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

[Palmetto]

For the last couple of weeks I've been trying to wrap my skull around the concepts of beat, time, and measures.  (Thanks to everyone who provided links!)  I hear and read the terms used when describing works, but I'm not following them.  (My wife assures me I have the rhythm of an eight cylinder engine; two with bad spark plugs and at least one more with a dropped valve.)

Sure, if there's a drum banging away I can pretty much find that, but otherwise I'm having difficulty finding a beat or rhythm in many pieces.  When viewing videos I have trouble finding a correlation between the conductor's motions and what the music is doing.

My question is, how relevant is an intellectual understanding of these concepts to the enjoyment of music?  Should I continue trying to 'get' these notions, or put them on the back burner and not worry about them for now?

Gracias.

[bhodges]

I would vote for "back burner." Of course, if you're curious about the technical side of the music, by all means, explore, but I don't think it's essential at the beginning.

There is so much variety in classical music, that sooner or later you're bound to run across something that "clicks" with you (I hope).

--Bruce

[jochanaan]

...My question is, how relevant is an intellectual understanding of these concepts to the enjoyment of music?...

(emphasis added)

It's far more important to feel the rhythm than to understand it.  And that may be one of your difficulties now in "getting" classical music.  In most other music, at least here in Europe and America, there is a very definite beat, laid down by drums, guitar or piano; but in lots of classical music, the underlying beat is more subtle and sometimes harder to find.  And in slow tempos, the beat can be considerably slower than we're used to in the more popular musics.  Also, classical ensembles often play with much greater flexibility in tempo than most pop bands.  So you're generally not going to find a hard beat that keeps going through the entire composition or movement.

In Bach and the other Baroque composers, there is almost always a beat, but without percussion to enforce it, it's a gentler thing than you may be used to.  And there are often times where the beat gets suspended altogether, as in Brandenburg 1's second movement toward the end, where the oboe takes a solo break, breaking the rhythm too.

In Classical-period composers, the beat is even more subtle and changeable.  Let's say that in the first movement of a certain Mozart concerto (I'm thinking at the moment of the D minor Piano Concerto, K.466), the beat comes in groups of four, what musicians call "measures:" one, two, three, four, and then the next group begins at "one" again, sort of like how our musical scales contain seven notes and the next is not "eight" but "one."  But some measures, instead of having four moderately fast beats, may feel more like two slow beats, while others may feel like eight very fast beats.  So even though the underlying beat is steady, its iterations can change from measure to measure.  (And that particular concerto begins with a long, long series of off-beats in the upper strings, throwing off our "beat" expectations completely! )

And then in Romantic-period compositions, the beat itself often changes pace in mid-flight.

Now, it's not so important for listeners to be consciously aware of every little shift in beat, but I feel it is essential to feel the underlying pulse.  Try this: The next time you hear something with a relatively steady beat, say, Brandenburg 2, try tapping your foot or your fingers to the pulse.  Don't be concerned yet about whether it's measures of 2, 3, 4 or whatever; just find where the beat comes naturally.  You might even imagine a drum set playing to the beat.  Then after you've found the pulse and followed it through the entire movement, listen again and pay more attention to what happens around the beat, for example, how many notes the violin or oboe plays between one beat and the next.

One final note: I feel that we Euro-Americans are more often "rhythmically challenged" than folks of other backgrounds.  I cannot remember ever meeting an African-American or African or Latino/a, for example, who didn't have an exquisite feel for rhythms--but you find it often enough in those of North-European ancestry.  Something to do, maybe, with being out of touch with the earth and her rhythms... So don't feel bad if feeling the rhythm isn't easy yet; you're not alone.

[DavidRoss]

My question is, how relevant is an intellectual understanding of these concepts to the enjoyment of music?  Should I continue trying to 'get' these notions, or put them on the back burner and not worry about them for now?

In the words of that noted 20th Century philosopher, composer, and social activist, John Lennon:

Turn off your mind, relax and float down stream
...
Lay down all thoughts, surrender to the void

[Palmetto]

That was a very useful practical exercise!  I think I've been working too hard to hear it and not, as you said, feel it.  Next is to see if I can pay attention to what's going on around it without losing it; forest for the trees and all that.

[Brahmsian]

Palmetto, don't worry about the technicalities and the concepts and all the terminology.  Just focus on listening to the music.  The understanding of all the concepts will come with time.

If you are able to find this book at the library or used book store, I highly recommend snapping it up, as it has some explanations and layman's terms for some of the classical music terminology and concepts.

It's a book by Phil D. Goulding, and it is a marvelous reference book for someone fresh to classical music.  I know it worked wonders for me and I learned a tremendous amount from it.  The best part is that it isn't a boring academic textbook, it is actually a very fun read, with lots of wit and humour, and once you start reading it it will be hard to put it down.

[asin]0449910423[/asin]

[ibanezmonster]

That's one of the two books I have that my little brother picks up and reads from time to time. The other one is this:



Both are excellent ways of learning about composers.

[Grazioso]

For what little it's worth, I can only reiterate what Jochanaan suggested: don't get hung up on consciously trying to follow the nuances of the rhythms or understand time signatures. Just let yourself go and tap your foot along with the music. You might well find that you possess a better feel for rhythm than you imagine, though sophisticated music will often toy with expectations through syncopation, hemiola, polyrythms, etc.

A useful challenge beyond simply tapping along is to try to determine if the piece is in a duple or triple meter (very roughly, coming in rhythmic groups of 2 or 4, or 3 or 6). You'll hear the latter in waltz or minuet pieces.

[eyeresist]

It seems very strange to me that someone would have difficulty locating a piece of music's rhythm or beat, unless it was very slow or complex. It would be like listening to Mozart music and saying "I can't hear the melody!" I would suggest just tapping your finger as you listen to music. When you discover a pace of tapping that fits the music, there you've found the beat. If even this fails, then God help you.

[Brahmsian]

It seems very strange to me that someone would have difficulty locating a piece of music's rhythm or beat, unless it was very slow or complex. It would be like listening to Mozart music and saying "I can't hear the melody!" I would suggest just tapping your finger as you listen to music. When you discover a pace of tapping that fits the music, there you've found the beat. If even this fails, then God help you.

This comment is more condescending than helpful.  This is the type of remark that will only help scare and drive away someone trying to learn and get into classical music. 

[eyeresist]

I didn't mean to be condescending. The OPs problem genuinely strikes me as bizarre. And note that I did include a practical suggestion.

[Palmetto]

I found your comment neither offensive nor condescending. 

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.

[mc ukrneal]

I found your comment neither offensive nor condescending. 

But yes, there are some of us who are rhythmically challenged.  In my case it isn't liimited 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.

There is one more thing that no one had mentioned. Sometimes composers will change the rhythm (or sound of it), either through syncopation (which is just a fancy way of saying offbeats - if you count the beats as 1 and 2 and 3 and 4 and 1 and 2 and...etc...the stress will normally fall on that 1,2,3,4 - but by falling on the 'and', it becomes syncopated, and can throw the beat off - kids learning to play these types of pieces often have difficulty) or by mixing up the time signature for a brief period. All this means is that the composer is purposely changing the rhythm/emphasis and thus it will appear that you missed something, when in reality the composer made a change that you were not expecting (and got you off the beat).

An example of the latter might be Queen's Bohemian Rhapsody. As you shift from section to section, it is not always easy to keep the rhythm during the changes.  Well classical music does this too, and depending on the piece can throw off the rhythm.

[jochanaan]

There is one more thing that no one had mentioned...

Well, I had mentioned it, but your explanation was more detailed than mine.

[Palmetto]

When marching, sometimes one will wind up off-step from the rest of the formation.  It take a half-step, stutter-step, or skipping to get back in sequence with everyone else.  If you weren't completely out of synch with everyone else (syncopated walking!), you may have to do several skips or quarter-steps to get fully back.  If you're in the middle of the formation, observers may not see your legs moving differently from others.  Gods help you if your on the outside under competition conditions.

[mc ukrneal]

Well, I had mentioned it, but your explanation was more detailed than mine.

Sorry - I must have missed that or misunderstood! I should have said, 'something only one other has mentioned!'

[mc ukrneal]

When marching, sometimes one will wind up off-step from the rest of the formation.  It take a half-step, stutter-step, or skipping to get back in sequence with everyone else.  If you weren't completely out of synch with everyone else (syncopated walking!), you may have to do several skips or quarter-steps to get fully back.  If you're in the middle of the formation, observers may not see your legs moving differently from others.  Gods help you if your on the outside under competition conditions.

This can be a good way to think of it actually. Marches are almost always on the beat (if not always). This is how they can keep everyone in step. Of course competitive marching bands and such will do some crazy stuff.  Armies usually have songs they can sing as they march that help keep on the beat. In this respect, ballet music may be a way to help train this (in the classical music world) as the beat is often meant to be heard (and be steady) so it can be danced.

Many Rossini overtures, for example, can have really steady beats once you get past the intro (Barber of Seville for example). They are real foot tappers and a great way to get into classical music. Some of them are probably used in cartoons, so you may even recognize them. They each last 5-10 minutes on average, and have wonderful melodies. For example, if you listen here at about 1 minutes 52 seconds: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OloXRhesab0&playnext=1&list=PLB8F66E1961297107, you will hear a pretty good example of the pulse I mean. You may lose it later, but it will come back again as well. This can be a difficult piece for the orchestra to hold a steady beat, so you may notice that the orchestra is inconsistent (as they are here) and you may lose the beat because of that. At the 3.53 mark, you can again listen to the repetitive beat under the playing. This youtube version is not the greatest version, but it does highlight just how hard it can be do a seemingly simple thing - keep the beat. So don't get discouraged, as sometimes it won't be your fault, but rather the orchestra itself. It may interest you that there is a version with the Orpheus Chamber Orchesta, who don't use a conductor. They are excellent, but it is very diffcult to play as well as they do without a conductor.

Here's another - you could listen to the whole thing or start at 4.04 if you want to listen to the beat (and this sucker pick up steam): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94asd5_o_Sg. I've played both of these - and keeping the beat/pulse steady can be difficult.

[Renfield]

Is an abstract understanding of the technical underbelly of classical music useful? Clearly. Classical is, if anything, consciously organised musical space.

Is it necessary? I don't think so. In the interest of full disclosure, I have the advantage, such as it is, of a mind able to grasp form easily in its natural habitat, whether in sentences, pictures or music - to the expense of a lot of other things I have trouble grasping much of the time, I'll hasten to add.


But if all music, or most music, inherently needed homework done in advance be understood, I think it would be a rather unappealing art. You don't sit down with a handbook of English grammar, the core rules of syntax and a dictionary to read a novel; so I don't sit down with a score to listen to music.

I am well aware that many people do (the latter). But only if the music is explicitly written to be appreciated analytically is that necessary.

Beethoven, Bruckner, Brahms - even Bach! - et al. wrote music for people to listen to, not read about. That was, historically, their indisputable intent. Try to find the patterns in the sound, if at all. If you can't find them, screw it: maybe they'll show up one day. Human perception is like that.

In sum, listening to music is about more than structure, even if composing it may not be. Don't worry too much.

[Scarpia]

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.

[Renfield]

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.

Precisely, and most succinctly.