What do you prefer? Does most of your listening happen during the day or maybe you prefer nighttime for this? Or maybe you do both and listen to different pieces? I personally do most of my listening at night in bed, on a DAP with (decent) earbuds :)
Quote from: Ciel_Rouge on March 14, 2009, 08:28:56 PM...I personally do most of my listening at night in bed, on a DAP with (decent) earbuds :)
I do the same, with some nice Bose earbuds. It is at night (the time of day when I can focus on something in silence without interruption) when I do my
serious listening, i.e. reviewing new albums or works. During the day I'll implement some cheaper sound-isolating earbuds for when I'm out about town and listen to old favourites! :)
Same here. Especially if it's a new piece (to me) I listen at night when I listen uninterrupted.
Day or night - makes no difference. The type of music I listen to depends on my mood, not the time of day.
For house listening there isn't any difference, but when using a portable player I much prefer nighttime - less intrusive ambient noise, fewer people.
Weeknights and weekends. During the weekday, it plays quietly in the background at work.
I find that certain (types of) pieces are better suited in mood to morning, afternoon, or nighttime listening. Likewise, the day of the week and the season shape what I feel most "fits" the time. This is nothing unusual: Indian ragas, for example, have traditional associations with different times of day and seasons when they are considerate most appropriate to perform.
As such, I have no preference beyond fitting the piece to the mood and, more importantly, having uninterrupted time to really relax and focus without interruption. Music should never be sonic wallpaper but be engaged actively .
Quote from: Grazioso on March 15, 2009, 04:35:37 AM
Music should never be sonic wallpaper...
Why not? The music doesn't mind.
Haydn in the morning.
Mozart at lunch.
Brahms in the afternoon.
Dvorak in the evening.
Beethoven at night.
Bach on Sundays.
Didn't Schoenberg say that all modern music should be played at night?
I struggle to find classical music to listen to in the daytime.
any brass music
French symphonies, well, french anything for that matter
as far as modern music, the only I can listen to in the daytime are:
Stockhausen-Gruppen: it just has an exhuberance (didn't he like to parade his music around town...during the day?)
Henze Sym No.1
orchestral Xenakis: too loud to play at night
but that's it.
Alright, since we tend to go in the nightly direction here, let's get more specific. Is it:
1. evening listening
2. late night listening
3. whole-night listening with birdsong in the morning :)
I have to admit that I mostly do No. 2 and very often No. 3.
Quote from: snyprrr on March 15, 2009, 01:34:49 PM
Didn't Schoenberg say that all modern music should be played at night?
I struggle to find classical music to listen to in the daytime.
Any music from the Baroque or Classical period works well for me during the day. Beethoven as well. Modern is fine too.
I'm retired; my days and nights are free so I listen whenever the mood strikes. The only rule I have is: no J. S. Bach before noon. Bach in the morning is highly irritating. After noon, though, he's the greatest composer ever. ;D
Sarge
Daytime- I listen to 3 CDs a day in class during the weekdays, 1 CD (or 1 CD worth of music) that stays in my car during weekend driving.
Nighttime- Used to be addicted to listening to only one of Brahms' symphonies or piano concertos for a year or two, and then moved on to the same with Mahler for roughly 3 years.
Recently, I haven't hardly been doing that, but instead either not listening to music at night or listening to some on youtube- mainly Mahler and Wagner Preludes.
I find modern music to be good anytime except right before bed because it can be so invigorating, but late Romantic music is best right before going to sleep because it's so draining. (Also, I don't like the idea of waking up to Baroque or Classical because it just seems so cliched and traditional- actually makes me nauseous thinking about it.)
When you're finished listening to Mahler 9 and realizing over and over again how it's the most profound thing conceived by a human and the greatest thing that life could possibly offer, it's really hard to go through the day sometimes. Nothing even compares, so everything just seems pointless.
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on March 15, 2009, 07:05:42 PM
I'm retired; my days and nights are free so I listen whenever the mood strikes. The only rule I have is: no J. S. Bach before noon. Bach in the morning is highly irritating. After noon, though, he's the greatest composer ever. ;D
Sarge
Nice! :)
Quote from: Gay Cuban Communist on March 15, 2009, 07:11:02 PM
When you're finished listening to Mahler 9 and realizing over and over again how it's the most profound thing conceived by a human and the greatest thing that life could possibly offer, it's really hard to go through the day sometimes. Nothing even compares, so everything just seems pointless.
Which is why I reserve those "the meaning of life" symphonies for late evenings: I include Mahler 9 and 10, Bruckner 9 and Brian's Gothic in that category.
Sarge
Nice choices, to say the least. ;)
I had the most glorious afternoon walk yesterday, whilst listening to Brahms' String Quartet No. 1. 0:)
Day or night, rain or shine - time does not exist when I listen to music. :)
Quote from: Mn Dave on March 15, 2009, 04:41:12 AM
Why not? The music doesn't mind.
Because life is too short to approach important things in a half-assed manner, pardon the expression. If you decide you want to bother with something as serious, complex, and stimulating as classical music, why not take the time to really listen so you can get the most out of it, instead of vitiating the experience by half listening to bits and pieces in the background? Sure, to each his own, but that sort of pseudo-listening just seems like a waste of a great opportunity. It'd be like skimming through the world's great novels instead of really reading and thinking about them. I've always found that you get the most out of things when you're fully attentive to them, and when you put some effort into them.
But back to the original topic, I generally find baroque music most suited to morning listening, classical to mornings or, more so, afternoons, and romantic through contemporary music best reserved for nights, particularly if you're talking about intense, weighty "ponder the meaning of life" symphonies and the like.
Quote from: Grazioso on March 16, 2009, 05:25:09 AM
Because life is too short to approach important things in a half-assed manner, pardon the expression. If you decide you want to bother with something as serious, complex, and stimulating as classical music, why not take the time to really listen so you can get the most out of it, instead of vitiating the experience by half listening to bits and pieces in the background? Sure, to each his own, but that sort of pseudo-listening just seems like a waste of a great opportunity. It'd be like skimming through the world's great novels instead of really reading and thinking about them. I've always found that you get the most out of things when you're fully attentive to them, and when you put some effort into them.
You can do both. It's not one or the other.
Quote from: Mn Dave on March 16, 2009, 05:27:01 AM
You can do both. It's not one or the other.
Yup. I agree.
And even if you do both, please provide more details so that we can all get more ideas how to listen :) How about listening rooms? If you happen to have one, when do you use it?
These days I have not been particular. Both nighttime and daytime listening work well with me. That said I will admit that every once in a while I prefer to listen to Romantic era music (late Beethoven -> early Richard Strauss) at nighttime! On the other hand any time and all times during the day or night are perfect for Wagner 0:)!! Have I confused any of you yet with this post??
marvin
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on March 15, 2009, 07:05:42 PM
I'm retired; my days and nights are free so I listen whenever the mood strikes. The only rule I have is: no J. S. Bach before noon. Bach in the morning is highly irritating. After noon, though, he's the greatest composer ever. ;D
Sarge
Interesting Sarge, just curious is it the sound of the harpsichord that you find so offputting in the mornings??
marvin
Quote from: Mn Dave on March 16, 2009, 05:27:01 AM
You can do both. It's not one or the other.
You're so right. If I had to give up listening to music because I happened to be doing something else at the same time, well, I can't even imagine it. So little music would get listened to by me. Do you think I'm not listening to music as I type this (Solti/LSO, Mahler 2, DG's The Originals)?
However, I don't like to walk and listen to music at the same time. It's a physical coordination issue. I literally can't do it without falling at some point, I get so wrapped up in the music. Also, I don't like creating an outdoor memory around music, something I'm unable to keep my brain from doing.
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on March 15, 2009, 07:05:42 PM
I'm retired; my days and nights are free so I listen whenever the mood strikes. The only rule I have is: no J. S. Bach before noon. Bach in the morning is highly irritating. After noon, though, he's the greatest composer ever. ;D
I love Bach in the mornings, especially works for solo keyboard, violin, or cello. And the Brandenburgs practically define Sunday mornings for me.
Quote from: Grazioso on March 16, 2009, 05:25:09 AMBecause life is too short to approach important things in a half-assed manner, pardon the expression. If you decide you want to bother with something as serious, complex, and stimulating as classical music, why not take the time to really listen so you can get the most out of it, instead of vitiating the experience by half listening to bits and pieces in the background?
Life would be unbearably dull and difficult if I had to take everything so seriously all the time. Enjoying music as sonic wallpaper under some circumstances hardly prevents us from giving it our full attention when we wish--and I find that "subconscious" familiarization sometimes increases my ability to appreciate music.
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on March 15, 2009, 07:42:55 PM...I reserve those "the meaning of life" symphonies for late evenings: I include Mahler 9 and 10, Bruckner 9 and Brian's Gothic in that category.
Late evenings can be as difficult for me as early afternoons immediately following lunch: I tend toward sleepiness and my attention flags. For "serious" listening I prefer late mornings and late afternoons or early evenings. "Serious" listening also almost always means in the "music room" with the primary hi fi system, but there are times when respecting others mandates headphones, and by reducing potential distractions this sometimes helps me to concentrate.
"Unserious" listening (not necessarily frivolous!) when I cannot or do not want to devote my complete attention to the music can take place any time and any place: driving while listening to CDs or the radio, walking or running or flying with my iPod, playing music through the computer while working or wasting time on GMG, or just putting something on as background music while doing chores or enjoying coffee and conversation with my wife or a friend.
And, yes, some types of music do not lend themselves to casual listening but keep demanding my attention:
The Rite of Spring, for instance, vs.
Eine kleine Nachtmusik.
For me, listening to music is something that pretty much has to happen in the evening. During weekdays, there's that job that I have to go to, after which I have to eat dinner, then practice. Then a composition may demand my attention: maybe editing a score, or creating parts. Creative work pretty much has to happen on weekends, so that means Saturday and Sunday mornings are not available for listening, and afternoons are needed for practicing, so I'm still not going to be able to listen to music until some time in the evening.
A generalization, of course:
Baroque and Classical in the mornings on weekends. On Sundays we have four hours of classical radio my wife and I enjoy. 2 hours (7-11) of Sacred Classics and 2 hours of the Baroque Show (http://www.kvod.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=249). A Bach Cantata also really hits the spot on Sunday mornings. Afternoons on the weekends are for the more booming pieces that test the strength of our windows.
On weekdays, it changes a bit. In the mornings (6-8) I have lately been listening to opera. I do not have much, but the discs I have are getting some serious play time. Afternoons at work are now music free (very new for me) and I eat lunch with the same colleague each day. We usually discuss what we read during our earlier in the week Bible study. Then talk radio on the way home. Usually NPR, unless there is a baseball game on.
At night, (seven days a week) I tend to enjoy the more lush Romantic pieces, especially right before bed around 10. Something along the lines of Tchaikovsky's Serenade for Strings comes to mind.
However, I do reserve Ravel's and Fauré's solo piano works for early rainy mornings.
Quote from: marvinbrown on March 16, 2009, 06:30:40 AM
Interesting Sarge, just curious is it the sound of the harpsichord that you find so offputting in the mornings??
marvin
I don't ever listen to Bach on the harpsichord (yeah, I know how you feel...sorry :D ) so it isn't that. It's the complexity of Bach's music that I can't handle that early in the day. I've never been a morning person (making my choice of a military career rather illogical given the fact a soldier's day usually starts around 4:30 or 5 a.m.). My brain doesn't start functioning at full capacity until afternoon. One of the greatest pleasures of Bach's music is following the contrapuntal argument...and I find that too taxing in the morning. In the morning I prefer the music of the Classical period, especially Mozart...or Dittersdorf: he's definitely not too taxing ;D
Sarge
Quote from: DavidRoss on March 16, 2009, 06:58:53 AM
Life would be unbearably dull and difficult if I had to take everything so seriously all the time. Enjoying music as sonic wallpaper under some circumstances hardly prevents us from giving it our full attention when we wish--and I find that "subconscious" familiarization sometimes increases my ability to appreciate music.
I don't--and don't recommend--taking "everything so seriously all the time," but some things really cry out for special attention, and that includes great works of art. Inability or unwillingness to pay real attention to the masterworks of Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, et al. means you'll necessarily be cheating yourself of what they have to offer. I'm sure it can be fun to just sort of half listen while you're doing your homework, but to me that's ultimately a waste of time and detracts from focusing on either fully. It turns the music into mere noise--hopefully pleasant noise, but for me at least, it would run the real risk of making it a nuisance. (There's enough noise bombardment in my life already, and the last thing I want to do is take a great symphony of Bruckner and turn it into half-heard noise jabbering at me in the background while I do other things.) And I doubt Brahms or Wagner or Debussy intended their major pieces to be listened to as Muzak, but surely hoped that sympathetic and informed listeners would take their work seriously and really pay attention the nuances, really study it, really open themselves up to its emotional message. If indeed they were great geniuses, why not pay their work the proper respect of actively listening to it?
I don't see that alternatively listening to it as background sonic wallpaper will do much for me or my appreciation of their work. That said, I'm not sitting there with furrowed brow and turning beet red with laser-like concentration every time I listen to classical music :) I know that a piece can suddenly grab me for the first time when I just relax and try to take it in as a whole without unduly focusing on the details. But I'm still giving it my attention and not simultaneously doing a bunch of other stuff that divides my mind and emotions.
Quote from: Grazioso on March 17, 2009, 04:55:22 AM
Inability or unwillingness to pay real attention to the masterworks of Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, et al. means you'll necessarily be cheating yourself of what they have to offer. I'm sure it can be fun to just sort of half listen while you're doing your homework, but to me that's ultimately a waste of time and detracts from focusing on either fully. It turns the music into mere noise--hopefully pleasant noise, but for me at least, it would run the real risk of making it a nuisance.
As Dave and others have already pointed out, hearing Yo Yo Ma playing one of Bach's cello suites in the background while browsing at your local bookstore (do any local bookstores still exist?) hardly precludes serious listening on other occasions. None here have disputed that focused listening pays dividends; some claim to also enjoy unfocused listening, a pastime that hardly merits reprimanding them as boors.
Have you never noticed that sometimes the unconscious part of your mind is more perceptive than the conscious part? That intuition may effortlessly grasp what conscious effort struggles to explain? An intellectual might hear a piece of music, count beats to determine the meter, compare knowledge of the music's time with the time in which the music was written, and conclude that it has a dance rhythm. The non-intellectual simply knows that immediately by his body's unconscious recognition of the composer's intention, though he might not know or care whether it's a jig or a minuet.
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on March 16, 2009, 08:39:33 AM
I don't ever listen to Bach on the harpsichord (yeah, I know how you feel...sorry :D ) so it isn't that. It's the complexity of Bach's music that I can't handle that early in the day. I've never been a morning person (making my choice of a military career rather illogical given the fact a soldier's day usually starts around 4:30 or 5 a.m.). My brain doesn't start functioning at full capacity until afternoon. One of the greatest pleasures of Bach's music is following the contrapuntal argument...and I find that too taxing in the morning. In the morning I prefer the music of the Classical period, especially Mozart...or Dittersdorf: he's definitely not too taxing ;D
Sarge
Very good answer
Sarge! Some of Bach's music is highly complex and perhaps too taxing for a morning listen. The
Art of Fugue comes to mind!!
marvin
Quote from: DavidRoss on March 17, 2009, 06:13:13 AM
As Dave and others have already pointed out, hearing Yo Yo Ma playing one of Bach's cello suites in the background while browsing at your local bookstore (do any local bookstores still exist?) hardly precludes serious listening on other occasions. None here have disputed that focused listening pays dividends; some claim to also enjoy unfocused listening, a pastime that hardly merits reprimanding them as boors.
Have you never noticed that sometimes the unconscious part of your mind is more perceptive than the conscious part? That intuition may effortlessly grasp what conscious effort struggles to explain? An intellectual might hear a piece of music, count beats to determine the meter, compare knowledge of the music's time with the time in which the music was written, and conclude that it has a dance rhythm. The non-intellectual simply knows that immediately by his body's unconscious recognition of the composer's intention, though he might not know or care whether it's a jig or a minuet.
I for one never reprimanded anyone or called them boors.
Anyway, you're conflating or confusing intellectual analysis with focused attention. I'm not recommending that one exclusively "study" a piece with intellectual rigor, but rather that you put yourself in a state where you can be most receptive to a piece both emotionally and intellectually, where both your conscious and subconscious aspects can take it in fully instead of dividing your mind and emotions across other things. Would you go to see a performance of Hamlet with the world's greatest actors and read the Sunday paper through the performance? You could do it, and you might get something from both, but I'm positive you won't get as much from either as you otherwise could. My point is, why bother to do such a thing? Why lessen the potential of both experiences? Why not focus one on or the other so you can get the most out of each? I for one would rather have silence to refocus my heart and mind for the time when I'll really get to sit down and listen and get the most from music than to do a bunch of half-baked, multi-tasking listening part of the time and then try to listen with focus later.
I see we are drifting away from nighttime vs. daytime towards background vs. focused here. I hope this will not turn into a ping-pong thread ;-) I am merely looking for inspiration to start listening in other ways than I currently do and I am also curious about the habits of other listeneres and speaker owners in particular as I currently own none and do my listening exclusively on the DAP (the computer setup has a lof of shortcomings so I do not do much listening on my computer either ).
So, how about air conditioning in your listening rooms? Does it interfere? Is there a good way to have an excellent isolated listening room that sounds great but also have decent airflow etc. even if it lacks windows?
By the way, I am currently reading this excellent book on spatial accoustics:
http://www.amazon.com/Spaces-Speak-Are-You-Listening/dp/0262026058/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1237400574&sr=8-1
which makes me very excited about the possibilites I might have once I get a decent pair of speakers as well :) It may not be very intuitive, but a situation where you have the organ playing in a cathedral and using the whole structure as a resonator is sort of vaguely similar to having speakers taking advantage of the dimensions and accoustic characteristics of a good listening room. After all, speakers are "sort of" like instruments playing - only that they are electro-accoustic and do not allow for active playing and just "reproduce" the soundwaves of a given piece recorded earlier.
Quote from: Ciel_Rouge on March 18, 2009, 10:24:17 AM
So, how about air conditioning in your listening rooms? Does it interfere? Is there a good way to have an excellent isolated listening room that sounds great but also have decent airflow etc. even if it lacks windows?
I usually run the A/C overnight and when I start listening, shut it off.
There is only one work which I prefer to hear at night, and that's Mahler's supremely noctural symphony no 7, sometimes called the"Song Of The Night".
It just doesn't sound right unless I listen to a recording at night.
The Solti/CSO recording on Decca has yet to be surpassed, although there are some other fine recordings by Levine and Abbado,also with the CSO, and Barenboim with the Staatskapelle,Berlin.
Quote from: Mn Dave on March 15, 2009, 04:41:12 AM
Why not? The music doesn't mind.
But your brain does. Don't cheat yourself by putting great music in the background.
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on March 15, 2009, 07:05:42 PM
I'm retired; my days and nights are free so I listen whenever the mood strikes. The only rule I have is: no J. S. Bach before noon. Bach in the morning is highly irritating. After noon, though, he's the greatest composer ever. ;D
Sarge
I prefer Bach in the mornings...jump starts my brain.
Quote from: Frumaster on March 20, 2009, 05:49:42 PM
But your brain does. Don't cheat yourself by putting great music in the background.
It's not cheating (at least not for everyone). There are so many great things in the world, and their greatness is partly due to the fact that we do not have to give our full attention to appreciate them. I don't have to actively listen to Beethoven's 6th symph to realize what a great piece of music it is. For me, the trick is to be actively aware of music even when it is playing in the background.
Quote from: orbital on March 21, 2009, 04:38:42 AM
It's not cheating (at least not for everyone). There are so many great things in the world, and their greatness is partly due to the fact that we do not have to give our full attention to appreciate them. I don't have to actively listen to Beethoven's 6th symph to realize what a great piece of music it is. For me, the trick is to be actively aware of music even when it is playing in the background.
Point taken. But wouldn't you agree that by not giving music your full attention, you may miss some important subtleties? If you listen to it enough times in the background, I'm sure it will all eventually sink in...but thats an inefficient approach. There are also some pieces which you may never be able to appreciate without intense listening and analysis. Art can be challenging and great, and in many cases the two are not mutually exclusive. Intellectual stimulation is one of the reasons to love concert music.
How many times and in how many ways do how many different people here have to patiently explain that enjoying music without giving it one's full attention does NOT preclude also listening to music while giving it full attention when desired? Why is this concept so difficult for some to grasp? It ain't rocket science.
On some days, not all, I enjoy music while working in the yard. For example I had some Mozart piped outside today while I took care of some brush piles. I do not like having headphones on so I can hear our kids and the birds at the feeders while I do yard work. No intent listening, just some nice added ambiance to help make my chores seem more palatable on a beautiful Colorado day.
I listened to disc 1 from this set late last night through my headphones. I have never listened to any symphonies through headsets before. The program on this disc includes Symphonies 1 and 3. For some reasons, I really like #3 even though I was never a fan of this symphony. It is not clear if it was the performance or it was the headphones that added the extra ambiance?
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41wniS-7pXL._SS400_.jpg)
Quote from: DavidRoss on March 21, 2009, 04:09:13 PM
How many times and in how many ways do how many different people here have to patiently explain that enjoying music without giving it one's full attention does NOT preclude also listening to music while giving it full attention when desired? Why is this concept so difficult for some to grasp? It ain't rocket science.
We get that. But how many times and in how many ways do how many different people here have to patiently explain that enjoying music
with giving it one's full attention is the more rewarding approach and the one better suited to something as deep and complex as classical music? :) If you approach anything with one-pointed attention, where you fully immerse yourself in it (again, not the same as intellectual analysis), you can gain a much richer, more memorable experience. To intentionally divide your attention to where you're only half listening to great artistic masterpieces seems like a wasted opportunity at best.
Someone used the example of walking into a bookstore where they're playing Yo-Yo Ma's version of the Bach cello suites. Well, it's one thing to walk into a store and find music playing, will you or nill you, another entirely to be at home and intentionally to turn on Bach as background Muzak instead of giving the music/yourself/the experience its full due by actually paying attention. One would be better served in life by increasing one's focus instead of consciously dulling it.
QuoteI listened to disc 1 from this set late last night through my headphones. I have never listened to any symphonies through headsets before. The program on this disc includes Symphonies 1 and 3. For some reasons, I really like #3 even though I was never a fan of this symphony. It is not clear if it was the performance or it was the headphones that added the extra ambiance?
Headphones can definitely add an extra level of immersion. Unfortunately, I had to quit using mine because my stereo is apparently haunted ;) From time to time, the volume maxes out on its own, which would be really bad news with phones on!
Quote from: Grazioso on March 22, 2009, 04:58:47 AM
Headphones can definitely add an extra level of immersion. Unfortunately, I had to quit using mine because my stereo is apparently haunted ;) From time to time, the volume maxes out on its own, which would be really bad news with phones on!
No, you don't want to join the rank of LvB too early ... ;D
Quote from: Grazioso on March 22, 2009, 04:58:47 AM
We get that.
Apparently not, because you are still taking issue with it and then arguing a proposition that no one here has disputed.
Quote from: Coopmv on March 22, 2009, 04:29:55 AM
I listened to disc 1 from this set late last night through my headphones. I have never listened to any symphonies through headsets before. The program on this disc includes Symphonies 1 and 3. For some reasons, I really like #3 even though I was never a fan of this symphony. It is not clear if it was the performance or it was the headphones that added the extra ambiance?
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41wniS-7pXL._SS400_.jpg)
Coop, so glad to hear you unwrapped that boxset, and enjoyed the 3rd! :)
This is a pseudo-dilemma, really. It goes without saying that one's going to listen to music with his undivided attention as often as possible; but there inevitably come times when one's going to listen to music while doing other things that don't necessarily distract a great deal from it - to deny that's still good is nonsense. Getting (better) acquainted with unfamiliar or disliked works in order to pave the way for more focused listening sessions later, that's where I find the most use for multitasking listening. To refuse to listen to music at all in these situations under pseudo-elitist, purist pretenses is merely being recalcitrant.
The bottom line as I see it is that a person who doesn't consider his every single session of listening to music as a sacred ritual ends up listening to and appreciating more music in the long run whereas those who only listen when conditions are just perfect and every single distraction eliminated are inevitably depriving themselves of a lot of listening time.
Quote from: Wanderer on March 22, 2009, 05:53:04 AM
This is a pseudo-dilemma, really. It goes without saying that one's going to listen to music with his undivided attention as often as possible
For many people, listening while jogging, driving, doing homework, etc. is their standard approach. I've mentioned to others how I love music and will sit and just listen to it, and they look at me like I'm from Mars.
Quote
To refuse to listen to music at all in these situations under pseudo-elitist, purist pretenses is merely being recalcitrant.
That I agree with. But what I'm talking about has nothing to do with elitism or pretense, but rather an acknowledgment that there are various ways to approach things, some better than others. I try to take the better approach with things I care about, such as music. I've found it vastly better in life--on all fronts--to cultivate single-pointed focus since every experience can become far richer, intense, and more memorable when you're fully absorbed in it and not letting your thoughts and emotions jump all over the place and control you instead of vice versa. As such, when I sit down with a book, a piece of music, a movie, or whatever, if I find I'm not focusing for whatever reason and can't bring myself to focus, I'll set it aside and come back to it another time when I'm in a more attuned and receptive state so I can really get something out of my time with it. When you only half experience a piece of art, it's no longer worth being called art, but is rather just something to pass the time. I want to really
hear Beethoven and Mozart, not reduce them to sonic wallpaper while I try to accomplish other things.
QuoteThe bottom line as I see it is that a person who doesn't consider his every single session of listening to music as a sacred ritual ends up listening to and appreciating more music in the long run whereas those who only listen when conditions are just perfect and every single distraction eliminated are inevitably depriving themselves of a lot of listening time.
You
might end up listening more over the long haul, but I disagree about appreciating it more. Based on my past experience, times I spent half listening while doing other things at worst detracted from my enjoyment and understanding of the music precisely because it was turned into a surfeit of background noise. At best, it was merely time wasted since I neither focused on nor remembered either task or experience well and ultimately failed to get what I might out of them. And really, in the years since I started trying to pay real attention to music, I've listened to a huge amount of it without being curtailed in any way :)
QuoteNo, you don't want to join the rank of LvB too early ...
I was listening to Mahler 6 last night, and those hammer blows in the finale were strikingly loud over speakers--through phones at max volume, it would have been like gunshots in a concrete room...what?...what?!
Quote from: Frumaster on March 21, 2009, 03:39:20 PM
Point taken. But wouldn't you agree that by not giving music your full attention, you may miss some important subtleties? If you listen to it enough times in the background, I'm sure it will all eventually sink in...but thats an inefficient approach. There are also some pieces which you may never be able to appreciate without intense listening and analysis. Art can be challenging and great, and in many cases the two are not mutually exclusive. Intellectual stimulation is one of the reasons to love concert music.
But I am not interested in the challenges art provides. I enjoy listening to music, and I am not expecting anything more out of it. That's how I treat music (and most other things in life >:D ) My number one priority is to derive enjoyment, everything else comes second.
That is not to say that I don't listen to music exclusively with my undivided attention. I spent a better part of yesterday doing just that in fact. But the purpose was not any different. I wasn't listening to music to unravel the secrets or the structural development of the Enescu sonatas, my only interest was to flow with his sound palette.
This may be a superficial approach for a lot of people, but I can't have it any other way. Whenever other aspects of music/arts start to come on top of enjoyment, my interest and time I voluntarily devote goes down accordingly.
I'd love to listen to Bernstein's Mahler while going to sleep at night but have finally admitted I cannot. The dynamic range is so great that either I cannot hear the quiet parts or get blasted out of bed by the loud parts.
Regarding the discussion of partial concentration of music while doing something else, if I cannot give it my full attention, it is a waste of time for me to put it on the cd player. Honestly, I do not hear the music at all when doing something else. it's just the way I focus. My mother reprimanded me as a teenager for not picking up my baby sister who was crying in the adjoining room. I had been reading a book and truly had not heard her.
Quote from: Anne on March 26, 2009, 01:34:20 AM
My mother reprimanded me as a teenager for not picking up my baby sister who was crying in the adjoining room. I had been reading a book and truly had not heard her.
Our son is like that when reading. My wife went to pick him up the other day in his 4th grade classroom. It was chaos as all the kids were getting their things as the bell rang. She observed our son walking from his desk to the coat rack without once taking his eyes away from the book as he wove his way in and out of the kiddos. He continued reading totally oblivious to his surroundings. We actually applauded it, though we can kind of see your mom had a point too, Anne. :)
Quote from: Anne on March 26, 2009, 01:34:20 AM
I'd love to listen to Bernstein's Mahler while going to sleep at night but have finally admitted I cannot. The dynamic range is so great that either I cannot hear the quiet parts or get blasted out of bed by the loud parts.
I hope you found the dynamic range of the Tamerlano extracts to your satisfaction Anne...
Bill--that ability (or compulsion!) to "hyperfocus" can be a very valuable asset, but it can paradoxically be a sign of "ADD." (Referring to that constellation of traits and abilities as a "disorder" is prejudicial from the get-go, isn't it? No wonder kids thus gifted can have a hard time in school. Tough enough for hunters to fit among the farmers without labeling them as "disordered.")
Anne--funny you should mention that. Just last night I was having some trouble falling asleep so I put some music on, but softly, and as usual drifted right off to dreamland. (Maybe the problem is Bernstein...have you tried Rattle? ;) >:D ) On the other hand, I can be oblivious to many things while reading (just ask my wife!) but not music--it keeps grabbing my attention and pulling me in.
Quote from: Rod Corkin on March 26, 2009, 04:36:12 AM
I hope you found the dynamic range of the Tamerlano extracts to your satisfaction Anne...
Hi Rod,
It was quite late at night when I went looking for the various pieces of music from Tamerlano. I was primarily collecting the locations of the music to help me decide whether my next composer to study would be Bach or Handel. I had planned to listen to the extracts at a later time which has not been in great supply lately.
Quote from: Bogey on March 26, 2009, 03:58:11 AM
Our son is like that when reading. My wife went to pick him up the other day in his 4th grade classroom. It was chaos as all the kids were getting their things as the bell rang. She observed our son walking from his desk to the coat rack without once taking his eyes away from the book as he wove his way in and out of the kiddos. He continued reading totally oblivious to his surroundings. We actually applauded it, though we can kind of see your mom had a point too, Anne. :)
Yes, I agree. Only I knew for sure whether I had heard the baby or not. I can understand my mother's vexation with me.
Quote from: DavidRoss on March 26, 2009, 04:51:05 AM
Bill--that ability (or compulsion!) to "hyperfocus" can be a very valuable asset, but it can paradoxically be a sign of "ADD." (Referring to that constellation of traits and abilities as a "disorder" is prejudicial from the get-go, isn't it? No wonder kids thus gifted can have a hard time in school. Tough enough for hunters to fit among the farmers without labeling them as "disordered.")
I have a student that has ADD running through his family, and even if he isn't officially diagnosed with it (unlike his brother), he sometimes hyperfocuses on one task, such as completing a picture just right and neglects everything else on tests (when he doesn't mean to)! :o Alot of people throw around having ADD, when they really mean they are easily distracted when they are bored. But seeing something closer to the real deal was a bit jarring.