Audiences hate modern classical music because their brains cannot cope

[some guy]

Thanks, Avant. I think some members are making this matter much more complicated than it actually needs to be and this really shouldn't be happening, but that's the way things go on GMG sometimes and when the going gets wordy and just over-the-top, that's when I bow out, because I'm simply not going to read a 1,000 word essay on why someone thinks this or that way of listening is the only viable way to experience music.

And, lucky for you, you don't have to, either.

Frankly, people can listen to music however they want

Frankly, I don't understand how this always gets to be a thing. It is not a thing. Given the absence of any mechanism for enforcing any particular way--seriously, there is nothing, absolutely nothing--there is consequently never any need to affirm this. Yes, people can listen however they want. There is now and never was and never will be any question about this. It's just not a thing.

(Disclaimer: Yes, I know exactly how it gets to be a thing. I don't think it has any validity is all. )

whatever gets you closer to the music on a personal level is much more important than arguing

Except of course for the admittedly unlikely possibility that the argument and the whatever coincide, eh? My own take on the recent kerfluffle has been to deprecate the various substitutions for arguing. I would put it this way. We have not been arguing; we have been quarrelling. Time for a Monty Python sketch? What am I saying--it's always time for a Monty Python sketch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y

[Madiel]

Well you've got to laugh!

Duly laughing. Albeit cynically.

[Elgarian]

We have not been arguing; we have been quarrelling.

I'm not quarrelling with anybody. I'm actually discovering a few things as I think my way through what's being said, trying to match it up with my own experience of listening to music.

Incidentally, one of the most interesting avenues of thought arose from what you said about 'completeness'.

[Monsieur Croche]

You mean reactions such as the one below, right?

I think I later said in that same post, "Its a magic show. Enjoy the show."

When discussion turns to all the associative connections, pro or con, it gets into the area of 'the secret' of the trick... something you always want to leave alone if you prefer the magic vs. learning 'how it is done.'

It is to be hoped that I can de-vilify some of those terms I used:

Those terms I used are more a casual jargon often enough common parlance within the trade, and none of them are used other than as a humorous short-hand reference to the tools of the trade, the techniques of the craft: I apologize for not making that plain when those terms were first used.

All art, and all performance, and 'what they do to make it and perform it' is laden with tricks of the trade, Composers and artists are manipulators, and that is an irreversible fact. They are more than usually beneficent manipulators, plying their craft to direct your attention to or away from, and all to the purpose of making the work or performance what it is.

In that parlance, "Con Man" has no other connotation than making illusions seem real, and all the rest of that litany of 'sham, trickery, deceit, and smoke and mirrors' are all deployed to purposes to move you or entertain you; as used, they are not meant at all in the sense of rip-off or short-change.

All artists and performers do it; it is never thought of as 'getting away with something,' and really, very few of the audience ever object. When audiences do seem to object is when they become too readily conscious of being manipulated... very much like the disappointment a viewer would have when the magician is too heavy-handed, and the audience then sees 'how it is done.'

I think nothing less than a tone near to zealous quasi religiosity tone when discussing classical music will please, and not offend, some people. I think that zealous quality sets up a condition where any real dialogue is nigh to impossible, or it makes it only possible to have a truly comic impasse of something akin to a charisma contest.

I am at fault for having brought my two cents on this already off-the-topic subject which is not the subject of the OP, while I ponder if in that regard this is the driftiest thread on GMG, or if that is the general pattern of 'how threads go' on GMG.

[71 dB]

Composers and artists are manipulators

So are car sellers. Toyota's vendors try to convince you to buy a Toyota instead of a Mazda and vice versa.
Cellphone companies manipulated people to use phones that have to be recharged every day instead of every two weeks. Phones, that can be used to spy on them!
The oil companies try to manipulate people to think the climate change is a lie.

Manipulators are everywhere! Better be as immune as possible to manipulation! 

[Karl Henning]

No argument here.  It is legitimate not to pay any or much attention to the program if it exists, and still love the music for itself.

In the same vein, I am a huge fan of Mozart, and yet I have listened to Tchaikovsky's orchestral suite 'Mozartiana' as many as 30 times without Mozart even once entering my mind. Odd thing, that...

Indeed!

[Madiel]

Composers and artists are manipulators, and that is an irreversible fact. They are more than usually beneficent manipulators, plying their craft to direct your attention to or away from, and all to the purpose of making the work or performance what it is.

And what, pray tell, are you working to direct our attention away from when you twist and turn and contradict your own words?

As demonstrated independently by 2 separate posters, and now you're trying to wave it all away by talking about how "composers and artists" are manipulators. They weren't talking about the sleights of hand perpetrated by others, they were talking about the sleight of hand attempted by you, and caught out.

You are just here spinning a tale, trying to slip between the cracks so that you can say "who, me? No, it's not my fault".

[Madiel]

And now you have the hide to send me a PM to tell me not to send you a PM.

I don't have to be secret about what I think of not just your position, but your arguing style. I find it offensive. As a person who both performs and, on occasion, writes music, who has thought very hard about what I'm trying to convey to listeners, I find it quite offensive to be talked about in the manner you are talking. And I'm perfectly happy to say that publicly.

[knight66]

Orfeo, These two posts are basically angry and aggressive. You are dealing with a new member here and one who clearly has valuable contributions to make. I cannot see why you have adopted this tone.

One of our suggested rules here, which we have found does help, is that if thigs suddenly get hot: that you take some time to cool off. After reflection if you still see things in the same light, avoid the poster in question as far as is sensible.

If you have a problem with this, then PM me rather than spatter the thread.

Knight

[Florestan]

Composers and artists are manipulators, and that is an irreversible fact.

Mr. some guy, you were saying something about absolutism but I didn´t hear you well at the time. Could you please repeat?

Mr. Monsieur Croche (sic!), maybe your favorite composers and artists are / were (in that order) indeed manipulators (and that´s a big maybe, since I have no idea who they are) --- but Bach, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Schumann, Chopin, Brahms, Tchaikovsky & Rachmaninoff (ie, my top 10 favorite composers ever) weren´t. Nor is Karl Henning, for that matter. How do I know that? Why, my right thumb keeps telling me that. But hey, I am no absolutist at all. If you could ever prove beyond any reasonable doubt that any one of them was / is a manipulator, I will willingly and instantly strike him off the list.

NB Because I am not a native English speaker, a fact which Mr. some guy wastes no opportunity to take advantage of, I have asked Mssrs. Merriam and Webster to help me. Here is their reply:

To manipulate

1
:  to treat or operate with or as if with the hands or by mechanical means especially in a skillful manner

2
a :  to manage or utilize skillfully b :  to control or play upon by artful, unfair, or insidious means especially to one's own advantage

3
:  to change by artful or unfair means so as to serve one's purpose

[knight66]

I am going to weigh in here. I will use one of your exampled composers and explain why I actually agree that he was indeed manipulating.

Bach had a deep faith and his skills were often applied to draw people towards that faith and to make them think, to inspire them, to modify their way of thinking and feeling. In this, he has been doing just what a great number of artists of different disciplines did.

To me that falls under benign manipulation. If it can be accepted that art provides a mirror and a lamp to life, then by myriad ways, artists have provided their partial view, their personal world view, to us in order to reflect us to ourselves and enlighten us.

BTW, I am not here entering a knock down, drag out, entrails across a bed of lettuce endless exchange to argue this point to a standstill.

Mike

[Gurn Blanston]

Alright, this thread has played out its usefulness. Not only has it drifted so far from its original topic that it can't be found with radar, but it has also reached the point where it is obvious that no one's mind will ever be changed. If healthy debate consists in presenting and refuting points with the thought of winning over minds and hearts, then this one is at best a draw, and at worst an exercise in futility. Let's all go listen to some music and leave off trying to figure out why others' minds don't work like ours do.

GB