Understanding music?

[Ten thumbs]

My niece, who knows more than she's prepared to admit, tells me that anyone who says that they understand quantum mechanics, doesn't. I believe that the same can be said of music.

[jochanaan]

It's not hard to understand the technical and intellectual aspects of music.  But music is much more than its technical aspects.  So the kind of understanding some of us talk about must involve some other attribute than technique and intellect; maybe that entity that no one seems able to define, the soul...

[quintett op.57]

I think many who criticize others for not "understanding [certain] music" are in a defensive position when doing so.

In my case at least, it's true.
I use this word in one only sense : knowing everything a given piece of music can bring to the listener.

I'm quite often using this verb down here, usually to defend composers against people who give unfair negative appreciations about some pieces of music.
(Once again, today, I've read one of our GMGers advise to avoid some works by a great composer, not a good way of promoting classical in my opinion).

[Kullervo]

Which is more important — understanding a piece in some objective way (indeed, assuming that is possible!), or finding in music something that resonates with one's own experience of music prior to hearing aforementioned piece?

[Mark]

I won't dispute that understanding how a work is composed (technically or otherwise) can add to one's enjoyment of it, but is it essential to understand music in this way in order to enjoy it? I'd argue 'no' ... otherwise I'd have rejected classical music years ago and wouldn't have over 1000 CDs on my shelves.

[jochanaan]

And how much do those of us who like to think we understand actually do so?  Music is a mysterious art, and seems to get more mysterious the more you study it.

[Josquin des Prez]

but is it essential to understand music in this way in order to enjoy it?

Yes.

[jochanaan]

Yes.

What's the minimum level of understanding required?

[Josquin des Prez]

What's the minimum level of understanding required?

The one that requires a decent amount of testosterone, something that is of course missing among the average classical music fan.

[Renfield]

My niece, who knows more than she's prepared to admit, tells me that anyone who says that they understand quantum mechanics, doesn't. I believe that the same can be said of music.

Richard Feynman once said, "I think it is safe to say that no one understands quantum mechanics."

But quantum mechanics encompass notions that music does not, including quantum uncertainty. I'll repeat it, even if I sound very rude and very spoil-sportish: it's not as simple as to toss around quotes about it, not by a long shot.

And instead of making a non-discussion about a subject that's nearly untouchable without going into very deep waters, how about discussing whether it's necessary to think you understand music, before you come to enjoy it? Or whether you think music lacks any semantic content whatsoever? Both are simpler questions, and both can lead to very interesting discussions.

[longears]

The one that requires a decent amount of testosterone, something that is of course missing among the average classical music fan.

Guess that leaves out Lis, and Muriel, and Greta, and Hollywood, and 

[Florestan]

I won't dispute that understanding how a work is composed (technically or otherwise) can add to one's enjoyment of it, but is it essential to understand music in this way in order to enjoy it?

No. I have zero, none, nil formal music education, I don't play any instrument and I can't read a score. The only thing I do is listening to music. And enjoying it.

[Mark]

Yes.

Reason? I mean, I proper one this time, not some guff about biology.

[DavidW]

Alot of people don't understand that Feynman's quote has more to do with the interpretation of quantum mechanics.  Most physics students master the theory regardless of it's counterintuitive nature because it's not that difficult mathematically.  Using the juvenile cop out "X can't be understood because famous dude said so" is a lame way of trying to even the playing field and restore bruised ego.  Obviously it's dumb, there is a hierarchy of understanding of music and qm, and you can't level the playing field with one cheeky quote.

And frankly qm isn't really that bothersome, it actually makes sense to treat particles in the same way that you treat light-- the wave-particle duality is resolved by simply saying that we didn't really understand how particles behave until we looked at a smaller scale.  And I frankly think that it's more intuitive than the extremely problematic idealized textbook "point particle" treatment, see the faith thread for more on that.

[karlhenning]

The one that requires a decent amount of testosterone, something that is of course missing among the average classical music fan.

Certainly missing among women;  so it's a man's art, eh?

[karlhenning]

I won't dispute that understanding how a work is composed (technically or otherwise) can add to one's enjoyment of it, but is it essential to understand music in this way in order to enjoy it?

One must hope not; for even the composer himself, if he is doing his work right, does not (cannot) completely understand how it was composed.

[Josquin des Prez]

Certainly missing among women; 

Most of them, yes. There are notable exceptions.

so it's a man's art, eh?

Absolutely.

[karlhenning]

So, the sad thing is, you were proposing to be serious.

[Grazioso]

I'd say it could mean:

* Feeling the emotions the composer intended you to feel at the times he (presumably) intended, feeling the rise and fall of tension and drama as intended. If Western systems of tonality and musical structure were totally alien to you, the big major-key outburst rising from the gloom at the end of LvB's 5th would probably not be "understood" by you. "Hey, why is this stuff loud now?"

* Being able to recognize the fundamental structure or architecture of a piece by being aware of themes (their appearance, return, and manipulation), tone colors, harmonies, dynamics, and other basic building blocks of music. I.e., understanding a piece as a form of language that's saying something using specific "words" in a specific order.

* The one that relatively few can boast of: possessing the technical knowledge to understand the harmonic structures, choice of instrumentation, etc.--being able to analyze what's happening on a musicological level and seeing how the composer's specific choices affect sound and structure and guide listener's expectations and emotions. Understanding how an Eb on a certain instrument at a certain point and volume affects everything around it and what would happen if it had been written differently.

[BachQ]

And I frankly think that it's more intuitive than the extremely problematic idealized textbook "point particle" treatment, see the Faith Thread for more on that.

I must rush off to the Faith Thread to catch the latest on idealized textbook "point particle" treatments ......... Wouldn't want to miss a beat on that topic .........