Now I do like experimental music, I mentioned in the Laurie Anderson post that I have concerns about it, but that doesn't mean that I ever dismiss it or avoid it. I know that a lot of music I listen or have listened to over the years owes something to the avant garde.
I listened to Black Angels without knowing anything of its history or its construction/composition, I got all that from Wikipedia later. What I heard wasn't something that lit a fire or a fuse, I heard harsh noises chosen and delivered solely to shock. I heard voices used as instruments, that just sounded silly. I heard music that I wasn't sure how to take, and I think at the very least music needs to have just the tiniest little crack that you can get your fingers into.
And then I read the Wikipedia article, and listened again to Black Angels, appreciating it more for the way it was as opposed to what it was. Maybe its OK for certain types of music to have to be explained before you can understand them - maybe that is what makes experimental music, you have to explain the experiment. I'm not sure I'm OK with that it makes music exclusive by default. But if that's what it takes I suppose I'll have to accept it.
It did make me want to listen to more George Crumb, if only to see if he was able to compose something that I could enjoy without being taught how to.
Here's performance of Black Angels by the Filarmonica Quartet - watching it also improves it
Maybe it also it suggests that experimental music isn't meant to be experienced while wandering around M&S at lunchtime!