# Are You Incapable of Appreciating Certain Music?



## scratchgolf (Nov 15, 2013)

There are three types of threads started here.

1. Threads that go nowhere
2. Threads that create good healthy discussion and have staying power
3. Threads (Polls) where the OP is basically grabbing a grenade, pulling the pin, dropping it in a crowd, and running. Usually to watch madness ensue from a safe distance.

I've seen multiple threads attack the music as being insufficient and seen others accused of being unwilling to accept this music. Stop me when this looks familiar. But it's that word *unwilling* that gets to me, although I'm certain it happens. The word I'm interested in would be *incapable*. I'm certainly willing to dunk a basketball. I'm just incapable of ever achieving that feat. For others, it comes easily no great effort at all.

This analogy has been described here as being a "better listener" and I believe nothing was ever agreed on there. How could you every know someone else's "listening abilities"? You CAN know your own. So this thread is for you to search yourself and ask yourself if there's music you ARE willing to understand, appreciate, or love, but are simply incapable of understanding or appreciating. I believe this has nothing to do with ability or intelligence.

My examples:

I have no interest in hearing Frank Zappa play a bicycle or John Cage pushing random objects off a table. I experienced each once and have no interest in trying again. This makes me *unwilling*.
It DOES NOT mean I'd find nothing interesting in their other music, nor does it give me the right to dismiss either artist on the merits of 2 works, which happens frequently.

A few night back, on Tinychat, someone played a Xenakis piece. One I'd never heard. I was listening intently and giving it all I had. The nightmarish images it was creating in my mind were not a pleasant experience for me. The sensation I felt was not something I enjoyed. I struggle with frequent nightmares from my past and experience sleep paralysis on occasion (Look it up. It ain't pretty.) The Xenakis piece just became an unsettling experience for me and one I felt *incapable* of enjoying. This is through NO fault of Mr. Xenakis.

So, as a listener, do you find there is music which you are *incapable of enjoying or appreciating*?


----------



## D Smith (Sep 13, 2014)

scratchgolf said:


> So, as a listener, do you find there is music which you are *incapable of enjoying or appreciating*?


Yes, I think that's a given for nearly anyone. The style of music may vary. I've known people who will just never enjoy Bach, it does nothing for them and they have no interest in trying to appreciate it. That's fine. During the past few months I've tried listening to many new String Quartets for the TC Recommend List. As an extreme example, I revisited Black Angels by George Crumb. I was certainly willing to listen to it again, but, sorry, much of it is just screeching noise to me (reminds me the the music from Psycho). I like some of Crumb's other pieces but this one gives me a headache. So why would I willingly listen to something that i find so unpleasant? Answer; I don't. So I can honestly say I am incapable of enjoying Black Angels, no matter how much I may appreciate the skill that went into composing it or performing it.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

scratchgolf said:


> I have no interest in hearing Frank Zappa play a bicycle or John Cage pushing random objects off a table. I experienced each once and have no interest in trying again. This makes me *unwilling*.


I might agree, purely from an artistic standpoint, that the old 1950s film footage of *Zappa* playing a bicycle on the *Steve Allen* *Show* is not that interesting as sheer art.

But if the bicycle is being used in the context of a work, as it was in *"The Chrome-Plated Megaphone of Destiny,"* then I would advise that it only appears that way to you. If you made the effort to receive, or if someone had _guided you_ or given you the correct "cognitive tools" to approach the Zappa work, then you would understand it and accept it as meaningful. You just don't "get it," apparently. This is not a matter of intelligence only, but more like "getting the meaning."

Even if you cognitively grasp the meaning and purpose of the bicycle sounds in the artistic context, you won't necessarily "like" them; they become part of the "furniture" of the work in its context. So I'm not after you to "sensually enjoy" the sounds of Zappa's bicycle, but simply to see, accept, and acknowledge the work as a whole, and grasp its possible meanings or mood.

The Zappa piece is dark, and has sinister overtones (as I see it). If you have PTSD or a similar stress disorder, this might evoke those experiences. It seems a shame, though, to "run from all darkness" because you are unable to handle it, due to past negative experiences of an unrelated nature.

Again with John Cage, we have to understand the context and meanings in order to grasp it, if we are not initially attracted to it in terms of sheer sensual beauty.* But sheer beauty is not what art, sound, or music, is all about.* We must accept sound as what it is, and put this within the context of the work as being valid.

Even a Rembrandt painting does not convey its meaning and worth by means of "sheer sensual beauty," and many of his paintings are dark and gloomy. So *we must be more flexible in our definition of "beauty."*


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

I am incapable of appreciating whiny teenagers use music to complain about their high school problems. Other than that, I am a super listener.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Shucks yes. Sometimes it is just too infantile, sometimes it just ain't music - not matter how it's labeled. Plus, my mental flexibility is deteriorating along with the rest of me, so the possibility of expanding horizons ain't great.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> Again with John Cage, we have to understand the context and meanings in order to grasp it, if we are not initially attracted to it in terms of sheer sensual beauty.* But sheer beauty is not what art, sound, or music, is all about.* We must accept sound as what it is, and put this within the context of the work as being valid.


Well you can keep your "have to's " and "musts" to yourself because I don't accept that at all. I think there's a whole lot of difference between art being only about "sheer beauty" and having to endure all kinds of annoying sounds thrown at me just because the context is supposed to make it good. To me the quality and "pleasantness" of sound is vital to what I consider good music. That doesn't mean it has to be pleasant all the time.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

scratchgolf said:


> So, as a listener, do you find there is music which you are *incapable of enjoying or appreciating*?


We must separate what is meant by "identifying and relating" to a work, regardless of whether we cognitively understand it or not. As Violadude said, he does not relate to "teenage problems" in the works of artists like (I'm guessing) Katy Perry or Taylor Swift.

The examples scratchgolf used, Xenakis, Cage, and Zappa, all relate to modernism, and I think this obscures the more simple and obvious reasons we relate to art and music.

We relate to music and art if it "reinforces our identity and lifestyle" as human beings. This has nothing to do, in a directly causal way, to the qualities of the music. *Rather, it is a choice we make, to identify with the music we like, because it gives us pleasure and relates to our mindset and lifestyle and personality.*

Scratchgolf has every right to "not relate" to John Cage, but he needs to be made aware that this is a choice he has made personally, based on his attraction to the music and what it represents, and not an intrinsic quality of the music.

To not separate the personal choice with the "objectification" of modern music is misleading, and seems to suggest a put-down of the music, which is not necessary.

Because he does not seem to acknowledge his own personal responsibility, and suggests that we are "coercing him" into liking something, is disingenuous, and comes across as if he were a "victim" of modernism, saying *"By God I'm going to assert my rights as an individual; are you with me? By God, we're not going to take this anymore!"*

Yes, we get it. You have every right. But don't blame John Cage or Frank Zappa, because there are people here who like their music, and will probably go into defensive mode.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

I appreciate all types of music. Although I admit that I gravitate to certain pieces more often than others.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

First of all, you can dunk all you want, simply find a lower basket, or a trampoline, or both.

Anyway, I think I am incapable of enjoying really sentimentally sweet music. I'm just too cynical and I don't think I'll ever get over that. I actually get angry. It's nothing as horrible as sleep paralysis - I had a couple nightmares like that, almost 20 years ago - but it isn't fun.

There are just individual differences in what sort of things push the wrong buttons, and how much of it we can tolerate. This is one of the reasons I want to break down the "competitive appreciation" games. Life is too short.



science said:


> I have a Korean jazz CD - now I have several of those, and mostly they're not bad, but this particular CD is horrible, the sappiest sappiest sweetest most saccharine disgusting cloying sickening horrible music I've ever heard. It's like a quadruple dose of valium on a sunny day in happy lucky land, and it makes me angry.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

DeepR said:


> Well you can keep your "have to's " and "musts" to yourself because I don't accept that at all. I think there's a whole lot of difference between art being only about "sheer beauty" and having to endure all kinds of annoying sounds thrown at me just because the context is supposed to make it good. To me the quality and "pleasantness" of sound is vital to what I consider good music. That doesn't mean it has to be pleasant all the time.


I meant "must accept" if you want to *relate *to the music in a positive and productive way. If not, that's your* choice.* I'm just defending the music, saying that *it is relatable* *as art,* and w*hat you must do if you are to relate to it.*

You are suggesting I am "coercing you" into liking something, which is disingenuous, and comes across as if you were a "victim" of modernism, enduring annoying sounds we have thrown at you. What a victim! What a blamer!

You have every right to dislike whatever you don't like, but don't blame me for "coercing" you, or John Cage or Frank Zappa, because there are people here who like their music.

*You need to acknowledge your personal choices in music as being separate from said music, and stop using them as an excuse to put-down that music.* It's your responsibility to make this clear, so I'm doing it for you.


----------



## Giordano (Aug 10, 2014)

This may sound like blasphemy around here, but I am unwilling to waste my time *looking for* music to enjoy or "understand." I am indifferent to a lot of music, tonal, atonal, whatever. The same goes for any other art. I am also unwilling to debate or listen to anything so idiotic as "you are missing something." Generally speaking, I am incapable of tolerating the worship of art and artists; anything regarded as "special" and "precious" tends to be misunderstood and distorted. I enjoy what I find interesting. I respect what I find sincere. And I try to understand what I find beautiful so as to appreciate it and the effort of its creator.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

scratchgolf said:


> There are three types of threads started here.
> 
> 1. Threads that go nowhere
> 2. Threads that create good healthy discussion and have staying power
> ...


One thing that struck me about this post is how you slip from appreciating to enjoying. The former more to do with cognitive things like understanding, the latter more to do with conative things like pleasure.

When I'm faced with a piece of music, I listen intellectually, the question which I ask is "how does this music go?" and "why does this music go like that?" Locate the music in a culture, a history. Notice the counterpoint, harmony etc. I tend not to let the music sort of wash over me producing pleasurable sensations, like pornography and _la branlette_ (the software won't let me say it in English, so French will have to do.). I think that's a sub-standard way to listen.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

millionrainbows said:


> Rather, it is a choice we make, to identify with the music we like, because it ... relates to our mindset and lifestyle and personality.


I think you're right about what is going on 99.99% or so of the times when a listener encounters new music. But the exceptional .01% of times are real too.

The OP mentioned nightmares. I gave an example of music that makes me angry. You've got to relax a little and let people have their own individual reactions to the music. Sometimes A and B just don't click, and sometimes it's nobody's fault, nobody being disingenuous or having a victim mentality, nobody making excuses or trying to put anybody else down.

Anyway, this was way out of line:



millionrainbows said:


> If you have PTSD or a similar stress disorder, this might evoke those experiences. It seems a shame, though, to "run from all darkness" because you are unable to handle it, due to past negative experiences of an unrelated nature.


It's like you read a guide about PTSD and decided to say the worst stuff. It's not about being "unable to handle" anything. I'll restrain myself from further comment because there are mods and I want to remain in good standing. But I'll remember this dazzling display of compassion next time I see one of your self-congratulatory posts about spirituality in music.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

The meaning of "enjoying" is pretty straightforward, but the meaning of "appreciating" is pretty slippery, and we need to decide what we mean by it. Can we "appreciate" something that we don't enjoy? Can an absence of pleasure in something keep us from "appreciating" it? Must "appreciation" lead to enjoyment? Is "appreciation" the same as "understanding"?

I find "appreciation" to be a word too ambiguous, in most contexts, to be useful. It has connotations of both "understanding" and "enjoyment," but those are definitely not the same thing. To say that an inability to enjoy something implies a inability to "appreciate" it sounds plausible. To say that it implies an inability to "understand" it sounds much less so.

Perhaps I don't enjoy something, at least in part, _because_ I understand it. But then someone will always insist that I only _think_ I understand it, and that if I _really_ understood it I would like it. Or at least like it more than I do.

If music were more like spinach none of this would matter. But maybe then people would tell me I would like it better if I knew it was good for me.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

The appreciate/enjoy thing might take over the thread, but I'll participate in that. 

To me, "to appreciate" a work of art means something like "to understand what other people find valuable in" it. 

I approach music more as a student than as... say, a judge, a connoisseur, an aesthete, or whatever. For me, appreciation is more pleasurable than pleasure itself. I'd rather appreciate something that I didn't enjoy than enjoy something I didn't understand. (We could break down the semantics of "pleasure," but I think the meaning is obvious.) 

But that's just me. There is no reason to approach music this way, except that it's how I like to do it.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> I meant "must accept" if you want to *relate *to the music in a positive and productive way. If not, that's your* choice.* I'm just defending the music, saying that *it is relatable* *as art,* and w*hat you must do if you are to relate to it.*
> 
> You are suggesting I am "coercing you" into liking something, which is disingenuous, and comes across as if you were a "victim" of modernism, enduring annoying sounds we have thrown at you. What a victim! What a blamer!
> 
> ...


Should I be thankful now? So touchy... 
Yes, I refuse to consider context as being essential or necessary, and yes, that's my choice. I was stating my own point of view and giving an extreme example without mentioning anything specific and without the aim to put down modern music in general or any artist (some of which I like).


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

science said:


> The appreciate/enjoy thing might take over the thread, but I'll participate in that.
> 
> To me, "to appreciate" a work of art means something like "to understand what other people find valuable in" it.
> 
> ...


A cerebral type. That's valid. I like it! One of my best friends is just the opposite; enjoyment is everything, and he couldn't care less "what" anything is. Now I'll have to ask myself where I am on the continuum. Maybe just thinking I have to ask myself that locates me toward the cerebral end. Thanks for an interesting new idea.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

DeepR said:


> Well you can keep your "have to's " and "musts" to yourself because I don't accept that at all. I think there's a whole lot of difference between art being only about "sheer beauty" and having to endure all kinds of annoying sounds thrown at me just because the context is supposed to make it good. To me the quality and "pleasantness" of sound is vital to what I consider good music. That doesn't mean it has to be pleasant all the time.


Excellent post. We seem to have at least a couple of members who think they have cornered the market on how to correctly listen to music and then give us a litany of "we must" statements that are pure baloney. Lecturing others is most unbecoming, but I suppose that the ego is too tender to do otherwise.


----------



## ptr (Jan 22, 2013)

appreciate is one thing, like and enjoy is something quite different.. There is a lot of music that I can appreciate on paper but performed or in recordings I'm quite disinterested in as a listener, take Chopin fx. sleeping pill to listen to for more then 30 seconds but quite fun when You tickle the ivories and ebonies Yourself (even with my limited pianistic success!)

Also, depending on in what state of mind I run at the moment, I've noticed that appreciate different things.. The sadder I am the less inclined I am for plying complex stuff!

/ptr


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

In theory, I am 'willing' to listen to every type of music; in practice, time is limited and I have an almost unconquerable will to pleasure. This means that I am 'incapable' of appreciating music 
a) that doesn't have a tune, 
b) or in place of a tune some compelling sound quality,
c) or goes on for a very long time
d) or has violent or unpleasant associations.

What happens with the first three types is that I might start listening, but then my brain goes awol and a quarter of an hour later I 'come to' from planning my winter wardrobe or devising the plot of a novel and feel almost surprised to find that the music is still rolling. The same thing tends to happen if someone gives a detailed scientific explanation, btw. My brain just switches off. 

With d), I just can't bear it. Two examples spring to mind. When I was eighteen, my father died of a heart attack, after a summer suffering from worrying angina that one wasn't allowed to comment on. I remember one evening, just him and me in the room, there was a BBC concert of 'modern' music, which featured quite a lot of clarinet playing, which to my ear sounded pretty discordant. I knew that my father was in pain and he was leaving the programme on just to avoid talking about that. The shrill discordant sounds just accentuated the tension and worry I felt, and I doubt that I could sit through a similar piece today.

Another example, this time of violence: on one of our Boys of the Lough LPs of Celtic folk-music, we have a 'clever' tune which recreates the hunting of a hare by the hounds. Repeated uillean pipe riffs sound like the hounds baying, and a flute is the terrified hare - at the end the flute yelps horribly as the hare is torn to bits. I think I managed to listen to it twice, but I never would again... 

It is noble to have an open mind, and it is good to appreciate all different sorts of music; but it is human, and honest, to have favourites and sometimes to feel that you want to spend your life on earth listening to music that there's a fair chance that you will like. I am not proud of being a 'limited' listener, and I admire those who can appreciate the most avant-garde of musics. 
Live and let live.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

I seem incapable of appreciating Shostakovich; I simply cannot hear much of anything that makes me think he is a great composer, despite having heard the vast majority of his major works multiple times and knowing many of them very well (and having studied the scores of the 4th, 5th, 7th, 10th, and 11th symphonies to at least some degree). Others, probably more well-informed than myself, consider him a towering figure of the 20th century.


----------



## Guest (Jan 13, 2015)

Thankfully there's plenty I'm incapable of appreciating.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I seem incapable of appreciating Shostakovich; I simply cannot hear much of anything that makes me think he is a great composer, despite having heard the vast majority of his major works multiple times and knowing many of them very well (and having studied the scores of the 4th, 5th, 7th, 10th, and 11th symphonies to at least some degree). Others, probably more well-informed than myself, consider him a towering figure of the 20th century.

I don't necessarily agree with your assessment of Shostakovitch... although he isn't one of my favorites. I do appreciate, however, your recognition that others, perhaps even some more well-informed than yourself, might be of a different mindset. Such strikes me as a refreshing alternative to the common assumption that if someone doesn't like something that we like (or likes something we dislike), it's because they "don't get it".


----------



## Guest (Jan 13, 2015)

@Ingelou
the wrong music for you has the same effect as an explanation of my pension has on me; my mind just goes off for a walk!


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

After about 30 years of listening to classical music, there are still composers and compositions that are widely appreciated, but which do nothing to me (examples: Handel, Beethoven 9, most of Bartok). And that's quite normal, I think.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

science- I'd rather appreciate something that I didn't enjoy than enjoy something I didn't understand. 

I am probably of the diametrically opposed point of view... although I tend to want to learn as much as possible about those works of art that I do enjoy/love. But does this knowledge make my experience more "pleasurable" than it might have been when I first came to a work and found myself enthralled?

And how much do we need to understand something before we can rightfully enjoy it? I'll never fully grasp the musical forms and structures employed by Bach. Others may never understand the iconography, the history, the formal compositional elements of a work of art like this...










Does that make their pleasure less than mine?

Honestly, there are times I envy the individual music or art lover who is coming upon a beloved work for the first time.

Rather like the magic of the first kiss or the first love... which we don't really need to analyze, do we?


----------



## OlivierM (Jul 31, 2014)

I used to specialize in stuff other people didn't enjoy nor appreciate.

So this forum is creeping me off. A bit.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Honestly, there are times I envy the individual music or art lover who is coming upon a beloved work for the first time.
> 
> Rather like the magic of the first kiss or the first love... which we don't really need to analyze, do we?


I've felt that too, very strongly. It's the memory of how our own "first loves" felt that makes us keen to introduce our friends to music we love. Alas, our friends are not us - and we'd better be ready for a comment like "Yeah...that was interesting..."


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> science- I'd rather appreciate something that I didn't enjoy than enjoy something I didn't understand.
> 
> I am probably of the diametrically opposed point of view... although I tend to want to learn as much as possible about those works of art that I do enjoy/love. But does this knowledge make my experience more "pleasurable" than it might have been when I first came to a work and found myself enthralled?
> 
> ...


Beautifully and pellucidly-expressed conclusion. Yes: we always 'understand' more than we can articulate. 

And incidentally, my first kiss in the sixth grade with an eighth-grader was one of the greatest experiences of my life. I've never been so flush with terror, desire, and absolute-and-eventual hedonistic abandon as that very first time. _;DDDDD _

Harvard philosopher W.V.O. Quine calls just such a novel experience-- where it is so completely different from anything one's ever experienced in any way; and one which could not be'summed up' in terms of past experiences--- a "recalcitrant experience."

-- Which sums up what happened to me exactly and precisely.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

*Of course there is.*

Note: I have not read every post in this thread so the following may be redundant. Sorry about that.

"Are You Incapable of Appreciating Certain Music?"

Of course there is. No matter how great a piece of music is it is impossible to like everything.

I do not worry about people who like music I dislike, like Verdi.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I've felt that too, very strongly. It's the memory of how our own "first loves" felt that makes us keen to introduce our friends to music we love. Alas, our friends are not us - and we'd better be ready for a comment like "Yeah...that was interesting..."

"Interesting" Now that word is the kiss of death when used by my wife.

Speaking of which... there's something else I may never understand (women) but certainly enjoy. :devil:


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Marschallin Blair said:


> And incidentally, my first kiss in the sixth grade with an eighth-grader was one of the greatest experiences of my life. I've never been so flush with terror, desire, and absolute-and-eventual hedonistic abandon as that very first time. _;DDDDD _


Sounds like the fist time I heard _Tristan und Isolde_.

I guess French sixths do more for me than French kisses.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> Sounds like the fist time I heard _Tristan und Isolde_.
> 
> I guess French sixths do more for me than French kisses.


Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha.

- _I'll take either. _ _;D_


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I'll take both.


----------



## scratchgolf (Nov 15, 2013)

I think my example of sleeping disorders may have been taken as the point of the thread. It was just one example, of one situation that happened recently. I wasn't turned off by the Xenakis piece. Quite the opposite, as it intrigued me more than any work of his I'd heard before. Maybe the person responsible can clue us in to what it was. I don't recall. Mahlerian's example with Shostakovich was more what I was getting at here, and I'm not trying to simply create another "Do we have different tastes?" discussion, although the common ground may create the illusion of being identical concepts. My uncle runs a hospital in New York and may be one of the smartest men I know. His taste in art is elevated and I very much enjoy his takes on artistic endeavors. When _Dark Side of the Moon_ came up in conversation he stated, "'Money' is a nice song but the rest I can live without." I love that album, yet consider "Money" to be the absolute worst song within. Different tastes? Of course. Are some incapable to enjoy Pink Floyd? I'm certain. My father is unwilling to enjoy Pink Floyd. My uncle, incapable. This was my intent. Not an assault on John Cage, as another reading of the OP makes this clear. And speaking of John Cage. When a previous, contentious topic was active, I PM'ed the very member here who's insinuated my assault on John Cage. The content of the PM? Me asking for Cage referrals from him. You may find an abundance of closed mindedness on the internet but I can hardly be accused of participating. Those who know me, know better.


----------



## Tristan (Jan 5, 2013)

I guess I can accept this.

I'm certainly not unwilling to appreciate any kind of music; I'm willing to try it all. I've tried all kinds of things. Things that people were trashing to which I said "let me try it". But just because I am willing to appreciate something doesn't mean that I will. There are just certain types of music that I can't appreciate or enjoy, even if I've tried. 

Although what ptr said about appreciate vs. enjoy is also important. I can recognize the ingenuity and importance of certain music without actually enjoying it personally. I'm not going to put it down as "trash" just because it's not to my taste.

Either way, I know how quickly "incapable of appreciating" turns into "you're stupid if you can't appreciate it". But if we could just stop at the first point, that would be better for all


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

When I encounter something challenging, I think about how it must seem to the composer, I didn't use to, but I do now. I know from my own work that my experience with the piece before hearing the final product for the first time is huge, I know every part of it inside out, but a first time listener might - as has happened many times before - come out of it thinking "what the hell was that?" It's a risk I take every time I listen to something new, and this can be just as true of a Mozart or Bach as it can be of a Cage or Stockhausen, that I have really no idea what I'm about to hear, and even if I know the composer's work beforehand my past experiences are not necessarily preparing me for this new thing. For example, the first time I heard a piece by Stravinsky from his late period, and I believe it was _Requiem Canticles_, there was nothing in _Petrushka_ or _L'histoire du soldat_ that could have prepared me; even though I was familiar with the work of Webern, who obviously had a huge influence on these final works of Stravinsky, I really was diving in at the deep end. But to Stravinsky he was just doing the thing that came naturally to him, to compose and to explore through composing the possibilities presented by an initial seed idea, the possibilities presented by the exploration of those possibilities and so on, with the eventual aim of creating a good piece of music.

In my own experience as a composer, and even as a writer, works of mine have been dismissed for various reasons, usually aimlessness - a criticism which anyone who has heard my music can probably understand - or the somewhat Vaudeville, somewhat gaudy and grotesque aesthetic of much of it. Sometimes I don't get why someone doesn't get it, don't understand their criticisms, but then I realise that these people have heard it once or twice where I have painstakingly designed every moment and listened to it dozens of times before even preparing for public release, and during that final preparation I hear it dozens more times. I've already heard the piece more than most other people will in their entire lives because I have to do that to make sure everything is right, hell, in the late stages even the most minor of alterations merits a full listen through to make sure. The gap in experience between myself and other audiences here is astronomical.

I realise nothing of what I've just said appears to be more than tangentially related to the topic at best, but now I'm getting to the point. Having spent considerable amounts of time on both sides, of exploring through listening, of exploring through composing, I can understand the potential frustrations of both. I can understand the composer who sits awake at night wondering why the hell everyone's reacting so oddly to this piece of music that came from them as naturally as any other; I can understand the listener who finds the initial listening experience so jarring that it puts them off not just that piece, but perhaps also the composer and the kind of music the listener associates them with, for years if not for life. I have used, probably overused, the word "experience" in this post, and not without good reason, for it is the crux of the issue as I see it. Experience is the difference between a complete turn-off and a reason to go back and hear it again, and I think responding in the mode of the latter is also a big part of how experience is developed in terms of listening, or appreciating any kind of art. You have to go back, whether it's a month, a year, a decade from now, because you change, your perception changes, that hideous mess of structureless noise you heard two years ago might just be the thing that is going to truly captivate you right now.

tl;dr: You can gain the ability to appreciate almost any kind of music as long as you keep trying it. The debate concerning whether or not this is a kind of self delusion is a much bigger topic and one which it may turn out there is simply not enough information out there to conduct, but I'm sure we'll give it a try anyway, for we are a hopelessly inquisitive and foolhardy lot.


----------



## scratchgolf (Nov 15, 2013)

Crudblud. That's one of the best posts I've read since joining. Thank you.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

I am very opinionated about music  I am unwilling to appreciate a lot of it... and I am likely incapable of appreciating quite a bit of it, too, but, given the current social circumstances, I have a profound ability to grin and bear it :lol: Take note: I am not speaking of western classical music.

With respect to western classical music, I have extremely broad tastes (those, too  ). I am open to ancient music, modern music and all music in between... but, I do have my preferred music, which tends to be of the Classical period and onward, with Baroque being a frequent diversion and Early a rarer diversion.

I have a resistance against some music: notably (American) minimalism and sacred music (I have no need to affirm my belief through music; music pushes other buttons for me). I am not, however, incapable of enjoying them. I am simply not particularly interested in them.

I think I have become a better listener in the past few years: I have learned to hear technical and emotional depth that I was never previously aware of. All those years of listening, and the vastly increased breadth and volume of exposure, since I have been here at TC, are paying off. I admit that I don't hunt relentlessly for new music to enjoy: I am satisfied with my current ~80/20 balance between the familiar and the new.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

Here's what I am unwilling to appreciate: CRAP.

Thank you, come again.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

^ I'll second that. No crap for me, either. And don't come again 

But, I really do enjoy both Xenakis and Shostakovich :lol:


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Going along with what Crudblud has so well-explained, it is entirely possible to 'get' music one does not at all care for, and to recognize, too, its merits. One does not have to be a musician (autodidact or trained) who is working "from the inside out" to be able to have a similar take on what one does or does not like.

There is music I just 'cannot' do, as the OP has it, "incapable of listening" which, as per the above, is entirely different than 'getting' or appreciating a piece for its merits alone. 

Anything as sung by Frank Sinatra: if it is played in a public place ('cause I'm not having any in my home, that's for sure), when heard out, say, over the sound system of a coffee shop, etc. I am impelled to leave the room. It is not the songs, the lyrics: the basic sound of it has me out the door.

Rachmaninov / Tchaikovsky / Puccini: almost always will turn any of it off if it comes on the radio, never opt to own recordings, or play it. May give either an occasional 'yet another' test-drive spin and listen through now and then, from a 'business' point of view, and to 'see' if it strikes me differently than it ever has before. So far, it stays the same to me.

Bruckner / Shostakovich: pretty much the same as the above group, though these guys don't get the occasional 14th test drives I may give the others above... enough test-drives and my personal assessments / taste has me knowing myself well enough to know it would be a waste of their time and mine.

Pretty much anything with an electric guitar, loud, soft, with or without distortion, with or without the usual compression inherent in many a recording, and no matter whether it is pop music or a much subtler inclusion in a contemporary classical piece -- some exceptions, though those are extremely rare. This is more like those dislikes anyone might have for a particular food, not at all liking either the taste or texture of the food, regardless how the food has been prepared. It is everything personal, and irrational, and nothing more 

The commonplace stylistic delivery of Broadway / West-end musicals and "show music" with the vocal deliveries often characteristically 'very bright' in tone, and with an intolerable vibrato.

Solo instrumental pieces with a duration of over not many minutes, a larger allowance for piano because of both its range and ability to render polyphony. This is completely a personal tic: I crave more timbrel colors than any one instrument allows, even with its range of tone and color, and am happiest if their are four instruments, minimum. Those can easily be 'homogenous,' from one family (string quartet) while the solo pieces by any instrument begin to either pall or drive me up the wall within but a few minutes... again, the piano solo can last much longer, but ultimately, it too, is just the one timbre.

"If you don't like all that, do you like, really, any music at all?" Well, there are so many centuries of just tons of it left over, even with the above filters on, that make this question not really a question, not worth having been asked, not worth answering.

There is more, of course, which I won't bother to list. The point of the thread I think will show there is plenty of great music; not all of it is for everybody; many a listener can and does 'get' a piece of music, appreciate its general worth in the panoply of what is classical, and at the same time just not find it to their liking.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

scratchgolf said:


> ...
> 
> So, as a listener, do you find there is music which you are *incapable of enjoying or appreciating*?


Very good thread. Of course there are music that do not please the listener and thus the listener is incapable of enjoying it. But it is a difficult question to answer in general for everyone, and for every type of music. There is also nothing wrong in not liking certain types of music.


----------



## Admiral (Dec 27, 2014)

I live in a university town, so pedants are all around me, expressing their "appreciation" for this or that, so I have a bias against that word; in the context of this conversation, I am "incapable" of enjoying music that I'm supposed to "appreciate." I can smell it a mile down the street. It wears a pork pie hat, hangs out at modern art museums, and is living off a trust fund but still trying to be "edgy."

Great art evokes strong initial responses, and also holds up to deeper evaluation (which is what I'd say rather than appreciation). So, it's Frost's "After Apple Picking" for me, not the "poetry" of Jewel. If I'm going to dig for gold, I'd like to have a fair chance of finding some.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

science said:


> I think you're right about what is going on 99.99% or so of the times when a listener encounters new music. But the exceptional .01% of times are real too.
> 
> The OP mentioned nightmares. I gave an example of music that makes me angry. You've got to relax a little and let people have their own individual reactions to the music. Sometimes A and B just don't click, and sometimes it's nobody's fault, nobody being disingenuous or having a victim mentality, nobody making excuses or trying to put anybody else down.
> 
> ...


That glib comment re: PTSD is just that, glib. And that complete absence of understanding of that condition can lead those without any ken as to what it is or the why of it to make very foolish statements. (It is entirely possible, without having the condition, to at least better understand what it is 'from the outside.')

Countering those foolish statements is the "You have no idea what you are talking about," which to me, is the only response possible when such statements are made. Complete ignorance is the reason such statements are even possible, of course. The rest, well, if one was inclined to say it (and I am) there is also that business where a reason is a reason, but a reason is not an excuse


----------



## Cosmos (Jun 28, 2013)

Incapable? I'd say no.

The more music I discover, the more my tastes change. Some of the music I used to hate, or music that bored me to tears, I now find amazing. I think with enough patience, and with an open mind, I'm capable of appreciating any music.

On the other hand, I don't enjoy all music, so if that's what OP originally meant, then I guess my answer would be yes. But probably not. Example: I can appreciate the innovations of Berlioz's Symphony Fantastique, and the orchestration, the lyricism, the "story", and the manpower it takes to master playing the work, but [up to now] I would never buy a ticket to a concert performance of the work.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

I go in saying yes to everything... until there comes a time that I must to say no.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

I understand where the OP is coming from and there certainly is music that no matter how much I've listened to it, I don't seem to get much out of - I also acknowledge that people listen to music in different ways. That being said I agree with those suggesting that tastes and perspective are usually not completely static things and can change over time. So the term 'incapable' used in this context doesn't seem quite right to me (especially after listening to a piece just 1 time if I'm understanding the OP correctly). It seems like that perspective could create a self-fulfilling prophecy.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

The two aspects of "appreciate," are both I think critically important.

To have the appreciation of 'what one likes,' and respond deeply to it, is I hope in anyone who claims to like or love any kind of music.

Some, and especially many a professional musician, tend to also have this 'other appreciation,' i.e. that ability of understanding works and recognizing their merits while readily knowing there is (a good deal of) music not at all to their taste which is good, great. etc. They get it, get those works are great, know why, while knowing _(and not expecting_) that some truly great music will not float their personal boat _at all._

_"What is music about and for if not my personal enjoyment?"_ I.e. those posts which are entirely about the listeners' deep emotional reaction to a piece, 'what that means for them, etc." imho, is so much an 'all about me' perspective while talking about the music that the content of such posts is far more about the person than the music. Valid, yeah and why not. "On the topic of music," not so much, or very indirectly.

It is lack of any concern to understand or have that second perspective where I think many a discussion starts to get wildly skewed, (and, btw, "off topic") where they become a riot of one camp vs. the other, and then brings discussions like that into the arena of downright high comedy. For a type of listener, anything which does not strike them as beautiful or does not reach them personally on a strong emotional plane can readily go into that category of music 'ranked much lower' or 'crap' music.

The "You don't know what you're missing," cant is actually ironic / funny. Those who don't like that which they are missing _of course can not know 'what they are missing.'_ LOL. The dynamic there is like trying to prove a negative, i.e. you can't -- so I chuck that as near to completely invalid. I'm sure I've been guilty of just that dynamic / tactic myself, but one moment's thought is enough to know that is antithetical to any sort of positive appeal in suggesting "here might be something you like, get something worthwhile out of, if you were to give it more of a chance."

Too, it is so often used with some subtext of "I am having a rich and very profound personal experience with this music, and you are not." With the implication the one who says that is somehow more intellectually and emotionally deep, has 'superior sensitivity,' blahblahblah, i.e. a grandstanding more about the superiority of that listener's intellectual and emotional capacities vs. the music or person who is addressed as 'missing something.' Those are vanity posts of the highest water, imho, almost always with the highly resonant ping of "smugness," and are more certainly nearest to completely about their author's gloriously higher-grade being vs. any worthwhile or interesting comment on the music.

It is far closer to ideal then, for those listeners who want to discuss music with others to cultivate the sense that what is under discussion is not only the "music which to them is beautiful and fully floats their boat." To get beyond that (and to some degree in order to allow the greater possibility of what is said of the music is somewhat interesting) the making of some effort to step further outside of ones self and stretch to acquire that other perspective (less personal, less egocentric) where the merits of music which may even be antithetical to ones personal taste can be recognized is wholly desirable.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

science said:


> I think I am incapable of enjoying really sentimentally sweet music.


I am a card-carrying member of that same club. _But,_ even what is "sentimentally sweet music," is certainly subjective from one individual to the next.

Recently I said I found Ralph Vaughan Williams' _The Lark Ascending_ to be _extremely pretty_, (and for me 'extremely pretty' often encompasses precious and vapid, as well as being a type of 'sentimentally sweet.')

That same work which I find extremely pretty, precious, vapid and far too sweetly sentimental is, for others, an apex of a type of music which brings them to a profound and lofty spiritual place.

"Extremely pretty is like to or equal to sentimentally sweet," then, and what music is thought to be of that quality, is near to entirely subjective from one listener to the next. I would well be mistaking any guess I could make if I automatically think that because you strongly dislike the "sentimentally sweet" (makes you angry, just irritates the hell out of me that _The Lark Ascending_ is a piece on your list of the sentimentally sweet. You may detest music of 'that character,' while you and I may have each a very different list of pieces we think have that trait.

BTW, as a sort of parallel as to how I feel about that which I find too sentimentally sweet, or 'extremely pretty,' Gore Vidal said romance novels were just as pornographic as actual pornography, because _both so entirely misrepresent and lie about the reality of human relationships._ (That could include any story in any medium which ends with "And they all lived happily ever after


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Admiral said:


> I live in a university town, so pedants are all around me, expressing their "appreciation" for this or that, so I have a bias against that word; in the context of this conversation, I am "incapable" of enjoying music that I'm supposed to "appreciate." I can smell it a mile down the street. It wears a pork pie hat, hangs out at modern art museums, and is living off a trust fund but still trying to be "edgy."


Clichés remain in circulation because the situations they limn, or the character types they describe, do exist and abound in enough occurrences or number to keep the cliché well and alive and in circulation.

That said, could you have chosen a more hackneyed and cliché profile of the types of fans and creators of the music "which is not for you?" It reminds me of that thread from a man literally raving that a piece by Dutilleux was on a program with other works of a concert he attended, knowing full well what was on the program and well aware, too, the Dutilleux was a more contemporary work written in serial manner. Apart from raving that he had been robbed of one-third of the value of the ticket he had purchased, he then proceeded to malign any in the audience who seemed to enjoy the work, characterizing them as poser intellectuals who wore 'wire-rimmed glasses.'

Wire-rimmed glasses? Pork Pie Hats? Okeedoh. Maybe we should then include Nuns, their 'eyewear' and their peculiar headgear in with that lot, then 

You couldn't have given a more cliché response about what is good and great which flies in the face of the fact there is always dispute about what is good and great, exactly because so many think, "Great art evokes strong initial responses." It denies every great work which is subtle, for example, those subtle and far less overtly spectacular works which do not even hit the cognoscenti over the head when they are first heard.

imo, "Great art evokes strong initial responses" is a pretty vacant generalization.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Another aspect of this is why someone should be "incapable" of appreciating some musical style. It's like a handicap - like a sort of deafness. - I suppose. Is it because they're too stupid a sort of intellectual fault? Or too lazy to make the effort to engage? Or too closed minded? Or too up tight? 

You see evidence of these things quite often on internet threads. People who clearly can't understand the value in Mozart for example, or Schoenberg or Stockhausen or Machault or Chant.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Mandryka said:


> Another aspect of this is why someone should be "incapable" of appreciating some musical style. It's like a handicap - like a sort of deafness. - I suppose. Is it because they're too stupid, a sort of interlectual fault? Or too closed minded? Or too up tight?
> 
> You see evidence of these things quite often on internet threads. People who clearly can't understand the value in Mozart for example, or Schoenberg or Stockhausen or Machault or Chant.


I can hear just fine. And that's the problem. There is an awful lot of baroque and classical era music I cannot enjoy. Especially the symphonies. All the cliched sawing action in the strings. It's like an annoying sewing machine.

I also have a problem with most romantic concertos. All that dazzling, ornate writing for the soloist and pleasant consonance, just bores me to tears.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Mandryka said:


> Another aspect of this is why someone should be "incapable" of appreciating some musical style. It's like a handicap - like a sort of deafness. - I suppose. Is it because they're too stupid a sort of intellectual fault? Or too lazy to make the effort to engage? Or too closed minded? Or too up tight?


Or they simply have a different taste?


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Art Rock said:


> Or they simply have a different taste?


That would be more relevant to why they don't enjoy the music I think - I was talking about appreciation. A similar response to starthrower's response.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Art Rock said:


> After about 30 years of listening to classical music, there are still composers and compositions that are widely appreciated, but which do nothing to me (examples: Handel, Beethoven 9, most of Bartok). And that's quite normal, I think.


Sometimes a different performance/recording might help.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

I'm not so much incapable of listening to certain music but I sometimes feel that I could actually be allergic to it.


----------



## GioCar (Oct 30, 2013)

Mahlerian said:


> I seem incapable of appreciating Shostakovich; I simply cannot hear much of anything that makes me think he is a great composer, despite having heard the vast majority of his major works multiple times and knowing many of them very well (and having studied the scores of the 4th, 5th, 7th, 10th, and 11th symphonies to at least some degree). *Others, probably more well-informed than myself, consider him a towering figure of the 20th century*.


This is interesting because it implies that the key of appreciation is the knowledge. I am on the same line, more or less, that is I tend to appreciate what I know better and if I don't appreciate a composer I use to think that it's because I do not know him/her, his/her music, his/her aesthetic values, etc...enough.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

GioCar said:


> This is interesting because it implies that the key of appreciation is the knowledge. I am on the same line, more or less, that is I tend to appreciate what I know better and if I don't appreciate a composer I use to think that it's because I do not know him/her, his/her music, his/her aesthetic values, etc...enough.


I think you might be mistaking Mahlerian's reflex of deferential courtesy as something else. By whatever means he has acquired it, Mahlerian is very strong on 'what he knows of music,' i.e. he is quite educated.

Education, as far as it goes, has still not given "the deeply musical educated" any better a handle on whether Shostakovich is a towering and greatly important composer, or a "terrible" composer. With all of Benjamin Britten's knowledge of music, he still read through _all of Brahms_ on a near annual basis, thinking his mind might change about Brahms being a bad composer. Every time, he was convinced Brahms was not at all a great composer.

So there you have it, a brilliant composer who was also an outstanding accompanist and a conductor (who recorded a deeply 'intelligent' and revelatory performance of Mozart's Symphony no. 40, a.o.) thought Brahms was a dud.

A quoted conversation between Britten and a colleague (another highly respected musician) "Is Shostakovich a great composer?" "No, Ben, he is a terrible composer, but he did write a few great operas 

Banking on those expert opinions? Look far enough and you will always find another very educated and well-esteemed expert whose opinion varies from the consensus -- which leaves anyone relying upon those expert opinions as back up, uh, still on their own.


----------



## GioCar (Oct 30, 2013)

PetrB said:


> I think you might be mistaking Mahlerian's reflex of deferential courtesy as something else. By whatever means he has acquired it, Mahlerian is very strong on 'what he knows of music,' i.e. he is quite educated.
> 
> Education, as far as it goes, has still not given "the deeply musical educated" any better a handle on whether Shostakovich is a towering and greatly important composer, or a "terrible" composer. With all of Benjamin Britten's knowledge of music, he still read through _all of Brahms_ on a near annual basis, thinking his mind might change about Brahms being a bad composer. Every time, he was convinced Brahms was not at all a great composer.
> 
> ...


I have no doubt on Mahlerian's broad knowledge of music of course, an I beg pardon to him if I offended him in some way.

Nevertheless every music "Expert" possibly has a dark zone in his appreciation sphere. 
Britten with Brahms, Stravinsky with Vivaldi, Mahlerian with Shostakovich, PetrB with Puccini....

I'm speaking of *appreciation*, not of preference, and I still feel that the main cause of this is a "lack" of knowledge of the composer's works and aesthetic in the broader sense, i.e. not only a direct knowledge by for instance analyzing the scores but also an indirect knowledge by for instance reading other scholar's works who can place the composer's works under a different and unexpected perspective. Maybe if Britten had had a broader *indirect* knowledge of Brahms, he would have had a better opinion on him. I'm pretty sure this would have been the case for Stravinsky and Vivaldi, since the majority of modern studies on Vivaldi came out when the composer was old and uninterested or dead.
Appreciation for me is also to find out why a certain music is highly considered by some other guys whose opinions are much esteemed by me and/or the majority of "experts". Science wrote something similar in a previous post which I fully agree with.


----------



## Admiral (Dec 27, 2014)

PetrB said:


> Clichés remain in circulation because the situations they limn, or the character types they describe, do exist and abound in enough occurrences or number to keep the cliché well and alive and in circulation.
> 
> That said, could you have chosen a more hackneyed and cliché profile of the types of fans and creators of the music "which is not for you?" It reminds me of that thread from a man literally raving that a piece by Dutilleux was on a program with other works of a concert he attended, knowing full well what was on the program and well aware, too, the Dutilleux was a more contemporary work written in serial manner. Apart from raving that he had been robbed of one-third of the value of the ticket he had purchased, he then proceeded to malign any in the audience who seemed to enjoy the work, characterizing them as poser intellectuals who wore 'wire-rimmed glasses.'
> 
> ...


Negative. Subtle often equals "great."
Great art is revealed in the first listening (indeed, for the pre-recording era that's probably all most people ever got) but it also rewards additional listening. Subtle, "spectacular" are beside the point.

Good defense of hipsters, though, I'll give you that.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

Admiral said:


> Great art is revealed in the first listening (*indeed, for the pre-recording era that's probably all most people ever got*) but it also rewards additional listening. Subtle, "spectacular" are beside the point.


Didn't some works - now considered masterpieces - get slammed after their first performance, or received only mildly positive and negative reactions? I think some music takes time to reveal itself to the listener, but maybe you have superpowers.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

DeepR said:


> Didn't some works - now considered masterpieces - get slammed after their first performance, or received only mildly positive and negative reactions? I think some music takes time to reveal itself to the listener, but maybe you have superpowers.


He does. I sent my astral body his way and confirmed this.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

GioCar said:


> I have no doubt on Mahlerian's broad knowledge of music of course, an I beg pardon to him if I offended him in some way.
> 
> Nevertheless every music "Expert" possibly has a dark zone in his appreciation sphere.
> Britten with Brahms, Stravinsky with Vivaldi, Mahlerian with Shostakovich, PetrB with Puccini....
> ...


I'm not in the least bit offended, don't worry.

I'm not necessarily saying that "if I knew more (of any kind of knowledge), I would like Shostakovich," so much as trying to negate the idea that I "dislike Shostakovich because I know (some kind of knowledge)." In other words, I am denying any superiority over those who do not share my views.

To some degree, I can appreciate Shostakovich: I recognize his fluency at composition and his natural tendency towards thematic development and extension, I find his orchestration incisive and effective, I like the fact that his textures are pared down to remove anything extraneous, and some of his pieces do interest me. Furthermore, I am very aware of the background and context of his works, and the fact that his style was in part determined by that context (although I was exposed to his music before knowing any of that).

None of this translates, however, into any sort of personal appreciation or even understanding of why others consider Shostakovich not merely a talented composer but "one of the greats."


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Appreciation is a good thing, but it doesn't feed the fires. When I listen to a work about 20 times and the best I can do is appreciate it, it's time to move on to a different work.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

GioCar said:


> I'm speaking of *appreciation*, not of preference, and I still feel that the main cause of this is a "lack" of knowledge of the composer's works and aesthetic in the broader sense, i.e. not only a direct knowledge by for instance analyzing the scores but also an indirect knowledge by for instance reading other scholar's works who can place the composer's works under a different and unexpected perspective.


I think at least where the 'lack of appreciation' is from a composer as informed as either Britten or Stravinsky, that no further amount of information, indirect or the opinions of others who are extremely well-informed, would alter what these composers thought of those composers whose work they did not care for. Stravinsky was very deeply versed in and familiar with a tremendous range of the repertoire, and there is no reason to think otherwise about Britten. (Remember, he played through _all of Brahms -- maybe you thought that meant just the piano works?_ To think also that Britten did not have any of that less direct information is I think to well underestimate Britten.)

Their opinion, then, is not just based on theoretical analysis alone, but pretty much all that you also listed. Being composers who, naturally, had thought a great deal and in depth about their personal viewpoints and beliefs on and of music, they each had a very clear picture of their personal aesthetic. Think of Britten's music; no matter how full the sound, there is something quite classically clean and etched about the textures and all the individual parts in even those works of his for huge forces, like the _War Requiem_. It is not then so surprising that he would fundamentally object to Brahm's approach, where often enough a harmony is thickened by a lot of doublings, i.e. a four-pitch chord would be a thick group of eight notes. There is a fundamental and very great difference in personal taste and approach right there.

Listeners too, have every right to reject otherwise fine works based upon their personal preferences; often enough, those preferences are also based upon an aesthetic preference, i.e. an area where many a well-experienced listener may not have a sense of exactly what they object to, nor a practiced working (semi-specialized) vocabulary to articulate just what it is they object to.

I've not been much, if any, influenced to reassess the music of some composer whose sound and aesthetic I don't care for, while knowing a good deal of the more indirect information / input you mentioned. Often enough, what is acquired through all the formal training is enough of a 'radar' to deduce more than enough information in the music itself, i.e. it fully conveys the ethos of both the era, the composer, and the predominant aesthetic. At that point, what other experts think, back stories, etc. make no real difference.

I'm not one to find myself listening to Beethoven differently because I know he became progressively deaf, while knowing that does (to me) accord with the shift in his music to the ever more abstract, many later pieces of his seeming less concerned with 'what people liked or thought.' That knowledge he went deaf 'explains' to me why so much of that later music seems 'interior,' and no longer so directly trying to communicate with others. Still, if I were one for whom Beethoven's approach in general was not my cuppa, none of the direct or indirect information would alter whatever my general aesthetic may be, nor change what would be more a kind of detached appreciation and regard for his music to any greater degree of deeper understanding or more immediate and happier involvement.

Some of the above factors I mentioned readily account for the fact that some 'fully knowledgeable' people -- as well as any lay listener without any such knowledge -- have a complete lack of interest in either one composer, or even the music of pretty much an entire stylistic era, leaving only that 'appreciation of getting it,' while otherwise not caring for it one whit.

I will take that more detached 'appreciation,' in the context of discussion at least, over the type of comments like "that 'music is trash," or 'noise,' etc. I also agree with Bulldog (above post) that if that detached appreciation is all you can muster after a good number of goes over a decent period of time, it is time to stop wasting your time flirting with the wrong party and instead go to the ones with which you have some kind of real love affair.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Admiral said:


> Negative. Subtle often equals "great."
> Great art is revealed in the first listening (indeed, for the pre-recording era that's probably all most people ever got) but it also rewards additional listening. Subtle, "spectacular" are beside the point.
> 
> Good defense of hipsters, though, I'll give you that.


I should have been far less oblique, so the fault in communication is mine. I neither disparage or defend "hipsters," or any other cliche profile lumped together bunch of humanity, but try to, and advocate, consider each individual on a case by case basis. It seems you prefer the lump a bunch of individuals under one label approach?


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

science said:


> ...It's like you read a guide about PTSD and decided to say the worst stuff. It's not about being "unable to handle" anything. I'll restrain myself from further comment because there are mods and I want to remain in good standing. But I'll remember this dazzling display of compassion next time I see one of your self-congratulatory posts about spirituality in music.


I like to play the 1812 Overture for returning vets, and watch them dive to the floor when the cannons go off! Hilarious! :lol:


----------



## scratchgolf (Nov 15, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> I like to play the 1812 Overture for returning vets, and watch them dive to the floor when the cannons go off! Hilarious! :lol:


It's when we stop diving that people should worry about us.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

The only style of music I can think of that totally repulses me is Broadway musicals. I'm thinking specifically of Sondheim, thanks to the new movie - supposedly the best Broadway composer, and beloved by people with generally good taste. I can't figure out what anyone gets out of this music.

I was tempted to say that I don't appreciate late Romantic music that's all about "virtuosity," but really that just amounts to saying I don't like _bad music_ of a certain style. While Tchaikovsky and Rachmaninoff aren't my bag overall, I've been able to enjoy some of their music here and there, so I wouldn't say I'm incapable of appreciating the style.


----------



## GioCar (Oct 30, 2013)

PetrB said:


> I think at least where the 'lack of appreciation' is from a composer as informed as either Britten or Stravinsky, that no further amount of information, indirect or the opinions of others who are extremely well-informed, would alter what these composers thought of those composers whose work they did not care for. Stravinsky was very deeply versed in and familiar with a tremendous range of the repertoire, and there is no reason to think otherwise about Britten. (Remember, he played through _all of Brahms -- maybe you thought that meant just the piano works?_ To think also that Britten did not have any of that less direct information is I think to well underestimate Britten.)
> 
> Their opinion, then, is not just based on theoretical analysis alone, but pretty much all that you also listed. Being composers who, naturally, had thought a great deal and in depth about their personal viewpoints and beliefs on and of music, they each had a very clear picture of their personal aesthetic. Think of Britten's music; no matter how full the sound, there is something quite classically clean and etched about the textures and all the individual parts in even those works of his for huge forces, like the _War Requiem_. It is not then so surprising that he would fundamentally object to Brahm's approach, where often enough a harmony is thickened by a lot of doublings, i.e. a four-pitch chord would be a thick group of eight notes. There is a fundamental and very great difference in personal taste and approach right there.
> 
> ...


PetrB, thanks for your brilliant reply :tiphat:

The Britten/Brahms comparison "_Think of Britten's music...._" is very effective and illuminating indeed.

but to me the fact that Stravinsky said that Vivaldi rewrote the same concert 500 times basically implies a lack of knowledge of Vivaldi's music or at least a biased opinion due to the general poor knowledge of Vivaldi at those times which doesn't correspond to the real "values" of his works.


----------



## GGluek (Dec 11, 2011)

I'll leave the popular music sphere alone, but despite maintaining an open ear and refusing to duck into doorways whenever one lumbers down the street. I have never been able to "get" Bruckner symphonies (Ninth excepted). A lot of people I respect extol their virtues, so it must be just me. and after 50 years, I would guess the word "incapable" might come into play.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

GGluek said:


> I'll leave the popular music sphere alone, but despite maintaining an open ear and refusing to duck into doorways whenever one lumbers down the street. I have never been able to "get" Bruckner symphonies (Ninth excepted). A lot of people I respect extol their virtues, so it must be just me. and after 50 years, I would guess the word "incapable" might come into play.


Those people you respect may have influenced what you expect - and fail - to hear. I can kick back and enjoy most of the symphonies, even though their parts never add up to a whole. That damps my enthusiasm, it doesn't extinguish it.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

isorhythm said:


> The only style of music I can think of that totally repulses me is Broadway musicals. I'm thinking specifically of Sondheim, thanks to the new movie - supposedly the best Broadway composer, and beloved by people with generally good taste. I can't figure out what anyone gets out of this music.
> 
> I was tempted to say that I don't appreciate late Romantic music that's all about "virtuosity," but really that just amounts to saying I don't like _bad music_ of a certain style. While Tchaikovsky and Rachmaninoff aren't my bag overall, I've been able to enjoy some of their music here and there, so I wouldn't say I'm incapable of appreciating the style.


Just about never, at least from ca. 1950 and forward, 'do' a musical via its film version, Disney especially. I'm thinking of that film version of _Sweeney Todd_ with fine actors who can barely sing vs. the original cast version with actors who could really sing. The difference between the two in quality, what you hear and how you hear it... vast.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

GioCar said:


> PetrB, thanks for your brilliant reply :tiphat:
> 
> The Britten/Brahms comparison "_Think of Britten's music...._" is very effective and illuminating indeed.
> 
> but to me the fact that Stravinsky said that Vivaldi rewrote the same concert 500 times basically implies a lack of knowledge of Vivaldi's music or at least a biased opinion due to the general poor knowledge of Vivaldi at those times which doesn't correspond to the real "values" of his works.


*I so forgot to say you are welcome, and thank you for the response, ergo, this add here and now!* (the remainder of this post remains unchanged.)

Vivaldi was not buried deep in dust in some archives in the fifties, and I remind you _these composers poured over tons of scores of all sorts of music not in general circulation at the time_. Stravinsky is famous / infamous for all sorts of things he said, and that has to be taken as part of the measure. His lovely and joyous _Pulcinella_ came about via yet another commission from Sergei Diaghilev, to whom someone had pointed out the music of Pergolesi. This was music not yet known by Stravinsky, while you can be sure he knew more than a bit of passing awareness of the name of Alessandro Scarlatti or many others.

He sat down with the printed sheets he had been given, and started writing directly on those, "as if I was revising an earlier work of my own." (Later musicologists determined a lot of what he had been given was music 'attributed to' Pergolesi, who had a great reputation and died so young -- age, 26 -- that unscrupulous publishers put his name to the work of others. Even so, what Stravinsky was given and chose from that selections is music all of a high quality from the period and in the style.) He commented that very soon into the project, he fell completely in love with the old music.

Done and performed, the work was well-received, also getting those slamming reviews from those who knew this antique music, saying he had massacred the old music, to which his response was, "You respect. I love." The score _sounds_ like he was completely enamored with that music, and being a ballet of Comedia del'arte, there is great humor imbued in the score as well. Later, commenting on that humor, which had also been here and there negatively criticized, he said, "Who, in 1920, could have treated that music without a bit of satire."

Many facets on what he thought on that piece, over many years sometimes. May be that I am too gob-smacked with the music to find much of a discrepancy between those comments re: _Pulcinella._ I think too often, when anyone becomes 'heroic' or has been collectively awarded the "Giant" appellation, that people forget those giants are as prone to the very human trait of changing their mind


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

GGluek said:


> I'll leave the popular music sphere alone, but despite maintaining an open ear and refusing to duck into doorways whenever one lumbers down the street. I have never been able to "get" Bruckner symphonies (Ninth excepted). A lot of people I respect extol their virtues, so it must be just me. and after 50 years, I would guess the word "incapable" might come into play.


That makes you my fellow member in the I 'get' Bruckner but will never like Bruckner club. I'm sure there are many more. Never thee mind, there is Mahler


----------

