For a person who was not yet born when music was initially released, is it possible to enjoy it with the same level of enthusiasm as contemporary music?

there is no situation where new chamber music has been given the same attention and enthusiasm as the works of dead masters

The 18th century perhaps?

(I had a similar thought about 'new music'/'contemporary music'.)

how many aristocrats at any given were really enthusiastic about chamber music vs how many

malformed post

basically were people really passionate about haydn string quartets at the time?

I guess some people must have been. I'm sure they heard them differently from how the later great masters ideologues heard them or how I might hear them depending now on the context in which I encounter them

I can get excited about charlie parker but it's not the same as the excitement of that moment, because of my distance from that social movement I can never really know what it meant in that context I can only project my own meanings onto things which sound cool which may be some of the same things which sounded cool back then but probably had very specific social meanings. neither way is intrinsically better or worse but in some sense I feel that music should be social, because it feels nice to be part of something exciting within a community. even though bebop was probably socially as much as sonically alienating for more people than not so it's a complicated example

How many times would even an aristocrat had a chance to hear a particular string quartet or staging of an opera? Four times in a lifetime? Twenty? Music before mass produced parlor pianos and Victrolas was a completely different context of appreciation AFAIK.

No one went to the opera to hear the music

Based solely on personal history, an easy "yes" for me. My cutoff date, 1961, opens the question up to all the early rock and roll and doo-wop, and I have felt some of that as deeply as anything from my lifetime. The question is confused somewhat--maybe this is addressed in previous comments--by the difference between hearing music before you were born and hearing music released during your lifetime but hearing it for the first time years later. Is there a difference?

Mozart was enthusiastic about Haydn's string quartets.

There's nothing else like release date anticipation when you have a plan to physically buy something you haven't heard before.

There's also nothing quite like the feeling of abundant fresh dopeness, the more overwhelming the better. A moment arrives when there's suddenly a LOT of really good new music all at once. For some reason it does hit me harder when it arrives with a multitude of shared experiences, like hearing it on the radio, or on friends' mixes or playlists, or on a video show like 120 Minutes, or just heard out in the world while experiencing life.

I guess for me, the experience isn't that dissimilar from when I would discover 8 or 9 albums from the 70s or from some list or blog and burn them onto a CDR or throw together an 80s mix of songs that were somewhat new to me. This is also exciting, but the lack of shared experience makes a big difference.

"You had to be there" seems about right. I was probably most immersed in first-listen-Beatles around age 10-11, freshly hearing lots of stuff from different eras all at once.

As fun as that was, I honestly don't think it can compare to bringing home a new record and hearing "Taxman" "She Said She Said" and "Tomorrow Never Knows" for the first time on the same day as several million other people.

in some sense I feel that music should be social, because it feels nice to be part of something exciting within a community.

It's interesting to think about at what point in history did music start being made for non-social contexts ... it feels like it was relatively recently

"hearing music before you were born"

In the womb? As is probably evident, I meant to say "hearing music from before you were born"...

like, how recently was it that music could be made by one person only for the primary purpose of being listened to be a person in solitude? Like, the act of creation / conditions of production (sorry Left inspired me) of music was inherently social for a very long time.

*listened to by a person in solitude not listened to be

For most of human history music was not merely social, but seems to have had ritualistic, spiritual or utilitarian functions (like work chants).

This whole discussion makes me think of a response to Rolling Stone's list of top rap albums that was published on Stereogum: that one can't reduce rap to a list of albums to be consumed when what's important is the entire culture that it derives from and reflects.

Put it this way.

We've all been to small one-room clubs that are a bit run down but a good vibe etc, watching a band go over well, followed by another one and a bit of a disco Inbetween.

So, we can imagine being down the 100 club and it's Sex Pistols supported by Subway Sect, let's say.

Now, a lot of people would sell their first born to be able to go back in time and be there. Only to find it's less whelming than they thought...

Case in point: first time we visited NY, I thought should we go down to CBGBs?
No, I decided. Crummy room by all accounts, see a band that's merely ok maybe, come away thinking we'd rather have done xxx that evening.
And then that band become world famous and now it's hey I saw them in NY nobody knew who they were etc...

My point being, um..

On the one full day I spent in New York City, I took a highly abbreviated Rock 'n' Roll walking tour which consisted of strolling past CBGBs on the opposite side of the street, seeing the Dakota from Central Park and checking out Great Jones Street in honour of DeLillo's novel. That very slight experience was enough to give me just enough extra context to feel I've got some connection when I hear or read about those places.

My point being that the human imagination can run with very little stimulus, not that walking past a building once in 2000 is equivalent to going there 200 nights a year in the mid-70s.

the human imagination can run with very little stimulus

ILX being a case in point.

definitely. I’m playing Grace Jones’ “The Apple Stretching” right now thanx to your post

There are musicians that as kids got obsessed with certain types of music and then made the leap to learning to play it that are often in styles long past their lives. My thoughts would be like people that pick up learning traditional say fiddle music or folk or jazz or even classical music.

but do they have the passion of beliebers? WE WILL NEVER KNOW.

I think it's the other way about. All the kids I knew who were into jazz and classical growing up started with the music lessons. They really liked the music they were learning to play. That's probably also the kids who like rock now.

I don't know enough to vote but hope the answer would be yes; otherwise I think you're basically saying music does not transmit/communicate as language does; it has to.

I don't honestly know how anyone could seriously answer "no" to the literal question, as phrased in the OP. If one person exists who enjoys music made before their borth as much as contemporary music, the answer is "yes". Fun springboard for conversation, though.

*birth

And then that band become world famous and now it's hey I saw them in NY nobody knew who they were etc...

It was the Strokes? (my guess)

It wasn't anybody : I didn't go.

But, quite .

in all my years of going to shows, the only times i've had that experience its always been bands i hated. i would be a terrible A&R person.

There are musicians that as kids got obsessed with certain types of music and then made the leap to learning to play it that are often in styles long past their lives

not sure whether to focus on the "as kids" part or the "learning to play" part ... we kinda keep coming back to the aspect of youth in re enthusiasm. I feel like there are a fair number of musicians who came to be passionate about certain "older" styles as adults ... but is the level of enthusiasm the same?

xxp Ah sorry, I misread your post. I mean, sure, most CB’s bills were generic hardcore bands or whatever that would not leave an impression or become world famous…

Although there is something nice about a band having a big moment I really don't miss the buzz and hype because it inevitably started feeling a bit yucky, not in any kind of principled or ethical way, but just in the way of needing variety and to appreciate things in your own time. I think I can enjoy old music more in some ways because I can put it away when I want and perhaps the flavor feels enough of a contrast to be able to enjoy it more sometimes, but maybe that's just as true for most bands today. I guess it's not true for the Beatles because they're never away that long.

Maybe it always improves appreciation when it's your own choice when you want to engage with something.

1. Language acquisition seems to have an age of porousness. Most people learn their native language and one or two others during this period of porousness. It's possible to acquire a language in adulthood but it's rare.

2. Similarly, modern people seem to be EXTREMELY porous to music in their teens. For most people I know, the music they liked when they were aged approximately 12 to 18 has special status. Of course you can still evolve and learn, but it's tough to replicate that thrill. Note that for me it's more about what you liked when you were that age, not just what was released when you were that age.

In my preteen and teen years I liked my parents' records (Beatles, Beach Boys, Motown, folk, jazz, classical), then I liked 80s pop, then I liked "classic rock," then I liked 90s indie. My overarching belief was that it was all a gorgeous smorgasbord and everyone could partake according to their taste and wishes.

3. Music I play, music people like, and music that makes money are completely mon-overlapping circles in my world, and I am okay with that.

I think it was "This is Your Brain on Music" -- the book, that talked about this in terms of neuroscience. Pretty sure we discussed it at length when it came out, but I don't remember the thread, and I'm not saying this in a prescriptive way ... more like the opposite, "I don't even remember what thread it was, so it sounds like enough time has elapsed to revisit it."

1. Language acquisition seems to have an age of porousness. Most people learn their native language and one or two others during this period of porousness. It's possible to acquire a language in adulthood but it's rare.
― your marshmallows may vary (Ye Mad Puffin), Saturday, July 16, 2022 8:48 PM (one hour ago) bookmarkflaglink

I'd say that people don't learn languages in adulthood mainly because they don't need to, not because they have lost the ability.

I'd say that people don't learn languages in adulthood mainly because they don't need to, not because they have lost the ability.

Speaking as someone who has studied multiple languages as an adult, it's really fucking hard to get anything to sink in, and the minute you stop practicing/using a language you're trying to acquire, your brain shits it right back out. I took a couple of years' worth of Japanese courses in college and remember none of it. I have spent nearly 30 years living in a town where Spanish is spoken basically everywhere, and I can...kinda order food? The last few years I've been learning Swedish and Norwegian, and I keep those in my head by following a bunch of Scandinavian people on Twitter and watching lots of Scandinavian TV shows on Netflix.

Of course, but learning Japanese or Norwegian for fun is different from changing countries, needing to learn a language for work, etc.

I don't think feeling enthusiastic about a new piece of music is analogous to learning a new language tbf.

It's not a perfect analogy, no, I only mean that lots of people seem to have that "period of porousness."

If you don't - that is, if you keep acquiring new musical fascinations well past adolescence - it means that you may be an ilx0r and/or an outlier. Doesn't mean that the generalization doesn't contain a grain of truth for the 6-CD crowd.

I definitely think there is truth behind language acquisition porousness being harder as one ages -- I definitely see the difference in two of my good friends, both moved from Eastern Europe to America before adulthood. One moved when they were about 8 years old, and occasionally the accent of their home country comes out, but in general, their English sounds like someone born in America speaking English. The other moved to America as a teenager, and they have a much stronger native accent. Both came over with a parent or parents, frequently communicate with said parent or parents, and mostly in the language of the home country.

There's also the issue of "language ego" which I think is more individual and maybe genetic? ... and that also is a factor.

Music porousness is more about what psychologists call "openness", and that also decreases with age (but interestingly, psilocybin boosts your openness). This is why most people's taste and opinions cement as they get older.

Also, are we really debating whether language acquisition gets harder with age? Isn't that just commonly accepted? It does seem like a weird analogy for music enthusiasm though.

FWIW, I'm a firm "no" on the original question. If you can't go see the band live, anticipate new releases, react to latest news, etc, you're only getting a facimile of the full 360-degree experience. (and it sure helps to be 21 when it's all happening)

relevant meme interruption!

https://i.redd.it/cej4wltksxb91.jpg

have read the entire thread twice so far. this went way better than i anticipated. thanks for thoughts, everyone!

That meme would be funny with Kate Bush references (which I imagine exists)

I'm happy to see the research but rn not sure I agree that most people are especially open or porous regarding music as teenagers, at least in the sense of being open to and non-judgmental about diverse and challenging musical experiences. Lots of teenagers have very narrow palates. It DOES seem to be true that a lot of people feel the strongest attachment to music they liked as kids or adolescents but I put that down to nostalgia for the soundtrack of a formative and emotionally intense stage of life more than to a higher level of openness at that age.

Like, loving "Glycerine" more than you'll ever love any other music doesn't really say anything to me about openness.

I agree w/Sund4r

I agree with Sund4r re it being more about attachment than "openness" but also, I think it is kinda related to the social aspect of music, especially for teenagers.