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

Hi, everyone.

First, please do not use this topic to bash people who LIKE atonal music and do not use it to bash people who think atonal music sounds like a cat running across a keyboard console!

I just want to get a good, somewhat empirical discussion going as to WHY certain people genuinely enjoy such music and why others will never ever find it attractive. My main motivation is from looking at the comments in certain You Tube videos by modern serial composers and modern atonal composers (Boulez and Carter respectively). Some people love the music and get a real emotional response from it (like myself). But there is just as equal of a camp who thinks that it lack any emotion and is just an academic exercise.

I think both camps are right, because you can only make an opinion from your OWN personal experiences. So a person who genuinely cannot get an emotional response from such music will clearly just view it as a novel academic exercise and I think those folks should not get bashed upon.

This brings me to the topic: WHY do some people like such music? Obviously, the fans must get a strong emotional response from the music and also get strong stimulation from it, or else they wouldn't like it. Music is generally considered "good" if it brings forth novel and strong emotions, good or bad or neutral.

I honestly do not have an answer to the question, so that is why I pose it here to see if anyone has any hypotheses.

I will chime in with my own "atonal timeline" after a few posts are written.

Again, no bashing each other!

Some people don't like it because it sounds too "random" and its too hard for the brain to understand the patterns ,you have to be a musical genius like "Cough" certain user on this forum to truly love it.

I like it but i am not mad about it.

How about the greater or lesser need for pattern finding? Some listeners prefer (or their brains are wired to prefer) shorter patterns with greater repetitions, whether in the melody or the beat; some prefer (or are willing to sustain the concentration required to discern) much longer sequences and fewer repetitions, or none at all.

It's an interesting topic, and I ask myself the same question sometimes. In the OP of this thread you can read some of my experiences about this topic:

Music and the visual arts (read before commenting!).

Originally Posted by etkearne

This brings me to the topic: WHY do some people like such music? Obviously, the fans must get a strong emotional response from the music and also get strong stimulation from it, or else they wouldn't like it. Music is generally considered "good" if it brings forth novel and strong emotions, good or bad or neutral.

I would say that it does not have to be an emotional response. I would suggest that it might also be something more primal. I experience this regularly with atonal (and tonal) music: it triggers a strong response, usually of a disarming and highly captivating nature, but I could not label it with any particular name. I just feel an intense stirring. A rush.

But this rush I would not call an emotion. Emotions are usually quite specific and somewhat easy to link to certain mental concepts we have, like sadness, jubilation, disappointment, anger, relief, mourning, etc. Those primal responses, however, simply cause some kind of diffuse excitement.

Which is strange, because one usually thinks of atonal music as particularly cerebral. However, I think it can also be, even simultaneously, just as primal.

I understand what you (OP) are getting at and I have been grappling with this question for many years.

I think this thread will get bogged down very soon though, in an argument about definitions of dissonance and atonality. There seems to be no consensus about those terms.

Perhaps we should make sure we limit our comments to our own response to music.
For me, I can and do admire some music that would be termed atonal or at least non-harmonic. However I have yet to be deeply moved by any music that does not contain some degree of tonality or harmonic progression be it Monteverdi or Britten.
I am a creature of harmony I suppose. Although I consider rhythm to be the most fundamental component music.

A good question - one that I am actively considering at the moment...

I do not like this sort of music - I will not write this sort of music.

However, I do get some understanding out of it. I agree with the above that it is frequently more primal than common practice music. As to pattern recognition - modern music exploits this more deliberately perhaps than previous sorts, and at a more subconscious level as it appears at least to have less to do with themes at a superficial level than say Mozart. Perhaps I wrong but that is my impression.

However, there is no getting around the fact that to many people it sounds like a random series of noises. Is this because those listeners have not yet learned to speak the language? Personally I think not - some people do enjoy modern music with no initiation. The concepts of consonance and dissonance are, at both a superficial but also a fundamental level, linked to physics. Exactly how that connects to our musical experiences we cannot (yet) explain rigorously but the connection is there, whatever it implies. I don't know enough of these styles of music to be able to take this line of thought any further.

I can't listen to atonal music and that is because I don't understand it (only tried a few times though). I genuinely cannot tell the difference between atonal music and sitting at my piano and randomly playing notes. This is just like some people think abstract paintings can be painted by randomly splashing different colors on canvas. Some can't understand it, and some see an abstract painting and do find its meaning and take pleasure in the process. I love abstract and modern paintings.
I'm pretty sure atonal music is an acquired taste. I will be able to understand it if I listen enough. I'm not sure I want it, though.

Cool responses. Thank you for keeping this civil and on topic. Please continue doing so in order that we can all gain something from this.

The response that struck me most was the one that said "Atonal music strikes at a primal level - bringing forth something different than an emotion but nonetheless powerful". I agree with this. When I have more time, this evening, I will explain my first response to hearing extremely dissonant music about 10 years ago. Perhaps it wasn't emotional as I still cannot think of a particular emotion I would call it. But it was very powerful.

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. I gradually fell in love with various music that used these things in various ways, and 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. 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.

You don't really need to know how the music works in a technical manner. Do you need to know how tonal or modal music works technically, to be able to explain the theory behind it to enjoy it? No, and the same goes for music like this. It just may take a bit of effort on the listener's part, and I would think that somebody who loves music wouldn't feel it a chore to put some effort into their passion once in a while.

Originally Posted by BurningDesire

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.

Why in the world would anyone need sympathy for that?

Originally Posted by etkearne

I just want to get a good, somewhat empirical discussion going as to WHY certain people genuinely enjoy such music and why others will never ever find it attractive.

Well, unless you can be more specific, you will certainly never get an empirical discussion. (Somewhat? Is that like being "sorta pregnant"?)

To what are you referring by "such music" and "it"? You've mentioned Boulez and Carter. That's a start, I guess. But still hopelessly vague. And both men wrote quite a lot of music, different music. And they're very different from each other, too. And they're even more different from a lot of things that have been/that could easily be called "atonal."

Dissonant refers to responses. It's not a quality of the music. How otherwise could intervals we find perfectly consonant today have been heard as dissonant a hundred, two hundred, three hundred years ago? (How otherwise could we find people who enjoy minor seconds and others who excoriate them?)

Atonal, as I've pointed out before, is about as useful for musical discussions as acanine would be for taxonomic discussions. Acanine, even if confined to animals, is hopelessly broad. Some people may mean "insects" by it, some may mean "cats," some may mean all the African land mammals. Even canine covers covers quite a range of different things itself, does it not?

Some people get a kick out of Duke Ellington, some out of Helmut Lachenmann, some out of both. I doubt you'll ever get any closer as to why than you are now. Why do some people favor sweet and some savory? As for the "camp who thinks that it lack[s] any emotion and is just an academic exercise," I'd first of all want to be sure I knew exactly what "it" referred to.

[By the way, you really can't control our bashings, as Sid James has found out. Probably best to not even try. Remain civil yourself, if civility is what you value, and you're in the clear.]

Added: Burning posted as I was typing. I just wanted to say how much I appreciated this remark of his: "I would think that somebody who loves music wouldn't feel it a chore to put some effort into their passion...."

Originally Posted by BurningDesire

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. I gradually fell in love with various music that used these things in various ways, and 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. 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.

You don't really need to know how the music works in a technical manner. Do you need to know how tonal or modal music works technically, to be able to explain the theory behind it to enjoy it? No, and the same goes for music like this. It just may take a bit of effort on the listener's part, and I would think that somebody who loves music wouldn't feel it a chore to put some effort into their passion once in a while.

Without wishing to become argumentative or hostile, I believe you are completely and utterly wrong and that you are making assumptions about other people that are absolutely unjustified. Let me explain.

Love of music has nothing to do with knowledge about it. It has nothing to do with capabilities or understanding.
Serial or atonal or aleatoric or whatever musical 'syntax' you care to mention is most definitely not more complex than the music of the common practice era. It is different yes but in many ways it is much simpler. Take concrete music, take Murail, Grisey, Partch, Varese, take Stockhausen's Kontakte or Penderecki's Threnody- there is nothing particularly complex in a lot of music which might be described as 'difficult' by some.

No, I am coming to the conclusion that different people have a different make up.
You said "I don't have much sympathy for people who can't grasp that music" ( referring to Crumb, Varese, Ligeti etc) Well my friend, I don't think that is an appropriate sentiment as nobody is looking for sympathy. The music is not hard to grasp but that doesn't mean one has to like it.
There are some very very great musicians out there, educated, talented and passionate who just don't enjoy some of the music you do. Please do not make the mistake of assuming some lack of effort or interest on their part.

Originally Posted by Petwhac

Without wishing to become argumentative or hostile, I believe you are completely and utterly wrong and that you are making assumptions about other people that are absolutely unjustified. Let me explain.

Love of music has nothing to do with knowledge about it. It has nothing to do with capabilities or understanding.
Serial or atonal or aleatoric or whatever musical 'syntax' you care to mention is most definitely not more complex than the music of the common practice era. It is different yes but in many ways it is much simpler. Take concrete music, take Murail, Grisey, Partch, Varese, take Stockhausen's Kontakte or Penderecki's Threnody- there is nothing particularly complex in a lot of music which might be described as 'difficult' by some.

No, I am coming to the conclusion that different people have a different make up.
You said "I don't have much sympathy for people who can't grasp that music" ( referring to Crumb, Varese, Ligeti etc) Well my friend, I don't think that is an appropriate sentiment as nobody is looking for sympathy. The music is not hard to grasp but that doesn't mean one has to like it.
There are some very very great musicians out there, educated, talented and passionate who just don't enjoy some of the music you do. Please do not make the mistake of assuming some lack of effort or interest on their part.

"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.

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.

So... replace "has nothing to do with" with 'has no requirement for'. Does that work for you? Does for me.