Dear Leo,
Even though I am a musician, I am not fond of all types of music, nor all genres of presentation. I have found I prefer music without words, artistic compositions more than popular works, symphony or ballet (and a few operas) over theater or musicals, sacred over secular, nuanced more than dramatic, solo more than ensemble, contemplative more than directive, quiet more than loud, engaging the interior world more than the extroverted.
I find that many people who are not musicians are often surprised to learn of musicians who don't love all music (but then they also tend to be people who prefer anything popular and contemporary over all else). However, if they really thought about it, wouldn't they realize that the more a person knows about, experiences, and works with something, the more detailed and refined their particular preferences will be? It doesn't mean I can't find something to appreciate in nearly any musical expression; for my education has helped me develop tools (ways of listening, thinking, analyzing) that make everything more accessible to me. What seems to be less obvious is this: I will also know myself better, and what my true preferences are, and why, and how that is good! Just as there are some (usually novice music-majors) who think it's the highest form of enlightenment to find what's lacking in every work without connecting with what moves them (a mis-use of critical thinking); I think it's equally dishonest and immature to think we must find equal value in all styles, genres, etc. I.e. my broad (and educated) appreciation for any musical expression allows me to choose my own preferences because I am freed from a passive dependence on the preferences of my social milieu.
Because of this view, I know there are some (many?) who would label me as "elitist." I could be. However, I know people who have similar views as mine but also have great disdain for any "lesser" view and are even dismissive of persons who dare to express their love for something "lesser." Contrasted to that, I simply recognize that my passion for my chosen particulars is equally legitimate to anyone else's passion whether theirs be more or less diverse/inclusive than mine.
Truly enlightened "tolerance" will positively value (not just passively accept) the diversity of individuals' varying preferences, and does not expect nor attempt to force conformity to one homogeneous preference for everything!
Thanks for listening!
~Mack
Even though I am a musician, I am not fond of all types of music, nor all genres of presentation. I have found I prefer music without words, artistic compositions more than popular works, symphony or ballet (and a few operas) over theater or musicals, sacred over secular, nuanced more than dramatic, solo more than ensemble, contemplative more than directive, quiet more than loud, engaging the interior world more than the extroverted.
I find that many people who are not musicians are often surprised to learn of musicians who don't love all music (but then they also tend to be people who prefer anything popular and contemporary over all else). However, if they really thought about it, wouldn't they realize that the more a person knows about, experiences, and works with something, the more detailed and refined their particular preferences will be? It doesn't mean I can't find something to appreciate in nearly any musical expression; for my education has helped me develop tools (ways of listening, thinking, analyzing) that make everything more accessible to me. What seems to be less obvious is this: I will also know myself better, and what my true preferences are, and why, and how that is good! Just as there are some (usually novice music-majors) who think it's the highest form of enlightenment to find what's lacking in every work without connecting with what moves them (a mis-use of critical thinking); I think it's equally dishonest and immature to think we must find equal value in all styles, genres, etc. I.e. my broad (and educated) appreciation for any musical expression allows me to choose my own preferences because I am freed from a passive dependence on the preferences of my social milieu.
Because of this view, I know there are some (many?) who would label me as "elitist." I could be. However, I know people who have similar views as mine but also have great disdain for any "lesser" view and are even dismissive of persons who dare to express their love for something "lesser." Contrasted to that, I simply recognize that my passion for my chosen particulars is equally legitimate to anyone else's passion whether theirs be more or less diverse/inclusive than mine.
Truly enlightened "tolerance" will positively value (not just passively accept) the diversity of individuals' varying preferences, and does not expect nor attempt to force conformity to one homogeneous preference for everything!
Thanks for listening!
~Mack
I agree with you Mack about the importance of true tolerance. To expect a musician to enjoy all music equally makes no more sense to me than to expect a chef to relish any kind of food, an artist to treasure all artwork, or an architect to equally value all buildings. And to call someone "elitist" for being educated in an understanding of the history and culture and creation by which the work came into being is to be anti-culture, or to put it straight, to value ignorance. We Americans seem to do that too frequently. Tolerance does not mean we sweep away our values and knowledge, it means we are open to learning about the history and culture and creation of work and art and people less familiar to us. And still we will have preferences. We are individuals with histories and cultures and educations that have shaped us. Conformity is boring, while preferences are an expression of our individuality.
ReplyDelete