Can't Tap, Can't Dance, Can't Do Anything Of It

How Rhythm's Complexity Has Alienated the Audience in Modern Classical Music

Stravinsky rocks!

This was the first time I heard "The Rite of Spring." I hadn't yet taken up serious piano playing—or maybe I had just started. I was twelve years old and sitting in my elementary school's music classroom. The experience was memorable; the excitement kept me focused and fidgeting in my seat. I cockily thought, "I've got this," and attempted to signal the accents in the second movement, the Dance of the Abduction. Naturally, I missed every one. My teacher smiled, amused by my enthusiasm and inability to anticipate the music. It was unlike anything I'd ever heard—dissonant, chaotic, and unpredictable—and yet I was captivated. This fascination has stayed with me to this day, along with a conviction: it is the rhythm that captivates. It is the rhythm that challenges. It is the rhythm that ultimately decides our connection to the music.

The Evolution of Modern Classical Music

Recently, I defended the view that in modern classical music, the emancipation of rhythm represents a more significant shift than the emancipation of dissonance. This lit up a series of comments on various forums, which surprised me, as many read it as a good old-fashioned conservative rant against silly and unpleasant contemporary music. I learned and practiced modern classical music, which now exasperates me in many ways. Clearly, the claim wasn't just about the history of music. But what I truly meant is this: since its origins in the early 20th century, the history of modern classical music has, for better or worse, been characterized by the alienation of the audience. Some celebrate it, others regret it. I deplore it. And the main culprit for this, in my view, is the rhythm that became too complex and incomprehensible, so much so in fact that it prevents any kind of connection, emotional or intellectual, with the piece of music.

Rhythm vs. Dissonance

Incomprehensible rhythms are a key reason why modern classical music has alienated its audience. This is my central argument. For instance, works like Pierre Boulez's Le Marteau sans maître are often cited for their rhythmic complexity that challenges traditional listening. Stating that modern music has alienated the audience is, however, just a fact. And it seems that, even after 125 years, this simple fact continues to spark controversy. Advocates and critics dive in from all directions to justify or dismantle the reasons behind the audience's dislike for this music. But why the controversy? Because in the end—and here everyone loves jumping to conclusions—if nobody likes the art, the art isn’t good. The crux of the debate revolves around the aesthetic or broader value of modern classical works. Indeed, given that the beauty of these compositions does not strike listeners easily anymore, the artistic merit of the composer and the worth of their work demand justification. Arguments come from all fronts, asserting that "Pierre Boulez's Marteau sans maître is great or awful because..."—completing the sentence with reasons ranging from music theory to sociological and aesthetic arguments.

The Audience Alienation

What’s at stake is the artistic value of modern classical music, and some already feel it is challenged by merely stating the historical fact it is associated with: the alienation of audiences. Traditionally, this alienation is attributed to the dissonant nature of contemporary music. This explanation seems undeniably true; the shift away from tonality has indeed emancipated dissonance. Yet, I must admit, there is plenty of dissonant music that I find truly brilliant and profound. Clearly, what I like doesn't really matter in the grand scheme. But I still wondered why I find some dissonant pieces appealing. The answer, so far, is rhythm. I feel a pulse despite the meter surprising and deceiving me as it did in my early years in Stravinsky’s or Ligeti’s music. And it does provide intense rhythmic excitement, despite its intense dissonances. But I can’t do it with any of the serialists and only with a few spectralists, such as Grisey. I am not referring here to the regularity of a French Cancan or a military march. The meter remains very complex. It took me quite a while to get the accents right in the Rite of Spring. However, there is consistency and predictability, which is enough to get you excited and want to tap your foot. The music may put you off balance, but it is surprisingly enjoyable. Little did I know, my early fascination with the Rite of Spring would foreshadow this view on the role of rhythm in shaping musical experiences.

The Role of Rhythm in Modern Music

For those who dread that I might now carry on with a foot-tapping theory based purely on my own musical whims, rest assured. When it comes to debating whether rhythmic complexity in modern classical music has alienated audiences more than dissonance, serious minds have tackled the issue with the gravity it deserves. Consider the intricate rhythmic structures of any of Pierre Boulez's pieces, in fact of most Darmstadt luminaries—these pieces exemplify the kind of rhythmic complexity that can leave listeners feeling adrift. This is indeed the moment to delve into how humans perceive and enjoy music, with neuroscience and psychology shedding invaluable light on the matter.

To bolster the argument that modern classical music challenges traditional auditory processing, it is essential to reference empirical studies that reveal specific neurological reactions to atonal and complex rhythmic structures. Concretely, is there anything showing that irregular rhythms can trigger unusual neural circuitry patterns, highlighting the stark contrast with how our brains process more conventional music? Research demonstrates how atypical dissonance or irregular rhythms in contemporary compositions trigger unusual patterns in neural circuitry, starkly contrasting with the brain's response to more conventional harmonic and rhythmic arrangements. Such studies provide concrete evidence, underscoring the notion that modern classical music’s departure from traditional forms significantly impacts its perception and enjoyment, anchoring the discussion in observable neurological phenomena.

Music is a highly complex, multidimensional sound language requiring the simultaneous and sequential processing of multiple elements such as melody and harmony created by pitch patterns, temporal structure created by rhythmic patterns, and dynamic structures driven by loudness, timbre, and spatial orientation. Rhythm alone is a composite term consisting of multiple components characterized by very complex activation patterns in highly distributed structures across the whole brain on both cortical and subcortical levels (Hallam, Cross, & Thaut, 2016, p. 933).

Think of it as an orchestra in the brain, with different sections playing in perfect synchrony to create a cohesive experience.

Scientific Evidence

Evidence supports these assertions. For example, research by Stupacher, Wrede, and Vuust (2022) shows that the sensation of groove is strongest when rhythm is moderately complex, following an inverted U-shaped curve. This suggests that while a touch of complexity keeps things interesting, an overload can turn listeners away. This indicates that while some complexity is engaging, too much can be alienating. Additionally, studies indicate that listeners find music with either very simple or very complex rhythms less aesthetically pleasing, with a preference for rhythms that balance familiarity and variation (Fleurian et al., 2014).

Producing music that can’t be understood and enjoyed because of the way our brain responds to sound is quite an achievement, isn’t it? Interestingly, the perception of rhythm is fundamental. This is precisely where most modern classical music fails to produce works that can be enjoyed, understood, and emotionally engaging. As elucidated in The Oxford Handbook of Music Psychology, understanding rhythmic patterns involves complex activation patterns across the entire brain, both on cortical and subcortical levels (Hallam, Cross, & Thaut, 2016, p. 933). It's as if the music demands our brains to juggle too many balls at once, leading to cognitive overload and disengagement.

Rhythmic Predictability

Continuing our discussion on rhythmic predictability: predictable rhythmic patterns are sequences in music that allow our brains to form expectations, predict future beats, and find satisfaction in the fulfillment or innovative subversion of these expectations. Imagine listening to a song where you can tap your foot along with the beat—this predictability is what makes the music feel cohesive and enjoyable. This engagement with music is not superficial but a deep cognitive process involving the basal ganglia and other areas responsible for motor control and prediction. Think about your own experience when listening to familiar rhythms; the satisfaction of knowing what comes next is part of what makes music enjoyable.

FMRI studies in particular have shown that the motor system is crucially involved in rhythm and beat perception. Studies using other methods demonstrate that oscillatory neural activity entrains to regularities in musical rhythm, and that motor system excitability is modulated by listening to musical rhythm (Grahn & Brett, 2009, p. 893).

However, cognitive and emotional engagement in music requires the listener to be fully attentive and emotionally connected to the flow. Rhythmic complexity can disrupt this engagement, making the music harder to follow and reducing the emotional and cognitive connection (Leslie, Ojeda, & Makeig, 2014). This disruption is akin to trying to follow a conversation where the speaker constantly changes topics—eventually, you just tune out. Furthermore, familiarity with specific rhythmic patterns influences how listeners from different cultures perceive complexity. For example, American listeners struggle more with complex rhythms compared to simpler ones, while Turkish listeners, familiar with complex rhythms in their culture, show better accuracy (Hannon, Soley, & Ullal, 2012). This cultural difference in rhythmic perception, if anything, underscores the importance of context and familiarity in music appreciation.

Empirical Insights and Cognitive Mechanisms

Where does empirical science stand on this? Incorporating scientific insights into our discussion is crucial, though it requires discernment to avoid overly technical digressions. Rather than detailing the neuronal pathways engaged by rhythm perception—which might obscure rather than clarify—I propose we consider higher-level concepts. David Huron offers a pertinent framework here: he suggests that our brains are pattern-recognition engines that thrive on prediction. Huron describes our brains as craving the satisfaction of correctly predicting musical patterns, much like solving a puzzle. Music presents a unique stimulus wherein these cognitive mechanisms are actively engaged. However, when rhythms become overly complex or unpredictable, this can disrupt our ability to form patterns and predictions, leading to a diminished aesthetic and cognitive experience. Huron’s insights help explain why some avant-garde compositions may alienate listeners—they push the brain's predictive capacities to their limits (Huron, 2006).

Huron's model defines rhythm as the temporal structure created by sequences of sounds, which involves predicting when the next sound will occur. Anticipation, in this context, refers to our brain's ability to forecast future beats based on previously heard patterns. Predictability is the degree to which these patterns follow expected regularities, allowing listeners to form accurate expectations. Complexity, on the other hand, refers to the deviation from these regular patterns, which can either enrich the listening experience or lead to cognitive overload if it becomes too unpredictable (Huron, 2006, pp. 124-125).

Supporting this, musical training enhances neural encoding of rhythmic patterns. Musicians are better at processing complex rhythms, suggesting that familiarity and training reduce the cognitive load imposed by rhythmic complexity (Aydın et al., 2019). Additionally, predictive coding models suggest that the brain uses previous knowledge to predict future events in music. High rhythmic complexity disrupts these predictions, making the music harder to follow and less enjoyable (Vuust & Witek, 2014). In essence, our brains prefer a balance—enough complexity to keep things interesting but not so much that we lose the thread entirely.

Practical Implications for Composers

Why does this matter for composers and musicians? The ability to craft sequences that align with or creatively subvert our inherent neural rhythms can be the difference between creating music that resonates deeply with listeners and music that feels jarring and inaccessible. This balance is crucial, especially in modern classical music, where traditional structures are not always present to guide the listener's expectations.

For modern composers, mastering the balance of rhythmic complexity and predictability can be the key to crafting music that resonates. Just as Steve Reich’s Music for 18 Musicians achieves a mesmerizing effect through its interlocking patterns, aspiring composers can learn to create works that are both intellectually stimulating and deeply engaging.

What now?

So what's the conclusion, really? If contemporary classical music is not adapted for our brains, it is neither exciting nor enjoyable, failing to cause any aesthetic experience or trigger any emotions. To cut it short, it is disengaging music. Its totally unpredictable rhythmic structures, surprising the listener at every note, are what alienates most. What puzzles me is why this kind of music still persists. There are at least three often-evoked arguments that show how profound the change was 125 years ago.

First, partisans argue that this is all conservative rambling since the goal of their music has never been to please an audience with emotions and the kind of aesthetic enjoyment conservatives like me long for. Music, they say, should talk to the mind and open it. Perhaps mine is closed. But judging from this other kind of targeted experience, the audience remains nonexistent. Never will an intellectually exciting music piece have as many listeners as Steve Reich or Max Richter.

Second, while I see audience alienation as a problem, some might see it as a badge of honor. It is proof that the artist isn’t compromised by commercial interests and remains pure in its autonomy. Not much to be said about that. Yet it begs the question of what is truly valued in music. This is a hard question to answer.

Finally, isn't it surprising that this form of composition is so persistent? The sociological question of the institutions supporting it can’t be avoided. But even this is perplexing in a way. Why would the state finance music that no one is listening to? The state as a patron of the arts? Yes, in music. But why would the Prince or state simply finance what is popular? It seems counterintuitive, yet here we are.

If you've managed to endure this lamentation, why not subscribe and support my work? Join the disgruntled music lovers in our despair over state-funded, incomprehensible music. Surely, your patronage can bring a little order to the chaos.

---

Cameron, D. J., & Grahn, J. A. (2014). Neuroscientific investigations of musical rhythm. University of Western Ontario.

Chen, J. L., Penhune, V., & Zatorre, R. (2008). Moving on time: Brain network for auditory-motor synchronization is modulated by rhythm complexity and musical training. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20(2), 226-239.

Fleurian, T., Mather, G., & Brebner, J. (2014). Aesthetic responses to musical complexity. The Journal of Aesthetic Education, 48(4), 67-81.

Grahn, J. A., & Brett, M. (2009). Impairment of beat-based rhythm discrimination in Parkinson's disease. Cortex, 45(1), 80-89.

Hallam, S., Cross, I., & Thaut, M. (2016). The Oxford Handbook of Music Psychology. Oxford University Press.

Hannon, E. E., Soley, G., & Ullal, S. (2012). Familiarity with cultural music affects the perception of complex rhythms. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38(5), 1272-1284.

Huron, D. (2006). Sweet Anticipation: Music and the Psychology of Expectation. MIT Press.

Leslie, J. R., Ojeda, A., & Makeig, S. (2014). Investigating the neural basis of music perception across cultures. NeuroImage, 99, 379-388.

Stupacher, J., Wood, G. M. de O., & Witte, M. (2017). Neural entrainment to polyrhythms: A comparison of musicians and non-musicians. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 11.

Stupacher, J., Wrede, M., & Vuust, P. (2022). A brief and efficient stimulus set to create the inverted U-shaped relationship between rhythmic complexity and the sensation of groove. PLOS ONE, 17(5)

Thaut, M., Trimarchi, P., & Parsons, L. (2014). Human brain basis of musical rhythm perception: Common and distinct neural substrates for meter, tempo, and pattern. Brain Sciences, 4(2), 428-452.

Vuust, P., & Witek, M. A. G. (2014). Rhythmic complexity and predictive coding: A novel approach to modeling rhythm and meter perception in music. Frontiers in Psychology, 5.