About liking different kinds of music

[chest]

It's not surprising when composers pick a direction and stick with it, perhaps claiming that other composers' approaches are wrong. But what about listeners to their work? ...

Is there any contradiction if a listener appears to like the works of two composers whose principles are strongly opposed: say, for instance, one hypothetical composer who believes vehemently that the only way to create worth-while music is by strict serialist methods, and another whose compositions are arrived at through more intuitive methods, and who totally rejects the value of serialism?

Does it make sense for (for instance) the serialist composer to say: "If you truly like his music, you clearly haven't understood what I'm all about, so you're mistaken if you say you also like my music - except at a superficial level - because to properly appreciate my music, you have to understand my reasons for creating it the way I do, and if you did understand that properly, you'd simply have to find his music worthless."

Is there a difference between:

(a) liking the works of that serialist composer as well as liking the works of (say) Sibelius; and

(b) liking the works of that serialist composer as well as liking the works one of his contemporaries who writes in a style that could have been contemporary with Sibelius.

[OneThrow]

I don't see why one would need to know how a composition was written, what inspired it or to know any of the reasons why it came into being when listening to a work. In fact I find it of great benefit not to know about the composer because I like to make up my mind uninfluenced.

Is this really a question about serialism as opposed to other types of music?

Schoenberg for example I believe greatly admired the works of Beethoven, I see no conflict in enjoying the works of Beethoven and Schoenberg (I don't actively listen to Schoenberg, but I don't think that invalidates the point).

People can listen to any types of music, can like any types of music, I see no conflict with gaining knowledge or enjoyment from contrasted or supposed opposed style of music. Surely it is up to the listener.

Once a composer has put his/her work in the public domain, he/she has no right to dictate who listens to that music and for what reasons, that is entirely up to the listener himself/herself.

I can't think of anything else.


:D

[ewkarl7777]

"We like both kinds of music - Country and Western." - The Blues Brothers

More seriously, all of the famous Classical composers who used 'serialism' in one way or another had a deep understanding and respect for the music that preceded them. Even Boulez who once called for the destruction of the opera houses and wiping the slate clean so that music could start fresh, now happily conducts Mahler symphonies.

But I must ask - who are these "serialist" composers you are talking about? Most of the big names are dead. The only ones I can think of off the top of my head would be Boulez, Babbitt, and Wuorinen- and I can assure you that the music they are writing today has almost nothing to do with traditional Schoenbergian 12-tone music. Carter? He never wrote a serial piece in his life.

If you're thinking that writing "serial" music is the new, kewl, 'in' thing, I'm afraid that hasn't been true for going on a half century. We've had chance music, stochastic music (Xenakis), Minimalism/post-minimalism, Spectralism, noise music, Neo-Romanticism, Drone music, etc. Now there are still people writing highly complex, atonal music, but that doesn't make them "serialists". We're living in an age of Pluralism - lots of different styles all happening at the same time.

Once upon a time, composers would argue that atonality/serialism arose out of the breakdown of tonality in the complex harmonies of the very late 19th century. That it was a way to restore order and meaning - and as such, was a 'historical imperative'. Whether or not that was true then, I'll leave for the musicologists to sort out - but talking like that in 2009 strikes me as naive.

Chest, that wasn't a criticism of you. I just meant that there are so many different things going on in Classical music right now, that anyone proclaiming themselves heir to the one true, historically inevitable style is probably a bit full of themselves.

Relax and enjoy any music you want. In fact, that's a 'historical imperative'. :)

[mezzoforte]

I don't like different kinds of music; I like the same kinds of music. But then again, I could hardly differentiate between serial music, a serial killer, and a serial killer's music. However, *I think* I could distinguish serial music from cereal music: it's the same difference as between a serial killer and a cereal killer.

[chest]

Hm, I'm beginning to wish I hadn't mentioned serialism - it's just what came to mind as an easy example where people took very entrenched views. For instance, IIRC, a young Stockhausen once said something to the effect that any composers who don't follow the principles of total serialism are worthless. On the other hand, my music teacher at high school would barely acknowledge the existence of 20th century music, and described 12-tone composition very derisively - as did (and still do, it seems) quite a lot of people. I suppose a similar example would be "Musique Concrete" versus "Elektronische Musik" in the 1950s (I hope I've remembered those terms correctly).

Here's another angle. There's no reason why liking the kind of food you get in Indian restaurants means that you shouldn't like the kind of food you get in Chinese restaurants (or vice versa). Is it the same with music?

For me, I think it is the same. I like music composed by people whose attitudes to composition were very different. But I can imagine a composer of one kind of music finding it unfathomable that I could like his music and the music of a composer who worked utterly differently. I'd like to think that would mean that that composer was being short-sighted/narrow-minded. But would anyone argue that it could mean that I'm only getting a superficial appreciation of the music and getting enjoyment at a very shallow level?

[mezzoforte]

I can imagine a composer of one kind of music finding it unfathomable that I could like his music and the music of a composer who worked utterly differently.
Each and every composer worth his salt will want all music lovers to like his and only his music. Each and every artist will want everyone to like him and only him. Artists are jealous breed. If they weren't, they would all go sing hare krishna in the subway all day long. Composers have huge ugly egos. Thank goodness for that. For if their egos weren't huge, they wouldn't go on composing; and if their egos weren't ugly, they would compose less and hang out more. Although I don't see why should listeners and composers have to interact on personal level. Wouldn't that vitiate the experience of music?

[Peterkjones]

Hi chest,
Interesting thread. There is an additional aspect to this business of liking one sort of music above another and that’s the business of getting performances.
Unlike, say, a fine artist who can paint a picture, hang it on a wall and say that his artistic goal has been achieved, a composer’s effort is not complete until other people have had a hand in it, until a performance, in other words. That means not only performers but, music directors, concert managers, venue organisers, programme planners etc, all of whom have their likes and dislikes, and their prejudices can often make the difference between getting a performance or not.
As an older composer, I lived through what was known as the Darmstadt tyranny at the BBC, by far the largest commissioner of new work in the UK in the 60s. At that time, unless you wrote strictly Central European “serialist” modernist works, you had virtually no chance of a first performance. Writing as I do in the neo-romantic English tradition, and although people liked performing and listening to my pieces, I stood no chance – indeed fine established composers like George Lloyd had their scores returned insultingly unopened!
Things are much easier now, under the new pluralism mentioned above. Concert promoters know that to get bums on seats, audiences must anticipate liking what they have come to hear, both old favourites and being challenged by new works. In addition, the engagement of conductors who also have their preferences, makes concert planning a mine-field. To be too eclectic may be, to use your restaurant analogy, like going out for a meal and finding the first course is French, the second Chinese, the third American etc., until the palate is completely repelled. I well remember Harry Birtwhistle’s Panic being booed off at the BBC’s Last Night of the Proms concert by an audience who only wanted the jingoistic indulgence of waving union flags to Land of Hope and Glory, (not to my taste at all!) To be too specialist may be to alienate some people, risking a loss, even though funding is much easier to get if the new work is of the avant garde.
The use of classical tropes in movie and TV scores has helped, and there is now a lot of cross-over. However, I do get worried when in this forum is see young composers wanting to write “like John Williams” or Gustav Holst or Howard Shore. While I realise a big cheque may be at the end of it, my belief is that you should write (and like) whatever is in your head and in your heart and let the devil take the hind-most. But then I’m only an old romantic!
best PKJ

[ewkarl7777]

Chest, since you asked your question again, I'll give you more of a direct answer.

"But would anyone argue that it could mean that I'm only getting a superficial appreciation of the music and getting enjoyment at a very shallow level?"

Yes. Someone might very well argue that. But if you then intensely study one composer/style, you will be criticized for that too!

Read this Blog post for some valuable advice to young composers (especially the last part starting with "If you write tonal or modal music...").

http://renewablemusic.blogspot.com/2009/08/only-way-to-win-is-not-to-play-game.html

[chest]

Read this ... (especially the last part starting with "If you write tonal or modal music...").

http://renewablemusic.blogspot.com/2009/08/only-way-to-win-is-not-to-play-game.html
... Cynical, amusing, and - best of all - true. Thanks.

[OneThrow]

Chest, since you asked your question again, I'll give you more of a direct answer.

"But would anyone argue that it could mean that I'm only getting a superficial appreciation of the music and getting enjoyment at a very shallow level?"

Yes. Someone might very well argue that. But if you then intensely study one composer/style, you will be criticized for that too!

Read this Blog post for some valuable advice to young composers (especially the last part starting with "If you write tonal or modal music...").

http://renewablemusic.blogspot.com/2009/08/only-way-to-win-is-not-to-play-game.html

In other words there are always people who will find fault, usually because your music doesn't fit their agenda. The truth is, if you want to take note of someone's criticism, make sure its someone you trust.

[peter5992]

Each and every composer worth his salt will want all music lovers to like his and only his music. Each and every artist will want everyone to like him and only him. Artists are jealous breed. If they weren't, they would all go sing hare krishna in the subway all day long. Composers have huge ugly egos. Thank goodness for that. For if their egos weren't huge, they wouldn't go on composing; and if their egos weren't ugly, they would compose less and hang out more. Although I don't see why should listeners and composers have to interact on personal level. Wouldn't that vitiate the experience of music?

Nonsense.

[Lostin Space]

Here's another angle. There's no reason why liking the kind of food you get in Indian restaurants means that you shouldn't like the kind of food you get in Chinese restaurants (or vice versa). Is it the same with music?

It is the same.

[mezzoforte]

It is indeed, and the analogy goes deeper - food is music and music is food:
Food is 'music' for the mouth and nourishment for the body.
Music is pleasure for the ear and 'food' for the spirit.

[Dean Krommydas]

Nonsense.

+1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 1111111111111

[Xplora]

Chest, if you found a composer like the serialist who could say what you have presented in your hypothetical, they would be so insufferably arrogant that I would be put off their work. That goes for any kind of human output - painting, recipe, song, flowchart, handshake. If anyone believes their music needs to be ingested to be fully appreciated, they need to have their head read. Music is no more important than eating breakfast in the morning. Ever.

I'm almost baffled as to why you'd ask this. Your reaction to a piece is simply that. The reaction. It doesn't need to be studied, unless you want to better understand the reason for your reaction. I listen to music because I enjoy it, because I don't like studying much. :p

It's not surprising when composers pick a direction and stick with it, perhaps claiming that other composers' approaches are wrong. But what about listeners to their work? ...

Is there any contradiction if a listener appears to like the works of two composers whose principles are strongly opposed: say, for instance, one hypothetical composer who believes vehemently that the only way to create worth-while music is by strict serialist methods, and another whose compositions are arrived at through more intuitive methods, and who totally rejects the value of serialism?

Does it make sense for (for instance) the serialist composer to say: "If you truly like his music, you clearly haven't understood what I'm all about, so you're mistaken if you say you also like my music - except at a superficial level - because to properly appreciate my music, you have to understand my reasons for creating it the way I do, and if you did understand that properly, you'd simply have to find his music worthless."

Is there a difference between:

(a) liking the works of that serialist composer as well as liking the works of (say) Sibelius; and

(b) liking the works of that serialist composer as well as liking the works one of his contemporaries who writes in a style that could have been contemporary with Sibelius.

[chest]

I'm almost baffled as to why you'd ask this. Your reaction to a piece is simply that. The reaction. It doesn't need to be studied, unless you want to better understand the reason for your reaction.
I suppose the reason for the question is an occasional concern about whether I'm superficial in my appreciation of music - the musical equivalent of choosing a computer by it's colour and not its spec.

[Jeff Hayat]

Each and every composer worth his salt will want all music lovers to like his and only his music.

Who are you talking about? You obviously aren't talking about all composers, so which ones, then?

Artists are jealous breed. If they weren't, they would all go sing hare krishna in the subway all day long.

Oh, was that you i saw yesterday? Dude - you suck! Seriously, I am a musician, and have never sang HK in the subway for even one second.

Composers have huge ugly egos.

Sorry bro, but you do not know me. I have a decent amount of self-confidence, but I am far removed from a huge ugly ego. Maybe next time, don't generalize so much, huh?

I don't see why one would need to know how a composition was written, what inspired it or to know any of the reasons why it came into being when listening to a work.

Because it helps you to understand - or at least offers a little insight - as to how and why the piece came into existence in the first place. The hows and whys are invaluable lessons to any composer who has a desire to learn something new.

Cheers.

[mezzoforte]

I suppose the reason for the question is an occasional concern about whether I'm superficial in my appreciation of music
All people take pleasure in listening to music.
Most of them stop at this superficial level, for pleasure is a reward in itself.
Some of them have the ability to go beyond the surface.
A few of them find some gems there.

I have addressed this dual nature of music a bit above: Music is pleasure for the ear and 'food' for the spirit. Now, whether or not you are being superficial in your appreciation of a piece of music depends on two things: the piece itself (which can be dense or hollow), and on how much spiritual, as opposed to pleasurable, satisfaction you get out of it.

[Lostin Space]

Can someone explain this to me:

If its not possible to like different types of music; how the h.. can one ever be successful in scoring any movies at all?

Can not possibly be done in the long run, anyway (unless one scores the same genre by the same director his/her hole life).

I may of course be wrong here: perhaps it is possible to compose in a music-style you dont like, but it will shine through for sure.

If Gardel & La Pera hated tango, I dont think Al Pacino would have danced to their "Por una cabeza" - even with good eyes :D


If a person say he likes only one type of music - he is right.
If a person say he likes different types of music - he is also right. I fall into this category.

[OneThrow]

I suppose the reason for the question is an occasional concern about whether I'm superficial in my appreciation of music - the musical equivalent of choosing a computer by it's colour and not its spec.

That's a very honest answer. But why does one have to be deep? The great thing about listening is that we can please ourselves, our reasons are our own. ;)

[Peterkjones]

And to return to the genius of Arnold Schoenberg; how extraordinary that he spent eleven years finishing the Gurrelieder long after he had started work reinventing tonality and rejecting almost all that this work stood for. For it surely is the final vast and glorious flowering of the romantic tradition - even Mahler never attempted anything on this scale. The closing sunrise movement, with the great choral outpouring "behold the sun", must be the greatest evocation of dawning light since Haydn first overwhelmed us in The Creation. So here is a composer who holds in his heart, at the same time, the two dominant musical aesthetics of modern times. He obviously found no problem in liking both, so why, as listeners, should we, I wonder?

[chest]

Schoenberg ... a composer who holds in his heart, at the same time, the two dominant musical aesthetics of modern times. He obviously found no problem in liking both, so why, as listeners, should we, I wonder?
Excellent point. :cool:

Doesn't quite let me off the hook, though, unfortunately -- just means I'm not NECESSARILY a dilettante. :)

Now ... where can I find some piano pieces with nice green covers? :D

[PaulR]

Hi chest,

As an older composer, I lived through what was known as the Darmstadt tyranny at the BBC, by far the largest commissioner of new work in the UK in the 60s. At that time, unless you wrote strictly Central European “serialist” modernist works, you had virtually no chance of a first performance. PKJ

I'm sure I remember something about that. I may have seen, many many years ago, ironically a BBC documentary or report on the Darmstadt with one of the composers doing some serious bitching , and rightly so if I remember correctly. But all of this is typical of the BBC. Their days are now seriously numbered as a corporation I would imagine.

[Xplora]

I suppose the reason for the question is an occasional concern about whether I'm superficial in my appreciation of music - the musical equivalent of choosing a computer by it's colour and not its spec.

But a computer is only a tool to achieve a job, and lets face it, to the TRULY SERIOUS technology enthusiast, you should know about the semiconductor that the CPU is built on, and the programming tricks that will make your computer better than the MacBook next door.

You imply that choosing a computer by its colour is foolish - well choosing a computer because it has 15 gigawhatzits rather than 12 is equally pointless if you don't have an excellent grasp of the usefulness of the gigawhatzit, and in the end - you're still just trying to use the PC for emails.

Music is the same. I've just finished listening to a chunk of Stravinsky's Rite of Spring (which was really cool) and while I know there is some 12 tone composition elements in there (according to Wikipedia) I'll be stuffed if I can hear them. The flowing nature and emotion of the piece is what is relevent! The actual selection of notes fades away into insignificance really, compared to the flow and emotional impact. You can pick different notes, it makes little difference. I could pick out a lot of different devices in the piece.

It didn't help me enjoy it more. In fact I found it less entertaining; studying art sucks the lifeforce from it in my shoes.

[mezzoforte]

The actual selection of notes fades away into insignificance really, compared to the flow and emotional impact.
You, my friend, have just touched the wing of an angel here.
So you think notes are not the most important device there. Then, what other devices are more important: rhythms? dynamics? instrument choices? textures? maybe, their interplay?
The Rite of Spring is surely a milestone; everything springs form it. (Think Clarke's monolith.) Question is: how is that level of effectiveness achieved? What keeps the 'flow and emotional impact' ongoing there? None of the above. It is something that could be called: purposefulness. Watching the ballet is a real eye opener, ignored by many. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjX3oAwv_Fs

You can pick different notes, it makes little difference.
Some would think notes make a big difference. Prokofiev called Stravinsky "Bach on the wrong notes."

[MichaelJM]

I really enjoyed reading this discussion.

I often don't know why I like a particular piece of music. It doesn't matter what style, or genre, it is, or how complex or simple it is. If I enjoy it, then that's all there is to it, and I can't change that. Only time and experience might. Surprisingly (to me), there is music I used to like, but do not like anymore. I couldn't tell you why though. Only recently have I become interested in analyzing why I like certain pieces over others, and why I like certain parts of certain pieces, but only because I think it would be useful in my efforts to learn how to compose. However, I can probably only take this so far. Others with more musical knowledge might scoff at the construction of some of the same pieces I enjoy. This doesn't matter to me in the least. I'm not about to change what kind of music I like, just because I'm learning more about the craft. Also, if I wasn't composing, I'd feel no obligation to learn more about the craft. There shouldn't be any prerequisites to liking or disliking music, or anything for that matter.

People kept telling me, that if I went into film production, I would never be able to watch a movie in the same way. I never found this to be very true for me. I can still be moved by a film. While I might recognize a certain lens here, a style of shot there, it doesn't change how I view the film as a whole. That's what really matters. The same holds true with music. If anything, the more I learn about music, the more I will appreciate it. (So I will disagree with you're comment Xplora that "studying art sucks the lifeforce from it in my shoes." Anytime I've ever analyzed something, I've gained a larger appreciation of it. Though perhaps repeated listenings might ruin the 'lifeforce'. Too much of a good thing...)

Films are made for a wide range of audiences. Not just filmmakers. Music is made for listeners of any background, not just composers. Filmmakers and composers can still appreciate films and music respectively, but have no right (imho) to tell the listeners that their likes and dislikes are unfounded.

[Xplora]

Mezzo, I don't know if the angel comment was positive or negative - I'm well read but obviously not that well read :)

What I mean about the Rite of Spring is that the magical elements of the flute trills, or the timpani accents, or the whirling passages of combined instruments don't rely specifically on a "C" or an "Eb" in any particular point, just as long as it is vaguely in the ball park and the appropriate intervals are chosen most of the time. The character of the piece isn't affected by the key. There is too much happening to say "this set of notes is the key to it all".

I have always enjoyed Slayer's Seasons in the Abyss (the track). Why? Brilliant arrangement, rhythms and fantastic energy. The actual note choice isn't super important (particularly during the soloes!!!!!) but as long as you blast through the tune and play the same notes as the rest of the band, it sounds great. You can study the track as much as you like - it won't improve your appreciation of the track.

Likewise, unless your goal is to replicate a sound, why must you study something? I guess I don't get the need to dissect something. You don't need to cut up a bikini model to enjoy looking at her - I think music is the same, or at least SHOULD be the same.