Well said. I see from reading a bit further that the mind-reading hasn’t stopped. Thudlow Boink almost had it when he used the word “atypical”. If he had left it at that, then that would have been to my mind a reasonable place to end this discussion.But, no…:smack: Not that I necessarily agree that your viewpoint is atypical, but at least it would show a willingness to accept what you are saying and move on.
I tried to explain my reasoning. Do you think any of my arguments were faulty?
[quote=“Fiddle_Peghead, post:201, topic:838957”]
Well said. I see from reading a bit further that the mind-reading hasn’t stopped. /QUOTE]
Psychology is not “mind-reading”, it’s science. Novelty Bobble is factually wrong if he thinks his intellect plays no part in his enjoyment of art.
I think to some extent we are all already consumers of classical music - it’s well baked into our culture and we’re constantly exposed to snippets of it though weddings, music classes at school, movies, commercials, cartoons, religious services, etc. Everyone is familiar with a bunch of classical pieces even if maybe they can’t name them. So it’s not such a big deal if people don’t want to listen to classical in their spare time except on special occasions.
But I can’t defend faux-classical music that’s hybridized with modern music - in my opinion classical music turns into a silly freakshow when mixed with New Age pan flutes & chanting, rock guitar, etc. (sorry, fans of Yo-Yo Ma or the Aerosmith / Boston Pops medley)
That isn’t what that quote says though is it? I have accepted several times in this thread that indeed for some people it may.
Because I like to own the classical music lovers?
So, you think that my pointing out, in detail, the problems with the meal they were previously enjoying will in fact make them enjoy it more? What sort of people do you normally dine with?
That you consider facts and knowledge “problems” says a lot about you.
It’s possible that pointing out these features of the meal wouldn’t enhance their enjoyment of that particular meal, but by no means certain. What is certain is that, if they to choose to take in and understand that knowledge, they will be able to select future meals that they will enjoy more and, knowing these things, appreciate those meals on a far deeper level than “this tastes nice”.
Entertainment, enjoyment, appreciation and so forth are not simple emotional responses - even in you - and repeatedly claiming otherwise will not change that. Learning more about art will, necessarily, increase your enjoyment of it because as well as the simple emotional response you crave you will have the intellectual enjotment of it.
And you know you have an intellectual response to art because you can tell the difference between the music you like and someone simply banging two rocks together. That requires thought, not merely instinct.
Er… Yo Yo Ma is one of the greatest living cellists. Some of his most recent recordings have been… not my thing (his Silk Road crossover stuff) but his credentials speak for themselves. He’s the real thing.
The theory (musical or culinary) does not come up in vacuo; people came up with it to analyse extant and historical traditions. After enjoying many meals you learn to appreciate them, and at that point it may be natural to become curious about the various ingredients, spices, preparation, and cooking methods (which flavors you have, consciously or not, noticed due to experience, if not systematically).
There was one negative item in a long list of positive ones. But that’s hardly the point is it?
This the same kind of diversionary tactic that Trump supporters and flat-earthers use to avoid responding to reasoned arguments.
So, sure, Novelty Bobble…
“Ignorance is bliss! There’s no such thing as easy or difficult works of music, and anyone who says otherwise is being pretentious!”
:rolleyes:
I see two main reasons for classical music hate. The first is that they, as some have mentioned in this thread, were forced to endure classical as a child, whether for piano or other instrumental lessons, or through the musical choices of people around them. They then associate the classical with that feeling of being a bored child, and there you go. Many people won’t even give it a chance, because they are already turned off by it.
The second is that it is more complex. There are very few pop songs that you cannot turn on somewhere in the middle, and just start singing (or at least humming) along, even if you’ve never heard it before. Try that with most classical, and you will be confused and bored, as you don’t know the context of the notes that you are currently hearing.
The third movement of Moonlight Sonata, like it or not, you can’t call it “boring”. But without listening to the first 2 movements, which are not quite as fast and full of transitions and jumps, it lacks context, and is just a bunch of notes being played really fast. With the previous movements having set up themes and melodies, the third can take those and use them for a whole new effect. It’d be like watching the climax of a movie without seeing the first 2 acts. Sure, the fight scene is “cool”, but knowing who is fighting and why will add enjoyment to your experience.
Modern pop music doesn’t require as much investment for an equivalent payoff, but I personally feel that the investment is more than worthwhile. It’s not just notes, it is telling a story, it is painting a picture.
There are very few classical pieces that I listen to, even for the umpteenth time, that I don’t notice some new little feature in it that I hadn’t noticed a previous time. Once I’ve listened to most modern pop music, there’s very little new nuance to be discovered on subsequent listens.
People listen to far more classical than they think. If you watched a movie recently, you probably listened to some classical. If you watched a TV show, there was probably some classical in the soundtrack. If you saw a commercial, odds are that it had classical music in it. These are not put in because the director of the commercial was a classical music snob, they put them in precisely because that style of music does in fact resonate with most people.
Quite a few of the artists of the 50’s, 60’s, and 70’s were trained in classical music. When they started making rock, they stuck with quite a bit of the the same theory that makes classical work.
I’ve never had a piece of modern rock reach into my gut and twist the way that some classical pieces do.
The window rattling is the best part.
I’ve heard some classical concert goers (I like classical, but have only attended a few concerts in my life) like to try different seats, as the acoustics are different in different places, and a piece can be played identically, but have a completely different effect depending on where you are sitting and what parts of the orchestra are emphasized in your location.
Hard to replicate that with a recording.
I consider the problems being pointed as “problems” but certainly, facts and knowledge can be problematic as well. You can be told something about a meal or music or an artist or a work that you would rather not know and could indeed diminsh you enjoyment of it. Is that fact a problem for you? Would you not accept that in some cases as well too much knowledge and over-analysis can get in the way? Not for everyone…but defintely for some. I know of a photographer friend of mine who finds it painfull to look through other peoples photos as they see technical errors and compositional mistakes, their brain is full of how it could be better rather than enjoying them for what they are.
Correct. For some it will, for some it won’t matter., for some it may even make them enjooy it less.
No, that final part is not certain at all.
[quote]
Learning more about art will, necessarily, increase your enjoyment of it ]/quote] No, not “necessarily” at all. The statement you are grasping for is “for some people, learning more about art will increase their enjoyment” Not sure why that is such a controversial statement.
How do you account for the fact that that has never happened to me for music? Do you think I’m lying about it? I readily admit that learning more about certain scientific and techological areas has increased my enjoyment of some sports and some areas of my work. Why do you think I am unable to make the same judgement regarding music? I know my mind better than you do.
What you really seem to mean is that learning about art increases your own enjoyment of it. I’m delighted for you and take you at your word even though you have absolutely nothing to base that on other than your own internal assessment. (because that is the only metric that we ever have).
You might want to extend me the same courtesy rather than assuming that everyone must experience the world the same way that you do. That smacks of arrogance.
There were two negative ones and a detailed lecture but I’m sure your dinner guest was able to put it out of their mind and is eagerly awaiting to be told how and how much to enjoy the background music and the crusted port.
It is entirely possible that they may have hightened enjoyment of such sensory delights in the future but I bet it’ll mainly be due to never dining in your company ever again.
I guess we’ve hit the “Nazi post” of this thread. Bringing Trump into ievery thread is a true SDMB Hallmark.
:Rolleyes: , indeed
FWIW, I agree that appreciation of music is improved by knowledge, but I don’t understand why winning the internet is so important.
I think you are wrong about it, and yes, I do think I know your mind better than you do on this subject, simply because I know a little bit about the psychology of understanding art, specifically music.
The most arrogant thing here is your assumption that you are somehow special, that your mind is somehow different from everyone else’s, and that you can somehow understand all art at the first impression.
There are a couple of questions that other people have asked you that you have not yet answered that will get to the heart of this. Do you think that you can get as much enjoyment from poetry in a languge you don’t understand as from one you do? And do you understand that hearing, whether music, speech or just noise, is an activity that happens in the brain and not just the ears? The point of the latter question is to make it very clear that not everyone hears the same thing when they listen to the same sounds, and that learning to hear is something that you will, necessarily, have done if you are able to hear and understand music at all.
Plus, something of mine that you have not yet responded to. Do you understand that responding to art, including music, is not simply an emotional response, but one that involves thought? It doesn’t require conscious thought, but unconcscious thoughts are learned behaviour and learned responses just as much as conscious ones are.
[Moderating]
This is unnecessarily personal. Dial it back, or I’ll dial it back for you.
Great post, and yes to this !
Some solo piano pieces by Beethoven (sonatas n°14, 15, 26, 32 at the very least), Schubert (*sonata n°20), *Chopin (Nocturnes n°1, 2, 6, 8, 9, 13, 15, 17, 19 and Préludes n°4, 6, 15, 20), Brahms (Klavierstück 118/2 and 6), Satie (Gnossienne n°1), Prokofiev (sonatas n°2 and 8) or Scriabin (sonata n°6) have a purely visceral effect on me in way that no other music has. At risk of sounding corny : sighs, restlessness, a twisting, sinking sensation in the guts and, yes, teary eyes. I love all genres of music, but only get such a strong reaction from Classical music.
And when I feel this, I have to understand how it works.
Case in point, about a year ago I was listening to Debussy’s Pour Remercier la Pluie au Matin from 6 Épigraphes Antiques and wondering how he had managed to capture that fuzzy, rainy morning vibe so perfectly in the first 3-4 seconds. I rushed to IMSLP to have a look at the score (p. 23) and reading it did increase my enjoyment because I was able to see the movement of the different voices, which I was unable to hear clearly. Moreover, it opens up the possibility of playing it one day (ahem…), which is another joy in itself.
It’s wonderful you feel this way. I don’t think it holds a candle to Stevie Ray Vaugn’s Riviera Paradise.. A far more powerful piece with great subtle interludes. The guitar work could not be reproduced by simply reading the notes. There is no way to annotate it on paper. I didn’t have to learn to like it or understand the depth behind it. It was a grand slam home run on the first listen.
if someone doesn’t think it’s the best damn thing ever played I’m not bothered in the least because I know what it does for me. I don’t need my opinion validated. I just hope there is music out there that does the same for those who don’t like it so they can experience the joy of music on the same level I do.
If the music I like needs to be explained to someone or they need to listen to it over and over to appreciate it then my suggestion is to move on to something else. Life is a limited engagement.
I think that’s different than saying you can gain a greater appreciation for something by focusing on what is is you like about it and then seeking out music that scratches that itch.
Why, oh why does talking about one’s favourite music and the way one enjoys it has turn into a pissing contest :rolleyes: ?
:rolleyes:
Nice piece, by the way.