# Highly trained versus non-trained music appreciation



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

I believe there is enormous overlap between music that highly trained musicians (e.g. musicologists, conductors, composers, etc.) and those with little musical training find exceptionally entertaining. I also think it’s not at all obvious that should be so. Trained musicians hear and see in scores many aspects of music that non-trained people do not hear or see. It’s certainly possible that trained musicians could have a very different appreciation of music because of their experience and knowledge. Obviously, there is not perfect agreement, but I have been surprised that both groups seem to agree substantially on music that is great, wonderful, first rate, highly appreciated. My question is why that is so.

One answer could be that people are essentially told which works are exceptional. Basically, they are “told what to like” and like those works. I’m not sure that truly explains the phenomenon. When I started to explore music, I came across works that gripped me. I was stunned upon hearing them. Some of those were works I knew were considered first rate, but others were works I had heard little about. Two examples are Tallis’ Spem in alium and Mozart’s string quintet No. 4 (K. 516). I adored those works and only later found out how highly they were viewed. A different type of example is Berwald’s Symphony No. 3 "Singulière". The first movement struck and made me want to listen over and over. Later my wife and daughter, both musicians, mentioned how they loved the harmony.

My daughter has suggested that we should take a few works and analyze them. I would select the parts I found very enjoyable (not just melodies), and she would analyze the music theory of the works. Would there be a correspondence of parts I liked and parts she identified as interesting from a music theory aspect? We never did that experiment, but I’d like to do so someday.

Anyway, I’d be interested in people’s thoughts on this apparent convergence of enjoyment.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

mmsbls said:


> I believe there is enormous overlap between music that highly trained musicians (e.g. musicologists, conductors, composers, etc.) and those with little musical training find exceptionally entertaining. I also think it’s not at all obvious that should be so. Trained musicians hear and see in scores many aspects of music that non-trained people do not hear or see. It’s certainly possible that trained musicians could have a very different appreciation of music because of their experience and knowledge. Obviously, there is not perfect agreement, but I have been surprised that both groups seem to agree substantially on music that is great, wonderful, first rate, highly appreciated. My question is why that is so.
> 
> One answer could be that people are essentially told which works are exceptional. Basically, they are “told what to like” and like those works. I’m not sure that truly explains the phenomenon. When I started to explore music, I came across works that gripped me. I was stunned upon hearing them. Some of those were works I knew were considered first rate, but others were works I had heard little about. Two examples are Tallis’ Spem in alium and Mozart’s string quintet No. 4 (K. 516). I adored those works and only later found out how highly they were viewed. A different type of example is Berwald’s Symphony No. 3 "Singulière". The first movement struck and made me want to listen over and over. Later my wife and daughter, both musicians, mentioned how they loved the harmony.
> 
> ...


First, I think you don't need to know exactly what goes on in the kitchen to appreciate the food in a Michelin 3 - star restaurant. The same is true with music, and not just classical music, however that term is defined.
But also, and I've mentioned this to you before, as a now experienced listener to certain types of music, you probably have more de facto ear-training and implicit knowledge than you realize. You can look up what a Neapolitan sixth chord is and learn something about the theory of western harmony that maybe you didn't know before. But maybe you did know it before. Play the chord on a piano. Try some cadences and progressions. Doesn't that remind you of some Renaissance music you've heard? Maybe part of a Beethoven piano sonata?
You'll find that sort of thing over and over again the more you study music theory. But if you listen enough, you hear certain things so often that as subtle as they may be at first, you come to understand them innately.


----------



## Vasks (Dec 9, 2013)

mmsbls said:


> My daughter has suggested that we should take a few works and analyze them. I would select the parts I found very enjoyable (not just melodies), and she would analyze the music theory of the works. Would there be a correspondence of parts I liked and parts she identified as interesting from a music theory aspect?


For sure, some of the time. What percentage, however, I would not know for certain, but my guess would be around 50% (or perhaps a little higher).


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

mmsbls said:


> Obviously, there is not perfect agreement, but I have been surprised that both groups seem to agree substantially on music that is great, wonderful, first rate, highly appreciated. My question is why that is so.
> A different type of example is Berwald’s Symphony No. 3 "Singulière". The first movement struck and made me want to listen over and over. Later my wife and daughter, both musicians, mentioned how they loved the harmony.


I guess it depends on what exactly they agree on. Does it go beyond the simple (and rather random) _"I don't know; I just like/dislike it, cause it sounds good/bad to me."_? There's one conversation I had with someone who values Mozart, but not Haydn (in one of those "unpopular opinions" threads).

I asked him while we were on the subject—
"What do you look for in the music? Harmonic complexity (in terms of inner voices) like Mozart's? Check out the contrapuntal motion that leads to the V6/5 on the third beat of bar 268. On the way, you hear all kinds of harmonies;
9th chord harmonies in bar 265,
augmented triad harmony on the third beat of bar 266,
major 7th chord harmony on the first two beats of bar 267,
half-diminished 7th chord harmony on the third beat of bar 267,
minor-minor 7th chord harmony (+ the non-chord tone C#) on the first two beats of bar 268,
(which aren't actual chords btw, since they're results of contrapuntal motion)."





He didn't reply back to me on this. (But I suspect he didn't change his mind about the composer even after the conversation.) It was doubtful if we were on the same page even. I used this sort of descriptions to highlight things (as if to say, "Look! Can you not see?") in desperate hope that we arrive at some kind of agreement, but it didn't help as I had hoped, for some reason. Maybe he didn't get what I was saying, or had objections to it, or didn't hear the music the way I heard, but didn't care to explain, for some reason. With people who avoid directly addressing questions I pose such as this, it is difficult to satisfactorily know what things we agree on.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

Entertainment value often depends upon knowledge. I suspect that trained professionals in any discipline "enjoy" experiences within their field differently than do, say, laypeople. I suspect my dentist experiences a root canal with a different degree of relish than I myself ever have. I know (from talking to others) that I enjoy and experience a Shakespeare play to a greater degree than they, though I am also more critical of production values (acting, design, directing, etc.) in such a play, "seeing" things missed by the non-oriented viewer.

I consider myself totally a musical amateur. My knowledge of music from formal studies is limited. But I have _heard_ much music in my several decades of listening, and I remain informed on that basis. Still, I recognize that the musical professionals (often in evidence from what I read on this particular website) have a greater expanse of appreciation skills than do I. I've heard more than 1000 symphonies, I'm sure. And a lot of other music as well. One thing that remains constant no matter how many "new pieces" strike my fancy is that the great core of works, what we know as the "canon" or the "war horses" or the "bon bons", that are appreciated greatly by both the professional and the amateur or casual listener well deserve the recognition they have garnered. The music of Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Tchaikovsky, Brahms ... is simply great music. One senses that with every hearing, regardless of one's musical experience. Such music somehow touches to the very cores of our humanity. And that is the feature of all great art. It's a rather inexplicable thing that has been well discussed yet never settled with any lasting certainty -- that certain works of art have a greater universal merit than do others. Like it or not, it seems a deep truism. I certainly cannot explain the phenomenon; if I could I would be a great artist, I suppose. But a certain body of work has earned itself a level of societal agreement of its excellence that proves extraordinary. It's not because people are told what to like. I can't explain it, but I'm glad it happens. It helps to unify humanity with a special bond that is good to have even though and especially because it does not conflict with our unique degrees of individuality. Much here remains contradictory and numinous, but that is much more human than full total agreement or full total disagreement. Let's just chalk this one up to the power of great art.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

I am at the almost zero musical training end of the scale (I did take organ lessons as a teenager, and can/could read music). I've never read anything about music theory (even simple things), because it does not interest me. I have been listening to music as one of my main hobbies for 50 years now (classical for over 35 years). I am satisfied with just listening and appreciating the music (or not). Things like



hammeredklavier said:


> I asked him while we were on the subject—
> "What do you look for in the music? Harmonic complexity (in terms of inner voices) like Mozart's? Check out the contrapuntal motion that leads to the V6/5 on the third beat of bar 268. On the way, you hear all kinds of harmonies;
> 9th chord harmonies in bar 265,
> augmented triad harmony on the third beat of bar 266,
> ...


not only mean literally nothing to me - I very much doubt that learning things like this would really enhance my musical experience.

In general, I don't want my hobbies to become too technical/theoretical. I've played chess for most of my life (and at times at reasonable level) without studying theory. Photography has been a hobby for the last 15 years (and I'm reasonably successful at it, sold a number of prints, even featured in a museum), but I don't care at all for the technical side - I always shoot on automatic.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Like Art Rock, I've been listening to music for well over 50 years and I've gotten by with my limited (non-existent) knowledge of music theory. As I've said in the past, only sometimes does my lack of musical training hinder me and that's when I'm writing my blog reviews and I want to explain something very specific and technical however the more I write and listen the more I'm continuing to learn. I like to think I have a good ear (I learned to play guitar by ear 10 years ago).



mmsbls said:


> *One answer could be that people are essentially told which works are exceptional. Basically, they are “told what to like” and like those works*. I’m not sure that truly explains the phenomenon. When I started to explore music, I came across works that gripped me. I was stunned upon hearing them. Some of those were works I knew were considered first rate, but others were works I had heard little about.


As far as the above goes I agree that we are continuously told (by critics / others) what pieces we should like and the recordings we should consider 'great'. I ignore both.


----------



## composingmusic (Dec 16, 2021)

I find the field of music psychology fascinating and it’s always really interesting to hear how different people perceive music. It does seem as though everyone has a very individual mode of listening, and the degree of variance is huge. Most people, from what I can tell, tend to perceive some musical parameters more clearly and others less so; some parameters might be ignored altogether for some listeners. While expressiveness is linked to these parameters in terms of production, perceiving expressiveness often seems to be separate from perceiving these more analytical parameters as far as I can tell. 

I do tend to listen in a very analytical way and my instinct is always to break down what I’m listening to into its elements. Quite a few of my colleagues also listen in a similar way, but there is a great deal of variance in professional circles too.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

I sometimes discuss piano music on rmcr. Some of the other contributors are really experiences pianists. They've played lots of different music on lots of different pianos, been through courses with very highly reputed piano teachers, acted as agents for very highly reputed pianists, produced recordings etc etc. I find what they say has helped me increase my acuity -- to learn to appreciate piano timbre and touch and phrasing and other nuance. They have also helped me to appreciate repertoire which is more well known and well liked among performers than listeners -- Scriabin and Liszt, for example. 

A similar thing for my contact with trained singers, more in real life than online, though I'm sure that I could learn a lot about the art of singing here on Talk Classical.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

I agree that trained musicians hear the music differently. Their discussions of the music would likely focus on things non-trained people would not. To me, it seems that this difference has relatively little effect on which pieces they value highly. There seems to be significant overlap in works that both groups hold in high esteem and greatly enjoy. I can easily imagine that would not be the case and wonder why it is. 

Perhaps, there is larger variation than I think on the sets of esteemed works by the two groups. I believe that's absolutely the case with modern and contemporary music, but I believe there's huge overlap in earlier music. Are trained musicians and non-trained listeners reacting to the same things? Obviously, they are both reacting to the same music, but are they reacting to the same components of that music? fluteman mentions something that my daughter tells me. 



fluteman said:


> But also, and I've mentioned this to you before, as a now experienced listener to certain types of music, you probably have more de facto ear-training and implicit knowledge than you realize. You can look up what a Neapolitan sixth chord is and learn something about the theory of western harmony that maybe you didn't know before. But maybe you did know it before. Play the chord on a piano. Try some cadences and progressions. Doesn't that remind you of some Renaissance music you've heard? Maybe part of a Beethoven piano sonata?


My daughter has been trained in hearing methods of modulation perhaps involving a Neapolitan sixth chord. She could recognize that usage and marvel at it while that level of detail would escape me. But I hear that modulation and subconsciously hear the smooth transition. Perhaps both of us are relatively equally moved by it.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

SONNET CLV said:


> ...I consider myself totally a musical amateur. My knowledge of music from formal studies is limited. But I have _heard_ much music in my several decades of listening, and I remain informed on that basis. Still, I recognize that the musical professionals (often in evidence from what I read on this particular website) have a greater expanse of appreciation skills than do I. I've heard more than 1000 symphonies, I'm sure. And a lot of other music as well. One thing that remains constant no matter how many "new pieces" strike my fancy is that the great core of works, what we know as the "canon" or the "war horses" or the "bon bons", that are appreciated greatly by both the professional and the amateur or casual listener well deserve the recognition they have garnered. The music of Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Tchaikovsky, Brahms ... is simply great music. *One senses that with every hearing, regardless of one's musical experience.* Such music somehow touches to the very cores of our humanity. And that is the feature of all great art. It's a rather inexplicable thing that has been well discussed yet never settled with any lasting certainty -- that certain works of art have a greater universal merit than do others. Like it or not, it seems a deep truism. I certainly cannot explain the phenomenon; if I could I would be a great artist, I suppose. But a certain body of work has earned itself a level of societal agreement of its excellence that proves extraordinary. It's not because people are told what to like. I can't explain it, but I'm glad it happens. It helps to unify humanity with a special bond that is good to have even though and especially because it does not conflict with our unique degrees of individuality. Much here remains contradictory and numinous, but that is much more human than full total agreement or full total disagreement. Let's just chalk this one up to the power of great art.


I tend to agree with the bolded part, but I still wonder exactly why. Why does "great" music appeal to both trained and untrained people? As I mentioned in a post above, I don't think that's the case with modern music.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Art Rock said:


> I am at the almost zero musical training end of the scale (I did take organ lessons as a teenager, and can/could read music). I've never read anything about music theory (even simple things), because it does not interest me. I have been listening to music as one of my main hobbies for 50 years now (classical for over 35 years). I am satisfied with just listening and appreciating the music (or not). *Things like [music theory details (mmsbls clarification)] not only mean literally nothing to me - I very much doubt that learning things like this would really enhance my musical experience*....


I both agree and disagree with the bolded part. I agree that learning music theory may not cause you to enjoy works more, but for example, I know my daughter's experience is enhanced by her knowledge. Again, she might not enjoy the work on an aesthetic level more, but she appreciates the work more.


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

I am a formally trained musician with music degrees in composition from Bachelor's through Doctorate. I have taught music theory (harmony, counterpoint, structure and form: modal, tonal, and post-tonal), composition, bassoon, and topics such as orchestration at the university level for nearly thirty years. In addition, I was hired for my first paid gig as a bassoonist over thirty years ago and never looked back, having won auditions and been appointed to a number of professional orchestras since then. Indeed, I won a tenure-track position at a university school of music and received promotions through the rank of full professor. I am also a published and award-winning composer. 

Studying music is my lifelong occupation. It never stops; it seems there is no end to a deeper understanding of music. Also, I have never lost the love I hold for the earliest musical experiences I had that enthralled me. The deeper I dig, the more deeply I love music.


----------



## HenryPenfold (Apr 29, 2018)

mmsbls said:


> My daughter has suggested that we should take a few works and analyze them. I would select the parts I found very enjoyable *(not just melodies)*


I found this most interesting and highly germane.

Preconceived ideas about what appeals to the ear or brain?

Thinking about the words of Robert Simpson, the great musicologist, broadcaster/sound engineer/radio producer/symphonist &cetera, in my case I do not know the difference between a rising fifth and a rissole (for American readers, what Dr Simpson is referring to (a rissole) is a spiced [email protected]* (for American readers, in English, a [email protected] is not a derogative term for a homosexual, it's a cheap minced-meat patty seasoned with onions herbs and spices that poor people ate in years gone by when money was tight, as my family did - I fekkin hated them)).

What I mean by this, and why I call it a prejudice, is that when I listen to classical music works as a non-technical listener, responding more on the visceral and emotional plane rather than the cerebral, the parts (your term) that I find enjoyable are unlikely to be the ones I can whistle to and hum.

Why do we think, for example, the 'only' way to engage children in CM is through Carnival of the Animals and suchlike?

*fa ggot is banned in colonial non-standard American English. My friend is the owner of a fa ggot factory in Wales supplying fa ggots or [email protected] to British supermarkets.


----------



## PaulFranz (May 7, 2019)

Highly trained musicians grow up as untrained listeners, and youth is when our tastes are most permanently and emotionally etched into our psyches. In addition to that, most highly trained musicians that make any money deliberately make music for an audience that is not highly trained.


----------



## verandai (Dec 10, 2021)

I started taking piano lessons pretty young, but stayed on the practical side for quite long (I didn't have much interest on music theory etc). Only some years ago I started to develop a "late" interest. Then I started learning music theory and went to composing classes and workshops. 

I still like almost all of my favourite classical music works from 20-30 years ago! Some parts of them I can appreciate even more now, as I notice some details that I didn't realize before. But I think the general enjoyment of these works didn't change much.

But I can appreciate (and also like) some new works that I maybe wouldn't have without the education. Of course part of it could also be just a result of time (change of taste). But then I would dismiss of some of my former favourites, which happens very rarely at classical music for me.

My conclusion: I think it's very probable to enjoy classical music regardless of any theoretical knowledge - but this knowlegde probably enables a wider pallette to choose from. But what I'm sure of: playing an instrument definetly enhances the listening experience by improving the musical ear!


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I've been listening to music, and especially classical music, for 60 years or more. I can't live without it. I know a lot of music and for many works I am very familiar with numerous recordings. I am not musically trained although some members of the family I grew up in are. I do think performers and lay listeners can approach a piece differently. It seems often that the performers can tend to have stronger views on how a work should be played and may be less interested in new insights. I've also sometimes thought that trained musicians can form what are to me strange opinions about a piece or a composer through trusting their analyses rather than their ears! 

Even among mere listeners I may be a little unusual in that I don't go for concentrating on what I am hearing, what the composer is doing etc. I just let it sink in and often have no idea at all how a composer achieves what they do achieve. But this is an approach that has led to my finding a very wide range of music enjoyable and "meaningful". I believe that any piece that requires the listener to be musically trained is not good music!


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Enthusiast said:


> ...I've also sometimes thought that trained musicians can form what are to me strange opinions about a piece or a composer through trusting their analyses rather than their ears!


I suspect this has occurred, but I also believe trained musicians can enhance a work through their superior understanding of the score. 



> ...I believe that any piece that requires the listener to be musically trained is not good music!


On TC many have stated that certain modern or contemporary works require knowledge of music theory, but others have refuted that notion saying they, without such knowledge, have come to appreciate the works. Is there such music requiring special knowledge? If you mean some works could require knowledge to fully understand what is happening in the music, I'd guess that much classical music falls into that category. If you mean works that require knowledge to enjoy them, I'm not sure any such works written for public consumption exist.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

mmsbls said:


> I suspect this has occurred, but I also believe trained musicians can enhance a work through their superior understanding of the score.
> 
> 
> 
> On TC many have stated that certain modern or contemporary works require knowledge of music theory, but others have refuted that notion saying they, without such knowledge, have come to appreciate the works. Is there such music requiring special knowledge? If you mean some works could require knowledge to fully understand what is happening in the music, I'd guess that much classical music falls into that category. If you mean works that require knowledge to enjoy them, I'm not sure any such works written for public consumption exist.


One thing some here refuse to acknowledge is that we all have highly trained ears regardless of formal education. That's why Beethoven sounds good, but most traditional Indian and Chinese classical music can sound slightly weird and out-of-tune. And traditional west African drum music can sound like endless, boring thumping. Your ears start to work as soon as you are born, compiling a particular musical vocabulary unique to your particular environment. Some people are especially curious and open-minded, and willing to spend a few years exploring unfamiliar music until it becomes more familiar. Many scientists and doctors are like that, and often become fine amateur classical music players, or even composers. Others simply aren't interested. Neither approach is "correct".


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

mmsbls said:


> I suspect this has occurred, but I also believe trained musicians can enhance a work through their superior understanding of the score.
> 
> 
> 
> On TC many have stated that certain modern or contemporary works require knowledge of music theory, but others have refuted that notion saying they, without such knowledge, have come to appreciate the works. Is there such music requiring special knowledge? If you mean some works could require knowledge to fully understand what is happening in the music, I'd guess that much classical music falls into that category. If you mean works that require knowledge to enjoy them, I'm not sure any such works written for public consumption exist.


When I read someone saying that you need to be a musician to appreciate a contemporary piece, I just don't believe them. And anyway it is more often them saying "I'm an experienced musician and still couldn't find any merit in this music"! 

My "osmosis method" works very well with contemporary music. It might take some time: I listen a couple of times, expecting little from doing so, and then wait for the desire to hear the piece again to come. It is as if the piece(s) had "cooked" in my mind for a while and had then been ready: tasty and nourishing! Of course, some times I end up not liking the piece(s). 

BTW, I agree wholeheartedly that performers need to be accomplished musicians.


----------



## composingmusic (Dec 16, 2021)

mmsbls said:


> I suspect this has occurred, but I also believe trained musicians can enhance a work through their superior understanding of the score.
> 
> On TC many have stated that certain modern or contemporary works require knowledge of music theory, but others have refuted that notion saying they, without such knowledge, have come to appreciate the works. Is there such music requiring special knowledge? If you mean some works could require knowledge to fully understand what is happening in the music, I'd guess that much classical music falls into that category. If you mean works that require knowledge to enjoy them, I'm not sure any such works written for public consumption exist.


I do think having trained knowledge can enhance a listening experience. Personally I enjoy aurally picking apart how a piece is constructed. However, I don’t think it’s necessary for musical enjoyment, and I don’t think there is a single “correct” mode of listening. 

With contemporary music, I think sometimes a misconception arises because composers often speak more openly about how they constructed their music than they often did in the past. Sometimes with serialism in particular I get the impression that people think you’re meant to be hearing the pitch transformations or following the row form somehow. While tracking a row form through a piece can be interesting, I don’t think that’s necessary to the enjoyment of the work, and the point of the row form is not for the listener to track what’s happening in that sense – instead, the point was to create a type of structure that can help a composer organise their piece. This is also something that I think applies to Xenakis’ pitch organisation – the listener would not be able to tell that the material is stochastically generated without knowing this beforehand.

Some of the pitch structures may well be audible in serial music, but I don’t think it’s necessary for the audience member to know exactly what processes are being used to enjoy the music. Instead, you’ll get a sense of some of the ways maybe certain pitches are or aren’t emphasized. Texture, timbre, gesture, and other musical elements will also play a big role in the listener’s experience.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

composingmusic said:


> ...With contemporary music, I think sometimes a misconception arises because composers often speak more openly about how they constructed their music than they often did in the past. Sometimes with serialism in particular I get the impression that people think you’re meant to be hearing the pitch transformations or following the row form somehow. While tracking a row form through a piece can be interesting, I don’t think that’s necessary to the enjoyment of the work, and the point of the row form is not for the listener to track what’s happening in that sense – instead, the point was to create a type of structure that can help a composer organise their piece. This is also something that I think applies to Xenakis’ pitch organisation – the listener would not be able to tell that the material is stochastically generated without knowing this beforehand....


When I first started to listen to serial music and read about inversions and retrograde inversions, I thought I would not be able to recognize them and marveled that others could. A TC reply to my questions saying people, in general, are not "expected to recognize" such rows made me feel better. I still struggle to hear many parts of music especially in ensembles.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

mmsbls said:


> I suspect this has occurred, but I also believe trained musicians can enhance a work through their superior understanding of the score.
> 
> 
> 
> On TC many have stated that certain modern or contemporary works require knowledge of music theory, but others have refuted that notion saying they, without such knowledge, have come to appreciate the works. Is there such music requiring special knowledge? If you mean some works could require knowledge to fully understand what is happening in the music, I'd guess that much classical music falls into that category. If you mean works that require knowledge to enjoy them, I'm not sure any such works written for public consumption exist.


For me, there are three parts to the appreciation of music, any kind of music, entertainment music or CM.

1. Appreciating the score in parts while initially listening. How the composer composed it. Looking for its history, originality, effectiveness.

2. Exploring and performing/interpreting. Appreciating how the ideas are related to other works I've known and pieces I play.

3. Listening to favorite/excellent performances of it as a whole work (of art).

For me, the first two are slightly more important than the last one, if approaches to all the wide variety of music can be reliably ranked.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Luchesi said:


> For me, there are three parts to the appreciation of music, any kind of music, entertainment music or CM.
> 
> 1. Appreciating the score in parts while initially listening. How the composer composed it. Looking for its history, originality, effectiveness.
> 
> ...


Let me give an example from classical flute music, which without being arrogant, I am probably more familiar with that than many, as I spend a great deal of time listening to and playing it every day, and have been doing so since I was 10.
One of my favorite contemporary pieces is Toru Takemitsu's 1991 trio for flute, viola and harp, entitled, And Then I Knew 'Twas Wind. Many of you will immediately notice that the instrumentation is the same as in Claude Debussy's Sonata for Flute, Viola and Harp, one of that composer's great late masterpieces.
This morning I was listening to the Takemitsu on youtube from a live performance by the Ensemble Intercontemporain. One of the commenters to that video said that although the instruments are the same as in the Debussy trio, the two pieces are otherwise unrelated. Well, that ain't the case. Not only does the Takemitsu include at least one obvious direct quote of an important motif from the Debussy, there are other more subtle references and relationships throughout. I very much doubt the professional composers reading this will disagree with me. But I also doubt that enthusiast and other experienced non-musician listeners would be unable to hear it.
Why can so many of us hear this so easily and that youtube commenter can't? Because we've listened to both pieces, and/or many other similar pieces, a lot, and for many years. (I've never played either piece, btw.) He or she obviously hasn't. I likely would have missed the connection at first, too.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

fluteman said:


> Let me give an example from classical flute music, which without being arrogant, I am probably more familiar with that than many, as I spend a great deal of time listening to and playing it every day, and have been doing so since I was 10.
> One of my favorite contemporary pieces is Toru Takemitsu's 1991 trio for flute, vola and harp, entitled, And Then I Knew 'Twas Wind. Many of you will immediately notice that the instrumentation is the same as in Claude Debussy's Sonata for Flute, Viola and Harp, one of that composer's great late masterpieces.
> This morning I was listening to the Takemitsu on youtube from a live performance by the Ensemble Intercontemporain. One of the commenters to that video said that although the instruments are the same as in the Debussy trio, the two pieces are otherwise unrelated. Well, that ain't the case. Not only does the Takemitsu include at least one obvious direct quote of an important motif from the Debussy, there are other more subtle references and relationships throughout. I very much doubt the professional composers reading this will disagree with me. But I also doubt that enthusiast and other experienced non-musician listeners would be unable to hear it.
> Why can so many of us hear this so easily and that youtube commenter can't? Because we've listened to both pieces, and/or many other similar pieces, a lot, and for many years. (I've never played either piece, btw.) He or she obviously hasn't. I likely would have missed the connection at first, too.


Repetition is so important. I think of it as wiring pathways in the brain to pleasure, so that if future signals are similar the pleasure will be felt, and radiate into the brain centers/body.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

What I'm describing above is what seems to be happening when you're performing music and every change in the music brings you a little bit of pleasure, so that the whole work will really lift you higher, but it comes in those small bits.

So I guess the listener can be entertained by this exactly, but it doesn't seem to be every change in the music for them.


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

mmsbls said:


> On TC many have stated that certain modern or contemporary works require knowledge of music theory....


Have they? Indeed? Care to link a couple examples?

I certainly would not assert that appreciation of any music requires any formal training. 

All that is required are some open ears, curiosity, and a willingness to have new musical experiences.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Knorf said:


> Have they? Indeed? Care to link a couple examples?
> 
> I certainly would not assert that appreciation of any music requires any formal training.
> 
> All that is required are some open ears, curiosity, and a willingness to have new musical experiences.


Those TC members who said modern music requires music theory knowledge were all criticizing the music for being nothing but complex. They disliked modern music. I agree with you and those members who replied saying no formal training was necessary to appreciate modern music.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

mmsbls said:


> Those TC members who said modern music requires music theory knowledge were all criticizing the music for being nothing but complex. They disliked modern music. I agree with you and those members who replied saying no formal training was necessary to appreciate modern music.


In reality, though I'm not about to go down this road here again, the 20th century (and beginning at the end of the 19th) saw two profound changes in western music. The first was an influx of ideas from the music of non-western cultures, and the second was an influx of ideas resulting from advances in technology, especially amplification and recording, and in the second half of the 20th century, electronics. In both cases, classical music arguably lagged behind certain genres of popular music in some ways, but in time we heard these influences in all sorts of western music.

In the end the question is, as Knorf says, do you have open ears, curiosity, and a willingness to have new musical experiences? Perhaps we all have our (differing) limits in how open-eared and curious we are willing to be. But claims that 20th or now 21st century music as a whole is somehow inherently or objectively unnatural or inferior to European music of the 18th and 19th centuries, claims that many here have made, are no more than attempts by these claimants to explain away their own, subjective, listening limitations as an inherent feature of what they are listening to.


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

Oddly enough, I've taught many different college courses, but for some reason never simple Music Appreciation 101. I actually kind of wanted to, but my thinking was to totally invert the way usually it is taught, either starting with antiquity and proceeding more or less chronologically (which I dislike as an approach), or starting with very familiar music and moving from there (an approach that has some justification.)

I'd rather upend the tables of the proverbial money changers, and start with something like John Cage's _4'33"_. Maybe even perform it for the class. Then move forward with classical traditions that are very, very far in many ways (but never all ways) from western music, with its conventions of melodic structure, scales, and harmony that everyone takes for granted. Something like Tuvan throat singing, Beijing Opera, Gagaku, Yoruban polyrhythms.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Knorf said:


> Oddly enough, I've taught many different college courses, but for some reason never simple Music Appreciation 101. I actually kind of wanted to, but my thinking was to totally invert the way usually it is taught, either starting with antiquity and proceeding more or less chronologically (which I dislike as an approach), or starting with very familiar music and moving from there (an approach that has some justification.)
> 
> I'd rather upend the tables of the proverbial money changers, and start with something like John Cage's _4'33"_. Maybe even perform it for the class. Then move forward with classical traditions that are very, very far in many ways (but never all ways) from western music, with its conventions of melodic structure, scales, and harmony that everyone takes for granted. Something like Tuvan throat singing, Beijing Opera, Gagaku, Yoruban polyrhythms.


On TC, most of us deeply appreciate the superb use of language by Shakespeare. We learn English as a child. We slowly use it to express ourselves. It feels like a part of us. But for a foreign speaker just learning English trying to appreciate his sonnets, how does that work, and how long is the process?

- Sometime too hot the eye of heaven shines,
And often is his gold complexion dimm’d;
And every fair from fair sometime declines,
By chance or nature’s changing course untrimm’d -

Now, getting that much out of a symphony, quartet etc. would probably (logically) require the same amount of time and familiarity with the ‘language’. So, how does that all fall into place for a music appreciation student. It might be too much to ask for in a classroom. There’s so little time.

I’m biased because I disliked the Music Appreciation 101 I took. I kept thinking, what has this got to do with the actual music (the notes and their combinations)?


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Luchesi said:


> On TC, most of us deeply appreciate the superb use of language by Shakespeare. We learn English as a child. We slowly use it to express ourselves. It feels like a part of us. But for a foreign speaker just learning English trying to appreciate his sonnets, how does that work, and how long is the process?
> 
> - Sometime too hot the eye of heaven shines,
> And often is his gold complexion dimm’d;
> ...


In fact, a foreign speaker might learn English fluently, yet never fully appreciate Shakespeare. I took a college course devoted entirely to James Joyce's novel Ulysses. I discovered that the main reason that novel is hard going is that I was born long after 1904, and I was not born and raised in Dublin. Numerous references that anyone in that time and place who was reasonably literate and well-educated would understand immediately had to be explained at length. Therefore, I could never have the experience that such a reader who could keep pace with Joyce could have. Fortunately, I already had enough of an interest and background in British literature and history, that now and then one of Joyce's subtle jokes or ironic asides hit home right away. But those were exceptions.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

fluteman said:


> In fact, a foreign speaker might learn English fluently, yet never fully appreciate Shakespeare. I took a college course devoted entirely to James Joyce's novel Ulysses. I discovered that the main reason that novel is hard going is that I was born long after 1904, and I was not born and raised in Dublin. Numerous references that anyone in that time and place who was reasonably literate and well-educated would understand immediately had to be explained at length. Therefore, I could never have the experience that such a reader who could keep pace with Joyce could have. Fortunately, I already had enough of an interest and background in British literature and history, that now and then one of Joyce's subtle jokes or ironic asides hit home right away. But those were exceptions.


I can usually slow down and figure out what a sentence in Shakespeare means. But succinctness (and rhyming)? I would need 2 or more sentences to put it into my own dull words! 

This reminds me of Mozart, containing more than one good idea everywhere you look in the structure, the craftsmanship.


----------



## eljr (Aug 8, 2015)

composingmusic said:


> I find the field of music psychology fascinating and it’s always really interesting to hear how different people perceive music.


Indeed. I am taking a course in just that, neuroscience of music.


----------



## brpaulandrew (Sep 30, 2011)

Living in St. Louis for a number of years, I greatly enjoyed attending performances by the St. Louis Symphony Orchestra. Most of the concerts I purchased tickets were of works that I already knew and just wanted to hear live. But if there was something big and splashy like Holst's "Planets" or when the symphony did a live recording of "Carmina Burana", I would take my partner along. I have a degree in music and continue to learn about music as the years go by, but my partner was uninterested in learning about the works. He just enjoyed the visceral experience of the performance washing over him. So, we both enjoyed ourselves in differing ways.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Reading about music is comparable to having a guide book when visiting a place as a tourist. It makes sense to rely on expert information in terms of using resources (time, money) and it doesn't rule out more individually directed exploration once you get a general feel for the place.

With knowledge comes the appreciation of different points of view and development of critical thinking skiils. Even among experts, there will be areas of consensus and difference of opinion.

The most recent book I've read was the _Cambridge Companion to Liszt_. Books like this are aimed at a broad audience, musicians and untrained listeners a like. As one of the latter, I got a lot out of it. I initially read the book and then used it as a guide to the music by Liszt that I already knew. I also listened to some of his pieces for the first time.

Obviously, the experts who contributed to this book will know the subject inside out, they can pull apart a piece the way a mechanic does with a car. Although I can't and don't need to do that, I think their writing can enhance my appreciation of the music.

I think that knowing about a few aspects related to the piece, such as its inspiration, aims, and aesthetics, can be useful. Technique isn't an end in itself, but a way of realising these goals. In terms of modern and contemporary music, interviews with composers can be useful. Explaining how they aimed to reach their goals, composers can act as the intermediary between the work and the listener.

I conveyed some of the process of revisiting Liszt with the aid of the book below. I used the hard copy but a few of its chapters are available on google books.









Franz Liszt


Yes, never knew he met Beethoven and studied w Salieri The authoritative biography by Alan Walker mentions a possible meeting with Beethoven when Liszt was still a child but the author says there is no known way to prove that it happened - and that it probably didn't!!




www.talkclassical.com


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

My musical knowledge only extends as far being a moderately competent rock drummer who used to play in a cover band at parties around LA decades ago.

I have a very good friend who graduated from Berklee, and who is now a top LA studio musician, and arranger and composer for the TV and movie business. I would bet his knowledge of theory is greater than the vast majority of people here, and probably right up the with the most knowledgeable people here. 

Despite those differences between our levels of knowledge, our tastes in music overlap almost exactly. 

Classical - mostly post 1950's, and 2nd Viennese school.
Jazz - fusion, post bop, M-BASE, chamber jazz, avant-garde
Prog - classic prog, Canterbury, avant-prog, Zeuhl, prog-metal


----------



## Malx (Jun 18, 2017)

Sid James said:


> Reading about music is comparable to having a guide book when visiting a place as a tourist. It makes sense to rely on expert information in terms of using resources (time, money) and it doesn't rule out more individually directed exploration once you get a general feel for the place.


I can get your point to a degree, but when listening to music that is new to me I always try and listen a few times to a piece before reading anything about it. That way I feel I form my impressions of the work rather being told what I should make of it. 
After my initial reaction I am happy to read a bit about the composers thoughts, intentions or whatever but I don't want to be told by a critic or whoever what I should be listening for and what it should mean.
I will add I have no formal musical training either practical or theoretical, the music has to touch me first either emotionally, cerebrally or both, then I'll investigate.


----------



## composingmusic (Dec 16, 2021)

eljr said:


> Indeed. I am taking a course in just that, neuroscience of music.


How fascinating!


----------



## composingmusic (Dec 16, 2021)

Malx said:


> I can get your point to a degree, but when listening to music that is new to me I always try and listen a few times to a piece before reading anything about it. That way I feel I form my impressions of the work rather being told what I should make of it.
> After my initial reaction I am happy to read a bit about the composers thoughts, intentions or whatever but I don't want to be told by a critic or whoever what I should be listening for and what it should mean.
> I will add I have no formal musical training either practical or theoretical, the music has to touch me first either emotionally, cerebrally or both, then I'll investigate.


This brings up another really interesting point too. Knowing about the historical context of a work and the general musical atmosphere of the time does influence one’s perception of a work. If there’s a personal aspect, for instance if the work is by a composer you know personally, or someone you have a personal connection to in some way, that will probably also affect the perception of the work in some way.


----------



## PeterKC (Dec 30, 2016)

Art Rock said:


> I am at the almost zero musical training end of the scale (I did take organ lessons as a teenager, and can/could read music). I've never read anything about music theory (even simple things), because it does not interest me. I have been listening to music as one of my main hobbies for 50 years now (classical for over 35 years). I am satisfied with just listening and appreciating the music (or not). Things like
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well Art, it is fascinating to me how much of us are so similar in are interests. I started listening avidly to classical music at the age of 15. You can imagine how odd my friends in my Nebraska town thought me. I sang in school choirs and went to concerts when they were available. Not having much understanding of the dots has not hindered my curiosity in learning about melody, tonal structure, harmonics different tonal systems etc. I am amazed at those who can play an instrument well. They I am sure have a very different and visceral understanding of the sense of music than do I. I too, Art, love photography and have sold a number of images. Now that I am 67 my life seems to have come alive. I am reading things I never thought I would get through, I am gardening, learning to paint, and thanks to this forum, learning so much more about composers through the appreciation of all here. I am grateful for everything.









First attempts :-0


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Simon Moon said:


> My musical knowledge only extends as far being a moderately competent rock drummer who used to play in a cover band at parties around LA decades ago.
> 
> I have a very good friend who graduated from Berklee, and who is now a top LA studio musician, and arranger and composer for the TV and movie business. I would bet his knowledge of theory is greater than the vast majority of people here, and probably right up the with the most knowledgeable people here.
> 
> ...


You think you get as much out of music as he does. How would we determine such a thing? 

Maybe it's not worth the time and effort to learn the details of scores and music theory. There's so little benefit. I've never asked myself the question, because I suspect I started too young. ..But a score is such a beautiful thing to behold.


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

Luchesi said:


> You think you get as much out of music as he does. How would we determine such a thing?
> 
> Maybe it's not worth the time and effort to learn the details of scores and music theory. There's so little benefit. I've never asked myself the question, because I suspect I started too young. ..But a score is such a beautiful thing to behold.


I am pretty sure I don't get as out of music as he does.

But, he tends to be surprised as to what I am able to pick up and discern, despite my lack of theory.

And, I am not sure if he gets more emotional content from the music than I do.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Simon Moon said:


> I am pretty sure I don't get as out of music as he does.
> 
> But, he tends to be surprised as to what I am able to pick up and discern, despite my lack of theory.
> 
> And, I am not sure if he gets more emotional content from the music than I do.


I know my daughter appreciates parts of the music more than I do. I remember listening to a Mozart piece, and she remarked on a quick transition from major to minor and back to major. Still, I doubt she received more esthetic enjoyment from the work. 

I think it may be similar to understanding the physics of rainbows and enjoying the beauty. Anyone can look and enjoy the beauty, but there's something marvelous about understanding how a simple concept such as refraction creates the beautiful colors.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Luchesi said:


> You think you get as much out of music as he does. How would we determine such a thing?
> 
> Maybe it's not worth the time and effort to learn the details of scores and music theory. There's so little benefit. I've never asked myself the question, because I suspect I started too young. ..But a score is such a beautiful thing to behold.


Professional conductors need scores. They will study scores so thoroughly as to essentially memorize them, yet still usually have them on the podium, as it is difficult to remember every detail precisely every performance. Orchestra players know even the best conductors will get lost at some point and are prepared to stay the course until they get back. But famous piano and violin soloists have their repertoire memorized and almost always play without scores. Evgeny Kissin, the famous Russian pianist, goes on international tours with no scores in his luggage. And, as I've said before, such famous stars as Luciano Pavarotti and Paul McCartney couldn't read music at all.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

fluteman said:


> Professional conductors need scores. They will study scores so thoroughly as to essentially memorize them, yet still usually have them on the podium, as it is difficult to remember every detail precisely every performance. Orchestra players know even the best conductors will get lost at some point and are prepared to stay the course until they get back. But famous piano and violin soloists have their repertoire memorized and almost always play without scores. Evgeny Kissin, the famous Russian pianist, goes on international tours with no scores in his luggage. And, as I've said before, such famous stars as Luciano Pavarotti and Paul McCartney couldn't read music at all.


You don't have the image of the concerto score in your mind when you play?

You remember by the harmony, or just the sounds?


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

Luchesi said:


> You don't have the image of the concerto score in your mind when you play?
> 
> You remember by the harmony, or just the sounds?


Interesting. I'd be hard pressed to say exactly what I do remember or what the thought process is when playing without the dots. It's even worse when improvising as it happens instantaneously...or at least it feels that way.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Luchesi said:


> You don't have the image of the concerto score in your mind when you play?
> 
> You remember by the harmony, or just the sounds?


Of course. For many of the warm up tunes I play, which include orchestral solos, I've never even seen the score. Or at least, haven't looked at it in years. As a young child, starting on the piano, I was taught that when memorizing a piece, never rely on "finger" or muscle memory, or visual memory. Rely first and foremost on learning by ear. Have you ever seen piano recitals with young children? So many of them lose their place and have to start the whole piece over. That's because they haven't yet learned how to learn music by ear and are still preoccupied with learning how to read music, which is also an important threshold skill but not the crucial one.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Malx said:


> I can get your point to a degree, but when listening to music that is new to me I always try and listen a few times to a piece before reading anything about it. That way I feel I form my impressions of the work rather being told what I should make of it.
> After my initial reaction I am happy to read a bit about the composers thoughts, intentions or whatever but I don't want to be told by a critic or whoever what I should be listening for and what it should mean.


I've always seen gaining knowledge like this to enhance my understanding and therefore enjoyment, not detract from it. I think it would be very hard to be influenced, let alone controlled, by what I'm reading and the main reason for that is what I said about critical thinking. 

The more you learn about something, even if it's just a hobby, makes you realise how complicated it can be. That works against any sort of threat of taking in what someone writes as being the whole truth. In any case, if there is bias involved on part of the writer, wide reading can make you aware of that also. It strengthens logic, a big part of which is being able to question your own thinking.

When I started listening to classical, there wasn't any internet, and books such as biographical dictionaries and collections of essays helped me to get a grasp of the area. I might have been a blank slate right at the start, but once I listened to those first classical pieces, I was starting to build up background knowledge. I also developed an interest in history, art and literature which fed into my experiences with music.

To use the example of Liszt, my initial experiences where with his most popular works (e.g. _Les Preludes_, a few of the rhapsodies, the concertos,_ Liebestraum_, etc.). I read about his life, and remember watching a documentary which featured extracts from the _Faust Symphony_ and _Sonata in B minor_. It would be many years before I listened to those in full, and then came more of his piano music including the Pilgrimage series.

That covers a span of about 40 years, and by reading this book, I focused on music I knew and also dipped into some music I didn't know. After decades of some sort of familiarity with Liszt's music, I wasn't a blank slate, that wasn't possible. What does tend to happen is that my own experiences and preconceptions get challenged when I devote time and energy to a process like this. It's within that space, which I create myself, that I can branch out as a listener.



> I will add I have no formal musical training either practical or theoretical, the music has to touch me first either emotionally, cerebrally or both, then I'll investigate.


Same here, which relates to what I was just saying. I have to have some basic connection - call it interest, enjoyment, engagement, whatever - to go further than the most basic sort of experience. 

There are many composers or even whole areas of music (in terms of for example era or genre) that I have little or no interest in, and my exploration of these over the decades has lessened and isn't likely to get wider. I can see little sense in forcing myself to gain appreciation of something which I don't enjoy in the first place.

My explorations are entirely self directed, and unlike someone who works in music and will inevitably need to fulfill obligations not related to their preferences, as a hobbyist I have a free hand in deciding how to spend my time and effort on music that I enjoy. I'm basically the curator of my own experiences.

Going back to my travel analogy, if you do a tour of a city, you can always go back after that and explore yourself. You might be interested in certain aspects of this place, like culture, the food or the night life, so you might choose a tour that covers these to begin with. It all starts from what you enjoy in the first place. I see it as providing some sort of basis, because you don't need to reinvent the wheel when so many have been there before you, and it can also help in you taking off in other directions.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

mikeh375 said:


> Interesting. I'd be hard pressed to say exactly what I do remember or what the thought process is when playing without the dots. It's even worse when improvising as it happens instantaneously...or at least it feels that way.


I get you. 'Very descriptive. Thanks


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

fluteman said:


> Of course. For many of the warm up tunes I play, which include orchestral solos, I've never even seen the score. Or at least, haven't looked at it in years. As a young child, starting on the piano, I was taught that when memorizing a piece, never rely on "finger" or muscle memory, or visual memory. Rely first and foremost on learning by ear. Have you ever seen piano recitals with young children? So many of them lose their place and have to start the whole piece over. That's because they haven't yet learned how to learn music by ear and are still preoccupied with learning how to read music, which is also an important threshold skill but not the crucial one.


Yes I know. It's very complicated. 
But where the memory might not be adequate, the muscle memory of short excerpts can sometimes fill in. It's quite a good and unique feeling!

My wife agrees that when she wants to splash out a painting of our mountain out back, it's the short excerpts (primal muscle memory) which are most memorable.


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

Although I have studied music formally since 1986, I have never thought that as a listener I would somehow be better than those who have not studied music. 

I have not studied the art of painting but would not consider myself a worse visitor of art galleries compared to those who can actually paint something themselves. Everyone has their own unique view on matters and one is not better than the other.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Luchesi said:


> Yes I know. It's very complicated.
> But where the memory might not be adequate, the muscle memory of short excerpts can sometimes fill in. It's quite a good and unique feeling!
> 
> My wife agrees that when she wants to splash out a painting of our mountain out back, it's the short excerpts (primal muscle memory) which are most memorable.


With respect to music, I respectfully can't agree. The most primal and natural form of music making is singing. As children usually start singing naturally before any training, it is no great issue to teach young singers to learn music by ear. They are doing it already. Learning solfège, on the other hand, takes training and practice. It is no accident that a famous popular songwriter and singer like Paul McCartney or an opera star like Luciano Pavarotti couldn't read music. It wasn't a needed skill for them.

Musical scores are not a necessary part of making music. They are just a convenient way to make permanent detailed performance instructions, especially for dense and complex music with numerous small details that may be difficult to pick up completely just from listening to a performance. Thus, they are useful for classical music.

Muscle memory is needed for good technique, both vocal and instrumental. But ear training comes first, at least so I was taught, and so my experience has confirmed.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

fluteman said:


> With respect to music, I respectfully can't agree. The most primal and natural form of music making is singing. As children usually start singing naturally before any training, it is no great issue to teach young singers to learn music by ear. They are doing it already. Learning solfège, on the other hand, takes training and practice. It is no accident that a famous popular songwriter and singer like Paul McCartney or an opera star like Luciano Pavarotti couldn't read music. It wasn't a needed skill for them.
> 
> Musical scores are not a necessary part of making music. They are just a convenient way to make permanent detailed performance instructions, especially for dense and complex music with numerous small details that may be difficult to pick up completely just from listening to a performance. Thus, they are useful for classical music.
> 
> Muscle memory is needed for good technique, both vocal and instrumental. But ear training comes first, at least so I was taught, and so my experience has confirmed.


So many notes. I had the Rach 2 memorized, but only for a month or so, then it was lost. 

I suspect that my memory of the sounds of the note combinations would improve, because I sorta know what it feels like, the confidence and the control, but it takes so much time (I'm so slow). 
Shorter works that fit on two pages can be glanced at. That's all you need usually.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Luchesi said:


> So many notes. I had the Rach 2 memorized, but only for a month or so, then it was lost.
> 
> I suspect that my memory of the sounds of the note combinations would improve, because I sorta know what it feels like, the confidence and the control, but it takes so much time (I'm so slow).
> Shorter works that fit on two pages can be glanced at. That's all you need usually.


The American cellist Christine Walevska was a sensation when she was very young and made a series of concerto recordings for Philips in the 70s. But she found the life of a touring international concert soloist hard going and retired from it when still young. For example, she was not comfortable as a woman dining alone in restaurants in strange cities and drawing unwanted attention from male strangers. (Maybe that isn't as bad these days in most cosmopolitan cities.) 

But that wasn't the only reason she didn't like it. On one occasion, she had to stand in and perform one of the standard repertoire cello concertos on very short notice. She had played this concerto before, but not for over a year, and of course, she had to perform it from memory, as is the tradition for soloists. It was nerve-racking but she managed to do it. Eventually she married an Argentine and moved to and confined most of her music activities to that country.

Performing classical music on the highest level is a major technical, and even physical and emotional, challenge. No doubt it has to be a full-time job. No so for listening to and appreciating it, in my opinion.


----------



## justekaia (Jan 2, 2022)

i listen to music since i was born and to classical since the age of four. but i also listen to a lot of other music genres. all these experiences train your ears. but i also interview and correspond a lot with living composers and performers. i find that i can learn more from them than from abstract music theory. of course one needs to understand the basics that can be learned from books on music.the one i consider to be by far the greatest composer of all times (I.X.) did not study music theory, but reinvented composition.he is highly praised and idolised by today's composers but is not understood by the public.i therefore believe there is no answer to your question.there is a small portion of the audience which easily recognises exceptional talent and the others go with the flow. you might call this an elitist view, but my experience taught me that this is valid for most of the arts.who liked the rite of spring at the premiere?


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

justekaia said:


> who liked the rite of spring at the premiere?


At least as far as the music is concerned, Claude Debussy, for one. From what I've read (including the comments of Stravinsky himself on the subject) the problem at the premiere was more with Nijinsky's choreography. It turns out that Nijinsky, like Luciano Pavarotti and the Beatles, could not read music. Of course, the Rite is highly complicated rhythmically, and though Nijinsky tried to devise a method to learn the rhythms and convey them to the dancers, things were still a bit confused at the premiere. The result was some catcalls from the audience, though not the "riot" some secondary sources suggest. The music was quickly accepted, as it was for the Firebird and Petrouchka, but as a ballet, over the years is has often been performed with choreography supplied by others.

I think this is a good example of a point I tried to make, i.e., enjoying or appreciating music may not require technical expertise or special training, but performing it, or choreographing it, or dancing to it, may require a great deal of both.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

fluteman said:


> At least as far as the music is concerned, Claude Debussy, for one. From what I've read (including the comments of Stravinsky himself on the subject) the problem at the premiere was more with Nijinsky's choreography. It turns out that Nijinsky, like Luciano Pavarotti and the Beatles, could not read music. Of course, the Rite is highly complicated rhythmically, and though Nijinsky tried to devise a method to learn the rhythms and convey them to the dancers, things were still a bit confused at the premiere. The result was some catcalls from the audience, though not the "riot" some secondary sources suggest. The music was quickly accepted, as it was for the Firebird and Petrouchka, but as a ballet, over the years is has often been performed with choreography supplied by others.
> 
> I think this is a good example of a point I tried to make, i.e., enjoying or appreciating music may not require technical expertise or special training, but performing it, or choreographing it, or dancing to it, may require a great deal of both.


They have one less way of appreciating the music? Their brains are a little different, not wired like a musician. Such an early and specific wiring might be bad for the individual.. So many unknowns.
You and I might be sharper in other areas if we weren't wired like a musician. Would you give up your musical ability?


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Luchesi said:


> They have one less way of appreciating the music? Their brains are little different, not wired like a musician. Such an early and specific wiring might be bad for the individual.. So many unknowns.
> You and I might be sharper in other areas if we weren't wired like a musician. Would you give up your musical ability?


I was brought to art museums and classical music concerts from earliest childhood, and given books to read by Mark Twain, Joseph Conrad, Robert Louis Stevenson, Jack London etc. When I first saw the TV program Star Trek, I immediately saw the connection with Jules Verne's masterpiece, Twenty Thousand Leagues Under The Sea, which I had already read. But no one taught me wood carving, or how to tie a fishing lure or ride a horse. Was I better off than children who were taught those things? I genuinely do not know.

Stravinsky's masterpiece, The Rite of Spring, was well-received almost from the start, at least from a musical standpoint, despite its rocky premiere performance. Were audiences in early 20th century Paris better educated than we are today? Or at least than I am today? Again, I do not know.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

fluteman said:


> I was brought to art museums and classical music concerts from earliest childhood, and given books to read by Mark Twain, Joseph Conrad, Robert Louis Stevenson, Jack London etc. When I first saw the TV program Star Trek, I immediately saw the connection with Jules Verne's masterpiece, Twenty Thousand Leagues Under The Sea, which I had already read. But no one taught me wood carving, or how to tie a fishing lure or ride a horse. Was I better off than children who were taught those things? I genuinely do not know.
> 
> Stravinsky's masterpiece, The Rite of Spring, was well-received almost from the start, at least from a musical standpoint, despite its rocky premiere performance. Were audiences in early 20th century Paris better educated than we are today? Or at least than I am today? Again, I do not know.


If most of us can appreciate The Rite today, it means we're far advanced in the long road from William Byrd (my pick) to Stravinsky's most modern conception. We can find the significant parallels in them. We can really learn how music works on us (by reviewing from Byrd to, let's say, Berg..).
As a scientist, what more could I want?


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

fluteman said:


> I was brought to art museums and classical music concerts from earliest childhood, and given books to read by Mark Twain, Joseph Conrad, Robert Louis Stevenson, Jack London etc. When I first saw the TV program Star Trek, I immediately saw the connection with Jules Verne's masterpiece, Twenty Thousand Leagues Under The Sea, which I had already read. But no one taught me wood carving, or how to tie a fishing lure or ride a horse. Was I better off than children who were taught those things? I genuinely do not know.
> 
> Stravinsky's masterpiece, The Rite of Spring, was well-received almost from the start, at least from a musical standpoint, despite its rocky premiere performance. Were audiences in early 20th century Paris better educated than we are today? Or at least than I am today? Again, I do not know.


You were well exposed to the artistic view of life. How do kids have something like that today?

Here's a student's early film, on a shoe string budget, an attempt to connect a simple story tangled up within our deepest concerns, which are teleological.


----------



## That Guy Mick (May 31, 2020)

It is the duty of the trained musician to properly render notes, regardless of the amount of training; highly trained or otherwise. Valuation of music requires nothing, but an opinion. The music valuation of a highly trained musician is subordinate to the emotional valuation of others. Certainly there can be a consideration given to those who have more depth of understanding, but it has never directly impacted my appreciation, and I suppose that of most listeners.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

That Guy Mick said:


> It is the duty of the trained musician to properly render notes, regardless of the amount of training; highly trained or otherwise. Valuation of music requires nothing, but an opinion. The music valuation of a highly trained musician is subordinate to the emotional valuation of others. Certainly there can be a consideration given to those who have more depth of understanding, but it has never directly impacted my appreciation, and I suppose that of most listeners.


I suspect that young people who heard you say that would get misguided.


----------



## That Guy Mick (May 31, 2020)

Luchesi said:


> I suspect that young people who heard you say that would get misguided.


How so? Is it because they cannot comprehend the simplicity and obviousness of the sentiments, or that it ignores the principles of diversity, equity, and inclusion that permeate the modern educational system?


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

That Guy Mick said:


> How so? Is it because they cannot comprehend the simplicity and obviousness of the sentiments, or that it ignores the principles of diversity, equity, and inclusion that permeate the modern educational system?


You know kids, if you allow them an out to be laziness they'll go that way. It's natural.


----------



## That Guy Mick (May 31, 2020)

Luchesi said:


> You know kids, if you allow them an out to be laziness they'll go that way. It's natural.


Hello Luchesi, I'm still confused by your responses. Let me explain. 

Most people have a natural fascination with recreational music listening; a particular mode of existence in which laziness is the intended goal. I think it safe to say that the vast majority of parents understand this concept and not concerned that the child isn't reading scores when popping in their earbuds, but more so whether homework and chores are done. 

If you are speaking only about children who are learning an instrument and/or pursuing a music career or degree, then certainly laziness in that endeavor is not an asset. However, nothing in my previous statement indicated otherwise. It was pointed out that music is that person's "duty." 

But I understand that you want to encourage children and adults to take a greater interest in music beyond the recreational aspect. It is a noble and admirable goal. Perhaps you can expand on that? How will those chores increase enjoyment of lazy time?


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

That Guy Mick said:


> Hello Luchesi, I'm still confused by your responses. Let me explain.
> 
> Most people have a natural fascination with recreational music listening; a particular mode of existence in which laziness is the intended goal. I think it safe to say that the vast majority of parents understand this concept and not concerned that the child isn't reading scores when popping in their earbuds, but more so whether homework and chores are done.
> 
> ...


It can't be proven scientifically (because of all the problems with comparisons) but math education expands the brain and makes it better for other tasks.
Music education expands the brain and makes it better for other tasks - whether or not the student goes on in music.
Do you think kids today are getting enough music education?


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Luchesi said:


> It can't be proven scientifically (because of all the problems with comparisons) but math education expands the brain and makes it better for other tasks.
> Music education expands the brain and makes it better for other tasks - whether or not the student goes on in music.
> Do you think kids today are getting enough music education?


I think you make a good point, Luchesi, but I also think you are both ignoring That Guy Mick's question and changing the subject of this thread. Not that either is a high crime or misdemeanor.


----------



## That Guy Mick (May 31, 2020)

Luchesi said:


> It can't be proven scientifically (because of all the problems with comparisons) but math education expands the brain and makes it better for other tasks.
> Music education expands the brain and makes it better for other tasks - whether or not the student goes on in music.
> Do you think kids today are getting enough music education?


I can't offer an opinion on the amount of music education today because I'm only vaguely familiar with how much is offered. My 18 year old was not required to take any classes in high school, but endured some instruction when he was in elementary, and had a very brief relationship with a baritone horn in junior high. He has no interest in music and more public funds would be wasted on him. His intellect hasn't suffered any. He is finishing his second year of college at the age of 18 and plans to practice medicine. 

I recall having a similar music education many decades ago, and despised the singing and flutophone. Unlike my son, I enjoyed listening to the radio, and began collecting Rock albums when I was around ten years old. Had my parents purchased the drum set that I wanted, then I might have gone the way of music, but who knows. The public dime was certainly wasted on my music schooling. It only garnered my contempt, and if the goal was to nurture interest in music, then it failed miserably. After finishing a college Music Appreciation class the only benefit was that I was three semester hours closer to a degree. 

As a motivator, do you think that more people can be turned on to music by telling them about music theory, or linking them to actual performances on Youtube?


----------



## That Guy Mick (May 31, 2020)

fluteman said:


> I think you make a good point, Luchesi, but I also think you are both ignoring That Guy Mick's question and changing the subject of this thread. Not that either is a high crime or misdemeanor.


Yes, we certainly are digressing, aren't we? Most of these threads are intellectually hashed out within the first couple of pages, with only a trickle of novelty after that. I believe Luchesi is attempting a Socratic approach in an attempt to align my thoughts in a certain direction. What do you think?


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

That Guy Mick said:


> Yes, we certainly are digressing, aren't we? Most of these threads are intellectually hashed out within the first couple of pages, with only a trickle of novelty after that. I believe Luchesi is attempting a Socratic approach in an attempt to align my thoughts in a certain direction. What do you think?


That's Talk Classical! You can't expect some radical new idea after two pages of brilliant and thoughtful analysis, can you? Most of us are pretty set in our ideas at this point, and if you look at a bunch of old threads you'll begin to see that the topic of this thread has been raised here many times, in one form or another. Still, I liked the way you stated your point. Luchesi's point, well, I was familiar with that already, as he is with mine.


----------



## Coach G (Apr 22, 2020)

Re:Highly trained versus non-trained music appreciation

First of all, I don't like the term "Musical appreciation". It should be called "musical enjoyment" as music is supposed to be _enjoyed_. I think that with some effort anyone has the capacity to enjoy good music, fine art, and exceptional writing. There are some artists who have the discipline to become great at craftsmanship and others who have been blessed with a very creative mind that thinks and feels things in ways that are very profound. To have a "great" artist you need to have both: the creative mind, as well as the discipline, the skill, and the knowledge to make it happen. When the audience experiences such great art they may enjoy the creativity behind the work, but miss out on understanding the hard work that went into realizing the artistic vision unless they come to know at least a little bit about the mechanics involved.


----------

