Well, I don't know, perhaps it's just that I don't understand the finer side of things, but I've always found anything about art to ultimately be just a case of either "I like it" or "I don't like it" for me. I can talk endlessly about all the reasons why I like something, but, in the end, if someone says "I don't like it", there isn't exactly anything I can do to prove that person wrong.
I've always kinda felt - and I mean no offense by this - that attempting to scientifically analyze and talk about the particulars about something in art is a bit like teaching a robot how to paint. There can be everything present that makes it so that something should be enjoyable, but if it doesn't have that certain really ineffable "spark" in it, I won't like it. I've listened to many people telling me all about the particulars of all the things that classical music does and modern music doesn't, and when I listen to it I can see what they're talking about, but it still doesn't help. At the end of the day, the only measuring stick I'm really capable of using is the question of whether or not I can close my eyes and get lost in the music. The best music for me can be tantamount to a religious experience, and it's really something that can only be experienced, not told.
I don't think it's a question of time, either - like I said, my musical taste has certainly changed somewhat as I've grown older, but to the opposite end of the spectrum, really.
GabuEx
It is only by picking apart music that you can determine precisely what it is that you like about it with any degree of certainty. There's ALWAYS a technical foundation for your musical preferences, even if you don't realize it. And conversely, you can also understand what makes for music you find unenjoyable. If I didn't enjoy metal but had not analyzed what I heard, I could say I didn't enjoy it, but I certainly couldn't tell anyone why that is. And if that were the case, I wouldn't have posted in this thread, because I see no point in coming into a music thread just to say I don't like it. Really, who cares? :P
I take great pleasure in discovering the intricacies that a gifted composer leaves in his works, either intentionally or unintentionally. It's part of the joy of music for me - figuring out WHY certain music is great, instead of simply enjoying what it sounds like. So we're very much in different camps here. I can't imagine why anyone would not wish to fully understand music they enjoy on the technical level.
And I still think that maturity plays a decisive role in the ability to appreciate dense music. You won't find many 10 year olds who can sit through a Brahms symphony without fidgeting in frustration and boredom, even if they come to appreciate the music deeply later in life. Also, you won't find many young children who respond well to metal. Again, they may tolerate it, but they get bored of it quickly if made to listen to it - much more quickly than they become bored of their simple childhood tunes, which they can listen to over and over again.... much to my chagrin at times. It's just like how we are able to listen to our favoured pieces over and over again, except theirs are much easier to grasp, and FAR more musically transparent.
Taste is not something which can be questioned, because it is entirely personal. Many people who have an excellent understanding of music dislike Brahms and love Rachmaninoff. To an inexperienced listener, the two sound very similar... but obviously there are differences that draw certain experienced listeners to one but not the other. With the proper education, though, anyone could figure out what those differences are, and describe what they respond to in the music they love, rather than simply feel an 'intangible pull.'
Log in to comment