# Beyond likes and dislikes



## Guest (Nov 24, 2013)

Is there such a place?

Is it at all desirable to get there?

(Note number one: There has been a lot of discussion already about listening to things one dislikes. But the eventual goal of that activity is to end up liking those things. I'm interested in beyond. I'm interested in getting to a place where one's own personal likes and dislikes are irrelevant.

Note number two: I imagine that a discussion of this topic could lead to conversation about the purpose of music. If you find yourself drawn to that topic, please indulge yourself. I, for one, would not see that as a derailment but as a necessary and inevitable way of answering the two questions I posed.)


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Maybe you ought to get things started - without 'setting the tone' if possible. I don't quite understand that "place where one's own personal likes and dislikes are irrelevant." If there isn't any 'me' in there, well, I won't _be_ there.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

An interesting question.

In some ways, it seems a good idea to get beyond likes & dislikes, because then one could dispassionately look at the structure and pure aesthetics of a piece. It would feel like the appreciation of a good maths equation. A Buddhist way of looking at things, eliminating desire and achieving Nirvana.

But in the Western tradition, the appreciation of beauty has historically involved love or desire.

I can imagine that if asked to adjudicate music one disliked, one would put oneself into a dispassionate state while listening & judging.

So - I think there *is* such a place; I myself do not aspire to go there; but in some contexts, *it might be desirable*.


----------



## EricABQ (Jul 10, 2012)

some guy said:


> I I'm interested in getting to a place where one's own personal likes and dislikes are irrelevant.


Have you tried marriage?


----------



## Gilberto (Sep 12, 2013)

I was thinking about this like and dislike thing the other day while driving to work, listening to the radio. It is pretty much beyond my control what I like or dislike; not something that is a mental effort on my part. 

The spirit of the piece of music either resonates with my spirit or it doesn't. Certain types of music, like baroque, roots reggae, jazz just find a home in my heart. Other types of music can disturb my soul. I suppose this sounds kind of hokey but it is my best explanation of my experience with my liking or disliking music.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

some guy said:


> Is there such a place?
> 
> Is it at all desirable to get there?
> 
> (Note number one: There has been a lot of discussion already about listening to things one dislikes. But the eventual goal of that activity is to end up liking those things. I'm interested in beyond. I'm interested in getting to a place where one's own personal likes and dislikes are irrelevant.


I can't understand how my opinion about what I'm listening could be irrelevant to myself... I listen music because of the music I love, and I consider the pieces that I don't like like the price I have to pay to find those that are important to me. To listen music requires a lot of time and it's not something that I have to do to survive, so if there wasn't a pleasure involved I'd certainly choose another activity as a hobby.


----------



## Jobis (Jun 13, 2013)

Ingélou said:


> An interesting question.
> 
> In some ways, it seems a good idea to get beyond likes & dislikes, because then one could dispassionately look at the structure and pure aesthetics of a piece. It would feel like the appreciation of a good maths equation. A Buddhist way of looking at things, eliminating desire and achieving Nirvana.
> 
> ...


Usually its the music theorists who love Webern who could appreciate music from such a perspective. What's dispassionate about admiring aesthetics and structure though?


----------



## Flamme (Dec 30, 2012)

some guy said:


> Is there such a place?
> 
> Is it at all desirable to get there?
> 
> ...










Or like


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Jobis said:


> Usually its the music theorists who love Webern who could appreciate music from such a perspective. What's dispassionate about admiring aesthetics and structure though?


You can appreciate aesthetics & structure in an 'Ooh, isn't this lovely - I love it!' way; or in a 'now I see how this relates to that - there is a symmetrical pattern here' way. I meant the latter.

However, I agree - it is in fact extremely difficult to rid the mind of all emotion or liking, which is why Nirvana is still to seek for those who aspire to go there.

The destination I choose - heaven - does involve love, though.


----------



## Alydon (May 16, 2012)

_


some guy said:



Is there such a place?

Is it at all desirable to get there?

(Note number one: There has been a lot of discussion already about listening to things one dislikes. But the eventual goal of that activity is to end up liking those things. I'm interested in beyond. I'm interested in getting to a place where one's own personal likes and dislikes are irrelevant.

Click to expand...

_


some guy said:


> I believe that the freedom of either liking or disliking a thing (music here) is what constitutes part of the human state and to get to a place where that is irrelevant would either be very difficult and not particularly desirable.
> I was talking to a music teacher the other day about composers we didn't much like and she pointed out it wasn't necessarily because we disliked the composer but that we possibly didn't understand them, which I find a better argument as appose plain disliking a work or its creator. Until recently I had a plain dislike of Benjamin Britten's music, but recently have found great beauty in many of his compositions, and with many other composers I have found my own way to appreciating them. I feel fulfilled in having spent my own time and judgement in appreciating classical music but wouldn't want to be in place where my likes and dislikes are irrelevant as it is those very things which bring me to the things I value most.


----------



## Guest (Nov 24, 2013)

I guess it depends on what one thinks the purpose of music is. If it's to please, then likes and dislikes are where one would expect to be.

But I always feel a bit unsatisfied by people talking about what they like and dislike. It's as if the purpose of music is to cause some reactions. Not that reactions are the inevitable result of listening, but that the purpose of the music is to cause those reactions. So discussion often seem to center on whether or not a particular piece or a particular type of music succeeds in causing the right reactions or not. And then there's the inevitable incredulity of someone who finds X to have failed that anyone in their right mind could possibly think that X has succeeded.

It's a funny situation. Talking about music almost always ends up being about the goal of music, which is to cause certain reactions. The reactions are what we value, what we end up talking about. The reactions and how successfully any particular piece of music or type of music is at causing those reactions. Never mind what the music is doing as itself. The reaction is the thing. Each piece of music is judged on how well it causes the right reactions. On the other hand, the listener (whose emotional needs seem from what I just said to be paramount) doesn't really fare any better. And that's because not all responses are considered equal. Your responses are not paramount--you have to align yourself with the correct responses as set out by the accumulated weight of what other listeners in the past have agreed upon as correct.

And even--what a bleak picture I'm presenting, eh?--if you're arrogant or confident enough to genuinely consider your individual responses to be genuinely paramount, that still limits you. Either the opinions of others limits you or you limit yourself. You're trapped, it seems to me, either way.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Except for _EricABQ'_s post (#4), which is extremely relevant, your lack of guidance has created a morass, _some guy_. To add to it, I can't even think of a music _genre_ I could be completely objective about.

[posts crossed in the ether. Most of the posts before your elucidation are not what you were looking for... see?]


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

If I was a music scholar or a critic, I suppose I would have to find a way to listen dispassionately and come up with interesting things to say about a piece no matter whether or not it tickled my personal fancy. If I was keenly interested in the history of music, I suppose I would have to listen to all sorts of things that disagreed with me in order to get some kind of insight into how they relate to what went before and after.

But I'm not any of those things, so I don't see why my current listening pleasure, or expectation of the same in the future, shouldn't be a sufficient guide to my listening choices.


----------



## Winterreisender (Jul 13, 2013)

I think it is possible (but probably quite difficult) to listen to music entirely objectively. But I'm not sure why I would want to.

It seems to me that there are such vast quantities of music in existence that we have to be somewhat selective about which pieces we should dedicate our time to. Surely listening to what we like and ignoring what we dislike is a reasonable approach. 

Or if, on the other hand, we should listen to music we dislike (with no intention of trying to like the piece), how do we decide what to choose? I assume it is not being suggested that I start seeking out hip-hop or disposal pop CDs, but rather that I listen to classical composers whom I for whatever reason dislike. But even here, in assuming one genre to be superior to another, are my personal prejudices coming into play. The alternative would be to place literally all music on equal footing and I have no intention of doing that.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

I'd like someone to suggest a reason to listen to music other than for pleasure.
I'd also like someone to suggest a reason for writing or playing music other than for pleasure.

[please do not include things like blowing a bugle so the troops know when to get out of bed or suchlike]


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Petwhac said:


> I'd like someone to suggest a reason to listen to music other than for pleasure.


A professional CD or concert reviewer I would guess?


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Jobis said:


> Usually its the music theorists who love Webern who could appreciate music from such a perspective. What's dispassionate about admiring aesthetics and structure though?


Webern's music is no better served by theory than any other rigorous composer, and the emphasis on the structure of his works has often prevented people from recognizing their beauties.

As an analogous situation, from the book I'm reading:
"The first time I heard [Schoenberg's Klavierstuck Op.33a], in a classroom, I had been handed a sheet showing its row forms and asked to put the appropriate number above every note in the piece. This 'analysis,' *which led to neither comprehension nor pleasure* in the piece, connected itself in my mind with the title, opus 'Thirty-three' 'A,' and it was some time before I could look at the title without associating it with the effort it took to decode that strange mathematical puzzle."

Anyway, I love music in general. I can usually find something to attract my attention in almost anything, and I prefer to focus on what I do enjoy rather than what I don't.

I believe that people can never be completely dispassionate, and I don't even believe it's desirable to do so, but I think we would all do well to recognize the part our own taste plays in our decisions.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Petwhac said:


> I'd like someone to suggest a reason to listen to music other than for pleasure.
> I'd also like someone to suggest a reason for writing or playing music other than for pleasure.
> 
> [please do not include things like blowing a bugle so the troops know when to get out of bed or suchlike]


Well, how about if you are feeling guilty about something, and want to punish yourself? 

[I just noticed that when I first see your avatar I think of a wall-mounted crank telephone. Boy, talk about dating oneself!]


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

Petwhac said:


> I'd also like someone to suggest a reason for writing or playing music other than for pleasure.


Beethoven gots to get paid, son.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Petwhac said:


> I'd like someone to suggest a reason to listen to music other than for pleasure.
> I'd also like someone to suggest a reason for writing or playing music other than for pleasure.
> 
> [please do not include things like blowing a bugle so the troops know when to get out of bed or suchlike]


I'm curious too.


----------



## EricABQ (Jul 10, 2012)

Petwhac said:


> I'd like someone to suggest a reason to listen to music other than for pleasure.


I've listened to music that gave me no pleasure to satisfy some curiosity about what the music sounded like.

But, I didn't know it wouldn't give me pleasure before listening to it, so I'm not sure that counts. But, there have been times I've continued to listen even when I knew I wasn't enjoying it just to continue to satisfy my curiosity.

That's about the closest I can get.


----------



## Alydon (May 16, 2012)

Petwhac said:


> I'd like someone to suggest a reason to listen to music other than for pleasure.
> I'd also like someone to suggest a reason for writing or playing music other than for pleasure.
> 
> [please do not include things like blowing a bugle so the troops know when to get out of bed or suchlike]


Listening to some types of music may not necessarily be pleasurable but can act as a catharsis or be a greater good in ones life which might not be pleasure as such but act as a stability which may not have existed before. Writing or playing music can actually be for many reasons other than pleasure such as being motivated to become a professional musician or the personal achievement of learning an instrument, while writing music can be a creative release or some individuals have the ingrained artistic ability to produce art, good or bad. Being creative can be far from pleasurable for some - look at the lives of the composers discussed on this site - it seems writing music can be a poisoned chalice and the fates bring an individual to that place.
On a personal note I listen to music mainly for pleasure, but know some pieces I go for are for the experience rather than an enjoyable one, rather like what is in my CD player at the moment!


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

EricABQ said:


> I've listened to music that gave me no pleasure to satisfy some curiosity about what the music sounded like.
> 
> But, I didn't know it wouldn't give me pleasure before listening to it, so I'm not sure that counts. But, there have been times I've continued to listen even when I knew I wasn't enjoying it just to continue to satisfy my curiosity.
> 
> That's about the closest I can get.


But it's an answer that involves still pleasure


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

What a great topic. I think this "like and dislike" is simply a unique expression of each individual life-form... it comes with the territory and the conditioning of each individual. Because everyone experiences life differently, and no ones' chemicals are flowing the exact same way. 

However, there seems to be an awareness beyond the personal preference. Something watches your thoughts, sensations, memory, feelings, actions, likes and dislikes... Indicating that there must must be something beyond in order to watch your personal movements. That something is you, it has to be since you're aware of it. I've found that you don't always have to entertain your personality, as it's only one facet of your expression. And the more you dive deeper beyond the superficial movements of the mind (personality), the more you move beyond the likes and dislikes... and the river flows free.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

some guy said:


> Is there such a place?
> 
> Is it at all desirable to get there?
> 
> (Note number one: There has been a lot of discussion already about listening to things one dislikes. But the eventual goal of that activity is to end up liking those things. I'm interested in beyond. I'm interested in getting to a place where one's own personal likes and dislikes are irrelevant.


There's always North Korea as a destination.


----------



## Guest (Nov 24, 2013)

Not sure where dispassion or objective have come from.

I never used any of those words. Nor did anything I say imply either of those words.

And yet, the whole discussion so far* (for which Ukko is blaming my lack of directingness, I know he is!) has been about whether listening to music objectively or dispassionately is a good thing or not. Or even a possible thing. (I think that listening objectively is a verb phrase that simply doesn't mean anything. It's not even a thing about which there can be possible or impossible.)

Getting past likes and dislikes will probably end up getting you to a place where there's even more pleasure than what you've got now, for one. Though that's not the goal. It will happen, in the nature of things.

I think that a lot of us, myself included, spend a good deal of time and effort worrying about things that are going to happen anyway, regardless. 

If you like music, generally, and you listen to it, you're going to have a lot of pleasure. Stands to reason. Dinna fash.

I'm suggesting that one can understand emotional reactions and pleasure and likes and dislikes as inevitable and perhaps even necessary side-effects of listening to music. And that music can be understood as an end, not as a means.

My question is not "can you/should you listen to music objectively or dispassionately?" My question is "is there a place past your own, individual, likes and dislikes? Is that place worth getting to?"

Here's what I think. If you focus on your likes and dislikes, if you listen to music in order to be pleased, that is, in order to get more of what you already like, then you will judge music on how successfully it does that. But think about the composer for a second. Someone who is very likely dead. If not, very likely not someone who knows you at all. That person, creating or having created a particular piece, cannot have at any time have been thinking of you and what you like and what you need or think you need. So that person's purpose, the decisions that person made, as a composer, had nothing to do with you at all. And now, that person's music is being judged by how well it succeeds in doing something that it has not set out to do, something that it could not have set out to do.

Anyway, I quite liked (!) Gilberto's comment that "It is pretty much beyond my control what I like or dislike; not something that is a mental effort on my part." That is, it's inevitable. But we part company with what follows: "music either resonates with my spirit or it doesn't." 

And Norman's plaint: "I consider the pieces that I don't like like the price I have to pay to find those that are important to me" is quite alien to my experience. 

And Mahlerian's take, speaking of resonating, will very probably resonate with a lot of listeners: "I prefer to focus on what I do enjoy rather than what I don't." My question here would be "What do you think would happen if you focussed on what you did not enjoy?"

In short, I don't think that things that are going to happen anyway, regardless, are good things to make into goals. Goals should be for things that aren't going to happen anyway, regardless. Knowledge, understanding, wisdom. These are not things that are just going to happen. Listening to music for what it is--not for what it does for you, now, in your present state--will be very rewarding. Not that that's the goal. (If wisdom and understanding are your goals, there will be a lot of pleasure that will happen. If wisdom and understanding are not your goals, there will still be a lot of pleasure that will happen.)

But focussing on what you need now in your present state seems to me to be a very efficient way to cut yourself off from what a lot of music is doing. And, if you're still married (yes, I have tried that, by the way) to the idea of pleasure as a goal, then cutting yourself off from what a lot of music is doing is to--potentially--be cutting yourself off from a great deal of pleasure.

*While I was writing this lengthy screed, Vesuvius wrote something quite clearly along different lines. Lines I'd like to see explored. Hence this thread, see?


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Unless you are worshipping a god, I am unaware of any reason to consciously have or want anything "greater than" pleasure out of listening to music. I value music as education and heritage as well, but for me those are actually just other forms of pleasure. Of course there are probably sub- or semi-conscious reasons for listening to music as well (status/belonging among them), but there's probably no special reason to try to be more conscious of them than I already am (or ~ than we already are).

From a secular POV, the most straightforward, obvious purpose of music is pleasure, whether emotional or intellectual or whatever. Music also happens to be very effective in forging group identity and facilitating ecstatic experience; in our culture music also expresses emotion powerfully but I'm not sure this is universal. Is there really anything else music is _for_?


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

science said:


> *Unless you are worshipping a god, I am unaware of any reason to consciously have or want anything "greater than" pleasure out of listening to music.* I value music as education and heritage as well, but for me those are actually just other forms of pleasure. Of course there are probably sub- or semi-conscious reasons for listening to music as well (status/belonging among them), but there's probably no special reason to try to be more conscious of them than I already am (or ~ than we already are).
> 
> From a secular POV, the most straightforward, obvious purpose of music is pleasure, whether emotional or intellectual or whatever. Music also happens to be very effective in forging group identity and facilitating ecstatic experience; in our culture music also expresses emotion powerfully but I'm not sure this is universal. Is there really anything else music is _for_?


The bold is simply untrue. I don't follow any religion, and I have been curious my entire life of experiences beyond the material realm. It's an unexplainable yearning from within, and I don't think it needs a reason. It's just there.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Vesuvius said:


> What a great topic. I think this "like and dislike" is simply a unique expression of each individual life-form... it comes with the territory and the conditioning of each individual. Because everyone experiences life differently, and no ones' chemicals are flowing the exact same way.
> 
> However, there seems to be an awareness beyond the personal preference. Something watches your thoughts, sensations, memory, feelings, actions, likes and dislikes... Indicating that there must must be something beyond in order to watch your personal movements. That something is you, it has to be since you're aware of it. I've found that you don't always have to entertain your personality, as it's only one facet of your expression. And the more you dive deeper beyond the superficial movements of the mind (personality), the more you move beyond the likes and dislikes... and the river flows free.


I'm not sure I've understood, but perhaps you're distinguishing between something like "shallow" pleasure (the unreflective, initial, immediate reaction akin to a sensation) and deep pleasure (something reflective, more distant from the emotional experience).

Whether that's what you intended or not, it's a very worthwhile distinction, but even at the deeper level we're still talking about pleasure.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Vesuvius said:


> The bold is simply untrue. I don't follow any religion, and I have been curious my entire life of experiences beyond the material realm. It's an unexplainable yearning from within, and I don't think it needs a reason. It's just there.


I don't see what "experiences beyond the mental realm" has to do with what I wrote.


----------



## Guest (Nov 24, 2013)

I'm trying out the idea that music is not "for" anything.

[This was in response to science's first post. Having a wee bit trouble keeping up, here! Anyway, I also have a response to science's post that has #30 attached to it. (As I write, it's the most recent post to the thread.) And that is that what Vesuvius said was "material" not "mental."]


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

some guy said:


> I'm trying out the idea that music is not "for" anything.


That used to be part of the definition of high art. I don't think there's anything substantial there, though. Music is for whatever we use it for. Deeper thought on the matter might get us something important, but if so, let's see it.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

science said:


> I'm not sure I've understood, but perhaps you're distinguishing between something like "shallow" pleasure (the unreflective, initial, immediate reaction akin to a sensation) and deep pleasure (something reflective, more distant from the emotional experience).
> 
> Whether that's what you intended or not, it's a very worthwhile distinction, but even at the deeper level we're still talking about pleasure.


You seem to be automatically assuming that there is no existence outside of you personal identification. I'm saying to keep an open mind until you know for sure. Because you have an awareness watching your personal movements, meaning there has to be something beyond for your personality to be seen.



science said:


> I don't see what "experiences beyond the mental realm" has to do with what I wrote.


I said "material." And it has everything to do with what you said. Everything material has it's limitations... even music. So it's only natural that after some time on this planet, one starts to wonder if there's anything more fulfilling.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

some guy said:


> Getting past likes and dislikes will probably end up getting you to a place where there's even more pleasure than what you've got now, for one.



I'm very confused. If there's even more pleasure in an experience, than it means that I like it even more.



some guy said:


> I think that a lot of us, myself included, spend a good deal of time and effort worrying about things that are going to happen anyway, regardless.
> 
> If you like music, generally, and you listen to it, you're going to have a lot of pleasure. Stands to reason. Dinna fash.
> 
> ...


I don't remember who said that when a work of art is finished, that work (and the intentions behind it) don't belong anymore to its creator. I think it's very true. Music is made of notes, not intentions.



some guy said:


> And Norman's plaint: "I consider the pieces that I don't like like the price I have to pay to find those that are important to me" is quite alien to my experience.
> And Mahlerian's take, speaking of resonating, will very probably resonate with a lot of listeners: "I prefer to focus on what I do enjoy rather than what I don't." My question here would be "What do you think would happen if you focussed on what you did not enjoy?"
> 
> In short, I don't think that things that are going to happen anyway, regardless, are good things to make into goals. Goals should be for things that aren't going to happen anyway, regardless. Knowledge, understanding, wisdom. These are not things that are just going to happen. Listening to music for what it is--not for what it does for you, now, in your present state--will be very rewarding. Not that that's the goal. (If wisdom and understanding are your goals, there will be a lot of pleasure that will happen. If wisdom and understanding are not your goals, there will still be a lot of pleasure that will happen.)


Understanding is important but it does not involve necessarily pleasure. There are musical piece that I think I perfectly understand that I don't like at all. I could know anything about a piece: the intention of the composer, the score, the harmony involved, anything and still don't have any pleasure from it.
And on the contrary, sometimes it happens that I don't know anything about a piece, I don't know where or when it was composed, who composed it, I can't understand the harmonies involved or even the lyrics (if it's a song) but I love it immediately.


----------



## Feathers (Feb 18, 2013)

I think the word "like" is a very vague word. In the more narrow sense of the word "like", I think music definitely goes beyond it. I sometimes appreciate music the way I appreciate science. Do I find the nomenclature in my notebook or the sight of chemical reactions to be "like-able"? Well, not really, but I'm fascinated by it and appreciate it. On the other hand, this is also a kind of "like" in a broader sense. So it depends on how the word is defined. 

Also, in the case of music, perhaps the opposite of "like" is not "dislike", but not caring about the music at all. Disliking the music at least implies some kind of interest. This is not always true, but just putting the idea out there.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Vesuvius said:


> You seems to be automatically ruling out that there is no existence outside of you personal identification. I'm saying to keep an open mind until you know for sure. Because you have an awareness watching your personal movements, meaning there has to be something beyond for your personality to be seen.
> 
> I said "material." And it has everything to do with what you said. Everything material has it's limitations... even music. So it's only natural that after some time on this planet, one starts to wonder if there's anything more fulfilling.


I'm sorry, I knew you wrote "material" and I meant to write "material" in my quote; the only explanation I can offer for how "mental" got in my quote is that it was some kind of spelling auto-correct thing.

Anyway, I'm also sorry that I really have no idea what you're talking about. I don't know what "ruling out that there is [any] existence out side of my personal identification" means. I'm not sure what "everything material has its limitations" means, or why something with "limitations" would be less fulfilling than something else.

The one thing I think I understand is that you seem to be implying that "awareness" implies the existence of some immaterial thing inside me. I can agree that that's a compelling argument, though I suspect it's a result of the way our minds work rather than an insight into what our minds are. But anyway, unless this can be tied more directly to music, I doubt we should pursue it here.

Perhaps you can use more straightforward language to explain what you mean. I've studied a lot of philosophy and I can usually follow fairly difficult arguments, but I'm just not sure what you're trying to argue here. I still think you misunderstood the post that you originally responded to.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

science said:


> I'm sorry, I knew you wrote "material" and I meant to write "material" in my quote; the only explanation I can offer for how "mental" got in my quote is that it was some kind of spelling auto-correct thing.
> 
> *Anyway, I'm also sorry that I really have no idea what you're talking about. I don't know what "ruling out that there is [any] existence out side of my personal identification" means.* I'm not sure what "everything material has its limitations" means, or why something with "limitations" would be less fulfilling than something else.
> 
> ...


My mistake... I meant to write, "You seem to be automatically assuming that there is no existence outside of you personal identification."

Maybe this isn't the proper time to discuss this topic as my brain is in a knot right now trying to figure out a way to explain this. If I can put it more directly, I'll come back.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Vesuvius said:


> My mistake... I meant to write, "You seem to be automatically assuming that there is no existence outside of you personal identification."
> 
> Maybe this isn't the proper time to discuss this topic as my brain is in a knot right now trying to figure out a way to explain this. If I can put it more directly, I'll come back.


I know that kind of feeling very well! I enjoy this kind of discussion very much, and I feel really disappointed when I fail to communicate my thoughts. I hope we will be able to understand each other better! (But of course if we don't, we'll be able to go on with our lives well - and [ahem] we'll still be able to enjoy the music we love just as much as ever!)


----------



## Avey (Mar 5, 2013)

Honestly, this thread has confused me. I'm lost in all this discussion.

Still, for comment sake, I'll say: Aren't we just talking about indifference? 

That's lame, IMO.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Avey said:


> Honestly, this thread has confused me. I'm lost in all this discussion.
> 
> Still, for comment sake, I'll say: Aren't we just talking about indifference?
> 
> That's lame, IMO.


"A higher indifference," perhaps. It's an interesting suggestion.

I suspect at root we're talking about different sorts of pleasures. There is the purely aural pleasure of certain sounds (harmonies, timbres, etc.), other kinds of pleasure from melodies and variations or developments of motifs, another kind of pleasure in discovering the intellectual ideas in forms such as fugues, another kind of pleasure in a moving beat, another kind of pleasure in experiencing and learning to appreciate something our esteemed predecessors deemed "great," and so on.

But there is yet another kind of pleasure in exploring something without judgement, just curiosity without looking for anything like sensual pleasure. (Perhaps most of all there is pleasure in the self-consciousness that we are listening to music correctly if that's the way we believe correct.)

Perhaps we should use a different word for those latter, deeper, finer, subtler pleasures. But it won't be easy to persuade me that we should. I don't want to delegitimize anyone's way of listening - the former pleasures are as legitimate as the latter. Any sort of program for listening is fine, but I don't want to let a program become an ideology. Fundamentally, I want others to agree with me about this - to agree to allow each other to listen to music in whatever way and for whatever reasons we choose, without judging some listeners as higher or lower than others. (Just to avoid confusion, I'm not against acknowledging and sharing and celebrating "knowledge" or "insight," but I wouldn't want to allow such things to be the sole value. Various sorts of "pleasure" are legitimate values too, regardless of how elementary they are.)

So someguy and I are inevitably disagreeing. He claims (however subtly) that his attitude to music is the only correct one, and for me it's just one of many possible correct ones - probably any attitude would be ok with me, even an attitude that renders a person unable to enjoy anything but common practice period music performed by famous musicians on a particular sort of instruments.

One reason this is important to me is that I aspire to universality. I know I'm doomed, but I try. I'd like to know what people get from Beethoven, what they get from George Jones, what they get from Gregorian chant, what they get from Merzbow (who thanks to the user called "harpsichord concerto" has become the ultimate example of music that no one is supposed to be able to enjoy). So I'd like to allow myself to adopt different values/attitudes at different times - even zen-like emptiness of value or attitude (this is what I believe someguy says he wants us to adopt, although even if he didn't have any further agenda, there are inevitably values or attitudes latent in that emptiness), but even more even, even shallow naive unreflective sentimentality - whatever will enable me to share the human musical experience most fully.


----------



## GGluek (Dec 11, 2011)

The closest I come to the null state desired by the OP is when I'm at a concert, hearing a piece I've never heard before. I listen with a lot of different skill sets, some of which can build into like/dislike, but the principal thing I look for is: Am I interested in hearing it again? That doesn't always translate into long-term preference. There are numerous pieces I thought I have liked on first hearing that have turned out not to wear well, inspiring sometimes a search for what I heard in it the first time that seems to have disappeared. But ultimately, music requires time -- which we all have as a limited commodity -- so judgments about what to expend it on are often made through a like/dislike prism.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

^ My view is much as GGluek's above. Do I want to hear it again, or more precisely, do I want to buy it (so that I can hear it again whenever I want)? My time is limited and those things I like should occupy the largest amount of my limited time. I re-evaluate my impressions from time to time, as situations arise, of course, but my aim is not to achieve some sort of pseudo-Buddhist non-judgemental state. Music is all about choice, appreciation, resonance and feeling. To lose these would be to lose that which makes music personal to me... and ultimately, that which makes me a person, as Ukko said in the second post.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

some guy said:


> I'm trying out the idea that music is not "for" anything.


Strange idea. Especially since music is full of, and inspired by ideas. And it was mostly tied to a social purpose before it ended up on CDs.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

starthrower said:


> Strange idea. Especially since music is full of, and inspired by ideas. And it was mostly tied to a social purpose before it ended up on CDs.


Strange, but certainly an interesting exploration. How something can just be what it is without judgements, labels, or reasons of any kind. Just is. But that itself is also an idea... so where do ideas stop?


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Vesuvius said:


> ... so where do ideas stop?


The tiniest bit before the questions do.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Pleasure, fulfilment, satisfaction, gratification and the pursuit of happiness. They're all basically different sides of the same thing.

In which ever terms we like to view our activities, the ones that aren't driven by our survival instincts, somewhere along the line we are going to come across those concepts.

Some guy asked if it is necessary to see music as being 'for' anything. At the very least it is for the personal satisfaction/pleasure/fulfilment of the person writing it. Otherwise why do it?

Let's flip it over and look at displeasure, dissatisfaction, un-fulfilment, pain and misery. These are things we tend to avoid. If writing, playing or listening to music caused us to feel those things we would avoid doing it.

Even the masochist takes pleasure in his/her (physical) pain. Even the suicide bomber takes a sense of fulfilment and satisfaction from the notion that their personal sacrifice is furthering their cause. The saint only does saintly things secure in the knowledge that they are righteous and good, at least in their own mind.

Pleasure in it's many guises is what drives us. If procreation (or the act of trying) wasn't highly pleasurable, there would _be_ no us!

Likewise, if pleasure doesn't enter the equation somewhere, there would be no music.

Music doesn't just exist. Somebody has to write it. The writing of music brings pleasure and it would be a strange composer indeed who did not hope to share some of that pleasure with their fellow beings (audience?).


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

science said:


> .......
> Perhaps we should use a different word for those latter, deeper, finer, subtler pleasures. But it won't be easy to persuade me that we should. I don't want to delegitimize anyone's way of listening - the former pleasures are as legitimate as the latter.
> .......
> One reason this is important to me is that I aspire to universality. I know I'm doomed, but I try. I'd like to know what people get from Beethoven, what they get from George Jones, what they get from Gregorian chant, what they get from Merzbow (who thanks to the user called "harpsichord concerto" has become the ultimate example of music that no one is supposed to be able to enjoy). So I'd like to allow myself to adopt different values/attitudes at different times - even zen-like emptiness of value or attitude .... ... even shallow naive unreflective sentimentality - whatever will enable me to share the human musical experience most fully.


Science, I agree with you, and I think you make your points with wonderful clarity.

In my first post, I said it was possible to 'go beyond' likes & dislikes - that it might be desirable to do so in certain circumstances - but that I myself enjoyed listening & responding with emotions. I also agree with Vesuvius who said that even while we respond, there is a higher self that watches us. The human psyche is fascinating and complex.

I think that this thread raises important philosophical questions and for that reason I 'rated' it as 'excellent' - the first time I have ever rated a thread on TC.
How ironic that it was a thread of SomeGuy's, who is famous for never 'liking' anyone's posts, and presumably also never 'rates' threads! :lol:


----------



## Wood (Feb 21, 2013)

some guy said:


> If you focus on your likes and dislikes, if you listen to music in order to be pleased, that is, in order to get more of what you already like, then you will judge music on how successfully it does that. But think about the composer for a second. Someone who is very likely dead. If not, very likely not someone who knows you at all. That person, creating or having created a particular piece, cannot have at any time have been thinking of you and what you like and what you need or think you need. So that person's purpose, the decisions that person made, as a composer, had nothing to do with you at all. And now, that person's music is being judged by how well it succeeds in doing something that it has not set out to do, something that it could not have set out to do.
> 
> Listening to music for what it is--not for what it does for you, now, in your present state--will be very rewarding.
> But focussing on what you need now in your present state seems to me to be a very efficient way to cut yourself off from what a lot of music is doing.


Yes, I am in agreement here someguy. My starting assumption with classical music is that all composers who have reached the elite in their generation are writing music of very high quality. I get my pleasure from listening to what they have created.

I do not think in terms of liking or disliking a particular piece and never fancy listening to a particular piece at a particular time. I do not have composers or periods that I prefer to others.

Music of this quality should be listened to on its own terms, without ego, and not rated, liked or disliked.

It is surprising to note that I seem almost alone in this here.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

science said:


> The tiniest bit before the questions do.


It's almost as if all "things" happen on a background of "no-thing". That moment of rest just shows you what was always there.


----------



## Winterreisender (Jul 13, 2013)

Wood said:


> Yes, I am in agreement here someguy. *My starting assumption with classical music is that all composers who have reached the elite in their generation are writing music of very high quality*. I get my pleasure from listening to what they have created.


So are you saying that you listen to music not because you personally like it but because the music has been assigned by critics to the canon of elite works?



> Music of this quality should be listened to on its own terms, without ego, and not rated, liked or disliked.


Music of this quality should not be rated? That strikes me as a contradiction.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Winterreisender said:


> So are you saying that you listen to music not because you personally like it but because the music has been assigned by critics to the canon of elite works?


Why not? The enjoyment may or may not come later. But one reason that I spend more time listening to Beethoven than to Rossini is that I enjoy trying to figure out what the big deal is (or, probably better, was) about Beethoven. I don't necessarily have to like La Gioconda, but I'd _like_ (i.e. it would bring me pleasure) at least to understand a little what it has meant to other people. And sometimes at least I really do get it - or I think I do, and that has the same feeling….


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Vesuvius said:


> It's almost as if all "things" happen on a background of "no-thing". That moment of rest just shows you what was always there.


I'm sorry man, I was just joking - really, in all sincerity, I'd say the questions and the ideas end only with death, which is therefore about as much of an answer as we're going to get. I hope it's no-thing….

But I really still don't understand what you're saying!


----------



## Guest (Nov 24, 2013)

some guy said:


> Is there such a place?
> 
> Is it at all desirable to get there?


Yes, and, probably, yes. I'm not sure how easy it would be to set aside the like/dislike dimension 100%. Easier for some than others, I suppose, to be able to respond dispassionately to a piece of music, and, I daresay, valuable.

I should say that by response, I mean the complete process from listening, understanding, analysing, synthesising, and usually, though not always, communicating.


----------



## Wood (Feb 21, 2013)

Winterreisender said:


> So are you saying that you listen to music not because you personally like it but because the music has been assigned by critics to the canon of elite works?
> 
> Music of this quality should not be rated? That strikes me as a contradiction.


That is how I select music to listen to. See also my recent thread on 20th Century composers.

Not a contradiction. I'm distinguishing between an objective notion of the quality of the music, which allows one to select what to listen to, and the process of listening to the music, where rating plays no part.


----------



## Winterreisender (Jul 13, 2013)

science said:


> Why not? The enjoyment may or may not come later. But one reason that I spend more time listening to Beethoven than to Rossini is that I enjoy trying to figure out what the big deal is (or, probably better, was) about Beethoven. I don't necessarily have to like La Gioconda, but I'd _like_ (i.e. it would bring me pleasure) at least to understand a little what it has meant to other people. And sometimes at least I really do get it - or I think I do, and that has the same feeling….


Well actually, I found it interesting when you said earlier that you aspire for universality by trying to understand all genres. That is an approach which strikes me as perfectly admirable.

But what I am not so sure about is that suggestion made elsewhere in the thread that some people are prepared to put aside their personal likes and dislikes and treat all music equally, as long as the music happens to be "classical." To start with the premiss that classical music is superior, one is not really putting aside any prejudices at all.


----------



## Winterreisender (Jul 13, 2013)

Wood said:


> ...objective notion of the quality of the music...


I'm not sure if such a thing exists. Surely it is all a matter of personal taste?


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Winterreisender said:


> I'm not sure if such a thing exists. Surely it is all a matter of personal taste?


*No.*

People may say this, but I'm not sure that anyone acts as if they really believe it. There is such a thing as a base level of technical ability before which no one is worth expending much effort on. It is not *all* a matter of personal taste, although personal taste certainly plays a part.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

science said:


> I'm sorry man, I was just joking - really, in all sincerity, I'd say the questions and the ideas end only with death, which is therefore about as much of an answer as we're going to get. I hope it's no-thing….
> 
> But I really still don't understand what you're saying!


Haha, don't be sorry. I'm just throwing out ideas to contemplate. Maybe it'll lead you to a place of nothingness. Maybe some things aren't meant for the mind to understand.... I don't know, but I also don't really know what this "I" is that I always refer to. Is it really me?

I know, I'm not helping the clarification. But that's the point. :tiphat:


----------



## Winterreisender (Jul 13, 2013)

Mahlerian said:


> *No.*
> 
> People may say this, but I'm not sure that anyone acts as if they really believe it. There is such a thing as a base level of technical ability before which no one is worth expending much effort on. It is not *all* a matter of personal taste, although personal taste certainly plays a part.


We might personally decide that technical ability can serve as a benchmark for whether something is worth listening to, but I'd still be reluctant to talk about quality as if it were something objective. I think of non-western folk traditions where there is sometimes a sort of "anyone can do it" approach to music, in contrast to our western view where only an elite few can take part.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Winterreisender said:


> We might personally decide that technical ability can serve as a benchmark for whether something is worth listening to, but I'd still be reluctant to talk about quality as if it were something objective. I think of non-western folk traditions where there is sometimes a sort of "anyone can do it" approach to music, in contrast to our western view where only an elite few can take part.


Even within such traditions, there are certain standards, are there not? Certain things are considered acceptable and certain things not. Judgments of quality may not easily transfer from one tradition to another, but within a tradition, I think that certain basic ideas hold sway. Is there perhaps a tradition in which something repetitive and unimaginative in the extreme, something into which no thought whatsoever was invested, may be considered good music? Perhaps, but I do not believe that it is a tradition that has much meaning or longevity.

Put differently, you love Schubert's songs, right? And you love them in particular because they strike you as being of higher quality than similar oeuvres overall, correct? Part of that may be that you have had significant experiences in the past with these songs and thus expect any further songs by Schubert to have the same effect, but is there not also something in Schubert's music that only Schubert could do? Is this something not in itself good?


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Wood said:


> Music of this quality should be listened to on its own terms, without ego, and not rated, liked or disliked.
> 
> It is surprising to note that I seem almost alone in this here.


A lot of those composers we listen were instead very opinionated. Even because when one is composing (exactly like the listener) is making choices. Without that, you have no personality, and without personality you can't have a great composer.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

science said:


> One reason this is important to me is that I aspire to universality. I know I'm doomed, but I try. I'd like to know what people get from Beethoven, what they get from George Jones, what they get from Gregorian chant, what they get from Merzbow (who thanks to the user called "harpsichord concerto" has become the ultimate example of music that no one is supposed to be able to enjoy). So I'd like to allow myself to adopt different values/attitudes at different times - even zen-like emptiness of value or attitude (this is what I believe someguy says he wants us to adopt, although even if he didn't have any further agenda, there are inevitably values or attitudes latent in that emptiness), but even more even, even shallow naive unreflective sentimentality - whatever will enable me to share the human musical experience most fully.


I have the same kind of mentality. There's one great line of Julie Delpy in Before Sunrise that explains it really well: "I believe if there's any kind of God it wouldn't be in any of us, not you or me but just this little space in between. If there's any kind of magic in this world it must be in the attempt of understanding someone sharing something. I know, it's almost impossible to succeed but who cares really? The answer must be in the attempt."


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

This goes right to the core of what any individual uses music for. I'm thinking the vast majority use it for pleasure, less than superficial, but nonetheless, for their personal pleasure, i.e. whatever moves the individual.

I think musicians often have a very different take on music, that take very difficult for those not directly in the game to understand, or to place any creditable value therein. _What is well-written is of some real interest, whether I personally "resonate" with it or not. There is real value -- ergo "pleasure" -- in edification, whether it is something one loves directly or a thing with which one has a less personal interaction._

Even this approach is I think misunderstood, i.e. there is still some subjective "emotional" reaction to even the most "cerebral" of music and to well-written music which is really outside my personal / emotional sphere of resonance. There is meaning to the wholly abstract even though there is no story, back story, etc. -- and I think most listeners do not approach music (or the arts in general) that way, nor is there any real need for them to do so, let alone a want.

Your topic, then, I think is for a handful of people, i.e. those who do not listen mainly or all for the personal, those visceral thrills which are theirs. In brief, your topic about being in the choir is for the choir 

That handful who do listen on these other planes and find that enriching, well, they tend to know their way is not the general way. I don't see much use in even bringing up the idea for consideration, since the general listener is going to go at it the way they go at it, and has no interest or desire (IMO) for anything else from music or art.

It pretty much gets down to if music is, literally, your business. If it isn't, then it is your pleasure.

Those in the business are more likely to mix, or mix and match, business with pleasure: the general consumer is out for pleasure, not much else.

Especially when I see things on forums such as TC, where a body will call a particular piece or era "Noise" or "Trash," then I too long for more of the general public to treat music, or at least the discussion of it, in a more business-like way. Just imagine the next non-bash of contemporary music, where to our relief, a contributor says, "...fine composer, elegant writing, but I just prefer the romantics." instead of the streams of contumely borne of ignorance which they often do heap upon one century + of the literature.... Sigh. In an ideal world.

[I think to think that a somewhat "Buddhist" detachment also includes no heart, no visceral kick, is a huge and very "western" misunderstanding. Letting something be what it is, listening without preconditioned notions or expectations based upon ones semiotic baggage, is very much being "in the now," with nothing much else attached to it... that is very different from what most of us think of as "detached."]


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

norman bates said:


> A lot of those composers we listen were instead very opinionated. Even because when one is composing (exactly like the listener) is making choices. Without that, you have no personality, and without personality you can't have a great composer.


I wholly agree on the quality of personality in music, and that without, regardless of technical merits, it is generally a 'meh.'

Here's the catch though -- meeting that personality on, face to face, and taking it _at face value for what it is._ That means, at least initially, putting your own personality completely aside, or you don't get "in" to the other. Dichotomy, then... the music must have a personality, the listener, initially, must erase their own personality to meet the composer. Funny thing, setting aside your ego for the ego of another, but that is pretty much the best way it is most likely to work.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Winterreisender said:


> We might personally decide that technical ability can serve as a benchmark for whether something is worth listening to, but I'd still be reluctant to talk about quality as if it were something objective. I think of non-western folk traditions where there is sometimes a sort of "anyone can do it" approach to music, in contrast to our western view where only an elite few can take part.


"Anyone can do it" is a myth, regardless of culture. Just think of those great player / composer / performers in those other traditions, who are far beyond the skill level of "anyone" who does do it, and realize it is a very nice conceit, and perhaps a great psychological approach, inviting the most people who care to try to have a go at it.

_While some extremely popular social trends in thinking might be telling you the near opposite, *excellence, de facto, is an elitist thingy, whatever the skill, wherever you go.*_

ADD P.s. No one should ever mistake a highly developed technique for talent


----------



## Winterreisender (Jul 13, 2013)

Mahlerian said:


> Even within such traditions, there are certain standards, are there not? Certain things are considered acceptable and certain things not. *Judgments of quality may not easily transfer from one tradition to another, but within a tradition, I think that certain basic ideas hold sway*. Is there perhaps a tradition in which something repetitive and unimaginative in the extreme, something into which no thought whatsoever was invested, may be considered good music? Perhaps, but I do not believe that it is a tradition that has much meaning or longevity.


Yes there are standards within certain traditions, but the very fact that these standards are not easily transferable implies to me that different people have different ideas of what constitutes quality. Despite having no musical talent, I once took part in a Korean percussion group which basically involved repeatedly whacking out a few rhythms accompanied by a bit of chanting. Of course there are some extremely sophisticated groups that perform this music, but at the heart of most folk genres is the idea that anyone can take part. This music sounded to me repetitive and perhaps a bit boring, but for the people to whom this music belongs, the repetitiveness has a soothing, ritualistic quality. That quality can be found in extreme simplicity is perhaps an aesthetic which we are not used to, but I think it is unfair to dismiss it as unimaginative or meaningless.


----------



## Winterreisender (Jul 13, 2013)

PetrB said:


> "Anyone can do it" is a myth, regardless of culture. Just think of those great player / composer / performers in those other traditions, who are far beyond the skill level of "anyone" who does do it, and realize it is a very nice conceit, and perhaps a great psychological approach, inviting the most people who care to try to have a go at it.
> 
> _While some extremely popular social trends in thinking might be telling you the near opposite, *excellence, de facto, is an elitist thingy, whatever the skill, wherever you go.*_


I admit that technical ability is something which can be, to a large extent, objectively measured. All I am disputing is the idea that there is necessarily, in all traditions, a correlation between the technical skill of the performer and the quality of the music. In traditions where music is appreciated for its communality rather than for its elitism, then surely the music is all the better, the more people can take part.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

PetrB said:


> I wholly agree on the quality of personality in music, and that without, regardless of technical merits, it is generally a 'meh.'
> 
> Here's the catch though -- meeting that personality on, face to face, and taking it _at face value for what it is._ That means, at least initially, putting your own personality completely aside, or you don't get "in" to the other. Dichotomy, then... the music must have a personality, the listener, initially, must erase their own personality to meet the composer. Funny thing, setting aside your ego for the ego of another, but that is pretty much the best way it is most likely to work.


When one is approaching new music is it certainly possible to learn something aesthetically new, and it could be a door to appreciate different things and new perspectives, but to say that one has to erase his own personality seems a bit too much. Is it even possible?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Petwhac said:


> I'd like someone to suggest a reason to listen to music other than for pleasure.
> I'd also like someone to suggest a reason for writing or playing music other than for pleasure.


Okeedoh ~ Your doctor has just advised you that you need to radically change your dietary intake and also that you must regularly exercise. Neither of those prescriptions have anything to do with your pleasure, while they do have everything to do with what is good for you.

The answer to your question about music, then, would run parallel to the above doctor's prescription parable... i.e. the why of it, _"Because it is good for you." _


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Winterreisender said:


> Yes there are standards within certain traditions, but the very fact that these standards are not easily transferable implies to me that different people have different ideas of what constitutes quality. Despite having no musical talent, I once took part in a Korean percussion group which basically involved repeatedly whacking out a few rhythms accompanied by a bit of chanting. Of course there are some extremely sophisticated groups that perform this music, but at the heart of most folk genres is the idea that anyone can take part. This music sounded to me repetitive and perhaps a bit boring, but for the people to whom this music belongs, the repetitiveness has a soothing, ritualistic quality. That quality can be found in extreme simplicity is perhaps an aesthetic which we are not used to, but I think it is unfair to dismiss it as unimaginative or meaningless.


Much folk music is as much about performance, the "acting out" of playing music, as it is about the sounds produced. And I'm sure that within that as well as what is performed, there are standards that are observed. One is not free to play anything one likes within any context. I chose the example above for two reasons, (1): I wouldn't step on anyone else's feelings and (2): I know for a fact no effort whatsoever was put into it. Even within a New Age/Light Music context, it plays to the lowest denominator _on purpose_.

Folk music may be simple, but the expression in it isn't about form or structure in any way, so that's more or less irrelevant.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Winterreisender said:


> I admit that technical ability is something which can be, to a large extent, objectively measured. All I am disputing is the idea that there is necessarily, in all traditions, a correlation between the technical skill of the performer and the quality of the music. In traditions where music is appreciated for its communality rather than for its elitism, then surely the music is all the better, the more people can take part.


There is no point in a critique of the technical delivery of the typical crunch / crunch out of tune out of time standard singing of a hymn by the congregation: everyone knows the music there is functioning as a community affair, of and for the people, and that is parsecs away from what is expected or desired from a performance of a much more involved bit of art music.

Organized sound is about all the two sorts of musics, and their performances, share, their purposes otherwise having such different goals as to be a veritable "apples vs. oranges."


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

PetrB said:


> Okeedoh ~ Your doctor has just advised you that you need to radically change your dietary intake and also that you must regularly exercise. Neither of those prescriptions have anything to do with your pleasure, while they do have everything to do with what is good for you.
> 
> The answer to your question about music, then, would run parallel to the above doctor's prescription parable... i.e. the why of it, _"Because it is good for you." _


Ah but why would I heed my doctors advice? Because it is a means to and end and that end is the pleasure of good health of course.

Music is indeed good for me, providing it is the right music. Some music I find so irritating that I know it sends my blood pressure up!!


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Winterreisender said:


> I admit that technical ability is something which can be, to a large extent, objectively measured. All I am disputing is the idea that there is necessarily, in all traditions, a correlation between the technical skill of the performer and the quality of the music. In traditions where music is appreciated for its communality rather than for its elitism, then surely the music is all the better, the more people can take part.


The music is not "all the better," but it is well-suited to communality and within the reach of all to participate. Then you are speaking of a social affair, and a social function using music which is well-met with its purpose. Music meant to go readily into memory upon one hearing (since reading it is not expected) and within a vocal / physical range easily executed by all, including children.

I'm rather sick of "the elitist bash," because "art music" is what it is, and not meant to oppress the common man or women who does not have a taste for the product to begin with. Your "argument," if there is one, could be turned into one of advocating that all books should be written at Dick and Jane kindergarten first grade level, so all could participate.

Alienation due to elitist art is a very popular saw, and it cuts just nothing in my book.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Wood said:


> That is how I select music to listen to. See also my recent thread on 20th Century composers.
> 
> Not a contradiction. I'm distinguishing between an objective notion of the quality of the music, which allows one to select what to listen to, and the process of listening to the music, where rating plays no part.


What is this 'rating' thing? How is it possible to listen to a work without liking, disliking, or - if it creates no reaction at all - 'crossing off' that _performance_ as a waste of time? Seems like all that's left is the musicologist's analysis & comparison with the score.


----------



## Winterreisender (Jul 13, 2013)

PetrB said:


> The music is not "all the better," but it is well-suited to communality and within the reach of all to participate. Then you are speaking of a social affair, and a social function using music which is well-met with its purpose. Music meant to go readily into memory upon one hearing (since reading it is not expected) and within a vocal / physical range easily executed by all, including children.
> 
> I'm rather sick of "the elitist bash," because art music" is what it is, and not meant to oppress the common man or women who does not have a taste for the product to begin with. Your "argument," if there is one, could be turned into one of advocating that all books should be written at Dick and Jane kindergarten first grade level, so all could participate.
> 
> Alienation due to elitist art is a very popular saw, and it cuts just nothing in my book.


I'm not bashing "art music" (whatever that is) in any way. I'm merely responding to the earlier suggestion that it is possible to objectively measure the quality of music, and that examining technical ability is perhaps one method of doing so.

When I refer to western classical music as elitist, I don't mean it in the sense that only a limited few are able to listen to this music, but rather that only a limited few are able to play it (whilst attracting any sort of audience). We value the virtuosity of the performer but that isn't always the case in other traditions.

My argument is really that different people want different things out of music and therefore have different ideas of what defines quality.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

I often listen to music by composers I don't like to try to see if they might possibly be better than I thought they were .
Basically, there are two reasons why I don't like a particular work ; either it's just plain uninteresting ; bland ,
insipid, formulaic etc , or there's something about the work which I find off-putting .
I never dismiss a work, as so many pedantic critics do, because it doesn't fit into their rigid pre-conceived notions
of what "correct form is", that is , not conforming to traditional sonata form , etc .
If you apply this procrustean bed standard , you will never be able to enjoy the symphonies of Bruckner, Mahler
or Nielsen , for example .
In the uninteresting category for me would be most of the music of Vivaldi and many of his contemporaries in Italy
and elsewhere in the baroque period . Or many of the contemporaries of Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven .
In the off-putting category I would put the music of Fredrick Delius, which though very pretty , tends to
be monotonously languorous in mood and cloyingly sentimental . Or Poulenc, whose music I find for the most part
annoyingly cutsie-pie , full of mincing Parisian preciosity, chi-chi and frou frou .
Virgil Thomson's arch , coy, quaint , old-american folksiness is also somewhat annoying . Ives did Americana
much better .
I have no problem with contemporary composers experimenting with unconventional compositional techniques 
departing from convention, nd using odd unconventional instruments , but John Cage's works have always seemed to me to be mere gimmicks .
4 ' 33'' is a clever gimmick , but it's just that - a gimmick .


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

norman bates said:


> When one is approaching new music is it certainly possible to learn something aesthetically new, and it could be a door to appreciate different things and new perspectives, but to say that one has to erase his own personality seems a bit too much. Is it even possible?


Better said, then, to leave your personal expectations outside the hall, then "just listen."


----------



## ShropshireMoose (Sep 2, 2013)

I think the important thing with music is to keep some sort of perspective about the quality of what you like and dislike and, why you like it or dislike it. There may be many varied reasons why you like a piece, viz. you heard it when very young, and it perhaps evokes a time and a place, or certain people to you. Then maybe the enjoyment is through an association, rather than any intrinsic quality that the piece may have itself. I know that a good many of the things I like hardly rank as high art, but they may well give me great pleasure, and so, I continue to enjoy them. The point being that at least I keep an awareness of where they lie in the general scheme of things. Much as I like it, I would never try to claim that "My Blue Heaven" is the equal of Beethoven's 5th Symphony. Yet Beethoven's 5th seems as accessible to me as "My Blue Heaven". But it would not always have been thus, our tastes expand and develop, I remember the first time I heard Rachmaninoff's 3rd Piano Concerto, I was looking forward to it, having grown to love the 2nd, well, I couldn't follow it at all! "I never want to hear that piece again!" I said to myself. Now it ranks amongst my favourite pieces. We expand our minds and take on new concepts and it is wonderful that we can do so, but we are all individuals and must take that which suits us and enjoy it, whilst at the same time realising that obviously some things are better than others, despite our own personal preferences. I know that I would willingly sacrifice all of John Cage's oevre for one piece by Eric Coates, but the fault no doubt lies with me rather than Mr. Cage. I end with a quote by the great piano pedagogue Tobias Matthay (1858-1945) who said, in what I think is one of the most profound utterances that I have ever read, *"To be sympathetic implies the use of your imagination to see the other person's point of view. If we acted thus all through our lives, verily, I believe there would be few quarrels, and no wars."*


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Winterreisender said:


> I'm not bashing "art music" (whatever that is) in any way. I'm merely responding to the earlier suggestion that it is possible to objectively measure the quality of music, and that examining technical ability is perhaps one method of doing so.
> 
> When I refer to western classical music as elitist, I don't mean it in the sense that only a limited few are able to listen to this music, but rather that only a limited few are able to play it (whilst attracting any sort of audience). We value the virtuosity of the performer but that isn't always the case in other traditions.
> 
> My argument is really that different people want different things out of music and therefore have different ideas of what defines quality.


Good to know, and I was not intending to bash music intended for community use, but when it comes to communal music for community vs. art music, (while both are "for people") the intent, functions and technical requirements are so vastly different that other than being "around music" -- vs. "about music" that I think they do not coexist well, or at all, in the same room, so to speak. Ergo, there is "no issue" around community use, and no good argument for 'community use' when it comes to the more specifically refined art musics. They are two very different things, one I think near impossible to compare to the other.


----------



## shangoyal (Sep 22, 2013)

I think you want say that you want to just touch the outside of the music and "understand" it and thereby maybe transcend it. Yes, that is possible in a way, but not desirable - and what you desire is of the utmost importance - that is why there is no single correct way of appreciating music - the fact that you are asking this question is then absurd.

This is a question, which is for good or for bad, too intelligent a question. It is a cloud floating above the earth. Why do you want to escape the necessity to choose either liking or disliking? Such an endeavour can only lead you to confusion - human life and music are as much about passion as about science. Life consists of deciding what you like or dislike. So if I understand your question at a higher metaphysical level, it does not make sense. The only other meaning of your question could be - "Is it possible to be free of judgement, and likewise not impose any judgement on any other thing, living or non-living?" The answer would be - "It's not possible."


----------



## hreichgott (Dec 31, 2012)

Maybe we understand something the best when we are enjoying it to the fullest extent possible.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

shangoyal said:


> I think you want say that you want to just touch the outside of the music and "understand" it and thereby maybe transcend it. Yes, that is possible in a way, but not desirable - and what you desire is of the utmost importance - that is why there is no single correct way of appreciating music - the fact that you are asking this question is then absurd.
> 
> This is a question, which is for good or for bad, too intelligent a question. It is a cloud floating above the earth. Why do you want to escape the necessity to choose either liking or disliking? Such an endeavour can only lead you to confusion - human life and music are as much about passion as about science. Life consists of deciding what you like or dislike. So if I understand your question at a higher metaphysical level, it does not make sense. *The only other meaning of your question could be - "Is it possible to be free of judgement, and likewise not impose any judgement on any other thing, living or non-living?" The answer would be - "It's not possible."*


A more honest answer would be, "I have not experienced that." Because you really don't know if there are some beings out there who live in such a way. How do you know?


----------



## BillT (Nov 3, 2013)

I have not read all 5 pages, but I am thinking that possibly the OP has in mind that place where one is truly listening, absorbing the sound as it comes. Being "all ears" (actually the mind is heavily involved). I can only do this for short periods of time, at some point my thinking brain kicks in for awhile, until I can calm it again.

If that is what you have in mind, the the answers are: yes, and *YES!!!*

If that is not what you have in mind, then I like the answer about marriage best!

- Bill


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

shangoyal said:


> I think you want say that you want to just touch the outside of the music and "understand" it and thereby maybe transcend it. Yes, that is possible in a way, but not desirable.
> 
> why do you want to escape the necessity to choose either liking or disliking? Such an endeavour can only lead you to confusion - human life and music are as much about passion as about science. Life consists of deciding what you like or dislike. So if I understand your question at a higher metaphysical level, it does not make sense. The only other meaning of your question could be - "Is it possible to be free of judgement, and likewise not impose any judgement on any other thing, living or non-living?" The answer would be - "It's not possible."


From yours and some general reaction, I'm thinking the choice of wording in the OP, using "like / dislike" about as unfortunate as it gets.

I thought it was meant to urge people to investigate music not based entirely on its appeal only to the individual's tastes, and to urge also not making a snap and uninformed decision as to whether one 'liked it' or not, but instead to look for the quality of the music itself, whether it can or does "do something for you" or not. I can see where a music fan who is only in it for their pleasure would wonder about the necessity of approaching music (or any art) in that manner.

Going less on your own tastes would, I believe, result in developing a set of criteria leading to a broader spectrum of discernment as to whether a piece was of any interest or value, vs. those commonly found dismissals of this piece, era, composer, etc. based merely on the individuals personal preferences.

Now, that is also implying there is a more directed and dedicated effort to want to understand and know, more generally, all of classical music, and not just 'what one likes.' There is, reading about any thread on TC, loud and plain evidence enough to the contrary, the 'what I like' is the general rule with most listeners, those same too ready to instantly dis and dismiss that which they do not understand, or "don't like."

As said in an earlier post I made here, the view to a more detached listening and 'judging' is more the inclination of the professional musician. That viewpoint comes from a very real requirement vs a simple want. Any pro performer will tell you they have had to play music they did not like -- at all -- and if they were a true professional, they rendered that music as convincingly as any good actor who has similarly been hired to play a role they find less than personally appealing. [Similar dislike for the nature of a commission has not stopped many a composer from turning in a piece far beyond mere duty-bound job fulfillment.]

I think that outlook rather good for getting at the more universal good qualities of a great deal of the repertoire; it includes a more 'detached' ability to discern, without excluding the fact you may like some of it more than the rest, or dislike some of it to a high degree.

You are also correct, utter detachment is not possible, no matter how close one gets: on the other hand, a good degree of impartiality helps one get _closer to the truth,_ which I don't find at all objectionable. In that, I believe the like / dislike choice of wording is possibly in direct reaction to some of the quicker (and extremely shallow) judgements of this 'n' that as also found on this and many other fora... those all about one person's taste, often uninformed taste and little or no knowledge of music. That sort of entry is really a waste of column space, or it only tells others about the most base of personal criteria for why the particular writer does or does not like something... they're really all about the person who answered and not the piece in question. A judgment call which stems only from the lowest Chakra isn't much worth discussing, let alone voicing; as essential as those base functions are, it is like talking about your digestion after the fact of the meal.

I also think the question itself was tossed out to challenge people into thinking about how they listen, what they listen to, listen for, and why they think what they think about music, any or all of it. I'm fairly certain the OP knows what he posited has no one neat answer, but only discussion as a response to the question. I.e. the question is more an agent of benevolent provocation rather than an absolute.

As far as I can think, there is only one area of pleasure where people are best off not thinking, and that pleasure is far off topic, if not a taboo subject, for this forum. I think all other pleasures, why they are or are not pleasures to us, are best thought about, and that would of course include abstract music


----------



## shangoyal (Sep 22, 2013)

PetrB said:


> From yours and some general reaction, I'm thinking the choice of wording in the OP, using "like / dislike" about as unfortunate as it gets.
> 
> I thought it was meant to urge people to investigate music not based entirely on its appeal only to the individual's tastes, and to urge also not making a snap and uninformed decision as to whether one 'liked it' or not, but instead to look for the quality of the music itself, whether it can or does "do something for you" or not. I can see where a music fan who is only in it for their pleasure would wonder about the necessity of approaching music (or any art) in that manner.
> 
> ...


Ah! Yeah, you make some excellent points there, especially in the last two or three paragraphs. I agree with your view about professional musicians - in such cases I often take the polar stand of the listener who is not a musician.

I think there are two aspects of any music. One is the aesthetic quality - which you can equate to the "knit of the fabric" - the inner coherence and rigorous design, etc. The other aspect is the content - emotions, politics, etc. I believe the first aspect is always more important than the first, even for the musician - he will probably feel more unwilling to play a piece if it's lacking aesthetically than if it is lacking in content - a good example would be a Beatles song, where the contents are often trivial or "everyday" or "bourgeois (!)", but aesthetically the music always has something in it.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

hreichgott said:


> Maybe we understand something the best when we are enjoying it to the fullest extent possible.


zOMG! That means it goes beyond the mere visceral, and may include thinking about it, understanding it on a structural and technical level as well, including the ethos and style of the era? I'm shocked!

(Of course we know this is what musicians are supposed to do and what they do do, and that is what people hear, whether they are conscious of it or not ;-)


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I suspect that there has been some uncharitable stereotyping of how other people listen. But even if all the people who don't enjoy the same music that I enjoy actually do listen as closed-mindedly, as naively/shallowly, and as reactionary (reactionarily?) as portrayed, that's pretty much ok with me. They miss some good stuff, and I'm sorry for them, but it doesn't hurt me, and I hope they enjoy themselves thoroughly.

In the past I have sometimes called myself "romantic listener" online, a sort of jibe at people who listen with emotion only, just saying that they like or don't like something. But I dropped that, having discovered that those people have a hard enough time from people much more mean spirited even than I was, and realizing that I want those people to have a good time with whatever music they can enjoy, even if it's exclusively music that I think is mediocre or terrible. (Besides, there's probably fewer of them than I thought.) I've turned against my former self! We don't all have to have the same values when we listen - no set of values is inherently superior. (We're talking about art here, not ethics.) We aren't all going to explore the same stuff or approach it in the same way or respond in the same way, and we don't have to try. It'll be ok.

(Edit: I should confess that I generally do the opposite of that now, pretending to be much more naive than I actually am, just saying things are "fun" or "enjoyable" or whatever. It's as mean-spirited as before, and subtler, but it's directed at a different group of people. I welcome, I seek their most vicious judgement. Essentially it's trolling. But its ethical trolling; robin-hood trolling perhaps. So I'm in reality as snobby as ever, made manifest however differently.)

Of course when someone actually wishes to explore some realm of music that we enjoy, then we have to decide whether we really want to share it or not. Perhaps we'd rather preserve our special status! Then we'd better communicate to them, subtly of course, that they'll never have the expertise or the proper sensitivity or the right mindset or whatever; hopefully we can discourage them so that they'll realize they might as well stick to whatever they're used to listening to. With skill, we'll be able to communicate _to them_ a sense of our great and permanent and inevitable superiority - as if accidentally. With great skill, we won't even have to be fully aware of our own manoeuvring. We can move through the world blissfully "aware" of our superiority, lamenting (perhaps even ingenuously, if our consciousness is refined enough) that more people aren't like us, while (perhaps even unintentionally, or without full conscious intention at least) discouraging them from even daring to try. Put simply, if we congratulate ourselves enough, then certainly we'll turn a lot of people off to us and our music, and then we'll be that much more securely elite.

I wish we wouldn't do that.

But this has been a profound enough session for me. If there is any music that requires for its enjoyment even more omphaloskepsis than this, I haven't encountered it yet.


----------



## shangoyal (Sep 22, 2013)

Well said, science. 

But let's not back off too much. We might fall back off the cliff.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

shangoyal said:


> Well said, science.
> 
> But let's not back off too much. We might fall back off the cliff.


There's some fine music down there.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Yet another place where that detachment, and some general familiarity with all rep, comes in handy: recommending music to others who love it, but their tastes do not match yours. I could never see the big deal, loss of status or face, in recommending what one thinks is a better film score, or what one thinks is the better of "contemporary piano" or new-age, or whatever, in that you are providing the person inquiring with something, it is to be hoped, that not only increases the numbers of what they take pleasure in, but _which also furthers their interest and curiosity_. It shouldn't hurt anyone's self-image to be generally conversant about music, even that which they don't normally prefer to listen to.

Its a welcome mat and the door open with a welcoming smile vs. the closed club "sorry, you don't have what it takes." attitude.

Since most of us to some degree deplore the state of how many people actually listen to classical music, "Whatever it takes" as a great piano teacher of mine once said about negotiating a particular passage, is the motto I think best adapted if any of us are to encourage others to drink from this well.

Some members here are much better at that, while others seem utterly non adept. (I'm near certain I oscillate between those extremes.)

Short of a required prerequisite Sensitivity Course before being allowed to join the club, I think it is up to any music lover to think how they handle such inquiries.... take your best shot at turning them on, or via lack of a good general knowledge of repertoire to work from, or de facto by actual small and protective mean streak, turn them off. It is up to the individual, and what that individual can come up with.


----------



## shangoyal (Sep 22, 2013)

Yes, you are right there. Recommending music is an activity where haughtiness has no place at all. I think I do have that disdain for people who do not appreciate music that I like because I have lived in a culture where there are few people who have an interest in art. I have never met a single person in my life (in person, that is), who knows more than me about classical music - come to this site, there is not a single person here who knows less than me, I am among the most ignorant! So...


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

shangoyal said:


> Yes, you are right there. Recommending music is an activity where haughtiness has no place at all. I think I do have that disdain for people who do not appreciate music that I like because I have lived in a culture where there are few people who have an interest in art. I have never met a single person in my life (in person, that is), who knows more than me about classical music - come to this site, there is not a single person here who knows less than me, I am among the most ignorant! So...


You underestimate yourself of course!


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

*To like or dislike, that is the question?*

So far I have never seen any psychological study or discourse in aesthetics that adequately explains why listener A likes Mozart and why listener B likes Cage.


----------



## shangoyal (Sep 22, 2013)

science said:


> You underestimate yourself of course!


In my disdain for ignoramuses?


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

shangoyal said:


> In my disdain for ignoramuses?


You've got to let yourself be elite without feeling so much pain about it. Let them be them, you be you. Room for everybody.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

arpeggio said:


> So far I have not seen any psychological study or discourse in aesthetics that adequately explains why listener A likes Mozart and why listener B likes Cage.


Wait until those psychologist find some people like both, equally, but for equally different reasons, of course. Wonder what they'll have to factor in to get the results they would hope for on that one! ;-)


----------



## Guest (Nov 25, 2013)

superhorn said:


> [...] bland, insipid, formulaic [...] off-putting. [...] monotonously languorous in mood and cloyingly sentimental [...] annoyingly cutsie-pie , full of mincing Parisian preciosity, chi-chi and frou frou. [...] arch , coy, quaint , old-american folksiness is also somewhat annoying.


I'm not clear what your opinion is...come off the fence!


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

shangoyal said:


> In my disdain for ignoramuses?


Unless you're at the complete bottom in that category, all those one or more cuts above that become instant expert disdainers, the more newly arrived, usually the greater the zeal 

After a while, it pretty much goes away... rather like my attitude re: a beginning hair loss in my later fifties: by that time, you've got other things on your mind.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

PetrB said:


> Unless you're at the complete bottom in that category, all those one or more cuts above that become instant expert disdainers, the more newly arrived, usually the greater the zeal
> 
> After a while, *it pretty much goes away*... rather like my attitude re: a beginning hair loss in my later fifties: by that time, you've got other things on your mind.


Hopefully so. At least it gets subtler. But hopefully it actually does go away… a "higher indifference."


----------



## Winterreisender (Jul 13, 2013)

Mahlerian said:


> Much folk music is as much about performance, the "acting out" of playing music, as it is about the sounds produced. And I'm sure that within that as well as what is performed, there are standards that are observed. One is not free to play anything one likes within any context. I chose the example above for two reasons, (1): I wouldn't step on anyone else's feelings and (2): I know for a fact no effort whatsoever was put into it. Even within a New Age/Light Music context, it plays to the lowest denominator _on purpose_.
> 
> Folk music may be simple, but the expression in it isn't about form or structure in any way, so that's more or less irrelevant.


I'm not sure to what extent I agree with the drastic polarization between folk music and art music, which seems to be implied in this thread. I think of the quote from Louis Armstrong: "All music is folk music - I ain't never heard no horse sing."

One might refer to the technical complexity or the level of communality as a means of dividing the two, but even then you are left with styles such as the Balinese Gamelan which fall uncomfortably in the middle. This music is defined by its complex form and structure yet also has an important communal, ritualistic purpose. And can't western classical music also be about the "acting out" of playing music, e.g. virtuoso showmanship, concert rituals, historically informed settings, etc.?

But I realise this is straying a little off-topic. To link it back to my original point, I think that the person who wants to "put aside personal likes and dislikes" must treat _all_ genres of music equally because I see nothing intrinsic in classical music which objectively elevates it above other styles.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

No it isn't desirable to reach a place without either because they are dependant on each other. To like something you contrast it to something you don't like. That doesn't mean having to dismiss an entire style of music of course, you can like and dislike things within a particular style.


----------



## Guest (Nov 25, 2013)

I'm not at all understanding how "beyond" gets turned into "abandon." Likes and dislikes are fine. They are inevitable. They are omnipresent. (That's going to be turned into "likes and dislikes aren't important; they don't even exist," I just know it!!)

I think that likes and dislikes are where we start our journey. Or, maybe a more comforting metaphor, they are the root system of the plant. But to make a journey or a plant, you don't stay at the beginning. You move on, you develop.

And I think that the arts generally, qua arts, have this quality about them of being beyond any individual's individual likes and dislikes. That to listen in order to satisfy those is to limit what one can listen to. I'm all about expanding.

And that's another thing, how does attempting to engage even fuller, even deeper, with even more passion get turned into "detached"? Wow. I never saw that one coming!! But that's just the danger of becoming too enamored of one's own likes and dislikes, as if they defined the limits of the world. That a suggestion that there might be something beyond (beyond, not "in place of") could be represented as a turning away from all passion and all engagement.

Quite the contrary. Getting beyond ones likes and dislikes, I would contend, is a turning _towards_ passion and engagement, will produce _more _pleasure. The only tricky part, that I can see, is that I've also suggested that pleasure is not a goal. And here's the deal about that: again, pleasure will happen. It's inevitable. You don't have to go for it. You are built so as to take pleasure in things. You will do it, regardless. (This reminds me of my contributions to "emotions" threads, where my take, which is that emotions are essential and inevitable and ubiquitous inevitably gets turned into "some guy is unemotional and wants everyone else to be, too.")

If one can stop worrying about whether or not pleasure will happen (it will happen), then one can concentrate one's energies on other things. One can transcend one's own narrow, individual, tastes and predilections. Or, at the very least, one can end up with one's own broad, individual, tastes and predilections.:lol:


----------



## shangoyal (Sep 22, 2013)

There you go, some guy, I give you a like! :lol:


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Well yeh of course expansion will increase pleasure (sensory and intellectual), that's why I said you don't have to dismiss a complete style of music. But as you hear more you will also dislike some things which help define what you like about a style as well. Of course some basic not really thought out dislikes will disappear in the process as well. But dislikes help guide your path towards the more creative things as well, and can expand your taste away from the more limited.



some guy said:


> If one can stop worrying about whether or not pleasure will happen (it will happen), then one can concentrate one's energies on other things.


This is a problem with some who just want to join a club and like what they think they are supposed to like rather than just finding their own path. But just leave them to it, why should we care? They don't.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

starry said:


> But just leave them to it, why should we care? They don't.


Exactly! Why even judge them? Listen and let listen. Everything else - every bit of it - is pretentious BS, which in this era is at best a waste of emotional energy.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Isn't the pretentiousness (wanting an unjustified position of merit) from those who don't know about some music who go under the assumption that they should like a particular piece/composer as others say they should. Music is meant to be for enjoyment not to just try and join a club.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

starry said:


> Isn't the pretentiousness (wanting an unjustified position of merit) from those who don't know about some music who go under the assumption that they should like a particular piece/composer as others say they should. Music is meant to be for enjoyment not to just try and join a club.


Maybe (to the first sentence) but why care?

You get into legislating how people are allowed to use music and you're reinforcing a status hierarchy just as surely as someone who listens to hip hop trying to be cool or someone who listens to gospel music trying to display their piety. There's pretension, exclusion, inevitably counter-pretension, counter-exclusion, wasted negative energy all around, in either approach.


----------



## shangoyal (Sep 22, 2013)

Yeah, in that case I prefer the exhibitionist and the over-the-top to the conservationist, as long _you know you are loving it._


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Winterreisender said:


> I'm not sure to what extent I agree with the drastic polarization between folk music and art music, which seems to be implied in this thread. I think of the quote from Louis Armstrong: "All music is folk music - I ain't never heard no horse sing."
> 
> One might refer to the technical complexity or the level of communality as a means of dividing the two, but even then you are left with styles such as the Balinese Gamelan which fall uncomfortably in the middle. This music is defined by its complex form and structure yet also has an important communal, ritualistic purpose. And can't western classical music also be about the "acting out" of playing music, e.g. virtuoso showmanship, concert rituals, historically informed settings, etc.?
> 
> But I realise this is straying a little off-topic. To link it back to my original point, I think that the person who wants to "put aside personal likes and dislikes" must treat _all_ genres of music equally because I see nothing intrinsic in classical music which objectively elevates it above other styles.


Simple trial run: Sing that hymn tune in church, along with hundreds of others, and find it completely passable. Recognize that it is music just about anyone can sing back, repeat, after just one hearing, that it is in the most basic of strophic forms.

Sing a Schubert lied, or better, have a go at Berlioz' _Les nuits d'ete_, or Mahler's _Das Lied von der Erde_.

Compare 

There are different degrees of expected musicianship, between classical, "folk music" and community sings, even for those folk performers at the top of a solo game... not to in any way disdain them, but ignoring the differences is just ignoring facts which are about as standout as a huge boulder in the middle of a prairie. Otherwise, it seems to me you may as well be deaf yet talking on and on about music.

I don't get what is such an ANATHEMA about citing differences in demands, and the qualities expected, nor the various technical development which accompanies any of that. "It is all the same" is completely lacking in any sort of discernment, at which point, who cares to discuss the quality of the materials or the performances of anything?


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

There's no legislating, it's just pointing out something that some are likely unaware of. Of course some opinions aren't liked (even when they can be truthful), but forums are obviously meant to be a place to air them.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

some guy said:


> Getting beyond ones likes and dislikes, I would contend, is a turning _towards_ passion and engagement, will produce _more _pleasure. The only tricky part, that I can see, is that I've also suggested that pleasure is not a goal.


 I would say pleasure is the _only_ goal. What other goal can there be that isn't in itself just a step towards the ultimate goal of pleasure?
(Pleasure being the umbrella term covering satisfaction, fulfilment, gratification and happiness as I suggested earlier).


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

PetrB said:


> Simple trial run: Sing that hymn tune in church, along with hundreds of others, and find it completely passable. Recognize that it is music just about anyone can sing back, repeat, after just one hearing, that it is in the most basic of strophic forms.
> 
> Sing a Schubert lied, or better, have a go at Berlioz' _Les nuits d'ete_, or Mahler's _Das Lied von der Erde_.
> 
> ...


I once read that virtuosity is universally valued ~ that valuing musical virtuosity is a "human universal." Can you confirm or deny this?

I grew up in sort of small wooden Southern (USA) churches with a piano on one side and an organ on the other. In our churches there were very frequent opportunities for skilled musicians to show off - not that anyone would've ever put it in those terms: it was an "offering." In today's megachurches I see professional musicians. But even if we'd been in a church context where everything was strictly chant and no one could stand out even if they really tried, of course there would've been secular music.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

starry said:


> There's no legislating, it's just pointing out something that some are likely unaware of. Of course some opinions aren't liked (even when they can be truthful), but forums are obviously meant to be a place to air them.


"Music is meant to be for enjoyment not to just try and join a club." That's legislating (and it's a popular opinion).


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Well i don't think it is just about joining a club, and some for sure would agree with me. I understand that won't change the opinion of some, but forums don't tend to be about changing opinions, they are more about articulating them. And of course if someone doesn't have a good retort to an opinion they tend to just tell someone to shut up, or they make it personal about that person.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

starry said:


> Well i don't think it is just about joining a club, and some for sure would agree with me.


Of course, so you have your way of listening! Your own values, attitudes, etc.

If you can _teach_ me something I'm all ears, but if it's just "this is right and that is wrong" then so what? You have your way, your values, your attitudes, etc., and I have mine. I don't recognize your authority to condemn mine, so we'll have to "listen and let listen."


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

I don't think being on a forum is about teaching, it's about taking what you want and testing/exploring your own opinions. Learning to me is about teaching yourself as that's where you learn, in your own head. Not into this whole authority thing, resident experts or whatever. I won't take an opinion at face value and just accept it.


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

some guy said:


> I'm not at all understanding how "beyond" gets turned into "abandon." Likes and dislikes are fine. They are inevitable. They are omnipresent. (That's going to be turned into "likes and dislikes aren't important; they don't even exist," I just know it!!)


It seems to me that "beyond" is the tricky word here, perhaps you chose it to echo _Beyond Good and Evil_ Nietzsche's philosophy of the future. I'd rather use the word "between". Beyond carries with it the suggestion of progress, improvement and discarding what came before. Between places the goal in an already established way of thinking.

Like and dislike are extremes, the quick answer to a complex question but they tell you little and demand a follow up question of "why?" Rather than using such thought stopping words we need to aim more for the centre. Our initial reaction may be "like" but understanding why it is the initial reaction is a lot more rewarding.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

some guy said:


> I'm not at all understanding how "beyond" gets turned into "abandon." Likes and dislikes are fine. They are inevitable. They are omnipresent. (That's going to be turned into "likes and dislikes aren't important; they don't even exist," I just know it!!)
> 
> I think that likes and dislikes are where we start our journey. Or, maybe a more comforting metaphor, they are the root system of the plant. But to make a journey or a plant, you don't stay at the beginning. You move on, you develop.
> 
> And I think that the arts generally, qua arts, have this quality about them of being beyond any individual's individual likes and dislikes. *That to listen in order to satisfy those is to limit what one can listen to*. I'm all about expanding.


I don't understand this. I'm always been musically very curious (for the reasons very well exposed by Science) and if I discover a genre or a style that I didn't know before I'm all ears. But still there are things that I like and things that I don't like and still it doesn't limit me at all, I've have the same curiosity.



some guy said:


> pleasure will happen. It's inevitable. You don't have to go for it. You are built so as to take pleasure in things. You will do it, regardless.


again: 
There are those who like to drink coffee without sugar. I've tried for two months to drink it like this (some person I know insisted that it was just a matter of habitude): nothing. I still prefer it with sugar. 
I don't know, this theory about pleasure to me seems very arbritrary, sometimes it could be true but not always. There are musicians that I didn't understand at first and after time I've appreciated them a lot. But there are pieces of music that I've listened for over a decade that I don't like at all even today. And I keep listening to them, because I try and I like to understand things that I don't know, but as I've said to understand and to like something are different things.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

By the way, there's one thing that I'd like to add. Just as a composer build his personality making choices, the listener also build his personality the same way. Talking of myself, I'm extremely fascinated by harmony, and I'm cultivating that aspect listening music with complex harmonies and learning not only new music but also about myself and my own taste. Why a thing like this should be negative? It's a way to learn new things and I do it with more joy than when I try to listen a thing I dislike for the hundredth time.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

It certainly seems like a natural thing. Just as I've been in the mood to hear Russian compositions more frequently... I don't feel the need to say I "like" this and I "don't like" something else. That would be unnecessary, and verging on ridiculous. I'm simply going with the flow of how I'm feeling, and that's led me to the Russians right now. It could be something different tonight, but I don't care to analyze this flow of life. It's just happening, and I don't need mental verification to realize it's a genuine experience.


----------



## Crassus (Nov 4, 2013)

It sounds like you are looking for depersonalization.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Crassus said:


> It sounds like you are looking for depersonalization.


Yes, I have the same impression. The paradox is the Some Guy says that it's possible to appreciate different musical personalities (even the less conventionals) but one should not judge, while personality is based on judging.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

Personality is just an idea based on other ideas. You are the one watching these ideas. You can play with them or not.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

science said:


> I once read that virtuosity is universally valued ~ that valuing musical virtuosity is a "human universal." Can you confirm or deny this?
> 
> I grew up in sort of small wooden Southern (USA) churches with a piano on one side and an organ on the other. In our churches there were very frequent opportunities for skilled musicians to show off - not that anyone would've ever put it in those terms: it was an "offering." In today's megachurches I see professional musicians. But even if we'd been in a church context where everything was strictly chant and no one could stand out even if they really tried, of course there would've been secular music.


Virtuosity in the actual sense is both technical and accompanied by a profound musicality, i.e. applied musicianship. Yes, who does not appreciate the really fine singer, any genre, any style? Ditto for, say, John Booker playing _On the Sunny Side of the Street,_ or a myriad of other sorts of music you care to name. Those who were / are virtuosi are the names we know, Odetta, Woodie Guthrie, Tom Waits, or choose those you know from your locale or contextual to your generation... virtuoso, each. The Alan Lomax archive is chock-a-block with the very real deal, some quite raw, but utterly genuine, and indeed, those recordings of those folk and blues genre are of players, some technically "amateur" with real chops, for the simple genuine folk song, the down home back-porch blues, et alia. I wouldn't want to hear any of those (singers) doing Schubert's Ave Maria any more than I want to hear an opera singer doing folk songs or a blues number, at least not if I want folk music or the real deal blues.

There, I am in agreement about not distancing one sort from another, but to not hear / notice a difference, well, that is really kind of beyond me. To want to sweep that difference aside for the sake of a sort of politically correct, "oh, they're all wonderful" is damned near egregious in my book, but some would have the near pabulum equal consistency, and the blandness which would ultimately result... to say I'm against that is putting it very mildly and politely.

I've found among musicians, most are more than open to hearing the good qualities of performers in genres far remote from their personal taste -- someone has chops (not just fast or brilliant display) and almost anyone sits up and pays notice, ditto, even, on the expert performer, as a performer.

If you have ever heard some of the congregations who sing Sacred Harp music, just imagine those same forces singing a chorus from a Verdi Opera -- equally distorted, if not "just wrong," would be to hear that classically trained opera chorus attempting to render the Sacred Harp singing style... anything genuine about it, the quality most essential, would be gone.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Crassus said:


> It sounds like you are looking for depersonalization.


Getting your ego out of the way to meet something fully head on, giving the attended thing the all and only care or attention is not a loss of self, but rather leads to a greater personal involvement with the thing you are tending.

I think a lot of people are terrified of the concept of giving their ego a holiday, as if there would be an actual loss of self... that just ain't gonna happen, whether you are from the East, West, North or South.

Everyone deserves a vacation now and then, including the Ego


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

There's that old Zen story of two monks who were walking across the bridge and the junior monk said to his teacher... he said: WHAT IS THE BUDDHA NATURE aaaaaaaand... the older monk picked him up and threw him into the water... you know.


----------



## Copperears (Nov 10, 2013)

Haven't finished the thread, but my two cents about what I do: I actively seek out, periodically, music I have previously NOT liked, for whatever reason or judgmental criteria, or social/political/cultural bias keeping me from understanding its value.

My basic principle is that I know nothing, and so have something to learn from everything, especially that which is most unfamiliar to me. Things that from a distance might seem off-putting -- say, the misogyny of rap, the conventionalism of country & western, the satanistic melodrama of metal, in pop music, and atonality, or extended form, or repetition, or "minor composer status," in baroque/classical/romantic/modern music -- upon growing familiarization start to acquire a depth and subtlety that is missing from that distance.

I learned this early on, when certain kinds of musics sounded "all the same" to me -- baroque, the same patterns over and over again; Mozart, all tinkly; Brahms, lots of big themes, no drama; Haydn string quartets, Bach partitas, repetitious; rap, lots of talking and thumping, no music; country&western, lots of complaining about broken marriages with twangy guitars and too much IV-V-I; metal, machine gun imitation drumming and vomit-voice growling -- and then I decided to persist and figure out why the various audiences don't grow tired of "the same thing over and over again" for years.

One reaches a certain point of familiarity where the depth, details, variations finally start to stand out, where the contours of the landscape start to make sense, where the strengths and weaknesses within the tradition become manifest, and that's where it gets interesting, and pleasurable again.

And then, one reaches a point of overfamiliarity, where the umpteenth listen to Holst's "The Planets" is bout on par with sleepwalking, where it's like rereading the same detective novel for the 20th time and knowing who done it from the first page, so why bother?

We cycle between the need for surprise, and the need for familiarity, the desire for change and the desire for stability and continuity, and this is reflected in musical experience.

Then, there's the other question of associations; I find too many people who don't think much about what they like or don't like tend to have extra-musical reasons for their preferences. The stance of this or that era, or composer, or musical group, "represents" them, they ally with it. I find myself of course doing this, too; it's the main thing that drove me, listening to rock in my early years in the 60's. Or to Chopin then, as one of the elite snobs who knew more than just Cream's latest hit on the radio. At this level it's like rooting for your favorite sports team, and there's nothing wrong with that, either, except when it becomes more important than it really is. For a whole generation it seemed like the foundation for a worldwide revolution, which it wasn't really.

I try to separate such associations from my listening experience, kind of like what you do in Tai Chi, and allow other associations than the familiar ones to surface. Youtube is great this way; just type in, say, "Indonesian music" and then tour for awhile, and wonder. Or "Malagasy" or "Selagy" or "Soukous" or "Chalga" or anything, really. It ends up being an opportunity for vast, new musical experience.

[sidenote: as a result of doing the above for a few years, I've become convinced that human dance practice changes, from the equator to the poles, with more focus upon the lower-center of the body the closer you are to the equator, and more focus upon upper-body and arm and finger movement, the further you are from the equator, it's kind of fascinating and I hope someone does a serious study of that some day.... with some speculation as to why that might be]

And I also have the humility of some of my favorite "great" composers, who were never averse to borrowing a pop tune from the local folks in the midst of their work. Beethoven borrows [steals] from everyone, no reason anyone else should do different; it mattered less, when there weren't 90,000 death metal bands alone competing for commercial survival under capitalism across the planet. 

What music is not to me is status-seeking; it is association, and discovery, and learning why other people like things I know nothing about.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

Sometimes I like _something_ to which I'm listening, other times I like _listening_ to something. If I don't do the former, it doesn't matter a whole lot. If I don't do the latter, I generally move on. Liking is always involved one way or another. Otherwise, I feel it's a rather pointless way to use my time. (Like banging my head against a wall)


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

PetrB said:


> Its a welcome mat and the door open with a welcoming smile vs. the closed club "sorry, you don't have what it takes." attitude.


I don't think most people do this intentionally.

But we all inadvertently project their own likes and dislikes in the way we talk about things, and this can take the form of elitism: "you like _that_? You could never possibly understand _X_!" It can also take the form of exclusionary populism, projecting one's personal taste into a universal: "no one could possibly like _X_!", the insidious and extremely damaging corollary to which is "how could anyone possibly not like _Y_?", which attitude I think often turns people away.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

People are too sensitive and looking for approval then, which won't really get them to the music they would like anyway. People can listen to what they want, nobody is forcing them to listen to this or that.

As for personality and taste, if they are linked in any vague way maybe you can expand both, so it doesn't have to be seen as limiting but as something which is malleable and open to change.


----------



## hannoying (Nov 25, 2013)

Personal taste or rather personal input is an important variable, without there would be no innovative music. Music itself is an expression of one person’s feelings or spirit, and therefore bound to personal taste. It is as natural to us to dislike certain types of music as it is to dislike certain people, though through no fault of theirs. What we can do, is to appreciate the skill and openness in the people creating music, and not only judging them. That goes for the people listening to the music as well


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

hannoying said:


> Personal taste or rather personal input is an important variable, without there would be no innovative music. Music itself is an expression of one person's feelings or spirit, and therefore bound to personal taste. It is as natural to us to dislike certain types of music as it is to dislike certain people, though through no fault of theirs. What we can do, is to appreciate the skill and openness in the people creating music, and not only judging them. That goes for the people listening to the music as well


Music surely can't be just an expression of one person, it builds on a tradition, without which you would never have had these famous individuals. And disliking of certain people can be based sometimes not on rational but totally irrational reasons, which is such cases shouldn't be excused. And perhaps it's helpful to make an effort to increase our knowledge of music just like we should of people. Though the second could be rather more important perhaps.


----------



## Winterreisender (Jul 13, 2013)

PetrB said:


> There are different degrees of expected musicianship, between classical, "folk music" and community sings, even for those folk performers at the top of a solo game... not to in any way disdain them, but ignoring the differences is just ignoring facts which are about as standout as a huge boulder in the middle of a prairie. Otherwise, it seems to me you may as well be deaf yet talking on and on about music.
> 
> I don't get what is such an ANATHEMA about citing differences in demands, and the qualities expected, nor the various technical development which accompanies any of that. "It is all the same" is completely lacking in any sort of discernment, at which point, who cares to discuss the quality of the materials or the performances of anything?


As I said earlier, it seems to me obvious that technical ability can be, to a large extent, objectively measured. I don't deny that. I am merely saying that I am reluctant to grade different styles of music according to their technical demands, because that would be an oversimplification. Some classical pieces are relatively simple; some folk styles (e.g. Gamelan) are very complex. And where do other genres like Jazz and Rock and Bluegrass fit into this drastic polarisation? I'd rather save such judgements for dealing with specific pieces instead of making sweeping statements about the inferiority of an entire genre. I also don't think that the level of technical difficulty should be indicative of whether music counts as "art music" or not.


----------



## shangoyal (Sep 22, 2013)

So! I think I understood what you mean by beyond like and dislike. You mean this:


----------



## Copperears (Nov 10, 2013)

Then there's the question of the different kinds of listening one does; is that in the context of this thread, or should that be a separate conversation? I'm too new to start the thread if latter (it should be framed simply).

Just asking since one can like/dislike music depending on the level of attention devoted to it, context, etc. Different kinds of music demand different kinds of attention, and perhaps like/dislike occurs because the demand is inconsistent with the nature of the attention available?

People could listen to three-hour oratories and operas in the late 19th-century because there wasn't much alternative for entertainment, for example. So a shorter piece might seem disappointing or insufficient.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Oh, please!... what's this?... sounds like some 'new age' thingy... or even worse, sounds like the title of an essay in postmodern philosophy... "Transcending beyond. Like and dislike: democracy or capitalism?".

I will like what I like and I'm going to dislike what I dislike... What I like makes me happy, what I dislike makes me unhappy... and this has nothing to do with having an open mind for new art or related things, that's another matter.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Ingélou said:


> An interesting question.
> 
> In some ways, it seems a good idea to get beyond likes & dislikes, because then one could dispassionately look at the structure and pure aesthetics of a piece. It would feel like the appreciation of a good maths equation. A Buddhist way of looking at things, eliminating desire and achieving Nirvana.
> 
> ...


But why on Earth I would like to consider a "dispassionately look" to one of my passions?!. 

I passionately listen to Webern, Bach, Debussy, Beethoven, Ligeti, Boulez, Stravinsky, and all of my favorites.

Passion can be a fundamental driving force. The Greats did great things because they were passionate about those things.

I would recommend a good dose of passion to anyone.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

aleazk said:


> But why on Earth I would like to consider a "dispassionately look" to one of my passions?!.
> 
> I passionately listen to Webern, Bach, Debussy, Beethoven, Ligeti, Boulez, Stravinsky, and all of my favorites.
> 
> ...


I said 'in *some* contexts' it might be desirable to be dispassionate; but in the context of *Aleazk*, obviously *not*!


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Ingélou said:


> I said 'in *some* contexts' it might be desirable to be dispassionate; but in the context of *Aleazk*, obviously *not*!




Well, we could agree that I'm quite dispassionate for activities like, say, washing the dishes or cleaning the cat's things.


----------



## Guest (Nov 25, 2013)

PetrB said:


> Getting your ego out of the way to meet something fully head on, giving the attended thing the all and only care or attention is not a loss of self, but rather leads to a greater personal involvement with the thing you are tending.


Thank you, Petr.

It interests me to see so much kerfluffle about losing and abandoning and replacing things that cannot be lost, abandoned or replaced.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

some guy said:


> Thank you, Petr.
> 
> It interests me to see so much kerfluffle about losing and abandoning and replacing things that cannot be lost, abandoned or replaced.


When one has been so strongly attached to their personal identity and all the other ideas they picked up along the way, a comfort starts to form with familiarity... Even if the ego smells of fish and is a constant struggle, at least you're familiar with your little fish tank.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

aleazk said:


> Well, we could agree that I'm quite dispassionate for activities like, say, washing the dishes or cleaning the cat's things.


Well, ain't passion just too much one of those words which is overloaded with color and individual personal freight?

First hand, and from many accounts from composers I have read, a certain detachment in the form of a fair deal of distancing from both subject and self, 'objectivity' about what one is writing (or playing for that matter) is, it seems for many, quite the way to go. Passion, as redefined, boosted and skewed in the 20th century by a lot of Hollywood scripts, artists' statements in galleries, etc. seems to me to have a very conflated value and that based on very little real understanding.

It has been found and said many times that if one is going to write a work which is dark, brooding, melancholic, the time to be working on such a piece is not when one is in the dark, brooding and melancholic state itself. So much for immediate self-expression. What is being expressed is, well, not of the instantaneous moment, but well after the fact, and from a distance.

I'm getting the impression that for many, detached means forgetting who you are completely, or somehow detachment includes all emotional faculties ice-cold and or dead. That is just nonsense.

The passionate player swaying around to the music they are rendering at the piano is not doing the music any service... I've seen students so moved by the sound, and moving around accordingly, that they are anything but well-aligned to negotiate the instrument or render much out of it. That is a form of personal self-indulgence, and has nothing to do with getting "passionate" playing from the instrument. Reins and chains are required, knuckling under, giving up a bit of the self, or setting aside ones personal wholesale pleasure for the benefit of the quality of the playing, and to better deliver a finer performance to the listener. It is much the same for the composer.

None of this means or implies any degree of personal involvement with the playing or writing is less. What there isn't is visible drama or Hollywood style melodrama, which has absolutely nothing -- at all -- to do with the end result. I think the general public wants the outward signs, as if those play-acted out motions or physical expressions somehow are more convincing than the actual work or what is heard in a performance.

I am known for not being outwardly excitable, yet, if you found me involved with a piece I was making, or practicing a piece for performance when I was actively performing, and asked me what I thought / felt about that, you might see me literally light up, become more animated, and talk a little more excitedly, while even that was relatively mama-drama free to the degree where some would still think I had 'no passion' of involvement. Outward displays are outward displays, adding little or nothing to the matter at hand.

Many of those brilliant and deeply moving works we hear were written, from an outsider's point of view, rather dispassionately, the composer at the piano or a desk, the scene about as exciting as watching an accountant balancing the books. It is work, most of it highly anti-glamorous, and without the personal zeal of the pursuit, it would be deathly boring for the doer as well.

That is anything but the cliche _passionate artist performs / creates_ scenario, but it is far more often the actuality than the collective Romantic / Hollywood fiction. This means that 90% of these callings out of "no passion" are seriously so far off the mark it is risible, since calling that out as not passionate is often enough completely false.

_*Reality TV -- now there is raw passion *_


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

PetrB said:


> (text)


Petr, I hope you are not thinking that my idea of passion is in some way related to those banalities you mention; I would feel personally insulted by you in that case. 

I maintain what I said. The difference between someone without passion and a dead body is none.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

aleazk said:


> Petr, I hope you are not thinking that my idea of passion is in some way related to those banalities you mention; I would feel personally insulted by you in that case.
> 
> I maintain what I said. The difference between someone without passion and a dead body is none.


Excluding the Romanticized / MTV / Hollywood redefinition-conception of the meaning of passion, I agree. I'm all too aware of the current parlance and its usage though, so best avoid the word altogether, at least "in the present times."

If you are not involved, deeply, or fully engaged with whatever you are doing, i.e. without the added cartoon gloss of that other notion of passion, what results is at the least lackluster, anemic, or downright bloodless. No vitality = no vital signs = dead, so, yeah.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

some guy said:


> Thank you, Petr.
> 
> It interests me to see so much kerfluffle about losing and abandoning and replacing things that cannot be lost, abandoned or replaced.


I think it easier to see that if first one has been very very busy with all that, preferably in the "youth" phase


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

starry said:


> Music surely can't be just an expression of one person, it builds on a tradition, without which you would never have had these famous individuals.


I think it is quite the opposite! While of course the craft itself is something built up by various individuals over a long time, and anyone alive has some notion of the semiotic expectations of pieces resulting from that craft, once an individual has learned that craft, it is in their hands alone.

The majority of music is composed by a single person working alone, and I'm convinced those most memorable works by the most memorable individuals are completely the result of the individual, not history, not the collective ethos of their time and place. That individuality is what marks those composers' works, they are as readily distinguished from others by the very traits of their (musical) personality / individuality.

There is to a small degree the account of being a part of ones time and place, but beyond that, I think those works which are outstanding are the expression of a lone individual: though those works speak to many, no one else could have 'said' what they said and in the particular manner they said it.


----------



## Copperears (Nov 10, 2013)

This kind of discussion always makes me think of Edgar Allan Poe: the madness of reason, and the reason in madness. The super-rational detective story as an exercise in compulsive insanity (Arthur Conan Doyle is just warmed-over Poe, really).

And the other non-sequitur: sex is not love.

I vote on the side of reason over passion, it's a distinction we've lost, due no doubt to global warming and excess CO2 in the atmosphere.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

Haha, and the Fluoride in our tap-water. Filthy animals.


----------



## Guest (Nov 26, 2013)

Vesuvius said:


> Even if the ego smells of fish and is a constant struggle, at least you're familiar with your little fish tank.




-------------------


----------



## Guest (Nov 26, 2013)

Returning to the OP, I agree that it is possible to get beyond "likes and dislikes" in music. It's not so much a "desirable" place to reach but one which, for some people, could be fairly inevitable. 

Depending on how far a person is interested in music, it might become just another aspect of everyday life, along with things like shopping, talking with family or work colleagues, travelling, walking, keeping fit, etc. You don't tend to ask yourself whether or not you like or dislike these things on each occasion, but accept them as all part of getting through the day with a modicum of variety thrown in. I can now switch on the radio and listen to more or less anything that's on, provided it's broadly classical. I'm not thinking all the time "do I or don't I like this?". 

The situation is different when the activity in question is new. Classical music is so broad that it would be very surprising if a new person likes all that there is, or even a sizeable chunk of it. I would guess that most of the "likes" and "dislikes" expressed in places like this forum come from people who are still feeling their way and aren't too sure yet whether their interest is likely to be permanent, or just a passing fancy.


----------



## Guest (Nov 26, 2013)

Hmmmm.

When I was a person who was still feeling my way, the question of whether my interest was likely to be permanent or just a passing fancy never ever occurred to me. Even now, reading this, the question still isn't occurring to me.

That explains a lot!

In any event, not to contradict Partita but simply to reiterate my own position, I was certainly not thinking that "beyond" meant "become just another aspect of everyday life." I was going more for the becoming more deeply involved than before.

But that's just me. Partita is of course correct that one doesn't tend to ask oneself whether or not one likes things one is doing more or less automatically. (That, to me, does indeed sound like disengagement, actually. Which is what a lot of people so far have been concerned about. I'd be concerned, too, except that I knew that I was not arguing for disengagement.)

Another question just occurred to me, with your kind indulgence: Do your likes and dislikes _define_ who you are, or are they simply _aspects_ of your self? (Further, are they important or unimportant aspects?)

N.B.--no matter what some of the other posters have intimated, I have absolutely no control over how you listen or what you should listen to or even which questions you should answer. None, nada, zip, zilch. And no interest, either. It's funny how expressing one's own opinion can so easily be taken as insistence that everyone must agree with that opinion, an insistence that would be impossible to enforce. Expressions of independence in online discussions always perplex me. Since there is no mechanism online for taking your independence from you, there is never any question about whether you can or cannot listen to whatever you like and however you like.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

some guy said:


> N.B.--no matter what some of the other posters have intimated, I have absolutely no control over how you listen or what you should listen to or even which questions you should answer. None, nada, zip, zilch. And no interest, either. It's funny how expressing one's own opinion can so easily be taken as insistence that everyone must agree with that opinion, an insistence that would be impossible to enforce. Expressions of independence in online discussions always perplex me. Since there is no mechanism online for taking your independence from you, there is never any question about whether you can or cannot listen to whatever you like and however you like.


Totally agree. And the irony is it's other people who ask for help in what to listen to and how to listen to it who are asking people to dictate things to them anyway.

I think you need passion to have the energy to explore something well. However that doesn't preclude putting aside your personal favourites and exploring with that passion other things as well, and growing to like them.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

I don't think that likes or dislikes _define_ who a person is; neither does _moving beyond likes & dislikes_.

The _choice_ to take any of these options is what makes the person who s/he is. And a person who is always thinking about their image or identity, 'what does this say about me', is curiously less of a person than the one who doesn't think about that, but just *is* or *does*. The gospel saying, 'For whosoever desires to save his soul shall lose it, but whosoever will lose his soul for my sake, the same shall save it' appears to apply also in a secular psychological way.

As PetrB says above in post #125: 'Getting your ego out of the way to meet something fully head on, giving the attended thing the all and only care or attention is not a loss of self, but rather leads to a greater personal involvement with the thing you are tending.'

To me, there's *nothing wrong* with saying, 'I won't bother with music that doesn't engage me; it matters to me whether I like or dislike music; that's part of it for me, and my time is limited.' This is, to be honest, my own approach, although I try to put whiplash dislikes out of the way and give music a fair hearing; I *try* to *like*, in other words.

And there's *nothing wrong* with saying, 'Likes & dislikes are not something that matter to me. I want to get beyond them, to see music for what it is, to experience the *thisness* of a piece and to understand it, without thinking of my own emotions or reactions.'

This last is a valid approach too, and it is not _necessarily_ a cold or clinical reaction either. 
a) There can be a sort of pleasure in perceiving the true nature of a thing. 
b) Or there can be a sort of detachment that leads to a deeper joy, such as what mystics experience, when they achieve such oneness with God that they lose themselves, yet feel that they were more truly 'themselves' - when they lose all human knowledge and yet feel that they know, for an instant, the very meaning of the universe. This is Zen - it's Christian - it's agnostic; mysticism is something that unites & transcends all systems of thought.

So - *to me*, she added hastily  - there is no 'right' answer to the question, but it's a great question, and wonderful to read all the answers; like a light bulb with a shade round it with different coloured patches on it, and each patch shows the same light, but shows it in a different aspect.


----------



## Guest (Nov 26, 2013)

some guy said:


> ... In any event, not to contradict Partita but simply to reiterate my own position, I was certainly not thinking that "beyond" meant "become just another aspect of everyday life." I was going more for the becoming more deeply involved than before.


I guessed that I may have been adrift to some extent from what you meant, but what I wrote is about as eloquent and as relevant as I can be in responding to broad questions of this nature. I'll try to do better next time, if I'm still here!


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Partita said:


> I guessed that I may have been adrift to some extent from what you meant, but what I wrote is about as eloquent and as relevant as I can be in responding to broad questions of this nature. I'll try to do better next time, if I'm still here!


I've just reread the OP, and the questions seem very open-ended, so surely your answer, Partita, was as relevant as anyone else's. Aren't we meant to be having a _discussion_?


----------



## Guest (Nov 26, 2013)

Ingélou said:


> I've just reread the OP, and the questions seem very open-ended, so surely your answer, Partita, was as relevant as anyone else's. Aren't we meant to be having a _discussion_?


Exactly right, yes!


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Copperears said:


> I vote on the side of reason over passion, it's a distinction we've lost, due no doubt to global warming and excess CO2 in the atmosphere.


... as well as the fact that reason over passion is what ruled the sensibilities of those passionate composers whose passion those who are big on passion do go on about.


----------



## Copperears (Nov 10, 2013)

Yes like everything imprecise in language we all come to the term, "passion" with an entirely different set of connotations.

For me, passion is stillness; everything else is on the way to it, or away from it.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

Mmm, sweet stillness.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

I've read the whole thread with interest. First, to some guy, great OP. Before I had even had a chance to read the thread, there were over 5 pages of posts. There have been many different ideas expressed and they are all on topic.

Based on a somewhat expansive definition of liking and disliking, I don't think that people can really avoid liking or disliking music. Maybe there are some works that leave one indifferent, but for the most part we recognize that we like, don't like (slightly different from dislike), or dislike a work. Personally, I listen to music to either enjoy it or to find works I _will_ like. Maybe someday I'll learn enough music theory to listen to some pieces for other reasons.

Perhaps an interesting question is what effect liking or disliking a work has on people. If I like a work, that's great. I'll probably want to hear it again If I dislike a work, I still may want to hear it again. I may believe that I can learn to like it - it sounds interesting, different in a way that is intriguing, or similar to another work that I previously disliked but now like. So disliking a work only places it in the category of works that I have not yet begun to like (it may forever remain there, of course).


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Is there really the time to hear again every work you initially disliked? If I'm indifferent to something it pretty much means I dislike it, there's too much great music to think otherwise.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

starry said:


> Is there really the time to hear again every work you initially disliked? If I'm indifferent to something it pretty much means I dislike it, there's too much great music to think otherwise.


I agree time is an important concern in selecting works for listening. I know there will be many classical music works I will never have the time to hear. For me the trick is deciding which works that I initially dislike I should listen to again (and again, and again...). There are quite a few works that I initially disliked but now I adore.

I disliked Beethoven's Grosse Fuge, but now it is my favorite Beethoven string quartet Opus. I disliked Berg's Violin Concerto, but now I love it and would be sad never to hear it again. I disliked much of Debussy, Ravel, and Stravinsky (maybe even all of Stravinsky that I had heard), and now I love them all.

I would never argue that one ought to repeatedly listen to works one dislikes or even listen twice. For me, however, repeated listening to works that I have not enjoyed has brought wonderful benefits not just in learning to like specific works but also in allowing me to better appreciate other new works.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

mmsbls said:


> I agree time is an important concern in selecting works for listening. I know there will be many classical music works I will never have the time to hear. For me the trick is deciding which works that I initially dislike I should listen to again (and again, and again...). There are quite a few works that I initially disliked but now I adore.
> 
> I disliked Beethoven's Grosse Fuge, but now it is my favorite Beethoven string quartet Opus. I disliked Berg's Violin Concerto, but now I love it and would be sad never to hear it again. I disliked much of Debussy, Ravel, and Stravinsky (maybe even all of Stravinsky that I had heard), and now I love them all.
> 
> I would never argue that one ought to repeatedly listen to works one dislikes or even listen twice. For me, however, repeated listening to works that I have not enjoyed has brought wonderful benefits not just in learning to like specific works but also in allowing me to better appreciate other new works.


What you describe is just having an open mind for new music. 
The OP looks for a new way of listening to music, a new way to understand art in which concepts such as like or dislike have no role or meaning. It has nothing to do with "appreciating the theory behind the piece" or "reason over passion", etc. All those things can be covered in the other category.
As I said in my first post, the two things are completely different. And, also, I think the OP's idea is preposterous.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Ingélou said:


> I've just reread the OP, and the questions seem very open-ended


Yeah... so open-ended to the point of being completely vacuous...


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

I guess what everyone's trying to say is, "It is what it is."


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

aleazk said:


> What you describe is just having an open mind for new music.
> The OP looks for a new way of listening to music, a new way to understand art in which concepts such as like or dislike have no role or meaning. It has nothing to do with "appreciating the theory behind the piece" or "reason over passion", etc. All those things can be covered in the other category.
> As I said in my first post, the two things are completely different. And, also, I think the OP's idea is preposterous.


I think he was aware that the idea wasn't a widely accepted phenomenon. I'm sure it was a tool to stretch the limitations we so readily put on ourselves through societal conditions. Maybe there are much deeper ways of experiencing this universe... Those who are easily distracted with trivial pursuits won't ask these questions.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

EricABQ said:


> Have you tried marriage?


HA HA Over the years I've noticed "we" is used alot, though often it's not much more than a courtesy to include me in a decision that's already been made.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Vesuvius said:


> I think he was aware that the idea wasn't a widely accepted phenomenon. I'm sure it was a tool to stretch the limitations we so readily put on ourselves through societal conditions. Maybe there are much deeper ways of experiencing this universe... Those who are easily distracted with trivial pursuits won't ask these questions.


And those who ask meaningless things either... of course, there's a fine line between open-ended questions, "tools to stretch the limitations", etc., and vacuous concepts. Of course, a little more than will is needed in order to differentiate one from the other...


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

Bulldog said:


> There's always North Korea as a destination.


And plan on an extended stay. 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/26/us-korea-detention-north-idUSBRE9AP01L20131126


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Ukko said:


> Maybe you ought to get things started - without 'setting the tone' if possible.


:lol: .


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

mmsbls said:


> I disliked Beethoven's Grosse Fuge, but now it is my favorite Beethoven string quartet Opus. I disliked Berg's Violin Concerto, but now I love it and would be sad never to hear it again. I disliked much of Debussy, Ravel, and Stravinsky (maybe even all of Stravinsky that I had heard), and now I love them all.


Were they pieces you truly disliked, or pieces that you didn't understand and so were just frustrated by? I suspect the second.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

aleazk said:


> And those who ask meaningless things either... of course, there's a fine line between open-ended questions, "tools to stretch the limitations", etc., and vacuous concepts. Of course, a little more than will is needed in order to differentiate one from the other...


You see the world how you are, not how it really is. You can make the question worthwhile or not. It has no inherent meaning unto itself.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

We're working way too hard. We don't need anything beyond, "Maybe sometimes you should listen to music without paying attention to whether you 'enjoy' it or not." And then, "Maybe sometimes," or, "Of course," or, "That's not for me." And then we can all relax and go back to listening to music.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

I have not begun to defile myself.


----------



## Copperears (Nov 10, 2013)

I've read that people ran screaming from the debut of Stravinsky's Rite of Spring, and others were shocked and horrified by Beethoven's betrayal of form. Plus, Wagner and Mahler.

Sometimes hate and fear are a prelude to love and revelation. Or at least, "hey, that's different."

Fear of the unknown, well we know what that's all about. Space aliens with scary probes.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Vesuvius said:


> You see the world how you are, not how it really is. You can make the question worthwhile or not. It has no inherent meaning unto itself.


I see, all is relative then... meh.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

Copperears said:


> I've read that people ran screaming from the debut of Stravinsky's Rite of Spring


In fact, they were so horrified that after running screaming out after the first performance they went back to subsequent performances (if they could get a hot ticket). According to Alex Ross:

"In a matter of days, confusion turned into pleasure, boos into bravos. Even at the first performance, Stravinsky, Nijinsky, and the dancers had to bow four or five times for the benefit of the applauding faction. Subsequent performances were packed, and at each one the opposition dwindled. At the second, there was noise only during the latter part of the ballet; at the third, 'vigorous applause' and little protest. At a concert performance of the _Rite_ one year later, 'unprecedented exaltation' and a 'fever of adoration' swept over the crowd, and admirers mobbed Stravinsky in the street afterward, in a riot of delight."

There is the problem that many in Parisian concert crowds _liked_ scandals--it wasn't just the famous _Rite_ that inspired wild protests from some quarters, but also many other contemporary flavors of the week. It's also hard to know how much of the controversy was about the music and how much was really about the sexy dancing.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

The tradition of musical riots in Paris became well established. At one of Antheil's concerts, cameras were set up to record the riot. After the performance, some retakes and close-ups were required, so the audience was asked to repeat the riot. They happily did so.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Maybe there are much deeper ways of experiencing this universe... Those who are easily distracted with trivial pursuits won't ask these questions.

While those who spend hours gazing at their own navels will?


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Maybe there are much deeper ways of experiencing this universe... Those who are easily distracted with trivial pursuits won't ask these questions.
> 
> While those who spend hours gazing at their own navels will?


Yes, let us throw out logic and overgeneralize to defend thine scratched ego.

Do want you want, it's how your inner environment is. No need to quit your day-job and become a renunciant to search for what's real.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Vesuvius said:


> No need to quit your day-job and become a renunciant to search for what's real.


Statistics prove that quitting your day job reduces TUE (time until enlightenment) by two years or more. This may help in making the decision to achieve spiritual fulfillment or fill your belly.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Vesuvius said:


> Yes, let us throw out logic and overgeneralize to defend thine scratched ego.
> 
> Do want you want, it's how your inner environment is. No need to quit your day-job and become a renunciant to search for what's real.


Oh, please, not this ego thing again... so, if I like or dislike something is because I'm an egoistic?. That's a quite silly idea.
And now, after saying that all is relative, you come to tell us "what's real" and what is the "correct" way of "searching what's real"?.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

aleazk said:


> Oh, please, not this ego thing again... so, if I like or dislike something is because I'm an egoistic?. That's a quite silly idea.
> And now, after saying that all is relative, you come to tell us "what's real" and what is the "correct" way of "searching what's real"?.


I was commenting to that post directly. Can you think a tad before you post?

This is becoming a personal bickering contest and I'm highly uninterested.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Vesuvius said:


> I was commenting to that post directly. Can you think a tad before you post?
> 
> This is becoming a personal bickering contest and I'm highly uninterested.


I'm afraid that the one who stopped thinking was you in your call for total relativism.... certainly the most inelegant answer somebody can give in a discussion...


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

aleazk said:


> I'm afraid that the one who stopped thinking was you in your call for total relativism.... certainly the most inelegant answer somebody can give in a discussion...


Oh, boy... You might benefit from re-reading and contemplating a little more. Apparently you're missing some worthwhile distinctions, and I'm afraid I'm too tired to continue holding your hand. Especially when I can see you're misinterpreting everything I say. We'll all be alright, I'm sure. At least we share a passion in beautiful music, and I suppose that's something.

:tiphat:


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Vesuvius said:


> Oh, boy... You might benefit from re-reading and contemplating a little more. Apparently you're missing some worthwhile distinctions, and I'm afraid I'm too tired to continue holding your hand. Especially when I can see you're misinterpreting everything I say. We'll all be alright, I'm sure. At least we share a passion in beautiful music, and I suppose that's something.
> 
> :tiphat:


You seem quite impressed with the OP's idea. I fail to see any value on it. You responded with a typical ad hominem when you said that people who fail to see its value is because they are occupied in "trivial matters". So, your answers are not very convincing, to say the least. Maybe you can share with us all of that transcendence you experienced in your "non-trivial" explorations.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

aleazk said:


> You seem quite impressed with the OP's idea. I fail to see any value on it. You responded with a typical ad hominem when you said that people who fail to see its value is because they are occupied in "trivial matters". So, your answers are not very convincing, to say the least. Maybe you can share with us all of that transcendence you experienced in your "non-trivial" explorations.


Enough well thought out responses have been posted... and I'm not talking about mine. So like I said, re-read and contemplate if this still confuses you.

What I meant by "those who are easily distracted by trivial things won't ask questions like these" is that those who accept all the bull-crap society feeds them about their lives, who and what they are, and this universe won't be open to discussions that question the "norm." I'm not the one who asked this question, but being open to it is just as important... and I can see many people are open to questioning these regulations we put on ourselves and that's a beautiful thing.

The fact that you take what I said so personally shows a great deal about your position. You're not digesting anything. You just want to spit out any junk that your mind throws up. Now, I've really had enough. I won't respond to anymore of your post, but I'm sure you'll think of something to say anyway.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

KenOC said:


> The tradition of musical riots in Paris became well established. At one of Antheil's concerts, cameras were set up to record the riot. After the performance, some retakes and close-ups were required, so the audience was asked to repeat the riot. They happily did so.


aYep, the rioting over an art exhibition or performance is a long established traditional collective sport for Parisians.

Hey, let's go to the premiere of ________, It'll be a riot!


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Vesuvius said:


> Enough well thought out responses have been posted... and I'm not talking about mine. So like I said, re-read and contemplate if this still confuses you.
> 
> What I meant by "those who are easily distracted by trivial things won't ask questions like these" is that those who accept all the bull-crap society feeds them about their lives, who and what they are, and this universe won't be open to discussions that question the "norm." I'm not the one who asked this question, but being open to it is just as important... and I can see many people are open to questioning these regulations we put on ourselves and that's a beautiful thing.
> 
> The fact that you take what I said so personally shows a great deal about your position. You're not digesting anything. You just want to spit out any junk that your mind throws up. Now, I've really had enough. I won't respond to anymore of your post, but I'm sure you'll think of something to say anyway.


lol, liking Bach's Brandenburg Concertos or disliking Tchaikovsky is related to "accept all the bull-crap society feeds them about their lives, who and what they are, and this universe won't be open to discussions that question the "norm". You opened my mind, man. Now everytime I listen to Bach I will think "yeah, I like this because society told me to do it"... 
You are taking things which can be meaningful and trying to use them to find transcendence in the nonsensical idea of the OP. A quite forced extrapolation...
People like or dislike because that's their nature. And, in fact, that's what makes art appreciation interesting. We can discuss varying degrees of objective appreciation (or whatever you may call it), but like and dislike will always be there.
I can appreciate the OP's intention of trying to go beyond certain conceptions, not only in this thread, since that's his general philosophy. But, unfortunately, sometimes this very healthy way of looking at things can lead him to overreactions and exaggerations. I'm not against the philosophical attitude, but yes against the OP's exaggeration and general style (like going to the Today's composers thread and saying that people should compose more modern things, something which is ok, but also to add videos "to illustrate" how this music must sound, and curiosly those videos are of music of a very particular style, a style which is widely known in the forum that the OP... yes,.... LIKES ... Ukko's post in this thread is very witty).


----------



## shangoyal (Sep 22, 2013)

I think I will start over from the first page and read this thread again. I guess it'll read like Shakespeare.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

starry said:


> Were they pieces you truly disliked, or pieces that you didn't understand and so were just frustrated by? I suspect the second.


I would not say I really understand any works of music including works I love so understanding music is not the issue. Without question dislike is the proper word for my feeling towards the works I mentioned. They were all distinctly unpleasant with the Berg being worse than that (profoundly ugly). Many people have told me similar stories of how they slowly came to enjoy music they strongly disliked by listening carefully and/or repeatedly. It feels somewhat miraculous when it happens.


----------



## Guest (Nov 27, 2013)

shangoyal said:


> I think I will start over from the first page and read this thread again. I guess it'll read like Shakespeare.


I thought I might try the same, but having offered an answer to the OP, briefly, and then seen that I was on the wrong track, I've decided against trying to catch up. Personally, I can't get very far beyond 'like and dislike'.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Surely you can come to some understanding of some things, if not totally then at least to a reasonable extent. I think nearly everyone (including me only a few years ago) can confuse not understanding a style and disliking a piece.


----------



## Copperears (Nov 10, 2013)

shangoyal said:


> I think I will start over from the first page and read this thread again. I guess it'll read like Shakespeare.


Which means that by the time you reach the end, everyone has to either be killed off or get married, sometimes both.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

mmsbls said:


> I would not say I really understand any works of music including works I love so understanding music is not the issue.


I feel the same way. In fact I usually use "understand" as a placeholder for "enjoy" - "understand" in a visceral sense, not necessarily an intellectual one. Kierkegaard would approve, I think.

Besides, when I do break through and find pleasure in some work that has been difficult for me, the feeling is very nearly the same as the feeling of figuring something out intellectual.

I suspect other people usually do the same thing. But it does make for an easy rhetorical tactic: "you don't like the music I like because you don't understand it; you don't like it because you're intellectually deficient." Of course just a touch more subtlety is required on this particular site to avoid the hammer of the moderators... inevitably it's transparent and childish but obviously not below us!

The only catch is that there really might be music that is pleasing exclusively in an intellectual way - I would argue that such a work would be the holy grail of modernism in the arts. Perhaps I should not aspire to appreciate such a work, as it would obviously be intended to exclude (people like) me, but I would so aspire anyway, and I believe I'd be able to overcome the composer's intention in that respect. So I have to give the postmodernists a bit of assent: every author is a dead author, every composer is a dead composer.

Some say, "~ 'em, I'm not going to listen to that crap."

I say, "~ 'em, I'm going to listen to this and like it." And so far I've never failed.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Copperears said:


> Which means that by the time you reach the end, everyone has to either be killed off or get married, sometimes both.


In either order?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Statistics prove that quitting your day job reduces TUE (time until enlightenment) by two years or more. This may help in making the decision to achieve spiritual fulfillment or fill your belly.


I think you've mistaken "retirement" for "enlightenment."


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

CopperearsWhich means that by the time you reach the end said:


> science said:
> 
> 
> > In either order?
> ...


----------



## Copperears (Nov 10, 2013)

science said:


> In either order?


I'm not sure Shakespeare ever wrote a play called, "Zombies in Love," but he came close a few times....


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I think "getting beyond one's likes and dislikes" is only a tool, used to explore new, unfamiliar areas of music; not as a permanent musical identity, representing who one is musically. Otherwise, Some Guy would not have settled into being a musique concrete/electronic music specialist, and his online magazine and interviews might well be about European dance music trends or new pop groups, rather than the extremely rarified area of "art" music he has chosen to concentrate on, which is itself a subset of, and derived from the Western "classical" art tradition.
Indeed, let's get real, and tell it "like it is."


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

millionrainbows said:


> I think "getting beyond one's likes and dislikes" is only a tool, used to explore new, unfamiliar areas of music;


But I would not call it "getting beyond one's likes and dislikes" or "removing the ego", it sounds simply pretentious. I mean, how does it works? Is there a switch? Nobody can cease to be himself. But if it's just an invite to have an open mind, who could not agree with that?



millionrainbows said:


> not as a permanent musical identity, representing who one is musically. Otherwise, Some Guy would not have settled into being a musique concrete/electronic music specialist, and his online magazine and interviews might well be about European dance music trends or new pop groups, rather than the extremely rarified area of "art" music he has chosen to concentrate on, which is itself a subset of, and derived from the Western "classical" art tradition.
> Indeed, let's get real, and tell it "like it is."


Exactly. I doubt to see Some guy in the next future concentrating on the brit pop groups of the nineties.


----------



## Guest (Nov 27, 2013)

Well for sure let's stop talking about music. God, how boring. Let's talk about people. Yeah. And since people, real people as themselves, are also just too boring for words, let's make stuff up about them. Let's attribute things to them so that they can be attacked. That's the real stuff. Making stuff up to attack. That's what gives the genuine rush, eh?

Similar to how music gets talked about, if and whenever it does. 

Music, real music as itself, is just too boring for words. So let's make stuff up about it that cannot be true but that makes it possible for us to talk about something. Emotional content would be the best for that, I think. Everybody loves their emotions.

I think I've just come up with the best template for a successful online discussion forum, ever. 

What?

It's already been done?

Oh, spit.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

some guy said:


> Well for sure let's stop talking about music. God, how boring. Let's talk about people. Yeah. And since people, real people as themselves, are also just too boring for words, let's make stuff up about them. Let's attribute things to them so that they can be attacked. That's the real stuff. Making stuff up to attack. That's what gives the genuine rush, eh?
> 
> Similar to how music gets talked about, if and whenever it does.
> 
> ...


Do you actually have an online magazine?


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

The fact that so many people seem to be talking at cross-purposes on this thread makes it amusing to read, but not really very informative.

My own comment a few pages back was a dashed-off thing that tried to make a point but was probably not very helpful.

I think the problem is that a lot of us don't understand the OP. I know I don't.

It seems obvious that the OP did not just mean we should be willing to listen to things when our initial reaction is that we don't like them. I would hope that we all do that. That's a way to grow through experience.

Did the OP mean that we should train our minds not to react in a "like" or "dislike" way to what we hear? I don't see, personally, how I can avoid that. Although, I will say that I have a tendency to like certain parts of something I'm listening to and not like other parts as much.

Over time, I have developed a tendency not to completely make up my mind whether or not I like something after just one or two hearings. As time has gone on, I have accumulated a greater and greater library of music about which I haven't made up my mind. Much of it I will never get back to so I will never know. That's okay.

And, that gets to the point I was trying to make in my first post. I like the *way *I listen to music, and I *like listening *to music, even when I don't know whether I like a particular piece or not. But, nevertheless, liking is involved in some way. To deliberately spend your time doing something you don't like seems incomprehensible to me.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

It appears many people are concluding that because we say "there might be a place beyond like and dislike" that it inherently means liking and disliking is a bad thing. I never once said that. And if people would slow down and read, I have said that liking and disliking seems to be a natural phenomenon for us as individuals. I'm simply questioning a level of experiencing beyond that superficial layer. 

We are getting no where when people get emotionally bent sideways about these topics.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

Vesuvius said:


> And if people would slow down and read


No time! Posts are appearing on this thread too quickly!

:lol:


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Vesuvius said:


> I'm simply questioning a level of experiencing beyond that superficial layer.


to call something "a superficial layer" it is another way to say that is a bad thing and that the level where one is not judging is deeper. But I'm still curious to understand what it means to not judge music (does it means to be aware of the historical and social context, the purpose of the composer?) and how it's possible. Have you this magical switch to "remove the ego"?


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

norman bates said:


> to call something "a superficial layer" it is another way to say that is a bad thing and that the level where one is not judging is deeper. But I'm still curious to understand what it means to not judge music (does it means to be aware of the historical and social context, the purpose of the composer?) and how it's possible. Have you this magical switch to "remove the ego"?


I haven't been able to do it, but it's a very intriguing concept. And no, superficial means "being on the surface." It's not supposed to be derogatory, but here again people will misinterpret things.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

I think the OP is pretty clear.



some guy said:


> Is there such a place?
> 
> Is it at all desirable to get there?
> 
> ...


Stated in that way, I find the OP's idea irrealizable and also an uninteresting place to go.
Interpreted in the sense of having an open mind, etc. As norman bates said, who can disagree with that?.
I have reached that level the OP says with Tchaikovsky, for example. I can understand, and indeed agree, why he's considered a great composer, the ideals of his era, etc. But you know what?, I simply don't listen to his music because I don't like it. And I don't see why I should listen to it because some philosophical idealism like the one the OP's seems to propose.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Vesuvius said:


> I haven't been able to do it, but it's a very intriguing concept. And no, superficial means "being on the surface." It's not supposed to be derogatory, but here again people will misinterpret things.


But that's where we (this time, politely) disagree. I don't see why like/dislike should be thought of as a superficial way of art appreciation. It may be intriguing, but that intrigue soon dissipates when confronted with its naive idealization. An idealization which ends in the negation of one of the most intriguing aspects of art: its capability to induce like/dislike!.
And believe me, I'm not trying to misinterpret nothing.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

aleazk said:


> Stated in that way, I find the OP's idea irrealizable and also an uninteresting place to go.
> Interpreted in the sense of having an open mind, etc. As norman bates said, who can disagree with that?.
> I have reached that level the OP says with Tchaikovsky, for example. I can understand, and indeed agree, why he's considered a great composer, the ideals of his era, etc. But you know what?, I simply don't listen to his music because I don't like it. And I don't see why I should listen to it because some philosophical idealism like the one the OP's seems to propose.


Is it really about understanding why he is thought 'great'? Maybe it's just more why he can have popularity among listeners. I'd say I like some Tchaikovsky and dislike other things. I don't feel I have to like everything. But finding something I like gives more enjoyment to me. Of course people can listen to whatever they want. But maybe the point it people really just care about what they love much more than what somebody else does. In that sense someone's opinion that you should listen to a particular Tchaikovsky piece, or another's that you should listen to a different one is irrelevant. You find what you relate to for yourself. And if you haven't so far that's fine, just listen to other stuff you do like.


----------



## Guest (Nov 27, 2013)

Vesteralen said:


> I think the problem is that a lot of us don't understand the OP. I know I don't.


Well, I'll not speak for anyone else. But _I _didn't either.

[edit]In fairness to some guy, he had a go at helping us in post #26. But I didn't understand that either. The only bit I 'get' is that there is (or, "is there") more to music than what it does for the listener in terms of a positive or negative personal response.

But it's the idea that there is something beyond a 'response' (of any kind) that I'm not getting.

Did I miss where what is 'beyond' is explained? Or even a tentative theory offered?


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Vesuvius said:


> uperficial means "being on the surface." It's not supposed to be derogatory




I doubt I've ever seen "superficial" used in an apparently value-neutral way. It is always, afaict, unfavorably contrasted to profundity and/or authenticity.

Anyway, if we're not sure that there is "a layer of existence beyond" it, then even "surface" seems to me like a questionable metaphor.

I don't consider myself to have a dog in this particular fight, though. I'm not sure why either side is eager to posit this "deeper layer of existence" or eager to deny it (except perhaps earlier when it seemed to me that you were using it as part of an argument for the existence of something like an immaterial conscious soul). Taking away any metaphysical implications and maintaining the discussion on a strictly phenomenological level (i.e. discussing how we hear/experience/listen to music rather than whether that experience implies anything about super/naturalism), I don't understand why so much is apparently at stake.

I guess what's happening here is just another episode in the long history of polemic of romanticism (I like the art I like and I feel it so very deeply and it is my connection to the deepest irrational truths) vs. modernism (art is supposed to be shocking and brilliant and creative and impressive, but not necessarily emotional), in which the romantics usually call the modernists "superficial" because they don't feel it all deeply enough, and (as here) the modernists call the romantics "superficial" because they do not try to "move beyond" those experiences.

Count me among the modernists, though I don't see that it's so important to evangelize romantics. Of course I'm not a starving modernist artist, and that might make some difference.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

I look at it this way. Instead of _like_ or _dislike_ for me it's more "WOW" or "so what."

Tchaikovsky- front row, Symphony 6 is WOW squared!! There isn't too much music that I actively dislike but there is a fair bit of music that bores me. I can help it!!


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

science said:


> I doubt I've ever seen "superficial" used in an apparently value-neutral way. It is always, afaict, unfavorably contrasted to profundity and/or authenticity.
> 
> Anyway, if we're not sure that there is "a layer of existence beyond" it, then even "surface" seems to me like a questionable metaphor.
> 
> ...


But why can't we be both?!. 

There's not a police of music appreciation out there. Why to denegate aspects of art because of some philosophical idealism?. Art by its own nature has rational and irrational components. I want a full appreciation of art, so I embrace both. The problem with extremisms and idealizations is that, at the end, they tend to negate precisely that diversity they try to save. 
Better not to tell others how they must listen to music.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

some guy said:


> Here's what I think. If you focus on your likes and dislikes, if you listen to music in order to be pleased, that is, in order to get more of what you already like, then you will judge music on how successfully it does that. But think about the composer for a second. Someone who is very likely dead. If not, very likely not someone who knows you at all. That person, creating or having created a particular piece, cannot have at any time have been thinking of you and what you like and what you need or think you need. So that person's purpose, the decisions that person made, as a composer, had nothing to do with you at all. And now, that person's music is being judged by how well it succeeds in doing something that it has not set out to do, something that it could not have set out to do.


If this is the sum of what was intended by the OP, I think a lot of us are already way past the point of beyond.

It would seem that only the newest of novices (or a very small fraction of experienced listeners) would be guilty of judging music on the basis of how successfully it gives them more of what they want. Or, maybe I'm just being too optimistic.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

aleazk said:


> But why can't we be both?!.
> 
> There's not a police of music appreciation out there. Why to denegate aspects of art because of some philosophical idealism?. Art by its own nature has rational and irrational components. I want a full appreciation of art, so I embrace both. The problem with extremisms and idealizations is that, at the end, they tend to negate precisely that diversity they try to save.
> Better not to tell others how they must listen to music.


I agree absolutely. Though the police is out there (on both sides), they don't have any power… beyond participating in conversations like this, confusing us all! (And, often, also trying to shame us by implying that this is some ethical issue on which anyone who disagrees with them is suspect.)


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

aleazk said:


> But that's where we (this time, politely) disagree. I don't see why like/dislike should be thought of as a superficial way of art appreciation. It may be intriguing, but that intrigue soon dissipates when confronted with its naive idealization. An idealization which ends in the negation of one of the most intriguing aspects of art: its capability to induce like/dislike!.
> And believe me, I'm not trying to misinterpret nothing.


I hear you. I understand many of us don't see eye to eye with this. And that's alright. I don't see anymore value in debating because it's quite obvious now where everyone in here stands on this topic.


----------



## Wood (Feb 21, 2013)

MacLeod said:


> Well, I'll not speak for anyone else. But _I _didn't either.
> 
> [edit]In fairness to some guy, he had a go at helping us in post #26. But I didn't understand that either. The only bit I 'get' is that there is (or, "is there") more to music than what it does for the listener in terms of a positive or negative personal response.
> 
> ...


The way the OP has meaning for me is as follows.

The elite classical composers, the vast majority of those who have been referred to on this site for example, have an artistic and technical competence which is 'extremely' high. Sufficient numbers of people have been impressed with their work on an artistic and technical level that they have gained some measure of international renown.

So their compositions are, objectively, very good. The task for the listener is to tap into this, to hear what it is that has given them this reputation. As such, liking or disliking a particular composer, period or genre becomes irrelevant.

The ultimate listening experience is to enjoy what is great about each unique piece of music, because that 'greatness' is the default position.


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

Vesuvius said:


> You see the world how you are, not how it really is. You can make the question worthwhile or not. It has no inherent meaning unto itself.


so how do you decide if something is worthwhile or not if you are beyond likes or dislikes (in the sense of beyond general judgment)?


----------



## Guest (Nov 27, 2013)

I'll just interrupt for a second to note that the word "should," indeed the whole concept of coercion was introduced on this thread by someone other than myself.

In fact, I pointed out its futility myself, a few posts back; I pointed out the absurdity of acting as if coercion were a real thing that we really have to deal with in a real way.



Number one, me (or anyone) wondering in a thread if there is a way to listen to music without thinking about one's own likes and dislikes and if that way is valuable or not is not the same as me forcing you to listen to music in any particular way. You were free before this thread, you have been free throughout this thread, you will be free after no one is posting to this thread any more. To describe anything that anyone has said as an abrogation of your freedom is to introduce an alien concept to the discussion, a complete non sequitur. It's only purpose can be to force (!) discussion away from the original questions.

Number two, it is clear that "likes and dislikes" are valued to a great extent by a great number of people. Well, I knew that. That was part of why I started this thread. And the mere suggestion that one could consider listening without referencing likes and dislikes has really ruffled the old feathers, for sure. I guess that's OK. It corroborates my sense of things, at least.

Let me reiterate a metaphor I introduced awhile back. A rose is a flower. It comes at the end of a stem. It is the result of the rest of the plant, the stems, the leaves, the trunk, the roots. I suggested that one could think of one's likes and dislikes as the roots. Important. Essential. But just not the be all and end all of the whole situation. From the roots develops a trunk. From the trunk develops stems and leaves. And eventually, a rose. The whole point of a rose bush is to produce roses.

Roots are great, no fear. They are absolutely essential. Nothing happens without roots. But roots are not where one stops. Roots are where one starts.

I see people stopping at the roots. I see, on this very thread, people passionately arguing that it's not possible for there to be any other part of a plant but its roots. That if there were any other part than the roots, it would be impertinent and undesirable.

Well, OK. But, damn these roses are sweet!!


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

some guy said:


> Number one, me (or anyone) wondering in a thread if there is a way to listen to music without thinking about one's own likes and dislikes and if that way is valuable or not is not the same as me forcing you to listen to music in any particular way.


In my view, one's ability to listen to music without thinking about the pleasure one takes in the task could be in proportion to one's expertise or some sort of specialist intention: I'd associate attentive but non-evaluative listening with certain forms of connoisseurship, technical analysis, and theoretical engagement as opposed to more common forms of appreciation (of the sort, anyways, that I practice myself).

I'm sure that a judge at a piano competition doesn't think about whether or how much s/he "likes" or "dislikes" Chopin's 1st Ballade!

Though that person probably hates it! :lol:


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

some guy said:


> I'll just interrupt for a second to note that the word "should," indeed the whole concept of coercion was introduced on this thread by someone other than myself.
> 
> In fact, I pointed out its futility myself, a few posts back; I pointed out the absurdity of acting as if coercion were a real thing that we really have to deal with in a real way.
> 
> ...


I don't know if it's just me but... do you really think that this post clarifies anything?
Supposing I'm stopping at the roots as you say (or the "superficial layer" as Vesuvius says), what is the process I should do to "remove my ego" or go "beyond likes and dislikes"?


----------



## Guest (Nov 27, 2013)

Well, norman, if you give a look at your second sentence, you will see that you have answered your own question, and answered it in the affirmative.

So that's all to the good.

Now, to the next point, which is "how?" Since we are not rose bushes, we do not naturally and sweetly and without any effort produce roses. So no sooner posited than abandoned, I guess? And I was just starting to enjoy it.

But seriously, first you have to examine what exactly it is that your "ego" is. Or exactly what you mean when you talk about removing it. If your ego is essentially you, the essence of you, then you obviously can do nothing of the sort. And, of course (I knew I wasn't finished with that rose bush!!), the rose is not separated from its roots. Well, except in that one store.

But if your ego is a sort of idea, an idea about yourself, without actually being yourself (which, short of insanity or death, you cannot help being, anyway), then you can easily tinker with that idea. Of course, tinkering with an idea of yourself will alter what that self is. But the self is a malleable and dynamic kinda thing, anyway, in constant flux. So dinna fash.

I never talked about removing anything, you'll recall, but I would guess that anyone who talks about removing the ego has in mind that the ego is, or can be, a false idea of one's self. And a false idea of one's self can hinder the natural development of that self. Can keep the roots from producing anything else but more roots. )) Your world as an infant is quite literally divided into likes and dislikes. As you grow older, you begin to finesse that situation, adding shades of grey to the original black and the original white of childhood. Shades of grey, and hopefully some nice blues and reds and greens and yellows and such. Brighten the place up a little. Hang some paintings. Get some nice furniture. Put some chips out. You know.

So, in a sense, we have all grown beyond our likes and dislikes anyway, regardless. It's just that when we post to TC, it looks, from time to time, as if we have not. As if we have stopped at a certain stage in our development, a stage when there really and truly was only black and only white. This is a common occurrence, by no means limited to classical chat groups!! Anyway, if you look at your own development as a person, you will notice that the world is not simply black or white for you. So already, even if only unconsciously, you know what it is to go beyond your likes and dislikes. You have already done it.

Really, in a way, this thread is simply suggesting that one can attend to a largely unconscious process, thus making it conscious. Further suggesting that making it conscious will be an improvement. Highly debatable, but so far we haven't even gotten close to debating that part of it!!


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

some guy said:


> I see people stopping at the roots. I see, on this very thread, people passionately arguing that it's not possible for there to be any other part of a plant but its roots. That if there were any other part than the roots, it would be impertinent and undesirable.
> 
> Well, OK. But, damn these roses are sweet!!


You are just extending your 'like' to encompass the stem, leaves and flower. You are not going 'beyond' liking but merely finding new things to like... I think!


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

deggial said:


> so how do you decide if something is worthwhile or not if you are beyond likes or dislikes (in the sense of beyond general judgment)?


I wish I had all the answers, but I'm far from that. From my experience I've found that attachment to personal identity greatly limits the experience in this world. Those ideas about yourself that you cherish so much are putting expectations and regulations on almost everything you experience.

There's this intuitive flow of life where you don't have to label, over-think, and personalize everything. And that's something that everyone has... something that they need to find themselves. We're all individual expressions of the same thing... whatever that thing is. It could be nothing, but we're all stemming from this same nothingness.


----------



## Copperears (Nov 10, 2013)

It's simple with me: it's all worthwhile, it's just a question of what catches my attention, and for how long. I have enough experience, wisdom, education and exposure to things in the world that at this point I just let my "instincts" guide me, knowing that said instincts are basically an unconscious synthesizing function that is constantly establishing the right balance for me between expansion and consolidation in my relationship to the rest of the universe. 

And I know I'm out of balance when I get indigestion.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

I think it's pretty clear that in the pages of this thread people are talking about various different ideas and using different definitions for terms (and that's perfectly OK). I know that I don't understand what many people are trying to say about liking and disliking music. There seems to be some discussion of giving up likes and dislikes, going beyond likes and dislikes, reducing or eliminating one's ego, etc. Let me call all of these ideas "doing X" where X can refer to any of the above.

To help me, I'd like to ask a very specific question of people advocating or wondering about doing X. Imagine 2 people - one likes and dislikes music in the "normal" way, and the other does X. What does doing X allow that not doing X does not allow in reference to music? For example, I can imagine how eliminating one's ego could change someone, but how does it effect my interaction with music (and similarly with the others Xs)?


----------



## shangoyal (Sep 22, 2013)

Another thing that occurred to me right now, I think giving up likes and dislikes is not a rejection of ego.

In fact, I think for me liking music completely and immersing myself in its effects is precisely what makes me forget my ego for a while - and get something more valuable in return.


----------



## Guest (Nov 28, 2013)

I'm actually quite attached to my ego, and have no intention of giving it up to be anything else. In fact, I'm not even sure that just because we have a word for such a thing, it really exists, any more than having a word for 'leprechaun' means that such things exist.

As for the purpose of rose bushes - it's to produce more rose bushes, not just roses.


----------



## shangoyal (Sep 22, 2013)

As far as ego goes, to each his own!


----------



## Wood (Feb 21, 2013)

mmsbls said:


> There seems to be some discussion of giving up likes and dislikes, going beyond likes and dislikes, reducing or eliminating one's ego, etc. Let me call all of these ideas "doing X" where X can refer to any of the above.
> 
> To help me, I'd like to ask a very specific question of people advocating or wondering about doing X. Imagine 2 people - one likes and dislikes music in the "normal" way, and the other does X. What does doing X allow that not doing X does not allow in reference to music? For example, I can imagine how eliminating one's ego could change someone, but how does it effect my interaction with music (and similarly with the others Xs)?


That is a good question because you are asking for an explanation of the practical consequences of X. I can think of three.

1. You listen to a broader range of classical music, ie everything.

2. Your listening pleasure is enhanced because you are listening for the composers qualities rather than restricting yourself to private prejudices.

3. It helps to foster an attitude of empathy, which can be used beyond music. (This is something that a number of contributors to the Stockhausen thread would benefit from developing. )


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Wood said:


> That is a good question because you are asking for an explanation of the practical consequences of X. I can think of three.
> 
> 1. You listen to a broader range of classical music, ie everything.
> 
> ...


That's interesting. I surely haven't achieved any kind of zenlike indifference to ego or gone "beyond likes and dislikes," but

1) I'm unaware of any sort of classical music that I don't like, and that includes modern/weird stuff (to me, enjoying Stockhausen or Cage or Schoenberg or Merzbow or whatever is the problem of the day is natural and effortless). (Edit: Though, no doubt, I probably don't "enjoy" them in the proper way required to win approval from the relevant authorities! But whatever. I enjoy them in my own way, and them as don't like it can leave me alone.)

2) Whatever my private prejudices, I'm able to enjoy not only those modernist icons but Johann Strauss's cute, sweet waltzes and Whitacre's conservative, cheesy choral works and Glass's minimalism and Machaut and Dufay and Josquin and Monteverdi and Vivaldi (even the Four Seasons!) and Bach (even the Brandenburg Concertos!) and Handel and Haydn and Mozart and Beethoven (even the Fifth!) and everything. Well, Bruckner and Richard Strauss (aside from the operas) and Mahler and Sibelius sometimes are opaque to me. That's my weak spot. Maybe if I try to achieve this egoless listening, I'll appreciate them more?

3) I don't know that my having more empathy would do any good for me or for anyone else, so this isn't a goal for me.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

MacLeod said:


> As for the purpose of rose bushes - it's to produce more rose bushes, not just roses.


Yes MacLeod, you have hit the nail on the head!

If ever there was an example of something having a purpose, it is the flower. It's purpose is not to please us, that is merely a by-product of our own sensibilities. It's purpose is to attract insects. 
Unlike music, the flower is the result of natural selection and not the act of deliberate creation by an intelligence, unless you go in for the fanciful.
It is possible to get 'beyond likes and dislikes' in relation to the rose because it doesn't require that a human appreciate it in order for it to completely fulfil it's function. If there were no humans there would still be roses.

Music, on the other hand, is created by humans for the appreciation of other humans. Therefore there can be nothing beyond 'likes and dislikes'. Music can have no other purpose than to please.


----------



## Guest (Nov 28, 2013)

And so we have come full circle to the one true truth of the classical music listener. That the purpose of music is to please.

The consequence of that is that music that does not please has failed.

Great. And not just "not please" generally, but "not please" me. If it doesn't please me, it has failed.

That's the real agenda of listening to music, by the way, not for pleasure but for judgment. The whole point of listening to music is to judge. And there are two states only, thumbs up or thumbs down.

What a wonderful world. It consists entirely of black and of white. What else could possibly be possible? What else could possibly be desirable?

OK. (Wait! Did I just see...? Oh. My mistake. It was white.)


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

some guy said:


> And so we have come full circle to the one true truth of the classical music listener. That the purpose of music is to please.
> 
> The consequence of that is that music that does not please has failed.
> 
> ...


I really can't see anything here except a voicing of displeasure that other people don't like the same music you like. (I suspect that if you knew yourself deeply, you'd discover that you're glad they don't. If you really wanted to attract people to your music, rather than to celebrate your uniqueness, you'd try to present your case more invitingly, less confrontationally. But as long as you disagree with it, it'll never be more than my suspicion.)

There is no arguing with taste, Quixote.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

some guy said:


> And so we have come full circle to the one true truth of the classical music listener. That the purpose of music is to please.
> 
> The consequence of that is that music that does not please has failed.
> 
> ...


Does the music of Richard Nanes please you? If not, has it failed? Have you judged it accordingly? 
There is a lot of music that pleases some people and not others. It succeeds with some and fails with others.
Is this such a hard concept for you to grasp?

The "one true truth of the classical music listener" [is there such thing as an untrue truth?] goes for all listeners of all music.
Including you I suspect.


----------



## Guest (Nov 28, 2013)

science said:


> I really can't see anything here except a voicing of displeasure that other people don't like the same music you like. (I suspect that if you knew yourself deeply, you'd discover that you're glad they don't. If you really wanted to attract people to your music, rather than to celebrate your uniqueness, you'd try to present your case more invitingly, less confrontationally. But as long as you disagree with it, it'll never be more than my suspicion.)
> 
> There is no arguing with taste, Quixote.


Of all your fixed ideas, this is the one I would most like to see unfixed.

Be fair, your idea that somehow you know me better than I know myself is risible in the extreme!


----------



## Guest (Nov 28, 2013)

Petwhac said:


> There is a lot of music that pleases some people and not others. It succeeds with some and fails with others.
> Is this such a hard concept for you to grasp?


Well, since I have asserted this very point myself, many times, you tell me.

This is not a concept that is at all at issue here.

I call "non seq."


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

some guy said:


> Of all your fixed ideas, this is the one I would most like to see unfixed.
> 
> Be fair, your idea that somehow *you know me better than I know myself* is risible in the extreme!


(Just don't want you to think you're getting this past me: Idée fixe. But it doesn't matter.)

The more important point remains that there is still no arguing with taste.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

some guy said:


> Well, since I have asserted this very point myself, many times, you tell me.
> 
> This is not a concept that is at all at issue here.
> 
> I call "non seq."


_"The consequence of that is that music that does not please has failed.

Great. And not just "not please" generally, but "not please" me. If it doesn't please me, it has failed.

That's the *real agenda of listening to music, by the way, not for pleasure but for judgment*. The whole point of listening to music is to judge. And there are two states only, thumbs up or thumbs down."
_

I have made bold the very silly idea you are suggesting.


----------



## Copperears (Nov 10, 2013)

mmsbls said:


> I think it's pretty clear that in the pages of this thread people are talking about various different ideas and using different definitions for terms (and that's perfectly OK). I know that I don't understand what many people are trying to say about liking and disliking music. There seems to be some discussion of giving up likes and dislikes, going beyond likes and dislikes, reducing or eliminating one's ego, etc. Let me call all of these ideas "doing X" where X can refer to any of the above.
> 
> To help me, I'd like to ask a very specific question of people advocating or wondering about doing X. Imagine 2 people - one likes and dislikes music in the "normal" way, and the other does X. What does doing X allow that not doing X does not allow in reference to music? For example, I can imagine how eliminating one's ego could change someone, but how does it effect my interaction with music (and similarly with the others Xs)?


Better listening; hearing what you might not have before.


----------

