# 'Do I like it?': How we talk about music.



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

In a discussion/poll about the Grosse Fugue, here, we got into a tangle about the expressions: 'I like/don't like it'; 'I get/don't get it'. The tangle arose partly because of confusion about what we mean by those words; and partly because of uncertainty about what they may (or may not) imply about the art or music under discussion.

I thought it might be worth having a thread in which we could just kick these ideas around among ourselves. Here's my halfpennyworth to start the ball rolling.

Even though I use them (or their equivalents) myself, I think the statements 'I like it' or 'I don't like it' are almost completely useless in any discussion of art, and there are two reasons:

1. It's useless, first, because they're statements about me, not about the art. Of course there's nothing wrong with making statements about me, as long as I realise that's what they are. The trouble arises when I forget that, and think that in expressing my dislike, I'm making some kind of assessment of the art. To see the absurdity of this, I only have to consider that Jack likes stilton cheese, while Jill dislikes it. It's pointless to discuss 'who is right' about the cheese. It's a matter of taste buds. Rightness doesn't come into it. Similarly, many things I now like, I used to dislike. The things themselves remain what they were; only I have changed.

2. It's useless, second, because it's such a feeble and uncommunicative word. To say that I 'like' _The Ring_, or _Manon_, or Elgar's violin concerto, is to damn them with faint praise. These are works that have changed my life; shifted my perception of things. They've extended my being, helped to build a new part of me. I've no business 'liking' such things. I stand in awe of them.

If I want to express something of what I see in these works and seriously hope to be understood, then I have to try to say more about the kind of experience they offer, however difficult that may be. If a friend tells me that she heard a new opera by Puccovsky last week that made her cry, or made her angry, or which haunted her for days afterwards and still does, or which changed her whole view of Puccovsky's music, or which made her feel immortal for a couple of hours, then I know she's almost certainly picked up something important from the music because I recognise that kind of experience. I know what it usually indicates about the music - about the kind of engagement that's possible with it. There's no guarantee that I'll enjoy it in the same way, but I can see the potential is there. But if she'd just said 'I liked that opera', then all I have to compare it with is my fondness for ginger preserve - which is nice, but plays no significant part in my imaginative life.

I've only covered a tiny bit of ground here, and haven't touched at all on 'I get/don't get it'; nor on whether it's possible objectively to assess a work of art (and if so, how). But maybe they'll emerge as people contribute.


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

Well, it's an interesting issue to discuss, though I hope one that won't result in members getting involved in a boxing match like in that closed thread that Andy told us about.

I don't know (and remember, I say I don't know - I don't say there isn't) if there is that much of a difference between "I like it/I don't like it" or "I get it/I don't get it." Let's take as a simple example critics and their reviews of new cd's. One may give five stars to Stella Lovegame's new recording of Giovanni Nagapini's 25th violin concerto while another only gives two. Both may know everything about music theory there is to know, yet they come to a different conclusion. One LIKES it and the other one doesn't. Even in the pop/rock field with it's much simpler song structures (where there is much less 'getting it' involved) different people come to different conclusions.

So - IMO "personal taste" is always a more important factor in forming our opinion about a composer or any particular piece of music than 'getting it' (whatever 'getting it' means - something I'm not sure about). If 'getting it' means anything at all to me it's the ability to be moved on an emotional level rather than understand the mathematics (or whatever) of it all. After all - music is an art form intended to be enjoyed by way of how it sounds to our ears, not by how interesting it looks when it's scribbled on a piece of paper. I don't think I would throw my Mozart cd's in the garbage can and start collecting Stockhausen instead if I was able to read music. How would that work anyway? Would I have to buy the score of each piece of music I listen to in order to 'get it'?

All of the above in my modest opinion, of course.


----------



## PostMinimalist (May 14, 2008)

An iteresting point can be made here. (Sorry if this gets a bit liguistic.) In Greek the onus is on the art to please. One must phrase a sentence like "I like beans" as "Beans please me". Big deal! But the idea is that there is something inately likeable in that which we consider, that acts upon us. Not just our selfish consideration is at work here. This means that liking something is not exclusively our doing. So what is the magic formula for 'likable'? If I knew that I would have alot of money!
By the way, nice to have a thread that makes sense again!
FC


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

jhar26 said:


> Well, it's an interesting issue to discuss, though I hope one that won't result in members getting involved in a boxing match like in that closed thread that Andy told us about.


Let's make it clear from the outset that it's not a competition about who has the best musical insight. What we're trying to do (or at least what _I'm_ trying to do) is understand what we mean when we say what we do. That ought to be a unifying process, not a divisive one.



> Let's take as a simple example critics and their reviews of new cd's. One may give five stars to Stella Lovegame's new recording of Giovanni Nagapini's 25th violin concerto while another only gives two. Both may know everything about music theory there is to know, yet they come to a different conclusion. One LIKES it and the other one doesn't.


Yes. But if each critic tried to explain what it was about the Nagapini that had so excited him, we might get something useful out of the exercise. To give a crude example, if the critic Nigel Knowitall hates the sound of violins, for example, that would explain why he gave it only 2 stars, and I wouldn't give much weight to his opinion when trying to decide if I might enjoy it.

I think this is where the difference between 'liking' and 'getting' comes in. I 'like' Enya's records, but there's really not much to 'get'. They're just gently atmospheric, they sound lovely (to me), and that's about it, and the word 'like' seems entirely appropriate for my response to them. It's such a matter of personal taste that I'd feel no particular impulse to recommend them to anyone else.

But I also 'like' Bob Dylan's albums, where there's an _enormous_ amount to 'get', where the mere intonation of a word in a particular performance, or an appropriately placed harmonica note, can leave me breathless. To use the same word ('like') for these two experiences seems very misleading. In this latter case, I'd argue that the music and words were worthy of intense, careful study; that they were capable of leading to the kind of real insight or change that's characteristic of great art. In this second case, I believe I've understood something, I've 'got' something, _that I know I couldn't have received from bad art._ Incidentally, I used to detest this stuff - which fact alone indicates (as Some Guy suggested in another thread) how our personal likes are poor indicators of intrinsic merit.


----------



## SPR (Nov 12, 2008)

Hm.

I am still resistant to the premise that any comment I make, or feeling I have about a particular piece of art - with respect to 'liking' it - is, for all intents - meaningless except to perhaps further discussion. Does intuitive opinion not matter at all?

It certainly is a nonspecific and inexact response in the extreme - but once one probes and extracts the appropriate linguistic support to give the term more definitive parameters, I am not warming up to the proposition that art, in itself is bulletproof. 'The Cheese' is an embodiment of art, and it exists as art in spite of any love, scorn, adoration, or contempt heaped upon it. Since my taste buds do not favor it, it says nothing about the merit of said cheese.

disgusting cheese ('maggot cheese')
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casu_marzu









only a matter of taste buds?

advance apologies for this example, but since I used 'poo' in a prior example, I had to take a quick check. Of course, this is what I found: ('worth its weight in gold')
http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2007/jun/13/art









We have also put up the infamous 'four foot 33 inches' (4'33", John Cage) as another piece, and this is pertinent because it is termed 'music'. This, I do not like - *as music*. It does not fit my definition of what music is.





and finally ( and please - I really do not mean to lump beethoven in with all of this other garbage, I am merely trying to illustrate a point) The Grosse Fuge. Which, if I play if for 100 randomly chosen people - 99% of them will find it upon casual inspection to be somewhat unpleasant, perhaps revolting. If you study the piece, you may find beauty in it, eventually, perhaps of a different kind.

The Beatles track "Revolution 9" I believe is in a similar position to the Grosse Fuge, in its 'inaccesibility'. However, I am getting perilously close to undermining my own arguments since I find this quite good, though *not* very good music. Rather, an interesting experiment in sound, not music.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_9





-------

I agree that ingrained assumptions about music and art in general can blind one to new possibilities quite easily. However - the more I consider it, the more I reject the notion personal assessment, intuitive responses, "I do not like it" says nothing about about a piece. I agree, we need to be more clear and thorough with language when expressing dislike, but sometimes, canned poo likely transcends our ability to articulate specific reasons or or does not merit the time to research or discuss it further.

Very sure I have not advanced this discussion. I am all over the map on this one. :/


----------



## SPR (Nov 12, 2008)

post-minimalist said:


> An iteresting point can be made here. (Sorry if this gets a bit liguistic.) In Greek the onus is on the art to please. FC


yes, but the word 'art' actually comes from the Latin _ars_ which simply means to arrange. Hence the terms artifice, artifact... even military.

But - I agree with you. If someone nails 2 boards together and spraypaints it green - and then shines purple light on it an a gallery, it will please someone. In such a case - I may say 'i dont like it' which will be called a meaningless and irrelevant statement.


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

SPR said:


> I am still resistant to the premise that any comment I make, or feeling I have about a particular piece of art - with respect to 'liking' it - is, for all intents - meaningless except to perhaps further discussion. Does intuitive opinion not matter at all?


I'm not by any means arguing against the expression of intuitive opinion (really, that's all I have to offer, myself). I'm arguing a case for discriminating between two types of experience, and merely suggesting that the word 'like' isn't helpful.

Suppose I say, 'I like Wagner'. That tells you nothing about my experience of listening to Wagner. I may as well be telling you about my favourite cheese, or my comfy chair.

Now suppose I say something like, 'When I listen to Wagner, the music transports me into some kind of mythic realm where I seem to forget everyday reality; I become conscious of a feeling of unity in the music that gives added power and meaning to the drama as it unfolds....' It's clear straight away that this is a kind of experience very different from the tasting of cheese. The Wagner experience has extended my experience of life in some way that my favourite cheese simply can't mimic. But it remains essentially an intuitive experience.

Nonetheless, we can see that the Wagner is capable of supporting _this kind of experience_, which goes beyond mere pleasure. As one encounters more and more people, all talking about experiences of this sort when they listen to Wagner, it becomes clearer and clearer that this Wagner stuff must have something special (even if I were unable to see it for myself). So the intuitive opinion isn't by any means meaningless. Far from it.


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

SPR said:


> If someone nails 2 boards together and spraypaints it green - and then shines purple light on it an a gallery, it will please someone. In such a case - I may say 'i dont like it' which will be called a meaningless and irrelevant statement.


Not irrelevant to you, but probably irrelevant to the artist's purpose. If the two green boards in purple light don't interest me, then I shake my head and move on. After all, the world is full of information that doesn't interest me, and I generally ignore most of it, because life's too short. But if I felt some glimmer of interest when I look at those green boards, I might find myself wondering why they'd been nailed together like this; and why they're being shown in purple light. And as I continue to look, and think (and maybe read the catalogue entry), I might start to have a very interesting new experience. Or I might not. And if not, I'd move on. And even then, I might find myself drawn back again later, for no good reason that I can articulate. I can't know in advance what will happen. But 'liking' or 'disliking' doesn't usually enter into it. Indifference or bafflement seems to be the most common response.

To take a different tack: consider the Isenheim altarpiece. It may be a very great work of art, but no one has any business _liking_ a graphic depiction of a man being tortured to death, surely?


----------



## PostMinimalist (May 14, 2008)

I like listening to Tangerine Dearm in dark. It gives my wife the creeps, and I realise that the fact that it gives me the creeps too is actually what I like about it. So we also have to define why we might like something in terms of how we pusue our pleasure. I'm not talking about perversion but more an exploration of which qualities must a piece of art have to be within the band of 'pleasurable' experiences?


----------



## PostMinimalist (May 14, 2008)

Elgarian said:


> To take a different tack: consider the Isenheim altarpiece. It may be a very great work of art, but no one has any business _liking_ a graphic depiction of a man being tortured to death, surely?


Actually images of Death, and in petricular agonizing slow death, has been shown by psychologists to rally people of similar creed together (c.f. Christ on the cross). There was a civilization in Central America where iimages of death and torture were everyday decorations - I think they were called the Olmech... I'll go google!
FC


----------



## PostMinimalist (May 14, 2008)

It was the Moche! Have a look at this -
http://www.pbs.org/howartmadetheworld/episodes/death/moche/


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

post-minimalist said:


> Actually images of Death, and in petricular agonizing slow death, has been shown by psychologists to rally people of similar creed together (c.f. Christ on the cross). There was a civilization in Central America where iimages of death and torture were everyday decorations - I think they were called the Olmech... I'll go google!


Undeniably true, and you don't need to go so far. Christian art is riddled with it. I'm not so sure it was a good idea for me to drag the Isenheim altarpiece into it, as it could turn out to be a gigantic distraction, but all I am trying to do is merely to illustrate that talking about 'liking' or 'disliking' is an inadequate way of expressing what we really experience when we engage with art.


----------



## Ciel_Rouge (May 16, 2008)

A very interesting thread indeed. I like it when we sometimes get "behind the music" to see perhaps a tiny bit of a great mystery revealed. However, I tend to think we should bring it back on track by organising it into the following sub-threads:

*1.* what "liking" music really means and if the phrase is useful or not

*2.* what "getting it" means

*3.* what is "art" and perhaps more precisely what "is" music and what "is not" music

Now I can share my own views on the subject without the fear of rolling over into the realm of total off-topic or igniting endless flame wars.
*
Re 1.* I totally agree that "liking" seems not profound enough for the classical as it really changes our world and makes us "grow". However, I tend to treat that as a nifty abbreviation, a kind of a short way to say whether a piece of art does something for me or not. 
*
post-minimalist:* I love the Greek word by the way - "it pleases me" works perfect for me.

Now - does it matter that I consider something "in plus", "like it" or whatever you would like to call it... I do sometimes share my listening experiences with other people, I play to them the pieces that I... well... like and listen to the pieces they like. And you know what? There is always some "common ground" meaning pieces we both "like" and some "peripheries" meaning things they like and I honestly hate and the other way round.

The size of the "common ground" is different with different people. If it is huge, I notice some general mental and sensual similarities with those people. It also happened to me once that the "common ground" was virtually 0. And in that case I made an interesting discovery - I decided I should ask that person what he hates. There was a huge probability that I would like it big time.

So, in my humble opinion "liking it" is perfectly OK if we want to communicate that rapidly in a simple way, like holding a bunch of CDs and pointing at the titles etc. It is also possible to elaborate on it, when we want to really describe what a given piece did to us or if we want to share and exchange experiences with another person who happens to "like" the same piece we do.

*Re 2.* Now on to "getting it". Well, I have seen people obviously getting off on music that did absolutely nothing for me. Will I get off on that myself one day? Maybe, maybe not. While listening to the classical for some time now, I did notice that my taste has shifted a little bit and become well, more refined, that I do "get" some works more than I would normally do without getting deeper into the classical. Still, reading about "why" a composer did something may still do nothing for me in regard to liking the piece if it does not "grab me" directly.

So, my official stance on this part of the thread would be: I think "getting it" is a PART of the whole experience but it does NOT work independently of "liking it".

*Re 3.* And now on to my favorite part. Well, I happen to have had a fair amount of discussion on this matter recently. So, "what is art"? And more precisely, what is music and what is not? Well, I tend to have a rather firm view on this one. I once watched a Stockhausen lecture on YouTube. He said something very interesting, namely something like "Every sound that we hear changes us - we are different after hearing the sound." And I find a lot of truth and depth in this statement. But then he moved on to say "Now we can generate practically any sound electronically". And this is where he went "awfully wrong" IMHO. Because in my experience, if "anything is art", then NOTHING is. Of course the sound of a passing ambulance or a drill changes me - it disturbs me and spoils the moment for me. However, it is NOT art because it does not make me "grow" and does not make me experience anything MORE than sound.

So, there you have it - I think music is NOT ONLY SOUND, it is a far more complex thing, involving other senses, emotions etc. Therefore, when Cage makes a whole orchestra stand still without playing a note, this is merely "a notion of silence" like aknowledging that it exists. But it does not do much for me. However, if that silence were in stark contrast with sounds that would make sense emotionally, that would be a totally different matter.

I hope you do not mind my lengthy contribution. And most certainly, all of the above are just my private views on the matters at hand and I do not imply being "right" or "wrong" on anything. Just thought it might be interesting to add some real life examples.


----------



## Guest (Dec 9, 2008)

How we talk about anything often reveals more about ourselves than about the topics. Just look at the posts to this discussion so far--count how many times people say "I" or "me."

So is it possible to talk about music without talking about ourselves? Elgarian has certainly identified one thing that has to happen--there has to be more to it than "I like/dislike...." But the examples so far have been the details of "I like/dislike it," not something different. There's one example in the Grosse Fuge thread of something different, but I get the sense that people really don't want that kind of thing. (So another question might be "Is it even _desirable_ to talk about music?") What people really want to talk about is the effect the music has on them, how it enriches their lives, how it pisses them off, whatever.

If that's true, then all we're likely to see, from most people, are opinions. Maybe that means we should talk about the difference between valid opinions and invalid ones. Valid ones tend to be more detailed, backed up with facts or experience, and they come from a wider experience than the invalid ones.

Valid ones tend to be more tentative, or at least open to the possibility of other views. Invalid ones tend to be categorical--"this is not what I consider to be music" would be an example of that. A statement of that sort instantly invites the question "who are you?" which is not a question about the music!

I don't think, however, that attitudes aren't important. I think one's attitudes are as important to the validity of one's opinions as one's experiences are. I know a lot of people who claim that they listen to a lot of contemporary music, for instance, but that it just doesn't do anything for them. Aside from the obvious (why do you keep listening to it, then?--_if_ you really do!!), I'd guess that if you take a negative attitude into the concert hall, then you should really not be surprised that the music you're sure you'll hate turns out to be hateful!! I once observed that Schoenberg's _Variations_ is obviously by the same person who wrote _Verklaerte Nacht,_ and that the two pieces have quite a lot in common. Seems clear to me. If you listen without prejudice to both pieces, their similarities are striking. But the other posters on that thread savaged me mercilessly for claiming that the hideous _Variations_ has anything in common with the gorgeous _Verklaerte Nacht._

Silly me. I thought they were both beautiful!


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

Ciel_Rouge said:


> I tend to think we should bring it back on track by organising it into the following sub-threads:
> 
> *1.* what "liking" music really means and if the phrase is useful or not
> 
> ...


That's a useful way of separating the three issues. Thanks. There is indeed a great difficulty in keeping the discussion on track, because all three of your categories are intertwined in pretty complicated ways.



> I totally agree that "liking" seems not profound enough for the classical as it really changes our world and makes us "grow". However, I tend to treat that as a nifty abbreviation, a kind of a short way to say whether a piece of art does something for me or not.


I think it's helpful to point that out, and of course we all find ourselves using it as shorthand like that. It's fine for casual conversation between people who understand how the word is being used - 'try that CD of Massenuck's arias, I think you'll like it' - but if we're trying to get to grips with what's really going on when we respond to music, it rapidly loses its value as a word, I think. In fact I've just realised that's pretty much what you're saying here:



> "liking it" is perfectly OK if we want to communicate that rapidly in a simple way, like holding a bunch of CDs and pointing at the titles etc. It is also possible to elaborate on it, when we want to really describe what a given piece did to us or if we want to share and exchange experiences with another person who happens to "like" the same piece we do.





> *Re 2.* Now on to "getting it". Still, reading about "why" a composer did something may still do nothing for me in regard to liking the piece if it does not "grab me" directly.
> So, my official stance on this part of the thread would be: I think "getting it" is a PART of the whole experience but it does NOT work independently of "liking it".


I agree that they work together, but I do think they're distinct. To take one example (there are many) I found that reading about Wagner and _The Ring_ had an enormous impact on the way I listened. What began as curiosity gradually turned to 'like' after a few listenings to excerpts, but as I read more, and listened more, and understood more, that 'liking' grew into something life-changing and enormous. The 'liking' and the 'getting' went hand-in-hand, but they were different, and the 'getting' led to something that completely transcended 'liking'.



> *Re 3.*So, "what is art"? ... when Cage makes a whole orchestra stand still without playing a note, this is merely "a notion of silence" like aknowledging that it exists. But it does not do much for me.


 There is a huge black hole here into which we could all be sucked, but it seems to me that Cage's performance of silence falls into the same kind of category as Malevich's _Black Square_ or Duchamp's _Fountain_. In a way, one might think they belong more in the History of Ideas than the history of art/music, and yet they are of enormous importance - not in themselves, but in the shift in perception they induce about what art is, and how it works on us. Cage forces us to contemplate a precisely defined extent of silence as a _made thing_, just as Malevich forces us to contemplate a precisely defined expanse of the absence of light and colour, and Duchamp forces us to contemplate the fact that anything can be used as the materials of art. These are profound ideas - or they can be, if we allow them to work on us. They're not 'beautiful' in the way that a Puccini aria is; but they can change the way we think, hear, and see. We can 'get' them (or not); but it's very unlikely that we'll find ourselves 'liking' them.


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

some guy said:


> How we talk about anything often reveals more about ourselves than about the topics. Just look at the posts to this discussion so far--count how many times people say "I" or "me."


An engagement with art involves an encounter between the listener/observer, and the work, and as Duchamp pointed out, the artist can only do half the work; the listener/observer must do the rest. So I'd be suspicious of any discussion of art in which 'I' or 'me' didn't appear - it's only through those individual encounters that we get any understanding of what art is, or can do. The difficulty is in distinguishing between genuine personal _insight_, and mere personal taste.



> What people really want to talk about is the effect the music has on them, how it enriches their lives, how it pisses them off, whatever. If that's true, then all we're likely to see, from most people, are opinions. Maybe that means we should talk about the difference between valid opinions and invalid ones. Valid ones tend to be more detailed, backed up with facts or experience, and they come from a wider experience than the invalid ones.


I think the distinction may be not so much between valid and invalid opinions, but between _opinions_ on the one hand, and _tastes _on the other. If someone asked me why I 'like' Wagner (though it makes me groan to use that word), I could give a very detailed and reasonably coherent description of what happens when I listen to Wagner, and why I consider the experience to be profound. But if someone asks me why I like treacle pudding, there's almost nothing I can say except 'try some yourself'.


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

About art...

I think in order for me to take it seriously there has to be not just an idea, but also a craft or a skill involved. If not, (and I don't mean to sound crude) I could go stand in a museum and burp, think of a fancy explanation to tell everyone what it all means - and voila, I'm an artist.


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

jhar26 said:


> About art...
> I think in order for me to take it seriously there has to be not just an idea, but also a craft or a skill involved.


The difficulty (and I don't underestimate it) lies in perceiving the _nature_ of the skill, when art is changing and new perceptions are required to understand it. If you and I had been living in 1874, and had gone to the first Impressionist exhibition in Paris, we would have howled in derision along with the rest of them. We would have protested, along with everyone else, that the artists lacked all skill, all painterly craft. Yet those pictures, today, are considered among the most beautiful in the world; almost everyone loves them.

Those touchstones of craft and skill are only of use when we're trying to understand art that's basically familiar in character. At historic moments of artistic/perceptive breakthrough they're just lead weights that hold us back. We can't decide if Bob Dylan is a good singer by comparing him to Caruso.


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

Elgarian said:


> The difficulty (and I don't underestimate it) lies in perceiving the _nature_ of the skill, when art is changing and new perceptions are required to understand it. If you and I had been living in 1874, and had gone to the first Impressionist exhibition in Paris, we would have howled in derision along with the rest of them. We would have protested, along with everyone else, that the artists lacked all skill, all painterly craft. Yet those pictures, today, are considered among the most beautiful in the world; almost everyone loves them.
> 
> Those touchstones of craft and skill are only of use when we're trying to understand art that's basically familiar in character. At historic moments of artistic/perceptive breakthrough they're just lead weights that hold us back. We can't decide if Bob Dylan is a good singer by comparing him to Caruso.


Well, I don't condemn the avant-garde as such. I understand and accept that there are innovative artists out there that indeed are great even though I can't make heads or tails of their work. But there are also examples of which I think, "Sorry mate, I'm not falling for that one. You're just a charlatan." Doesn't mean that I'm always right about that of course.


----------



## PostMinimalist (May 14, 2008)

Art theory, until the Frankfurt School (Theodore Adorno et al), was always following what was done in practice and the same applied to music until the Second Viennese School. These two turning points (Frankfurt and 2ndVS) had the terrible IMO consequence of art (both visual and aural) being riddled with adherents to different theoretical principles and not artists struggling to express 'themselves'. The result is an art in which materials (orchestration) and morphology (form) is more important than actual content (a good tune...). 
Kule Ingoze is a very good example of what I'm talking about. At first glance his work looks like smears of mud. When you are told that the mud is blood then things change bit and when you discover that he was a Sierre Leone child-soldier who witnessed the slaugter of his own family and was then trained to kill his own tribe members at the age of six then the works take on a whole new dimension. However the art still looks like mud smears.
The Question about 'do I like it' becomes impossible to answer because the work becomes inseparably linked to the experience of the artist and the material he uses. 
Imagine not being able to appreciate Mozart unless you knew about his life and character - I think in this case it probably works the other way. The less you know about Mozart as a person the more you would appreciate his music. Remember the section in the Film Amadeus where Salieri finds the mauscripts and hearing this wonderful music wonders to himself -"What heavenly genius created these masterpieces?" And suddenly Tom Hulce bursts through the door with that hideous laugh! 
Go Figure!
FC


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

jhar26 said:


> I understand and accept that there are innovative artists out there that indeed are great even though I can't make heads or tails of their work. But there are also examples of which I think, "Sorry mate, I'm not falling for that one. You're just a charlatan." Doesn't mean that I'm always right about that of course.


I think that element of risk (from the point of view of the listener or viewer) is inherent in art. Taking the risk (and perhaps being let down) is part of the price we pay for the promise of perceptual advances.

Surely we shouldn't expect to understand, or enjoy, all forms of art - any more than we'd expect to understand or enjoy all types of conversation? If these people over here are talking about Mirella Freni; and those people over there are talking about the bifurcation of destabilised defilibrations, then I'll be homing in on the Mirella chat, of course. For all I know, the conversation about the defilibrations might be really top flight stuff, or just a load of hot air, but it doesn't matter because I've chosen not to bother finding out.


----------



## Ciel_Rouge (May 16, 2008)

So, maybe we could add another sub-thread to the list:

*4.* Is there anything objective about "liking"

I guess there is:

*Re 4.* Let us put the artists and composers aside... I suppose we all know that when we hear a "bad" performance - it is not only "bad" to us but it is "bad" in general - lacks musicality etc.

What do you think?


----------



## SPR (Nov 12, 2008)

This thread is leading me somewhere.... pardon me if I digress a bit...

I have always been attracted to 'genius'. To me, it is that tipping point where an act or creation transcends simple craftsmanship and begins to express beauty in the classical sense. καλός, kallos... greek / beauty - implying an undercurrent of 'truth'. Bach, I think is a good example. I believe he started off as a gifted composer, and one with a seriously inflated work ethic. His work was fantastic _craftsmanship_... but eventually (and here is the big leap, that some will not agree on, but many in this case might..) became a seemingly (to us) a more effortless, transcendant inspiration of uncommon *genius*. (is this ffrom latin genii?... guiding spirit...)

Michaelangelo had it. I think Thoreau had it. Mozart had it. and it is not always 'works' of art but can be action or thought as well. I find it in Ernest Shakleton, Abe Lincoln, Socrates, Shakespeare, John Muir, Newton, Einstein, John Harrison, Micheal de Montaigne.......blah blah..... obviously the list is nearly endless.

For me, if I feel something is handiwork or craftsmanship.... well executed as it may be, fantastically intricate and splendid...it likely will not grab me by the brain stem and demand my attention and express that kind of beauty. Often it is difficult, or perhaps impossible to quantify this invisible line that separates art from craft, and that is when the weak nebulous phrases come out such 'like/dislike' - it is not about not having the word tools to express it. If you believe Emerson that beauty contains a kernel of truth (complete rubbish to many, not so much to others...) then this in theory is not a matter of personal preference. I do not infer that genius is easy or seen the same by everyone - quite the contrary - but genius cannot be manufactured or crafted.

Was it supreme court justice Potter Stewart who said: (?) 'I am fairly certain what is obscene when I see it.". A horrid example, but art, good and bad is a bit like that.


----------



## rojo (May 26, 2006)

Yes, let's talk about talking about music.  

Just to throw my two cents in here.

Why talk about music? Well, for some (like me,) it's because it can be a very enriching experience. Folks tend to enjoy talking about the things that interest them most, so... Of course, as with appreciating and enjoying music, it certainly helps to have a good attitude. Discussion about any topic, including music, can reward the participants in many ways; it can be memorable, pleasing, amusing, educational, etc. Just as listening to music can be. And sometimes there are arguments, and differences of opinion just as there is some music we 'disagree' with. To say 'I don't like it' doesn't make for a very enriching discussion for any participant.

Of one thing I think we can be fairly certain; there is a love of music that brings us here. Perhaps it's only human to want to talk about something that one feels so strongly about. 

Perhaps I can generally sum up what I think thusly:

music = humanity

I hope that made (two) sense.


----------



## Rondo (Jul 11, 2007)

There are many things which can affect _why_ someone likes or dislikes a piece of music. To use my own experiences as examples, the contexts in which you first hear the piece have had an _enormous_ effect on my thoughts of a piece. For some of you this may not be the case, but let me explain.

An example would be film music. I am a huge fan or original film scores; BUT when a piece not originally written for a film is used in one, just imagine what kind of effect it could have on a person's opinions of that piece if they are hearing it for the first time. The film is providing a context for the piece, where someone's opinions of the music vary according to their opinions of the context. (I feel like I am quoting one of my earlier posts, however my searching skills in this forum are inhibiting my ability to provide a cross-reference.) This could possibly explain why some people would simply say they "just don't like it," without citing anything pertaining to the compositional structure or performance of the piece. It is a bad habit, yes, but I do not personally blame an individual for not liking a piece for other, indescribable reasons. It is human nature to mentally relate a piece of music to a "context" (or experience) surrounding the first impression. Therefore, if someone says they simply "_just_ don't like it," I expect it to be highly unlikely that they ever will--despite contrasting performances and interpretations.


----------

