Why do people hate classical these days? (Started by Jack123...now a guest)

[MN Dave]

You want Schoenberg's Serenade, Opus 24. You know you want it.

Noted.

[Franco]

Transcend may or may not be the right verb . . . evaluation is one of my own modes for music's enjoyment.  Not sure what the right word is . . . evaluation and enjoyment, are they complementary, overlapping?

For me, evaluation has the sense of (to offer a crude example) - "oh, that was an interesting use of a French Sixth passing chord - I wasn't expecting that" and thinking that this made the music "good, better, or worse" as opposed to listening and suspending my analytical intellect.   

But my interpretation of the word "evaluation" may be narrower than others.

[karlhenning]

That's all right;  I don't expect firm walls here.

[Bulldog]

So, what is the point of this discussion then? Why do we care if people hate classical music if that is simply personal preference made possible by capitalism?

I'm not part of your "we"; I have no concerns about what other people musically like or dislike. 

[71 dB]

Of course it has. There is no such thing as a perfect system. But when you compare capitalism as practiced in the democratic countries with the socialism as practiced in the former Soviet Union and its satellite countries, capitalism wins by a wide margin on each and any account you might think of.

Sure but had Soviet Union been as democratic the margin might have been smaller. I am a supporter of hybrid system (about 75% capitalism and 25 % sosialism). 100 % capitalism is too crude for weaker, less talented individuals and pure sosialism doesn't encourage talented individuals. Hybrid system with optimum ratio is a very good compromise, I think.

Sure, but this is no excuse for Stalinism. 

I agree.

[71 dB]

I have no concerns about what other people musically like or dislike.

Makes me wonder why you bother post in this thread.

[Bulldog]

Makes me wonder why you bother post in this thread.

Keep wondering if you like.

[Franco]

I'm not part of your "we"; I have no concerns about what other people musically like or dislike.

Oh, I do.  I am very much interested in what other people like or dislike.  I don't lose any sleep over it if their preferences are 180 degrees opposite from my own, but often I will discover something new, or revisit something again and find my initial impression has changed.  (This happened quite recently concerning Giacinto Scelsi, which then led me to find several composers whose music is very interesting to me.)

No, other people's likes and dislikes are a prime source of information about music for me. 

[Bulldog]

Oh, I do.  I am very much interested in what other people like or dislike.  I don't lose any sleep over it if their preferences are 180 degrees opposite from my own, but often I will discover something new, or revisit something again and find my initial impression has changed.  (This happened quite recently concerning Giacinto Scelsi, which then led me to find several composers whose music is very interesting to me.)

No, other people's likes and dislikes are a prime source of information about music for me.

Interest and concern are not the same.  Of course I have interest, but I'm not concerned or worried about the matter.

[Marc]

[....]
I have no concerns about what other people musically like or dislike.

Same here.

Let's paraphrase a classical punk rocker, Johnny Rotten: I know what I like and that's all that counts to me.

[karlhenning]

Punks! : )

[knight66]

Sondheim and Bernstein had something to say about Punks.

Mike

[karlhenning]

Dey didn't wanna have me, yet somehow I was had . . . .

[Grazioso]

I have studied music seriously, that is if you consider a college degree serious study - I don't necessarily consider a college music degree significant in and of itself, but it does provide someone with some historical context and some analytical skills, as well as some technical skills which may make someone who has a college music degree better able to evaluate music.

But that is not my point.  I think my enjoyment of music transcends my ability to evaluate it, and I doubt I am unique in this regard.  In some ways I think historical, analytical and technical skills can pose obstacles to hearing the music with an open mind or without preconceived ideas about its quality or worth.  I try to listen without analyzing as much as possible, and if I really want to see how the sausage was made, I will study a score.

The comment you responded to was meant to describe how I react to people dissing music they don't like, and confusing their own dislike with an objective evaluation of its worth.

I take your point and largely agree, but at the same time, I'm convinced that one can--and usually should--supplement a sort of naive and non-intellectual response to art with one that's critically engaged. I know from experience that once you start to really study and observe a subject, you become attuned to things you otherwise would not have known (how) to look for. You learn to appreciate it from multiple angles at the same time. For example, a botanist, horticulturalist, or landscape architect is most likely going to see a lot more details in a garden and be able to both enjoy and evaluate it from more perspectives than is your average joe. That's not to say the emotional responses of either party will somehow be superior, but rather that a more critical, mentally engaged stance can yield up a wider variety of dividends.

[DavidW]

but rather that a more critical, mentally engaged stance can yield up a wider variety of dividends.

I get your point Grazioso, but you've also consistently in your posts equated knowledge of the theory with being mentally engaged.  Studying music theory is no guarantee that you'll be mentally engaged, nor does ignorance imply that the mind is off.  I think we can agree that understanding music theory would help with appreciation but...

Life is busy.  We're not all musicians.  If we studied intensely everything that we enjoyed we wouldn't have time to sleep.   I don't know about the rest of you, but I have only 2-4 hours of free time a day, in which I can read, listen to music, watch a movie or get some chores done.  When would I have time for studying?  And I'm tired, I want to relax not work some more.  Now I enjoy classical music, have taken a couple of classes in college, avidly collect cds and post on this forum.  It's hard for me to see myself as "naive" and "non-intellectual" because I don't have the time or energy to make it a second career. 

So do you really feel that way?  Or have you simply gone a little overboard on advertising the benefits of studying theory? 

[Elgarian]

I take your point and largely agree, but at the same time, I'm convinced that one can--and usually should--supplement a sort of naive and non-intellectual response to art with one that's critically engaged. I know from experience that once you start to really study and observe a subject, you become attuned to things you otherwise would not have known (how) to look for. You learn to appreciate it from multiple angles at the same time. For example, a botanist, horticulturalist, or landscape architect is most likely going to see a lot more details in a garden and be able to both enjoy and evaluate it from more perspectives than is your average joe. That's not to say the emotional responses of either party will somehow be superior, but rather that a more critical, mentally engaged stance can yield up a wider variety of dividends.

As someone who found Franco's original post a refreshing breath of fresh air, I'd like to explain that my applause for his remarks concerned their acknowledgement of the unimportance of our negative engagements with art.  In the first instance the approach to art must be one of openness (not naive, not non-intellectual, but open). And that openness inevitably carries the risk of experiencing an aesthetic non-event, but it seems only rarely to be accepted as such. Too often it's transformed into a negative judgement on the work. Reasons may even be drummed up for its badness - plausible reasons too - because of course even the greatest works can be made to seem inadequate by applying criteria of assessment that are inappropriate to them.

What I find so valuable in Franco's approach is his recognition that evaluation and judgement are secondary activities. The real thing - the moments of contact between art and listener, where perceptions might be made anew in the heat of engagement - that's what counts; that's what I need continually to remind myself of. My temptation to blame the work when such an encounter doesn't live up to expectations is usually of as little importance as yesterday's indigestion.

[Grazioso]

I get your point Grazioso, but you've also consistently in your posts equated knowledge of the theory with being mentally engaged.  Studying music theory is no guarantee that you'll be mentally engaged, nor does ignorance imply that the mind is off.  I think we can agree that understanding music theory would help with appreciation but...

I believe I mentioned music theory in passim in just one post, actually.

So do you really feel that way?  Or have you simply gone a little overboard on advertising the benefits of studying theory?

You misunderstand me. I do think studying music theory is interesting and valuable and can let one appreciate and deal with music on more levels than someone who hasn't studied it. But that's not my primary point: rather, it's that one can approach any subject from an unschooled, uncritical stance or alternatively from the vantage of one who's delved into the details and nuances; who has learned the critical frameworks from which the subject can be more observed, gauged, and discussed; who has, through study (informal or formal), learned to mark details and relationships that might otherwise go unobserved or be dismissed as irrelevant. I do think that the latter approach is generally superior, in that it in no way precludes an emotional or spiritual engagement with a subject, but merely adds extra layers to one's involvement and allows for more intelligent discourse.

And while anyone can formulate an opinion about music, the person who has taken the time to learn about it and really listen with critical care is the one whose opinion is likely going to be more interesting and informative, precisely because it takes into account a broader range of information and notes more subtle details. And formal study becomes beneficial in that it allows one to voice that opinion with accuracy and detail using a common argot.

[karlhenning]

As someone who found Franco's original post a refreshing breath of fresh air, I'd like to explain that my applause for his remarks concerned their acknowledgement of the unimportance of our negative engagements with art.  In the first instance the approach to art must be one of openness (not naive, not non-intellectual, but open). And that openness inevitably carries the risk of experiencing an aesthetic non-event, but it seems only rarely to be accepted as such. Too often it's transformed into a negative judgement on the work. Reasons may even be drummed up for its badness - plausible reasons too - because of course even the greatest works can be made to seem inadequate by applying criteria of assessment that are inappropriate to them.

What I find so valuable in Franco's approach is his recognition that evaluation and judgement are secondary activities. The real thing - the moments of contact between art and listener, where perceptions might be made anew in the heat of engagement - that's what counts; that's what I need continually to remind myself of. My temptation to blame the work when such an encounter doesn't live up to expectations is usually of as little importance as yesterday's indigestion.

Well said.

[jochanaan]

As someone who found Franco's original post a refreshing breath of fresh air, I'd like to explain that my applause for his remarks concerned their acknowledgement of the unimportance of our negative engagements with art.  In the first instance the approach to art must be one of openness (not naive, not non-intellectual, but open). And that openness inevitably carries the risk of experiencing an aesthetic non-event, but it seems only rarely to be accepted as such. Too often it's transformed into a negative judgement on the work. Reasons may even be drummed up for its badness - plausible reasons too - because of course even the greatest works can be made to seem inadequate by applying criteria of assessment that are inappropriate to them.

What I find so valuable in Franco's approach is his recognition that evaluation and judgement are secondary activities. The real thing - the moments of contact between art and listener, where perceptions might be made anew in the heat of engagement - that's what counts; that's what I need continually to remind myself of. My temptation to blame the work when such an encounter doesn't live up to expectations is usually of as little importance as yesterday's indigestion.

Good and important points, Elgarian.  And there's this too: When you listen to an accepted "masterwork," you pretty much know what you're getting.  Some people use them as "comfort food."  Yes, even Beethoven's Ninth, hardly a "comfortable" masterpiece! But those of us who like new music tend not to like a steady diet of comfort food, but rather to seek out those "aha!" moments, those sudden and intense artistic connections that are far more rewarding for us than another Mozart symphony, or another recording of Beethoven's Fifth.  Yes, there's risk that we'll hear some junk--but in contemporary classical music, even the "junk" is interesting.  And the rewards are potentially much greater than the reward for sitting at home and listening yet again to a favorite recording...

As for capitalism, it primarily benefits those with capital.

[Elgarian]

But those of us who like new music tend not to like a steady diet of comfort food, but rather to seek out those "aha!" moments, those sudden and intense artistic connections that are far more rewarding for us than another Mozart symphony, or another recording of Beethoven's Fifth.

I'm still in the process of experiencing such 'Aha' moments, not just with 'another' Mozart symphony, but even with the same Mozart symphony interpreted with exhilarating difference, so I'm a wee bit worried about associating them only with 'unknown' works - but I take your point. Whichever adventure we're on, if it is a genuine adventure then we risk failure - and if failure occurs, then we have to be careful about what we attribute the failure to, and resist the impulse to project our disappointment onto the work through some false critical rationalisation. Franco's approach - accept the non-event and move on - is one way of guarding against that.


IS THIS CAPITALISM?