# Why don't some people see music as an intellectual pursuit?



## Dany1111 (Aug 4, 2016)

As a person who is really into music theory and has studied music throughout college, I have noticed that people outside the major don't really take music seriously and wouldn't consider it a viable intellectual pursuit. Some people who I've met at my college think that majoring in music is fun and easy. Those people probably think all music majors do is play, practice, and listen to music. The words counterpoint, set theory, orchestration, and harmony are probably foreign to them. I've told some people that I actually got math credit from my counterpoint class, and they looked at me with shock. Anyways, I've noticed that people don't take me seriously in college, especially the math and science majors. There was a girl I knew in college who was a biology major and decided to take music as a double major. She was shocked to discover music theory and said that music was a lot harder than she thought. While I do admit that there is no absolute need for music theory, I do urge others to start taking it as a serious intellectual pursuit. Maybe it's because the media and pop artists today talk about music as if it is an expression of emotion, which I have no problem with. I guess society assumes that there can be no intellectual merit in things that cause us to feel emotions? Personally, I love music theory and I also pursue physics and math on my own time. In fact, I've found that because of music theory, I've been able to learn other subjects easily. So what are your experiences with music theory and the way people see you as a music scholar?


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

A simplistic answer is probably because all art is viewed as easy compared to the hard sciences and math. Music theory is definitely not easy but compare it to physics, math or engineering, for example, and it is relatively easier.

Now most people have an idea about math and physics from school but music is taught (at least in Canada and U.S) mostly at rudimentary level up to high school. So there is the ignorance factor as well. Music to most people does not include the music where musical theory makes an interesting appearance. Music is to most people, as you say, something you just play, practice and have fun with, because that is the way music is seen in the pop culture and that is the music most familiar.


----------



## Guest (Aug 21, 2016)

Dany1111 said:


> As a person who is really into music theory and has studied music throughout college, I have noticed that people outside the major don't really take music seriously and wouldn't consider it a viable intellectual pursuit. Some people who I've met at my college think that majoring in music is fun and easy. Those people probably think all music majors do is play, practice, and listen to music. The words counterpoint, set theory, orchestration, and harmony are probably foreign to them. I've told some people that I actually got math credit from my counterpoint class, and they looked at me with shock. Anyways, I've noticed that people don't take me seriously in college, especially the math and science majors. There was a girl I knew in college who was a biology major and decided to take music as a double major. She was shocked to discover music theory and said that music was a lot harder than she thought. While I do admit that there is no absolute need for music theory, I do urge others to start taking it as a serious intellectual pursuit. Maybe it's because the media and pop artists today talk about music as if it is an expression of emotion, which I have no problem with. I guess society assumes that there can be no intellectual merit in things that cause us to feel emotions? Personally, I love music theory and I also pursue physics and math on my own time. In fact, I've found that because of music theory, I've been able to learn other subjects easily. So what are your experiences with music theory and the way people see you as a music scholar?


Nice post, Danny1111, you make some interesting observations. In my experience, when I was at Uni there were many in the Uni orchestra who came from the science faculties and who - shock, horror - were really quite competent performers and did not consider music as being an inferior pursuit. On the other hand, we poor music students were expected to attend courses in acoustics (a lot of Physics, there!) and it was OK but boy was I glad to get back into that practice room!!! That's the first point I'd like to make in reaction to your post. 
The second point I'd like to make is this: I teach harmony and counterpoint at a French university (not telling you where!) and I have - each year - a whole bunch of students who think, as you mention, that "music" is an easy option. Now, the key point to bear in mind is that a good tranche of these students just need a "degree" (doesn't matter what the subject is) for their job prospects. So what happens? Each year the latest wave of high school graduates have to decide on a 3-year course that will look good on their CV. What to choose? Maths? Nah, too hard. Physics, chemistry? Nah, ditto. Literature, languages? Hmm, maybe. Music? Oh yeah, I play the guitar and like to sing, I'll do that! And so they come to the music faculty (where I lie in wait, quietly, like a deadly snake or spider...) thinking it will be an easy option. The poor things, how little they realize they are ill-equipped for the rigors of the curriculum...
This is not to say I don't have able and talented students, of course I do, but "musically speaking", the more capable ones tend to drift over to the Conservatoire.
The third point I'd like to make is about another issue you raised: "I guess society assumes that there can be no intellectual merit in things that cause us to feel emotions[.]". Now there I have to disagree with you because science can also be a source of awe, wonderment and profound emotional engagement - Big Bang theory, black holes, relativity, parallel universes, the list really is endless...


----------



## Richannes Wrahms (Jan 6, 2014)

Please insert a space between paragraphs.


----------



## Inferano (Aug 19, 2016)

I sometimes tend to think that people discount music theory because, compared to most sciences, it is more intuitive. Simply speaking, where I live People will be familliar with the typical ambulance sound but will not recognize it as a perfect fourth. People realise that certain endings to musical pieces sound good to them without knowing about any harmonic cadence. In science at least for me if I would not have been told about how an atom is made up from it's different parts or how to calculate the volume of certain objects I would have had a hard time figuring these concepts out by myself. Also because of those scientific archievements the traditional sciences are directly linked to the progress of the human race while the theoretical studies of art forms are sometimes disregarded as mere tools to describe concepts that every human "understands" on a basic level because of intuition.

Now while reading this text again I REALLY hope I got my point across...shouldn't write while I'm tired.


----------



## helenora (Sep 13, 2015)

yes, Dany , good point.

Science is people's God nowdays, but they don't want to admit it thinking that proclaiming themselves atheists makes them free from any gods, but alas, they are mistaken, people invent many gods, including one of science ( not intended to offend science worshipers even though I myself give science its due). It was said long ago by Herbert Wells that the idea of god didn't draw upon the traditional religions of world, but that each one invents his own god: for a drunker his god will be wine, for a possession seeker is money, etc 

For music lover is Music


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

helenora said:


> yes, Dany , good point.
> 
> Science is people's God nowadays, but they don't want to admit it thinking that proclaiming themselves atheists makes them free from any gods, but alas, they are mistaken, people invent many gods, including one of science ( not intended to offend science worshippers even though I myself give science its due). It was said long ago by Herbert Wells that the idea of god didn't draw upon the traditional religions of world, but that each one invents his own god: for a drunker his god will be wine, for a possession seeker is money, etc
> 
> For music lover is Music


Hallelujah helenora, well spoken.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

Even though I have a masters in music, there are many here whose background is far superior to mine.

I remember in college the poor reputation that music majors had among other students. Because pop music is so instinctual, there was a misconception of the intellectual aspects of classical and many forms of jazz. 

As an adult I have run into a different problem. I have learned that the better a musician is the more the intellectual aspects of music appeals to them. We frequently get excited over the structure and the harmonies of the music we listen to, not just the pretty melodies. As a result the better the musician the more diverse his musical tastes. 

Even though we still admire the intricate harmonic progressions of Bach or the structures and thematic developments of a Beethoven symphony, we also find beauty in Schoenberg.

When in college we are thought of being mindless boobs. As adults we are thought of elitists intellectual snobs! I have no idea why.


----------



## helenora (Sep 13, 2015)

arpeggio said:


> When in college we are thought of being mindless boobs. As adults we are thought of elitists intellectual snobs! I have no idea why.


so true! very well said.

why? because they never bothered to take music seriously, especially serious music  and now somewhere in heart they understand that they missed something, but it's difficult to catch up on things that aren't appealing emotionally and even more those are things that require some intellectual effort to get into them.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Music is not an "intellectual pursuit." Seeing it as such will quickly kill off whatever branch of music is being considered. See, for instance, jazz and classical.

Good thing nobody cares about street marches.


----------



## helenora (Sep 13, 2015)

KenOC said:


> Music is not an "intellectual pursuit." Seeing it as such will quickly kill off whatever branch of music is being considered. See, for instance, jazz and classical.
> 
> Good thing nobody cares about street marches.


let's say it's not just an intellectual pursuit. Music is very diverse. The same can be said that music is not an "entertainment" , even though this part of music , this function of music is always present, it is an entertainment, but it's not ONLY an entertainment.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Here's a seven-week course on the music of the Rolling Stones. They may not be retired, but now they're well and truly dead.

https://www.coursera.org/learn/roll...ommendationsEmail~recs_email_2016_08_14_17:57


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Before we make an issue of the fact that music can be studied on the page, we should make an issue of the fact that music worth that kind of study is worth sticking in the ear.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

Music theory is interesting -- and akin to a science -- but it never taught anyone to be a better musician or composer. Any more than literary theory made anyone a better writer. It's fun to learn "how" something works -- but that will never help you find its "soul."


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Dany1111 said:


> As a person who is really into music theory and has studied music throughout college, I have noticed that people outside the major don't really take music seriously and wouldn't consider it a viable intellectual pursuit. Some people who I've met at my college think that majoring in music is fun and easy. Those people probably think all music majors do is play, practice, and listen to music. The words counterpoint, set theory, orchestration, and harmony are probably foreign to them. I've told some people that I actually got math credit from my counterpoint class, and they looked at me with shock. Anyways, I've noticed that people don't take me seriously in college, especially the math and science majors. There was a girl I knew in college who was a biology major and decided to take music as a double major. She was shocked to discover music theory and said that music was a lot harder than she thought. While I do admit that there is no absolute need for music theory, I do urge others to start taking it as a serious intellectual pursuit. Maybe it's because the media and pop artists today talk about music as if it is an expression of emotion, which I have no problem with. I guess society assumes that there can be no intellectual merit in things that cause us to feel emotions? Personally, I love music theory and I also pursue physics and math on my own time. In fact, I've found that because of music theory, I've been able to learn other subjects easily. So what are your experiences with music theory and the way people see you as a music scholar?


In your college, is there the same attitude towards philosophy, literature, film, media, classics, history, politics, and art? I just wonder whether it's just a particularly uncivilised environment.


----------



## Adam Weber (Apr 9, 2015)

MarkW said:


> Music theory is interesting -- and akin to a science -- but it never taught anyone to be a better musician or composer.


Um, but it has. Lots of people. You think just anyone can write a symphony? All the soul in the world won't help you if you don't study.


----------



## helenora (Sep 13, 2015)

MarkW said:


> Music theory is interesting -- and akin to a science -- but it never taught anyone to be a better musician or composer. Any more than literary theory made anyone a better writer. It's fun to learn "how" something works -- but that will never help you find its "soul."


if it was that unnecessary and useless as it states in above written, then I ask myself why conservatories were founded?
They were not opened only with an intention to provide a professional education for performers, but as well for composers.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

helenora said:


> if it was that unnecessary and useless as it states in above written, then I ask myself why conservatories were founded?
> They were not opened only with an intention to provide a professional education for performers, but as well for composers.


A question, from curiosity: Who was the first famous composer to learn his/her trade at a conservatory? I can think of some, but there must have been earlier ones.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

KenOC said:


> A question, from curiosity: Who was the first famous composer to learn his/her trade at a conservatory? I can think of some, but there must have been earlier ones.


In a conservatory specifically? Very early composers like Hildegard Von Bingen were taught music in their monastery, which might as well be the Medieval equivalent to a University or at least a High School education.

The point is, if you're going where I think you're going with this, very few composers were fantastic at what they did without training, education or both


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

violadude said:


> In a conservatory specifically? Very early composers like Hildegard Von Bingen were taught music in their monastery, which might as well be the Medieval equivalent to a University or at least a High School education.
> 
> The point is, if you're going where I think you're going with this, very few composers were fantastic at what they did without training, education or both


Well, of course even Beethoven studied with Haydn, Salieri, and Albrechtsberger. But I'm being very specific. I mean a conservatory (or the equivalent) with a program to teach how to compose. The Paris Conservatory, headed by Berlioz's nemesis Fetis, comes to mind.

Beethoven had his chuckle at conservatories: "The Bohemians are born musicians. The Italians ought to take them as models. What have they to show for their famous conservatories? Behold! their idol, Rossini! If Dame Fortune had not given him a pretty talent and amiable melodies by the bushel, what he learned at school would have brought him nothing but potatoes for his big belly."


----------



## Guest (Aug 22, 2016)

Two thoughts.

For some people, music is 'easy' - they can already do it and/or when they were learning it, even the 'difficult' bits, would not have used the 'easy/difficult' continuum as a descriptor, because they get so much joy from it. They might well seem dismissive as they struggle their way through something less likeable.

In a crowded and poorly managed state-enforced curriculum, some subjects get greater priority for their economic usefulness (though music generates a great deal of economic activity in the US and UK) and others get relegated. Consequently, a culture arises where 'easy' or 'soft' subjects are viewed with relative disdain that has nothing to do with whether music is harder to study.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

helenora said:


> Science is people's God nowdays, but they don't want to admit it thinking that proclaiming themselves atheists makes them free from any gods, but alas, they are mistaken, people invent many gods, including one of science ( not intended to offend science worshipers even though I myself give science its due).


Personally, I worship a giant straw man.


----------



## Poodle (Aug 7, 2016)

Music has emotin, science is just fansy numbers


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

KenOC said:


> Well, of course even Beethoven studied with Haydn, Salieri, and Albrechtsberger. But I'm being very specific. I mean a conservatory (or the equivalent) with a program to teach how to compose. The Paris Conservatory, headed by Berlioz's nemesis Fetis, comes to mind.


The (1980) Grove article on conservatories (under Education in Music) only seems to name pupils in one place: Venice produced "Cimarosa, Zingarelli and Sacchini".

I'll leave it to you to decide whether any of those 3 meets the stipulation of "famous".


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

It should be well-known, as much as I have mentioned it, that music was part of the Greek Quadrivium: geometry, astronomy, arithmetic, and music.

What obscures this is that the skills of music can be acquired intuitively, with no need for intellectual understanding. This is possible because hearing and sound are based on natural, sensual phenomena. Until these sensual phenomena are translated into the language of physics and mathematics, they remain sensual phenomena.

So KenOC is "correct" when he says that music is not an intellectual pursuit, because it doesn't have to be. It can be managed by purely intuitive processes.

But if we approach it intellectually, we begin to see that it is based on rational, quantifiable elements, such as sound itself (timbre and harmonics), frequencies (pitch), rhythm (duration), and other quite arbitrary elements which managed to slip by unnoticed (the division of the octave into 12 steps).

All of these rational, quantifiable elements are not essential to a composer in the actual act of creation, but without them, music itself would encounter some big problems. Pianos and all the instruments have to be constructed and tuned. This requires a rational process. 

In fact, this can apply to many things. I don't need an intellectual understanding of all the engineering which goes into a car in order to drive it.

Thus, music is an "appliance" of art which has been developed for our "driving pleasure." Without all the physics and rational thought that went into its development, though, we'd all be sitting around a campfire listening to a guy in a loin cloth playing a flute, which he learned to do by ear, all by himself. Who needs all that other stuff?.


----------



## Guest (Aug 22, 2016)

Richannes Wrahms said:


> Please insert a space between paragraphs.
> 
> View attachment 88093


OK, Prof, will do !!!


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Music is not an "intellectual pursuit." Seeing it as such will quickly kill off whatever branch of music is being considered. See, for instance, jazz and classical.
> 
> Good thing nobody cares about street marches.


Ken, this is why we disagree on almost everything.

Based on your experiences "Music is not an intellectual pursuit."

Based on my experiences at times it can be.

Maybe just listening to a Beethoven Symphony is a spontaneous instinctual experience.

Performing a Beethoven Symphony is a very intellectual experience.


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

I think that this comes from the fact many people approach music through emotions. And it's so deeply engrained in them, that they can't easily see how for other people, it's mainly (though emotions still play a part, of course) an intellectual thing. In their imagination, a composer is experimenting the same emotions when writing a piece, that they do when listening to it. Or that when you are performing a Chopin's nocturne you are somehow racked with emotion, too.

But this is just a misconception, without any real harm, in my view.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

My view: Music is an aesthetic experience, which may (or may not) represent emotions, states of mind, or even places, things, events, and people. But still, at its most basic, it’s an aesthetic event that is experienced directly without the intervention of conscious thought.

Of course the mechanics are interesting and even necessary to composers and anybody involved in turning music into printed, performed, or recorded forms. Even listeners, some of them, may find that an intellectual knowledge of the mechanics of music can help them enjoy it, especially in its more complex forms.

But the directly-perceived aesthetic experience is what music is all about. Without that, it has little point. In fact, it’s like a joke: If you have to explain it, it’s probably not worth bothering with.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

schigolch said:


> I think that this comes from the fact many people approach music through emotions. And it's so deeply engrained in them, that they can't easily see how for other people, it's mainly (though emotions still play a part, of course) an intellectual thing. In their imagination, a composer is experimenting the same emotions when writing a piece, that they do when listening to it. Or that when you are performing a Chopin's nocturne you are somehow racked with emotion, too.
> 
> But this is just a misconception, without any real harm, in my view.


I think it is harmful when people assume that if they don't feel any emotion when listening to some music, it was conceived entirely intellectually and no one ever feels anything listening to it. We have no access to a composer's state of mind when writing, and I do not know of many pieces of music which were conceived *entirely* in intellectual terms. There are VERY few, I would wager, and the fact that people consider the Second Viennese School or Brahms intellectual is proof of how absurd intuitions can be when based on a lack of familiarity.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

For me music is an emotive persuit rather than an intellectual one. My wife is the specialist on music theory. I just enjoy it.


----------



## Adam Weber (Apr 9, 2015)

Mahlerian said:


> I think it is harmful when people assume that if they don't feel any emotion when listening to some music, it was conceived entirely intellectually and no one ever feels anything listening to it. We have no access to a composer's state of mind when writing, and I do not know of many pieces of music which were conceived *entirely* in intellectual terms. There are VERY few, I would wager, and the fact that people consider the Second Viennese School or Brahms intellectual is proof of how absurd intuitions can be when based on a lack of familiarity.


I worry that many mistake "I'm not in the mood for this" for "this piece/performance 'lacks emotion'". I've often turned on a recording, a well-loved recording, and... it's done nothing for me. So I turn it off. "Well, guess I wasn't in the mood for Mozart/Brahms/Boulez tonight." And when I'm in another mood, I enjoy the recording again. But if you hear your whole life, "so and so is just an intellectual composer," you might mistake momentary indifference for an objective fact. Maybe. I guess it's not especially useful to psychologize people, but...


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

It seems that those of us who have had some musical training are screwed.

Our training effects how we hear music. It is impossible to ignore this training when we listen, even for enjoyment.

I attended a recent performance of Beethoven's _Sixth_. Because I have performed this work I was unhappy with parts of the performance. Most of the rest of the audience thought it was just fine.

We spend years developing the skills to perform music that non-musician want to here. Yet somehow our experiences are invalid when they may conflict with the ears of others. I have lost track of how many times, in the real world and here, where I have called a snotty elitist.

Well guess what. The training and intellectual skills, which many are critical of, are those that we need to develop to play the music that many desire. We can not turn off our experiences because some of our observations may offend some.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

*Why don't some people see music as an intellectual pursuit?*

Because most people have _two _feet, but only one brain. And it's easier for them to think with their feet than with their brains. Or it often seems that what folks do. (I take my answer with reference to a remark by Charles Ives: "Most folks listen to music with their feet.")


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> I think it is harmful when people assume that if they don't feel any emotion when listening to some music, it was conceived entirely intellectually and no one ever feels anything listening to it.


Of course; nobody should assume that their own subjective experience of music invalidates everyone else's view to the contrary.



> We have no access to a composer's state of mind when writing, and I do not know of many pieces of music which were conceived *entirely* in intellectual terms. There are VERY few, I would wager, and the fact that people consider the Second Viennese School or Brahms intellectual is proof of how absurd intuitions can be when based on a lack of familiarity.


Yes, just as it would be absurd to assume that all of the 12-tone music produced by the Second Viennese School was "tonal" just because one subjectively hears it that way.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

Actually I am getting tired of apologizing that my amateur ears are better than the ears of many non-musicians. I give up. No matter how reasonable I try to be it does not seem to work.

It takes years of intellectual training and basic knowledge of theory to be able to play even in an amateur orchestra. One does not need to know music theory to listen to music but you do need it to play a typical classical work.

It a person wants to hear what a group without trained ears and knowledge of music theory sounds like go listen to an elementary school orchestra or band.

When I go listen to a first rate orchestra or band I am hearing musicians who ears are far superior to mine and I am not ashamed to admit it.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> Yes, just as it would be absurd to assume that all of the 12-tone music produced by the Second Viennese School was "tonal" just because one subjectively hears it that way.


No, because tonality is something that is perceived, whereas the composer's state of mind is not. Haven't you said that tonality is something that is perceived by the ear?

Anyway, I haven't argued that their music is tonal. I've shown that a definition of tonal that tries to include anything except atonal music will also include atonal music, minus irrelevant ad hoc additions.

Back to my original point, the misconception that music is entirely a product of emotion is only harmful if turned into a critique.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

I love the feelings music gives me. Tonight I went to a rock gig in Glasgow (Coheed and Cambria). The crowd were great and I felt it as I always feel music. If I'm not attempting to play music on guitar I'm listening. I don't care whether it's intellectual or not because it moves me. It makes me feel good. Whether it's Beethoven, The White Buffalo or the Sex Pistols it imparts emotions in me that give me a buzz. I could do without most things but not music.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

TalkingHead said:


> ...(where I lie in wait, quietly, like a deadly snake or spider...) thinking it will be an easy option. The poor things, how little they realize they are ill-equipped for the rigors of the curriculum..












"_Counterpoint!_"



TalkingHead said:


> The third point I'd like to make is about another issue you raised: "I guess society assumes that there can be no intellectual merit in things that cause us to feel emotions[.]". Now there I have to disagree with you because science can also be a source of awe, wonderment and profound emotional engagement - Big Bang theory, black holes, relativity, parallel universes, the list really is endless...


I think you hit the nail there, TH. Indeed, any discipline, be it music or science, has, when studied with passion, its intelletual part and its emotional part.

Really, this is all about people that have cliché notions of what music is and what science is.

And, in any case, what is a piece of music if not a highly intricate thing made up by brains and enjoyed by brains...

I say, if you want to study music in deep (in any of its aspects), more power to that person.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> Anyway, I haven't argued that their music is tonal. I've shown that a definition of tonal that tries to include anything except *atonal music *will also include *atonal music,* minus irrelevant ad hoc additions.


You've stated on numerous occasions that you hear Schoenberg's 12-tone works as tonal.

And there you are using the term 'atonal.' I guess it's OK if _you_ do it.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

arpeggio said:


> Actually I am getting tired of apologizing that my amateur ears are better than the ears of many non-musicians. I give up. No matter how reasonable I try to be it does not seem to work.
> 
> It takes years of intellectual training and basic knowledge of theory to be able to play even in an amateur orchestra. One does not need to know music theory to listen to music but you do need it to play a typical classical work.
> 
> ...


Of course you have to study and practice like mad to pkay in an orchestra. Like you have to train like billyho to take part in the Olympics. But that doesn't mean that those of us who live a sedentary exercise cannot enjoy watching those supermen and superwoman. Sim those of us who do not pursue musical theory / practice seriously can appreciate and enjoy performances of great musicians.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

DavidA said:


> Of course you have to study and practice like mad to pkay in an orchestra. Like you have to train like billyho to take part in the Olympics. But that doesn't mean that those of us who live a sedentary exercise cannot enjoy watching those supermen and superwoman. Sim those of us who do not pursue musical theory / practice seriously can appreciate and enjoy performances of great musicians.


In a sense you are correct. One does not have to be an athlete to appreciate the Olympics. Just like a person does not have to understand theory to appreciate music.

The conundrum arises when the skills we use to perform the music of Bach or Mozart also allow us to understand contemporary music that others can not. We are then accused of being snobs and talking down to people from another group of people who just listen to the music of the great masters of the 18th and 19th century.

I have also learned that my ideas of bad music is also the result of my training and experiences.

Many member and I have stated the above many times before. Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. People should not have to continually apologize for liking or disliking _433_.

I really do not know what else I can say.

Note: I really think the sports analogy is a false equivalency. I do not see how one can compare the 100 meter dash to a performance of the Berlin Philharmonic.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms (Jan 6, 2014)

Strong emotions only last so much when you listen carefully. The other day I listened to a Mahler Symphony after a period of not listening to Romantic works even. I felt almost nothing.


----------



## SeptimalTritone (Jul 7, 2014)

Richannes Wrahms said:


> Strong emotions only last so much when you listen carefully. The other day I listened to a Mahler Symphony after a period of not listening to Romantic works even. I felt almost nothing.


Nicely done. I still experience emotion sometimes, but I'm working on it. I want to get to the point where I perceive everything going on in the music, and hopefully then I'll feel no emotion at all.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

It all depends. The greatest pursuit of musical science was exemplified by Johann Sebastian Bach. Enough said.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Emotion is such a loaded term. I propose "reptilian brain type reaction".


----------

