Author Topic: How do you hear music?  (Read 6542 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Florestan

  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 13935
  • Mihai, King of Romania (1921 - 2017)
  • Location: Bucharest, Romania
Re: How do you hear music?
« Reply #120 on: July 14, 2017, 10:51:01 AM »
Naysayers who reject Schoenberg obviously do not have good enough ears to hear the harmonic logic.

the 'brain' part of 'ear/brain' is skewed towards the sensual, the visceral, the emotional, and the easy spasm of knee-jerk attraction. Music is more than that.

<ADVERTISING>

The Second Viennese School scares you? Boulez gives you headaches? Are you nervous and sleepless after listening to Xenakis? Now you can forget about all these troubles and many more. The famous Cuban-born American audiologist prof. Atonalio Buenoreja, Ph.D., M.D, G.P., has developed a state-of-the-art, non-invasive and totally painless method of tweaking your ears so that they instantly adapt and adjust to the most difficult and abstruse combinations of sounds, providing you with a fresh, lasting, never-before experienced enjoyment and pleasure, both sensorial and intellectual. Don't hesitate! Quality guaranteed! 30-day total refund if not satisfied! Call now 555-123456789. For the first 10 phone calls, both ears tweaked for the price of one!

For best results, we recommend you consider as well getting yourself a razor-sharp, icy-cold harmonically logical brain, using the revolutionary, newly-patented treatment discovered by the celebrated German brain surgeon Dr. med. Abstraktus Steinherz. Details and prices coming soon!

</ADVERTISING>
« Last Edit: July 14, 2017, 11:04:57 AM by Florestan »
Regele şi Patria!

Offline BasilValentine

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 444
Re: How do you hear music?
« Reply #121 on: July 16, 2017, 09:24:34 AM »
What does "listening aesthetically" mean?

The OP question is sort of like asking: Do you listen to language grammatically/syntactically or semantically? The answer is both because the two are indecomposably fused and mutually dependent. The same thing is true in music, it's just harder to hear and conceptualize.

Applied to music the technical vs. emotional dichotomy is just the ancient form vs. content question viewed from the perspective of the listener rather than from that of the aesthetic object. My view on these oppositions was succinctly stated by Mikhail Bakhtin in his "Content, Material, and Form in Verbal Art:"

"Above all, it is necessary to understand the aesthetic object synthetically, in its wholeness, to understand form and content in their essential and necessary interrelationship: form as the form of content, and content as the content of form.”

I believe the vocabulary and forms of common practice (and beyond) music exist as they do because they evolved symbiotically over centuries with the kinds of content they were conceived to embody. Why did the major-minor system evolve the way it did after Gioseffo Zarlino first made the distinction between modes with major thirds above the final and those with minor thirds above the final “a thing” in 1558? It fell out the way it did because composers then and since have sought clear binary musical oppositions to embody expressive and semantic oppositions in the texts they were setting and in the rhetorical development of their themes. Why out of the great diversity of sonata forms prevalent in the late 18thc, from the frequently monothematic movements of Haydn to the profusely polythematic designs of Mozart, did textbook sonata form settle on two themes as a norm? Because certain iconic works of late Mozart and Beethoven suggested the ways clear binary oppositions in content can be used to define large-scale formal processes in single movements and to guide cyclic thematic processes across multimovement designs. Form and content are indecomposable aesthetically and historically. Modern theory, in search of a quasi-scientific cache, has decomposed them and made oppositions like technical versus emotional sound reasonable. They aren’t and they really don’t work. So, Florestan, listening aesthetically to me means: “[hearing] form and content in their essential and necessary interrelationship: form as the form of content, and content as the content of form.”

In retrospect ^ ^ ^, maybe it would have been easier to just answer "both." ;)
« Last Edit: July 16, 2017, 09:47:25 AM by BasilValentine »

Offline Florestan

  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 13935
  • Mihai, King of Romania (1921 - 2017)
  • Location: Bucharest, Romania
Re: How do you hear music?
« Reply #122 on: July 16, 2017, 09:30:03 AM »
Thanks for your thoughtful reply.
Regele şi Patria!

millionrainbows

  • Guest
Re: How do you hear music?
« Reply #123 on: July 17, 2017, 12:44:41 PM »
Western music, though, has always been a dialectic between the sensual and the logical/geometric. To apprehend a form in music through the ears is one thing, to apprehend it with the mind is the other, and since Bach & Mozart it has been thus.

Otherwise, Western classical music is like any other didgeridoo player.

Offline Wanderer

  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 5219
  • Quo non ascendam?
    • Il faut regarder la vie en farce
Re: How do you hear music?
« Reply #124 on: July 18, 2017, 12:38:04 AM »
The OP question is sort of like asking: Do you listen to language grammatically/syntactically or semantically? The answer is both because the two are indecomposably fused and mutually dependent. The same thing is true in music, it's just harder to hear and conceptualize.

Applied to music the technical vs. emotional dichotomy is just the ancient form vs. content question viewed from the perspective of the listener rather than from that of the aesthetic object. My view on these oppositions was succinctly stated by Mikhail Bakhtin in his "Content, Material, and Form in Verbal Art:"

"Above all, it is necessary to understand the aesthetic object synthetically, in its wholeness, to understand form and content in their essential and necessary interrelationship: form as the form of content, and content as the content of form.”

I believe the vocabulary and forms of common practice (and beyond) music exist as they do because they evolved symbiotically over centuries with the kinds of content they were conceived to embody. Why did the major-minor system evolve the way it did after Gioseffo Zarlino first made the distinction between modes with major thirds above the final and those with minor thirds above the final “a thing” in 1558? It fell out the way it did because composers then and since have sought clear binary musical oppositions to embody expressive and semantic oppositions in the texts they were setting and in the rhetorical development of their themes. Why out of the great diversity of sonata forms prevalent in the late 18thc, from the frequently monothematic movements of Haydn to the profusely polythematic designs of Mozart, did textbook sonata form settle on two themes as a norm? Because certain iconic works of late Mozart and Beethoven suggested the ways clear binary oppositions in content can be used to define large-scale formal processes in single movements and to guide cyclic thematic processes across multimovement designs. Form and content are indecomposable aesthetically and historically. Modern theory, in search of a quasi-scientific cache, has decomposed them and made oppositions like technical versus emotional sound reasonable. They aren’t and they really don’t work. So, Florestan, listening aesthetically to me means: “[hearing] form and content in their essential and necessary interrelationship: form as the form of content, and content as the content of form.”

In retrospect ^ ^ ^, maybe it would have been easier to just answer "both." ;)

Very succinctly put. This is my view on the matter, as well.

millionrainbows

  • Guest
Re: How do you hear music?
« Reply #125 on: July 18, 2017, 09:39:52 AM »
Yes, that seems to wrap it up in a nice, neat little package.

Buying Music From Amazon?
Please consider using these links. A small percentage of every sale using these links is passed on to GMG and helps keep this forum online.
Amazon US
Amazon Canada
Amazon UK