Music and the concept "Boring"

Many people like to dismiss compositions with the critic or if you will excuse of Boredom.

Its “boring” they say. Some would nag and say :” Your music puts me to sleep", among other things.

But my theory is just the opposite. I say that at many instances its not the music that is boring but the listeners are just lazy. I call it laziness not listening. I think that there are two reasons for that . These two reasons aren’t what most of you would assume, it even may be of a surprise to some. I think the reason why people tend to dismiss music as “Boring” is because of a greater expectation from the composer then it used to be back then and the second reason which is very closely tied to the first and that is Time.

Times have changed. Today’s listeners have heard Mozart Beethoven and Mendelssohn. They are familiar with Bach’s masterpieces and Chopin’s piano gems. They have heard the great concertos of Ravel and Brahms and are knowledgeable with Stravinsky and Mahler. Therefore a different reality emerges, a reality that makes the listeners think :” What can he write already that I didn’t hear before?” and the thought continues :” He can’t write like Bach or Mozart.. What’s the use…”.. Therefore listeners tend to look at their watch and say et….next… who’s next?. I have no time for this .. Let me hear something new". Though you can’t blame them for acting this way.. It is a troubling reality nevertheless. The main problem is that new composers' music is not measured with objective measuring ears but rather it is always compared to the greats. Listeners always judge new music next to the music written by the greats. Therefore the concept of time takes a hold in the listeners mind and if he is not impressed quickly, then the piece would be stamped by the mark of “Boredom”. I must admit that I too have been guilty of this as a listener. I also think that the today’s listeners are impatient and are very quick to dismiss and judge. Lets look at it this way:

How do we judge music?

How can one judge a composition?

There are a number of ways.

You can be a professional musician and your musical education clearly points your finger to any flaws you might hear in the music. This is the more uncommon way. For most listeners are not professional musicians and have never attended any music classes or schools.

Another way to judge music is by been a Listener.

This is the way that most of us judge music.

How does a listener judge new music if not from his experience of listening to music for so many years?

Thus when listening, the listener heavily uses the method of comparison. He compares new music with the great music that he had heard before and at many occasions he cant listen to the whole work and he grows impatience with it, because it just doesn’t compare to the great music that he had heard previously. What then we are left here with?

We are left with new music been evaluated using the wrong method of comparison. Comparison is not a way to evaluate a new composition. This method is more suitable when choosing shoes or shopping for sales but not art. Art needs attention and understanding. It also needs to simply to be given a chance. It needs to be looked as a new creation disconnected from all other creations. Because what one artist shows the other artist doesn’t. in short, art needs an individual and objective approach.

At times, the educated musician is also impatience and may be quick to judge. He might use the method of comparison rather then understanding and objectivity. Also one needs to understand that what one might consider as boring others will find great pleasure in. For example I cant make myself sit through a Mahler Symphony. So does this mean that the piece is boring? Not at all. It is my problem .. Its boring for me to listen to a two hour symphony , the “Boring” has to do with me and not the symphony. I expect too much from Mahler to suit my tastes of quick and fast Mendelssohn symphonies. Mahler demands too much from my musical tastes , that could change in the future maybe , but the piece is not “Boring”. Same goes for those who like to dismiss works as “boring” or “pointless”. These pieces are NOT boring, they just don’t speak to you because they don’t match your particular taste in music.

I just wanted to point out some of these things...

You know, you aren't in much of a position to be commenting on the use of the term "boring" in regards to music.

You yourself have deemed the theme of my Symphony in C to be not interesting enough... as you would have made it "more interesting"

"Boring" in music can refer to a number of things: unrelenting repetition; lack of innovation; uninteresting material; and to make things perfectly fair, a lack of knowledge of the musical material at hand by the listener.

So we actually have two distinct situations here. One whereby the composer is not utilizing material to its greatest advantage; and a second where the listener may be so completely unfamiliar with the sort of material presented that concentration is broken through the difficulty of following said material.

Generally speaking, when someone is writing music that is based on common practice harmony, the use of the term "boring" can be understood to mean that the composer's use of that common practice harmony does not distinguish itself from music that preceded it.

Now, the term "innovation" does not need to imply absolute "novelty". It should however include the concept that the composer is at least attempting to create a voice for himself that sets him apart from those that came before.

For the creation of uninteresting material, a composer need only be satisfied with his basest attempts. When the composer does not feel the need to advance his own art, to explore territory that might be outside his usal sphere of creation, then he temds to become complacent and accept the first idea that pops out of his pen, whether it merits being written down or not.

Possibly the most difficult thing for a creative artist, and a composer is no different, is learning when to reject ideas. When a composer jumps at every single idea that pops into his head he starts treading on dangerously thin ice... ice that could make him fall into the frigid waters of complacency.

Now, the opposite side of the coin, is one where the listener, through unfamiliarity with the sort of musical material at hand, cannot retain interest in his listening experience. The inability to concentrate on material can definately lead to a loss of interest. And a lack of familiarity with that material is often the prime cause.

Many times we will come into contact with audience members who are so unfamiliar with more contemporary idioms of music that they fail to find the thematic threads that unify a work. A fine example would be Saulsmusic's reaction to the first movement of my Symphony in C. His comments alluded to making the thematic material "more interesting". And that is simply a euphemism for saying that the thematic material was boring to his ear. I don't consider this an insult in any way. I am fully cognizant that there are people whose musical experience might be more limited and for whom the sounds of more contemporary music might be difficult to comprehend.

Now, as creative artists, we have to be fully aware that if we are using material that is "well worn" to not put too fine a point on it, we DO risk boring our audience.

Does this mean we need to always be doing "new" things? I don't think so. However, I believe it is our duty as creative artists to be pushing our own limits, even if it IS only a little bit. And I also believe that complacency is our very worst enemy.

Comparing two pieces of music and trying to deem if one's better than the other is like trying to compare a marshmallow to another marshmallow to deem if one is whiter than the other. You can't compare anything without having an opinion

Comparing two pieces of music and trying to deem if one's better than the other is like trying to compare a marshmallow to another marshmallow to deem if one is whiter than the other. You can't compare anything without having an opinion

But you can compare two marshmallows to one another and determine which is whiter, especially through analysis of the light patterns bouncing off of them.

I say it can be very, very easy to determine which of two pieces is better objectively. Sometimes it requires specifics, but it's not impossible and not entirely subjective.

But you can compare two marshmallows to one another and determine which is whiter, especially through analysis of the light patterns bouncing off of them.

I say it can be very, very easy to determine which of two pieces is better objectively. Sometimes it requires specifics, but it's not impossible and not entirely subjective.

But when you treat your opinion on which one is better as fact and say that your opinion is right, then it becomes a problem

But when you treat your opinion on which one is better as fact and say that your opinion is right, then it becomes a problem

Sometimes opinion is indistinguishable from fact and fact overlooked as opinion.

The "rules" of music give the listener a certain amount of objective basis on which to found an opinion.

The amount of familiarity with those rules is what gives one listener a different perspective than a different listener.

A listener with nothing but his own subjective ear on which to base his opinion can only decide what pleases him or not. This is not an invalid opinion, but is one that is quantitatively different from the opinion of someone who has more background in music.

If you had a fever, you might ask your mother about your state of health, but her limited medical background would make her "opinion" nothing more than a personal reflection from her experience as a mother. Once at the clinic, you might be seen by a nurse, who would have more of a background from which to make a judgement about your state of health. The doctor you end up seeing, however, is the only one who can diagnose your terminal cancer.

These are three opinions, based on very different backgrounds. Each one valid within a certain context.

Everyone, it seems, has an opinion about music. Everyone, however, is not necessarily well versed enough in music to make more than very personal, subjective comments about how the music affects them.

And since the topic of boredom was the initial impetus for this thread, boredom IS a valid, subjective reaction to listening to music, regardless of musical background.

I don't think that Sauls idea is about comparing 2 pieces of music, but rather to try and pin down why some music seems, appears, is ettiqueted as boring, while other music isn't.

And rightly he mentioned that it's much more a problem of the listener than the composer. Yet of course an unexperienced composer will 99% of the times make a more "boring" piece of music, than an experienced one.

Music should not be judged though, but listened to (or heard? Which one is it?) Music critics judge music and usually suck at this or are bitter because they would love to be composers them selves but never made it :o. Here in YC, it is a forum to provide feedback, so for a brief moment the YC member becomes a critic.

Yes, it all depends on the listener. Most people I meet professionally and socially find Mozart and Beethoven boring and Bach is simply insomnia treatment. The fact I find their music boring (because it's so samey) gives rise to various degrees between grimace and laughter.

Yes, it all depends on the listener. Most people I meet professionally and socially find Mozart and Beethoven boring and Bach is simply insomnia treatment. The fact I find their music boring (because it's so samey) gives rise to various degrees between grimace and laughter.

how terribly sad to generalize about a composer like that :)

I must admit that I find MUCH Mozart boring as well... the lesser works, in particular. However, I am so far from bored when confronted with his masterpieces. I have to admit that it took me YEARS to come to a point where I could appreciate those masterpieces, however. I was never a "fan" of Mozart in my younger days, so I actually needed to relearn how to appreciate it.

In fact, I will admit to boredom at many composers' music, mostly composers of the mid to late romantic period. However, I think it's my reaction to it, a very personal, subjective reaction. The music of the 19th century generally does not interest me. The harmony of that period, the general melodic structures of the period, the over-all forms of the period, none of those things give my musical ear something to wonder at.

But give me something that has some "bite"... Debussy, Ravel, at least, Szymanowski, Lutoslawski, oh yes! Schostakowitch, Copland, Barber, Bernstein, Strawinski.... ahhhhhhhh

The one exception to the "19th century" reaction I have, is the music of Rachmaninov, and even then, his music really is "post romantic", and a product of the Russian nationalist school more than actual 19th century romanticism. Likewise with Sibelius, whose music defies classification.

Yes, well, I personally don't find these composers boring - some works engage me more than others. But I find most genres that hide under the pop umbrella....well, I can't call them insomnia treatment because no chance of getting sleep with that racket...ipcress treatment more like. Same instruments playing the same chord sequences(?)* with the same drizzly wailer slurring about over the top, or castrati-like boys trying to sound like Alison Krause.

*some don't even bother with more than one chord you'd think.

Right now on (UK) Radio 3 some quartet is positively mangling Beethoven's Op 131 in C# minor... they've murdered the Scherzo. I haven't heard a performance that bad in a long time - doesn't bore me, just saddens...

Edit...Jeez, I have to turn it off, the cellist is about .25" out most of the time. He should mark the fingerboard with tapes or something.

lol...

Also heard it...

being 30 years old (almost) right now, I've come to realise that some things come with age. I used to hate Mozart and his simplycity! Only to find out his magestic art later on in my life. I bet that as I grwo older Mozart will take more and more space in my playlist... (This happens only with a very few composers, mind you :))

Other than that there are technical things that you can do, to keep the music interesting... A lulaby, for example will always bring sleep to everyone. Thus it will be boring to put you to sleep. And it works! Not only to my sons, but to me as well (honestly!) A very classical work, that is unknown, is hard to create an emotion like an earthquake (not impossible though). Some work that one, may have heard 15 years ago, and never knew what it was, will click immediately, on the other hand.

All in all, boring is certainly not valid "feedback", but is very true as an "emotion"... ;)

All in all, boring is certainly not valid "feedback", but is very true as an "emotion"... :)

we'll have to disagree on this one.

I believe the term "boring" is a valid expression of a personal sentiment brought on by an experience, musical or otherwise. As long as it is carefully couched in the right narrative: "I was bored...", "I found it boring...", "the repetitive nature of your music was, to my ear, boring...", "I find the music of minimalists boring..." (N.B. I DON'T!!!! it's an example)

Sometimes opinion is indistinguishable from fact and fact overlooked as opinion.

Of course, that's where the comparison and difference between fact and opinion must be made so that they are not overlooked

I find Berlioz's Symphonie Fantastique to be boring and when confronted on why, I feel ambivalent on whether to blame the conductor or the composer.

Boring music is just music that lacks the techniques or musical decorations that you find interesting.

Its kind of pointless to find the differences between boring or lame... or stupid or notanygood or sucky music, because it really all points to the same thing.

Boring music is just music that lacks the techniques or musical decorations that you find interesting.

Its kind of pointless to find the differences between boring or lame... or stupid or notanygood or sucky music, because it really all points to the same thing.

Actually, if you re-read my post, you will notice that I differentiate between two types of perception of boredom. One we can say lays the blame squarely on the shoulders of the creator, while the second resides in the audience's inability to comprehend a particular work of art, often times due to either a lack of familiarity with the idiom of the work, or with the audience's general level of musical knowledge. Not all audiences are musically literate.

Not all audiences are musically literate.

Ah, what a shame too.

actually, to be completely fair, I should have written "not all audiences have the same level of musical literacy".

Some of you people really know how to write!! Are you poets as well as composers? :w00t:

I definitely do not find Mozart boring. I love the singable, memorable, soulful melodies of him, Beethoven, Haydn, and all of the composers from all of those. Bach's harmonies are definitely not boring. They're unbelievably complex, and when performed properly, with such emotion and depth and feeling, they are breathtaking. I don't even find Reich's "Violin Phase" to be boring. The only music I personally find boring are those that completely lack ANY dissonance. Even a diminished ii6 chord. ABSOLUTELY no dissonance. Then the music doesn't MOVE anywhere. It's like several pop and rock ballads. Where it's all I, vi, IV, V. I utterly detest that chord progression. Even a suspension moves the music. But when a song has absolutely no dissonance at all, and it's just stable root chords that are either major or minor triads, I blow my top. I go crazy!

The only music I personally find boring are those that completely lack ANY dissonance.

You mean Mendy?

You know they say that his music is almost perfect...

You mean Mendy?

You know they say that his music is almost perfect...

oh get off it.

get a life.

discover something new to go on about.

"They" say that about a lot of composers.

I've heard "they" say that Copland's music, in particular his 3rd symphony is pure perfection.

I've heard "they" say that Bach's B Minor Mass is musical perfection.

What exactly does it mean?

And who gives a damn?

Are you Mendelssohn-Bartholdy?

Does the compliment to his output in ANY way make YOU the greater for it?

Does "knowing" that his music is "perfect" in ANY way alter your own life? or your own musical output?

oh get off it.

get a life.

discover something new to go on about.

"They" say that about a lot of composers.

I've heard "they" say that Copland's music, in particular his 3rd symphony is pure perfection.

I've heard "they" say that Bach's B Minor Mass is musical perfection.

What exactly does it mean?

And who gives a damn?

Are you Mendelssohn-Bartholdy?

Does the compliment to his output in ANY way make YOU the greater for it?

Does "knowing" that his music is "perfect" in ANY way alter your own life? or your own musical output?

Looks like someone is having a bad day.

What got into you today?

Lolz. It would suprise me if Mendelssohn didn't use dissonance.