|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
24.205.98.160
It's been two months since I woke up one day in early May of this year (2012) and poof I didn't like classical music anymore. This after it being my favorite style of music for 38 years. I don't understand what happened. It's almost as if my classical gene was turned off overnight and I can't turn it back on. On May 22, 2012 I posted Any other older music listeners enjoying the music of their youth? http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/general/messages/62/623173.htmlI have now played at least parts of all my classical SACDs and computer music files and can now confirm it's not just classical orchestral but also orchestral music from other genres such as pops and movie soundtracks that are now unexplainably unlistenable. I just find it all so boring.
My long time favorite SACD of Mussorgsky's Pictures At An Exhibition with Paavo Järvi conducting the Cincinnati Symphony Orchestra now bores me to death. So I decided to give my first version another shot, the Emerson, Lake and Palmer progressive rock arrangement, and in some ways I liked it better and in other ways not so much. If I had liked it more that would have made it full circle since Emerson, Lake and Palmer was one of the rock groups that introduced me to classical music. However I actually prefer Emerson, Lake and Palmer's songs not based on classical music thus I have retired Pictures At An Exhibition from my listening cue for the time being.
I think it's also the style of the music, not just the instruments themselves where my interest has faded away. To me classical music now sounds simplistic, whereas before it sounded a lot more complex, indeed perhaps the most complex of all music. Before classical music sounded meaningful, often exciting and sometimes beautiful but now it just sounds boring.
I love rock, jazz, blues and world music as much as I did the day before this happened. Rock music from the 1960's-1970's is now my favorite musical genre followed by traditional jazz.
There is another possible reason for my orchestral burnout, I have always been very picky about the sonics of orchestral music. This could stem from the fact that I never much cared for the sound of string instruments played with a bow (arco style) and prefer plucking instead (pizzicato). I found bowed violin on CD and 16 bit PCM unlistenable, and only the very finest engineered analog and high resolution digital recordings, made string instruments played arco style somewhat enjoyable. It was the winds, brass and especially percussion instruments that got me interested in classical music back in 1974.
This might explain why my favorite symphony was Johan de Meij's Symphony No. 1 for Band "Lord of the Rings" which has no string instruments. With full orchestra I preferred works that stressed the brass and winds over the strings and had lots of percussion. I listened to my classical music written for winds, brass and percussion and it seems I have lost interest in those as well. On the other hand I still like the violin solos on "Sad Lisa" and "Into White" from Cat Stevens' "Tea For The Tillerman" both played arco style.
I was never cared much for concertos even for wind instruments. Another classical instrument I always had trouble with is the classical guitar. I'm a guitar player and I've played electric, acoustic folk and classical guitar. I like the sound of acoustic folk guitar the best, especially early Martin's, mine is a Samick LW020G dreadnought acoustic guitar. To my ears the classical guitar sounds dull especially the three highest strings which are nylon instead of the steel on the folk and electric guitars. My classical guitar was a Yamaha and it had the same dull sound as classical guitars do in recordings.
How it all began
In 1974 I started experimenting with classical music which never totally displaced my favorite rock, folk and jazz music but I got more and more into it especially the more obscure modern tonal composers.
My first classical LP was called Beethoven's Biggest Hits on an RCA LP I purchased after reading the liner notes to Electric Light Orchestra's ELO II which had the song "Roll over Beethoven" in which Chuck Berry's song was interspaced with excerpts of all of Beethoven's most famous works.
My second classical LP was Mussorgsky's Pictures At An Exhibition by Herbert von Karajan conducting the Berlin Philharmonic on a Deutsche Grammophon LP which to me at the time sounded better and much different than Emerson, Lake and Palmer's version. This is what started my Classical adventure.
I never liked Mozart, Haydn, Handel, Bach and most other pre-Romantic era composers. Most of the music I liked was on both sides of this time spectrum, early ancient and medieval dance music and tonal music from the Romantic and later eras. I never liked most chamber music, especially string quartets which I think stemmed from my dislike of string instruments played with a bow as there is no winds, brass or percussion to balance out the string tone. Also I didn't like solo organ or piano music.
I didn't like any type of classical singing and abhorred opera most of all. To me opera sounds unnatural, especially the high sopranos, their nerve-wracking wails sound like they are being tortured to death. To my ears all forms of classical singing sound even worse live in a concert hall. Even when they sing in English it's still hard to understand the words, from research I have done, part of it must be singing from the diaphragm and how they form words with their lips, to my ears it's all very unpleasant. I also abhor singing in broadway and musicals which has some of the same objectionable qualities, although the words can be understood.
Most of my favorite rock, jazz, folk and world music is vocal, so for me instrumental-only classical music was a sharp departure from my preferences in other types of music. This could have contributed to my classical/orchestral gene being turned-off since I love popular singing in every language, my favorites are English, Spanish and French.
Because of so many things I disliked about different styles of classical music, some people claimed I didn't really like classical music but instead was a dabbler in classical music. I fought this designation but now I think it was correct after all.
The first signs of my disenchantment with classical/orchestral music
It actually started about five years ago when I got tired of most symphonies finding them too boring. The few exceptions which I still liked being those of Mahler and a few other composers most of which were written in a programatic style with colorful orchestration. I used to have the patience to wait for the climax but as I got older it seems it takes longer to get there and I didn't enjoy the development as much as I used to.
About a year ago I could no longer stand listening to any Mahler symphony, next I deleted Ravel's Daphnis and Chloe from my hard drive because I could no longer take the little bit of choral singing in it. After that I slowly deleted or sold more and more classical recordings, I would say I got rid of about half of my classical music collection prior to that fateful day two months ago when I woke up and couldn't stand any classical or orchestral music.
When I first started listening to classical music I thought the styles of classical were more varied than other forms, however that is because classical music is derivative from other musical forms, based largely on the country of the composer. So it is not the original or authentic form of said music but a high-art version. As I have got more and more into authentic traditional and pop forms of world music I discovered non-classical music is actually not only more varied but more enjoyable, at least for me.
I like jazz, blues, bluegrass, country, classic rock, modern rock, pop, folk, world music from the folk/traditional/pop/rock genres of Spain, Cuba, Mexico, Latin America, South America, Africa, Ireland and other nations as well as traditional Jewish and Arabian folk music. However I don't like everything in a given genre, I pick and choose.
To sum up I think it's a lost cause for me to enjoy pure orchestral music again, my classical/orchestral gene appears to be permanently off. Losing interest in classical/orchestra music is new to me as in the past if I liked a song or composition I generally liked it the rest of my life.
While I once praised Electric Light Orchestra's ELO II and Emerson, Lake and Palmer's version of Mussorgsky's Pictures At An Exhibition as my induction into classical music, I now recognize them as gateway drugs I now wish I had avoided. I wonder how much more varied my non-classical listening would be if I hadn't spent 38 years exploring classical music. Prior to these two classical inspired rock LPs I abhorred classical music I heard in the music appreciation and composition classes I took in high school. If I had never purchased them I would have happily went on hating classical music. Instead I bought tons of classical LPs I didn't like with a rejection rate of over 90% that I either found atonal or too boring. There wasn't a way to audition music back in the 1970's so I had to gamble based on reviews and what was written on the back of album covers. This was especially true in the town I grew up in, Tulsa, Oklahoma which had no classical music stations, the college station played underground rock, folk, jazz and bluegrass.
Anyone else experience such a shift in musical tastes?
"Happy Listening,
Teresa."
Edits: 07/01/12Follow Ups:
Do you still like attending classical concerts? If so, get rid of the speakers, amp, preamp and source selectively. I HATED violin recordings of any kind for decades and just loved to hear them in person. Often it is the upper end of the midrange(curse the designer that crosses over too high) driver and also the dreaded metal tweeter. Rock can sound great with stuff that will just murder classical.
My hearing went very high and the obnoxious tweeters and bad amps that are endemic drove me nuts. Middle age be praised!!! With the loss of some top end hearing (sadly, not common in women), I can now enjoy classical recordings a great deal more. I now understand why friends told me the recordings sounded so real(IMO, they still don't but, I get the similarity now).
I tolerated strings played with a bow so I could enjoy the winds, brass and percussion instruments. However pizzicato strings are a treat I really love in classical music and oh so rare!I prefer strings live or recorded to be plucked, strummed or picked. Even double-basses, that is why I prefer Jazz double-bass playing as it is plucked instead of bowed. Music to me, sounds better without a bow drug across its strings. I would join a movement to BAN BOWING of all musical instruments.
In addition most classical music doesn't give the percussion players enough to do, really noticeable live in the concert hall. There are a few exceptions such as Edgard Varese.
Also while some classical music has good rhythm, other styles of music have a much better beat.
And I abhor vocals in classical music, especially opera as they sound so unnatural, the way they form consonants and vowels and sing from the diaphragm, and high sopranos sound like they are being so tortured, I wish someone would put them out of their pain. Even when Classical music is sing in English one still needs a libretto to know what they are singing. Even back when I liked Classical music, I preferred instrumental only. However I love "normal" singing, especially Jazz, Folk, Rock and World music styles.
While on the subject of instruments I don't like the sound of, I hate bagpipes, it's that drone that drives me up the wall.
I find most cone, dome and horn tweeters unacceptable for high frequencies either from violins or electric guitars, however I love the smoother sound of planer speakers, I have EMIT tweeters which squeezes sound instead of pushing it. Electric guitars sound smooth with them much like my old Telecaster and Fender tubed Twin Reverb amp. I can't compare to live as most rock live music is driven into distortion when played live. So in the case of rock music, recordings or playing in ones own band at comfortable levels is much better (and safer) than most rock concerts.
I never met a bowed-played instrument live or on recordings I like. I'm not a big fan of violins, could be because my younger sister tried to learn violin and never could hold the bow straight. The scrapping noise she produced was unbearable and I'm sure there is some residual of that when I hear violins live. Hate 'em!
My favorite large group live is BIG BAND JAZZ, great winds and percussion and a very danceable beat! I will never watch a symphony orchestra live again even if it is free.
"Happy Listening,
Teresa."
Edits: 07/31/12
Coming in to the conversation a little late but it's an interesting thread! Miss Teresa, your story is a sad one. I say this without the slightest bit of sarcasm. I mean it, as a fellow music-lover, I liken losing complete interest in a genre tantamount to breaking up with a soulmate! Seriously! It was good while it lasted but it ain't good no more! I suscribe to the philosophy that the best cure for a break-up is rebound sex. In your case 'rebound sex' would be to find new music that excites you! I'm sure you're doing fine in this dept. but in the interest of helpin' a sista out, allow me to recommend a record!;)
Sao Paulo Ska Jazz - I just discovered this gem last week and it's been in very heavy rotation. Horny(!) instrumental Ska/Reggae with a Brazilean harmonic sensibility. Sounds like a hodgepodge of a description but trust me, it's ton's of fun! Music should be fun sometimes. One of my biggest problems with Classical, and increasingly with Jazz, is that it's simply too serious. Nothing wrong with serious, but a steady diet of the same thing (in this case 'serious') simply bores me. Diversity is where it's at (in music and life!;). 10 bucks at itunes, go for it!
Fellas, we should support a fellow music-lover!, y'all should post rec's for Miss Teresa. Gotta keep that music-lovin' mojo strong!;)
That's why I can't stand metal tweeters......too bright. Some long time speaker manufacturers are going back to fabric dome tweeters.
There is a very interesting passage I read in one of the books on musicology from my library (sorry, can't recall the name of the book off the top of my head). In the book, the author describes how he went on an expedition to some god forsaken region of northern Greece, armed with a tape recorder. He was looking for indigenous local musicians. He lucked out and found one young shepherd, who was apparently an amazingly talented musician. The author befriended him, and made some recordings of his amazing playing.
Then, later on, as the author was planning to return home, he decided to take this young musicians with him all the way to Vienna. He wanted to expose him to the western music. So he took him to one concert hall, to listen to Beethoven's Ninth Symphony. After the brilliant performance was over, the author asked the young shepherd what did he think about the music. The shepherd replied: "Nice, but overly simplistic!" (rim shot!)
LOL!
Check out the real life story of Doc Severinsen retiring to Mexico, and discovering a group of wonderful musicians in a little cafe there. Turns out, Gil Gutierrez is Doc's brother.
www.docseverinsen.com
:)
you should give Noise music a listen, it's as complicated a scene as Classical. Something different is great to spice things up. I never get bored with my music because I shift genres based upon how I feel at the time. Almost like popping a pill to get different feelings. Feeling down, have an upper, feeling up, have a downer. I do that with music.
Edits: 07/03/12
Hey Bullethead, I listened to a fair amount of the piece you linked, including the first three minutes and then snippets after that. It had some patterns and some structure which gave it a bit of appeal - as opposed to just random sounds - but overall, it came off as contrived and pendantic. It reminded me of some of the compositions I listened to back in the mid 70s which just didn't seem to "go anywhere" - too one-dimensional for my taste.
I think the ideas in it would have been more interesting and listenable if it weren't for the continual distortion "hash" from beginning to end, which made the piece intolerable given it's length of about 10 minutes. If I wanted to listen to distortion for 10 minutes, I could de-tune an AM radio. It's called noise for a reason. ;)
Anyway, those are my thoughts: Some interesting construction, but way too much distortion given the length of the piece. The "changes" needed to be more prominent, in my opinion.
:)
And I'm not usually a fan of such stuff. But it's hardly as complicated as classical music, or even complicated at all. I found it obvious on a first hearing.
To respond to the reply to my post that you apparently deleted, if classical music takes you to the Waldorf-Astoria you haven't yet understood classical music. It is much broader in emotional range, and more able to transport the listener to exotic locales, whether interior or exterior, than other forms of music.
I've noticed that many who aren't familiar with classical music hop genres as you do, to overcome the boredom that inevitably sets in when music is too simple. Great art is so rich that one can always find within it fertile ground to explore. This is one of the reasons it saddens me that fewer people are being exposed to it at an age when they can attain mastery of its complex forms.
that's a poor snippet of "Noise", that wikipedia article gets into the genre more. I hear you about the internal and external travelling while listening to classical, I really appreciate Claude Debussy's works myself.
Noise for me takes me into future scenarios, classical on the other hand grounds me too much to what's going on around me. I like using my imagination, classical is relaxing such as Debussy's works, almost euphoric at times, however when I want my mind challenged nothing comes closer to that than the noise genre to ME at least.
Funny, I thought of La Mer when you mentioned music that transports you places. But different composers, and different pieces, transport you to different places. Beethoven's C sharp minor quartet, for example, transports you into inner space -- his space -- with the most sophisticated painting of emotion ever achieved. Or consider the opening of the Hammerklavier, which again takes me to a place no other work of music ever has -- in this case, a childhood memory of an abandoned street in New York City, when gale force winds had driven everyone else inside.
However, Debussy is not among what I would regard the most intellectually sophisticated composers. I have to qualify that because his works have a not-always-obvious intellectual depth that Mahler's, for example, don't. But for intellectual challenge, nothing equals the counterpoint of Bach, except perhaps those late, great works of Mozart in which he magically weaves thoughts of similar complexity and profundity into works that, on their surface, seem as simple and natural as the smile of a child.
painful to endure more than a few seconds. Seriously if you like that noise, perhaps you would like some of the more atonal avant-garde music, some of which is almost as ugly sounding.
"Happy Listening,
Teresa."
Bullethead, you might want to look into musique concrete, Olivier Messiaen, Pierre Shaeffer (sp?), and Rainier Boesch.
Some excellent stuff there.
No offense, but for the most part the stuff you say you liked was the middlebrow stuff, if that. It's no surprise to me that you found it simplistic, because it is.
If you really want to understand how sophisticated and rewarding music can be, you have to listen to the greats until things "click" and you appreciate them. That means Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven, first and foremost, as well as Haydn, Brahms, Handel, Schubert, and others in the great German tradition.
We are talking musical sophistication that is orders of magnitude greater than what you've been listening to. Indeed, I'm not sure you're even hearing music, because you place much too much emphasis on timbre. If you find the piano reduction of Beethoven's Fifth as exciting as the symphonic version, you are hearing the music. Otherwise, you're just listening to sound.
Perhaps, however I did study classical composition and orchestral arrangement in high school. In our final in my "Instrumental Ensemble" class we had to write a classical work, mine was entitled "Suite in A Minor for 12 instruments, Op. 1".I don't like piano reductions of any works in any kind of music, with jazz at the very least I prefer piano, bass and drums however I prefer jazz quartets or larger and my favorite jazz is big band and dixieland. I also don't like piano reductions in rock, blues or world music. And for me I feel percussion is mandatory for really "feeling" the beat! Besides I love percussion instruments in all types of music.
Back when I still enjoyed classical music written after about 1810 or so, not all composers but I did find several hundred composers I liked at least a few of their works. I preferred "program music" and very little "absolute music". No matter how much I listened to most of the German composers you mentioned, it never clicked! If that was all that I was allowed to listen to, something sure would click which would be the barrel of a gun to my forehead. As to my ears even when I liked classical music most absolute music was pure hell.
I mostly preferred Russian, North American, South American, Latin American, Spanish, French, English, Norwegian, Swedish and other non-German composers.
Here are some articles I've written over the years that explain with I loved about classical music:
The Basic Power Orchestral Repertoire or Classical music for folks who don’t like Classical music
http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue35/classical_music.htmThe Classical Divide: Absolute versus Program Music
http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue53/music.htmI like jazz, blues, bluegrass, country, classic rock, modern rock, pop, folk, world music from the folk/traditional/pop/rock genres of Spain, Cuba, Mexico, Latin America, South America, Africa, Ireland and other nations as well as traditional Jewish and Arabian folk music. However I don't like everything in a given genre, I pick and choose and these are genres I which I will be looking for future music.
Classical music is the only music I ever quit liking, so it is possible I have been kidding myself for 38 years as my absolute favorite classical music was based on popular music forms such as jazz, blues and folk music from around the world. I discovered I like the original versions better than the "art music" classical versions.
As Peter Green said "Oh, Well"
"Happy Listening,
Teresa."
Edits: 07/03/12
Program music versus absolute music? You need a story and imaginary pictures to enjoy orchestral music? That's for children, and most people outgrow it by the time they leave adolescence.
Program music including tone poems, symphonic poems, symphonic pictures, ballets and instrumental music from operas gives the composers the freedom to leave strict form and actually compose music with drama, adventure and forward momentum.
I also found program music more rhythmically alive and generally used considerable more percussion instruments. With program music there is usually a battery of percussion and many percussion players. Whereas in absolute music there is often either one percussion player often waiting 20 minutes or longer before he gets to hit his timpani or no percussion player at all.
Your suggestion to limit program music to children only is unfair.
It doesn't matter to me any more as the academic music I abhorred completely thoughout my 38 year experiment in classical music, and program music which I loved until two months ago is no longer relevant to my music listening.
Today I listened to Dave Grusin's "Discovered Again" (Sheffield Lab Direct to Disc), The Doors (MFSL LP) and Jimi Hendrix's Electric Ladyland (Sony Legacy on 180 gram LP).
I am enjoying music more than I ever have in my entire life now that I don't mix any classical music into my music listening time.
"Happy Listening,
Teresa."
What an interesting term "absolute music" is. I've always thought of non-program music as, well, just music. But it seems a useful term.
In any case, for me, the divide isn't along the lines of program vs. non-program music, since I like both, e.g., you mentioned the Four Seasons, Beethoven's Sixth, and I'd add to the list of my program music likes the works of Schumann.
It seems to me that the difference between these works and the works of someone like Mahler is that they're intellectually rigorous. Mahler is too simple for me, too lacking in mathematical wit, and so I find his work boring.
The kind of understanding to which I referred by the way isn't book learning. It's intuitive right hemisphere understanding, as opposed to the analytical left hemisphere understanding upon which a musician relies (in a famous study, it was found that musicians rely on their left hemisphere when listening to music, while non-musicians rely on their right). So it isn't something that develops as a result of training. Rather, it seems to develop as a consequence of listening in childhood. I think it's rather like our natural understanding of language, as opposed to the intellectual understanding that is conferred by a study of grammar, rhetoric, and formal writing skills. And I have the sense that, as with language, it is best developed through listening in early childhood. A child has to learn a language before the age of 10 to speak it without an accent. A child has to be exposed to the note values before the age of five to develop perfect pitch. So I think that children have to be exposed to great music to develop the greatest possible mastery. Even a great genius like Tchaikovsky can have holes in his musical understanding if he isn't exposed to a form in childhood. Tchaikovsky never understood Bach or Brahms, and was never able to effectively use structure in his music, because, I suspect, he wasn't exposed to the great German masters until he was too old.
But in one sense I'm not sure I agree with your assessment of program vs. "absolute" music. It seems to me that absolute music takes me on as much of an emotional journey as program music does. The nature of that journey seems to have evolved over time, from the almost timeless quality of medieval chant to the peripatetic motion of the late romantic works. I think my favorite works sit at the nexus of form and romantic storytelling -- mostly from the late baroque to the early romantic periods, though there were composers who led or lagged, e.g., Monteverdi and Brahms.
Before I begin what is likely to be a rambling and somewhat disorganized collection of typed words, I should mention that most of the time, I do my best to avoid talking and/or writing about music, because if we want to ponder "absolute music", we must, indeed, move well beyond mere words and concepts that require words (including even, I dare say, lyrics often involved in various types of "music"). Ironically, I accept that at times, I must use words as well, regardless of their inherent inadequacy (in both "teaching music", and at moments like this as well).With that in mind, let me begin with something I wrote in my journal several years ago. This was actually inspired by one of my other deeply felt passions (love of ocean/nature via sea kayak padding), but if you can understand it, you will perhaps *begin* to understand something of my relationship to music as well:
I call this "To where nothing has a name"...
I went paddling today, and looked around at the familiar scenery.
Each time something came into view, my mind presented me with a word.
Driftwood; jellyfish; wave; seal; current; eagle; cat's paw, and so
on. Then there was the bird that I didn't know the name of, and I
thought about all the words in my mind, and about the missing word. I
liked the missing word best of all. Once again I remember...it's time
to forget.Even the loveliest of words can only dance around the truth of
something...or at best, walk us to the door and let us go. The irony
of me writing these very words does not escape me as I dance around
the truth of even this moment. Here I am, trying to write about how I
love it when the words fall away, and perception once again joins
breathing as an unspoken act of nature.I went paddling today, and it took me, like so many times before, to
where nothing has a name.
While I may agree that early childhood exposure, and "child-like understanding" as adults are both important concepts to explore (yet "early childhood exposure" not being absolutely essential for "non-exposed adults" to develop a deep understanding/appreciation for certain types of music), and that relationships between right and left brain perceptions are also essential and interesting to ponder, from what you've written here, I believe your understanding of all this is incomplete, and therefore misleading as you present it to others. Sorry for the long sentence! :) Even the idea of "perfect pitch", as it is usually discussed, is something we can well do without. "Perfect relative pitch" is much more useful (and much more in line with reality in general).
As a lifelong musician (started studying/playing when I was four - and was exposed to lots of music--mostly "classical"--since birth), I've spent much of my adult life pushing against what I consider "limited thought/limited understanding" amongst both musicians and non-musicians alike. All in an effort--usually successful--to bring people to a more deeply felt musical experience.
Sure, [most] musicians must "master" (a term that opens up its own massive can of worms) both intellectual concepts and physical techniques, but it isn't until they transcend all that in some very essential ways that they become what I call "real musicians". In most cases, this thing I call "transcendence" in this context must pass through this clumsily termed "mastery", but not necessarily always. More semantics: There are many self and otherwise described "musicians" I don't consider "artists", and here again is where this "transcendence of the intellectual/technical" comes into play - or doesn't.
When I sit down to perform a Bach solo suite (for 'cello), or any other bit of solo, chamber, or orchestral music, for that matter, there are no "names of notes" in my mind, and there is no "thought" of instrumental technique. There is even no "intellectual intent" in terms of "musical interpretation". All these things, and more, only get in the way of being "one with the music". This is one of the reasons I so often feel the urge to stand up and scream "STOP IT!!!" as I read too much so-called "audiophile speak" (and it be well deserved screaming, much of the time). More irony of course, as at least some limited form of "audiophile speak"--at times, in appropriately tiny doses--is also helpful to me as I put together electronic reproduction systems through which I might enjoy listening to--and again, semantically speaking, "hearing/feeling/understanding/appreciating"--recorded music.
The moment my bow touches the strings, I'm taking a journey that is so well beyond words it's just silly.
While I'm not comfortable with name dropping, there is a place for showing appreciation towards those who have helped me along my own path in life. To that end, I will say this: I've studied with some of the world's greatest musicians (truly), and some of my own students are now "members of that club" as well.
One thing I learned very early on was to avoid the concept of "mastery", as it is much more useful to live one's entire life in "perpetual student mode". All too often, the moment someone believes they've "mastered" something is the very moment they stop learning. From there, it's a quick trip to losing the plot entirely (even if you're a tenured "Professor", a highly regarded "artist", a "celebrity", etc. -- in the deep appreciation of music and the other arts I feel so entirely, I never have, and never will "pull any punches" in this regard).
[I just got a call from a friend who needs some help straightaway, so I'll have to come back to continue this later]...
Edits: 07/04/12
"Even the idea of 'perfect pitch', as it is usually discussed, is something we can well do without. 'Perfect relative pitch' is much more useful (and much more in line with reality in general)."
I mentioned perfect pitch not because it's essential to perform, appreciate, or compose music, but because we understand (as a few years ago we didn't) that there is a window in early childhood for its natural acquisition. This fits well with what we know of the development of perceptual and cognitive skills: some are better, more easily, or more completely acquired at certain ages. (In fact, perfect pitch can be acquired by an adult, with a year of systematic practice, so it may not be the best example. But it requires conscious effort and exercises to do so.)
'Sure, [most] musicians must "master" (a term that opens up its own massive can of worms) both intellectual concepts and physical techniques, but it isn't until they transcend all that in some very essential ways that they become what I call "real musicians". In most cases, this thing I call "transcendence" in this context must pass through this clumsily termed "mastery", but not necessarily always. More semantics: There are many self and otherwise described "musicians" I don't consider "artists", and here again is where this "transcendence of the intellectual/technical" comes into play - or doesn't.'
This reminds me of something that Einstein wrote: "After a certain high level of technical skill is achieved, science and art tend to coalesce in aesthetics, plasticity, and form. The greatest scientists are artists as well."
I have heard similar sentiments expressed by virtuosi: that once technique has been honed to a certain level, the artist is free to interpret or create as he will.
Actually, I don't think this is alien to everyday experience. An example familiar to all might be reading. When we are small, we have to "sound things out," struggle with unfamiliar words. Our brains, occupied with these things, can't focus on matters of interpretation. As adults, we are so familiar with the words that we need see only part of them to read proficiently. Those who are sufficiently gifted can read ahead, interpret, and adjust their pacing and intonation for dramatic effect -- in short, create a performance in real time. The process is essentially automatic, and yet left hemisphere processing is still involved. The rules of character recognition, spelling, and pronunciation have left their mark on the neural network, and the processes becomes automatic. The manner in which this happens is I think now pretty well understood.
But -- as with music -- a literate person still uses very different brain areas than an illiterate one. This, I think, is why different brain areas light up in trained musicians than in other listeners when listening to music. It isn't because they're necessarily analyzing the music consciously. It's because those areas have been programmed in the process of their training. They are identifying time signatures, note pitches and duration, vertical chords, harmonic progressions, and so forth, even though the musician is no longer consciously aware of the process. And that's what shows up on the brain scan.
'More irony of course, as at least some limited form of "audiophile speak"--at times, in appropriately tiny doses--is also helpful to me as I put together electronic reproduction systems through which I might enjoy listening to--and again, semantically speaking, "hearing/feeling/understanding/appreciating"--recorded music.'
But that's the point of audiophile speak, isn't it? We use words because we can't do Vulcan mind melds. They can't describe what we experience when we listen -- if they could, we wouldn't have to spend money on recordings and gear! -- but they're useful in characterizing it so we can make more informed choices.
I find it interesting in this context that Bach, the most learned of composers, apparently had little patience for dry theoretical tomes. He taught by example.
It seems too that he was still studying and learning relatively late in life. As you say, mastery is never complete, in music, anyway. Mathematicians may do their best work in their 20's, but the great composers seem to have increased their mastery until they retired or died. Still, I think the concept is still useful, even if it is never entirely achieved. Otherwise, how describe a great musician? It isn't so much that he's reached the peak of Parnassus as that he's gotten much further than the rest of us.
My view of course is as a singer since childhood. My cathedral choirmaster told me I had perfect natural/relative pitch.
Either you naturally can pitch or you can't, and then you have to learn to flatten or heighten notes to fit. Or if you like, narrow / broaden notated intervals. Choristers when singing Bach today have to do this a lot.
Perhaps this is just one of the reasons why I don't love Bach's harpsichord pieces on a modern grand piano. Timbre is another likely cause, as are dynamics and expression, timing and flow. I can listen to it but it doesn't work on me.
Note that a post in response is preferred.
Warmest
Timothy Bailey
The Skyptical Mensurer and Audio Scrounger
And gladly would he learn and gladly teach - Chaucer. ;-)!
'Still not saluting.'
I've heard that those with perfect pitch find it a mixed blessing. Though it seems to me it would be handy when playing by ear, or transcribing music.
However, it isn't something you're born with. They used to think so. But it can be acquired by anybody, with practice.
I don't see why a piano couldn't be tuned to an older tuning, although I'm not sure how compelling the evidence that Bach used e.g., Werckmeister III is. It seems plausible to me, but, as far as I know, all we have is the fact that the volume was in his library, and a vague description of his tuning practice. I do find the performances in the older tunings interesting, but he seems to have been willing to transpose his own works so I'm not sure how important it actually was to him. I gather he was critical of organs tuned with earlier temperament.
Of course, a piano is never really in tune with itself because of octave stretching. I'm not sure if the same thing is true of a harpsichord. I imagine someone with perfect pitch can hear this.
Bach doesn't seem to have much liked the harpsichord, either -- he called it a "soulless instrument" -- or early pianos, although Silbermann said that he approved of the improved, later versions. I gather his favorite instrument was the clavichord, because of its expressive possibilities. At the same time, many of his keyboard works were clearly written with the harpsichord in mind, achieving dynamics by adding notes, etc. I understand that musicologists think some others were written with the clavichord as the primary instrument, based on internal evidence.
The dynamic limitations of the harpsichord are the reason I prefer piano to harpsichord performances of Bach's works, although I suspect that in the hands of someone who actually knew baroque performance practice (as we no longer can) harpsichord performances would have been more fluid and "cantabile." I have a stronger preference for the piano in the performances of his concerti, because I can hear all the notes and the piano seems to do a better job of holding its own against the other instruments.
I just don't get it when one has almost exclsively Classical and Jazz musics in thier collections and ignore modern music. I get it it sounds great and the music is well written and composed, but its not the only good quality and good sounding music out there.
thats one of the things that turn people away from high end audio
Theres plenty of good quality Folk-pop, country, bluegrass, Adult Alternative, Ambient, Electronica/Trance/progressive/prog-rock music out there.
Getting tired of a genre after almost exclusively listening to it is a great thing. You find new music and possibly new people and equipment to listen to it with.
which are not hight in fidelity to anything a person could hear acoustically. (We can't be close up to several instruments all at once.) Indeed many such recordings few or none of the musician have played WITH any other of those on 'the mix'.
These recording conventions in 'the industry' are a pity, are unnecessary and are lossy by definition.
Try some of the Water Lily recordings with Ry Cooder to hear the difference that real simple stereo gives. Not to the space but to the conversation between musicians. Almost completely lacking now on most 'industry' recordings.
I haven't mentioned Eq, phasing, Aphexing. LOUDNESS and etc.
I know heaps of people with truly catholic or eclectic tastes in music, and I would exclude from that people who only like popular forms. They are missing out IMO. But I would include those who get right into one form, like Jazz or the Blues, and don't have time/energy left for much more. I have many interests outside of music and audio, and have yet managed to dig into quite a few. Within audio it's simple recordings and HIP/early music.
While I am bothered by the 'faux' nature of the C&W / southern swing culture, and of what is now called R&B, good work will be done in them.
? The 80/20 rule. :-). Examples of musicianship are Waylon Jennings &/ Willie Nelson. In the noughties I had a collision with the bluesman R.L. Burnside who is extraordinary.
Note that a post in response is preferred.
Warmest
Timothy Bailey
The Skyptical Mensurer and Audio Scrounger
And gladly would he learn and gladly teach - Chaucer. ;-)!
'Still not saluting.'
I'm not really the one to judge since I haven't paid much attention to pop since the 80's. But, speaking as someone who likes rock, pop, jazz, and folk, I'd say that it doesn't hold the same interest for me that the greatest classical and baroque music does. I enjoy much of it, and there have been brief periods when I've tired of classical and listened mostly to pop, but overall I find that it's much simpler and lacks the expressive range and emotional impact of the greatest classical compositions.
I think different people draw the line in different places. It seems to me that as long as that's an honest preference based on an honest reading rather than prejudice, or snobbery, there's nothing wrong with it. The judgments I don't respect are judgments that are made out of prejudice, e.g., it's popular so it can't be good (or it's classical so it can't be good, same thing).
I see it as quite normal for taste to change and migrate. I see that as the only way for music to stay challenging and interesting.
You probably dont like the same type of tv shows, movies or books that you have at other times. This is no different....
Keep it interesting and keep it fun
Cheers
Except for your Paavo Jarvi. He I can do without.
I had to sell most of my SACDs during the past year to pay rent and necessities. However first I recorded them to my computer at 24/96 using Audacity. They don't sound quite as good as pure DSD from my SACD player however they still sound excellent. I figured it was better to have 24/96 versions versus being homeless and living on the street.
The Paavo Jarvi's are all gone, what I have left are listed in the Audio Asylum Trader under "Software SACD".
"Happy Listening,
Teresa."
Well, Teresa, what this sounds like to me more than turning from music is an issue of financial limitations. I understand, believe me.
Perhaps instead of disposing of those recordings you might opt for archiving those that mean something to you. For the reason that the palette tends to change over time.I feel much as you describe about classical and find much of it no longer very interesting. Too rigid in form and it deviates from the point about music that I find endearing to begin with. I have no doubt that if I played 2nd cello that I might feel different about that. However I would rather play bass for David Byrne or Beck Hanson as I just think it would be much more fun. I thought something Wynton Marsalis said was pretty interesting in that shifting between playing jazz to classical required a period of purifiation to do it. (I'm paraphrasing of course) IMHO, classical requires the player to serve the score rather than the score to be a guideline for improvisation.
I decline to be dismissive towards classical era music as it is so ingrained in western musical expression. And I still have a deep regard for a select number of works. Bach and Beethovan changed the course of music. So did the Beatles. The passion and the spirit for musical expression is no less now than it has ever been. It is also been built on what has come before.
Edits: 07/02/12
That rigidity in classical playing is actually quite recent. With a few exceptions, notably the music of Bach, players of the baroque and early classical eras were *not* expect to play the music as it was written. It was partly extemporized by the performer and as late as Moart, concerti even had a spot for extemporization built in. Even in the late 19th century, it was considered OK to arrange music to take advantage of new instrumental possibilities. When Brahms recorded his famous cylinder, he didn't play his music as written. And the great composers were great improvisers. Tales of Bach's improvisations, or Beethoven's, astound. Bach could improvise a six part fugue. Beethoven regularly improvised with such power that he reduced the audience to tears.
It's only recently that classical music has become a dry, dessicated, museum piece. Once, it lived and breathed.
"That rigidity in classical playing is actually quite recent. With a few exceptions, notably the music of Bach, players of the baroque and early classical eras were *not* expect to play the music as it was written."Hi Josh,
Well there's something to think about. I'm glad you said that as I assumed that it has been 'rigid' since the beginning. If that is so then there perhaps there needs to be some sort of a change in paradigm in the classical expression to the modern audience. Or perhaps a return to the paradigm that it once was. Not sure as I will have to think about that. Maybe this is part of why so many of us grow restless with classical in that we have come to expect each score to be a particular way. You mean that there is room for playing with the music? Hmmm, interesting.
Edits: 07/03/12 07/03/12 07/03/12
I'm not sure we *could* improvise with that level of skill. I mean, improvising a six-part fugue? Of course, Bach was the only person who could do that. But classical has become an ever-deader, more ossified tradition. I'm less worried about the improvisation and sometimes too pedantic performances about the fact that we aren't writing great music anymore. In 1922, one could hear a new opera by Puccini. Now what? After years during which those who wanted to be known as "serious" composers had to write music that drove half the audience screaming from the hall, new music has lost its purpose and its drive.
As far as 'classical' goes you may be right. Still, it will be loved and cared for if perhaps in a diminished role.
The world has been rapidly shrinking with each generation. With the influences of technology, media and culture how could we not expect the landscape to change? Before the industrial revolution the large majority of people lived their whole lives within fifty miles of where they were born. Consider how big a thing radio was in its golden age. To many Americans The Grand Ole Opry was really something to look forward to. In our era there is a bewildering choice of music that vies for our attention. When we are learning about music how do we know what is good and what isn't? Or how much we should care about that particular question?
Is it fair to say that we both view Bach and Beethovan as geniuses at what hey did? Mozart? How about this for a question ... Has the world seen the last of their like and will no longer produce sons and daughters of their stature? This is rhetorical of course.
That's a question that's troubled me ever since I was a kid. Why was the greatest music written over 150 years in the past? Why don't we have our own Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven? Surely, a society that is more technologically advanced, better educated, richer, and has more people in it should be able to produce better music than 18th-century Germany? And yet nothing we create today -- either in the popular realm or the conservatory -- holds a candle to it.
The best I've come up with is a shift in the primary audience that accompanied a shift in purchasing power from the aristocracy to the middle class to the masses. It isn't a sraightforward matter of education, although that plays a role (both negative and positive) in the change.
In any case, I agree that great music will survive. My main concern is that as it has become increasingly a dead art and fallen out of our culture, fewer and fewer children are being exposed to it. I'm saddened when I see friends who have the IQ to appreciate Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven, but who never get to know their music during the crucial childhood period when musical syntax is mastered. Life without Mozart seems like no life at all.
"Surely, a society that is more technologically advanced, better educated, richer, and has more people in it should be able to produce better music than 18th-century Germany?"
Perhaps it tells us that technological advances have nothing to do with producing great music (or great art in general). And having a college degree is not the same as being educated.
At best, technology seems to facilitate art. Scientific and mathematical understanding though have played an interesting role in the development of great artistic traditions, e.g., the development of the Pythagorean scale and equal temperament, or the use of solid geometry in perspective painting. What I think is perhaps strangest about our current situation is that we have abandoned some of the knowledge that was so painstakingly accrued over centuries, even millennia.
I wonder too whether composers of an earlier era didn't benefit from the absence of a formal early education, which freed them to spend more time on music. But it's hard to say. Bach, for example, attended the gymnasium, where he excelled academically. He was able to send his sons to Leipzig University; CPE Bach had a degree in law. Interestingly, Bach himself appears to have been largely self-taught in music.
Why not try some NEW music.
listen to the following artists
The Silent comedy, Hugo, Iron & Wine, and Bon Iver..
Matter of probabilities, I think. I haven't heard any music written in my lifetime that equals the best of the old. There's much that I enjoy, but I find myself enjoying the old stuff more -- and we're talking a tiny sliver of that. More than half of what I listen to is Bach.
"Why don't we have our own Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven? Surely, a society that is more technologically advanced, better educated, richer, and has more people in it should be able to produce better music than 18th-century Germany? And yet nothing we create today -- either in the popular realm or the conservatory -- holds a candle to it."Perhaps we will come back around to it someday. I cannot pretend to answer that particular observation. I can only make some obtuse guesses as to why the music culture is where it is. The conservatories are in the hands of the wrong people? Perhaps instead of living in front of a keyboard dreaming about compositions they're distracted greatly by the 256 million voicings they have to draw from a really cool synthesizer? Or, far worse, todays Mozart is addicted to on-line gaming or trolling audio forums. How's that for obtuse? : )
I would think that it has more to do with the music wanting to change. We just can't do the same thing over and over again. Each generation has a need to differentiate itself from what has come before. To seek its own identity. And I think this is accelerating in the modern era. If we are smarter than our forfathers it has a lot with what they have already figured out for us.
Edits: 07/04/12
But the curious thing about today's music is that we *aren't* smarter than our forefathers! We're vastly more advanced technologically, and yet there is no one alive today who is writing music of the quality of Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven's (or painting pictures of the quality of Rembrandt's, writing poetry of the quality of Milton's -- this phenomenon isn't limited to music).
It doesn't surprise me that we have a simpler music for the masses -- there always was, a pre-literate folk tradition based on simpler scales. Art music was the music of the elite. But what has happened to the quality of the art music?
Broadly speaking, it seems to me that there are two forces at work.
One is that modern society, which is ideally predicated on social mobility, tends to frown upon hereditary class distinctions and so encourages a "one-size-fits-all" culture, rather than culture stratified by class. Kids in particular feel pressure to listen to pop tunes rather than the music of the elite.
Another is that as the art tradition shifted out of the hands of the aristocracy into the hands of the newly ascendant middle class, it took on a pedantic quality that exhibited contempt for the audience. At its worst, this meant that the concert audience was to be exposed to dental drill atonal music, and if they didn't like it, the problem was with their understanding, not the music itself. This followed from the middle class concept of improvement through education, and the belief that to be valuable, something must have a medicinal quality.
At the same time, as the old ways of life and belief died away, serious artists bought into the dogma that art was some kind of science experiment. And yet this was done without the understanding which every scientist has that, as you say, we build on what has already been done. Avant-gardism eventually devolved to unthinking rejectionism, as well as a quest for novelty that, after a while, was no longer genuinely novel. What the rejectionists didn't understand is that the structures of art as developed so far weren't arbitrary. Tonality, for example, is a consequence of basic physics. There are multiple scales, but they aren't arbitrary, and whether an interval will be perceived as consonant or dissonant depends upon the scale and the overtone series of the instrument.
We were left, then, with the curious phenomenon of music that didn't really work, and the assertion that those who didn't like it must surely fail to understand it. And so fewer and fewer people cared about new art music, and without new music, art music became increasingly a historical matter.
Yuo get into a loaded question when you seek to rank the quality of art. It's my contention that the talent is no less now than then. It's that it us expressed in a different way. The masters that we lament were, in part, a product of their culture. Can you possibly imagine the Handel's Hallelujah Chorus being penned and performed as a new work today? I just wonder how that would be received? Who's to say what would have come of Beethovan being born as a contemporary of our times? I certainly don't forsee another Leonardo Da Vinci or a Nikola Tesla. Tesla might even be an alternative example of what we may be discussing here. I have no taste for making less what these people did. It was glorious. We should be inspired by brilliance when we recognize it.
I find myself searching for some sort of advice that I can offer that would make you feel better about this but I just don't have any. Sorry. As a futile effort I will leave you with the relevant words of the Poet...
There's nothing you can do that can't be done.
Nothing you can sing that can't be sung.
Nothing you can say but you can learn how to play the game.
It's easy.
Nothing you can make that can't be made.
No one you can save that can't be saved.
Nothing you can do but you can learn how to be you in time.
It's easy.
Nothing you can know that isn't known.
Nothing you can see that isn't shown.
Nowhere you can be that isn't where you're meant to be.
It's easy.
John Lennon
If anything, I think there must be more talent today than there was then. It's just directed down different avenues. In music, towards popular art. Perhaps outside of music and art, in other creative directions. Certainly, we're enormously creative scientifically and technically. It's a rich time for that.
I think it's also true that creativity in certain areas varies from time to time and place to place. The philosophers of ancient Greece, the painters of the Italian renaissance, the poets of Elizabethan England -- there are just special times and places in history. Arguably, we've experienced two such eras in popular music, the jazz era and the rock era of the late 60's/early 70's.
But I think the question you pose is a good one. Suppose a talented composer did want to write a work to equal the Messiah? Even if he had the genius and skill, would modern forms support such an effort? I don't think they would.
There was a time in the 20th century when writing music that didn't assault the ear was a way to get expelled from the academic/critical establishment. It was a given then that a composer who dared to use melody or harmony wasn't being serious. Things have I think backed off some from the extremism of that time, but even so, a work in the style of Handel or Beethoven would be an archaism, and what style today allows the creation of music that sublime?
There's plenty of wonderful music to mine, but it would be special indeed if we could hear the new oratorio by Handel, or Beethoven's new symphony.
I just want to chime in and say what an insightful and thoughtful conversation you're having Josh358, EMsquare, and Willkayakforfood!!!
As a musician, I get what y'all are saying, and appreciate the time you've taken to write your posts in such an organized and thorough manner. I wish I had your writing skills.
To add a thought, I've always felt that the greatest melodic themes already exist in nature, and that it's the awareness, insight and genius of the composer which enables them to compose masterful realizations of them.
Also, regarding "simple, popular" music versus the great compositions of Bach, Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven and company, there is more creative genius in the first three minutes of the second movement of Beethoven's Ninth Symphony than in all of the albums made by the Backstreet Boys, Hanna Montana, the Hansons, the Beastie Boys, Cool Snoopy Dog, and Michael Jackson combined.
I will, however, cut some slack for Eric Clapton, ZZ Top, and Pink Floyd.
Carry on!
:)
inate 51 just commited musical heresey when he added Michael jackson and the beastie boys as being devoid of genius after mention Hanson and Hannh montana.
Nobody listened to hanson, so it cant be counted as music.
"To add a thought, I've always felt that the greatest melodic themes already exist in nature, and that it's the awareness, insight and genius of the composer which enables them to compose masterful realizations of them."
I think so too. In fact, I've come to think that what they are are the symmetries that underlie/are physical law, mathematics, and thought. The composer begins by apparently breaking a symmetry, e.g., by moving from the tonic, and then restores it by revealing a larger symmetry, ideally a clever and novel one. And that symmetry, once learned by the listener, becomes part of what the psychologists call crystallized intelligence, and can be applied when that broken symmetry is encountered in life.
"IMHO, classical requires the player to serve the score rather than the score to be a guideline for improvisation."more than Jazz yes, but there's a whole lot good musicians can do with it.
You may have to listen bit more, but soon you hear the difference between a great perfomrance and an average one.The average one has the notes, but you're still bored---the great ones draw you in tremendously.
In audio people talk about how they get turned off by their system, the music sounds "flat" or "digital".(I think I know now---until I got a power conditioner, I was bored playing music in the day and loved it at midnight, now it sounds the same and great all the time).
Maybe the OP is actually just getting pickier about the quality of the performances?
I now subscribe to MOG which is great for being able to make quick selections among many different recordings of the same thing. You appreciate performance differences & audio quality quite a bit more (and often they don't go together in the slightest).
I've done this and not to infrequently it really happens---the scratchiest/oldest mono recordings have a crazy/crazy-good electricity that the dozens of good-sounding modern ones don't. The audiophile cringes, but the music is awesome.
No I don't think that in classical music "it ain't like the good old days" (except in opera), but I do feel that modern performances have gotten too similar. Among older recordings from greats I hear more individual/idiosyncratic interpretations. They're different, high risk, and possibly stunningly beautiful/scary or lovely. I'm not in the slightest any sort of pedantic originalist. I was once completely entranced by a Beethoven 9th from 1928.
And along those lines (awful sound/smoking performance), click the URL.
Edits: 07/02/12 07/02/12 07/02/12 07/02/12
I've been getting into MOG as well and enjoying the novelty of an entire range of performances. And your observation about the 78-era recordings matches what I've long found and believed. As I've listened over the years, I've come to be better acquainted with the gradual shift in performance practice from the cylinders of the 19th century to the present. And while there is much that still delights me, it seems to me that the performance of 100 years ago were more expressive, more sophisticated musically, and more compelling withal.
"more than Jazz yes, but there's a whole lot good musicians can do with it.
You may have to listen bit more, but soon you hear the difference between a great perfomrance and an average one."Agreed. What I had written was too narrow and didn't express the idea as well as I would have liked... "classical requires the player to serve the score rather than the score to be a guideline for improvisation." One of those times where I stared at it for a while and settled on an incomplete thought.
Your link to the Grieg performance was as you described. A bad sounding recording of a smoking performance. Too bad too. A decent example of a performance in search of reasonable way to enjoy it.
The first time I ever got hooked on anything 'classial' was upon hearing the grand harpsichord solo from the Bandenbergs over a clock radio, of all things. Completely amazing. I was transfixed where I sat and allowed it to cause me to be late for work. The level of intensity matched anything I had ever heard. I am not entirely sure what people are trying to say when they call a piece of equipment musical. That harpsichord solo was musical in spades. Any given DAC, preamp or what-not ... not really. IMHO, of course.
I'm not sure why people who love music would throw out whole genres of it. There's a great deal to respect about the classical disciplines. Discipline being the key word here. Not too many kids starting a garage quintet out there. The classical culture has a fairly defined way that you grow up into it. But go out and buy a Stratocaster with a whammy bar and you're in business. I wonder how many of us play music as opposed to listening alone? That is a whole different kind of joy that no rig can give you.
I admit that I prefer modern music and mostly look to that to satisfy my current appetites. I also know that my tastes will evolve over time. If I were to make a comparison of music to literature then classical would be the novel and popular the short story. Only poetry is a common part of poular that can be as important as the melody. Either can be tedious or glorious. For some reason just thought of Chinese revolutionary opera as a fine example of tedious. Along with Madonna's, Like a Virgin. I had that stuck in my head one afternoon and it wasn't pleasant. All because of a church choral group at a mall. After they had finished their show a few of the girls got together on the side to harmonize on said song. They did a great job of it and I suffered for several hours because it kept popping up in my mind after that. This was a bit disturbing to me.
Edits: 07/03/12 07/03/12 07/03/12
I found myself enjoying show tunes a few nights ago.. and charlotte church..
Interesting and insightful thoughts there, Chaos, Emsquare, and other posters. (I wish it were easier to view multiple past posts while posting.) I'm not posting this at this particular point in the various chains for any particular reason, other than I think it follows youse guys' posts, more or less.
The very first music I remember liking was the background for cartoons, when I was a little kid. Looking back, it always seemed to augment, or perfectly fit, the cartoon scene.
By the time I became aware of Elvis and Frankie, et al, I already knew that their music was simple music, and not up to the nearly operatic level of cartoon music. Although, I did enjoy "Blue Velvet", "Blueberry Hill", and a few other specific tunes during adolescence. But as a whole, the "boy-loves-girl" music genre left me bored. I was much more interested in the girls than the music, and in the more intricate stylings of orchestral music that had been used in the cartoons.
Once I started taking piano lessons, and subsequently began playing trumpet, I was introduced to music that I hadn't ever heard, and, I liked it. Long gone were Elvis, Frankie, and the gang. Sometimes, I listened to my parent's albums of the Living Strings, Fred Waring, etc., and while I appreciated the musicality and exceptional professionalism of their work, and that that style appealed to a lot of people, it just wasn't for me. Still, I'm very thankful for having been exposed to that genre, so I at least know something about it.
Somewhere along the line, I heard Gershwin's "Rhapsody In Blue". From then on, I was hooked on both jazz and orchestral music.
Well, it didn't take long for me to get into Herb Alpert, Doc Severinsen, Rafael Mendez, Maynard Ferguson, the Chicago Symphony Orchestra, and many others.
Fast forward... I pursued an education in music, where, oddly enough, I was introduced to, via a college roommate, Led Zeppelin. Well, that eventually blossomed into a full-fledged love of rock and roll.
Thankfully, although the sound was always in the air, like a pollutant, I managed to avoid buying any Joni Mitchell, John Denver, PP&M, Joan Baez, Kris Kristofferson, etc., albums. I'm still patting myself on the back for that success. Folk singing with acoustic guitar always did, and always will, bore the snot out of me.
Is that an interesting story, or what? ;)
Who else has another good one? Long, shortened.
:)
... ain't easy, IMO. I'm still not decided on the Schumann Op. 17 Fantasy fave performance, for instance. Still, there are a few that I am sure of. Szell's Dvorak Slavonic Dances, Seventh Symphony and Carnaval are some. Another is Brahms Piano Concerto #2. Solomon is my choice here. Another ancient recording I love is Sena Jurinac in Strauss's Four Last Songs. How anyone could abandon these works and performances is beyond my ability to conceive.
Thinking back to the sixties, of course the Beatles, also some folk and folk rock. Some great geniuses like Jimi Hendrix I can no longer listen to. The cries of pain from him, Morrison, Janis, John Lennon, Velvet Underground and others are no longer life affirming for me. The seventies, especially the later years were mainly crap. Muskrat Love? Disco? Hot Stuff? Ok, fine if you find that inspiring, or even fun.
While I still listen to most of the music of my "youth" in the 60s, 70s and 80s, my musical taste has expanded dramatically. I was a strictly rock n' roll guy but grew to love jazz, blues, country, blue grass, Latin music (best there is to dance) and even classical in controlled doses.
However, my tastes have also changed some in my basic music, rock n' roll. The biggest changes have come in "progressive" rock. I still love Pink Floyd and Emmerson, Lake and Palmer, for example, but previous favorites like Yes, Todd Rundgren and The Moody Blues sound ponderous and boring today. My problems with Yes in particular started back in the 90s, I simply couldn't listen to them anymore. Lately Moody Blues songs are sounding all the same and very ponderous at that. I guess my "prog rock" gene has been weakened quite a bit. But it's still far from "off".
New Wave has also changed for me. I now appreciate a lot of songs I thought were lame and silly back then. In fact my appreciation for new wave and punk in general has grown.
Musical taste remains an un-explainable mystery to me.
Best regards, Ralph
After a severe bout of Migraine headache last year, three days of grogginess and disorientation, I started to dislike some of my favorite music, especially Pink Floyd's The Wall and Led Zep's CDs. I have a big collection of Eric Clapton and U2 which I cannot tolerate anymore. It was not a stroke.
Take care
Bill
I had a similar experience where I found myself getting tired of classical, but I realized that it was not the genre that was eating at me, but the selection choices. I was listening to very familiar pieces and compositions that were predictable. I discovered that I was in a place where I couldn't listen to any genre that was boring me.
I have always shunned traditional country and rap because it just bored me. When I was younger I didn't get jazz, but my tastes matured and like many I now love it. I realize now that I can listen to anything as long as it is (A) Original writing or a unique arrangement and (B) well performed. An audiophile recording is a plus, but I can get past bad recordings if the other two prerequisites are met.
These days I find myself seeking out artists I am unfamiliar with just to fight the boredom thing. I still have standbys that I have to listen to every once in a while, but mostly I need variety.
When I was a kid I loved Teen pop lie Backstreet boys and Nsync. I loved girl groups....
I then graduated to Dance music, especially the chessy kind which opened the door to trance and house partiularly progressive house and soul-house.
I mostly lean towards serious vocal and instrumental oriented trance, Filter and soul house and A lot of Adult alternative music from artists like, Florence and the machine,Sia,The Black keys,Goteye,Iron & Wine and bon Iver
your straying from a long loved genre is not something to be concerned about, unless you want to be. There was a time when I didn't like watermelon, I could taste a squash-like component in the flavor and it just turned me off. Later I came to love it again, whether I taste the squash in it or not.
Not the same, food and music, but not really different, either. Tastes change, and change back. Just be happy, listen to what you want to listen to without guilt or remorse, and if you return someday to classical, then so be it. If you don't, you don't.
I will let whatever happens happen and not worry about it. I just never had a complete turnoff of a whole gene of music before.
Just listened to MFSL's LP of the Beatles White Album and I don't believe I ever enjoyed it so much! The music was wonderful as was the sound quality.
"Happy Listening,
Teresa."
> Just listened to MFSL's LP of the Beatles White Album and I don't believe I ever enjoyed it so much! The music was wonderful as was the sound quality. <
What was once good will always be good.
And so it shall probably be for you and classical music. After 41 years collecting music software, I've learned never to completely shy away from anything I once loved. It usually comes back. In the meantime, enjoy whatever you enjoy. No rules when it comes to musical enjoyment, as attested by Controlled Bleeding segueing into the Mamas and Papas at my house as we speak! Up next, Coltrane's Ascension. :)
You didn't fully speculate on why you may have lost what seems to have been a significant interest. You are kidding yourself to suggest it was "false" interest. There is a real reason, you are not flakey. Maybe you don't need/want to know. I am already past what is "polite discussion" with somebody I don't know, and beyond my knowledge too...but it's just a thought based on stuff I've heard.
I was just wondering if you have attended live orchestral performances in recent time or played any vinyl of orchestral performances......... Something tells me that the ill effects of the digitization of recorded music (RFI, lack of resolving of players in a large orchestra) is what made you disinterested in orchestral music.
I only say this because I personally find digitization often makes orchestral music sound "boring".......... (A really good DAC would reduce this effect, but there are so few really good DACs. There are some conductors, most notably Sir Georg Solti, whose reputations were extremely high prior to the digital age, but took a huge hit since music became digitized.) And I've known several other people who became disinterested in classical music since 1990, after digitized music replaced analog recording as the mainstream norm. (Although they all vehemently deny it was the digitization that caused them to be disinterested.) But I don't ever recall anyone expressing such lost of interest prior to 1985.
I did know one person who lost interest in music altogether, and suddenly so, roughly ten years ago. He now thinks a mild stroke caused it. Though there were no other outward signs of him having one.
Interesting Todd. On the subject... I've heard some ppl say that activities that keep your brain's right hemisphere (if you are right handed) active throughout your life, decreases the chance of severe strokes or dementia.
I'm hoping so, as I use it as an excuse to keep plucking away on my guitars.
8^)
He told me he thinks it was a stroke because he hears music merely as sounds. He then said prior to his loss of interest, he heard music as music.
Kind of spooky.......
Really. But it does sound plausible.
extensively listened to, only to suddenly long for and return to....without a clearly identifiable reason. Teresa, do not despair! In all likelihood, you'll experience a rekindling of love and longing for your former passions. If not, no problem. There is sooooooooooo much great music available.
Edits: 07/01/12
My musical mood changes all the time. I have, like you, walked away from classical for a month or two. I suspect it's some kind of subconscious inner cleansing. When I come back... it's with a vengeance. I can devour Vivaldi or Elgar without pause (not my favs). When I’m in my classical mood I usually avoid rock and singer songwriters but not jazz. When I’m in my rock/singer songwriter mood I avoid classical but not jazz. So jazz is always there for me. I know I can reach for Mingus and be happy no matter what.
Peter Breuninger
Editor, AVShowrooms
Nope.
"One this was all Black Plasma and Imagination" - Michael McClure
why not just put it on the back burner? we all go through phases of like and dislike. i have done this many times only to return to good old familiar territory for enjoyment.
...regards...tr
*
---------------------------
Music must discover you, it cannot always be the other way around. A lot of what is called "classical music" stimulates and entertains me in ways that other types of music simply can not. Classical music ministers to a different part of my mind and nervous system than rock music does, for example, so if I am in the mood for classical music then little else will do. Other people are naturally narrow-minded and/or they function best when they purposely limit themselves to narrow bands of existence, and that's just fine. Not everyone needs to harbor the variety of moods or thought patterns that I like to harbor. When I listen to music reciprocal action needs to take place, that's why I tend to view music and/or recordings as "tools". Music and recordings are not simply or necessarily things or representations in their own right, for me. Maybe some day you will discover (re-discover?) classical music in an organic way, as it is found to relate to some hidden or little used part of your psyche.
"He was one of those men who live in poverty so that their lines of questioning may continue." - John Steinbeck
Edits: 07/01/12 07/01/12
It has always been clear to me that, even when you were listening to classical music, your descriptions and choices suggested the lack of a profound interest in it. Glad you have been liberated.
and her DISlikes, nothing gelled.
Note that a post in response is preferred.
Warmest
Timothy Bailey
The Skyptical Mensurer and Audio Scrounger
And gladly would he learn and gladly teach - Chaucer. ;-)!
'Still not saluting.'
Edits: 07/01/12
Is this meant to sound snarky and smartass or what, Kal, you don't mind if I call you "Kal" do you Kal?
...SUCKS!"
“Some people never go crazy. What truly horrible lives they must lead"
― Charles Bukowski
A bit snarky, yes, but based on my reading of her posts over the years.Kal
Edits: 07/01/12
I hate individuals who have a history!
I don't get it Kal. Teresa, in her very descriptive writing style traced her own history of music genres preferences. The fact is, her taste in music listening has changed and is quite explicit when describing the factors that led to her own evolution. I don't see this as necessarily a good or bad thing but rather her own personal journey into music listening.
The factors that lead ones choice in music are many and not always based strictly on the music
genre or artistry of the musicians. For me, my music preferences are often based on the subjective feelings, associations and memories the music conjures up. For example, I never get tired of listening to music, both pop, jazz and rock, of the 50's and early 60s which I refer to as "The music of life."
I am happy for her self-realization.
Kal
Hey Kal, a couple of posters may have missed your point, but I didn't. You made an observation based your experience, and stated your thoughts in a succinct, straightforward, and non-antagnonistical way.
I might add that, in these days where many "under 40's" have grown up in a world where everything has to be stated in politically correct terms, it's refreshing to read something that gets to the point without endless disclaimers. I didn't read anything into your post other than you observed that the person didn't really seem to be "into" classical music. Fair enough.
I have no clue who "Teresa" is, and doubt that I've ever read anything she's written. In any case, it's sad that she had to sell her SACDs to pay the rent and other bills. She must have had a LOT of SACDs and other stuff to sell! She might want to consider a different line of work.
Wait - she made 24/96 copies of them first. Now I don't feel so bad for her. :)
Funny is that I played Violin in high school and I prefer folk and bluegrass and contemorized show tunes to traditional classical.
Jazz I like but I don't go out of my way to persue more of it, I prefer Katy perry to Diana Krall. She has a more pleasent response curve.
That's the problem with writing on the Web. Sometimes it is hard to correctly translate a message
when you cannot hear the inflection with which it is written.
I find Teresa's writing skills and strong (passionate) convictions quite compelling as she doesn't dance around issues and is quite up front with her views and opinions.
...in between listening to the Faux News.
“Some people never go crazy. What truly horrible lives they must lead"
― Charles Bukowski
nt
oh did...Journey comment struck a nerve or Fox News? Probably both. In that case you probably don't know what 'bad day' is like.
“Some people never go crazy. What truly horrible lives they must lead"
― Charles Bukowski
"oh did...Journey comment struck a nerve or Fox News?"
No, neither struck a nerve. It's just that all you have had to offer to this thread has been completely dickish posts. I was just giving you the benefit of the doubt that maybe you were having a bad day and that you weren't really just a complete dick all the time. Sorry to hear it's a chronic condition and not just a bad day.
Who the f**k are you? Can I HELP you?
“Some people never go crazy. What truly horrible lives they must lead"
― Charles Bukowski
Sounds like an exchange between Zimmerman and Martin...
"Who the f**k are you?"
Just another forum member. Do you lack the skill set to check my profile?
"Can I HELP you?"
Very unlikely. I think all you can do at this point is amuse me. We all have guilty pleasures.
You want to be amused...? I can't help you with your problem.
“Some people never go crazy. What truly horrible lives they must lead"
― Charles Bukowski
"You want to be amused...?"
Don't we all from time to time?
"I can't help you with your problem."
I thought we had already agreed that you are of no value in the "help" department.
There must be something wrong with the grown man who's profession is 'Make-up artist' or collects toy trains (or whatever)...It's bad enough when one is involved with HIFI (also guilty)...You must be a total Alpha Geek.
You are right - me and you are total opposites. ;) Cheers!
“Some people never go crazy. What truly horrible lives they must lead"
― Charles Bukowski
> > There must be something wrong with the grown man who's profession is 'Make-up artist'> >
Really? Did you think kids were on set doing makeup for movies and TV? Your attempt at an insult here goes beyond lame to just plain bizarre.
> > or collects toy trains (or whatever)...It's bad enough when one is involved with HIFI (also guilty)> >
It's bad enough? And you actually had this odd moment of self awareness here. "(also guilty)" Guilty?
> > ...You must be a total Alpha Geek. > >
You must be one totally miserable fuck to think there is something wrong with being a professional artist in the film and TV industry or having hobbies. No wonder you are a total dick.
I'm just feeling sorry for you now.
"No wonder you are a total dick..."No, I am a genius - except nobody knows it but me.
I apologize for an 'attack' on your profession, and rest - what in fact wasn't an attack...but hey I am a jerk (some of the times). You sound like a decent guy, so my sincere apologies if I was hurtful in any way. Regards!
“Some people never go crazy. What truly horrible lives they must lead"
― Charles Bukowski
Edits: 07/02/12 07/02/12
I'm talking Drifters, Buddy Holly, et. al. Buddy is my all time favorite. In fact, there is a part of me that still mourns his passing.
I go back to the Doo Wop era and in some ways I'm probably still stuck there but offer no apologies.
My shift happened 20+ years ago (against popular/rock music), and I never looked back....
“Some people never go crazy. What truly horrible lives they must lead"
― Charles Bukowski
As a lover of classical music and great film. I personally find that sound track to evoke feelings of elation simply because it opens my mind to the loving of two things at once... I know, its lame, but if I ever find that score is void in me, it will have been a sea change for me.
Big deal, if you dont care for classical any more. You still like allot of great music. Its not like you said, I woke up, found I hated jazz, blues, classical and classic rock AND I CANT TURN OFF MTV AND TOP 40 lol :-)
From Tropic Thunder... "you never go full retard" :-) and you didnt :-)
Enjoy this new lease on listening!
Dave
People do not realize they are 'not alone' Everyone had entities that are a part and parcel of thier sense of being. Some call them 'ancestors' angels, spirits.. whatever.
Sometimes for various reasons these leave and others become more connected.
Say your young niece is learning to play an instument in an orchestra, the spirit which 'guided' your enjoyment of classical may have jumped ship and gone to aid her.. So not you find yourself lost and just not into Classical music.
Certainly this reads like nonsense. and I could care less if some get a decent laugh out of it. I just find it is an 'interesting' alternate explanation of some events in ones life.
Especially ones where an interest or obsession suddenly forms, or disappears.For myself i never could connect at all to Jazz. It was like a foreign language. Then all of a sudden after watching Ken Burns Jazz I 'got' Jazz. And now listen mostly TO Jazz.
(though i dislike vocal jazz singing which is just 'crooning'. Jazz scat singing, or singing solidly connected to the music is fine, Just ballads and such sung 'along' to Jazz music sucks IMO.
And I LOVE Opera.
Anyway i still enjoy Classical music a lot. I love the counterpoint.
Variation and reiterations on the theme... Beautiful so elegant, almost mathematical.
.
Just put me on the list of 'far out' type...Added: the best know example of this is an artist's 'muse' Which as is well known, can be fickle, or just disappear altogether.
Edits: 07/01/12 07/01/12
kurt elling. its worth the effort to see him live.
...regards...tr
Although I think you are going overboard when bemoaning 30 years spent listening to classical music. That strikes me as the rabid polemicizing of the recent convert.My response is as follows:
1) classical music isn't a monolith. It includes music written in Dresden in 1630, New York in 1930 and Florence in 1830. The inability to appreciate any of the subclasses of classical music points to a cultural narrowness. (I am not accusing you of such narrowness. You have listened and appreciated many of these genres.)
2) Classical music is radically more sophisticated than much other music (not all of it). 100 years ago, the vast majority of a classical audience would have been proficient in an instrument and a sizable minority would be able to chart harmonic progressions in real time while following along with the music. The composers who could cater to such an audience had by necessity to be immensely skilled and talented. The contrast with today's lamentable state of audience knowledge is clear.
That isn't to browbeat you into going back to classical music. But they are arguments to reconsider your emotions and agree to take a break from classical without some of the negative emotions.
Edits: 07/01/12
At the rate we are producing generations who do not have a clue nor education in nor understanding of music theory; there will not be a single symphonic orchestra left in America by the end of this century. None...
And, no I'm not being hyperbolic it's just the sad sorry state of affairs we're in and it's not getting any better.
People's "knowledge" of music is born from first an exposure to it, then a liking of it, and ultimately an interest in it............
The problem is an all-encompassing network media in America which monolithically portrays the prefab pop dreck as "great music" (as stated so in prime time specials, TV commercials, and awards shows like the Grammys), while shielding anything else from the audiences, often fostering an impression that the alternative music is either "non-existent" or not worth listening to......... People go for the canned pop only because they don't realize the vast alternatives even exist, and the perception that everyone else only likes the canned pop, and they need to be part of the "in crowd".....
If there is hope, the Latin and Asian countries still have this exposure to a wide variety of music outside the "pop" world, hence the interest in alternative music and the classics is far more widespread. Especially in Japan, where the excellence in classical performance has IMO surpassed that of both America and Europe.
I suspect neither one of us will be around in 78 years to see if you are right about the demise of classical music but I don't see what you are basing your prediction on. IMO the current state of affairs is pretty fantastic. The talent pool out there in classical music is better than it has ever been. The state of classical music in L.A. certainly is at an all time high. The venues are getting better all over the world. The programing is very diverse, and rich. I'm going to about 30 concerts a year the past few years and sure don't see any signs of classical music dying at all. Wish I could say the same for rock and jazz.......
The problem is that most of the symphony orchestras at least in the states are operating in the red. They are having problems replacing there aging audiences with younger people. Classical music may not die but many of the local symphony orchestras may be on there way out.
Alan
I know this was an issue for Philly. But most? Certainly not L.A. But I have to ask is the problem ticket sales? Again certainly not in L.A. The three shows I just attended at Davies Hall in San Francisco were all sold out! Clearly replacing audience members is not an issue in these two cities.
I have attended the following orchestras that are operating in the red even though all concerts are sellouts. The Chicago symphony, Sarasota symphony and the San Antonio symphony. Also the Cleveland symphony is in trouble. Ticket sales are only one part of there income. Donations are a big part and are way way down. If you do a search on this topic you will see there is a big problem in the classical music live concert world
Alan
I think this is more a sign of current economic troubles than the death of classical music. I did do a search and found this to be a good article on the subject
http://matthewfelixsun.blogspot.com/2011/05/financial-troubles-of-classical-music.html
While music in school programs have been greatly cut. There is still and will always be those interested in music and those who want to teach. My sons 12 hes studying music and is in the band. I would say its not the interest in music or music theory that's dying its the will of the general public to fund such programs preferring to fund ball type sports....But still the skys not falling. I look out my backdoor at the giant new school my community just built and its equipped with a Steinway piano that was donated....
Edits: 07/01/12
Summer of '74; went from a 10:1 ratio of rock, hard rock (now commonly referred to as 'classic rock' while the remainder representing 'everything else' musical); to an almost exclusive blend of soul, R&B and Jazz practically overnight...at ground zero was the album: "That's the way of the World" by Earth, Wind and Fire..a disc I still listen to at least once week.
may the bridges I burn light the way...
Edits: 07/01/12 07/01/12
One of the first songs I learned on acoustic guitar. Sure learn your scales and improv...
.
.
One of the first songs I learned to play well on flute
Jethro Tull a band most of my friends just "didn't get" I have seen them 7 times , great memories , great shows !
My favorite songs from Jethro Tull's Stand Up: A New Day Yesterday, Nothing Is Easy and Fat Man. Back when I liked classical music Bach was not one of my favorites.
"Happy Listening,
Teresa."
On my old HD-28. All I need is bass accompaniment. You play stand-up? (sorry for pun)...
8^)
Back in the 1970's I could play all the songs from David Crosby's LP "If I Could Only Remember My Name. All the songs used alternate tunings. I remember "Music Is Love" used DADDAD tuning and I got tired of retuning my guitar all the time so I leave it in standard EADGBE tuning. I sold the book decades ago.
Nowadays I play a couple of times a week. I never played stand-up acoustic bass.
"Happy Listening,
Teresa."
Teresa, Crosby not only used different tunings, but some odd chordal changes. I think a lot of guys in those days like to change up tunings and chords --- more for a unique tone. All that Dropped-D stuff that the Stones used was supposedly influenced by Ry Cooder.
Keep on playing that acoustic. It can be a very relaxing & rewarding. And sure does give one an appreciation of good artists.
8^)
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: