Music which doesn't grab you!

[Dave2002]

I'm currently listening to a new CD - I'll give details later - but for now let's say it doesn't really do much for me.

Rather than simply dismiss this, I'm trying to consider why not. It seems to me that there could be a number of reasons why pieces which I haven't heard before don't turn me on, including:

Not rhythmic enough
Not enough variety
Too intense
Too discordant
Lack of form
Lack of development
Too similar to other works
Performance (perhaps) not good enough
Harmonically uninteresting
Instrument or instrumentation sounds unpleasant
Meandering
etc.

So next time you think you don't like a new piece maybe try to think why not.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Well, first impressions are not always the best. But the list is good, if you still feel the same after a few hearings.

[Richard Barrett]

Although... almost any of those characteristics - lack of rhythm or variety, much intensity or dissonance, formlessness (if there actually is such a thing, which I doubt), lack of development or harmonic interest or direction, similarity to something else, "unpleasant-sounding" instrument or instrumentation - could also be viewed as positive aspects. Inadequate performance is maybe an exception! I find myself now and again thinking "I don't like that piece because of X" and then realising that X is a quality I do appreciate in another piece. It depends on how much of quality X you perceive that the piece "should" have (which is rather subjective) or "is intended to" have (which involves what might well be a faulty inference). One wouldn't be looking for variety in a piece by Steve Reich, or consonance and relaxation in a piece by Iannis Xenakis, or form, development, harmony or direction in a piece by John Cage, or radical difference from other things in a piece by Vivaldi, and so on. Analysing one's dislikes can be a many-layered process which can end in changing one's mind. A story I often tell to students and may have mentioned here is that once, as a thought experiment, I decided to try and think of what the worst music I could possibly write would sound like - something which would contradict all the qualities I look for in music... and after considering this for some time came to the conclusion that the result wouldn't be any different from what I do write. Make of that what you will.

[Serial_Apologist]

Above all, banality, cliche and predictability is the big musical turn off. Contrarywise, find I most like a piece, even one I think I am familiar with, if it renews in its capacity for endlessly coming up with surprises. These deepen its significance, especially if it presents new perspectives from which to view or hear it that find echoes on different response levels within, or helps create new inner reserves from which to appreciate: political, cultural, geographical, historical, biographical as well as musical or musicological.

[french frank]

helps create new inner reserves from which to appreciate: political, cultural, geographical, historical, biographical as well as musical or musicological.

Music seldom has these associations for me; and if there are obvious ones that would be hard to miss (like Shostakovich) it tends not to be particularly appealing. I don't want music to take me in those directions. I'd accept that no music is without context, but some general contexts are absorbed sub-consciously, are endless and become fused with the music (18th c. court of Emperor Josef, post-revolution-inter-war Europe, Renaissance religion).

The 'rejection' of the music that 'doesn't grab me' is equally subconscious, and based on a variety of preconceptions, prejudices - and harder to explain simple preferences. I think a reason why "jazz" doesn't grab me is that I'm not keen on, particularly, trumpets and trombones. But whoever it was here who mentioned the name of Cecil Taylor, thank you: if this is jazz, I like it!

[kea]

Unless the reason I don't like a piece of music is that it's physically painful to listen to, I will make an effort to at least figure out why I don't like it, because not knowing why I don't like something tends to bother me a lot. The reasons for disliking something tend to be not all that logical in reality though—in the end something might be unappealing in one context, but then the only reason it's unappealing might be that it was written at a later historical period than music where that thing can be appealing.

I decided to try and think of what the worst music I could possibly write would sound like - something which would contradict all the qualities I look for in music... and after considering this for some time came to the conclusion that the result wouldn't be any different from what I do write. Make of that what you will.

Phrased as "something which contradicts all the qualities I look for in music" that's almost an impossible question for me to answer—there aren't any qualities I don't look for in music, it just depends on the context of particular pieces of music. But I'd probably agree with you eventually just because all of the music I've written, except maybe for the piece I'm just about to start writing, is the Worst Music Ever and I need to do the exact opposite of that >.>

[DracoM]

Almost anything written for voices and or orchestra by Elgar. Can't explain it - just reach for the off-switch. His chamber music, quite different reaction.

[Serial_Apologist]

I think a reason why "jazz" doesn't grab me is that I'm not keen on, particularly, trumpets and trombones. But whoever it was here who mentioned the name of Cecil Taylor, thank you: if this is jazz, I like it!

Either I shall wake up and discover this was just a dream, or this has to go down as the unexpected statement of the day!!!

There's plenty of jazz without trumpets and tromobones, ff, though I do know what you mean. Not liking electric guitar would make most rock if not pop music a turn-off, for similar reasons.

[Serial_Apologist]

UThe reasons for disliking something tend to be not all that logical in reality though—in the end something might be unappealing in one context, but then the only reason it's unappealing might be that it was written at a later historical period than music where that thing can be appealing.

Are you thinking of a work such as Strauss's Four Last Songs, which idiomatically sound as it they were composed somewhere around 1899, sharing a common asdvanced chromaticism with eg Schoenberg's Verklärte Nacht, as an example there? I ask because I find myself intrigued by the later music of composers who ostensibly resisted the advances of musical language effected by their leading modernist contemporaries while betraying a inability to resist certain aspects of what those advances, eg Franz Schmidt and Pfitzner in their later works.

[Richard Barrett]

Either I shall wake up and discover this was just a dream, or this has to go down as the unexpected statement of the day!!!

Yes but how could anyone not like Cecil Taylor?

[Barbirollians]

Melodically unmemorable is also something that could be added to Dave's list .

[Richard Barrett]

Melodically unmemorable is also something that could be added to Dave's list .

Again this really depends on one's judgement as to whether it's intended to be otherwise... some music can be generally regarded as beautiful without containing any "memorable melodies", Palestrina for example.

[Serial_Apologist]

Yes but how could anyone not like Cecil Taylor?

Sure, but even Cecil can be a bit much of a muchness sometimes!

Many years ago we saw him duo a duo concert with Tony Oxley. Afterwards a number of us met up with Keith Tippett, who it turned out had also been in the audience. Someone remarked to Keith about the number of times critics had likened his own style of pianism to Cecil Taylor's; Keith responded in acknowledgement, but added, "Yes but his range is rather narrow. And by the way, where has he gone? I need to return a fiver he once lent me!"

[Dave2002]

A story I often tell to students and may have mentioned here is that once, as a thought experiment, I decided to try and think of what the worst music I could possibly write would sound like - something which would contradict all the qualities I look for in music... and after considering this for some time came to the conclusion that the result wouldn't be any different from what I do write. Make of that what you will.

I once heard a podcast which recommended this approach for software design and development. The claim was that by deliberately trying to create something really bad, more enlightenment would ensue which would lead to a better outcome when the "good" version was made. Allegedly this led to more reliable software than simply trying to create good code in the first place.

Examples: Solve traffic problems on roads. Deliberately think how to make them worse (not always difficult on some UK roads ...).

Customer service - how could you possibly make some any worse? Go on, try it!

I think the name for this approach is "anti-patterns". If the technique does work, presumably it's because there is greater awareness of the pitfalls and problems, and the need to either avoid them, or correct for them.

[Serial_Apologist]

I once heard a podcast which recommended this approach for software design and development. The claim was that by deliberately trying to create something really bad, more enlightenment would ensue which would lead to a better outcome when the "good" version was made. Allegedly this led to more reliable software than simply trying to create good code in the first place.

Examples: Solve traffic problems on roads. Deliberately think how to make them worse (not always difficult on some UK roads ...).

Customer service - how could you possibly make some any worse? Go on, try it!

I think the name for this approach is "anti-patterns". If the technique does work, presumably it's because there is greater awareness of the pitfalls and problems, and the need to either avoid them, or correct for them.

Sounds rather like aversion therapy!!!