Has education expanded your listening tastes?


This point recently came up in another thread: a member was of the opinion (if I am paraphrasing them correctly) that critical thinking plays little role in what our tastes in music might be. We like what we like and that's it. So that begs the question for me, how many of us feel that our reaction to music is primarily rooted in the emotional centers of the brain and that rational analysis of musical structure and language doesn't potentially expand our range of musical enjoyment? I ask because I am not a professional musician, but I did take a few college level music history classes, learn to play guitar in my forties (now sixty,) learn to read music on a rudimentary level of competence, study a little music theory, and enjoy reading historical biographies about composers and musicians. I can honestly say that the in the last fifteen years or so, I have greatly expanded what types of music I enjoy and that I can appreciate music I might not "love" in the emotional sense that used to dictate what I listen to. Take Berg, Schoenberg, and Webern for example. Their music doesn't sweep you away with the emotional majesty of earlier composers, but I find their intellectual rigor and organization to be fascinating and very enjoyable. Same with studying the history of American roots music, I learned a lot about our cultural history and enjoy listening to old blues and country music now. How do other's feel about this emotion vs. learning to appreciate thing?
photon46
Mapman, The first performance of Bach's St. Matthew passion in Leipzig was met by utter bewilderment. They had never heard or conceived of the like. Reportedly, his estate, including far too much of his work, now lost to us, was auctioned off as scrap. We have a gentleman who visited a fish market in Leipzig 80 years after Bach's death, who found his fish wrapped in part of the autograph score, who fortuitously recognized its value and delivered it to Felix Mendelssohn, to thank. Otherwise, it would be lost to us. If these reports are true, it proves Martin Luther was quite right on this subject. Likewise, LvB's Eroica Symphony was met with head shaking. The first movement was longer than most symphonies. Stravinsky's Rite of Spring caused a riot, which in turn caused him to withdraw the ballet. These works are of course foundational works of the repertory now-- indisputably great in the minds of nearly everyone, except my good friend Schubert, who is not too keen on Stravinsky. In fact, as opposed to Mozart and Haydn, much of LvB's work did not meet with general public or critical approval. It was the cognoscente who sponsored him and truly appreciated his work. Give a listen to his Grosse Fugue or very late piano sonatas for an appreciation of how radical LvB was. 30 years ago, the works of Charles Ives was lost to me. Now I appreciate him very much. Let us be slow to condemn that which we do not immediately assimilate.

As for any comparisons of these Ikons to present day rock composers, I think it is a stretch.

And we still need Frogman and Learsfool to speak.
"As for any comparisons of these Ikons to present day rock composers, I think it is a stretch."

Frank Zappa?

:^)

One of my favorites who is way under the radar of many is former Genesis guitarist Steve Hackett, who has successfully been dabbling on the fringes of both rock and classical music now for well over 30 years and has many many excellent compositions under his belt.

Also much better known these days in Europe and Asia than in US.
I am excited to see this thread here - I have been arguing for years on this board that more audiophiles should educate themselves more about the music they listen to, as this will only increase their enjoyment. There have been some great comments here.

Rok, Mapman and Brownsfan have made good stabs at answering your question. However, if you really want to understand the changes in music over time, you need to understand more about music in the first place. I am not being condescending here - it really is difficult to discuss music without using musical terms. For you and anyone else interested, the very best book I know of for musical "laymen" is Aaron Copland's What To Listen For In Music. If you are more of a DVD/CD kind of guy, another great place to start would be those Great Courses series - pretty much anything that is done by Robert Greenberg. He is excellent at explaining music to non-musicians, and he has a couple of different courses available from that company on music history and music theory. He is fantastic. I took a couple of grad seminars from him in college, so yes I have personal experience with him.
***** I am not being condescending here*****

Of course you are!!! hahahahah But, you wouldn't be the Learsfool we all know and respect, if you weren't.

Cheers
Brownsfan, I like some Stravinsky, "Dunbarton Oaks", L'histoire du soldat"and others.
His Cantata on Old English Texts is a masterwork. Ditto Mahler. In Music i look for pieces that lead me to my goal,
which is clarity of thought and peace of mind. That doesn't mean a piece of has to be soft and lyrical ,but for me, bombastic music is counter-productive.For others may be just the thing.

The only composer I really dislike is Wagner , loathe is more like it, IMO took one to know one when Adolf and Co. raised him to an idol. And yes I know bad people can write
good music, but there is a limit.

I don't think its sooo complicated why music changes. A composer has to make a living , when the powers that be relied on the Church as a legitimizer you got religous music. Breaking with the old order you got Beethoven. When nationalism was the agenda you got Sibelius. When you no longer need half-the population for anything other than consumers you get music that encourges navel-gazing etc etc etc At the MOST general level of analysis
its always follow the money. Of course there are many levels of analysis in social science just as in psychics or chemistry.