# intellectual issues in listening to classical music



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I know people will want to debate these things, but for now I just hope to make a list of the issues that people debate over and over on sites like talkclassical. Here is a partial list to get us started: 

- the relative greatnesses and pleasures and merits of various works or composers or performers or recordings 

- whether "greatness" is a real thing 

- whether and why classical music might be dying 

- whether contemporary music is as good as the music of the past 

- which contemporary music is "truly contemporary" 

- what terms like "atonal" and "12-tone" mean and to which composers or works they apply 

- whether the biographical details of a composer's or performer's life matter when listening to music 

- what actually happened in those biographies 

I'm sure there are many more. What am I missing?


----------



## Guest (Oct 13, 2015)

The extent to which the "emotional content" of music is "in" the music.

[What is this compilation for, science?]


----------



## Dim7 (Apr 24, 2009)

MacLeod said:


> The extent to which the "emotional content" of music is "in" the music.


Or anything "extramusical", not necessarily "emotion".


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

MacLeod said:


> The extent to which the "emotional content" of music is "in" the music.
> 
> [What is this compilation for, science?]


Great addition to the list!

As to what it's for, I don't know. As a joke, I will say it's to make sure I've made up my mind about all these things in order to be sure that I'm right. But really, I don't know.

I didn't and don't come here to fight, but I've found myself in so many fights. At least half of the fault is in myself, of course.


----------



## Guest (Oct 13, 2015)

science said:


> At least half of the fault is in myself, of course.


It might not be...it could be 'extra-science'!


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

MacLeod said:


> It might not be...it could be 'extra-science'!


I think I've long had an ideal community in mind, and in some ways talkclassical has been close to that, but in others not so close, and I've been angry when I saw people actively preventing it from becoming the community I would've loved to have. Now I don't mean it's not been great, because it has; I just mean that it hasn't been perfectly ideal in all ways. And I've been angry about that. Now I'm sad rather than angry, and I hope it stays that way because sad posts will probably not get me banned. Anyway, that's all personal and ridiculous. In my real life, I'm a very funny guy, because I believe life sucks so much that you cannot take it seriously, the horror and injustice would crush anyone who tries to be both honest and serious about it. We need humor to relieve a little of our pain and disappointment, to help us shake off some of our pretensions. Music is one of the best parts of life though, up there with nature (when it doesn't sicken or kill us) and good human companionship and good food.

Anyway, I don't know. I guess we have to fight, because there is virtual-metaphorical turf at stake, and to some degree there is actually money at stake behind some of these issues in real life.

And since we apparently, I wonder what the issues are.


----------



## Dim7 (Apr 24, 2009)

science said:


> I believe life sucks so much that you cannot take it seriously, the horror and injustice would crush anyone who tries to be both honest and serious about it. We need humor to relieve a little of our pain and disappointment, to help us shake off some of our pretensions.


W o r  d !


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

- whether popularity has any relationship with quality

- whether quality can be considered objectively

- the relevance of wider social, cultural and economic factors to the creation of music

- how the beginner should approach classical music


----------



## helenora (Sep 13, 2015)

Nereffid said:


> - whether popularity has any relationship with quality
> 
> - whether quality can be considered objectively
> 
> ...


great addition to the list and I like the thread. Only one "but": about "should" in beginner's approach to classical music...why can't this "beginner" approach it by his own "approach" and ways.....and as we know there many various ways in approaching anything.......should we instead say "the beginner should approach it as he wants and he feels it should be approached".

and I see "a beginner" here is seen as an adult for it's an adult who already unlearned how to learn anything in a natural way, so he needs all these approaches, techniques, methods. While a child on the opposite doesn't want, doesn't need all these crutches as he still knows how to follow his guts.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

helenora said:


> great addition to the list and I like the thread. Only one "but": about "should" in beginner's approach to classical music...why can't this "beginner" approach it by his own "approach" and ways.....and as we know there many various ways in approaching anything.......should we instead say "the beginner should approach it as he wants and he feels it should be approached".


I'm totally with you on this, actually. But not everyone is (including various beginners who post here looking for pointers).


----------



## manyene (Feb 7, 2015)

Science: I take a very pragmatic, practical and not very intellectual stance on the issue of approaching classical music. Personally I had no problems with getting into classical music as I grew up in a household where both parents were keen and had recordings of standard repertoire which I just assimilated as I grew up. I was lucky; many young people today just don't get the opportunity because it is beyond their ken, and there is the additional problem of their peer group very often discouraging them from making such an investigation. One of the saddest items in recent years in the UK was the news that a shop threatened by young hooligans was playing classical music to drive them away. 

So where do we start? Certainly not by intellectualising what is simply a pleasurable experience. The recent BBC Ten Pieces experiment, exposing primary school children to the most immediately attractive classical music, is one such attempt, bringing together visual as well as sonic elements, and encouraging kids to investigate classical music for themselves. Above all, we must avoid more off-putting elements, such as technical analysis or discussion about what genre the music occupies. That can come later. So far as this country is concerned, we have lost roughly 2 to 3 generations of young people, and very slow progress is being made in a few centres via such projects as In Harmony at Liverpool, just five years old and flourishing. But there is a long way to go.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Another issue, one that particularly interests me, is whether classical music--indeed all music, even all the arts--is/are currently in a state of stasis. If so, how and why? And how long might it last?


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Is absolute instrumental music (that is, music without programmatic content or titles) capable of conveying meaning, and if so, how is this accomplished?


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

Do composers have an obligation to try to please listeners?


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

Does/should the perceived quality of recordings influence one's judgment of composers' works?


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

Does Classical Music in any way relate to cultural or moral superiority that extends beyond the music itself? 
Does litsening to it make you a better person?


----------



## helenora (Sep 13, 2015)

EdwardBast said:


> Is absolute instrumental music (that is, music without programmatic content or titles) capable of conveying meaning, and if so, how is this accomplished?


why not to ask it a bit differently? Is a listener capable of perceiving it /meaning/ through a given composition?


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

My only concern (well, not really) is that an increasing portion of today's namby-pamby world influences classical music to such a degree, that it dumbs it down to pablum lite. "Mozart for the Womb" accelerated.

Where's B.A. Zimmermann when yuh need him?


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

When a composer has made a composition, what has he made? How does it relate to what a performer creates when he plays the composition? 

When someone hears some music, or reads a score, what are the principles which he should employ to successfully appreciate the music he's hearing or reading?


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

science said:


> I know people will want to debate these things, but for now I just hope to make a list of the issues that people debate over and over on sites like talkclassical. Here is a partial list to get us started:
> 
> - the relative greatnesses and pleasures and merits of various works or composers or performers or recordings, (and)
> whether "greatness" is a real thing


...or whether 'greatness' is a worthy thing, or whether (to a feminist) it represents the ideology of male "genius" as an icon of repression, or if it represents a cliché, or stops art from progressing, or if 'greatness' itself is symptomatic of art 'frozen in time' in museums...



> - whether and why classical music might be dying...


 for the reasons above;



> - whether contemporary music is as good as the music of the past


 against which 'greatness' always stands as a static defense of tradition



> - which contemporary music is "truly contemporary"


 which is an attempt to use the 'greatness' mindset to authenticate other music



> - what terms like "atonal" and "12-tone" mean and to which composers or works they apply


 which boils down to semantics



> - whether the biographical details of a composer's or performer's life matter when listening to music


 as if music was some objective thing not created by human beings, but remains a Platonic ideal for the literal-minded



> - what actually happened in those biographies


 which will be pulled out as ammo if biographical details are used to deride music somebody likes



> I'm sure there are many more. What am I missing?


They are all expressions of primates exerting dominance behavior so they can win. Eek! OoK!


----------



## Gaspard de la Nuit (Oct 20, 2014)

I don't think it's something that's debated per se, but one issue I think about and I think informs discussions to a certain extent is the boundary between what is considered classical music and what isn't.....


----------



## manyene (Feb 7, 2015)

Strange Magic said:


> Another issue, one that particularly interests me, is whether classical music--indeed all music, even all the arts--is/are currently in a state of stasis. If so, how and why? And how long might it last?


No - the return to tonality, whether minimalist or progressive, could adduced as evidence of movement over the past 30 years or so. Not all of it necessarily 'derivative'.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

manyene said:


> No - the return to tonality, whether minimalist or progressive, could adduced as evidence of movement over the past 30 years or so. Not all of it necessarily 'derivative'.


It's not a "return" to anything. In the sense minimalism or neoromanticism could be construed as "tonal," tonality never went away and was always prominent in contemporary music. Nobody prominent in contemporary concert music composes "tonally" in the sense that music from the 17th through the late 19th century is tonal.


----------



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

In my real life, I'm a very funny guy, because I believe life sucks so much that you cannot take it seriously, the horror and injustice would crush anyone who tries to be both honest and serious about it. We need humor to relieve a little of our pain and disappointment, to help us shake off some of our pretensions.
/QUOTE]

I'll take your word for it about being the life of the party. And while you are thoughtful and intelligent, you come off sounding about as much fun as a root canal.
Quote
I think I've long had an ideal community in mind, and in some ways talkclassical has been close to that, but in others not so close, and I've been angry when I saw people actively preventing it from becoming the community I would've loved to have. 
--end Quote

That can be the problem with this Planet. There may be people on it that have opinions that differ from yours and don't like to line their ducks up in a row like you do. Wouldn't it be nice if we all comported in accordance to your views of a perfect 
world? How messy it is that some people feel they have to color outside the lines.
Now, in terms of the questions that you pose about Music (and I do appreciate the depth of your thoughts when it comes to Music): I have given up trying to describe in words why Music moves--or fails to move--me. I have concluded that music is a
subject that simply doesn't lend itself to being analyzed by the spoken word. Yes, we can describe scales, chord sequences, details of Orchestration, Harmony, Rhythm...after reading about music for a few decades, I have concluded that the written or spoken language can never contain the essence of music, or explain what it does to me. (That doesn't mean that i will stop offering my unsolicited opinion in the future....)
I have read at great length why I ought to enjoy certain Composers, or entire genres of Music, that I can't enjoy. There are some very well reasoned cogent arguments that persuade me...intellectually. However, when I attempt to listen to these types of music firmly believing in my head that I should be enjoying it, my heart says otherwise. I have reached a point in my life where I don't give a hoot, and won't be badgered or guilted into trying tobelieve broccoli tastes like chocolate.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Movement and stasis are not mutually exclusive phenomena--the issue is the extent, the amplitude of the movement. The snow on an old TV screen shows constant movement on a small scale. I intend to delve further into the question of stasis in the arts in some future post(s).


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

Come on. Our fairytale is very real. Wait, um....


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Triplets said:


> In my real life, I'm a very funny guy, because I believe life sucks so much that you cannot take it seriously, the horror and injustice would crush anyone who tries to be both honest and serious about it. We need humor to relieve a little of our pain and disappointment, to help us shake off some of our pretensions.
> /QUOTE]
> 
> I'll take your word for it about being the life of the party. And while you are thoughtful and intelligent, you come off sounding about as much fun as a root canal.
> ...


I can't believe I gave you the impression that I was trying to badger or guilt you into anything. I'm sorry about that.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

- to what degree a certain composition might be characteristic of a composer's work as a whole or of a period as a whole, and to what degree it might be exceptional


----------



## helenora (Sep 13, 2015)

> I have read at great length why I ought to enjoy certain Composers, or entire genres of Music, that I can't enjoy. There are some very well reasoned cogent arguments that persuade me...intellectually. However, when I attempt to listen to these types of music firmly believing in my head that I should be enjoying it, my heart says otherwise. I have reached a point in my life where I don't give a hoot, and won't be badgered or guilted into trying tobelieve broccoli tastes like chocolate.


good point and it's true. The more one knows, the more one listens, the sooner one comes to this conclusion provided that a person is not permanently locked in his left-brain hemisphere, trying to find rational explanations to each and every experience in one's life 



> - to what degree a certain composition might be characteristic of a composer's work as a whole or of a period as a whole, and to what degree it might be exceptional


this question could bring about a nice new thread in which members would have chosen a composition of a given composer ( or composers) which in their opinion could be named as the most characteristic among all this composer's work, yet it wouldn't be about naming member's favorite composition by this composer ( however sometimes it could be the same work which a member singles out as his "favorite")...and still by doing so we would have avoided all those numerous topic about only " favorites"  and "greatest" threads or minimize them . It could be vice versa and members would choose the most exceptional, unusual composition from an entire composer's heritage . Well, probably this could add up to the variety of TC topics ( may be there were similar threads but as long as I'm still new here , I browse this forum's topics just from time to time)


----------



## Cosmos (Jun 28, 2013)

What is music? [as in, what counts as music?]


----------



## helenora (Sep 13, 2015)

Cosmos said:


> What is music? [as in, what counts as music?]


oh! this would be a super philosophical and never-ending discussion as there are as many opinions as there are members(people). and it might be very controversial....and argumentative topic


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

helenora said:


> oh! this would be a super philosophical and never-ending discussion as there are as many opinions as there are members(people). and it might be very controversial....and argumentative topic


There was an interesting thread on this last year: http://www.talkclassical.com/32364-boundaries-music.html

(Though I will note that the thread had the usual problem of people _trying to prove someone else wrong_ rather than _being interested in other people's ideas_.)


----------



## helenora (Sep 13, 2015)

Nereffid said:


> There was an interesting thread on this last year: http://www.talkclassical.com/32364-boundaries-music.html
> 
> (Though I will note that the thread had the usual problem of people _trying to prove someone else wrong_ rather than _being interested in other people's ideas_.)


thank you , Nereffid!

The thread is as long as I expected it  I'll read it later.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

Nereffid said:


> the thread had the usual problem of people _trying to prove someone else wrong_ rather than _being interested in other people's ideas_.)


That's a big part of the problem, Nereffid.

I could expand it by saying: The problem with Internet forums (fora?) is that you can not know or predict the motives of the participants - are they there to share and learn? to defend a cherished opinion? just to argue? because they're bored?

And, it's not something that can be defined merely by poster's identity, either. I can accuse myself of at least three of those four things myself at different times. But, when I come at a thread with different motives than others, it doesn't lead to meaningful exchange.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

"I have read at great length why I ought to enjoy certain Composers, or entire genres of Music, that I can't enjoy. There are some very well reasoned cogent arguments that persuade me...intellectually. However, when I attempt to listen to these types of music firmly believing in my head that I should be enjoying it, my heart says otherwise. I have reached a point in my life where I don't give a hoot, and won't be badgered or guilted into trying to believe broccoli tastes like chocolate." - Triplets 

"I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore." - Howard Beale 

I see usefulness in both statements. I recall early on in my TC tenure, while in "Just sayin'" mode, listing about a hundred composers who could disappear or have disappeared AFAIC. Howling, gnashing of teeth en masse soon followed. Such is life, though TC has its strict dimensions. Mini rants are allowed, as long as they don't affront too dearly a specific member. 

Confession: Since maybe age 40, I've had a built-in "NO" default that's served well for the most part. Not sayin' "Mr. Awesome" hasn't had an occasion to override it.


----------



## Combinebobnt (Jul 21, 2015)

Listen to what you want and do what you want, as other people aren't you and you aren't them. Things are surprisingly easy this way.


----------



## Guest (Oct 14, 2015)

Combinebobnt said:


> Listen to what you want and do what you want, as other people aren't you and you aren't them. Things are surprisingly easy this way.


Are you trying to negate 90% of this forum?!?!?!!?


----------



## Guest (Oct 15, 2015)

Nereffid said:


> - whether popularity has any relationship with quality


Sub-topic: If popularity has any relationship with quality, why is this relationship not considered universal?

[In other words, if Puccini > Ferneyhough on the basis of popularity, why does Madonna /> Puccini?]


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

Vaneyes said:


> I recall early on in my TC tenure, while in "Just sayin'" mode, listing about a hundred composers who could disappear or have disappeared AFAIC.


LOL! Can somebody find a link to this hit list? I hope that some of my favorite composers are on it--I'd just admire it more!


----------



## Steatopygous (Jul 5, 2015)

helenora said:


> great addition to the list and I like the thread. Only one "but": about "should" in beginner's approach to classical music...why can't this "beginner" approach it by his own "approach" and ways.....and as we know there many various ways in approaching anything.......should we instead say "the beginner should approach it as he wants and he feels it should be approached".
> 
> and I see "a beginner" here is seen as an adult for it's an adult who already unlearned how to learn anything in a natural way, so he needs all these approaches, techniques, methods. While a child on the opposite doesn't want, doesn't need all these crutches as he still knows how to follow his guts.


I think the first poster, Nereffid, was referring to the many threads along the lines of "I like X, what else should I listen to?" And there's nothing wrong with that. Children haven't learnt to systematise how they learn or take short cuts. If a child likes Schubert's fifth symphony (my classical breakthrough, aged about five) there's no point in playing her Messiaen or Stockhausen, or not yet. And if she were able to go on to Talk Classical and seek advice, as an adult can, she would probably get a lot of helpful advice and extend her listening pleasure considerably.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

science said:


> I'm sure there are many more. What am I missing?


The old perennial question: when does sound become music?

Probably someone said it earlier but I didn't see it yet.


----------



## Guest (Oct 15, 2015)

Huilunsoittaja said:


> The old perennial question: when does sound become music?
> 
> Probably someone said it earlier but I didn't see it yet.


The question cannot be answered without the other factor of equal importance: time.


----------



## Guest (Oct 15, 2015)

nathanb said:


> Sub-topic: If popularity has any relationship with quality, why is this relationship not considered universal?
> 
> [In other words, if Puccini > Ferneyhough on the basis of popularity, why does Madonna /> Puccini?]


And thus how popular would / should a Madonna / Ferneyhough collaboration be?!


----------



## Ilarion (May 22, 2015)

Nereffid said:


> I'm totally with you on this, actually. But not everyone is (including various beginners who post here looking for pointers).


Nereffid,

I so enjoy what you share on this forum - You are one of the many who make TC the best place on the World Wide Reticular - BRAVO:tiphat::angel::wave::clap:

*Various beginners* / *Looking for pointers* - Hey, were you not a beginner once?


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Ilarion said:


> *Various beginners* / *Looking for pointers* - Hey, were you not a beginner once?


Yep. And spent an unnecessary amount of time thinking I had failed in some way because I didn't especially like a lot of the music I "should" like. But this is a conversation for another thread.


----------



## manyene (Feb 7, 2015)

Mahlerian: Objectively that is correct: even in the 1960s/70s when serial techniques were backed by the musical establishment in the UKk (and elsewhere) as the 'new orthodoxy'. Arnold, Simpson, Alwyn etc continued to compose nevertheless, but I sensed at the time that they were swimming against the tide. The sea change came later, often with serial composers(Rautavaara and Penderecki come immediately to mind) composing in a more approachable way, The 'stasis' of the 60s and 70s was progressively overcome.


----------



## Dim7 (Apr 24, 2009)

Mahlerian said:


> It's not a "return" to anything. In the sense minimalism or neoromanticism could be construed as "tonal," tonality never went away and was always prominent in contemporary music. Nobody prominent in contemporary concert music composes "tonally" in the sense that music from the 17th through the late 19th century is tonal.


Isn't minimalism at least a return to relatively pure diatonicism & triadic harmony/arpeggios? I think that was rather out of fashion before minimalism...


----------



## Skilmarilion (Apr 6, 2013)

Dim7 said:


> Isn't minimalism at least a return to relatively pure diatonicism & triadic harmony/arpeggios? I think that was rather out of fashion before minimalism...


As far as I understand, minimalism was a sort of a rebellious movement against certain *perceived* traits of modern / avant-garde music up to around the 1960's, such as:

the idea of "composer as scientist", too great an emphasis on the technical / conceptual vs. aesthetic value of music, the decline of rhythm (or "pulse") as an integral part of the music, atonality / serialism / dodecaphony etc.


----------



## Gaspard de la Nuit (Oct 20, 2014)

Another thing I think about that I don't hear debated but that I think creates rifts is the different 'approaches' to listening in classical music......I'm the kind of listener who is basically zoning out unless the music grabs me in a way that bypasses the intellectual dimension and provides a fairly high degree of stimulation on its own, but frequently other listeners talk about comprehending or grasping the music, implying a listening approach that is more active. Even though when I speak to people who listen differently we seem to understand each other perfectly well, probably since we both have a bit of the other like a yin yang sign or whatever, it looks like it results in totally different focus of enthusiasm in music.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Dim7 said:


> Isn't minimalism at least a return to relatively pure diatonicism & triadic harmony/arpeggios? I think that was rather out of fashion before minimalism...


Yes, but those are not tonality.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

manyene said:


> Mahlerian: Objectively that is correct: even in the 1960s/70s when serial techniques were backed by the musical establishment in the UKk (and elsewhere) as the 'new orthodoxy'. Arnold, Simpson, Alwyn etc continued to compose nevertheless, but I sensed at the time that they were swimming against the tide. The sea change came later, often with serial composers(Rautavaara and Penderecki come immediately to mind) composing in a more approachable way, The 'stasis' of the 60s and 70s was progressively overcome.


Certainly some did perceive that there was a serial orthodoxy, but how many serialists have there ever been in the UK, your own example? Elisabeth Lutyens, maybe?

I'm of the opinion that the music that came out of serialism, high modernism, and their offshoots is almost inevitably more interesting than the music which was written in conscious opposition to it. I don't see the post-WWII era as a time of stasis at all.


----------

