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
Brownsfan:
Just so happens that two of my most recent acquisitions 'Beethoven's Piano Trios vols 1 & 2' feature Lynn Harrell, Itzhak Perlman and Vladimir Ashkenazy.

Cheers
Rok2id, So true, and that crossed my mind when I ever so carefully chose to limit my comments to "charisma."
As for your recent LvB trios, that sounds like a winner of a combo. I've had the pleasure of hearing Lynn Harrell live twice. Best Dvorak concerto I ever heard, and I've heard a number of the big names including Ma.
Every time one picks up a copy of a classical music magazine and looks at the industry ads for new releases, you cannot help but notice how soloists have to have both talent and physical charms in today's competitive market. It's not just female performers who are subject to rising standards for appearance, male performer's appearance standards are also affected. Conductors don't seem to be so critically judged on appearance, but it doesn't hurt your career to look like Hogwood or Karajan. I suppose the growing pressure on classical artists to be hyper-attractive is an inevitable consequence to living in such image conscious times (as well as a diminishing market for classical music.)
****I suppose the growing pressure on classical artists to be hyper-attractive is an inevitable consequence to living in such image conscious times****

Concertmasters, like conductors, are not under this growing pressure. Obviously, the astute listener can see (hear) through any possible veneer, but this is something to keep in mind when assessing the relative musical abilities of a great concert master vs that of some of the high profile soloists. The great concertmasters are amazing musicians. Some interesting reading on the subject:

http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20100103/ARTICLE/1031012

http://www.scena.org/lsm/sm4-8/concertmaster.htm
Hi Rok - Frogman has answered your question nicely. There are quite a few who have gone from the orchestra to a solo career. Just in the horn world, Barry Tuckwell, Tom Bacon, and Eric Ruske immediately come to mind. James Galway in the flute world. And many string players, as Frogman said.