Inattentive listening (again)

[prémont]

Then you must be the only GMG-er who doesn't know I'm an avowed and unabashed Romantic/romantic.

Yes of course I know, but I'm not blaming you for it as long as you don't claim it applies to me too.

[Florestan]

Yes of course I know, but I'm not blaming you for it as long as you don't claim it applies to me too.

I don't know anymore. It's 01:57 AM here in Romania and I've had 4 beers and a bottle of wine. Please remind me, what did I claim? 

[prémont]

I don't know anymore. It's 01:57 AM here in Romania and I've had 4 beers and a bottle of wine. Please remind me, what did I claim? 

I also need to hit the hay soon. Have a good night.

[ChopinBroccoli]

Do you really think he wrote them for any other purpose, like for instance for them to be listened to by atheists, for purely aesthetic pleasure, in the privacy of their homes?

The real question I have is why anyone gives a sh*t about any of this in the first place. 

[Marc]

I proposed nothing. I clearly stated ""it would be".

Of course. My point is, though, that we do not have, nor can we make, a recording of, say, Mozart playing his C-minor Concerto.

The original sound is very easy to recover. Use period instruments, period. (pun)

Yes, precisely. That is the crux of the matter. The original meaning/background is forever lost to us. See below.

But, good God, that's exactly the audience Bach wrote his sacred cantatas for: 18th century devout, Sunday-church-going Lutherans. Do you really think he wrote them for any other purpose, like for instance for them to be listened to by atheists, for purely aesthetic pleasure, in the privacy of their homes?

It's a bit difficult for me to understand much of this as a reaction to my post. Maybe my knowledge of the English language is not good enough. I do apologize for that.

Still, about the meaning or the background: it's not forever lost to us. We still have written sources and history books, so we can try to understand it. And try to adopt the intended meaning by using period instruments, and try to express more of the original musical language Affekt/effect/diction et cetera and, who knows, then the modern listener might experience something of that meaning. And, who knows, maybe then the listener gets a better and/or more satisfying understanding of the music.
As Ton Koopman once said (when talking about Bach and the historically informed practice): we will remain pupils for ever. We can only secretly hope for a pat on the back from the master himself.

For the rest: I don't feel like debating about HIP for the 18.436th time with someone who clearly thinks differently about the subject. To me, it's not all that important. I only tried to explain what I think HIP is. That's all.

[Karl Henning]

When I listen to your St.John's passion, a work I really love, I always listen attentively. If I read something while listening, it is the score.

Hearty thanks!

[Marc]

Hearty thanks!

I bet you read that post attentively!

[Alek Hidell]

As many do, I listen sometimes attentively and sometimes less so. But I do have one almost inflexible rule: I don't want my first listen to a performance to be inattentive.

And some music never seems appropriate for "inattentive" listening: Mahler, for instance. Some often does, like a long piece by Feldman. Or Reich's Music for 18 Musicians.

But the word inattentive seems slightly imprecise to me. I often find, when listening this way, that once the music is over I've heard it more "attentively" than I thought I had. Feldman comes to mind again: I often think that many of his long pieces have a kind of organic quality to them, that they unfold at a natural, unforced pace, like respiration. And so having them in the "background" seems almost the preferable way to play them, and they insinuate themselves into the mind almost ... well, organically.

I can play some Baroque music like that, too. Lately I've been listening to a few different recordings of Bach's Cello Suites, and I've had them playing through my Amazon Echo speaker while I peruse this site. (Some may be appalled by my listening to them this way, but it works well for me. ) This is different music from Feldman, of course, but still it seems to fit right into the ambiance of the room - and my mind.

Needless to say, YMMV, and greatly. Also needless to say, it's all very subjective. But then all music listening is.

[amw]

I have a somewhat problematic brain that can't really concentrate when it tries to do only one thing at a time, so I'm usually most attentive to music when I'm listening to it while also doing something else (reading, listening to a podcast, etc). Inattentive listening, which is usually listening to music while having a conversation with another person—social mores require you to give your conversation partner your undivided attention—doesn't work as well for me, I usually want to then go back and listen to the music more attentively afterwards to catch up on whatever I missed.

I almost never listen to music while doing nothing else, except when I'm trying to get to sleep, because that helps unfocus my mind.

[Daverz]

I'm usually using my laptop when I'm in my listening chair, but I can only handle reading in snatches then.  I will put it aside when the music demands my full attention.  I could never read anything like a novel or nonfiction work that requires my full attention for a long period of time while music is playing.

[Florestan]

It's a bit difficult for me to understand much of this as a reaction to my post. Maybe my knowledge of the English language is not good enough. I do apologize for that.

No, it's my fault. I wasn't exactly sober when I posted. 

I don't feel like debating about HIP for the 18.436th time with someone who clearly thinks differently about the subject. T

I don't either. You won't hear anything more from me on the issue. 

[vandermolen]

Well, I'm kinda in the center in this 'argument', because I'm fine with people who listen to good music as background. During university years, I knew this kind girl who loved Mozart piano concertos, especially because it made her concentrate better whilst reading her books and study material. How could I condemn that?
To me, there just are no rules in hearing/listening/experiencing music. I also know people who meditate on classical music. Others use it to fall asleep. And some listen to it with the score on their lap. Others dance in their own room, both on fast and slow movements. As I said before: all fine to me.

I've done it all, too. But studying whilst listening to music that I really like: that was too difficult for me. I got distracted by the music. So I went to the library. (This was all long before the mobile phone and mp3 area... even headphones were not allowed in those days.)
But at my work, I sometimes put headphones on with good music. No other noise from outside, and then it can work really well.

This is similar to my view (although sadly I never knew a kind girl who liked Mozart piano concertos  ). I have classical music on a lot of the time at home (or at least until my wife switches it off  ). I don't, however, like listening to classical music if I'm travelling except if I'm in the car. Every May/June I mark (grade) examination papers. I find that I can concentrate better if I have music on in the background. Sometimes I will stop and listen attentively and then go back to my work. Maybe this sounds reprehensible but it's how I work. Of course I can't have Shostakovich or anything 'crash-bang-wallop' on as it's too distracting but some gentle music by Finzi for example works well. Of course, at other times I listen attentively to Finzi - a composer whose music I love. The other day, following the recommendation by Relm1 I was listening to Ragnar Soderind's 8th Symphony on You Tube whilst working or reading but I became increasingly hooked by the Symphony and for the last few minutes I attended to the symphony and nothing else. Paradoxically, if I'm away on holiday I tend not to listen to classical music.

[Elgarian Redux]

To me, there just are no rules in hearing/listening/experiencing music.

Astonishing that this needs saying, perhaps, but surely self-evident.

I've done it all, too.

So have I, and so, I expect, we shall continue to do, according to circumstance, intent, whim, or desire for experiment. I once listened to the finale of Elgar's Caractacus on headphones, at the top of the Herefordshire Beacon (the place that inspired the music) at sunset. I was attending as much to the extraordinary changing light, the landscape, the feel of the wind, as I was to the music, so in that sense I was listening inattentively. In another (in the true sense, according to my own lights) I was listening profoundly.

[Jo498]

Classical music was written with a host of different goals in mind. And it was used in practice for very different occasions. The idea that it typically was background music is therefore at least as misleading as the one that it was listened to in rapt attention. Even the music apparently written for royal suppers was at least partly played as divertissement between the courses of the meal, so it would not have been pure background music. As all music was played live and it was impossible to simply have a radio blaring in the background, even "background music" would have been different in the 18th century from the way it is perceived today.

Bach's inventions were written for teaching (or for others improving themselves in keyboard playing and composition). So absolutely not background music but neither mainly for rapt attentive listening. The teacher would have listened attentively but not like a modern connoiseur...

A lot of keyboard and chamber music was written for the pleasure of the players themselves and maybe a private audience and on such occasion there would again have been a spectum of (in)attention. Or take ceremonial and liturgical music. It is certainly not merely background music but an important part of some celebration or church service but it still serves a function within a larger framework and does not get the main attention like in a modern concert.

[prémont]

To me, there just are no rules in hearing/listening/experiencing music.

I just read this post a bit inattentively in the first hand, so excuse the late reaction.

To me, there are some rules in listening to music, rules I obey myself. But this does not imply, that I think others should do similarly. Each to his/her own.

[Cato]

I have a somewhat problematic brain that can't really concentrate when it tries to do only one thing at a time, so I'm usually most attentive to music when I'm listening to it while also doing something else (reading, listening to a podcast, etc). Inattentive listening, which is usually listening to music while having a conversation with another person—social mores require you to give your conversation partner your undivided attention—doesn't work as well for me, I usually want to then go back and listen to the music more attentively afterwards to catch up on whatever I missed.

I almost never listen to music while doing nothing else, except when I'm trying to get to sleep, because that helps unfocus my mind.

Well, that first line is interesting because...apparently "multi-tasking" is impossible.  We really cannot do two things at once, let alone 3 or more.  What happens is that the brain simply switches its concentration from one thing to another quickly.  The psychologists/brain researchers claim this is inefficient:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/creativity-without-borders/201405/the-myth-multitasking

If true, this means that listening to music while driving a car - which I do all the time, as it is the only pleasure in driving around a city with over a million residents* - can be dangerous!  I think, however, that after years of driving the unconscious kicks in for that task, which has become "rote," and we do not necessarily need to "concentrate" per se on driving.

* When we first lived in Ohio's capital 40 years ago, it had 300,000 people and was considered a "cow town."  "Cow-lumbus" was a joke.  Now we have refugees from Illinois, California, and East Coast states moving here!

[Florestan]

To me, there are some rules in listening to music, rules I obey myself.

That's interesting. What are those rules? Have you always had them, or are they a product of your listening experience over the years?

[Wakefield]

As Ton Koopman once said (when talking about Bach and the historically informed practice): we will remain pupils forever. We can only secretly hope for a pat on the back from the master himself.

This quote is a good brief of a conflict of visions that one time and again appears on this board, and more generically in hermeneutics. Composer's intentions as a terminus a quo (a starting point, a beginning) or as a terminus ad quem (an end, a goal).

That said, I totally agree with you on this issue. 

[San Antone]

I came across this recently from Sviatoslav Richter:

Richter explained his approach to performance as follows: "The interpreter is really an executant, carrying out the composer's intentions to the letter. He doesn't add anything that isn't already in the work. If he is talented, he allows us to glimpse the truth of the work that is in itself a thing of genius and that is reflected in him. He shouldn't dominate the music, but should dissolve into it."

Not sure how this relates to the topic of the tread, but it was called to mind in the wake of recent comments concerning HIP and the performer's role.  I suppose the rub is how do we determine the composer's intentions, especially if we are separated by centuries from him.

[Wakefield]

I came across this recently from Sviatoslav Richter:

Richter explained his approach to performance as follows: "The interpreter is really an executant, carrying out the composer's intentions to the letter. He doesn't add anything that isn't already in the work. If he is talented, he allows us to glimpse the truth of the work that is in itself a thing of genius and that is reflected in him. He shouldn't dominate the music, but should dissolve into it."

Not sure how this relates to the topic of the tread, but it was called to mind in the wake of recent comments concerning HIP and the performer's role.  I suppose the rub is how do we determine the composer's intentions, especially if we are separated by centuries from him.

"He shouldn't dominate the music, but should dissolve into it." It's wonderfully insightful, no doubt.