From what standpoint do you listen to classical music?

[kyjo]

Maybe this is a stupid poll, I don't know, but I'd just like to find out from which standpoint members approach music. I always approach music from a purely emotional standpoint. I have never cared about connecting intellectually with a piece of music. When I listen to atonal music, I don't study the music like a math problem and try to analyze the tone rows; I look for emotion hidden beneath the surface. That would explain why I vastly prefer Schoenberg and Berg to Webern and the Darmstadt school. Also, composers such as Simpson and Panufnik have often used palindromic devices in their music. Do I care? Absolutely not! If I tried to decipher all these hidden codes, I would miss out on the power and breadth of their music. Just my two cents.

[ibanezmonster]

Both. I want some meat with my ice cream.

[Mirror Image]

A mixture of both for me.

[Daverz]

Both. I want some meat with my ice cream.

[kyjo]

I could've went with both, because I do consider structural integrity and craftsmanship to been important parts of music, but, in the end, it's only the emotional response music invokes in me that matters.

[kyjo]

Yuck! Bacon is good by itself, but I don't get why food companies and restaurants feel like they have to make a bacon flavor of everything. I even saw Burger King (a chain I despise, by the way) advertise a bacon sundae a while ago.

Now, back to the regularly scheduled programming.......

[mc ukrneal]

Maybe this is a stupid poll, I don't know, but I'd just like to find out from which standpoint members approach music. I always approach music from a purely emotional standpoint. I have never cared about connecting intellectually with a piece of music. When I listen to atonal music, I don't study the music like a math problem and try to analyze the tone rows; I look for emotion hidden beneath the surface. That would explain why I vastly prefer Schoenberg and Berg to Webern and the Darmstadt school. Also, composers such as Simpson and Panufnik have often used palindromic devices in their music. Do I care? Absolutely not! If I tried to decipher all these hidden codes, I would miss out on the power and breadth of their music. Just my two cents.

Personally, I don't understand how you can delink intellectual and atonal. For me, these are inherently linked. I might even go so far as to say I find making an emotional connection with atonal pieces impossible (not sure I would, but just contemplating it shows you the difference in our thinking).

[Daverz]

Personally, I don't understand how you can delink intellectual and atonal. For me, these are inherently linked. I might even go so far as to say I find making an emotional connection with atonal pieces impossible (not sure I would, but just contemplating it shows you the difference in our thinking).

I find all of Schoenberg's works to be very emotional.  In fact, my problem with some of his works is not the lack of traditional tonality, but the wearying emotional intensity of some of them (e.g. the Violin Concerto.)

[mc ukrneal]

I find all of Schoenberg's works to be very emotional.  In fact, my problem with some of his works is not the lack of traditional tonality, but the wearying emotional intensity of some of them (e.g. the Violin Concerto.)

Amazing, isn't it? How two people can hear the same things and react in completely different ways - this is what I wish we could explain/understand better.

[kyjo]

Personally, I don't understand how you can delink intellectual and atonal. For me, these are inherently linked. I might even go so far as to say I find making an emotional connection with atonal pieces impossible (not sure I would, but just contemplating it shows you the difference in our thinking).

Sorry, I meant twelve-tone rather than atonal. I get those two mixed up all the time!

[mszczuj]

I found some Schoenberg extremely emotional, I would say hysterical, other pedantically scholar. He was great composer it's for sure but I 'm not sur that I really love any of his works.

[Karl Henning]

Personally, I don't understand how you can delink intellectual and atonal.

Or intellectual and tonal.  If we're not using intellectual as some sort of dirty word.

[Brahmsian]

None of the above, and sometimes all of the above.

Pure enjoyment.  When I discovered classical music, I knew that I had found "my music".

So, perhaps more on the emotional than intellectual, but it can also be both and also none of the above. 

[kyjo]

Pure enjoyment.  When I discovered classical music, I knew that I had found "my music".

I should have included that as an option. But, for me, much enjoyment stems from the emotional reaction I have from listening to the music.

[DavidW]

I don't think the two are separable.  Even if you react emotionally to music it is not without reason even if poorly articulated.

[kyjo]

I found some Schoenberg extremely emotional, I would say hysterical, other pedantically scholar. He was great composer it's for sure but I 'm not sur that I really love any of his works.

I LOVE Schoenberg's earlier works (e.g. Verklarte Nacht, Pelleas et Melisande, Gurrelieder, Chamber Symphony no. 1 and String Quartet no. 2), like many of his atonal/12-tone works (e.g. the piano and violin concertos, Five Orchestral Pieces, Chamber Symphony no. 2 and Erwartung), but have trouble warming to quite a few of his works (e.g. Pierrot Lunaire, Moses und Aron, Orchestral Variations and SQs 3 and 4). Overall, though, my favorite of the Second Viennese School is Berg. Aside from the operas (which I'm in the process of warming up to) and the Chamber Concerto, I love everything this man wrote. There's so much genuine emotion in his music. That's the problem I run into with Webern. I enjoy his early works (e.g. Passacaglia, Im Sommerwind and Langsamer Satz) quite a bit, but his 12-tone works make no connection with me whatsoever. My loss, I'm sure, but Webern's music comes across to me as little more than calculated ingenuity.

[Mandryka]

Maybe this is a stupid poll, I don't know, but I'd just like to find out from which standpoint members approach music. I always approach music from a purely emotional standpoint. I have never cared about connecting intellectually with a piece of music. When I listen to atonal music, I don't study the music like a math problem and try to analyze the tone rows; I look for emotion hidden beneath the surface. That would explain why I vastly prefer Schoenberg and Berg to Webern and the Darmstadt school. Also, composers such as Simpson and Panufnik have often used palindromic devices in their music. Do I care? Absolutely not! If I tried to decipher all these hidden codes, I would miss out on the power and breadth of their music. Just my two cents.

Intellectually

You have the stuff the composer left. And then you have people who play it. I'm mostly interested in how their performances say something about my world.  "Say something" isn't quite right but it'll have to do for now.

I think that sort of engagement with music is intellectual.

[madaboutmahler]

Mostly emotionally, as music is all about emotion to me.... But having perfect pitch, I always find myself analysing the harmony in my head whilst listening, and it's always fun to study the more technical side as well.

So, a mixture of both for me.

[mszczuj]

Thinking, rethinking I've found the answer.

Semantically.

[Opus106]

I LOVE Schoenberg's earlier works (e.g. Verklarte Nacht, Pelleas et Melisande, Gurrelieder, Chamber Symphony no. 1 and String Quartet no. 2), like many of his atonal/12-tone works (e.g. the piano and violin concertos, Five Orchestral Pieces, Chamber Symphony no. 2 and Erwartung), but have trouble warming to quite a few of his works (e.g. Pierrot Lunaire, Moses und Aron, Orchestral Variations and SQs 3 and 4).

Have you listened to the String Trio? I listened to it for the first time just a couple of days ago. Very approachable.