# Music listened by musicians and music preferred by the wider public



## Richannes Wrahms (Jan 6, 2014)

In my experiences both groups listen to whatever mixbag of things they please, which makes this distinction useless. 

However, I've encountered people who have told me non-musicians could not enjoy or "understand" certain types of music (serial Webern or avant-garde Carter for example) whilst the "musical elites" and academia can. Or that the music taken into account in various history books doesn't represent the public taste.

Is there any legitimacy to these views? What counts as a musician then? Does the wider public actually understand a thing say Mozart is doing throught the course of a piece? Do even academic musicians actually derive their primary enjoyment or preferences in music from analysis?


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

I have mentioned before that ensembles that program, say, Schoenberg, do so because they believe the music speaks and should be heard, and not to teach people a lesson. Not everyone, but some non-musicians can learn what it says and how it says it.


----------



## Livly_Station (Jan 8, 2014)

Becoming a musician changes your music perception, obviously -- it wires your brain in a certain way. Music training develops your hearing so you can easily distinguish sounds and inner voices, it helps you figure out complex rhythms in order to feel them, and it helps you keep track of long ideas and development. Also, music training gives a person more incentives to listen to more quantity of music (and different styles), which develops your imagination and taste.

Besides that, music training can have some "downsides" that affects people's listening habits. For example, it might cause you overexposure to certain music patterns, so after some time it can lead to fatigue, so you'll only be engaged again by "interesting" music. Another thing is that a musician may get stuck into a perpetual state of mind of overanalyzing the music all the time instead of relaxing and enjoying it.

That said, it's possible fot a "layman" to have an incredibly keen ear, especially if they're music lovers who devote a long time to listening to music. They even become specialists of their favorite genres, having a deep understandment of the tropes and language.

Nevertheless, the average musician will have more knowledge and better hearing than the average music fan. Therefore, you could say that they're two different groups, although there's a gradient and some overlapping.

All that said, these observations don't mean that the opinion of musicians is superior to the opinion of the wider public -- music should suit _you_ as a person, not the other way around. More importantly, musicans don't like the same music (just like everybody else), so you can't make a point that there is some sort of musicians' consensus of what's quality.

At last, it's worth mentioning that some musicians care about if a piece of music is fun to _play_, not only if it's fun to listen to.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I think it goes both ways. 

Obviously musicians are better equipped to understand the technical aspects of music - its their job to study, play, arrange, compose it and so on. Some composers where more respected than loved, and recognition of their talent started among their peers. Franck and Schoenberg are the best examples I can think of. Besides being progressives in terms of their music, they where sought out as teachers by those who wanted to explore the most recent trends.

On the other hand, listeners with little or no training in music can have a sort of strong gut instinct which gives them some amount of insight into music which others may lack. Of past centuries, patrons like Prince Lobkowitz, Prince Ludwig and Nadezhda von Meck come to mind. They had no way of understanding the music of Beethoven, Wagner or Tchaikovsky in any deep technical sense, nevertheless their ability to perceive music led to them backing these composers over others they knew. 

A similar thing can be said of record producers such as Norman Granz and John Culshaw, whose work in securing contracts for so many big names in jazz and classical during the vinyl era ensured that their music can be enjoyed by generations to come.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

> However, I've encountered people who have told me non-musicians could not enjoy or "understand" certain types of music (serial Webern or avant-garde Carter for example) whilst the "musical elites" and academia can. Or that the music taken into account in various history books doesn't represent the public taste.


I think that's probably true, but to be honest in my opinion that's a weakness in the music. When a piece has to be accompanied by a mini-monograph to appreciate it, I think it's somehow "out of touch". You don't need a lot of learning to hear the beauty and symmetry in Bach's six-part Ricercar -- I remember hearing it as a musically ignorant kid -- but as Zoltán Göncz shows (brilliantly, imo) you can spin quite some analysis and prose documentation from it.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

I have no musical training beyond reading notes and playing organ (badly). I can't hear whether a piece is in a certain key or not. But I enjoy selected music from the common practice period to modernism to serialism to atonal to postmodern to pop/rock. In my experience knowledge of musical theories is not a requirement to appreciate (or reject) any of it.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

The audience of musicians is a tiny fraction of the much larger audience of non-musicians. No composer with any sense aims at a tiny audience for his work, but hopes to find as large an audience and from anywhere he can.

Also, as has been pointed out musicians do not share the same taste in music, in fact, I'd say that because their taste is often very particular it is often hard to find two musicians to agree on music.

Further there are some very knowledgable non-musicians who can appreciate a variety of music with just as much perspicuity as a musician, who because of stylistic blinders may ignore a lot of music which falls outside his primary field. 

And finally, musicians are human beings first, and share with all others a similar way of experiencing music. Yes, some musicians have skills which allow them to "analyze" the music on the fly, but most (I know this true for me) prefer to listen without their analyzing ears on.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

I'd go further and say from my experience here on TC that serious listeners have a more healthy, willing and receptive attitude to all genres within the classical label. Many pro violinists will not know Rachmaninov's Preludes for piano for instance and many pianists will not know much by Paganini...well apart from that well known concert work where they have to play one of his tunes inverted at some point..


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

mikeh375 said:


> I'd go further and say from my experience here on TC that serious listeners have a more healthy, willing and receptive attitude to all genres within the classical label. Many pro violinists will not know Rachmaninov's Preludes for piano for instance and many pianists will not know much by Paganini...well apart from that well known concert work where they have to play one of his tunes inverted at some point..


Serious listeners are always those whose tastes and attitudes align with my own. I agree.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

I know lots of musicians. I don't know anyone who sits down to listen to Webern or Carter for pleasure. In fact, most musicians I know do not collect cds like I do, the only classical literature they know is what they've played in an orchestra and even then really know little about the music. Most spend their time listening to pop music but occasionally have the classical FM station on. The same is true of conductors. I do know one maestro who is as attuned to obscure music as I am - but he's a rarity. I wish it weren't this way, but music schools today do a terrible job of inculcating a love of great music to their students. Most record collectors know more music than most college music professors.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

i always find what i kind of call the "nerd repertoire" interesting- e.g. stuff that seems actually more popular with specific groups of people in the classical audience than performers themselves. Sorabji is like the god-king of the Nerd Repertoire guys (actually most of the ones I can think of are composers of super-virtuosic modernist piano works)


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

fbjim said:


> i always find what i kind of call the "nerd repertoire" interesting- e.g. stuff that seems actually more popular with specific groups of people in the classical audience than performers themselves. Sorabji is like the god-king of the Nerd Repertoire guys (actually most of the ones I can think of are composers of super-virtuosic modernist piano works)


Yeah, and Scriabin.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

The Poem of Ecstasy is a borderline mainstream rep piece. I mean, it was basically Stokowski's signature work to conduct. I think Sorabji performance/recording is extremely limited, though he has prominence in piano enthusiast communities (in no small part due to him always showing up in "hardest ever piano work" lists et al)


Alkan might qualify here as well.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I should have mentioned Nadia Boulanger and Quincy Jones as further examples of _musician's musicians_. As a teacher and producer, respectively, they raised so many musical talents of the past hundred years.



mbhaub said:


> I know lots of musicians. I don't know anyone who sits down to listen to Webern or Carter for pleasure. In fact, most musicians I know do not collect cds like I do, the only classical literature they know is what they've played in an orchestra and even then really know little about the music. Most spend their time listening to pop music but occasionally have the classical FM station on. The same is true of conductors. I do know one maestro who is as attuned to obscure music as I am - but he's a rarity. I wish it weren't this way, but music schools today do a terrible job of inculcating a love of great music to their students. Most record collectors know more music than most college music professors.


Those whose main occupation is music will have a focus or specialisation, so their interests will inevitably be narrower than a music enthusiast. Its also obvious that enthusiasts will have different areas of focus too, but they've got the luxury to branch out as much as they want. Music isn't their day job, its their hobby. I think that's the crucial difference.


----------

