# How much do our biases factor in when listening to classical?



## staxomega (Oct 17, 2011)

This is something I've been thinking about the last few days. As classical lovers we tend to be pretty opinionated just as much as the critics, and I like Toscanini's quote "if you want to please the critics don't play too loud, too soft, too fast or too slow", though it's perhaps a bit condescending regarding the superficiality of critics' assessments I think the overall message is sound. 

As an MD I've seen throughout the years how much people are influenced by suggestion, others opinions, etc. The most striking objective evidence of this is blind or double blind pharmaceutical trials where in numerous trials significant (well statistically meaningful) numbers of people respond to placebos. As a hifi nut this is also seen in the audiophile world of expensive cables, tweaks, etc. Two well known areas and the latter has caused serious rifts and debates on audiophile fora :tiphat:

Where I see it less discussed is our preferences for artists, musicians and performances. It's my opinion that we are quite significantly biased by knowing about the performance before hand. Something as simple as knowing who the performers or conductors can sway our feelings. Speaking for myself I recently read a comment on another forum about disliking Solti because of his "bombast". I have no strong opinions of Solti, not being too familiar with his conducting outside of a handful of discs and his famous Ring Cycle, but I'd certainly heard that sentiment from several others. A while later I put on Beethoven's 4th, just a random selection, couldn't pay too close attention to the first movement, but came back to listen attentively by the time the second had started. I thought it was magnificently nuanced and well played. I was certain this was probably Bohm conducting. This thought continued to the last movement where I felt yeah the allegro ma non troppo is perhaps slightly too dramatic, but nothing to detract from my pleasure of the performance and I felt it didn't do any disservice to the composer. It was only after it finished did I look up who conducted it and to my slight surprise it was Solti with the CSO.

One other example, I am not a fan of Evgeny Kissin. A while back I selected Chopin's piano sonatas and was taken back by this very nice performance. I didn't make any guesses as to who it was, but it turned out to by Kissin. I think that had I known about this before hand I might have dismissed the performance or listened with less interest. Or switched to another performer. 

On another jazz centric forum they do roughly monthly "blind folded tests" where someone would put up a dozen selections for people to download and there would be discussions on who they thought the musicians were, what they thought of the performances, etc. I took part in several of them and I was surprised to find artists I had previously written off to have some excellent performances. Though my lesser knowledge of the 70/80s/avant-garde jazz that was more popular in those tests made it so I didn't have as much biases going into those tests. I think it would have been interesting if more of them focused on the areas I was more familiar with, pre war/50/60s. 

I'm interested to hear what people think, and if they have or haven't observed something similar with their listening. Cheers, hope everyone enjoys their weekend.


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund (Jan 4, 2016)

I try to be open about what I listen to and critics can make me curious about artist new to me, either by positive or negative reviews. I've learned there are infinite ways to compose a piece of music and infinite ways to play it. I mostly like what I hear, maybe because I prepare myself by reading about new recordings and probably because I pick things I know I will like. I do have some hangups though, no Wagner or Satie and no Karajan, and more new recordings...


----------



## bharbeke (Mar 4, 2013)

There's no way to really do blind listening with saved playlists (besides not looking at the names closely before hitting play). I do try to look at those positively, telling myself that someone recommended it, so there is probably merit in the performance. If I come into the middle of a piece on the radio, then I can listen with fewer preconceptions.

Starting out, I would notice certain names that kept appearing in performances I liked and some that I didn't. Recognizing who was working for me and who wasn't does not close my mind to hearing performers in the second category, but it does help me choose music that I am more likely to enjoy in the future.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

I've also noticed there can be a deep-seated unconscious bias against certain conductors, musicians and orchestras. Dr. Albert Schweitzer once wrote about Telemann's inferiority to Bach, until it was later discovered that Telemann had written some of the cantatas attributed to Bach. So it's not that Telemann couldn't write something of lasting value.

I'm glad this sometimes happens as a caution to humble historians, musicologists and critics who may have gotten too sure of themselves and then expect everybody to take their opinions at face value . The human mind can be deeply suggestible and prejudiced, sometimes without knowing it, until people hear something by accident or serendipity, maybe on the radio, they surprisingly like by somebody they thought they hated. It's of course happened to me too and I was taken aback by how wrong I could be. It's a good lesson to all, and that's one reason why I never entirely close the door on anyone - conductor, orchestra, musician or composer - even if I haven't had much success with them in the past. Blind listening can sometimes be highly illuminating!


----------



## Dan Ante (May 4, 2016)

Personally I could not give a stuff, its the music that counts. are you going to hate Gregorian chant if you are a protestant or a Symphony because the conductor is a communist or the soprano if she is a lesbian, its time to grow up.


----------



## 20centrfuge (Apr 13, 2007)

I think it affects us all sooo much. Expectations play a large role. I think it is similar to when I give someone a glass of Sprite to drink and it turns out to be water. There is some rejection of the drink mentally, at least, before coming to terms with it.

I think this happens with any new music we listen to. We have an expectation: "oh this piece will be similar to this other..." or (before hearing) "I won't like this piece because it will be similar to THAT other piece which I despise."

It's difficult to accept music on its own terms and to get out of our own way.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

A test should be devised among haters of Lang Lang, Gould and 3-4 other pianists.

Play various performances of theirs "blind", in sufficient quantity to discourage accurate guessing, and see how many of the determined haters can actually identify their "dreaded" performers and also rate each performance from 1-5 where 1 is awful and 5 is superb.

I'm sure there is some psychological predisposition at work.


----------



## ST4 (Oct 27, 2016)

Dan Ante said:


> Personally I could not give a stuff, its the music that counts. are you going to hate Gregorian chant if you are a protestant or a Symphony because the conductor is a communist or the soprano if she is a lesbian, its time to grow up.


Amen! It does extend further but this is so true :cheers:


----------



## Dan Ante (May 4, 2016)

20centrfuge said:


> It's difficult to accept music on its own terms and to get out of our own way.


It may be for you but not for me


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

hpowders said:


> A test should be devised among haters of Lang Lang, Gould and 3-4 other pianists.
> 
> Play various performances of theirs "blind", in sufficient quantity to discourage accurate guessing, and see how many of the determined haters can actually identify their "dreaded" performers and also rate each performance from 1-5 where 1 is awful and 5 is superb.
> 
> I'm sure there is some psychological predisposition at work.


Very well-controlled wine tastings, conducted blind, regularly display the collapse of the ability of expert oenophiles to correctly identify what they are tasting. My own approach to music of any sort completely sidesteps this situation, in that I have made a god of my own tastes, and pay little attention to who performs what, other than as a matter of simple record-keeping. A very plebeian attitude, but it eliminates a lot of unnecessary hand-wringing over whether I have, or have heard, the "correct" reading of a piece.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

This is only a personal view. Years ago, aged about 10-12, when I rooted through other people's record collections because I didn't have much of my own, all I used to read on the LP sleeves was the name of the composer and perhaps a 'known' popular piece. Just that, not the orchestra or the conductor or the record label (though these may have been glanced at). All the performances seemed great to me and I'm certain most of them were.

Many people often say they like a particular version or interpretation of something because it was the first they heard early on (likely many times), regardless of whether the conductor is a relative nobody or the orchestra is not one of the well-known orchestras. However I've seen people being apologetic about this and just putting it down to nostalgia and it's bizarre. For years I had an LP of Ravel's Piano Concerto played by Martha Argerich, but I never knew this because I hadn't really looked, I just liked Ravel and by then was aware that the Deutsche Grammaphon discs were good.

For me this hasn't changed much. I know many more artists now, but not quite as many as other people. When I see lists of names of pianists mentioned here on this forum, I don't know a good half of them. I really didn't know that much about Daniil Trifonov before I heard his recording of Rach's Variations and frankly I don't much care about reputations until I've actually heard the music. If I like it, despite a majority of critics saying it is no good, I won't change my mind. 

I would estimate that I don't know who the performers are on half of the stuff I listen to


----------



## Joe B (Aug 10, 2017)

"Fritz Kreisler wrote a number of pieces for the violin, including solos for encores, such as "Liebesleid" and "Liebesfreud". Some of Kreisler's compositions were pastiches ostensibly in the style of other composers. They were originally ascribed to earlier composers, such as Gaetano Pugnani, Giuseppe Tartini and Antonio Vivaldi, and then, in 1935, Kreisler revealed that it was he who wrote the pieces. When critics complained, Kreisler replied that they had already deemed the compositions worthy: "The name changes, the value remains", he said." (from Wikipedia....but I've read this before elsewhere and figured I could find it faster there.)

Absolutely our perceptions are colored by our expectations and beliefs. In a philosophy class on Phenomenology, this would be a great topic of discussion. What we bring to the table is definitely going to have an impact on us. Our beliefs color the world around us and affect our experiences. Unfortunately, it is unavoidable. But it is not a bad thing, it is actually a challenge. We just need to learn to be less egocentric and attempt to be more open, objective, tolerant, accepting, etc..

OK, now I'll try to bring it back to music. My first experience of classical music was on vinyl when I was young. I developed a great love for symphonies. With the invention of the compact disc, I realized that I needed to focus my attention on trying to acquire a collection, a good one. I never thought I would acquire a taste for art song, but I knew that many of the things I enjoy in life I did not care for on the first try: Scotch, coffee, tobacco (quit in the early 80's), etc. I believe the real challenge is to realize that the biggest obstacle for us becoming objective in our experience of the world is ourselves and the baggage we bring along with us everywhere. Like I say, it's not bad, but it makes for a constant challenge.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

I stubbornly retain my bias of listening to classical music (_especially_ classical music) with both my ears _and _my brain. The brain, of course, enwraps the emotions as well. But I want to make it clear that I reject the notion of listening to music only with my feet. Charles Ives famously said something to the effect that "most people listen to music with their feet", and this statement still holds true, I believe, for many who follow pop music (and maybe marches and polkas, too). Great music, of any genre, I suppose, contains an intellectual element, be it a philosophical or psychological or emotional one.

I know a lot of folks who claim to like music, but what they really like are hit songs they hear on the radio or at dance clubs. They tend not to explore musical genres, generally know little about classical music or jazz or what is going on in the experimental wings of music composition. They are satisfied with listening over and over again to the "hits" and don't even care much to hear other songs (the lesser known, non-hit songs) by the artists who have produced the "hits". Which is, I suspect, a way of providing an example of what is meant by Ives's statement.

So, yes, I maintain a bias. And I shall continue to.

To turn briefly to a subject that has surfaced in this thread in several previous posts, I will suggest that interpretations do matter, and many of us could well take a blind listening test and find that there continue to be interpretations we loathe and others we love. Try to sneak a Celibidache Bruckner recording in on me in a blind test, and I'll know it right away. I'll love it, but I will admit that it is "slow in its unfolding".

When I was a youngster collecting classical records I didn't know much about anything, but I did notice that certain records (music, actually) pleased me more than did others, and sometimes the pieces that I liked and hated were by the same composer. One day, some two decades on or so, I came to realize that much of the music I did not like was that I had heard on records I had bought conducted by a fellow named Karajan. After this realization, I turned to some of the music I originally didn't care for but listened to it in interpretations by other conductors, one's I had come to admire, and voilà! ("wa-lah!" to you English speakers from my end of Montana) -- it wasn't bad at all!

I recently listened to my three disc set of Chopin music performed by Alexis Weissenberg (_Complete Music for Piano & Orchestra_ on EMI Classics) and was astounded, once again, over how different his playing/sound is in this familiar music compared to nearly everybody else. I can't readily admit that I _prefer_ Weissenberg's interpretative touch over that of other Chopin performers (say Rubinstein or Horowitz), but it does have a unique quality that screams Weissenberg.

Glenn Gould has such a quality. I'm not a big fan of the humming (which my better than average stereo equipment allows to blossom) but Gould draws me into his performances, both ears and mind. (And I always picture him propped up on that strange little chair with the short legs and his upward reaching hands perched over the keyboard...). I've sought out Gould albums over the years and now probably have everything the man recorded. Do I like it all? That's probably not an issue. I enjoy listening to it, even when it tends to run counter to most other performers' interpretations. Remember Bernstein's famous apology prior to joining Gould for a Beethoven concerto? This is the kind of music that I want to hear. Why bother listening to another generic Beethoven interpretation that merges into the crowd of sound-alike?

I had heard that Pierre Boulez's Beethoven Fifth recorded by Columbia was atrocious. Well, it is, I suppose. But it's also interesting to hear, and I'm glad I've heard it. I must have nearly a hundred Beethoven Fifths in my current disc collection and I'll readily admit that I couldn't distinguish many of them one from another. But there are several that stand out with great distinction -- Kleiber, Celibidache, Boulez, Joseph Krips, Andre Cluytens, Otto Klemperer, Rudolf Kempe .... And I find that I return to these certain interpretations again and again with great expectation. Not just to hear the music, but to enjoy the listening experience as well.

I suspect one's biases expand with familiarity. Those Karajan digital discs just didn't grab me (and still don't -- I find many of them bland, especially the Bruckner), but I've found that some of his earlier recordings are actually quite stunning. And if I avoid seeking out recordings by, say, Anner Bylsma, it's only because I've heard quite a few of them already, and I cannot recall one of them that ever excited me the least little bit. And Baroque cello music can be quite exciting!

But we shouldn't worry too much about whether an interpretation was satisfactory or not, simply because music allows for great flexibility in interpretation, and that's one of its glories! Besides, there is so much to listen to that you need never ever repeat-hear a performance, you can continually listen to something new, and you'll still never hear everything out there. Which gives credence to the argument that if you prefer a certain piece of music, say Beethoven's Fifth, and you've heard a performance that moves you in some way (emotionally, intellectually) that you'll continue to take on that piece, and other pieces performed by the same artists. Even though there's no guarantee that the same artist's other music is as good as the one piece you've been smitten by. It's complicated.

But I'm more interested in listening to music than talking about it, so I'm off to hear something. And I bring all my biases with me.


----------



## Dr Johnson (Jun 26, 2015)

hpowders said:


> A test should be devised among haters of Lang Lang, Gould and 3-4 other pianists.
> 
> Play various performances of theirs "blind", in sufficient quantity to discourage accurate guessing, and see how many of the determined haters can actually identify their "dreaded" performers and also rate each performance from 1-5 where 1 is awful and 5 is superb.
> 
> I'm sure there is some psychological predisposition at work.


It would be easy to identify Gould because of the humming.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

To me there's a big difference between a _bias_ and a conscious _preference_. A bias is usually an attitude that's considered _unfair_ in some way toward something or someone, either for a conscious or unconscious reason, and yet it doesn't seem used that way in this thread. If a person is _biased_ for classical music, does that mean they prefer it for unfair reasons? Or are they simply making a conscious choice? I would say the definitions aren't the same at all.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Larkenfield said:


> It seems to me there's a big difference between a _bias_ and a conscious _preference_. A bias is usually an attitude that's considered _unfair_ in some way toward something or someone, either for a conscious or unconscious reason, and yet it doesn't seem used that way in this thread. If a person is _biased_ for classical music, does that mean they are choosing it for unfair reasons? Or are they simply making a conscious choice? I would say there's a considerable difference between the two interpretations.


Interesting question. _Unfair_ might not always be the right word, and yet not necessarily the wrong word! Also a biased preference may have conscious or unconscious origins, or a mixture of both. For example disliking Verdi because you dislike opera, which may stem from disliking opera because you don't know that much about opera, or even disliking Verdi because you like a different _style_ of opera.

In this way preferences always arise out of some sort of bias or prejudice caused by how a person's knowledge is shaped and influenced. It's not easy (if at all possible) to approach things value-free.

This thread really addresses' influence' upon judgements. Which in turn creates a possible bias. We come full circle. I feel like I've said nothing...


----------



## Holden4th (Jul 14, 2017)

When I began my classical music journey I relied on particular favourite artists/ensembles/conductors to provide me with definitive performances. However, conversations in fora like this one has changed that approach and I've discovered that some of my favourite performances are by much lesser known musicians. For example, to me Richter is a God but there are aspects of the repertoire that he doesn't do so well in and I look elsewhere for performers of that music. 

Most importantly, discussion in this forum (and others) lets me look further afield. Nowadays, with the likes of Spotify, Tidal, Apple Music, etc I can investigate at little cost.


----------



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

Biases will always be with us. It can be revealing to challenge long standing biases. For some reason I have always been biased against the Heifetz stereo Concerto recordings. I bought the Sony reissue box and now I understand what all fuss has been about. I was also prejudiced against the 1960s Karajan Beethoven set but have been enjoying it immensely since I bought the whole set on one Blu RY disc


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

The division of choice-facing populations into _satisficers_ and _maximizers_ has some relevance to this discussion. It may help clarify why some listeners (maximizers) have 20, or 50, versions of particular pieces, whereas others (satisficers) have one or two or maybe three. I have found this concept of the two personality types to be very accurate and very powerful in analyzing behaviors. There is quite some literature on this topic. Here is a brief summary:

https://www.psychologistworld.com/cognitive/maximizers-satisficers-decision-making


----------



## staxomega (Oct 17, 2011)

hpowders said:


> A test should be devised among haters of Lang Lang, Gould and 3-4 other pianists.
> 
> Play various performances of theirs "blind", in sufficient quantity to discourage accurate guessing, and see how many of the determined haters can actually identify their "dreaded" performers and also rate each performance from 1-5 where 1 is awful and 5 is superb.
> 
> I'm sure there is some psychological predisposition at work.


I've noticed there is much dislike for Lang Lang here! I've only heard him on Youtube which usually has accompanying video and his theatrics did put me off to the point of distracting me from his playing. I think such a test would be pretty interesting, though Gould could probably be identified fairly quickly with his humming.

Edit: I see someone mentioned that already.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Strange Magic said:


> The division of choice-facing populations into _satisficers_ and _maximizers_ has some relevance to this discussion. It may help clarify why some listeners (maximizers) have 20, or 50, versions of particular pieces, whereas others (satisficers) have one or two or maybe three. I have found this concept of the two personality types to be very accurate and very powerful in analyzing behaviors.


I recognise this, but I'm certain that some people fall under both types in different areas of their lives. I have multiple versions of some things, but with others one will do. I also suffer from buyer's remorse at times (I did this with the digital piano), but I've also made fairly quick decisions and been happy with them, even after finding cheaper options later.

I may just lean towards the maximiser, but strangely enough not with regard to recordings. Maybe I'm just not very discerning.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Strange Magic said:


> The division of choice-facing populations into _satisficers_ and _maximizers_ has some relevance to this discussion. It may help clarify why some listeners (maximizers) have 20, or 50, versions of particular pieces, whereas others (satisficers) have one or two or maybe three. I have found this concept of the two personality types to be very accurate and very powerful in analyzing behaviors. There is quite some literature on this topic. Here is a brief summary:
> 
> https://www.psychologistworld.com/cognitive/maximizers-satisficers-decision-making





eugeneonagain said:


> I recognise this, but I'm certain that some people fall under both types in different areas of their lives. I have multiple versions of some things, but with others one will do. I also suffer from buyer's remorse at times (I did this with the digital piano), but I've also made fairly quick decisions and been happy with them, even after finding cheaper options later.
> 
> I may just lean towards the maximiser, but strangely enough not with regard to recordings. Maybe I'm just not very discerning.


I am almost overwhelmingly a satisficer. I like to think it partially reflects a certain adaptability, in that I quickly see workarounds to obstacles; also it reflects a willingness to be pleased and a love of simplicity such that one's attention is freed of an obsession with minutiae. My wife, in contrast......


----------



## Dan Ante (May 4, 2016)

Strange Magic said:


> The division of choice-facing populations into _satisficers_ and _maximizers_ has some relevance to this discussion. It may help clarify why some listeners (maximizers) have 20, or 50, versions of particular pieces, whereas others (satisficers) have one or two or maybe three. I have found this concept of the two personality types to be very accurate and very powerful in analyzing behaviors. There is quite some literature on this topic. Here is a brief summary:
> 
> https://www.psychologistworld.com/cognitive/maximizers-satisficers-decision-making


Very interesting and I do fall under the tag of a Satisficer in music and my life in general.


----------



## Oldhoosierdude (May 29, 2016)

To the op question. Probably quite a bit. 

I don't usually like anything Karajan or Rattle. But have heard things by them unknowingly that I thought were good.


----------



## Dan Ante (May 4, 2016)

Oldhoosierdude said:


> To the op question. Probably quite a bit.
> 
> I don't usually like anything Karajan or Rattle. But have heard things by them unknowingly that I thought were good.


But why dont you like Karajan and Rattle??


----------



## Oldhoosierdude (May 29, 2016)

Dan Ante said:


> But why dont you like Karajan and Rattle??


Good question. I don't want to dislike what they do. When listening to different recordings of a work I never choose theirs. I think I may be pre judging at this point.


----------



## Dan Ante (May 4, 2016)

Oldhoosierdude said:


> Good question. I don't want to dislike what they do. When listening to different recordings of a work I never choose theirs. I think I may be pre judging at this point.


You must base it on something so is it the results they get from the orchestras ?


----------



## Daniel Atkinson (Dec 31, 2016)

Classical music doesn't have any biases, they're all fair and open to opportunities 




Daniel


----------



## georgedelorean (Aug 18, 2017)

I'd think that biases would have an effect on Classical as much as any other music genre. If there are any biases at play, I don't necessarily think they'd be at the very forefront of one's conscious thought during listening however. If somebody has an aversion to a particular composer, then that would most likely be a bias against whatever music is being listened to at the moment if it was written by said composer. By and large though, I find Classical to be such as to warrant one's full attention and thoughts at the time that biases of any sort usually wouldn't figure into the equation to begin with. On the whole though, music is such a personal experience that any biases which may exist when listening to Classical would also have to be figured in to the person themselves. Very intriguing question to pose.


----------

