# How does one fail to enjoy music like this?



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

What listening "skills" are required? What knowledge? What else? If anything.

Anybody care to speculate and or share?


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Upon the first listen I just let it wash over me. I basically go with where it takes me, eg. in terms of just the sounds and emotions I get out of it. This work is similar to parts of _Moses und Aron_, as one of the comments below it on youtube point out. But this is the first time for me hearing this work. The ending building up to that climax was very powerful.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

No skills required. Just a pair of ears attached to an open mind.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

Regarding the title of the thread; the prerequisite of failure is to attempt, so if people are actually failing to enjoy it they are at least trying. Of course, many people do not try at all.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

Hmm. Far more interesting than Schoenberg's piano works I've endured. I might actually not fail to enjoy this.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

I'm already a fan of that piece, so I can't comment objectively.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Weston said:


> Hmm. Far more interesting than Schoenberg's piano works I've endured. I might actually not fail to enjoy this.


Well, I love Schoenberg's piano works personally, but hey, thanks for listening with an open mind. As mentioned above, you might possibly like Moses und Aron if you enjoy this (or Schoenberg's other choral works).


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

I was taken aback to see a bunch of Asian faces when the camera finally focused on the choir. But it's pretty cool to know Schoenberg's music has worldwide appeal, and can be performed so convincingly.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Crudblud said:


> ...* the prerequisite of failure is to attempt, so if people are actually failing to enjoy it they are at least trying.* Of course, many people do not try at all.


I think 'try' is semantically loaded, and it is more a matter of 'giving up' a goodly amount of preconceptions which 'bar' the listener from actually hearing any musicality to work x, y, z.

The first thing needing doing then is to make those who have those preconceptions realize they are a built-up set of synthetic parameters which somehow needs more 'an undoing' vs. 'just trying.' What those parameters are not are an 'organic / universally true, globally semiotic truth.' [LOL.]

Classical music came to me so early in life, and at that it was 'modern' classical, that from that time -- having stayed with it and in it ever since -- I could claim a card-carrying ownership of one major built-up 'preconception,' (or is it a true and valid 'expertise?') the notion being I know very readily and quickly 'what music is classical' (including what music is not classical.)

Since my ears were given 'new' music from the get-go, and I have had a direct involvement with it from early childhood; by the time I got to Berg's Lulu, or Schoenberg, et alia (in my early to mid teens) it just struck me as highly chromatic late romantic music. Later contemporary music had 'roots' for me in the earlier 20th century with which I was familiar when aged five. From that personal vantage point, I know it does not 'require' a new way of listening or any musically technical understanding.

Those listeners averse toward this sort of music are loaded for bear with semiotic antennae for common practice music... a relatively 'recent' and brief episode in the development of art music in man's history. This gets reinforced by listening to that realm of the repertoire over and over again.

For those with the aversion, I think it best rather than "To Try" is to put on a recording of the supposedly elusive music, set it to repeat, and 'just let it run' as 'ambient' or 'background' music while doing some other chores or tasks about the home. A half unconscious familiarity would be gained along with some conscious resistance being diminished, and , and that just could 'open the mind' as to what is heard.

[There is a sort of music fan, even those 'well-informed,' who whether it is known to them or not are "sentimental tourists," i.e. they reach for the older music only, 'abide there,' and _are using it in one aspect at least as an escape / solace. _ This sort of listener, I believe, is _just not interested in newer music_: they only have a problem when they will not admit what they 'use' music for, and 'why,' and end up as irate detractors in a discussion on newer music. IMHO, they should not say anything about it at all, since they have no genuine interest in it, other than to bemoan the current loss of a glorious past about which they are genuinely sentimental. [One other psychological aspect in this sort of mindset -- which I find fascinating -- is an also attached self-conceit of 'intelligence' or 'social standing / prestige through being "cultivated,"' because they are a listener of 'art music,' and some are truly disturbed, even made to feel a bit 'stupid' if you will, when the 'do not get' the more contemporary works -- all as some signifier of self-esteem, clearly some 'personal social issues' have become attached to just liking classical music]


----------



## Guest (Jan 29, 2013)

Maybe the types of classical music we like depends on what we are looking for when we listen. Maybe some people are looking for new aural experiences, perhaps some look for honest expressions of the human condition, while others just seek pleasant works in familiar formats, with just enough novelty to avoid monotony. I primarily fall into the latter category.

I listened to the entire work, just to give the whole work and especially the ending a chance. On the positive side, I found it much less antagonistic (i.e. intentionally unpleasant) than some "modernist" (mea culpa if I misuse this term) music -- e.g. Bartok's Bluebeard's Castle, maybe his string quartets.

On the negative side, I found nothing interesting or engaging to the work. It just rolled out of my consciousness like water off the back of duck, leaving no lasting impression. I would rate it 2.5 stars - harmless but not my cup of tea.

It is possible that if I had more of the inside scoop on the work - for example, musical conventions S toys with or introduces, biographical background, etc - I might be more favorably impressed. It is also possible that my neutral reaction my evolve into a "like" through repeat exposure. Who knows.

At is it, nothing.

I hardly consider myself a sophisticated or even typical listener. I'm just trying to provide one data point in response to the OP's question. Your mileage will certainly vary.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

BPS said:


> It is possible that if I had more of the inside scoop on the work - for example, musical conventions S toys with or introduces, biographical background, etc - I might be more favorably impressed. It is also possible that my neutral reaction my evolve into a "like" through repeat exposure. Who knows.


I'm not going to delve into technique, because Schoenberg's technique is too often focused on to the detriment of seeing every other element of his music.

It's a setting of Psalm 130 "From the depths I cried out to thee, O Lord" in Hebrew. Parts of it are sung, and others spoken, like the chanting found in Jewish rites. The composer was himself Jewish, and for him this was partially religion and partially ethnicity. Having been kicked out of his teaching position by the 3rd Reich, he made a conscious decision to embrace his status as a Jew rather than try to hide it, by writing conspicuously Jewish themed works. The opera Moses und Aron, his setting of the Kol Nidre (which is partially tonal and partially atonal), and these late choral settings are the main ones. In addition to this, Op. 50b, Op. 50a was a setting of a contemporary Zionist poem and Op. 50c was to be (it wasn't finished) a setting of one of several "Modern Psalms" Schoenberg had written.



BPS said:


> On the positive side, I found it much less antagonistic (i.e. intentionally unpleasant) than some "modernist" (mea culpa if I misuse this term) music (e.g. Bartok's Bluebeard's Castle, maybe his string quartets).


The dissonances are less "sharp" here than in middle Bartok and yes, most other Schoenberg, which probably accounts for your reaction.



BPS said:


> On the negative side, I found nothing interesting or engaging to the work. It just rolled out of my consciousness like water on the back of duck, leaving no lasting impression. I would rate it 2.5 stars - harmless but not my cup of tea.....I hardly consider myself a sophisticated or even typical listener. I'm just trying to provide one data point in response to the OP's question. Your mileage will certainly vary.


Don't worry, yours was the kind of response I was interested in.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

PetrB said:


> For those with the aversion, I think it best rather than "To Try" is to put on a recording of the supposedly elusive music, set it to repeat, and 'just let it run' as 'ambient' or 'background' music while doing some other chores or tasks about the home. A half unconscious familiarity would be gained along with some conscious resistance being diminished, and , and that just could 'open the mind' as to what is heard.


Interestingly, this technique has worked for me. I was listening to a few of Ligeti's etudes and not having much success in getting into them. I was working on the computer and found myself concentrating on that work. Suddenly I was aware of wonderful rhythmic sounds. I realized that I had been moving and tapping my foot to those rhythms subconsciously. It only then dawned on me that my prior listening focused on the "melodies" and was essentially downplaying the rhythms. Afterward I listened more consciously to the rhythmic sounds and found that I enjoyed the work. It took a subconscious nudge to push my consciousness into the "right" listening state.

I don't know if that method will be effective for other works, but it certainly helped in this case.


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> What listening "skills" are required? What knowledge? What else? If anything.


You have to be unmusical.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

mmsbls said:


> Interestingly, this technique has worked for me. I was listening to a few of Ligeti's etudes and not having much success in getting into them. I was working on the computer and found myself concentrating on that work. Suddenly I was aware of wonderful rhythmic sounds. I realized that I had been moving and tapping my foot to those rhythms subconsciously. It only then dawned on me that my prior listening focused on the "melodies" and was essentially downplaying the rhythms. Afterward I listened more consciously to the rhythmic sounds and found that I enjoyed the work. It took a subconscious nudge to push my consciousness into the "right" listening state.
> 
> I don't know if that method will be effective for other works, but it certainly helped in this case.


Well, I think there is HUGE difference between Ligeti and Schoenberg. Ligeti's works are often quite lovely. Shoenberg -- I'll grant he probably had a lovely soul if interviews I have seen are any indication.

But I also think you are right. Memorizing Varese's Arcana helped me appreciate it somewhat, though I can't say I go around humming it in the shower. Another thing that almost worked for me is while browsing some this 100 year old "modern" music I started drifting off to sleep. In that in between state the music started seeming to speak to me of mysteries I never dreamed of. It was truly an outré experience. I'd love to recapture that feeling when I'm more lucid.


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> Don't worry, yours was the kind of response I was interested in.


I which case I shall also respond.

On first listening I found the declamatory voices irritating. This second time I am getting it better.

Usually I prefer the more 'hardcore avant-garde' to this generation - in the works of people like Ligeti or Xenakis I find it easier to work past the dissonance, whereas in Bartok, say, it often irritates me. I don't usually like the style, but I 'get it' in some way or another, though I certainly don't pretend to understand it in any particular depth.

This piece, along with many pieces of the modernist aesthetic, makes me feel very negative in a certain manner - a feeling I am very familiar with. This one is particularly close. I mean this in a general way, like most Haydn gives me a feeling similar to my love of nature when I am in a park or something. This is naturally a personal reaction, but it is mine and it is a very strong reaction, and usually inescapable - most styles are less definable for me in relation to the real world, but there are many specific instances. It may be baggage but I have no particular desire to work past it nor am I sure I can. This baggage is nothing more or less than the various facets of our personality.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Ramako said:


> Usually I prefer the more 'hardcore avant-garde' to this generation - in the works of people like Ligeti or Xenakis I find it easier to work past the dissonance, whereas in Bartok, say, it often irritates me. I don't usually like the style, but I 'get it' in some way or another, though I certainly don't pretend to understand it in any particular depth.


This is true of a lot of people, I feel, and I think it's the density of information in Schoenberg/Boulez that people find most off-putting. Varese, Xenakis, and Penderecki are less traditional in their methods, but more visceral in their immediate impact, which is why certain listeners gravitate towards them. Schoenberg is loaded with the entirety of the thick German tradition of counterpoint and development, which can be a lot to take in on familiar ground, but when harmonic/rhythmic signposts are blurred or diminished (not necessarily removed) it seems like too much all at once. Stravinsky's atonal (late period) music is far more lean-textured (inspired by Renaissance polyphony as much as anything).

I.e.: 






Ramako said:


> This piece, along with many pieces of the modernist aesthetic, makes me feel very negative in a certain manner - a feeling I am very familiar with. This one is particularly close.


To be fair, it is a negatively tinged subject and text, a desperate cry for help. Also, it's hard to write extremely chromatic music that sounds "major" in its affect, and many people confuse some major key late romantic movements for minor key for that exact reason.


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> This is true of a lot of people, I feel, and I think it's the density of information in Schoenberg/Boulez that people find most off-putting. Varese, Xenakis, and Penderecki are less traditional in their methods, but more visceral in their immediate impact, which is why certain listeners gravitate towards them. Schoenberg is loaded with the entirety of the thick German tradition of counterpoint and development, which can be a lot to take in on familiar ground, but when harmonic/rhythmic signposts are blurred or diminished (not necessarily removed) it seems like too much all at once. Stravinsky's atonal (late period) music is far more lean-textured (inspired by Renaissance polyphony as much as anything).


I actually don't mind Boulez as much, though I think you're probably right about the information thing. Usually I don't like Stravinsky at all, but that one was not as bad as some I find and it probably is the much sparser, simpler textures. The motives are probably not as altered, and somehow the dissonances are less prominent.



Mahlerian said:


> To be fair, it is a negatively tinged subject and text, a desperate cry for help. Also, it's hard to write extremely chromatic music that sounds "major" in its affect, and many people confuse some major key late romantic movements for minor key for that exact reason.


I mean something very specific which I am unable to communicate: negative, perhaps even destructive, rather than just sad or a bit down. I don't require all art to be cheerful by any means. However, you are right to point out the text to me, which is a good point and of course necessary consideration in vocal music.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

I have very layman's ears. I don't say my ears _look_ different  , but they hear without much context or experience to inform.

It sounded like a hybrid of world music and classical to me. 'World music' is only a lazy term, by which I mean, primitive and physical. There was an easy grandeur to it. The way it married all the ideas, it seemed very beautiful to me. I know that others more expert might say, 'there weren't any separate musics here, there weren't _ideas_ plural.' But to me it seemed to be simultaneously harking back in time while stretching forward.

I liked it...


----------

