I suspect the answer is many won't be able to differentiate, even some professionals, especially when they are more traditional oriented. But randomness is employed not just randomly. When it's spread across registers, avoiding too much clutter it can make for interesting listening to some. The Bubbles piece was not appropriately spread across, as I hear it, since a kid hammering on a piano would repeat much of the same notes/range, in a way which is unmusical. For the board who approved the piece, I'd say they were incompetent.
The "Bubbles" experiment - What is contemporary music worth?
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?
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?
1501 - 1520 of 2165 Posts
I suspect the same. As for "traditional oriented": I wouldn't include traditionally oriented professors in the blinded experiment, as we are trying to eliminate bias as much as possible.I suspect the answer is many won't be able to differentiate, even some professionals, especially when they are more traditional oriented.
However, the question now is: If nobody is able to tell the difference between a composition and randomness, but the composer actually invented his compositional methods with the very intent of not sounding random, wouldn't that mean that the composer's methods are flawed? I think that would imply, that he has to reconsider the methods to realize his artistic visions more effectively.
...oh please @chipia spare us poor ignorant composers who just fumble around and hope for the best. How about answering my last post. no1,492.
It's interesting that you've chosen to use the word "nobody" here. I think it would be more appropriate to say that "some" people feel this is random in many cases. Going back to the very initial post:If nobody is able to tell the difference between a composition and randomness, but the composer actually invented his compositional methods with the very intent of not sounding random, wouldn't that mean that the composer's methods are flawed?
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.
As I've been consistently saying, I don't think Boulez' structures are inaudible in the way you say they are. To me, some of these structures are clear, and others affect the listener's perception on a more subconscious level. Generalising what a listener will be able to perceive is problematic, as everyone hears in a different way. And sure, to some people these may sound random, but there are others for whom it won't.
Sure, I don't debate that possibly for every single composition in existence there are some people who think that it doesn't sound random. But as I have repeatedly pointed out: We cannot exclude the possibility that this perception is caused by bias/placebo effect unless we conduct blinded experiments that are designed to eliminate bias.And sure, to some people these may sound random, but there are others for whom it won't.
There were more traditional minded composers than Prokofiev which did not use atonality in their music.There is great evidence that atonality was inevitable, since even more traditional minded composers employed it in their music, like Prokofiev, mentioned already, and others.
I'm not sure if we can objectively say that tonal music is necessarily more functional than atonal music. However we can objectively say that avant-garde music is usually much more dissonant than traditional classical music. Just count the accordance of overtones. No level of dissonance is inevitable. It is a choice. The power of dissonance lies to a good extent in the contrast to consonance. By using sharper dissonances you have more of a contrast, that is a good possobility, however I think there is a nonsensical excess of dissonance in avant-garde music. And it is not just about harmony. What about rhythmic patterns and overall structure? I don't see adequate substitutions for the sonata form in avant-garde music.
I feel like we're going around in circles here at this point. Blinded experiments for this kind of thing would inevitably be biased. It's impossible to completely eliminate bias.Sure, I don't debate that possibly for every single composition in existence there are some people who think that it doesn't sound random. But as I have repeatedly pointed out: We cannot exclude the possibility that this perception is caused by bias/placebo effect unless we conduct blinded experiments that are designed to eliminate bias.
As I've said, there's certain parameters that one can say are objectively craftsmanship. These include things like understanding the instruments in an orchestra (balance, playability, idiomatic writing, understanding different instrumental techniques and their limitations, understanding how these instruments sound when they're combined with other instruments, knowing how well different instruments blend, etc.) – this all takes years to properly learn. There's also factors such as counterpoint, voice leading, understanding form and structure, and so many other things. Along with all of this, there's also being able to mentally imagine everything and learning how to grapple with that. Most composers will have their own unique set of strengths and weaknesses.
However, something that is much more difficult to assess is vision and imagination. This is a much more ephemeral dimension, and trying to define it becomes very difficult very quickly.
I did quite clearly lay out some examples of Boulez, where he deliberately uses pitch structures and formal structures in a way that is clearly not random (and the audience would be able to hear how things are moving between instruments, because of how things are orchestrated and how Boulez is guiding the listener's attention in a very specific way) here:
But I have provided examples of this. See my previous posts regarding Boulez' Le Marteau sans Maître, along with his Improvisation sur Mallarmé. See posts #1,272 and #1,260, along with #1,262, as well as my comments following from this.
To paraphrase #1,277, starting with this example of Comitas receiving a grant for Bubbles, and then extrapolating that to Boulez's structures, is logic that does not make sense to me. I do think Boulez's work has structures that affect the perception of the listener, even if this is subconscious. Again, look at my previous comments on Le Marteau and Boulez's other output.
I respect that. I think it's well argued. Except I do think that tonal music is not necessarily more functional than atonal. I hear way more functionality (or maybe just implications) in Schoenberg's Op. 23 than in say pop music (a more obvious case), and Pachelbel's Canon. There can be multiple tonal centres in atonal music, where none are dominant. I think that is not the same as saying there is no tonal centre, and therefore no functional movement.There were more traditional minded composers than Prokofiev which did not use atonality in their music.
I'm not sure if we can objectively say that tonal music is necessarily more functional than atonal music. However we can objectively say that avant-garde music is usually much more dissonant than traditional classical music. Just count the accordance of overtones. No level of dissonance is inevitable. It is a choice. The power of dissonance lies to a good extent in the contrast to consonance. By using sharper dissonances you have more of a contrast, that is a good possobility, however I think there is a nonsensical excess of dissonance in avant-garde music. And it is not just about harmony. What about rhythmic patterns and overall structure? I don't see adequate substitutions for the sonata form in avant-garde music.
I did a bit of research and there are papers suggesting you can have music that is functional but not tonal.
This. There's no such thing as an unbiased listener. All listeners bring all kinds of prior inclinations, contexts, knowledge and experience (including almost complete ignorance) etc etc.It's impossible to completely eliminate bias.
But I have already explained that the experiment would feature professors of composition, people who have advanced knowledge of music and are open to new idioms and not ignorant. What kind of bias would make this experiment invalid to you, and why?This. There's no such thing as an unbiased listener. All listeners bring all kinds of prior inclinations, contexts, knowledge and experience (including almost complete ignorance) etc etc.
Also, blinded experiments are specifically designed to minimize bias and are used for that purpose all the time. Even if a small amount of bias remains, if the same results are replicated in a high number of such experiments (with many different people and thus different biases), then the probability of such a result being caused by bias becomes vanishingly small.
It's simple. No listener is unbiased. Professors of composition bring their particular set of biases just as you and I do.
What bearing would that have on the blinded experiment? Give a more specific example!It's simple. No listener is unbiased. Professors of composition bring their particular set of biases just as you and I do.
Also, I have actually extended my last post.
In the OP and throughout thits thread two assumptions are repeated:
1. That random music exists
2. That listeners cannot tell the difference between a random work and one that is not random.
Re #1 - I don't think there is such a thing as truly random music. The closest thing we have seen are works like 4'33" which are made up of ambient sounds in a concert hall, field recordings of nature. But even in nature there are repeated events: birdsong is patterned according to the species, and wind often has a rhythm, traffic patterns exist during different times of the day, oceans waves have a regularity. And our minds create some kind of order out of the sounds just like we imagine animals in clouds.
But composers cannot write randomly. Improvised music is ordered by the performer even if unconsciously, but most often consciously.
Composers who choose to incorporate randomness in their work do so within boundaries, and with certain controls put in place. A composer can use random procedures to outline the basics of a work: number of performers, time periods for sections, limiting the pitches each performer can play, choice in the order to sections. But even when performers are given choices for performing a score, they will instinctively create some order in the music they play. This is what humans do: create order out of apparent chaos.
Re #2 - Not only is it unimportant whether a listener can tell the difference between a work using randomness many (most?) listeners cannot follow a Bach fugue and catch everything Bach is doing. How many people can recognize the inversion of the fugue subject, especially when it is mixed in with three other voices?
Finally, the OP proposes experiments to remove personal bias and allow listeners to perceive the "inherent properties" in the music. I am not sure what the inherent properties that are alluded to, but I suppose they include the pitches, rhythms, themes, textures, meter, basically the raw materials of music.
It is absurd to suggest that a listener can remove his personal bias while listening. Our personal bias is what determines whether we are enjoying the music or not. What is the alternative? To listen to the music without having any subjective reaction? I don't think that is possible.
Further, a work of music incorporating randomness has those same inherent properties.
So, what exactly is the experiment supposed to uncover and demonstrate?
1. That random music exists
2. That listeners cannot tell the difference between a random work and one that is not random.
Re #1 - I don't think there is such a thing as truly random music. The closest thing we have seen are works like 4'33" which are made up of ambient sounds in a concert hall, field recordings of nature. But even in nature there are repeated events: birdsong is patterned according to the species, and wind often has a rhythm, traffic patterns exist during different times of the day, oceans waves have a regularity. And our minds create some kind of order out of the sounds just like we imagine animals in clouds.
But composers cannot write randomly. Improvised music is ordered by the performer even if unconsciously, but most often consciously.
Composers who choose to incorporate randomness in their work do so within boundaries, and with certain controls put in place. A composer can use random procedures to outline the basics of a work: number of performers, time periods for sections, limiting the pitches each performer can play, choice in the order to sections. But even when performers are given choices for performing a score, they will instinctively create some order in the music they play. This is what humans do: create order out of apparent chaos.
Re #2 - Not only is it unimportant whether a listener can tell the difference between a work using randomness many (most?) listeners cannot follow a Bach fugue and catch everything Bach is doing. How many people can recognize the inversion of the fugue subject, especially when it is mixed in with three other voices?
Finally, the OP proposes experiments to remove personal bias and allow listeners to perceive the "inherent properties" in the music. I am not sure what the inherent properties that are alluded to, but I suppose they include the pitches, rhythms, themes, textures, meter, basically the raw materials of music.
It is absurd to suggest that a listener can remove his personal bias while listening. Our personal bias is what determines whether we are enjoying the music or not. What is the alternative? To listen to the music without having any subjective reaction? I don't think that is possible.
Further, a work of music incorporating randomness has those same inherent properties.
So, what exactly is the experiment supposed to uncover and demonstrate?
It's been asked before, but let me ask again- say I ran an experiment where I played one of the many compositions attempting to pass themselves off as a lost Mozart work. I tell group A that it's a work by an anonymous composer, and group B that it's a lost Mozart masterpiece.
If group B responds much more positively to the work (and given tests on things like audiophile cables, and wine tasting, this is something I'd intuitively expect), what does this say about Mozart? If I was like the OP except with an axe to grind again the classical period, I could suggest that this means Mozart's music is of low quality if most listeners can't distinguish between it and a ripoff, and that the emotional reaction depends on "the name on the label".
Or we could be more sensible and say that blind testing has almost nothing to do with how art is actually experienced and how aesthetics function on a human level.
This is a legitimate thing listeners have to deal with - so much of classical music listening is focused on listening to acknowledged masterpieces, and listening to something unknown or new can be challenging without adjusting one's own expectations and being cognizant of inherent bias.
If group B responds much more positively to the work (and given tests on things like audiophile cables, and wine tasting, this is something I'd intuitively expect), what does this say about Mozart? If I was like the OP except with an axe to grind again the classical period, I could suggest that this means Mozart's music is of low quality if most listeners can't distinguish between it and a ripoff, and that the emotional reaction depends on "the name on the label".
Or we could be more sensible and say that blind testing has almost nothing to do with how art is actually experienced and how aesthetics function on a human level.
This is a legitimate thing listeners have to deal with - so much of classical music listening is focused on listening to acknowledged masterpieces, and listening to something unknown or new can be challenging without adjusting one's own expectations and being cognizant of inherent bias.
Oops, I screwed up on my definitions. Tonal music is necessarily more functional (in the accepted term) than atonal music. But there are ways to produce movement (my preferred term of functionality) outside of tonal music.I'm not sure if we can objectively say that tonal music is necessarily more functional than atonal music.
Your example is not a blind experiment! A blind experiment removes as much information as possible in order to minimize biases (placebo effects, etc...).It's been asked before, but let me ask again- say I ran an experiment where I played one of the many compositions attempting to pass themselves off as a lost Mozart work. I tell group A that it's a work by an anonymous composer, and group B that it's a lost Mozart masterpiece.
If group B responds much more positively to the work (and given tests on things like audiophile cables, and wine tasting, this is something I'd intuitively expect), what does this say about Mozart? If I was like the OP except with an axe to grind again the classical period, I could suggest that this means Mozart's music is of low quality if most listeners can't distinguish between it and a ripoff, and that the emotional reaction depends on "the name on the label".
But your experiment does the opposite: You add the additional information that the piece is by Mozart (whether that's true or not) and thus actually magnifiying biases and explicitely provoking placebo effects.
This is pretty much the opposite of what I am talking about. The only thing this experiment proves is that placebo effects exist, but that is common knowledge anyways, so I don't see the point.
Sorry if I misjudged you, but that was the impression I got from your first post on the subject (with the Ives quote). Though I understand what you mean about sound being the surface, surfaces are often responsible for evoking intuitively whatever depths they contain. One can say the same thing about, say, story and plot when it comes to films and literature; they may be the "surface," but most of the technique and art and craft of those mediums is about making them both as compelling as possible in their own right, but also evoking whatever themes, depth, and nuance is going on underneath and between them. Further, if people don't like that surface most are not going to bother exploring beyond it just too appreciate those depths, the same way nobody is going to bother figuring out what technique goes into creating a dish of food that they don't enjoy eating.I am not "radically" discounting the sound of music, after all that is what we experience first hand. But, the sound of the music is a surface quality. Composers take themes and create cathedrals of sound. The majesty of music, for me, is in the composer's development of often very simple sonic material.
Again we're talking about different things. I'm not against using just intonation and doing so will sound just fine unless someone tries to switch keys without adjusting for it. The intervals are pretty close with equal-temperament anyway and one would probably need a trained ear to hear the difference in isolation. Many electric pianos even present the option for both equal-temperament and just intonation, so there's not even really an issue there unless someone insists on acoustic. What I was referring to was merely that within equal tuning people aim for that precision because, well, that's what the tuning is. If you're using just intonation then things are different, and that's fine too; but in either there will be a level of precision that's desired in terms of hitting the correct notes.When people sing in a choir a cappella, they lapse into just intonation, whereas when singing with accompaniment, especially a piano, they are forced into equal temperament. IMO, equal temperament is not progress. It is a case of technology trumping humanity.
There are a number of composers working in just intonation precisely for this reason: it is more humanly natural. We don't need instruments to make music, we certainly don't need fixed pitch keyboard instruments. String and wind instruments can mimic the human voice's flexibility. But over the last few centuries, the piano has become more and more dominant. Something I do not celebrate.
We are living in an age that coined the idea of "trans-humanism". Artificial Intelligence is part of the zeitgeist. Computer technology has offered the illusion of perfection, which is an illusion. Audio/studio technology has turned music-making into a product of auto-tuners, and seamless digital correction of "flaws" in a performance. Even in classical music different takes are spliced together in an effort to achieve a perfect performance.
We are in danger of losing our humanity if we allow technology to completely overtake our humanity.
This is partly why I am suspicious of so-called scientific analysis of music. I also do not think if offers an accurate methodology of increasing our understanding of music and composing. Science is good at analyzing the properties of sound. It cannot tell us why or how music charms us.
I don't strongly disagree with you about the movement towards "perfection" with studio music, but I also think it's hard to deny that that's what people seem to like; at least for now. It may just be a trendy fad and perhaps people will move back towards enjoying production that presents something closer to a less-than-perfect live sound. There's always been a bit of a push/pull between artists that pushed towards a kind of artificial perfection--even in the age before auto-tune and DAWs you had bands Steely Dan who'd use a billion takes until they got everything sounding pin-point perfect--and those that preferred a sound that was more reflective of how they actually sounded live. I would agree that recently music has gone too far into the "chasing perfection" direction lured by what various technology has made possible and easy. Of course, part of it is practical too as DAWs and auto-tune means much more efficient use of studio time, which otherwise costs a lot of money.
As for scientific analysis of music, any science should be descriptive rather than prescriptive, so as long as it's doing that I think it's valuable. I also don't put the questions of why music charms us outside the realm of science. I already think neuroaesthetics has done more than centuries worth of aesthetic philosophy, most of which is little more than the erection of linguistic edifices for justifying our subjective tastes.
..just thought I'd ask yet again....oh please @chipia spare us poor ignorant composers who just fumble around and hope for the best. How about answering my last post. no1,492.
Your example is not a blind experiment! A blind experiment removes as much information as possible in order to minimize biases (placebo effects, etc...).
But your experiment does the opposite: You add the additional information that the piece is by Mozart (whether that's true or not) and thus actually magnifiying biases and explicitely provoking placebo effects.
I don't understand the point of this experiment in the context of this discussion. It's pretty much the opposite of what I am talking about. The only thing this experiment proves is that placebo effects exist, but that is common knowledge anyways, so I don't see the point.
How many people start out seriously listening to classical music by seeking out the "masters"? Maybe others are different but in my experience most people start out listening to the likes of Bach, Mozart. Beethoven et al and branch out from there. When one listens to these works, unless you've been living under a tree stump, one generally is conscious about the fact that the composition is from an acknowledged master.
The point of the comparison is tbis-if much of our reaction to music comes from factors external to the music itself, is it reasonable to say the music has no value, and it's just a trigger for placebo effects? I think this would be silly, just as I say it would be silly to try to blind test for some sort of inherent musical worth in unknown compositions. That has nothing to do with the actual experience of music.
You really think the anecdote of one guy doing an interview trumps the mountains of scientific studies on this subject? I'd highly recommend picking up Stephen Pinker's The Better Angels of Our Nature and giving it a read. People thinking people were better in the past are just living in an Edenic-fueled fantasy.This old man disagreed:
One factor here is urbanization. One treats others that he knows better than unknown people. In a small village one knows 100% of the people. In a modern big city one knows less than 1% of the people. People are also more different to each other in modern big cities.
Also, the vast majority of murders, rapes, abuse, and violence happen between people who know each other. When violence happens between strangers it's usually because of the poor and dispossessed who become desperate. It's also difficult to compare the crime rate between big cities and small towns because with so few people any small increase/decrease in crime can skew the rate tremendously, which is why most crime is measured per 100k people.
The issue isn't about fighting/not fighting, but about how common that is. Plenty of people are not naturally aggressive and will/would only fight if necessary; and even others who are aggressive often find better outlets for that in a civilized society (sports, video games, etc.) rather than actually fighting with others.People always fight, it is in their nature. Old concepts like the "honourable merchant" and the "word of honour" are less relevant today. "Honor" overall seems like an old school concept today, doesn't it?
I think your take is much too general and broad. Craftmanship has changed, certainly; whether it's gotten better or worse is a really subjective judgment call and even for me would depend on individual examples rather than making some big, sweeping, general announcement. One thing that happens is that when everyone is suddenly able to do something (like how most anyone can make/record music now) one of two things happen: either you get more competition and the best-of-the-best reach the top, or you get a greatly expanded audience that enjoys/appreciates more diversity. I think we're seeing both of those at work now; you still have a handful of people at the peak of any artistic fields, but you also see a lot more people making a living at the arts by finding smaller audiences. Whether this is better or worse than when a few people controlled the music industry is really down to personal taste and there are pros and cons both ways.But the craftsmanship was better in earlier times, because there was less technical help. For example look at the introduction of DAW in film music. The musical craftsmanship in film music has become worse because of the limitations of the DAW. DAW is nonetheless required most of the time, because there are some non-craftsmanship related advantages, like you don't need an orchestra.
I don't think people using smartphones causes brain damage; it's merely that smartphones have replaced dozens of other devices we used to use: phones, watches, calendars, PCs, music/video players, etc. People use their phones for everything so they're really convenient.Yeah all the kids that look all the time at their smartphone. I guess their brain takes heavy damage.
When I read old books or watch old TV from more than 50 years ago, the language is much better and clear. The thoughts and ideas of these people were more clear.
The IQ is in decline:
Source: https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1718793115
I don't know what you mean about the language being "better and clearer" in old films. Are you talking about the writing or the actual dialogue being easier to hear, or both, or neither?
As for IQ being in decline, the Flynn Effect was difficult to explain when it was happening and it's just as difficult to explain why it's reversing. I'd caution against drawing any conclusions when even experts don't really know how to explain it. There are a lot of hypotheses but precious little tests providing evidence for any of them.
1501 - 1520 of 2165 Posts
Classical Music Forum
A forum community dedicated to classical music musicians and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about arrangements, collections, techniques, instruments, styles, reviews, classifieds, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Top Contributors this Month
View All
Seattleoperafan
482 Replies
Art Rock
450 Replies
PHOENIXFIRERAPTOR
357 Replies
Recommended Communities
