# Do "Naturally Gifted Musical Listeners" Exist?



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Well, we agree uncontestably that naturally gifted composers have existed in the past (e.g. Mozart) and probably do exist today. Is there such a thing as "naturally gifted musical listeners"? I *do not* mean people with absolute pitch. Roughly speaking, and you can define it according to how you see fit, I mean people who claim and perhaps be proven to show they "get" just about all types of music they listen to. I would not consider myself "naturally gifted" as a listener - I don't "get" all types of avant-garde contemporary music, for example, nor do I "get" much of pre-Renaissance music so far.

As I said, you can define the poll's question as you like. If it bothers you to do so, then kindly do not post here. :tiphat:

Edit: I have met a few people who self-professed they do "get" nearly everything they listen to. So I voted "yes".


----------



## Garlic (May 3, 2013)

Some people do seem to have a great ear for music from a very young age. I'm not one of them, though I've improved a lot as a listener in the last few years. I think almost anyone can learn to like almost any music if they really want to.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Taking the question literally: One poster here used to claim that some listeners had "better ears" than others, and these were the ones more likely to appreciate avant-garde music. Take it for what it's worth.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

KenOC said:


> Taking the question literally: One poster here used to claim that some listeners had "better ears" than others, and these were the ones more likely to appreciate avant-garde music. Take it for what it's worth.


Yep, thanks KenOC that was what I meant - "better ears". Your closing statement is a fine one "take it for what's it's worth".

Member Garlic made a good point above though about learning to like almost any music if they really want. But that's a trade off between how much effort one is willing to do so versus the rewards later, and of course not everyone is prepared to do that (folks might have restraints say how much time they spend on listening, how much money to spend on it etc.)


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

I tend to be able to see the beauty or good qualities of most music I come across. Is that the kind of thing you are talking about?


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

violadude said:


> I tend to be able to see the beauty or good qualities of most music I come across. Is that the kind of thing you are talking about?


I think so. But I have one question. You mention "good qualities of most music" you have come across, but is that quite a wide range of music (meaning wide range in periods, styles, genres etc.) or wide ranging within your preference?

I am leaving the definition "open" as I don't believe this sort of thing is "strict" in a rigorous sense. Just for casual discussion.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

ArtMusic said:


> I think so. But I have one question. You mention "good qualities of most music" you have come across, but is that quite a wide range of music (meaning wide range in periods, styles, genres etc.) or wide ranging within your preference?


I suppose so. I like every kind of classical music (except crossover pop Karl Jenkins stuff), I like most kinds of Rock/Metal (except maybe hardcore black metal, which I'm still iffy about), I like most kinds of rap (except modern mainstream stuff), I like most kinds of Jazz....I'm sure there's some country out there that I would like.

Probably the only thing I can say for sure that I really really don't like is just the obvious modern mainstream Justin Bieber/Kesha/Katy Perry/Lil Wayne ect... crowd.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

violadude said:


> I suppose so. I like every kind of classical music (except crossover pop Karl Jenkins stuff), I like most kinds of Rock/Metal (except maybe hardcore black metal, which I'm still iffy about), I like most kinds of rap (except modern mainstream stuff), I like most kinds of Jazz....I'm sure there's some country out there that I would like.
> 
> Probably the only thing I can say for sure that I really really don't like is just the obvious modern mainstream Justin Bieber/Kesha/Katy Perry/Lil Wayne ect... crowd.


I think you are quite "gifted" then as a listener!


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

I believe that there *are* naturally gifted listeners - there are naturally gifted *most things* - but most natural qualities can be *developed*.

For example, if someone can play an instrument by ear (I can), the facility improves the more you practise it, and would dwindle slightly if you didn't use it for years. I am a person who has enjoyed a wide range of music all my life but have had a few blind spots, notably for more modern music & various sorts of jazz. However, after six months on TC trying out things I wouldn't have done once, I now am able to enjoy *slightly more* modern or jazzy music. My ear has 'expanded'. 

So if a person with a natural gift for appreciating music was exposed to every sort of music from the word go, would they develop a genius for listening? I can't believe, though, that they wouldn't become a player or a composer or a critic, or use their listening as the basis for creative work like art or poetry. Listening on its own for such a wonderful person would become too passive.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

I don't see how someone can naturally appreciate good invention within a style until they have actually heard a reasonable amount of that style. Perhaps they could then pick it up quicker than some other people, but they still start from scratch like anyone else. So I think it must take some effort and time. The difference probably is that some put more of that in because they get more enjoyment out of it compared to others. I have no idea if that part is a natural or born preference or not, but it could be.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

ArtMusic said:


> I think you are quite "gifted" then as a listener!


I think one thing that's really helped me in that regards though is being at a school where there are students who are interested and involved in all types of musical genres. I've had a chance to talk with people who have experiences with rock, rap, jazz ect. firsthand and they've explained to me the craft and passion involved and a lot of that has helped me gain appreciation for other types of music.


----------



## presto (Jun 17, 2011)

violadude said:


> I suppose so. I like every kind of classical music (except crossover pop Karl Jenkins stuff), I like most kinds of Rock/Metal (except maybe hardcore black metal, which I'm still iffy about), I like most kinds of rap (except modern mainstream stuff), I like most kinds of Jazz....I'm sure there's some country out there that I would like.
> 
> Probably the only thing I can say for sure that I really really don't like is just the obvious modern mainstream Justin Bieber/Kesha/Katy Perry/Lil Wayne ect... crowd.


I think there's a big difference in liking or not liking certain types of music and being a gifted listener, the latter would probably not be swayed by personal tastes.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

presto said:


> I think there's a big difference in liking or not liking certain types of music and being a gifted listener, the latter would probably not be swayed by personal tastes.


Ya, that's something to consider. Does being a gifted listener necessarily mean you have a wide variety of musical tastes? Maybe if you only like one type of music but you can easily pick out all the subtleties and nuances of that music after one or two listens that also makes you a naturally gifted listener.

It's kind of hard for me, personally, to say because I don't have any visceral, personal biases toward music. I listen to music and if I find something interesting in it then I like it. I almost never say "Ya I can see that this is good music but I just don't like the sound of it".


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Sure, why wouldn't there be natural differences in how people process the sounds they hear?

This would involve differences in things like pattern recognition and, despite what the OP says, pitch perception, not to mention personality traits like openness to novel experiences, all shaped by (conscious and unconscious) exposure and learning.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Being a gifted listener is the opposite of liking everything you hear. Does a gifted wine taster like every wine he samples? Giftedness is discerning, and opinionated, and its findings must be asserted with snobby authority. The lesser works must be eviscerated and the godly works raised to the heavens for those who cannot tell the difference themselves. That is the gifted listener's burden.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Couchie said:


> Being a gifted listener is the opposite of liking everything you hear. Does a gifted wine taster like every wine he samples? Giftedness is discerning, and opinionated, and its findings must be asserted with snobby authority. The lesser works must be eviscerated and the godly works raised to the heavens for those who cannot tell the difference themselves. That is the gifted listener's burden.


This makes me insecure in my music listening skills.


----------



## Pantheon (Jun 9, 2013)

I believe in the concept of apperception, whereby a person does not experience things separately, but as a whole. The orchestra before the instruments, so to speak.
I also believe that there are people capable of feeling details, small sounds that are in general not perceived by most people. Whether this is natural or not, I do not know. We are all technically capable of hearing things if we look for them, but I think there is an innate way of listening to music and having great ideas about music. 
This also comes with a great open-mindedness about culture.. no ? The more we learn about composers,their environment and education, the more we can hear things that make up the composer's style.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

I agree on not liking everything but just as important has to be appreciating all styles (including in popular music), and I just don't see that as being an immediate thing.


----------



## Piwikiwi (Apr 1, 2011)

I'm not a naturally gifted listener, my ears really opened up once I started to listen with the score


----------



## Winterreisender (Jul 13, 2013)

I voted "no." To suggest that there are naturally gifted listeners would imply that there is some sort of objective hierarchy of good and bad music which only the talented listeners can decipher. This would give rise to comments such as: "Oh I'm sorry you don't like [insert piece of avant-garde muisc here]; you're just not a gifted enough listener to appreciate it." I am of the opinion that taste is entirely subjective and that people are entitled to listen to whatever they want.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

To me, a "naturally gifted" listener would be in part someone with a great memory - if the first time you hear a 40 minute long symphony you notice that a motif from the opening movement has returned at the end of it, I envy the goll darng tar out of you.

There is probably also some individual difference in how well we can recognize intervals, not only in that some people can do so more accurately than others but that some people can do so much more easily (without extensive ear training exercises) than others.

I don't think we can easily contest those things. Of course musical education and experience can improve those things, but some people seem more talented than others. Individual variation is just a fact of life.

But whether there is any such thing as "getting" music in some romantic sense is open to question to me. I don't know. Sometimes I think so. Sometimes I don't .

In all questions like this, for me it comes back to the analogy with literature because I am much, much more confident in that field. There is such a thing as not "getting" something like, say, Shakespeare. Usually the main thing that means is a failure to understand the language itself, but in a lot of cases it also means a failure to appreciate the literary elements (you know, metaphors, puns, comparisons and contrasts between characters, irony, etc.) that he uses so well. Those guys, I'd say, don't "get it." Probably most of them could, if they were willing to put in the work. But there are also some people who in spite of being as aware (or more aware!) of such things as I am still don't enjoy Shakespeare - for instance, the vulgarity and cynicism turn some people off. Those guys, I'd say at least, "get it," but just don't enjoy it.

Edit: On the other hand, the skills that go into appreciating Shakespeare can make other authors or texts less enjoyable. If I were unaware of issues like symbolism or significant detail or whatever, I would probably enjoy Bradbury more than I do....

I _think_ there is an analogy between literature and any other art: if you are educated in the field you can appreciate things that more casual observers can't. But I don't necessarily equate appreciation with enjoyment - there is a kind of legitimate variety of taste that exists independently of appreciation. Of course modernist art often aims (or seems to aim) to alienate a majority of its audience, but that is at worst only a complication.

In the field of music I've decided to enjoy it without _working_ to further educate myself about it. I guess I will continue to learn more about it, but I'm going to do so at my haphazard pleasure, just having a good old time. Anyway, wow have I gotten off topic here. I'm going to leave this here because I'm too self-indulgent to delete it, but if you actually read this I should give you a "like" for getting here.

The original point of this example was supposed to be that some people pick up literary stuff more easily than others. There are naturally talented readers. Of course education can supplement or to some degree compensate for what nature gives. Edit: BUT "getting" that stuff is different than "enjoying" a work - and sometimes (or often?) "getting" that stuff means not enjoying a work as much as a more naive person might.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Maybe I just don't get that, but it seems to me that enjoying a work is appreciating something that is good in it otherwise you wouldn't enjoy it. And appreciating variety doesn't have to mean not enjoying that variety to an extent. I'm not saying you have to enjoy it as much as your favourite style but appreciation has to have some enjoyment and not just purely be some cold intellectual acknowledgement of something. And I don't see why literature doesn't depend as much as anything else on familiarity, developing an ability to process what is before you.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Winterreisender said:


> I voted "no." To suggest that there are naturally gifted listeners would imply that there is some sort of objective hierarchy of good and bad music which only the talented listeners can decipher. This would give rise to comments such as: "Oh I'm sorry you don't like [insert piece of avant-garde muisc here]; you're just not a gifted enough listener to appreciate it." I am of the opinion that taste is entirely subjective and that people are entitled to listen to whatever they want.


Well if people just want to listen to music which is very generic and lacking any semblance of fresh ideas that would obviously be their choice, but I think work which has more individuality does have some right to be given more prominence according to most people.


----------



## Winterreisender (Jul 13, 2013)

starry said:


> Well if people just want to listen to music which is very generic and lacking any semblance of fresh ideas that would obviously be their choice, but I think work which has more individuality does have some right to be given more prominence according to most people.


So you're implying freshness and originality is the benchmark for quality. To a large extent I would agree, but at the same time there is much avant-garde music which I don't like and there is much conservative music which I do like.

What I suppose is important is being able to justify why you do or don't like something. I imagine that many people who like run-of-the-mill pop music (whilst thinking classical music is all "boring") are not able to do this. In that respect there is a great deal of skill to listening. But if someone can fully justify why they prefer, say, Karl Jenkins over Stockhausen, then that is their decision and they should not be looked down upon for it.


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

Applause regarding the use of Karl Jenkins as your example!!


----------



## Guest (Sep 28, 2013)

Winterreisender said:


> I voted "no." To suggest that there are naturally gifted listeners would imply that there is some sort of objective hierarchy of good and bad music which only the talented listeners can decipher. This would give rise to comments such as: "Oh I'm sorry you don't like [insert piece of avant-garde muisc here]; you're just not a gifted enough listener to appreciate it." I am of the opinion that taste is entirely subjective and that people are entitled to listen to whatever they want.


But the matter of subjectivity; the entitlement to listen to whatever; and the ability (gift) to be able to 'listen' according to the requirements of the piece: these are not the same.

Whether the gift is an actual talent ("better ears"), as distinct from willingness or patience is not clear. But I would say that an openness to what it is about widely differing composers with widely differing appeal that is worthy of consideration; coupled with an ability to 'pattern-find' where this is necessary or to 'connect' with the emotion or the programme or the intent; these things are a gift. Like all gifts, they are, possibly, accessible to more people than we might think. Perhaps more people could compose like LvB or Igor than actually do so - not because they don't have the gift, but they don't have the opportunity, or the inclination...who knows??


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Winterreisender said:


> So you're implying freshness and originality is the benchmark for quality. To a large extent I would agree, but at the same time there is much avant-garde music which I don't like and there is much conservative music which I do like.
> 
> What I suppose is important is being able to justify why you do or don't like something. I imagine that many people who like run-of-the-mill pop music (whilst thinking classical music is all "boring") are not able to do this. In that respect there is a great deal of skill to listening. But if someone can fully justify why they prefer, say, Karl Jenkins over Stockhausen, then that is their decision and they should not be looked down upon for it.


I'm not at all implying that avant-garde music is always better than more conservative music. I'm not talking about conservative music I'm talking about music which is stale and just sounds like a total rip off. If we said that all music was the same quality and that it was just a matter of opinion then there would be no debate over music and music that was fresher could get hidden even more under vast amounts of stuff just catering to a cheap predictable taste, something that probably happens a lot in popular music, particularly it feels these days. Stale music does not mean conservative, there can be good music in a more conservative style as I've said before here. Experimental style music could keep within a generic experimental style as well, every style can have its formulas, it's a matter of who makes them fresher. That's up for debate, but it needs to be debated and not made out to be a non-debatable relativism. Your second paragraph may agree with me there.


----------



## Winterreisender (Jul 13, 2013)

MacLeod said:


> But the matter of subjectivity; the entitlement to listen to whatever; and the ability (gift) to be able to 'listen' according to the requirements of the piece: these are not the same.
> 
> Whether the gift is an actual talent ("better ears"), as distinct from willingness or patience is not clear. But I would say that an openness to what it is about widely differing composers with widely differing appeal that is worthy of consideration; coupled with an ability to 'pattern-find' where this is necessary or to 'connect' with the emotion or the programme or the intent; these things are a gift. Like all gifts, they are, possibly, accessible to more people than we might think. Perhaps more people could compose like LvB or Igor than actually do so - not because they don't have the gift, but they don't have the opportunity, or the inclination...who knows??


I tried to clarify that distinction in my second post. I agree with you that there is a skill to listening and I think Science in his post above mentions two good examples: recognising intervals and being able to follow complex structures. For some people, this comes naturally; for others, it is something that comes with practice.

But the OP talks about "getting" the music (specifically avant-garde music), by which I think he means "enjoying" it. The implication seems to be that, if a listener doesn't enjoy a piece, the fault is with the listener rather than with the piece itself. I think it is a shame to equate "getting" with "enjoying." If someone seriously engages with a piece and decides that they still do not enjoy it, who am I to look down upon them and say their taste is not sophisticated enough or they are not listening properly?


----------



## Winterreisender (Jul 13, 2013)

starry said:


> I'm not at all implying that avant-garde music is always better than more conservative music. I'm not talking about conservative music I'm talking about music which is stale and just sounds like a total rip off. If we said that all music was the same quality and that it was just a matter of opinion then there would be no debate over music and music that was fresher could get hidden even more under vast amounts of stuff just catering to a cheap predictable taste, something that probably happens a lot in popular music, particularly it feels these days. Stale music does not mean conservative, there can be good music in a more conservative style as I've said before here. Experimental style music could keep within a generic experimental style as well, every style can have its formulas, it's a matter of who makes them fresher. That's up for debate, but it needs to be debated and not made out to be a non-debatable relativism. Your second paragraph may agree with me there.


The point I'm trying to make is that I don't believe any one piece of music is objectively better than any other, but I'm not sure I agree with the phrase "non-debatable relativism." On the contrary, debate is a productive activity which can bring people to re-consider their views. But I don't believe there is an objective, correct answer when it comes to musical taste; I don't believe there is a list of canonised pieces which one must revere if one wants to be taken seriously as a music fan.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Winterreisender said:


> if a listener doesn't enjoy a piece, the fault is with the listener rather than with the piece itself.


That's the relativistic view, that it's just a matter of preference. And I think you can get a piece and see possible faults that could prevent great enjoyment. And you might enjoy a piece but because of limited experience might not see the faulty aspects. Then again someone might criticise a piece based on not understanding the style, and that could be a faulty viewpoint. So things aren't that simple and that's why I don't see why debate is unhealthy and why something has to be just a matter of opinion. Of course people can hear what they want, but I'm talking about the general debate which could help a wider variety of work be recognised as well as new works.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Couchie said:


> Being a gifted listener is the opposite of liking everything you hear. Does a gifted wine taster like every wine he samples? Giftedness is discerning, and opinionated, and its findings must be asserted with snobby authority. The lesser works must be eviscerated and the godly works raised to the heavens for those who cannot tell the difference themselves. That is the gifted listener's burden.




I almost agree with your first sentence - well sort of. Being a 'gifted' listener may be interpreted as being a listener with wide-ranging tastes, but it can't be with 'liking everything you hear' - that would be having _no_ taste. How can composers justify their efforts if the intended public would like anything they care to set down?


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Winterreisender said:


> The point I'm trying to make is that I don't believe any one piece of music is objectively better than any other


I don't believe in lists where a work of a totally different style or different aims is placed above another because it is supposedly quantifiably better in enough aspects. I don't see the point, you have to compare like with like. But to say that of all music could just produce a mass of work most of which is very derivative and lazy. So there needs to be a balance. If something is simpler that doesn't mean it is worse than something more complex, but I think people often get snobby around matters like that. A simple piece which is just hack work or a complex piece which overreaches and is just big or complex for the sake of it both deserve to be criticised and questioned, and open to debate as to what represents good enough within a style. Rankings within what is 'good' I find futile, it's simply a matter of preference according to style.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Of course you can have naturally gifted listeners. My late father-in-law had no musical training but it was obvious he knew what he liked and was discerning as to interpretations. Of course, most naturally gifted people today have the opportunity of musical training. It wasn't so back then.


----------



## Winterreisender (Jul 13, 2013)

starry said:


> I don't believe in lists where a work of a totally different style or different aims is placed above another because it is supposedly quantifiably better in enough aspects. I don't see the point, you have to compare like with like. But to say that of all music could just produce a mass of work most of which is very derivative and lazy. So there needs to be a balance. If something is simpler that doesn't mean it is worse than something more complex, but I think people often get snobby around matters like that. A simple piece which is just hack work or a complex piece which overreaches and is just big or complex for the sake of it both deserve to be criticised and questioned, and open to debate as to what represents good enough within a style. Rankings within what is 'good' I find futile, it's simply a matter of preference according to style.


I think we are in agreement. I am also of the opinion that it is futile to compare pieces of different genres. Although I prefer classical music to popular music, I respect the opinions of those who disagree (as long as they have good reasons for their opinions!).

I also agree that all works deserve to be criticised and questioned and that debate is a healthy activity. But as with most debates, there is no factual correct answer. The objective is simply to make other people share your opinion.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

I don't believe having a good ear manifests in having a preference for one style or another. It's merely the ability to be able to mentally sort out aural information, and if the information is unfamiliar (because the style is alien), then it will be just as hard to sort as for a listener who does not have such an ability. There's no doubt that one's ear can be developed, as well, so having innate talent doesn't necessarily put one above others who do not.

So, my answer to the question would be yes, but I'm not voting, because I think the question as stated is more or less irrelevant to the discussion.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Winterreisender said:


> I voted "no." To suggest that there are naturally gifted listeners would imply that there is some sort of objective hierarchy of good and bad music which only the talented listeners can decipher. This would give rise to comments such as: "Oh I'm sorry you don't like [insert piece of avant-garde muisc here]; you're just not a gifted enough listener to appreciate it." I am of the opinion that taste is entirely subjective and that people are entitled to listen to whatever they want.


Although I voted yes, I agree with you on this point. 
ArtMusic in the OP said "you can define the poll's question as you like" (which, incidentally, is a lousy way of conducting a poll) so I chose to ignore the notion of superiority/inferiority implied by the phrase "naturally gifted". I voted yes because I can accept the idea of someone who finds it _easier_ to appreciate a wide variety of music; this doesn't mean I think they have "better ears".


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

When it comes to listening to music for me, just like _any_ other thing, I try to see and hear things not from just the surface level and I can find something positive and beautiful in everything that way. I don't see how that's "gifted," it's just a certain value I like to have.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

I know I have a good ear though, as in good aural skills (chord recognition, interval recognition, rhythmic and melodic and harmonic memorisation and being able to write them down after hearing it, intonation etc. etc. etc.) but this is the result of training my ears and practising for many years, this isn't a "gift."


----------



## Guest (Sep 28, 2013)

Why do you think underground death/black metal has such a following when most people say "I just don't understand why they have to scream so much"? Voted yes.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

arcaneholocaust said:


> Why do you think underground death/black metal has such a following when most people say "I just don't understand why they have to scream so much"? Voted yes.


Both the music and its followers are demonstrably sociopathic. There's a lot of that going around.


----------



## Guest (Sep 28, 2013)

I'm not denying that there's a lot of meatheads like that in the scene, no.


----------



## Guest (Sep 28, 2013)

I was naturally attracted to music. So much so, that it wasn't until a high school writing assignment for senior English that I first articulated both the attraction and the naturalness. So I would have to say that there are naturally gifted listeners. But I would define such a person differently from this, say.


Winterreisender said:


> To suggest that there are naturally gifted listeners would imply that there is some sort of objective hierarchy of good and bad music which only the talented listeners can decipher.


I did spend many years believing that there was such a hierarchy, but that was then, and now is now. I don't think that "naturally gifted listener" implies anything about good and bad (which are subjective terms, so there could be no objective hierarchy of them). Naturally gifted means that you find music compelling, difficult (impossible) to ignore whether you like any particular thing or not. Naturally gifted means that you understand most things pretty quickly, and that you know immediately that if you don't understand something that it's up to you to adjust your listening--it's not up to the music to change, something any particular, already written piece cannot do in any case.

If I don't like something, I work at it for a bit. Because music generally is so compelling to me. Then I either learn to like it, or I move on. I don't stop at the disliked thing and criticize it for not being something other than what it is. It is what it is. And it is not going to change, for me or for anybody. It just is. It is up to me, as a listener, to change or to move on. It seems irrational and pointless to criticize any piece for not being something other than what it is.

I have always hated country/western music. Since it's easy to avoid it, I do. In situations (restaurants, maybe, a friend's house) where I cannot avoid it, well, sucks to be me. I used to criticize it whenever I could. But that was then, et cetera. Now I cannot imagine expending any energy on country/western at all, good or bad. It's not anything I'll ever like. But so what? There is so much that I do like.

And speaking of like, I have found it very useful (rewarding) to get beyond my likes and dislikes. Not that that will ever change anything regarding country/western, you know, but otherwise. I spend most of my time listening to unfamiliar music, to pieces that I've never heard before, anyway. Doing that has led me to change from listening to music in order to hear what I like to listening to music in order to like what I hear. For me that was a significant and crucial change. When I first heard Varese's _Poeme electronique,_ for instance, I wanted more electroacoustic music. But it all had to be like _Poeme electronique._ That meant that I could easily enjoy Xenakis' _Orient/Occident,_ for instance, but struggled with _Bohor._ That I liked Jonathan Berger's _Meteora_ very much but was bored to tears by Eliane Radigue's _Trilogie de la Mort._ That I liked Berio's _Thema (Omaggio a Joyce)_ OK, but was repulsed by _Visage._

Then I heard a piece by Michele Bokanowski that was very different from the electroacoustic music I had favored up to that point. _L'etoile absinthe._ And one of the first questions Michele asks me when we met was if I liked the music of Eliane Radigue, one of Michele's favorites. Hah! What's a fanboy to do? Stop listening to Radigue in order to hear what he likes and start listening to it in order to like what he hears.

Magic.

Now I far prefer _Bohor_ to _Orient/Occident_ (which I still like very much); I like _Visage_ just as much as _Thema,_ if not more. And so on.

I know the question always comes up about the quality of the music itself--the implication being that a seasoned and intelligent listener is someone who can discern quality in the music she hears. I think of the situation differently. I think that any listener, seasoned or intelligent or not, has experiences with music, experiences that vary in quality. From that point, one can talk about the elements of the music that contributed to the experience, about other listening experiences that contributed to this experience. Plenty to talk about. And none of it particularly contentious, either. Or pretentious. Or condescending. Or anything negative.

What a dreamer I am, eh?


----------



## Piwikiwi (Apr 1, 2011)

arcaneholocaust said:


> Why do you think underground death/black metal has such a following when most people say "I just don't understand why they have to scream so much"? Voted yes.


It's really arrogant to imply that people that don't like metal aren't gifted listeners. I don't care much for death/black metal myself and for me the extremeness and the dark quality comes across as a bit childish. I like to watch it live from time to time but I really don't get the theatrics, I don't get the whole "look at me being being dark and controversial" part of the scene.


----------



## Winterreisender (Jul 13, 2013)

some guy said:


> Naturally gifted means that you find music compelling, difficult (impossible) to ignore whether you like any particular thing or not. Naturally gifted means that you understand most things pretty quickly, and that you know immediately that if you don't understand something that it's up to you to adjust your listening--it's not up to the music to change, something any particular, already written piece cannot do in any case.


I would be more inclined to describe this as being "naturally attuned to classical music," which has neutral connotations, rather than to say "naturally gifted," which sounds distinctly positive.

Someone could find country music as compelling as you find classical; they could find country music impossible to ignore; they could have an intimate connection with the fiddles and steel guitars; but they could hate classical music. I wonder if you would describe this as "naturally gifted"?


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

I think there are those gifted with good memories and with pitch differentiation. I understand Pierre Boulez can hear each note in a tone cluster. I don't have that ability. I can approximate those abilities through training, but it's not innate.

Then there is the artistic temperament. Some people are naturally predisposed to art, art music, etc. I'm that way. I'll put up with a piece that sounds awful until I make sense of it and it becomes beautiful. My wife isn't, and she's banned Charles Ives' music from the house when she's in it. 

That's my feeling about the subject.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Manxfeeder said:


> I'll put up with a piece that sounds awful until I make sense of it and it becomes beautiful. My wife isn't, and she's banned Charles Ives' music from the house when she's in it.


In a perfect world, we'd be neighbors, and every Saturday afternoon you could come over to my house and listen to Ives with me, and our wives could get together at your place and... whatever. We'd be listening to Charles Ives.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

science said:


> In a perfect world, we'd be neighbors, and every Saturday afternoon you could come over to my house and listen to Ives with me, and our wives could get together at your place and... whatever. We'd be listening to Charles Ives.


When I take over, Ives' 2nd symphony will be universally appreciated - or else.


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)

I thought I answered this question when I joined


----------



## Celloman (Sep 30, 2006)

It's the old argument of nature vs. nurture. I think that being naturally "gifted" is a factor, but if this skill is not encouraged or developed, it will certainly lose its effectiveness. Both of these factors have to come into play in order for it to work.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Piwikiwi said:


> It's really arrogant to imply that people that don't like metal aren't gifted listeners. I don't care much for death/black metal myself and for me the extremeness and the dark quality comes across as a bit childish. I like to watch it live from time to time but I really don't get the theatrics, I don't get the whole "look at me being being dark and controversial" part of the scene.


People tend to judge genres as a whole instead of thinking that quality can vary within it, as it never is actually all the same. Some things can be more inventive and not just posturing or generic cheapness. But the lack of knowledge (and by extension intelligence) makes people blinkered.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Manxfeeder said:


> I'll put up with a piece that sounds awful until I make sense of it and it becomes beautiful.


I wonder if something like this is simply getting used to something rather than placing it within a wider context of other works which could reveal more about how inventive or not something is.


----------



## Schubussy (Nov 2, 2012)

Winterreisender said:


> I would be more inclined to describe this as being "naturally attuned to classical music," which has neutral connotations, rather than to say "naturally gifted," which sounds distinctly positive.
> 
> Someone could find country music as compelling as you find classical; they could find country music impossible to ignore; they could have an intimate connection with the fiddles and steel guitars; but they could hate classical music. I wonder if you would describe this as "naturally gifted"?


I think someone naturally gifted would be able to find enjoyment in a great classical music piece or a great country music piece.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

I deliberately avoided defining what might be meant by "naturally gifted musical listeners" because if I were to impose my definiton for this poll, then the definition would almost certainly be disagreed and the discussion will probably not go anywhere. By leaving it open, I was encouraging folks to present their ideas and thoughts, and after that, hopefully collate some observations that may seem pretty consistent and we might therefore roughly agree, more or less.

So far, the three key points appear to be

(1) "naturally gifted musical listeners" tend to (but not always) "get" the idiom of a "*wide* range of music".

(2) But "getting" the idiom of music does *not* imply they also enjoy every single one of those genres, e.g. naturally gifted listener "gets" the idiom of country western music but doesn't enjoy the music. Their preference can be separated from their "gift".

(3) It appears to be able to nurture one who was not necessarily "born naturally gifted" as a listener to one that can become one by wide ranging listening/study/exposure one way or another

These three points are what I managed to collate so far.


----------



## nightscape (Jun 22, 2013)

I think that it's undeniable that there are people who are more musically inclined than others. That pertains to playing and listening in general. Given the right environment that person can flourish.


----------



## Ondine (Aug 24, 2012)

I like to hear all kind of classical or Jazz music. 

I do not compare. Never. 

Once I have finished the affair with one composer, say Dvorak, I take a break of silence; no music. Once I have refresh my mind I take another one. 

So each composer, not being compared, not getting into the 'greatest' or 'crap' or 'trash' stuff I have seen here, become good enough to enjoy it as that composer is. 

I tend to go slowly, digest the music carefully and plough each single oeuvre -complete, not just a movement- in order to get the soul and essence of his musical language.

It is a beautiful journey of joy and fulfilment.

I don't know if this is about being gifted. I think it is not.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

Yes, and I am one of them. 

You may bow before your humble Princess of Music if you wish~


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

There is talent in all areas, including listening. mho


----------



## GGluek (Dec 11, 2011)

I've always had a good ear -- can't say where it came from, but can describe what I mean. A lot of the pop music I grew up with I didn't particularly like, and if I tried to figure out why I liked a particular song, the best answer was "it's musically interesting." I learned pieces of the standard classical repertoire from a) the local library, b) the local classical radio station, c) going to concerts. There was a lot I didn't get to until college, when I fell into being classical director of the radio station. In playing, by necessity, a lot of music I didn't know, I found that, even listening with less than full attention because of having to do radio things, I could very easily sort out the A List pieces (really good and worth playing again, and generally recognized as such --say, the Brahms sextets), from B List (fun to listen to but don't go overboard -- "Eine Heldenleben"), from C List (not really worth playing again -- a lot of minor Baroque stuff, the ballet "Giselle"). I didn't realize these judgments were anything special, until I started comparing them with "generally accepted" opinion and discovered that my first impression was more often than not borne out by the musical community. What does this mean? I don't know, but it's nothing I can take credit for.

George


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

GGluek said:


> I've always had a good ear -- can't say where it came from, but can describe what I mean. A lot of the pop music I grew up with I didn't particularly like, and if I tried to figure out why I liked a particular song, the best answer was "it's musically interesting." I learned pieces of the standard classical repertoire from a) the local library, b) the local classical radio station, c) going to concerts. There was a lot I didn't get to until college, when I fell into being classical director of the radio station. In playing, by necessity, a lot of music I didn't know, I found that, even listening with less than full attention because of having to do radio things, I could very easily sort out the A List pieces (really good and worth playing again, and generally recognized as such --say, the Brahms sextets), from B List (fun to listen to but don't go overboard -- "Eine Heldenleben"), from C List (not really worth playing again -- a lot of minor Baroque stuff, the ballet "Giselle"). I didn't realize these judgments were anything special, until I started comparing them with "generally accepted" opinion and discovered that my first impression was more often than not borne out by the musical community. What does this mean? I don't know, but it's nothing I can take credit for.
> 
> George


Excuse me, but Giselle is brilliant music. If we're going about the rude process of ranking pieces, its an a-lister.


----------



## Guest (Sep 30, 2013)

My own experience was very close to George's.

I naturally gravitated to the very best, according to "generally accepted" opinion, that is.

At first.

I came, however, to just as naturally gravitate to the lesser known pieces by famous composers. Then to music by lesser known composers.

Then to twentieth century music generally. Then to lesser known composers of the twentieth century. Then to more and more recent composers--for which, simply because they were recent, there could be no general consensus. Consensus being a thing that takes a bit of time, naturally.

Old ideas are hard to let go of. I kept my sense that there were different levels of quality for a long time, long after I had begun to question the whole notion of levels. But gradually I came to recognize that "levels of quality" is a ruse. It is an attempt, largely successful unfortunately, to objectify subjective experience. The process goes something like this: "I like Bach's St. Matthew Passion better than I like Saint-Saens' Requiem." That is transformed to "Bach's St. Matthew Passion is better than Saint-Saens' Requiem," possibly (probably) because the person recognizes that his or her individual and subjective experience is not entirely convincing, not as intellectually rigorous or scientifically valid as objective reality. Better to pretend that your subjective experience is really objective reality. It helps, or seems to help, that there are other people who share your opinion of those two pieces. But no matter. If there aren't, you can always claim that there are.

Or you can accept--and it's not easy; or it wasn't for me--that subjective is not inferior to objective even though it is different. That nothing is gained by claiming or proving (or claiming to prove) that composer A is objectively better than composer B. ("Better," of course, being a subjective term.) That listening to music means paying attention to what you're hearing and responding to it. Responding to _it,_ not to something else or to your desire that it be something other than what it is. To it. You will doubtless recognize similarities between the piece you're listening to and other pieces. That's fine. There are similarities. So long as you don't succumb to the temptation to wish that the piece you're listening to were more like something else. Whatever its similarities with other pieces, it is ultimately just itself.

Some things will reward your efforts more than others. But so what? Some of the things that do not reward your efforts will reward someone else's efforts. Some of the things that reward your efforts will turn other people completely off.

If it could only stop right there. Different people have different experiences. The end.

But it doesn't. It most often goes on to this: if you agree with me that Bach's St. Matthew Passion is superior to Saint-Saens' Requiem, then you obviously have good taste. You are a perceptive listener. If not, then there is something wrong with your listening abilities. Never mind that those two pieces are very different from each other and from very different eras. Some things about them are similar. Not enough to draw any useful or valuable conclusions about either the pieces or their listeners. And that is probably sufficient to account for all the acrimony on any given thread. It's all about the "I." "'I' like this. Everyone who also likes this is with me. The others are against me." Even more powerfully, "'I' hate this. Everyone who also hates this is with me. Everyone who likes this is the enemy and must be destroyed."

Heigh ho.


----------



## GGluek (Dec 11, 2011)

First, I apologize for making a judgment about Giselle that some people disagree with. That wasn't my intent. But I will state that I do believe some pieces are qualitatively "better" than others -- even if people disagree about what they are. I won't comment about Bach vs. Saint-Saens, but to choose a less controversial example, I don't think many people would disagree that almost any Beethoven or Mozart piano sonata is a better piece of music than Twinkle Twinkle Little Star (Even Mozart's variations on the same theme). That doesn't mean there aren't some people who prefer it, but I don't think that necessarily makes it better.

I think that over time, the best music rises to the top. When I as young, Janacek was an acquired taste, and I caught onto him before many and now he's pretty much an accepted master -- but whether that means A list or B list, I don't know. Whatever, I do believe there's a lot of C list music -- good to have on as background music while you're vaccuuming, but it doesn't really pay back close attention -- and doesn't necessrily aspire to. And I would argue that makes it less "good."

Cheers


----------



## hreichgott (Dec 31, 2012)

I think there is a difference between musical taste and ability to perceive music.

There is a range of ability in perceiving melodies, harmonic changes, tone colors, dynamics, structure. Short-term memory directly affects being able to enjoy the journey of a theme in a sonata-allegro or theme and variations. Analytical ability helps those of us without perfect pitch to keep track of the key relations between musical sections. An emotional sense of wonder helps the music sink in at a different level--and helps the listener to enjoy listening, which means the listener will gain more experience. We've all got these abilities in varying degrees, they can all be developed through learning, and some people naturally have a whole lot of ability.

None of that affects musical taste, which is an entirely different thing. Compared to a casual listener, a gifted/skilled listener will be able to tell you in more detail why s/he likes or doesn't like a piece, but I don't think you could predict what pieces the gifted/skilled listener would enjoy the most.

In particular I don't think it's possible to judge someone's musical ability given only the data of what his/her tastes are!


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

I want to go to college to study to be a professional consumer.


----------



## Guest (Oct 1, 2013)

When it comes to art, I don't want to consume.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Ha! Then cheerfully ignore art.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

some guy said:


> When it comes to art, I don't want to consume.


I think a quick and casual inventory of the stock of recordings and music related gear, audio equipment, etc. in your house would strongly belie your "I don't want to consume." I think you already have -- _big time_


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

kv466 said:


> I thought I answered this question when I joined


On the contrary, that is when we began to form our suspicions....


----------



## Guest (Oct 2, 2013)

PetrB said:


> I think a quick and casual inventory of the stock of recordings and music related gear, audio equipment, etc. in your house would strongly belie your "I don't want to consume." I think you already have -- _big time_


Hahaha, now who's having whom on?

I'm sure you understand the distinction between consuming (which is what one does with toiletries and jewelry and clothing and the like) and engaging with (which is what one does with the arts).

When I was a kid, my mom, thinking as a consumer, would occasionally ask me "Don't you have enough records?" As if there were a reasonable limit of those items, ignoring completely the contents of each recording. One might be able to have enough different performances of a particular piece, but one can never have enough different recordings of different pieces. Each piece is different, and each experience with each piece is different, even though the carriers are all "the same." (Each LP and CD looks like every other LP and CD. To my mom, each LP was the same.)

I've been accused of being a collector, too. Far as I know, I've never collected anything since my brief stint as a pre-teen with catching, killing, and mounting butterflies. (I couldn't justify the killing part, so I stopped.) I do tend to get every recording of composers/performers I enjoy. I know that that looks like collecting, from the outside. It doesn't feel like collecting. It feels like engagement. If I find, as I did with Kancheli, that I'm not able to engage any more, then I stop buying recordings of Kancheli. A collector would keep buying, I think, as the point of collecting is simply to have everything of something, regardless of enjoyment.


----------



## niv (Apr 9, 2013)

violadude said:


> I suppose so. I like every kind of classical music (except crossover pop Karl Jenkins stuff), I like most kinds of Rock/Metal (except maybe hardcore black metal, which I'm still iffy about), I like most kinds of rap (except modern mainstream stuff), I like most kinds of Jazz....I'm sure there's some country out there that I would like.
> 
> Probably the only thing I can say for sure that I really really don't like is just the obvious modern mainstream Justin Bieber/Kesha/Katy Perry/Lil Wayne ect... crowd.


Me too. But I don't think it's a "natural gifted thing" or anything like that. I didn't used to like most stuff, but that changed when I changed my preconceptions. I opened my mind, sort of speak, to the fact that if I didn't like something, it might not be a fault on that something, but rather in my appreciation of it. Add to that that I enjoy listening to new "flavors" of music, and that was it.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

some guy said:


> Hahaha, now who's having whom on?
> 
> I'm sure you understand the distinction between consuming (which is what one does with toiletries and jewelry and clothing and the like) and engaging with (which is what one does with the arts).
> 
> ...


Ok, the philosophy is nice, but you're spending money in order to "engage with" the things you purchase. Maybe it's not _only_ consumption, but it inevitably is in fact consumption.

And that's ok. It's past time for us to let go of the old anti-bourgeois pretensions that seem to me to lie behind the distinctions you insist on. You've merely exchanged something - time, labor, etc. - for a symbol (money) which you then exchange for the ability to "engage with" the art you favor. The artists are then going to exchange that symbol for food, clothing, shelter.... It's consumption all the way around, economic exchange all the way around, and it's usually ok - it's usually even better than ok, it's usually great and wonderful, because this system has enabled us to create a world with everything from Merzbow to Suzuki's Bach to Kuramoto to Momoiro Clover Z available for us to "engage with" merely in exchange for a few minutes of work. Of course from this POV the differences between Merzbow and Suzuki's Bach and Kuramoto and Momoiro Clover Z aren't important, and that's a POV I'm fundamentally comfortable with. The discomfort with such an idea felt by the partisans on all sides of these subcultures is an interesting object for observation, but apparently not related to anything actually inherent in the music. It's social construction all the way around, and that's ok too.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Consuming involves ingesting and making it a part of you until there is no separation between you and it. Isn't that the goal of being a classical music consumer?


----------



## Alydon (May 16, 2012)

No, they do not, but some may. 
It has been proven that any success in any field does take much work and effort. I would be very surprised if any of the members of this site began their musical journey with Beethoven's late quartets or Bach's sonatas and partitas for violin and much modern serious music. It may seem that certain people are immediately in tune with something, but even Mozart, who began his musical career studied and wrote much music before he became the composer we now appreciate, so by the same reasoning it takes many years to adapt the ear to the music we discuss here.
As an example, I am now 50 yrs old, and I began my interest in classical music at around 10 yrs old; so I have had over 40 yrs of listening experience which in a career situation is a lifetime - but I'm learning everyday.


----------



## LordBlackudder (Nov 13, 2010)

they're posting on this forum so obviously there is gifted listeners.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

niv said:


> Me too. But I don't think it's a "natural gifted thing" or anything like that. I didn't used to like most stuff, but that changed when I changed my preconceptions. I opened my mind, sort of speak, to the fact that if I didn't like something, it might not be a fault on that something, but rather in my appreciation of it. Add to that that I enjoy listening to new "flavors" of music, and that was it.


Ya, I'm not sure if it's a natural type of thing either. I was trying to follow wherever art music wanted to lead this thread.


----------



## Musician (Jul 25, 2013)

I really dont think there is a thing like 'naturally gifted music listeners' just like I don't believe there are 'naturally gifted art viewers'...


----------



## Lord Lance (Nov 4, 2013)

Ingélou said:


> I believe that there *are* naturally gifted listeners - there are naturally gifted *most things* - but most natural qualities can be *developed*.
> 
> For example, if someone can play an instrument by ear (I can), the facility improves the more you practise it, and would dwindle slightly if you didn't use it for years. I am a person who has enjoyed a wide range of music all my life but have had a few blind spots, notably for more modern music & various sorts of jazz. However, after six months on TC trying out things I wouldn't have done once, I now am able to enjoy *slightly more* modern or jazzy music. My ear has 'expanded'.
> 
> So if a person with a natural gift for appreciating music was exposed to every sort of music from the word go, would they develop a genius for listening? I can't believe, though, that they wouldn't become a player or a composer or a critic, or use their listening as the basis for creative work like art or poetry. Listening on its own for such a wonderful person would become too passive.


We'll see about that.


----------



## scratchgolf (Nov 15, 2013)

Open Mindedness is a gift. I can't say that listening is. I would have voted for unsure because this type of thing can never be proven. Certainly someone has said this prior to me. I'm just too lazy to read the entire discussion.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Of course they do. This is true of every human capacity of whatever kind. How could it be otherwise?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Definitely. My best friend is one. I introduced him to classical music in college and was amazed at how quickly he "got" it. Forty-some years later I'm still impressed at his insight into what he hears. His comprehension was just biding its time until music came along to be comprehended.


----------



## MoonlightSonata (Mar 29, 2014)

Fairly certain they do. Some people seem to 'get' the music quicker than others, something that can easily be confirmed by playing music to friends.


----------

