# Perceptions: Composers & Pieces



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

How much do you believe discovering who composed a piece plays into how you view the piece?

Consider each of the exhibits below, and discuss your thoughts on the interaction that is played in how you perceive a piece.

Exhibit A:

- You listen to a piece knowing it's by a specific composer.

Exhibit B:

- You listen to a piece not knowing who composed it, and then later discover who composed it.



I hate to admit it, but I think sometimes it plays a bigger role in my perceptions than I'd like to admit. I'm listening to a SQ by Sibelius at the moment, and think if I learned it was by Beethoven, I'd be giving it much more praise than I am. Probably because Beethoven is a bigger name.

Discuss any relevant thoughts/experiences.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Implied in this discussion is perceptions of a particular composer, and how that impacts how you receive his/her pieces.


Ah, so my passions of psychology and music are now merging! :lol: :lol:


----------



## Klassik (Mar 14, 2017)

It's probably natural to have a positive bias towards composers you like/respect/or are respected by others and have a negative bias towards composers you don't like/disrespect/or are disrespected by others. I will say that almost all of the composers who I generally like have some works that I don't enjoy. I don't think I'd like a piece just because so and so wrote it.

Now, am I more likely to listen to music I don't know from composers I generally like as compared to composers I generally dislike? Yes, of course. Also, I am more likely to give a piece I didn't like a 2nd chance later on if it's from a composer I generally like.

One reason why I don't like ranking music is that I might have similar feelings about two pieces, but there might be a natural tendency to rank the piece from the more liked/respected composer higher than the other. It's not like I think to my self, "this is clearly the 57th best piece of music I've ever heard!" There's a lot of murkiness involved in ranking music and I think that's where small biases can have a big impact.


----------



## dillonp2020 (May 6, 2017)

I like most composers, but I'll admit I give some more leeway than others. For example, if I hear a piece and I know it is one of my favorite composers, I'll be more inclined to listen to the piece than if I didn't know. I don't think I like a piece more if it by a specific composer. For example, I recently saw the modern opera Dead Man Walking. I am not a fan, and I can tell you that this would be true even if the composer's name was Giuseppe Verdi.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I'm really splitting hairs with this thread. It plays a small part, but likely a bigger part than you think and I feel it's important to discuss this bias.


----------



## dillonp2020 (May 6, 2017)

There definitely is bias, but I typically chose what I listen to. I don't listen to the radio all that often. I've found pieces I like by composers I had never even heard of. That said, I agree that if I knew Beethoven or Bach composed everything playing on the radio, I would likely prefer it, not only because of my preference for Beethoven and Bach, but because of why I prefer them. I like the music of Bach and Beethoven, diverse as their compositions may be. I think for me, the bias lies in buying and selecting cds. I buy a lot of Beethoven, Chopin, Puccini, and Verdi. I should probably broaden my horizons to Bartok, (more) Mozart, (more) Bach, Sibelius, etc. The same can be said for my listening.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

dillonp2020 said:


> There definitely is bias, but I typically chose what I listen to. I don't listen to the radio all that often. I've found pieces I like by composers I had never even heard of. That said, I agree that if I knew Beethoven or Bach composed everything playing on the radio, I would likely prefer it, not only because of my preference for Beethoven and Bach, but because of why I prefer them. I like the music of Bach and Beethoven, diverse as their compositions may be. I think for me, the bias lies in buying and selecting cds. I buy a lot of Beethoven, Chopin, Puccini, and Verdi. I should probably broaden my horizons to Bartok, (more) Mozart, (more) Bach, Sibelius, etc. The same can be said for my listening.


Right now, I'm building my Classical collection. It's a very good start at about 200 CDs or so; when I go CD shopping, I try to think of what I need more of, and that includes composers whose names I heard around TC but haven't heard any of their music. I also think, do I need more symphonies, solo piano music, Violin Concertos, etc.

I think I'm pretty healthy, for the most part, but undeniably, a bias exists in everyone to different degrees. We must acknowledge it and work to eliminate it and increase our objectivity!


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I hesitate to admit this, but the CD cover art affects the way I hear the music, to some degree. I am a visually-oriented person anyway. I like good imagery, and even the typography affects me. I don't like cheap cover art. If you want a good CD cover, hire a graphic artist; don't let the computer geek in the warehouse do it on his home computer!

But in the end, my full judgement is based on the music.

Also, I like good recordings. I don't like too much hall sound; I like a dryer sound.

With all the modern stuff I listen to, I frequently buy CDs by unfamiliar composers. You gotta do that on faith, if you want to explore new territory. It works out most of the time for me.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

millionrainbows said:


> I hesitate to admit this, but the CD cover art affects the way I hear the music, to some degree. I am a visually-oriented person anyway. I like good imagery, and even the typography affects me. I don't like cheap cover art. If you want a good CD cover, hire a graphic artist; don't let the computer geek in the warehouse do it on his home computer!
> 
> But in the end, my full judgement is based on the music.
> 
> Also, I like good recordings. I don't like too much hall sound; I like a dryer sound.


Cover arts have an impact on me if I am in a shop and buying blindly not knowing what the music is like, definitely. But if I know what's on the CD and how it sounds, I don't really mind what the cover art is, as long as it's aesthetically pleasing, and it typically is.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

I think I will take a chance on an unknown-to-me piece by a composer I am familiar with over an unknown piece by an unknown composer. I think it's a trust issue; if I know them, I can take a risk. However, some of these pieces end up only being heard once regardless of who wrote it. 

I'm not sure I would hold a piece in higher regard just because of the name of the composer, however. Hardly anyone consistently knocks down all the pins all the time.


----------



## Jacred (Jan 14, 2017)

Like everything else in life, reputation plays a role in our appreciation of music, even if it is insignificant and we try to ignore it. Also, with more well-known composers, you have listened to a larger body of their works and can draw connections between the new piece you hear and other pieces that you are familiar with.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Great thread Capt'n. Glad you got the guts to admit that. I believe it plays a large part in a lot of fans in general, especially in popular music, which is why they focus on image so much. I found out for sure I used to have this bias, but worked hard on getting rid of it, as we tend to underestimate lesser known composers that have produced some works as good as the best of the masters, and even better than some of their well-liked or better known compositions. I strongly believe in this case.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

I don't know much about the human brain, but I know enough to know that anyone who believes that external factors such as the composer's identity (or, as millionrainbows noted, the CD art, or countless other big and little things) have no impact on how one reacts to a piece of music knows _nothing_ about the human brain.

I would say that what you have for breakfast could affect whether or not you like a new piece of music, but that sort of claim is so easily misinterpreted...


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Nearly all of the music I listen to now is on an ipod shuffle-type player and I can't see who the artist is. About two-thirds of the music is 'modern classical' music of various types and I can't always remember who the composer is. 

When I started using that player it irritated me a bit because I was accustomed to knowing what I was listening to, but now I prefer to listen blind and become acquainted with the pieces as they repeat in the list. Sometimes I have downloaded (either free or purchased) mp3 files of music and listened to it for two or three months without knowing the name of the composer. I think I like the idea of not being influenced by a name because that's the point: the music should interest you, not the name of the composer; that is how silly cults start.

Artwork on CDs is of no interest to me really. Sometimes I like it, sometimes I don't, but it usually has no bearing on the musical content.


----------



## JeffD (May 8, 2017)

So here is a point of view I am exploring. I don't know if I agree with myself, I am "trying this on" to see how it looks on me.  

Is there a more "valid" way of listening to a piece? Is it less valid to bring our conscious knowledge and unconscious cultural preparations to a concert? 

Many composers I would recognize even if I did not see the name on the playbill. Oh I might get fooled by some composer deliberately imitating another, but in general, for the composers I follow, I kind of have it. Is that bad? Does that distort my listening experience in some way?

None of us can shed the acculturation we have acquired by being alive now. Nobody alive can listen to Bach not having heard anything composed after him. None of us can hear with the ears and mind and expectations that the first audiences had. Even our first hearing of a piece is affected by our modern expectations and experiences. (Can anyone today listen to Beethoven Piano Sonata No 32 and not hear boogy woogy?)

I fully acknowledge that knowing the composer will affect my listening, and how I feel about it. I question if that is a bad thing. It seems to me the "paradise" of a listening "unpolluted" by knowledge, education, modern expectations, better health and nutrition, having all my teeth, once playing in a blues band, is entirely impossible. Taken as part of the whole, knowing the composer is among the least of the "polluting" influences.

And perhaps that's as it should be. Its awesome that someone from some 200 years ago can communicate to me at all, much less bring me to my knees.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

I will seek out something new by Beethoven that I may never have heard before.

But I also often turn on the radio in the middle of a piece playing which I never heard before, or which seems totally unfamiliar, and I wait to hear who composed the piece. I've been known to sit in the car after shutting it off just to wait for the announcement of the composer, 'cause I liked the piece and wanted to hear more. Sometimes the composer is a familiar name, but sometimes it is not.


----------



## Eschbeg (Jul 25, 2012)

JeffD said:


> I fully acknowledge that knowing the composer will affect my listening, and how I feel about it. I question if that is a bad thing.


When it's just a matter of a piece getting the benefit of the doubt because you know who the composer is, then preconceived biases seem pretty harmless and inevitable to me.

I think it becomes more questionable when music _doesn't_ get a benefit of the doubt that would have been granted if the composer had been different. There's a famous story where Paul Henry Lang, the great music historian, was trying to demonstrate that Borodin was inept at writing symphonies, and as proof he cited the fermata at the beginning of Borodin's 2nd Symphony, saying "Who begins a symphony with a fermata?"… apparently forgetting that Beethoven's Fifth also begins with a fermata.

Speaking of Beethoven, I'm also thinking of the way Beethoven's deviations from "classical" sonata form are praised as innovations while Tchaikovsky's are criticized as weaknesses. "Sonata form also was not designed to accommodate the emotionally charged statements that Tchaikovsky wanted to make," reads the Wikipedia page on Tchaik's symphonies (cribbed from David Brown's Tchaikovsky biography). Rather than allowing Tchaik the "permission" to deviate from sonata norms, the verdict instead is that Tchaik was just bad at writing sonatas. I can easily imagine the ridicule that would be met if someone here posted a thread criticizing Beethoven's sonata forms for not adhering closely enough to the models set by Scarlatti or Haydn.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Eschbeg said:


> When it's just a matter of a piece getting the benefit of the doubt because you know who the composer is, then preconceived biases seem pretty harmless and inevitable to me.
> 
> I think it becomes more questionable when music _doesn't_ get a benefit of the doubt that would have been granted if the composer had been different. There's a famous story where Paul Henry Lang, the great music historian, was trying to demonstrate that Borodin was inept at writing symphonies, and as proof he cited the fermata at the beginning of Borodin's 2nd Symphony, saying "Who begins a symphony with a fermata?"… apparently forgetting that Beethoven's Fifth also begins with a fermata.
> 
> Speaking of Beethoven, I'm also thinking of the way Beethoven's deviations from "classical" sonata form are praised as innovations while Tchaikovsky's are criticized as weaknesses. "Sonata form also was not designed to accommodate the emotionally charged statements that Tchaikovsky wanted to make," reads the Wikipedia page on Tchaik's symphonies (cribbed from David Brown's Tchaikovsky biography). Rather than allowing Tchaik the "permission" to deviate from sonata norms, the verdict instead is that Tchaik was just bad at writing sonatas. I can easily imagine the ridicule that would be met if someone here posted a thread criticizing Beethoven's sonata forms for not adhering closely enough to the models set by Scarlatti or Haydn.


I think reaching 100% objectivity is impossible, but those who push themselves constantly to be more and more objective are better at surveying the data, in this case, music.


----------



## topo morto (Apr 9, 2017)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I hate to admit it


Why? You're human and such biases are inevitable.



Captainnumber36 said:


> I think reaching 100% objectivity is impossible, but those who push themselves constantly to be more and more objective are better at surveying the data, in this case, music.


I'd suggest the reverse process is at least as pertinent- the more you survey the data, the more your decisions will be driven by the data rather than.... things that are not the data.

Of course where _that _boundary lies is also a matter for personal judgement though!


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

topo morto said:


> Why? You're human and such biases are inevitable.
> 
> I'd suggest the reverse process is at least as pertinent- the more you survey the data, the more your decisions will be driven by the data rather than.... things that are not the data.
> 
> Of course where _that _boundary lies is also a matter for personal judgement though!


You can survey the data with a heavily biased mind, though. The point is to have a driven mind for objectivity. Objectivity in art is basing opinions on that art on nothing but the art itself.


----------



## topo morto (Apr 9, 2017)

Captainnumber36 said:


> You can survey the data with a heavily biased mind, though. The point is to have a driven mind for objectivity. Objectivity in art is basing opinions on that art on nothing but the art itself.


But even the line between what 'is the art' and what 'isn't the art' is personal judgement.

Is it the score? The performance? _This _performance, but not _that _one? Do you include the feeling of being in the concert hall? If not why not, given that was the intended performance space? Do you include the way the performers look?

On the particular subject of being influenced by who a composer was - why shouldn't a given piece bring about different associations seen as part of the wider narrative of one composer's body of work than as part of that as another?


----------



## JeffD (May 8, 2017)

Eschbeg said:


> I think it becomes more questionable when music _doesn't_ get a benefit of the doubt that would have been granted if the composer had been different.


Yes but...

Well to go with my previous thinking - it is not good IMO to not give the benefit of the doubt to any new piece, even if you know the composer and dislike other works by the composer. Even if you hate that genre in general. Even if is being performed by an artist you don't care for. Even if it the East Port Zeebee High School Band.

My point is that one IMO should develop the habit of giving all music a chance. A serious chance. Try really hard to like it. Pretend you are being paid by the performers to promote the concert in your magazine. Something. You don't have to like it, just to give it a chance.

I have "discovered" some really delightful stuff. Other stuff I felt robbed of precious minutes of my life.

What I mean is the problem isn't one's prior knowledge that is the problem, it is not giving it a chance that's the problem.


----------



## JeffD (May 8, 2017)

Another example. I have never liked Varese. I had tried a few times.

Then I heard about the connection between Varese and Frank Zappa, who I really liked at the time. So I tried again.

And still I got no traction.

Recently I listened to Varese's "Density 21.5" and I was very pleasantly surprised. I liked it. I listened again. And again. And now I cannot go around hating Varese. Not all of him anyway.

I can't justify or explain what I like about it. Luckily I don't have to. I just found I really like it.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I think for me it's more about how I gain value and understanding of different composers. I have certain thoughts about how one composer is and when I hear a piece and it reminds me of a composer other than the one that actually composed the music, I think, oh, I wish the composer I'm already familiar with composed this song because it would build up more points in my mind for that composer.

It's not so much about liking or disliking, as it is an issue of becoming familiar with the works and the composers, hope that made sense, it's a bit complicated and I hope I articulated it well enough.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

topo morto said:


> But even the line between what 'is the art' and what 'isn't the art' is personal judgement.
> 
> Is it the score? The performance? _This _performance, but not _that _one? Do you include the feeling of being in the concert hall? If not why not, given that was the intended performance space? Do you include the way the performers look?
> 
> On the particular subject of being influenced by who a composer was - why shouldn't a given piece bring about different associations seen as part of the wider narrative of one composer's body of work than as part of that as another?


All the attributes that go into the art's composition is what is to be judged. Music, when performed live, should be judged from the position of closing one's eyes and focusing on the music.


----------



## topo morto (Apr 9, 2017)

Captainnumber36 said:


> All the attributes that go into the art's composition is what is to be judged. Music, when performed live, should be judged from the position of closing one's eyes and focusing on the music.


So you are regarding any performance decision that affects the sound as part of the art, and any purely visual performance decision to be not part of the art?


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

topo morto said:


> So you are regarding any performance decision that affects the sound as part of the art, and any purely visual performance decision to be not part of the art?


When reviewing the music, yes.


----------



## topo morto (Apr 9, 2017)

Captainnumber36 said:


> When reviewing the music, yes.


Sounds reasonable to me - though it seems slightly at odds with what you were saying elsewhere about enjoying the 'associating with classy people' aspect of attending a concert. How can you be sure that pleasure isn't biasing your perception of the music?


----------



## JeffD (May 8, 2017)

topo morto said:


> Sounds reasonable to me - though it seems slightly at odds with what you were saying elsewhere about enjoying the 'associating with classy people' aspect of attending a concert. How can you be sure that pleasure isn't biasing your perception of the music?


Or your perception of the people?


----------



## JeffD (May 8, 2017)

I think it important to state that I have absolutely no professional connection with music. It is strictly an avocation. A passionate one yes, but not something I depend on for a living or a career or a reputation. The relevance here is that I have the freedom to like or dislike or take interest or not or change my mind without notice. 

I think those with professional involvement could well have more important reasons to engage with a piece than I do.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

topo morto said:


> Sounds reasonable to me - though it seems slightly at odds with what you were saying elsewhere about enjoying the 'associating with classy people' aspect of attending a concert. How can you be sure that pleasure isn't biasing your perception of the music?


While I do enjoy associating with ladies & gentlemen, the reason I go to a show is for the music. The crowd can make me comfortable, but it has no bearing on whether or not I enjoy the music.


----------

