Music without tiers

[some guy]

How about it?

Any ideas? Would we still be able to talk about music if we didn't do any ranking? Would it change the way we think and thus the way we experience music?

More importantly, would we still be able to squabble, that being the whole reason for posting to classical music forums.

(You thought it was love of music? You're cute when you're being naive. It's hatred of music, and of the people who like the music you hate. But I'm with you. I'd like to see more love, too.)

[springrite]

An educated person necessarily discriminates, be it music, art, literature or otherwise.

[Florestan]

An educated person necessarily discriminates, be it music, art, literature or otherwise.

True.

For instance, Wagner is clearly a better composer than Rossini --- but I´ll take the latter over the former any day and night. 

[(poco) Sforzando]

True.

For instance, Wagner is clearly a better composer than Rossini --- but I´ll take the latter over the former any day and night. 

Agreed, considering that Wagner followed Rossini chronologically.

[(poco) Sforzando]

How about it?

Any ideas? Would we still be able to talk about music if we didn't do any ranking? Would it change the way we think and thus the way we experience music?

More importantly, would we still be able to squabble, that being the whole reason for posting to classical music forums.

(You thought it was love of music? You're cute when you're being naive. It's hatred of music, and of the people who like the music you hate. But I'm with you. I'd like to see more love, too.)

Speak for yourself. Some of us are actually interested in exchanging ideas, and in learning from others. I don't even hate the people whose music I hate.

[Florestan]

Agreed, considering that Wagner followed Rossini chronologically.

Is there a pun I don´t get? 

Some of us are actually interested in exchanging ideas, and in learning from others. I don't even hate the people whose music I hate.

+1

Actually, I don´t even hate any music.

[(poco) Sforzando]

(1) Is there a pun I don´t get? 

+1

(2) Actually, I don´t even hate any music.

(1) Since Wagner is chronologically later, he is ipso facto the latter of the two composers . . .  .
(2) Well, I could mention a couple of names, but I might get a smackdown from the moderators . . . .

[Florestan]

Since Wagner is chronologically later, he is ipso facto the latter of the two composers . . .  .

Ah, I see.  English can be more subtle than I thought. 

[some guy]

When I was in school, I learned to discriminate. To think, for example, that Wagner is a better composer than Rossini. But, as Florestan pointed out, he still prefers Rossini. So now's the time for some real learning, eh? If you prefer Rossini, then for you, Rossini is preferable. As it were.

But what does thinking or believing that Wagner is better get you? Well, that and a couple of euros can get you a nice caña. So there's that. But otherwise? For listening to and enjoying Rossini, any ideas about the relative worths of Wagner or Mozart or Karkowski are completely worthless.

Here's what I'd say: An early part of becoming educated means learning to discriminate. A later part of becoming educated means learning to discriminate for one's self. A even later part of becoming educated means learning the limits of discrimination. From there, you can pretty much go wherever you want.

So that's the serious response. The frivolous (and infinitely more valuable) response is that both Rossini and Wagner are terrible composers, and you should never listen to either of them.

[Jo498]

I don't have to take explicit "rankings" seriously. In fact I do not.  But pragmatically discerning and choosing is inescapable. There will be music I will consider more or less waste of time and I will regret not having listened to something else instead. This may be a rare situation and even "mediocre" music may still be more fun than a lot of other things. But it will occur once in a while.

And after having listened to a lot of music I will have some vague internal order of preference (before some nerd takes offence, it does not have to be an "ordering" in the mathematical sense), regardless of whether I make this explicit by a silly ranking. I will use this to decide whether I should buy another disc by e.g. Haydn (rather than Dittersdorf) or Dittersdorf (rather than Justin Bieber) and what I will listen to in the spare time I have. As people with similar tastes can sometimes be helpful for finding music I might enjoy with a reasonable probability, I see no harm in making some preferences explicit in silly rankings. It's certainly not about "hating" music.

The whole "struggling" thing seems to be based on the idea that there is something I *should* like (because of my general musical preferences) but for some reason do not, or not as much as I expected to like it. I don't find that implausible at all. It is very likely that someone who liked Beethoven's piano concertos will like his string quartets. But it is not guaranteed, of course. Still, if someone who liked the concertos, is at first rather indifferent to the quartets (maybe because the sound of solo strings seems "thin and scratchy" or whatever), most experienced listeners will tell him to persevere because those pieces are great and his general liking for Beethoven's style will make it very likely that after some time he will love the quartets as well.
And so on. But sometimes it will not work because taste is, while not random, not deterministic either and a fairly personal thing.

[Madiel]

How about it?

I decline, on the grounds that I discriminate every time I decide to buy one thing and not another.

Of course, these days one could open up a streaming service, press whatever button they have for "shuffle and just throw anything at me" and be done with it. But I will never be that kind of person. I make choices about what I am interested in hearing a bit more of, and what I am interested in hearing a lot more of.

[aligreto]

Here's what I'd say: An early part of becoming educated means learning to discriminate. A later part of becoming educated means learning to discriminate for one's self. A even later part of becoming educated means learning the limits of discrimination. From there, you can pretty much go wherever you want.

I agree so much with that statement. I started listening to classical music over forty years ago and back then I bought and listened to as much of the "main stream" composers as I possibly could in order to educate myself further. That process still continues to a lesser degree to this day. However, with regard to descrimination, I eventually formed my favourites over time. However, what I did later was to begin exploring the "lesser" or "second tier" composers, those that had been condemned or ignored earlier. What I discovered therein was much to be applauded and enjoyed.

[Madiel]

And after 40 years of listening to classical music... how does it compare to pop? 

[some guy]

I discriminate every time I decide to buy one thing and not another.

We may be using the verb differently. What I think is that "discriminate" implies knowledge. It's how I end up preferring Gielen's recording of Mahler's ninth. But that preference is only important for me. Other people may and do prefer other ones.

It's important to note that with conductors it is sensible to discriminate because they're all trying to do the same thing.

But discrimination does not help me decide which unknown thing to buy next. Or which unknown thing to stream next. Discrimination might be of some very limited and trivial utility in deciding which known thing to listen to again. But even there.

I never know what I'll end up liking next. That's partly because I like listening to music, generally. That's partly because I'm not thinking about my likes and dislikes. Likes and dislikes are part of vertical thinking. Music without tiers is horizontal.

orfeo's non sequitur about pop does bring up the elephantine cheat, however, which is that my lovely, Zen-like world of horizontality consists in part of carefully chosen items from areas that have proven themselves to be worthy.

An area has to be pretty putrid to be excluded, however. Country western and pop are outside, for me. They are obviously inside for millions of other people. And EAI and experimental music are outside for them but very much inside for me.

In any case, we are on a classical board here. We are more likely to be talking about "classical" music (whatever that may be--I have my doubts) than we are about anything else. So, given that the world is "classical," is it more utile or less to think vertically or to think horizontally. The latter has been more useful for me. The former is the default mode for most other people, none of whom should be in any way distressed if I offer and alternative. Even if I wanted to force you to agree with me--I do not--how would I possibly be able to enforce that? Your modes are safe. Truly.

[Mirror Image]

I think the idea of 'music without tiers' looks good on paper but ultimately it's a dead-end and something that's unavoidable. I'm certainly guilty of putting one composer over another in regard to preference or whatever, but I don't subscribe to the idea of embracing everything just because it's music. I'll always put Debussy above Shostakovich or Vaughan Williams above Britten. It's just my nature, but it's also in my nature to get to the bottom of why I prefer this composer over that composer. I don't like everything equally and never will thankfully.

[some guy]

...I don't subscribe to the idea of embracing everything just because it's music.

Well, this particular idea, as expressed, is not a part of what I would consider "music without tears," so you're in luck!!

There is this, though, that if you think horizontally (this is different from that) rather than vertically (this is better than that), you will be more likely to be able to discover and enjoy new things.

You will continue to have likes and dislikes, I'm sure. I find that having likes and dislikes makes more sense if they follow experience rather than precede it. I see a lot of people--those who don't want to "waste" any time on "crappy" music--wanting likes and dislikes to precede experience, but all that particular desire comes down to is letting other people decide for you what is good and what is not.

Better to decide for yourself, by listening, for yourself. Best to listen without "good" or "bad."

In any event, let's say that you could like everything equally--I find that notion absurd, but let's just say.... Why would that be something you would deprecate. Why is not liking things equally something to be thankful about.

And how about this? How about giving this a try: like each thing for what it is.

"Liking everything equally" is a concept foreign to the idea of listening without tiers. The whole idea of tier-less listening is that you are fully aware of and engaged with each piece on its own terms. (The whole idea or tiers is that the things you're ranking are comparable. I'm suggesting that they're not, at least not to any great or significant extent. And only comparable things are rankable. A non-ranking situation is not equivalent to "liking everything equally." The whole idea of equality and inequality belongs to a ranking situation. Non-ranking is different from ranking.

[Monsieur Croche]

We may be using the verb differently. What I think is that "discriminate" implies .....

I propose striking discriminate from any post in this thread and substituting for it instead, Discern.

Then the teams be like, ''whattsa madda witcha, can't ya discern da difference in quality n da loftier more poetic n classier aesthetic of composer/era 'A' over the lowly, tawdry and lacking composer/era 'B' ?'

P.s. How can anyone take rankings at all seriously when it is always Bach or Beethoven who come in at 'first place.' --- Ridiculous. 

[Sergeant Rock]

It's hatred of music, and of the people who like the music you hate. But I'm with you. I'd like to see more love, too.)

An area has to be pretty putrid to be excluded, however. Country western and pop are outside, for me.

Wow, you have such an open mind, and are so full of love for music You think Emmylou Harris or Johnny Cash putrid...but a group of "muscians" banging on "pots and pans" (clips you've posted) great music. Right...

Sarge

[James]

Would it change the way we think and thus the way we experience music?

Nope. The fact that some folks are so much better at it than others will be apparent.

[(poco) Sforzando]

P.s. How can anyone take rankings at all seriously when it is always Bach or Beethoven who come in at 'first place.' --- Ridiculous. 

It's all so rigged . . . .