Has education expanded your listening tastes?

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.

You would have to be dead to go to a thousand Classical concerts and not grasp how hard it is for and on a performer.
Any human can grasp anything human if they wish to expand the time and effort of mind and heart to do so. As Blake said, "the world in a grain of sand" .

I've done 50 mile forced marches carrying 70 pounds packs and a ten pound rifle in 100 degree temperatures and poured
an inch of blood out of my boots at the end . Thats hard.
I do not doubt you can grasp that just from that sentence.

When I said 2 semesters of Music History ,I really wanted to say 24 Semesters .

I totally disagree with you and Ellington, IMO Classical Music
is the absolute apex of Western Civilization and no other genre can begin to approach the greatness of something like Bach's Mass in B Minor.

I may have to move to Japan where they agree with me.

"Classical Music
is the absolute apex of Western Civilization "

I've always tended to think of it that way as well.

Thing is music is more than that. Its something that most everyone can relate to in some way regardless of how civilized or not they might be.

Understanding that aspect of it as well helps diversify ones musical tastes. There is learning involved in that as well.