From time to time a poster here refers to "understanding music." For instance, there's one fellow here who says repeatedly that if you don't agree that composer X is the greatest, then you simply lack his preternatural capacity to "understand" X's music.
What the heck do y'all mean by "understanding music?" I can understand or recognize a piece's structure, how themes are interrelated and varied, and so on...but "understand music" I cannot do. I don't see music as rocket science or an instruction manual for programming your VCR DVD recorder iPhone.
Can those who understand so much better than I please explain what you mean by this?
Thanks!
Good question. I'm interested in an answer, too.
I think I know to whom you're referring, and I don't think he knows what it means either.
Surely all 'understanding music' actually means is a comprehension of its technical elements. Is it possible to 'understand' music in a more abstract way?
Let's put it bluntly, gentlemen: what does it mean "understanding Mahler's 8th?" ;D
I don't need to understand music in order to enjoy it.
Quote from: dtw on October 04, 2007, 05:47:21 AM
I don't need to understand music in order to enjoy it.
Quite so.
Quote from: dtw on October 04, 2007, 05:47:21 AM
I don't need to understand music in order to enjoy it.
But how can you enjoy it if you don't understand it?
Quote from: dtw on October 04, 2007, 05:47:21 AM
I don't need to understand music in order to enjoy it.
I'm with
Hermann Scherchen:
Music shouldn't be understood, but listened to.
Quote from: Larry Rinkel on October 04, 2007, 05:50:08 AM
But how can you enjoy it if you don't understand it?
As I understand it, I can enjoy it without understanding it. Understand?
Quote from: dtw on October 04, 2007, 05:53:22 AM
As I understand it, I can enjoy it without understanding it. Understand?
No. :D As I understand "understanding," unless one understands something - and there are all kinds of levels of understanding, not necessarily "technical" understanding - one will not enjoy, but will respond to the sounds as if they are simply aural confusion. I say part of the reason you enjoy a piece is that you understand - at some level, whether you have a technical vocabulary or not - the relationships in the piece among its various themes and other processes.
For example, let's say in a Beethoven symphony you enjoy the return of the first theme in the first movement. Your enjoyment is predicated on the fact that you recognize the return of a familiar theme.
The relation between understanding and evaluation is more complex, and not everyone will evaluate a piece of music the same way.
That is a complicated, difficult, and highly "technical" question in its own right. It concerns the nature of understanding itself, to which people saying they understand something indirectly refer.
And for that reason (though I might return to this thread later, when I've more time on my hands), I shall for the moment point you to Plato, for whom understanding was a sort of assimilation, or acquisition of the deeper truth inherent in an object or notion.
But to be frank, I am going to finally be a very rude person and point out that this - like many threads I make a point of avoiding - is not something we can really discuss here. Or even at all, very possibly!
If you really do want an answer, I invite you to think on it yourself, read a book or two, perhaps write one(!), and you could come to a conclusion. Otherwise, I'll stand with Plato again, on this one: knowledge is acquired, not transmitted. The best someone can do is support another person's acquisition of knowledge; through helping him think, I'll add. But not thinking for him. :)
Of course, Larry Rinkel's approach also works: cognitive recognition of patterns, etc. But the problem here is that however convincingly one portrays his/her understanding of those patterns, it still takes more than that for another person to "get it". ;)
Quote from: Larry Rinkel on October 04, 2007, 06:06:20 AM
No. :D As I understand "understanding," unless one understands something - and there are all kinds of levels of understanding, not necessarily "technical" understanding - one will not enjoy, but will respond to the sounds as if they are simply aural confusion. I say part of the reason you enjoy a piece is that you understand - at some level, whether you have a technical vocabulary or not - the relationships in the piece among its various themes and other processes.
For example, let's say in a Beethoven symphony you enjoy the return of the first theme in the first movement. Your enjoyment is predicated on the fact that you recognize the return of a familiar theme.
The relation between understanding and evaluation is more complex, and not everyone will evaluate a piece of music the same way.
Makes sense to me, Captain. I can enjoy Petre Munteanu's singing voice without knowing what the hell he's going on about. ;)
Quote from: dtw on October 04, 2007, 06:13:26 AM
Makes sense to me, Captain. I can enjoy Petre Munteanu's singing voice without knowing what the hell he's going on about. ;)
Let's say you can. Would you agree that if you knew the words to Der Atlas or Abschied from the Schwenengesang, your understanding and enjoyment would be enhanced? Or would you disagree? Chances are the only reason you don't know "what the hell he's going on about" is that you don't speak German. What if he sang in English?
Quote from: Larry Rinkel on October 04, 2007, 06:25:42 AM
Let's say you can. Would you agree that if you knew the words to Der Atlas or Abschied from the Schwenengesang, your understanding and enjoyment would be enhanced? Or would you disagree? Chances are the only reason you don't know "what the hell he's going on about" is that you don't speak German. What if he sang in English?
Right. I haven't bothered with the translations, yet I listen to his Schubert/Schumann recordings all the time. And of course when I get around to the translations, it will probably kick up the experience a notch.
I think many who criticize others for not "understanding [certain] music" are in a defensive position when doing so.
But in the absence of actually explaining one's own "understanding" of the music tells me that "understanding" is not understanding at all. "Understanding" is how one reacts (positively) to the music without understanding why. Otherwise one would have a better explanation for it (other than Vibrational Field Theory, of course).
In other words, I think it's all communication breakdown :)
Some people claim that certain "hard to get" composers are bad after the first listening of a "hard to get" piece. That's nonsense and ridiculous. Just 'cause you don't understand complex music and the intentions/ideas of a composer doesn't mean he is bad.
It's just like saying: I don't understand the bible, it's too thick. God must be something bad.
See how stupid it sounds?
Quote from: Bonehelm on October 04, 2007, 07:44:05 AM
Some people claim that certain "hard to get" composers are bad after the first listening of a "hard to get" piece.
Have you encountered one such on GMG?
Quote from: CS on October 04, 2007, 06:59:08 AM
I think many who criticize others for not "understanding [certain] music" are in a defensive position when doing so.
But in the absence of actually explaining one's own "understanding" of the music tells me that "understanding" is not understanding at all. "Understanding" is how one reacts (positively) to the music without understanding why.
The nature of the understanding is indeed a question . . . .
Quote from: Florestan on October 04, 2007, 07:53:31 AM
Have you encountered one such on GMG?
yes, but if I name it someone's gonna get hurt.
My niece, who knows more than she's prepared to admit, tells me that anyone who says that they understand quantum mechanics, doesn't. I believe that the same can be said of music.
It's not hard to understand the technical and intellectual aspects of music. But music is much more than its technical aspects. So the kind of understanding some of us talk about must involve some other attribute than technique and intellect; maybe that entity that no one seems able to define, the soul...
Quote from: CS on October 04, 2007, 06:59:08 AM
I think many who criticize others for not "understanding [certain] music" are in a defensive position when doing so.
In my case at least, it's true.
I use this word in one only sense : knowing everything a given piece of music can bring to the listener.
I'm quite often using this verb down here, usually to defend composers against people who give unfair negative appreciations about some pieces of music.
(Once again, today, I've read one of our GMGers advise to avoid some works by a great composer, not a good way of promoting classical in my opinion).
Which is more important — understanding a piece in some objective way (indeed, assuming that is possible!), or finding in music something that resonates with one's own experience of music prior to hearing aforementioned piece?
I won't dispute that understanding how a work is composed (technically or otherwise) can add to one's enjoyment of it, but is it essential to understand music in this way in order to enjoy it? I'd argue 'no' ... otherwise I'd have rejected classical music years ago and wouldn't have over 1000 CDs on my shelves.
And how much do those of us who like to think we understand actually do so? Music is a mysterious art, and seems to get more mysterious the more you study it.
Quote from: Mark on October 04, 2007, 01:31:45 PM
but is it essential to understand music in this way in order to enjoy it?
Yes.
Quote from: jochanaan on October 04, 2007, 05:43:38 PM
What's the minimum level of understanding required? ???
The one that requires a decent amount of testosterone, something that is of course missing among the average classical music fan.
Quote from: Ten thumbs on October 04, 2007, 08:43:23 AM
My niece, who knows more than she's prepared to admit, tells me that anyone who says that they understand quantum mechanics, doesn't. I believe that the same can be said of music.
Richard Feynman once said, "I think it is safe to say that no one understands quantum mechanics."
But quantum mechanics encompass notions that music does not, including quantum uncertainty. I'll repeat it, even if I sound very rude and very spoil-sportish: it's not as simple as to toss around quotes about it, not by a long shot.
And instead of making a non-discussion about a subject that's nearly untouchable without going into very deep waters, how about discussing whether it's necessary to
think you understand music, before you come to enjoy it? Or whether you think music lacks any semantic content whatsoever? Both are simpler questions, and both can lead to very interesting discussions. :)
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on October 04, 2007, 05:47:57 PM
The one that requires a decent amount of testosterone, something that is of course missing among the average classical music fan.
Guess that leaves out Lis, and Muriel, and Greta, and Hollywood, and ;)
Quote from: Mark on October 04, 2007, 01:31:45 PM
I won't dispute that understanding how a work is composed (technically or otherwise) can add to one's enjoyment of it, but is it essential to understand music in this way in order to enjoy it?
No. I have zero, none, nil formal music education, I don't play any instrument and I can't read a score. The only thing I do is listening to music. And enjoying it.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on October 04, 2007, 05:39:33 PM
Yes.
Reason? I mean, I proper one this time, not some guff about biology. ::)
Alot of people don't understand that Feynman's quote has more to do with the interpretation of quantum mechanics. Most physics students master the theory regardless of it's counterintuitive nature because it's not that difficult mathematically. Using the juvenile cop out "X can't be understood because famous dude said so" is a lame way of trying to even the playing field and restore bruised ego. Obviously it's dumb, there is a hierarchy of understanding of music and qm, and you can't level the playing field with one cheeky quote. :D
And frankly qm isn't really that bothersome, it actually makes sense to treat particles in the same way that you treat light-- the wave-particle duality is resolved by simply saying that we didn't really understand how particles behave until we looked at a smaller scale. And I frankly think that it's more intuitive than the extremely problematic idealized textbook "point particle" treatment, see the faith thread for more on that.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on October 04, 2007, 05:47:57 PM
The one that requires a decent amount of testosterone, something that is of course missing among the average classical music fan.
Certainly missing among women; so it's a man's art, eh?
Quote from: Mark on October 04, 2007, 01:31:45 PM
I won't dispute that understanding how a work is composed (technically or otherwise) can add to one's enjoyment of it, but is it essential to understand music in this way in order to enjoy it?
One must hope not; for even the composer himself, if he is doing his work right, does not (cannot)
completely understand
how it was composed.
Quote from: karlhenning on October 05, 2007, 04:12:15 AM
Certainly missing among women;
Most of them, yes. There are notable exceptions.
Quote from: karlhenning on October 05, 2007, 04:12:15 AM
so it's a man's art, eh?
Absolutely.
So, the sad thing is, you were proposing to be serious.
I'd say it could mean:
* Feeling the emotions the composer intended you to feel at the times he (presumably) intended, feeling the rise and fall of tension and drama as intended. If Western systems of tonality and musical structure were totally alien to you, the big major-key outburst rising from the gloom at the end of LvB's 5th would probably not be "understood" by you. "Hey, why is this stuff loud now?"
* Being able to recognize the fundamental structure or architecture of a piece by being aware of themes (their appearance, return, and manipulation), tone colors, harmonies, dynamics, and other basic building blocks of music. I.e., understanding a piece as a form of language that's saying something using specific "words" in a specific order.
* The one that relatively few can boast of: possessing the technical knowledge to understand the harmonic structures, choice of instrumentation, etc.--being able to analyze what's happening on a musicological level and seeing how the composer's specific choices affect sound and structure and guide listener's expectations and emotions. Understanding how an Eb on a certain instrument at a certain point and volume affects everything around it and what would happen if it had been written differently.
Quote from: DavidW on October 05, 2007, 03:58:41 AM
And I frankly think that it's more intuitive than the extremely problematic idealized textbook "point particle" treatment, see the Faith Thread for more on that.
I must rush off to the Faith Thread to catch the latest on idealized textbook "point particle" treatments ......... Wouldn't want to miss a beat on that topic .........
Quote from: jochanaan on October 04, 2007, 10:38:40 AM
It's not hard to understand the technical and intellectual aspects of music. But music is much more than its technical aspects. So the kind of understanding some of us talk about must involve some other attribute than technique and intellect; maybe that entity that no one seems able to define, the soul...
I think you're on the right track, here. It seems obvious to me that someone could possess as much musical knowledge as it is possible to obtain, be able to understand all the intricacies of harmony, etc., and still encounter pieces of music that are meaningless to them.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on October 04, 2007, 05:47:57 PM
The one that requires a decent amount of testosterone, something that is of course missing among the average classical music fan.
What hormones has to do with classical music is anyone's guess.
Quote from: karlhenning on October 04, 2007, 07:55:51 AM
The nature of the understanding is indeed a question.
There is no question. It should be obvious that in this instance 'understanding' means
musical understanding. There is a difference between the actual aural phenomena and the theory written to describe it and learning and studying the former from a book will not give you a real insight to the first. This btw accounts for the high level of sheer ignoramus among professional musicians. It's also one of the reasons why contemporary music has been by a large measure a disastrous affair.
The problem is that in order to understand music you have to commit a real effort into it. You have to listen, over and over and even then it's going to take sometime for your brain to process all the informations acquired, most of which will be in the matter of intuition or abstractions which cannot be easily pinned by the conscious mind.
I still remember the first time i begun listening to classical music. At the time, most of it made little sense, except for the occasional catchy melody or harmonic twist. I've covered a lot of ground since then and i never even learned how to read music.
Quote from: karlhenning on October 05, 2007, 04:38:27 AM
So, the sad thing is, you were proposing to be serious.
Alas, i'm dead serious.
Quote from: Corey on October 05, 2007, 05:18:08 AM
What hormones has to do with classical music is anyone's guess.
Objectivity vs. relativity. The first is a masculine trait, the former, a feminine one. Now that the axiom has been established, there's only one logical conclusion, right?
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on October 05, 2007, 12:19:19 PM
Objectivity vs. relativity. The first is a masculine trait, the former, a feminine one. Now that the axiom has been established, there's only one logical conclusion, right?
So you're asserting that (1) objectivity is a masculine trait and (2) objectivity is a feminine trait?
I'll assume you meant to say 'latter' rather than 'former.' I'll assume you meant to assert that relativity is somehow the domain of women.
Had you said that, you still would've erred.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on October 05, 2007, 12:19:19 PM
Objectivity vs. relativity. The first is a masculine trait, the former, a feminine one. Now that the axiom has been established, there's only one logical conclusion, right?
I'll try to help extricate you from the hole you seem to be digging yourself: When you use the terms "masculine" and "feminine", I assume you are not necessarily stating that those traits are defined by a person's biological gender, right? That anyone possesses qualities of both, regardless of whether they are a man or woman?
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on October 05, 2007, 12:19:19 PM
Objectivity vs. relativity. The first is a masculine trait, the former, a feminine one.
It's nice of you to step out and greet us here in the 3-D world, but how do you manage to
live in that comic book of yours?
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on October 05, 2007, 12:19:19 PM
Objectivity vs. relativity. The first is a masculine trait, the former, a feminine one. Now that the axiom has been established...
That's where you lose me. I've known women that could play me under the table! :D And I'm not the least of those who have picked up a musical instrument.
Historically, it is entirely possible that the first musicians were women.
(Moderators, we're getting a little off-topic here...)
Quote from: Shrunk on October 06, 2007, 03:05:02 AM
When you use the terms "masculine" and "feminine", I assume you are not necessarily stating that those traits are defined by a person's biological gender, right?
Nope. Biological gender most certainly plays a role, and while there are exceptions (no, i'm not talking about lunatics like Ayn Rand), women are for the most part relativist creatures, as opposed to males.
Quote from: jochanaan on October 06, 2007, 05:06:52 AM
(Moderators, we're getting a little off-topic here...)
Is this some sad attempt at censorship? How typically in tune with our contemporary political climate.
Quote from: D Minor on October 05, 2007, 04:41:20 AM
I must rush off to the Faith Thread to catch the latest on idealized textbook "point particle" treatments ......... Wouldn't want to miss a beat on that topic .........
Yeah off topic tangents kick ass. ;D
Quote from: DavidW on October 06, 2007, 06:19:45 AM
Yeah off topic tangents kick ass. ;D
Amen! (But how is discussion re. theoretical physics off topic in a thread about faith?)
Josquin thinks that gender has something to do with how we understand music, and even with the nature of our "understanding" itself. He may have something there, though maybe not what he thinks. The vastly superior corpus callosum of the female brain (which may occur in people with male genitals) makes them far more effective associative thinkers and probably accounts for the storied "feminine intuition."
So do women in general mean something different by "understanding music" than men in general--that old analytical vs. intuitive bugaboo?
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on October 06, 2007, 05:44:38 AM
Nope. Biological gender most certainly plays a role, and while there are exceptions (no, i'm not talking about lunatics like Ayn Rand), women are for the most part relativist creatures, as opposed to males.
Well, you know, there may actually be something to what you're saying:
http://www.sfu.ca/~dkimura/articles/NEL.htm
This article doesn't say anything about musical appreciation, or "objectivity" vs "subjectivity". However, it does describe gender-associated cognitive differences, and the possible role of sex hormones therein.
The paucity of great female composers has also always struck me, compared to in the visual and performing arts, as well as literature.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on October 06, 2007, 05:50:44 AM
Is this some sad attempt at censorship? How typically in tune with our contemporary political climate.
Don't you ever shut up?
The most useful tool in understanding what one is listening to is knowledge of musical forms. This is particularly helpful in long movements where impatience to reach a conclusion can be avoided. One must bear in mind that strict form is rarely applied just as adherence to so-called harmonic rules should not always be expected. Without some aspects of surprise music risks becoming dull.
The difficult aspect of understanding music is knowing why it affects us in the way it does. The human voice is basically rough and it has been honed into a beautiful instrument in spite of rather than by reason of evolution.
I have not come across any evidence of a difference in quality between music composed by women and that by men. The only reason the repertoire remains dominated by male composers is that the public 'likes what it knows' and is resistant to any change in its perceptions.
Quote from: Larry Rinkel on October 04, 2007, 06:06:20 AM
No. :D As I understand "understanding," unless one understands something - and there are all kinds of levels of understanding, not necessarily "technical" understanding - one will not enjoy, but will respond to the sounds as if they are simply aural confusion. I say part of the reason you enjoy a piece is that you understand - at some level, whether you have a technical vocabulary or not - the relationships in the piece among its various themes and other processes.
Sounds to me like you're referring to
subconsciously understanding something - music, in this instance.
Consciously we don't understand why something smells good but we know for a fact it does. And good thing too: if I had to
consciously understand why I liked everything I think I'd go mad! ;D
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on October 04, 2007, 05:47:57 PM
The one that requires a decent amount of testosterone, something that is of course missing among the average classical music fan.
A drop of tact can do infinitely more good than an ocean of testosterone. Give it a whirl...
Quote from: donwyn on October 06, 2007, 07:23:37 PM
A drop of tact can do infinitely more good than an ocean of testosterone. Give it a whirl...
Josquin sold his personal centrifuge awhile back, he's going to have send this one into the labs. We'll hear back from him with the test results in 8-10 days. ;D
Quote from: DavidW on October 06, 2007, 07:42:28 PM
Josquin sold his personal centrifuge awhile back, he's going to have send this one into the labs. We'll hear back from him with the test results in 8-10 days. ;D
:D
Mobile lab, I presume!! ;D
It just so happens that Yehudi Menuhin wrote a book.
I recommend you all to read it!
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on October 06, 2007, 05:50:44 AM
Is this some sad attempt at censorship?...
Not at all! I was merely suggesting that some of the posts might be better moved to a new thread. But on second thought, they fit well enough here.
When Romantic composers and theorists talk about "masculine" and "feminine" elements in great symphonies; when Fanny Mendelssohn could write a trio that's as great as anything her brother Felix ever wrote; when Nadia Boulanger taught many 20th-century composers their craft; when Evelyn Glennie, deaf from birth, can play percussion parts that blow the audience into the back wall--I think we can safely opine that you don't need an overbalance of testosterone to understand music. But let's propose an experiment. Let's take a great woman musician and put her in a head-to-head competition with men. Will she win?
Fortunately for us, the experiment has been done again and again, every time a woman is accepted into a major orchestra or wins a competition. :D
Quote from: jochanaan on October 08, 2007, 10:00:12 PM
Fortunately for us, the experiment has been done again and again, every time a woman is accepted into a major orchestra or wins a competition. :D
This is good news for today but does not undo the mischief of the past. Because concert promoters were for the most part men, works like Clara Wieck's Piano Concerto have become rarely heard and unknown to the general public, even though quite worthy to stand alongside those by Chopin. The point of this to this thread is that to understand music it is best not to rely too much on Groves, which sadly is still laced with Chauvinism. I'm sure that these prejudices extend to other areas.
Exhibit C: Louise Farrenc symphonies
Quote from: Ten thumbs on October 09, 2007, 03:35:33 AM
This is good news for today but does not undo the mischief of the past. Because concert promoters were for the most part men, works like Clara Wieck's Piano Concerto have become rarely heard and unknown to the general public, even though quite worthy to stand alongside those by Chopin. The point of this to this thread is that to understand music it is best not to rely too much on Groves, which sadly is still laced with Chauvinism. I'm sure that these prejudices extend to other areas.
Charles Rosen has an interesting line on this which I'm sure you are familiar with. He says the tragedy is
not that Clara Schumann, Fanny Mendelssohn (etc.) wrote music as good as their male counterparts but ignored by a male-oriented concert world; quite frankly, Rosen suggests, their music
isn't quite as good as Robert Schumann's and Felix Mendelssohn's (etc.) (and on the fairly small amount of evidence I've seen, and comparing like with like, I'd tend to agree with him), and the
real tragedy is that the social conditions of the time didn't allow them to fulfill the great potential which maybe would have made equally good.
This is a paraphrase; I'll have to look out the exact quotation.
Quote from: lukeottevanger on October 09, 2007, 02:34:25 PM
...the real tragedy is that the social conditions of the time didn't allow them to fulfill the great potential which maybe would have made equally good.
...and if I had a different social condition I would be equally as good as Wagner. Damn historical materialism!
Women understand music as well as men, when listening to it. Maybe. However, men create better music. And here again I've stumbled upon the "greatness in music" train of thought. It's just that all my cds are from male composers. Though, without women, opera wouldn't exist.
A woman nourishes an infant like a man does his art. Obviously women artists find time for both, but there are not many of them. There are beginning to be more female artists and scholars. This is a bit off topic, but my psychology classes are dominated my females. In one of them, there are 44 females and 11 males. It would be hard to concentrate if the research wasn't boring.
Quote from: EmpNapoleon on October 09, 2007, 02:56:35 PM
...Women understand music as well as men, when listening to it. Maybe. However, men create better music.
Uh, how do you know for sure? I don't. It's safe to say that neither of us has heard all the lost works by women (or men, for that matter), or all the works that women might have composed if they had been encouraged to.
Quote from: jochanaan on October 09, 2007, 04:36:35 PM
Uh, how do you know for sure? I don't. It's safe to say that neither of us has heard all the lost works by women (or men, for that matter), or all the works that women might have composed if they had been encouraged to.
I don't know for sure. But what you say is like saying the following: "How do you know Michael Jordan is the best basketball player ever? What about the lost Africans and inner city kids who were never encouraged to play basketball, or never had the resources?"
Quote from: lukeottevanger on October 09, 2007, 02:34:25 PM
Charles Rosen has an interesting line on this which I'm sure you are familiar with. He says the tragedy is not that Clara Schumann, Fanny Mendelssohn (etc.) wrote music as good as their male counterparts but ignored by a male-oriented concert world; quite frankly, Rosen suggests, their music isn't quite as good as Robert Schumann's and Felix Mendelssohn's (etc.) (and on the fairly small amount of evidence I've seen, and comparing like with like, I'd tend to agree with him), and the real tragedy is that the social conditions of the time didn't allow them to fulfill the great potential which maybe would have made equally good.
This is a paraphrase; I'll have to look out the exact quotation.
See The Romantic Generation, 659-660. Rosen's point is that Clara Wieck was potentially a major talent, but Schumann discouraged her composing (as Mahler did with Alma), and Clara herself decided to renounce composing before her marriage. Brahms did nothing to encourage her either.
Quote from: longears on October 04, 2007, 05:14:02 AM
What the heck do y'all mean by "understanding music?" I can understand or recognize a piece's structure, how themes are interrelated and varied, and so on...but "understand music" I cannot do. I don't see music as rocket science or an instruction manual for programming your VCR DVD recorder iPhone.
Can those who understand so much better than I please explain what you mean by this?
Thanks!
This reminds me of a short film I saw at EMP in Seattle which was about some postmodern artist. I can't remember who it was but there was an exhibition of his there in Dec 2006 (I think) if that helps. Anyway this film had various people looks into the camera, which was meant to be a hypothetical painting. They said all sorts of different things from "looks cool" to more technical stuff by an art history professor or whoever. The bottom line was (when the curator of some museum came out) that every one of those people understood the painting & nothing they said was incorrect. When I say I don't understand modern music or art I've found that what I really mean is I have no
appreciation for it. Once I find out what school the artist is from & what the artist was getting at when they created it I appreciate it more. & then i say I understand it. :P I guess it's the same sort of thing as with other stuff like poetry & music. I didn't like poetry much until I had an english instructor who gave background on the stuff we were studying & then I finally appreciated (understood) poetry. (but I still don't want to be a poet)
Quote from: lukeottevanger on October 09, 2007, 02:34:25 PM
Charles Rosen has an interesting line on this which I'm sure you are familiar with. He says the tragedy is not that Clara Schumann, Fanny Mendelssohn (etc.) wrote music as good as their male counterparts but ignored by a male-oriented concert world; quite frankly, Rosen suggests, their music isn't quite as good as Robert Schumann's and Felix Mendelssohn's (etc.) (and on the fairly small amount of evidence I've seen, and comparing like with like, I'd tend to agree with him), and the real tragedy is that the social conditions of the time didn't allow them to fulfill the great potential which maybe would have made equally good.
Fanny could not keep pace with her brother because she was confined to home and not able to develop through mixing with the outside musical fraternity. There was absolutely no point in her attempting a symphony. On the other hand she was able to concentrate on salon music, e.g lieder and piano music. Felix believed her lieder were better than his and he wasn't joking when he opined that they are the most beautiful that anyone on Earth could make - in fact he avoided competing with her in that area.
Quote from: Larry Rinkel on October 09, 2007, 05:51:46 PM
See The Romantic Generation, 659-660. Rosen's point is that Clara Wieck was potentially a major talent, but Schumann discouraged her composing (as Mahler did with Alma), and Clara herself decided to renounce composing before her marriage. Brahms did nothing to encourage her either.
Exactly; as circumstance were, we are not in any position to make a sober comparison.
The position that Fanny and Clara were or would have been as great as or greater than, is at best speculative, at less-than-best, a faith-based initiative 8)
Quote from: Ten thumbs on October 10, 2007, 03:35:29 AM
Felix believed her lieder were better than his and he wasn't joking when he opined that they are the most beautiful that anyone on Earth could make - in fact he avoided competing with her in that area.
But he didn't
really, if one considers the
Lieder ohne Worte ;)
Mathilde Scheonberg's 10-tone system would have flourished if she was encouraged.
What about this? http://www.cbc.ca/arts/story/2006/04/24/bach-wife.html
Quote from: karlhenning on October 10, 2007, 05:17:48 AM
But he didn't really, if one considers the Lieder ohne Worte ;)
Some of which may have been by Fanny. In any case these pieces lack the power one finds in her own solo 'lied'.
Quote from: EmpNapoleon on October 10, 2007, 05:40:25 AM
Mathilde Scheonberg's 10-tone system would have flourished if she was encouraged.
Beauty!
:-)
Quote from: karlhenning on October 10, 2007, 05:14:59 AM
Exactly; as circumstance were, we are not in any position to make a sober comparison.
The position that Fanny and Clara were or would have been as great as or greater than, is at best speculative, at less-than-best, a faith-based initiative 8)
Probably true. Of course, The Women's Philharmonic was also a faith-based initiative. :D
Has anyone heard Louise Farrenc's symphonies? I confess that I haven't...
Quote from: jochanaan on October 10, 2007, 08:44:17 AM
Probably true. Of course, The Women's Philharmonic was also a faith-based initiative. :D
Sure! And since one's energies are not an unlimited resource, I prefer to act in faith on living artists/performers than on speculation regarding the deceased . . . .
Quote from: karlhenning on October 10, 2007, 09:26:10 AM
Sure! And since one's energies are not an unlimited resource, I prefer to act in faith on living artists/performers than on speculation regarding the deceased . . . .
Indeed, why speculate when we can hear and enjoy what exists? Incidentally Rosen is a man, so he can hardly be said to be objective.
One useful key to understanding music is the ability to recognize musical styles. Sometimes, Haydn can sound similar to Mozart but it is useful to avoid the mistake of guessing that a Mozart symphony is by Tchaikowski. Believe me, it has happened!
Quote from: Ten thumbs on October 10, 2007, 10:09:34 AM
Incidentally Rosen is a man, so he can hardly be said to be objective.
Well since anyone discussing the topic is either a man or a woman, I guess we abandon all hope of objectivity, eh?
Quote from: Ten thumbs on October 10, 2007, 10:09:34 AM
Incidentally Rosen is a man, so he can hardly be said to be objective.
To give us a better sense of your own objectivity, are you male or female?
Point Larry.
Quote from: karlhenning on October 10, 2007, 10:31:58 AM
Point Larry.
Indeed I confess to being male, an attribute that does not apply to music. I just like uncompromisingly dissonant music. I like music with flair and invention combined with beautiful melody. I like genius.
Quote from: Ten thumbs on October 10, 2007, 12:10:15 PM
Indeed I confess to being male, an attribute that does not apply to music. I just like uncompromisingly dissonant music. I like music with flair and invention combined with beautiful melody. I like genius.
Joan Tower? ;D
Quote from: Larry Rinkel on October 09, 2007, 05:51:46 PM
See The Romantic Generation, 659-660. Rosen's point is that Clara Wieck was potentially a major talent, but Schumann discouraged her composing (as Mahler did with Alma), and Clara herself decided to renounce composing before her marriage. Brahms did nothing to encourage her either.
True, lost potential cannot be created. There are some myths in the above that need clarification. Clara continued publishing until around 1850, long after her marriage. Robert discouraged her playing because it disturbed his own creativity. She gave up composing because she had a home and family to support and the only way she could do this was through her concert career, which was very time consuming when one considers travelling conditions in those times. However, her small oevre deserves a place in your collections and her Piano Concerto is no worse than Chopin's, in spite of being written in her teens.
Quote from: Ten thumbs on October 11, 2007, 07:39:35 AM
and her Piano Concerto is no worse than Chopin's, in spite of being written in her teens.
What's wrong with Chopin's piano concertos???
Quote from: EmpNapoleon on October 11, 2007, 08:07:28 AM
What's wrong with Chopin's piano concertos???
Lousy orchestration, too piano-oriented.
Quote from: Bonehelm on October 11, 2007, 09:14:37 AM
Lousy orchestration, too piano-oriented.
Yes, just like that mediocrity,
Mozart.
Quote from: jochanaan on October 10, 2007, 01:57:38 PM
Joan Tower? ;D
Very interesting but as a pianist, maybe Rakhmaninov instead. We seem to be a bit off topic except that someone made the ludicrous suggestion that music was a male thing. It is interesting though that original, individual and ground-breaking music can become disregarded when its context is ignored.
Quote from: EmpNapoleon on October 11, 2007, 08:07:28 AM
What's wrong with Chopin's piano concertos???
Nothing much wrong with Clara's either - gorgeous slow movement.
Quote from: karlhenning on October 11, 2007, 10:04:37 AM
Yes, just like that mediocrity, Mozart.
Hah! Why thank you, Mr Henning. Much better than any response my slightly(?) sleep-deprived mind of the current moment could come up with, when I saw this comment earlier.
(And I do realise I am essentially dipping into this thread for a comment every few pages, but I have resolved not to take part in this argument unless I feel it necessary. And not due to considering myself above it; quite the contrary. ;))
Quote from: Bonehelm on October 11, 2007, 09:14:37 AM
Lousy orchestration, too piano-oriented.
Chopin's a "piano man" so I expect a concerto from him to be dominated by his favorite instrument. FWIW, I find his orchestration good enough and even appealing in many spots.
I just heard Chopin #2 last night and it bored me to tears. Orchestral muzak by the numbers for expected filler. I don't blame Chopin for the mushy piano--pedal to the metal all the way--Ingrid Fliter did not favorably impress.
On the other hand, Luca Francesconi's Cobalt, Scarlet: Two Colors of Dawn was terrific: polyrhythmic color that wouldn't quit. Did I understand it? Does a penguin understand the sunset?
Quote from: karlhenning on October 11, 2007, 10:04:37 AM
Yes, just like that mediocrity, Mozart.
Bravissimo, maestro Karl!
Quote from: longears on October 11, 2007, 07:40:52 PM
I just heard Chopin #2 last night and it bored me to tears. Orchestral muzak by the numbers for expected filler. I don't blame Chopin for the mushy piano--pedal to the metal all the way--Ingrid Fliter did not favorably impress.
It looks as though you did understand this because Chopin needs light pedalling on the modern piano.
Quote from: jochanaan on October 08, 2007, 10:00:12 PM
When Romantic composers and theorists talk about "masculine" and "feminine" elements in great symphonies; when Fanny Mendelssohn could write a trio that's as great as anything her brother Felix ever wrote; when Nadia Boulanger taught many 20th-century composers their craft; when Evelyn Glennie, deaf from birth, can play percussion parts that blow the audience into the back wall--I think we can safely opine that you don't need an overbalance of testosterone to understand music. But let's propose an experiment. Let's take a great woman musician and put her in a head-to-head competition with men. Will she win?
Fortunately for us, the experiment has been done again and again, every time a woman is accepted into a major orchestra or wins a competition. :D
Good point about competitions. I tried jogging my memory about who was winning the Artur Rubinstein piano competitions over the past 30 years. While women were well represented, it was the guys who got the highest prizes as a rule. And they went on to make international careers. This is borne out according to one list online but it is not always clear from the names if they are masculine or feminine.
But not only in music composition but in art and architecture, men are prominent for whatever reason. There has never been an woman artist on the level of a Michelanagelo or composer on the level as Bach. While the need to care for children might have prevented women back then (although many, if not most, rich ladies had servants and nursemaids), I strongly suspect that the quality of the masculine creative impulse has something to do with it.
Now that the dust is settling on some of the sillier claims of feminism, i.e., men and women being allegedly the same in every way, I'll continue to be politically incorrect. (Some women do have courage to speak out and be different.)
ZB
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on October 12, 2007, 11:03:02 PM
But not only in music composition but in art and architecture, men are prominent for whatever reason. There has never been an woman artist on the level of a Michelanagelo or composer on the level as Bach. While the need to care for children might have prevented women back then (although many, if not most, rich ladies had servants and nursemaids), I strongly suspect that the quality of the masculine creative impulse has something to do with it.
ZB
There is also the question of who is the arbitor of fashion. As I noted elsewhere, Berthe Morissot was just as central and important to the Impressionist movement as, say, Renoir, but men have decreed that she is not today a household name.
Fanny Mendelssohn was a very feminine person and her creative impulse never ceased. She was undoubtedly very well off but her husband, as an artist, had no interest in domestic affairs. It was she who ran the household, managed the estate and saw to the education of her son. On top of that, she organised her in-house concerts, obtaining the necessary scores, artists etc., practised the piano for hours, rehearsed her choir for those concerts, conducted when required and undertook the endless correspondence that kept her informed of musical developments across Europe. All this in spite of suffering from the chronic hyper-tension that ultimately killed her - including several miscarriages, severe nosebleeds and attacks of dizziness. So leaving around 450 pieces of music to posterity is something of a miracle.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on October 12, 2007, 11:03:02 PM
...While the need to care for children might have prevented women back then (although many, if not most, rich ladies had servants and nursemaids), I strongly suspect that the quality of the masculine creative impulse has something to do with it...
That's very possible. And of course I wouldn't want to claim that women are "equal" or even equivalent to men in every way.
Vive la différence! ;D But of course, the quality of one's impulses does not equal the quality of understanding--the real topic of this thread. :)
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on October 12, 2007, 11:03:02 PM
But not only in music composition but in art and architecture, men are prominent for whatever reason. There has never been an woman artist on the level of a Michelanagelo or composer on the level as Bach. While the need to care for children might have prevented women back then (although many, if not most, rich ladies had servants and nursemaids), I strongly suspect that the quality of the masculine creative impulse has something to do with it.
In an interesting twist on this idea, the psychoanalyst Karen Horney suggested that the creative impulse in men was the result of their attempts to compensate for their lesser role in the creation of life. FWIW.
Quote from: Shrunk on October 13, 2007, 06:03:48 PM
In an interesting twist on this idea, the psychoanalyst Karen Horney suggested that the creative impulse in men was the result of their attempts to compensate for their lesser role in the creation of life. FWIW.
She wasn't the first to suggest it. This is exactly what I had in mind. Also arbiters of fashion have something to with it as well.
Impressionism is a softer approach to art,
n'est-ce pas?
ZB
Quote from: Shrunk on October 13, 2007, 06:03:48 PM
In an interesting twist on this idea, the psychoanalyst Karen Horney suggested that the creative impulse in men was the result of their attempts to compensate for their lesser role in the creation of life.
Certainly a different role, but lesser? Must have been wacky tabaccy in that old cigar of Freud's she was smoking.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on October 13, 2007, 09:56:39 PM
Impressionism is a softer approach to art, n'est-ce pas?
ZB
Softer than what?
Interestingly, Fanny was affected by the myth that losing her virginity might detract from her creativity. Thankfully, it did not, and thankfully there is nothing soft about her music. She was of course renowned for her interpretation of Beethoven and not because she played him softly!
Quote from: longears on October 14, 2007, 05:21:49 AM
Certainly a different role, but lesser? Must have been wacky tabaccy in that old cigar of Freud's she was smoking.
Well, women carry the child for nine months, go thru labour and delivery, can provide the infant its sole source of nourishment for several months, and even today are generally more involved in the raising and direct care. That seems to me to be a greater role than the male generally has. You may disagree.
Quote from: Shrunk on October 14, 2007, 03:10:29 PM
Well, women carry the child for nine months, go thru labour and delivery, can provide the infant its sole source of nourishment for several months, and even today are generally more involved in the raising and direct care. That seems to me to be a greater role than the male generally has. You may disagree.
Didn't you know? Man-seed is pure Ambrosia.
Quote from: Shrunk on October 14, 2007, 03:10:29 PM
Well, women carry the child for nine months, go thru labour and delivery, can provide the infant its sole source of nourishment for several months, and even today are generally more involved in the raising and direct care. That seems to me to be a greater role than the male generally has. You may disagree.
Ah! so this is why women have had less time to compose. Post-natal depression must be their creative impulses hitting back. That and housework, of course. Bring me my slippers.
Quote from: longears on October 04, 2007, 05:14:02 AM
What the heck do y'all mean by "understanding music?"
Maybe it's like Dead Poets Society :-\
"Understanding Music", by Dr A Hurwitz-Lebrecht, PhD. To fully understand music, we must first be fluent with its meter, rhythm, and thematic structure. Then ask two questions: One, how artfully has the objective of the music been rendered; and two, how important is that objective. Question one rates the music's perfection; question two rates its importance. And once these questions have been answered, determining a music's greatness becomes a relatively simple matter...
::) ;)
*gets up from desk and draws on chalkboard*
Nice ground shifting. Have you considered a career in politics or public relations? Or as a trial lawyer?
I am not very good at being humorous :( Maybe I should change my log-in to B_uncereus.
Quote from: B_cereus on October 16, 2007, 01:32:49 AM
I am not very good at being humorous :( Maybe I should change my log-in to B_uncereus.
I thought you were humorous. I loved the idea of a calculus to "objectively" measure quality in music. And I recall a once prolific poster here who presented the idea in all earnestness! That was hilarious--though he, tragically lacking a sense of humor, failed to see what was funny about it.
I, too, was being humorous. I thought you did a great job of shifting the ground from "understanding music" to "determining a music's greatness," and could easily envision those dull enough to think you were serious arguing among themselves about how much weight should be given to various elements of music that they fail to notice the change in goal!
Alas, with Nigel gone there are but 3 or 4 left who get my wit.... :'(
I got the chuckle.
National anthems are important. That's why they are so great. ;)
(http://www.nikwheeler.com/gallery_images/children/raise_hand.jpg)
So, is this like, going to be on the test?
Man, is that from a "pre-quel" to The Wonder Years?
Throughout the years I have used classical music as much as possible in my foreign language classes.
Students (ages 14-17) have asked in all seriousness e.g. "Why's it get real soft and then real loud?" "Why's it speed up and slow down?" etc.
It is difficult to answer these questions, which are not really rudimentary in one sense: why in fact does Composer X decide to play something softer or faster at bar 110?!
My usual response was: for whatever reason, the composer felt that the music led him to a point where it needed to be proclaimed, or to be whispered, or to be played by a clarinet instead of an English horn, and when he heard it that way in his mind, he received a sense of completion, of "rightness," and so the work becomes soft or loud, etc. at those spots.
One student once asked: "What do you mean 'the music led him' ? How can the music lead the composer when he's doing the composing?"
My response was to give an analogy from literature: a great writer resembles God, in that he creates characters and gives them free will to interact and create a story. Hack writers give their characters little or no free will, because they have a preset formula they are following, or because it's just easier to avoid the complexities of literature, when all you are trying to do is entertain a brain being fried on the beach or under a hair dryer at the beauty parlor.
In the same way, a great composer creates "music with free will," and it will flow in a certain direction, if he allows it to do so. Lesser composers - in general - follow preset formulas, or do not realize that they have less than proper material to express what they want.
Schoenberg famously criticized his own tone-poem Pelleas und Melisande for having "weak material" at some points, but went ahead and tried to make the best of it. That could indeed explain the struggling frustration which the entire work exhibits.
And on "preset formulas" Bruckner supposedly told his students to follow the rules in his classroom. But if they came back after graduation and showed him a work that was still following all the rules he would chase them away! $:)
Quote from: Cato on October 18, 2007, 09:32:51 AM
My response was to give an analogy from literature: a great writer resembles God, in that he creates characters and gives them free will to interact and create a story. Hack writers give their characters little or no free will, because they have a preset formula they are following, or because it's just easier to avoid the complexities of literature, when all you are trying to do is entertain a brain being fried on the beach or under a hair dryer at the beauty parlor.
I hate when characters just want to sit on the sofa and smoke cigarettes.
I'm trying to figure out how imaginary people can have a free will. They're not even people at all. They don't have brains, or any kind of nervous system. Words on a page don't have brains. They're not people. They're not animals of any sort. What kind of will do they ... wait a minute, there's not even a "they" to talk about. I don't even know how to ask. I don't even know what I would be asking about.
Quote from: JoshLilly on October 18, 2007, 10:43:34 AM
I'm trying to figure out how imaginary people can have a free will. They're not even people at all. They don't have brains, or any kind of nervous system. Words on a page don't have brains. They're not people. They're not animals of any sort. What kind of will do they ... wait a minute, there's not even a "they" to talk about. I don't even know how to ask. I don't even know what I would be asking about.
Very good, grasshopper! 0:)
The character has a certain personality, and following the character's background, situation, personality, etc. the author will know what the character will choose to do or say or whatever, because ultimately of course it is the author's free will which is creating the story. The great author in a sense has multiple personalities, which he freely latches onto and releases, as opposed to the clinically insane person where the personalities latch onto the person!
The hack writer has cardboard cutouts for people who go through a marionette play.
Soundsponge wrote:
QuoteI hate when characters just want to sit on the sofa and smoke cigarettes.
Sometimes a sign that the author is waiting for his character to decide what to do!
Or a sign that he is paid by the word! 0:)
Quote from: Cato on October 18, 2007, 11:07:39 AM
Soundsponge wrote:
Sometimes a sign that the author is waiting for his character to decide what to do!
Or a sign that he is paid by the word! 0:)
Or the author didn't have a good idea to begin with.
Quote from: JoshLilly on October 18, 2007, 10:43:34 AM
I'm trying to figure out how imaginary people can have a free will. They're not even people at all. They don't have brains, or any kind of nervous system. Words on a page don't have brains. They're not people. They're not animals of any sort. What kind of will do they ... wait a minute, there's not even a "they" to talk about. I don't even know how to ask. I don't even know what I would be asking about.
Quote from: Cato on October 18, 2007, 11:07:39 AM
...The character has a certain personality, and following the character's background, situation, personality, etc. the author will know what the character will choose to do or say or whatever, because ultimately of course it is the author's free will which is creating the story. The great author in a sense has multiple personalities, which he freely latches onto and releases, as opposed to the clinically insane person where the personalities latch onto the person!
The hack writer has cardboard cutouts for people who go through a marionette play.
Have you guys done much creative writing? Because I have, and I can verify that sometimes a character we create does things that surprise his/her creator. That's because much of the creative process happens "under the radar" of our conscious minds.
The nonexistent "character" didn't do anything, surprising or otherwise. There is no physical body with which to do things. It means you did (or wrote) something to surprise yourself. Which is kinda creepy. Stay away from my dog.
Not doing anything is one reflection of the real world.
Quote from: jochanaan on October 18, 2007, 12:08:25 PM
Have you guys done much creative writing? Because I have, and I can verify that sometimes a character we create does things that surprise his/her creator. That's because much of the creative process happens "under the radar" of our conscious minds.
Quite right!
And the same is true therefore of the composer: the themes, motifs, etc. which intrigue him at the beginning may intertwine and develop along the possibilities of their own musical DNA, ignoring perhaps what the composer had initially intended.
JoshLilly: What if your dog wants to trot over and visit us? Would you stifle your dog's free will?! 0:)
Quote from: sound sponge on October 18, 2007, 09:46:06 AM
I hate when characters just want to sit on the sofa and smoke cigarettes.
And yet that describes one of my favorite short stories by Salinger!
Quote from: JoshLilly on October 18, 2007, 10:43:34 AM
I'm trying to figure out how imaginary people can have a free will.
The writer creates a character who is a certain sort of person with a set of values and skills and character traits, etc., and puts her into conflict...then sits back and sees what happens. A literary character has exactly the same "freedom of will" as most people, whose choices are rarely free but mostly determined by circumstances of class, character, experience, conforming to expectations, etc. Perhaps our only real freedom is in striving for enlightenment to choose our own values and principles which henceforth determine our choices...?
I like these analogies of literature and music. Riffs in fiction and poetry--heck, even essay--are very similar to jazz improvisation, letting imagination roam within certain constraints and seeing where it takes you. And I imagine that's very similar to the process of musical composition, say, in developing a theme or discovering various ways you can fit together a jigsaw of motifs.
Quote from: Florestan on October 05, 2007, 12:05:40 AM
No. I have zero, none, nil formal music education, I don't play any instrument and I can't read a score. The only thing I do is listening to music. And enjoying it.
Ah, Florestan,
On this, at least, we certainly agree and have it all in common.
Quote from: Feanor on October 21, 2007, 12:14:09 PM
Ah, Florestan,
On this, at least, we certainly agree and have it all in common.
Not only this: I love Schubert too, brother! :)
As a creative writer myself, I have found it it not so much a sense of free will in my characters that drives a storyline away from that originally intended but a kind of inner logic in the situation that I had not originally seen. I confess to always keeping myself open to these insights. In the same way thematic material contains germs that may force themselves on the composers attention leading to new avenues of development or restatement. Structural integrity is in my view the grounding of great music so any freedom needs to be more apparant than real.
Quote from: JoshLilly on October 18, 2007, 12:10:55 PM
The nonexistent "character" didn't do anything, surprising or otherwise. There is no physical body with which to do things. It means you did (or wrote) something to surprise yourself. Which is kinda creepy. Stay away from my dog.
But we creative types spend much time in the kingdom of Imagination, which is nearly as real to us as the "real" world. We know the difference; we just refuse to judge the kingdom as less "real" because it only exists in our minds and our readers'.
Your dog is in no danger from me. In the Kingdom of Imagination someone might do many things to him/her; in the real world, very few of us creative types eat dog. ;D
Perhaps the kind of deep musical understanding we seem to be avoiding discussing requires a willingness to enter into a composer's Kingdom of Imagination.
Quote from: jochanaan on October 24, 2007, 03:41:00 PM
Your dog is in no danger from me. In the Kingdom of Imagination someone might do many things to him/her; in the real world, very few of us creative types eat dog. ;D
Though some here have been known to put dog on 8)