Are you intrigued by music that disturbs and/or challenges?

[James]

Quick simple poll.

[DavidW]

I don't think anyone would be here if we didn't.  All classical music challenges our attention, expectations and emotions more than popular music does.

[Opus106]

Some music I have decided that I'll have no use for -- I could as well listen to rush-hour traffic for something more interesting. But others, I will listen to it after a period of time (maybe days, weeks, or months...) even if there are just a few seconds in it that has my attention. And in the past five years, this was not restricted to the "moderns" but also included much of Romantic and late-Romantic music.

So to answer your poll, it depends.

[mc ukrneal]

Challenges - absolutely. Disturbs - not really.

Disturbs can have different meanings here. If you mean harder to grasp, upsets the balance - yes. If you mean it is disturbing in its sound (overly dissonant or unmelodic (is that a word?)) - not really.

[Grazioso]

Intrigued, no, but I do find such musical encounters interesting insofar as they make me ask questions about my own reactions, suppositions, prejudices, etc.

[Grazioso]

That would be 'intrigued' then. So that's a Yes.

Had I meant "intrigued," I would have said so  "Intrigued" implies a level of fascination or pressing intent to delve into a mystery that I don't feel with any music. More like a "Hmm, that's kind of interesting." For example, hip-hop disturbs and challenges because it's alien and ugly to me, but I have no pressing desire to learn its intricacies.

[Mirror Image]

The music I enjoy the most always challenges me. If I didn't want a challenge then I would listen to pop music or some other lesser form of muzak, but my own mind thirsts for music with deeper meaning. As I mentioned in the Schnittke thread, I listen to music for enjoyment and this is my top priority, but I'm also interested in hearing new composers, so bearing this in mind, I become much more open to what I'm hearing, but overall there has to be something that grabs me on the initial listening for me to continue listening any further.

[jochanaan]

Of course I am!   As haydnfan said, I wouldn't be here otherwise.

If there is a piece that really disturbs me--and not very many do!--I'm like Aaron Copland, not satisfied until I understand exactly why it does.

[Ten thumbs]

If I weren't, maybe I wouldn't be delving so much into music by female composers.

[Scarpia]

If I weren't, maybe I wouldn't be delving so much into music by female composers.

I have to nominate this for most absurd post of the month.

[CD]

Fanny Mendelssohn was of course a notable writer of disturbing and challenging music. ¬_¬

[(poco) Sforzando]

but overall there has to be something that grabs me on the initial listening for me to continue listening any further.

But why, really? If it doesn't grab you initially, so what? What if you find that the work you initially resist, if heard again, or if discussed with friends on this forum or in "real life," comes to have more meaning than you initially expected? I can think of certain works that made very little impression on me at first, but when I returned to them I learned how to hear them better, and some are among my very favorite pieces now.

[Mirror Image]

But why, really? If it doesn't grab you initially, so what? What if you find that the work you initially resist, if heard again, or if discussed with friends on this forum or in "real life," comes to have more meaning than you initially expected? I can think of certain works that made very little impression on me at first, but when I returned to them I learned how to hear them better, and some are among my very favorite pieces now.

There has to be something that grabs my attention. It could be a short little motif, an interesting chord progression, etc. Obviously, I listen differently than you, but there have been plenty of works that did absolutely nothing for me on first listening, but I revisited later and enjoyed. It really depends on the music. Thankfully, I always do a good bit of research on the composers and their music before I make a purchase, so far I've only been disappointed a few times and those errors were made because I listened to other people. Listening to other people's opinions doesn't always help as much as they may think it would.

[not edward]

But why, really? If it doesn't grab you initially, so what? What if you find that the work you initially resist, if heard again, or if discussed with friends on this forum or in "real life," comes to have more meaning than you initially expected? I can think of certain works that made very little impression on me at first, but when I returned to them I learned how to hear them better, and some are among my very favorite pieces now.

^ This.

I'll give a work a lot more time if someone I respect has time for a work. There's countless pieces where I've put them on the back burner for a while, then come back to them with new ears and it's clicked. This is why I keep coming back to Schumann once a year or so: too many people whose opinion I respect enjoy his music for me to be of the opinion I'll always continue to get little from it.

But as far as the OP's question goes: it depends on mood. Sometimes I want music that will take me along familiar byways but with a slightly different nuances, sometimes I want to subvert my musical expectations, and most often of all I want music that does both.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Listening to other people's opinions doesn't always help as much as they may think it would.

Agreed. Otherwise I'd be listening to a lot more Arnold Bax.

[Mirror Image]

Agreed. Otherwise I'd be listening to a lot more Arnold Bax.

Lol...yeah Bax is definitely an acquired taste. I seldom listen to his music myself.

[DavidW]

^ This.

I'll give a work a lot more time if someone I respect has time for a work. There's countless pieces where I've put them on the back burner for a while, then come back to them with new ears and it's clicked.

That recently happened with me and Bach's Musical Offering.  The recording I had sounded dry and tedious... a year goes by I try it again and it sounds melodic and mysterious.  And I like it.

[eyeresist]

The effect of performance and recording style can be enormous. A work can seem utterly mediocre until the right recording or performance comes along. In the case of minor repertoire, it is sadly the case that there will probably never be more than one recording, and if it's a poor one, the work may be sunk forever

[Sid]

Basically "yes." Whether it's Josquin des Prez, Gesualdo, Monteverdi or something written just last week, I'm up to listening to anything for a challenge. The only thing I don't bother much with is opera. Some pieces can be disturbing or surreal at first (eg. like Schoenberg's Pierrot Lunaire which I went to see on the weekend) but once I get to know them, they become just as understandable or meaningful as something more familiar.

I basically don't expect the music to adapt to me, I try to adapt myself to the music. This is why I don't have that much hang ups as to how a certain performer interprets a work. It's up do them, they're the professionals, they usually know what they're doing. It's just up to me as a listener to be open to appreciate what they're doing on a deeper level.

Of course, I don't enjoy everything. Bax mentioned above is one of them, Grofe, Langgaard, Rodrigo are three others. But it's like dipping your toes into the water, sometimes you end up going into the water and having a swim, other times you stay on the shore...

[Ten thumbs]

I have to nominate this for most absurd post of the month.

Mm, thus speak the ignorant.

Fanny Mendelssohn was of course a notable writer of disturbing and challenging music. ¬_¬

Well challenging at least in her exploration of form.