Comments on: Another Take http://oboeinsight.com/2010/02/25/another-take/ reed on! Fri, 25 May 2012 20:51:25 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: G Dan Mitchell http://oboeinsight.com/2010/02/25/another-take/comment-page-1/#comment-8993 G Dan Mitchell Fri, 26 Feb 2010 06:30:20 +0000 http://oboeinsight.com/?p=12470#comment-8993 Whenever I hear the "human mind can't handle modern music" stuff I always think back to something that Allen Strange used to talk about. He categorized it as "information theory" related, but that might just have been Allen. But the point was - and is - a valid one, I think. The basic idea is that there are different components to the experience of hearing music. One very strong one is redundancy - e.g. elements that we already know and understand quite well. We've heard all the harmonies and instrumentation and rhythms and what not of Mozart so many times that these fundamental building blocks are not "new" to us at all. The part that is "new" is actually quite small compared to the part that is familiar: something we hadn't noticed the last time we heard the piece, a slightly different interpretation by this performer, recognition of a connection to another piece we just got to know. The new is very small... though still very important. So, there is a balance between "information" (the new stuff) and "redundancy" (the familiar stuff) that works for us. Essentially by definition, things change with "new music." There is much less that is familiar/redundant and much more that is new/information. The listener has fewer familiar guideposts to rely on, and at the same time has more new stuff to deal with and make sense. This is not, by any means, an indictment of "new music" as being unlistenable or anything like that. Instead, it is just an explanation of why some very fine modern music just takes more time to understand. It isn't necessarily that there is no order or beauty in it (though it isn't certain that there is either!) but it is certain that finding the beauty and sense in it is going to take more exposure and time and a bit of sympathy. Dan Whenever I hear the “human mind can’t handle modern music” stuff I always think back to something that Allen Strange used to talk about. He categorized it as “information theory” related, but that might just have been Allen. But the point was – and is – a valid one, I think.

The basic idea is that there are different components to the experience of hearing music. One very strong one is redundancy – e.g. elements that we already know and understand quite well. We’ve heard all the harmonies and instrumentation and rhythms and what not of Mozart so many times that these fundamental building blocks are not “new” to us at all. The part that is “new” is actually quite small compared to the part that is familiar: something we hadn’t noticed the last time we heard the piece, a slightly different interpretation by this performer, recognition of a connection to another piece we just got to know. The new is very small… though still very important. So, there is a balance between “information” (the new stuff) and “redundancy” (the familiar stuff) that works for us.

Essentially by definition, things change with “new music.” There is much less that is familiar/redundant and much more that is new/information. The listener has fewer familiar guideposts to rely on, and at the same time has more new stuff to deal with and make sense.

This is not, by any means, an indictment of “new music” as being unlistenable or anything like that. Instead, it is just an explanation of why some very fine modern music just takes more time to understand. It isn’t necessarily that there is no order or beauty in it (though it isn’t certain that there is either!) but it is certain that finding the beauty and sense in it is going to take more exposure and time and a bit of sympathy.

Dan

]]>