Karl Miller wrote:

>As Dave also points out, we all bring our own perspective to music.
>For me, my reaction to modern styles was quite different.  I had heard
>some early Schoenberg and loved it.  Yet when I heard some of the 12 tone
>work I felt that my lack of appreciation was due to my own ignorance.
>I listened a great deal and find that works like his Piano Concerto are
>incredibly beautiful.  As for the String Trio...still can't find anything
>in that piece!

I had a similar experience.  I have grown to like the piano concerto
a great deal, though for me it's the piano music that is the continuing
mystery.  But it did take time, and that's one of the complicating factors
in the discussion.  There is something to the idea that repeated exposure
allows us to hear new, sometimes wonderful things in music, even music that
we initially found unappealing.  In fact, this is at the very core of the
value of classical music for me.  Repeated listenings reveal new
dimensions, etc.

>And for me...the use of the word ugly as the opposite of beauty is so
>subjective that I find little meaning in it.  Some can find beauty most
>everywhere and others will find ugliness just as often.

Yes, and I'm not trying to define beauty or convince someone that something
they think is beautiful is actually ugly.  I agree that is a zero-sum game.
What I found interesting, and what caused me to post in the first place,
was the fact that Robert was saying that he too found the music ugly but it
was supposed to be that way, and as a reflection of our wretched existence
it was good art.  That's something I'd like to explore further as it is
antithetical to my view of good art.

Dave
[log in to unmask]
http://www.classical.net/