Understanding music?

[Shrunk]

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...

I think you're on the right track, here.  It seems obvious to me that someone could possess as much musical knowledge as it is possible to obtain, be able to understand all the intricacies of harmony, etc., and still encounter pieces of music that are meaningless to them.

[Kullervo]

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

What hormones has to do with classical music is anyone's guess.

[Josquin des Prez]

The nature of the understanding is indeed a question.

There is no question. It should be obvious that in this instance 'understanding' means musical understanding. There is a difference between the actual aural phenomena and the theory written to describe it and learning and studying the former from a book will not give you a real insight to the first. This btw accounts for the high level of sheer ignoramus among professional musicians. It's also one of the reasons why contemporary music has been by a large measure a disastrous affair. 

The problem is that in order to understand music you have to commit a real effort into it. You have to listen, over and over and even then it's going to take sometime for your brain to process all the informations acquired, most of which will be in the matter of intuition or abstractions which cannot be easily pinned by the conscious mind.

I still remember the first time i begun listening to classical music. At the time, most of it made little sense, except for the occasional catchy melody or harmonic twist. I've covered a lot of ground since then and i never even learned how to read music.

[Josquin des Prez]

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

Alas, i'm dead serious.

[Josquin des Prez]

What hormones has to do with classical music is anyone's guess.

Objectivity vs. relativity. The first is a masculine trait, the former, a feminine one. Now that the axiom has been established, there's only one logical conclusion, right?

[sadness]

Objectivity vs. relativity. The first is a masculine trait, the former, a feminine one. Now that the axiom has been established, there's only one logical conclusion, right?

So you're asserting that (1) objectivity is a masculine trait and (2) objectivity is a feminine trait?

I'll assume you meant to say 'latter' rather than 'former.' I'll assume you meant to assert that relativity is somehow the domain of women.

Had you said that, you still would've erred.

[Shrunk]

Objectivity vs. relativity. The first is a masculine trait, the former, a feminine one. Now that the axiom has been established, there's only one logical conclusion, right?

I'll try to help extricate you from the hole you seem to be digging yourself:  When you use the terms "masculine" and "feminine", I assume you are not necessarily stating that those traits are defined by a person's biological gender, right?  That anyone possesses qualities of both, regardless of whether they are a man or woman?

[karlhenning]

Objectivity vs. relativity. The first is a masculine trait, the former, a feminine one.

It's nice of you to step out and greet us here in the 3-D world, but how do you manage to live in that comic book of yours?

[jochanaan]

Objectivity vs. relativity. The first is a masculine trait, the former, a feminine one. Now that the axiom has been established...

That's where you lose me.  I've known women that could play me under the table! And I'm not the least of those who have picked up a musical instrument.

Historically, it is entirely possible that the first musicians were women.

(Moderators, we're getting a little off-topic here...)

[Josquin des Prez]

When you use the terms "masculine" and "feminine", I assume you are not necessarily stating that those traits are defined by a person's biological gender, right?

Nope. Biological gender most certainly plays a role, and while there are exceptions (no, i'm not talking about lunatics like Ayn Rand), women are for the most part relativist creatures, as opposed to males.

[Josquin des Prez]

(Moderators, we're getting a little off-topic here...)

Is this some sad attempt at censorship? How typically in tune with our contemporary political climate.

[DavidW]

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 .........

Yeah off topic tangents kick ass.

[longears]

Yeah off topic tangents kick ass.

Amen!  (But how is discussion re. theoretical physics off topic in a thread about faith?)

Josquin thinks that gender has something to do with how we understand music, and even with the nature of our "understanding" itself.  He may have something there, though maybe not what he thinks.  The vastly superior corpus callosum of the female brain (which may occur in people with male genitals) makes them far more effective associative thinkers and probably accounts for the storied "feminine intuition."

So do women in general mean something different by "understanding music" than men in general--that old analytical vs. intuitive bugaboo?

[Shrunk]

Nope. Biological gender most certainly plays a role, and while there are exceptions (no, i'm not talking about lunatics like Ayn Rand), women are for the most part relativist creatures, as opposed to males.

Well, you know, there may actually be something to what you're saying:

http://www.sfu.ca/~dkimura/articles/NEL.htm

This article doesn't say anything about musical appreciation, or "objectivity" vs "subjectivity".  However, it does describe gender-associated cognitive differences, and the possible role of sex hormones therein.

The paucity of great female composers has also always struck me, compared to in the visual and performing arts, as well as literature.

[Kullervo]

Is this some sad attempt at censorship? How typically in tune with our contemporary political climate.

Don't you ever shut up?

[Ten thumbs]

The most useful tool in understanding what one is listening to is knowledge of musical forms. This is particularly helpful in long movements where impatience to reach a conclusion can be avoided. One must bear in mind that strict form is rarely applied just as adherence to so-called harmonic rules should not always be expected. Without some aspects of surprise music risks becoming dull.
The difficult aspect of understanding music is knowing why it affects us in the way it does. The human voice is basically rough and it has been honed into a beautiful instrument in spite of rather than by reason of evolution.
I have not come across any evidence of a difference in quality between music composed by women and that by men. The only reason the repertoire remains dominated by male composers is that the public 'likes what it knows' and is resistant to any change in its perceptions.

[Dancing Divertimentian]

No.  As I understand "understanding," unless one understands something - and there are all kinds of levels of understanding, not necessarily "technical" understanding  - one will not enjoy, but will respond to the sounds as if they are simply aural confusion. I say part of the reason you enjoy a piece is that you understand - at some level, whether you have a technical vocabulary or not - the relationships in the piece among its various themes and other processes.

Sounds to me like you're referring to subconsciously understanding something - music, in this instance.

Consciously we don't understand why something smells good but we know for a fact it does. And good thing too: if I had to consciously understand why I liked everything I think I'd go mad!

[Dancing Divertimentian]

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

A drop of tact can do infinitely more good than an ocean of testosterone. Give it a whirl...

[DavidW]

A drop of tact can do infinitely more good than an ocean of testosterone. Give it a whirl...

Josquin sold his personal centrifuge awhile back, he's going to have send this one into the labs.  We'll hear back from him with the test results in 8-10 days.

[Dancing Divertimentian]

Josquin sold his personal centrifuge awhile back, he's going to have send this one into the labs.  We'll hear back from him with the test results in 8-10 days.

Mobile lab, I presume!!