# Why should you listen to "traditional classical" music only?



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Members such as myself, Mahlerian, PetrB, somguy, and a number of others get labeled as "Modernists" or "Radicals" in spite of the fact that we actually have and enjoy a rather sizable collection of music from the Gregorian chant all the way through the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries... quite likely a great deal larger and eclectic than many self-proclaimed "Traditionalists."

On the other hand... we have any number of "powder-wigged traditionalists" who have a self-proclaimed aversion to the Modern era, or Serialism, or certain major modern composers.


My question is *Why should a listener put forth the repeated effort in deprecating and maligning a body of music he or she doesn't like?* Some listeners don't like Rock (I personally love it). Some don't like Country music. I can't abide certain opera, and I am lukewarm on Brahms. I suspect that there is no one here who does not have a body or genre of music they can't stand, or do not get excited about.

So why should the hypothetical individual who embraces modernism be taken to task and constantly provoked, baited, bullied, and confronted for his or her more all-embracing, wider, more adventurous taste?

Conversely, why should the hypothetical individual who has an aversion to Serialism and Atonal music continue to put forth the effort to malign it?
​


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Hah. I get the impression that "Modernist" isn't what you usually get labeled, _million_.


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

Coming soon to a messageboard near you: *Why should you listen to music at all!*


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

I said before that I think it's people hating to think that they are missing out on something, and really excusing their lack of knowledge, that enables someone to not put any effort into looking further as they can just write something off. So convenience. We've all probably been a bit guilty of that at sometime or another. But I think now the best thing to do is just talk about stuff you know and understand.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

This is the "retrograde inversion" of that other thread...:lol:


----------



## Guest (May 1, 2013)

quack said:


> Coming soon to a messageboard near you: *Why should you listen to music at all!*


Can I give this a million likes???


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

quack said:


> Coming soon to a messageboard near you: *Why should you listen to music at all!*


*Why music?*

or, as the minimalists would say: _*why?*_


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Conversely, why should you *not* listen to certain kinds of music?


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

millionrainbows said:


> Conversely, why should you *not* listen to certain kinds of music?


That may be more productive, but I don't see it making the forum a friendly place.

I don't listen to X because: it hurts my head, it hurts my ears, it hurts my teeth, it hurts my feelings, it hurts my ego, it frightens the dog, it upsets the cat, it sounds like cats wailing, it attracts moths, it's only audible to bats, it disorientates squirrels, it worries livestock, only sheep like it, it brings on my gout, it sounds like pots and pans, it sounds like peter pan, it sounds like jet engines, it sounds like broken CDs, it sounds like washingmachines, it sounds like empty rooms it sounds like horror movies, it sounds like disney movies, it sounds like rom-coms, it sounds like dubstep, it doesn't sound like dubstep, it sounds unfinished, it sounds too polished, it sounds too busy, it sounds too sparse, it sounds like something a kid would write, it sounds like something a fogey would write, it's too short, it's too long, it suits my mood too accurately, it panders to the audience, it offers no concessions to the audience, it panders to pandas, it's too black, it's too white, it's too multicultural, it's too programmatic, it's too absolute, it's too surreal, it's too old, it's too modern, it's too modernist, it's too postmodernist, it's too post-postmodernist, it's too obvious, it's too regimented, it's too loose, it's too lost, it's too won, it's too free, it


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

quack said:


> That may be more productive, but I don't see it making the forum a friendly place.
> 
> *I don't listen to X because:* it hurts my head, it hurts my ears, it hurts my teeth, it hurts my feelings, it hurts my ego, it frightens the dog, it upsets the cat, it sounds like cats wailing, it attracts moths, it's only audible to bats, it disorientates squirrels, it worries livestock, only sheep like it, it brings on my gout, it sounds like pots and pans, it sounds like peter pan, it sounds like jet engines, it sounds like broken CDs, it sounds like washingmachines, it sounds like empty rooms it sounds like horror movies, it sounds like disney movies, it sounds like rom-coms, it sounds like dubstep, it doesn't sound like dubstep, it sounds unfinished, it sounds too polished, it sounds too busy, it sounds too sparse, it sounds like something a kid would write, it sounds like something a fogey would write, it's too short, it's too long, it suits my mood too accurately, it panders to the audience, it offers no concessions to the audience, it panders to pandas, it's too black, it's too white, it's too multicultural, it's too programmatic, it's too absolute, it's too surreal, it's too old, it's too modern, it's too modernist, it's too postmodernist, it's too post-postmodernist, it's too obvious, it's too regimented, it's too loose, it's too lost, it's too won, it's too free, it


Really? *I listen to X because:* it's good for my head, it sounds good to my ears, it brings out my feelings, it satisfies me intellectually, it strokes my ego, the dog likes it, the cat likes it, it sounds like birds flying, it attracts baby robins, it's audible to all, it appeals to squirrels, it calms livestock, sheep like it, it brings me physical well-being, it sounds like violins and angels, it sounds like speeding rocket ships, it's used well (without complaint) in movies (2001), it's used in Disney movies, it sounds complete, it sounds like a polished diamond, it sounds lively, it sounds sparse at times, it sounds like something a true artist would write, it sounds like something a young, beautiful woman would write, it can be short, it can be long, it suits my mood accurately, it challenges the audience, it offers much to the audience, it's delightfully abstract, it can be absolute, it can be surreal, it has quite a history, it's very modern, it's can be postmodernist, it's processes are not always simplistically obvious, it's not too regimented like that "marching music," it's free, it's like getting lost in a good way...

You're right, that is a much more pleasant read.


----------



## Guest (May 1, 2013)

Life is short, why not enjoy it? Why work to embrace music of apparently dubious merit when there's plenty of good music in many genres to explore and enjoy? 

This is not to say that we should close our ears to music we don't think we'll like. Variety is the spice of life and trying something different from time to time can be quite enjoyable. But it seems silly to work to appreciate something just for the sake of conforming to others' expectations. 

If the music is good, you will probably stumble into it sooner or later and find yourself enjoying it. 

But if by chance you go to your grave never realizing that you would have liked, for example, Stravinsky's Petrushka if you had only listened to it, well... who cares? You probably missed out on many millions of pleasurable experiences in your short life.

(Oops - I think I put this on the wrong thread - apologies in advance for the double post sin I'm about to commit.)


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I suspect that what gets a poster classified as a traditionalist isn't what they own or listen to, but what they talk about the most.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

millionrainbows said:


> My question is *Why should a listener put forth the repeated effort in deprecating and maligning a body of music he or she doesn't like?*


That reminds me of an old preacher who said, "Never preach in a pigpen. It wastes your time and annoys the pig."

The analogy may be offensive ("What, are you calling me a pig?"), but it makes sense. Why waste your time annoying someone who doesn't think like you and won't change just because of you? You're better off finding people who appreciate what you are drawn to and sharing with them.


----------



## GGluek (Dec 11, 2011)

One the great things about classical music is that there's so much of it in so many differnt styles, that there's room for a myriad of tastes and no two people will agree totally about anything. It's the nature of the beast. I have often posited that you will find more different opinions about what they have just heard among 1,000 attendees at a classical concert than you will among 10,000 fans at a rock concert.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

"You're better off finding people who appreciate what you are drawn to and sharing with them."

That's true, but this is attacking the problem from the wrong end. The real problem should be addressed, then there would be no "symptom" to treat. The problem must be approached at its source:

How can anyone say that "this is only their opinion," when opinions are stated as negatives?

If one desires to avoid conflict, opinions would be stated in the _affirmative,_ not the negative, for otherwise, it will be perceived as mud-slinging. Who wants to hear what a person hates?

...But many people on this forum can't state opinions affirmatively, without being pro-actively negative and tearing-down something else in the process.

I thought that was a basic tenet of healthy psychology: that one shouldn't have to tear-down others in order to bolster one's own self-esteem. I assumed everybody's mothers taught them this.

This kind of psychology is the basic "abuse" model; it's what is dealt with in domestic abuse cases; the male abuser is so insecure that they begin eating away at their female partner's self-esteem, eroding their identity. Sick....

The real problem is that these "negative opinion-spouters" desire conflict. Negativity breeds negativity.

This is not really "opinion;" this is "targeting," this is abuse, plain and simple.  Have a nice day!


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

millionrainbows said:


> "You're better off finding people who appreciate what you are drawn to and sharing with them."
> 
> That's true, but this is attacking the problem from the wrong end. The real problem should be addressed, then there would be no "symptom" to treat. The problem must be approached at its source:
> 
> How can anyone say that "this is only their opinion," when opinions are stated as negatives?


The question I addressed was, "Why should a listener put forth the repeated effort in deprecating and maligning a body of music he or she doesn't like?" My answer is, they shouldn't, because it leads to frustration.

If the next question is, how do you deal with someone who likes to malign music they don't like or who can only speak negatively when discussing issues, that's difficult, because it seems to be a personality issue. As you said, some people like conflict.


----------



## hello (Apr 5, 2013)

Rainbows please stop posting so many threads


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Well I can't be a target here cos I like both kinds of music, Country AND Western. (I've posted this before in similar debates but what the hell).

Anyway, fans of any type of music can be labelled in negative ways. Not only Modern/Contemporary but any type. I've been guilty (and stupid enough) doing a stoush or two but I hope I've learnt my lessons from that. People like to put others in boxes, or some people do. In that way, they feel they are in control. Another thing is fear, a fear of 'the other.' I mean this sounds absurd applied to the online world, it sounds more like things done in politics - eg. labelling the opposing side as threatening the public interest. Of course, those in YOUR political party know what the public interest is ONLY. Solely, exclusively.

Its those adversarial games I think are silly to play with music. Its the area of politicians and lawyers, better leave it to them methinks. In any case, all those ideological turf wars in the past in music resulted in nothing except animosity. All these result in is putting people's noses out of joint, turning music into some turf war or feud, and it leaves a big stink afterwards. & they tend to alienate the middle ground, which is the majority of classical listeners.

& another thing, how do you know how much your 'traditionalist' or 'Modernist' opponent listens to, what he listens to, what he's got in his collection, what concerts or lectures he's gone to, what books or magazine articles he's read, what people he's talked to about music, all that stuff. Unless he's disclosed it, you only got a part of the picture. Such things are not garnered from one or a few posts, but like friendships you cultivate them over time. With what I've posted here, I have hoped to give insight for people into things that interest me, sometimes things outside of music. It is very hard to do this online, but I think that we've had so many 'Modernist' versus 'traditionalist' type of debates here that I can basically predict what every regularly participating member will say about these issues. So I dunno what 's the use of doing this over and over again like a merry go round. Might be fun for a while but after a while you get dizzy and you gotta get off onto terra firma. Onto level ground. Get my drift?


----------



## Arsakes (Feb 20, 2012)

Isn't it interesting that I also (Moreover "traditional classical") listen to "traditional Jazz" and not the Free/later Jazz?

Ridiculing old styles, anti-emotionalizing or leaning toward psychotic emotions and creating something non-understandable and ugly are the reasons why avant-guarde music doesn't attract me.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Most people probably start with earlier more 'traditional' style music before moving to modern stuff later. There's no rush it takes time.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Arsakes said:


> Isn't it interesting that I also (Moreover "traditional classical") listen to "traditional Jazz" and not the Free/later Jazz?
> 
> Ridiculing old styles, anti-emotionalizing or leaning toward psychotic emotions and creating something non-understandable and ugly are the reasons why avant-guarde music doesn't attract me.


I understand being appalled by the ridiculing of other music, but in classical music everybody ridicules each other. There isn't a thing that you can enjoy without finding your fellow enjoyers ridiculing some other kind of music.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

*We still appreciate a good tune.*

We have no problem with anyone disliking avant-garde music.

But why do you keep insisting that we enjoy "Ridiculing old styles"?. As Millions stated in the OP, the vast majority of us have a deep appreciation for the "old stuff".

In another forum I remember a thread attacking Dvorak's _New World Symphony_. None of the critics there were "modernists".

A handful of modernists attack the "old stuff" and all of us are guilty. This is very unfair.


----------



## Arsakes (Feb 20, 2012)

@science & @arpeggio, Point taken.
Still they don't attract me because of the other reasons.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Arsakes said:


> Isn't it interesting that I also (Moreover "traditional classical") listen to "traditional Jazz" and not the Free/later Jazz?
> 
> Ridiculing old styles, anti-emotionalizing or leaning toward *psychotic emotions* and creating *something non-understandable and ugly* are the reasons why avant-guarde music doesn't attract me.


I suppose you're making reference to late John Coltrane:

On Atlantic: _Olé Coltrane, My Favorite Things, The Avant Garde (with Don Cherry)_

On ABC Impulse: _Ascension,Crescent, The Village Vanguard Sessions, The Africa Brass Sessions, Chim Chim Cheree, Kulu Sé Mama, Meditations, Stellar Regions

._..and other players such as Ornette Coleman, Eric Dolphy, Don Cherry, Albert Ayler, Sun Ra, later Miles Davis, and others.

You see, _this is the problem_ with off-the-wall generalizations, which are stated as "negatives" and put-downs of other music to justify what one likes;

I happen to know this music, so, to me, such generalized, non-specific mud slinging seems _uninformed;_ not because I like it and somebody else doesn't, but because I _understand it._ Also, being non-specific is very damaging to any credibility one might need.

So, how does "understanding" make an opinion appear to be_ uninformed or deficient? 
_
Because I have listed _specific examples,_ and can apply my understanding specifically to any vague, apparently misinformed characterizations:

•*"Psychotic Emotions:"* I think what this indicates is a misunderstanding of the social factors which formed this music, and which are essential for a true understanding of it.

The black jazz avant garde "new thing" emerged with The Black Panthers, the Black Muslim movement and Malcolm X, and "black power." What we are hearing is anger and protest of the American black man, and in Coltrane's case, a result of spiritual awakening; not psychosis.
_
• _*"Something non-understandable and ugly:" *This "new thing" jazz was trying to undo the "Westernization" of jazz, and reclaim jazz as a black man's music (which is true; they invented it). This meant purposely alienating the existing white infrastructure of jazz and its existing audience, and using the art to "protest" social issues and the assimilation of jazz by Paul Whiteman, Benny Goodman, Henry Mancini, and other white jazz figures who had "cashed-in" on the black man's legacy, while they scraped-by doing gigs in bars and living in poverty in inner-city ghettos.

Yes, it is "ugly" isn't it? But at least I know _why_ it's that way; some apparently do not.

I urge _everyone _to at least try to do a WIK search or find out basic information about music they wish to comment on negatively, before blurting-out negatively-framed generalizations. Otherwise, they will have no right to "play victim" of being perceived as "ignorant."


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Personally, I don't believe in politicizing jazz unless the musicians themselves did, and then only to the degree that they did. Everything millionrainbows just wrote applies to some musicians, and there were others who didn't take that route. Some of them - Herbie Hancock for example - were even black! 

Anyway, I personally feel that nothing Miles Davis ever did musically, whatever his politics, was "ridiculing old styles, anti-emotionalizing or leaning toward psychotic emotions and creating something non-understandable and ugly." 

And white musicians have shown themselves perfectly capable of making the kind of jazz that Arsakes won't like: Michael Brecker and Joe Lovano are good examples.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

science said:


> Personally, I don't believe in politicizing jazz unless the musicians themselves did, and then only to the degree that they did. Everything millionrainbows just wrote applies to some musicians, and there were others who didn't take that route. Some of them - Herbie Hancock for example - were even black!
> 
> Anyway, I personally feel that nothing Miles Davis ever did musically, whatever his politics, was "ridiculing old styles, anti-emotionalizing or leaning toward psychotic emotions and creating something non-understandable and ugly."
> 
> And white musicians have shown themselves perfectly capable of making the kind of jazz that Arsakes won't like: Michael Brecker and Joe Lovano are good examples.


Herbie Hancock emerged with Miles Davis, so at that time he represented jazz' move into electric instruments and rock venues. His solo albums _Sextant_ and _Headhunters_ are the record of this. At the time, jazz purists complained of this "not being jazz," but like Davis, Hancock was melding jazz with black funk and "world" elements played on electric instruments; but it was on _his_ terms, as a self-determined black man. Miles led the way on this.

Jazz "purists" never did accept Hancock's _Headhunters_ or Miles Davis' later work, such as _Big Fun, Miles In The Sky, Bitches Brew, Aura, On The Corner,_ and _Get Up With It.

_I love Michael Brecker's _Don't Try This At Home_, and Joe Lovano as well. Lovano, with Gunther Schuller, some Jim Hall, Jimmy Guiffre, some Mingus, represents "Third Stream" jazz, which melded jazz with avant garde Western through-composed works. I'd love to discuss this on a dedicated thread if anybody's interested.

Also, I feel that one must be aware of "political" aspects of jazz, however overt, because of the race issue. Miles Davis titled one of his albums "Jack Johnson," and if you've seen the PBS doc on Johnson, he was "political" whether or not he wanted to be.

When Miles Davis went to Europe, as many black musicians did, he became acutely aware of the infrastructure of racism in America. While in France, he defiantly flaunted a blonde girlfriend, in the manner of Jack Johnson.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

millionrainbows said:


> Herbie Hancock emerged with Miles Davis, so at that time he represented jazz' move into electric instruments and rock venues. His solo albums _Sextant_ and _Headhunters_ are the record of this. At the time, jazz purists complained of this "not being jazz," but like Davis, Hancock was melding jazz with black funk and "world" elements played on electric instruments; but it was on _his_ terms, as a self-determined black man. Miles led the way on this.
> 
> Jazz "purists" never did accept Hancock's _Headhunters_ or Miles Davis' later work, such as _Big Fun, Miles In The Sky, Bitches Brew, Aura, On The Corner,_ and _Get Up With It.
> 
> ...


Again, I didn't deny that musicians were often political. But I prefer to let each one of them be political or not on their own terms, instead of imposing a political narrative on the tradition as a whole.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

You don't have to. But you are missing out on some great music.  Edit. Didn't see the only at the end. I agree. Why not like all types of Classical Music if you do? But even then I wouldn't hold it against you if you dislike all music before the Romantic Era.


----------



## LordBlackudder (Nov 13, 2010)

it quite good


----------



## Novelette (Dec 12, 2012)

Sometimes I listen to Ligeti immediately after listening to Bach. I listen to whatever suits me, whether modern or antique.

True, the vast majority of my taste lies with the antique, but not dogmatically.


----------



## Sonata (Aug 7, 2010)

I remember when our friend Lenfer was on the board with us. Her conversations never seemed to revolve around a on-upmanship about why one persons' favorite composer was better than someone elses. It wasn't a contest. She could engage in friendly banter with everyone. I really miss our conversations.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Sonata said:


> I remember when our friend Lenfer was on the board with us. Her conversations never seemed to revolve around a on-upmanship about why one persons' favorite composer was better than someone elses. It wasn't a contest. She could engage in friendly banter with everyone. I really miss our conversations.


Yes L'enfer was great and I think she was a huge factor in this forum turning into a more 'friendly' place. I really believe that. I disagreed with her as many times as I agreed with her. But at no point did either of us slide into those all too easy 'downers' of online communication such as exhibiting anxiety, aggression, dominance, emotional instability, bullying tactics, passive aggression, need for control, neuroticism, narcissism, paranoia, all that 'loverly' (not) stuff.

So what I'm saying is let's keep it up. Its got little or nothing to do with what music you like or don't like. Even not much to do with underlying ideologies informing your views of music. Its got to do with ATTITUDE. So let's aspire to the good not the bad rather than this labelling and tit-for-tat bull**** (eg. "I've got more of this composers stuff in my collection than you have, so I'm better than you are" type of attitude). In other words let's grow up guys, really. Its not the schoolyard, is it?


----------



## KRoad (Jun 1, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> So why should the hypothetical individual who embraces modernism be taken to task and constantly provoked, baited, bullied, and confronted for his or her more all-embracing, wider, more adventurous taste?
> 
> Conversely, why should the hypothetical individual who has an aversion to Serialism and Atonal music continue to put forth the effort to malign it?[/INDENT]


The obvious answer is: They shouldn't. But your question is redundant since it will likely only generate more of the kind of deabte you wish to avoid in the first place.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Originally Posted by millionrainbows 


> So why should the hypothetical individual who embraces modernism be taken to task and constantly provoked, baited, bullied, and confronted for his or her more all-embracing, wider, more adventurous taste?
> 
> Conversely, why should the hypothetical individual who has an aversion to Serialism and Atonal music continue to put forth the effort to malign it?





KRoad said:


> The obvious answer is: They shouldn't.


Good! Then we are agreed!



KRoad said:


> But your question is redundant since it will likely only generate more of the kind of deabte you wish to avoid in the first place.


Gee, you really know how to hurt a guy.


----------

