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

Showing 6 responses by arnettpartners

I think clearly exposure leads to appreciation; familiarity leads to contentment. Working at understanding music as you have I'm sure leads to more appreciation of the execution of music. But if you have been raised on classical music, you will always like it. It might eventually not be your favorite genre, but you will always like it.

I grew up singing standard hymns in church. I don't listen to them on my audio system. But when I get to church on occasion, I love singing those old hymns.
Who could argue with any of the above-all marvelous and cogent thoughts? Yes, music is said to be the most emotive of the arts--amen, Martin Luther.

I think of a music genre like a skeletal structure of a house inside which are infinite possiblities, and I hear rock in some classical music; I hear classical and jazz in rock; and the lines blur.

But I can't discuss classical music like all of you because I don't have the interest. I lean into rock and jazz. I agree--there is more to it.
Like Rok2id and Schubert's comments best--suspcious of music that has to be explained, and only I know who I want to call.

Some truth in all of the above posts, but there might be a fine distinction between music appreciation and what one really really likes.
"How I hate it, this knowledge which forces even art to join it."..Thomas Mann. Sorry. Couldn't resist. It's the rebel in me.
I was going to add that the above posts approach music with an intellectual curiosity that I don't have for music. My intellectual curiosity is directed toward the science of audio. I will abandon Vivaldi for a good 2/4 time and Bach for a Hammond B3. And this is true.

But Schubert, you take the cake. There is nothing more to say.
Frogman nailed it--articulated it with excellence. In my youth, I started down the road of music appreciation and found it unsatifying. I was afraid I'd get lost in the intellectual, cognitive element from what really moves me. Further I have a suspicion that acadamia, the Avante Guarde, the intelligencia are more concerned with perpetuating themselves than with enlightenment with of couse some exceptions. Add to that my somewhat rebellious nature; add to that, I'd rather be snowshoeing right now or gardening in the summer. That's my personality at play.

I do think that education in music is more cultural and social and less personal, and this cultural-social element does not take away from its importance. I'd just rather go out and snowshoe than advance my appreciation of music.

Happy listening.