# You Think You Have a Good Ear, prove it!



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

Mahler, Schoenberg, Webern, Shostakovitch (all of these composers are socially acceptable) but there was a time when they were totally obscure; there was a time when you would have been looked down on for testifying to their greatness. If you have a good ear give us an example of something that is looked down on today that will be celebrated tomorrow. I venture to say that the majority of listeners have to be told that something is great before they are willing to confess they like it, which only begs the question, does such a person really like it? What if you were mocked for liking Mahler, what if you were considered immoral, what if such a confession diminished your social standing, would you still praise Mahler? 

I know there are people in the world who do not have to be told when something is great because they can hear it. These people think and feel for themselves. We need more people like this in the world.


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

Klassic said:


> Mahler, Schoenberg, Webern, Shostakovitch (all of these composers are socially acceptable) but there was a time when they were totally obscure; there was a time when you would have been looked down on for testifying to their greatness. If you have a good ear give us an example of something that is looked down on today that will be celebrated tomorrow.* I venture to say that the majority of listeners have to be told that something is great before they are willing to confess they like it*, which only begs the question, does such a person really like it? What if you were mocked for liking Mahler, what if you were considered immoral, what if such a confession diminished your social standing, would you still praise Mahler?


What are you basing this on?


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

GreenMamba said:


> What are you basing this on?


Music is personal people don´t want to have their feelings hurt by hearing that the music they like is not good.


----------



## Lyricus (Dec 11, 2015)

GreenMamba said:


> What are you basing this on?


Psychology, for one.


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

GreenMamba said:


> What are you basing this on?


GreenM you are missing the point: "These people think and feel for themselves. We need more people like this in the world."


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

I have never known a single person who liked classical music because someone told him it was good.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Often it's psychological / perception. If I composed an avant-garde style music, then it would not get much attention. But generally, I would say reputation of composer proceeds well. But personal taste and preference win, always.


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> I have never known a single person who liked classical music because someone told him it was good.


Well Mr. Wooddduck this is strange. What then was your cultural perception of it, that it was bad, uneducated, morally impure, the work of dunces? Surely not?


----------



## Hmmbug (Jun 16, 2014)

Klassic said:


> Well Mr. Wooddduck this is strange. What then was your cultural perception of it, that it was bad, uneducated, morally impure, the work of dunces? Surely not?


That it was "uncool", old, for old stuck-up stiffs, expensive and unpopular, for the homosexuals and sissies, had no place in the modern society, and merely a bourgeois way of people asserting cultural authority.

At least, that's my experience with the cultural perception. Are you satisfied with the modern perception of "classical music"?


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

Hmmbug said:


> That it was "uncool", old, for old stuck-up stiffs, expensive and unpopular, for the homosexuals and sissies, had no place in the modern society, and merely a bourgeois way of people asserting cultural authority.
> 
> At least, that's my experience with the cultural perception. Are you satisfied with the modern perception of "classical music"?


And what kind of people say such things? Tell me about your cultural perception of these people.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Klassic said:


> Well Mr. Wooddduck this is strange. What then was your cultural perception of it, that it was bad, uneducated, morally impure, the work of dunces? Surely not?


Not at all strange. I didn't have a "cultural perception" of it. I had my own perception of it. I came, I heard, I liked.

Of course there are people who derive their "opinions" second-hand. But since our society doesn't urge the value of classical music on its children, it tends to be the case that those who like it like it because it actually gives them pleasure.


----------



## Hildadam Bingor (May 7, 2016)

Klassic said:


> If you have a good ear give us an example of something that is looked down on today that will be celebrated tomorrow.


Excellent idea - though I would amend "looked down on" to "looked down on by some." Everything always has SOME admirers.

I placed some bets here on this, a couple of days ago:


Hildadam Bingor said:


> I dunno, this one, maybe?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Klassic said:


> What if you were mocked for liking Mahler, what if you were considered immoral, what if such a confession diminished your social standing, would you still praise Mahler?


These concerns are irrelevant in my world. I have no social standing, and nobody gives a damn! I don't know anybody in the real world who gives a damn about what music I listen to. This is a cyberspace scenario.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

starthrower said:


> These concerns are irrelevant in my world. I have no social standing, and nobody gives a damn! I don't know anybody in the real world who gives a damn about what music I listen to. This is a cyberspace scenario.


Isn't that the truth. In my world, if I were to tell almost anyone that I liked Mahler, they would say, "What is a Mahler?"


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

I think we all have to be a bit more honest here. Many of us have had resistance at certain points to accepting new to us music with our 'brand name' listening of classical music, or any music. It's hard to avoid this, and you are one to be truly inspired by what you hear without other knowledge surrounding it, you may not even be as inclined. But Klassic should not dismiss that genuine love can develop even when a teacher points a student to something. 

The premise in the OP is something I have often thought about and wondered if I could be interested in honing at some point. I certainly don't direct my energies in this way now, I'm not so interested in contemporary compositions or those of the last 50 years in the classical field, for the most part, because frankly I'm very skeptical that it means the same thing it once did and the rise of so many new things in society makes things very confusing. I don't think I could identify what pieces are here to stay. I don't like the electro acoustic music, Aarvo Part style stuff, or ballpark Eric Whitacre style choral composers. It all seems either cheap, soulless, or else deeply meaningful but not at all of the classical tradition and it's own animal entirely(I think the more "experimental music" falls into this category). Maybe that's my limitation. But it's more where my minds at, than what music listening skill set might be capable of noticing.

But there is a more positive way to look at this than Klassic's initial angle. Even Mozart, Saint Saens, or Rachmaninoff, Liszt, or some other savant like musical capacity of a high order, a musician that can remember things on first hearing or learn the hardest and longest piece in 3 hours, they have to like it and it has to speak to them. That is not about having a good ear, it's not about the intellect. This is an intuition for art. We all have limited amount of time, we all loved some aspect of classical music when we first heard it immediately (or it grew on us and we gravitated. Many of us depend on familiarity with the music, and most of us do not have the skill/habit to have our most intense love for a piece on only one hearing. We found the pieces we like for a while, and stick with them. Then we move on and find some new ones, and when this process has been repeated many times, it can become cluttered with a fact gathering mentality that is separated from the musical experience. Live music has been really essential for me in breaking some of my crystallized notions about this piece, or that composer, and just the thought that it is how music is best experienced and there is more to it than the notes put down by the composer. If I were to accept a challenge like Klassic's in earnest, I would go to live performances. And I wouldn't listen critically, 'with detached discernment'. I would try to be open to it all, the sounds, and even how the audience around me seems to stir to it, and after some experience I don't doubt I'd have a chance at being able to tell what really sticks out.


----------



## chesapeake bay (Aug 3, 2015)

DaveM said:


> "What is a Mahler?"


It's like a long island ice tea just replace the cola with bourbon


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Maybe someone with a good ear can tell me the destiny of this piece:


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

Woodduck said:


> I have never known a single person who liked classical music because someone told him it was good.


It's not simply being "told" outright. It's the fact you are inundated with a handful of composers from since the time you were born, without your choice, and so you grow use to it and adapt. But in different circumstances it could be different.

Honest truth: _I didn't grow up with Beethoven in my childhood home._ That might explain some things about my current taste today.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Huilunsoittaja said:


> It's not simply being "told" outright. It's the fact you are inundated with a handful of composers from since the time you were born, without your choice, and so you grow use to it and adapt. But in different circumstances it could be different.
> 
> Honest truth: _I didn't grow up with Beethoven in my childhood home._ That might explain some things about my current taste today.


"Adapt" seems an odd word. It's just information. My point is simply that people who listen to classical music do so because they heard some, liked it, and wanted to hear more. That's in response to the OP: _"I venture to say that the majority of listeners have to be told that something is great before they are willing to confess they like it, which only begs the question, does such a person really like it? What if you were mocked for liking Mahler, what if you were considered immoral, what if such a confession diminished your social standing, would you still praise Mahler?"_ I seriously doubt that "the majority" of classical listeners have to be told that it's OK to like what they like. Such social dynamics no doubt apply to some teenagers whose need for approval trumps everything (though it didn't apply to me). Perhaps the OP is generalizing from personal experience, but he is certainly generalizing too broadly. He has not described the experience of classical music lovers and musicians I have known. As I implied in a previous post, the taste for classical music is more likely to exist in _spite_ of social pressure than _because_ of it.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

starthrower said:


> These concerns are irrelevant in my world. I have no social standing, and nobody gives a damn! I don't know anybody in the real world who gives a damn about what music I listen to. This is a cyberspace scenario.


I second this in the most strong way.


----------



## SimonNZ (Jul 12, 2012)

Klassic said:


> *Mahler, Schoenberg, Webern, Shostakovitch* (all of these composers are socially acceptable) but there was a time when they were totally obscure; *there was a time when you would have been looked down on for testifying to their greatness.*


And you're saying that time has passed??

Most contemporary composers either don't have enough exposure for them to be looked down on, or else are part of the whole sweeping and ignorant "its all rubbish" blanket dismissal, so its hard to have any preconcieved notions at all.

I've said elsewhere that Christophe Bertrand imo should be considered one of the great modern composers and have bet that he will be in the future, and his early suicide one of the what-could-have-been speculations alongside the other composers who died far too young.


----------



## Lenny (Jul 19, 2016)

Heh, this is all so relative... I was just watching a documentary about young (well not so young anymore) finnish composers (Salonen, Lindberg, Kaipainen, Saariaho and few others) and how they perceived the old establishment, like Joonas Kokkonen and Aulis Sallinen. It's just funny because even these "old farts" are almost incomprehensively modern for even most of the classical music audience. And I guess there are loads of people who think Magnus Lindberg is old fart with all his Stravinsky enthusiasms..

So I don't know.. I tend to not talk to people about these things, because I want keep it all in my private inner world. For people like me, the Internet is blessing. So much things to find, endless amount of music to explore, and no need to care about other people's opinions. But, of course I also want to have some level of discussion about these things, that's why I'm here on the forum! I just don't want to do it in a real world, and fortunately there's no need for it.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

Like Woodduck, I gravitated to classical music in my youth because it spoke to me. It was not easy being seemingly the only one in my generation who disliked rock, but I wasn't going to pretend to like something I didn't for the sake of social acceptance (although I didn't push CM into people's faces).

I went to college having a classical predisposition and having heard some percentage of the standard repertoire from records borrowed from the public library. I joined the classical dept. of the college radio station and, being a responsible person, had to program a lot of music I didn't know -- composers, eras, nationalities, genres, etc. The interesting thing was, my impressions of a lot music on first hearing -- even while I was editing newscasts, taking transmitter readings etc. -- wound up agreeing with what I later found to be received wisdom. i.e. Brahms' sextets were more interesting music than his quartets; much 19th century French ballet music was vapid to an extreme; etc. As a geezer now, I don't listen to much current music (my ears are going), but I can say when I was first exposed to Janacek in the '60s and '70s, it was clear to me that his music would be in the standard repertoire some day (it wasn't then). It has taken a few revivals of interest in the last four decades, but it's there now. I've been to a lot of concerts of "new" music up until about 15 years ago, and although I would hate to have anyone stake immortality on my word, it always seems pretty clear to me when a work is any good (or at least deserves more hearings to be able to render judgment). But I would never bet the mortgage.


----------



## Gordontrek (Jun 22, 2012)

What does having a good ear have to do with this exactly?


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Gordontrek said:


> What does having a good ear have to do with this exactly?


I guess any schmuck can name "something that is looked down on today that will be celebrated tomorrow", but only those who possess a Good Ear, however that may be defined, will be regarded as credible.


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

Hmmbug said:


> That it was "uncool", old, for old stuck-up stiffs, expensive and unpopular, for the homosexuals and sissies, had no place in the modern society, and merely a bourgeois way of people asserting cultural authority.
> 
> At least, that's my experience with the cultural perception. Are you satisfied with the modern perception of "classical music"?





Klassic said:


> And what kind of people say such things? Tell me about your cultural perception of these people.


I'm not sure where either of you were born and raised, but here in the US, Hmmbug's perceptions are the same as mine.

The US, where anti-intellectualism has been raised to a fine art, this is the common opinion of classical.


----------



## mstar (Aug 14, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> I have never known a single person who liked classical music because someone told him it was good.


Ah, it takes one little question. "Who's your favorite composer?" I know at least five people who seemed to be real classical music enthusiasts until I (in all sincerity) asked them that. Then they'd either admit that they only listen to contemporary nonclassical "piano music without words" or listen very minimally. 
Saddening.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Another question: "What pieces do you especially like?" I've given up asking that because it embarrasses people to admit they know no names at all.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Simon Moon said:


> The US, where anti-intellectualism has been raised to a fine art, this is the common opinion of classical.


The anti-intellectualism of the U.S. was noted long ago by Alexis de Tocqueville. To him, it appeared to spring from the anti-aristocratic, all-are-equal (except the usual minorities), my notions are as valid as your notions mindset of the "average" Americans he met in his travels here. This accounts in large measure for the American Exceptionalism widely discussed by Seymour Martin Lipset in his book of that name. Its positive qualities are much discussed and praised by various folk, and there can be much good said of it. But it often lapses into what I call Defiant Ignorance, giving us widespread refusals to understand many findings of the sciences, and, most tellingly, to be only one of perhaps two nations to not be on the metric system.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

mstar said:


> Ah, it takes one little question. "Who's your favorite composer?" I know at least five people who seemed to be real classical music enthusiasts until I (in all sincerity) asked them that. Then they'd either admit that they only listen to contemporary nonclassical "piano music without words" or listen very minimally.
> Saddening.


I have to wonder what made them "seem" to be "real classical music enthusiasts." The usual indicator is an inclination to listen to and talk about classical music. Casual statements such as "oh, yeah, I like classical music," absent any other clues, usually indicate that they basically don't.


----------



## Lenny (Jul 19, 2016)

Simon Moon said:


> I'm not sure where either of you were born and raised, but here in the US, Hmmbug's perceptions are the same as mine.
> 
> The US, where anti-intellectualism has been raised to a fine art, this is the common opinion of classical.


It's the same everywhere, of course. USA is a big place, so you have lots of anti-intellectualism, but also lots of intellectualism.


----------



## helenora (Sep 13, 2015)

DaveM said:


> Isn't that the truth. In my world, if I were to tell almost anyone that I liked Mahler, they would say, "What is a Mahler?"


exactly! bufff.....sadly I have to admit, this is my world scenario...


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> I have to wonder what made them "seem" to be "real classical music enthusiasts." The usual indicator is an inclination to listen to and talk about classical music. Casual statements such as "oh, yeah, I like classical music," absent any other clues, usually indicate that they basically don't.


I'd be a bit more generous. A lot of people like some classical pieces they've heard, but can't even name them. Their interest is casual at best. So be it.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Am I the only one who came here expecting an ear training quiz?....


----------



## WaterRat (May 19, 2015)

violadude said:


> Am I the only one who came here expecting an ear training quiz?....


No, and now I really want one!!


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Woodduck like to think he was born a fully-formed individual, but he was culturally conditioned like we all were.

The present distinction came to me recently:

*Classical music is "good," secular and popular music is "bad."*

That's why older people listen to it; they have no more need to rebel or be "bad," and now they are approaching the end of life, and want to be "good" with God.

Classical music came from Church music, after all. Secular music has always been associated with "bad" elements.

The blues was called "the Devil's music" by the gospel music community; country and western music has themes of honky-tonks and drinking and infidelity; sex, drugs, and rock-and-roll is self-explanatory.


----------



## Hildadam Bingor (May 7, 2016)

millionrainbows said:


> The present distinction came to me recently:
> 
> *Classical music is "good," secular and popular music is "bad."*
> 
> ...


Ok, well observed, but the problem is, a society that makes the "good" its ideal can be bad - pick your moralistic tyranny - or relatively good - the popular front governments of the mid 20th century - but after decades of experimenting with societies that make the "bad" their ideal, it's pretty clear that they're invariably useless.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Hildadam Bingor said:


> Ok, well observed, but the problem is, a society that makes the "good" its ideal can be bad - pick your moralistic tyranny - or relatively good - the popular front governments of the mid 20th century - but after decades of experimenting with societies that make the "bad" their ideal, it's pretty clear that they're invariably useless.


Well, good and bad are all relative, to a point. Music should take us to our "higher nature," but that is however you want to define it. I think that there is an objective goal, however: when a human being is happy and healthy, that's a good sign that he/she has reached a natural state of equilibrium, or natural "good."

I'm not saying that any state-sponsored religion and its representative music will always produce good results.

However, I do think that a more subjective religion such as Buddhism or Hinduism will produce music of a higher spiritual nature as a result.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Klassic said:


> Mahler, Schoenberg, Webern, Shostakovitch (all of these composers are socially acceptable) but there was a time when they were totally obscure; there was a time when you would have been looked down on for testifying to their greatness. If you have a good ear give us an example of something that is looked down on today that will be celebrated tomorrow. I venture to say that the majority of listeners have to be told that something is great before they are willing to confess they like it, which only begs the question, does such a person really like it? What if you were mocked for liking Mahler, what if you were considered immoral, what if such a confession diminished your social standing, would you still praise Mahler?
> 
> I know there are people in the world who do not have to be told when something is great because they can hear it. These people think and feel for themselves. We need more people like this in the world.


I interpret Klassic's statement here as meaning, "If music is good, it is intrinsically good." I can agree with that. The best music has a universal appeal, and is beyond the judgement of the masses or the state, or whoever might disparage it. Good music will speak directly to us as individuals.


----------



## SimonNZ (Jul 12, 2012)

Us individuals aren't part of the masses?


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

SimonNZ said:


> Us individuals aren't part of the masses?


Yes, but if you are part of a collective which disparages music which you like, then there comes a time that you must, as an individual, disagree. BTW, I did not pose this dialectic, Klassic did. I was simply responding.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> Woodduck likes to think he was born a fully-formed individual, but he was culturally conditioned like we all were.


Well, here you are again telling people what I think or like to think.

I can do that all by myself. If anyone wants to know what I think (or like to think, which is more than likely what I _do_ think), they can consult me directly.

What you say I "like to think" is too ridiculous even to discuss.

Just tell people what _you_ think. I promise never to speak for you.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess (Aug 30, 2015)

millionrainbows said:


> Yes, but if you are part of a collective which disparages music which you like, then there comes a time that you must, as an individual, disagree. BTW, I did not pose this dialectic, Klassic did. I was simply responding.


So if someone disagrees with you, they stop being an individual and become just part of the masses?


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> The present distinction came to me recently:
> 
> *Classical music is "good," secular and popular music is "bad."*
> 
> That's why older people listen to it; they have no more need to rebel or be "bad," and now they are approaching the end of life, and want to be "good" with God.


I don't know about others, but for me listening to classical music is an act of rebellion - against the mediocrity of popular culture, against the modern mores in some ways, against the Pax Americana .


----------



## Hildadam Bingor (May 7, 2016)

SiegendesLicht said:


> I don't know about others, but for me listening to classical music is an act of rebellion - against the mediocrity of popular culture


I'd say that can go both ways, though. Like, listening to Kanye West can be an act of rebellion against the mediocrity of Shostakovich.


----------



## Vasks (Dec 9, 2013)

violadude said:


> Am I the only one who came here expecting an ear training quiz?....


Yes, I was hoping for another crack at the Seashore Measure of Musical Talent Test that I took in the 1960's. I can still hear the voice on the record/tape...."_Ready Now...for the PITCH test!_"


----------



## scratchgolf (Nov 15, 2013)

I know I have a good ear because I have two ears. I use them to listen. I use my eyes to read. I have two of them also. Knees are for kneeling. Feet are for standing. I used to walk with canes. Now I use them to do pull-ups. My ears are perfect and I listen to Le Nozze every single day. It is a perfect work. It never gets old. Brahms was correct. I am correct. Trust your own ears. They are perfect too. Or just keep talking about it.


----------



## Lenny (Jul 19, 2016)

millionrainbows said:


> Woodduck like to think he was born a fully-formed individual, but he was culturally conditioned like we all were.
> 
> The present distinction came to me recently:
> 
> ...


I'm okay with this statement, but I don't consciousnessly feel that way. I started to listen to classical simply because pop/rock wasn't enough. And what a world it opened... Something I didn't realize at all. But I still listen to some prog and electronic from time to time, but it's just not enough.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I accept that I have a dark side I don't have to reject, so I still listen to rock and jazz/blues. But "contemporary" classical is based on such a secular worldview that it's like being on the dark side as well.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

I think I have a good ear because I can tell the difference in Baroque performance pitch.


----------

