The Pressure of Music History

[(poco) Sforzando]

Longears:  Isn't it fascinating that people incapable of understanding household plumbing think that their uniformed judgments about art mean anything?  And isn't it sad when their bulbs are too dim for them to see their own limitations?

DavidW: I don't feel that anyone that has posted on this thread deserved that.

Perhaps it depends on how clean and pressed they keep their uniforms.

But though Longears is perhaps unnecessarily satirical, I agree more or less with his point. Consider: of the three elements in the musical equation - composer, performer, and listener - we expect a certain level of skill and training from the first two. Yet some listeners assume their own expertise in making musical judgments no matter how much experience they have or not in knowing the musical literature. Of course there is no formal course of study a listener can undergo in the same way a composer takes instruction in counterpoint, harmony, orchestration, and the like. But a listener can learn from repeated experience with a variety of works, and from reading commentaries from people of greater experience than his/her own.

If I feel my personal taste is grounded in much of the best of the standard literature, it is not because of any personal qualities of my own but because I have learned from extremely fine teachers, both in person and from reading. In reading some of the comments on this board, for example, one hears that Mozart is "overrated," and conversely that some of his contemporaries like Stamitz, Hummel, and Dittersdorf are unjustly neglected. But a reading of Charles Rosen's "The Classical Style" or Donald Tovey's "Essays in Musical Analysis," for example, can go a long way towards an understanding of why Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven are so generally esteemed among musicians, and why some of their contemporaries have fallen by the wayside to one degree or another. A brilliant little essay by Edward Lowinsky, "On Mozart's Rhythm," says a great deal in 20 pages as to why Mozart is in fact a superior composer to JC Bach and Dittersdorf. Rosen's books show he is intimately familiar with composers like Dittersdorf, Dussek, Clementi, et al., but his comments show why he considers such composers less interesting than the standard three. We read on another thread here that Mozart's operas are "boring" or insignificant. I would say that a thorough reading and understanding of the chapter on Mozart's operas in Joseph Kerman's "Opera as Drama" should go a long way towards reversing such an attitude.

So yes, in response to Corey's initial question, I do think greater experience and knowledge do lead to a increased ability to make musical judgments.

[Mozart]

Why am I reading this thread again? The original question was interesting...and then I learned since I don't know how my toilet works I can't have a musical opinion. But I do enjoy the swoosh sound, isn't that enough? I bet my swoosh is 30 times better than yours.

[karlhenning]

The swoosh which can be explained is not the true swoosh.

[longears]

   Perhaps not...but if you're correct about his drinking habits, then Poju should be an expert on the sound of one porcelain goblet swooshing.

[Mozart]

Word.

[drogulus]

 

Isn't it fascinating that people incapable of understanding household plumbing think that their uniformed judgments about  art mean anything? 

     Fascinating. However, it's true. The judgments of the uninformed do mean something. When I started out listening to classical music I was uninformed, as much as any newbie in the Beginners section. So I picked up this and that, and right away started to make uninformed judgments (not being jocular here) about what I liked.  Now, some 45 years later, I still think my first picks were spot on. And I'm not unique.

     Musical taste is not knowledge, though knowledge does seem to broaden and deepen tendencies of appreciation that show up almost immediately. I'm not saying don't learn about music, far from it. But I wouldn't hold my more advanced knowledge as that much of an advantage over my earlier taste. Musical understanding is an aptitude that is part inborn, and only partially learned.

    It would probably be a good idea, if you're a novice, not to dwell too much on who's greater, this guy or that one. What's the point, really? I never felt greatness added much to the mix, really. What I did was listen to more music by the same composers, then read books about them, then listen to the composers mentioned in the books, and on and on like a spreading stain or an epidemic.

[Dancing Divertimentian]

     Fascinating. However, it's true. The judgments of the uninformed do mean something. When I started out listening to classical music I was uninformed, as much as any newbie in the Beginners section. So I picked up this and that, and right away started to make uninformed judgments (not being jocular here) about what I liked.  Now, some 45 years later, I still think my first picks were spot on. And I'm not unique.

Interesting, but I'm not sure that's the norm, either.

Take me, for example. I snubbed my nose at, oh, say, Schoenberg for many years. Never thought twice about it. But almost 20 years later I found that I really WAS missing out on some wonderful music.

Have never looked back since.

It was eye-opening to find that my 'gut instincts' (first picks) had been wrong all along. And I chalk it up to learning - or, rather, maturing. Aesthetically, that is. And I'm happy to admit there's ample room to grow, still. Which is cause for much excitement...

[J.Z. Herrenberg]

What I did was listen to more music by the same composers, then read books about them, then listen to the composers mentioned in the books, and on and on like a spreading stain or an epidemic.

Same here. Though there always comes a moment, for me, when 'greatness' does enter into the equation, when I notice that some pieces after repeated hearings start to pale, while others reveal more and more hidden depths.

Jez