# Ridiculous Pomposity From University About "Connecting" To Music



## Xavier (Jun 7, 2012)

Here is a 'Statement of Teaching Philosophy' by a graduate student from Princeton University.

She writes:



> *In my classes, students become active listeners learning to appreciate music both as a cultural and historic object and to listen in a technically sophisticated, precise manner. My goal for them is to first develop their knowledge of music, thus enabling them on a larger scale to increase their critical faculties and equipping them to recognize and evaluate many kinds of culture in their daily lives*



Is this some kind of a joke?

Do people still not understand that aesthetic sensitivity towards music is something that CANNOT be taught. It is not something that is acquired in a University lecture hall. It is largely 'inborn'.... Aesthetic sensitivity involves one of the most complex sets of behaviors of which the human organism is capable, and is one of the most difficult sets of behaviors to describe. There is a native genetic component involved in every conceivable human act and mode of response. Aesthetic discernment and pleasure is something that develops through introspection and personal study.

This is the same person who said:



> *"But yes, I DO think that musical background matters. Basic aural skills, the ability to read music, and time spent playing in ensembles drastically alters your experience of music"*



What rubbish.

It sounds like she's trying to argue that music is for... music theorists, that only people with advanced training understand music. It's garbage like this that allows someone like Steven Pinker to write music off as epiphenomenal.

You can read her entire statement here:

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B6NTXE5lahvpcFFlZmFDWk9WcVU/edit

As a good friend of mine once said:



> *"I have little patience for highly specialised academic discourse or PhD talk and the arts. The arts are the product of the widest range of human emotion, and have nothing specifically to do with academia.*



Exactly right.

Finally, here is her closing line:



> *"I wish to present students with a broad-based toolbox that will allow them to connect to music in a way that will be both intellectually and personally enriching, and to encourage them to apply a disciplined approach to music that will improve their perception in all areas of their academic and cultural lives"*



_"A toolbox"..... "Allow them to connect to music"_

???

Ugh, what ridiculous pomposity!

Ms. Baranello seriously needs to consider this basic truth:



> *The leap from ''understand'' to ''appreciate'' is long and blind. Respectful cognizance and enlightenment through diligent listening tell me that Ralph Shapey was a brilliant composer, but at the end of a long day, how many of us take home his string quartets to hold with affection? The word ''understand'' remains elusive. I don't understand an elm tree, but give me the right one, and I like to sit under it. Knowing its biology may help, but the heart is not a biologist. An implicit contract has been signed but is not necessarily being honored. It states that if I understand a piece of music, I'm likely to like it, too.
> 
> This is not true. No amount of experience and analysis can by itself induce the stab of communication between art and its beholder. The downside of music education is not only that it confuses understanding with love; it threatens an arrogance that classical music and opera can ill afford*



Amen to this.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Is your over-reaction to this, i.e. all you read as being there _is not to be found in the quotes you cited -- at all_, also some kind of a joke?

I suppose if someone held the self conceit that they had an innately deep aesthetic sense and dwelt upon that as making them somehow very unique and special, then a simple statement about guiding people to a deeper pleasure and understanding of music as set forth in a simple statement about how that might be better approached via education just might be found outrageously offensive.

Ridiculous pomposity in this thread is not only to be found in the academic's statement, methinks.


----------



## Xavier (Jun 7, 2012)

PetrB

Excuse me?

Did you read her final line?



> I wish to present students with a broad-based toolbox that will allow them to connect to music in a way that will be both intellectually and personally enriching, and to encourage them to apply a disciplined approach to music that will improve their perception in all areas of their academic and cultural lives


A broad based toolbox? Allow them to connect? In music?!


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Xavier said:


> PetrB
> 
> Excuse me?
> 
> ...


Yes I read it.

Music is just another art form, guy.

I think you're frightened that somehow, it might be possible to bring others to an area, or plane, which you find exclusive, and a good measure of its value to you is thought to be exclusive. Sorry, that is just snobbery in my book.

What cannot be taught, ever, is any sort of talent, or that "personal connection."

You can only lead people to it by giving them information and helping them learn 'how to think of it.' The interest, the basic strength of music being attractive, is or is not within the individual.

I still think you are over-reacting in the extreme, like royalty being aghast that the common people might actually have the same capacity of thought and depth of emotion exclusive to the noble and refined. Bah.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

Personally, I think it's inappropriate to discuss a document such as this one on the forum. It's intended for prospective employers rather than for public debate (even though it's on the Internet).


----------



## Xavier (Jun 7, 2012)

PetrB said:


> Yes I read it.
> 
> Music is just another art form, guy.
> 
> ...


Let me be clear:

Obviously I am *NOT* referring to literary masterpieces or the language arts. Of course I would want *ALL* the help I could get in that domain.

But we are talking only about music here. And the only thing that is required is patient, careful and repeated listenings on one's own.

I don't need an academic (or anybody else) to provide me with some ridiculous "toolbox" to engage with and thoroughly enjoy / understand the musical masterpieces.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Xavier said:


> Here is a 'Statement of Teaching Philosophy' by a graduate student from Princeton University.
> 
> She writes:
> 
> ...


Fancy words, but it just sounds to me like she's going to teach them stuff like what 3/4 time is and what chords are and how to listen to sonata form and that opera originated in the Renaissance. Nothing to break out special fonts over.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Xavier said:


> Let me be clear:
> 
> Obviously I am *NOT* referring to literary masterpieces or the language arts. Of course I would want *ALL* the help I could get in that domain.
> 
> ...


Then don't take her class. That's probably fine with everybody, with the sole possible exception that this is required at Princeton and you're a student there. In that case, hey, suck it up, you're getting a Princeton education, you're gonna be able to coast the rest of your life.

Me, I need that toolbox.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Xavier said:


> Let me be clear:
> 
> Obviously I am *NOT* referring to literary masterpieces or the language arts. Of course I would want *ALL* the help I could get in that domain.
> 
> ...


Some people need no academic tutoring or guidance to see straight to the pith and heart of visual art, others need no help or guidance finding their way to the profoundest understanding of literature.

So, with you, the luck was with music... so aren't you just so special and lucky?

I'm done here, not looking back.

Best regards


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

Bad-taste pompostity, self-assured egosity, over-grandoire verbosity, emotionally-saturated interpretosity....


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

I also get the strong impression that Xavier simply feels a need to put down the kind of knowledge and expertise he doesn't possess because seeing it praised as important threats the notion that his is the purest and deepest form of sophistication.

Unfortunately, the aspect of musical knowledge in question is, while not essential or ultimate, rather meaningful.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Xavier said:


> But we are talking only about music here. And the only thing that is required is patient, careful and repeated listenings on one's own. I don't need some academic to provide me with some ridiculous "toolbox" to engage with and thoroughly enjoy / understand the musical masterpieces.


I appreciate the sentiment but you may be taking the argument too far. I'm currently auditing a series of lectures on the techniques of writing music in the late 18th century -- voice leading, progressions, diatonic and chromatic substitutions, and so forth. These lectures are presented by a (gasp!) university professor, profusely illustrated by examples and even assignments.

I find that learning something about this kind of technical stuff increases my everyday listening enjoyment of music of that era -- and even beyond. YMMV of course!


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

Xavier said:


> I don't need some academic to provide me with some ridiculous "toolbox" to engage with and thoroughly enjoy / understand the musical masterpieces.


I've listened to classical music on my own for thirty years and have over 2000 CDs but I would rather like to have someone more knowledgeable than me share their expertise with me .... either in person, through a book (or even on an internet forum) .... its sometimes referred to as 'standing on the shoulders of giants'. Yes, her language is a bit flowery, but I applaud her desire to pass on what she knows


----------



## Ravndal (Jun 8, 2012)

There are many ways to understand and/or enjoy music.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Ravndal said:


> There are many ways to understand and/or enjoy music.


Sure, but some work better with certain music than others.

I don't know how to listen to Indian classical music. I mean, of course I can listen and feel it, but what's a raga? I have a rough idea, but that leaves me a lot to learn if I'm really going to appreciate that tradition. (Edit: And, if I really understood the ragas, I'd probably actually "feel" the music quite differently.)

Maybe she'll teach stuff like that in her class.


----------



## Ravndal (Jun 8, 2012)

There are fun ways to enjoy classical music which can't be taught trough patience and repetitive listenings, or whatever.


----------



## Xavier (Jun 7, 2012)

PetrB,



> I still think you are over-reacting in the extreme, like royalty being aghast that the common people might actually have the same capacity of thought and depth of emotion exclusive to the noble and refined. Bah.


What is this 'royalty' nonsense?!

What I'm saying is that people, *ALL* people, shouldn't underestimate their own sensitivity towards musical compositions and ability to engage at the deepest level. The only thing that is required is patience and careful, repeated listenings. I don't need someone else to _"allow me or help me connect"_ me with this totally abstract art form.



> Music is just another art form, guy.


No, it's not just another art form. Music is totally non-representational... Ultimately, music communicates nothing but formless emotion.


----------



## Xavier (Jun 7, 2012)

Aramis,



Aramis said:


> I also get the strong impression that Xavier simply feels a need to put down the kind of knowledge and expertise he doesn't possess because seeing it praised as important threats the notion that his is the purest and deepest form of sophistication.


Please, it has absolutely nothing to do with this.

Read my last above post to PetrB


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Xavier said:


> Music is totally non-representational... Ultimately, music communicates nothing


Ordinarily (barring things like codes or the intentional imitation of sounds such as birds or trains or whatever) I agree with this.



Xavier said:


> but formless emotion


But not this. I'm pretty sure a lot of music is for something other than communicating emotion. It can be an exploration of some technical idea, for example. I know a lot of people don't like that kind of music (or think they don't), but that music exists anyway. Or it could be a vehicle for showing off virtuosity.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Xavier said:


> Aesthetic discernment and pleasure is something that develops through introspection and personal study.


This I do fundamentally agree with. But some people will part with money to get some shortcut if they think they can get it in order to impress others. For performers technical aspects of understanding may obviously be enhanced with study through the help of others, but as a listener it's not strictly necessary I feel.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

The whole argument of the opening post seems to be saying that music appreciation is innate, and that, like the Pink Floyd _"We don't need no education" _line, no teacher is necessary.

And yet...What is that comment about* Ralph Shapey's *string quartets? It seems to me that he is being used to represent a type of music that requires learning, pre-cognition or background study to "appreciate." *This sounds suspiciously like bias.
*
I'm sorry, folks, I can't agree that "if you know how to have sex, then you also have a deep understanding of classical music."

Human beings need a lot of learning...the bigger our brains get, the more years it takes to mature. We have one of the longest dependency periods of all creatures. We were "made" to climb trees, not play Beethoven on the piano. That sort of thing takes time; and that's why we have teachers.

And now, Ralph Shapey (representing that high-falootin' modern music) is being used as an example of "learning to like music" as opposed to spontaneously "appreciating" it. As if Ralph Shapey's music was designed to alienate "unlearned" listeners.

I think that the more you learn, the better. This is starting to sound suspiciously like the old anti-intellectual argument and attitude of some faith-based religions, who appeal to blind faith as the key to everything. I disagree with the general thrust.

Sure, you don't need to understand all the knowledge and engineering that went into building that brand-new Cadillac you're driving, but you'll take all the status that goes with owning it.

That's what classical music is for many people; a status symbol, evidence of their membership in an elite, cultured, yes, even _learned_ group; yet, they refuse to acknowledge modern music which might require some preparation and effort to fully appreciate.

This is a very subtle, convoluted argument. I must take my hat off to the "spin" generated here. No wonder some voters are confused, or declare themselves to be "libertarians." With clever, subtle propaganda like this, it's easy to become a "true believer" without having to fire-off a single brain cell.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Isn't that jumping to some conclusions? You can read up on music all you want but unless you bother listening closely you won't get to like the music. Altering your own brain does take some personal effort, piggybacking on others won't get you that far. And you seem to intentionally confuse listening appreciation with learning technical aspects for performance. Yes people are very copycat like even when maybe they should put in some of their own initiative, one of the weaker aspects of the species arguably.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Xavier said:


> Do people still not understand that aesthetic sensitivity towards music is something that CANNOT be taught. It is not something that is acquired in a University lecture hall. It is largely 'inborn'.... Aesthetic sensitivity involves one of the most complex sets of behaviors of which the human organism is capable, and is one of the most difficult sets of behaviors to describe.


What is your evidence for any of these claims? Aesthetic sensitivity innate? Utter nonsense. It is learned. People develop their aesthetic sensitivity to music by contemplating what they hear in classrooms every day.

If there is ridiculous pomposity in this thread, it is not on the part of the graduate student you quote.


----------



## Piwikiwi (Apr 1, 2011)

This thread is ridiculous. I was amazed when I finally learned about sonata form, now I just recognize it by ear. You sound really snobby. As if you have some god given ability that lesser mortals don't have. Everyone who is a a bit open minded and patient can learn how to appreciate classical music.


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

I wonder why it's taboo on here that technical knowledge can aid a greater appreciation of music? Certainly seems to be a very sore point with some, ie the rampant distrust of academics and critics and the insistence that the only "pure of heart" music lovers are those listening entirely on their own terms (and suspicions that the trained or the technically curious are just stoking their own egos). 

I know it's just the same old stuff about some who'd rather appreciate things without knowing how they work and others who welcome greater understanding, but it's sad to see musical knowledge - and the passionate people who hold, develop and foster it - being consistently denigrated


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

You don't need to pay for a course to understand sonata form, it doesn't take that long to understand either. Exposition with themes, development of themes, repeat exposition (recapitulation of themes), coda. Then you _listen closely_ and you can follow it in a piece. That was my classical music sonata form course, people may pay a course fee to me if they wish lol.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Xavier said:


> Music is totally non-representational... Ultimately, music communicates nothing but formless emotion.


That's rather misleading, even though Stravinsky said it represented nothing, as well.

Of course, music doesn't communicate "literal" meanings, like the word "chair" does. Music is its own self-referential language of musical meanings and relations. For example, music can convey a sense of tonality, which is meaningful in its own way, because that's the way our ears hear things. Also, the brain is involved in music. Just being human makes music meaningful: if something sounds "big," it evokes a response in us. Rhythm can "mean" something, because we walk on two legs. So don't tell me that music means "nothing" except formless emotion.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

dgee said:


> I wonder why it's taboo on here that technical knowledge can aid a greater appreciation of music?


Insecurity. Not wanting to appear ignorant.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

I agree with the OP that the claims may underestimate the listening abilities of 'your average person'; but I don't agree if the OP is saying that listening skills can't be taught. Most skills are found at different levels in different people, and most skills can be improved through practice & being made aware of technical issues. True, personal taste is innate & if you really really don't like something, you may never appreciate it. On the other hand, people often find that when they study something in depth they learn to like it, or come to like it. I had that happen many times when teaching literature - at the end of the course, people had changed their mind about Donne, Milton or whoever. 

The subject is an interesting one. It's a shame the discussion seems to have got polarized...


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

dgee said:


> I wonder why it's taboo on here that technical knowledge can aid a greater appreciation of music?


People can do whatever they want, but it's someone else saying that people should understand something _their _way by paying for _their_ course. There is actually plenty of self-education you can do now, with free resources.

The taboo actually seems to be someone saying that if you put your own effort in you can appreciate much of music as a listener without needing to a great technical expert and paying someone to achieve that.


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

Ingélou said:


> It's a shame the discussion seems to have got polarized...


Consider the OP again: I think that's where it got polarised!


----------



## Winterreisender (Jul 13, 2013)

I agree with the OP pretty much entirely. I talk simply from my own (albeit brief) experience of having studied music, but I see very little correlation between level of technical knowledge and ability to appreciate music. On this music course I took, we learnt about sonata form, chord progressions, counterpoint, etc. etc. For the most people in the class, this academic approach did not enhance their level of enjoyment but rather it turned music into something dry and tedious which they would never listen to in their spare time. I can't tell you how depressing it was when I took this classical music class only to find that none of my peers actually liked the music we were studying. Granted, anecdotal evidence is hardly overwhelming, but I nevertheless believe that true musical appreciation cannot be taught.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

starry said:


> People can do whatever they want, but it's someone else saying that people should understand something _their _way by paying for _their_ course. There is actually plenty of self-education you can do now, with free resources.


Indeed, it's amazing what's available, even to a couch potato, and quite free. The course I mentioned on music theory is free on the Internet, all video lectures and samples. I'm currently in week five -- today studying the use of the Neapolitan 6th chord as a chromatic substitution (Schubert's Der Müller und der Bach is the example used). This stuff is quite fascinating actually. Well, to me anyway...


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

As this discussion has unfolded, there seems to be 2 sides: the snobs/elitists vs. anti-snobs/anti-elitists. One side would say you _only _get appreciation of music (classical) from being taught, and the other say you won't get _anything _from being taught. However, I'm pretty sure that most people on this forum do not fall in _either _extreme because of basic experience of life. Many of us are musicians, many aren't. Either way, we know the truth that it isn't black and white.

Snobbery and elitism can be pretty harmful, but anti-snobbery and anti-elitism can lead to its own form of bigotry.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Do people still not understand that aesthetic sensitivity towards music is something that CANNOT be taught. It is not something that is acquired in a University lecture hall. It is largely 'inborn'....

Well that makes it easy for you. You just assume that you are one of those blessed with an innate aesthetic sensitivity and as such, what you like is "good" and what you dislike is "bad" and there is nothing more to learn. And here I have wasted far too many years learning to understand (because I assumed that understanding is impossible without understanding) and appreciate art, literature, music, film, etc... Incredibly, I discovered over the years, that gaining a greater knowledge of works that I "liked" early on rarely, if ever, undermined my appreciation of the same, but rather deepened it... as I came to understand such works on many levels. Indeed, it seems to me that any work of art worthy of study or appreciation beyond the first listen/sight/reading can never be fully exhausted... always offers up more to learn and appreciate.


----------



## Guest (Feb 2, 2014)

KenOC said:


> Indeed, it's amazing what's available, even to a couch potato, and quite free. The course I mentioned on music theory is free on the Internet, all video lectures and samples. I'm currently in week five -- today studying the use of the Neapolitan 6th chord as a chromatic substitution (Schubert's Der Müller und der Bach is the example used). This stuff is quite fascinating actually. Well, to me anyway...


Ken, you've finally settled on an avatar that matches...


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

As this discussion has unfolded, there seems to be 2 sides: the snobs/elitists vs. anti-snobs/anti-elitists. 

Actually there may be a degree of truth to this... but I suspect the "snobs" or "elitists" are in all actuality found on the opposite side to that which many... including our OP... may presume. To suggest that I or any other individual was born with a superior innate grasp of and sensitivity to aesthetics... an innate superior "taste", if you will, seems far more snobbish than to suggest that our understanding and appreciation of the arts are something that grow in relationship to the efforts we invest in studying and learning about them. That it is actually possible to learn to love and appreciate... and even to create art.


----------



## Guest (Feb 2, 2014)

Xavier said:


> Here is a 'Statement of Teaching Philosophy' by a graduate student from Princeton University.
> 
> She writes:
> 
> ...


etc etc.

Well, all I can say is 'epiphenomenal'!!


----------



## Cheyenne (Aug 6, 2012)

One can't learn to appreciate music? And here I was thinking I started liking modernistic works only after taking the time to investigate them - but I guess that was just me unlocking my hidden potential.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

MacLeod said:


> Ken, you've finally settled on an avatar that matches...


Thanks for reminding me...time to change again!


----------



## Winterreisender (Jul 13, 2013)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Actually there may be a degree of truth to this... but I suspect the "snobs" or "elitists" are in all actuality found on the opposite side to that which many... including our OP... may presume. To suggest that I or any other individual was born with a *superior* innate grasp of and sensitivity to aesthetics... an innate superior "taste", if you will, seems far more snobbish than to suggest that our understanding and appreciation of the arts are something that grow in relationship to the efforts we invest in studying and learning about them. That it is actually possible to learn to love and appreciate... and even to create art.


It only sounds snobbish if you use the word "superior." And one would only use the word "superior" if one were to assume that classical music is inherently more valuable than other forms of art, to which others might be more sensitive. How about different people being born with "different grasps of and sensitivity to aesthetics"? In matters of taste, surely we all have different inclinations. Why the implicit hierarchy?

I hate most rap music, but I won't be taking a course in rap appreciation anytime soon.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Sure, but some work better with certain music than others.

I don't know how to listen to Indian classical music. I mean, of course I can listen and feel it, but what's a raga? I have a rough idea, but that leaves me a lot to learn if I'm really going to appreciate that tradition.

Very good analogy, science... and not only because I was actually thinking along the same lines. :lol:

I listen to a smidgen of Indian, Persian, and Japanese music. I suspect, however, that if I had a great knowledge of the history of the tradition, the composers, the forms, etc... I would likely discover my experience and appreciation was wholly new and different... and far more complex and deeper. I may even discover that some of what I currently enjoy is not the finest that these traditions have to offer, while other works/artists that I have hitherto ignored offer something far more profound.

All art involves a language and a tradition... both of which must be learned if I am to more fully understand and appreciate the work. I can take some pleasure in the motions of the athletes running about on the baseball field... even without understanding the game at all... but the game will take on far more meaning and I will appreciate it all the more if I understand the game, the rules, and the goals. By the same token, I can appreciate the sound and the flow of French or Russian sung in an opera or song... but understanding what is being said will take my appreciation to a whole new level.

None of this has anything to do with snobbery or elitism. Rather, I would suspect it is the reverse; a willingness to admit that artistic sensitivity or good "taste" isn't something we are born with... but rather something that grows and deepens over the years as a result of experience and learning.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

It only sounds snobbish if you use the word "superior."

To suggest that one is born with "an innate grasp of and sensitivity to aesthetics..." sans the term "superior" be supposes that we are born with an understanding, a grasp of, and an appreciation of an art form... a invented language. This is no more true than to suppose that I was born with an innate understanding and sensitivity to English and an inability to appreciate French or Russian. Every art form is a language of sorts... and these languages must be learned.

No one is born with an innate appreciation of classical music, opera, rap, blues, poetry, painting, etc... Each of these involve a language, history, and tradition which are learned through experience... and study (formal or informal).


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Music is just another art form, guy.

No, it's not just another art form.

Then what the hell is it?


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Piwikiwi said:


> This thread is ridiculous. I was amazed when I finally learned about sonata form, now I just recognize it by ear.


But this doesn't seems to me something that improves the aesthetic experience. You've just learned to call apple an apple. But you knew already the taste of the apple.
And I can read music, but when I learned to do it that didn't improve at all my appreciation of music.


----------



## Guest (Feb 2, 2014)

I must wonder why anyone would read a classical music forum if they thought they had nothing to learn on the subject.

(Obviously there are other reasons, but still...)


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

But this doesn't seems to me something that improves the aesthetic experience. You've just learned to call apple an apple. But you knew already the taste of the apple.
And I can read music, but when I learned to do it that didn't improve at all my appreciation of music.

I suspect that most others find that an increased knowledge and understanding of the forms, the history and traditions, the intentions of an artist and a work of art only serves to increase their appreciation of the same... but then that's just me.


----------



## Guest (Feb 2, 2014)

As someone who is starting to learn things and who is starting to see a greater appreciation in some areas as a direct result of that education, 

I can simply say that the OP is wrong, thus ending this thread.

Good Night.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> But this doesn't seems to me something that improves the aesthetic experience. You've just learned to call apple an apple. But you knew already the taste of the apple.
> And I can read music, but when I learned to do it that didn't improve at all my appreciation of music.


I find extremely interesting the history of art, the history of a work, the technique, the style, the context but the aesthetic appreciation is completely a different thing. 
I agree that "time spent playing in ensembles drastically alters your experience of music", because if you do that you're listening, and you have to really pay attention to all the details. But that "the ability to read music" improves your listening abilities, to me that it's completely false and I should probably use another term. But like I've said , I think that to know the name of the apple doesn't add anything to the taste. 
By the way this reminds me that recently there was a discussion about those who say that to read music improves the appreciation of serialism.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Simon Singh from an article in The Guardian in 2005

_"Physicists also smile when we see rainbows, but our emotional reaction is doubled by our understanding of the deep physics relating to the prismatic effects of raindrops. Similarly, physicists appreciate sunsets more than anybody else, because we can enjoy the myriad colours and at the same time grasp the nuclear physics that created the energy that created the photons that travelled for millions of years to the surface of the Sun, which then travelled eight minutes through space to Earth, which were then scattered by the atmosphere to create the colourful sunset. Understanding physics only enhances the beauty of nature."_


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

arcaneholocaust said:


> I must wonder why anyone would read a classical music forum if they thought they had nothing to learn on the subject.
> 
> (Obviously there are other reasons, but still...)


erm discussion. For some people just provoking, but for others just bouncing their ideas off each other. It's not so much 'nothing to learn' anyway, that's just the typical over the top provocative forum comment, maybe that's why you're on forums? But many aren't here for _help_ with music, because the best way to help yourself is to listen rather than just throw around words about music.

I think people can throw up a smokescreen around classical music like it's some really difficult thing that you need loads of help to understand. But I just don't believe that, because that wasn't my experience.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Petwhac said:


> Simon Singh from an article in The Guardian in 2005
> 
> _"Physicists also smile when we see rainbows, but our emotional reaction is doubled by our understanding of the deep physics relating to the prismatic effects of raindrops. Similarly, physicists appreciate sunsets more than anybody else, because we can enjoy the myriad colours and at the same time grasp the nuclear physics that created the energy that created the photons that travelled for millions of years to the surface of the Sun, which then travelled eight minutes through space to Earth, which were then scattered by the atmosphere to create the colourful sunset. Understanding physics only enhances the beauty of nature."_


and gynecologists appreciate... more than anybody else


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> I suspect that most others find that an increased knowledge and understanding of the forms, the history and traditions, the intentions of an artist and a work of art only serves to increase their appreciation of the same... but then that's just me.




Maybe it can to an extent. But it still won't make you like a piece you don't like, it won't change the notes, it won't improve a piece that is less creative. It won't do the listening for you, you have to put in the listening time separately and really prioritise that I think. Familiarity with a work has to be more important than familiarity with a biography or music history, the basics of which can be picked up reasonably quickly anyway.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I find extremely interesting the history of art, the history of a work, the technique, the style, the context but the aesthetic appreciation is completely a different thing.

Are they really that separate?

I agree that "time spent playing in ensembles drastically alters your experience of music", because if you do that you're listening, and you have to really pay attention to all the details. But that "the ability to read music" improves your listening abilities, to me that it's completely false and I should probably use another term.

Personally, I find that an increased knowledge... all sorts of knowledge... alters and deepens my appreciation of a work of art.

But like I've said , I think that to know the name of the apple doesn't add anything to the taste.

But is the analogy apt? An apple is not a work of art. It doesn't demand a grasp of an artificial language.

By the way this reminds me that recently there was a discussion about those who say that to read music improves the appreciation of serialism.

I suspect a grasp of the structure would surely deepen one's appreciation.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I think people can throw up a smokescreen around classical music like it's some really difficult thing that you need loads of help to understand.

No one has suggested this. Still, classical music, jazz, ballet, painting, poetry, Indian ragas... none of these can be inherently understood... and how well can we appreciate that which we don't understand. Romantic-era poetry will strike the average high-school student lacking an experience with the vocabulary and the structures as incomprehensible. No, one doesn't need a PhD. in the subject to "like" or "dislike" a work, but I have found that experience and knowledge increases my personal appreciation.

It seems to me that the OP was discussing an appreciation and "understanding" of music... not merely a question of "liking" or "disliking." This seemingly presumed inherent ability to judge... an inborn sensitivity to aesthetic decisions and a suggestion that these things cannot be learned. One either has them or one doesn't.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> I find extremely interesting the history of art, the history of a work, the technique, the style, the context but the aesthetic appreciation is completely a different thing.
> 
> Are they really that separate?


What I think is that it's a different aspect. I know a lot of things about artists and works of art that I don't like particularly, and it happens that I love things knowing nothing at all about the technical aspects, the history, style. And what about those "fake" pieces, like the Albinoni's adagio? I mean, I'm not a great fan of it, but to know that it wasn't composed by Albinoni changes the value of it?



StlukesguildOhio said:


> But like I've said , I think that to know the name of the apple doesn't add anything to the taste.
> 
> But is the analogy apt? An apple is not a work of art. It doesn't demand a grasp of an artificial language.


Let me make an example: one of my very favorite soundtracks was composed by the japanese musician Teiji Ito. I discovered after a lot of time that it was inspired by gagaku music. I'm extremely ignorant of gagaku (I think I've listened just one cd of it) and still I love that piece. 
After years, I'm still struggling with Mozart. I've heard a lot of his music, I've read a lot about it. I've listened to Bernstein explaining it. And still I'm not a big fan of Mozart. 
So what's the part of the knowledge in all that? So yes, I thing the only thing that is important is the ear, like I think that to appreciate a wine you need only the tongue and not the knowledge of a sommelier.



StlukesguildOhio said:


> By the way this reminds me that recently there was a discussion about those who say that to read music improves the appreciation of serialism.
> 
> I suspect a grasp of the structure would surely deepen one's appreciation.




I think that PetrB (and Some guy too in a different occasion) said that he thought he was ******** (and I agree). And he's a great fan of it.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> an inborn sensitivity to aesthetic decisions and a suggestion that these things cannot be learned. One either has them or one doesn't.


By the way, I'm not Xavier (even if I suspect that we have similar positions) but I wasn't suggesting that music or art in general doesn't require a long process of learning (on the contrary). But just that the aesthetic understanding and the aesthetic pleasure are related only to the listening experience and not to the technical or historical knowledge.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

What I think is that it's a different aspect. I know a lot of things about artists and works of art that I don't like particularly, and it happens that I love things knowing nothing at all about the technical aspects, the history, style. And what about those "fake" pieces, like the Albinoni's adagio? I mean, I'm not a great fan of it, but to know that it wasn't composed by Albinoni changes the value of it?

Again... there is a difference between "liking" and "appreciating". And certainly the "knowledge" or "learning" I am speaking of has little to do with the artists' bios or the cult of personality. We don't need to be taught to "like" or "dislike" something... although again experience... "nurture" as opposed to "nature" plays a key role. Many of the students I teach like nothing but rap. They find not only classical but even jazz and rock & roll painful to listen to... because they were raised on rap... it is all that they have really experienced. Am I to assume that they can never... through learning and alternative experiences... come to appreciate Mozart or Beethoven?

Let me make an example: one of my very favorite soundtracks was composed by the japanese musician Teiji Ito. I discovered after a lot of time that it was inspired by gagaku music. I'm extremely ignorant of gagaku (I think I've listened just one cd of it) and still I love that piece. 
After years, I'm still struggling with Mozart. I've heard a lot of his music, I've read a lot about it. I've listened to Bernstein explaining it. And still I'm not a big fan of Mozart.

So... by the standards of the OP... yours is but an example of a lack of sensitivity to Mozart... or poor taste?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Just as a parallel, I was attracted to Hindustani and Carnatic classical music early on. Recently I did a lot of research on forms, rhythms, scales, ornamentation, and so forth, and now I enjoy it even more because I understand it a bit better. It's hard to believe that the same wouldn't apply to at least some types of Western classical music. And no, I don't think this is an "elitist" position!


----------



## senza sordino (Oct 20, 2013)

I think it would be more pompous to assume one could teach anyone and everyone an understanding and appreciation of classical music. But this is an elective university course, we think only those who already have some interest would sign up. The professor could already be preaching to the converted.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

*Experience*

I have mixed feelings concerning entire opening post.

There is one issue that is addressed in the opening post that bothers me especially the reaction to the underlined part.

"But yes, I DO think that musical background matters. Basic aural skills, the ability to read music, and time spent playing in ensembles drastically alters your experience of music."

"What rubbish."

Really? My years of performing music does effect how I react to music when listen to it. Yet I must treat those real life experiences as "rubbish"?


----------



## Guest (Feb 3, 2014)

Yes. Because in a sense, that might imply that you have a broader musical experience in some areas than Xavier, which would make him feel insecure. You should probably be banned for even bringing it up.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Petwhac said:


> Simon Singh from an article in The Guardian in 2005
> 
> _"Physicists also smile when we see rainbows, but our emotional reaction is doubled by our understanding of the deep physics relating to the prismatic effects of raindrops. Similarly, physicists appreciate sunsets more than anybody else, because we can enjoy the myriad colours and at the same time grasp the nuclear physics that created the energy that created the photons that travelled for millions of years to the surface of the Sun, which then travelled eight minutes through space to Earth, which were then scattered by the atmosphere to create the colourful sunset. Understanding physics only enhances the beauty of nature."_


All I can say to this is a huge - *Amen*. And my daughter, having taken many music history classes and played in many ensembles, would simply say that, of course, that knowledge greatly increased her appreciation of music. In some sense how could it possibly not?


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

I'm actually a bit confused by the discussion. Some here have argued that courses such as the one described in the OP cannot possibly increase one's aesthetic sensitivity towards music. I'm not sure that's true, but what does it have to do with the graduate student's statement? I read her statement several times, and nowhere does she discuss aesthetic sensitivity. She appears to be teaching some type of music history course where she wants to help students develop their aural skills and knowledge of music. That sounds like a pretty reasonable goal for a music history class. She wants her students to "become active listeners, learning to appreciate music both as a cultural and historic object and to listen in a technically sophisticated, precise manner." That also sounds pretty reasonable. I certainly have learned things about music from people much more knowledgeable than I, and some of those things have increased my appreciation. I assume almost everyone could find similar benefits from such knowledge.

Maybe I'm just missing something in her statement, but I don't see where she ever discussed aesthetic sensitivity.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

OTOH, I think we have a selection effect happening here. The kind of people who spend time on classical music discussion fora are the kind of people who enjoy knowing a lot about the music, whether that means its structure or its place in history or even just gossip about the composer and performers.

That really isn't _necessary_ to appreciating music in at least a basic, ordinary way. It's nice, it's helpful, for me personally it's wonderful, but it's not _necessary_. If it were, only properly-educated people could appreciate music, and that just obviously isn't the case, at least with most music, and I suspect it's not the case with any music at all. (Sorry Babbitt. I might not understand the mathematical principles of your music, but I enjoy it fairly well anyway.)


----------



## Xavier (Jun 7, 2012)

It is so frustrating to see how more than a few people have *totally misconstrued* my last 3 posts. Please go back and read them. Starry, Norman, Winterreisender and others have made some excellent points though.

@Luke



> I suspect that most others find that an increased knowledge and understanding of the forms, the history and traditions, the intentions of an artist and a work of art only serves to increase their appreciation of the same...


Intentions of the artist? Why? Why would you place emphasis on the composer's "intentions"?.... Composers don't really understand how music works any better than we do. Of course they understand form and technique, but like the rest of us, have only intuition to differentiate between a dry and formal piece and something with real strength of feeling. The best music is not composed through some guy developing his own "grand scheme" of communication.. rather, it happens when the composer allows himself (or herself) to be guided by the universal communication of music... (i.e. be inspired, compose what feels right, without having to ask why)



> Indeed, it seems to me that any work of art worthy of study or appreciation beyond the first listen/sight/reading can never be fully exhausted... always offers up more to learn and appreciate.


Please, I am NOT referring at all to the literary arts. Didn't I make that clear in my second post?

Let me see if I can get my main point across one more time:

Once a person receives exposure to music why on earth would they want to be 'guided' or have things 'pointed out' to them by another individual? I don't believe music theory or the technical aspects of a composition should be anyone's primary concern or interest. The 'form' of the music should be subconsciously apprehended, the handmaiden of the expressivity of the piece.

What a person gains from a conscious technical understanding of the score is totally incidental and superficial. What is important is that the architecture is felt. And this is promoted simply by listening to the music in greater depth. The whole point of the music is what it means on the visceral / aesthetic / sub-theoretical level... This is where the power of music really operates.

All of this is blinking obvious really, but so weird how it often needs to be restated.

Here is an excellent comment by the scientist and writer Robert Jourdain:



> *Musical compositions lack a specific, agreed upon reference to the contents of the world. But when we bring our life situations to music, we can make of music what we will. Music idealizes negative and positive emotions alike. By doing so it momentarily perfects our individual emotional lives. The "meaning" we feel is not in the music as such, but in our own responses to the world, responses that we carry about with us always. Music serves to perfect those responses, to make them beautiful.
> 
> Music most affects people who already have a deep emotional existence. It is the force of our own lives that drives musical anticipation and our own joys and pains that are rewarded by musical resolutions..."*




Folks, it couldn't be stated more beautifully and clearly... And the above is something that definitely cannot be 'taught'


----------



## Guest (Feb 3, 2014)

norman bates said:


> I think that to know the name of the apple doesn't add anything to the taste.


Agreed, but knowing the name of the apple enables you to go and find another of the same kind, to discuss them with others who appreciate apples and who also know about pears and bananas. The experience of 'apple' isn't just the taste. Even so, I agree with St LukesGO that the analogy doesn't work.



norman bates said:


> So yes, I thing the only thing that is important is the ear, like I think that to appreciate a wine you need only the tongue and not the knowledge of a sommelier.


The ear doesn't work without the brain, nor does the tongue. The experience of music can be enhanced by understanding what is going on in any piece. Perhaps not for you, but clearly for others.


----------



## Guest (Feb 3, 2014)

You do realize, of course, that if you actually converted the whole world to your radical mindset, the music we all love here (the very reason this forum exists) would pretty much die a swift death, right?


----------



## Guest (Feb 3, 2014)

MacLeod said:


> The ear doesn't work without the brain, nor does the tongue. The experience of music can be enhanced by understanding what is going on in any piece. Perhaps not for you, but clearly for others.


I believe that people, including myself, already explained to these people that we have already proved them wrong by learning and thus benefitting from that education. It is clear they are not actually reading our responses and this is either a lost cause or a fantastic troll post.


----------



## Guest (Feb 3, 2014)

Xavier said:


> Let me see if I can get my main point across one more time:
> 
> Once a person receives exposure to music why on earth would they want to be 'guided' or have things 'pointed out' to them by another individual?


Some people are like that I guess. I am. So are others here. What's the problem?



Xavier said:


> I don't believe music theory or the technical aspects of a composition should be anyone's primary concern or interest.


So now you're telling us all that we have to be like you?


----------



## Guest (Feb 3, 2014)

The logic in this thread:

Person 1: "Knowing about something doesn't enhance the experience of something"
Person 2: "Ok, but I recently learned about something and it made something way cooler!"
Person 1: "I disagree that you had this exact experience. Are you sure that's how it happened? Are you sure anything happened at all?"
Person 2: "Wtf, can you even say that in a logical debate?"

Edit: Actually, this smells very much like trolling to me. How do I know? Because sometimes when people talk about their recent experiences, saying things like "I went to a show" or "I drank a lot of drinks", I'll just throw them off or troll them by responding simply "See, I disagree that that's what you did last night."

Case closed.


----------



## Xavier (Jun 7, 2012)

arcaneholocaust said:


> You do realize, of course, that if you actually converted the whole world to your radical mindset, the music we all love here (the very reason this forum exists) would pretty much die a swift death, right?


Excuse me?

My tastes and judgments about musical compositions don't change because of what others have to say about the pieces. I think most people visit forums primarily to share their own discoveries and enthusiasms. And of course it's a fun leisure activity to read about other people's subjective responses to music that you hold dear .... But this is a totally different thing.


----------



## Guest (Feb 3, 2014)

*Sigh* + 15 Characters


----------



## Xavier (Jun 7, 2012)

arcaneholocaust said:


> The logic in this thread:
> 
> Person 1: "Knowing about something doesn't enhance the experience of something"


In the art of music you DO NOT need someone else to guide you through the aesthetic process. Didn't you read Jourdain's quote above?


----------



## Xavier (Jun 7, 2012)

arcaneholocaust said:


> *Sigh* + 15 Characters


Are you really saying that your feelings about a piece of music would change by reading someone else's words? Or using their own "toolbox"


----------



## Guest (Feb 3, 2014)

I'm saying that if music truly must be an isolated experience as you would have it, we wouldn't have teachers, and we certainly wouldn't have learned as much. 

How about you go to any major composer's wikipedia page and tell me if they had a teacher. 

Considering they pretty much all did, let's just try to take a look at history if they had all considered your terrible viewpoint to have any credibility. Where would we be? My guess is that without shared experiences, we might have some geniuses figuring out how to compose music of Baroque complexity in 2014. 

In other words, you wouldn't even be on this classical music forum, because it probably wouldn't exist.

Edit: If I'm not arguing this in a way that is articulate enough for you to understand, it's probably because I haven't had as extensive of a literature/language education as some graduates. But hell, maybe that field should be isolated too and I'm just meant to figure it out.


----------



## Xavier (Jun 7, 2012)

arcaneholocaust said:


> I'm saying that if music truly must be an isolated experience as you would have it


Yes, the *experience* of music is essentially an isolated one.

By the way, it was a pleasant surprise to read what the late musicologist and pianist Charles Rosen said in the introduction to his final book, _Freedom and The Arts_.



> *One brute fact often overlooked needs to be forced upon our consideration: most works of art are more or less intelligible and give pleasure without any kind of historical, biographical or structural analysis. In the end, we must affirm that no single system will ever be able to give us an exhaustive or definitive understanding of why a work of music can hold an enduring interest for us, explain its charm, account for its seduction and our admiration. A recognition of the inadequacy of any system of interpretation is essential to our being able to gain a fresh experience of the work.
> 
> We need at times to acquire the talent of listening to a piece of music with innocent ear, untainted or unblocked by critical studies. Every critical approach is likely to obscure important aspects of a work that will enter into the experience of a naïve reading.*




Amen to this.


----------



## Winterreisender (Jul 13, 2013)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> To suggest that one is born with "an innate grasp of and sensitivity to aesthetics..." sans the term "superior" be supposes that we are born with an understanding, a grasp of, and an appreciation of an art form... a invented language. This is no more true than to suppose that I was born with an innate understanding and sensitivity to English and an inability to appreciate French or Russian. Every art form is a language of sorts... and these languages must be learned.
> 
> No one is born with an innate appreciation of classical music, opera, rap, blues, poetry, painting, etc... Each of these involve a language, history, and tradition which are learned through experience... and study (formal or informal).


I'm not sure if I agree with your suggestion that, in the whole nature vs. nurture debate, taste is 100% a case of nurture and 0% a case of nature.

But what I more take issue with is this narrative imposed by the academic elite (e.g. the graduate student quoted in the OP) that some forms of art are worth knowing about and others are not; the idea that, if someone doesn't like the "fine arts," they are doing something wrong, but with a bit of academic training can be set on the right path. This view seems to underestimate the public, as if they cannot be trusted to decide for themselves what they want to listen to.


----------



## Guest (Feb 3, 2014)

Xavier said:


> Why would you place emphasis on the composer's "intentions"?.... Composers don't really understand how music works any better than we do.


If this is so....



Xavier said:


> it was a pleasant surprise to read what the late musicologist and pianist Charles Rosen said


...is it not also true of Rosen?


----------



## Guest (Feb 3, 2014)

Xavier, before you give supporting quotes, why don't you consider how the quoted people might react if they knew their work was being used out of context to support some radical argument that all musical education is worthless. If I was a dead musicologist, I'd still probably find a way to facepalm at this one.


----------



## Guest (Feb 3, 2014)

Ravndal said:


> There are many ways to understand and/or enjoy music.


Somehow I clicked on the first page and my eyes fell upon this work of art.

What's this? A reasonable one-sentence middle-path solution to avoid insanity? What is this sorcery and will you write a book on your divine logical skills?

Tip of the hat to you though, really. I'm losing my mind right before I have to go to bed.


----------



## Guest (Feb 3, 2014)

Xavier said:


> In the art of music you DO NOT need someone else to guide you through the aesthetic process. Didn't you read Jourdain's quote above?


No one here is saying you NEED theory to appreciate music. Thankfully though, no one here (but you) is silly enough to say it can't possibly help.


----------



## Xavier (Jun 7, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> If this is so....
> 
> ...is it not also true of Rosen?


Rosen was NOT making a specific comment about 'how music works'. He is basically stating that we really don't understand much about the psychology of musical aesthetics.


----------



## Piwikiwi (Apr 1, 2011)

I don't really care who you quote. The emotional level doesn't changd for me but reading a score of some complicated counter or reading about form jaa definitely opened my ears. You aggressive attitude doesn't really help.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Xavier said:


> Once a person receives exposure to music why on earth would they want to be 'guided' or have things 'pointed out' to them by another individual?


I wanted to like Berg's Violin Concerto and listened to the work many times. I made little progress. I then found a BBC audio file with an "expert" discussing the music and leading the listener through the work. After listening several times to this recording I was able to hear the music in a "different way" such that I came to love the piece. The transformation happened fairly quickly after my exposure to the audio recording. Does my experience help you to understand why someone (not necessarily you) might want to be guided and have things pointed out by another individual?



Xavier said:


> What a person gains from a conscious technical understanding of the score is totally incidental and superficial. What is important is that the architecture is felt. And this is promoted simply by listening to the music in greater depth. The whole point of the music is what it means on the visceral / aesthetic / sub-theoretical level... This is where the power of music really operates.
> 
> All of this is blinking obvious really, but so weird how it often needs to be restated.


My daughter has listened to Wagner many times and adores his music on a visceral, aesthetic level. One day after working through a portion of an opera that she had studied in class with the score, she came to my room and played the work showing me the score. She stepped through the technical details as we listened. She pointed out what Wagner was doing by describing things _in the score_. She obviously felt the aesthetic aspect of the music, but equally obvious was how her understanding of the score (i.e. what Wagner did technically) effected her. She was stunned by the score _in addition to the aesthetic sense of the music. _. She went on and on about how amazing _the technical details were_.

So do you think she was acting and essentially lying to me about her response?



Xavier said:


> In the art of music you DO NOT need someone else to guide you through the aesthetic process. Didn't you read Jourdain's quote above?


I still don't understand the focus on the aesthetic process or aspect of music. I thought you started this thread because you disagreed with what the graduate student had written about her class philosophy. She never mentioned the aesthetic process or anything about the aesthetics of music. She talked about better appreciating other aspects of music presumably in a similar way to how my daughter reacted. Are you talking about aesthetics because of her "statement" or for a different reason?


----------



## Guest (Feb 3, 2014)

Xavier said:


> Rosen was NOT making a specific comment about 'how music works'. He is basically stating that we really don't understand much about the psychology of musical aesthetics.


I know what he is saying. That was not my point. You rejected the idea that composers know how music works any better than we do, but you will make an exception for Rosen?


----------



## Xavier (Jun 7, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> I know what he is saying. That was not my point. You rejected the idea that composers know how music works any better than we do, but you will make an exception for Rosen?


Charles Rosen was not a composer.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Xavier said:


> Are you really saying that your feelings about a piece of music would change by reading someone else's words? Or using their own "toolbox"


In my post #86 I said that very thing. Well technically, my feelings changed after _hearing_ another's words. I don't think it matters that I had to listen several times to Berg's concerto after hearing the audio recording a few times (the recording included portions of the concerto).


----------



## Guest (Feb 3, 2014)

Xavier said:


> Charles Rosen was not a composer.


That's irrelevant too. You want us to believe that we don't need anyone else to tell us how to understand music, yet you allow Rosen to do just that.


----------



## Xavier (Jun 7, 2012)

mmsbls said:


> In my post #86 I said that very thing. Well technically, my feelings changed after _hearing_ another's words. I don't think it matters that I had to listen several times to Berg's concerto after hearing the audio recording a few times (the recording included portions of the concerto).
> 
> She went on and on about how amazing the technical details were.


Again, understanding music theory or the technical aspects of a composition does not *affect* what the music sounds like, and what it sounds like is why it moves you.


----------



## Guest (Feb 3, 2014)

Xavier said:


> Again, understanding music theory or the technical aspects of a composition does not *affect* what the music sounds like


Yes, yes, agreed!


----------



## Xavier (Jun 7, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> That's irrelevant too. You want us to believe that we don't need anyone else to tell us how to understand music, yet you allow Rosen to do just that.


I think this comment by J should make everything perfectly clear



> *"Here's an analogy: our aesthetic experience of the sound of a violin depends on its tone, which in turn depends on the wood it is made of. So we can't separate "wood" from our enjoyment, they are fundamentally connected. But it does not follow that we must know what kind of wood this is to appreciate the tone because knowledge of this information is separate from the fact of it being true. It matters that the violin is made from quality material, and it matters that our ears can appreciate the result of this. Whether we know what the material is, is irrelevant. Another analogy: we might decide that to appreciate the tone of a flute on a deeper level if we put the sound through a spectrum analyser so we know what overtones it is made up of. This is all theory which is directly connected to what we are hearing.
> 
> But does it deepen our aesthetic appreciation, or make us more open to musical expression? Of course not! It gives us something extra, outside of these things. Music theory is technical data about what we are hearing, as is the specifications of our hi-fi. It is connected to, but nevertheless exists outside of, the aesthetic experience. If a composer chooses to communicate something via the understanding of this data, they too are communicating outside of musical aesthetics, and, as I have pointed out, this information exists in the score even if the corresponding sounds do not. All of which is fair enough, we can "add" to music this way, just as we might add words to the experience. But I think there has to be a separation made between musical expression, which only occurs through listening, and an extra musical information which is nonetheless directly connected to the music, but accessible independently of it.
> 
> ...


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Xavier said:


> Again, understanding music theory or the technical aspects of a composition does not *affect* what the music sounds like, and what it sounds like is why it moves you.


Understanding music theory or the technical aspects of a composition _may_ not affect what the music sounds like. When I look at a score, I sometimes consciously hear parts of the music that I did not easily (or at all) hear without the score. The understanding does not affect the sound waves, but it certainly affects how the brain processes the music and how the brain responds to the music.

What music sounds like is _part_ of why it moves us. My daughter's reaction to Wagner comes partly from the aesthetic sound of the music and partly from the intellectual beauty of the technical aspects.


----------



## Guest (Feb 3, 2014)

Xavier said:


> I think this comment by J should make everything perfectly clear
> 
> [/font][/size][/b]


The list of exceptions grows longer...

...and Jourdain is?


----------



## Xavier (Jun 7, 2012)

mmsbls said:


> Understanding music theory or the technical aspects of a composition _may_ not affect what the music sounds like. When I look at a score, I sometimes consciously hear parts of the music that I did not easily (or at all) hear without the score. The understanding does not affect the sound waves, but it certainly affects how the brain processes the music and how the brain responds to the music.
> 
> What music sounds like is _part_ of why it moves us. My daughter's reaction to Wagner comes partly from the aesthetic sound of the music and partly from the intellectual beauty of the technical aspects.


But don't you think all composers want the SOUND AND AESTHETICS of their works to *dominate* our musical consciousness, rather than their composing modus operandi?


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Xavier said:


> But don't you think all composers want the SOUND AND AESTHETICS of their works to *dominate* our musical consciousness, rather than their composing modus operandi?


Maybe, but I don't know enough about composers. Does this matter to your argument? Maybe I'm not understanding why you focus so strongly on aesthetics. We all believe that the aesthetic sense of music is important and a strong reason for us to listen. Some of us are simply saying that there are other things about music that we can appreciate. The graduate student focuses on those other things (at least in her statement) in an attempt to increase our appreciation. My daughter certainly believes that those other things give her a greatly increased appreciation.


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

Xavier said:


> But don't you think all composers want the SOUND AND AESTHETICS of their works to *dominate* our musical consciousness, rather than their composing modus operandi?


I don't really care what the composer wanted, but as it happens, composers did think technical knowledge improves aesthetic appreciation. Take this quote from Mozart, for example:



> There are passages here and there from which connoisseurs alone can derive satisfaction; but these passages are written in such a way that the less learned cannot fail to be pleased, though without knowing why.


Knowing the techniques does not help you appreciate the music, but applying them does.


----------



## Ravndal (Jun 8, 2012)

arcaneholocaust said:


> Somehow I clicked on the first page and my eyes fell upon this work of art.
> 
> What's this? A reasonable one-sentence middle-path solution to avoid insanity? What is this sorcery and will you write a book on your divine logical skills?
> 
> Tip of the hat to you though, really. I'm losing my mind right before I have to go to bed.


what? Rude. All im saying is that trough learning you can find new listening methods. Perhaps even have richer experience.


----------



## Guest (Feb 3, 2014)

mmsbls said:


> I wanted to like Berg's Violin Concerto and listened to the work many times. I made little progress. I then found a BBC audio file with an "expert" discussing the music and leading the listener through the work. After listening several times to this recording I was able to hear the music in a "different way" such that I came to love the piece. The transformation happened fairly quickly after my exposure to the audio recording. Does my experience help you to understand why someone (not necessarily you) might want to be guided and have things pointed out by another individual?


I believe you are referring to one of the BBC Radio 3's "_Discovering Music_" programmes. I don't recall having much trouble liking Berg's Violin Concerto from the off, but I know exactly what you mean about learning from experts as I too acquired a good deal of knowledge about the best repertoire, and how to get the most out of it, from those programmes.

My estimation of some other material that I had not originally liked much was changed by listening to an expert discuss it, and demonstrate special aspects of the work in question by use of an in-house artist. Not just that, but my appreciation of some works that I already liked was enhanced by learning about all sorts of clever devices and nuances that made that work, and its composer, extra special.


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

MacLeod said:


> The list of exceptions grows longer...
> 
> ...and Jourdain is?


I was thinking that too - he's a science writer apparently. Looks like he wrote a book about music and the brain! And guess what? He doesn't like nasty sounding 20th Century music!!!

Why does that just not surprise me - he apparently thinks it's all terrible, best already been done and modern music listeners only subject themselves to it because they think they should. LOLZ


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

mmsbls said:


> All I can say to this is a huge - *Amen*.


Really? And what about the gynaecologist? 
Ok, seriously: you really think that a physicist (every single physicist?) appreciate sunset more than a poet or a painter just because he "grasp the nuclear physics that created the energy that created the photons that travelled for millions of years to the surface of the Sun"?

I mean, this wasn't painted by a physicist:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cf/Twilight_wilderness_big.jpeg


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Again... there is a difference between "liking" and "appreciating".
> And certainly the "knowledge" or "learning" I am speaking of has little to do with the artists' bios or the cult of personality. We don't need to be taught to "like" or "dislike" something... although again experience... "nurture" as opposed to "nature" plays a key role. Many of the students I teach like nothing but rap. They find not only classical but even jazz and rock & roll painful to listen to... because they were raised on rap... it is all that they have really experienced. Am I to assume that they can never... through learning and alternative experiences... come to appreciate Mozart or Beethoven?


Maybe you've not read the post before your reply:


norman bates said:


> I wasn't suggesting that music or art in general doesn't require a long process of learning (on the contrary). But just that the aesthetic understanding and the aesthetic pleasure are related only to the listening experience and not to the technical or historical knowledge.





StlukesguildOhio said:


> Let me make an example: one of my very favorite soundtracks was composed by the japanese musician Teiji Ito. I discovered after a lot of time that it was inspired by gagaku music. I'm extremely ignorant of gagaku (I think I've listened just one cd of it) and still I love that piece.
> After years, I'm still struggling with Mozart. I've heard a lot of his music, I've read a lot about it. I've listened to Bernstein explaining it. And still I'm not a big fan of Mozart.
> 
> So... by the standards of the OP... yours is but an example of a lack of sensitivity to Mozart... or poor taste?


It could be poor taste but the point is that in one case I know a lot of things and still I don't appreciate the work. In the other case I know nothing about not only the composer but also that kind of music and the particular culture of the people who developed that kind of music and I love it. 
I mean, what are the informations that one need to appreciate more for instance, Stravinsky's rite?
That there were a tumult at the premiere? That it's a work where he uses a lot of bitonality? That he uses rhythms in a new way? That he admired Mussolini a lot? 
Or just to have time listening to it?


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

Petwhac said:


> Simon Singh from an article in The Guardian in 2005
> 
> _"Physicists also smile when we see rainbows, but our emotional reaction is doubled by our understanding of the deep physics relating to the prismatic effects of raindrops. Similarly, physicists appreciate sunsets more than anybody else, because we can enjoy the myriad colours and at the same time grasp the nuclear physics that created the energy that created the photons that travelled for millions of years to the surface of the Sun, which then travelled eight minutes through space to Earth, which were then scattered by the atmosphere to create the colourful sunset. Understanding physics only enhances the beauty of nature."_


I agree. My man has a degree in physics, and he is the most romantic, nature-loving guy I have ever met, with a lot of ability to appreciate the beautiful things of nature.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Xavier said:


> Here is a 'Statement of Teaching Philosophy' by a graduate student from Princeton University.
> 
> She writes:
> 
> ...


This is the problem with modern interpretation and a lot of the avant-garde: over "intellectulisation" of music.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

MacLeod said:


> Agreed, but knowing the name of the apple enables you to go and find another of the same kind, to discuss them with others who appreciate apples and who also know about pears and bananas.


Oh perfect, I agree with that.



MacLeod said:


> The ear doesn't work without the brain, nor does the tongue. The experience of music can be enhanced by understanding what is going on in any piece. Perhaps not for you, but clearly for others.


My experience can be enhanced like that of everybody else. But not the "taste" of the apple or that of the music. I appreciate the technical aspects, the historical aspects reading. I appreciate the musical part only listening. But I think that the two different parts that altough are connected remain completely different.


----------



## Piwikiwi (Apr 1, 2011)

MacLeod said:


> Yes, yes, agreed!


but it does affect how you hear it. This thread just sounds like an excuse for people who seem to justify their lack of knowledge by saying it is somehow superior.


----------



## Guest (Feb 3, 2014)

Piwikiwi said:


> but it does affect how you hear it.


I agree that it may affect how you hear it - or, perhaps more importantly, how you listen to it.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Xavier said:


> Rosen was NOT making a specific comment about 'how music works'. He is basically stating that we really don't understand much about the psychology of musical aesthetics.


You haven't read the material you quote very carefully. He says nothing of the kind. He says that any given system cannot by itself give the final definitive interpretation of a piece.


----------



## Guest (Feb 3, 2014)

Xavier said:


> I don't need an academic (or anybody else) to provide me with some *ridiculous *"toolbox" to engage with and thoroughly enjoy / understand the musical masterpieces.


Good for you! No-one else _needs_ one either. But _some _listeners have found that a _useful "_toolbox" has enhanced their understanding of all kinds of music (and not just the 'musical masterpieces'!)


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> No one has suggested this. Still, classical music, jazz, ballet, painting, poetry, Indian ragas... none of these can be inherently understood... and how well can we appreciate that which we don't understand. Romantic-era poetry will strike the average high-school student lacking an experience with the vocabulary and the structures as incomprehensible. No, one doesn't need a PhD. in the subject to "like" or "dislike" a work, but I have found that experience and knowledge increases my personal appreciation.
> 
> It seems to me that the OP was discussing an appreciation and "understanding" of music... not merely a question of "liking" or "disliking."


Liking and disliking can be linked to appreciation/understanding, unless we are just talking about some superficial background music listening which I'm not. Experience and knowledge can be enhanced by greater listening of something too.

I don't think anybody ever said that a bit of background knowledge isn't of some interest, but with many works /composers anybody can get themselves that by a few minutes searching on the internet now. Though with quite a few works I have no means of finding any background knowledge or score and yet I can still like them a lot anyway, which makes my point too. And looking at the score is a nice additional interest, but the point of a composed piece (or at least virtually every one of them) is that it is meant to be _heard_ and received in that way by the audience. Pieces live or die depending on how they sound, not whether they have clever touches that only those who read the score might appreciate.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Xavier said:


> Composers don't really understand how music works any better than we do.


Yes, they do. That is the essence of why they are able to compose. And you should stop speaking for "we" and "us." Just say "I," because you not only have no idea what "we" know and think about music, you are, by your own admission, militantly opposed to even hearing it.



Xavier said:


> Of course they understand form and technique, but like the rest of us, have only intuition to differentiate between a dry and formal piece and something with real strength of feeling.


Good composition teachers can and do give precise reasons for such aesthetic judgments. Every day.



Xavier said:


> The best music is not composed through some guy developing his own "grand scheme" of communication.. rather, it happens when the composer allows himself (or herself) to be guided by the universal communication of music... (i.e. be inspired, compose what feels right, without having to ask why)


Anyone who has spent time with Beethoven's sketches knows that he groped and questioned at every stage of the process. Those themes you seem to think are the product of inspiration and feeling were often labored over note by note for many pages. He interrogated them thoroughly as to their developmental possibilities, harmonic implications, and contrapuntal potential.



Xavier said:


> Once a person receives exposure to music why on earth would they want to be 'guided' or have things 'pointed out' to them by another individual? I don't believe music theory or the technical aspects of a composition should be anyone's primary concern or interest. The 'form' of the music should be subconsciously apprehended, the handmaiden of the expressivity of the piece.


No one said "the technical aspects of a composition should be anyone's primary concern or interest," certainly not the graduate student you quoted. Why would someone want guidance? Because great musical works often have subtle connections that are not readily grasped by those who trust to subconscious apprehension.



Xavier said:


> What a person gains from a conscious technical understanding of the score is totally incidental and superficial.


Once again, writing with colossal arrogance about the experience of others. You can state with authority only that what _you_ gain is incidental and superficial. You have no idea what I gain from conscious technical understanding.



Xavier said:


> Folks, it couldn't be stated more beautifully and clearly... And the above is something that definitely cannot be 'taught'


Once again speaking for others. You have no idea what the rest of us can be taught, stuck as you are in your solipsistic universe.


----------



## Guest (Feb 3, 2014)

starry said:


> And looking at the score is a nice additional interest, but the point of a composed piece (or at least virtually every one of them) is that it is meant to be _heard_ and received in that way by the audience. Pieces live or die depending on how they sound, not whether they have clever touches that only those who read the score might appreciate.


And yet the visual clues that some readers might pick up from looking at the score may enhance their understanding, mightn't it?

Why must these things come down to 'all' or 'nothing'; 'everyone' or 'noone'; 'must' or 'mustn't'? How about 'may' and 'might'? Or 'some' and 'perhaps'? I might go so far as 'many' and 'few'.

It certainly isn't about 'superior' and 'inferior' (as was referred to earlier).


----------



## Andreas (Apr 27, 2012)

starry said:


> And looking at the score is a nice additional interest, but the point of a composed piece (or at least virtually every one of them) is that it is meant to be _heard_ and received in that way by the audience. Pieces live or die depending on how they sound, not whether they have clever touches that only those who read the score might appreciate.


I'm not sure. The composition, the work, is the score. The performance is another work altogether, although closely related of course. No two performances sound the same. If the performance is supposed to be the work, then composers have to make their own recording of their piece.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Speaking for myself, I would love for her to show me her "broad-based toolbox".

Could be curiously refreshing.

Amazing how some folks get so upset over nothing.

Life is short. Live a little.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

starry said:


> And looking at the score is a nice additional interest, but the point of a composed piece (or at least virtually every one of them) is that it is meant to be _heard_ and received in that way by the audience. Pieces live or die depending on how they sound, not whether they have clever touches that only those who read the score might appreciate.


I understand what you are getting at. But any clever touch you might think is only accessible through reading the score is likely to be directly heard by some listeners. Many trained musicians, and even regular folks with good ears, analyze to one extent or another by ear. There is no clear line between what is available through score study and what is perceptible in the moment.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Andreas said:


> I'm not sure. The composition, the work, is the score. The performance is another work altogether, although closely related of course. No two performances sound the same. If the performance is supposed to be the work, then composers have to make their own recording of their piece.


Philosophers go over this stuff all the time. The aesthetic object is the performed work. The score is a set of directions for producing the aesthetic object, in the same way that the combination of written dialogue and stage directions is a recipe for producing a play. Each reasonably accurate performance of a piece is an instance of the aesthetic object. There is wide variation among valid instances of the work. There is some question about whether reading a score and hearing it in ones head counts as a performance.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

norman bates said:


> Ok, seriously: you really think that a physicist (every single physicist?) appreciate sunset more than a poet or a painter just because he "grasp the nuclear physics that created the energy that created the photons that travelled for millions of years to the surface of the Sun"?


No, I don't. I should have focused on all parts of the quote. I don't agree with "Similarly, physicists appreciate sunsets more than anybody else." I was responding to this statement, "Understanding physics only enhances the beauty of nature," and I felt that sentiment expressed my view of getting a better understanding of music.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

ArtMusic said:


> This is the problem with modern interpretation and a lot of the avant-garde: over "intellectulisation" of music.


On the contrary, I find the ones most intent on basing their ideas of what music should be based on technical or theoretical/structural features are those who want to exclude things.


----------



## GGluek (Dec 11, 2011)

What seems to be happening here is a complete trashing of the idea of music appreciation. Is the quoted passage too hifaluntin'? Sure. But it's from Princeton. What do you expect? The fact remains that there are a lot people who come to classical music intimidated by it and feeling they don't know where to start. The title of an old Aaron Copland book - "What to Listen for in Music" -- says it all. Some people can benefit by a little guidance. Should someone with aesthetic sensitivity be able to apprehend the greatness of a Rembrandt? Or a Picasso? Or a Jackson Pollack? The OP would seem to say yes. And ideally that would be the answer for any piece of great art. But we all know better. A little knowledge about what to look for, 
how to look at it, and why it's considered great helps almost everyone. That's called education. That's why liner and program notes exist. Mock the condescending language ifyou will. But to assume that education is useless belies the whole point of civilization.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Winterreisender said:


> ...On this music course I took, we learnt about sonata form, chord progressions, counterpoint, etc. etc. For the most people in the class, this academic approach did not enhance their level of enjoyment but rather it turned music into something dry and tedious which they would never listen to in their spare time.


That's like saying that study of the *Kama Sutra *will spoil one's sex life, when it's supposed to enhance it.



> ...I can't tell you how depressing it was when I took this classical music class only to find that none of my peers actually liked the music we were studying. Granted, anecdotal evidence is hardly overwhelming, but I nevertheless believe that true musical appreciation cannot be taught.


Oh, I get your logic: if you liked the music _before_ you studied it, it's "yours," then studying it ruins it; if it's music that you_ don't _like, then studying it depresses you. That's a handy little logic-loop, but it sounds like your mind was made-up before you signed up for the class.

Education is supposed to _expand _your boundaries, not solidify and confirm them.


----------



## Guest (Feb 3, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> That's like saying that study of the *Kama Sutra *will spoil one's sex life, when it's supposed to enhance it.
> 
> Oh, I get your logic: if you liked the music _before_ you studied it, it's "yours," then studying it ruins it; if it's music that you_ don't _like, then studying it depresses you. That's a handy little logic-loop, but it sounds like your mind was made-up before you signed up for the class.
> 
> Education is supposed to _expand _your boundaries, not solidify and confirm them.


Education, like the Kama Sutra (and life more generally) can disappoint at times.


----------



## Fortinbras Armstrong (Dec 29, 2013)

This whole discussion reminds me of a comment by Thomas Aquinas, who said that no one under the age of 50 should study philosophy.

Two comments on that: (1) Aquinas spent most of his career as a university professor, and I suspect that he said it after reading too many student papers. (2) Aquinas himself died at 49.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Xavier said:


> Again, understanding music theory or the technical aspects of a composition does not affect _*what the music sounds like, *_and _*what it sounds like is why it moves you*_.


I disagree. The phrase "what the music sounds like" is being used as an unchanging objective quality of the music-as-object. Music is just as much a subjective experience, and this subjective experience can be _changed_ with knowledge.

Another case of subject and object being artificially separated, which, whether intentional or not, creates a false duality. Art is always a two-way street, a feedback loop between art object (as mapped experience model) and our own experience of it.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> Education, like the Kama Sutra (and life more generally) can disappoint at times.


True, but now that I know that *Berg's Lyric Suite *is based on an all-interval tone row, now I can truly appreciate its unrelenting dissonance and constant change,which never gives the listener any scrap of sustained harmonic sonority.

I mean, I thought it was unrelenting, cruel, and ugly before, but now I can really *savor *the ugliness. I'm being sarcastic...to a degree.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

The OP seems to be saying that technical knowledge and formal training do not enhance appreciation of music, which is an innate talent developed only through intent listening.

That other people have countered this with anecdotal evidence and the "other side" has not budged one inch indicates that this is not the real issue.

The issue is that to the OP, technical knowledge and formal training _should not be_ used in order to enhance appreciation. My question is why?

For my part, I have always been drawn to music, and when I immersed myself fully in Classical, learning about the pieces I loved was simply one more way of deepening my appreciation. Winterreisender describes a music theory course in which the students who did not like Classical music before found themselves not liking it much more after the course finished, in spite of having absorbed some of the processes and such involved.

I would guess that, for those students at least, there remained a significant gap between what was studied and what was heard. That is to say that they may have been able to recognize root progressions or sonata form as constructs, but there was still a difficulty in translating this understanding into the listening experience. Even if these elements were recognized in the abstract, they seemed to have little bearing on the experience in context.

For me, and many others, hearing sonata form is as natural as recognizing in a pop song that "this is the verse", "this is the chorus", "this is the bridge", and so forth. No one thinks about the form of such things because it is ubiquitous and (within a certain range) conventional. But form is recognized all the same, and no one would say "don't think about it", because it has been absorbed on a subconscious level and so it is not thought of as thought of.

But when this translates into more complex formal procedures, one occasionally encounters the contention that these are things that "should not be thought about". Why? Of course the basic procedures can be absorbed subconsciously, and for fans of Classical music beyond the "Top 40" of Classic FM, I believe they are pretty much across the board. But Sonata-Allegro is not innate, any more than the "Verse-Chorus-Verse-Chorus-Bridge-Chorus" model of Pop hits is innate. For one accustomed to this music, it may seem as if it is natural, but for one "on the outside", it is completely opaque.

And we do no favors for those seeking to understand when we say that our ability to see through is something entirely natural. This will simply reinforce the idea that Classical listeners are elitist.


----------



## GioCar (Oct 30, 2013)

^^^^

This is an excellent post. My personal opinion.

:tiphat:


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Critical analysis and understanding of context are vital to any sort of art appreciation.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Bigshot:Critical analysis and understanding of context are vital to any sort of art appreciation. 
'Hermeneutics,'. . . just keep Gadamer out of it. Ha. Ha. Ha.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Intentions of the artist? Why? Why would you place emphasis on the composer's "intentions"?.... Composers don't really understand how music works any better than we do.

That seriously has to be one of the most ignorant things I've ever read here. Composers don't understand music better than anyone else? And I suppose that Artists don't understand art and writers don't understand writing better than someone with little or no experience in either. Princeton? How did that happen?

The best music is not composed through some guy developing his own "grand scheme" of communication.. rather, it happens when the composer allows himself (or herself) to be guided by the universal communication of music... (i.e. be inspired, compose what feels right, without having to ask why)...

You know this of course because you know so much about creating art of any genre. Inspiration? As Picasso stated, "Inspiration exists, but it has to find you working." The vast majority of the creative process involves thought and labor.

Please, I am NOT referring at all to the literary arts. Didn't I make that clear in my second post?

What you haven't made clear is how the creative process in the creation of Art or Literature differs from that of music... or how the process of appreciating any art form differs from appreciating music.

Once a person receives exposure to music why on earth would they want to be 'guided' or have things 'pointed out' to them by another individual? I don't believe music theory or the technical aspects of a composition should be anyone's primary concern or interest. The 'form' of the music should be subconsciously apprehended, the handmaiden of the expressivity of the piece.

No one is going to subconsciously or intuitively apprehend the from of Bach's passacaglia or of a painting like this:










Certainly, the individual may take a degree in pleasure in either without understanding anything about the work... just as the individual largely ignorant of classical music as a whole might take some pleasure in those famous catchy tunes from Eine Kleine Nachtmusik, the Moonlight Sonata, or the 1812 Overture. But they will likely gain a far greater degree of appreciation for the same... or for classical music as a whole... through experience and a degree of understanding of what they are listening to.

What a person gains from a conscious technical understanding of the score is totally incidental and superficial.

We are not speaking of a technical analysis of a given score... although certainly the musician or composer who undertakes such study will gain insights... and further levels of appreciation beyond what they had before. It is only logical that further study of a work or body of work will lead to an increased understanding... and as such, to an increased appreciation.

What is important is that the architecture is felt. And this is promoted simply by listening to the music in greater depth. The whole point of the music is what it means on the visceral / aesthetic / sub-theoretical level... This is where the power of music really operates.

A rather Romantic notion of how the arts work.

All of this is blinking obvious really, but so weird how it often needs to be restated.

Here is an excellent comment by the scientist and writer Robert Jourdain:

Musical compositions lack a specific, agreed upon reference to the contents of the world. But when we bring our life situations to music, we can make of music what we will. Music idealizes negative and positive emotions alike. By doing so it momentarily perfects our individual emotional lives. The "meaning" we feel is not in the music as such, but in our own responses to the world, responses that we carry about with us always. Music serves to perfect those responses, to make them beautiful.

Music most affects people who already have a deep emotional existence. It is the force of our own lives that drives musical anticipation and our own joys and pains that are rewarded by musical resolutions..."

Folks, it couldn't be stated more beautifully and clearly... And the above is something that definitely cannot be 'taught'

Perhaps your scientist is a bit of an naive when it comes to the arts... or simply a bit too romantic. He seems to assume that the primary impact of music (and I would assume of all arts) is emotional/visceral. This is why we get our younger or less experienced members who cannot relate to Mozart or Haydn... because they assume the primary goal of music is the expression of emotion... and that this must be worn like the proverbial heart on the sleeve.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

bigshot said:


> Critical analysis and understanding of context are vital to any sort of art appreciation.


Sure enough, but appreciation doesn't always entail enjoyment.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Xavier said:


> But don't you think all composers want the SOUND AND AESTHETICS of their works to *dominate* our musical consciousness, rather than their composing modus operandi?


But now you are speaking of the "intentions" of the artists which you suggested were of no concern in response to an earlier post.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Again, understanding music theory or the technical aspects of a composition does not affect what the music sounds like, and what it sounds like is why it moves you.

Why a piece of music moves an individual is in no way limited to how it sounds. Each listener brings his or her own experiences to any work of art. This includes not only knowledge of the given art form, the specific work, of the life of the artist, but also unrelated experiences and knowledge. Something as basic as a sentimental connection with a given work of music may play a profound part in how a person experiences that work. Again... as has already been said, the appreciation of music is not limited to a purely visceral response to what our ears hear. The brain... our knowledge... our memories... etc... are forever part of our experiences of art.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

GGluek said:


> What seems to be happening here is a complete trashing of the idea of music appreciation. Is the quoted passage too hifaluntin'? Sure. But it's from Princeton. What do you expect? The fact remains that there are a lot people who come to classical music intimidated by it and feeling they don't know where to start. The title of an old Aaron Copland book - "What to Listen for in Music" -- says it all. Some people can benefit by a little guidance. Should someone with aesthetic sensitivity be able to apprehend the greatness of a Rembrandt? Or a Picasso? Or a Jackson Pollack? The OP would seem to say yes. And ideally that would be the answer for any piece of great art. But we all know better. A little knowledge about what to look for,
> how to look at it, and why it's considered great helps almost everyone. That's called education. That's why liner and program notes exist. Mock the condescending language ifyou will. But to assume that education is useless belies the whole point of civilization.


Isn't education partly hearing other pieces of music, seeing other paintings, reading other poems etc. That gives you context, that gives you aesthetic insight. I'm not saying that additional information you pick up is irrelevant, but surely the listening/viewing experience is so important in developing a first hand understanding of an art form. Other things are useful as an additional tool, but let's not devalue our own ability to encounter and come to terms with art for ourselves rather than mainly through the intermediary of someone else. Many of us I think like to come to our own judgements, rather than just parrot what someone else has said in a book. And sometimes, as I said, you have no choice. There may be no information on the piece or composer, so you are on your own whether you like it or not.


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

starry said:


> Many of us I think like to come to our own judgements, rather than just parrot what someone else has said in a book.


Can you not read books and come to your own judgements? Maybe I've been doing it wrong...


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Of course, but it takes some a while to get their freedom from other's opinions too. So better perhaps your own experience first and then read other's opinions and agree or disagree as you wish. Your own experience should be paramount it seems to me.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

starry said:


> Of course, but it takes some a while to get their freedom from other's opinions too. So better perhaps your own experience first and then read other's opinions and agree or disagree as you wish. Your own experience should be paramount it seems to me.


Well, once you realize that every thought is simply a collection of societal/personal conditioning.... nothing is completely original to you. That doesn't mean to rip people off verbatim, but what we call "individual ideas" is simply a re-shaping of what already existed.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

I think there is something to be said for making a "pure" connection to the music, or any art, like a painting for example. Or at least, as pure as possible. Of course, everybody has their knowledge, memory and previous experience with (similar) music. But when I start listening to a new piece of music, I prefer to know as little about it as possible. Only later, I may or may not read about it, out of interest. I certainly will not have others tell me beforehand how to listen to and appreciate music. 
With something so intangible and subjective as music, I want to (try and) make my own judgement first. I want to make an intimate, unbiased connection to the music. If the music becomes meaningful to me that way, things can only get better. Increased knowledge and understanding of the (context of the) music may increase appreciation for the music, its composer etc., but I think that's absolutely secondary to that visceral, instinctive listening experience that forms the initial connection to the music (usually it requires multiple listenings, as memory plays a vital role). If that connection fails, then no amount of knowledge, insight and praise from others will ever make me appreciate it the same way.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

DeepR said:


> I think there is something to be said for making a "pure" connection to the music, or any art, like a painting for example. Or at least, as pure as possible. Of course, everybody has their knowledge, memory and previous experience with (similar) music. But when I start listening to a new piece of music, I prefer to know as little about it as possible. Only later, I may or may not read about it, out of interest. I certainly will not have others tell me beforehand how to listen to and appreciate music.
> With something so intangible and subjective as music, I want to (try and) make my own judgement first. I want to make an intimate, unbiased connection to the music. If the music becomes meaningful to me that way, things can only get better. Increased knowledge and understanding of the (context of the) music may increase appreciation for the music, its composer etc., but I think that's absolutely secondary to that visceral, instinctive listening experience that forms the initial connection to the music (usually it requires multiple listenings, as memory plays a vital role). If that connection fails, then no amount of knowledge, insight and praise from others will ever make me appreciate it the same way.


I agree with every single words. Altough I would made an exception for program music. To know that Ives in his Unanswered question uses the trumpet to represent the "Perennial Question of Existence" and the strings for "The Silence of the Druids" adds something. But it's clear that if one dislikes the music that aspect is irrelevant.


----------



## Xavier (Jun 7, 2012)

Stlukeguild,



> *As has already been said, the appreciation of music is not limited to a purely visceral response to what our ears hear. The brain... our knowledge... our memories... etc... are forever part of our experiences of art.*


Again you have misconstrued what I'm saying.

Music, of all the arts, is the one that does not and should not require explanation or education. If it works at all it should talk directly to the inner listener, beneath the layers of pretension or persona.

And how does it speak to each inner listener?

Through _contemplative_ listening of recordings on one's own. With devoted and repeated listenings we all gradually unpick, assimilate and internalize all of the harmonic, melodic, rhythmic, coloristic and structural details of the score.

Yes, of course listening to unfamiliar works is often a major cognitive task that requires very considerable processing resources from our brain. But we all have the ability if we devote ourselves.

A person doesn't need to know anything to enjoy and appreciate music. Please understand : I'm *NOT* talking about instant gratification, nor am I saying that the experience cannot be *deepened or improved with time*. But often you do hear people criticizing those who don't "understand" certain strands of music where the suggestion is that they lack the intellectual capacity or taste (whatever that is) to appreciate it.

The fundamental point I am making is that music ultimately should be able to *TRANSCEND* education, intellect and culture in a way that literature, for instance, cannot.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Xavier said:


> Stlukeguild,
> 
> Again you have misconstrued what I'm saying.
> 
> ...


Yes, I would say that it's like a joke: you don't have to explain it.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Xavier said:


> Music, of all the arts, is the one that does not and should not require explanation or education. If it works at all it should talk directly to the inner listener, beneath the layers of pretension or persona.


I'm not sure what you mean by music "does not and should not require explanation or education." Empirically, sometimes explanation or education helps. It did for me with the Berg concerto. Music schools all require music history. Do you honestly believe they all feel those courses add nothing to the students appreciation of music? I know several students who would say those courses contributed enormously to their appreciation. If you told those students that music "does not and should not require explanation or education," they'd be rather confused by your statement.



Xavier said:


> A person doesn't need to know anything to enjoy and appreciate music.


This is true, but people are not arguing that education or explanation is _necessary_ for appreciation. Sometimes they help or sometimes they enhance appreciation. It's not personal experience _versus_ education. It's personal experience _plus_ education. Is there really anything wrong with that? Many of us are just arguing that both contribute to our appreciation. Are you really arguing that education does not contribute?

And I still don't know why you called the graduate student's comments a joke and rubbish. She's suggesting that music courses can enhance one's appreciation of music. You seem to sometimes agree that education can do that. So why rubbish?


----------



## Xavier (Jun 7, 2012)

> And I still don't know why you called the graduate student's comments a joke and rubbish. She's suggesting that music courses can enhance one's appreciation of music. You seem to sometimes agree that education can do that.


No, not that kind of education. Please read my entire last post again.



mmsbls said:


> Music schools all require music history. Do you honestly believe they all feel those courses add nothing to the students appreciation of music?


No.

Years ago one of my blogger friends shared his view on this and I think he is absolutely right:



> *I confess that - even while acknowledging its value and importance in terms of the historical record - the idea of the explanation and understanding of a piece of music in terms of its social and cultural context at the time the music was written has always seemed to me an enterprise perverse in the extreme in terms of interpretive understanding and performance; an idea inimical to the very music itself.
> 
> Any music that lives beyond its time of creation will say and mean different things to succeeding generations and eras (which, in fact, is precisely what enables it to live beyond its time of creation), and attempting to fix what it has to say and means in terms of the social and cultural context of the time of its composition is not only thoroughly wrongheaded and potentially destructive, but lethally contrary to a true and meaningful understanding of the music itself qua music.
> *


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Xavier said:


> Years ago one of my blogger friends shared his view on this and I think he is absolutely right:


Your friend's thoughts are ridiculously pompous. "I confess that . . ."? :lol: Sounds like a misguided teenage poser trying to sound like an intellectual.


----------



## Guest (Feb 4, 2014)

Xavier, you seem to be dodging pretty much every response to your thread.

So please, answer this simple question definitively:

*No one is implying that musical education is necessary to enjoy music. Do you deny that musical education can enhance one's enjoyment of music?*

*If you deny this notion, type "Yes." in response (or simply "Y"). If you do not deny this notion, type "No." in response (or simply "N").*

Hopefully you will not be so arrogant as to type "Y" and we can all just agree that you simply misread the quotes in your OP.


----------



## Xavier (Jun 7, 2012)

EdwardBast said:


> Your friend's thoughts are ridiculously pompous. "I confess that . . ."? :lol: Sounds like a misguided teenage poser trying to sound like an intellectual.


Why don't you address the actual content of what he wrote?


----------



## Guest (Feb 4, 2014)

There are stark similarities in this thread to the kind of exchanges you see nowadays between debate moderators and political candidates. Xavier could probably run for office, at least here in America. It sounds an awful lot like:

Moderator: "Candidate A, how would you respond to those voters who take issue with your recent health care proposition?"
Candidate A: "Well, Moderator, that's a very good question. Because I do not know how to answer it without saying something stupid, I would like to direct everyone's attention to why the sky is blue."


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

This debate is truly a waste of time... largely because Xavier is set is his anti-intellectual bias to the point that he has ignored every counter-argument and dismissed the experiences of others as irrelevant or wrong. Indeed he could run for office in the US where there currently is a anti-intellectual/anti-education bias.

Personally, I don't see the "ridiculous pomposity" of the cited statement of teaching philosophy. It sounds rather like the usual university course description. I have read any number of far more "pompous", arcane, hermetic artist's statements, essays, art critical reviews, etc... The reality is that nearly every field of study... and certainly that of academia... has its own vocabulary. Some individuals push this to the breaking point... until their writing is virtually indecipherable... often, I suspect, out insecurity or a fear of not being taken seriously. Honestly I don't see this in the cited examples.

What Xavier is arguing in favor of is somewhat akin to the Art Critical theory known as Formalism. Under Formalism, "What you see is what you see." The work of art can only be appreciated with regard to the inherent elements that exist in the given work: line, shape, color, texture, value, form, and space and the manner in which they are organized or composed.

Formalism was put forth as an aesthetic approach that eliminated the need for prior knowledge, and opened up the possibility of anyone fully appreciating a work of art regardless of their knowledge or experience... or the culture from which the work came from.

Thus anyone could fully appreciate this:



And certainly anyone can like the work in question... and appreciate it to a great degree... but the problem is that not only does a work of art exist within a certain context (a time and place and tradition... as T.S. Eliot so eloquently argued in his famous essay, _Tradition and the Individual Talent_

http://www.bartleby.com/200/sw4.html

... but it is also wholly impossible for the audience to come to a work of art as a blank slate lacking any prior knowledge/experience. Like it or not, our experiences of aural, visual, tactile stimuli... including Art... are all filtered through our brains. Our prior knowledge, our memories, our experiences all impact how we experience the work... and our appreciation of the work.

The art work above is a quilt made by the women of Gee's Bend, Alabama. Knowing nothing whatsoever of the history of the women of Gee's Bend, I... and many other Modern/Contemporary artists and art lovers still did not come to the work as a blank slate. We all had experiences of looking at art... looking at the way art was structured and organized... and certainly experiences with Modern Abstraction. I may not have known anything of the artists who created the above work when I first came upon it... but I most certainly could appreciate it in light of my prior knowledge of the history and tradition of Modern Abstraction:



As I found these works intriguing, I delved into a study of the history of the works and their creators. Was this necessary? No. Did it result in a greater or better appreciation of the work? That is debatable. It certainly did for me, and I would argue that studying any work of art, its history and tradition, the forms, etc... certainly results in a different... more multi-layered appreciation of said work.


----------



## Xavier (Jun 7, 2012)

arcaneholocaust said:


> Xavier, you seem to be dodging pretty much every response to your thread.
> 
> So please, answer this simple question definitively:
> 
> ...


It just seems like we are going round and rounds in circles here.

Let's take a look at something else the graduate student wrote :



> "But yes, I DO think that musical background matters. Basic aural skills, the ability to read music, and time spent playing in ensembles drastically alters your experience of music"


Let me now highlight and rephrase Norman's response to this:

I find extremely interesting the history of art, the history of a work, the technique, the style, the context BUT.... the aesthetic appreciation is completely a different thing. I agree that _"time spent playing in ensembles drastically alters your experience of music"_, because if you do that you're listening, and you have to really pay attention to all the details. But to then go further and claim that _"the ability to read music"_ improves one's listening abilities.... ??

To me this is completely false and I should probably use another term (i.e. *bullsh*t*)


----------



## Guest (Feb 4, 2014)

Xavier said:


> It just seems like we are going round and rounds in circles here.
> 
> Let's take a look at something else the graduate student wrote :
> 
> ...


*Type "Y" or "N"* - I have no motivation to discuss music until you prove that you aren't dodging every single question/argument/experience thrown out there.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Xavier said:


> The fundamental point I am making is that music ultimately should be able to *TRANSCEND* education, intellect and culture in a way that literature, for instance, cannot.


From the very beginning in which music *is* a _cultural construction_, then all of this assertion is meaningless. 
I'm sorry for bursting your balloon, but music is not some kind of absolute, "cosmic" thing; the richness of music, as well as any art, comes from the different cultural relations and inputs it has...


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

I used to think book larnin didn't help none listnin to music. Then they larnt me to read some, an I got this composr book an red it. Come to find out that the fella what wrote all that music about horses and rodeos and hoedowns and stuff was actually a commie New York jew! An I wont even talk about his sex thing cuz there may be ladies here.

So I threw away all my rekkurds of his and don't listn to him no more. Who says readin dont help unnerstand music bettr?


----------



## Xavier (Jun 7, 2012)

aleazk said:


> From the very beginning in which music *is* a _cultural construction_, then all of this assertion is meaningless.
> 
> I'm sorry for bursting your balloon, but music is not some kind of absolute, "cosmic" thing; the richness of music, as well as any art, comes from the different cultural relations and inputs it has...


Ok, how would you respond to neuroscientist Steven Pinker?



> *As far as biological cause and effect are concerned, music is useless. It shows no signs of design for attaining a goal such as long life, grandchildren, or accurate perception and prediction of the world. Compared with language, vision, social reasoning, and physical know-how, music could vanish from our species and the rest of our lifestyle would be virtually unchanged.
> 
> Music appears to be a pure pleasure technology, a cocktail of recreational drugs that we ingest through the ear to stimulate a mass of pleasure circuits at once.*


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Xavier said:


> Why don't you address the actual content of what he wrote?





Xavier said:


> "I confess that - even while acknowledging its value and importance in terms of the historical record - the idea of the explanation and understanding of a piece of music in terms of its social and cultural context at the time the music was written has always seemed to me an enterprise perverse in the extreme in terms of interpretive understanding and performance; an idea inimical to the very music itself."
> 
> Any music that lives beyond its time of creation will say and mean different things to succeeding generations and eras (which, in fact, is precisely what enables it to live beyond its time of creation), and attempting to fix what it has to say and means in terms of the social and cultural context of the time of its composition is not only thoroughly wrongheaded and potentially destructive, but lethally contrary to a true and meaningful understanding of the music itself qua music.


The premises - (1) that music will mean different things to different generations and that for this reason (2) understanding it in its cultural and historical context is inimical to the music itself are dubious at best and, more likely, just plain wrong. I see no reason to think "Dido's Lament" from Purcell's _Dido and Aeneas_, for example, means anything different to modern audiences than it did to the few lucky souls who heard and performed it in the 17th century. Baroque treatises on rhetoric and music, musical figures, and the like, would tell one it is a by-the-books evocation of bitter and hopeless sorrow, and this is perfectly, timelessly obvious to nearly everyone conversant with the language of western art music, even if they are oblivious to the text. Likewise, the fugue from Bach's Toccata, Adagio, and Fugue in C major evokes powerful, exuberant, irrepressible joy. Timelessly. Those who heard it in 1730 would feel this and their understanding of why this is so would be more or less exactly like that of someone hearing it nearly three centuries later. I could multiply the number of examples by citing works from Beethoven and the nearly two centuries following. But at this point it might be better to ask you to give one or two specific examples of works for which knowing their historical and cultural context would harm a performance or interpretation, and to explain how such knowledge would be "inimical to the music itself qua music." I am in fact asking you to do just that, so that we will have some idea of what you are talking about.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

'Tis only the woman's teaching philosophy, which probably just panders to what her department heads want to hear at this stage in her career. Nothing to get worked up over.

What I'm more concerned about is her poor public speaking, as exibited at YT and her website. The "um" curse has never seemed more entrenched. And that monotone voice. The horror, the horror, the horror.


----------



## GGluek (Dec 11, 2011)

starry said:


> Isn't education partly hearing other pieces of music, seeing other paintings, reading other poems etc. That gives you context, that gives you aesthetic insight. I'm not saying that additional information you pick up is irrelevant, but surely the listening/viewing experience is so important in developing a first hand understanding of an art form. Other things are useful as an additional tool, but let's not devalue our own ability to encounter and come to terms with art for ourselves rather than mainly through the intermediary of someone else. Many of us I think like to come to our own judgements, rather than just
> parrot what someone else has said in a book. And sometimes, as I said, you have no choice. There may be no information on the piece or composer, so you are on your own whether you like it or not.


But put many an "average" person in front of the Mona Lisa, and he'll go "Oooooo" and "ahhhh" becuse it's famous and that's what he's supposed to say, rather than from any sense of rapt contemplation it inspires.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

GGluek said:


> But put many an "average" person in front of the Mona Lisa, and he'll go "Oooooo" and "ahhhh" becuse it's famous and that's what he's supposed to say, rather than from any sense of rapt contemplation it inspires.


This is not really any different from what we do on the Lang Lang thread.

We're pretty "average" after all. We just like to think of ourselves differently.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly (Apr 21, 2007)

Winterreisender said:


> On this music course I took, we learnt about sonata form, chord progressions, counterpoint, etc. etc. For the most people in the class, this academic approach did not enhance their level of enjoyment but rather it turned music into something dry and tedious which they would never listen to in their spare time. I can't tell you how depressing it was when I took this classical music class only to find that none of my peers actually liked the music we were studying.


Perhaps we share an experience, here. I, too, had the semi-obligatory lower-division college Music Appreciation class-- which did little to nothing for my appreciation of music. Fortunately, I recognized at that time that I could put it down to the (lack of) quality of the Instructor, rather than supposed deficiencies inherent in the subject-matter.

My independent study was of greater value than anything covered in that classroom. Then, much later in life, I married a former Music-Education professional-- and I _really_ made up for lost time.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

GGluek said:


> But put many an "average" person in front of the Mona Lisa, and he'll go "Oooooo" and "ahhhh" becuse it's famous and that's what he's supposed to say, rather than from any sense of rapt contemplation it inspires.


You see this a lot with popular music, hype is built up over months or years with something and people talk like a musician is a god with unassailable masterpieces. Meanwhile I'm just left scratching my head having heard the music thinking that was is said doesn't actually match up with what I'm listening to. Meanwhile other stuff I hear, with no hype and fanfare, with few words about it, can often sound far better. It happens with everything, human beings like to copy each other, they like to feel they are part of a consensus, they worry about coming to their own conclusions without being part of a crowd.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

GGluek said:


> But put many an "average" person in front of the Mona Lisa, and he'll go "Oooooo" and "ahhhh" becuse it's famous and that's what he's supposed to say, rather than from any sense of rapt contemplation it inspires.


So what's wrong with an "average" person, whatever that means, going "oooooo" and "ahhhh" in front of the Mona Lisa? 
I think that would be absolutely terrific. It's exactly what I stand for; one should go with one's emotions; there's no need to intellectualize art or music to appreciate. Not a crime.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

GGluek said:


> But put many an "average" person in front of the Mona Lisa, and he'll go "Oooooo" and "ahhhh" becuse it's famous and that's what he's supposed to say, rather than from any sense of rapt contemplation it inspires.





hpowders said:


> So what's wrong with an "average" person, whatever that means, going "oooooo" and "ahhhh" in front of the Mona Lisa?
> I think that would be absolutely terrific. It's exactly what I stand for; one should go with one's emotions; there's no need to intellectualize art or music to appreciate. Not a crime.


If the average person is oohing only because Mona Lisa is famous & that's what he's supposed to say, he is not feeling the emotions & is a hypocrite. I'd see something wrong with that. But if as hpowders says, he is thrilled to see the Mona Lisa & oohs with admiration - that's fine. Nothing wrong with emotion per se. And of course, there's another explanation - said person sees Mona Lisa & doesn't particularly admire it, but gets a jolt of recognition just because it's so famous; what I would feel. My grandfather had a good quality copy of this painting in his dining room & I always thought it very dingy & the woman not pretty. But if I saw the 'real thing', I couldn't help but be excited. That's a genuine emotion too.

It isn't 'intellect versus emotions' anyway, is it? I respond to music as a 'whole person' - emotions, intellect & aesthetic sense - and I think all three can be affected and/or improved by teaching and analysis. But it's also possible to become too rarefied and lose the fresh response, no doubt about it.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Vesuvius said:


> Well, once you realize that every thought is simply a collection of societal/personal conditioning.... nothing is completely original to you. That doesn't mean to rip people off verbatim, but what we call "individual ideas" is simply a re-shaping of what already existed.


Reshaping is better than not doing anything at all. And combining ideas together from different areas is also something that a thoughtful person could do, and is more interactive. But most just repeat verbatim, they feel more secure I suppose not taking risks, not adjusting what they read according to their own perspective.


----------



## GGluek (Dec 11, 2011)

hpowders said:


> So what's wrong with an "average" person, whatever that means, going "oooooo" and "ahhhh" in front of the Mona Lisa?
> I think that would be absolutely terrific. It's exactly what I stand for; one should go with one's emotions; there's no need to intellectualize art or music to appreciate. Not a crime.


My point is, that he doesn't have the "toolbox" necessary to really appreciate it. I.e. A little learnin' isnt a bad thing.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Ingélou said:


> If the average person is oohing only because Mona Lisa is famous & that's what he's supposed to say, he is not feeling the emotions & is a hypocrite. I'd see something wrong with that. But if as hpowders says, he is thrilled to see the Mona Lisa & oohs with admiration - that's fine. Nothing wrong with emotion per se. And of course, there's another explanation - said person sees Mona Lisa & doesn't particularly admire it, but gets a jolt of recognition just because it's so famous; what I would feel. My grandfather had a good quality copy of this painting in his dining room & I always thought it very dingy & the woman not pretty. But if I saw the 'real thing', I couldn't help but be excited. That's a genuine emotion too.
> 
> It isn't 'intellect versus emotions' anyway, is it? I respond to music as a 'whole person' - emotions, intellect & aesthetic sense - and I think all three can be affected and/or improved by teaching and analysis. But it's also possible to become too rarefied and lose the fresh response, no doubt about it.


I went to see the Mona Lisa once. The truth is, I didn't care about that - there was a whole museum of interesting stuff and I didn't see the point of standing in line, fighting the crowd. But I was with someone else, and I love her, so....

What I found most interesting about the experience was that there was a family of what appeared to be underprivileged Appalachians - of course they'd gone to Paris but getting a bit of money doesn't change one's culture overnight - sitting in front of it, really trying to look hyper-culturally-sensitive. One of the daughters, aged about 12, kept looking around to make sure that people were noticing how absorbed she was by this great work of art.

Of course I could go all Holden Caulfield on her. But the thing is, what actually separates me from her, other than a couple of decades of education, etc.? There is one thing: I am a much, much, much better actor. Not only do I fool other people, I fool myself. I think she'll become a better actor as she grows up, so that she'll be better able to fool other people, but the question is, is she ever going to be able to fool herself? Is she ever going to become the kind of person who experiences her interests as "genuine" rather than socially-motivated? Hopefully so, of course. But hopefully even then she'll have enough self-awareness to remember her hour in front of the _Mona Lisa_ and realize that no matter how good she gets at playing that role, no matter how natural it becomes for her, she basically chose to become the kind of person she is.

I don't know, maybe we should condemn her to the lowest rung of our social hierarchy, but at least from my POV I don't think she was all that different from the rest of us - everyone here, every human being everywhere - except that she wasn't as good at acting the part _yet_. If she gets real good, she'll be so "sincere" that she'll feel it in her soul and she'll scorn her young self. Maybe that's the goal.

The last time I made this "there is no authenticity" point, I cited Rilke, and I got several replies immediately saying, "I agree with that but I think there is still some authenticity." But what the heck, I think it's important at least for me not to scorn that girl and not to encourage others to. We have to have sympathy for our dark sides and the people who embody them. It's not a world of cultural monsters going around being all inauthentic and cultural saints going around being authentic. It's a world that is a stage, every man an actor. That's the inevitable reality.

And anyway, the role that I play here enables me to assert a superior POV to ordinary snobs with their "the difference between you and me is that I genuinely like this" attitude, with all of its naiveté about the complexity of their own psyches, so that's another plus. I'm surprised more people don't join me. But then I'd have to find something new.... Perhaps I could try, "I was post-snob before post-snob was cool." That'd probably work for awhile.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Well if it bothers you so much, you can always withdraw from Princeton and go to Columbia.
There's always a solution. I want everybody happy!


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Ingélou said:


> If the average person is oohing only because Mona Lisa is famous & that's what he's supposed to say, he is not feeling the emotions & is a hypocrite. I'd see something wrong with that. But if as hpowders says, he is thrilled to see the Mona Lisa & oohs with admiration - that's fine. Nothing wrong with emotion per se. And of course, there's another explanation - said person sees Mona Lisa & doesn't particularly admire it, but gets a jolt of recognition just because it's so famous; what I would feel. My grandfather had a good quality copy of this painting in his dining room & I always thought it very dingy & the woman not pretty. But if I saw the 'real thing', I couldn't help but be excited. That's a genuine emotion too.
> 
> It isn't 'intellect versus emotions' anyway, is it? I respond to music as a 'whole person' - emotions, intellect & aesthetic sense - and I think all three can be affected and/or improved by teaching and analysis. But it's also possible to become too rarefied and lose the fresh response, no doubt about it.


I did get to see the Mona Lisa at the Louvre a few years ago and what struck me immediately is how small it is!
The second thing that struck me was how rude some of the other viewers could be. One guy attempted to shove me out of the way! Something I would not even dream of doing. Never do that to someone psychiatrically diagnosed as "noble". 
He won't be doing that again and I felt great!


----------



## Xavier (Jun 7, 2012)

EdwardBast said:


> And to explain how such knowledge would be "inimical to the music itself qua music." I am in fact asking you to do just that, so that we will have some idea of what you are talking about.


Knowledge of music theory and other technical matters is NOT the basis for aesthetic experience. What it describes is, but theory is the description, NOT the object. We still have the object without the technical data. We still have ears and we are still fully equipped to hear it.

In other words, possessing knowledge of music theory or other cultural tidbits DOES NOT correlate in any way with a deeper aesthetic pleasure, understanding and love of music.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Xavier said:


> Knowledge of music theory and other technical matters is NOT the basis for aesthetic experience. What it describes is, but theory is the description, NOT the object. We still have the object without the technical data. We still have ears and we are still fully equipped to hear it.
> 
> In other words, possessing knowledge of music theory or other cultural tidbits DOES NOT correlate in any way with a deeper aesthetic pleasure, understanding and love of music.


Your conclusion doesn't follow.

You have not argued that no correlation exists, merely that technical knowledge and aesthetic pleasure are not the same thing. I agree with that (and, I believe, so has everyone else here), but not with your conclusion.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

science said:


> I went to see the Mona Lisa once. The truth is, I didn't care about that - there was a whole museum of interesting stuff and I didn't see the point of standing in line, fighting the crowd. But I was with someone else, and I love her, so....
> 
> What I found most interesting about the experience was that there was a family of what appeared to be underprivileged Appalachians - of course they'd gone to Paris but getting a bit of money doesn't change one's culture overnight - sitting in front of it, really trying to look hyper-culturally-sensitive. One of the daughters, aged about 12, kept looking around to make sure that people were noticing how absorbed she was by this great work of art.
> 
> ...


I don't really see how you know all this. Did you stay there the whole identical hour too?
Just to say that my own post was hypothetical, and was not actually about snobbery.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

I don't think it's snobbery, it's more snobbery by those who by bluffing their interest think they are better for it compared to others who don't show even fake interest. People who just want to be seen somewhere, could you get more snobby than that?


----------



## Guest (Feb 4, 2014)

Xavier said:


> Knowledge of music theory and other technical matters is NOT the basis for aesthetic experience. What it describes is, but theory is the description, NOT the object. We still have the object without the technical data. We still have ears and we are still fully equipped to hear it.
> 
> In other words, possessing knowledge of music theory or other cultural tidbits DOES NOT correlate in any way with a deeper aesthetic pleasure, understanding and love of music.


You know, if you're going to dodge over half the responses in this thread, it would be strategic not to respond to the rest of them. Address everything or appear logged out.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

But those are all statements of personal taste, and framed specifically as such. Someone should not be criticized simply for liking or disliking something.

She never claimed to be the ultimate authority on anything, as far as I can see.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

I get her point on Hindemith. But she is just stating her opinion. She is surely entitled to it. I wouldn't have bought a ticket to the Mahler concert but that's just my own preferences.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

GGluek said:


> My point is, that he doesn't have the "toolbox" necessary to really appreciate it. I.e.* A little learnin' isnt a bad thing*. **


Sometimes it can be.


----------



## Guest (Feb 4, 2014)

I don't get the point of this thread. Are we simply saying that a degree in music is pointless because everything you need to appreciate music can simply be obtained by listening to it?

I appreciate music quite a bit, but there is a lot that I don't know, particularly dealing with the theory. I couldn't point out sonata form to save my life. Does that impair my ability to appreciate it? No. But I do think my appreciation would be enhanced if I had that knowledge. There is a place for the academic study of music. It isn't snobbery. My own field is immunology, for which I possess a Ph.D. Anybody who has ever fought off a disease can certainly appreciate the power of the immune system. But there is certainly a deeper level of appreciation when you know and understand the intricacies of the immune system.

We all on here like to think that we have some special expertise in classical music, and love to strut our stuff and give our opinions. But I think there is definitely a place for those who make a special study of music, and understand how it is constructed, and can pass on the various skill sets that have been developed over the centuries.

I guess I just don't see pomposity in the statements posted.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

I don't like the comparison of medical knowledge to the knowledge needed by a listener. And most don't think having knowledge of music theory or other stuff is a bad thing in itself, they just question as to how much of it is really essential to enjoying a piece. Just listening to more music tends to be a very good way to understand and evaluate what you are hearing.



DrMike said:


> We all on here like to think that we have some special expertise in classical music


Really? Most just give their opinions, and don't say they are anything more than that.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> The OP seems to be saying that technical knowledge and formal training do not enhance appreciation of music, which is an innate talent developed only through intent listening.
> 
> That other people have countered this with anecdotal evidence and the "other side" has not budged one inch indicates that this is not the real issue.
> 
> The issue is that to the OP, technical knowledge and formal training _should not be_ used in order to enhance appreciation. My question is why?


The OP author is the only one who can answer that; but I think it's the same old argument that music is "pure art" and has nothing to do with anything except "beauty" and "emotions." This old argument wants to throw everything else out the window: physics of sound, number, frequency, ratios, harmonics, temperaments, resonance, octave division, and anything that hints of music being a part of the Greek Quadrivium, with astronomy, arithmetic, and geometry.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

> "The leap from ''understand'' to ''appreciate'' is long and blind. Respectful cognizance and enlightenment through diligent listening tell me that Ralph Shapey was a brilliant composer, but at the end of a long day, how many of us take home his string quartets to hold with affection?...The downside of music education is not only that it confuses understanding with love; it threatens an arrogance that classical music and opera can ill afford..."


This is unnecessary criticism. I'm listening to Ralph Shapey (1921-2002) as I speak, and it is very likeable music. *Ralph Shapey: Radical Traditionalism (2-CD New World). *Right now, it's *21 Variations for Piano (1978).*


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

The _listener_ receives more than just beauty and emotions, and I think that would be obvious to anyone with more than a cursory familiarity with works.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

> ...possessing knowledge of music theory or other cultural tidbits DOES NOT correlate in any way with a deeper aesthetic pleasure, understanding and love of music.


I think it does. It has enhanced my listening of Berg and Bartok.

Music theory is just an agreed-on way to communicate with other people.



Xavier said:


> ...theory is the description, NOT the object. We still have the object without the technical data. We still have ears and we are still fully equipped to hear it.


That's true of very simple, unchanging tonal music based on harmonic models. But even Western music from the Renaissance forward requires "horizontal awareness of change through time," and this involves cognition of a cerebral nature. More complex music may involve structures and meanings which are not immediately apparent to the ear, unless it is working in conjunction with the brain, searching for structures and meanings.



Xavier said:


> ...but theory is the description, NOT the object...


Theory doesn't pretend to_* be *_the object. It simply codifies and gives nomenclature to intuitive, artistic procedures which are already in use.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Ingélou said:


> I don't really see how you know all this. Did you stay there the whole identical hour too?
> Just to say that my own post was hypothetical, and was not actually about snobbery.


Well, it was about a ten or fifteen minute wait to get to the front of the crowd to "see" the painting, and as I was in line she turned around to look and then refocused her attention on the painting several times. The rest of the family was doing a better job, focusing.

You can say that maybe I was wrong about her and maybe I was, but usually we can trust our intuitions about each other. There is, after all, a very good reason that I could understand her: I'm not that different than her. My thing isn't sitting in front of the _Mona Lisa_, but knowing about classical music, science, history.... Just as she and her family were putting on a performance there, I do so as well all the time. And if, as Rilke's MLB said, I "try to take of the masks," I eventually find that I'm tearing at my own face, that in reality my face itself is a mask, it's masks all the way down.... What I am itself is a performance. There might be more and less honest or authentic performances, but it's performance, all the way down.

As for "hour," that was just a figure of speech. When we got up to it, my wife and I basically just glanced at it. There was a big crowd, jostling, all that, and I told her that I was satisfied and that if she wanted to look at it unmolested then she should google it, and she agreed (she'd evidently gotten enough of the totem power it holds as "the original") and we started to explore the rest of the museum... and she got sick and we had to leave.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

starry said:


> I don't think it's snobbery, it's more snobbery by those who by bluffing their interest think they are better for it compared to others who don't show even fake interest. People who just want to be seen somewhere, could you get more snobby than that?


Yes, by looking down on them!


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

science said:


> but usually we can trust our intuitions about each other.


Not sure I agree with that, though certainly people flatter themselves that they can judge strangers.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

So what's wrong with an "average" person, whatever that means, going "oooooo" and "ahhhh" in front of the Mona Lisa? 
I think that would be absolutely terrific. It's exactly what I stand for; one should go with one's emotions; there's no need to intellectualize art or music to appreciate. Not a crime.

One may just as well reverse the question and ask what's wrong with appreciating a work of art from an intellectual perspective? There's no need to reduce everything to gushing emotions.

The reality is that any work of art worth spending any time with works... communicates... on a number of levels. I can quite assure you that my appreciation... the pleasure I take in contemplating the Mona Lisa... or any favorite work of art... is not limited to nothing but a guttural, instinctual response to what I see.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Knowledge of music theory and other technical matters is NOT the basis for aesthetic experience. What it describes is, but theory is the description, NOT the object. We still have the object without the technical data. We still have ears and we are still fully equipped to hear it.

In other words, possessing knowledge of music theory or other cultural tidbits DOES NOT correlate in any way with a deeper aesthetic pleasure, understanding and love of music.

Its seems rather obvious that you have a rather limited... if not confused... concept of just what the term "aesthetics" denotes.


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

science said:


> Well, it was about a ten or fifteen minute wait to get to the front of the crowd to "see" the painting, and as I was in line she turned around to look and then refocused her attention on the painting several times. The rest of the family was doing a better job, focusing.


I love this (the rest of the thread is making my head hurt). You went to see the most famous work of art and you apparently spent the time in introspection through study of the living art, or perhaps theatre, that surrounds it. I've heard similar stories, people rarely talk about what the see in that painting but how they got to see it, or the audience they view it with. Ms Giocondo is a crystal ball, her image need barely even be there.

Well err...carry on with your pomposity arguments people, don't mind me, this might mean something in the context of the thread I guess.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Can you even get close to the painting anyway? There might be a hi-def image on the internet that gives you a better view.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

We all on here like to think that we have some special expertise in classical music, and love to strut our stuff and give our opinions. But I think there is definitely a place for those who make a special study of music, and understand how it is constructed, and can pass on the various skill sets that have been developed over the centuries.

Ultimately this comes down to an ignorant and arrogant kid who is outraged that the opinions of those with far greater experience and knowledge are held is greater esteem than his or her own. Certainly I can "appreciate" this as I remember that not too long ago I was an ignorant and arrogant kid who had a little knowledge of art under his belt and assumed that he knew everything about art... certainly as much or more than his professors.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Can you even get close to the painting anyway? There might be a hi-def image on the internet that gives you a better view.

I would certainly wait in line to see it... but yes, I suspect one might gain a greater view of the painting through reproductions.

In reality, there are far greater works of art in the Louvre.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> I would certainly wait in line to see it... but yes, I suspect one might gain a greater view of the painting through reproductions.
> 
> In reality, there are far greater works of art in the Louvre.


When I visited, I didn't actually bother to get through the crowd. It's a very small painting compared to what one might expect given its stature.

I'm not an art expert. I am certain that I cannot appreciate art in any way approaching someone like StlukesGuildOhio. I don't pretend that I can, either. I may be interested in going to the Louvre, but that's almost as much for cultural history as for anything else. It doesn't mean as much to me aesthetically as a concert does.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Xavier said:


> ... she is just another music lover with *her own* short-sightedness and biases. It's annoying. This is what is wrong with the academy, sometimes. Some pretentious musicologists think that their degree makes them the ultimate authority, forgetting that the creative force is held by the artists, not by the academics.


I rather suspect that she is not "just another music lover." I suspect that she knows significantly more about music theory and music history than the vast majority of classical music lovers. And apparently she's not a machine so she has musical likes and dislikes.

I highly doubt that any musicologist forgets that the creativity in music comes from artists.



Xavier said:


> Well, she just dismissed composers and works that are very dear to me.


Like many posters on this thread, I still really don't understand why you criticize this graduate student. Your comments don't seem to have much to do with what the student has written about her class or her list of musical dislikes.

The only things you've posted which seem to be reasons for you criticizing her are 1) she's an academic and 2) "she just dismissed composers and works that are very dear to me."

And I have read your posts so I truly do not need to read them again or more closely.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

quack said:


> I love this (the rest of the thread is making my head hurt). You went to see the most famous work of art and you apparently spent the time in introspection through study of the living art, or perhaps theatre, that surrounds it. I've heard similar stories, people rarely talk about what the see in that painting but how they got to see it, or the audience they view it with. Ms Giocondo is a crystal ball, her image need barely even be there.
> 
> Well err...carry on with your pomposity arguments people, don't mind me, this might mean something in the context of the thread I guess.


It is definitely true that for me, the behavior of the people around the painting was more interesting than the painting itself. I know that someone with a certain ... agenda? ... POV? ... might say, "Hey, you're in the presence of the real actual original of the most famous painting in the world. You're supposed to feel a quasi-religious awe, an 'appreciation.' You're supposed to have this sublime experience." And so on.

Well, I don't buy any of that. There is no great special power in the original, and I don't have to feel anything special around it to be a "cultured person" or whatever. It's precisely the attitude medieval people had toward relics. There _are_ relics I'd feel very special to be near, and in the absence of a jostling crowd maybe the _Mona Lisa_ would be one. (I really wanted to see the stele with Hammurabi's Code on it.) But it's irrational and unnecessary all the same.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

If your interest is in the crowd rather than the painting, well, everyone is different. But it is natural also to feel a certain something - awe, exhilaration, even a faint sense of surprise - when you see 'the authentic item'. I grew up in a socialist home which imbued me with ideological objections to snobbery and class kudos, but when I visited the University of East Anglia recently and saw portraits by Francis Bacon and others that I'd only seen in books, I felt that 'surprised pleasure'. I don't suppose my face revealed it, but what if it did? The same emotion I felt when I went to London for the first time at the age of 19 and saw Piccadilly Circus, or when I was waiting with a friend outside the Albert Hall after a Ravi Shankar concert, and George Harrison emerged. I didn't feel star-struck, or like going up to him to have fame rub off on me, just a shiver of surprise & I was amused to find in myself a feeling that as his face was so familiar to me, *he* ought to recognise *me*!

What I am saying is that if an emotion is genuine - if you are not 'posing' or persuading yourself that you feel what you don't - then it is not despicable to feel it. Bully for those also whose pleasure in music is analytical and intellectual - if this is genuine, and if they are not really just admiring the power of their own intellects.

Sincerity is all - and if you can fake that, as the saying goes, you've got it made! 

(Edit: I was correcting a spelling & saw a red wiggly line under Piccadilly and my computer suggests that really I mean 'Picallilli Circus'. Sometimes I *love* my computer!)


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Ingélou said:


> Sincerity is all - and if you can fake that, as the saying goes, you've got it made!


That bon mot is exactly what I'm trying to say! Well put. I'll use that one from now on.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

It's not mine - it's fairly well known, so you'll need to source it.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Ingélou said:


> It's not mine - it's fairly well known, so you'll need to source it.


"The secret of success is sincerity. Once you can fake that you've got it made." This has been attributed to George Burns, Bob Hope, and others. But the original seems to have been Jean Giraudoux, French diplomat, dramatist, and novelist (1882-1944).


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Ingélou said:


> It's not mine - it's fairly well known, so you'll need to source it.


_"When a thing has been said and well said, have no scruple; take it and copy it."_ ~ Anatole France


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I think I can claim for myself, "All sincerity is fake." _That_ is really what I'm trying to say.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

mmsbls said:


> I highly doubt that any musicologist forgets that the creativity in music comes from artists.
> 
> Like many posters on this thread, I still really don't understand why you criticize this graduate student. Your comments don't seem to have much to do with what the student has written about her class or her list of musical dislikes.


I think most people in this thread are much more interested in talking in general terms about the subject than limiting it to one person's words about music.



science said:


> It is definitely true that for me, the behavior of the people around the painting was more interesting than the painting itself. I know that someone with a certain ... agenda? ... POV? ... might say, "Hey, you're in the presence of the real actual original of the most famous painting in the world. You're supposed to feel a quasi-religious awe, an 'appreciation.' You're supposed to have this sublime experience." And so on.
> 
> Well, I don't buy any of that. There is no great special power in the original, and I don't have to feel anything special around it to be a "cultured person" or whatever. It's precisely the attitude medieval people had toward relics. There _are_ relics I'd feel very special to be near, and in the absence of a jostling crowd maybe the _Mona Lisa_ would be one. (I really wanted to see the stele with Hammurabi's Code on it.) But it's irrational and unnecessary all the same.


If people do want to feel awe most of them probably come away very disappointed. I don't like the comparison to medieval relics though. What we are talking about here is mainly tourism, visiting things people feel they are supposed to see as everyone else does. Relics had some spiritual significance in physical form for the people who saw them according to their own specific beliefs of that time and what that told them about the spiritual on earth. That has to be vastly different. And the Mona Lisa wasn't a religious relic anyway (I'm sure you know that of course).



Ingélou said:


> If your interest is in the crowd rather than the painting, well, everyone is different. But it is natural also to feel a certain something - awe, exhilaration, even a faint sense of surprise - when you see 'the authentic item'.


It probably varies according to what someone's expectations are, their interest, what view or experience they can get of something in person. For many there's probably a curiosity to see the Mona Lisa and how it's been displayed and shown as well, more because of how it's become famous in popular consciousness as for itself.

Maybe some can fake sincerity or maybe some just fool themselves, or maybe some people in life are sincere but many who do the judging can't actually read them properly despite flattering themselves that they would be able to. It's dangerous to underestimate the arrogance and ignorance of humankind.


----------



## Guest (Feb 5, 2014)

Must the painting be of more significance than the crowd looking at it? Some would argue that watching people is just as valid a pastime as studying paintings.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

That could be, but I think the idea is that the Louvre is place set up for people to look at art not at the audience. And I suppose the art has been made to communicate to us while the people who happen to be roaming about are more separate and unknowable in that sense.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

science said:


> I think I can claim for myself, "All sincerity is fake." _That_ is really what I'm trying to say.


The australian artist Ian Fairweather, who never tried to achieve success said this about painting: "It gives me the same kind of satisfaction that religion, I imagine, gives to some people." And I agree with that. The experience of the beauty in a work of art gives me exactly that kind of feeling. There's nothing fake about it. So when I read something like "all sincerity is fake" I wonder if that person who believe in that statement has ever experienced that kind of reaction.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

norman bates said:


> The australian artist Ian Fairweather, who never tried to achieve success said this about painting: "It gives me the same kind of satisfaction that religion, I imagine, gives to some people." And I agree with that. The experience of the beauty in a work of art gives me exactly that kind of feeling. There's nothing fake about it. So when I read something like "all sincerity is fake" I wonder if that person who believe in that statement has ever experienced that kind of reaction.


You're free to wonder of course, but my experiences are as real as anyone's. I don't doubt people are experiencing their experiences, or that people are in general not trying to fake anything.

It just happens. The calculations take place _prior to_ and without your conscious awareness. Religion is a good example - religious experience always has a social context, even if the mystic has gone out to the forest hoping never to see another human being, he has been conditioned by his society and his prior experiences. No experience that he can ever have will be "pure." The thing doing the experiencing - the subjectivity machine itself - has been conditioned since before his birth. It will be with him without ceasing, in his dreams and his visions and his despair and his elation, until his final deliverance from earthly existence. There is, to take an easy example, a really good reason that medieval Europeans didn't get possessed by the goddess Kali - no matter how far into the forest they went - and that ancient Indians didn't experience alien abduction. The feelings _about_ these experiences are as conditioned as the experiences themselves.

Ian Fairweather may be like such a monk, but he's an easier example too. _He allowed his paintings to be exhibited_. If that doesn't count as "trying to achieve success," you've got a much more specific definition of "success" than I have. But even if he had just burned his paintings without letting anyone see them, even if he hadn't allowed anyone even to know that he was painting anything at all, his attitude toward painting must inevitably have been conditioned by the society he grew up in. His self-image, if nothing else, would be affected by his own knowledge that he was "painting" rather than, say, "decorating."

I realize that this undercuts a lot of ideology about how our experiences are supposed to be and how we're supposed to approach "art" or religion, and I realize also that it undercuts many of our social strategies. But the thing is, if we're really willing to drop those strategies, then it's ok! We can be what we are, and we can allow ourselves to just admit it casually, we might even try to understand ourselves a bit, but regardless, _we can as much as ever enjoy transcendent experiences of art and music and religion_. (If the strategy side causes anyone any concern, don't worry about that either! Just as our experiences in their full power carry on regardless, we can and will whether we want to or not adopt other strategies. Our minds are soooooo clever with that kind of thing even when we don't try.)


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

science said:


> You're free to wonder of course, but my experiences are as real as anyone's. I don't doubt people are experiencing their experiences, or that people are in general not trying to fake anything.
> 
> It just happens. The calculations take place _prior to_ and without your conscious awareness. Religion is a good example - religious experience always has a social context, even if the mystic has gone out to the forest hoping never to see another human being, he has been conditioned by his society and his prior experiences. No experience that he can ever have will be "pure." The thing doing the experiencing - the subjectivity machine itself - has been conditioned since before his birth. It will be with him without ceasing, in his dreams and his visions and his despair and his elation, until his final deliverance from earthly existence. There is, to take an easy example, a really good reason that medieval Europeans didn't get possessed by the goddess Kali - no matter how far into the forest they went - and that ancient Indians didn't experience alien abduction. The feelings _about_ these experiences are as conditioned as the experiences themselves.
> 
> ...


So what about the beauty of a person, or the beauty of a landscape? Do you think that even in that case our reaction is influenced by our culture?


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Pale people or larger (weightier) people can be considered attractive in some places but not at all in others.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

I do so pity the "pale people". Hope they can adjust.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly (Apr 21, 2007)

Thread temporarily closed- NOT for recent contributions, but for issues upthread- particularly in need of review in light of the *don't get personal* clause of our Guidelines for General Behavior.


----------



## Krummhorn (Feb 18, 2007)

Chi_townPhilly said:


> Thread temporarily closed- NOT for recent contributions, but for issues upthread- particularly in need of review in light of the *don't get personal* clause of our Guidelines for General Behavior.


And, for possible copyright violations.


----------

