How Music Education Confuses Understanding With Love

[DavidRoss]

I hated that article.  It makes it seem like listening to music is a tough academic exercise that we shouldn't have to stomach.

Look, all you have to do is sit down, unfurl your ears, and listen!  That's it.  Without even knowing the vocabulary, if you simply give the piece of music enough of your undivided attention you will either grow to like it or dislike.

Unfurl your ears Eric!!!

If there was anything to point out why people don't take to some wickedly good music, it's for fearing a storm and furling up the ears, and buttoning down the soul.

Well put, David!  Reminds me of Ives's exhortation to "use your ears like a man!"

[greg]

     Hey Ma! I'm a Elitist!! Top of the World!!

Look Ma! No hands!
... and by the way, I'm an elitist!

[Homo Aestheticus]

Well put, David!  Reminds me of Ives's exhortation to "use your ears like a man!"

Yes, Mr. Ross, I am aware that Ives wanted me to pull up my socks and be a man about it and not some pansy fancy girl who wears flowers in her hat and prefers pretty music....

[Homo Aestheticus]

David,

Look, all you have to do is sit down, unfurl your ears, and listen!  That's it.  Without even knowing the vocabulary, if you simply give the piece of music enough of your undivided attention you will either grow to like it or dislike

Of course!     I think you misconstrued my comments here!   

This sums it up perfectly for me:

"The only "intellectual" thing about engaging with music is the patience and perseverance required to assimilate it. And of course this is done through repeated listenings... And that is all a listener needs to bring... But any discussions about "intellectual appreciation", "identifying the structure", "harmonic sequence", "motivic unity, "organic growth", "listening to the intervals", "the system of notation or the language", "how the instrumentation supports the phrasing"....... and other technicalities..... are  totally beside the point. There are no aids to music's comprehension - it either speaks to the listener or it doesn't. Its value is intutively apprehended. All persons who can appreciate it therefore engage with it entirely automatically (through patient, repeated listenings)

******

[Que]

All the talk om P&M has been moved HERE and is to stay there.

Q

[DavidRoss]

David,

Of course!     I think you misconstrued my comments here!   

This sums it up perfectly for me:

"The only "intellectual" thing about engaging with music is the patience and perseverance required to assimilate it. And of course this is done through repeated listenings... And that is all a listener needs to bring... But any discussions about "intellectual appreciation", "identifying the structure", "harmonic sequence", "motivic unity, "organic growth", "listening to the intervals", "the system of notation or the language", "how the instrumentation supports the phrasing"....... and other technicalities..... are  totally beside the point. There are no aids to music's comprehension - it either speaks to the listener or it doesn't. Its value is intutively apprehended. All persons who can appreciate it therefore engage with it entirely automatically (through patient, repeated listenings)

Eric, most of us have been down this road with you so many times before that we owe you our thanks for helping us to grow in patience.  I also suspect that most who reply know that your ears (manly or not) will hear only what you want but reply anyway for the sake of others who might be giving fair consideration to the issue under discussion.

You are entirely right about the above quote describing your beliefs on the matter...at least judging from your repeated assertions over the past few years.  And you are equally entirely wrong about your beliefs settling the matter for anyone else.  You might wish to constrain your capacity for appreciation thus, but others have found their appreciation increases with increased understanding of the technical elements you like to disparage.  I presume you go on about this because of your limited grasp of such technical matters; consequent defensiveness due to your own sense of inferiority compels you to deny the value of what you lack and even to promote your deficiency as a virtue so you can feel superior.  But it's painfully apparent that, despite your protestations, you feel shame about your relative ignorance or you wouldn't keep trying to justify it.

Please note:  knowing only a little doesn't require justification.  There's nothing wrong with enjoying music without understanding its technical components.  No one here is trying to shame you for knowing less.  And none of the contributors here with a deep understanding of music (with one notable exception!) have ever tried to shame those of us who know less, but only to help interested persons learn more if they wish to expand their appreciation.

[karlhenning]

This sums it up perfectly for me:

"The only "intellectual" thing about engaging with music is the patience and perseverance required to assimilate it. And of course this is done through repeated listenings... And that is all a listener needs to bring... But any discussions about "intellectual appreciation", "identifying the structure", "harmonic sequence", "motivic unity, "organic growth", "listening to the intervals", "the system of notation or the language", "how the instrumentation supports the phrasing"....... and other technicalities..... are  totally beside the point. There are no aids to music's comprehension - it either speaks to the listener or it doesn't. Its value is intutively apprehended. All persons who can appreciate it therefore engage with it entirely automatically (through patient, repeated listenings)

Poor summary, and confused remarks.  I don't wonder, at all, at your claim that this "sums it up perfectly" for you.

1.  Patience and perseverance are not intellectual functions; they are an expression of will.  So not only are these not "the only" intellectual thing, they are hardly any intellectual thing, about engaging with music.

2.  'All a listener needs to bring is repeated listenings' is an impoverished idea, too.  Perhaps you will recall a Stravinsky quote which one of our neighbors has employed as a tag: "A duck hears also."  Repeated listening is an exercise;  it is something the listener elects to do, it is not 'what he brings'.

3.  The rest of it (no surprise, since you yourself do this all the time) is an assertion pretending that it's a 'proof'.

[Homo Aestheticus]

David,

Quote from: DavidRoss on Today at 01:35:46 AM
And none of the contributors here with a deep understanding of music have ever tried to shame those of us who know less, but only to help interested persons learn more if they wish to expand their appreciation.

>>With a deep understanding of music<<

What exactly does 'deep understanding' mean ? Isn't one of the key qualities of music its inability to be grasped at a purely conceptual level ? Does one actually "understand" any sensual experience ?
 

[lisa needs braces]

I would argue that lack of musical education is the reason why the classical audiences tend to be so cowardly about expressing their likes and dislikes. If they could at least read music or play an instrument they could feel confident about telling off the arrogant critics and composers that claim that audiences are wrong to loathe works which entirely survive on an Affirmative Action basis. One frequently reads how unruly concerts at the turn of the century tended to be, the angry reactions to modernist composers and whatnot. Those audiences then were undoubtedly better educated in music then current classical audiences.

[greg]

One frequently reads how unruly concerts at the turn of the century tended to be, the angry reactions to modernist composers and whatnot. Those audiences then were undoubtedly better educated in music then current classical audiences.

Although the audience obviously didn't have good taste either- both the Rite of Spring and Schoenberg's 3rd String Quartet, for example, causing riots is dumb.

[lisa needs braces]

Although the audience obviously didn't have good taste either- both the Rite of Spring and Schoenberg's 3rd String Quartet, for example, causing riots is dumb.

It's not about having taste but about having the confidence to assert your taste. Didn't audiences then frequently follow along the music with scores? Since they knew music, they didn't have any of that pathetic deference to the opinion of composers and critics. Anyway, The Rite of Spring was all the more controversial because of the accompanying dance. However, Schoenberg's 3rd String Quartet should have caused riots. The fact that people reacted so strongly--rather than merely tolerating the music and clapping politely--shows how much more invested they were in music compared to today's cowardly classical audiences.

[Bulldog]

It's not about having taste but about having the confidence to assert your taste. Didn't audiences then frequently follow along the music with scores?

I'm trying to picture a large group of audience members carrying scores to their seats, but it doesn't sound reasonable.

[lisa needs braces]

I'm trying to picture a large group of audience members carrying scores to their seats, but it doesn't sound reasonable.

Oh yes, I was implying that they all did it.

[Dancing Divertimentian]

Oh yes, I was implying that they all did it.

That's quite a feat of multitasking: reading along with a score while trying to get a glimpse at whatever stage action is taking place - ballet, opera, etc. (Besides, wouldn't it defeat the purpose of putting on a stage show at all if every nose were buried in a score?)

Not to mention concert halls seldom are lit very well - mostly dim to near darkness during concert time. Pretty amazing feat to peer at such a highly complex thing as a Mahler 3rd score without light. Unless the audience also brought candles.

And just where did all those scores come from? Were they handed out like candy back then?

[lisa needs braces]

That's quite a feat of multitasking: reading along with a score while trying to get a glimpse at whatever stage action is taking place - ballet, opera, etc. (Besides, wouldn't it defeat the purpose of putting on a stage show at all if every nose were buried in a score?)

Not to mention concert halls seldom are lit very well - mostly dim to near darkness during concert time. Pretty amazing feat to peer at such a highly complex thing as a Mahler 3rd score without light. Unless the audience also brought candles.

And just where did all those scores come from? Were they handed out like candy back then?

I was being ironic, but whatever.

[Dancing Divertimentian]

I was being ironic, but whatever.

Of course. Fancy us for not catching it...

[DavidRoss]

Although the audience obviously didn't have good taste either- both the Rite of Spring and Schoenberg's 3rd String Quartet, for example, causing riots is dumb.

Greg--Abe is right about audience reaction to the dance.  God only knows what they might have thought about the music alone, but to understand what happened at the premier you must understand the context.  This was at the very outset of the development of what we now call "modern dance."  Audiences attended the ballet to see beautiful young women in skimpy clothes prancing about gracefully--not awkward clods garbed like Hollywood Indians stomping around on stage. You can see a couple of filmed recreations of the original dance on you tube if you'd like to see it for yourself.

[greg]

Greg--Abe is right about audience reaction to the dance.  God only knows what they might have thought about the music alone, but to understand what happened at the premier you must understand the context.  This was at the very outset of the development of what we now call "modern dance."  Audiences attended the ballet to see beautiful young women in skimpy clothes prancing about gracefully--not awkward clods garbed like Hollywood Indians stomping around on stage. You can see a couple of filmed recreations of the original dance on you tube if you'd like to see it for yourself.

They should've thrown their dancing shoes at the audience. Show 'em who's boss.  0:)

[karlhenning]

Greg--Abe is right about audience reaction to the dance.  God only knows what they might have thought about the music alone, but to understand what happened at the premier you must understand the context.

Can't answer for the Parisian audience at that stage premiere, but audiences at concert performances in both Moscow & London during the next twelvemonth responded favorably to the music.

[greg]

Can't answer for the Parisian audience at that stage premiere, but audiences at concert performances in both Moscow & London during the next twelvemonth responded favorably to the music.

There might be some psychology to this. Maybe they expect it to be so "bad" and "crazy" that they lowered their expectations. Then, surprise! Once listened to properly, they realize it's a work of genius of the highest order.