# How hard is it for you to enjoy music?



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Sometimes I suspect that we problematize things too much, perhaps intentionally. But perhaps it's just a difference from one person to another.

For example, I can't think of any work of classical music that I don't enjoy at least a little. Even _Bolero_. Some things are not really my thing (for example Bruckner and Richard Strauss), but they're not painful to listen to or anything.

Nor can I think of many recordings that really turn me off. I don't like a lot of coughing, and I usually like recordings better the clearer they are, but I can only think of one recording that really turned me off. (Irrelevant, but it's Gardiner's Mozart's Requiem. I would throw it off the balcony, but I suspect I might like it someday.)

But it seems like a lot of the discussion is focused on what people don't like. The Second Vienna School? I don't see what the problem is. Stockhausen or Xenakis or Nono or Berio or whoever? I don't see what the problem is. Mozart? I don't see what the problem is. Higdon? I don't see what the problem is. Johann Strauss II? I don't see what the problem is. Minimalism? I don't see what the problem is.

So I don't relate to a lot of the discussion here.

But it occurs to me that there may be people who love music but don't enjoy it easily.

I'm like that with movies. A lot of movies bother me, bore me, disappoint me somehow. I'm ambivalent or nonchalant about probably the majority of movies. But the ones that get it just right, I really, really love.

I suspect that's how some of you may be with music.


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

Well, there's a lot of classical music that I don't particularly care for, and plenty I don't really grok, but none that I can think of that I react to with undiluted revulsion. With one exception:



science said:


> Even Bolero.


[shuns forever]

Related: Why don't art lovers love art?


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

ahammel said:


> Well, there's a lot of classical music that I don't particularly care for, and plenty I don't really grok, but none that I can think of that I react to with undiluted revulsion. With one exception:
> [shuns forever]


With me, it's Eine Kleine Nachtmusik. If I never hear it again it will be too soon. 

My problem with music is usually that I enjoy it too much though. I get lost in the sensual enjoyment and thus never get to properly analyze it, thus missing out on a whole different level of enjoyment.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

You are correct. With classical music usually the worst that happens is I shrug my shoulders in puzzlement or boredom, but it is almost never outright hatred or contempt.

Country and some pop on the other hand can drive me right up the wall and can even make me physically ill. Those genres are not only hard for me to like, but hard to endure being counted as one of the same species that perpetrated them.


----------



## Joris (Jan 13, 2013)

I actually overanalyse...wait _overthink_ music too much sometimes. I always want to know how much 5-star ratings an album got on Amazon, and I always search for grips in the music, like intervals or harmonic grades I recognize. So the cognitive part plays a role. Of course there are pieces which seem to always sensually, or emotionally grip me. But sometimes I feel even guilty for listening to that instead of learning more new stuff etc.

Certain recordings sound painful to me (bought a way to cheap Mozart box set once which had no depth or brightness in the sound at all, it would even mentally disaffect me), and certain musical genres also, but mostly classical music (the music itself) doesn't annoy me.


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

Weston said:


> Country and some pop on the other hand can drive me right up the wall and can even make me *physically ill*.


Am I to understand that you have heard pop songs that were _so bad_ that you actually, as it were, tossed your cookies?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

I have to disagree with the other posters here. As the great J. F. Runciman wrote in 1896, "It is one's duty to hate with all possible fervor the empty and ugly in art; and I hate Saint-Saëns the composer with a hate that is perfect."

In short, music without hate is like an egg without salt.


----------



## Kazaman (Apr 13, 2013)

I enjoy it effortlessly. I dislike things not because they sound "bad" to me or because I don't "get it," but because I disagree with what the composer is communicating.


----------



## Feathers (Feb 18, 2013)

I can't think of any piece of classical music that is "painful" for me to listen to. (At one point, Canon in D got close to painful, but it was because my friends and my neighbour from the other side of the wall kept playing it, rather than the fault of the music itself). However, I have to admit that there's a handful of pop songs that can drive me crazy.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

KenOC said:


> I have to disagree with the other posters here. As the great J. F. Runciman wrote in 1896, "It is one's duty to hate with all possible fervor the empty and ugly in art; and I hate Saint-Saëns the composer with a hate that is perfect."
> 
> In short, music without hate is like an egg without salt.


Whatever your intention, the actual effect of this post was to make me want an egg sandwich.


----------



## Cheyenne (Aug 6, 2012)

science said:


> I'm like that with movies. A lot of movies bother me, bore me, disappoint me somehow. I'm ambivalent or nonchalant about probably the majority of movies. But the ones that get it just right, I really, really love.


With classical music, you will invariably and often necessarily listen to the highlights - the pieces that have been preserved over time, usually due to high quality. Besides, getting a quality movie is more difficult because of the amount of people involved.

As far the general question, I share Science's general inability to find faults with the majority of the canon. All the better, no?


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Cheyenne said:


> With classical music, you will invariably and often necessarily listen to the highlights - the pieces that have been preserved over time, usually due to high quality. Besides, getting a quality movie is more difficult because of the amount of people involved.
> 
> As far the general question, I share Science's general inability to find faults with the majority of the canon. All the better, no?


Yes, almost certainly all the better.

It's a good opportunity to clarify - I don't only find the canon enjoyable. Well, perhaps no matter what I say now someone will say, "That's the canon!" But whether it's Andriessen, Ryu, Kilar, Shchedrin, Taneyev, Rosetti (Rössler), Luython, Zipoli - even there I just don't find much not to like.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Problematize ?????Only an American would come out with that !!!


----------



## ptr (Jan 22, 2013)

There are few types of "Classical" music I cannot enjoy, of course, the level of enjoyment varies. Listening to some forms of Jazz and certainly "Rap" leaves me and my ears much more in conflict, hence I don't engage in listening to them. 

I can relate to KenOC's "Hate is the Salt" analogy, but I really find that life is to short for me to engage in hate, instead, for me music is the salt that makes the egg bearable, thankfully, there is more salty flavours than I could ever wish for!

/ptr


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

This is a trick question, right?


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

A recent case of absolute non-tolerance in my case was

Riley:"Music for 18 Musicians" 




- but I´m perfectly happy with setting my limit there. There´s a lot of boring or uninteresting music too, but no reason to get really outraged about that.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

moody said:


> Problematize ?????Only an American would come out with that !!!


Indeed. Believe the proper form is the simpler "problemate."


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

moody said:


> Problematize ?????Only an American would come out with that !!!


1.) Usage here would have it "come up with that."

2.) Of course, dahling, a Brit would spell it properly, "Problematise" 

3.) Got another Yank neologism for you, found in a personals ad: "Companionify me."


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Indeed. Believe the proper form is the simpler "problemate."


Emproblemify.

_Wherefore, this contrafibulation?
Good York, cease this emproblemification!_

-_King Lear_


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

KenOC said:


> I have to disagree with the other posters here. As the great J. F. Runciman wrote in 1896, "It is one's duty to hate with all possible fervor the empty and ugly in art; and I hate Saint-Saëns the composer with a hate that is perfect."
> 
> In short, music without hate is like an egg without salt.


Funny, I've not only heard of Saint-Saens, but also have heard some of his works, whereas, that writer.. the one you called 'great? Uh, come again?


----------



## Cheyenne (Aug 6, 2012)

PetrB said:


> Funny, I've not only heard of Saint-Saens, but also have heard some of his works, whereas, that writer.. the one you called 'great? Uh, come again?


He was a music critic, and you can find some of his works online. (http://www.gutenberg.org/files/13504/13504.txt, for example.) I haven't read much but it seems great, though I do not hate Saint-Saëns :lol:



joen_cph said:


> A recent case of absolute non-tolerance in my case was
> 
> Riley:"Music for 18 Musicians"
> 
> ...


I actually like that piece quite a lot - so much so I may go to a performance of it. Modern music concerts are often quite cheap.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

As I have posted in several other places, music from the 1500s (and earlier) through 1900 or so has always been rather easy to enjoy. I do not have to listen several times to the vast majority of works, and I generally like or love what I hear. After 1900 _some_ music took some extra listening (Debussy, Ravel, Prokofiev, Shostakovich, Stravinsky, etc.), but relatively easily I found their works enjoyable. The Second Viennese School along with avant-garde music has been a real challenge. I basically find that I don't enjoy it. I have worked hard to appreciate some of that music, and hopefully I will continue to appreciate more.

On a scale of 1-10 (10 being extremely hard to appreciate)
Pre-20th century = 1 or 2
Second Viennese School/avant-garde = 8 or 9

For me one of the greatest mysteries concerning music is this abrupt change between pre-20th century and avant-garde/Second Viennese School music in my ability to hear and easily enjoy classical music. I am fascinated by this phenomenon.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

ahammel said:


> Am I to understand that you have heard pop songs that were _so bad_ that you actually, as it were, tossed your cookies?


I've heard tales of people with absolute pitch tossing their cookies if some music is played consistently out of tune...

I've had to leave a friendly meeting with an acquaintance, at Star$$$, because they were pushing a Sinatra compilation they were selling at the time, endless Frank, the later stuff, either actually being consistently a few cents flat, or somehow 'shaved off' without the right overtones because he was not fully using 'the masque' which makes that sound flat -- either way, it made me feel queasy -- only mildly, but enough to want to leave. I'm sure if I had stayed I would _not_ have tossed the cookies, but was rather surprised how literally disconcerting it was... ears, your hearing / balance, and all that.

I think most of the music 'that makes people run in the other direction' is more a matter of the individual's sensibility than it is some native bio-mechanical function, no music system, scale, tuning or form being 'organic' or 'natural' as per laws of science or maths....

Still, conditioning or habit will have its say: the moment I was outside and away from that spate of Frank recordings, my queasiness was immediately gone.


----------



## Cheyenne (Aug 6, 2012)

I should mention - should have mentioned somewhere before - that I am eternally grateful for this forum because it introduced me to the music of the 20th century and beyond. Now that I reflect on it, it did not take me all that long to enjoy it at all, despite originally shrugging of that 'Webern and Schönberg crap' almost immediately. My limit is this: 





I presume I'm not the only one there. (It was intended half-jokingly, though, right?)


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

mmsbls said:


> For me one of the greatest mysteries concerning music is this abrupt change between pre-20th century and avant-garde/Second Viennese School music in my ability to hear and easily enjoy classical music. I am fascinated by this phenomenon.











There are four very assertively independent parts, each with its own melodic and rhythmic cadences, which do not line up with the others.

"I have conducted the most complicated scores of Bruckner and Wagner. I myself have written scores with up to twenty staves or more, but here are four, and I cannot read them." - Gustav Mahler


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

PetrB said:


> Funny, I've not only heard of Saint-Saens, but also have heard some of his works, whereas, that writer.. the one you called 'great? Uh, come again?


Ah, our school system! Anyway, John Runciman was a widely respected critic and author in his day. He was a regular critic for London's Saturday Review and published articles in other places as well. He wrote books on (at least) Haydn and Wagner.

Search Amazon books for "John Runciman" and you can see some of his writings. Hey, the Kindle editions are free! Gotta get those.


----------



## Cheyenne (Aug 6, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Ah, our school system! Anyway, John Runciman was a widely respected critic and author in his day. He was a regular critic for London's Saturday Review and published articles in other places as well. He wrote books on (at least) Haydn and Wagner.
> 
> Search Amazon books for "John Runciman" and you can see some of his writings. Hey, the Kindle editions are free! Gotta get those.


Project Gutenberg has books by him on Haydn, Purcell and Wagner, and one called 'Old Scores and New Readings'


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

If I don't feel a piece of music (not the style, just the piece) isn't that creative then I do find it hard to listen. There's too much music to hear to really persevere too much with something you just don't like. If I find something interesting but difficult I'm likely to persevere, but maybe much later when I might be ready for it.


----------



## Guest (May 2, 2013)

Hard, I can tell you, when it's clothed in a Radio 4 documentary that is telling me how dramatic and meaningful it all is..

"It's a tremendously erotic work..." (re _Tristan_)


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

joen_cph said:


> There´s a lot of boring or uninteresting music too, but no reason to get really outraged about that.


You're right. But some music does frustrate me. I listened to Wuorinen's Tashi twice, and both times it frustrated me - not so much because of the music but because I don't have time to figure out how all those notes interrelate.

I'm reminded of an old song by the Staples Singers: "If you don't give a heck about the man with the Bible in his hand, just get out the way and let the gentleman do his thing. Respect yourself."


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

science said:


> But it occurs to me that there may be people who love music but don't enjoy it easily.
> 
> I'm like that with movies. A lot of movies bother me, bore me, disappoint me somehow. I'm ambivalent or nonchalant about probably the majority of movies. But the ones that get it just right, I really, really love.
> 
> I suspect that's how some of you may be with music.


This is actually how I am with most music, but with Classical music (and sometimes other forms too) there have been so many instances that I've come back to a work I didn't previously like and enjoy it that I've made a resolution to stop trashing any composers or bands as I often just end up feeling like I was being rather ignorant about it later. I've come to the conclusion it is so much wiser to just discuss the music one _does_ like, and let others enjoy what they like.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

science said:


> I'm like that with movies. A lot of movies bother me, bore me, disappoint me somehow. I'm ambivalent or nonchalant about probably the majority of movies. But the ones that get it just right, I really, really love.
> 
> I suspect that's how some of you may be with music.


it's exactly like this for me. For movies and for music. The only difference is that if I don't like a movie it's very difficult that I would look it again, while for a musical piece that I don't like often i listen to it again and again in hope to finally "understand" it. Probably I'm a lot more sure of my cinematographic taste.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

KenOC said:


> Indeed. Believe the proper form is the simpler "problemate."


Don't believe that either Mate.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I can hear music objectively; I don't have uncontrolled outbursts of hate or emotion. While still a music theory student, I would observe the root movements of every passing snippet of music I heard in cars or in grocery stores. There was some bit of something to learn from everything. This is how record producers hear; if they don't understand it, they will pass it on to someone who does. Or, they will let their hatred get the best of them, and make stupendous blunders:

"Rock 'n' roll is musical baby food: it is the worship of mediocrity, brought about by a passion for conformity."- Mitch Miller

Miller was a producer at Columbia Records. He disapproved of rock 'n' roll, and passed not only on *Elvis* and *Buddy Holly,* who became stars on RCA and Decca respectively, but also passed on T*he Beatles* as well, creating a fortune in revenue for rival Capitol.

:lol: See? This "I hate music" thing can cost people & institutions big bucks.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

millionrainbows said:


> I can hear music objectively...


Now THERE'S a brave statement!


----------



## Guest (May 4, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> I can hear music objectively; I don't have uncontrolled outbursts of hate or emotion.


Is that the only signifier of objectivity?


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Now THERE'S a brave statement!


It's called "classical restraint." Try some!


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

moody said:


> Don't believe that either Mate.


Problem, mate?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Don't worry, Crudblud, I got it.


----------



## Arsakes (Feb 20, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> I can hear music objectively.


A Bat can do it better


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

mmsbls said:


> As I have posted in several other places, music from the 1500s (and earlier) through 1900 or so has always been rather easy to enjoy. I do not have to listen several times to the vast majority of works, and I generally like or love what I hear. After 1900 _some_ music took some extra listening (Debussy, Ravel, Prokofiev, Shostakovich, Stravinsky, etc.), but relatively easily I found their works enjoyable. The Second Viennese School along with avant-garde music has been a real challenge. I basically find that I don't enjoy it. I have worked hard to appreciate some of that music, and hopefully I will continue to appreciate more.
> 
> On a scale of 1-10 (10 being extremely hard to appreciate)
> Pre-20th century = 1 or 2
> ...


Well, it's certainly true that there's a change in language with the avant-garde/Second Viennese School. So, for the majority, myself included, it took some time to get used to it. But that's all, once you get used to it, you should have no problem. Now, I can listen to any kind of music without thinking about their differences in whatever aspect, etc. I just listen.
I don't think there's a "phenomenon", something "singular". For me, it was just a change in language. Once I learned to _think_ in this new language, the music opened very quickly for me.
Your personal experiences are not something objective. I don't see an abysm separating the two worlds.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

millionrainbows said:


> There was some bit of something to learn from everything.


That can be true. However I feel frustrated listening to something which is patchy in inspiration, why should I spend too much time listening to it if there is so much more music for me to try (some of which is likely to be more consistent).


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

tdc said:


> I've come to the conclusion it is so much wiser to just discuss the music one _does_ like, and let others enjoy what they like.


You can have reasonable discussion both pro and anti something, it's not impossible. Unfortunately some people can be aggressive/rude and even want to be seen trying to win an argument (whether they be right or wrong) more than anything else. And some people hate any contrary opinion, they just want to keep in a club or likeminded people, I don't really think that is the main purpose of discussion forums.


----------



## Guest (May 4, 2013)

starry said:


> Unfortunately some people [...] even want to be seen trying to win an argument (whether they be right or wrong) *more than anything else.*


 (my bold)

That sounds like an overstatement to me. And what's wrong with wanting to 'win' an argument? It's not an argument if neither side wants to 'win' - it's just an exchange of views.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Perhaps, just when straw men come up sometimes you wonder. Anyway I don't feel that most of the time on forums. Another non-musical tactic can be to make it about the person who you are discussing with, rather than about the music.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

aleazk said:


> Well, it's certainly true that there's a change in language with the avant-garde/Second Viennese School. So, for the majority, myself included, it took some time to get used to it. But that's all, once you get used to it, you should have no problem. Now, I can listen to any kind of music without thinking about their differences in whatever aspect, etc. I just listen.
> I don't think there's a "phenomenon", something "singular". For me, it was just a change in language. Once I learned to _think_ in this new language, the music opened very quickly for me.
> Your personal experiences are not something objective. I don't see an abysm separating the two worlds.


I agree that it's something like a change in language. If (and hopefully when) I "learn" the language, I assume I will respond to the new music in a similar fashion to the older music.

I don't mean to make too much of my experiences, but I was truly shocked by the abrupt change in my reactions to a very long line of classical music.


----------

