5 things I hate about you

5 things I hate about composers:

1. Believing that the patterns we use in music are completely abstract.

2. Believing that the patterns we use in music are universal.

3. Believing that music theory is a set of rules that restrains creativity.

4. Composing in a style just because it is what all the academics are doing, not because you find it interesting, or you actually like it.

5. Closing yourself off to styles other than classical music.

Response to your hates:

1. I don't think anyone has said the patterns used in music are completely abstract. The composer, after all, creates the patterns to his/her own mental responses - making them, at least not abstract to the composer.

2. Are they universal? I mean, will a 'pattern' I use effect a tribal member in Mali?

3. AGREED!!!

4. I love the style I write in and I love listening to other works that fit this style. My experience in academics has been twofold: I've seen academics push 'tonal' music and academics push 'modernity'. So, really, if this is a dig at any one style - I think it's flawed.

5. TY! Completely Agree 9000%

Response to your hates:

1. I don't think anyone has said the patterns used in music are completely abstract. The composer, after all, creates the patterns to his/her own mental responses - making them, at least not abstract to the composer.

2. Are they universal? I mean, will a 'pattern' I use effect a tribal member in Mali?

3. AGREED!!!

4. I love the style I write in and I love listening to other works that fit this style. My experience in academics has been twofold: I've seen academics push 'tonal' music and academics push 'modernity'. So, really, if this is a dig at any one style - I think it's flawed.

5. TY! Completely Agree 9000%

Response to your response to my hates:

1. The way some people approach music theory, it certinaly seems that way. But the more I study musical cultures from around the globe, the more I see the similarites in scales used, not the diferences. But that is not to say they aren't there.

2. This is a tricky one, and I really would like to do different audio experiments on people living in different cultures to see how they react to music, and see if there are similar emotinal reactions. But I don't think that music is 100% universal. To one person, a country song might be incredibly moving, but to me it is just country music. It's a tricky line to draw, and more than I can properly state my opinions on here. I'm planning on writing a book on it.

4. No, it isn't an attack on "modern" music at all. My point was, if you like that kind of music, or are interested in it, by all means compose in it. But if you don't really like it, or aren't really interested, but just want to be a "cool academic", that isn't a good motive to compose in that style. I suppose the blade cuts both ways in being pressured in composing using more common pratice tonality. I've wrote a few pantonal pieces myself. Although the style kind of gets boring after awhile if you don't throw some more tonal colors in there IMHO. As a rule of thumb, any pure serial piece of music longer than 3-4 mins in a snore-fest for me. Its not that I don't like the dissonance, it just seems monochrome after awhile I suppose.

#2.

Keys, it's not. Anthropological studies have already been done on that topic (though it'd be interesting to build on the research that has been done!) Emotional reactions to music have been found to be totally cultural.

Response to your response to my hates:

1. The way some people approach music theory, it certinaly seems that way. But the more I study musical cultures from around the globe, the more I see the similarites in scales used, not the diferences. But that is not to say they aren't there.

4. No, it isn't an attack on "modern" music at all. My point was, if you like that kind of music, or are interested in it, by all means compose in it. But if you don't really like it, or aren't really interested, but just want to be a "cool academic", that isn't a good motive to compose in that style. I suppose the blade cuts both ways in being pressured in composing using more common pratice tonality. I've wrote a few pantonal pieces myself. Although the style kind of gets boring after awhile if you don't throw some more tonal colors in there IMHO. As a rule of thumb, any pure serial piece of music longer than 3-4 mins in a snore-fest for me. Its not that I don't like the dissonance, it just seems monochrome after awhile I suppose.

1. There are similarities, yes. Anthropologically, those similarities most likely date back to when we, as a species, first tinkered with musical expression in Africa. Aside from the similarities in the scale systems used, I think that there is clear evidence to support that as people migrated to various areas and became isolated from one another, those similarities led to different development/evolutions in the base musical system. Each of these many evolutionary differences evolved, as Peter put it, due to culture. We even see this going on today with the World Culture that is developing. Styles that once were separated are now being synthesized together. And in some areas, long-standing styles are being reinforced in reaction against this synthesis. It's a never-ending story really. I think the only problem, really, is that it's been done before (albeit on a much smaller scale).

4. I think it's interesting you mention the boredom thing, really. I find the works of Mahler, Bruckner, Carl Maria Von Weber, and Bach to be extremely boring works. I'll listen to them only at rare, rare times. I prefer the music of Mozart, Beethoven, Haydn, Schubert, and then the modernists. Once in a while, I'll find myself in the mood for a romantic work - but overall, I tend to avoid it (as it bores me mostly.) So, I think you can clearly see a difference here in our perceptions. I don't find modern music, any of it, to be boring. I find it very exciting and interesting to listen to. I think this really is a good exemplification of our different perceptions of music. If they were universal, then we both should find the same response. Which we don't.

#2.

Keys, it's not. Anthropological studies have already been done on that topic (though it'd be interesting to build on the research that has been done!) Emotional reactions to music have been found to be totally cultural.

Universal Recognition of Three Basic Emotions in Music (Current Biology, 2009)

Demonstrates this isn't that simple.

I WILL make a sticky about this whole thing since people love to just pull stuff out of their asses, and I'm sick of having to explain it EVERY TIME :<!

Universal Recognition of Three Basic Emotions in Music (Current Biology, 2009)

Demonstrates this isn't that simple.

I WILL make a sticky about this whole thing since people love to just pull stuff out of their asses, and I'm sick of having to explain it EVERY TIME :<!

Right.

Like I said, some aspects of it are universal, but some are cultural. Music isn't completley one or the other.

I think it's interesting you mention the boredom thing, really. I find the works of Mahler, Bruckner, Carl Maria Von Weber, and Bach to be extremely boring works. I'll listen to them only at rare, rare times. I prefer the music of Mozart, Beethoven, Haydn, Schubert, and then the modernists. Once in a while, I'll find myself in the mood for a romantic work - but overall, I tend to avoid it (as it bores me mostly.) So, I think you can clearly see a difference here in our perceptions. I don't find modern music, any of it, to be boring. I find it very exciting and interesting to listen to. I think this really is a good exemplification of our different perceptions of music. If they were universal, then we both should find the same response. Which we don't.

Yeah. Oh, and don't get me stsrted on minimalist music... I guess I just can't get into that mindset. :P Maybe I would enjoy it better if there was a minimalisim-light, you know, just slightly less minimal.

I used to find Bach (and generally barouqe music) boring until I listened to his music in well temperament and on a harpsichord. It really makes it pop. Listen to this for example. Not Bach, but you get the point:

I hate Wagner.

Usually a composer will write stuff that is fun to listen to, or fun to play, or both.

Wagner is an exception. Can't listen to it, always hate playing it.

Right.

Like I said, some aspects of it are universal, but some are cultural. Music isn't completley one or the other.

More specifically:

The basic stuff is universal, the complex stuff is context-dependent, hence it requires culture to provide the context.

Some of my favourites:

Just because it's tonal doesn't mean it's boring and old-fashioned.

Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's rubbish.

On the other hand, just because I can't understand it doesn't mean I'm insufficiently intelligent. Maybe your piece is.

The times where there were still rules in music are long past.

Nevertheless, there still are guidelines which you should follow. Ignoring all rules of counterpoint just because your Minuet is "Neo-Baroque" isn't a good excuse.

More specifically:

The basic stuff is universal

Such as?

Such as?

slower tempo = more solemn

faster tempo = more upbeat

lower pitch = mellower

higher pitch = brighter

Tension and release

Consonance and dissonance

Use of a pythagorean system as a basis for music. (The only exceptions involve inharmonic timbres)

slower tempo = more solemn

faster tempo = more upbeat

lower pitch = mellower

higher pitch = brighter

Tension and release

Consonance and dissonance

Use of a pythagorean system as a basis for music. (The only exceptions involve inharmonic timbres)

Actually, no.

It's mostly the overlap with speech (as I've pointed out a billion times before.) Since we all process speech pretty much the same way, those basic reactions are the same. For example, music we consider aggressive fits the same characteristics as someone who is talking aggressively, and so on.

Actually, no.

It's mostly the overlap with speech (as I've pointed out a billion times before.) Since we all process speech pretty much the same way, those basic reactions are the same. For example, music we consider aggressive fits the same characteristics as someone who is talking aggressively, and so on.

Or really, to expound on that; any sound we hear. For example, in a tense moment of a piece, the rythym might remind us of our heartbeat, just as an example.

Footsteps, birds, rain, etc...

But besides that, you have not proven the other things I've said wrong.

In an ideal world everybody has read the article SSC mentions in #30.

In this less ideal world SSC could give us a summary, and do a little more that pointing out who is wrong, but explain it to us, lower creatures

:D

In an ideal world everybody has read the article SSC mentions in #30.

In this less ideal world SSC could give us a summary, and do a little more that pointing out who is wrong, but explain it to us, lower creatures

:D

Hmm? #30? What?

Link please.

post nr 30 of this thread.

http://forum.youngcomposers.com/t30150/5-things-i-hate-about-you/page__view__findpost__p__372315

Though I would not take the leap to say that this demonstrates universal human recognition of emotions in music, considering the fact that:

The sample sizes are rather small;

More cultural groups should have been included;

The study assumes that emotions are universally recognizable;

The study does not consider factors such as age.

Point is, finding a group of people who we can, with reasonable accuracy, say that did NOT have contact with western music enough to rule out cultural factors, is not easy. At all.

And the study is backed up by a bunch of research concerning the reasons why we should expect the result of the study to be what it was, namely, the overlap between language centers and the music centers (as seen in: Overlap of Musical and Linguistic Syntax Processing: Intracranial ERP Evidence (Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci., 2009) for example.) Based on the current research, we should be expecting the results of the paper to be entirely reproducible (which is the reason why it got published in the journal to begin with, this is peer-reviewed literature after all!)

I keep a watch on new papers, and I haven't yet seen any kind of follow up, but there's a lot of reason to think there's not much of a point (yet,) as it serves as good evidence that the language-music overlap is a valid theory.

When I talked to the guys at the Max Planck institute, I asked the culture bias deal, and one of the researchers noted that it was a matter of altering the syntax for processing (context), but that the linguistic functioning cannot be changed culturally. As in, getting yelled at produces the same result across all cultures as we all have the same brain architecture.

You don't understand the scope of the study. Nobody is out there saying this study ALONE proves anything regarding music universals. It's a proof-of-concept first and foremost.

The study proposes only that, since language and music overlap (the paper doesn't do anything with this theory as, as I mentioned, there is plenty of literature available to provide evidence that this is the case) we should be able to trace at the very least, three basic emotions that are general enough that this overlap may take effect and lead into someone extracting "emotional" meaning out of music only through linguistic cognitive mechanisms.

That was it, that's the whole point of the paper. It wasn't about proving that emotions are universal or whatever, it was about seeing if this overlap leads to this result, which it did.

Note, that above random is the margin of error necessary to make the sampling mean anything, how above random isn't so important here as the comparison isn't between cultures exactly, but that despite culture these mechanisms are in effect.

We went over something relating to this in my Psych class this semester. Our teacher showed us pictures of brains that were monitored during different activities (such as talking with a friend, reading, listening, to music, and sleeping.) The brain lit up in the same regions during the talking and listening to music very strongly. These same regions also lit up relatively strong with the reading. She also made the statement that music and language due overlap - and that it was her belief that music, itself, is a form of language. Just thought it was interesting to add... continue.

Please don't think I'm gloating - I'm not - but I find it extremely interesting that the mavens of modernism here are coming off as just a little defensive. There was a time, and not so long ago, when there would have been no need for it, as modernism, avant-garde, whatever you want to call it, was secure in its supremacy, but evidently the paradigm has shifted ever-so-slightly.

instead of A, it's 443hz;

Who the hell uses 443Hz, and more importantly, why? Some artificial brilliance when you can't coax it out at International Pitch? Please. 440Hz has been the standard for a long time now; instruments are built nowadays to conform to this pitch. Why muck it up, forcing people to tighten their mouthpieces, reeds and strings, which only adds tension to the sound? This is one of MY pet peeves.

I've heard of going up to 442hz, but not 443. 0.o

Music goes through phases. Hardly ever does the old triumph over the new.

Please don't think I'm gloating - I'm not - but I find it extremely interesting that the mavens of modernism here are coming off as just a little defensive. There was a time, and not so long ago, when there would have been no need for it, as modernism, avant-garde, whatever you want to call it, was secure in its supremacy, but evidently the paradigm has shifted ever-so-slightly.

I wouldn't really say that the 'mavens of modernism' are being defensive or that the paradigm has changed. It's just annoying that STILL we're even dissing things we hate about other things. We all have pet peeves BUT we all can say that we ALL love creating music. Regardless of whether you're a baroque revivalist, classical enthusiast, neo-romantic, or modernist, we all are composers.

Mr. Woodruff, that's the point I've been trying to make my whole life. :)

Mr. Woodruff, that's the point I've been trying to make my whole life. :)

It's funny though, I posted works on YouTube - mostly modern piano works. I commented on the work of a Gianluca Bersaneti (I think I got that right), cause I felt the work I had listened to could've been done a lot better. He seemed to hide behind embellishments and the counterpoint just wasn't that imaginative. His response was to create a second youtube account and accuse me of having a big ego, voted down all my works, and then claim I had no knowledge of counterpoint, harmony, and orchestration. Mind you, all my works on YouTube were piano works - kind of hard to mess up the orchestration on those. Using the YouTube insight to view how long he viewed my works (under 3 secs each), it was clear to me that his complaint had less to do with the actual quality of my work but instead his view that modern works (As a whole) are inferior to anything else previously. It's this kind of thing that irks me beyond end - especially considering I love all types of music! It's a shame that composers can't appreciate each other without looking at the styles they compose.