Better with Age?

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

In your experience, what music gets better, or at least more comprehensible, as you get older?

I started listening to classical music when I was in high school in the 1980s. My interest for several years was loud splashy big orchestra pieces and not much else. (The size of the brass and percussion sections was a quick indicator for me of the quality of a piece.) Some things took time, however (from a few years to a decade or even longer). Examples:

Years passed before I could enjoy the aura of middle-aged regret that permeates much of Brahms, particularly the chamber music. Getting older and more regretful no doubt helped here. But in addition, it took me years before I took any interest in chamber music at all. Nowadays, I probably listen to chamber music at least as much as orchestral music; but from the perspective of 1990 or so, I'd never have thought that possible.

It took years before I had the perspective (musical, historical, and personal) to enjoy early music. Composers like Josquin, Ockeghem, and Dufay didn't seem to belong to the same world as guys like Beethoven, Mahler and DSCH. I found hardcore modern music easier to get into than early music: at least the modern composers were coming from the same world as I was. But nowadays I'm able to see connections between the two groups, and this makes things more comprehensible.

Another thing which has taken a while has been early Baroque or late Renaissance, particularly keyboard music. Its austerity and formality is a challenge to modern ears. I doubt I would have enjoyed even something like Bach's Partitas or Cello Suites years ago: they would have struck me as too staid and formal.

As a general rule, my tastes have evolved over a long time from size, color and drama, towards severity, rigor and structural integrity. Or maybe I've just developed a better appreciation for the latter qualities.

I suppose one could also ask "What music gets worse with age?" But I'll leave that for later   

[MishaK]

In your experience, what music gets better, or at least more comprehensible, as you get older?

That really depends on the person...

[some guy]

That really depends on the person...

Yes. Hence Velimir's words, which you quoted, "In your experience."

In my experience, almost all. Specifically, the very sparse* minimalism of people like Sachiko M and Mattin. And the less sparse but still, what shall I say, uneventful, music of people like Phill Niblock and Eliane Radigue.

I'll go ahead and not leave the other question until later. I have less and less patience with faux romantic music by contemporaries. What we call "romantic" was already done, by the Romantics, and done very well indeed, as they were not trying to woo the audience with pretty sounds (well, OK, there were some who did, but I don't fancy those people, either!) but trying to expand the vocabulary and expressiveness of music, in spite of a growing antagonism and even indifference to their efforts. Antagonism and indifference that we largely forget (or discount) nowadays.

The faux romantics of this century and the last are merely recycling a few of the sounds (and mannerisms) of music that has become, with the passage of time, accessible and even pretty.

[marvinbrown]

In your experience, what music gets better, or at least more comprehensible, as you get older?

Another thing which has taken a while has been early Baroque or late Renaissance, particularly keyboard music. Its austerity and formality is a challenge to modern ears. I doubt I would have enjoyed even something like Bach's Partitas or Cello Suites years ago: they would have struck me as too staid and formal.

I suppose one could also ask "What music gets worse with age?" But I'll leave that for later 

  I agree with you on the Bach but for me  NOT the Partitas NOR the Cello Suites.  I would say that the Art of Fugue is the work that needs age, wisdom and maturity to fully absorb.  I believe the more experienced and older you are the more meaningful and engaging this work becomes.  I am relatively young 37 years old and I have to tell you that I still struggle with this work.  But I keep trying as I have made a lot of progress over the years.

  marvin

 

[karlhenning]

In my experience, almost all.

Likewise.

[MishaK]

Yes. Hence Velimir's words, which you quoted, "In your experience."

Yes, but my experience is peculiar to my life, hence probably not applicable to most. Plus, we all come to music in different ways.

Accordingly your response:

In my experience, almost all.

likewise makes the discussion kinda moot, because it's true. All good music gets better with age. It just depends on the listener.

[karlhenning]

Because, unless one's mind is shut (or disused), the ears grow musically larger over time.

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

  I agree with you on the Bach but for me  NOT the Partitas NOR the Cello Suites.  I would say that the Art of Fugue is the work that needs age, wisdom and maturity to fully absorb. 

Yes, that's a better example. I would add the Musical Offering as well. Both of them are essentially summaries of a lifetime's work, maybe even an entire musical age.

[Josquin des Prez]

Sort of off topic, but as anybody been able to explain why classical composers always become better with age, where as its the other way around in Jazz or rock music?

[Mirror Image]

I have found that music you love will continue to get better as you get older. You may take a break from this composer or that composer that you have enjoyed in the past, but it seems that I always return to my "roots" in classical music sooner or later. Like, for example, I have had quite a Stravinsky revival so far this year. I hardly listened to his music at all in 2010. I have found that I've missed, but also ignored, so much of his output. Some of his works I had only heard once and never listened to again, but, now, I'm finding so much incredible music. Good music, like wine, only gets better with age.

[Szykneij]

Sort of off topic, but as anybody been able to explain why classical composers always become better with age, where as its the other way around in Jazz or rock music?

Jazz and Rock haven't been around long enough to age properly. 100 years from now, there will be a consensus, but we won't be here to know what it is.

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

Sort of off topic, but as anybody been able to explain why classical composers always become better with age, where as its the other way around in Jazz or rock music?

A lot of jazz & rock musicians abuse their bodies to such an extent that they either die young or turn into mere shells of their former selves.

[Szykneij]

That's bullocks. There is a perspective, consensus & history on both ...

which will change over time as it has over the years for Art music and may or may not be consistent with the word according to James.

...however, on a serious musical level it's not cut from the same cloth as the best Art music and it's easier assessed with smaller intellectual resources (this should be obvious to anyone with a musical brain), nor is it intended or designed for long distance travel. Neither really have the right fuel for a truly deep and sustained interest. Skimpier in the substance & content dept.

My opinion is that The Beatles will become a footnote, but Miles and Monk will still be relevant and performed -- so I guess half of my apparently non-musical brain agrees with you.

[Grazioso]

In your experience, what music gets better, or at least more comprehensible, as you get older?

More comprehensible? All of it becomes more understandable as I continually learn to listen better and learn more about the technical elements and history of music. Also, I grow progressively more open-minded about music as I age, making it easier to hear with an open ear, so to speak. That's not to say I necessarily like more types of music, rather that I can listen to them more and more objectively and better try to articulate what I'm hearing and why it does or does not move me. (And the latter says at least as much about me as the music, so increased self-awareness comes into play.)

As for which gets better, that shifts with my changing tastes 

Neither really have the right fuel for a truly deep and sustained interest. Skimpier in the substance & content dept.

And yet you've filled page after page of another thread with the covers of jazz albums you like:

http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,1262.0.html

It seems to sustain your interest.

You're talking as if rock and jazz is as deeply considered, complex and mysterious on purely musical grounds as Art music is. It's really not. Ditto historical aspects.

Could you give specific examples? I.e., specific composers/musicians with biographical evidence of how hard and long they grappled with certain musical issues, along with detailed musical analyses of some scores/performances. Also, what do you mean by "mysterious" here? What do you mean by "historical aspects"?

Hahahaha and their personal musical toolkits are much much smaller .. they don't have the deep musical resource wells to draw from.

Could you define what these musical toolkits and resource wells are and how you know who has a deeper one?

[Josquin des Prez]

Jazz and Rock haven't been around long enough to age properly. 100 years from now, there will be a consensus, but we won't be here to know what it is.

I was talking about the individual artists themselves, not the art form as a whole. Most of the great classical composers got better with age, where as its the other way around with Jazz or Rock musicians, if we exclude the mandatory period required for reaching full maturity (which for Jazz and Rock musicians occurs somewhere around their 20s).

[Szykneij]

I was talking about the individual artists themselves, not the art form as a whole. Most of the great classical composers got better with age, where as its the other way around with Jazz or Rock musicians, if we exclude the mandatory period required for reaching full maturity (which for Jazz and Rock musicians occurs somewhere around their 20s).

Yes, I agree with that, at least regarding rock musicians. Rock musicians tend to fade away as they get older because the rock genre is focused on artists who write, play, and record their own material. As their performing skills decline and energy and health issues slow them down, their music tends to wane also. (I'm not sure if that's as much the case with Jazz because there are a lot of old-time Jazzers who seem to still have great chops.)
Classical composers, on the other hand, are writing for others to perform and can continually mature and refine their work as long as they remain active.

[karlhenning]

You could populate a small planet with rock/pop musicians who fit JdP's model. But there are significant exceptions, too (Robt Fripp, Frank Zappa, e.g.)

His Procrustean bed, though, is yet less suited to the world of Jazz, at least so far as I can judge from the Jazz figures whose work most interests me:  Chick Corea, Miles Davis, Chas Mingus, Thelonious Monk (almost not worth citing Eric Dolphy here, as he died young).

[some guy]

Classical composers, on the other hand, are writing for others to perform and can continually mature and refine their work as long as they remain active.

Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Paganini, Liszt, Rachmaninoff, Bartok. (not to mention...)

[Grazioso]

You're so confused and lost on this and I'm not motivated enough to sort things out for you

I'm neither confused nor lost. You pop in to play the comparison game, say it's all obvious, but that you can't be bothered to actually explain your points or provide evidence.

, it would take way too much time. And yea .. I have lots of rock & jazz etc in my collection and listen to it from time to time and post it here, that's not what we're talking about tho and it's completely irrelevant to the discussion.

It's utterly germane to the conversation. You say jazz and rock are inferior to classical music and can't sustain interest, are skimpier, narrow, etc. Yet you say you listen to, own, and presumably enjoy jazz and rock music. Why go slumming, if, as you assure us, you have higher musical standards?

And you don't have to approach a discussion like this in a pedantic manor either, that's totally daft. Analysis doesn't 'prove' anything it's just a form of reverse engineering. Scores are just instructions to communicate ideas to other musicians.. they mean nothing in this context either.

Analysis isn't pedantry. Analysis means paying close attention, elucidating, articulating, sharing knowledge, testing critical frameworks. As for scores, they are the formal representations of the music that allow composers to articulate, preserve, and share their creations. No scores would mean no Bach for us today. Please note, too, that I asked for some "detailed musical analyses of some scores/performances." I realize not all music is notated.

[Grazioso]

I'll go ahead and not leave the other question until later. I have less and less patience with faux romantic music by contemporaries. What we call "romantic" was already done, by the Romantics, and done very well indeed, as they were not trying to woo the audience with pretty sounds (well, OK, there were some who did, but I don't fancy those people, either!) but trying to expand the vocabulary and expressiveness of music, in spite of a growing antagonism and even indifference to their efforts. Antagonism and indifference that we largely forget (or discount) nowadays.

The faux romantics of this century and the last are merely recycling a few of the sounds (and mannerisms) of music that has become, with the passage of time, accessible and even pretty.

I think I understand what you mean, and while I don't share the opinion, I think it raises an interesting issue: you seem to posit a linear progression of music history, where a style is only truly relevant during its first flowering, during a period in which it presents new musical ideas that stand in opposition to the status quo, ideas not easily or readily digested by audiences.

If I read you right, you (can) appreciate the Romantic style long after its first heyday, long after its contemporary relevance has disappeared into history, but only as practiced by the originators of the style. Is the objection to later composers who consciously reach into the same stylistic bag of tricks one of ethics, aesthetics--or merely that of it being substandard quality?  I realize that you express a personal preference, but I wouldn't want to apply that approach universally: I wouldn't want, for example, to condemn Neoclassical composers for resurrecting or reinterpreting "dead" aesthetic ideals. Now, if they merely directly aped older pieces I might take issue, but then again, if the new piece is catchy enough...