How does one have time to explore?

[71 dB]

No. You still haven't addressed the problem you identified for yourself. 

I still haven't addressed the problem? What? I said I'll stop worrying. What else do you want me to do? 

[Ken B]

My passion? Music! I have time for music, but not for every classical composer or work. Yesterday I watched Neil Cowley Trio's Montreaux 2012 concert on Blu-ray and it was AWESOME! I woudn't want to live without that music just because it's not classical music.

There's nothing wrong having passion for classical music only, but thinking all other music sucks because you concentrate on classical music is silly, just as silly as thinking classical music is boring if you listen to popular music.

Because I listen to various genres of music, I end up on various music boards and always see how limited people are in regards of music genres. It is considered ok to listen to just one genre. What if someone ate just soups? That would be considered crazy.

Is my house in order now?

You have hit one of my pet peeves. I listen to music from 10 centuries, from composers all over the world, for dozens of instruments, some almost no-one has heard of, for one, two, three to several hundreds of performers, one minute to 14 hours, in a dozen languages, in all sorts of harmonic systems, with one line up to 40 lines.
Most people listen to music in one language from people born in a few decades from a few countries, all a few minutes in length with maybe 4 kinds of instruments, and one vocal lone in one language.  And I'm the one with narrow tastes?

[ibanezmonster]

You have hit one of my pet peeves. I listen to music from 10 centuries, from composers all over the world, for dozens of instruments, some almost no-one has heard of, for one, two, three to several hundreds of performers, one minute to 14 hours, in a dozen languages, in all sorts of harmonic systems, with one line up to 40 lines.
Most people listen to music in one language from people born in a few decades from a few countries, all a few minutes in length with maybe 4 kinds of instruments, and one vocal lone in one language.  And I'm the one with narrow tastes?

This is exactly what I've always been saying. 
If you are a hardcore classical listener, your musical tastes are already more varied than the average person who listens to 2 or 3 genres of popular music.

[Madiel]

Many people here choose to buy version after version of the same composition. I don't. I rarely have more than 2 versions of any work, and even when I have 2 that is sometimes a bit of an accident as a result of other couplings, eg in boxes.

But that's just fine.

It's clear that many people here tend to buy things fairly soon after they come out. I've noticed an interesting effect: that when I buy or play something that is considerably older (and that hasn't been reissued a gazillion times since), and mention it here, there's often a deafening silence. I get the impression that no-one (or hardly anyone) is actually familiar with the recording.

That's fine too.

The same goes for pop music, by the way. My purchases are frequently years after release. There are a relatively small number of acts that I consistently like and for which I'll go buy the album immediately. There's a slightly wider set of acts where it goes on the shopping list quickly, and I use those at Christmas and my birthday so my family has a clue what to get me (I don't attempt to tell them what classical to buy, they'd never find it in the stores). But lots of things just go in the 'must explore that someday' pile, and may sit there for many a year.

That's just how I roll. I'm relatively slow to make decisions about purchases because I usually test the waters and tend to mull over whether something is attractive enough for me to buy. My house has quite enough CDs in it just from me buying the things I'm sure about, I don't need to spend money (and time) on things that I'm 'kind of' curious about. Part of this is the fact that once it's here, it's unlikely to ever leave - I know that at least some people on this forum not only buy a lot more than me, they get rid of stuff that hasn't made a big enough of an impression.

It's just different methods and approaches, and really I don't spend a lot of time concerning myself with how my method compares with someone else's. I use an approach that works for me, that satisfies me, and that tends to give me a lot of listening pleasure. It's not a race, or a sponsored listening-a-thon where you get more points for listening to more CDs.

I do actually plan my classical listening quite a bit, especially when I've bought new discs (as I have very recently). I rarely go through a box or even a disc in one go - it's a work at a time, and I might listen to the same work several times over the course of a day or two while I'm trying to get it to sink in. I might in fact listen to quite a lot more discs if I only listened to each thing once, but again, I'm picking a method that works for me. Because I'm a person with a major interest in musical structure, I get a lot of satisfaction from becoming more familiar with the structure of a piece.

Right now, for example, I have a listening plan that says that one 'cycle' of listening requires (not necessarily in this order) a Bach cantata (up to disc 22 out of 40 discs I bought gradually on eBay in boxes of 10), a work from my new Holmboe discs, a Brahms chamber work (chronological order, some new purchases some old), a Rachmaninov opus of songs (new), a Mozart string quartet (new), a miscellaneous choice from the bits and bobs my spreadsheet tells me I've never listened to since starting the spreadsheet in 2009 (it's Schoenberg's 'Transfigured Night' at the moment), a Sibelius work (chronological order), a Beethoven work from my new box, a Debussy work, a Haydn symphony (new purchases), a Shostakovich strong quartet, a disc of Frank Bridge orchestral works, a Vivaldi choral work, a piece by Poulenc, one by Schumann and one by Dvorak. I've skipped a few that almost done with...

Sometimes getting through that stuff might happen in a week, other times it might take 3 or 4. Doesn't matter. What matters is whether I enjoy the experience.

I also have a list of composers for further exploration, which means firing up Spotify and sampling. The current list: Medtner, Szymanowski, Nielsen, Tubin, Taneyev, MacDowell, Tippett, Britten, Prokofiev, Enescu, Grieg, Martinu, Vaughan Williams, Simpson, Vine, Magnard, Schoenberg, Villa Lobos, Dutilleux, Schnittke, Jensen.  Since I started the list, the only one crossed off it is Scriabin (I tried every work with opus number). For each one I have different ideas about just what it is I want to hear. It may well take me a decade or more before every single one of those is crossed off the list to my satisfaction. So be it!

[Karl Henning]

A fine post, thank you.

[Florestan]

You have hit one of my pet peeves. I listen to music from 10 centuries, from composers all over the world, for dozens of instruments, some almost no-one has heard of, for one, two, three to several hundreds of performers, one minute to 14 hours, in a dozen languages, in all sorts of harmonic systems, with one line up to 40 lines.
Most people listen to music in one language from people born in a few decades from a few countries, all a few minutes in length with maybe 4 kinds of instruments, and one vocal lone in one language.  And I'm the one with narrow tastes?

[Karl Henning]

I think we've most of us heard the "You don't listen to the music I like? Gosh, your tastes are narrow!" gambit 

[71 dB]

You have hit one of my pet peeves. I listen to music from 10 centuries, from composers all over the world, for dozens of instruments, some almost no-one has heard of, for one, two, three to several hundreds of performers, one minute to 14 hours, in a dozen languages, in all sorts of harmonic systems, with one line up to 40 lines.
Most people listen to music in one language from people born in a few decades from a few countries, all a few minutes in length with maybe 4 kinds of instruments, and one vocal lone in one language.  And I'm the one with narrow tastes?

This is exactly what I've always been saying. 
If you are a hardcore classical listener, your musical tastes are already more varied than the average person who listens to 2 or 3 genres of popular music.

You two make a claim that looks pretty valid, but...

If your taste is wide enough to include 10 centuries and all, why is it so difficult to step outside music labeled as classical?

We build these mental walls that keep us inside certain borders. Stepping over these lines is not really a matter of taste but attitude.

There is no competition of who listens to more genres. All that matters is finding the music you like. Staying inside mental walls keeps you from finding what you like.

Five years ago I thought I don't like any country/folk-music. Well, then I discovered Carly Simon. Oops. That's just one example of what has happened to me. Another example: 10 years ago I thought 70's rock sucks! Well, I discovered King Crimson. Another example: Just 3-4 years ago I thought "MTV Pop music" is complete crap. Well, then I discovered Katy Perry and Kesha. Ever since I discovered classical music nearly 20 years ago, I have proven myself wrong for thinking music genre X isn't for me. It seems I can find music I love from almost any music genre given time and opportunity to scan enough (Internet helps a lot here). Also, there's a lot of music in all genres I don't like at all. To me music genres are "languages". You can tell good and bad stories in any language.

I could be writing this to people who listens to metal only in order to encourage them to explore other music, classical included. In fact, I have writen this kind of posts on another forum for metal fanatics. These things go both ways. So, break down your mental walls and discover things you didn't know you want to discover.

[Madiel]

It seems I can find music I love from almost any music genre given time and opportunity to scan enough (Internet helps a lot here). Also, there's a lot of music in all genres I don't like at all. To me music genres are "languages". You can tell good and bad stories in any language.

Amen to that. I can in fact recognise common threads through all the music that I like the best, but it doesn't have much to do with the 'surface details' of the music, like the instruments being used or the harmonic language. My interests are far more about structure, direction and the balance between repetition and variation.

It irritates me mightily how much focus there is on genre labels. I've lost count of the number of websites and programs that have decided that because I love Tori Amos, I must be interested in every piano-playing woman they can think of. To me the fact that Tori Amos is a piano-playing woman is not the most interesting thing about her (mind you, plenty of her fans are obsessed with her piano playing and get terribly upset whenever she takes her musical language away from piano-dominant territory).

And most comparisons of Debussy and Ravel make me roll my eyes. To me they're pretty different composers.

But people lump together whatever is most 'foreign' to them. Whether it's "classical" music fans who carefully divide up Baroque and Romantic but lump what they don't listen to into "popular" music, or "popular" music fans who know their pop from their R'n'B and their punk and about 23 different kinds of 'metal' that I confess to not really grasping, but lump together all "classical" music... or Christians who know the intimate details of a myriad Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant churches but treat 'Muslims' as an undifferentiated mass, or one of my pet peeves, talking about "Africa" as if it's a single country while being intimately aware of all the different nations in European culture.

We take care in distinguishing what we're interested in. We don't take care in differentiating the different types of what we're not interested in. It's human nature. Our hobby/passion is full of exciting details and their hobby/passion is flat and dull.

There are also other major factors involved in music, such as the gradual losses over the course of history, the enormous impact of recordings on how music is disseminated, the far greater interconnectedness of the modern world and just the fact that the population is so much greater than it once was. Trying to do a straight comparison of music of one type over a few decades against music of another type across a few centuries is almost impossible. And also not very fruitful.

[Karl Henning]

Overall fine post. But this:

[...] Trying to do a straight comparison of music of one type over a few decades against music of another type across a few centuries is almost impossible. And also not very fruitful.

... is golden.

[ibanezmonster]

If your taste is wide enough to include 10 centuries and all, why is it so difficult to step outside music labeled as classical?

I probably have been listening to more metal than classical the last few years. I also was into rock before I was ever into classical.

I've been exposed to enough pop, rap, and contemporary country to know that those genres have little to offer me.

I mentioned recently that I found a pop song that I liked for the first time in my life:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DxGbHzRdnE&feature=kp


And there is one rap album I enjoy. Nothing country. You can explore genres you hate to find the rare gems, but the cost is listening to a ton of music that makes you want to smash your head against the wall. So I guess you get my admiration for being a total masochist. 

[bigshot]

I have no problem finding correlations between widely different styles of music. I just look for the common denominator... humanity.

[71 dB]

I probably have been listening to more metal than classical the last few years. I also was into rock before I was ever into classical.

I've been exposed to enough pop, rap, and contemporary country to know that those genres have little to offer me.

My post was general. Many fans of classical music listen to other music too, but not all.

I mentioned recently that I found a pop song that I liked for the first time in my life:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DxGbHzRdnE&feature=kp

I'm not into J-Pop, but that song has certain structural sophistication. Based on that track you could like Norwegian band Bel Canto:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofwxBYFvdGg&list=PLmfEJ3yV7wjnCAHHqp9b7gIaWmZQqETi4

And there is one rap album I enjoy. Nothing country. You can explore genres you hate to find the rare gems, but the cost is listening to a ton of music that makes you want to smash your head against the wall. So I guess you get my admiration for being a total masochist. 

Well, I haven't really found metal I liked yet. You are right, finding the gems is hard, but worth it. 

I didn't find Carly Simon listening to tons of folk artists. I have always liked her singing voice (e.g. the Bond theme) and decided to try her music. It turned out, not only do I like her singing, but also her music! So, there's sometimes shortcuts to the gems. We better use them! After discovering Carly Simon, I did check out some other "similar" folk artists. No luck. 

[Sammy]

You two make a claim that looks pretty valid, but...

If your taste is wide enough to include 10 centuries and all, why is it so difficult to step outside music labeled as classical?

We build these mental walls that keep us inside certain borders. Stepping over these lines is not really a matter of taste but attitude.

There is no competition of who listens to more genres. All that matters is finding the music you like. Staying inside mental walls keeps you from finding what you like.

Five years ago I thought I don't like any country/folk-music. Well, then I discovered Carly Simon. Oops. That's just one example of what has happened to me. Another example: 10 years ago I thought 70's rock sucks! Well, I discovered King Crimson. Another example: Just 3-4 years ago I thought "MTV Pop music" is complete crap. Well, then I discovered Katy Perry and Kesha. Ever since I discovered classical music nearly 20 years ago, I have proven myself wrong for thinking music genre X isn't for me. It seems I can find music I love from almost any music genre given time and opportunity to scan enough (Internet helps a lot here). Also, there's a lot of music in all genres I don't like at all. To me music genres are "languages". You can tell good and bad stories in any language.

I could be writing this to people who listens to metal only in order to encourage them to explore other music, classical included. In fact, I have writen this kind of posts on another forum for metal fanatics. These things go both ways. So, break down your mental walls and discover things you didn't know you want to discover.

Sorry, but I don't find any inspiration in your words.  Apparently, you are a big fan of musical diversity.  Well, good for you, although I think you've got a lot of nerve advocating it for all others and pumping yourself up in the process. 

I listen to what I want to and assume others do the same.  Each individual is unique.  As I see it, your comments recommend putting us all in a musical fishbowl of your creation.  I'll pass.  I have no problem with your musical preferences, because I'm not you.  I'd like similar consideration.

[mn dave]

Welcome to the first day of the rest of your exploration.

[71 dB]

Sorry, but I don't find any inspiration in your words.

That's ok. You find your inspiration elsewhere. 

Apparently, you are a big fan of musical diversity.

Perhaps from your point of view. Diversity is not my top priority, finding music I like is. Diversity is a byproduct.

Well, good for you, although I think you've got a lot of nerve advocating it for all others and pumping yourself up in the process.

As I said, I have been expanding my music taste for about two decades. I think I have some understanding of what I am talking about. If it pumps me in the process then it does.

I listen to what I want to and assume others do the same.

I'm sure everybody is doing just that. What I have learned is it takes a lot of work and time to find/figure out what I want because of all my attitude issues and stupid preconceptions. Before I discovered classical music I was pretty sure enjoying music composed before electricity was invented would be impossible for me, a child of "computer age". That was insanely stupid opinion and I am glad I proved myself wrong. I am confident we are full of stupid opinions about music. Exploring different kind of music helps getting rid of them.

Each individual is unique.

So, what makes you unique? Don't answer to me, answer to yourself (or have you already?)

As I see it, your comments recommend putting us all in a musical fishbowl of your creation.  I'll pass.  I have no problem with your musical preferences, because I'm not you.  I'd like similar consideration.

Oh, you don't need to find exactly the SAME music I have found. Create your own unique fishbowl.

[EigenUser]

Many people here choose to buy version after version of the same composition. I don't. I rarely have more than 2 versions of any work, and even when I have 2 that is sometimes a bit of an accident as a result of other couplings, eg in boxes.

+1

And most comparisons of Debussy and Ravel make me roll my eyes. To me they're pretty different composers.

I know! Most people seem to speak of them as similar composers with a few differences. I think that they are very different composers, though there are some similarities.

[amw]

If your taste is wide enough to include 10 centuries and all, why is it so difficult to step outside music labeled as classical?

Well, labels are arbitrary to the point of meaninglessness.

In my case I found that I don't like any music that is based over a repetitive beat. I also seem to prefer instrumental music to vocal music, as a comprehensible text tends to undermine my enjoyment of the music (unless the text is in and of itself interesting enough, or it is manipulated in such a way as to take on a more musical aspect). There are exceptions to both rules, and I've been able to enjoy almost every other kind of music.

I really don't want to come across as some kind of snob here. But musically speaking, there is less difference between the entire genres of, e.g., pop and country&western than there is between any two Beethoven string quartets. For example, it is possible to graft the instrumental parts of a song in one genre onto the vocals of a song in another genre with no loss in musical sense, while even something so simple as replacing the continuo of one Bach cantata with a continuo from another Bach cantata in the same key will make nonsense. There are good artists in every genre, but equating classical with R&B or whatever as just another genre makes no sense; it almost makes more sense to consider rock, pop, metal, C&W etc subgenres of a single genre in a single time period, the way one could consider various national schools subgenres of the symphony in the Classical era.

[Ken B]

You two make a claim that looks pretty valid, but...

If your taste is wide enough to include 10 centuries and all, why is it so difficult to step outside music labeled as classical?

If you read my post you'll see it isn't; I listed several genres.
But I might as well make a point about them too. In the future they will be either classical or forgotten. Classical means old but not forgotten. In 1913 the Rite was not classical, now it is. The B-side as it were of  Long Way to Tipperary though is forgotten. So when I list stuff from 10 centuries I list a lot of genres.

[Madiel]

I really don't want to come across as some kind of snob here. But musically speaking, there is less difference between the entire genres of, e.g., pop and country&western than there is between any two Beethoven string quartets. For example, it is possible to graft the instrumental parts of a song in one genre onto the vocals of a song in another genre with no loss in musical sense, while even something so simple as replacing the continuo of one Bach cantata with a continuo from another Bach cantata in the same key will make nonsense.

No, just no. Congratulations, you just came across as a massive kind of biased snob.

If you want to talk about the most harmonically simple pop songs, then a fair comparison would be with some 18th century musical hack who plonked down on the tonic and dominant every second bar, not with a Beethoven string quartet or a Bach cantata. It is simply a gross generalisation to say there would be 'no loss in musical sense'.

In fact, this is amply demonstrated by one pop music phenomenon, the 'mashup'. Only the best ones actually WORK. The bad ones slap two songs together that don't belong and demonstrate to anyone who has any kind of skill in their listening that you can't just pick 2 random pieces of popular music and combine them.

There's a vast difference between an early Beatles song and a late Beatles song, never mind between all the different flowerings of popular music in the decades since.