There is truth to what Schubert says; musicians do, indeed, come from a different place than most listeners. It is a fairly common experience for musicians to enjoy PLAYING certain pieces (or the music of certain composers) much more than LISTENING to them. In these cases the satisfaction is derived from either the technical challenges that a particular composition poses or the unique performance-values dictated by the composer; these may have little to do with the ultimate value of the work on musical grounds. However, it's important to note that if the music is total crap no amount of the above will redeem it for a performer. Musicians can respect certain music while not necessarily liking it.
The listener has the luxury of not having to concern himself with matters of respect and simply determine wether he likes certain music or not; it's very difficult (and pointless) to argue otherwise. However, it is also true (and important to argue) that for those listeners who, out of simple curiosity or conviction to open-mindedness, are willing to challenge their preconceived notions of what is "beautiful", there exist unexpected musical rewards. This is a key point that I think is dismissed much too quickly. The very reason that makes music such a powerful force (the emotional content) is what makes this issue such a personal one; and one that can, unfortunately, become somewhat polarizing. For some, the very idea of education or analysis seems to diminish (or even shut down) the ability to enjoy music on a visceral level; for others, it fuels it. At the extreme there seems to be, for some, the idea that there MUST NOT be education for there to be full enjoyment of music on an emotional level. Why this is so would probably require a type of analysis way above my pay-grade, but it is certainly my experience and observation, and most certainly has to do with personality types. All this should transcend any type of judgment or criticism of the place that anyone of us chooses for music in our lives; but, I would suggest that, as a rule, the more that there exists this type of judgmental aversion to education and critical analysis the less weight that personal proclamations of what music is good, bad or worse will carry. It is certainly valid (on a personal level) for the listener to concern himself only with what he likes most in order to proclaim (IF ONE MUST) what is good music or which composer is "best", "worst" or even "underrated"; however, it would be extremely arrogant to assume that our own personal aesthetic universe can dictate what should be "good" for anyone except ourselves, without having (or being open to having) a fuller and more complete scope of everything that the art has to offer.
****...(I am) suspcious of music that has to be explained****
A very important comment in this discussion, and one that goes to some of the points that I have tried to make. From my vantage point that comment says much more about the person making the comment than about any music that he may be referring to. This is not meant to be a judgmental comment, but an inevitable conclusion. No music needs to be explained and that is not the OP's premise nor question.
**** Has education expanded your listening tastes?****
The answer will vary from listener to listener. A better question might be:
"CAN education expand your listening tastes?"
Absolutely and without a doubt! Not only can it expand our listening tastes, but also our enjoyment of whatever music we choose to listen to.
