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

[(poco) Sforzando]

I don't think that knowing either of those things enhances the enjoyment of Beethoven's Op. 68.   Of if it does, it does in a trivial and inconsequential manner.

As for the five-movement thing, I don't see how one can possibly experience 68 (or for that matter most any large-scale sonata or symphony) without recognizing it's in multiple movements, fast-slow-fast or whatever. That's not peering under the hood, that's more like looking at the doors, hood, and trunk.

The F major is a more subtle thing, but historically that key was associated with pastoral things (though not invariably of course).

Even more to the point, I also don't think it enhances my enjoyment to know the "program" for it - in fact, I find it distracting.

Ah. So you're also into an absolute concept of absolute music. Are you really distracted by calling the thunderstorm movement of the Pastorale a thunderstorm? Music has always represented non-musical things.

[Scarpia]

Of course I know that the 6th symphony has 5 movements, but knowing this fact does not enhance my enjoyment of it. 

That is simply absurd.  Your enjoyment of the symphony would be just as good if you were so clueless that you didn't even realize that one movement had ended and another movement with completely different tempo, musical themes, rhythm, had started?  If you were listening to Beethoven's 6th on the radio and you didn't have the wherewithal to notice that it had ended and the Goldberg variations was now playing, this would present no obstacle to your appreciation of the music?   You have put forward a classic Reductio ad absurdum, and is the clearest argument I've seen on this thread that the proposition you have put forth makes no sense at all!

[Palmetto]

Ya know, instead of fretting over an inability to fit his book into my reading schedule, I thought maybe I should listen to him instead.

I just passed a very enjoyable hour on 'Billy the Kid' and 'El Salon Mexico'.  (Okay, there was the inevitable YouTube-suggested detour, this time through Bernstein's 'Magnificent 7'; but hey, don't try to tell me you've never been sidetracked on the web.)

So far I've made it a practice to avoid anything I was previously familiar with, not wanting preconceptions to taint my investigations.  Unlike other composers, for some unfathomable reason I applied this approach to Copland en masse, avoiding everything simply because of a vague familiarity with 'Fanfare' and 'Simple Gifts'.  That was a big fat mistake, one I'll spend some time rectifying over the next several days.  (And yes, I reviewed a couple of the most recent discussions on Copland over in the Composers forum.

[Szykneij]

(Okay, there was the inevitable YouTube-suggested detour, this time through Bernstein's 'Magnificent 7'; but hey, don't try to tell me you've never been sidetracked on the web.)

Sounds like a very worthwhile diversion to me!

[Scarpia]

Ya know, instead of fretting over an inability to fit his book into my reading schedule, I thought maybe I should listen to him instead.

I just passed a very enjoyable hour on 'Billy the Kid' and 'El Salon Mexico'.  (Okay, there was the inevitable YouTube-suggested detour, this time through Bernstein's 'Magnificent 7'; but hey, don't try to tell me you've never been sidetracked on the web.)

So far I've made it a practice to avoid anything I was previously familiar with, not wanting preconceptions to taint my investigations.  Unlike other composers, for some unfathomable reason I applied this approach to Copland en masse, avoiding everything simply because of a vague familiarity with 'Fanfare' and 'Simple Gifts'.  That was a big fat mistake, one I'll spend some time rectifying over the next several days.  (And yes, I reviewed a couple of the most recent discussions on Copland over in the Composers forum.

Copland also wrote some more mellow stuff, such as Appalachian Spring, and a concerto for Clarinet (which you've probably come across if you've been looking for his music on YouTube).

[(poco) Sforzando]

Of course I know that the 6th symphony has 5 movements, but knowing this fact does not enhance my enjoyment of it.

Well, maybe this is where we're all at odds. You seem to be saying that such knowledge is a matter of memorizing facts as if they existed as ends in themselves, like little gobbets of information to be regurgitated on an exam. I feel these "facts" to be inseparable from my experience of the work - so that (for example), when I think of the LvB op. 111 sonata, it evokes a whole world of emotions and memories, central to which is the knowledge that this is a 2-movement work starting with a snarling, passionate, compressed opening Allegro in the minor and followed by an expansive, spacious, transfigured set of very slow variations in the major. I do not, in other words, separate my experience of the music from my knowledge of how it is written, and personally speaking, I don't know how I could do so.

[Scarpia]

Well, maybe this is where we're all at odds. You seem to be saying that such knowledge is a matter of memorizing facts as if they existed as ends in themselves, like little gobbets of information to be regurgitated on an exam. I feel these "facts" to be inseparable from my experience of the work - so that (for example), when I think of the LvB op. 111 sonata, it evokes a whole world of emotions and memories, central to which is the knowledge that this is a 2-movement work starting with a snarling, passionate, compressed opening Allegro in the minor and followed by an expansive, spacious, transfigured set of very slow variations in the major. I do not, in other words, separate my experience of the music from my knowledge of how it is written, and personally speaking, I don't know how I could do so.

Exactly what I have been trying to express (although my knowledge is at a much more rudimentary level).

[Scarpia]

Is this really what you understood from my post?  Because it is not anything close to what I meant.

You wrote, "Of course I know that the 6th symphony has 5 movements, but knowing this fact does not enhance my enjoyment of it." 

What am I to make of this?  No one on this thread has mentioned memorizing facts as a method of appreciate music.  People have spoken about understanding the structure of music, recognizing these aspects of music when hearing it, and (less critically) using the accepted vocabulary of music to describe these things.  Whenever someone like Sforzando mentions their deep understanding of how Beethoven puts music together, you ignore the content and counter that with the same bit about knowing "facts" not being useful.    If I take you at your literal word, I understand it to mean that you have managed to learn a lot of facts about music without recognizing the relationship between these facts and the actual sound of the music.  That is not what is being suggested.

[Scarpia]

First of all, I am trying to have a conversation, I do not see myself "countering" anyone's statements as if we were playing some game - but I do not remember this exchange you describe.

Of course I know that the 6th symphony has 5 movements, but knowing this fact does not enhance my enjoyment of it.

I can interpret this two ways.  1)  Knowing the abstract fact that Beethoven symphony No 6 has two movements doesn't enhance you're enjoyment.  2)  Being able to listen to a work like Beethoven's 6th and recognize it has five movements doesn't enhance your enjoyment.  If it is 1, then you have done what I have suggested, and replaced Sforzando's reference to musical understanding with a reference to musical fact collection.  Your statement is reasonable but has nothing to do with what anyone else on this thread has been saying, you are disagreeing with something no one said.  If it is the second, then you have said something which I find so bizarre and counterintuitive that I cannot even begin to respond to it.  It would make more sense to me if you said that knowing what Beethoven's 6th symphony smells like doesn't help your enjoyment.  I am not trying to ridicule,  but I can see your words on the screen, but when I try to put them together into sentences they make no sense to me whatsoever.

[Mirror Image]

For me, I find doing some research really helps my enjoyment of the music. I especially love reading interviews with composers (if applicable), because this enables me to get a least more of an insight into their personality and own experiences. I think reading about a composer's life and music can only enhance your enjoyment. I realize that some people may just want to listen to the music and that's perfectly acceptable, but my question to those who don't want to read about a composer, how would doing a little research on their music not benefit you?

[(poco) Sforzando]

Yes, well, I don't do that either.   But, this thread began as a person new to classical music asking, "Am I worrying about concepts I'm better off leaving for later?"  And my answer has been, yes: listen first, read later.

I'm not sure why these things can't proceed in parallel, according to each listener's inclination and level of curiosity.

[(poco) Sforzando]

why don't you tell me how knowing the 6th symphony has 5 movements enhances your enjoyment of it?  Then maybe I can find something to relate to that I can compare to my own experience.

I'm just not sure what "enhances" means anymore in the discussion. The multi-movement organization of a large-scale symphony or similar work is simply a part of its nature, and one of the most immediately obvious. It's part of the experience of greater/lesser tension, complication/resolution, fast/slow, etc. - the narrative that the work tells (and I mean that without any connotation relating to program music).

[karlhenning]

For myself, living with a work before I read about it is much more rewarding.

For myself, there is no one way which in the case of all music is more rewarding than another way, than other ways. If the way Karl comes to engage with a piece of music is a narrative, there are different modes of narrative with different pieces.

The cookie-cutter is inimical to art.

[Luke]

If, e.g., the author speaks of some aspect of the second theme of the first movement, I immediately call to mind that theme and then proceed to associate his point to the music I've mapped in my mind.

But to do this you need to know how to identify the second theme - you take for granted that this is obvious, but it isn't, not to everyone, and sometimes, with some pieces, not to many. The 'second theme' is a technical concept too, and if, as you suggest, you are listening and identifying the music's constituent parts like this before reading an analysis of the work, then you are using your technical knowledge to help you make sense of the piece and to enjoy it more, I presume.

Last night I was listening to some Bartok quartets and remembering how as a kid I just didn't understand much of these pieces. And because my brain couldn't make sense of them, I didn't like them. But then I was young, mand I was just listening passively. Then, though - I remember this clearly, I was about 12, maybe - I listened hard, really intently, in the dark (!), and my brain immediately began to hold onto to elements, to identify them, to hear their relationships. Bang, there I was with the pieces starting to click, all of a sudden. Later on, of course, I got the scores and read other people's thoughts about the pieces, and each of these things elucidated the music for me more and brought me more understanding and thus more pleasure. But all of that was only a more precise version of what my mind did automatically that night I started to listen actively. That experience - one of countless others I've had - shows me very clearly the benefits of listening carefully and trying to hear relationships, which is an activity to which a little formal reading is a help, and an enhancement, but only in degree, not in type.

[Grazioso]

Palmetto, here's another work I highly recommend, one equally entertaining and educational for newcomers and old hands:



Michael Steinberg's The Symphony: A Listener's Guide. The man has the rare gift of being able to elucidate the details of music in largely non-technical terms. What's more, his enthusiasm is contagious, and he paints some very memorable portraits of composers, particularly Martinu, whom he knew.

If you get hold of recordings of some of the major symphonies, say Beethoven's and Mozart's, and then follow along with the book, you'll probably learn a lot about how classical music works.

[Scarpia]

Your second paragraph describes exactly what I have been talking about.  Which is a bit odd because in your first paragraph you seem to have not connected your experience with what I've been trying to describe.  I can only assume that music is hard to talk about and I am not very good at expressing my thoughts.

The second paragraph describes "I listened hard, really intently, in the dark (!), and my brain immediately began to hold onto to elements, to identify them, to hear their relationships."  Does that sound consistent with your statement that knowing Beethoven's 6th has five movements does not enhance enjoyment?  How could you understand anything about the "elements" and their "relationships" without knowing that Beethoven's 6th is a 5 movement work and that the structure of these movements organizes the musical "elements" and "relationships?

[karlhenning]

I've started to read a book which IIRC Alan (Elgarian) recommended, An Experiment in Criticism by CS Lewis, which touches on themes which may intersect with this discussion . . . .

[Luke]

The second paragraph describes "I listened hard, really intently, in the dark (!), and my brain immediately began to hold onto to elements, to identify them, to hear their relationships."  Does that sound consistent with your statement that knowing Beethoven's 6th has five movements does not enhance enjoyment?  How could you understand anything about the "elements" and their "relationships" without knowing that Beethoven's 6th is a 5 movement work and that the structure of these movements organizes the musical "elements" and "relationships?

Exactly. My point was that you've been talking about how terminology gets in the way, but then you talked about how you would prefer to listen to a piece without reading up on it first so that later you can map what you read onto your previous identification of e.g. the second subject. And that is italicised because that previous process you have gone through, of labelling the parts of the piece mentally - the second subject, the development, the rhetorical devices etc. - is really the same sort of thing as knowing a Neapolitan 6th when you hear one. The difference is only one of degree and detail, not of type.

As far as the Bartok example went, I was merely trying to describe an example of my own experience in which, when letting the music just pass over me, I didn't connect to it at all, but in which, once I tried to hear with a more taxonomical mind, I suddenly gained enormous pleasure from.

[karlhenning]

I find it odd that you have settled on this aspect of the work and continue to ask me about it - yet you refuse to tell me how knowing the number of movements especially enhances your own enjoyment of the 6th symphony.

For only one thing (and, speaking of finding it strange that you fix on the one question), one has different expectations of overall design for the fourth movement, which in turn governs how one interprets its elements.

[Palmetto]

... why don't you tell me how knowing the 6th symphony has 5 movements enhances your enjoyment of it?

Well, so you don't look like a twit by standing and applauding like crazy after the fourth movement? 

That said, I still agree with your position.  Maybe I won't when I have more technical understanding, but what newbie does?