Newsgroups: bit.listserv.allmusic
Date:         Thu, 5 Nov 1992 11:46:35 MEZ
From:         Hosko <RMCB@DLRVM.BITNET>
Subject:      RE: Jazz - delicious hot, disgusting cold!

I said:
>>This depends on what you want from a piece of music - I usually
>>respond mostly to the emotion that it radiates.  Complicated music isn't
>>always good and vica-versa.  Bach played games with his music, but
>>realising that one phrase is another reflected upside-down in a mirror
>>don't not make me like the resulting music any more than if I was
>>ignorant to this fact. (As it happens I like Bach's music. And yes, I am
>>a mathematician).  In short a piece of music should be able to stand up
>>on its own, naked, whether you understand it or not!

Tim said:
>  No, I think that this is patently false.  Most folks I know
>take some time to learn the music, the style, the forms before
>they really appreciate the music.  The amount of familiarity
>one has with similar forms or styles can make this easier - but
>there is a learning curve with music.

Hold on a sec. To what are you saying "no"? I don't see why what you
and I are saying can't both be true!

>  When I speak of "understanding" the music, I don't mean the
>sort of detailed musical analysis you seem to be inferring.  I
>mean only in the broadest of senses...It means that you have to
>become familiar and comfortable with certain elements of the
>music to enjoy it.

The reason I took your use of "understanding" to mean a sort of
analysis was because you originally said:
  "The point is, there is a whole lot of music out there which is
  good, but which ya got to understand to appreciate and enjoy...
  Ya gots to know what the composer/performer is doing, where he
  is comming from, and where he is going."
What I understood you to be saying was that with some music you
have to be familiar with it's background before you can fully
appreciate it. And, it's this point that I dispute - 'good' music
should be independant of it's background. Of course its interesting
to know all the little tit-bits and the history of a piece - but isn't
this then analysis? As an example lets assume you've just heard a live
Hendrix track and you find the guitar solo to be rather ordinary and
nothing special. Then one day you get to see the video, and it turns
out that he played the solo with his teeth. Does this make the solo
musically any better? It only makes it more interesting.

>  I suspect that the more jazz you listen to and like, the more jazz
>you will find that you like.  Even stuff that left you cold before -
>only because you are now able to hear it in a different way.

I hope you're right. (I don't consider this statement to contradict
any of my previous statements).

>>>My second ever CD was Prokofiev's 6th Symphony.  Sit down to that cold.
>>>I'm happy to admit that it took me a long struggle to get that music.
>>>The only thing that kept me going was the fear that I had wasted my 15
>>>bucks.
>
>>I know the feeling...
>
>  Which feeling do you know?  The concern about wasting money on music,
>or the feeling that it takes some time and effort to appreciate certain
>works of music?

I know the feeling that YOU were refering to, that 'fear' of wasting
money. It happened to me when I bought Dylan's "Self Portrait", but
no amoung of listening (or background info) will improve my opinion
of this sub-standard work. Also, I do not deny that time and effort
must be spent sometimes before you get to like some music. When
"Abraxas" came out I counldn't get on with it at all, but I could
detect that there was something there, hidden away in the music. In
the end this album became one of my favourites - but just through
listening a lot, and not because I understood 'where Santana was
comming from, and where he was going'!

>What about Peter and the Wolf do you consider simple?

PatW starts with an intro about the cat beeing represented by an oboe,
etc.,  and this feeling of having someone hold your hand while
listening stays with me for the whole piece. Also, I find the
narrative annoying because it distracts from the music, breaks it up
into small bite size pieces, and stops the musical flow. Once I
considered taping just the music and trying to edit it into one
continuous movement.
Do you think that 'a brilliant composer in full possession of his
powers' is unable to write music for a beginner?  I'm sorry if I
offend anyone when I say that I see PatW in this light, but no
amount of discussion will change this feeling that I get from the
piece. (I've been familiar with it now for about 30 years!)

>  Well if you admit that folks must go through a musical evolution, then
>unless you think that ends abruptly at some point, how can you not agree
>with my basic premise?  That musical appreciation involves learning and
>experience, and is not always instant epiphany - just add water.

Musical evolution is not linear, it goes on in all directions and all
the time. Someone may progress from blues to rock, while another may
discover the blues after rock. I don't think that you have to learn to
like a piece/sytle of music, but you may have to learn how to remove any
preduces and preconceived notions you have about it.

---

A quick comment on Paul Heroy's contribution:
Your perception of the Miles Davis music may have been effected by your
background knowledge of the concert, but wouldn't the music have been the
same in both cases.
In general I agree with the first part of your mail, but I don't like
your comparison between unfamiliar music and a book written in a
foreign language. Repeated listening could make the music become familiar,
but repeated reading alone won't help you with the book. An interesting
twist to this example is when the book is replaced with a poem written in
a foreign language - would the 'sound' of the poem break through the
language barrier?

---

M.H.Bloom added:
>I feel like, ideally, the music is going to be independent of these external
>ramifications. But having said that, I note that I conveniently forget all
>facts that don't seem to enhance my appreciation of the music-- like which
>patrons Bach wrote which pieces for.

I'm saying that 'enhancing your appreciation' of a piece of music is not
the same as liking it more.  As an example lets use a Rothko painting as
an analogy; you know, one of those large canvases covered in what is
basically one colour. I would say that I don't LIKE this kind of painting,
and I would never hang one in my house. But, I can UNDERSTAND why he may
have wanted to paint it, and I would certainly go to an exhibition of
his works because I get a thrill from walking into a room and being
confronted by such 'monsters'. I can also UNDERSTAND why such works
are neccessary and vital in the EVOLUTION of 'modern art' - but I still
don't like it!

Hos(Roth)ko
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU