# Is being able to read notes essential in fully appreciating a piece of music?



## peeyaj (Nov 17, 2010)

Scenario:

Two friends, Anna and Karen are listening to Beethoven's Pathetique sonata. Anna, who is an amateur pianist, suddenly exclaimed ''Everytime, I heard the theme in A Flat Major, separated by two modulating episodes.. then modulating to A flat minor and E major... I can't help but feel in love with the piece.''

Karen, on the other hand, a girl who can't distinguish between sharps and flats, looked at her and uttered ''It's really beautiful, isn't it. I love the piece, it's so peaceful and serene. I wonder how he made it.''

Do you think, being able to read music is having an edge as a listener? Do you believe that being able to understand music in writing gives you more stature in listening? As a listener, do you think you need to understand the music, or you just want to be moved by the piece without thinking about it..

What do you think?


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Based on my experience with literature I'd guess that there is some music that gets more interesting the more you know about it, and some music that gets less interesting if you know too much about it, and some music that can only be interesting if you a lot about it.

In music the ability to read it and knowing some theory would be a part of getting that knowledge.


----------



## Moira (Apr 1, 2012)

There are two ways of listening to music. One is to let the whole wash over you while you just enjoy the sounds and the emotions or thoughts they evoke. The other is to actively engage with the music, listening to the instrumentation, paying attention to the structure, identifying the themes, tunes, motifs, and engaging with the style and the interpretation. For the latter to take place one needs to have the theoretical knowledge to do so.

Neither is 'right' or 'wrong'. 

Getting some theoretical knowledge is not difficult. The average adult who knows nothing about music could probably be taught the basics of Grade 1, 2 and 3 theory in a weekend (not to the point where there is comfort in reading the music, but rather the ability to decipher it). Once there was a level of comfort with that theory then Grade 4 and 5 theory would follow, probably also each taking a few hours of a weekend. Grade 5 is the crisis point in both theory and practice. It is the end of the easy stuff and the start of more complex stuff. Few adult beginners will penetrate the veil of Grade 6 onwards. Many, many adults who learned music while they were children also came unglued at about Grade 5. I speak from experience here. It is where I found the work to be greater than the reward.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

_Moira_'s message agrees with what several friends have told me, hoping to convince me that a capability for 'analytical' listening will not lessen my enjoyment of music, or my ability to 'just kick back and listen'. I am intellectually convinced, but apparently not emotionally convinced.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

I'm not quite sure how important it is - with your example of modulations, both listeners are equally capable of noticing the musical effect and feeling of change, it's just that one is much more able to put it into words while the other can pinpoint a shift and say "I like that" without being able to identify exactly what it is. The identifications and labels probably give the illusion that having theoretical knowledge improves the experience, but I would agree with science that there are different kinds of music where it is more necessary than with others.


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)

To me, listener A sounds like an eager student who thinking way too much about is being heard. The enjoyment described by listener B is far more appealing and natural.


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

It depends: does Karen _really_ want to know how Beethoven wrote the sonata, or does she only want to wonder?


----------



## Operadowney (Apr 4, 2012)

I find more connection to what the music makes me feel if I know what's happening. If I'm not thinking about music, realistically I'm not hearing the music. It could be background noise for me. My best feelings have come while aggressively hearing what's going on, and not from just letting it wash over me.


----------



## Stargazer (Nov 9, 2011)

I can't read notes (well, I actually can read music, just not very well lol), and I think I'm able to appreciate music just fine! I don't imagine I'd enjoy it any more if I knew the scale degree (I think that's a real thing? lol) of every chord in a piece.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Operadowney said:


> I find more connection to what the music makes me feel if I know what's happening. If I'm not thinking about music, realistically I'm not hearing the music. It could be background noise for me. My best feelings have come while aggressively hearing what's going on, and not from just letting it wash over me.


Hah. Different strokes. In my opinion, if one _thinks (ratiocinates)_ about the music he is hearing, he is interfering with it.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

when I listen to music I don't analyze it or follow it with the score, I just listen and feel sensations (emotional, etc.). I only analyze pieces when I play those pieces or when I want to understand something about it, how it's made that section that I like, but that's only after I like the section!. Never I did not like some section and then, after reading the score, suddenly I love it.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

Reading these posts reminds me of a time when I was listening to the opening of Beethoven's Piano Sonata Opus 109. I was thinking, "Here's a sequence of ascending thirds and descending fourths." My wife walked in the room and said, "That sounds like a waterfall." It never occurred to me to notice that, but I liked the observation. Now when I hear the piece, I think of a sequence of ascending thirds and descending fourths that sounds like a waterfall.

In my experience, I don't need to analyze pieces to enjoy them, but if I find a piece which really speaks to me, I like to study it to see what makes it so attractive. I always end up with a deeper appreciation for it.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Manxfeeder said:


> Reading these posts reminds me of a time when I was listening to the opening of Beethoven's Piano Sonata Opus 109. I was thinking, "Here's a sequence of ascending thirds and descending fourths." My wife walked in the room and said, "That sounds like a waterfall." It never occurred to me to notice that, but I liked the observation. Now when I hear the piece, I think of a sequence of ascending thirds and descending fourths that sounds like a waterfall.
> 
> In my experience, I don't need to analyze pieces to enjoy them, but if I find a piece which really speaks to me, I like to study it to see what makes it so attractive. I always end up with a deeper appreciation for it.


yeah, that's basically what I said. I have played that Beethoven sonata, and what attracted me in the first listening was that opening section, the harmonic progression.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Personally I have a hard time letting the emotion of the piece wash over me at first. I need to know what's going on before I can listen to a piece emotionally. I guess I'm weird or something.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

violadude said:


> Personally I have a hard time letting the emotion of the piece wash over me at first. I need to know what's going on before I can listen to a piece emotionally. I guess I'm weird or something.


Well yeah...


----------



## Igneous01 (Jan 27, 2011)

violadude said:


> Personally I have a hard time letting the emotion of the piece wash over me at first. I need to know what's going on before I can listen to a piece emotionally. I guess I'm weird or something.


I am kind of like this as well, on first listen I cant really connect with the piece, because im traversing the audible map of it. I need a good 10 listens and to get familiar with the structure of the music, and get accustomed to the shifts in dynamics and markings before I can truly let the emotions get to me.

I wonder how people can do that on first listen...


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

peeyaj said:


> Scenario:
> 
> Two friends, Anna and Karen are listening to Beethoven's Pathetique sonata. Anna, who is an amateur pianist, suddenly exclaimed ''Everytime, I heard the theme in A Flat Major, separated by two modulating episodes.. then modulating to A flat minor and E major... I can't help but feel in love with the piece.''
> 
> ...


Well, it depends on what you want out of music. I would venture to say that the practical aspects of making music, and the historical development, etc., involved in music theory, are significant subjects to study, certainly a great source for emotive appreciation, things that have a lasting and positive import on a person.

There is also the basic response to music, maybe cultural, maybe physiological, maybe conditioned on another level, and probably a mix, but what is important about it is that it is pleasant, that it is basically coherent in that we all share in it, responding to it on basically the same terms. We hear the resolution of a major cadence, and we sigh inwardly as the tension abates.

What do I want? I want to be endlessly fascinated. My fascination accentuates and complicates my basic experience, it makes music constantly marvelous and novel. I don't feel the limitations of a basic understanding of music, which might restrict me from finding novelty and an emotional connection to many different sorts of music. But I'm me, and you're you. I'm cerebral, mathematical, patiently obsessive, pensive, basically a boring guy who pontificates about stuff :lol: You don't necessarily need what I have gotten out of music. I'd like to think that some other people could appreciate my views on music, but I care more that people just appreciate the music.



> I'm not quite sure how important it is - with your example of modulations, both listeners are equally capable of noticing the musical effect and feeling of change, it's just that one is much more able to put it into words while the other can pinpoint a shift and say "I like that" without being able to identify exactly what it is. The identifications and labels probably give the illusion that having theoretical knowledge improves the experience, but I would agree with science that there are different kinds of music where it is more necessary than with others.


You put it nicely Polednice, so I'd like to use this material as kind of a diving board for some more thoughts:

In a sense, not knowing music theory, let's say not even basic music theory like reading notes on a staff, is like being a person who doesn't know French, and is watching French people have a conversation. You can probably correctly interpret some gestures, resonate with the tone, inflection, and rhythm, all of which is telling you about the basic nature of the conversation, and a little bit about the characters involved in the conversation.

But _you don't know what they are saying_. In fact, they are forming words, some of which are words with lengthy definitions, expressing to each other niceties, telling each other stories, talking of abstract models, expressing relationship issues, or a whole host of other, very specific and novel things. You have no way of knowing that. But if you're a patient people watcher like me, you still enjoy the exercise of watching faces and listening to voices, nonetheless.

Maybe it will help to know some of the subtext that isn't being said explicitly, in this conversation that you don't understand. You may know that a married couple is talking to one another, or that they are looking down at the people below them on a ski lift, saying something to or about them maybe. But _you still don't know what they are saying_. This I would compare to reading literature about a piece of music, literature that is less related to music theory, and more along the lines of knowing that a piece is based upon Macbeth.

And in the spirit of comparing this model to music that is more difficult to understand, you may be watching two people in the middle of a philosophical dialogue, or someone may be reciting a poem. If you don't understand the language, then when it comes to these people speaking near you, you haven't got the slightest clue what they are trying to say. Not only are they speaking in a language you don't know, but they are speaking about something of a technical nature, something difficult to express and understand for people who know the language fairly well. I have no way to appreciate masterful works in Attic Greek, if the markings on the scrolls look like chicken scratch to me. Maybe they are works that would greatly improve my knowledge of calculus and it's history. But I don't really need to know calculus, and I certainly don't need to know Attic Greek to get by in this modern world.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

kv466 said:


> To me, listener A sounds like an eager student who thinking way too much about is being heard. The enjoyment described by listener B is far more appealing and natural.


Ah, but what level is it appealing on? Do eager students like myself go awry somewhere, if we've had that attitude for years and years? Are we missing something?


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)

Like you said,...you are you...I know hundreds of these pieces inside out musically yet when I listen I don't sit there and even think in a formed language so as to _think _of what is 'going on'...when I hear something I know well I stop thinking upon hitting play or hearing the first note; when I'm not familiar the last thing I'll probably think of is what key the piece is in and then quickly allow myself to become absorbed by the tale of the teller. It's just the way _I've_ been doing it years and years and I am certain there are many maestros both soloists and conductors out there who _really_ know this stuff who enjoy music just very same way.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

kv466 said:


> Like you said,...you are you...I know hundreds of these pieces inside out musically yet when I listen I don't sit there and even think in a formed language so as to _think _of what is 'going on'...when I hear something I know well I stop thinking upon hitting play or hearing the first note; when I'm not familiar the last thing I'll probably think of is what key the piece is in and then quickly allow myself to become absorbed by the tale of the teller. It's just the way _I've_ been doing it years and years and I am certain there are many maestros both soloists and conductors out there who _really_ know this stuff who enjoy music just very same way.


Yes, yes, I can see what you're expressing there... Do you think I still have that? Would you say that you know? How indispensable is that part of the experience?


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)

I don't know, Luke...I sure hope you still do and will always...I wouldn't presume to _know_ anything about anyone but me and for me being sucked in by the music is completely indispensable; my best playing comes out when I am entirely unaware of any notes or what I am playing. Just riding the waves created by the other musicians and being fluid and free. Most slipped notes or flounders I ever hit are when I'm thinking about what to play rather than just playing it. Anyway,...this is me and that's how I like to enjoy music.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

kv466 said:


> I don't know, Luke...I sure hope you still do and will always...I wouldn't presume to _know_ anything about anyone but me and for me being sucked in by the music is completely indispensable; my best playing comes out when I am entirely unaware of any notes or what I am playing. Just riding the waves created by the other musicians and being fluid and free. Most slipped notes or flounders I ever hit are when I'm thinking about what to play rather than just playing it. Anyway,...this is me and that's how I like to enjoy music.


If you can forgive all of that brain picking, what I meant to suggest is that our perspectives aren't mutually exclusive, and that that kind of an appraisal of music doesn't just go away when you do what I do.


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)

That's why I'm here, man...it's not like anyone in daily life asks me these questions!


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

As a listener, I do let the music wash over me on first listen, if I don't know the piece (& esp. if I don't know the composer). As I do more listening, thinking and reading about this music, I notice more things, I tune in to things I couldn't possibly hear upon the first listen.

As for reading music, I'm not a musician, on my level I don't need to read music, but I would guess that reading music would enhance the experience, or give it another dimension/layer.

Having said that, musicians have said that you can't always hear things like a tone-row, or a modulation. In any case, over analysis can kill the experience in some ways. I have heard other musos say what kv466 is saying, to the effect that musicians don't know exactly what they're doing, they're just doing it naturally. Samuel Barber said, for example, he didn't know how he composed his music, he just did it without thinking too much of it. I can't find that exact quote online, I have it in a book somewhere. But this quote by the man is similar -

“Born of what I feel. I am not a self-conscious composer.” 

No wonder this guy's music is so emotional! Or has that effect on me at least.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Hilltroll72 said:


> Well yeah...


yeah.........


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

I think it does help to have some idea of music in general. When I listen to a new piece I am definitely conscious of certain things happening and I focus in on them to hear exactly what is going on in the piece. I know a lot of people who just do not know what to listen for when they listen to music, and they miss things that others who are more familiar even with more basic concepts would hear. It reminds me of looking at an art work. One who is familiar with the medium of art and how it is formulated and what the background and purposes are will always understand the piece and be able to get more content from it than someone without this knowledge. I think a lot of people on this forum have been listening to classical enough that they don't need to really do this, as they've become accustomed and it is sort of second nature to you. Mind you, what I say does not apply directly to the scenario in the original post. If two people hear the same thing, but one happens to be able to assign terminology to it, then there isn't a significant difference. If two people hear an A and only one can label it an A, there is no significant difference. To me, it only matters when insufficient knowledge becomes a hindrance in the ability of listening. I also like focusing on what is going on because I am stimulated by ideas within the work.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Igneous01 said:


> I am kind of like this as well, on first listen I cant really connect with the piece, because im traversing the audible map of it. I need a good 10 listens and to get familiar with the structure of the music, and get accustomed to the shifts in dynamics and markings before I can truly let the emotions get to me.
> 
> I wonder how people can do that on first listen...


Yup, that's exactly how I am


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

The original question asks if it it necessary to read notes to _fully appreciate_ a piece of music. 
I believe the answer is yes. I am making a distinction between appreciating and enjoying. Enjoyment comes first and is the most important thing but to be musically literate (able to read) is to add another layer of appreciation.
Just as one can enjoy a Shakespeare play as it is acted out. But if one really wants to understand everything that is there, all the nuances of metre and rhyme then one must go to the text. 
It is not essential but it adds.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

I actually think being 'musically literate' can be detrimental to the reception of a piece of music. You can be dazzled by inventive or virtuosic writing rather than just listening to the music with an uncluttered mind.

I'm with kv466 here. I only analyse or try to understand a piece technically when I want to incorporate some of it's features into my own music. I view it more as a useful personal exercise than adding a new level of appreciation to the music. If I want to enjoy the music to the fullest, I switch off that analytical part of my mnd and just listen.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Argus said:


> I actually think being 'musically literate' can be detrimental to the reception of a piece of music. You can be dazzled by inventive or virtuosic writing rather than just listening to the music with an uncluttered mind.


It is perfectly possible, indeed desirable to listen with a 'uncluttered mind'. This includes not eating, drinking, reading or thinking about things or otherwise being distracted. But as for literacy being detrimental, I stick with my Shakespeare analogy. it can only enhance your general _appreciation_ of a piece.

I remember when I was studying A-level music (many years ago)- Brahms Piano Quintet was a set work. A friend of mine who loved music but did not read or study music was at my place and I put on the record and opened the score. I moved my finger along the staves as the music played and he followed. When I would point out- 'look, here the cello has the motif in an upside down version, now it's back on the violin the right way up...' my friend would howl and grin with appreciation of the inner workings of the composition. He never stopped going on about that piece and Brahms. I think that definitely enhanced his enjoyment.


----------



## Badinerie (May 3, 2008)

I think if being able to sight read or analyse Classical music correctly was necessary to appreciate it then the concert halls would be empty and classical music dead!
I have a rudimentary technical knowledge of music but I find if Im thinking about the composition of a piece then I lose the moment. Afterwards I may reflect on why and how if it.
When your steering your car you dont _really_ want to be thinking about the mechanics of the steering column....


----------



## tgtr0660 (Jan 29, 2010)

I think reading is not necessary and knowing theory might not be totally necessary but certainly helps. Let's use symphonic form for example: a person hearing a movement in sonata form (let's assume a very basic one) might love the music, the melodies, the emotions, the dramas, even feel some underlying connection there. But another person with at least an amateur knowledge of forms and thematic development etc will not only better recognize the themes, but will be even more aware of how the different subjects are treated in the development or how many other changes are made and might extract even more out of it. 

But, again, if said person with knowledge analyzes the music only from that perspective, he will be losing even more from the music than the one with no theoretical knowledge. For a person who only talks and understands music as a matter of a flat major modulating to c major (whatever) and other purely musical-science aspects of the music, I recommend a good calculus class. Music is being wasted in him.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

tgtr0660 said:


> I think reading is not necessary and knowing theory might not be totally necessary but certainly helps. Let's use symphonic form for example: a person hearing a movement in sonata form (let's assume a very basic one) might love the music, the melodies, the emotions, the dramas, even feel some underlying connection there. But another person with at least an amateur knowledge of forms and thematic development etc will not only better recognize the themes, but will be even more aware of how the different subjects are treated in the development or how many other changes are made and might extract even more out of it.
> 
> But, again, if said person with knowledge analyzes the music only from that perspective, he will be losing even more from the music than the one with no theoretical knowledge. For a person who only talks and understands music as a matter of a flat major modulating to c major (whatever) and other purely musical-science aspects of the music, I recommend a good calculus class. Music is being wasted in him.


Ah, but who is this man? Where does he roam? It seems that people create imaginary figures when they think of people into music theory. Not to mention that the romantic philosophy of music seems more popular here, one of personal, subjective experience and confirmation. Does an objective approach bar out emotional experiences and appreciation of the music? Romantics seem to think so, but their arguments to that affect have little more substance than "it doesn't because it doesn't".


----------



## tgtr0660 (Jan 29, 2010)

^No they don't, and that's why an approach that combines both will probably bring the most rewards for the listener. But from a purely utilitarian view, if the strict theoric who enjoys music objectively as you said, is totally satisfied by a work of music, it has been entirely successful and thus has been enjoyed in the same level as that achieved by the other guy, the one who enjoys music purely from a subjective point of view. Music doesn't have a goal but that one which we give to it, so it's entirely legitimate to approach it in the way that pleases us the most.


----------



## NightHawk (Nov 3, 2011)

I have thought about this for many years. I absolutely believe that there can be an intuitive genius (and all increments somewhat less than) in just listening to music that needs no theory, no form, and no historical perspective...just ears and curiosity.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

tgtr0660 said:


> ^No they don't, and that's why an approach that combines both will probably bring the most rewards for the listener. But from a purely utilitarian view, if the strict theoric who enjoys music objectively as you said, is totally satisfied by a work of music, it has been entirely successful and thus has been enjoyed in the same level as that achieved by the other guy, the one who enjoys music purely from a subjective point of view. Music doesn't have a goal but that one which we give to it, so it's entirely legitimate to approach it in the way that pleases us the most.


You didn't say as much in your last post. In fact, you said that music is wasted on that man. I simply wonder where and who, is this fellow that you refer to. Not to be argumentative, I am just curious.


----------



## tgtr0660 (Jan 29, 2010)

Maybe I was being too radical in my approach? Yes, such a guy can exist and when I say "music would be wasted on him" I'm really saying that, if somehow I were to put myself on his head, music would be somewhat wasted if it's devoid ofthat subjective, romantic if you want, appreciation that I tend to combine with a more objective one, probably with the former being given more importance than the latter in my own personal perspective when listening to music. But obviously the guy who gets full enjoyment of his music from an objective side of things wouldn't say music is wasted in him; in fact, me might say music is wasted on a listener who can't appreciate the objective elements behind it and is only fooled by subjective reactions to it. In the end, probably my second post was closer to the truth in this matter, if there is any truth to be found, which I doubt.


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)

Lukecash12 said:


> You didn't say as much in your last post. In fact, you said that music is wasted on that man. I simply wonder where and who, is this fellow that you refer to. Not to be argumentative, I am just curious.


Come now, Luke, he was just talking about some guy (not you, someguy) who could be anyone with anything. The writer who knows all the rules of grammar but has nothing of his own to say. The painter who took every class and went to every museum but has no inspiration. The chef who knows every possible flavor combination and studied in France, yet can't cook better than his own mother. And, of course, the musician who studied and studied and learned everything the book has to say, knows every chord and scale on the instrument but can not improvise or compose good music or do many of the things that simply come free and naturally. All he can think of is notes on a page as opposed to musical notes being created in space. I wouldn't say it is wasted on them but music is being far more appreciated by any non-musician listening to music on their way to work.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

I don't understand what all this fuss is about.

The OP asked 'is being able to read notes essential in fully appreciating a piece?'. kv466- you are now talking about writers and painters and cooks (?).

The artist must know their craft, but that's not the issue. The listener need know nothing about the workings of a piece to enjoy it's affect. However, knowing more about the piece can only _enhance_ the appreciation. Never is it detrimental IMO.
The fact that I know that the Kyrie from the B minor Mass is a fugue doesn't somehow make it less beautiful to me. 
The fact that I know the sun is a ball of hydrogen doesn't make the sunset any less beautiful.
I find it curious that a great lover of classical music should not at some point in their life decide to take up an instrument which would mean having to read the dots anyway.
There's nothing wrong with just being a listener but there is certainly nothing wrong with going deeper.


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)

If you'd taken the time to read between the first and last posts then you would know I was responding to something Lukecash had asked and that we had previously discussed and _not_ referring to the OP. Also, if this is fuss for you then I strongly suggest staying away from the religious/political threads.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

kv466 said:


> If you'd taken the time to read between the first and last posts then you would know I was responding to something Lukecash had asked and that we had previously discussed and _not_ referring to the OP. Also, if this is fuss for you then I strongly suggest staying away from the religious/political threads.


I did read it all. I stand by what I said. Sorry if you take offence


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Petwhac said:


> I did read it all. I stand by what I said. Sorry if you take offence


You have been distracted by a slight slide in the direction of thread-drift. _kv_ is a musician, quite familiar with 'going deeper'. I'm not speaking for him when I say than what you term 'deeper' is a misnomer. For the listener, music theory is a parallel process, not a depth gauge.


----------



## Operadowney (Apr 4, 2012)

kv466 said:


> Come now, Luke, he was just talking about some guy (not you, someguy) who could be anyone with anything. The writer who knows all the rules of grammar but has nothing of his own to say. The painter who took every class and went to every museum but has no inspiration. The chef who knows every possible flavor combination and studied in France, yet can't cook better than his own mother. And, of course, the musician who studied and studied and learned everything the book has to say, knows every chord and scale on the instrument but can not improvise or compose good music or do many of the things that simply come free and naturally. All he can think of is notes on a page as opposed to musical notes being created in space. I wouldn't say it is wasted on them but music is being far more appreciated by any non-musician listening to music on their way to work.


I kind of disagree with this statement. I am not particularly good at improvising and I would never ever dare to compose anything. However I feel most comfortable as an interpreter of music, and it is through performance that I hope to make my career. I don't consider myself a creator in that respect, so is music wasted on me?


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Hilltroll72 said:


> You have been distracted by a slight slide in the direction of thread-drift. _kv_ is a musician, quite familiar with 'going deeper'. I'm not speaking for him when I say than what you term 'deeper' is a misnomer. For the listener, music theory is a parallel process, not a depth gauge.


I too am a musician, but that is beside the point. All I was saying was the deeper you explore the music the greater the riches.

Let's take poetry for example. It is, I believe intended to be read aloud. Someone may disagree with that statement but just allow me use it as an example. It is perfectly possible to have a poem such as Paradise Lost read to you. But, it being very long and very complex, a lot of it will pass you by. Perhaps you will need it read to you dozens of times before you begin to appreciate all that it has to offer. Or you might pick up the text and read and re-read passages yourself. The fact that you can read it will _never_ be detrimental to your appreciation.
I'm not saying that everyone should be able to sight read or read a score but some people seem to think that knowing anything about music 'theory' will detract from the listening experience. Whereas I disagree.

I'm only expressing my opinion but it seems that I get personally reprimanded by people who are too ready to take offence.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Petwhac said:


> I too am a musician, but that is beside the point. All I was saying was the deeper you explore the music the greater the riches.
> 
> Let's take poetry for example. It is, I believe intended to be read aloud. Someone may disagree with that statement but just allow me use it as an example. It is perfectly possible to have a poem such as Paradise Lost read to you. But, it being very long and very complex, a lot of it will pass you by. Perhaps you will need it read to you dozens of times before you begin to appreciate all that it has to offer. Or you might pick up the text and read and re-read passages yourself. The fact that you can read it will _never_ be detrimental to your appreciation.
> I'm not saying that everyone should be able to sight read or read a score but some people seem to think that knowing anything about music 'theory' will detract from the listening experience. Whereas I disagree.
> ...


Your poetry analogy doesn't make your point at all. I have read poetry; sometimes I read it aloud. Aloud or not, I usually get more out of than listening to someone else read aloud. Probably that is because I can, as you say, repeat portions of the poem to get the flow to work better than the first reading made it. *But*, I have no particular understanding of meter or any other of the ways poetry is organized to create _mood - that feeling remaining after the last word is read._. My reading poetry is akin to _listening_ to music with no knowledge of music theory.

I'll sort of repeat myself: applying music theory to a piece is a parallel process to listening to it. the process adds breadth, not depth, to understanding.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Hilltroll72 said:


> I'll sort of repeat myself: applying music theory to a piece is a parallel process to listening to it. the process adds breadth, not depth, to understanding.


 Breadth or depth, whatever you want to call it, it _adds_. 
I don't know what "applying music theory to a piece" means. To mention poetry again, say Shakespeare's sonnets: you can just enjoy them for their beauty of language without 'applying poetic theory' to use your terminology. But if you also know that they are constructed using a very strict metrical, rhyming and structural form you can fully, _fully_ appreciate what Shakespeare is doing and why. That doesn't mean you will necessarily _like_ them more but you will have a better _understanding_ of them.
At the risk of repeating myself I am emphasizing the words _*fully appreciate*_ that was in the original question.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Petwhac said:


> Breadth or depth, whatever you want to call it, it _adds_.
> I don't know what "applying music theory to a piece" means. To mention poetry again, say Shakespeare's sonnets: you can just enjoy them for their beauty of language without 'applying poetic theory' to use your terminology. But if you also know that they are constructed using a very strict metrical, rhyming and structural form you can fully, _fully_ appreciate what Shakespeare is doing and why. That doesn't mean you will necessarily _like_ them more but you will have a better _understanding_ of them.
> At the risk of repeating myself I am emphasizing the words _*fully appreciate*_ that was in the original question.


Looks like we are talking past each other. I'll try this one more time.

Music's effect on the listener is at levels below ratiocination. That lingering feeling that some poetry generates is at levels below ratiocination too; the 'play of words' is a different thing from the words themselves.

Analyzing the construction of the music or the poetry _is_ a process of ratiocination. Presumably, after you study the construction of the music on paper you can hear the architecture when the music is played - you can mingle the rational with the lower level responses. Whether that ratiocination distracts you _at all_ from those lower level responses is your call, not mine.

I am _certain_ that analyzing a poem while reading it would destroy its effect on me. I'm less certain about the effect of analyzing music while listening to it, but I suspect that it is detrimental. I see nothing bad about analysis in either medium, but I'm betting that it is best separated from primary enjoyment.

If this doesn't make sense to you, I'm sorry; I've run out of approaches.

:tiphat:


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Hilltroll72 said:


> Music's effect on the listener is at levels below ratiocination.


Says who exactly?



> I am _certain_ that analyzing a poem while reading it would destroy its effect on me. I'm less certain about the effect of analyzing music while listening to it, but I suspect that it is detrimental. I see nothing bad about analysis in either medium, but I'm betting that it is best separated from primary enjoyment.


And I_ know_ that it doesn't destroy it's affect on _me_. We're different I guess.


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

The opposite could happen.

Except for Le marteau, Boulez is a different story. In youth I attacked that piece with all the fanatacism of a new convert: read Musique aujourd-hui (of which Boulez eventually autographed my copy for me), did what analysis I could, and even did an independent tutorial learning to conduct the piece. But here again, I eventually came back to the piece in the late 1980s and realized that, after so many years of devotion, I couldn't meaningfully tell one movement from another, aside from the instrumentation. If someone had come out with a recording of Le marteau with half the pitches transposed by half-steps one way or the other, I wouldn't have been able to tell the difference. (I also analyzed every note of the Boulez Second Sonata before hearing it, and was so brainwashed that, when I finally heard it, I cried over its beauty. Today I wouldn't recognize that piece in a blindfold test.) Ultimately, I think Boulez was trying to be very avant-garde in Le marteau, but didn't really know what he was doing yet, and made lousy pitch choices. I've run into a surprising number of composers who have exactly the same opinion, and who were afraid to mention it for years.

http://www.artsjournal.com/postclassic/2003/09/loving_hating_carter_boulez.html


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

The only person who can truly understand a piece is its composer, as long as you bear that in mind and let it go I think you will be able to enjoy it however you like, whether that be passively, actively, analytically etc.


----------



## Moira (Apr 1, 2012)

Crudblud said:


> The only person who can truly understand a piece is its composer, as long as you bear that in mind and let it go I think you will be able to enjoy it however you like, whether that be passively, actively, analytically etc.


No. Even the composer fails to understand it fully. There will always be someone who hears something new that the composer did not intend or anticipate. This is true of all artistic endeavours, but particularly the visual arts and composition which are closed once they are complete. Performing arts have more room for interpretation. Of course composition is only ever presented by performers, so it has a double whammy or blessing in this regard.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Crudblud said:


> The only person who can truly understand a piece is its composer, as long as you bear that in mind and let it go I think you will be able to enjoy it however you like, whether that be passively, actively, analytically etc.


Depends what you mean by truly understand.
If the listener can't grasp what is going on, even after many listens, what was the point?
If a composer can't tell if the performer is playing wrong notes then why bother at all?


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Hilltroll72 said:


> I'll sort of repeat myself: applying music theory to a piece is a parallel process to listening to it. the process adds breadth, not depth, to understanding.


Understanding what? That you feel something? Music theory turns what sounds fairly vague, into a type of grammar function, and then into a specific word. Without music theory, music remains more of a thing, with a largely imperceptible identity. Sure, an untrained listener might feel a lot when listening to a piece. That isn't the only depth gauge: "Loud" emotions aren't any more novel than an accumulation of "soft" emotions, and intuition isn't necessarily more exciting and novel than methodical reasoning.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Moira said:


> No. Even the composer fails to understand it fully. There will always be someone who hears something new that the composer did not intend or anticipate. This is true of all artistic endeavours, but particularly the visual arts and composition which are closed once they are complete. Performing arts have more room for interpretation. Of course composition is only ever presented by performers, so it has a double whammy or blessing in this regard.


This depends largely on your philosophy when it comes to interpreting music. In my perspective, when I see Horowitz totally go in a different direction from the sheets when he plays, say, Vers La Flamme, I see that as Horowitz's piece, not Scriabin's. If I wanted to listen to a Horowitz composition, I'd look for one of his compositions in particular, something that he has published. The record says Scriabin on it, so I expect to hear Scriabin.

But that is simply how I interpret music when I play it, not necessarily how I criticize other musicians with a different philosophy of interpretation. And my philosophy of interpretation fits largely into how I appreciate music, as more of a humanity like philosophy or history, than a liberal art.


----------

