Music and struggling

[Karl Henning]

Mein musikalisch Kampf

(j/k, really.)

[Rinaldo]

What bugs the H out of me, is having children not very interested in classical music although they had it constantly around them, unlike me at their ages going to the public library to seek out new music and borrowing LP's. What one gets for free is not necessarily what one appreciates...

My father used to play classical music all the time when working (and he was working all the time). I remember Penderecki blaring out of his study and tons of opera as well. My mom loved ballets and played the family piano. And while I became a modern music nut in my late teens and devoured any pop/rock/electronica/whatever I could get my hands on, it took me until I was about 28 to really notice the classical world and start digging. So, don't give up hope (but don't hold your breath either).

I was exposed to a fair bit of classical music my childhood as well (parents hadthe classical radio pretty much always on, when they're not playing CDs of opera recitals or violin music) and that definitely didn't make me want to explore more of it on my own until a few years later in mid-teens, and it took still more years to get rid of my allergy of vocal classical music.

Same here. I just didn't think of classical music as something that might be for me and had a profound fear of the 'classical shriek', which I've exorcised through my ear-opening experience with baroque operas.

[Florestan]

Our noses aren't all the same (though here is possibly implied the old nurture-VS.-nature model).  I grew up with grated Parmesan cheese (put it like that, mine sounds like quite the eccentric upbringing).  When my wife and mom-in-law first came to the states, was their first experience of this culinary blessing — and they scorned it! "Dirty sock cheese" was their pet name for it for the first, oh, eight years of their life here in the States.

But now they like it fine.  They like it very well now, in fact.  Yet for eight years, they found it olfactorily repulsive.

I think there is a musical lesson in there.  Somewhere.

The ear disapproves but tolerates certain musical pieces; transfer them into the domain of our nose, and we will be forced to flee. --- Jean Cocteau   

Seriously now, I completely agree with some guy. I have never ever struggled to like a musical work, because I either loved/liked/not disliked it at first hearing, or gave up listening to it altogether and never bothered with it again. Scratching my head over a work of art (be it music, literature, painting or whatever) trying to make heads or tails of it at all costs and struggling hard for that even if it does not strike any chord whatsoever in me the very first time I hear / read / see it is out of the question for me. I cannot name any single piece that I found repulsive at first hearing and over which repeated listening changed my mind. And if someone tells me this or that work reveal itself and its beauties only after hard struggle, chances are high that I will never enjoy it.

I quoted Cocteau rather tongue-in-cheek but I fully subscribe to these two:

Nevertheless the passions, whether violent or not, should never be so expressed as to reach the point of disgust; and music, even in situations of the greatest horror, should never be painful to the ear but should flatter and charm it, and thereby always remain music.― Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart

Music should humbly seek to please; within these limits great beauty may perhaps be found. Extreme complication is contrary to art. Beauty must appeal to the senses, must provide us with immediate enjoyment, must impress us or insinuate itself into us without any effort on our part. - Claude Debussy

[Karl Henning]

Nevertheless the passions, whether violent or not, should never be so expressed as to reach the point of disgust; and music, even in situations of the greatest horror, should never be painful to the ear but should flatter and charm it, and thereby always remain music.― Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart

Music should humbly seek to please; within these limits great beauty may perhaps be found. Extreme complication is contrary to art. Beauty must appeal to the senses, must provide us with immediate enjoyment, must impress us or insinuate itself into us without any effort on our part. - Claude Debussy

Those are both great insights.

But half of the equation in each insight, is a moving target over time ("painful to the ear," "must provide us with immediate enjoyment").  So each of these great insights is some distance shy of an absolute, worth etching in stone.  Chances are high that the following, Mozart would have found "painful to the ear,"* yet it provides many of us with "immediate enjoyment," has insinuated "into us without any effort on our part":

http://www.youtube.com/v/4fWTc6_-90I

* Of course, I can only speculate on that question 

[Florestan]

Those are both great insights.

But half of the equation in each insight, is a moving target over time ("painful to the ear," "must provide us with immediate enjoyment").  So each of these great insights is some distance shy of an absolute, worth etching in stone.  Chances are high that the following, Mozart would have found "painful to the ear,"* yet it provides many of us with "immediate enjoyment," has insinuated "into us without any effort on our part":

http://www.youtube.com/v/4fWTc6_-90I

* Of course, I can only speculate on that question 

Fair enough. Of course, one's treasure is another one's garbage. That is why all quarrels, fights, arguments and counterarguments about art are at best an agreeable pastime and at worst an utterly waste of time --- so much so when it comes to music, the most elusive of all arts. 

[Karl Henning]

And of course, so many of us are sharing stories of music which left us cold on first hearing, but of which we afterward came to be enduringly fond . . . that it makes me shake my head a bit at Debussy insisting on instant gratification.

He ought to have known better 

[Florestan]

And of course, so many of us are sharing stories of music which left us cold on first hearing, but of which we afterward came to be enduringly fond . . .

My own experience is of course highly personal and not susceptible of generalization in any way --- but I have yet to hear music that left me cold on first hearing and which afterwards I came to be enduringly fond of... So I guess as long as there will still be people like me in the world, Debussy's dictum will be wisdom. 

[Karl Henning]

Well, as we've each said after our own fashion: it would be a funny world, if we all heard music the same 

[Florestan]

it would be a funny dull world, if we all heard music the same 

Fixed.

[Karl Henning]

Go around fixing my posts, will you? Why . . . .

[Florestan]

Go around fixing my posts, will you? Why . . . .

He's upset, he's upset!... 

[Jo498]

My own experience is of course highly personal and not susceptible of generalization in any way --- but I have yet to hear music that left me cold on first hearing and which afterwards I came to be enduringly fond of...

As I pointed out in the other thread, I have made that experience with quite a bit of music. "Left me cold" or "bored" would have been pretty good descriptions, although "repulsive" or "struggling" probably too strong.

I think some listeners tend to use exaggerated language.
I have done this myself when I claimed that Madama Butterfly or some passages in the Tchaikovsky violin concerto or a certain subsidiary theme in Liszt's 1st piano concerto made me almost physically sick (like having eaten too much too sweet cake or so).
But I certainly would not have vomited if I had had to listen to it another time. And there were other occasions when I find those parts quite pleasant (not going to become favorites, though, I guess). Like eating one piece of very sweet cake once or twice a year as opposed to having to eat  like five pieces in one afternoon. (I had to do this on some occasions as a youngster when accompanying a friend to his grandma and great aunt.)

[Karl Henning]

He's upset, he's upset!... 

I was going to say . . .

Well, as we've each said after our own fashion: it would be a funny world, if we all heard music the same 

For only one thing, GMG would be Dullsville.

[Florestan]

I think some listeners tend to use exaggerated language.

That would explain much (most?) of the misunderstanding and fighting occasionally going on here over this or that music. If we all stuck to "I like /dislike it but I don't in the least mind you disliking / liking it" the world would be a much better place. But truth is, man is a fighting species, and even people who wouldn't kill a fly are ready (sometimes eager) to fight, or at least rebuke, those who don't share their musical preferences. The only struggle we must do is in order to overcome this natural, inborn and perhaps insurmountable tendency to assert ourselves at the expense of others. Wars are not always, perhaps not even primarily, about tanks and guns --- words and ideas can be just as hurtful or deadly as bullets.

[Florestan]

I was going to say . . .

For only one thing, GMG would be Dullsville.

[Mandryka]

Maybe I should stop struggling with the idea! But I continue to view with a large degree of incredulity that listening to classical music is as difficult as people make it out to be. I didn't understand Carter's double concerto when I first heard it. In fact, it sounded the same wherever I set the needle down. (You remember that Columbia album?) I'd love to be able to hear that piece again as I first heard it. Oh well, the piece I love now is lovely, so.... But I never thought of it as "difficult," and my subsequent listens to it were not struggles. I suppose I was struggling, but it didn't seem like it to me. It was baffling but intriguing (perhaps intriguing because baffling) for awhile and then it was simply lovely. The end.

I think you're coming close to contradicting yourself here. The experience with the Carter did involve struggle, and you enjoyed it. Some people aren't like that with music (I can enjoy the struggle in music but not in chemistry, others enjoy it in chemistry but not in music. It's just that people have difference temperaments.)

[zamyrabyrd]

That would explain much (most?) of the misunderstanding and fighting occasionally going on here over this or that music. If we all stuck to "I like /dislike it but I don't in the least mind you disliking / liking it" the world would be a much better place. But truth is, man is a fighting species, and even people who wouldn't kill a fly are ready (sometimes eager) to fight, or at least rebuke, those who don't share their musical preferences. The only struggle we must do is in order to overcome this natural, inborn and perhaps insurmountable tendency to assert ourselves at the expense of others. Wars are not always, perhaps not even primarily, about tanks and guns --- words and ideas can be just as hurtful or deadly as bullets.

Insofar as music engages the emotions, it is not surprising that people can get emotional about their likes and dislikes. Thus, I don't think that those who defend their preferences are necessarily looking for a fight. It's hard enough to describe music in words and even harder to explain how it does what it does to us on a very deep level.

[Florestan]

Insofar as music engages the emotions, it is not surprising that people can get emotional about their likes and dislikes.

Absolutely true, yet many people would protest that their reaction is not emotional at all, but rooted in reason, reflection and experience. 

I don't think that those who defend their preferences are necessarily looking for a fight.

Not looking for, but neither refraining from either. 

It's hard enough to describe music in words and even harder to explain how it does what it does to us on a very deep level.

Absolutely true as well. That is why sometimes (actually very often as of late) I think that talking / writing about music (whether likes or dislikes) is absolutely, completely and utterly useless... 

[San Antone]

That is why sometimes (actually very often as of late) I think that talking / writing about music (whether likes or dislikes) is absolutely, completely and utterly useless... 

I don't agree if the discussion is limited simply to likes.  But if someone attempts to prove something about a work or composer's style by relying upon authority or other specious arguments, that process strikes me as tedious and can lead to fruitless debates. 

However, I very much enjoy learning what music different posters like (not so much what they dislike), and it isn't really necessary that they attempt to explain why they like it (usually these descriptions are vague and subjective).  I generally prefer to listen on my own if someone mentions something they like that is new to me - and only hope others might do the same with my suggestions in this regard.  Over time we learn whose recommendations are simpatico with our own taste.

I've always thoguht music is best listened to instead of talked/written about unless it is a indepth article about some element of a work, i.e. its history, construction, etc.  What I enjoy most about GMG is the plethera of works that people are enjoying as ideas for my own exploration.

[Cato]

I was going to say . . .

For only one thing, GMG would be Dullsville.

Kampf Gegen Die Langeweile! 


Imagine a musicless Martian, arriving to do a psycho-anthropological survey of the habits of Humanity.  Imagine how extraordinary he would find the phenomenon of music: a collection of sounds, often without words, which people listen to for hours, and whose precise purpose is so manifold and at times inchoate in the minds of human beings, that the Martian would be even more mystified by the whole thing!

Imagine the Martian interviewing Some Guy while he plays Carter's Double Concerto: what kind of understanding would the Martian come away with? 

e.g.

Martian: So...what do these sounds mean?
S.G. : I have no idea.
Martian: So...do you like the way they sound?
S.G.: Maybe, sometimes.
Martian: And yet, this is the third time you're listening to something you don't particularly like, and which you don't understand.
S.G.: Right.
Martian: But why?!
S.G.: It's enjoyable somehow.   0:)

One hears about "impossible experiments," where e.g. a child is raised in complete isolation of something, and then decades later the thing is revealed to him.  Would a person have an "instant" grasp of music without exposure to it from early on?  What if the child heard only e.g. the later works of Anton Webern, and then at age 14 was suddenly placed in front of an orchestra playing Glinka's Russlan and Ludmilla Overture? 

Would he "struggle" to understand it, or would it present no problems?