# Inevitable Bias in our Tastes



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

How much do you think your ideas about a composer, or even a particular work, plays into why you enjoy them/it?


For me, I think it's very little, but I do like to mystify the lives of whoever I'm listening to at the moment and further, the creative process that went into making the work in question. For example, sometimes I like to think divine intervention went into Mozart creating the Requiem/41st Symphony.

I think I mystify Mozart the most, and I think society does too.


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

I don't really concern myself with composers' lives outside of their music.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

I listen to each work "as is" without thinking too much about backgrounds/stories of composer or composition.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I think it's really hard to completely listen without some bias; I think it's really hard to base it just on the music itself. However, I think the people on this forum tend to base it far more on the music than the lives/conceptions they have about the composer/work.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Red Terror said:


> I don't really concern myself with composers' lives outside of their music.


I suppose how a composer's persona effects your viewpoint on the work would've been a better way to state the question.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

I do it more with performers than with composers. A few weeks ago I was listening to Dvorak 9 played by Karajan and I couldn’t help but imagine the music accompany goose stepping Nazies in jackboots.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Mandryka said:


> I do it more with performers than with composers. A few weeks ago I was listening to Dvorak 9 played by Karajan and I couldn't help but imagine the music accompany goose stepping Nazies in jackboots.


What is the connection between the Nazies and Dvorak's 9th Symphony.


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I suppose how a composer's persona effects your viewpoint on the work would've been a better way to state the question.


I think a great composer's character is often reflected in his work. As for persona, Beethoven's is that of a martyr or renegade-which doesn't at all reflect what I hear in his music.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Red Terror said:


> I think a great composer's character is often reflected in his work. As for persona, Beethoven's is that of a martyr or renegade-which doesn't at all reflect what I hear in his music.


How different are the terms persona and character, though?


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Captainnumber36 said:


> What is the connection between the Nazies and Dvorak's 9th Symphony.


None. But Karajan was involved with them, and in my imagination he makes the Dvorak into a sort of ballet for them. See what you think. For example, at the start of the third movement I see them jackbooting through Europe with his music in the background, but only when Karajan's playing. The way he plays the first movement has enormous fascist-invader connotations for me. Just listen, you'll see I'm right!


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

Captainnumber36 said:


> How different are the terms persona and character, though?


Persona is a role or character assumed by a person/actor.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

I think some people here have more bias towards particular performers rather than conductors. Fanboys annoy me as they won't listen without prejudice. The same people never join in the blind comparison threads as they are too frightened of liking performances by artists that they are biased against or disliking performances by those they supposedly love. I've always found this blind favouritism ridiculous and pretty annoying. If conductor A (who you usually rate) has produced a clunker you should acknowledge it and if conductor B (who you usually dislike) has produced a cracker then likewise.


----------



## Bluecrab (Jun 24, 2014)

Captainnumber36 said:


> What is the connection between the Nazies and Dvorak's 9th Symphony.


The connection is between Karajan and the goose-stepping Nazis. There are several threads around here with discussions of Karajan and his Nazi party affiliation.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Mandryka said:


> None. But Karajan was involved with them, and in my imagination he makes the Dvorak into a sort of ballet for them. See what you think. For example, at the start of the third movement I see them jackbooting through Europe with his music in the background, but only when Karajan's playing. The way he plays the first movement has enormous fascist-invader connotations for me. Just listen, you'll see I'm right!


That's one CD spoiled for me. No matter I have lots of New Worlds that I prefer.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I don't think I have ever known anything about a composer's life until the music has made me want to know. And even when I know and love a composer's music I often still take no interest in their lives.


----------



## LezLee (Feb 21, 2014)

I’m not at all interested in composers’ lives, character, background or opinions. I just listen to the music.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Captainnumber36 said:


> For example, sometimes I like to think divine intervention went into Mozart creating the Requiem/41st Symphony.


Both works are Mozart making a final statement of his faith: The traditional credo subject of the 41th corresponds to 'I believe'






It's kind of like Bach and Handel, I think if you're religious, you might connect with their music more intimately.

_"When people discuss the music of Bach, words like "God" and "transcendence" tend to figure in the discussion. Gustav Mahler wrote that "in Bach, the vital cells of music are united as the world is in God," and Goethe said of Bach's music, "it was as if the eternal harmony was conversing within itself, as it may have done in the bosom of God, just before the creation of the world." (Goethe's version of the Big Bang theory.) "_
http://www.interlude.hk/front/the-passions-of-bach/


----------



## LezLee (Feb 21, 2014)

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


----------



## Haydn70 (Jan 8, 2017)

While I have read many composer bios with great interest, the information therein is completely irrelevant to me in regards to my appreciation of their music. In addition any information about any specific work, i.e., under what circumstances it composed, etc. is also irrelevant. Many listeners need the help of knowing some kind of "back story" regarding composers and their compositions...not me.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I think it's impossible to be 100% without bias and those stating that they are, must be exaggerating imo. (not to offend)


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Mandryka said:


> None. But Karajan was involved with them, and in my imagination he makes the Dvorak into a sort of ballet for them. See what you think. For example, at the start of the third movement I see them jackbooting through Europe with his music in the background, but only when Karajan's playing. The way he plays the first movement has enormous fascist-invader connotations for me. Just listen, you'll see I'm right!


Haa haaa! That's very good! I bring all sorts of bias in because, I'm just me. That's all I have to work with.



Captainnumber36 said:


> I think it's impossible to be 100% without bias and those stating that they are, must be exaggerating imo. (not to offend)


I agree, Captain. It's these "objective rationalists" again, trying to analyze art.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

millionrainbows said:


> Haa haaa! That's very good! I bring all sorts of bias in because, I'm just me. That's all I have to work with.


Only a brave man can admit his shortcomings!


----------



## Haydn70 (Jan 8, 2017)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I think it's impossible to be 100% without bias and those stating that they are, must be exaggerating imo. (not to offend)


No offense taken...in my case you are wrong...no offense intended.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Haydn70 said:


> While I have read many composer bios with great interest, the information therein is completely irrelevant to me in regards to my appreciation of their music. In addition any information about any specific work, i.e., under what circumstances it composed, etc. is also irrelevant. Many listeners need the help of knowing some kind of "back story" regarding composers and their compositions...not me.


That's very logical. Try to remain objective.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Haydn70 said:


> No offense taken...in my case you are wrong...no offense intended.


I won't push forward.


----------



## Haydn70 (Jan 8, 2017)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I won't push forward.


Captain, I am happy if you want to push forward...happy to discuss this more if you like.

As MR observed in post #24, what I wrote is very logical and that I try to remain objective. Not sure if he was taking a bit of shot there (which is fine MR if so ) but he is correct: I am a logical and objective person. And I am a trained classical composer. I know how to listen to a piece of music...I can hear what is going on musically in a fairly comprehensive way. And what I hear musically is what counts for me...not the fact the composer might have been going through some particularly good or bad time in his life when he wrote the piece.


----------



## LezLee (Feb 21, 2014)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I think it's impossible to be 100% without bias and those stating that they are, must be exaggerating imo. (not to offend)


'I think', 'imo' and 'not to offend'. Why bother saying it then?
Why's it so hard to believe there are many of us who couldn't care less about back stories? Why does it matter?


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Haydn70 said:


> Captain, I am happy if you want to push forward...happy to discuss this more if you like.
> 
> As MR observed in post #24, what I wrote is very logical and that I try to remain objective. Not sure if he was taking a bit of shot there (which is fine MR if so ) but he is correct: I am a logical and objective person. And I am a trained classical composer. I know how to listen to a piece of music...I can hear what is going on musically in a fairly comprehensive way. And what I hear musically is what counts for me...not the fact the composer might have been going through some particularly good or bad time in his life when he wrote the piece.


Then perhaps you have a bias towards proper use of theoretical concepts.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

The bias stated in the OP is just one type, there are others.


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

LezLee said:


> 'I think', 'imo' and 'not to offend'. Why bother saying it then?


At least it implies that one is making use of one's brain, while the contemporaneously leftist 'I feel' is utterly spineless.


----------



## LezLee (Feb 21, 2014)

Existentialism is creeping in. I’m out.


----------



## NLAdriaan (Feb 6, 2019)

This is how I see it:
Each serious music piece is a deep and urgent expression of someone who wrote it. It is therefor impossible to listen to music without accepting that you are listening to a personal expression of the composer. It is a one on one communication. 

The performing artist adds his own interpretation to the music. Most discussions here are about the interpretation. We have a strong willingness to judge (for whom?) if any performing artist has done justice to the music. But in fact it is completely irrelevant what someone else thinks of a certain interpretation. As it is only personal which recording connects to you. 

I think that the personality of a performing artist is audible in recordings. So, a preference for a certain artist/conductor/orchestra may well be biased for an experienced listener. You will develop a taste for your favourite musicians and for a certain style of these musicians. For instance the HIP or OP-style, but also more personal choices in interpretation.

All of this has not much to do with how the composer or musician felt at a certain moment. But music always is a form of communication.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Bias vs Taste vs Unexamined prejudice vs Suspension of judgement


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I think it's impossible to be 100% without bias and those stating that they are, must be exaggerating imo. (not to offend)


So far you've mentioned Mozart, but whatabout Beethoven? 
Some of the things often said about Beethoven:
_"There's endless emotional depth in Beethoven a normal human being can never understand properly."_
_"Since he became deaf, he gained divine sense to hear music from his inner mind."_
_"Unlike his predecessors, he intended to write music that's not just beautiful."_
In particular, people seem to attempt to brand anything labeled 'piano sonata' or 'string quartet' in late Beethoven this image, which can appear snobbish to other people.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

NLAdriaan said:


> This is how I see it:
> *Each serious music piece is a deep and urgent expression of someone who wrote it*. It is therefor impossible to listen to music without accepting that you are listening to a personal expression of the composer. It is a one on one communication...


Or as Beethoven once said: "An artist must be able to assume many humors."

Which is to say, sincerity is everything. If you can fake that, the rest is easy.

(Yes I'm feeling cynical today -- don't forget that Ludwig used to laugh loudly at his audiences for being moved by his improvisations...)


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

I know nothing about some composers, something about many, and a lot about a few. My biases tend to be based on what other of their works I have heard, with the proviso that everyone writes clinkers, and some are "one-hit wonders." Some composers fascinate me as people, in the same way that some in almost any line do. Beethoven fascinates me because of facets in his personality that caused him to do the things he did characteristically throughout his composing life (mainly compulsive experimentation). But still I am aware that fully half of his opus numbers are not really worth listening to again for the rest of my life.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Captainnumber36 said:


> For me, I think it's very little, but I do like to mystify the lives of whoever I'm listening to at the moment and further, the creative process that went into making the work in question. For example, sometimes I like to think *divine intervention went into Mozart creating the Requiem*/41st Symphony.
> 
> I think I mystify Mozart the most, and I think society does too.


You mean Süssmayr? Or the deity that took him before he was done? 

Answer to the OP question: It doesn't.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Red Terror said:


> Persona is a role or character assumed by a person/actor.


Another definition is this:

_the aspect of someone's character that is presented to or perceived by others._


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Red Terror said:


> At least it implies that one is making use of one's brain, while the contemporaneously leftist 'I feel' is utterly spineless.


Yes, we must have spine. How are things back there on the Borg mothership? :lol:


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

LezLee said:


> I'm not at all interested in composers' lives, character, background or opinions. I just listen to the music.


If you're performing a bit of classical music, you've got to find a way of turning the score into sound. And my feeling is that it's not a bad idea to use what you know about the composer's life for some inspiration about this, especially when the biography is interesting. I mean, it seems totally valid to play the contrasts in Schumann op 11/i as if they're a musical representation of the cracks and fissures of a mind which has lost its reason -- to play the music as a sort of mime of Schumann's mental health.

As a listener I can let this just wash over me, in a vegetable way. Or I can try to make sense of what's happening in the performance. The latter may well involve recreating the links between the musical performance and the composer's life like the performer.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

To some, it's not music; it's just data.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Judges have impartiality as a requirement of their jobs. Listeners, even musicians, don't need to worry about it too much unless it's getting in the way of their needs. If bias means cancelling certain things out in order to be able to focus on others, then some bias is probably better than none.

I don't like opera and that may be a kind of bias. If I was a musician, I could still work with that sort of bias intact. I'd just focus on other areas of music.

There's a skit by Victor Borge that speaks to this. He tells the story of learning Liebestraum as a boy and his father whacking him with a rolled up newspaper every time he made a mistake. After relating the anecdote, Borge plays the piece beautifully while making asides behind his breath like "I hate it." It's funny and I don't know if the story is true but it drives a point home about how musicians aren't as free as we'd like to think.

We all bring ourselves and our experiences to the music. None of us are without baggage. There is no need to aim for impartiality. Indeed, I think that if we where without bias we would all be more or less the same. This would make for a very boring world. _Be yourself, everybody else is taken_.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Regardless of one's obvious biases or tastes in music, it is possible to hear something dispassionately without immediately judging it. It’s possible and one doesn't have to be a slave to past conditioning. But some listeners feel this is impossible or undesirable. Nevertheless, it may sometimes be an advantageous way to deeply get into a work that’s challenging and give it a fair hearing. It’s also possible to hear something from the composer’s point of view rather than one's own conditioned responses by suspending one's judgment again for the time being. It takes practice. Sometimes this is considered impossible by those who are unwilling to give it a try though the experience can often be a revelation to get inside a composer’s head. The worth of some composers and their works is not always readily apparent. The brain needs time to adjust if one is a curious enough listener. Without curiosity, it probably doesn't matter.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

_"Form is the mould, that can be made to be a very uninteresting factor, but in Beethoven's case form is all, because it is a case of what note succeeds every other note, and in Beethoven's case it is always the right next note, as though he had some kind of private telephone wire to heaven, which told him what the next note had to be. No other composers had that, even Mozart, to that degree, where everything is so unpredictable, and yet so right. It all checks, it all works out, you can rely on it, you know the next note has to be the next note, the only next note that could come. That makes his form perfect. How he had this, nobody knows, because he struggled, he scratched out, If you see his sketches, you see the agonies that this man went through. And what appears as the final product looks as if it was simply 'phoned in.' Directly from God. That's what's so incredible."_ -Leonardo Bernstein


----------



## tomterry (Feb 19, 2019)

This is an interesting topic about separating art from the artist.

Personally I do not separate art from the artist. I generally separate the "science" from the scientist, but even then I would like to know sometimes what was going on in scientist's mind when he was fiercely focusing on testing,measuring,observing writing etc. And I sometimes do care about the life of a scientist too. For example Alan Turing. It is painful to know that he helped his country but in return he was basically treated like a "bad" person because of his private life.

And in art, I very much care about the lives of the artist. Vincent van gogh and Monet's art is much more impactful because they worked hard and yet suffered with little to no success during their life time. Their art is more impactful (for me) because of their tragic lives. 
Of course I do care about the measurable qualities in art too. I do care about complexity. I just simply care more about the connection between art and artist. For example Mozart made some his stuff incredibly easily or effortlessly. I heard he composed something within a day. To me, yes that is impressive but that is just talent or genetics really. I want to see the effort,the frustration,the suffering or just working hours and hours to create something. I care about the creative process because that is what shows how human was an artist.



Haydn70 said:


> While I have read many composer bios with great interest, the information therein is completely irrelevant to me in regards to my appreciation of their music. In addition any information about any specific work, i.e., under what circumstances it composed, etc. is also irrelevant. Many listeners need the help of knowing some kind of "back story" regarding composers and their compositions...not me.


If, in the future an AI comes around which is super intelligent and if the AI creates something that is objectively better than Mozart's work or Beethoven's work. Would you love it more than you loved Beethoven's or Mozart's work?
Moreover I heard there are some compositions(not written by AI) which are much more harder to play and probably more complex than Mozart or Beethoven's work. I found that Ben Johnston's string quartet 7 is insanely hard and complex. 
Here's the link for his music





Here's a video talking about difficult in music





Tbh, just complexity or technical superiority is not enough for me to like something. It is of course a good thing that a particular music is complex. I always give + points for playing something which is hard,complex and artist has put a lot of effort in that. But even then I need some info about the artist too. About his/her mind,thoughts etc. And there is also a major thing, it needs to connect with me. For example if the music was written as a joke like Mozart's "Lick my ***" then I am not going to listen to that because personally I do not like Joke music or music that is created as a joke no matter the complexity or difficulty or technical superiority.

So yeah, I am very hard to impress but I do give the artist a chance because I consider both objective(technical) and subjective(emotions,impact,connection,effort) factors. A lot of things need to go together so that I can like it and come back to it again and again and again. Sometimes I can listen(again and again) to classical or prog rock or post rock, electronic,ambient,art rock,hip hop or even rare times basic "pop" etc. Currently it is mostly prog rock,art rock,post rock and electronic ambient that I like. Other forms rarely connect with me.


----------



## tomterry (Feb 19, 2019)

KenOC said:


> Or as Beethoven once said: "An artist must be able to assume many humors."
> 
> Which is to say, sincerity is everything. If you can fake that, the rest is easy.
> 
> (Yes I'm feeling cynical today -- don't forget that Ludwig used to laugh loudly at his audiences for being moved by his improvisations...)


It is pretty insulting. He would be laughing at you for listening to his music and considering his music deep,emotional but then you realize that he just wrote it to wank. 
That is why I do not like to over analyze stuff without information from the artist.I mean on one hand you would be thinking the artist put a lot of effort to create something so appealing but when the reality is he/she created it within day or minute or so.
When you think the music is complex by your standards but for the artist, it just basic wankery.

And that is why I want to know what was going on in the artist's head or his/her life when he/she made that particular art. I want to know the creative process. Sure artist can fake emotions too, and that would be sad I guess. Faking things and dishonesty is something that I dislike very much and it is one of the main reasons I generally do not like pop music by some artists. And of course rude behavior and malicious behavior is another thing that makes me dislike the particular work by the artist. And even dislike the artist too.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Red Terror said:


> At least it implies that one is making use of one's brain, while the contemporaneously leftist 'I feel' is utterly spineless.


You seem to feel strongly about this (and even to see a correlation with political belief?) but I don't think I get what you are saying here. There is clearly more behind what you are saying. How does saying imo after expressing a view/judgment imply you are using your brain? And how does it differ from saying "I feel" and why is "I feel" spineless. Aren't all these expressions just ways of defusing a possible disagreement that, where matters of taste are concerned, can get heated? And what is wrong with stating the basis of your view (opinion or feeling)?


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

NLAdriaan said:


> This is how I see it:
> Each serious music piece is a deep and urgent expression of someone who wrote it. It is therefor impossible to listen to music without accepting that you are listening to a personal expression of the composer. It is a one on one communication.
> 
> The performing artist adds his own interpretation to the music. Most discussions here are about the interpretation. We have a strong willingness to judge (for whom?) if any performing artist has done justice to the music. But in fact it is completely irrelevant what someone else thinks of a certain interpretation. As it is only personal which recording connects to you.
> ...


It is good to include the dimension of the performers into this discussion. And I can see why they might need to arrive at insights based on something (whether historical or intuitive). And, yes, performers and audience are all influenced by our current beliefs about how the music should sound. But no matter what a composer intended (and how abstract that intent was), the music is now with us - the performers and the audience - and in a very real sense _it is what we hear _(rather than what may have been intended). We may acknowledge that we are listening to a personal expression of the composer but when we do so we are really indulging in a fantasy (even if a historically informed one).

As for performances, there are disagreements about which are effective or best but the tendency for us to agree (even over decades as in our recognition of the genius of Furtwangler or Toscanini) is the greater, I think. We may have our favourites but often our favourites are very varied and different from each other. Why else collect multiple accounts of a piece? Many of us like to hear the new insights that another good performances of a favourite work can bring to us.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Mandryka said:


> If you're performing a bit of classical music, you've got to find a way of turning the score into sound. And my feeling is that it's not a bad idea to use what you know about the composer's life for some inspiration about this, especially when the biography is interesting. I mean, it seems totally valid to play the contrasts in Schumann op 11/i as if they're a musical representation of the cracks and fissures of a mind which has lost its reason -- to play the music as a sort of mime of Schumann's mental health.
> 
> _*As a listener I can let this just wash over me, in a vegetable way. Or I can try to make sense of what's happening in the performance. The latter may well involve recreating the links between the musical performance and the composer's life like the performer.*_


You can just relate to what the performer is doing as abstract music without needing to find those links. I don't think that would be a "vegetable way". In the end the performance either works for you (as being at least interesting) or not. I can understand why you and many others might seek guidance from the historical links. And I do believe that this can give you insights that may be denied to those of us who do not think so much about those links. But in the end it is about whether the music works and how much the performance tells us about the (abstract) music.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

hammeredklavier said:


> _"Form is the mould, that can be made to be a very uninteresting factor, but in Beethoven's case form is all, because it is a case of what note succeeds every other note, and in Beethoven's case it is always the right next note, as though he had some kind of private telephone wire to heaven, which told him what the next note had to be. No other composers had that, even Mozart, to that degree, where everything is so unpredictable, and yet so right. It all checks, it all works out, you can rely on it, you know the next note has to be the next note, the only next note that could come. That makes his form perfect. *How he had this, nobody knows, because he struggled, he scratched out, If you see his sketches, you see the agonies that this man went through. *And what appears as the final product looks as if it was simply 'phoned in.' Directly from God. That's what's so incredible."_ -Leonardo Bernstein


Interesting and dramatic rhetoric by Bernstein. But the bold portion is exasperating and kinda dumb. He's seriously saying he can't understand how every note could be just right _because_ Beethoven struggled, revised and agonized over his choices? (Imagine a face-palm here). That's the reason! Right there! What are you talking about Lenny?


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

EdwardBast said:


> Interesting and dramatic rhetoric by Bernstein. But the bold portion is exasperating and kinda dumb. He's seriously saying he can't understand how every note could be just right _because_ Beethoven struggled, revised and agonized over his choices? (Imagine a face-palm here). That's the reason! Right there! What are you talking about Lenny?


I don't see why you don't get it. He previously said that it was if Beethoven had a private line to God, as if this was a natural, easy thing. Then he expresses how this condradicts that notion, and that it was hard work.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

KenOC said:


> Or as Beethoven once said: "An artist must be able to assume many humors."
> 
> Which is to say, sincerity is everything. If you can fake that, the rest is easy.
> 
> (Yes I'm feeling cynical today -- *don't forget that Ludwig used to laugh loudly at his audiences for being moved by his improvisations*...)


Please, provide me a source to what is in bold. I want to understand the context from that, and a quick search on google didn't help me at all.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

_How much do you think your ideas about a composer, or even a particular work, plays into why you enjoy them/it?_

I think if you have a notion or idea about a composer it may change your perception and/or imcrease ro decrease your ability to listen to their music.

For years I had a friend who told me Wagner was among the greatest composers, a revolutionary who changed everything. I thought of him more or less as an opera composer and little more. I didn't listen to much opera so, even though I knew Die Fliegende Hollander, some Ring highlights, Wesendonck lieder and some of his other music, I didn't have much value for him.

Then I took my survey of composers and, to my astonishment, Wagner came in 10th place ahead of all manner of composers I regarded more highly. It required me to rethink my ideas of him and perhaps pay more attention to his music. Even though it did not convert me to his acolyte I began to see and hear some of what my friend did.


----------



## tomterry (Feb 19, 2019)

Allerius said:


> Please, provide me a source to what is in bold. I want to understand the context from that, and a quick search on google didn't help me at all.


I google searched it myself and I only found this

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/A_Dictionary_of_Music_and_Musicians/Beethoven,_Ludwig_van

Search the word improvisations. But it is written that he would "banter", he would laugh at his audience in playful manner and not malicious manner. So yeah I think Beethoven's intent was not to be rude, really. But well we don't know what is going on in the person's head and I also don't know how correct is that source. But generally since wikipedia contains a number of sources and articles with heavy moderation. I think the source is probably correct imo. But still I don't know.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

Captainnumber36 said:


> How much do you think your ideas about a composer, or even a particular work, plays into why you enjoy them/it?


A lot. Together with the musical material per se, they constitute the basis for my conception of what the piece represents. And if I think that I understand what it represents, I can judge if I like it or not.

I don't think that this is a bias if my ideas are well contextualized.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> I don't see why you don't get it. He previously said that it was if Beethoven had a private line to God, as if this was a natural, easy thing. Then he expresses how this condradicts that notion, and that it was hard work.


I think _you_ aren't getting it. He's saying it like we should be surprised to see the evidence of agonizing work given that the product sounds like he had a direct line to God, when that's exactly what anyone with sense would expect to see. It's not "incredible" that the man who produced such perfection should have struggled, and scratched out and agonized. It's the most credible thing one can imagine. The only people who would think otherwise are those that buy into the divine genius myth.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

tomterry said:


> I google searched it myself and I only found this
> 
> https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/A_Dictionary_of_Music_and_Musicians/Beethoven,_Ludwig_van
> 
> Search the word improvisations. But it is written that he would "banter", he would laugh at his audience in playful manner and not malicious manner. So yeah I think Beethoven's intent was not to be rude, really. But well we don't know what is going on in the person's head and I also don't know how correct is that source. But generally since wikipedia contains a number of sources and articles with heavy moderation. I think the source is probably correct imo. But still I don't know.


The source provided is Thayer's volume 2. It can be acessed via this link, but I couldn't find any trace of this supposed statement about Beethoven. I wonder if it's not one more of those suspicious Anton Schindler remarks?


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

I found this:

"Were performed before a large and aristocratic society at the house of Prince Lobkowitz. At the close, Beethoven, who was also present, was requested to play something. As usual he let himself be begged for an infinitely long time and at last almost dragged by two ladies to the pianoforte. In an ill humor he grabs a second violin part of the Pleyel quartet from a music desk, throws it on the rack of the pianoforte and begins to improvise. He had never been heard to improvise more brilliantly, with more originality and splendor than on this evening! but through the entire improvisation there ran through the middle voices like a thread or cantus firmus the notes, in themselves utterly insignificant, which he found on the accidentally opened page of the quartet, upon which he built up the most daring melodies and harmonies in the most brilliant concerto style. Old Pleyel could show his amazement only by kissing his hands. *After such improvisations Beethoven was wont to break out into a ringing peal of amused laughter.*" - Czerny, from Thayer, vol. 2.

It seems that Beethoven did laught after some of his legendary improvisations, but one may wonder if it's not a mere personal reaction to his feats (many performers have curious reactions before, while and after playing) instead of a mockery at his audiences.


----------

