# What you can change, practically



## Guest (Feb 3, 2013)

I am listening to some new pieces that a composer friend of mine (one of whose pieces will be on the radio show tonight where I am the guest) sent me. The first piece I really liked a lot, right from the first. The second one? Well, I found my attention wandering a bit around the middle. Since this friend asked for my advice, which he values (hard as that may be for some of you all to believe), I started thinking of what I could say to him about this piece.

And the words that popped into my head went something like this. "I enjoyed the first piece unreservedly. It was immediately engaging. The second piece I found myself not liking so much, which doesn't mean you should change it so much as it means that it gives me an opportunity to change myself, to make myself a better listener. So, in a way, the second piece is more valuable to me even though I like it less (on first hearing). I'll let you know what I think about it when I have become a better person."

I've noticed in a lot of threads that many people want composers to meet the needs of "the audience" (meaning meet the desires of the poster), or at least are upset that some composers have definitely not met their needs. (Upset even with composers who were dead before said posters were even born, so could hardly be expected and et cetera....)

But how practical is this desire? How likely to be achieved? Now, I have a lot of friends who are composers. And most of them respect my opinions very much. So maybe I could actually affect how these composers write. (I already know that I affect how active some composers are. One recently told me that after my last visit, she had new ideas for a dozen different new pieces and had been working on them full time since we last talked.)

But how many other people are so situated?

Just as a practical matter, isn't it more likely that you would be able to change yourself rather than the composers, most of whom don't even know you? And for myself, even though I am situated where I possibly _could_ change the way some composers write, I find it much more valuable and rewarding when I'm confronted with something I don't like to change myself rather than repine over this unlikable thing that I'm forcing myself to endure.

And, of course, with this as with so many other things, Cage was right. He was a philosopher, but his ideas are all practical ones, ones that can achieve results.

Here's one of them: "If something is boring after two minutes, try it for four. If still boring, then eight. Then sixteen. Then thirty-two. Eventually one discovers that it is not boring at all."

Less well known, but also pertinent: "The first question I ask myself when something doesn't seem to be beautiful is why do I think it's not beautiful. And very shortly you discover that there is no reason."

The beauty of these as practical strategies is that they work. That is, if you can get your own ego out of your way and actually do them, they will work. It's not necessarily easy. I did not find it to be so, even after I had met Cage and had fallen under the spell of his incredibly engaging personality. (Even my then wife, who didn't like his music at all and never did learn to like it, fell in love with the man.) But I have since found that putting these ideas into practice has been enormously beneficial.

I don't like everything I hear. Even after thirty-two minutes. Even, in some cases, after "eventually." But I have been able to enjoy so much more than if I had never heard of Cage and had never put his ideas into practice. It's certainly been a positive experience for me, intellectually, morally, aesthetically.


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

Just out of curiosity, do you apply this listening plan to music outside of classical? If you find the new Coldplay Or Shania Twain album boring do you try them for hours more? 

Are you saying that everything is beauteous, or just Classical?


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Cage was too naive and ambitious with his "two, four, eight, sixteen, thrity-two" minutes advice. I would rather spend hours going through Scarlatti harpsichord sonatas and Carl Philpp Emanuel Bach keyboard sonatas one after the another.


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

you're mostly right, but it doesn't always work that way, even after repeated tries and an honest desire to discover beauty (why wouldn't somebody want to be able to enjoy something new?), different interpretations and all. People have limitations. Sometimes you just don't like something. However, it *is* worth returning to something a longer time later, as one may have matured or changed in a different way. Still, it's not foolproof. Another the thing is, there are so many things to experience out there, you can't just go over the same pieces you have a strong resistance to. Not to beat a dead horse, but this approach is common sense, you really don't _need_ to know Cage was partial to it as well


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

Ordinarily I would say the composer owes nothing whatsoever to the listener -- and vice versa, but it is a special and problematic case when the composer is a friend and when the piece has never been heard or championed before by others. 

A similar topic came up on a literary podcast I was enjoying recently. How many pages do you give a book before divorcing it? Some tried to go with 50 or 100 pages, but to me this is too formulaic when something as slippery as art is involved. That decision is to be made on a case by case basis because no work is identical to another.

As for changing myself? I'll try to meet the artists halfway, but I was under the impression it's their role to open our eyes and ears. They're not obligated to succeed at this, but it is wonderful when it happens. I don't want to artificially force it to happen.


----------



## Guest (Feb 3, 2013)

deggial, Agreed. It was just through Cage that I received this idea.

Agreed with one exception, that this approach is common sense. I don't think it is. That is, it certainly doesn't seem to be a very oft used approach. One thing that has puzzled me over the years that I've been following online classical threads is how few people want to try anything new past any initial displeasure. Once the displeasure registers, that's it. No more trying.

Of course, who am I to say. I'm the guy who spends most of his time listening to music he doesn't like.

Yet.

I've had such success with liking things that I either had never known about (so couldn't have liked, yet) or that I have had initially negative experiences with, that I can't help wanting to share that success with fellow travellers.

Some of those will want to tell you "No. Don't do it. If you don't like it, reject it. Rejecting is good."

I don't agree.

[GreenMamba, I'm not a saint, you know! I'm just some guy. And while I don't pay much attention to genres, I do have a very high fail rate with commercial music. Non-commercial? Much more successful. I don't bash commercial music, even though I think it makes more sense to bash that than to bash Cage, but it's just not something I'm interested in. So I'd say that for me, I only seriously use this approach for non-commercial music and for un-processed sounds. Traffic. Birds. Dogs barking.]


----------



## OboeKnight (Jan 25, 2013)

deggial said:


> you're mostly right, but it doesn't always work that way, even after repeated tries and an honest desire to discover beauty (why wouldn't somebody want to be able to enjoy something new?), different interpretations and all. People have limitations. Sometimes you just don't like something. However, it *is* worth returning to something a longer time later, as one may have matured or changed in a different way. Still, it's not foolproof. Another the thing is, there are so many things to experience out there, you can't just go over the same pieces you have a strong resistance to. Not to beat a dead horse, but this approach is common sense, you really don't _need_ to know Cage was partial to it as well


Definitely agree with deggial. Somethings just aren't going to be enjoyed by everyone. On another note, ha note...music..anyway -.- Thread has gotten me thinking...we do have a lot of power as an audience. If some composers really do write for an audience's tastes, we, as an audience, can in a way change the course music that is being written. Our tastes, as diverse as they may be, can guide modern composers to write a certain way. I find this fascinating. I do, however, believe the composer should write what he/she feels compelled to and the audience can take it or leave it. Just a thought


----------



## Guest (Feb 3, 2013)

OboeKnight said:


> I do, however, believe the composer should write what he/she feels compelled to and the audience can take it or leave it.


Hear, hear!!:tiphat:


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

some guy said:


> I do have a very high fail rate with commercial music. Non-commercial? Much more successful. I don't bash commercial music, even though I think it *makes more sense to bash that than to bash Cage, but it's just not something I'm interested in.* So I'd say that for me, I only seriously use this approach for non-commercial music and for un-processed sounds. Traffic. Birds. Dogs barking.]


A rather curious statement. Perhaps it needs clarification. Is it commercial music that doesn't interest you or _bashing_ commercial music that doesn't interest you. In either case why does it make more _sense_ to bash it than it does Cage?

Oh and isn't _commercial_ in the context of music a relative term and a rather general one, sort of like the term atonal? It covers a hell of a lot of stuff.


----------



## Guest (Feb 3, 2013)

Neither the music nor the bashing.

Because Cage was trying for something more profound, intellectually, than commercial music tries for.

Commercial refers to the intent. The results of that intent are pretty remarkably consistent, but there are always exceptions. And I try to stay open to those. After all, the exceptions are delightful.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

some guy said:


> Neither the music nor the bashing.
> 
> Because Cage was trying for something more profound, intellectually, than commercial music tries for.
> 
> Commercial refers to the intent. The results of that intent are pretty remarkably consistent, but there are always exceptions. And I try to stay open to those. After all, the exceptions are delightful.


Mmmm.....profundity rather like beauty may well be in the mind of the listener and not a property of the music itself. Whether Cage achieved something more profound than Cole Porter, Pat Metheny or Dolly Parton I don't know if it is possible to measure. I suspect it will depend on the listener, no?
Furthermore I find the line between profundity and shallowness a very thin one and that a philosopher's music may actually be as shallow as a musician's philosophy.


----------



## Guest (Feb 3, 2013)

"It is better to make a piece of music than to perform one, better to perform one than to listen to one, better to listen to one than to misuse it as a means of distraction, entertainment, or acquisition of 'culture.'"

"Oh baby, baby, baby, baby."

The line seems pretty thick to me. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that you find the line between profundity and shallowness a pretty thick one yourself. You've probably even argued that it is thick on TC. (And I've probably called you out for doing so. Life is full of little ironies.)


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

some guy said:


> "It is better to make a piece of music than to perform one, better to perform one than to listen to one, better to listen to one than to misuse it as a means of distraction, entertainment, or acquisition of 'culture.'"
> 
> "Oh baby, baby, baby, baby."
> 
> The line seems pretty thick to me. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that you find the line between profundity and shallowness a pretty thick one yourself. You've probably even argued that it is thick on TC. (And I've probably called you out for doing so. Life is full of little ironies.)


I think your quote comes from Boulez doesn't it? It is by no means the only thing he was wrong about.

If we bring lyrics into the discussion that is indeed another matter.
A requiem mass is a 'lyric' that can be set by Bach, Verdi and Lloyd Webber but not necessarily with equal profundity (depending on one's particular taste) 
However, I think the way Marvin Gaye sings "baby baby" in the song 'Till Tomorrow' affects me on a musical level more profoundly than Cathy Berbarian squawking out a 'Sequenza'.

Maybe the line is thick but it is very blurred.
Still, some corrective glasses would no doubt do the trick.


----------



## palJacky (Nov 27, 2010)

OboeKnight said:


> Our tastes, as diverse as they may be, can guide modern composers to write a certain way. I find this fascinating. I do, however, believe the composer should write what he/she feels compelled to and the audience can take it or leave it. Just a thought


 I think a composer should write what he is interested in and if the more his music 'connects' with me the more I like him as a composer.
I really think it is an innate talent thing.
some composers just have the gift of writing music that finds an audience.

"i want to listen to more of what this guy is writing".


----------



## Guest (Feb 4, 2013)

Petwhac said:


> I think your quote comes from Boulez doesn't it?


No, it doesn't.


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

OboeKnight said:


> If some composers really do write for an audience's tastes, we, as an audience, can in a way change the course music that is being written. Our tastes, as diverse as they may be, can guide modern composers to write a certain way. I find this fascinating. I do, however, believe the composer should write what he/she feels compelled to and the audience can take it or leave it. Just a thought


it's interesting how the identity of the artist has changed beginning with the mid 19th century, I think. Before that composers did write very much with the audience (and singers) in mind (whether they liked it or not and there is evidence they often didn't) and I think they thought of themselves more as craftsmen than anything else. Afterwards artists (all of them, not just musicians) became more autonomous, for want of a better word. A middle ground is best for all concerned, but I do agree that said middle ground should come naturally. If you can only write "opaque" music that will only be understood 100 years down the way, so be it.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

some guy said:


> No, it doesn't.


Cage. I stand corrected.


----------

