7 ms·

> Culturally curious people, young and old, seem to accept that a “challenging” painting—or modern dance work, or play, or independent film—can be exciting, min

> Culturally curious people, young and old, seem to accept that a “challenging” painting—or modern dance work, or play, or independent film—can be exciting, mind-expanding, really cool, and sort of out there precisely because it’s challenging. Why in classical contemporary music do so many people equate challenging with intimidating—or even infuriating? I think that misses that a lot of "challenging" music that isn't Schoenberg is very widely accepted. Composers like Glass or Cage are popular enough to be used in film soundtracks. I don't think there's necessary anything about music over visyal arts that means people don't like "challenging" or "experimental" music, but Schoenberg for whatever reason hasn't ever reached a wide level of popularity.

codeulike 3y ago
Culturally curious people, young and old, seem to accept that a “challenging” painting—or modern dance work, or play, or independent film—can be exciting, mind-expanding, really cool, and sort of out there precisely because it’s challenging. Why in classical contemporary music do so many people equate challenging with intimidating—or even infuriating? Music is different to other art forms. Not everyone likes dance, not everyone likes paintings, not everyone likes theatre, not everyone likes sculpture, not everyone likes poetry. But EVERYONE likes music. Its fundamental. So when its challenging music, its challenging in a more fundamental way than a painting can be challenging.
- mostlylurks 3y ago
  No, not everyone likes music [0]. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musical_anhedonia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musical_anhedonia
  - Almondsetat 3y ago
    The fact that it's a medical condition just proves GP's point
    - mostlylurks 3y ago
      Even if you were to label it as such, how would that prove the original point? Labeling a trait as a medical condition does not make it vanish. If that alleged 3-5% of the population does not share the trait that you claim is universal, then that trait is simply not universal, regardless of what status or judgement you decide to assign to whatever commonality those alleged 3-5% of the population have. The two matters are completely orthogonal.
      - leephillips 3y ago
        Well put. Also, Vladimir Nabokov famously did not like music, or perhaps more accurately, was completely indifferent to it. I've never heard this ascribed to a medical condition. And I've met one or two people in my life who claimed not to like music.
matthewhammond 3y ago
The difference with visual arts is, because of the way the market works avant-garde artists can still be financially hugely successful, and their works are correspondingly feted and displayed in the gallery temples. So people are more prone to be intimidated away from criticising what they don't understand, as you can't really argue with money in this society, and it projects influence and power anyway. If contemporary classical composers were mysteriously making millions from their work, they'd probably be treated similarly. Also, contemporary classical is really just a small slice of avant garde music nowadays, another thing articles like this never seem to get.

codeulike 3y ago

Culturally curious people, young and old, seem to accept that a “challenging” painting—or modern dance work, or play, or independent film—can be exciting, mind-expanding, really cool, and sort of out there precisely because it’s challenging. Why in classical contemporary music do so many people equate challenging with intimidating—or even infuriating? Music is different to other art forms. Not everyone likes dance, not everyone likes paintings, not everyone likes theatre, not everyone likes sculpture, not everyone likes poetry. But EVERYONE likes music. Its fundamental. So when its challenging music, its challenging in a more fundamental way than a painting can be challenging.

mostlylurks 3y ago
No, not everyone likes music [0]. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musical_anhedonia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musical_anhedonia
- Almondsetat 3y ago
  The fact that it's a medical condition just proves GP's point
  - mostlylurks 3y ago
    Even if you were to label it as such, how would that prove the original point? Labeling a trait as a medical condition does not make it vanish. If that alleged 3-5% of the population does not share the trait that you claim is universal, then that trait is simply not universal, regardless of what status or judgement you decide to assign to whatever commonality those alleged 3-5% of the population have. The two matters are completely orthogonal.
    - leephillips 3y ago
      Well put. Also, Vladimir Nabokov famously did not like music, or perhaps more accurately, was completely indifferent to it. I've never heard this ascribed to a medical condition. And I've met one or two people in my life who claimed not to like music.

matthewhammond 3y ago

The difference with visual arts is, because of the way the market works avant-garde artists can still be financially hugely successful, and their works are correspondingly feted and displayed in the gallery temples. So people are more prone to be intimidated away from criticising what they don't understand, as you can't really argue with money in this society, and it projects influence and power anyway. If contemporary classical composers were mysteriously making millions from their work, they'd probably be treated similarly. Also, contemporary classical is really just a small slice of avant garde music nowadays, another thing articles like this never seem to get.