# Something for you to think about...



## R-F (Feb 12, 2008)

This may produce some interesting answers!

If you were to meet a person who had _never_ heard music before, not so much as someone singing or even birdsong, what would you play them if you could play only one piece of music? I'm going to allow as much as, say, a full symphony with all movements, but preferebly one movement that you think defines music. Full length Oratorios like _Messia_ are pushing it a bit, seeing as there is often a large diversity of music in it, that kind of defeats the purpose of 'one piece'. You can also mention whatever version of the piece, e.g conducter, performers. You can even suggest the venue, e.g Royal Albert Hall or your living room, with your preferred Stereo system.

Oh yeah, and this person isn't necessarily brainless. It's an unlikely situation I know- someone who's completely normal and _never_ heard any music before- but it's just to make you think.


----------



## Methodistgirl (Apr 3, 2008)

I would start that person out with something simple.
judy tooley


----------



## Mark Harwood (Mar 5, 2007)

Hello R-F. Interesting initials.
Your intention was to make us think. Thank you for that.
"Completely normal and never heard music before" - discuss! Too many avenues there.
Well, this person has heard speech, and maybe rhyme. Machines too, possibly.
I'd initially have chosen music with a low information content, like a playground chant. My wife Carol has taught young children with clapping and simple chants, so maybe that's where to start.
My suggestion is simple rhythms, on a drum. Anything more would be incomprehensible to this benighted soul.


----------



## World Violist (May 31, 2007)

I don't know, though... children respond to, say, Mozart and such... I don't know what I would do... Mahler's second definitely has complexity, but it is very simple in it's message and such (and if this person knows German, all the easier)... very awkward question.


----------



## Badinerie (May 3, 2008)

To someone who has never heard music before, anything complex would sound overwhelming. Just think what it would feel like if you had never heard the English language before and someone started spouting Shakespeare at you. Not very helpful eh? Someone who had never heard one instrument before may not cope with 18-78 instrument all going at it at once.

I would suggest a single instrument such as a flute which has simple mechanics and a natural sound. Three blind mice would be pretty impressive to someone who hadn't heard any music before.


----------



## Ciel_Rouge (May 16, 2008)

I would go with this:






I assume it is purely a theoretical question, there is however a possibility of a real situation like that - then something more gentle may or may not be the answer. If we go too gentle, the person might think music is boring or bland


----------



## opus67 (Jan 30, 2007)

The hammer hitting on the anvil...


----------



## PostMinimalist (May 14, 2008)

I reckon I would sing them the first thing that came into my head. At the moment that would be 'Strangers in the Night' but tomorrow it might be a theme from a Bach fugue or a pop song or a piece of Brahms. I guess it just depends, but singing to someone is such a good way of explaining what music is about!


----------



## marval (Oct 29, 2007)

I think that if they have never heard music before, then they have to learn. Simple music might seem bland but, if they have not heard music before how would they know.

Perhaps start with something easy, and see if they like it, then they can graduate to something more complicated. I know some people don't like Peter and the wolf, but it does teach the instruments, let them listen to the sounds and then unleash something a little more complicated.

I am sure that person will guide you as to whether they like something or not.

A full throttle concert might just scare them off.


Margaret


----------



## R-F (Feb 12, 2008)

Ciel_Rouge said:


> I would go with this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes, it's meant to be theoretical. I didn't expect such in depth answers!  
I was more trying to ask the question of what do you think defines music but hey, I got some pretty interesting answers anyway! The whole story wasn't meant to be taken completely literally.


----------



## Moldyoldie (Apr 6, 2008)

I'd hum a few bars of _Yankee Doodle_. I might follow that with an aria sung by Joan Sutherland to display the difference between male & female, good & bad, simple & elaborate, etc.


----------



## Krummhorn (Feb 18, 2007)

Most anything, except Fur Elise for the piano


----------



## hawk (Oct 1, 2007)

Hmmm...very difficult and thought provoking question. 
Music is vibration and I would assume that even those with no hearing at all can still "feel" vibration...if not I would expose them to the sound of their heart beat or the rythm of their breathing.
Next I would think the soothing sound of wind, gentle breeze's not tornado force, and the sound of water flowing might be a nice introduction to more complex sound. Then the sweet sweet music of a veery/wood thrush...


----------



## Yagan Kiely (Feb 6, 2008)

Pachelbel's Canon.

Horrible, but easy to appreciate.


----------



## fox_druid (Feb 12, 2007)

Agree with above. Pachelbel's canon in D, quite simple music, but truly it has complexity. Then, let them hear the gigue! If they could listen to the canon, why not the gigue?


----------

