# Talking about music...



## Winterreisender (Jul 13, 2013)

I recently joined a 'music appreciation society' and I'm having a bit of trouble talking about music without sounding like a complete idiot. I am reminded of the old maxim that "talking about music is like dancing about architecture."

So suppose we are talking about Bach's Cantata "Ich habe genug" (BWV 82), in honour of tomorrow being Candlemas. It's a lovely piece, but what do I say about it? 

Do I attempt to emulate the bizarre exegetical approach of esteemed Bach scholars? "The frequent pauses, where everything temporarily comes to a standstill, are suggestive of that peaceful closing of life where there is no activity and disorder is a thing of the past." "The downward continuo line suggests taking one's leave and being lowered into the welcoming grave." Ugh...

Or should I get all excited over technicalities... like how the melody masterfully goes from Db to C and then from C to Bb while the bass plays the figure G-Eb-Eb-Eb and Ab-Eb-Eb-Eb. That reminds me a bit too much of music theory exams. 

Should I take a historical/biographical approach and talk about how the piece was originally composed for soprano as early as 1730 but then reappeared for bass sometime after 1745. Knowing that really enhances my enjoyment of the piece...

Or, if all else fails, do we resort to the tiresome Gardiner vs. Suzuki debate (even though in reality I'm perfectly happy with just about any recording of this piece)?

What are your strategies for intelligently talking about music?


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

My advice look up some commentaries, analysis and steal some of the best bits that fit how you feel about it...

http://www.jsbachcantatas.com/documents/chapter-36-bwv-82.htm

Come on everyone does it at some point, what else is the internet for?

(Oh and there is more out there I just gave you one I happened to read before.


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

Quietly see how everyone is doing it and take it from there - time honoured advice for entering a new group!


----------



## SeptimalTritone (Jul 7, 2014)

Winterreisender said:


> I recently joined a 'music appreciation society' and I'm having a bit of trouble talking about music without sounding like a complete idiot. I am reminded of the old maxim that "talking about music is like dancing about architecture."
> 
> So suppose we are talking about Bach's Cantata "Ich habe genug" (BWV 82), in honour of tomorrow being Candlemas. It's a lovely piece, but what do I say about it?
> 
> ...


You do all of those things. You sound like your problem is that you're actually smarter than all of them. Go get 'em champ!


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

I like to read parts or whole of a good book about a particular subject for background. Usually I look out for the leading scholar/musicologist on the subject and start from there.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

My question is how does one even run across such societies? I'd just about come out of seclusion for that!


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

Talk about whatever you want that is meaningful to you and your relationship with the piece. There is very little you can say, from "I really like how loud the brass are at the end," to "Did you notice how the first inversion of the diminished seventh chord in the woodwinds sets up an enharmonic modulation that . . ." that won't resonate with _someone_. And generally everyone learns _something _that they may not have known or thought of before.


----------



## Guest (Feb 2, 2016)

Winterreisender said:


> I'm having a bit of trouble talking about music without sounding like a complete idiot. I am reminded of the old maxim that "talking about music is like dancing about architecture."


Personally, I'd like to read what Winterreisender thinks, in Winterreisender's own words. I'm a benchmark for a complete idiot but unfortunately I've not shut up yet. And I'm not the only one!


----------



## Dim7 (Apr 24, 2009)

dogen said:


> Personally, I'd like to read what Winterreisender thinks, *in Winterreisender's own words.*


Writing in English is probably a better idea, or at least some language Google Translate can translate.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Don't just talk about it. That's dull. Illustrate your verbal musical points with musical examples.


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

Winterreisender said:


> What are your strategies for intelligently talking about music?


I advise against blagging it.

To paraphrase 'Proverbs': Better to keep quiet and have people doubt that you have little to say than to open your mouth and confirm it.

Keep within your limits - and if they are 'It's a lovely piece and I like it' then that is sufficient. If the others there make you feel uncomfortable or wish to show off, then its up to you whether you go back again.


----------



## Winterreisender (Jul 13, 2013)

Last time I tried to make a thread discussing Bach Cantatas, more people preferred talking about favourite recordings than discussing the music itself, perhaps because we all accept _a priori_ that all of Bach's cantatas will be brilliant and we find performers are easier to criticise. I'm not really interested in owning multiple recordings until I am thoroughly acquainted with one. Still, there you can read some of my pathetic attempts at verbalising my enjoyment for the cantatas.

I was really trying to get at a wider question than simply how I should go about not making a fool of myself at Music Appreciation Society (which is a real thing, I kid you not).

Is it even possible for words to adequately convey the abstract nature of a piece of music? With a Bach cantata, it might be a bit easier to do this because the piece contains words and is obviously 'about' something. But what is, say, Cello Sonata #2 by Brahms about? How do I express my enthusiasm for this piece without resorting to dry technical analysis which is alien to 90% of listeners. I liked the melody, I like the rhythm, I like the harmony (even though I couldn't tell you what the chords are without toiling over a score). What else is there to say?


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

I wish I could provide more help, but I'll be interested in hearing how things go if you don't mind sharing.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

Heck, many times I feel like a complete idiot here.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Winterreisender said:


> I recently joined a 'music appreciation society' and I'm having a bit of trouble talking about music without sounding like a complete idiot. I am reminded of the old maxim that "talking about music is like dancing about architecture."
> 
> So suppose we are talking about Bach's Cantata "Ich habe genug" (BWV 82), in honour of tomorrow being Candlemas. It's a lovely piece, but what do I say about it?
> 
> ...


Which dialectic interests you the most? What would you enjoy talking about? Let's number these approaches you've supplied 1-4. One thing I like to do, is say what 3 and 2 could reasonably mean about 1, while discussing which of 4 best brings out the relationship.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Forget all that stuff, and flirt with the ladies.


----------



## BillT (Nov 3, 2013)

I so wish I had any worthwhile mechanisms at all to talk about music. If I did, I would make many more posts on this forum. 

I keep finding that I want to say how it makes me feel, but the feelings come fairly fast and change, so I can get a purchase on it. The piece is generally over before I can put out any useful words.

- Bill


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

starthrower said:


> Forget all that stuff, and flirt with the ladies.


The ones at my local concert hall tend to have beards and hearing aids, though .... ducks for cover


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

Winterreisender said:


> Is it even possible for words to adequately convey the abstract nature of a piece of music? With a Bach cantata, it might be a bit easier to do this because the piece contains words and is obviously 'about' something. But what is, say, Cello Sonata #2 by Brahms about? How do I express my enthusiasm for this piece without resorting to dry technical analysis which is alien to 90% of listeners. I liked the melody, I like the rhythm, I like the harmony (even though I couldn't tell you what the chords are without toiling over a score). What else is there to say?


A piece of music doesn't have to 'be about' something -it can be, but it doesn't have to be. I have heard interviews where some composers (Glass or Adams, I think) have categorically denied that their music has any 'meaning' or any 'emotion expressed'.

If you like the melody, if you like the rhythm, if you like the harmony ... then fine. That's your starting point. If the person you talk to dismisses you as 'low level' then so be it ... find someone else to talk to who doesn't. On the other hand, you may find someone who wants to talk with you at a similar level or about similar things - in which case, you're in luck. Alternatively, listen to what someone more knowledgeable has to say and learn from their greater knowledge and experience.

But, I repeat my advice: don't pretend to know more than you do - it is very easy for a knowledgeable insider to spot a pretender.

(as an aside, my other interest is birdwatching and we have dismissive terms that are applied to people who pretend a level of knowledge that they don't possess. A '_dude_' is easily spotted by the way they dress, the way they stand when they look at a bird, how they use/don't use equipment, their mode of speech (especially the tendency to spout knowledge that they don't have), the topics they talk about, what they claim to have seen, who they associate with etc etc .... and by far the worse thing is to pretend to be what you are not. 
We all had to start off as novices, we all went through a period of learning in which we made mistakes and demonstrated misunderstanding (and this can be a source of 'credit' later on - eg misidentifying a plastic bag as a bird - doh!) but falseness and pretence tend to be regarded with derision.)


----------



## Polyphemus (Nov 2, 2011)

arpeggio said:


> Heck, many times I feel like a complete idiot here.


Me too. Woodduck and Mahlerian have that effect on me.


----------



## Winterreisender (Jul 13, 2013)

Headphone Hermit said:


> A piece of music doesn't have to 'be about' something -it can be, but it doesn't have to be. I have heard interviews where some composers (Glass or Adams, I think) have categorically denied that their music has any 'meaning' or any 'emotion expressed'.
> 
> If you like the melody, if you like the rhythm, if you like the harmony ... then fine. That's your starting point. If the person you talk to dismisses you as 'low level' then so be it ... find someone else to talk to who doesn't. On the other hand, you may find someone who wants to talk with you at a similar level or about similar things - in which case, you're in luck. Alternatively, listen to what someone more knowledgeable has to say and learn from their greater knowledge and experience.
> 
> But, I repeat my advice: don't pretend to know more than you do - it is very easy for a knowledgeable insider to spot a pretender.


That's precisely the problem; most instrumental music is 'about' nothing, yet many commentators like to rehash the same old biographical anecdotes (e.g. when talking about Shostakovich's 5th or Berlioz' Fantastique) which they can then use as their starting point for analysis. I find that approach to be completely detached from my actual listening experience. But then again, overly technical analysis is also meaningless to me. I can enjoy a chord progression without knowing the name of it.

I would not consider myself a classical music novice, yet I find it difficult to say anything meaningful about a piece other than "I liked it" or "I didn't like it." For that reason, I have always found appreciation of classical music to be a very solitary past-time.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

With a Bach Cantata the relation between text and music is often a rich area to explore. The composer's role in this kind of composition was widely likened to that of an orator whose job with each unit of text, was to determine the overriding affect embodied therein and to move the audience to experience that affect through an appropriate musical setting. There were actually theoretical treatises based on classical rhetorical theory explaining how composers can determine what affect to focus on (Johann David Heinichen wrote one on this subject but I can't remember the title, except that it had the words loci "topici" in it.) 

Anyway, the gist is: You might try to approach it through the words and how the music reinforces their meaning and effect. Perhaps pick an aria you find particularly moving to approach in this way. Sometimes an aria text suggests multiple affects and the composer chooses to emphasize one over another. Thinking about why can lead to interesting ideas. 

Good luck!


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

My favorite thing to talk about when it comes to music is how the musical elements of the piece enhance the expressive effects of the music. Theory is fine, but if you don't bring the theory back to the subject of "how does the theory enhance the musical experience" then it's kind of pointless for discussion. 

I don't know the Cantatas you mention very well so I can't provide any specific examples with regards to that...but let's take Bach's Air from the Orchestral Suite 3 (since most people know that). My first comment on that piece might be something along the lines of "In the first bar, Bach has just the bassline playing and the first note of the melody being held the entire time. This not only allows one to become familiar with the basic construction/pattern of the bass (something one might ordinarily not notice as much if it wasn't shoved in our faces the way it is in this first bar), but letting the first note of the melody languish and grow in the first bar increases expectation for the rest of the phrase. Not only that, but by the time the first effective "whole phrase" of the melody begins in the second bar, the harmony has moved away from the tonic. This subtle off balance/destabilization of the melodic line in relation to the harmonic motion is what contributes to the heartfelt aching sound of the Air, and it is used as a device to "propel" the piece forward, so to speak, in search for that balance, a balance that takes the rest of the piece to find."

I could have worded that better, but you get the idea. Something sort of theory-lite combined with an explanation of how the musical devices used contribute to our experience of the music and its overall effect, with some poetic metaphors thrown in there. 

But whatever you decide to say, I think it's always a good idea to bring it back to how it contributes to the musical expression.


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

EdwardBast said:


> There were actually theoretical treatises based on classical rhetorical theory explaining how composers can determine what affect to focus on (Johann David Heinichen wrote one on this subject but I can't remember the title, except that it had the words loci "topici" in it.)


Buelow, George J. 1966. "The Loci Topici and Affect in Late Baroque Music: Heinichen's Practical Demonstration". The Music Review 27:161-76.


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

Winterreisender said:


> I recently joined a 'music appreciation society' and I'm having a bit of trouble talking about music without sounding like a complete idiot. I am reminded of the old maxim that "talking about music is like dancing about architecture."
> 
> So suppose we are talking about Bach's Cantata "Ich habe genug" (BWV 82), in honour of tomorrow being Candlemas. It's a lovely piece, but what do I say about it?
> 
> ...


Hey so, you never followed up.. How did that talk of yours go? Did you follow anybodies advice (hopefully starthrower's :lol: )or did you just wing it?


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Headphone Hermit said:


> Buelow, George J. 1966. "The Loci Topici and Affect in Late Baroque Music: Heinichen's Practical Demonstration". The Music Review 27:161-76.


Thanks. I have this in a box within a few feet of where I now sit but was too lazy to dig it out. Google to the rescue - never need to get up again!


----------



## breakup (Jul 8, 2015)

Winterreisender said:


> What are your strategies for intelligently talking about music?


I usually just find something I like on YouTube and listen, the less I say, the better.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

violadude said:


> My favorite thing to talk about when it comes to music is how the musical elements of the piece enhance the expressive effects of the music. Theory is fine, but if you don't bring the theory back to the subject of "how does the theory enhance the musical experience" then it's kind of pointless for discussion.
> 
> I don't know the Cantatas you mention very well so I can't provide any specific examples with regards to that...but let's take Bach's Air from the Orchestral Suite 3 (since most people know that). My first comment on that piece might be something along the lines of "In the first bar, Bach has just the bassline playing and the first note of the melody being held the entire time. This not only allows one to become familiar with the basic construction/pattern of the bass (something one might ordinarily not notice as much if it wasn't shoved in our faces the way it is in this first bar), but letting the first note of the melody languish and grow in the first bar increases expectation for the rest of the phrase. Not only that, but by the time the first effective "whole phrase" of the melody begins in the second bar, the harmony has moved away from the tonic. This subtle off balance/destabilization of the melodic line in relation to the harmonic motion is what contributes to the heartfelt aching sound of the Air, and it is used as a device to "propel" the piece forward, so to speak, in search for that balance, a balance that takes the rest of the piece to find."
> 
> ...


I've never understood the great need people seem to have for thinking in metaphors about things, music especially. Part of me is distinctly skeptical that all that many of them are really visualizing things that way as they listen, and another part of me doesn't understand it because the emotional and intellectual impressions I get when listening couldn't be described very well with such language.


----------

