# Liking music because of what it is versus not liking music because of what it's not.



## Guest (Aug 15, 2018)

This is a strange phenomenon I have come across on this forum and on youtube comments.

*Ferneyhough (for example) plays*

Person A: I like this because (describes things about the music)
Person B: I don't like this because (describes things that are not part of the music)
Person C (aka shirime (that's me)): *confused*

So yes, I am confused. 

Can anyone help me to understand how to form an opinion of something because of things that aren't part of what the music is doing? To me it's like saying....hmmm I don't like Wagner because there is a lack of synthesisers and folk melodies in his music. (I actually really like Wagner btw)


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

I see where you're coming from. People unfamiliar with a particular idiom will come at it with preconceptions of what music is, or should be. I agree it is recognizing it for what it is, which is more important than what it is not. I'll never quite like contemporary music as much as some, but I appreciate it for what it is and how it is different from the other styles. I hear the similar comments on hip hop music (where is the melody? It is just talking..)


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Phil loves classical said:


> I see where you're coming from. People unfamiliar with a particular idiom will come at it with preconceptions of what music is, or should be. I agree it is recognizing it for what it is, which is more important than what it is not. I'll never quite like contemporary music as much as some, but I appreciate it for what it is and how it is different from the other styles. I hear the similar comments on hip hop music (where is the melody? It is just talking..)


Sometimes being a musical ignoramus such as myself has its advantages: one can just listen to something without preconceptions, hearing it with virgin ears and allowing it to percolate into the brain untinctured with any artificial additives. Such was my joy and delight in first hearing d'Indy's Symphony on a French Mountain Air, as an example.....


----------



## Guest (Aug 16, 2018)

Yeah I feel like hip hop/rap has been unfortunately subjected to this kind of reaction. Interestingly, in the last couple of years I've noticed something more of an intellectual or 'high art' appreciation of rap/hip hop. Most famously we have Lamar's _DAMN_ winning a Pulitzer for music composition over in the States, but also I've come across examples of rap used in the more niche areas of modern classical music. (this is a different topic entirely, though)

To use another analogy for _this_ thread: I prefer oranges to apples, but I don't say I don't like apples because they aren't citrus fruits........


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

When music is in a style unfamiliar to a listener, he may actually not be able to hear or understand what's there and thus feel disturbed that something he'd like or expect to hear is lacking. This is certainly common. Upon further acquaintance the listener may notice and appreciate more of what the music actually contains and no longer miss what it doesn't.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Perhaps the harshest criticism is disliking a piece for what it is _and_ for what it's not - the double whammy. Then the opposite could be just as true if one liked it. So there are actually four categories to choose from as far as what's there or absent.


----------



## vmartell (Feb 9, 2017)

Interesting question - your example indeed shows that such thinking might be hard to sustain - yet is a bit extreme - when keeping things... hmm... let's say logical, for a lack for a better term, what it is and what it isn't are basically the same thing - two aspects of a whole... one follows the other - and vice-versa.

Now, imho opinion a big part of taste is an expression of one's set of values. That is what connects with the work. Whether we express our taste in terms of how a work connects with our values or how it doesn't I do think is in function of the environment. 

How does our environment attack or reinforce our values defines how we will express our view/taste of any work. Here in L.A. pop music is king, queen and the whole court. So naturally any expression of how I appreciate a classical work will start from what it isn't - simplistic pop music (even if the critical consensus agree it is good pop music - no matter; it is music that does not reflect the values of a classical music lover)

Now - the trick is not to stop there. Further discussion and thought should lead to analysis of the actual work and in the end, leading to well thought out opinion of its value.

The problem is that this seldom happens. Discussion stops at the reflection of values, because that is the zeitgeist of the times, specially here in the US. You see it in this forum. Discussion of the Kendrick Lamar Pulitzer prize generated some very unpleasant comments.

I also remember another thread discussion the possible death of classical music in this pop dominated world (with hip-hop as the dominating pop form). I believe that the current zeigeist is such that it compelled some contributors to use white supremacist language... 

Of course it is a logical fallacy - it stops us from actually analyzing a work in the proper context. Or, to use another example like yours, is like blaming a bicycle for not being a race horse...

v


----------



## Clairvoyance Enough (Jul 25, 2014)

To play devil's advocate with your specific example, when I listen to Ferneyhough the closest thing I hear even to thematic material is certain classes of timbrel effects that appear again and again in unique clusters, and the closest thing to "development" the way these clusters either increase or decrease in business or transition from one type of timbrel effect to another, doing neither in such a way that I would describe as "rhythmic" except in the sense that any phrase of music _technically_ has "rhythm."

There's much of Haydn that I like for its development only while disliking the actual exposition and melodies within it. There's Mozart I like for inverted reasons. I like these 3 things about Bruckner, but dislike these 2 things. Maybe you like what this piece does with this theme here, but not there.

Ferneyhough, on the other hand, by eschewing so many of the common goals of music stakes everything on the appeal of one or two effects. For all its complexity if I was asked whether I like his music I would feel like I'm being asked whether I like one very particular thing, which wouldn't be the case for say Beethoven.

If someone gives you a complex dish with many spices and ingredients, you can say you like or dislike this or that. If someone gives you an orange and you don't like it, what can you really be expected to say other than you dislike the inherent taste of oranges? If you're asked to be more specific or detailed, you'd really have no choice but to start describing what other foods have that oranges don't.

I say this as a person who finds interesting moments in Ferneyhough's music, but I couldn't explain why anymore that I could explain why I like the sound of a lightsaber being activated. On the other hand, I feel like I could actually provide reasons I like Wagner or Mozart because the context, something more than just the inherent appeal of certain noises, has more to do with it.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

When someone says they don't like _x _because it doesn't do _b _- they are saying that the only music that interests them is music that does do _b_. But there are levels of this. Some people will give lots of reasons for not liking _x_ but they will all be of the kind "because it doesn't do _a_, _b_ or _c_" - which boils down to a more detailed version of the same criticism. But the thing is ... how can someone say they don't like a piece of music without talking about what it lacks? Even talk of ugliness boils down to something similar. And, even if they could construct a meaningful critique, would they be likely to put in the work of getting to know a piece that they hate well enough to pull it apart? All this goes some way to making me pay a lot more attention to recommendations than criticisms.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

It comes down to aesthetics, Oscar Wilde tells if one does not have something to be unpopular must be uninspired. I never tried to convince people of my own taste, do not mistake my basic narrative of listening experience as the advertisement. If one is concerned with how many people like the music like he does more than the music itself, he is just trying to sell himself using music as an excuse, and he has no good taste.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

My thoughts echo those who state that there is nothing wrong with coveting and stating the lack of what you covet in something as a reason for disliking it.

I think one thing this type of thinking perpetuates is not having an openness to _new_ ideas, but not everyone is looking to be open to new ideas.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

shirime said:


> Can anyone help me to understand how to form an opinion of something because of *things that aren't part of what the music is doing? *To me it's like saying....hmmm I don't like Wagner because there is a lack of synthesisers and folk melodies in his music. (I actually really like Wagner btw)


If the "things that aren't part of what the music is doing" includes everything the listener might consider interesting or worth attending to, then understanding should be easy. I don't listen to pop music because, with few exceptions, it doesn't do things that interest me. Is that hard to understand? Why, then, is it hard to understand when applied to, for example, Boulez?


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Ariasexta said:


> It comes down to aesthetics, Oscar Wilde tells if one does not have something to be unpopular must be uninspired.


I just want to note on this quote. I think EVERYTHING that exists in this world has fans and people that dislike it so using the concept that if something doesn't have non-fans it is uninspired is a false claim. This is b/c of two reasons: 1. Evaluating inspiration is subjective and 2. Everything has fans and non-fans.

I'd rather put it this way. Enjoy what you enjoy and find the reasons why you dislike and enjoy anything in this world and sometimes you will like portions of a thing and dislike other parts of the same item.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

When someone says that he or she likes _b_, and doesn't like _x_ because it doesn't do _b_, all that is being said is that _b_ is, by that person, considered a fundamental requirement for _x_, and its absence is thus inherently problematic. (The use of the word "only" in this sense, without noting what _b_ actually is, implies that _b_ is a very narrow requirement, and thus unreasonable, when there may in fact be a very broad set of things that qualify as _b_.) I like houses that have an entry door, without a particular requirement of where it is placed as long as it allows for practical access. As a result, I dislike houses that do not have a door, or have placed the only door in the middle of a third floor with no stair or ladder, and sideways, no matter how well considered, designed or constructed the rest of the house may be.

I get a sense that "meaningful critique" is somehow code for "positive affirmation," and a deft slap at the very idea of disliking anything or expressing an opinion in the negative. There has never been and probably never will be a purely logical or objective rationale for liking or disliking a particular musical piece (beyond the basics of such an argument having a kind of internal consistency). Similarly, there will not be a logical or objective means of dismissing such disagreements.

The OP is, I think, a disingenuous and probably knowingly unfair depiction of what the actual arguments might be. (I would not vouch for the quality of opinions posted on youtube, nor generally would I seek valuable insights there.) But what we have again is the usual, and I think quite absurd, supposition that any position in favor of something is somehow inherently superior, more considered and/or more useful, to any position that is against it. That may be in keeping with a certain interpretation of the rules of TC, but not of meaningful discourse.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

Captainnumber36 said:


> My thoughts echo those who state that there is nothing wrong with coveting and stating the lack of what you covet in something as a reason for disliking it.
> 
> I think one thing this type of thinking perpetuates is not having an openness to _new_ ideas, but not everyone is looking to be open to new ideas.


It's fine for someone not to be open to new artistic ideas, but I don't think those people should be making aggressive critiques, and they often do. Of course they "can" but it would never be a coherent critique.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I just want to note on this quote. I think EVERYTHING that exists in this world has fans and people that dislike it so using the concept that if something doesn't have non-fans it is uninspired is a false claim. This is b/c of two reasons: 1. Evaluating inspiration is subjective and 2. Everything has fans and non-fans.
> 
> I'd rather put it this way. Enjoy what you enjoy and find the reasons why you dislike and enjoy anything in this world and sometimes you will like portions of a thing and dislike other parts of the same item.


I do not mean to allure to anyone here by that Wilde quote. I have realised that the difference between likes and dislikes are mostly absurd, the title of this thread somehow show this absurdity. It is very difficult to explain, or just impossible to explain. But it will seem like insignificant thing to you once you develop stronger determination toward a goal. I guess.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Fredx2098 said:


> It's fine for someone not to be open to new artistic ideas, but I don't think those people should be making aggressive critiques, and they often do. Of course they "can" but it would never be a coherent critique.


I'd break it up like this:

1. On a personal level, I'd be interested in hearing such a person's viewpoint if for nothing more than to understand where they are coming from and to help them understand their taste better.

2. If they lack the ability to see what something has to offer and to see it through the eyes of someone who is a fan, even if they aren't, then they simply shouldn't be professional critics.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Ariasexta said:


> I do not mean to allure to anyone here by that Wilde quote. I have realised that the difference between likes and dislikes are mostly absurd, the title of this thread somehow show this absurdity. It is very difficult to explain, or just impossible to explain. But it will seem like insignificant thing to you once you develop stronger determination toward a goal. I guess.


If I comprehend you correctly, I agree, the more you understand what you are about in the Arts, and the more driven you become towards achieving those values in Art, the less you are concerned about trying to understand the difference between likes and dislikes b/c you get it on a personal level.


----------



## Thomyum2 (Apr 18, 2018)

I'd introduce what I think is another alternative here, which is that a lot of people experience music very instinctively and may not have the experience or vocabulary to accurately describe that experience. (As an analogy, I know many people have a similar problem with wine-tasting - they can often distinguish between wines but find it difficult to come up with the words that describe exactly what that distinction is.) And even those who do have the vocabulary may still often struggle to finding the best words to accurately describe what is happening in something as abstract and beyond language as music. 

In my experience, I've met many people with no musical training but who can yet often identify the composer of a work that they've never heard before just by recognizing the style. This suggests to me that humans have the capacity to hear and absorb and understand something as complex as the musical elements which make up a composer's style at a completely subconscious level without necessarily being consciously aware of what those elements are. So I think it's no surprise at all that people's statements about music might lead to confusion or leave us in the dark about what it really is about the music that one likes or doesn't like.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

JAS said:


> But what we have again is the usual, and I think quite absurd, supposition that any position in favor of something is somehow inherently superior, more considered and/or more useful, to any position that is against it. That may be in keeping with a certain interpretation of the rules of TC, but not of meaningful discourse.


I think your point (not quoted here) that the missing quality may often be something quite big, a feature that a CM listener might have a right to expect in a CM piece. And a useful or interesting discussion might come out of it into how important that feature or quality might truly be. But your point quoted above seems unreasonable (to say nothing of your barely suppressed desire to censor the argument) for the reason I have already given: we are generally willing to spend a lot more time listening to music we like and therefore likely to know it a lot better. An example might be a controversially fast performance of a movement of a Mozart symphony - those who like it might know a lot more than those who don't about its strong points. Those how reject it will often have done so because they want it played at the speed they are used to (which on its own is - IMO - a very superficial criticism).


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Enthusiast said:


> I think your point (not quoted here) that the missing quality may often be something quite big, a feature that a CM listener might have a right to expect in a CM piece. And a useful or interesting discussion might come out of it into how important that feature or quality might truly be. But your point quoted above seems unreasonable (to say nothing of your barely suppressed desire to censor the argument) for the reason I have already given: we are generally willing to spend a lot more time listening to music we like and therefore likely to know it a lot better. An example might be a controversially fast performance of a movement of a Mozart symphony - those who like it might know a lot more than those who don't about its strong points. Those how reject it will often have done so because they want it played at the speed they are used to (which on its own is - IMO - a very superficial criticism).


In regard to censoring, you have it exactly backwards. I want to censor nothing. I want both sides present in the discussion, like and dislike. (It is TC that wants to censor.) As has often been noted, just having a statement of like or dislike is of little value, which is not to say that either position is invalid. For there to be a discussion, reasons have to be offered, even if those reasons are themselves of a somewhat intangible nature. I disagree that disliking a particular performance based on, in the example you provide, the speed of playing is necessarily superficial. It can be as valid as preferring a performance based on speed. (I am generally assuming a significant distinction of speed, although even slight differences can be important, depending on the details.) You are suggesting, I think very unfairly, that the reason for the preference is merely what they are accustomed to. That may or may not be the case at all. (It would, on the other hand, perhaps be unreasonable to blame the music merely for a perceived problem with the performance.)

I might also note that many, many discussions have been had over various qualities and their importance, or not, to music, but few have been any more valuable than usual, and often for the same reasons. And since we seem to be dancing around one of the key examples that might be offered, I will say it outright --- melody (for which there has been on TC much disagreement as to what it is, when it is present, and its importance).


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

Captainnumber36 said:


> If I comprehend you correctly, I agree, the more you understand what you are about in the Arts, and the more driven you become towards achieving those values in Art, the less you are concerned about trying to understand the difference between likes and dislikes b/c you get it on a personal level.


Exactly, listening would be the best way to argue for ones own favor, the metaphysics is, you will really feel the composer is your friend, no matter long dead or still alive. What is more to be desired? But to interlope my baroque topics into threads here is purely out of benevolence, nothing advertising.

Thanks for sharing.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

JAS said:


> I disagree that disliking a particular performance based on, in the example you provide, the speed of playing is necessarily superficial. It can be as valid as preferring a performance based on speed. (I am generally assuming a significant distinction of speed, although even slight differences can be important, depending on the details.) You are suggesting, I think very unfairly, that the reason for the preference is merely what they are accustomed to. That may or may not be the case at all. (It would, on the other hand, perhaps be unreasonable to blame the music merely for a perceived problem with the performance.)
> 
> I might also note that many, many discussions have been had over various qualities and their importance, or not, to music, but few have been any more valuable than usual, and often for the same reasons. And since we seem to be dancing around one of the key examples that might be offered, I will say it outright --- melody (for which there has been on TC much disagreement as to what it is, when it is present, and its importance).


I continue to think speed - whether markedly slower or faster than the norm - tends to be a superficial element for me. Where I dislike a slow or fast speed I can often find another performance of similar speeds that I do not dislike at all. The problem seems to be the speed but turns out not to be. This has happened to me too many times for me to think speed itself is so important. It's just what I have found over the years. And right now I am listening to a variety of recordings of Mozart's Prague symphony and finding that the differences that really matter to me and that I really notice are not about speed even though I have been going through quite a wide range of recordings.

As for the questions of melody - what it is and how important it is - haven't there been quite a few discussions about it? We have had a thread about Schubert's melodic facility and quite a lot comparing this with Beethoven's etc and it comes up repeatedly - rarely going very far, I will grant you - in discussions about 12 tone music, avant garde music and so on. These latter discussions get resolved for me by the suggestion that you look for different things in the music of different composers and periods - and few of us like the music of all periods - but, actually, we also all seem to use the word melody in different ways.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Woodduck said:


> When music is in a style unfamiliar to a listener, he may actually not be able to hear or understand what's there and thus feel disturbed that something he'd like or expect to hear is lacking. This is certainly common. Upon further acquaintance the listener may notice and appreciate more of what the music actually contains and no longer miss what it doesn't.


Bingo! In many cases we're too quick to pass judgement. Spending some time with the music will give our brains a chance to absorb and hear what we miss at first. Becoming familiar with a 25 minute string quartet is going to take much greater time and effort than listening to a 3 minute pop song.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Enthusiast said:


> I continue to think speed - whether markedly slower or faster than the norm - tends to be a superficial element for me.


The key part of that statement is "for me." In that context, I accept the statement as true, but not actually contradicting my point in any way.



Enthusiast said:


> As for the questions of melody - what it is and how important it is - haven't there been quite a few discussions about it?


Which was exactly my point.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

starthrower said:


> Bingo! In many cases we're too quick to pass judgement. Spending some time with the music will give our brains a chance to absorb and hear what we miss at first. Becoming familiar with a 25 minute string quartet is going to take much greater time and effort than listening to a 3 minute pop song.


It is true, and it is particularly valuable to listen with gaps between. But what is also true is that the same charge has been made many times in spite of repeated opportunities of listening, over a long period of time and in different contexts. At some point, the idea that one is passing judgement too quickly is simply no longer valid.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

If you've given yourself ample time to decide a piece is not for you, by all means move on. But silly comments such as "it's not as good as Beethoven" just make me roll my eyes.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

starthrower said:


> If you've given yourself ample time to decide a piece is not for you, by all means move on. But silly comments such as "it's not as good as Beethoven" just make me roll my eyes.


I don't have a problem even with that statement, as long as all parties involved recognize it as an opinion. (I might suggest phrasing that makes it more obvious, but in casual conversation, formalities are allowed to slip.) I will admit that it isn't necessarily a statement of great value, particularly if it isn't backed up by some details that can actually be discussed. On the other hand to say that something isn't as good as Beethoven's music is hardly a harsh criticism.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Enthusiast said:


> When someone says they don't like _x _because it doesn't do _b _- they are saying that the only music that interests them is music that does do _b_.


Not so. I may be bothered by the absence of _b_ in a piece of music only because _that particular piece_ would sound better to me if it did _b._ Saying you dislike coffee without cream doesn't mean you like only foods containing cream. Many an otherwise pleasant piece of music is unsatisfying because it lacks something - countrapuntal or harmonic interest, for example - but that doesn't mean we can enjoy only music that's contrapuntally or harmonically complex.


----------



## Forss (May 12, 2017)

Music (and aesthetics in general) is, in _my_ view, certainly an _ethical_ discipline that corresponds to certain precepts of the good, the right and the beautiful of this or that time (when it was conceived), and as such it is - quite rightly - susceptible to criticism.

For this very reason I find it reasonable, say, to criticise "Popular music" (in general) - which relies on industry and consumption and speculation, etc., etc. - as an _unethical_ debasement of our human potential, or dignity, worth, etc.

That being said, I am of the opinion that one ought to refrain from strictly negative discourse as that in itself is a rather vicious activity, gradually depriving one's character of all dignity.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Forss said:


> Music (and aesthetics in general) is, in _my_ view, certainly an _ethical_ discipline that corresponds to certain precepts of the good, the right and the beautiful of this or that time (when it was conceived), and as such it is - quite rightly - susceptible to criticism.


The advent of Romanticism brought forth a host of artists and works that severely test notions of the good, the right and the beautiful. Francisco Goya instantly springs to mind as one who painted and sketched innumerable images ranging from the merely unnerving to the hideous. He is reckoned a very major artist. Music cannot be so explicit, but some would find parallels.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

The use of Ferneyhough in the OP makes this very easy for me:

Let’s say I’m looking for a car in a used car lot. I have been familiar with cars for several decades and have seen and driven most of them. With that in mind: In the first space is a Model-T. Much as I like the history and I’d like to be able to take it out for a spin now and then, I’m not interested today. Next is a beautifully maintained 1970 Pontiac GTO. I love it and will always treasure cars of this period, but been there, done that, I’ll move on.

Next I come across a Tesla Model X, a wonderful idea, all electric, beautifully styled, such a sea change from the Model-T. I move down the aisle. But what is this in the next space? It looks like a tricycle for adults with two large rear wheels, a low slung seat and pedals on either side of the front wheel. I stand there looking quizzically at it. 

The salesman, noticing that, comes running out and says, “It’s a wonderful car isn’t it.” Surprised I say, “But it’s not a car. It doesn’t have an engine and it only has pedals and 3 wheels.” The salesman responds, “Oh no, it’s very much a car. You just need to look at it a little more, take it for several rides over several weeks and you’ll realize that it’s a car.” Now I’m getting a little frustrated, “Look, I know a car when I see one. It’s missing some critical things. This ain’t no car!” This salesman suddenly becomes surly, “You’re being obtuse. You’re insisting that it isn’t a car just because you don’t like it. Judge it for what it has, not for what it hasn’t. Lots of people like it and think it’s a car. What’s your problem anyway?”


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> Not so. I may be bothered by the absence of _b_ in a piece of music only because _that particular piece_ would sound better to me if it did _b._ Saying you dislike coffee without cream doesn't mean you like only foods containing cream. Many an otherwise pleasant piece of music is unsatisfying because it lacks something - countrapuntal or harmonic interest, for example - but that doesn't mean we can enjoy only music that's contrapuntally or harmonically complex.


Yes that is true. But it may also be marginal to the types of case raised by the OP?


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

There was a time - maybe 6 or 7 years ago - when I tried quite hard to find an "understanding" (this is a terrible word for this but I'm not sure what the word is for when a piece suddenly clicks for you) of the music of Boulez and Carter. I got a few CDs and I liked the sound of the music well enough. But it resisted me! It was pleasant enough sometimes (I had to be in the right mood) or interesting or something .... but it still seemed random and without any sense that I could detect. Every so often I would play one or other piece and would get the same. I would never have thought (or posted!) the more negative opinions about these composers - it was always clear to me that, pending an understanding to the contrary (and I had no understanding at all), it was me that was not getting it. 

I don't know why or how but the day came along (it was only 2 or 3 years ago) when the music of both composers - Carter came first - began to "talk to me": phrases and motifs began to seem meaningful and their role in the whole became tantalisingly close to making sense. One thing I remember is that many of the aspects that I had focused my attention on turned out to be more incidental parts, decorative or stylistic rather than thematic.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

JAS said:


> The key part of that statement is "for me." In that context, I accept the statement as true, but not actually contradicting my point in any way.
> 
> Which was exactly my point.


Well, yes, I was stating how it is for me. And it seems we do think differently about speed. I think it is a fairly superficial aspect of a performance - not that the surface doesn't have importance - and often there are other aspects that are more important to me in determining how much I like a performance ... or even how lively and/or light I experience it as being. There must have been threads about speed!

I'm glad we agree that melody has been discussed enough in the context of questions such as that in the OP.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Enthusiast said:


> I'm glad we agree that melody has been discussed enough in the context of questions such as that in the OP.


I don't know that we have discussed melody "enough," in that sense. I meant merely that the many discussions of it have shown that discussing the details often results in no greater agreement than in discussing the summary view.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Enthusiast said:


> There was a time - maybe 6 or 7 years ago - when I tried quite hard to find an "understanding" (this is a terrible word for this but I'm not sure what the word is for when a piece suddenly clicks for you) of the music of Boulez and Carter. I got a few CDs and I liked the sound of the music well enough. But it resisted me! It was pleasant enough sometimes (I had to be in the right mood) or interesting or something .... but it still seemed random and without any sense that I could detect. Every so often I would play one or other piece and would get the same. I would never have thought (or posted!) the more negative opinions about these composers - it was always clear to me that, pending an understanding to the contrary (and I had no understanding at all), it was me that was not getting it.
> 
> I don't know why or how but the day came along (it was only 2 or 3 years ago) when the music of both composers - Carter came first - began to "talk to me": phrases and motifs began to seem meaningful and their role in the whole became tantalisingly close to making sense. One thing I remember is that many of the aspects that I had focused my attention on turned out to be more incidental parts, decorative or stylistic rather than thematic.


A few people have a similar story, often repeated but too few to be a representative tale, or a model, for most listeners. And there is a key difference in that your first reaction to Boulez and Carter was that you "liked the sound of the music well enough." Describing my own reaction, as well as my subsequent reactions, would probably just get me into trouble.

Actually, I think I heard a piece on the radio a few weeks ago that, while not particularly appealing to me, was cited as being by Carter at the end. I did not bother at the time to look up the piece, and I am not sure that I could find the title now (and, actually, I really have only the vague memory of being surprised when the name was mentioned).


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

DaveM said:


> "You're being obtuse. You're insisting that it isn't a car just because you don't like it. Judge it for what it has, not for what it hasn't. Lots of people like it and think it's a car. What's your problem anyway?"


My biggest problem with a Tesla is that the price is ridiculous.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

JAS said:


> My biggest problem with a Tesla is that the price is ridiculous.


Yes, but after you buy it, while you now may be broke, you'll sleep better knowing that, at least, it was a car you bought.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

DaveM said:


> The use of Ferneyhough in the OP makes this very easy for me:
> 
> Let's say I'm looking for a car in a used car lot. I have been familiar with cars for several decades and have seen and driven most of them. With that in mind: In the first space is a Model-T. Much as I like the history and I'd like to be able to take it out for a spin now and then, I'm not interested today. Next is a beautifully maintained 1970 Pontiac GTO. I love it and will always treasure cars of this period, but been there, done that, I'll move on.
> 
> ...


This might be what happens when the idea of 'car' has become a fixed idea.

To be a fuller analogy you would have to say 'mode of transport'. All of those including the three-wheeled whatsit are modes of transport. It might not be what a particular person wants, yet they all perform the same function, but in slightly a different way. 
In classical music (but not only classical music) a goodly number of folk are unhappy because they expect all things to be like all the other things they already know. When it isn't they go about finding ways to disqualify it.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

eugeneonagain said:


> This might be what happens when the idea of 'car' has become a fixed idea.
> 
> To be a fuller analogy you would have to say 'mode of transport'. All of those including the three-wheeled whatsit are modes of transport. It might not be what a particular person wants, yet they all perform the same function, but in slightly a different way.
> In classical music (but not only classical music) a goodly number of folk are unhappy because they expect all things to be like all the other things they already know. When it isn't they go about finding ways to disqualify it.


Since it is my analogy, music in general would be modes of transportation; classical music would be cars in general. I dealt with the issues of what one likes in the analogy. When it comes to my issue, the premise that the aim is to disqualify a segment of music I don't like is simply not true. I don't like much of atonal music, but I accept it as classical music. IMO, works in the category (avant-garde?) of Ferneyhough are not classical music. If fair is fair, I can say that the only reason people say it is classical is because they like it and because they like it, it should be called classical music.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

shirime said:


> This is a strange phenomenon I have come across on this forum and on youtube comments.
> 
> *Ferneyhough (for example) plays*
> 
> ...


We need to distinguish between the objective qualities of the music vs. our own subjective criteria or "wish list" of what we like music to do.

In your example, you are describing things about _actually listening_ to music, and "liking" it for what is there, or "disliking" the music because of what is absent, or not there.

Yes, disliking an "absence" does seem illogical, until we are realize we are using a non-existent or idealized "criteria" which is subjective, and not actually a quality of this particular music we are hearing; rather, it is an _absence_ of these desired potential qualities which disappoints us, and does not meet our criteria.

Sometimes applying our criteria to music which lies outside our preferred area is good for our own purposes, but illogical if it is applied to music which has other purposes; there will, indeed, be an absence of qualities which we deem desirable.

If we remember that these idealized, personal criteria are subjective, our own, and not "objective" qualities of music, then we can state our opinion without unrealistic expectations of music which obviously do not meet those criteria.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DaveM said:


> Since it is my analogy, music in general would be modes of transportation; classical music would be cars in general. I dealt with the issues of what one likes in the analogy. When it comes to my issue, the premise that the aim is to disqualify a segment of music I don't like is simply not true. I don't like much of atonal music, but I accept it as classical music. IMO, works in the category (avant-garde?) of Ferneyhough are not classical music. If fair is fair, I can say that the only reason people say it is classical is because they like it and because they like it, it should be called classical music.


"Classicalness" is not some Platonic essence with which some pieces of music are imbued. It's really just a loose set of traditions having to do with cultural origin, sound medium, performance practice, and ideology. It would hardly be unreasonable to say that if a piece of music played in concert doesn't fall into any other distinct category, it's classical. But what hangs upon having a hard-edged definition? It's not worth arguing about, is it?


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> "Classicalness" is not some Platonic essence with which some pieces of music are imbued. It's really just a loose set of traditions having to do with cultural origin, sound medium, performance practice, and ideology. It would hardly be unreasonable to say that if a piece of music played in concert doesn't fall into any other distinct category, it's classical. But what hangs upon having a hard-edged definition? It's not worth arguing about, is it?


Point taken, but I don't agree that classical music is defined that generally. In this forum people have all sorts of issues they choose to 'argue' (if that's the word one wants to use) about. I'm sometimes surprised at the long posts that go on and on over an issue that doesn't seem worth the time and effort to me, but I don't tell them that it's not worth arguing about.

IMO, the inclusion of Ferneyhough-like music in classical music distorts the definition and gets in the way of growing interest in classical music. There has been a discussion already here about how atonal composers found it hard to find audiences for their music. It's not a stretch to say that the problem is even worse for Ferneyhough et al. Periodically we see works like this stuck in the middle of a concert, situated where people will mostly be forced to listen to it since they want to hear the work that follows. If it is, by most accounts, a totally bizarre work, does it it get to be called classical because it was scheduled in a concert?


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

My definition of classical music is something with written sheet music which can be performed by people other than the composer, using mostly or at least some traditional acoustic instruments.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Fredx2098 said:


> My definition of classical music is something with written sheet music which can be performed by people other than the composer, using mostly or at least some traditional acoustic instruments.


For me it would be all music using traditional instruments associated with Classical Music and Operatic vocals, if any vocals at all.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Fredx2098 said:


> My definition of classical music is something with written sheet music which can be performed by people other than the composer, using mostly or at least some traditional acoustic instruments.


Hmm, I've got a nice video of Kenny Chesney singing at the Grammys wth some violinists and cellists reading from sheet music in the background.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

DaveM said:


> Hmm, I've got a nice video of Kenny Chesney singing at the Oscars wth some violinists and cellists reading from sheet music in the background.


:lol: Gotta love pointing out the errors in our definitions so we can make them stronger and more accurately represent what we mean to say!


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

DaveM said:


> Hmm, I've got a nice video of Kenny Chesney singing at the Oscars wth some violinists and cellists reading from sheet music in the background.


Was Kenny Chensey reading music as well? And was he just part of the music ensemble rather than the focus of the act?


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I like music with lots of musical thoughts in it. Musical ideas. It can be anything, as long as it makes musical sense.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Captainnumber36 said:


> :lol: Gotta love pointing out the errors in our definitions so we can make them stronger and more accurately represent what we mean to say!


I can't help it. Off topic or not, the song 'Better Than A Memory' is one of my favorites and the production at the Grammys (sorry, not the Oscars) with the violins and cellos is wonderful. You can see them around 1:50.


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

shirime said:


> This is a strange phenomenon I have come across on this forum and on youtube comments.
> 
> *Ferneyhough (for example) plays*
> 
> ...


If you are referring to my post, you've got it wrong. I fully acknowledge things you like about the music, admit those qualities are there in the music, but see flaws and drawbacks in their use. I do not present strawmen arguments as you state above. So no, it's not like saying "I don't like Wagner because of a lack of synthesizers and folk melodies." It's more like this:

Person A: I like Wagner because of his use of brass in climactic passages.
Person B: I don't like Wagner because of his use of brass in climactic passages. His use off brass creates a lack of proper orchestral balance and is an overused cliché of the period (or whatever--I'm just making this garbage up on the fly, I don't actually believe this of course). So you've got it wrong.

Nothing to be confused about. If you don't agree with the person's musical opinion, then just say so. And if a person doesn't like such and such composer because of x, y, or z or lack of x, y, or z, they have every right to feel that way. Whether its synthesizers, folk melodies, counterpoint, or kazoos. You don't have to agree with them. But its their right to have an opinion just as much as its your right to have yours.


----------



## Guest (Aug 16, 2018)

Fredx2098 said:


> My definition of classical music is something with written sheet music which can be performed by people other than the composer, using mostly or at least some traditional acoustic instruments.


This is probably where you and I differ........

I tend to view classical music as having embraced electronics and computers as part of a tradition of technological refinement and expansion of instruments and instrumentation, sound-producing techniques and orchestration.


----------



## Guest (Aug 17, 2018)

Enthusiast said:


> There was a time - maybe 6 or 7 years ago - when I tried quite hard to find an "understanding" (this is a terrible word for this but I'm not sure what the word is for when a piece suddenly clicks for you) of the music of Boulez and Carter. I got a few CDs and I liked the sound of the music well enough. But it resisted me! It was pleasant enough sometimes (I had to be in the right mood) or interesting or something .... but it still seemed random and without any sense that I could detect. Every so often I would play one or other piece and would get the same. I would never have thought (or posted!) the more negative opinions about these composers - it was always clear to me that, pending an understanding to the contrary (and I had no understanding at all), it was me that was not getting it.
> 
> I don't know why or how but the day came along (it was only 2 or 3 years ago) when the music of both composers - Carter came first - began to "talk to me": phrases and motifs began to seem meaningful and their role in the whole became tantalisingly close to making sense. One thing I remember is that many of the aspects that I had focused my attention on turned out to be more incidental parts, decorative or stylistic rather than thematic.


Perhaps it is something to do with familiarity and exposure, or perhaps it is more to do with being in a different frame of mind.

I've had similar experiences with music by Sibelius, Elgar, Brahms, Vaughan Williams, Stravinsky, Hindemith and Chopin; this was music that I really did not find much enjoyment in until I happened to be in a particular frame of mind to enjoy the piece. I don't know how to explain it really, but it is always a lovely feeling to find myself actually wanting to listen to something I previously never thought I would.


----------



## vmartell (Feb 9, 2017)

Enthusiast said:


> There was a time - maybe 6 or 7 years ago - when I tried quite hard to find an "understanding" (this is a terrible word for this but I'm not sure what the word is for when a piece suddenly clicks for you) of the music of Boulez and Carter. I got a few CDs and I liked the sound of the music well enough. But it resisted me! It was pleasant enough sometimes (I had to be in the right mood) or interesting or something .... but it still seemed random and without any sense that I could detect. Every so often I would play one or other piece and would get the same. I would never have thought (or posted!) the more negative opinions about these composers - it was always clear to me that, pending an understanding to the contrary (and I had no understanding at all), it was me that was not getting it.
> 
> I don't know why or how but the day came along (it was only 2 or 3 years ago) when the music of both composers - Carter came first - began to "talk to me": phrases and motifs began to seem meaningful and their role in the whole became tantalisingly close to making sense. One thing I remember is that many of the aspects that I had focused my attention on turned out to be more incidental parts, decorative or stylistic rather than thematic.


We are diverging from the subject a little bit - but I had the same experience as you - but in my case it wasn't a composer... it was a whole genre - Jazz

It started as an idea/desire - let's give those 2 or 3 Jazz recordings I own another chance - it has been more than 10 years since I spun them - why not?

Not sure what it was - experience? the environment? age? (those 10 years were years of great change in my life). But it suddenly clicked. Not only that, it coincided with my return to vinyl. It has been a great experience of discovery - obtaining all those Impulse! Blue Note, Riverside, Atlantic, Prestige, recordings as beautiful black discs.

Yet I feel like did not miss anything - that is, if I tried 5 years before it might not have happened - call it serendipity or whatever - it was probably the right time. So it happened.

v


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

shirime said:


> This is probably where you and I differ........
> 
> I tend to view classical music as having embraced electronics and computers as part of a tradition of technological refinement and expansion of instruments and instrumentation, sound-producing techniques and orchestration.


I did account for music with both acoustic and electronic elements. Something with only electronics I would call musique concrète, electroacoustic, drone, etc. All of the pieces I've seen you post in specific classical threads I would call classical, and otherwise you call it those other words, unless you consider those styles to be under classical music. I consider them to be under experimental music.


----------



## vmartell (Feb 9, 2017)

Fredx2098 said:


> Was Kenny Chensey reading music as well? And was he just part of the music ensemble rather than the focus of the act?


Thinking we a picking nits here - is not the instrumentation (acoustic? scores? Iannis Xenakis? Subotnick?) but let's talk about WHAT IT IS! 

Kenny Chesney (is that his name?) sings pop (as in popular, I know he is a country artist) songs - verse-bridge-chorus-verse-bridge-chorus - a single theme, no development, simple harmony. All the hallmarks of pop. It is pop, it is not classical music.

Same goes for musicals like "Les Miserables" - yes, it is orchestral (probably scored) and through composed. But listen - again, you will hear the familiar verse-bridge-chorus structure. And while the arrangement might be complex, the development we associate with our beloved art form is not there. It is pop music, it is not classical music.

v


----------



## Guest (Aug 17, 2018)

Fredx2098 said:


> I did account for music with both acoustic and electronic elements. Something with only electronics I would call musique concrète, electroacoustic, drone, etc. All of the pieces I've seen you post in specific classical threads I would call classical, and otherwise you call it those other words, unless you consider those styles to be under classical music. I consider them to be under experimental music.


I still call them classical music because of the tradition they fit in.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

shirime said:


> I still call them classical music because of the tradition they fit in.


How do they fit under the classical tradition, artists like Oliveros, Radigue, Parmegiani, and what even is the classical tradition? I do favor that mindset over just thinking it's rubbish though.


----------



## Guest (Aug 17, 2018)

Fredx2098 said:


> How do they fit under the classical tradition, artists like Oliveros, Radigue, Parmegiani, and what even is the classical tradition? I do favor that mindset over just thinking it's rubbish though.


It's just a tradition that evolved over a long period of time and splintered into different areas based on different interests, still continually evolving and changing based on the music that people like to write. I don't think any of the those people you mentioned would be composing at all according to a tradition of the past, but rather they are composing music according to how it developed from that past into the present time.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

No, by unquoting only I should risk no guilt of vicious personal attack, this is not about personal attack so there is nothing vicious about criticizing the wrong idea. This type of music( if it is indeed, I do not know), is popular music. The only problem I have with them is no more than the wrong designation. This is not classical if the composer compose in manner against the classical musical theories, and sells to the mainstream marketand make a lot of money. Can you imagine how disgusting it is to listen to bad music with violin or whatever classica instruments? If you feel no heft in stomach for bad music, I would rather feel sorry for you.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

What is classical music, basically is good music written in the past which nobody can replicate in style and quality today or in the future. If you get the classical wrong in its definition, you are just abusing the heritage. I actually love all classical music, actually everything ever composed in those eras. I hate no single composer from the whole era of classical music periods, (even if I only concentrate on music earlier to 1790) Renaissance, Baroque, Rococco, Mozartian, Beethoven, Brahms etc. This was painful to find a composer I do not like so contempraneous to the ones that are good. I do not berate out of nothing.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Larkenfield said:


> Perhaps the harshest criticism is disliking a piece for what it is _and_ for what it's not - the double whammy. Then the opposite could be just as true if one liked it. So there are actually four categories to choose from as far as what's there or absent.


I think we need a diagram of this juxtaposition.


----------



## Guest (Aug 17, 2018)

Fritz Kobus said:


> I think we need a diagram of this juxtaposition.


a venn diagram


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

shirime said:


> Perhaps it is something to do with familiarity and exposure, or perhaps it is more to do with being in a different frame of mind.
> 
> I've had similar experiences with music by Sibelius, Elgar, Brahms, Vaughan Williams, Stravinsky, Hindemith and Chopin; this was music that I really did not find much enjoyment in until I happened to be in a particular frame of mind to enjoy the piece. I don't know how to explain it really, but it is always a lovely feeling to find myself actually wanting to listen to something I previously never thought I would.


Yes, once you know the sound you tend to pick the music when that is the sound you want.

I've yet to get there fully with Vaughan-Williams - some pieces I love greatly but I find most of his music difficult to enjoy.


----------



## Guest (Aug 17, 2018)

Enthusiast said:


> Yes, once you know the sound you tend to pick the music when that is the sound you want.
> 
> I've yet to get there fully with Vaughan-Williams - some pieces I love greatly but I find most of his music difficult to enjoy.


Symphony no. 8 did it for me.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I think the problem with new music doesn't apply to the very new (say written in the last 25 years) which has an audience who enjoy it greatly. The problem is with music that is no longer very new but is not making it into the repertoire of a cultured audience. The extent of this failure may not be as great as some have represented but it is still very much a feature of our times. To me this is our failing and that of our modern cultured audiences. As a grumpy old man, I am very strongly out of sympathy with the modern need for instant and easy (no chewing involved!) gratification. I don't know what sort of music that will leave us with but if the cannon of truly great music (that _lives _within our collective psyche) doesn't grow then I suspect it dwindles away.


----------



## Forss (May 12, 2017)

Strange Magic said:


> The advent of Romanticism brought forth a host of artists and works that severely test notions of the good, the right and the beautiful


The very meaning of my proposition was that notions of the good, the right and the beautiful are not metaphysical, mathematical or irrevocable constants, but rather _variables_ with different connotations for different times and places...

Thus one could easily recognise the principles of the _Sturm und Drang_ movement in Goya's late (black) paintings, for example.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

Enthusiast said:


> I think the problem with new music doesn't apply to the very new (say written in the last 25 years) which has an audience who enjoy it greatly. The problem is with music that is no longer very new but is not making it into the repertoire of a cultured audience. The extent of this failure may not be as great as some have represented but it is still very much a feature of our times. To me this is our failing and that of our modern cultured audiences. As a grumpy old man, I am very strongly out of sympathy with the modern need for instant and easy (no chewing involved!) gratification. I don't know what sort of music that will leave us with but if the cannon of truly great music (that _lives _within our collective psyche) doesn't grow then I suspect it dwindles away.


Definitely.... If people keep writing off all new music, then I think there will eventually come a time where the only people who are left think of music in the "canon" as a joke. Most young people already feel that way I think.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Fredx2098 said:


> Definitely.... If people keep writing off all new music, then I think there will eventually come a time where the only people who are left think of music in the "canon" as a joke. Most young people already feel that way I think.


There is no problem of any substance that comes from "people . . . writing off all new music." None, except for people who might be invested in that music, for whatever reason. (The idea that the fate of classical music in general depends, inherently and primarily, on a constant supply of new examples is absurd.) There is a genuine danger in saying "this is what classical music is now, take it or leave it." Under that assumption, after hearing a few examples, many, perhaps most, people will leave it and probably never take the time to sample the rich heritage we have of music that they might find more appealing (or at least some of it).

But pretty much all of this kind of thinking is academic anyway. In the current climate of pop dominance, and a constant supply of new and utterly disposable product fed to a public eager for more of whatever it is they are finding there, classical music of any kind will mostly remain hidden in the corner. I am perfectly happy with classical music being a niche, but it needs to be a sustainable niche.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Forss said:


> The very meaning of my proposition was that notions of the good, the right and the beautiful are not metaphysical, mathematical or irrevocable constants, but rather _variables_ with different connotations for different times and places...
> 
> Thus one could easily recognise the principles of the _Sturm und Drang_ movement in Goya's late (black) paintings, for example.


Perhaps you could expand a bit upon your proposition, especially in regard to popular music. In any case, providing some examples of the presence or absence of notions of the good, right, and beautiful to illustrate your idea as it applies to music would be helpful.


----------



## Forss (May 12, 2017)

Strange Magic said:


> Perhaps you could expand a bit upon your proposition, especially in regard to popular music. In any case, providing some examples of the presence or absence of notions of the good, right, and beautiful to illustrate your idea as it applies to music would be helpful.


Modernist composers such as Schoenberg or Berg or whatever wrote from a _particular_ notion of the right in _their_ time, which, as we know, consisted in challenging the concepts of tonality and harmony, etc... "Popular music" is not - as a general rule - interested in exploring the _absolute_ music itself, not interested in the philosophical aspect of composition, but always _more_ interested in consumption and branding, etc.; nay, it is _forced_ to focus on these things in order to survive as a commodity on the world market. Alas, even a hardcore anti-establishment punk band like _Refused_ - who happens to come from my hometown in northern Sweden - could not withstand the temptation of money when they got an offer from Coachella to reunite in 2012...


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

JAS said:


> There is no problem of any substance that comes from "people . . . writing off all new music." None, except for people who might be invested in that music, for whatever reason. (The idea that the fate of classical music in general depends, inherently and primarily, on a constant supply of new examples is absurd.) There is a genuine danger in saying "this is what classical music is now, take it or leave it." Under that assumption, after hearing a few examples, many, perhaps most, people will leave it and probably never take the time to sample the rich heritage we have of music that they might find more appealing (or at least some of it).
> 
> But pretty much all of this kind of thinking is academic anyway. In the current climate of pop dominance, and a constant supply of new and utterly disposable product fed to a public eager for more of whatever it is they are finding there, classical music of any kind will mostly remain hidden in the corner. I am perfectly happy with classical music being a niche, but it needs to be a sustainable niche.


I'm not saying that old music should fade away and be replaced by new music. I'm just saying that if pre-modern music is always considered the best, then I think it will fade into antiquity after a while, I'm thinking at least 100 years from now, possibly beginning when everyone born before 2000 is dead. Like I've said before, the purpose of there being a constant stream of new music is so the cream of the crop can rise to the top, but it seems like most people see the plurality as negative mindless mass production and ignore it in favor of the past famous tried-and-true works instead of helping to figure out what music is worth hearing. What makes it worse is that people who pass judgment broadly on all modern and contemporary music don't actually have a wide perspective of it, because they only cite a few composers who make music that they consider "ugly" when there is plenty of beautiful modern music out there with new ideas. If only the past masters are allowed to be appreciated, then no new masters will arise.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Fredx2098 said:


> I'm not saying that old music should fade away and be replaced by new music. I'm just saying that if pre-modern music is always considered the best, then I think it will fade into antiquity after a while, I'm thinking at least 100 years from now, possibly beginning when everyone born before 2000 is dead.


It only fades into antiquity if we let it. To some extent, perhaps a very great extent, modern music is in its current state due to choices that it made. Many of those choices are hard to reverse since they still seem to be the basis of the music's existence, at least as it has been defined.



Fredx2098 said:


> Like I've said before, the purpose of there being a constant stream of new music is so the cream of the crop can rise to the top, but it seems like most people see the plurality as negative mindless mass production and ignore it in favor of the past famous tried-and-true works instead of helping to figure out what music is worth hearing.


The cream rises to the top even if there is no new milk. (And unlike real cream, great music does not require refrigeration, and never sours.)



Fredx2098 said:


> What makes it worse is that people who pass judgment broadly on all modern and contemporary music don't actually have a wide perspective of it, because they only cite a few composers who make music that they consider "ugly" when there is plenty of beautiful modern music out there with new ideas. If only the past masters are allowed to be appreciated, then no new masters will arise.


People tend to cite a few composers because they are likely to be widely known, and because they, perhaps, embody the point being made. And even then we tend to have no agreement, so why extend the discussion to lesser known examples? There is also a valid point in accepting that there is little reason to expend the money and time necessary for a ceaseless search for gold among the dross if, time and again, the search has only revealed more dross. (This is, of course, a subjective evaluation.) I am happy to try another obscure Romantic composer who has been resurrected (although I might not actually buy the CD or attend a full concert of said work), because usually the worst outcome is a reaction of "meh."

It is easy enough, and free in terms of money, for me to sample the selections of modern music that are posted in this forum. (And I have listened to most of them.) In so doing, I make the assumption, perhaps an invalid one, that what is being offered is already the cream of this kind of music, and that some degree of filtering has already been done for me. (Call me lazy if you like, but if hitting my head against a wall 50 times only produces a headache, should I listen to someone who insists that doing so 200 times will have a better effect?) The results, at least so far, have been very disappointing and do not in any way encourage me to make further pursuits on my own.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

JAS said:


> People tend to cite a few composers because they are likely to be widely known, and because they, perhaps, embody the point being made. And even then we tend to have no agreement, so why extend the discussion to lesser known examples? There is also a valid point in accepting that there is little reason to expend the money and time necessary for a ceaseless search for gold among the dross if, time and again, the search has only revealed more dross. (This is, of course, a subjective evaluation.) I am happy to try another obscure Romantic composer who has been resurrected (although I might not actually buy the CD or attend a full concert of said work), because usually the worst outcome is a reaction of "meh."
> 
> It is easy enough, and free in terms of money, for me to sample the selections of modern music that are posted in this forum. (And I have listened to most of them.) In so doing, I make the assumption, perhaps an invalid one, that what is being offered is already the cream of this kind of music, and that some degree of filtering has already been done for me. (Call me lazy if you like, but if hitting my head against a wall 50 times only produces a headache, should I listen to someone who insists that doing so 200 times will have a better effect?) The results, at least so far, have been very disappointing and do not in any way encourage me to make further pursuits on my own.


It's fine to dislike it, but it shouldn't be stifled or discouraged because there are people who really like it. If you don't like it, it's also easy to ignore it.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Fredx2098 said:


> It's fine to dislike it, but it shouldn't be stifled or discouraged because there are people who really like it. If you don't like it, it's also easy to ignore it.


It would be easier for me to ignore if it did not insist on presenting itself as the inheritor of the mantle of classical music. (And, actually, I am very interested in the phenomenon of how this music came to be, what it is trying to do, or at least what it says it is trying to do, and why it has adherents. That mystery has only slightly been lifted by my own reading, and scarcely at all by my own listening. Clearly, if I am to find an answer, it must come from interacting with those who hold a position that is not my own, but having discussions of that sort seems to come with too much baggage to surmount. The result is more often unintentional irritation than enlightenment for either side.)


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

JAS said:


> It would be easier for me to ignore if it did not insist on presenting itself as the inheritor of the mantle of classical music. (And, actually, I am very interested in the phenomenon of how this music came to be, what it is trying to do, or at least what it says it is trying to do, and why it has adherents. That mystery has only slightly been lifted by my own reading, and scarcely at all by my own listening. Clearly, if I am to find an answer, it must come from interacting with those who hold a position that is not my own, but having discussions of that sort seems to come with too much baggage to surmount. The result is more often unintentional irritation than enlightenment for either side.)


I completely understand how and why people dislike modern music. It doesn't interest me to keep hearing it repeated. I and others have explained why we like it. I'm much more interested to hear why people have positive opinions of things rather than negative, because usually the best reason for someone not liking something is that it just isn't their thing, and if not, it could be articulated in a way that isn't insulting and dismissive.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

So, I mostly eschew direct comments about the music these days, and mostly discuss the discussion.


----------

