# Can you make an honest opinion to a MUSIC that you really dislike?



## peeyaj (Nov 17, 2010)

I wonder..

If a person who dislike atonal music.. He heard some bits and pieces of Schoenberg, Berg, Webern etc. And he pronounced " I didn't like it".. He starts to barrage atonal music as trash, boring etc. Then, he wrote a longish essay why he dislikes it. Can he make an *HONEST* opinion about it, in the first place, he was biased against that kind of music.

Or,

If a person who dislikes Haydn. He heard the symphonies, string quartets, church music..etc.. But he didn't like it. He said to himself "Mozart outcomposed Haydn in every genre".. Can he make an HONEST opinion about Haydn's achievements.

I am babbling..(the language barrier sucks) But I wanna know, how can you make an honest opinion of music if you really dislike it in the first place.

To most white people, jazz means black and jazz means dirt, and that's not what I play. I play black classical music.
*Nina Simone *

It's not that people don't like classical music. It's that they don't have the chance to understand and to experience it.
*Gustavo Dudamel*

I venture to credit myself with truly new music which, being based on tradition, is destined to become tradition.

*Schoenberg *

Listening to a concert of the saccharine source material for (The Fairy's Kiss) the other day, I almost succumbed to diabetes."
-*Stravinsky, on Tchaikovsky*


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Maybe not, but you can try! 

We probably can't analyze music we like with perfect honesty either. But we can try! 

One thing about our times is that perhaps for the first time it is becoming widely recognized that we deceive ourselves all the time, that honesty and self-awareness are not a default state but an impossible or almost impossible thing to achieve. Of course certain spiritual traditions told us so long ago, but no one paid any attention to them since the Calvinists lost their mojo. Now that science is telling us, it is beginning to sink into our conversations.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

A personal opinion is just that, no more no less. Whether it is (partially) based on bias, does that matter? It does not take one bit away from my own personal listening experience if the composer/composition (or rock or jazz) that I love does not evoke the same emotions with someone else. We all have different tastes, no matter how small you make the subgroup of people you compare. There is two things I do not like though (and I think that holds for more people here):
[1] blank statements that X is [insert any derogatory term] instead of expressing a personal opinion about X.
[2] stated opinions about X while you never bothered to listen to any X at all.


----------



## Eschbeg (Jul 25, 2012)

An honest opinion about music one dislikes seems at least as possible as an honest opinion about music one likes.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

I hate 1 Direction and Justin Bieber because they suck. I believe I'm on the side of the majority.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

The horribly unscientific way I see this is that we respond immediately with our gut, and then our brain has to come up with explanations for this gut reaction, and sometimes the reaction comes from so deep within the gut that the brain can't necessarily get the right answer. In these situations if we try to explain why we dislike a thing, what we produce aren't so much "reasons" as "justifications". 
As a trivial example, we might complain about a pianist's way with a Beethoven sonata but really, deep down, what we mean is we're a little hungry and we didn't like the way she walked onto the stage. We can then reinforce such biases - next time we have to review this pianist, well, we already know she can't play Beethoven...

So when reading negative criticism I always look for indicators as to how much is "gut" and how much is "brain". Someone who dislikes a whole swathe of music can still say something valuable about it if they've put the work in.


----------



## techniquest (Aug 3, 2012)

This will always be a really difficult question because music - like all art forms - is subjective. The examples you give in a way speak for themselves: the person can always give their opinion, and if this is how they genuinely feel about the subject (or composer, composition, etc) then it is an _honest_ opinion. 
Someone can listen to the Mahler symphonies and not like them and give that statement as their own opinion based on their experience of Mahler's symphonies and what they say or otherwise to him. My opinion of Mahler symphonies may be very different, but that makes neither of us factually correct.



> I hate 1 Direction and Justin Bieber because they suck. I believe I'm on the side of the majority.


By and large, I would tend to agree. However there are a couple of 1D and Bieber songs that I rather like. Does that mean I like 1D and Justin Bieber? No; just those particular songs. 
I don't like jazz, I don't like reggae, I don't like rap, I don't like 50's rock 'n' roll (e.g. Elvis, Bill Haley) and I can only understand why others would like them - and I mean _really_ like them - because I know how much I get from Mahler symphonies which many others don't like. Same thing - it just hits a different part of the subjective brain. So it would be wrong of me to give a critique of a new Jay-Z CD because it is a kind of music that I don't like, don't understand and I would frankly rather tear off my own ears than have to listen to it. The fact that Jay-Z is so hugely successful suggests that many others have a far more positive opinion. And that's fine.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

> I would frankly rather tear off my own ears than have to listen to it.


I think this answer's peeyaj's question rather well, because you've clearly resorted to dishonesty here!


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Nereffid said:


> I think this answer's peeyaj's question rather well, because you've clearly resorted to dishonesty here!


Hyperbole and dishonesty are not the same thing...



Peeyaj said:


> If a person who dislike atonal music.. He heard some bits and pieces of Schoenberg, Berg, Webern etc. And he pronounced " I didn't like it".. He starts to barrage atonal music as trash, boring etc. Then, he wrote a longish essay why he dislikes it. Can he make an HONEST opinion about it, in the first place, he was biased against that kind of music.


Of course, that is his/her opinion, but why does he/she assume that that opinion has universal validity? From hearing "bits" of pieces by a few composers, without having time to get into them and understand how they work, how does this person presume to have enough knowledge for a blanket condemnation.

Now, don't get me wrong, this person may know enough to know that his reactions, in the future, to this music will be overwhelmingly negative (unless a taste is acquired in the meantime), but one should develop an ability to separate one's feelings about something from a measure of its aesthetic worth. Is it possible to do this fully? No. People are prone to justification of their feelings and thoughts, and we cannot know at root where these things come from. But it's an ideal.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

"Can you have an opinion about something you have an opinion about..."  Well, yes. However I dont 't think one can have a valid opinion about music you haven't heard. Captain Obvious here!
What I mean is you shouldnt judge a certain style or composer based on hearing only a few pieces.


----------



## Guest (Jun 24, 2013)

DeepR has injected the more useful word for this conversation: valid.

Honesty is beside the point, I think. Valid is the point.

And that is why Eschbeg's comment,* which looks OK, is actually not. Simply because dislike and like are not really equivalent. It's not really very mysterious or complicated: like implies engagement. Dislike implies rejection. Rejection means disengaged, which is not a very solid basis for a valid opinion. Sure, rejection is very powerful. Visceral. It drives quite a lot of online discussion. But since it's disengaged from the ostensible subject matter, it is mostly just hot air. Prejudice. How many racists do you know who have genuine relationships with any particular person from the rejected race? How many sexists do you know who have genuine relationships with any particular person from the rejected sex? And so on. And so none of the things a prejudiced person says seem to match, quite, with any particular person. It's a matter of the difference between what we know and what we don't know. What we know we are more likely to have valid opinions about than what we don't know.

*"An honest opinion about music one dislikes seems at least as possible as an honest opinion about music one likes."


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

DeepR said:


> What I mean is you shouldnt judge a certain style or composer based on hearing only a few pieces.


Maybe, but how many people, after hearing a few pieces and deciding they don't like a certain style or composer, will keep digging into them in the hope of maybe finding something they will enjoy after all, and not rather explore the styles/composers they know they will love? Life is not all that long, and you only get to hear so much music.


----------



## apricissimus (May 15, 2013)

I think I see where the OP is coming from. Is it worthwhile to have a conversation about why a certain type of music is bad? Is the goal to convince people who like it that they are mistaken?

Reasonable people can disagree about Haydn (for example), but in an evaluation of Haydn's work, I'm not sure that someone who has no appreciation for Haydn will have much to offer.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

It's certainly fine to say/believe, "I don't like Mozart's 41st Symphony" * It's even OK to give detailed arguments about why that symphony is not good. Both could be honest assessments and even valid in a sense. But that sense is limited. We learn that one person dislikes the music/composer/era. If I hear 98% of classical music listeners that _I_ respect say a piece is not good or enjoyable, I might usefully decide to bypass that work.



apricissimus said:


> Reasonable people can disagree about Haydn (for example), but in an evaluation of Haydn's work, I'm not sure that someone who has no appreciation for Haydn will have much to offer.


I think this point is critical. Normally when we decide to pursue a given composer or work, we want to know why others _enjoy_ that composer or work - not why they might dislike them. Someone can be critical of a work or composer, but what we are really looking for is comments along the lines of, "I love Mozart, but in this work he does not reach his normal superior results because..." or "Dissonant music can be truly wonderful and exciting, but in this work composer X misses her mark because...".

Comments that simply portray a work or composer in a negative light do not allow us to understand what those who enjoy the music like about it. In sampling new music, I'm much more interested in why people like that music than in why they don't. For that reason positive or negative comments from someone who enjoys a given composer are more useful to me than comments from someone who does not enjoy that composer.

* I know. It's not really fine to believe that, but let's pretend.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

You can speak / write very well about that which you do not like if you understand the material well enough.

The characteristic scenario of your OP is of one who does not like something, possibly because they do not understand it or how to listen to it, and then feels free to dismiss it as garbage. There is no real merit in any layer of that dynamic 

Positive or negative comments on a composer or work, if informed, can name elements and qualities that for another are all assets, what they like about it. Maybe the fan was less inclined to verbalize and define some of the qualities of the work; because they liked it, they thought less about that.

There are some conventions about discussing anything where subjective values come in to the arena, and I'm only mildly surprised they are not so generally known. Without there being any real written rules book, it runs something like this: 
state any opinion about any piece or composer you wish -- "right" or "wrong" is not even the point -- what is mildly criminal is not having a good argument to back up your opinion, that argument not being solely about your emotive reactions to that work.

Then, at least a little, you're communicating something, and can learn from anothers argument as well; that argument positive or negative will have something informative you can take away from it.

Pity that is not more in place 'these days.'


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

some guy said:


> DeepR has injected the more useful word for this conversation: valid.
> 
> Honesty is beside the point, I think. Valid is the point.
> 
> ...


I'll bet that someone who is racist doesn't have truly genuine relationships with members of her own race either. Do any of us have truly genuine relationships? Because I'd doubt that any of us are truly honest. It's just not within our ability, or at least it's so difficult that it'd be really rare.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

science said:


> I'll bet that someone who is racist doesn't have truly genuine relationships with members of her own race either. Do any of us have truly genuine relationships? Because I'd doubt that any of us are truly honest. It's just not within our ability, or at least it's so difficult that it'd be really rare.


To me, you keep announcing, in each of your posits, all your frailties, self-doubts, hang-ups and blind spots to a stunning degree. It is a litany of a kind of martyrdom reveling in galling limitations of society, extremely luxurious pseudo-intellectual self-indulgent supposed existential quandries, etc.

After a lengthy thread where the overwhelming majority did not concur with what you'd said in the OP, or in your responses to posts later down in that thread, you said "I find it hard to believe you guys" ...so set are you in that these cages, walls and prohibitions are set in stone around all.

"World in flames, all is lost, there is no escape, no change, just galling limitations and misery." 
Film at Eleven....

What you said is true, maybe for some others, but wholly for you.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

peeyaj said:


> I wonder..
> 
> If a person who dislike atonal music.. He heard some bits and pieces of Schoenberg, Berg, Webern etc. And he pronounced " I didn't like it".. He starts to barrage atonal music as trash, boring etc. Then, he wrote a longish essay why he dislikes it. Can he make an *HONEST* opinion about it, in the first place, he was biased against that kind of music.


What you're talking about, I think, its about the nature of opinions. I honestly don't like certain composers, which is an issue of preference, taste, and yes bias. But I agree with that Science's post suggests in terms of at least attempting or aiming for some type of objectivity in assessing their music and their achievements.

Many writers on music do this, they do this two pronged approach. They say their opinion and then they talk about other writers' opinions on the topic. So its like a mix of personal opinion with more academic opinion, an overview of the literature on the topic. IN other words, writers on music who I admire and find interesting, give a mix of their own editorial or their individual take on the issue, while at the same time questioning their opinion with reference to opinions of others. If its an issue involving certain types of consensus, they say it, but if its controversial area with little or no consensus, they'll say that too. That's the difference between what I see as a good writer on music and an ideologue. The former lays all things on the table, the latter may pretend to do so on the surface but is actually just doing it to promote some ideology or agenda. Took me a while to know the difference, but now I can sense 'spin' or 'agendas' from a mile away.

As for our personal opinions, eg. listeners who don't make their living from writing on music, I agree with Seiglindeslicht. Life is too short to try to like everything to an extreme. One can only try to be broad and then funnel down and focus on what one likes. That's what I've done anyway. I agree with the French philosopher who said something like "I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it." People can say what they want, I'd rather have honesty than subterfuge. Only thing I don't like is when people are rude but I can't do anything about that.



> ...
> I am babbling..(the language barrier sucks) But I wanna know, how can you make an honest opinion of music if you really dislike it in the first place.
> 
> To most white people, jazz means black and jazz means dirt, and that's not what I play. I play black classical music.
> ...


I like how you did that, the fact is that musicians have opinions, and often they're blowing their own trumpet and just showing their ego. Very common. I don't have it on hand but Schoenberg once said that Bartok's music was not fit to be called classical music, it was just primitive and unrefined noise or some expression like that. Another one is Boulez - the amount of dissing the man did is legion! But to be fair, both these guys changed their extreme Messianic views later in life. That's the only problem I have with quotes btw. They are frozen in time. Dangerous to assume that that is what they believed in all throughout their lives. People change their opinions on any number of things. I know I have - so what? It's called being flexible!


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

PetrB said:


> To me, you keep announcing, in each of your posits, all your frailties, self-doubts, hang-ups and blind spots to a stunning degree. It is a litany of a kind of martyrdom reveling in galling limitations of society, extremely luxurious pseudo-intellectual self-indulgent supposed existential quandries, etc.
> 
> After a lengthy thread where the overwhelming majority did not concur with what you'd said in the OP, or in your responses to posts later down in that thread, you said "I find it hard to believe you guys" ...so set are you in that these cages, walls and prohibitions are set in stone around all.
> 
> ...


It's not about me. It's about cognitive dissonance, confirmation bias, etc. etc. I don't mind using myself as an example because obviously these things don't flatter us, and if I used you as an example you'd probably feel insulted - and I might get unwanted attention from the mods! But at this level of discussion, you and I are probably about the same: your mind works approximately the same way mine does, because your brain is built approximately the same way mine is, and furthermore we're even more similar because we share approximately the same culture.

And, it's ok! We may not be the kind of mind Descartes or Locke thought we were, but it's ok!


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

science said:


> It's not about me. It's about cognitive dissonance, confirmation bias, etc. etc. I don't mind using myself as an example because obviously these things don't flatter us, and if I used you as an example you'd probably feel insulted - and I might get unwanted attention from the mods! But at this level of discussion, you and I are probably about the same: your mind works approximately the same way mine does, because your brain is built approximately the same way mine is, and furthermore we're even more similar because we share approximately the same culture.
> 
> And, it's ok! We may not be the kind of mind Descartes or Locke thought we were, but it's ok!


I would, in all real concern, point out to you I think you rely far too much on one-half only of the equipment you've got between your ears, "logic." The right hemisphere seems to be nowhere in play (and I am thought of as without much emotion, lol). You've got to use both, sure sometimes more of one half than the other depending upon what is being thought, worked upon, but both, not just half.

What I am not, it seems, is locked into "upwardly mobile" social recognition via the arts, because they are "prestigious."
Of course, many who like me started young and just stayed in the discipline and became professional feel about as "prestigious" as any other craftsman, and I cannot help having the view from that interior perspective any more than you can from your exterior perspective.

But it seems to me you have nearly completely ruled out or given up on any prospects of individual freedom, liberty at all, as well as thinking there is no changing a bad or negative situation. I do wish that of the dozens of posts which urge you to stop thinking so much, in the same rut, I may add, would get more of your earnest consideration.

It, as you describe "it" is not "just the way it is and cannot be changed." You don't need "bravery" to step outside of that set of limits you've defined -- what is needed is your feeling it is so insupportable that you feel the need to step out of it.


----------



## Eschbeg (Jul 25, 2012)

some guy said:


> like implies engagement. Dislike implies rejection.


By the same token, like implies advocacy while dislike does not, and I would not take it on faith that somone speaking from a position of advocacy is being honest.



some guy said:


> How many racists do you know who have genuine relationships with any particular person from the rejected race? How many sexists do you know who have genuine relationships with any particular person from the rejected sex?


Here's a similar thought experiment: how many times have you excused the bad behavior of a friend, precisely because he or she was your friend?


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

PetrB said:


> I would, in all real concern, point out to you I think you rely far too much on one-half only of the equipment you've got between your ears, "logic." The right hemisphere seems to be nowhere in play (and I am thought of as without much emotion, lol). You've got to use both, sure sometimes more of one half than the other depending upon what is being thought, worked upon, but both, not just half.
> 
> What I am not, it seems, is locked into "upwardly mobile" social recognition via the arts, because they are "prestigious."
> Of course, many who like me started young and just stayed in the discipline and became professional feel about as "prestigious" as any other craftsman, and I cannot help having the view from that interior perspective any more than you can from your exterior perspective.
> ...


I guess you must be reading stuff into my posts that I don't intend to be there. I haven't - or, I don't think I have - defined limits, or felt anything is insupportable, or given up on individual freedom, or described you or anyone as locked into anything. Sure, it seems to me that the human mind is much more complex than you seem to think it is, with a whole lot of subterranean action that we can't become conscious of, but that's a description of what's going on, not a prison. If anything it's more of an opportunity and a challenge to deepen our self-awareness, to appreciate ourselves more - exactly the opposite of a limitation.

Again, as I've said over and over and I really hope you'll see it - it's ok!

I don't know how you feel about evolution but it reminds me of people who don't want to believe in evolution because they'll feel morally humiliated to think they share common ancestors with other animals. You have to tell them over and over, it's ok! You get to keep your moral values, your sense of the meaning of life, your love for art and humanity. Sure, you're not exactly what you thought you were, but what you are is ok!

In this case, and with relevance to classical music, sure, things going on in our minds when we listen to, judge, and talk about classical music are really, really complicated. But it's ok! Our enjoyment is still genuine, our experiences still valuable, it's still a lovely way to spend our time, etc....


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

science said:


> I guess you must be reading stuff into my posts that I don't intend to be there. I haven't - or, I don't think I have - defined limits, or felt anything is insupportable, or given up on individual freedom, or described you or anyone as locked into anything. Sure, it seems to me that the human mind is much more complex than you seem to think it is, with a whole lot of subterranean action that we can't become conscious of, but that's a description of what's going on, not a prison. If anything it's more of an opportunity and a challenge to deepen our self-awareness, to appreciate ourselves more - exactly the opposite of a limitation.


But the way you describe things, this is impossible. You are constantly saying that, for everyone, the situation _*is*_ black and white, that one *must* be affected by these things at all times. This is tantamount to saying that they cannot ever be circumvented.

And you know the most ridiculous part of saying that? If we don't have self-objectivity enough to recognize our own motives at any time, how could we possibly know that we are not doing things for this or that particular reason?


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

techniquest said:


> However there are a couple of 1D and Bieber songs that I rather like. Does that mean I like 1D and Justin Bieber? No; just those particular songs.


And I think it's perfectly possible to like something in _every_ style of music, it's a matter of experience and listening. That doesn't stop particular styles being your favourites and others not being your favourites. But that only means you are open to liking more in those favourite styles, it doesn't mean having to shut off all other ones completely.

And even in a piece you don't like it could be possible to understand what aspect of it someone really likes while acknowledging that you have a different focus which you don't feel is satisfied in that piece.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

science said:


> I guess you must be reading stuff into my posts that I don't intend to be there. I haven't - or, I don't think I have - defined limits, or felt anything is insupportable, or given up on individual freedom, or described you or anyone as locked into anything. Sure, it seems to me that the human mind is much more complex than you seem to think it is, with a whole lot of subterranean action that we can't become conscious of, but that's a description of what's going on, not a prison. If anything it's more of an opportunity and a challenge to deepen our self-awareness, to appreciate ourselves more - exactly the opposite of a limitation.
> 
> Again, as I've said over and over and I really hope you'll see it - it's ok!
> 
> ...


No one is without at least some inclination to favor _____ over ______. There is an exercise of setting up a general set of criteria to judge or assess anything, people, art, etc. One could get in an extremely self-indulgent muddle while trying to be as equitable as possible while judging; even then it is more than good to know that you have a personal taste which will never quite go away.

I can praise equally, on craft, recognizing the quality, two very different works: the one not to my taste will not get the natural enthusiasm, the one more to my taste have a more overt tone of enthusiasm, but if you are aware of that discrepancy, you will try and also pay attention to what you know is a 'bias.'

What goes on in people's minds when they listen to classical music is, collectively, more than any one of us I think could possibly imagine. That is precisely why, though very much a part of it when listening to music, so much of that is not discussed when speaking about the stuff itself... you would be setting up a group session to discuss what each individual saw in a Rorschach blot if you did stay solely on the emotional plane.

I suppose some take that approach on how to discuss art as meaning those who discuss it more clinically, "Have No Feelings." or perhaps have gone out of their way to deny or actively suppress their emotions. That is not the case, they're just not bringing them in to the discussion.

It was you who said that you _could not believe_ that people are not aware of the social dynamics of thinking there is a class distinction and an active social dynamic within classical music itself, because it is valued higher, has to do with "upward mobility," etc?

Seems to rule out entirely someone who just likes classical music and isn't much or at all concerned about their social status relative to their musical taste. Me, I really wouldn't know, starting out in early childhood, keeping with it and staying in it as a profession -- maybe I'm an 'insider' and have never thought of it that way.

That mask you spoke of, so habituated you said -- via Rilke -- that it was like ripping off your Own Face? I've never been that far along, maybe find that understandable as some abstract notion, but not as 'normal' -- at all -- as you seemed to present it (interesting that the permanently stuck on mask is a common enough element in Asian ghost stories.)

I do not for one second believe there is an absolute where all reflexively recognize a social structure, with judgements attached, about the arts. Again, perhaps I just grew up very differently than you, so can not see it.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

peeyaj said:


> I wonder...(Can) a person who dislikes atonal music...make an HONEST opinion about it...(if) he is biased against that kind of music?


No. If a person has rejected a certain kind of music, it's because that music does not meet his criteria of 'good music' which serves his intended function and lifestyle/identity requirements. Those criteria are largely subjective, and the judgement of what is "good" in a certain genre is best made by those who use the music for its intended and appropriate audience.

For example, a 60-year-old man is not the best person to assess the music of Justin Bieber.


----------



## IBMchicago (May 16, 2012)

I am inclined to admit that any musical dislikes I have (particularly in classical music) may be _honestly_ ill-informed, though with the purest of intentions.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Mahlerian said:


> But the way you describe things, this is impossible. You are constantly saying that, for everyone, the situation _*is*_ black and white, that one *must* be affected by these things at all times. This is tantamount to saying that they cannot ever be circumvented.
> 
> And you know the most ridiculous part of saying that? If we don't have self-objectivity enough to recognize our own motives at any time, how could we possibly know that we are not doing things for this or that particular reason?





PetrB said:


> No one is without at least some inclination to favor _____ over ______. There is an exercise of setting up a general set of criteria to judge or assess anything, people, art, etc. One could get in an extremely self-indulgent muddle while trying to be as equitable as possible while judging; even then it is more than good to know that you have a personal taste which will never quite go away.
> 
> I can praise equally, on craft, recognizing the quality, two very different works: the one not to my taste will not get the natural enthusiasm, the one more to my taste have a more overt tone of enthusiasm, but if you are aware of that discrepancy, you will try and also pay attention to what you know is a 'bias.'
> 
> ...


Absolutely nothing I've said "rule(s) out entirely someone who just likes classical music and isn't much or at all concerned about their social status relative to their musical taste." - Edit: Sorry, I took "concern" to be a conscious thing. If you meant to include unconscious concern, then you're right, I rule that out. But:

The possibility - rather than "fact" to be fair to people who are disagreeing with me - that we are at least subconsciously aware of the social context and social significance of various types of music whenever we listen to it does not strike me as a limitation. Unless someone has a goal of not being aware of that, but I've never thought that someone would have that goal. Do people make goals like, "I'm going to listen to this music without using neurons?" Ordinarily at least, we just listen, letting whatever is going on subconsciously just go on. And that's fine. It's basically only when we problematize things with claims about the purity of our musical perception that any such goals could be formed. And of course - why would we make such claims?

I'm really not sure what other ideas in these posts constitutes a disagreement with things I've said. An absolute?

Mahlerian, I can't think what I've said, let alone constantly said, that is something like "black" and "white." Your rhetorical question seems to be a point I would make, not a criticism of a point I would make.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

science said:


> Absolutely nothing I've said "rule(s) out entirely someone who just likes classical music and isn't much or at all concerned Ordinarily at least, we just listen, letting whatever is going on subconsciously just go on. And that's fine. It's basically only when we problematize things with claims about the purity of our musical perception


What about experience of musical perception? The ability based on past experience to be able to compare a piece in question with other things in a similar style.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

starry said:


> What about experience of musical perception? The ability based on past experience to be able to compare a piece in question with other things in a similar style.


I don't understand what you're asking. Can you explain it to me more?


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

If I've heard more ambient music than you I may be in a better position to judge which pieces are more original and creative in that style.


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

I can give an honest opinion if I've heard enough of a composer's work, otherwise, I'd just be blowing hot air.


----------

