Have You Ever Experienced Radical Changes in Your Musical Taste?

[Florestan]

now you are arguing that they must be wrong because they are my opinions

I'm arguing nothing of the sort. All I'm saying is that "This is my opinion and I am right even if I cannot prove it!" is evidence only for your conviction that you are right, not for the actual rightness of your opinion.

Preferring Ockeghem's masses to Mozart's is all right. Claiming that this preference stems from an objective reality which the former possess and the latter lack but which is neither objectively definable nor objectively demonstrable is not all right.

[Opus131]

Preferring Ockeghem's masses to Mozart's is all right. Claiming that this preference stems from an objective reality which the former possess and the latter lack but which is neither objectively definable nor objectively demonstrable is not all right.

To the contrary, it is perfectly right to do, and this idea that objectivity is the domain of what is visible and relative only is also completely false and "unproven" according to its own standard.

Can you "demonstrate" why a truth cannot be said to be true unless it can be made to be "objectively" definable in a "demonstrable" (I.E., in a tangible and visible way) only? Where is the "demonstrable" evidence that this claim (which in essense amounts to the denial of invisible objective realities) is true?

Notice that i cannot also "demonstrate" to you that a work by Beethoven is greater than that of Taylor Swift. No opinion whatsoever can in fact to held to be true according to this way of thinking.

[DavidW]

Almost as if devaluing and downgrading your own tradition makes others not want to respect it anymore.

Please no more discussion of religion or politics in a music forum.  This represents a final warning from us.

[Florestan]

To the contrary, it is perfectly right to do, and this idea that objectivity is the domain of what is visible and relative only is also completely false and "unproven" according to its own standard.

Can you "demonstrate" why a truth cannot be said to be true unless it can be made to be "objectively" definable in a "demonstrable" (I.E., in a tangible and visible way) only? Where is the "demonstrable" evidence that this claim (which in essense amounts to the denial of invisible objective realities) is true?

Notice that i cannot also "demonstrate" to you have a work by Beethoven is greater than that of Taylor Swift. No opinion whatsoever can in fact to held to be true according to this way of thinking.

We're going in circles and getting nowhere. Let's assume that you are right and that Ockeghem's masses have indeed more devotional power (whatever that means) than Mozart. So what?

[Opus131]

We're going in circles and getting nowhere. Let's assume that you are right and that Ockeghem's masses have indeed more devotional power (whatever that means) than Mozart. So what?

I don't know i sort of forgot how we started with this.

I'm just gonna leave you with this:

[EDIT] Ho wow they have a Catholic version of that meme now hahaha:

[Florestan]

Please no more discussion of religion or politics in a music forum.  This represents a final warning from us.

I wouldn't mind if the thread would get back on topic. I just want to say that so far the discussion has been relatively civil and free from the nastiness usually associated with such topics. I agree, though, that it could degenerate so we'd all better stop. i know I will.

[Florestan]

I don't know i sort of forgot how we started with this.

Good. Let's forget about it then, agree to disagree and move on. Have your taste in music ever changed radically?

[Madiel]

I did think of one expansion of my classical music tastes that took a while to happen, I don't know where the boundary between "shift" and "expansion" lies.

Vocal music. Songs more than, say, opera, though I do dabble in that from time to time. But "classical" songs are much more part of my musical diet than they used to be.

[Pohjolas Daughter]

I am not sure that I would call it a radical change in terms of my classical musical tastes.  I do like to explore different time periods and genres...sometimes will delve in deeply for a while and then take a break and shift to something(s) else.  Was big into opera for a number of years--not often now.  Off the top of my head, I can't think of anything that I hate now which I used to love.  There's just a lot of music that I want to explore further.  That plus time is finite and I have other things which I need and/or want to do.  In any event, I see it more as a process and one that should be enjoyed. 

PD

[greg]

"changes"- no, I don't see it that way.

There's only additions and discoveries. I still like all the same music from before, but there may be new music that I discover later on that I like even more.

It's apparent because a lot of the underlying patterns between the types of music are similar. But there's so much more that can be done with those patterns, and there may be even more patterns that I haven't even found yet.

[Opus131]

Good. Let's forget about it then, agree to disagree and move on. Have your taste in music ever changed radically?

Aside for the shift from rock/metal to classical i mentioned earlier, which is probably the biggest shift i've had,  it's curious but i will say every time i get into a new composer it feels like a radical change.

I started out with Bartok because i was into progressive rock at the time and i saw an interview with Robert Fripp where he mentioned his string quartets were an inspiration to him. So i checked those quartets out, and in the booklet of the recording of them i had (i think it was the Tackacks i'm not sure) it mentioned those quartets were among the best written since Beethoven, so i went to check those and from there the ball started rolling. That said, it took me a long time before i actually understood the music. I remember listening to the symphonies of Beethoven and almost 80% of them were completely unintelligible to me. Some parts made my ears perk up but there rest was like listening to a foreign language (which is likely exactly what was happening). Likewise, i think it took me one straight year before i understood what polyphony was when trying Bach.

Then, suddenly, something "clicked" in my brain and i could finally understand much of what was happening in the music of Beethoven, who was my first real "love", so to speak. So i devoted myself to him almost exclusively for quite a long time. Eventually, something "clicked" with Bach as well. I remember even after grasping what polyphony was, i was still quite ignorant about his music. I remember thinking for instance the partitas were a minor, worthless work of him (thinking back i can't believe how clueless i was). Once again though, almost out of nowhere, it's like my brain suddenly understood his music all at once.

What's interesting about this is that even after i actually begun to understand the music of those composers (and both Beethoven and Bach are no joke when it comes to musical complexity, so you'd think if i could understand those the field was clear for the rest), i still had to go through the same process for every subsequent composer, even up to this day. Everytime i approached a new artist, be it Mozart, Schubert, Brahms, Wagner and so forth, i had to go through a similar process. At first the music seemed confusing. Sometimes it was pleasant enough, sometimes it just sounded uninteresting. Then, after some time, i suddenly "got it", almost all at once.

So i guess i can say every new composer i discovered was a radical shift in musical taste for me. I hated Mozart at first and considered him to be a vastly inferior composer to Beethoven. Then i finally got it and now i see him as among the greatest there has ever been. Brahms just seemed muddy and unintellible at first, but eventually i got it too. Wagner i'm not even going to say how long it took me to come to terms with him and so forth.

After years of going through this, i realized all my tastes are essentially acquired. I'm not a relativist though and as i made clear in our previous spat i'm pretty adamant about there being objective and concrete qualitative differences between musical forms and the works of the individual artists but it became clear to me that given enough time, there probably isn't a musical form i couldn't get "into" if i wanted to, or at least come to understand.

[Florestan]

Aside for the shift from rock/metal to classical i mentioned earlier, which is probably the biggest shift i've had,  it's curious but i will say every time i get into a new composer it feels like a radical change.

I started out with Bartok because i was into progressive rock at the time and i saw an interview with Robert Fripp where he mentioned his string quartets were an inspiration to him. So i checked those quartets out, and in the booklet of the recording of them i had (i think it was the Tackacks i'm not sure) it mentioned those quartets were among the best written since Beethoven, so i went to check those and from there the ball started rolling. That said, it took me a long time before i actually understood the music. I remember listening to the symphonies of Beethoven and almost 80% of them were completely unintelligible to me. Some parts made my ears perk up but there rest was like listening to a foreign language (which is likely exactly what was happening). Likewise, i think it took me one straight year before i understood what polyphony was when trying Bach.

Then, suddenly, something "clicked" in my brain and i could finally understand much of what was happening in the music of Beethoven, who was my first real "love", so to speak. So i devoted myself to him almost exclusively for quite a long time. Eventually, something "clicked" with Bach as well. I remember even after grasping what polyphony was, i was still quite ignorant about his music. I remember thinking for instance the partitas were a minor, worthless work of him (thinking back i can't believe how clueless i was). Once again though, almost out of nowhere, it's like my brain suddenly understood his music all at once.

What's interesting about this is that even after i actually begun to understand the music of those composers (and both Beethoven and Bach are no joke when it comes to musical complexity, so you'd think if i could understand those the field was clear for the rest), i still had to go through the same process for every subsequent composer, even up to this day. Everytime i approached a new artist, be it Mozart, Schubert, Brahms, Wagner and so forth, i had to go through a similar process. At first the music seemed confusing. Sometimes it was pleasant enough, sometimes it just sounded uninteresting. Then, after some time, i suddenly "got it", almost all at once.

So i guess i can say every new composer i discovered was a radical shift in musical taste for me. I hated Mozart at first and considered him to be a vastly inferior composer to Beethoven. Then i finally got it and now i see him as among the greatest there has ever been. Brahms just seemed muddy and unintellible at first, but eventually i got it too. Wagner i'm not even going to say how long it took me to come to terms with him and so forth.

After years of going through this, i realized all my tastes are essentially acquired. I'm not a relativist though and as i made clear in our previous spat i'm pretty adamant about there being objective and concrete qualitative differences between musical forms and the works of the individual artists but it became clear to me that given enough time, there probably isn't a musical form i couldn't get "into" if i wanted to, or at least come to understand.

Interesting and thoughtful post. Thanks for sharing.

[springrite]

For me, it is definitely Bruckner.
I disliked Bruckner from 1980 to about 2008.
I felt indifferent to Bruckner from about 2008 to 2018.
I began to like Bruckner from 2018.
I began listening to Bruckner at least weekly since 2018.

[Florestan]

My views of the religiousness in Romania might be completely wrong

They are not entirely wrong, but let's leave it at that. As originator of this thread, I kindly ask you and all other participants here to refrain from both replying to old posts dealing with religion and creating new such ones. We have strayed off-topic too far and too long. Thank you.

[AnotherSpin]

For me, it is definitely Bruckner.
I disliked Bruckner from 1980 to about 2008.
I felt indifferent to Bruckner from about 2008 to 2018.
I began to like Bruckner from 2018.
I began listening to Bruckner at least weekly since 2018.

I had a similar experience. From complete indifference to Bruckner, to sudden adoration 20 or so years ago. However, this has happened with other composers or with individual works. I could never listen to the end of Mahler's 8th, it was difficult to start at all. Until a recent Vänskä recording.

[DavidW]

I did think of one expansion of my classical music tastes that took a while to happen, I don't know where the boundary between "shift" and "expansion" lies.

I've definitely had phases where I expanded to more genres, and the opposite.  In recent years as anyone can see I've definitely contracted to big orchestral post-Wagner romantic and neoromantic works mostly because I just like how they sound on my speakers and the darker moods fit me in these times.

[DavidW]

For me, it is definitely Bruckner.
I disliked Bruckner from 1980 to about 2008.
I felt indifferent to Bruckner from about 2008 to 2018.
I began to like Bruckner from 2018.
I began listening to Bruckner at least weekly since 2018.

I'm sure Cato will welcome you to the Bruckner fold with the angel emoticon!

[Karl Henning]

Don't you see that such "evidence" is completely anecdotal? You happen to find an Ockegem mass more devotionally powerful than a Mozart mass, therefore the Ockeghem mass must have more devotional power than the Mozart mass, for everybody and always.

To the point. 

[Karl Henning]

Aside for the shift from rock/metal to classical i mentioned earlier, which is probably the biggest shift i've had,  it's curious but i will say every time i get into a new composer it feels like a radical change.

I started out with Bartok because i was into progressive rock at the time and i saw an interview with Robert Fripp where he mentioned his string quartets were an inspiration to him. So i checked those quartets out, and in the booklet of the recording of them i had (i think it was the Tackacks i'm not sure) it mentioned those quartets were among the best written since Beethoven, so i went to check those and from there the ball started rolling. That said, it took me a long time before i actually understood the music. I remember listening to the symphonies of Beethoven and almost 80% of them were completely unintelligible to me. Some parts made my ears perk up but there rest was like listening to a foreign language (which is likely exactly what was happening). Likewise, i think it took me one straight year before i understood what polyphony was when trying Bach.

Then, suddenly, something "clicked" in my brain and i could finally understand much of what was happening in the music of Beethoven, who was my first real "love", so to speak. So i devoted myself to him almost exclusively for quite a long time. Eventually, something "clicked" with Bach as well. I remember even after grasping what polyphony was, i was still quite ignorant about his music. I remember thinking for instance the partitas were a minor, worthless work of him (thinking back i can't believe how clueless i was). Once again though, almost out of nowhere, it's like my brain suddenly understood his music all at once.

What's interesting about this is that even after i actually begun to understand the music of those composers (and both Beethoven and Bach are no joke when it comes to musical complexity, so you'd think if i could understand those the field was clear for the rest), i still had to go through the same process for every subsequent composer, even up to this day. Everytime i approached a new artist, be it Mozart, Schubert, Brahms, Wagner and so forth, i had to go through a similar process. At first the music seemed confusing. Sometimes it was pleasant enough, sometimes it just sounded uninteresting. Then, after some time, i suddenly "got it", almost all at once.

So i guess i can say every new composer i discovered was a radical shift in musical taste for me. I hated Mozart at first and considered him to be a vastly inferior composer to Beethoven. Then i finally got it and now i see him as among the greatest there has ever been. Brahms just seemed muddy and unintellible at first, but eventually i got it too. Wagner i'm not even going to say how long it took me to come to terms with him and so forth.

After years of going through this, i realized all my tastes are essentially acquired. I'm not a relativist though and as i made clear in our previous spat i'm pretty adamant about there being objective and concrete qualitative differences between musical forms and the works of the individual artists but it became clear to me that given enough time, there probably isn't a musical form i couldn't get "into" if i wanted to, or at least come to understand.

IMO, those quartets are a great entrée to classical music! I'm a big fan of Robt Fripp, too.

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

IMO, those quartets are a great entrée to classical music! I'm a big fan of Robt Fripp, too.

The link between prog rock and classical is a strong and interesting one (one could probably write a large article or even a book exploring it). Not long ago I read an interview with Ian Anderson who said, when he does listen to music for fun, it's usually classical.