# Can you learn to love music you hate?



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

From the LA Times: "Could I teach myself via regulated music streaming, in a hardly scientific method, to love works that I would add to my 'favorites' lists only with a gun to my head? I quickly put myself on a possibly horrific listening diet."

Read the results here.

http://www.latimes.com/entertainmen...aer-music-dissonance-20130526,0,3235097.story


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

"Can you learn to love music you hate?"

Depends on how you approach it. If you approach something as a chore, then you're almost certain to hate it.

He mentions Pierrot lunaire, and how much he hates the work's "anti-patterns", but then says he enjoys the Three Piano Pieces, which are easily as extreme in musical terms, if not more so. What he hates, certainly, is not the musical qualities of the work itself, but the presentation and the sprechstimme. He seemed to make no connection between the work's style and that of cabaret (like the one Schoenberg worked in for a number of years in the early 1900s) and melodrama.

If you approach music as a joy and love to learn, you can learn to love many things that you never thought you could.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

But... why?. I'm so comfortable in my island.


----------



## oogabooha (Nov 22, 2011)

You certainly can, but it's not about regulated listening...just a change in mindset.

You're always allowed to say your opinions on music, but I feel so uncomfortable criticizing artists or composers based on certain elements (i.e. "they would be so good without the jangle pop influence" or "why is there no complimenting fast movement in this piece?"). It's all things that you may think, and I think them as well, but I've found that when you actually say them out loud, it does nobody any good in the first place. That's why when I listen to a lot of music that I "don't like", I think about why people like it and why I'm not appreciating it for what it is. I don't actively go out of my way to give myself discomfort, but

........
........

actually, I can't even phrase it properly, because I don't think there is a way to define it or bottle it up into a sequence of fancy words. that would be a disservice to the humanity and emotion involved in that. There are people who throw around words like "hate" when they talk about music, and that leaves them closed to ever listening to that sort of thing. that's it. I used to like all of Mozart's work, but now I can only appreciate a few chamber works and his operas. I used to "hate" Conor Oberst, but then I started becoming engrossed in early Bright Eyes material. Why is this? I don't know; probably some change in emotion, or where my mind was at the times when my mind changed...but it's much more fun to leave it like _that._

things happen, that's really it. yes, it is possible, but thinking about "why" wastes too much time (there is too much music to listen to!)

maybe one day I'll have a more "educated" way to answer this question, but for now I really don't care to think about the human mind like that. Maybe we should think of music as a representation of an emotional state: why am I not agreeing with this artist, and will I ever?

to think otherwise takes away so much of the romantic part of the human mind


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

There are not many works I truly hated before I loved them. I might have lacked interest, was indifferent, or thought I wouldn't have a chance to really like it. But a few more listens in different contexts, it worked. Perhaps Prokofiev's 2nd symphony was like that, the first few times I listened to that 1st movement I was a bit overwhelmed, I really _didn't_ like it. Hard to say I _love _that movement now, but it sure makes a lot more sense to me now, so I truly appreciate it for what it is.

Once I can get over the hump of "it's plain ugly" with Miraculous Mandarin and Rite of Spring, maybe I can see glimpses of goodness in it. I find both of those works very _satirical_, which may help my delve into them deeper. That is, when I'm actually _motivated _to give them even a fraction of a listening.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

Oh wow! He listened to Schoenberg, Nancarrow AND Berio?! Step back guys, looks like we got a badass over here.

What kind of experiment is that? I also resent the constant referrals by this writer to his playlist as "hideous".


----------



## jani (Jun 15, 2012)

Yes, i used to hate rap , now i actually like some of it.


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

jani said:


> Yes, i used to hate rap , now i actually like some of it.


I once saw an Eminem video which greatly impressed me (can't remember what the piece was called.) Still cannot stand rap in general, but perhaps I am being unkind - perhaps it's just the pop version of Schoenbergian sprechgesang.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Results of Australian study suggest that through listening we can grow to appreciate sounds we consider tonally difficult and with which we may lack aural experience.

Then Putzo decides to choose pieces to which he has the strongest aversion. He also decides to be "scientific" by listening to just those pieces at exactly the same time several times per diem....

Unfortunately, though it is often a subtle and causal factor in many a news story, 
_stupidity by itself is just not news._


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

jani said:


> Yes, i used to hate rap , now i actually like some of it.


I will always hate rap and everything it stands for. Some of the most inept garbage I've ever heard. One heavy beat played ad nauseam with no melodic or harmonic ideas. I don't like using the word 'hate' but when it comes this junk, I have no problem whatsoever, but to each their own.


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

I think music we dislike can become music we love as it's a matter of getting more experience under your belt. Not everything you return to will genuinely please you, but I've learned that you can't completely write-off a composer based on three or four listens. Like, for example, I used to dislike Holmboe. I don't know what it was about this composer but I got nothing from his music, but then a few years go by and I decide to give him another try and something just clicked with me this time around. Now, I'm really enjoying his music but it wasn't an easy road for me.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

The question is both theoretically fascinating and potentially useful. I would _love_ to understand both why certain brains adore specific music while others hate it and how an individual can increase their appreciation for music they dislike. I realize that many people here probably aren't intensely curious about the brain's workings, but I've always felt that understanding the brain's response to music will essentially require understanding the brain's basic data processing and analysis - something we likely won't know for centuries.

While we can't presently answer these questions theoretically, people could possibly make progress on specific questions by trial and error. Baer's suggestion is one such attempt. I have tried something similar with a particular work - Berg's Violin Concerto. I did manage to go from "dislike" to "strong like" through repeated listening of both the work and an auditory commentary of the work. I'm not sure what that actually shows. I have not been so successful with a few other works. Repeated listening of various composers' works has helped me go from indifference/dislike to strong like for many.

I believe that people can "learn" to like/appreciate music they presently do not through focused listening. There is a TC thread linking to a study showing that repeated listening can reduce the subjective sense of dissonance in chords. I have a student composition friend who believes that modern music requires more listening than earlier music because many modern composers use distinctly differing techniques or compositional methods (languages). Instead of learning a small number of Romantic music languages, he feels one must almost learn a new language for each composer.

I also have no doubt that listeners must be open to enjoying new music. That may be easier said than done. (Aside: How many psychologists does it take to change a light bulb? One, but the light bulb has to really want to change.)


----------



## Guest (May 27, 2013)

But mm, Baer's suggestion starts from a faulty premise, that the music is horrible.

It's not.

All that music he talks about as being burdensome to listen to is simply burdensome FOR HIM.

Now, there are probably a half a dozen TC posters for whom the same pieces are also burdensome.

So what?

The pieces themselves are just themselves. Some listeners will have difficulties with them, some will like them immediately, some will grow to like them.

Notice what we're talking about. Not the music. We're talking about the listeners.

Mr. Baer has started out with the wrong question. Instead of asking if it's possible to learn to love the music you hate, Baer should have asked "Why do I hate certain kinds of music?"

Not "what's wrong with this music?" or even "can I learn to enjoy hideous music?" but "what's wrong with me?"

Much more fruitful question. More directed towards what you can change, yourself, rather than what you cannot change, the music that's already been written.

Only thing standing in the way of adopting that approach is the widespread horror of admitting that anything is wrong with ourselves. Well, too bad.

Here's what I see, over and over again. That people listen to music in order to hear what they already like.

There's another way. To listen to music in order to like what you hear.

mm makes an interesting observation that repeated listening can reduce the perception of dissonance. Exactly. Which is why you should value the new. It is so precious, that fleeting moment when everything seems chaotic and wild. It won't last. A couple of repeat listens and it will all seem so logic and safe and comfortable. The chaotic and wild is so fragile. So quickly lost. And once lost, it is lost forever.

And some people spend entire lifetimes valuing the safe and comfortable.

Incroyable.

Here's what Baer says: "... as we age, we gravitate to replaying what we fell in love with when our brains were spongier." Hahahaha!! Gott sei dank that I have not aged like that. As I have aged (whatever _that_ means),* I gravitate towards that that I have never heard before.

*As time has passed.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

some guy said:


> Only thing standing in the way of adopting that approach is the widespread horror of admitting that anything is wrong with ourselves. Well, too bad.


Ah, I was waiting for that. It's the listener's fault! :lol:

Since this position so neatly and completely invalidates all opposing arguments, then it must, by the Great Occam, be so.


----------



## Guest (May 27, 2013)

Yes. Still playing the blame (fault) game, are you?

Point is, 

Oh, what's the use?

Different people have different responsibilities. Composers have certain responsibilities. Listeners have a different set.

If either fails to live up to their responsibilities, there will be a problem. 

Ken wants listeners to have no responsibilities at all.

OK. Good luck with that.


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

Nobody has " responsibilities".

Composers, like writers, have something to say. They say it. If it sells or gets critical acclaim, great.

Listeners, like readers, want something to enjoy. If it challenges them, fine.

Composers and listeners should be aware of what is considered "good". They don't have to respect it but they should be aware when they're getting cheap schlock or providing it.

That is not to say that there isn't a place for cheap schlock when you want a "mindless" read or listen.

Listeners should be aware of what is "good" but they don't have to like it. Just as some authors are considered classics doesn't mean that you have to like them.

There is a difference between saying "this is not to my taste" and "this is rubbish". Sometimes, we don't make it totally clear.

Sometimes there is a genuine difference of opinion as to whether a particular work is "good".

It may be nice to attempt to broaden one's taste but it should be done in a spirit of exploration and an openness to new ideas rather than as a chore - I _*must*_ like early renaissance music because it is "good" - for example, rather than I will try early renaissance music to see what people are going on about and to see if I can identify what is "good" about it.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

I don't _hate _any music. I can be indifferent or disinterested, but if it isn't my bag, I leave it to others. I'd say there's music I _don't like_, but not music I _hate_. In which case, I could probably grow to love the stuff I don't like, but wouldn't bother trying unless somehow felt compelled...


----------



## Schubussy (Nov 2, 2012)

Neo Romanza said:


> I will always hate rap and everything it stands for. Some of the most inept garbage I've ever heard. One heavy beat played ad nauseam with no melodic or harmonic ideas. I don't like using the word 'hate' but when it comes this junk, I have no problem whatsoever, but to each their own.


I didn't use to like hip-hop, but after a few forced listenings to A Tribe Called Quest and the first Nas album I grew to love it.

Not the horrible gangsta pop stuff they all do now though.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

some guy said:


> But mm, Baer's suggestion starts from a faulty premise, that the music is horrible.
> 
> It's not.
> 
> ...


I agree with pretty much all this, though I wouldn't use the phrase "what's wrong with me?" To me, the fact that someone doesn't like, say, Berio or rap music isn't something that's "wrong" with them, it's simply a fact, in much the same way that being unable to reach the top shelf doesn't mean there's something "wrong" with their height. But - along the lines you say - some people choose to ignore the goodies on the top shelf, while others go get a stepladder.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

I used to hate *Sibelius*


----------



## Chrythes (Oct 13, 2011)

Just play that music while having sex, after a while you will start associating the music with it. 
Might either convert for you for a lifetime, or leave you childless.


----------



## ptr (Jan 22, 2013)

I never understood the concept of hate, it just seems such a waste of time and energy... We have touched on this theme often during the months I've been a TC'er, the fact that most of modern humans only seem to respond to instant gratification, and unless this apply, they waste their time with negative outbursts...

So OP, despite not understanding Hate, I emphatically say *Yes*, You can learn to understand music You at first do not understand, it "just" takes some more time, effort and creativity, if You lack either, sorry, You should go for sports instead, it is just so much simpler to equate emotionally! 

/ptr


----------



## presto (Jun 17, 2011)

Why bother!
When I don’t have enough time to hear the music that I know I’m going to like.
I don’t mind stretching the boundaries, if you're interested in music you will, we tend to become more adventures as we get older, I certainly have but I draw the line with rap music!


----------



## Kleinzeit (May 15, 2013)

It's less about how I judge the music, more about how the music judges me


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

If this thread just means a specific piece, then it really depends on that piece how much you may grow to like it or not. Is there much depth to uncover?

If the thread means a general style of music then I think it's certainly possible to grow to like things within a style previously not liked/understood. It's perhaps about finding out the creative aspects and who crafts and communicates these to good effect, as well as finding the varieties within a style which may not be apparent until you have heard enough of it.


----------



## oogabooha (Nov 22, 2011)

Neo Romanza said:


> I will always hate rap and everything it stands for. Some of the most inept garbage I've ever heard. One heavy beat played ad nauseam with no melodic or harmonic ideas. I don't like using the word 'hate' but when it comes this junk, I have no problem whatsoever, but to each their own.


Again, talking on a complete surface level, mainstream analysis isn't healthy either. Speaking in absolutes pretty much confirms that you'll never enjoy a lot of music

EDIT: also, what does "what it stands for" mean? It sounds like you're criticizing a culture as opposed to the music, in which case I would say I don't like any classical era music (or just classical music!)


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

"Can you learn to love music you hate?"

Here is your ideal listener for this thread:

I was driving down the road, when a car horn beeped. I really hated that. Then a bird chirped. How can a bird possibly think he can get away with a chirp like that? Boy, I've heard much better chirps from different species.

The premise is flawed. When I listen to music, I'm not interested in "what I like." I'm listening to sounds.

The way into the room is via the door. Why is it that more people do not use this method?


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

some guy said:


> Mr. Baer has started out with the wrong question. Instead of asking if it's possible to learn to love the music you hate, Baer should have asked "Why do I hate certain kinds of music?"


Yes, I agree. Your question is more to the point. What can _I_ do to allow me to enjoy this music? The music will not change, but I can.

I simply assumed Baer was using the standard comments from listeners as an entry to the real question.


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

oogabooha said:


> Again, talking on a complete surface level, mainstream analysis isn't healthy either. Speaking in absolutes pretty much confirms that you'll never enjoy a lot of music
> 
> EDIT: also, what does "what it stands for" mean? It sounds like you're criticizing a culture as opposed to the music, in which case I would say I don't like any classical era music (or just classical music!)


I'll never enjoy 'rap' and I'm perfectly okay with that because it's not music to me. I'm a classical and jazz guy. As for the 'what it stands for' comment, I believe snorting cocaine with your [enter derogatory word here] while she's being b**** slapped across the face isn't something I feel is a good message to send to listeners. Not only that the 'music' is aimed at the lowest common denominator. I'm sure you'll disagree but that's just how I feel.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

BurningDesire said:


> Oh wow! He listened to Schoenberg, Nancarrow AND Berio?! Step back guys, looks like we got a badass over here.
> 
> What kind of experiment is that? I also resent the constant referrals by this writer to his playlist as "hideous".


Yep, writer must be a total wuss -- hothouse flower, will wither and die if exposed to early 20th century dodecaphonicism -- some of us were eating those composer's music for breakfast by the time we were in middle school


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

Schubussy said:


> I didn't use to like hip-hop, but after a few forced listenings to A Tribe Called Quest and the first Nas album I grew to love it.


I've been exposed to several hip-hop 'songs' and they all sounded the same to me. If you enjoy them that's your prerogative, but I can't get into it.


----------



## oogabooha (Nov 22, 2011)

Neo Romanza said:


> I'll never enjoy 'rap' and I'm perfectly okay with that because it's not music to me. I'm a classical and jazz guy. As for the 'what it stands for' comment, I believe snorting cocaine with your [enter derogatory word here] while she's being b**** slapped across the face isn't something I feel is a good message to send to listeners. Not only that the 'music' is aimed at the lowest common denominator. I'm sure you'll disagree but that's just how I feel.


again, you're speaking on an incredibly general level.

hip hop actually came out of jazz music (with disco and spoken word poets for good measure), so to call yourself a jazz man and not know where hip hop came from is uneducated. I have no problem with taste, but just know what you're criticizing.

Listen to this and tell me that you hear "no jazz" and the vulgarity you're talking about:






if that's not your type of music, then that's cool with me! but you're taking an entire side of music and reducing it to the most basic form and judging it based on that. And saying that it's aimed at the lowest common denominator, again, doesn't sound like you're criticizing the music, but the culture. Also, that sounds subtly racist. Why would this music be pandered to the lowest common denominator in the first place? perhaps because things like classical music and commercial rock/pop has always been for the white man, so music in african american roots like hip hop, jazz, blues, have always been underground?

I don't like lyrics like what you cited with drug use, etc., but fortunately that has nothing to do with the practice of rap.

sorry for derailing the thread, but this does have to do with liking music you "hate", because misconception is usually why people dislike music


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

oogabooha said:


> And saying that it's aimed at the lowest common denominator, again, doesn't sound like you're criticizing the music, but the culture. Also, that sounds subtly racist. Why would this music be pandered to the lowest common denominator in the first place? perhaps because things like classical music and commercial rock/pop has always been for the white man, so music in african american roots like hip hop, jazz, blues, have always been underground?


That sounds a little bit unfair. I'm sure as many people buying rap cd's are white. I also think rap music panders to the lowest common denominator - which doesn't mean it's totally without merit - but so did blond, blue-eyed Swedish pop group ABBA. To suggest the lowest common denominator is a black audience could be construed as racist itself...


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

oogabooha said:


> again, you're speaking on an incredibly general level.
> 
> hip hop actually came out of jazz music (with disco and spoken word poets for good measure), so to call yourself a jazz man and not know where hip hop came from is uneducated. I have no problem with taste, but just know what you're criticizing.
> 
> ...


I don't have a misconception of hip-hop and I'd like you to stop making assumptions about me you know nothing about. I don't know you, you don't know me. I think you're just trying to defend something you enjoy rather than accepting an opinion that differs from your own. One other thing I know is I don't like this 'rap' stuff and never will, so call me narrow-minded, call me whatever you wish, but don't insult my intelligence and continue to tell me I have no idea what I'm talking about because I actually do. What part of I'm a classical and jazz guy did not understand?


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> The way into the room is via the door. Why is it that more people do not use this method?


Doors are for wimps!


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

Kieran said:


> That sounds a little bit unfair. I'm sure as many people buying rap cd's are white. I also think rap music panders to the lowest common denominator - which doesn't mean it's totally without merit - but so did blond, blue-eyed Swedish pop group ABBA. To suggest the lowest common denominator is a black audience could be construed as racist itself...


Yes, there are plenty of white people who enjoy rap just like there's probably some Indian guy sitting in a hotel right now in Bombay listening to some Public Enemy or Snoop Dog.


----------



## oogabooha (Nov 22, 2011)

Neo Romanza said:


> I don't have a misconception of hip-hop and I'd like you to stop making assumptions about me you know nothing about. I don't know you, you don't know me. I think you're just trying to defend something you enjoy rather than accepting an opinion that differs from your own. One other thing I know is I don't like this 'rap' stuff and never will, so call me narrow-minded, call me whatever you wish, but don't insult my intelligence and continue to tell me I have no idea what I'm talking about because I actually do. What part of I'm a classical and jazz guy did not understand?


Again, you don't have to like it. All I was saying is that you're citing stereotypical lyrics for a genre of music that you don't like, speaking in absolutes. I don't see where I made an assumption about you, because you made it blatantly clear that you assumed that all rap music was what you hear on top 40 radio when you cited the music as being representative of those lyrics. You're taking this like I've attacked your intelligence, when in reality I was just showing you what really is going on. It's just disrespectful to make irrelevant criticisms.

that's all I'm going to say on this matter because it's clear that you won't actually care about respecting a tradition of music that you're not into


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

oogabooha said:


> Again, you don't have to like it. All I was saying is that you're citing stereotypical lyrics for a genre of music that you don't like, speaking in absolutes. I don't see where I made an assumption about you, because you made it blatantly clear that you assumed that all rap music was what you hear on top 40 radio when you cited the music as being representative of those lyrics. You're taking this like I've attacked your intelligence, when in reality I was just showing you what really is going on. It's just disrespectful to make irrelevant criticisms.
> 
> that's all I'm going to say on this matter because it's clear that I can show you how much you are speaking generally and you will not acknowledge that


The only thing I'll acknowledge is that you can't accept an opinion that differs from your own. I know I'm speaking generally, that's obvious, what I'm saying is that this doesn't matter, I still HATE this crap! You enjoy it, that's fine, but don't try to make it's case for me when I clearly told you that I don't enjoy it. Now if you'll excuse I have some real music to listen to.

Rap music has a Top 40? I guess some people will listen to anything...


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

I think it varies with the individual. I would like to like all sorts of music, and I do like many different varieties (classical, oriental, folk, jazz, rock etc), but I also have very strong tastes & opinions that I can't surmount. 

I don't think I could like rap music because it doesn't sound like music to me, but more like a rhyme being spoken rhythmically. The same for avant-garde music, because it sounds too dissonant to me. I'm not judging the aficionados of these varieties & it may well be that I am deficient in not liking them, but as someone (Presto, above) has observed, why spend time listening to things I dislike when there's not time to listen to all that I do like? 

Some people are more adaptable, of course. When we first married, Taggart didn't like rice or tomatoes; he loves them now. And I hated sultanas - and I *still do*!


----------



## jani (Jun 15, 2012)

Neo Romanza said:


> I've been exposed to several hip-hop 'songs' and they all sounded the same to me. If you enjoy them that's your prerogative, but I can't get into it.


Hmm...

Two pieces from a same artist and from a same album, i understand disliking rap music but saying that every piece sounds the same is little bit too much.


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

There are undoubtedly non-Classical listeners who think all Beethoven sounds the same. When you first listen to a genre, you tend to only notice broad aspects (e.g., the instruments used).

I was going to post something pro hip hop, but Jani's 50 Cent videos ruined it for me


----------



## Guest (May 27, 2013)

OK. Let me see if I've got this straight.

If you don't like something, you are entitled to say that over and over again. And, what's more, you should be able to say it as much as you want without anyone reacting to it. And if anyone does, there is a standard response: "you can't accept an opinion that differs from your own."

Now there's funny. I woulda thought that the sense of entitlement came from not accepting differing opinions--not only not accepting them, but getting huffy if anyone dares to express them in your presence.

And, for the vigilant mods, always on the alert for any suspicious activity, especially if it targets a more traditionalist listener, I have this to say: While I just now quoted something that a particular poster actually said, for illustrative purposes, that particular poster *is not by any means the only one who uses this tactic.* I'm not targetting an individual poster. I'm identifying a widespread practice that stultifies almost every topic.*

I think it has always been easy for arguments to devolve into quarrels, even when the participants were all in the same room with each other. In person. Online's anonymity makes it even easier. Ridiculously easy. Forum rules notwithstanding.

We can do better.

*Just by the way, the words "you can't accept an opinion that differs from your own" do indeed target a particular poster. Those words do not contribute anything to the topic. They are, in short, in violation of forum rules. But how often have you seen these words in threads? Dozens of times. Hundreds. Has anyone saying them ever been found to be in violation, though? Something to think about there, at the very least.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Extreme sensitivity to other people's opinions only tends to discourage discourse. Angry reactions to other people's opinions guarantees that the discourse will end. I think people use this as a technique to shut down conversations that aren't going their way.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

To answer the question of the thread... I don't usually find that I can "learn to love" music I hate. If I hate it, it's probably because it's lacking some element I find important. Learning more about it doesn't do anything to give it what it lacks. Crappy musicians make crappy music. However, I find that there are usually exceptions to rules about whole genres of music... For instance, I thought I didn't like rap music, then I found one album that I thought was genius. The overall genre of rap isn't a particularly fertile field for good music, but there's always an exception.


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

I'm all for differing opinions but what I don't particularly care for is being told that I don't know what I'm talking about when I said I have heard several hip-hop songs. It doesn't make me an expert on the whole subject of rap but it does entitle me to give an opinion on it which I did. Nobody has to agree with it but I think ultimately someone trying to convince me of the genre's merits is beating a dead horse. That's all I'm saying.


----------



## oogabooha (Nov 22, 2011)

Neo Romanza said:


> I'm all for differing opinions but what I don't particularly care for is being told that I don't know what I'm talking about when I said I have heard several hip-hop songs. It doesn't make me an expert on the whole subject of rap but it does entitle me to give an opinion on it which I did. Nobody has to agree with it but I think ultimately someone trying to convince me of the genre's merits is beating a dead horse. That's all I'm saying.


but to refer to a genre as not "real music" is the problem, really. It shows disrespect towards the music, which--no matter if you like it or not--does not provide fertile ground for actually discussing the music in question.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Well, I dismissed all rap, and then I heard one thing that worked really well. Nothing wrong with keeping an open mind. But I have to admit, in the past around here when I've asked for youtube examples to help change my mind, it hasn't been particularly persuasive. I think that has to do with the solipsism of internet forums, not the music itself.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

oogabooha said:


> but to refer to a genre as not "real music" is the problem, really. It shows disrespect towards the music, which--no matter if you like it or not--does not provide fertile ground for actually discussing the music in question.


That is wrong. When someone says "This isn't real music" the more useful reaction is to ask what criteria they are using to define what "real music" is. Then you have a better chance of finding something that meets that criteria.

I can think of plenty of music that richly deserves disrespect. One doesn't have to respect everything. You have to be discerning.


----------



## oogabooha (Nov 22, 2011)

bigshot said:


> That is wrong. When someone says "This isn't real music" the more useful reaction is to ask what criteria they are using to define what "real music" is. Then you have a better chance of finding something that meets that criteria.


Perhaps I'm wrong, then. I just feel that if their criteria for enjoying music is that radical, they can just say that. These musicians are all creating music, whether you like it or not. To dismiss it as something that isn't music (as the medium) is invalidating their careers. To say it isn't _musical_ is a completely different analysis.


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

bigshot said:


> Well, I dismissed all rap, and then I heard one thing that worked really well. Nothing wrong with keeping an open mind. But I have to admit, in the past around here when I've asked for youtube examples to help change my mind, it hasn't been particularly persuasive. I think that has to do with the solipsism of internet forums, not the music itself.


I'm all about keeping an open-mind when it's a genre I respect and enjoy, otherwise I don't really care.


----------



## Guest (May 27, 2013)

I wonder sometimes when people say that they 'hate' or 'don't like' rap if they mean the music (_sans paroles_) or if they really mean the 'whole package' (the music, the lyrics, the visuals that have to accompany the 'work', the '_politiks_' [sic]...
The music itself I find can be quite seductively simple and 'good to move to'. Like a minuet, give or take a couple of centuries.


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

TalkingHead said:


> I wonder sometimes when people say that they 'hate' or 'don't like' rap if they mean the music (_sans paroles_) or if they really mean the 'whole package' (the music, the lyrics, the visuals that have to accompany the 'work', the '_politiks_' [sic]...
> The music itself I find can be quite seductively simple and 'good to move to'. Like a minuet, give or take a couple of centuries.


I hate everything about it.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

Some rap I actually like. I have a couple cd's by Dr Dre and Ice Cube, but I feel the form is very limited and its charms wear thin very quickly. Also, the lyrics are more problematical for me now than they were. Not in a hugely moral way, but just in the sense that braggadocio wears thin after a while. I can see where they're coming from with their explicit lyrics, unnecessary and vain though they normally are. Actually, they're boring. It's like sitting beside somebody with Tourettes.

But I can also see where _Neo Romanza_ is coming from: they just don't like it. In fact, they hate it. It's music, not personal animosity to anyone, I'm sure...


----------



## Guest (May 27, 2013)

Neo Romanza said:


> I hate everything about it.


I have no problem with your opinion whatsoever. I am of a slightly different one, as I have outlined above.


----------



## Guest (May 27, 2013)

Kieran said:


> Some rap I actually like. I have a couple cd's by Dr Dre and Ice Cube, but I feel the form is very limited and *its charms wear thin very quickly* [...]


Yes, I'd buy into that. Rather like a 18th/19th C. minuet.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Neo Romanza said:


> I hate everything about it.


Although I don't really feel so strongly, I can't resist paraphrasing J.F. Runciman's 1896 view of Saint-Saens: "It is one's duty to hate with all possible fervor the empty and ugly in art; and I hate rap with a hate that is perfect."


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

Kieran said:


> But I can also see where _Neo Romanza_ is coming from: they just don't like it. In fact, they hate it. It's music, not personal animosity to anyone, I'm sure...


Yes and I respect other people's opinions. Perhaps I was a bit too harsh in my posts but I really loathe this stuff. I remember years ago I worked in a video rental store (remember those? remember VHS? ) and there's one guy I worked with that always listened to rap music (Snoop Dog, Coolio, I believe he did like A Tribe Called Quest) and asked me my opinion of the music, because he knew I was a hobby musician and really passionate about music, I said "It's crap." He looked at me like I just killed his dog. I explained my reasons for disliking it and he still couldn't get over it. He just didn't understand my reasoning and I said "You don't have to understand my opinion. All I'd want you to do is respect it. If you can't do that then you're not a fan of music." I don't hold anything against the guy for liking rap, that's his preference and if he enjoys then I'm happy for him. Nobody likes the same things.


----------



## Schubussy (Nov 2, 2012)

Neo Romanza said:


> I'll never enjoy 'rap' and I'm perfectly okay with that because it's not music to me. I'm a classical and jazz guy. As for the 'what it stands for' comment, I believe snorting cocaine with your [enter derogatory word here] while she's being b**** slapped across the face isn't something I feel is a good message to send to listeners. Not only that the 'music' is aimed at the lowest common denominator. I'm sure you'll disagree but that's just how I feel.


I have loads of hip-hop albums, not a single one is like this. A lot of the commercialised pop stuff is but hip-hop is very varied. It can mean anything from




to




to





And I have no idea why (90's style) hip-hop is so hated (apart from misunderstanding that it's all about snorting cocaine with your [enter derogatory word here] while she's being b**** slapped across the face or whatever) Musically it's no less complex than a lot of rock or folk, and a lot is basically just like funk. And who doesn't love funk music?


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Neo Romanza said:


> I'm all about keeping an open-mind when it's a genre I respect and enjoy, otherwise I don't really care.


I have no problem dismissing specific music as lousy. Lord knows, there's plenty of lousy music out there. But I have learned not to dismiss genres. I've been surprised and delighted to find pockets of wonderful stuff in the most unlikely places.


----------



## oogabooha (Nov 22, 2011)

Schubussy said:


> I have loads of hip-hop albums, not a single one is like this. A lot of the commercialised pop stuff is but hip-hop is very varied. It can mean anything from
> 
> 
> 
> ...


EDIT: probably wouldn't have helped to leave what I originally wrote


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Ah, I was waiting for that. It's the listener's fault!...Since this position so neatly and completely invalidates all opposing arguments, then it must, by the Great Occam, be so.


Well, the thread question itself is a listener problem: "Can you learn to love music you hate?"

Music can't love, or hate; it's just sound.



bigshot said:


> I have no problem dismissing specific music as lousy. Lord knows, there's plenty of lousy music out there.


Yeah, but I just ignore it and avoid if I don't like it. I don't waste a lot of time "hating" it.

Also, I objectively "allow" music to exist by tolerating it, because I recognize its function. For example, rap: I tolerate its existence because it is urban storytelling. Also, I saw the movie about Notorious B.I.G., and I genuinely sympathize with the struggle of inner-city youth.
There are many aspects of rap I find repellent, especially the music videos which celebrate material wealth and sex, which all seem to be filmed in the same big LA mansion.
At least I suspend my judgement, and look into something first before I totally dismiss it.

Apparently, my experience of music is less viscerally-based on base physical reactions, and more cerebrally and intuitively based. I love Humanity as well, and I think a lot of the hate reactions I see are misanthropic in nature.


----------



## Guest (May 27, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> Well, the thread question itself is a listener problem: "Can you learn to love music you hate?"
> Music can't love, or hate; it's just sound.


Er, problem with syntax there, Millionrainbows. Care to elaborate? Or am I perhaps barking up the wrong tree?


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

I commented on this earlier but I obviously didn't make myself plain.

The OP was considering Art music \ Classical Music \ "Proper" music. The thread has now devolved into a critique of rap music.

*Basically, it doesn't matter! *

We have various genres of literature. We accept that some people like "art" literature. We accept that others like genre fiction - sci fi, westerns, thrillers, Mills and Boone. I have no objection to people reading Mills and Boone. But I think that most people would accept that it is not "proper" literature like Shakespeare or Pope or Dickens or whatever.

Some people read crime fiction or thrillers and would never touch sci fi. Fine. I have no problem because none of that is seen as "Art" literature.

Soem people find Hardy or Thackeray a little tedious. That we tend to worry about because these are "Art" literature. Why don't people like Hardy or Thackeray? Can they learn to like them? *That was the OP's point.* Not some people read crime fiction or thrillers and would never touch sci fi.

The OP's point is that some people like Wagner but not Tallis or vice versa. Can they learn to like them?

We know that some people like pop, some like rock or some form of metal or rap or whatever. We do not consider these as "art" music so we should consider people's preferences as merely a question of taste and return to the discussion of "proper" music as the OP intended.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

G.G.Allin was known for throwing his own feces at the audience, while naked. Apparently, his purpose was not to be "loved," but to provoke a hate reaction. He was frequently beat-up by members of the audience. If we "learned to love" G.G. Allin's music & concert experience, we would be naive, and in opposition to his artistic intent. 

This underscores a basic problem: not all forms of music "need your support," and not all artists desire "your" love, because you probably represent some form of social opposition to them. I don't expect law enforcement personnel to like the song "Cop Killer." 

Much music is divisive on purpose; it tries to delineate social identity and differences, and create "in-groups" which actively exclude and repel those perceived as "outsiders."

As soon as we recognize this, we will not get caught-up in hatred; we will simply recognize that we are "the other" or "the enemy," and go about our business.

Classical music could easily be construed as being "hate-music" to an inner-city rapper, since it totally ignores his suffering, anger, and plight, and excludes all those social issues that are essential criteria for his concept of "good, relevant music," while it celebrates the Church, royalty, the wealthy, and white European tradition.

Likewise, rappers have good reason to write songs like "Cop Killer," since the police, especially in the South, were used up through the present as the "power arm" of jim crow racism, racially targeting and arresting black men on bogus charges of "vagrancy" and such.

Like KenOC said, "hate is good."  :lol:


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Taggart said:


> We know that some people like pop, some like rock or some form of metal or rap or whatever. We do not consider these as "art" music so we should consider people's preferences as merely a question of taste and return to the discussion of "proper" music as the OP intended.


The thing is... While pop and rock and rap and metal all might be justifiable genres of music and there may be examples within those genres that rise to the level of art, as well as bad examples. I don't believe that it's wrong to say specific music is bad as long as you define the criteria that you're judging it by. If you do that, you can learn as much from someone who doesn't like something as you can from someone who does. When I read movie reviews, I often read negative reviews that make me want to see the movie. And reading a bad review of a movie I like can show me an aspect of the film I might not have thought about before.

Discernment is not a bad thing.


----------



## Kevin Pearson (Aug 14, 2009)

We live in a world where to the majority of people, especially in the West, "tolerance" is the only moral value worth having and thus people with strong personal "judgments" are deemed wrong, but the problem with this worldview lies in that those who take the "I'm tolerant of all viewpoints as equally valid" is that they soon become hypocrites in that they will not tolerate those who have strong judgments. I find that this is true regardless of whether we discuss music, religion, politics, art or whatever. 

In any case it's too bad this thread got derailed into a discussion on the merits of rap and hip hop because the original article did not even deal with those genres but with classical music. I personally believe that a person can learn to love music that one may hate but it does require developing an open mind and a willingness to set aside preconceived ideas about a piece and listen with new ears, so to speak. Twenty years ago I had very little time for or desire to listen to much "modern" classical music. Over the years though, through education, exposure, and experience, I have come love love many works I once despised. That said though I still find John Cage's 4'33 as just intellectual drivel and will never meet my definition or criteria for music, or at least music I want to listen to. So, when it comes to some works I can be judgmental and intolerant. I'm sorry but that's the way it is and if you don't like it? Well, you'll just have to practice a little more tolerance and we'll all get along! :devil:

Kevin


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

Taggart said:


> We know that some people like pop, some like rock or some form of metal or rap or whatever. We do not consider these as "art" music so we should consider people's preferences as merely a question of taste and return to the discussion of "proper" music as the OP intended.


The idea of "art music" is a fallacy. All music is art. To designate some music as true art, and tons of it as some lower form, is extremely pretentious and insulting. That also goes for film and literature and all other artistic mediums.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

BurningDesire said:


> The idea of "art music" is a fallacy. All music is art. To designate some music as true art, and tons of it as some lower form, is extremely pretentious and insulting. That also goes for film and literature and all other artistic mediums.


It's also totally backwards in the modern age when the popular art forms of the 20th century were much more important than the high art forms.


----------



## Feathers (Feb 18, 2013)

To be honest, I find it near impossible to learn to love music that I hate, simply because it is difficult for me to hate a piece of music in the first place. I give little care for some music, feel indifferent about some music, or even just plain dislike some music, but I rarely "hate" a certain type of music. If I don't like it, I stop listening to it instead of letting my dislike become hate. Therefore, if I do "hate" a certain type of music, it must be for a strong reason, and in that case it's extremely difficult to even imagine myself ever learning to love the music. Even when I do convert myself into liking a type of music, it is usually a conversion from indifference to love or from tolerance to love, but never from hate to love.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Kevin Pearson said:


> We live in a world where to the majority of people, especially in the West, "tolerance" is the only moral value worth having and thus people with strong personal "judgments" are deemed wrong, but the problem with this worldview lies in that those who take the "I'm tolerant of all viewpoints as equally valid" is that they soon become hypocrites in that they will not tolerate those who have strong judgments. I find that this is true regardless of whether we discuss music, religion, politics, art or whatever.


But if a "strong personal jugment" is based on willful ignorance rather than knowledge, does it deserve to be tolerated?

There's a big difference between someone who's listened to 4'33" and thought about the work and its basis, and then dismisses it as intellectual drivel, and someone who knows little or nothing about avant-garde art of the 20th century but has heard that Cage wrote a "silent piece of music", and says this is stupid.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Taggart said:


> We know that some people like pop, some like rock or some form of metal or rap or whatever. We do not consider these as "art" music so we should consider people's preferences as merely a question of taste and return to the discussion of "proper" music as the OP intended.


Preference for "art" music or any of its subgenres is also "merely a question of taste".


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

BurningDesire said:


> The idea of "art music" is a fallacy. All music is art. To designate some music as true art, and tons of it as some lower form, is extremely pretentious and insulting. That also goes for film and literature and all other artistic mediums.


Relax. Keep cool. Chillax.  Taggart (I think) & certainly I do not regard 'some music as true art & tons of it as some lower form'. So hopefully we have not been 'pretentious and insulting' - merely 'logical'...

'Art' music is just a convenient label, and it appears to be what the OP was asking about. Taggart & I are equally fond of Scottish reels & strathspeys, English country dance music, and Irish jigs - 'folk' or 'traditional' music, which is certainly not art music. But if we want to discuss that, we go on to a specialist forum.

This forum is called 'Talk Classical', not 'Talk Rap'!


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

Taggart said:


> I commented on this earlier but I obviously didn't make myself plain.
> 
> The OP was considering Art music \ Classical Music \ "Proper" music. The thread has now devolved into a critique of rap music.
> 
> We know that some people like pop, some like rock or some form of metal or rap or whatever. We do not consider these as "art" music so we should consider people's preferences as merely a question of taste and return to the discussion of "proper" music as the OP intended.





BurningDesire said:


> The idea of "art music" is a fallacy. All music is art. To designate some music as true art, and tons of it as some lower form, is extremely pretentious and insulting. That also goes for film and literature and all other artistic mediums.





bigshot said:


> It's also totally backwards in the modern age when the popular art forms of the 20th century were much more important than the high art forms.


Read the post please. Just because I use a shorthand form does not mean that you can jump in and criticise. If you are going to be nit picking then I will return to "classical" throughout. Otherwise read the post in the spirit it was intended.

Different is not lower or higher.

Define "important". This is definitely being judgemental where I was talking about difference.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

I've learned to love everything. 

But then the real question is, did I ever hate anything to begin with?

Oh wait, I still hate that Karl Jenkin guys' music, and also that new Robert whats-his-name guy that was posted about in the forum recently, I don't like his music either. 

Well, so is it possible for me to love those people's music? Since I'm not a predictor of the future, I'll give you all an update on whether or not I ever ended up liking their music when I'm about to die.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

violadude said:


> Well, so is it possible for me to love those people's music? Since I'm not a predictor of the future, I'll give you all an update on whether or not I ever ended up liking their music when I'm about to die.


I hope not; I wish for you what I wish for myself, a short illness at the end with not too much time to worry. Posting your musical tastes onto this forum in fifty odd* years when many of us will be long gone anyway seems like a poor use of your precious last hours!

Live long & prosper, violadude! 

(*PS - considering your age, make that sixty or seventy years, & hopefully not too odd at that!)


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

I'm all for people being able to express whatever opinions they want. I've said that before on an anti-Mozart thread which I disagreed with. But on a discussion forum people have to accept that it is for discussion and if someone wants to argue against a view they have every right to do that. I do find that on forums you can get people who just don't want somebody to express an opinion and can turn it personal (making it about the poster rather than the subject) instead of keeping it on subject, or just tell someone to shut up. 

You can sometimes hear an opinion on a subject which you suspect you might actually know more about that the person who is voicing the opinion. That can be frustrating, but again people have a right to an opinion even if you think it's wrong. Best to just say you have heard a lot in that particular area and explain why you think their opinion is wrong. Just keep it to the music and not about someone's character. One real annoyance for me recently on some forums is the complaint 'you're being negative!' This means absolutely nothing other than 'you dislike something I like and therefore you aren't allowed to talk about it!'. Some people will try any means to quieten somebody.

Anyway getting to the main subject again. I've always been very careful saying I hate a classical composer or even some pieces. If I don't feel I know something well enough I generally keep clear from making too many comments in that area. I haven't been as judicious in some areas of popular music in the past, but I am now. I don't like most hip-hop but I've definitely heard some songs that have an energy and catchiness that can appeal (sorry I don't have an example easy to hand). I don't think the attitude of the style has to be a problem, it can be a strength if focussed well. I like good tight imaginative productions and a strong voice, with a good flow and rhythmic energy. Not sure there are many hip-hop albums I'd listen right through, but you can judge popular music genres by individual songs too.


----------



## Andreas (Apr 27, 2012)

I've learned to respect and appreciate several composers I initially disliked: Haydn, Mozart, Debussy and Mahler in particular.

I wouldn't say I love any of them, but I do consider them masters and I like to listen to them very much.

I didn't force-feed myself with these composers until I started to like them. Instead, I suddenly understood certain things about these composers that made me change my mind.

For example, the lack of "nature" in Mozart's instrumental music. Apparently, he was not interested in landscapes, bird calls, the forest, the ocean, etc. At least I hear no trace of that in his later symphonies and concertos. Music in its purest and most abstract form.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Andreas said:


> I've learned to respect and appreciate several composers I initially disliked: Haydn, Mozart, Debussy and Mahler in particular.
> 
> I wouldn't say I love any of them, but I do consider them masters and I like to listen to them very much.
> 
> ...


What a lovely idea - not force-feeding, but as understanding grows, realising you like music you thought you didn't. Like knowing someone for years, then finding that imperceptibly, you've fallen in love with them; which happens sometimes & is just as romantic in its own way as the whirlwind courtship.


----------



## Andreas (Apr 27, 2012)

Sometimes, it simply happened that something changed my view of certain composers.

For a long time, I thought of Debussy as playful, moody tone-colourist without any real substance. But then I realized that his music had one great quality: it did not, for all its moodiness, indulge in emotionalism, hysterics or sentimentality. In this way, to me, the is the Antimahler. Debussy's music speaks to my emotions, but only as if in translation. Or like through a thin paper wall. And I find that's a great thing.

Mahler on the other hand offended me with his emotional exhibitionism and stylistic excentricities. With Mahler, you could have a serious, church music-like atmosphere in one movement and a jolly marching band in the next. Compared to Bruckner, I thought Mahler to be vulgar and superficial. Yet I realized that none of music actually sounded bad to me. That is, badly written or constructed. In fact, it sounds extremely well crafted, technically. And one can admire the sheer beauty of that. I don't like Tarantino's Kill Bill, I find it ridiculous, actually. But I can't say it's not well made, quite the opposite. Come to think of it, I find that Mahler's symphonies are quite similar to Tarantino's films. Both in a good way and in a bad one. But the good one I can truly enjoy.


----------



## Sonata (Aug 7, 2010)

I don't see the point in force-feeding myself something that I dislike. There is so much music I love, like, or am intruiged by, why force myself to something I don't like.

I AM open to trying music that I may not immediately be pleased with. There are pieces that I don't care for on the whole, but there may be a fragment that I find redeeming to the point that I think "there's something else here, I just don't know it yet". Or sometimes I can tell I'm not in the right mindset or mood for that particular piece. But to take a piece in which I find nothing worthwhile, and I've given it a chance on 2-3 occasions. Then no, I don't feel the need to try to MAKE myself like it. It's absurd to me.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Kevin Pearson said:


> We live in a world where to the majority of people, especially in the West, "tolerance" is the only moral value worth having and thus people with strong personal "judgments" are deemed wrong, but the problem with this worldview lies in that those who take the "I'm tolerant of all viewpoints as equally valid" is that they soon become hypocrites in that they will not tolerate those who have strong judgments. I find that this is true regardless of whether we discuss music, religion, politics, art or whatever.
> 
> In any case it's too bad this thread got derailed into a discussion on the merits of rap and hip hop because the original article did not even deal with those genres but with classical music. I personally believe that a person can learn to love music that one may hate but it does require developing an open mind and a willingness to set aside preconceived ideas about a piece and listen with new ears, so to speak. Twenty years ago I had very little time for or desire to listen to much "modern" classical music. Over the years though, through education, exposure, and experience, I have come love love many works I once despised. That said though I still find John Cage's 4'33 as just intellectual drivel and will never meet my definition or criteria for music, or at least music I want to listen to. So, when it comes to some works I can be judgmental and intolerant. I'm sorry but that's the way it is and if you don't like it? Well, you'll just have to practice a little more tolerance and we'll all get along! :devil:
> 
> Kevin


Ahh, I get it! Instead of that distracting ol' rap music, we should stay within the "art music" genre and discuss the relative merits of traditional CM vs. modern. Been there, done that. And before I go, let me get a little jab in...Vivaldi is mediocre! :devil:


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I don't think it's possible to really "hate" anything, including music, until it poses a threat, real or perceived, to your identity or well-being, or to the things or people you love. We hate that which is different from us. 

Conversely, we don't 'love' a form of music unless it represents our identity and the things we love and feel we are part of on some social level. This is sometimes overt, and many times completely unconscious.

Music is an expression of people's social identity, so if we hate the music that represents that social group, we also hate the people it represents, although we do not admit it. Witness already the unbridled hatred of "rap" music, quickly swept under the rug.

We can hate people and the music that represents them based on their social or ethnic group, such as race, sex, age, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, language ability, ideology, social class, occupation, appearance (height, weight, skin color, etc.), mental capacity, and any other distinction that might be considered as a liability.

Within similar ethnic-racial groups, music can not only represent a social or ethnic identity, but can be used as 'body armor' to create different delineations between other, more universally benign human differences such as age or sex. Within a homogenous culture, music can be created which creates "sub-cultures" within or in opposition to an existing dominant social structure. Music is created as "masks" with corresponding costume/clothing styles, which are used to exclude "outsiders."

Music doesn't have to be benign; it can be used to 'attack' other people. The low-riders with their subwoofer systems in the trunks of their cars, can create late-night sub-sonic vibrations which assault the sensibilities of sleepers in white suburbia.

There are sound systems being developed now for use with urban "beat" music, which consist of voltage-triggered mechanical "sound cannons" which actually shoot bursts of pressurized air outward at the listeners. These types of sub-sonic sounds were developed as military weapons, and have been shown to trigger intense feelings of unease, panic, lower-gut disress and incontinence, and heart failure.


----------



## Guest (May 28, 2013)

KenOC said:


> From the LA Times: "Could I teach myself via regulated music streaming, in a hardly scientific method, to love works that I would add to my 'favorites' lists only with a gun to my head? I quickly put myself on a possibly horrific listening diet."
> 
> Read the results here.
> 
> http://www.latimes.com/entertainmen...aer-music-dissonance-20130526,0,3235097.story


It would seem that the answer for the LA Times journalist was 'yes, up to a point.' For me, I don't know. I'm unlikely to put myself through the same kind of test (twice a day for 14 days) to find out, however, and it might be difficult to distinguish, at least initially, between works I've never heard and are merely unfamiliar, and works that, despite several listens, are no nearer either familiarity or likeability.

So, I'm persevering with Debussy's Etudes and they are becoming more familiar and I'm growing to like them. But I'm not sure that there is any music that falls so irreconcilably in the 'hate' category that I couldn't give them another go.

Except anything by Andrew Lloyd Webber, of course.


----------



## Guest (May 28, 2013)

I still see the answer for the journalist as "You need to rethink the entire situation and come up with a better question."


----------



## ptr (Jan 22, 2013)

some guy said:


> I still see the answer for the journalist as "You need to rethink the entire situation and come up with a better question."


Exactly, I really think that the writer have to write something polemic just to get published! And the more seemingly confrontational the happier his editor will be as they all know to well that this kind of discussion feeds on the journalist throwing a slightly daft polemic firebrand at his audience! 





​
I'm doubtful that the dude that wrote this believe a single line of what he wrote!

/ptr


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

*Green Eggs and Ham*

I used to dislike green eggs and ham.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Ah, I was waiting for that. It's the listener's fault! :lol:
> 
> Since this position so neatly and completely invalidates all opposing arguments, then it must, by the Great Occam, be so.


What, all those "popular" arguments supported by the science of acoustics, which is a science of acoustics but not a science of how we listen? Those other popular agenda arguments, replete with science and pseudo-science, about how our poor little psyches and the shape of our ears make it just impossible to comfortably listen to music of the first Viennese school, or whichever non common practice tonality demon is being tried for its ultimate execution? WAH! & BooHoo.

Yep, it IS the listener's fault: the listener's fault for thinking music would stay the same and not develop beyond that listener's taste; the listener's fault for attaching some social class divisive stigma upon classical music of any sort to begin with; the listener's fault for assuming that everything written should be palatable to the general public.

I know it is nearly impossible for those "in the normal world" to imagine why why why anyone working within a business where only three percent (max) of the population is consuming the product in the first place would then write in such a way as to leave a large percent of that three percent behind... but that, time and again throughout history, is what composers have done...

All populist arguments aside, Beethoven and Mozart lost audience in numbers as their works went into new territory. The fact that several hundred years later those works are an easy digest for many, I think, makes the classical present-day music listener believe that was always the case and that it should be the case with the contemporary music of their own times.

Le Sacre du Printemps is now 100 years old. In some surveys, it is now some younger audience member's favorite piece of orchestral music. That it took a longish time to reach that level of widespread acceptability is not the composer's fault, not the fault of the music, ergo....

Three generations of whining, complaining about "Noise" "Chaos" "Dissonance" "Formlessness," "Atonality," "Ugliness," "_______," "_______ ," "______."

Well, that took a while, didn't it?


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

PetrB said:


> Well, that took a while, didn't it?


Well worth it, though, thanks!


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

PetrB said:


> All populist arguments aside, Beethoven and Mozart lost audience in numbers as their works went into new territory.


Don't believe this is so. Mozart was wildly popular in his last years, and his death was considered a tragedy in Vienna (and beyond). Beethoven remained the most in-demand Viennese composer in his late years. His Missa sold for over $100,000 (USD equivalent) and he was paid handsomely for his late sonatas and the 9th symphony. His late quartets were greatly in demand by publishers and they paid very well indeed, something that evidently helped him decide to specialize in quartets for the last two or three years of his life.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Don't believe this is so. Mozart was wildly popular in his last years, and his death was considered a tragedy in Vienna (and beyond). Beethoven remained the most in-demand Viennese composer in his late years. His Missa sold for over $100,000 (USD equivalent) and he was paid handsomely for his late sonatas and the 9th symphony. His late quartets were greatly in demand by publishers and they paid very well indeed, something that evidently helped him decide to specialize in quartets for the last two or three years of his life.


Stravinsky continued to live off of commissions until the end of his life, for nearly 20 years of his serial period. Are you going to claim that his music continued to be as popular as before?

In fact, in the public eye, the last work Stravinsky had written that they really enjoyed was The Rite of Spring, which was some 60 years before his death.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Mahlerian said:


> Stravinsky continued to live off of commissions until the end of his life, for nearly 20 years of his serial period. Are you going to claim that his music continued to be as popular as before?


Very different thing. Beethoven got no "commissions" for past works. He always had to live of his current compositions. No resting on your laurels in those days!


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

KenOC said:


> Very different thing. Beethoven got no "commissions" for past works. He always had to live of his current compositions. No resting on your laurels in those days!


A commission is when someone comes to you and asks you to write a *new* work.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Crudblud said:


> A commission is when someone comes to you and asks you to write a *new* work.


Yes, I was staying with Mahlerian's usage. Call 'em residuals, copyright payments, or whatever -- Beethoven didn't get 'em! In fact, in his last 10 or 15 years, even commissions (in the traditional sense) were out of style. Golitsin's commission for three quartets was very much an exception. Since he could no longer perform, his income was limited to what publishers would pay for new works, subscriptions from individuals related to those works, and revenues from current concerts that he could arrange to benefit himself (which turned out to be chancy indeed).

BTW I may have misunderstood Mahlerian's use of "commissions," thinking he was referring to copyright payments (which Stravinsky was certainly concerned with). The commissions Stravinsky received were more in the nature of earlier aristocratic commissions, not related to the earning power of his music. Those were generally unavailable to Beethoven after about 1812 -- publishers, of course, were concerned *only* with the earning power of the music, and that was the market Beethoven had to depend on.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

KenOC said:


> Don't believe this is so. Mozart was wildly popular in his last years, and his death was considered a tragedy in Vienna (and beyond).


To be exact, he was popular and busy again in his last year. He began to fall out of favour in Vienna in 1786 and had a tough time until 1791...


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Yes, I was staying with Mahlerian's usage. Call 'em residuals, copyright payments, or whatever -- Beethoven didn't get 'em! In fact, in his last 10 or 15 years, even commissions (in the traditional sense) were out of style. Golitsin's commission for three quartets was very much an exception. Since he could no longer perform, his income was limited to what publishers would pay for new works, subscriptions from individuals related to those works, and revenues from current concerts that he could arrange to benefit himself (which turned out to be chancy indeed).


Neither did Stravinsky! He made absolutely nothing off of the countless performances of his three popular ballet scores, which were and are in the public domain here in the US. Stravinsky's attempts to revise Petrushka and The Rite were thwarted by the fact that most people continued to perform the originals (to this day the 1911 version of Petrushka, in particular, is the more often performed version).


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Kieran said:


> To be exact, he was popular and busy again in his last year. He began to fall out of favour in Vienna in 1786 and had a tough time until 1791...


Kieran, may I ask that you expand on that? I've heard the same but have no details. I've also heard that he remained on top of the world in Prague, but I doubt that did him much good financially...


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Mahlerian said:


> Neither did Stravinsky! He made absolutely nothing off of the countless performances of his three popular ballet scores, which were and are in the public domain here in the US. Stravinsky's attempts to revise Petrushka and The Rite were thwarted by the fact that most people continued to perform the originals (to this day the 1911 version of Petrushka, in particular, is the more often performed version).


Mahlerian, yes and sorry for misunderstanding. See the addition to my post #93. The point remains that Beethoven had to write for a broad public market, reflected in profit-driven demand from publishers. I think Stravinsky's position was somewhat different -- thus, as you say, he could have financial success without being "popular." Beethoven could not.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

KenOC said:


> Kieran, may I ask that you expand on that? I've heard the same but have no details. I've also heard that he remained on top of the world in Prague, but I doubt that did him much good financially...


No problem Ken. I'm writing this from memory but I think the gist of it is correct.

Mozart began to fall out of favour in Vienna around the time of his 24th PC (K491), which would be around Spring in 1786. Figaro was a reasonable success - though more so in Prague - but for example, K493, the second of a putative 3 piano quartets was lucky to be conceived: the publisher Hoffmeister cancelled after the first one - his music was deemed to be becoming too complicated.

He had less demand in 1787, and he went to Prague, where he unveiled the 38th symph and composed Don Giovanni. This was a success, and they asked him to remain, but alas, he still felt drawn to Vienna. He returned to Vienna and didn't get another opera commission until 1789, which was for Cosi. He had a few commissions in 1788 - again, much less than the previous year - and fewer again in 1789 and 1790. This is the period of his begging letters.

It was only in 1791 when he became popular again, finishing his final PC (K595, started in 1787), his clarinet concerto (K622, begun in 1788, I think), writing his last string quintet, 2 operas, most of the requiem, some masonic music, fantasias, dances, the ave verum Corpus motet.

In Prague he was popular, but financially this wasn't much use to him. In those days, the composers pay from operas was from a performance on a special night for them, plus they got to arrange the score for wind orchestras and chamber music, but I can't remember what this was called, sorry. It wasn't lucrative for him. It might have been if he'd had the sense to stay in Prague, where they were more advanced, it seems, in appreciating 'complicated' music. Certainly they offered him what he most desired - opera commissions - but he gambled it all on Vienna...


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Kieran, many thanks. That's very helpful and good information.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

KenOC said:


> Kieran, many thanks. That's very helpful and good information.


No prob. There's more to it than that, but that's the sorry gist of it...


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Mahlerian, yes and sorry for misunderstanding. See the addition to my post #93. The point remains that Beethoven had to write for a broad public market, reflected in profit-driven demand from publishers. I think Stravinsky's position was somewhat different -- thus, as you say, he could have financial success without being "popular." Beethoven could not.


It wasn't different for most of the composers of Stravinsky's time and later, many of whom have struggled (even the more "accessible") with living off of composition alone. Stravinsky, like Beethoven, could survive because of the interest his music generated even when the public was baffled by it.


----------



## Arsakes (Feb 20, 2012)

No. But I can learn to love the music I'm indifferent or impatient to. For example I hadn't been listening to Neo-clssicism, Jazz and Rock'n'roll untill 2010 (I had some examples of them).


----------



## Bone (Jan 19, 2013)

I've never heard any music that I've hated. I don't feel I fully appreciate all music, but even the stuff I choose to avoid can provide some entertainment value. I love Brahms, but I'd rather listen to something else while dancing at a club.


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

Bone said:


> I've never heard any music that I've hated. I don't feel I fully appreciate all music, but even the stuff I choose to avoid can provide some entertainment value. I love Brahms, but I'd rather listen to something else while dancing at a club.


I have been tempted on occasion to find a set of Bach gigues and get an mp3 of them to use at our dance club. The thought of doing something like Posties Jig to a set like that could be very entertaining. (Not so unusual as we occasionally use Playford tunes.)


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Very different thing. Beethoven got no "commissions" for past works. He always had to live of his current compositions. No resting on your laurels in those days!


The Lion's share of Stravinsky's income should have come from those first three popular ballets, but none were under western copyright law... the 1911 version of Petrushka gained Igor no nets. Russia / Soviet had no copyright and honored none. So, commissions, and conducting his own works, it was, very much so, until the "Years of revisions," the late 1940's -- when Stravinsky did revision enough to gain copyright on the revisions. Still did not stop organizations from using the early versions to avoid performance fees or royalties for recorded works.

Igor worked rather hard, actually, most of his life.


----------



## Novelette (Dec 12, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> "Can you learn to love music you hate?"
> 
> Depends on how you approach it. If you approach something as a chore, then you're almost certain to hate it.
> 
> ...


Absolutely!

To think, I once had major distaste for: Brahms, Schumann, Schoenberg, Czerny, and Mozart. I've learned to love the first four; and I'm increasingly learning to appreciate Mozart. Given such a track-record of disabusing myself of previous judgments, it would be madness to claim today that I could _never_ learn to love music that I currently dislike.


----------



## LordBlackudder (Nov 13, 2010)

when i read the reason behind and the technique i appreciate it more.

i dont know about love it.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

millionrainbows said:


> I don't think it's possible to really "hate" anything, including music, until it poses a threat, real or perceived, to your identity or well-being, or to the things or people you love. We hate that which is different from us.
> 
> Conversely, we don't 'love' a form of music unless it represents our identity and the things we love and feel we are part of on some social level. This is sometimes overt, and many times completely unconscious.
> 
> ...


Some actively seek something to give them identity and a group to belong to whereas I feel others just come across something because of their general curiosity and not because they necessarily want to be part of a group or broadcast that fact to everyone. The second group could also eventually end up having multiple identities as they grow to like other kinds of music. This need to explore and find something you like could be a reaction to having a dislike to an alternative you want to move away from. So it could spring from a musical need rather than a need to find a social group which could be the impetus for some others (through a kind of peer pressure/influence). The internet does make people belong to groups quite easily, but for many (particularly older people perhaps) the group comes _after_ the love of a music has been found.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

starry said:


> Some actively seek something to give them identity and a group to belong to whereas I feel others just come across something because of their general curiosity and not because they necessarily want to be part of a group or broadcast that fact to everyone.


I disagree; I think the greatest human need is the need to belong. As much as we'd like to ignore the differences in people, it is their identity which determines their affiliations. "Identity" is tied to values, beliefs, appearances, allegiances, behaviors, and all the other aspects of being human.



starry said:


> The second group could also eventually end up having multiple identities as they grow to like other kinds of music.


But there are certain characteristics which determine identity which are inescapable: age, gender, ethnicity, language, religious beliefs, and other aspects of identity.



starry said:


> This need to explore and find something you like could be a reaction to having a dislike to an alternative you want to move away from. So it could spring from a musical need rather than a need to find a social group which could be the impetus for some others (through a kind of peer pressure/influence).


That's possible, but there may be unforseen consequences, and awkward results, of such "open-ended" choices. Identity runs deep, and is not as simple changing one's shoes. Much music is the product of long traditions, history, cultural/ethnic factors, and specific geographical factors, all of which shaped it.Much music is designed to reinforce this sense of identity, as well as presenting a "mask" to present to the world.

If one does choose to simply "pick and choose" the ingredients for a music, the results will likely be viewed as a "watering-down" or pretension of dilettantes.



starry said:


> The internet does make people belong to groups quite easily, but for many (particularly older people perhaps) the group comes _after_ the love of a music has been found.


This robs music of much of its deep, crucial meaning, and deep connection to identity, turning it into a "fan club" of sorts. Welcome to the post-modern world of "you can be whatever you think you are, because we're all the same anyway."


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Then, on the other hand, you could view "art music" as a form with certain shared criteria (scored, traditional instrumentation, trad forms, similar musical goals) which already exists in various cultures, and then "search the area" for purely musical reasons, since, ostensibly, this art music genre exists to serve musical goals only, not cultural or identity-related goals. How does that grab you?


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

I was about to say that music, for example, doesn't have to be a cornerstone of someone's identity. And of course some things in our identities will keep the same through our lives, but other things can get added through our expansion of interests. In the global internet world we live in now we can enjoy things from other cultures, even though we may not know the language or may never even visit a place which still culturally may hold an interest for us in some respect.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

starry said:


> I was about to say that music, for example, doesn't have to be a cornerstone of someone's identity. In the global internet world we live in now we can enjoy things from other cultures, even though we may not know the language or may never even visit a place which still culturally may hold an interest for us in some respect.


What do you think of the idea of the "art music" genus now being universal (Gustavo Dudamel, etc.) and that its goals are "purely musical"?

Or, are countries like Argentina "using" the genre to gain respectability in their third-world emergent status, coupled with America's descent back down??


----------



## Guest (Jun 1, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> I disagree; I think the greatest human need is the need to belong.


I disagree. I think the greatest human need (after food, water and sex) is for significance. I must mean something to somebody...

...anybody! Please?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

MacLeod said:


> I disagree. I think the greatest human need (after food, water and sex) is for significance. I must mean something to somebody... ...anybody! Please?


The greatest human need is dominance. You may look for "significance," but if you don't scurry rapidly when I call for food or women, you will soon know the price of your inattention.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

millionrainbows said:


> What do you think of the idea of the "art music" genus now being universal (Gustavo Dudamel, etc.) and that its goals are "purely musical"?
> 
> Or, are countries like Argentina "using" the genre to gain respectability in their third-world emergent status, coupled with America's descent back down??


I don't think music is inherently political, it's influences can be beyond boundaries and certainly it's influence can be. Art which is too tied to a poltical event or movement may lack the universality to make itself popular in other times and places. And I think Western art music can incorporate folk elements and styles from other places without diluting either too much, the same even with popular music sometimes. Even though both really originated in the West I think there is enough universality to the styles that they can be appreciated in different contexts. And classical music doesn't need to be seen as elite in the sense of belonging to only a small number of people, that thinking has come from those using music in the past as a socio-politcal status symbol.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

KenOC said:


> The greatest human need is dominance. You may look for "significance," but if you don't scurry rapidly when I call for food or women, you will soon know the price of your inattention.


Some people's need is definitely to order people about, but that isn't the case with everyone I feel. Most people's need perhaps is for freedom, and that is something that those who want dominance will never want to allow.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I still say "the need to belong," and this is a classic brainwashing technique, to isolate the victim. There's no better way to quickly and efficiently break-down a person's identity. Just ask the Chinese, who perfected it during the Korean conflict. See book "The Manipulated Mind."

It works like this: we isolate you & take away all music. After 3 years, when we release you, Brittney Spears will sound fantastic.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Yeah, but someone has to bring them food etc, and I bet the guards won't be able to last the three years without whistling or humming something better than Britney Spears!


----------



## Guest (Jun 1, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> I still say "the need to belong,"


Keep saying it, by all means. It won't make it any more true. However, aside from those few who prefer to lead their lives in isolation, most are sociable to some degree, partly to belong, but perhaps more to enjoy the significance that comes from being with other people and being recognised for what they are.

Speaking personally, I'm not a 'joiner': I don't do clubs very much, and where I do, it's for the activity, not the sociability, but I'd like to die having meant something to somebody.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> Keep saying it, by all means. It won't make it any more true. However, aside from those few who prefer to lead their lives in isolation, most are sociable to some degree, partly to belong, but perhaps more to enjoy the significance that comes from being with other people and being recognised for what they are.
> 
> Speaking personally, I'm not a 'joiner': I don't do clubs very much, and where I do, it's for the activity, not the sociability, but I'd like to die having meant something to somebody.


Well, then you probably couldn't be brainwashed, either, since you are immune to that sort of thing.


----------



## Guest (Jun 2, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> Well, then you probably couldn't be brainwashed, either, since you are immune to that sort of thing.


I'm not so sure...an alternative technique to depriving me of belonging is to draw me into an interminable discussion about atonality! :lol:


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Isn't existentialism (a more modern philosophy) about lack of belonging? I'm a bit hazy on philosophy but I know that term is used in that way at least. And some art certainly places people in relation to place or nature more than within political boundaries or within a more narrow context. I'm sure it's impossible to define everyone as being the same anyway, though most societies (particularly most that are more conservative or traditional) probably do more narrowly define people according to their social relations. But as I said the human need is possibly often for a certain freedom and yet the security of narrow relations probably restricts this.


----------

