# open-mindedness vs. taking a stand



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

Something that's been bouncing around my head after reading through some old threads....

An ideal that's often endorsed here and elsewhere is that the best way to listen to music is to be as open-minded as possible. Approach every piece with the assumption that it's good; engage with it on its own terms; try to understand its aesthetic criteria and not impose your own. One prolific user has described this as "Zen" and said that he takes literally all music as it comes.

This is the ideal that I strive for, personally. It has allowed me to love an enormous range of music, classical and otherwise. I can't imagine listening to music any other way.

But here is the thing: many composers themselves seem not to approach music in this way. For example, beginning in the mid 19th century, a rift emerged between what you might call Romantics and Classicists; of course we call all that music Romantic now, but this rift was quite bitter. Brahms and Wagner did not just accept each others' music for what it was; they each had firm, and opposed, beliefs about what music should be.

In the 20th century there are even deeper rifts. I'm a big fan of a fair amount of both 12-tone/serialist and minimalist music, but many of these composers have made no secret of _hating_ each others' music and everything it stands for.

So I wonder: is the kind of Zen, take-it-for-what-it-is approach many of us strive for to some extent a luxury for mere amateurs - people who don't have to be fiercely committed to their own artistic project in order to make great art? And is it fair to posit it as the ideal of music listening, when so many composers themselves do otherwise?


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

I fall somewhere in between. I will open my mind for a time, until I find some music to latch onto that suits my creative or aesthetic ideals. Thus my taste gradually expands, never sacrificing much depth for breadth's sake, but with an odd eclectic nature that may not reflect popular and/or conservative opinions of quality. 

But also, there is so much more music in today's world, and a tremendous amount coming from all the time preceding it, that its harder to 'join a camp' and have it feel like that's any big deal.


----------



## GGluek (Dec 11, 2011)

Everyone has his own tastes and preferences. Creators composed what spoke to them, without regard to who else it might speak to (the presumption is, if something appeals to you, there's a good chance it will appeal to someone else -- just not everyone). They are probably better at reaching quick judgments because they've been immersed in music for longer and in a more concentrated form, and have tastes just like everyone else. The listener (or reader, or viewer), eventually has to determine what speaks to him/her, but in arriving at those junctures, they have to initially approach things with an open mind. I personally find this happens best in a concert setting -- there's something about the immediacy of the experience and effort involved onstage that makes all different types of music "sound" better -- even though there are some I still will not respond well to. There's also the "captive audience" effect -- where there's nothing else to do but pay attention -- whereas it's much easier to make a quick judgment listening to a recording ("This isn't so hot -- I'll make dinner.").

Just because there are/were artistic rivalries and battles between different schools, doesn't mean the artists were never once open minded in reaching them.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

I am completely open-minded and assume nothing... this philosophy lies very much in line with what I hope to achieve as a Buddhist here.

Open ears means that I can meditate over music in new ways and find paths which are unexpected like an animal which is foraging for food accordingly.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

Maybe composers have to have more of a sense of commitment in order to excel at what they do. They can't all be Stravinskys, recognized enough already to be comfortable changing styles and experimenting with a new idiom without losing their fan base (so to speak).

Listeners are perhaps freer to dabble - experiencing without necessarily becoming experienced.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

I try to be open-minded when I approach unknown music, which is to say that I take the attitude that if I don't like it, that doesn't mean the music is bad, it just means I don't like it, and I try to approach everything with the hope that I _will_ like it. But at this stage I know what music I already like and what I don't, so if it starts to sound like something I already don't like, the piece may be doomed.

Also, I'd say yes, it's useful to accept the piece on its own terms, but sometimes your own terms work well too if you want to find a way in.

And of course although the _hope_ is that I'll like whatever I hear, that's never going to be the outcome. If someone actually liked literally _everything_, that would suggest they have no personal aesthetic standards at all. There's a thin line between an _open mind_ and an _empty head_! :devil:


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

I don't know and I don't care what composers do regarding their own lives, but I am quite open-minded and buy CDs according to reviews and recommendations without hearing any of them in advance. I do figure these compositions must be good and I'm intelligent and open-minded enough to benefit from listening to them.

Bought within the last 6 months without ever hearing the music:

Persichetti 12 Piano Sonatas
Ives Concord Piano Sonata
Schuman Symphonies Nos. 4,6,7,8, 9 and 10.
Mennin Symphony No.7
Debussy Etudes
Schmidt Symphony No. 4
Schoenberg Piano Concerto
Medtner Piano Concerto No. 2


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

The composers' notions in any era of what music ought to be used to be what listeners were stuck with. For the last 80 years or so, we have been 'unstuck'.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

A genuine good faith effort in searching for the best in music is a wonderful thing; having a hole in one's head and reflexively accepting crude and unpalatable third-rate music as "great" is not.

_Amour propre_ demands it.


----------



## ptr (Jan 22, 2013)

I'm a friend of complete open minded transparent head banging! With age and 40 years of experience evaluating new pieces gets somewhat easier! Now and then I take time to re-evaluate things that have disliked previously and rarely need to change my mind!

/ptr


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

I am pretty open-minded and (usually) don't put too much stock in reviews, if I feel sure about an album. Obviously, I come with preconceived notions about the label the album appears on, the performers who present the work, and the composer. As much as I try to be completely unprejudiced, I cannot help knowing something about most of these things, and they do influence my impressions to some degree.

I buy most of my albums on this basis, with only a 30-second sample to guide me, if I need reassurance.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

The important fact is not that we are amateurs but that we are 'consumers' whereas the composer is a 'creator'. But the fact of being a consumer doesn't imply amateur as you can make the point that all musicians are also consumers, albeit recreative consumers. So the fact of trying to keep an open mind when approaching a new work is key (a major key also :lol, that doesn't and shouldn't preclude us from forming personal judgements about the piece.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Composers, like creative artists of all sorts, are consumed with their personal visions. Music that clashes with those visions may feel quite "wrong" and repugnant to them. Achieving something great as a composer may require a narrow, intense focus that makes little room for opposing aesthetic perspectives. Most great artists can nevertheless recognize excellence in other artists whose visions seem opposite to theirs; Brahms and Wagner were quite capable of appreciating each other's accomplishments and occasionally even admitted it, though Tchaikovsky rather notoriously disliked both of them! Often composers' overt intolerance of each other was wrapped up with the politics of "movements" and "schools," which can achieve a prominence and a momentum that makes coming out and admitting the excellence of the "opposition" an inconvenience or embarassment to one's own faction. That was certainly true in the Brahms/Wagner clash, in which the respective armies shot at each other enthusiastically while the composers, publicly, were quite discreet in expressing their true thoughts. Things got a little crazy in the 20th century, when the fetish for "progress" reached its apex and insufficiently-progressive composers like Sibelius were vociferously dumped on by the messianic hucksters of the new and improved. All of that seems to be history in our fragmented and eclectic time.

Listeners don't have to worry about any of this.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

"Open-minded" sounds like a viable way to go, but I don't believe there is an ideal mind-set to music listening beyond what might be ideal for a particular individual.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

isorhythm said:


> Something that's been bouncing around my head after reading through some old threads....
> 
> An ideal that's often endorsed here and elsewhere is that the best way to listen to music is to be as open-minded as possible. Approach every piece with the assumption that it's good; engage with it on its own terms; try to understand its aesthetic criteria and not impose your own. One prolific user has described this as "Zen" and said that he takes literally all music as it comes.
> 
> ...


One possibility is this: that you engage with a piece on its own terms and you try to understand its aesthetic ideas etc. And then you conclude that it's a flawed work, misconceived. You may think that the music is reactionary, for example. Or over long.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

Mandryka said:


> One possibility is this: that you engage with a piece on its own terms and you try to understand its aesthetic ideas etc. And then you conclude that it's a flawed work, misconceived. You may think that the music is reactionary, for example. Or over long.


Interestingly, I think "reactionary" is one judgment that we do allow ourselves to make. I wonder why that is. I certainly do it myself.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

hpowders said:


> I don't know and I don't care what composers do regarding their own lives, but I am quite open-minded and buy CDs according to reviews and recommendations without hearing any of them in advance. I do figure these compositions must be good and I'm intelligent and open-minded enough to benefit from listening to them.
> 
> Bought within the last 6 months without ever hearing the music:
> 
> ...


This may be a sad fact but a lot of the time I have bought a classical music album just because I really liked the cover in fact.  Surprisingly I haven't been disappointed yet but who knows? That is the fun in this type of musical journey.


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

You gotta understand the context.

But you make a great mistake if you think that YOU have no context and are just a floating eye (or, ear) in space, ogling at the multitude of musics and their contexts with neutral and dispassionate judgement (or even with an "original personality" or "taste"! We have much more context than that!).

So basically I'm with Hegel, Gadamer and even someone like Panofsky. Sure, let us be fair and open-minded; but we cannot escape our moment in history and the possibilities it gives us. We can, however, grasp the different strands of current thinking, judge and discriminate them, and ultimately, choose and take a stand amongst the options we have been given by previous generations.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

Albert7 said:


> This may be a sad fact but a lot of the time I have bought a classical music album just because I really liked the cover in fact.


I've done this.

It's also my sole criterion for buying wine.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

isorhythm said:


> I've done this.
> 
> It's also my sole criterion for buying wine.


This is very true. I admit that explains easily how I came to own every single iTunes album by Sol Gabetta . Although not every album cover of her is artistically balanced here. I rarely read music reviews in fact. I also buy based on other people's recommendations especially whatever catches my eye on the Current Listening Vol 2 thread.

With wine, I actually do purchase based on reading Wine Spectator. I must be blind but the labels doesn't really indicate the Parker score for a sauvignon blanc. And some of the best wines I ever tasted have meh labels like Merry Edwards.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Since my tastes welcome free jazz and modernist classical music, I think people would probably consider me an openminded listener. But I don't think that's an accurate label. I don't like a lot of music, especially (but not only) sappy pop music. I'm not openminded about it at all. I don't understand how people can enjoy it. Sometimes it makes me angry.

So I think the open-mindedness stuff might at least sometimes just be a misunderstanding or misconstrual of a more fundamental issue: tastes differ sharply, and always will.


----------



## TradeMark (Mar 12, 2015)

I am generally open minded listener, at least with classical music. The only time i don't like something is when I find it boring. I think the whole Brahms and Wagner thing had to do with how each of them wanted music to go in a different direction. I don't really think music goes in any single direction.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

An ideal that's often endorsed here and elsewhere is that the best way to listen to music is to be as open-minded as possible. Approach every piece with the assumption that it's good; engage with it on its own terms; try to understand its aesthetic criteria and not impose your own. One prolific user has described this as "Zen" and said that he takes literally all music as it comes.

There was one member who continually espoused such an ideal. Personally, I found (and find) the idea to be pure bunk. We all bring prior experiences, biases, preferences to bear upon any new experience. But then I look to music and the arts as something that gives me pleasure. If all I wish to take from music is the experience... and "good", "bad", or "indifferent" are all the same to me, I see no reason to invest... or rather waste such time, and effort, and passion upon such.

Having said that, I try to be open-minded to a broad range and variety of artistic experiences. Even so, I imagine we all have our ideas of what is or is not acceptable... what we like of dislike.

I had a friend in art school who early on developed a firm ideal of what art "should" be. He had no use for any of the Modern "isms" from Impressionism onward. His passion was for realistic portraiture. As such, his work was repeatedly dismissed by fellow students and faculty. I remember on incident in which a certain professor suggest he was "somewhat retarded" in front of assembled students during a critique. Years later I visited him in his studio in NYC. I was impressed at how good he had become within the narrow range of "classical portraiture". And he was living his artistic dream... living in NYC, painting what he loved the way he wanted... and selling.

I am open to trying just about anything... giving anything the chance... but I have my limits as well. I have no use for mental Onanism ala Cage 4:33 or most of the followers of Duchamp.

Woodduck writes:

_Composers, like creative artists of all sorts, are consumed with their personal visions. Music that clashes with those visions may feel quite "wrong" and repugnant to them...

Listeners don't have to worry about any of this._

I disagree. Certainly, I acknowledge that artists may have more personally invested in their own "vision" to such a point that they cannot accept that which is opposed to this "vision" whereas the audience is free to appreciate the products of both sides of this spectrum. Yet at the same time... the audience can be just as passionate about what they love and just as passionate in rejecting what they dislike.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

My answer is pretty simple, I've been "converted" far too many times to *not* be open minded about music.


----------



## Guest (Mar 12, 2015)

I resolutely refuse to take a stand on being open-minded.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

Seems like a healthy attitude, but on the other hand it's quite natural to differentiate and judge things, even if it's only based on gut feeling. Everything deserves a fair chance, but it is okay to take a stand and not just blindly accept everything. Otherwise where is your individual taste? It is quite normal to like and dislike pieces by the same composer. But some of the modernist /avantgarde fans seem to accept everything as "good". My guess is that is harder to differentiate because of the abstract nature of the music.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

isorhythm said:


> Something that's been bouncing around my head after reading through some old threads....
> 
> An ideal that's often endorsed here and elsewhere is that the best way to listen to music is to be as open-minded as possible. Approach every piece with the assumption that it's good; engage with it on its own terms; try to understand its aesthetic criteria and not impose your own. One prolific user has described this as "Zen" and said that he takes literally all music as it comes.
> 
> ...


The "Zen" in reality is probably a myth in my opinion. Any one of us is faced with a fixed amount of time, money and effort that we may prepare to listen to music. I don't just randomly listen to anything that comes. Everyone is motivated by something, it could be preference (the most common criteria) and or curiosity. But the latter is quickly exhausted if you discover type A of music is not your liking. So why go on more and more only to be disappointed? It is a rational move to say "type A is not for me, the music does not engage me" and move on to something else. Listening to music if ultimately for enjoyment. Pure and simple.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> An ideal that's often endorsed here and elsewhere is that the best way to listen to music is to be as open-minded as possible. Approach every piece with the assumption that it's good; engage with it on its own terms; try to understand its aesthetic criteria and not impose your own. One prolific user has described this as "Zen" and said that he takes literally all music as it comes.
> 
> There was one member who continually espoused such an ideal. Personally, I found (and find) the idea to be pure bunk. We all bring prior experiences, biases, preferences to bear upon any new experience. But then I look to music and the arts as something that gives me pleasure. If all I wish to take from music is the experience... and "good", "bad", or "indifferent" are all the same to me, I see no reason to invest... or rather waste such time, and effort, and passion upon such.
> 
> Having said that, I try to be open-minded to a broad range and variety of artistic experiences. Even so, I imagine we all have our ideas of what is or is not acceptable... what we like of dislike.


Yes, while I endorse and practice the idea of being open-minded, I have no time for people who say "you didn't like it? You should open your mind".


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

There really is no simple answer, or none simpler than doing whatever you want to do just because you want to do it. We're talking about listening to music, not foreign policy. 

For me, my own highest criterion is not pleasure but self-education. I don't particularly enjoy Bruckner, or maybe I should say enjoyment of Bruckner doesn't come easily to me, but I listen to it until I enjoy it because I want to enjoy it, I want to understand that is happening for people who enjoy it.

I don't feel a need to do that with K-pop because I am a snob. But that's ok, I can deal with it! I am going to go on doing what I want to do. 

Y'all might as well too, whether that involves listening to... say, Schoenberg or Cage or whatever... until you have learned to enjoy it, or sticking to Bach and Mozart for the rest of your lives. As you wish, my friends.

But we might as well be honest about the fact that a lot of people are going to judge you negatively or positively based on what music you listen to.... And I can out-snob almost anyone!


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

isorhythm said:


> Approach every piece with the assumption that it's good


this is not my idea of open-mindedness. This is like to pretend that every composer is a genius or a superior being who perfectly realizes his ideas in every piece in a effortless way. But I think that actually many artists (even geniuses) have to strive to achieve something that often is very different from what they were thinking at the beginning, and something that they themselves see full of flaws.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

The enthusiasm for evaluation is alien to me. I don't know enough about music to be critical of something composed by the likes of Barbara White, let alone Whitacre or Walton or Wolf or Wagner.


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

I think comparing the composer and listener in the OP opens a gulf! The composer can reasonably have all sorts of objectives while the listener is always a passive consumer. A listener is only governed by taste and ego - the composer is a different beast altogether. Any listener striving to broad taste is laudable, but is nothing to the creative urge. ArtMusic above is honest and transparent to his goals as a listener - and this is the only position to take as the amateur listener. There is no composer to what a composer can, does or must!!!


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

You have to be open to consume... otherwise, nothing will get in. Some just have bigger mouths.


----------

