Has education expanded your listening tastes?

Frogman, For years I sat in the front row at the ISO concerts. Not only was the price right, but it really allowed me to watch the musicians work. And I do mean work! You guys must go home dead tired after a Beethoven symphony. I also have a vivid memory of a Russian conductor scolding a Russian cellist with " non tropo!" I got a kick out of that but I'm not sure the cellist was equally amused.

Most of us non pros get a sense of what constitutes a flawless performance and how obvious and distracting one slip can be. I remember a preconcert talk with one of the members of the Pacifica Quartet who said he usually turned off the classical music when he went home- practice and teaching all day long every day was quite enough.

I can't play a thing other than my cd player. I would give almost anything to be able to sit down and play the Goldberg Variations on a piano-up to such single minded laser focused effort that I no longer loved the music.

Kodos to you and Learsfool and others who work so hard to bring so much beauty into our lives.

No. But mushrooms have! Extensively. Ask Bill Hicks.

The greatest of the Romans and one of THE wisest humans who ever lived, Cicero, said;

"Not to know what has transpired in former times is to be always a child."

Children are easier to control than adults which is why History is both the sine qua non of an educated person AND the worst taught subject in the USA.

Even as a former history teacher and avid reader of same for over 60 years, I never quite realized until this post how my mind automatically put me into the milieu of music heard, from the Renaissance Italy of Frescobaldi , the England of Purcell and Byrd, to the Biedermeyer Vienna of Beethoven and Schubert , the Bismarkian Germany of Brahms or the dismembered Hungary of Bartok etc etc etc.

What Frogman says about the general public not grasping the difficulty of performance is of course true, but I would say same is readily apparent to any serious classical listener.
IMO the not really liking to perform has more to do with the cognitive dissonance generated by living in a culture radically different than the one the works you play were created in and for. And two semesters of Music History at any conservatory or university won't change that.

Even more true of the audience for Classical Music.

Schubert, you are clearly a deep thinker and devoted music lover. I am not entirely sure that I am interpreting some of the comments in your last post correctly; so please correct me if I am not. Additionally, I assure you that my comments are not coming from a stance of defensiveness, but from a desire to further what has been a very interesting discussion. Obviously, some of these topics are extremely "close to home" for any performer.

Your comments about the inextricable link between music and history are very insightful and spot on.

****the general public not grasping the difficulty of performance is of course true, but I would say same is readily apparent to any serious classical listener.****

Perhaps. Certainly to varying degrees and more so to those like yourself. But, to any? ....unlikely. Again, I stress this not to garner any kind of undue support or credit, but to hopefully tie in some of the other themes we are discussing in a more complete manner. With all due respect, and not meaning to put too fine a point on any of this, at least one other of your comments seems to point to the need for further clarification.

****And two semesters of Music History at any conservatory or university won't change that.****

The study of Music History and history in general (especially as it relates to the music at hand) goes far beyond "two semesters" for any serious performer. Music history and history in general is a constant theme in the life of a music student in conservatory; not only in the classroom, but in the private study of scores during preparation for performance. It continues as a constant theme as part of living the life of a performer. Two semesters of Music History will give no more a complete understanding than reliance on record liner notes for the understanding of form and theory. Ironically, while acknowledging the relevance of your insightful comments about this topic (in general terms), I disagree with your conclusion about how it relates to the subject of a performer's feelings about certain musics.

****IMO the not really liking to perform has more to do with the cognitive dissonance generated by living in a culture radically different than the one the works you play were created in and for. ****

First of all, I think that the subject being discussed (and one that you introduced) was the subject of performers sometimes not wanting to listen to the works that they spend their working hours performing and, instead, finding a kind of respite in other genres. The joy of performance is, if anything, even greater for styles outside of and removed from the present era. The study of performance practices of, for instance, late Baroque German ornamentation is fascinating and a great deal of simple fun.

For most serious musicians the cliche (and to quote Duke Ellington) "There are only two kinds of music, the good kind and the other kind" is a life mantra. The true relevance of this is something that even serious listeners don't always respect to the extent that they could. A musician who spends hours upon hours preparing and performing certain works will sometimes seek a break or change of pace by listening to, and sometimes performing, a style or genre of music that is very different not necessarily because of any cognitive dissonance (although that is a very real consideration), but simply because it is different and, more importantly, because if core music values are high there is no needless judgment about the superiority of one genre over the other.

Avoid taking a classical music class at eight in the morning as it may not be that helpful.