# Do you ever like to 'analyze' music?



## Ravellian (Aug 17, 2009)

As a college senior studying music, having taken 4 semesters of music theory and being a big classical music fan, I'm very familiar with the range of musical analyses available, including for example:

- Form analysis: overall structure
- Melodic analysis, including development and manipulation of main themes
- Vertical and linear harmonic analysis
- Ground bass reduction (a stupid waste of time in my opinion)

After being involved in this sort of analysis for a while, I'm still rather torn as to the importance of it all. I really think that a brief overview of the piece as a whole is all that is necessary to _fully_ enjoy a piece of music. What's more, you don't get to know and understand a piece well by trying to figure out the technical details of how and why certain chords resolve where, you get to know a piece well by _listening_ to it. Arguing over where the recapitulation begins in a certain piece of music does nothing to help your enjoyment of the piece.

The only people who I think would benefit from intense study of the scores of the music is other composers... Obviously, when writing music it is helpful to know the techniques of prior composers. The composer's job is to create a piece that the listeners will enjoy... their objective is to express some particular range of emotions or ideas. If the listeners are unable to comprehend those ideas and _have_ to go back to the score and study it to fully understand and appreciate the work, then I would consider it a failure on the composer's part.

So, I think technical analysis is completely meaningless unless you want to be a composer. Agree/disagree? Does anyone here do this on occasion?


----------



## MJTTOMB (Dec 16, 2007)

I seldom listen to music without a score in hand.

But I wouldn't consider it a failure on the composer's part if a score is necessary to understanding. It entirely depends on what the composer was trying to communicate.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I don't read music but I do try to analyse it while listening in terms of the basic themes & structure especially. I agree that sometimes its better not to analyse too much, just to listen & let the music take you on a journey.

I was at a lecture last year at Sydney Conservatorium by musicologist & composer Andrew Ford, who was talking about the analysis of serial music. He said that you can analyse the rows to death, but understand absolutely nothing of the music. To do that, you basically have to listen, he said.


----------



## Olias (Nov 18, 2010)

I LOVE to analyze music. I've got hundreds of scores and they all have markings that label sections, motifs, unusual chord progressions, the motivic development of ideas, etc. I've made so many "Word Scores" that really give me an entire new level of appreciation and admiration for the compositional skills of composers.

I don't contend that analysis is necessary for enjoyment, however, the compositions that I do score studies on become works that I not only listen to more but gain a deeper understanding of what the composer is trying to convey.


----------



## myaskovsky2002 (Oct 3, 2010)

*I can't read music...*

But I analyze music with my brain...Very much...I am not a "guts" guy...That's why I don't like cheezy/corny music...I think that that kind of music is not worth trying to analyze...then not interesting...I love challenges also.

Martin


----------



## Ravellian (Aug 17, 2009)

I liken it to a computer programmer creating a game... His goal is to create a product that's fun and easy to play. A player can go back and do a technical analysis of the programming code, but that really doesn't affect his enjoyment of the game. That original code would only be useful to other computer programmers. Make sense?


----------



## Olias (Nov 18, 2010)

Ravellian said:


> I liken it to a computer programmer creating a game... His goal is to create a product that's fun and easy to play. A player can go back and do a technical analysis of the programming code, but that really doesn't affect his enjoyment of the game. That original code would only be useful to other computer programmers. Make sense?


Yes, I take your point, and I do write music, so the composer in me loves to analyze.


----------



## janealex (Apr 7, 2010)

Yes i love to analyze, infect i have studied music and now i am working on some apirl fool jingles, i will come up with them soon. :tiphat:


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Yes, I love to do this as a composer, but have to disagree with you as it also increases my enjoymrnt trmendously to get into the technical details.

I think you missed out something though: performers should analye it to advise their playing. I learnt analysis in conducting firstly.


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

I would if I had the training for it! So, I just mainly analyse the recording itself, how it sounds, is it played with passion and power or lazily, which instruments are prominent in the sound etc.


----------



## Wicked_one (Aug 18, 2010)

I like analyzing music, but sometimes it gets all way too complex for my knowledge of this kinda stuff... meh, not a music student myself. 

But yeah, I like to figure out such things as you mentioned there. I'm also interested in the orchestration part of it.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

I do analyse music but generally without pleasure: that applies to things like harmony and stuff, it goes very laboriously for me because of my lacks in education. But one thing that fascinates me so much that I'll always enjoy looking for it in score/with my ear while listening is colour, especially in orchestral music, ways to combine instruments, timbres, atriculations and stuff to achieve these marvelous sound landscapes and effects.


----------



## Rasa (Apr 23, 2009)

> I liken it to a computer programmer creating a game... His goal is to create a product that's fun and easy to play. A player can go back and do a technical analysis of the programming code, but that really doesn't affect his enjoyment of the game. That original code would only be useful to other computer programmers. Make sense?


I disagree. As far as I'm concerned, the pieces I've thouroughly analysed take on extra depth when listening to it again, making the listening experience more enjoyable.


----------



## zoziejemaar (Dec 15, 2010)

Doesn't analysing a piece sometimes stand in the way of a genuine, 'naive' emotional experience? I can see that analysing adds an extra depth, but especially for a first listening experience, I like to have the music speak directly to my emotions, without letting the rational part of my brain interfere too much. 

The best music, of course, is enjoyable for "Kenner und Liebhaber" alike... But composers did not write for musicologists in the first place, did they?

Well, I do not claim too much for music, as my knowledge about harmony and things is way too limited, but in the case of literature, I am convinced that formal analysis rather spoils genuine reading pleasure than adding depth to it. Just a personal opinion, of course...


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

Yes, I love to analyze music, ever since I was little. In middle school, I used simpler ways of analysis (what instruments were being used, tempos), and now, I analyze that plus looking for recapitulation, sometimes form, and some other ways of idea development. Not that I look at the music that often, but Youtube sometimes supplies the music. Otherwise, especially if it's piano music, I miss looking at the notes if I'm not able to.

Nowadays, since I took theory at school, I can even recognize chords, especially in baroque and classical era music, and I can't help hearing cadential I 6/4 chords like all the time!


----------



## Rasa (Apr 23, 2009)

> Doesn't analysing a piece sometimes stand in the way of a genuine, 'naive' emotional experience?


There is no such thing as naive listening. Unless you haven't heard a sound in your life and suddenly you listen.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

myaskovsky2002 said:


> But I analyze music with my brain...Very much...I am not a "guts" guy...That's why I don't like cheezy/corny music...I think that that kind of music is not worth trying to analyze...then not interesting...I love challenges also.
> 
> Martin


Perhaps you should learn to read music, it's very worth it. Learning an instrument is probably the easiest way, maybe piano? Along with learning theory.

You like Schon*ber*g, *Ber*g, We*ber*n, and the rest? Have you ever _seen_ the music they had to write to make their creations?










As a musician, that gives me a headache. As a listener, it's almost as bad.


----------



## myaskovsky2002 (Oct 3, 2010)

*G key, I'm OK.*

A key (left hand) I don't remember...

Martin


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

Personally, I get the most out of music when I've looked at the scores and annotated them. It may not be necessary to do it, but there are many moments that I'd miss without it.


----------



## myaskovsky2002 (Oct 3, 2010)

*you luck b....*

I can't read music! I feel so frustrated!

LOL

I can feel it anyways.

Martin


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

You should check out the 'I dont get Atonal Music' thread, the discussions for and against analysis are raging there.


----------



## Charon (Sep 8, 2008)

Generally, yes I like to analyze music. I feel that analyzing music is important for learning as a musician myself. 

In general, composers tend to make much of their "music dialogue" immediately audible and clear to the ear. There are other elements that composers include in their works that become more clear with repeated listening. Such elements can also be detected through musical analysis, and subsequently heard. 

I also think that analyzing music can lead to more meaningful listening. For me, analyzing a work tends not to "ruin" the work, but it gives me some insight into the composer's thoughts as he/she was composing the piece. Ultimately, I feel analysis leads to a more intimate listening experience.

Analyzing a piece of music can also help you to improve your performance of a work.


----------



## myaskovsky2002 (Oct 3, 2010)

*Ok...I'll try to be clear here*

In orther to analyze a novel you can be:

- A reader or 
- Have a master in literature, analyze style, figures, etc.

But you don't nead the Master degree to analyze the novel, you can be a smart reader and if possible a very active one...

The same I think is for music.

I can analyze music even if I cannot read music. Many modern musicians cannot read music.

I can analyze it even though. I can analyze many composers and tell you the "school", the main aspects, etc. For example, Stravinsky as Picasso has different periods: The Russian period (Fairybird, Petrushka), the revolutionary period (the rite), the neo-classic (Pergolessi like, Pulcinella, rake's progress) period and the decadence...(Threni, Agon)...I can also discuss about a certain work (no with notes) but using common language...Bartok also has his periods...Many have.

I can analyze very precisely a specific work...I know the notes too but I can read them in just one scale...

I think musicians here feel like not musicians we shouldn't be here...I disagree.
And I'll stay here.

My bow.

Martin


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

The difference between literature and music is that, music needs to performed and the work is thus transmuted through a performer. When you listen to a recording of a work you are only listening to a distortion of the piece, as if looking through water. To see the actual work you can only look at the score.

Non-musicians can still think about music and perhaps come to certain conclusions, but these will always be speculation based on a false-perception of the music (through a recording). Though this doesnt necessarily detract from the value of a non-musicians on certain subjects. Besides, the majority of discussion here is not so technical, and concerns the history and story behind the music - in this your opinion is just as valuable as a musicians.

I seriously doubt any serious classical musicians cant read notes


----------



## myaskovsky2002 (Oct 3, 2010)

*You can think whatever you want*

Non-musicians can still think about music and perhaps come to certain conclusions, but these will always be speculation based on a false-perception of the music (through a recording). Though this doesnt necessarily detract from the value of a non-musicians on certain subjects. Besides, the majority of discussion here is not so technical, and concerns the history and story behind the music - in this your opinion is just as valuable as a musicians.

I seriously doubt any serious classical musicians cant read notes 

I do not agree. You must be very young...or not?

I am an old guy and learnt or learned to be more flexible with age...I think I can analyze music even if I can't read music...That is my humble opinion...

I started listen to good music since I was 12, I am 59..What about you? At least 3 to 4 hours a day...Mainly opera.

Martin


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Yes you are correct im only 16 
Ive been listening about 2 or 3 years.

Unfortunately this is one of those things in which I know I am correct. When you listen to your CDs you are also listening to the orchestra and the conductor, and there have an effect on how your perceive the music.


----------



## myaskovsky2002 (Oct 3, 2010)

Yes you are correct im only 16 
Ive been listening about 2 or 3 years.

Unfortunately this is one of those things in which I know I am correct. When you listen to your CDs you are also listening to the orchestra and the conductor, and there have an effect on how your perceive the music. 

When you'll get older you will become:

- more tolerant
- more humble
- less "I know everything"
- you will listen to people
- you will analize music instead of notes...Notes are the TOOLS for building music, you cannot analyze notes for understanding the music...Music is understandable by people being used to listening a lot of music.

- Reading or writing music is just a technique...You know maybe how to write in English...but can you write a decent strory?...You see, you know the tools (the words) but can you make an interesting story just because you know the words? (the tools)
Probably you don't... You can analize some aspects knowing music that otherwise you can't...That is true...But not everything. I can analize other aspects...Like the influence Bartok had from Ferenc/Franz Liszt or Scriabin from Chopin or Bethoven from Mozart...I can tell you in each work the influences, the countries, etc. I have travelled a lot.

Martin


----------



## myaskovsky2002 (Oct 3, 2010)

*Getting older*

also implies saying and thinking as Socrates said once:

_I just know I know nothing_. That I know it for sure.

I am like that.

Martin


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

myaskovsky2002 said:


> In orther to analyze a novel you can be:
> 
> - A reader or
> - Have a master in literature, analyze style, figures, etc.


Bad comparison. Work of literature has only one surface - written, music has two - written and played.

Analyse of music without ability of reading scores would require extremely rare gift of distinguishing intervals, chords, single pitches and stuff just by hearing it in density of performed work. Well, do you have it?


----------



## Pieck (Jan 12, 2011)

Aramis said:


> Bad comparison. Work of literature has only one surface - written, music has two - written and played.
> 
> Analyse of music without ability of reading scores would require extremely rare gift of distinguishing intervals, chords, single pitches and stuff just by hearing it in density of performed work. Well, do you have it?


Maybe not but you can notice modulations, variations, tension resolution, and other stuff. Even the most unpracticed listener can analyse on some level.


----------



## myaskovsky2002 (Oct 3, 2010)

*Thanks Aramis*

Tonight I won't sleep.

LOL

Martin, ignorant


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Sure, do you want to vaguely guess when a modulation occurs based on the sounds you hear, with no idea which tonalities are involved?

Martin, I see it more like this: The notes are the poem, the recording is like listening to someone read the poem. Everybody reads at different speeds, places emphasis on different words, has a different accent, perhaps people see the meter and rhythm differently. If you want to see the real poem you have to read it on the page, otherwise you only see it distorted through someone elses interpretation


----------



## zoziejemaar (Dec 15, 2010)

I wonder which emotional pleasure a listening experience can give, when you're listening while saying to yourself "ah, here's a modulation from Eb to Ab!", "here's the development", etc. You _hear_ all these things when you're listening attentively, don't you, even if you can't (or don't want to) formulate it precisely for yourself? (At this point, I second Martin, in fact) Analysis can give great intellectual pleasure, sure, but does it add to the emotional experience of the music?

I often listen to music with the scores at hand (or worse: just read the scores and imagine the music). It's a different experience. After a while, I curse myself for being so intellectual-minded, and I just want to listen with the least knowledge possible.

On the other hand, this is also quite true:



rasa said:


> There is no such thing as naive listening. Unless you haven't heard a sound in your life and suddenly you listen.


Is the best way to 'listen' to music, on both levels, to... play it?

Zoziejemaar, in serious doubt.


----------



## Lipatti (Oct 9, 2010)

emiellucifuge said:


> The notes are the poem, the recording is like listening to someone read the poem. (...) If you want to see the real poem you have to read it on the page, otherwise you only see it distorted through someone elses interpretation


So you'd prefer to hear it distorted in your imagination rather than have it performed by a skilled musician? Music has a much more elusive language than literature, where anybody can basically read a complicated poem even though the respective person doesn't understand a thing of what he's reading. It takes many years of training and professionalization for an instrumentalist to do the same thing.

Surely reading the score adds an experience to the act of listening, but analyzing music should also be possible by purely auditory means. Think abut it this way - there's a reason why a composer chooses to use a a certain type of chord or modulation in a certain place. I don't think he only intended it to make effect when read, there's a big chance he actually wanted people to _notice_ this effect when the music is being _played_.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Im not sure I understand the majority of your argument. Are you suggesting the ability to read is somehow innate in humans? It takes many years of learning every day to read, the only difference is that nearly everybody does it. The fact that only a small amount of people become musicians provides the skill with an aura of exclusivity. 
When I look at the score it isnt distorted. In analysis you are looking at the mathematical or theoretical relations between sounds which are codified in our musical notations. These are concrete and cannot be distorted.
If a conductor fails to produce a sufficient contrast in dynamic at the climax of the piece, do we assume the composer intended it this way? Looking at the score can tell us by the dynamic markings written on the score the real intention of the composer. An analysis of the harmony may reinforce the conclusion.


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

emiellucifuge said:


> Non-musicians can still think about music and perhaps come to certain conclusions, but these will always be speculation based on a false-perception of the music (through a recording).


Well, going by the discussions here it seems to me that those that are able to read scores and thus can analyze music from a technical perspective often disagree just as much with each other about music as the rest of us. Some of them think for example that Mozart is extremely overrated ("crap") while others argue that he's the greatest thing ever. I seriously doubt that their opinions would be any different if they weren't able to read a score. And I as one of the "Mozart is the greatest thing ever" crowd think it's very unlikely that if I were able to read a score I would all of a sudden change my mind when going over a score and shout out in dismay, "wow, just look at this crap!" The only difference it would make is that it would allow me to explain better exactly why it is that I feel the way that I do and that I would better understand what it is that makes the music sound like it does. But I don't think it would change my opinions much (if at all). So, no - I don't think that those that know music theory inside-out necessarily are better judges of music, although I'll admit that on average they make for better explainers of music.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

thanks for your input, my post was a little vague but you hit the spot when you said 'why it makes you feel the way it does'. I think that is the aim of analysis.


----------



## Lipatti (Oct 9, 2010)

I agree with everything jhar has said and he basically clarified my points.

What I mean is this - anybody can read out loud a piece of complex poetry full of metaphors and symbolism and make you grasp exactly the words written by the poet, but nobody can read out loud a musical score for a symphony and make you see the score for yourself. Musical notation is simply not perfect - it is, from the outset, open to interpretation. Sure, one thing is to play a wrong note or completely ignore a crescendo or a diminuendo. But "if a conductor fails to produce a sufficient contrast in dynamic at the climax of the piece" (your quote), then this is simply based by our own interpretation of the piece, and we still can't know for sure that it's what the composer intended.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

so when Mahler writes such specific instructions above his score and they are not translated?

the point is you look at the score to develop you own interpretation based on the raw information - rather than redigest something pre-interpreted.


----------



## myaskovsky2002 (Oct 3, 2010)

*Global vue*

Many people being able to read scores here don't know orchestration (the majority, I guess). Reading individual partitions doesn't make the same effect...but you ear can perceive the whole thing. I love Mozart more and more. his simplicity is complex, his complexity in a few works is complex. He was a genious. I can't stop listening to le _Nozze di Figaro_...I bought 5 versions on DVD and 3 on CD (Elizabeth Scwartskopf and others)! I am crazy, I know. And I love Schönberg, Berg and Webern...But now I'm going a bit back to many works I neglected before....People saying YOU CANNOT ANALYZE something because you cannot read a score are, in my opinion, mistaken.

Respectful,

Martin


----------



## Jacob Singer (Jan 7, 2011)

Ravellian said:


> After being involved in this sort of analysis for a while, I'm still rather torn as to the importance of it all. I really think that a brief overview of the piece as a whole is all that is necessary to _fully_ enjoy a piece of music. What's more, you don't get to know and understand a piece well by trying to figure out the technical details of how and why certain chords resolve where, you get to know a piece well by _listening_ to it. Arguing over where the recapitulation begins in a certain piece of music does nothing to help your enjoyment of the piece.
> 
> The only people who I think would benefit from intense study of the scores of the music is other composers... Obviously, when writing music it is helpful to know the techniques of prior composers. The composer's job is to create a piece that the listeners will enjoy... their objective is to express some particular range of emotions or ideas. If the listeners are unable to comprehend those ideas and _have_ to go back to the score and study it to fully understand and appreciate the work, then I would consider it a failure on the composer's part.


Agree 100%.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

As mentioned before it would be necessary for performers to analyse also.

And at the risk of repeating myself in two different threads. Romantic music doesnt necessarily resolve one chord to the next, but often have tensions that remain unresolved for a long time, providing some of the more emotional highlights in the repertoire. Understanding this may help you hear the sounds in a better context - increasing your enjoyment or at least heightening your response to the sounds.

- just an example.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

Can anyone here recognize chords while listening, and not looking at music?


----------



## myaskovsky2002 (Oct 3, 2010)

The only people who I think would benefit from intense study of the scores of the music is other composers... Obviously, when writing music it is helpful to know the techniques of prior composers. The composer's job is to create a piece that the listeners will enjoy... their objective is to express some particular range of emotions or ideas. If the listeners are unable to comprehend those ideas and have to go back to the score and study it to fully understand and appreciate the work, then I would consider it a failure on the composer's part.

I agree 100% . You are smart and sensitive....Composers compose for people like you and me, not for musicians. Then...are we nothing? The composers won't survive then!
=================================================================
about this idea;

Can anyone here recognize chords while listening, and not looking at music? 

Of course I CAN...you are to score-dependent...YOU cannot analyze music...Do you know orchestration? Do you? 
Musicians should create a group JUST FOR THEM....You think you are sons and daughters from Jupiter...then stay together!

Martin...a bit...hurt


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

I dont see how looking at an orchestral score detracts from your ability to understand orchestration. It can only benefit it.

Besides, orchestration is apparently one of my strong-points in composition.


----------



## Ravellian (Aug 17, 2009)

As a performing pianist, I can state with confidence that I have no desire to do any sort of extensive harmonic or other sort of theoretical analysis of my pieces. Once you've practiced a piece for a week or so, you know where all the important cadences are, you know what the overall structure of the piece is, and you have a pretty good idea on how to approach a piece. Again, all a performer really needs is an overview of the piece: what's the form, what's the composer's _style_ of writing, how can I interpret that style, and so on.

Now _style_ refers to the general manner of how the piece is composed - in other words, the overall _genre_. As far as interpretation of the overall style, it's usually pretty clear-cut - you either follow the style or you don't (and most serious pianists try to). The individual details - how you shape a particular melodic line, for example - is mostly up to the interpretor. If there was a specific way that you absolutely had to execute every melodic line and harmonic change, then in-depth analysis would be necessary... but it's not. That's not how this music was composed. Besides, 95% of our energy is devoted to practicing the difficult 16th-note runs and octaves.. we don't have time to analyze pieces like that.


----------



## myaskovsky2002 (Oct 3, 2010)

*actual composers*

I dont see how looking at an orchestral score detracts from your ability to understand orchestration. It can only benefit it.

Besides, orchestration is apparently one of my strong-points in composition. 

Good for you! Just for you.

Martin, a Rimsky-Korsakov lover, the best orchestrator ever!


----------



## myaskovsky2002 (Oct 3, 2010)

*Do you really think we need to read scores?*

a score is something static..It doesn't move.

THEN: How can we say we prefer Sofronitsky to John Smith?...Reading the score? NO!!!!!!!! Listening to it! The score remains the same!

that proves YOU ARE WRRRRRRRRRRRRRONG!!!!!!!!!!!

LOL

Martin,

:tiphat:


----------



## Ernie (Jun 6, 2010)

emiellucifuge said:


> You should check out the 'I dont get Atonal Music' thread, the discussions for and against analysis are raging there.


This is quite fascinating. Two different threads arguing basically the same arguments and, in some cases, by the same people. As Emiellucifuge said, I will refrain from commenting on this thread for fear of repeating myself. I must admit, however, that I enjoyed the argument.


----------



## MJTTOMB (Dec 16, 2007)

Martin, for someone who prides himself on being a layperson and not a musician, you certainly seem pretty elitist, or at the very least, remarkably condescending.


----------



## myaskovsky2002 (Oct 3, 2010)

Martin, for someone who prides himself on being a layperson and not a musician, you certainly seem pretty elitist, or at the very least, remarkably condescending. 

For electrical words, ears unplugged.

I demonstrated clearly that you cannot judge if somebody plays well or not reading the score but listening to him or her...Saying what you have said shows that *when your reasons become weak *you need to insult people. The moderators do not consider your words as an insult, I do. I'm sorry..Change your picture (or the name you calll that), I love Scriabin...I won't consider your opinions any more.

Martin

Martin


----------



## myaskovsky2002 (Oct 3, 2010)

A last aspect and not the least..Do composers compose music for everybody (that includes plenty of non musicians) or just for musicians? Then if non-musicians cannot analyze music...composers compose for idiots (laymen) and musicians....If it is like that I don't want to listen to music any more, I wasted 40 years of my life thinking I could understand music and now just a guy with a weird name is telling me that I souldn't analyze because I am not a conoisseur but just a layman, in short not able to analyze...This kind of stuff is allowed here...Are we in a jungle? I said I was Naenderthal but I think here we have a "Cromagnon"! I am 59 years old, I leaned piano when I was 4, 5, 6 but I forgot a lot and started seriously with classical music when I was 12 years old...Musicians, go away, built a group JUST-FOR-YOU . I won't discuss any more. The moderators will do nothing at all, because you are not using gross words...but you are hurting my feelings very deeply. I don'gt enjoy being here any more... I am elitist...I tolerate a lot but not braggarts trying to convince me they are right and I am necessarily wrong. YOU ARE WRONG. Composers composed and lived thanks to people like me...I go often to the opera and spend fortunes in music.

Nothing else to say.


Peace and
Good night


Martin


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Analysis isnt necessary to appreciate music.


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

myaskovsky2002 said:


> A last aspect and not the least..Do composers compose music for everybody (that includes plenty of non musicians) or just for musicians? Then if non-musicians cannot analyze music...composers compose for idiots (laymen) and musicians....If it is like that I don't want to listen to music any more, I wasted 40 years of my life thinking I could understand music and now just a guy with a weird name is telling me that I souldn't analyze because I am not a conoisseur but just a layman, in short not able to analyze...This kind of stuff is allowed here...Are we in a jungle? I said I was Naenderthal but I think here we have a "Cromagnon"! I am 59 years old, I leaned piano when I was 4, 5, 6 but I forgot a lot and started seriously with classical music when I was 12 years old...Musicians, go away, built a group JUST-FOR-YOU . I won't discuss any more. The moderators will do nothing at all, because you are not using gross words...but you are hurting my feelings very deeply. I don'gt enjoy being here any more... I am elitist...I tolerate a lot but not braggarts trying to convince me they are right and I am necessarily wrong. YOU ARE WRONG. Composers composed and lived thanks to people like me...I go often to the opera and spend fortunes in music.
> 
> Nothing else to say.
> 
> ...


Martin, in the time that I've been a member here I've been told several times by other members that my opinions are somehow less valid than theirs because of my inability to read a score. In fact, only a few days ago someone send a PM to one of the other mods objecting to the fact that I'm a mod because I haven't got a clue. I don't care about any of this because I've listened more intensely to a far greater range of music for more years than most of the very few people that have objected to me over the years. So it does neither frustrate or anger me, it doesn't make me less confident of my own opinions and it certainly doesn't give me an inferirority complex either because frankly - the only thing that's superior about such people is the size of their egos.

As for your "the moderators do nothing at all" comment - if that's indeed the case you have plenty to be thankful for because we have on more than one occasion given you the benefit of the doubt on some of your own posts already. If we would be as stern with you as you ask us to be towards others I'm afraid you wouldn't have lasted here for very long.


----------



## myaskovsky2002 (Oct 3, 2010)

Martin, for someone who prides himself on being a layperson and not a musician, you certainly seem pretty elitist, or at the very least, remarkably condescending. 

As for your "the moderators do nothing at all" comment - if that's indeed the case you have plenty to be thankful for because we have on more than one occasion given you the benefit of the doubt on some of your own posts already. If we would be as stern with you as you ask us to be towards others I'm afraid you wouldn't have lasted here for very long. 

I'm so sorry, it is probably that English is not my mother tongue and I consider the first paragraph as an insult desguized. I read it again and again and don't like it better. Moderators accepted...But when I said to a 17 years old you are still green they censored me...Do Moderators need open vocabulary to censor?

I'm happy you agree with me for the score stuff...But you are too hard with me. I just want to share and HAVE PEACE! and sometimes for having peace you have to argue a bit.

Sincerely,

Shalom

Martin


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

myaskovsky2002 said:


> Can anyone here recognize chords while listening, and not looking at music?
> 
> Of course I CAN...you are to score-dependent...YOU cannot analyze music...Do you know orchestration? Do you?
> Musicians should create a group JUST FOR THEM....You think you are sons and daughters from Jupiter...then stay together!
> ...


You misunderstood me. I asked that because I really _want_ to know, not as some rhetorical question. I've started to train myself this school year to recognize chord progressions upon hearing them.

You think I'm attacking _you_? You think I just learn theory so I can show it off to people and make classical music lovers feel inferior for not knowing it? No! I learn it because I _love_ it. And I would learn all the rest: theory, ear training, harmony, counterpoint, orchestration, music history, musicology and everything else if I could!

Huilu, really hurt


----------



## myaskovsky2002 (Oct 3, 2010)

*I am sorry...*

You think I'm attacking you? You think I just learn theory so I can show it off to people and make people feel inferior for not knowing it? No! I learn it because I love it. And I would learn all the rest: theory, ear training, harmony, counterpoint, orchestration, music history, musicology and everything else if I could!

I was just trying to defend myself, I feel as all non-musicians would feel attacked.
You have studied music, good for you. I have studied Mathematics and I can analyze many thigs: serial music, polistylistic music (Schnittke), romantic music...Music and Maths are related...if you don't know that maybe...maybe you are missing something.

Do not subestimate non-musicians, we feed musicians...Musicians would be nothing without us! I spend fortunes in music and going to concertos and operas...Probably more than you do. Think also of my age...47 years listening to music, an average of 4 hours per day. Of course I would like to be able to read scores but I don't think this is so esential...just a nice to have. I can apply algorythms to music!

Martin


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

A 59 year old bickering with a 16 year old. Charming indeed. My cup of tea never tasted sweeter.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

myaskovsky2002 said:


> I was just trying to defend myself, I feel as all non-musicians would feel attacked.
> You have studied music, good for you. I have studied Mathematics and I can analyze many thigs: serial music, polistylistic music (Schnittke), romantic music...Music and Maths are related...if you don't know that maybe...maybe you are missing something.


Actually, Math, of all the school subjects I've taken, is one of my greatest strengths. I did Calculus last year and did really well. But I don't take a Math class this year, so I've forgotten pretty much all of it. Yes, I believe Math and Music are very much related.



> Do not subestimate non-musicians, we feed musicians...Musicians would be nothing without us! I spend fortunes in music and going to concertos and operas...Probably more than you do. Think also of my age...47 years listening to music, an average of 4 hours per day. Of course I would like to be able to read scores but I don't think this is so esential...just a nice to have. I can apply algorythms to music!
> 
> Martin


Exactly!!!!

Yes, please give us your money. Many musicians don't earn a lot, unless they're bigshots. I don't own 40 Glazunov CDs, or 70 Prokofiev Albums, as much as I'd like it. But I don't even have a job yet, so I can't say yet for sure if I could or couldn't.


----------



## Rasa (Apr 23, 2009)

Ravellian said:


> As a performing pianist, I can state with confidence that I have no desire to do any sort of extensive harmonic or other sort of theoretical analysis of my pieces. Once you've practiced a piece for a week or so, you know where all the important cadences are, you know what the overall structure of the piece is...


Harmonical an other sorts of theoretical analysis can give you insights that might not be obvious from just knowing the notes. Infact, it can change things as detailed and technical as your articulation and phrasing. Although it might not be immedeately apparent to the audience, it's possible that it creates a bigger sense of cohesion in your interpretation.

Bach Fugues for instance. There are a lot of ways in which any given theme is articulated, but often it's in the development and stretti that you can glean a more logical approach to which articulation you choose.

This seems to me a direct example of how analysis can change and enhance performance.


----------



## myaskovsky2002 (Oct 3, 2010)

Exactly!!!!

Yes, please give us your money. Many musicians don't earn a lot, unless they're bigshots. I don't own 40 Glazunov CDs, or 70 Prokofiev Albums, as much as I'd like it. But I don't even have a job yet, so I can't say yet for sure if I could or couldn't. 
__________________
You are 17! Aren't you? Wait....you'll be the most famous musician of all times. 

you are so humble.


LOL

End of story...this is not my cup of tea either...

Martin


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

jhar26 said:


> Martin, in the time that I've been a member here I've been told several times by other members that my opinions are somehow less valid than theirs because of my inability to read a score. In fact, only a few days ago someone send a PM to one of the other mods objecting to the fact that I'm a mod because I haven't got a clue. I don't care about any of this because I've listened more intensely to a far greater range of music for more years than most of the very few people that have objected to me over the years. So it does neither frustrate or anger me, it doesn't make me less confident of my own opinions and it certainly doesn't give me an inferirority complex either because frankly - the only thing that's superior about such people is the size of their egos.


Wow, i'm nearly shocked to hear such a thing. 
I never meant to imply in this thread that not being able to read notes or understand theory would detract from anyone's 'understanding', passions or knowledge of classical music. I just believe that are certain 'theoretical' details that can only be understood with a score. Unfortunately it is these details that make music what it is, and so it is necessary for performers or composers to know these things, and perhaps it might enhance your 'wow' factor when hearing a piece.
I support you as a mod, you're doing a good job, and you know a lot about music!


----------



## Rasa (Apr 23, 2009)

At any rate, I don't see what moderating has to do with music or opinions.


----------



## myaskovsky2002 (Oct 3, 2010)

*Moderators*

At any rate, I don't see what moderating has to do with music or opinions. 

You should. Here it is part of the game...Like in South America (I come from Argentina) .
If you say something they don't like the message could disappear...Like the Desaparecidos in Argentina. a sad LOL. Maybe this message won't arrive.

Martin, afraid.
feeling like in the old URSS


----------



## MJTTOMB (Dec 16, 2007)

You're right Martin. Changing insulting, condescending comments on an internet message board is the exact same thing as murdering political opponents and throwing them into the ocean.

I greatly underestimated the size of your ego.


----------



## myaskovsky2002 (Oct 3, 2010)

MJTTOMB said:


> You're right Martin. Changing insulting, condescending comments on an internet message board is the exact same thing as murdering political opponents and throwing them into the ocean.
> 
> I greatly underestimated the size of your ego.


LOL

Martin


----------

