# How to Understand Classical Music?



## Illuminandi

Greetings classical music faithful!

I'm trying to get back into classical music, but I need help wrapping my head around it. I got into classical music some years ago after reading an article about music and morality. But abandoned it after a while because beyond the very accessible pieces that most average people think of when they think about classical(Canon in D, Beethoven's 9th Symphony, Eine Kleine Nachtmusik, you know what i'm talking about) I couldn't intuitively understand the rest of the genre. It seemed too heady and beyond my comprehension. One example would be Bach's Toccata and Fugue, which I've listened to a lot to try to understand, and I can sort of see why it's considered such great piece after so many listens, but I still can't get into that territory where I could say it personally touches me as a masterwork.

So, how does one go about understanding classical music? And by "understand" I don't solely mean in the intellectual sense, but also in an intuitive sense like (pardon the example, but this is what I've been listening to before) death metal sounds like complete noise to a lot of people, but there's a way to "intuitively understand" the noise, after making a sort of mental shift in your brain. Then, it's patterns and tropes suddenly make sense. And sound pretty awesome by the way. So, again, where do I start when it comes to understanding and making sense of classical music, and hence, be able to enjoy it? I'm specifically interested in understanding everything from the actual Classical period(Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven(I guess he belongs here?), etc.) and backwards(Bach, especially, Bach). From what I can tell, at least to me, there's a clear difference and break between all music before 1800 and all music after. Although, insights here and there into the Romantic era and beyond are still welcome. And if anyone can link me to any further resources, websites, books, etc. on the topic of understanding classical music, that would be appreciated.

But yeah, both intellectually and intuitively understand (although, I'm not sure if intuitive understanding can even be taught)


----------



## Mahlerian

> But yeah, both intellectually and intuitively understand (although, I'm not sure if intuitive understanding can even be taught)


Neither am I, but perhaps a basic idea of what to listen for might help.

When you listen to a pop or rock song, you probably already have a grasp on how it works. The texture has melody and accompaniment, and these are more or less separated from each other, with the melody being the more important whenever it is heard. The form is made up of sections, usually verses, choruses, and bridges, in different arrangements at times, but with the same roles from song to song. Chord changes happen with regularity and often by having the whole accompaniment move by the same amount. Many songs remain in a single key, and if they do change key, it's not necessary to return to the first one.

Classical music is different. Often, the accompaniment is just as important as the melody, and there may be more than one melody heard at a single time (don't worry if you can't follow more than one at a time; just listen and your ears will learn to do it), each with equal prominence. Furthermore, instruments that were accompanying at one moment can be melody the next, and vice versa, so that the texture is constantly changing (exceptions to this in instrumental works, like the Canon in D, are relatively rare).

There are several different types of forms found in classical music, and there is so much variation within them that it can be difficult even for musicologists to agree exactly where a piece fits in. The opening movement of Eine Kleine Nachtmusik is in one of the most characteristic forms of the 18th and 19th centuries, Sonata Form, which is more or less ABA, but with the B consisting of variations on the A section's themes rather than a new melody. Sonata form is found in most symphonies' first movements, as well as those of sonatas.

Harmony in classical music, like texture, is more variable than in most popular songs. A chord change usually does not have every single part of the chord move at once and by the same amount, because this was generally thought to sound bad. So chords shift over time rather than with regularity and abruptness. Key changes are not only frequent, but also important to the musical flow of a piece, so that if a movement shifts into another key partway through, it usually returns to the original key, and this is a sign that the section (or the piece) is nearing its end.


----------



## ericdxx

I think the charm of Death metal is the heavy rythm and the frightening mood of the Music. 

My biggest fascination with classical music is how it is a thought to a note, from brain to music, with no jamming, no improvisation. The music is a vision.

I don't know what to tell you.


----------



## Klavierspieler

I'd say find a composer who's works you enjoy and explore his (or her) works. Branch out from there. When I first began listening to classical music, I mostly just listened to Beethoven and Chopin.


----------



## GGluek

Well, like most of the other arts, classical music works on two levels. There's the surface for one (basically the emotive appeal), and underneath, the intellectual -- which consists of how skillfully it was put together, and how that skillfulness works to create the surface. There's no one way to listen, but whichever level suits you on first or repeated hearings, your mind will eventually absorb the other as you listen. And sometimes first impressions change over time. With every kind of work it works differently, so repeated exposure without being over-analytical at first is usually essential.

Take the Toccata and Fugue (I assume the d minor one). The surface of the Toccata part is one that essentially says "high drama" (think of Capt. Nemo at his organ in his submarine). The form is relatively free and it acts as a builder of extreme emotional tension before the release of the Fugue -- which is basically a very skillfully composed headlong rush to . . . somewhere. Intellectually, a fugue, although also capable of great expressivity in the right context, is a species of technical tour-de-force. One appreciates the long lines, the stretto (the same line being repeated a fifth higher or lower eight measures apart), the intricate interlocking of voices that takes place without sounding ghastly, and the way that all this busy-ness holds the attention and holds together all the way to a predictable conclusion. If you don't get that, or if, in getting it, you don't like it, fine. There are probably Death Metal numbers you don't like either. But again, that's just one very specific example of one very small part of the classical repertoire. 

In general, at least until you get to the 20th century:

1) Listen first to the surface -- the emotions, the drama, the stateliness . . .

2) Listen to the sense that the piece, over however long it is, is "going" somewhere. This is a function of primarily harmony.

3) Absorb the gestalt of a whole piece before you get into the specifics.

4) If a detail attracts your attention, hold onto it.

5) Once you've got it, listen intellectually to the details that make it do what it does.

After you've gone around in those circles for a specific period of time or number of pieces, you'll want to read up about forms, harmony, rhythm, and the other arcana that explain why and how it works. But being aware of the fact that "it works" (if it does for you) is the first step.


----------



## Ravndal

Just force your self to listen to a lot of different classical music. Try to get to know a work over. For example, take Dvorak symphony 9 - and listen and concentrate as much as possible.

I didn't love classical music at my first listen. I remember that i was intrigued, but I didn't get the music. Then I told my self "this is something i want to like". And voila. I don't just like it, i love it.


----------



## violadude

Illuminandi said:


> One example would be Bach's Toccata and Fugue, which I've listened to a lot to try to understand, and I can sort of see why it's considered such great piece after so many listens, but I still can't get into that territory where I could say it personally touches me as a masterwork.


I feel the need to point out that just because a classical work is relatively popular doesn't mean it's a masterwork. In this particular case Toccata and Fugue, despite its relative popularity, isn't exactly the greatest piece by Bach and certainly wouldn't be considered by many "aficionados" as his masterwork. So don't feel like you have to connect to it.

If you want to go for the "picking out the masterworks" angle when exploring classical music, you should hang out more at TC and get a true feel for what's considered a composer's best works. For example, I think much more people who know what they are talking about would cite Bach's b minor mass or his Brandenburg Concertos as contenders for "masterworks" rather than the Toccata and Fugue (which might not actually even be by Bach).


----------



## aleazk

violadude said:


> I feel the need to point out that just because a classical work is relatively popular doesn't mean it's a masterwork. In this particular case Toccata and Fugue, despite its relative popularity, isn't exactly the greatest piece by Bach and certainly wouldn't be considered by many "aficionados" as his masterwork. So don't feel like you have to connect to it.


Call me "unsophisticated", but I love the piece. 
Particularly the fugue in this great interpretation by Karl Richter: 




Although, yes, I wouldn't consider it as Bach's ultimate masterpiece at all.


----------



## violadude

aleazk said:


> Call me "unsophisticated", but I love the piece.
> Particularly the fugue in this great interpretation by Karl Richter:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Although, yes, I wouldn't consider it as Bach's ultimate masterpiece at all.


Oh, no I didn't mean someone is a fool for liking the piece haha. I just meant that it's not the type of piece he (she?) should feel compelled to connect with as a masterpiece.


----------



## brotagonist

Illuminandi said:


> I got into classical music some years ago after reading an article about music and morality. But abandoned it after a while...


No doubt. That doesn't sound like a good approach 



Illuminandi said:


> [H]ow does one go about understanding classical music? ...I don't solely mean in the intellectual sense, but also in an intuitive sense... there's a way to "intuitively understand"... noise, after making a... mental shift in your brain.


Mahlerian has a knack and the knowledge to explain, so read what he wrote a couple of times. I think this explains the intellectual side very well. And you already know the intuitive side about making a "mental shift in your brain." You just need to listen and keep on listening. Hear as many different pieces and composers as you can. Classical music is a commitment, but it is not difficult.

I suggest setting aside a few minutes, whenever you feel like it, say 5-20 minutes at a time. Make sure there will be no distractions. Lie down on the floor or sit in a chair. Turn up the volume to a comfortable level and do absolutely nothing but listen to one full movement of a piece. Try to pick out a theme, hear it evolve and be taken up by different instruments. Notice another theme appear and try to hear the return of the original theme. Notice the interplay between the themes, how they are developed, how the various instruments play with the themes, etc. Try to distinguish which instrument makes each sound.

Popular music is easy. It usually has a beat and lyrics or instrumental sections that are repeated, etc. Either you like the sound or you don't. You usually know within the first minute or so whether you will like the music. Classical music is a different kind of listening. You are not concerned with liking a beat or melody or lyrics, etc. You are interested in picking out themes and following their development. After a while, sections will stick in your mind and you will come to appreciate them in the same way that you appreciate melodies in popular songs. Some pieces yield more easily; others are harder nuts to crack. Once you start to get the hang of this kind of listening, you will find it to be much more satisfying, because classical music holds its appeal for a long time. You don't tire of it, like you do popular songs, that get boring after a while.


----------



## violadude

I might also suggest that if you are trying to understand classical music instead of trying to listen to a ton of it, pick 6 or so Haydn or Mozart symphonies and explore them in depth. Once you've got an outstanding grasp on the inner workings of a few classical pieces, you'll be pleasantly surprised at how understanding other classical pieces will become increasingly easier and more intuitive.


----------



## Musician

How can anyone explain to you how to understand something that they also don't understand?

Classical music is art music, period. There is nothing else to understand unless you want to compose music, that's a different thing all together, you will need to 'understand' how to compose music. But when it comes to listening, you just need an open mind, and the sensitivity to feel the music, when you feel it, then you will like it.

Can someone explain to you how to understand water? , unless your'e a scientist you don't need to understand it. You just enjoy the benefits of water. Same is true with many other things. Listening to all the music in the world won't make 'understand' it. Music doesn't demand understanding, but feeling. Literature however needs the element of 'understanding' because these are specific words, and if you don't understand the words, then you wont understand what the author is trying to say. 

In music, the composer is not expressing a definitive idea that one could squeeze into a word and say that this is it. Its more general, and subject to multiple interpretations. So what one musician can tell you about a particular piece, the other can tell you something totally different, because different people perceive music differently. So when the information is vague and obscure, and indefinite, that's where the mind takes a break and the feeling takes over.

With feeling, you don't need to understand, you just need to be sensitive to the information and have an attentive ear. When you'll do that you will begin to appreciate and enjoy the music that speaks to you, and avoid the music that doesn't speak to you, from a personal level. And I stress here from a personal level, cause no one can make you like something that you don't really like in music. No lectures, and intellectual discourse will make you love something that you dislike. You need to be true to yourself and let your feelings decide what is the music that you enjoy, save any other consideration, advice and discourse.

Cheers


----------



## Stargazer

Musician said:


> How can anyone explain to you how to understand something that they also don't understand?
> 
> Classical music is art music, period. There is nothing else to understand unless you want to compose music, that's a different thing all together, you will need to 'understand' who the compose music. But when it comes to listening, you just need an open mind, and the sensitivity to feel the music, when you feel it, then you will like it.
> 
> Can someone explain to you how to understand water? , unless your'e a scientist you don't need to understand it. You just enjoy the benefits of water. Same is true with many other things. Listening to all the music in the world won't make 'understand' it. Music doesn't demand understanding, but feeling. Literature however needs the element of 'understanding' because these are specific words, and if you don't understand the words, then you wont understand what the author is trying to say.
> 
> In music, the composer is not expressing a definitive idea that one could squeeze into a word and say that this is it. Its more general, and subject to multiple interpretations. So what one musician can tell you about a particular piece, the other can tell you something totally different, because different people perceive music differently. So when the information is vague and obscure, and indefinite, that's where the mind takes a break and the feeling takes over.
> 
> With feeling, you don't need to understand, you just need to be sensitive to the information and have an attentive ear. When you'll do that you will begin to appreciate and enjoy the music that speaks to you, and avoid the music that doesn't speak to you, from a personal level. And I stress here from a personal level, cause no one can make you something that you don't really like in music. No lectures, and intellectual discourse will make you love something that you dislike. You need to be true to yourself and let your feelings decide what is the music that you enjoy, save any other consideration, advice and discourse.
> 
> Cheers


After a reply like that, what is there left to say?

My personal suggestion is to just keep trying out new pieces of music. The more you try, the more you will learn what you do/don't like, and what you can/can't understand. And it is my firm belief that everyone who likes any form of music also has the capacity to love and understand classical...they just have to hear the "right" classical for them.


----------



## Avey

It may just be your conscious desire, but I would just _listen_ to music. Enjoy it for what it is. Find something that pleases you in some manner.

I don't think the majority of listeners chose to listen to classical purely to understand and examine it, and then just continued to love the genre. I think the majority of us heard a piece, and something clicked. For me, that was purely an emotional link, and that's how I'm drawn into the majority of my...how do you say it, phases, of getting hooked on a composer/era.

Of course, now, I _try _to understand and examine how works are constructed, how the piece is organized. But when I fail, I usually just fall back on Mahlerian's analysis.


----------



## mstar

Understanding Classical Music 101: 

-Learn some music theory, at least the basics, and get pretty familiar with it. 
-Of course, listen to music. Start with an era that appeals to you, get familiar with a composer or so, become comfortable with their style and techniques in your mind. 
-Try not to listen to the same thing over and over, even if you like it a lot! The only exception might be Tchaikovksy's Nutcracker.  
-Don't be like mstar and wait until forever to learn the definition of counterpoint.  
-Don't be afraid to share your opinion on and off TC. 
-If COAG or Aleazk say they like Ligeti, but you don't listen to Ligeti, then listen to Ligeti. Just once. Then continue with whatever you were listening to before. :lol: 
-Don't take music toooo seriously. Looking too deep into it may get you to miss the broader conveying of theme/whatever. 
-Have fun! Music is not work, unless you study it, and wait until 23:00 to practice the piano. Like me, again. 

Good luck!


----------



## Sid James

Illuminandi said:


> ...So, how does one go about understanding classical music? And by "understand" I don't solely mean in the intellectual sense, but also in an intuitive sense like (pardon the example, but this is what I've been listening to before) death metal sounds like complete noise to a lot of people, but there's a way to "intuitively understand" the noise, after making a sort of mental shift in your brain. Then, it's patterns and tropes suddenly make sense. And sound pretty awesome by the way...


A way is to gain intuitive understanding with classical music the same way you did with death metal. I mean using the same methods or strategies. How did you come to understanding and enjoying death metal? Can you apply some of the strategies you used there to access classical. I am saying this because most people have adaptibility and an ability to absorb new information. The trick is to develop some strategies, like a workman has his toolbox, with which you can break down barriers to new things.

For example, when I came to this forum in 2009, it had been after a long hiatus largely away from classical and more into jazz. Then I really got into chamber music and I used the listening skills I had with jazz - eg. small groups or jazz trios - to come back to chamber music and I now know more pieces in the chamber genre than I did prior to 2009. I know more about them and continue to expand into other areas within classical universe.

Its huge and can be bewildering, but when I found some areas of focus which I liked, I was able to break down any barriers. One thing is common elements in classical music which people have discussed here - eg. sonata form, theme and variation, thematic development. There are different types of these, but they all have some things in common. I don't know death metal but I wouldn't be surprised if there are things in that which you can use to access classical.



> ... if anyone can link me to any further resources, websites, books, etc. on the topic of understanding classical music, that would be appreciated.


Robert Greenberg's How to Listen to Great Music is one I found useful, and I think people on this forum have been reading it as well. Its good for any listener really, I have learnt things from it even though I'm not new to classical.

Aaron Copland's What to Listen for in Music is also good and he wrote others as well.



> ...
> But yeah, both intellectually and intuitively understand (although, I'm not sure if intuitive understanding can even be taught)


Well I think that its like and investment, the more you put in, the more you get out of it. In terms of what Copland wrote in one of his books, even he felt that he lacked understanding of some music, particularly music that is highly complex and cutting edge. But in terms of people who are not composers or musicians, but just listeners - and I am such a person - they don't have the pressure of having to know everything, or almost everything. So be easy on yourself. Whatever will come will just come naturally. After decades of being into classical, with some periods of fairly rigorous listening, I have been able to develop a kind of focus. It takes time and effort, but it can be very rewarding. Some people are faster at it than others.

My journey understanding the "nuts and bolts" of classical pieces came at a family concert performance of Benjamin Britten's Young Person's Guide to the Orchestra (Variations and Fugue on a Theme by Purcell). The narrator guided me through concepts such as a theme, variations, a fugue, instruments of the orchestra and their sections, and since that time I have used my own initiative to make my own understandings of classical. I just built it up, some of it's been systematic, other things came by chance.


----------



## Ravndal

mstar said:


> Understanding Classical Music 101:
> 
> *-Learn some music theory, at least the basics, and get pretty familiar with it. *


I don't agree with that. Knowing music theory doesn't necessarily enhance your listening experience. Also, music theory for most people is boring - and music should be everything else than boring. Music theory is for people with an particular interest.


----------



## Guest

I did a quick scan of the posts so far. Quick, so I may have missed something. But I never saw any question of what "classical music" refers to.

So I take it we all agree so far that there is a thing, classical music, and that it has certain characteristics--that talking about those characteristics will lead to understanding it.

Start to look at specific, individual instances of "classical music," however, and all the generalities in the world won't help you out.

I'd like the OP to reconsider the whole situation, starting with what he or she wants. Whatever skills you need to appreciate Machaut, those skills probably won't get you very far with understanding Bizet. 

And I'd like to see my fellow travelers reconsider the wisdom of referring to all these different, specific, individual pieces as "it."

You know how useful that approach has been with race and gender, eh?


----------



## dgee

The first step is us realising "classical" music is just music. 

Find some music you like and listen to it a bit and then try some more by that same guy or do some research and find some guys writing stuff at the same time and see if they work for you in the same way. Try compilation albums to kick off with - there are plenty of "great classics" compilations which is absolutely how I started listening to this stuff. Don't manfully strive to like stuff you don't like, pick up on things you do like, and go for it. 

One thing - so called classical repays a bit of research and intellectual curiosity. If you're of a mind to find out about composers and eras that interest you, all the better. Watching music is great too - go to shows if you can


----------



## pwdemars

I completely agree that classical music can often be really quite tricky to get into. Often I think it comes down to luck in one way or another. There were a handful of pieces that really got me excited by classical music and many of them were by no means your Beethoven 9s or Eine Kleine Nachtmusik. For instance one key composer for me was Finzi of all people! I listened to one piece (Romance for Strings) and became hooked. Most importantly, I think, I pursued the composer which then in turn introduced me to a number of other pieces and then composers etc. etc. 

I do also think that unfortunately a lot of 'understanding' of classical music comes down to quantity. A lot of classical music can sound pretty similar if you've not heard a lot, but once you have listened for a while everything will jump out of the music for you to get excited about.


----------



## korenbloem

I don't think listing to classical music is different then listing to popmusic.

But first you need to accept that you need to learn that you need to look for different cues in classical music (or modern, electronics, ambient, opera etc) then in pop music. Mostly people listen or search for the melody, maybe a small instrumental solo (moslty used in a word-melodic way) etc. But with classical music especially orchastral or modern classical music. There are textures of different forms melodies, melodies you cant re-sing, melodies that dont listen as melodies (like freejazz) etc.

So the next 3 weeks:

So I always say start with one piece and listen to it 1 time in a hole (and relaxed, do it when you are cleaning/ net surfing etc). Then leaf it for that day. Dont judge the piece jet. Just think what you heared. So what kind of instrument, was it slow playing, did I hear a melody or that I hear a motive. What kind of expression was there etc (things anyone that has been growing up with pop-music knows instictly with popsongs, because you already learned that).
Then the next 4 days grap a different movement of the piece.
Then leave it for 2 days or so.

then the next week listen to the piece as a hole a couple of times 6 should be fine. And then start evaluating what you like, and what you dont like (dont demiss everything, but parts of it). Try a different a recording of the piece etc. Then leave the piece for a couple days. And do this again.

because taste is acquired. (Most childeren only like sweet tastes and parents force them to try different things).

The classical composition I advice for a beginner is always: Beethoven - sympony 9.

and for people how are wanting to start really serious about classical music: listen or watch this audio course: http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/courses/course_detail.aspx?cid=700


----------



## Andreas

I want to underline Mahlerian's point about the sonata form. Understanding the sonata form, I think, is really helpful, particularly with regard to the classical period. Also: the song form, the menuet, the rondo and the theme-and-variations form. I think knowing theses forms is important to get a grasp on, for example, 15 minute long musical movements in a classical symphony or concerto, especially if one is mostly used to the structure of a 3 minute pop song.


----------



## science

some guy said:


> I did a quick scan of the posts so far. Quick, so I may have missed something. But I never saw any question of what "classical music" refers to.
> 
> So I take it we all agree so far that there is a thing, classical music, and that it has certain characteristics--that talking about those characteristics will lead to understanding it.
> 
> Start to look at specific, individual instances of "classical music," however, and all the generalities in the world won't help you out.
> 
> I'd like the OP to reconsider the whole situation, starting with what he or she wants. Whatever skills you need to appreciate Machaut, those skills probably won't get you very far with understanding Bizet.
> 
> And I'd like to see my fellow travelers reconsider the wisdom of referring to all these different, specific, individual pieces as "it."
> 
> You know how useful that approach has been with race and gender, eh?


Why don't you start a different thread for these ideas? (Of course we did the "what is classical music thread" but you can bump it or start a new one.) It's an interesting question, but here it's out of place; it seems like you're trying to interfere with a person exploring classical music.

Or maybe you could be more specific. "I'd like the OP to reconsider the whole situation, starting with what he or she wants." What does that mean? That might be a helpful discussion here.


----------



## Piwikiwi

Ravndal said:


> I don't agree with that. Knowing music theory doesn't necessarily enhance your listening experience. Also, music theory for most people is boring - and music should be everything else than boring. Music theory is for people with an particular interest.


Depends a bit of on what you mean by music theory. Knowing about form is very important to understand classical music. It's also important to know what the following things are counterpoint, hamony/melody, dissonance/consonance, meter/rhythm and basic stuff like that.


----------



## julianoq

I certainly don't have a formula, but I can say what worked for me. 

First, find works that will "click" immediately for you. There is an immense range of different styles on classical music, and certainly you will find something more appealing in the beginning. In my case, I was a heavy metal listener and when I listened to the first movement of Mahler 2nd symphony it immediately clicked (not saying that it has much in common with heavy metal, but it generated related feelings to me).

Second, never say that you don't like a composer after a few listens. Some of my favorite composers, like Bruckner and Sibelius, don't clicked immediately, but after a few months I listened again and loved it. If you decide that you don't like a composer and will not try to listen to it again you will probably miss a big part of all the amazing music ever composed.

Third, get some music theory knowledge. Yes, I know that music is art and can be enjoyed for what it is, but it is a complex art, and I started to enjoy it much more after getting some understanding of what was going on. It is like going to a museum without any knowledge of the artists paintings, you can find it beautiful but you will not understand much of the meaning, the context and the intentions of the works. Maybe it is personal, but I got much more enjoyment of a painting if I do a quick search on google about it before going to the museum. With classical music it works the same for me, I am far from an expert but I got much more from music after learning about musical forms, key changes, composers biographies, etc.

And finally fourth, take your time. There is an almost infinite amount of outstanding classical music out there, and we are privileged to live in an era that is much easier to access it. You don't need to understand anything today, or this year. Enjoy the ride!


----------



## starthrower

I'll let the composers and musicians do the understanding. I'll just listen. When you watch a movie, do you worry about not understanding how it was all put together and produced? No! You listen to the dialogue and follow the plot, and escape from your daily cares for a couple of hours.


----------



## Ukko

Piwikiwi said:


> Depends a bit of on what you mean by music theory. Knowing about form is very important to understand classical music. It's also important to know what the following things are counterpoint, hamony/melody, dissonance/consonance, meter/rhythm and basic stuff like that.


Nah, none of that stuff is important for the listener.

Like _some guy_ (hah, nobody is like _some guy_) I read the posts up to here mostly to observe the futility. There is no good way to get the task done by referring to 'classical music'; it's too big a category.

Maybe if the OP picks a familiar instrument, say acoustic guitar, and checks out some classical music performed on solo guitar - not Baroque, that's too unfamiliar an idiom - there will be a handle to grab onto. Or maybe not. I hate to suggest this... if it's the beat that needs to be familiar, there is always Ravel's Bolero.

(Got to hurry and close this, before I delete Bolero.)


----------



## julianoq

Hilltroll72 said:


> Nah, none of that stuff is important for the listener.


How can you define a group so diverse as "a listener"? I am a listener and it is important to me.


----------



## Ukko

julianoq said:


> How can you define a group so diverse as "a listener"? I am a listener and it is important to me.


You just got done saying that I (also a listener) need all that stuff, and now you are complaining? Hah!


----------



## julianoq

Hilltroll72 said:


> You just got done saying that I (also a listener) need all that stuff, and now you are complaining? Hah!


Not at all! On my previous posts I made clear that it was what worked _for me_ and that I got more enjoyment knowing some theory. People (listeners) are different.


----------



## deggial

why start with stuff you don't feel an affinity to? classical music is a vast field. You might feel closer to 20th century or contemporary and work your way back slowly. Having been a fan of extreme metal myself I can tell you I responded to, say, Xenakis and Stockhausen in a more direct way than to Chopin or Bach, both of whom I still have some issues warming up to. But then I also immediately took to Rossini and Handel, so you never know what might strike your fancy. My advice is to listen to a lot of things from different time periods and see what sticks, instead of focusing on something that you can't immediately crack.


----------



## brotagonist

I think it is useful to bear in mind that, before the advent of recordings, everyone listened to classical music. It was not a music form for only some listeners. Recall that the Wild West towns and the gold rush towns of the Klondike and other areas all had concert halls and opera houses. The men... miners, lumberjacks, cowboys... all heard classical music for entertainment. Imagine a work camp today with an opera house :lol: I still maintain that you must simply decide that you are interested and start to listen.


----------



## Ukko

julianoq said:


> Not at all! On my previous posts I made clear that it was what worked _for me_ and that I got more enjoyment knowing some theory. People (listeners) are different.


You picked up the point by _Piwikiwi_. That's the one I responded to. However: "Third, get some music theory knowledge." That is you talking there. It ain't a requirement. Certainly you and I are different; I wouldn't have it any other way.


----------



## julianoq

Hilltroll72 said:


> You picked up the point by _Piwikiwi_. That's the one I responded to. However: "Third, get some music theory knowledge." That is you talking there. It ain't a requirement. Certainly you and I are different; I wouldn't have it any other way.


Well, you probably missed the first phrase on my post.

_I certainly don't have a formula, but I can say what worked for me. _


----------



## Couchie

Did it ever dawn on you that maybe you just aren't sophisticated enough for Classical music?


----------



## moody

I've found out at this late stage that I apparently shouldn't like classical music at all.
I simply liked it from the off---not all of it but who does ?
I know nothing of music theory and I pretended to myself that I did--and I fooled me !
My life has been a sham !!


----------



## Ingélou

moody said:


> I've found out at this late stage that I apparently shouldn't like classical music at all.
> I simply liked it from the off---not all of it but who does ?
> I know nothing of music theory and I pretended to myself that I did--and I fooled me !
> My life has been a sham !!


No need to skulk inside your armour because of that, though. We forgive you!


----------



## Piwikiwi

Hilltroll72 said:


> Nah, none of that stuff is important for the listener.
> 
> Like _some guy_ (hah, nobody is like _some guy_) I read the posts up to here mostly to observe the futility. There is no good way to get the task done by referring to 'classical music'; it's too big a category.
> 
> Maybe if the OP picks a familiar instrument, say acoustic guitar, and checks out some classical music performed on solo guitar - not Baroque, that's too unfamiliar an idiom - there will be a handle to grab onto. Or maybe not. I hate to suggest this... if it's the beat that needs to be familiar, there is always Ravel's Bolero.
> 
> (Got to hurry and close this, before I delete Bolero.)


It's not necessary of course but it will help with your appreciation of the music.


----------



## Piwikiwi

Ingenue said:


> No need to skulk inside your armour because of that, though. We forgive you!


Speak for yourself! Its unforgivable.


----------



## Ukko

Couchie said:


> Did it ever dawn on you that maybe you just aren't sophisticated enough for Classical music?


Excellent! If the person is no taller than you are, and you can see up his nose, he has an attitude.


----------



## Inceptionist

I'll admit some of it is an acquired taste, and it can seem overbearing at times. If you can't identify any lead melody or anything just try to listen for the overall feel of the music instead. If you hate it completely then don't try and force yourself, people like different stuff


----------



## dgee

It's one of those things - bringing a "critical" mindset is just as useful here as it is to literature or visual art (or pop for that matter). And by that I mean keep your ears open and soak that stuff up. Then notice and think. Things happen the same again in different ways and check it out because that's awesome - different crunchy sounds are good or bad - slow and fast (or is it)?

There are heaps of ways to guide you through these thoughts - the Copland book is fine if you are wired that way but there are a plethora of online "courses" for the keen googler to find


----------



## SIoannou

I think it is easier to start with non polyphonic music first. Try some of the great romantic music. Easy pieces to start with are dvoraks new world, liszt piano music, brahms symphony 1, tchaikowskys nutcracker suites, griegs peer gynt suite etc. this is how i started


----------



## spike

Your post made me think about my situation regarding classical music. 

As the youngest of four, I grew up surrounded by it. This is because my three older sisters all studied music or learned to play musical instruments. The result of this is that in my adulthood I have a great appreciation despite not having the technical knowledge that my sisters have. 
That said, many years ago I became aware that I was stuck in a bit of a musical groove relative to what I was used to as a youngster to the likes of Beethoven, Tchaikovsky, Chopin, Mozart. So I decided to break this cycle and try something new but found this difficult to do. For example, early on in this new quest I came across Mahler, in particular the 4th symphony but when first played I was not impressed with it at all. Anyway, I did some reading (the technicalities if you like) and everything was pointing to a great work, so I thought ‘what am I missing here’? So I persevered, not sure for how long, it might have been 10 plays over a long period before it started to sound pleasing. Today this work that I once disliked is now a favourite! The upshot is that the style of classical music that I was brought up with had in my mind become popularised and I suppose that I expected Mahler to sound like Beethoven and because it didn’t, it sounded bad to me. A lesson that I had to learn.

Another point that may help you is that different to popular music that is easy to pick up, classical takes time to appreciate but I find this time of discovery to be part of the enjoyment. I also find it helps to read about the piece so as to understand what the composer is trying to convey in his work when you listen to the music. I find too that I am more receptive to certain types of music depending on my mood.

Hope that helps


----------

