# No, but seriously - how are people without trained ears supposed to understand music?



## Boychev (Jul 21, 2014)

I'll never get to the point where the harmonic structure of a piece becomes apparent just by listening, or pinpoint where the composer modulates or how they do it. It works for popular music and folk, but never for really complicated music. It's just impossible for me to conceptualize what I'm listening to! And if I can't conceptualize it, then it just remains there indeterminate and unable to connect to any other knowledge - I can't possess it, can't make it a part of me, can't really use it for anything, can't even form a coherent memory of it if besides all the visual aspects of the performance and who played what. Music is never like speech or text where the ideas are laid out and available for me to follow because I'm part of the shared context of language. I have no shared context with Bach or Bartok - it's like listening to a foreign language. What were they thinking when they wrote that stuff? What am I supposed to get from it? How is it relevant to me? What do I do with it when I walk out of the concert hall?

Please don't tell me that the point of it all is just to enjoy oneself - you could enjoy complete silence if that was the point, sitting in meditation and enjoying the sounds of the world around you. It's certainly easier and more relaxing. But music isn't just pleasant noise, it's supposed to be a form of communication, right? I mean people go and sit in silence to listen to a philharmonic orchestra attentively. Untrained people, most of us. If it was just for fun, the concert hall wouldn't be any different from any bar that plays dance music. But then how do you get anything out of it all? What do you get?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

They don't need to understand it - music is to one enjoyed not understood by most people


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

I doubt there’s an ultimate answer to such questions. But the ears gradually get trained, begin to recognize patterns and organize sounds within the heart and mind, by repeatedly listening to a wide variety over time. Music might not be just about simply enjoying it but it’s certainly supposed to be a pleasure rather than an ordeal. Or is Art supposed to be a punishment rather than a reward? There has to be a reason why someone would be attracted to it in the first place and only the person can answer that. It’s also possible to benefit from someone else’s experience as something shared, or why be reading about it on a classical music forum where there are many descriptions and examples of what listeners are getting out of it? Music can be viewed as a science as well as an art and a certain amount of self-education is possible. But if all else fails, there is such a thing as enjoying it as pure sound that will evoke emotions that can enrich one’s experience and deepen the soul. It’s ultimately about you rather than something that's only outside yourself: it’s where one’s inner world and outer world meet and music is there to open doors rather than close them.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

When I first started thinking about and tried to understand art I was confused by what people said about the Mona Lisa and why it was so great. At the same time I understood perfectly, without knowing anything about art, why Picasso's Guernica was a masterpiece. When I learned something about both I knew more but still felt the same way.

Art isn't about technique for most consumers, it is about something else. The fact that someone knows technique doesn't make them better at understanding art; they merely understand technique more thoroughly. This is just as true in home buying. You don't need to know how to build a house to know you like one from another.

I have spent most of my adult life (more than 50 years) learning to perform and understand music and scores. Nothing I have ever learned (and I know a lot) has ever helped me find music I like. It has been something else that has done that, a form of preference. Those preferences have changed over time but I don't believe it was understanding musical technique that caused the changes.

No one has ever explained to me why people have the preferences they have, why some people prefer blue shirts to white. Certainly one must see a blue shirt first, I agree, but that doesn't mean they need to know anything about shirt-making or color dying. They just like something for reasons that aren't easy to explain.


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

DavidA said:


> They don't need to understand it - music is to one enjoyed not understood by most people


It may not be necessary, but understanding a piece of music can certainly help one to enjoy it. I spend a fair amount of time listening to podcasts and lectures about various composers and works, both familiar and unfamiliar, and they have certainly helped me appreciate a variety of different pieces. Some of it is musical analysis, but a lot of it consists of placing a work in its historical and social context.

Some examples:

Robert Greenberg's courses for The Teaching Company
Benjamin Zander's lectures that accompany his Mahler recordings
Joshua Weilerstein's "Sticky Notes" podcast


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

wkasimer said:


> It may not be necessary, but understanding a piece of music can certainly help one to enjoy it. I spend a fair amount of time listening to podcasts and lectures about various composers and works, both familiar and unfamiliar, and they have certainly helped me appreciate a variety of different pieces. Some of it is musical analysis, but a lot of it consists of placing a work in its historical and social context.
> 
> Some examples:
> 
> ...


Of course I agree. Learning can enhance the experience. Like the time a trained artist took me round the National Gallery in London. There are all sorts of great learning facilities on the internet and on Youtube and the like.

But the question is 'how are people *without* trained ears supposed to understand music?' I don't see that the purpose of music is necessarily to understand. The primary purpose is to enjoy a sensual experience rather than a cerebral one.


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

DavidA said:


> But the question is 'how are people *without* trained ears supposed to understand music?'


The items I listed don't require any musical training - not even the ability to read music.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

It's true, some people just cannot "hear" what music lovers do. The population that really can listen to, and appreciate, concert music is, and has always been, small. I can listen to a symphony by Beethoven, Mahler, Elgar...and be totally in their world, so engrossed in the proceedings that border on hypnotism. Theres' no secret why pop music is popular - it's relatively simple and easy for the ear/brain to hear, remember, and comprehend. Of course, all brains have their limits and that's one reason why modern music went so very wrong mid-20th century. The creations were too complex for even an otherwise good, experienced listener. I've tried, but for me the music of Webern is utterly incomprehensible. Milton Babbitt, Stockhausen, Xenakis...I guess I'm not smart enough to get it - and most people aren't. So why is it that I can listen to the late romantics without any problem? Because when I was very young, my ear heard those sounds and the wiring in the brain made sense of it. For me, that introduction was through the often schlocky soundtracks of old movies, especially Universal horror movies. I learned to appreciate chromatic harmony, complex orchestration and colorful music through the likes of Hans Salter, Franz Waxman, Korngold, Max Steiner, Bernard Herrmann and others. Even the ingenious scores for those Warner Bros. cartoons. 

For me, great, and even not-so-great, music is simply intoxicating: the brain craves it. Or, it's food for the soul as someone once put it. Great music stays around enjoyed by generation and generation, pop music is ephemeral. Just last night I was in a rehearsal - we're playing two real staples: Beethoven 5 and Dvorak 9. They're both staggeringly great works, and playing them I get an adrenaline rush still, even though I've heard/played both works for over 50 years. No pop song - ever - gives me that thrill.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

wkasimer said:


> The items I listed don't require any musical training - not even the ability to read music.


Exactly. I was agreeing with you


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

The understanding to a certain degree of the technical aspects of music (through learning of theory and reading sheets) has brought me more enjoyment of music that I already like; it answered the questions "why".

It didn't bring me much more appreciation for music I did _not _like when less technically enlightened, however. I can read whole evening about "ingenious" things such and such composer did in a given piece, but if the music did not captivate me by how it sounds, I couldn't care less.


----------



## classical yorkist (Jun 29, 2017)

I'll never understand music technically but I reckon it's not worth worrying about. If what I listen to brings me joy or makes me sad or moves me emotionally or stimulates me then I'm happy. Don't worry about it too much, just stick on something you like and enjoy it. One of the things I like music to do is provide a window into the period of time it was listened to.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

I listened to, enjoyed, and steeped myself in CM for years before I took my college's equivalent to Music 101 and learned that a movement seemed to "go somewhere" by establishing a tonic key, moving away from it, and returning home. And that, for instance, the most dramatic part of a sonata form movement occurred during the development by the music's going harmonically far away. Then I was more able to understand and appreciate what I was hearing, but that didn't negate the previous enjoyment.

Maybe you just aren't wired to enjoy CM. Just don't sweat it.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

_It's true, some people just cannot "hear" what music lovers do. The population that really can listen to, and appreciate, concert music is, and has always been, small._

I think that's because it is classical music that doesn't appeal to most people. A corollary is the number of classical music recordings sold is equally small compared to other forms of music. It doesn't mean the people buying the other stuff don't love it or understand it or know anything about it.


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

mbhaub said:


> Of course, all brains have their limits and that's one reason why modern music went so very wrong mid-20th century. The creations were too complex for even an otherwise good, experienced listener. I've tried, but for me the music of Webern is utterly incomprehensible. Milton Babbitt, Stockhausen, Xenakis...I guess I'm not smart enough to get it - and most people aren't.


That is the exact period where my interest in CM picks up. As far as I'm concerned, that's where CM 'went so right'. 

My intelligence is only on the higher side of normal (I'm far from a genius), I have very little knowledge of theory, I am pretty much a non-musician (played a bit of drums when I was younger). So, being 'smart enough' is not the issue.

My 'trained ear' is pretty much, and evolution from: pop, to rock, to prog rock (also, progressive jazz), to avant-prog rock, to mid to mid 20th century CM. So, there was a gradual increase of complexity and sophistication in my musical listening.

It wasn't like I stepped directly from tonal, to atonal, with no inbetween stages. Most Avant-prog bands incorporate a fair amount of atonality into their music, so my ears were prepared for the mid-20th century composers.


----------



## Guest (Oct 30, 2019)

There are gradations of ear training and understanding. You can train your ear to recognize the difference between stable passages (a melody unfolding in an unvarying key) and unstable passages (modulations, dissonance, etc) even if you don't recognize the detailed harmonic progression. You can still sense the level of instability and it's flavor. I have studied enough music theory to at least know what a modulation is (a shift from one key to another by pivoting on a harmony that exists but has different functions in the two keys). That helps me understand what is happening, at least in a vague sense.

It would be lovely to be able to listen to a piece of music and specifically recognize every harmonic shift, etc. Virtually no one can do that. I find understanding more generally enhances pleasure, unless I get myself frustrated that I am not recognizing more than I am. There is a balance.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

I can sympathize with Boychev. A lot of Classical used to sound like a jumbled mass of notes. I started by looking for a narrative or dramatic arc when first trying to understand what I'm listening to. The famous tunes like Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata, Pachebel's Canon in D, Grieg's Morning Mood, Tchaikovsky's Swan Lake or In the Hall of the Mountain King are easier to get a handle on, also film music was easier to follow with the visuals. But a larger work like a symphony has a complex structure, that unless you start looking at the simple contrasts in mood, it can be bewildering. Some music like by Mahler is just tough to pin down.

If it's not a clear narrative or dramatic arc I hear, then I listen for motives or notes that are repeated, or other patterns in notes or rhythms. The Era and conventions of the time do have a large impact on 'getting' it. If you're only used to Baroque or folk music, then it'll be tough to digest this one, which is more improvisational.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

Do you feel this way about pop music, and if not, why not?


----------



## Boychev (Jul 21, 2014)

Baron Scarpia said:


> It would be lovely to be able to listen to a piece of music and specifically recognize every harmonic shift, etc. Virtually no one can do that.


Huh... okay, then what do you get out of a piece, other than the emotions you feel? I want to be able to articulate for myself what the piece is about but I don't want to do that subjectively (e. g. this piece brings me joy, that piece feels larger than life and moves me to tears, etc), I want to stay with the piece and try to figure it out on its own terms. So... if I'm not crazy and/or extremely stupid and really virtually nobody in the world is able to recognize what's going on in the music as they listen to it, then what's the proper way to listen? What do you listen for and what concepts do you tie it to? How do you properly articulate your thoughts on the piece?


----------



## Boychev (Jul 21, 2014)

isorhythm said:


> Do you feel this way about pop music, and if not, why not?


No, because:
- most of it is vocal music and the instrumental is tied to a set of lyrics
- most of it is composed in an informal way - by way of jamming and toying around in the studio, and so I don't feel like I have to understand an entire theoretical system in order to understand what makes the music tick
- most of the time progressions are clearly laid out, and structures are straightforward and repeat a lot (e. g. AABA, blues form, verse-chorus-verse-chorus-bridge-chorus)
- most of it really isn't that abstract and maintains a consistent easily identifiable mood throughout the span of the song


----------



## Guest (Oct 30, 2019)

Boychev said:


> Huh... okay, then what do you get out of a piece, other than the emotions you feel? I want to be able to articulate for myself what the piece is about but I don't want to do that subjectively (e. g. this piece brings me joy, that piece feels larger than life and moves me to tears, etc), I want to stay with the piece and try to figure it out on its own terms. So... if I'm not crazy and/or extremely stupid and really virtually nobody in the world is able to recognize what's going on in the music as they listen to it, then what's the proper way to listen? What do you listen for and what concepts do you tie it to? How do you properly articulate your thoughts on the piece?


I'd say there is often an abstract drama playing out. All of the harmonic techniques are the tools the composer uses to evoke different reactions (bliss, anxiety, joy, sadness, rage, acquiescence, etc). As if you read a story and you don't remember the plot or the characters, only your reaction to it. It can also be satisfying to recognize a theme and notice how the same theme is transformed and appears in different guises. Berlioz' beautiful idee fixe in the Symphonie Fantastique becoming a grotesque jig, the lyrical second theme of Beethoven's 5th (first movement) turning into the thundering climax of the movements coda. Recognizing more musical features can enhance enjoyment, but I try not to get obsessed with such things. Sometimes the composers tricks just make it feel right, even if I don't recognize what is happening behind the scenes. At the end, I don't necessarily feel I can articulate my thoughts on the piece. I just feel satisfied.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

I think to understand and appreciate what is expressed and communicated by the music and to connect with it deeply, it is not necessary to have a firm understanding of underlying technical/theoretical aspects of the music. And if it is, I'm not interested: music shouldn't require a manual.
What you need is a musical ear, good memory, patience and lots of listening. 
There are some favorite pieces I've listened to so many times that I know exactly what's coming at any given moment during the piece. I understand these pieces very well when it comes the expressive part and I have a clear mental picture of their musical structure. In short: I understand the music on an intuitive level.
I wouldn't be able to describe much of it in purely technical terms. And even if I could, then yes, I'd probably find some new appreciation for the music, but that doesn't mean that the actual listening experience and whatever stimulation I get from that would suddenly change, because on that level I already got everything out of the music.
So I would say that, to a certain degree, I have "trained ears", not from studying theory and musical scores, but simply from listening a lot (and playing a bit of piano I might add). And this is why I can listen to and appreciate classical music in a way that would not have been possible 15 years ago when I just started listening.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

I don't need to `understand' what I'm listening to. I've just got to like it. Are my ears trained? I have no idea but they've helped me out considerably in the constant quest for musical nirvana.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Benjamin Britten on the Elements of Music:
https://wmich.edu/mus-gened/mus170/170notes/Ch1-elements.pdf

While everything may not be understood, it's highly unlikely that nothing can be understood for those who are interested in learning a little bit more about its components and what goes into it... It's not a necessity to enjoy the music, but sometimes it can add another dimension to enjoy, even if only in the broadest most general possible terms. Being drawn to the music in the first place often suggests a capacity to learn something about it and surprise oneself. It can sometimes have a way of expanding one's ability to hear, but again is not a necessity for getting something enjoyable or life-affirming out of the experience.


----------



## eljr (Aug 8, 2015)

Boychev said:


> I'll never get to the point where the harmonic structure of a piece becomes apparent just by listening, or pinpoint where the composer modulates or how they do it. It works for popular music and folk, but never for really complicated music. It's just impossible for me to conceptualize what I'm listening to! And if I can't conceptualize it, then it just remains there indeterminate and unable to connect to any other knowledge - I can't possess it, can't make it a part of me, can't really use it for anything, can't even form a coherent memory of it if besides all the visual aspects of the performance and who played what. Music is never like speech or text where the ideas are laid out and available for me to follow because I'm part of the shared context of language. I have no shared context with Bach or Bartok - it's like listening to a foreign language. What were they thinking when they wrote that stuff? What am I supposed to get from it? How is it relevant to me? What do I do with it when I walk out of the concert hall?
> 
> Please don't tell me that the point of it all is just to enjoy oneself - you could enjoy complete silence if that was the point, sitting in meditation and enjoying the sounds of the world around you. It's certainly easier and more relaxing. But music isn't just pleasant noise, it's supposed to be a form of communication, right? I mean people go and sit in silence to listen to a philharmonic orchestra attentively. Untrained people, most of us. If it was just for fun, the concert hall wouldn't be any different from any bar that plays dance music. But then how do you get anything out of it all? What do you get?


It's art, dude. It's not structural engineering.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

The science of it aside....

_"What is Music? How do you define it? Music is a calm moonlit night, the rustle of leaves in Summer. Music is the far off peal of bells at dusk! Music comes straight from the heart and talks only to the heart: it is Love! Music is the Sister of Poetry and her Mother is sorrow!"

Sergei Rachmaninoff_


----------



## Rogerx (Apr 27, 2018)

Merl said:


> I don't need to `understand' what I'm listening to. I've just got to like it. Are my ears trained? I have no idea but they've helped me out considerably in the constant quest for musical nirvana.





eljr said:


> It's art, dude. It's not structural engineering.


The whole "problem "solved.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

OP, *Boychev*. I would suggest working on forming more of your own understanding first instead of relying fully on the understanding of others (as an entry point), simply because their knowledge will be incomplete to your own *life position*. Due to having totally opposite backgrounds, they will use descriptors of classical that mean opposite things to you and confuse you. You're expecting something good but not getting it, why? The subconscious makes it difficult for them to explain what's really there. I'll give you a suitable example:

For a long time I had thought Bach was supposed to be harmonically superior to most composers, as he's often touted as using really creative formations of harmony, and this appealed to me yet threw me for a long-standing loop as to how he was. I didn't understand his music, but I finally understood that this perspective on Bach came from a different, structured Baroque listening background, incomplete to what I needed to know about Bach. Once I compared Baroque music to the harmonic developments I've grown up with, this simple lack of similar backgrounds with other classical listeners is what it took for me to understand Bach from a new interpretation that would direct me closer to truth and appreciation. Similar to 10 people trying to exit a dark mansion but they're all in different places. How can they explain how to 'objectively' exit the mansion? when you're in a different place in your education.

Not everyone listened to a lot of Debussy or contemporary, and thus didn't intuitively understand harmonic complexity and development the way I did, similar to not understanding music the way _you_ do, so their explanation of Bach was incomplete to how I finally came to fully appreciate him. It is not until I started making my own unique judgments of classical music (changing my listening focuses) did I finally understand Bach's music in ways preconditioned people couldn't explain: I finally realized that Bach is a full master of musical features others _intuitively_ grasp that I had to focus on, namely, form and rhythm, not harmony, and these aspects were taken for granted/not explained by people who perhaps, don't understand rhythm well but intuitively pick up on it. *Listening then more to the forms and rhythms of Bach's music, I started to greatly increase my enjoyment of the music, and this is exactly the sort of concept you need on a larger scale. By knowing what you're latently supposed to be listening for, you can change your tastes permanently,* as everyone has a predominant expectation that gets in the way of understanding music foreign to them, from when we were very little. The terms we share with each other aren't factual objects. It is the _objects_ which we desire to understand, and the way people talk about, and define, these qualities is an incomplete tool which we can't always rely on. People talked about the harmonies of Bach because they were built into his greater picture of forms and rhythms, but the latter remained less spoken of, and to someone like you or me, unprepared with this esoteric knowledge, takes a little bit of reimagining to build our mental path to. It is very much worth it in the end.

Try to see how you look at definitions of artistic and musical qualities, where you'd place artists within these, and what qualities you can appreciate in new artists.


----------



## Guest (Oct 31, 2019)

Boychev said:


> It's just impossible for me to conceptualize what I'm listening to!


You report a lot of problems and seem to ask three questions in one (How can people...? How can you...? How do we...? - I'd not worry about 'people' for now)

Can I just pick out this problem? I'm not sure I understand what you mean when you say this. I don't have trained ears, I've just got ears that have enjoyed listening to CM over time - and I don't think I 'conceptualise' music either. If I knew what this meant, I might know if it should bother me or not.


----------



## Haabrann (Mar 30, 2019)

If by ''trained ears'' you mean theoretical schooling and/or training on an instrument, I'd say the simple answer to the question is that one cannot strictly understand (classical) music without it.

But I'n not an astrophysicist or a theoretical physicist either. Doesn't stop me from enjoying a spectacular sunrise or read popular works by Hawkins. Don't know **** about programming, that doesn't stop me from using the computer or dabble in Linux. People usually don't have a degree in political science, history and economics - but still they vote. Only a few have an education in theology and philosophy, still people go to church.

Just like with good literature, there are so many levels of understanding and appreciation with regards to music, that I don't think a lack of theoretic and/or artistic understanding will stop many people from letting it enrich their lives.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

I guess I'd say you can listen to and enjoy classical music in the same way as pop music, much of which is technically sophisticated and not at all just jamming and toying around in the studio.

I get the sense you're thinking of really long, formally complex pieces like Mahler symphonies or something. An easier place to start might be something like Bach's suites, or Mozart's piano concertos.

This often-quoted line from a letter Mozart wrote to his father is relevant: "There are passages here and there from which the connoisseurs alone can derive satisfaction; but these passages are written in such a way that the less learned cannot fail to be pleased, though without knowing why."


----------



## eljr (Aug 8, 2015)

isorhythm said:


> passages are written in such a way that the less learned cannot fail to be pleased, though without knowing why."


This is me!!!!!!!


----------



## Haabrann (Mar 30, 2019)

Compared to how important music in general is in society, ''academic'' music might have a communication problem.

Take TV, for example. You have grand, sweeping, high-budget documentary series, like Attenborough's natural history series, Carl Sagan and deGrasse Tyson about physics and the universe, The World at War from Thames Television, Civilisation by Kenneth Clark, Civilisations from BBC in 2018...and so on and on and on. Also on a less massive scale and with lesser budgets, tv (at least in Europe) is choke full of interesting documentaries about such themes.

From many or most of these series one unfamiliar with the topic will actually learn quite a lot, and they are hugely popular. I can't see any reason why classical music shouldn't have something similar, and be as present in the general culture as the fields of for example history, natural history and physics have managed to become.


----------



## Haabrann (Mar 30, 2019)

BTW, the reason I came to think about the above, is that with a similar presence in the general culture, people wouldn't seriously ask themselves if they need a flippin' degree in musicology to listen to it, but just naturally follow their interest, and seek out and absorb as much knowledge about it as they care to. If fields such as friggin' theoretical physics can do it, so can classical music.


----------



## Guest (Oct 31, 2019)

Haabrann said:


> Compared to how important music in general is in society, ''academic'' music might have a communication problem.
> 
> Take TV, for example. You have grand, sweeping, high-budget documentary series, like Attenborough's natural history series, Carl Sagan and deGrasse Tyson about physics and the universe, The World at War from Thames Television, Civilisation by Kenneth Clark, Civilisations from BBC in 2018...and so on and on and on. Also on a less massive scale and with lesser budgets, tv (at least in Europe) is choke full of interesting documentaries about such themes.
> 
> From many or most of these series one unfamiliar with the topic will actually learn quite a lot, and they are hugely popular. I can't see any reason why classical music shouldn't have something similar, and be as present in the general culture as the fields of for example history, natural history and physics have managed to become.


Most of the TV series you cite are at least 30 years old. Only the Attenborough is current (in the UK at least - I don't think the deGrasse Tyson has been shown here) - and that probably only because zoology is so visual and camera technology so much improved, it makes for great eye candy.

TV has changed since the time of the great cultural documentaries you cite, and viewing audiences atomised. Here, BBC4 has run a number of documentaries on classical music (eg Symphony, The Rest Is Noise, Revolution and Romance) but viewing figures will not have been comparable to Sagan, Clarke, Bronowski, or Attenborough.


----------



## Haabrann (Mar 30, 2019)

I agree with that the times might be over for those grand sweeping cultural series. But when I look at what BBC offers today, there are still a quite a large number of popular documentaries on for example physics and history. And you also have some larger productions, like Rome with Bettany Hughes. Civilisations is only from last year. Not usually the same quality as those older productions (though I found Civilisations much better than the Clark one), but they still exist.

30 years ago might have been the time when classical music was sleeping at its watch, when other fields produced those grand cultural series. As it is now, understanding of classical music is largely absent from the general culture, much, much more so than in those other fields I mentioned. People have to jump in the deep end, with less references. And then it is much easier to be a kind of ''shock and awe'' victim, which I seem to sense the OP is struggling with. 

It should really be a much more natural process to just follow ones interests and ease in, and then go as deep and seek out as much knowledge as one wish to, according to ones capabilities. The relative lack of popularity of classical music today seems to support such a line of thinking.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

I've spent the whole day training my ears. They can now jump through hoops and keep several plates spinning at the same time.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Evidently, Mr. Boychev has disappeared after more than 30 people have posted on the subject. The posts must not have been of help.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

Classical music is not as important as natural sciences or history. Let's not get silly here!


----------



## Boychev (Jul 21, 2014)

MacLeod said:


> You report a lot of problems and seem to ask three questions in one (How can people...? How can you...? How do we...? - I'd not worry about 'people' for now)
> 
> Can I just pick out this problem? I'm not sure I understand what you mean when you say this. I don't have trained ears, I've just got ears that have enjoyed listening to CM over time - and I don't think I 'conceptualise' music either. If I knew what this meant, I might know if it should bother me or not.


I don't know - how do I explain to someone what I heard and what I think about it, other than "This felt good / bad"? What do I get out of the piece other than just entertainment? I know I keep using the analogy to stories but I feel it really is relevant - a story isn't just about my feelings as a reader or film viewer, it says something about life and people, even if it's generic and derivative. Music on the other hand is to some extent always impenetrable - sure, it makes me feel things, but I don't know what I'm supposed to do with it. If I disagree with it, I don't know how to ground my opinion in anything that isn't merely personal preference, in something factual and concrete, something that could be proven rationally.



Larkenfield said:


> Evidently, Mr. Boychev has disappeared after more than 30 people have posted on the subject. The posts must not have been of help.


Sorry. It's all been helpful, really. Sometimes I just don't know what to respond.


----------



## Boychev (Jul 21, 2014)

Ethereality said:


> OP, *Boychev*. I would suggest working on forming more of your own understanding first instead of relying fully on the understanding of others (as an entry point), simply because their knowledge will be incomplete to your own *life position*. Due to having totally opposite backgrounds, they will use descriptors of classical that mean opposite things to you and confuse you. You're expecting something good but not getting it, why? The subconscious makes it difficult for them to explain what's really there. I'll give you a suitable example:
> 
> For a long time I had thought Bach was supposed to be harmonically superior to most composers, as he's often touted as using really creative formations of harmony, and this appealed to me yet threw me for a long-standing loop as to how he was. I didn't understand his music, but I finally understood that this perspective on Bach came from a different, structured Baroque listening background, incomplete to what I needed to know about Bach. Once I compared Baroque music to the harmonic developments I've grown up with, this simple lack of similar backgrounds with other classical listeners is what it took for me to understand Bach from a new interpretation that would direct me closer to truth and appreciation. Similar to 10 people trying to exit a dark mansion but they're all in different places. How can they explain how to 'objectively' exit the mansion? when you're in a different place in your education.
> 
> ...


Thanks, that makes sense - to start with something familiar and expand from there. As for personal interpretations though - how do I know they're valid? What if I'm hearing something that just isn't there and not really getting the music?


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

> No, but seriously - how are people without trained ears supposed to understand music?


They can't. If you want to do that you have to study or play an instrument. Listeners just need to listen. Plenty of us have enough trouble doing only that without distractions.


----------



## Rach Man (Aug 2, 2016)

MacLeod said:


> Most of the TV series you cite are at least 30 years old. Only the Attenborough is current (in the UK at least - I don't think the deGrasse Tyson has been shown here) - and that probably only because zoology is so visual and camera technology so much improved, it makes for great eye candy.
> 
> TV has changed since the time of the great cultural documentaries you cite, and viewing audiences atomised. Here, BBC4 has run a number of documentaries on classical music (eg Symphony, The Rest Is Noise, Revolution and Romance) but viewing figures will not have been comparable to Sagan, Clarke, Bronowski, or Attenborough.


There is a recent documentary series called _How the Universe Works_, put on by the science channel and it is spectacular. I don't know how the ratings are. But I bought each season so that I can have them, on my phone or tablet, to watch whenever I want.

So there are still some good intellectual series being produced. BTW, I just read that the Science Channel had its best ratings month, ever, in 2018.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Boychev said:


> Thanks, that makes sense - to start with something familiar and expand from there. As for personal interpretations though - how do I know they're valid? What if I'm hearing something that just isn't there and not really getting the music?


The notion that one must somehow become worthy, so to speak, of legitimately enjoying classical music is one of the great self-imposed and culturally-imposed barriers to CM's greater popularity. Who knows how many potential lifelong listeners may have been turned off from CM at the first stirrings of interest by the imposition of the pernicious idea that an ill-defined ''understanding" of such music is required for an authentic experience of it? A close analogy is the aura of in-group legitimacy of ''taste" as touted by oenophiles, as they seek to impose their allegedly "sophisticated" judgements of wine upon a larger population. One is reminded of H.D.F. Kitto's observation:

"A high culture must, historically speaking, originate with an aristocratic class , because this alone has the time and energy to create it. If it remains for too long the preserve of the aristocrat, it becomes first elaborate and then silly..."

The correct path is to be confident in the validity of one's own tastes and inclinations in the arts, and to use one's increasing exposure to art or music as a catalyst for a naturally-increasing experiential knowledge of music's structures and boundaries and varieties and histories, which certainly can be augmented by either formal or informal education--books, lectures, YouTube videos, etc.


----------



## Guest (Nov 1, 2019)

Boychev said:


> I don't know - how do I explain to someone what I heard and what I think about it, other than "This felt good / bad"? *What do I get out of the piece other than just entertainment?* I know I keep using the analogy to stories but I feel it really is relevant - a story isn't just about my feelings as a reader or film viewer, it says something about life and people, even if it's generic and derivative. Music on the other hand is to some extent always impenetrable - sure, it makes me feel things, but *I don't know what I'm supposed to do with it*. If I disagree with it, I don't know how to ground my opinion in anything that isn't merely personal preference, in something factual and concrete, something that could be proven rationally.


Well obviously I can't tell you what to get out of your listening. I understand the point about music being impenetrable in contrast to a story whose meaning is more immediately accessible (though it depends on the story), so you can make up your own. If I know "what I'm supposed to do with it", it's because I'm satisfied with the mystery that always remains, but I couldn't argue "for or against" in the same way that I could argue for a particular view of the meaning of, say, _The Lord of the Rings_ or _The Bell Jar_ beyond, as you say, an explanation about personal preference.

So, make up your own interpretation. I do. I have no training (well, Grade One Piano) so 99% of what I know about music has come from personal experience, not formal education.

Take Sibelius 7th Symphony. I don't know what it is "about", or what it "means", but I've listened to it many times and enjoy examining either the whole, or the parts; reading about it; seeing what others have to say about it; listening to programmes on the radio about it; comparing different versions of it; going to concerts where it is performed; finding out about the composer.

And enjoying it - that is, the actual second by second, note by note feel of it, like tasting chocolate melting or coffee warming in the mouth. One of the oddest things I feel at a live performance is both the enjoyment of each part and a touch of regret that as each part passes. Here's an example. Listen to the whole thing by all means, but one of my favourite passages starts at about 11:20.






The swirling, rising of the orchestra, as if something unsettling, alarming, powerful is growing, but then reaches a climax, an acceptance (not quite a resolution) a calming. The texture, the feel of the piece gives me goose-bumps.


----------



## Guest (Nov 1, 2019)

Rach Man said:


> There is a recent documentary series called _How the Universe Works_, put on by the science channel and it is spectacular. I don't know how the ratings are. But I bought each season so that I can have them, on my phone or tablet, to watch whenever I want.
> 
> *So there are still some good intellectual series being produced.* BTW, I just read that the Science Channel had its best ratings month, ever, in 2018.


Yes, exactly so (though the one you pick is already 9 years old). I wasn't saying that there aren't good documentaries being produced, just that the monolithic documentaries produced from the 60s to the 90s, before the diversification of media, are not being produced or consumed is the same way. It's true that (AFAIK) there hasn't, historically, been a comparable series on classical music (on UK networks at any rate), but I gave three examples of music documentaries that have been shown here, and there have been similar smaller scale shows in the more distant past (eg Ken Russell on Elgar, Bartok, Mahler, Debussy)


----------



## Haabrann (Mar 30, 2019)

How the Universe Works is 9 years old only in the sense that the first season aired in 2010. It is currently at season 9, and still going. If anything, that is monolithic.

I agree that media realities have changed, but there's still great interest in sweeping series, though perhaps usually not on that massive grand scale of decades past, but in an adapted ''post-diversification'' form. From the top of my head we have Ken Burns's Jazz, and his recent series on Country music and the Vietnam War. In metal, there's Sam Dunn's ''Evolution of Metal''. The BBC Attenborough series are as grand and popular as ever. As mentioned, BBC's Civilisations is just from last year.

There are many, many more (history series comes to mind, recently on slavery and christianity), and all of the above have ignited public interest and debate, and are hugely popular. Series like these don't come around every year, neither now or in the past. It is too early to say that it is over, it seems to have just adapted to current media realities.

So I'll still say that art and ''academic'' music seem to have a communication problem. TV is just an example. We can't blame it all on the public, or a perceived general cultural decline, or a modern decline in the public attention span. I can't see any real reason why the public should be sufficiently interested in mind-bending physics to support a decade-long grand series, but not in classical music.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

MacLeod said:


> Well obviously I can't tell you what to get out of your listening. I understand the point about music being impenetrable in contrast to a story whose meaning is more immediately accessible (though it depends on the story), so you can make up your own. If I know "what I'm supposed to do with it", it's because I'm satisfied with the mystery that always remains, but I couldn't argue "for or against" in the same way that I could argue for a particular view of the meaning of, say, _The Lord of the Rings_ or _The Bell Jar_ beyond, as you say, an explanation about personal preference.
> 
> So, make up your own interpretation. I do. I have no training (well, Grade One Piano) so 99% of what I know about music has come from personal experience, not formal education.
> 
> ...


Regarding that particular passage, Sibelius wrote in his sketches: _The moon seen through storm clouds_ and the half-step movement in the strings certain appears to imitate the moaning wind.

BBC analysis of Sibelius's 7th symphony.


----------



## Guest (Nov 1, 2019)

Haabrann said:


> How the Universe Works is 9 years old only in the sense that the first season aired in 2010. It is currently at season 9, and still going. If anything, that is monolithic.
> 
> I agree that media realities have changed, but there's still great interest in sweeping series, though perhaps usually not on that massive grand scale of decades past, but in an adapted ''post-diversification'' form. From the top of my head we have Ken Burns's Jazz, and his recent series on Country music and the Vietnam War. In metal, there's Sam Dunn's ''Evolution of Metal''. The BBC Attenborough series are as grand and popular as ever. As mentioned, BBC's Civilisations is just from last year.
> 
> ...


Are we talking past each other because we're watching TV in different countries? What's wrong with the TV series on CM that I've already referred to?



janxharris said:


> Regarding that particular passage, Sibelius wrote in his sketches: _The moon seen through storm clouds_ and the half-step movement in the strings certain appears to imitate the moaning wind.
> 
> BBC analysis of Sibelius's 7th symphony.


Thanks. BBC Radio 3 has at least two programmes on this symphony, including one on comparing interpretations.


----------



## Haabrann (Mar 30, 2019)

Not sure what you mean? I'm not arguing against you, I'm arguing that ''understanding'' of classical music does not have the same presence in the general current culture that those other fields I mentioned have (using tv as an example), and that I cannot see any real reason why it should not. Which leads me to ponder if the world of CM has a communication problem. Which would then make people hesitant, or maybe even struggle to jump in, because of lack of references.


----------



## Guest (Nov 1, 2019)

Haabrann said:


> Not sure what you mean?


I was arguing that the absence of a TV programme on CM comparable to the great TV series you cited may only be in part due to the perceived 'difficulty' of CM. There have been TV programmes on CM, just not as 'monolithic' as the great series from earlier times.



Haabrann said:


> Which leads me to ponder if the world of CM has a communication problem. Which would then make people hesitant, or maybe even struggle to jump in, because of lack of references.


This may well be right.



Haabrann said:


> I'm arguing that ''understanding'' of classical music does not have the same presence in the general current culture that those other fields I mentioned have (using tv as an example), and that I cannot see any real reason why it should not.


However, what TV can do is to present the music itself. For example, the BBC's coverage of the Proms has grown considerably over the past few years. Who needs a programme explaining CM when you can just watch it being performed?


----------



## Haabrann (Mar 30, 2019)

''Who needs a programme explaining CM when you can just watch it being performed?''

Maybe the threadstarter? It was what started this whole thread to begin with, and we're still on topic. I watch such documentaries myself, and would like to see them achieve the same kind of presence, popularity and status as other fields have managed. It would contribute in providing people with some of those missing references, and thus lower the threshold to jump into CM. 

That's the whole point of what I've said. Using TV as a gauge and an example, it seems clear that other fields, like history and physics, have managed and still manage, to a far greater degree, to close that gap and to be a part of the general knowledge people have, however popularised.


----------



## Haabrann (Mar 30, 2019)

just to get away from a tv debate:

Hawking's A Brief History of Time is a staple in modern popular culture. It's been translated to 35 languages, spent years on bestseller lists, and has currently sold more than 10 million copies.

A general reader can get a basic understanding of some heavy-duty, mind-bending physics, and a general understanding of the theory of relativity, how the laws of nature, time and space operates, even getting some grasp on how they came to be, according to current theory.

History is another example. Bestseller lists routinely include popular works of history, many authors manage to blur the line between the academic and the popular, while still being acessible to the general, interested, public.

Fields like theology also manage to be hugely popular, for example Karen Armstrongs History of God. Dawkins is massively popular in evolutionary biology. And so on and on.

These works regularly instigate public debate and public interest. So the general interested public have at least a basic grasp of complex fields ranging from physics to theology to evolution and genetics. This carries over to education. In Norway at least, you need a semester of logic, philosophy (the ''Mother Science''), scientific method and theory of science to complete a bachelor degree in the humanities. I guess other countries have similar requirements, I believe the U.S has or used to have a mandatory course in ''Western Civ''.

But there seems to be no equivalents in music. I could be wrong, but it seems to me that people generally have little grasp of art music history, performance pratices, notation, metre, key, counterpoint, harmony, musical forms and so on and on. Thus experiences of encountering a ''foreign language''.

From one point of view, that seem slightly absurd, all the while the general public have a basic grasp of fields such as advanced physics, theology, philosophy, evolutionary theory and so on. Nothing of which is really needed in daily life, it is just considered part of the general ''Bildung'' (couldn't find a suitable english word). But not music, which is one of the most important and widespread forms of art in our culture. Music recordings, Bach among them, were inluded in the Voyager space craft of 1977, to give potential alien civilizations an idea about human culture and where we're at in our progress. Of course there are books and documentaries, but that is beside the point as long as they are as marginal relative to the general culture as they are.

So that seems to be a paradox, given how important music, also ''art'' music, is on our society. It used to be mandatory in public school, but it had a huge image problem, from my recollection, and it didn't venture past some forced recorder lessons. So how come the examples above are considered part of ''bildung'', while general knowledge of classical music is not? It seems a remarkably insular field.


----------



## Roger Knox (Jul 19, 2017)

Boychev said:


> I'll never get to the point where the harmonic structure of a piece becomes apparent just by listening, or pinpoint where the composer modulates or how they do it. It works for popular music and folk, but never for really complicated music. It's just impossible for me to conceptualize what I'm listening to! And if I can't conceptualize it, then it just remains there indeterminate and unable to connect to any other knowledge ...


I have the impression that you are idealizing the capabilities of a minority of musicians -- gifted composers and performers -- then suggesting that as a music lover you need to have the same gifts. Some people can do what you what you describe but most of us can't. Even with absolute pitch and many years of experience I need to study the score and apply some years of music theory training to be accurately "get to the point where the harmonic structure of a piece becomes apparent just by listening, or pinpoint where the composer modulates or how they do it." Score study and music theory training are key.

Otherwise, there is so much else of value. Listening to melody, rhythm, dynamics, tone colour, texture, form, can bring us conceptualization of and involvement with the music. Knowledge of associated elements -- history, voice/instruments, text/drama/dance (if any) -- advances us further. Your questions cover the work of more than one lifetime. The important thing is to enjoy the journey!


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Haabrann said:


> I guess other countries have similar requirements, I believe the U.S has or used to have a mandatory course in ''Western Civ''.


That's about right - use used to have a mandatory course, no more. When I was in college, and this was a state owned institution, the president of the school was a very scholarly and worldly man who lived by the motto "To be educated is to be more human." He believed that all students should know basic science, a foreign language, be physically fit, have a grasp of advanced mathematics - and be knowledgeable about the great works of art: painting, literature, sculpture, music and such. So you couldn't get a degree from that institution without at least two semesters of something akin to the Humanities in Western Culture. The intent was to pique the student's curiosity and appreciation of higher art forms, including classical music. But as time went on, more profs began any discussion or display of music, preferring to relate to students in "their" music - rock and roll, baby! Eventually the course requirement was dropped when a new generation of elitists took charge. Now, even music majors (!) can graduate without taking the tradition Western Music History. Instead, they can take courses to "understand and appreciate" Elvis Presley, Madonna, Broadway Musicals, Hip Hop and other junk. I am constantly appalled at the ignorance of music teachers today in the public schools who know nothing about the great legacy of classical music. So what chance do their students have? There are, thankfully, a few high schools and colleges that still try to impart an appreciation of Western Civ, but they are far and few between.


----------



## Haabrann (Mar 30, 2019)

Seems like a man I'd appreciate!

In Norway those things aren't decided by individual universities, but by the state Department of Education. They change the specifics from time to time, but to get any university degree (to my knowledge), even the ''hard'' sciences, you need to complete the Examen Philosophicum - which is logic, philosophy, and scientific method.

Then you need to complete the Examen Facultatum, general scientific theory, which is subject-specific and tailored to the faculty you study in. At least in the nineties, it also included general history of the fields sorting under your faculty.

Both of these combined amounts to six months of study, or at least they used to in the nineties. The idea is to foster critical thinking and general ''bildung''. Sadly, none of these contain anything about music.

It would be interesting to hear what requirements other countries have, and if they contain any music.


----------



## JeffD (May 8, 2017)

How could I ever be happy if I have never studied philosophy and don't understand the theories of contentment, beauty, or happiness?


----------



## Haabrann (Mar 30, 2019)

Just to be clear, I'd never maintain that a knowledge of music theory is necessary to appreciate classical music, and draw great experiences from it. Personally, I wouldn't know ''harmonic structure'', if it dropped directly on my head from the sky.

But as in any field, the more knowledge you have, the more brain activity an encounter with a piece of art will trigger.

What I'm addressing, is the gap between general public knowledge of classical music, and the seeming insularity of the field itself. Which seems to result in people seriously asking themselves if they need formal education to listen to it. This shouldn't be the case, and it seems to contribute to CM's dwindling popularity and increasing insularity.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

You can wear elevator shoes, you can wear a toupee, but there ain't no substitute for a good ear!


----------



## eljr (Aug 8, 2015)

JeffD said:


> How could I ever be happy if I have never studied philosophy and don't understand the theories of contentment, beauty, or happiness?


i think this says it all

good post


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

I wouldn’t equate philosophy and music as the same. If someone feels that they may be lacking in musical talent to understand some of the technical aspects or terminology of the music, they are likely to feel incapable of learning anything or that they are at a great disadvantage. I believe there’s a difference between left and right brain education, and philosophy is left brain and music isn’t because it’s basic nature is inspired and subjective but logical though there’s some logic to it to shape and revise the inspired creative ideas if need be. I believe there is such a thing as a right brain education and that one’s sensitivity to music and the emotions is part of it. I also believe that more listeners are capable of learning something—that is, if they want to though it’s not a prerequisite to appreciating the music. It’s just another dimension that’s added. But like anything else, it may require a certain amount of study and conscious listening in a different way than just putting on an album and letting it run.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

millionrainbows said:


> You can wear elevator shoes, you can wear a toupee, but there ain't no substitute for a good ear!


I went today to see a musical audiologist about my ears. He said, "Your baseline is 33 out of a hundred, very low for a man of your age. I'm sorry, but you simply do not have "good ears." It's no wonder that you don't appreciate Schoenberg and Webern!

"But remedial ear exercises and weekly treatments, here in our lab and assisted by staff, can help. Your insurance unfortunately doesn't cover this, but you may find it worth the cost to better appreciate the 2nd Viennese School."

I said, no thanks.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Go for the treatments. They could give you a lifetime of pleasure because they will open up so much more than the 2nd Viennese School for you.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

_No, but seriously - how are people without trained ears supposed to understand music?_
I believe the ears can be trained and sharpened by listening through the heart rather than the head.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

KenOC said:


> I went today to see a musical audiologist about my ears. He said, "Your baseline is 33 out of a hundred, very low for a man of your age. I'm sorry, but you simply do not have "good ears." It's no wonder that you don't appreciate Schoenberg and Webern!
> 
> "But remedial ear exercises and weekly treatments, here in our lab and assisted by staff, can help. Your insurance unfortunately doesn't cover this, but you may find it worth the cost to better appreciate the 2nd Viennese School."
> 
> I said, no thanks.


Brilliant joke. Love it.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

KenOC said:


> I went today to see a musical audiologist about my ears. He said, "Your baseline is 33 out of a hundred, very low for a man of your age. I'm sorry, but you simply do not have "good ears." It's no wonder that you don't appreciate Schoenberg and Webern!
> 
> "But remedial ear exercises and weekly treatments, here in our lab and assisted by staff, can help. Your insurance unfortunately doesn't cover this, but you may find it worth the cost to better appreciate the 2nd Viennese School."
> 
> I said, no thanks.


Ken, when I say "good ear," that includes the brain! A cat can "hear" better than I can, as can dogs.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Larkenfield said:


> _No, but seriously - how are people without trained ears supposed to understand music?_
> I believe the ears can be trained and sharpened by listening through the heart rather than the head.


No, you must train the brain, not the heart. Now memorize the names of all the intervals!


----------



## Boychev (Jul 21, 2014)

I don't understand what "listening through the heart" is supposed to mean. How do you do that? What steps do you go through? How do you know that you're listening correctly? Differentiating between the different parts of the orchestra for example isn't something that came intuitively, I've had to learn what those parts are in order to know what to listen for - otherwise it's just a pretty texture of sounds. But it's obviously _not_ just a pretty texture, it's something arranged according to some predetermined reason. Indeterminacy can't possibly mean anything. Even indeterminacy and free improv and whatnot have a certain preconceived structure to them i. e. the instruments picked and the intention to not maintain conventional structures and not play with conventional techniques. The structure of the piece has to be what's true about the piece, not the way I experience it emotionally.


----------



## Guest (Nov 3, 2019)

^ I think we all had to learn the sounds of the different parts of the orchestra...that can't come intuitively.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Boychev said:


> I don't understand what "listening through the heart" is supposed to mean. How do you do that? What steps do you go through? How do you know that you're listening correctly? Differentiating between the different parts of the orchestra for example isn't something that came intuitively, I've had to learn what those parts are in order to know what to listen for - otherwise it's just a pretty texture of sounds. But it's obviously _not_ just a pretty texture, it's something arranged according to some predetermined reason. Indeterminacy can't possibly mean anything. Even indeterminacy and free improv and whatnot have a certain preconceived structure to them i. e. the instruments picked and the intention to not maintain conventional structures and not play with conventional techniques. The structure of the piece has to be what's true about the piece, not the way I experience it emotionally.


I don't view listening to music as an intellectual exercise; I experience it as freedom from thinking and the intellect though thought sometimes comes in to play anyway. It's a feeling thing and the heart feels rather than thinks. I'm not for too much analysis. I think it can get in the way of the enjoyment, and music is supposed to be a pleasure not a puzzle. It's about one's reactions to it and only the person can know what that is because it's an internal thing. The pure spirit of listening is not about analysis but rather having the direct experience.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Baron Scarpia said:


> There are gradations of ear training and understanding. You can train your ear to recognize the difference between stable passages (a melody unfolding in an unvarying key) and unstable passages (modulations, dissonance, etc) even if you don't recognize the detailed harmonic progression. You can still sense the level of instability and it's flavor. I have studied enough music theory to at least know what a modulation is (a shift from one key to another by pivoting on a harmony that exists but has different functions in the two keys). That helps me understand what is happening, at least in a vague sense.
> 
> It would be lovely to be able to listen to a piece of music and specifically recognize every harmonic shift, etc. Virtually no one can do that. I find understanding more generally enhances pleasure, unless I get myself frustrated that I am not recognizing more than I am. There is a balance.


"It would be lovely to be able to listen to a piece of music and specifically recognize every harmonic shift, etc. Virtually no one can do that."

That's a curious statement from you, because I've read your posts in here about music. We follow along with the score and we see and then hear every shift and every development, no?


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

Boychev said:


> *I'll never get to the point where the harmonic structure of a piece becomes apparent just by listening, or pinpoint where the composer modulates or how they do it. It works for popular music and folk, but never for really complicated music.* It's just impossible for me to conceptualize what I'm listening to! And if I can't conceptualize it, then it just remains there indeterminate and unable to connect to any other knowledge - I can't possess it, can't make it a part of me, can't really use it for anything, can't even form a coherent memory of it if besides all the visual aspects of the performance and who played what. Music is never like speech or text where the ideas are laid out and available for me to follow because I'm part of the shared context of language. I have no shared context with Bach or Bartok - it's like listening to a foreign language. What were they thinking when they wrote that stuff? What am I supposed to get from it? How is it relevant to me? What do I do with it when I walk out of the concert hall?
> 
> Please don't tell me that the point of it all is just to enjoy oneself - you could enjoy complete silence if that was the point, sitting in meditation and enjoying the sounds of the world around you. It's certainly easier and more relaxing. But music isn't just pleasant noise, it's supposed to be a form of communication, right? I mean people go and sit in silence to listen to a philharmonic orchestra attentively. Untrained people, most of us. If it was just for fun, the concert hall wouldn't be any different from any bar that plays dance music. But then how do you get anything out of it all? What do you get?


You just contradicted yourself. You have trained ears yet still can't understand music like you would want to, and there you answer your own question.

There is an element of training but after that it's all musical talent to identify tone, and intelligence to understand structure.


----------



## Boychev (Jul 21, 2014)

Larkenfield said:


> I don't view listening to music as an intellectual exercise; I experience it as freedom from thinking and the intellect though thought sometimes comes in to play anyway. It's a feeling thing and the heart feels rather than thinks. I'm not for too much analysis. I think it can get in the way of the enjoyment, and music is supposed to be a pleasure not a puzzle. It's about one's reactions to it and only the person can know what that is because it's an internal thing. The pure spirit of listening is not about analysis but rather having the direct experience.


I don't know. I wouldn't trust my gut response on anything, why should music be different? It's perfectly conceivable that this direct experience I get from listening to, say, Rachmaninoff's concertos is wrong and that's the problem for me - I can't be sure, I can't explain it, can't trace it to something absolutely true. I can say "I enjoyed this" and be certain in that for myself, but the piece doesn't just boil down to an imperative to enjoy otherwise... why would the composer go through the trouble of writing all that elaborate music? There are easier way to make people enjoy themselves that wouldn't take half an hour of playing by well trained musicians to perform, and years of training as a composer to conceive. There has to be more to it that would justify making it and listening to it.


----------



## Boychev (Jul 21, 2014)

1996D said:


> You just contradicted yourself. You have trained ears yet still can't understand music like you would want to, and there you answer your own question.
> 
> There is an element of training but after that it's all musical talent to identify tone, and intelligence to understand structure.


That doesn't answer the question. How does a person with the intelligence and talent to understand the piece explicate that, how do you prove your understanding is valid? Where do you start?


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

Boychev said:


> That doesn't answer the question. How does a person with the intelligence and talent to understand the piece explicate that, how do you prove your understanding is valid? Where do you start?


We all have an ability to perceive tonality and some have it better than others. Tonality helps with understanding others and is important in communication; generally musically talented people are great with empathy and understanding of emotions; in themselves and in others.

As far as your interpretation of the emotions in a piece, you'll understand what you can relate to, and if you're empathetic you'll understand everything.

Tonality is of course only a portion of music. When you can get the structure and the order of a piece, then you get to connect with the composer's intellect and that's like having a friend to converse with. Therein lies the true beauty of music, it keeps the composer alive just as much as writing does a philosopher. Only complex music can do this just as only complex philosophical writings can. This connection of minds keeps us from being lonely because there are few of us alive at any moment.

That's what high culture is and it's essential for those who understand it.


----------



## Haabrann (Mar 30, 2019)

Boychev said:


> That doesn't answer the question. How does a person with the intelligence and talent to understand the piece explicate that, how do you prove your understanding is valid? Where do you start?


I applaud your drive, and your need to go to the essence and the core to gain an understanding. It faciliates great learning, in any field.

But no person can do that in all his or hers interests, life is too short. So you'll either have to accept that you'll never penetrate CM to the core and gain the kind of understanding a theoretical education in it will bring, or you'll have to take steps in self-learning.

This can be done on many levels. We can't all be music scholars. There are great books for beginners and the generally interested, such as for example Miller's The Complete Idiot's Guide to Music Theory. And there are some good tv/youtube resources. Peronally, I liked Howard Goodall's four-episode How Music Works, and his Story of Music.

These are for the generally interested public and heavily popularised, but still quite good, and they'll probably help (some) in your questions.

Here's an episode of his Story of Music:


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

you don't have to know how to cook to appreciate what you eat.
you don't have to study anatomy to know if a person is good looking.
you don't have to study architecture to appreciate a beautiful house.

Analytical listening (and the ability to put names on chords, rhythms, forms etc) and emotional listening are simply different things.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Boychev said:


> I don't know. I wouldn't trust my gut response on anything, why should music be different? It's perfectly conceivable that this direct experience I get from listening to, say, Rachmaninoff's concertos is wrong and that's the problem for me - I can't be sure, I can't explain it, can't trace it to something absolutely true. I can say "I enjoyed this" and be certain in that for myself, but the piece doesn't just boil down to an imperative to enjoy otherwise... why would the composer go through the trouble of writing all that elaborate music? There are easier way to make people enjoy themselves that wouldn't take half an hour of playing by well trained musicians to perform, and years of training as a composer to conceive. There has to be more to it that would justify making it and listening to it.


This is an interesting thread. Thanks.

You have to walk before you can run. So don't be hard on yourself.

My approach to teaching music seems to work over the many decades that I've taught children and adult beginners and adults returning to music. Since you have to walk before you run I would recommend starting with popular music - with someone of your drive. Collect some songs that have been very attractive to you when you were younger and find simplified song sheets. Find out how these pop songs were put together, and then move onto simple Bach and Mozart pieces. Go slow, this is going to take a while.

This approach has worked for centuries with children learning the piano and then learning introductory music theory so that they appreciate what the Masters were doing.

If you just breeze around without a method you will need a lot of luck to make progress. But it depends upon your desire to learn, as with any other large subject. Pedagogical music theory is very dry - and becomes pedantic. In its serious depths iit appeals to only a special type of person, but with this approach you can remain in what's attractive to you so that you don't burnout.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

Luchesi said:


> This is an interesting thread. Thanks.
> 
> You have to walk before you can run. So don't be hard on yourself.
> 
> ...


It's a very good advice. Music was my least favourite subject at school and I considered all the mundane theory / knowledge elements useless. When, however, I became eager to understand my favourite music, suddenly every nugget of knowledge that helped me reach this goal became fascinating and memorable.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Fabulin said:


> It's a very good advice. Music was my least favourite subject at school and I considered all the mundane theory / knowledge elements useless. When, however, I became eager to understand my favourite music, suddenly every nugget of knowledge that helped me reach this goal became fascinating and memorable.


Glad to hear it.
It seems to me it's like learning a language. 'Very difficult for brains already set in their ways, not exposed to the appropriate music while young enough for a natural growth in understanding (like understanding the many words and rules of our first language). As with being immersed in a new language, if you don't give up, you will eventually acquire the new brain connections. It's somewhat 'painful' and there's some drudgery in order to rewire the brain. Many adults fall away. They'll say they LOVE music, but the mechanics of musical elements resulting in the whole is not what they love. They're surprised and they don't make the reinforcing associations fast enough..


----------



## fliege (Nov 7, 2017)

I think it depends what you mean by "understand". I have no musical training but I know I understand enough of what I listen to in order to enjoy it. This is sufficient. I'm not sure I totally agree with the assertion that popular forms are easier to "understand" musically. It's true that key modulations are very prominent, however there's loads of stuff going on that I miss. e.g. I was reading a while ago how the chord progressions in The Beatles "Here, There And Everywhere" are unusual and supposed to create musically the notion that one could end anywhere. I can't hear that. Doesn't affect my appreciation.


----------



## Agamenon (Apr 22, 2019)

Aaron Copland wrote a book about this fact. For Mr.Copland,(and I agree), there are 3 levels or gradations of ear training. Most people listen music just to enjoy the sounds, in a sensual level. To understand harmony, rythm, modulations,etc may help to enhance hearings and pleasure!

However, there´s a problem: some people say: "Oh, well, I enjoy music, I feel music, I APPRECIATE BEAUTIFUL MUSIC, so, _*I know everything about music, composers, greatness, etc. I am a master! My natural feeling is unbeatable. I dislike Bach, Beethoven and Mozart, so, I ´m pretty sure that the following composers - Bach, Beethoven and Mozart - are bad composers!!*_ 

One of my best friend enjoys classical music just in a sensual level. He dislikes Bach, then he concludes "Bach is a mediocre and didn´t know how to create a masterpiece!"


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

No, but seriously - how are people without trained ears supposed to understand music?
The good news is, you don't have to. Just lie back and let the bubble-bath just wash over you. First, let's get those clothes off. Now, I'll help you get in...give me your hand...there, that's it! Now, let me sponge your back...that's it...doesn't that feel good?


----------



## Boychev (Jul 21, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> No, but seriously - how are people without trained ears supposed to understand music?
> The good news is, you don't have to. Just lie back and let the bubble-bath just wash over you. First, let's get those clothes off. Now, I'll help you get in...give me your hand...there, that's it! Now, let me sponge your back...that's it...doesn't that feel good?


I reject your world of sensual pleasures!

Anyway, all of the answers in this thread are very much appreciated, thanks. It seems like a "me" problem not really connected to the way music functions, rather than a matter of an actual obstacle standing in the way of the kind of understanding I had in mind. Maybe music in general's just not for me and I should stop trying to get into it. Sorry for asking stupid questions.


----------



## fliege (Nov 7, 2017)

Boychev said:


> Anyway, all of the answers in this thread are very much appreciated, thanks. It seems like a "me" problem not really connected to the way music functions, rather than a matter of an actual obstacle standing in the way of the kind of understanding I had in mind. Maybe music in general's just not for me and I should stop trying to get into it. Sorry for asking stupid questions.


I reckon there's nothing wrong with you and music. You're just over-thinking it.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Boychev said:


> I reject your world of sensual pleasures!
> 
> Anyway, all of the answers in this thread are very much appreciated, thanks. It seems like a "me" problem not really connected to the way music functions, rather than a matter of an actual obstacle standing in the way of the kind of understanding I had in mind. Maybe music in general's just not for me and I should stop trying to get into it. Sorry for asking stupid questions.


Don't go away mad...here, let's get you out of that tub and dry you off...

Lots of people can hear what's going on, they just don't know what to call it. Like all specialties, music has its own "experts" with their own "lingo." Just act like you know.


----------



## Haabrann (Mar 30, 2019)

Even better, ''Lots of people can't hear what's going on, they just know what to call it.'' So no reason not to jump in!

Seriously, I find pleasure in reading about music on a theoretical level. Even though I can't actually point out in the music itself most of what I'm reading, and make that actual link, it can still give general ideas to an interested member of the public about what is going on, and thus increase the appreciation.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Haabrann said:


> Even better, ''Lots of people can't hear what's going on, they just know what to call it.'' So no reason not to jump in!
> 
> Seriously, I find pleasure in reading about music on a theoretical level. Even though I can't actually point out in the music itself most of what I'm reading, and make that actual link, it can still give general ideas to an interested member of the public about what is going on, and thus increase the appreciation.


Yes, enthusiasts and hobbyists always want and need more than they already have. As with any sophisticated hobby they can't get enough. Once you can follow the progressions and the theory under the progressions, proximity and the march through the interval combinations, there's always deeper theory involving symmetries and reflections.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

fliege said:


> I think it depends what you mean by "understand". I have no musical training but I know I understand enough of what I listen to in order to enjoy it. This is sufficient. I'm not sure I totally agree with the assertion that popular forms are easier to "understand" musically. It's true that key modulations are very prominent, however there's loads of stuff going on that I miss. e.g. I was reading a while ago how the chord progressions in The Beatles "Here, There And Everywhere" are unusual and supposed to create musically the notion that one could end anywhere. I can't hear that. Doesn't affect my appreciation.


But the point is, you wouldn't miss it if you studied it. 
It's so true that the Beatles put together very interesting extended songs (longer or very attractive progressions) AND they had the public ear so that their favorite effects could arise from their 'natural' love and grow into attractive song sections. It sounds like luck but they worked at it, back and forth. If you study it you can pull apart the songs and admire them all the more.


----------



## JeffD (May 8, 2017)

Haabrann said:


> it seems to contribute to CM's dwindling popularity and increasing insularity.


I am not so sure. Perhaps.

But (and this may be a separate thread) I believe a major contribution to CM's dwindling popularity are the self identified elitists who presume to tell others the proper way to listen, the proper way to appreciate, and the proper way to enjoy. And these same elitists then distance themselves from any music or art that, beating all odds, becomes popular and appreciated. I think the perception of a "need to be trained in order to appreciate" is promulgated by this kind of elitist, in order to "consolidate" an intellectual superiority.

Learning the ins and outs of music theory and ear training and music history, ideally, would be something pursued by enthusiasts who are motivated by their love of the music and the experience of listening, in order to find out where when and how such transcendent beauty is available. As opposed to a speed bump or right of passage or gauntlet.

In a perfect world, the experience of beauty would motivate the effort to learn about it - not the reverse where the experience of beauty is the reward for the effort.

But we are all entitled to our opinion.


----------



## Razumovskymas (Sep 20, 2016)

Boychev said:


> I'll never get to the point where the harmonic structure of a piece becomes apparent just by listening, or pinpoint where the composer modulates or how they do it. It works for popular music and folk, but never for really complicated music. It's just impossible for me to conceptualize what I'm listening to! And if I can't conceptualize it, then it just remains there indeterminate and unable to connect to any other knowledge - I can't possess it, can't make it a part of me, can't really use it for anything, can't even form a coherent memory of it if besides all the visual aspects of the performance and who played what. Music is never like speech or text where the ideas are laid out and available for me to follow because I'm part of the shared context of language. I have no shared context with Bach or Bartok - it's like listening to a foreign language. What were they thinking when they wrote that stuff? What am I supposed to get from it? How is it relevant to me? What do I do with it when I walk out of the concert hall?
> 
> Please don't tell me that the point of it all is just to enjoy oneself - you could enjoy complete silence if that was the point, sitting in meditation and enjoying the sounds of the world around you. It's certainly easier and more relaxing. But music isn't just pleasant noise, it's supposed to be a form of communication, right? I mean people go and sit in silence to listen to a philharmonic orchestra attentively. Untrained people, most of us. If it was just for fun, the concert hall wouldn't be any different from any bar that plays dance music. But then how do you get anything out of it all? What do you get?


If you don't understand it, just keep listening and you will eventually understand it. And at the same time you will understand why you can't explain what it is you are understanding. Music is for those things that are beyond words.


----------



## JeffD (May 8, 2017)

Fabulin said:


> When, however, I became eager to understand my favourite music, suddenly every nugget of knowledge that helped me reach this goal became fascinating and memorable.


I think that is the natural way. I mean, when we pursue the beauty that gives us joy, unconsciously, unconcerned as to how we are seen or judged for our choices, following only those gurus who seem to have a heart that resonates with ours, we can get pretty deep into understanding the mechanics. A beautiful obsession can occur where the doing and the knowing feed each other and push each other on.

I recently experienced this in another realm, that of adult beverages. A while back I just knew what I liked. I'll have an Old Fashioned. Now, after reading and studying David Embury and others, and yes experimenting from the pages of Harry Craddock and many others, I have come to really really love my old fashioned. I have come to love a few others, along the way, of course. All of this started, however, with the pleasure of enjoying the experience, not with the studying of the subject.


----------



## JeffD (May 8, 2017)

I am a recent devote of James Rhodes, whose attitude and actions regarding the unnecessary pomposity and elitism of classical music strike me as fresh air.


----------

