some music I don't like

[calimac]

In an earlier post I wrote about developing the proper "ears" to hear particular kinds of music. The expectations you find rewarding when applied to one type of music may fail on another kind. My experience is that native appreciation of particular music can lead to appreciation of related kinds. I didn't have to train myself to like my initial explorations in classical - it appealed to me instantly - but the more I explored, the easier it was to appreciate more difficult works that did not immediately appeal. Some of my favorite works now are ones I found rather offputting on first encounter.

In other areas, though, I find it tougher. I had to train myself to enjoy rock music at all, and that came through association via the back door of electric folk, but it stops abruptly after only about 10% or 20% even of what's considered the good stuff. I have some idea of where that line lies (that is, what kind of thing I like and what I don't), but it's even worse for jazz. I like only a very little, it hasn't helped me like any more, and I have no idea what characteristics make the difference between enjoyment and indifference.

Terry Teachout has just published a book about Louis Armstrong, whose work he clearly loves, and after much agonizing he's selected his five favorite Armstrong recordings. I listened to these, and I've heard much music like this before - if you hang around in dusty used-book stores as I do, you'll hear a lot of old jazz on the stores' sound systems - and I just don't get it. For the most part it doesn't repulse me, but its attractive value is nil. If Teachout is pulled by a strong magnetic field, I'm a piece of wood in that field. There's one tiny moment - the timing of the percussion clap at 2:27 in "I Gotta Right to Sing the Blues" - that gave me a kick on first hearing, but that's about it. "Summer Song" might be a modestly attractive melody with an appropriate accompaniment, but that voice - ugh! Omit offensive metaphors here.

When I need to review, or otherwise wish to get familiar with, a classical work I don't know, I don't study it first as I think many people in my position would. Instead, I like to play a recording over three or four times without listening to it carefully, while I'm reading or driving. That way it seeps into my brain. Only then do I listen to it carefully, preferably with a score in hand. By that time, after the casual listenings, I'll either have gotten a handle on the work's qualities, or else can confidently conclude it has none, at least for me.

I've done the same thing for other music, especially rock. The first time I heard the Renaissance album Turn of the Cards, I thought "I don't like this much - yet. But I can tell that after a few hearings I'm going to love it." And I did. So I've given a fair try to respected musicians who didn't elicit such a hopeful reaction, but the results have not always been as good. Two conspicuous failures:

1. The Rolling Stones. I bought an album of their greatest hits, and listened to it several times. The appeal continues to elude me. It's like someone decided to come up with something that was sort of like the Beatles, but carefully omitted everything that makes the Beatles good.

2. Rod Stewart. A friend once sent me a 90-minute tape of his favorite Rod Stewart songs. It was agony listening to that thing through four times, which I did on a long commute, but I did it. And afterwards I could say, with full confidence and without fear of contradiction, "I Do Not Like Rod Stewart. Not in a car, not on the road, not in a bar, not with a toad ..."

Comments

[barondave.livejournal.com]

"Jazz", like "Classical" is a very wide field, as you're aware. One of the major differences is that classical tends (tends!) to be composer-driven and jazz tends (tends!) to be performer-driven. I like both (well, some of both) but they light up different parts of my brain. YMMV. I like Louie Armstrong quite a bit, and also Lionel Hampton, Cab Calloway and Dave Brubeck, among others.

I'm with you: I'm not a big fan of the Rolling Stones, though my appreciation of them has grown. My favorite song of theirs is As Tears Go By, a heartfelt lullaby. They're popular because they incorporate a lot of R&B into their music, and because they're tireless performers. R&B is sort of a middle ground between jazz (from which it grew) and rock (which grew out of it). The Beatles were certainly influenced by American R&B but mainly come from the British tradition of skiffle and pop: more classical than romantic.

I don't recall a Rod Stewart song I like, though I've grown to accept some that have been played a lot like Maggie Mae. There are a few performers like that for me.

But that's why different radio stations abound. And that's why distributed music is slowly sinking: People like what they're friends like and if they don't they can just skip the song on their iPod.

Like you, I try to listen to a piece at least twice before making up my mind. This was struck home just this afternoon, as I entered The Kinks Kronicles into my Individual Song Database. I really hadn't heard much of The Kinks, and listening to many of the songs for the second time increased their stock with me. The two I was most familiar with stayed high: Lola and Ape Man. Now, several more are in rotation.

[sturgeonslawyer.livejournal.com]

H'mmm. Your tastes and mine seem to overlap significantly - you named three of my four favorite jazz musicians (the other is John Coltrane), and then one I've never really listened to: Lionel Hamptson. Given the other three you named, I'll have to give Hampton a try.

I think calimac might like the Kinks - they're sort of in the borderland between the Beatles and the Stones, with a lot of skiffle-pop influence, plus a fair amount of musichall and even some German cabaret music. And calimac's main complaint when we discussed the Stones once (they don't seem to know what to do with a melody when they stumble upon one, as they do, for example, in "Paint it Black") isn't true of the Kinks.

[kalimac.livejournal.com]

Probably not. If there is one "British Invasion" song I totally detest more than any other, it's "You Really Got Me."

[voidampersand.livejournal.com]

Not my favorite either, but the Kinks changed styles a lot. "Lola" and "Dedicated Follower of Fashion" are delightful. That having been said, when you realize "You Really Got Me" was released in 1964, that puts it in a different perspective. Hearing it when it came out must have been like a bolt of lightning.

[kalimac.livejournal.com]

"Lola" is the song that Weird Al parodied as "Yoda", isn't it? I only know the parody, but it's not an objectionable song at all. (There's a tremendous range of pop/rock music in which all I know are the Weird Al parodies, which - I find on investigating - are usually much better musically than the original.)

A bolt of lightning is not necessarily a good thing.

[barondave.livejournal.com]

One of the delicious aspects of Weird Al is that he made a parody out of "Lola", a song about a romantic liaison with a transvestite. The parody is almost identical, musically, to the original.

I don't have as bad a reaction to "You Really Got Me" as you, but it's not on the Kink's Kronicles CDs and I don't miss it.

[barondave.livejournal.com]

I saw Hampton a few times on tv (Steve Allen Show reruns much later) and he's on a few Big Band collections. Significantly less Hampton than Armstrong, so less of the best, but still worthy, imrho.

[kalimac.livejournal.com]

Performer vs. composer driven may well be part of it, as performer-driven showpieces - concertos, and virtuoso opera - are an area of classical music where my appreciation is relatively thin. When I listen to music, I want to hear a beautiful thing, not be impressed by what hash the performer can make of it.

[eddyerrol.livejournal.com]

If you tend to appreciate composition over performance, in the jazz field you might want to check out (if you haven't already done so) some things by Duke Ellington, who is generally regarded as one of the greatest (if not THE greatest) jazz composer/arrangers of the 20th century. Or for a (relatively) more modern composer, Charles Mingus, who was significantly influenced by Ellington. A particular favorite of mine is his "Mingus Ah Um" album from 1959.

As for rock (or more accurately, pop) music, have you ever checked out the Beach Boys' album "Pet Sounds"?

Ed Pierce

[kalimac.livejournal.com]

Me being unimpressed with Duke Ellington.

Me being happier with, but still not wild about, Duke Ellington.

[eddyerrol.livejournal.com]

All right, then. :-) Well, if Ellington doesn't float your boat, at least let me put in a good word about one of my all time favorite jazz musicians: trumpeter Clifford Brown. I think the only surviving video clip of him (he was killed in a car crash at the age of 25 or 26 in 1956) is this, from the Soupy Sales show:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBkCV7K2IjU

For a good glimpse of Ellington as a performer (as opposed to composer/arranger), a great album is the trio album (with Charles Mingus on bass and Max Roach on drums) Money Jungle:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ci7Q8d66_oI

[kalimac.livejournal.com]

I'm sure this Clifford Brown was a fine performer - he has a smoothness of tone that even comes through in the cruddy sound quality of old TV clips - but any appeal of the music he's making just goes right by me, sorry.

The "Money Jungle" piece is much more my kind of music. It has control and sobriety, and I could probably get to like some stuff such as that.

[kalimac.livejournal.com]

The only canonical jazz album I actually own is by Dave Brubeck.

[barondave.livejournal.com]

I once had a friend make me a tape of all the versions of "Take Five" from his collection, which was more than one side of a 90 min cassette. All versions were quite different.

[sturgeonslawyer.livejournal.com]

"I don't like this much - yet. But I can tell that after a few hearings I'm going to love it."

I've never had that clear a vision of gonna-like-it. Most music I either like or don't at first listen; some I don't get at first but can tell there's something worth digging for (this was true, for example, of my first encounter with jazz saxophonist John Coltrane).

As for Armstrong's voice - well, if you don't like it, you don't. To me, it's a very soulful sound.

[kalimac.livejournal.com]

"some I don't get at first but can tell there's something worth digging for"

That's close to, though not exactly, what I meant. It was indeed clearer than that in this instance. But I also have just the reaction you describe, frequently.

[irontongue.livejournal.com]

If you don't get it, you don't, but I'll mention a couple of things.

Check out the piano that's lurking in the background of "I Gotta Right to Sing the Blues," playing a glorious counterpoint. Also, that percussion clap you point out? It's part of the climax of that yearning upward slide at the end of the trumpet solo.

Also, Rolling Stones? The greatest hits albums miss the genius of how they compiled albums. If you ever want to give them another try, listen one of the classic early albums in full - Beggar's Banquet, Let It Bleed, or Sticky Fingers.

[kalimac.livejournal.com]

I noticed all those parts. They mean nothing if they don't strike an emotional effect.

As for album compilations, I'm familiar with that from the Beatles. It does add an additional layer of depth to the work, but the individual songs still stand well on their own. Rock album compilation was still a very primitive art at the time, and it's only a frosting on the cake. Try to treat one of these albums as unified harmonically or thematically in the way a good 35-40 minute multi-movement classical work is, it'll fail. It has to be listened to differently. (And no critic that I've read puts the Stones' album-compilation genius up to that of the Beatles at their best. Only Pet Sounds from that period is said to match it.)

[irontongue.livejournal.com]

I am not in any way making the claim that how rock groups compile albums is comparable to how a multi-movement classic work is put together.

I am saying that hearing a group's work from a particular period in the order they chose for an album is different from hearing what's on a greatest hits album. That's it.

[kalimac.livejournal.com]

And I'm saying: it's not that different. And the fact that album compilation is not, or was not, that high or complex of an art as multi-movement classical composition is one reason for that.

[barondave.livejournal.com]

Like many of the bands I didn't really get into until the CDs came out, I don't think I've heard a Rolling Stones album except one of their Best Of's.

I'm a DJ; song order and the flow of music is important, in many cases. But album oriented rock had one of the shortest lifespans in the history of music. Singles and AM radio dominated until the mid 60s, and albums diminished barely 20 years (at best) later with file sharing and CDs in the late-80s.

[shelleybear.livejournal.com]

I don't like disco, rap or hip-hop.
I hate the song "Blue on Blue"

What do I like?
Genesis, 10cc (with Godley and Creame), Some Strawbs, some gentle giant, A few songs that Peter Hammill has done ("Modern", "Imperial Zeppelin" and "(No More) The Submarinerchief among them).
Peter Gabriel, some Gentle Giant.
Well, that's only a small party of it.
One segment of one genre.

I also love Les Paul, Patsy Cline,Philippe Entremont,Tom Waits,Bette Midler
You get the idea.

[stonebender.livejournal.com]

Interestingly at least to me, is I think the very thing that you don't like about jazz and some rock may be the very reason I like it. I've never much cared for what I call "pretty" voices. Which is not to say that I don't enjoy or at least appreciate people with "pretty" voices, but the stuff I like seems to be the growly rough edged stuff. I love the Beatles, but I also love the Rolling Stones in a very different way Rolling Stones get me in the gut. Make me want to move to their music. Beatles appeal much more to my intellect then my emotions. I love Louis Armstrong's voice and people like Lucinda Williams, Janis Joplin, Tom Waits etc. they just sound like they've been through the ringer. Struggled through tough lives and found a way to make something beautiful to me.

Now I've never cared for classical music or opera (try being a dramatic arts major and admit that to your advisor :-) because it doesn't really affect me emotionally. Intellectually I can appreciate some of it, but I don't play it for enjoyment. I'm not sure I'm making sense but I thought I'd throw this into the mix.

[kalimac.livejournal.com]

I don't necessarily like "pretty", either - depending on what that means. I wrote of music being a "beautiful thing", but that's a reference to Oscar Wilde's dictum that "The artist is the maker of beautiful things," and it obviously covers a wide definition of "beautiful", which in any case is different from pretty.

In pop/rock I have a liking for voices showing some effort, some strain: this is a principal reason I like Neil Young. I appreciate what must appeal to you about the likes of Armstrong and Joplin, but they go way too far over the edge for me.

Emotional appeal is for me the sine qua non of music. I might wonder what classical pieces you've heard and in what contexts or circumstances, that might suggest major holes in your experience, but I have no intention of pushing anybody into forms of music that have no emotional appeal to them.

[stonebender.livejournal.com]

*nod* Yeah pretty isn't a helpful word. I don't have the vocabulary. Let's see, I can identify some of the usual suspects in classical, but not many. I know I like fewer instrumenrs. The chamber music I've heard I like. I don't know anything about recent composerts. To be honest a big stumbling block is the names of these things.

[19-crows.livejournal.com]

If you're looking for something sort of like the Beatles, I wouldn't expect you to like the Rolling Stones. I feel they're kind of the anti-Beatles, and that's one reason I like them so much. The Beatles were the first popular music I became aware of, in 2nd grade, and I was obsessed by them in a 2nd grade sort of way. But when I heard the Rolling Stones a couple of years later, that was it, I was smitten for life.

In junior high it was very important to choose one or the other, never both. Now I realize you can like both. The difference for me is that I haven't gotten tired of the Rolling Stones. I can't appreciate the Beatles any more because I've just heard all of their songs too many times, covered by too many people. If I could =not= hear them for 20 years, I could listen to them with fresh ears and maybe find something to like, but now I just don't get the reverence with which so many people view them. I like some of their songs, especially the early ones, but for me they're just one of a lot of pop groups who did enjoyable songs.

I like traditional jazz, am neutral about Armstrong, actively dislike most modern jazz. People tell me I could learn to like the latter but I doubt it.

This is an interesting discussion.

[kalimac.livejournal.com]

By "something that was sort of like the Beatles" I meant that they're superficially similar: they wrote in the same genre with a similar musical vocabulary and similar aesthetic concerns for a similar ensemble (expanding their range at about the same time).

Within that context, though, of course I agree they're the anti-Beatles. That's pretty much what I meant by adding "but carefully omitted everything that makes the Beatles good."

"Beatles or Stones?" is one of the classic dividing line questions in cultural tastes, and "If you like (i.e. enjoy) A, you'll like B" is an entirely different connection from "A is like (i.e. similar to) B," a fact that people who recommend crappy Tolclone novels to readers who've enjoyed "The Lord of the Rings" have NEVER figured out.

[19-crows.livejournal.com]

I don't even think of them as being superficially similar. "Rock" covers a lot of ground.

It occurred to me this morning that you might like XTC. Don't go by "Dear God", a big hit that doesn't sound like most of what they do, if you've heard that.

[kalimac.livejournal.com]

I've never overdosed on the Beatles - I don't listen to them, or any other rock, that much, and up until a few years ago when I completed collecting all their albums, there were some great songs by them I'd never heard - and I've heard few Beatles covers. Such I have heard - the film "Across the Universe" struck me very favorably - seemed to me a fresh take and did not interfere with my appreciation of the original, let alone with the song as a Platonic entity.