Music which doesn't grab you!

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I'm not saying, "My rose is better than yours."

But you did seem to imply (from my reading of your #65 at any rate) that you believed that you were more intent on the flower whereas Richard was more interested in the thorn (and that this suggested that he was being "puritanical"). The suggestion did seem to be that you were saying "my rose is better than yours" (or, at least, "my attitude to roses in general is better than yours") rather than the more generous approach you describe in #75 and elsewhere.

[Richard Barrett]

simply pointing out that what you may look for in music is not what others look for

There's no need to be so defensive. That was very much the point I was making. I was making a general comment to the thread and not singling you or anyone else out as a "know what I like etc." kind of person.

But 'the quest for consciousness-expansion' does sound a bit like dabbling with hallucinatory drugs …

I wonder why the verb "to dabble" is always used in this particular connection. I would describe myself as having been at a certain point a "systematic explorer" of such things rather than a "dabbler", and (like the estimable Mr Huxley) I consider it to have been time well spent, and indeed not entirely disconnected from what I get out of music.

I wouldn't expect a professional composer to have the same attitude as someone for whom music is only a, possibly, secondary interest, possibly less.

You've said this before. I wouldn't expect anyone to have the same attitude as anyone else. Plenty of "professional composers" fall squarely into the IKWILAILWIN category actually.

I'm interested in thorns and roses, and in the insects crawling on them, and in their life-and-death-cycle, and (continued on p94)

[french frank]

But you did seem to imply (from my reading of your #65 at any rate) that you believed that you were more intent on the flower whereas Richard was more interested in the thorn (and that this suggested that he was being "puritanical"). The suggestion did seem to be that you were saying "my rose is better than yours" (or, at least, "my attitude to roses in general is better than yours") rather than the more generous approach you describe in #75 and elsewhere.

That may have been how you read it but it was the last thing I was suggesting!

I had earlier said that it was 'just as rewarding' (not 'more rewarding') to understand what you enjoyed in music and go in search of things you might like (for me - and I did query this - it could mean listening intensively to Mozart's violin concertos which I had rejected; though in light of the fact that I already appreciated much of what Mozart had composed. Did that count as expanding my knowledge or was it pursuing what I already liked? (I don't think anyone responded to that …). Richard's priority was in understanding what 'didn't grab' him as it was in the nature of a challenge.

The rose v. thorn analogy was simply describing the approach of seeking to understand what one liked v. seeking to undertand what one didn't like or hadn't found interesting. That was the only reason for the quote: it wasn't to suggest that 'my rose' was inherently better than 'Richard's thorn'. You might just as legitimately have interpreted it as me liking the easy route and Richard preferring the hard one. I would have considered myself something of a Puritan. I don't think of it as derogatory or less good than a hedonist - quite the reverse.

[french frank]

There's no need to be so defensive. That was very much the point I was making. I was making a general comment to the thread and not singling you or anyone else out as a "know what I like etc." kind of person.

That's why I was 'so defensive' - I thought you were 'singling me out' as you were replying to me.

"I wonder why the verb "to dabble" is always used in this particular connection. I would describe myself as having been at a certain point a "systematic explorer" of such things rather than a "dabbler", and (like the estimable Mr Huxley) I consider it to have been time well spent, and indeed not entirely disconnected from what I get out of music.

I think most people are just trying things out, dabbling. I do accept that some people, notably artists, have taken hallucinatory drugs as a serious experiment.

Plenty of "professional composers" fall squarely into the IKWILAILWIN category actually.

I'm interested in thorns and roses, and in the insects crawling on them, and in their life-and-death-cycle, and (continued on p94)

And however little personal interest I may have in contemporary 'classical' music, it is how I feel composers (at least major figures) 'should' be composing. I have nil interest in contemporary composers who seem to be writing stuff that was frequently written just as well in previous eras, whereas I do occasionally creep timidly among the thorns …

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

That may have been how you read it but it was the last thing I was suggesting!

I suspected not, hence all my cautionary "seem" and "suggested" - and thanks for your reply.

Richard's approach reads as if it has similarities to my own - boiled down to essentials, it's just that I don't like not liking Music (which is annoying, as I'm actually quite good at not liking a lot of it). When I read/hear people responding enthusiastically to Music I don't like, I want to try and discover in that Music what it is that I'm missing. Discovering new enthusiasms reminds me of what it felt like to discover Music when I was a child and teenager - it makes me feel that there is still lots left to discover in life, and lots still to live enthusiastically for. The frisson of having Music I've previously had no time for suddenly "click", and become an important part of my enjoyment - that is something precious and energizing, and worth all the hours spent failing to see what the fuss is about Music I still find dull.

And, there's the Socratean aspect of examining what I like and dislike, of course - that's rewarding in itself (for me), and helps get me through Musical experiences that otherwise I wouldn't be able to endure: I'd find sitting through a performance of x intolerably dreary if I didn't have the compensatory delights of finding myself and my reactions of infinite interest! Yes - confronting Music (/Art/Literature/Film) I find unsympathetic can be a chore and a challenge; but no more than gardening [deadheading spent flowers whilst keeping the thorns, for example ], or going for long walks: the pleasures, when they do come, erase the effort involved. And, if the pleasures don't come, then at least I'm left with a deeper level of understanding why it is that I'm not responding - and (I hope) a more articulate way of communicating such understanding. (In other words, it's not so much a question for me of "seeking to understand what one liked v. seeking to understand what one didn't like" - the two approaches aren't opposed in the way the "versus" might suggest. This might - or might not - be less "thorny" than exploring whole repertoire the aesthetic you know you dislike - but the "aim" [to overcome the dislike; or at best, to identify more "intelligently" what it is that you dislike.)


(Oh - and the question of "expanding knowledge or pursuing what is already liked": that "or" also suggests a "one or the other" that I prefer to regard as an "and". You thought you didn't like the Mozart Violin Concertos [as much as you did some of his other works], so by undertaking the more "intensive listening" you would otherwise have avoided, you would be expanding your knowledge of repertoire [other aspects of which] you already liked.)

[vinteuil]

And, there's the Socratean aspect of examining what I like and dislike, of course - that's rewarding in itself (for me), and helps get me through Musical experiences that otherwise I wouldn't be able to endure: I'd find sitting through a performance of x intolerably dreary if I didn't have the compensatory delights of finding myself and my reactions of infinite interest! Yes - confronting Music (/Art/Literature/Film) I find unsympathetic can be a chore and a challenge; but no more than gardening deadheading spent flowers whilst keeping the thorns, for example , or going for long walks: the pleasures, when they do come, erase the effort involved. And, if the pleasures don't come, then at least I'm left with a deeper level of understanding why it is that I'm not responding - and (I hope) a more articulate way of communicating such understanding. (In other words, it's not so much a question for me of "seeking to understand what one liked v. seeking to understand what one didn't like" - the two approaches aren't opposed in the way the "versus" might suggest. This might - or might not - be less "thorny" than exploring whole repertoire the aesthetic you know you dislike - but the "aim" [to overcome the dislike; or at best, to identify more "intelligently" what it is that you dislike.)

... I'm trying to work out whether our ferney is a Jansenist or a Jesuit - or just a hyper-developed Methodist. In any case, intriguing, - and he's an impressive example of whatever it is that he's an example of...


.

[french frank]

I suspected not, hence all my cautionary "seem" and "suggested" - and thanks for your reply.

I come from Welsh 'pengrwn' stock - Roundhead, Parliamentarian, Puritan, Dissenter, liberal …

it's just that I don't like not liking Music (which is annoying, as I'm actually quite good at not liking a lot of it).

This is why I am puzzled that people consider 'music' as something - what? I'm stuck for a word: delightful, pleasurable, pleasant, enjoyable, an enhancement to life (that's better). There is more music that I hate, that upsets me, makes me shudder, than music I like - which consequently seems so precious that I want to pursue it. The idea of working at the Mountain of Music which I find hard to tolerate in order to understand my reaction seems less like 'time well spent' than it does to others.

And, there's the Socratean aspect of examining what I like and dislike, of course - that's rewarding in itself (for me), and helps get me through Musical experiences that otherwise I wouldn't be able to endure: I'd find sitting through a performance of x intolerably dreary if I didn't have the compensatory delights of finding myself and my reactions of infinite interest! Yes - confronting Music (/Art/Literature/Film) I find unsympathetic can be a chore and a challenge; but no more than gardening [deadheading spent flowers whilst keeping the thorns, for example ], or going for long walks: the pleasures, when they do come, erase the effort involved. And, if the pleasures don't come, then at least I'm left with a deeper level of understanding why it is that I'm not responding - and (I hope) a more articulate way of communicating such understanding. (In other words, it's not so much a question for me of "seeking to understand what one liked v. seeking to understand what one didn't like" - the two approaches aren't opposed in the way the "versus" might suggest.

I admire the intellectuality of that approach. And for me the appreciation of music is nothing if not intellectual (forget emotion - I don't luxuriate in emotion. I rather dislike it! ).

and the question of "expanding knowledge or pursuing what is already liked": that "or" also suggests a "one or the other" that I prefer to regard as an "and". You thought you didn't like the Mozart Violin Concertos [as much as you did some of his other works], so by undertaking the more "intensive listening" you would otherwise have avoided, you would be expanding your knowledge of repertoire [other aspects of which] you already liked.)

I was aware that I had made a hasty assessment of the violin sonatas, but the stinginess in my Puritan character was shocked that I had wasted so much money on the set for so little return

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

In any case, intriguing, - and he's an impressive example of whatever it is that he's an example of...

I'm happy with that - in fact, it is remarkably similar to a comment on one of my Reports from my Primary School Headmaster!

[ahinton]

I admire the intellectuality of that approach. And for me the appreciation of music is nothing if not intellectual (forget emotion - I don't luxuriate in emotion. I rather dislike it! ).

Ah, so that's where I went wrong. Nice to discover it on this forum!

That said, the notion of separating intellect from emotion has always been both foreign and incomprehensible to me - but what do I know?!...

[french frank]

Ah, so that's where I went wrong. Nice to discover it on this forum!

That said, the notion of separating intellect from emotion has always been both foreign and incomprehensible to me - but what do I know?!...

Rest assured ahinton - I would not suggest for an instant that YOU went wrong in anything. But intellectual and emotional, insofar as they are not identical, must be in some sense separable. Even if, in your experience, you can't have one without the other. I meant only that I personally don't care for stuff that wrings my emotions, tugs at the heart-strings. I prefer to stuff that makes me think. That's where I go wrong, surely?

[ahinton]

Rest assured ahinton - I would not suggest for an instant that YOU went wrong in anything. But intellectual and emotional, insofar as they are not identical, must be in some sense separable. Even if, in your experience, you can't have one without the other. I meant only that I personally don't care for stuff that wrings my emotions, tugs at the heart-strings. I prefer to stuff that makes me think. That's where I go wrong, surely?

I don't think so, no; indeed, if you "go wrong" in any sense in this it's probably through an assumption that things cannot be expected to wring your emotions AND make you think.

[french frank]

through an assumption that things cannot be expected to wring your emotions AND make you think.

Didn't say that. Said I didn't like things that wring my emotions. You suggest what I suggested you might think - that you can't have one without the other.

This is nitpicking, but in one sense isolates a factor that might cause me not to like a piece of music. This is about me not any particular piece of music. But recognising this flaw in my being will not make me appreciate a high drama, high emotion work, including a film or book, however much it makes me think (I may just be thinking, I don't like this) or learn to love the work. It brings us back to the matter of whether our preferences are hard-wired into us; or how far it lies within our own efforts to change ourselves or our preferences.

[Richard Barrett]

it's just that I don't like not liking Music (which is annoying, as I'm actually quite good at not liking a lot of it). When I read/hear people responding enthusiastically to Music I don't like, I want to try and discover in that Music what it is that I'm missing. Discovering new enthusiasms reminds me of what it felt like to discover Music when I was a child and teenager - it makes me feel that there is still lots left to discover in life, and lots still to live enthusiastically for. The frisson of having Music I've previously had no time for suddenly "click", and become an important part of my enjoyment - that is something precious and energizing, and worth all the hours spent failing to see what the fuss is about Music I still find dull.

Exactly. And - NB - this is not coming from a "professional composer" unless there are more strings to fg's bow than he lets on about.

As for wringing emotions, I don't like things I perceive as attempting to manipulate my emotions. (Nor do I like things which I perceive as attempting to show me how clever they are.) I think listening to music should be something which encourages me to create my own experience rather than telling me what to think or feel, which is likely to have the opposite effect. I do believe that at a sufficiently deep level there's no distinction to be made between an intensely emotional response to music (or whatever) and an intensely intellectual one. I think there's more difference in the way people describe their responses (including perhaps to themselves) than in "what's actually going on" if that doesn't seem too circular.

[french frank]

Exactly. And - NB - this is not coming from a "professional composer" unless there are more strings to fg's bow than he lets on about.

When I used the term I was thinking really of the amount of your available time you would be able/willing to devote to music. In comparison with me

Manipulation of my emotions is something I resent - if that's what I perceive is happening (eg in Puccini). I had to look up the difference between 'intensively' (me) and intensely (you).

intensive = involving a lot of work or activity done in a short time
intense = very strong, extreme

Is there an implication that 'intensely' does suggest emotional involvement whereas 'intensively' doesn't?

[ahinton]

When I used the term I was thinking really of the amount of your available time you would be able/willing to devote to music. In comparison with me

Manipulation of my emotions is something I resent - if that's what I perceive is happening (eg in Puccini). I had to look up the difference between 'intensively' (me) and intensely (you).

intensive = involving a lot of work or activity done in a short time
intense = very strong, extreme

Is there an implication that 'intensely' does suggest emotional involvement whereas 'intensively' doesn't?

You've lost me here (but maybe that's beause I'm just being rather thick). You write of your distrust of the notion of composers "manipulating" your emotions (or trying to do so) but is that really any different in principle from composers "manipulating" your intellectual response mechanisms and their workings, either alongside or separately from such emotional "manipulation"?