2. music
  3. 1392231890

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's avatar
mapman
21,928 posts
 
"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.
learsfool
1,215 posts
 
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.
rok2id's avatar
rok2id
7,829 posts
 
***** 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
schubert
7,386 posts
 
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.
rok2id's avatar
rok2id
7,829 posts
 
*****it really is difficult to discuss music without using musical terms*****

Now, this is very true. If I knew the correct terms, to express my thoughts, You and certain other people would not be so 'condescending' toward Moi. :)

Does Copeland's book explain Music, or HIS Music? I think I will buy the book just to prove a point. That is this: Knowledge will not make you like music that you currently don't like. To think otherwise, is to think that all I need to do, to fall in love with Philip Glass, is to read his book! Like, once he explains that nonsense, I will shout, AHA!!!!

I am always sort of suspicious of Music that has to be 'explained'.

One other thing that might factor into this thread is this: Should Music created, and Composers that Composed, in The 'Age of Hype',(mass media etc...), be scrutinized more closely?

Cheers
More to discover