# New to Music



## nefigah

Hello all,

I suppose the title of this post is a bit of a misnomer, as I've been listening to and playing (on guitar and drums) rock stuff for most of my life. However, classical music is a completely new thing for me. I recently took an interest in it after taking a class here in college on Western art/music history. It's had a dramatic effect on my life. I'm trying to learn more about it and find out what it means. I want to have a part in it also. I've begun taking piano lessons, and my current ultimate aspiration is to be an organist and to play Bach (which I realize is probably unattainable, as I'm already 25... but hey, it's a dream).

However, I lack not only the intuitive skill in being able to garner the meaning of the music, but also anyone to really talk about it with. My family and friends, much like me, fall into the "uncultured swine" class of folk (and I say that with love!), and so I'm at a bit of a loss. I stumbled upon this community, and hope that I can find help here. I apologize in advance for my ignorance and any possible annoyance.

I hope some of you wouldn't mind addressing some things that have been on my mind:
Is an understanding of classical music possible through effort, or is it an intuitive thing? 
How much of the meaning of a piece is personal, and how much was placed by the composer and should be sought out? 
What is the proper way to listen--do I concentrate on a specific part or instrument, do I attempt to look at it as a whole, should I be thinking about things the music invokes, or be more focused on the music itself?
Can listening to pieces by solo instruments provide as much value as listening to an orchestra?
Is it normal for the sounds of certain instruments to be an "acquired taste"? (I noticed when listening to Eine kleine Nachtmusik for the first time last night, that although the range of sound was incredible, the fact that it was all string instruments gave it this smooth texture that I'm not used to.)
Are there certain pieces that are more suited "for beginners"?

Thank you for your time!
-Jordan


----------



## kiwipolish

Hello nefigah and welcome.

Music is intuition. Just follow your feelings and intuition. If you like a particular genre or instrument, listen to it / work on it until you feel the need to explore further. I don't believe there are any rules. Let your curiosity and appetite guide you.

You are 25 and a beginner... I have a cousin who was in your situation at your age. Absolute beginner, with a new interest in music. Then he heard of an opera composition competition and he wrote an opera for it - his Opus 1. He won the competition and now, 20 years later, makes his living as a composer.


----------



## david johnson

just listen to some of the standards and your interest will be stimulated in certain directions.
you will have much fun.
try mahler sym 1.

dj


----------



## Guest

nefiga, a very dear friend of mine took up the Flute just before retirement at 65, he was not new to music but needed an interest to retire with. enjoy your music


----------



## Elgarian

nefigah said:


> What is the proper way to listen--do I concentrate on a specific part or instrument, do I attempt to look at it as a whole, should I be thinking about things the music invokes, or be more focused on the music itself?


Gosh, I really sympathise with you over this. Quite recently I went through a stage like this myself. After listening to classical music for more than thirty years, I suddenly found myself questioning whether I was listening 'correctly' - in fact, it wasn't long before I wondered whether I really knew how to listen at all. I started to try to listen in a more focused, rational way, deliberately and consciously focusing on the themes, and the way they were developed, and so on... and within a few weeks realised that I was no longer _enjoying_ any music at all! I'd made myself really quite miserable!

Fortunately, it just so happened that at this time I chanced upon a recording of Massenet's opera _Cendrillon_ (Cinderella), about which I knew nothing at all - I didn't even have a libretto, so I had only the vaguest notion about what was going on. And without making any conscious effort at all, but just sitting relaxed, listening through a pair of headphones while drinking a cup of coffee in the garden on a sunny day, I found myself laughing, smiling, sometimes eyes filling with tears as the music found its way through all the barriers I'd been building during the previous weeks.

We're all different, so I don't believe that there's one 'correct' way to listen to music. I even listen to different composers differently: when I listen to Sibelius, my head is full of images of snow-covered valley slopes, fir trees, and soaring gulls. I just can't help it. When I listen to William Boyce, I want to dance and say good morning to everyone, and what a fine day it is. When I listen to Haydn I get no images at all - just a kind of 'atmospheric' eighteenth-century feeling, and a sense of 'rightness'. And all this seems to be the whole point of listening to music, to me: to extend and enrich our imaginative experience of life in ways which we couldn't achieve by any other means. Vaughan Williams said something (I can't find the exact quote offhand) about that power of music to evoke different states of being when he talked about the soldier who listens for the sound of the bugle. The soldier doesn't want to read the score, or an analysis of the essentials of bugle-playing. He just wants to hear and feel the music, because it's that, plain and simple, which will inspire him.

So if I were in your position, I'd just keep listening for the bugle. I'd grab every chance to listen to as wide a range of music as possible, and wait for something to 'happen' - listen for the thrill of the sound of the bugle - and then seize on that, when it happens, and follow wherever it seems to lead.


----------



## nefigah

*Thank you* for the responses. You conveyed what I needed to hear: that perhaps enjoying and creating music is not hopeless for me yet.

I'm a computer programmer, and in general I've always tended toward the more logical side of things--I like processes, strategies. Hence my questions about things that probably don't have right answers! But I will continue on the journey. Last night I purchased a recording of Haydn's No. 88 and Beethoven's 3rd... I'm anxious to experience all I can!

--Jordan


----------



## Elgarian

nefigah said:


> I'm anxious to experience all I can!


Well, here's something wonderfully fine that you can try, at no cost at all:

http://www.operatoday.com/content/2007/09/puccini_la_bohm_3.php

Just click on the streaming audio link (on the far right below the photo, in red lettering). It will cost you nothing, yet this is a stupendous performance of _La Boheme_, and by the end of the first act (about half an hour of some of the very best singing of his very best music) you'll be able to decide pretty well whether Puccini is for you or not.


----------



## Guest

*nefigah* One way of finding out what is going on is to focus on a particular instrument say in a string quartet, start with one movement listen to the Cello, then replay and follow the 1st Violin or the Viola etc etc. In a symphony which will be a little harder focus on the sections, strings, woodwind and so on, eventually you will be able to follow them all and hopefully get a better understanding and enjoyment of our music  I still do it


----------



## Rachovsky

Hi Jordan (I'm Jordon) --

I'm a youngster as well (I'm 17) so you and I have an entire life to listen to music (especially classical music I hope). Everytime I think of that It feels so exciting, heh. I wont specifically answer your questions, but I smile every time I see someone recommending a new listener to Mahler. He's having a more profound effect on the classical music world isn't he? I only wish I had discovered Mahler from the get go of listening to classical music.

Here, go to my Youtube channel. It's: http://www.youtube.com/user/Sinneo91
I have 3 playlists on there that I currently listen to on at least a weekly basis. Just click "Play All" on the right side for it to automatically move to the next 10 minutes without you having to do it manually.

Try out the 2 Mahler first. Mahler's Symphony No. 2 is probably my most favorite symphony. Then Berlioz's Requiem is quite astounding. If you get a chance, listen to them and tell me what you think. 

Oh by the way, I can completely commiserate with you and your "uncultured swine." My mom listens to mainstream music and my dad likes bluegrass and country...


----------



## nefigah

Lots to sink my teeth into  

Elgarian-- Opera! I like Pavarotti's voice and have enjoyed solo performances I have seen of his. After listening, I can tell it is of high quality but not something I yet have a feel for. Another goal set  Thank you for the link!

Andante-- This sounds fun. Any piece you would recommend to start such an exercise with?

Jordon-- Though the misspelling of our name saddens me  , your music brings much happiness! It's fascinating (and admittedly somewhat distracting) to watch the orchestra in action. The technical aspect of music also interests me, and the gestures of the conductor, the fingering (and embouchure) of the players, and just in general being able to connect sounds with images is a lot to take in!


----------



## BuddhaBandit

Nefigah-
I'm still fairly young myself and, like you, spent many of my "formative" years with rock, country, blues, etc. and playing piano and guitar in those styles. When I first started getting into classical music, I faced much the same dilemma as you (and many other "noobs") face: with the breadth and depth of the repertoire, what is the right way to explore? Here's a few things that helped me:

1. Listen to as much music as you can, from every period, movement, etc. You might not be able to distinguish the "masterpieces" at first listen, but by comparing the great works to the average works you'll get a better understanding of why some composers are so revered.

2. Read the liner notes to all the albums you listen. Many liner note essays specifically point out elements of interest in the music, or the goal of the composer in writing it. Is the oboe and flute duet in the finale key to the piece? Do the soft chords in the strings accent the melodic line? Liner notes often help with the "what should I listen for?" question.

3. Play some music (especially as you've begun taking lessons)! There is no better to understand the complex relationships in a piece than by performing the piece.

4. Find a good, beginner's guidebook to classical music or a well-respected "Top 100" list and start listening.

5. Participate as much as possible in discussions on forums like these.

6. I don't like to recommend specific books or CDs (because, more often than not, my choices are pretty biased), but I believe Aaron Copland's "What to Listen For in Music" is a perfect introduction to the theory of classical music.

Hope this helps! Welcome to the forum!

The BB


----------



## Guest

nefigah said:


> Lots to sink my teeth into
> Andante-- This sounds fun. Any piece you would recommend to start such an exercise with?QUOTE]
> 
> Any Haydn, Schubert, Beethoven St Qts will do, I was going to put a link to Schubert St Qt #8, 2nd mov but I have just gone onto a new computer with Vista and am still fumbling around with it. if you can get hold of the said Qt the Andante (2nd mov) is very lyrical and was written in his mid teens,  how did he do it?


----------



## nefigah

Sorry to bug you all with what is probably a wacko interpretation, but I was so moved by it that I feel I have to talk about it to someone!

So I laid down and listened to Beethoven's 3rd for the first real time. (Edit: the following started to appear in my mind in the 2nd movement.) I envisioned a battlefield, desolate. You can hear the wind. A lone soldier stumbles along, his vision darkening as he despairs at the destruction. He falls... he begins to dream in his fever. A triumphant return! A return home, in glory, victorious. People hear the distant march, they come running. There's excitement. They whisper. The proud sight of the banner held high! At the far end of the city, his beloved wife, oblivious to the hubbub. She thinks of old times while doing her chores. Then the sounds of the trumpets... could it be? The glorious reunion, an embrace, a joyful dance, a recantation of heroic deeds. Harsh reality returns, the dream fades... he is fading as well. The last twinge of sadness as his body relinquishes his spirit. (I almost began to cry at this point... but it is not over.) Happiness is back, the wistful sounds of the ascent of his soul. He notes the dancing and playing of cherubs. And then triumph! A welcome home indeed, though not to the home he left behind a few long months ago. Meanwhile, the fog of war has lifted, and the bodies of the deceased soldiers are arraigned for a funeral procession and a hero's burial. The shock of the wife as she realizes her husband is among them. The sadness. The price of freedom, victory. The triumphal salute to those who paid it, joined by heaven's choir.

Forgive my silly imaginations  But how amazing that music without lyrics can tell me a story!

---

*BB:* Thank you for the advice! I appreciate your perspective as one who was in my shoes.

*Andante:* Thanks. I have a long trip coming up, I'll make sure to pick up Schubert for it!


----------



## purple99

nefigah said:


> What is the proper way to listen


Some people find context helpful. For example, I went to Bach's St John Passion on Sunday. It's about suffering and how humans deal with it (yeah, a real bundle of laughs  ). It helps to know the sort of society Bach lived in, where the music comes from: tremendous infant mortality rates - Bach buried 10 of his 20 children. God-intoxicated. A silent place - no airplanes, cars, road drills, burglar alarms or hip-hop.

So death was close in everyone's lives - a bit like living in a warzone now, say Iraq or Afghanistan. People were in trouble, needed help, and turned to God and music to ease the pain. For example, it was dangerous even to fall in love. You knew your lover could die at any time and you'd face the heartbreak of being without them. Imagine the difference that made in daily life. It was extremely dangerous for women to have children. Many mothers died in childbirth. So when she married the woman made a tremendous commitment, and death was in the bridal chamber with her.

Thought of in that context the piece takes on a different character. It becomes poignant, immediate, and (to me) intensely moving, rather than some dusty historic relic, albeit a beautiful and skillful one.

Here's a recording of the Bach I heard (scroll down to launch in RealPlayer). They use period instruments too, bringing you even closer to the original. It's the best performance I've heard - stunning. You'll probably hate it!    It helps to read a translation of the words sung by the choir.

Good questions btw.


----------



## Guest

*Hi 99*, where have you been? I really have missed you, honest, no kidding, and your pics.


----------



## Elgarian

purple99 said:


> Thought of in that context the piece takes on a different character. It becomes poignant, immediate, and (to me) intensely moving, rather than some dusty historic relic, albeit a beautiful and skillful one.


Beautifully put. These finest musical experiences do transcend time like that, because what's being communicated is universal, and although the details of our situation may have changed, the central core has not. Susanne Langer put forward an idea that works of art (including music) present us with what she calls 'symbols of feeling'; and by contemplating the symbols (in this case provided by a musical performance), we experience something like the emotions experienced by the composer.

Well, we can argue about the detail, but that does seem to fit pretty well what goes on when, for example, we think about your experience with the St John Passion: the music transmits the fundamentals to us, and we feel the emotion in our present context.

When that happens - you just know the _truth_ of it, don't you? You know, beyond all rational argument, that what you're feeling is coming from a true and deeply human place, beyond the 'merely musical', even though the music is the essential vehicle that enables it to happen at all. And when it happens, discussions about 'how to listen' suddenly seem very unimportant .....


----------



## purple99

Andante said:


> *Hi 99*, where have you been? I really have missed you, honest, no kidding, and your pics.


Andante! You know I love every hair on your nut-brown head.

View attachment 263


How's it going? I've been busy but also Promming a fair bit in London. 76 concerts, loads of fringe events, all heavily subsidised by the British taxpayer. Off to hear Mahler 6 (Chicago Symphony) on 6th Sept. Went to *three *Bach concerts on Sunday...

THE WORLD'S GREATEST CLASSICAL MUSIC FESTIVAL

_Apologies to nefigah for hijacking his thread_


----------



## Guest

I don,t know how you does it 99, its all go ain't it ? and subsidised too 
still suffer in silence as I do eh


----------



## Ramamaiden

Im not and expert on the matter, but i think i can give some good advices on what to start listening. Some great works that are easy to listen.
Bach - Brandenburg concertos (6 of them), the two violin concertos and the double violin concerto.
Mozart- the 5 violin concertos, i love them specially the third one. Symphony 36 
Vivaldi - The four seasons.
Beethoven. - Piano sonata number 8 and 14, and the 5th symphony.

these works are all awesome and most of them are easy to hear. Im 25 too, and im after a long time having a fresh new interest on classical music. I used to hear classical when i was like 18, i even started playing violin but i stopped after a year and a half and i kinda lost interest on classical, although i sometimes listened to some of it. My point is that i used to hear to these when i was younger and loved them, and i still love them a lot.
so, this are a very good starting point i think, and i assure you that even if dont start with these, sooner or later you will hear them, =P.


----------



## purple99

Elgarian said:


> And when it happens, discussions about 'how to listen' suddenly seem very unimportant .....


I'm not sure you're right and I'm not sure Bach would agree with you.  All music's difficult to talk about, hence the irony of a music internet forum, but I think the St John Passion was meant to be talked about. It's pure Christian propaganda and Bach was a skilled propagandist. He would have wanted it talked about so the propaganda was spread.

The propaganda's multi-layered so it's hard to put your thumb on precisely how he achieves the desired effect. I'm a very bad Christian  but it moved me and, looking round the audience, was hitting bullseyes all around me. Respectable, middle-aged Englishmen in tweeds had tears streaming down their faces and this in a big, secular concert hall in central London.

The Passion's about suffering so an obvious place to look is in human 'sympathy.' If a stranger falls over in the street in front of me with a crash, I go 'ouch!' Apart from a few psychopaths it's programmed into all humans to react to another's pain in that way, particularly when it happens in front of our noses.

Bach takes that instinctive, universal response to suffering and builds the Passion round it. Lubricated by the music and the drama it's hard not to feel intense sympathy for Christ - betrayed, dragged before a kangaroo court, beaten, humiliated, crucified. Then, on top of that, for Jesus to say as his dying words: 'It is accomplished!' meaning the whole thing was a necessary process, a prophesy fulfilled, is devastating - even to old Pagans.

His dying words are, in effect, 'I'm just doing my job' and makes victims of everyone: Judas, Peter, Pilate, the Jewish mob. They just acted out a preordained script. Christ needed them to do his job.

It's wildly clever stuff and amazing that it retains it's power 280 years after composition. But to appreciate it you must know a bit of background. For a start it's in German so you need a good translation. Second it helps to have a Christian background, to be familiar with the story of the Passion. Third, it helps to know your emotions are being manipulated by a propaganda expert.


----------



## Elgarian

purple99 said:


> I'm not sure you're right and I'm not sure Bach would agree with you.  All music's difficult to talk about, hence the irony of a music internet forum, but I think the St John Passion was meant to be talked about.


Ah, you misunderstand me. I didn't say 'discussions about music are unimportant' in general (clearly they are not, because we're having one now, and it seems to matter). When I said: 'discussions about _how to listen'_ seem unimportant', I was referring specifically to those moments when we are actively engaged with the music. I was trying to express the feeling we have, at those moments of total immersion in the music, of being oblivious to anything secondary. What I mean is that if I'm sitting there, fully engaged as you described when listening to the St. John Passion, experiencing the poignancy, the immediacy, the emotion - then at such times the question 'Am I listening to this in the correct way?' simply doesn't arise. It's self evident that I am.

I'd even go further: I'd say that if I'm listening to music and find myself wondering whether I'm listening correctly, then I can be sure that I'm not. My attention is no longer on the music, but on the question.

What we do - what we discuss - _after the music stops_ is another matter entirely (which is what you're talking about in your post, above). In fact, here we are, discussing that very thing!


----------



## purple99

Elgarian said:


> Ah, you misunderstand me. I didn't say 'discussions about music are unimportant' in general (clearly they are not, because we're having one now, and it seems to matter). When I said: 'discussions about _how to listen'_ seem unimportant', I was referring specifically to those moments when we are actively engaged with the music. I was trying to express the feeling we have, at those moments of total immersion in the music, of being oblivious to anything secondary. What I mean is that if I'm sitting there, fully engaged as you described when listening to the St. John Passion, experiencing the poignancy, the immediacy, the emotion - then at such times the question 'Am I listening to this in the correct way?' simply doesn't arise. It's self evident that I am.
> 
> I'd even go further: I'd say that if I'm listening to music and find myself wondering whether I'm listening correctly, then I can be sure that I'm not. My attention is no longer on the music, but on the question.
> 
> What we do - what we discuss - _after the music stops_ is another matter entirely (which is what you're talking about in your post, above). In fact, here we are, discussing that very thing!


I agree. My bad.* 

* To use an expression I'm sure Andante disapproves of.


----------



## Guest

*Elgarian and 99*

*My 20c worth*. When I listen to music and I stress the word listen as opposed to hearing I can do it in two ways,
1. I can just get completely immersed in the music and am oblivious to all else, mostly I see no pictures, I only hear sound, some times a certain piece may revoke memories either sad or happy, but I rarely picture a scene of a battle or a cold mountain etc,

2. I can also listen as a musician and then I am concentrating on the construction of the work being played, or following a particular instrument or section of the orchestra I do see in my mind the musicians playing I note that the orch is drowning the soloist or the conductor is speeding up etc.
I suppose what I am saying is that we all listen in our own way.
You will remember the survey carried out a long time ago [very unscientific] of what people imagined when listening to Griegs "Morning Mood" 90 odd percent said a forest in the early morning as day breaks, now both of you will know just how far off the mark that was.


----------



## Tapkaara

First and foremost, music should be FUN. I think the common denominator for all musicophiles, regardless of then kinds of musi we enjoy, is that music should be a FUN experience.

Of course, with classical music, there are technical aspects that add an extra dimention for study and appreciation: orchestration, a conductor's interpretation of a work, etc., but if you always concentrate on only the technical aspects, the experience of listening to music becomes too academic, and this is not a good. thing. At the end of th day, when I pop something into my player, it's because I want to have a good time, not because I want to analyse.

There is no right way to listen to a piece, nor is there a wrong way. If you are listening to something, and you are enjoying it, that's all tha matters.


----------



## Elgarian

Andante said:


> I suppose what I am saying is that we all listen in our own way.


I think one of the encouraging things to emerge from this discussion is that we all seem to be agreed on that. There are probably as many ways of listening as there are listeners - and perhaps also, we should multiply that number by the number of pieces of music we listen to. I simply don't listen to Wagner in the same way as I listen to, let's say, Vaughan Williams.

About the pictures business - sometimes I get pictures, sometimes I don't. (If I'm listening to an opera following the libretto, then I get pictures all the time.) But often it's just some kind of feeling that I'd struggle to be able to name.

@Tapkaara


> First and foremost, music should be FUN. I think the common denominator for all musicophiles, regardless of then kinds of music we enjoy, is that music should be a FUN experience.


It depends what you mean by 'fun', but it sounds too restrictively frothy, for me. I'd prefer words like 'enriching', or 'life-enhancing'. There definitely are many pieces of music that are fun to listen to, but if someone were to listen to a work such as _The Ring_, or Vaughan Williams's 6th symphony, or Elgar's cello concerto, and describe the experience as 'fun', I don't think I'd know how to empathise with the kind of experience they'd had. Seeing the Boult boxed set of Vaughan Williams symphonies dropping through my letter box yesterday morning was definitely a 'fun' experience, but listening to the CDs will be a different and more contemplative experience. Deeply satisfying and certainly enjoyable, but not really 'fun'.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

Andante said:


> *Elgarian and 99*...
> You will remember the survey carried out a long time ago [very unscientific] of what people imagined when listening to Grieg's "Morning Mood" 90 odd percent said a forest in the early morning as day breaks, now both of you will know just how far off the mark that was.


Well, it's quite likely that they both know whereof you speak (and for the record, so do I), but it's equally certain that a few readers here do not.

So... I'll throw a "batting-practice-pitch" back at the readership and ask (rhetorically)- what was the location of ol' Peer (Gynt) at the stage in the story when "Morning Mood" provided the incidental background?


----------



## purple99

Elgarian said:


> It depends what you mean by 'fun'


I agree. Much music, both pop and classical, isn't 'fun' at all, but millions listen to it. Country, bluegrass, Cajun, blues, etc is packed with 'slit your wrists' stuff, with endless lyrics about your girlfriend running off, getting thrown in jail, crashing your pickup into a tree, etc. It's easy to be too precious about these things but art as 'fun' is, to me, a nightmare. Boy bands and Classic FM are about 'fun'. It's pretty thin gruel.


----------



## Elgarian

Andante said:


> You will remember the survey carried out a long time ago [very unscientific] of what people imagined when listening to Griegs "Morning Mood" 90 odd percent said a forest in the early morning as day breaks, now both of you will know just how far off the mark that was.


I know next to nothing about Grieg and _Peer Gynt_ and so, picking up Chi_town/Philly's comments, I had to look it up - but I suppose I want to ask whether it matters if people listen to it and think 'forest' rather than 'desert'? Obviously, it matters in the context of the whole work, but as an isolated piece of music, out of context, people hear it as an abstract work (albeit with a suggestive title) which can trigger a whole range of mental images and relationships (no less than an abstract painting does).

You can listen to Parry's second symphony purely as a symphony, picking up the Brahms and Mendelssohn influences, and enjoying the moment in the third movement when, like a flower bursting into blossom, suddenly he becomes Hubert Parry and speaks (beautifully) in his own voice. Or, you can listen to it with Parry's suggested programme in mind, as being descriptive of an undergraduate passing through university. Or you can muddle up the two. The music is the same, but the things we allow it to do to us aren't constant. I don't think that means the alternative ways are in conflict, though. The same house can have lots of windows offering different views, and all of them are 'true'.


----------



## Tapkaara

Perhaps fun was too simplistic a term, but I still stand by it. When I listen to music, it's to have a good time. I don't listen to it to be bored, I don't listen to it to feel just slightly OK, I listen because it's recreation, it's exciting, it's, um, fun.

Now, music can be an "enriching" experience, it can be "life changing" and all of that, but those are all good experiences, right? If an experience is a good one, I'd say it was an enjoyable experience.

I didn't say all music is fun, however. Barber's Adagio for Strings is not a fun piece, but why do we listen anyway? Is it because we want to be made miserable? I suppose for some people that can be the case, but there is a certain satisfaction we get listening to a sad work such as this. Whether or not it is truly a "fun" experience is up for grabs.

Again, perhaps "fun" is too simple a word, but I can tell you I look forward to listening to music and I enjoy listening to music. Doing something I enjoy sounds like fun to me.


----------



## Elgarian

Tapkaara said:


> When I listen to music, it's to have a good time.


I think one problem is that these words 'fun', and 'good time' don't really tell us anything. If I say 'I listen to music because it's fun', I'm really only saying that I like listening to music because I like it.

Another problem is that those words put listening to music alongside playing with balloons, chewing gum, or riding on a rollercoaster. Those are grand things I'm sure, and they're all things that I might choose to do as 'fun' (actually none of them are, but they could have been), but those activities are a million light years away from listening to music. I can take or leave playing with balloons, however much fun the balloons might be; but by comparison, listening to music feels more like a necessity than a choice. It feels like something I was made for. When I listen to great music my horizons expand; the world seems richer and more meaningful; I experience thoughts and feelings that I wouldn't experience unaided. To say, instead, that 'I like this music', or that 'I'm having a good time', just seems hopelessly inadequate either as a description of what's happening, or as a reason for why I do it.


----------



## Tapkaara

We'll just have to agree to disagree, and I will say no more on this topic.


----------



## purple99

nefigah said:


> So I laid down and listened to Beethoven's 3rd for the first real time... I envisioned a battlefield... Forgive my silly imaginations


They're not _that _silly. Take a look at Ch. 5 of EM Forster's 'Howard's End'. You're not alone.


----------



## Guest

purple99 said:


> I agree. Much music, both pop and classical, isn't 'fun' at all, but millions listen to it. Country, bluegrass, Cajun, blues, etc is packed with 'slit your wrists' stuff, with endless lyrics about your girlfriend running off, getting thrown in jail, crashing your pickup into a tree, etc. It's easy to be too precious about these things but art as 'fun' is, to me, a nightmare. Boy bands and Classic FM are about 'fun'. It's pretty thin gruel.


If I want some fun music I put on a Jazz CD, I find the majority of Jazz is jolly good fun, I know there are the exceptions, but even these make you tap your foot at the least


----------



## purple99

Andante said:


> If I want some fun music I put on a Jazz CD, I find the majority of Jazz is jolly good fun, I know there are the exceptions, but even these make you tap your foot at the least


An example of Jazz which is NOT fun. She used to break down after each performance. But I agree -- Jazz musicians tend not to take themselves too seriously.


----------



## Guest

purple99 said:


> An example of Jazz which is NOT fun. She used to break down after each performance. But I agree -- Jazz musicians tend not to take themselves too seriously.


Yes, enough said, I have that in my collection


----------



## nefigah

purple99 said:


> They're not _that _silly. Take a look at Ch. 5 of EM Forster's 'Howard's End'. You're not alone.


Thanks... I think


----------



## Christi

[QUOTE Hello all,I suppose the title of this post is a bit of a misnomer, as I've been listening to and playing (on guitar and drums) rock stuff for most of my life. However, classical music is a completely new thing for me. I recently took an interest in it after taking a class here in college on Western art/music history. It's had a dramatic effect on my life. I'm trying to learn more about it and find out what it means. I want to have a part in it also. I've begun taking piano lessons, and my current ultimate aspiration is to be an organist and to play Bach (which I realize is probably unattainable, as I'm already 25... but hey, it's a dream).[/QUOTE] I'm also new to this music


----------



## d.kowlesar

I am new to music composing and I hope that I learn a lot from you guys!


----------



## Bgroovy2

Listen for the shear enjoyment, listen with your heart and you will hear a whole new demention open up to before your ears!


----------



## tonphil1960

*Music*

I have been into Classical for about 5 or 6 years now and still don't know how to "listen" I guess, but everyone has his/her own way of appreciating music I am sure.
As was said read the liner notes, they have alot of useful info in them
Read, read, read, everything you can on a particular piece that you might enjoy more than others. There are great websites on most of the great composers, the information there is very valuable. I find that when I know the story of the composer, what time of his life and what he was going through at the time of a composition helps me understand the music 100% better than if I didn't know the story behind the piece. 
Go to a listening/sampling website, listen to fragments of works and if you enjoy them buy the CD. Read about the works before you buy them and you will be in for some great suprises.

I found in the last few months with listening on a regular basis that the emotion in the music and the composers intentions have hit me like a hammer, now I know I am finally (( getting it )), It is a very powerful thing ( to me anyway) if you get to this point, I am thankful I got here. I never knew music could move me like Classical music does, it's very emotional. Just have to (get it )

I have recently started to listen on my I Pod, in a quiet room with no one around to distract me, this helps very much. Listening to Classical when there is other noise and commotion going on, you will never really "hear it "

As I said in 5 or 6 years I still consider myself a rank beginner but I am getting the picture more clearly everyday.

Good luck, Tony ps on these boards you will learn much also ! ! ! !


----------



## lukeyluke

> What is the proper way to listen--do I concentrate on a specific part or instrument, do I attempt to look at it as a whole, should I be thinking about things the music invokes, or be more focused on the music itself?


How does one eat an egg? There are many different ways of listening to music for the purposes you need if for. Still, if this answer isn't good enough for you, I'd highly recommend reading "what to listen for in music" by Aaron Copland. That should be a good guide


----------

