A philosophical question.

That's the fun of it, to learn about and appreciate new things. Now if you miss out on Tommy James and the Shondells, no big loss, but other things might a big loss to never understand, and great things to appreciate if you do get to. Maybe the Second Viennese school is one of those. Having never even heard of the first Viennese school I'd not be a good judge of that.

I've also found that things culturally related I don't understand, but have a strong negative reaction to, often times tells me there is something there worth exploring, and getting to understand and appreciate. That's not to say a third Viennese school might not be simply appalling. One of these days I'm going to get to understand 20th century modern art after Chagall or the German Expressionists. Must be something to appreciate there since they've go whole museum filled with it.

Kind of the same with much of classical music which I'm sure you love, but I'm just beginning to get a handle on. Or Coltrane's post "A Love Supreme"  free-form jazz, the same thing. In my opinion It's worth a bit of effort to achieve those cultural rewards if enough people you respect let you know they're there. Forget Bruckner though. 

Mike

IMO part of discovery is setting aside well worn paths and ego and deliberately seeking out new or different. Humbling oneself to have a Sensei is quite powerful and certainly a traditional thing in some cultures.. including music and musical expression

anyway, “ enjoy every sandwich “ as the late great Warren Zevon said....

some day... it will be that last sandwich

Students attending the music conservatory don’t realize how good they’ve got it. Where I am, the training at CCM is extremely conservatory but excellent nonetheless. There used to be a composers festival during the summer and people like Moritz Eggert, Steve Reich, etc. would visit, perform, direct clinics, etc. It was great and nothing at all like putting something unfamiliar on the stereo.

I just believe there are so many variables where it comes to whether I’m touched by something or not. I grew up manly appreciating classical and jazz but always looked forward to seeing the Grateful Dead because I like freaky weirdo’s and thus developed a taste for what and how they played. Most often, I need to feel involved in some way, even if it just means having a simple appreciation. I do have hope that gifted new artists and composers will be recognized.

Do I believe Beethoven and Jimi Hendrix should be a part of the same conversation, not really but not in a comparative way. For sake of not over complicating things, they can be appreciated for what they are and unless I have low self esteem, it really doesn’t matter beyond that.

As far as I'm concerned, genre is truly overrated as a way of choosing music to listen to. If it's good, i.e., if it moves you on any aesthetic, emotional or visceral level, it's worthwhile. As Jethro Tull's Ian Anderson once said, it's all noise to a Martian anyway.

And oh yeah, if you don't like Bruckner, try the Third Movement of the guy's Symphony No. 8, the Adagio, especially the old DG recording with Eugen Jochum and the Berlin Phil.  Transcendentally lovely and moving.  And hey -- I saw that Michel Legrand gig at Shelly's Manne Hole. Was it because my buddy had to see Ray Brown?

In my opinion, it's for the best to try and explore everything out there, all music genres. You might be surprised to see that you like a variety of other genres, artists, and so on. Yes, time is limited, so you should spend it exploring whilst still prioritizing what you like most.