# Waehnen's Point #2: Values of the....musical community + music education



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

A new thread to do justice to Waehnen's worthy efforts at exploring the fundamentals of our relationship with music.

My only contribution here at this time, under musical community (environment) and musical education, is to stress the effectiveness of early childhood exposure to CM or whatever music one is interested in..Here is where the power of imprinting during youthful development is fully shown. While CM was not the only music heard in our house when I was a child, it was heard and played on 78s by my mother, along with the songs of the day (Jimmy Dorsey, et al). So it took root early in my brain that CM was just another kind of music, to be listened to for its own pleasures and values--a genre but not necessarily a superior one..So my recommendation would be to (somehow) ensure that CM early on was present in a child's life. I would avoid having a musical community revolving around CM be held superior to other musical enthusiasms by members of the community--One may privately believe what one will about the relative value of CM as opposed to other genres, but being perceived as thinking one a superior sort of being for loving CM is not helpful to its propagation among a wider audience.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Continuing with Waehnen's Point #2, the value of music education--do we mean attendance at a conservatory? A college major in music? Taking a college course in music history and appreciation? Learning to play an instrument and/or read a score? It would be good to identify what sort of music education we are talking about. it is certainly a good thing to have more rather than less knowledge about any subject, but are any of the above a _sine qua non_ for a full enjoyment of CM or any music? I think not, though they are all wonderful paths and choices in themselves. No one can judge of the degree to which listening to certain music transports the listener, what ecstasies they may experience hearing whatever. All responses to music are valid, personal, authentic. An analogy wound be viewing a landscape. As someone with a background in geology, perhaps I can see certain forces that were at work to create the landscape, but my pleasure in experiencing the beauty of the scene is real and vital. Gaze upon the Grand Canyon or down into Death Valley and be moved. One critique of science--a very false one--is that somehow being quite fully aware of the "mechanics" of phenomena, one loses the capacity for awe and deep appreciation. Generations of scientists, including Nobel laureates, have refuted this strange notion.

Turning to the level of music education required to have a strong emotional response, to be deeply moved by CM or any other music, the answer is none, though, as vanity and common sense tell us, the more knowledge the better, even if only to feel more "informed" about the music. People will be drawn, very likely, to read something about the lives of composers and something of the history of music, such as Schonberg's _Lives of the Great Composers._ They may read specific biographies. They may, as did I, read several college-level textbooks on the structure of music, and more in them about genres, about composers, more history etc. They may even turn to the writings of analysts like Leonard Meyer. But the key takeaway is that while more knowledge leads to, if nothing else, a feeling of accomplishment in absorbing the additional material, the genuineness of each individual's response to music cannot be legitimately questioned.

The other key takeaway is that universal exposure to CM and other not readily-encountered musics, should be a part of everyone's curriculum--even if only to expose people, especially children, to those musics. Let the imprinting begin!


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Strange Magic said:


> Continuing with Waehnen's Point #2, the value of music education--do we mean attendance at a conservatory? A college major in music? Taking a college course in music history and appreciation? Learning to play an instrument and/or read a score? It would be good to identify what sort of music education we are talking about. it is certainly a good thing to have more rather than less knowledge about any subject, but are any of the above a _sine qua non_ for a full enjoyment of CM or any music? I think not, though they are all wonderful paths and choices in themselves. No one can judge of the degree to which listening to certain music transports the listener, what ecstasies they may experience hearing whatever. All responses to music are valid, personal, authentic. An analogy wound be viewing a landscape. As someone with a background in geology, perhaps I can see certain forces that were at work to create the landscape, but my pleasure in experiencing the beauty of the scene is real and vital. Gaze upon the Grand Canyon or down into Death Valley and be moved. One critique of science--a very false one--is that somehow being quite fully aware of the "mechanics" of phenomena, one loses the capacity for awe and deep appreciation. Generations of scientists, including Nobel laureates, have refuted this strange notion.
> 
> Turning to the level of music education required to have a strong emotional response, to be deeply moved by CM or any other music, the answer is none, though, as vanity and common sense tell us, the more knowledge the better, even if only to feel more "informed" about the music. People will be drawn, very likely, to read something about the lives of composers and something of the history of music, such as Schonberg's _Lives of the Great Composers._ They may read specific biographies. They may, as did I, read several college-level textbooks on the structure of music, and more in them about genres, about composers, more history etc. They may even turn to the writings of analysts like Leonard Meyer. But the key takeaway is that while more knowledge leads to, if nothing else, a feeling of accomplishment in absorbing the additional material, the genuineness of each individual's response to music cannot be legitimately questioned.
> 
> The other key takeaway is that universal exposure to CM and other not readily-encountered musics, should be a part of everyone's curriculum--even if only to expose people, especially children, to those musics. Let the imprinting begin!


Hi again. Ever since I was a kid I've been fascinated with plants. I didn't think about why I was fascinated, but recently I have been thinking about exactly that. What is it that fascinates me when other people are, let's say, unaware? A friend of mine who I admire for his grasp of physics (he worked for Lockheed), asked me why I was always looking at the weeds while at an outdoor social function? We had a long cocktail party type chat about it, but he just listened politely and didn’t think of anything to say. I assume it was just too foreign a subject for him.

Early on I found the subject of paleobotany and I was amazed to look at what is known and unknown about the origin of flowering plants. Where and when is still an ongoing debate (but the experts do have some very good candidates). (Maybe there's been a recent breakthrough but I haven't seen it.)

Most people look at plants along the roadside and they find them pleasant, or they think they should be plowed under because they're just weeds. No background, no understanding, no affinity for the huge, complex subject which is still mysterious and illuminates so much all around us. It's the same with learning about music and serious students of music being different than other music enthusiasts.

How would paleobotanist talk to us about what he appreciates? How would the communication go? Is this a helpful analogy?


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Luchesi said:


> Hi again. Ever since I was a kid I've been fascinated with plants. I didn't think about why I was fascinated, but recently I have been thinking about exactly that. What is it that fascinates me when other people are, let's say, unaware? A friend of mine who I admire for his grasp of physics (he worked for Lockheed), asked me why I was always looking at the weeds while at an outdoor social function? We had a long cocktail party type chat about it, but he just listened politely and didn’t think of anything to say. I assume it was just too foreign a subject for him.
> 
> Early on I found the subject of paleobotany and I was amazed to look at what is known and unknown about the origin of flowering plants. Where and when is still an ongoing debate (but the experts do have some very good candidates). (Maybe there's been a recent breakthrough but I haven't seen it.)
> 
> ...


I would say Yes and No. Your paleobotany example is as one with my tale of the scientist being quite capable of enjoying the wonders of nature despite the nonsensical charge that the wonder will evaporate with greater knowledge. But art is different, and to the extent that one is drawn to the beauty of flowers as, say, art objects very pleasing to the eye and nose, then no knowledge is no hindrance to rich and satisfying experience. You will note that the beauty of weeds, like, say, ragweed or crabgrass, is one that is fueled mostly by a pre-existing interest in science generally and/or botany specifically. I don't think art interest works quite that way.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Strange Magic said:


> I would say Yes and No. Your paleobotany example is as one with my tale of the scientist being quite capable of enjoying the wonders of nature despite the nonsensical charge that the wonder will evaporate with greater knowledge. But art is different, and to the extent that one is drawn to the beauty of flowers as, say, art objects very pleasing to the eye and nose, then no knowledge is no hindrance to rich and satisfying experience. You will note that the beauty of weeds, like, say, ragweed or crabgrass, is one that is fueled mostly by a pre-existing interest in science generally and/or botany specifically. I don't think art interest works quite that way.


We have a pre-existing interest in integer arithmetic. This is Art (for the well-prepared individual). This in-born affinity is what's taken advantage of by artistic creators.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Luchesi said:


> We have a pre-existing interest in integer arithmetic. This is Art (for the well-prepared individual). This in-born affinity is what's taken advantage of by artistic creators.


I will recall this as I play my theremin,,,,,, 😊


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

There's an interesting discussion to be had about how, in what ways, and to what extent education changes our enjoyment of music (or any art). One of my early memories of realizing how one's perception of music could radically change was when I took up learning to play guitar. As I did that I found myself more and more focused on guitar parts in recordings and much less on vocals, other instruments, or even other aspects like melody or tone. Not that I completely ignored those other elements, but my mind's aural priority definitely shifted. This also initially lead me to be a bit snobbish as I realized (rather quickly) that many (even quite famous) guitarists were not all that good or impressive technically speaking. Years later as I found myself attracted to more and more music without guitars I basically learned to listen to music in new ways--and some "old ways" from before I even played. This also made me realize that my guitar playing had strongly biased the way listened to music and even my enjoyment of it, because I had started ignoring other ways that music could work in favor of focusing on one. I also realized that I much preferred the way I listened to music without guitar, where I felt more in tune with the many different ways that music could work.

Of course that's a very personal anecdote, but I think learning music in any respect is capable of having similar effects. However, it's certainly capable of having positive effects too. Learning about sonata form, for me at least, enhanced my enjoyment of classical music that used the form if only because I was able to comprehend (first intellectually, by now intuitively) the structural aspects of works that use it. I took for granted musical form being raised on the verse-chorus-bridge (etc.) structure of songs, which did become intuitive. Classical music used different forms that it took me longer to comprehend merely because they were new and different. Of course, I still enjoyed classical music before learning about such things, but that is one example where I would say education with a complete positive.

As for early exposure, yes, I think it's a good thing, if only to give children samples of what all is out there. Also expose them to dance, to literature, to film, and sports and games and... as much as you can under the sun. You never know what will strike their fancy and perhaps become a passion that they might even turn into a career. I also say do this without judgment and prejudices and let them find themselves and encourage what they find as long as it's not harmful.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Strange Magic said:


> A new thread to do justice to Waehnen's worthy efforts at exploring the fundamentals of our relationship with music.
> 
> My only contribution here at this time, under musical community (environment) and musical education, is to stress the effectiveness of early childhood exposure to CM or whatever music one is interested in..Here is where the power of imprinting during youthful development is fully shown. While CM was not the only music heard in our house when I was a child, it was heard and played on 78s by my mother, along with the songs of the day (Jimmy Dorsey, et al). So it took root early in my brain that *CM was just another kind of music, to be listened to for its own pleasures and values--a genre but not necessarily a superior one..*So my recommendation would be to (somehow) ensure that CM early on was present in a child's life. I would avoid having a musical community revolving around CM be held superior to other musical enthusiasms by members of the community--One may privately believe what one will about the relative value of CM as opposed to other genres, but being perceived as thinking one a superior sort of being for loving CM is not helpful to its propagation among a wider audience.


As I say each time this comes up: Statements about the superiority of a genre, whether advocating for or against them, are vapid and beside any useful point unless one asks "Superior for what purposes?" Hammers aren't inherently superior to saws, but they are vastly superior for driving nails. If one is listening for the sake of long term patterns of thematic transformation in instrumental structures, then obviously CM is vastly superior to pop and rock. Likewise if one seeks works designed as wordless metaphors for the dramas of internal life. Enjoy fluid modulations among distant keys and seamless four part counterpoint? CM is a far more promising place to look than pop. Driving in a car and don't want wide dynamics because the quiet parts will be covered by tire noise? Pop music is definitely superior.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

EdwardBast said:


> As I say each time this comes up: Statements about the superiority of a genre, whether advocating for or against them, are vapid and beside any useful point unless one asks "Superior for what purposes?" Hammers aren't inherently superior to saws, but they are vastly superior for driving nails. If one is listening for the sake of long term patterns of thematic transformation in instrumental structures, then obviously CM is vastly superior to pop and rock. Likewise if one seeks works designed as wordless metaphors for the dramas of internal life. Enjoy fluid modulations among distant keys and seamless four part counterpoint? CM is a far more promising place to look than pop. Driving in a car and don't want wide dynamics because the quiet parts will be covered by tire noise? Pop music is definitely superior.


The implication here is that some, including the poster, listen only to CM 100% of the time. The counter might be to someone wondering if this were true, and the poster replying "Of course not! I also listen to C&W, Jazz, World Music, whatever that is not CM because I am human and often go slumming with the unwashed masses.. That way one be on both sides of the fence and sit on it too. But perhaps here the poster does genuinely listen only to CM, no exceptions. A rare bird indeed.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Strange Magic said:


> The implication here is that some, including the poster, listen only to CM 100% of the time. The counter might be to someone wondering if this were true, and the poster replying "Of course not! I also listen to C&W, Jazz, World Music, whatever that is not CM because I am human and often go slumming with the unwashed masses.. That way one be on both sides of the fence and sit on it too. But perhaps here the poster does genuinely listen only to CM, no exceptions. A rare bird indeed.


There is no such implication here. I only abhor pop (could you tell?) I play classic rock, prog, blues, and jazz on guitar, Beethoven, Prokofiev, Debussy, etc. on piano. I just recognize that the different genres satisfy different aesthetic needs and have different strengths and points of interest.


----------



## znapschatz (Feb 28, 2016)

Strange Magic said:


> A new thread to do justice to Waehnen's worthy efforts at exploring the fundamentals of our relationship with music.
> 
> My only contribution here at this time, under musical community (environment) and musical education, is to stress the effectiveness of early childhood exposure to CM or whatever music one is interested in..Here is where the power of imprinting during youthful development is fully shown. While CM was not the only music heard in our house when I was a child, it was heard and played on 78s by my mother, along with the songs of the day (Jimmy Dorsey, et al). So it took root early in my brain that CM was just another kind of music, to be listened to for its own pleasures and values--a genre but not necessarily a superior one..So my recommendation would be to (somehow) ensure that CM early on was present in a child's life. I would avoid having a musical community revolving around CM be held superior to other musical enthusiasms by members of the community--One may privately believe what one will about the relative value of CM as opposed to other genres, but being perceived as thinking one a superior sort of being for loving CM is not helpful to its propagation among a wider audience.


(I hope this gets through) Earlier this year, my wife of 50 years died, which left me somewhat unhinged. Earlier, I had to assist in her long ailment, which took time and energy from other activities. But now I am working my way back. I am hoping for the best, but we'll see. Best regards,

Znapschatz


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

EdwardBast said:


> As I say each time this comes up: Statements about the superiority of a genre, whether advocating for or against them, are vapid and beside any useful point unless one asks "Superior for what purposes?" Hammers aren't inherently superior to saws, but they are vastly superior for driving nails. If one is listening for the sake of long term patterns of thematic transformation in instrumental structures, then obviously CM is vastly superior to pop and rock. Likewise if one seeks works designed as wordless metaphors for the dramas of internal life. Enjoy fluid modulations among distant keys and seamless four part counterpoint? CM is a far more promising place to look than pop. Driving in a car and don't want wide dynamics because the quiet parts will be covered by tire noise? Pop music is definitely superior.


But I remember back in the 1960s when most of my friends were hearing and agreeing that 'the Beatles were as good as Beethoven'. I think we should help these young minds. Then I think maybe it's a good stage to go through, if there's no lasting damage done. I think perhaps we need stages like that so we can look back and be comfortable with how it's worked out for us. 
I teach children piano and I'm very interested in how they change from the age of 7 to 15/16. In general, they'll no longer be serious about music (learning/exploring and practicing) unless they've been serious about music before 15.

So the point is, ranking works and their composers is a direct way to connect with the rebelliousness of youth (youthful ego and competitiveness). It offers them a little bit of power that they feel they need. Some of the adult beginners I've taught are dismissive, like you, of such an approach.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Strange Magic said:


> I would avoid having a musical community revolving around CM be held superior to other musical enthusiasms by members of the community--One may privately believe what one will about the relative value of CM as opposed to other genres, but being perceived as thinking one a superior sort of being for loving CM is not helpful to its propagation among a wider audience.


I think that all types of music have high levels of artistry, innovation and creativity. With its long history, classical music may well be one of the great achievements of Western civilisation, but I think that pushing its superiority is no longer much of a selling point. Perhaps it used to be during the 19th century, which saw major changes in Western society, such as the decline of the aristocracy and the rise of the bourgeois. I don't think many people see classical music in the same way, in terms of taking on the cultural habits of one's superiors as a method of self improvement. Nowadays, many in the classical music industry are seeking to distance themselves from the old snob stereotype.



Strange Magic said:


> No one can judge of the degree to which listening to certain music transports the listener, what ecstasies they may experience hearing whatever. All responses to music are valid, personal, authentic...But the key takeaway is that while more knowledge leads to, if nothing else, a feeling of accomplishment in absorbing the additional material, the genuineness of each individual's response to music cannot be legitimately questioned


We come to music with our own baggage, and we get different things out of it. Every person's experience is unique. On a few occasions on this forum, its been pointed out to me that I'm not a genuine classical listener. Of course, this is ridiculous, because it begs the question as to what is a genuine listener? Is it, as in the situations I remember, someone who collects a lot of recordings, is it someone who listens to opera, or is it someone who doesn't pay attention to so-called extraneous contextual information to do with music? These are no more than projections. It might be just another example of that tendency online to grade other people like cattle.



Strange Magic said:


> My only contribution here at this time, under musical community (environment) and musical education, is to stress the effectiveness of early childhood exposure to CM or whatever music one is interested in.





> The other key takeaway is that universal exposure to CM and other not readily-encountered musics, should be a part of everyone's curriculum--even if only to expose people, especially children, to those musics.


I think more and more people are recognising the benefits of music, especially for children. It is important, although a neglected aspect of education, because it is still dependent on the parents having financial means to buy instruments, pay for lessons, and so on. It can enhance a child's cognitive, psychological and social development. Although very few will make their careers in music, many more will have their lives enhanced by it.


----------

