Comfort Zone --- Good or Bad?

[Florestan]

(This thread is inspired by two separate ongoing discussions in other threads.)

We all know what a comfort zone is, musically speaking.

What do you think, staying mostly within one's comfort zone is bad or good? Discuss.

[DavidW]

For many of us if we didn't push ourselves past our comfort zone we wouldn't be classical music listeners.  But I think that constantly pushing to hear new things is not rewarding for me.  I won't like something just because it is novel or different.  I like to stay in my comfort zone and sometimes venture out.  With the right music listened to at exactly the right time, that venture out of the zone can be very rewarding.  But I can't force myself to like things.  And I'm a person.  Most of the time I'm not excited to try new things and not receptive to it.  It is more about knowing when I am feeling receptive to new experiences and immediately jump on it in that window.

[Jo498]

This is impossible to answer in general. For an analogue case: If someone's comfort zone is one's apartment and venturing beyond to run errands etc. causes strong discomfort, this person is likely suffering some psychological disorder.
Unless there is a civil war outside, then it's perfectly rational or it might in fact be more daring than rational to even stay in this apartment and a rational person would long have fled to safer grounds

I am not against extending a comfort zone but I am not seeking out uncontrolled discomfort for its own sake.

[Mandryka]

What do you think, staying mostly within one's comfort zone is bad or good? Discuss.

Bad. It's the mark of a boring, conceited, self satisfied, closed minded, arrogant person.

[Todd]

What do you think, staying mostly within one's comfort zone is bad or good? Discuss.

Depends on the person.  Some people are content to stay in their comfort zones and it works for them.  I get bored sticking with the same old thing and crave novelty, even if I end up disliking something new. 

Bad. It's the mark of a boring, conceited, self satisfied, closed minded, arrogant person.

That's too harsh.  It's fine to be content with the same old thing.

Dr. Peter Weller says it best, or at least that is who I heard it from, "You don't know what you like, you like what you know."

He also famously said "No matter where you go, there you are."

[Florestan]

Bad. It's the mark of a boring, conceited, self satisfied, closed minded, arrogant person.

Says the guy whose least favorite composers are Beethoven and Liszt...

I get bored sticking with the same old thing

Says the guy whose favorite pastime is listening to Beethoven's piano sonatas again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again...

(Sorry, Mandryka and Todd --- just couldn't resist)

[Todd]

Says the guy whose favorite pastime is listening to Beethoven's piano sonatas again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again...

That reinforces my point.  If I were to stick to listening to Alfred Brendel and Claudio Arrau and claiming that they were the best available options, it would exclude a vast array of valid and superior interpretations.  Sticking to old recordings from decades ago is boring and diminishes the value of the greatest music.

Plus, I listen to other stuff.

[Mandryka]

It's fine to be content with the same old thing.

I'm not sure I agree. Staying within the comfort zone, in an area as lively as music, is either a mark of profound incuriosity or pathological timidity or . . . or what?

It's like people who never travel, who have no interest in otherness because they are so happy where they are. I can't help but see it as a failing.

But I can see that constant seeking the new is also a failing, Ohne Ruh', und suche Ruh' , a Winterreise.


Maybe we need to do an Aristotle, find the mean between restless quest of otherness and contentment with the same.

[Todd]

I'm not sure I agree. Staying within the comfort zone, in an area as lively as music, is either a mark of profound incuriosity or pathological timidity or . . . or what?

If some people like the same old stuff, more power to them.  If others are more adventurous, more power to them.  Psychoanalysis of others' listening preferences does not seem to be a good use of time.

[Mandryka]

If some people like the same old stuff, more power to them.  If others are more adventurous, more power to them.  Psychoanalysis of others' listening preferences does not seem to be a good use of time.

Post edited with some further thoughts while you were responding.

[Florestan]

That reinforces my point.  If I were to stick to listening to Alfred Brendel and Claudio Arrau and claim that they were the best available options, it would exclude a vast array of valid and superior interpretations.  Sticking to old recordings from decades ago is boring and diminishes the value of the greatest music.

That's fair enough --- although I have never ever made the point that one should stick to old recordings from decades ago, much less claimed that they were the best available options.

And yet --- let's say you number your recordings of Beethoven's complete piano sonatas cycles in alphabetical order by performer, and let's say you come up with 250 entries. Let's say, furthermore, that I play you blindly #15 and #236. Are you able to blindly identify the respective performers?

Plus, I listen to other stuff.

I know.

[Jo498]

I'm not sure I agree. Staying within the comfort zone, in an area as lively as music, is either a mark of profound incuriosity or pathological timidity or . . . or what?

Or being content with the thousands of pieces one already knows because many of them are inexhaustible, or one feels one has only scratched their surface and expects to listen to them as more satisfying than trying to get into Mascagni or Zarzuelas or Feldman?

How frequently do you listen to what's new in Gangsta rap or Appalachian folk? Do you feel not adventurous enough, if you ignore (as I do) these kinds of music?

[Florestan]

Not that they need defending, as neither of your comments hold any weight, but if you'd look at the the New Releases and "New" Music Log threads, you'd see both of those posters have some of the most varied tastes on this forum.

Well, you've been away from this board for a (rather long) while and as such unaware of my relationship with those posters. 

[Florestan]

Why should you ignore any type of music?

Because, uhmmmm... one cannot like everything and one is under no obligation to like everything?

[Mandryka]

Because, uhmmmm... one cannot like everything and one is under no obligation to like everything?

There's a book which you'd enjoy I think, which is about this. Quite stylish, well written, interesting ideas, musically aware too. Boussole by Mathias Enard.

[Todd]

And yet --- let's say you number your recordings of Beethoven's complete piano sonatas cycles in alphabetical order by performer, and let's say you come up with 250 entries. Let's say, furthermore, that I play you blindly #15 and #236. Are you able to blindly identify the respective performers?

I have 121 cycles.  If you were to put #15 on (Anton Kuerti), I would be able to identify him.  If you put on #121 (Yves Nat), I most likely would be able to, but perhaps not.  For most cycles in the third and fourth tiers, there is a very good chance I would not be able to identify them.  For the best cycles - for Kempff or Fischer or Pienaar - there is a much higher probability that I would be able to identify them.  One of the traits that make them my favorites is their distinctiveness.  That's why I keep listening to new cycles, you see.

Why should you ignore any type of music?

Exactly.

Because, uhmmmm... one cannot like everything and one is under no obligation to like everything?

Liking and disliking is different from ignoring.  If one ignores rap and hip-hop altogether, one misses out on Fear of a Black Planet.  That's bad.

[Florestan]

There's a book which you'd enjoy I think, which is about this. Quite stylish, well written, interesting ideas, musically aware too. Boussole by Mathias Enard.

Thanks for the tip.

[Florestan]

I have 121 cycles.  If you were to put #15 on (Anton Kuerti), I would be able to identify him.  If you put on #121 (Yves Nat), I most likely would be able to, but perhaps not.  For most cycles in the third and fourth tiers, there is a very good chance I would not be able to identify them.  For the best cycles - for Kempff or Fischer or Pienaar - there is a much higher probability that I would be able to identify them. 

I'll take your word for that.

Liking and disliking is different from ignoring.  If one ignores rap and hip-hop altogether, one misses out on Fear of a Black Planet.  That's bad.

Are you going to tell me that if I'll never ever listen to Fear of a Black Planet I'll miss something akin to the Hammerklavier? If yes, then I'll tell you that no music, be it Beethoven or rap, is essential, and that one can live a wholly satisfying and worthwile life without ever listening to both.

[Todd]

Are you going to tell me that if I'll never ever listen to Fear of a Black Planet I'll miss something akin to the Hammerklavier? If yes, then I'll tell you that no music, be it Beethoven or rap, is essential, and that one can live a wholly satisfying and worthwile life without ever listening to both.

Your second sentence is objectively true and has nothing to do with your question. 

Fear of a Black Planet is a masterpiece of its kind.  If you are content to not listen to it, that is fine.  Given cultural differences between the US and Romania there are parts of it that would not be as salient to you, anyway.  Plus, the passage of time has changed the overall salience of the recording.

[Brian]

Psychologists measure openness to new experiences as a spectrum, and as a fundamental part of one's personality. Willingness to try new things correlates with a lot of different things - political views, lifestyle, food preferences, travel. I also remember that the online dating website OKCupid found that one of the top three questions most likely to predict a successful romantic match was, "Do you enjoy watching horror movies?"

Personally of course I fall somewhere in the middle of the spectrum. Some days, I want to seek out something new and have a new experience. Some days, I want to listen to old favorites again. Same goes for my taste in food, books, drinks, TV, etc. to varying degrees. For whatever reason, I want TV to be more comforting/familiar than books. Maybe because I am trained to dedicate so much more attention to reading.

Of course there are people who stay in their comfort zones on everything. They never travel AND only eat meat and potatoes AND don't listen to new music AND vote for politicians who promise to prevent change. I don't really take a moralistic view on this, don't think they are failures/disgusting, but I do wonder how to encourage a little bit more openness. Is this a personality trait that can be changed, or nudged, or moved one or two ticks down the spectrum? Is it a failure of their education to instill curiosity? Is it parenting? Who knows 

Pragmatically, there are limits to how much we should attempt to change others or push them out of comfort zones. I have a friend who married a guy who is kind of dumb. She met him when they were very young so he is a "comfort zone" guy, and certainly dumber than she is. But she's very happy and never complains. I'll never in my life tell her that he's kind of dumb. It may be a shame she didn't do better or seek out other guys, but it's a happy relationship, and there is no justification for trying to harm it based on a theoretical argument about how some of us think others of us should lead their lives.

For many of us if we didn't push ourselves past our comfort zone we wouldn't be classical music listeners.  ...I can't force myself to like things.  And I'm a person.  Most of the time I'm not excited to try new things and not receptive to it.  It is more about knowing when I am feeling receptive to new experiences and immediately jump on it in that window.

Just want to say I appreciate the wisdom here.