Music based on dissonant sonorities.

[T. D.]

It's just not true. Look, 20 years ago I liked Beethoven's music, Todd likes now, and now I can't stand the stuff . I liked Chopin last week, today I listened to a nocturne and really, I couldn't see the point of it at all, I didn't like it one bit. I liked wearing red socks in summer, now I like to wear blue socks. I used to like to paint my rooms white, now I like to have one wall a different colour.  I used to enjoy Gorgonzola, now I find it too rich. How can there possibly be anything profound there?

I think this like culture is utterly self obsessed at best. Saying in public that you like or dislike something is about as  profound, to use Delius's word, as sharing your digestive gasses.

I agree with this in principle. However, it seems convenient to have an idea of discussants' likes/dislikes. For instance, I often scan forum threads in search of new listening ideas, and am more likely to try music from a novel (to me) composer if recommended by a poster whose tastes I perceive as similar to mine. Just a matter of convenience; nothing against recommendations from other sources, but they require more thought/consideration.

[Mirror Image]

You might say, "Don't you think that Feldman's Persian Rug music is similar to Bernhard Lang's Monadology?" Or "I wonder why Beethoven chose to end the Diabelli Variations like that." Or "I can find nothing in common between the style of Debussy's Preludes and his Etudes, what do you make of it?" Or "Sometimes I think that La fanciulla del West is as modern sounding as Wozzeck!" Or "Do you think that Pasifal is sexist? I do!"

But I just don't buy into your idea that telling someone what you like is shallow. If you truly believe this, then the majority of people on GMG are shallow.

[Mirror Image]

I agree with this in principle. However, it seems convenient to have an idea of discussants' likes/dislikes. For instance, I often scan forum threads in search of new listening ideas, and am more likely to try music from a novel (to me) composer if recommended by a poster whose tastes I perceive as similar to mine. Just a matter of convenience; nothing against recommendations from other sources, but they require more thought/consideration.

And just remember it's shallow to let someone else know you like something as well.

[Mandryka]

But I just don't buy into your idea that telling someone what you like is shallow. If you truly believe this, then the majority of people on GMG are shallow.

Yes, including me. Today I have made two posts one saying nothing more than that I don't like a certain singer and another saying not much more than I do like a certain song cycle. Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto, as I like to say.

[Mandryka]

Because having an understanding of another human being is...well...human. If you have a problem with discussing something as simple as why you dislike or like this or that composer, then how will cope with even more complicated topics? Do you nod your head at everything you're told and agree with everything someone says to you? Are you a robot? Is talking to you like the equivalent of talking to a brick wall? Are you passionate about anything? Where's the fire, scarecrow? Anyway...

I don't share your conception of humanity. In my opinion, to respond only with whether you like or don't is not a human response. It's a pond life response. A human being is both feeling and thought.

[Mirror Image]

I don't share your conception of humanity. In my opinion, to respond only with whether you like or don't is not a human response. It's a pond life response. A human being is both feeling and thought.

Don't put words into my mouth. I never said anything about likes/dislikes being the sole basis of discussion. It just helps break the ice instead of jumping right into how many tone rows are into Webern's String Trio.

[Mandryka]

Don't put words into my mouth. I never said anything about likes/dislikes being the sole basis of discussion. It just helps break the ice instead of jumping right into how many tone rows are into Webern's String Trio.

How do you need an ice breaker with Florestan? You've known him for years. .

[Mirror Image]

How do you need an ice breaker with Florestan? You've known him for years. .

I don't, but this doesn't mean I 'know' him.

[some guy]

Thanks for only reinforcing what Andrei has said about you. This has been an education.

This reminds me of my math teacher, who always insisted that we show our work for full credit. In fact, my English teacher was the same, only if we didn't support our conclusions, he wouldn't give us any credit.

You expressed a desire for intelligent conversation awhile back. But when the opportunity to actually do so arose, you muffed it. You give only a conclusion without showing any of your work. Indeed, it's not even your conclusion. Even more indeed, it's not even the conclusion itself but merely a reference to it.

So much for education....

[Mirror Image]

This reminds me of my math teacher, who always insisted that we show our work for full credit. In fact, my English teacher was the same, only if we didn't support our conclusions, he wouldn't give us any credit.

You expressed a desire for intelligent conversation awhile back. But when the opportunity to actually do so arose, you muffed it. You give only a conclusion without showing any of your work. Indeed, it's not even your conclusion. Even more indeed, it's not even the conclusion itself but merely a reference to it.

So much for education....

This isn't some school assignment. One can look at your long history of posts and come to their own conclusions. Take from that what you want. Either way, it doesn't matter to me.

[Florestan]

You might say, "Don't you think that Feldman's Persian Rug music is similar to Bernhard Lang's Monadology?" Or "I wonder why Beethoven chose to end the Diabelli Variations like that." Or "I can find nothing in common between the style of Debussy's Preludes and his Etudes, what do you make of it?" Or "Sometimes I think that La fanciulla del West is as modern sounding as Wozzeck!" Or "Do you think that Pasifal is sexist? I do!"

Those questions are certainly of interest to musicologists and philosophers, prone as they are to generate a huge amount of academic papers (and a fair amount of cacademic nonsense). As a layman, though, my primary interest lies in listening to music, not in thinking about it. I couldn't care less whether, or why, Debussy's Preludes are very dissimilar to his Etudes; what I do care about is whether I enjoy all of them (I do). The intellectualist approach to music you seem to favor has always stroke me as a case of not seeing the forest because of the trees. Correct me if I'm wrong but to me it seems that for you music is first and foremost food for thought --- you always want to know the rationale behind whatever you hear, hence your absolute insistence on having the booklet. I'm the complete opposite: I don't care at all about the rationales, I care only about whether I enjoy it or not.

This, of course, doesn't mean we can't still be friends. 

[Mandryka]

Correct me if I'm wrong but to me it seems that for you music is first and foremost food for thought

Hard to say if it's first or foremost. Put it like this, I'm not at all interested in understanding better music which I dislike, and there's a lot of music which I dislike.

[Florestan]

I'm not at all interested in understanding better music which I dislike, and there's a lot of music which I dislike.

Nothing to disagree with here.

As for myself, I'm not at all interested in understanding music, period. I'm interested in enjoying music.

[Mandryka]

I think that when the only classical music I was aware of was mainstream -- you know what I mean, more or less tonal harmony and recognisable rhythms, sounds like what we've been told to expect from voices and instruments -- I was exactly like you. I just listened to Wagner and Verdi and Mozart and Monteverdi and Mahler for pleasure, and I had zero interest in being reflective about the music -- no more than saying "I don't like that conductor because he's too brash and fast" or "I don't like that singer because she always sounds like she's about to burst into tears."

Then something happened. I listened to two things -- Nono's Prometeo and Ferneyhough's 6th quartet. And I thought to myself, what the fuck is this? How can anyone think that this is music? How dare he.

But something deep inside me must have sensed that this is not nonsense, it wasn't mad or just designed to shock. I felt as though I was faced with someone trying to effect me, but what he was doing was strange. Rich and strange.

And that determined my attitude to music henceforth, at least in the cases where my internal radar told me that there was something interesting going on.  When faced with music which is disorienting, I'm keen to get to the state where the sounds make as much sense to me as they did for the musician making them.

With early music it's not the same, because most of it is harmonically and rhythmically familiar ground. One thing that's fun there is that you really can listen to all the recordings ever made, and it's kind of nice for me to try and think about the style choices of the performers. But that's just a bit like an amateur interest in reception history, I'm sure you could do the same with Wagner and Verdi and Mozart and Monteverdi and Mahler.

[steve ridgway]

As for myself, I'm not at all interested in understanding music, period. I'm interested in enjoying music.

I'm not at all capable of understanding music; enjoying it is my only option.

[Florestan]

I'm not at all capable of understanding music; enjoying it is my only option.

[Mirror Image]

Those questions are certainly of interest to musicologists and philosophers, prone as they are to generate a huge amount of academic papers (and a fair amount of cacademic nonsense). As a layman, though, my primary interest lies in listening to music, not in thinking about it. I couldn't care less whether, or why, Debussy's Preludes are very dissimilar to his Etudes; what I do care about is whether I enjoy all of them (I do). The intellectualist approach to music you seem to favor has always stroke me as a case of not seeing the forest because of the trees. Correct me if I'm wrong but to me it seems that for you music is first and foremost food for thought --- you always want to know the rationale behind whatever you hear, hence your absolute insistence on having the booklet. I'm the complete opposite: I don't care at all about the rationales, I care only about whether I enjoy it or not.

This, of course, doesn't mean we can't still be friends. 

Enjoyment is, of course, of utmost importance to me more than anything else, but I still like having intellectual stimulation. For example, Berg's Violin Concerto, 'To the memory of an angel' is one of my favorite pieces of music of all-time (the first-time I heard it, I played it back eleven times in a row). This is a piece that fascinated me as I had read there are some autobiographical portions of this work, so I did some research and I ended up reading just about every historical article I could find about the work. Did this research enhance my understanding of the work? Absolutely and it also deepened my love for it. I guess this is my long-handed way of saying that I do agree with Mandryka in that there are more ways to appreciate a piece of music besides the whole enjoyment aspect of it. Anything that can enhance my enjoyment of a piece of music is value added, IMHO.

[Florestan]

I think that when the only classical music I was aware of was mainstream -- you know what I mean, more or less tonal harmony and recognisable rhythms, sounds like what we've been told to expect from voices and instruments -- I was exactly like you. I just listened to Wagner and Verdi and Mozart and Monteverdi and Mahler for pleasure, and I had zero interest in being reflective about the music -- no more than saying "I don't like that conductor because he's too brash and fast" or "I don't like that singer because she always sounds like she's about to burst into tears."

Then something happened. I listened to two things -- Nono's Prometeo and Ferneyhough's 6th quartet. And I thought to myself, what the fuck is this? How can anyone think that this is music?

I had the same reaction to music which I won't nominate. Contrary to you, though, I felt no need to expand on it. I  don't like it and that's it. And if other people like it, then that's it too. We all like what we like and that's it. Instead of wasting my time trying to like things which I will probably never like no matter how much I try, I prefer to listen to things which I know are going to give me pleasure. Call me a philistine, I don't mind.

[Mirror Image]

I had the same reaction to music which I won't nominate. Contrary to you, though, I felt no need to expand on it. I  don't like it and that's it. And if other people like it, then that's it too. We all like what we like and that's it. Instead of wasting my time trying to like things which I will probably never like no matter how much I try, I prefer to listen to things which I know are going to give me pleasure. Call me a philistine, I don't mind.

Well, I know you don't have much taste for modern music in general, so it's not surprising to read your comments.

[Florestan]

Well, I know you don't have much taste for modern music in general, so it's not surprising to read your comments.

Depends on how you define modern, John... I like Milhaud, Villa-Lobos, Francaix, Poulenc, Satie, Petrushka, Pulcinella among many others...