There's a thing that I find perplexing. It seems, according to many different posts in many different threads, that listening to music, especially to classical music is an effort, sometimes a quite large effort. Classical music in this scenario is complex and intimidating, which makes its eventual conquering a quite praise-worthing endeavor!
If I'm making any effort at understanding any particular piece, however, I'm not aware of it. Not aware of it as effort, anyway. When I'm listening to music, the only non-musical thing I'm aware of is that I'm enjoying myself immensely. Listening to music is fun. If I hit some particular piece that I don't enjoy, then I just move on without thinking about it at all. No particular experience with any individual piece changes the general situation for me, which is that listening to music is fun.
I started listening around age nine, plus or minus, not counting the snippets of classical that littered Warner Bros cartoons or the classical ripoffs in movies that I saw (or heard from my room after bed time) on T.V. I didn't like every single piece. But that fact didn't mean anything to me. I liked listening to music. I never categorized things as being more or less difficult to understand, either. James comment awhile back that first hearings are like flirting--I hope I'm remembering that correctly: too lazy to find the original--did not chime with any experience that I've ever had.
I've been told, by composers as well, that I'm an exceptionally good listener. I dunno. I guess I resist that observation the same way I resist the idea that listening to music, especially difficult music, involves effort.
It involves pleasure. Period. I don't spend a lot of time thinking about individual pieces that I don't particularly like. They're not interesting to me, so I'm not interested in talking about them. In fact, I don't think I ever thought about pieces I don't like until I started participating in online forums. And I still find it hard to believe that talking about pieces people dislike is as alluring as it seems to actually be.
Maybe I should stop struggling with the idea! ;D 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.
Well put, some. This is exactly the reason I don't post in 'difficult' threads; I can't relate to it. 0:)
8)
Quote from: some guy on November 30, 2015, 12:33:00 PM
I've been told, by composers as well, that I'm an exceptionally good listener. I dunno. I guess I resist that observation the same way I resist the idea that listening to music, especially difficult music, involves effort.
It involves pleasure. Period. I don't spend a lot of time thinking about individual pieces that I don't particularly like. They're not interesting to me, so I'm not interested in talking about them. In fact, I don't think I ever thought about pieces I don't like until I started participating in online forums. And I still find it hard to believe that talking about pieces people dislike is as alluring as it seems to actually 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.
Very nice comments! I suspect for many people the "effort" (whether you use the term or not) is the sense of pleasure also found in completing puzzles or figuring out a mystery novel a chapter or two before the end, etc. It is not a struggle in the sense of painful agony, but the fun struggle to complete a model airplane with 100 parts.
"Intriguing
because baffling" - which explains why you bothered to hear it more than once!
Listening to music is an effort? Since when?
Music makes me happy =^_^=
And music is an effort to learn and compose....listening is the easy part! Apart from when conducting when I have to be double checking in getting the sound and clarity I want plus preparing what the next bar will sound like in my mind plus cueing and beating and shaping the music......but in the end, the listening is the easiest part of it.
Some music is "stinky cheese", and it can take effort to develop a taste for it. Like a taste fo good beer, it can be worth it.
Quote from: Daverz on November 30, 2015, 02:21:58 PM
Some music is "stinky cheese", and it can take effort to develop a taste for it. Like a taste fo good beer, it can be worth it.
Haha, this is a nice analogy! And I feel this way as well....I haven't met a cheese I didn't like (however I do find some ways of preparing them a bit unappealing).
Quote from: ComposerOfAvantGarde on November 30, 2015, 02:48:29 PM
Haha, this is a nice analogy! And I feel this way as well....I haven't met a cheese I didn't like (however I do find some ways of preparing them a bit unappealing).
The analogy is not mine, of course. There was a website devoted to stinky cheese composers and compositions, but I can't find it at the moment.
...Found the site. It was "smelly cheese (http://www.kith.org/jimmosk/pitts.html)" composers, linked here: http://www.kith.org/jimmosk/
Quote from: Daverz on November 30, 2015, 02:57:37 PM
The analogy is not mine, of course. There was a website devoted to stinky cheese composers and compositions, but I can't find it at the moment.
I don't know if I would like to find out what 'stinky cheese composers and compositions' are. :-X
I think we must be allured by the music we first hear whether this allurement continues throughout the work depends on how receptive we are to the music.
Quote from: Daverz on November 30, 2015, 02:57:37 PM
The analogy is not mine, of course. There was a website devoted to stinky cheese composers and compositions, but I can't find it at the moment.
...Found the site. It was "smelly cheese (http://www.kith.org/jimmosk/pitts.html)" composers, linked here: http://www.kith.org/jimmosk/
Oh wow that is one wonderful website! I really want to check out all of that music! :O ;D
Quote from: some guy on November 30, 2015, 12:33:00 PM
There's a thing that I find perplexing. It seems, according to many different posts in many different threads, that listening to music, especially to classical music is an effort, sometimes a quite large effort. Classical music in this scenario is complex and intimidating, which makes its eventual conquering a quite praise-worthing endeavor!
If I'm making any effort at understanding any particular piece, however, I'm not aware of it. Not aware of it as effort, anyway. When I'm listening to music, the only non-musical thing I'm aware of is that I'm enjoying myself immensely. Listening to music is fun. If I hit some particular piece that I don't enjoy, then I just move on without thinking about it at all. No particular experience with any individual piece changes the general situation for me, which is that listening to music is fun.
I started listening around age nine, plus or minus, not counting the snippets of classical that littered Warner Bros cartoons or the classical ripoffs in movies that I saw (or heard from my room after bed time) on T.V. I didn't like every single piece. But that fact didn't mean anything to me. I liked listening to music. I never categorized things as being more or less difficult to understand, either. James comment awhile back that first hearings are like flirting--I hope I'm remembering that correctly: too lazy to find the original--did not chime with any experience that I've ever had.
I've been told, by composers as well, that I'm an exceptionally good listener. I dunno. I guess I resist that observation the same way I resist the idea that listening to music, especially difficult music, involves effort.
It involves pleasure. Period. I don't spend a lot of time thinking about individual pieces that I don't particularly like. They're not interesting to me, so I'm not interested in talking about them. In fact, I don't think I ever thought about pieces I don't like until I started participating in online forums. And I still find it hard to believe that talking about pieces people dislike is as alluring as it seems to actually be.
Maybe I should stop struggling with the idea! ;D 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 could have written this; listening to music is easy: Just hit play; enjoy. Repeat.
Well-taken points, some guy. ;D However, there are times when it's easy for me to listen with less than my full attention, and sometimes the music just doesn't hit me the same way until I let everything else go. And for some folks, it can take a deliberate effort just to sit down and relax through a symphony by Mahler or Brian, or a Wagner opera.
I'm in a hurry with no time to respond properly, but I'd just like to say for the moment how much I enjoyed reading every single post in this thread.
(No struggling, either!)
Quote from: some guy on November 30, 2015, 12:33:00 PM
It seems, according to many different posts in many different threads, that listening to music, especially to classical music is an effort, sometimes a quite large effort.
Surely it isn't especially classical music?
And I'm not sure there's anything wrong making an effort with something, to understand and appreciate. 'Struggle' though suggests trying to like something under some imagined need rather than out of deep interest.
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.
Well, I must say that the responses so far have certainly confirmed my suspicions. No way things can be that hard, can be that universally hard.
And I'd just like to add, for the record (there is a record being kept of all this, right?), that I really don't see the situation as either difficult OR easy. I'd like to clarify that I see the concept of difficulty (and hence its opposite, ease) as being equally impertinent, as in not pertaining.
Neither "easy" nor "hard" really capture the situation for me, and it was jochanaan's reference to sitting down and relaxing that alerted me to what I'd left out of the OP. Sitting down and relaxing is not congruent, for me, with listening to music, which is always and forever an active and engaged process. What I notice is that I never think of this activity as an effort, as in something that I engage in reluctantly. Since I do it for fun, like other people run marathons, I do it no matter how much energy has to be expended.
Anyway, I do understand the allure of talking about struggling. That makes for good narratives, after all. And, oddly enough, though I'm a writer, I have experienced this struggling thing with poetry and other literature. Very strange.
Karl, where did your wife and mom-in-law come from? I'm guessing it wasn't from Italy. :D
Россия
Quote from: some guy on November 30, 2015, 12:33:00 PM
There's a thing that I find perplexing. It seems, according to many different posts in many different threads, that listening to music, especially to classical music is an effort, sometimes a quite large effort. Classical music in this scenario is complex and intimidating, which makes its eventual conquering a quite praise-worthing endeavor!
...I started listening around age nine, plus or minus, not counting the snippets of classical that littered Warner Bros cartoons or the classical ripoffs in movies that I saw (or heard from my room after bed time) on T.V. I didn't like every single piece. But that fact didn't mean anything to me. I liked listening to music.
I've been told, by composers as well, that I'm an exceptionally good listener. I dunno. I guess I resist that observation the same way I resist the idea that listening to music, especially difficult music, involves effort.
If one starts early enough or rather gets hooked like my accidentally discovering the last movement of Beethoven's 9th Symphony also in the darkness of my room with my small transistor radio, then the prognosis is good and one can appreciate music of evolving complexity over life's journey. It wasn't exactly a smooth ride for me either. I had trouble with JS Bach for many years until discovering his vocal music. My teachers presented his music wrongly, like some kind of mathematical exercise. It took me a while to get over that.
I was also more able to distinguish piano music better than orchestral since that was my first instrument. There were some bad habits from piano playing I had to get over when starting formal lessons in singing. I had no idea what legato was, shaping a tone, and how hard it is to phrase when you have only so much breath, not to mention the amount of energy needed to sustain high pitches. Assimilating this in turn helped my piano playing and gave a shot of adrenalin to my listening as well.
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...
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on December 01, 2015, 05:01:56 AMMy teachers presented his music wrongly, like some kind of mathematical exercise. It took me a while to get over that.
...
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...
Well perhaps your children need a while to get over it, too..
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.
Quote from: North Star on December 01, 2015, 05:21:02 AM
Well perhaps your children need a while to get over it, too..
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.
Some of my colleagues actually have children who excel in musical instruments. Lucky ducks! it depends on the amount of "anti" in the kids, which is not such a bad thing in itself because children should not be robots.
Mein musikalisch Kampf
(j/k, really.)
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on December 01, 2015, 05:01:56 AMWhat 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).
Quote from: North Star on December 01, 2015, 05:21:02 AMI 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.
Quote from: karlhenning on December 01, 2015, 01:33:04 AM
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 ;D ;D ;D
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 MozartMusic 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
Quote from: Florestan on December 01, 2015, 06:09:25 AM
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 8)
Quote from: karlhenning on December 01, 2015, 06:27:34 AM
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 8)
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. :D
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 ;)
Quote from: karlhenning on December 01, 2015, 06:40:38 AM
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. ;D :D :P
Well, as we've each said after our own fashion: it would be a funny world, if we all heard music the same :)
Quote from: karlhenning on December 01, 2015, 06:50:08 AM
it would be a funny dull world, if we all heard music the same :)
Fixed.
Go around fixing my posts, will you? Why . . . .
Quote from: karlhenning on December 01, 2015, 06:56:35 AM
Go around fixing my posts, will you? Why . . . .
He's upset, he's upset!... ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D :D :P :P :P
Quote from: Florestan on December 01, 2015, 06:45:56 AM
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.)
Quote from: Florestan on December 01, 2015, 07:03:27 AM
He's upset, he's upset!... ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D :D :P :P :P
I was going to say . . .
Quote from: karlhenning on December 01, 2015, 06:50:08 AM
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.
8)
Quote from: Jo498 on December 01, 2015, 07:27:16 AM
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.
Quote from: karlhenning on December 01, 2015, 07:31:18 AM
I was going to say . . .
For only one thing, GMG would be Dullsville.
8)
:D
Quote from: some guy on November 30, 2015, 12:33:00 PM
Maybe I should stop struggling with the idea! ;D 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.)
Quote from: Florestan on December 01, 2015, 07:42:24 AM
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.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on December 01, 2015, 08:15:03 AM
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. ;D
QuoteI don't think that those who defend their preferences are necessarily looking for a fight.
Not looking for, but neither refraining from either. :D
Quote
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... :laugh:
Quote from: Florestan on December 01, 2015, 08:35:41 AM
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... :laugh:
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.
Quote from: karlhenning on December 01, 2015, 07:31:18 AM
I was going to say . . .
For only one thing, GMG would be Dullsville.
8)
Kampf Gegen Die Langeweile! 8)
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?
What I like to do is to get clearer about what a performer is doing, and what the performance shows about the music.
I should at least be able to recognize my ideas in Cato's spoof, shouldn't I? That is, the original should still be recognizable through the distortion, no? But I don't recognize anything.
This could have been funny, I think. Even for me. :(
I didn't think it a spoof ....
Quote from: some guy on December 01, 2015, 11:57:02 AM
I should at least be able to recognize my ideas in Cato's spoof, shouldn't I? That is, the original should still be recognizable through the distortion, no? But I don't recognize anything.
Quote from: karlhenning on December 01, 2015, 11:58:30 AM
I didn't think it a spoof ....
Right, I just used "
Some Guy" and the
Carter because S.G. started the topic and mentioned that work.
The Mystery of Music!
Here is another example of the mystery of music: some time ago an anthropologist discovered a "lost tribe" deep in the Amazon basin. He found them because he followed the sound of drums to their village. To his amazement, the drums were being played in relays by members of the tribe, who played 24 hours a day! Able to understand the language somewhat, the anthropologist asked the chief why the drums were played all the time. The chief's eyes got very wide, and he whispered: "Drums beat, life good!"
Fascinating, thought the visitor, and he began to investigate this superstition, but could discover nothing except the belief that as long as the drums were beating, "life" was "good."
By chance, on his last day with the tribe, the anthropologist was with the chief when...
the drums stopped beating!!! People started crying, and seemed instantly depressed! So he asked:
"Chief! What's wrong? Why did the drums stop beating?"
The chief trembled and gasped: "Time for bass solo!"
8)
This thread really hasn't gone the way I expected it to!
Allow me to speak up in defense of struggling. It seems to be getting an unfair reputation around these here parts.
A few things maybe we can all agree on?
1. Performers can struggle. Both with the technical demands of playing a work, and the cognitive/emotional/spiritual/etc. demands of playing a work well. If there are any doubts, I'm sure one of the GMG piano players who's tried working through a Beethoven sonata will be happy to fill you in. (And for that matter, Karl can vouch that composers can struggle.)
2. It would be useful to us all to agree on a meaning of the word "struggle". Some uses of the word "struggle" may be weird, or a sign of a weird listener. But others may well be perfectly fine.
3. Struggling is not always entirely in the listener's mind. Other circumstances can factor into it. For example, I do a lot of listening at work, while I'm writing my stuff and dealing with emailed requests. That is a time for 20% attention-span listening, not 100% attention-span listening. I can do a decent job judging the quality of a performance of a very familiar work, one I've heard dozens of times. I can also do a decent job judging whether or not I like an unfamiliar work that's fairly simple in its language, structure, and/or emotional approach.
On the other hand, if you tasked me with listening to Art of Fugue and telling you lots of opinions about it, while I'm at work, that's gonna be a struggle!
There are probably other factors too. Atmosphere of the listening experience, the musical language and your familiarity with it, even the quality of the performers. Like, say you want to hear a new work by Frederic Rzewski, but the pianist is me. You're gonna struggle with that music. ;)
4. Although what's "easy" varies from person to person, of course, I think it is eminently possible for Great Art to not require any struggle at all for almost any/everyone willing to give it a fair chance. Beethoven's Fifth, maybe, or Tolstoy. Anna Karenina is not challenging to read, in the simple sense; but it is challenging, if you think about it in a certain way, and it can yield many different experiences if you read it over the course of a lifetime. Music can be like that.
[EDIT:
5. Many people use "struggling" as code for "music written in 20th/21st century languages that sounds kinda unpleasant to the average ear." Which, I don't doubt their sincerity in saying they find that music difficult. I find a lot of that music difficult! But some guy, and especially Mirror Image, are proof that everyone is different, and that "tough music" = "modern music" is a false equivalence. Maybe MI is the only one, but there are people who find Schnittke relatable and just can't get into Mozart!]
-
As for me, I'll confess that sometimes I "struggle" with music, by some definition or another. An example is Chopin's Piano Sonata No. 3, which I just listened to again today. What I mean is this: I love the scherzo and finale, but there are elements of the other two movements which I simply don't understand. Don't understand, that is, why Chopin wrote them in that way. (Similarly, why did Sibelius end his Fifth Symphony the way he did? Or, why does Elliott Carter sound like that? ;) )
As for some guy's question of "why bother?" the answer is similar to what others have suggested. It's like solving a puzzle. Or, it's like climbing Everest. I'm not REALLY looking to figure out what Chopin's true intention was. Nobody can do that, right? But I'm trying to figure out what it means to me - or, how to make it mean something to me. How to "find the way in". I don't think you'll find many people who say that struggling with music, in this way, is not fun. Or who would say that it's a chore. (Unless the music is shitty...)
After all, it's also fun to come to terms with an unfamiliar-tasting food, or a weird bottle of wine, or a Faulkner novel, or an enigmatic episode of Mad Men. Maybe there are people who say that struggling with art sucks, but I really think that's a straw man. Or, at any rate, it's a man who's not me.
:)
Quote from: Brian on December 01, 2015, 04:18:00 PM
This thread really hasn't gone the way I expected it to!
Allow me to speak up in defense of struggling. It seems to be getting an unfair reputation around these here parts.
A few things maybe we can all agree on?
1. Performers can struggle. Both with the technical demands of playing a work, and the cognitive/emotional/spiritual/etc. demands of playing a work well. If there are any doubts, I'm sure one of the GMG piano players who's tried working through a Beethoven sonata will be happy to fill you in. (And for that matter, Karl can vouch that composers can struggle.)
2. It would be useful to us all to agree on a meaning of the word "struggle". Some uses of the word "struggle" may be weird, or a sign of a weird listener. But others may well be perfectly fine.
3. Struggling is not always entirely in the listener's mind. Other circumstances can factor into it. For example, I do a lot of listening at work, while I'm writing my stuff and dealing with emailed requests. That is a time for 20% attention-span listening, not 100% attention-span listening. I can do a decent job judging the quality of a performance of a very familiar work, one I've heard dozens of times. I can also do a decent job judging whether or not I like an unfamiliar work that's fairly simple in its language, structure, and/or emotional approach.
On the other hand, if you tasked me with listening to Art of Fugue and telling you lots of opinions about it, while I'm at work, that's gonna be a struggle!
There are probably other factors too. Atmosphere of the listening experience, the musical language and your familiarity with it, even the quality of the performers. Like, say you want to hear a new work by Frederic Rzewski, but the pianist is me. You're gonna struggle with that music. ;)
4. Although what's "easy" varies from person to person, of course, I think it is eminently possible for Great Art to not require any struggle at all for almost any/everyone willing to give it a fair chance. Beethoven's Fifth, maybe, or Tolstoy. Anna Karenina is not challenging to read, in the simple sense; but it is challenging, if you think about it in a certain way, and it can yield many different experiences if you read it over the course of a lifetime. Music can be like that.
[EDIT:
5. Many people use "struggling" as code for "music written in 20th/21st century languages that sounds kinda unpleasant to the average ear." Which, I don't doubt their sincerity in saying they find that music difficult. I find a lot of that music difficult! But some guy, and especially Mirror Image, are proof that everyone is different, and that "tough music" = "modern music" is a false equivalence. Maybe MI is the only one, but there are people who find Schnittke relatable and just can't get into Mozart!]
-
As for me, I'll confess that sometimes I "struggle" with music, by some definition or another. An example is Chopin's Piano Sonata No. 3, which I just listened to again today. What I mean is this: I love the scherzo and finale, but there are elements of the other two movements which I simply don't understand. Don't understand, that is, why Chopin wrote them in that way. (Similarly, why did Sibelius end his Fifth Symphony the way he did? Or, why does Elliott Carter sound like that? ;) )
As for some guy's question of "why bother?" the answer is similar to what others have suggested. It's like solving a puzzle. Or, it's like climbing Everest. I'm not REALLY looking to figure out what Chopin's true intention was. Nobody can do that, right? But I'm trying to figure out what it means to me - or, how to make it mean something to me. How to "find the way in". I don't think you'll find many people who say that struggling with music, in this way, is not fun. Or who would say that it's a chore. (Unless the music is shitty...)
After all, it's also fun to come to terms with an unfamiliar-tasting food, or a weird bottle of wine, or a Faulkner novel, or an enigmatic episode of Mad Men. Maybe there are people who say that struggling with art sucks, but I really think that's a straw man. Or, at any rate, it's a man who's not me.
:)
Smashing post,
Brian. I did not struggle to read and absorb it. Near as I may judge, my brain is coping!
Quote from: some guy on December 01, 2015, 01:38:51 AM
...it was jochanaan's reference to sitting down and relaxing that alerted me to what I'd left out of the OP. Sitting down and relaxing is not congruent, for me, with listening to music, which is always and forever an active and engaged process. What I notice is that I never think of this activity as an effort, as in something that I engage in reluctantly. Since I do it for fun, like other people run marathons, I do it no matter how much energy has to be expended....
By sitting down and relaxing my body, I free my mind to engage actively with the music. 8)
Quote from: Brian on December 01, 2015, 04:18:00 PM
This thread really hasn't gone the way I expected it to!
Allow me to speak up in defense of struggling. It seems to be getting an unfair reputation around these here parts.
A few things maybe we can all agree on?
1. Performers can struggle. Both with the technical demands of playing a work, and the cognitive/emotional/spiritual/etc. demands of playing a work well. If there are any doubts, I'm sure one of the GMG piano players who's tried working through a Beethoven sonata will be happy to fill you in. (And for that matter, Karl can vouch that composers can struggle.)
2. It would be useful to us all to agree on a meaning of the word "struggle". Some uses of the word "struggle" may be weird, or a sign of a weird listener. But others may well be perfectly fine.
3. Struggling is not always entirely in the listener's mind. Other circumstances can factor into it. For example, I do a lot of listening at work, while I'm writing my stuff and dealing with emailed requests. That is a time for 20% attention-span listening, not 100% attention-span listening. I can do a decent job judging the quality of a performance of a very familiar work, one I've heard dozens of times. I can also do a decent job judging whether or not I like an unfamiliar work that's fairly simple in its language, structure, and/or emotional approach.
On the other hand, if you tasked me with listening to Art of Fugue and telling you lots of opinions about it, while I'm at work, that's gonna be a struggle!
There are probably other factors too. Atmosphere of the listening experience, the musical language and your familiarity with it, even the quality of the performers. Like, say you want to hear a new work by Frederic Rzewski, but the pianist is me. You're gonna struggle with that music. ;)
4. Although what's "easy" varies from person to person, of course, I think it is eminently possible for Great Art to not require any struggle at all for almost any/everyone willing to give it a fair chance. Beethoven's Fifth, maybe, or Tolstoy. Anna Karenina is not challenging to read, in the simple sense; but it is challenging, if you think about it in a certain way, and it can yield many different experiences if you read it over the course of a lifetime. Music can be like that.
[EDIT:
5. Many people use "struggling" as code for "music written in 20th/21st century languages that sounds kinda unpleasant to the average ear." Which, I don't doubt their sincerity in saying they find that music difficult. I find a lot of that music difficult! But some guy, and especially Mirror Image, are proof that everyone is different, and that "tough music" = "modern music" is a false equivalence. Maybe MI is the only one, but there are people who find Schnittke relatable and just can't get into Mozart!]
-
As for me, I'll confess that sometimes I "struggle" with music, by some definition or another. An example is Chopin's Piano Sonata No. 3, which I just listened to again today. What I mean is this: I love the scherzo and finale, but there are elements of the other two movements which I simply don't understand. Don't understand, that is, why Chopin wrote them in that way. (Similarly, why did Sibelius end his Fifth Symphony the way he did? Or, why does Elliott Carter sound like that? ;) )
As for some guy's question of "why bother?" the answer is similar to what others have suggested. It's like solving a puzzle. Or, it's like climbing Everest. I'm not REALLY looking to figure out what Chopin's true intention was. Nobody can do that, right? But I'm trying to figure out what it means to me - or, how to make it mean something to me. How to "find the way in". I don't think you'll find many people who say that struggling with music, in this way, is not fun. Or who would say that it's a chore. (Unless the music is shitty...)
After all, it's also fun to come to terms with an unfamiliar-tasting food, or a weird bottle of wine, or a Faulkner novel, or an enigmatic episode of Mad Men. Maybe there are people who say that struggling with art sucks, but I really think that's a straw man. Or, at any rate, it's a man who's not me.
:)
A great post and some excellent points you've made here, Brian. There's so much music I 'struggle' with, but, for me, it's a matter of perception. I know the kinds of sounds I'm drawn to, but, at the same time, I know what I don't enjoy and probably will never enjoy because the composer's music simply isn't for me. Time is short and I say it's best to continue to explore the kinds of sounds our hearts and minds desire to hear.
Quote from: karlhenning on December 01, 2015, 06:40:38 AM
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 ;)
I think Debussy was quite serious in the sense that one perceives a work of art on different levels. His musical aesthetics were influenced by visual art, so a viewer or listener doesn't have to know the intricacies of technique but can be impressed by the proportion of the work upon first impact. An interesting study of Debussy and the 'golden mean' and how he applied it to music, although as a composer, he covered up his tracks pretty well, is "Debussy in Proportion" (1983) by Ron Howat.
Zb
Quote from: Brian on December 01, 2015, 04:18:00 PM
As for me, I'll confess that sometimes I "struggle" with music, by some definition or another. An example is Chopin's Piano Sonata No. 3, which I just listened to again today. What I mean is this: I love the scherzo and finale, but there are elements of the other two movements which I simply don't understand. Don't understand, that is, why Chopin wrote them in that way.
I think Chopin was trying to fit the material into the mold, rather than the other way around, a dilemma for most composers of the Romantic period. His 2nd sonata is more compact and works better, I believe, in terms of overall form.
ZB
Quote from: Brian on December 01, 2015, 04:18:00 PM
This thread really hasn't gone the way I expected it to!
Allow me to speak up in defense of struggling. It seems to be getting an unfair reputation around these here parts.
A few things maybe we can all agree on?
1. Performers can struggle. Both with the technical demands of playing a work, and the cognitive/emotional/spiritual/etc. demands of playing a work well. If there are any doubts, I'm sure one of the GMG piano players who's tried working through a Beethoven sonata will be happy to fill you in. (And for that matter, Karl can vouch that composers can struggle.)
2. It would be useful to us all to agree on a meaning of the word "struggle". Some uses of the word "struggle" may be weird, or a sign of a weird listener. But others may well be perfectly fine.
3. Struggling is not always entirely in the listener's mind. Other circumstances can factor into it. For example, I do a lot of listening at work, while I'm writing my stuff and dealing with emailed requests. That is a time for 20% attention-span listening, not 100% attention-span listening. I can do a decent job judging the quality of a performance of a very familiar work, one I've heard dozens of times. I can also do a decent job judging whether or not I like an unfamiliar work that's fairly simple in its language, structure, and/or emotional approach.
On the other hand, if you tasked me with listening to Art of Fugue and telling you lots of opinions about it, while I'm at work, that's gonna be a struggle!
There are probably other factors too. Atmosphere of the listening experience, the musical language and your familiarity with it, even the quality of the performers. Like, say you want to hear a new work by Frederic Rzewski, but the pianist is me. You're gonna struggle with that music. ;)
4. Although what's "easy" varies from person to person, of course, I think it is eminently possible for Great Art to not require any struggle at all for almost any/everyone willing to give it a fair chance. Beethoven's Fifth, maybe, or Tolstoy. Anna Karenina is not challenging to read, in the simple sense; but it is challenging, if you think about it in a certain way, and it can yield many different experiences if you read it over the course of a lifetime. Music can be like that.
[EDIT:
5. Many people use "struggling" as code for "music written in 20th/21st century languages that sounds kinda unpleasant to the average ear." Which, I don't doubt their sincerity in saying they find that music difficult. I find a lot of that music difficult! But some guy, and especially Mirror Image, are proof that everyone is different, and that "tough music" = "modern music" is a false equivalence. Maybe MI is the only one, but there are people who find Schnittke relatable and just can't get into Mozart!]
-
As for me, I'll confess that sometimes I "struggle" with music, by some definition or another. An example is Chopin's Piano Sonata No. 3, which I just listened to again today. What I mean is this: I love the scherzo and finale, but there are elements of the other two movements which I simply don't understand. Don't understand, that is, why Chopin wrote them in that way. (Similarly, why did Sibelius end his Fifth Symphony the way he did? Or, why does Elliott Carter sound like that? ;) )
As for some guy's question of "why bother?" the answer is similar to what others have suggested. It's like solving a puzzle. Or, it's like climbing Everest. I'm not REALLY looking to figure out what Chopin's true intention was. Nobody can do that, right? But I'm trying to figure out what it means to me - or, how to make it mean something to me. How to "find the way in". I don't think you'll find many people who say that struggling with music, in this way, is not fun. Or who would say that it's a chore. (Unless the music is shitty...)
After all, it's also fun to come to terms with an unfamiliar-tasting food, or a weird bottle of wine, or a Faulkner novel, or an enigmatic episode of Mad Men. Maybe there are people who say that struggling with art sucks, but I really think that's a straw man. Or, at any rate, it's a man who's not me.
:)
I do agree wholeheartedly with the concept of struggle as is represented in your first four points, however I can't say I relate with point 5 and the remarks made in your postlude to your list. On the idea of music being a puzzle, well, from a performer's perspective I can completely understand where a struggle to understand a musical language and aesthetic lies. More often than not it is related to the amount of knowledge one may have on the objective aspects of music. From a listener's perspective I still find that listening to music is never a struggle to understand, yet it is a changing and expanding personal taste in music over time. Familiarity, mood, expectations etc. are all things that happen when choosing something to listen to and ultimately influence the listening experience.
You mentioned Carter, so here's my own experience of his music this year/ I recently performed a piece of music by Elliott Carter for solo guitar called 'Shard.' I struggled whilst learning it due to my technical abilities (the last page of it is a nightmare to play!!!) but on another level I did struggle with creating a strong, musical interpretation once I had mastered the technical aspects. I soon looked over the composition for a second time, and without the guitar, to embark on an analysis of the composition. Carter's use of metric modulation to smoothly move from one tempo/meter to another was a key element in the interpretation of it, because what essentially happens is that he uses rhythmic and metric centres in the same way Mozart would use harmonic/tonal and thematic centres to create a sense of an overarching musical 'narrative' where music moves away from and returns to the opening theme(s) and home key. This piece I played ended up being an exploration of textures and contrapuntal voices on the guitar within Carter's methods of harmonic and melodic writing with a structural 'narrative' implied by the tempo and meter. The modulations to other tempos and meters created the same kind of underlying musical tension as the modulations to various related keys do in a sonata-form composition.
These kinds of compositional things, however, are near-impossible to be picked up by anyone listening to the music and basically are only ever mentioned much when working out how to interpret the music or if someone somewhere has to do an analysis of it (here's one if anyone is interested https://libres.uncg.edu/ir/uncg/f/G_Capuzzo_Elliott_2003.pdf (https://libres.uncg.edu/ir/uncg/f/G_Capuzzo_Elliott_2003.pdf)). From the perspective of purely listening to the music, a live performance may be very interesting for unfamiliar music that one may 'struggle' with, especially if one walks away having found the music to be characterful due to the interpretation! Schoenberg explained once that his music was merely 'badly played' when addressing the 'difficulty' of his music. Perhaps, over time, newer works (which people allegedly struggle with more often) will have stronger interpretations due to more scholarly work done on them and a greater body of recorded performances. I am just speculating here though, but this reasoning could be true for some people.
Wow, some people whose opinions I usually really respect praised Brian's almost totally off the point post, leaving it to me to do the dirty work. Thanks a lot, guys! Well, I know it's difficult to impossible, but if you can forget who is writing this post and just look at what's been written..., well, just try, OK.
Quote from: Brian on December 01, 2015, 04:18:00 PM1. Performers can struggle.
Yes, but I wasn't talking about performers. And the connotations of struggle with what performers do are mostly neutral.
Quote from: Brian on December 01, 2015, 04:18:00 PM2. It would be useful to us all to agree on a meaning of the word "struggle". Some uses of the word "struggle" may be weird, or a sign of a weird listener. But others may well be perfectly fine.
OK, but what are they? What are the "weird" ones? What are the perfectly fine ones? You're leaving us hanging here, Brian! Finish your thought.
Quote from: Brian on December 01, 2015, 04:18:00 PMif you tasked me with listening to Art of Fugue and telling you lots of opinions about it, while I'm at work, that's gonna be a struggle!
An entirely unlikely scenario. And one in which the struggling would not be with the music.
Quote from: Brian on December 01, 2015, 04:18:00 PM4. Although what's "easy" varies from person to person, of course, I think it is eminently possible for Great Art to not require any struggle at all for almost any/everyone willing to give it a fair chance. Beethoven's Fifth, maybe, or Tolstoy. Anna Karenina is not challenging to read, in the simple sense; but it is challenging, if you think about it in a certain way, and it can yield many different experiences if you read it over the course of a lifetime. Music can be like that.
The OP covers this. And I finessed the difficulty concept a little later on to explicitly cover "easy."
I see struggling as an active, conscious thing, something that is not pleasant. That is, I see the reports of struggling as indicating that for the strugglers, struggling is conscious and unpleasant. And I said already that for me it's a matter of awareness. If I am expending effort in listening to music, I am not aware of it. What I am aware of is the music. And music, generally, is something I quite like.
Quote from: Brian on December 01, 2015, 04:18:00 PM5. Many people use "struggling" as code for "music written in 20th/21st century languages that sounds kinda unpleasant to the average ear." Which, I don't doubt their sincerity in saying they find that music difficult. I find a lot of that music difficult! But some guy, and especially Mirror Image, are proof that everyone is different, and that "tough music" = "modern music" is a false equivalence. Maybe MI is the only one, but there are people who find Schnittke relatable and just can't get into Mozart!]
It's certainly true that "'tough music' = 'modern music'" is a false equivalence. No argument there! But what I was attempting to express was how I find the concept of difficulty--all of it, including struggle and ease--not useful for describing anything that happens to me when I listen to music. My perplexity, as expressed in the OP, was how it could be possible for my impression, from reading many dozens of accounts of struggling, to be true--that listening to music is a struggle, and not just 'modern' music, either.
Quote from: Brian on December 01, 2015, 04:18:00 PMAs for some guy's question of "why bother?"
Not my question.
Quote from: Brian on December 01, 2015, 04:18:00 PMIt's like solving a puzzle.... I'm trying to figure out what it means to me - or, how to make it mean something to me. How to "find the way in". I don't think you'll find many people who say that struggling with music, in this way, is not fun. Or who would say that it's a chore. (Unless the music is shitty...)
After all, it's also fun to come to terms with an unfamiliar-tasting food, or a weird bottle of wine, or a Faulkner novel, or an enigmatic episode of Mad Men. Maybe there are people who say that struggling with art sucks, but I really think that's a straw man. Or, at any rate, it's a man who's not me.
I would say that if these activities look like struggling to someone looking on, they are certainly not presenting themselves as struggling to the person doing them. To the person doing them, they are, as Brian very astutely points out, fun.
That's not what I was on about in the OP. I have seen dozens, hundreds, of posts in the last couple of years online where people talked about struggling with this or that, dozens of topics started in order to elicit stories of struggling with this or that--none of them positive experiences. So much, that I reached the limit of my credulity and wanted to share my incredulity, to test it in public and see if I was correct in being incredulous. For the most part, as I said, my suspicions have been confirmed. It's really not such a struggle for everyone. There may be other reasons for the existence of so many strugglesome posts--that a topic that explicitly asks for struggles will get struggles, for instance, or, as Brian just pointed out, that "struggle" is often code for "modern music not worth struggling with"--and no, that's not how Brian put it! (:))
Certainly, this thread has pretty clearly pushed the idea that listening to music is fun. That at the very worst, if something is difficult and needs to be struggled with, the effort is worth it, because listening to music is fun.
Quote from: some guy on December 02, 2015, 12:01:26 AM
Wow, some people whose opinions I usually really respect praised Brian's almost totally off the point post, leaving it to me to do the dirty work.
Well, and why not discussion? I suppose I must apologize for brevity.
BTW, Michael, I appreciate your extended comments. Who knows? I may be able to compose more of a post soon . . . .
It's a struggle.
Quote from: Cato on November 30, 2015, 12:58:12 PM
I suspect for many people the "effort" (whether you use the term or not) is the sense of pleasure also found in completing puzzles or figuring out a mystery novel a chapter or two before the end, etc. It is not a struggle in the sense of painful agony, but the fun struggle to complete a model airplane with 100 parts.
Pretty much...
I was going to write a fair few thoughts in response to this thread, but it's 1 am here and if I allow myself I could spend a long time writing an epic essay. Suffice to say for now that music has both emotional and intellectual rewards and some people are going to focus more on one or the other, and find different music appealing accordingly. For me, it's important that music intellectually engages me, and that includes there being a process of "figuring out" the structure and musical language of a work. This applies to popular music as much as it does classical. Some of my very favourite albums are things that puzzled me on first listen, but they were from artists who already had "runs on the board" that meant I wanted to persist.
Music that reveals all its impact on a first listen is generally less satisfying that music which appeals but requires some concentration from me and some unlocking. See: the vast majority of things I've said about Vagn Holmboe while trying to evangelise the forum singlehandedly as to his genius.
I'm not sure I can contribute anything original to this - the main aspect of what I want to say having been covered by several others (my thanks to them for writing so interestingly about this). But I think my starting point is that I don't think this is uniqely a musical issue. Can't the basic question be asked of almost anything? Is chopping firewood a pleasure or a struggle? (It's either or both, of course, depending on the person and the circumstances.)
My second point concerns the words pleasure and struggle. Both embrace such a range of subjective experience that we can't be sure we're each talking about the same feelings. Someone earlier mentioned the pleasure of puzzles. That pleasure encompasses both the thrill of solving, the frustration and struggle of not solving, and the relief at the end of the struggle. But it isn't the same for everyone. Puzzle-solving isn't a pleasure for everyone. If you're really good at it, it might not involve a struggle either. And there are some kinds of struggle we might like (mountain-climbing?); and other kinds of struggle we might not (boxing?). The upshot is that I don't believe this is as simple a question as it sounds.
However, it so happens that Michael is a very lucky person. He has (which I conclude from previous discussions) a natural and very wide-ranging empathy/love for sounds. (I was going to say musical sounds, but I think just 'sounds' might be closer. He'll tell me if I'm wrong.) That gives him, as it were, a foot up the ladder. He hears an unusual relation between a collection of sounds and his interest is immediate. So before he ever gets to ask questions, he's in there, in the thick of it, loving it, like plunging into a newly-discovered swimming pool on a hot day.
I'll be honest: I don't have this facility myself. (I have an equivalent in the field of visual arts: the automatic thing I do on first entering a room is to scan the walls for anything interesting.) So that means that on first hearing a new piece of music I don't automatically think 'how interesting, or 'how attractive'. My first response is quite often, simply ... 'whaaat??' If it seems interesting I might be willing to 'struggle' to see if the 'struggle' leads to 'pleasure'. I usually rely on past experience - or just current whim - to decide.
But I don't enjoy the 'struggle' aspect of listening to music, usually. I look forward to the time, after three or four listenings, when the piece is familiar; when I know my way at least roughly around it; when the pressure is off. By then there's still the pleasure of new discovery, but no more struggle. If I knew of a way of getting to that state without the struggle, believe me I'd take it. But there isn't one. The struggle is the means to the pleasure, and I seem to find it mostly (but not always) worthwhile.
Quote from: Elgarian on December 02, 2015, 05:49:46 AMHowever, it so happens that Michael is a very lucky person. He has (which I conclude from previous discussions) a natural and very wide-ranging empathy/love for sounds. (I was going to say musical sounds, but I think just 'sounds' might be closer. He'll tell me if I'm wrong.) That gives him, as it were, a foot up the ladder. He hears an unusual relation between a collection of sounds and his interest is immediate. So before he ever gets to ask questions, he's in there, in the thick of it, loving it, like plunging into a newly-discovered swimming pool on a hot day.
Not only absolutely correct, but very beautifully put.
I do feel lucky, it's true. I'm very glad to have this empathy/love for sounds, I must say.
Quote from: Cato on November 30, 2015, 01:58:12 PM
QuoteI suspect for many people the "effort" (whether you use the term or not) is the sense of pleasure also found in completing puzzles or figuring out a mystery novel a chapter or two before the end, etc. It is not a struggle in the sense of painful agony, but the fun struggle to complete a model airplane with 100 parts.
Quote from: orfeo on December 02, 2015, 05:10:14 AM
Pretty much...
Music that reveals all its impact on a first listen is generally less satisfying that music which appeals but requires some concentration from me and some unlocking. See: the vast majority of things I've said about Vagn Holmboe while trying to evangelise the forum singlehandedly as to his genius.
Very nice idea, and there is an adjacent phenomenon, where one believes that the old warhorse "has nothing left to say," and so one ignores it, or even rejects it as unworthy of a visit. And then, one day, one hears it again, and everything about it is like new: perhaps a young conductor has somehow invigorated it or simply the passage of time has changed one's ears. But there it is, a
Schubert Eighth or a
Tchaikovsky Fourth or a
von Suppe' overture, and suddenly one wonders why the earlier rejection had ever occurred!
I find this quote from Igor Stravinsky's autobiography relevant. He discusses the pros and cons of musicians connecting with wider audiences and how with the advent of new technology (he was referring to radio though it could just as easily have been the web) would ultimately weaken the impact of music because it asks less of its audience. Stravinsky convincingly makes the case that the ease that it takes listeners to hear music ultimately deadens their interest in music. What do you think about this? Does effort result in greater appreciation?
"The propagation of music by mechanical means and the broadcasting of music - that represent formidable scientific conquests, which are very likely to spread even more - merit close examination as for their importance and their effects in the domain of music. Of course, the possibility for both authors and performers to reach the masses, and the fact that these masses are able to make themselves acquainted with musical works, represent an unquestionable advantage. However, it cannot be concealed that this advantage is dangerous at the same time. In the past, someone like Johann-Sebastian Bach had to walk ten leagues in order to hear Buxtehude perform his works. Today, any inhabitant of any country simply has to either turn a knob or play a record in order to listen to the piece of his choice. Well! It is in this very incredible easiness, in this very lack of effort that lies the vice of that so-called progress. In music, more than in any other branch of art, comprehension is only given to those who actively contribute to it. In itself, the massive reception is not enough. The listening of certain combinations of sounds, and the automatic growing accustomed to them does not necessarily involve the fact of hearing and grasping them, for one can listen without hearing, the same way one can watch without seeing. What renders people lazy is their lack of active effort and their developing of a liking for this easiness. People no longer need to move about as Bach had to; the radio spares them the traveling. Neither do they absolutely need to make music themselves and to waste time studying an instrument in order to know the musical literature. The radio and the disc take over. As a result, the active faculties, without which music cannot be assimilated, gradually atrophy among the listeners who no longer train them. This gradual paralysis leads to extremely serious consequences. Overwhelmed with sounds, the most varied combinations of which leave them indifferent, people fall into a sort of mindless state, that deprives them of all ability to judge, and renders them indifferent to the very quality of what they are served. In the near future, such disorganized overfeeding is more than likely to make listeners lose their hunger and their liking for music. Indeed, there will always be some exceptions - some people within the hoard will be able to select what they like. However, concerning the masses, one has all the reasons to fear that instead of generating love for and understanding of music, the modern means involved in spreading music will lead absolutely to opposite results; it is to say, they will lead to indifference, to the inability to recognize them, to be guided by them, and to have any reaction of some value." Igor Stravinsky - "Chronicles of My Life" - 1935
I don't believe just because something is challenging or difficult means it is great art but that challenge in understanding music rewards the effort put forth. Part of the joy of classical music is in how it rewards effort. In Stravinsky's own words: "In music, more than in any other branch of art, comprehension is only given to those who actively contribute to it. In itself, the massive reception is not enough." I also believe as one becomes more comfortable with challenge, they must expose themselves to greater challenge. Sort of like working out – if the weights are too easy, you need to graduate to bigger weights so your muscles maintain a balance of effort to reward.
Quote from: ComposerOfAvantGarde on December 01, 2015, 10:40:08 PM
I do agree wholeheartedly with the concept of struggle as is represented in your first four points, however I can't say I relate with point 5 and the remarks made in your postlude to your list. On the idea of music being a puzzle, well, from a performer's perspective I can completely understand where a struggle to understand a musical language and aesthetic lies. More often than not it is related to the amount of knowledge one may have on the objective aspects of music. From a listener's perspective I still find that listening to music is never a struggle to understand, yet it is a changing and expanding personal taste in music over time. Familiarity, mood, expectations etc. are all things that happen when choosing something to listen to and ultimately influence the listening experience.
You mentioned Carter, so here's my own experience of his music this year/ I recently performed a piece of music by Elliott Carter for solo guitar called 'Shard.' I struggled whilst learning it due to my technical abilities (the last page of it is a nightmare to play!!!) but on another level I did struggle with creating a strong, musical interpretation once I had mastered the technical aspects. I soon looked over the composition for a second time, and without the guitar, to embark on an analysis of the composition. Carter's use of metric modulation to smoothly move from one tempo/meter to another was a key element in the interpretation of it, because what essentially happens is that he uses rhythmic and metric centres in the same way Mozart would use harmonic/tonal and thematic centres to create a sense of an overarching musical 'narrative' where music moves away from and returns to the opening theme(s) and home key. This piece I played ended up being an exploration of textures and contrapuntal voices on the guitar within Carter's methods of harmonic and melodic writing with a structural 'narrative' implied by the tempo and meter. The modulations to other tempos and meters created the same kind of underlying musical tension as the modulations to various related keys do in a sonata-form composition.
These kinds of compositional things, however, are near-impossible to be picked up by anyone listening to the music and basically are only ever mentioned much when working out how to interpret the music or if someone somewhere has to do an analysis of it (here's one if anyone is interested https://libres.uncg.edu/ir/uncg/f/G_Capuzzo_Elliott_2003.pdf (https://libres.uncg.edu/ir/uncg/f/G_Capuzzo_Elliott_2003.pdf)). From the perspective of purely listening to the music, a live performance may be very interesting for unfamiliar music that one may 'struggle' with, especially if one walks away having found the music to be characterful due to the interpretation! Schoenberg explained once that his music was merely 'badly played' when addressing the 'difficulty' of his music. Perhaps, over time, newer works (which people allegedly struggle with more often) will have stronger interpretations due to more scholarly work done on them and a greater body of recorded performances. I am just speculating here though, but this reasoning could be true for some people.
I mentioned Carter because some guy mentioned it at the very top of the thread, but now you've succeeded in making me want to listen to this piece. There are definitely lots of things you learn about a work while performing it, which you could or would miss just listening, but hey...it sounds worth a try. :)
And . . . are we speaking of effort, as if it were a bad thing? . . .
0:)
I *always* think about music. Same with movies, books and plays. We live in a passive society that seems to think the world exists to entertain us. It doesn't. We are supposed to try to make sense of the world and communicate with each other through the arts.
Artur Schnabel resisted recording because he couldn't deal with the disrespect of Beethoven by some guy in a t shirt eating a ham sandwich listening to a record of a Beethoven sonata. I don't personally care about the dress code, but I do think it's disrespectful to an artist to turn your brain off while listening to his work.
Quote from: bigshot on December 02, 2015, 09:36:19 AM
I *always* think about music. Same with movies, books and plays. We live in a passive society that seems to think the world exists to entertain us. It doesn't. We are supposed to try to make sense of the world and communicate with each other through the arts.
Artur Schnabel resisted recording because he couldn't deal with the disrespect of Beethoven by some guy in a t shirt eating a ham sandwich listening to a record of a Beethoven sonata. I don't personally care about the dress code, but I do think it's disrespectful to an artist to turn your brain off while listening to his work.
A bit evangalist words. Sure we need to develop ourselves and make sense of things. But also to enjoy our time.
Did Schnabel perform for the guy or did the guy just play a recording on his stereo?
Considering the first scenario:
I don't think the behaviour of that guy was disrespectful to Beethoven (because we are not attendees at his funeral..), but more to the performer, in this case Schnabel, himself.
Has to do more with politeness and codes. In a concert hall codes are different than a pop festival. Why that is, is more a question of tradition and stature (maybe Beethoven can be considered a signifier of this stature, I think Schnabel feels it more in this way). I don't think it would be a progression if we should change these codes and make everyone eat and drink in a concert hall. Otherwise the distinction between high and low culture would dissolve, which would be a bad thing.
So, wise act by Schnabel, preserving the good habits.
Personally I wouldn't go in a t-shirt to a concert hall. With hot weather I would rather prefer a polo or something.
Time to reply to some guy's reply to me. I think some guy must have picked up some sort of hostility from me, that I wasn't aware of writing; maybe that accounts for some of his tone...
Quote from: some guy on December 02, 2015, 12:01:26 AM
Yes, but I wasn't talking about performers.
No, but I wanted to mention it. It wasn't personal to you or meant to refute you.
Quote from: some guy on December 02, 2015, 12:01:26 AM
OK, but what are they? What are the "weird" ones? What are the perfectly fine ones? You're leaving us hanging here, Brian! Finish your thought.
I'm hoping this series of posts, in general, expands on the thought. :)
Quote from: some guy on December 02, 2015, 12:01:26 AM
I see struggling as an active, conscious thing, something that is not pleasant. That is, I see the reports of struggling as indicating that for the strugglers, struggling is conscious and unpleasant. And I said already that for me it's a matter of awareness. If I am expending effort in listening to music, I am not aware of it. What I am aware of is the music. And music, generally, is something I quite like.
So one thing we're up against here is we are just using different definitions of "struggling". Apparently there are people who are listening, masochistically?, to music they don't get, which makes them feel unpleasant and which grates them, but they keep listening to it anyway. I haven't really noticed these people as much as you have, maybe? The one (really inspiring!) example I can recall is when a whole bunch of Sibelians chipped in to help Elgarian try and digest Sibelius's Seventh Symphony. But that ended up producing one of the best, and most musically-interesting, discussions this board has had. I doubt Alan would characterize his "struggle" as being what we're here calling perplexing and weird.
I think that Elgarian is right, btw, that part of the issue here, too, is we're just different listeners. For instance:
Quote from: some guy on December 02, 2015, 12:01:26 AM
I find the concept of difficulty--all of it, including struggle and ease--not useful for describing anything that happens to me when I listen to music.
You are indeed a lucky so-and-so!
Quote from: some guy on December 02, 2015, 12:01:26 AM
Certainly, this thread has pretty clearly pushed the idea that listening to music is fun. That at the very worst, if something is difficult and needs to be struggled with, the effort is worth it, because listening to music is fun.
I'm in it for the fun, too, mostly. Here we can find a great deal of common ground! Even if music requires "struggling" (the good kind), it can still be fun.
Quote from: Brian on December 02, 2015, 10:45:35 AM
I'm in it for the fun, too, mostly. Here we can find a great deal of common ground! Even if music requires "struggling" (the good kind), it can still be fun.
Classical music and jazz as well brings me rather in a certain state of mind that is productive. Instead of watching screens like I do now. I could do without GMG, I often ask myself what I am doing here..
I don't know listening to classical music is fun. Yeah, if you do it in an excessive way, then it must be to keep it going..
Quote from: Brian on December 02, 2015, 10:45:35 AM
The one (really inspiring!) example I can recall is when a whole bunch of Sibelians chipped in to help Elgarian try and digest Sibelius's Seventh Symphony. But that ended up producing one of the best, and most musically-interesting, discussions this board has had. I doubt Alan would characterize his "struggle" as being what we're here calling perplexing and weird.
I can honestly say that no discussion about a piece of music has ever had anything like so much impact on me as that one had, and its effects still echo. The 'struggle' which, after over 40 years of trying, was getting more than a bit wearing ["I love lots of Sibelius so
why can't I like this??!!"], was transformed by the discussions and the new way of listening I was able to develop as a result. I used to sit there thinking
OK, that bit's good, but I want more of it and he won't give it to me, and what does this new bit have to do with anything anyway? It's such a relief to be able to listen to it now with familiarity, and even at certain moments smile because I remember some of the things that we said, and still, after all this, feel that final staring into the endless musical night of the finale.
Where did the struggle end and the pleasure begin? And is staring into the endless musical night a pleasure, anyway?
Which reminds me of something else I wanted to raise about the 'pleasure' aspect. A few weeks ago I heard the most wonderful performance of Elgar's violin concerto that I've ever heard, in a concert in Malvern (Alexander Sitkovetsky and the ESO). It was so intense I could hardly breathe. My chest muscles became so knotted up that it was physically painful. The windflowers stabbed at me like stilettos. I couldn't bear for the music to end, even though when it did end I knew it would be less painful.
Where's the pleasure, and where's the struggle in all that? Which is which?
Quote from: Elgarian on December 02, 2015, 11:08:35 AM
I can honestly say that no discussion about a piece of music has ever had anything like so much impact on me as that one had, and its effects still echo. The 'struggle' which, after over 40 years of trying, was getting more than a bit wearing ["I love lots of Sibelius so why can't I like this??!!"], was transformed by the discussions and the new way of listening I was able to develop as a result. I used to sit there thinking OK, that bit's good, but I want more of it and he won't give it to me, and what does this new bit have to do with anything anyway? It's such a relief to be able to listen to it now with familiarity, and even at certain moments smile because I remember some of the things that we said, and still, after all this, feel that final staring into the endless musical night of the finale.
Where did the struggle end and the pleasure begin? And is staring into the endless musical night a pleasure, anyway?
Which reminds me of something else I wanted to raise about the 'pleasure' aspect. A few weeks ago I heard the most wonderful performance of Elgar's violin concerto that I've ever heard, in a concert in Malvern (Alexander Sitkovetsky and the ESO). It was so intense I could hardly breathe. My chest muscles became so knotted up that it was physically painful. The windflowers stabbed at me like stilettos. I couldn't bear for the music to end, even though when it did end I knew it would be less painful.
Where's the pleasure, and where's the struggle in all that? Which is which?
It's all fun, they say.
Sounds like a heavy experience, never heard such a thing. It touches your soul deep apparantly. I don't consider this fun. Fun is in a relation between humans, I would say, as sports and games.
Quote from: Henk on December 02, 2015, 11:11:45 AM
It's all fun, they say.
But that's the thing, you see. It IS all fun. The most solemn and enriching fun I know.
Quote from: Brian on December 01, 2015, 04:18:00 PM
3. Struggling is not always entirely in the listener's mind. Other circumstances can factor into it.
Maybe I've already told this story. But my second performance of
Thoreau in Concord Jail involved a certain degree of struggle.
Not for me: I was well practiced, had plenty of energy and stamina. I gave what I thought was a signally good performance of the work.
But the program that evening was lopsided, the first 'half' was shorter than the second, so that paltered a bit with the audience's expectations.
Thoreau was a 25-minute "middle" of the second (and longer) portion of the program, and the listeners were seated in old-style wooden pews . . . simply not a very physically comfortable experience for them.
I don't think that would have been much of an obstacle for the listener who was engaged with the piece. But for a fellow composer who (truth be told) is inclined to dismiss the piece as Abstract (horrors!), the experience was like "being in jail ourselves."
Quote from: Elgarian on December 02, 2015, 11:14:11 AM
But that's the thing, you see. It IS all fun. The most solemn and enriching fun I know.
Exactly, like I added to my reply:
"Sounds like a heavy experience, never heard such a thing. It touches your soul deep apparantly. I don't consider this fun. Fun is in a relation between humans, I would say, as sports and games."
"Everything is fun." Who here would like to defend this thesis?
Quote from: Henk on December 02, 2015, 11:20:59 AM
"Everything is fun." Who here would like to defend this thesis?
The fellow who brought it forward, I should think 8)
Quote from: Henk on December 02, 2015, 11:11:45 AM
It's all fun, they say.
Quote from: karlhenning on December 02, 2015, 11:25:34 AM
The fellow who brought it forward, I should think 8)
Ok, I gonna a stab you with a knife, watch out! ;)
No GMG moderator correct this, so I'm afraid you lie there alone, bleeding, Karl. Not so fun, so here is a plaster for you. ;)
Quote from: Brian on December 02, 2015, 10:45:35 AM
Time to reply to some guy's reply to me. I think some guy must have picked up some sort of hostility from me, that I wasn't aware of writing; maybe that accounts for some of his tone...
I was aware that I was conveying hostility, and I struggled (!) to remove that tone wherever I found it. And I apologize for failing.
(I did not, just by the way, pick up any sort of hostility from you. Any of it in our exchange was entirely from me, in spite of my feeble attempts to remove it. Heigh ho.)
It's actually a lot of fun, Karl! But now, back to work!
Quote from: karlhenning on December 02, 2015, 11:14:35 AMBut for a fellow composer who (truth be told) is inclined to dismiss the piece as Abstract (horrors!), the experience was like "being in jail ourselves."
;D :D ;D
I haven't contributed to this thread, and I hesitate now...but yes, I
struggle with your "Concord Jail" :( I will continue the struggle, though, until it becomes struggle-free :D ;)
Sarge
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on December 02, 2015, 11:57:42 AM
;D :D ;D
I haven't contributed to this thread, and I hesitate now...but yes, I struggle with your "Concord Jail" :( I will continue the struggle, though, until it becomes struggle-free :D ;)
Free the Sarge! 8) :)
Some Nietzsche:
"Against the Art of Works of Art. Art is above all and first of all meant to embellish life, to make us ourselves endurable and if possible agreeable in the eyes of others. With this task in view art moderates us and holds us in restraint, creates forms of intercourse, binds over the uneducated to laws of decency, cleanliness, politeness, well-timed speech and silence. Hence art must conceal or transfigure everything that is ugly — the painful, terrible, and disgusting elements which in spite of every effort will always break out afresh in accordance with the very origin of human nature. Art has to perform this duty especially in regard to the passions and spiritual agonies and anxieties, and to cause the significant factor to shine through unavoidable or unconquerable ugliness. To this great, super great task the so-called art proper, that of works of art, is a mere accessary. A man who feels within himself a surplus of such powers of embellishment, concealment, and transfiguration will finally seek to unburden himself of this surplus in works of art. The same holds good, under special circumstances, of a whole nation. But as a rule we nowadays begin art at the end, hang on to its tail, and think that works of art constitute art proper, and that life should be improved and transformed by this means — fools that we are! If we begin a dinner with dessert, and try sweet after sweet, small wonder that we ruin our digestions and even our appetites for the good, hearty, nourishing meal to which art invites us!"
Some more Nietzsche:
"THE ART-NEED OF THE SECOND ORDER
The Art-Need of the Second Order. The people may have something of what can be called art-need, but it is small, and can be cheaply satisfied. On the whole, the remnant of art (it must be honestly confessed) suffices for this need. Let us consider, for example, the kind of melodies and songs in which the most vigorous, unspoiled, and true-hearted classes of the population find genuine delight; let us live among shepherds, cowherds, peasants, huntsmen, soldiers, and sailors, and give ourselves the answer. And in the country town, just in the houses that are the homes of inherited civic virtue, is it not the worst music at present produced that is loved and, one might say, cherished? He who speaks of deeper needs and unsatisfied yearnings for art among the people, as it is, is a crank or an impostor. Be honest! Be honest! Only in exceptional men is there now an art-need in the highest sense — because art is once more on the down-grade, and human powers and hopes are for the time being directed to other matters. Apart from this, outside the populace there exists indeed, in the higher and highest strata of society, a broader and more comprehensive art-need, but of the second order. Here there is a sort of artistic commune, which possibly means to be sincere. But let us look at the elements! They are in general the more refined malcontents, who attain no genuine pleasure in themselves; the cultured, who have not become free enough to dispense with the consolations of religion, and yet do not find its incense sufficiently fragrant; the half-aristocratic, who are too weak to combat by a heroic conversion or renunciation the one fundamental error of their lives or the pernicious bent of their characters; the highly gifted, who think themselves too dignified to be of service by modest activity, and are too lazy for real, self-sacrificing work; girls who cannot create for themselves a satisfactory sphere of duties; women who have tied themselves by a light-hearted or nefarious marriage, and know that they are not tied securely enough; scholars, physicians, merchants, officials who specialised too early and never gave their lives a free enough scope — who do their work efficiently, it is true, but with a worm gnawing at their hearts; finally, all imperfect artists — these are nowadays the true needers of art! What do they really desire from art? Art is to drive away hours and moments of discomfort, boredom, half-bad conscience, and, if possible, transform the faults of their lives and characters into faults of world-destiny. Very different were the Greeks, who realised in their art the outflow and overflow of their own sense of well-being and health, and loved to see their perfection once more from a standpoint outside themselves. They were led to art by delight in themselves; our contemporaries — by disgust of themselves."
Something else occurred to me, and Elgarian's narrative of his struggles with Sibelius' seventh symphony crystallized that for me.
And that is to speculate on the causes of the struggles.
I have observed that often (usually) when someone mentions struggling (as a bad thing), it is almost always because there were expectations and those expectations were not fulfilled--or that there was desire for something else. Most of the blaming I see of various composers or styles or schools of music for being wrong or bad or destructive or corrupting is on account of a strong desire for something else.
Now I think a strong desire for something else is in the abstract a good thing. My first thought about this continuation of the topic about struggling was how absurd it would be to go up to the mountains and look out across the lake to the snow-covered peak and complain about the placement of a tree. Needs to be twenty feet or so to the left. Then I imagined a painter. That person could very easily "fix" the problem by simply painting the tree a bit to the left. Part of the creative impulse is to change how things are into something else. So wanting to add or to fix or to alter is a good wanting. But when it takes the form of mindless whining, then it's not so pleasant or useful.
A listener is in a particular relationship to the things being auditioned. Short of becoming a composer oneself and working the thing you don't like into your own piece in a way that makes the thing acceptable, one's function as a listener is to accept. Apparently a lot of people find this difficult. I've had experiences like that, too. I liked Berio's music generally, and especially Thema: Ommagio a Joyce, but Visage made me physically ill. Well, that's easy. Don't listen to Visage. But it nagged at me, for decades. All this other Berio, which I liked, bolstered by his frequent trips to L.A. in the seventies and eighties--all of whose concerts I attended--made me want to like Visage as well.
Eventually, yes. A lot of other music by other people and one day putting Visage on and finding it excruciatingly beautiful.
Anyway, I think for a listener, acceptance is key. This is what the composer has done. There's nothing you can do about it. Here it is. It does this thing and that thing, and it does them in spite of any tastes or expectations or desires you may bring to any hearing of it. It's just itself. You can accept that or you can reject it. You can't change it. The best way to go into a confrontation with something new and unfamiliar is to take it as given. There it is. Nothing else matters, certainly not any impertinent expectations or desires. I know for myself that every time I have disliked a piece on first hearing that turns out to be a piece I enjoy eventually, it's because I wanted something other than what I was getting.
But the piece doesn't know that; the composer doesn't know what I want. The composer only knows what it took to get that piece to do what it does. I don't enter into it until I do, and when that happens, I have a pretty specific job to do--listen to what I've been offered without preconceptions and without any other desires than to hear this new thing I've never heard before and enjoy it for what it is, not for what it isn't.
Well, that was a bit preachy--I hope the choir wasn't too bored--which is why I named this post "credo," doncha ya know. :)
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on December 02, 2015, 11:57:42 AM
;D :D ;D
I haven't contributed to this thread, and I hesitate now...but yes, I struggle with your "Concord Jail" :( I will continue the struggle, though, until it becomes struggle-free :D ;)
Sarge
One might say...until you escape? ??? ;D
Statements like "Art is meant to"--and especially "Art is above all meant to" --strike me as immediately suspect.
Quote from: some guy on December 02, 2015, 12:20:32 PM
Anyway, I think for a listener, acceptance is key. This is what the composer has done. There's nothing you can do about it. Here it is. It does this thing and that thing, and it does them in spite of any tastes or expectations or desires you may bring to any hearing of it. It's just itself. You can accept that or you can reject it. You can't change it. The best way to go into a confrontation with something new and unfamiliar is to take it as given. There it is. Nothing else matters, certainly not any impertinent expectations or desires. I know for myself that every time I have disliked a piece on first hearing that turns out to be a piece I enjoy eventually, it's because I wanted something other than what I was getting.
Bang on the money. Essential reading for anyone repelled or baffled by ANY kind of art.
The only snag is - it can be very hard to achieve this open-ness. Not always by any means. Sometimes lightning just strikes from a clear sky and I'm sizzling. But there are other times when those preconceptions and expectations will keep on bubbling up and demanding attention, time and again. When the problem was with Sibelius 7, the answer was relatively simple: talk to Brian and his gang. They can open new windows. Of course Brian isn't always there ...
Quote from: karlhenning on December 02, 2015, 12:39:46 PM
Statements like "Art is meant to"--and especially "Art is above all meant to" --strike me as immediately suspect.
So enough reason for you to distrust and discard the complete works of Nietzsche?
Quote from: Henk on December 02, 2015, 12:48:25 PM
So enough reason for you to distrust and discard the complete works of Nietzsche?
Well, any declaration of what Art is, is immediately suspect. Art seems to have a way of wriggling out of any fixed definition.
Quote from: relm1 on December 02, 2015, 09:00:21 AM
I find this quote from Igor Stravinsky's autobiography relevant. He discusses the pros and cons of musicians connecting with wider audiences and how with the advent of new technology (he was referring to radio though it could just as easily have been the web) would ultimately weaken the impact of music because it asks less of its audience. Stravinsky convincingly makes the case that the ease that it takes listeners to hear music ultimately deadens their interest in music. What do you think about this? Does effort result in greater appreciation?
Yes, I think effort results in great appreciation, and I'm going expand on that to talk about the lack of effort these days in
acquisition of music.
We've moved from having to hear music live, to having to go through processes to physically acquire music recordings, to easily downloading (including downloading at no cost), to not batting at an eyelid at the fact that people put up entire albums on Youtube, to expecting a streaming service to deliver whatever we want.
Each step along the way increases the chances that people will take music for granted and expect it to be there when they want, in much the same way that we generally don't think about where the water comes from when we turn on a tap.
I read an article a few days ago about how iTunes was driving away its most music-obsessed customers, the people who
collect music and lovingly organise it, by integrating Apple Music - a service that tells you everything you could possibly want is supplied by it and even tended to wreck people's personal libraries in the first place. And it made me realise that's what I am, a music collector. The fact that the world around me is moving towards not owning ANY music beyond marking something as a "favourite" on Spotify fills me with dread. To me, buying music is setting up a relationship, it's a commitment, it's a statement that out of that great seething mass of music and recordings of music, this is the one I've chosen to invite into my home.
So when I talk about the 'effort' of getting to know a piece of music, I'm almost always talking about making that relationship work, having already invited the music into my home.
Quote from: Elgarian on December 02, 2015, 12:50:51 PM
Well, any declaration of what Art is, is immediately suspect. Art seems to have a way of wriggling out of any fixed definition.
Well Nietzsche distinguishes life art and "art of the art works", he doesn't try to declare the latter.
Karl should also have noticed this.
Quote from: Elgarian on December 02, 2015, 12:50:51 PM
Well, any declaration of what Art is, is immediately suspect. Art seems to have a way of wriggling out of any fixed definition.
Isn't art about beauty? Would you deny this?
Really need to do something proper now. I will read your replies tomorrow. :)
Quote from: some guy on December 02, 2015, 12:20:32 PM
I have observed that often (usually) when someone mentions struggling (as a bad thing), it is almost always because there were expectations and those expectations were not fulfilled--or that there was desire for something else. Most of the blaming I see of various composers or styles or schools of music for being wrong or bad or destructive or corrupting is on account of a strong desire for something else.
...
Anyway, I think for a listener, acceptance is key. This is what the composer has done. There's nothing you can do about it. Here it is. It does this thing and that thing, and it does them in spite of any tastes or expectations or desires you may bring to any hearing of it. It's just itself. You can accept that or you can reject it. You can't change it. The best way to go into a confrontation with something new and unfamiliar is to take it as given. There it is. Nothing else matters, certainly not any impertinent expectations or desires. I know for myself that every time I have disliked a piece on first hearing that turns out to be a piece I enjoy eventually, it's because I wanted something other than what I was getting.
Oh my goodness, yes.
This represents hundreds of conversations I've had with people, mostly fellow Tori Amos fans. Mostly when they're complaining that album no.5 or 8 or 11 doesn't sound like the first couple of albums where she sat at the piano and played pretty but devastatingly emotional songs.
And it also represents a conversation with Tori Amos a year ago, where I told her that what I loved most about her music was how each album had a different music language, and how there was a process of understanding what that language was and what the music was doing. And I told her that I would keep being engaged in that process no matter where she 'took' me with each new album, and she gave me an excited hug and said that I was exactly the sort of person that she was creating music for.
To me the essence of good music is that it is true to ITSELF. That it sets out it's own "rules" or "language" and then follows through on that. My number one response to people when they criticise an album or piece of music because it isn't doing this or that is that
it isn't trying to. People generally understand that a drama isn't trying to be screamingly funny and that saying a movie or play is only good when you laugh wouldn't make sense. But when it comes to music people seem less able to grasp that there are different goals and that having overly rigid expectations is a recipe for missing out on some good stuff.
I think everyone has some core "musical values" that are always going to be important to them, but the more abstract and general those values are, the more flexible a listener can be in terms of appreciating different styles and genres and approaches.
Quote from: Henk on December 02, 2015, 12:58:35 PM
Isn't art about beauty? Would you deny this?
I feel like the chap who was asked the way to Timbuctoo, and replied 'well if I were going there I wouldn't start from here...'
I think such a huge topic on the nature of art would be in danger of hijacking this very interesting thread, so maybe it's a discussion that should take place elsewhere?
Quote from: Henk on December 02, 2015, 12:58:35 PM
Isn't art about beauty? Would you deny this?
Depends on what you mean by "beauty". Is
Saving Private Ryan beautiful? The first part of that movie shook me utterly. I don't think it was trying to make me feel good, I think it was trying to make me feel horrible. It did a beautiful job.
Quote from: orfeo on December 02, 2015, 01:11:03 PM
My number one response to people when they criticise an album or piece of music because it isn't doing this or that is that it isn't trying to.
This is what I often say as well.
Also people often don't understand that tastes/preferences can change over time anyway, with a bit of effort it can be broadened. Of course that doesn't mean music can't be criticised, but it should be done based on the creativity within the style it is in, not on biases that nobody cares about except the person expressing them and those who share those biases.
Quote from: karlhenning on December 02, 2015, 12:39:46 PM
Statements like "Art is meant to"--and especially "Art is above all meant to" --strike me as immediately suspect.
Good ol' pietzsche
Nietzsche is the suspect! ;)
Right! Who can say what Art is meant to be or do? From the impulse to create artworks, an impulse going back to the caves apparently, and possibly before, we can deduce a very few things. For example, not everyone wants to create art, or can. Not everyone appreciates art in the same way, or at all.
What was the art in the caves, and we can include music here as well, (given the presence of "Neanderthal flutes"), "meant to do" ? Was it "meant to be" religious, or an aid in telling hunting stories, or _____ (insert your guess)?
For the artists, the reasons for the impulse to create may not be known to them either. Do they struggle? Ask to look at
Beethoven's sketchbooks and see how he treated his initial inspirations! 8)
Quote from: orfeo on December 02, 2015, 01:11:03 PM
Oh my goodness, yes.
This represents hundreds of conversations I've had with people, mostly fellow Tori Amos fans. Mostly when they're complaining that album no.5 or 8 or 11 doesn't sound like the first couple of albums where she sat at the piano and played pretty but devastatingly emotional songs.
And it also represents a conversation with Tori Amos a year ago, where I told her that what I loved most about her music was how each album had a different music language, and how there was a process of understanding what that language was and what the music was doing. And I told her that I would keep being engaged in that process no matter where she 'took' me with each new album, and she gave me an excited hug and said that I was exactly the sort of person that she was creating music for.
To me the essence of good music is that it is true to ITSELF. That it sets out it's own "rules" or "language" and then follows through on that. My number one response to people when they criticise an album or piece of music because it isn't doing this or that is that it isn't trying to. People generally understand that a drama isn't trying to be screamingly funny and that saying a movie or play is only good when you laugh wouldn't make sense. But when it comes to music people seem less able to grasp that there are different goals and that having overly rigid expectations is a recipe for missing out on some good stuff.
I think everyone has some core "musical values" that are always going to be important to them, but the more abstract and general those values are, the more flexible a listener can be in terms of appreciating different styles and genres and approaches.
LOVE this post!
Quote from: karlhenning on December 02, 2015, 12:39:46 PM
Statements like "Art is meant to"--and especially "Art is above all meant to" --strike me as immediately suspect.
+1
Quote from: Henk on December 02, 2015, 12:56:34 PM
Well Nietzsche distinguishes life art and "art of the art works", he doesn't try to declare the latter.
Karl should also have noticed this.
Karl noted that Nietzsche was a creature of his day, not the Prophet.
Quote from: some guy on December 02, 2015, 12:20:32 PM...I have observed that often (usually) when someone mentions struggling (as a bad thing), it is almost always because there were expectations and those expectations were not fulfilled--or that there was desire for something else....Anyway, I think for a listener, acceptance is key. This is what the composer has done. There's nothing you can do about it. Here it is. It does this thing and that thing, and it does them in spite of any tastes or expectations or desires you may bring to any hearing of it. It's just itself. You can accept that or you can reject it. You can't change it. The best way to go into...something new and unfamiliar is to take it as given. There it is. Nothing else matters, certainly not any impertinent expectations or desires....
Excellent observations, very much on point. And this may be true as much for Rossini or Johann Strauss Jr. (both of whom I have disparaged in these forums) as for Schoenberg or Carter.
Quote from: Henk on December 02, 2015, 12:58:35 PM
Isn't art about beauty? Would you deny this?
100%. Art is about making us think, seeing the world a different way, suing images/sound/etc. to make a statement about the world, etc. It can also be about beauty. But think back to the artists hundreds of years ago who were painting images of Christ. They were sometimes beautiful, awful, peaceful, sad, etc. I don't think art (and artists particularly) have ever striven to be one thing.
Quote from: karlhenning on December 02, 2015, 12:39:46 PM
Statements like "Art is meant to"--and especially "Art is above all meant to" --strike me as immediately suspect.
But.....
ART IS MEANT TO BE CREATED!
ART IS MEANT TO EXIST!!!!
A world without it is not a world at all
;D
Quote from: relm1 on December 02, 2015, 09:00:21 AM
"The propagation of music by mechanical means and the broadcasting of music - that represent formidable scientific conquests, which are very likely to spread even more - merit close examination as for their importance and their effects in the domain of music. Of course, the possibility for both authors and performers to reach the masses, and the fact that these masses are able to make themselves acquainted with musical works, represent an unquestionable advantage. However, it cannot be concealed that this advantage is dangerous at the same time. In the past, someone like Johann-Sebastian Bach had to walk ten leagues in order to hear Buxtehude perform his works. Today, any inhabitant of any country simply has to either turn a knob or play a record in order to listen to the piece of his choice. Well! It is in this very incredible easiness, in this very lack of effort that lies the vice of that so-called progress. In music, more than in any other branch of art, comprehension is only given to those who actively contribute to it. In itself, the massive reception is not enough. The listening of certain combinations of sounds, and the automatic growing accustomed to them does not necessarily involve the fact of hearing and grasping them, for one can listen without hearing, the same way one can watch without seeing. What renders people lazy is their lack of active effort and their developing of a liking for this easiness. People no longer need to move about as Bach had to; the radio spares them the traveling. Neither do they absolutely need to make music themselves and to waste time studying an instrument in order to know the musical literature. The radio and the disc take over. As a result, the active faculties, without which music cannot be assimilated, gradually atrophy among the listeners who no longer train them. This gradual paralysis leads to extremely serious consequences. Overwhelmed with sounds, the most varied combinations of which leave them indifferent, people fall into a sort of mindless state, that deprives them of all ability to judge, and renders them indifferent to the very quality of what they are served. In the near future, such disorganized overfeeding is more than likely to make listeners lose their hunger and their liking for music. Indeed, there will always be some exceptions - some people within the hoard will be able to select what they like. However, concerning the masses, one has all the reasons to fear that instead of generating love for and understanding of music, the modern means involved in spreading music will lead absolutely to opposite results; it is to say, they will lead to indifference, to the inability to recognize them, to be guided by them, and to have any reaction of some value." Igor Stravinsky - "Chronicles of My Life" - 1935
Reactionary* hogwash, a bit surprising coming from one of the fathers of modern music ---but truth be told, when Stravinsky put pen to paper for the purpose of writing anything other than music the reuslt was usually jus that: hogwash. ;D ;D ;D
* irrational fear of technical progress, especially when it seems to benefit "the masses" or "the hoard", disguised as deep concern for their spiritual condition.
Quote from: karlhenning on December 02, 2015, 05:00:52 PM
Karl noted that Nietzsche was a creature of his day, not the Prophet.
No, Nietzsche was far ahead of his day. And he changed the world forever.
Quote from: mc ukrneal on December 02, 2015, 05:09:31 PM
100%. Art is about making us think, seeing the world a different way, suing images/sound/etc. to make a statement about the world, etc. It can also be about beauty. But think back to the artists hundreds of years ago who were painting images of Christ. They were sometimes beautiful, awful, peaceful, sad, etc. I don't think art (and artists particularly) have ever striven to be one thing.
Well, as we can define the concept "life" in 45 different ways so art. And "beauty" really is a important element in that way. That's the point.
Quote from: Cato on December 02, 2015, 04:04:23 PM
Good ol' pietzsche Nietzsche is the suspect! ;)
Right! Who can say what Art is meant to be or do? From the impulse to create artworks, an impulse going back to the caves apparently, and possibly before, we can deduce a very few things. For example, not everyone wants to create art, or can. Not everyone appreciates art in the same way, or at all.
What was the art in the caves, and we can include music here as well, (given the presence of "Neanderthal flutes"), "meant to do" ? Was it "meant to be" religious, or an aid in telling hunting stories, or _____ (insert your guess)?
For the artists, the reasons for the impulse to create may not be known to them either. Do they struggle? Ask to look at Beethoven's sketchbooks and see how he treated his initial inspirations! 8)
'
You didn't read that aphorism by Nietzsche it seems. Nietzsche writes some very sensible and useful things. Why not appreciate that?? Why not see if you can follow him, and maybe learn from it? You can have some hesitations, but you must take some things he writes with a grain of salt. Otherwise, you only try to put him of a pedestal. That's not very respectful for the great thinker he was!
Quote from: Henk on December 02, 2015, 12:10:53 PM
Some more Nietzsche:
"THE ART-NEED OF THE SECOND ORDER
The Art-Need of the Second Order. The people may have something of what can be called art-need, but it is small, and can be cheaply satisfied. On the whole, the remnant of art (it must be honestly confessed) suffices for this need. Let us consider, for example, the kind of melodies and songs in which the most vigorous, unspoiled, and true-hearted classes of the population find genuine delight; let us live among shepherds, cowherds, peasants, huntsmen, soldiers, and sailors, and give ourselves the answer. And in the country town, just in the houses that are the homes of inherited civic virtue, is it not the worst music at present produced that is loved and, one might say, cherished?
Some examples would have been in order here, maybe Henk can help with them. Who were the composers loved and cherished in country towns and in which way their music was worse than the melodies or songs which delighted the soldiers and sailors?
QuoteHe who speaks of deeper needs and unsatisfied yearnings for art among the people, as it is, is a crank or an impostor. Be honest! Be honest! Only in exceptional men is there now an art-need in the highest sense — because art is once more on the down-grade, and human powers and hopes are for the time being directed to other matters. Apart from this, outside the populace there exists indeed, in the higher and highest strata of society, a broader and more comprehensive art-need, but of the second order. Here there is a sort of artistic commune, which possibly means to be sincere. But let us look at the elements! They are in general the more refined malcontents, who attain no genuine pleasure in themselves; the cultured, who have not become free enough to dispense with the consolations of religion, and yet do not find its incense sufficiently fragrant; the half-aristocratic, who are too weak to combat by a heroic conversion or renunciation the one fundamental error of their lives or the pernicious bent of their characters; the highly gifted, who think themselves too dignified to be of service by modest activity, and are too lazy for real, self-sacrificing work; girls who cannot create for themselves a satisfactory sphere of duties; women who have tied themselves by a light-hearted or nefarious marriage, and know that they are not tied securely enough; scholars, physicians, merchants, officials who specialised too early and never gave their lives a free enough scope — who do their work efficiently, it is true, but with a worm gnawing at their hearts; finally, all imperfect artists — these are nowadays the true needers of art! What do they really desire from art? Art is to drive away hours and moments of discomfort, boredom, half-bad conscience, and, if possible, transform the faults of their lives and characters into faults of world-destiny.
Spot on, comrade Nietzsche! Down with the false-conscientious bourgeoisie and the decadent aristocracy, up with the most vigorous, unspoiled, and true-hearted classes; power to the shepherds, cowherds, peasants, huntsmen, soldiers, and sailors! ;D ;D ;D
QuoteVery different were the Greeks, who realised in their art the outflow and overflow of their own sense of well-being and health, and loved to see their perfection once more from a standpoint outside themselves. They were led to art by delight in themselves; our contemporaries — by disgust of themselves."
Oh, absolutely. Only the deepest self-disgust could have led Schumann, Brahms, Wagner, Mahler, Bruckner, Cesar Franck, Berlioz, Liszt, Tchaikovsky, Dvorak, Verdi, Richard Strauss, Sibelius, Rachmaninoff, Scriabin (to name a few of Nietzsche´s contemporaries) to write the music they wrote...
Quote from: Florestan on December 03, 2015, 12:06:48 AM
Reactionary* hogwash, a bit surprising coming from one of the fathers of modern music ---but truth be told, when Stravinsky put pen to paper for the purpose of writing anything other than music the reuslt was usually jus that: hogwash. ;D ;D ;D
* irrational fear of technical progress, especially when it seems to benefit "the masses" or "the hoard", disguised as deep concern for their spiritual condition.
The point was not about technological progress but was about passive listening resulting in less comprehension since music is slow to reveal its secrets and meaning and taking effort to comprehend. The result being a cycle of dumbing down.
Quote from: Cato on December 02, 2015, 04:04:23 PM
Good ol' pietzsche Nietzsche is the suspect! ;)
You can have your critisism and hold your own views. But what you say here, makes me deeply hate you. And saying it jokingly makes it only worse, poor Hamish.
The same feeling Schnabel had with the guy dressed in a t-shirt and eating his sandwich not trying to listen to the Beethoven Schnabel performed for him. But maybe even in a higher order. I expressed my view of it some posts ago.
Disgust and angriness I feel for you.
Henk
Quote from: relm1 on December 03, 2015, 01:10:14 AM
The point was not about technological progress but was about passive listening resulting in less comprehension since music is slow to reveal its secrets and meaning and taking effort to comprehend. The result being a cycle of dumbing down.
This point is moot as well, because, if anything, recorded music
enables people to repeatedly listen to a work, thus
enhancing the opportunity to penetrate its secrets and meaning. I find the idea that the advent of recorded music set in motion a dumbing down cycle completely out of touch with reality.
Besides, what is meant by "passive listening"? How, and why, is listening to a CD while sitting in one's armchair and having a drink any more passive than sitting stiff and still for two hours in a concert hall?
Quote from: Henk on December 03, 2015, 01:55:20 AM
Disgust and angriness I feel for you.
You're way out of line. But my feelings are untouched.
Quote from: Florestan on December 03, 2015, 12:42:48 AM
Some examples would have been in order here, maybe Henk can help with them.
Let me suffice to quote another aphorism (the aphorism that follows the earlier aphorism AGAINST THE ART OF WORKS OF ART in his book "Human, all too Human", part 2 "Miscellaneous Maxims and Opinions")
Continued Existence of Art. Why, really, does a creative art nowadays continue to exist? Because the majority who have hours of leisure (and such an art is for them only) think that they cannot fill Up their time without music, theatres and picture galleries, novels and poetry. Granted that one could keep them from this indulgence, either they would strive less eagerly for leisure, and the invidious sight of the rich would be less common (a great gain for the stability of society), or they would have leisure, but would learn to reflect on what can be learnt and unlearnt: on their work, for instance, their associations, the pleasure they could bestow. All the world, with the exception of the artist, would in both cases reap the advantage.
Certainly, there are many vigorous, sensible readers who could take objection to this. Still, it must be said on behalf of the coarse and malignant that the author himself is concerned with this protest, and that there is in his book much to be read that is not actually written down therein.
Quote from: karlhenning on December 03, 2015, 02:03:01 AM
You're way out of line. But my feelings are untouched.
It's what I feel, Karl.
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on December 02, 2015, 11:57:42 AM
;D :D ;D
I haven't contributed to this thread, and I hesitate now...but yes, I struggle with your "Concord Jail" :( I will continue the struggle, though, until it becomes struggle-free :D ;)
Sarge
I meant to add, too, that I appreciate your telling me of the struggle!
Quote from: karlhenning on December 03, 2015, 02:03:01 AM
You're way out of line. But my feelings are untouched.
You seem indeed the bully of these forums as another poster accused you a long time ago. Starting to become fed up with you now really.
It really is not as witty as you may think of yourself.
No sign of kindness since a long time from you. You must hate me..
Quote from: Henk on December 03, 2015, 02:03:18 AM
Let me suffice to quote another aphorism (the aphorism that follows the earlier aphorism AGAINST THE ART OF WORKS OF ART in his book "Human, all too Human", part 2 "Miscellaneous Maxims and Opinions")
Continued Existence of Art. Why, really, does a creative art nowadays continue to exist? Because the majority who have hours of leisure (and such an art is for them only) think that they cannot fill Up their time without music, theatres and picture galleries, novels and poetry. Granted that one could keep them from this indulgence, either they would strive less eagerly for leisure, and the invidious sight of the rich would be less common (a great gain for the stability of society), or they would have leisure, but would learn to reflect on what can be learnt and unlearnt: on their work, for instance, their associations, the pleasure they could bestow. All the world, with the exception of the artist, would in both cases reap the advantage. Certainly, there are many vigorous, sensible readers who could take objection to this. Still, it must be said on behalf of the coarse and malignant that the author himself is concerned with this protest, and that there is in his book much to be read that is not actually written down therein.
This doesn't even begin to address my question, which I restate: who were the composers loved and cherished in country towns and in which way their music was worse than the melodies or songs which delighted the soldiers and sailors?
Quote from: Henk on December 03, 2015, 01:55:20 AM
Disgust and angriness I feel for you.
Quote from: Henk on December 03, 2015, 02:10:26 AM
You seem indeed the bully of these forums as another poster accused you a long time ago. Starting to become fed up with you now really.
Yeah, that must be it - people should just accept it when you say they are disgusting, otherwise they are bullies!
Quote from: Florestan on December 03, 2015, 01:59:57 AM
How, and why, is listening to a CD while sitting in one's armchair and having a drink any more passive than sitting stiff and still for two hours in a concert hall?
The great majority of people don't actually put a CD on, sit in an armchair and just listen to it while having a drink. Most people fill that time with other activities. Members of this forum are probably not typical in that they are far more likely to make listening to the music the primary activity.
EDIT: Henk, I haven't paid much attention to the Nietzsche discussion until now, but the only person appearing to a be a bully in the last couple of pages is you, attacking anyone who doesn't agree with you how about how wonderful Nietzsche is. It is not edifying.
Quote from: orfeo on December 03, 2015, 03:03:03 AM
The great majority of people don't actually put a CD on, sit in an armchair and just listen to it while having a drink. Most people fill that time with other activities.
True. I do that as well. But if the music is good / interesting enough it will by itself ask for full attention. The latest such experience I had was with Manuel Blasco de Nebra's keyboard sonatas: I thought they'd make for a nice sonic wallpaper while browsing GMG but very soon I found myself doing nothing but listening in awe. And even if such extreme attention-calling does not usually occur, a musical idea, a twist of a phrase, an appealing tune, an unexpected change of rhythm or something else may spark my interest and the desire to hear that music again and in a more focused manner. I'm sure this is not only my experience but a very common one among classical music lovers. The alternative is to wait until there is time and mood and opportunity to listen to music at home or at work as if one were in a concert hall, that is, to delay such listening perhaps indefinitely.
Quote from: Henk on December 03, 2015, 12:32:45 AM
'
You didn't read that aphorism by Nietzsche it seems. Nietzsche writes some very sensible and useful things. Why not appreciate that?? Why not see if you can follow him, and maybe learn from it? You can have some hesitations, but you must take some things he writes with a grain of salt. Otherwise, you only try to put him of a pedestal. That's not very respectful for the great thinker he was!
Greetings! Your original quotation is not an aphorism. It is highly questionable that
Nietzsche was a "great" thinker: he undoubtedly had a great influence later in the 19th and early 20th century, and that influence was not necessarily positive. I found him interesting, but in the end his "philosophy" rests on contradicting earlier philosophers, and then itself becomes at times contradictory, at times irrational, and often pontificating.
One hates to disagree with
Stravinsky's skepticism of technology's influence on Music, but
Florestan's observations about the positive effects of technology are on target. I gasp in dismay at the thought of using piano reductions to enjoy a
Beethoven symphony, instead of cranking up my stereo system with the
Cleveland Orchestra!
Quote from: Cato on December 03, 2015, 03:29:47 AM
Greetings! Your original quotation is not an aphorism. It is highly questionable that Nietzsche was a "great" thinker: he undoubtedly had a great influence later in the 19th and early 20th century, and that influence was not necessarily positive. I found him interesting, but in the end his "philosophy" rests on contradicting earlier philosophers, and then itself becomes at times contradictory, at times irrational, and often pontificating.
One hates to disagree with Stravinsky's skepticism of technology's influence on Music, but Florestan's observations about the positive effects of technology are on target. I gasp in dismay at the thought of using piano reductions to enjoy a Beethoven symphony, instead of cranking up my stereo system with the Cleveland Orchestra!
The really problematic passive listening, I think (and if this were what
Игорь Фëдорович had in view, it is not clear) is, not
Andrei's example of deliberate (and relaxed) listening to a recording, but the environmental blanket-broadcasting of a sonic backdrop. With music everywhere, one is at risk of growing numb to it. Of course, individuals of intelligence and taste are much less at any like risk 8)
Quote from: karlhenning on December 03, 2015, 03:34:12 AM
The really problematic passive listening, I think (and if this were what Игорь Фëдорович had in view, it is not clear) is, not Andrei's example of deliberate (and relaxed) listening to a recording, but the environmental blanket-broadcasting of a sonic backdrop. With music everywhere, one is at risk of growing numb to it. Of course, individuals of intelligence and taste are much less at any like risk 8)
I suspect that such blanketing is probably what
Stravinsky feared. ( I recall an interview with
Honegger who complained of radios everywhere with accordion music driving him batty! :laugh: )
"Elevator music" and ubiquitous "rock music" in stores are the curses of our age. For some reason, Kroger's (a grocery store chain here in Ohio) uses bad saxophone "jazz" in their stores. Maybe it's cheap.
I can't drink and listen to music. Too much of a struggle.
Quote from: Cato on December 03, 2015, 03:49:50 AMFor some reason, Kroger's (a grocery store chain here in Ohio) uses bad saxophone "jazz" in their stores. Maybe it's cheap.
:laugh: I'm reasonably sure that the price of playing music in grocery stores is a smaller factor than how it affects shopping behaviour.
Quote from: ComposerOfAvantGarde on December 03, 2015, 03:52:47 AM
I can't drink and listen to music. Too much of a struggle.
Try using a straw. 0:)
Quote from: North Star on December 03, 2015, 03:54:09 AM
:laugh: I'm reasonably sure that the price of playing music in grocery stores is a smaller factor than how it affects shopping behaviour.
Heh-heh! In my case, the "bad saxophone jazz" makes me want to leave faster! 8)
Quote from: ComposerOfAvantGarde on December 03, 2015, 03:52:47 AM
I can't drink and listen to music. Too much of a struggle.
8) Depending on the composer, his music might drive you to drink! 8)
I can't listen to Stockhausen anymore. The hangovers the next day are post-nuclear.
Quote from: Cato on December 03, 2015, 03:29:47 AM
Greetings! Your original quotation is not an aphorism. It is highly questionable that Nietzsche was a "great" thinker: he undoubtedly had a great influence later in the 19th and early 20th century, and that influence was not necessarily positive. I found him interesting, but in the end his "philosophy" rests on contradicting earlier philosophers, and then itself becomes at times contradictory, at times irrational, and often pontificating.
One hates to disagree with Stravinsky's skepticism of technology's influence on Music, but Florestan's observations about the positive effects of technology are on target. I gasp in dismay at the thought of using piano reductions to enjoy a Beethoven symphony, instead of cranking up my stereo system with the Cleveland Orchestra!
Do you think you are an authority to say these kind of things? In fact, you are rather a nasty midget. Once more, I hate you.
Quote from: North Star on December 03, 2015, 02:20:41 AM
Yeah, that must be it - people should just accept it when you say they are disgusting, otherwise they are bullies!
You can only back up each other.
Quote from: Henk on December 03, 2015, 04:31:09 AM
In fact, you are rather a nasty midget. Once more, I hate you.
You realize that this only reflects poorly on yourself?
Your hatred touches us not.
Quote from: Henk on December 03, 2015, 04:31:09 AMDo you think you are an authority to say these kind of things? In fact, you are rather a nasty midget. Once more, I hate you.
Lay off the
Nietzsche!
Quote from: Brian on December 03, 2015, 04:40:20 AM
Please take your medication.
Quote from: Cato on December 03, 2015, 03:29:47 AM
and that influence was not necessarily positive.
What do think Cato is referring to.. He blames Nietzsche for causing the Holocaust?
Quote from: karlhenning on December 03, 2015, 04:37:17 AM
You realize that this only reflects poorly on yourself?
Your hatred touches us not.
Yeah you are a bullying robot! Now it's finally clear to me..
Quote from: Henk on December 03, 2015, 04:45:46 AM
What do think Cato is referring to.. He blames Nietzsche for causing the Holocaust?
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3b/Paris_Tuileries_Garden_Facepalm_statue.jpg)
Quote from: Henk on December 03, 2015, 04:46:32 AM
Yeah you are a bullying robot! Now it's finally clear to me..
You will forgive my suggesting that, as far as our several characters are concerned, nothing is clear to you.
relm1, that Stravinsky quote has a whole lot going on, and I decided to break it down...
Quote from: relm1 on December 02, 2015, 09:00:21 AM
"The propagation of music by mechanical means and the broadcasting of music - that represent formidable scientific conquests, which are very likely to spread even more - merit close examination as for their importance and their effects in the domain of music.
The first thought that occurs to
me is that, at the time Stravinsky wrote this (1935), "mechanical means" did constrict music in many ways: poor sound quality for one thing, and short record playing times necessitating cuts.
Quote from: relm1 on December 02, 2015, 09:00:21 AM
In the past, someone like Johann-Sebastian Bach had to walk ten leagues in order to hear Buxtehude perform his works. Today, any inhabitant of any country simply has to either turn a knob or play a record in order to listen to the piece of his choice. Well! It is in this very incredible easiness, in this very lack of effort that lies the vice of that so-called progress.
There is, of course, an element of truth here: I can pull up Beethoven and listen right now; not so in 1818. But there is also an element of "in my day we walked to school in the snow uphill both ways". For example, I doubt that any home listener in the 1700s, other than say Charles Burney, developed a really deep appreciation of any orchestral work - the way that we'd develop an appreciation today, with the aid of recordings.
Quote from: relm1 on December 02, 2015, 09:00:21 AM
In music, more than in any other branch of art, comprehension is only given to those who actively contribute to it.
I don't think that "comprehension" and active listening are historically very important, however. When Stravinsky was writing, I'd argue that those concepts were in fact relatively new! Certainly, "comprehension" was not in mind for French court composers writing divertimenti, or Vivaldi composing for his school charges. And moreover, up through the mid-1800s, audience-goers were not the listeners Stravinsky would have desired: churchgoers who were there for the worship, churchgoers who were there resentfully because they were required to attend, socialites noisily gossiping and seducing each other. I think it's an Austen novel where one of the girls complains that her trip to the opera was a failure, because she had to listen to the music!
Quote from: relm1 on December 02, 2015, 09:00:21 AM
Neither do they absolutely need to make music themselves and to waste time studying an instrument in order to know the musical literature.
THIS is true - not playing an instrument is something where I feel like I'm missing out, a lot. And certainly a major change over the past 100 years.
Quote from: relm1 on December 02, 2015, 09:00:21 AM
In the near future, such disorganized overfeeding is more than likely to make listeners lose their hunger and their liking for music. Indeed, there will always be some exceptions - some people within the hoard will be able to select what they like. However, concerning the masses, one has all the reasons to fear that instead of generating love for and understanding of music, the modern means involved in spreading music will lead absolutely to opposite results; it is to say, they will lead to indifference, to the inability to recognize them, to be guided by them, and to have any reaction of some value." Igor Stravinsky - "Chronicles of My Life" - 1935
This is a subject where we can have a pretty interesting discussion. People do still, of course, care a lot about good music. But certainly in pop music, standards have plummeted: consistent beats, monotonous dynamic levels, three Swedish guys writing every single pop song. And the recording quality is abysmal. Nevertheless, between Stravinsky's time and Katy Perry's, we got the Beatles, the Stones, John Coltrane, Nina Simone...eh, you get the idea.
Also, I don't think "pop music" was ever something that really required active listening and deep musical knowledge. If they were playing music at a tavern in 1840, you probably got up to dance to it.
Quote from: Brian on December 03, 2015, 04:57:21 AM
Also, I don't think "pop music" was ever something that really required active listening and deep musical knowledge. If they were playing music at a tavern in 1840, you probably got up to dance to it.
Or sang along.
I really could kill Cato. Leaving the Holocaust aside (though I have no idea what he is referring too otherwise), his remarks are so disrespectful, malicious and stupid. And then to realize he thinks even high of himself.
Quote from: Henk on December 03, 2015, 04:31:09 AM
Do you think you are an authority to say these kind of things?
As a classicist who has read philosophers in Latin and Ancient Greek, and as someone who has studied several books by
Nietzsche in the original German, and as a person with above-average intelligence, yes, I am an authority! 0:)
If you find value in
Nietzsche, fine. Yet keep in mind that he was possessed by an out-of-control ego, and as such needs to be understood delicately, the way one understands a slightly dotty great-uncle. Fascinating stories and ideas, Uncle Fred, but do they convey valid truths about the human experience? $:)
Quote from: Henk on December 03, 2015, 05:02:14 AM
I really could kill Cato. Leaving the Holocaust aside (though I have no idea what he is referring too otherwise), his remarks are so disrespectful, malicious and stupid. And then to realize he thinks even high of himself.
Seriously, do you even think what you write?
Unfriended you all, Hamish, Brian, Karl and Karlo on Facebook. (there seems to be some kind correlation, since the ones bullying me here are the ones I was friends with on FB)
I don't want to be friends with barbarians.
I see signs of a struggle, here. Unmusical, to be sure.
Quote from: karlhenning on December 03, 2015, 05:13:32 AM
I see signs of a struggle, here. Unmusical, to be sure.
Yeah, Karl, let your struggle with music continue. You're on the right board.
From GMG Forum Rules (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,5.0.html)
"Please treat other members of this forum with courtesy and respect. By all means, discuss and argue the topic at hand, but do not make personal attacks, belittle, make fun of, or insult another member."
Quote from: Henk on December 03, 2015, 05:08:16 AM
Unfriended you all, Hamish, Brian, Karl and Karlo on Facebook. (there seems to be some kind correlation, since the ones bullying me here are the ones I was friends with on FB)
I don't want to be friends with barbarians.
Quote from: Henk on December 03, 2015, 05:02:14 AM
I really could kill Cato. Leaving the Holocaust aside (though I have no idea what he is referring too otherwise), his remarks are so disrespectful, malicious and stupid. And then to realize he thinks even high of himself.
Quote from: Henk on December 03, 2015, 04:46:32 AM
Yeah you are a bullying robot! Now it's finally clear to me..
Quote from: Henk on December 03, 2015, 04:31:09 AM
Do you think you are an authority to say these kind of things? In fact, you are rather a nasty midget. Once more, I hate you.
Quote from: Brian on December 03, 2015, 05:16:11 AM
From GMG Forum Rules (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,5.0.html)
"Please treat other members of this forum with courtesy and respect. By all means, discuss and argue the topic at hand, but do not make personal attacks, belittle, make fun of, or insult another member."
You are bullying me, not the other way around.
Just defending myself against you all.
Another sign of weakness, Brian.
Henk, no-one is bullying you. As I said previously, without any stake in this Nietzsche commentary, you are the one who is coming across as extremely nasty and aggressive.
Quote from: orfeo on December 03, 2015, 05:19:13 AM
Henk, no-one is bullying you. As I said previously, without any stake in this Nietzsche commentary, you are the one who is coming across as extremely nasty and aggressive.
Easy to clean up the behaviour of others in this way, since everybody here of course suits to agree with you.
Yeah, instead of bullying it is to be considered as signs of distinction and intelligence..
Quote from: orfeo on December 03, 2015, 05:19:13 AM
Henk, no-one is bullying you. As I said previously, without any stake in this Nietzsche commentary, you are the one who is coming across as extremely nasty and aggressive.
If Henk can point out places where (to quote the forum rules) Cato or Karl "make personal attacks, belittle, make fun of, or insult another member," he is more than welcome to point them out, or report them for moderator action (as I have reported several of his posts).
On (once again) closely reading through the thread, what I see is that Cato disagreed with
Nietzsche, and called
Nietzsche a name, and in response to that post, Henk wrote a series of replies, which started off acceptably but quickly became:
Quote from: Henk on December 03, 2015, 01:55:20 AMBut what you say here, makes me deeply hate you.
Disgust and angriness I feel for you.
Henk
At this point, Cato had not addressed Henk personally at all. Then Karl said:
Quote from: karlhenning on December 03, 2015, 02:03:01 AM
You're way out of line. But my feelings are untouched.
ie, "You're violating forum rules" (perhaps true) and "don't worry, I don't hate you" (polite!! however, accidentally phrased so that an English-as-second-language person could easily misinterpret this politeness as a joke)
Nevertheless, Henk replied saying Karl is a big dumb bully.
The only person other than Henk guilty of a personal attack was me, and I have deleted it.
The original discussion on "Music and struggling" was GREAT and it would be great if we could continue it without personal attacks. Let's try to hit the "Restart" button soon, shall we??
Quote from: Brian on December 03, 2015, 05:27:27 AM
At this point, Cato had not addressed Henk personally at all.
Yeah, that seems to be his tactic.
It's not that Cato did personally address me. It's just his arrogance. Part of it he said really malicious things considering Nietzsche, which makes it for me of arrogance of a higher order, for which I have no suitable words.
Quote from: Henk on December 03, 2015, 05:35:44 AM
It's not that Cato did personally address me. It's just his arrogance. Part of it he said really malicious things considering Nietzsche, which makes it for me of arrogance of a higher order, for which I have no suitable words.
Hey, that's fair. That's understandable. But saying you want him to die is not an OK response. That should be obvious.
Quote from: Brian on December 03, 2015, 04:57:21 AM
THIS is true - not playing an instrument is something where I feel like I'm missing out, a lot. And certainly a major change over the past 100 years.
Yes, that is the only part of that Stravinsky paragraph that I can relate to.
Quote from: Brian on December 03, 2015, 05:39:48 AM
Hey, that's fair. That's understandable. But saying you want him to die is not an OK response. That should be obvious.
You also need to include the bullying that was involved. Hamish was the subject to focus my aggression on as a consequence.
Quote from: Henk on December 03, 2015, 05:43:22 AM
You also need to include the bullying that was involved. Hamish was the subject to focus my aggression on as a consequence.
Nietzsche is a historical figure, and if anyone speaks critically of Nietzsche, and you get wound up over it, that problem resides completely with yourself.
This need to assign arrogance to any other person seems like an obsession. Look in a mirror, buddy.
Others have observed that Hamish did not bully you in the least. But you do rightly acknowledge your own aggression; wish you weren't so determined to rationalize it, and that you would just apologize, and be done with it.
Quote from: Henk on December 03, 2015, 05:24:18 AM
Easy to clean up the behaviour of others in this way, since everybody here of course suits to agree with you.
Agrees with me on what? I haven't expressed any opinion on Nietzsche one way or the other. That's my point, that I don't have a stake in whether people agree or don't agree with Nietzsche's point of view.
What I do have an opinion on is your behaviour in this thread, that it is aggressive and disruptive. If that's what you're referring to everybody agreeing with me on, there's a real possibility that when you find yourself completely alone on one side of an issue it's because you're the one in the wrong.
I'm a huge fan of Stravinsky; the fact that Andrei has quarrels with something (or some number of somethings) Stravinsky said, even the fact that Andrei expresses himself with a degree of familiar scorn, does not bother me in the least, certainly does not interfere with my friendship with Andrei. Andrei making himself free to criticize things that Stravinsky said does not in the least indicate "arrogance" on Andrei's part.
But, Andrei, you're dead wrong.
(Just kidding.)
Quote from: karlhenning on December 03, 2015, 05:46:00 AM
Nietzsche is a historical figure, and if anyone speaks critically of Nietzsche, and you get wound up over it, that problem resides completely with yourself.
This need to assign arrogance to any other person seems like an obsession. Look in a mirror, buddy.
Others have observed that Hamish did not bully you in the least. But you do rightly acknowledge your own aggression; wish you weren't so determined to rationalize it, and that you would just apologize, and be done with it.
Weak words, but ok let bygones be bygones.
Quote from: orfeo on December 03, 2015, 05:54:34 AM
Agrees with me on what? I haven't expressed any opinion on Nietzsche one way or the other. That's my point, that I don't have a stake in whether people agree or don't agree with Nietzsche's point of view.
What I do have an opinion on is your behaviour in this thread, that it is aggressive and disruptive. If that's what you're referring to everybody agreeing with me on, there's a real possibility that when you find yourself completely alone on one side of an issue it's because you're the one in the wrong.
Agree on that nobody bullied me.
If you can't reward my sense of humour, that's fine. I agree on you with the latest. I also have doubts about that myself, if it leads to something good. Of course I reflect on it, and thanks for your feedback. Everyone needs feedback and I got little here. Reason why I always consider leaving this group. Maybe I just want to leave in a victorious way.. :)
Back to the actual topic . . . I want to talk a little about Elgar.
I've been a fan forever of the Violin Sonata and of the Violin and Cello Concerti. It would not be quite right to say that I struggled to like the Symphonies (musically, I believe I understood them all right) but, somehow, they didn't sing to me. I do not exactly know why, at last, I enjoy them very well . . . and again, I am certainly not aware of any struggling going on.
Who on Earth is Hamish, I wonder?
I don't have any stake in the whole Nietzsche kerfuffle either but it seems to me to be a case of a heavy storm in glass of water. Henk, if you take Nietzsche's word as the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth on all matters art and music it's okay. It's not okay to feel personally and deeply offended if other people do not do the same and express criticism directed at Nietzsche's ideas --- ideas, not person, mind you. Had anyone of your opponents wrote that Nietzsche was not, and could not be, right because he was a madman, or a super-egotistic bordering to narcissism, it could have been interpreted as maligning him, even if the two statements are rigorously true. All that they said is that Nietzsche was a child of his time, that one should not take Nietzsche's pronouncements as the last word on the matter and that, given his personality, at least a minimal amount of critical thinking is required in order to sort out the good from the bad in his writings. I fail to see why all this (which, by the way, common-sense dictates that apply to each and every thinker out there, not only Nietzsche) should have triggered your (over)reaction. I mean, come on: hate, disgust, kill? whoever does not agree with you (actually, with your idol) is a despicable, bully ignoramus not worth living? Really? Can you produce one single quotation from Nietzsche supporting this stance?
And no, by writing this I'm neither bullying you nor supporting other bullies (because there are none in the room). I just had to write it.
Quote from: karlhenning on December 03, 2015, 06:00:54 AM
Andrei, you're dead wrong.
It wouldn't be the first time, nor will it be the last. :D
Quote from: Florestan on December 03, 2015, 06:10:19 AM
It wouldn't be the first time, nor will it be the last. :D
We're all wrong sometime or other 0:)
Quote from: karlhenning on December 03, 2015, 06:12:58 AM
We're all wrong sometime or other 0:)
As a Romanian writer and
causeur once said, the difference between an idiot and an intelligent man is that the latter is wrong every now and then while the former is wrong every time. :D
Quote from: Florestan on December 03, 2015, 06:06:32 AM
Who on Earth is Hamish, I wonder?
I don't have any stake in the whole Nietzsche kerfuffle either but it seems to me to be a case of a heavy storm in glass of water. Henk, if you take Nietzsche's word as the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth on all matters art and music it's okay. It's not okay to feel personally and deeply offended if other people do not do the same and express criticism directed at Nietzsche's ideas --- ideas, not person, mind you. Had anyone of your opponents wrote that Nietzsche was not, and could not be, right because he was a madman, or a super-egotistic bordering to narcissism, it could have been interpreted as maligning him, even if the two statements are rigorously true. All that they said is that Nietzsche was a child of his time, that one should not take Nietzsche's pronouncements as the last word on the matter and that, given his personality, at least a minimal amount of critical thinking is required in order to sort out the good from the bad in his writings. I fail to see why all this (which, by the way, common-sense dictates that apply to each and every thinker out there, not only Nietzsche) should have triggered your (over)reaction. I mean, come on: hate, disgust, kill? whoever does not agree with you (actually, with your idol) is a despicable, bully ignoramus not worth living? Really? Can you produce one single quotation from Nietzsche supporting this stance?
And no, by writing this I'm neither bullying you nor supporting other bullies (because there are none in the room). I just had to write it.
Cato is Hamish.
Thanks for the feedback (which makes if different from bullying). I have no problem that people don't agree with Nietzsche, as I wrote. It's rather the way in which Cato expresses it.
Quote from: Brian on December 03, 2015, 05:16:11 AM
From GMG Forum Rules (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,5.0.html)
"Please treat other members of this forum with courtesy and respect. By all means, discuss and argue the topic at hand, but do not make personal attacks, belittle, make fun of, or insult another member."
Henk, I have taken time to read through the pages here that have given rise to these exchanges amongst which are posts of yours which have been reported by two members.
Brian has really done the moderator job here and everyone has been both rational and patient with you. No one has even approached a bullying attitude towards you. I will write separately to you, but am putting this here so that all can see that the reports are being actioned.
1) Any more of these over the top reactions from you will be deleted.
2) Any post with a personal insult in it will be deleted in its entirety.
2) If there are more, you will be put onto a watch list which will require a mod to pass and post every contribution you make until your posting returns to normal.
USUALLY I WOULD HAVE AMENDED OR DELETED THE OFFENDING POSTS, WHICH THOROUGHLY FLOUT THE RULES. I LEAVE THEM HERE, AS THEY HAVE BEEN SO EXTENSIVELY QUOTED.
Knight
Quote from: knight66 on December 03, 2015, 06:16:38 AM
USUALLY I WOULD HAVE AMENDED OR DELETED THE OFFENDING POSTS, WHICH THOROUGHLY FLOUT THE RULES. I LEAVE THEM HERE, AS THEY HAVE BEEN SO EXTENSIVELY QUOTED.
Knight
I know what this means. And I don't agree with how I am treated. If you all think I'm a barbarian (considering how the policy is interpreted and executed), then yes, it's better to leave.
Quote from: Florestan on December 03, 2015, 06:15:01 AM
. . . while the former is wrong every time. :D
You think that's
easy? ? ? 8)
Quote from: Henk on December 03, 2015, 06:20:54 AM
I know what this means. And I don't agree with how I am treated. If you all think I'm a barbarian (considering how the policy is interpreted and executed), then yes, it's better to leave.
No one has asked you to leave, no one has suggested that you are a barbarian. Your language is very extreme. Now, I have written to you and suggest that, rather than make matters worse, you take the suggestions I have given to you.
Tomorrow is another day that can start with a clean sheet.
Knight
Quote from: karlhenning on December 03, 2015, 06:05:47 AM
Back to the actual topic . . . I want to talk a little about Elgar.
I've been a fan forever of the Violin Sonata and of the Violin and Cello Concerti. It would not be quite right to say that I struggled to like the Symphonies (musically, I believe I understood them all right) but, somehow, they didn't sing to me. I do not exactly know why, at last, I enjoy them very well . . . and again, I am certainly not aware of any struggling going on.
Although I arrived to the Violin Sonata after the symphonies, I can sympathize here.
But once again, struggling, with all its negative connotations, isn't really what we're after. When we expose ourselves to a work of art and it has an effect on us, our reaction to it will change over repeated exposure. With works that have staying power, the 'struggle' gives way to a deeper understanding of and harmony with it. If you start jogging 30 minutes every morning and are in very poor shape as you start, it's going to take a while before you will be able to run the whole time without stopping for breath. After a while, you'll be able to run at a faster pace, for a longer time, and in more difficult terrain - and if you run the same course several times, you will become familiar with the road, terrain and views along it. I guess it depends on the person whether they enjoy this 'struggle', or don't even try it.
Similarly, listening equips us for more and better listening.
Quote from: knight66 on December 03, 2015, 06:34:36 AM
No one has asked you to leave, no one has suggested that you are a barbarian. Your language is very extreme. Now, I have written to you and suggest that, rather than make matters worse, you take the suggestions I have given to you.
Tomorrow is another day that can start with a clean sheet.
Knight
As I wrote you, I just concluded I don't fit in this group and will spend my time in other ways. I feel also people don't really appreciate my presence here. Maybe it has grown that way and I'm part to blame, I can live with what orfeo wrote. As a consequence that I don't fit here, I think I'm not treated fair. But therefor, let's not blame each other. However I can't stand Hamish behaviour.
I just don't fit in here anymore now.
Henk, I have written behind the scenes again; ultimately it is your decision, but no one is pushing you or excluding you.
Regards,
Knight
Quote from: Brian on December 03, 2015, 04:57:21 AM
relm1, that Stravinsky quote has a whole lot going on, and I decided to break it down...
The first thought that occurs to me is that, at the time Stravinsky wrote this (1935), "mechanical means" did constrict music in many ways: poor sound quality for one thing, and short record playing times necessitating cuts.
There is, of course, an element of truth here: I can pull up Beethoven and listen right now; not so in 1818. But there is also an element of "in my day we walked to school in the snow uphill both ways". For example, I doubt that any home listener in the 1700s, other than say Charles Burney, developed a really deep appreciation of any orchestral work - the way that we'd develop an appreciation today, with the aid of recordings.
I don't think that "comprehension" and active listening are historically very important, however. When Stravinsky was writing, I'd argue that those concepts were in fact relatively new! Certainly, "comprehension" was not in mind for French court composers writing divertimenti, or Vivaldi composing for his school charges. And moreover, up through the mid-1800s, audience-goers were not the listeners Stravinsky would have desired: churchgoers who were there for the worship, churchgoers who were there resentfully because they were required to attend, socialites noisily gossiping and seducing each other. I think it's an Austen novel where one of the girls complains that her trip to the opera was a failure, because she had to listen to the music!
THIS is true - not playing an instrument is something where I feel like I'm missing out, a lot. And certainly a major change over the past 100 years.
This is a subject where we can have a pretty interesting discussion. People do still, of course, care a lot about good music. But certainly in pop music, standards have plummeted: consistent beats, monotonous dynamic levels, three Swedish guys writing every single pop song. And the recording quality is abysmal. Nevertheless, between Stravinsky's time and Katy Perry's, we got the Beatles, the Stones, John Coltrane, Nina Simone...eh, you get the idea.
Also, I don't think "pop music" was ever something that really required active listening and deep musical knowledge. If they were playing music at a tavern in 1840, you probably got up to dance to it.
Fair points. Did you hear about the study that most young people (say in their 20's or younger) believe MP3 to be superior fidelity to CD or uncompressed since they grew up with that technology as the basis of what they always hear? As the web generation gets older it could be that quality audio reproduction wont be the highly sought after commodity it's seen as today. Formats like SACD and DVD Audio (and even the humble CD) shrink further into obscurity, but sadly not because they're considered too bulky and inconvenient but simply because they just sound too true to life.
Quote from: Henk on December 03, 2015, 06:43:05 AM
However I can't stand Hamish behaviour.
Many moons ago "
Nietzsche is Pietzsche" (Nietzsche is peachy) was sold on buttons and was not seen as an insult to
Nietzsche or anyone else.
I am not sure what sort of "behavior" is exhibited in not accepting
Nietzsche's ideas as very valid. There is a fairly good list of philosophers and others who saw little validity in them,
George Santayana is among them.
Back to the topic!
Quote from: North Star on December 03, 2015, 06:41:34 AM
But once again, struggling, with all its negative connotations, isn't really what we're after. When we expose ourselves to a work of art and it has an effect on us, our reaction to it will change over repeated exposure. With works that have staying power, the 'struggle' gives way to a deeper understanding of and harmony with it.
Similarly, listening equips us for more and better listening.
I had a similar comment yesterday, which might have been lost in the kerfluffle:
QuoteVery nice idea, and there is an adjacent phenomenon, where one believes that the old warhorse "has nothing left to say," and so one ignores it, or even rejects it as unworthy of a visit. And then, one day, one hears it again, and everything about it is like new: perhaps a young conductor has somehow invigorated it or simply the passage of time has changed one's ears. But there it is, a Schubert Eighth or a Tchaikovsky Fourth or a von Suppe' overture, and suddenly one wonders why the earlier rejection had ever occurred!
Quote from: knight66 on December 03, 2015, 06:45:30 AM
Henk, I have written behind the scenes again; ultimately it is your decision, but no one is pushing you or excluding you.
Regards,
Knight
On basis of a personal evaluation I will leave now. Part of it is that I have too little interaction with members. I won't be that dramatic to cancel my account however. Maybe I will come back later, maybe I won't.
Quote from: karlhenning on December 03, 2015, 06:05:47 AM
Back to the actual topic . . . I want to talk a little about Elgar.
I've been a fan forever of the Violin Sonata and of the Violin and Cello Concerti. It would not be quite right to say that I struggled to like the Symphonies (musically, I believe I understood them all right) but, somehow, they didn't sing to me. I do not exactly know why, at last, I enjoy them very well . . . and again, I am certainly not aware of any struggling going on.
This offers a super example of some of the issues we've been talking about - I mean to do with struggling and not struggling. Notes to compare with yours:
1. I must have been about 16 when I first heard Elgar's 1st symphony, and I'd not heard much else in the way of symphonies. Sibelius 1, Beethoven 5, one or two others. I barely knew what a symphony was. Yet I was in tears at the end of it. I felt that I'd been taken to a place I never knew existed. No struggle, no sir, none at all - it was just a matter of getting into the carriage and being taken for a ride, and then spending the rest of my life going for the ride again and again and seeing new sights along the way.
2. It took me years to get to the point where I could enjoy the violin sonata and the violin concerto - especially the latter. That was real struggle. For years I just couldn't enjoy it at all. Yawned my way restlessly through the cadenza, wondering when it was time for tea!! I can't remember when or why the penny dropped, but when it did the struggle paid off in untold riches, and I've written about the VC often enough here for the scale of the transformation to be clear.
Now blimey, this is
Elgar!!! Not some weird modern piece of music that probably will be hopelessly beyond me forever, but
Elgar!!! Even here, there's that paradoxical mix of struggle and deepest pleasure. Even Elgar, the composer who's always felt like a personal friend, has had me doing my fair share of struggling.
Where am I going with this? I can't remember. I'l just leave it floating.
Quote from: karlhenning on December 03, 2015, 06:05:47 AM
Back to the actual topic . . . I want to talk a little about Elgar.
I've been a fan forever of the Violin Sonata and of the Violin and Cello Concerti. It would not be quite right to say that I struggled to like the Symphonies (musically, I believe I understood them all right) but, somehow, they didn't sing to me. I do not exactly know why, at last, I enjoy them very well . . . and again, I am certainly not aware of any struggling going on.
Some works I like or admire but have no desire to investigate further. For example, I don't remember the last time I wanted to listen to an entire Bruckner symphony even though I like them. I just feel like I got the point already...but then every now and then a new recording comes around that makes me what to reacquaint myself with it and then be satisfied for the next years. It seems some works reward the patience and analysis more than others so its not just about being open to it but also trying to understand it. It has been awhile since I wanted to re-listen to a new work but it still happens to me and is quite a joy when something compels me to stop and investigate further...it might take a few listens to get to that point where I even want to investigate it further.
After the 6th page of this discussion I began to struggle to find some of the more interesting posts....
But it seems that little kerfuffle is cleared up and over with now. :)
Now, I shall return to the sounds of the city I'm in...what lovely sounds!!!
Quote from: some guy on November 30, 2015, 12:33:00 PM
There's a thing that I find perplexing. It seems, according to many different posts in many different threads, that listening to music, especially to classical music is an effort, sometimes a quite large effort. Classical music in this scenario is complex and intimidating, which makes its eventual conquering a quite praise-worthing endeavor!
If I'm making any effort at understanding any particular piece, however, I'm not aware of it. Not aware of it as effort, anyway. When I'm listening to music, the only non-musical thing I'm aware of is that I'm enjoying myself immensely. Listening to music is fun. If I hit some particular piece that I don't enjoy, then I just move on without thinking about it at all. No particular experience with any individual piece changes the general situation for me, which is that listening to music is fun.
I'm not quite sure what you're referring to when you talk about struggle and effort. I suspect you mean forcing oneself to listen to "difficult" music that is not immediately enjoyable. In that sense I've never much struggled because I tend to avoid music I don't enjoy. But as someone who has had no musical training and who discovered classical music in middle age, I would say it has required a definite effort to appreciate it. In high school I decided that I wanted to be the kind of person who listened to classical music, so I borrowed a copy of Dvorak's ninth symphony from the library, listened to it once, and returned it. In contrast to pop and rock, classical is complex and intimidating, to use your words, and I just didn't know how to listen to it. It was only decades later that I discovered I need to listen attentively to a piece of classical music over and over before it begins to sink in. For me, enjoyment derives from familiarity, so the better I know the music, the more I enjoy it -- assuming it's good music to begin with. So the effort I exert is in the form of listening attentively and repeatedly. Listening to music is fun, yes, but some music is more fun than others, and I think for me classical will always require more effort than rock.
Quote from: ShineyMcShineShine on December 04, 2015, 08:09:36 PM...classical is complex and intimidating, to use your words...
Not my words.
Look at the bit you quoted, again. "It seems, according to many different posts in many different threads, that listening to music, especially to classical music is an effort, sometimes a quite large effort. Classical music in this scenario is complex and intimidating..."
You see what I was doing there? Describing a situation. The key words for the context in which the words "complex and intimidating" occur are "in this scenario."
I do not find classical music complex and intimidating. I find classical music various and enticing, "various" meaning (among other things) that some pieces are simple and some complex and most a combination of the two and "enticing" meaning that it's all pretty attractive, no matter what it's level of complexity.
Now
those are my words. :)
Quote from: some guy on December 05, 2015, 01:40:20 AM
Not my words.
Ah, well, now you're splitting hairs, but yes, I know you weren't asserting your personal opinion that classical music is complex and intimidating. Since you weren't quoting anyone else, the words were your own in that sense and that was the sense I was referring to.
You get out what you are willing to put in. If you listen to some classical music, but you aren't willing to make any effort to understand it, learn about the context or think about what you're listening to, all you get is background music... which is fine. Background music is nice. But that doesn't mean that you are appreciating the music on all available levels. That takes effort.
I find distinguishing between and listening to the various instruments the easiest way to listen to classical music. With piano, left hand and right hand.
Though that can be quite hard for example with Stravinsky's music. But it still is a practical aid, you can focus on it, it's know-how.
Quote from: bigshot on December 05, 2015, 11:13:25 AM
You get out what you are willing to put in. If you listen to some classical music, but you aren't willing to make any effort to understand it, learn about the context or think about what you're listening to, all you get is background music... which is fine. Background music is nice. But that doesn't mean that you are appreciating the music on all available levels. That takes effort.
True. I spent many years listening to classical as background music before discovering that it was a whole new experience when I actually paid attention.
Quote from: Henk on December 05, 2015, 11:17:58 AM
I find distinguishing between and listening to the various instruments the easiest way to listen to classical music. With piano, left hand and right hand.
Yes, that's what I do, since I lack the ability to follow the development of themes and whatnot.
Classical was the first music to which I was exposed sometime in my late fourth or fifth year; that music was LP's, the music Prokofiev, Janacek, Bach [Landowska on harpsichord], and some others. The gift of a record player and those LP's was, I'm certain, because I had demonstrated a very strong response to music in general.
Piano lessons started at age six, starting in the first lesson directly with Bartok's Microkosmos, followed in that same first year with selections from a collection of 'Beginner's Bach,' pieces from Schumann's Album für die Jugend, and several of the mildly modern Scenas Infantis of Octavio Pinto.
I can recall but one minor speed bump I had in finding any music "difficult to listen to" along the entire way from earliest childhood through the continual lessons and learning which ran nonstop up through conservatory. In retrospect, the only thing that created the alleged difficulty was my expecting a piece to be something it was not, thereby missing completely "what was going on."
I recall initially 'just not getting' and thereby rejecting Stravinsky's lovely and highly accessible neoclassical opera, The Rake's Progress. The reason being I was at the time only accustomed to the early ballets; much in love with both Petrushka and Le sacre du printemps. As much as I was fairly well-acquainted with the 'standard' harmonic vocabularies of the baroque and classical eras, I was unable to take in Stravinsky's lush modern and subtle neoclassical harmony. It took not too long an interval of time and another listen for the "Rake" to click and become a piece I truly love.
Ergo, I can see that some find works 'difficult' while I am more than convinced that difficulty comes from a context of some limitations acquired via a person's listening habits of a certain repertoire only.
Any time I have seen the "difficult / inaccessible" comment or heard it, the truth of the matter is that the person who says it -- and genuinely feels/thinks that -- is most often bumping into their own listening experience and the subsequent acquired cumulative listening habit. I.e. the music itself Is Not Really 'The Problem.'
When it comes to naming or pointing out what those barriers are which have a listener saying 'difficult / inaccessible," and because along with those habits I strongly believe there are also non-musical sentimental attachments formed to the repertoire listened to, I've seen that most people take that as a negative comment upon their musical taste or intelligence -- or both -- while of course it has nothing to do with either.
If one truly has 'open ears,' true enjoyment of classical music from the earliest medieval repertoire up to and including recent works where the ink on the score dried just yesterday is possible, and that without in any way lowering the standard of what is good, great, listenable, etc.'
Fine and interesting post, thank you.
And then there's pop music...
No, seriously. Because I read that last post and then couldn't help thinking about some of the remarks I've seen on this forum. It's a different style, it's a different genre, and I think it's just as inaccessible to some classical music buffs as anything else because they don't know it's musical vocabulary.
Sometimes I wonder how many of us have forgotten our early experiences with music. You know, in the long, long ago. In the before time--before we knew any vocabulary, for sure. But we responded, somehow. Listening to some of you, the "somehow" seems quite remote and inconceivable. How did you ever "get" the first things you got?
Whatever you first remember hearing and liking, it was long before you had any experience. And yet....
Monsieur Croche's experience is so close to my own, not only the beginning, but how it continued, that I'm feeling redundant!
At least I still do not like the Rake's Progress. That's one difference. But now I feel I should give myself another chance with that. It is the only Stravinsky I've never liked, after all. And why not? Maybe I just need to struggle more. ( :o )
Don't worry, I certainly remember the time I discovered music in my early days! I haven't stopped ;)
As to
Quote from: some guy on January 01, 2016, 01:11:27 PMMonsieur Croche's experience is so close to my own, not only the beginning, but how it continued, that I'm feeling redundant!
S.G. -- my post is redundant; yours came before.
Quote from: some guy on January 01, 2016, 01:11:27 PM
At least I still do not like the Rake's Progress. That's one difference. But now I feel I should give myself another chance with that. It is the only Stravinsky I've never liked, after all. And why not? Maybe I just need to struggle more. ( :o )
Well, the piece is dry, sardonic, witty (but, hey, the libretto is by W.H. Auden), while still being, imo, quite poignant as well, and to boot, it is very much in the manner of a finger-wagging Christian morality play... but, If you are going to give it a go, go for THE recording:
http://www.amazon.com/Stravinsky-The-Rakes-Progress-Igor/dp/B000002768
The review of the premiere had nearly all of the professional music critics crying "Pastiche," while, ironically, the names of the composer each mentioned as allegedly having been imitated cumulatively formed a rather full list of different composers :) The piece is as stamped all over with the composer's musical DNA as any other he composed.
At least we both have thinking Wagner a terrible composer :laugh:
[Wagner's music severely dissed. Flame War Erupting. Film at Eleven.]
Well, that is the recording I have.
And it's up next, right after Les Percussions de Strasbourg stop hitting things, that is, after this recording of them hitting things stops. I hope they never stop hitting things.
Quote from: some guy on January 02, 2016, 02:31:17 AM
Well, that is the recording I have.
And it's up next, right after Les Percussions de Strasbourg stop hitting things, that is, after this recording of them hitting things stops. I hope they never stop hitting things.
Oh dear, I bet
Les Percussions de Strasbourg are also beating and slapping things, too. The abuse must stop!
Wouldn't you prefer John Eliot Gardiner? I find that with composers performing their own music (which is a struggle in itself) a lot of additional interpretative elements may be overlooked.....compare people who have studied a Stravinsky score in greater detail than he did and Stravinsky's rather mediocre conducting skills....but then again, all personal preference.
I don't know.
All I know is that I have disliked and then, as of this morning, liked the opera in Stravinsky's own performance.
:)
Quote from: ComposerOfAvantGarde on January 02, 2016, 01:28:17 PMI find that with composers performing their own music (which is a struggle in itself) a lot of additional interpretative elements may be overlooked...
Tell this to Britten and he'd slap you right across the face! :) One hell of a conductor IMHO. Of course, his music was incredible.
No, I don't think Britten was a slapper 8)
Quote from: Mirror Image on January 02, 2016, 02:37:50 PM
Tell this to Britten and he'd slap you right across the face! :) One hell of a conductor IMHO. Of course, his music was incredible.
Actually Britten is my only exception...he was ONLY good at interpreting his own music :laugh:
Quote from: ComposerOfAvantGarde on January 02, 2016, 03:52:16 PM
Actually Britten is my only exception...he was ONLY good at interpreting his own music :laugh:
Oh, that's not fair.
Quote from: karlhenning on January 02, 2016, 04:09:07 PM
Oh, that's not fair.
perhaps not my only exception then....but I'll blow your socks off with my interpretations of the music of Henning. 8)
I used to own an lp of Britten conducting Haydn, which I thought was particularly good.
(http://classicrecords.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/LXT5312.jpg)
Quote from: ComposerOfAvantGarde on January 02, 2016, 03:52:16 PM
Actually Britten is my only exception...he was ONLY good at interpreting his own music :laugh:
DUUUDE... Britten was a musically brilliant accompanist for art song, and not just his own songs, i.e. apart from having a formidable technique, he had a profound and sympathetic musical intelligence which he brought to the table.
Also, dig around for his recording of Mozart, Symphony No. 40, G minor, KV. 550... recorded in The Maltings [he takes all the repeats as well] It is THE only recording which beautifully sounds out that symphony is 'all about' the minor second -- and get back to us on that above written youthful, wildly impulsive, brash and reckless toss-off. :)
Ok perhaps I really shouldn't be writing youthful, wildly impulsive, brash and reckless toss-offs whilst M. Croche is around!
Thank you for the recommended recordings...I will soon amend my ways.....
;)
Quote from: ComposerOfAvantGarde on January 02, 2016, 10:25:18 PM
Ok perhaps I really shouldn't be writing youthful, wildly impulsive, brash and reckless toss-offs whilst M. Croche is around!
Thank you for the recommended recordings...I will soon amend my ways.....
;)
You are at exactly the correct juncture of life where I would worry about you more if you were not saying, thinking, and writing youthful, wildly impulsive, brash and reckless -- and audacious -- toss-offs.
Right now, that is in the cosmic order of exactly what you should be doing. Better, too, now than when you're forty-two, ya know?
"Trust me on this one." [Ha haaaa haaaaaa. Don't you automatically not trust someone when they say that?]
Best regards
Britten is a better conductor than I thought! It appears that I have been listening to the wrong Mozart 40th all this time.......
Thank you, Monsieur Croche. :)
Quote from: ComposerOfAvantGarde on January 02, 2016, 03:52:16 PM
Actually Britten is my only exception...he was ONLY good at interpreting his own music :laugh:
No, I don't ascribe to that. There are a number of performances that suggest otherwise: Elgar Gerontius is one. His pianism was exceptional and he left some excellent Schubert.
Tippet was a bit of a liability as a conductor, RvW was not too great, even in his own music.
Mike