Am I worrying about concepts I'm better off leaving for later?

[DavidRoss]

I think of it this way.  You can eat a fine meal and say "Hmm, interesting the way cilantro is combined with coriander seed, and the substitution of olive oil for the butter creates an unusual texture.   Or you can say, "Mmmmm, that tastes good."  The first may indicate a deeper appreciation, but the second is not to be despised.  In the end, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

Or might indicate a gastronome whose intellectual approach to eating indicates nothing about the depth of his sensory experience.  Just because a man can identify all of the sexual positions described in the Kama Sutra does not mean that he's a good lover.

[bhodges]

I think of it this way.  You can eat a fine meal and say "Hmm, interesting the way cilantro is combined with coriander seed, and the substitution of olive oil for the butter creates an unusual texture.   Or you can say, "Mmmmm, that tastes good."  The first may indicate a deeper appreciation, but the second is not to be despised.  In the end, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

I like this analogy, too.

--Bruce

[Palmetto]

I started as a programmer and have been in desktop support and network administration for a couple of decades.  I often jump into things from an analytical approach, and in this case I think it was the wrong one.  I heard a couple of programs that deconstructed some works, focused more on the terminology and concepts used than the music played, and went chasing off after the background knowledge needed to understand them.  No big deal; I'll just file the info and switch my focus back to the music.

Thanks to those who responded.   

[jochanaan]

Palmetto, one of the reasons I love music is that it encourages, almost forces, your left and right brains to work together and get reacquainted with each other.  Also your body and your spirit. Analysis is not to be despised, but the first step is the sensuous response we get when we first hear, say, the opening chords of Beethoven's Eroica Symphony, that "Wow!" or "Aha!" or even "WTF is this?" that makes us want to dive deep and experience the art to the full.

[westknife]

Palmetto —

I am a relatively 'new' classical music listener myself—only the past 3 years or so—and so I might have a more relatable perspective, getting into it basically by myself as an adult, not being raised with it, etc. I think the best advice I've seen in this thread (and the other) is just to listen to the radio, and those Gardner Museum podcasts, until you find something you like, but I am a little doubtful you will ever be a classical music fan if you don't like Beethoven, Bach, Mozart, Mahler, Debussy, Prokofiev, Xenakis, or any of the other things that were posted as recommendations. Just try not to think too much about the music if you don't want to, when I listen to music I like to just groove to the rhythm and get lost in the 'sound world.' More specific knowledge of what you're listening to comes naturally with more listening, although it never hurts to look at the wikipedia page maybe for the piece you're hearing. To be honest, going to concerts is a great way to get into music, a good concert is better than even the greatest classic recording imo, since the experience of being there is so powerful. If you live near a major city, there are ways to go to good concerts relatively cheaply.

For what it's worth, the disc that first got me into the music was this one: http://amzn.com/B000001GPX It's a very famous and powerful recording of 2 of the greatest symphonies ever, and I'm sure most people on this forum already have it and would recommend it in a heartbeat. Also, it is less than 10 dollars.

Also what really got me interested was this book: http://amzn.com/0312427719 It's basically a history of the 20th century told through its music. People sometimes have complaints about their favorite composer being omitted or whatever, but for me it was a wonderful revelation, it's insanely readable and fun, and above all it really makes you want to listen to the music (the author also has a website with an audio guide for the book, as well as a blog with free music samples, recommendations, and etc.)

That's all for now.

[Mirror Image]

I want to formally apologize to Palmetto for being such a jerk to you in a previous thread. I'm sorry, but you certainly didn't deserve to be treated the way that I treated you. You don't have to forgive of course, but please know that I'm sorry. Sometimes I get emotional and things get heated. Whatever my excuse was, I shouldn't have acted the way I did.

[Mirror Image]

By the way, since you seem to like vocals, you may want to think about getting into some choral music. Like, for example, let's start off simple: Charles Stanford's The Blue Bird:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNdeCzrdnpE&playnext=1&list=PLFD8050C9A98AC5B5

Note: Please excuse the audio, especially when the lead vocalist hits the real high note it kind of distorts, but, otherwise, this is probably the best version I've heard of this part-song on YouTube.

[ibanezmonster]

I want to formally apologize to Palmetto for being such a jerk to you in a previous thread. I'm sorry, but you most certainly didn't deserve to be treated the way I that I treated you. You don't have to forgive of course, but please know that I'm sorry. Sometimes I get emotional and things get heated. Whatever my excuse was, I shouldn't have acted the way I did.

I think you might want to consider having a glass full of ice cubes right next to you whenever you post. 

[eyeresist]

What, to pour down his pants?

But yes, there are some of us who are rhythmically challenged.  Maybe my own internal rhythms are overriding the external stimulus; maybe it tides or quasar pulses; "or maybe it's fleas!"  In my case it isn't limited to classical music; if you'd seen me try to dance, you'd know.  If I concentrate on the beat and nothing else, I can usually come close to finding it.  Don't ask me to clap AND sing, however; one or the other, take your pick.

Well, it's a good thing I didn't go on to recommend dancing, then! Though maybe you should. My opinion is that the experience of music is physical, absorbed as it is through the "instrument" of the human body. Some kinds of music ONLY make sense when you dance to them.

[Mirror Image]

I think you might want to consider having a glass full of ice cubes right next to you whenever you post. 

Yes, I will make a note of this: keep a glass of ice cubes next to me at all times.

[drogulus]

    One of the first composers that I became interested in was Igor Stravinsky. I could hear some of the rhythmical oddities in The Rite of Spring but most of the detail was absorbed as impressions, just as details of orchestration created textures or sonorities. I didn't know very much of how the effects were produced. I just enjoyed the music. That's the main thing, though you might at some point want to know more detail about the technical aspects. I doubt that keeping track of the beat, as distinct from being aware of musical pulse as a felt thing, matters any more than your understanding (instead of appreciation) of cinematography helps you enjoy a movie. It might even be better if you didn't pay attention to it as a separate element.

[(poco) Sforzando]

I think of it this way.  You can eat a fine meal and say "Hmm, interesting the way cilantro is combined with coriander seed, and the substitution of olive oil for the butter creates an unusual texture.   Or you can say, "Mmmmm, that tastes good."  The first may indicate a deeper appreciation, but the second is not to be despised.  In the end, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

But the first is not to be despised either, and it's not unusual to find people who do so (remember our late friend Iago?), on the false assumption that the heart is good and the brain bad (as in Wordsworth's "We murder to dissect" and Keats's "Though the dull brain perplexes and retards"). The problem is that to genuinely master the so-called technical terminology and concepts requires a good deal of study, until it all becomes natural and second-nature. Until then, you might not know that (say) a particularly magical moment in the Hammerklavier Adagio occurs because Beethoven suddenly uses a flat II or Neapolitan chord in root position, but the fact remains that the reason for the magic is that (duh) Beethoven suddenly uses a flat II or Neapolitan in root position.

[Scarpia]

But the first is not to be despised either, and it's not unusual to find people who do so (remember our late friend Iago?), on the false assumption that the heart is good and the brain bad (as in Wordsworth's "We murder to dissect" and Keats's "Though the dull brain perplexes and retards"). The problem is that to genuinely master the so-called technical terminology and concepts requires a good deal of study, until it all becomes natural and second-nature. Until then, you might not know that (say) a particularly magical moment in the Hammerklavier Adagio occurs because Beethoven suddenly uses a flat II or Neapolitan chord in root position, but the fact remains that the reason for the magic is that (duh) Beethoven suddenly uses a flat II or Neapolitan in root position.

Yes, often people who lack technical knowledge express the opinion that technical understanding of how musical effects are created will somehow ruin the experience.  Although I am far from being one of most knowledgeable participants on this board, what knowledge I have has only enhanced my enjoyment.  But it is the "heart" that draws me towards acquiring that knowledge.

[Renfield]

our late friend Iago

If that is literal, I am sad to hear of it.


(On-topic, I don't think I have anything immediately useful to add.)

[Sergeant Rock]

If that is literal, I am sad to hear of it.

Cuddles passed, unfortunately.

Sarge

[Scarpia]

Labels do not create magic; effective composing does.  It does not much matter, imo, how a person refers to a harmonic event, whether they use the theoretical label for a chord or find some other way of communicating what they heard - the magic is in the music.

A label for something which is not understood may be "just" a label.  A label that refers to something that is understood is much more than a label.  If you can hear the magical moment and recognize that (as in the example) it is a Neapolitan chord in root position, the "magic" is still there.  It is not like seeing the false bottom in the magicians prop, it is more like realizing why a familiar dish has a surprising flavor.  It doesn't in any way diminish the experience of the flavor.  In the Beethoven example, it is interesting to know that the "magical" moment came from a device well known to Mozart, but used in a different way.  It was Beethoven's insight that that "wrong" note could be magical and not wrong if used in a different context.

[Scarpia]

If that is literal, I am sad to hear of it.


(On-topic, I don't think I have anything immediately useful to add.)

http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,13781.msg340652.html#msg340652

[karlhenning]

a Neapolitan chord in root position

Maybe I've missed something, but the Neapolitan Sixth is normally (per the name) in first inversion.

Could, I suppose, voice it in root position, and have that chromatic slide in the bass down to a first-inversion Dominant chord . . . .

[Scarpia]

Maybe I've missed something, but the Neapolitan Sixth is normally (per the name) in first inversion.

Beethoven has no use for your rules.   0:)

[karlhenning]

Not a rule, an observation. And, one does not necessarily fault a composer for doing something otherwise than it is normally done.

So, brief me: where did LvB do this? : )