# The purpose of music



## Guest (Oct 11, 2014)

I am going to posit two categories of listeners. I'm aware that it's a gross oversimplication, and one result of this thread might be to unsimplify things. So do it!

Category one: music exists to please me.

Category two: I exist to listen to music.


----------



## shangoyal (Sep 22, 2013)

I ask you: why do you exist?

Answer one: To experience the world.

Answer two: So that the world can experience you.

Do you have a clear choice?


----------



## ptr (Jan 22, 2013)

Both are impossible philosophical questions!

FWIW, I don't see that these two "oversimplified" categories are mutually exclusive! I would think, depending on where one are in life and society the truth will be a mix of the both!

Life is not just Black or White, for most, it is some shade of grey! 

/ptr


----------



## Guest (Oct 11, 2014)

some guy said:


> I am going to posit two categories of listeners. I'm aware that it's a gross oversimplication, and one result of this thread might be to *unsimplify things. So do it!* [...]


OK, I'll let 'cellist Anner Bylsma do it : at around the 3'06" mark. But please make sure you first listen to Edicson Ruiz playing Domenico Gabrielli/Ricercare !


----------



## Varick (Apr 30, 2014)

I couldn't go with either of the two OP choices to answer why music exists. I would have to take it to a whole different area and answer something such as: The purpose of music is so we humans can express and communicate our enormous range and depth of emotion and thought in a manner unique to all other animals, and at times to release and experience a small glimpse of the divine within us.

I'm sure I could come up with some more poetic if I took the time, but I just started my morning coffee and don't have a lot of time before I have to leave for the day. So, that's kind of what I think about the purpose of music off the top of my head.

V


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

The purpose of music is to make our brain release dopamine.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Music for me is intense stimulation. It's like the dude on Seinfeld who goes into a hypnotic trance whenever he hears his favorite song, Desperado.


----------



## Krummhorn (Feb 18, 2007)

some guy said:


> . . . Category two: I exist to listen to music.


In my case it's a bit different: I exist to _create_ music. I feel that I was born with a talent, only it took until age 6 to cultivate and mold it into something useful for both myself and the listener.

For me it's a lot more than just _playing_ the notes ... music comes from my heart and soul.

Kh ♫


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

The porpoise of music is merely transport. What it transports is the question.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Both and neither.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I listen to music because it is a powerful part of being human, part of my self's intersection with other human selves.

Of course that is not sufficiently cool in some circles. But cool? After all the glorious self-assertion - "Look how impressively I listen to music!" - what have we gained? Perhaps an implicit agreement with fellow assertors to pat each other on the back, to agree that others are doing music wrong. Quite a performance. Set, fortunately, or hopefully, to some good music. Maybe even redeemed by the music, if our clashing, grappling humanity can be.

Maybe it's a satisfying game, perhaps it's even a successful social strategy for loads of people, but I'm not cut out to play it. Do your own thing, I guess, but I don't get it.

I just want to know, what do people? What did Brahms? What did Mozart? What did Cage? What did their audiences? What do you? What do _we_?

Sometime in the late 1950s, a woman somewhere in Europe was struggling with her labor, back pains, too much work, too hot, not enough money, troublesome husband, ungrateful kids, whatever, and she paused for a moment to breathe in the dusk, and on the radio she heard Callas singing _La Traviata_. What did that woman feel? Think? Experience? Wish? What did that music touch? What goes from Verdi to Callas to her to us?

Sometime in the 1990s, a guy who worked at a comic book shop for almost minimum wage, overqualified with his degree in philosophy and his minor in music, tells an enthusiastic high school kid with almost no knowledge of culture or history, "Try this," and drops the needle of his record player onto something by Schoenberg. The kid never heard anything like that before. Into existence sprang a communion, imperfect but real, between a community of composers, performers, listeners, musicologists, recording engineers, flawed humans of all sorts, and _me_. Invited into a larger, more interesting human community. I though something like, "Wow! People listen to this? I want to too!"

I'm here neither to pursue a shallow sort of sensual pleasure, nor to contrast myself and my ideals to whatever I might imagine as more ordinary listeners and their ideals, but to pursue an understanding and a fellowship.

Why propose antagonistic dichotomies? Does it help? Maybe, I guess, maybe. It doesn't help me. I'd rather share some music, listen together. I bet there's something interesting for us on this next CD, or even at this next concert.


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> Both and neither.


Yup. Or put another way, I exist to listen to those pieces of music that please me.


----------



## GioCar (Oct 30, 2013)

Thanks for your sincere post, Science. I liked it.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Thank you GioCar. I feel really good getting those words out. I've been looking for them for a long time.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

I don't really care, but just to play along I'll go with the later, because it's my life's obsession.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

some guy said:


> I am going to posit two categories of listeners? I'm aware that it's a gross oversimplication, and one result of this thread might be to unsimplify things. So do it!
> 
> Category one: music exists to please me.
> 
> Category two: I exist to listen to music.


Try asking a simpler question first: what's the purpose of language? The answer is obvious - there is no one purpose, language can be used for many different things:

Giving orders, and obeying them -
Describing the appearance of an object, or giving its measurements -
Constructing an object from a description (a drawing) -
Reporting an event -
Speculating about an event -
Forming and testing a hypothesis -
Presenting the results of an experiment in tables and diagrams -
Making up a story: and reading it -
Play-acting -
Singing catches -
Guessing riddles -
Making a joke; telling it -
Solving a problem in practical arithmetic -
Translating from one language to another -
Asking, thanking, cursing, greeting, praying.

It wouldn't be to hard to form a similar list for music, would it?


----------



## senza sordino (Oct 20, 2013)

Music exists to please me, I haven't yet figured out why I exist. I don't know why any of us exist.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Mandryka said:


> Try asking a simpler question first: what's the purpose of language? The answer is obvious - there is no one purpose, language can be used for many different things:
> 
> Giving orders, and obeying them -
> Describing the appearance of an object, or giving its measurements -
> ...


But there is one fundamental purpose to language: to communicate. 
No need to fuss that up with a list of various dynamics and types of what is communicated!


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

PetrB said:


> But there is one fundamental purpose to language: to communicate.
> No need to fuss that up with a list of various dynamics and types of what is communicated!


No, I don't think it's fussing it up, it's demystifying. If someone asks what is language for, what is communication, the answer is just the list.

Now what is music's purpose? Well, to do whatever is in the list which I'm claiming is constructable. What seemed like a hard and abstract question is revealed to be actually very concrete and tractable. Music is _for_ what people _do_ with music.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

Has anyone ever discovered a culture without music? I'm convinced we will eventually find that music is as important for our health as sleep and belonging is. Why else would everyone have it? 

So my answer is neither -- not exactly. We may exist because of music along with a lot of other stuff.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

This thread could use a mascot. The Porpoise of Music.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Weston said:


> Has anyone ever discovered a culture without music? I'm convinced we will eventually find that music is as important for our health as sleep and belonging is. Why else would everyone have it?
> 
> So my answer is neither -- not exactly. We may exist because of music along with a lot of other stuff.


I would imagine some strict Muslim countries following Sharia Law. They may be coming to a neighborhood near you.
Hide the Beethoven!


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

hpowders said:


> I would imagine some strict Muslim countries following Sharia Law. They may be coming to a neighborhood near you.
> Hide the Beethoven!


I ain't sceert. If they're not permitted to hear music, I'll just crank it up louder and they won't be able to come within half a mile.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Edit, nevermind, not sure of the facts.


----------



## Haydn man (Jan 25, 2014)

Another purpose may be to help old men try to role back the years


----------



## Guest (Oct 11, 2014)

Since humans create music for their amusement, it is nonsense to suggest that they exist to listen to music. 

It would be like saying humans exist to eat the cookies they bake.

Therefore the only reasonable choice is "Category one: music exists to please me"; despite the strong suggestion of narcissism.

Consider for a moment the following:
Category 1: cookies exist to please me
Category 2: I exist to eat cookies

What would any reasonable person make of such a question? As absurd as the dilemma is, the only defensible choice is 1.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Weston said:


> I ain't sceert. If they're not permitted to hear music, I'll just crank it up louder and they won't be able to come within half a mile.


That's the spirit! I'll be the one under the bed. I won't say which bed in the event you are ever captured and they might ask where I'm hiding.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

BPS said:


> Since humans create music for their amusement . . .


Do they? That may only be part of the reason. I'd wager if you ask any musician they'd say they create music because they have to, the same reason I listen to it. I could conceivably go without it if I lost my hearing or other tragedy, but I'd then have to invent it in my head to stay sane. I think it is far more important than mere amusement -- or cookies.


----------



## Muse Wanderer (Feb 16, 2014)

Music is an entity that is completely detached from my needs.

It does not exist to please me or anyone else.

My existence does not rely on its presence.

However I feel that music conveys a _message _from the composer to me, the listener.

This message, as abstract as it may be, further passes through various permutations due to differing interpretations as well as cultural, societal and time factors.

Today I woke up and listened to Wolfgang Mozart's violin sonatas K306, K378, K404 played by Richter as I ate cereal and played with my children. I felt elated.

I danced to Johann Sebastian Bach's Passacaglia in C minor BWV 582, interpeted by Biggs, as I held my 4 month old baby. I felt a deep spirituality that is indescribable. The complex symmetry of the thematic variations coupled with the fugue conveyed a 'message' of advent religious zeal from the composer to me, the listener.

This evening I settled down and listened to Gyorgy Ligeti's Atmospheres and felt completely detached from this world in a state of permament motionless. This was soon followed by Ligeti's Requiem. I was literally digging my nails into my palms as I 'felt' utter despair, frailty, anguish, pain closing with a faint light of hope at the end.

Music has been part of my life today.


----------



## Rapide (Oct 11, 2011)

Composer writes the music. We listen and judge the pieces - from casual listeners to professionals (performers and academics), either way, time will naturally let the piece flower or falter.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

clavichorder said:


> This thread could use a mascot. The Porpoise of Music.


Nipper has been around quite a while...








And Orpheus, well, just a bit longer...


----------



## trazom (Apr 13, 2009)

Music exists so that I can inundate this board with my amateurish, half-baked philosophy. muahahaha.


----------



## Esterhazy (Oct 4, 2014)

Music are innocent pieces. Take it or leave it. Either way, they are still there for others to enjoy whether you enjoy them or do not.


----------



## Guest (Oct 12, 2014)

There is no purpose except that we (you, me, others) attach one to it. "Purpose" seems to imply some prior reason for its creation, and since that seems highly improbable, what's left is the possibility that it can have any purpose that you and I might wish to give it.


----------



## Esterhazy (Oct 4, 2014)

MacLeod said:


> There is no purpose except that we (you, me, others) attach one to it. "Purpose" seems to imply some prior reason for its creation, and since that seems highly improbable, what's left is the possibility that it can have any purpose that you and I might wish to give it.


The "prior reason" is whatever the composer may have for it.


----------



## Guest (Oct 12, 2014)

Esterhazy said:


> The "prior reason" is whatever the composer may have for it.


Unsurprisingly, we're interpreting "music" differently. I'm happy with yours for "individual compositions", but it's no good for "music" as the generic "art of the muse".


----------



## cna (Nov 9, 2015)

Music exists to please me but then I become more humble as I listen to it more. Music makes me a better person. So music can never be a subordinate in my life. We walk/work together.


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock (Jul 6, 2013)

science said:


> Thank you GioCar. I feel really good getting those words out. I've been looking for them for a long time.


Very nice post, liked it as well.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Music exists because human beings have decided to be entertained by the all the strange sounds that exist in this world, and we've even invented some of our own!


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

I wonder if music is some kind of universal phenomenon that is bound to happen, when, against overwhelming odds, some tiny speck of the universe reaches enough order and stability and the required conditions to produce intelligent, conscious lifeforms with the ability to hear. What if there were smart aliens out there who can hear, but who don't make music? What a waste would that be!


----------



## Rapide (Oct 11, 2011)

some guy said:


> I am going to posit two categories of listeners. I'm aware that it's a gross oversimplication, and one result of this thread might be to unsimplify things. So do it!
> 
> Category one: music exists to please me.
> 
> Category two: I exist to listen to music.


Obviously category one.


----------



## Guest (Nov 18, 2015)

A year later, and I'm relieved to see that I gave the same answer in 2014 that I would now.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Music exists. Some pleases me. Some pleases others. Why is this so difficult?


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

KenOC said:


> Music exists. Some pleases me. Some pleases others. Why is this so difficult?


I agree 100% :tiphat:


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

KenOC said:


> Music exists. Some pleases me. Some pleases others. Why is this so difficult?


101% simply and purely the truth.


----------



## Guest (Nov 18, 2015)

KenOC said:


> Music exists. Some pleases me. Some pleases others. Why is this so difficult?


This may indeed be both agreeable and true, but I have another question, which is "is this agreeably true remark germane to this conversation?"

Especially that last bit. Where and how does the concept of difficulty enter into it?


----------



## Stirling (Nov 18, 2015)

Just because some is difficult is a social not personal.


----------



## spaceman (Nov 18, 2015)

Mandryka said:


> Music is _for_ what people _do_ with music.


What a fun discussion!
I was drawn to Talkclassical by reading Science's description of someone being introduced to Schoenberg in a record shop and going 'wow'.
I agree with Mandryka - it isn't one thing or the other and recorded music and technology has, I think enriched and transformed music.
Music brings people together, fills pubs and clubs (concert halls) - many of us experience great pleasure and wonder on hearing music - we are drawn to it (Pied-piper). 
However, defining the purpose of music does not explain it.


----------



## Rapide (Oct 11, 2011)

The purpose of avantgarde music today is to push the boundaries, to challenge listeners and to shock.


----------



## Claireclassical (Nov 19, 2015)

I I listen to music because "when words leave off music begins"


----------



## Guest (Nov 19, 2015)

I stayed out of this thread for over a year.

My reason for starting it was to see if we could explore how we respond to music by examining what we think music is for.

I stayed out of it to see how it would develop.

Well, it didn't. OK.

So here's some more positing. (Positing really seems to put people off. But seriously, it's just positing.)

Listeners who think music exists to please them often have trouble when they hear things they don't like right away. They either struggle and struggle until they do like things, or they subside into repetitious grumbling about how contemporary music doesn't communicate, is totally cerebral, is unlistenable noise, and so forth.

Listeners who think they exist to listen to music will also inevitably hear things they don't like, but it has little or no effect on them. They just keep listening to music. It's fun!


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

some guy said:


> I am going to posit two categories of listeners. I'm aware that it's a gross oversimplication, and one result of this thread might be to unsimplify things. So do it!
> 
> Category one: music exists to please me.
> 
> Category two: I exist to listen to music.


Music is a two-way communication between performer/composer and listener. Communication should not be exclusive, as in category one; nor should it be totally subjective, as in category two.

Music does exist as a separate "object" of contemplation, however, which biases the result, creating a "passive' listener who receives the info; but as art is a 2-way mapping of one experience on to another, there is always a dynamic element. If this does not satisfy, make your own music.


----------



## Stirling (Nov 18, 2015)

I do, but other people do not listen to it, nor do listen to others new music; therefore I must listen to others music to explain what I feel.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

some guy said:


> I stayed out of it to see how it would develop.
> 
> Well, it didn't.


Sure it did. I really felt good about my contribution.



some guy said:


> Listeners who think music exists to please them often have trouble when they hear things they don't like right away. ... [Others] just keep listening to music. It's fun!


Pleasure / fun. Is this a distinction without a difference?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Some guy:
Listeners who think music exists to please them often have trouble when they hear things they don't like right away. They either struggle and struggle until they do like things, or they subside into repetitious grumbling about how contemporary music doesn't communicate, is totally cerebral, is unlistenable noise, and so forth. Listeners who think they exist to listen to music will also inevitably hear things they don't like, but it has little or no effect on them. They just keep listening to music. It's fun! 

Science:
Pleasure / fun. Is this a distinction without a difference? 

Speaking crudely, we all keep listening to music because it's pleasurable/fun. Of course not all music is fun for everyone all the time. When it stops being fun most of us stop listening, either sooner or later. I really don't think the "sooner or later" depends a jot on whether we have opinions about whether music should please us or whether we exist to listen to it. We might have opinions like that, but regardless of what introspections and debates keep us awake nights we're all going to decide where our time is best spent, and we're probably going to spend it doing what we find to be...

Fun.

Well, I am, anyway. Which is why I'm haunted by the thought that persisting to the end of Feldman's six-hour String Quartet #2 might have been even more fun. I mean, the last thing I want to do is subside into repetitious grumbling.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

I am constantly puzzled by one or two posters who are often critical of people listening to music because it brings pleasure. If they disapprove of this motive, then I have to wonder why _they _listen to music.


----------



## SeptimalTritone (Jul 7, 2014)

I love Feldman's String Quartet 2...



But I'm okay with others not liking it, or even not caring to pursue the long journey.

-rest of post nuked-


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

String Quartet 2, like most of Feldman's late works, is a lovely piece of music which gains negative reactions mostly because of its length. For Philip Guston, which is slightly prettier and about an hour shorter, is unjustly overshadowed by the quartet!!!!


----------



## SeptimalTritone (Jul 7, 2014)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> String Quartet 2, like most of Feldman's late works, is a lovely piece of music which gains negative reactions mostly because of its length. For Philip Guston, which is slightly prettier and about an hour shorter, is unjustly overshadowed by the quartet!!!!


I love both of these.

Also, String Quartet 1, Trio, For John Cage, Crippled Symmetry, Piano Violin Viola Cello, Why Patterns, Triadic Memories, Clarinet and String Quartet...

and _especially_ Violin and String Quartet are heavily underrated!!!


----------



## dzc4627 (Apr 23, 2015)

Rapide: "The purpose of avantgarde music today is to push the boundaries, to challenge listeners and to shock."


I can understand these sentiments. But often emotion is a factor as well, just as it always has been.


----------



## kartikeys (Mar 16, 2013)

To distract from death. To feel alive while here. 
To connect with nature and people.


----------



## Guest (Nov 20, 2015)

KenOC said:


> I am constantly puzzled by one or two posters who are often critical of people listening to music because it brings pleasure. If they disapprove of this motive, then I have to wonder why _they _listen to music.


I am puzzled by this remark. I don't know of anyone who criticizes people for listening to music because it brings pleasure.


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

KenOC said:


> I am constantly puzzled by one or two posters who are often critical of people listening to music because it brings pleasure. If they disapprove of this motive, then I have to wonder why _they _listen to music.


Name and shame Ken - might be worth an infraction to flush out such garbage


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Music exists as part of mankind's expression of himself, that he is rather more than a collection of chemicals. It is an expression of the creative faculty put into mankind for his enjoyment of life. Rather like sport - sport is not essential but it adds greatly to our enjoyment of life (except if you are an England supporter, then it adds a lot of frustration!)
Music is what makes the creators happy and fulfilled creating and the rest of us happy listening to, as long as it is what we like.
Music is above all to be enjoyed! We should encourage our young people (if they have ability) to make music - whether classical, pop or jazz or whatever. Wonderful way of expressing themselves.
Music is for our enjoyment - period!


----------



## Stavrogin (Apr 20, 2014)

some guy said:


> I am puzzled by this remark. I don't know of anyone who criticizes people for listening to music because it brings pleasure.


"Listeners who think music exists to please them often have trouble when they hear things they don't like right away. They either struggle and struggle until they do like things, or *they subside into repetitious grumbling about how contemporary music doesn't communicate, is totally cerebral, is unlistenable noise, and so forth*."

So in all honesty you are going to act like this is not a critical remark and a way to distance yourself from _those superficial ignorants_?
In all honesty.

PS Now you will probably say that KenOc spoke about "people who listen because it brings pleasure", which is different from "people who think music exists to please them", but I think that in the end that's what KenOc meant. And however, this doesn't change your critical stance towards the latter category, which - however hard you try to formally conceal it - comes off as quite radical.


----------



## Guest (Nov 20, 2015)

Stavrogin said:


> Now you will probably say that KenOc spoke about "people who listen because it brings pleasure", which is different from "people who think music exists to please them", but I think that in the end that's what KenOc meant.


"people who listen because it brings pleasure" is certainly different from "people who grumble about music they don't like."

Quite radically different.


----------



## Harlequin (May 30, 2014)

I feel that if I lived for music to please me I would be full of myself and, on the other hand, if I existed to listen to music I would be assuming I know everything about existence. If anything music is a sliver of that existence; though a beautiful one. 

As humans producing the arts we are fortunate above all other life on this planet, even though we have such things as war. For in the end we are so much more than spiders producing their beautiful webs; we produce webs of the arts if you will. 

Speaking of the arts, why does the question only pertain to music... why not all the arts. For I feel looking at a true Monet would be equally as stimulating as hearing a classical piece or perhaps reading some literature.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Stavrogin said:


> "Listeners who think music exists to please them often have trouble when they hear things they don't like right away. They either struggle and struggle until they do like things, or they subside into repetitious grumbling about how contemporary music doesn't communicate, is totally cerebral, is unlistenable noise, and so forth."
> 
> So in all honesty you are going to act like this is not a critical remark and a way to distance yourself from _those superficial ignorants_?
> In all honesty.
> ...


There is no difference between people who listen because it brings pleasure and people who think music exists to please them, if we interpret "them" impersonally. Few, except the almighty Jehovah, the insane, and children under the age of two, actually believe that the universe exists for their sole personal pleasure. Most people, though, do think that the things they do with their leisure time, such as listening to music, ought to bring them a certain level of enjoyment, and if that doesn't happen they're likely to turn their attention to something else. Life is short, and, I've noticed, keeps getting shorter.

The problem I have with this thread is not so much the whiff of snobbery directed at those repetitious grumblers who can't be convinced that it would be "fun" to sit to the end of Stockhausen's _Licht_ (which, according to one of our members, is the 20th century's _Der Ring des Nibelungen_, but that is neither here nor there). The problem is with the manufacture of these artificial categories of listeners - in defiance of the fairly evident fact that we all, for the most part, listen to music for the pleasure it gives us and do not listen to it when it doesn't give us pleasure - as a way of rationalizing that snobbery and giving it a scientific gloss.

It's perfectly true that some people have broader aesthetic sympathies than others, that some have a specific interest in knowing the field of music in depth, that some of us are insatiably curious and take pleasure in the new and unfamiliar precisely because it's new and unfamiliar, and that others simply have ample time and money for purchasing music or traveling the globe in search of it. We're all different and live different lives. But I'm sure none of us objects to being gently exhorted to listen broadly and with an open mind, and not to dismiss too readily music which doesn't appeal to us immediately. Indeed, most of us have probably exhorted ourselves to do those very things when confronted with "cerebral, unlistenable noise." Whether we take our own advice depends on a lot of factors, such as how much of our finite lives we want to spend trying to find the fun in something we don't like. That judgment is ours and no one else's to make.

In the final analysis, I'll listen to what gives me pleasure and you'll listen to what gives you pleasure. And if I want to grumble that no one nowadays is writing music that really moves me, dammit, I will.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

Even though I play my music when I want and at the volume I want, I at least try to make my music comfortable. Just last week, for example, I bought some larger stereo speakers so that it would have more room to move. It cost a lot of money, but my personal pleasure isn't my highest priority--I want the music I enjoy to be able to stretch it's legs a bit.


----------



## SeptimalTritone (Jul 7, 2014)

Some guy, you realize that Mahlerian doesn't consider Cage's 4'33" to be in his definition of what counts as music, which is a very conservative opinion given what has happened with music since (and even before): music has included recordings of nature, radios, electronic noise generators, ambient weather, layers of non-vocal speaking, etc. Does that make him a category 1 listener where "music exists to please me", and not a category 2 listener where "I exist to listen to music"?

PetrB thinks Otomo Yoshihide and Yasunao Tone are vulgar, and that Ferneyhough has no emotional sensibility. Those are very conservative opinions. Does that also make him a closed minded category 1 listener who can't get into these composers because it doesn't please him? Hasn't he not made a good enough effort for Japanese noise artists, much less Ferneyhough (who really is a composer on the conservative side)? Isn't PetrB's complaint of Ferneyhough's lack of emotional sensibility no different from the "fools" who think Schoenberg has no emotional sensibility?

And further, PetrB has said that Cage's imaginary landscapes with radios and such are (paraphrasing) "nice experiments, but only worth hearing once".

Richannes Wrahms thinks that Varese's and Xenakis's and others' electronic music has only a tangential relationship to "traditional" classical, and further, that electronic music has much less substance. Isn't he also a category 1 listener, even more closed minded and conservative?

Which category are Mahlerian, PetrB, and Richannes Wrahms? Which category is science? (be aware that science has thanked you for introducing him to Karkowski and Merzbow) 

What category am I? Please tell me what category I am. My feelings won't be hurt. I promise.

Even violadude, who I admire for being very broadly and deeply versed in music, has said that he doesn't like Merzbow because he prefers music where more is happening. That's really a superficial understanding of Merzbow. Is he a category 1 listener?

Really, does anyone on TalkClassical meet your standards for a category 2 listener, some guy?


----------



## Guest (Nov 20, 2015)

Septimal,

My category one does not include the concepts of "conservative" or "closed minded" or "fools" or "superficial." Those are all from you.

The categories were not intended to promote any standards, either, but to posit two general attitudes, one of which establishes some pretty efficient roadblocks to enjoying music and one which does not.

Category one listeners manage, nonetheless to enjoy quite a lot of music, as you know. That's not really the issue. It's that category one listeners tends to stick with what they already know,* and a category two listener tends to eschew knowledge in favor of exploration.

I'm not interested, just by the way, in setting up hard and fast categories. And I'm appalled by the suggestion that I place friends and colleagues into one or the other. The point of the categories was not to categorize (as it were!) but to suggest that some attitudes function to close one off and others to open one up.

Yours,

Michael

*I cannot answer "how did they get to where they got to in the first place"? If "they" could remember, maybe "they" could keep the process going, eh?


----------



## SeptimalTritone (Jul 7, 2014)

I actually agree that not limiting yourself to what you are already familiar with and exploring is always a good thing. Seeking out new paradigms of music and absorbing them is a wonderful thing. And not limiting yourself by saying "this new music doesn't fit with what I want" is the way to go. It really is, as you say, fun to seek out awesome music!

I just think that (sorry mods, I really need to make this point!) the way you phrased it by positing two categories, presumably the "bad listeners" and the "good listeners" was, well, off putting. That's the way it came across. I actually agree with the content of your opinion, but not the tone in which it's worded.


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock (Jul 6, 2013)

On the one hand, I'm tempted to sound very pragmatic and say: pure enjoyment. That's why I listen to music - I get enjoyment out of it. But the enjoyment comes, I think, from finding oneself in the sounds the artist communicates - so I guess the 'transcendental' purpose of music is the search for oneself.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

My answer on page 1 stands as an answer "for me," but realistically the objective answer has to be a question for ethnomusicology. I'm not well-read in that field, but a few answers that probably would come up include: 

- helping infants rest
- helping people memorize things
- religious rituals 
- making fun of people ("na na na na na I have ice cream and you can't have it") 
- selling things or attracting attention to products ("extra extra read all about it") 
- seduction 

And many more!


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

Current pop music exists for torture purposes.


----------



## Guest (Nov 21, 2015)

SeptimalTritone said:


> I actually agree that not limiting yourself to what you are already familiar with and exploring is always a good thing. Seeking out new paradigms of music and absorbing them is a wonderful thing. And not limiting yourself by saying "this new music doesn't fit with what I want" is the way to go. It really is, as you say, fun to seek out awesome music!
> 
> I just think that (sorry mods, I really need to make this point!) the way you phrased it by positing two categories, presumably the "bad listeners" and the "good listeners" was, well, off putting. That's the way it came across. I actually agree with the content of your opinion, but not the tone in which it's worded.


I wasn't actually talking about listeners at all. That's my real mistake, I think, to identify these two categories as two types of listeners. That's not what I think. These two broad attitudes exist prior to listening and affect how the listening takes place when it does. (There's a question. Is "listener" a category or is "listening" an action? Or should "or" be "and"? So many possibilities.)

Anyway, as you've noticed, many of the people one could conceivably put into category one are quite good listeners. And possibly many of the people one could put into category two are quite bad listeners. That's what I thought was the most egregious misreading of my post on your part, if you want to know how it looks to me. There was, anyway, absolutely no presumption on my part of category one being "bad listeners" and category two being "good listeners." That would be clearly wrong, in any case.

And if we're talking directly to mods in our posts now, then what I have to say to them is that I see absolutely nothing objectionable in anything Septimal just said. I think he's mistaken about my phrasing, but that's quite different from being offended by anything he said. Nothing he said was offensive, eh?


----------



## TradeMark (Mar 12, 2015)

The purpose of music is to fill the silence.


----------



## Guest (Nov 22, 2015)

SeptimalTritone said:


> I actually agree that not limiting yourself to what you are already familiar with and exploring is always a good thing.


Why? As in, "Why is it 'good' (morally?)?" And as in, "Why 'always''?" You and I might well enjoy exploring the unfamiliar, and believe that being an exploratory kind of person is the way to be. But 'good'?


----------



## SeptimalTritone (Jul 7, 2014)

MacLeod said:


> Why? As in, "Why is it 'good' (morally?)?" And as in, "Why 'always''?" You and I might well enjoy exploring the unfamiliar, and believe that being an exploratory kind of person is the way to be. But 'good'?


In my opinion, it's more of a "recommended" sort of thing rather than a "morally required" sort of thing.


----------



## SeptimalTritone (Jul 7, 2014)

some guy said:


> I wasn't actually talking about listeners at all. That's my real mistake, I think, to identify these two categories as two types of listeners. That's not what I think. These two broad attitudes exist prior to listening and affect how the listening takes place when it does. (There's a question. Is "listener" a category or is "listening" an action? Or should "or" be "and"? So many possibilities.)
> 
> Anyway, as you've noticed, many of the people one could conceivably put into category one are quite good listeners. And possibly many of the people one could put into category two are quite bad listeners. That's what I thought was the most egregious misreading of my post on your part, if you want to know how it looks to me. There was, anyway, absolutely no presumption on my part of category one being "bad listeners" and category two being "good listeners." That would be clearly wrong, in any case.
> 
> And if we're talking directly to mods in our posts now, then what I have to say to them is that I see absolutely nothing objectionable in anything Septimal just said. I think he's mistaken about my phrasing, but that's quite different from being offended by anything he said. Nothing he said was offensive, eh?


All right. Then I fully agree with you. Seeing what the composer has to offer is a much more rewarding and enjoyable thing to do than judging the composer for not suiting your predefined world view. It's a good motto for all of art consumption. I still think that one shouldn't beat his head too much if after a fair number of listens and a reasonable effort one doesn't care much for what the composer is doing. I.e. it wouldn't make sense for you to beat your head into liking Wagner and Chopin, for example (weren't those two some of the common practice composers you didn't like much?). But sometimes it's a fine line between whether you've really not given a reasonable unbiased listen, or if you legitimately don't like the music. And that fine line can change over time.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

I have a simple philosophy: I listen to music that brings me enjoyment. I am willing to listen to unfamiliar mystic but not for too long if it does not bring me enjoyment. I did not go to see Berg's Lulu broadcast because I couldn't stand about three hours of that sort of music (plus the plot which I find distasteful anyway.) if anyone likes it fine by me but don't include me in it. I also don't tend to listen to second rate music as life is too short to listen to (eg) J C Bach when one could be listening to Mozart.


----------



## Guest (Nov 22, 2015)

DavidA said:


> I also don't tend to listen to second rate music as life is too short to listen to (eg) J C Bach when one could be listening to Mozart.


Nor do I listen to Mozart when I could be listening to what gives me much greater pleasure.


----------



## Guest (Nov 22, 2015)

So what is to be done for those who regret that composers these days produce music that they (the regretful listeners) do not wish to listen to? I presume that there are only two options: either composer or listener must change their habits.

Or perhaps we need not worry about the fate of the regretful listener, provided that we can resist the argument that we'll all be sorry when the concert halls close down because composers were selfishly writing what they wanted to write instead of for the conservative concert-goer.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> Nor do I listen to Mozart when I could be listening to what gives me much greater pleasure.


That's fine. You listen to what you enjoy.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> So what is to be done for those who regret that composers these days produce music that they (the regretful listeners) do not wish to listen to? I presume that there are only two options: either composer or listener must change their habits.
> 
> Or perhaps we need not worry about the fate of the regretful listener, provided that we can resist the argument that we'll all be sorry when the concert halls close down because composers were selfishly writing what they wanted to write instead of for the conservative concert-goer.


The purpose of writing music is for the enjoyment of others. If no-one enjoys it there is not much purpose in writing it. So I advise such composers to get a day job like most of us have to.


----------



## Andolink (Oct 29, 2012)

DavidA said:


> The purpose of writing music is for the enjoyment of others.


This is what I call pandering.

A composer can only guess what others enjoy. An artist must be true to him/her self and write the music they themselves value most and then hope that enough listeners value it too to reward the composer monetarily so he/she can go on living and creating.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Andolink said:


> This is what I call pandering.
> 
> A composer can only guess what others enjoy. A artist must be true to him/her self and write the music they themselves value most and then hope that enough listeners value it too to reward the composer monetarily so he/she can go on living and creating.


Fine let them do that. But then don't moan when you can't make a living out of it. Get a job!


----------



## Guest (Nov 22, 2015)

How many composers do you know who moan, David?

I know a few composers, myself, fifty or sixty. Not a huge sample, but none of them moan. Most of them already have jobs is maybe why.


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

DavidA said:


> I advise such composers to get a day job like most of us have to.


so that's where Norman 'Get on yer bike' Tebbitt got to :devil:


----------

