# Expectation and Surprise



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

From a blog post I wrote this week:

"Over the past century, composers have been more conscious of musical boundaries than ever, with countless revolutions and reactions ranging from traditionalist to avant-garde, with some music accused of being cliché, and other music of being cacophonous noise. But it is usually the middle-ground that moves us most: music that is novel enough to give us a unique listening experience, but is similar enough in form and technique to everything we're already familiar with that we have a solid foundation for appreciating it. Bending rules, rather than breaking them, generates expectation and surprise - too much novelty destroys expectation, and too much similarity yields no surprise.
...
I think a lot of antagonism towards modern art stems from a widespread (variously correct and incorrect) perception that it is impenetrable in terms of understanding, as you can't know what to expect, and, therefore, what to appreciate and take from it."

Discuss! :tiphat:

[In response to myself, I have certainly read a number of articles which demonstrate that newcomers to the art world are frequently put off because they feel they don't understand a work, and don't have sufficient tools and experience to bring to help the understanding. They come with the idea that what they see and hear must be intrinsically good, so if they don't like it, they must assume it is a fault with themselves, not with the artwork, and so don't continue looking. By making a work so novel that there are no grounds for expectation, you remove the capability of the listener to critique it, meaning that their sense of "like" and "dislike" becomes alien. People don't like that!]


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

I agree with your post... but your response not so much. Your notions of what is in the minds of the 'newbies' is arbitrary and probably wrong. I suspect that _many_ newbies come to classical music with the expectation _and requirement_ that it be at least moderately easy to 'get', and that if that is not the case, the fault is with the music.

You should do an in-the-street survey. Be prepared to read body language.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Hilltroll72 said:


> I agree with your post... but your response not so much. Your notions of what is in the minds of the 'newbies' is arbitrary and probably wrong. I suspect that _many_ newbies come to classical music with the expectation _and requirement_ that it be at least moderately easy to 'get', and that if that is not the case, the fault is with the music.


Yes, you're right, I was being too generous.


----------



## Sofronitsky (Jun 12, 2011)

It is hard for me to really like a very dissonant movement of music, unless I have listened to it on several occasions and already expect dissonance. I don't think of this as a failing on my part, just a matter of taste. It will probably change in time, just like my taste buds.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Is it already a week since the last thread?


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

For me dissonances are not by themselves objectionable. They've been around a long time, employed to add 'moments of tartness' to music - including occasionally in pop music. The trick is to recognize patterns when most everything that's flowing by is dissonances, or at least not in any 'standard overtone' sequence. That's where 'following the long line' is useful. Sometimes when that plan isn't working out, the composer will offer a grab-handle - Ives is notorious for that. The late compositions of Arthur Schnabel aren't notorious for much of anything, being little known, but he too provided a grab-handle now and then, a little interval that sideswiped tonality for a few bars. It makes all the difference. In both cases, it's the relative familiarity that's the surprise.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

bigshot said:


> Is it already a week since the last thread?


The thread is constrained only to the title. It doesn't have to be about modern music, that was just an example.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Polednice said:


> ...But it is usually the middle-ground that moves us most: music that is novel enough to give us a unique listening experience, but is similar enough in form and technique to everything we're already familiar with that we have a solid foundation for appreciating it...


Well I agree with that balance with the new and old. Esp. if you include things like Berg's_ Wozzeck _in that category (well, I do). I don't hear _Wozzeck_ to be more difficult to grasp or whatever than say Puccini's_ Turandot_, which was influenced by _Wozzeck_. I think that only the most anti-new or newer music type would fail to accept _Wozzeck_ as one of the finest operas of it's time (eg. of the interwar period).

I had heard nothing much from the 20th century Viennese School until I heard _Wozzeck_ in my teens. But as your quote suggests, I could hang on to certain things of classical music that I knew fairly well by then - eg. Puccini was one, Bartok another, as well as guys like Shostakovich, Prokofiev, Britten, etc. - so that _Wozzeck_ was not as big stumbling block as one would think. Upon first listen, I connected with it straight away. The angst and darkness of it didn't worry me then (I was a teenager after all!) but now I listen to it less as I'm older and usually want some light at the end of the tunnel. However, I still regard it as highly as then, maybe more.

Same thing with Messiaen's _Quartet for the End of Time_, which was another "opener" for me into the newer music realm. It's universal - or near as universal? - themes of nature (the birdsong), spirituality (whether or not you are religious) and also him going back to Bach (whose scores he had in the POW camp, along with those of Webern), well, all these aspects, as well as the pure emotion & profundity of this work was just a positive experience for me (& I had not heard a note of Messiaen before!). This was after the _Wozzeck_, another "road to Damascus" moment for me, I was in my twenties then.

So I would add to your observation that we have what psychologists call a schemata, a way of ordering the world. In this case, putting together and making connections of what we know about music. That's how I approach it. & listening to it now, _Wozzeck_ has so much of the harmonies of guys like Wagner, it's not funny. Same could probably be said for Messiaen, who was a big Wagner admirer himself.



> ...Bending rules, rather than breaking them, generates expectation and surprise - too much novelty destroys expectation, and too much similarity yields no surprise...


I have mixed feelings about this. Some masterpieces of the past, innovative ones, were immediately accepted by both the critics and audiences during their time. Some were not. Some were either accepted only by the critics, and not the audience, or vice versa. Sometimes the reception was mixed.

But basically I was arguing a similar thing that you say on this thread below, and most people agreed, except people who appeared to have some sort of agenda -

http://www.talkclassical.com/17622-balancing-predictable-surprising-music.html



> I think a lot of antagonism towards modern art stems from a widespread (variously correct and incorrect) perception that it is impenetrable in terms of understanding, as you can't know what to expect, and, therefore, what to appreciate and take from it."
> ...


Yes, but also an outdated view of what new music is. Eg. some people I've come across here in Australia, think Peter Sculthorpe does horrible atonal music or whatever. Truth is, that earlier in his career, he was more atonal than now. Esp. in the 1960's. But he turned out many types of works even back then, some film music that's decidedly "tonal" and also even a symphonic rock song or two! As for his concert hall music, he returned to tradition quite a bit in the early 1980's, or thereabouts. From then on, there's things like more unbroken melody in his music, some counterpoint (but modern counterpoint, he doesn't care from the three B's, etc.), but the fundamentals of his earlier style/innovations are still there.

Point is, Sculthorpe is in his early eighties now, but these "critics" don't know his music of the last 30 or so years. Or it sounds like they don't. They think he's still kind of experimental. But it's their loss. I like both his phases.

So what I'd add is critics of new or newer music sometimes -

- Haven't heard the latest, or more recent, new music
- Are probably not much interested, into it, anyway
- Maybe expect the wrong thing with this music (eg. that it should sound like the older music, eg. of before 1945 or even 1900)



> ...By making a work so novel that there are no grounds for expectation, you remove the capability of the listener to critique it, meaning that their sense of "like" and "dislike" becomes alien...


Well that does apply in some cases, eg. if one is intent on critiquing things. But when I go to a new music concert, for example, I just want to have a good night out and enjoy a good concert. Maybe learn a few things from listening, watching, reading the program. I'm not a critic so I don't aim to do that, at least not consciously. Many of these concerts, most of them, I might not even know most of the composers on the bill. It's a one-off. Maybe that lowers my expectations compared to someone who has like hundreds of new music cd's or scores or books or whatever. Well I really don't care, I don't operate on that (high?) level...


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Sid James said:


> I have mixed feelings about this. Some masterpieces of the past, innovative ones, were immediately accepted by both the critics and audiences during their time. Some were not. Some were either accepted only by the critics, and not the audience, or vice versa. Sometimes the reception was mixed.


I don't think that necessarily goes against my idea - it's just an elaboration on the fact that people have different paradigms of expectation and surprise. Critics and audiences might well disagree, but precisely because the critics have different expectations to be fulfilled.



Sid James said:


> Yes, but also an outdated view of what new music is. Eg. some people I've come across here in Australia, think Peter Sculthorpe does horrible atonal music or whatever. Truth is, that earlier in his career, he was more atonal than now. Esp. in the 1960's. But he turned out many types of works even back then, some film music that's decidedly "tonal" and also even a symphonic rock song or two! As for his concert hall music, he returned to tradition quite a bit in the early 1980's, or thereabouts. From then on, there's things like more unbroken melody in his music, some counterpoint (but modern counterpoint, he doesn't care from the three B's, etc.), but the fundamentals of his earlier style/innovations are still there.


That's definitely true, and is precisely the kind of thing I tucked in my "variously... incorrect" comment. 



Sid James said:


> Well that does apply in some cases, eg. if one is intent on critiquing things. But when I go to a new music concert, for example, I just want to have a good night out and enjoy a good concert. Maybe learn a few things from listening, watching, reading the program. I'm not a critic so I don't aim to do that, at least not consciously. Many of these concerts, most of them, I might not even know most of the composers on the bill. It's a one-off. Maybe that lowers my expectations compared to someone who has like hundreds of new music cd's or scores or books or whatever. Well I really don't care, I don't operate on that (high?) level...


"Critique" was perhaps not such a good word for me to use, because I'm talking about completely _subconscious_ modes of thinking. Few people will go with the intention to critique, but we all have subconscious, often unacknowledged, tools and experiences that, without thinking, we bring to bear when listening to a piece which ultimately lead us to like or dislike it (or anything in between). Approaches to listening vary widely, yours being an admirably open one. However, not all people are like that, and I don't think it's purely ideological, I think it's partly innate. So, when people are confronted with music totally and utterly alien to anything they've ever heard before, I don't think it's a simple case of trying to appreciate it on its own terms - it's such a shock that the overbearing novelty causes a negative reaction. Of course, this is why repeated listening is so important - by familiarising yourself with a work or a style, you allow yourself the opportunity to recognise patterns and attentions, opening up the possibility of understanding rather than just visceral hatred!


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

As an after-thought, I wonder if listening habits can also be correlated with political views. I don't know how well substantiated the theory is, but I have heard in various places that left-leaning individuals are more open to new experiences, while right-leaning individuals value tradition and dislike change. It perhaps follows, therefore, that more leftist people would have eclectic and modern tastes in music (and the other arts), while right-wingers might prefer the old classics. If this is the case, I think that again supports my notion that these are partly innate characteristics - not attitudes that can be labelled ideologically right or wrong.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Polednice said:


> ..."Critique" was perhaps not such a good word for me to use, because I'm talking about completely _subconscious_ modes of thinking. Few people will go with the intention to critique, but we all have subconscious, often unacknowledged, tools and experiences that, without thinking, we bring to bear when listening to a piece which ultimately lead us to like or dislike it (or anything in between). Approaches to listening vary widely, yours being an admirably open one. However, not all people are like that, and I don't think it's purely ideological, I think it's partly innate. So, when people are confronted with music totally and utterly alien to anything they've ever heard before, I don't think it's a simple case of trying to appreciate it on its own terms - it's such a shock that the overbearing novelty causes a negative reaction...


Yes, I agree that the subconscious element can have a role of how we receive music, incl. recent music. There is of course the individual listener's tastes, which are probably tied to this and other things.

I must emphasise that, although I like new music (incl. more expermental things like electroacoustic), I don't like everything I hear. I give it a chance, listen to it straight through, then decide if I want to listen again. If it's a cd, I read the liner notes to find out what the work is about. Eg. in THIS disc of Tristram Cary's electroacoustic music I recently got, I listened to it through once and then only returned to the works that I liked on the disc, had potential to get more from in subsequent hearings. That's about 5 out of 8 works on the disc, which is not a bad number. About one hour of music out of a total of 80 minutes. So that's how I approach these things, go with what I like.

Of course, as I said, most of this type of music I prefer to hear live, so it tends to be a one-off experience.



> ...Of course, this is why repeated listening is so important - by familiarising yourself with a work or a style, you allow yourself the opportunity to recognise patterns and attentions, opening up the possibility of understanding rather than just visceral hatred!


Yes, recognising the patterns is important for me, and this does often happen over time, not straight away. Just now was listening to some Prokofiev pieces I'd not heard for ages, and the "themes," disjointed and scattered throughout the works as they were, kind of came back in my memory somehow, I kind of "heard" them despite not hearing them for ages. The human brain works in wierd and wonderful ways, and I try to punch above my weight often, going for as challenging music as I can. But I understand not everybody is like that, wants to be like that, although it's always good to try and expand one's horizons, enjoy things at the same time as learning, etc...


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Sofronitsky said:


> It is hard for me to really like a very dissonant movement of music, unless I have listened to it on several occasions and already expect dissonance. I don't think of this as a failing on my part, just a matter of taste. It will probably change in time, just like my taste buds.


If you are already listening to Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, or all that sort, or later Schumann, Tchaikovsky et alia, you are already listening to music with dissonance in it.

Dissonant is contextual to the piece and the harmonic language in which that piece is cast.

I think you are, unconsciously, pumping up the bogie man in the corner of the darkened nursery a little larger every time you think or write the word 'dissonant.' -- making it that much more a barrier or bugbear for you.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Polednice said:


> As an after-thought, I wonder if listening habits can also be correlated with political views. I don't know how well substantiated the theory is, but I have heard in various places that left-leaning individuals are more open to new experiences, while right-leaning individuals value tradition and dislike change. It perhaps follows, therefore, that more leftist people would have eclectic and modern tastes in music (and the other arts), while right-wingers might prefer the old classics. If this is the case, I think that again supports my notion that these are partly innate characteristics - not attitudes that can be labelled ideologically right or wrong.


'innate?' Cobnuts!


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

PetrB said:


> 'innate?' Cobnuts!


Well I did qualify it with "partly".


----------

