# People's resistance to change & music...



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

There's a saying that people are most resistant to change.

In life this is true, I think we can all relate to it. Things like breaking up with a partner, or the death of a loved one, or moving house, or losing your job can really be hard to deal with. There are various reactions to this, from getting on with life, to shutting down, to thinking too much about these things, and so on.

Of course, positive changes can also bring new challenges. Eg. reversing the above things - like forming new relationships or friendships, the birth of a child or getting a new job and so on.

So I think its a bit tough for us to judge others who are resistant to new things in music. New things to the individual listener, I mean, not necessarily new/contemporary music. Today Coag - another Aussie member of this forum - talked of his changing taste, and in my response I talked of things that bought about changes of taste for me over the years:

http://www.talkclassical.com/22499-change-taste.html#post385443

So what do you think about resistance to change in relation to music? If it is a natural part of life, do you think that inevitably everyone will resist something or other in terms of music? Is it okay to just be aware of our resistance, so with that awareness we can maybe change our position over time? Is it right to condemn people here for expressing resistance to certain types of music, especially the types we as individuals might love? Does it make sense to try and break down people's resistance to certain types of music, or is resistance ultimately a thing that is best dealt with by the individual listener? Is it up to them whether they want to leave it in place or change it? Can you accept that different listeners will have different rates of change, some might find certain changes of their taste easy, others the reverse.

So I welcome people's thoughts on these types of questions and other issues relation to this topic.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Change in one's taste or apparent resistance to such is largely driven by one's preference, and one's overall listening journey. Maybe one day Sid James might enjoy lengthy German operas by Richard Wagner. Maybe one day I might enjoy phyically painful loud noises by Merzbow and other Japanese underground-whatevers. But at the moment, it seems we are quite resistant to the respective genres.

The reality for many people however, is not so extreme. I have began to listen to more symphonic pieces / orchestral works composed around after 1950. While I do listen to works composed during the last five or six decades, my taste is somewhat resistant to embracing them as much as I do works from centuries earlier. But is resistant the right word? I have a few dozen symphonies post 1950 on my shelves that I have listened to once or twice but haven't got the urge to re-visit any time soon. This is probably where preference has a bigger steer than resistance (where I am resisting Merzbow and co because it just sounds physically painful and mentally questionable by those around me greeted with a big  ).


----------



## Turangalîla (Jan 29, 2012)

I am pondering an analogy between changes in musical opinions and the physical property of inertia: people have a tendency to continue to like music that they have always liked and to resist music that their preconceived opinions tell them they should not like (even if they have not even heard such music). Just like how moving objects want to continue in the way they are going, and non-moving objects want to continue sitting there, just because they always have been.

Sorry, my physics brain is getting to me...


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Thinking of the flame wars and cross-directional polarized camps of 'resistance' demonstrated in this forum, to wit, especially surrounding the modern, contemporary, atonal vs. old school, tonal, camps, I am reminded of how few are ready to 'change' until they are, uh, ready to change. It seems to be a concrete impasse, which makes me think "It is Nearly impossible to change people's characteristic behavior." - or their modes of thought

The most frustrating part is that when in conversations with individuals, one on one, I've had good success in assessing their personal taste, even if they have not defined it, and second-guessing what for that individual is the next 'accessible step,' requiring a minimum of 'work' on their part, to bring them to newer music and repertoire.

Often there is a progression, even those like myself who like to think we are completely open to trying anything new have 'liimits.' The progression is almost always chronological, i.e. if you like late romantic you might try - (ex. Nielsen symphony no. 5.) the idea being to point the individual to the next step, hoping to suggest just the right repertoire which still has enough of a style and vocabulary for that listener to identify with as 'familiar' while still gently and gradually stretching their boundaries.

But it can also be rather like trying to convince someone learning to ride a bicycle with the training wheels on -- that the only way to find the their center of balance (i..e. 'get it') is in applying more energy to get up speed enough and then trust in the forward momentum. The irony is they will not know they can abandon their training wheels until they abandon the training wheels and be willing to risk skinning their knee. A jump in taste risks no physical harm, yet people behave as if it might really cause great bodily harm....

Too, musical tastes are highly personal, idiosyncratic from individual to individual, and most individuals are extremely rife with all sorts of psychological associations and emotional-sentimental attachments - I swear that some use music, older music, to 'escape' the present time, and they feel like it is literally visiting a past (non-real and idealized) which never in reality existed -- i.e. a sort of sentimental tourism. That not meant as criticism, I just believe it is something which is often enough true about some music lovers.

Anyone hoping to bring one of this particular "sentimental tourist" type 'to a newer land,' is battering the sentimental tourists' private and imagined safe haven and their escape valve: to continue to ram those walls is both dangerous, unkind and wholly counterproductive. It best to recognize when a listener is a sentimental tourist and move on to another less attached to that particular drug of choice, because any suggestion of change or argument to 'try the new' is futile. The tourists literally 'do not want to go,' where you are urging them to go... i.e. art which may reflect the modern sensibility.

I wish that everyone knew the precise meaning of 'semiotic' and then thought about what those semiotic icons in their personal store are. Recognizing those and what expectations they trigger within us often helps remove previously embedded subconscious barriers or hurdles, and then a willingness to explore, change, has a chance to take place.

There are, in both camps, people who argue rather inanely about tonality being 'organic' or 'mathematically sound' (and similar finer points re: various tunings, pitch levels, and other minutia) and they use similar 'supports' to argue pro / con - modern / contemporary.

Any musical 'system,' scale, form, instrument, tuning system is anything but 'organic. natural, or adhering to or parallel with mathematical principles or laws, yet so many justify their musical limits or aesthetics based on those arguments. I see those who hold and maintain those associations and positions as being virtually crippled in a more basic 'straight to the core' perception of music - how can it be heard as just what it is with all that applied non-musical mental chatter running? Those preoccupations keep one from 'just listening' to hear 'what it is.'

*Any and all music we know of is a conceit -- and arbitrarily arrived at* -- and much which established it and now seems to many as 'written in stone' is not written in stone, not written anywhere. It is nearly impossible to communicate to minds laden with preconceptions and a running mental chatter so busy with non-musical argument that those arbitrary conceits are 'true': those so engaged can not possibly 'get at the meaning of s piece:' that same mind-set makes impassible barriers to being open to anything not fitting within those limited conceits and existing expectations. [I suppose that is a dichotomy, since by definition, too, classical music has always demanded the attention of the intellect to 'track it' in order to make sense of what we hear.]

If music were accepted as 'all a conceit' or 'aggregate of conceits,' and the personal semiotic icons each of us have within us about music were recognized for what they are, I think a lot of the resistance would melt away, and some sanity would enter into what and how we think of music. That done, a person just might open up to all the possibilities.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Sid James said:


> Is it right *to condemn people here* for expressing resistance to certain types of music, especially the types we as individuals might love? Does it make sense to try and *break down people's resistance* to certain types of music, or is resistance ultimately a thing that is best dealt with by the individual listener?


No, these questions are a _distortion._ *I do not "condemn" people for expressing resistance to music I love, nor do I attempt to 'intercede' and break down their resistance to certain music. *

*I'm simply defending the honor of the music and composers I love. *When you characterize smears and put-downs of modernism and its composers as simply *members* _ "expressing resistance to certain types of music,"_ you are _objectifying their insults to modernism._

These are _"ad-hominems toward composers,"_ which technically escape classification as "member-to-member" ad hominems. *These smears are better characterized as "oblique ad-hominems,"* because they are directed at the composers and music that some members love.

When any member "defuses" these insults to modern music, smoothing them out to being other member's "expressions of resistance," then they are defending this slanderous (to composers) behavior, and *connecting it to members.* Not good!

Remember my warning, for your own defense:

*WARNING!* Do not take bait of this nature, as when a member insults a form of music, or worse yet, a composer.

_This type of baiting is being done to provoke responses of a personal nature. The baiter then lodges a complaint with moderators._

Ironically, the guidelines allow one to bash and insult forms of music, public figures and great composers, but *personal member-to-member insults result in warnings and bannings. *

*Do not take the bait! **The members who use these tactics are playing off of your love of said music or composer, and drawing you in to personal ad-hominem territory.*


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

millionrainbows said:


> Ironically, the guidelines allow one to bash and insult forms of music, public figures and great composers, but *personal member-to-member insults result in warnings and bannings**.*


Perhaps the moderators should consider a rules revision to prohibit criticisms of forms of music and great composers. I assume minor composers will still be fair game.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> No, these questions are a _distortion._ *I do not "condemn" people for expressing resistance to music I love, nor do I attempt to 'intercede' and break down their resistance to certain music. *
> 
> *I'm simply defending the honor of the music and composers I love. *When you characterize smears and put-downs of modernism and its composers as simply *members* _ "expressing resistance to certain types of music,"_ you are _objectifying their insults to modernism._
> 
> ...


Some here seem to be of the extreme you've tagged. For those, who sometimes dribble in something actually intelligent, but 90% of the time contribute nothing, drip snobbish sarcasm rather than say anything, really about the topic, I've decided their 10% of intelligent comments are not worth reading, or most importantly, responding to in any way. It's a selective form of shunning I will be doing. I wish those of any age with a shorter fuse or more emotive reactions who do take that bait would also arrive at a similar conclusion.

If there is not a wire connected to a button, the button being pushed brings no reaction. I've seen this in action, the button pushers are so used to the bell ringing that when it doesn't they are pretty flabbergasted - and frustrated in their sport. They either figure out that approach no longer works and adapt, change it is to be hoped into someone more interesting, or they don't.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

KenOC said:


> Perhaps the moderators should consider a rules revision to prohibit criticisms of forms of music and great composers. I assume minor composers will still be fair game.


Don't insult the dead! They can't speak for themselves. And that's where I (or anyone) come in! _But not to the point I feel my identity is found in them,_ that can _never _be the solution, and that will lead to me being offended _personally _at an attack on a favorite composer.

The only insults I can't stand about composers is distortion of truths (exaggerating bad things about them, minimizing the good things) and simple false accusations. You can call them a bad composer, uninspired, noisy, etc. all you want,_ if you can back your stance._ If you can't back your stance, that's a false accusation, the way I see it. And if you can back your stance, I'll accept it, although that might not change my personal opinion of that composer anyhow.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Thanks for all your thoughts.

@ millionrainbows - go easy on me, this thread was not much more but in response to Coag's thread that he did just before I did this. I now realise its maybe duplicating issues a bit, people have talked of similar things there. I could have put my opening post there, but nevertheless, I think the responses here have warranted me doing this thread.

However, I have to put it strongly that recent heated debates on this forum where at the back of my mind when doing this thread too. I can't deny that, but its not about excluding any views to do with this topic.

@ PetrB -



PetrB said:


> ... A jump in taste risks no physical harm, yet people behave as if it might really cause great bodily harm....


That's right, with testing our taste in music - eg. trying to broaden it - we've got nothing to lose. Maybe we've got something to gain? & in my time here I've seen people changing their focus of listening, go through different phases, and I've done this myself. There's no risk other than maybe realising that old cliche - the only thing that is guaranteed to happen in this world is change itself. Not many listeners stay the same, stay nailed down onto the same spot, immutably. Most listeners will go through changes, whether subtle or not so subtle. It can be incremental or in huge leaps and bounds. So I think musical taste is less like a stone and more like a sponge. We absorb things, it changes with our experiences, both to do with music and with life generally (so what you said re our baggage - emotional and otherwise - is a big factor, I think).


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Sid, When I first read your post I assumed you were talking about the difficulty in changing in general. Shy people have difficulty going to parties and opening up to others. They _feel more comfortable_ not trying to change even though they might realize that changing would be good for them. On the other hand, some people have no interest in changing even though it might not be difficult (e.g. I know what I like and I'm not interested in trying anything else). Finally, some people have tried and simply have a preference (e.g. I like chocolate ice cream more than strawberry). Are you talking about _any_ kind of resistance a specific kind?

*Is it okay to just be aware of our resistance, so with that awareness we can maybe change our position over time?*
Yes.
*Is it right to condemn people here for expressing resistance to certain types of music, especially the types we as individuals might love?*
No.
*Is it up to them whether they want to leave it in place or change it?*
Yes.
*Can you accept that different listeners will have different rates of change, some might find certain changes of their taste easy, others the reverse?*
Yes.

*Does it make sense to try and break down people's resistance to certain types of music, or is resistance ultimately a thing that is best dealt with by the individual listener?*

I have recently read discussions of studies of people's reactions to criticism of their views or attempts to change their views. These discussions were generally concerned with changing people's views about climate change, but I suspect the lessons learned are appropriate to musical views as well. Attacking people's beliefs often makes people hold onto their views more strongly. Even discussing why someone's belief is factually incorrect can cause them to hold it more strongly. Basically when people come to believe something, they invest some of their self worth in that belief. Anyone who disagrees is "the enemy" in a sense and not to be trusted. One way to reach these people is to have someone whom they value and trust be the "preacher of change". It's not always easy to find an appropriate conveyor of "The Truth".


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

mmsbls said:


> ... Are you talking about _any_ kind of resistance a specific kind?..


I am talking about any kind of resistance to change. But especially big changes. The example in terms of music I gave on Coag's thread was Varese. For me hearing his stuff was a big change. & it eventually became a kind of turning point. But it was after 6 years, and many life experiences in between my two listens of his music. The first listen was totally different to the second one, all those years later.

I only meant to questions to be a stimulant for people's responses. They don't have to be answered directly, even though answering them directly as you did is fine as well.



> ...
> I have recently read discussions of studies of people's reactions to criticism of their views or attempts to change their views...people's views about climate change ...


Climate change is a good example in some way. In terms of it being heavily bound up with the ideology/politics of the environmental movement (Greenpeace, the various Greens parties in parliaments across the Western world & others like that). So on this forum, like in some topics concerning music, there can be many controversial issues. & its often hard to disentangle the actual topic or object of the discussion (eg. a certain composer's music - in terms of more concrete things like technique or history/reception/provenance of a work over time) from the various ideologies surrounding them (eg. the various 'isms' of music, which interact with things like aesthetics and of course, one's personal bias). Often its hard to disentangle these issues, and then people get emotional, and there's no end of it.



> ...Attacking people's beliefs often makes people hold onto their views more strongly...


Yes and going back to my sponge analogy I said to PetrB above. If listeners are more like sponges and less like rocks, why attack them with a sledgehammer or pick axe? Why try demolish them when they are soft and will bounce back anyway? A sponge will absorb water, not an axe. I think this analogy speaks to what you're saying. I agree that being on the attack with things as personal as musical taste can be futile and a waste of time. But ultimately its not what I say, its how I say it. & the agenda of proseletysing is for me a dead end as well.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Perhaps I'm just cynical, but it seems that those who want other people to "overcome their resistance to change" really just want them to like the kind of music *they* like. I mean, who wants anybody to change their tastes to some kind of music they feel is worthless?

So "overcoming resistance to change" only means "making people like my kind of music." If the term "resistance to change" is used broadly, it's a variation on the old refrain of "blame the audience."


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

KenOC said:


> Perhaps I'm just cynical, but it seems that those who want other people to "overcome their resistance to change" really just want them to like the kind of music *they* like...


Could be, in terms of the proseletsysing or 'music as a religion' type approach (which as I said, for me is useless).



> ...I mean, who wants anybody to change their tastes to some kind of music they feel is worthless?...


Well, on threads where people ask for certain types of music, I've actually recommended composers I'm not that keen on. Or less keen on. Eg. many like ambient 'Holy Minimalist' type stuff. If they ask for that sort of thing, or more of it, I am happy to say these are pieces/composers who I know do these things. Doesn't mean I have to like or love them. But that's not about changing taste. That's about broadening a person's listening based on what they want anyway.



> ...
> So "overcoming resistance to change" only means "making people like my kind of music." If the term "resistance to change" is used broadly, it's a variation on the old refrain of "blame the audience."


I bet if we did a poll here, and asked if people blame the composer or blame the audience for the majority of listeners not liking early music (pre-Baroque), we'd blame the audience. Well, in effect, we'd say they have to invest more time and get to know more about this era. Whereas if we asked the same question about post-1945 music, we'd get the opposite response winning the poll. Blame the composer.

I am using early music and post-1945 music because most modern symphony orchestras today focus on 'warhorse' type stuff (which everybody knows) composed between roughly 1750 and 1950. So things either side of that fall by the wayside a bit, the further you get nearer to today, and the farther back you go, you would (in my estimation) get those results.

Time sanctifies things (& fossilises them as well, they are not threatening, they're kind of inert), whereas something new has the weight of the past on it, it will inevitably be compared with it. & to some, its a danger. There's all these things attached to it (eg. my hobby horse, ideology).


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

Like what you like, but be respectful.


----------



## Wandering (Feb 27, 2012)

^ I agree with Vaneyes, but people don't need be taking things all so personally either; Lighten up, walk away, or atleast try to not entertaining or encouraging a jokster, even if only in acknowledging his pathetique attempts at wit or humor.


----------



## Wandering (Feb 27, 2012)

Half my jokes, and I'm being _very_ generous, fall completey flat.

How can this apply to the topic? I don't know, but I'm light-hearted enough to think it _very_ possibly could somehow.

*'Go with the flow, like a twig on the shoulders of a mighty stream'* - John Candy


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Clovis said:


> *'Go with the flow, like a twig on the shoulders of a mighty stream'* - John Candy


And above all, act responsibly and keep the ship of state on the rails.


----------



## Wandering (Feb 27, 2012)

It is extremely fitting I think, once I'd re-read the topic.


----------



## LordBlackudder (Nov 13, 2010)

you usually resist things you dont like.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

I have a classical music program for elderly and infirm people at a nursing home in New Rochelle, just north of New York city . I play a wide variety of classical works for any residents or those staying there temporarily for physical rehabilitation who like classical music . 
I tell them about th eworks and the composers . There's one charming lady there who loves classical music (her mother sang small roles at the Metropolitan opera long ago) , but her tastes are very conservative, and she's very much set in her ways . Her favorite composers are Rachmaninov and Tchaikovsky , but she can't stand most 20th century or contemporary music . If she doesn't like something I play , she sometimes walks out . I tell her beforehand what I'm going to play that week, and if she doesn't like the composer, she soemtimes doesn't want to come . She hates Prokofiev, Shostakovich , anything remotely modern and dissonant , and she particularly likes piano concertos, so I've played a lot of them for my group , standard repertoire and not so familiar . 
Sometimes I experiment with a bit of challenging music by Schoenberg (whom she hates ) , or even Boulez and Carter etc just to give my group a chance to hear something out of the ordinary . Most of the other people are more open to the unusual .


----------



## SerbenthumInDerMusik (Nov 9, 2012)

Is resistance to change in musical taste taken as some sort of moral failing here? That's what it looks like to me.

People have lots of other things to do, you know ...


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

SerbenthumInDerMusik said:


> Is resistance to change in musical taste taken as some sort of moral failing here? That's what it looks like to me ...


My intention with my opening post was to draw a parallel between our resistance to change in life issues with resistance to changing our musical taste. Its not necessarily to see this resistance as a failing, but as just something to talk about & maybe bring out in the open. That's basically it. People are free to say what they want. My agenda is not to 'expose' people's weaknesses and then attack them. Its meant to be a free discussion.

If I talked of moral failings with regards to music, I would see it as a religion, which I don't. I basically see music as music, that's it. Not as a religion or dogma. Ideologies in music do exist (plenty of 'em!) but its not useful for me to confuse them with the music itself. In other words, music is just music, it is neither religion, nor is it ideology.


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

99% of politics can be boiled down to this.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

To be a coldly-collected scientific analyst for a moment...

I think resistance to change is an _evolutionarily _sound behavior. If you are currently in a good condition, why would you want to threaten it? How can you be so sure that a new thing is going to improve you? You need solid evidence, right? It's a survival skill, an _instinct _if you will. If all creatures continually put themselves in danger for the simple sake of change, there is risk of extinction, no? Most common of whatever happens to a creature is when something new is _imposed _on them, and that's when they have to adapt, etc. Or, that they aren't in a good condition, thus they attempt to change something, like travel, eat something new, etc. (This is in general terms, not specifically linked to music)

Thus, someone who is obsessed with "threatening themselves" with change could be said to be going against their evolutionary instinct. Natural selection won't be kind on them...

That said, how can this apply to music? New music doesn't really threaten a person's well-being... or can it? There may not be physical risk, but there could be psychological/emotional risk, even trauma to the memory if it's that bad. Someone who is happy with what they know and doesn't want to hear new music is probably not _ready _for it. Just let them go. On the other hand, there can be unhappy people that aren't satisfied with what they know, and are curious to know more. Thus, they are psychologically _ready _to hear new music, and likely more resistant to any harm associated with it. Let them go ahead too.

If you're a person who listens to new music motivated by a guilt and not curiosity, that's probably the most emotionally unhealthy thing you can do for yourself. That's like a fish coming out of water forcing themselves to breath air while they're not actually _able _to.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Perhaps the moderators should consider a rules revision to prohibit criticisms of forms of music and great composers. I assume minor composers will still be fair game.


_I don't think "a rules revision to prohibit criticisms of forms of music and great composers" is in order, even if the context and poster's apparent intent seem warrant this. These are "oblique ad-hominems" which belittle other members' taste in music._

_ I don't think a rule revision is necessary: abuse is abuse, no matter how you "dress it up."_


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Huilunsoittaja said:


> ...You can call them a bad composer, uninspired, noisy, etc. all you want,_ if you can back your stance._ If you can't back your stance, that's a false accusation, the way I see it. And if you can back your stance, I'll accept it, although that might not change my personal opinion of that composer anyhow.


Then this excludes 99% of the insults to modernist composers I see, and it misses the point: if the _intent_ of the critic is to _belittle the taste of other members,_ then _let's call a troll a troll_ and stop kidding ourselves.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Sid James said:


> [email protected] millionrainbows - go easy on me...That's right, with testing our taste in music - eg. trying to broaden it - we've got nothing to lose. Maybe we've got something to gain? & in my time here I've seen people changing their focus of listening, go through different phases, and I've done this myself. There's no risk other than maybe realising that old cliche - the only thing that is guaranteed to happen in this world is change itself. Not many listeners stay the same, stay nailed down onto the same spot, immutably. Most listeners will go through changes, whether subtle or not so subtle. It can be incremental or in huge leaps and bounds. So I think musical taste is less like a stone and more like a sponge. We absorb things, it changes with our experiences, both to do with music and with life generally (so what you said re our baggage - emotional and otherwise - is a big factor, I think).


@Sid James: This isn't about musical taste in the instances where the intent of the post is to belittle the taste of other members. Let's not sugar-coat it. _What, are you the President, and this troll is Wall street? You want to bail out the abuser, because he's "too senior to fail?"_


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Perhaps I'm just cynical, but it seems that those who want other people to "overcome their resistance to change" really just want them to like the kind of music *they* like. I mean, who wants anybody to change their tastes to some kind of music they feel is worthless?


This is a "ghost issue." This is not about "overcoming someone's resistance to change" but is about abusive posts which are obviously or have been determined by moderators to be violations, and which belittle other member's taste in music. This is ad-hominem, because of intent, if so determined.



KenOC said:


> ...So "overcoming resistance to change" only means "making people like my kind of music." If the term "resistance to change" is used broadly, it's a variation on the old refrain of "blame the audience."


Again, this response should be seen as trying to "keep the loophole open" for abuse. _If the moderators deem smears of composers and music as having intentionally hidden motives of belittling other members, then any discussion is irrelevant._ Trolling is trolling, if so determined by moderation.


----------



## Renaissance (Jul 10, 2012)

Noise = Noise. There is no insult to say that noise is noise. It is the truth.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Clovis said:


> ^ I agree with Vaneyes, but people don't need be taking things all so personally either; Lighten up, walk away, or atleast try to not entertaining or encouraging a* jokster,* even if only in acknowledging his pathetique attempts at wit or humor.


If a critic posts a short comment without substance, such as *"this music is crap"* in the midst of a positive discussion about said music, *this is trolling,* not "jokester" behavior.

If your response refers to examples like this, and you seriously think that members should tolerate this, then I disagree strongly.

We need to focus on the trolls here, people. Let's get our priorities straight. This forum has guidelines; let's not enable trolling by providing "loopholes" of "tolerance." Besides, it's all in the moderators' hands.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Renaissance said:


> Noise = Noise. There is no insult to say that noise is noise. It is the truth.


What are you referring to?

Be careful; don't get too specific.

I guess your intent will have to adjudged, since you choose to be so vague; and you should hope that such a judgement is in your favor.

True; noise is noise, if it's in its natural context. 
If a composer "frames it," it is music. 
If a Foley artist creates it, it's aiding in dramatic storytelling.

It's all context, isn't it? 
There are so many uses for noise!

P.S. I'm so sorry if anyone's delicate sensibilities are insulted by this fact.


----------



## Renaissance (Jul 10, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> P.S. I'm so sorry if anyone's delicate sensibilities are insulted by this fact.


I guess your sensibilities are delicate, because no one insulted any modern composer.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Renaissance said:


> Erased post: I think to take things too seriously. If you say that whatever modern composer lacks talent, or his music is noise it is not an insult, it is an opinion. And it is not forbidden to express an opinion, no matter how uninformed it is. One can say the same things about Mozart, Beethoven, etc. And after all noise is noise. Can you deny it ? I can't, so I tell what I feel. It is legally and democratic. I can't imagine a world in which you are forced to say things you don't believe. If something it's not music for me, I have the right so say it, of course without getting into ad-hominem. We like it or not, people are not forced to believe the same things as we do. Why are you so defensive ?


What you say of free speech is true; _but if the intent of the poster is NOT to express a valid opinion, but to belittle other members' taste, then it is a violation of forum guidelines, if so determined by a moderator._


----------



## Renaissance (Jul 10, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> What you say of free speech is true; _but if the intent of the poster is NOT to express a valid opinion, but to belittle other members' taste, then it is a violation of forum guidelines, if so determined by a moderator._


I understand but there is no way to prove (objectively) that a particular user is trolling, or just exposing his ideas. So the best way is to not worry so much about such things.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Originally Posted by millionrainbows: 
P.S. I'm so sorry if anyone's delicate sensibilities are insulted by this fact.



Renaissance said:


> I guess your sensibilities are delicate, because no one insulted any modern composer.


Conversely, I'm sorry if what anyone might deem "noise" turns out to be music, and this fact insults their delicate sensibilities.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Renaissance said:


> I understand but there is no way to prove (objectively) that a particular user is trolling, or just exposing his ideas. So the best way is to *not worry so much about such things.*


I think there are _indicators_ of trolling behavior; such as: if a critic posts a short comment without substance, such as *"this music is crap"* in the midst of a positive discussion about said music, this is trolling, not "jokester" behavior.

*Yes, don't do it, and the consequences will be of no worry.*


----------



## Renaissance (Jul 10, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> I think there are _indicators_ of trolling behavior; such as: if a critic posts a short comment without substance, such as *"this music is crap"* in the midst of a positive discussion about said music, this is trolling, not "jokester" behavior.
> 
> *Yes, don't do it, and you won't have to worry about the consequences.*


Do you think I am a troll ?  All right, maybe sometimes I tend to overreact, but it is not my intention to troll anybody.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Renaissance said:


> Do you think I am a troll ?  All right, maybe sometimes I tend to overreact, but it is not my intention to troll anybody.


_*Heavens no, *_I would not *dare* to _specifically_ call anyone here a troll. I am merely clarifying what most sensible people would characterize as "troll behavior." What I think about this is irrelevant, however; it must be determined by a moderator.:lol:


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Sid James said:


> Yes and going back to my sponge analogy I said to PetrB above. If listeners are more like sponges and less like rocks, why attack them with a sledgehammer or pick axe? Why try demolish them when they are soft and will bounce back anyway? A sponge will absorb water, not an axe. I think this analogy speaks to what you're saying. I agree that being on the attack with things as personal as musical taste can be futile and a waste of time. *But ultimately its not what I say, its how I say it.*


I agree very strongly with the bolded point. Whether someone posts with a simple statement of taste, "I don't enjoy Stockhausen", or strongly judges the music or composer, "Mozart's music is pure crap and he's garbage", responses that try to engage the original poster rather than attack them will be more effective in generating interesting discussion or perhaps changing someone's views. Of course, not everyone's interested in those goals.



Sid James said:


> I bet if we did a poll here, and asked if people blame the composer or blame the audience for the majority of listeners not liking early music (pre-Baroque), we'd blame the audience. Well, in effect, we'd say they have to invest more time and get to know more about this era. Whereas if we asked the same question about post-1945 music, we'd get the opposite response winning the poll. Blame the composer.


That's an interesting idea, and I suspect you are correct. I've always thought the use of the word "blame" is unfortunate. Obviously there is a reason why people do or do not like certain music. One can discuss reasons for musical taste without viewing those reasons as assigning blame. It's not morally right or wrong to love noise music or hate Xenakis, but there are reasons why people do.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

"People's resistance to change & music...", that's the understatement of the year. 

Excuse me, there's a guy with an axe chasing me...he must have me confused with some other modernist.:lol:


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

mmsbls said:


> One can discuss reasons for musical taste without viewing those reasons as assigning blame. It's not morally right or wrong to love noise music or hate Xenakis, but there are reasons why people do.


I'm all for "discussing reasons for musical taste" taking place in a thread intended for such discussion.

_*However,*_ the "Gloria Coates" thread is a good example of a clash of musical tastes. In this case, the interjection does not serve the discussion of differences in taste, but seems obviously intended to distract, bait, or derail discussions.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

millionrainbows said:


> Then this excludes 99% of the insults to modernist composers I see, and it misses the point: if the _intent_ of the critic is to _belittle the taste of other members,_ then _let's call a troll a troll_ and stop kidding ourselves.


But we have the choice to react differently than most to insults. Respond to the Troll according to their folly. Treat them kindly and cleverly, and so you put them to shame.

Overall, one shouldn't let an insult of a composer get to _themselves_. This isn't the same as feeling righteous anger when someone you love is bullied. It's when you _idolize _an individual that you get hurt because you put _your _value into them. We _must _recognize that there are different kinds of anger out there, and _only _on righteous anger should one react, and in the proper way. I _do_ mind when composers get insulted, but _I_ don't feel insulted, or at least catch and scold myself when I do.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Huilunsoittaja said:


> But we have the choice to react differently than most to insults. Respond to the Troll according to their folly. Treat them kindly and cleverly, and so you put them to shame.


I don't view the "utter crap" posts as worth responding to. I see them as vandalism, where a rock is thrown through a window and the vandals escape into the night. If they are identified, caught, and punished is the only "response" necessary.



Huilunsoittaja said:


> Overall, one shouldn't let an insult of a composer get to _themselves_.


You're focussing on the wrong thing. The _*intent*_ of the _"oblique ad-hominem"_ is all-important, not any _reaction_ to it. If the _intent_ of such a composer-smear is deemed to be a violation, then the problem will be solved. Catch the criminal, don't try to advise the victims.



Huilunsoittaja said:


> I _do_ mind when composers get insulted, but _I_ don't feel insulted, or at least catch and scold myself when I do.


But if the _intent_ of he composer-smear is really a _hidden attack on you,_ then you should be aware. Only a moderator can make this determination, so it's best not to "feel" anything, but simply report it.


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

@Millionrainbows

You clearly have an issue with 'oblique ad-hominems' at the moment which I suggest you take up with the moderators more directly if you wish to see any results. Perhaps create a thread on it. Then they can decide what stance to take up with it specifically.

I agree with others that the problem is that any criticism could be seen as such an oblique ad hominem, and without criticism of any kind there would be no discussion and that would be a pity. As long as there is respect for other people it doesn't matter, and I have probably not always been as I should have been in that department.


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

As people come I am pretty resistant to change. Certainly I am usually very skeptical of it, but I like to think that once I am convinced of its integrity (and if it suits me) I adopt it, although change can also be expensive so a miserly approach can sometimes also resist change. This seems to me sensible. For music it is pretty much the same, except without so much of the miserliness :lol:

I think what makes many of these debates more fierce is not only the clash of tastes but the clash of ideologies. Not that these are necessarily unrelated entirely. Probably particularly true of the atonal vs tonal debate. There are a whole host of conceptions about music, and perhaps even life, that often 'supporters' of the two sides have differing opinions of.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I must say to all who are discussing this here - I do not aim to validate bad behaviour. I only aim to validate resistance to things that are new to us. There's the popular saying, a cliche now, 'fear of the unknown.' That kind of thing. Well it exists, whether we like it or not. Not only in music but in life, as I pointed out in my opening post. If you have not had a person close to you die before, if that happens, then that previously unknown experience becomes known. & to most people that situation is difficult to deal with, even for the strongest people.

So I am loathe to attack a person who says they do not like a certain composer's music. Its because I have been attacked in the past on this very forum for simply expressing my preferences. & then, what I tend to mistakenly do is fall into a trap of fighting fire with fire. Getting angry, ranting, etc. but its no good for anyone, esp. for myself. The other tactic is to interrogate another person, and force them into the game of answering your questions. Again, its fruitless.

If there is a dialogue and I express what I think, staying within the rules (and not insulting other people's tastes), I think I should be entitled to simply do that. & I REALLY hate it when a person here uses their knowledge of me against me - now that is LOW, they are abusing my trust and openness to pull me down and humiliate me - ITS NOT ON! I cannot but put it as strongly as that. But recently I have been given this less, and part of that is the way one deals with these things, and the way one generally participates on this forum, at all times (of course, there have been lapses on my part in that, I am not denying it).

However, I have acquaintances and friends who are into things I'm not into, or like certain composers or conductors who I don't like much. Same with them, they might not share my tastes 100 per cent. But I think that's fine, thats diversity. & I'm only arguing for people to able to express their opinions - even their fears and strong dislike - of certain music, even if I don't agree. I've found the only way to break down my own misconceptions is to do it myself. No one taking a verbal sledgehammer to me will be likely to succeed. Its only with a dialogue, an open one, that we can analyse our own thoughts. Otherwise we are always on the defensive, self censoring, worried about what people will think of what we say, etc. We will put up a very solid mask - and then what?

So its not easy to define, but some people will always resist what we like, or some things we put to them. Its the way of the world. You don't crush it, work against it, deny it (like grief for a dead loved one), you've got to admit it, work with it. I just dislike oppression as the next person, but control is about self control, not control of others.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Sid James said:


> So I am loathe to attack a person who says they do not like a certain composer's music.


I have no idea what you are referring to. Who attacked a person? Where? If anyone did, I'm sure they will get reported and warned.
Are you talkng about that person who attacked John Cage? He's a public figure, so that doesn't count, does it? Why would it?



Sid James said:


> I just dislike oppression as the next person, but control is about self control, not control of others.


I can't control anybody here; if anyone gets reported for belittling other member's tastes, only the moderators can control that.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

millionrainbows said:


> I have no idea what you are referring to. Who attacked a person? Where? If anyone did, I'm sure they will get reported and warned.


I was not being specific. I was talking more to the vibe of the forum in recent weeks/months. We had a whole lot of bunfights involving Mozart to recently atonal and all that. & I think its fair to say these where not the finest hours of this forum, so to speak. So I'm trying to unpack these fights and maybe figure out a way out, of maybe avoiding their pitfalls.

Let me assure you that I am talking out aloud here. I am trying to learn from my mistakes on this forum as well. It might be painfully obvious to some, but it certainly wasn't to me until only recently. How I came to 'join the dots' is that I read books on communication. & one of them was talking of these kinds of issues. How big changes in life, smaller changes too, they can have a profound effect on our actions. Part of that is a kind of resistance to things in life that force us to change, or to deal with things differently or go outside of our comfort zones. I see that its similar in music. We all have a certain pain threshold, for example (physical or mental or both). Some people's is higher than others. In terms of my research in history, there is also the issue of how some people got through the worst times in history, and some others did not survive. It can be based on things like sheer chance/luck, also attitude (positive or negative, defeatist or fighting to survive). All this stuff is connected with the issues I have raised in this thread. But I'm trying to make it as practical as possible. I think superhorn's post re his experiences in working in the nursing home was a good example of aspects of this.



> ...
> I can't control anybody here; if anyone gets reported for belittling other member's tastes, only the moderators can control that.


Well yes as I said belittling is something that's no good, however I see no problem in just saying what we think about a given composer or piece of music. I'm saying anything, it does not have to be 'new' music.



> ...Are you talkng about that person who attacked John Cage? He's a public figure, so that doesn't count, does it? Why would it?...


I don't know who either. I have not been on all the threads here. The threads re debates of Cage or atonal or contemporary classical I've not been to in recent days. I don't know what's going on on those threads now.

But yes Cage generally does get pulled down, he is an easy target, and I think people can go too far with this. In my 3 years here he's been called many things, but there are also people here who enjoy his music. I do like his music and I have also talked about his music on ocassion on this forum.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Well, I'm sure the moderators will be on top of it. I'm more concerned with music I like than with music I don't like, and I ignore that. If everyone would do this, then no conflict would arise.

It seems to me that broadcasting what you don't like invites reaction and conflict;
broadcasting what you do like invites participation.

People who seek out conflict are not at peace with themselves.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Some quotes about change I found in an article I was reading. Put them here as I think they're relevant to this topic. People can reply with their thoughts re these, if they wish.

"When you are through changing, you are through." - Bruce Barton

"The only way to make sense out of change is to plunge into it, move with it, and join the dance." - Alan Watts

"If you don't like something, change it. If you can't change it, change your attitude." - Maya Angelou

"If we don't change, we don't grow. If we don't grow, we aren't really living." - Gail Sheehy

"Change is such hard work." - Billy Crystal


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

In fact, change is evil, a bad thing by any standard. I quote again the wise British naval toast from the Napoleonic era: "Let no new thing arise!"


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Ramako said:


> @Millionrainbows
> 
> You clearly have an issue with 'oblique ad-hominems' at the moment which I suggest you take up with the moderators more directly if you wish to see any results.


Late breaking news: the problem has been solved, at least "temporarily," if you get my drift. And my preceding posts served the purpose you are suggesting, I would assume.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Sid James said:


> Some quotes about change I found in an article I was reading. Put them here as I think they're relevant to this topic. People can reply with their thoughts re these, if they wish.
> 
> "When you are through changing, you are through." - Bruce Barton
> 
> ...


Those are all nice sentiments, Sid, but as you know, the only way real change can occur is via the moderators. Sorry if I appear to be powerless.


----------



## Guest (Nov 26, 2012)

What does it mean to be resistant to change? That phrase implies that the change is a given, and that by opposing, or resisting it, you are in opposition to the natural order. But change is not necessarily positive. Change can be in a negative direction. I think what we are talking about here is a change in preferences. And for that, you aren't necessarily resisting anything if you don't change. I very much prefer apple pie to cherry pie, and will pick it 9 times out of 10 over the other. Does that adherence to a preference for apple pie make me resistant to change? No - I have simply found something I prefer, and would rather have it than the alternative. That says nothing about the relative merits of either option, simply that my tastes lead me to the one over the other.

In music, my tastes have changed from time to time, but still within a general framework. There is no logical reason why I should massively change from preferring instrumental and choral works to preferring operatic works - I am not actively resisting any change there. Similarly, I am not actively resisting modern music by sticking with my preference for works from the Romantic period and earlier.


----------



## Rapide (Oct 11, 2011)

I would expect to believe the vast majority of members here have attended conserts and or have recordings of classical music from early periods to modern, although of course in different proportions because of each one's preference. Not uncommon to have Baroque, Classical, Romantic, late Romantic, 20th century music in at least some modest amounts. Is this evidence of "change"/resistance to change? Not at all. Of course not.


----------

