Facing your (musical) fears

[EigenUser]

Do any of you actively "try" to appreciate something that you have a history of disliking?

I think it can be rewarding to do so. Recently I managed to finally make peace with Stockhausen's Gruppen and I'm currently going through various recordings of Mozart's later PCs (22-27 -- listening to 24/Brendel right now, in fact). I actually enjoy them and I'm glad I am taking time to get to know them better, even if they never make a list of favorites.

I need to do this with Glass and Cage next. Perhaps Brahms, too (later).

[Mirror Image]

Sure, I've made stabs at composer's music I just don't get many times. Messiaen is a prime example of this for me. I have tried to enjoy his music, especially the mid to late works, but I just can't. After awhile, I had to realize my time is better spent listening to music that I actually do like or that intrigues me in some way. Sometimes a piece doesn't hit me quite right like when I listened to Moeran's Violin Concerto many months ago and I didn't really enjoy it. Now, I love the work as I started becoming more familiar with his sound-world. But there are some composers I'm afraid I'll never be able to appreciate and this is entirely my own problem and has nothing to do with composer or their music.

[springrite]

For me, Schubert and Bruckner. Both took 30 years.

[EigenUser]

...intrigues me in some way...

For me, sometimes it seems like music that I don't care for is more intriguing than music I love! It makes me feel like I'm totally missing something.

...this is entirely my own problem and has nothing to do with composer or their music.

My attitude exactly. I read a Cage quote (I do like him as a musical philosopher) where he said something like "there's no point in expressing likes or dislikes because it says nothing about the composer" (paraphrased, but that's the idea) and it really got me thinking.

[NikF]

Yes. For a long time I couldn't listen to much of Bartók. However time (and patience) brought great reward. And while I'm sure there will always be some things I'll never, ever get my head around, I'll be happy as long as I'm generally open enough so that my frame of reference continually grows and allows me a chance at appreciating new and different music.

[San Antone]

Cage's philosophy is often swiss cheese and half-baked. It depends on who is saying it. Critical thinking and analysis are in fact good, and the best of that says much about a composer and what they are doing/did. An outside, clear, objective viewpoint of merit is healthy/useful. In fact it is part and parcel to artistic discourse (externally/internally). Sounds like Cage (if he said that) was just trying to justify something for himself, as it pertains to his own doings and the reaction to it.

Actually Cage was expressing a concept he learned from his exploration of Zen.  Here's some unsolicited advice, take it or leave it: the less you say about Cage the better you come across.

[San Antone]

Even worse, Cage is importing eastern Zen philosophy in an attempt to explain things.

He is not importing anything; he is expressing his his outlook or philosophy, and not just concerning music.  Don't place too much emphasis on the quote as it appears above; I am pretty sure it is paraphrased and out of context; although I won't deny that he did express similar ideas throughout his life.

[San Antone]

You just said he learned it from Zen .. that's importing.

Only if all acquired knowledge or beliefs are imported. 

[San Antone]

Yea .. take something you said here and do a grand cover all for everything ever. That makes sense.

Cage was a serious student of Zen; it was the basis for all aspects of his life. 

[EigenUser]

Cage's philosophy is often swiss cheese and half-baked. It depends on who is saying it. Critical thinking and analysis are in fact good, and the best of that says much about a composer and what they are doing/did. An outside, clear, objective viewpoint of merit is healthy/useful. In fact it is part and parcel to artistic discourse (externally/internally). Sounds like Cage (if he said that) was just trying to justify something for himself, as it pertains to his own doings and the reaction to it.

Wow, you really seem to have an unnecessarily loud negative view of Cage...

It doesn't matter to me if Cage was using it to justify his own music or not, nor does its roots in Zen. It is still a philosophy that am interested in regardless of these things. Perhaps I will have a totally opposite take on Cage's music whenever I get to it. If so, there is no way that my thoughts would be inferior.

For me, Schubert and Bruckner. Both took 30 years.

Out of curiousity, why? I love Bruckner, but I don't know much Schubert at all.

Yes. For a long time I couldn't listen to much of Bartók. However time (and patience) brought great reward. And while I'm sure there will always be some things I'll never, ever get my head around, I'll be happy as long as I'm generally open enough so that my frame of reference continually grows and allows me a chance at appreciating new and different music.

Again, why? BTW, Bartok is my favorite composer so that story brought a tear of joy to my eyes.

[San Antone]

Do any of you actively "try" to appreciate something that you have a history of disliking?

I have; but not anymore.  I have tried many times to listen to Wagner, or Bruckner or Mahler.  The music from the 19th century in general, with few exceptions (Brahms) does not appeal to me at all.

These days I spend time seeking out music from those periods for which I have a natural affinity (14th-16th c. and 21st c.); there is so much I have not discovered from those periods.   I choose to spend my time there and not attempting to enjoy something I never have.

[springrite]

Out of curiousity, why? I love Bruckner, but I don't know much Schubert at all.

I found both boring and repetitive.

[Mirror Image]

For me, sometimes it seems like music that I don't care for is more intriguing than music I love! It makes me feel like I'm totally missing something.

In my own listening, I have to be intrigued or somehow drawn into the sound-world first and the rest as they so often say is history.

My attitude exactly. I read a Cage quote (I do like him as a musical philosopher) where he said something like "there's no point in expressing likes or dislikes because it says nothing about the composer" (paraphrased, but that's the idea) and it really got me thinking.

I like some of Cage's music actually. Landscapes for solo piano being a work that impressed me the most. Anyway, I think it's better to discuss music we love rather than music we don't for the simple reason that the tone of conversation would be a lot more pleasant and feelings are less likely to get hurt. Some people do take things rather personally if you say something negative about a composer they admire, which I have certainly been guilty of in the past. But, now, it doesn't bother me.

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

These days I spend time seeking out music from those periods for which I have a natural affinity (14th-16th c. and 21st c.);

I find it interesting that fans of modern/contemporary are often also fans of early music. That's somewhat the case for me, though I do like a lot of the stuff that comes in between.

[springrite]

I find it interesting that fans of modern/contemporary are often also fans of early music. That's somewhat the case for me, though I do like a lot of the stuff that comes in between.

Ditto!

[Mirror Image]

I find it interesting that fans of modern/contemporary are often also fans of early music. That's somewhat the case for me, though I do like a lot of the stuff that comes in between.

I wonder where that leaves me?

[TheGSMoeller]

<----- It's possible my avatar of Harnoncourt ripping your soul apart is a musical fear you may not want to face.

[Mirror Image]

<----- It's possible my avatar of Harnoncourt ripping your soul apart is a musical fear you may not want to face.

Lenny says "Bring it on, little man. Bring it on."

[NikF]

Again, why? BTW, Bartok is my favorite composer so that story brought a tear of joy to my eyes.

I'm not the best at explaining myself and so since reading your reply I've been thinking carefully of how to word my answer. I know my first attempt is at best clumsy and at worst cheap, but...
When I was a very young man I saw Brigitte Bardot in 'And God Created Woman'. She was blonde, shapely, pouting and blatantly provocative. Incredible. Then I got older and was able to notice Jeanne Moreau. Game over.

I suppose a more simple way to put it, is that by continually listening to different composers my frame of reference steadily expanded enough to encompass Bartók, until one day I found myself comfortably listening to his String Quartets for the first time (via the Hungarian String Quartet) and realising that this music is to be savoured and treasured.

[EigenUser]

I'm not the best at explaining myself and so since reading your reply I've been thinking carefully of how to word my answer. I know my first attempt is at best clumsy and at worst cheap, but...
When I was a very young man I saw Brigitte Bardot in 'And God Created Woman'. She was blonde, shapely, pouting and blatantly provocative. Incredible. Then I got older and was able to notice Jeanne Moreau. Game over.

I suppose a more simple way to put it, is that by continually listening to different composers my frame of reference steadily expanded enough to encompass Bartók, until one day I found myself comfortably listening to his String Quartets for the first time (via the Hungarian String Quartet) and realising that this music is to be savoured and treasured.

Interesting. This is how I learned to appreciate Mahler. It wasn't until I discovered a work by another composer (in this case, Schoenberg's wonderful Chamber Symphony No. 1) that I could fully enjoy a Mahler symphony.

As much as I love Bartok, though, the SQs still don't do much for me (except the third, which I find riveting). Another example of me trying to face my musical fears -- every couple of years I'll listen to the cycle (to no avail, so far). While there are some SQs I dearly love (Ravel's, Debussy's, Ligeti's 1st, Bartok's 3rd, Ives' 2nd), I've never been a fan of the string quartet genre (for reasons which I am still trying to figure out). I've recently been wondering what it would be like if Bartok wrote a wind quintet. That would be interesting to hear.

I wonder where that leaves me?

You NEED to hear an Ockeghem mass (i.e. Missa Prolationum) -- if, for no other reason, just to compare with Ligeti's Lux Aeterna or Requiem. It lends extraordinary insight on Ligeti's compositional technique. Besides, it is utterly beautiful music. You won't be disappointed.