For the last couple of weeks I've been trying to wrap my skull around the concepts of beat, time, and measures. (Thanks to everyone who provided links!) I hear and read the terms used when describing works, but I'm not following them. (My wife assures me I have the rhythm of an eight cylinder engine; two with bad spark plugs and at least one more with a dropped valve.)
Sure, if there's a drum banging away I can pretty much find that, but otherwise I'm having difficulty finding a beat or rhythm in many pieces. When viewing videos I have trouble finding a correlation between the conductor's motions and what the music is doing.
My question is, how relevant is an intellectual understanding of these concepts to the enjoyment of music? Should I continue trying to 'get' these notions, or put them on the back burner and not worry about them for now?
Gracias.
I would vote for "back burner." Of course, if you're curious about the technical side of the music, by all means, explore, but I don't think it's essential at the beginning.
There is so much variety in classical music, that sooner or later you're bound to run across something that "clicks" with you (I hope).
--Bruce
Quote from: Palmetto on March 23, 2011, 01:33:37 PM
...My question is, how relevant is an intellectual understanding of these concepts to the enjoyment of music?...
(emphasis added)
It's far more important to
feel the rhythm than to understand it. And that may be one of your difficulties now in "getting" classical music. In most other music, at least here in Europe and America, there is a very definite beat, laid down by drums, guitar or piano; but in lots of classical music, the underlying beat is more subtle and sometimes harder to find. And in slow tempos, the beat can be considerably slower than we're used to in the more popular musics. Also, classical ensembles often play with much greater flexibility in tempo than most pop bands. So you're generally not going to find a hard beat that keeps going through the entire composition or movement.
In Bach and the other Baroque composers, there is almost always a beat, but without percussion to enforce it, it's a gentler thing than you may be used to. And there are often times where the beat gets suspended altogether, as in Brandenburg 1's second movement toward the end, where the oboe takes a solo break, breaking the rhythm too.
In Classical-period composers, the beat is even more subtle and changeable. Let's say that in the first movement of a certain Mozart concerto (I'm thinking at the moment of the D minor Piano Concerto, K.466), the beat comes in groups of four, what musicians call "measures:" one, two, three, four, and then the next group begins at "one" again, sort of like how our musical scales contain seven notes and the next is not "eight" but "one." But some measures, instead of having four moderately fast beats, may feel more like two slow beats, while others may feel like eight very fast beats. So even though the underlying beat is steady, its iterations can change from measure to measure. (And that particular concerto begins with a long, long series of off-beats in the upper strings, throwing off our "beat" expectations completely! :o)
And then in Romantic-period compositions, the beat itself often changes pace in mid-flight.
Now, it's not so important for listeners to be consciously aware of every little shift in beat, but I feel it is essential to feel the underlying pulse. Try this: The next time you hear something with a relatively steady beat, say, Brandenburg 2, try tapping your foot or your fingers to the pulse. Don't be concerned yet about whether it's measures of 2, 3, 4 or whatever; just find where the beat comes naturally. You might even imagine a drum set playing to the beat. Then after you've found the pulse and followed it through the entire movement, listen again and pay more attention to what happens around the beat, for example, how many notes the violin or oboe plays between one beat and the next.
One final note: I feel that we Euro-Americans are more often "rhythmically challenged" than folks of other backgrounds. I cannot remember ever meeting an African-American or African or Latino/a, for example, who didn't have an exquisite feel for rhythms--but you find it often enough in those of North-European ancestry. Something to do, maybe, with being out of touch with the earth and her rhythms... So don't feel bad if feeling the rhythm isn't easy yet; you're not alone. :)
Quote from: Palmetto on March 23, 2011, 01:33:37 PM
My question is, how relevant is an intellectual understanding of these concepts to the enjoyment of music? Should I continue trying to 'get' these notions, or put them on the back burner and not worry about them for now?
In the words of that noted 20th Century philosopher, composer, and social activist, John Lennon:
QuoteTurn off your mind, relax and float down stream
...
Lay down all thoughts, surrender to the void
That was a very useful practical exercise! I think I've been working too hard to hear it and not, as you said, feel it. Next is to see if I can pay attention to what's going on around it without losing it; forest for the trees and all that.
Palmetto, don't worry about the technicalities and the concepts and all the terminology. Just focus on listening to the music. The understanding of all the concepts will come with time.
If you are able to find this book at the library or used book store, I highly recommend snapping it up, as it has some explanations and layman's terms for some of the classical music terminology and concepts.
It's a book by Phil D. Goulding, and it is a marvelous reference book for someone fresh to classical music. I know it worked wonders for me and I learned a tremendous amount from it. The best part is that it isn't a boring academic textbook, it is actually a very fun read, with lots of wit and humour, and once you start reading it it will be hard to put it down.
[asin]0449910423[/asin]
That's one of the two books I have that my little brother picks up and reads from time to time. The other one is this:
(http://www.bookhills.com/images/Classical-Music-Eyewitness-Companions-0756609585-L.jpg)
Both are excellent ways of learning about composers.
For what little it's worth, I can only reiterate what Jochanaan suggested: don't get hung up on consciously trying to follow the nuances of the rhythms or understand time signatures. Just let yourself go and tap your foot along with the music. You might well find that you possess a better feel for rhythm than you imagine, though sophisticated music will often toy with expectations through syncopation, hemiola, polyrythms, etc.
A useful challenge beyond simply tapping along is to try to determine if the piece is in a duple or triple meter (very roughly, coming in rhythmic groups of 2 or 4, or 3 or 6). You'll hear the latter in waltz or minuet pieces.
It seems very strange to me that someone would have difficulty locating a piece of music's rhythm or beat, unless it was very slow or complex. It would be like listening to Mozart music and saying "I can't hear the melody!" I would suggest just tapping your finger as you listen to music. When you discover a pace of tapping that fits the music, there you've found the beat. If even this fails, then God help you.
Quote from: eyeresist on March 24, 2011, 05:25:49 PM
It seems very strange to me that someone would have difficulty locating a piece of music's rhythm or beat, unless it was very slow or complex. It would be like listening to Mozart music and saying "I can't hear the melody!" I would suggest just tapping your finger as you listen to music. When you discover a pace of tapping that fits the music, there you've found the beat. If even this fails, then God help you.
This comment is more condescending than helpful. This is the type of remark that will only help scare and drive away someone trying to learn and get into classical music. >:(
I didn't mean to be condescending. The OPs problem genuinely strikes me as bizarre. And note that I did include a practical suggestion.
I found your comment neither offensive nor condescending. :D
But yes, there are some of us who are rhythmically challenged. Maybe my own internal rhythms are overriding the external stimulus; maybe it tides or quasar pulses; "or maybe it's fleas!" In my case it isn't limited to classical music; if you'd seen me try to dance, you'd know. If I concentrate on the beat and nothing else, I can usually come close to finding it. Don't ask me to clap AND sing, however; one or the other, take your pick.
Quote from: Palmetto on March 25, 2011, 05:34:49 AM
I found your comment neither offensive nor condescending. :D
But yes, there are some of us who are rhythmically challenged. In my case it isn't liimited to classical music; if you'd seen me try to dance, you'd know. If I concentrate on the beat and nothing else, I can usually come close to finding it. Don't ask me to clap AND sing, however; one or the other, take your pick.
There is one more thing that no one had mentioned. Sometimes composers will change the rhythm (or sound of it), either through syncopation (which is just a fancy way of saying offbeats - if you count the beats as 1 and 2 and 3 and 4 and 1 and 2 and...etc...the stress will normally fall on that 1,2,3,4 - but by falling on the 'and', it becomes syncopated, and can throw the beat off - kids learning to play these types of pieces often have difficulty) or by mixing up the time signature for a brief period. All this means is that the composer is purposely changing the rhythm/emphasis and thus it will appear that you missed something, when in reality the composer made a change that you were not expecting (and got you off the beat).
An example of the latter might be Queen's Bohemian Rhapsody. As you shift from section to section, it is not always easy to keep the rhythm during the changes. Well classical music does this too, and depending on the piece can throw off the rhythm.
Quote from: mc ukrneal on March 25, 2011, 06:17:33 AM
There is one more thing that no one had mentioned...
Well, I had mentioned it, but your explanation was more detailed than mine. :)
When marching, sometimes one will wind up off-step from the rest of the formation. It take a half-step, stutter-step, or skipping to get back in sequence with everyone else. If you weren't completely out of synch with everyone else (syncopated walking!), you may have to do several skips or quarter-steps to get fully back. If you're in the middle of the formation, observers may not see your legs moving differently from others. Gods help you if your on the outside under competition conditions.
Quote from: jochanaan on March 25, 2011, 08:05:26 AM
Well, I had mentioned it, but your explanation was more detailed than mine. :)
Sorry - I must have missed that or misunderstood! I should have said, 'something only one other has mentioned!' :)
Quote from: Palmetto on March 25, 2011, 10:38:58 AM
When marching, sometimes one will wind up off-step from the rest of the formation. It take a half-step, stutter-step, or skipping to get back in sequence with everyone else. If you weren't completely out of synch with everyone else (syncopated walking!), you may have to do several skips or quarter-steps to get fully back. If you're in the middle of the formation, observers may not see your legs moving differently from others. Gods help you if your on the outside under competition conditions.
This can be a good way to think of it actually. Marches are almost always on the beat (if not always). This is how they can keep everyone in step. Of course competitive marching bands and such will do some crazy stuff. Armies usually have songs they can sing as they march that help keep on the beat. In this respect, ballet music may be a way to help train this (in the classical music world) as the beat is often meant to be heard (and be steady) so it can be danced.
Many Rossini overtures, for example, can have really steady beats once you get past the intro (Barber of Seville for example). They are real foot tappers and a great way to get into classical music. Some of them are probably used in cartoons, so you may even recognize them. They each last 5-10 minutes on average, and have wonderful melodies. For example, if you listen here at about 1 minutes 52 seconds: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OloXRhesab0&playnext=1&list=PLB8F66E1961297107 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OloXRhesab0&playnext=1&list=PLB8F66E1961297107), you will hear a pretty good example of the pulse I mean. You may lose it later, but it will come back again as well. This can be a difficult piece for the orchestra to hold a steady beat, so you may notice that the orchestra is inconsistent (as they are here) and you may lose the beat because of that. At the 3.53 mark, you can again listen to the repetitive beat under the playing. This youtube version is not the greatest version, but it does highlight just how hard it can be do a seemingly simple thing - keep the beat. So don't get discouraged, as sometimes it won't be your fault, but rather the orchestra itself. It may interest you that there is a version with the Orpheus Chamber Orchesta, who don't use a conductor. They are excellent, but it is very diffcult to play as well as they do without a conductor.
Here's another - you could listen to the whole thing or start at 4.04 if you want to listen to the beat (and this sucker pick up steam): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94asd5_o_Sg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94asd5_o_Sg). I've played both of these - and keeping the beat/pulse steady can be difficult.
Is an abstract understanding of the technical underbelly of classical music useful? Clearly. Classical is, if anything, consciously organised musical space.
Is it necessary? I don't think so. In the interest of full disclosure, I have the advantage, such as it is, of a mind able to grasp form easily in its natural habitat, whether in sentences, pictures or music - to the expense of a lot of other things I have trouble grasping much of the time, I'll hasten to add.
But if all music, or most music, inherently needed homework done in advance be understood, I think it would be a rather unappealing art. You don't sit down with a handbook of English grammar, the core rules of syntax and a dictionary to read a novel; so I don't sit down with a score to listen to music.
I am well aware that many people do (the latter). But only if the music is explicitly written to be appreciated analytically is that necessary.
Beethoven, Bruckner, Brahms - even Bach! - et al. wrote music for people to listen to, not read about. That was, historically, their indisputable intent. Try to find the patterns in the sound, if at all. If you can't find them, screw it: maybe they'll show up one day. Human perception is like that.
In sum, listening to music is about more than structure, even if composing it may not be. Don't worry too much. :)
I think of it this way. You can eat a fine meal and say "Hmm, interesting the way cilantro is combined with coriander seed, and the substitution of olive oil for the butter creates an unusual texture. Or you can say, "Mmmmm, that tastes good." The first may indicate a deeper appreciation, but the second is not to be despised. In the end, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.
Quote from: Il Barone Scarpia on March 26, 2011, 07:33:05 AM
I think of it this way. You can eat a fine meal and say "Hmm, interesting the way cilantro is combined with coriander seed, and the substitution of olive oil for the butter creates an unusual texture. Or you can say, "Mmmmm, that tastes good." The first may indicate a deeper appreciation, but the second is not to be despised. In the end, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.
Precisely, and most succinctly. :D
Quote from: Il Barone Scarpia on March 26, 2011, 07:33:05 AM
I think of it this way. You can eat a fine meal and say "Hmm, interesting the way cilantro is combined with coriander seed, and the substitution of olive oil for the butter creates an unusual texture. Or you can say, "Mmmmm, that tastes good." The first may indicate a deeper appreciation, but the second is not to be despised. In the end, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.
Or might indicate a gastronome whose intellectual approach to eating indicates nothing about the depth of his sensory experience. Just because a man can identify all of the sexual positions described in the Kama Sutra does not mean that he's a good lover.
Quote from: Il Barone Scarpia on March 26, 2011, 07:33:05 AM
I think of it this way. You can eat a fine meal and say "Hmm, interesting the way cilantro is combined with coriander seed, and the substitution of olive oil for the butter creates an unusual texture. Or you can say, "Mmmmm, that tastes good." The first may indicate a deeper appreciation, but the second is not to be despised. In the end, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.
I like this analogy, too.
--Bruce
I started as a programmer and have been in desktop support and network administration for a couple of decades. I often jump into things from an analytical approach, and in this case I think it was the wrong one. I heard a couple of programs that deconstructed some works, focused more on the terminology and concepts used than the music played, and went chasing off after the background knowledge needed to understand them. No big deal; I'll just file the info and switch my focus back to the music.
Thanks to those who responded. :)
Palmetto, one of the reasons I love music is that it encourages, almost forces, your left and right brains to work together and get reacquainted with each other. Also your body and your spirit. :) Analysis is not to be despised, but the first step is the sensuous response we get when we first hear, say, the opening chords of Beethoven's Eroica Symphony, that "Wow!" or "Aha!" or even "WTF is this?" :D that makes us want to dive deep and experience the art to the full. 8)
Palmetto —
I am a relatively 'new' classical music listener myself—only the past 3 years or so—and so I might have a more relatable perspective, getting into it basically by myself as an adult, not being raised with it, etc. I think the best advice I've seen in this thread (and the other) is just to listen to the radio, and those Gardner Museum podcasts, until you find something you like, but I am a little doubtful you will ever be a classical music fan if you don't like Beethoven, Bach, Mozart, Mahler, Debussy, Prokofiev, Xenakis, or any of the other things that were posted as recommendations. Just try not to think too much about the music if you don't want to, when I listen to music I like to just groove to the rhythm and get lost in the 'sound world.' More specific knowledge of what you're listening to comes naturally with more listening, although it never hurts to look at the wikipedia page maybe for the piece you're hearing. To be honest, going to concerts is a great way to get into music, a good concert is better than even the greatest classic recording imo, since the experience of being there is so powerful. If you live near a major city, there are ways to go to good concerts relatively cheaply.
For what it's worth, the disc that first got me into the music was this one: http://amzn.com/B000001GPX It's a very famous and powerful recording of 2 of the greatest symphonies ever, and I'm sure most people on this forum already have it and would recommend it in a heartbeat. Also, it is less than 10 dollars.
Also what really got me interested was this book: http://amzn.com/0312427719 It's basically a history of the 20th century told through its music. People sometimes have complaints about their favorite composer being omitted or whatever, but for me it was a wonderful revelation, it's insanely readable and fun, and above all it really makes you want to listen to the music (the author also has a website with an audio guide for the book, as well as a blog with free music samples, recommendations, and etc.)
That's all for now.
I want to formally apologize to Palmetto for being such a jerk to you in a previous thread. I'm sorry, but you certainly didn't deserve to be treated the way that I treated you. You don't have to forgive of course, but please know that I'm sorry. Sometimes I get emotional and things get heated. Whatever my excuse was, I shouldn't have acted the way I did.
By the way, since you seem to like vocals, you may want to think about getting into some choral music. Like, for example, let's start off simple: Charles Stanford's The Blue Bird:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNdeCzrdnpE&playnext=1&list=PLFD8050C9A98AC5B5
Note: Please excuse the audio, especially when the lead vocalist hits the real high note it kind of distorts, but, otherwise, this is probably the best version I've heard of this part-song on YouTube.
Quote from: Mirror Image on March 27, 2011, 07:30:20 PM
I want to formally apologize to Palmetto for being such a jerk to you in a previous thread. I'm sorry, but you most certainly didn't deserve to be treated the way I that I treated you. You don't have to forgive of course, but please know that I'm sorry. Sometimes I get emotional and things get heated. Whatever my excuse was, I shouldn't have acted the way I did.
I think you might want to consider having a glass full of ice cubes right next to you whenever you post. ;D
What, to pour down his pants?
Quote from: Palmetto on March 25, 2011, 05:34:49 AMBut yes, there are some of us who are rhythmically challenged. Maybe my own internal rhythms are overriding the external stimulus; maybe it tides or quasar pulses; "or maybe it's fleas!" In my case it isn't limited to classical music; if you'd seen me try to dance, you'd know. If I concentrate on the beat and nothing else, I can usually come close to finding it. Don't ask me to clap AND sing, however; one or the other, take your pick.
Well, it's a good thing I didn't go on to recommend dancing, then! Though maybe you should. My opinion is that the experience of music is physical, absorbed as it is through the "instrument" of the human body. Some kinds of music ONLY make sense when you dance to them.
Quote from: Greg on March 27, 2011, 07:57:24 PM
I think you might want to consider having a glass full of ice cubes right next to you whenever you post. ;D
Yes, I will make a note of this: keep a glass of ice cubes next to me at all times. :P ;) :D
One of the first composers that I became interested in was Igor Stravinsky. I could hear some of the rhythmical oddities in The Rite of Spring but most of the detail was absorbed as impressions, just as details of orchestration created textures or sonorities. I didn't know very much of how the effects were produced. I just enjoyed the music. That's the main thing, though you might at some point want to know more detail about the technical aspects. I doubt that keeping track of the beat, as distinct from being aware of musical pulse as a felt thing, matters any more than your understanding (instead of appreciation) of cinematography helps you enjoy a movie. It might even be better if you didn't pay attention to it as a separate element.
Quote from: Il Barone Scarpia on March 26, 2011, 07:33:05 AM
I think of it this way. You can eat a fine meal and say "Hmm, interesting the way cilantro is combined with coriander seed, and the substitution of olive oil for the butter creates an unusual texture. Or you can say, "Mmmmm, that tastes good." The first may indicate a deeper appreciation, but the second is not to be despised. In the end, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.
But the first is not to be despised either, and it's not unusual to find people who do so (remember our late friend Iago?), on the false assumption that the heart is good and the brain bad (as in Wordsworth's "We murder to dissect" and Keats's "Though the dull brain perplexes and retards"). The problem is that to genuinely master the so-called technical terminology and concepts requires a good deal of study, until it all becomes natural and second-nature. Until then, you might not know that (say) a particularly magical moment in the Hammerklavier Adagio occurs because Beethoven suddenly uses a flat II or Neapolitan chord in root position, but the fact remains that the reason for the magic is that (duh) Beethoven suddenly uses a flat II or Neapolitan in root position.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on March 28, 2011, 06:05:39 AM
But the first is not to be despised either, and it's not unusual to find people who do so (remember our late friend Iago?), on the false assumption that the heart is good and the brain bad (as in Wordsworth's "We murder to dissect" and Keats's "Though the dull brain perplexes and retards"). The problem is that to genuinely master the so-called technical terminology and concepts requires a good deal of study, until it all becomes natural and second-nature. Until then, you might not know that (say) a particularly magical moment in the Hammerklavier Adagio occurs because Beethoven suddenly uses a flat II or Neapolitan chord in root position, but the fact remains that the reason for the magic is that (duh) Beethoven suddenly uses a flat II or Neapolitan in root position.
Yes, often people who lack technical knowledge express the opinion that technical understanding of how musical effects are created will somehow ruin the experience. Although I am far from being one of most knowledgeable participants on this board, what knowledge I have has only enhanced my enjoyment. But it is the "heart" that draws me towards acquiring that knowledge.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on March 28, 2011, 06:05:39 AM
our late friend Iago
If that is literal, I am sad to hear of it.
(On-topic, I don't think I have anything immediately useful to add.)
Quote from: Renfield on March 28, 2011, 08:18:26 AM
If that is literal, I am sad to hear of it.
Cuddles passed, unfortunately.
Sarge
Quote from: Leon on March 28, 2011, 07:24:13 AM
Labels do not create magic; effective composing does. It does not much matter, imo, how a person refers to a harmonic event, whether they use the theoretical label for a chord or find some other way of communicating what they heard - the magic is in the music.
A label for something which is not understood may be "just" a label. A label that refers to something that is understood is much more than a label. If you can hear the magical moment and recognize that (as in the example) it is a Neapolitan chord in root position, the "magic" is still there. It is not like seeing the false bottom in the magicians prop, it is more like realizing why a familiar dish has a surprising flavor. It doesn't in any way diminish the experience of the flavor. In the Beethoven example, it is interesting to know that the "magical" moment came from a device well known to Mozart, but used in a different way. It was Beethoven's insight that that "wrong" note could be magical and not wrong if used in a different context.
Quote from: Renfield on March 28, 2011, 08:18:26 AM
If that is literal, I am sad to hear of it.
(On-topic, I don't think I have anything immediately useful to add.)
http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,13781.msg340652.html#msg340652
Quotea Neapolitan chord in root position
Maybe I've missed something, but the Neapolitan Sixth is normally (per the name) in first inversion. Could, I suppose, voice it in root position, and have that chromatic slide in the bass down to a first-inversion Dominant chord . . . .
Quote from: Apollon on March 28, 2011, 08:38:54 AM
Maybe I've missed something, but the Neapolitan Sixth is normally (per the name) in first inversion.
Beethoven has no use for your rules. 0:)
Not a rule, an observation. And, one does not necessarily fault a composer for doing something otherwise than it is normally done.
So, brief me: where did LvB do this? : )
Ah, the Hammerklavier . . . an age since I've heard it.
Quote from: Apollon on March 28, 2011, 08:48:34 AM
Not a rule, an observation. And, one does not necessarily fault a composer for doing something otherwise than it is normally done.
So, brief me: where did LvB do this? : )
Famously in the Hammerklavier
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neapolitan_chord
Yes, well I suppose the first substitution of a ii/6 chord for IV was once famous, too ; )
Quote from: Apollon on March 28, 2011, 08:52:50 AM
Yes, well I suppose the first substitution of a ii/6 chord for IV was once famous, too ; )
Anyone remember those old commercials which portrayed fictitious inventions of the Reese's Peanut Butter cup in which someone carrying a jar of peanut butter would collide with someone holding a chocolate bar. I assume these modified harmonies were first invented by inept students with poorly controlled fingers or error-prone reading of musical notation.
Yeah; what you guys said! I agree completely!
[[ backs slowly away, never making direct eye contact, hoping they can't smell the fear :P ]]
Quote from: Palmetto on March 28, 2011, 09:29:41 AM
[[ backs slowly away, never making direct eye contact, hoping they can't smell the fear :P ]]
Psst... you can usually distract them with a large-sized image of an album cover.
Quote from: Opus106 on March 28, 2011, 09:31:10 AM
Psst... you can usually distract them with a large-sized image of an album cover.
Especially of a nubile young violinist, I'm afraid. :P
Quote from: Opus106 on March 28, 2011, 09:31:10 AM
Psst... you can usually distract them with a large-sized image of an album cover.
(* chortle *)
Quote from: Il Barone Scarpia on March 28, 2011, 09:41:05 AM
Especially of a nubile young violinist, I'm afraid. :P
My thoughts exactly! (Though even a nubile violist would do, in a pinch!)
Quote from: Apollon on March 28, 2011, 08:50:56 AM
Ah, the Hammerklavier . . . an age since I've heard it.
Karl, to me, the Adagio of the Hammerklavier is the most sublime thing Beethoven penned (perhaps excluding movement #3 of SQ#15).
Quote from: Palmetto on March 28, 2011, 09:29:41 AM
Yeah; what you guys said! I agree completely!
[[ backs slowly away, never making direct eye contact, hoping they can't smell the fear :P ]]
Did you listen to that link I provided. I think you'll enjoy this very short choral work by Stanford. It is simply sublime.
Quote from: Leon on March 28, 2011, 07:24:13 AM
It does not much matter, imo, how a person refers to a harmonic event.
It matters because there is a shared vocabulary that musically educated people understand and use to communicate with each other. If you want to refer to a Neapolitan as a Pekinese, that's your privilege, but no one else will know what you're talking about.
Quote from: Apollon on March 28, 2011, 08:38:54 AM
Maybe I've missed something, but the Neapolitan Sixth is normally (per the name) in first inversion.
Could, I suppose, voice it in root position, and have that chromatic slide in the bass down to a first-inversion Dominant chord . . . .
Check the score, Karl. The chord (flat II) is voiced initially in root position on the downbeat, then it moves to first inversion on beat 4 of the 6/8 measure. I think it's precisely
because the chord is not initially heard as an N6 is what gives the progression its magic - sounding more like an excursion to a remote key until it finds its way back to the tonic F# minor.
Quote from: Leon on March 28, 2011, 11:55:17 AM
Well, we essentially disagree on the significance of labels for musical events. I know music theory, and can analyze the harmony in a Beethoven piano sonata - but that in no way enhances my enjoyment of it (and in some ways can detract from it). As a corollary, someone who does not know music theory and has no idea the theory behind the harmonic progression or the traditional name of a specific chord among music academicians can also enjoy a Beethoven sonata and experience the surprise and magic of it.
Then you are quite fortunate that you know as little as you do. ;D
Quote from: Leon on March 28, 2011, 01:25:12 PM
I don't understand your comment. If you think I am ignorant, you are mistaken.
An attempt a humor. Since you seem to feel that knowledge only enjoys spoils enjoyment, the less known the better. I've always found the opposite to be true, in my personal experience.
Quote from: Leon on March 28, 2011, 02:08:59 PM
I think it depends on the knowledge.
Knowing the term used to describe a chord that Beethoven employed in a piano sonata, a term which was probably unknown to Beethoven, I think is not real knowledge but information. As far as I can tell the frst use of the term Neopolitan Sixth was in 1845 by Alfred Day in his Treatise on Harmony. However the chord was used by composers writing long before Beethoven. So I hardly see how knowing the term that post-dates the music by several decades in the case of Beethoven, or a century in the case of Bach or Scarlatti, will enhance the enjoyment of music written before the term existed.
The important point, imo, is not the term for the chord, but its function in the music, which is to offer a surpising substitution for the sub-dominant, approaching the cadence. To appreciate thiis effect one need not know that later music theorists would call this chord a Neapolitan Sixth because of the fondness for it many Italian composers had.
Sorry, I thought it was self evident that it was the harmony, and not simply the term used to describe it, that being discussed.
Quote from: Leon on March 28, 2011, 02:08:59 PM
The important point, imo, is not the term for the chord, but its function in the music, which is to offer a surpising substitution for the sub-dominant, approaching the cadence.
But that is not how Beethoven uses flat II in the Hammerklavier Adagio. Or in the op. 131 finale (where, in a C# minor movement, he recapitulates the second subject in D major before restating it in C# major; and where he also uses those rushing scale passages built on flat II in the coda). Here the Neapolitan takes on a very distinct character of its own that is more than a substitute for IV.
Palmetto:
Have you listened to that link I provided?
Quote from: Leon on March 28, 2011, 07:13:48 PM
That only underscores the surprise the chord/harmony would create since Beethoven was employing it outside the norm (which is what I was referring to) - but, in any event, my point was to say that knowing the term N6 is immaterial to enjoying the music.
If all you're saying is that someone can enjoy 131 without ever having heard the term N6, that's a truism. But it's not a particularly interesting observation. What's more interesting is to ask in what ways so-called technical knowledge either interferes with or enhances musical pleasure among those who have acquired such knowledge. You claim to know something about harmony: "I know music theory, and can analyze the harmony in a Beethoven piano sonata - but that in no way enhances my enjoyment of it (and in some ways can detract from it)." But how can you state with certainty that such knowledge does not enhance enjoyment? It is not as if you can revert to a tabula rasa condition where you don't know what a V7 is. It is a part of your education that evidently has stayed with you. Am I to believe that your ability to enjoy music has somehow suffered because you've acquired this knowledge? If so, how, and how can you be sure of that?
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on March 28, 2011, 08:08:21 PM
If all you're saying is that someone can enjoy 131 without ever having heard the term N6, that's a truism. But it's not a particularly interesting observation. What's more interesting is to ask in what ways so-called technical knowledge either interferes with or enhances musical pleasure among those who have acquired such knowledge. You claim to know something about harmony: "I know music theory, and can analyze the harmony in a Beethoven piano sonata - but that in no way enhances my enjoyment of it (and in some ways can detract from it)." But how can you state with certainty that such knowledge does not enhance enjoyment? It is not as if you can revert to a tabula rasa condition where you don't know what a V7 is. It is a part of your education that evidently has stayed with you. Am I to believe that your ability to enjoy music has somehow suffered because you've acquired this knowledge? If so, how, and how can you be sure of that?
Well, exactly (and also 'exactly' for some of the pertinent things Scarpia has said in the last two or three pages - I've really enjoyed reading it all, thanks!). When Leon says:
Quote from: Leon on March 28, 2011, 02:08:59 PM
The important point, imo, is not the term for the chord, but its function in the music, which is to offer a surpising substitution for the sub-dominant, approaching the cadence.
he's showing that his understanding of the effect of the Neapolitan 6th has indeed affected the way he hears music - his knowledge that it is a surprise, that it replaces a more 'standard' harmony, his knowledge that is used in preparation... perhaps he would have sensed these things in a vague and generalised way without his technical knowledge, but it is the naming and the describing that helps us and him pin down the efect of the chord, the whys and hows. And once one understands one listens in a different way, one is able to mentally compare and contrast similar effects in the same piece, in other pieces, by the same composer, by different composers, one feels the larger context, one savours and appreciates all the more. Well,
I do anyway. In a sense, one takes a more active role in the listening - it is not just submitting to the alien, mysterious beauties of the sound now, it is, in some ways, more like taking part in the music - it speaks your language and you speak its.
Leon's argument, then, is that we don't need to know the terminology to enjoy the sound of the musical event itself, and that is certainly true. But the terminology also helps to talk about it and discuss it, and that in turn can help us enjoy it
more. It can help us to hear things we might not have heard before, or to listen in different ways. In the passage I just quoted, Leon uses other technical musical language - cadence, sub-dominant, substitution, even function and chord. His argument is that we don't need to know those terms to enjoy the music...nevertheless, he couldn't have written that sentence meaningfully without them, and, in turn, it's conceivable that someone reading that sentence is helped, through the implicit categorisations it contains, to listen to a certain sort of music in a different way and thus have their appreciation enhanced. This is
certainly how things have worked in my life - that reading a particularly illumminating book (Charles Rosen's are springing to mind...) has helped me to understand what is below the surface, and in turn how to access this area in my listening. Result - not just my understanding but also my enjoyment increased a hundred fold, in some cases.
but I'm going to open my flap anyway. ;D
I don't think theoretical or technical knowledge is necessary to enjoying any work of art. Can having that knowledge enhance it? That depends. To use a non-musical example, let's look at 'action' movies.
Back when stunts were physically performed and shot in long takes, I enjoyed learning how Hal Needham staged a car jump or Jackie Chan choreographed a fight scene. That knowledge helped me enjoy a film when I saw it again.
Now, knowing what I do about computers, there's no pleasure watching CGI effects either once or repeatedly. It's all ones and zeroes, and was never anything else. 'MTV-style' choppy editing just leaves me thinking the director and actors couldn't go more than a couple of seconds without screwing up, as opposed to one musical number in 'Seven Brides for Seven Brothers' that goes for over three minutes in a single take.
I think agreeing on the same terminology is essential when discussing any subject. As a gardener, I've found the same 'common' name applied to different plants, depending on the part of the country. Knowing the Latin names cuts through the confusion.
Returning to music, I don't think the knowledge I was pursuing several days ago is necessary for my initial appreciation of classical music. I'll probably look at some of the terms again in several months, but spend more time now rolling around in the music itself.
Quote from: Palmetto on March 29, 2011, 03:03:37 AM
I don't think theoretical or technical knowledge is necessary to enjoying any work of art.
Of course, this was covered in Luke's fine post:Quote from: Luke on March 29, 2011, 12:22:11 AM
. . . Leon's argument, then, is that we don't need to know the terminology to enjoy the sound of the musical event itself, and that is certainly true . . . .
Quote from: Palmetto on March 29, 2011, 03:03:37 AM
but I'm going to open my flap anyway. ;D
I don't think theoretical or technical knowledge is necessary to enjoying any work of art. Can having that knowledge enhance it? That depends. To use a non-musical example, let's look at 'action' movies.
Back when stunts were physically performed and shot in long takes, I enjoyed learning how Hal Needham staged a car jump or Jackie Chan choreographed a fight scene. That knowledge helped me enjoy a film when I saw it again.
Now, knowing what I do about computers, there's no pleasure watching CGI effects either once or repeatedly. It's all ones and zeroes, and was never anything else. 'MTV-style' choppy editing just leaves me thinking the director and actors couldn't go more than a couple of seconds without screwing up, as opposed to one musical number in 'Seven Brides for Seven Brothers' that goes for over three minutes in a single take.
(The extended shot where the camera arcs down the stairs in Hitchcock's
Notorious springs to mind.)
In my experience, gaining technical/theoretical knowledge can only open new ways of appreciating something. I don't think it's a case that such detailed knowledge in some way quashes the "naive" approach: I think that "oh wow, I don't know what it is, but it's awesome!" feeling will necessarily fade with repeated exposure, either way--nothing can be new forever. But with the added technical knowledge of what's going on "behind the scenes," you have a new way to understand and appreciate.
More importantly, at least in my experience, when you start learning theory and how to play instruments, you become a
vastly better listener. Even if you can't articulate what's happening with the correct terminology, you start to hear things you never would otherwise. From an instrumental perspective, you can also appreciate the level of difficulty and finesse involved in a performance. (Conversely, you hear more readily when something is amateurish or stupid-simple.)
Quote from: Grazioso on March 29, 2011, 05:20:00 AM
. . . More importantly, at least in my experience, when you start learning theory and how to play instruments, you become a vastly better listener.
A very good point. And, not that anyone currently on this thread is doing any such thing . . . but there used to a chap who infested the forum who indulged in the reverse-snobbery of insisting that since he knew nothing about theory, his experience of music was purer and more soulful. Which is piffle, of course.
Quote from: Leon on March 29, 2011, 06:11:04 AM
In my way of looking at this issue, directly experiencing the art is different, and a more emotional, visceral experience, than the awareness of technical aspects of the piece. Contemplating what's under the hood is a cerebral, intellectual activity that can be very interesting and enlightening and may lead to a greater appreciation for what the composer has accomplished - but it is distinct from the direct experience of the music itself.
No, not distinct, in the way that an abstract algorithm for changing an oil filter is less direct than actually opening the hood and performing the operation. Because as a listener, your experience of the music isn't a physical engine under the hood of a car parked in a garage. It's in your head. Even if you're thinking that your experience of the music is visceral, you're thinking about that in your head.
What about this idea that there is somehow a hermetic wall between one's direct experience of a Neapolitan sixth chord, and knowing that it is called a Neapolitan sixth?
Say I have a brother named Ned. You see Ned every morning an a bus you take to work, but you have no idea what his name is. In a sense, the act that you don't know his name is Ned does not "devalue" your experience of him as a person in the orbit of your life; and for you, there is a cleanly separable break between Ned, as a person who exists in the world, and the fact that his name is Ned.
But imagine how ridiculous it sounds to me, as Ned's brother, when you say [knowing Ned's name] is a cerebral, intellectual activity that can be very interesting and enlightening and may lead to a greater appreciation for him - but it is distinct from the direct experience of [Ned himself].
That is actually a better diagram of the current discussion. For those of us (many, but not all, of us musicians) who know that musical object as a Neapolitan chord, this knowledge is not a separate abstract entity. It's not any more 'external' to our experience of the music, than knowledge of Ned's name would be 'external' to knowing him as a person, to being his brother.
"Music does not have to be understood. It has to be listened to." . --- Hermann Scherchen.
Quote from: Leon on March 29, 2011, 06:34:41 AM
I guess agreeing to disagree is appropriate at this poiint, since I do not approach this as most of you seem to do.
I see it not so much as your disagreeing, as that smoe of us are attempting to explain a different perspective. I am sure you comprehend (a) that the experience of another could be somehow otherwise, and (b) talking about music can be awfully slippery.Quote from: Il Conte Rodolfo on March 29, 2011, 06:35:44 AM
"Music does not have to be understood. It has to be listened to." . --- Hermann Scherchen.
Orthogonal (though certainly true) : )
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on March 28, 2011, 08:25:08 AM
Cuddles passed, unfortunately.
Sarge
Quote from: Il Barone Scarpia on March 28, 2011, 08:38:07 AM
http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,13781.msg340652.html#msg340652
Thanks.
:(
Goes to show how long I've been away.
On-topic, and apropos of the awful slipperiness of musical discussions that
Karl (Apollon) mentions, two more things to consider:
1) The 'pleasure-enhancement' of technical knowledge may or may not be enhancing the same kind of pleasure that music
qua music gives.
To go back to
Scarpia's food example, knowing the ingredients, and the precise way in which they combine arguably makes you go 'aha!', rather than 'mmm!', where 'mmm!' is what you go when you like the taste in your mouth. In a sense, formal understanding is thus an
adjutantpleasure.
(i.e. one that adds to overall pleasure in a secondary way; unless it replaces the other kind of pleasure entirely, wherein the food stops tasting at all.)
2) Though none of you have said anything to the contrary, it is nonetheless useful to note that formal appreciation of music can manifest in many ways.
To give the simple example, that's already been mentioned: there are unlimited different labels you can give to musical phenomena and structures, one of which happens to be the agreed one (Neapolitan vs. Sicilian, or whatever). However,
another example of this is
non-verbal codification.
[I've said it before and I'll say it again that I don't think a classical music forum is the place to casually air one's philosophical views, in either the strict or common sense of the word: but just to be proper, the latter does not apply if you outright reject non-linguistic theories of understanding, for some reason.]
Plainly put, someone may understand musical structure empirically, in a purely cognitive manner - this famous 'listening experience' thing.
As a result, I tend to feel discussions of formal
vs. 'intuitive' (what does that even mean?) musical pleasure might be a little misguided. :)
Quote from: Renfield on March 29, 2011, 08:47:50 AM
I've said it before and I'll say it again that I don't think a classical music forum is the place to casually air one's philosophical views, in either the strict or common sense of the word
My 12th grade philosophy handbook stated: whether you are aware of it or not, anything you say / do is underlined by a certain philosophy. ;D
I do agree. :)
Quote from: Il Conte Rodolfo on March 29, 2011, 10:37:18 AM
My 12th grade philosophy handbook stated: whether you are aware of it or not, anything you say / do is underlined by a certain philosophy. ;D
I do agree. :)
That was a philosophy handbook? Written by whom? Yanni?
Such a non-technical use of the term is common among the general public, to whom it means something roughly equivalent to "belief structure" or value set," but philosophy per se has nothing to do with that, except insofar as beliefs and values and their relationships with behavior are subjects of philosophical inquiry.
Quote from: Renfield on March 29, 2011, 08:47:50 AMAs a result, I tend to feel discussions of formal vs. 'intuitive' (what does that even mean?) musical pleasure might be a little misguided. :)
I think the discussion went completely off the rails with the suggestion that the "Neapolitan 6th" example is just about "labeling" things. The advantage comes not from knowing the nomenclature, but from training the ear to hear and identify a specific harmony. The ear can't be trained without being able to define it and talk about it, and that's where the nomenclature comes in. Not everyone has the training or skill to listen to say "Hmmm, interesting Neapolitan 6th in second inversion" (I certainly don't) but I the better trained I became the more I found to enjoy.
Quote from: DavidRoss on March 29, 2011, 10:56:03 AM
That was a philosophy handbook? Written by whom? Yanni?
Such a non-technical use of the term is common among the general public, to whom it means something roughly equivalent to "belief structure" or value set," but philosophy per se has nothing to do with that, except insofar as beliefs and values and their relationships with behavior are subjects of philosophical inquiry.
Philosophy per se means
love of wisdom --- a thing that very few people today associate with the word, yet it is this very meaning that the first "philosophers" had in mind. 0:)
Besides, some of the most interesting "philosophers" had little use for "professional philosophy': Pascal, Kierkegaard, Schopenhauer.
And finally, Cioran said that the best philosopher he ever encountered was the gravedigger of his native village --- something that Shakespeare would have certainly agreed.
No? :)
Quote from: HamletHow absolute the knave is!
Quote from: Palmetto on March 29, 2011, 03:03:37 AM
...To use a non-musical example, let's look at 'action' movies.
Back when stunts were physically performed and shot in long takes, I enjoyed learning how Hal Needham staged a car jump or Jackie Chan choreographed a fight scene. That knowledge helped me enjoy a film when I saw it again.
Now, knowing what I do about computers, there's no pleasure watching CGI effects either once or repeatedly. It's all ones and zeroes, and was never anything else. 'MTV-style' choppy editing just leaves me thinking the director and actors couldn't go more than a couple of seconds without screwing up, as opposed to one musical number in 'Seven Brides for Seven Brothers' that goes for over three minutes in a single take...
That analogy hardly holds when you consider music. There's nothing faked or "artificial" about Beethoven's Hammerklavier or a Neapolitan Sixth. :)
Quote from: jochanaan on March 29, 2011, 01:40:14 PM
That analogy hardly holds when you consider music. There's nothing faked or "artificial" about Beethoven's Hammerklavier or a Neapolitan Sixth. :)
That's why I think the chef is a better analogy than the "magician."
my point was that sometimes knowing more about how something is done increases my enjoyment (stunts, and perhaps later music), and sometimes knowing detracts from it (CGI, sausages, my conception). I'm sure you're aware of the rampant computer tweaking done to pop music. For me that's definitely a case where knowing a singer had e-help detracts from enjoying what I thought was his or her voice.
But even your examples can be 'faked'. Google the terms 'Hammerklavier' and 'MIDI'. :) I suspect no one here has any of the results on his 'Must Hear' list. (By the way, I listened to that work yesterday, and plan to take another listen later in the week.)
Quote from: Leon on March 29, 2011, 06:11:04 AM
In my way of looking at this issue, directly experiencing the art is different, and a more emotional, visceral experience, than the awareness of technical aspects of the piece. Contemplating what's under the hood is a cerebral, intellectual activity that can be very interesting and enlightening and may lead to a greater appreciation for what the composer has accomplished - but it is distinct from the direct experience of the music itself.
I understand your distinction about an emotional reaction versus cerebral cogitation, but I think it misses an integral point: there isn't an engine hidden under the hood of music. It's all right there before you, but the question is, have you trained yourself to hear/observe the details? That's one way the theoretical/intellectual side of the art comes in handy: it increases overall awareness, it gives you more things to emotionally react to.
I have to agree with those who promote the meal analogy: yes, there might be complex techniques at work behind the scenes (cf. molecular gastronomy), but all the flavors and ingredients are there on the plate. Do you just say, "Yum," or do you say "Yum" plus--it's not a dichotomy--recognize and appreciate the quality of ingredients, the way they balance each other, etc.?
Quote from: Leon on March 30, 2011, 06:13:24 AM
This is even more obvious when considering 20th century music: knowing the series Webern used for his Op. 24, and that it is Babbitt's third form of an all- combinatorial hexachordal set - will not enhance the listening experience.
Why not? Or, why less so than knowing that Beethoven used the F Major scale for his Opus 68, and that is his sole instance of a symphony in five movements?
That is, I think there is a significant between you don't need to know this in order to enjoy the music (with which none of us is arguing) and asserting that the knowing does not enhance the listening (which is an insupportable faith-based initiative).
That latter, at least, is a concept you're better off checking at the door.
Quote from: Leon on March 30, 2011, 06:40:55 AM
I don't think that knowing either of those things enhances the enjoyment of Beethoven's Op. 68. Of if it does, it does in a trivial and inconsequential manner.
My point is: (1) you are claiming as universal your experience, and speculation rooted in your experience; (2) you're making a claim without (for instance) explaining what "enhance" might mean; and (3) what is The Great Unknown fore you here, you are dismissing as "trivial and inconsequential."
Wouldn't it be more intellectually honest to say, "such and such is my own experience; I see from posts here that the experience of others is otherwise; and I am not competent to make value judgements on those things outside my experience" . . . ? Or, maybe you're happy with this hole you've dug yourself into. If I don't see it, it's of no consequence.
Quote from: Leon on March 30, 2011, 06:13:24 AM
The audiences of Haydn's time did not know from the theory of sonata-allegro form, they experienced the music without the terms, Exposition, Development, Recapitulation - however, they certainly were aware of the rhetoric of the music much as we expereience rhetorical devices. Whether we know the term sarcasm or not we know how it feels to be subjected to it and we respond automatically.
But this is the point, really. 'They certainly were aware of the rhetoric of the music'.
Rhetoric is a musical technique, a larger-scale outcome of harmony and phrasing. And the awareness that technical devices are being used to affect our experience is exactly what we're talking about. Knowing that rhetoric is being worked on you doesn't lessen the effect of the rhetoric, but it does help you to understand how the effect is being acheived, thus heightening the appreciation.
Quote from: Leon on March 30, 2011, 06:13:24 AM
This is some of what I am attempting to convey about my own thoughts about technical training and listening to music. The best training, imo, is to simply listen to a lot of music. You will pick up the rhetoric by experiencing the music and over time, if you devote a lifetime, as did the audiences of Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven, to experiencing sonata movements, you will have certain expectations about the music that will either be conveyed with a surprising twist or not.
It doesn't take a long time, certainly not a lifetime, to 'pick up' a subconscious understanding of the rhetoric in classical style music, and it can be done by listening alone. But, as I was trying to point out in the paragraph above, what you also said was that they (the listeners of the time) were
aware of of the rhetoric, not subconsciously but fully aware. That is correct, I think, and I also think that this consciousness of what is going on in the music heightened their appreciation of it. People don't listen as much in this rhetoric-conscious way today, which might be why less rhetorically sophisticated music is more popular nowadays, who knows...
I think you are all more or less in agreement, the way I read it. The issue is, does knowing more help appreciate the music more. I don't think anyone would disagree with an answer like, "Probably, but not necessarily, and in some cases may hinder." This is what it seems Leon is saying if I understood.
Quote from: mc ukrneal on March 30, 2011, 07:30:37 AM
I think you are all more or less in agreement, the way I read it. The issue is, does knowing more help appreciate the music more. I don't think anyone would disagree with an answer like, "Probably, but not necessarily, and in some cases may hinder." This is what it seems Leon is saying if I understood.
No, I don't agree with that
at all, as applied to me. I have never encountered a case where knowing more hindered my appreciation of music. I accept that not everyone has the same experience, although I cannot imagine how that could be.
Again, I should emphasize I am not primarily interested in abstract knowledge of what harmonic device is being used and what it is called. I am primarily interested in being able to hear something and recognize what the notes are and what their harmonic context is. For instance, being able to listen to a passage and recognizing "oh, it just modulated to the sub-dominant," or "hmmm, that chord the brass is playing is in a different key than what the strings are playing" rather than "that sounds odd." When I am frustrated listening to music it is because I am hearing something that overtaxes my aural acuity.
Quote from: Il Conte Rodolfo on March 29, 2011, 11:36:11 AM
Philosophy per se means love of wisdom --- a thing that very few people today associate with the word, yet it is this very meaning that the first "philosophers" had in mind. 0:)
Besides, some of the most interesting "philosophers" had little use for "professional philosophy': Pascal, Kierkegaard, Schopenhauer.
And finally, Cioran said that the best philosopher he ever encountered was the gravedigger of his native village --- something that Shakespeare would have certainly agreed.
No? :)
Yes, I know what
philo sophia means. That is why logic, epistemology, and metaphysics are essential, for wisdom (expressed by our conduct) depends on them. How can we make good choices if we don't know what is, don't understand the limits of our knowing, and cannot reason?
I wasn't disputing how the term "philosophy" is used by the general public, but expressing my surprise at such use in an educational handbook. That's terribly misleading, I think, for it suggests to students that such material acquaints them with the discipline of philosophy when it does not. To some extent this may reflect the general division between "Continental" and "Anglo-American" philosophy, the former speculative, the latter empirical and rigorous.
Quote from: Palmetto on March 29, 2011, 03:49:56 PM
my point was that sometimes knowing more about how something is done increases my enjoyment (stunts, and perhaps later music), and sometimes knowing detracts from it (CGI, sausages, my conception).
Me, too. In the case at hand, I suspect that whether intellectual appreciation of compositional method and structure increases or detracts from our enjoyment may depend upon our prior technical knowledge. If we are well-versed in music theory, then
hoo-rah! If not, then
fuggedaboutit! -- for now, at least.
I like your wit. Keep posting, please.
To expand on my previous musing, sometimes I think that hearing music can be more damaging to the appreciation of other music than technical knowledge. One of the first pieces I got interested in was Mozart's Symphony No 41, and I recall that it made an electrifying impression when the horn prominently joined the fugato in the coda of the finale. Since then I've heard horn used much more dramatically in music of Strauss, Bruckner, Wagner, Shostakovich, etc. I have to renormalizes my sound-world to hear that as I first did, or as I imagine people did in 1788.
Quote from: Il Barone Scarpia on March 30, 2011, 08:47:44 AM
To expand on my previous musing, sometimes I think that hearing music can be more damaging to the appreciation of other music than technical knowledge. One of the first pieces I got interested in was Mozart's Symphony No 41, and I recall that it made an electrifying impression when the horn prominently joined the fugato in the coda of the finale. Since then I've heard horn used much more dramatically in music of Strauss, Bruckner, Wagner, Shostakovich, etc. I have to renormalizes my sound-world to hear that as I first did, or as I imagine people did in 1788.
I don't get that at all. Surely, simply being more aware of the horn in particular can in no way detract from your enjoyment of any music...?
Our "sound-worlds," as you put it, are always changing; that is, as we listen, our acquaintance with musical sounds grows. Remember, growth is change. When I first began to listen to classical music, I was only vaguely aware of theory, individual instruments, form, and other musical elements; the music washed over me with little intellectual appreciation from me. As I continued to listen, I became more aware of each of these elements; now I can pick out any instrument in the orchestra and name at any moment what chord is sounding and how it relates to the current key. And my enjoyment is greatly, immeasurably enhanced. Sure,
at first you don't need to know theory or terminology to enjoy music--but it may enhance, and at least in my experience, it never, never detracts from my overall enjoyment.
Quote from: Leon on March 30, 2011, 06:13:24 AM
I don't agree with this statement.
There is what I think of as the architecture of a work, e.g. a sonata movement has sections, development, recapitulation, etc. - but these terms all were coined long after the sonata movement was evolving and arguably after it had ceased to be a living form. The audiences of Haydn's time did not know from the theory of sonata-allegro form, they experienced the music without the terms, Exposition, Development, Recapitulation - however, they certainly were aware of the rhetoric of the music much as we expereience rhetorical devices. Whether we know the term sarcasm or not we know how it feels to be subjected to it and we respond automatically.
I don't think you've refuted my assertion. The notes are all there to be heard, whatever terminology or theoretical framework one chooses to apply to them. Whether one views a Haydn movement as a piece of rhetoric or drama or a sonata-allegro form, the notes are what they are, as are their relationships. Certain patterns of repetition and alteration are established, call them what you will. The question is, is a listener aware of them? In my experience, people do not all subconsciously take in and respond to music (or other arts) equally. Some, by virtue of personal aptitude and/or training, notice far more than others.
Quote from: Grazioso on March 30, 2011, 10:23:12 AM
Certain patterns of repetition and alteration are established, call them what you will. The question is, is a listener aware of them? In my experience, people do not all subconsciously take in and respond to music (or other arts) equally. Some, by virtue of personal aptitude and/or training, notice far more than others.
This is an subject worth exploring for a newbie. I don't think I know how to effectively listen, or what to listen for.
I'm becoming convinced the 'Let it play in the background and wash over you' approach isn't for me; I'm retaining nothing, getting no impressions.
I may return to the 'play a piece to death' style. My problem with that approach is that I don't know if it truly brings enjoyment of a work, or just familiarity and a degree of comfort. I often hear older pop tunes on the radio while checking stations, tunes I could not abide when they were popular. Now I'll sometimes let them finish simply because they're familiar. I don't really like "Bohemian Rhapsody" or "Stairway to Heaven" or the first part of "Layla"; I let them go because I'm SUPPOSED to like them or simply because they're familiar. (Well, not "Layla"; I suffer through the first part as the price of getting to the glorious instrumental second half.)
Quote from: Palmetto on March 30, 2011, 10:57:10 AM
This is an subject worth exploring for a newbie. I don't think I know how to effectively listen, or what to listen for.
I'm becoming convinced the 'Let it play in the background and wash over you' approach isn't for me; I'm retaining nothing, getting no impressions.
I don't think anyone has advocated a "play in the background" approach, rather an approach of total concentration on the music. Your problem is one of concentrating so much on particular details that the enjoyment of the work is missed.
Quote from: Palmetto on March 30, 2011, 10:57:10 AM
This is an subject worth exploring for a newbie. I don't think I know how to effectively listen, or what to listen for.
In case this wasn't suggested earlier, you might want to read Aaron Copland's
What to Listen for in Music(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51l0EX3vZtL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg)
Roger Kamien's
Music: An Appreciation (with CD's) is a standard introductory college text worth trying, too.
Quote
I'm becoming convinced the 'Let it play in the background and wash over you' approach isn't for me; I'm retaining nothing, getting no impressions.
I wouldn't suggest it, either. Any art worth appreciating is worth actually paying attention to. You wouldn't do the Sunday crosswords at a performance of
Hamlet or listen to your iPod while visiting the Louvre. Why treat a sophisticated classical piece that a gifted composer took months or years to write as some kind of sonic wallpaper? If I find I'm not paying attention to a piece, I turn the stereo off and come back to it later when I'm focused. Otherwise I'm turning music into noise and wasting my time.
Overplaying a work is dicey: familiarity can breed love and contempt in equal measure. That's another reason in favor of adding an intellectual, scholarly approach to your arsenal of art appreciation techniques: you'll always have new vantage points from which to view the familiar, as you learn new theoretical and historical perspectives.
Quote from: Palmetto on March 30, 2011, 10:57:10 AM
I may return to the 'play a piece to death' style.
I reserve Test to Destruction for pieces I already know I like ; )
A, I had many an album with the grooves worn through.
G, yes; others have also recommended the Copland volume. The only reason I haven't taken the recommendation yet is I'm about halfway through a 600-plus page history of South Carolina. I've made it through the US Civil War twice, and I'm determined to finish it this time. Copeland is next on my list (assuming Harry Turtledove or Terry Pratchett don't roll out something else in the meantime!).
Thanks.
Quote from: Apollon on March 30, 2011, 11:17:12 AM
I reserve Test to Destruction for pieces I already know I like ; )
I once got myself to the point of hating Mozart, but I've recovered. 8)
Definitely mix things up as a rule. Safety first! : )
Quote from: Palmetto on March 30, 2011, 11:30:36 AM
I'm about halfway through a 600-plus page history of South Carolina. I've made it through the US Civil War twice, and I'm determined to finish it this time. Copeland is next on my list (assuming Harry Turtledove or Terry Pratchett don't roll out something else in the meantime!).
Or David T. Wilbanks?
What Zombies Listen For in Music
Sorry, I'm not familiar with him. A peek at his web site would indicate he's too far over to the horror side of SF&F for me. I could be wrong, but I've got enough other authors I'm tracking besides Turtledove and Pratchett (and Weber and Drake and ...) already.
Quote from: Grazioso on March 30, 2011, 11:14:36 AM
In case this wasn't suggested earlier, you might want to read Aaron Copland's What to Listen for in Music
Am I the only person in the universe that doesn't care for this book? I find it a very dry and unexciting presentation for the beginner and not all that illuminating for the more advanced listener or musician. I've already read it twice. Perhaps three will be a charm.
Quote from: Grazioso on March 30, 2011, 11:14:36 AM
Roger Kamien's Music: An Appreciation (with CD's) is a standard introductory college text worth trying, too.
This one I can wholeheartedly recommend also.
Quote from: Szykneij on March 30, 2011, 12:30:21 PM
Am I the only person in the universe that doesn't care for this book? I find it a very dry and unexciting presentation for the beginner . . . .
You'll never say that about What Zombies Listen For in Music!
Quote from: Apollon on March 30, 2011, 12:38:35 PM
You'll never say that about What Zombies Listen For in Music!
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51l0EX3vZtL._SL160_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-dp,TopRight,12,-18_SH30_OU01_AA160_.jpg)(http://www.stellarpath.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/zombies.jpg)
Quote from: Leon on March 30, 2011, 06:40:55 AM
I don't think that knowing either of those things enhances the enjoyment of Beethoven's Op. 68. Of if it does, it does in a trivial and inconsequential manner.
As for the five-movement thing, I don't see how one can possibly experience 68 (or for that matter most any large-scale sonata or symphony) without recognizing it's in multiple movements, fast-slow-fast or whatever. That's not peering under the hood, that's more like looking at the doors, hood, and trunk.
The F major is a more subtle thing, but historically that key was associated with pastoral things (though not invariably of course).
Quote from: Leon on March 30, 2011, 06:40:55 AM
Even more to the point, I also don't think it enhances my enjoyment to know the "program" for it - in fact, I find it distracting.
Ah. So you're also into an absolute concept of absolute music. Are you really distracted by calling the thunderstorm movement of the Pastorale a thunderstorm? Music has always represented non-musical things.
Quote from: Leon on March 30, 2011, 03:41:49 PM
Of course I know that the 6th symphony has 5 movements, but knowing this fact does not enhance my enjoyment of it.
That is simply absurd. Your enjoyment of the symphony would be just as good if you were so clueless that you didn't even realize that one movement had ended and another movement with completely different tempo, musical themes, rhythm, had started? If you were listening to Beethoven's 6th on the radio and you didn't have the wherewithal to notice that it had ended and the Goldberg variations was now playing, this would present no obstacle to your appreciation of the music? You have put forward a classic
Reductio ad absurdum, and is the clearest argument I've seen on this thread that the proposition you have put forth makes no sense at all!
Ya know, instead of fretting over an inability to fit his book into my reading schedule, I thought maybe I should listen to him instead.
I just passed a very enjoyable hour on 'Billy the Kid' and 'El Salon Mexico'. (Okay, there was the inevitable YouTube-suggested detour, this time through Bernstein's 'Magnificent 7'; but hey, don't try to tell me you've never been sidetracked on the web.)
So far I've made it a practice to avoid anything I was previously familiar with, not wanting preconceptions to taint my investigations. Unlike other composers, for some unfathomable reason I applied this approach to Copland en masse, avoiding everything simply because of a vague familiarity with 'Fanfare' and 'Simple Gifts'. That was a big fat mistake, one I'll spend some time rectifying over the next several days. (And yes, I reviewed a couple of the most recent discussions on Copland over in the Composers forum.
Quote from: Palmetto on March 30, 2011, 04:21:08 PM
(Okay, there was the inevitable YouTube-suggested detour, this time through Bernstein's 'Magnificent 7'; but hey, don't try to tell me you've never been sidetracked on the web.)
Sounds like a very worthwhile diversion to me!
Quote from: Palmetto on March 30, 2011, 04:21:08 PM
Ya know, instead of fretting over an inability to fit his book into my reading schedule, I thought maybe I should listen to him instead.
I just passed a very enjoyable hour on 'Billy the Kid' and 'El Salon Mexico'. (Okay, there was the inevitable YouTube-suggested detour, this time through Bernstein's 'Magnificent 7'; but hey, don't try to tell me you've never been sidetracked on the web.)
So far I've made it a practice to avoid anything I was previously familiar with, not wanting preconceptions to taint my investigations. Unlike other composers, for some unfathomable reason I applied this approach to Copland en masse, avoiding everything simply because of a vague familiarity with 'Fanfare' and 'Simple Gifts'. That was a big fat mistake, one I'll spend some time rectifying over the next several days. (And yes, I reviewed a couple of the most recent discussions on Copland over in the Composers forum.
Copland also wrote some more mellow stuff, such as Appalachian Spring, and a concerto for Clarinet (which you've probably come across if you've been looking for his music on YouTube).
Quote from: Leon on March 30, 2011, 03:41:49 PM
Of course I know that the 6th symphony has 5 movements, but knowing this fact does not enhance my enjoyment of it.
Well, maybe this is where we're all at odds. You seem to be saying that such knowledge is a matter of memorizing facts as if they existed as ends in themselves, like little gobbets of information to be regurgitated on an exam. I feel these "facts" to be inseparable from my experience of the work - so that (for example), when I think of the LvB op. 111 sonata, it evokes a whole world of emotions and memories, central to which is the knowledge that this is a 2-movement work starting with a snarling, passionate, compressed opening Allegro in the minor and followed by an expansive, spacious, transfigured set of very slow variations in the major. I do not, in other words, separate my experience of the music from my knowledge of how it is written, and personally speaking, I don't know how I could do so.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on March 30, 2011, 05:40:34 PM
Well, maybe this is where we're all at odds. You seem to be saying that such knowledge is a matter of memorizing facts as if they existed as ends in themselves, like little gobbets of information to be regurgitated on an exam. I feel these "facts" to be inseparable from my experience of the work - so that (for example), when I think of the LvB op. 111 sonata, it evokes a whole world of emotions and memories, central to which is the knowledge that this is a 2-movement work starting with a snarling, passionate, compressed opening Allegro in the minor and followed by an expansive, spacious, transfigured set of very slow variations in the major. I do not, in other words, separate my experience of the music from my knowledge of how it is written, and personally speaking, I don't know how I could do so.
Exactly what I have been trying to express (although my knowledge is at a much more rudimentary level).
Quote from: Leon on March 30, 2011, 04:42:35 PM
Is this really what you understood from my post? Because it is not anything close to what I meant.
You wrote, "Of course I know that the 6th symphony has 5 movements, but knowing this fact does not enhance my enjoyment of it."
What am I to make of this? No one on this thread has mentioned
memorizing facts as a method of appreciate music. People have spoken about understanding the structure of music, recognizing these aspects of music when hearing it, and (less critically) using the accepted vocabulary of music to describe these things. Whenever someone like Sforzando mentions their deep understanding of how Beethoven puts music together, you ignore the content and counter that with the same bit about knowing "facts" not being useful. If I take you at your literal word, I understand it to mean that you have managed to learn a lot of facts about music without recognizing the relationship between these facts and the actual sound of the music. That is not what is being suggested.
Quote from: Leon on March 30, 2011, 07:10:01 PMFirst of all, I am trying to have a conversation, I do not see myself "countering" anyone's statements as if we were playing some game - but I do not remember this exchange you describe.
QuoteOf course I know that the 6th symphony has 5 movements, but knowing this fact does not enhance my enjoyment of it.
I can interpret this two ways. 1) Knowing the abstract fact that Beethoven symphony No 6 has two movements doesn't enhance you're enjoyment. 2) Being able to listen to a work like Beethoven's 6th and recognize it has five movements doesn't enhance your enjoyment. If it is 1, then you have done what I have suggested, and replaced Sforzando's reference to musical understanding with a reference to musical fact collection. Your statement is reasonable but has nothing to do with what anyone else on this thread has been saying, you are disagreeing with something no one said. If it is the second, then you have said something which I find so bizarre and counterintuitive that I cannot even begin to respond to it. It would make more sense to me if you said that knowing what Beethoven's 6th symphony smells like doesn't help your enjoyment. I am not trying to ridicule, but I can see your words on the screen, but when I try to put them together into sentences they make no sense to me whatsoever.
For me, I find doing some research really helps my enjoyment of the music. I especially love reading interviews with composers (if applicable), because this enables me to get a least more of an insight into their personality and own experiences. I think reading about a composer's life and music can only enhance your enjoyment. I realize that some people may just want to listen to the music and that's perfectly acceptable, but my question to those who don't want to read about a composer, how would doing a little research on their music not benefit you?
Quote from: Leon on March 30, 2011, 07:10:01 PM
Yes, well, I don't do that either. But, this thread began as a person new to classical music asking, "Am I worrying about concepts I'm better off leaving for later?" And my answer has been, yes: listen first, read later.
I'm not sure why these things can't proceed in parallel, according to each listener's inclination and level of curiosity.
Quote from: Leon on March 31, 2011, 02:54:03 AM
why don't you tell me how knowing the 6th symphony has 5 movements enhances your enjoyment of it? Then maybe I can find something to relate to that I can compare to my own experience.
I'm just not sure what "enhances" means anymore in the discussion. The multi-movement organization of a large-scale symphony or similar work is simply a part of its nature, and one of the most immediately obvious. It's part of the experience of greater/lesser tension, complication/resolution, fast/slow, etc. - the narrative that the work tells (and I mean that without any connotation relating to program music).
Quote from: Leon on March 31, 2011, 03:00:00 AM
For myself, living with a work before I read about it is much more rewarding.
For myself, there is no one way which in the case of all music is more rewarding than another way, than other ways. If the way Karl comes to engage with a piece of music is a narrative, there are different modes of narrative with different pieces. The cookie-cutter is inimical to art.
Quote from: Leon on March 31, 2011, 03:00:00 AM
If, e.g., the author speaks of some aspect of the second theme of the first movement, I immediately call to mind that theme and then proceed to associate his point to the music I've mapped in my mind.
But to do this you need to know how to identify the second theme - you take for granted that this is obvious, but it isn't, not to everyone, and sometimes, with some pieces, not to many. The 'second theme' is a technical concept too, and if, as you suggest, you are listening and identifying the music's constituent parts like this before reading an analysis of the work, then you are using your technical knowledge to help you make sense of the piece and to enjoy it more, I presume.
Last night I was listening to some Bartok quartets and remembering how as a kid I just didn't understand much of these pieces. And because my brain couldn't make sense of them, I didn't like them. But then I was young, mand I was just listening passively. Then, though - I remember this clearly, I was about 12, maybe - I listened hard, really intently, in the dark (!), and my brain immediately began to hold onto to elements, to identify them, to hear their relationships. Bang, there I was with the pieces starting to click, all of a sudden. Later on, of course, I got the scores and read other people's thoughts about the pieces, and each of these things elucidated the music for me more and brought me more understanding and thus more pleasure. But all of that was only a more precise version of what my mind did automatically that night I started to listen actively. That experience - one of countless others I've had - shows me very clearly the benefits of listening carefully and trying to hear relationships, which is an activity to which a little formal reading is a help, and an enhancement, but only in degree, not in type.
Palmetto, here's another work I highly recommend, one equally entertaining and educational for newcomers and old hands:
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51FBZtLZPgL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg)
Michael Steinberg's The Symphony: A Listener's Guide. The man has the rare gift of being able to elucidate the details of music in largely non-technical terms. What's more, his enthusiasm is contagious, and he paints some very memorable portraits of composers, particularly Martinu, whom he knew.
If you get hold of recordings of some of the major symphonies, say Beethoven's and Mozart's, and then follow along with the book, you'll probably learn a lot about how classical music works.
Quote from: Leon on March 31, 2011, 04:44:16 AM
Your second paragraph describes exactly what I have been talking about. Which is a bit odd because in your first paragraph you seem to have not connected your experience with what I've been trying to describe. I can only assume that music is hard to talk about and I am not very good at expressing my thoughts.
The second paragraph describes "I listened hard, really intently, in the dark (!), and my brain immediately began
to hold onto to elements, to identify them, to hear their relationships." Does that sound consistent with your statement that knowing Beethoven's 6th has five movements does not enhance enjoyment? How could you understand anything about the "elements" and their "relationships" without knowing that Beethoven's 6th is a 5 movement work and that the structure of these movements organizes the musical "elements" and "relationships?
I've started to read a book which IIRC Alan (Elgarian) recommended, An Experiment in Criticism by CS Lewis, which touches on themes which may intersect with this discussion . . . .
Quote from: Il Barone Scarpia on March 31, 2011, 07:09:32 AM
The second paragraph describes "I listened hard, really intently, in the dark (!), and my brain immediately began to hold onto to elements, to identify them, to hear their relationships." Does that sound consistent with your statement that knowing Beethoven's 6th has five movements does not enhance enjoyment? How could you understand anything about the "elements" and their "relationships" without knowing that Beethoven's 6th is a 5 movement work and that the structure of these movements organizes the musical "elements" and "relationships?
Exactly. My point was that you've been talking about how terminology gets in the way, but then you talked about how you would prefer to listen to a piece without reading up on it first so that later you can map what you read
onto your previous identification of e.g. the second subject. And that is italicised because that previous process you have gone through, of labelling the parts of the piece mentally - the second subject, the development, the rhetorical devices etc. - is really the same sort of thing as knowing a Neapolitan 6th when you hear one. The difference is only one of degree and detail, not of type.
As far as the Bartok example went, I was merely trying to describe an example of my own experience in which, when letting the music just pass over me, I didn't connect to it at all, but in which, once I tried to hear with a more taxonomical mind, I suddenly gained enormous pleasure from.
Quote from: Leon on March 31, 2011, 08:06:31 AM
I find it odd that you have settled on this aspect of the work and continue to ask me about it - yet you refuse to tell me how knowing the number of movements especially enhances your own enjoyment of the 6th symphony.
For only one thing (and, speaking of finding it strange that you fix on the one question), one has different expectations of overall design for the fourth movement, which in turn governs how one interprets its elements.
Quote from: Leon on March 31, 2011, 02:54:03 AM
... why don't you tell me how knowing the 6th symphony has 5 movements enhances your enjoyment of it?
Well, so you don't look like a twit by standing and applauding like crazy after the fourth movement? ;D
That said, I still agree with your position. Maybe I won't when I have more technical understanding, but what newbie does?
Quote from: Leon on March 31, 2011, 08:32:46 AM
I'd like to add something else: I think it is extremely important for someone who wants to enjoy classical music to cultivate the kind of taxonomical hearing Luke and I have described.
Well, in the present discussion I find it of interest that this is your view, to be sure.
There have been some who assert something quite different, to the effect that even such ''taxonomical hearing' is unnecessary, and all one needs to enjoy the music is to let the sound wash over you. In one extreme case, this assertion was accompanied by an insistence that anyone who knew how to spell a C# Major triad in second inversion was incapable of appreciating the music as deeply as he did.
Quote from: Leon on March 31, 2011, 08:20:03 AM
I can see that, but I don't come to a work with that kind of specific expectation.
Do you mean (for instance) that when you listen to a piece for the first time, it is a matter of indifference to you whether the piece is a stand-alone entity, or instead one component of a composite work?
Quote from: Leon on March 31, 2011, 09:22:28 AM
Just to be clear, my "Position" (funny, that) is that I think it is extremely important for a listener, new or experienced, to listen to a work closely enough to identify basic elements such as themes, and (whether they know the formal terms or not) to attempt to discover relationships between the elements as they reappear throughout the work.
As a newcomer, what I've found important is learning to listen for themes, multiple melodies, development, etc. Where I got hung up was drawing the line between developing a basic working vocabulary and fretting over terms and details that aren't immediately necessary to get an enjoyable foot in the door. (Yeah, I know; 'RTFB')
Well, there are so many terms, that a basic filtration of learn-it-when-the-text-is-otherwise-incomprehensible is not unusual ; )
Not sure what you've got against books/commentary specific to a given piece. But, hey . . . .
Re Beethoven's Opus 68: The fact that it's laid out in five movements rather than the traditional four immediately got my attention. "Why five?" But after listening to it, it became apparent that Beethoven could not have followed his intent by sticking with the traditional four movements; the thunderstorm and the "thankful feelings" afterwards were too dissimilar to fit into a single movement. Another detail that struck me at once was that the last three movements were played without pause, as if the whole thing were a scene from an opera rather than three individual, unconnected movements. Those things are neither incidental nor irrelevant, but are part of what makes this symphony both a unique entity and a seminal work. It's not at all certain that Berlioz's Symphonie fantastique, Liszt's Faustsymphonie or any of Mahler's symphonies (among many others) would exist in anything like their present forms if Beethoven had not written the Pastoral.
Leon, it doesn't seem that you intended to raise these questions with your posts; but some of us remember others who positively gloried in their wilful ignorance. Such an attitude is almost an insult to those of us who have actually studied music. :P
Granted, you don't need to know these things to love Opus 68; but knowing them adds greatly to my enjoyment of the Pastoral as well as the Fantastique and the Faustsymphonie. 8)
Quote from: Leon on March 31, 2011, 08:06:31 AMI find it odd that you have settled on this aspect of the work and continue to ask me about it - yet you refuse to tell me how knowing the number of movements especially enhances your own enjoyment of the 6th symphony.
I find it odd that when I reply to this point you simply ignore it and claim that I did not reply.
Above I wrote
QuoteThe second paragraph describes "I listened hard, really intently, in the dark (!), and my brain immediately began to hold onto to elements, to identify them, to hear their relationships." Does that sound consistent with your statement that knowing Beethoven's 6th has five movements does not enhance enjoyment? How could you understand anything about the "elements" and their "relationships" without knowing that Beethoven's 6th is a 5 movement work and that the structure of these movements organizes the musical "elements" and "relationships?
The five movement structure provides the basic framework within which thematic elements and relationships are organized. Beethoven follows the convention of maintaining close relationships between thematic elements within movements, and creating more subtle relationships between thematic elements in different movements. For instance the second movement of the symphony is a distinct piece from the first, with its own themes, tempo and structure. The second movement, according to Beethoven's own program, is literally descriptive of nature, while the first represents the feelings of a person going to the country. I would not fully appreciate and enjoy this work without being aware that Beethoven assigned to each of the five movements a different part of the story he wanted to tell.
Quote from: Leon on March 31, 2011, 08:32:46 AM
I'd like to add something else: I think it is extremely important for someone who wants to enjoy classical music to cultivate the kind of taxonomical hearing Luke and I have described. Even knowing all the terminology, attentive and close listening is really necessary to "get" classical music.
Then why do you take issue when people express opinions that you later claim that you agree with?
Quote from: Leon on March 31, 2011, 10:59:44 AM
I have studied music. Knowing those things are not integral to my enjoyment of the 6th symphony.
Like someone said earlier, we are mostly in agreement; perhaps we only differ in emphasis. For me at least, though, the memory of "debating" (I use that word loosely) with certain others is a slightly sore point. But you certainly are not like those others. :)
Quote from: Leon on March 31, 2011, 10:59:44 AM
This article from the Kennedy Center makes the point that despite the programmatic aspects to Op. 68, Beethoven did not depart much from the sonata style...
'Tis true; Beethoven was first an instrumental musician. Even with an opera and many choral works under his belt, he was never really comfortable writing for voice, and his vocal works are almost invariably not his best. And it's to be noted that the Sixth is about
impressions, not (with a few exceptions) literal tone-painting
à la Vivaldi's The Seasons.
Quote from: Leon on March 31, 2011, 08:32:46 AM
I'd like to add something else: I think it is extremely important for someone who wants to enjoy classical music to cultivate the kind of taxonomical hearing Luke and I have described. Even knowing all the terminology, attentive and close listening is really necessary to "get" classical music.
Yes, of course, that's ture. Where we differ, I think, is that you see these listening-derived taxonomical definitions as more limited than I do. Limited, that is, to the sorts of things one is likely to notice in listening to a work a few times - the themes and forms and imitations and so on that are obvious enough to the standard ear that they are reasonably noticable. As you say (rightly) in a sense, it doesn't matter what you call these things, internally, as long as they make sense to you; the accepted names only matter and need to be known if you wish to discuss them with others
But, to me, the boundaries are more fluid. Yes, had I not been taught about them or read about them, it might have taken me years of listening to be able to spot that Neapolitan 6ths (which my mind would have classified under another name of course) even exist, let alone that they occur in a variety of works but usually in one context, which context I might or might not have been able to describe too. However, it happens that others have done the work for me, and so it only took my piano teacher 5 minutes to explain them to me, a demonstration which I've never forgotten and which has meant that, with listening experience, 'Neapolitan 6ths' slipped from a second category taxonomical term, one outside your parameters, one which is purely academic and not associated with the pure listening experience, to one within them, one that my ear hears in the same way it hears second subjects. The same goes for all (or at least many) analytical terms - once learnt, the ear identifies them in the same way as it identifies second subjects and other more obvious 'rudimentary' features. It's in the nature of these things, though, that one usually has to be taught to notice them, and therefore one learns the terminology by default.
The above, I think, it why I object when I hear that 'analytical listening detracts from the listening experience' - because my experience is completely the opposite: that analytical listening beomes second nature, not an add-on one can switch off. I also object because the implication is that those who hear music with an understanding of its workings are not simply enjoying the music too, are not able to, somehow. Because the truth is, and the wonder of it is - you can do both: you can enjoy, and you can understand, and the combination of the two brings an even greater pleasure, in my experience.
Understanding is in no way inimical to enjoyment. Indeed, I have always found that it enhances enjoyment.Quote from: Leon on March 31, 2011, 11:30:05 AM
. . . Instead, I would advise them to listen carefully . . . .
Which is not bad advice, but there are no few listeners who find a little guidance to be a large assistance in 'listening carefully'.
Quote from: Leon on March 31, 2011, 11:39:42 AM
Half of the sentence does not accurately portray the advice.
Terribly sorry. Let's try this:Quote from: Leon on March 31, 2011, 11:30:05 AM
Instead, I would advise them to listen carefully and eventually attempt to map the music as best they can.
Which is not bad advice, but there are no few listeners who find a little guidance to be a large assistance in 'listening carefully' and in 'mapping the music as best they can'.
Quote from: Leon on March 31, 2011, 11:14:00 AM
Sorry, you lost me with this. Luke expressed something which I had previously expressed in different words - I simply acknowledged that he used better language (taxonomical hearing) to say what I was getting at. What that phrase means to me is a personal taxonomy created by a listener (when listening to a work) that is not based on prior knowledge of the established terminology. Later when they encounter the standard terms they can map them to their own taxonomy.
Let's go back to the beginning.
Sforzando posted:
QuoteBut the first is not to be despised either, and it's not unusual to find people who do so (remember our late friend Iago?), on the false assumption that the heart is good and the brain bad (as in Wordsworth's "We murder to dissect" and Keats's "Though the dull brain perplexes and retards"). The problem is that to genuinely master the so-called technical terminology and concepts requires a good deal of study, until it all becomes natural and second-nature. Until then, you might not know that (say) a particularly magical moment in the Hammerklavier Adagio occurs because Beethoven suddenly uses a flat II or Neapolitan chord in root position, but the fact remains that the reason for the magic is that (duh) Beethoven suddenly uses a flat II or Neapolitan in root position.
Your reply was:
QuoteLabels do not create magic; effective composing does. It does not much matter, imo, how a person refers to a harmonic event, whether they use the theoretical label for a chord or find some other way of communicating what they heard - the magic is in the music.
Again, Sforzando:
QuoteBut that is not how Beethoven uses flat II in the Hammerklavier Adagio. Or in the op. 131 finale (where, in a C# minor movement, he recapitulates the second subject in D major before restating it in C# major; and where he also uses those rushing scale passages built on flat II in the coda). Here the Neapolitan takes on a very distinct character of its own that is more than a substitute for IV.
and your reply
QuoteThat only underscores the surprise the chord/harmony would create since Beethoven was employing it outside the norm (which is what I was referring to) - but, in any event, my point was to say that knowing the term N6 is immaterial to enjoying the music.
which established the pattern for your participation in the thread. People described hearing music and relating it to understanding of how the music is put together, and you latched on to the use of technical terminology to dismiss these descriptions as mere "labels." Sforzando was not emphasizing that a listener must know that the harmony used is called a Neapolitan sixth, he was emphasizing that a refined listen will hear the harmony and recognize the combination of notes that produced them, which is conventionally called a Neapolitan sixth. What started out as a very interesting discussion of the role of analysis in appreciating music degenerated into a pointless semantic exercise primarily due to the fact that you repeatedly quoted posts and expressed disagreement with ideas that were not present in the quoted posts.
Quote from: Apollon on March 31, 2011, 11:44:03 AM
Terribly sorry. Let's try this:
Which is not bad advice, but there are no few listeners who find a little guidance to be a large assistance in 'listening carefully' and in 'mapping the music as best they can'.
<guffaw>Ha!</guffaw>
what do we mean by 'mapping music'? Or is this another concept I can put off to a (much) later date?
Quote from: Palmetto on April 01, 2011, 06:29:24 AM
what do we mean by 'mapping music'?
Good question : )
Quote from: Palmetto on April 01, 2011, 06:29:24 AM
what do we mean by 'mapping music'? Or is this another concept I can put off to a (much) later date?
I assume what was meant is creating a mental model of the work's architecture, i.e., how its structure is created from thematic building blocks and relations of harmony, tempi, etc. If that's the case, then I'd say, it's something listening to classical music benefits from since much of it is created and traditionally interpreted according to such architectural/structural analogies. (As opposed to, say, graphing out frequency ratios for the sound waves.)
The map is not the territory. But the map can be useful for focusing attention and acting as a theoretical frame through which to hear the work.
Quote from: Grazioso on April 01, 2011, 09:10:38 AM
I assume what was meant is creating a mental model of the work's architecture, i.e., how its structure is created from thematic building blocks and relations of harmony, tempi, etc. If that's the case, then I'd say, it's something listening to classical music benefits from since much of it is created and traditionally interpreted according to such architectural/structural analogies. (As opposed to, say, graphing out frequency ratios for the sound waves.)
The map is not the territory. But the map can be useful for focusing attention and acting as a theoretical frame through which to hear the work.
And it's not much different than what you might do with pop music (i.e., you might recognize the introduction, the verses, the chorus, the bridge, the guitar solo, etc).
Quote from: Leon on April 01, 2011, 09:22:02 AM
I think, from now on, I will only respond to Palmetto's questions, since this is his thread asking for ideas about how to get acquainted with classical music. There appears to be some kind of other agenda in play from some of the other posters, pursuing the kind of exchange I am not interested in. In any event, I have posted more than enough comments for anyone to arrive at an understanding of what my thoughts are about someone coming to classical music for the first time.
In my case the "other agenda" is that I can't figure out what you're talking about. I agree there isn't much to add to the discussion, and my overall conclusion is that you essentially agree with the posts you took issue with, and that you took issue with statements that no one made.
FWIW, a listener's attempts to get a grasp of the design of a piece, is exactly one of the activities in which most listeners benefit from reading about music. 'Carefully listening' will only get you so far.
Or, it takes you so far afield, that then you have to learn from scratch how to communicate to others about musical form.
Quote from: Apollon on April 01, 2011, 09:25:17 AM
FWIW, a listener's attempts to get a grasp of the design of a piece, is exactly one of the activities in which most listeners benefit from reading about music. 'Carefully listening' will only get you so far.
Or, it takes you so far afield, that then you have to learn from scratch how to communicate to others about musical form.
I can think of a few examples. The first recording I got of Strauss' Alpine was the original issue of Karajan's recording. Absurdly DG configured the disc as a single hour-long track. I would listen knowing that somewhere in there were meadows, brooks, summits, a vision, flowers, a storm, thickets, etc. It was wonderful, but the only thing I was really sure of was the storm. Recently I listened to another recording were the section markings in the score were configured as separate tracks. Now I can look at the cd player when I please and note that, "oh, this is the meadow." The music is just as ravishing, and now I have the added possibility of seeing how Strauss chose to "paint" a certain thing. It definitely enhanced my pleasure without any reservation.
Another second example is Elgar's violin concerto. My first impression, "too many notes, make it stop!" When I made that comment here, several members, especially Elgarian, posted very useful descriptions of their reaction to various parts of the piece and the scales fell from my eyes, so to speak.
A third example would Schoenberg's chamber symphony No 1. It was very useful to have before my eyes (in the CD booklet) a description of how the music can be considered as an expanded sonata movement in which elements such as the slow movement and scherzo are incorporated into what would normally be the development section. (Very similar to Sibelius 7 and Liszt's Sonata) Presumably that insight came from people who had studied the score. I can still wallow in the expressive excesses of the music, but being aware of the general scheme allowed me to comes to terms with the music more easily than I otherwise would have.
Quote from: Apollon on April 01, 2011, 09:25:17 AM
FWIW, a listener's attempts to get a grasp of the design of a piece, is exactly one of the activities in which most listeners benefit from reading about music. 'Carefully listening' will only get you so far.
Which is a point I was trying to make earlier. How do you listen carefully when you have no idea what to listen for? The sounds are all there to be heard, but how do you go about breaking them all down into something conceptual and communicable? How do you reverse engineer the sound waves into the animating concepts employed by the composer? The theoretical and intellectual approaches to music are not to be loathed precisely because they give you points of entry into the music, ways of making sense of what you hear, and communicating it to others.
I see it as somewhat analogous to literary criticism. You can learn a lot by studying structuralist, Marxist, feminist, reader-response, postcolonialist, etc. theoretical frameworks and then applying them to a work. Each provides a new lens through which to see a text, and each will have you searching for particular signposts as you progress through.
You may ultimately decide that one approach or another is of little use or relevance, but at least they get you paying closer attention, seeing things you might not have noticed before, and--this is crucial--providing you with a language for articulating what you find. (Of course, one must be careful not to give the concepts and the terms hegemony over reality.)
Quote from: Grazioso on April 01, 2011, 09:46:58 AM
Which is a point I was trying to make earlier. How do you listen carefully when you have no idea what to listen for? The sounds are all there to be heard, but how do you go about breaking them all down into something conceptual and communicable? How do you reverse engineer the sound waves into the animating concepts employed by the composer? The theoretical and intellectual approaches to music are not to be loathed precisely because they give you points of entry into the music, ways of making sense of what you hear, and communicating it to others.
Allow me to just note that you may be over-stretching the point a little, with regard to the highlightedsegment. Something can be conceptual without being communicable, as you yourself note, by having been made conceptual in a way that is simply not common to anyone other than yourself.
To that extent, it is not contradictory to conceptualise music independently of academic musical study, much like it isn't contradictory to conceptualise literature independently of any given system of literary theory. You'd obviously be 'mapping' (in the logical sense of the word - 'assigning') different concepts to the same underlying structure, but it is neither impossible nor counter-intuitive to do so. Just communicatively inefficient; making it inadvisable, perhaps, but certainly not absurd. :)
In a similar way, apropos of the advice to 'listen carefully', it is not impossible to build a working inventory of musical structures without trying to look for them (which, as you note, is pretty challenging if you don't know what to look
for): brains are taxonomical engines. It would just take longer - possibly more than a lifetime for some!
Edit: This echoes a past discussion on perfect pitch. One might
recognise tones independently of context, without being able to
name them in the common way.
Quote from: Renfield on April 01, 2011, 11:01:17 AM
To that extent, it is not contradictory to conceptualise music independently of academic musical study, much like it isn't contradictory to conceptualise literature independently of any given system of literary theory. You'd obviously be 'mapping' (in the logical sense of the word - 'assigning') different concepts to the same underlying structure, but it is neither impossible nor counter-intuitive to do so. Just communicatively inefficient; making it inadvisable, perhaps, but certainly not absurd. :)
Do you mean similar to the way different cultures historically mapped stars into different constellations even though they were all looking at the same night sky?
Quote from: Palmetto on April 01, 2011, 12:05:04 PM
Do you mean similar to the way different cultures historically mapped stars into different constellations even though they were all looking at the same night sky?
Exactly! The process of discovering constellations, and naming them (emphasis on the comma) is an exceptionally apt analogy. :)