[drarthurwells]

periurban: If Art is saying that his perception of music is one that includes the contemplation of the nature of the complexity of the data, then I have no problem with that. It doesn't matter where the complexity comes from, if he hears it, responds to it, and loves it, then more power to him.


Art: Yes, complexity in terms of ease of perceptual description/prediction to enable modeling/integration in the brain - but this is an unconscious process. I don't listen to or contemplate the complexity of music at a conscious level when I listen. What I hear in awareness, with new music, is a model of what I unconsciously take into my brian, as integrated by percptual intelligence with reference to my conditioned history of music listening. This is a first stage at which I may or may not truly integrate and understand the music's data. If I am listening to the repeated and consistent beat of a single drum, using one hand to beat with, this is very simple music that is easily perceptually integrated. It won't take long for me to truly understand this data. On the other hand, when I hear Boulez's Derive 1 and 2 for the first time, I have a tough time integrating this music and can not later play it in my mind. This is due more to the relative disorder of the music than to the number of simultaneous melodies being played, or the numeber of instruments involved, or changes in melodic trend or directions (producing variety rather than repition) - even though all of these factors contribute to musical complexity. Some of contemporary music, like the Boulez referred to, is almost a random jumble of sounds, even though from just a few instruments, and thus complex. Classical and earlier period music is often very regular, and somewhat repetitive, making it relatively more simple (though far more complex than the single drum beat).

Now repeated listening allows me to understand the Boulez, whereas a single listen is alll that is needed for me to understand the single drum beat. I quickly find the drum beat boring and turn to something else, but the Boulez is a perceptual challenge, like a crossword puzzle, that affords me some perceptual pleasure in solving. After repeated listenings, I finally reach an understanding of the Boulez, and if I were a multi-talented musician I could perhaps play any part of any passage from memory. This may take many listenings and involve humming different parts in listening.

Now, when I fully integrate the music, I must also match the code of musical data (potentially expressed mathematically) with unconscious emotion-motivation, and I also do this unconsciously. This requires creative intelligence. Not necessarily creative expression (artistic) ability but creative understanding ability. When I can do this second act of integration, in reaching creative understanding, then I can derive emotional pleasure. Here the pleasure will vary greatly - some music will be emotionally mundane while other music may explore profound emotion (assuming I fully emotionally understand the music is both cases).

So music is complex at two levels: perceptually and emotionally.

Also, some musical data relies more on peceptual processing than emotional creative processing - is more cognitive than feeling evocative. Prokofiev's "Classical" symphony is less emotionally communicative than his two violin concerti, although the satirical humor of his symphony offers much emotional fulfillment.

We seek music that we are able to perceptually integrate, since this is a pre-requisite to the emotional satisfaction that we can derive from it. We also seek music that evokes emotion (which is sometimes expressed in awareness as feeling, but not always - emotion is unconscious),

Both perceptual and creative processing/understanding have their limits that vary from one person to another. For some, only a single drum beat is within their capability of musical enjoyment. You and I are not so limited since we can enjoy complex music.

Pop music tends to be more simple (from various criteria) than less popular music - exceptions abound but this generalization holds.

 

[periurban]

Dr Art.

Once again, I almost agree with you, but for one thing.

I believe you are confusing complexity with density. Using your criteria for complexity, poly-rhythmically modulated white noise would provide a very complex listening experience, since white noise neccessarily contains all frequencies randomly arrayed.

I understand entirely what you are saying about how music is assimilated, and even that there is s large range of what might be called listening skills and abilities. You've convinced me of that.

But very simple music can provide just as much satisfaction for good listeners, and that is because we bring the complexity to the music. Try listening to Brian Eno's ambient works. Very simple, although harmonically interesting, but stuffed full of subjective complexity.

 

[K271 Guy]

And I thought changing my PS3 hard drive was a little tense. I was thinking of getting an SSD to put in the second slot (I'm sure the 2010 and later models have 2 slots?). Anything I should take into consideration? Is it a stupid idea? Any recommended SSDs? I only need about 30GB to 60GB for the OS+applications.

 

[drarthurwells]

periurban: I believe you are confusing complexity with density. Using your criteria for complexity, poly-rhythmically modulated white noise would provide a very complex listening experience, since white noise neccessarily contains all frequencies randomly arrayed.

Art: No, you are confusing complexity with density. We perceive white noise as a single event - a very simple noise. It takes a machine to analyze its components - our ears and brains perceive it as one encapsulated sound - very simple.

Complexity is not only perception of multiple events in communicative flow, but also of phase juxtapositions and changes in that flow (timing/rhythm changes and irregularities, etc.).

periurban: But very simple music can provide just as much satisfaction for good listeners, and that is because we bring the complexity to the music. Try listening to Brian Eno's ambient works. Very simple, although harmonically interesting, but stuffed full of subjective complexity.

Art: Satie's gymnopedias are very simple, but very emotionally impactful. The pleasure is nearly all emotional rather than cognitive exercise pleasure. Tchiakovsky is emotionally fulfilling but also more complex than Satie, and this greater complexity is a source of cognitive exercise fulfillment that is added to the emotional fulfillment.

Now, a single melody from a single instrument can provide more fulfillment pleasure from interacting melodies of many instruments in complex music. Sure the complex music may offer two sources of pleasure as described above, but this may be less total pleasure than the single sourced pleasure of the single instrument. Eno may be better (more pleasure from greater emotional fulfillment) than a Mahler symphony in spite of being less complex.

 

[drarthurwells]

I think we all have agreed that there is great music in any genre. The question perhaps is what proportion of music in each genre is great, and can we say that there is a greater proportion of music in classical (not period but genre) than in other types. I have suggested that 10% of classical could be considered as worthy. Perhaps only 2% of pop can be so considered. Many genres exist outside of pop - I don't mean to call jazz, or even progressive rock, pop music. Now, that is my evaluation, based on my needs and my intellectual/creative abilities to perceive and enjoy music.

Now what makes music good?

I have answered this question, to some extent, previously in this thread.

We are each moral judges - that decide what is good and bad, based on actual and predicted pleasure and pain. Might makes right always. In the individual it is the might of pleasure over pain, as actualized or predicted, that dictates our judgement of good. It is the consensus of individual opinion that makes for a group morality of what is good.

Pop music is best in terms of political strength. It wins in the market place.

It is not best for me - a member of the intellectual elite in terms of perceptual and creative intelligence.

Should we take a poll of this elite group of those like myself and see what they like in music to decide what is the best music - the aristocratic way?

Or, should we accept the commercial market's decision that pop music is best as defined by what sells best - the democratic way.

Or shoud we ask God what is best, consulting our religious leaders who say they know what God thinks?

 

[K271 Guy]

love it, need get some halo skirmishes going.

 

[periurban]

Dr Art.

Your make good points about density and complexity, and I can accept that for the purposes of the argument we can exclude sonic complexity/density from our considerations.

Can we do the same with harmonic density, assuming that such a phenomenon is transitory in nature?

I suspect what we are really discussing is temporal complexity and relates to the evolution of thematic content, the juxtaposition of melody and counterpoint, the configuration of rhythmic content.

I still find your support of your favoured genre to be very badly argued. It seems to me to be encapsulated thus -

"I am intellectually elite. I like genre X. Genre X is also appreciated by other intellectual elites. There must be something in genre X that appeals to the intellectual elite."

But your position could equally be argued thus -

"I am emotionally cripled. I like genre X. Genre X is also appreciated by other emotional criples. There must be something in genre X that appeals to emotional criples."

It is possible that there is a sub-class of personality type that is both. How can you be so sure about why you like genre X?

You don't like pop music. Fair enough. Neither do I. And?

Why is it less worthy? It's designed for youngsters. To them it's pretty damned worthy. You need to compare like with like to make your point.

The problem is that when you compare like with like you find that music which is repugnant to you has equal worth by any objective criteria you care to use.

Which is why I still say you're wrong.

 

[drarthurwells]

So, how is music decided to be good?

Popularity - commercial sells can easily tell us what is the best music, and this is democratic (voting with dollars)?

Decision of elite evaluaters - intelligent and knowledgeable critics? They generally have a disdain for pop with the exception of critcs with a commercial interest in this area (lucrative jobs in all areas of pop, including writing about it and touting it).

God - church leaders, claiming to know God's moral and evaluative criteria, telling us what is good? Not too long ago, rock was described as Satan's music and evil.


Keep in mind that the evaluation of beauty utilizes the very same processes as the evaluation of morality - just a different focus on different events.

 

[periurban]

Dr Art.

The whole point is that each of us decides what we like. It couldn't be any other way.

But just because we like something doesn't give it any more universal worth than it has to us.

You define yourself as an intellectual. Fine. Some other guy defines himself as a cool dude and listens to rap/house/speed metal/whatever.

In your mind you are "superior" to him, and you can support this (in part) by pointing out that the music you like is "superior" to the music he likes. He thinks the same about himself and the music he likes, and no-one is any the wiser about which music has more worth.

The answer has to be that neither music has more worth than the other, since each is equally valid for the listener, just as neither person has more worth than the other.

This whole complexity thing is a red herring, and cannot be a means to objectively establish the credentials of any piece or genre, because each of us brings the whole house of cards with us. It doesn't exist otherwise.

 

[drarthurwells]

Yes, there is no absolute best - some kind of gold standard of morality that dictates what is good or bad regardless of our individual evaluation.


I have emphasized this often.


But the musical complexity issue does exist as a variable that contributes to our musical pleasure. Complexity of a stimulus can enhance our pleasure in exercising our perceptual intellect. A beautiful sunset can be more pleasurable to observe than a plain gray sky. Pop music can be more enjoyable than simply listening to the unchanging beat of a single drum (and nothing to accompany it like vocal or other instrumental sources).

However, as you would point out, a piano melody by Satie can be more enjoyable than a more complex pasage from a symphony. Complexity is only a part of what makes us enjoy music - the emotional factor can be more powerful than the perceptual stimulation factor.

This does not mean that complexity is a red herring. It does mean that factors other than complexity exist, and these can often be more important than complexity in producing pleasure from sensory input.

 

[periurban]

DrArt.

You still haven't demonstrated how classical music as a genre is actually more complex than jazz or prog rock or speed metal or rap. I'll give you "pop music" since the very essence of it is to appeal to underdeveloped minds (eek! am I beginning to think like you?)

But the homophonic structure of classical era music is quite simple. In fact, it was a deliberate return to a more populist tradition (akin to folk), and a rejection of the twisting complexity of earlier times.

The Romantic era is a little more complex, but the real explosion in complexity comes in the 20th century.

So, you still need to provide some careful, like for like analysis of the actual complexities of which you speak. Show me how Beethoven's Ninth (or the classical piece of your choice) is more complex than an equivalent 20th century piece, and I'll accept there's something to your argument.

"the musical complexity issue does exist as a variable that contributes to our musical pleasure"

Does that mean that you accept that when it comes to determining the worth of a genre or an individual piece, other "variables" may make it difficult to conclude that any one genre or piece is superior to any other other simply because of complexity?

 

[drarthurwells]

Covered in previous posts by others, pages back.

 

[periurban]

But not by you.

This is a long thread. I wonder which of the 160 odd posts you're talking about?

I've enjoyed our debate and was foolish enough to imagine that we might reach some kind of consensus on this (if nothing else).

Oh well.

 

[Jahn]

I think I mentioned this before, but in a Composition class at my conservatory, the professor started a class by discussing syncopation. He could see the eyes starting to glaze over, so he grinned and said "would you like to hear one of the best modern examples of syncopation?"

He turned on his little boombox and out came the intro to "Billie Jean" by Michael Jackson. I'll never forget it lol.

 

[drarthurwells]

Quote:

Originally Posted by periurban But not by you. This is a long thread. I wonder which of the 160 odd posts you're talking about? I've enjoyed our debate and was foolish enough to imagine that we might reach some kind of consensus on this (if nothing else). Oh well.

Are you saying all musical genres are equal in complexity?

We are not talking in terms of exceptions, but in general.

Sure there are simple classical selections, and complex pop ones.

A measure of complexity is how many listenings it takes to come to understand and appreciate the work.

I find non-classical works more easily assimulated and understood, in one listening, than classical (genre not period) works in general.

Jethro Tull uses more complex orchestration and I consider them classical in this respect. Like I said, exceptions abound and my statements apply to the general domain. And of course, many very simple musical orchestral structures can be very fulfilling and many complex arrangements can be worthless.

Complexity affords the potential of greater richness in musical communication, but does not assure it, and is not necessary to achieve fulfilling pleasure in musical listening.