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

[Luke]

The audiences of Haydn's time did not know from the theory of sonata-allegro form, they experienced the music without the terms, Exposition, Development, Recapitulation - however, they certainly were aware of the rhetoric of the music much as we expereience rhetorical devices.   Whether we know the term sarcasm or not we know how it feels to be subjected to it and we respond automatically.

But this is the point, really. 'They certainly were aware of the rhetoric of the music'.

Rhetoric is a musical technique, a larger-scale outcome of harmony and phrasing. And the awareness that technical devices are being used to affect our experience is exactly what we're talking about. Knowing that rhetoric is being worked on you doesn't lessen the effect of the rhetoric, but it does help you to understand how the effect is being acheived, thus heightening the appreciation.

This is some of what I am attempting to convey about my own thoughts about technical training and listening to music.  The best training, imo, is to simply listen to a lot of music.  You will pick up the rhetoric by experiencing the music and over time, if you devote a lifetime, as did the audiences of Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven, to experiencing sonata movements, you will have certain expectations about the music that will either be conveyed with a surprising twist or not.

It doesn't take a long time, certainly not a lifetime, to 'pick up' a subconscious understanding of the rhetoric in classical style music, and it can be done by listening alone. But, as I was trying to point out in the paragraph above, what you also said was that they (the listeners of the time) were aware of of the rhetoric, not subconsciously but fully aware. That is correct, I think, and I also think that this consciousness of what is going on in the music heightened their appreciation of it. People don't listen as much in this rhetoric-conscious way today, which might be why less rhetorically sophisticated music is more popular nowadays, who knows...

[mc ukrneal]

I think you are all more or less in agreement, the way I read it. The issue is, does knowing more help appreciate the music more. I don't think anyone would disagree with an answer like, "Probably, but not necessarily, and in some cases may hinder." This is what it seems Leon is saying if I understood.

[Scarpia]

I think you are all more or less in agreement, the way I read it. The issue is, does knowing more help appreciate the music more. I don't think anyone would disagree with an answer like, "Probably, but not necessarily, and in some cases may hinder." This is what it seems Leon is saying if I understood.

No, I don't agree with that at all, as applied to me.  I have never encountered a case where knowing more hindered my appreciation of music.  I accept that not everyone has the same experience, although I cannot imagine how that could be. 

Again, I should emphasize I am not primarily interested in abstract knowledge of what harmonic device is being used and what it is called.  I am primarily interested in being able to hear something and recognize what the notes are and what their harmonic context is.  For instance, being able to listen to a passage and recognizing "oh, it just modulated to the sub-dominant," or  "hmmm, that chord the brass is playing is in a different key than what the strings are playing" rather than "that sounds odd."  When I am frustrated listening to music it is because I am hearing something that overtaxes my aural acuity.

 

[DavidRoss]

Philosophy per se means love of wisdom --- a thing that very few people today associate with the word, yet it is this very meaning that the first "philosophers" had in mind.  0:)

Besides, some of the most interesting "philosophers" had little use for "professional philosophy': Pascal, Kierkegaard, Schopenhauer.

And finally, Cioran said that the best philosopher he ever encountered was the gravedigger of his native village --- something that Shakespeare would have certainly agreed.

No? 

Yes, I know what philo sophia means.  That is why logic, epistemology, and metaphysics are essential, for wisdom (expressed by our conduct) depends on them.  How can we make good choices if we don't know what is, don't understand the limits of our knowing, and cannot reason?

I wasn't disputing how the term "philosophy" is used by the general public, but expressing my surprise at such use in an educational handbook.  That's terribly misleading, I think, for it suggests to students that such material acquaints them with the discipline of philosophy when it does not.  To some extent this may reflect the general division between "Continental" and "Anglo-American" philosophy, the former speculative, the latter empirical and rigorous.

my point was that sometimes knowing more about how something is done increases my enjoyment (stunts, and perhaps later music), and sometimes knowing detracts from it (CGI, sausages, my conception).

Me, too.  In the case at hand, I suspect that whether intellectual appreciation of compositional method and structure increases or detracts from our enjoyment may depend upon our prior technical knowledge.  If we are well-versed in music theory, then hoo-rah!  If not, then fuggedaboutit! -- for now, at least.

I like your wit.  Keep posting, please.

[Scarpia]

To expand on my previous musing, sometimes I think that hearing music can be more damaging to the appreciation of other music than technical knowledge.  One of the first pieces I got interested in was Mozart's Symphony No 41, and I recall that it made an electrifying impression when the horn prominently joined the fugato in the coda of the finale.  Since then I've heard horn used much more dramatically in music of Strauss, Bruckner, Wagner, Shostakovich, etc.  I have to renormalizes my sound-world to hear that as I first did, or as I imagine people did in 1788.

[jochanaan]

To expand on my previous musing, sometimes I think that hearing music can be more damaging to the appreciation of other music than technical knowledge.  One of the first pieces I got interested in was Mozart's Symphony No 41, and I recall that it made an electrifying impression when the horn prominently joined the fugato in the coda of the finale.  Since then I've heard horn used much more dramatically in music of Strauss, Bruckner, Wagner, Shostakovich, etc.  I have to renormalizes my sound-world to hear that as I first did, or as I imagine people did in 1788.

I don't get that at all.  Surely, simply being more aware of the horn in particular can in no way detract from your enjoyment of any music...?

Our "sound-worlds," as you put it, are always changing; that is, as we listen, our acquaintance with musical sounds grows.  Remember, growth is change.  When I first began to listen to classical music, I was only vaguely aware of theory, individual instruments, form, and other musical elements; the music washed over me with little intellectual appreciation from me.  As I continued to listen, I became more aware of each of these elements; now I can pick out any instrument in the orchestra and name at any moment what chord is sounding and how it relates to the current key.  And my enjoyment is greatly, immeasurably enhanced.  Sure, at first you don't need to know theory or terminology to enjoy music--but it may enhance, and at least in my experience, it never, never detracts from my overall enjoyment.

[Grazioso]

I don't agree with this statement. 

There is what I think of as the architecture of a work, e.g. a sonata movement has sections, development, recapitulation, etc. - but these terms all were coined long after the sonata movement was evolving and arguably after it had ceased to be a living form.  The audiences of Haydn's time did not know from the theory of sonata-allegro form, they experienced the music without the terms, Exposition, Development, Recapitulation - however, they certainly were aware of the rhetoric of the music much as we expereience rhetorical devices.   Whether we know the term sarcasm or not we know how it feels to be subjected to it and we respond automatically.

I don't think you've refuted my assertion. The notes are all there to be heard, whatever terminology or theoretical framework one chooses to apply to them. Whether one views a Haydn movement as a piece of rhetoric or drama or a sonata-allegro form, the notes are what they are, as are their relationships. Certain patterns of repetition and alteration are established, call them what you will. The question is, is a listener aware of them? In my experience, people do not all subconsciously take in and respond to music (or other arts) equally. Some, by virtue of personal aptitude and/or training, notice far more than others.

[Palmetto]

Certain patterns of repetition and alteration are established, call them what you will. The question is, is a listener aware of them? In my experience, people do not all subconsciously take in and respond to music (or other arts) equally. Some, by virtue of personal aptitude and/or training, notice far more than others.

This is an subject worth exploring for a newbie.  I don't think I know how to effectively listen, or what to listen for.

I'm becoming convinced the 'Let it play in the background and wash over you' approach isn't for me; I'm retaining nothing, getting no impressions.

I may return to the 'play a piece to death' style.  My problem with that approach is that I don't know if it truly brings enjoyment of a work, or just familiarity and a degree of comfort.  I often hear older pop tunes on the radio while checking stations, tunes I could not abide when they were popular.  Now I'll sometimes let them finish simply because they're familiar.  I don't really like "Bohemian Rhapsody" or "Stairway to Heaven" or the first part of "Layla"; I let them go because I'm SUPPOSED to like them or simply because they're familiar.  (Well, not "Layla"; I suffer through the first part as the price of getting to the glorious instrumental second half.)

[Bulldog]

This is an subject worth exploring for a newbie.  I don't think I know how to effectively listen, or what to listen for.

I'm becoming convinced the 'Let it play in the background and wash over you' approach isn't for me; I'm retaining nothing, getting no impressions.

I don't think anyone has advocated a "play in the background" approach, rather an approach of total concentration on the music.  Your problem is one of concentrating so much on particular details that the enjoyment of the work is missed.

[Grazioso]

This is an subject worth exploring for a newbie.  I don't think I know how to effectively listen, or what to listen for.

In case this wasn't suggested earlier, you might want to read Aaron Copland's What to Listen for in Music



Roger Kamien's Music: An Appreciation (with CD's) is a standard introductory college text worth trying, too.

I'm becoming convinced the 'Let it play in the background and wash over you' approach isn't for me; I'm retaining nothing, getting no impressions.

I wouldn't suggest it, either. Any art worth appreciating is worth actually paying attention to. You wouldn't do the Sunday crosswords at a performance of Hamlet or listen to your iPod while visiting the Louvre. Why treat a sophisticated classical piece that a gifted composer took months or years to write as some kind of sonic wallpaper? If I find I'm not paying attention to a piece, I turn the stereo off and come back to it later when I'm focused. Otherwise I'm turning music into noise and wasting my time.

Overplaying a work is dicey: familiarity can breed love and contempt in equal measure. That's another reason in favor of adding an intellectual, scholarly approach to your arsenal of art appreciation techniques: you'll always have new vantage points from which to view the familiar, as you learn new theoretical and historical perspectives.

[karlhenning]

I may return to the 'play a piece to death' style.

I reserve Test to Destruction for pieces I already know I like ; )

[Palmetto]

A, I had many an album with the grooves worn through.

G, yes; others have also recommended the Copland volume.  The only reason I haven't taken the recommendation yet is I'm about halfway through a 600-plus page history of South Carolina.  I've made it through the US Civil War twice, and I'm determined to finish it this time.  Copeland is next on my list (assuming Harry Turtledove or Terry Pratchett don't roll out something else in the meantime!).

Thanks.

[Scarpia]

I reserve Test to Destruction for pieces I already know I like ; )

I once got myself to the point of hating Mozart, but I've recovered.   

[karlhenning]

Definitely mix things up as a rule. Safety first! : )

[DavidRoss]

I'm about halfway through a 600-plus page history of South Carolina.  I've made it through the US Civil War twice, and I'm determined to finish it this time.  Copeland is next on my list (assuming Harry Turtledove or Terry Pratchett don't roll out something else in the meantime!).

Or David T. Wilbanks?

[karlhenning]

What Zombies Listen For in Music

[Palmetto]

Sorry, I'm not familiar with him.  A peek at his web site would indicate he's too far over to the horror side of SF&F for me.  I could be wrong, but I've got enough other authors I'm tracking besides Turtledove and Pratchett (and Weber and Drake and ...) already.

[Szykneij]

In case this wasn't suggested earlier, you might want to read Aaron Copland's What to Listen for in Music

Am I the only person in the universe that doesn't care for this book? I find it a very dry and unexciting presentation for the beginner and not all that illuminating for the more advanced listener or musician. I've already read it twice. Perhaps three will be a charm.

Roger Kamien's Music: An Appreciation (with CD's) is a standard introductory college text worth trying, too.

This one I can wholeheartedly recommend also.

[karlhenning]

Am I the only person in the universe that doesn't care for this book? I find it a very dry and unexciting presentation for the beginner . . . .

You'll never say that about What Zombies Listen For in Music!

[Szykneij]

You'll never say that about What Zombies Listen For in Music!