# How many of you are musically illiterate?



## Perotin (May 29, 2012)

How many of you can't read notes? I can't, I admit it! And my knowledge of music theory is also very limited. That doesn't prevent me from listening to classical music, but it does give me hard times reading books on music history or reading composers' biographies or following learned discussions on TC forum. Do you have similar problems? Are illiterates greatly underprivileged compared to musically well-educated? What should we, the illiterates, do? Get off the TC forum? Find some way to improve our knowledge in this field? Or just do nothing and keep enjoying music?


----------



## revdrdave (Jan 8, 2014)

I don't know that I'd classify myself as "musically illiterate" though I appreciate the motivation behind your question. I've never had any formal musical training but after 45+ years of listening to classical music I feel that I understand much of what I'm listening to. A big challenge for me is that my absence of formal training means I often don't feel as if I possess the language to talk about what I hear. When discussions here on TC get technical, I get lost...especially on the threads dealing with tonal vs. atonal music (and it amazes me how many threads, no matter how they start out, end up being arguments about tonal vs. atonal music). I've often thought that I'd like to take a music theory course or learn how to really read music but, frankly, the thought of that makes me tired. I'm sure broadening my musicological horizons would introduce new dimensions to my listening but, ultimately, my relationship with classical music works just fine for me without it.

I don't feel underprivileged--I'm just relating to the music at a different level than some others. Nor can I imagine leaving the forum because, for example, I can't talk about Schoenberg the same way others on the forum can. Sure, there is the occasional user who posts to show off his/her knowledge or who flames at someone because they know less about the topic in question. But the beauty of a forum like TC is that you can learn so much from being a part of it...about music and composers and recordings with which you're otherwise not familiar and, if you're so inclined, about tonal vs. atonal (I've already learned that "atonal" is something of a misnomer ).

So, I urge you to be OK with who and what you are and enjoy the ride.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Perotin said:


> Get off the TC forum?


I hope not. I want to encourage everyone to enjoy music in the way that they do.



Perotin said:


> Find some way to improve our knowledge in this field?


If you feel driven to do so, but you shouldn't feel compelled to. Learning just a few basic terms can go a long way.



Perotin said:


> Or just do nothing and keep enjoying music?


Enjoying music is certainly not nothing! I would recommend that you simply do what you wish. Knowing theory can help you to give words to match certain impressions, and it can give you a basis for understanding what a composer was trying to do within the tradition, but it's hardly mandatory for enjoyment of any great art, I feel.


----------



## TurnaboutVox (Sep 22, 2013)

I'm pretty musically illiterate, but listening to music is my hobby, not my means of support, thank goodness. Maybe after I retire I might take up my long-ago laid down musical education, but there's really no need to do so simply to enjoy music.

I'm not getting off the TC forum!


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Why do people make minor problems into major problems?

Simply relax and enjoy the music. Life's too short to worry about it.


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

Hi Perotin - I hope that you can see that you are not alone.

I agree with the previous four (highly respected) posters - more knowledge might enrich our listening, but even those like me in the remedial class for theory, sight-reading, chord progressions, ability to play an instrument etc etc can still find great enjoyment in music and we can greatly enjoy being members of this forum.

Put a CD on, enjoy it ... that's enough for this time of night


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

I can't read music or play an instrument. I only acquired a serious interest in music in my teen years. Thankfully, such illiteracy hasn't spoiled my enjoyment. However, I probably do take for granted the level of talent and skill required to compose and play most classical works due to my ignorance. I know Ferneyhough's work is fiendishly complex and difficult to play, but I only have the vaguest idea.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

In elementary school, I received basic music instruction, which included reading notes on the staff (I can count them off from middle C), a discussion of themes (ABA, coda, etc.) in sonata form, and a bit more. All things considered, I am rather impressed by what was taught and how much I recall. Still, I'm basically musically illiterate.

I regularly read about music (presently about ¼ into Aaron Copland's _What to Listen for in Music_) and I have a fairly extensive classical music collection that is approaching 800 discs that I spend a lot of time with. My understanding is constantly increasing, but I am still just scratching the surface. I am considering taking a basic course to help me deepen my understanding (once I retire or if I run into one, then sooner).

Still, I think there is much to be learned from simply listening, particularly listening on Copland's _musical plane_. This involves consciously listening _for_ something, namely the melodies, rhythms, harmonies and tone colours. I believe that this pursuit alone can, over time, significantly increase one's understanding of music.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

I'm musically 'literate', i.e, I have had formal training in theory and piano, but I don't think you need that for being a 'good' listener. 

The only thing you need is to open your ears and, most importantly, to pay attention. For example, the first time I listened to Webern, I was intrigued by the 'zen' aesthetics, the lyricism, the consistent development, symmetry in the placing of the gestures and countergestures, and the exotic soundworld of timbre. Only some time later, I learned the actual techniques that Webern used and how these techniques produce the effects I experienced. But that only should be of interest to composition students, musicians, etc., or people interested in these particular things. As I said, the important thing is the effect in the music, and in fact that's what I first perceived and got me interested in the composer.

In any case, I recommend reading about the basic terminology and concepts, so you can follow the discussions of music critics, the commentaries of the composers themselves, history books, etc. And, why not, it also may be a little helpful for 'organizing' your experience with the music.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Perotin said:


> ...Or just do nothing and keep enjoying music?


...Just do nothing and keep enjoying the music is one good option.

...there are people who have trained themselves to follow a score who still are not actual 'note-readers,' (the score being a graph, in a sense, of the sound activity.) There is a 'something' you could do which might further enhance your listening experience.

You might wish to look up / learn some basic terminology, that is if you want to discuss music other than your 'emotional reaction' only, like knowing the meaning of 'Romantic' in the context of its era relative to the arts, so you don't for example -- Humpty-Dumpty like -- decide that whatever you think romantic means is what it means  This avoids making weird mistakes like saying either Debussy or Beethoven 'were romantic,' etc.

But really, do you need to know about all the physics of aerodynamics and the engineering to enjoy a ride in an aircraft? 
...I don't think so


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

Me
Had music theory years ago, but have forgotten most of it.
I got an A though.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

Studied with a jazz guitarist for years in my teens, but it became so dryly theoretical that I nearly forgot we were trying to make the instrument sound good, hah. Probably alludes to my current lax disposition when it comes to theory.


----------



## Alypius (Jan 23, 2013)

Perotin said:


> How many of you can't read notes? I can't, I admit it! And my knowledge of music theory is also very limited. That doesn't prevent me from listening to classical music, but it does give me hard times reading books on music history or reading composers' biographies or following learned discussions on TC forum. Do you have similar problems? Are illiterates greatly underprivileged compared to musically well-educated? What should we, the illiterates, do? Get off the TC forum? Find some way to improve our knowledge in this field? Or just do nothing and keep enjoying music?


Earlier posts have eloquently encouraged you to just enjoy the music (as you're doing) and encouraged you not even to consider leaving the forum. Let me second with all those encouragements.

But if you are willing to do a little reading, there are lots and lots of good resources out there. The first book on music theory I read (decades ago) was one of those teach-yourself-the-basics. It had little quizzes and problems and moved in very small steps. And it worked. Some years later I did finally get to do formal study of music theory, and that little self-paced-teach-yourself music theory book put me well ahead of almost all others in the class (who were music majors and far more expert practicing musicians than I was). Well, there are a lot of very good introductions to music theory -- though a lot of them have those insulting names: Michael Pilhofer and Holly Day, _Music Theory for Dummies_ (2011); Michael Miller, _Complete Idiot's Guide to Music Theory_ (2005). For all the insulting names, they really are good places to start. Learning music theory, like learning any instrument, should be playful, for delight, not drudgery. Try tinkering with it. It's like any other good hobby.

I'm an avid reader. I read everything I can get a hold of. I read liner notes -- which are often packed with excellent information and insight and are rarely very technical. I check all sort of books out of libraries, end up buying some of them. I sometimes read stuff that is well above my level, stuff that presumes a musical sophistication that I don't have. I don't care if I can't absorb it all. I just read it. I master what I can. Even if book or journal essay is more advanced than my current level, I almost always walk away learning new and valuable things. And it often ends up opening my ears to hearing things I didn't hear before. I am grateful to anyone who can open me to new worlds.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

I don't study, if that's what you're asking.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

Perotin said:


> How many of you can't read notes? I can't, I admit it! And my knowledge of music theory is also very limited. That doesn't prevent me from listening to classical music, but it does give me hard times reading books on music history or reading composers' biographies or following learned discussions on TC forum. Do you have similar problems? Are illiterates greatly underprivileged compared to musically well-educated? What should we, the illiterates, do? Get off the TC forum? Find some way to improve our knowledge in this field? Or just do nothing and keep enjoying music?


I have mentioned this in other threads.

Reading music and music theory are performing tools that are used by musicians in order to properly interpret music.

One does not have to know these in order to be an effective listener.


----------



## Cosmos (Jun 28, 2013)

I'm an amateur at the piano and can barely read sheet music (if it's not in C major, well, then I'm even more embarrassing). Anything I know I have to do it from memory/sound

The "guess the sheet music thread" makes me cry at how much fun everyone else is having that I can't join in :lol:


----------



## Orfeo (Nov 14, 2013)

That is an interesting thread. It shows how transcendental music is with and without our limitations, whatever they are. *Jackie Gleason* immediately comes to mind (I'm a big fan of the Honeymooners). Here was a comic genius and quite a legend who could not read or write music (and he hated rehearsals, but that's another story). But anyway, he could not read or compose music, and yet he found ways to formulate musical ideas through various improvisations with the piano and his orchestra (by the way, he was a capable conductor, somehow, and was also quite a lyricist). And with everything all said and done, despite the limitations, he managed to sell millions of copies of his albums during the 1950s and 1960s. Of course he was not without help (Red Nichols and Bobby Hackett come to mind here). I incidentally listened to a few of them in the past and they're not bad, even though I'm not really into that type of music (mood music as it was, not far removed from Jazz romance pieces and songs sang by, say, Sarah Vaughan, Dinah Washington or Ella Fitzgerald).

But like I said, interesting! By the way, I too am music illiterate (for the most part, although I'm familiar with various theories like sonata form, counterpoint, ABA, ABCBA, etc. plus music history). But having grown up in a family where music was such an integral part of our lives (and still is), my appreciation of it is as strong as ever (like I said, it's transcendental). I confess that I cannot read a Bruckner score, but the power, scope, beauty, nobility, and humaneness of his works never cease to fascinate and move me.

Thanks for your thread.:tiphat:


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

I've been told I'm musically illiterate ... but only when I try to sing or play an instrument or talk about music or read a score or write a song .... No one has ever criticized me about my humming to myself, which I do a lot of nowadays ... mostly tuneless melodies, in the repetitious minimalist style. (But that may be a privilege of old age.) Still, I think I'm pretty good!


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

One doesn't have to read music or pick out intervals on the piano as I was forced to do, in order to be able to tell a fine performance from a mediocre one; to realize if an instrument is in tune or not.

In other words one can be a musical illiterate as you define it and still be a very sophisticated and discerning listener.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

^^^ _what that HPowders guy said, i.e. repeated exposure and attentive listening are more critical than anything else in 'being discerning' about musical performance, and in exploring and clarifying your musical tastes._

...but the Q in the OP sounds so awful... but neutrally, is is no worse than 'ignorant,' i.e. you just don't know.

Probably within the same year I learned to read, I learned to read notes in my first piano lesson(s). Piano study started at age six through intermediary summer music camps, an arts prep school, then conservatory... and over a decade after having finished conservatory, a complete second round in uni of undergrad and grad level theory and comp study.

So, yeah, I guess if I can read and write music and 'understand' it, that makes me "musically literate."


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

I am not illiterate, but I am 'barely literate'. I can read music (treble clef) and I can play the violin (-ish) but at any discussion of scores or music theory, my brain simply switches off without my volition. If I tried to read a book on the theory-side of classical music, it would be pointless - my brain would retain nothing. But I enjoy music, and I am gradually picking a few things up without really trying. So that's my suggestion - keep reading the threads in TC, keep on listening, and you will find one day that you've moved a rung or two up the Ladder of Music Literacy.


----------



## Cheyenne (Aug 6, 2012)

I am completely illiterate musically. It can be quite a nuisance to have to limit my conversation when I do finally encounter another classical music enthusiast. 

Just for my own amusement, I found I can actually fake the knowledge occasionally: I figure some people don't know as much as they think! All I have to do is repeat a couple of phrases and explanations I read here, and add some almost-true nonsense!


----------



## Serge (Mar 25, 2010)

Well, to think about it, very few in my extended family ever enjoyed music. I am musically illiterate because I don't have an ear, but surely I'm glad that I at least can enjoy music to the fullest of extent.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Perotin said:


> What should we, the illiterates, do? Get off the TC forum?


No! No! Dont go! I _love_ illiterates! Some of my _best friends_ are illiterates! :kiss:


----------



## mirepoix (Feb 1, 2014)

*starts to raise hand, looks around to see if anyone else is, turns it into an awkward stretch instead*


----------



## Serge (Mar 25, 2010)

mirepoix said:


> *starts to raise hand, looks around to see if anyone else is, turns it into an awkward stretch instead*


Why not, dude? Not everyone is a brain surgeon, but do we enjoy them really?


----------



## Badinerie (May 3, 2008)

As a Guitarist I cant sight read, but I can read music and have written and arranged songs in various bands over the years. I doesn't help me appreciate the music I listen to but it does help me rip it off. 
All you need to love music is your ears and an open mind.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

I can't read music, thought I do know that the notes going up and down mean the sound goes up and down. I can't even explain to someone why a symphony is a symphony vs some other musical work. I am very musically illiterate, but I sure like listening to music.


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

I'm not musically literate. I often wish I were because I find that I'm extremely limited when I'm trying to intelligently discuss the music that I love. Sadly, in college I wasn't too interested in music, definitely not enough to take any courses in it. It's one of my major regrets actually. That said, my musical illiteracy takes away none of the joy of listening to classical. I still wish I could identify certain musical techniques when listening. For instance, I'd like to be able to detect a passacaglia/etc when I hear it. I think I have a discerning ear but I can't articulate what I hear into musical terminology.

This is why millionrainbows' posts on tonality look like this to me: _afnkavain 1:1 now, akanlkfjai and the semi quavers afkaifoajop of 19th century tonal ratios akfjalkdjfa._ _Vowels adk consonants arfan 3:4 but fdklaj 4:5 and therefore, the vowel and consonant system is Vanna White's greatest friend and foe at the same time. Dafdaj, 5:5 adfjakl._

Way above my head.


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

I know how I should read notes but the musical part of my brain is so poor it's mostly a useless activity for me. I can understand technical discussions relatively well but I have to forget about getting a sense of a piece of music just by reading the score.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

I can tell a lied from an opera and a symphony from a piano sonata, and I know Bach is Baroque, Haydn is Classical, Schubert is Romantic and all of them are awesome... and that is where it ends.. for now at least.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Florestan said:


> I can't read music, thought I do know that the notes going up and down mean the sound goes up and down. I can't even explain to someone why a symphony is a symphony vs some other musical work. I am very musically illiterate, but I sure like listening to music.


I forgot to add that I once read up on western music and learned about the scale having a couple of uneaven spacings (flats?) and that, I think, is what makes music react differently in different keys. And I learned that most American popular music developed from African music brought over by slaves which then developed into blues, jazz, etc. But then there was some blurring between the jazz and classical world by some artists--typically ones I don't like to hear.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

I can read music slowly, play the piano a bit and I know some basic things, that's about it. Sometimes I wish I'd know all there is, sometimes I like it just the way it is.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

There is great pleasure in knowing a lot. Then you can write clever posts & impress people - help them too.
There's also great pleasure in knowing very little. Then you can wonder at the informative posts, and ask the clever people for advice, and feel proud of yourself that you learned something.


----------



## yelu (Aug 24, 2014)

I played some violin & erhu when i was young. But nowadays, i can't read score...can barely recall anything from music theory yet enjoy classic music no less!


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Perotin said:


> How many of you can't read notes? I can't, I admit it! And my knowledge of music theory is also very limited. That doesn't prevent me from listening to classical music, but it does give me hard times reading books on music history or reading composers' biographies or following learned discussions on TC forum. Do you have similar problems? Are illiterates greatly underprivileged compared to musically well-educated? What should we, the illiterates, do? Get off the TC forum? Find some way to improve our knowledge in this field? Or just do nothing and keep enjoying music?


Keep enjoying music and keep contributing most of all. But aside from that I have to say that it definitely can enhance one's pleasure while listening to learn music theory. Even just knowing how to read pretty well makes it a lot better for me, just hand me the sheets for one of my favorite pieces and turn on the tape if you want to see an old man cry. The way Schubert's music is written looks beautiful to me, it somehow makes a lot more of an impression that way.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Lukecash12 said:


> Keep enjoying music and keep contributing most of all. But aside from that I have to say that it definitely can enhance one's pleasure while listening to learn music theory. Even just knowing how to read pretty well makes it a lot better for me, just hand me the sheets for one of my favorite pieces and turn on the tape if you want to see an old man cry. The way Schubert's music is written looks beautiful to me, it somehow makes a lot more of an impression that way.


I have heard that there are people who can look at a music sheet and hear the music in their heads. I have a score for Beethoven's Ninth that I wanted to try to follow along with, but should have gotten something simpler, like chopsticks :lol:, for my first follow along, eh?


----------



## Haydn man (Jan 25, 2014)

I can't read music and know very little about music theory. What has struck me in this thread is that a little basic knowledge of musical theory might well enhance my understanding and appreciation of music. So I think I shall try one of the books suggested on previous posts


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Florestan said:


> I have heard that there are people who can look at a music sheet and hear the music in their heads. I have a score for Beethoven's Ninth that I wanted to try to follow along with, but should have gotten something simpler, like chopsticks :lol:, for my first follow along, eh?


It is quite pleasant to be able to do that. Ever since I started at UOP majoring in music (didn't stick with it because I felt there were more lucrative majors out there) I have dreamed in sheets... anyone else become enthralled with the things you spontaneously compose in your sleep but you can't seem to repeat it awake or remember it all?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

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


----------



## csacks (Dec 5, 2013)

I played the violin for 3 years, but after quitting a long time ago, I am no longer able to do read notes. But, it is not an impediment to enjoy music.
About 20 years ago, the british had to decide between constructing a 5th airport in London or to enlarge Heatrow Airport. The named a psychiatrist to be the head of that commission. They wanted somebody advised by the best experts, but with out any preconception. The same thing happens in the field of Neurology, where I work. The more instruction you get, the more standard is the way you think the situation.
So, we, musical illiterates, we have something to say, about feelings, about emotions, about taste. This is an art and a science. Lets we enjoy the art, it is good enough, And lets we try to enlarge our understanding about it.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

In my teens (way back in the sixties man), I learned to play the organ, and obviously had to learn to read music notation. For the rest, I have no clue about most musical theory, but that has not stopped me enjoying a wide variety of music, including classical.


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock (Jul 6, 2013)

I know a few very basic things on the guitar - chords, some scales, a few things about intervals and forming major/minor chords. I think I know how to recognize harmonic elements like counterpoint, dissonance and in terms of melody, maybe chromaticism. But that's about it - I wish I could read music and play, but that will take some time. I plan to get to it at some point though.


----------



## ribonucleic (Aug 20, 2014)

When I listen to András Schiff's talks on the Beethoven piano sonatas and he talks about the key changing from C minor to E major or whatever, he might as well be discussing differential calculus. It's a system of knowledge that my brain wiring simply isn't adapted for.

He presses the keys and it sounds real purty and I have to be content to leave it at that.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Although music can be a cognitive experience, remember that it is "sound." You have two ears and a brain, so use them. When you're 62 years old, maybe you will have learned enough to seem like you know a lot. Anything worth anything involves work. Get a job, cut that damn hair. Establish credit.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Florestan said:


> I have heard that there are people who can look at a music sheet and hear the music in their heads. I have a score for Beethoven's Ninth that I wanted to try to follow along with, but should have gotten something simpler, like chopsticks :lol:, for my first follow along, eh?


String quartets, piano trios, etc. are a good starting point to develop your ability to follow a score. Then, early classical symphonies, with only a few winds and horn, for example, are the next logical step by increment to get to the next level.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

PetrB said:


> String quartets, piano trios, etc. are a good starting point to develop your ability to follow a score. Then, early classical symphonies, with only a few winds and horn, for example, are the next logical step by increment to get to the next level.


Well at least I got a CD of the Ninth that came with the score.


----------



## Posie (Aug 18, 2013)

If your username is Perotin, you are NOT musically illiterate. Most of my knowledge of music theory comes from one college semester of piano. On this forum, I would say that knowledge of music history is what counts the most.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

The glory of Talk Classical is that its members range from the learned and the good players & skilled listeners to the amateur musicians and the people who simply enjoy classical music. I'm in the latter half myself, and I think I have the advantage. It's like playing tennis against someone better than me - it means I'm bound to improve!


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

csacks said:


> I played the violin for 3 years, but after quitting a long time ago, I am no longer able to do read notes. But, it is not an impediment to enjoy music.
> About 20 years ago, the british had to decide between constructing a 5th airport in London or to enlarge Heatrow Airport. The named a psychiatrist to be the head of that commission. They wanted somebody advised by the best experts, but with out any preconception. The same thing happens in the field of Neurology, where I work. The more instruction you get, the more standard is the way you think the situation.
> So, we, musical illiterates, we have something to say, about feelings, about emotions, about taste. This is an art and a science. Lets we enjoy the art, it is good enough, And lets we try to enlarge our understanding about it.


No offense intended because I agree with you on many levels here, but I have observed that much of the time people who are less musically literate confuse musical literacy (which is something broad) for knowledge of music theory. Music theory is a part of musical literacy, and really guys it's a fairly small part. Not only that but it's not so big and scary as it's cracked up to be, not as dry either.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

Lukecash12 said:


> No offense intended because I agree with you on many levels here, but I have observed that much of the time people who are less musically literate confuse musical literacy (which is something broad) for knowledge of music theory. Music theory is a part of musical literacy, and really guys it's a fairly small part. *Not only that but it's not so big and scary as it's cracked up to be, not as dry either.*


This depends entirely on the individual perspective, and importantly, the student-teacher relationship. None of it has to be scary or dry.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Soooo....in the spirit of the OP, have we come up with an actual number for musical illiteracy among active TC posters?


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

hpowders said:


> Soooo....in the spirit of the OP, have we come up with an actual number for musical illiteracy among active TC posters?


We need a poll, but not just yes or no, it needs levels of musical education etc, and I certainly am too musically illiterate to start that poll.


----------



## Piwikiwi (Apr 1, 2011)

Ingélou said:


> The glory of Talk Classical is that its members range from the learned and the good players & skilled listeners to the amateur musicians and the people who simply enjoy classical music. I'm in the latter half myself, and I think I have the advantage. It's like playing tennis against someone better than me - it means I'm bound to improve!


I'm a poor player but I know quite a bit about music theory ^^


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Soooo....after 4 pages, what's the number? Close to 200, 600, 1400? How many of you are musically illiterate?

I want to know so in the future I can gauge my responses to certain posters based on my knowledge of their lack of knowledge.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Piwikiwi said:


> I'm a poor player but I know quite a bit about music theory ^^


A poor player? Don't just sit here! Go out and get a job!!! :tiphat:


----------



## muzik (May 16, 2013)

I was illiterate. I picked up a piano book for beginners on a shelf and it took me about 5 minutes to figure out how to read a basic 4/4 piano music sheet. It's dead easy, you just have to understand there is a middle C.

Sight-reading is yet another topic.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

muzik said:


> I was illiterate. I picked up a piano book for beginners on a shelf and it took me about 5 minutes to figure out how to read a basic 4/4 piano music sheet. It's dead easy, you just have to understand there is a middle C.


You must be a genius because I don't even grasp what you are saying. I do know that middle C is a note and there are 8 of them for a scale and each scale is one octave apart, and the scales share the end notes so there really are only 7 notes then overlap for the 8th note--i think, or maybe I don't know.

But middle C (or should it be Middle C as it is a unique and special note I guess) implies that half of all the notes are above it and half are below it, but in theory notes could go on infinitely up or down from there unless we define them not to. It actually looks like this could be something as complex as nuclear physics or something. Could be quite fascinating if told by someone who can make it all very simple yet blow the reader away with the amazing parts.

Ahhhhh if only I had nothing but time to both listen to music and to study music but those days were wasted goofing off as a kid instead of doing something productive.


----------



## Jos (Oct 14, 2013)

Florestan said:


> Ahhhhh if only I had nothing but time to both listen to music and to study music but those days were wasted goofing off as a kid instead of doing something productive.


You are not alone in this.....

Cheers,
Jos


----------



## Centropolis (Jul 8, 2013)

I have the same problem. I enjoy listening to the music and have been listening to CM for just over a year now. In addition to buying CDs, I've also bought a number books on history of music and listening companion books but never really understood fully the technical stuff in the books. I usually find these books at charify shops for less than $5 each so it's not too bad to have them for the history.

I saw a complete scores of Beethoven's 9th yesterday in this mini-book. I was going to buy it but I decided against it in the end because what would I do with it? I just thought that it would be "cool" to own it. But.....being cool is not part of the goal of listening to CM.


----------



## Centropolis (Jul 8, 2013)

hpowders said:


> Why do people make minor problems into major problems?
> 
> Simply relax and enjoy the music. Life's too short to worry about it.


I agree with what you're saying but in my case, I do feel that I would appreciate to what I am listening to more if I know more about the techincal aspects of them. I am not talking about really advanced stuff but just the form and structure stuff.


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

Well, I'm glad I'm not the only one who is musically illiterate here! I suspect I'm an incurable case, as pretty much all orchestral music sounds like a cacophony to me. I do love beautiful singing, but that's something quite distinct from music of the academic variety, since even newborns respond to the human voice.

I would be wary of the 'For Dummies' book, unless it came recommended by someone who I knew for a fact had started out as clueless as I am. I own 'Algebra for Dummies' and can assure you all that no amount of cartoon illustrations will make that subject comprehensible for the mathematically challenged!


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

Lukecash12 said:


> The way Schubert's music is written looks beautiful to me, it somehow makes a lot more of an impression that way.


I can relate to this but from a different angle. Schubert's _words_, their look, sound and shape, are beautiful to me, and seeing them, as well as hearing, increases my enjoyment. Just sayin'


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

SiegendesLicht said:


> I can relate to this but from a different angle. Schubert's _words_, their look, sound and shape, are beautiful to me, and seeing them, as well as hearing, increases my enjoyment. Just sayin'


That too. But for me the notes on the page themselves can be moving.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Perotin said:


> How many of you can't read notes? I can't, I admit it! And my knowledge of music theory is also very limited. That doesn't prevent me from listening to classical music, but it does give me hard times reading books on music history or reading composers' biographies or following learned discussions on TC forum. Do you have similar problems? Are illiterates greatly underprivileged compared to musically well-educated? What should we, the illiterates, do? Get off the TC forum? Find some way to improve our knowledge in this field? Or just do nothing and keep enjoying music?


I'm what Copland described as a dedicated amateur listener, in other words I don't read music and I don't play an instrument, but I've got more than passing interest in classical music (and some types of other music too, jazz being the other big one).

However I don't focus on the 'dont's' or 'shoulds' in music. There are much more worse things than to not know every aspect of music, especially if it's not your livelihood. Actually, its not a crime to not know something, and if a person really wants to, they can remedy the situation. Never too late to learn an instrument or sing in a choir, in other words to learn how to play music and thus read the notes and so on.

Personally my aim is to enjoy music as much as I can. So I access resources geared at listeners like myself, or similar to myself. I read books on music aimed at people who are listeners (not exclusively of course, musicians can also read these as well as more specialised technical or academic sources on music).

The other thing is that even for professional musicians at the highest level, music is a lifelong learning process. Whether you are an opera singer getting a new role under your belt, or a pianist grappling with some music that you've never played before, or a conductor coming back to record a symphonic cycle you did decades ago, there is always a new challenge around the corner. There's the famous quote by Rachmaninov that music is enough for a lifetime, but a lifetime is never enough for all the music. Another one I remember is by Andre Previn, who said something like there are a million things he doesn't know about music, but all he wanted to do in his career is narrow that vast number down.

It's a learning process for all of us, nobody can say they know everything about classical music, whether you are a musician or not. However I have the greatest respect for musicians, particularly professional musicians. I don't see it as an easy job, and its thanks to them we have all this wonderful music to enjoy.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

DeepR said:


> I can read music slowly, play the piano a bit and I know some basic things, that's about it. Sometimes I wish I'd know all there is, sometimes I like it just the way it is.


Basicly I'm an enthusiastic amateur who only plays and practices what he likes, in his own, slow pace. I have had years of instrument lessons as both a kid and adult, but I still know very little of theory, other than how to read music. These days I take occasional piano lessons, just a few a year. Some years ago I made my own piano teacher enthusiastic for the Chopin etudes and now he's playing all of them. Wow. 

Anyway, what I wanted to say... each time I began practice on a new piano piece (that I had listened to many times before), I discovered wonderful new things about the music, that I wouldn't have detected otherwise. To see and hear in detail how a piece is constructed, increases my appreciation for the composer and the music. However, it doesn't necessarily affect the actual experience and enjoyment when listening to the music. You can be musically illiterate and still get a similarly or more rewarding experience from the same piece of music. 
Want to experience the music to the fullest? Listen, listen and listen again. 
Want to know more about the background, technical aspects etc. of a piece? Read, study, play an instrument etc.


----------



## Declined (Apr 8, 2014)

I don't know anything about music besides some historical context and if it sounds good or not.


----------



## apricissimus (May 15, 2013)

I've had some violin and piano lessons, but it was all a long time ago. I know what the notation all means, but I do consider myself musically "illiterate". It's actually something I'm sort of ashamed of.


----------



## Überstürzter Neumann (Jan 1, 2014)

Basically I am an illiterate. In my salad days I learned some music theory and to play the recorder, but that is the snow of yesteryear. I am (or perhaps more correctly was until recently when I developed an annoying tinnitus) however rather a good listener and fully capable to separate snot from moustaches.


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

I can sing well enough, though I can't sight-sing, and I can't play an instrument besides simple one-hand melodies on a keyboard (maybe if I took more time to practice...). I can read sheet music though, and I have a fair knowledge of music theory. Not as much knowledge of music history, though (for example, pretty much everything I know about Mozart came from the film _Amadeus_).


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

I'm illiterate. I appreciate that being able to read music would help me delve deeper into the more analytical side of things but I can't help thinking that if I learned how to read music whether a sense of 'listening innocence' would be lost forever? As I have no interest in learning an instrument or singing I'm not sure whether being musically literate would be a truly liberating experience or counter-productive by leading to my obsessing over the smallest details at the expense of the bigger picture, which is to LISTEN. 

Perhaps in my case ignorance is truly bliss...


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Kopachris said:


> I can sing well enough, though I can't sight-sing, and I can't play an instrument besides simple one-hand melodies on a keyboard (maybe if I took more time to practice...). I can read sheet music though, and I have a fair knowledge of music theory. Not as much knowledge of music history, though (for example, pretty much everything I know about Mozart came from the film _Amadeus_).


:lol: Join the club! Everything I know about *Mozart's* biog comes from a comprehension passage on his death that I used to use in English classes. And pretty much everything I know about *Marin Marais* came from checking out the far-fetched (& inaccurate) plot of the film _Tous Les Matins Du Monde. _


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

I'm working toward a bachelors degree in music composition. So no, I'm not musically illiterate, but just barely.

Sorry, if you don't like cheeky false humility. I think it's kind of funny


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

I'm not interested in the notes on paper. I'm interested in an inspired performance that gets me excited and transports my mind beyond thinking about the technical aspects of music. Transcendence is the key to a satisfying musical experience. 

That said, I do notice many of the technical aspects because I have studied music and played instruments. But there are many other advanced techniques and complex things going on that I'm unaware of.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

starthrower said:


> I'm not interested in the notes on paper. I'm interested in an inspired performance that gets me excited and transports my mind beyond thinking about the technical aspects of music. Transcendence is the key to a satisfying musical experience.
> 
> That said, I do notice many of the technical aspects because I have studied music and played instruments. But there are many other advanced techniques and complex things going on that I'm unaware of.


Really, I've never understood why people understand these two things as mutually exclusive. Music theory and performance practices excite me emotionally.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

DeepR said:


> *To see and hear in detail how a piece is constructed, increases my appreciation for the composer and the music. However, it doesn't necessarily affect the actual experience and enjoyment when listening to the music.*


Boy... in a nutshell, you have very precisely said something terrifically important. It is important especially for any who think they must know more about the formal structure, understanding the underlying mechanics and details of 'how that works' in making a piece of music. What I love about what you've said is the first part, _and that you coupled it with the second part_, i.e. all that knowing can and does enhance listening for many a listener, _but those are all a titillation of the intellect alone,_ *ergo, all that 'additional pleasure,' no matter how profound, is something directly apart from actual musical enjoyment.*

The reason I think the second part is so terribly important is exactly that so many who are 'musical illiterates' are led to believe they are missing some good part of what they hear because they don't know the more intellectual aspects of music.

Most composers have done and still do make works they hope the 'musically illiterate' audiences will like, composers knowing full well those audiences do not have and do not need all the technical information on 'how music works' in order to get the fullest enjoyment from those works.

P.s. Imagine needing to be fully knowledgeable about grammar, spelling, iambic pentameter and other Poetic feet 'in order to enjoy a play by Shakespeare.' LOL.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

A fab post as usual, PetrB. :tiphat:

And I do think you make a good point re the Shakespeare - you can certainly enjoy his plays (in the theatre, or when read) on the aesthetic and emotional and artistic level without being an adept at grammar, spelling and iambic pentameter, and I agree that knowing about such matters is mainly an intellectual pleasure. 
But as with all these points, one can push it to extremes; in my view, *knowing more* is not always *just* or *mainly* an intellectual matter. For example, knowing how words were used in Shakespeare's day is important to understanding the sense of a passage & that covers the aesthetic/ emotional/ artistic levels *as well as* the intellectual.

An example is when in *Antony & Cleopatra*, the queen talks about 'her brave Egyptians all' and my head of department thought she detected deliberate irony meant for the audience as in fact the defeated fleet had been cowards & tail from the battle; but an Elizabethan audience would have understood *brave* as meaning 'magnificent' (compare Scots *braw*) so in my view, her point was invalid.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Ingélou said:


> A fab post as usual, PetrB. :tiphat:
> 
> And I do think you make a good point re the Shakespeare - you can certainly enjoy his plays (in the theatre, or when read) on the aesthetic and emotional and artistic level without being an adept at grammar, spelling and iambic pentameter, and I agree that knowing about such matters is mainly an intellectual pleasure.
> But as with all these points, one can push it to extremes; in my view, *knowing more* is not always *just* or *mainly* an intellectual matter. For example, knowing how words were used in Shakespeare's day is important to understanding the sense of a passage & that covers the aesthetic/ emotional/ artistic levels *as well as* the intellectual.
> ...


While classical music, Baroque and Classical, especially, is often enough rift with 'musical symbology, i.e. a pair of intervals were recognized by many as a sign of the Christian cross, there is nothing in music anywhere near as literal as language, and those great changes in meaning over time in word usage, i.e. there is not really as readily a shift of meaning "from then until now" in music. (Texts and written-spoken language really and truly being a whole other universe with different behavioral laws, no matter how much anyone would like to connect the two, it would remain _analogy._

But I do know first-hand that all the intellectual cognizance re: form, neat technical devices, etc. make only for an intellectual appreciation which in no way adds to (in fact that knowing can even detract from) the fullness of the visceral appreciation of music, which is hands-down nolo contendere the most sensual of any of the arts.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Yes, and that "visceral appreciation" is the reason no sophisticated technical background in theory is required for folks to love classical music.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

I am not arguing with you, :tiphat: PetrB or :tiphat: hpowders. Not really.

I agree that knowledge of technical aspects is not required to experience a sensual appreciation of classical music. And I agree that knowing technical aspects mainly enhances the *intellectual* appreciation of classical music. I also agree that language and music are not really comparable.

The only point I *would* make is that I don't think you can entirely separate the intellectual from the emotional from the sensual. I am with T. S. Eliot in thinking that earlier ages did not have such a 'dissociation of sensibility'.

So I am saying that for the unified human being, or for some human beings, anyway, *knowing things* can add to the *meaning* and hence to the *emotional impact* of a piece of music.

There is such a thing as *emotional intelligence*. And there are people who can appreciate the beauty of a maths equation in the same way as another person might admire a painting.

It's not possible for a human being to divorce a work of art totally from its context or from what the person already knows about it; and adding to one's knowledge, though it is not *required* in order to love and appreciate music, can for *some* people, including myself, add to the *sensual experience*, because it adds to the *impact*.

This is largely because the more one *knows*, the more one *notices*.

So my position is - if you are 'musically illiterate', you don't need to worry about that, or nurse an inferiority complex. You can still listen to and appreciate and love classical music. But if you want to, and if you can, it is *worth being ready to learn more* because that will enhance your experience and probably help you to love music even more.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

That's everybody's choice but one can be quite satisfied simply by the pleasure/emotions provided.
If you want to delve into theory, you can, as intellectually as you wish or simply be happy as a musical "illiterate". I do believe they can be mutually exclusive-one can be sensitive to the sounds without having the urge to get into the "sausage making".


----------



## Xavier (Jun 7, 2012)

This concoction of extracts is one of the best responses on this whole topic:

====Begin====

I have met musicologists who've tried to argue that music is for music theorists, that only people with advanced training understand music. I've also met musicians who were very emphatic in saying that musical background matters and that…. _"basic aural skills, the ability to read music, and time spent playing in ensembles drastically alters one's experience of music"_

Drastically?

I just don't understand where they get these ideas…. First of all, the difficulty with music is that it does not essentially exist in an intellectual construct. True, music has form and that can be analyzed with logic and music has harmony and that, also, can be analyzed within a logic construct but the intellectual analysis of music is most unimportant when compared to the effect music has on our deep emotions. Analysis of emotional content is not unusual but it, ultimately, is little more than the water running off the leaves of trees during a rain; it has little effect on the leaves and it is not a primary source of nourishment for the tree. Putting a name to something may make it easier to spot and recognize (the musicologist's point of view), but it does not mean that it suddenly CHANGES whatever it was before you could describe it. Sometimes yes it can help to speed up the process but it does not mean that things like bias disappear. Musicians and musicologists can be just as biased and short-sighted as "lay-listeners". Also, knowledge of music theory or the 'instruction book' is not the basis for aesthetic experience. What it describes is, but theory is the description, not the object. We still have the object without the technical data. We still have ears and we are still fully equipped to hear it. I don't think it deepens understanding of what the music expresses on its own terms which is greater than its own formal content.

Music affects us much as the sense of smell influences us. It speaks directly to the emotional content of our lives. It is the art the does not require any understanding, explanation, nor analysis. All of these things can add to the art of music but, ultimately, they are little more than rain on the leaves.

Just to be clear: Nobody is dismissing the value of studying the theory, the technique, the style, the history of a work, the context but…. the aesthetic appreciation (experience) is completely a different thing. Now of course I agree that… _"time spent playing in ensembles drastically alters your experience of music"_.… because if you do that you're listening, and you have to really pay attention to all the details. But to then go one step further and claim (as many academics do) that… _"the ability to read music improves one's LISTENING abilities"_…. ??

No, I am sorry. To me this is completely false. An individual absorbs and makes sense of a piece of music through repeated, patient and contemplative listenings. The structure is then gradually (subconsciously) apprehended.

Nobody requires another human being to help them feel the beauty and perceive the nuances in a musical composition. *Introspection and personal study* are everything. We already know from research that a brain network linked to solitary introspection gets switched on when we encounter particularly moving artworks. Once I feel that initial 'stab of communication' I am on my way to further passionate exploration and the last thing I'd care about are someone else's observations. The interest in other people's thoughts or analysis would come much later at the end but solely as a type of DIVERSION to see if their enthusiasms about the work match your own.

People can read up on music all they want but unless they bother listening closely they won't get to love it. Altering one's own brain does take some personal effort, but PIGGYBACKING on others won't get you very far. And it seems that many intentionally confuse listening appreciation with learning technical aspects for performance. Yes, people are very copycat like that even when maybe they should put in some of their own initiative. The taboo actually seems to be someone saying that if you put in your own effort you can appreciate much of music at a very deep level without needing to be a musician or great technical expert and paying someone to achieve that…. (Let's remember also that music happened BEFORE musicologists came on the scene)

In his last book Charles Rosen wrote:

_"One brute fact often overlooked needs to be forced upon our consideration: most works of art are more or less intelligible and give pleasure without any kind of historical, biographical, or structural analysis. [.....] In the end we must affirm that no single system of interpretation will ever be able to give us an exhaustive or definitive understanding of why a work of music can hold an enduring interest for us, explain its charm, account for its seduction and our admiration [....] *Listening with intensity for pleasure* is the one critical activity that can never be dispensed with or superseded"_

====End====


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Xavier said:


> I have met musicologists who've tried to argue that music is for music theorists, that only people with advanced training understand music. I've also met musicians who were very emphatic in saying that musical background matters and that…. _"basic aural skills, the ability to read music, and time spent playing in ensembles drastically alters one's experience of music"_
> 
> Drastically?
> 
> ...


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


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

PetrB said:


> Boy... in a nutshell, you have very precisely said something terrifically important. It is important especially for any who think they must know more about the formal structure, understanding the underlying mechanics and details of 'how that works' in making a piece of music. What I love about what you've said is the first part, _and that you coupled it with the second part_, i.e. all that knowing can and does enhance listening for many a listener, _but those are all a titillation of the intellect alone,_ *ergo, all that 'additional pleasure,' no matter how profound, is something directly apart from actual musical enjoyment.*
> 
> The reason I think the second part is so terribly important is exactly that so many who are 'musical illiterates' are led to believe they are missing some good part of what they hear because they don't know the more intellectual aspects of music.
> 
> ...


And what is "actual" musical enjoyment? Is my musical enjoyment not "actual"? This idea sounds pretty strange to me, no offense. It's not about the "fullest enjoyment". It's about *the type of enjoyment that you want*. Intellectual stimulation doesn't occur in some isolated vacuum entirely separate from emotions, at least not for me and I think I can safely assume most other homo sapiens sapiens.

The main issue here I think is that people conflate musical literacy with a mere segment of the issue and they assume that it's all just terribly dry, just material that can make people "feel smart". Aside from knowledge of music theory, historical context fills out many other separate parts of a picture, and that's still not much of a summary at all of the broadness of musicology.

Especially if you are interested in other cultures and have had your life enriched by readings in anthropology, and hopefully even some actual practice in anthropology because field anthropology is incredibly rewarding compared to armchair anthropology (of course not many people get to experience that). As science and others have noted it is mystifying how the more we learn about people from other places and times through material such as art the more familiar and foreign everything can feel at the same time; I was very excited to hear our friend science refer to the process like that because this feeling is exactly what anthropologists strive for.

But what I'm really getting at with this last point is that before I became more musically literate I probably never would have had life enriching experiences with a variety of other kinds of music all around the world. In fact I would have found a lot of it entirely unappealing although now I am excited and passionate about it, especially Hindustani and Carnatic classical music. I can hardly imagine now how many experiences I would have missed out on if I hadn't taken to this almost unhealthy obsession of mine.






This for example used to grate on my ears like a buzzing insect. Now I can't get enough of it and I have a hard time wrapping my head around what happened that my experience of it is so utterly dissimilar to what it was before.


----------

