Howard Goodall on BBC Two

[MrGongGong]

Music doesn't need to be tonally-based to follow "a tension-release mechanism", ahem.

Of course not

My point was that understanding would not lead to a better liking, and for me that is the only test of music.

Not for everyone
I don't "like" Brahms's chamber music much
BUT it is "Great" music all the same .........

[anotherbob]

I don't "like" Brahms's chamber music much
BUT it is "Great" music all the same .........

But I'm not really interested in what stature other people might ascribe to music. If I don't like it I don't listen to it. Vey simple. My record collection is based on this principle.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

My point was that understanding would not lead to a better liking,

I think Thropple is of a similar opinion. I'm different - I've often found that the more I understand a work, the greater I enjoy it (not always: I understand Elijah but still can't believe that it's by the same composer as the Octet or Italian Symphony or ... ). It's like watching a cabinet maker show how a piece by Gillow has been put together - knowing how it works makes it all the more impressive, for me. My own attempts at "explanation" are meant for those who might be interested - they're not meant to offend or upset anyone who isn't.

[Ian]

BUT it is "Great" music all the same .........

How do you know?

[MrGongGong]

But I'm not really interested in what stature other people might ascribe to music. If I don't like it I don't listen to it. Vey simple. My record collection is based on this principle.

But you said that was the ONLY test ?
and in what context do you listen ?

[MrGongGong]

How do you know?

Because people who know much more about music than I do
tell me so and also because of how it has resonance
whether I like it or not matters little in the grand scheme of things

If one does decide that some music is "great" (and that's not always necessary) then Brahms does fall into that category

but I still don't "like" it

[Ian]

Because people who know much more about music than I do
tell me so and also because of how it has resonance
whether I like it or not matters little in the grand scheme of things

If one does decide that some music is "great" (and that's not always necessary) then Brahms does fall into that category

but I still don't "like" it

How do you know those people know much more about music than you do?

[teamsaint]

They get the music question Starters on University Challenge, perhaps?
Actually I expect doublegongs does too....

Edit,I wonder if doublegongs has a dopplegonger somewhere.....

[anotherbob]

It's like watching a cabinet maker show how a piece by Gillow has been put together - knowing how it works makes it all the more impressive, for me.

I agree, but "impressive" is not the same as agreeable. With respect I don't see an exact parallel here.

But you said that was the ONLY test ?
and in what context do you listen ?

Liking IS my only test, and I experience music in a variety of different circumstances as do most people I would think.

Because people who know much more about music than I do
tell me so and also because of how it has resonance
whether I like it or not matters little in the grand scheme of things

If one does decide that some music is "great" (and that's not always necessary) then Brahms does fall into that category

but I still don't "like" it

"Whether I like it or not" is the only thing that matters to me. It is of no consequence if a highly-qualified person tells me a piece of music is "great". What if a wallpaper expert were to tell you that a particular design was "great". Would you sit looking at it for 10 years, hating it but consoled by its greatness?

[Julien Sorel]

"Whether I like it or not" is the only thing that matters to me.

Presumably you'd agree that if that's the only thing that matters to you your liking "it or not" wouldn't matter to anyone else?

[anotherbob]

Presumably you'd agree that if that's the only thing that matters to you your liking "it or not" wouldn't matter to anyone else?

Indeed I would.

[Julien Sorel]

Indeed I would.

I think that approaches at least a nub of the problem: I'd never suggest people should like the cinema I like or music I like or the literature I like or the art I like etc. (to use the word like). I do think people should get the opportunity to find out if they like it or not. That's all. If they don't get it that's also all: it doesn't make them ignorant or wanting in taste or anything. It just means they don't like what I like.

Sometimes, though, people do get to like things they didn't respond well to initially. And information and analysis and context, not by any means necessarily uncritically presented, can sometimes effect that. I don't see anything wrong or condescending or patronising in that (to use Ian's words).

[Ian]

Sometimes, though, people do get to like things they didn't respond well to initially. And information and analysis and context, not by any means necessarily uncritically presented, can sometimes effect that. I don't see anything wrong or condescending or patronising in that (to use Ian's words).

For the avoidance of doubt, I do not see the presentation of information, analysis, context or indeed the expression of any opinion about music as condescending or patronizing.

I think a line is crossed though when that spills over into statements not so much about the music but about listeners not being able to use their ears properly, or “traditionalists” not liking having their prejudices challenged. Does strike as being a bit unnecessarily defensive - to say the least.

[JFLL]

... I've often found that the more I understand a work, the greater I enjoy it

There’s a bit of an ambiguity with the notion of ‘understanding’ music, isn’t there? You can ‘understand’ it in the sense that you somehow ‘get it’ aurally, it ‘makes sense’ to your ears, you ‘follow’ it, you ‘like’ it, you’re persuaded, as though by a good argument. And then there’s the sense of understanding, say, what Schoenberg was up to with serialism as a composition technique, or what Mozart and Haydn were up to with classical form. Of course a musician might say (I’ve a feeling they will!) that the first kind is merely ‘liking’, is only partial or superficial understanding, and that the second kind is essential, but to the average listener, the first kind might be all that matters, because he/she listens to music mainly for enjoyment. But there are degrees even in the first kind, between someone who has ‘got’ a piece (or thinks he has, which for him is the same thing) and someone to whom it’s just a pleasant sound, like, say, birdsong. They both enjoy it, but there seems to me a fundamental, if unprovable, difference in the experience. It can’t be tested, though, as someone can be tested about whether he has understood a verbal argument.

[aeolium]

I find myself generally in agreement with the sentiments in #399 (anotherbob), #402 (Julien Sorel) and #403 (Ian). I don't see any reason why the fact that a musical work or composer has been acclaimed as "great" confers any obligation on any listener to like that work/composer ('like' is such an unsatisfactory term here but I'm using it to encompass every variation of positive response). In fact it would be surprising if there were not many works generally acclaimed as "great" which many listeners did not respond to, given the huge variety of musical styles. And while there is benefit in information, analysis, explication of musical works, that in itself may be insufficient to change someone's response to a work, since that information is provided through the conscious, rational mind whereas the response itself is at least partly through the irrational/unconscious (or at least undiscoverable, inexplicable) part of the mind. And that also is why it is a mistake to regard a failure to respond to a work as necessarily a failure in understanding or someone not using their ears properly. It may simply be that someone is temperamentally, mentally, attuned to respond differently and more positively to other music. It is neither the music's fault nor the listener's.