many things these composers have in common with more traditionally tonal composers that it doesn't take terribly long for one's listening vocabulary to grow to accept what occurs in their works, and enjoy them.

Contrary to your suggestion, I have little doubt that there are many good... even "great" works of music that you don't like/can't grasp... Ummm... Mozart? Honestly, I appreciate Schoenberg, Crumb, Feldman, Webern, Ligeti, etc... but I don't really love them. I need to be in the right mood for them... otherwise they strike me as nothing more irritating noise.

This is too broad a question, and I could go in five different directions about it and write 3-4 pages, but I'll pick one -- the easiest. Simply, people are different and have different tastes, and the reasons go all over the map. I've already said elsewhere I don't have the patience for really dense music like say, Carter's or Sessions'. But at the other end of the spectrum, I don't have the patience for really slow moving music, like some of Bruckner, or Feldman, or Avro Part. But a good musical friend enjoys both, and I just chalk that up to ways we are different, without trying to analyze it.

Or, to use a different analogy, I have always read widely, but have never been able to get far in most works by Joyce or Faulkner. Doesn't mean I don't like Dostoevsky or Melville or Henry James or Conrad -- just have a block to those and maybe some others, without passing any value judgment on people who like and appreciate both. Who determines what "speaks" to a person, or what a person's taste is.

But to use an art analogy a mentor of mine advanced: If someone recoils emotionally to a certain school of contemporary art ("My child could do that." "I can't get past the automobile bumpers that sculpture is made of." . . .) Perhaps if that person were introduced to a roomful of art in that style, and told that he had to choose one piece to put in his living room and live with for the next year . . . then he would start looking at the pieces in a different way. The supposed childishness, or the materials, would recede into the background and he would start looking at things like form, arrangement, color, etc. and approaching the works as more than the individual things he derided. I'm not saying that's as easy to do with complex music, because it unfolds in time, so requires more effort to unlock the inner form -- but most people can "learn" to appreciate almost anything worthwhile, but for some it requires more effort or patience to do so than for others.

cheers -
george

IMO "love" of dissonant/atonal music may, among certain people, arise from non-musical considerations. In motorcycling, for instance, I see plenty of people who have big bright shiny new motorcycles but don't really ride anywhere -- they're called "zip code riders" since they never get far from home. For them, it isn't really about motorcycling -- it's about being seen as a "motorcyclist" by their neighbors and peers.

Their aims, perhaps like some of the people this thread is about, are exclusiveness and bolstering self-esteem. You can usually tell by the nature of their replies to honest queries or criticism.

Please bear in mind that I'm using a narrow brush here!

Are those habe~neros?

It's absolutely fine not to like it for what it is, everyone has that right, but I feel that a lot of people who think of atonal and extremely dissonant music as "garbage" feel that way because they judge it by the same terms that they would a tonal work by Mozart, Beethoven or Brahms.

It may be a strange analogy to make, but it reminds me of classical music snobs who will boldly say that all pop music is garbage because the majority of it is uninteresting drivel. I don't want to overgeneralize here, but from what I gather, the goal of most pop songwriters is generally to make an enjoyable, memorable short piece that is fun to sing and dance to, not to make a piece that is complex, interesting and emotionally deep.

Of course you're going to think that a pop song is terrible if you judge it on the same terms that you would judge a Mozart or a Beethoven piece, just as most pop music lovers deem a Mozart or a Beethoven piece "*** **** *** ****** ****" when they judge it on the same terms as a pop song.

In other words, it's like saying that sailing yachts are stupid because you can't transport thousands of tons of cargo across the Atlantic on one. Invest in a bloody cargo ship and enjoy your holiday on your sailing yacht. Stop complaining that something is "bad" because it doesn't do something that it was never meant to do.

A work of art is objectively good if it meets the artist's goals, whatever those goals may be. That's how art should ALWAYS be judged. If you dislike those goals, fine, nobody's forcing you to listen.

Originally Posted by Hilltroll72

Are those habe~neros?

Nothing so Carmen-ish. Think of a certain famous Beethoven piano trio...

Originally Posted by StevenOBrien

A work of art is objectively good if it meets the artist's goals, whatever those goals may be. That's how art should ALWAYS be judged. If you dislike those goals, fine, nobody's forcing you to listen.

Maybe I should start trying to write boring pieces of music - then I could probably be an excellent composer!

In my view, the aim is not superfluous to the art - in many cases it is the art.

I made a post somewhere before about the four elements that I believe attracts people to different kinds of music. Those elements are Beauty, Program, Complexity and Melody. Don't worry too much about the names, those are just my labels for them. It was initially just the first three, but Melody is (to me) one element to music that is mysterious enough to have its own appeal.

Beauty: Quite simply, is it pleasant to the ear? Is the instrumentation complimentary? Is it harmonious?
Program: Obviously whether or not the music is trying to convey something in specific.
Complexity: Are there a lot of things going on at once or some greater picture that I need to understand? Is part of the enjoyment understanding how it was constructed?
Melody: Can I hum it?

To me, what kind of music one enjoys depends very much on the importance one places on each of the above. Bach's music is often high in complexity and in beauty, but has no program element to it. Sometimes, like with Liszt's Faust Symphony, the Program element is the key to enjoying the whole thing. If people really like the Program, then shortcomings in other elements are more accepted than if there were no program at all. Debussy's impressionist works often have very little melody that I can hum, but are still high in Beauty and Program. Mozart is high in melody etc etc

To answer the OP, however, I would say that those who like atonal music are capable of placing higher importance on the Complexity aspect and less or no importance on others, though the Program element can still remain very strong. I enjoy serialist (and other atonal) works in the same way as mathematical problems. I like to see how they work and coming to a 'solution' is very satisfying. Non-mathematical or non-scientific people may find something without a melody abhorrent. I find it fascinating.

So far I have really enjoyed that vast majority of the entries in this thread. I particularly enjoyed the observations of crmoorhead, StevenOBrien and GGluek. I really am unable to add very much to what has been said so far. Steven, I really think you are on to something. One can not apply the aesthetics of Mozart to Schoenberg. Although the relationship between Bach and Webern may be closer that some would want to admit.

As far as my own personal reactions to atonal music, I do not know. I believe in Sturgeon's Law: "Ninety percent of everything is crud." There are tonal pieces I like and there are tonal pieces that I dislike. There are atonal pieces that I like and some that I dislike. It appears to me that how a person relates to a work of art really depends on his experiences. Why do I have positive experiences when I listen to Elliott Carter and negative ones when I listen to Xanakis? I do not have the foggiest idea. Maybe I do have flawed ears. Whenever I think I have come up with an answer, I discover it is bogus.

There is one interesting observation that I would like to make. Jerry Goldsmith has only composed a handful of concert works. Two of them are 12-tone pieces: Music for Orchestra and Christo Apollo. What is interesting is that his 12-tone works still sound like Jerry Goldsmith.

I think younger people tend to like it because it's more similar in spirit and sound to rock music.

I think it takes some effort to appreciate post-war serial-derived music, wheras with tonality, it's a knee-jerk reaction; the food smells good and Pavlov's unfortunate dogs begin to salivate. It's as simple as that.

When I hear Corelli or Mozart, I can almost predict what the next event will be. The only way Mozart can be "brilliant" in such a predictable context is when he throws in an extra half-measure, or lands on a halfway "surprising" chord. The whole experience is based on clichés, and how cleverly these are juggled, like a "hidden pea" carnival game for rubes.
Also, this "tonal food" tastes good; it sits on the ears like a sweet bread pudding, with no skill except that of swallowing. You can swallow, can't you?

The further tonality is stretched, the better. Richard Strauss' surprising chord progression in his waltz from the Rosenkavalier Suite is the only appealing thing about an otherwise pedestrian piece. Those particular chords, the brief step outside the bounds of predictability, are the attraction of the piece. Otherwise, Mozart has "been there, done that."

And isn't this the dilemma of tonality? It needed to constantly grow, to step outside itself. Audiences needed this constant change and titillation; they had become too familiar with the same old clichés.

And as composers evolved into the 20th century, they exploited the aspects of tonality which, ironically, contained the seeds of its own demise: increasing chromaticism, the tritone, diminished sevenths, dominant flat-nines, tri-tone substitutions, and more.

That's why I like post-war serial derived music; because tonality had exhausted its possibilities.

img.SchatChamberMusic--640.jpg

I don't like or dislike a piece of music based purely on the harmonies, rhythms, etc. There's an elusive or transcendent quality getting beyond the notes and moving the listener. Maybe this is naive, but that's my theory.

"That's why I like post-war serial derived music; because tonality had exhausted its possibilities."

??? "There are still so many beautiful things to be said in C major." -- Sergei Prokofiev

Originally Posted by Lukecash12

"Love of music has nothing to do with knowledge about it. It has nothing to do with capabilities or understanding."

And who are you to say that? These two statements pretty much toss most musicologists out of the picture as if they don't love music. Love of music can have pretty much everything to do with knowledge and capabilities and understanding. It doesn't have to. You really need to expand your horizons here if you think that is the case.

Well, who cares about musicologist anyway? I've been enjoying music - 'loving' music, even - without their assistance for long enough to know I can do without them. I don't need a physics teacher to explain how a rainbow works - it's just beautiful as it is.

Having said that, I might decide to learn something about how these things work.

Originally Posted by GGluek

Simply, people are different and have different tastes, and the reasons go all over the map. [...] but most people can "learn" to appreciate almost anything worthwhile, but for some it requires more effort or patience to do so than for others.

Assuming no value judgement is attached to the word 'effort', I'd agree. But doesn't this apply to anything unfamiliar? Having spent most of my life listening to pop and rock, my recent efforts to listen to more classical are proving very rewarding, but have still required a commitment on my part to get past the unfamiliarity - and possibly, the in-built receptors that seem to have been sensitised to certain musical forms and expectations and not others.

Originally Posted by millionrainbows

That's why I like post-war serial derived music; because tonality had exhausted its possibilities.

For those of us who have limited classical experience, there's a whole world of tonality out there still to explore!

Originally Posted by KenOC

"There are still so many beautiful things to be said in C major." -- Sergei Prokofiev

Far as I've been able to find, and I haven't looked all that far, this is an unverified quote. (A very similar remark has been attributed to Arnold Schoenberg. "There is still plenty of good music to be written in C Major.")

In any case, let's ask this, how long ago did Prokofiev supposedly say this? Couldn't have been any later than 1953. (1951 for Schoenberg.)

Kodaly's Symphony in C Major is from 1960. Terry Riley's In C is from 1964. I wonder if either could be advanced as proof of C Major's continued durability? I wonder if the suppositious quotes of either Schoenberg or Prokofiev or both can co-exist with Millions' assertion?

Whatever. It's interesting to see what traction this and similar "atonal" threads have gotten out of never getting down to specifics. I'd like to say that crmoorhead's suggestion that atonal music has no melody is absurd, but since I don't know to what he/she is referring when she/he says "atonal," I can't really say anything.

I've heard plenty of music that does not use common practice patterns, and quite a lot of it has melody. Indeed, if you define melody simply as the vertical changes along the horizontal axis (without any qualifiers), then very few things don't have melody. A piece that just repeats the same pitch over and over again. A piece that consists of a single chord. A piece that consists basically of either white or pink noise. That's about it.