# Revealing yourself through music



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Michael Berkeley writing in the Guardian on Thursday...

_I used to be riveted by the John Freeman television interviews, Face to Face, in which well known figures were dissected in brutal but compulsive style, and it occurred to me that people would reveal just as much, if not more, about themselves in talking about music.

Indeed, when the psychoanalyst and writer Adam Phillips came to be interviewed in my spare bedroom, where we used to record Private Passions, he said to me: "You are doing what I do, but where I get people to tell stories you get them to talk about music - so much more revealing than direct personal questions."_

After three months here in TC (is it only that long??) the truth of that statement is self-evident.

Now to the question ... can you offer any particular examples of how you have found that to be either true or surprisingly false.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

Do you mean those that might gush over the splendor and ritual of opera might be more outgoing than those who quietly acknowledge an introspective chamber work? Or those who listen to Handel's Messiah on Christmas Day might be more conservative than those who listen to it year round? I think there's likely danger in that kind of stereotyping, but I also suspect you mean something a little deeper. I just can't think of any examples.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

I don't think that the way that people address music fully address what they think about it completely. Stereotyping is a no-no for me.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

This is a very interesting question. So interesting that I wish I had a ready response. I think people do reveal themselves most in talking about the things they love. I have a few friends whose tastes in music, and way of speaking about "their" music, are clearly of a piece with what I know of them otherwise, and perhaps give me a little more insight into their personalities. I am absolutely certain that the things I say about music, and the way I say those things, is revealing of me in ways that might not be obvious otherwise. But of course we never know how other people will read us - or whether we are reading other people as they intend, or as they are. It also occurs to me that here on TC we are not just "talking classical"; we are "writing classical." The written word has the potential to say more about us than the spoken word - or less about us. We have more time to consider our words, more time to find and communicate the truth of ourselves - or to hide behind a cultivated persona and present the person we'd like to be, or be seen as, rather than the person we are.

Does any of this address the question? Probably not! But - it _is_ a very interesting question.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

I know better than to name any names but for better or worse, there are quite a few in TC who seem very revealing in their posts. And, I am sure, that also applies to me.

As to a 'cultivated persona', that may work in the short term but I doubt that it would hold up for very long.


----------



## SimonNZ (Jul 12, 2012)

Becca said:


> After three months here in TC (is it only that long??) the truth of that statement is self-evident.


I don't disagree, but could you give a few examples of what you've noticed on TC (without naming names, of course).

Or were you meaning the way you reveal your own personality?

edit: ha! crossposted.


----------



## GhenghisKhan (Dec 25, 2014)

Probably. But then you can get to know people by talking about just about anything. 

It's hard to bluff on the spur of the moment, so if people get emotionally involved in the discussion, they usually reveal some of their personality unknowingly.

But strangely, a lot of people say this about their own niche.
I had a boxing coach tell me what people' personality is by looking at what they did in the ring. I had a literature teacher tell me you could tell other people's personality by the books they read. 
Good salesmen are very attentive and learn how to seize someone's personality in seconds. 

And so on and so forth.


----------



## TradeMark (Mar 12, 2015)

If a person is a musician, composer, or something else related to music, and music is their life, how is talking about music any different than talking about their personal life.

I'm sorry that might have been a bit too "Romantic".


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

I have found the statement to be true, but for me, what people say about their tastes in rock or pop has always seemed more revealing than what they say about their preferences in classical music — for folks who have definite preferences in both, that is. I'm not sure why this is the case. It's just an intuitive thing. Maybe it is because people are less guarded when the stakes are low? Or perhaps it is because there is historical and critical consensus about the greats of classical music that anyone can read themselves into, whereas the critical positions in rock are more fragmented and contingent on ideology, social class, and so on? So maybe it is easier to know how to construct and "hide behind a cultivated persona and present the person we'd like to be," as a distinguished quacker above put it, in the world of classical music, whereas it wouldn't occur to many to be so careful about their tastes in rock?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

EdwardBast said:


> I have found the statement to be true, but for me, what people say about their tastes in rock or pop has always seemed more revealing than what they say about their preferences in classical music [...] perhaps it is because there is historical and critical consensus about the greats of classical music that anyone can read themselves into, whereas the critical positions in rock are more fragmented and contingent on ideology, social class, and so on? So maybe it is easier to know how to construct and "hide behind a cultivated persona and present the person we'd like to be," as a distinguished quacker above put it, in the world of classical music, whereas it wouldn't occur to many to be so careful about their tastes in rock?


This isn't true of the people I know, but then they all seem to confine their musical interests mainly to classical and jazz. It does seem reasonable that some people would feel self-conscious about that highbrow stuff (yes, my brow is quite high, more so with every passing year) and would be cautious about saying the "incorrect" thing for fear of looking ignorant, or would make an attempt to say the "correct" thing and leave no doubt about it.


----------



## SeptimalTritone (Jul 7, 2014)

I think you guys are taking this a bit too strictly.

I recently took a Rorschach test as psychological examination, and it turns out that "what you say" isn't nearly as important as "how you say it". Indeed, _how_ people talk about music is a great indication of how they think, what their world view is, what they hold important...

For example, how much people use these key words (making up a disparate list here):

structure
God
beautiful
life-affirming
troubling
well-argued
kaleidoscopic
dancy
overwhelming
tear-jerking
depressing
unified
consciousness
fun
intellectual (either as a positive or a negative)
etc...


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

SeptimalTritone said:


> I think you guys are taking this a bit too strictly.
> 
> I recently took a Rorschach test as psychological examination, and it turns out that "what you say" isn't nearly as important as "how you say it". Indeed, _how_ people talk about music is a great indication of how they think, what their world view is, what they hold important...
> 
> For example, how much people use these key words (making up a disparate list here):


What point are you making here? You start of by saying that what you say isn't as import as how it is said, then you start listing words that people use, which argues to the 'what you say' side. Personally I DO think that "how you say it" is every bit as important as what is said. I also go beyond that to look at how posts relate to each other - or don't as they case may be.


----------



## SeptimalTritone (Jul 7, 2014)

^ You're right of course. I should have said "subjective personal stuff" rather than "how" for more clarity.

It's one thing to like certain pieces or know a bit (or a lot) about music history, but how one describes his or her affection of the music through subjective personal words is extremely important.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

SeptimalTritone said:


> I think you guys are taking this a bit too strictly.
> 
> I recently took a Rorschach test as psychological examination, and it turns out that "what you say" isn't nearly as important as "how you say it". Indeed, _how_ people talk about music is a great indication of how they think, what their world view is, what they hold important...
> 
> ...


Out of that list I would be likely to use, with any frequency, only "structure," "well-argued," "unified," and "etc."

OK, SeptimalT, tell me what I'm revealing about myself - and don't be afraid of hurting my feelings. Just make sure your analysis is unified in structure, well-argued, etc.


----------



## MoonlightSonata (Mar 29, 2014)

I don't think you can learn that much by knowing someone's tastes, but perhaps if you know why they like the music that they do you could possibly find out a lot.


----------



## SeptimalTritone (Jul 7, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> Out of that list I would be likely to use, with any frequency, only "structure," "well-argued," "unified," and "etc."
> 
> OK, SeptimalT, tell me what I'm revealing about myself - and don't be afraid of hurting my feelings. Just make sure your analysis is unified in structure, well-argued, etc.


Oh, I'm far too blonde to provide an articulate analysis

_=D_


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

SeptimalTritone said:


> Oh, I'm far too blonde to provide an articulate analysis
> 
> _=D_


Well, that was unified, at least. Thanks.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

The most obvious example of this, for me, is the fighting about "modern" music here on TC. The embrace or rejection of modern music is revealing in of itself, or rather the _way_ in which people embrace or reject it - varying degrees of open- and closed-mindedness. Though I don't mean a simple equation of modern = open-minded and anti-modern = closed-minded.

I brought up another more specific example in the current Shostakovich thread, but it seems to have got lost in the Russia-v-West d!ck-measuring contest (or whatever the hell that argument is), which was that one's attitude to the 1st movement of Shostakovich's 7th symphony might be indicative of a broader attitude regarding the deliberate use of banality in art, which itself indicates an even broader attitude regarding how the world should work.

Actually something simple like one's use of a word such as "great" in the context of a composer or piece of music suggests some pointers as to how one sees the entire universe, I think.


----------



## Guest (Apr 26, 2015)

A topic is more than a topic, it is a vehicle by which we expose aspects of our personality of course. This may or may not be intential or direct, but it is bound to occur. "Leaking."


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Nereffid said:


> The most obvious example of this, for me, is the fighting about "modern" music here on TC. The embrace or rejection of modern music is revealing in of itself, or rather the _way_ in which people embrace or reject it - varying degrees of open- and closed-mindedness. Though I don't mean a simple equation of modern = open-minded and anti-modern = closed-minded.


The very idea that there is such an entity as "modern music," about which one can generalize and which one can embrace or reject on the basis of such a generalization, reveals something about a way of thinking, does it not? Yet, any great haste to say what it reveals might also be revealing. Of what, I wouldn't presume to know - which is surely revealing in itself. Or do I reveal too much by suggesting that?

You, Nereffid, have revealed yourself to be a person of subtle intelligence and humor. If anyone can figure out what the above reveals, you can. Just please don't reveal your findings.


----------



## AnotherSpin (Apr 9, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> I think people do reveal themselves most in talking about the things they love.


 I think people are more true to themselves when they talk about the things they hate.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

AnotherSpin said:


> I think people are more true to themselves when they talk about the things they hate.


Well, the person each man knows best is himself. :devil:


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> Well, the person each man knows best is himself. :devil:


That is the funniest thing that I've seen all day :lol:


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

SeptimalTritone said:


> It's one thing to like certain pieces or know a bit (or a lot) about music history, but *how one describes his or her affection of the music through subjective personal words is extremely important.*


Anyone who spends much time on this forum discovers that the best way to do that is:

_Very carefully!_


----------



## AnotherSpin (Apr 9, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> Well, the person each man knows best is himself. :devil:


 Do not be funny... The fundamental problem is people do not know themselves.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

If I look at my taste in music, I like melody, and I like songs and dances and always have. I like early music & baroque, and folk music.

If I look at my posts, I am always playing safe, trying to draw analogies with language or literature, or admitting to my lack of knowledge. If I can, I'll make a joke. 

From these traits, I would judge that I am a simple traditionally-minded soul, passionate about words, truthful, but with a streak of horse-sense about making claims that might be impossible to back up. 

But there again, this analysis could just be me at my most Machiavellian and disingenuous...


----------



## Guest (Apr 27, 2015)

Ingélou said:


> If I look at my taste in music, I like melody, and I like songs and dances and always have. I like early music & baroque, and folk music.
> 
> If I look at my posts, I am always playing safe, trying to draw analogies with language or literature, or admitting to my lack of knowledge. If I can, I'll make a joke.
> 
> ...


At least you can spell!


----------



## Dim7 (Apr 24, 2009)

Unlike Ingelou, I hate melody. I find it confusing when pitches change from one to another in music.


----------



## Guest (Apr 27, 2015)

Dim7 said:


> Unlike Ingelou, I hate melody. I find it confusing when pitches change from one to another in music.


I wondered why you were so keen on didgeridoo sonatas.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

dogen said:


> I wondered why you were so keen on didgeridoo sonatas.


Not to mention the Kazoo Koncertos & Jew's-Harp Partitas.


----------



## Guest (Apr 27, 2015)

Ingélou said:


> Not to mention the Kazoo Koncertos & Jew's-Harp Partitas.


With your Scottish predisposition, I bet _you're_ a fan of Duet for Two Prepared Bagpipes.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Only if it's the composer's Percussive Version, with spoons, bones and bodhrans.


----------



## Dim7 (Apr 24, 2009)

EdwardBast said:


> I have found the statement to be true, but for me, what people say about their tastes in rock or pop has always seemed more revealing than what they say about their preferences in classical music


Okay, so let's say a hypothetical person who likes classical also likes this. What that would reveal about that person? Not that I'm that person, or have ever been, just randomly asking a hypothetical question for no reason.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Dim7 said:


> Okay, so let's say a hypothetical person who likes classical also likes this. What that would reveal about that person? Not that I'm that person, or have ever been, just randomly asking a hypothetical question for no reason.


As is your wont. 
(Hey - so your post *is* revealing something!)


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

dogen said:


> With your Scottish predisposition, I bet _you're_ a fan of Duet for Two Prepared Bagpipes.


Some say the only way to prepare a bagpipe is to fill the chanter and drones with cement and puncture the bag - the result is a version of 4'33" - with interesting chromatic effects as the pipers try and blow and go interesting colours (much like shawm players). An alternative is not to puncture the bag. In this case, stand well back as the resulting explosion when either the bag or the piper explodes can be dangerous.


----------



## Guest (Apr 27, 2015)

EdwardBast said:


> I have found the statement to be true, but for me, what people say about their tastes in rock or pop has always seemed more revealing than what they say about their preferences in classical music - for folks who have definite preferences in both, that is. I'm not sure why this is the case.


Could you give any examples? (I have feet in several musical camps...)



EdwardBast said:


> Maybe it is because people are less guarded when the stakes are low?


In what way are "the stakes" low? 



EdwardBast said:


> Or perhaps it is because there is historical and critical consensus about the greats of classical music that anyone can read themselves into, whereas the critical positions in rock are more fragmented and contingent on ideology, social class, and so on? So maybe it is easier to know how to construct and "hide behind a cultivated persona and present the person we'd like to be," as a distinguished quacker above put it, in the world of classical music, whereas it wouldn't occur to many to be so careful about their tastes in rock?


Hmmm...I could suggest there is apparently some sort of consensus in popular music (the Beatles, Madonna, Bob Dylan et al) so is it not just as easy to "hide behind" this consensus?


----------



## Celloman (Sep 30, 2006)

If I told you that my favorite piece of music was _Tristan und Isolde_ (which it is), you might say that I was introspective, slow/quiet, and melancholic. And you'd be right.

I think that personality plays a significant role in listening styles. If you listen to rock, classical, or jazz - it doesn't matter, but the personality is still there, whether conscious or unconscious. A naturally cheerful person will tend to prefer bright or upbeat music to the dark, depressing kind. Of course, people choose to listen to a variety of temperaments in music, and very often not their own, but this doesn't nullify a preference for one or the other.

Now if someone simply told me that they listened to rock music, this wouldn't tell me anything about the personality of that individual. I would need more information.


----------



## Guest (Apr 27, 2015)

Celloman said:


> If I told you that my favorite piece of music was _Tristan und Isolde_ (which it is), you might say that I was introspective, slow/quiet, and melancholic. And you'd be right.
> 
> I think that personality plays a significant role in listening styles. If you listen to rock, classical, or jazz - it doesn't matter, but the personality is still there, whether conscious or unconscious. A naturally cheerful person will tend to prefer bright or upbeat music to the dark, depressing kind. Of course, people choose to listen to a variety of temperaments in music, and very often not their own, but this doesn't nullify a preference for one or the other.
> 
> Now if someone simply told me that they listened to rock music, this wouldn't tell me anything about the personality of that individual. I would need more information.


How does one take confirmation bias out of the mix? Introspective music that I listen to confirms I am introspective, extraverted music that I listen to is explained in some other way / or ignored/dismissed...?


----------



## Dim7 (Apr 24, 2009)

At least as a child/teenager, I was lethargic & introverted and preferred very fast and energetic music. And even now I prefer bombastic classical over "relaxing", though I'm of calm temperament. So in my case I tend to prefer music that is the opposite of me in character.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Celloman said:


> If I told you that my favorite piece of music was _Tristan und Isolde_ (which it is), you might say that I was introspective, slow/quiet, and melancholic. And you'd be right.


The key is less in what you like and more in how you talk about that like.


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock (Jul 6, 2013)

MoonlightSonata said:


> I don't think you can learn that much by knowing someone's tastes, but perhaps if you know why they like the music that they do you could possibly find out a lot.


I agree on that one.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

I don't think you can learn that much by knowing someone's tastes, but perhaps if you know why they like the music that they do you could possibly find out a lot.

At least as a child teenager, I was lethargic & introverted and preferred very fast and energetic music. And even now I prefer bombastic classical over "relaxing", though I'm of calm temperament. So in my case I tend to prefer music that is the opposite of me in character.

The key is less in what you like and more in how you talk about that like.

I agree with all of this. People of vastly different personality can love the same music for very different reasons. If you've ever listed your musical tastes in a personal ad and ended up at a restaurant across from someone who could talk about nothing but their "recovering" alcoholism (God help me, it's true), you'll know what I mean.

For one thing, Classical music is complex, and different people will fixate on different aspects of it. Some people adore Wagner because he's grand and sensual and exciting. Those people might love the Strauss tone poems for the same reasons. I love Wagner more for his harmonic subtlety and psychological penetration, and have no use for the Strauss tone poems. Which of us are "typical" Wagner lovers, and are any of us like Wagner himself in personality type? The fact that we all love _Tristan und__ Isolde_ won't tell you much - except that we're probably not cynical nihilists. But only _probably_. As MoonlightSonata says, we need to know _why_ people like what they like to deduce anything about them.

So if the ad says that they "love Dufay, Dittersdorf, Nielsen, Ferneyhough, Antarctic camping, collecting tardigrades, and barefoot walks on beds of burning coals"...? Give them a chance. Just be sure to pick a good restaurant.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

I think we judge people a little more on the kinds of music they listen to rather than foods they eat, clothes they wear, books they read, movies and television they watch, art they like/dislike. Musical is something a lot more personal, possibly because it has a very strong power to evoke different thoughts and feelings in different people. Perhaps that's what was meant in the OP. 

In my opinion, it can also work in the reverse process of getting sounds out of the head, onto paper and then played by musicians. The initial sounds heard in the head of the composer aren't things which can be expressed in words, but would just feel exactly like the notes which are needed.

Honestly, I don't know what extra information we can find out about people from their taste in music, but their taste in music is probably more interesting to know than their favourite food or television show.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> I think we judge people a little more on the kinds of music they listen to rather than foods they eat, clothes they wear, books they read, movies and television they watch, art they like/dislike. Musical is something a lot more personal, possibly because it has a very strong power to evoke different thoughts and feelings in different people. Perhaps that's what was meant in the OP.
> 
> In my opinion, it can also work in the reverse process of getting sounds out of the head, onto paper and then played by musicians. The initial sounds heard in the head of the composer aren't things which can be expressed in words, but would just feel exactly like the notes which are needed.
> 
> Honestly, I don't know what extra information we can find out about people from their taste in music, but their taste in music is probably more interesting to know than their favourite food *or television show*.


Maybe so, but I definitely prefer people who keep up with Frasier over people who keep up with the Kardashians.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I think we do identify with the music we love, so that by saying which works (or recordings or genres or whatever) we love, we reveal something about ourselves. I'd even say that to some degree - consciously sometimes, subconsciously more often - we choose to like certain music because of what sort of person we want to be. I know that's controversial, but anyway I think it's true. 

Which is why we have to be nice when we talk about music. If I say "X sucks," inevitably fans of X will be offended.


----------

