# A simple formula



## Guest (Nov 12, 2012)

OK, after the recent barrage of anti-modernism from several upholders of standards and morality, I think it may be time again to try to float this modest observation about music and listeners. I've tried it before, in various places. It seems so easy and so reasonable to me, but that's not how it's taken. Boy howdy.

But enough about me. Here's the observation:

Person L and person D are sitting side by side in a living room. They are listening to the same music from the same place in the room. Person L really likes what she hears (hence the L). Person D really dislikes what he hears (hence et cetera).

Now it seems pretty obvious, does it not, that the difference noted is not coming from the music. The music is exactly the same, the same frequencies, the same volume, the same patterns, the same equipment, the same everything. The difference is coming from the listeners, one of whom likes the music, one of whom does not.

Here's the point at which some clever gus or other says that all this sounds like a not very well disguised version of "blame the audience." Not at all. What this formula does is locate the source accurately.

So why the problem? The experience of listening to music is, or can be, an extremely powerful experience. And for person D, it's clear what's happening: those hideous sounds he's reacting to are coming right out of those speakers. And D is partly right. The _sound_s he's reacting to are indeed coming out of the speakers. The "hideous" part, however, is coming from him. (Not that he's hideous himself, of course. Far from it. Person L thinks that he's a pretty nice-looking guy, though by now she may be having second thoughts....)

And person L may be equally convinced that those beautiful sounds she's hearing are coming from the speakers, too. They're not.

And that's what's so difficult. Convincing anyone having a powerful experience with music that they're contributing anything. All that stuff, whether it's ugly or whether it's beautiful, is obviously coming right at them. It's overwhelming them, either with beauty or hideosity. But logically, how could that be? You could only think that if you were the only one who ever listened to music. But you're not. And that single piece, with its frequencies and duration and volume and the like, which are the same frequencies and duration and volume and the like for both person L and person D, cannot be both beautiful and ugly at the same time. That's a flat contradiction.

Simply, the beauty and the ugliness are descriptions of two different reactions. It's not two different pieces. It's the same piece. Only the reactions are different.

Here's where person D--and there've been several person Ds at TC who have argued this--sometimes attempts to validate his perspective, to privilege his perspective as the only valid one, by attacking person L. Person L is crazy. Person L is an exception. Person L is in a minority. Person L is an example of the lowering of standards and general moral decline in all of society.

Well, good luck with that one, D. Certainly even person D is able to see that pursuing that line of thought is not likely to result in any more dates with the lovely and desirable person L. On the other hand, since person L's such a crazy bitch.... Well, we each have our own ways to protect our illusions. (And I fully anticipate the reaction to _that_ remark. I'll anticipate, if I may: yawn.)


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

some guy said:


> And that's what's so difficult. Convincing anyone having a powerful experience with music that they're contributing anything.


And of course they aren't "contributing anything," they're simply having a powerful experience with the music. And when the other person says, "That's terrible music," the first person typically says, "You're stuck in the past," or "Well, suck on the security of your lollipop music," or "You're an anti-modernist," or some such.

In fairness, the opposite applies as well!


----------



## Prodromides (Mar 18, 2012)

The lovely & desirable female L is welcome to break-up with "D" and come over to my place, wherein we can perform _cinq danses rituelles_ with each other.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Of course, the way to settle the argument is... a POLL.


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

Person X and person Y watch a child being murdered. Person X is horrified. Person Y laughs.

I am not saying that all art I dislike is equivalent to a child being murdered (or any of it for that matter - probably there is somewhere though :/), but rather taking your argument ad absurdam (I hope).

Listening to music is a two-way street - it matters both what the music is and the listener. That is what I am trying to say in a somewhat round about way.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Ramako said:


> Person X and person Y watch a child being murdered. Person X is horrified. Person Y laughs.
> 
> I am not saying that all art I dislike is equivalent to a child being murdered (or any of it for that matter - probably there is somewhere though :/), but rather taking your argument ad absurdam (I hope).
> 
> Listening to music is a two-way street - it matters both what the music is and the listener. That is what I am trying to say in a somewhat round about way.


Music is not an issue of morality. Your analogy doesn't make sense.


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

violadude said:


> Music is not an issue of morality. Your analogy doesn't make sense.


Do you genuinely believe that what music is being played makes no difference?


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Ramako said:


> Yes it does. Do you actually believe that what music is being played makes no difference?


In your scenario, the two people are witnessing an act that deals with morality and ethics (I.E. one conscious being's relationship to another conscious being and how they interact with each other). In Some Guy's scenario, they are both experiencing something that has nothing to do with conscious beings at all and thus has no inherent moral issues tied to it.


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

violadude said:


> In your scenario, the two people are witnessing an act that deals with morality and ethics (I.E. one conscious being's relationship to another conscious being and how they interact with each other). In Some Guy's scenario, they are both experiencing something that has nothing to do with conscious beings at all and thus has no inherent moral issues tied to it.


Ok I was about to change my response because it was knee-jerk, but now that we are at this stage I shall go with it.

1. You have not answered my question.

2. That music has nothing to do with morality is by no means axiomatic - although the debate is a bit off-topic for this thread (not that that usually makes difference)

3. The point of my analogy is the following:

Two conscious beings have the same experience of the senses (in the one case through the eyes, in the other through the ears). The two beings have totally different reactions - one of pleasure, the other of displeasure. Both of these are the same. The point of my analogy was to create a scenario where I hoped everyone would agree that one outcome was healthier. I could have done the opposite - made a joyful scenario and the point would have been the same.

If you want a musical analogy, then make it 57 year old trying to play a Beethoven sonata when they haven't played the piano in 40 years and even then only reached grade 6. The point is the same. Perhaps you are right and I should have started with this one, but it matters little.


----------



## Guest (Nov 12, 2012)

KenOC said:


> And of course they aren't "contributing anything," they're simply having a powerful experience with the music.


Well, aside from what "having a powerful experience" could possibly mean without figuring in the contribution of the experiencer, note that you have very not at all cunningly turned two very different experiences into one experience. According to the formula, there are two experiences, not one. And one piece, not two.



Ramako said:


> Person X and person Y watch a child being murdered. Person X is horrified. Person Y laughs.
> 
> I am not saying that all art I dislike is equivalent to a child being murdered (or any of it for that matter - probably there is somewhere though :/), but rather taking your argument ad absurdam (I hope).
> 
> Listening to music is a two-way street - it matters both what the music is and the listener.


Well, thanks for making the absurdity for us. Comparing listening to music with watching a child being murdered is indeed absurd. No doubt.

Listening to music does indeed involve energy flowing from different directions. But that's not what the formula is devised to reveal. By making the music in question one particular piece to which two people react differently makes the point that the evaluative language used to describe the music does nothing of the sort. It describes the experience.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I have had this kind of scenario play out in reality. One example is Anne Sophie Mutter's recording on the same cd of the Gubaidulina and Bach violin concertos. I played it to a friend of mine, he loved the Gubaidulina, and I pretty much loved the Bach. Our reaction was not too strongly against the pieces we liked less though, I just liked the Gubaidulina concerto less than the Bach. The friend liked both, but from what I gather Gubaidulina had a big effect since it was the first time this person heard her music.

Its the same with any music, not only classical, and not only old or new music. & often the reaction cannot be stereotyped or put in a box. I am more a big fan of new music than this acquaintance of mine, although we both have fairly eclectic tastes, not only in classical but in other things.

But what of online discussions? Would I be branded something - from conservative to radical - if I express preference for one or the other composer? Even a strong preference? Even getting emotional? Is it wrong to be emotional? Do we have to be detached (as I know there is a formalist dominance on this forum, eg. most people are more or less formalist here, and I did a poll on it at this thread: http://www.talkclassical.com/21483-formalism-contextualism.html).

But I don't like word games. In many areas, like historical research, one tends to try to call a spade a spade. I was studying the Apartheid regime in South Africa, and the prime minister in the 1960's, Hendrik Frensch Verwoerd, used weasal words to describe the racist Apartheid regime. He said it was not racist, but a policy of "good neighbourliness" between whites and blacks. So that was used to justify minority rule by 5 million whites of about 30 million blacks. Unjust in reality, but on paper we can say what we want, as long as it sounds good, its fine.

You know, I see similar things on this forum, even though discussing music is much much more difficult and less clear cut than politics. Saint Saens said that the most difficult thing is talking about music. Maybe true, but I think let's not make it even more difficult - and put it into political weasel words/rhetorical territory - by focussing too much on the words/semantics and not much on the music.

Then there's ideology. I won't go there, I'm like a broken record on that, seriously.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Ramako said:


> 3. The point of my analogy is the following:
> 
> Two conscious beings have the same experience of the senses (in the one case through the eyes, in the other through the ears). The two beings have totally different reactions - one of pleasure, the other of displeasure. Both of these are the same. The point of my analogy was to create a scenario where I hoped everyone would agree that one outcome was healthier. I could have done the opposite - made a joyful scenario and the point would have been the same.


The difference is that there are moral implications to ones reaction to someone getting murdered. If they laugh at it it is probably to be assumed as you stated that they are not as healthy as the other person who did not. However, there is not such moral implication having to do with music. Listening to and enjoying this or that music does not imply healthiness or ethical sanity one way or another.

As to whether I believe what music is being played makes a difference. I would ask makes a difference in what way?


----------



## SottoVoce (Jul 29, 2011)

That is ridiculous. How could music in any way be moral, music itself? You're talking about ideology outside of music, not music itself. Music cannot express a linguistic proposition, and thus it can't make any statements of truth and falsity; therefore, it cannot make any moral statements. To say anything else is absolutely ridiculous. 

As to how people react to it in a moral way, that has nothing to do with the moral considerations of music. There are plenty of people who feel morally repulsed by gay marriage, but no one is going to base their decision their moral decisions just because someone feels repulsed about it. I hope you hold your morality to a higher standard than just what the majority reacts to it by. 

I'm not quite understanding what you're trying to prove. Are you trying to say certain music is harmful to society, thus immoral? If so, then that is what Plato said about art in his Republic, that it was dangerous and irrational and must be expelled from the Republic. Bertrand Russell also called Plato "the first fascist". If that is what you're saying, this is definitely in the trend of fascistic thinking. Which is probably why Hitler banned all that stuff, avant-garde and serialism; he thought it was "harmful" for society.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Ramako said:


> Person X and person Y watch a child being murdered. Person X is horrified. Person Y laughs.
> 
> I am not saying that all art I dislike is equivalent to a child being murdered (or any of it for that matter - probably there is somewhere though :/), but rather taking your argument ad absurdam (I hope).
> 
> Listening to music is a two-way street - it matters both what the music is and the listener. That is what I am trying to say in a somewhat round about way.


In which instance have you listened to a piece and had 100% agreement with another listener, down to the least of the thousands of visceral, psychological / associative, and intellectual reactions and thoughts each of you has had?

I think the only plausible answer to that would be, "When I listened to '_____,' and the other listener was my clone."

P.s. any correlation to 'morality' or 'ethics' and absolute music is just hysterically funny, neither having anything to do with a construct which is "just notes"....


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Aldous Huxley would agree with some guy (lol, with member some guy, not with a random guy). According to Huxley, suppose there's an objective event and some people are watching/ hearing it, then there are two possibilities, there will be sensations shared and similar for all the people and there will be very personal and subjective sensations. Huxley says that art deals with the latter and science with the first. According to Huxley, contemplation of art is the contemplation of our own subjectivity, of ourselves!.


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

some guy said:


> Well, thanks for making the absurdity for us. Comparing listening to music with watching a child being murdered is indeed absurd. No doubt.


I suppose comparing music to literature or film or paintings is similarly absurd? And is comparing those to the reality they often depict also absurd? The former could be argued, the latter only with difficulty.



PetrB said:


> P.s. any correlation to 'morality' or 'ethics' and absolute music is just hysterically funny, neither having anything to do with a construct which is "just notes"....


The idea that music can evoke emotions is clearly so hysterically funny that... oh wait, no it's not. The idea that music cannot evoke emotions is not just hysterically funny but *factually incorrect*. Emotions don't necessarily have to imply morality but they can do. The idea that emotions never have anything to do with morality is also quite simply incorrect. One could argue that art, or perhaps I should just say music, evokes a set of emotions removed from reality, but I would argue otherwise. Many composers of the highest calibre certainly have not aimed for this autonomy and in some cases were offended at the idea.

I am not going to continue this argument based on a poorly chosen analogy on my part. I have created a different scenario based in purely musical matters. The listener is important and so is the music. Some guy's analogy was clearly created with modern music in mind to make a point, but we could easily change it to Beethoven or Lady Gaga or whoever. My assertion was that there is such a thing as bad music, not just bad listeners. I was not trying to label a whole genre which is why I used Beethoven in my second example that no one has noticed.



Ramako said:


> Do you genuinely believe that what music is being played makes no difference?


By which I meant that the reactions of the two listeners also depends on what music is being played. If bad music (of whatever genre) is being played, then both probably won't enjoy it.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

@some guy's scenario makes it very clear that the same music can effect different people enormously differently. Obviously the different reaction occurs inside each person's brain. The conclusion is that people process music differently such that some will adore Mozart's 41st symphony and others (unfortunately ) will not. There is a reason why at TC, in major books on composers, amongst conductors, and at online music sites discussing composers people will list Stockhausen, Ligeti, Carter, Boulez, and others as noteworthy composers. Their music is both enjoyed and considered interesting by many people who care deeply about classical music. That is simply a fact even if a given person (such as myself) does not particularly enjoy their music.

Having said that, I would like to introduce a second scenario that _in no way refutes the above scenario_ but perhaps makes it easier to understand how some people react as they do to modern music. Rather than one piece of music and 2 listeners, consider one listener and 200 pieces of music. The first 190 works come from the Renaissance, Baroque, Classical, and Romantic eras (say somewhat randomly from a list of great works such as in Goulding's book). The last 10 come from Stockhausen, Ligeti, Carter, and Boulez. The listener responds to the first 190 thinking they are either beautiful or very nice. A few will be just OK perhaps. The listener comes to view classical music as simply wonderful - a source of great joy. She eagerly approaches each new work believing that she will likely enjoy it and maybe love it.

Then she starts to sample the "modern" works and finds that she decidedly does not enjoy them. Further, she does not respond as though they are OK but rather strongly dislikes them. Maybe everyone she knows has the same response. It is natural for people to believe that there is something "wrong" with the music. After all she loves classical music - really loves it. The "new" music is _not_ like what she has explored and loved. _She's_ the same person so _the fault_ must be with the music. I think all of us can understand both scenarios, and there's nothing really odd about any of the responses described.

I would simply suggest to those who feel there is something wrong or bad with atonal/serial/avant-garde music that there are many people here at TC who love classical music as you do. They love Bach, Beethoven, Wagner, Schubert, Mozart, etc., but _they also love atonal/serial/avant-garde music_. Are they really so vastly different from you? Perhaps some are, but many went through a phase of struggling with "modern" music before finding it quite rewarding. There's a world of new music loved by people quite similar to you. Rather than focusing on what's wrong with the "new" music, could it be more useful/enjoyable/rewarding to attempt to focus on what might be "right" about the music?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

PetrB said:


> P.s. any correlation to 'morality' or 'ethics' and absolute music is just hysterically funny, neither having anything to do with a construct which is "just notes"....


I don't think this is as obvious as you seem to assume. Plato has been mentioned, and he was not a dumb guy. The early church (or good parts of it) opposed both harmony and counterpoint in music, and especially frivolous ornamentation. Puritan sects in the US opposed music for several reasons, including that it could lead to dancing -- and of course it's all downhill from there! In many societies, musicians were considered among the lowest classes, along with actors, tumblers, and the like.

And in China, Confucius said, "I care not who makes the laws of a state, just let me write its songs."

In short, there is a lot of precedent in history to associate music with morality. Simply saying the idea is ridiculous is not a very strong rebuttal.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Slightly OT - This idea of music being tied to morality just made me think of a couple of things - when I read Eric Clapton's bio he spoke of an acid trip he once had where he had a vision while he was playing his guitar where if he played his notes a certain way he could change everyone in the audience into demons, and if he played them a different way, he could transform everyone in the audience into angels. Then I remembered reading about Jonathan Goldman who is a teacher in harmonics and sound therapy, he seems to believe that music can have healing power that is mostly dependent on the _intention of the performer_ as opposed to any particular style of music being played.

I honestly don't know exactly how music ties into morality, but I personally do believe there is some kind of connection.


----------



## Guest (Nov 13, 2012)

I think Ramako's initial point was the nature of the sound does make a difference. Unfortunately, Ramako's suggestion of murder was not helpful to his (or her?) argument.

Some Guy's original thought experiment takes the sound out of the picture - we're told nothing about the sound. But let's put the sound back in. Let's say the sound in question is a loud lawn mower on Sunday morning. With this added context, it's hard to judge L and D's reactions as equally valid.

I would argue that when we are talking about normal reasonable music as generally understood, L and D's reactions are perhaps equally valid. But to the extent that modern music approaches the sound of a loud lawnmower, then L's reaction becomes increasingly uncommon and perhaps a bit weird.

In other words, within normal ranges reactions are subjective, but when music approaches extremes, then people's reactions, though still subjective, are increasingly predictable. To the extent that modern classical music flirts with the limits of acceptability, it can expect to alienate listeners.

And, by the way, I certainly don't think all modern classical music tries to be nearly unlistenable. Whether that accusation applies to 5% or 50% or 0.5% of modern classical music, I think my point holds. Subjective responses to extreme musical forms are probabilistically predictable, as is the "normal" reaction to such music within a given social context.

I'll leave to others to decide how far this element of objectivity extends into "normal" classical music, and whether one can, for example, objectively claim that Bach is better than Zappa. Some objectivity is possible, but perhaps not as much as some would like.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

Person D is sitting on a Ikea chair.


----------



## SottoVoce (Jul 29, 2011)

KenOC said:


> I don't think this is as obvious as you seem to assume. Plato has been mentioned, and he was not a dumb guy.


Greeks had no conception of the fine arts (this was defined in the 1700s), and Plato thought that art was simply representation, and because it was representation he thought music was an illusion away from reality and thus bad for society. He also thought that art in GENERAL (not just bad art) was irrational and based solely on pleasure, with no gain to knowledge whatsoever, so thus harmful to society His own conception of morality as akin to usefulness and knowledge is what made him see it as immoral, not because it was bad in itself. Absolute music, without any social considerations (how people react to it, how people use it, etc), has no moral propositions; because it is UNABLE to make any linguistic propositions that could constitute a moral choice.

Morality from music can come from how people react to it, which for me is utterly irrelevant to determining if music itself is moral or not. Again, if you read Plato's Republic, you could see that it is the basis of a fascistic society. Plato had a completely different conception of democracy than us (which is why he came to abhorr it), and a completely different conception of society in general. Plato's Republic, in it's most concrete sense, is repulsive to the modern mind because it's based off an idealization of a society based on necessity; it was a reflection of Plato's admiration of Sparta. So I'm not sure if we should follow his idea of what to allow and not allow. He was not dumb of course, but that's only because he was huge leaps ahead of his predecessors; Plato called art immoral IN GENERAL, just not bad art, and certaintly many people would disagree with this view.



> The early church (or good parts of it) opposed both harmony and counterpoint in music, and especially frivolous ornamentation. Puritan sects in the US opposed music for several reasons, including that it could lead to dancing -- and of course it's all downhill from there! In many societies, musicians were considered among the lowest classes, along with actors, tumblers, and the like.


Yeah, but wouldn't you consider these views wrong? I'm surprised that you have Samuel Johnson as your avatar and making these claims, as wasn't he the one who said "that music was the only harmless sensous pleasure"? These beliefs about music came from irrational religious dogma that saw ANY sort of pleasure as harmful, not just music. You know.. without harmony and counterpoint, what would we be left with in music? Gregorian Chant. Are you saying the only moral music is Gregorian Chant?

All of these people are determining the morality of the REACTION to music, instead of the morality of absolute music in itself. The latter is absolutely impossible; morality needs linguistic propositions, which music in its essence does not contain. It is just sound. There is no semantical content in it. It can't be true and false about the world. It can't express morality. That's it.

And they were speaking of art in general; a lot of people until the Enlightenement saw many of the things we value most as dangerous. There is also a historical precedent of monarchs calling themselves divine rulers, or anyone not being Christian being executed. There is no way we should respect these attitudes, we know better through hindsight. The association of music with morality is HIGHLY dangerous, as we saw with Hitler's abuse of Wagner and Strauss. It is repulsive to me to even think of music just being based on what is "right" for society and any music that the tyrannical majority deems "wrong" being banned. No great things come out of this. All is left is a life long and boring. Thank god this is not the case.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

BPS said:


> ...
> I would argue that when we are talking about normal reasonable music as generally understood, L and D's reactions are perhaps equally valid...


Yes, that is what my exprience is with other listeners of classical music. When playing them things, or at concerts. We all have different reactions, but if the music is 'normal reasonable' as you call it, the reactions are unlikely to be extreme. I've been to performances of new works and this applies. Listeners will have different ideas about those, as we do, but if its from say major Australian composers (or indeed international ones), then people are unlikely to have reactions to them that are at either extreme - either rubbish or a total masterpiece.

But on another note, that says to me that classical music today (virtually all of it) is on the fringes. You don't hear of riots at new music performances like 100 years ago, even 60 years ago. Maybe the canary taken down the mine to test the air is showing a signal? Or maybe its died long ago? So maybe some reaction, even extreme, is better than no reaction. Some mild clapping, the composer coming on stage, then we go home and forget about it, and its not played for like 10, 20, 30 years, if ever played at all. Pretty sad actually, quite sad how music has come to this. We're arguing over the bones of it like wild dogs (the treatment of Ramako above does bring to mind the pack mentality of various cliques in music, fighting over increasingly small turf, but forget it).



> ...
> In other words, within normal ranges reactions are subjective, but when music approaches extremes, then people's reactions, though still subjective, are increasingly predictable. To the extent that modern classical music flirts with the limits of acceptability, it can expect to alienate listeners.
> 
> ....


Yes that makes sense, which is what I discussed - giving a quote by a psychologist - on this thread:
http://www.talkclassical.com/17622-balancing-predictable-surprising-music.html

I have come across other psychological studies related to music. They play various types of music to a baby. There have been all sorts of studies with various types of music, and guess what? Babies don't like noise just like the average person. When subjected to extreme sounds, they often cry or have an expression suggesting discomfort.

But I would not begrudge anyone enjoying whatever music they want to though, its a free world.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

Oh well. De gustibus non est disputandum . Reactions to any musical work are highly subjective .
And it's certainly interesting to see how different people react differently to the same work or the 
output of any ocmposer as a whole . Music certainly does cause powerful emotional reactions in people, although sometimes mere indifference .
Music is not moral or immoral in and of itself , but it has often been used as a tool to achieve immoral ends, as within the former Soviet Union and in Germany by the Nazis .
Wagner's Ring is not a work of Nazi propaganda at all . Nor are nay of his other operas . But Adolf Hitler read his own sick ideas into them , and used them for his own nefarious purposes . Which is ironic given the fact that the Ring does not glorify Teutonic supremacy of Jews or anyone else . It is about the disastrous results of lust for power and riches and ends with the destruction of Wotan and the Gods in Walhall .
There are a variety of reactions possible to any given classical work ; one can get enormous pleasure out of it and feel downright euphoric about it , or be profoundly moved . Or one can be irritated and annoyed by it .
Or just plain bored . Or puzzled . Sometimes you're just not certain what you think about it, and want to get to know it better before you make a definite judgment .
The last has often been my reaction to worlks that are new to me . I always try ot keep an open mind .


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

SottoVoce said:


> Yeah, but wouldn't you consider these views wrong? ... Are you saying the only moral music is Gregorian Chant?


I'm not real clear why you are confusing the historical precendents I offered with my own views.


----------



## SottoVoce (Jul 29, 2011)

KenOC said:


> I'm not real clear why you are confusing the historical precendents I offered with my own views.


I'm not. I'm saying these views aren't legitimate, even if they were made by intelligent in the past. They shouldn't be taken seriously in the modern day. We've seen the effects they've had. You're saying to take the idea that morality and music can be connected because people have said it in the past. I'm saying that we have been wrong about many things in the past, and it doesn't really matter whoever said it, the ideas that the church and Plato produce are so against what we value in art that we shouldn't even begin to take them seriously. the Church's ideas don't only apply to a subsect of music, they apply to Bach, Beethoven, etc. This is ridiculous to take this idea of banning these compsoers seriously. The church was also against the tritone, because they thought it was inspired by Satan; surprise, surprise, it turned out to be just a sound. What I'm saying is that these ideas shouldn't be taken seriously just because they've been said in the past. We've been wrong about many things in the past. Sorry if I seemed a bit confrontational, or putting words in your mouth.


----------



## Guest (Nov 13, 2012)

mmsbls said:


> I would like to introduce a second scenario that _in no way refutes the above scenario_ but perhaps makes it easier to understand how some people react as they do to modern music. Rather than one piece of music and 2 listeners, consider one listener and 200 pieces of music. The first 190 works come from the Renaissance, Baroque, Classical, and Romantic eras (say somewhat randomly from a list of great works such as in Goulding's book). The last 10 come from Stockhausen, Ligeti, Carter, and Boulez. The listener responds to the first 190 thinking they are either beautiful or very nice. A few will be just OK perhaps. The listener comes to view classical music as simply wonderful - a source of great joy. She eagerly approaches each new work believing that she will likely enjoy it and maybe love it.
> 
> Then she starts to sample the "modern" works and finds that she decidedly does not enjoy them. Further, she does not respond as though they are OK but rather strongly dislikes them. Maybe everyone she knows has the same response. It is natural for people to believe that there is something "wrong" with the music. After all she loves classical music - really loves it.


Natural, may be. But irrational.

Otherwise, this second scenario fascinates me, because with a few minor differences, this is exactly what happened to me all the way up to the not liking part. I started out listening to Rachmaninoff, then Tchaikovsky and Haydn and Beethoven and Grieg. And shortly everyone in between and earlier. When, after about eleven years of that, I heard Bartok's _Concerto for Orchestra_ for the first time, I was hooked and for good. I was as insatiable to hear twentieth century musics, especially the musics of what can be called avant garde (what my music teacher in college preferred to call "the green, growing edge"), as ever I had been to explore the older classical musics.

And yeah, I heard all the standard criticisms of new music--no one here or anywhere else has ever come up with anything that I hadn't heard before probably 1975 (my adventure with Bartok having started in 1972).



mmsbls said:


> The "new" music is _not_ like what she has explored and loved. _She's_ the same person so _the fault_ must be with the music. I think all of us can understand both scenarios, and there's nothing really odd about any of the responses described.


Well, it is actually very much like what she has already explored and loved. And is equally loveable. Though I certainly would be the last to argue that her situation is anything but understandable. It is indeed perfectly understandable. And not even a little bit odd.



BPS said:


> Some Guy's original thought experiment takes the sound out of the picture - we're told nothing about the sound. But let's put the sound back in. Let's say the sound in question is a loud lawn mower on Sunday morning. With this added context, it's hard to judge L and D's reactions as equally valid.


Well, what your scenario leaves out is that a loud lawn mower on Sunday morning is disruptive. It's a sudden, loud sound over which neither L nor D has any control, and it has likely woken both of them from their sleep. It is in no way analogous to two friends sitting side by side on the couch listening to the same piece on the stereo.



BPS said:


> I would argue that when we are talking about normal reasonable music as generally understood, L and D's reactions are perhaps equally valid. But to the extent that modern music approaches the sound of a loud lawnmower, then L's reaction becomes increasingly uncommon and perhaps a bit weird.


But this changes the context even more. The actual sound of a lawn mower, divorced from the social context in which one neighbor is forcing all other neighbors to endure a loud noise when they'd prefer to be lolling about in bed, is not an unpleasant thing at all. L very probably likes the sound of it all on its own. I know I do. And the special pleading in this takes us straight back to one of my original points, which was that anti-modernists, so sure that only their reactions are normal or valid, often resort to demonizing those who enjoy it.

Great job!!


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

some guy said:


> ...
> But this changes the context even more. The actual sound of a lawn mower, divorced from the social context in which one neighbor is forcing all other neighbors to endure a loud noise when they'd prefer to be lolling about in bed, is not an unpleasant thing at all. L very probably likes the sound of it all on its own. I know I do...


Context is very important. However, it doesn't invalidate what BPS was saying, and I agree with him basically. I would extend that even more flexible people struggle with new music (or with any music new to them, for that matter). I would and do validate people having 'issues' with new or newer music. We have discussed this before. To fall back on a kind of extreme subjective view of music, coupled with an extreme formalist view, its just as "irrational" or I'd say ideological as any other view expressed on this forum. In other words, your word against mine, or BPS's or anybody's. I don't think its useful to take the high moral ground here, just because such music is easy for you, it doesn't mean its easy for others. Can you show some empathy? Can you validate, even partially, what others are feeling? You don't have to answer these btw. Its just food for thought.



> ...
> And the special pleading in this takes us straight back to one of my original points, which was that anti-modernists, so sure that only their reactions are normal or valid, often resort to demonizing those who enjoy it.


Well there have been many opinions on Modernism that are critical or at least questioning Modernism the ideology, but coming from what we may call supporters of new music or even composers of it. Take Hindemith for example, or Honegger, or Ansermet, people who where at the forefront of composing and performing new music of their day. I have a problem with any ideology that makes music into something other than what it is, which is basically music. Music is not ideology, or not synonymous with it. Its not dogma, not a religion, not a sacred cow that cannot be questioned. I have read widely on music of the past 100 years, and people like those I mentioned where not afraid to speak their minds on what they thought as the problems with ideology of Modernism. Same with any ideology, sometimes the rhetoric doesn't match the reality 'out there.' I really found Aaron Copland's writing on this insightful, moderate and balanced. Its not to say someone is right or wrong, just that just because they don't agree with everything Modernism is about doesn't mean they're automatically consevative or retrograde. Maybe they actually want to improve it in some way, refine the ideology, bring it up to date or up to speed with reality? The ivory tower mentality might be useful to academics but its not always useful for the broad classical music listnership.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

some guy said:


> OK, after the recent barrage of anti-modernism from several upholders of standards and morality, I think it may be time again to try to float this modest observation about music and listeners. I've tried it before, in various places. It seems so easy and so reasonable to me, but that's not how it's taken. Boy howdy.
> 
> But enough about me. Here's the observation:
> 
> ...


Reaction to listening of those sounds; yes, indeed. I would like to extend your scenario to suggest that the music itself should be engaging, without even trying to imply that Listener L is pretentious, as far as say extreme forms of noise/avant-garde music is concerned. I have suggested this before. But this thread is a nice place for it:-

Blindfold Listener L and Listener D. Sit them down. Then, without telling them anything about what they are about to hear, play some Xenakis or Merzbow. Loud (but not too loud). After the music is finished, ask them if they enjoyed what they listened to. *And also ask them if they thought the piece was noise or composed music. Finally ask them assuming if it was music, was the piece even well performed?* Remember, no cheating: no prior knowledge/information to reveal to them that the pieces were in fact composed, performed music.

Repeat the exercise with Mozart. Contrast and explain the difference.

repeat the excersie with a "large sample". Contrast and explain the difference.


----------



## Guest (Nov 13, 2012)

Sid James said:


> ...just because such music is easy for you, it doesn't mean its easy for others.


Where have I ever suggested such a thing? (And it wasn't easy for me. Just natural. Easy and difficult just didn't enter into it. When I hit a piece I didn't understand, I just left it for later. I wasn't (and I said it this way to myself) ready for it yet.)



Sid James said:


> Can you show some empathy?


Where does _this_ come from? (If you answer "from left field," I'm OK with that.



Sid James said:


> Can you validate, even partially, what others are feeling?


Did you read, even partially, my post in response to mmsbls's?



Sid James said:


> Its just food for thought.


Thanks mom.


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Reaction to listening of those sounds; yes, indeed. I would like to extend your scenario to suggest that the music itself should be engaging, without even trying to imply that Listener L is pretentious, as far as say extreme forms of noise/avant-garde music is concerned. I have suggested this before. But this thread is a nice place for it:-
> 
> Blindfold Listener L and Listener D. Sit them down. Then, without telling them anything about what they are about to hear, play some Xenakis or Merzbow. Loud (but not too loud). After the music is finished, ask them if they enjoyed what they listened to. *And also ask them if they thought the piece was noise or composed music. Finally ask them assuming if it was music, was the piece even well performed?* Remember, no cheating: no prior knowledge/information to reveal to them that the pieces were in fact composed, performed music.
> 
> ...


Here are a few problems with your exercise:

1. Most people aren't equipped to create a logical philosophy about music. They can create a personal philosophy, but it should in no way be construed as superior simply because it is more popular.
2. "Noise" has both a common definition (any unwanted sound, an entirely subjective definition) and a technical definition, neither of which is contradictory with "music."
3. A listener can't know whether or not a piece was well performed without some prior knowledge of the piece; any opinion about it will be just that. What if, for example, the Mozart that was played was "A Musical Joke?"

Therefore, I have no idea what your exercise is trying to prove.


----------



## Guest (Nov 13, 2012)

EDIT: Haha, Kopachris! If only I'd seen your response before I wrote this one. Well, yours is better, but I'll go ahead and leave mine intact, since I already put so much work into it. Not nearly as good as yours, but why not let people have both, eh? Anyway, thanks for yours. I enjoyed your response enormously and will probably be stealing ideas and even words from it in subsequent discussions!!



HarpsichordConcerto said:


> ...the music itself should be engaging


The whole point of my scenario is to suggest that "engaging" is a property of the listener, not of the music. You disagree. Fine, but you then have to account for the plain differences between L's response and D's. And account for them without any suggestion that either L or D is mentally deficient.



HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Blindfold Listener L and Listener D. Sit them down. Then, without telling them anything about what they are about to hear, play some Xenakis or Merzbow. Loud (but not too loud). After the music is finished, ask them if they enjoyed what they listened to. *And also ask them if they thought the piece was noise or composed music. Finally ask them assuming if it was music, was the piece even well performed?* Remember, no cheating: no prior knowledge/information to reveal to them that the pieces were in fact composed, performed music.
> 
> Repeat the exercise with Mozart. Contrast and explain the difference.
> 
> repeat the excersie with a "large sample". Contrast and explain the difference.


First it's my mom, now it's my teacher. Enough with the matronizing* already!!:lol:

But seriously, the main difference between your scenario and mine is that mine is at least realistic. In fact, mine has taken place millions of times over several centuries.

The other difference is that your scenario is anti-historical. You cannot keep pretending that Mozart can possibly be on the same level as Merzbow, that is, that coming to Merzbow unprepared is in any way shape or form equivalent to coming to Mozart unprepared. Mozart is old. It's familiar. Even if you've never heard even one note of Mozart's music, that music is utterly familiar to you. In 2012, you would have to search pretty hard to find a person so isolated that they'd never heard any Western music of any era to make this contrast of yours have any validity.

*I know. Sexist.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

some guy said:


> Where have I ever suggested such a thing? (And it wasn't easy for me. Just natural. Easy and difficult just didn't enter into it. When I hit a piece I didn't understand, I just left it for later. I wasn't (and I said it this way to myself) ready for it yet.)...


Well I often do that too. Leave things I find difficult at first for later. & even returning to things I enjoy of course, after a long time. I've recently been doing that with Elliott Carter's works, as a sort of tribute. But using his music as an example, since that's one of the types of new/newer music I like, if someone listened to that and told us on this forum that he thought Carter's music was say difficult and maybe even put it in words that might be critical of the music, I try not to attack or make fun of his opinion. & in this thread, where the OP was very critical of Carter, I said this, which was basically saying I disagree with his negative assesment and that I like Carter's music:
http://www.talkclassical.com/20480-elliott-carter-great-composer.html#post332481

I think that new/newer music can weather criticism of that sort. If it has a certain quality like Carter's, eg. it has all round respect and a consensus that he was a major composer of his time in the areas he worked. From not only fellow composers & musicians, but also listeners, writers on new music and so on. But I would say the same thing of many composers, not only cutting edge or high octane innovative ones. I have taken time on this forum to in that way support many composers whose music I like, that is, many types of music. I try hard not to apply how I do things to others. Eg. you should value what I value, you should do things as I do. That's a recipe for antagonism, it really has been proven on this forum time and time again.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

some guy said:


> Natural, may be. But irrational.


First, I know you and I agree on the big picture here. On these issues we're quibbling. Her response may be irrational from the perspective of people who have put significant time and energy into understanding a wide range of music. Not everyone tries to understand all life from a rational perspective, and that's OK.



some guy said:


> Well, it is actually very much like what she has already explored and loved. And is equally loveable. Though I certainly would be the last to argue that her situation is anything but understandable. It is indeed perfectly understandable. And not even a little bit odd.


The new and old music are similar in many respects - constituted by sound waves, performed by musicians playing instruments, written by composers desiring to produce interesting and enjoyable music, etc.. These aspects are not relevant to this listener. The new music is quite different in one critical aspect from what she explored in the past - i.e. the old music she adores and the new she does not. In your scenario you point out that the music is the same so the difference must be in the listeners. In my scenario the listener is the same so a wildly different response must be due to the thing that varies - the music.

Yes, the new music may be loveable, but the important point is that she does not recognize that. Rationally she may come to realize the music is loveable by others, but emotionally (and even rationally) she may struggle with the idea that she, herself, can actually love it.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Kopachris said:


> Here are a few problems with your exercise:
> 
> 1. Most people aren't equipped to create a logical philosophy about music. They can create a personal philosophy, but it should in no way be construed as superior simply because it is more popular.
> 2. "Noise" has both a common definition (any unwanted sound, an entirely subjective definition) and a technical definition, neither of which is contradictory with "music."
> ...


I think you know very well what my hypothetical exercise is trying to show. If you really don't, then try the experiment. Remember, no cheating. Ask them if what they thought they heard was enjoyable, and more importantly if they considered it as music, and capable of discerning if it was well performed.


----------



## Guest (Nov 13, 2012)

some guy said:


> The actual sound of a lawn mower... is not an unpleasant thing at all. L very probably likes the sound of it all on its own. I know I do.


Oh, come on - you're pulling our leg a bit. Would you join a Talk Lawnmower site?


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

some guy said:


> EDIT: Haha, Kopachris! If only I'd seen your response before I wrote this one. Well, yours is better, but I'll go ahead and leave mine intact, since I already put so much work into it. Not nearly as good as yours, but why not let people have both, eh? Anyway, thanks for yours. I enjoyed your response enormously and will probably be stealing ideas and even words from it in subsequent discussions!!
> 
> The whole point of my scenario is to suggest that "engaging" is a property of the listener, not of the music. You disagree. Fine, but you then have to account for the plain differences between L's response and D's. And account for them without any suggestion that either L or D is mentally deficient.
> 
> ...


Pick any music that is normally recognised as music "by the man on the street", and contrast with Merzbow. That's the point.


----------



## Guest (Nov 13, 2012)

mmsbls said:


> In your scenario you point out that the music is the same so the difference must be in the listeners. In my scenario the listener is the same so a wildly different response must be due to the thing that varies - the music.
> 
> Yes, the new music may be loveable, but the important point is that she does not recognize that. Rationally she may come to realize the music is loveable by others, but emotionally (and even rationally) she may struggle with the idea that she, herself, can actually love it.


mmsbls, it is a pleasure conversing with you.

It just is.



mmsbls said:


> In my scenario the listener is the same so a wildly different response must be due to the thing that varies - the music.


This is an aspect that went completely over my head when I read your previous post, embarrassingly enough. But I do think that something other than the music does vary in your scenario, and that is the experience and the predisposition of your listener. She has more experience with older music. She is predisposed to liking older music.

I'm not all that different from her. I'm predisposed to like classical music. As a consequence, I'm more experienced with classical. Country western and top 40, um, not so much. Jazz and metal, quite like. Contemporary "serious," oh yeah.

Since your hypothetical () listener realizes that she is not the only listener, or even that all the listeners who've similarly experienced things this way are still only _some_ of all listeners, then I've really got no quibble with her at all.


----------



## Guest (Nov 13, 2012)

BPS said:


> Oh, come on - you're pulling our leg a bit. Would you join a Talk Lawnmower site?


To the first, not at all. To the second, I already am a member of a noise/eai/et cetera site. Joining a lawnmover site would be like joining a cello site. Which I'm sure does exist. And I do love cello. But I probably wouldn't join a Talk Cello site.

That Talk Lawnmower site does sound intriguing, though. There'll be great debates on whether the superior sound of the gas-powered mower is enough to off-set the environmental footprint of said technology.



HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Pick any music that is normally recognised as music "by the man on the street", and contrast with Merzbow. That's the point.


Why does this chimerical street person hold such fascination for you? Why is it _this_ person who gets to be the touchstone for a discussion of aesthetics? (People with experience need not apply??)

Clear THAT point up for me, then maybe we'll talk.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

some guy said:


> Why does this chimerical street person hold such fascination for you? Why is it _this_ person who gets to be the touchstone for a discussion of aesthetics? (People with experience need not apply??)
> 
> Clear THAT point up for me, then maybe we'll talk.


I didn't suggest "people with experience need not apply".

But more importantly, for the piece of music to survive; yes, even you would agree that John Cage one day might be the greatest ever living music god who walked the planet, the aesthetics of the majority need to matter. The aesthetics of the individual, while obviously relevant to the individual, does not, as far as the piece of music is concerned. Personally, I do not care if all considers me a fruit for liking Handel's music. But I am interested in knowing if and why Handel's music is likely to continue to remain relevant (as it is today). Maybe you don't.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Wasn't there some story about two composers arguing about music and one said he wanted to make music for the man on the street, and at that moment they looked out the window and saw Jackson Pollack on the street? 

Anyway, I don't care how Merzbow or Mozart or Madonna fare in popularity contests. I like at least some of the music of each of them.


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Pick any music that is normally recognised as music "by the man on the street", and contrast with Merzbow. That's the point.


So the average Joe will call Merzbow noise and not music. I still don't see what your point is. This may sound elitist (and maybe it is), but just because most people aren't attentive enough to discern the organization in Merzbowian noise music, doesn't mean it's not music.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Kopachris said:


> So the average Joe will call Merzbow noise and not music. I still don't see what your point is. This may sound elitist (and maybe it is), but just because most people aren't attentive enough to discern the organization in Merzbowian noise music, doesn't mean it's not music.


Yes, it may well be music to the acquired taste. But my interest (post #40) clearly states that while any old noise might be enjoyable to the one individual (and that might be all that matters to him/her), or you might call me a fruit for liking Handel's music, I want to know if and why Handel's music is likely to continue to remain relevant.


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Yes, it may well be music to the acquired taste. But my interest (post #40) clearly states that while any old noise might be enjoyable to the one individual (and that might be all that matters to him/her), or you might call me a fruit for liking Handel's music, I want to know if and why Handel's music is likely to continue to remain relevant.


No one here is calling you a fruit for liking Handel's music (at least, I'm not--I like Handel's music, too). We're not arguing about relevancy of the music. We're arguing about the relevancy of an individual's reaction to the music. We're arguing about the definition of "music." We're arguing that a reaction to the music is generated by processes internal to the listener and not the music itself; therefore, any definition of "music" can't rely on people's reaction to it.

Mainly, we're arguing that people can't argue that some piece of music is somehow "inferior" or "degenerate" just because they don't like it.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Kopachris said:


> No one here is calling you a fruit for liking Handel's music (at least, I'm not--I like Handel's music, too). We're not arguing about relevancy of the music. We're arguing about the relevancy of an individual's reaction to the music. We're arguing about the definition of "music." We're arguing that a reaction to the music is generated by processes internal to the listener and not the music itself; therefore, any definition of "music" can't rely on people's reaction to it.
> 
> Mainly, we're arguing that people can't argue that some piece of music is somehow "inferior" or "degenerate" just because they don't like it.


On an individual level, who really cares - go enjoy what you like. But I think it is important to extend that beyond the individual and ask about the piece collectively on "many" listeners. It is an essential question, whether a new piece will likely remain enduring and relevant. Your signature that "all composers are equal but all listeners are not equal" attempts to refute that, but the reality that you might be avoiding to acknowledge is that listeners; the plurality of listener, as far as the posterity of the piece is concerned, ultimately win. Even Mozart's first opera composed as a boy does not currently share a seat within core repertoire with _Don Giovanni_.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Kopachris said:


> Mainly, we're arguing that people can't argue that some piece of music is somehow "inferior" or "degenerate" just because they don't like it.


Well, I don't think there are any "objective" measures of music's superiority or inferiority either. Since you've ruled out subjective measures, that means that there are no grounds whatever to consider one piece of music superior or inferior to another.

Is that what you have in mind?


----------



## Guest (Nov 13, 2012)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> I am interested in knowing if and why Handel's music is likely to continue to remain relevant (as it is today). Maybe you don't.


This is a common notion. I find it curious. Why the obsession with survival? If Handel's music survives into 2312, for instance, how will that affect you? It cannot. You will have been long dead.

It has survived into 2012, we know that. Nothing to do with you or with any of us. And if it hadn't, how could that possibly affect you, either? You simply wouldn't know about it.

We have what we have. What we might have had is neither here nor there. What people many years hence--people we won't ever know, cannot ever know--think about anything is completely out of our purview. We only have what we have.



KenOC said:


> Well, I don't think there are any "objective" measures of music's superiority or inferiority either. Since you've ruled out subjective measures, that means that there are no grounds whatever to consider one piece of music superior or inferior to another.


And here's another curious thing. Why does considering one piece of music superior or inferior to another seem so important to so many people? Do any of the notes or rhythms change if it's considered superior? Do any of the et cetera if et cetera and so forth?

Does any of this considering make any particular audition of a piece more or less satisfying? And if so, isn't that maybe an argument for NOT doing it? Particularly if considering a piece to be inferior makes it difficult for you to enjoy it any more.

Really. You know what you like. Enjoy it. You know what you've tried and found to be not to your taste. Any considering past that knowledge seems otiose to me. What could it possibly accomplish?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

some guy said:


> Why does considering one piece of music superior or inferior to another seem so important to so many people? Do any of the notes or rhythms change if it's considered superior? Do any of the et cetera if et cetera and so forth?


It's very natural for people to draw such distinctions -- in basic matters, it's necessary for survival. Even ol' Ludwig did it, getting a bit steamed when people preferred his 7th symphony to his 8th, and steamed big time when people preferred the previous two movements of the Op. 130 quartet to the Grosse Fuge. "Cattle! Asses! The fugue alone should have been encored!"

Today some seem to think that art is "level" and that such distinctions shouldn't be made. This is a common attitude in our society as a whole. I'm not sure it's useful or healthy.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

some guy said:


> This is a common notion. I find it curious. Why the obsession with survival? If Handel's music survives into 2312, for instance, how will that affect you? It cannot. You will have been long dead.
> 
> It has survived into 2012, we know that. Nothing to do with you or with any of us. And if it hadn't, how could that possibly affect you, either? You simply wouldn't know about it.


I want to know why a composer and his music reach true classical status; in particular, the causality between the piece and listeners over time, but you don't. This is a site dedicated to music that have. But I accept that you are not at all interested in such.



some guy said:


> And here's another curious thing. Why does considering one piece of music superior or inferior to another seem so important to so many people? Do any of the notes or rhythms change if it's considered superior? Do any of the et cetera if et cetera and so forth?


As above.



some guy said:


> Does any of this considering make any particular audition of a piece more or less satisfying? And if so, isn't that maybe an argument for NOT doing it? Particularly if considering a piece to be inferior makes it difficult for you to enjoy it any more.


That's where you and I have a difference. There more I find a composer's music deeply engaging, the more I want answered as to why especially if these have reached true classical status down the centuries. You don't. That's fine. We can leave it at that.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

some guy said:


> This is an aspect that went completely over my head when I read your previous post, embarrassingly enough. But I do think that something other than the music does vary in your scenario, and that is the experience and the predisposition of your listener. She has more experience with older music. She is predisposed to liking older music.


I think the experience and predisposition do not vary _within her_. She has less experience and a different predisposition to new music, but these are constants for her. But I think I understand what you're getting at. Her mental state may vary when listening to old and new music. (And, yes, maybe everyone's mental state varies as the music can differ significantly, but the variation can produce positive or negative results.)

I'm the same person when I go to a job evaluation and when I meet a good friend on the street, but my mental state is much different. One can certainly influence one's potential response to something new and different. As an outward analogy to her inner mental state, one can imagine she listens to Brahms by sitting in a comfortable chair in her warm living room while listening to Ligeti standing outside in a freezing rainstorm.

Of course, she might say that listening to Brahms in the rainstorm is still better than listening to Ligeti on the comfortable chair , but the point is still well-taken.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Pick any music that is normally recognised as music "by the man on the street", and contrast with Merzbow. That's the point.


You're right except for one thing - we are very PC around here - you have to refer to "the woman on the street."

But seriously, I've been thinking of doing a thread on the ideology of Modernism. The good, the bad and the ugly. Now is not the time to do it, we've got an oversupply of threads to do with related things. Duplication is unecessary.

But one thing that hard core Modernists won't concede to is that the majority of the 'warhorse' repertoire of today was popular at the time it was composed/first performed or not long after.

http://www.talkclassical.com/22117-warhorses-their-popularity-past.html

So popularity is important. Of course its only one element of many. But I would validate your point. Merzbow is not very known now, not even amongst classical listeners, and thats unlikely to change. I was talking last week of the death of Elliott Carter to an acquaintance of mine, a former musician. This person is fairly well versed in classical, and he said he probably hasn't heard Carter's music, be he has read of or heard his name somewhere. So that's what I'm saying.

Getting back to Carter who I used as an example. There is consensus out there amongst listeners, musicians, composers, writers on music and so on that he was a significant composer of his time and of his type. So its better to compare him to Merzbow, not compare something like Handel or Mozart. But your point of recognition and popularity being one of the markers of significance and contribution of a composer stil stands, I think. & compare Merzbow in your exercise to John Williams or Andrew Lloyd Webber, and 'the man on the street' would recognise and appreciate the latter, and not the former. Both living composers working in modern tonal styles. I got no problem with that or Carter (but I don't want Merzbow, its over my limit, but so what?).


----------



## Guest (Nov 14, 2012)

Sid James said:


> But one thing that hard core Modernists won't concede to is that the majority of the 'warhorse' repertoire of today was popular at the time it was composed/first performed or not long after.


This is relevant to what? (I mean, besides it's not being true.) Name some names, quote some words. "Hard core Modernists" is just another jejune smoke screen. In the thread you mention, the first exceptions to your "rule" were stated by HarpsichordConcerto, who is hardly a hard core Modernist. In the rest of the thread, there may be some people you would describe as "hard core Modernist," but none of them refused to concede that particular point. Those people tried, without success, to interject a little real history, with bumps and twists and contradictions, into the discussion.



Sid James said:


> So popularity is important.


Be nice to have some premises to go with this here conclusion. (Be nice to have some context for it, too. "Popularity is important" just out of the blue like that is not terribly convincing.)



Sid James said:


> ...Merzbow is not very known now, not even amongst classical listeners, and thats unlikely to change.


So much unpacking to do. Very tiresome.

Merzbow is very well known. He's possibly the most famous of all the noise artists. His discography is enormous, and his concerts are very well-attended.

"...even amongst classical listeners"? Even? Say what? These throwaway expressions of contexts that exist nowhere in the real world are really gettin' me down. _*Especially*_ amongst classical listeners is Merzbow not at all well-known. Any more than Netrebko is well known amongst country western listeners.

As for unlikely to change, well, we'll just have to see about that, won't we?* Predictions of fame or endurance that we have record of from the past have not been noticable for being at all reliable. Any reason to consider yours to be so?

*Not that any of us will. Maybe a few. But that won't affect the rest of us who've already died long since. Which brings me to the most important question and the whole reason for slogging through this thankless unpacking of Sid's screed, and that is "Why isn't now good enough for us?"

Now is all we've got, after all. And while HC might find it fascinating to speculate about what some grandkids of grandkids' grandkids will or will not be listening to in 2312, none of that speculation is even close to being information, much less knowledge. By the time it's either of those, HC and all the rest of us will have been pushing up daisies for centuries.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

some guy said:


> Merzbow is very well known. He's possibly the most famous of all the noise artists.


Well, that settles that.


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> *I want to know why a composer and his music reach true classical status*; in particular, the causality between the piece and listeners over time, but you don't. This is a site dedicated to music that have. But I accept that you are not at all interested in such.


So, for you, a piece of music isn't "classical" unless it reaches some sort of "divine" (using that word here to separate it from popular music, not implying godliness) popularity? A lot of us are interested in the causality between the piece and listeners, and all sorts of extramusical influences, but I don't see it as relevant to the judgement of the music itself.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Kopachris said:


> So, for you, a piece of music isn't "classical" unless it reaches some sort of "divine" (using that word here to separate it from popular music, not implying godliness) popularity? A lot of us are interested in the causality between the piece and listeners, and all sorts of extramusical influences, but I don't see it as relevant to the judgement of the music itself.


Divine is your suggestion, not mine. Mine was pure and simple; classical, part of the title of this entire discussion forum. It needs no inverted-commas. I don't know what the mystery is to you.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

KenOC said:


> Well, that settles that.


I wonder if there is a forum "Talk Noise".


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Divine is your suggestion, not mine. Mine was pure and simple; classical, part of the title of this entire discussion forum. It needs no inverted-commas. I don't know what the mystery is to you.


"Divine" was just meant to imply that the popularity necessary for it to be considered classical is a different, superior sort than the popularity of popular (e.g. Rock, Pop, etc.) music. I'm still not convinced that popularity of any sort is necessary for a piece of music to be considered classical. Classical music is not called "classical" for the same reasons as classical literature. A piece of music doesn't have to be "classic" to be "classical."

So, what defines "classical" then? I don't know for certain. It's more of a philosophy than a reaction. I don't think we'll be able to agree, though, so now that we have an understanding, I'll just leave it at that.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Kopachris said:


> ... A piece of music doesn't have to be "classic" to be "classical."


I'm not going to have a lengthy and pointless discussion on semantics. Most of us here would associate the word classical music to the bulk of the pieces of music ever discussed in this entire forum; hence the name "Talk Classical". I agree with you it is not exhaustive as it could and does include other types of music, but that is not what I am seeking answers to. Let me make that clear, I am interested in those pieces that have become classical pieces, historically so, and in attempting to address the reasons why, by drawing a thought experiment as per my first post in this thread.


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> I'm not going to have a lengthy and pointless discussion on semantics. Most of us here would associate the word classical music to the bulk of the pieces of music ever discussed in this entire forum; hence the name "Talk Classical". I agree with you it is not exhaustive as it could and does include other types of music, but that is not what I am seeking answers to. Let me make that clear, I am interested in those pieces that have become classical pieces, historically so, and in attempting to address the reasons why, by drawing a thought experiment as per my first post in this thread.


I understand what you're saying, and I'm saying that I don't believe any piece becomes classical. In my opinion, classical music was classical before the term "classical" was ever applied to it, and all music made since which fits under the term (whatever the definition of the term is) was classical since it was composed. _That_ is the point we will probably never convince each other on, and if you finally understand my point, whether you agree with it or not, then I'm done with this conversation.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

My parting shots. & I guarantee to never wade into a quagmire like this again on this forum. Never.



some guy said:


> ...
> 
> Be nice to have some premises to go with this here conclusion. (Be nice to have some context for it, too. "Popularity is important" just out of the blue like that is not terribly convincing.)...


Be nice if you had some manners. If you ask in that tone, what do you expect?



> ...
> So much unpacking to do. Very tiresome...


You know, people who I admire, they tend to treat people fairly equally. In real life I mean. No matter if you're some celebrity, an academic or a labourer, you get the same respect. I take that attitude as my model, that's how I try to operate here. Sometimes I fail, but the amount of times you and a minority of others have treated me like this, I can tell you, I've had a gutful.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Kopachris said:


> I understand what you're saying, and I'm saying that I don't believe any piece becomes classical. In my opinion, classical music was classical before the term "classical" was ever applied to it, and all music made since which fits under the term (whatever the definition of the term is) was classical since it was composed. _That_ is the point we will probably never convince each other on, and if you finally understand my point, whether you agree with it or not, then I'm done with this conversation.


That's just preposterous. So there are no such terms as "classical music", let alone how Handel's _The Messiah_ is classical music today and how it reached classic status, despite mixed reception with first audiences (warmly first received in Dublin but coolly first received in London).

You might well choose not to use those words ("classical music"), that is entirely fine. But you cannot ignore the historical development (i.e. history) of numerous pieces in the context of posterity and continued (or lack of ) relevance to collective listeners, despite whatever terms you might choose or not to use. History is what it is.


----------



## Guest (Nov 14, 2012)

some guy said:


> Simply, the beauty and the ugliness are descriptions of two different reactions. It's not two different pieces. It's the same piece. Only the reactions are different.


Agreed. I'll not dwell on the consequences you describe some guy: there's no reason that tribalism should not infect the classical music sphere as it does every other.

However, as you've found, your scenario is unacceptable to those who wish to change it to say something else. I have no problem with it. My youngest son and I will sometimes take turns to play each other music we like, hoping that the other will too. Quite often, we do. Sometimes we don't. Usually, whichever one of us is 'D' has a milder reaction than dislike - indifference perhaps, but we are respectful of the other's opinions.


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> That's just preposterous. So there are no such terms as "classical music", let alone how Handel's _The Messiah_ is classical music today and how it reached classic status, despite mixed reception with first audiences (warmly first received in Dublin but coolly first received in London).
> 
> You might well choose not to use those words ("classical music"), that is entirely fine. But you cannot ignore the historical development (i.e. history) of numerous pieces in the context of posterity and continued (or lack of ) relevance to collective listeners, despite whatever terms you might choose or not to use. History is what it is.


*deep, calming breaths*

*again*

*sigh* I wrote a nice, lengthy post, but I don't think what you said deserves to be justified by my well-thought-out rebuttal. I will say the following, though:

1. You insult my opinion, rather than refute it, even after I validated your own opinion.
2. You put words in my mouth that I never said.
3. We will probably never see eye to eye on this, so there's no point in arguing. I'll respect your right to hold an opinion I disagree with. If you won't do the same, then I will have to resort to name-calling. (I'd rather not do that.) If you still don't understand my position and wish me to clarify it some more, PM me. I won't argue with you about this.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Kopachris said:


> 1. You insult my opinion, rather than refute it, even after I validated your own opinion.
> 2. You put words in my mouth that I never said.
> 3. We will probably never see eye to eye on this, so there's no point in arguing. I'll respect your right to hold an opinion I disagree with. If you won't do the same, then I will have to resort to name-calling. (I'd rather not do that.) If you still don't understand my position and wish me to clarify it some more, PM me. I won't argue with you about this.


I simply found it preposterous that your argument denied the terms "classical music" when it is clear that most folks in the usual understanding of the terms, at least, do not. You then contradict your reasoning by saying "all music made since which fits under the term (whatever the definition of the term is) was classical since it was composed". I offered you a historical solution to your definition problem, a more pragmatic solution; one based on historical fact of numerous pieces that you might like to pick to trace its development over time in reaching to us today as classical (or subsitute a preferred term if it pleases you). I do not see myself putting any words in your mouth.


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> I simply found it preposterous that your argument denied the terms "classical music" when it is clear that most folks in the usual understanding of the terms, at least, do not. You then contradict your reasoning by saying "all music made since which fits under the term (whatever the definition of the term is) was classical since it was composed". I offered you a historical solution to your definition problem, a more pragmatic solution; one based on historical fact of numerous pieces that you might like to pick to trace its development over time in reaching to us today as classical (or subsitute a preferred term if it pleases you). I do not see myself putting any words in your mouth.


I never denied the term "classical." I merely left it undefined so that you could provide your own definition (so we could therefore get to the heart of the matter). I do have a definition (based on properties of the music itself and the philosophy with which it was composed) which I use in my own head, but most people disagree with it, so in most contexts, I use the term as an adjective without a _specific_ definition, and I don't claim my definition to be any more correct than any other. Sorry for the confusion. I just found it odd that you use something separate from the music itself to define the genre.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Kopachris said:


> I never denied the term "classical." I merely left it undefined so that you could provide your own definition (so we could therefore get to the heart of the matter). I do have a definition (based on properties of the music itself and the philosophy with which it was composed) which I use in my own head, but most people disagree with it, so in most contexts, I use the term as an adjective without a _specific_ definition, and I don't claim my definition to be any more correct than any other. Sorry for the confusion. I just found it odd that you use something separate from the music itself to define the genre.


That's interesting - the part about the properties of the music _and the philosophy_. Interesting because the piece may not have a philosophy behind it per se but just a pragmatic reason, as it was very often the case: "I want to write a damn good piece, the best that I can, to impress the intended audience and make some money out of it", (many letters by Mozart himself to his father rang that explanation, for example). Fast forward to a few decades ago, you have Cage explaining his philosophy, and I regard that as musical philosophy in explaining pieces like _4'33"_ and heaps of others. So I would not be at all surprised if your defintion, allow me to presume prematurely, might be difficult to be agreeable.

As for me using something separate from the music itself to define the genre, I was appealing to its historical significance, a pragmatic one, such that the adjective "classical" has attributes of time and collective transposition of listeners' reaction to the pieces (as historical fact).


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> That's interesting - the part about the properties of the music _and the philosophy_. Interesting because the piece may not have a philosophy behind it per se but just a pragmatic reason, as it was very often the case: "I want to write a damn good piece, the best that I can, to impress the intended audience and make some money out of it", (many letters by Mozart himself to his father rang that explanation, for example). Fast forward to a few decades ago, you have Cage explaining his philosophy, and I regard that as musical philosophy in explaining pieces like _4'33"_ and heaps of others. So I would not be at all surprised if your defintion, allow me to presume prematurely, might be difficult to be agreeable.
> 
> As for me using something separate from the music itself to define the genre, I was appealing to its historical significance, a pragmatic one, such that the adjective "classical" has attributes of time and collective transposition of listeners' reaction to the pieces (as historical fact).


Well, here it is, if you're interested:

1. It must be developed from the rules of the common practice period (whether by following those rules, changing/bending them, or simply acknowledging their existence in their abandonment). *(This is the philosophical part.)*

2. It must not be collaborative in nature. *(This is the controversial part.)* Collaboration in this case doesn't include transcriptions for other instruments by someone else (which are derivative works, not unique, but not part of the original piece) or text (such as a poem or libretto which is, strictly speaking, extramusical) written by someone else. (There are a few other cases, too many to list, but most often the answer will be: "No, that doesn't count as collaboration" for some reason or another.)

3. It must not fit better under a more specific genre (such as jazz, film music _(this one's dubious)_, country, metal, one of the plethora of EDM genres, or any other genre defined by more specific musical characteristics (possibly including the content of the lyrics, if they exist)).

I'll let you decide if you think that's reasonable or not, and you can ask questions about it, but I won't argue with you about it. And, as I said, I'm perfectly willing to use whatever definition (specific or not) you want when discussing a given piece of music as long as you say so, or else we'll end up starting another argument about terminology.


----------



## Guest (Nov 14, 2012)

I at least am getting something out of this discussion.

Having listened to some Merzbow, I now find the sound of a lawnmower quite refreshing!

Also I'm working on a new normalized aural mapping think-piece (a series actually) called "Death of Civilization".


----------



## Guest (Nov 14, 2012)

What have I learned from this thread?

Well, emotional responses to music are very powerful. So powerful that the response instantly takes on the status of truth. Which means that clashes between people with different responses are clashes between which version of the Truth gets to prevail. 

Interjecting logic into an emotional situation just jacks up the emotions.

People with fixed ideas will indulge in any contortion necessary to preserve those ideas, however absurd.

And that is what I have...

...WAIT A MINUTE!! I already knew all of that stuff. Already.

I haven't learned a darn thing.

Rats.


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

What were you hoping to learn?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

some guy said:


> People with fixed ideas will indulge in any contortion necessary to preserve those ideas, however absurd.


We need more people with variable ideas!


----------



## Renaissance (Jul 10, 2012)

Absurd ideas = ideas that one dislikes. 

If the other were the only with fixed ideas, you would have never squabbling with him because the flexibility of your ideas should prevent any conflict. A quarrel is possible only between two individuals in which both have fixed ideas.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Kopachris said:


> Well, here it is, if you're interested:
> 
> 1. It must be developed from the rules of the common practice period (whether by following those rules, changing/bending them, or simply acknowledging their existence in their abandonment). *(This is the philosophical part.)*
> 
> ...


Interesting. Can you provide actual examples of #1 and #2?


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Interesting because the piece may not have a philosophy behind it per se but just a pragmatic reason, as it was very often the case: "I want to write a damn good piece, the best that I can, to impress the intended audience and make some money out of it", (many letters by Mozart himself to his father rang that explanation, for example). Fast forward to a few decades ago, you have Cage explaining his philosophy, and I regard that as musical philosophy in explaining pieces like _4'33"_ and heaps of others. So I would not be at all surprised if your defintion, allow me to presume prematurely, might be difficult to be agreeable.


But surely Mozart still has philosophy to it. If he set out to write a 'good piece, to impress the intended audience', he would be operating with a certain notion of what 'good' music, in agreement with the ideas of the audience. We retrospectively see philosophical trends such as the enlightenment and neoclassicism being prevalent at the time of Mozart and his music happens to quite neatly fit in with an emphasis on clarity and structure.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

emiellucifuge said:


> But surely Mozart still has philosophy to it. If he set out to write a 'good piece, to impress the intended audience', he would be operating with a certain notion of what 'good' music, in agreement with the ideas of the audience. We retrospectively see philosophical trends such as the enlightenment and neoclassicism being prevalent at the time of Mozart and his music happens to quite neatly fit in with an emphasis on clarity and structure.


Agree totally. Though if you were to ask Mozart, he might be puzzled about the "philosophy" part. If you ask a fish about water, the fish is likely to reply, "What's water?"


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

emiellucifuge said:


> But surely Mozart still has philosophy to it. If he set out to write a 'good piece, to impress the intended audience', he would be operating with a certain notion of what 'good' music, in agreement with the ideas of the audience. We retrospectively see philosophical trends such as the enlightenment and neoclassicism being prevalent at the time of Mozart and his music happens to quite neatly fit in with an emphasis on clarity and structure.


Agree, there could be for example Enlightenment, Romantic ideals and religious ones; it is not as black or white, but I was gearing towards the more often, largely pragmatic and business opportunistic reasons that often outweighed the purely and explicitly philosophical ones.

Edit: commission pieces for money (Mozart's _Requiem_), pieces collated intended as a job CV (Bach's _Brandenburg_), pieces expected to make money for a broader venture (Haydn's trips to England, Handel's operas)


----------



## Guest (Nov 14, 2012)

quack said:


> What were you hoping to learn?


I know, right?


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

BPS said:


> I at least am getting something out of this discussion.
> 
> Having listened to some Merzbow, I now find the sound of a lawnmower quite refreshing!
> 
> Also I'm working on a new normalized aural mapping think-piece (a series actually) called "Death of Civilization".


Nice. A noise that I find consistently "refreshing" is a V12 motor revving. Lawnmowers are not engaging.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

some guy said:


> What have I learned from this thread?
> 
> Well, emotional responses to music are very powerful. So powerful that the response instantly takes on the status of truth. Which means that clashes between people with different responses are clashes between which version of the Truth gets to prevail.
> 
> ...


Well you certainly have a way with words. Well then take the high ground for yourself. You're very welcome to it.

Anyway, I should have stopped at this. I have many other anecdotes like this. I like to listen to music with others if I can. Either recordings or at concerts. & often as your opening post suggests, there are different and unpredictable reactions from different people I listen to it with. Sometimes there's a type of consensus, sometimes its more mixed.

For all the rest I wrote on this thread sorry. Mea Culpa. As I said, I will think twice before wading into controversial things like this. Or maybe not even think at all?



Sid James said:


> I have had this kind of scenario play out in reality. One example is Anne Sophie Mutter's recording on the same cd of the Gubaidulina and Bach violin concertos. I played it to a friend of mine, he loved the Gubaidulina, and I pretty much loved the Bach. Our reaction was not too strongly against the pieces we liked less though, I just liked the Gubaidulina concerto less than the Bach. The friend liked both, but from what I gather Gubaidulina had a big effect since it was the first time this person heard her music.
> 
> Its the same with any music, not only classical, and not only old or new music. & often the reaction cannot be stereotyped or put in a box. I am more a big fan of new music than this acquaintance of mine, although we both have fairly eclectic tastes, not only in classical but in other things.
> 
> ...


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Interesting. Can you provide actual examples of #1 and #2?


Really? Okay... random piece out of the air: Schoenberg's _Sechs Kleine Klavierstueke_. 1) In systematically avoiding tonality for a certain effect, he confirmed the existence of common practice tonality. 2) He wrote it himself. 3) I suppose you _could_ create a genre for works like this, but until such a genre becomes commonly accepted, "classical" fits best.

Another? Mahler's sixth symphony. 1) Elements of common practice theory are present throughout--the form at the microscopic level, the harmonies involved, the form at the macroscopic level (for example, the first movement is clearly derived from sonata form). 2) He wrote it himself. 3) This one pretty much fits perfectly where it's at.

Counterexample? "Bangarang" by Skrillex. 1) Elements of common practice music theory are significantly lacking--it's unlikely Sonny Moore (Skrillex) even knows music theory. Therefore, the piece was developed without it. 2) He produced it himself. 3) It fits better in the genre of dubstep or in the subgenre of post-dubstep. Because of #1 and #3, that one's not classical.

Another? "If Equestria Burns" by Kyoga. 1) This one's a maybe. I don't know enough about the piece to determine this. There is theory behind the piece, from what Kyoga has said about ambient music, but I don't know if there's anything from common practice. 2) He wrote it himself. 3) It better fits in the genre of ambient music.

One more to show the controversial part? Pretty much anything on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_music_written_in_collaboration fails #2.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Schoenberg's _Sechs Kleine Klavierstueke_ = classical; tick.

Mahler's sixth symphony = classical; tick.

No problems.

_Bangarang_ by Skrillex, _If Equestria Burns_ by Kyoga; both I had to search at youtube. Definitely not classical; crap anyway, so who cares. 

Collaboration. Yes, can be tricky. Handel once wrote one act of an opera (third act of _Muzio Scevola_), while two other composers also wrote one act each to complete a three act opera, each act written independently (in a kind of competition). These three acts, written independently, examined alone are classical, as there were no collaboration/joint authorship on any one act. These types of works were relatively uncommon (as with Handel, only one such example from over sixty large scale operas and oratorios).

Deosn't seem like our working definitions are that far apart in actual practice.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Dunno honestly why I'm bothering, but this may be relevant to the issues raised in this thread. I was watching a dvd of the 1959 French film _Hiroshima Mon Amour_. Its one of the most significant European films of its time. Anyway, a special feature of the dvd is an interview with the director Alain Resnais. I have written down the English subtitles of this interview, its as follows. You can all make of it what you will. I think it applies to music, even though he's talking about film. A short extract of the interview below:

*Interviewer:* Your film [Hiroshima Mon Amour]...is one of the oddest films ever seen. For many its an enigma, and each will form his own explanation. But to make sure I'm not way off track, I'd like to know your explanation of your own film.

*Alain Resnais: * It's not my role to give explanations. For that matter, I don't see the film as a real enigma. By that I mean that each spectator can find his own solution, and it will in all likelihood be a good one. But what's certain is that the solution won't be the same for everyone, meaning that my solution is of no more interest than that of any other viewer.

*Interviewer:* So you've prepared a mold and its up to each spectator to place himself in it. If he's not prepared to do that, the film is not for him.

*Alain Resnais:* Exactly.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Interviewer: So you've prepared a mold and its up to each spectator to place himself in it. If he's not prepared to do that, the film is not for him.

Well, ain't that just darlin'?


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

For those that want to see it, the interview from the dvd with Resnais I talked about, is here on youtube:




(French with English subtitles)


----------



## Guest (Nov 16, 2012)

Hilltroll72 said:


> Interviewer: So you've prepared a mold and its up to each spectator to place himself in it. If he's not prepared to do that, the film is not for him.
> 
> Well, ain't that just darlin'?


Really, troll, what else would you want, artists who try to guess what people will want and then try to write to that guess?

"I am the royal and invincible consumer. Artists must bow to my whims. I rule."

 indeed.

Anyway, thanks for the post, Sid. Quite relevant and sensible. (And, apparently, even a bit darlin'....)


----------



## Prodromides (Mar 18, 2012)

If followers of contemporary classical music also have appreciation for international cinema, then they should have an awareness of the films directed by Alain Resnais. Perhaps more so than any other director, Resnais has, throughout the decades, had his films scored by very diverse composers.

Before HIROSHIMA MON AMOUR, Resnais had made short film subjects (some of these had music by Hanns Eisler or Maurice Jarre).






After LAST YEAR AT MARIENBAD, Resnais had collaborated twice with Hans Werner Henze [MURIEL (1963) & L'AMOUR A MORT (1984)], and some of his others films had scores by Penderecki (JE T'AIME, JE T'AIME), Sondheim (STAVINSKY) & Rozsa (PROVIDENCE).






During the most recent half-dozen years, Resnais has had Mark Snow score his movies! Very unique _oeuvre_ by Resnais.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

some guy said:


> ...
> 
> Anyway, thanks for the post, Sid...


You're welcome some guy. It was quite coincidental that I was just re-watching the film this week and happened upon that interview also on the dvd.


Prodromides said:


> If followers of contemporary classical music also have appreciation for international cinema, then they should have an awareness of the films directed by Alain Resnais. Perhaps more so than any other director, Resnais has, throughout the decades, had his films scored by very diverse composers.


One of the things I noticed when I first saw_ Hiroshima Mon Amour _was the score. Its unique, atonal jazz is how I'd kind of describe it. Its by Giovanni Fusco, a composer I've not otherwise heard of. The other thing is that this film has things in common with music of the mid 20th century - eg. non linear narrative with flashbacks, the story dealing with recent lived history and memory, and also improvisation by the actors.

I don't think I know Resnais' other work but I have seen some of the films of guys like Francois Truffaut who was in that similar 'French new wave' style/aesthetic.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

some guy said:


> Really, troll, what else would you want, artists who try to guess what people will want and then try to write to that guess?
> 
> "I am the royal and invincible consumer. Artists must bow to my whims. I rule."
> 
> ...


Artists are free to do what they like no more than listeners are free to respond.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Artists are free to do what they like no more than listeners are free to respond.


Hah. The keyword there is 'free'. It has an association with 'value'.


----------



## Guest (Nov 16, 2012)

Actually, the key here is in the words "no more than," which express something far different, I suspect, than what HC intended to say.

I'm going by the fact that what HC has actually said, with these words in this order, does not correspond with anything else he has ever said in any other post on this matter.

(If he actually meant what he just said, however, I retract what I just said, of course.)


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

The 'key' to "no more than" is its corollary 'no less than'.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

I don't know what the mystery was with what I wrote in #88 above. But I guess I can illustrate with an example. Cage could come up with whatever strange pieces he wanted and I could respond with whatever senses those pieces may have triggered, for eample, by laughing at it.


----------



## Guest (Nov 16, 2012)

Yes, that is what I would have guessed that you meant to say.

And while it is certainly true that you may indeed respond however you like, you may come to find that laughing _at_ is different from and not as much fun as laughing _with._

But maybe not.

Anyway, I think what we see over and over again in online discussions, on any topic, is the spirited and determined defense of the closed mind. Everyone has the _right_ to have a closed mind! Everyone has a _right_ to mock what they are incapable of understanding. Everyone has a _right_ to express their prejudices without any consequences. And what _that_ means is that not everyone can criticize everything. We have standards, after all! And one thing will always be out-of-line: questioning the validity of mockery. That must never be allowed. It's perfectly OK to mock John Cage, for instance, but one must never question either the mockery or the mocker. Streng verboten, mensch.

Well, it's a pity that that's the pattern that has become the most fixed. It stifles discussion. It makes consideration of alternate views almost impossible to achieve. Not completely impossible, as we have seen even on this thread, but certainly very very difficult.

But wouldn't it be nice if the relationship between composer and listener could somehow be something more positive than the sort of knee-jerk antagonism that so characterizes these conversations. "Cage does not please me. I must be pleased. It is my right to expect pleasure. It is my right to mock if I do not receive from Cage what I have the right to insist upon. I am lord."

What a delightful situation that is, to be sure. Yes. But seriously, can you imagine anything more appallingly dreary and fruitless? (If you can, please do not share it with me. The situation as it is is dreary enough!:lol


----------



## Guest (Nov 17, 2012)

some guy said:


> And what _that_ means is that *not everyone* can criticize everything.


Thank you! (for avoiding 'everyone can't').



> But wouldn't it be nice if the relationship between composer and listener could somehow be something more positive than the sort of knee-jerk antagonism that so characterizes these conversations. "Cage does not please me. I must be pleased. It is my right to expect pleasure. It is my right to mock if I do not receive from Cage what I have the right to insist upon.


It's a difficult instinct to curb. I admit I suffer from it. It must have been years of watching _Top of the Pops_ and scorning those acts that I abhorred, leaving the room when Englebert Humperdinck and Malcolm Rowles were on (I was following my older brother's lead) and shaking my head in superior disbelief when watching school friends headbanging to Led Zeppelin.

Intelligent criticism, on the other hand, is valid. It's a shame that it is in such short supply. This is to be expected on the negative side of the debate: if something doesn't appeal, and you're not really able to say why, no need to labour to keep saying, "I don't like it." What is less worthy is the absence of intelligent criticism on the positive side. Few people take the trouble to explain what it is about the music that they like, though they may such much about how the music makes them feel, with little more analysis beside. On more than one occasion, I'm told the evidence is self-evident.

I'd be interested to know how many posters visiting the long threads on 'current listening' actually listen to, or go away and find out about the various offerings on show. I'm sure some do. But it doesn't then seem to promote much discussion ("Thanks x for telling us about TchaiSchnittsky's Concerto for Tuba in B Flat Superior...let's share what we like about it.")

On the other hand, click play on the Youtube clip long enough to know how much you're going to hate MerdeBow and you've got plenty of ammunition for Dark Side criticism.


----------



## Guest (Nov 17, 2012)

some guy said:


> But wouldn't it be nice if the relationship between composer and listener could somehow be something more positive than the sort of knee-jerk antagonism that so characterizes these conversations. "Cage does not please me. I must be pleased. It is my right to expect pleasure....


I think it should be noted that the artist is typically indirectly or directly asking for money from the listener. The listener has some right (even duty) to be judgmental.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

BPS said:


> I think it should be noted that the artist is typically indirectly or directly asking for money from the listener. The listener has some right (even duty) to be judgmental.


Well said. Of course if the artist is protected by tenure, or excellent connections (of whatever type) with sources of grants, he/she is relatively immune from such judgments. Is that a good thing?


----------



## Guest (Nov 17, 2012)

Some Guy, you seem mildly annoyed that not everyone is as open to new listening experiences as you. And from some of your comments I would guess that you are EXTREMELY open to new listening experiences. Admirably so.

But why let it bother you if others don't share your enthusiasm? You have found one way to enjoy music, we have found others.

Let us cattle be cattle. There are worse things.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

some guy said:


> Yes, that is what I would have guessed that you meant to say.
> 
> And while it is certainly true that you may indeed respond however you like, you may come to find that laughing _at_ is different from and not as much fun as laughing _with._
> 
> ...


You should have told Cage to not take his audience for granted, like he almost certainly did with many of his wacky pieces, and so today, he might have a better chance with posterity. I would have, if I met him. But I never did.


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

*Leb wohl!*

Someguy, your evangelizing has changed my mind, making it open minded instead of closed. I've decided to explore new things.

A friend of mine is a major metal head and has been making appeals to me for years. He listens to metal, hours of it, everyday, 7/365. He tells me that it's the greatest thing in the world. I've decided to take the plunge. He gave me over 22 weeks of metal (not an exaggeration; consider that one version of Wagner's Ring is typically 16 hours, many Wagner aficionados have more than 10 versions of the Ring, so that's one whole week right there for one opera) on my external hard drive and I've decided that I won't stop listening until I love all of them, as he does. I've spent a good deal doing background research on various bands, reading their interviews, artistic intent, etc. I've been told that metal is an acquired taste and that I have to digest the more accessible pieces before tackling the more difficult ones since my ears aren't attuned to the intricacies of metal in the same way that a person who watched colored films all his life isn't attuned to the intricacies of black and white and at first the only thing he would see is that the films are all black and white, boring, etc. Since he likes it, it must mean that I can like it too, and that I'm merely been conditioned not to like it by my limiting circumstances.

I've working on the most accessible pieces (he partitioned the pieces into 8 levels of difficulty), but even they are impenetrable to me. After listening to most of the pieces in level 1 more than a 50 times (here's a sample of what I've been listening to) I've finally managed to appreciate them. I told my friend about my progress and he congratulated me on my zealous open mindedness and warned me that the next 7 levels will only get tougher, and that an optimistic estimate is that in my ultimate average # of listens before I get to appreciate the work in all 8 levels would approx. be double of whatever it took for me to get through level 1 (I didn't tell him the specific number of times I listened to all the songs in level 1, he probably thought I had only listened to each one or two times and only a small fraction of level 1). After I get through all 8 levels then I can become a true open minded metal listener and appreciate the new metal coming out right now for what they are and evaluate their genuine merit.

I did some calculations. 100 x 22 weeks x 7 days per week x 24 hours per day = 369,600 hours. An optimistic timetable would include 8 hours of listening per day since I have to sleep and work and do miscellaneous things like shop for grocery, fix my car, go to the dentist, etc. 8 hours x 7 days per week x 365 days per year translates into 20440 hours of metal music listening per year. 369600 / 20440 is approximately 18.08, which means that I have 18 years of metal listening ahead of me. This is a taste of level 7.  I'll probably get there 10 years from now.

Anyways, this post is me saying *good bye to this forum *since I won't have any time in the future to post since every second of spare time I have will be spent listening to metal. _I also want to get to Stockhausen and John Cage eventually before I die_ but then I have to get through Schoenberg, Webern, Varese, etc first, but then there's all the Jazz I still want to appreciate and folk music, not to mention atonal medieval music like Gesualdo, but it's useless to plan things 18 years in the future. It'll probably be another two decades after finishing my metal journey that I'll get to Boulez, but then again these approximations are so general and vague that I might be way off and it the journey could take twice as long as the initial estimate.

Hopefully in 40 years I'll have completed these tasks and get to the music of John Cage, which I'm sure I'll love, since I've managed to gain an appreciation of all these level 1 metal pieces that I've listened to 50 times over, pieces which I did not appreciate initially. When I do get there I'll write you a letter. Don't worry, I'm sure forty years into the future there will be a giant database of traces your forum identity to your personal identity even if you don't browse this forum anymore an. Anyways, I'm off, listening to this right now, and something else some other time.

Leb' wohl! Leb' wohl! Leb' wohl, mon amis! I've had a great time here. Until forty years form now, when I'll be able to properly partake in matters that this thread concerns.


----------



## Renaissance (Jul 10, 2012)

I can't believe this !


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

Renaissance said:


> I can't believe this !


You're in good company. I don't believe it either. I'm a vegan and I never buy the thing. I'm certain there's butter in there. The proof of the pudding is in the tasting. I watched_ Your Sister's Sister _the other day, where one of the characters served mashed potatoes with butter in it to her vegan sister. Her sister could tell because it tasted so good.










Last post, promise. I just had to say goodbye to Renaissance individually (I reserve the right to say goodbye to other members on an individual basis).


----------



## Renaissance (Jul 10, 2012)

That's very weird, I mean the story about metal and stuff. I am quite reserved whether to accept it or not. But your leaving is rather sad...  But it is your choice after all, we were a great member, at least for me. You told things here that many wouldn't tell ... Anyway, that's it. Take care ! And good-bye.


----------



## Guest (Nov 17, 2012)

BPS said:


> I think it should be noted that the artist is typically indirectly or directly asking for money from the listener. The listener has some right (even duty) to be judgmental.


Nope.

This reduction falsifies a complex situation. You have reduced the intricacies of real life to one single element and that not even the most important element. To what end? To justify the common and commonly accepted position that the customer is king. No, not to justify it, to simply repeat it.

"Hey, jerk! I'm giving you money!! You do what I say!! You are my servant!!!"

Not a healthy relationship, there, by any means. Which is OK, cause it's not really real.



BPS said:


> Some Guy, you seem mildly annoyed that not everyone is as open to new listening experiences as you.


Fail.

If I'm annoyed at anything, it's at persistent (and predictable) distortions of what I've actually said being put forth as accurate pictures of same.

Of course I would welcome more openness, but what I'm usually reacting to is the notion that being closed to new experiences is a valid basis from which to evaluate new art. It's obviously not. But it's just as obviously defended as being just that. "My mind is closed, and therefore I am the best person to evaluate."



BPS said:


> But why let it bother you if others don't share your enthusiasm? You have found one way to enjoy music, we have found others.


As you should already know, it does not bother me at all if others do not share my enthusiasms. Why should it? My enjoyment of anything is not doubled if another person also enjoys that same thing. I enjoy talking to fellow enthusiasts, of course, but there are always plenty of those. No lack there. No, you maybe should pay more attention to what really bothers me if you want to have a conversation about what bothers me. Otherwise....



HarpsichordConcerto said:


> You should have told Cage to not take his audience for granted, like he almost certainly did with many of his wacky pieces, and so today, he might have a better chance with posterity. I would have, if I met him. But I never did.


My notion of friendship does not include telling people what they should or should not do. So even if I thought he was taking his audience for granted, I would never have said this to him. And I never did think that he was. Two points here. One, if you postulate a thing called "his" audience, then that would probably consist of people who understood and appreciated him. Those people would more than likely want him to keep making "wacky" pieces, no? Two, you are of course not postulating any such thing. You are doing a classic bait and switch. The "audience" that you think Cage is taking for granted is people like yourself, who are definitely not "his" in any way. But here's an example of him definitely _not_ taking your type for granted. You may recall a piece of his that was premiered in 1952. He first got the idea for that piece in the early forties, however. It took him a decade to decide whether or not to present it (will people simply reject it out of hand?) and how to present it (there were several versions over the years).

As for posterity, it may interest you to know that Cage is dead. He has been dead for just over ten years. He is not in any position to care about posterity.



brianwalker said:


> Someguy, your evangelizing has changed my mind, making it open minded instead of closed. I've decided to explore new things.


Oh brian. So much energy expended on such a simple mistake. I haven't been evangelizing at all, or at least not about what you thought I was. And I don't think that simply listening over and over again to something you don't like is a very reliable way to get to like something.

If I evangelize for anything, it's for a change in attitude. And even there....

Naw. It's not really terribly complicated: if you don't like something, repeated exposure to it will probably just reinforce your prejudices. My goal here is not so much to get people to listen to new music (though that would be fine, of course) as it is to get people to acknowledge that dislike is not a reliable basis for evaluation. Dislike implies disconnect, rejection, closing off. It would be like closing your eyes _in order to_ see something and describe it.



brianwalker said:


> more accessible... more difficult...


This is a popular dichotomy for talking about art. But the difficulty or accessibility of anything depends utterly on the receiver: what the receiver knows, what the receiver's comfortable with, what the receiver prejudges. I would have thought that for you all metal was equally inaccessible, and I don't even know you.



brianwalker said:


> [My friend] warned me that the next 7 levels will only get tougher, and that an optimistic estimate is that in my ultimate average # of listens before I get to appreciate the work in all 8 levels would approx. be double of whatever it took for me to get through level 1


I don't think fiction writing is something you should consider as a career. Not without some more practice. The likeliest thing here is that each putative level will get easier as you get more experienced. Even if there really were real levels of difficulty, your experience is growing all the time, too, making everything easier as you go along.



brianwalker said:


> ...evaluate their genuine merit.


This seems to be a very important thing for a lot of people. Not sure why, even though I used to believe this myself.



brianwalker said:


> I did some calculations.


Your math is as questionable as your story-telling skills.

I started listening to classical music per se at around age nine. By the time I was twenty, I was thoroughly familiar with the standard repertoire and with quite a lot else, too. Only eleven years. How was this possible? Because I wanted it. I was voracious. And I wasn't trying to accomplish any goals; I was just enjoying. When I was twenty, I fell in love with twentieth century music. It took me twelve years to get caught up to the present (which at the time was 1984). I account for the extra year two ways. One, I was still listening to older music, repeat listening and discovering new (to me) older composers. Two, there had been less whinnowing of the newer music, so there was more for me to explore on my own. That twelve years was in a way less than the original eleven.

But whatever. We're talking only twenty three years to do all that. And go to school and work and date and marry and divorce and remarry and father several children and teach and go to more school. Plenty of time for all of that.

Of course, I know you were just making a little Spaß with all that. But it wasn't convincing. It neither worked as realistic biography nor as exaggeration for comedic effect.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

some guy said:


> ...My goal here is not so much to get people to listen to new music (though that would be fine, of course) as it is to get people to acknowledge that dislike is not a reliable basis for evaluation. Dislike implies disconnect, rejection, closing off. It would be like closing your eyes in order to see something and describe it.


Dislike does not necessarily imply disconnect, rejection, closing off etc. as you suggested. Many of us here have probably as many years of listening experience as you do, _some guy_.

In anycase, your second point is just as preposterous (highlighted in blue by me). So you are to also say that even liking a piece is also not a reliable basis for evaluation? Therefore, no opinion - positive or negative - counts? *Does any collective opinion over time - likes and dislikes - count at all?* Do you imply only likes count, but dislikes don't?


----------



## Guest (Nov 17, 2012)

As you doubtless already know, I think that liking is a reliable basis for evaluation.

But even more, as you may recall, evaluating is not high on my list of things to do. I'm busier engaging with all sorts of things, most of them new, not just recent, not just new to me, but new. This is quite exciting and rewarding to me. Much more than evaluating is. Evaluating for me is just one of those things that happens. It's a constant and inevitable consequence of being alive and engaging with all sorts of things all the time.

I'm constantly judging the women I meet and putting them into categories of date-able and not date-able. I'm constantly buying CDs and recycling the ones I'm sure I'll never want to listen to again. I flip through dozens of books at Powell's before I purchase even one.

But none of that is vital to me. None of that do I go out of my way to do. I'm often not even aware that I'm doing it. And, just to take the first one, if I'm chatting with another person, I don't even concern myself with their age or gender or date-ability or intelligence or anything. Well, OK. Maybe the intelligence part, just a little bit. But come on! Life is not just about me and my little needs or wants. There's a lot of stuff out there that I don't even have any idea if I'll like it or not.

I do know this, I'll have a better chance liking it if I'm open rather than closed.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

"My goal here...is to get people to acknowledge that dislike is not a reliable basis for evaluation."

"As you doubtless already know, I think that liking is a reliable basis for evaluation."

Well, there we are then.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

KenOC said:


> "My goal here...is to get people to acknowledge that dislike is not a reliable basis for evaluation."
> 
> "As you doubtless already know, I think that liking is a reliable basis for evaluation."
> 
> Well, there we are then.


Perhaps you haven't noticed that _some guy_ is adept at adjusting his story? Although in this instance no adjustment is necessary.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

KenOC said:


> "My goal here...is to get people to acknowledge that dislike is not a reliable basis for evaluation."
> 
> "As you doubtless already know, I think that liking is a reliable basis for evaluation."
> 
> Well, there we are then.


Interesting summary of it all. Though I would rather trust my own preference first and foremost, and with some reference to the collective over time.


----------



## Guest (Nov 18, 2012)

Hilltroll72 said:


> Perhaps you haven't noticed that _some guy_ is adept at adjusting his story?


Actually, I...

...oh, what's the use.


----------



## Rapide (Oct 11, 2011)

some guy said:


> OK, after the recent barrage of anti-modernism from several upholders of standards and morality, I think it may be time again to try to float this modest observation about music and listeners. I've tried it before, in various places. It seems so easy and so reasonable to me, but that's not how it's taken. Boy howdy.
> 
> But enough about me. Here's the observation:
> 
> ...


This experiment only refers to two listeners. If this was something that can be observed with two hundred thousand or million then you might have some point to show.


----------



## Guest (Nov 18, 2012)

Rapide said:


> This experiment only refers to two listeners. If this was something that can be observed with two hundred thousand or million then you might have some point to show.


Not really. Two is sufficient.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Threads like this have changed the way I listen to music, too. It's not just Brian Walker. But I have discovered that I can distinguish myself by not liking what other people like. Fortunately I only need to listen to each thing once - maybe I don't even have to finish - and I can declare it trash and immediately begin condescending to people who like that music.

Come to think of it, that's even easier than trying to calibrate my tastes to some standard - whether that be the highbrows of the east coast or the cultural elite of the 1950s or whatever. 

Things are so much simpler for me now.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

science said:


> Threads like this have changed the way I listen to music, too. It's not just Brian Walker. But I have discovered that I can distinguish myself by not liking what other people like. Fortunately I only need to listen to each thing once - maybe I don't even have to finish - and I can declare it trash and immediately begin condescending to people who like that music.
> 
> Come to think of it, that's even easier than trying to calibrate my tastes to some standard - whether that be the highbrows of the east coast or the cultural elite of the 1950s or whatever.
> 
> Things are so much simpler for me now.


Excellent, _science_. Near as I can tell, there are Professional Critics who operate that way. Must make it much easier to write reviews.

The not-listening-to-all-of-it thing is one of my defense mechanisms. I recall using a subset of it for Red Earth (the I'm not ready for Red Earth spasm). Eventually I became ready, but that's another thing.


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

MacLeod said:


> Not really. Two is sufficient.


Why two? Why not one person with multiple personalities? One person is definitely enough.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

brianwalker said:


> I won't judge you or call you names or mock you because of our philosophical differences.


Well, I will!

Just not when the mods can see...


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Ah! 

In before the edit. (IBTE). 

You got to get up pretty early in the morning, Brian Walker.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

science said:


> Fortunately I only need to listen to each thing once - maybe I don't even have to finish - and I can declare it trash and immediately begin condescending to people who like that music.


"One can't judge Wagner's opera Lohengrin after a first hearing, and I certainly don't intend to hear it a second time." -- Gioachino Rossini


----------



## Guest (Nov 18, 2012)

KenOC said:


> "One can't judge Wagner's opera Lohengrin after a first hearing, and I certainly don't intend to hear it a second time." -- Gioachino Rossini


LOL! :lol:


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

BPS said:


> Some Guy, you seem mildly annoyed that not everyone is as open to new listening experiences as you. And from some of your comments I would guess that you are EXTREMELY open to new listening experiences. Admirably so.
> 
> But why let it bother you if others don't share your enthusiasm? You have found one way to enjoy music, we have found others.
> 
> Let us cattle be cattle. There are worse things.


I think you put it well there. It kind of cuts through many things I find I'm tiring of on online discussions of this type. A mix of ideology, double talk and rationalisation. Its all fine to a point, but I prefer to talk straight.

But basically the way I see it is 'live and let live.' I would not try to convince someone or proseletyse about music in real life, same on this forum. In any case, on quite a few issues on this forum, I am in the minority. But I like how people do not target me for that, likewise I try not to target others.

I had a conversation recently with an acquaintance about a composer whose music I largely don't like. I told this person my opinions straight. This person had a contrasting view but just wanted my opinion on this piece. & thats the way I see it online, do we want people to just say what they think or do we want all that other stuff (eg. ideology, or even worse, dogma?).

But anyway online is another planet as I've learnt. This will fall on deaf ears, methinks, but I don't care.


----------



## Guest (Nov 19, 2012)

Well, one thing you never seem to tire of, and that is offering the same list of things you're tired of, whether they apply to anything that actually happens or not.

You're tired of ideology, double talk, and rationalization. Yeah, you and me both. But I more than suspect that you mean very different things by those words than I do, or apply them differently, anyway. The beauties of language.

And also tireless in detailing your virtues as well: your live and let live philosophy, your eschewing of such nasty things as proselytizing and targetting. Never mind that you are tireless in reminding us of how much more virtuous you are in your posting than anyone one else is. Never mind that you actually do proselytize and target all the time.

Well, we're all pretty tiresome, I'm sure. I know I am.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

^^Well I can only talk accurately of my own experience, some guy. There is no use in me talking of yours for example, or judging your tastes or whatever. So yeah I focus on myself. That's all I can do. But don't worry, the fact is that you and I, and some others, we've played all these games, done all these cliches to death over our years here. & I think the contrast between online discussions of classical and real life ones (in my experience) are glaring. For example, would you speak to someone like you do to me in your post above? Eg. completely demolish them. Point out their mistakes so mercilessly and with such clinical precision? That's what politicians do, and lawyers, those types of adversarial professions. You can do that if you want, but sorry, I don't play those intellectual games. I would not do the jobs of those people, I would be actually be ashamed to do it considering the behaviour we see in the 'hallowed halls' of parliament all the time (there is currently a major investigation into corruption going on here).

& this is a general comment, not directed at you but to all (and myself, even). I prefer someone to say things to me straight, even if I disagree with them. I respect a man who just tells me his opinion. I have little time for people who (as I said) give me gobbledigook to cover various agendas. Or target me (deflection), or do divide and conquer, or drive wedges, or throw things in my face, or present dichotomies and other stuff of the sort. 

Maybe ignorance is bliss? Maybe possessing basic critical thinking skills is more a minus than a plus. One easily becomes jaded and cynical. But forget the whole thing. I am sowing seeds in barren ground here. Its like a desert, I am wasting my time.


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

some guy said:


> By the time I was twenty, I was thoroughly familiar with the standard repertoire and with quite a lot else, too.


See, there's your problem (or maybe it's _my problem _for having such a broad, tolerant, diverse, accepting taste; maybe we're just different. All I know is that there are plenty of people just like me. 52 pages can't be wrong!).

The standard repertoire is just too narrow for me (I'm not saying it's narrow _per se_, just like people who don't eat foreign delicacies like frog sashimi and aren't exotic food connoisseurs _can't be said _to have narrow, racist palettes/tongues). What I'm exploring at the moment is not part of the standard repertoire. I have the desire to understand and appreciate living artists and the tradition they're a part of.

Come out and smell the roses, some guy, they're everywhere. Don't be one of those people, lest someone chides you to



millionrainbows said:


> go back to your former job as janitor in the [redacted] museum of art.


Or be one of those people. Or don't smell the roses. Or smell the roses you like to smell. That's _perfectly fine too. _

[Note to mods: the music in the links is coming from a legit band; *Pitchfork* gave one of their albums an 8 out of 10. I think "Die" is used as a German article e.g. "Die Zeitung". Metal bands have a tendency to import foreign languages or even non-existing languages into their art; there are many metal bands that write their lyrics in Latin]


----------



## Guest (Nov 19, 2012)

Sid James said:


> I don't play those intellectual games.


Why, you're doing it now!



Sid James said:


> I prefer someone to say things to me straight, even if I disagree with them.


Well, I said some things to you straight, and what did I get? Ripped for "demolishing" you.



Sid James said:


> I respect a man who just tells me his opinion.


Sorry, I just don't see this in you. I see you micromanaging responses in threads, telling people what's wrong with how they're responding, forbidding them to respond in certain ways that you don't like. Indeed, you are doing it now!



Sid James said:


> I have little time for people who (as I said) give me gobbledigook to cover various agendas. Or target me (deflection), or do divide and conquer, or drive wedges, or throw things in my face, or present dichotomies and other stuff of the sort.


Or say things to you straight. Or who disagree with you. You left those items out.

Anyway, we really gotta stop this sub-topic. It's too close to the forbidden zone on this board. And rightly so. Sorry I was unable to resist pointing these things out. I'll try to be better in future.


----------



## Guest (Nov 19, 2012)

Dear Brian,

Just read your post.

What have you been smoking, and do you have any more of it?

Your friend,

Michael


----------



## Chi_townPhilly (Apr 21, 2007)

Well... looks like this one'll conclude predictably enough---


----------

