# The pleasures of exploration



## Guest (May 1, 2013)

I look at this title and think, "Really? Aren't the pleasures of exploration self-evident?" But alas, we know that they are not.

Here is what I have found when I have explored, and what I have found when in my explorations, I came across things that did not instantly please me.

Please feel free to add your own success stories.

When I first heard proper classical music (i.e., as itself, not as accompaniment to Warner Bros. cartoons), it was love at first hearing. This would have been around 1961 or 62. The desire for more was insatiable. It continues to be insatiable.

When I first started to listen to twentieth century music, which was in March of 1972, it was love at first hearing, and the desire for more was insatiable. It continues to be insatiable.

Inevitably, I ran into individual things that did not please me at first. (As well as into things that did but then began to fail to please, too, of course.) But since the desire was so large, so all-encompassing, individual instances of dislike never slowed me down, never led me to conclude that something was wrong with classical music generally. The individual things, like opera, I simply put to the side, neither avoiding nor seeking out. Certainly never proclaiming that those things were somehow bad. Well, sometimes doing that, but not proud of having done it, OK?

Eventually, I heard some music by Janacek, which I loved immensely. But there's so little of it that is not opera. If you love Janacek, and want more than the couple of hours of non-operatic stuff, you will feel compelled to listen to opera. I did, anyway. And so I sought out Janacek operas.

Now I can listen to practically any opera with pleasure.

In the modern era, I inevitably ran into individual things that did not please me at first. But since the desire was so large, so all-encompassing, individual instances of dislike never slowed me down, never led me to conclude and et cetera. Berio's _Visage._ Ashley's _Purposeful Lady, Slow Afternoon._ These two, and other things as well, have led me to conclude that the purposes of art include pleasure but are not confined to it. (This conclusion is not original with me in any way.)

And, ironically, what happens when one pursues things that do not produce/elicit "pleasure"--as in instant gratification--is that pleasure does eventually happen, and it is a deep, rich, lasting pleasure that seems so important that calling it "pleasure" seems rather feeble.

Or at least that's what it says here.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

I started exploring classical from the mid 80s onwards, and later popular music too. Mainly through libraries. But in the 2000s another kind of exploration (the internet) took over, and that takes it to a whole new level (recordings off radio, rare records never re-released on cd).

Some like exploring it's their nature, others probably just keep to what they like and just want to keep in that comfort zone. That's all fine, each to their own.


----------



## Guest (May 1, 2013)

On a much smaller scale, and in another thread, I too had something to say about exploration...

http://www.talkclassical.com/25271-why-should-you-listen-4.html#post453572


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

For the musical explorer, YouTube is a veritable treasure trove. Lots of stuff there that one somehow can never get on CD. In fact, I can't remember when last I bought a CD.

My explorations tend to take me back in time though: I like Medieval music, and some contemporary folk music that has a Medieval sort of sound.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Someguy, you and I have met here before, so you might not be surprised that I have at least a caveat to your view.

I don't disagree about what I think is the essence of your view - that it's fun to try music that is new. In this case, "new to the listener" is probably the key, but of course "new to the world" is a special level of fun.

I also agree that it is worthwhile to give a work a lot of hearings before rejecting it - or maybe even not to reject it at all. I'm fine with the formula about letting the sound judge you rather than you judging the sound. But even your most dedicated enemies on this site will point to music and even contemporary music that they eventually learned to enjoy on its terms rather than their terms. They will go on of course to say that they don't have to like everything, they have a right to listen to what they most enjoy - even if it is mostly older music or indeed even if it is exclusively music from centuries ago - without being condescended to by the connoisseurs of the newest. But the point to not for now is that few of them will say something like, "No, I've never explored any new music and I don't want to." In turn, when they go on to express scorn for the music that you enjoy, they're transgressing on your right to listen to what you most enjoy - no matter how you want to refine the word "enjoy" (or the word "pleasure" or whatever), it still applies here - without being condescended to by the partisans of the tradition.

The two sides will of course go on condescending to each other ad nauseum ad nauseum ad nauseum ad nauseum ad nauseum ad nauseum ad nauseum ad nauseum ad nauseum ad nauseum ad nauseum ad nauseum ad nauseum ad nauseum ad nauseum ad nauseum ad nauseum ad nauseum ad nauseum ad nauseum ad nauseum ad nauseum ad nauseum ad nauseum ad nauseum ad nauseum ad nauseum ad nauseum ad nauseum ad nauseum ad nauseum ad nauseum ad nauseum ad nauseum ad nauseum ad nauseum ad nauseum ad nauseum ad nauseum ad nauseum ad nauseum ad nauseum ad nauseum ad nauseum ad nauseum ad nauseum ad nauseum ad nauseum ad nauseum ad nauseum...

But that doesn't concern me, as I consider myself to have transcended that. Both sides scorn me of course, and I scorn back, but in a world where everyone is trying to impress each other with the superiority of their attitudes to culture, such is life.

Instead, what concerns me is the idea (previously expressed) that exploration must be directionless, must be aimless, must be a completely random and solipsistic walk through the music of the world, without reference to others' opinions or preferences. That is where you and I _substantially_ differ.

I don't hold that one ought to agree with others' opinions necessarily - my advocacy of Hadjidakis' music, or of Kilar's music, or of the Strauss family's music, for examples, should make that apparent.

No, but I do insist that there is _absolutely nothing wrong with asking for or giving recommendations_. And moreover, the refusal to do so is aristocratic ** that _ought to result in ostracism_.

I carefully avoid asking which works or recordings are "better" or "best" or whatever - though in an ideal world, where ideological warriors weren't ready to slash throats, such terms would be simply understood as proxies for the terms that I do use: "favorite," "most enjoy," "like," "popular," "famous," and so on.

"Famous" is particularly important. You can deny it all you want, but if I say that I have never heard of Beethoven's "Eroica" symphony, well, you WILL regard me as _something like_ an idiot. And so will a LOT of other people, both on this site and in real life. If I say that I haven't heard of Gluck's symphonies, you won't judge me that way.

Given the ubiquity of such judgment, at least _some_ requests for recommendations would be best understood as requests for access to a path to good standing in the community. The absolute refusal to give any recommendations is _*never anything other*_ than an unconditional declaration that the individual requesting recommendations ought never be admitted to that good standing. The injunction to "explore," when it means "stumble blindly through the world's music markets" is in reality an injunction to "know your place and remain in it."

In the paragraphs below, I've used "classical music" because that is the ostensible topic of this board, but really the thoughts could apply to any genre or sub-genre of music, baroque opera or noise music, free jazz or bebop, bluegrass or new age world fusion.

We often hear classical music fans worry that not enough people like our music. Classical music is dying, only old people go to concerts, etc....

But I've become convinced that at least some of this is self-deception. A lot of us _wish_ to be a minority. We hope to distinguish ourselves by our good taste from the rubes around us. We hope other people won't listen to the music so that we can fancy ourselves more elite, relative to them. Now, perhaps in most cases this wish is sublimated, so that the expression of its opposite (that is, a lament that classical music isn't more popular) serves as a disguise, even to one's own self-perception. But it's a thin disguise, deceiving only because (and to the degree that) we desire to be deceived.

We discourage people new to classical music or unfamiliar with it from enjoying it by acting like they'll never be good enough. They like Beethoven; we scorn them. They don't like Beethoven; we scorn them. They like Varèse or Schoenberg; we scorn them. They don't like Varèse or Schoenberg; we scorn them. They like Alkan; we scorn them. They don't like Alkan; we scorn them. Haven't heard Beethoven, Varèse, Schoenberg, or Alkan: we scorn them the more fiercely. No matter what they do, they are met with unremitting scorn. They have no hope of ever being accepted. They ought to just give up. They ask for recommendations: either we overwhelm them with a barrage of recommendations - not prioritized of course, for that would be too helpful, and certainly not without some idiosyncratic inclusions to display our daring to the cognoscenti - or we tell them that they're on their own.

Our sub- or semi-conscious goal is to make them give up, to make ourselves ever more elite. We scorn each other for not knowing whatever - French Baroque opera, Stockhausen, Stamitz, the output of CPO or Chandos, or how great Brahms' solo piano music is. We scorn each other for having relatively pedestrian tastes: enjoying DG (especially, God forbid, Karajan), enjoying Chopin, enjoying the waltzes of Johann Strauss, Jr. We scorn each other for not having studied composition, for not being music majors, for not being performers. We would probably scorn each other for having unsymmetrical feet, if only we could find a way to pretend it were relevant to music.

And of course we show off our distinction from some part of that, forming little cliques that tear each other down in great ideological flame wars that spread from thread to thread.

The person looking for recommendations is, at least in part, at least sometimes, looking for inclusion and protection from the relentless condescension. And that's absolutely fine. Later perhaps they'll participate in the great battles, perhaps even trying to stand all alone on their own mountaintop, but that's later. At first they just want to fit in, to share with us the music that we (claim to) enjoy so much. To rebuff them unconditionally, to attempt to condemn them to isolation, is to deserve such isolation ourselves.

And anyway, I doubt that anyone is going to stop trying stuff totally randomly, at least on occasion. They ought to be allowed to do so as often or as rarely as their temperament inclines them, and without suffering judgement.


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

some guy said:


> When I first heard proper classical music (i.e., as itself, not as accompaniment to Warner Bros. cartoons), it was love at first hearing. This would have been around *1961 or 62.* The desire for more was insatiable. It continues to be insatiable.
> 
> When I first started to listen to twentieth century music, which was in *March of 1972*, it was love at first hearing, and the desire for more was insatiable. It continues to be insatiable.


So it took you more than a decade to start listening to 20th century music?


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

I don't worry about the future of classical, it will continue and transform itself as it has in the past. Maybe in the next 50 years it will change and be quite unrecognisable but to continue things must develop. 

I wonder if the self-deception is people thinking that many are actually being condescending or scornful. And I'm not sure about seeking music for inclusion, just seek music for its own sake. And the idea that some want inclusion and others want elitism seems a bit contradictory. Why not just want music, music that you like, develop your own preference and understanding. I've listened to some stuff that few if any in here would probably hear, like Thai pop music. But that doesn't bother me, I don't need inclusion with it or any rubber stamp of approval. And I never listened to it to become elite or different, but simply because I like it. And a basic scientific equation could be, the more music you hear the more good stuff you will find.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

GreenMamba said:


> So it took you more than a decade to start listening to 20th century music?


Whenever you get there, you get there. Standing repertoire is not like a once-only train departing the station on a schedule... though 'getting there' is, for some, a very exciting and rewarding journey, and for others, not 'their' destination at all.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

The 'use' of classical music by its consumers has a myriad of aspects, and I think it rather naive and / or disingenuous to expect of the entire consumer base the same level / type of engagement that is operating within any other individual.

People use music 'to relax.' I don't. Should I be appalled, offended?

Some people's innate nature is not at all adventurous, they may have what to another seems like a very dull and limited circuit / spectrum of what they enjoy.

Others, like yourself as shown in the OP, are near insatiably hungry for 'more' whether it is that piece of old repertoire you have not yet heard (making it 'new to you') or the newest of the new (The aggressive promotion -- money where your mouth is -- that you've done and already mentioned on TC.)

I am also more ready to 'adventure' -- because music, of many eras and some non-western musics -- delights ' engages / moves me. Found delight, easy to then get excited enough to look not only for more, but further afield for more.

Since not being 'exploratory' or 'adventurous' in matters musical is fairly absent from my sensibility, it could be very easy to imagine that those who are not are 'missing it all.' They are not missing anything if it is nothing for them.

I've always 'urged people' at least to go outside their set of parameters, but only so much and for so long. Never hurts to try.

But what is urged, and the recommendations which accompany the urging, really should be 'all about the person being urged.' _Their_ current taste, sensibility, personal 'relationship' with music must be very carefully assessed, and then from the whole body of music you know, something most carefully selected which you truly think will 'take' as being a next, perhaps tiny, 'step' in their going further.

In order to do that, it requires that the person recommending use all their judgment while completely subsuming their 'self,' including their personal tastes and preferences, if they are to hope for any success in having their recommendations take.

Say you have a neophyte who knocks on the door of the classical building armed with the coupling of a Yiruma piece, or Carter Burwell's _Bella's Lullaby_ and Debussy's _Clair de Lune_ (of which exactly such there was a massive spate at the height of the popularity of the 'Twilight' television series, followed by a second spate when 'the movie' came out.) Recommending an electronic piece by Ussachevsky ex the Princeton electronic music labs of the sixties, anything by Stockhausen, Schoenberg, even Stravinsky's _Firebird_ is patently 'not the way to go.'

Instead, if you really know classical, _but are yet not ready and more than willing, without an inflection of any distaste or disapproval,_ to come up with a list spanning the piano music of George Winston, Nils Frahm, Frederic Mompou, other Debussy, Satie, etc. then you are not 'good at that job,' are not at all well serving either classical music or that neophyte at the door. If you are willing and able, then somewhere at the bottom of the recommendation, gently done, you might also say that Yiruma, Carter Burwell, George Winston and Nils Frahm are a form of pop music, and that within the big music building, they are up or down however many floors, down the hall and to your right. (...oh and by the way, if it doesn't have vocals or a text the tradition here is to call it not a song, but "a piece" 

If you want adventurers, at least adventurers who come back for more, that is what one has to do.

Similarly, the person on the quest for something outside their listening habits of the common practice era is better off with a recommendation of early 20th century music which still has most of the MO's of the early periods. Recognizable themes, 'tunes' bass lines, formats somewhat similar to what that listener is already familiar with, comfortable with. Aaron Copland symphony no. 3, then, and not Stockhausen's _Gesang der Junglinge_, no matter how strongly I love it, or care to advocate that piece. [[Add. In this context, Schoenberg's pre-serial _Verklärte Nacht_ then, good, the wholly serial music from later, not.]]

If you know enough of general repertoire, this is more than easy, if you get yourself, your tastes, and heartfelt advocacy of one or more periods or styles completely out of the way.

But I earnestly think anyone more / most adventurous must generally accept the level of adventurousness in others, whether it is slight to great, or present at all. Not first recognizing that is going to lead to a lot of beating of the head against a brick wall.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

If I hadn't been adventurous, I would have never known how great country music was, and George Jones passing away would have meant nothing to me.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

PetrB said:


> But what is urged, and the recommendations which accompany the urging, really should be 'all about the person being urged.' _Their_ current taste, sensibility, personal 'relationship' with music must be very carefully assessed, and then from the whole body of music you know, something most carefully selected which you truly think will 'take' as being a next, perhaps tiny, 'step' in their going further.
> 
> In order to do that, it requires that the person recommending use all their judgment while completely subsuming their 'self,' including their personal tastes and preferences, if they are to hope for any success in having their recommendations take.
> 
> ...


Yes, yes, this is so important. Whenever I see an "I'm a newbie, what should I listen to?" thread, my heart sinks somewhat because there's going to be so much wildly different advice. I think back twenty years to when I was starting to get into classical music, and I know that the vast majority of that advice would have been unhelpful, and possibly counterproductive. I was lucky back then to have access to the music collections of both a university and a public library, so I could proceed by trial and error. What I ended up loving, I often came to by chance. So I'm of the opinion that, for at least some listeners, getting a large quantity of general advice may well be as useful as getting no advice at all.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

I enjoyed reading your post, Someguy, but please forgive my pointing out - perhaps trivially - that Janacek's non-operatic output lasts for somewhat longer than a 'couple of hours', even if his earlier (mainly choral) output is not included. There are also some real gems which pre-date that amazing final period of 15 or so years.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Nereffid said:


> Yes, yes, this is so important. Whenever I see an "I'm a newbie, what should I listen to?" thread, my heart sinks somewhat because there's going to be so much wildly different advice. I think back twenty years to when I was starting to get into classical music, and I know that the vast majority of that advice would have been unhelpful, and possibly counterproductive. I was lucky back then to have access to the music collections of both a university and a public library, so I could proceed by trial and error. What I ended up loving, I often came to by chance. So I'm of the opinion that, for at least some listeners, getting a large quantity of general advice may well be as useful as getting no advice at all.


It's quite a thing.

For myself, I wasn't initially drawn to classical music merely by a love of the music - I wanted to be familiar with the music that other people in the social circle I aspired to join were familiar with. I was at home when they talked about Kundera or Kazantzakis or Kierkegaard, but when the conversation turned to Schoenberg or Shostakovich, I was excluded by my own ignorance. I wanted to be included.

So, where to start?

The question wasn't, "Which music will I like?" I was going to like it. No problem. The question was, "Which music is most likely to come up in conversation with the people whose company I most enjoy?"

I know that violates the "to thine own solipsistic self be true" school of thought expressed in aphorisms like, "I just like what I like and I never care what anyone else thinks." As I've expressed too often, I suspect the members of that school of lacking self-knowledge, but even if I'm completely wrong to do so, it doesn't matter when the topic is reduced to what _I_ should know about. You can berate me for not subscribing (or pretending to subscribe) to that school, but it's not going to do anything but confirm my suspicion and inspire resentment.

I'm still trying to figure out what I'm missing. I mean, I know literature pretty well, so I know what I'm most likely to be judged for not having read, and I'm getting around to it as soon as possible! I have some idea which places in the world I'm most likely to be judged for not having visited, and though I'm not rushing to them I am saving money to sponsor those trips in the (hopefully near) future.

But with music, it's a big secret for some reason. Go look at the the newbie advice threads, and see how many get recommended Kleiber's Beethoven or Gould's Bach. There is, I believe, a very significant element of malice in our collective refusal to recommend the obvious. If someone did recommend Kleiber's Beethoven or Gould's Bach, they would be attacked by other members - essentially they would have violated an unwritten code. In this I'm not criticizing talkclassical - it's the same everywhere. It's the culture. Anyone who doesn't already know about that doesn't deserve our time, I suppose.

Maybe it's because music is so easy. All you have to do is sit still and pay attention, and an hour or so later you've heard whatever. You don't get any credit for knowing that _War and Peace_ is famous, you have to have read it and that takes a lot of time. So no one minds letting each other know that it's famous. In music, once you know about Kleiber's Beethoven, you're about an hour away from having that covered. So, no credit. The thing is that you have to know about it first - so we have to keep things secret.

Our weak spot is our desire to show off, which helps people find their way around more than any recommendations thread ever has, but we don't show off about the stuff we consider obvious. The result is that I knew about Busoni's Piano Concerto and Lutoslawski's Symphony #4 before I knew about the Radetzky March.

Anyway, to meet my needs I created the classical music projects, the second of which is called "the talk classical project" here. It was a really good try, it really helped a lot, but I note that the Radetzky March has not been recommended by either project, which between them have recommended over 1300 works. Nor has Pachelbel's Canon. Liszt's Liebesträume. Mouret's Rondeau. Rimsky-Korsakov's Flight of the Bumblebee.

I wonder if, in this age of wikipedia and google and amazon, there is any area of culture harder to gain a basic knowledge of than classical music?


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Nereffid said:


> Yes, yes, this is so important. Whenever I see an "I'm a newbie, what should I listen to?" thread, my heart sinks somewhat because there's going to be so much wildly different advice. I think back twenty years to when I was starting to get into classical music, and I know that the vast majority of that advice would have been unhelpful, and possibly counterproductive. I was lucky back then to have access to the music collections of both a university and a public library, so I could proceed by trial and error. What I ended up loving, I often came to by chance. So I'm of the opinion that, for at least some listeners, getting a large quantity of general advice may well be as useful as getting no advice at all.


The curious will seek and explore for themselves I honestly don't think they need to ask advice on what to start with. There never will be a short cut, you just have to get listening.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

some guy said:


> .......... have led me to conclude that the purposes of art include pleasure but are not confined to it. (This conclusion is not original with me in any way.)
> 
> And, ironically, what happens when one pursues things that do not produce/elicit "pleasure"--as in instant gratification--is that pleasure does eventually happen, and it is a deep, rich, lasting pleasure that seems so important that calling it "pleasure" seems rather feeble.


I would be interested to know what else besides 'pleasure' ( deep, rich and lasting or instant) is the purpose of art.

Also I would like to know if you intend to keep exploring the works of Higdon with the desire to come to be pleased by them?


----------



## KRoad (Jun 1, 2012)

science said:


> I wasn't initially drawn to classical music merely by a love of the music - I wanted to be familiar with the music that other people in the social circle I aspired to join were familiar with... I wanted to be included.


Your honesty is admirable, but surely, in this secular and materialistic world that we live in, peer aspiration is something music should provide us with an escape and aural sanctuary from. No?


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

KRoad said:


> Your honesty is admirable, but surely, in this secular and materialistic world that we live in, peer aspiration is something music should provide us with an escape and aural sanctuary from. No?


I don't understand.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

science said:


> But with music, it's a big secret for some reason. Go look at the the newbie advice threads, and see how many get recommended Kleiber's Beethoven or Gould's Bach. There is, I believe, a very significant element of malice in our collective refusal to recommend the obvious. If someone did recommend Kleiber's Beethoven or Gould's Bach, they would be attacked by other members - essentially they would have violated an unwritten code. In this I'm not criticizing talkclassical - it's the same everywhere. It's the culture. Anyone who doesn't already know about that doesn't deserve our time, I suppose.


This doesn't match my experience, but I suppose we're approaching from very different perspectives. Certainly your comment "I wanted to be familiar with the music that other people in the social circle I aspired to join were familiar with" is not something I can relate to.
I don't see "malice" in not recommending the "obvious". Yes, on one level Kleiber's Beethoven or Gould's Bach are "obvious" but I think it very much depends on the question. If the newbie wants to know _what classical music should I listen to?_, I could recommend Bach and Beethoven, but at this stage it seems superfluous to tell them to go to a particular interpreter. If they're asking _what recordings do you recommend?_ that's a completely different question. Then I can say, "well, Gould's Bach was groundbreaking, and Kleiber's Beethoven is seen by many as the gold standard, but hey, maybe you might prefer something else".
Myself, I'm far more interested in repertoire than artists. If I'm coming to a work for the first time, I'd like to know that the performance I'm getting is at least good, and preferably excellent. But I got to love Beethoven's 7th without ever hearing a note of Kleiber's recording, and I don't feel any the worse for it.

Incidentally:


science said:


> I wonder if, in this age of wikipedia and google and amazon, there is any area of culture harder to gain a basic knowledge of than classical music?


I don't think it's as hard as you fear. Something like _The Rough Guide to Classical Music_ is a good introduction to the newcomer. And it explicitly recommends Kleiber's Beethoven and Gould's Bach.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Nereffid said:


> Incidentally:
> 
> I don't think it's as hard as you fear. Something like _The Rough Guide to Classical Music_ is a good introduction to the newcomer. And it explicitly recommends Kleiber's Beethoven and Gould's Bach.


But they're buried in there with hundreds of other recommendations. As you said:



Nereffid said:


> So I'm of the opinion that, for at least some listeners, getting a large quantity of general advice may well be as useful as getting no advice at all.


It's a good source, but it needs prioritization - at least some newbies WANT prioritization, and essentially no one has the courage to do that.



Nereffid said:


> This doesn't match my experience, but I suppose we're approaching from very different perspectives. Certainly your comment "I wanted to be familiar with the music that other people in the social circle I aspired to join were familiar with" is not something I can relate to.
> I don't see "malice" in not recommending the "obvious". Yes, on one level Kleiber's Beethoven or Gould's Bach are "obvious" but I think it very much depends on the question. If the newbie wants to know _what classical music should I listen to?_, I could recommend Bach and Beethoven, but at this stage it seems superfluous to tell them to go to a particular interpreter. If they're asking _what recordings do you recommend?_ that's a completely different question. Then I can say, "well, Gould's Bach was groundbreaking, and Kleiber's Beethoven is seen by many as the gold standard, but hey, maybe you might prefer something else".
> Myself, I'm far more interested in repertoire than artists. If I'm coming to a work for the first time, I'd like to know that the performance I'm getting is at least good, and preferably excellent. But I got to love Beethoven's 7th without ever hearing a note of Kleiber's recording, and I don't feel any the worse for it.


Ok, that's all fair enough. I still see malice. Not right out there on the surface hoping something bad happens to the person asking the question, but an active unwillingness to be helpful.

For instance, "maybe you might prefer something else" is obvious of course, and maybe someone says it just to signal that they don't intend to take away the other's freedom of aesthetic preference. But at least as often, I think it is used as an excuse for not being more helpful.


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

I suppose it is a balance between exploring and being led, finding your own tastes or buying into someone else's tastes, being at a loss where to turn or being a kid in a candy store.

Some people like the comfort of someone guiding them, showing them the best paths and the right choices. Others will regard it as a yoke, controlling and constraining them, not into classical enjoyment but into handed down conformity.

Lists can serve to fossilise a repertoire, to build an "invisible museum" to borrow a phrase. Too many people relying on the same few lists will narrow the market and the classical landscape. Mozart's gets placed as the No. 1 requiem, so people want to hear it, so it gets bought more than others, so it gets recorded more than any others, so it is the most available, so it is the first/most frequently heard, so it is placed at the top of the list.

One thing I hear a lot is "I don't know where to start with classical, I don't know what are the good recordings". It is a common barrier, the intimidating number of recordings, number of centuries, number of forms, and the self appointed guides will all have their own severe biases. "That era was boring, this conductor is the best, this instrument is the finest". I always say that they should just get any version, it's rare that any orchestra, even some no-name east european orchestra, is likely to mess up a work so badly it will be unlistenable. If you are going to be turned off from Beethoven it is just as likely to be Beethoven himself and not the playing. Perhaps if it was Karajan conducting rather than Kzlavzyzkz then it might have clicked instantly but we all know Karajan can be just as divisive.

Klieber conducting Beethoven's 5 & 7 is one of the more universally acclaimed recordings. But i'm not sure i'm qualified to recommend it, or that I have listened to enough alternatives to make an informed judgment. So of I do recommend it I will be relying on the hype of others, adding to that hype and doing a disservice to many other almost equally worthy recordings.

If you do just explore in near blindness with no reference or guide, then you are likely to miss some essential things, but equally you will miss over-hyped things that you probably wouldn't like anyway. You'll also pick up obscure things that others would barely count as classical but you might love and cherish.

Although it can be irritating, I don't see some guy's reluctance to recommend as an arrogant attempt to protect modernism from plebs but rather it is an attempt to not taint a listener's path of exploration in advance. If you declare John Cage as the greatest 20th century composer many people will stop right there. Others will diligently try and absorb all of Cage as if he is Beethoven and never get to composers that suit them better.

Opps gotta go this post will come to an abrupt


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

science said:


> It's a good source, but it needs prioritization - at least some newbies WANT prioritization, and essentially no one has the courage to do that.


I should mention David Dubal as a significant exception. He didn't do a good job with early music, and there are other gaps, but he did provide an implicit prioritization, not an absolute 1, 2, 3... but at least tiers:

1. the major works of the major composers; 
2. the less famous works of the major composers; 
3. the other somewhat famous works of the major composers; 
4. the most famous works of other composers.

It's not an infallible source but it is the single best I know. He recommends recordings with a bit too much nonchalance for my taste, but it's the best I know.

Essentially, I now believe the best thing for a newbie to do is to get those greatest hits CDs. There's even one that has the most famous 30 seconds or so of the most famous works. That's a great start. A few hours with that is worth about three years on a message board.

Books like "The Vintage Guide to Classical Music" and Plotkin's "Classical Music 101" are great for newbies too, though unfortunately both of them are rather idiosyncratic in their recommendations. The next best resources are probably the various lists on amazon.com. They suffer from the same anti-popularity bias as discussion boards, but after some greatest hits CDs that'll be ok. And at that point, probably Dubal is the best a newbie can do.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

quack said:


> I suppose it is a balance between exploring and being led, finding your own tastes or buying into someone else's tastes, being at a loss where to turn or being a kid in a candy store.
> 
> Some people like the comfort of someone guiding them, showing them the best paths and the right choices. Others will regard it as a yoke, controlling and constraining them, not into classical enjoyment but into handed down conformity.
> 
> ...


I guess that I'm so individualistic anyway that I can't imagine feeling _constrained_ by a recommendation. Are there really very many people that weak?

Well, fortunately I have had the money to run down a lot of dead ends, so that's good.

And even more fortunately, none of this even matters any more. I've nearly solved my problems myself.


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

I can relate to science talking about getting into music. For myself it was with literature though, and less in order to keep up with my social group than to try and get ahead.

I got into listening music because I started composing. It was that way around. I was also conscious of deliberately trying to get to know the repertoire, but it was more from a utilitarian point of view.

So what now? When I put on Beethoven's Eroica, am I seeking to impress someone? Now I still go around listening, sometimes, to music because I will be expected to know it but as a music student those expectations are not so subtle. I already know the Eroica though, and in terms of showing off I would be better served listening to Stockhausen's _Gruppen_. I listen to it either because I think I will learn from it or because it gives me immense pleasure or both.

In any case, my first encounters with Classical music were given by my parents, however they were generally fairly good about introducing me to Beethoven's 5th, Bach's d minor harpsichord concerto etc. etc.

In general however I prefer to sit on top of the repertoire I know and get to know it better. I expand slowly. However the depths that the pieces I know continue to yield on further examination constantly surprise me. I suppose you could say I explore the repertoire I know, rather than the repertoire I don't know.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

science said:


> It's a good source, but it needs prioritization - at least some newbies WANT prioritization, and essentially no one has the courage to do that.


But at what point does "prioritization" become "restriction"? The Rough Guide's section on Bach suggests 42 recordings in my edition, but it also provides a little discussion of the music and also of the performances. At some point you have to let the newbie make up their own minds, and not be too concerned about lists of what they "need" to hear.

I open the Rough Guide at random. Debussy's Pelléas et Mélisande: "this dramatically static work is the very antithesis of Wagnerian heroics". That in itself may well be enough information for a lot of newcomers to decide whether it's worth exploring at this point.

Don't get me wrong - I obviously enjoy contributing to the Talk Classical Project, but I see it as a vast selection of pointers rather than an actual list to be followed, so the fact that Pelléas et Mélisande is specifically at no.522 doesn't really mean anything to me. But as I said before, we're coming at the question from different perspectives.


----------



## Guest (May 2, 2013)

science said:


> an active unwillingness to be helpful.


Yes, this is what you keep reporting as seeing.

Question is, is this actually "out there," or is this just "you seeing"?

It's a common thread in these threads. Some see ideologies everywhere (everywhere except in their own posts), some see self-importance and pretentiousness everywhere (everywhere but in et cetera), some spend millions of pixels attacking people for supposedly attacking them for not listening to this or that kind of music.

We'd get along a lot better if fewer of us would spend so much time focussing on the people and more time focussing on what is said in the posts. What is _said,_ not the putative motives of the sayers.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

some guy said:


> Yes, this is what you keep reporting as seeing.
> 
> Question is, is this actually "out there," or is this just "you seeing"?
> 
> ...


Sorry, man. I'm never going to leave my brain at the door of a thread.


----------



## Guest (May 2, 2013)

Not what I'm asking for, dude.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

some guy said:


> Not what I'm asking for, dude.


I think it is.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly (Apr 21, 2007)

Nereffid said:


> Whenever I see an "I'm a newbie, what should I listen to?" thread, my heart sinks somewhat because there's going to be so much wildly different advice.


Whenever _I_ see an "I'm a newbie, what should I listen to?" thread, and I opt to respond, I typically start with "what have you heard, that you've liked, so far?"

I try to get 'em talking. Y'know- turn it into a _dialog_. Let 'em know I'm interested in the discoveries they've made *so far*, and helps increase the chances that recommendations are based on a give-and-take with the questioner playing a part in the process.

I think it works out better for the newer listener- and (I daresay) it works out better for Classical Music that I'm considering the newcomer's perspective, and not merely making pronouncements as if from on high.


----------



## KRoad (Jun 1, 2012)

science said:


> I don't understand.


Music should not be a _means_ to an end, but rather an end in itself.


----------



## Guest (May 2, 2013)

I wonder if we were to speculate outside music - put ourselves in another field - and try a different perspective.

Suppose someone says to me, "I've always been a bit lazy about poetry, so I'm resolved to try harder, look some out, give it a proper try...I know I only want to read English poets [not English-writing poets, for the purpose of this exercise] - where should I start?"

First, I'd be pleased someone thought to ask me. Second, I'd try to ask (as chi-town philly suggests) for a little more information about what they already know, what kinds of things they think they like. Third, I'd try to recommend some poets that included known 'Greats' and historical and modern.

What I wouldn't do is to hem them in with a bundle of caveats about what everyone else and his dog might think about this that or the other poet: what I was asked for was some recommendations - not a critical analysis of the history of poets and poetry, or the dimwits guide to whose 'in' and whose 'out'.

If they were asking me, they want my opinion, not someone else's. So I'd recommend some Wordsworth, Shakespeare, McGough, Cope, Milligan: and what, specifically, and why I like it. They could go away, try it, and decide for themselves if they made the right choice in coming to ask my advice.

Why does "Classical Music" generate such tribalism as sometimes seems to be the case here?


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

KRoad said:


> Music should not be a _means_ to an end, but rather an end in itself.


Wanting to converse ably with certain people doesn't necessarily require subverting the music to the conversation.

But anyway, I disagree with your idea on other grounds. This is the realm of "should" so it's just opinions, and one is as good as another, but I figure, why not share? To me, it's fine if music contributes to something else; say, a movie, or a romantic date, or showing off a car stereo. Or whatever.


----------



## Guest (May 2, 2013)

science said:


> it's just opinions, and one is as good as another


Hmmm, and speaking of disagreements...


----------



## KRoad (Jun 1, 2012)

science said:


> Wanting to converse ably with certain people doesn't necessarily require subverting the music to the conversation.


This isn't quite what I was intimating... you appear to have been drawn to classical music in order to allow you to access a peer group you might otherwise have been denied membership of owing to a lack of perceived sophistication. To me this suggests that you objectified music for the purpose of (social) self-gain - as opposed being seduced by the aural aesthetics of the music itself. Or whatever.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

KRoad said:


> This isn't quite what I was intimating... you appear to have been drawn to classical music in order to allow you to access a peer group you might otherwise have been denied membership of owing to a lack of perceived sophistication. To me this suggests that you objectified music for the purpose of (social) self-gain - as opposed being seduced by the aural aesthetics of the music itself. Or whatever.


Really, I was in that culture or on my way in anyway for other reasons. They weren't rejecting me, they were inviting me.

But either way, so what? There's nothing wrong with that. That's how the world works, how the world has always worked, and I'd bet something like that played a role in the formation of your own (and everyone else's) musical tastes.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

KRoad said:


> This isn't quite what I was intimating... you appear to have been drawn to classical music in order to allow you to access a peer group you might otherwise have been denied membership of owing to a lack of perceived sophistication. To me this suggests that you objectified music for the purpose of (social) self-gain - as opposed being seduced by the aural aesthetics of the music itself. Or whatever.


Some do that, I don't know if it's always intentional or just a by-product. And on popular music forums it can feel very strong, maybe some young people feel the need to join some group for their musical identity. I don't think I ever felt like that though.


----------



## Guest (May 3, 2013)

science said:


> I'd bet something like that played a role in the formation of your own (and everyone else's) musical tastes.


Nope.

I call "idle speculation for something you could have no actual evidence for."


----------



## KRoad (Jun 1, 2012)

science said:


> I'd bet something like that played a role in the formation of your own (and everyone else's) musical tastes.


As a musician, I can honestly answer: no, not in the least.


----------



## Guest (May 3, 2013)

some guy said:


> Nope.
> 
> I call "idle speculation for something you could have no actual evidence for."


Actually, science has some evidence. In another thread, I already owned up to the possibility that my musical tastes have, for better or worse, been subject to the question of what others might think of me. Whether this is 'right' or not, I doubt I'm the only one. That does not mean I would claim to be in a majority and it would be risky for science to claim so. But it doesn't invalidate the observation. In fact, the cut and thrust, and the 'likes' evident on TC suggests that in forming virtual relationships, our estimation of others' value to us, we are all to some extent influenced by the musical choices they make - and the way those choices are expressed.

It may be thought immature to allow yourself to be influenced this way, but there is no doubt in my mind that if member x says that we must all love/hate suchandsuch, I can be influenced towards or away from suchandsuch.

If that makes me a lesser human, so be it. (And I don't have the "excuse" of youth!)


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Well, hopefully I don't base very many of my ideas on personal experience or anecdotes. I'm thinking more sociologically (what role does music play in society? in identity formation? etc.) and evolutionary psychologically (why did musical behavior evolve?). With that in mind, I cannot seriously consider any radically individualistic theory of musical preference. Music is an inherently social behavior either all the time or very, very nearly all the time. Forming and stating musical preferences is a variety of performance no less than fashion or dancing or religious ritual or any other kind of display. I suspect we realize it much more often or to a greater degree than we dare admit, for admitting it undermines the whole strategy. The soundest way would be for the whole thing could be subconscious, but it seems to me that, for whatever reason, our genes seem to have allotted our consciousness at least some role to play in the process.

Recently someone reminded me of the thought of Bourdieu, which is along the same lines as I'm thinking, though I'm less interested in particularly modern or post-modern societies and more interested in human behavior generally.

But anyway, even if I'm _mostly_ wrong in that - which would surprise me - the bottom line is that it would surprise me much more to find out that music for any one would be an essentially solipsistic experience to which the existence of other people is irrelevant.


----------



## KRoad (Jun 1, 2012)

science said:


> . But anyway, even if I'm _mostly_ wrong in that - which would surprise me - the bottom line is that it would surprise me much more to find out that music for any one would be an essentially solipsistic experience to which the existence of other people is irrelevant.


My comments were specifically aimed at you, Science (while not wishing to be too personal and independent of whether or not others may wish to use music as a means for social advancement).

Following from what you have said one could speculate that your views on music are specifically cultivated to foster an acceptance and legitimacy of yourself within the TC community; views that may not in fact be driven by an intrinsic like of music, but rather by their value as social capital in an on-line community where music is the lingua franca.


----------



## Guest (May 3, 2013)

KRoad said:


> My comments were specifically aimed at you, Science (while not wishing to be too personal and independent of whether or not others may wish to use music as a means for social advancement).
> 
> Following from what you have said one could speculate that your views on music are specifically cultivated to foster an acceptance and legitimacy of yourself within the TC community; views that may not in fact be driven by an intrinsic like of music, but rather by their value as social capital in an on-line community where music is the lingua franca.


Why pick on science? Is the rest of TC's membership is not interested in fostering legitimacy and acceptance? There is plenty of evidence in the exchanges between members that that is a critical component in the dynamics of the forum. If posting your opinions here did not provoke any response at all, you'd probably stop posting. Consequently, it's difficult to post _without _taking account of how you think your post might be received, especially when the usual suspects are roaming around ready to attack/defend their tastes against all opposition (and sometimes to defend when there's no attack).


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

All I have to say on this topic is, surely I can't be the only person in human history who listened to someone else's favourite piece of music in order to increase the likelihood that she'd sleep with me?


----------



## KRoad (Jun 1, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> Why pick on science? Is the rest of TC's membership is not interested in fostering legitimacy and acceptance? There is plenty of evidence in the exchanges between members that that is a critical component in the dynamics of the forum. If posting your opinions here did not provoke any response at all, you'd probably stop posting. Consequently, it's difficult to post _without _taking account of how you think your post might be received, especially when the usual suspects are roaming around ready to attack/defend their tastes against all opposition (and sometimes to defend when there's no attack).


No, no, no, You've got me wrong, MacLeod. My interest in this thread was provoked through a comment made by science as to how he/she came to be interested in classical music. My understanding is that it was cultivated, in the first instance, to promote his/her acceptance within a social group that he/she aspired to. I find this a curious motivation that is at odds with my own experience. I always felt that exchanges of opinion were based on an individuals response to a piece in musical terms. It struck me as surprising or even odd that opinions may be generated through a social desire to be accepted by one's on-line peers rather than by issues connected to the music itself.

So I am not "picking" on science (whose posts I generally enjoy) in any sense. I find the outcome of this exchange "insightful".


----------



## Guest (May 3, 2013)

Nereffid said:


> All I have to say on this topic is, surely I can't be the only person in human history who listened to someone else's favourite piece of music in order to increase the likelihood that she'd sleep with me?


You're not. And I've loathed Joni Mitchell ever since!


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

PetrB said:


> Say you have a neophyte who knocks on the door of the classical building armed with the coupling of a Yiruma piece, or Carter Burwell's _Bella's Lullaby_ and Debussy's _Clair de Lune_ (of which exactly such there was a massive spate at the height of the popularity of the 'Twilight' television series, followed by a second spate when 'the movie' came out.) Recommending an electronic piece by Ussachevsky ex the Princeton electronic music labs of the sixties, anything by Stockhausen, Schoenberg, even Stravinsky's _Firebird_ is patently 'not the way to go.'


To the final statement: 





You can't assume that somebody is not going to enjoy something to completely forgo exposing them to it at all. You never know what might click with an individual. You might show this kid some Mozart, maybe they'll like it alot, or maybe they'll think it sucks. You show them some Bartok or Stravinsky? They might like it. They might even like Xenakis or Stockhausen. People aren't so predictable ya know.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Of course, in an ideal world none of this sort of exchange would be on-line. Then one could get some sense of the person, see their expressions, body language, get a sense that giving those further flung suggestions might just 'take.' Online, with none of that to go on, and often a less than well-armed vocabulary with which to tell you what they like about what they've liked so far, I'll err on the side of caution to up the odds they will stay, suggestions will take, etc. Baby steps, not at all meant to be 'condescending' toward the person inquiring, but as caution.

If they're in front of you, I swear it is pretty simple to 'read' them as to their level of openness or adventurousness.

And, right, on one level, easy to wonder how even a neophyte could _not_ be captivated by Stravinsky's Firebird, for example, while in reality, for some of those specifically described neophytes, that is already 'way too dissonant' for their ears.

I'm also including those fora formats which are not discussion, but allow 'one answer.'


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

KRoad said:


> My comments were specifically aimed at you, Science (while not wishing to be too personal and independent of whether or not others may wish to use music as a means for social advancement).
> 
> Following from what you have said one could speculate that your views on music are specifically cultivated to foster an acceptance and legitimacy of yourself within the TC community; views that may not in fact be driven by an intrinsic like of music, but rather by their value as social capital in an on-line community where music is the lingua franca.


I'm sorry, I was talking about decisions I made almost two decades ago!

It seems like you are contrasting or opposing things that I don't contrast or oppose. As if you see an either/or where I see a possible both/and.


----------

