For Haters of 20th-Century Music

[maxim3]

A while ago I cited that old Roman maxim "de gustibus non est disputandam" (there is no discussing taste) in a thread about Sorabji. But who can resist trying once in a while to explain why bad music sounds bad?

In the last couple of decades, a new theory of why most people hate 'modern classical' music (you know, the post-tonal stuff like Schoenberg etc.) has been developed which bases its argument on human physiology. Quite simply, our brains are wired to respond positively to certain sounds and combinations of sounds, and music is all about satisfying our expectations. Interesting and attractive music, of course, messes with our expectations to various degrees; but when artfully handled, and used in the right proportions, this foiling of expectations can make for intensely pleasurable listening.

This makes perfect sense to me, but the idea is certainly not universally accepted (although, thank god, it is gaining ground in music conservatories.)

So I thought I would bring that to your attention. But the most original and fascinating attempt I have ever read to account for why modern music and art are so widely detested has nothing to do with physiology; it is psychological and to some degree religious. I'm an atheist myself but I still think this fellow has hit the nail on the head in terms of psychology, culture, and ordinary human nature. So please, enjoy this essay by economist David P. Goldman, who happens to hold a Master's degree in Music Theory from the City University of New York.

https://www.futuresymphony.org/admit-it-you-really-hate-modern-art/

[ahinton]

A while ago I cited that old Roman maxim "de gustibus non est disputandam" (there is no discussing taste) in a thread about Sorabji. But who can resist trying once in a while to explain why bad music sounds bad?

In the last couple of decades, a new theory of why most people hate 'modern classical' music (you know, the post-tonal stuff like Schoenberg etc.) has been developed which bases its argument on human physiology. Quite simply, our brains are wired to respond positively to certain sounds and combinations of sounds, and music is all about satisfying our expectations. Interesting and attractive music, of course, messes with our expectations to various degrees; but when artfully handled, and used in the right proportions, this foiling of expectations can make for intensely pleasurable listening.

This makes perfect sense to me, but the idea is certainly not universally accepted (although, thank god, it is gaining ground in music conservatories.)

So I thought I would bring that to your attention. But the most original and fascinating attempt I have ever read to account for why modern music and art are so widely detested has nothing to do with physiology; it is psychological and to some degree religious. I'm an atheist myself but I still think this fellow has hit the nail on the head in terms of psychology, culture, and ordinary human nature. So please, enjoy this essay by economist David P. Goldman, who happens to hold a Master's degree in Music Theory from the City University of New York.

https://www.futuresymphony.org/admit-it-you-really-hate-modern-art/

But what might you (or Mr Goldman) mean by "modern music"? Schönberg - still the traditional bogeyman - began to upset audiences with his work 120 years ago despite his being (and remaining) steeped in the traditions of Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Liszt, Wagner and Brahms. What of Liszt and where he was going? Or Bach? No, this simply doesn't hold good, nor is it based upon human logic. Everything is chanign all the time. Time has never stood still and nor does it move forwards only rather than backwards or stands still (see Busoni on that subject). The is no such thing as "ordinary human nature"; indeed, "ordinariness" and "human nature" are by definition both incompatible and inherent contradictions in terms.

Best,

Alistair

[georgey]

A while ago I cited that old Roman maxim "de gustibus non est disputandam" (there is no discussing taste) in a thread about Sorabji. But who can resist trying once in a while to explain why bad music sounds bad?

In the last couple of decades, a new theory of why most people hate 'modern classical' music (you know, the post-tonal stuff like Schoenberg etc.) has been developed which bases its argument on human physiology. Quite simply, our brains are wired to respond positively to certain sounds and combinations of sounds, and music is all about satisfying our expectations. Interesting and attractive music, of course, messes with our expectations to various degrees; but when artfully handled, and used in the right proportions, this foiling of expectations can make for intensely pleasurable listening.

This makes perfect sense to me, but the idea is certainly not universally accepted (although, thank god, it is gaining ground in music conservatories.)

So I thought I would bring that to your attention. But the most original and fascinating attempt I have ever read to account for why modern music and art are so widely detested has nothing to do with physiology; it is psychological and to some degree religious. I'm an atheist myself but I still think this fellow has hit the nail on the head in terms of psychology, culture, and ordinary human nature. So please, enjoy this essay by economist David P. Goldman, who happens to hold a Master's degree in Music Theory from the City University of New York.

https://www.futuresymphony.org/admit-it-you-really-hate-modern-art/

Very interesting Maxim3.

Here are my immediate thoughts.

“ Interesting and attractive music, of course, messes with our expectations to various degrees; but when artfully handled, and used in the right proportions, this foiling of expectations can make for intensely pleasurable listening.”

So, Beethoven would purposely lull you to sleep with his music, then BLAST!! you awake right at the point of nodding off (pretty funny stuff still leaves me laughing).  Is this messing with our expectations too much?  Not to my way of thinking, but others (especially in his day) may disagree with me.

Wagner in Tristan und Isolde prelude blurred the lines of tonality that inspired modern atonal music.  Did Wagner mess around with our expectations too much here?  Not to my way of thinking, but others (especially in his day, like Brahms and Clara Schumann) may disagree with me.

I hear in atonal music such as Berg’s Lulu opera some pretty wild stuff.  Did Berg mess around too much with our expectations?  Not to my way of thinking, but others may disagree with me. 

SO, WHO IS RIGHT?  WHO GETS TO DECIDE what is messing with our expectations too much?  GOLDMAN??  Maxim3??  Georgey??  DONALD TRUMP???

ONLY 1 CORRECT ANSWER IMO: Georgey   Donald Trump   History will judge.  And history has judged the Viennese atonolists to be of lasting importance (at least as of current date).

 

[georgey]

Sorry Maxim3.  I really should read your Goldman essay.  BUT I’m LAZY!  Sorry!

But I did read your words a few times.  Here is another spot:

“In the last couple of decades, a new theory of why most people hate 'modern classical' music (you know, the post-tonal stuff like Schoenberg etc.) has been developed which bases its argument on human physiology. Quite simply, our brains are wired to respond positively to certain sounds and combinations of sounds, and music is all about satisfying our expectations.”

Most people eat an unhealthy diet.  Most people in Germany were supporters of Hitler.  So, we can’t just go by “Most people hate atonal music, therefore it is bad.” 

“Our brains are wired to respond positively to certain sounds and combinations of sounds, and music is all about satisfying our expectations.” – This is where I should maybe look at your essay.  I would say that music that we call “elevator music” (very predictable, calming music) – such as Mozart eine kleine nachtmusik has been shown to calm people and reduce blood pressure to normal ranges (for those with high blood pressure).  Since calmness and normal blood pressure are good for human health, perhaps we should only listen to elevator music?

No Beethoven allowed (except maybe some early, calming stuff).  IMO, Beethoven, maybe more than any other composer, composed music that was contrary to our expectations.  He is the KING in defying our expectations. Listen to the following example – all about giving you what you don’t expect.

But then, you say – Beethoven is fine.  Just atonal stuff and such modern music is bad.  WELL – why do you feel you have the power to decide this?  Why not banish all music that is not classified as “elevator music”?  Someone says about Beethoven:  I was just starting to fall asleep and was enjoying my nap, when all of a sudden, Beethoven yells at the top of his lungs “WAKE UP YOU FOOL!”.  What kind of enjoyment is that?

BTW – I remember you posting Bach chorales played on piano a while ago.  I agree, this is music from the gods, and we should take time to enjoy these gorgeous, simple treasures.   

[maxim3]

For intelligent responses to the clever comments on this matter so far, I suggest the following essay:

https://www.futuresymphony.org/admit-it-you-really-hate-modern-art/

(warning -- it has some big words)

[georgey]

For intelligent responses to the clever comments on this matter so far, I suggest the following essay:

https://www.futuresymphony.org/admit-it-you-really-hate-modern-art/

(warning -- it has some big words)

"Recent research by neuroscientists confirms what impresarios have known for more than a century: Audiences hate atonal music. In his book The Music Instinct (2010), Philip Ball draws on recent research to conclude

The brain is a pattern seeking organ, so it looks for patterns in music to make sense of what we hear. The music of Bach, for example, embodies a lot of the pattern forming process. Some of the things that were done by those composers such as Schoenberg undermined this cognitive aid for making music easier to understand and follow. Schoenberg’s music became fragmented which makes it harder for the brain to find structure."

Maxim3,

I like Schoenberg.  Most may not like it , but MANY do.  History has judged Schoenberg to be a great and important composer.   Certain neuroscientists (or Phillip Ball's interpretation of their findings) say I should not like Schoenberg, therefore Schoenberg's music must not be liked? 

But as your thread title says:  This thread is for haters of 20th-Century music.  But a HUGE amount of 20th century music is tonal.  Maybe you should rename the thread "For haters of Schoenberg"?

I am fine that you hate Schoenberg, by the way.  I can see how some might not like it, or even hate it.  You should listen to Pianostreet member Schoenberg's performance of Schoenberg  (recent in audition room)- It's great! 

Here is link:

https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=65799.0

EDIT:

I'm trying to figure why I was reluctant to read the essay that you suggested we read.  I think maybe it was the title: "admit-it-you-really-hate-modern-art".  I don't hate modern art or modern music, so the title was a bit of a turn off for me.  It implies that I don't really know what I like or hate.

Also Maxim3 - What did you think of the Beethoven Op. 135 2nd movement?  It is incredible!  Perhaps 80 years ahead of its time in some regards. Beethoven did more than any other composer (imo) to advance us toward modern music.

[georgey]

Hi Maxim3,

Sorry to continue here.  This will be my last post in this thread.  Others can take over for me if they want. 

You say:
In the last couple of decades, a new theory of why most people hate 'modern classical' music (you know, the post-tonal stuff like Schoenberg etc.) has been developed which bases its argument on human physiology…………This makes perfect sense to me, but the idea is certainly not universally accepted (although, thank god, it is gaining ground in music conservatories.

GAINING GROUND IN MUSIC CONSERVATORIES? – Can you give me a reputable music conservatory that is reducing or removing atonal music from their study or curriculum?

I wonder if you are spending too much time reading futuresymphony.org material.  It’s up to you if you want limit your reading material.  It’s not a bad idea though to try to be well rounded.

Here is what I am talking about:

https://www.futuresymphony.org/recovering-the-sacred-in-music/

THE ATTEMPTED SUICIDE of Western classical music has failed. The patient is recovering, no thanks to the efforts of music’s Dr. Kevorkian, Arnold Schoenberg, whose cure, the imposition of a totalitarian atonality, was worse than the disease – the supposed exhaustion of the tonal resources of music. Schoenberg’s vaunted mission to “emancipate dissonance” by denying that tonality exists in Nature led to the successive losses of tonality, melody, harmony, and rhythm.

Best wishes,

Georgey

[maxim3]

The two pieces I've read so far at futuresymphony.org (the extract of the book by Robert Reilly and the reprinted Goldman essay from 2007) are both based on the notion that the greatest Western music has always -- and continues to be -- composed by Christians motivated by various degrees of religious inspiration. This is of course true in many cases, as a careful look at composers' biographies will make clear.

To compare small things with great, even a mini-genius like Bob Marley was powerfully inspired to compose and perform by his devotion to Rastafarianism.

The general observation is that it does not matter which brand of irrational rubbish you are committed to (Christianity, Islam, Caribbean voodoo, Hinduism, etc. etc.); strength of conviction often motivates great and productive effort. (I suppose it just as often motivates great and destructive effort.)

The conclusion I personally draw from such writings as these is nothing more than further solid evidence to add to the accounting for the greatness of particular composers. What I mean is simply that to the plain question -- How did Mr. X manage to compose such wonderful music? -- there is usually not one answer, but several, all of which combine to give something approaching a tangible explanation. You know, talent, work ethic, luck, motivation (the subject of this whole thread, really), opportunity, and so on.

That Beethoven string quartet is typically brilliant Ludwiggian stuff. But when you say it points the way towards 'modern music' I hope you don't mean, towards the post-tonal garbage of Schoenberg and all those other creeps. If that's what you're hearing in anything Beethoven ever wrote, then, as the great Peter Cook once said, "I can only suggest that you need psychiatric help, of the sort provided by Dr. Gleegle and his Gleegle Tones."

As for the Schoenberg recording, I suppose it is very well played. But why any musician would want to devote precious time to playing garbage at all is a complete mystery to me.

And now, if you have nothing better to do, some more Goldman (he used to call himself Spengler). I just ran across a further essay he published on this topic, apparently to answer many responses he received from his readers. Here it is in full:

https://www.101bananas.com/art/art.html

*     *     *     *     *     *

Why You Pretend to Like Modern Art

By Spengler

       After I wrote 'Admit It — You Really Hate Modern Art', many readers assured me that I was quite mistaken about them. Especially among the educated elites there are many who will go to their graves proclaiming their love for modern art, and I owe them an explanation of sorts. At the cost of most of a few remaining friends, I will provide it.
       
       You pretend to like modern art because you want to be creative. In fact, you are not creative, not in the least. In all of human history we know of only a few hundred truly creative men and women. It saddens me to break the news, but you aren't one of them. By insisting that you are not creative, you think I am saying that you are not important. I do not mean that, but will have to return to the topic later.

       You have your heart set on being creative because you want to worship yourself, your children, or some pretentious impostor, rather than the God of the Bible. Absence of faith has not made you more rational. On the contrary, it has made you ridiculous in your adoration of clownish little deities, of whom the silliest is yourself. G. K. Chesterton said that if you stop believing in God, you will believe in anything.

       For quite some time, conservative critics have attacked the conceit that every nursery-school child should be expected to be creative. Professor Allan Bloom observed twenty years ago in The Closing of the American Mind that creativity until quite recently referred to an attribute of God, not of humans. To demand the attribute of creativity for every human being is the same as saying that everyone should be a little god.

       But what should we mean by creativity? In science and mathematics, it should refer to discoveries that truly are singular, that is, could not possibly be derived from any preceding knowledge.

       We might ask: In the whole history of the arts and sciences, how many contributors truly are indispensable, such that history could not have been the same without their contribution? There is room for argument, but it is hard to come up with more than a few dozen names. Europe had not progressed much beyond Archimedes of Syracuse in mathematics until Isaac Newton and Gottfried Leibniz invented the calculus. Until Nicolaus Copernicus and Johannes Kepler, Europe relied on the 1st-century work of Ptolemy. After Kepler only Newton, and after Newton only Albert Einstein fundamentally changed our views on planetary motion. Scholars still argue over whether someone else would have discovered Special Relativity if Einstein had not, but seem to agree that General Relativity had no clear precedent.

       How many composers, for that matter, created Western classical music? If only a dozen names are known to future generations, they still will know what is fundamental to this art form. [Josquin des Prez, Claudio Monteverdi, Bach, Domenico Scarlatti, George Frideric Haendel, Joseph Haydn, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, Ludwig van Beethoven, Franz Schubert, Robert Schumann, Frederic Chopin, Johannes Brahms.]

       We can argue about the origin of scientific or artistic genius, but we must agree that it is extremely rare. Of the hundreds of composers employed as court or ecclesiastical musicians during Johann Sebastian Bach's lifetime, we hear the work of only a handful today. Eighteenth-century musicians did not strive for genius, but for solid craftsmanship; how it came to be that a Bach would emerge from this milieu has no consensus explanation. As for the rest, we can say with certainty that if a Georg Phillip Telemann (a more successful contemporary of Bach) had not lived, someone else could have done his job without great loss to the art form.

       If we use the term "creative" to mean more or less the same thing as "irreplaceable", then the number of truly creative individuals appears very small indeed. It is very unlikely that you are one of them. If you work hard at your discipline, you are very fortunate to be able to follow what the best people in the field are doing, and if you are extremely good, you might have the privilege of elaborating on points made by greater minds. Beneficial as such efforts might be, it is very unlikely that if you did not do this, no one else would have done it. On the contrary, if you are at the cutting edge of research in any field, you take every possible measure to publish your work as soon as possible, so that you may get credit for it before someone else comes up with precisely the same thing. Even the very best minds in a field live in terror that they will be made dispensable by others who circulate their conclusions first.

       Bach inscribed each of his works with the motto, "Glory belongs only to God," and insisted (wrongly) that anyone who worked as hard as he did could have achieved results just as good. He was content to be a diligent craftsman in the service of God, and did not seek to be a genius; he simply was one. That is the starting point of the man of faith. One does not set out to be a genius, but rather to be of service; extraordinary gifts are a responsibility to be borne with humility. The search for genius began when the service of God no longer interested the artists and scientists.

       Friedrich Nietzsche announced the death of God, and the arrival of the artist as hero, taking as his model Richard Wagner, about whose artistic merits we can argue on a different equation. Whether Wagner was a genius is debatable, but it is beyond doubt that the devotees of Nietzsche were no Wagners, let alone Bachs. To be free of convention was to create one's own artistic world, in Nietzsche's vision, but very few artists are capable of creating their own artistic world. That puts everyone else in an unpleasant position.

       To accommodate the ambitions of the artists, the 20th century turned the invention of artistic worlds into a mass-manufacturing business. In place of the humble craftsmanship of Bach's world, the artistic world split into movements. To be taken seriously during the 20th century, artists had to invent their own style and their own language. Critics heaped contempt on artists who simply reproduced the sort of products that had characterized the past, and praised the founders of schools: Impressionism, Cubism, Primitivism, Abstract Expressionism, and so forth.

       Without drawing on the patronage of the wealthy, modern art could not have succeeded; each day we read of new record prices for 20th century paintings, for example the estimated US$140 million paid to media mogul David Geffen for a Jackson Pollock. Very rich people like to flatter themselves that they are geniuses, and that their skill or luck at marketing music or computer code qualifies them as arbiters of taste. Successful business people typically are extremely clever, but they tend to be idiot savants, with sharp insight into some detail of industry that produces great wealth, but no concept whatever of issues outside their immediate field of expertise. Because the world conspires to flatter the wealthy, rich people are more prone to think of themselves as little gods than ordinary people, and far more susceptible to the cult of creativity in art.

       In his great novel Doktor Faustus, Thomas Mann portrayed this as the work of the devil. The new Faust who makes a pact with Satan in this novel represents the composer Arnold Schoenberg, who sells his soul in return for a system for composing music.

       A new class of critics served as midwives at the birth of these monsters. I marveled in the essay noted above over the fact that museum-goers gush over Pollock's random dribbles, but never would listen to Arnold Schoenberg's 12-tone compositions at a concert hall. The conductor Sir Thomas Beecham famously said that people don't like music; they only like the way it sounds. In the case of Pollock, people neither like his work nor the way it looks; what they like is the idea that the artist in his arrogance can redefine the world on his own terms.

       To be an important person in this perverse scheme means to shake one's fist at God and define one's own little world, however dull, tawdry and pathetic it might be. To lack creativity is to despair. Hence the attraction of the myriad ideological movements in art that gives the despairing artists the illusion of creativity. If God is the Creator, then imitation of God is emulation of creation. But that is not quite true, for the Judeo-Christian God is more than a creator; God is a creator who loves his creatures.

       In the world of faith there is quite a different way to be indispensable, and that is through acts of kindness and service. A mother is indispensable to her child, as are husbands, wives and friends to each other. If one dispenses with the ambition to remake the world according one's whim, and accepts rather that the world is God's creation, then imitatio Dei consists of acts of love.

       In their urge toward self-worship, the artists of the 20th century descended to extreme levels of artlessness to persuade themselves that they were in fact creative. In their compulsion to worship themselves in the absence of God, they produced ideas far more ridiculous, and certainly a great deal uglier, than revealed religion in all its weaknesses ever contrived. The modern cult of individual self-expression is a poor substitute for the religion it strove to replace, and the delusion of personal creativity an even worse substitute for redemption.

*****************

[fftransform]

Spengler = Q?

Looks like the ravings of an uncreative schizophrenic.


Yesterday I was showing some of Stockhausen's Klavierstucke to my neophyte brother, asking his opinion on this one and that one.  He liked #10 the most, not impressed with my personal favorite #7 ("too few notes" in an Amadeus reference he made).

[maxim3]

"Too few notes" hehehe

It's a pity there are any at all =)

[ahinton]

"Too few notes" hehehe

It's a pity there are any at all =)

Is that meant to be yet another tiresome 4'33" joke?...

Best,

Alistair

[maxim3]

No, it's a variation of this joke:

A Scotsman is playing a bagpipe in the street. A woman asks him: "Is that a difficult instrument to play?" The Scotsman replies, "yes, Madame, very difficult." To which the woman answers, "Really. Pity it's not impossible."

[orangesodaking]

But what might you (or Mr Goldman) mean by "modern music"? Schönberg - still the traditional bogeyman - began to upset audiences with his work 120 years ago despite his being (and remaining) steeped in the traditions of Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Liszt, Wagner and Brahms. What of Liszt and where he was going? Or Bach? No, this simply doesn't hold good, nor is it based upon human logic. Everything is chanign all the time. Time has never stood still and nor does it move forwards only rather than backwards or stands still (see Busoni on that subject). The is no such thing as "ordinary human nature"; indeed, "ordinariness" and "human nature" are by definition both incompatible and inherent contradictions in terms.

Best,

Alistair

Fully agree.

Also, it annoys me when people refer to music from the early and mid 1900's as modern...

[aclaussen]

But what might you (or Mr Goldman) mean by "modern music"? Schönberg - still the traditional bogeyman - began to upset audiences with his work 120 years ago despite his being (and remaining) steeped in the traditions of Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Liszt, Wagner and Brahms. What of Liszt and where he was going? Or Bach? No, this simply doesn't hold good, nor is it based upon human logic. Everything is chanign all the time. Time has never stood still and nor does it move forwards only rather than backwards or stands still (see Busoni on that subject). The is no such thing as "ordinary human nature"; indeed, "ordinariness" and "human nature" are by definition both incompatible and inherent contradictions in terms.

Best,

Alistair

When Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Liszt, Wagner and Brahms all built upon the musical traditions (and also broke rules in that tradition), they did so within a tonal framework (in addition modal framework with composers like Debussy). If you go look at tribal music or folk music before we have records of music, it was surely things like pentatonic scales, not 12-tone serial garbage. The problem is serialism; psychologically it's not pleasing to anybody except brainwashed Ivory tower composers.

Fully agree.

Also, it annoys me when people refer to music from the early and mid 1900's as modern...

China Gates (1977) by John Adams is one of the more popular pieces from the late 20th century and it's in part because it's not serial. People don't have a problem with this piece but many have issues with Schoenberg, Babbitt, Wourinen, Pierre Boulez, ect

Had serialism never come about maybe classical music would have more relevance today.

And in regards to OP's original article, I don't think it makes sense to look at Jackson Pollock's paintings and draw parallels from why people dislike modern visual art to why people dislike modern classical music. The issue boils down to serialism/12-tone-technique and trying to look beyond that is mental masturbation.

[j_tour]

The problem is serialism; psychologically it's not pleasing to anybody except brainwashed Ivory tower composers.

Yes, perhaps.  But the problem with your statement is that many people find the imposition of constraints in composition to be of enormous interest.  Probably not most people as some kind of "let the music wash over you and transport you," but as a kind of rigor that was lacking in the late Romantics, the crowd-pleasing stuff, and the idea of the Gesamtkunstwerk, or however it's spelled, with all of the cultural impositions that were more-or-less under-examined.

It doesn't seem to be much different an argument than people complaining that Bach's fugues became academic, intellectual, dry.

And, for the 20th Century, the urge to a kind of serialism, if not integral serialism, was not limited to music.  Literature since Mallarmé's initial steps has always included elements of constraint-based experimentation.  Not the mainstream, but it's not an unimportant category of literature.

Had serialism never come about maybe classical music would have more relevance today.

Arguably, "classical" through-composed music with traditional instrumentation is more popular through the medium of movie scores.  I won't say my opinions of most of that stuff, but people buy soundtracks of that stuff.  Probably a cultural thing:  people seem to really like the movies and they glom onto "hey, that's pretty neat music," or whatever people think.

[klavieronin]

The problem is serialism; psychologically it's not pleasing to anybody except brainwashed Ivory tower composers.

Many people feel the same way about Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, etc. They prefer Pop music, R&B, Country, etc. I was them same in high school, preferring the blues & 60's/70's Rock music, until I listened to enough classical music to realise there was something to it. After that I couldn't get enough. Serial music is no different. Get accustomed to the sound and you will begin to hear it in a whole new way.

When composers come up with ideas like serialism they don't do it to show off how smart they are (12-tone serialism isn't exactly rocket science), they do it because they genuinely want to hear new sounds and explore new possibilities in music. When you've heard enough tonal music (especially as a composer) you will naturally want to seek out something new.

[ranjit]

In the last couple of decades, a new theory of why most people hate 'modern classical' music (you know, the post-tonal stuff like Schoenberg etc.) has been developed which bases its argument on human physiology. Quite simply, our brains are wired to respond positively to certain sounds and combinations of sounds, and music is all about satisfying our expectations. Interesting and attractive music, of course, messes with our expectations to various degrees; but when artfully handled, and used in the right proportions, this foiling of expectations can make for intensely pleasurable listening.

Just wanted to point out that there is nothing new with this theory. The idea of harmonic intervals being pleasing to hear was there since Pythagoras. There are no magic sounds and combinations of sounds which are pleasing to hear. It is a combination of cultural factors, previous listening experience, and temperament. It is true that pitches whose frequencies are in small whole number ratios tend to sound better together. That doesn't mean that music is inherently better when it is more "consonant".