The Challenge of "Culture"

[€uroMeinke]

A few posts caught my eye this morning - one dismissing opera as an otherwise unpleasent experience, another mentioning how boring ballet is - and my mind started drifting. I've heard similar things said about art and "classical" music. A lot of these things get lumped into this thing called "culture" that you reognize is supposed to be good for you, but is never enjoyable.

I'm reminded of literature classes where we were made to read Steinbeck - to be sure a great writter, but that "supposed to be good" title and coercive nature of the class took away any joy I would have had in the experience.

That said, I have a great love for all forms of creative expression - including opera and ballet. Of course, my preference is for more contemporary works. I have to wonder though, if the communities that surround these modes of expression foster the sort of environment that kills the enjoyment of these modes of expression.

The Art community is often accused of being elitist, and deliberately obscure as a way of keeping out the "less cultured" - I wonder if that's true.

I also wonder, for those of you that dislike certain "cultural" things, what it is that bores or annoys you - as well as what it is that excites you?

[Not Afraid]

I know that my love of contemporary cultural exploration and experiences is directly related to my exposure to "culture" as a child. I took ballet, piano and flute lessons, frequently went to the Ballet, Classical performances, musical theater and museums. I had books that I poured through as a child about Henri Rousseau, Kandinsky and Renoir. My exposure was probably much greater than most other kids of my time.

While my parents were highly religious, I don't think they really understood the "subversive" side of creativity and, therefore, were not afraid of it. I think they felt it was the right thing to do to expose me to "culture" as part of their creation of a well-rounded "Miss America". (My Mom had SERIOUS delusions of grandeur.)

As much as I hate my formal training as a child (there was little or no talent inherent in me which make it very frustrating), I grew up to understand and love all forms of artistic expression and appreciate differing cultures. I majored in Art History in college, became an arts administrator professionally and have not spend any "real" time not plugged into at least some form of cultural expression for most of my adult life. I pick and choose what I become obsessed with. There is a huge gap in my knowledge of Contemporary American Pop Culture from about 1980 on, but I find myself fascinated with Japanese Pop Culture from the 1950's onward. Go figure.

In a way, it's probably good we don't have children. They would be these little blind, oddballs dressed like Pugsly or Wednesday and spouting lines from films no other child has seen. I'm content to keep it to our little club of however many want to join in and happily absorb anything that strikes my fancy.

I'm not sure I even answered your question, but man can I babble with I'm sick.

[Snowflake]

The Art community is often accused of being elitist, and deliberately obscure as a way of keeping out the "less cultured" - I wonder if that's true.

I also wonder, for those of you that dislike certain "cultural" things, what it is that bores or annoys you - as well as what it is that excites you?

I think opera and ballet definitely fall under the elitist category because of the money needed to produce them and this is reflected in the expense of the tickets to attend. I do not think the opera companies themselves try to obscure to keep the less cultured out. That would be silly as they are in need of a constant source of new funding.

It's more the patrons who support the opera/symphony/ballet who I think are more inclined to be exclusive and downright snooty. I was, myself, a member of the standing room community for many years since that was all I could afford (and I met some of my best friends on the planet in the standing line and along the rails in the uppermost balcony). The "patrons" who paid $14 for their last row balcony seat (to my $10 standing ticket) never ceased to look down their noses at the riff raff behind them. So it goes.

As for what excites me, gosh the list is a mile long. Any art from any era, from Ancient Greece on up to the modern age is exciting. I can take delight from the caves at Lascaux (how do you spell that anyway) to a Monet, a Keith Haring to a Warner Brothers cartoon. Photography is a special love, too.

I love many many forms of music and consider any deficiency on my part in appreciation of newer music to be simply my lack of exposure. Right now I live in the sticks and I don't find the annual Jimmy Buffett concerts worth my time, sorry.

Ballet on it's own bores me, except the short ones! Don't get me wrong, I love the music of Tchaikovsky and Glinka, but some of the old warhorses just make me snooze, especially after a good meal. I'm sure with prolonged exposure to Ballachine and other choreographers I'd find it less dull. Then again, some of the new stuff I have caught in passing on PBS I find irritating.

To make this answer all that much longer, I'm excited by just about anything in the arts. It stimulates the mind and feeds the soul. I may not like it all once I get to know it, but I'll appreciate the experience.

Donna
who is in a rambling mood today, sorry guys

[Ghoulish Delight]

Count me as one who just doesn't get the appeal of opera and ballet. Certainl I appreciate the skill involved, and I can even appreciate some of the beauty of ballet. But vague appreciation is where it ends for me, it's not enough to get me to enjoy it. Why? I don't know that I can really express why. The closest I can get is to say that I don't see in those forms of expression anything that adds anything emotionally significant to a story. Like Alex said in the opera thread, I've read the stories for several operas and they seemed like good enough stories...but seeing them performed did nothing for me. Operetic vocals just don't express anything to me.

As for classical music in general...hit or miss. I appreciate it more than I appreciate dance and opera, that's for sure. I, on occasion, enjoy listening to it as background music. I'll rarely sit down for the express purpose of listening to it, and attending a symphony is a huge yawn for me, unless there's something more to it (a-la the Disneyland music show at the Hollywood Bowl last year).

None of this is due to lack of exposure. My parents, if they listen to music, listen to almost exclusively classical music. I went to many symphony concerts growing up. They bored me then, they bore me now.

I suppose the closest thing to "culture" that I truly enjoy is jazz. But I suppose that's too modern to fit in with the other forms in this conversation.

[€uroMeinke]

I can understand how classical ballet may miss the mark for a lot of people, but Dance itself is one of those things I've found I have a growing passion for. There is something so elemental about it as a foirm of communication - it's the first "language" we ever know. I've seen some increadible dance pieces. One's that tell delightful narative stories, to expressing ranges of emotion, irony, and raw sexuality.

Of course I've seen some duds - a Japanese Bhuto group whose skill was holding these painfully long slow movements - amazing to be sure, but dull to this spectator. Or classical Ballet that just plays it straight (I think when this happens, it's really just a musical performance). But give the same piece to someone like Mark Morris or Mathew Bourne and it's a spectacular new show.

[€uroMeinke]

I suppose the closest thing to "culture" that I truly enjoy is jazz. But I suppose that's too modern to fit in with the other forms in this conversation.

Not at all, I think there are plenty people who don't "get" jazz, or find it boring or annoying (especially that free-form experimental stuff). For that matter, the Pop Culture of today is just tomorrow's "Classical Culture."

[Gn2Dlnd]

HAHA! Culture.

[Not Afraid]

I suppose the closest thing to "culture" that I truly enjoy is jazz. But I suppose that's too modern to fit in with the other forms in this conversation.

Considering that most of the "culture" I enjoy is of the here and now - created in our time for our viewing - I would consider Jazz to less than modern. It has been enjoying a retro-driven resurgence lately, but it is definately not what I would consider highly contemporary.

Of course, there are hibred forms of Jazz that would fit in with the comtemporary definition, but I think the cutting edge days of jazz are long gone.

When I think over most of the dance performances I've seen over the past 10 years, about 90% of them were created recently or are very modern interpretations of an older work. I think the same goes for the art I tend to seek out. I don't often see the "blockbuster Impressionists" shows that have been popular lately. I tend to want to see what people are thinking about here and now and expressing it in their art. I find it a fascinating look at where I fit in and how I interract with the world.

[Alex]

There is a definite line between pop culture and high culture and I think it is somewhat created by the consumers.

For many people, something being too popular is a drawback. I'm suspicious of novels that are two widely read. We've all heard of things that are labeled as "too commercial" (read: it appeals to too many people). Or you loved a band when they were local and only 45 people knew who they were but by the time enough people caught on that they were on MTV you lost interest. There is an appeal to feeling your part of a small club of the enlightened.

Part of it is that art, to really connect frequently relies on something that isn't common within all people but rather something that is relatively rare. Thus Jon Waters is a genius to a very small group of people while the majority don't get it at all.

Personally, I'm an overly rational and under emotional person. Art works best for me when it works me intellectually instead of emotionally. There are emotional topics that get to me but for the most part I'm more interested in the literal than the subtextual (subtext isn't bad but when there is no overlayer of literal as is common with post-modern literature then you've lost me, almost guaranteed).

I also want to be clear that when I say "I don't like opera" I'm not really condemning the entire art form. Mostly it just means that I haven't liked the opera I've seen and didn't see anything about the form that has prodded me to persue more. I'm sure I'll end up seeing more opera in my lifetime and wouldn't be surprised if I find something I enjoy.

My consumption of "high culture" is relatively limited but that is mostly because I don't enjoy the venues in which it is consumed. I really enjoy looking at paintings and photography but strongly dislike the musuems in which they're displayed. I hate interpretation. When I look at paintings I don't care who painted them. I don't care what else they painted. I just want to look at this particular painting and photograph and take it in.

I'm also turned off by many of the people who frequent such places. I'm equally turned off by the person who says with pride "I don't watch TV" as I am by the person who says "I'd never read a book not found a the grocery store checkstand."

I'm willing to experience pretty much anything, even those things that I have little reason to expect I'll particularly enjoy (Natalie Merchant, chamber music) but I'm most excited about it when I am allowed to just interact with something directly on my own with a lot of baggage piled on.

[Ghoulish Delight]

I can understand how classical ballet may miss the mark for a lot of people, but Dance itself is one of those things I've found I have a growing passion for. It's very rare that I enjoy dance for dance's sake. And when I do enjoy it, it's usually because the music that goes along with it is good enough to hold its own. I know that that kinda sounds like a no brainer ("well duh you're not gonna like it if the music suck"), but I think it's telling of my personal tastes that I can enjoy music without good dance, but I can't enjoy dance without good music. I do tend to enjoy Bob Fosse stuff, but of course Fosse always worked with the best music.

[LSPoorEeyorick]

Very interesting topic!

I'm a culture geek, and I'm not sure how it happened. My mom grew up on a working farm and clawed her way into college-- she was the only one of eight children who went, though she was unable to finish because my parents married and had children and she couldn't afford the time or money that college required. My father grew up in an upper-middle big-fish family in a small pond-- and although dad's aunt was a symphony violinist and owned a Stradivarian, my grandfather lacked her talent and resented her, and forbade any of his children to play or appreciate music; it was science or death.

Together, my parents sought to understand culture and travel as much as they could, but art museums and operas weren't really within their reach or their taste. Mom dabbled in poetry, dad thought wistfully of buying classical albums, but they never really broke out of their comfort zone. My two siblings, who are ten and twelve years older than I, didn't have extravagant tastes. My brother eventually sought out film, my sister did crafts and marched in band.

Then they had me. And I wanted to take ballet. And I wanted to understand Shakespeare. And I wanted to visit the Detroit Institute of the Arts. And I liked jazz. And I tried to make them listen to Bizet's "The Pearl Fishers." And I wanted to get a couple of useless degrees in literature and theatre directing. And I don't know why I'm different, but they're all out there in the midwest, and I'm living in Los Angeles trying to soak up as much culture as I can afford (which sadly, is not as much as I'd like.) They were always supportive of me and my black sheepish grin-- but I've never really entirely felt like one of them. Except for maybe mom-- I get the feeling that had she more resources and less emotional challenges in her youth, she'd have really loved living the life I'm living now. It's partly why I'm living it-- because I grew up watching her dream of exploring, and for a variety of reasons, she never did. And I didn't want that. I wanted experience MoCA Ecstasy. I wanted to see passion from the perspective Bourne's dancers. I wanted to listen to animators talk about Walk Disney, three feet from my seat. So here I am.

I guess what I'm saying is: no. I have not come across any "culture" that I don't jive with. There have been specific examples. One artist calls to me more than another, for instance. You walk through a gallery and some things call out to you and some things leave you cold-- but that's never stopped me from going into galleries. Or alternately, rap does not always speak to me but there have been songs that penetrated my heart completely.

I've a critical streak that sometimes prevents me from enjoying things to the fullest of their depth. But as far as genres of creativity, any example of it makes me feel more human, and I can't say there's anything I don't enjoy in one form or another.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Museums are something I love. Certainly my favorite museum experiences are the less "standard" spaces, but I also enjoy a good old white-walled gallery. Contrary to Alex, I appreciate art much more when surrounded by other art that gives it some context and contrast.

[Prudence]

I find that I appreciate more the aspects of culture in which I have some personal experience. Thus, I enjoy pretty much anything that involves music or dance. Traditional visual arts - not so much. I mean, I can yay Monet and all, but have zero talent in that area and perhaps as a result less understanding and appreciation of the process. But with dance, for example, I know what it takes to do what they are doing. I might not be able to do it anymore, and I never went en pointe, but I have a pretty good understanding of technique.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Heh, that explanation doesn't work for me as I have zero talent in any art for whatsoever, and yet I still like art.

[Matterhorn Fan]

I enjoy dance because I feel it. I'm guessing that's in part because I spent SO many years dancing.

But when I was taken to a hockey game, I didn't stand up and scream and yell or whatever I was supposed to do when the game went to sudden death, and I was told I was weird. I was literally asked, "aren't you excited?" I had to just sit there and say "no."

I can appreciate the skill it takes to play team sports, but I just can't get excited about them. Then there are other sports I can "feel" more than, say, baseball, like skiing. That I can kindof get into.

So I guess it goes both ways.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

I love art. I love dance in musicals (West Side etc) but dance for dance sake doesn't keep my interest. I'm impressed by it though. Opera is also impressive but I just don't like it. Oh, and it's usually in languages I can't understand, which is a big block for me.

My appreciation of classical is solely from my Academic Decathlon experience. I dig it and would love to see a full orchestra. I know nothing about the technical side but I love the emotions it stirs in me. I can't tell Mozart from Bach from anything else though...

[€uroMeinke]

On the music side, I rarely pay attention to lyrics. I can never remember them and it takes a good long time before I can sing along with anything much beyond the chorus. I supose that's why I like foriegn music so much, I never have to be distracted by what they are saying, I just hear the music of their voices. I love some Classical choral pieces for just that point.

[Not Afraid]

Opera is also impressive but I just don't like it. Oh, and it's usually in languages I can't understand, which is a big block for me.



Interesting point in the way that each person percieves and feels things differently. I almost prefer to come at artistic expression from a non-verbal or speficically understood language perspective. While I am an avid reader and wholely appreciate the written word, I like having my other senses participate in or be challenged into cooperating in the processing of feeling and understanding. The language of dance can communicate more to me than an ee cummings poem, or a particular painting may stir more in me through the use of color, line shape and form than a T.C. Boyle story. Music is much the same. If often don't "know" the lyrics of a song - athough I have them memorized, they don't have as much meaning to me as the sounds, the tones, the feel of the music itself. I like music both with and without lyrics equally and don't mind at all if they are in a foreign language, they still communicate me to their essence seomhow.

Somewhere along the line, I either learned how to use these different methods to understand things or I was just born that way. Who knows, but it sure is interesting to think about the different way of interpreting the world around us and why we all have so many disconnects.

[Prudence]

Hearing lyrics in other languages I don't speak used to bug me - until I started singing in other languages I don't speak. But then that fits in with what I said earlier. I understand how singers work to convey what they're singing regardless of language used, yadda yadda.

[€uroMeinke]

Somewhere along the line, I either learned how to use these different methods to understand things or I was just born that way. Who knows, but it sure is interesting to think about the different way of interpreting the world around us and why we all have so many disconnects.

I think you hit upon something here, some of us are more visual, or aural, cerebral, or kinesthetic - that probably also shapes what art forms speak to us.

[Not Afraid]

I think you hit upon something here, some of us are more visual, or aural, cerebral, or kinesthetic - that probably also shapes what art forms speak to us.

Exactly. Just don't ask me to do math, ok?

[Prudence]

Hrmmm...maybe That Guy's onto something. Although for me aural and kinesthetic are often the same thing. (It's the dance background. Eventually you really do "feel" the music.)

[Snowflake]

I have to say, when it comes to dance, musical theater and movies, I love and it communicates to me, rhythm and music. I adore Fred Astaire. This is dancing that really moves me. Pop culture icon, I guess so. As someone previously mentioned (too late in the day, I forget who) Fosse, Jerome Robbins, Agnes DeMille, love all of it.
Donna

[mousepod]

Great topic!
My first reaction is that I've spent most of my life trying to learn about different types of art from people who have passion for a specific discipline.
My parents were cool enough to take us to Leonard Bernstein's 'Young Peoples' Concerts' at Lincoln Center - and also buy me Beatles albums at my request when I was 5 years old.
Perhaps it was because I grew up in and around New York City, but the whole "highbrow/lowbrow" thing was never something that was part of my life.
My sisters and I were constantly exposed to different cultures and "culture", so apart from a very brief "punk" anti-social phase, I never rejected anything outright.
I remember reading an article in the New York Times years ago that said most people cite their favorite music as the music they listened to when they were 17 years old. I didn't want that to happen to me, so I have learned to keep an open mind.
I've tried lots of things - some I like, some I don't, but there's no clear and predictable line. I thought I hated country music - until I heard George Jones. I thought I'd try the Grateful Dead... never got it - but at least I tried.
I still have several things on my list to try...

PS - Tokyo Jihen rules!

[€uroMeinke]

PS - Tokyo Jihen rules!

Yeah? So when are they (she) going to play the States?

[Not Afraid]

Hibrow. Lowbrow. Erudite. Elitist. Cultured.

Gotta love those pigeonholes.

[€uroMeinke]

Hibrow. Lowbrow. Erudite. Elitist. Cultured.

Gotta love those pigeonholes.

I prefer swanky myslef ;)

[Ghoulish Delight]

I have a view that artist, no matter thier medium, fall vaguely into 3 categories that I'd term "Genre", "Transcending", "Progressive".

"Genre" artists will by and large only be appreciated by fans of that genre. The people for whom, for whatever reason, that particular form of the medium speaks to them. The ones that succeed tend to be technically proficient at producing the art, but have little to do with the world outside their genre.

"Transcending" artist are the ones that show a deeper understanding of their medium, often including elements from outside their genre, such that they often appeal to audiences that aren't typically associated with their genre. These are the, "I don't like country music, but I love so-and-so" type artist. They are (usually) the ones that last beyond their time.

"Progressive" artists are similar to "transcending" in that they have a deeper understanding of their medium, but they go in a different direction. Instead of using that understanding to explore common ground, they explore new ground, often leading to new genres. Often pure genius, but just as often dismissed by most as "weird".

I suppose there's a 4th category....bad. But that's another story.

So, as a general rule, if it's something in a genre that clicks with you, you're likely to enjoy it no matter which of the 3 buckets the artist falls into. Whereas if it's a genre that you're not a fan of, it would take one of the "edge" categories (transcending or progressive) for you to enjoy it.

All generalizations, of course. For example, as an audience I gravitate towards the progressives end of things even in the genres I like. But I'm still more likely to like a genre artist from a genre I naturally enjoy than one from a genre I dislike.

[Kevy Baby]

On the music side, I rarely pay attention to lyrics. I can never remember them and it takes a good long time before I can sing along with anything much beyond the chorus. I supose that's why I like foriegn music so much, I never have to be distracted by what they are saying, I just hear the music of their voices. I love some Classical choral pieces for just that point.I'm with you on this. Often times the vocals to me are another instrument - just one part of the sum. A beautiful voice that blends with the instruments around it to me is divine. Even if I know the lyrics to a song by heart, I may still have no idea what it is about.

And I too enjoy foreign music. I have been known to tune into the Spanish language stations if I am burnt out on my usual fare.

There has been more than one occassion where I was DJing a function and someone would bring in a CD for me to play of some foreign sensation that I had no clue about. It always amazed me how much I got into much of what I was given. And conversly, there was a lot of crap that there was no way in heck should have been laid down on a CD!

One other art that I enjoy is fine wordworking. There is a certain cabinet in the Grand Cal lobby that I am just completely enthralled with. To me the composition of the design and the harmonious wood selection blended with the subtle detail makes it a masterpiece in my eyes. I kid you not when I say that it was the first thing I thought about when I first heard about thye recent fire and I made a bee line for it when I first went to the Grand Cal after the fire. I also appreciate the work of artisans such as Sam Maloof.

[LSPoorEeyorick]

I, too, am slow to pick up lyrics and chiefly focus on the sound of the song. The moments when a new piece of music makes your body ring the way a chair might vibrate when it's on pitch with a tuning fork? Those moments make this life worth living.

But sometimes, the lyrics are the art I'm focused on. If there is poetry to the words, if there is cleverness to the words, they catch me, too. I do love words. An example of this is the work of Stephen Sondheim. If you've ever heard "A Little Priest," or "Finishing the Hat," you can't help but love it. Or in the case of Avenue Q, you'd grasp the tone, but it would be missing something without its very funny and bittersweet words.

Maybe lyrics only matter to me in musical theater. This is one reason why Andrew Lloyd Webber kind of makes me nauseous, since his revolving-door lyricists' lyrics are unimpressive and take a back seat to self-important music. Enter critical nature from stage left, shaking fist.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Another one here for whom lyrics are so much noise. Although bad lyrics can destroy an otherwise good song, and good lyrics can occasionally make a great song, I'm more about the overall sound.

[Kevy Baby]

The lyrics to "Tequila" are positively mesmerizing!

[lindyhop]

I often wonder how I ended up with the interests I have because it's almost like I went after exactly the opposite of what I was exposed to growing up.

I was turned on to reading very early by my mother who read Golden Books to me every night. But there were really no adult books in the house. Still I ended up a comparative literature major who was obsessed with Proust and Dante.

My first exposure to Shakespeare was because I was a huge Beatles fan. Paul McCartney's giflfriend, Jane Asher, was playing Juliet in a Bristol Old Vic production that came to the Music Center. My friends and I went to see Jane (and of course hoped that Paul would just happen by) but managed to absorb a little culture at the same time.

My first exposure to classical music was through the soundtracks for "2001: A Space Odyssey" and "Slaughterhouse Five." Then much later I bought season tickets to the Long Beach Symphony, mostly to have something to do on a few Saturday nights, but I kept them for more than ten years because I really enjoyed the music even if I didn't know that much about it. I dozed through a few concerts but I found there's nothing like live music.

I still remember a PBS broadcast of Wagner's Ring Cycle that blew me away. And I enjoyed "Swan Lake" when I decided to go to the ballet just because I'd never been before. I went to all the member evenings when MOCA first opened and enjoyed learning about contemporary art. I moved on to other things that I found I preferred (I'm a word person, not so much visual) but I never considered anything too highbrow or exclusive. Challenging, yes, but that's what I like. Show me something I haven't seen before, make me think.

[Alex]

Lyrics for me are just so much noise, but then so is the music.

[€uroMeinke]

Tonight we saw a dance performance, afterwhich the choreographer appeared for a Q&A session with the audeince. He was asked about his background, He was never a dancer. He was pressed to mention his influences, Bhuto perhaps? His response after a moment, "Mile Davis - becasue he is always evolving and I hope to always be evolving."

Brilliant moment - Brilliant performance

[alphabassettgrrl]

I like art I can understand.

Painting- I understand some of the "rules" for composition, and I can appreciate some of it. Or a pretty scene of some kind.

Dance- I understand the technical end of it. I danced on pointe when I was tiny, and I know how difficult some of those moves are, and can appreciate when well done. The stories of ballet are often lost on me; I don't always "get" it. Modern dance, don't get it at all.

Music- lyrics have always been a serious focus for me. I need to know what you're saying, and it had better be worth my time. Lately I have found myself able to focus on a drum line, or a guitar line, and appreciate that for itself. Oddly enough I have rarely found myself moved by poetry; I guess the music is more important than I thought.

I liked the experiential nature of the MOCA exhibit- they tell you the white room is disorienting, so you go stand in it. Huh, it does kind of trip. I get it. It's not just looking at something, but you go stand in it and it messes with your head. I like that.

Never cared if what I liked was "highbrow" or not- I like what I like. I think some people get pretty hung up on "needing" to like a particular piece or style of art, in order to impress other people. I've never had that gene.

[Ghoulish Delight]

I think one of the reasons so many people avoid "highbrow" is that it's difficult to simply enjoy it without studying it. Much of what is considered "highbrow" is stuff that's been around for a long, long time, it's been studied, analyzed, written about over and over again. So even if you enjoy, say, Mozart's music, if you aren't familiar with a certain amount of the "culture", you can't really just say, "Yeah, Mozart rocks," when you meet someone else who appreciates it. And since most people want to just listen to music, not enroll in a 10 week course, it's just easier to pass it up.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

I find it interesting how many people that have posted here seem to find lyrics a distraction. I find myself in the same camp. As a musician, my attention always lies with the instruments and how they are interacting with each other. While there are many lyrics that I do enjoy when I actually take the time to listen, there are countless songs that I have not only listened to, but played for years that if you asked me what the song is about, I would have no clue. The melody that they are singing is forever in my memory, but the message, not so much.

I've had many a discussion with people who are exactly the opposite though, who find the lyrics to be the magical part of the song and the instruments just a distraction. It is interesting to ponder the fact that we can be listening to the same exact pieces of music and yet, in entirely different ways.

It's probably why I am so in love with instrumental jazz. I don't have the distraction of a lyrical message and can just focus on where my interest is. It is probably also one of the reasons that so many don't like instrumental music. There is nothing for them to latch on to.

[Ghoulish Delight]

I'm on the "lyrics are so much noise" side of the fence...but in the same breath, I love a good voice. Whether I understand a word of the lyrics or not, if the musical quality of the vocals grab me, I love it.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

I'm on the "lyrics are so much noise" side of the fence...but in the same breath, I love a good voice. Whether I understand a word of the lyrics or not, if the musical quality of the vocals grab me, I love it.

Couldn't agree more. There are number of vocalists that I adore but I've probably only understood a tenth of the lyrics they have sung.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

I go both ways on lyrics vs melody. As a dance music fan I love really cheesy lyrics that mean nearly nothing but are fun to belt. But I also adore singer songwriter stuff in the tradition of Dylan. I have found, however, that even the best lyric can't save a song with a crappy tune. In the end the sound trumps all.

[€uroMeinke]

For me it's Wan Women Vocals that sell me on a song - plus points if there's an accent.

[Not Afraid]

I think one of the reasons so many people avoid "highbrow" is that it's difficult to simply enjoy it without studying it.

And that's sort of how I feel about "pop culture" (and I use that definition loosly). I don't get it without studying to try and figure out why it is entertaining, thoughtful, useful, funny, etc....... and then I find it just doesn't hold my attention or compell me in any way - for the most part. But, I like the challenge of odd stuff that makes me work.

And then sometimes I like what is considered.

But, I don't have a general highbrow/lowbrow definition in my vocabulary of understanding. I like what I like and have a decent background of experience to build upon so it is fun for me to streach. Although, I get stuck in the snob category quite a bit for what I respond to. Oh well......

[€uroMeinke]

I'm not sure about the whole highbrow/lowbrow thing. I understand that there are communities, disciplins, and institutions that can make certain cultural elements forboding - but by and large most "good" art was popular in some way.

Now, I guess there are books and works that make reference to others, and the enjoyment of those works are enhanced by having that knowledge, but I think any work despite it's brow-level usually can stand on it's own.

So I can read Candide and not know about Leibnitz, logical postitivists, or the history of the Porteguese earthquake of whatever date it was. Granted if I do, I may get a bit more out of it - but it's still a pleasure to read none-the-less - or I think so anyway.

I suppose another element of great works is that people like to talk about them, speculate, theorize, draw connections, etc. Often that is what the "art" community is all about - much like the fan base of a popular work.

Similarly, I can't read music or play an instrument but I enjoy lots of different forms of music, including classical. I listen and either I respond, or I don't. Sometimes my response evolves over time.

When I first heard Philip Glass, I couldn't get past its repetativeness but over time I found his music stuck with me and I started seeking him out and ultimately found his work quite compelling. Maybe I wasn't ready for him when I first heard him, but I nver went out of my way to study minimalism or his musical predicessors - rather I think over time my way of listening changed.

[lindyhop]

I'm not sure about the whole highbrow/lowbrow thing. I understand that there are communities, disciplins, and institutions that can make certain cultural elements forboding - but by and large most "good" art was popular in some way.

Now, I guess there are books and works that make reference to others, and the enjoyment of those works are enhanced by having that knowledge, but I think any work despite it's brow-level usually can stand on it's own.
When I was attending the Long Beach Symphony I always took advantage of the pre-concert lectures. Just about every symphony orchestra offers these programs but Long Beach is unique because so many people attend (guest conductors are always stunned by the crowd). Usually they talk about the composers and preview some of the main themes of the music and that's helpful when you're hearing something for the first time. But when there was a piece of music that really connected with me it never depended on what I knew about it ahead of time because I wasn't hearing it with my conscious mind, instead my whole body "heard" it. That's not going to happen with every piece of music (no matter what style) but the more open you are the more likely it will.

So I can read Candide and not know about Leibnitz, logical postitivists, or the history of the Porteguese earthquake of whatever date it was. Granted if I do, I may get a bit more out of it - but it's still a pleasure to read none-the-less - or I think so anyway.
A great piece of art should be accessible without knowing all the background, that's what makes it timeless. Of course there may be language or culture issues that we have to get past.

I suppose another element of great works is that people like to talk about them, speculate, theorize, draw connections, etc. Often that is what the "art" community is all about - much like the fan base of a popular work.
I was a literature major at one point but I never quite fit in because I read for enjoyment and I never enjoyed the analysis of symbolism and all that other stuff. I read Dante's Inferno for a class and later read Purgatorio and Paradiso on my own. I loved Purgatorio, I thought it was the most human of the three and honestly I thought parts of it were hilarious. Later when I went back to school I had a chance to take a class where we were going to read Purgatorio and I was so excited to be able to share it with a group of people. But the way we had to read and interpret the book pretty much killed it for me. If your only exposure to the classics has been through school then I can understand why you might never want to try them again.

Similarly, I can't read music or play an instrument but I enjoy lots of different forms of music, including classical. I listen and either I respond, or I don't. Sometimes my response evolves over time.

When I first heard Philip Glass, I couldn't get past its repetativeness but over time I found his music stuck with me and I started seeking him out and ultimately found his work quite compelling. Maybe I wasn't ready for him when I first heard him, but I nver went out of my way to study minimalism or his musical predicessors - rather I think over time my way of listening changed.
This so true, sometimes we just aren't ready for something. I read The Great Gatsby in college and it was a big yawn. I read it again a few years ago and I was amazed how much the book had improved in that time. It was the book that changed, right?

[€uroMeinke]

In chatting some more about this last night, I realized I seldom do any "research" before accessing a work. Rather, I come to a work and it inspires me to learn more about it, place it into context, learn about the influences, etc. I guess I'm just curious in that way.

Maybe this also points out different ways of thinking. When we went to the MOCA exhibit, some people would read the catalogue first before viewing the art, to get a better understanding of what they are about (much like the pre-concert talks). Whereas I looked at the art first, and read the copy later.

[Not Afraid]

We also tend to go into our the audience of the dance performances we attend without doing much research and then, follow it up with a post performance talk with the company, reading the program notes or doing further research at home. Although, now we often have at least a minimal context for the stuff we seem to see.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

I seem to have a tendency to bring up jazz a lot when I talk about art. Probably, it is simply because it is one of the artforms that I have the most familiarity with and the best personal understanding of. So I guess I'll bring it up again in the hopes that it adds something to the discussion of appreciation of art at different levels.

Jazz is something that you usually love or hate. I'm not talking Kenny G. pop jazz, but the far less accessable Coltrane, Monk, or Parker type of jazz. Much of it can be heard as noise or as magnificent, depending on the listener, but there are also many different levels of appreciation in between those two extremes.

For some, they just like the sounds of the piano or the light, bouncy, elements of the rhythm. Others might appreciate the underlying melody that is being suggestively danced around by the lead instrument and how the melody is implied, rather than explicitly stated. On an even deeper level, one might appreciate how the chord structure itself is cleverly implied through the use of chord substitution. There are so many levels to the appreciation but whether one has the ear and knowledge to dissect the intricacies or rather, just enjoys the toe tapping feeling that they get from the song, there is plenty of room for everyone to find something about it that they enjoy. The trick is to give it a chance and try to keep your mind open. The level that you wish to try to understand and relate is up to you but that doesn't mean that it can't be enjoyed at a variety of different levels.

I assume that the artforms I am less familiar with have similar aspects. I love paintings and photography and sculpture and dance but I don't understand all of them enough to develop a deep appreciation of them. There is still a lot of stuff that speaks to me and evokes emotion, even from my "lowbrow" perspective. :)

[Gemini Cricket]

For me, the Opera sometimes bores me if they don't supply you with a translation if it is in a foreign tongue. Most especially when it's one I am not familiar with. 'La Boheme' I could sit through without a translation.

Classical music is wonderful but I have fallen asleep during a couple of concerts. I guess it is lack of some sort of storyline or plot. I know that's pretty pathetic of me, but I need that often.

Ballet and dance concerts are fun to watch sometimes, but that to leaves me feeling bored if it is a piece I don't connect to.

The majority of the opera performances, classical music concerts and dance concerts I have been to I went because I knew someone involved with the production. On my own, I'm not sure if I'd go.

Money is also a factor. Tickets can be pricey.

Also at any function, if I find the crowd too bourgeois*, I begin to detest the particular function I'm at.

*I don't know if that's how you spell it. I've said it lots and lots but I think this is the first time I spelled out the word... (It sounds like: boozh-wa)
:D

[€uroMeinke]

Also at any function, if I find the crowd too bourgeois*, I begin to detest the particular function I'm at.

Heh, regardless of function I always enjoy watching the corwd, I always like to make up storeis (for good and bad) how each got to the same place we're at.

[Gemini Cricket]

Heh, regardless of function I always enjoy watching the corwd, I always like to make up storeis (for good and bad) how each got to the same place we're at.
I do that sometimes. I usually do that at the park.

I also sit and wonder at opera performances, who decided for all the old ladies in the world that opera = big cluster hair and furs.
:D

[innerSpaceman]

I find the thread in this thread about lyrics to be most interesting. Perhaps I'm in the minority, but I think lyrics are vitally important. I hate when I can't understand what the singer is "saying." While it's true that so much is told musically, it's also true that if a song has lyrics - - most of its communication is through language.

I always look up lyrics when I can't understand them from being sung. I must know what is being told by the human voice. And while I can appreciate foreign language vocals for the musicality of voice, I feel like I am missing something dreadfully important when I can't understand the language. (Which is why I prefer the case of Cirque du Soleil, which features a made-up language that truly relies only on vocal musicality to communicate).


Interestingly, lyrics are one of the amazing things about human memory. Most people can remember most lyrics to most songs for absofreakinglutely ever. The brain pathways to musical lyrics are the most reliable memory pathways in the human mind. We remember song lyrics we unconsciously learned 20 years ago, but remember little else from 20 years ago. We may not remember what we did last weekend, but we will recall lyrics of a song we heard on the radio 238 weekends ago.

[innerSpaceman]

[This may be the first of many double posts, as I am just having time now to respond to this fantastic thread ... which I'm glad is seeing a bit of a resurgence (since I missed it the first time around).]



I think one of the reasons I prefer music over visual arts is that music can be heard everywhere and anywhere. I do not need to go to a gallery or a museum to experience music.

And while it is true that live music is appreciably better than recorded music, I do not feel anyone is missing the essence of a musical piece if they are listening to a reproduced version that's been recorded. The same cannot be said of art. Most artworks I have seen are far, far different in person ... with say a photographic or print representation being a mere 2-D image of a three-dimensional work (even "flat" paintings owe so much to the texture of the work).


Photography may be one of the world's great achievements for its ability to provide images of things that people might not otherwise see. But recorded music is, imo, a far greater miracle of human endeavor. Think of how much less music would be in each of our lives if our experiences of live music were our only experiences of music. How much richer are our lives than those of our ancestors now that music is transferable, portable, everywhere, and at our fingertips!?!

[innerSpaceman]

As for so-called high culture ... I despise opera and ballet. Mind you, I LOVE LOVE and LOVE dance, but ballet is far from my favorite form of it. Opera, to me, is absurd if you don't understand the language of the piece. That rules out 98.6% of opera for me.

I guess I'm more lowbrow in my tastes of musical theater and dance, both of which I adore. I happen to love classical music, so I'm pretty highbrow there .... however, I would get kicked out of bougeouis salon society if they ever learned that I consider film scores to be the classical music of our day, and love them accordingly. John Williams or Ludwig von Beethovan, it's all orchestral masterwork to me.

[Gemini Cricket]

Opera in English kind of throws me whenever I see it on PBS. It... just... doesn't... seem... right...

I adore musical theatre. Love it, love it. My only problem with it is that as soon as I see one I like, I have to go out and buy the CD soundtrack... That can get expensive because those CDs never seem to go on sale.
:)

[Not Afraid]

I LOVE contemporary dance. LOVE IT!
I don't love classical Ballet
I sort of like opera but I don't seek it out
I really like the contemporary opera I've seen live (Satyagraha)
I appreciate classical music, both old and new, but it's not what I listen to the most.
I LOVE music of the now in all, welll most, forms.
I love all art - I respond to most types of visual stimulation.
What I don't respond to well is contemporary Broadway musicals.

So, in looking at what I really love, it is the new stuff that really turns me on. I'm not very highbrow in the classical sense at all. Although, all visual art is exciting to me. I think I just like to get a peak under the tent towards the now and future of art and culture.

[Prudence]

I have kind of a love/hate attitude toward classical ballet. I admire the physical agility and grace, but I'm not a big fan of the physical demands on dancers, the same way I'm not a big fan of the environment around some sports. (I'm all for the best of the best, but I'm don't like it when "the best" is achieved through unhealthy means.)

I like some modern dance that incorporates the techniques from classical ballet without the assigned gender roles (girl looks pretty and twirls en pointe, guy gets to jump and lift.) I dislike modern dance that is allegedly enacting a theme or story so obscure that it has to be explained to me in the program.

Opera -- again, a little love/hate. Recitatives annoy me. Sing or don't sing. I realize this is sort of what makes opera opera and not musical theatre, but it's the part I don't like. But aside from that - it's like musical theatre to classical music and I love it.

Musical theatre -- For the most part, I love musical theatre. But honestly, I prefer the earlier stuff. Once you hit the Andrew Lloyd Webber years I kind of stop paying attention. There are exceptions that prove the rule, of course.

Non-musical theatre -- Hard to describe what I like and don't, except that like modern dance, I don't like the "look at me! I'm modern and avant garde!" plays.

Love classical music. Love renaissance music. Love baroque music. Love early polyphonic music. Love contemporary classical that sounds like it might be one of the above.

Art? not my best subject. I sort of "get it" up through the impressionists. I'm a little skeptical of post-impressionists and by the time you hit cubists I'm totally lost.

[alphabassettgrrl]

ISM, I'm with you on the lyrics. I very much enjoy them. I thought I was the only one who searched for them when I can't understand them from the song! :) It's one reason I like buying the CDs- they often have the lyrics printed there for me.

I'm learning to appreciate the instrument lines and their interactions.

[€uroMeinke]

...While it's true that so much is told musically, it's also true that if a song has lyrics - - most of its communication is through language.

As a former communications major, I'll have to challenge you on that. Even in face to face conversations your lucky if you get anywhere near 50% of the communication happening through the words.

[€uroMeinke]

Think of how much less music would be in each of our lives if our experiences of live music were our only experiences of music. How much richer are our lives than those of our ancestors now that music is transferable, portable, everywhere, and at our fingertips!?!


I was thinking this the other day as I was enjoying my iPod on the Metro. But I also thought that with all this musical technology few of us ever make our own music anymore. Not that I ever sang or played an instrument - but now I don't have to and another creative outlet is now closed (or at least limited) for me and those like me

I think one of the reasons I prefer music over visual arts is that music can be heard everywhere and anywhere. I do not need to go to a gallery or a museum to experience music.

I guess I take the John Cage approach to music and apply it to the visula world as well - that is, the music is all around you - as is the art. Sure you can go to a concert or a gallery, but the world is full of stunning sounds and images. Now that I ride the Metro, I've become more and more inlove with the architecture of this town, and the fashions of it's inhabitants.

This morning I got a kick seeing how people subtly and not-so-subtly aknowledged the occasion of valentires day. The best, a gall in pink and red striped stockings in otherwise well tailored conservative, though hip skirt suit - we traded smiles passing ewach other in the corridors. To be sure it's not the same as viewing a Kandinsky, but the sense of wit, humor, and celebration were conveyed just the same.

[innerSpaceman]

Now that I ride the Metro, I've become more and more inlove with the architecture of this town
Would that be the strip clubs, or the junk yards? :D

But I also thought that with all this musical technology few of us ever make our own music anymore.
Well, I've been putting off learning to play the Sax for over 2 years now, but I don't think that having recorded music so available to me has anything to do with that. Certainly, if anything, my love for the saxophone, acquired via listening to recorded music, is what's inspiring me to learn the instrument in the first place.

In any event, while I think more people may have learned to play music in the days when live music was all music, I maintain that enjoyment of music is far more commonplace, and a life enrichment, now that live music is but a tiny fraction (for most of us) of all music.


Even in face to face conversations your lucky if you get anywhere near 50% of the communication happening through the words.Ah, but this is where I think lyrical songs have it over mere face-to-face conversation. Even in a live performance, the vocalist is not necessarily communicating the song's lyric story through his facial and body language. Lyrics are an artwork whose communication is through the words and vocal expression alone. I love it for that. It is not reliant on physicality the way that conversations are. Its communication is complete, as designed, without that sort of thing.

Physicality may add to the experience, but I don't think the lack of it detracts ... any more than I think hearing recorded music detracts. A live performance may be better, but a recorded performance is "complete" as is.

[lindyhop]

I'm on the side of lyrics when it comes to music. It was so great when they started printing lyrics with albums and CDs so I could stop listening to my favorite records over and over, a few lines at a time, until I had all the lyrics written down. I always love a clever turn of phrase but I'm a word person in most other things, too.