Is classical music merely self-aggrandizing?

[Michel]

That would be pathetic.  Any evidence to support the above?

There can be no real proof; that is the deep and possibly systemic epistemological weakness of what I am proposing.

However, most psychological observations are nearly impossible to "prove"; though that is not to say we cannot make them or that they are not interesting. Two of the greatest psychological philosophers, for example, could not prove their fascinating insights (Nietzsche and Schopenhauer).

Of course, this is the worst place to post such an idea; after all, why would you lot admit to be self-aggrandizing? At least I am honest enough to admit to Mark's intelligent observation that my idea in this post is a very specific act of self-aggrandizement.

In some ways, as soon as we utter a single opinion, its become self-aggrandizement, why else do we communicate it to others?

Why does Karl have to broadcast he has an MA in his signature, why do I broadcast I am a corporate lawyer. We're all idiots really, we humans. We think we're better than what we are.

[Don]

Why does Karl have to broadcast he has an MA in his signature, why do I broadcast I am a corporate lawyer. We're all idiots really, we humans. We think we're better than what we are.

Perhaps Karl is proud of his accomplishment - you don't get an MA just by showing your pearly teeth.  Are you proud you are a corporate attorney?

Anyways, it looks like you have decided not to take my advice.  In addition to offering up unsavory reasons why we engage in classical music, you now are demeaning the human race.  I think you've made a poor choice here.

[Scriptavolant]

Seeking culture out, because you expect to better yourself thereby, is one thing. "Self-aggrandizement" is quite another.

Of course, I didn't mean to say they are the same.

That would be pathetic.  Any evidence to support the above?

Agreed, maybe I couldn't support my statement with scientifical data, but I've met people - clearly frustrated in many ways - who utilised their alleged cultural erudition as a form of wothless distinction, just to show off they were much more noble-minded, cultivated than others, inclueded the tendency of someone to walk in the shadow of their idols, just as if that was sufficient to gain a part of their greatness. Of course I'm not talking about anyone on this board, since I don't know anyone.
There is, as pointed out by Michel, a narcissistic component in a lot of artists; for example, for me the problem of finding a reason to express myself (to write) was huge; I often asked myself if I did write with the only aim of showing off or if on the opposite there was a sincere push in what I was doing. I think that a lot of modern writers should ask themselves the same question. Nowadays, in our extremely narcissistic society, I think that Art and Culture are often used as tools to self-aggrandize, there is a lot of competition in doing so, and things like web boards are a kind of proof of this trend.

[orbital]

In some ways, as soon as we utter a single opinion, its become self-aggrandizement, why else do we communicate it to others?

Self-aggrandizement may even work in the way of self-humiliation as well. Tells others how humble you are, and this is another way of aggrandizement. There is no escape from it really. Whatever you are telling me, the only thing you are communicating is something about you.

But that does not mean that humans are idiots. It is the way that we interact. Not different from other animals when you think about it.

[karlhenning]

Self-aggrandizement may even work in the way of self-humiliation as well. Tells others how humble you are, and this is another way of aggrandizement. There is no escape from it really.

Oh, but there is.  This is an important insight, in "Humility Mis-Sought" . . . .

[Don]

Of course, I didn't mean to say they are the same.

Agreed, maybe I couldn't support my statement with scientifical data, but I've met people - clearly frustrated in many ways - who utilised their alleged cultural erudition as a form of wothless distinction, just to show off they were much more noble-minded, cultivated than others, inclueded the tendency of someone to walk in the shadow of their idols, just as if that was sufficient to gain a part of their greatness.

Yes, those would be pathetic individuals.  Let's not bother with those types.

[Michel]

So are we just saying we listen to classical music because we enjoy it more than other types of music? If so, what is it you enjoy about it?

[knight66]

Paul, This remark takes self aggrandisement to a new level, you have to admit..."I am a corporate lawyer".

Music for me is an exploration and a journey. To the extent I have performed it, it is often about discovering life and self discovery, it is also about enjoyment.

You are not a creative artist, (nor am I). For such people, to paint, write, compose etc is as vital as oxygen. Yes, often there will be mixed motives. But, for example, Mahler writing music on the death of children is more about exorcising something in himself than it is about a public tribute or a call for attention. He is sharing the human condition with us in a unique way.

Listening privately to chamber music at home is not about self aggrandisement surely. Perhaps getting dressed up and going to the opera to see and be seen has more of the tribal hunt to it. But equally, great art reflects or illuminates life and grownup opera can do that in a startling way. Music has been a great gift to me, a solace, an encouragement, a teacher. People get these nourishments in different ways and when the chips are down, lots of folk just like the sound it makes, no more complex than that.

Mike

[karlhenning]

So are we just saying we listen to classical music because we enjoy it more than other types of music? If so, what is it you enjoy about it?

(2)  Partly, because of the nature of art music, that while what we experience in listening to it is always pleasure, listening to even the same recording is never exactly the same, twice.

[Don]

So are we just saying we listen to classical music because we enjoy it more than other types of music? If so, what is it you enjoy about it?

Now you're getting the hang of it.  The answer is YES.  Why?  The transcendent melodies, the variety and depth of expression, the musical contrasts, the tremendous tension/power/energy, the wonderfully uplifting spiritual content, etc.  For me, classical music possesses these qualities more consistently than any other musical category.

[Don]

Listening privately to chamber music at home is not about self aggrandisement surely. Perhaps getting dressed up and going to the opera to see and be seen has more of the tribal hunt to it. But equally, great art reflects or illuminates life and grownup opera can do that in a startling way. Music has been a great gift to me, a solace, an encouragement, a teacher. People get these nourishments in different ways and when the chips are down, lots of folk just like the sound it makes, no more complex than that.

Mike

Well put.  Now I'm going to listen to some Feldman so I can gloat about it to the butcher at the local supermarket.

[orbital]

Oh, but there is.  This is an important insight, in "Humility Mis-Sought" . . . .

I had to google that   Did I mean Humility Is Sought (essays by an Andrew Murray) ?

So are we just saying we listen to classical music because we enjoy it more than other types of music?

There is no question about that. Whether the enjoyment is feeding your ego or your serotonin level, I don't think we can objectively say.

[Bogey]

Now you're getting the hang of it.  The answer is YES.  Why?  The transcendent melodies, the variety and depth of expression, the musical contrasts, the tremendous tension/power/energy, the wonderfully uplifting spiritual content, etc.  For me, classical music possesses these qualities more consistently than any other musical category.

Does not mean I do not enjoy other music outside of classical, but I believe I can easily adhere to the phrase "more consistently" when it comes to classical music and my listening.  Great "in a nutshell" post Don.

[Michel]

Paul, This remark takes self aggrandisement to a new level, you have to admit..."I am a corporate lawyer".

The same level as I am accusing us of here, thats why I said it. Ie. we all constantly self-aggrandize.

Music for me is an exploration and a journey. To the extent I have performed it, it is often about discovering life and self discovery, it is also about enjoyment.

Or:

For a lot of people before, perhaps instead of, experiencing life.

You are not a creative artist, (nor am I). For such people, to paint, write, compose etc is as vital as oxygen. Yes, often there will be mixed motives. But, for example, Mahler writing music on the death of children is more about exorcising something in himself than it is about a public tribute or a call for attention. He is sharing the human condition with us in a unique way.

We don't know Mahler did it for this reason, though, do we? A disproportionately large number of artists simply belong to a subculture where it is expected of them to produce, so they do. Why is it vital for them, why not others? Do we know? I am suspicious of anyone who feels the need to go about making so called profound expressions, as though others would care. What the hell is a creative artist anyway? A broadcaster? Perhaps you don't like that vulgar term, but why are my thoughts not creative art, why must they be broadcasted and materialized to be art? I am here reminded of a great observation by Foucault, "What strikes me is the fact that in our society, art has become something which is only related to objects, and not to individuals, or to life."

Listening privately to chamber music at home is not about self aggrandisement surely.

Why not? Self Aggrandizement is precisely that, aggrandizing the self, other people are not needed to do that, just your own thoughts in your own mock ivory tower.

Music has been a great gift to me, a solace, an encouragement, a teacher.

I agree, but I think this may be because we are all self-aggrandizers. Why do we need this solace, encouragement, teaching, and others do not? You lot are making out it is practically a human need, in the sense that it is a pleasure so great you cannot live without it. Thats madness, and symptomatic of something peculiar that is not simple enjoyment. After all, the table tennis fanatic or the car enthusiast would not proclaim they got some sort of deep emotional satisfaction from it, they simply like it a lot. We always seem to claim there is something more profound in it (classical music). Look at Don's response... "wonderfully uplifting spiritual content' - what the hell does that mean! I don't think anyone would describe table tennis in that way - or the pleasure they get from eating a steak. Classical music is clearly not just hedonism, it is something else, relating to the intellect, and it is from here I think the self-aggrandizing mechanism is derived, and it is because of this I will not accept the argument it is simply enjoyable, or that it is more consistent than other forms of music, since that doesn't answer the question why you listen to anything at all in the first place.

[Sergeant Rock]

...why do I broadcast I am a corporate lawyer....

Finally, the answer! This explains the obvious self-loathing in Michel's original post. 

Sarge

[S709]

If any activity can be considered "intellectual" or "elite" by a group, then there will exist individuals who take part in the activity just to appear to possess these qualities.

Take a specific case:
Is a mathematician solving a very complicated problem doing that out of self-aggrandizing wishes?
Well... this person IS gaining something by the solution of the problem: insight, understanding, and so on.
There is also most likely something vain as a part of the process: they are discovering something *few others* will understand.
They most certainly derive *some* enjoyment from the process.
Would they have moments of thought such as "I want to solve this problem to become famous"? Quite possibly.
Is there a component of "self-aggrandizing"? Probably, to a variable and undetermined degree based on the individual. But it's just a component of the complicated overall motivation.

So it seems likely there is a bit of a wish for the increasing of self-value and thus a potential for self-aggrandizing involved in all non-menial non-ordinary activities we take part in.

Personally, I try many types of music and always come back to classical (mostly 20th/21st century classical) for the most meaningful, powerful, memorable and emotional musical experiences, and the most interesting and strange discoveries.

[M forever]

Why does Karl have to broadcast he has an MA in his signature, why do I broadcast I am a corporate lawyer. We're all idiots really, we humans. We think we're better than what we are.

The MA in the signature stands for "Massachusetts". That is the US state where the city he lives in is located. It is very common to add the state abbreviation after the city name in the US. For instance, I live in San Diego, CA. The CA is not a degree of some sort, it means "California". It is also a state. On the opposite end from where karlhenning's state is. It's also much warmer. I have sunshine here most of the year while he is freezing his ass off several months in a row, every year.

[Scriptavolant]

If any activity can be considered "intellectual" or "elite" by a group, then there will exist individuals who take part in the activity just to appear to possess these qualities.

Take a specific case:
Is a mathematician solving a very complicated problem doing that out of self-aggrandizing wishes?
Well... this person IS gaining something by the solution of the problem: insight, understanding, and so on.
There is also most likely something vain as a part of the process: they are discovering something *few others* will understand.
They most certainly derive *some* enjoyment from the process.
Would they have moments of thought such as "I want to solve this problem to become famous"? Quite possibly.
Is there a component of "self-aggrandizing"? Probably, to a variable and undetermined degree based on the individual. But it's just a component of the complicated overall motivation.

So it seems likely there is a bit of a wish for the increasing of self-value and thus a potential for self-aggrandizing involved in all non-menial non-ordinary activities we take part in.

Personally, I try many types of music and always come back to classical (mostly 20th/21st century classical) for the most meaningful, powerful, memorable and emotional musical experiences, and the most interesting and strange discoveries.

Well the most obvious difference I see here is that in science is quite hard to fool people (or the scientifical community), whilst in art things are much more blury. Solving a mathematical problem equals putting your neurons at the service of scientifical/intellectual progress, the same thing is possible in Art, of course, where you can also put your hand at the service of your wallet and your Ego. In science is not so easy.

[Sergeant Rock]

How many of us, if we are honest, can admit that objectively, there is no difference between Beethoven and the Beatles, but only our subjective response to it and interpretation of its relative importance in history?

I don't know. Let's count! I'm the first to raise his hand.

And it isn't just subjective. I see absolutely no objective reason why a song by Schubert or Wolf or Mahler is considered art, and great, but a song my John Lennon or Robert Johnson or Bob Dylan or Emmylou Harris isn't.

Why do we constantly explore new classical artists and revisit those we've previously not liked yet not once go to the Heavy Metal section of the CD shop and ask ourselves, I must learn to understand what Metallica were hoping to do...

As someone has already pointed out, your use of "we" is incorrect. It should be "I". "We" have had several threads discussing this. Most of us here listen to "popular" forms of music too (check out the Diner) and derive just as much pleasure and satisfaction from it. I belong to several alt country forums: the level of knowledge, intellectual discussion and interpretation rivals this board.

Sarge

[PSmith08]

Why does Karl have to broadcast he has an MA in his signature, why do I broadcast I am a corporate lawyer. We're all idiots really, we humans. We think we're better than what we are.

Not to flog this dying horse any more than necessary, but a quick Google search reveals that Karl has a degree beyond the M.A. level (and that he got his B.Mus. at a conference rival of my college). So, then, Karl isn't broadcasting anything other than his location - but you sure are.

I've got a bit of a news flash: in most circles, listening to classical music won't make you look better - get too loud about it and you'll watch people begin edging away from you at parties. I don't think most people are impressed if you start talking about last week's Pli selon pli. If you're younger, then it will probably serve only to make you look fruity. Unless you've suddenly found yourself in a fairly elite social stratum, where an appreciation - superficial or not - for culture (or Kultur, as it may be) is de rigueur, you're probably not going to aggrandize yourself very much or very well by getting into classical. In other words, you're not doing yourself any great favors socially - in today's America, that is - by getting into classical.

Far from it, depending on how old you are. I should note, too, that my non-classical taste in music probably says something about me, but not "I want to be perceived as better than most." Consarn it, I actually like "Rhinestone Cowboy," and that's pretty inoffensive by my standards.