# Have I become a jaded dinosaur for how I like music?



## Farkle (Jun 13, 2015)

Hi, all!

So, this is a bit of a "throw my hands up in the air" conundrum. I need to relate this experience to my peers, and see if I've become "that jaded, grumpy old man"... or if there's something more sinister at work... >8o 

I teach. I teach jazz composition and film scoring at a top jazz school in Philly. I teach there because I love it. The students are a welcome break from sitting alone in the studio; they are full of energy, creativity, they're cool as sh*t, and I always come back jazzed and ready to compose.

Last year, I was teaching a core course for a new major; the major was called Music Business, Entrepreneurship, and Technology. I am on the composition faculty, but this course was a music education/appreciation course for these kids.

At one class, I was talking about... I dunno, something musical, but I basically got to talking about Stravinsky. And, I put on the Finale to the Firebird. This is the point in the ballet where the evil demon king is dead, the prince has escaped with the princess, and the firebird (phoenix), supposedly dead, slowly arises from his ashes, in triumphant resurrection. I've attached the YouTube link below (BTW, this is Michael Tilson Thomas, whom does an absolutely spectacular job in bringing this music to life):

https://youtu.be/PVs1yko2jjI

This piece, it brings tears to my eyes. The build, this simple melody, slowly developing, the growth, that harp arpeggio coming in on the restatement of the theme, when the timpani and brass enter... it's absolute magic.

So, I play this piece for the students, on a nice big set of speakers. I sat there, let the piece just... be.

And, I looked at them, after the piece, and I said, "Well? What do you think? Was that good music? Did it move you? Did you like it?"

I had 14 music majors look at me. And what they said was...

"Eh. It was okay."
"I didn't like it that much."
"It was kind of boring."
"I guess it was trying to tell a story."

I got. Apathy. Disdain. Disinterest. From the finale. To Firebird. By Stravinsky.

I was stunned. I tried so hard during that class to acknowledge their point of view. I asked them if they wanted to hear different instruments, if the tempo didn't agree with them.

But, at the end of the day, I had 14 out of 14 music majors say that they found this clip of Stravinsky dull, boring, and lacking.

Thank the maker, none of these were composition students. They were part of this new hybrid major about music business and technology.

But, I had this moment. Am I teaching something that is now outdated? Is the idea of a strong, beautiful melody, with tight, supple orchestration, and a slow, but powerful build... is that now... passé? Dated? 

Because the future of our industry is sitting in front of me... and they are unimpressed with Stravinsky. 

So... am I outdated? Does the new generation of musicians prefer something other than a piece like Firebird? I hesitate to ask, is their attention span so limited, they cannot follow a 3 minute build? 

I'm at a loss; and frankly, this was pretty darn discouraging as a composer. It's not just that they dismissed it... but they didn't even understand or recognize the talent and work that went into those last 3 minutes of the ballet. These students, they just assume that genius like that is... commonplace.

I don't know, I'm on my 3rd glass of wine, so that's helping this post. But, am I rendering myself obsolete by trumpeting these pieces as icons to look up to?

Questions, discussions, elaborations, opinions, and polite jabs are welcome! 

Mike


----------



## synergy543 (Jun 13, 2015)

Make it an required assignment for each of them to bring what they consider to be "a great piece of music" and do a presentation to explain to the class why. No restrictions on the style of music. Have them do a simple analysis of either structure or harmony. Let them use "lay terms" if they need, to describe why they consider their chosen piece is great. 

Let us know the outcome. At least you'll get their apathetic brains thinking regardless of what they choose.

Be prepared though, apparently hundreds of people think this is "great music".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=29&v=StUw8P80iuc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=29&amp;v=StUw8P80iuc)

One reviewer wrote:
Her sound is really interesting, classical with a lounge/synth pop twist that has a very tranquil feel to it. Her videos are extremely well thought out and visually stimulating…

Go figure.


----------



## Hannes_F (Jun 13, 2015)

I feel for you. I ask myself this question often.

The funny thing is that I even DJ, just coming back from a party. Charts, House, Funk, Rock, everything. But when I am alone in the car I switch to a classical station because I feel that orchestral music feeds my soul and I need that. Weird.


----------



## Greg (Jun 13, 2015)

I certainly wouldn't be bothered by it! Stravinsky composed for an entirely different generation. I would actually be more bothered if everyone liked the same old music. That would bring the evolution of the medium to a standstill.

We should all appreciate that music affects everyone in so many different ways for so many different reasons. No matter how many notes it has.

What would bother you more, someone never hearing Stravinsky? Or someone never getting chills and tears from a piece of music?


----------



## chibear (Jun 13, 2015)

Most stunning part of your story was you had 14 'music majors' that neither recognized nor responded to the finale to the Firebird. Conservatory or Jazz school: shame on them. Kind of ties in with the 'Why Epic' thread IMO.


----------



## SimonCharlesHanna (Jun 13, 2015)

............ I am not overly fond of it either ~o)


----------



## synergy543 (Jun 13, 2015)

Well you don't need fancy samples and "high brows" to have fun with music, that's fer sure. But a little passion doesn't hurn.

Here's a little Walmart fun:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=600ykNF3md4


----------



## Rob (Jun 14, 2015)

They simply don't understand... it's not so much a matter of what they like or not. They don't have the knowledge/familiarity/open mind/heart to decode that music... because that composition, like many others, is "objectively" a gem, though someone might fail to recognize it. I've seen this happen so many times in years and years of teaching, seeing how students change their mind with time, that I've learned to be patient...


----------



## re-peat (Jun 14, 2015)

It’s not my favourite Stravinsky moment either. Far from it even. (And I’ll doubt you’ll find a more impassioned Stravinsky-lover currently walking the planet than me.)
But favourite or not, it is definitely one of the more obvious, and often successful, doors through which to enter into the world of Stravinsky. Even if its only a tiny part of his world, and one which he himself completely abandoned very soon afterwards, hardly ever returning to it for the rest of his life.

But that is not the point here, is it? The point is that a great piece of music, which can be enjoyed just as satisfyingly on an emotional as on an intellectual level (or anything in between), no longer seems to resonate today with large quantities of people, even if you go out of your way to show them what to listen for, to draw their attention to the music’s inner workings and to present it to them not as a specimen of fossilized academic ‘seriousness’ but as a still very much alive example of musical creativity at its best.

Personally, I think that says more about our times, and about these people and the way we educate ourselves these days (in the broadest sense of the word), than it does about the power and quality of the music itself, which I consider an objective given.

Today, we’re educated to consume without effort, one thing after the other, and then throw it away, never to revisit it. Our brains are gradually becoming single-use cameras. We flutter from rush to rush, never stopping once to take the time to dig a little deeper into something, but always impatient to move on to the next divertion as soon as the appeal of the current one starts to wear off.
People are not tought anymore that a piece of good music is something which you can take with you for the rest of your life, like a friendship that grows increasingly intimate and profound. Today, music, for many people, is here today, gone tomorrow. It’s on their playlist on Monday and back off it on Tuesday.
That is not a frame of mind with which to approach great music. Disclosing and discovering what is great about great music requires sustained effort, knowledge and commitment, and these are the very things which many people can’t or refuse to make when it comes to music.

I have a theory about this. (Which, totally unrelated, reminds me of this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAYDiPizDIs (rather funny bit).) And my theory is this, that it is, this theory of mine (cough): little intellectual effort, great emotional return. That’s the formula behind the success of much popular music. (And it’s also the formula behind all ‘epic’ music and why that is so popular, I believe.)
Example: why is ‘Nimrod’ the highpoint of the Enigma Variations to many people? Is it because it is the best-written, musically strongest bit of the entire piece? I don’t think so. I think it is because 'Nimrod' requires the least intellectual effort of the enitre piece, and yet provides the biggest emotional return. Or, other example: why are the pianoconcerti of Rachmaninov more popular than those of Prokofiev? Are they better (in the abstract musical sense)? Again, I don’t think so, but they require a much smaller effort and yet offer a lot more in the way of instant reward.

(By the way, I’m wondering, Mike, how did your students feel about “Kashei’s Infernal Dance”? That’s a bit of Firebird that rarely fails to trigger some sort of response from any kind of audience, young or old, initiated or not.)

I wouldn’t despair though, Mike. I think it is very important that you hold the fort, so to speak. No matter the amount of indifference you’re confronted with, keep showing and sharing your passion, without inhibition. If you do so, it is bound to plant a seed in someone someday. I have no doubt about that. Because, after all, we’re talking great timeless music. Even if you’re reaching only one student out of a hundred, you’re doing tremendously important and great work. 

_


----------



## kmlandre (Jun 14, 2015)

I've been the kid on the other side of then equation (far too many moon ago, sadly), and I can tell you this of that:

1) You've heard that piece probably 10,000,000 times, yes? They've now heard it exactly once. There's no possible way you're going to see the same reaction to it from them. A piece you've grown to love only gets better with repeated listening.

2) I frickin' PLAYED the Firebird in my college orchestra and I *STILL* didn't get it! And I was a composition major! It wasn't until maybe 5 or ten years after I was out of school that I heard it somewhere and thought "Holy crap! What was brilliant thing?! Wait a minute - I know this piece..." And then I was hooked.

3) At that age, I was only interested in being relevant to my own, limited musical vision, which was how to write something cool, new, and flashy. Music by old dead white mean isn't cool (what can I say? I was SO stupid in SO many ways...).

4) You really want them to like it? Take 3 class days where you do nothing but play it over and over again the whole time. Tell them to bring a book, other homework, or just nap, but that's going to be the soundtrack for the next three classes. Then wait a few weeks, play the piece again one time, and ask them again "So, what do you think?" I'll be some of them change their answers...

5) When dealing with the "post-teen-collegiate-crowd", skip the wine and move DIRECTLY and WITHOUT HESITATION to hard cider. 

Kurt
https://www.SoundCloud.com/kmlandre


----------



## Arbee (Jun 14, 2015)

I've stood in front of Rembrandt's Night Watch at Rijksmuseum in Amsterndam with my jaw on the ground in sheer amazement. I've then spoken to some folk back at home who have experienced it and just shrugged their shoulders with a "yeah, it was OK". I also know folk who can't see the point of experiencing a meal prepared by a true master chef. Sign of the times I'm afraid, but their loss not mine.

.


----------



## Daryl (Jun 14, 2015)

Some excellent points above. However two extra things to consider:

1) It's ballet music. By definition there is something missing when there are no dancers.

2) It's music meant for live performance. Your students are probably more used to hearing orchestral (and I use the term loosely) on the back of a film. Unless you have been brought up sitting at concerts, whether as listener or performer, you don't get the whole picture, and whilst listening to a recording gives some of the picture, it is not the whole picture by a long way.

D


----------



## Rob (Jun 14, 2015)

kmlandre @ 14th June 2015 said:


> ...
> 
> 4) You really want them to like it? Take 3 class days where you do nothing but play it over and over again the whole time. Tell them to bring a book, other homework, or just nap, but that's going to be the soundtrack for the next three classes. Then wait a few weeks, play the piece again one time, and ask them again "So, what do you think?" I'll be some of them change their answers...
> 
> ...



exactly what I was about to suggest


----------



## WhiteNoiz (Jun 14, 2015)

Ehm, because they can't shake their ass to it?

Tbh, it's kind of backgroundish. I don't hear anything that will grab me and get me through with absolute excitement and absolute focus. It's techinally correct but I don't find the melodies all that memorable or driving.

It's also a bit fanfare-ish, not necessarily flowing. I mean, I'm close to getting goosebumps at parts but it's not quite there.

Maybe I don't want to do a theoretical analysis. Maybe I just want to feel something.

I don't get it. Not everything has to be "intellectual". And, yeah, I would probably echo their initial response.

Do I have to know how the movie was made to enjoy it? (Actually, the opposite could be true) That's why you usually find flaws in your own music. You know every last detail. Do I need the best ingredients to enjoy a filthy hamburger? Not everything needs to be precise and clinical.

Art for the sake of art? That could be a nice subject for the musical analysts conference, maybe not that much for the average listener.

Anyway, this performance is more appealing to me:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vch2ZpSYPRQ

Is it technically advanced? Yeah. Is it though-out? Yeah. Does it trigger an emotional response? Hmm... (Not to mention it could be the performance they didn't like) And even if they understand it, it doesn't mean they will ever want to write anything close to that.

I think it's more about your fear of being "outdated" and not their appreciation of the music (or lack there of).

But this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dauL0Uu7G3A / https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGdFHJXciAQ

Yeah baby. Bring it on. o/~

This?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWrYBOzOab0

Fuck yeah.

This?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yre44Jqrfus

This?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WnXFxCDgew

This?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koM48s00ZFQ

This?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cg1dMpu4v7M

This?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6RBf_j5Y7A

This?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IoS1_CRS5fA

This?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vr0NBPRMe2E (www.youtube.com/watch?v=vr0NBPRMe2E)

This?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BcL---4xQYA (www.youtube.com/watch?v=BcL---4xQYA)

How is that not "intellectual" enough? If anything, it should be of some reassurance that you're above the pleb.

What is classical? Something that has resisted time. An achieved point of reference. An accepted, traditional structure. It doesn't mean "godly". It doen't mean it should be shown religious, unequivocal respect.


----------



## Farkle (Jun 14, 2015)

Hello, everyone!

First, thank you all for chiming in on this thread, I've been very uplifted by all the thoughts, comments, and the expansions that you've all posted.

I think some points that came out of all of the above observations resonate with me, and help to clarify _why_ I'm feeling somewhat concerned.

First, I think that the point that this particular piece doesn't resonate with everyone is completely fair, and appropriate. It's a very specific sound, a specific temporal progress, and that will resonate with some, but not with others.

What I found refreshing about THIS thread, and the composers that commented on it, is that the composers who stated that they did not like it did two things:
'
1. They took a creative/emotional stance. They said, "It doesn't do it for me". They actively made a creative decision/stance about the piece.


2. The people who didn't enjoy the piece articulated why they didn't like the piece, and (in one case) pro offered counter pieces which showed what they were more interested in. Again, an amazing chance to delve into why music moves people a certain way (note, must revisit Vivaldi after WhiteNoiz's post, I forgot how good Four Seasons is).

And, I think, in the cold light of day (having sweated out the wine from last night), that is the issue that is stuck in my craw. It wasn't that the students didn't care for the piece, it was that they didn't have any desire to _think_ about why that piece didn't move them, or what they didn't like about it. They appeared to passively let the piece wash over them; it didn't grab them immediately with something, so they dismissed it as not even being worthy of trying to actively listen, and form an opinion as to why they didn't resonate with it.

Piet, I think your posit really speaks to the issue I just referred to above. The idea that there is an expectation now with artistic pieces that they should be able to inspire a great (as in large) emotional response, with little intellectual effort.... which creates a consumer whose tastes need to be satisfied immediately. My fear is, that type of enjoyment doesn't allow for the development of subtlety in taste. When a music appreciator only wants to hear the boldest brightest red possible, then shades of maroon, orange, etc. simply aren't searched for in the piece, or, even necessarily wanted. So, the arts can become more "broadly brushed", because the listener is necessarily more passive.

BTW, regarding the above paragraph, I want to make sure that my above statement in no way is meant to be offensive, or judgmental of what people's tastes are. Heck, my playlist last week ranged from Ravel, to Zeppelin (In fact, Stairway to Heaven), to Ornette Coleman, to Christopher Lee's Symphonic Metal Album (don't knock it till you've heard it, it's absolutely stupendous). My take is, as a music lover, whenever I hear ANY music, I'm immediately trying to actively listen; to get emotionally invested in a piece, to "find" the awesomeness. And, I felt that with my students, they were not willing to make that active commitment to the music; even if they ended up not liking the piece. 

Again, tying back to re-peat's post; great music oftentimes has an unstated "pact" with the listener, that they will need to focus on it, to ferret out it's emotional goodies, to stick with the piece. Now, I know that my students only heard the finale once, but to not even have any emotional formulation of that piece... that speaks (to me) that they were unwilling to even enter into that pact. Which is an absolute shame. Because then they'll never get to listen to, get confused by, re-listen to, and ultimately love, pieces like Maxwell's Silver Hammer, Giant Steps, Symphony of Psalms, and Sophisticated Lady. (Again, in my opinion).

Mike


----------



## Farkle (Jun 14, 2015)

kmlandre @ Sun Jun 14 said:


> I've been the kid on the other side of then equation (far too many moon ago, sadly), and I can tell you this of that:
> 
> ...
> 
> ...



Hah! Love it! And, you are so right... hard cider is the drink du jour for that age group.

You are right though... at that age, there is already a Venn Diagram in each of their brains as to the type of music that they want to listen to because "it's good". In that respect, my job is to put out on their ears other great music, that they need to understand has artistic value; and get them to start saying "why does this music work?"


Mike


----------



## KEnK (Jun 14, 2015)

Their reaction says nothing about you and everything about them-

Mindless fools raised on mp3s as "music"
Everything is "subjective", equal and disposable.
Pathetic and sad

k


----------



## Farkle (Jun 14, 2015)

re-peat @ Sun Jun 14 said:


> ....
> 
> 
> (By the way, I’m wondering, Mike, how did your students feel about “Kashei’s Infernal Dance”? That’s a bit of Firebird that rarely fails to trigger some sort of response from any kind of audience, young or old, initiated or not.)
> ...



Thank you for the well thought out post, re-peat! In fact, another section of the class did listen to the Infernal Dance, and they definitely had a more visceral reaction. Comments like, "it sounds like film music", "it was really dangerous sounding", showed up. So, there is hope! 

I think that this ties to your point made above, Piet; which is, music that slams an emotional value down onto the listener (at this current juncture in history) seems to be preferred over music that might require a more committed listening experience. Certainly the Infernal Dance has a more visceral music language than the Finale (although, I would argue that the final section of the finale is every bit as epic and wondrous as one could ask for).

I think it makes me a bit sad, because that apparent mindset in my students precludes them from wanting to listen and enjoy the more subtle beauty and nuance in cues (like the finale from ET, or the sublime build in the 3rd movement of Barber's Symphony No 1). They just don't have the patience or the focus to commit to that kind of piece.

As always, I'm not trying to be insulting to anyone on the list, just trying to figure out this... whatever it is that is happening with these students! 

Mike


----------



## impressions (Jun 14, 2015)

one thing though no one said( i think):
they haven't heard the finale in context of the whole piece. they probably haven't even heard it once.
for example, suppose you see just the ending of Casablanca as a demonstration of film art? and without even seeing the movie. but after viewing the whole film and then seeing the ending, it has a whole new meaning, new context and probably alot more emotional impact, alot more.

the other thing is that perhaps their ear isn't used at all to classical music? I remember my first days at jazz school where charlie parker was a full scale assault on my ears. 

with students, like kids, you can't educate them to the optimal right away. its a process. takes years probably. with me for sure(and some examples above me too apparently).
anyway, best of luck to you, I'm sure you are doing fine, and you will probably find a better way to communicate with them to find the appeal for this kind of art.


----------



## re-peat (Jun 14, 2015)

Mike,

There may be more than mere musical factors playing here. Let’s, if you allow me, drag my son into this, by way of an example: I raised him on (what I believe to be) good music — never dictatorially or snobbishly, but simply by having good music available and letting him discover whatever he felt like discovering (jazz, classical, pop, film, ethnic, … anything really) — and for many years, up until he was fourteen or so, he genuinely enjoyed (and commented with surprising insight on) the things I let him hear.

Come his fourteenth birthday however, and gradually (but rapidly), he banned all that music from his life, and turned exclusively to various incarnations of dance, techno, electro, house, drum ’n bass, etc. I don’t mind, there’s plenty of that music which I like too, and we often listen together, but his complete refusal to listen to anything else — even the things which he was very fond of only a few years earlier — puzzled me for a while. And it's been like that for the past three years (he's seventeen now).

But now I think it may have got something to do with the exploding self-consciousness of youth, with the image you have of yourself, with the image you feel you have to conform to and also with the social conventions and acceptance among the circle of friends you frequent. All these things preclude, or so it seems anyway, that my son now allows Nino Rota, or Prokofiev, or the Sherman brothers, or Oscar Peterson or Talking Heads or … Stravinsky into his life.

I’m fully confident that in a few years from now, his mind will open up again to allow a much wider range of good music to enter his life — he’s much too musical for that not to happen —, but until it does, there’s simply nothing I can do (should I want to) to make him appreciate, say, the finale of The Firebird. Not today. It's as if there's a lock on certain areas of his brain for the time being that just don’t allow it. The Firebird, no matter how good that music is, is simply not the sort of music that fits with who he is — or believes he is, or wants to be — at this point in his life.

What I wanna say: the music you choose to bring into your life -- especially when you're young -- has to match with who you are, or want to be perceived to be, at that moment. It has to be the musical extention of your personality, I think. If it isn’t, there’s just no way you’re going to let yourself open to it (certainly not a person of average musicality).
And maybe there's some of this playing as well with your students’ indifferent dismissal of the great music that you want to share with them. 

Just a thought.

_


----------



## wst3 (Jun 14, 2015)

Interesting observation/query Mike!

I have a slightly different reaction to your original post, and I might be completely off base, but here goes., 

I'm of an age where I was exposed to all sorts of music, in school, from first grade through senior year in high school. The first six years were, not surprisingly, quite general, but we were provided with some basic tools, learning to count, learning to at least recognize major and minor, etc. And most important - I think - we were introduced to the different periods of music, and some of the more well known composers.

"Real" music classes began in junior high school. In general music we delved deeper into specific composers and periods. Everyone had to take these classes.

For those of us with a deeper interest there were band and choir, and in addition to rehearsing for concerts we learned more about basic music theory and music appreciation.

All of which became even more rigorous in high school. By the time I graduated from high school we had a strong foundation in music theory, sight signing, and music history.

On the other side of the equation some of us were starting to look for ways to make music playback more realistic, or at least more exciting. We'd been to orchestra concerts, we'd played in band and orchestra concerts, we'd been to, and played in jazz band concerts. Most of us had been to rock concerts, and a lot of us played in rock bands.

All of this trained our ears that the $300 all-in-one stereo we purchased with our hard earned money wasn't really cutting it. So we started spending more hard earned money on better loudspeakers, better components, and we started looking for better recordings.

That's not there today. None of it!

Forget that most 'kids' today listen to music streamed to them in some compressed format, through ear buds or grossly hyped headphones. Although I think that probably has some effect.

What's really important is that this might be the first time some of your students heard Stravinsky. Yeah, bizarre thought if you are from my generation...

So yes, in a way your are a dinosaur, or at least a bit of a curmudgeon. But it is also your duty to get these students started down the path of the great composers of yesteryear. And not just Beethoven, Bach, Copland, Barber, and Stravinsky - to name but a few.

Of course it is their job to be open to these strange new sounds...

I was helping with a local high school music program several years ago and one thing that worked for me was playing modern adaptation - ELP doing Copland, or Nutrocker, or half a dozen others I can't think of right now. I'd play the rock version, and then a more conventional version. One that really got the kids thinking was this solo guitar adaptation of Pictures at an Exhibition. I then played a solo piano version, and then the orchestral version.

I wasn't there long enough to know whether or not this had any lasting impression, but initial reactions were pretty positive.

It is my humble opinion, worth exactly what you paid, that people who are really interested in music, and especially composition, will eventually explore the roots. If they can find a teacher (like you) that will help them start their journey so much the better.

It is not at all unlike the guitarist that listens to Stevie Ray Vaughn, then checks out the blues players that inspired him, and then the players that inspired them.


----------



## prodigalson (Jun 14, 2015)

A couple of thoughts on this:

First of all, with respect to the specific musical example given, I agree with some of the previous comments that it's not fair present 3 minutes of the finale of a 20 minute work cold, without the context of the previous 17 minutes to a bunch of 19 year olds and and then lament the fact that they couldn't emotionally or intellectually access it. 

If you had never seen E.T. and had never heard John Williams' film music and someone played you only the last 14% of the Bicycle Chase you probably wouldn't appreciate it fully either. 

I'm somewhat reluctant to proclaim the death of music appreciation and intellectual engagement in music simply by using this particular example. In some ways, its like lamenting the fact that students can't appreciate advanced calculus when they've only been exposed to basic algebra. 

When I was 14 I had been playing piano for 9 years and finally begun to excel beyond my peers. My dad was a jazz musician and, recognizing my burgeoning musical ability, began to immerse me in jazz. He would play it in the car on the way home from school. Every Sunday, all day all I'd hear was Coltrane and whatever artist he was digging that week. I remember groaning and telling him that i hated jazz. I didn't get it. It just sounded like random noise without structure. There were two reasons for this: 1) I simply wasn't educated enough to "get it" and 2) *my dad was trying to push it on me so of course i was going to reject it. *

When I was 16 I discovered Brad Mehldau's first 'Art of the Trio' record and I began to explore jazz on my own terms for myself...6 years later I got my bachelors degree in Jazz Composition and Performance from a well known jazz school.

When I was 14 I "hated" jazz. When I was 22, I moved to New York to be a jazz composer influenced by Mingus, Dave Holland, Brad Mehldau Gil Evans, Bob Brookmeyer etc etc. 

There's a reason when i was 16 all I wanted to do was "jerk off" by playing Rach 3. Now, when i play classical I play Ravel's 'Mirroirs'. 

People have been reiterating some version of "kids these days..." for centuries.


----------



## KEnK (Jun 15, 2015)

prodigalson @ Sun Jun 14 said:


> ...People have been reiterating some version of "kids these days..." for centuries...


While that is certainly true, 
one thing that is very different is the adverse impact technology has had 
on both music creation and consumption.
It's a rant I often make here, so I'll refrain from going there once again-

but things are very different now in that regard.

k


----------



## prodigalson (Jun 15, 2015)

Sure. But just like with how technology has affected every aspect of our lives, I'd imagine that a thorough analysis would show both a positive and negative impact of the internet and digital media on music creation and consumption.


----------



## KEnK (Jun 15, 2015)

prodigalson @ Mon Jun 15 said:


> Sure. But just like with how technology has affected every aspect of our lives, I'd imagine that a thorough analysis would show both a positive and negative impact of the internet and digital media on music creation and consumption.


The study has been done- :mrgreen: 
results negative

The 2012 Spanish Study:
http://www.nature.com/srep/2012/120726/ ... 00521.html

The more recent 2014 Vienna Study:
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Ad ... 0115255#s4

Within both are links for further exploration of the data-
how it was compiled, analyzed etc.

Then there's also the financial aspect that has been severely impacted.

k


----------



## Gregg Chmara (Oct 3, 2015)

In my 74 short years of life I have experienced many musical enjoyments as well as assaults to hearing and enjoyment (or lack thereof.) In experiencing what Mike offered in the opening of this line -- I took a number of years to consider all the factors noted here plus a greater look at culture based music in the world. 

I think it was exposure to gamelan that jarred me into the idea that an explanation for musical taste in listeners, and by extension, in performers cannot be easily explained by trained musicians because their training has them looking at sound and technology from a very different point of view -- and with the moves in technology today, from a view that while functional and utilitarian to the max, rarely understands or honors the passage of time and conditions of life.

My opinion (not academically supported or scientifically tested) is this:

Music is reflective of our life and times, whether we are or were rock and log beaters in primitive times, reflecting the clip-clop rhythms of riding a horse, or later adding the creaks and wheel rolling sounds of later invented carriages. When metal arrived daily sounds and clanks came -- and as instruments easily built and distributed spread, our species hear new sounds that incorporated into the cultures in various ways.

Industrialization brought a whole new pallet of dissonance and harmony to our ears and music -- and rhythms changed from clip-clop and a smith's continuous hammering to daily industrial sounds and timing, used by composers of the era. 

Each notch of development includes pieces of the pervious, often because our "musical ears" and training have been subjected to the conventions of the past as well as the new sounds. The introduction of the waltz was not with the big orchestra, but from folk bands. In fact higher musical society at the time, thought waltz was a shameful salacious work of the devil. Later revealing Ravel's Bolero (shamefully boring to many) caused riots in Boston, and had its true moral meaning exposed in the movie "10." At least the meaning of the surrounding era.

Today most infants cannot get out of a hospital (particularly one with elevators) without being exposed to insipid smoothed out commercial music played through speakers that have the range of sound available else-wise only to a kazoo. 

Radio, records, tape, cd's, amplifiers with (and without) tube noise, film sound with its original limitations of optical recording, TV interference with sound and electronic hiss have only been with us for about 100 years -- and have become a well studied and technified part of the musical landscape with the inventions of synths, using only electronics and transducers to make ordered sound from :nothing" nut electrons. 

Day to day we now hear autos, not clip clops, aircraft, the hums and hisses of urban noise mixed with the primitive percussive rattle of crashes of garbage collection. The for enjoyment we have assemblers, sequencers, and some composers, put them into an orderly presentation, often accompanied with traditional instruments and sounds from the past.

Unless, of course, you live in a place or society where the daily sounds of live which all music mirrors is either frozen in time or isolated from the rest of the world's sounds. Then music would only reflect the local exposure to sound.

This also -- happily -- has happened to me in my years on earth. I was raised in the suburbs of NY City in the 1940s and left in the 1950s. My home was not particularly musical with radio a verbal medium more than a background noise or driving from place to place cover for engine and traffic sound. The Met from New York City was a weekly tradition, and records were 78 RPM (the cause of the under 3 minute timing limit for pop music.) Complete classical works came on several discs in multi-sleeve albums and the 45 RPM and 33 RPS vinyl were invented. The first Ampex and Webcor tape machines (in stereo) were purchased at a premium -- and the heterodyne shift noises of copying a tape, which today are recreated by synths as usable sounds, were a nuisance. The scratches and dj cueing of a next cut in radio studios have become essential dance sounds.

And today, we live with constant "music" not just the noise around us. The cacophony of yesteryear has become the dance music of today.

Classical music in its development from many diverse shoots has tried to capture much of that (what I call) street spirit) but most often ends of with dissonant junk, or with copyright contention over the length of silence scored.

The collective orchestra and the spirit of orchestration for individuals playing their special instruments is commercially expensive. Great classical works today are most often produced as movie scores, and TV Show soundtracks have become sequenced chamber music.

So, to explain all this succinctly to another generation of students by example, without a diatribe, that music is heard by all -- every day -- even if in a forest, isolated from the world. Music as defined is just better organized to reflect the emotions, culture and available technology of a people or time in which we (or they) resided, and has been set down (recorded) for us to hear and to apply the emotions of our day or time as we will. And if our high-power fast moving life does not let us appreciate a piece that someone has labored over to create -- it may be due to our lack of understanding of times gone past, culture and ideas not learned and skills no longer honored because of the substitution of commercially controlled technologies. And in some cases, those commercial interest have less interest in the full range of human emotion, creativity, creative expression and distribution than they do only serving the "in the moment" now audience in order to get the $$ out of the crowd's wallets rather than emotion, feeling and inspiration into their ears.

Having said that -- give me a good old six piece or so New York multi-cultural wedding band with accordion, clarinet, great keyboardist on a well stocked sampler/synth WITHOUT Band-in-a-Box, a good drummer, trumpet and bass -- with a repertoire that includes jazz, klezmer, ballroom dance, dixie and more - a band the coordinates and responds to the joyful noises of many cultures and times. A band that cannot be replaced by a dj with a huge collection of sounds, noises and previous recordings, an ear splitting sound system, but still, in my eyes, remains a one man band without talent - or heart.


----------



## David Donaldson (Oct 4, 2015)

Gregg's post above and the statement "music is reflective of our life and times" reminded me of this doco which I pretty much found life changing when I first saw it back in the 90's. I couldn't (and still can't) believe how good the music in this film is and how well it is recorded, filmed and presented......blew my young mind.


----------



## KEnK (Oct 4, 2015)

Yes-
Latcho Drom is an amazing film.
A must see for every composer. It really shows the value of music,
and tells such a great story through unique means- always moving West, like the Rom People.
One of my favorite scenes is the little kid at the train station.
He gives the guy a few coins to "play". 
The guy laughs at him, then they burst into such powerful music.
Really amazing. 
Then there's that scene w/ the old violinist w/ the string attached to the bridge-
Never saw anything like that.
A good post to add to this old thread.

k


----------

