[besson3c]

Hey guys,

I live around musicians and music educators. I'm a jazz musician, and I teach some students myself on the side - teenagers and younger right now. It is really hard to get a read on some of these kids since they are generally not demonstrative and seem dispassionate about most things in general, so I thought I'd start this conversation with some adults (you)

The whole "appreciation" thing is what I'd like your input on...

It would be great if everybody was interested in learning about and listening to jazz and classical music, but short of this a goal of mine is to encourage an interest in learning about and listening to music of any kind that doesn't suck, no matter what the genre, and to challenge listeners to expand their horizons and explore music as a whole, and all of that sort of good stuff.

It annoys me when people of any age dismiss jazz or classical music when many of them would say that they liked the music from Star Wars or Harry Potter, and because it is sort of hard to believe that there is nothing to like about music that is centuries old, in the case of classical music, or 90+ years in the case of jazz. I say this from the angle of simple appreciation and intellectual interest, not as much personal taste. This annoyance is in large part because these kinds of music are dear to my heart, but I've heard people dismiss the Beatles and other important musicians/bands of other genres which annoys me too. You don't have to personally *like* anything, but it just seems wholly ignorant to be overly dismissive of artists of such cultural and musical significance... That's the part that annoys me.

What I wonder about is how the whole appreciation thing and being interested in music history and what led to the music you like (whatever that is) is best sold/conveyed/shared/taught both in a concert setting, as well as a formal and informal/casual teaching sort of setting (where informal could simply include chatting with friends)?

Regarding the concert setting thing, I've heard a lot of musicians and various musical organizations (e.g. orchestras) that have received feedback from fans about how it would be nice for the leader to talk a little more between songs, maybe explain some stuff. I don't know if this sentiment is consistent in general, consistent among jazz and classical music, simply about giving the audience a breather between songs, or what, but this is kind of interesting to me because if there is some consistency to this this might suggest that a concert is a great opportunity to educate a little?

Most bands I've seen of any kind just focus on playing and talk very little, the whole "I'll let my music talk" thing seems pretty common. Maybe the talking thing is of greater value to bands who perform music that is not terribly popular (whatever genre that is), but I think I generally love it when bands at least plant seeds by saying "hey, this song was inspired by ____ musician/band" or "I've been listening to a lot of _____ who was a pioneer of this kind of music", cause I'm always interested in sources of inspiration, who musicians I appreciate listen to, etc. Quincy Jones has bemoaned the fact that many of the hip hop artists he has worked with just don't understand where their music came from. According to him, forget jazz (the root of American hip hop), but simply early hip hop/rap seems to be lost on many artists. I think that if you want to become good at just about anything knowing what came before you is vitally important, but I digress... As far as the listener/audience is concerned, perhaps these little seeds that are planted will spark something and encourage some new discovery? This isn't to say that older is always better, but a simple awareness is a good thing, right?

Regarding the teaching thing, with students the challenge is always encouraging interest by demonstrating the benefits, just keeping everything interesting, positive, and just nurturing in general. With some younger kids especially it's sort of like force/spoon feeding, but this gets better over time with the students that stick with music.

But, and here are the questions: what about the general public? How exactly do you make people care? Should they care? How is this problem solved of people being musically ignorant? Can culture be lifted up this way? Is this not worth the effort? How is this presented as an actionable/useful/understandable/relevant sort of thing? Again, my goal is not to make everybody jazz or classical music fans, but simply make people at least aware of stuff that doesn't suck, whether that is Stevie Wonder, Ray Charles, Eric Clapton, the Beatles, Jimi Hendrix, Johnny Cash, Bob Marley, etc. etc. etc.

[besson3c]

Sorry to be so long winded guys, maybe I'll see if I can edit my post down a little bit... It's a very multi-faceted sort of subject to me.

[SSharon]

I get what you're saying besson. Your example about the musical score of star wars and harry potter is a great one. Most people (correctly) assume that first the video is put together and then the music is tacked on at the end. The disconnect is that people don't get that before film the music came first and it told the story by itself. Music isn't an afterthought designed to fill the silence, but rather has the potential to carry an idea on its own.

I took piano lessons when I was younger and stopped because my teacher gave me music I didn't like and couldn't relate to. I regret that decision now and still admire my father's ability to play classical music.

I think most of the people in your shoes that try to promote older or higher quality music tend to be purists. For example, my piano teacher would have never taught me to play star wars because I should have been learning Mozart. If more teachers would be flexible and use more modern music that is inspired by true classical music students would learn to appreciate it in time. Your idea that you should know what came before you is the wrong approach in my opinion. You need to start with the most recent stuff and work backwards slowly and not start 300 years ago and work towards today.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by SSharon 

I think most of the people in your shoes that try to promote older or higher quality music tend to be purists. For example, my piano teacher would have never taught me to play star wars because I should have been learning Mozart. If more teachers would be flexible and use more modern music that is inspired by true classical music students would learn to appreciate it in time. Your idea that you should know what came before you is the wrong approach in my opinion. You need to start with the most recent stuff and work backwards slowly and not start 300 years ago and work towards today.

There is also the question that if we should learn about the music that came before, how far back should we go?

I don't have an answer to that, nor am I suggesting that we should start with music 300 years ago and work forwards. I don't really know the best way to get at all of this, but my point was that whatever the tactics employed, making people aware of the world beyond top 40 and the musical flavor du jour is a worthwhile goal.

Thanks for your thoughts, SSharon!

[SSharon]

No problem!

I picked 300 years as an arbitrary number, but your point is well taken. Actually, if things were done as I suggested by starting with the most recent and working back slowly then the problem is really avoided since you can always go further back. The amateurs might only go back 50-100 years and the most serious musicians will keep taking it back as far as they are interested.

Not to push this discussion too far to the political lounge, but thinking out loud I wonder how much harm copyright laws have done. They protect music at first, but the terms are rather long and the loss of derivative works makes it harder to trace music back to its origins. More copyright infringement (or fair use, whatever) and derivative works would mean more overlap between the generations of music and that is lost now.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by SSharon 

The amateurs might only go back 50-100 years and the most serious musicians will keep taking it back as far as they are interested.

Let's have it right...

The amateurs might only go back 50-100 years and the most serious academics will keep taking it back as far as they are interested.

Proper musicians don't really care about music history much beyond whatever they grew up listening to (and thus were influenced by). They care about using their instrument in the here and now to communicate an emotion between themselves and their listeners. End of story.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Let's have it right...



Proper musicians don't really care about music history much beyond whatever they grew up listening to (and thus were influenced by). They care about using their instrument in the here and now to communicate an emotion between themselves and their listeners. End of story.

Is John Williams a "proper musician"? Quincy Jones?

I think you are trying to be provocative for the sake of it, but the net result is ridiculousness. I guarantee that both of these musicians care about music history.

[Doofy]

Suit yourself.

Doesn't really occur to you that I, a professional musician, might actually be right and your preset thoughts which you're looking for confirmation for might be wrong, does it?

Carry on.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Suit yourself.

Doesn't really occur to you that I, a professional musician, might actually be right and your preset thoughts which you're looking for confirmation for might be wrong, does it?

Carry on.

Whatever Doofy, I don't want to do this dance with you again. You believe what you want to believe, but what you have said as a sweeping generalization is indeed ridiculous.

There are many musicians that are quite interested in expanding their areas of influence beyond what is already familiar to them often as a means of inspiration, which is hard to do without a sense of history and what has been done. There is a reason why professional musicians, which you claim to be and I don't doubt, always claim to listen to a wide variety of music including music outside of their genre. How can they do this if they don't know that this music even exists?

There is specialization and getting put in a box which results in many musicians sticking to and refining what they know, but the better of these musicians no doubt branch out in their own time because this is what intelligent musicians trying to get better do.

John Williams and Quincy Jones listen to probably everything under the sun, and know what it is they are listening to.

[SSharon]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Is John Williams a "proper musician"? Quincy Jones?

I think you are trying to be provocative for the sake of it, but the net result is ridiculousness. I guarantee that both of these musicians care about music history.

I'm ok with Doofy's correction of my post. I didn't want to split hairs and get all wordy, but when I wrote that amateurs might go back a limited amount of time and serious musicians might go back more it was in the larger context of my previous post which was about a music teacher and student.
The amateur student will make it back 50-100 years, and the serious student might make it back further, but they are still a student. I should have made a distinction between a student instructed to trace a genre's history, patterns, and techniques and a professional musician who might appreciate older music, but doesn't necessarily have the education to piece it all together.

I'm not a musician so I could be way off, but my guess is that there are certain note combinations or speeds that at one time were new and then were borrowed by later genres of music.

Art is the same way. You can be an amazing painter today without ever having studied the classics, but there is still something to be said for both amateur and serious artists today to learn some of the history of their craft and its various styles.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by SSharon 

I'm ok with Doofy's correction of my post. I didn't want to split hairs and get all wordy, but when I wrote that amateurs might go back a limited amount of time and serious musicians might go back more it was in the larger context of my previous post which was about a music teacher and student.
The amateur student will make it back 50-100 years, and the serious student might make it back further, but they are still a student. I should have made a distinction between a student instructed to trace a genre's history, patterns, and techniques and a professional musician who might appreciate older music, but doesn't necessarily have the education to piece it all together.

And I should have been clearer that my usage of the word "history" has not intended to mean the academic textbook-worthy sense, but just a basic awareness of the key players in the musical ancestry tree and the approximate timelines, and it doesn't even have to be conceptualized as one of those academic timelines, I just don't know what to call this.

I agree with what you've said here, but I don't know if there are any rules for how much history to cover cause with some people the older stuff might resonate more and be of greater interest, others the newer stuff. I have heard several people remark, for instance, that they prefer older country music to the newer pop-ified stuff. With others it is clearly the reverse.

I'm not a musician so I could be way off, but my guess is that there are certain note combinations or speeds that at one time were new and then were borrowed by later genres of music.

A lot is borrowed, we can only speculate what music would be like without what came before it, but the important musicians of past generations have had a profound impact on things, whether we are aware of this or not.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Proper musicians don't really care about music history much beyond whatever they grew up listening to (and thus were influenced by). They care about using their instrument in the here and now to communicate an emotion between themselves and their listeners. End of story.

Weeeeellll…not quite:

Proper musicians DO generally continue to listen to and be influenced by music AFTER they leave adolescence. Witness Sting, who, like him or not, brought out an album which includes various tunes from 16th-century Britain. There's one "proper" musician (again, like him or not) who probably didn't grow up listening to that stuff, but got involved with historic music and grew a penchant for it.

Naturally, that doesn't necessarily mean that everybody delves into ancient history, nor does it imply that anyone who doesn't isn't a "proper" musician.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Weeeeellll…not quite:

Proper musicians DO generally continue to listen to and be influenced by music AFTER they leave adolescence. Witness Sting, who, like him or not, brought out an album which includes various tunes from 16th-century Britain. There's one "proper" musician (again, like him or not) who probably didn't grow up listening to that stuff, but got involved with historic music and grew a penchant for it.

Naturally, that doesn't necessarily mean that everybody delves into ancient history, nor does it imply that anyone who doesn't isn't a "proper" musician.

Sting is a great example of a well versed musician.

Like you said, everybody is different, but I kind of have this theory that the most respected musicians in any area whose music can withstand the test of time are aware of the past music (say, at least 20 years ago) at least in their area at least up to a certain point. I think it would be hard to be a musician of this sort while being oblivious.

What I'm more curious about is whether music fans should be exposed to stuff, and if so how?

[Laminar]

I'm just glad that rock music was created in America.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Proper musicians DO generally continue to listen to and be influenced by music AFTER they leave adolescence. Witness Sting, who, like him or not, brought out an album which includes various tunes from 16th-century Britain. There's one "proper" musician (again, like him or not) who probably didn't grow up listening to that stuff, but got involved with historic music and grew a penchant for it.

But not in an academic sense, as Bessie would be thinking about. Very very few do that.

Sting's only coming out with stuff like that because since he left the fuzz everything he's written bar a couple of songs has been shit. And it's not like he'd have had to study hard - almost everyone in Britain is exposed to our historical musical traditions as a matter of course.

[besson3c]

Again, my point never intended to refer to history in an academic sense

[ShortcutToMoncton]

This seems like it could be a thread that I might be interested in, and it possibly involves a discussion about music and stuff like that, but unfortunately I couldn't read past the first two paragraphs.

It's too bad, really.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

This seems like it could be a thread that I might be interested in, and it possibly involves a discussion about music and stuff like that, but unfortunately I couldn't read past the first two paragraphs.

It's too bad, really.

I concur.

However, reading just the responses gives (I hope) a fair estimation of whatever might have been going on in the original post (which I haven't managed to parse through, either).

[smacintush]

Ya lost me at "Hey guys".

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Again, my point never intended to refer to history in an academic sense

But you're approaching it from an academic angle, because it's your nature to do that.

What you don't realise is that you're reasonably unique. For the vast majority of people, music isn't appreciated as music - it's nothing more than a cultural backdrop which people use (in the case of certain styles) to identify with each other (their own little clans) and for various emotional hooks (such as a song which reminds them of something, usually because it's the song they heard when they were doing that something... ...or a song which gets a girl's panties off quicker).
This has been the case throughout history. Going to listen to the latest Bach concerto was a social event which you had to be seen at... ...dancing to Strauss was a social event. As was jigging about in the barn or on deck. Cultural identifiers/hooks - nothing more, nothing less.

...so if you really want Joe Bloggs to experience new music, you'll approach Nike to use it in their adverts, or you'll mention that it allows the listener to pop a cap in someone's ass a little easier.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

I concur.

However, reading just the responses gives (I hope) a fair estimation of whatever might have been going on in the original post (which I haven't managed to parse through, either).

Pithy writing is not my strong suit.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Pithy writing is not my strong suit.

You should put your posts in song form, and publish them on Myspace.

That'll teach us

-t

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

You should put your posts in song form, and publish them on Myspace.

That'll teach us

NOOOOoooooo... They're meander along in 5/4 time, be devoid of any sense and not go anywhere fast.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

But you're approaching it from an academic angle, because it's your nature to do that.

What you don't realise is that you're reasonably unique. For the vast majority of people, music isn't appreciated as music - it's nothing more than a cultural backdrop which people use (in the case of certain styles) to identify with each other (their own little clans) and for various emotional hooks (such as a song which reminds them of something, usually because it's the song they heard when they were doing that something... ...or a song which gets a girl's panties off quicker).
This has been the case throughout history. Going to listen to the latest Bach concerto was a social event which you had to be seen at... ...dancing to Strauss was a social event. As was jigging about in the barn or on deck. Cultural identifiers/hooks - nothing more, nothing less.

...so if you really want Joe Bloggs to experience new music, you'll approach Nike to use it in their adverts, or you'll mention that it allows the listener to pop a cap in someone's ass a little easier.

This is all fair, I agree with this. At times I feel like my inability to relate to the whole top 40 thing is a curse.

That being said, while this might surprise you, I'm not all the way to the extreme end of the spectrum in embracing complexity in music. I don't get into 20th century classical music much or a lot of jazz beyond the 60s except for some fusion. At times I feel as unable to relate to Ornette Coleman as I do Justin Beiber. There are lots of people like me stuck between Ornette Coleman and Justin Beiber though, which relates to my original post

For those that didn't understand my original post, let me come at it from another angle: if you feel that our society is not at its best when our culture centers around Justin Beiber and the like, what can be done at concerts, among friends, etc. to spark interest in music that we feel doesn't suck in a way that people will resonate with? Should people care about branching out, and if so, how do we get there?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

NOOOOoooooo... They're meander along in 5/4 time, be devoid of any sense and not go anywhere fast.

"Emotional content" is a highly subjective thing though, no? To me and many others Justin Beiber's music has no emotional content...

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

For those that didn't understand my original post, let me come at it from another angle: if you feel that our society is not at its best when our culture centers around Justin Beiber and the like, what can be done at concerts, among friends, etc. to spark interest in music that we feel doesn't suck in a way that people will resonate with? Should people care about branching out, and if so, how do we get there?

You can't do it... ...people find their clique and stay there. As any high-school girl will tell you, "clique-crossing" is the most difficult thing to attempt... ...ever.

What people like to listen to is very very closely tied in with their internal identity, thus branching out is psychologically difficult (if not impossible) for most people because as they branch out they lose their internal cultural identifiers (and thus somewhat lose their sense of "self").

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

"Emotional content" is a highly subjective thing though, no?

Yes, that's why I edited.

[Jawbone54]

Just because someone absolutely despises being forced to sit through a symphony doesn't make them "musically ignorant."

The reason people enjoy soundtracks to movies like Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, Star Wars, etc. is because the music is used to accentuate an on-screen emotion. Ask these people to listen to the exact same music in their cars, and they'll almost certainly prefer something contemporary.

I have what I'd consider a fairly healthy appreciation for music, and even have some classical music on my iPod, but the last time I went to a symphony, I could not wait to get out of there. It was well-performed, but today's culture is by-and-large not programmed to sit stationary for 2-3 hours and absorb nothing but music. I took a look around, and probably 80% of the crowd was over the age of 50.

Trying to make people "understand" classical music and promote symphonies is a complete waste of time. They don't want to go, and they certainly don't want to be told by anyone else that they're uncultured because of it. Just let people appreciate what they appreciate, and leave judgment of them aside.

....except for the morons supporting Justin Bieber, Katy Perry, etc.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

Just because someone absolutely despises being forced to sit through a symphony doesn't make them "musically ignorant."

The reason people enjoy soundtracks to movies like Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, Star Wars, etc. is because the music is used to accentuate an on-screen emotion. Ask these people to listen to the exact same music in their cars, and they'll almost certainly prefer something contemporary.

I have what I'd consider a fairly healthy appreciation for music, and even have some classical music on my iPod, but the last time I went to a symphony, I could not wait to get out of there. It was well-performed, but today's culture is by-and-large not programmed to sit stationary for 2-3 hours and absorb nothing but music. I took a look around, and probably 80% of the crowd was over the age of 50.

Trying to make people "understand" classical music and promote symphonies is a complete waste of time. They don't want to go, and they certainly don't want to be told by anyone else that they're uncultured because of it. Just let people appreciate what they appreciate, and leave judgment of them aside.

....except for the morons supporting Justin Bieber, Katy Perry, etc.

I would not say that people who don't like to go to symphonies are musically ignorant or uncultured, there are many symphonic performances I do not like to attend either.

My goal is not to get people to go to symphonies, but maybe be willing to listen to some classical music off a CD/iPod, to be interested in looking underneath that rock, especially if their world centers around Bieber and Perry. Or, an even more modest goal, if they are into modern country music, check out older country music, and likewise for rock or any other genre that has been around for a while.

How, do you think, this is best accomplished?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

You can't do it... ...people find their clique and stay there. As any high-school girl will tell you, "clique-crossing" is the most difficult thing to attempt... ...ever.

What people like to listen to is very very closely tied in with their internal identity, thus branching out is psychologically difficult (if not impossible) for most people because as they branch out they lose their internal cultural identifiers (and thus somewhat lose their sense of "self").

You're probably right that a lot of these sorts of people that are into Perry and Beiber and stuff are probably pretty deeply entrenched in their clique - especially high school aged people.

What about the people that don't identify strongly, if at all, with any particular clique, or people that are interested in new cliques? Maybe we naturally gravitate towards a certain clique like you have said, but there are certainly times where we drift from clique to clique a little, maybe a secondary or tertiary clique, when we try new hobbies, are dating new people that are interested in different things - whatever... I think we take these sorts of experiences with us, and sometimes they reshape a part of who we are and what we're into.

Do you agree that we can have multiple cliques and that these cliques are not etched in stone?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

What about the people that don't identify strongly, if at all, with any particular clique, or people that are interested in new cliques? Maybe we naturally gravitate towards a certain clique like you have said, but there are certainly times where we drift from clique to clique a little, maybe a secondary or tertiary clique, when we try new hobbies, are dating new people that are interested in different things - whatever... I think we take these sorts of experiences with us, and sometimes they reshape a part of who we are and what we're into.

Do you agree that we can have multiple cliques and that these cliques are not etched in stone?

Yes. That's the "must find new stuff to listen to because I'm musically open-minded" clique.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I would not say that people who don't like to go to symphonies are musically ignorant or uncultured, there are many symphonic performances I do not like to attend either.

My goal is not to get people to go to symphonies, but maybe be willing to listen to some classical music off a CD/iPod, to be interested in looking underneath that rock, especially if their world centers around Bieber and Perry. Or, an even more modest goal, if they are into modern country music, check out older country music, and likewise for rock or any other genre that has been around for a while.

How, do you think, this is best accomplished?

I'd say you largely have to let people come to that themselves. Some people will come to the realization in their late 20s and early 30s, and some people will never come to that realization. You just have to learn to be okay with it.

Maybe it's important for teachers to introduce students to it when they're young, but not force anything. I had an art teacher that would let a classical music custom CD play while we worked, but I noticed he was very selective about what he picked -- mostly the more sweeping, powerful pieces. I asked him about a few and later picked up some CDs, but I never had what I'd consider a strong interest in the genre. I prefer modern soundtracks, to be honest.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

You're probably right that a lot of these sorts of people that are into Perry and Beiber and stuff are probably pretty deeply entrenched in their clique - especially high school aged people.

What about the people that don't identify strongly, if at all, with any particular clique, or people that are interested in new cliques? Maybe we naturally gravitate towards a certain clique like you have said, but there are certainly times where we drift from clique to clique a little, maybe a secondary or tertiary clique, when we try new hobbies, are dating new people that are interested in different things - whatever... I think we take these sorts of experiences with us, and sometimes they reshape a part of who we are and what we're into.

Do you agree that we can have multiple cliques and that these cliques are not etched in stone?

I'd say it's not until after high school that people drift from restrictive cliques and start developing interests based upon their own likes rather than their friends' interests. I've worked with high school students for eight years, and I cannot tell you how many of them have had conversations with me about a year after graduation, telling me how high school was dumb and they're finally discovering who they are and what they like.

People who say high school was the best time of their lives are probably just miserable in their profession. Looking back, I hated those years.

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Yes. That's the "must find new stuff to listen to because I'm musically open-minded" clique.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Yes. That's the "must find new stuff to listen to because I'm musically open-minded" clique.

I'm also in the Burt Reynolds Mustache Appreciation clique.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I'm also in the Burt Reynolds Mustache Appreciation clique.

It's rare to find a man who appreciates a full-body mustache.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

It's rare to find a man who appreciates a full-body mustache.

Since Doofy and I both look like Dave Mustaine, I usually just imagine Doofy as having a Burt Reynolds or Ned Flanders mustache just so that I can tell us apart.

[Waragainstsleep]

Its definitely true that quite a lot of teenagers will at one time or another pick a genre of music to identify with as part of an image they want to present or a clique they want to join. Some will swap genres and images often, others will pick one and stick with it.

When images and cliques are involved, getting a kid to step outside of their chosen genre is always going to be tricky. That said, showing them where some of their favourite artists got their influences is one way you might actually pull it off.

The main part of society is lazy when it comes to music. They buy or listen to whatever everyone else is listening to, or whatever the mainstream radio tells them is cool. Much of one of Doofy's previous posts applies to this lot too, social events, treasured memories etc etc.
The part that always bothered me is when people try to tell you that some artist (I use the term very loosely) is sooooo great when in fact they are rarely more than an above-average looking karaoke singer with a lot of label money behind them. And often not even a good karaoke singer.

I totally get where you're coming from though Besson, just the other day I listened to 10 minutes of Annie Mac on Radio 1 and got unbelievably annoyed with her for failing miserably to point out that Johnny Cash's Hurt is a cover (Not an especially great one either tbh). That really wound me up, especially after she started reading out appreciative text messages from listeners and bleating on about how powerful and moving it was. Don't get me wrong, I really like Johnny Cash, but his version of this song carries none of the anguish or emotion you can hear in the original version.

With older kids and teens, I think the way to get through to them is to point out the folly of their peers who are trying to be different by liking certain kinds of music. Like how there are big groups of them all being different by liking the same kinds of less mainstream music. If you want to appear cool because you have different and truly individual taste, the trick is just to be honest and like what you like and give everything a chance before you make up your mind. Getting that message across is easier said than done though. You certainly have to mention it without accusing them of being the subject of your observations. Examples will help. "Most of the kids at your school like Insert current trendy artist , some of the slightly cooler ones have discovered vintage Metallica, but how many are brave enough to like Beethoven?" You might also suggest they can pretend to like things ironically if they are bothered about what others may think.

I can't really help with younger children. I would have assumed they will generally like what they like but then disregard it when they get old enough to become fashion conscious.

[Waragainstsleep]

I disagree about clique-crossing. I went to school with kids who went through whatever was fashionable at the time and changed clique with the fashion. I don't believe this is uncommon.

One thing is for sure. You must teach all these kids that they can like whatever they want as long as they hate the worst act in the history of the world, Oasis. They should also be encouraged to mock anyone who disagrees with this indisputable fact. This is essential knowledge for any budding musician. I know it goes against your whole 'don't knock any music until you give it a try' ideal, but there is one exception to every rule right?

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

This has been the case throughout history. Going to listen to the latest Bach concerto was a social event which you had to be seen at...

Well, that's not true. Bach (assuming we're talking about J.S. and not his sons, who were much more famous than he was in his lifetime) wasn't really discovered as a composer until well after his death. A lot of his music that's famous now, mostly sat on some nobleman' bookshelf for decades before anyone actually knew about or played them. The Brandenburg Concertos, which you're probably referring to, weren't discovered until 128 years after they were written, and 99 years after Bach himself died.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I don't get into 20th century classical music much

That's surprising, since there's a lot of cross-pollination between jazz and twentieth-century art music. You'd probably at least enjoy some of the earlier stuff, like Scriabin and Ravel.

[OAW]

I am most definitely a music fan. Even played the horn back in the days. And I appreciate various genres of music. Including jazz ... and not just because Quincy Jones is a relative. But this quote from Spike Lee's film Mo' Better Blues strikes me as relevant to this discussion. Bleek, the band leader and trumpeter played by Denzel Washington, is lamenting the dearth of black people in the audiences at his jazz concerts. Shadow, his saxophonist played by Wesley Snipes, has a uh ... "differing" opinion.

Bleek: But the jazz, you know if we had to dep... if we had to depend upon black people to eat, we would starve to death. I mean, you've been out there, you're on the bandstand, you look out into the audience, what do you see? You see Japanese, you see, you see West Germans, you see, you know, Slabobic, anything except our people - it makes no sense. It incenses me that our own people don't realize our own heritage, our own culture, this is our music, man.

Shadow Henderson: That's bullsh*t.

Bleek: Why?

Shadow Henderson: [slurred] It's all bullsh... Everything, everything you just said is bullsh*t. Out of all the people in the world, you never gave anybody else, and look, I love you like a step-brother, but you never gave nobody else a chance t- to play their own music, you complain about... That's right, the people don't come because you grandiose motherf*ckers don't play sh*t that they like. If you played the sh*t that they like, then people would come, simple as that.

And the thing about it is ... they were both right.

OAW

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

That's surprising, since there's a lot of cross-pollination between jazz and twentieth-century art music. You'd probably at least enjoy some of the earlier stuff, like Scriabin and Ravel.

Oh, I like a fair amount of 20th century stuff, just not a whole lot of the twelve-tone stuff that gets more atonal. I likewise don't like Ornette Coleman and free jazz for the same sorts of reasons. I like Prokofiev, Philip Glass, Bartok, etc.

A lot of jazz guys I know also claim influences from Bartok actually...

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by OAW 

I am most definitely a music fan. Even played the horn back in the days. And I appreciate various genres of music. Including jazz ... and not just because Quincy Jones is a relative. But this quote from Spike Lee's film Mo' Better Blues strikes me as relevant to this discussion. Bleek, the band leader and trumpeter played by Denzel Washington, is lamenting the dearth of black people in the audiences at his jazz concerts. Shadow, his saxophonist played by Wesley Snipes, has a uh ... "differing" opinion.



And the thing about it is ... they were both right.

OAW

I suppose, but how about the Steve Jobs quote where he said that Apple doesn't rely on a whole lot of external testing of their unreleased products because, something along the lines of "people don't know what they want because what they want doesn't exist yet".

How do people know that they don't like the music if they haven't given it a chance? In a way it may not exist to them yet.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

Well, that's not true. Bach (assuming we're talking about J.S. and not his sons, who were much more famous than he was in his lifetime) wasn't really discovered as a composer until well after his death. A lot of his music that's famous now, mostly sat on some nobleman' bookshelf for decades before anyone actually knew about or played them. The Brandenburg Concertos, which you're probably referring to, weren't discovered until 128 years after they were written, and 99 years after Bach himself died.

And of course, as soon as those concertos were discovered it was fashionable and social to go see an orchestra play them. Bach didn't have to be in the room for it to be fashionable and social, in the same way that Bieber doesn't have to be in the room for it to be fashionable and social.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

I disagree about clique-crossing. I went to school with kids who went through whatever was fashionable at the time and changed clique with the fashion. I don't believe this is uncommon.

There again, that's the "running with the herd" clique - nobody clique-crosses but rather the entire clique finds "NEW! BETTER!", usually because people like me tell them it's new and better (it wouldn't do to have the punters play the same stuff over and over again - where's the profit in that?).
You're right - it's not uncommon.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

And of course, as soon as those concertos were discovered it was fashionable and social to go see an orchestra play them. Bach didn't have to be in the room for it to be fashionable and social, in the same way that Bieber doesn't have to be in the room for it to be fashionable and social.

Well, that's not quite right either. The concept of the musical canon was only just beginning to come into existence during the nineteenth century, and the performance of works by older composers such as Bach was by no means the norm. The music that was "fashionable and social" at that time would probably be waltzes and other dance music, as well as the "Music of the Future" of Wagner and Liszt.

And regardless, it wouldn't exactly be "the latest Bach concerto" then, would it?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

Well, that's not quite right either. The concept of the musical canon was only just beginning to come into existence during the nineteenth century, and the performance of works by older composers such as Bach was by no means the norm. The music that was "fashionable and social" at that time would probably be waltzes and other dance music, as well as the "Music of the Future" of Wagner and Liszt.

And regardless, it wouldn't exactly be "the latest Bach concerto" then, would it?

I don't know dude. I spend too much time around women to have the energy to be able to think about these things.

[besson3c]

Speaking of high school...

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

I totally get where you're coming from though Besson, just the other day I listened to 10 minutes of Annie Mac on Radio 1 and got unbelievably annoyed with her for failing miserably to point out that Johnny Cash's Hurt is a cover (Not an especially great one either tbh). That really wound me up, especially after she started reading out appreciative text messages from listeners and bleating on about how powerful and moving it was. Don't get me wrong, I really like Johnny Cash, but his version of this song carries none of the anguish or emotion you can hear in the original version.

That's funny. I like both versions, but I feel the Cash one has more anguish than the original, and as much and maybe more emotion.

Instead of anguish, what I feel the original has is "angst" and perhaps even "cynicism". The original has a ton of those things IMO (in particular, angst). Cash's doesn't. So I guess it depends on how you like your emotion. Perhaps as a younger person I might have preferred the original, but I think today I'd probably go with Cash.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

That's funny. I like both versions, but I feel the Cash one has more anguish than the original, and as much and maybe more emotion.

Instead of anguish, what I feel the original has is "angst" and perhaps even "cynicism". The original has a ton of those things IMO (in particular, angst). Cash's doesn't. So I guess it depends on how you like your emotion. Perhaps as a younger person I might have preferred the original, but I think today I'd probably go with Cash.

That is funny.

I listened to the Cash version a couple of times the other day and it just sounded to me like he was going through the motions. I really didn't detect much feeling at all. I'm not even convinced he knows what the track is really about. I'd be surprised if he didn't, but thats the impression I get somehow.

Still I don't think Trent gets the credit he deserves, its a masterpiece of a track. I do know that NIN are much better supported, recognised and appreciated in the US. Over here, the media seem to be terrified of them (him).

Try this version for size:

Nine Inch Nails - Hurt (Live: Beside You In Time) (Explicit) - YouTube

This is a hell of a live performance. The original studio recording has dated a touch in terms of quality. (The one on Spotify anyway)

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

I listened to the Cash version a couple of times the other day and it just sounded to me like he was going through the motions. I really didn't detect much feeling at all. I'm not even convinced he knows what the track is really about. I'd be surprised if he didn't, but thats the impression I get somehow.

The beauty of the Cash version is that it's not about the same thing as the Reznor version. In that respect they're standalone entities - if you like the original because of what you think it represents (given the context of that album), then approaching Cash's cover looking for the same meaning is just a pointless exercise in futility.

It surprises me that you haven't grasped, or perhaps acknowledged, this. IMO Cash's version accomplished something that few covers ever have: it took the original song, and set it not only to a different musical style but an entirely different theme - and succeeded almost perfectly.

Finally, I normally don't watch videos, and don't feel they add anything to a song. Not my thing. But that one is fantastic.

[Waragainstsleep]

I saw NIN live about 10 years ago and Trent was almost note-perfect throughout. I've never seen another gig like it.

I've heard it said the JC intended his version to mean something else but since the only words he changed were swearwords I've never really gotten that. For me the "needle tears a hole" line can only really be taken one way. Some of the rest of it I agree can be interpreted in plenty of other ways but I was surprised he didn't change that line.

Perhaps I'm not reading enough into it, or perhaps everyone else is reading too much, I don't know. I know a lot more about how TR operates and I know that he will have sweat and bled over every beat, every note and every syllable of that track, just like he does most of his others.

If using different instruments constitutes a change of musical style to you, then fair enough. I don't see it as being changed all that drastically. Its difficult to take a slow song and change its style too much without changing its pace though.

These IMO are better examples of changing the style of a song in a cover:

Scala & Kolacny Brothers - Creep (Radiohead cover) - YouTube

Weird Al Yankovic - Polka Face (Alpocalypse) - YouTube