Music which doesn't grab you!

[Ferretfancy]

- I was thinking of this a few weeks back after seeing Janacek's Osud in Leeds; Music I'd not heard in around thirty years, but which I "recognized" and seemed much more "familiar" as I was listening than I'd've thought possible. Not individual themes/harmonies (and certainly not the storyline!) - but the general "feeling" created by the Music which was "reawakened" as I heard the Music again after so long. (I think I should have a sponsored use of inverted commas for Children in Need!)

The best composers have individual thumb prints which we recognise them by, and as you say they can be identified even years later. In an earlier post I said that music needs thematic material that stays in the mind even as a tiny cell of a handful of notes, but there is also the whole mysterious business of atmosphere. A couple of nights ago I heard a wonderful recital by Leif Ove Andsnes in which he played a number of short piano pieces by Sibelius. This composer is not well known for piano pieces, and they are not heard very often, but the unmistakable voice was there right from the start.

Some composers change there style with time, but somehow the fingerprint is still there. Stravinsky in his late serial period is still instantly recognisable as the creator.

I think we should be grateful for these mysteries, they are all part of the pleasure of listening.

[Richard Barrett]

The best composers have individual thumb prints which we recognise them by

I wonder about that. I don't think it applies, for example, to John Cage, to take an extreme example of someone who set out to erase all possible "thumbprints" from the music he wrote. Does this disqualify him from being one of "the best composers"? I don't think so. Also there are celebrated examples from the past like the Toccata and Fugue in D minor which most people still think is by JS Bach although it certainly isn't (and indeed if you try to listen - with an open mind - for his unmistakeable thumbprints in it you won't find them).

[vinteuil]

I wonder about that. I don't think it applies, for example, to John Cage, to take an extreme example of someone who set out to erase all possible "thumbprints" from the music he wrote. Does this disqualify him from being one of "the best composers"? I don't think so. Also there are celebrated examples from the past like the Toccata and Fugue in D minor which most people still think is by JS Bach although it certainly isn't (and indeed if you try to listen - with an open mind - for his unmistakeable thumbprints in it you won't find them).

... the absence of the Bachian fingerprints in that not-by-Bach piece surely supports ferretfancy's line of thinking?


.

[Bryn]

I wonder about that. I don't think it applies, for example, to John Cage, to take an extreme example of someone who set out to erase all possible "thumbprints" from the music he wrote. Does this disqualify him from being one of "the best composers"? I don't think so. Also there are celebrated examples from the past like the Toccata and Fugue in D minor which most people still think is by JS Bach although it certainly isn't (and indeed if you try to listen - with an open mind - for his unmistakeable thumbprints in it you won't find them).

With you on all counts there, but be ready for incoming re.BWV 565. There are those who would put Peter Williams in the same padded cell as they would Martin Jarvis.

[Richard Barrett]

... the absence of the Bachian fingerprints in that not-by-Bach piece surely supports ferretfancy's line of thinking?

My point was that most people would still think they're there, until they take a good look without assumptions.

[gradus]

OK but this thread has been mostly about exploring the reasons why some music or other doesn't "grab" you rather than just citing examples which don't. Going back to fg's ideas on "memorability", I was thinking of a slightly wider application of the word than just whether one remembers a melody or not, which could be due to unnecessarily excessive repetition rather than any other qualities... when you experience the desire to hear something again, that's an aspect of memorability too, having the idea that you can return to and enhance an experience you've had, even if (or especially if) its details aren't clear in the memory. In other words, it can often be the experience in general that's immediately memorable and compelling rather than any particular feature of it.

Ok, some reasons why. I often find current popular music too loud, uninspiring, aggressive and even threatening and I prefer not to be intimidated by what I hear. Perhaps my limited capacity to enjoy modern popular music is my loss but with so much other music to enjoy and explore, I feel no sense of loss.

[french frank]

Perhaps my limited capacity to enjoy modern popular music is my loss but with so much other music to enjoy and explore, I feel no sense of loss.

I don't think one should feel apologetic about not liking any sort of music. And I have suspicion that explaining why we don't like something is merely a way of describing our own preferences.

There is so much that we all 'lose' because we either do not or cannot find a way in: music, art, literature, languages. Our 'losses' are incalculable, far too many to regret.

[teamsaint]

I don't think one should feel apologetic about not liking any sort of music. And I have suspicion that explaining why we don't like something is merely a way of describing our own preferences.

There is so much that we all 'lose' because we either do not or cannot find a way in: music, art, literature, languages. Our 'losses' are incalculable, far too many to regret.

But a useful starting point for pointing the way to something better/preferable/more interesting ?

[french frank]

But a useful starting point for pointing the way to something better/preferable/more interesting ?

Possibly. It depends how we set about finding something better/preferable/more interesting. It helps in suggesting: "Not this way". But how do we find something new?

[Richard Barrett]

I have suspicion that explaining why we don't like something is merely a way of describing our own preferences.

That just shifts the question somewhere else though - where do these preferences come from? how rigid are they and why? Of course most people have little or no interest in examining these things. But doing so, as teamsaint says, can be a way of expanding one's consciousness. Knowing you'll never appreciate everything isn't, I think, a reason for sticking completely to the known and familiar.

[french frank]

Knowing you'll never appreciate everything isn't, I think, a reason for sticking completely to the known and familiar.

I don't think I suggested that it was. I was just unclear as to the mechanism by which deciding what you don't like (Not this way) might lead you to something which you do like.

[Richard Barrett]

I don't think I suggested that it was. I was just unclear as to the mechanism by which deciding what you don't like (Not this way) might lead you to something which you do like.

It's not about deciding what you don't like, that's easy, but about analysing why you don't like it, which might well lead (and has done on various occasions with me) to finding those reasons spurious and beginning eventually to get into whatever it is. Say you don't like Thelonious Monk's piano playing. You might ask yourself why this is, and come to the conclusion it's because it sounds awkward and sloppy; and then perhaps to the further conclusion that this seeming awkwardness and sloppiness is actually an entirely purposive and consistent approach to piano playing, at which point you might begin to be fascinated by it.

[french frank]

It's not about deciding what you don't like, that's easy, but about analysing why you don't like it, which might well lead (and has done on various occasions with me) to finding those reasons spurious and beginning eventually to get into whatever it is. Say you don't like Thelonious Monk's piano playing. You might ask yourself why this is, and come to the conclusion it's because it sounds awkward and sloppy; and then perhaps to the further conclusion that this seeming awkwardness and sloppiness is actually an entirely purposive and consistent approach to piano playing, at which point you might begin to be fascinated by it.

Well, that's fair enough if you mean that analysing why you 'think' you don't like something might end with you deciding you should listen again in a more focused way. In theory, anyway …

[Richard Barrett]

Well, that's fair enough if you mean that analysing why you 'think' you don't like something might end with you deciding you should listen again in a more focused way.

Not necessarily more focused but perhaps differently focused. It's happened to me many times, not just in theory!

[vinteuil]

.

... in theory 'being open to anything' * sounds an attractive position. But we have our preferences, in the kinds of people we like, food, wine, landscapes, paintings, and music. Analysing why one has a fondness for the sound of the bassoon and an indifference to the flute can get you somewhere, I suppose - but it wd be inhuman to think that thro' such analysis one could really over-ride underlying preferences. It is allowable not to like everything.


* except incest and morris-dancing, natch.


.