Is It Music or Gibberish ?

[MN Dave]

For the amateur, how do you know the difference between not liking something because you don't understand it and not liking something because you just don't like it? I assume if you're, for example, 44 years old   and have been listening to all kinds of music your whole life, then you have a real good idea what you like and don't like and "understanding" the music won't help a jot.

[The new erato]

I don't. Therefore I shut up when faced with music I don't "get". Then I try and try again over the years. Sometimes I experience what I initially missed, at other times; who knows`?

[MN Dave]

I don't. Therefore I shut up when faced with music I don't "get". The I try and try again over the years. Sometimes I experience what I initially missed, at other times; who knows`?

I think you have to trust your own experience and instincts to some extent. Just because a bunch of "professionals" like something that you don't doesn't mean it's any good. 

[The new erato]

I think you have to trust your own experience and instincts to some extent. Just because a bunch of "professionals" like something that you don't doesn't mean it's any good. 

Just because a bunch of "professionals" like something that I don't doesn't mean it's any good to me. If someone else likes it I have no problem with that.

The other way round is more problematical.

[karlhenning]

Gibberish music is music without structure; which might imply that there either is none, or that you are not able to discern it. Simple as that. A modicum of modesty is implied in case the last alternative turns out to be the case.

A modicum of modesty is just exactly what you are not going to find in the bloggueur under advisement.

[The new erato]

A modicum of modesty is just exactly what you are not going to find in the bloggueur under advisement.

I know. Thats why I prefer other blogs.

[karlhenning]

Just because a bunch of "professionals" like something that you don't doesn't mean it's any good to me. If someone else likes it I have no problem with that.

The other way round is more problematical.

You have touched the matter keenly.  The enormous error the bloggueur is committing (and an error to which Eric has been susceptible, so I don't wonder at his feeling a sympathy) is taking one's own dislikes as (a) normative for the whole world at all times, and/or (b) as fixed for all time even in terms of one's own perception.

Granted that someone who makes the bizarre effort to rig up a whole theory of why this or that composer is "gibberish," tends to become invested in his own rigmarole, and when added to a stubbornness of character, this makes it unlikely that he will permit his ears to change over time.  But it is the normal experience, I think, for the appetite to alter -- however that alteration may be complected.

I know. Thats why I prefer other blogs.

Hearty agreement there, sir.

[MN Dave]

Knowing the details about how cleverly a composer manipulated his musical structure won't impress me much if the music still sounds like a trash can rolling down a steep staircase. 

[bwv 1080]

a trash can rolling down a steep staircase. 

What better metaphor for Eric's aesthetical polemics?

[jochanaan]

...a trash can rolling down a steep staircase. 

Hmmm...an idea for my next composition!  Oh, wait--P.D.Q. Bach already beat me to it.*

*See Grand Serenade for an Awful Lot of Wind Instruments.**

**Better yet, HEAR Grand Serenade for an Awful Lot of Wind Instruments. (Apologies to Victor Borge.)

[The new erato]

trash can rolling down a steep staircase. 

Trash cans falling down makes a random sound, known as noise, which per se is without structure. So in that case you would be right.

[Mark G. Simon]

For the amateur, how do you know the difference between not liking something because you don't understand it and not liking something because you just don't like it?

You can't really. The only way you can tell the former is retroactively: that is, you eventually discover that you like a certain piece of music you disliked before. Otherwise, you can assume the latter. You don't need to justify your dislike for a piece of music. You have the right to dislike music just because you don't like it. But it is a good idea to revisit those pieces you don't like from time to time to see if maybe your understanding has changed.

When I listen to a piece for the first time my brain performs a mental triage and places the piece in one of three categories: 1) I like it. 2) I don't like it. 3) I might like this in the future. I know my tastes pretty well now. Pieces that I assign to category 2 rarely find their way into either of the others. I dive into category 1 pieces like a child into candy. Category 3 pieces are often the most satisfying when I finally reach the point where they click.

[MN Dave]

You can't really. The only way you can tell the former is retroactively: that is, you eventually discover that you like a certain piece of music you disliked before. Otherwise, you can assume the latter. You don't need to justify your dislike for a piece of music. You have the right to dislike music just because you don't like it. But it is a good idea to revisit those pieces you don't like from time to time to see if maybe your understanding has changed.

When I listen to a piece for the first time my brain performs a mental triage and places the piece in one of three categories: 1) I like it. 2) I don't like it. 3) I might like this in the future. I know my tastes pretty well now. Pieces that I assign to category 2 rarely find their way into either of the others. I dive into category 1 pieces like a child into candy. Category 3 pieces are often the most satisfying when I finally reach the point where they click.

That makes a whole lot of sense, Mark. I think there are some things I should quit trying to like. 

[karlhenning]

Knowing the details about how cleverly a composer manipulated his musical structure won't impress me much if the music still sounds like a trash can rolling down a steep staircase.

Well, but (to address the content sans smiley) even if you read a description of Japanese grammar, the first time you listen to someone speaking Japanese, your ear and what you've read of the syntax are not going to match perfectly, either.

Nonetheless, many will attest to the coherence of the grammar.

Listening involves developing skills;  demanding that all music just queue up to our already-formed listening toolbox is . . . well, what is the suitable adjective? 

[MN Dave]

Listening involves developing skills;  demanding that all music just queue up to our already-formed listening toolbox is . . . well, what is the suitable adjective? 

[MN Dave]

Well, but (to address the content sans smiley) even if you read a description of Japanese grammar, the first time you listen to someone speaking Japanese, your ear and what you've read of the syntax are not going to match perfectly, either.

Nonetheless, many will attest to the coherence of the grammar.

"Music is the universal language of mankind." -- Longfellow

So, either you understand it or you don't, right?

[bwv 1080]

"Music is the universal language of mankind." -- Longfellow

So, either you understand it or you don't, right?

So, say, Brahm's 3rd Violin Sonata is the "universal language of mankind"?  Its language accessible to someone with no experience of Western Classical Music? 

How come people used to joke that the Orchestras should post signs on the doors "Exit in case of Brahms"?

[(poco) Sforzando]

"Music is the universal language of mankind." -- Longfellow

So, either you understand it or you don't, right?

No. Think Mark Simon's point 3.

As an undergrad in a poetry class long ago taught by a fairly distinguished poet (Louis Simpson), a student raised her hand at one point and said: "Well, I read the poem but . . . " - at which point Simpson cut her off and said: "No. You can never say you've read a poem. You can say only you're at a certain point in your reading of a poem." Substitute "music" for "poem" and "understand" for "read," and I think you'll see my point.

[BachQ]

No. Think Mark Simon's point 3.

As an undergrad in a poetry class long ago taught by a fairly distinguished poet (Louis Simpson), a student raised her hand at one point and said: "Well, I read the poem but . . . " - at which point Simpson cut her off and said: "No. You can never say you've read a poem. You can say only you're at a certain point in your reading of a poem." Substitute "music" for "poem" and "understand" for "read," and I think you'll see my point.

We've read your post ..........

[(poco) Sforzando]

We've read your post ..........

Yes, but mere posts don't count.