The last time you sat down and did nothing but listen to classical music?

[longears]

i strongly disagree. Granted nothing might be taken away from viewing the art, but you will surely miss the finer interpretive details of the musical interpretation. Without undivided attention your mind will just not take in the more sensitive details like the weight a pianist applies to chords, the subtlety of his pedalling and any unique highlighting of inner voices. Perhaps it's a different matter with (some) orchestral music as you've obviously succeeded in separating 20+ recordings of that Rachmaninoff vigil you love so much. But for piano, it's undivided attention--sitting, or walking in a quiet area--or nothing else.

On this, as with most things jazz, we agree.  I do play music in the background frequently while I go about other activities, like cooking or chatting on GMG, but I don't consider that really listening.  Listening to music, like listening to my wife, requires undivided attention.

[Mark]

Listening to music, like listening to my wife, requires undivided attention.

Ah, now, that's different.

I think we need to make a distinction here between two different types of listening: passive and active. My day, for example, leaves little room for the latter, but there are usually a fair few slots for the former. When it's active listening that's required, NOTHING else is allowed to distract me (which is why I use headphones so much, incidentally - I can get 'up close and personal' with whatever I'm listening to, helping me to really 'get inside' the music).

[sidoze]

Well, that's one way of seeing it. But what if you already know a particular interpretation extremely well? Can you not then enjoy it and another activity, having previously 'put in the work', so to speak?

absolutely, I didn't think of it that way. I guess that's called enjoying music (not that any of us highbrow fellows would ever nod our heads along to anything  0:) ).

it's often the case that a completely obscure rendition will throw new light (even if only a brief nuance) on this work.

no doubt. that happens with all music, luckily for us.

[orbital]

Listening to music, like listening to my wife, requires undivided attention.

.

I would like to experience that once, but I'm afraid I can't. I'd be fidgeting all the time, and probably pray for the piece to be over soon so that I could get up 

[longears]

Listening to music, like listening to my wife, requires undivided attention.

I would like to experience that once, but I'm afraid I can't. I'd be fidgeting all the time, and probably pray for the piece to be over soon so that I could get up 

Sounds as if you know my wife.

[orbital]

Sounds as if you know my wife.

Shoot, I didn't even see that part (about the wife)

[Solitary Wanderer]

Usually two hours a day [late afternoon] are devoted to active listening to classical music while doing nothing else. Sometimes I can get an extra hour in during the late evening. During the day I listen passively while working at my computer. 

[quintett op.57]

2  hours ago

Bruckner 9 / Giulini / WP

[Grazioso]

I take your point, but you could argue this the other way around: ever looked through a book of fine art while listening to classical music? A wonderful experience, with neither art form robbing the other of anything - rather, they each seem to add something to one another.

Music or fine art can certainly set a mood that will impact your other impressions, but I think you would indeed be robbing yourself in that case by doing both at once. Can you enjoy classical music by just skimming its surface and using it as background music while you multi-task? Sure. But that's like speed-reading Milton. Sort of misses the point. How much are you willing to miss?

I'd rather not listen to music at all if I can't actually listen. Otherwise, it cheapens something I love and ultimately wastes my time since I'm not really getting half the experience. It becomes pleasant noise instead of a real artistic experience or communion. And that principle applies in my case not just to "art" music but to all forms. I similarly get a lot more out of pop or rock when I immerse myself in it emotionally and intellectually instead of just half-hearing it. The nuances and details of rock may not be as subtle or as multitudinous as in classical music, but they're certainly there if you "have ears to hear." And what may seem like a simple pop song can suddenly get really interesting if you're hearing and understanding exactly what every player is doing.

[XB-70 Valkyrie]

I'm curious, XB: what do you do for a living, may I ask?

I'm a biologist, serving time as a postdoctoral research fellow until I'm hired in a tenure track faculty position somewhere in the U.S.--or decide to say "screw it all" and take up another line of work. (Disallusionment runs high among many if not most academics, especially postdocs. It is far worse in humanities however.)

I'm in kind of a privileged position in that I can pretty much make up my own schedule, work the days I want, work from home, etc. As a hardcore nightowl, I greatly appreciate this freedom and it allows me to work at the times I'm most creative, energetic (e.g., late afternoon and late-night to early morning hours). My dissertation work was botanical in nature, but now I'm working on microbial evolution, especially trying to understand the cellular structure, evolution, and function of some of the most bizarre and poorly-studied unicellular organisms on the planet. I do a lot of electron microscopy and spend an equal amount of time in image analysis, editing, writing, and creating graphics, presentations, and photographic plates for publication.


What do you do? Are you still in advertising?

[Mark]

What do you do? Are you still in advertising?

Thanks for that - very interesting.

And yes, I'm freelancing again, which is handy with a new baby at home: I can pick and choose when and where I work.