Taste

We humans are remarkably similar - especially in our baser respects many of which can be summed up as one or another expression of self-gratification. And so it can come as a bit of a surprise when our tastes differ so much.

Mowgli: You eat ants?
Baloo: You better believe it. And you're gonna love the way they tickle. 

Or olives, lettuce, avocado, prawns (I call them bugs), black (blood) pudding... not that I won't eat those things but they wouldn't exactly be my favourite. Snails and frogs legs I haven't even tried, nor do I intend to.

I may have mentioned that I live in a community - there are about 35 of us. There can be some interesting clashes of taste especially with décor and household goods. Having said that we have largely learnt to push through such differences, otherwise we wouldn't still be living together. But I still ponder how one person can specifically choose an item that is distasteful, even abhorrent, to another.

Music can be defined as "vocal or instrumental sounds (or both) combined in such a way as to produce beauty of form, harmony, and expression of emotion" but Wikipedia adds that defining music turns out to be more difficult than might first be imagined. Because here the range of tastes is so wide that any one person might not, even with the best will, be able to squeeze all that is labelled music into his or her personal understanding of the word. Even within the community here, which is relatively conservative, the range of tastes is wide enough to include (not wishing to offend) sound that, to me, is just jangling noise.

We (not me) bake our own bread so that, at lunch time, the bread served is often fresh out of the oven. This alone is a compelling reason for remaining part of the community. Furthermore, folk ahead of me in the queue often leave the crusts and thus I get to have the very best part of the loaf! So I find that differing tastes can actually work in one's favour. The key here is to decide to like something that few others do.

I was reminded of such things when I read this review of Bruckner's music (my emphasis):

His music doesn’t titillate, it doesn’t go in for surface excitement, and you’ll be hard pressed to find a single whistleable tune in his entire output. His orchestration isn’t glamorous, he doesn’t employ seductive harmonies and, what’s more, his symphonies last up to an hour-and-a-quarter in length.

Thankfully a David Singerman of Birmingham City University adds the following comment to the web-site which so admirably sums up my own response:

You made the absurd statement that you can't find a single whistleable tune in his entire output. Bruckner, in fact wrote some of the most beautiful melodies in the 19th century. Just listen to the opening of the 7th symphony, or the numerous beautiful themes in the second movement. The moderato theme in that movement is in my opinion the most beautiful melody ever written. The second theme of the slow movement of the 5th symphony was called by Robert Simpson in "The Essence of Bruckner" as one of the world's great melodies. Or listen to the Benedictus of the F minor mass. Throughout his music, Bruckner wrote one beautiful melody after another.

Or in another damning review:

Amsterdam's Concertgebouw, who visit London's Barbican... to perform three Bruckner symphonies, will unleash sounds of orchestral ugliness and visions of existential disturbance that will - that should - have you quaking in your seats.

Granted you are unlikely to hear Bruckner on Lyric-fm or in any performance in the National Concert Hall but there are plenty of recordings available to make up for this sad omission. I am happy enough that so few have any taste for Bruckner, or fresh crusts, or evaporated milk, because it helps to keep these things sacrosanct for those of us that really appreciate them.