# "the emperor's new clothes" comparisons are the emperor's new clothes



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

As we all know, in the story of the emperor's new clothes, no one will admit the emperor is naked because they have been told that his clothes are invisible to foolish people. Not wanting to appear foolish, they pretend to see the non-existent clothes.

This story is almost never applicable to music or any other art. While an "emperor's new clothes" situation might arise from time to time within a particular close-knit scene, it is always short-lived - months, not years.

Also, it's such a cliche. Let's have some self-respect and drop it forever.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

The fact that it is a cliché is proof enough that it is working and therefore is used.


----------



## Guest (Jan 13, 2016)

Which'll come first, the dropping or the locking?


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

I mostly agree with the OP, but then on the other hand I think we can get a bit hung up on a too-literal interpretation of its usage. Do people who say "the emperor has no clothes" _really_ believe that they're a genuine equivalent of the small child in the story, and that just by saying these words, they'll suddenly make everyone realise their mistake? It seems to me it's just a (yes, definitely clichéd) way of saying "this thing you all think is great, is (IMO) actually crap". Or are they actually narcissistic and/or stupid enough to think that their opinion is completely, objectively, and demonstrably, correct? Am _I_ just being naive?


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Nereffid said:


> *Or are they actually narcissistic and/or stupid enough to think that their opinion is completely, objectively, and demonstrably, correct?*


Yes, I assure you, when someone says that they think atonal music/Boulez/Schoenberg/modernism/Stravinsky/polyrhythm/Ives/Mahler/Debussy is a hoax, they actually are narcissistic and stupid enough to believe it.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

Nereffid said:


> I mostly agree with the OP, but then on the other hand I think we can get a bit hung up on a too-literal interpretation of its usage. Do people who say "the emperor has no clothes" _really_ believe that they're a genuine equivalent of the small child in the story, and that just by saying these words, they'll suddenly make everyone realise their mistake? It seems to me it's just a (yes, definitely clichéd) way of saying "this thing you all think is great, is (IMO) actually crap". Or are they actually narcissistic and/or stupid enough to think that their opinion is completely, objectively, and demonstrably, correct? Am _I_ just being naive?


I would say neither.

People are of course free to say that something is crap. And they are similarly free to make some kind of argument their own taste is more correct.

"The emperor's new clothes," however, is saying something else: that the people who like the thing in question are only pretending.

This is rude. More importantly, it's always wrong.


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

^^^re-Mahlerian

is that a Mod criticising the posting styles of other members - shock - horror - 

Well .... bearing in mind the provocation, we will overlook it this time :lol:


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

isorhythm said:


> I would say neither.
> 
> People are of course free to say that something is crap. And they are similarly free to make some kind of argument their own taste is more correct.
> 
> ...


Always? Sometimes???? 

How would someone know whether another person is pretending or not?


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

Headphone Hermit said:


> Always? Sometimes????
> 
> How would someone know whether another person is pretending or not?


"Always" is close enough.

But your question supports my point. How _would_ someone know? That's why "emperor's new clothes" comparisons are inappropriate.


----------



## Truckload (Feb 15, 2012)

isorhythm said:


> I would say neither.
> 
> People are of course free to say that something is crap. And they are similarly free to make some kind of argument their own taste is more correct.
> 
> ...


Is it as rude as Mahlerian's post? I don't think so.

How do you know it is always wrong? Can you not imagine a situation when someone could be "pretending" to like something?

Boy asks girl out on a date. He says, "Want to go to a move." She says, "Only if we go see that new Romantic Comedy, I just love Romantic Comedies". He says, "Oh yes, I love Romantic Comedies, let's see one of those." When in reality he hates Romantic Comedies.

Moral of the story, people lie all the time.


----------



## Truckload (Feb 15, 2012)

Headphone Hermit said:


> ^^^re-Mahlerian
> 
> is that a Mod criticising the posting styles of other members - shock - horror -
> 
> Well .... bearing in mind the provocation, we will overlook it this time :lol:


No, "we" will not overlook it. I certainly do not.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

Truckload said:


> Is it as rude as Mahlerian's post? I don't think so.
> 
> How do you know it is always wrong? Can you not imagine a situation when someone could be "pretending" to like something?
> 
> ...


People lie. But they virtually never lie about liking some music, because there is no reason to do so.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

*Emperor's New Clothes vs. Blue Suede Shoes*

Carl Perkins - Blue Suede Shoes Lyrics | MetroLyrics

Well it's one for the money, two for the show
Three to get ready, now go cat go
But don't you, step on my blue suede shoes
You can do anything but lay off of my blue suede shoes

You can knock me down, step in my face
Slander my name all over the place
And do anything that you want to do
But uh uh honey lay off of my shoes
And don't you step on my blue suede shoes
You can do anything but lay off of my blue suede shoes

Oh let's go cats!

You can burn my house, steal my car
Drink my liquor from an old fruit jar
Do anything that you want to do
But uh uh honey lay off of them shoes
And don't you, step on my blue suede shoes
You can do anything but lay off of my blue suede shoes

Rock!

Well it's one for the money, two for the show
Three to get ready, now go cat go
But don't you, step on my blue suede shoes
You can do anything but lay off of my blue suede shoes

Well it's blue, blue, blue suede shoes
Blue, blue, blue suede shoes yeah!
Blue, blue, blue suede shoes baby
Blue, blue, blue suede shoes
You can do anything but lay off of my blue suede shoes


----------



## Truckload (Feb 15, 2012)

isorhythm said:


> People lie. But they virtually never lie about liking some music, because there is no reason to do so.


Sadly, yes, there can be reasons to do so.

If the cool kids in school just happen to be into hard rock, someone who wants to be considered part of that group might suddenly also adopt an interest in hard rock, or acid rock, or jazz, or atonal music. You get the point.

Human motivation can be simple or complex. But music, as noble as it should be, is not immune from also being subject to darker human behavior and motivations. It is much more likely to be truth when someone speaks out against what is popular, or cool, or intellectual, and is willing to take the heat of criticism for their point of view. The Emperor's New Clothes is also about having the courage to speak out even when no one else is willing to do so.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Headphone Hermit said:


> ^^^re-Mahlerian
> 
> is that a Mod criticising the posting styles of other members - shock - horror -
> 
> Well .... bearing in mind the provocation, we will overlook it this time :lol:


Nope. This is a mod criticizing the arguments and the content of posts which I have been so unfortunate as to have been on the receiving end of.

This is a mod criticizing the wishful thinking that characterizes the arguments of those who do not want to admit that there are things in art that they do not yet understand, as there are for all of us.


----------



## Balthazar (Aug 30, 2014)

isorhythm said:


> As we all know, in the story of the emperor's new clothes, no one will admit the emperor is naked because they have been told that his clothes are invisible to foolish people. Not wanting to appear foolish, they pretend to see the non-existent clothes.
> 
> This story is almost never applicable to music or any other art. While an "emperor's new clothes" situation might arise from time to time within a particular close-knit scene, it is always short-lived - months, not years.
> 
> Also, it's such a cliche. Let's have some self-respect and drop it forever.


I fully agree.

And of course, in Andersen's story the object of the people's credulity (the "clothes") is a hoax perpetrated by swindlers. Usage in the context of these boards implies that the music in question is a hoax perpetrated by swindlers. If the poster feels that way s/he should come out and say it rather than hide behind a literary allusion that implies that everyone who thinks otherwise is deluded or lying.

I try to be generous and give the poster of such a remark the benefit of the doubt that s/he is not fully aware of what s/he is saying. And then I simply ignore it.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

Truckload said:


> Sadly, yes, there can be reasons to do so.
> 
> If the cool kids in school just happen to be into hard rock, someone who wants to be considered part of that group might suddenly also adopt an interest in hard rock, or acid rock, or jazz, or atonal music. You get the point.
> 
> Human motivation can be simple or complex. But music, as noble as it should be, is not immune from also being subject to darker human behavior and motivations. It is much more likely to be truth when someone speaks out against what is popular, or cool, or intellectual, and is willing to take the heat of criticism for their point of view. The Emperor's New Clothes is also about having the courage to speak out even when no one else is willing to do so.


I can only go on my own experience and on what I've seen.

Certainly someone might fall prey to vanity - "Look how sophisticated I am, listening to Xenakis while all those bourgeois symphony subscribers listen to their Tchaikovsky." This is bad. But I guarantee that person actually liked Xenakis first!

Insecure people might say in a casual conversation that they like some music that they don't really like or even know - as people sometimes claim to have read books they haven't read or seen films they haven't seen.

But on this forum, we are dealing with people who are very, very invested in the music they love, and show it constantly. What you're suggesting is that some people have spent enormous amounts of time and money on concerts, recordings, even reading criticism and commentary and biography - much of which is basically solitary activity, unseen by anyone - as a kind of giant put-on? It makes no sense - and I don't think it happens.


----------



## Truckload (Feb 15, 2012)

Balthazar said:


> I fully agree.
> 
> And of course, in the story the object of the people's credulity (the "clothes") is a hoax perpetrated by swindlers. Usage in the context of these boards implies that the music in question is a hoax perpetrated by swindlers. If the poster feels that way s/he should come out and say it rather than hide behind a literary allusion that implies that everyone who thinks otherwise is deluded or lying.
> 
> I find it is often best to ignore such remarks and deny the poster the attention s/he seeks.


While that is certainly one valid interpretation of the story, it is not the only interpretation possible. The people who refuse to speak honestly might be constrained by the fact that they are on the Emperor's payroll, and don't want to lose their money. They might be afraid to be seen as argumentative. However, as I just pointed out, the story is also about having the courage to voice an unpopular opinion.

I find the desire to censor members from using this literary allusion revealing.

Why does this allusion bother the "atonal (or whatever you want to call it)" audience so much? Could it be too close to the truth? What are the motivations of the people who want to question the motivations of messengers who shout "The Emperor Has No Clothes? After all, who would care if someone says they think Beethoven was nonsense? If the truth is obvious, the truth should prevail, eventually.

There seems to be a general trend in western culture to want to be "protected" from speech a person doesn't like. Or perhaps it is just a new form of censorship?


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

I don't have the power to censor anyone, nor am I calling for anyone to be censored. I'm saying that "emperor's new clothes" comparisons are silly.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Truckload said:


> However, as I just pointed out, the story is also about having the courage to voice an unpopular opinion.


Judging from the few forums I've been on, the idea that "atonal" music is a hoax is a very popular one.



Truckload said:


> I find the desire to censor members from using this literary allusion revealing.


I don't have any desire to censor those who want to call modern music a hoax any more than I want to censor those who think the Earth is flat. I don't take them any more seriously, though.



Truckload said:


> Why does this allusion bother the "atonal (or whatever you want to call it)" audience so much?


There is no separate audience. It's just a part of the classical music audience. The main reason not to use the term atonal is that it doesn't define any kind of category separate from other music.



Truckload said:


> Could it be too close to the truth?


Nope, but thanks for bringing in conspiracy theory logic.



Truckload said:


> What are the motivations of the people who want to question the motivations of messengers who shout "The Emperor Has No Clothes?


I really don't question the motivations of others. The argument itself is bad enough.



Truckload said:


> After all, who would care if someone says they think Beethoven was nonsense?


It got a huge response last time someone denounced Beethoven on this forum.

http://www.talkclassical.com/36303-beethovens-barbaric-malevolent-symphonies.html


----------



## Truckload (Feb 15, 2012)

isorhythm said:


> I can only go on my own experience and on what I've seen.
> 
> Certainly someone might fall prey to vanity - "Look how sophisticated I am, listening to Xenakis while all those bourgeois symphony subscribers listen to their Tchaikovsky." This is bad. But I guarantee that person actually liked Xenakis first!
> 
> ...


You seem to be trying very hard, which I appreciate, but the obvious answer is that not everyone who says they like atonal music spends enormous time and money on it. I am sure there are people who really enjoy atonal (or whatever you want to call it) music. But I am also absolutely positive that there are also people who will say they like it, when they do not. I have known instrumentalists who will tell a composer they liked his work, then when he walks away, make fun of him. I have overheard concert patrons whisper to their companion how much they hate the music, then clap politely and smile as if they like it.

Then you get into the whole question of teaching positions, grants, and other monetary issues, which are all highly "political". If "97%" of university musicologists say that XYZ is an important composer, then if you want to get hired somewhere, you better think XYZ is wonderful also.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

isorhythm said:


> I don't have the power to censor anyone, nor am I calling for anyone to be censored. I'm saying that "emperor's new clothes" comparisons are silly.


You are actually advocating a type of censorship using an Emporer's New Clothes argument!


----------



## Richannes Wrahms (Jan 6, 2014)

I was expecting this thread.

To be more specific: I was expecting a thread like this one to appear in STI given the recent arguments around the phrase, which shows our collective idiocy.


----------



## Balthazar (Aug 30, 2014)

Truckload said:


> While that is certainly one valid interpretation of the story, it is not the only interpretation possible. The people who refuse to speak honestly might be constrained by the fact that they are on the Emperor's payroll, and don't want to lose their money. They might be afraid to be seen as argumentative. However, as I just pointed out, the story is also about having the courage to voice an unpopular opinion.


Sure, but the allusion to the clothes is an allusion to the clothes, i.e., a hoax perpetrated by swindlers. If one wants to say people should have the courage to voice an unpopular opinion, one should say so directly. But that is hardly all that is contained in the allusion. And to get specific, in the story it is a child who remarks that the emperor is not clothed -- not courage at work but naïveté.

Plain speaking is usually the best method of getting one's ideas across.



> I find the desire to censor members from using this literary allusion revealing.


No one has proposed censorship. The point being argued in this thread is that the specific phrase "the emperor's new clothes" is of questionable usefulness, open to misinterpretation, and may be perceived as rude.



> Why does this allusion bother the "atonal (or whatever you want to call it)" audience so much? Could it be too close to the truth? What are the motivations of the people who want to question the motivations of messengers who shout "The Emperor Has No Clothes? After all, who would care if someone says they think Beethoven was nonsense? If the truth is obvious, the truth should prevail, eventually.


I think the phrase is generally misused in any context and would likely be as useless and rude with respect to Beethoven as to Scelsi.



> There seems to be a general trend in western culture to want to be "protected" from speech a person doesn't like. Or perhaps it is just a new form of censorship?


No clue what relevance this has. Use the phrase all you like. As I said, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and ignore the post.


----------



## Truckload (Feb 15, 2012)

Richannes Wrahms said:


> I was expecting this thread.


I knew you were going to say that.

Did you foresee that I turned off my computer to focus on watching my new DVD of Parsifal?


----------



## Truckload (Feb 15, 2012)

Balthazar said:


> Sure, but the allusion to the clothes is an allusion to the clothes, i.e., a hoax perpetrated by swindlers. If one wants to say people should have the courage to voice an unpopular opinion, one should say so directly. But that is hardly all that is contained in the allusion. And to get specific, in the story it is a child who remarks that the emperor is not clothed -- not courage at work but naïveté.
> 
> Plain speaking is usually the best method of getting one's ideas across.
> 
> ...


I never used the phrase. But I will attempt to work it in soon. Since you opened my eyes to all of the potential meanings of the allusion, I now find that I really, really like it.

Now I must be off to watch Parsifal.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)




----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

I have no attachment to, and don't recall ever using, the expression "the emperor's new clothes" (which is good, since having to give things up is unpleasant), but I've seen it used on occasion, and I have a strong feeling that people don't always use it in its full, original meaning. I suspect that most people have only a vague recollection of the tale, and when they hear the expression they think it simply means something like "this thing is not all it claims to be." Some people who do know the story may actually be accusing others of a pretense, but I wouldn't want automatically to assume this without some other evidence. They may simply be claiming that those others are ignorant or unperceptive, i.e., the emperor is naked but people just can't see it - which, of course, is not an offensive statement but an opinion which anyone is entitled to hold or express.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Balthazar said:


> Sure, but the allusion to the clothes is an allusion to the clothes, i.e., a hoax perpetrated by swindlers. If one wants to say people should have the courage to voice an unpopular opinion, one should say so directly. But that is hardly all that is contained in the allusion. And to get specific, in the story it is a child who remarks that the emperor is not clothed -- not courage at work but naïveté.
> 
> Plain speaking is usually the best method of getting one's ideas across.
> 
> ...


The idea was perpetrated by swindlers but the other side is that it succeeded because it was believed by people because they did not wish to appear stupid or not part of the crowd. We see this tendency all over the place in the world of ghastly fashion or political correctness. When I wax at university in the 60s not to believe in Marxism was to say the emporer had no clothes. And of course it occurs in all stratars of life including music.


----------



## mstar (Aug 14, 2013)

isorhythm said:


> People lie. But they virtually never lie about liking some music, because there is no reason to do so.


There was a survey someone on TC linked 1 or 2 years ago that the #1 reason people today playe an instrument is to appear attractive to the opposite gender. Whether or not it was a joke, it makes a clear point.

I've met countless people from their teens to their 30s who claim that they "listen to classical music". With a rush of false hope, I ask them what composers they listen to. And a blank is drawn. 
I guess there's a stereotype that links classical music with nerdy or smart, which some people might want to pursue.

I do not agree with the fact that "people lie all the time". However, I have actually had people insist that I do not really listen to classical music, I just (somehow) "pretend" to in order to seem "different" from others.


----------



## Balthazar (Aug 30, 2014)

For anyone interested, the full text of the short story can be found in the link below for the website of the Hans Christian Andersen Centre.

The Emperor's New Clothes


----------



## Couac Addict (Oct 16, 2013)

I always have my opinions proofed by a professional before posting.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> I have no attachment to, and don't recall ever using, the expression "the emperor's new clothes" (which is good, since having to give things up is unpleasant), but I've seen it used on occasion, and I have a strong feeling that people don't always use it in its full, original meaning. I suspect that most people have only a vague recollection of the tale, and when they hear the expression they think it simply means something like "this thing is not all it claims to be." Some people who do know the story may actually be accusing others of a pretense, but I wouldn't want automatically to assume this without some other evidence. They may simply be claiming that those others are ignorant or unperceptive, i.e., the emperor is naked but people just can't see it - which, of course, is not an offensive statement but an opinion which anyone is entitled to hold or express.


This is a fair point that I hadn't really considered. To me the story means a very specific thing, and I assumed most people used it that way.

For example it's always used against high-fallutin', smarty-pants things, right? No one would ever say the new _Star Wars_ movie is the emperor's new clothes.

Whenever I've encountered it on this forum, I've understood it to mean that the thing in question is a fraud that many people are only pretending to like.


----------



## TurnaboutVox (Sep 22, 2013)

Truckload said:


> There seems to be a general trend in western culture to want to be "protected" from speech a person doesn't like. Or perhaps it is just a new form of censorship?


The function of what sometimes gets called 'political correctness' is often to try to move one's position from habitual stereotyping towards really considering the person, thing or phenomenon more as it is, to attempt to be thoughtful and respectful towards other people, things that are important to other people and different ideas. Of course it can also be used to not face unpleasant realities about people, things and ideas - to idealise them - which is where the chance to dismiss it comes in. But it isn't always just used in that way.

In my opinion.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Mahlerian- This is a mod criticizing the arguments and the content of posts which I have been so unfortunate as to have been on the receiving end of.

This is a mod criticizing the wishful thinking that characterizes the arguments of those who do not want to admit that there are things in art that they do not yet understand, as there are for all of us.

_"I assure you, when someone says that they think atonal music/Boulez/Schoenberg/modernism/Stravinsky/polyrhythm/Ives/Mahler/Debussy is a hoax, they actually are narcissistic and stupid enough to believe it."_

Your original quote (in italics) goes a bit further, declaring that anyone who thinks atonal music etc... is a hoax... anyone who disagrees with you?... is narcissistic and stupid.

One might suggest that it takes a certain degree of presumption... if not narcissism... to assume that because someone dislikes a certain work or style of art that they "do not yet understand". How blessed you must be to already understand such things and thus take infinite pleasure in them.

Is it not possible, however, that one may actually be quite knowledgeable upon a work or style of art... and still dislike it... still feel it is even a hoax?


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

So the dichotomy is that either: 

a) people who say they enjoy modernist music are dishonest frauds; 

or 

b) people who say (a) are narcissistic and stupid. 

Just want to make sure I know what the choices are before I select one.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Your original quote (in italics) goes a bit further, declaring that anyone who thinks atonal music etc... is a hoax... anyone who disagrees with you?... is narcissistic and stupid.


Equivocation can get you lots of places. You don't even need to rely on what has been said.

Agreement and disagreement are really irrelevant here.



StlukesguildOhio said:


> One might suggest that it takes a certain degree of presumption... if not narcissism... to assume that because someone dislikes a certain work or style of art that they "do not yet understand". How blessed you must be to already understand such things and thus take infinite pleasure in them.


I said nothing about liking and disliking. Again, you are adding to and changing the meaning of what I said. Like I said before, we *all* are continually learning about art and none of us understand everything.



StlukesguildOhio said:


> Is it not possible, however, that one may actually be quite knowledgeable upon a work or style of art... and still dislike it... still feel it is even a hoax?


In the sense that you can today find astronomers who believe in a flat Earth or trained political scientists who believe that the Illuminati control the world from behind the scenes, I suppose there could be musicologists who are convinced that any or all of the things I mentioned (I'll throw in Mozart, too, as he's also been the recipient of these "arguments") are hoaxes.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Mahlerian said:


> Yes, I assure you, when someone says that they think atonal music/Boulez/Schoenberg/modernism/Stravinsky/polyrhythm/Ives/Mahler/Debussy is a hoax, they actually are narcissistic and stupid enough to believe it.


I haven't come across people who describe it as a "hoax", using your words. But they may well be critical of it from an artistic point of view, and not necessarily "stupid enough".


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

ArtMusic said:


> I haven't come across people who describe it as a "hoax", using your words. But they may well be critical of it from an artistic point of view, and not necessarily "stupid enough".


In any case, the composer is never universally correct in the sense that there are "wrong" listeners, and therefore stupid. Listeners over time are the true winners, collectively. Now it may well be that over time, listeners have collectively proven that initial (premier) audiences were wrong but it has never been the case that the collective listeners have been wrong over time. Pure and simple.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Is it not possible, however, that one may actually be quite knowledgeable upon a work or style of art... and still dislike it... still feel it is even a hoax?


I don't think it's possible for an intelligent person to think huge swaths of modern music are literally a hoax, no. That's not the same as disliking it.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

_SLG (quoted)- Is it not possible, however, that one may actually be quite knowledgeable upon a work or style of art... and still dislike it... still feel it is even a hoax?_

Mahlerian- In the sense that you can today find astronomers who believe in a flat Earth or trained political scientists who believe that the Illuminati control the world from behind the scenes, I suppose there could be musicologists who are convinced that any or all of the things I mentioned (I'll throw in Mozart, too, as he's also been the recipient of these "arguments") are hoaxes.

So once one is suitably knowledgeable of a given artist, work of art, or artistic style it is only possible to dislike or dismiss such if one is slightly on the disturbed side? In other words... one might only be seen as reasonably knowledgeable if one tows the "party line"?

isorhthym- I don't think it's possible for an intelligent person to think huge swaths of modern music are literally a hoax, no. That's not the same as disliking it.

Hmmm... I must say that within my own forte, the visual arts, I find a good many contemporary "art stars" who I feel are hoaxes... and I'm not alone in this assessment. There are more than a few artists of some renown, museum curators, and critics who share this view. Perhaps we're all just narcissistic and stupid.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> So once one is suitably knowledgeable of a given artist, work of art, or artistic style it is only possible to dislike or dismiss such if one is slightly on the disturbed side? In other words... one might only be seen as reasonably knowledgeable if one tows the "party line"?


What party line? You keep changing the subject from what I've said. I never mentioned like or dislike, and I told you this. Now you're adding dismissal?



StlukesguildOhio said:


> Hmmm... I must say that within my own forte, the visual arts, I find a good many contemporary "art stars" who I feel are hoaxes... and I'm not alone in this assessment. There are more than a few artists of some renown, museum curators, and critics who share this view. Perhaps we're all just narcissistic and stupid.


Even admitting that you're definitely right, and that all of the modern artists you think are hoaxes are actually hoaxes,

_*this does absolutely nothing to prove any point about music,*_

let alone the specific cases I've mentioned.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Hmmm... I must say that within my own forte, the visual arts, I find a good many contemporary "art stars" who I feel are hoaxes... and I'm not alone in this assessment. There are more than a few artists of some renown, museum curators, and critics who share this view. Perhaps we're all just narcissistic and stupid.


I think you're using "hoax" more loosely than I am.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Would someone explain to me why people are so thin-skinned over perceived criticisms of music they like that one can almost see their bones and internal organs showing through? I should think that what matters is that one likes what one likes, and damn the torpedoes. As I've posted before, if somebody agrees with my assessment it's icing on the cake; if they disagree then it's proof of their idiocy and I move on. One needs to demonstrate some firmness in the authenticity of one's own tastes, realizing that it's all nothing but taste in the end.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Strange Magic said:


> Would someone explain to me why people are so thin-skinned over perceived criticisms of music they like that one can almost see their bones and internal organs showing through?


I think sometimes people prefer to see things in a light that demonstrates, to themselves, their own worth. That is, it is an ego defense reaction. Example: If I like "modernistic music" while most do not, that shows that I am more discerning and more advanced than most people.

This is a comforting belief, particularly for those who feel socially challenged otherwise, and whose self-worth needs boosting. It explains the often angry and bristling response when the quality of this kind of music is challenged -- a simple defensive reaction. This is not advanced psychology!


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

This thread isn't about criticism of music. Criticize away!

But please stop telling other people they don't really like what they say they like.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

I want to disavow any notions of the legitimacy of anyone accusing anyone else of fraud, or stupidity, or self-deception, or bad faith or whatever in discussions such as these. Once one understands clearly in one's own mind that art--the arts, music--is all about taste and nothing but taste, then the best response is to say that one is not the audience for whom some particular work was created or to whom it is properly directed; that one is unsuited to properly appreciate said work. This way, nobody's feelings get hurt; few feathers are ruffled. Much better to mutually revel in interests held in common.


----------



## Chronochromie (May 17, 2014)

KenOC said:


> I think sometimes people prefer to see things in a light that demonstrates, to themselves, their own worth. That is, it is an ego defense reaction. Example: If I like "modernistic music" while most do not, that shows that I am more discerning and more advanced than most people.
> 
> This is a comforting belief, particularly for those who feel socially challenged otherwise, and whose self-worth needs boosting. It explains the often angry and bristling response when the quality of this kind of music is challenged -- a simple defensive reaction. This is not advanced psychology!


Kind of the opposite to the people who feel the need to justify their tastes/views by saying that what they like is popular and what they dislike is unpopular, therefore they must be right.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Chronochromie said:


> Kind of the opposite to the people who feel the need to justify their tastes/views by saying that what they like is popular and what they dislike is unpopular, therefore they must be right.


(Since you're evidently speaking of me) Nonsense. I think you missed the point. You may challenge my views and tastes all you like, none of it's worth getting upset about. Most of us have opinions, but we don't think it's necessary to get emotionally attached to them.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

The subject of a "hoax" or "fraud" perpetrated by artists and critics sounds perfectly fascinating. So far I've seen two contributors asserting that such a thing not only _may_ exist but probably _does_. If it can and does, how does it work, and what makes it possible? Can cultural products be "insincere" in some way? Can artists and people involved in the arts have dishonest or ulterior motives for what they produce and propagate? Can artists be induced by ideologies and peer pressure to conform to fashion and be untrue to themselves? Can people's tastes and judgments be warped by those with something to gain? Can high culture, like pop culture, be manipulated and manipulative? Can art be untrue to its own nature and be actually destructive of human values, and might its producers and advocates be aware and approving of this? How much faith shall we place in human nature, and should we expect more of human nature when it is reflected in the arts?

Just some questions the idea of artistic "fraud" suggests.


----------



## Chronochromie (May 17, 2014)

KenOC said:


> (Since you're evidently speaking of me)


I can neither confirm nor deny.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms (Jan 6, 2014)

This is like philosophy, lotta questions, few answers, both questions and answers are questionable...


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

KenOC said:


> I think sometimes people prefer to see things in a light that demonstrates, to themselves, their own worth. That is, it is an ego defense reaction. Example: If I like "modernistic music" while most do not, that shows that I am more discerning and more advanced than most people.
> 
> This is a comforting belief, particularly for those who feel socially challenged otherwise, and whose self-worth needs boosting. It explains the often angry and bristling response when the quality of this kind of music is challenged -- a simple defensive reaction. This is not advanced psychology!


I think the reaction "those moderns think they're better than us normies" is born out of a frustration that there's a whole bunch of stuff some don't get, they can see a group of people over there enjoying it and they suspect it's not so good for their legitimacy that they don't. Hence all the overcompensation. I've seen it all the time with the self-styled music experts - they thought they were part of the best club but now there's something/someone making them feel like country hicks by enjoying the weird stuff. And that makes them a bit cantankerous. Just look through all the contentious anti-modern thread starters...


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

There's no easier way to dispose of our intellectual opponents than to psychologize them. If we can show that they're only shoring up their tottering egos and compensating for feelings of inferiority, we can define them as inferior and we don't have to take their ideas seriously. But then what do such ad hominem tactics say about us?

Musical Egos - the TC version of Musical Chairs.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Even if some people do lie about liking some music...I see no reason to assume that someone is lying in any particular case.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

[deleted out of common courtesy]


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> The subject of a "hoax" or "fraud" perpetrated by artists and critics sounds perfectly fascinating. So far I've seen two contributors asserting that such a thing not only _may_ exist but probably _does_. If it can and does, how does it work, and what makes it possible? Can cultural products be "insincere" in some way? Can artists and people involved in the arts have dishonest or ulterior motives for what they produce and propagate? Can artists be induced by ideologies and peer pressure to conform to fashion and be untrue to themselves? Can people's tastes and judgments be warped by those with something to gain? Can high culture, like pop culture, be manipulated and manipulative? Can art be untrue to its own nature and be actually destructive of human values, and might its producers and advocates be aware and approving of this? How much faith shall we place in human nature, and should we expect more of human nature when it is reflected in the arts?
> 
> Just some questions the idea of artistic "fraud" suggests.


One idea here is that some musics may be an attempt to lull us into a view of the world which is untenable. A consoling view for example. I could imagine that this may be an interesting criticism of music by Josquin, Beethoven, Brahms, Sviradov, Part.

This is music as opium of the people, as it were.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Mandryka said:


> One idea here is that some musics may be an attempt to lull us into a view of the world which is untenable. A consoling view for example. I could imagine that this may be an interesting criticism of music by Josquin, Beethoven, Brahms, Sviradov, Part.
> 
> This is music as opium of the people, as it were.


Even if you feel lulled, how would you know that the composer was attempting to lull you? How can music lull you into a view of the world? And how would that imply fraud?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

The question of fraud is interesting, and there have definitely been some nice frauds in the last century -- Fritz Kreisler, Henri Cadadesus, Remo Giazotto (and fine frauds they were). But in general composers are, I think, quite sincere in their music. It's listeners who hear what they like, and attach whatever significance they want. And then give their attachments importance depending on their psychological needs. Overall, an interesting phenomenon.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

As an example of the Emperor's New Clothes syndrome in music, what about the relatively Joyce Hatto fraud? Here we had an elderly pianist who was apparently turning out fabulously performances of piano music in her old age. The critics queued up to praise the performances. People who questioned the origin of these recordings were told they were insulting our 'national treasure' who had bravely made these wonderful recordings while suffering cancer. Of course it turned out that the recordings so praised were copies of other artists some digitally manipulated. So yes, people like in music!
For a fuller account:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/3669195/Joyce-Hatto-Notes-on-a-scandal.html


----------



## Guest (Jan 14, 2016)

KenOC said:


> Most of us have opinions, but we don't think it's necessary to get emotionally attached to them.


Is the 'we' also 'most'? In other words, are you attempting to quantify the proportion of us that get emotionally attached to our opinions? Or, more precisely, that think it necessary to get emotionally attached?

I must say I'm quite emotionally attached to some of my opinions; necessity doesn't come into it. But it doesn't mean I've taken leave of my senses, or that I can't detach...("Bye bye melancholia, bye bye ire...")



Mandryka said:


> One idea here is that some musics may be an attempt to lull us into a view of the world which is untenable. A consoling view for example. I could imagine that this may be an interesting criticism of music by Josquin, Beethoven, Brahms, Sviradov, Part.
> 
> This is music as opium of the people, as it were.


I'd love it if you'd care to give a more precise example.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

DavidA said:


> As an example of the Emperor's New Clothes syndrome in music, what about the relatively Joyce Hatto fraud? Here we had an elderly pianist who was apparently turning out fabulously performances of piano music in her old age. The critics queued up to praise the performances. People who questioned the origin of these recordings were told they were insulting our 'national treasure' who had bravely made these wonderful recordings while suffering cancer. Of course it turned out that the recordings so praised were copies of other artists some digitally manipulated. So yes, people like in music!
> For a fuller account:
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/3669195/Joyce-Hatto-Notes-on-a-scandal.html


But can I ask you, do you think the critics who praised Hatto _knew it was a hoax all along_?

If you do, you're using the "emperor's new clothes" analogy exactly like isorhythm and Mahlerian think it gets used. If you don't, then it shows they're wrong. And, more importantly, that I'm not naive!


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> Can people's tastes and judgments be warped by those with something to gain? Can high culture, like pop culture, be manipulated and manipulative?


Well, recently you said on a different thread "If a composer's music is really underrated, it's probably just neglected or unknown for one reason or another. If overrated, it's only because* everything is subject to the whims of fashion, whether social or ideological*. "

so I guess the answer to these two questions could be 'possibly so' even if we (would probably) agree that "hoax" and "fraud" are rare occurrences in the context of the question


----------



## TurnaboutVox (Sep 22, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> There's no easier way to dispose of our intellectual opponents than to psychologize them. If we can show that they're only shoring up their tottering egos and compensating for feelings of inferiority, we can define them as inferior and we don't have to take their ideas seriously. But then what do such ad hominem tactics say about us?


It would say that we are forgetting the beam in our own eye.

All of us are emotionally attached to our opinions, unconsciously at the very least. The rational conscious 'surface' is a very thin construct (from this point of view). The opinions of each and every one of us could be dissected psychologically, given enough material to work with. But a web forum devoted to the discussion of classical music isn't the appropriate place to do it. No-one here has signed up for analysis-by-internet forum...


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Nereffid said:


> But can I ask you, do you think the critics who praised Hatto _knew it was a hoax all along_?
> 
> If you do, you're using the "emperor's new clothes" analogy exactly like isorhythm and Mahlerian think it gets used. If you don't, then it shows they're wrong. And, more importantly, that I'm not naive!


No but then the people in Anderson's tale didn't realise it was a hoax. They thought it was themselves being dumb which was the problem. when actually they were dumb - but for different reasons. The fact was they didn't want to stand out from the in crowd. I think as well one should not push a tight analogy too far as the story has applications in many different contexts.


----------



## Truckload (Feb 15, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> The subject of a "hoax" or "fraud" perpetrated by artists and critics sounds perfectly fascinating. So far I've seen two contributors asserting that such a thing not only _may_ exist but probably _does_. If it can and does, how does it work, and what makes it possible? Can cultural products be "insincere" in some way? Can artists and people involved in the arts have dishonest or ulterior motives for what they produce and propagate? Can artists be induced by ideologies and peer pressure to conform to fashion and be untrue to themselves? Can people's tastes and judgments be warped by those with something to gain? Can high culture, like pop culture, be manipulated and manipulative? Can art be untrue to its own nature and be actually destructive of human values, and might its producers and advocates be aware and approving of this? How much faith shall we place in human nature, and should we expect more of human nature when it is reflected in the arts?
> 
> Just some questions the idea of artistic "fraud" suggests.


Excellent questions. To be less controversial and confrontational towards the "modernists" I suggest we consider the situation of the Socialist control of composers and music in the Soviet Union in the 20th century.

We have Shostakovich, Prokofiev and Khachaturian, as well as many others, all effected in different ways by the control of the arts by the Soviet government. I have not studied these composers in depth, but I know that Shostakovich wanted to be experimental and "atonal" but was denounced by the government as being an enemy of the proletariat and lost his government job. Of course all jobs in a Socialist state are government jobs, so it wasn't as if he could just go down the street to someone else and get another job. His response was his Fifth Symphony. The Fifth was wildly popular with both the proletariat and the government overlords and got him (at least temporarily) out of trouble.

So, was the Fifth a hoax? It is probably his most performed and popular work, even now. Yet musicologists continue to argue as to whether it is actually a parody, or did he really mean it.

Shostakovich did eventually join the communist party and become a controlling government thug himself, so it is hard to guess what was really in his heart. In the end, Shostakovich joined the crowd and shouted, emperor, your new clothes are beautiful! So is wonderful, creative, beautiful music, written to please the communist goons any less wonderful, creative and beautiful because it was written to please communist goons? Hoax? Sincere? Not Sincere? Pretending? Were the composers in the Soviet era any worse than composers like Bach and Haydn, who had to write music to please the church and/or nobility that paid their salary?

Shotakovich needed money to live, so he did what he had to do to earn money. I am positive that if we search hard enough today, we can find composers who write music they think will please the source of their money, even if they would rather be writing something else.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

The subject of composers in the USSR under Stalin best presents two opposing views of the "job" of the artist. I recall Olivier once being asked why he took on so many mediocre film roles where he would waste his gifts upon trash. He replied that he was a paid professional actor, and that acting was what he did for a living. Not being an artist myself, I wonder what it must have been like to write, like Haydn for Esterhazy, or Prokofiev et al for Stalin. How many an Ode to Completion of the Five-Year Plan can or should one write? And under what circumstances can the concept of fraud, or of kitsch, enter into a discussion of the role of the artist? Or should only the final product be considered, without discussion of how it came to be?


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

DavidA said:


> No but then the people in Anderson's tale didn't realise it was a hoax. They thought it was themselves being dumb which was the problem. when actually they were dumb - but for different reasons. The fact was they didn't want to stand out from the in crowd. I think as well one should not push a tight analogy too far as the story has applications in many different contexts.


That's right - they don't have to realize it's a hoax. They just have to be pretending to like it because they think they'll look dumb if they don't.

The Hatto story is certainly a fraud, but it has nothing to do with the emperor's new clothes. "Her" performances were actually good! They just weren't hers.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> The subject of a "hoax" or "fraud" perpetrated by artists and critics sounds perfectly fascinating. So far I've seen two contributors asserting that such a thing not only _may_ exist but probably _does_. If it can and does, how does it work, and what makes it possible? Can cultural products be "insincere" in some way? Can artists and people involved in the arts have dishonest or ulterior motives for what they produce and propagate? Can artists be induced by ideologies and peer pressure to conform to fashion and be untrue to themselves? Can people's tastes and judgments be warped by those with something to gain? Can high culture, like pop culture, be manipulated and manipulative? Can art be untrue to its own nature and be actually destructive of human values, and might its producers and advocates be aware and approving of this? How much faith shall we place in human nature, and should we expect more of human nature when it is reflected in the arts?
> 
> Just some questions the idea of artistic "fraud" suggests.


This could be a whole other thread...I've started a couple responses and stopped because the topic is too big.

The very short answer is I don't think many of the oppositions you present are so clear-cut...we're all, composers and listeners, enmeshed in social relationships and the larger society, so it's never _either_true to oneself _or_ warped by outside forces, never _either_ sincere _or_ manipulative, etc. I also don't think you can draw such a sharp line between pop and high culture.

Whether art can be destructive to human values is an even bigger and more difficult question. I don't know.


----------



## Truckload (Feb 15, 2012)

isorhythm said:


> That's right - they don't have to realize it's a hoax. They just have to be pretending to like it because they think they'll look dumb if they don't.
> 
> The Hatto story is certainly a fraud, but it has nothing to do with the emperor's new clothes. "Her" performances were actually good! They just weren't hers.


Every detail does not have to match up for it to be a worthy allusion. It seems to me that the Emperors New Clothes (ENC) allusion fits well enough with the Hatto story to be illuminating. Even though the idea of a geriatric woman creating world class performances in a garden shed is patently ridiculous, once the "crowd" bought the story, who would have the courage to disagree against all of those established professionals?

By the way, was the Empoeror in the ENC story part of the hoax? A victim? Just an idiot? A secret exhibitionist who knew the truth but wanted to parade around naked anyway?


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

isorhythm said:


> That's right - they don't have to realize it's a hoax. They just have to be pretending to like it because they think they'll look dumb if they don't.
> 
> The Hatto story is certainly a fraud, but it has nothing to do with the emperor's new clothes. "Her" performances were actually good! They just weren't hers.


Actually there was at least one instance where a critic loved Hatto's performance, having previously been unimpressed by the actual original. His defence involved some hand-waving about how the little changes Barrington-Coupe had introduced into the original recording had made a huge difference.

Everyone hears what they want to hear.


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

Am I mistaken in remembering two members on this very forum who relatively recently *publicly* admitted to pretending to like (certain) contemporary music for many of the reasons that are stated here? SeptimalTritone is one, but the other I will not name since it was a bit further back and I can't exactly recall his reasons for "coming out". I do recall many members praising his courage and honesty.


----------



## TurnaboutVox (Sep 22, 2013)

Truckload said:


> .. the Hatto story ... Even though the idea of a geriatric woman creating world class performances in a garden shed is patently ridiculous, once the "crowd" bought the story, who would have the courage to disagree against all of those established professionals?


No, quite right, they were being 'created' by a geriatric _man_ in his garden shed. But at least the original recordings were very good, and perhaps some were world class, so the critics weren't entirely wrong about their artistic merits. They just weren't performed by Hatto.


----------



## Guest (Jan 14, 2016)

isorhythm said:


> But please stop telling other people they don't really like what they say they like.


If it doesn't stop soon, it never will...

Based on my internal reaction to being called a liar once again, I will tell you that I will not last much longer on this site.


----------



## Truckload (Feb 15, 2012)

nathanb said:


> If it doesn't stop soon, it never will...
> 
> Based on my internal reaction to being called a liar once again, I will tell you that I will not last much longer on this site.


Who called you a liar? Certainly no one in this thread.

I personally have repeatedly stated that I believe there are some people who really like atonal music.

However, your honesty which is not in question, does not prove anything about other people. Please see the post above by DiesIraeCX. Also please consider my post concerning Soviet era composers.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

isorhythm said:


> That's right - they don't have to realize it's a hoax. They just have to be pretending to like it because they think they'll look dumb if they don't.
> 
> The Hatto story is certainly a fraud, but it has nothing to do with the emperor's new clothes. "Her" performances were actually good! They just weren't hers.


I'm afraid it was as critics who had been quite disparaging of some of the performances when first (legally) released, praised them to the skies when Hatto's name was attached to them.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

DavidA said:


> I'm afraid it was as critics who had been quite disparaging of some of the performances when first (legally) released, praised them to the skies when Hatto's name was attached to them.


The one example I could find had a 15 year gap between the original and the "Hatto"...I don't think it's remarkable that a critic would have a different reaction to hearing the same thing 15 years apart (though I understand why critics wouldn't want to admit that this is the case).


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

TurnaboutVox said:


> No, quite right, they were being 'created' by a geriatric _man_ in his garden shed. But at least the original recordings were very good, and perhaps some were world class, so the critics weren't entirely wrong about their artistic merits. They just weren't performed by Hatto.


As said before it was the critical reaction to them - praising performances they had initially been sniffy about - which was the emperor's new clothes syndrome.


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

I _think_ the phrase very often, but I hope it doesn't slip out in public much, where it might cause a diplomatic incident. There are certainly a lot of people who are very keen to be seen to like what they are supposed to like and to bash what they aren't supposed to like. Obviously one never knows for sure in any given case which of the opinions is authentic and which is motivated by approval seeking, but I have my suspicions.  I would say, however, that pretending to like classical music in order to seem cultured is more likely to be encountered among the general population of educated people in the offline world than among those who take the trouble to post on a classical music forum, thus potentially exposing their thoughts to criticism by those who are genuinely enthusiastic and knowledgeable!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

isorhythm said:


> The one example I could find had a 15 year gap between the original and the "Hatto"...I don't think it's remarkable that a critic would have a different reaction to hearing the same thing 15 years apart (though I understand why critics wouldn't want to admit that this is the case).


Sorry, but the difference in the reviews is far too extensive. In 1992, in Gramophone, the critic Bryce Morrison found that Yefim Bronfman's Rachmaninov Third Concerto lacked 'the sort of angst or urgency that has endeared Rachmaninov to millions' and that 'Bronfman sounds oddly unmoved by Rachmaninov's intensely slavonic idiom. In the sunset coda of the Adagio his playing is devoid of glamour and in the finale's fugue he lacks crispness and definition.' Fifteen years later, he wrote of Hatto's release of the same recording: 'stunning… truly great… among the finest on record… with a special sense of its Slavic melancholy.'
He later admitted he was influenced by Hatto's name on the cover of the disc.


----------



## TurnaboutVox (Sep 22, 2013)

DavidA said:


> He later admitted he was influenced by Hatto's name on the cover of the disc.


Yes, I agree, and no doubt this incident prompted much soul-searching amongst the critics who were taken in - or at least I hope so. But it's not quite the same as 'The Emperor's New Clothes", is it? The quality of the clothes, their cut and design, was not in question, it's just that the critics reacted differently when it thought a currently fashionable 'celebrity' was responsible for their manufacture, rather than an unknown small independent tailor. Now, there is a parable for our times.


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Sorry, but the difference in the reviews is far too extensive. In 1992, in Gramophone, the critic Bryce Morrison found that Yefim Bronfman's Rachmaninov Third Concerto lacked 'the sort of angst or urgency that has endeared Rachmaninov to millions' and that 'Bronfman sounds oddly unmoved by Rachmaninov's intensely slavonic idiom. In the sunset coda of the Adagio his playing is devoid of glamour and in the finale's fugue he lacks crispness and definition.' Fifteen years later, he wrote of Hatto's release of the same recording: 'stunning… truly great… among the finest on record… with a special sense of its Slavic melancholy.'
> He later admitted he was influenced by Hatto's name on the cover of the disc.


That is one of the most hilariously schadenfreude-inducing anecdotes of a critic's hypocrisy and silliness that I've ever read! Thank you! :lol:


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

TurnaboutVox said:


> Yes, I agree, and no doubt this incident prompted much soul-searching amongst the critics who were taken in - or at least I hope so. But it's not quite the same as 'The Emperor's New Clothes", is it? The quality of the clothes, their cut and design, was not in question, it's just that the critics reacted differently when it thought a currently fashionable 'celebrity' was responsible for their manufacture, rather than an unknown small independent tailor. Now, there is a parable for our times.


Oh come on! You're being far too picky and literal with Anderson's tale.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Figleaf said:


> I _think_ the phrase very often, but I hope it doesn't slip out in public much, where it might cause a diplomatic incident. There are certainly a lot of people who are very keen to be seen to like what they are supposed to like and to bash what they aren't supposed to like. Obviously one never knows for sure in any given case which of the opinions is authentic and which is motivated by approval seeking, but I have my suspicions.  I would say, however, that *pretending to like classical music in order to seem cultured is more likely to be encountered among the general population of educated people* in the offline world than among those who take the trouble to post on a classical music forum, thus potentially exposing their thoughts to criticism by those who are genuinely enthusiastic and knowledgeable!


Please see the amusing booklet "Bluff your way in music" by Peter Gammond.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

OK, I have to concede - this is a case where "the emperor's new clothes" is applicable.

Though note that the naked emperors are critics, not artists.

Yesterday I was thinking that "the emperor's new clothes" may often be applicable in academia, especially social sciences and literary criticism. Though that may only be my own prejudices speaking.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Removed because it was wrong.


----------



## TurnaboutVox (Sep 22, 2013)

DavidA said:


> Oh come on! You're being far too picky and literal with Anderson's tale.


I don't believe so, no!


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

MacLeod said:


> I'd love it if you'd care to give a more precise example.


I now see that I was confusing a hoax with an untruth, something misleading. So I don't think it's helpful in the context of this discussion.

(Sorry, it was early and I was rushing to get out to work!)


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

DavidA said:


> Sorry, but the difference in the reviews is far too extensive. In 1992, in Gramophone, the critic Bryce Morrison found that Yefim Bronfman's Rachmaninov Third Concerto lacked 'the sort of angst or urgency that has endeared Rachmaninov to millions' and that 'Bronfman sounds oddly unmoved by Rachmaninov's intensely slavonic idiom. In the sunset coda of the Adagio his playing is devoid of glamour and in the finale's fugue he lacks crispness and definition.' Fifteen years later, he wrote of Hatto's release of the same recording: 'stunning… truly great… among the finest on record… with a special sense of its Slavic melancholy.'
> He later admitted he was influenced by Hatto's name on the cover of the disc.


This fabulous example reminds me of a book I read a while back on probability, wherein was discussed the results of a series of tightly-crafted double-blind wine tastings. Noted oenophiles were offered all sorts of samples to taste-test and then to identify. Needless to recount, the results showed no correlation between what people thought they were drinking and reality.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Strange Magic said:


> This fabulous example reminds me of a book I read a while back on probability, wherein was discussed the results of a series of tightly-crafted double-blind wine tastings. Noted oenophiles were offered all sorts of samples to taste-test and then to identify. Needless to recount, the results showed no correlation between what people thought they were drinking and reality.


In 1967 an extract from Karajan's recording of Bach's Second Suite was slipped - unidentified as to the performers - into a discussion of the Bach Orchestral Suites in the BBC programme _Interpretations on Record_. The praise that was lavished on the performance by the musicologists present was matched by the shock which the identity of the performers was received. I mean, even in 1967 musicologists weren't supposed to admire Karajan's Bach!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

isorhythm said:


> OK, I have to concede - this is a case where "the emperor's new clothes" is applicable.
> 
> Though note that the *naked emperors are critics, not artists.*
> 
> Yesterday I was thinking that "the emperor's new clothes" may often be applicable in academia, especially social sciences and literary criticism. Though that may only be my own prejudices speaking.


When giving a concert at Vienna's Musik-Verein, Frederich Gulda and his girlfriend appeared on stage naked for a rendition of Schumann songs on the recorder.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

DavidA said:


> When giving a concert at Vienna's Musik-Verein, Frederich Gulda and his girlfriend appeared on stage naked for a rendition of Schumann songs on the recorder.


Was the rendition good? That's all that matters, isn't it?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

isorhythm said:


> Was the rendition good? That's all that matters, isn't it?


No review available of that one! No doubt people's attention was other than on the music!

Gulda was a brilliant pianist who in his way was as eccentric as Glenn Gould. He once faked his own death to see his obituary:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/pianist-faked-death-to-see-his-obituary-1084584.html


----------



## Guest (Jan 14, 2016)

Truckload said:


> Who called you a liar? Certainly no one in this thread.
> 
> I personally have repeatedly stated that I believe there are some people who really like atonal music.
> 
> However, your honesty which is not in question, does not prove anything about other people. Please see the post above by DiesIraeCX. Also please consider my post concerning Soviet era composers.





> I think sometimes people prefer to see things in a light that demonstrates, to themselves, their own worth. That is, it is an ego defense reaction. Example: If I like "modernistic music" while most do not, that shows that I am more discerning and more advanced than most people.
> 
> This is a comforting belief, particularly for those who feel socially challenged otherwise, and whose self-worth needs boosting. It explains the often angry and bristling response when the quality of this kind of music is challenged -- a simple defensive reaction. This is not advanced psychology!


We have claimed over and over to like this music simply because we like the way it sounds and because it brings us pleasure and enjoyment. Therefore, the insinuation of the above post is that we are liars.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

nathanb said:


> We have claimed over and over to like this music simply because we like the way it sounds and because it brings us pleasure and enjoyment. Therefore, the insinuation of the above post is that we are liars.


Yes, but the enjoyment is _intellectual_, right? It's logically impossible that you could actually derive _real_ enjoyment from this stuff, let's face it.


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

Of course the Hatto hoax might have been too much for garden variety critics, many of whom are dilettantes with surprisingly little musical knowledge. Not so the electronic music critics of the 60s who performed much better in the Piotr Zak hoax

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piotr_Zak


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

dgee said:


> Of course the Hatto hoax might have been too much for garden variety critics, many of whom are dilettantes with surprisingly little musical knowledge. Not so the electronic music critics of the 60s who performed much better in the Piotr Zak hoax
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piotr_Zak


That was an interesting story. There was also the music critic who was fooled into thinking "sides 3 and 4" of a John Lennon album were minimalist noise music, when in fact his test pressing simply had two blank sides.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

isorhythm said:


> I don't think it's possible for an intelligent person to think huge swaths of modern music are literally a hoax, no. That's not the same as disliking it.


I suspect the majority of those who make such claims simply believe modern music is valued much more highly than it should be, but some may truly believe in a hoax. The present situation with Climate Change is instructive. There are many people (at least in the US) who claim that Climate Change is a hoax - not just mistaken, but a conspiracy by the climate change community including the scientists. These people include a US senator, many pundits, and others. Of course, we can't tell if they truly believe what they assert, but I'd be surprised if most did not believe that.

In some sense those who believe others can't really enjoy modern music are being rational but ignoring useful clues. They adore centuries of classical music. They may know enough to analyze the music to some extent. They are exposed to music that not only sounds awful but in many cases does not even sound like music to them. They talk to others about that music, and the others agree with them 100%. What can they believe about people saying they enjoy it? In their view no one could possibly enjoy it. So they have to make up something that fits - the "modernists" are pretending, they only find it intellectually stimulating, etc..

Most of us would prefer that others not make overarching negative claims about modern music - it's garbage, no one can like it, it destroyed classical music. But clearly some truly believe those claims. And perhaps most importantly, those people view modern music as having taken away something they love - a continuing tradition of sublime, gorgeous music. Basically, new wonderful, inspiring, beautiful music has stopped being written. So it's an important issue to them.

So in part, that's what those who love modern music are up against, and the question is what is the best way to change those people's minds about modern music. Not to make them love it or even like it, but to get them to see it as simply new and different, truly loved by many, and not the awful "monster" they see today.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

mmsbls said:


> So in part, that's what those who love modern music are up against, and the question is what is the best way to change those people's minds about modern music. Not to make them love it or even like it, but to get them to see it as simply new and different, truly loved by many, and not the awful "monster" they see today.


It can be a challenge because music is often (rightly so) judged by the listening ear and it is art. Although a piece X might be intentionally composed as a hoax but as long as an independent listener (not affiliated with the composer) genuinely declares that this is a great/enjoyable piece, then that piece X is not a hoax to this listener. In other words, someone somewhere will always like any piece of music, whatever the music is. But is one listener (or a minority of listeners) over a long period of time any more credible than a clear majority over the same period of time? Or does it not matter?


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Truckload said:


> Excellent questions. To be less controversial and confrontational towards the "modernists" I suggest we consider the situation of the Socialist control of composers and music in the Soviet Union in the 20th century.
> 
> We have Shostakovich, Prokofiev and Khachaturian, as well as many others, all effected in different ways by the control of the arts by the Soviet government. I have not studied these composers in depth, but I know that Shostakovich wanted to be experimental and "atonal" but was denounced by the government as being an enemy of the proletariat and lost his government job. Of course all jobs in a Socialist state are government jobs, so it wasn't as if he could just go down the street to someone else and get another job. His response was his Fifth Symphony. The Fifth was wildly popular with both the proletariat and the government overlords and got him (at least temporarily) out of trouble.
> 
> ...


Nearly everything in this post is wrong. There is no reason to think the Fifth Symphony was wildly popular with the proletariat or the "government overlords." The wild applause at the premier was likely, in part at least, and perhaps in large part, a protest at what had been done to Shostakovich and a celebration that he was once again free to work. Some of the most influential critics in the party expressed doubt about the symphony's value in their reviews of the premier, hearing the finale as forced and unnatural. But all of this is irrelevant. It had been decided before the premier that Shostakovich was forgiven and the ban on his work lifted.

Shostakovich needed to compose and to hear his works performed. Money and other perks were an inevitable consequence of his success. Shostakovich never became a thug.


----------



## Truckload (Feb 15, 2012)

mmbls - please do not bring politics into a discussion of music. Especially not something as controversial as global warming.


----------



## Chronochromie (May 17, 2014)

Truckload said:


> mmbls - please do not bring politics into a discussion of music. Especially not something as controversial as global warming.


Global warming controversial? Only in the U.S. ....


----------



## Truckload (Feb 15, 2012)

EdwardBast - while you draw a slightly different conclusion about the "wild applause" at the premier, the entire point was in regards to the dishonesty forced upon the composer by his Socialist overlords. 

Yes, Shostakovich did lose his position, and yes even in the glorious USSR people had to have money, including Shostakovich. He joined the communist party in 1960, and served as a member of the Supreme Soviet in 1962, thus becoming just another controlling government thug.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Truckload said:


> He joined the communist party in 1960, and served as a member of the Supreme Soviet in 1962, thus becoming just another controlling government thug.


Actually Shostakovich had served in the Supreme Soviet of the Russian SFSR since 1947, long before he joined the Party. I'm not sure that made him any kind of "thug."


----------



## Truckload (Feb 15, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Actually Shostakovich had served in the Supreme Soviet of the Russian SFSR since 1947, long before he joined the Party. I'm not sure that made him any kind of "thug."


My conclusion, which I can not prove, is that he wavered. He would wander off the ranch, get in trouble, then try to do things to get back into favor. Obviously he was employed by the government, he had no choice. There was no private anything. Exactly how commited he was to communism was in doubt until 1960 when he finally joined the party. How they let him serve on the SFSR without being a member I have no idea, but he did.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Truckload said:


> My conclusion, which I can not prove, is that he wavered. He would wander off the ranch, get in trouble, then try to do things to get back into favor. Obviously he was employed by the government, he had no choice. There was no private anything. Exactly how commited he was to communism was in doubt until 1960 when he finally joined the party. How they let him serve on the SFSR without being a member I have no idea, but he did.


The Supreme Soviets were legislative bodies, in function like parliaments or the similar federal and state bodies in the US. Members were nominated by the government and stood in unopposed elections. There was no requirement for Party membership so long as the candidate was ideologically sound and had an appropriate class background. My impression is that candidates might be preferred if they had great accomplishments or were well-known in a positive way.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

Love him or loathe him Shosty will not be ignored, apparently.


----------



## mstar (Aug 14, 2013)

Mahlerian said:


> Yes, but the enjoyment is _intellectual_, right? It's logically impossible that you could actually derive _real_ enjoyment from this stuff, let's face it.


Not necessarily.

"We also show that listening to a favorite song alters the connectivity between auditory brain areas and the hippocampus, a region responsible for memory and social emotion consolidation. Given that musical preferences are uniquely individualized phenomena and that music can vary in acoustic complexity and the presence or absence of lyrics, the consistency of our results was unexpected. These findings may explain why comparable emotional and mental states can be experienced by people listening to music that differs as widely as Beethoven and Eminem." (Wilkins, et. al.)

A 2014 article entitled "Network Science and the Effects of Music Preference on Functional Brain Connection".


----------



## TurnaboutVox (Sep 22, 2013)

I have liked your post for its scientific content, mstar, but I'm pretty sure Mahlerian's post was ironic, parodying an oft-heard response to a claim to like modernist music.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Interesting article. I don't really disagree, though! I was actually being sarcastic in the post you quoted.


----------



## mstar (Aug 14, 2013)

Mahlerian said:


> Interesting article. I don't really disagree, though! I was actually being sarcastic in the post you quoted.


Oh great! Points for embarrassment. I guess I took it out of context...

But I'm glad you liked the article nonetheless. It is quite fascinating.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

mstar said:


> Oh great! Points for embarrassment. I guess I took it out of context...
> 
> But I'm glad you liked the article nonetheless. It is quite fascinating.


Hey, communication over the internet is difficult. Don't be hard on yourself.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Mahlerian said:


> Even admitting that you're definitely right, and that all of the modern artists you think are hoaxes are actually hoaxes,
> 
> _*this does absolutely nothing to prove any point about music,*_
> 
> let alone the specific cases I've mentioned.


Ah! My mistake. Must be only the visual arts where we can find fêted stars who might just be hoaxes. No such thing in music and literature.


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Ah! My mistake. Must be only the visual arts where we can find fêted stars who might just be hoaxes. No such thing in music and literature.


I'd suggest music and visual arts work very, very differently in terms of identification and promotion of celebrity for novelty. Or maybe you can tell me who the (say) Koons, Emin and Hurst of music are, and why? Of course, you'll probably say Cage, or perhaps suggest that you have better things to do/don't know because it's all too ghastly. But I think it would be another interesting challenge for one of our "strong, valid opinions on contemporary music despite not knowing anything about it" members...

Reminds me about Hurst in a cheeky interview being asked if he could draw and answering along the lines of: "I could do a drawing of your best mate, put it down next to you in the pub, and you'd be buying it drinks all night"


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

KenOC- If I like "modernistic music" while most do not, that shows that I am more discerning and more advanced than most people.

Bingo. Returning once more to my own field of some expertise: the visual arts... which according to some have absolutely no similarities with the realm of music... it is well known that many art buyers purchase works of art in order to impress others. By purchasing works of the "old masters" one conveys great wealth... and stolid conservative values. If one wishes to convey that one is more daring, progressive, and willing to take chances, one focuses upon buying the latest experimental works.

Now I won't suggest that all... or even more than a few fans of Modern/Contemporary music listen to such with an aim to impress others. I listen to more than a little Modern/Contemporary music (classical and otherwise) myself. I will suggest that I don't think the love of classical music need to be some dichotomy: either "stuffy" old stuff or "weird" new stuff. Unfortunately, the slings and arrows come from both side of the imagined divide.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Truckload said:


> mmbls - please do not bring politics into a discussion of music. Especially not something as controversial as global warming.


Others used art as an example that someone would perpetrate a hoax. I used a scientific issue as an example of people believing a large group would do so. Any possible controversial aspect is completely irrelevant to my point.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Now I won't suggest that all... or even more than a few fans of Modern/Contemporary music listen to such with an aim to impress others.


My point was a bit different. I suggested that some people like difficult music because it gives them a stronger sense of self worth -- impressing others may not be the goal here. And it explains the anger that they often exhibit when "their" music is belittled. In fact, I know of no other explanation.


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

KenOC said:


> My point was a bit different. I suggested that some people like difficult music because it gives them a stronger sense of self worth -- impressing others may not be the goal here. And it explains the anger that they often exhibit when "their" music is belittled. In fact, I know of no other explanation.


Ken, would be interested in your opinion on the following:

Why do Maria Callas fans (just as an example) exhibit so much anger when their diva is belittled (or even not recognised as the best ever)?
Why do so many threads belittling modern music get started?


----------



## SimonNZ (Jul 12, 2012)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> KenOC- If I like "modernistic music" while most do not, that shows that I am more discerning and more advanced than most people.
> 
> Bingo. Returning once more to my own field of some expertise: the visual arts... which according to some have absolutely no similarities with the realm of music... it is well known that many art buyers purchase works of art in order to impress others. By purchasing works of the "old masters" one conveys great wealth... and stolid conservative values. If one wishes to convey that one is more daring, progressive, and willing to take chances, one focuses upon buying the latest experimental works.


There may be "similarities" but seldom an exact mirroring of whats happening in the world of music and the mind of the listener. Which is why your constant moving of music discussions to art discussions seldom makes the issue or possible answers any clearer.

Purchasing "Old masters" (or even recent big-name artists) is done by the uber-rich, not the blue collar workers or retirees I suspect most contemporary music fans here are, and who really need to want it to spend their limited funds on modern classical. And are you suggesting people leave cd cases in prominent places in their house to be spotted and admired? Or have it on the stereo when people come over? I doubt either would have the desired effect. You'd be safer with Mozart in both cases.

What's getting lost yet again in all these stupid "modern-hoax" threads is that the people who listen to it don't listen to it exclusively. They tend, almost without exception, to be people who love classical from all ages. So...if you agree with them and think they're right and sincere in their love of Machaut, in their love of Monteverdi, in their love of Bach and Haydn and Beethoven and Debussy...then why not trust them or at least believe them in their appreciation of more modern works? If they like all that earlier stuff then they must know what a properly attired Emperor looks like, right? Or are these Machaut/Bach fans just faking it with them, in the same way they do with Boulez?


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

I think what member StlukesguildOhio might be suggesting is there could be admirers of art/music who are just doing that for public awareness from others that they do.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

dgee said:


> Why do Maria Callas fans (just as an example) exhibit so much anger when their diva is belittled (or even not recognised as the best ever)?


No idea. I'm not an opera person, though. But it does seem strange. Obviously they're emotionally invested in their appreciation of Callas.

I can't imagine a Beethoven fan getting upset if somebody disses Beethoven. After all, any damn fool can like his music, so there's no ego gratification in it. You're just another boring, plodding, uninteresting listener. Speaking for myself, or course!


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

I agree. Fans of the established great composers are much less sensitive to criticism of such composers than fans of more esoteric composers based on my experience of engaging with fans outside of the internet/real world.


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

KenOC said:


> No idea. I'm not an opera person, though. But it does seem strange. Obviously they're emotionally invested in their appreciation of Callas.
> 
> I can't imagine a Beethoven fan getting upset if somebody disses Beethoven. After all, any damn fool can like his music, so there's no ego gratification in it. You're just another boring, plodding, uninteresting listener. Speaking for myself, or course!


What about my other question - starting anti-modernism threads, or making mocking commentary on existing threads? I eagerly await your unique insights


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

KenOC said:


> I can't imagine a Beethoven fan getting upset if somebody disses Beethoven. After all, any damn fool can like his music, so there's no ego gratification in it. You're just another boring, plodding, uninteresting listener. Speaking for myself, or course!





ArtMusic said:


> I agree. Fans of the established great composers are much less sensitive to criticism of such composers than fans of more esoteric composers based on my experience of engaging with fans outside of the internet/real world.


Did either of you bother to look at the thread I cited earlier when someone made this exact claim? The last time someone came on here and ranted about how horrible Beethoven was, many of the people on this forum laughed him out and criticized him.

http://www.talkclassical.com/36303-beethovens-barbaric-malevolent-symphonies.html


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

Or how about this thread where Verdi fans lost their proverbial

http://www.talkclassical.com/31272-verdi-mawkish-shallow.html


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

I do think fans of modern music might react more strongly, but I think they are responding to excessive provocation. Very few people attack Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, or other older composers, and generally the attacks are not remotely as severe as those against modern music. Nobody accuses Mozart or Beethoven of destroying music, of writing garbage, or of writing music no one can possibly enjoy. Modern music fans see threads like those regularly. It's not hard to imagine some fans get exasperated and defensive causing them to lash out defending that which they love.

I wish modern music fans would not react _too_ strongly risking infractions, but I understand the urge to respond strongly. Basically, enough is enough - cut it out!


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

SimonNZ- What's getting lost yet again in all these stupid "modern-hoax" threads is that the people who listen to it don't listen to it exclusively. They tend, almost without exception, to be people who love classical from all ages. So...if you agree with them and think they're right and sincere in their love of Machaut, in their love of Monteverdi, in their love of Bach and Haydn and Beethoven and Debussy...then why not trust them or at least believe them in their appreciation of more modern works? If they like all that earlier stuff then they must know what a properly attired Emperor looks like, right? Or are these Machaut/Bach fans just faking it with them, in the same way they do with Boulez?

Personally, I assume most people listen to whatever they listen to because it gives them pleasure. I don't agree that the majority of the Classical Music audience love Classical Music of all ages... let alone all genre. There are a good many whose tastes run deep rather than broad... who are fans of one or two period or genre. They might listen almost exclusively to Early Music, the Baroque, Opera, Choral Music, Modern Music, Chamber Music, etc... and don't frequently explore much beyond their area of real interest. Those whose passion is opera or chamber music may be no more fond of Josquin or Perotin or Chopin than they are of Mahler, Anton Webern, or Pierre Boulez.

Having said that, there are those whose Classical Music passions are broad rather than deep. They may equally enjoy Josquin, Gesualdo, Mozart, Wagner, Stravinsky, and Tristan Murail. Yet no one can or will like everything. I think many naturally take offence when the suggestions are put forth that:

A. You dislike Music X because you are ignorant or inexperienced with regard to such
B. If only you were more experienced and knowledgeable of Music X you would undoubtedly have the utmost respect for it, if not like/love it.

Such suggestions are thrown about from every side of the musical spectrum. I think we need to be careful in assuming that a person's musical tastes... his or her dislikes of a certain body of music... is the result of ignorance or inexperience. I have personally never warmed to Schoenberg (yet I quite like a lot of Berg) in spite of owning more recordings by Schoenberg than many who love him, and having listened to them all more than once.

I will admit to telling one member (some time back) who dismissed the notion that Schubert was a great composer, yet disliked and rarely ever listened to vocal music, that he couldn't honestly offer the least judgment of Schubert without considering the lieder. In this instance, the person admitted to a certain ignorance of the composer in question.

Our fans of the more avant garde strains of Modern/Contemporary music frequently aim similar criticisms at those who admit that they simply can't stand what they love.

And isn't that the crux of the problem? No one likes being told that what they love is "ugly" or "shallow"... or less than brilliant and profound.


----------



## Guest (Jan 15, 2016)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> KenOC- If I like "modernistic music" while most do not, that shows that I am more discerning and more advanced than most people.
> 
> Bingo. Returning once more to my own field of some expertise: the visual arts... which according to some have absolutely no similarities with the realm of music... it is well known that many art buyers purchase works of art in order to impress others. By purchasing works of the "old masters" one conveys great wealth... and stolid conservative values. If one wishes to convey that one is more daring, progressive, and willing to take chances, one focuses upon buying the latest experimental works.
> 
> Now I won't suggest that all... or even more than a few fans of Modern/Contemporary music listen to such with an aim to impress others. I listen to more than a little Modern/Contemporary music (classical and otherwise) myself. I will suggest that I don't think the love of classical music need to be some dichotomy: either "stuffy" old stuff or "weird" new stuff. Unfortunately, the slings and arrows come from both side of the imagined divide.


So just to be clear here, you are or are not joining Ken in calling me a liar for deriving nothing but pure pleasure and sonic enjoyment from Schoenberg, Cage, Boulez, Stockhausen, Ferneyhough, etc?


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

mmslbs- I do think fans of modern music might react more strongly, but I think they are responding to excessive provocation. Very few people attack Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, or other older composers, and generally the attacks are not remotely as severe as those against modern music. Nobody accuses Mozart or Beethoven of destroying music, of writing garbage, or of writing music no one can possibly enjoy. Modern music fans see threads like those regularly. It's not hard to imagine some fans get exasperated and defensive causing them to lash out defending that which they love.

I quite agree with this. But perhaps the "attacks" or criticism of Modern/Contemporary music is only to be expected. Modern/Contemporary music has yet to be absorbed into the larger culture as a whole... or even the larger culture of the classical music audience. Whether one likes it or not, a good majority of that which is championed here and now will slowly fade from view and only a few towering figures will survive. Mozart, Beethoven, etc... have already risen from the mass of music that was merely "good", "mediocre" or worse.

At the same time, we must agree that a great change took place with the onset of the Modern era. Popular culture and the decline of the control of the arts by such elite groups as the aristocracy and the Church has led to an undermining... or questioning of the notions of agreed upon standards in the arts. There is no way that Marcel Duchamp... or even Picasso would have been taken at all seriously even as late as 1850. The same thing has happened in music. With the decline of agreed upon standards, and an increase in leisure time and expendable income, more and more individuals have been able to enter the field who would never have had the chance let alone been accepted before. There were no "amateur" painters at the time of Rembrandt or even Ingres (or at least none outside the aristocracy). How many "amateur" composers were there in the time of Mozart? As whole I feel that Modernism saw a great opening up of the Arts and this led to many innovations and many new and marvelous things... yet at the same time I believe it resulted in more crap than was ever seen before. Most of the arguments concerning Modern/Contemporary music/art/literature seem to be a debate as to just what works of art are crap... and which are truly marvelous.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I can't imagine a Beethoven fan getting upset if somebody disses Beethoven.

Oh please!  We don't call them Beethoven Fanboys for nothing. :lol:


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

nathanb said:


> So just to be clear here, you are or are not joining Ken in calling me a liar for deriving nothing but pure pleasure and sonic enjoyment from Schoenberg, Cage, Boulez, Stockhausen, Ferneyhough, etc?


Let's be even clearer. What I originally wrote was, "I think sometimes people prefer to see things in a light that demonstrates, to themselves, their own worth. That is, it is an ego defense reaction." I said nothing about you. Why do you think I did?


----------



## SimonNZ (Jul 12, 2012)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> I don't agree that the majority of the Classical Music audience love Classical Music of all ages... let alone all genre. There are a good many whose tastes run deep rather than broad


This is not what I said at all. I said the contemporary fans like music from all ages.

It bears repeating because the bedrock - the utter falsehood - of all the silly "anti-modernist" chatter is that they, the modern music fans, are fetishising the new, and are blinkered exclusively on that.

...which I must have said now twenty different times in twenty different threads.

In addition to mmsbls comments above about the frustration of these arguments I'd add that of having to make the same replies to the same people over and over - not even to new members who don't know this has all been addressed - as if they're hearing it all for the first time. That I find more frustrating than the nature of the accusations.


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

KenOC said:


> Let's be even clearer. What I originally wrote was, "I think sometimes people prefer to see things in a light that demonstrates, to themselves, their own worth. That is, it is an ego defense reaction." I said nothing about you. Why do you think I did?


I think this is a key mechanism behind starting negative threads and making snarky remarks on sincere threads that derail discussions, but probably worse since it serves to attack rather than defend. Good point


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

KenOC said:


> The Supreme Soviets were legislative bodies, in function like parliaments or the similar federal and state bodies in the US. Members were nominated by the government and stood in unopposed elections. There was no requirement for Party membership so long as the candidate was ideologically sound and had an appropriate class background. My impression is that candidates might be preferred if they had great accomplishments or were well-known in a positive way.


... and supported the music of Shostakovich.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

KenOC said:


> Let's be even clearer. What I originally wrote was, "I think sometimes people prefer to see things in a light that demonstrates, to themselves, their own worth. That is, it is an ego defense reaction." I said nothing about you. Why do you think I did?


Well, _"sometimes"_ leaves plenty of room for those of us who _really_ do enjoy dissonant, avant-garde music without it having nary a thing to do with any alleged "ego defense reaction".


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Mahlerian said:


> Did either of you bother to look at the thread I cited earlier when someone made this exact claim? The last time someone came on here and ranted about how horrible Beethoven was, many of the people on this forum laughed him out and criticized him.
> 
> http://www.talkclassical.com/36303-beethovens-barbaric-malevolent-symphonies.html


 Took a look at that. I thought the replies to the OP were quite moderate and interesting. They tried (mostly) to be helpful and suggested things to listen to. I didn't look at all the pages.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

You all really think people are buying albums and going to concerts as an "ego defense reaction"? I don't see it.

Music comes first, ego defense reactions later.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Morimur said:


> Well, _"sometimes"_ leaves plenty of room for those of us who, more often than not, _really_ do enjoy dissonant, avant-garde music without it having nary a thing to do with any alleged "ego defense reaction".


"Sometimes" leaves room only for those who wish to enter the room. I guess the self-torture chamber is irresistible to some people.


----------



## SimonNZ (Jul 12, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> "Sometimes" leaves room only for those who wish to enter the room. I guess the self-torture chamber is irresistible to some people.


Do you actually believe that anyone would sit through music they found torturous, let alone say they enjoyed it?


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> "Sometimes" leaves room only for those who wish to enter the room. I guess the self-torture chamber is irresistible to some people.


It's torture to YOU.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

SimonNZ said:


> Do you actually believe that anyone would sit through music they found torturous, let alone say they enjoyed it?


I'll say. If I wanted to be tortured I'd simply listen to top 40 radio.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

SimonNZ said:


> Do you actually believe that anyone would sit through music they found torturous, let alone say they enjoyed it?


Certainly not. I'm afraid you didn't go back and trace the thread of the conversation, so you mistook my meaning and lumped me with the "faction" you think I belong to. It's OK. I'm used to it.

Here's the exchange:

Nathanb: _So just to be clear here, you are or are not joining Ken in calling me a liar for deriving nothing but pure pleasure and sonic enjoyment from Schoenberg, Cage, Boulez, Stockhausen, Ferneyhough, etc?_

KenOC: _Let's be even clearer. What I originally wrote was, "I think sometimes people prefer to see things in a light that demonstrates, to themselves, their own worth. That is, it is an ego defense reaction." I said nothing about you. Why do you think I did? _

Morimur: _Well, "sometimes" leaves plenty of room for those of us who, more often than not, really do enjoy dissonant, avant-garde music without it having nary a thing to do with any alleged "ego defense reaction"._

Woodduck: _Sometimes" leaves room only for those who wish to enter the room. I guess the self-torture chamber is irresistible to some people._

I hope you see what I was saying - i.e., that Ken wasn't being personal and calling anyone dishonest, and that anyone wanting to take his words personally has to volunteer for the position. Apparently some of us like to do that.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Just to be clear, I really don't think I'm faking my enjoyment of modernist music. 

A deeper and legitimate question is whether one of the reasons that I enjoy modernist music so much is that I've subconsciously calculated that I'll gain some sort of status from doing so. I'd bet the answer to that is "yes." But that just means I'm a normal human being, doing what normal human beings always do with regard to their tastes in music, fashion, whatever; it doesn't mean I'm faking anything.


----------



## SimonNZ (Jul 12, 2012)

I've never known it to have status. I for one haven't garnered any of any kind. I've only ever know it to have, if anything, an unwanted alienating effect.

If my subconscious mind was seeking status it would have learned its lesson by now and had me take more of an interest in sports.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

SimonNZ said:


> I've never known it to have status. I for one haven't garnered any of any kind. I've only ever know it to have, if anything, an unwanted alienating effect.
> 
> If my subconscious mind was seeking status it would have learned its lesson by now and had me take more of an interest in sports.


I suspect we mean different things by "status."


----------



## SimonNZ (Jul 12, 2012)

science said:


> I suspect we mean different things by "status."


Ah! I'd been wondering since last this came up how we were so far apart on this subject. What is it that you mean?


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

SimonNZ said:


> Ah! I'd been wondering since last this came up how we were so far apart on this subject. What is it that you mean?


Pretty much anything that would make me different in any way that someone whose opinion I would value would appreciate, anything that would be unique without being humiliating (with regard to the people that I care about).

I think this is one of the strongest motivators of human behavior in almost any aspect of life. For example, we all know that kids would rather be punished than ignored. While most of us learn to hide that kind of thing better as we grow up, I doubt we actually grow out of it. That's why hair or nail salons can make so much money, why people go to Comic-Con, why we tell jokes, why we believe in gods; and (I believe) it's why we participate in message boards where people might admire us for our taste in music. I don't think that we're necessarily conscious of doing any of those things for recognition, but I don't think our consciousness knows a heck of a lot about why we do anything at all.


----------



## Wood (Feb 21, 2013)

I lose status every time I mention Milton Feldman and someone points out that I'm talking about Morton Babbitt.


----------



## Wood (Feb 21, 2013)

Or have I gained status, per Science above, for telling a joke? Perhaps they balance out, and I'm just the same old Wood to everyone.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Wood said:


> I lose status every time I mention Milton Feldman and someone points out that I'm talking about Morton Babbitt.


A good solution is to only talk about composers named "John Adams."


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Wood said:


> Or have I gained status, per Science above, for telling a joke? Perhaps they balance out, and I'm just the same old Wood to everyone.


You absolutely did gain status. "The same old Wood" is a clever guy.

Perhaps your subconscious motivation for telling the joke was to be appreciated as a clever guy.... That's the question! I'm pretty sure my subconscious motivation for trying to figure stuff like this out and persuade people that I'm right is to be appreciated as a clever guy. So we're all in the same boat, whether I'm right or wrong. Of course most people aren't as clever as you and I are. But don't let them know we think that, because no matter what you value, that is not the sort of status I'd like to have!


----------



## Wood (Feb 21, 2013)

How can one tell what one's sub-conscious motivation is? By definition, is that not impossible?

My conscious motivation is to think about all these corpulent middle aged men around the world chortling into their laptops, or shaking their heads in disgust at one of my posts. I suppose that is attention seeking, and having realised that, I now feel quite immature, (but I don't care). 

Being clever in the real world certainly has negative results, unless it is accompanied by a huge dose of cynicism.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Wood said:


> How can one tell what one's sub-conscious motivation is? By definition, is that not impossible?
> 
> My conscious motivation is to think about all these corpulent middle aged men around the world chortling into their laptops, or shaking their heads in disgust at one of my posts. I suppose that is attention seeking, and having realised that, I now feel quite immature, (but I don't care).
> 
> Being clever in the real world certainly has negative results, unless it is accompanied by a huge dose of cynicism.


Well, I suspect that practice at introspection can get us a bit of insight, but this has to be a scientific matter. We can start to evaluate the hypothesis by creating clever psychology experiments.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

KenOC said:


> Took a look at that. I thought the replies to the OP were quite moderate and interesting. They tried (mostly) to be helpful and suggested things to listen to. I didn't look at all the pages.


Moreover, this was a rather special case. The poster was a fanatical devotee of Ayn Rand who took everything the woman said as gospel. The opinion in the thread's title was Rand's. This poster also expressed doubts about quantum mechanics because he couldn't believe that quanta could behave irrationally by Rand's standards. Those of us who have dealt with such individuals, who are usually promising teenagers desperate for some sort of absolute truth, handled him with kid gloves and tried to reason with him. Those who took him as an adult with fixed opinions were less indulgent. In any case, this thread was not typical of anything. It was a once in a decade unicorn.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

science said:


> Just to be clear, I really don't think I'm faking my enjoyment of modernist music.
> 
> A deeper and legitimate question is whether one of the reasons that I enjoy modernist music so much is that I've subconsciously calculated that I'll gain some sort of status from doing so. I'd bet the answer to that is "yes." But that just means I'm a normal human being, doing what normal human beings always do with regard to their tastes in music, fashion, whatever; it doesn't mean I'm faking anything.


Thanks to you, science, for recognizing the social dimension of taste. The conversation has had an air of unreality so far because of the assumption that people know exactly and fully why they do what they do, think what they think, feel what they feel, and like what they like. We tend to be unaware of this social dimension because we internalize the desire for approval so early in life, and as we grow up the need for approval by others transmutes - as it should - into a need for our own approval of ourselves: self-esteem.

This process may take different forms for different people, and may involve both accepting and rejecting the things others value. For a certain period of my life I would not listen to popular music at all; that was a period, during my teens, of intense self-definition, during which, like every teenager, I had to prove my worth to myself. That this involved rejecting the music other people liked might appear to indicate the very opposite of status-seeking, but there were in fact people whose approval I sought: not, in large part, the actual people I saw and spoke to (or avoided speaking to) every day, but ideal people I hoped to find in the world when the world, the adult world I would someday enter, would be as I imagined it could be. In that world, finer people would listen to the finest music, and I would be happy to know them and proud to be one of them. Was this "snobbery"? No, not at all. We all have to define for ourselves, in youth, what we think is good and not so good, and define what kind of person we want to be. And we do this, in part, by defining the ways in which we are like, or different from, other people. The process of becoming an individual is, at the beginning and for much of the time thereafter, a social process.

Does it mean that our tastes are created either by accepting, or rejecting, what others like? No, not entirely, or even primarily. But the direction of our search for values, as well as the process of forming those values, will not be independent of the influence of others and of our relationship to the world we live in and the world we aspire to. And, as you say, this does not at all imply that we are "pretending" to value the things we end up valuing as the outcome of the process.


----------



## Truckload (Feb 15, 2012)

Woodduck - that was very perceptive.

Can we widen the concepts to include entire cultures? A couple of possible example of accepting and rejecting values for wildly different reasons might be the situation in Japan and Venezuela. In both cases a culture accepted values of western classical music, but for vastly different reasons, and with very different attitudes, yet similar final results. 

Sorry that is a rabbit trail and I am wildly diverging from the OP.


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

Wood said:


> I lose status every time I mention Milton Feldman and someone points out that I'm talking about Morton Babbitt.


As long as you have a firm opinion on whether he's better than Beyoncé Spears...


----------



## Guest (Jan 15, 2016)

science said:


> Pretty much anything that would make me different in any way that someone whose opinion I would value would appreciate, anything that would be unique without being humiliating (with regard to the people that I care about).
> 
> I think this is one of the strongest motivators of human behavior in almost any aspect of life. For example, we all know that kids would rather be punished than ignored. While most of us learn to hide that kind of thing better as we grow up, I doubt we actually grow out of it. That's why hair or nail salons can make so much money, why people go to Comic-Con, why we tell jokes, why we believe in gods; and (I believe) it's why we participate in message boards where people might admire us for our taste in music. I don't think that we're necessarily conscious of doing any of those things for recognition, but I don't think our consciousness knows a heck of a lot about why we do anything at all.


Well...just to run with this a mo...

No one in the real 3D world has any interest at all in my "classical" music preferences. Only two have expressed opinions (not asked for) and both negative.

On this forum I joined when I'd heard very little classical, so my preferences have grown during my time here. I can't think I was looking to garner status with any forum members.

How does status enhancement fit with this scenario?

(and for the sake of clarity, I care not one jot whether any other person's opinion correlates with mine; this has always been so: sometimes it wasn't easy being a Judas Priest fan!)


----------



## SimonNZ (Jul 12, 2012)

science said:


> Pretty much anything that would make me different in any way that someone whose opinion I would value would appreciate, anything that would be unique without being humiliating (with regard to the people that I care about).
> 
> I think this is one of the strongest motivators of human behavior in almost any aspect of life. For example, we all know that kids would rather be punished than ignored. While most of us learn to hide that kind of thing better as we grow up, I doubt we actually grow out of it. That's why hair or nail salons can make so much money, why people go to Comic-Con, why we tell jokes, why we believe in gods; and (I believe) it's why we participate in message boards where people might admire us for our taste in music. I don't think that we're necessarily conscious of doing any of those things for recognition, but I don't think our consciousness knows a heck of a lot about why we do anything at all.


I have all manner of problems with this, I'm afraid.

Firstly: Lets say that I accept that I accept that my "subconscious" is influencing my choice of music according to how I crave "status" or "recognition". What next? What would you have me do with this?

Because...

Secondly: I'd like to think I was _already_ someone who excercised a degree of self-knowledge, self-reflection and self-criticism. Someone who has been - ever more as the years go on I hope - reflecting on _why_ they like what they like, already being aware at a conscious level of the falseness of fashion and tribe influence as motivators, and constantly on guard and reflecting on these.

Thirdly: my "subconscious" (I really don't like this simplistic term) can be just as easily seeking other things, good things, a wide spectrum of things, and things that society or others don't get to weigh in on, but can be partly supplied by the music I enjoy.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

isorhythm said:


> As we all know, in the story of the emperor's new clothes, no one will admit the emperor is naked because they have been told that his clothes are invisible to foolish people. Not wanting to appear foolish, they pretend to see the non-existent clothes.
> 
> This story is almost never applicable to music or any other art. While an "emperor's new clothes" situation might arise from time to time within a particular close-knit scene, it is always short-lived - months, not years.
> 
> Also, it's such a cliche. Let's have some self-respect and drop it forever.


But this is a very useful cliché, as it exposes a basic aspect of human nature. The statement is used to accuse certain groups of people of simply "going along" with something they know to be false and untrue, and insincere, in order to appear sophisticated.

Since art and music are extensions of our identities, as they symbolize what we hold to be true and valuable, then taste in art is always extremely reflective of "who we are."

Don't worry about supposed "objectification" of "good"or "bad" art; there is no such thing. All art requires a creator and a viewer, so it is always interactive, and never completely objective or subjective.

Don't waste your talents trying to "defend" what you know to be true and valuable; simply believe, and act as if this were an unquestioned truth, because, ultimately, to you, it is.

If not for you, then to who?

We can never change other "experiences" which contradict ours. In fact, we will probably, in most cases, never truly "know" another person. We operate on unprovable belief and conviction, and ultimately on love.

All we can know is that we are love. Or hate, but that doesn't really count; hate is simply the absence of love.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

SimonNZ said:


> I'd like to think I was _already_ someone who excercised a degree of self-knowledge, self-reflection and self-criticism. Someone who has been - ever more as the years go on I hope - reflecting on _why_ they like what they like, *already being aware at a conscious level of the falseness of fashion and tribe influence as motivators, and constantly on guard and reflecting on these.*


Those things are after the fact; they should ideally have no crucial influence on what art or music you like or dislike, if you are truly focused on the art and how it affects you subjectively.

If they do, then the art is apparently existing in a very charged social environment which is distracting. Why should we let anything distract us from what we truly believe to be valuable and true??


----------



## SimonNZ (Jul 12, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> Those things are after the fact; they should ideally have no crucial influence on what art or music you like or dislike, if you are truly focused on the art and how it affects you subjectively.
> 
> If they do, then the art is apparently existing in a very charged social environment which is distracting. Why should we let anything distract us from what we truly believe to be valuable and true??


If I'm being told that my Emperor has no clothes and my subconscious is the puppet master of my decisions, then, yes, I am obliged to ask myself these questions, about why I like what I like and how honest I was being with myself and to what extent I might have been led or seeking _whatever_. But that's okay - self-reflection and criticism is a good, necessary thing.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

SimonNZ said:


> If I'm being told that my Emperor has no clothes and my subconscious is the puppet master of my decisions, then, yes, I am obliged to ask myself these questions, about why I like what I like and how honest I was being with myself and to what extent I might have been led or seeking _whatever_. But that's okay - self-reflection and criticism is a good, necessary thing.


I will reply to this post first because it gets to the heart of the issue, IMO.

It might seem like "my desire for recognition might subconsciously influence the pleasure I take in this music" should lead via, "I should be an honest, authentic, independent person" to, "maybe I shouldn't like this music as much as I do."

That doesn't work out for me. Not only the pleasure I take in modernist music but nearly all of the values I hold, nearly everything I love and hold dear, nearly all my desires and nearly all of my fears, are subconsciously influenced by the drive for status. For me, that is basically synonymous with, "I am a human being; human beings are social animals."

So trying to be more authentic isn't going to make me less influenced by this desire for status: the desire to be authentic is itself in part a product of my desire for status (because no one respects "fake" people).

Also, regardless of which music I like (a thing that I don't think I can actually control), whether it's modernist classical or smooth jazz or hip hop, my pleasure will be moderated by that desire.

So in short, recognizing that I have subconscious motivations such as the desire for status, and that those motivations affect my taste in various things, does not mean that my pleasure is fake or that I should try to like other things.

Until that point is understood, further discussion of my idea here is pointless and stupid.


----------



## SimonNZ (Jul 12, 2012)

science said:


> I will reply to this post first because it gets to the heart of the issue, IMO.
> 
> It might seem like "my desire for recognition might subconsciously influence the pleasure I take in this music" should lead via, "I should be an honest, authentic, independent person" to, "maybe I shouldn't like this music as much as I do."


No, you've twisted that. The "as much as I do" means you are being "authentic". The last part there should read, say, "I shouldn't say it was "interesting" when I was relieved it was over."



science said:


> So in short, recognizing that I have subconscious motivations such as the desire for status, and that those motivations affect my taste in various things, does not mean that my pleasure is fake or that I should try to like other things.
> 
> Until that point is understood, further discussion of my idea here is pointless and stupid.


I understand, I just don't wholy agree. And I'm left saying as I said upthread: what then? What action do you then hope people will take in accepting this position? Or is it meant to temper or colour the arguments or positions we put forward here?


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

SimonNZ said:


> No, you've twisted that. The "as much as I do" means you are being "authentic". The last part there should read, say, "I shouldn't say it was "interesting" when I was relieved it was over."
> 
> I understand, I just don't wholy agree. And I'm left saying as I said upthread: what then? What action do you then hope people will take in accepting this position? Or is it meant to temper or colour the arguments or positions we put forward here?


I'm not trying to change anyone's behavior. I just enjoy discussing ideas.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

science said:


> So in short, recognizing that I have subconscious motivations such as the desire for status, and that those motivations affect my taste in various things, does not mean that my pleasure is fake or that I should try to like other things.


I agree 100% with this statement - both that one's subconscious does "push" for behaviors that increase status and that the subconscious desire for status does not in any way reduce that pleasure one might receive in those behaviors.

However, ...



SimonNZ said:


> Thirdly: my "subconscious" (I really don't like this simplistic term) can be just as easily seeking other things, good things, a wide spectrum of things, and things that society or others don't get to weigh in on, but can be partly supplied by the music I enjoy.


Subconscious algorithms also search for pleasure, and SimonNZ's algorithms almost certainly are seeking music that will bring pleasure. The output from these algorithms could outweigh (or even vastly outweigh) the pure desire for status.

When a behavior is "chosen", it will likely appear that one's consciousness made the decision for reasons that seem acceptable ("I choose a pleasurable pursuit") than ones that seem less acceptable ("I'm after status"). And, of course, that might very well be correct.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

I just want to add that those decisions are also made consciously or not bearing in mind what effort / resources might be needed. Say I have thirty minutes between now and when I leave home for school, during this thirty minutes I am unlikely to explore a three hour opera for the first time even in parts. We all make decisions bearing how much effort, time, money, whatever else we may have that affect out decision in the real world. Stretch this over a life time, I rather spend more time on music that I enjoy than not.


----------



## SimonNZ (Jul 12, 2012)

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


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

dogen said:


> Well...just to run with this a mo...
> 
> No one in the real 3D world has any interest at all in my "classical" music preferences. Only two have expressed opinions (not asked for) and both negative.
> 
> ...


I think this is a great question, but you're asking me to know a lot more about you than I do... and maybe a lot more about you than anyone including yourself could know!


----------



## Guest (Jan 16, 2016)

"Liking" is easy.
"Deciding to like something" requires a little effort.
"Telling others what you like" will be difficult for some, easy for others; sometimes prompted by mere enthusiasm, sometimes prompted by another social motivation, not to do with the music; sometimes restrained by the same social motivations.
"Telling others what you have decided to like" is a conscious act prompted by social motivations and is, perhaps, self-conscious artifice...

...setting out a taxonomy like the above is prompted by the desire to curry favour with "corpulent middle-aged men like me who chortle into their laptops" at such things and is also self-conscious artifice.

Some of us are prey to such vices; some are not. Some behave like the emperor, some like the child, some like the onlookers, some like all of them in turn or in combination.

Anyone familiar with 'Knots' by RD Laing?

http://www.oikos.org/knotsen1.htm


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I see that some people (at least Wood, Woodduck, and mmsbls) seem to have understood me pretty well, and at least mmsbls has been around in the past when I brought up discussions like this. I’ve done it a lot, and I felt a bit frustrated earlier today that I still need to deal with some really fundamental misperceptions of what I mean. 

But I don’t remember ever trying to “lay it all on the table.” I do have some particular ideas that I'm hoping people will consider, but not because I want anyone to change their behavior or their musical taste. I think I've stated often enough that I don't care what anyone likes or doesn't like, and I fervently advocate the rest of us not caring as much as I don't. Live and let fracking live, people. All the judgment of each other's taste disgusts me, as I've said so often, so often before. I don’t care if ArtMusic dies without ever having enjoyed a moment of Schoenberg or Babbitt or Dutilleux because he thinks it’s atonal, and I don’t care if someone thinks that John Williams or Eric Whitacre is the greatest classical composer in history, and I don’t care if someone doesn’t like Beethoven or Bach or Mozart or 
So I wish it had been apparent that I wasn't trying to change anyone's taste. 

Instead, the idea I've been trying to discuss is fascinating to me, because it relates to some things that I think really are key insights into human behavior, and really they have more to do with (what we'd usually call) religion than with music. When I think about what a human being is, why we are the way we are, I think of our evolutionary environment, basically the paleolithic era, when our distinctively human behaviors - for example, complex language, vocal language, music, dance, religion, complex tools, art, control of fire, cooking, clothing, jewelry, makeup - apparently evolved. 

The chronology and definition of a lot of those behaviors are highly debatable. As controversial as the (to me) relatively obvious ideas I've been advocating so far are, I'll offer something even better here: I suspect that our musical behavior is very tightly related to our religious behavior, and that both of them exist in large part (but not necessarily only) in order to help us form and find our place in cohesive groups (not necessarily limited to close kin) that are capable of surviving or even winning wars against similarly cohesive groups. More suspicion: I suspect that for the past few million years, the greatest threat (excluding disease) that our ancestors faced was not starvation (we got pretty good at hunting, fishing, etc.) or predators or poisonous snakes or drowning or whatever - but each other. We can outsmart a lion or a tiger pretty easily, but a human being with something to gain from hurting us is a much bigger challenge.

Our greatest protection--or, if you care to see things a little more cynically, our greatest opportunity to impose our will on other people--would be via the formation of very cohesive groups. First, you'd better be included because not to have a group is certain death; then, you'd like to be a particularly respected individual, with somewhat more likelihood of being able to create and provide for children. 

In a relatively simple social situation - not that any social situation has ever been simple, but things would be different in a community of 300 people than they are in an amalgamation of (post-)industrial societies encompassing billions of people speaking many different languages and so on - defining the boundaries of a group would probably be somewhat simpler, but the human mind would need to be very fluid and complex to deal successfully with the vicissitudes of fate: one might live one’s first few years in one kind of community, which then gets almost destroyed by whatever (you can blame a volcano or a disease if you don’t want to think about the ugly reality of human behavior) so that the remnants of a number of previously opposed peoples have to band together ASAP into a new group; or a group gets too large for its leaders to contain the ambitions of its members, who need to legitimize a rupture and assemble new groups…. Our ancestors must have successfully dealt with a lot more situations than our impoverished imaginations are likely to conjure. And again, it was urgent: one could survive an unfortunate encounter with a poisonous bug or a few days without food, but not to belong to a group was to die. 

So how might evolution have equipped us to form these very highly cohesive societies? Naively, one might think we could just make mutually beneficial deals, but the problem is that within and between societies there will be many opportunities to “cheat.” Evolution will have to enable us to form really strong attachment to the group, and also to police each other’s commitment to the group… while also allowing us to potentially form different attachments. And let’s not imagine that it’s all about competition between groups: within the group there will be competition, cheating, all kinds of things. Our minds are fascinated with loyalty, betrayal, honor, cheating, reputation, gossip, and so on because all our ancestors managed to deal with those things somewhat better than their cousins who didn’t manage to become our ancestors. 

I would assume we're all familiar with this kind of idea. My ideas here are almost entirely unoriginal, actually; at best, they're slight refinements of the ideas of people much smarter than I am, and relatively well-known ones too: E. O. Wilson, David Sloane Wilson, Scott Atran, Stephen Mithen, and even Stephen Pinker (though I disagree with his particular idea that music is an evolutionary "spandrel," I've learned a lot from several of his books). 

All this social cohesion group membership status stuff - whether it involved music or not - must have been mostly subconscious, because it still is. 

SimonNZ expressed discomfort with the idea of “subconscious,” and if he meant that a simple dichotomy between consciousness and the subconscious is too simple, I agree with that. I’m particularly fond of metaphors of depth in which conscious clarity is a surface under which are increasingly deeper and more obscure layers. But that too is only a somewhat less misleading metaphor: there is no reason to suppose that conscious is anything as coherent or metaphorically contiguous as a “layer,” and the subconscious parts of our minds certainly are not. I’ve been almost entirely persuaded by the idea that our consciousness has little actual knowledge of what is going on in our minds, and I even believe our consciousness is actively misled by other parts of our minds. Nor does our consciousness have much affect on almost anything we do: our bodies actually disobey our conscious values and goals all the time (such as when we tremble when we wish to look tough, or we blush when we wish to look indifferent). This is why (when I’m being intellectual) I almost entirely dismiss self-reported accounts of why we do anything at all. The one thing that the conscious mind seems to be involved in is some levels of communication; I even suspect that the reason we evolved the kind of consciousness we have is to manage complex communication (communication that takes account of models of what is in other people’s minds). If that’s anything like right, then the best metaphor that I’ve ever thought of for the relationship between the mind and the consciousness is the relationship between a massive corporation and its advertisements. I hope we’re all at least cynical enough to be suspicious of advertisements. 

Everything we consciously experience is the emperor’s new clothes: even the most introspectively self-aware person is unaware of their neurons communicating with each other. 

Anyway, let’s get a little less abstract and consider grammar/dialect as an example of a fundamentally (or ordinarily) subconscious process that must have something to do with group membership. No native speaker of English without special training ever wonders whether "learn" is a transitive or an intransitive verb. The only thing that makes using "learn" as a transitive verb “right” or "wrong" is that a particular social group considers it wrong. Of course communication probably requires some sort of grammar, but the important fact here is not that we have some sort of grammar, or even that human cultures have different grammars, but that we all use grammar (among other things) to define who is inside and who is outside of our community, and who has what status within it. The whole process is unconscious. No one ever thinks, "I want to use ‘learn’ as a transitive verb because I want to fit in with these guys who have a Southern Appalachian dialect.” But something very much like that is apparently what goes on. 

Returning to music, I think we can see pretty clearly that most normal young people's musical tastes are influenced by their peers in pretty much the same way that their dialect is. So I need to see a very good reason - something more impressive than anything along the lines of "I am unaware my brain doing this" - to think it doesn't happen. 

To be sure, there are a lot of questions. Probably not all behavior is mediated through these concerns - I suspect that our basic sexual desires, in particular, are not. But who knows? They could be. The question would be, "How?" (A clumsy way of saying it would be, "How much?") 

For example, I'll guess that normal humans take an instinctual pleasure in strong rhythm, because strong rhythms are very nearly a universal of human religion - the only exceptions that I know of are some of the "high" art traditions of Eurasia, and I wouldn't regard them as representative of "natural" music any more than I would regard the literature religious traditions as natural. Anyway, even if we are as predisposed to enjoy strong rhythms as we are to enjoy sugar or to have a grammar, the question still remains of why we enjoy one particular kind of rhythm (like gamelan) rather than another (like a rock backbeat). Somehow the near-universal (~genetic) predisposition manifests itself as a particular taste. “I like sweetness” serves no purpose, but, “I like peach cobbler but not red bean pastry” might mark one out as a particular sort of person; in the same way, “I like rhythm” would usually serve no purpose, but “I like country music but not R&B” might mark one out in the same way. Both present the same problem: how the environmental cues, including hints about what might confer "special" status, interact with the universal predisposition to produce a particular mind. This is basically a question for developmental neurology. 

And we shouldn't imagine that I mean some sort of idiotically simple thing either. A black girl in a black community might feel that she gains status from loving hip hop or jazz or classical music or all of them indiscriminately or a little bit of this but not that or any number of things depending on all kinds of complex variables from what her mother hummed when she was in utero to what her best friend's cute older brother likes to something that she saw on a TV show and misunderstood - not to mention any unusual predispositions she might have to like one sort of thing rather than another. The individual is enormously complex and unique, and in a society as complex as ours the environmental influences she’s under are also complex and (in their specific contexts) unique. (For example, anyone my age from my culture heard New Kids on the Block music, but not everyone had a weird younger sister whose favorite New Kid had the same name that I do. That’s a particular thing that must have somehow affected my reaction to their music that affected perhaps no one else.) There's still a full individuality there, no reduction of anyone's uniqueness. The yarn is universal, but every individual remains a unique knot of mysteries that even a lifetime of loving attention will never fully unravel. (I wrote this before I saw MacLeod's reference of Laing, with which I'm not familiar). 

Nor does any of this have to be a threat to anyone's tastes or identity. We're all humans, we are what we are, and the neurological processes involved in liking Schoenberg or Cage are probably pretty much the same as those involved in liking Beethoven, bebop, the Beatles, or Babatunde Olatunji. If it's true that I like Schoenberg in part because my mind at some point calculated that such tastes would gain the approval of people whose approval I wanted, or that SimonNZ likes Saariaho and Silvestrov for some reasons like that, then it's also true that ArtMusic likes Haydn and Mozart for reasons like that, and that my mom likes the Louvin Brothers and the Oak Ridge Boys for reasons like that, and that my wife likes Adele and Coldplay for reasons like that, and so on. None of us are faking anything or need to make any changes to our lives.

Anyway, in a natural (paleolithic hunter-gatherer) environment, all this - dialects, music, religion, fashion, who knows what else - could be about forming cohesive groups capable of surviving or winning war with other groups. This basic human nature as expressed in complex agricultural states with technologies like metal weapons and writing creates the sort of religious and musical traditions we're most familiar with, and they are now finding new expressions in postindustrial societies. 

This is quite a set of disparate ideas, few of which are anything like well-tested, and some of which may not even be testable. For now, though, I’m unaware of any very powerful objections to them - hopefully it’s clear why I don’t regard someone saying something like “I like classical music even though my peers don’t” as a very meaningful objection. But more importantly, I’m unaware of any competing ideas that can make as much sense of human behavior - particularly religion - as these. Feel free to offer some! 

The sweet spot for me is religion. Why do we experience encounters with precisely the sort of supernatural beings - spirits, ghosts, angels, gods, aliens, saints, whatever - that other people in our cultures do? Why do we feel so powerfully about these encounters? So powerfully, in fact, that we’re not only willing but often eager to neglect our own material interests in our demonstrations of emotion regarding those beings or those experiences? Why do we so easily trust people who’ve had similar experiences, and so easily fear/hate people who deny the reality of them? Explain that better than Scott Atran can and you’ve got me. 

Music is a part of this because it plays such a large role in those experiences. Our Paleolithic ancestors did not ordinarily sit quietly listening to performers attempt to realize someone else’s composition in order to enjoy the complex structures the composer invented. Of course they hummed lullabies to their children as we do sometimes; they sang for fun or to show off or whatever as we do sometimes; but perhaps the main thing they did with music was drum and dance themselves into trance experiences that they valued at least as passionately as religious fundamentalists today value their interpretation of scripture. Those ritual experiences created and affirmed the community itself in the minds of the people experiencing them; so then were the particular social positions of the individuals within the community. If you don’t believe this, explain it better than Steven Mithen can and you’ve got me. 

Plus: if you would offer another explanation of why the agricultural-state-approved religious traditions that lasted centuries - Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Confucianism - rarely featured long periods of music with strong beats, that would do a lot for me!

Anyway, this is just my own overwrought attempt to figure out myself and the world I live in, and I’m interested in discussing it… well, the truth is, I don’t know why I’m interested in discussing it, but it probably has something to do with wanting to be a certain sort of person, or wanting to appear to be that sort of person. For whatever reason, I hope to polish these ideas up. 

They really should not be threatening. They’re just ideas. Even if I’m completely right, which would even surprise me, even if the strong attachments we feel to the music we love are the manifestation of our basically Paleolithic genes expressing themselves via our subconscious minds in our postmodern environments… even if our conscious minds are unaware of the whole process, it’s still not fake or anything that we should - or could - do anything about. 

This is a bit rambling because it is a bit too ambitious and I’ve worked on it much less than I should, but I want to go ahead and post it as a sort of rough draft and get some feedback.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

science said:


> I see that some people (at least Wood, Woodduck, and mmsbls) seem to have understood me pretty well, and at least mmsbls has been around in the past when I brought up discussions like this. I've done it a lot, and I felt a bit frustrated earlier today that I still need to deal with some really fundamental misperceptions of what I mean.
> 
> But I don't remember ever trying to "lay it all on the table." I do have some particular ideas that I'm hoping people will consider, but not because I want anyone to change their behavior or their musical taste. I think I've stated often enough that I don't care what anyone likes or doesn't like, and I fervently advocate the rest of us not caring as much as I don't. Live and let fracking live, people. All the judgment of each other's taste disgusts me, as I've said so often, so often before. I don't care if ArtMusic dies without ever having enjoyed a moment of Schoenberg or Babbitt or Dutilleux because he thinks it's atonal, and I don't care if someone thinks that John Williams or Eric Whitacre is the greatest classical composer in history, and I don't care if someone doesn't like Beethoven or Bach or Mozart or
> So I wish it had been apparent that I wasn't trying to change anyone's taste.
> ...


Terrible to be hit with this when, here in Oregon, it's already past my bedtime. But- tentatively - two sleepy thumbs up. :clap:


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Bravo, science, for so eloquently clarifying your thoughts on these issues.

I'm in broad agreement with you, though I'd expand your notion of "status" to a more general one of "place in the world", if only to make the notion clearer to anyone who might think that by "status" you mean a single universal hierarchy. Some of us seem to pride ourselves on our "outsider" tastes, for instance.

I think the crux of interest for me is in these aspects:



science said:


> A black girl in a black community might feel that she gains status from loving hip hop or jazz or classical music or all of them indiscriminately or a little bit of this but not that or any number of things depending on all kinds of complex variables from what her mother hummed when she was in utero to what her best friend's cute older brother likes to something that she saw on a TV show and misunderstood - not to mention any unusual predispositions she might have to like one sort of thing rather than another. The individual is enormously complex and unique, and in a society as complex as ours the environmental influences she's under are also complex and (in their specific contexts) unique.
> 
> ...
> SimonNZ expressed discomfort with the idea of "subconscious," and if he meant that a simple dichotomy between consciousness and the subconscious is too simple, I agree with that. I'm particularly fond of metaphors of depth in which conscious clarity is a surface under which are increasingly deeper and more obscure layers. But that too is only a somewhat less misleading metaphor: there is no reason to suppose that conscious is anything as coherent or metaphorically contiguous as a "layer," and the subconscious parts of our minds certainly are not. I've been almost entirely persuaded by the idea that our consciousness has little actual knowledge of what is going on in our minds, and I even believe our consciousness is actively misled by other parts of our minds. Nor does our consciousness have much affect on almost anything we do: our bodies actually disobey our conscious values and goals all the time (such as when we tremble when we wish to look tough, or we blush when we wish to look indifferent). This is why (when I'm being intellectual) I almost entirely dismiss self-reported accounts of why we do anything at all. The one thing that the conscious mind seems to be involved in is some levels of communication; I even suspect that the reason we evolved the kind of consciousness we have is to manage complex communication (communication that takes account of models of what is in other people's minds). If that's anything like right, then the best metaphor that I've ever thought of for the relationship between the mind and the consciousness is the relationship between a massive corporation and its advertisements. I hope we're all at least cynical enough to be suspicious of advertisements.
> ...


I'm pretty sure that what we call consciousness is simply one of many outputs of a set of processes that we don't understand, relying on a vast number of inputs we can't possibly hope to keep track of. The more I read and compare people's opinions, the more convinced I am that we (what we call our conscious selves) have effectively no control over what we like or don't like, and that all our explanations for what's wrong or right with a piece of music are simply after-the-fact rationalisation. Metaphorically speaking, how we feel about some new music we encounter for the first time probably has less to do with its actual musical content than it does with whether we had a good breakfast that morning.


----------



## SimonNZ (Jul 12, 2012)

Nereffid said:


> I'm pretty sure that what we call consciousness is simply one of many outputs of a set of processes that we don't understand, relying on a vast number of inputs we can't possibly hope to keep track of. The more I read and compare people's opinions, the more convinced I am that we (what we call our conscious selves) h*ave effectively no control over what we like or don't like, and that all our explanations for what's wrong or right with a piece of music are simply after-the-fact rationalisation. *Metaphorically speaking, how we feel about some new music we encounter for the first time probably has less to do with its actual musical content than it does with *whether we had a good breakfast that morning*.


I utterly disagree with these assertions.

The second one is preposterous. Or we'd be confused about why we were so wildly changing our minds about the same piece after each good or bad breakfast. Do you even believe this is true of your own judgements about the music you're hearing?


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

SimonNZ said:


> I utterly disagree with these assertions.
> 
> The second one is preposterous. Or we'd be confused about why we were so wildly changing our minds about the same piece after each good or bad breakfast. Do you even believe this is true of your own judgements about the music you're hearing?


You obviously missed the "metaphorically speaking" before my point about breakfasts. And the bit about encountering music "for the first time". But anyway. Don't you think that your _frame of mind_ impacts on how you react to things? That's essentially all I'm saying; the breakfast thing was just a rhetorical fluorish to indicate how significant I think non-musical factors can affect our reactions to music at any given time.

As for the other thing you disagree with, again maybe I was being overly rhetorical. But I notice you didn't bold the bit that said "we (what we call our conscious selves)", which is rather the point. Research indicates that what we call "consciously making a decision" might be better described as "reporting a decision that has already been made unconsciously". I described the brain as essentially a "black box", with "consciousness" as one output; our senses are some of the inputs, but so are our memories and our "personality" and so forth. "We" - meaning the thing called "consciousness" - don't sit outside this "black box" controlling what goes in, how it gets processed, and what comes out. Everything about "us" is at the mercy of processes we don't understand. When we try to answer the question "why do you like this particular music?" we're not able to consult our brain for a detailed report; our consciousness gets what it's given by the black box. We may be able to point to a specific feature such as a particular use of harmony but of course this only moves the question along and we still have to explain why we like that specific feature.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

@science: I think you are definitely headed in the right direction with this line of thought. It would be very interesting indeed to effect a synthesis of the idea of evolutionary advantage gained by/through shared musical expression (many other terms work here), and Leonard Meyer's analysis of the roots of musical coherence and pleasure as being a blend of expectations thwarted and confirmed as we listen. Consider an idiotically simple example: a "tribal" group gathers to extoll a tribal elder. All begin to sing the tribe's own "For He's a Jolly Good Fellow", with the very young and some visiting tribal relatives picking up the tune quickly, even as they hear it. Then imagine another tribe of total serialists, or another of aleatorists, gathering around the tribal elder to sing his praises and cement group cohesion. The point that work on the origin and utility of music seems to be headed for, is that there are constraints upon the expression of purposeful human-generated sounds that are either hard-wired into our neurons or arise out of a necessary relationship among sounds such that some predictions can be made about what is to be heard next, or ought to be heard next; or some combination of these two factors. I have posted references to the two Meyer books in the Books part of the forum.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

SimonNZ said:


> I utterly disagree with these assertions.
> 
> The second one is preposterous. Or we'd be confused about why we were so wildly changing our minds about the same piece after each good or bad breakfast. Do you even believe this is true of your own judgements about the music you're hearing?


I think it's almost true, or something like that is true. If you listen to a work while you have low blood sugar and listen again later with normal blood sugar level, you'll probably enjoy it more the second time.

An analogous situation would be meeting a person of the sex one is attracted to at the middle of a rickety bridge versus meeting him/her on solid ground. Normal people are likely to find the person more attractive if they meet in a somewhat scary place. Very few people - perhaps no one - will be conscious of the fact that one sort of arousal is affecting another sort, but that kind of thing probably happens all the time.

Maybe it's great advice; maybe we should tell people to eat a good breakfast, go for a brisk walk, have a cup of coffee, and then listen to that Schoenberg trio.

As for the line about our explanations for why we like or don't like something being after-the-fact rationalizations, a lot of stuff seems to work like that too. One of the great neuroscientist Ramachandran's most popular quotes is, "Your 'conscious life' is an elaborate after-the-fact rationalization of things you really do for other reasons." I don't know whether Ramachandran has directly influenced my thoughts on any of the ideas I've mentioned here, but they certain are an influence, and his lectures are so insightful and so fascinating that if you're not already familiar with him I cannot recommend them strongly enough. He may be a little too persuasive, actually. Anyway, very interesting stuff.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Strange Magic said:


> @science: I think you are definitely headed in the right direction with this line of thought. It would be very interesting indeed to effect a synthesis of the idea of evolutionary advantage gained by/through shared musical expression (many other terms work here), and Leonard Meyer's analysis of the roots of musical coherence and pleasure as being a blend of expectations thwarted and confirmed as we listen. Consider an idiotically simple example: a "tribal" group gathers to extoll a tribal elder. All begin to sing the tribe's own "For He's a Jolly Good Fellow", with the very young and some visiting tribal relatives picking up the tune quickly, even as they hear it. Then imagine another tribe of total serialists, or another of aleatorists, gathering around the tribal elder to sing his praises and cement group cohesion. The point that work on the origin and utility of music seems to be headed for, is that there are constraints upon the expression of purposeful human-generated sounds that are either hard-wired into our neurons or arise out of a necessary relationship among sounds such that some predictions can be made about what is to be heard next, or ought to be heard next; or some combination of these two factors. I have posted references to the two Meyer books in the Books part of the forum.


I'm a little familiar at second hand with Meyer's idea and I suspect it's not entirely wrong, although I'm less sure about the example you describe because my music theory / anthropology isn't good enough to guess what sort of modalities might have been more or less common in our ancestral past.

If I remember correctly, someone has suggested that there is a sort of personality variable with people at one end of the spectrum pleased by expectations thwarted and displeased (easily bored) by expectations confirmed, and people at the other end displeased by expectations thwarted and pleased by expectations confirmed. That might have been someone building on or responding to Meyer rather than Meyer himself. But that particular kind of variable (how we respond to shock) is now getting tied into the studies on the psychological basis of political identity.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

science said:


> I think it's almost true, or something like that is true. If you listen to a work while you have low blood sugar and listen again later with normal blood sugar level, you'll probably enjoy it more the second time.
> 
> ...
> 
> Maybe it's great advice; maybe we should tell people to eat a good breakfast, go for a brisk walk, have a cup of coffee, and then listen to that Schoenberg trio.


I never intended the breakfast reference to be anything other than a throwaway line, but seeing as you're running with it I should say that from the perspective I'm coming from it's also possible that if one has a good start to the day, an encounter with a potentially unlikable piece of music could prove _either_ as unwelcome _or_ as refreshing as a cold shower (or neither, or both!). You just never know.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

science said:


> I'm a little familiar at second hand with Meyer's idea and I suspect it's not entirely wrong, although I'm less sure about the example you describe because my music theory / anthropology isn't good enough to guess what sort of modalities might have been more or less common in our ancestral past.
> 
> If I remember correctly, someone has suggested that there is a sort of personality variable with people at one end of the spectrum pleased by expectations thwarted and displeased (easily bored) by expectations confirmed, and people at the other end displeased by expectations thwarted and pleased by expectations confirmed. That might have been someone building on or responding to Meyer rather than Meyer himself. But that particular kind of variable (how we respond to shock) is now getting tied into the studies on the psychological basis of political identity.


There is ample room in Meyer's analysis for a very wide spectrum of auditors, ranging from those entirely satisfied by repeated simple chants (_Alejandro_, Lady Gaga--I like this) to those who are best pleased by, say, Bartok's Piano Concerto #1 (I like this also).

Regarding authentic, aboriginal folk musics worldwide, my impression is of a near-universal expression of melody, usually quite simple. This becomes more and more elaborate as these musics morph into pop, or are taken up by elites, the latter often leading to the most extreme excursions from the original evolutionary "purpose" of music.


----------



## scott atran (Jan 16, 2016)

I've just discovered this terrific site. I'm trying to figure ways for music to help turn young people away from the Islamic State. My son went around in a pick up truck in Jamaica with a piano and stopped to play Chopin, Liszt, Mozart an company in violent areas. Young people were mesmerized. SO that's giving me ideas.

Any relevant experiences or suggestions out there?

Scott Atran


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Great classical music provides people with artistically cultured listening sensitivities. Pure and simple.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

ArtMusic said:


> Great classical music provides people with artistically cultured listening sensitivities. Pure and simple.


Except that I don't know what "artistically cultured listening sensitivities" actually means.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

scott atran said:


> I've just discovered this terrific site. I'm trying to figure ways for music to help turn young people away from the Islamic State. My son went around in a pick up truck in Jamaica with a piano and stopped to play Chopin, Liszt, Mozart an company in violent areas. Young people were mesmerized. SO that's giving me ideas.
> 
> Any relevant experiences or suggestions out there?
> 
> Scott Atran


The actual Scott Atran has relevant experiences and suggestions. You know, he really is a very interesting scholar.


----------



## Piwikiwi (Apr 1, 2011)

science said:


> Except that I don't know what "artistically cultured listening sensitivities" actually means.


 "artistically cultured listening sensitivities"="The music I approve of"


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Piwikiwi said:


> "artistically cultured listening sensitivities"="The music I approve of"


Maybe. I sure can't get that out of "artistically cultured listening sensitivities."

Artistically cultured?

Sensitivities?

I'm sure it's pure and simple, but it beats the hot holy fudge out of me.


----------



## Piwikiwi (Apr 1, 2011)

science said:


> Maybe. I sure can't get that out of "artistically cultured listening sensitivities."
> 
> Artistically cultured?
> 
> ...


I mean it sure isn't romanticism with their sexy poets, dramatic composers and irrational authors like Goethe. But neither is it Mozart with his fart jokes or Bach with his sword fighting. I just don't know anymore!


----------



## joe10 (Jul 22, 2017)

hello
Are emperor's new clothes suitable for children??


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

isorhythm said:


> As we all know, in the story of the emperor's new clothes, no one will admit the emperor is naked because they have been told that his clothes are invisible to foolish people. Not wanting to appear foolish, they pretend to see the non-existent clothes.


and this applies to whenever something 'new' is forced upon the world; you are not allowed to doubt the power of 'new' whatever crap the new thing is.


----------



## Timothy (Jul 19, 2017)

There we go again, Hans Christian Andersen fans trying to plug him and claim he is the greatest writer of all time. The Emperor's New Clothes is a crappy children's book, let it go and find a much more detailed, clever and nuanced writer.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Zhdanov said:


> and this applies to whenever something 'new' is forced upon the world; you are not allowed to doubt the power of 'new' whatever crap the new thing is.


In my experience most new things are strongly criticized. It is the norm rather than something shunned.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Timothy said:


> There we go again, Hans Christian Andersen fans trying to plug him and claim he is the greatest writer of all time. The Emperor's New Clothes is a crappy children's book, let it go and find a much more detailed, clever and nuanced writer.


Blimey, did Hans Christian Andersen run off with your missus or something?

And, more seriously - well, not that much more seriously - why do you think that _making a reference to the theme of a well-known story_ is the same as _claiming that its author is the greatest writer of all time_?


----------



## Andolink (Oct 29, 2012)

Geez! What's with all the crankiness??


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Please keep comments focused on the thread content and not other members. Some comments and posts have been deleted.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

This was a slightly troll-ish thread that I regret starting a year and a half ago. Let's leave it in peace.


----------



## apricissimus (May 15, 2013)

Nereffid said:


> Blimey, did Hans Christian Andersen run off with your missus or something?
> 
> And, more seriously - well, not that much more seriously - why do you think that _making a reference to the theme of a well-known story_ is the same as _claiming that its author is the greatest writer of all time_?


I think his post was intended to be taken as satirical, a parody of people complaining about certain kinds of music.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

apricissimus said:


> I think his post was intended to be taken as satirical, a parody of people complaining about certain kinds of music.


Hard to tell with a new member. I am giddy with anticipation to see how it turns out.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

mmsbls said:


> In my experience most new things are strongly criticized.


where? when? what media outlet?


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Zhdanov said:


> where? when? what media outlet?


My dear fellow, not everything is discussed through the media.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Zhdanov said:


> where? when? what media outlet?


Almost everywhere and everywhen - in politics, in scientific circles, in modern music, in younger human generations. It seems easy to think of new ideas or trends that were criticized, but it's hard for me to think of new ideas or trends that were not.


----------



## apricissimus (May 15, 2013)

The don't even need to be new. 100+ years of atonal music, and you still have people insisting that its professed aficionados couldn't ever _really_ like it.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Zhdanov said:


> where? when? what media outlet?


Sounds like the Trump war room!


----------



## Timothy (Jul 19, 2017)

Nereffid said:


> And, more seriously - well, not that much more seriously - why do you think that _making a reference to the theme of a well-known story_ is the same as _claiming that its author is the greatest writer of all time_?


Because it's everywhere.


> _Hans Christian Andersen this, Hans Christian Andersen that, Hans Christian Andersen is the greatest, "The Emperor's New Clothes is a literary masterpiece_


". I'm really sick of it. The book sucks, I find it hard to understand that a grown adult would think so highly of this trite


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Timothy said:


> Because it's everywhere. ". I'm really sick of it. The book sucks, I find it hard to understand that a grown adult would think so highly of this trite


This trite (adjective) what? Or do you mean 'tripe' (noun)?

Have a stiff drink. The phrase 'Emperor's New Clothes' has transcended Anderson's tale and entered the language as a common phrase. When someone says it they are not referencing Hans Anderson and in any case the book is not 'everywhere'; I doubt most people have even read it.


----------



## Timothy (Jul 19, 2017)

eugeneonagain said:


> This trite (adjective) what? Or do you mean 'tripe' (noun)?
> 
> Have a stiff drink. The phrase 'Emperor's New Clothes' has transcended Anderson's tale and entered the language as a common phrase. When someone says it they are not referencing Hans Anderson and in any case the book is not 'everywhere'; I doubt most people have even read it.


Why would someone quote a children's book like this if they haven't even read it? 

By trite, I mean that the book "The Emperor's New Clothes" and Hans Christian Andersen is rubbish, nonsense, unoriginal, dull, invalid. I wish people would stop quoting him, he's not "great", nevertheless a "genius"


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Timothy said:


> Why would someone quote a children's book like this if they haven't even read it?


I suggest you never _ever_ open a book called _Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable_. Your brain may possibly explode. :lol:

Seriously, though, this is some high-grade t****ing. Well done! :tiphat:


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Timothy said:


> By trite, I mean that the book "The Emperor's New Clothes" and Hans Christian Andersen is rubbish, nonsense, unoriginal, dull, invalid.


Well then you need to use it properly as an adjective or add a noun.


----------

