Am I worrying about concepts I'm better off leaving for later?

[Palmetto]

but I'm going to open my flap anyway.   

I don't think theoretical or technical knowledge is necessary to enjoying any work of art.  Can having that knowledge enhance it?  That depends.  To use a non-musical example, let's look at 'action' movies.

Back when stunts were physically performed and shot in long takes, I enjoyed learning how Hal Needham staged a car jump or Jackie Chan choreographed a fight scene.  That knowledge helped me enjoy a film when I saw it again.

Now, knowing what I do about computers, there's no pleasure watching CGI effects either once or repeatedly.  It's all ones and zeroes, and was never anything else.  'MTV-style' choppy editing just leaves me thinking the director and actors couldn't go more than a couple of seconds without screwing up, as opposed to one musical number in 'Seven Brides for Seven Brothers' that goes for over three minutes in a single take.

I think agreeing on the same terminology is essential when discussing any subject.  As a gardener, I've found the same 'common' name applied to different plants, depending on the part of the country.  Knowing the Latin names cuts through the confusion.

Returning to music, I don't think the knowledge I was pursuing several days ago is necessary for my initial appreciation of classical music.  I'll probably look at some of the terms again in several months, but spend more time now rolling around in the music itself.

[karlhenning]

I don't think theoretical or technical knowledge is necessary to enjoying any work of art.

Of course, this was covered in Luke's fine post:

. . . Leon's argument, then, is that we don't need to know the terminology to enjoy the sound of the musical event itself, and that is certainly true . . . .

[Grazioso]

but I'm going to open my flap anyway.   

I don't think theoretical or technical knowledge is necessary to enjoying any work of art.  Can having that knowledge enhance it?  That depends.  To use a non-musical example, let's look at 'action' movies.

Back when stunts were physically performed and shot in long takes, I enjoyed learning how Hal Needham staged a car jump or Jackie Chan choreographed a fight scene.  That knowledge helped me enjoy a film when I saw it again.

Now, knowing what I do about computers, there's no pleasure watching CGI effects either once or repeatedly.  It's all ones and zeroes, and was never anything else.  'MTV-style' choppy editing just leaves me thinking the director and actors couldn't go more than a couple of seconds without screwing up, as opposed to one musical number in 'Seven Brides for Seven Brothers' that goes for over three minutes in a single take.

(The extended shot where the camera arcs down the stairs in Hitchcock's Notorious springs to mind.)

In my experience, gaining technical/theoretical knowledge can only open new ways of appreciating something. I don't think it's a case that such detailed knowledge in some way quashes the "naive" approach: I think that "oh wow, I don't know what it is, but it's awesome!" feeling will necessarily fade with repeated exposure, either way--nothing can be new forever. But with the added technical knowledge of what's going on "behind the scenes," you have a new way to understand and appreciate.

More importantly, at least in my experience, when you start learning theory and how to play instruments, you become a vastly better listener. Even if you can't articulate what's happening with the correct terminology, you start to hear things you never would otherwise. From an instrumental perspective, you can also appreciate the level of difficulty and finesse involved in a performance. (Conversely, you hear more readily when something is amateurish or stupid-simple.)

[karlhenning]

. . . More importantly, at least in my experience, when you start learning theory and how to play instruments, you become a vastly better listener.

A very good point. And, not that anyone currently on this thread is doing any such thing . . . but there used to a chap who infested the forum who indulged in the reverse-snobbery of insisting that since he knew nothing about theory, his experience of music was purer and more soulful.  Which is piffle, of course.

[karlhenning]

In my way of looking at this issue, directly experiencing the art is different, and a more emotional, visceral experience, than the awareness of technical aspects of the piece.  Contemplating what's under the hood is a cerebral, intellectual activity that can be very interesting and enlightening and may lead to a greater appreciation for what the composer has accomplished - but it is distinct from the direct experience of the music itself.

No, not distinct, in the way that an abstract algorithm for changing an oil filter is less direct than actually opening the hood and performing the operation.  Because as a listener, your experience of the music isn't a physical engine under the hood of a car parked in a garage.  It's in your head.  Even if you're thinking that your experience of the music is visceral, you're thinking about that in your head.

What about this idea that there is somehow a hermetic wall between one's direct experience of a Neapolitan sixth chord, and knowing that it is called a Neapolitan sixth?

Say I have a brother named Ned.  You see Ned every morning an a bus you take to work, but you have no idea what his name is.  In a sense, the act that you don't know his name is Ned does not "devalue" your experience of him as a person in the orbit of your life;  and for you, there is a cleanly separable break between Ned, as a person who exists in the world, and the fact that his name is Ned.

But imagine how ridiculous it sounds to me, as Ned's brother, when you say [knowing Ned's name] is a cerebral, intellectual activity that can be very interesting and enlightening and may lead to a greater appreciation for him - but it is distinct from the direct experience of [Ned himself].

That is actually a better diagram of the current discussion.  For those of us (many, but not all, of us musicians) who know that musical object as a Neapolitan chord, this knowledge is not a separate abstract entity.  It's not any more 'external' to our experience of the music, than knowledge of Ned's name would be 'external' to knowing him as a person, to being his brother.

[Florestan]

"Music does not have to be understood. It has to be listened to." . --- Hermann Scherchen.

[karlhenning]

I guess agreeing to disagree is appropriate at this poiint, since I do not approach this as most of you seem to do.

I see it not so much as your disagreeing, as that smoe of us are attempting to explain a different perspective. I am sure you comprehend (a) that the experience of another could be somehow otherwise, and (b) talking about music can be awfully slippery.

"Music does not have to be understood. It has to be listened to." . --- Hermann Scherchen.

Orthogonal (though certainly true) : )

[Renfield]

Cuddles passed, unfortunately.

Sarge

http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,13781.msg340652.html#msg340652

Thanks.



Goes to show how long I've been away.



On-topic, and apropos of the awful slipperiness of musical discussions that Karl (Apollon) mentions, two more things to consider:


1) The 'pleasure-enhancement' of technical knowledge may or may not be enhancing the same kind of pleasure that music qua music gives.

To go back to Scarpia's food example, knowing the ingredients, and the precise way in which they combine arguably makes you go 'aha!', rather than 'mmm!', where 'mmm!' is what you go when you like the taste in your mouth. In a sense, formal understanding is thus an adjutantpleasure.

(i.e. one that adds to overall pleasure in a secondary way; unless it replaces the other kind of pleasure entirely, wherein the food stops tasting at all.)


2) Though none of you have said anything to the contrary, it is nonetheless useful to note that formal appreciation of music can manifest in many ways.

To give the simple example, that's already been mentioned: there are unlimited different labels you can give to musical phenomena and structures, one of which happens to be the agreed one (Neapolitan vs. Sicilian, or whatever). However, another example of this is non-verbal codification.

[I've said it before and I'll say it again that I don't think a classical music forum is the place to casually air one's philosophical views, in either the strict or common sense of the word: but just to be proper, the latter does not apply if you outright reject non-linguistic theories of understanding, for some reason.]

Plainly put, someone may understand musical structure empirically, in a purely cognitive manner - this famous 'listening experience' thing.

As a result, I tend to feel discussions of formal vs. 'intuitive' (what does that even mean?) musical pleasure might be a little misguided.

[Florestan]

I've said it before and I'll say it again that I don't think a classical music forum is the place to casually air one's philosophical views, in either the strict or common sense of the word

My 12th grade philosophy handbook stated: whether you are aware of it or not, anything you say / do is underlined by a certain philosophy.   

I do agree. 

[DavidRoss]

My 12th grade philosophy handbook stated: whether you are aware of it or not, anything you say / do is underlined by a certain philosophy.   

I do agree. 

That was a philosophy handbook?  Written by whom?  Yanni? 

Such a non-technical use of the term is common among the general public, to whom it means something roughly equivalent to "belief structure" or value set," but philosophy per se has nothing to do with that, except insofar as beliefs and values and their relationships with behavior are subjects of philosophical inquiry.

[Scarpia]

As a result, I tend to feel discussions of formal vs. 'intuitive' (what does that even mean?) musical pleasure might be a little misguided.

I think the discussion went completely off the rails with the suggestion that the "Neapolitan 6th" example is just about "labeling" things.  The advantage comes not from knowing the nomenclature, but from training the ear to hear and identify a specific harmony.  The ear can't be trained without being able to define it and talk about it, and that's where the nomenclature comes in.  Not everyone has the training or skill to listen to say "Hmmm, interesting Neapolitan 6th in second inversion" (I certainly don't) but I the better trained I became the more I found to enjoy.   

[Florestan]

That was a philosophy handbook?  Written by whom?  Yanni? 

Such a non-technical use of the term is common among the general public, to whom it means something roughly equivalent to "belief structure" or value set," but philosophy per se has nothing to do with that, except insofar as beliefs and values and their relationships with behavior are subjects of philosophical inquiry.

Philosophy per se means love of wisdom --- a thing that very few people today associate with the word, yet it is this very meaning that the first "philosophers" had in mind.  0:)

Besides, some of the most interesting "philosophers" had little use for "professional philosophy': Pascal, Kierkegaard, Schopenhauer.

And finally, Cioran said that the best philosopher he ever encountered was the gravedigger of his native village --- something that Shakespeare would have certainly agreed.

No? 

[karlhenning]

How absolute the knave is!

[jochanaan]

...To use a non-musical example, let's look at 'action' movies.

Back when stunts were physically performed and shot in long takes, I enjoyed learning how Hal Needham staged a car jump or Jackie Chan choreographed a fight scene.  That knowledge helped me enjoy a film when I saw it again.

Now, knowing what I do about computers, there's no pleasure watching CGI effects either once or repeatedly.  It's all ones and zeroes, and was never anything else.  'MTV-style' choppy editing just leaves me thinking the director and actors couldn't go more than a couple of seconds without screwing up, as opposed to one musical number in 'Seven Brides for Seven Brothers' that goes for over three minutes in a single take...

That analogy hardly holds when you consider music.  There's nothing faked or "artificial" about Beethoven's Hammerklavier or a Neapolitan Sixth.

[Scarpia]

That analogy hardly holds when you consider music.  There's nothing faked or "artificial" about Beethoven's Hammerklavier or a Neapolitan Sixth.

That's why I think the chef is a better analogy than the "magician."

[Palmetto]

my point was that sometimes knowing more about how something is done increases my enjoyment (stunts, and perhaps later music), and sometimes knowing detracts from it (CGI, sausages, my conception).  I'm sure you're aware of the rampant computer tweaking done to pop music.  For me that's definitely a case where knowing a singer had e-help detracts from enjoying what I thought was his or her voice.

But even your examples can be 'faked'.  Google the terms 'Hammerklavier' and 'MIDI'.    I suspect no one here has any of the results on his 'Must Hear' list.  (By the way, I listened to that work yesterday, and plan to take another listen later in the week.)

[Grazioso]

In my way of looking at this issue, directly experiencing the art is different, and a more emotional, visceral experience, than the awareness of technical aspects of the piece.  Contemplating what's under the hood is a cerebral, intellectual activity that can be very interesting and enlightening and may lead to a greater appreciation for what the composer has accomplished - but it is distinct from the direct experience of the music itself. 

I understand your distinction about an emotional reaction versus cerebral cogitation, but I think it misses an integral point: there isn't an engine hidden under the hood of music. It's all right there before you, but the question is, have you trained yourself to hear/observe the details? That's one way the theoretical/intellectual side of the art comes in handy: it increases overall awareness, it gives you more things to emotionally react to.

I have to agree with those who promote the meal analogy: yes, there might be complex techniques at work behind the scenes (cf. molecular gastronomy), but all the flavors and ingredients are there on the plate. Do you just say, "Yum," or do you say "Yum" plus--it's not a dichotomy--recognize and appreciate the quality of ingredients, the way they balance each other, etc.?

[karlhenning]

This is even more obvious when considering 20th century music: knowing the series Webern used for his Op. 24, and that it is Babbitt's third form of an all- combinatorial hexachordal set  - will not enhance the listening experience.

Why not? Or, why less so than knowing that Beethoven used the F Major scale for his Opus 68, and that is his sole instance of a symphony in five movements?

[karlhenning]

That is, I think there is a significant between you don't need to know this in order to enjoy the music (with which none of us is arguing) and asserting that the knowing does not enhance the listening (which is an insupportable faith-based initiative).

That latter, at least, is a concept you're better off checking at the door.

[karlhenning]

I don't think that knowing either of those things enhances the enjoyment of Beethoven's Op. 68.   Of if it does, it does in a trivial and inconsequential manner.

My point is: (1) you are claiming as universal your experience, and speculation rooted in your experience; (2) you're making a claim without (for instance) explaining what "enhance" might mean; and (3) what is The Great Unknown fore you here, you are dismissing as "trivial and inconsequential."

Wouldn't it be more intellectually honest to say, "such and such is my own experience; I see from posts here that the experience of others is otherwise;  and I am not competent to make value judgements on those things outside my experience" . . . ?

Or, maybe you're happy with this hole you've dug yourself into. If I don't see it, it's of no consequence.