# Formulatic music - are you comfortable treading beyond your desire for the familiar?



## Lucifer Saudade (May 19, 2015)

Reading this explanation of Adorno's critique of Jazz and Pop music in general, I want to draw your attention to the following passage:

"These formal aspects of jazz are of particular importance for Adorno because he wants to point out the similarities of jazz not only to more commercialized popular music, but also to the more banal tendencies in »serious« music as well àla Delius, Sibelius, and so on. For Adorno, jazz cannot contribute to the larger aesthetic project of illuminating human freedom and utopia since by its nature it constrains and even hinders the capacity for musical progress. Its language is no tone of newness, but of recycling what is already known. But it does this, notunlike the rest of popular music, by simplifying the language of music. UsingAdorno's own categories of analysis, it contributes to the »regression of listening« through its repeated »utilization of certain well-defined tricks, formulas andclichés to the exclusion of everything else.«

The regression of listening is a keyaspect to understanding Adorno's attack on jazz and popular music more broadlysimply because once musical form becomes so deeply predictable, simple, banal,then the general ability for listeners to comprehend more complex formal aspects of music diminishes. What Adorno refers to as »commodity listening« has the ef-fect of eroding subjectivity, not highlighting it. Formal simplicity is necessary for the widest distribution of cultural products. Conformity is a necessary, not contin-gent, result of this process. As a result, any form of individual subjectivity itself is reified and »liquidated«:

......

It is in the »manipulation of tastes« which itself results from standardization that a regression of listening takes place. This regression means that one »listens according to formula« and without any kind of resistance to the musical material itself. Listeners lack the »capacity to make demands beyond the limits« of the music that is supplied."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It seems to me like Adornos rallying against patterns, formulas and any form of comfortable expectations you have of music. Most people seem to love returning to music laying within their comfort zone (music they know what to expect from) - but how many of you actually consistently listen to music that is challenging/ unnfamillair and unexpected on a daily basis?


Is this what stops people from liking atonal music - are they too set in their ways, shunning the unfamiliar in favour of what is mostly comfortable and undemanding instead of facing every piece afresh?

Do you agree with Adorno, or do you think some sort of common form/ expectation should always be present in music for you to enjoy it?

** If I misunderstood anything, feel free to correct me. Here's the link to the article. 
http://www.academia.edu/208239/A_Defense_of_Adornos_Critique_of_Jazz

Discuss.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

I neither agree with Adorno nor think some sort of common form/ expectation should always be present in music for me to enjoy it.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

I think that deep listening is "facing every piece afresh." I try to listen deeply on a regular basis, as my free time permits. I do this with Mozart and Bach as much as I do with Rzewski and Saariaho.

I also consistently listen to music I have never previously heard. Daily? No. And how would I know that it is challenging or unexpected before hearing it? I have been listening to a lot of new composers these past couple of months and most of their works do not strike me as unexpected or challenging. I typically think that they sound like [fill in the name of some other well-known modern composer].

I also enjoy returning to my comfort zone-and it is pretty challenging music, by most people's standards. I am still challenged by much of it, as I am still learning more about it.


----------



## Sonata (Aug 7, 2010)

I often enjoy delving into new or unfamiliar music. I in fact actively seek out the unfamiliar. That said I very rarely feel compelled to listen to full atonality. My few ventures have not been very satisfying. Now with having Apple Music, there is more readily available for expirimentation I may give it more of a try. We'll see


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

First a bit about your paraphrases of Adorno:

Its interesting what he says. I don't think he needs to be bashing patterns and formulaic tendencies from such a high horsed perspective like its inability to aspire to utopias and idyllic this or that. Music is music, and though it can be made much of, it doesn't require you to approach it that way. 

That being said, there are interesting thoughts in there that I can relate to. I read an article recently on deep reading and fiction, and how moving between different challenging authors like Hardy or Austen, etc, demands a lot of the reader and helps them to really understand and learn things. And I noticed today particularly, how moving between Sibelius's 7th symphony, Nielsen's 6th, and Mozart's 39th enabled me to not only have a more balanced perspective on the works, but also illuminated my perceptions of their structures! 

Cleaning your palette really can work to bring a fresh perception to you of a whole piece. When I get too stuck on listening to one Haydn symphony or CPE Bach Concerto after another, or one Shostakovich or Sibelius too many times in a row, I think I sometimes fail to grasp the unifying features of the piece, because my brain is wallowing in the patterns. Patterns and signatures, or 'isms' can be really fun ways to identify composers, but don't let them perpetually bog you down! 

To answer your question:

I don't listen to the unfamiliar on a daily basis. I tend to wear the pieces I am getting to know for a while, and then when I feel something new is making me curious or the familiar piece is not doing much for me, I move on. After I've moved on, I sometimes want to see if the previously familiar piece will have any features about it that I was missing, and very often it does.

I like my listening patterns. They are satisfying, organic, and sufficiently challenging enough for me. But perhaps I could do with more new input.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

I'm always listening to new things. 

Of course, really, I don't like new things, because it makes me think, and thinking makes me discover things that I may not have seen properly, and that involves change, and I don't like change. But if I stop changing, I lapse into stasis, and that leads to deterioration, and that leads to death. 

So that's why I'm always listening to new things.

As far as Adorno's observation, I think he's reaching too far. I think lazy listeners will listen to classical music with a lazy mind and active minds will find something interesting in all types of music.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

I also wonder whether it is even possible for music not to have a common form  All music seems to build and grow from what came before. The closest I can think of might be the advent of electroacoustic music, as it, in its advent and of necessity, seems to have broken with common structures.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

brotagonist said:


> I also wonder whether it is even possible for music not to have a common form  All music seems to build and grow from what came before. The closest I can think of might be the advent of electroacoustic music, as it, in its advent and of necessity, seems to have broken with common structures.


Yeah, I sort of disregarded that. The form or the very concept of formal ideas, is what vastly different music seems more likely to have in common, while the patterns are more likely what's different.

Edit: Although I guess forms can be really different too and one can grow too satisfied with expecting to see "what this theme does" when maybe they could have a more holistic perspective of the work and let it shape itself in their mind as it will.


----------



## Chipomarc (Jul 18, 2015)

I enforce a strict personal cutoff date of the year 1909 as the upper limit to music listening.


----------



## Lucifer Saudade (May 19, 2015)

Adorno talking about popular music here






If you read the whole article, he's pretty much talking about how Jazz masquerades as revolutionary and modern when in fact it boasts the same hackneyed familiar patterns and forms and in it's barest is simplistic and superficial.

He was also a sociologist and I think he took the public's musical orientation pretty seriously connecting it with all sorts of social issues at the time. What I don't know is how he himself applied his ideas to his music, since I've never listened to him.

Also, some background:


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Well, for some reason this thread inspired me to try to freshen up my ears as much as possible by taking on the challenge of listening to Elliot Carter's Double Concerto for Harpsichord and Piano.


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

_For Adorno, jazz cannot contribute to the larger aesthetic project of illuminating human freedom and utopia since by its nature it constrains and even hinders the capacity for musical progress._

I'm skeptical as to whether any music can contribute to the larger aesthetic project of illuminating human freedom and utopia.

Adorno was writing ages ago in the context of mass/pop culture. I'd be curious what he would say today.



> Is this what stops people from liking atonal music - are they too set in their ways, shunning the unfamiliar in favour of what is mostly comfortable and undemanding instead of facing every piece afresh?


For some, atonal may be comfortable.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Expectation or not is actually less of a listening concern. It's the overall enjoyment that matters.


----------



## Guest (Aug 6, 2015)

Lucifer Saudade said:


> but how many of you actually consistently listen to music that is challenging/ unnfamillair and unexpected on a daily basis?


How many of us do there need to be? One, ten, a thousand? One hundred thousand?

I.e., I don't know why you're asking this particular question.

As for the question in the subject line, I would suppose that there would be some who are and some who aren't. No big mystery there. And nothing to do with the music at all, just a personality thing on the part of whichever listener you're talking to.

Of course, many of the non-adventurous listeners, perhaps sensing that unadventurousness is not entirely a cool thing, will make various attempts to demonize or devalue this or that type of music. We've seen all of those here, several times.

Anyway, I'd love to listen to music that is challenging/unfamiliar/unexpected. I spend hundreds if not thousands of dollars a year travelling all over the world to find some, too. I did it for a long time, and it was much fun. But now I find that most music is familiar and expected and so hence not challenging. It's still fun, don't get me wrong. And even at my most conservative, I was pretty comfortable with almost everything.

But there you have it. Nothing much to do with the music; everything to do with the listener. I'll wager that there are one or two people here who would be quite challenged by music that I find perfectly safe and familiar. I at one point in my own development was quite challenged by Sibelius of all people. And, later, by Scelsi. Not very many people report as being challenged by either one of those.


----------



## Lucifer Saudade (May 19, 2015)

some guy said:


> How many of us do there need to be? One, ten, a thousand? One hundred thousand?
> 
> I.e., I don't know why you're asking this particular question.
> 
> ...


I was asking that particular question because I thought Adorno made some valid points about listening "according to formula« and without any kind of resistance to the musical material itself. Listeners lack the »capacity to make demands beyond the limits« of the music that is supplied."

But I was thinking, that's all well and good, but how many really do that, in practice? Seems to me few people aspire to reach this level of listening, besides atonal and free jazz listeners (some pieces from those genres anyway), in my mind.

Most other music almost always has a distinct formula and most musicians build on this formula that's characteristic of the genre. Adorno seems to dislike it, thinking it's a limiting and regressing way of listening to music.

If I may ask you specifically,

Do you think most people share your open mindedness for new music of all sorts, to the point that "even at their most conservative, they were pretty comfortable with almost everything"?

If not, why do you think most people are limited in ways you are not? Or to paraphrase, what makes you different?

I find that most people have some well established limits in regards to what they would opt to listen to. An example is right above you:

"I enforce a strict personal cutoff date of the year 1909 as the upper limit to music listening."


----------



## Guest (Aug 6, 2015)

Lucifer Saudade said:


> If I may ask you specifically,


Of course you may.



Lucifer Saudade said:


> Do you think most people share your open mindedness for new music of all sorts, to the point that "even at their most conservative, they were pretty comfortable with almost everything"?


No. And again, I don't know why you're asking this. I don't listen according to how many other people listen to the same thing. I listen to each thing as it comes to me (or as I go after it), to the thing itself. The number of people who listen to it has no effect on the sounds it makes and the order in which it makes them.



Lucifer Saudade said:


> If not, why do you think most people are limited in ways you are not? Or to paraphrase, what makes you different?


I don't know. Just lucky. I have liked music from the earliest memory I have. My parents? Not so much. None of my relatives except for one uncle, and I didn't find out about his liking it until quite late. All I had to hear from early on was Hollywood music, but when at around 9 I first heard me some classical, it was revelatory: "So this is what music is supposed to sound like. Cool."

How could I have done all that in isolation? No idea. But others have reported the same. So, it happens.



Lucifer Saudade said:


> I find that most people have some well established limits in regards to what they would opt to listen to. An example is right above you:
> 
> "I enforce a strict personal cutoff date of the year 1909 as the upper limit to music listening."


Again, I don't understand the constant references to "most people." I'm not most people. I'm just some guy. I listen to music with my ears. It's fun to find other people who listen to the same music I like, but I don't keep track of how many of them there are.

In any case, I'm sure you're aware--and if you're not, for shame--that the example you quoted is almost certainly tongue-in-cheek. For one, plenty of composers wrote music after 1909 that is perfectly comprehensible to people who favor late nineteenth century sounds. You know that, and it's a fair guess that Chipomarc knows that too, and listens to it.

What I thought, just by the way, when I saw that, and chuckled at it, was that I too enforce a strict cutoff date of 1906. I listen to nothing before that.

And if you believe that, then you just haven't been paying attention to what a total Berlioz nut I am. Or to how much I love Bach's _St. Matthew Passion._ Or to how much I like Beethoven's ninth, even that last bit, or Mozart's _Requiem._ Just a few things from before 1906 that really get me going. A very few. And what about that Bruckner guy? And that Mahler guy? Wow.

But it's also true that I tend to listen mostly to music of roughly the last 100 years. And it's probably true that Chipomarc listens mostly to music from before then. Doesn't affect either of the two jokes, though. They're funny because they're (just enough) true (to be funny).


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

some guy said:


> No. And again, I don't know why you're asking this. I don't listen according to how many other people listen to the same thing. I listen to each thing as it comes to me (or as I go after it), to the thing itself. The number of people who listen to it has no effect on the sounds it makes and the order in which it makes them.


He's asking you because it's something he feels like talking about, on this internet forum for talking about stuff that we've all voluntarily signed up for. I don't see what's mysterious about this.

There is no suggestion anywhere that you "listen according to how many other people listen to the same thing."


----------



## Lucifer Saudade (May 19, 2015)

The reason I was referring to "Most People" was because, going back to Adorno - he seems to rally against pop music as being regressive and limiting, and that it actually can be harmful to society. If I am interpreting the article correctly, Adorno seems to think that "non-formulaic" music should be the music of the general public, and I don't see a chance of this happening.

So I was asking "can most people listen to music that is non-formulaic" on a daily basis like Adorno seems to want them to?

And I've heard you often mention, Someguy how you can listen to any new piece and enjoy it instantly. You also encourage others not to be cautious when treading new grounds (don't dip in the pool, jump right in so to speak). I find this to be an anomaly or "luck" as you say, as I believe a lot of people are not nearly as lucky as you.

So yeah I was wondering what makes Adorno's type of listeners different from the rest - you mentioned it's just personality but I think this is only part of it. Maybe some people just expect different things from music - I think some people approach music with a certain set of expectation they hope to be fulfilled in some way, while others are content to "give themselves up to the journey" so to speak.

I tried listening to this piece by a composer you mentioned:






Now, this sounds like no fomula I have ever heard before. No doubt there's some group of composers that all write music like this, but I'm not aware of it at this stage.

Now I understand if you're exposed to this music on a daily basis, study it etc. you'll probably enjoy it. What I find interesting about you is that you say you would have liked this sort of thing pretty much instantly since like forever.

Are you enjoying it because you have been through the stepping stones on your way there, or did you always enjoy you it since you can remember without having to go through intermediary composers?

And also, do you recommend I just leave this aside if I don't enjoy it and keep listening to Mahler and Bach and Debussy, or is does it grow on you or you need to expose yourself to modern music prior etc.?

Just curious.


----------



## Chipomarc (Jul 18, 2015)

I didn't go out and purchase 'beyond ultra high-end' audio and power cables for my system just to listen to some Neoclassicism music


----------



## Lucifer Saudade (May 19, 2015)

Chipomarc said:


> I didn't go out and purchase 'beyond ultra high-end' audio and power cables for my system just to listen to some Neoclassicism music


Stravinsky and Hindesmith will be offended 

But yeah sorry about misunderstanding you. It's been a month, give it some time


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

Chipomarc said:


> I didn't go out and purchase 'beyond ultra high-end' audio and power cables for my system just to listen to some Neoclassicism music


I mean this in the nicest possible way: I bet there is a strong correlation between cycling and the purchasing of really high-end audio cables. Just a feeling.


----------



## Guest (Aug 6, 2015)

Lucifer Saudade said:


> The reason I was referring to "Most People" was because, going back to Adorno - he seems to rally against pop music as being regressive and limiting, and that it actually can be harmful to society. If I am interpreting the article correctly, Adorno seems to think that "non-formulaic" music should be the music of the general public, and I don't see a chance of this happening.


Nor do I. Nor do I think it's at all a thing that needs to happen.



Lucifer Saudade said:


> So I was asking "can most people listen to music that is non-formulaic" on a daily basis like Adorno seems to want them to?


Ah. Now I understand. And my answer is "I don't know." Probably not, but really, I don't know. My background is lower middle class white. I grew up among mysogynistic racists who were deeply suspicious of the arts in general and modern art in particular. I am a feminist and an anti-racist who is deeply involved in the arts in general and in modern art in particular. Not, I hasten to add, as simply rebellion, though there may have been some of that at first, but certainly because I was drawn to those things. I have always "known" that anyone's value as a person has nothing to do with race or gender or income. I have always been drawn to the arts and have always found a particular kinship with the arts of my own time. I don't know why. But if this particular "common man" can have done it, then perhaps others with a similarly anti-liberal, anti-artistic background can do it, too.



Lucifer Saudade said:


> And I've heard you often mention, Someguy how you can listen to any new piece and enjoy it instantly.


Well, now, yes. Hasn't always been so, though I have indeed always enjoyed listening to music and, with rare exceptions, have never worried too much about the individual pieces or even composers that I didn't particularly care for. I certainly don't like everything I hear, but it's true, it doesn't usually take too much time to find something to enjoy in most things.



Lucifer Saudade said:


> You also encourage others not to be cautious when treading new grounds (don't dip in the pool, jump right in so to speak). I find this to be an anomaly or "luck" as you say, as I believe a lot of people are not nearly as lucky as you.


That's why I do the encouraging. If everyone were as lucky as I have been, they'd already have jumped into the pool and be splashing around and having a lovely time.



Lucifer Saudade said:


> I think some people approach music with a certain set of expectation they hope to be fulfilled in some way, while others are content to "give themselves up to the journey" so to speak.


Apparently most people approach music with a certain set of expectations. Expectations are the very devil for exploration, that's for damned sure.



Lucifer Saudade said:


> I tried listening to this piece by a composer you mentioned:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well, I dunno about "all write music like this." Even Eric doesn't write all his music like this. Or even write all his music. (It's mostly improv.) But there are a lot of people who do similar things, you know like Baroque composers or Classical composers. Not only does each person have a style, but the whole era has a style. If you look up eRikm on Discogs, they've got a wee blurb there with a list of people he's collaborated with.



Lucifer Saudade said:


> Now I understand if you're exposed to this music on a daily basis, study it etc. you'll probably enjoy it. What I find interesting about you is that you say you would have liked this sort of thing pretty much instantly since like forever.


Well, that's not quite true. Even I have my limits. Or, more accurately, have had my limits. But I never was married to them, that's all. What I found is that by the time I heard something, I was already ready for it. See why I emphasize luck so much? This is none of my doing. It just happened. And I'm glad it did.



Lucifer Saudade said:


> Are you enjoying it because you have been through the stepping stones on your way there, or did you always enjoy you it since you can remember without having to go through intermediary composers?


I guess that's "yes" to both? I can look backwards and notice things that functioned as stepping stones, though I was not aware of that at the time. I was just listening to music and enjoying it. Certainly looking back on things, it looks like I went through intermediary composers.



Lucifer Saudade said:


> And also, do you recommend I just leave this aside if I don't enjoy it and keep listening to Mahler and Bach and Debussy, or is does it grow on you or you need to expose yourself to modern music prior etc.?
> 
> Just curious.


I don't know. There has never been a time in my life that I liked everything I heard. But I don't remember ever worrying about the things I didn't like. (Except for the few exceptions, like Sibelius.) Generally, there was always enough to like at any time. When I was ready for something that I hadn't liked before, then I would like it.* Easy. And yes, that means I never put anything on the "never listen to again" shelf. With, again, a few exceptions.

And Bax, just by the way, is NOT one of those exceptions. Don't let that arpeggio guy fool you!!

*I forced myself to be ready for Sibelius by simply playing a bunch of LPs from the downtown library in Sacramento until I "got it." Took about a week. A most enjoyable and memorable week.


----------



## Lucifer Saudade (May 19, 2015)

some guy said:


> Nor do I. Nor do I think it's at all a thing that needs to happen.
> 
> Ah. Now I understand. And my answer is "I don't know." Probably not, but really, I don't know. My background is lower middle class white. I grew up among mysogynistic racists who were deeply suspicious of the arts in general and modern art in particular. I am a feminist and an anti-racist who is deeply involved in the arts in general and in modern art in particular. Not, I hasten to add, as simply rebellion, though there may have been some of that at first, but certainly because I was drawn to those things. I have always "known" that anyone's value as a person has nothing to do with race or gender or income. I have always been drawn to the arts and have always found a particular kinship with the arts of my own time. I don't know why. But if this particular "common man" can have done it, then perhaps others with a similarly anti-liberal, anti-artistic background can do it, too.
> 
> ...


Thanks very much Some guy. I greatly appreciate you taking the time to reply 

Yeah guess I'm gonna take you up on your suggestion to just keep listening to the things i like, waiting until I'm ready to broaden my horizons. I'm not the stagnating type - I keep expanding, and moving forward. In time, I trust I'll return to many of these pieces and learn to appreciate them more for what they are.

Oh, I like me some Bax alright don't worry about that :lol:

Xenaxis on the other hand... I wonder will forcing myself to sleep with his music on finally sift the darn thing to my subconscious? Just kidding. You want to be awake for this most enjoyable and memorable occasion


----------



## SeptimalTritone (Jul 7, 2014)

^ With Xenakis (or any other composer for that matter) it's perhaps not best to force oneself to enjoy it. Take a few listens of a few different pieces, and if you don't find much in them, then maybe set them aside for later.

That being said, you really should try Xenakis's Bohor!!! One of his best. Simply sit back and enjoy the white energy of the mechanical and industrial yet angelic and timeless world.

Part 1: www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wo8LeaUK94
Part 2: www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bq5GJ0pfTo


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

some guy said:


> I never put anything on the "never listen to again" shelf. With, again, a few exceptions.


slightly tangential, perhaps, but I have a pile about 1 metre high - my space is finite and I soon run out of space for stuff that I pick up and want to keep hold of. Soon I have to make a decision - do I keep that copy of Birtwistle's (which I want to hear again) and even buy some more or should I not look for new stuff and keep that Ketelbey that I really don't enjoy listening to?


----------



## Guest (Aug 7, 2015)

I dunno, Headphone. I always seemed to find space for more CDs. And more books, too, which are bulkier.

Though I admit, when I moved out of my apartment a couple of years ago, getting rid of everything, I did notice that my total area had been reduced by about a foot on each side. Shelving, you see. And I was living there by myself, so could put things wherever without discommoding passersby.

However, I can say one thing without any hesitation: get rid of the Ketelbey!:lol:


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

some guy said:


> However, I can say one thing without any hesitation: get rid of the Ketelbey!:lol:


Phew!

Mind you, I didn't think that would be too controversial (even though it is after 1909 - hahaha!)


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

There's a difference between expectations and letting "the self" speak. I approach new music without expectations, as much as possible, but ultimately I will make up my mind about it, according to my undefinable, personal preferences. It's that individuality which forms the foundation and my guide in my journey through music. Of course, part of my tastes are continually evolving, but I don't explore new music just for the sake of it: I look for new music_ that I like_. Surpressing the ego, just to challenge myself and expose myself to the unfamiliar, would be self-denial and a waste of time.


----------



## Guest (Aug 9, 2015)

Let us know if your idea about "for the sake of it" ever changes.

You may find that you don't deny yourself anything by exploring for the sake of it. You may find that you have expanded yourself, not denied it. After all, what you're going on now is what you already like--new music that fits that model is OK. New music that doesn't is not. But what if you were to listen to things you don't like today but found that tomorrow you did like them after all? What then? Why, then you have expanded your horizons, your possibilities, your self. That self that you're protecting that doesn't really need any protecting.

Far from a waste of time, that activity, I think you'd find, is quite a rewarding use of time.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

I've found the more familiar I become with something the more disinterested I become. I need mystery. The unknown.


----------

