# Are your tastes "conventional"?



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Mine certainly are! It seems like my tastes in music are solidly middle-of-the-road, staid, uninteresting, and in fact totally boring. What I like, most people like. What I hate, well, ditto.

How I envy those who can say, "Debussy? Well, obviously you haven't heard Klopweisser. His 'Inverted Structures II', for instance..." Or, "Mozart's 41st is fine in its way, of course, but Kozeluch was doing far more interesting work in the same period..."

How about you? Something or somebody you love that most people only love to hate? Something everybody loves that you utterly detest? Be brave, tell us!


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

A mix of well-known composers and less usual names. Some of the big names score high with me as well (e.g. Bach, Brahms, Mahler, Schubert, Mendelssohn), some not at all (e.g. Handel, Verdi, Bartok). But my favourites also include names such as Barber, Respighi, Moeran and Takemitsu.

My favourite pieces likewise include a mixture of well-known works and rarities - with some of the perennials favourites not scoring at all with me (like Beethoven 9, and Mozart operas).

it all comes down to taste which is of course personal.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I guess I'm mostly conventional, with three qualifications. 

1. I enjoy "weird" music more than almost anyone. Dissonance, odd rhythms, industrial noise, and so on don't bother me or at least they rarely bother me as much as they seem to bother most other people. 

2. Anything too naively sentimental evokes a feeling of disgust in me even though others seem to enjoy it. You can be as sentimental as you want as long as I detect some irony or some self-awareness there. But without a bit of that stuff, I'll sicken sooner than most. 

3. Compared to most people, I bore more quickly of music that I perceive as predictable. If I can hum the second half of it the first time I hear it, I'm probably not gonna like it much. But there is an exception to this too, which is impossible for me to explain. Sometimes music is thoroughly predictable but I can recognize it as well performed. I'm thinking of something like bluegrass or blues, where every song is going to follow a few set patterns rather closely, but I can enjoy that music pretty well anyway if the performers are obviously very talented. 

Otherwise (ie except for the Merzbow), I'm normal.


----------



## Kevin Pearson (Aug 14, 2009)

I listen to a lot of music off the beaten path as anyone who sees my posts well knows. However, I often return to the standard and well known composers to ground myself again. I think I keep a pretty good balance or at least try to.

Kevin


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

One of each: I think Bernd Alois Zimmermann is one of the best composers of the post-war 20th century. I have an intense dislike of Beethoven's 9th Symphony.


----------



## hello (Apr 5, 2013)

The last album I listened to was an hour of the sound of a typewriter. So no.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

science said:


> Otherwise (ie except for the Merzbow), I'm normal.


"Well, aside from the occasional ax murder, I'm a pretty well-behaved person." :lol:


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Depends upon with whom you consult. 

I'm very much, by my estimation and in comparison / contrast to many 'displays of taste' I've seen on TC, and among colleagues, pretty mainstream, and conservative.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

My tastes are 'unconventional'... well, more like there ain't any in particular. I like music from medieval era to 21st C., jazz, blues, bluegrass, folk, country (Willie Nelson type), even some rock(!). I'm pretty sure rap ain't music, but if it followed Ambrosian rules it would be. Maybe I share _science_'s annoyance with the too-predictable, but only slightly; can't hum much of anything unless it's _really_ simple and I've heard it for 50 years or so.


----------



## hello (Apr 5, 2013)

Hilltroll72 said:


> I'm pretty sure rap ain't music.


Oh boy, here we go.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

I like to travel off the beaten path but I don't have to live there. 

There is some merit in shunning the more popular, as often works may be more popular because they appeal to the lowest common denominator. But I think this is less true with classical than with other genres. One should avoid being so esoteric as to be incapable of enjoying works others have heard of.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

I'll listen to anything that I think is interesting. Some of it is downright weird. This is why for one birthday, my wife got me a CD player, but for the next Christmas, she gave me headphones.


----------



## Andreas (Apr 27, 2012)

Quite conventional. I am the Bach-Beethoven-Brahms type, for the most part. The most "obscure" composers that are dear to my heart are Josquin, Hovhaness, Górecki, Nono, Vasks and Honegger. Fairly well known names. I've also recently discovered Silvestrov and Baird.

But there are also famous and popular composers that are completely meaningless for me: Chopin, Rachmaninov, Liszt. In one ear, out the other. Dvorak, Tchaikovsky, Ravel are also not among my favourites. Neither are Grieg, Gershwin and Prokofiev. It's not that I detest any of them, their music simply doesn't speak to me. Plus I have no interest at all in the entire opera repertoire.


----------



## Feathers (Feb 18, 2013)

My tastes are generally quite conventional. I do enjoy some works by obscure composers, but in the end, my favourites are still pieces and names that all serious classical music listeners have heard of. However, I like to think of my conventional taste as giving the music that has stood out after the harsh filter of time its well-deserved appreciation.  After all, the conventional taste is conventional for a reason right?


----------



## ptr (Jan 22, 2013)

science said:


> 1. I enjoy "weird" music....
> 
> 2. Anything too naively sentimental evokes a feeling of disgust...
> 
> ...


I like some of Merzbow's stuff, otherwise I more or less agree with science. If this positions me on the scale of convention don't really bother me, I like music, some more, some less, some not at all, most of the time I'm busy listening to the stuff I like and discovering new stuff!

/ptr


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

Once worked in a classical record shop with a rather non-conventional image, pointing to the limits of various commercial hype phenomena, with a scepticism towards the promotion of Karajan or The 3 Tenors for instance, with an interest in the 19th-20th century unusual repertoire, plus a healthy nostalghia for the often more interesting music-making of earlier musicians, and a critique of HIP-currents. Well-articulated people with large LP collections going back all the way to the 50s. It has no doubt influenced my own taste a good deal.

I´ve grown somewhat tired of much too-conventional or too-virtuoso music from 1700-1850, and I don´t like Italian opera a lot either, including names like Verdi, Donizetti, Rossini, Paganini, Czerny, Lachner etc. But I very often grab an LP or CD, if it features some unknown 20th century composer, especially large works like symphonies and concertos, having the standard works as well in my collection.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

I'm a rule-oriented, conventional person. I like Shakespeare, Tennyson & Jane Austen. I like all the 'big composers'. 
On the other hand, I can be a bit reactionary when faced with 'popular enthusiasm'. I hate things that set out to be clever & funny, especially if people rave about them. I am studying the Suzuki books with my teacher & he likes Weber's Hunters' Chorus (Huntsmen's Chorus?), Paganini's Theme from Witches' Dance, & Dvorak's Humoresque. Too jolly by half. Now I know how Scrooge felt when people wished him a Merry Christmas.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

hello said:


> Oh boy, here we go.


I am NOT going to 'go there,' but relate with some bemusement that once Rap became widely popular and an economic force to be dealt with as per recording sales, there was some urging for the MTV music awards to create a category for it.

MTV did, naming the category "Rap."

Compared to all the other categories, _it is the only category from which the word "music" is (glaringly) absent!_

"The award for best country and western music goes to...."

"The award for best rock music goes to...."

"The award for best Rap goes to...."


----------



## Tristan (Jan 5, 2013)

Most of the classical music I like is pretty conventional, but I also like some lesser-known or oft-panned composers. Don't really care much for experimental and super-dissonant modern classical. I also really enjoy weird Ancient Roman-inspired music like that of Orff's Trionfi (and I wish there were more music like that out there).

In terms of my non-classical music, I like everything from mainstream electronic dance music to weird indie foreign music that no one's ever heard of


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

Hilltroll72 said:


> I like music from medieval era to 21st C., jazz, blues, bluegrass, folk, country (Willie Nelson type), even some rock(!). I'm pretty sure rap ain't music, but if it followed Ambrosian rules it would be. Maybe I share _science_'s annoyance with the too-predictable, but only slightly; can't hum much of anything unless it's _really_ simple and I've heard it for 50 years or so.


Similar to my tastes although I tend to stop about 1900 unless it has some folk elements - Grieg, Grainger et al. Quite agree on Country although out of the Highwaymen I much prefer Johnny Cash and then there's always the Carter family.

I'm trying to work out if that makes me "conventional" because I like music with some tradition behind it or unconventional because that's not strictly "classical" music.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

You could be so conventional that in this trendily-weird world, you're unconventional. 

PS If you think about it, two married people sitting at opposite ends of the house tapping away at separate computers are - well, these days, not weird, but normal...


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

No reason to limit to conventional or off the beaten path, enjoy it all. But obviously it does take time to explore the less well known.


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

Ingenue said:


> You could be so conventional that in this trendily-weird world, you're unconventional.
> 
> PS If you think about it, two married people sitting at opposite ends of the house tapping away at separate computers are - well, these days, not weird, but normal...


Beats sitting in the same room with laptops with the TV on!

Or even with the TV on and watching separate programs on the laptop!:kiss:


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

My tastes are very conventional, that is if the convention is to listen to what you like listening to.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

conventional.


----------



## Skilmarilion (Apr 6, 2013)

Ingenue said:


> You could be so conventional that in this trendily-weird world, you're unconventional.
> 
> PS If you think about it, two married people sitting at opposite ends of the house tapping away at separate computers are - well, these days, not weird, but normal...


Yep  Listening to any sort of classical music indeed goes against the conventions of today's world, unfortunately.

To answer the question, my tastes seem mostly "conventional", particularly with regards to big names of the romantic period (namely Mendelssohn, Tchaikovsky, Grieg).


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Are your tastes "conventional"?

It depends upon how you define "conventional". I am far more into Baroque and "Early Music" than many others. I also love vocal music more than a good many classical music aficionados... including opera! I probably rate both Richard Strauss and Johann Strauss higher than many... but I certainly listen a good deal to what might be deemed to "core repertoire" more than anything else.

Mine certainly are! It seems like my tastes in music are solidly middle-of-the-road, staid, uninteresting, and in fact totally boring. What I like, most people like. What I hate, well, ditto.

And what is wrong with this? Certainly we all have our personal little obsessions... but those who continually go out of their way claiming a dislike of major works and composers and a passion for the esoteric simply strike me as posers... not unlike that geek in high school who hated whatever was popular at the time preferring some obscure, thrasher punk band whose recordings could only be gotten on reel to reel tape imported from the UK. I listen to music for my own personal pleasure, not to impress others or to congratulate myself as to my imagined superiority over everyone else.

How I envy those who can say, "Debussy? Well, obviously you haven't heard Klopweisser. His 'Inverted Structures II', for instance..." Or, "Mozart's 41st is fine in its way, of course, but Kozeluch was doing far more interesting work in the same period..."

Why? Surely there is nothing wrong with delving deeper into what is available in the universe of music... but far too often I have found that there is a definite reason for the lasting popularity of certain composers. Gluck's operas were great... and I have discovered a number of gems in the operas of Haydn, Josef Mysliveček, J.C. Bach, Giovanni Paisiello, Joseph Martin Kraus, etc... but none of this music, fine as it may be, is likely to supplant _Don Giovanni_ or _Le nozze di Figaro_.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Taggart said:


> Similar to my tastes although I tend to stop about 1900 unless it has some folk elements - Grieg, Grainger et al. Quite agree on Country although out of the Highwaymen I much prefer Johnny Cash and then there's always the Carter family.
> 
> I'm trying to work out if that makes me "conventional" because I like music with some tradition behind it or unconventional because that's not strictly "classical" music.


The Carter Family. I think I've mentioned the autoharp in TC, with no glimmer of recognition resulting. You can get pretty, ah, frisky after 1900 with folk elements; Ives was a folksy kinda guy.

I'd be wondering about your relationship with _Ingenue_, if you weren't passing 'likes' back and forth. That's kind of romantic, really.


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

PetrB said:


> MTV did, naming the category "Rap."
> 
> Compared to all the other categories, _it is the only category from which the word "music" is (glaringly) absent!_
> 
> ...


I hear the phrase "rap music" quite often. And MTV didn't name the category.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

My tastes, within classical music at least, are extremely catholic . I don't bother with pop,rock, country etc 
because I've heard them and they just don't interest me much. I'm not a snob and have nothing against these, 
and don't turn up my nose at those who are fans of them . De gustibus non est disputandum .
I'm quite fond of the folk music of the Caucasus, central asia and Siberia, though ; these are the most interesting kinds of world music to me . 
But within classical, I'm curious to try anything, even the most esoteric ,complex avant garde type because I relish a challenge to my mind . I love orchestral music, opera, oratorios and cantatas, lieder , chamber music ,
whatever . My CD collection is extremely eclectic , and has music ranging from Josquin,Palestrina,Lassus, 
Gesualdo, Dufay, Bach,Handel,Gluck, Haydn,Mozart, Beethoven, all the way to living or recently deceased
composers such as Carter,Messiaen, Boulez, Henze, etc. I have a plenty of obscure works by Myaskovsky,
Zdenek Fibich, Schulhoff, Stenhammar,Balakirev, Roussel, Moeran, Bax,Bliss, Brian, Chavez, Enescu, 
D'Indy, Braunfels, Kallinikov, Johan Svendsen, Berwald, Taneyev, John Alden Carrpenter, Ernst Toch,
Creston, Anton Rubinstein, Vitezslav Novak,Josef Suk, Langgaard, Frank Martin, Pavel Haas, 
Unno Klami, and many others . 
I'm extremely curious to hear music by lesser known composers, and lesser known works by famous ones .
I love the established masterpieces of the repertoire very much, but it's frustrating to limit myself to them .
There's so much interesting off-beat repertoire available and so little time ! If I had the money,
the time to listen, and the space to store it, I'd have a pentagon sized collection of CDs and DVDs !


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

PetrB said:


> I am NOT going to 'go there,'


Too late, you went there.



PetrB said:


> "The award for best country and western music goes to...."


MTV being a music video station had categories based on videos rather than music "Best Rap Video", "Best Rock Video", they never had a category for country and western. This anecdote is a convenient fiction.

Thread duty: My tastes are completely conventional, anyone who doesn't listen to what I listen to is unconventional.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

I listen to the same core repertoire as anyone else, so...yes.

Also, I tend to find the music I listen to beautiful or otherwise aesthetically pleasing, so...yes.


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)

_How about you? Something or somebody you love that most people only love to hate? _

Glenn Gould

_Something everybody loves that you utterly detest? _

Wagner,...Mahler,...Cage,...just about anything composed in the last 70 years with few exceptions.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

kv466 said:


> _How about you? Something or somebody you love that most people only love to hate? _
> 
> Glenn Gould
> 
> ...


Lessee... that takes us back to WW2. Bartók, Ives, Ruggles, the 2nd Viennese School and Reger are still in it.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

hello said:


> Oh boy, here we go.


Actually he is quite correct, I haven't read through the whole thread at present so if this has already been said then I apologise, but rap refers specifically to the vocal style and its techniques, _hip hop_ is the music itself.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

GreenMamba said:


> I hear the phrase "rap music" quite often. And MTV didn't name the category.


MTV named its 'award category'

and unless they've changed it, they used to announce that award, 'the award for Rap goes to, omitting 'music,' which they used in every other category / case.

OF COURSE many call it 'Rap Music.'

Some people say Soda: Some say Pop; Some say Soda Pop.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

And I say semantics shmemanitcs.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

I would say my tastes are similar to many here on TC. In that sense I'm conventional for this forum. Based the classical music radio stations I know, the classical music fans I know personally, and most of the anecdotes shared by forum members, I'm decidedly unconventional. TC members in general (at least the ones who post regularly) strike me as vastly more open to new music and significantly more likely to enjoy a wide range of genres from early music through contemporary than the "average" classical music listener (as defined by information mentioned above). That's one of the reasons I love this forum - the members greatly help expand my exploration and increase my enjoyment of classical music.


----------



## Kivimees (Feb 16, 2013)

hello said:


> The last album I listened to was an hour of the sound of a typewriter. So no.


You mean, the the Typewriter Concerto in D by progressive rock group, In Spe?


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I became aware that music mattered more to me than most "average" people. I also realized that my taste in music almost knew no bounds; classical, rock, jazz, blues, country, folk, and this became a very expensive habit to feed. But as a result, I am hardly ever surprised by hearing about some "obscurity" that someone raves about; I've probably heard it.

Also, unlike many listeners, I wanted to understand music in depth, and music theory became a lifelong pastime. There is always a theory text on my night table, and usually one in the bathroom.

But I did realize at some point that the things I think are very important are of absolutely no interest to many people. This makes me appreciate the sharing and interaction in this forum even more, and also disappoints me when I see people rejecting music, or preferring only a certain kind. I've never been a "specialist."


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Kivimees said:


> You mean, the the Typewriter Concerto in D by progressive rock group, In Spe?


I prefer my typewriters in smaller doses.


----------



## Guest (Apr 14, 2013)

Ingenue said:


> I'm a rule-oriented, conventional person. I like Shakespeare, Tennyson & Jane Austen.


I don't see it that way: liking S, T and JA just means that you like S, T and JA, unless you're going to confess to choosing to like those whom you regard as conventional merely because they are conventional. If they give you enjoyment, convention is irrelevant.



StlukesguildOhio said:


> those who continually go out of their way claiming a dislike of major works and composers and a passion for the esoteric simply strike me as posers...


Me too...and yet, of course, they may not be posers, just keen to go off the beaten track.



quack said:


> Too late, you went there.
> 
> MTV being a music video station had categories based on videos rather than music "Best Rap Video", "Best Rock Video", they never had a category for country and western. This anecdote is a convenient fiction.
> 
> Thread duty: My tastes are completely conventional, anyone who doesn't listen to what I listen to is unconventional.


Quack, your economy of posting is admirable!



science said:


> And I say semantics *shmemanitcs*.


If you can say *shmemanitc* you've a remarkable capacity for pronouncing the unpronounceable!



millionrainbows said:


> I became aware that music mattered more to me than most "average" people.


Don't you just love ambiguity? Insert a 'to' between 'than' and 'most' and the ambiguity is resolved.


----------



## Guest (Apr 14, 2013)

KenOC said:


> I prefer my typewrites in smaller doses.


So does Jerry Lewis, whose typrewriter shrinks as he goes...

...come to think of it, I like my Jerry Lewis is smaller doses too!


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

As a classical music listener, mostly conventional with the less conventional mixed in.


----------



## Guest (Apr 14, 2013)

Thanks for reminding me ArtMusic: I failed to do my thread duty.

Wholly conventional (maybe even 'always and only', but I just posted that phrase on another forum and I kinda like it).


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> And what is wrong with this? Certainly we all have our personal little obsessions... but those who continually go out of their way claiming a dislike of major works and composers and a passion for the esoteric simply strike me as posers... not unlike that geek in high school who hated whatever was popular at the time preferring some obscure, thrasher punk band whose recordings could only be gotten on reel to reel tape imported from the UK. I listen to music for my own personal pleasure, not to impress others or to congratulate myself as to my imagined superiority over everyone else.


I think so too.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Though I can like some experimental noise music I haven't really enjoyed Merzbow much, he's seemed a bit cold to me. And while much of hip-hop doesn't appeal to me, some of it which has an interesting rhythm, production or powerful vocal can still interest me. And within classical as well I think the more someone stretches their horizons the more you see and enjoy the possiblities within different styles.


----------



## hello (Apr 5, 2013)

Kivimees said:


> You mean, the the Typewriter Concerto in D by progressive rock group, In Spe?
> 
> View attachment 16371


"Becoming Typewriter" by EAI artist Ryu Hankil (with text by Lo Wie). I recommend it.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Someone said: *I listen to music for my own personal pleasure, not to impress others *

I believe this is a worthy ideal, but an impossibility, like complete honesty or absolute impartiality.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Some do listen to music and even say they like it just to join with a crowd, I've seen that quite a lot with popular music. Some daren't say they dislike something if they think they are going against the consensus, and will say something is a 'guilty pleasure' if they think they like something which is it wouldn't be cool to like.


----------



## ptr (Jan 22, 2013)

science said:


> Someone said: *I listen to music for my own personal pleasure, not to impress others *
> 
> I believe this is a worthy ideal, but an impossibility, like complete honesty or absolute impartiality.


I only listen to classical music to impress others, are there any other alternatives? 

/ptr


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

science said:


> Someone said: *I listen to music for my own personal pleasure, not to impress others *
> 
> I believe this is a worthy ideal, but an impossibility, like complete honesty or absolute impartiality.


What other possible reason could anyone have for opting to listening to music?


----------



## Op.123 (Mar 25, 2013)

I would say mostly yes.


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

Hilltroll72 said:


> ... You can get pretty, ah, frisky after 1900 with folk elements; Ives was a folksy kinda guy.


Hmm! he only went to Communist party meetings (with Pete Seeger) to keep in touch with the common man according to his testimony to HUAC -or do you mean Charles (the composer who played football and sold insurance) rather than Burl?

Copland's another who got into trouble with HUAC. But then again he supported the Communist ticket in 1936.

Is that what you mean by "frisky"?


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

ptr said:


> I only listen to classical music to impress others, are there any other alternatives?
> 
> /ptr


Hmm - 1. Own pleasure 2. Impress others 3. Pass an exam/get a qualification 4. Can't help it - supermarket loudspeaker 5. Want to relax 6. Earn your living in the music or recording industry 7. Want to educate yourself 8. Know someone in the orchestra 9. Sold a tuxedo to someone in the orchestra 10. Stage manager or usherette at venue 11. Live in a thin-walled house next to a musician 12. Switched on the radio, wrong station, & too busy to switch it off...

Reminds one of '101 Uses for a Dead Cat'. Answers on a postcard, please. First prize - valuable piece of toast that looks like Beethoven.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Conventional I guess, as I listen with my ears.


----------



## ptr (Jan 22, 2013)

Ingenue said:


> Hmm..


The unfortunate thing with the internet is that irony translates poorly, my intent was only to mock the quote that science put forth!

/ptr


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Taggart said:


> Hmm! he only went to Communist party meetings (with Pete Seeger) to keep in touch with the common man according to his testimony to HUAC -or do you mean Charles (the composer who played football and sold insurance) rather than Burl?
> 
> Copland's another who got into trouble with HUAC. But then again he supported the Communist ticket in 1936.
> 
> Is that what you mean by "frisky"?


Nah. The Commies were never frisky; more like seriousness oozing from every orifice. Frisky is _happily_ messing with the status quo. Charlie was the guy.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

PetrB said:


> What other possible reason could anyone have for opting to listening to music?


Well, people find pleasure in different ways. Right now, I am finding pleasure in hearing structure in music and in understanding the structure of music that people typically don't pay as much attention to. Its not because I'm a hipster(entirely, though the phrasing of the last bit might be telling, lol), I'm legitimately really curious and have somewhat open ears that also tend to "cling", and also have a working notion that history could have been different depending on who followed whom. I personally get a sense, that knowing something is Beethoven automatically makes it that much greater. Its the big picture of Beethoven that matters, but I was not quick to warm up to him when I started. Mozart always struck me as better. These days, my tastes can be attuned to both. I still listen to things based on composers and not on pure music, because the history fascinates me.

Mendelssohn discovered Bach for example. What if he hadn't? Someone else might have, but probably would not have revived him into prominence, I'd wager, because I suspect revivalist thinking was not that prevalent then.

That being said, maybe academics have their reasons for thinking that this composer is the greatest and such, but its always based on a certain criteria(harmony or melody) or no criteria at all other than the basic law of pleasure. How about people adjust themselves to the stylistic criteria to a composer? Its fun to "tune in" to a composer's voice even if its off the beaten path.

That's my reasoning. I don't know how flawed it is, but its interesting to consider for me.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

ptr said:


> The unfortunate thing with the internet is that irony translates poorly, my intent was only to mock the quote that science put forth!
> 
> /ptr


Relax - I got your irony; I just thought it was too fun an idea not to run with. Thanks, ptr!


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Someone said: I listen to music for my own personal pleasure, not to impress others

I believe this is a worthy ideal, but an impossibility, like complete honesty or absolute impartiality.

Why is this an impossibility? I mean since high-school have you actually purchased a work of music you knew you probably wouldn't like and forced yourself to listen to it just to impress somebody? Certainly I have purchased works of music that I ultimately didn't like because I felt compelled to give the composer a chance... or because others, whose opinions I valued recommended them. But first and foremost I listen for pleasure. I listen to music at home, in my studio, and in my car. I'm not impressing anyone there... and if I absolutely needed to impress others with my esoteric listening habits I could just post of the internet and lie about how much I love Merzbau, erikM, Christian Marclay, F.M. Einheit, etc...


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Ah yes, _Stlukes_, but many of your posts have the _appearance_ of _intended impressment_. It isn't necessary that they have more than one of the attributes of the proverbial duck, assumptions will be made. I have a similar problem... ... Hah, OK, not that similar; provincial clodishness is _my_ specialty.

:tiphat:


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Ingenue said:


> Hmm - 1. Own pleasure 2. Impress others 3. Pass an exam/get a qualification 4. Can't help it - supermarket loudspeaker 5. Want to relax 6. Earn your living in the music or recording industry 7. Want to educate yourself 8. Know someone in the orchestra 9. Sold a tuxedo to someone in the orchestra 10. Stage manager or usherette at venue 11. Live in a thin-walled house next to a musician 12. Switched on the radio, wrong station, & too busy to switch it off...
> 
> Reminds one of '101 Uses for a Dead Cat'. Answers on a postcard, please. First prize - valuable piece of toast that looks like Beethoven.


Quite a lot of that depends on pleasure. It's probably not that easy to learn something unless you find it pleasurable in some way, or find something relaxing unless you like it either. And if it's forced on you and you don't like it perhaps you need to get into a different environment.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> if I absolutely needed to impress others with my esoteric listening habits I could just post of the internet and lie about how much I love Merzbau, erikM, Christian Marclay, F.M. Einheit, etc...


To clarify, are you saying that anyone who claims to enjoy a Merzbow record must be lying in order to affect a certain image?


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Crudblud said:


> To clarify, are you saying that anyone who claims to enjoy a Merzbow record must be lying in order to affect a certain image?


Well, who could possibly like it? They _must_ be either lying, or somehow subhuman....


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Do you mean conventional as in "comics convention (comic-con)" or conventional as in "convenient to listen to?"


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

starry said:


> Quite a lot of that depends on pleasure. It's probably not that easy to learn something unless you find it pleasurable in some way, or find something relaxing unless you like it either. And if it's forced on you and you don't like it perhaps you need to get into a different environment.


Um - Starry, I was suggesting some reasons people might come up with for listening to classical music. It was meant to be a joke. I listen to classical music for pleasure as after reading all the erudite posts on TC I just know I couldn't impress anyone.

But hey, I'm going to write a novel about this so-convincing character who earns her living selling tuxedos to musicians, shops in a supermarket that plays classical music over the tannoy; moonlights by being both stage manager & usherette at a concert hall, & lives in a thin-walled house next to a musician. Said walls will fall down one day & she will see the musician for the first time & they'll live happily ever after in a sparring relationship, thinking up ever more ingenious insults.


----------



## Kivimees (Feb 16, 2013)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Conventional I guess, as I listen with my ears.


I must be unconventional, because I listen with my heart. :tiphat:


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Ingenue said:


> Um - Starry, I was suggesting some reasons people might come up with for listening to classical music. It was meant to be a joke. I listen to classical music for pleasure as after reading all the erudite posts on TC I just know I couldn't impress anyone.


I wasn't making any assumptions about yourself.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

starry said:


> I wasn't making any assumptions about yourself.


Sorry, then, Starry. As you quoted me, I wasn't sure.
I do agree that pleasure must be most people's reason for listening to classical music. I suppose if one had a mad crush on a composer, or something, one might fake an enthusiasm. But to get away with it, one would have to work jolly hard.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

To clarify, are you saying that anyone who claims to enjoy a Merzbow record must be lying in order to affect a certain image?

Well... it is possible that there are other reasons for making such an aesthetic decision... such as a desire to irritate the neighbors or chase off the in-laws who have stayed entirely too long.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I think it's better to avoid the question of whether anyone can really enjoy Merzbow or Handel or whatever, just noticing that many seem to. Let that discussion take place in one of the other eleventy dozen devoted to it. 

SLGO overestimates our consciousness. I may not have consciously, intentionally listened to music in order to impress people, but that doesn't mean that my mind at a deeper level was free of that motivation. 

There's a really good metaphor, popularized or invented I believe by Daniel Dennett or Steven Pinker: the Cartesian theater. But it's unfortunate for Descartes. Though at least some famous parts of Descartes' philosophy were based on his own introspection, his own attempt to "watch" his mind work, he's not alone in that - we could call it the Buddhist theater or probably even the premodern theater. But by any name, it's at best a very incomplete idea of what goes on in our minds. 

We have no more consciousness of what really goes on in our minds than we do of what really goes on in our digestive system or respiration. Of course we can learn in labs or science class about the citric acid cycle, but we never experience ourselves doing it, like, "My goodness, the mitochondria of my muscle cells are really putting out the carbon dioxide! I need to breathe a little faster to get rid of all this carbon dioxide building up in my blood, because it's getting too acidic." We are not totally without physical self-consciousness, but the problem is we can't easily get from our subjective experiences to the objective physical reality behind them. 

And at least since Freud's generation we've realized that the same holds true in our mind and brain. (He was wrong about approximately everything else, but he was right about that.) Using the metaphor of the theater, almost all of the minds activities go on behind the scenes, and the conscious observer cannot get back there. We'll probably never experience ourselves trying to rationalize past behavior in order to reduce cognitive dissonance, but it goes on anyway behind the scenes. Most of us will probably never experience ourselves deciding to believe some religious claim in order to increase our social status, but it goes on anyway behind the scenes. And of course, most of us might never experience ourselves deciding to enjoy certain music in order to increase our social status or reaffirm our identity, but again that is what goes on behind the scenes. 

To be totally honest, I believe that partially because of what I observe in myself and others. As Hilltroll observed, we (not just you and I, but all or almost all of us here) look like we're trying to impress each other. We appear to desire approval.

But far more importantly than anything I could personally or anecdotally observe, it also seems like the inference to the best explanation of what experimental psychologists have found. 

A more interesting (to me) reason I believe we use music as a social strategy is because I think that is why we evolved musical behavior in the first place. For hundreds of thousands or millions of years, the greatest threat to our ancestors' reproductive success was not predators or starvation, but the coordinated violence of other hominids. The only way to protect themselves was to live in strong groups that could defend themselves against other groups or, even better from a reproductive point of view, take advantage of the relative weakness of other groups. But of course any group also has competing interests within it, sort of like centripetal forces of individual interests that threaten to disintegrate the group, rendering it vulnerable. They became our ancestors, rather than the victims of our ancestors, in large part because they succeeded at making stronger groups than others. So they evolved all kinds of ways to constantly re-create or reaffirm their identities as groups and our individual roles within the group. The most powerful ways are evidently culture: religion, music, dance, dialects, self-adornment, artistic traditions, and so on. Just as we crave sugar and fat because craving sugar and fat worked for our ancestors, so we do these cultural behaviors because they worked for our ancestors. 

We'll never be overly conscious of our motivations for such things - no one, I'll guess, ever thought, "I'm going to say 'warsh' rather than 'wash' in order to impress my peers," or "I'm going to enjoy Beethoven and Merzbow in order to impress my peers," but the fact that we're not conscious of making decisions like that doesn't mean that we don't in fact make decisions like that. In fact these decisions probably need to remain behind the scenes in order to be most effective, since people tend to scorn people who appear to try too hard to impress other people. 

It's hard to escape: I'm pretty sure that the reason we ordinarily don't want to admit that social ambitions affect our musical preferences is because admitting that would undermine the strategy of our social ambitions. But just now I probably have a different strategy: arguing that social ambitions affect my musical preferences, especially subconsciously, must be at some level a strategy for me! We probably ought to be a little humbler about our consciousness, but we don't have to scorn ourselves for all this: these strategies can work out together productively, for instance by enabling us to create and enjoy wonderful music or to think more deeply about the mysteries of human behavior.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

I think I may have read the same book you did about the foundations; strong arguments, but I remember not buying some of them. Still, those ulterior motives that are so 'interior' that we aren't aware of them, that I'll buy.

"I have looked at them shifty buggers, and they is us."

[Apologies to Pogo]


----------



## CypressWillow (Apr 2, 2013)

I'd say my musical tastes are pretty conventional. Feels odd to say that, because I think of myself as a unique and special individual, eh? But then I go and enjoy something which I don't understand in the least. Perhaps even we conventional types have an unconventional side?
I really like this and haven't a clue:


----------



## hello (Apr 5, 2013)

Mahlerian said:


> Well, who could possibly like it? They _must_ be either lying, or somehow subhuman....


Some people say the same about classical listeners.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

science said:


> We have no more consciousness of what really goes on in our minds than we do of what really goes on in our digestive system or respiration.


Yet, you seem to be quite sure of what goes on in our subconscious minds, why? You have some interesting theories, which may or may not have some truth to them but they remain that - _theories_. If Freud (someone who had dedicated so much of his life to the study of the subconscious mind and psychology) was actually "wrong" about most things as you suggest, what makes you so sure you are right?


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

tdc said:


> Yet, you seem to be quite sure of what goes on in our subconscious minds, why? You have some interesting theories, which may or may not have some truth to them but they remain that - _theories_. If Freud (someone who had dedicated so much of his life to the study of the subconscious mind and psychology) was actually "wrong" about most things as you suggest, what makes you so sure you are right?


Well, I'm not _sure_, and I think I indicated that several times with phrases like "I think," "I believe," "probably," "might." It is generally my habit to use such things to indicate the level of confidence with which I hold a belief. It's hard for me to believe you got "you seem to be quite sure" or "you so sure you are right" out of what I actually wrote.

Anyway, very little of the the stuff in that post represents original thought on my part. Most of it is just standard Psych 101 at this point, and the ideas about evolution have been tossed around a lot in the last 20 years or so.

It's interesting that sometimes I'm criticized for saying "I think" and "I believe" too much, and now for not saying it enough. I actually had more of that in there but deleted them because I was thinking of of a conversation from awhile back on this site where I was criticized about that. From now on I'll suit myself.


----------



## Kazaman (Apr 13, 2013)

tdc said:


> Yet, you seem to be quite sure of what goes on in our subconscious minds, why? You have some interesting theories, which may or may not have some truth to them but they remain that - _theories_. If Freud (someone who had dedicated so much of his life to the study of the subconscious mind and psychology) was actually "wrong" about most things as you suggest, what makes you so sure you are right?


Freud's work hardly constitutes the cutting edge of psychological theory ...


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Kazaman said:


> Freud's work hardly constitutes the cutting edge of psychological theory ...


I don't know whether tdc has a background in literary theory, but from what I gather Freud remains pretty influential in that field. I wonder how he'd react to find out that he has so little influence in contemporary psychology but so much in literature?


----------



## Kazaman (Apr 13, 2013)

science said:


> I don't know whether tdc has a background in literary theory, but from what I gather Freud remains pretty influential in that field. I wonder how he'd react to find out that he has so little influence in contemporary psychology but so much in literature?


Critical theory, that strange family of humanities research disciplines, seems to use (actually, often misuse) the largely obsolete ideas of Freud, et al. Some critical theorists are even able to pass as serious social scientists and philosophers (like Zizek). It's really quite disturbing.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

science said:


> I don't know whether tdc has a background in literary theory, but from what I gather Freud remains pretty influential in that field. I wonder how he'd react to find out that he has so little influence in contemporary psychology but so much in literature?


Yes, I know this, and (@ kazaman) I realize Freud's work "hardly constitutes the cutting edge of Psychological theory". I wasn't trying to advocate or defend Freud in my post, just asking a question, and pointing out that at one time theories that were more popular have been discarded. Science thank you for your answer and to avoid derailing this thread any further I will leave it at that.


----------



## Guest (Apr 15, 2013)

Science is right.

One thing I am conscious of is that when I am asked my taste in music, I am aware of thinking that how I offer a selection of what I like might have an impact on the response from the questioner. Keen to seem neither a dullard, nor someone trying to impress, I try to choose a mixture of what I think will impress or offend in equal measure.

Only an insensitive blunders on with absolutely no awareness of the impact on others of what they say and do. This Forum is able to survive as it does because of the degree of sensitivity to others' reception in operation amongst its members.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

MacLeod said:


> Science is right.
> 
> One thing I am conscious of is that when I am asked my taste in music, I am aware of thinking that how I offer a selection of what I like might have an impact on the response from the questioner. Keen to seem neither a dullard, nor someone trying to impress, I try to choose a mixture of what I think will impress or offend in equal measure.
> 
> Only an insensitive blunders on with absolutely no awareness of the impact on others of what they say and do. This Forum is able to survive as it does because of the degree of sensitivity to others' reception in operation amongst its members.


This doesn't really have much to do with science's point though, (at least the point we were debating) because science was talking about subconscious mental processes and you are talking about conscious mental processes.

edit - perhaps science was talking about both, but I don't think I consciously listen to music for the same reasons you describe, why I unconsciously do it, I don't know. Sometimes I don't say anything when I don't like something as I don't want to offend, but I like what I like and I have no problem telling people what I like, and I don't consciously feel its about impressing people.


----------



## Guest (Apr 15, 2013)

tdc said:


> This doesn't really have much to do with science's point though, (at least the point we were debating) because science was talking about subconscious mental processes and you are talking about conscious mental processes.


Let me clarify. I was responding, initially, to



science said:


> Someone said: I listen to music for my own personal pleasure, not to impress others
> 
> *I believe this is* a worthy ideal, but *an impossibility, like complete honesty or absolute impartiality.*


First, because the subconscious, as science explains, can have an effect on our thoughts and behaviours that we are unaware of. Second, because once someone makes an idea conscious, it's difficult not to proceed without reference to it.


----------



## Avey (Mar 5, 2013)

Skipping beyond the pages of pseudo-intellectual _conscious this, conscious that_, I want to say two things:

First, I concur with the (relevant) remark that conventional is listening to what you enjoy. I am conventional; aren't we all?

Second, *Ken*, your thread has run off the rails, and you are nowhere to be found; What Say You?


----------



## Guest (Apr 15, 2013)

Avey said:


> Skipping beyond the pages of pseudo-intellectual _conscious this, conscious that_,


On the other hand, insensitivities still abound!


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Avey said:


> Second, *Ken*, your thread has run off the rails, and you are nowhere to be found; What Say You?


Huh? I say, read Jeremy Denk on coffee and Steven Isserlis for a quick pick-me-up:

As it happens, the place where Steven and I were staying is hosted by a lovely generous woman named Doris who, as I learned from a previous stay, makes incredibly weak coffee. You can sort of infer the weakness of the coffee from the calmness and coziness of the cottage she runs. It's part of the whole gestalt of the place. Knowing this crucial piece of information, I brought my own kettle and cone and filters and a small Ziploc bag of ground beans. How else is one to withstand Oberlin in early February, at the epicenter of winter?

I brought just enough beans for one person (myself) to make it through two mornings. Let me make this absolutely clear: I could have brought more, but I did not. Now cut, after ablutions, and me padding down two flights of creaky stairs in stocking feet, to a scene where Steven and I are sitting across from each other at a big wooden table. My kettle is humming away behind me. I am slowly then pouring hot water over my beans while Doris brews Steven some of her trademark brew.

Probably you don't even need me to tell you how this turns out. I couldn't have really planned it better. I lift my cup to my lips, it's quite delicious, I smack my lips in appreciation. Meanwhile Steven is taking his first sip of Doris' coffee. The look on his face: a sculpted masterpiece of resentment. My ongoing cries of pleasure. Steven's whispered hisses. My giggles. Doris coming in to offer Steven more coffee. Mmm, I say, marvelous coffee, downing the last of my mug. It was musical, predestined, collaborative, part of an endless series of irritations I have visited upon Steven over time, like Bach's explorations of all the iterations of harmony and counterpoint.

What's so satisfying about Steven is that once he grabs hold of some injustice, he gnaws on it for days, months, years. He mentioned my coffee behavior to everyone we met later that day, professors who don't care, random staff, outreach coordinators, page-turners, whatever and whoever, he wanted everyone to know. But the wonderful thing is, I think all of them, having met Steven, understood exactly why I did it, and why I'd do it (with love in my heart) again and again and again.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

> Someone said: *I listen to music for my own personal pleasure, not to impress others *
> 
> I believe this is a worthy ideal, but an impossibility, like complete honesty or absolute impartiality.


Who cares about absolute standards? That's the way I've always listened to music, and most of the time it went further in the other direction: *I listen to music for my own personal pleasure, despite what others think. 
*
This attitude came about when I was living at home with a perpetually angry, disgruntled, frustrated father who could not tolerate "noise," and an overly pious mother who would have _freaked-out_ if she had heard Frank Zappa's "Brown Shoes Don't Make It." Thus, I sought solace in my headphones.

Hey, this was dangerous, volatile stuff; these were dangerous, volatile times, and these were dangerous, volatile people.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Kivimees said:


> I must be unconventional, because I listen with my heart. :tiphat:


Does it give you a steady beat?


----------



## hello (Apr 5, 2013)

Avey said:


> Skipping beyond the pages of pseudo-intellectual _conscious this, conscious that_, I want to say two things:


Misusing "Pseudo-intellectial" is a tell-tale sign of a closeted pseudo-intellectual.


----------



## Selby (Nov 17, 2012)

Crudblud said:


> Actually he is quite correct, I haven't read through the whole thread at present so if this has already been said then I apologise, but rap refers specifically to the vocal style and its techniques, _hip hop_ is the music itself.


Hip Hop is a culture. It includes breakdancing, graffiti, and the aesthetics of dress. The music is comprised of rapping to beats. Usually referred to as rap. And it is, of course, music. Music I do not care for, but music nonetheless. If Schönberg is music certainly Mos Def is also.

Not that Wikipedia is the authority, nonetheless... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hip_hop


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

A part of it is and a large part of it isn't, when compared to the majority of the population.
I gave up sharing my tastes with friends a long time ago when I realized that not everyone has the same interest, fascination, dedication and patience for music, or even _sound_ in general. They simply have no intrinsic motivation to explore music beyond what is (very) popular and easy. To them music is just another form of entertainment meant for quick satisfaction. Not that there is anything wrong with that. I realize this sounds condescending but it really isn't meant that way. What I mean is that not everyone has the same level of interest in music and that people with a lower interest in music aren't very likely to end up listening to Schoenberg, for example.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

KenOC said:


> How about you? Something or somebody you love that most people only love to hate? Something everybody loves that you utterly detest? Be brave, tell us!


I love the music of Handel. And I utterly hate noise music (I would even say ban the damn noise if it was ever played in public).

Am I conventional?


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> I love the music of Handel. And I utterly hate noise music (I would even say ban the damn noise if it was ever played in public).
> 
> Am I conventional?


Are you at a Sonic Youth concert or in a classical music forum?


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

science said:


> Are you at a Sonic Youth concert or in a classical music forum?


Classical music forum. I'm not sure what is Sonic Youth concert. I mentioned noise music because some consider it as classical music here at TC.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Classical music forum. I'm not sure what is Sonic Youth concert. I mentioned noise music because some consider it as classical music here at TC.


Ah. Well, I don't do semantics. Listen and let listen.


----------

