# Are you blinded by your bias towards a certain style?



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Just my observations, intended to ruffle some feathers, or food for thought. Some people hate the Classical period, finding it too formal. Others hate Romantic, finding it too fake or artificial (I'm guilty of starting a thread a while back, but it was intended to show a certain biased perspective), some hate Modern, or Baroque, or Postmodern, and especially Pop, etc. On other hand, I feel there is some love towards a certain style to a point, where I feel it to be style over substance (as on Today's Composers among other places). It's possible I believe to find gems in any genre or Era.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Phil loves classical said:


> It's possible I believe to find gems in any genre or Era.


Yes. But for everyone, there may be (far) more gems in one era compared to another.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

I think my worst blindspot is certain piano miniatures by Debussy, Scriabin and others that sound to me like stuff guys would play for gals just to seduce them. Because of my prejudice (which I admit I have) and the images I associate with them, their 'innovation of harmony' or whatever doesn't really strike me as being important.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I'm an omnivore, like Frank Zappa. I have preferences, which change, and I'm not big on opera, but I'll listen to anything.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

lol, great topic, 'just my style. 
Debussy's Prelude Premiered Dec 22,1894/Paris - Elliott Carter's final work. 90% 
Few scant gems in prior 2 centuries. 10%, 
Of this 10%, 9% is Mozarts last works/Wagner operas, a pinch of Puccini a pinch of Vivaldi. 
Very happy camper.


Lets say if the CM grand epoch was a Cathedral ,,my place of worship would be entering a side crack in the back alley way, , the altar is up in the tower section. By passing the grand main altar, all the side altars., genuflecting of course, showing repects, For w/o the main columnsthe corner stones , my place of repose and peace, at top, , ,
,well it can't sit on thin air you know. 
My music is not any magic carpet ride.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

PB, were you raised Catholic?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

"Bias" has a negative connotation. A preference isn't a "bias" unless there's something unfair or unjustified about it. You may be biased if you avoid Britten's music because he was attracted to young boys, but it isn't a bias simply to dislike the sound of his music. I rarely have the urge to listen to Mozart, but not because I'm "biased" against him. But if I declined to listen to his music because of some notion that all he wrote was tinkly music box stuff, then I would be biased.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Phil loves classical said:


> ... It's possible I believe to find gems in any genre or Era.


When I first started to seriously listen to classical music, I was stunned by how much beautiful, engaging, powerful music I heard. My listening was pretty much constrained to Baroque through Romantic periods. Because I found so much to love in those eras, I assumed there would be more beauty to discover outside that time period. Since then I have primarily explored new composers and works in the Modern/Contemporary and Renaissance (and a bit earlier) periods. As many people have found, the post Romantic period takes time to appreciate, but I have found many gems in all eras and expect to continue finding more.

Without question, I still have some biases. I'm not sure that's the best term, but I take it to mean areas of similar music that I don't appreciate as much as other areas. I don't need to rid myself of all biases - it may not be possible, but I am glad I have reduced my previous biases.

Clear areas I appreciate less are harpsichord music, Spanish music, and electronic music.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

millionrainbows said:


> PB, were you raised Catholic?


can't you tell?

altar boy for 2 years. catholic charismatic 1 month, 1 yr evangelical, 
35 yrs lost in the desert,,,5 more to go.....

No biased is not negative at all. I am 
prejudiced, bias, heavily favored in 
Debussy - Elliott Carter. 
The Golden Age of CM. 
The flowering and fruiting of the tree trunk,,, which bears such flowers and fruits.
Flowers are like Stravinsky Rachmaninov, Sibelius,,,,, fruits are Ravel, Szymanowski, Batok, Shostakovich. 
Just in case you were wondering. 
Schoenberg, delicious fruits.


----------



## samm (Jul 4, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> "Bias" has a negative connotation. A preference isn't a "bias" unless there's something unfair or unjustified about it. You may be biased if you avoid Britten's music because he was attracted to young boys, but it isn't a bias simply to dislike the sound of his music. I rarely have the urge to listen to Mozart, but not because I'm "biased" against him. But if I declined to listen to his music because of some notion that all he wrote was tinkly music box stuff, then I would be biased.


Bias doesn't indicate negativity. It only refers to a tendency or inclination which may be good or bad for whatever reason; which is what a preference is really. Granted, it has popularly come to mean a negative slant.


----------



## samm (Jul 4, 2011)

In general I believe quite a number of listeners have a tendency to dismiss things that don't tally with their favorite music. It's probably normal, according to tastes, even if 'tastes' are sometimes a handy way of dismissing things a person just dislikes without good reason or even for completely misguided reasons (like cultural ones).


----------



## Tristan (Jan 5, 2013)

Art Rock said:


> Yes. But for everyone, there may be (far) more gems in one era compared to another.


Yep, I've found gems in almost every era, but there's no doubt that my favorite era is 1820-1920 and that most of my favorite music was composed during those years. Nothing wrong with having a favorite.


----------



## Minor Sixthist (Apr 21, 2017)

samm said:


> Bias doesn't indicate negativity. It only refers to a tendency or inclination which may be good or bad for whatever reason; which is what a preference is really. Granted, it has popularly come to mean a negative slant.


I feel like in these sorts of questions "bias" must be assumed to be negative, as in the definition that includes liking or disliking something "in a way considered to be unfair." If not, the question would be asking, "are you blinded by having an inclination toward the a certain style?" which is a ridiculous question. In either case, I don't think liking the things I do like is offensive to the things I don't, or to society as a whole. Until Mozart and Boulez rise from the grave and tell me they took it personally, I won't be worrying about it.


----------



## Clouds Weep Snowflakes (Feb 24, 2019)

I personally find the Romatic period to be the most charming for me, but there is no period I dislike or won't listen to, I can go from Gregorian Chant to Contemporary.
As for popular music, I dilsike it in general, especially anything that has to do with Rap/Hip-Hop.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

I think that's a good point being raised, the difference between bias and preference. What I mean by bias could be some barrier leading to some prejudice against a certain style. There is nothing wrong with preference to any style. I think some barriers can be overcome, speaking from experience. 

I had a bias against contemporary kinds of rock, thinking I preferred older styles of rock. But say a decade later, when the popularity of the hyped rock band I was biased against subsided, I was able to listen to their music without bias and like it. It was the feeling of "contemporary" that I found revolting I discovered, which is opposite to most people I know. Most people I know usually like something with that "contemporary" feel, they say it is the greatest band, etc. And when they become yesterday's music, it becomes bland to them. It's a bias both ways.

I also had a bias against dissonance, as I said before. Only when overcoming it, did I like more Modern music. I'm not saying those who hate modern music are blind in general. Maybe it could be due to just a barrier (temporary) like mine, or a natural preference like others I've heard.

I have a bias against what I perceive as sappiness in music, like in Chopin. But when I look through some of the scores of music I hated, my admiration overcomes that feeling of revolt. These are just my examples.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

I find all this talk about blindness and bias discouraging. What happened to folks having simple preferences based on personal taste? So, I reject this negative labelling; the rest of you can keep going on about human flaws.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

samm said:


> Bias doesn't indicate negativity. It only refers to a tendency or inclination which may be good or bad for whatever reason; which is what a preference is really. Granted, it has popularly come to mean a negative slant.


Well, OK, if you want to be pedantic...

Words mean what they're used to mean, and dictionaries give priority to more common uses. I'd find it silly to refer to my tastes in food or my preference for cool climates as biases. If I were to express a preference for poetry over novels, I'd have no reason to call it a bias. I'm not biased against red automobiles merely because I chose a beige one. I'm not biased against TV merely because I don't want one. It would never occur to me to call my love of Sibelius a bias. One's political persuasion might be a bias, but if one has thought through certain issues carefully and reached a conclusion, it's demeaning to be called "biased."

But maybe people use the word more "correctly" where you're from.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Oh no, I am biased, 
I have strong beliefs,,,many of which I must keep hushed about, as it gets me in trouble around here./


----------



## Guest (Jul 8, 2019)

I would say no. Some genres and types of works took longer for me to appreciate, but that was primarily the modern works. But I gave everything a shot. Even my disdain for Opera is after extensive listening.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

I would say the difference between preference and bias is:
preference is all about whether you like something or not. Whether it be a style or a composer.

If that preference blinds you from seeing the 'objective greatness' and their level of craftsmanship, technicality, or impact they made in the music tradition,
at that point, it becomes bias.

If I say "I just don't like a lot of what Scriabin and others wrote" and don't go any further than that, I'm merely expressing preference. 
But, if I, driven by dislike for their music, say that "aren't they like the Yirumas of the 19th/20th century , how can they be counted among the greats of classical music". At that point, I'm expressing bias.


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund (Jan 4, 2016)

I try to keep at least one eye open...


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Kjetil Heggelund said:


> I try to keep at least one eye open...


Isn't that what Admiral Nelson said?


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Bulldog said:


> I find all this talk about blindness and bias discouraging. What happened to folks having simple preferences based on personal taste? *So, I reject this negative labelling*; the rest of you can keep going on about human flaws.


(directs interrogation light towards face...) Is this from personal bias or preference?


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

It isn't the human flaws that bother me, rather the inhuman ones.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Well it does seem once we consider everything Bruckner and Mahler wrote,,,can we honestly say both were *Major* *top tier* *Significant * composers,
Once we begin to eliminate which symphonies are not among their very best. what do we actually have left on the table?
3 maybe 4 symphonies that are acceptable as great, Shostakovich, sym 1,2,3, 13,14,15
All great? 
I don't think so. 
You can do with whittle away at every major 19th C composer. And what do have left?
Not much to consider Bruckner, Mahler as *significant, important symphonists*. 
No chamber from each, essential to be considered *major*, nor concertos, essential to be considered *major*,,, 
I am not buying into either as *major*, Both have been hyped on a few interesting passages. 
Both composers are ephemeral , nothing long lasting.


In my opinion, its this faulty bias within the CC authorities , which for the demand that their little darlings remain as 
*ThE Great standards*. *Let us make sure their music is forever represented and protected from disclaimers, from critics, like PB*

The only passage I can find in all of Bruckner that has made an impression on me, is the 7th sym, the 2 codas, 1st/4th movement 
The other interesting passages, are so Wagnerian influenced, so as to make me discredit them as *original material*

/ I've searched and searched in Mahler,,I have requested others point out passages in Mahler which match/equal Bruckner;s 7th 2 codas. 
To no avail, 

,,,No its too late,,I have followed up on all the *Paul you absolutely must hear this section in Mahler*. To my disappointment upon hearing the *glorious passage*. . 



I am not sure how these 2 composers , remain as *great*. 
Beats me, Once you chisel away all the fluff and fillers, what do we have left on the table?
Scraps. 
No chamber, no concertos. 

I could chisel away at every *major* 19th C composer, which would bring them down to 
hate to tell you this, 2nd tier. 


I think there is bias and propaganda within the CC and its gotten my goat past 35 years. 




its like people who follow these 2 composers want us to really believe what they believe. I see both camps as fan=atics. 
Once you present a new 290TH C composer, to them,,,they are like *huh, yeah well its Ok, nothing really interesting or great*, 
*I have my Bruckner,,,I really can;'t depart from his music all my life long*. 


But you know well, on the dull sections ,,they cringe ,,and just accept it, only to rejoice in the highlights of the long symphony. 
I think its time to reconsider who is truly
great, and who has been propagandized past 100 years


Prokofiev is not immune, he has some works that are 2rd tier. 


I will not discuss Sibelius.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

hammeredklavier said:


> I would say the difference between preference and bias is:
> preference is all about whether you like something or not. Whether it be a style or a composer.
> 
> If that preference blinds you from seeing the 'objective greatness' and their level of craftsmanship, technicality, or impact they made in the music tradition,
> ...


well ain't that the truth...Seems the CC past 100+ years have strong inclinations to promote, propagandize their favorite little darlings,,and when these 19th C composers come under a honest review as to their actual output and quality,,,they get all angsty and vociferous, if not pugnacious.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

I prefer the term personal taste over bias. Liking what we like is not unfair or necessarily a prejudice. We listen to a variety of music and cultivate a taste based on a number of factors. And I would assume we all have favored pieces in a number of different eras and styles.


----------



## ECraigR (Jun 25, 2019)

I’ve always hated the insane need to categorize and label everything, especially the urge to label artistic works as either great or minor. It doesn’t really make any sense to me. The goal for me is to listen to it all and discern the tradition, the shape and flow of history, the transformation of ideas and emotions across centuries. Major minor, who cares? What does it do to label a symphony by Sibelius as minor and a symphony by Pettersson as major? Nothing is achieved, besides the artificial installation of blinders.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

ECraigR said:


> Major minor, who cares? What does it do to label a symphony by Sibelius as minor and a symphony by Pettersson as major? Nothing is achieved, besides the artificial installation of blinders.


Well, one thing it does is make those who know it's [email protected]#$%^&* cringe with vicarious embarrassment.


----------



## Minor Sixthist (Apr 21, 2017)

Woodduck said:


> Well, one thing it does is make those who know it's [email protected]#$%^&* cringe with vicarious embarrassment.


[email protected]#$%^&*, maybe. I like when you call things horse pucky. It's more 'you.'


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Every few years I sit down and make a truthful, honest, fair unbiased assessment of the cds on my shelf,,
If it has not been played in some months years,,,away it goes,,off to Goodwill, brotherinlaw, , some find their way to the trash can. 


I never ever understood this idea of holding on to music/composer til death do us part. 
I mean what is it, like you can not be *unfaithful* like you are married to a certain composer,,,Mahler has like a cult status, His devotees would never walk away from being committed. 
But why? 
It is just a composer from over 100 years ago. 
He did not compose material for our time, he wrote for his epoch, as he saw the world wayyy back then. 
= dated, old fashion, holds no interest for this present era. .


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

I confess to a bias toward truth, justice and the American Way. Yes, it is George Reeves that guides me to this.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

paulbest said:


> It is just a composer from over 100 years ago.
> He did not compose material for our time, he wrote for his epoch, as he saw the world wayyy back then.
> = dated, old fashion, holds no interest for this present era. .


OK, then out goes Ravel, he wrote for a very different epoch. Kullervo - very early Sibelius, he didn't even want it performed. As to Petterson, his stuff is so 40+ years ago and the guy was writing to exorcise his own demons, nothing to do with us now.


----------



## Clairvoyance Enough (Jul 25, 2014)

There are certain things about opera that I find it hard to get over. The style of singing often comes off as innately inhuman and ugly to me, because to some degree you're listening to a person do a "funny" voice. It is like seeing a shape distorted in a funhouse mirror and then being asked to take it seriously. Some singers do sound more organic and natural, but it skews the other way more often for me. Despite this hangup I enjoy a large amount of vocal classical, but this feeling is often there in the background.

Another thing I go back and forth on is the blending of recitative with aria. Generally I like it when they're separated so that the words of the libretto can be put into a temporary context of pure music where each sound happens at a particular time in the interest of the music's forward motion alone. That compactness and exclusivity of intent just gives pure music a natural momentum that I like, and that the blending in of recitative seems to interrupt and inhibit with all sorts of little hiccups and gestures which are not as precisely calculated, and which, if transcribed into pure music, would be discernible as ill-functioning without the narrative information they contained before. 

To say that something which was not written as pure music doesn't function as pure music seems like a ridiculous criticism, and I'll acknowledge that it is, but I tend to hear opera and really all music as pure music whether I want to or not, and so it bothers me none the less.


----------



## NLAdriaan (Feb 6, 2019)

Clairvoyance Enough said:


> There are certain things about opera that I find it hard to get over. The style of singing often comes off as innately inhuman and ugly to me, because to some degree you're listening to a person do a "funny" voice. It is like seeing a shape distorted in a funhouse mirror and then being asked to take it seriously. Some singers do sound more organic and natural, but it skews the other way more often for me. Despite this hangup I enjoy a large amount of vocal classical, but this feeling is often there in the background.
> 
> Another thing I go back and forth on is the blending of recitative with aria. Generally I like it when they're separated so that the words of the libretto can be put into a temporary context of pure music where each sound happens at a particular time in the interest of the music's forward motion alone. That compactness and exclusivity of intent just gives pure music a natural momentum that I like, and that the blending in of recitative seems to interrupt and inhibit with all sorts of little hiccups and gestures which are not as precisely calculated, and which, if transcribed into pure music, would be discernible as ill-functioning without the narrative information they contained before.
> 
> To say that something which was not written as pure music doesn't function as pure music seems like a ridiculous criticism, and I'll acknowledge that it is, but I tend to hear opera and really all music as pure music whether I want to or not, and so it bothers me none the less.


Interesting point, I agree on the many problematic aspects of opera. If you watch opera, you get apart from the funny singing also the funny acting, which in most cases looks like clumsy small town amateur theatre, in often grotesque extreme settings. And the verbal expressions are handicapped by the leading musical structure. Opera is one big compromise. Even more hilarious it becomes when watching the audience of live opera. It looks as if the audience is part of the act itself. All dressed up and keeping up appearances as if they just experienced a miracle. I had a far better experience with an opera once which was performed scenic in a concert hall with artistic video images on a large screen for the visual expression. The singers didn't have to act, big relief for all involved.

Reading a book or listening to music without all the visual distractions on stage to me is a more refined artistic experience.


----------



## Guest (Jul 9, 2019)

There seems to have been some rather confusing discussion about bias and preference.

I wonder if the intended question was this:

_If you have a preference for certain styles of classical music, do you accept that you may have missed out on certain examples of music in other styles that you might like if you had taken a less restricted attitude.

_​In answer to this question, I would say "generally no". Whilst I have preferences (who doesn't?) for certain styles, I have looked outside those areas sympathetically and given them a good chance of proving themselves. I've been doing this for a long time and doubt that I have missed anything of importance in styles that are not my favourites, although I don't rule out the possibility that something may turn up one day in those areas.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Opera is the escape from reality, not reality. That’s why it’s valuable and some people eventually discover. They cherish the fantasy of childhood carried into adulthood as the plots do not have to make sense like childhood does not have to make sense. It’s so easy to understand that it’s difficult. It’s the childhood in every one that’s carried into adulthood and listeners should be grateful that its exists or life might be unbearable. You have to suspend reality in most cases.


----------



## NLAdriaan (Feb 6, 2019)

Larkenfield said:


> Opera is the escape from reality, not reality.


Doesn't this go for all artforms? My mind just escapes easier with other artforms than opera.


----------



## samm (Jul 4, 2011)

Minor Sixthist said:


> I feel like in these sorts of questions "bias" must be assumed to be negative, as in the definition that includes liking or disliking something "in a way considered to be unfair." If not, the question would be asking, "are you blinded by having an inclination toward the a certain style?" which is a ridiculous question. In either case, I don't think liking the things I do like is offensive to the things I don't, or to society as a whole. Until Mozart and Boulez rise from the grave and tell me they took it personally, I won't be worrying about it.


It's actually a perfectly good question in the context of it not being intentionally negative. It would indicate that your strong inclination towards, e.g. baroque music, may blind you to qualities in other styles of music. Bias is a slant _towards_ something not away from it, as would be indicated by a negative idea. The negativity is only a secondary result and not necessarily intentional.

To be 'biased' means to favor one thing above others. In fact the OP question asks that very question: "by your bias _towards_ a certain style". I'm sure we face this in everyday life in a multitude of things, sticking to what we know and always rationalizing our choices as our 'taste'. The fact that our tastes often change as our minds are changed from new experiences is a clue to the fragility of it.


----------



## Guest (Jul 9, 2019)

if you look


samm said:


> It's actually a perfectly good question in the context of it not being intentionally negative. It would indicate that your strong inclination towards, e.g. baroque music, may blind you to qualities in other styles of music. Bias is a slant _towards_ something not away from it, as would be indicated by a negative idea. The negativity is only a secondary result and not necessarily intentional.
> 
> *To be 'biased' means to favor one thing above others.* In fact the OP question asks that very question: "by your bias _towards_ a certain style". I'm sure we face this in everyday life in a multitude of things, sticking to what we know and always rationalizing our choices as our 'taste'. The fact that our tastes often change as our minds are changed from new experiences is a clue to the fragility of it.


According to some dictionary definitions of "bias" it involves more than merely favouring certain things above others. There is usually an element of unfairness or unreasonableness about it.

E.g. a parent who thinks that their child is very beautiful may have a biased opinion. A newspaper that prints a lot of bad news about one political party may be biased against it. In both cases it may be presumed that the entity being favoured is not being afforded an objective assessment, but a very slanted opinion based on some kind of prejudice.

But I agree that some definitions of "bias" seem to treat is as being synonymous with simply either a liking or disliking for something, regardless of what other people may think.

To repeat the point I made earlier, I think the OP means simply preference, and is asking whether people have given other styles a fair hearing in reaching these preferences. That's all there is to it. It is variant of the much-repeated thread of the type "what are your favourite genres, and why?"


----------



## Guest (Jul 9, 2019)

Becca said:


> Isn't that what Admiral Nelson said?


Admiral Lord Horatio Nelson. To "turn a blind eye" or, as sometimes expressed, "to turn a Nelsonian blind eye" means to ignore orders or ignore undesirable information.

It derives from the occasion in a famous sea battle in 1801 when Nelson raised his telescope deliberately to his blind eye in order that he could not see signal flags being sent to him by his commanding officer, saying _"I have a right to be blind sometimes. I really do not see the signal"._


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Partita said:


> Admiral Lord Horatio Nelson. To "turn a blind eye" or, as sometimes expressed, "to turn a Nelsonian blind eye" means to ignore orders or ignore undesirable information.
> 
> It derives from the occasion in a famous sea battle in 1801 when Nelson raised his telescope deliberately to his blind eye in order that he could not see signal flags being sent to him by his commanding officer, saying _"I have a right to be blind sometimes. I really do not see the signal"._


Thank you. I am quite aware of what he said and the intent, however there is a loose connection regarding the post to which I referred.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Partita said:


> if you look
> According to some dictionary definitions of "bias" it involves more than merely favouring certain things above others. There is usually an element of unfairness or unreasonableness about it.
> 
> E.g. a parent who thinks that their child is very beautiful may have a biased opinion. A newspaper that prints a lot of bad news about one political party may be biased against it. In both cases it may be presumed that the entity being favoured is not being afforded an objective assessment, but a very slanted opinion based on some kind of prejudice.
> ...


I was asking if there was a certain undue bias for or against. I believe Samm is closest to my intent. I gave examples of my blockages. Very early on, I used like catchy stuff, like a lot of casual pop fans, and missed out on, what I could say is more subtle stuff. I gave undue attention to the catchy, repetitive stuff compared to the rest. There are lots of blockages I found over years, which I think I overcame all. I still have preferences, but my appreciation is a lot wider than before, which was only like 0.01% of all music out there. The last composers I was able to finally 'get', were Carter and Ferneyhough. Doesn't mean I like their music all that much, but maybe I could have, having tapped a certain understanding of the music. I don't think it is necessary to like a wide variety, but just wondering where others are at, and what are the obstacles. Those obstacles may be perfectly legit.


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

Sure, I have my biases, but they are not dogmatic. 

My bias, with regards to classical music, does not lead my taste, my taste follows my bias. 

Those biases, with regards to classical, is music from no older than 100 years ago. But even more specifically, mid 20th century to the present.

I still have a fair amount of CD's and vinyl by Beethoven, Bach, Mozart, Brahms, Liszt, Handel, and others from the Baroque, Classical, and Romantic periods in my collection, which I will somewhat frequently play, just to see if they finally 'click' with me. So, far, no.

So, no, I am not "blinded" by my biases.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Simon Moon said:


> Sure, I have my biases, but they are not dogmatic.
> 
> My bias, with regards to classical music, does not lead my taste, my taste follows my bias.
> 
> ...


A true Modernist in spirit and soul, 
You are 
Nonpartisan , Unbiased , not prejudice (pre judgemental) , open minded, fair and balanced approach to classical music. Mid century to carter's last works, 
la creame de la creame in all classical music. 
the flowering and fruiting of all that went before. 
The Classical/romantic eras, were the trunk and braches, 
We owes to these trunk and branches the place of respect , as through their sap, our modern composers receive the life to produce gorgeous flowers and delicious fruits.

This is how us modernists view the 19TH C composers. As support structure.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Partita said:


> if you look
> According to some dictionary definitions of "bias" it involves more than merely favouring certain things above others. There is usually an element of unfairness or unreasonableness about it.
> 
> E.g. a parent who thinks that their child is very beautiful may have a biased opinion. A newspaper that prints a lot of bad news about one political party may be biased against it. In both cases it may be presumed that the entity being favoured is not being afforded an objective assessment, but a very slanted opinion based on some kind of prejudice.
> ...


To repeat,,seems some just are not listening to your ideas, perhaps they do not want to hear and understand...All we modernists are saying, Have you give a FAIR listen to modern composers?

OK, nothing clicks, try again next year,,still nothing, try again in2 years,,nothings,,keep going on and on. 
Eventually some of your biases may break down.
Then again maybe not.

But if you can not come around to Pettersson we modernists, feel his music is at least as great as Brahms,,if not far greater,,,And to have the romantics get all in a tizzy over such audacity,,shows there is reason to believe the romantic crowd has a certain bias, favor for their chosen few composers, 
I can easily hear Pettersson is a finer symphonist than either Bruckner and Mahler,,, to me its quite obvious. 
But to these 2 camps, its a atrocious and deviant thought. 
But why? 
Bruckner wrote 100+ years ago,,it stands to reason a modern composer might be a finer symphonist only due to later styles being studied and , so the older forms of Mahler, are not cast in new modern textures and creativity.

It is bias to think 18th C composers are superior to 20Th C composers. 
'This is what we call stark prejudice. 
New is not always better, but in the arts, more so than not true.
It is called building on older structures, fine tuning the symphony. 
Or do you think Beethoven's best symphonies are superior to Shostakovich's finest, 5,7,8, a few others?

Old is old style/forms, To us modernists, its sounds dated material, has tarnished over the years, 
thats all we are say,,,Fair, unbiased assessment.
Break down the walls, please.

I think wooduch gavea excellent unbiased review of Pettersson's 3rd, which is a early experim,ental work for Pettersson,. Wooduck went on to say, its not his cup of tea, however he did hear the genius in the work. 
says he, it does have fine crafting ofa composer just trying to find his voice. Which is the correct review. 
Not Pettersson;'s finest, at all. ' That maturity came later.,,,

Pettersson's 3rd is exactly what Shostakovich's 3rd is, both are trying to find their style and ideations.


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

starthrower said:


> I prefer the term personal taste over bias.


If it hadn't developed such a negative secondary definition over the years, I might prefer "discrimination", as in "recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another".


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Phil loves classical said:


> Just my observations, intended to ruffle some feathers, or food for thought. Some people hate the Classical period, finding it too formal. Others hate Romantic, finding it too fake or artificial (I'm guilty of starting a thread a while back, but it was intended to show a certain biased perspective), some hate Modern, or Baroque, or Postmodern, and especially Pop, etc. On other hand, I feel there is some love towards a certain style to a point, where I feel it to be style over substance (as on Today's Composers among other places). It's possible I believe to find gems in any genre or Era.


My approach has been to sample as much as I could and then focus on what is to my taste. In other words, develop my own preferences. Music is purely a hobby for me, and I go with Alan Bennett's definition of a hobby equating to "doing nothing to some purpose." I can think of a few purposes for my listening, they include enjoyment, relaxation, and stimulation of my intellect and imagination.

After around thirty years on and off of listening to classical music I've narrowed down what I like and what I don't. In terms of the musical eras, my comfort zone is roughly between 1750 and 1950. I've got favourites outside of those dates, particularly post-1950. A lot of early music to me is like going to church, which of course suits its purpose, but I'm bored with it other than hearing it live.

Even though listeners profess to being unbiased, I think that is impossible. On the internet the usual claim is that the speaker has consumed virtually everything and therefore whatever he or she likes and dislikes is based on a massive amount of time, money and effort put in to arrive to that conclusion. In other words, most people who have likes and dislikes based on a comparatively limited field of experience are biased because they don't know everything. On the face of it, this is in the realm of fantasy, but its reality as far as the internet goes (where it is easily used as a tactic to elevate oneself above others).

The truth is that all of us are limited by our knowledge and experience - big or small - and draw from that to curate our own collections (be it music, travel, reading, food, whatever). Even experts have their blind spots. If you knew everything, in the case of classical music you would need to be listening from dawn to dusk every day of your waking life. And say you where like a database of all the music ever composed, being human you'd have biases like the rest of us mere mortals anyway.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> Just my observations, intended to ruffle some feathers, or food for thought. Some people hate the Classical period, finding it too formal. Others hate Romantic, finding it too fake or artificial (I'm guilty of starting a thread a while back, but it was intended to show a certain biased perspective), some hate Modern, or Baroque, or Postmodern, and especially Pop, etc. On other hand, I feel there is some love towards a certain style to a point, where I feel it to be style over substance (as on Today's Composers among other places). It's possible I believe to find gems in any genre or Era.


I believe that anyone who looks for the best in any period will find it, including the modern, the contemporary, and the avant-garde. But I doubt if they'll ever find the worth of it by making sweeping judgments about it. Sometimes finding the best of anything is like going on a treasure hunt, but if you're too satisfied with the treasures you already have you might never go on the search and consider one of these periods as not worth bothering with. But the idea of finding nothing of value In a 50-year span of time or a 100-year span of time that represents some of these periods seems like a complete waste.


----------

