The "Bubbles" experiment - What is contemporary music worth?

61944 Views 2164 Replies 70 Participants Last post by Forster, 1 mo ago

chipia

Discussion Starter · Aug 11, 2021 (Edited)

Hi,

I would like to introduce you to an exciting experiment that I discovered.

It's about the Dutch composer Alexander Comitas. He wanted to test whether the modern atonal art music, which is usually promoted nowadays, can be distinguished from hitting random keys on the piano.

For this purpose he "composed" a piece called "Bubbles" by letting his young children, who had no musical education, play random notes on the keyboard. In the end, the children only divided the notes among the instruments. However, the composer did not tell anyone how the piece was made.

And indeed: Alexander Comitas received a grant of 3000 € for this composition! The jury, which consisted of a composer, a musicologist and a conductor, found the piece to be of high quality and even better than the previous (mostly tonal) compositions by Comitas.

You can take a closer look at the story under the following links:

'Bubbles' and Beyond: An Ongoing Musical Saga (Aristos, March 2013)

And here the composition Bubbles:

What do you think about this? I find the experiment very exciting, as it confirms what I had been thinking for a long time: A lot of modern classical music can hardly be distinguished from random notes.
I have seriously studied the composition methods of modern composers like Boulez, but came to the conclusion: No matter how "structured" these compositions seem on paper, they are irrelevant to the listener, since these structures are simply not audible.

However, instead of criticizing these compositions constructively, advocates of atonal music are often amazed at the "complex" and "innovative" structures of the compositions - even if they do not exist, as the Bubbles experiment shows.

I think that such experiments should be performed more often so that it becomes clear that the avantgarde mentality is causing damage to modern classical music and hindering the development of new music that actually relates to the way humans perceive music.

What do you think?

See less See more

Reactions: 5

1361 - 1380 of 2165 Posts

fbjim

· #1,361 · 4 mo ago

It's fine to not like something, and I think it's fine to think music is bad. Music should be an enjoyable activity and if some music doesn't give you pleasure, and you don't take pleasure in exploring it, there's no shame in that.

What I mostly find depressing is the repeated attempts, culminating in the suggestions of randomized controlled trials (???) to somehow prove that you have correct tastes, and that those who disagree are factually wrong. As if it's not enough to say "I don't like this music", it has to be proven that nobody else should like it either. One shouldn't be this insecure about their preferences.

Reactions: 3

SanAntone

· #1,362 · 4 mo ago

mmsbls said:
I think this thread might suffer from a lack of discussion on what contemporary music is actually trying to do. I suppose someone might have written a completely random piece of music, but if so, that must be exceptionally rare.

It isn't all that rare, John Cage's career was almost entirely devoted to random procedures to create his work. He would use the I Ching and coin tosses, he would use star charts, tracing around rocks, coffee stans on a piece of manuscript paper - all random tools from which he created his music. John Cage was devoted to the idea of removing himself from the process as much as possible. And yet he is widely considered a major 20th century composer.

He is not alone. Other composers have used randomness in some fashion, some more than others.

For awhile now I have known that many on TC have praised Ferneyhough's String Quartet No. 6, but try as I have, it still sounds like nonsense to me. I wonder if I will find a way to "hear" it such that I'll enjoy it. Maybe, maybe not. But I know that others like it and not because it sounds random or horrible.

It doesn't really matter whether you like the Ferneyhough quartet or not. Your inability to find something in his work doesn't speak to the music, but only to your taste and/or interest in his kind of music.

fbjim

· #1,363 · 4 mo ago

Quite a few minimalist composers also took inspiration from Cage's "randomness" which could be less "pure" randomness and more freedom of interpretation. The prepared piano works depend on how the soloist sets up their instrument, and a lot of process music gives a lot of latitude in ensemble (In C famously does not specify which instruments should be used) or technique.

One Rzewski piece I recently posted in another thread calls for non-musicians on percussion, with the instruction of "if you get lost, stay lost".

Chat Noir

· #1,364 · 4 mo ago

fbjim said:
It's fine to not like something, and I think it's fine to think music is bad. Music should be an enjoyable activity and if some music doesn't give you pleasure, and you don't take pleasure in exploring it, there's no shame in that.

What I mostly find depressing is the repeated attempts, culminating in the suggestions of randomized controlled trials (???) to somehow prove that you have correct tastes, and that those who disagree are factually wrong. As if it's not enough to say "I don't like this music", it has to be proven that nobody else should like it either. One shouldn't be this insecure about their preferences.

Agreed, though the motivation isn't just because the music is disliked, but the view (which you mentioned previously) that all the disliked music is taken to be the sum total of current classical compositional output and thus the true heir of the genre. This is seen as a 'hijacking'. It's no exaggeration to compare this to the same sorts of 'culture decline' arguments put out with regard to nearly all the arts, by people who think something has been 'stolen' from them.

Reactions: 1

Aries

· #1,365 · 4 mo ago

Eva Yojimbo said:
Some people have always thought that, and yet there are always just as many people resisting the change anyway. I have no idea how you get form accelerating cultural change (which is due as much to accelerating technological advancements as anything else) to a dystopic-apocalyptic state. Holy slippery slope, Batman!

The accelerating technological advancements are important. In earlier times technology was bad and people had to compensate this by being very good as humans. With the accelerating technological advancements people can afford to be worse as humans and cultural beings. The technical advance makes cultural decline affordable. But I think this will not work forever. Avant-garde music already sounds much like a dystopia. A sign?

Forster said:
My querying of your use of the term "good" was that you asked whether "randomness" can be as good as the classical music that had been refined over the previous hundreds of years. It seemed to me that since "good" means different things to different people (well-written? morally valuable? uplifting? melodious?) it wasn't a useful word in that particular context. Hence my suggestion of "valid", in the sense that a composition not constructed using the established practices of the past which might sound quite different to our ears is nevertheless just as valid a piece as anything that has gone in bygone centuries.

The fact that you went off on a rant about "silly" seems to me to prove my point.

If your point was that "good" is ambiguous, than you have a point. However this is kinda uninteressting.

SanAntone said:
Well-written (good) or badly written music does not depend on the method a composer uses to create his works. A composer who writes atonal music does not write "bad" music or music that is unworthy of study. If that were the case libraries would not be full of books devoted to atonal music and procedures. Nor would it be taught in music conservatories all over the world.

How can we be sure, that music conservatories can be trusted?

SanAntone said:
This is also true for composers using random procedures. This kind of work has long been an accepted method of composition.

Some kind of reserved randomness could be useful for variety. However the avant-garde randomness seems more like the consequent end point of the disintegration of harmony and rhythm.

Forster

· #1,366 · 4 mo ago

Aries said:
If your point was that "good" is ambiguous, than you have a point. However this is kinda uninteressting.

Yes, but more importantly, that you are deciding for us all what 'good' must be.

Aries said:
avant-garde randomness seems more like the consequent end point of the disintegration of harmony and rhythm.

Music doesn't have a single linear development with "church music" at one end and "the end of culture as we know it" at the other.

Reactions: 2

chipia

Discussion Starter · #1,367 · 4 mo ago

fbjim said:
What I mostly find depressing is the repeated attempts, culminating in the suggestions of randomized controlled trials (???) to somehow prove that you have correct tastes, and that those who disagree are factually wrong.

You misunderstood the purpose of the blinded experiments. It is not about proving that someone has the "correct taste". The aim is to determine whether the perception of structures and emotions in a composition is actually a result of its inherent musical qualities or simply a placebo effect.

Forster

· #1,368 · 4 mo ago

chipia said:
You misunderstood the purpose of the blinded experiments. It is not about proving that someone has the "correct taste". The aim is to determine whether the perception of structures and emotions in a composition is actually a result of its inherent musical qualities or simply a placebo effect.

But since you want proper tests to determine whether a modernist piece is nonsense or not, that is the implication of what you want from "blinded tests".

chipia said:
It doesn't prove that much contemporary music is nonsense, it but it raises the possibility that this is true in at least some cases. But in order to get definitive proof we would have to perform further experiments, specifically experiments that compare highly regarded works with manipulated/randomized versions to check if experienced musicians can tell which one is the original

Chat Noir

· #1,369 · 4 mo ago

Forster said:
Yes, but more importantly, that you are deciding for us all what 'good' must be.

Music doesn't have a single linear development with "church music" at one end and "the end of culture as we know it" at the other.

Is this a general statement or a reply to my post above yours?

I'm not telling anyone what they have to find 'good'. I'm saying that what you might think is 'bad' is your own affair and not a reflection of general taste or indeed quality. You could say to me: 'well then! Your view is your affair and doesn't reflect on general taste or quality.' My answer is: yes.

Reactions: 1

Aries

· #1,370 · 4 mo ago

Forster said:
Yes, but more importantly, that you are deciding for us all what 'good' must be.

Hmm, you could of course say that the results of hundreds of years of refinement of music by classical composers are "bad" instead of "good". However in this case I don't know what basis of conversation we have. I just assume kindly that there is a basis of conversation. And adjusting my statements to people I have no basis of conversation with doesn't make sense, because if there is no basis of conversation, then there should not be a conversation at all.

Forster

· #1,371 · 4 mo ago

Chat Noir said:
Is this a general statement or a reply to my post above yours?

Eh? I'm replying to Aries.

Chat Noir

· #1,372 · 4 mo ago

Forster said:
Eh? I'm replying to Aries.

Oh bugger... I can't see that. I'll get me coat.

Forster

· #1,373 · 4 mo ago

Aries said:
Hmm, you could of course say that the results of hundreds of years of refinement of music by classical composers are "bad" instead of "good". However in this case I don't know what basis of conversation we have. I just assume kindly that there is a basis of conversation. And adjusting my statements to people I have no basis of conversation with doesn't make sense, because if there is no basis of conversation, then there should not be a conversation at all.

We could rewind. What do you mean when you declare that the music of years of refinement is good? What are your criteria for "good"?

DaveM

· #1,374 · 4 mo ago (Edited)

deleted.

Forster

· #1,375 · 4 mo ago (Edited)

.................

DaveM

· #1,376 · 4 mo ago (Edited)

deleted.

Aries

· #1,377 · 4 mo ago

Forster said:
We could rewind. What do you mean when you declare that the music of years of refinement is good? What are your criteria for "good"?

Quite a distopic discussion, don't you think? Well, lets say composers have the intention that listeners like the music, and it works. - Just a rough approach to what "good music" means.

Forster

· #1,378 · 4 mo ago

Aries said:
Quite a distopic discussion, don't you think? Well, lets say composers have the intention that listeners like the music, and it works. - Just a rough approach to what "good music" means.

OK. Fine. So these composers of "randomness"...there will be listeners who like the music, and it works, yes? Just not you?

Reactions: 1

Chat Noir

· #1,379 · 4 mo ago

DaveM said:
Blaming someone for what one is doing is, in my book, known as hypocrisy.

Of which you are a grandmaster.

Forster

· #1,380 · 4 mo ago (Edited)

.................

1361 - 1380 of 2165 Posts