'Getting' classical music

[Serial_Apologist]

Same here. Although there's a lot of jazz I like I don't really 'get' it or understand what's happening.

Maybe something for a different thread...

Well, you know where you can find us - don't be put off because we all do (get it), because our tastes vary too, as much as "jazz" does.

Why not try starting a thread discussion on this topic over on the "jazz bored"?

[hmvman]

Well, you know where you can find us - don't be put off because we all do (get it), because our tastes vary too, as much as "jazz" does.

Why not try starting a thread discussion on this topic over on the "jazz bored"?

Thanks, I might just do that!

[cloughie]

Well, you know where you can find us - don't be put off because we all do (get it), because our tastes vary too, as much as "jazz" does.

Why not try starting a thread discussion on this topic over on the "jazz bored"?

Isn’t one of the facets of jazz that if you have to explain it you don’t get it?

[Serial_Apologist]

Isn’t one of the facets of jazz that if you h@vevto explain it you don’t get it?

I can't see how, or why.

[RichardB]

Isn’t one of the facets of jazz that if you h@vevto explain it you don’t get it?

I don't see why jazz should be any different from any other music in that regard. All music requires some explanation - many people get the idea that there are some musics which are "self-explanatory", but what that actually means is that they're part of the cultural environment to the point that they seem "natural". If you were born in Indonesia a hundred years ago (as we read in the accounts by the Canadian composer Colin McPhee of his time spent in Bali in the early 20th century), you'd have found Western music generally much less natural-sounding than the indigenous classical musics. And of course jazz, just like "classical" music, isn't just one unchanging thing but many; during not much longer than a century, it went through evolutions comparable with the last three or more centuries of "classical" music.

[ardcarp]

during not much longer than a century, it went through evolutions comparable with the last three or more centuries of "classical" music.

My thoughts exactly. It isn't just one thing, anyway. Scott Joplin is often quoted as a sort of jazz pioneer with his Ragtime. But that was notated, and in the hands of [e.g.] Joshua Rifkind sounds somewhat staid. Was it 'swung' when originally played? Did The Blues come before or after? The trad. jazz of The Temperance Seven was a bit formulaic too, though good fun. Then there was the hugely popular Acker Bilk. Improvisation is surely a staple of any sort of jazz since then, plus an 'accepted' harmonic language. The MJQ were, IMHO, rather special; and who could not be amazed at Oscar Peterson? All sorts of things have happened since then, especially in the realm of electro-jazz.

I'm absolutely no expert on jazz, but I quite like to listen to it on occasions. Surely it can't be 'button-holed' ? And the role of the marimba?? Discuss.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Isn’t one of the facets of jazz that if you have to explain it you don’t get it?

That sounds like a cop-out, rather like fox-hunters saying the other side doesn't understand the countryside, but never explain it.

[cloughie]

That sounds like a cop-out, rather like fox-hunters saying the other side doesn't understand the countryside, but never explain it.

From the reaction I have had to my statement I have maybe put it badly. However those reactions have hit a nerve. Maybe ardcarp’s comments about MJQ and Oscar Peterson probably mirror my own tastes in Jazz - a lot has happened in Jazz in the last six decades and the Modern Jazz of the Sixties is not very modern now. I think that those who have followed the evolution through have an ear for what has happened over the years will have a better appreciation of jazz than maybe I have, having only dipped in and out of it - Some of the sounds are marvellous to my ears - others utterly I find cringeworthy - I’ll could settle now for ‘I don’t know a lot about jazz but I know what I like’ whilst at the same time A little bit of me is thinking ‘is there something I’m missing out on’. I have a copy of ‘Bitches Brew’ which l listen to every now and then - I still haven’t got it yet!

[duncan]

Interesting thread. Live music and exploring beyond the obvious choices worked for me. This also applied to Jazz which followed a similar, later, trajectory.

I was occasionally exposed to classical music in my teens - parents had a few LPs of popular classics - but never developed any great enthusiasm. One of the key things I learned as a 15 year old Prog. enthusiast was the need to give a piece for a few listens before dismissing it out of hand. This was really useful to have experienced when I started exploring classical music which didn't always give up its secrets immediately. Rather than the romantic warhorses many think are the best introduction, it was twentieth century music that first clicked for me coming from a rock music background.

Starting going to concerts especially ones with a more relaxed atmosphere definitely helped. The live experience applied even more to opera, which took rather longer to click.

I still have blindspots. In some cases this is clearly just good taste on my part (Rachmaninoff, Puccini) but other examples are just baffling (Coltrane, a work in progress).

[Old Grumpy]

I don't know whether one has to "get" music to like it and enjoy listening to it. I know what music I like, (early music, some classical, a smattering of modern; modern/mainstream jazz suits me best - the more adventurous improvisation turns me right off.

Perhaps this indicates a lack of intellectual rigour on my part - but it suits me, Sir!

[RichardB]

Many of the replies here emphasise the fact that "classical" music (and for that matter jazz) isn't something with a clear definition that you either "get" or you don't. I suppose most people would have me down as someone who does "get" this music, although for example it took me many years to "get" Ravel, Shostakovich and Schumann, and I still don't "get" Brahms, Rachmaninov or Britten, or, more precisely maybe, I think (possibly mistakenly) I "get" what they're doing but I haven't (yet?) found a point of contact with it. This is one reason why I usually put "classical" in quotes (and jazz not).

[gradus]

I don't get Raves but R4 this morning had a 15 minute piece by someone who very definitely does. She interviewed a disc jockey who is famous for her Rave-ability and both spoke in terms that many of us would use to describe classical music's effects on us. The only point of real difference in what they both described - extraordinary pleasure, highs, excitement etc - seemed to be the help that drugs gives to them, though perhaps it also does for classical music composition, playing and appreciation? I don't think I've ever seen drug-taking and the creation/playing/appreciation of classical music openly linked but I imagine it must happen/have happened.

[Frances_iom]

... I don't think I've ever seen drug-taking and the creation/playing/appreciation of classical music openly linked but I imagine it must happen/have happened.

I always assumed this the reason for the rise of mood music - needed for those whose minds are gradually being destroyed by drugs coming down after a high.

[Old Grumpy]

I always assumed this the reason for the rise of mood music - needed for those whose minds are gradually being destroyed by drugs coming down after a high.

WARNING: Classic FM link

https://www.classicfm.com/discover-music/latest/classical-music-drugs/

[RichardB]

I don't think I've ever seen drug-taking and the creation/playing/appreciation of classical music openly linked but I imagine it must happen/have happened.

I once listened to the Symphonie fantastique under the influence of a hallucinogenic substance. It was pretty frightening.