# laziness won't get it done



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

I've read so many 'this music is boring' and 'I don't get it' posts lately, I thought I would offer this advice from Charles Ives:

"Stop being such a God-damned sissy! Why can't you stand up before fine strong music like this and use your ears like a man?"

Seems to apply to folks that find Tchaikovsky and/or Brahms boring as much as it does to those who don't get Mr. Ives (or in this case Charles Ruggles).

The ladies among us should feel free to substitute 'woman' for 'man'. Ives was addressing a man at the time.

:devil:


----------



## Yoshi (Jul 15, 2009)

The only music that I find boring is the pop 'music' that is played everywhere now...


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

> Seems to apply to folks that find Tchaikovsky and/or Brahms boring


What if someone is using his ears like a man which results in deeper insight that lets him see hidden weakneses of many works by these two, while another guy is God-damned sissy and gets satisfied with memorable themes and don't care if there is poor orchestration, conventional and basic harmony, unoriginal facture, cheap sentimentalism and stuff.

It's not that everyone who finds something boring is simply lazy, perhaps it's contrary.

THIS IS BROAD SWORD


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Your sword needs sharpening, Aramis. Maybe butter it will cut.


----------



## Olias (Nov 18, 2010)

I was once told by a music teacher that there were no boring pieces, just boring listeners. Too general of a statement to be completely true but I take the point. The problem with me finding the 2nd piano concerto of Brahms "boring" (for example) is not the fault of the music. The fault lies with me and my lack of ability to connect with the work. I continue to try and embrace the work through study of its form and historical context. After all, the only one who loses out by not finding the work interesting is me.


----------



## Guest (Dec 19, 2010)

A very sensible music teacher.

And a very sensible post indeed.

I want to just bask in its good sense for awhile here....

Mmmmmm.

But seriously (no, wait, I was already being serious), the vast majority of comments about music and greatness and quality and ranking that go on on classical music boards do two things. One, they transmute personal tastes and opinions into immutable and inarguable facts about the music itself. Two, they locate all the important things about music in the music itself, and to a lesser extent in the performance--the listener disappears.

This seems like a contradiction, doesn't it? It comes from splitting off inner from outer reality. Outer reality is the only really real reality, so even if we're really talking about our experiences, our reactions, our tastes, we project those onto the object (in this case, the piece) and voilà everything we say _is_ about the piece.

Of course, we know it's not, hence the disingenuous IMO and IMHOs that litter our posts, hence the putative conflict between greatness as objective qualities of the pieces themselves and "beauty is in the eye of the beholder." And really, there's no conflict. The real situation is that there are sounds and there are ears and there are minds. Sometimes it happens that many minds over many years agree on a particular piece being great. Bach's _St. Matthew Passion,_ Mozart's _Don Giovanni,_ Beethoven's ninth. But how important is that concurrence? When you're sitting in front of the stereo with the Passion on, are you thinking "This is one great piece! This is the supreme masterpiece of the Baroque. Bach is the best composer ever" or are you caught up in those particular sounds as they impinge on your particular mind? Maybe there are situations, like online forums, where it seems important to maintain that Bach's _St. Matthew Passion_ is a great piece of music or seems important to maintain that it's important to maintain that greatness.

But if you're thinking of all that stuff while you're listening to the piece, then I'd say you're doing a very bad job of listening. And what's a very good job of listening? Do we even know? Are we so focussed on the objects that we have no sense at all of what the subjects are doing or even if they have any real role at all to play? I'd say that only the totality of the situation is important. Only the adventure created when sound waves meet ears, when the minds attached to those ears take note (as it were!) of the sound waves and attend to them and create a complete experience out of it all.

You know, I started this response thinking that laziness was not really the point. But I guess it is. Truly engaged listening takes some effort. Not everything repays the effort. Some things that don't seem to repay it at first eventually end up repaying it with interest. Some things never do. But there's no substitute for engaged and individual listening. We see so often people asking for advice about this or that--trying to find out if something is worth listening to before listening to it. Wanting others (there's your 'test of time' in a nutshell) to do your work for you. But no matter how much advice you get, you still have to listen for yourself before you know. And then, what is it that you do know? That the piece is great or not? Naw. Only whether you can engage with the piece or not. And really, isn't that enough?


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Olias said:


> After all, the only one who loses out by not finding the work interesting is me.


This is true; the music isn't the loser if you don't connect with it.

But... Ives was talking to an audience member who was booing the music. He wanted the guy to open his ear-to-mind pipeline and listen. That act does often require volition, and sometimes it's an effort to keep it open. Sometimes the only payoff for that effort is the knowledge that the music doesn't work for you; you gave it your best shot and didn't connect.

Have you heard the Ruggles work "Sun Treader"? The first time I heard it my main reaction was dismay. Now I consider it immensely powerful and uplifting, but it definitely took an effort to keep the pipeline open.

BTW and FWIW, I made my Brahms PC2 connection via Serkin/Szell.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

some guy said:


> You know, I started this response thinking that laziness was not really the point. But I guess it is. Truly engaged listening takes some effort. Not everything repays the effort. Some things that don't seem to repay it at first eventually end up repaying it with interest. Some things never do. But there's no substitute for engaged and individual listening. We see so often people asking for advice about this or that--trying to find out if something is worth listening to before listening to it. Wanting others (there's your 'test of time' in a nutshell) to do your work for you. But no matter how much advice you get, you still have to listen for yourself before you know. And then, what is it that you do know? That the piece is great or not? Naw. Only whether you can engage with the piece or not. And really, isn't that enough?


You have elaborated my point thoroughly; thanks. To elaborate on yours, I'll just say that not 'engaging with the piece' at first hearing doesn't mean you never will. Ruggles wasn't easy but he was worth it. I'm a failure with Boulez though.


----------



## Olias (Nov 18, 2010)

Hilltroll72 said:


> BTW and FWIW, I made my Brahms PC2 connection via Serkin/Szell.


I haven't given up. I keep coming back to the work from time to time.


----------



## Jean Christophe Paré (Nov 21, 2010)

Why would it be sissy to stand up for yourself and affirm disliking a composer despite others liking him?


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Without listening? Not 'sissy' maybe, depending on how you define the term. Certainly stupid. My take is that such an action is, as the lawyers say, without merit.

:tiphat:


----------



## Jean Christophe Paré (Nov 21, 2010)

Who said without listening? Certainly not I.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Charles Ives, in the 1st post.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Charles Ives, in the 1st post. That is all I wish to say, but the software says that isn't enough. Now there probably is - enough that is.

... so it shows up anyway. But it gives me a chance to wish you and all other members good things for the near and distant future.


----------



## Camilla (Apr 7, 2010)

I don't tend to find any music boring, I find it a shame that many people consider classical music to be such. I suppose young people today are not as connected with classical music and as a result miss out on the feeling you get when hearing it.


----------



## Delicious Manager (Jul 16, 2008)

Camilla said:


> I find it a shame that many people consider classical music to be such. I suppose young people today are not as connected with classical music and as a result miss out on the feeling you get when hearing it.


Those that consider classical music 'boring' are not, in the main qualified to find it anything at all - they don't know it. They might THINK they know what classical music is (heard a piece once which might or might not have been classical music that they didn't immediately like and which had no 'beat'), but, really, they are nearly always talking from blatant ignorance.

I shout a very loud *HOORAY* for HillTroll's post. I have used that Ives quotation (or various of my own corruptions) many times. I abhore the 'lazy listener'. Anyone who dares say to me "I know what I like and I like what I know" is immediately disemboweled by me and forced to eat the results.


----------



## karenpat (Jan 16, 2009)

A lot of people are used to the instantly catchy part of a piece of music. If there isn't a "hook" within a certain time frame then move on to the next song. It would be interesting to connect this debate with the interesting discussion on "instant gratification" where some facebook & twitter addicts, according to scientists, may have trouble processing certain information on a deeper level because they're used to processing just a few lines and then move on to the next.
I'm not judging anyone; it does make sense. However it's scary if our society really is that impatient and superficial.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

karenpat said:


> I'm not judging anyone; it does make sense. However it's scary if our society really is that impatient and superficial.


In the case of facebook/twitter, there may be a different endeavor in play. Those forums are used by many for information gathering - in a hurry. If the first few lines don't match whatever (formal or informal) search criteria are in play, they have to move on.

I don't make a value judgment about the value of the info in those forums, I'm too old and decrepit to give a hoot about the content anyway. I'm just suggesting that music 'appreciation' requires more sink-in time than does finding out who is screwing who, or what Joe Doaks in Kokomo had for breakfast.

:devil:


----------

