I remember about a year ago having a conversation with Florestan, Karl, and others, about 'Inattentive listening'. It was Florestan who started it all, I believe (indeed this new thread owes more to him than me), and it has had a significant effect on me in the 12 months since then. So I'd like to resurrect that idea, not as part of a thread on a different topic (as before), but as a topic in itself, worthy of exploring.
I've had a period where listening to classical music has become a thing I rarely do - mostly because my musical moments have been spent in playing guitar myself, rather than listening to the music of others. Basically I just found that I did not want to spend time sitting down and listening earnestly to classical music.
I was sitting reading a historical novel by Robert Neill, and started thinking about the silence. Now silence is good stuff, but I just wondered if I might do better. So I grabbed a box of Handel sonatas, popped a CD in the player, and carried on reading. Well of course you can't observe a phenomenon without interfering with it, and so I found myself doing a strange mixture of reading, listening, and thinking about what I was hearing and reading. You could say that madness lies thence, but actually it was all very pleasant. Subsequently I've found that a sprinkling of Haydn quartets and Handel sonatas goes down very nicely with historical fiction. And I tell myself that Haydn would not have expected most of his listeners to down tools and fully attend, and that many of then chattered above what they were hearing.
I don't think I could do this with Wagner, or anything else that bangs a drum and demands attention. But the outcome is that quite a few CDs are having the dust blown off them and getting a very enjoyable hearing as accompaniment to reading. The silence is broken.
There you go Andrei. See what an influence you have. My thanks.
Excellent, John! I'm glad to have been of service to you. :)
Quote from: Florestan on September 28, 2019, 12:30:41 AM
Excellent, John! I'm glad to have been of service to you. :)
John? John? Who is John, Harold?
Cheers,
Alan
Quote from: Elgarian Redux on September 28, 2019, 01:11:34 AM
John? John? Who is John, Harold?
Cheers,
Alan
Believe me or not, I was undecided between John and something starting with A. Arthur crossed my mind but it didn't ring the right bell, so I took my chance with John. :D
As for Wagner, you could apply another one of my ideas: discard any music which doesn't lend itself to inattentive listening. ;D
Alan! Great to see you!
Quote from: Elgarian Redux on September 28, 2019, 12:12:47 AM
I remember about a year ago having a conversation with Florestan, Karl, and others, about 'Inattentive listening'. It was Florestan who started it all, I believe (indeed this new thread owes more to him than me), and it has had a significant effect on me in the 12 months since then. So I'd like to resurrect that idea, not as part of a thread on a different topic (as before), but as a topic in itself, worthy of exploring.
I've had a period where listening to classical music has become a thing I rarely do - mostly because my musical moments have been spent in playing guitar myself, rather than listening to the music of others. Basically I just found that I did not want to spend time sitting down and listening earnestly to classical music.
I was sitting reading a historical novel by Robert Neill, and started thinking about the silence. Now silence is good stuff, but I just wondered if I might do better. So I grabbed a box of Handel sonatas, popped a CD in the player, and carried on reading. Well of course you can't observe a phenomenon without interfering with it, and so I found myself doing a strange mixture of reading, listening, and thinking about what I was hearing and reading. You could say that madness lies thence, but actually it was all very pleasant. Subsequently I've found that a sprinkling of Haydn quartets and Handel sonatas goes down very nicely with historical fiction. And I tell myself that Haydn would not have expected most of his listeners to down tools and fully attend, and that many of then chattered above what they were hearing.
I don't think I could do this with Wagner, or anything else that bangs a drum and demands attention. But the outcome is that quite a few CDs are having the dust blown off them and getting a very enjoyable hearing as accompaniment to reading. The silence is broken.
There you go Andrei. See what an influence you have. My thanks.
I must admit that 99% of the time I am listening to classical music in the background. Which is probably why I am no good at making comparisons of recordings. Thanks for starting this thread, it will be interesting to hear from others about this phenomenon.
I never listen inattentively -- even to unlistenable things like late Feldman if I lose concentration I turn it off (which probably means I've never got to the end of some things, but I'm not sure it matters.)
I despise inattentive listening. It's like you take these great human artefacts, things of enormous creativity, and turn them into decorative devices for installing a room ambience, like a scented candle. When I come to power it will be illegal.
But by all means carry on listening inattentively to the sort of music I don't like.
I can't really do this... I get distracted and start just listening to the music
I detest background music. It's unnecessary noise, a kind of sonic pollution, and when I meet it, I do what I can to ignore it.
Music is for attentive listening.
Quote from: Mandryka on September 28, 2019, 05:15:49 AM
I never listen inattentively -- even to unlistenable things like late Feldman if I lose concentration I turn it off (which probably means I've never got to the end of some things, but I'm not sure it matters.)
This pretty much sums up my own situation too. I sometimes end up doing it by accidentally, or occasionally experiment with a disk fragmentation-type exercise for my brain, but it nearly always ends up the same meaningless experience, either highly uninteresting or positively annoying.
Though I have a feeling that for certain kinds of brains (not mine), oblique listening may reveal things that conscious listening doesn't pick up. Not sure, will read the thread with interest
Quote from: ChopinBroccoli on September 28, 2019, 07:31:52 AM
I can't really do this... I get distracted and start just listening to the music
That's a problem I recognize, though not all the time.
It kinda depens on the music that's on... and, when I'm reading a book and it's very good, sometimes even (very) good music can turn into background music.
So: when I'm reading a very good book, I sometimes have to turn that good music off.
But mostly the good music 'wins' and I put the book aside.
The only thing that has changed a bit during the last years, is that I lost the urge to compare recordings/performances with each other.
I just (try to) experience and enjoy what I listen to, without making comparisons.
This, of course, makes me less 'participating' on this board. But I still enjoy reading other person's experiences and comparisons in music that I (might) like. In many cases, it makes me listen more attentively the next time, too.
Quote from: Iota on September 28, 2019, 08:13:22 AM
Though I have a feeling that for certain kinds of brains (not mine), oblique listening may reveal things that conscious listening doesn't pick up.
This is a very perceptive remark. You'd be surprised to learn how many works which I started listening to as background music have become favorites of mine just because during a fleeting moment something caught up my attention sufficient enough to make me want to listen to the whole thing once again, this time attentively.
Quote from: Mandryka on September 28, 2019, 05:15:49 AM
I never listen inattentively -- even to unlistenable things like late Feldman if I lose concentration I turn it off (which probably means I've never got to the end of some things, but I'm not sure it matters.)
I despise inattentive listening. It's like you take these great human artefacts, things of enormous creativity, and turn them into decorative devices for installing a room ambience, like a scented candle. When I come to power it will be illegal.
But by all means carry on listening inattentively to the sort of music I don't like.
These are the marks of a truly totalitarian mind. >:D :P
Quote from: (: premont :) on September 28, 2019, 07:58:09 AM
Music is for attentive listening.
How about Handel's Water Music or Fire Works, which are actually background music in all but name? How about Mozart's serenades and cassations which were written for specific occasions involving general merriment, booze included? How about Strauss'waltzes, polkas and quadrilles which were written specifically to be danced to? By your token, they are not music. :)
When I do inattentive listening somehow I feel I'm not investing my time correctly. I like to feel the music catches me, drawns my attention, moves me, excites me or makes me think, even if the works are light or intended like background music. Granted, it doesn't happen always and it also depends on the kind of works that are playing, or it may be that simply the music is too bland or insipid to get important ideas or pleasure from it.
Quote from: SymphonicAddict on September 28, 2019, 10:08:43 AM
I like to feel the music catches me, drawns my attention, moves me, excites me or makes me think
I like that too --- but in my experience, it's much more likely to happen spontaneously, softly, as if out of blue air, rather than as a result of a conscious effort from my part to be caught, have my attention drawn, be moved, excited or made think.
I think Debussy expressed a profound insight when he said that "Beauty must appeal to the senses, must provide us with immediate enjoyment, must impress us or insinuate itself into us without any effort on our part."
And it is also my experience that works which don't catch my attention during inattentive listening, albeit for a fleeting moment, are not likely to sustain my interest long enough during an attentive listening.
For me, a live performance is the primary experience of music, and I cannot help but listen attentively. I do not consider recordings of the same importance as a live experience and they can not capture my attention as would a live performance. But I love music, and will have some kind of music playing in the background most of the day while I am going about my normal existence: reading, preparing meals, watching a baseball game, working on my songs, talking with my wife or friends, etc. I am now retired, but when I was working music was playing constantly in the background.
I just cannot devote all of my attention to a recording without much work, and honestly, I don't wish to expend the effort nor spend the time solely listening to a recording. I'd much rather be doing something else while it plays in the background. I am able to hear it enough to appreciate it, albeit somewhat superficially, but nonetheless, I am very much aware of what is playing and have enough of the experience to enjoy it, or advance the track it is something I don't wish to hear.
Quote from: San Antone on September 28, 2019, 11:15:01 AM
For me, a live performance is the primary experience of music, and I cannot help but listen attentively.
Absolutely agreed. I could --- and I think I already did it somewhere here on GMG --- argue that the advent of recordings has fundamentally changed our perception of music and it was not always for better.
QuoteI do not consider recordings of the same importance as a live experience and they can not capture my attention as would a live performance. But I love music, and will have some kind of music playing in the background most of the day while I am going about my normal existence...
I just cannot devote all of my attention to a recording without much work, and honestly, I don't wish to expend the effort nor spend the time solely listening to a recording. I'd much rather be doing something else while it plays in the background. I am able to hear it enough to appreciate it, albeit somewhat superficially, but nonetheless, I am very much aware of what is playing and have enough of the experience to enjoy it
+ 1, especially the underlined parts.
In classical music the musician experiments in a concert. After some concerts, some experiments, some successes and some failures, he lays down his considered view in a recording. For that reason recordings are the primary musical experience, in some sense of primary at least, and why on the whole I value recordings more than I value concerts.
I enjoy concerts, though very often I don't want to go back after the interval.
Opera is quite a different matter, I wouldn't dream of listening to an opera sound recording these days. But that will change I guess when holographic video recordings become available.
Does anyone here listen inattentively in a concert, maybe read their twitter feed or text someone or whisper comments to the person next to them while it's going on?
In the understanding that we're all expressing opinions and or relating our experience, and that I find those which are at wide variance to my own of interest.
If one is the composer or performer, I can see caring deeply if the listener is not attentive. One may or may not, in the event, care, but I see one's vested interest.
But if I am neither the composer of the piece, nor a participant in the performance, why should I object, if the listener be inattentive?
Quote from: Mandryka on September 28, 2019, 11:33:12 AM
In classical music the musician experiments in a concert. After some concerts, some experiments, some successes and some failures, he lays down his considered view in a recording. For that reason recordings are the primary musical experience, in some sense of primary at least, and why on the whole I value recordings more than I value concerts.
This strikes me as very, very odd coming from a committed HIP guy like you.
The way I see it, the ultimate, the nec plus ultra, the only genuine HIP experience would be to go back in time and hear the music literally like they were hearing it back then: quite possibly, and most probably, for the first and last time in their life. That one, single, once in a life time, live performance which you could not compare with any other, because there would never be any other. I say, no recording, not even your favorite one, can give you even the slightest idea of that reality.
Don't get me wrong, I'm only too glad that we live in an era when they record everything composed and then some --- but I am convinced that the thrill we experience from listening to our favorite recording of any given piece of music is small beer compared to the thrill experienced by the audiences back then.
Quote from: Mandryka on September 28, 2019, 11:33:12 AM
Does anyone here listen inattentively in a concert, maybe read their twitter feed or text someone or whisper comments to the person next to them while it's going on?
I absolutely hate it when someone sitting next to me uses his mobile phone during a concert. The first thing I do after taking my seat in a concert hall is turning off my mobile phone.
I have no problem whatsoever with whispering comments within my hearing range, provided the comments are about the music and/or performance.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 28, 2019, 11:44:19 AM
In the understanding that we're all expressing opinions and or relating our experience, and that I find those which are at wide variance to my own of interest.
I'd say this is common understanding here, the very few exceptions notwithstanding.
QuoteIf one is the composer or performer, I can see caring deeply if the listener is not attentive.
Aria di sorbetto (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aria_di_sorbetto)
Quote from: Mandryka on September 28, 2019, 11:33:12 AM
In classical music the musician experiments in a concert. After some concerts, some experiments, some successes and some failures, he lays down his considered view in a recording.
That is not always the case. Sviatoslav Richter hardly made any studio recordings, and his career was spent doing concerts and his recordings are live recordings, in general. But I take your point, however, the public environment of a live concert is so drastically different and more highly charged than the private listening to a recording, I cannot even consider them remotely alike.
QuoteDoes anyone here listen inattentively in a concert, maybe read their twitter feed or text someone ... ?
IMO, that is extremely rude behavior, and not something I would like to witness or be subjected to. A concert is really the only time I devote my entire attention to a classical music performance, and find it much more captivating and rewarding than listening to a recording.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 28, 2019, 11:44:19 AM
But if I am neither the composer of the piece, nor a participant in the performance, why should I object, if the listener be inattentive?
This is very sensible I think. (I'm assuming it's rhetorical!)
Quote from: San Antone on September 28, 2019, 12:22:41 PM
IMO, that is extremely rude behavior, and not something I would like to witness or be subjected to. A concert is really the only time I devote my entire attention to a classical music performance, and find it much more captivating and rewarding than listening to a recording.
I've started to do something in concerts which may be bad form. I don't wear a watch any more, and I like to know how much time has elapsed, how long before the interval or the end. So I tend to hold my phone and glance at it.
Quote from: Mandryka on September 28, 2019, 12:36:00 PM
I like to know how much time has elapsed, how long before the interval or the end.
In other words, the music itself is of lesser interest to you than the intervals, or the end of it all. ;D
QuoteI tend to hold my phone and glance at it.
Next time you do just that, please be aware that I'd mentally curse you were I your neighbour. ;D
Quote from: Mandryka on September 28, 2019, 12:36:00 PM
This is very sensible I think. (I'm assuming it's rhetorical!)
Aye.
Quote from: Florestan on September 28, 2019, 01:33:20 AM
As for Wagner, you could apply another one of my ideas: discard any music which doesn't lend itself to inattentive listening. ;D
Well that would go a bit too far, for me. I'm not advocating inattentive listening as a
substitute for attentive listening (as I think one or two posters seem to be assuming), but an an extra tool in the listening toolkit. I am of course taking the unashamed view that the listener has the last word on how he chooses to listen on any particular occasion.
I'd like to restate how I came to this: I found that I was not listening to classical music
at all, in recent months. I was listening to silence as the obvious alternative. Seems to me that inattentive listening provides a more musical and sometimes more helpful alternative than silence. There is, surely, no intent to disrespect the composer. I love the paintings on my walls, and pay very close attention to them for short times, on most days. The fact that most of the time I am conscious of them only vaguely, (though they're still having an important influence on my subconscious) implies no disrespect.
Neither am I implying that this practice would suit anyone else apart from Florestan. I've no idea. I'm just the messenger, reporting on his recent experiences.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 28, 2019, 03:58:36 AM
Alan! Great to see you!
Karl, you old pirate! Glad to see you too, and I hope all's well.
Quote from: Iota on September 28, 2019, 08:13:22 AM
Though I have a feeling that for certain kinds of brains (not mine), oblique listening may reveal things that conscious listening doesn't pick up.
That has sometimes happened, albeit in a rather crude way. Handel re-used tunes from his cantatas in his chamber music (or was it the other way round), and on several occasions it brought a curious smile as my inattentive ear picked up a tune that I subconsciously recognised from elsewhere.
As organist Peter Westerbrink (and quite a few others) expressed once in a while before an organ concert, the concert in 17th/18th century was, for a great part, a social experience. For instance, when Sweelinck played his organ, people were walking up and down the church, talking with each other about personal, religious, social and business matters. From time to time they fell silent of course, because of the beautiful things they heard.
Sometimes Westerbrink invited us to walk around and look around, without the talking though, to not annoy the very attentive listeners. ;)
Haydn had to wake up his audience, or have them pay more attention, with his 'Suprise' symphony and other musical jokes. People were either drinking coffee or other stuff, or chatting, or even sleeping.
The idea that all 'classical' music was only written for very attentive listening is, in my humble opinion, not correct.
It wouldn't surprise if that the 'strictly attentive listening' idea kinda started to gain ground during the romantic arrea, where the artist was almost considered as someone who was connected to the Gods of the outer world(s), and therefore the 'common' down-to-earth listener did best to remain respectfully silent and pay the deepest attention (or at least fake it).
This is an interesting thread, but, again in my humble opinion, not a subject of 'definitions' and 'rules'. Especially not when listening/hearing at home.
Anyone who likes his Bach as background music whilst reading, doing the dishes or having a nice chat with someone else: be my guest.
For myself: the most rewarding way of hearing music is listening very attentively. Just wanted to make that sure. ;)
This evening I listened live to Bach's Great Organ Mass in the Groningen Martinikerk... that was a very attentive and extremely rewarding experience. Just WOW.
Quote from: Elgarian Redux on September 28, 2019, 01:02:35 PM
I'm not advocating inattentive listening as a substitute for attentive listening, but as an extra tool in the listening toolkit
I'd say, not extra but on a par with.
QuoteI am of course taking the unashamed view that the listener has the last word on how he chooses to listen on any particular occasion.
I'm taking the same view, thank you.
QuoteI'd like to restate how I came to this: I found that I was not listening to classical music at all, in recent months. I was listening to silence as the obvious alternative. Seems to me that inattentive listening provides a more musical and sometimes more helpful alternative than silence. There is, surely, no intent to disrespect the composer. I love the paintings on my walls, and pay very close attention to them for short times, on most days. The fact that most of the time I am conscious of them only vaguely, (though they're still having an important influence on my subconscious) implies no disrespect.
Neither am I implying that this practice would suit anyone else apart from Florestan.
Well, I have never thought or implied that my own thinking is the universal yardstick by which all others must be measured.
From childhood's hour I have not been
As others were—I have not seen
As others saw—I could not bring
My passions from a common spring—
From the same source I have not taken
My sorrow—I could not awaken
My heart to joy at the same tone—
And all I lov'd—I lov'd alone—
Quote from: Marc on September 28, 2019, 01:11:42 PM
The idea that all 'classical' music was only written for very attentive listening is, in my humble opinion, not correct.
Yes. Not a matter of opinion though. I believe your statement is a pretty accurate description of historical fact.
Quote from: Marc on September 28, 2019, 01:11:42 PM
The idea that all 'classical' music was only written for very attentive listening is, in my humble opinion, not correct.
+ 1. It's not only not correct --- it's downright false.
QuoteIt wouldn't surprise if that the 'strictly attentive listening' idea kinda started to gain ground during the romantic arrea, where the artist was almost considered as someone who was connected to the Gods of the outer world(s), and therefore the 'common' down-to-earth listener did best to remain respectfully silent and pay the deepest attention (or at least fake it).
Romanticism is responsible for some of the greatest music ever penned --- and also for some of the most far-fetched and pernicious ideas ever penned.
QuoteAnyone who likes his Bach as background music whilst reading, doing the dishes or having a nice chat with someone else: be my guest.
This is the mark of a truly liberal mindset. 8)
Quote from: Florestan on September 28, 2019, 01:25:57 PM
+ 1. It's not only not correct --- it's downright false.
Romanticism is responsible for some of the greatest music ever penned --- and also for some of the most far-fetched and pernicious ideas ever penned.
This is the mark of a truly liberal mindset. 8)
I sometimes do listen to Bach too whilst doing the dishes, you know: shake my booty and wave me arms on Brandenburg No. 2... and then break another (not so) expensive plate or glass.
I.c. romanticism: I listened a lot to Chopin this week, mostly before going to sleep. A mixture between attentive and inattentive listening. I don't feel bad about myself when I fall asleep whilst Vlado Perlemuter is playing the Berceuse.
Quote from: Marc on September 28, 2019, 01:31:30 PM
I sometimes do listen to Bach too whilst doing the dishes, you know: shake my booty and wave me arms on Brandenburg No. 2... and then break another (not so) expensive plate or glass.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caf%C3%A9_Zimmermann (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caf%C3%A9_Zimmermann)
I'd have a pint of beer for starters,
danke schoen!
Quote from: Florestan on September 28, 2019, 01:38:35 PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caf%C3%A9_Zimmermann (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caf%C3%A9_Zimmermann)
I'd have a pint of beer for starters, danke schoen!
"Schweigt stille, plaudert nicht!"
Quote from: Marc on September 28, 2019, 01:31:30 PM
I listened a lot to Chopin this week, mostly before going to sleep. A mixture between attentive and inattentive listening.
That's precisely how I listen to my Chopin every week. :D
Quote from: Mandryka on September 28, 2019, 11:33:12 AM
In classical music the musician experiments in a concert. After some concerts, some experiments, some successes and some failures, he lays down his considered view in a recording. For that reason recordings are the primary musical experience, in some sense of primary at least, and why on the whole I value recordings more than I value concerts.
I agree completely with this. You have a very strong point there.
Quote from: Marc on September 28, 2019, 01:44:17 PM
"Schweigt stille, plaudert nicht!"
"Ich denke was ich will und was mich beglücket,
doch alles in der Still', und wie es sich schicket.
Mein Wunsch und Begehren kann niemand verwehren,
es bleibet dabei: Die Gedanken sind frei!"
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 28, 2019, 11:44:19 AM
If one is the composer or performer, I can see caring deeply if the listener is not attentive. One may or may not, in the event, care, but I see one's vested interest.
When I listen to your St.John's passion, a work I really love, I always listen attentively. If I read something while listening, it is the score.
In 1888, the Concertgebouw in Amsterdam was also built as a mixture of a concert hall and a café, with tables, chairs, coffee, cake, waiters and there was quite some talking during the concerts.
Conductor Willem Kes didn't like that. In 1893 the tables and chairs disappeared, and also the waiters, coffee and cake.
According to Kes, classical music was a higher art, to be experienced in respectful silence.
Quote from: Florestan on September 28, 2019, 11:53:49 AM
The way I see it, the ultimate, the nec plus ultra, the only genuine HIP experience would be to go back in time and hear the music literally like they were hearing it back then: quite possibly, and most probably, for the first and last time in their life. That one, single, once in a life time, live performance which you could not compare with any other, because there would never be any other. I say, no recording, not even your favorite one, can give you even the slightest idea of that reality.
Since long I have suspected, that you completely misunderstood the purpose of HIP, and now I see it clearly.
Quote from: Florestan on September 28, 2019, 09:30:26 AM
How about Handel's Water Music or Fire Works, which are actually background music in all but name? How about Mozart's serenades and cassations which were written for specific occasions involving general merriment, booze included? How about Strauss'waltzes, polkas and quadrilles which were written specifically to be danced to? By your token, they are not music. :)
Water music and Fireworks music are too good to be reduced to background music. I am happy to have the option to listen to these works without doing anything else.
Dance music is another matter. Some of it is very good and may serve as listening music.
Quote from: (: premont :) on September 28, 2019, 01:49:54 PM
When I listen to your St.John's passion, a work I really love, I always listen attentively. If I read something while listening, it is the score.
Not everyone who loves (classical) music has got the background/skills to do that.
I have the 'Klavierauszüge' of Bach's passions and other choral works, and sometimes reading that whilst listening adds to the wonderment and emotion. But it can also be a distraction.
Quote from: (: premont :) on September 28, 2019, 01:53:27 PM
Since long I have suspected, that you completely misunderstood the purpose of HIP, and now I see it clearly.
Okay. Here is your only chance to enlighten me, once and for all, as to what is the purpose of HIP. Be careful of what you write, everything can be used against you. :D
Quote from: San Antone on September 28, 2019, 12:22:41 PM
That is not always the case. Sviatoslav Richter hardly made any studio recordings,
This is about studio recordings, so Richter does not qualify that much.
Quote from: (: premont :) on September 28, 2019, 01:56:54 PM
Water music and Fireworks music are too good to be reduced to background music.
For you, today, as influenced by more than a century of romantic/Romantic thinking and feeling. I''m sure that for Handel himself back then it was simply a matter of pleasing his royal patron.
Quote from: Florestan on September 28, 2019, 01:58:19 PM
Okay. Here is your only chance to enlighten me, once and for all, as to what is the purpose of HIP. Be careful of what you write, everything can be used against you. :D
What you propose as ultimate HIP for the 20th/21st century just won't happen. Because we can always make a recording of the concert and relive it.
HIP tries to understand and recover the original sound and way of performing, and, if possible, the original meaning/background. It tries to be 'only' historically informed. That's something different than make the experience historically 100% correct, as if the listener steps into a time machine and travels back to 1727, becomes an 18th century Lutheran and hears the first version of Bach's Matthäus-Passion.
Quote from: Marc on September 28, 2019, 01:57:19 PM
Not everyone who loves (classical) music has got the background/skills to do that.
I have the 'Klavierauszüge' of Bach's passions and other choral works, and sometimes reading that whilst listening adds to the wonderment and emotion. But it can also be a distraction.
Yes, I know, if so they just should close their eyes and listen. Henning's St, John's passion will do the rest.
Of course I do not always read the score while listening, because it may be a distraction. But one can listen in more ways, either analytical or emotional.
Quote from: Marc on September 28, 2019, 02:07:28 PM
What you propose as ultimate HIP for the 20th/21st century just won't happen. Because we can always make a recording of the concert and relive it.
HIP tries to understand and recover the original sound and way of performing, and, if possible, the original meaning/background. It tries to be 'only' historically informed. That's something different than make the experience historically 100% correct, as if the listener steps into a time machine and travels back to 1727, becomes an 18th century Lutheran and hears the first version of Bach's Matthäus-Passion.
Thanks, you said it better than I would be able to (considering my skill in English).
Quote from: Florestan on September 28, 2019, 02:02:00 PM
For you, today, as influenced by more than a century of romantic/Romantic thinking and feeling. I''m sure that for Handel himself back then it was simply a matter of pleasing his royal patron.
And when the patron liked good music, the music had better be good. Handel for sure didn't want to see his patron yawn, then order a pint and shout "where are the pretty gals?"
Quote from: Florestan on September 28, 2019, 02:02:00 PM
For you, today, as influenced by more than a century of romantic/Romantic thinking and feeling.....
What the f**k do you know about this?
Quote from: (: premont :) on September 28, 2019, 02:12:45 PM
What the f**k do you know about this?
I could ask you the same.
Quote from: (: premont :) on September 28, 2019, 02:10:50 PM
Thanks, you said it better than I would be able to (considering my skill in English).
Well, I'm kinda in the center in this 'argument', because I'm fine with people who listen to good music as background. During university years, I knew this kind girl who loved Mozart piano concertos, especially because it made her concentrate better whilst reading her books and study material. How could I condemn that?
To me, there just are no rules in hearing/listening/experiencing music. I also know people who meditate on classical music. Others use it to fall asleep. And some listen to it with the score on their lap. Others dance in their own room, both on fast and slow movements. As I said before: all fine to me.
I've done it all, too. But studying whilst listening to music that I really like: that was too difficult for me. I got distracted by the music. So I went to the library. (This was all long before the mobile phone and mp3 area... even headphones were not allowed in those days.)
But at my work, I sometimes put headphones on with good music. No other noise from outside, and then it can work really well.
Quote from: (: premont :) on September 28, 2019, 01:58:56 PM
This is about studio recordings, so Richter does not qualify that much.
But why wouldn't/couldn't you listen attentively to a live recording?
I agree that studio recordings can contain some remarkable performances, and there was a time when I would devote time to listening to them very closely and even compare several recordings of the same work against each other (I've posted about my Liszt B Minor Sonata project). And I am certainly not arguing against attentive listening; it is what the artist hopes his recording will receive. In fact, I am somewhat in awe of GMG members who are able to retain memories of recordings so vividly that they can comment on them comparatively. I could never do that.
Nowadays I find that I am less interested in comparing recordings and enjoy more having the music playing in the background.
Quote from: Florestan on September 28, 2019, 02:21:40 PM
I could ask you the same.
I do not know how much you are influenced by more than a century of romantic/Romantic thinking and feeling. So I don't question it.
Quote from: San Antone on September 28, 2019, 02:28:26 PM
But why wouldn't/couldn't you listen attentively to a live recording?
I agree that studio recordings can contain some remarkable performances, and there was a time when I would devote time to listening to them very closely and even compare several recordings of the same work against each other (I've posted about my Liszt B Minor Sonata project). And I am certainly not arguing against attentive listening; it is what the artist hopes his recording will receive. In fact, I am somewhat in awe of GMG members who are able to retain memories of recordings so vividly that they can comment on them comparatively. I could never do that.
Nowadays I find that I am less interested in comparing recordings and enjoy more having the music playing in the background.
Of course one can listen attentively to a live recording. Sometimes it pays, and I agree that some of Richter's live recordings are remarkable. But generally I find studio recordings more rewarding.
I do not compare recordings that often, finding that it detracts from enjoying the recording I actually listen to. But to get the full enjoyment of a recording - and this is what I want (who knows if I live long enough to hear it again) - I have to listen attentively.
Quote from: Marc on September 28, 2019, 02:07:28 PM
What you propose as ultimate HIP for the 20th/21st century just won't happen.
I proposed nothing. I clearly stated ""it
would be".
QuoteBecause we can always make a recording of the concert and relive it.
Of course. My point is, though, that we do not have, nor can we make, a recording of, say, Mozart playing his C-minor Concerto.
QuoteHIP tries to understand and recover the original sound
The original sound is very easy to recover. Use period instruments, period. (pun)
Quoteand way of performing, and, if possible, the original meaning/background.
Yes, precisely. That is the crux of the matter. The original meaning/background is forever lost to us. See below.
QuoteIt tries to be 'only' historically informed. That's something different than make the experience historically 100% correct, as if the listener steps into a time machine and travels back to 1727, becomes an 18th century Lutheran and hears the first version of Bach's Matthäus-Passion.
But, good God, that's exactly the audience Bach wrote his sacred cantatas for: 18th century devout, Sunday-church-going Lutherans. Do you really think he wrote them for any other purpose, like for instance for them to be listened to by atheists, for purely aesthetic pleasure, in the privacy of their homes?
Quote from: (: premont :) on September 28, 2019, 02:33:23 PM
I do not know how much you are influenced by more than a century of romantic/Romantic thinking and feeling.
Then you must be the only GMG-er who doesn't know I'm an avowed and unabashed Romantic/romantic.
Quote from: Florestan on September 28, 2019, 02:49:46 PM
Then you must be the only GMG-er who doesn't know I'm an avowed and unabashed Romantic/romantic.
Yes of course I know, but I'm not blaming you for it as long as you don't claim it applies to me too.
Quote from: (: premont :) on September 28, 2019, 02:56:39 PM
Yes of course I know, but I'm not blaming you for it as long as you don't claim it applies to me too.
I don't know anymore. It's 01:57 AM here in Romania and I've had 4 beers and a bottle of wine. Please remind me, what did I claim? :)
Quote from: Florestan on September 28, 2019, 02:59:39 PM
I don't know anymore. It's 01:57 AM here in Romania and I've had 4 beers and a bottle of wine. Please remind me, what did I claim? :)
I also need to hit the hay soon. Have a good night.
Quote from: Florestan on September 28, 2019, 02:46:29 PM
Do you really think he wrote them for any other purpose, like for instance for them to be listened to by atheists, for purely aesthetic pleasure, in the privacy of their homes?
The real question I have is why anyone gives a sh*t about any of this in the first place.
Quote from: Florestan on September 28, 2019, 02:46:29 PM
I proposed nothing. I clearly stated ""it would be".
Of course. My point is, though, that we do not have, nor can we make, a recording of, say, Mozart playing his C-minor Concerto.
The original sound is very easy to recover. Use period instruments, period. (pun)
Yes, precisely. That is the crux of the matter. The original meaning/background is forever lost to us. See below.
But, good God, that's exactly the audience Bach wrote his sacred cantatas for: 18th century devout, Sunday-church-going Lutherans. Do you really think he wrote them for any other purpose, like for instance for them to be listened to by atheists, for purely aesthetic pleasure, in the privacy of their homes?
It's a bit difficult for me to understand much of this as a reaction to my post. Maybe my knowledge of the English language is not good enough. I do apologize for that.
Still, about the meaning or the background: it's not forever lost to us. We still have written sources and history books, so we can try to understand it. And try to adopt the intended meaning by using period instruments, and try to express more of the original musical language Affekt/effect/diction et cetera and, who knows, then the modern listener might experience something of that meaning. And, who knows, maybe then the listener gets a better and/or more satisfying understanding of the music.
As Ton Koopman once said (when talking about Bach and the historically informed practice): we will remain pupils for ever. We can only secretly hope for a pat on the back from the master himself.
For the rest: I don't feel like debating about HIP for the 18.436th time with someone who clearly thinks differently about the subject. To me, it's not all that important. I only tried to explain what I think HIP is. That's all.
Quote from: (: premont :) on September 28, 2019, 01:49:54 PM
When I listen to your St.John's passion, a work I really love, I always listen attentively. If I read something while listening, it is the score.
Hearty thanks!
As many do, I listen sometimes attentively and sometimes less so. But I do have one almost inflexible rule: I don't want my first listen to a performance to be inattentive.
And some music never seems appropriate for "inattentive" listening: Mahler, for instance. Some often does, like a long piece by Feldman. Or Reich's Music for 18 Musicians.
But the word inattentive seems slightly imprecise to me. I often find, when listening this way, that once the music is over I've heard it more "attentively" than I thought I had. Feldman comes to mind again: I often think that many of his long pieces have a kind of organic quality to them, that they unfold at a natural, unforced pace, like respiration. And so having them in the "background" seems almost the preferable way to play them, and they insinuate themselves into the mind almost ... well, organically.
I can play some Baroque music like that, too. Lately I've been listening to a few different recordings of Bach's Cello Suites, and I've had them playing through my Amazon Echo speaker while I peruse this site. (Some may be appalled by my listening to them this way, but it works well for me. :)) This is different music from Feldman, of course, but still it seems to fit right into the ambiance of the room - and my mind.
Needless to say, YMMV, and greatly. Also needless to say, it's all very subjective. But then all music listening is.
I have a somewhat problematic brain that can't really concentrate when it tries to do only one thing at a time, so I'm usually most attentive to music when I'm listening to it while also doing something else (reading, listening to a podcast, etc). Inattentive listening, which is usually listening to music while having a conversation with another person—social mores require you to give your conversation partner your undivided attention—doesn't work as well for me, I usually want to then go back and listen to the music more attentively afterwards to catch up on whatever I missed.
I almost never listen to music while doing nothing else, except when I'm trying to get to sleep, because that helps unfocus my mind.
I'm usually using my laptop when I'm in my listening chair, but I can only handle reading in snatches then. I will put it aside when the music demands my full attention. I could never read anything like a novel or nonfiction work that requires my full attention for a long period of time while music is playing.
Quote from: Marc on September 28, 2019, 03:10:33 PM
It's a bit difficult for me to understand much of this as a reaction to my post. Maybe my knowledge of the English language is not good enough. I do apologize for that.
No, it's my fault. I wasn't exactly sober when I posted. :)
QuoteI don't feel like debating about HIP for the 18.436th time with someone who clearly thinks differently about the subject. T
I don't either. You won't hear anything more from me on the issue. :)
Quote from: Marc on September 28, 2019, 02:22:00 PM
Well, I'm kinda in the center in this 'argument', because I'm fine with people who listen to good music as background. During university years, I knew this kind girl who loved Mozart piano concertos, especially because it made her concentrate better whilst reading her books and study material. How could I condemn that?
To me, there just are no rules in hearing/listening/experiencing music. I also know people who meditate on classical music. Others use it to fall asleep. And some listen to it with the score on their lap. Others dance in their own room, both on fast and slow movements. As I said before: all fine to me.
I've done it all, too. But studying whilst listening to music that I really like: that was too difficult for me. I got distracted by the music. So I went to the library. (This was all long before the mobile phone and mp3 area... even headphones were not allowed in those days.)
But at my work, I sometimes put headphones on with good music. No other noise from outside, and then it can work really well.
This is similar to my view (although sadly I never knew a kind girl who liked Mozart piano concertos 8)). I have classical music on a lot of the time at home (or at least until my wife switches it off ::)). I don't, however, like listening to classical music if I'm travelling except if I'm in the car. Every May/June I mark (grade) examination papers. I find that I can concentrate better if I have music on in the background. Sometimes I will stop and listen attentively and then go back to my work. Maybe this sounds reprehensible but it's how I work. Of course I can't have Shostakovich or anything 'crash-bang-wallop' on as it's too distracting but some gentle music by Finzi for example works well. Of course, at other times I listen attentively to Finzi - a composer whose music I love. The other day, following the recommendation by Relm1 I was listening to Ragnar Soderind's 8th Symphony on You Tube whilst working or reading but I became increasingly hooked by the Symphony and for the last few minutes I attended to the symphony and nothing else. Paradoxically, if I'm away on holiday I tend not to listen to classical music.
Quote from: Marc on September 28, 2019, 02:22:00 PM
To me, there just are no rules in hearing/listening/experiencing music.
Astonishing that this needs saying, perhaps, but surely self-evident.
QuoteI've done it all, too.
So have I, and so, I expect, we shall continue to do, according to circumstance, intent, whim, or desire for experiment. I once listened to the finale of Elgar's
Caractacus on headphones, at the top of the Herefordshire Beacon (the place that inspired the music) at sunset. I was attending as much to the extraordinary changing light, the landscape, the feel of the wind, as I was to the music, so in that sense I was listening inattentively. In another (in the true sense, according to my own lights) I was listening profoundly.
Classical music was written with a host of different goals in mind. And it was used in practice for very different occasions. The idea that it typically was background music is therefore at least as misleading as the one that it was listened to in rapt attention. Even the music apparently written for royal suppers was at least partly played as divertissement between the courses of the meal, so it would not have been pure background music. As all music was played live and it was impossible to simply have a radio blaring in the background, even "background music" would have been different in the 18th century from the way it is perceived today.
Bach's inventions were written for teaching (or for others improving themselves in keyboard playing and composition). So absolutely not background music but neither mainly for rapt attentive listening. The teacher would have listened attentively but not like a modern connoiseur...
A lot of keyboard and chamber music was written for the pleasure of the players themselves and maybe a private audience and on such occasion there would again have been a spectum of (in)attention. Or take ceremonial and liturgical music. It is certainly not merely background music but an important part of some celebration or church service but it still serves a function within a larger framework and does not get the main attention like in a modern concert.
Quote from: Marc on September 28, 2019, 02:22:00 PM
To me, there just are no rules in hearing/listening/experiencing music.
I just read this post a bit inattentively in the first hand, so excuse the late reaction.
To me, there are some rules in listening to music, rules I obey myself. But this does not imply, that I think others should do similarly. Each to his/her own.
Quote from: amw on September 28, 2019, 06:33:24 PM
I have a somewhat problematic brain that can't really concentrate when it tries to do only one thing at a time, so I'm usually most attentive to music when I'm listening to it while also doing something else (reading, listening to a podcast, etc). Inattentive listening, which is usually listening to music while having a conversation with another person—social mores require you to give your conversation partner your undivided attention—doesn't work as well for me, I usually want to then go back and listen to the music more attentively afterwards to catch up on whatever I missed.
I almost never listen to music while doing nothing else, except when I'm trying to get to sleep, because that helps unfocus my mind.
Well, that first line is interesting because...apparently "multi-tasking" is impossible. We really cannot do two things at once, let alone 3 or more. What happens is that the brain simply switches its concentration from one thing to another quickly. The psychologists/brain researchers claim this is inefficient:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/creativity-without-borders/201405/the-myth-multitasking (https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/creativity-without-borders/201405/the-myth-multitasking)
If true, this means that listening to music while driving a car - which I do all the time, as it is the only pleasure in driving around a city with over a million residents* - can be dangerous! I think, however, that after years of driving the unconscious kicks in for that task, which has become "rote," and we do not necessarily need to "concentrate"
per se on driving.
* When we first lived in Ohio's capital 40 years ago, it had 300,000 people and was considered a "cow town." "Cow-lumbus" was a joke. Now we have refugees from Illinois, California, and East Coast states moving here!
Quote from: (: premont :) on September 29, 2019, 02:51:31 AM
To me, there are some rules in listening to music, rules I obey myself.
That's interesting. What are those rules? Have you always had them, or are they a product of your listening experience over the years?
Quote from: Marc on September 28, 2019, 03:10:33 PM
As Ton Koopman once said (when talking about Bach and the historically informed practice): we will remain pupils forever. We can only secretly hope for a pat on the back from the master himself.
This quote is a good brief of a conflict of visions that one time and again appears on this board, and more generically in hermeneutics. Composer's intentions as a
terminus a quo (a starting point, a beginning) or as a t
erminus ad quem (an end, a goal).
That said, I totally agree with you on this issue. :)
I came across this recently from Sviatoslav Richter:
Richter explained his approach to performance as follows: "The interpreter is really an executant, carrying out the composer's intentions to the letter. He doesn't add anything that isn't already in the work. If he is talented, he allows us to glimpse the truth of the work that is in itself a thing of genius and that is reflected in him. He shouldn't dominate the music, but should dissolve into it."
Not sure how this relates to the topic of the tread, but it was called to mind in the wake of recent comments concerning HIP and the performer's role. I suppose the rub is how do we determine the composer's intentions, especially if we are separated by centuries from him.
Quote from: San Antone on September 29, 2019, 05:22:27 AM
I came across this recently from Sviatoslav Richter:
Richter explained his approach to performance as follows: "The interpreter is really an executant, carrying out the composer's intentions to the letter. He doesn't add anything that isn't already in the work. If he is talented, he allows us to glimpse the truth of the work that is in itself a thing of genius and that is reflected in him. He shouldn't dominate the music, but should dissolve into it."
Not sure how this relates to the topic of the tread, but it was called to mind in the wake of recent comments concerning HIP and the performer's role. I suppose the rub is how do we determine the composer's intentions, especially if we are separated by centuries from him.
"He shouldn't dominate the music, but should dissolve into it." It's wonderfully insightful, no doubt.
Quote from: Gordo on September 29, 2019, 05:06:19 AM
This quote is a good brief of a conflict of visions that one time and again appears on this board, and more generically in hermeneutics. Composer's intentions as a terminus a quo (a starting point, a beginning) or as a terminus ad quem (an end, a goal).
I do nt see any real conflict insofar:
1) The composers intentions may not be 100% specific from the composers hand.
2) Every composition will always be an object of new interpretations, so we shall never reach a definitive end.
So both terminus a quo and terminus ad quem are truly relative concepts.
Quote from: Florestan on September 29, 2019, 04:24:11 AM
That's interesting. What are those rules? Have you always had them, or are they a product of your listening experience over the years?
Nothing special or surprising, just when listening to music I always make sure, that I have the option to listen without disturbing surroundings. So I sit in my listening room in a comfortable chair and listen attentively. I always use floor speakers.
Of course this wasn't always possible when I had small children at home, but that's a passed chapter.
Quote from: (: premont :) on September 29, 2019, 05:40:43 AM
I do nt see any real conflict insofar:
1) The composers intentions may not be 100% specific from the composers hand.
2) Every composition will always be an object of new interpretations, so we shall never reach a definitive end.
So both terminus a quo and terminus ad quem are truly relative concepts.
I am almost 50 years old then I know eclecticism is a choice. But I'm with Richter: "The interpreter is really an executant, carrying out the composer's intentions to the letter." If the composer's intentions are not evident by his own hand/words; well, we usually have extrinsic elements to know it: Historical background; practices from his circle; his books; his output systematically considered; the music he admired; the instruments of his age, and so on. From my standpoint, the composer gives a precise set of commands, and the interpreter must obey them to bring to the world (some people will say "to create", and I'm not against it) something singular, new and beautiful, which didn't exist before the interpretation. :)
I mentioned Finzi earlier on and I now remember an experience I had where music and landscape merged into one (hope this doesn't sound too pretentious). I was on holiday in the Yorkshire Dales - a most beautiful part of Northern England, where there is a contrast between the 'pastoral' valleys and the bleak and rugged hills. I was up early in the morning before anyone else. I was about 19 I think. I turned on the radio and heard this most beautiful vocal/orchestral music. It turned out to be the final movement of Finzi's 'Dies Natalis' and I was absolutely entranced by the juxtaposition of the music with the landscape outside. As soon as I got back to London I had to dash out and buy the LP (Wlfred Brown/Christopher Finzi version). That experience stayed with me ever since.
Quote from: amw on September 28, 2019, 06:33:24 PM
I have a somewhat problematic brain that can't really concentrate when it tries to do only one thing at a time, so I'm usually most attentive to music when I'm listening to it while also doing something else (reading, listening to a podcast, etc). Inattentive listening, which is usually listening to music while having a conversation with another person—social mores require you to give your conversation partner your undivided attention—doesn't work as well for me, I usually want to then go back and listen to the music more attentively afterwards to catch up on whatever I missed.
I almost never listen to music while doing nothing else, except when I'm trying to get to sleep, because that helps unfocus my mind.
Thank goodness!!! I thought it was just me! I read through the first few pages thinking "wow, everyone is gonna hate me," and then, "but amw probably won't." Honestly, it's our age that contributes to this, I think. We have Internet Brain, where we kind of always need to be doing two things to stay satisfied. Maybe I'm putting words in your mouth, sorry.
But I need music in the background to do work, almost as much as some other people don't. It's a major lifestyle difference with my (slightly older) girlfriend, because she can't even read an internet article if music is playing, it fractures her attention so badly. But she knows that when I start putting piano or chamber music on the stereo, it means I am in a really serious writing session. This has been a constant my whole life - doing homework in school with a radio or Discman, all the way up til now, happily blasting Rachmaninov or Brahms or Roussel or whomever while writing furiously.
Sometimes I even wonder if my work very slightly reflects the music. Friday afternoon to celebrate the end of the work week I listened to Janacek's Sinfonietta and the paragraphs started getting more confident and brash...
Now. Here is where people are going to rebel at me. I enjoy listening inattentively at live concerts!!! But not all concerts or works and not all the time. Let's take both sides. The first time I ever heard Schubert's D. 956 quintet was live in Wigmore Hall with the Pavel Haas Quartet + Ishizaka. It was borderline life changing. I don't think my brain emitted a single thought other than "holy shit".
But a couple of weeks ago, the Dallas Symphony did a premiere by a living composer followed by Beethoven's Fifth Piano Concerto, a work I have memorized after hearing 4874762 times. The premiere got my mind wandering in a musical way: oh, that texture is interesting, what would I do with that? How would I write a trio for clarinet, cello, and piano? What kind of structure would I have given this piece? Then with the Beethoven, my mind wandered more freely. Kind of the way that sleeping repairs the brain, this kind of decluttered my idle thoughts. And of course I was able to "tune in" for the really good bits.
This might leave me an outcast...
Quote from: Elgarian Redux on September 29, 2019, 01:22:08 AM
I once listened to the finale of Elgar's Caractacus on headphones, at the top of the Herefordshire Beacon (the place that inspired the music) at sunset. I was attending as much to the extraordinary changing light, the landscape, the feel of the wind, as I was to the music, so in that sense I was listening inattentively. In another (in the true sense, according to my own lights) I was listening profoundly.
Thank you for this! Part of the joy of music is that we can associate it with whatever we darn well want, and create an indelible memory of it in many contexts. It's nice to respect the composer and all, but it's really liberating to find a whole new layer of personal meaning by these extra-musical ties.
I guess people who listen to songs while conducting amorous business have this thought too, hah. But for you and I the landscape seems a better driver. I will not soon forget listening to Bach cello suites in a walled medieval city in Spain, or my favorite ever listen to Sibelius' Seventh symphony (that old frenemy of yours), which was in the car while driving through downtown Dallas after midnight. Something about the music's attempt to conjure up a winter landscape and the Arctic sun oddly fit perfectly with the inverse, a city asleep with the neon lights on, but no other signs of humanity left.
Quote from: San Antone on September 29, 2019, 05:22:27 AM
I came across this recently from Sviatoslav Richter:
Richter explained his approach to performance as follows: "The interpreter is really an executant, carrying out the composer's intentions to the letter. He doesn't add anything that isn't already in the work. If he is talented, he allows us to glimpse the truth of the work that is in itself a thing of genius and that is reflected in him. He shouldn't dominate the music, but should dissolve into it."
Not sure how this relates to the topic of the tread, but it was called to mind in the wake of recent comments concerning HIP and the performer's role. I suppose the rub is how do we determine the composer's intentions, especially if we are separated by centuries from him.
In my opinion, this is a fiction that some musicians tell themselves... "I am a neutral vessel for the composer" ... as a musician, I can only say it's complete bullsh*t
Every performance of a piece music you yourself didn't write is an interpretation... whether you're the HIPpest HIPster who ever HIPped or you're Stokowski
And I say this as someone who worships Sviatoslav Richter. I'd rather hear him playing a piece I don't even like that much on a bad piano recorded on primitive equipment than hear any other pianist playing a piece I love in my own living room on a $500,000 piano. I mean that.
But he was lying to himself ... His personality and his musical preferences are strongly imposed on everything he ever played... there is no "to the letter"; it's a delusion
Quote from: Florestan on September 28, 2019, 02:59:39 PM
I don't know anymore. It's 01:57 AM here in Romania and I've had 4 beers and a bottle of wine. Please remind me, what did I claim? :)
Claims made
Brad Pitt has a nice butt
Andre Rieu is an underrated genius
Hogan's Heroes was better than Gilligan's island
Quote from: (: premont :) on September 29, 2019, 02:51:31 AM
I just read this post a bit inattentively in the first hand, so excuse the late reaction.
To me, there are some rules in listening to music, rules I obey myself. But this does not imply, that I think others should do similarly. Each to his/her own.
Bien sûr!
Quote from: ChopinBroccoli on September 29, 2019, 08:11:05 AM
In my opinion, this is a fiction that some musicians tell themselves... "I am a neutral vessel for the composer" ... as a musician, I can only say it's complete bullsh*t
Call it an aspiration, rather than a deluded state.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 29, 2019, 09:06:56 AM
Call it an aspiration, rather than a deluded state.
Maybe so but it's mythical... as soon as your fingers touch the instrument it's your interpretation
Quote from: ChopinBroccoli on September 29, 2019, 09:13:48 AM
Maybe so but it's mythical... as soon as your fingers touch the instrument it's your interpretation
I agree, but there can be value in even a mythical aspiration.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 29, 2019, 09:15:24 AM
I agree, but there can be value in even a mythical aspiration.
Absolutely! Whatever your aspiration, as long as you aspire
Quote from: Gordo on September 29, 2019, 06:35:41 AM
Richter: "The interpreter is really an executant, carrying out the composer's intentions to the letter."
Lovely worded but a little naive I think.
Quote from: Gordo
If the composer's intentions are not evident by his own hand/words; well, we usually have extrinsic elements to know it: Historical background; practices from his circle; his books; his output systematically considered; the music he admired; the instruments of his age, and so on.
Yes, we can reconstruct with reasonable probability some of the composers intentions, but many of the most important qualities of performance practice will remain unknown. Is the metrical prescribed rhythm intended or should it be interpreted in another way? How much rubato should be used and where e.g ? And so on. Every performer has to make his/her own decisions, but there is no guarantee that one arrives at the intentions of the composer. The performers choices may be convincing and that's a good thing, but the performer should not invariably imagine, that he carries the composers intentions to the letter.
Quote from: (: premont :) on September 29, 2019, 10:13:05 AM
Yes, we can reconstruct with reasonable probability some of the composers intentions, but many of the most important qualities of performance practice will remain unknown. Is the metrical prescribed rhythm intended or should it be interpreted in another way? How much rubato should be used and where e.g ? And so on. Every performer has to make his/her own decisions, but there is no guarantee that one arrives at the intentions of the composer. The performers choices may be convincing and that's a good thing, but the performer should not invariably imagine, that he carries the composers intentions to the letter.
Agreed. Completely.
Quote from: Brian on September 29, 2019, 07:19:40 AM
I won't forget ... my favorite ever listen to Sibelius' Seventh symphony (that old frenemy of yours), which was in the car while driving through downtown Dallas after midnight. Something about the music's attempt to conjure up a winter landscape and the Arctic sun oddly fit perfectly with the inverse, a city asleep with the neon lights on, but no other signs of humanity left.
Ah Brian, I empathise so much with this, and understand exactly why you describe it here.
If you're thinking about the winter landscape etc, then I don't think you can, in the strict dogmatic sense, be 'listening attentively'. But
I say you are listening super-attentively.
Sticking with you and Sibelius - if I am listening to the opening on the first symphony, with an image of a gull held in my imagination, soaring above an icy sea, then am I listening 'attentively'? Speaking from a purely musical perspective, one supposes probably not. But I say nonsense; I am in there, absorbing the notes, soaring with the gull, and shivering from the cold. I often have these extra-musical
divertissements going on, and they enhance the overall experience considerably for me.
One does not have to go very far from this to arrive at my original notion of reading an historical novel accompanied by music that would be appropriate to the historical period, or which at least resonates in some way with what one is reading. Maybe it's not so inattentive as I initially thought?
Quote from: Elgarian Redux on September 29, 2019, 11:42:32 AM
I often have these extra-musical divertissements going on, and they enhance the overall experience considerably for me.
I had one schoolteacher who believed that making mental connections was a vital part of intelligence and of absorbing something new. Not only that you met it on its own terms, but that you began to wire it into your mind, so to speak, by seeing the ways that it connects into other experiences you've had, other images you have, other things you know.
Anyway. Another thought. A few years ago my family went to see Strauss's "Death and Transfiguration" and the conductor gave a little talk about how certain rhythms represent the heartbeat, where in the music the hero dies, what everything is supposed to represent. And then after the performance my mom was all annoyed! And she started ranting - "I didn't want them cluttering my mind with all their images! I had all my own images with the music! It didn't sound like dying to me. It sounded like all these other things, and then I would remember it was supposed to be about dying, and that ruined it. Leave the descriptions out of it."
Quote from: Brian on September 29, 2019, 11:53:45 AM
Anyway. Another thought. A few years ago my family went to see Strauss's "Death and Transfiguration" and the conductor gave a little talk about how certain rhythms represent the heartbeat, where in the music the hero dies, what everything is supposed to represent. And then after the performance my mom was all annoyed! And she started ranting - "I didn't want them cluttering my mind with all their images! I had all my own images with the music! It didn't sound like dying to me. It sounded like all these other things, and then I would remember it was supposed to be about dying, and that ruined it. Leave the descriptions out of it."
How these things multiply when we poke at them. Seems to me that what we are discovering is that the apparently simple act of listening is not a simple act. And furthermore, we all have our own variously different ways of complicating the simplicity.
I was in a discussion last week about Cage's 4,33. I didn't know that in the first performance there was a piano with someone sitting at it like a pianist. I wondered what the point of that was.
One person there, a composer, said he thought the pianist was essential, because the point of 4,33 is that you listen to the ambient random sound as music.
And now I wonder what it is to listen to sound as music.
Quote from: Mandryka on September 29, 2019, 01:17:30 PM
I was in a discussion last week about Cage's 4,33. I didn't know that in the first performance there was a piano with someone sitting at it like a pianist. I wondered what the point of that was.
One person there, a composer, said he thought the pianist was essential, because the point of 4,33 is that you listen to the ambient random sound as music.
And now I wonder what it is to listen to sound as music.
As far as I recall the pianist who premiered the 4'33'' was David Tudor. That said I always thought 4'33'' might be performed on any instrument at hand.
All the time we are surrounded by different kinds of sound. Some will call it noise, but it is possible to experience some of it as music, even if it is not "composed". I think the nature offers the most musical sounds - sound of an ocean, sound of thunder, birdsong et.c. But it is difficult to imagine that the sound of a confused audience in any way can be perceived as music. Had the 4'33'' been premiered in the open nature, the point would have been more obvious to the audience.
Quote from: Brian on September 29, 2019, 11:53:45 AM
I had one schoolteacher who believed that making mental connections was a vital part of intelligence and of absorbing something new. Not only that you met it on its own terms, but that you began to wire it into your mind, so to speak, by seeing the ways that it connects into other experiences you've had, other images you have, other things you know.
I'm inclined to agree
Quote from: Brian on September 29, 2019, 11:53:45 AM
I had one schoolteacher who believed that making mental connections was a vital part of intelligence and of absorbing something new. Not only that you met it on its own terms, but that you began to wire it into your mind, so to speak, by seeing the ways that it connects into other experiences you've had, other images you have, other things you know.
That teacher had to have been
Excellent! Amen, Amen! That is the way to teach!
Quote from: Brian on September 29, 2019, 11:53:45 AM
Anyway. Another thought. A few years ago my family went to see Strauss's "Death and Transfiguration" and the conductor gave a little talk about how certain rhythms represent the heartbeat, where in the music the hero dies, what everything is supposed to represent. And then after the performance my mom was all annoyed! And she started ranting - "I didn't want them cluttering my mind with all their images! I had all my own images with the music! It didn't sound like dying to me. It sounded like all these other things, and then I would remember it was supposed to be about dying, and that ruined it. Leave the descriptions out of it."
The Toledo Symphony had a very nice conductor named
Andrew Massey, who meant very well, but who at times became too
schulmeisterisch. I should not complain, because he had programmed
Schoenberg's Five Pieces for Orchestra, which was my main reason for attending the concert!
Unfortunately, he gave a mini-lecture before each part about what to listen for etc. etc. etc. in an apologetic, please-stay-for-the-concert tone.
The orchestra played the work nicely!
Massey died last year: cancer!
https://www.toledoblade.com/local/2018/06/01/Andrew-Massey-the-Toledo-Symphony-s-seventh-music-director-dies.html (https://www.toledoblade.com/local/2018/06/01/Andrew-Massey-the-Toledo-Symphony-s-seventh-music-director-dies.html)
Quote from: Mandryka on September 29, 2019, 01:17:30 PM
I was in a discussion last week about Cage's 4,33. I didn't know that in the first performance there was a piano with someone sitting at it like a pianist. I wondered what the point of that was.
One person there, a composer, said he thought the pianist was essential, because the point of 4,33 is that you listen to the ambient random sound as music.
And now I wonder what it is to listen to sound as music.
Yes, IIRC, Cage wrote the piece "for piano" (so to speak). I guess I could Google this, but I don't know if the audience at the premiere knew the nature of the piece. Would have been interesting if they didn't. But regardless, they would certainly have been listening very attentively, either becoming quite conscious of (and increasingly uncomfortable in) the "silence" and wondering when the pianist was going to start playing, or actively listening to the "music" being made in the silence.
It's interesting that whether the audience knows what
4'33" is or not, Cage achieves his goal (at least as I perceive what his goal is): they become very attentive listeners, at least for that stretch of time.
Quote from: (: premont :) on September 29, 2019, 02:25:24 PM
As far as I recall the pianist who premiered the 4'33'' was David Tudor. That said I always thought 4'33'' might be performed on any instrument at hand.
All the time we are surrounded by different kinds of sound. Some will call it noise, but it is possible to experience some of it as music, even if it is not "composed". I think the nature offers the most musical sounds - sound of an ocean, sound of thunder, birdsong et.c. But it is difficult to imagine that the sound of a confused audience in any way can be perceived as music. Had the 4'33'' been premiered in the open nature, the point would have been more obvious to the audience.
I don't think Cage was presenting sound as music. He was presenting sound as something to listen to. Interesting and too much scanted. Mostly he was making a puckish point about that. Remember the Audience did not know then what we know now. WTF was an essential part of the response, an impossible one for us now.
Quote from: (: premont :) on September 29, 2019, 02:25:24 PM
I think the nature offers the most musical sounds - sound of an ocean, sound of thunder, birdsong et.c. But it is difficult to imagine that the sound of a confused audience in any way can be perceived as music. Had the 4'33'' been premiered in the open nature, the point would have been more obvious to the audience.
And the creation of 4,33 was indeed outside, in the countryside. It's an interesting idea: that 4,33 is essentially
pastoral. American Pastoral. This idea came up in the discussion also.
Quote from: Alek Hidell on September 29, 2019, 04:21:12 PM
It's interesting that whether the audience knows what 4'33" is or not, Cage achieves his goal (at least as I perceive what his goal is): they become very attentive listeners, at least for that stretch of time.
I think I'd have no trouble (philosophical or practical) reading a book with 4'33" playing in the background - though it would have to be a short book.
Quote from: Ken B on September 29, 2019, 06:49:22 PM
I don't think Cage was presenting sound as music. He was presenting sound as something to listen to. Interesting and too much scanted. Mostly he was making a puckish point about that. Remember the Audience did not know then what we know now. WTF was an essential part of the response, an impossible one for us now.
IIRC Cage's initial inspiration for 4'33'' was in response to being aware of Muzak surrounding him everywhere he went: in the elevator, in a restaurant, in a store, etc. He thought how wonderful it would be if they could program silence every now and then, and the idea for the work was hatched. That was two years before the work was premiered (by Tudor, as previously posted) and only after Robert Raushenberg's White Paintings exhibit. Cage felt the time was right and did not want his idea to be preempted by someone else. So, Cage's intent was both to present silence as a respite from the canned music around us and also for us to appreciate the ambient sounds around us.
Although he has never disavowed the work, later in life he lamented how 4'33'' has overshadowed much of his more important work.
I think a distinction should be made between inattentive and indifferent. Allow me to illustrate it with two examples from own experience.
A few years ago, at work, I and 3 other colleagues were listening on radio to a piece by a contemporary Romanian composer. Inattentive listening by the book: we were all working at our computers and chatting. After a while, spontaneously but vividly an image formed in my mind, that of a small meadow, birds chirping in the trees and right in the middle a bear, working hard as a car mechanic. So vivid, in fact, that as you can see I remember it even today. I told my colleagues about it, and they kind of agreed that the music fitted the image perfectly, or viceversa. I have long fogotten the name of the piece but I'll probably never forget the mental image it imprinted in my mind. That's inattentive yet not indifferent listening.
Just two weeks ago I've attended a concert where they played a famous 20C work, whose name I won't disclose, which I was not very familiar with and to which I was listening for the first time live. Attentive listening by the book. After a while it became so obvious to me that I had no emotional connection whatever with it that I had to occupy my mind with something else, lest I should either die of boredom or be leaving, which given that I was seated middle row was not an option. So I let my mind wander., all the while distinctly hearing the music. I can't remember a iota of my thoughts, though. That's attentive yet indifferent listening.
I don't know if it makes any sense to any one of you.
Quote from: Florestan on September 30, 2019, 03:09:13 AM
I think a distinction should be made between inattentive and indifferent. Allow me to illustrate it with two examples from own experience.
A few years ago, at work, I and 3 other colleagues were listening on radio to a piece by a contemporary Romanian composer. Inattentive listening by the book: we were all working at our computers and chatting. After a while, spontaneously but vividly an image formed in my mind, that of a small meadow, birds chirping in the trees and right in the middle a bear, working hard as a car mechanic. So vivid, in fact, that as you can see I remember it even today. I told my colleagues about it, and they kind of agreed that the music fitted the image perfectly, or viceversa. I have long fogotten the name of the piece but I'll probably never forget the mental image it imprinted in my mind. That's inattentive yet not indifferent listening.
Just two weeks ago I've attended a concert where they played a famous 20C work, whose name I won't disclose, which I was not very familiar with and to which I was listening for the first time live. Attentive listening by the book. After a while it became so obvious to me that I had no emotional connection whatever with it that I had to occupy my mind with something else, lest I should either die of boredom or be leaving, which given that I was seated middle row was not an option. So I let my mind wander., all the while distinctly hearing the music. I can't remember a iota of my thoughts, though. That's attentive yet indifferent listening.
I don't know if it makes any sense to any one of you.
Makes complete sense to me. And it struck me that the diversion into talking about John Cage and 4'33'' was not off-topic. Cage was addressing the modern world, a world with recorded music, which has cheapened the experience of listening/hearing music. There is so much music easily available to stream on constantly creating an environment where we don't really listen to it but are simply aware of it in the background. This has been made possible because of the invention of recording devices.
Which brings me back to my original post, the place where my attention is focused on the music exclusively is at a live concert, naturally and easily, and enjoyably. I really have to work to concentrate with the same focus to a recording.
Quote from: San Antone on September 30, 2019, 03:50:09 AM
Makes complete sense to me. And it struck me that the diversion into talking about John Cage and 4'33'' was not off-topic. Cage was addressing the modern world, a world with recorded music, which has cheapened the experience of listening/hearing music. There is so much music easily available to stream on constantly creating an environment where we don't really listen to it but are simply aware of it in the background. This has been made possible because of the invention of recording devices.
Had Cage really wanted to confound the expectations of recordings listeners, he'd have chosen to release 4'33'' on LP. BUt in this case, the effect would have been very different: people would have thought they got a defective disc and asked for a refund. :D
I don't think recordings have really cheapened the experience of music. A serious, committed and informed listener can derive as much pleasure and insight from a recording as from a live concert. What they have done --- in combination with other factors --- was to diminish dramatically the need and desire for amateur music-making at home. And that's been indeed a most deleterious effect.
Here's Pauline Oliveros on deep listening
https://www.youtube.com/v/_QHfOuRrJB8
Quote from: Ken B on September 29, 2019, 06:49:22 PM
I don't think Cage was presenting sound as music. He was presenting sound as something to listen to. Interesting and too much scanted. Mostly he was making a puckish point about that.
Bravo!
Quote from: Florestan on September 30, 2019, 06:15:19 AM
Had Cage really wanted to confound the expectations of recordings listeners, he'd have chosen to release 4'33'' on LP.
One thought, I'm not sure it's right but nevertheless maybe worth considering, is that Cage's intentions were to create a distinctively American form of music, specifically pastoral music. I was maybe wrong to say it was given outside in a post I made above, but still you can see that the audience would have heard pastoral sounds, not urban ones, if you look at the hall where the piece was created, the Maverick Concert Hall in New York State.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1c/Maverick_Concert_Hall_in_summer.jpg/1920px-Maverick_Concert_Hall_in_summer.jpg)
Obviously there were other factors involved in 4.33 -- in particular the idea of the composer relinquishing more control on what is heard in a performance of his music -- but the Americal Pastoral idea seems to me not without merit.
Quote from: Ken B on September 29, 2019, 06:49:22 PM
I don't think Cage was presenting sound as music. He was presenting sound as something to listen to.
I just want to get to the bottom of what you're saying here. The point I was trying to put on the table was that he was presenting sound as something to listen to
in a certain way -- the way you might listen to a musician in a concert (and not like the way you might listen to muzak in an elevator.) I'm not sure the idea makes sense, because I'm not sure there is a distinctive way of listening which we engage in when we experience music. But I think the idea is worth exploring.
Why do you think he had a pianist there when it was created? The published score has it for any combination of instruments.
Quote from: Florestan on September 30, 2019, 03:09:13 AM
I think a distinction should be made between inattentive and indifferent. Allow me to illustrate it with two examples from own experience.
A few years ago, at work, I and 3 other colleagues were listening on radio to a piece by a contemporary Romanian composer. Inattentive listening by the book: we were all working at our computers and chatting. After a while, spontaneously but vividly an image formed in my mind, that of a small meadow, birds chirping in the trees and right in the middle a bear, working hard as a car mechanic. So vivid, in fact, that as you can see I remember it even today. I told my colleagues about it, and they kind of agreed that the music fitted the image perfectly, or viceversa. I have long fogotten the name of the piece but I'll probably never forget the mental image it imprinted in my mind. That's inattentive yet not indifferent listening.
Just two weeks ago I've attended a concert where they played a famous 20C work, whose name I won't disclose, which I was not very familiar with and to which I was listening for the first time live. Attentive listening by the book. After a while it became so obvious to me that I had no emotional connection whatever with it that I had to occupy my mind with something else, lest I should either die of boredom or be leaving, which given that I was seated middle row was not an option. So I let my mind wander., all the while distinctly hearing the music. I can't remember a iota of my thoughts, though. That's attentive yet indifferent listening.
I don't know if it makes any sense to any one of you.
A brilliant post, full of clarity and careful thought. Thank you. This mirrors experiences of my own, though I had not analysed them with such clarity.
Quote from: Mandryka on September 30, 2019, 07:09:40 AM
I just want to get to the bottom of what you're saying here. The point I was trying to put on the table was that he was presenting sound as something to listen to in a certain way -- the way you might listen to a musician in a concert (and not like the way you might listen to muzak in an elevator.) I'm not sure the idea makes sense, because I'm not sure there is a distinctive way of listening which we engage in when we experience music. But I think the idea is worth exploring.
Why do you think he had a pianist there when it was created? The published score has it for any combination of instruments.
I think he chose a pianist because he had a willing pianist available.
The willing part matters. The first time 4'33" was played it was a trick played on the audience, and not like a conjuring trick where the audience expects a trick. Not every performer would risk that.
I often listen inattentively. In actual hours spent with discs spinning more time inattentive than attentive.
I read a lot, and listen a lot whilst reading. Sometimes my attention is pulled from the book of course. But there is clear some subliminal attention because I sometimes find I don't l8ke the music or the performance and change it.
Oddly I find music crappy for listening at 5he gym, so I listen to books, a bit inattentively instead.
Quote from: Florestan on September 30, 2019, 03:09:13 AM
I think a distinction should be made between inattentive and indifferent. Allow me to illustrate it with two examples from own experience.
A few years ago, at work, I and 3 other colleagues were listening on radio to a piece by a contemporary Romanian composer. Inattentive listening by the book: we were all working at our computers and chatting. After a while, spontaneously but vividly an image formed in my mind, that of a small meadow, birds chirping in the trees and right in the middle a bear, working hard as a car mechanic. So vivid, in fact, that as you can see I remember it even today. I told my colleagues about it, and they kind of agreed that the music fitted the image perfectly, or viceversa. I have long fogotten the name of the piece but I'll probably never forget the mental image it imprinted in my mind. That's inattentive yet not indifferent listening.
Just two weeks ago I've attended a concert where they played a famous 20C work, whose name I won't disclose, which I was not very familiar with and to which I was listening for the first time live. Attentive listening by the book. After a while it became so obvious to me that I had no emotional connection whatever with it that I had to occupy my mind with something else, lest I should either die of boredom or be leaving, which given that I was seated middle row was not an option. So I let my mind wander., all the while distinctly hearing the music. I can't remember a iota of my thoughts, though. That's attentive yet indifferent listening.
I don't know if it makes any sense to any one of you.
It makes a lot of sense.
For me, it depends on the music. For example, I love Bruckner, but I honestly don't know if my brain is really up for 60 minutes plus of closely following the logic and structure of a single piece of music -- I like this music precisely because of the mental images, moods, and emotional states that it conjures. Bruckner for me conjures a sort of meditation. Not the only way to listen to it, of course, and not even the way I always listen to it, but it works for me.
To take the uber-classic example that'll probably get me yelled at -- Walt Disney's Fantasia. It's heavy-handed by modern standards, to be sure, but it's an early attempt by an artist in a different media to approximate the mental journeys that a great piece of music can engender -- and while we may not all see volcanoes and dinosaurs when listening to Stravinsky, as an introduction to the piece, particularly for a young person who may not be familiar with much 20th century music, it's undeniably powerful. I think Stokowski's Bach Toccata & Fuge, with it's abstract patterns of light, is an even better example of what I mean.
I often think that the difference between "absolute" music and "program" music, as often discussed back in the day, is largely artificial -- Berlioz might suggest an image of a scaffold for his music, whereas Brahms might not offer any such suggestion -- but they are only suggestions, and do not limit, as least for me, the way the music may (or may not) provoke an image in the mind. It's perfectly possible to love Prokofiev's music from Romeo and Juliet without being familiar with either the ballet or the Shakespeare play. Having that familiarity can add another level of appreciation, but even so, I don't feel any particular obligation to think about Montagues and Capulets while I listen to it. Prokofiev, with all respect, is dead -- and [cliche alert! $:) ] music, as all art, belongs to the living....
...and at the risk of sounding presumptuous, let me stop here and take a moment to urge us not to digress on yet another tangent of "but the whole point is to get closer to the artist's original intentions, which requires historical research, etc..." The topic here, as I understand it, is one's own personal aesthetic reaction to a piece of music. Understanding the original intent can be both fascinating and important, and if I so choose I can (and often do) utilize that understanding to enhance my enjoyment -- but it's still my personal experience, and my choice -- Prokofiev lost control of that the instant he set down his pen. And besides, there's a whole HIP thread for that line of argument... ;)
To get back to the original sense of the thread topic, I often listen to music in the background, but I would consider this different to what I said about Bruckner above... and yet not entirely different. In my work, I sometimes need to work with a lot of data -- editing spreadsheets, creating tables and graphs, etc. When I need to concentrate on something like this for a while, I will often put on some Bach, or something with a clear structure (such as fugue or counterpoint) -- it helps to clarify the mind, and even if I'm not actively following it note for note, it seems to put my mind in a calm, reasoned state. In the same way, if I'm reading a book in the evening, particularly if it's something a bit dry like an older history book, I'm likely to put on some Chopin -- I adore Chopin, but I almost always listen to it while doing other things. It's not that I can't concentrate on the music, it's almost like I don't have to, it's so powerful that just the hint of it can elevate one's mental state, like a bit of perfume lingering in the air.
Anyway, that's enough for one post. Interesting thread... :)
Quote from: Florestan on September 30, 2019, 03:09:13 AM
I think a distinction should be made between inattentive and indifferent. Allow me to illustrate it with two examples from own experience.
A few years ago, at work, I and 3 other colleagues were listening on radio to a piece by a contemporary Romanian composer. Inattentive listening by the book: we were all working at our computers and chatting. After a while, spontaneously but vividly an image formed in my mind, that of a small meadow, birds chirping in the trees and right in the middle a bear, working hard as a car mechanic. So vivid, in fact, that as you can see I remember it even today. I told my colleagues about it, and they kind of agreed that the music fitted the image perfectly, or viceversa. I have long fogotten the name of the piece but I'll probably never forget the mental image it imprinted in my mind. That's inattentive yet not indifferent listening.
Just two weeks ago I've attended a concert where they played a famous 20C work, whose name I won't disclose, which I was not very familiar with and to which I was listening for the first time live. Attentive listening by the book. After a while it became so obvious to me that I had no emotional connection whatever with it that I had to occupy my mind with something else, lest I should either die of boredom or be leaving, which given that I was seated middle row was not an option. So I let my mind wander., all the while distinctly hearing the music. I can't remember a iota of my thoughts, though. That's attentive yet indifferent listening.
I don't know if it makes any sense to any one of you.
this makes perfect sense. The first is divided attention, the second is flagging or wandering attention. Except at a concert I almost never experience the latter very long; I turn it off instead.
It was La Mer wasn't it?
Quote from: Ken B on September 30, 2019, 11:52:36 AM
this makes perfect sense. The first is divided attention, the second is flagging or wandering attention. Except at a concert I almost never experience the latter very long; I turn it off instead.
It was La Mer wasn't it?
No. A little detective work and you --- or anyone else --- will find it. All you need is to look in another thread.
Quote from: j winter on September 30, 2019, 11:43:39 AM
It makes a lot of sense.
For me, it depends on the music. For example, I love Bruckner, but I honestly don't know if my brain is really up for 60 minutes plus of closely following the logic and structure of a single piece of music -- I like this music precisely because of the mental images, moods, and emotional states that it conjures. Bruckner for me conjures a sort of meditation. Not the only way to listen to it, of course, and not even the way I always listen to it, but it works for me.
To take the uber-classic example that'll probably get me yelled at -- Walt Disney's Fantasia. It's heavy-handed by modern standards, to be sure, but it's an early attempt by an artist in a different media to approximate the mental journeys that a great piece of music can engender -- and while we may not all see volcanoes and dinosaurs when listening to Stravinsky, as an introduction to the piece, particularly for a young person who may not be familiar with much 20th century music, it's undeniably powerful. I think Stokowski's Bach Toccata & Fuge, with it's abstract patterns of light, is an even better example of what I mean.
I often think that the difference between "absolute" music and "program" music, as often discussed back in the day, is largely artificial -- Berlioz might suggest an image of a scaffold for his music, whereas Brahms might not offer any such suggestion -- but they are only suggestions, and do not limit, as least for me, the way the music may (or may not) provoke an image in the mind. It's perfectly possible to love Prokofiev's music from Romeo and Juliet without being familiar with either the ballet or the Shakespeare play. Having that familiarity can add another level of appreciation, but even so, I don't feel any particular obligation to think about Montagues and Capulets while I listen to it. Prokofiev, with all respect, is dead -- and [cliche alert! $:) ] music, as all art, belongs to the living....
...and at the risk of sounding presumptuous, let me stop here and take a moment to urge us not to digress on yet another tangent of "but the whole point is to get closer to the artist's original intentions, which requires historical research, etc..." The topic here, as I understand it, is one's own personal aesthetic reaction to a piece of music. Understanding the original intent can be both fascinating and important, and if I so choose I can (and often do) utilize that understanding to enhance my enjoyment -- but it's still my personal experience, and my choice -- Prokofiev lost control of that the instant he set down his pen. And besides, there's a whole HIP thread for that line of argument... ;)
To get back to the original sense of the thread topic, I often listen to music in the background, but I would consider this different to what I said about Bruckner above... and yet not entirely different. In my work, I sometimes need to work with a lot of data -- editing spreadsheets, creating tables and graphs, etc. When I need to concentrate on something like this for a while, I will often put on some Bach, or something with a clear structure (such as fugue or counterpoint) -- it helps to clarify the mind, and even if I'm not actively following it note for note, it seems to put my mind in a calm, reasoned state. In the same way, if I'm reading a book in the evening, particularly if it's something a bit dry like an older history book, I'm likely to put on some Chopin -- I adore Chopin, but I almost always listen to it while doing other things. It's not that I can't concentrate on the music, it's almost like I don't have to, it's so powerful that just the hint of it can elevate one's mental state, like a bit of perfume lingering in the air.
Anyway, that's enough for one post. Interesting thread... :)
Very interesting post. And I like your thoughts on Chopin.
Quote from: Mandryka on September 30, 2019, 07:02:43 AM
One thought, I'm not sure it's right but nevertheless maybe worth considering, is that Cage's intentions were to create a distinctively American form of music, specifically pastoral music. I was maybe wrong to say it was given outside in a post I made above, but still you can see that the audience would have heard pastoral sounds, not urban ones, if you look at the hall where the piece was created, the Maverick Concert Hall in New York State.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1c/Maverick_Concert_Hall_in_summer.jpg/1920px-Maverick_Concert_Hall_in_summer.jpg)
Obviously there were other factors involved in 4.33 -- in particular the idea of the composer relinquishing more control on what is heard in a performance of his music -- but the Americal Pastoral idea seems to me not without merit.
You were correct. The performance was at Tanglewood, so the sounds were of a summer evening in the Berkshires — in my experience well worth a few minutes of attentive listening.
Quote from: Ken B on September 30, 2019, 11:05:06 AM
I think he chose a pianist because he had a willing pianist available.
No you're missing my point. Why did he need an instrumentalist at all? Why didn't he just get up and introduce himself and say that we're going to try something, for about four minutes we're going to have silence? That's to say, why isn't the piece just like a sort of meditation session?
What I'm suggesting is the presence of the pianist makes the piece into
music. And what that suggests is that the audience were being asked to listen in the silence as they would listen to a piano sonata or something.
And what I wanted to explore is whether this type of listening is distinctive, whether there's a distinctive mode of listening called
listening to music.
Quote from: Mandryka on September 30, 2019, 10:14:37 PM
No you're missing my point. Why did he need an instrumentalist at all? Why didn't he just get up and introduce himself and say that we're going to try something, for about four minutes we're going to have silence? That's to say, why isn't the piece just like a sort of meditation session?
What I'm suggesting is the presence of the pianist makes the piece into music. And what that suggests is that the audience were being asked to listen in the silence as they would listen to a piano sonata or something.
And what I wanted to explore is whether this type of listening is distinctive, whether there's a distinctive mode of listening called listening to music.
I think it is you missing my point. Cage was playing a trick, a small mindfuck. The audience, duped, is paying attention and hence attending to the random noises around them Then at the end some of them get the point.
I had a physics prof who played a seemingly dangerous surprise stunt in class to make a point about conservation of energy. A wee mindfuck.
Quote from: Ken B on October 01, 2019, 07:40:59 AM
I think it is you missing my point. Cage was playing a trick, a small mindfuck. The audience, duped, is paying attention and hence attending to the random noises around them Then at the end some of them get the point.
How do you know this?
They missed the point. There's no such thing as silence. What they thought was silence, because they didn't know how to listen, was full of accidental sounds. You could hear the wind stirring outside during the first movement. During the second, raindrops began pattering the roof, and during the third the people themselves made all kinds of interesting sounds as they talked or walked out.
— John Cage speaking about the premiere of 4′33″
Oh now I understand what you're saying, sorry for being so obtuse. Yes he knew there was no such thing as silence.
Quote from: Mandryka on October 01, 2019, 11:10:16 AM
Oh now I understand what you're saying, sorry for being so obtuse. Yes he knew there was no such thing as silence.
Yes, there is. A few years ago during my holiday I stayed in a boarding house in Romanian Western Carpathians. I swear to you that during three consecutive nights I heard nothing at all, it was complete and absolute silence. An uncanny experience, actually.
I think the idea is that even in an anechoic chamber you'll still hear the sound of your blood flow etc.
So yesterday I pulled out this bargain Harmonia Mundi box:
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/61FVOzXL-aL._AC_SX466_.jpg)
I picked out a CD at random (music from 17th century Venice), and settled down with my historical novel. On this occasion the music didn't quite fit and after a while seemed intrusive. My attempt at inattentive listening was being subverted by a demand for attention! However, I was struck by the notion that here I was, listening to music (chosen at whim) that would once only have been available to (and was specifically written for) kings and queens. I suppose the kings and queens would have chattered more than listened?
So here I was, sitting on a chair far more comfortable than those kings and queens would have sat on, wearing clothes more comfortable than theirs, reading a book more entertaining than any they would have had access to, and deciding whether or not to bother continuing to listen (inattentively or otherwise) to music written especially for them. This, ladies and gentlemen, is the privilege of the 21st century.
Quote from: Elgarian Redux on October 02, 2019, 12:21:28 AM
So here I was, sitting on chairs far more comfortable than those kings and queens would have sat on, wearing clothes more comfortable than theirs, reading books far more entertaining than they would have had access to, and deciding whether or not to bother continue to listen (inattentively or otherwise) to music written especially for them. This, ladies and gentlemen, is the privilege of the 21st century.
Agreed.
Or, as Joseph Schumpeter astutely put it:
It is the cheap cloth, the cheap cotton and rayon fabric, boots, motorcars and so on that are the typical achievements of capitalist production, and not as a rule improvements that would mean much to the rich man. Queen Elizabeth owned silk stockings. The capitalist achievement does not typically consist in providing more silk stockings for queens but in bringing them within reach of factory girls.
Apparently Feldman said that he wanted the experience of his music to be as if you're not listening, but looking at something in nature. I can't make much sense of this.
That's a good quote. :)
If I could hazard a guess at the sense of it... if I'm moved by seeing something in nature -- for example if I top the crest of a hill and suddenly there's a beautiful view of the valley below, or if I'm walking in the woods and a cloud passes overhead to reveal patterns of sunlight passing through the trees -- if it takes my breath away, I'm reacting to it naturally, it's an emotional, visceral reaction. I'm not analyzing it; I'm not trying to understand how it works, or break it down into its constituent parts. The total effect of it hits me at once, and moves my heart.
Likewise in music, it's one thing to listen to it structurally, or with a score -- to appreciate the mechanics of it, to say "ah, that was a clever variation there in the recapitulation," or even "I think that's a Bosendorfer and not a Steinway." It's another thing entirely to have a performance hit you viscerally, to have a beautiful piece by Chopin or Debussy make you cry, for reasons you can't even explain to yourself.
One might say it's the difference between responding to music by admiring it's craftsmanship, and being moved by it as a work of art. Obviously when we hear a piece of music we're doing both, to varying extents, but I suspect that Felder is hoping that his listeners will be moved by the art, rather than consciously focus on the craftsmanship of it.
Just a guess... I may be way off base, as I am unfamiliar with Feldman and his thinking....
Quote from: j winter on October 02, 2019, 10:52:49 AM
That's a good quote. :)
If I could hazard a guess at the sense of it... if I'm moved by seeing something in nature -- for example if I top the crest of a hill and suddenly there's a beautiful view of the valley below, or if I'm walking in the woods and a cloud passes overhead to reveal patterns of sunlight passing through the trees -- if it takes my breath away, I'm reacting to it naturally, it's an emotional, visceral reaction. I'm not analyzing it; I'm not trying to understand how it works, or break it down into its constituent parts. The total effect of it hits me at once, and moves my heart.
Likewise in music, it's one thing to listen to it structurally, or with a score -- to appreciate the mechanics of it, to say "ah, that was a clever variation there in the recapitulation," or even "I think that's a Bosendorfer and not a Steinway." It's another thing entirely to have a performance hit you viscerally, to have a beautiful piece by Chopin or Debussy make you cry, for reasons you can't even explain to yourself.
One might say it's the difference between responding to music by admiring it's craftsmanship, and being moved by it as a work of art. Obviously when we hear a piece of music we're doing both, to varying extents, but I suspect that Felder is hoping that his listeners will be moved by the art, rather than consciously focus on the craftsmanship of it.
Just a guess... I may be way off base, as I am unfamiliar with Feldman and his thinking....
No, I think you are on to what Feldman was saying. He didn't want people to try to "make sense" of his music, just listen to it as sounds moving across time, much like how we appreciate a sunset. We don't ask, "what does it mean?" We just enjoy the view.
One thing that crossed my mind today while thinking about Feldman is that attentive listening requires a fair amount of trust in the composer. It's not passive, but nevertheless there's a sense in which you have to give yourself over to the composition completely. It's not passive, but it is submissive.
Inattentive listening is non committal, it doesn't need the trust.
Feldman demands trust big time: like four or five hours of your uninterrupted attention. Like in an EST seminar.
Maybe it is really like an EST seminar. I mean, maybe one desired effect of extreme long form music is that, if you dare to submit, you come away transformed.
Quote from: j winter on October 02, 2019, 10:52:49 AM
That's a good quote. :)
If I could hazard a guess at the sense of it... if I'm moved by seeing something in nature -- for example if I top the crest of a hill and suddenly there's a beautiful view of the valley below, or if I'm walking in the woods and a cloud passes overhead to reveal patterns of sunlight passing through the trees -- if it takes my breath away, I'm reacting to it naturally, it's an emotional, visceral reaction. I'm not analyzing it; I'm not trying to understand how it works, or break it down into its constituent parts. The total effect of it hits me at once, and moves my heart.
Likewise in music, it's one thing to listen to it structurally, or with a score -- to appreciate the mechanics of it, to say "ah, that was a clever variation there in the recapitulation," or even "I think that's a Bosendorfer and not a Steinway." It's another thing entirely to have a performance hit you viscerally, to have a beautiful piece by Chopin or Debussy make you cry, for reasons you can't even explain to yourself.
One might say it's the difference between responding to music by admiring it's craftsmanship, and being moved by it as a work of art. Obviously when we hear a piece of music we're doing both, to varying extents, but I suspect that Felder is hoping that his listeners will be moved by the art, rather than consciously focus on the craftsmanship of it.
Just a guess... I may be way off base, as I am unfamiliar with Feldman and his thinking....
Yes maybe. Arguably there is NO structure in late Feldman - that's what someone was trying to tell me today. All there is a chain of micro-events. I'm not at all convinced that's right, but I may be wrong, I don't know.
It's quite a thing, to listen attentively to four hours of sounds passing by like clouds, glittering like stars. Could you watch the night sky attentively for four hours, even a beautiful one with shooting stars?
When you do a Zen meditation for a few hours, there's a guy with a stick there to give you a tap on the shoulder if you look as though your mindfulness is starting to falter.
Quote from: Mandryka on October 02, 2019, 12:51:23 PM
Yes maybe. Arguably there is NO structure in late Feldman - that's what someone was trying to tell me today. All there is a chain of micro-events. I'm not at all convinced that's right, but I may be wrong, I don't know.
It's quite a thing, to listen to four hours of sounds passing by like clouds, glittering like stars.
From what I've read, and seen of quotes of Feldman, this is correct. He referred to himself as an intuitive composer, finding his progress in a work without an overall formal plan, just intuitively. He would separate his chords and notes with enough space so that they could be heard individually and not perceived as connected to each other as a harmonic progression.
The length of the works increased more and more later in his career. Again, he was quoted to the effect it was an attempt to evoke a sensory experience, where the listener is transported to a different state of being as a consequence of the significant length of time we would be listening and concentrating on the sounds/music.
Quote from: San Antone on October 02, 2019, 11:01:28 AM
Feldman ... didn't want people to try to "make sense" of his music, just listen to it as sounds moving across time, much like how we appreciate a sunset. We don't ask, "what does it mean?" We just enjoy the view.
A similar thing: when Elgar was conducting the slow movement of his 1st symphony, he asked the orchestra to play it 'like something they'd heard down by the river'. He seemed to think they'd know what he was talking about.
Quote from: San Antone on October 02, 2019, 12:59:43 PM
From what I've read, and seen of quotes of Feldman, this is correct. He referred to himself as an intuitive composer, finding his progress in a work without an overall formal plan, just intuitively. He would separate his chords and notes with enough space so that they could be heard individually and not perceived as connected to each other as a harmonic progression.
The length of the works increased more and more later in his career. Again, he was quoted to the effect it was an attempt to evoke a sensory experience, where the listener is transported to a different state of being as a consequence of the significant length of time we would be listening and concentrating on the sounds/music.
I listened to the first 20 minutes of For Philip Guston. After about 10 minutes the texture seemed to become very sparse, it basically turned into solo flute and solo percussion for a short while. It was for me very effective, very beautiful, but especially because it emerged out of the (slightly!) less bare textures that preceded it. For that reason I am starting to think there is some structure in the music at some level, though maybe not a harmonic one. But I'm not sure of any of this- I am sure that it is something I'm interested in though!
The way he used silence is wonderful because it seemed to create tension, suspense. Or so it seemed to me.
Fabulous music, but so long. I can't listen to all of it at once!