Classical music haters: Why?

[Saintly_Loser]

@Orwell

I don’t know enough about music to even join a conversation about pantatonic scales or identify rhythms. But I wouldn’t think the above comment that rock music “is all pretty simple” or only uses simple chord is true. What about many songs and albums by Frank Zappa, Yes, Rush, King Krimson, Jethro Tull, Queen, Pink Floyd?

Zappa might be an exception. But the rest of your examples are not harmonically complex. Not at all.

Here in NYC, some years (decades) back there was a local bluegrass band that people thought was sensational because they did bluegrass versions of Pink Floyd songs.

Whatever. It was fun. But they’re the same songs. Same harmonic structure. Different instruments (barely, assuming one counts the electric guitar and the electric bass as different instruments from the steel-string flattop accoustic guitar and the standup bass) and tempi. That’s all.

I love rock. Especially live, and I had the good fortune to grow up in a time and place where one could see all kinds of rock music, live, every night, for not a whole lot of money.

But it ain’t complicated. It all grew out of blues, after all.

[Saintly_Loser]

@Magiver

I agree it’s too general. I can qualify that statement. I dislike unstructured jazz that sounds like an orchestra tuning up. Not sure how to quantify it. I like a song that wanders a bit but at some point It needs to be recognizable.

So, maybe, not Ornette Coleman, but Miles Davis might be okay.

This is one of the most beautiful peices of music I’ve ever heard in my entire life.

[Saintly_Loser]

@Slow_Moving_Vehicle

force me to choose between a Miles Davis retrospective and a Taylor Swift concert, and I’m taking Tay Tay quicker than you can say “Shake It Off”.

I no longer wish to live in a world I do not understand.

[Slow_Moving_Vehicle]

@Fiddle_Peghead

I get where you’re coming from, but saying you detest jazz is simply a too general statement to make, in the same way as it would be for classical music. There are light years in between Louis Armstrong, Charlie Parker, Chet Baker, John Coltrane, Bill Evans, and on and on. To be clear, “too general” here applies to people at large, not you specifically.

Point taken - like “classical music” (and “rock music” and “pop music”), “jazz” covers a multitude of styles. Nevertheless, there’s something common to all jazz genres, else they wouldn’t be subsumed under the general term “jazz”, right?

In any case, I’ve never found any jazz that I’ve been able to do more than tolerate. (With maybe one exception - Aaron Copland wrote a concerto for clarinet and strings, for Benny Goodman. That’s a beautiful piece of music; but is a composition written by a classical composer to be played by a jazz musician classical, or jazz?)

@Derleth

To expand a bit on what Fiddle Peghead said, can you honestly say you don’t like Dixieland jazz? That was the pop music of the 1920s, before jazz started to get really “hot” (improvisational, experimental) and before the 1930s turned pop jazz into big band music which simply wasn’t as much fun on the whole.

The difficulty of that music is the recording quality, frankly: The old cylinders and records tend to be scratchy messes. Modern revival groups can be pretty good, though.

Yes. De gustibus non disputantum est and all, but I don’t really like Dixieland, either. It’s on the “tolerable, if I have no other choice” end of the spectrum - the “Turn it off if there’s an Adele song on the other station, but leave it if the alternative is Justin Bieber” end.

I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with jazz, or that there aren’t people who deeply enjoy it. I’m not one of them. To me, jazz music is the musical equivalent of soccer - extremely popular, with players of great skill; but it just doesn’t interest me.

[Voyager]

@Les_Espaces_Du_Sommeil

So, you have nothing against Miles Davis after all ;).

I listened to a bunch of Miles Davis and Coltrane, and it didn’t do anything for me. I love Benny Goodman (passed down from my mother, no doubt.) But I’d never say Miles sucks. It’s my deficiency, not his.

[Saintly_Loser]

@Slow_Moving_Vehicle

In any case, I’ve never found any jazz that I’ve been able to do more than tolerate. (With maybe one exception - Aaron Copland wrote a concerto for clarinet and strings, for Benny Goodman. That’s a beautiful piece of music; but is a composition written by a classical composer to be played by a jazz musician classical, or jazz?)

Good question. I’d say it’s classical. It’s through-composed (I think - I’m not familiar with it) and there’s no space for improvisation. Without improvisation, it’s not jazz.

Yes, I know, jazz artists have written a bunch of through-composed stuff (Charles Mingus comes to mind), and there are exceptions to every rule, but in general, for music to be truly “jazz,” improvisation has to be a major component. Or so I would say, anyway. Others more knowledgeable than me might differ.

[Steophan]

@Saintly_Loser

Good question. I’d say it’s classical. It’s through-composed (I think - I’m not familiar with it) and there’s no space for improvisation. Without improvisation, it’s not jazz.

Yes, I know, jazz artists have written a bunch of through-composed stuff (Charles Mingus comes to mind), and there are exceptions to every rule, but in general, for music to be truly “jazz,” improvisation has to be a major component. Or so I would say, anyway. Others more knowledgeable than me might differ.

Possibly Third Stream, although as the article makes fairly clear there’s not a good definition of what that actually is.

[Fiddle_Peghead]

@Baron_Greenback

And why can I replay in my head big chunks of music, in a way that I can’t with any other sensory input? It’s not even just an aural thing - I certainly can’t replay/recall extended amounts of speech in the same way.

I do that too, as I’m sure most of us can/do. I was posting about Beethoven’s 7th yesterday and wanted to say something about it, but was at work and couldn’t listen to it. So I “played” the relevant portion in my head and got chills. As for other things, like a speech, are you so sure that you can’t? There is a civil rights speech from Hubert Humphrey at the 1948 Democratic Convention that I know pretty well, and it does the same thing for me. Maybe you just haven’t heard the speech that would do it for you.

[Fiddle_Peghead]

@Slow_Moving_Vehicle

Point taken - like “classical music” (and “rock music” and “pop music”), “jazz” covers a multitude of styles. Nevertheless, there’s something common to all jazz genres, else they wouldn’t be subsumed under the general term “jazz”, right?

In any case, I’ve never found any jazz that I’ve been able to do more than tolerate. (With maybe one exception - Aaron Copland wrote a concerto for clarinet and strings, for Benny Goodman. That’s a beautiful piece of music; but is a composition written by a classical composer to be played by a jazz musician classical, or jazz?)

I wasn’t familiar with that and went off to listen as soon as I saw the link, before finishing your sentence. I came back afterwards to say pretty much the same thing. How do we decide how to classify all music precisely? Obviously we cannot. We would need countless genres/labels to do so.

[wanderer2575]

Overall, I like classical music, but my preferences are really narrow. I’ve had a seasonal subscription with the Detroit Symphony for 20+ years, but I am getting tired of it. I’m tired of concertos with soloists at every concert; I want to hear more of just the whole orchestra. And I hate the increasing emphasis on modern symphonic music; so much of it is atonal noise.

[panache45]

@wanderer2575

And I hate the increasing emphasis on modern symphonic music; so much of it is atonal noise.

I agree… though some modern symphonic music is interesting. And I also hate the resurgence of pre-baroque music. No, Western music didn’t reach some sort of epitome of excellence in the Renaissance. Boring!

[Novelty_Bobble]

@Steophan

Yes, you can. You can do so for several reasons. Firstly, the person who understands music did not always do so, and can see their enjoyment increasing as they understand more. And secondly, the person who understands the music still has the full sensory experience, and they have something more.

You seem to think that enjoyment, entertainment, appreciation, whatever you want to call it, is a purely emotional thing. It isn’t, and whether or not you enjoy something is dependent on understanding. Were that not the case, you could have no more enjoyment of music than you could of the random sounds of, well, anything.

If you don’t want to take the time to increase your understanding, and hence enjoyment, of anything - art or anything else - that’s up to you, time is of course finite. But don’t make excuses for it, or criticise those who simply observe what you are doing.

No, you simply cannot say that because you have no idea what relative level of enjoyment each person starts from and ends up with and you are unable to compare the two. It strikes me as elitist to suggest you can.

My enjoyment of music is a purely emotional thing and you have absolutely no basis on which to assert that you enjoy a piece more than I do, just because you understand more about it.

You continue with the nonsensical claim that I’m purposefully seeking to curtail my enjoyment of music by refusing to learn more about it. You do realise that over my life I have learned more about my favourite pieces and music in general and so am in a perfect position to confirm that, for me, it does not increase my enjoyment at all. And I am not alone in that

[Les_Espaces_Du_Sommeil]

@wanderer2575

Overall, I like classical music, but my preferences are really narrow. I’ve had a seasonal subscription with the Detroit Symphony for 20+ years, but I am getting tired of it. I’m tired of concertos with soloists at every concert; I want to hear more of just the whole orchestra. And I hate the increasing emphasis on modern symphonic music; so much of it is atonal noise.

I tend to prefer concertos over symphonies. I know that the latter are considered more “serious”, but I just love the drama of a single musician pitted against a whole orchestra.

As for contemporary music, it may be a deliberate choice of program on the part of the Detroit Music Director. In my opinion, it is impossible to say that one dislikes “Contemporary” music (in itself a misleading blanket term), as much as it is impossible to dislike “Classical music”. There has never been a time where one could experience such a huge range of radically different styles than after 1945. Total Serialism (Boulez, Stockhausen), Minimalism (Glass, Reich, Nyman), Spectral Music (Murail), Neo-Spiritualism (Gorecki, Pärt, MacMillan, Tavener), New Complexity (Ferneyhough, Finnissy), the soft-modernist Finnish composers (Rautavaara, Aho) and perhaps more importantly the composers who forged their own way (Ligeti, Dutilleux, Rihm, Dusapin), there is something for everyone, more so than anytime before.

[GreenWyvern]

@panache45

I agree… though some modern symphonic music is interesting. And I also hate the resurgence of pre-baroque music. No, Western music didn’t reach some sort of epitome of excellence in the Renaissance. Boring!

Again, Renaissance music is pretty broad category covering many different types and styles of music. And the way it’s sung and played today can vary considerably in quality - but there’s some good stuff!

[Magiver]

@Saintly_Loser

So, maybe, not Ornette Coleman, but Miles Davis might be okay.

This is one of the most beautiful peices of music I’ve ever heard in my entire life.

Yes, tha’t’s good stuff. Not the biggest fan of brass. Might be because I tortured a coronet as a kid.

But that’s exactly the kind of Jazz I listen to.

[Novelty_Bobble]

@Fiddle_Peghead

Again, what is this insistence of some people to tell Novelty Bobble how to enjoy music? I’m not really sure why I’m writing this. NB can speak for himself. I just don’t get it…

I do find it curious and not a little condescending, they think they know my mind and preferences better than I do, that I could reach a higher plane of enjoyment if only I were more educated (as they are of course)

Music isn’t an area of expertise for me, food and drink is.

Imagine I sat down with a friend and ate a wonderful meal that blows their mind. “Ah, I say. But you are missing out on so much and you could be enjoying it so much more as I am if you only took the time to learn how the meat was raised, butchered and prepared. The sort of knife and pan that was used, the motivations and history of the chef and the construction of the restaurant itself. I’m actually enjoying this more than you are”

That would obnoxious and I’d never even think it, let alone say it. The magic trick can better when we don’t know how it is done.

[Magiver]

@Saintly_Loser

Zappa might be an exception. But the rest of your examples are not harmonically complex. Not at all.

I would think groups like Zeppelin are more complex than you give them credit for. They pull off some difficult tempos between drummer and band.

I’ve spent my whole life trying to figure out what I like about various musical arrangements. It’s not the technical difficulty although that’s appreciated. It’s the melody and the interaction of those playing and the creativity of the piece.

[Steophan]

@Novelty_Bobble

I do find it curious and not a little condescending, they think they know my mind and preferences better than I do, that I could reach a higher plane of enjoyment if only I were more educated (as they are of course)

It’s unfortunate that you find facts based on psychology condescending. Anti-vaxxers and flat earthers feel the same way about actual science. But if you want to pretend that the intellect isn’t necessarily involved in the enjoyment of any art, whether music, cookery or any other, and that learning more about it will necessarily enhance that enjoyment that’s up to you.

Attempting, and necessarily failing, to remain in a childish world of pure sensation is of course your choice. But it is, of course, impossible as everything is filtered through the intellect, and by fighting that you will miss out on, well, almost everything.

[GreenWyvern]

@Novelty_Bobble

I do find it curious and not a little condescending, they think they know my mind and preferences better than I do, that I could reach a higher plane of enjoyment if only I were more educated (as they are of course)

Music isn’t an area of expertise for me, food and drink is.

Imagine I sat down with a friend and ate a wonderful meal that blows their mind. “Ah, I say. But you are missing out on so much and you could be enjoying it so much more as I am if you only took the time to learn how the meat was raised, butchered and prepared. The sort of knife and pan that was used, the motivations and history of the chef and the construction of the restaurant itself. I’m actually enjoying this more than you are”

That would obnoxious and I’d never even think it, let alone say it. The magic trick can better when we don’t know how it is done.

I notice you made no response to my post about how the brain is affected by attention and learning, and how a person’s physical ability to hear music (and therefore enjoy it) changes.

Nobody is saying, or ever has said on this thread, that merely external knowledge affects enjoyment of music. We are talking about internal knowledge. You have set up a straw man to knock down.

You say you know about food. Suppose you were eating with someone who didn’t. You might say, ‘This dish was cooked using such-and-such method to improve the flavour. These are the herbs that were used. This one is used to balance that taste. Too much of this would have that effect. You can taste the individual components that were used. You can taste that this ingredient is very fresh. This variety of produce was used, but it would have been better to use that one, because the cooking properties are different in this way. That side portion has been slightly undercooked. It should have been like this.’

The person you were speaking to, not knowing any of this, will taste more carefully and try to taste all the aspects you have been describing… and he will enjoy his meal all the more because of that close attention to detail. If he continues to do this regularly, and to find out more about how the taste of different dishes is created, his physical ability to taste subtle differences will be improved, and he will enjoy his food far more.

It’s the same with music.

[Thudlow_Boink]

@Fiddle_Peghead

Again, what is this insistence of some people to tell Novelty Bobble how to enjoy music? I’m not really sure why I’m writing this. NB can speak for himself. I just don’t get it…

Novelty Bobble has made two claims that I take exception with. I believe that he’s either wrong, even in what he says about himself, or he’s atypical.

The first claim is that understanding of a work of art never increases enjoyment (cite).

For myself, if I listened to someone read a poem in Italian, I might enjoy the sounds of the words, but I would not have any idea of their meaning. I would not understand what the poem was saying, and so I would not enjoy or appreciate it nearly as much as someone who speaks Italian would, nor as much as I would enjoy or appreciate a poem written in English.

And if someone else (e.g. Novelty Bobble) claimed to derive the exact same enjoyment from poems in languages he did not understand as from poems in languages he did, I would conclude that, if he’s telling the truth about this, he’s getting only a fraction of what’s there to get, and not fully appreciating them.

Likewise, someone who appreciates the “language” that a piece of music is written in is going to get more out of it, and enjoy/appreciate it more, than someone who does not. Music written in some of modern styles mentioned by Les Espaces Du Sommeil in Post #193 above, I don’t like, and that’s at least partly because I don’t understand the musical language it’s based on. If I took the time and trouble to try to understand that language, by listening to that kind of music a lot and trying to hear what’s really going on in it, I might very well increase my enjoyment of it.

Thus, I am skeptical when Novelty Bobble claims he cannot increase his enjoyment of music by increasing his understanding. If it is true of him, it is not true of other people, and those other people have at least the potential of hearing things that NB is missing and getting some enjoyment that NB is deaf to.

The other claim that NB makes that I have a problem with is when he says, in so many words, that “My enjoyment of music is a purely emotional thing and you have absolutely no basis on which to assert that you enjoy a piece more than I do, just because you understand more about it.”

My own enjoyment of music, at least the music I like best, is not purely an emotional thing. I enjoy it, not just for what it makes me feel, but also for what it makes me think. I think I can safely say that I enjoy a piece of music more than I would if my enjoyment of it were purely emotional. Does that mean that I enjoy it more than someone else does who claims their enjoyment is purely emotional? Not necessarily. But you can see how it might make me suspect so.