Elgar's Hillside

[Elgarian Redux]

What does less intensely mean in this context? Do you mean you listen to music more as background "noise" while doing other things?

Well, you've made me think more carefully about what I mean.

Yes, I do often listen to music while I'm reading a novel, say. I'm enjoying the music, and very aware of it, but not uniquely attending to it. I don't merely regard it as 'background' music - I'm more involved with it than that. I nearly always do this with music I know very well, so I know where it's going, and if I miss a bit, I can pick it up again easily. I admit that this sounds like a ludicrously complicated way of describing a largely automatic process that I haven't especially thought about. Florestan coined a nice expression for it: 'inattentive listening', and I found the concept very helpful. The point is that it occurs at a level above merely hearing.

For example, having listened to the Elgar violin concerto so many times over a lifetime, and in so many different performances, I don't necessarily find a need to listen intently for the windflower themes, etc, and identify the places where they occur, every time I play a CD. But I still feel them; or at least, it seems as if I do.

I'm trying to explain myself, but I'm not advocating any of this. It's just where I find myself, at present. Music is no less essential to me than it always was.

[Elgarian Redux]

Knowing is much more valuable than understanding .

And, while there is no contradiction between knowing and loving, doubt always looms when pairing love with understanding.

We could get very tangled up in semantics here, and the differently-nuanced meanings of 'knowing' and 'understanding, and that's not where I'd want to go. Perhaps I'm just differentiating between what I might broadly think of as left- and right- brain activity. But I don't see any difficulty about mingling love, knowledge, and understanding in general, when I approach any art form. Or any person, for that matter! I think I've mostly been especially rewarded if I manage to blend those approaches.

[Karl Henning]

Well, you've made me think more carefully about what I mean.

Yes, I do often listen to music while I'm reading a novel, say. I'm enjoying the music, and very aware of it, but not uniquely attending to it. I don't merely regard it as 'background' music - I'm more involved with it than that. I nearly always do this with music I know very well, so I know where it's going, and if I miss a bit, I can pick it up again easily. I admit that this sounds like a ludicrously complicated way of describing a largely automatic process that I haven't especially thought about. Florestan coined a nice expression for it: 'inattentive listening', and I found the concept very helpful. The point is that it occurs at a level above merely hearing.

For example, having listened to the Elgar violin concerto so many times over a lifetime, and in so many different performances, I don't necessarily find a need to listen intently for the windflower themes, etc, and identify the places where they occur, every time I play a CD. But I still feel them; or at least, it seems as if I do.

I'm trying to explain myself, but I'm not advocating any of this. It's just where I find myself, at present. Music is no less essential to me than it always was.

While you are not advocating, your method/experience is congruent with some of my own.

[Elgarian Redux]

While you are not advocating, your method/experience is congruent with some of my own.

I'm honoured by the congruence, my dear chap (while not actually advocating it of course....)

[lordlance]

We could get very tangled up in semantics here, and the differently-nuanced meanings of 'knowing' and 'understanding, and that's not where I'd want to go. Perhaps I'm just differentiating between what I might broadly think of as left- and right- brain activity. But I don't see any difficulty about mingling love, knowledge, and understanding in general, when I approach any art form. Or any person, for that matter! I think I've mostly been especially rewarded if I manage to blend those approaches.

Digging it up despite the comment but is the different cognizance vs deep comprehension? The former would be superficial, no? I'm cognizant that Nolan makes deliberately abstruse movies but if I can grasp what the heck the plot is important, no? 

[AnotherSpin]

Well, you've made me think more carefully about what I mean.

Yes, I do often listen to music while I'm reading a novel, say. I'm enjoying the music, and very aware of it, but not uniquely attending to it. I don't merely regard it as 'background' music - I'm more involved with it than that. I nearly always do this with music I know very well, so I know where it's going, and if I miss a bit, I can pick it up again easily. I admit that this sounds like a ludicrously complicated way of describing a largely automatic process that I haven't especially thought about. Florestan coined a nice expression for it: 'inattentive listening', and I found the concept very helpful. The point is that it occurs at a level above merely hearing.

For example, having listened to the Elgar violin concerto so many times over a lifetime, and in so many different performances, I don't necessarily find a need to listen intently for the windflower themes, etc, and identify the places where they occur, every time I play a CD. But I still feel them; or at least, it seems as if I do.

I'm trying to explain myself, but I'm not advocating any of this. It's just where I find myself, at present. Music is no less essential to me than it always was.

Inattentive listening. Fine. When we shift the focus of attention from the objects of the manifested world to the perceiving subject — ourselves — something profound happens. We stop fixating on individual things, cease understanding them separately, one by one, and instead enter a state of immediate awareness where we know everything at once, as a whole. We are this knowing. Such knowing surpasses understanding, for understanding grasps only one or a few things at a time, while knowing encompasses all.

This transition from analytical perception to holistic, intuitive knowing resembles the concept of non-duality or unity. In music, this can be applied by letting go of analysis and experiencing the music as a whole, allowing it to resonate within us. In this way, music ceases to be an object and becomes part of us, as if we are the sound itself .

[Elgarian Redux]

Inattentive listening. Fine. When we shift the focus of attention from the objects of the manifested world to the perceiving subject — ourselves — something profound happens. We stop fixating on individual things, cease understanding them separately, one by one, and instead enter a state of immediate awareness where we know everything at once, as a whole. We are this knowing. Such knowing surpasses understanding, for understanding grasps only one or a few things at a time, while knowing encompasses all.

This transition from analytical perception to holistic, intuitive knowing resembles the concept of non-duality or unity. In music, this can be applied by letting go of analysis and experiencing the music as a whole, allowing it to resonate within us. In this way, music ceases to be an object and becomes part of us, as if we are the sound itself .

I have only a small brain, so I'm not sure I entirely understand this whole issue, so let me try to be more specific.

1. A long time ago, I used to listen to Elgar's violin concerto with nothing but a love of Elgar's music to sustain me. It wasn't my favourite work, I knew nothing about the Windflower leitmotives, I knew nothing about Elgar's relationship with Alice Stuart Wortley.

2. Gradually I read more about Elgar, and began to appreciate that part of his inner working - part of his psyche - was related to various female muses. Dora Penny, for instance, but most notably Alice Stuart Wortley.

3. I read various accounts of how the violin concerto is constructed, how it relates to Alice Stuart Wortley (or more pertinently, whatever she symbolised, for Elgar) and that the two key windflower themes were intertwined in quite complex ways throughout the work.

4. Eventually I was able to listen to the violin concerto analytically, noting where the windflower themes occur, and how they relate to each other, and how the cadenza fits in.

5. Having done all this hard analytical work over the years, I now listen to the VC in a different way. I don't follow it thinking 'ah this is the first theme', or 'this is the second'. I've already done all that, analytically. I just let the music play, and, well, let the music happen. I'd describe this as a different, informed, way of listening that is less intense, but actually richer by virtue of deep familiarity.

I think what has happened is that I've approached it over the years in the way Blake would have advocated: the senses, the imagination, feeling, and reason have all been brought to bear on the music across the years, and the resulting experience is a rich combination of all four avenues. At least, that's what it feels like. So it becomes possible to listen with knowledge, with understanding, with love, and also revelling in the sheer sensual experience that the music provides, all at once. Again, I am not advocating this as a way of listening for anyone else. I'm not any sort of expert on the violin concerto, nor do I want to be one - it's been a purely selfish journey. But it's worked in a very rewarding way for me, personally.

[AnotherSpin]

I have only a small brain, so I'm not sure I entirely understand this whole issue, so let me try to be more specific.

1. A long time ago, I used to listen to Elgar's violin concerto with nothing but a love of Elgar's music to sustain me. It wasn't my favourite work, I knew nothing about the Windflower leitmotives, I knew nothing about Elgar's relationship with Alice Stuart Wortley.

2. Gradually I read more about Elgar, and began to appreciate that part of his inner working - part of his psyche - was related to various female muses. Dora Penny, for instance, but most notably Alice Stuart Wortley.

3. I read various accounts of how the violin concerto is constructed, how it relates to Alice Stuart Wortley (or more pertinently, whatever she symbolised, for Elgar) and that the two key windflower themes were intertwined in quite complex ways throughout the work.

4. Eventually I was able to listen to the violin concerto analytically, noting where the windflower themes occur, and how they relate to each other, and how the cadenza fits in.

5. Having done all this hard analytical work over the years, I now listen to the VC in a different way. I don't follow it thinking 'ah this is the first theme', or 'this is the second'. I've already done all that, analytically. I just let the music play, and, well, let the music happen. I'd describe this as a different, informed, way of listening that is less intense, but actually richer by virtue of deep familiarity.

I think what has happened is that I've approached it over the years in the way Blake would have advocated: the senses, the imagination, feeling, and reason have all been brought to bear on the music across the years, and the resulting experience is a rich combination of all four avenues. At least, that's what it feels like. So it becomes possible to listen with knowledge, with understanding, with love, and also revelling in the sheer sensual experience that the music provides, all at once. Again, I am not advocating this as a way of listening for anyone else. I'm not any sort of expert on the violin concerto, nor do I want to be one - it's been a purely selfish journey. But it's worked in a very rewarding way for me, personally.

There is no doubt that you are deeply familiar with Elgar's music, especially his Violin Concerto. Certainly far more than I am. My listening experience in this area cannot compare to yours. That said, my intention was slightly different. I simply tried to expand on the thought you shared in post #3820:

"I don't think I understand very much at all about classical music, except that I love it."I found this idea remarkable and couldn't resist sharing how I interpret it. If my comment feels out of line, feel free to disregard it.

In conclusion, I'd suggest that understanding is not necessarily required, perhaps even unnecessary in certain cases (my apologies for the repetition). And, everyone's brain is similarly sized and structured. It is rather simple and primitive tool for survival, primarely.

[Elgarian Redux]

In conclusion, I'd suggest that understanding is not necessarily required, perhaps even unnecessary in certain cases (my apologies for the repetition). And, everyone's brain is similarly sized and structured. It is rather simple and primitive tool for survival, primarely.

I can't help feeling that we are talking about different things, and I don't know how to reconcile them. Certainly I used to enjoy (to some degree) the Elgar violin concerto before I understood anything about it; but when I took pains to understand its structure (insofar as I could, that is, for a non-musician) and grasped its significance for Elgar, the entire listening experience expanded and became very much richer. So my experience about the role of 'understanding', in all this, seems to have been very different from yours.

I don't think the brain is 'a rather simple and primitive tool for survival', myself. My experience of having a brain (and my experience of listening to the productions of Elgar's brain) has been to find its capabilities awesome - far beyond what (I would have imagined) is needed for survival. It may be that this (the difference in basic philosophical stance) is why we're finding it hard to understand each other.

[AnotherSpin]

I can't help feeling that we are talking about different things, and I don't know how to reconcile them. Certainly I used to enjoy (to some degree) the Elgar violin concerto before I understood anything about it; but when I took pains to understand its structure (insofar as I could, that is, for a non-musician) and grasped its significance for Elgar, the entire listening experience expanded and became very much richer. So my experience about the role of 'understanding', in all this, seems to have been very different from yours.

I don't think the brain is 'a rather simple and primitive tool for survival', myself. My experience of having a brain (and my experience of listening to the productions of Elgar's brain) has been to find its capabilities awesome - far beyond what (I would have imagined) is needed for survival. It may be that this (the difference in basic philosophical stance) is why we're finding it hard to understand each other.

Then let's leave it as it is

[Roasted Swan]

I can't help feeling that we are talking about different things, and I don't know how to reconcile them. Certainly I used to enjoy (to some degree) the Elgar violin concerto before I understood anything about it; but when I took pains to understand its structure (insofar as I could, that is, for a non-musician) and grasped its significance for Elgar, the entire listening experience expanded and became very much richer. So my experience about the role of 'understanding', in all this, seems to have been very different from yours.

I don't think the brain is 'a rather simple and primitive tool for survival', myself. My experience of having a brain (and my experience of listening to the productions of Elgar's brain) has been to find its capabilities awesome - far beyond what (I would have imagined) is needed for survival. It may be that this (the difference in basic philosophical stance) is why we're finding it hard to understand each other.

Yup!  I find myself relating with your position and how you have expressed it very much!  Now back to listening to music and not really worrying why(!). 

[Karl Henning]

As I said in remarks introducing the audience to my piece for violin and harpsichord: when a friend offers you a piece of chocolate cake, he's not concerned whether you understand it, but that you enjoy it. In a similar way, I hope you may enjoy my piece. (Yes, I had talked about some actually musical matters earlier.)

[Roasted Swan]

This is going off-topic (let alone off-thread!).  The film Tar has appeared on streaming and I've starting watching it.  Not got very far yet though!  To be fair its not as bad as I was dreading but the thing that has slowed my progress is just how Earnest it is.  Just the sort of thing - I would have thought - that would put the average person who might enjoy CM but hasn't much/any experience or knowledge off.  Because there are great long discussions about the complexity and intricacy and cerebralness of it all.  Which of course it can be BUT that is by no means the only way music can or indeed should be experienced.

In a similar way I have a certain suspicion about the value of musical analysis.  From an academic standpoint it has a deconstructive value in that the nuts and bolts of a composition can be laid bare and the technique/skill of the composer revealed and celebrated.  But the simple truth is that is not how the music is or should be experienced in performance.  That is all about "the moment" and the communication from composer to performer and onto the listener.  Which is what your "chocolate cake" is all about - all I care about is how delicious it is not the recipe!

[AnotherSpin]

Understanding certain things doesn't always enhance one's appreciation or perception of music. For instance, I understand why Shostakovich acted as he did under the conditions he lived in, or why Gergiev ingratiates himself with Putin and is seen as his ally or even friend. This understanding isn't from an outsider's perspective or Western books — I lived in that system and was part of it myself. Does this insight help me accept their art? Not at all. On the contrary, I find their work repellent precisely because I understand the situation so well.

[Elgarian Redux]

As I said in remarks introducing the audience to my piece for violin and harpsichord: when a friend offers you a piece of chocolate cake, he's not concerned whether you understand it, but that you enjoy it. In a similar way, I hope you may enjoy my piece. (Yes, I had talked about some actually musical matters earlier.)

Does this mean that my 10 years of research culminating in my recent book Chocolate Cake and its Theoretical Significance in Elgar's 1st Symphony may have been ill-conceived? (Even though each copy comes with a free chocolate cake?)

[Roasted Swan]

Does this mean that my 10 years of research culminating in my recent book Chocolate Cake and its Theoretical Significance in Elgar's 1st Symphony may have been ill-conceived? (Even though each copy comes with a free chocolate cake?)

I'm in!

[Karl Henning]

Does this mean that my 10 years of research culminating in my recent book Chocolate Cake and its Theoretical Significance in Elgar's 1st Symphony may have been ill-conceived? (Even though each copy comes with a free chocolate cake?)

As a matter of pursuing your passion, it could never be wrong. As advocacy....

[Elgarian Redux]

I have a certain suspicion about the value of musical analysis.  From an academic standpoint it has a deconstructive value in that the nuts and bolts of a composition can be laid bare and the technique/skil of the cmposer revealed and celebrated.  But the simple truth is that is not how the music is or should be experienced in performance.  That is all about "the moment" and the communication from composer to performer and onto the listener.

I go along completely with this. Indeed, I'm not capable of any kind of theoretical musical analysis.

But that crucial communication from moment to moment depends on the listener as much as the composer and performer; and if I listen to the cadenza of the Elgar violin concerto in ignorance of the 'Windflower' story (as I used to, long ago), it isn't at all the same experience as listening to it when familiar with that story (as I do now). I don't think I'm claiming more than that.

[Karl Henning]

[snip]

In a similar way I have a certain suspicion about the value of musical analysis.  From an academic standpoint it has a deconstructive value in that the nuts and bolts of a composition can be laid bare and the technique/skill of the composer revealed and celebrated.  But the simple truth is that is not how the music is or should be experienced in performance.  That is all about "the moment" and the communication from composer to performer and onto the listener.

The classic exemplar is your typical article analyzing Webern, where it takes you an hour to read and digest an analysis of a piece lasting under a minute. There is value in that exercise, yes, but good god, don't mistake it for anything like experience of the music.

[Elgarian Redux]

I'm in!

Yes, I knew I'd get you with the free cake offer.