# Do you need anything but your ears to appreciate music?



## Hermastersvoice (Oct 15, 2018)

Discussions about music often reaches high academic ground about items such as faithfulness to the score or not, historically informed or not, completeness or not, the circumstances of the composer at time of writing, historical context of the piece etc. While this type of contextualising may be interesting, I ask how important it is? Do you really need anything but your ears to appreciate music?


----------



## Andolink (Oct 29, 2012)

The ears, without being connected to an intellect are pretty worthless with most of what we call classical music, IMO.

Studying music and music history (and history in general) were indispensable to me in fueling my passion for music.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I do think there is a thing called taste and that taste can be (needs to be) educated and re-educated. I do enjoy listening to many different accounts of pieces that I like and do often like many of them - I don't agree there is only one way or "the right way" to do a piece - and I am very suspicious of arguments of what the composer wanted. But I do think there are _wrong _ways to do pieces (the often great Bernstein's account of Stravinsky's Mass - not because he goes against the composer's intentions but because the music vanishes in his romantic treatment). I am fascinated by different performing practices in the different periods that are available to us as recordings. I think there are great performances of, say, Handel from the 1940s as well as the 1960s, the 1980s and later. Most of all I want music to be alive and, if I find something dull, that is it for me!

I do sometimes read academics on performing practices and music history but I do so for interest rather than to know "how it should be".


----------



## aminrostami (Nov 8, 2018)

I do sometimes read academics on performing practices and music history but I do so for interest rather than to know


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

What goes on between the ears and the mind is indescribable, whether one is musically educated or not.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Hermastersvoice said:


> Do you really need anything but your ears to appreciate music?


You need to listen with them, not just hear. "A duck hears also." - Stavinsky


----------



## Haydn man (Jan 25, 2014)

Pay me enough and I will appreciate anything, but be warned I ain’t cheap


----------



## Tikoo Tuba (Oct 15, 2018)

Yo Yo Ma was filmed for a documentary , and at its climax is playing classical cello for a remote African village . The audience is completely expressionless . Earlier the village master musician is featured playing his two-stringed instrument , also un-fretted ... I heard microtonal fantastico with gusto .

Play out of tune ? so sing out of tune ... classically good sense .


----------



## rodrigaj (Dec 11, 2016)

I tried my hand at classical guitar for 5 years, I went to a community college for 1 class on basic harmony, I have listened to Prof Greenberg's lectures on The Great Courses dot com, I have read biographies of famous composers, I have listened to the Bernstein lectures...and I have a stereo system that I feel allows deep insights into the the music's intent.

My appreciation for music is so much more than if I just listened as a result. It is a lifelong process of discovery. 

These are personal choices and for the average person just wishing for a little more of what pop / rock / country has to offer, just listening is good enough.

OTOH, music criticism has me baffled. I read music critics and marvel at the fluency and choice of words, yet never feel I've understood them.


----------



## Room2201974 (Jan 23, 2018)

Hermastersvoice said:


> Discussions about music often reaches high academic ground about items such as faithfulness to the score or not, historically informed or not, completeness or not, the circumstances of the composer at time of writing, historical context of the piece etc. While this type of contextualising may be interesting, I ask how important it is? Do you really need anything but your ears to appreciate music?


Yes, the terrior of a fine wine is important to its appreciation. Let me give you an example from the world of rock. When the album _So_ by Peter Gabriel came out I liked every song. One song in particular was interesting to me, _Mercy Street_. What's this about I asked myself? So I did a little research, this back in the day before the Net, and I found out that _Mercy Street_ was about the poet Anne Sexton. Cool I thought, gives the song meaning; it's an homage. Then I read Anne Sexton!!!!!!!!! And I realized that I wasn't just listening to a rock song by a rock star. I was listening to a work of art.

Context matters!


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

OT: A brain comes in handy.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Merl said:


> OT: A brain comes in handy.


Though for some music it's a handicap.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Yes - you need patience and attention, and listening experience also helps. 
I am 'better' at listening to classical music than I was six years ago. 

Also, some people's ears are better than others - they may hear 'more' than I do. 
Physically & intellectually, they are more suited to be connoisseurs and to pick out various musical qualities and achievements. 

But the only ears I really have to please are my own.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Ingélou said:


> But the only ears I really have to please are my own.


What about Taggart?


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Hermastersvoice said:


> Discussions about music often reaches high academic ground about items such as faithfulness to the score or not, historically informed or not, completeness or not, the circumstances of the composer at time of writing, historical context of the piece etc. While this type of contextualising may be interesting, I ask how important it is? Do you really need anything but your ears to appreciate music?


Strictly speaking, you don't but music is more than just the notes on the page. With hundreds of years behind it, classical music branches out to those other areas. I think they're integral to it.

A good example has been the continuing revival of music of the Baroque and before. This started in the 19th century. We would be all the poorer had the scholarship not taken place. Think of all the work which has gone into printed editions by successive generations of musicians. That's only one aspect of what happens to music before it comes to our ears.

Some argue the separation of pure music from things they consider to be extraneous to it. In reality its impossible to separate music from the other things, like a surgeon would with a scalpel. Of course this idea is ridiculous, but it demonstrates the limitations of taking an overly formalist approach.

I think the notion of purity of music is full of contradictions. Having said that, my interest in history, biography, criticism and so on doesn't have to be shared by others. Everyone will take what they want from music and approach it on their own way.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

It all depends on what you are looking to get out of it. For example, if you are a musician, understanding those components you mentioned _can_ be important in interpreting the music, but it's certainly not the only important information to interpret.


----------



## realdealblues (Mar 3, 2010)

I guess I would say ears and the ability to feel. 

To me at it's core music is designed to make us "feel" (or "think" I suppose) something. Whether it makes you feel pleasant or repulsed, excited or bored, etc. it should have some sort of connection to you causing you to think or feel something. An emotional response, or create an image in your head, some sort of reaction is how I would characterize being able to appreciate music.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Sometimes 'the mind can inform the ears' and open them to hear what might otherwise be missed. It's not always necessary but sometimes I find it indispensable when faced with the new, strange, complex, or terrible in composers. I see nothing wrong with reading about them; in fact, it can be quite illuminating to the enjoyment of music. I disagree with those who hold the view that it's a waste of time or misleading to hear a composer discuss his or her own creations. They might be wrong or might be right in describing them, but they're telling you at least what they're _trying_ to do. Then it's up to the listener to decide whether they have done it or not. Even reading Beethoven after all these years, his letters, has deepened the depth of my appreciation for his music and why he wrote the way he did. 'The mind can inform the ears.'


----------



## Pat Fairlea (Dec 9, 2015)

I must have misunderstood the OP. My immediate answer was "Yes, I need a comfy chair and a large malt whisky".
More seriously, I enjoy and benefit from learning more about the context of the music or of a particular performer, but I'm not convinced that knowledge directly affects my enjoyment or appreciation of the music.
I guess I'm just not an analytical listener.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

Just speaking about me personally, yes, I need more than ears, especially in classical music, which spans 2,000 years, where each era is communicating something about themselves, their world, even their view of God. To understand what's going on, personally, I need more than just ears; I have to educate myself using books and scores to really get what is going on. Of course, once I understand a particular era or composer, I can get to the point where I don't need to pore over every individual piece to get it.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

I think the 'just the ears' hypothesis is a bit disingenuous. Most listeners want to know who the composer is, then they start looking into the composer's background and career. Is there anyone listening on this site who doesn't know _about_ Beethoven? Or _about_ Wagner?

If you only need to listen without knowing anything about how classical music 'works', it's like you've forgotten what it was like when you were new to the music and didn't know about the different forms and multiple movements, or that most/many classical symphonies/quartets/sonatas have a menuetto or scherzo as the third movement. Or that that lovely soaring bit in your favourite tone poem is where the violins are playing tremolo.

So no, I think you need more than just your ears. Just like you need more than 'just your hands' when you bake a cake. The process is already set out for you, but there is work to do.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

I think I've posted this a few times, but again, it's necessary to make a distinction between "appreciating music" in a general sense and the act of listening to and enjoying music. Extra-musical knowledge obviously increases appreciation of music, i.e. when _thinking_ about music, but it is never essential or even required for listening enjoyment, as in: being able to follow, understand and "feel" the expression of the music. It's as simple as that.

When I know a piece very well and when I like a piece very much, let's say the Poem of Ecstasy which I've probably listened to 250+ times, there's not a single shred of extra-musical information, about Scriabin, about the piece and its era, about technical and theoretical details, interesting as it all may be, that will make me enjoy/appreciate the music even more _while I am listening to it_.
Of course, when I start to investigate and read about this piece and its composer, which I have, it enhances my appreciation of the music, but it will not change the actual listening experience. Still the same goosebumps.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

^^^^I agree with this. The Music is in one box. About the Music, Composer, etc. is in another box. I always appreciate knowing more about most anything--icing on the cake. But the direct experience of the music is primary, and precedes/supercedes all else. Many pieces that blew or blow me away were experienced in an informational desert, if not vacuum. Certainly the case when most of us were very young and first hearing music that strangely moved us.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

eugeneonagain said:


> I think the 'just the ears' hypothesis is a bit disingenuous. Most listeners want to know who the composer is, then they start looking into the composer's background and career. Is there anyone listening on this site who doesn't know _about_ Beethoven? Or _about_ Wagner?
> 
> If you only need to listen without knowing anything about how classical music 'works', it's like you've forgotten what it was like when you were new to the music and didn't know about the different forms and multiple movements, or that most/many classical symphonies/quartets/sonatas have a menuetto or scherzo as the third movement. Or that that lovely soaring bit in your favourite tone poem is where the violins are playing tremolo.
> 
> So no, I think you need more than just your ears. Just like you need more than 'just your hands' when you bake a cake. The process is already set out for you, but there is work to do.


I guess this is true .... and, of course, it may not be possible for us to know how our listening is influenced by words _about_ the composer? But, I do certainly _feel_ that I know more about, say, Beethoven by what I am told by diverse interpreters - by Klemperer, Harnoncourt and Furtwangler (to choose three whose Beethoven package - sound, phrasing, moods - were very iconic) - than by biographies or critical sketches. And I am also sure that it is the music (rather than a book or essay) that makes me think that the Celibidache Munich recordings are just too smooth for Beethoven - even if I am sometimes in the mood for them and do generally love what Celibidache did in Munich. So I think my "knowledge" and "taste" comes from the music and the way some greats have played it than from words _about _the music. But I can't know for sure that I am not fooling myself.


----------



## adrien (Sep 12, 2016)

Personally I'm interested most in music which alters my pulse rate.


----------



## Tikoo Tuba (Oct 15, 2018)

In the state of knowing nothing , will you both appreciate and honor your first memory of beautiful ? My first memory is Light and as a child in the womb . Ma must have been sun-bathing shirtless . Music came later , from her singing . We are touched .


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Poetic license and all that.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

_Do you need anything but your ears to appreciate music?_

Yes, a brain.

You know, for those ear nerve signals to be processed at some point


----------



## Tikoo Tuba (Oct 15, 2018)

I believe some of you refer to extreme literalism , that is , problematically you cannot think without social language . You had no consciousness before learning language , no memory ... early childhood was a past life . So , in a past life you were a gifted and great musician and respectful of that you appreciate fine classical music ?


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

I don't think you can even express yourself or even think without reference to social language either; and you won't fool me into thinking you can. Whatever 'innate' sense of appreciation you are referring to, I don't know what it's supposed to be. Neither, I imagine, do you.


----------



## JeffD (May 8, 2017)

Hermastersvoice said:


> Discussions about music often reaches high academic ground about items such as faithfulness to the score or not, historically informed or not, completeness or not, the circumstances of the composer at time of writing, historical context of the piece etc. While this type of contextualising may be interesting, I ask how important it is? Do you really need anything but your ears to appreciate music?


My opinion:

You can do what ever you want. All the "contextualising" makes a performance that much more rich a performance. Its a bit like if you have ever visited tropical islands or sailed out of site of shore, you will never read a sailing adventure the same way again. Life experiences, learning, and technical understanding inform and enhance the enjoyment of the music (or book or movie), and having heard the music informs the fun of many life experiences, and informs the learning and the desire to pursue technical understanding.

But the truth is you can enjoy anything you want in any way you want and I can't for the life of me understand why anyone cares how anyone else enjoys something. Do what you like, and don't do the rest. Its none of my business.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

If I read the OP correctly, No


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

JeffD said:


> My opinion:
> 
> You can do what ever you want. All the "contextualising" makes a performance that much more rich a performance. Its a bit like if you have ever visited tropical islands or sailed out of site of shore, you will never read a sailing adventure the same way again. Life experiences, learning, and technical understanding inform and enhance the enjoyment of the music (or book or movie), and having heard the music informs the fun of many life experiences, and informs the learning and the desire to pursue technical understanding.
> 
> But the truth is you can enjoy anything you want in any way you want and I can't for the life of me understand why anyone cares how anyone else enjoys something. Do what you like, and don't do the rest. Its none of my business.


While I applaud your closing paragraph, I do think we are interested in how others enjoy something, out of simple human curiosity if no other reason. Your major paragraph does not hold in my case. As just one specific example, I loved Prokofiev's Third Piano Concerto (plus the First and Second) from the first time I heard it (them). I knew nothing about Prokofiev at the time. I today continue to love it as much if not more; my experience/pleasure being heightened by repeated exposure and the knowing anticipation of what is to come. In the intervening years, I've read two biographies of the composer plus much else about him and his times in books on musical history, etc., yet my delight in his music lies wholly within the music itself; the peripheral material is of course of interest, yet it resides in an entirely separate domain from the direct experience of the pleasure of the music. Others' experiences may/will differ.


----------



## Tikoo Tuba (Oct 15, 2018)

eugeneonagain said:


> I don't think you can even express yourself or even think without reference to social language either; and you won't fool me into thinking you can. Whatever 'innate' sense of appreciation you are referring to, I don't know what it's supposed to be. Neither, I imagine, do you.


I certainly do . Do not imagine me . I am art in heaven and a halo be my name .


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Tikoo Tuba said:


> I certainly do . Do not imagine me . I am art in heaven and a halo be my name .


With a talented comedy writer behind you as well I see.


----------



## Tikoo Tuba (Oct 15, 2018)

Art will resolve it ... eventually . It is what ? civilization


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

If Yoda says so, it must be true.


----------



## Hermastersvoice (Oct 15, 2018)

I suppose it’s also possible to ask the question negatively; are all the academic considerations and contextualising sometimes in the way of the appreciation of music? There are people who now refuse to listen to Bach 48 on a Steinway; who cannot abide Don Carlos in Italian (or without the Fontainebleau scene); who slates modern symphony orchestra approach to Haydn as “anachronistic”who insist that there’s only one order of movements of Mahler 6th; or the Haas edition of Bruckner 8th. I wonder if they’d have rejected Rosalyn Tureck, Karajan, Szell, Barbirolli or Günter Wand, if they didn’t have all that knowledge? Is there simply a simpler way? Just to open our ears?


----------



## Guest (Nov 12, 2018)

Hermastersvoice said:


> Discussions about music often reaches high academic ground about items such as faithfulness to the score or not, historically informed or not, completeness or not, the circumstances of the composer at time of writing, historical context of the piece etc. While this type of contextualising may be interesting, I ask how important it is? Do you really need anything but your ears to appreciate music?


Ears alone subtracts nothing. Ears plus contextual understanding can add. See - as the man said, music is all about maths.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Hermastersvoice said:


> I suppose it's also possible to ask the question negatively; are all the academic considerations and contextualising sometimes in the way of the appreciation of music? There are people who now refuse to listen to Bach 48 on a Steinway; who cannot abide Don Carlos in Italian (or without the Fontainebleau scene); who slates modern symphony orchestra approach to Haydn as "anachronistic"who insist that there's only one order of movements of Mahler 6th; or the Haas edition of Bruckner 8th. I wonder if they'd have rejected Rosalyn Tureck, Karajan, Szell, Barbirolli or Günter Wand, if they didn't have all that knowledge? Is there simply a simpler way? Just to open our ears?


I dare say we all know people with that rarefied approach - in life or other art forms if not in music. For people like that, I sometimes think, it isn't the music that matters - it's their own status as connoisseurs and their relish in putting down people with a simpler approach.

People like that can put off potential fans with their strutting and sneering.

This is a pity because, as MacLeod says above, ears are 'enough' for anyone to enjoy classical music and they can acquire the extra knowledge and experience which will (in my view) enhance their pleasure when or if they want.


----------



## Dimace (Oct 19, 2018)

After 17 years piano studying, 10 years counterpoint and fugue, many years as piano professor and professional piano player, I didn't manage to appreciate (and to listen) the Rite of the Spring, The Meistersingers or most of contemporary music. So, no help there... Definitely I need my ears and nothing more. If something is well made and beautiful not much of a knowledge needed. Only the old, common good taste.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

brain is more important than ears. Even deaf people can "listen" to vibrations and so appreciate the rythms of music. 
https://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/news/20011128/deaf-people-can-feel-music


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Hermastersvoice said:


> Discussions about music often reaches high academic ground about items such as faithfulness to the score or not, historically informed or not, completeness or not, the circumstances of the composer at time of writing, historical context of the piece etc. While this type of contextualising may be interesting, I ask how important it is? Do you really need anything but your ears to appreciate music?


Yes. There is a thing called the ear/brain connection.

As far a historical context of a work, it will not affect the "pure sensuality" of the music, but I don't think most people listen that way. Classical music is a historical subject, and so when we listen to it, we are in many cases "going back in time," and glimpsing another country or culture. I think context is needed for this genre.
On the other hand, presently the world is becoming more Westernized, so listening to "pop" music does not need much context, although it is there if you want it.

The great "contextualizers," for those who wish to know the difference between Baltimore rap and London techno.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Though for some music it's a handicap.


"You have two of your Earth minutes to SUBMIT TO THE BEAT! Boogie or be destroyed!"


----------



## JeffD (May 8, 2017)

Strange Magic said:


> In the intervening years, I've read two biographies of the composer plus much else about him and his times in books on musical history, etc., yet my delight in his music lies wholly within the music itself; the peripheral material is of course of interest, yet it resides in an entirely separate domain from the direct experience of the pleasure of the music. Others' experiences may/will differ.


In addition to the biographical and and historical contexts I think there are two others I include.

I would include in "context" my developing understanding of music theory, especially exploring aesthetic choices.

Another context that is valuable to me, is that I play mandolin, and have been Skype-ing classical lessons and playing in mandolin orchestra. So I am also hearing all music a bit like a player.

These two contexts have greatly enhanced my enjoyment and appreciation of classical, all music actually, even the stuff i have always loved.

But anyway, however one enjoys is fine. Or even however anyone doesn't enjoy. I can only encourage how I enjoy with the hopes that maybe it helps anyone seriously interested exploring a bit.


----------



## Tikoo Tuba (Oct 15, 2018)

I sometimes love the most awful music - having made it . When I've recorded it I'll later repent having since become ignorant of whatever for goodness sakes it related to . Maybe I need to be 94 and forgiving to understand this .


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Hermastersvoice said:


> I suppose it's also possible to ask the question negatively; are all the academic considerations and contextualising sometimes in the way of the appreciation of music? There are people who now refuse to listen to Bach 48 on a Steinway; who cannot abide Don Carlos in Italian (or without the Fontainebleau scene); who slates modern symphony orchestra approach to Haydn as "anachronistic"who insist that there's only one order of movements of Mahler 6th; or the Haas edition of Bruckner 8th. I wonder if they'd have rejected Rosalyn Tureck, Karajan, Szell, Barbirolli or Günter Wand, if they didn't have all that knowledge? Is there simply a simpler way? Just to open our ears?


I think you are more focussed here on interpretation of music rather than analysis, the latter being more tightly bound up with the formalist approach. Strictly speaking, it involves excluding considerations of context, meaning, interpretation and so on to focus on formal content.

With the proliferation of recordings, a new breed of listener emerged: the expert listener. They are interested in comparing performances on recordings. I think its still bound up with the subjective realm, unless we become machines listening to music made by machines.

Presently on the forum, there's more of a balance between members who take the contextual road to those who don't. Contrasting opinions along the formal to contextual spectrum all make for a more interesting forum. In matters to do with art, uniformity is death.


----------



## Tikoo Tuba (Oct 15, 2018)

Virtuosity is a problem , perhaps a god-mind problem . What innocent and pure listener should be troubled by that ? I feel a sadness .


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

i think of my journey in music appreciation as a reflection of the history of music, as it seems to parallel a quick survey of the development down the centuries. I mean, a child discovers sounds and intervals sitting up at a piano. It’s just another play activity. It’s not making music, it’s pounding hard or lightly for effect, to see what happens. Next the diatonic nursery songs capture his interest, as an earwig and he tries out the songs from his head, singing and hitting some concordant parts, just hunt and peck. Next he hears some short, clever piano piece and he wants to reproduce it ‘perfectly’. It becomes a worthy challenge.

Now, turn the page. Years pass, he becomes aware of peer group popular music. It’s exciting, it's a projection of what he’s becoming aware of, a fuzzy future, and an enhanced expression of the present — which there no words for. It’s all fleeting as it passes by at the same time as other new, teenage experiences pass so quickly...
Somewhere in those years of exposure to music, due to various happenstances, if he’s lucky, he gets more serious about some impressive works which ‘grow' on him. He’s the one who’s growing, but it’s painless and not obvious, yet...

Like the rise of dissonance in the history of music, he accepts more and more dissonance and complexities of rhythm and form and counterpoint and ‘hears' the suspensions and resolutions everywhere. But it happens in just those 10 or so years for the individual. We go from intervals to simple tonality to the acceptance of higher overtones, and all the increasing ambiguity, as audiences slowly did up through the 1500s to the 1900s.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

^^^^"Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny". Ernst Haekel, 1834-1919.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Strange Magic said:


> ^^^^"Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny". Ernst Haekel, 1834-1919.


Those guys in Haeckel's time couldn't have known about the control that specific genes have in embryonic development. The development down through time was not as linear as they thought. Embryos can evolve in different directions - and then the environment etc. selects them in or out. Their view was too simplistic and of course they had a racial agenda.

Yes, there are parallels everywhere if we use a little bit of imagination..

Like the Bible says, there's nothing new under the sun.

Here's another one, lol

- our renaissance ancestors in music were the fish, limited by their body plan and their environment. 
- the baroque composers were the amphibians. They had become lively, flopping around (many voices and much movement with counterpoint)

- the classical composers, gallant style, were the uppity reptiles, confidently introducing overt drama. Supplanting the amphibians. Who could replace them with all their classical style in large forms?

- the romantic composers were the mammals with their emotional outlooks, limbic system, starting cautiously, waiting for their chance after Beethoven (and Mozart, and large dinosaurs like Haydn and Handel).

- And we get to the modern music composers, who are the large apes like us in this view, with all their pursuits into irrationality and thinking a lot and their rebelliousness, safe in their position as top predator on the planet. They can do whatever they want to the world (of music). And they don't even need to think about the decline of music (or the ecosystems). It's surely not their fault?


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

^^^^The next step in the evolution of music is the jump from the large apes like us to that well-known mutant and player of and composer for the Visi-Sonor, the Mule.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Strange Magic said:


> ^^^^The next step in the evolution of music is the jump from the large apes like us to that well-known mutant and player of and composer for the Visi-Sonor, the Mule.


Asimov didn't anticipate machine learning -- or did he?

Those were more innocent times when Issac prophesied. The Mule would be no match for advanced AI. Resistance is futile. Humans will be just a flash in the pan.

Do you and I care? we're living in the halcyon days..

Added:
the science nerd boys with their toys will continue to develop AI and CERN until one day they'll exclaim, "Look! we've learned something!" KABOOM!!!

Against stupidity
The Gods Themselves
Contend in vain


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Fredric Brown: _Answer_

"Dwan Ev ceremoniously soldered the final connection with gold. The eyes of a dozen television cameras watched him and the subether bore throughout the universe a dozen pictures of what he was doing. 
He straightened and nodded to Dwar Reyn, then moved to a position beside the switch that would complete the contact when he threw it. The switch that would connect, all at once, all of the monster computing machines of all the populated planets in the universe -- ninety-six billion planets -- into the supercircuit that would connect them all into one supercalculator, one cybernetics machine that would combine all the knowledge of all the galaxies. 
Dwar Reyn spoke briefly to the watching and listening trillions. Then after a moment's silence he said, "Now, Dwar Ev." 
Dwar Ev threw the switch. There was a mighty hum, the surge of power from ninety-six billion planets. Lights flashed and quieted along the miles-long panel. 
Dwar Ev stepped back and drew a deep breath. "The honor of asking the first question is yours, Dwar Reyn." 
"Thank you," said Dwar Reyn. "It shall be a question which no single cybernetics machine has been able to answer." 
He turned to face the machine. "Is there a God?" 
The mighty voice answered without hesitation, without the clicking of a single relay. 
"Yes, now there is a God." 
Sudden fear flashed on the face of Dwar Ev. He leaped to grab the switch. 
A bolt of lightning from the cloudless sky struck him down and fused the switch shut."


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

I would say yes, other music. I wouldn't have appreciated contemporary music without modern music, and that without appreciating traditional music. I don't equate liking with appreciating.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Do you need anything but your ears too appreciate music? 

No. You need a heart!


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

He turned to face the machine. "Is there a God?" 
The mighty voice answered without hesitation, without the clicking of a single relay. 
"Yes, now there is a God." 
Sudden fear flashed on the face of Dwar Ev. He leaped to grab the switch. 
A bolt of lightning from the cloudless sky struck him down and fused the switch shut."

----------------------------

We're bundles of chemicals busy at building the god. It's inevitable? Why hasn't it been built before now nearby?

My god concept is nothing about 'intelligence’. Thinking about intelligence in scifi stories, it’s mere facade, relative and situational. 
My god concept is the eternal something that was always there. Science has been trying to describe what that is, from the evidence and the math logic. It's interesting to read what they've come up with, whether they start from the very small, string theory, or they start from the very large scale, quantum loop gravity. 
They're beyond the God Particle now. It was the bump that they expected (within the predicted energy range), but they haven’t found anymore boson-like bumps (and now I think they’ve run out of energy range - they thought they had found one but it was just a glitch) pointing to dimensions which would quantify enough in order to relaibly express a model of what Dark Matter actually is. 

DM is still a mystery in that huge potential of vibrational states within those 6 very small curled-up dimensions. Will they detect the clues without damaging the precise false vacuum balance? As a child would ask, do we want to know such things this badly? Shouldn't we just be grateful that this universe is so marvelously constituted?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Strange Magic said:


> Fredric Brown: _Answer_
> 
> "Dwan Ev ceremoniously soldered the final connection with gold..."


A story from the grand old days! Kids used to grow up reading this stuff. Nowadays it's smart phones. I wonder if that's an advance, or not.

I remember reading this when I was about 10. It's the sort of thing that sticks in the mind.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

KenOC said:


> A story from the grand old days! Kids used to grow up reading this stuff. Nowadays it's smart phones. I wonder if that's an advance, or not.
> 
> I remember reading this when I was about 10. It's the sort of thing that sticks in the mind.


It's not an advance. You have my word on that. The smart phone is a very successful device/conspiracy to zombify the entire population, except for the Very Old and the Very Wise. We're in at least one of those categories .


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Smart phones -- here's a dystopian view.


----------



## Guest (Nov 19, 2018)

Larkenfield said:


> Do you need anything but your ears too appreciate music?
> 
> No. You need a heart!


Not a brain too?


----------



## Hermastersvoice (Oct 15, 2018)

I fear that all this analysis and contextualising somehow ruins the impression of the music. We have become binary thinking individuals when the analysis gets in the way of the enjoyment. As an example, a “repeat’ in modern music making has become a byword for “repetition” - and scholars and critiques can spend time discussing whether “repeats” should be observed - when really what they are discussing is whether a part of the music should be played all over again, or not. This recently grew into a ludicrous discussion as to whether repeats would have existed as a musical means if recorded music had been available. I other words, “repeats” fulfill the function of “replay “, namely a button on the tape recorder! Only in the stuffy world of music would such a discussion gain traction. You have to laugh.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Hermastersvoice said:


> I fear that all this analysis and contextualising somehow ruins the impression of the music. We have become binary thinking individuals when the analysis gets in the way of the enjoyment. As an example, a "repeat' in modern music making has become a byword for "repetition" - and scholars and critiques can spend time discussing whether "repeats" should be observed - when really what they are discussing is whether a part of the music should be played all over again, or not. This recently grew into a ludicrous discussion as to whether repeats would have existed as a musical means if recorded music had been available. I other words, "repeats" fulfill the function of "replay ", namely a button on the tape recorder! Only in the stuffy world of music would such a discussion gain traction. You have to laugh.


Other than analysis what do you get out of music? Have you thought about it?

Instead of having to learn an instrument and really get into the music for its exigent demands and the immediate 'vital' activity and for the personal expressive experience, analysis is the second best thing. Or maybe you have another view of this?


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

KenOC said:


> A story from the grand old days! Kids used to grow up reading this stuff. Nowadays it's smart phones. I wonder if that's an advance, or not.
> 
> I remember reading this when I was about 10. It's the sort of thing that sticks in the mind.


Yes, go back in time and give a smart phone to Aristotle or Newton or Augustine and teach them how to talk to Google. Then, watch their face. Stand by with a heart defibrillator! lol

It's a deep subject, but it seems to me that young people have taken to social media by storm, because it gives them all the advantages of social interactions without any of the judgment, the superficial stumbling blocks and disheartening detours and inevitable slights and rejections of old fashioned cocktail party 'reciprocal' interactions.

It's the answer to all the dreams of primates for tens of millions of years - how to be happy and self-actualized in social situations without all the negative baggage. Who would want to go back to all the disadvantages of random socializing, if they have a choice? 'Maybe once in a while..

Picture a bunch of people in the early 1900's on a train all ignoring each other by reading newspapers. Humans seek 'safety' and avoidance of people we don't yet trust with our time and our vulnerabilities, it doesn't matter how we evolve technology-wise.﻿ It's primate behavior.

It's no different in anonymous fora like this one.

That's all OKAY and not necessarily bad (we can't change primal, natural behavior) , but there's only 24 hours in the day and what smart phones do to young minds, and the nuturing of enduring interests for their later life is so lamentable. I think of all the interests I would not have developed if I had grown up with today's omnipresent distractions.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

_Do you need anything but your ears to appreciate music? _

In music criticism and education there is often something referred to as a "tin" ear. This is essentially a person that can hear music but cannot discern the quality of what they hear.

So the answer, simply, is no -- if you can hear it you can appreciate it. However, once you hear it played five different ways your brain has options to select. This is because your brain has responded to subtle, or sometimes not so subtle, changes.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

larold said:


> _Do you need anything but your ears to appreciate music? _
> 
> In music criticism and education there is often something referred to as a "tin" ear. This is essentially a person that can hear music but cannot discern the quality of what they hear.
> 
> So the answer, simply, is no -- if you can hear it you can appreciate it. However, once you hear it played five different ways your brain has options to select. This is because your brain has responded to subtle, or sometimes not so subtle, changes.


You say some people "...cannot discern the quality of what they hear."

Then you say,"...if you can hear it you can appreciate it."

What do you mean by discerning the quality and/or appreciating?


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

_You say some people "...cannot discern the quality of what they hear." Then you say,"...if you can hear it you can appreciate it." What do you mean by discerning the quality and/or appreciating?_

Most people, upon hearing something like the Tchaikovsky 4th symphony, are overwhelmed by its heaving emotions. And when they hear it a second time by a second interpreter it may sound alike but different. No experience is ever like the first but extended listening, which is commonplace in classical music, gives the listener chances to hear things they didn't hear the first, second, third or three-hundredth time.

There is a reason recordings such as Solti's Ring, Karajan's Bruckner or Beethoven, or Gould's or Richter's Well Tempered Clavier have reached cultish classic status: they speak to hundreds or thousands or millions of people in ways other versions do not. This doesn't typically happen because a person just happens to hear that version the first time they hear the music. It normally is the result of layers of people telling them through personal experience, blogs, books and elsewhere what is in the version. Then they hear it and may be enlightened by what others hear.

So you heard it and were impressed the first time but you may not have appreciated it, or discerned its glory, until later.

I just read a comment by someone around here who said it was all downhill after the sunrise music is Srauss's Also Sprach Zarathustra -- which is rather like saying aside from the Hallelujah chorus there's nothing to hear in Handel's Messiah.

At some point in that person's life, if s/he continues to listen to that piece of music, s/he will discern its greater musical elements are in the 30 or so minutes after the loud beginning.


----------



## eljr (Aug 8, 2015)

Hermastersvoice said:


> Do you need anything but your ears to appreciate music?


I certainly do.

I need a comfortable room with windows. It must be a neat and organized space. The audio equipment must be able to produce sound of an of an acceptable level. Not loudness necessarily but refined and clear.

I cannot listen to the best system on earth in a basement room constructed just for sound.

I also require a nice wine or good beer although not always.


----------



## eljr (Aug 8, 2015)

Haydn man said:


> Pay me enough and I will appreciate anything, but be warned I ain't cheap


You don't look like a high end bird! :lol:


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I think the ability to separate music from everything but the senses is only possible because music does not mimic or reflect thought the way reading does. Music is not a narrative in that sense. 
Music is like thought in that it is a "streaming" experience...you've heard of the "stream of consciousness"...it takes place in time and seems to move through time, as thoughts do; but unlike thought, music is not a narrative with precise meanings.

I think classical music attracts listeners who are literate, and who are familiar with the narrative nature of thought, and some music even mimics this narrative process in a rudimentary way; but essentially, there are more differences than similarities with thought.

Reading, and narratives, are products of the eye, in that the eye gives us information which is uniform, continuous and connected. The eye gives us the whole picture at once, without the element of time. We can see where things came from, at the same time we see new events coming.
The ear, by contrast, is surprising and unpredictable; events are instantaneous, coming suddenly out of the "darkness" of silence, and one at a time, not all at once like the eye shows us.

Bearing this in mind, I notice that most listeners of classical music tend to be literate, and to prefer the "narrative" way that classical music unfolds, rather than with pop music or other forms, where time is static and repeating, or in the moment. See my blog on "moment time" for further explanation.

https://www.talkclassical.com/blogs/millionrainbows/1521-new-conceptions-musical-time.html


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

larold said:


> _You say some people "...cannot discern the quality of what they hear." Then you say,"...if you can hear it you can appreciate it." What do you mean by discerning the quality and/or appreciating?_
> 
> Most people, upon hearing something like the Tchaikovsky 4th symphony, are overwhelmed by its heaving emotions. And when they hear it a second time by a second interpreter it may sound alike but different. No experience is ever like the first but extended listening, which is commonplace in classical music, gives the listener chances to hear things they didn't hear the first, second, third or three-hundredth time.
> 
> ...


I just got home from playing 3 hours with a break to eat. I only do it once a week and I admire the musicians who do it many nights a week to make their living. You do get into the zone after about an hour. It's a feeling like no other.

Why do you think those eccentric players you mention have achieved cult status with some works? Isn't it all the same phenomenon? They were born 1908, 1912 and 1915. And Gould was an old soul.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> I think the ability to separate music from everything but the senses is only possible because music does not mimic or reflect thought the way reading does. Music is not a narrative in that sense.
> Music is like thought in that it is a "streaming" experience...you've heard of the "stream of consciousness"...it takes place in time and seems to move through time, as thoughts do; but unlike thought, music is not a narrative with precise meanings.
> 
> I think classical music attracts listeners who are literate, and who are familiar with the narrative nature of thought, and some music even mimics this narrative process in a rudimentary way; but essentially, there are more differences than similarities with thought.
> ...


As you write about following the narrative I remember when I bought a camcorder when they first came out, I was driving through the forested Rocky Mountains here and was videoing out the window, recording some wildflower patches which our Native Plant Society would be studying for conservation purposes. I had the radio on and the Sibelius Quartet in Dm was playing. When I got home a reviewed the video I was amazed at how the dramatic music had accidentally fit the scenery passing by. I was so taken with the video/music experience that I did it a few more times in town. I got some interesting effects just with coincidental connections. Today, taking videos is so commonplace, but back then it seemed magical.


----------



## eljr (Aug 8, 2015)




----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

_Why do you think those eccentric players you mention have achieved cult status with some works? Isn't it all the same phenomenon? They were born 1908, 1912 and 1915. And Gould was an old soul. _

Yes, their recordings have been around a long time and many know them. But so have Eduoard van Remoortel's and I don't know anyone clamoring to hear them. There are reasons some performances remain relevant and other do not.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

larold said:


> _Why do you think those eccentric players you mention have achieved cult status with some works? Isn't it all the same phenomenon? They were born 1908, 1912 and 1915. And Gould was an old soul. _
> 
> Yes, their recordings have been around a long time and many know them. But so have Eduoard van Remoortel's and I don't know anyone clamoring to hear them. There are reasons some performances remain relevant and other do not.


Why do you think it is? Have any of them inspired you to study music?


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Hermastersvoice said:


> I fear that all this analysis and contextualising somehow ruins the impression of the music. We have become binary thinking individuals when the analysis gets in the way of the enjoyment. As an example, a "repeat' in modern music making has become a byword for "repetition" - and scholars and critiques can spend time discussing whether "repeats" should be observed - when really what they are discussing is whether a part of the music should be played all over again, or not. This recently grew into a ludicrous discussion as to whether repeats would have existed as a musical means if recorded music had been available. I other words, "repeats" fulfill the function of "replay ", namely a button on the tape recorder! Only in the stuffy world of music would such a discussion gain traction. You have to laugh.


Recordings have changed the way people listen to music. In terms of repeats, it's more common to do all (or most) of them in live performance and cut them in recordings. I've discovered this myself in concerts of Schubert and Mendelssohn. Live, the pieces I have on disc stretched out to infinity. This is what Schumann meant about heavenly length. Heavenly for some but not for others, I guess.

A good read on the topic is David Byrne's How Music Works. I remember his in depth discussion of how Jascha Heifetz totally changed the way we listen to concertos. His near obsession with perfection saw him doing endless takes of the same passages. When we listen to a recording by him, we are in fact hearing many recordings (dozens, maybe hundreds) put together.

I've got Nigel Kennedy's recording of the Beethoven concerto, and in the notes he says that it was all done in one take. It's a live performance but that's not the reason. Many so-called live performances committed to disc are fake. With this recording, Kennedy was trying to bust the mystique of perfection set up by Heifetz, Karajan and others.

That's just the editing and splicing, but there's also other aspects, not the least stereo technology and its creation of a sound stage.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

^^^^One of the glories of YouTube is seeing and hearing Live, Live!


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Strange Magic said:


> ^^^^One of the glories of YouTube is seeing and hearing Live, Live!


True, and of course its still a recording and we experience it in a different way to a concert. On a screen and usually alone.

On a side note, I also think that if we went back in time and saw great performers of the past those among us preoccupied with perfection and authenticity would be mortified. One example I can think of is the Russian pianist and composer Anton Rubinstein, who would not so much only play Beethoven sonatas but throw in his own extemporisations at will. At the same time his importance to Russian music can't be understimated, not only in terms of introducing to Russia the music of Beethoven, Chopin and the like but also for his role in music education there.

Rachmaninov, who was one of those who was nourished by Rubinstein's legacy, predicted that recording technology and radio broadcasts would make listeners feel too comfortable and they would be less likely to make the effort to go to a concert. There is truth to this, as well as how once a performance is on record, its set in stone for all to scrutinise. Rachmaninov was against his concerts done for radio being made available on recordings, which explains the comparatively few recordings we have of him (mostly done in the controlled conditions of a studio).

He made the wry observation that only critics have the ability to make judgements based on a single hearing. If anything, with the ease of access we have today, things are now more demanding for classical performers. Every Tom, Dick and Harry has seemingly acquired the same previously rare ability.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

One area where a good, live YouTube recording of a concert can exceed physical attendance at the concert itself, is the opportunity to observe and be enchanted by the close-up encounter with individual performers: the soloists of course, but also random members of the orchestra. While one cannot be said to be participating directly in the group dynamics/enthusiasm of the audience in rapport with the performers, yet I find the live concert YouTube experience of music to be a very close second best to being there with a really good seat.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

That’s a good point. Solid production values can only contribute to this. Apart from serving purely entertainment purposes, videos can be informative and become part of historical record. 

I’d add that watching these on television decades ago took a good part in sparking my interest in music. I still remember Herbert von Karajan performing Zarathustra, Ofra Harnoy’s Haydn and Julian Bream in the Aranjuez. Today I mainly listen to music on disc, and only attend a few live concerts per year.


----------



## JeffD (May 8, 2017)

Strange Magic said:


> While I applaud your closing paragraph, I do think we are interested in how others enjoy something, out of simple human curiosity if no other reason.


I agree, i just can't understand why.


----------



## JeffD (May 8, 2017)

Hermastersvoice said:


> I fear that all this analysis and contextualising somehow ruins the impression of the music. We have become binary thinking individuals when the analysis gets in the way of the enjoyment. .


Nah. I think people just enjoy it differently. But really, what difference does it make to you that someone is into the score and perhaps feels the performance is ruined without the scored repeats being honored. What do you care, you enjoy it your way, that jamoke enjoys it another way. Or doesn't.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

JeffD said:


> I agree, i just can't understand why.


Aren't you interested in what the other monkeys are eating?


----------



## rodrigaj (Dec 11, 2016)

I'm in the minority, but I find video performances distracting. I thought I would enjoy Digital Concert Hall and subscribed for two years but I gave up my subscription. The camera was way too busy, so I found myself just listening instead of watching the performances - except for some special guests (Argerich, Isabelle Faust & John Williams come to mind).

The problem as I see it is that the camera close ups force my auditory senses to focus on that particular group of instruments. Consequently, I'm not able to listen to the full orchestra as I normally would. I tried, but the visual aspects of the experience overwhelmed me.

I also dislike looking at most conductors conduct.

Again, I know I'm in the minority as verified by youtube statistics.


----------

