# I'm not a musician!



## orquesta tipica (Jan 17, 2007)

Something that has always bothered me is the general attitude I find amongst many in the classical music world, that if I listen to and enjoy classical music, then I must be a musician of some sort, or if I'm not a musician then I can't really "appreciate" classical music. Maybe you can tell me that I'm just perceiving this, that it is not really true of most people who love classical music. But I haven't found much to the contrary to change my perceptions. Okay, I'm paranoid. But read on, anyway, you might find it amusing...

Maybe it's my sister's fault. She was a music major in college, and she was always telling me that I can't really appreciate music because I'm not educated in it. Meanwhile I was hard-pressed to find her ever sitting down and just listening to music. She likes the friends she meets in the music profession, she likes the stage and lights and the atmosphere surrounding the concert scene, but just closing her eyes and listening to it, I don't know if she even does that. I've never witnessed it. Maybe she does, maybe I'm wrong about her. But she's never done it in front of me.

"Oh, you like classical music? What instrument do you play?" How about I turn that around on people and say "oh, so you like movies, what production have you worked on? Obviously you can't really appreciate Godard or Bergman unless you've worked on a movie set!"

While I was in college, a music professor once told me that one needn't be able to read music in order to understand it. He made me feel better. He was but one person, though.

I almost prefer talking movies to people, because there was never the prerequisite that I had to direct a movie in order to appreciate one. But when it comes to classical music, I've often found myself feeling intimidated, because the conversations inevitably end up being about technical mumbo jumbo that I can't understand, and everyone in the group is under the assumption that it is all understood by everybody. I don't hear most discussions on movies turning into what happened at the shoot the other day. Or maybe I'd get that if I lived in L.A. or New York. I don't want to be around people who only want to talk shop.

I've been listening to classical music since I was a young teenager, so that's for more than twenty years. Do I need to know what this is called, and what that is called, to understand what is going on in a piece of music? Maybe I can't put a word to it, but doesn't one listen to music, not read it with their ears? Most illiterate people can still understand and speak a language fluently. I don't need schooling, unless I were going to play music. As it is, I get so much enjoyment being a listener, and if it wasn't for us types, musicians would be out of a job.

And come to think of it, it's a bit of an insult to assume that someone who listens to classical music is a musician--as though one wouldn't listen to it unless it were work-related. Like they _have_ to, you know. As a teenager, I often surprised other kids by telling them I listen to this music even when I have not been assigned to do so. "Oh no, it's not for school at all! I enjoy listening to it." "Naw!!!!" "Yes, I do! I really do! Honest!"

When I was a young teenager, nobody influenced me to listen to it. No one in my family likes it. I came to it on my own, with no help from anybody. It wasn't a means to anything by my own enjoyment.


----------



## Hexameron (Oct 7, 2006)

Interesting points there and I absolutely agree with you. While education, theory, history and even performance experience _aids_ in the appreciation of music, it is not some standardized requirement in order to fully enjoy and analyze the music. I'm afraid this instrumental nonsense you're talking about, where we're all supposed to be "musicians" is a plague on the system. And don't believe a word of it. Before I begin, let me clarify that understanding the history, theory and terminology of music is _vital_ only if the music is your life. If you're a casual listener, or even a semi-passionate listener, understanding sonata form and fugues and basso continuo are not required. However, in my experience, they are invaluable and can really add to the enjoyment of music.

Understanding the development of styles, the emergence of opera, the influence of the Baroque composers, the entire 19th century... it's all exciting and _should_ be explored to get that extra, some might even argue essential, flavor from the music. But don't let anyone tell you that you can't appreciate the music without it. Aural experience and aural interpretation is usually shunned by the academia, and I think their dismissal of it is wrong. Amateurs can hear inner voices and the structure of music, too; it's not just some high-brow circle of learned professors who have such advanced ear training.

I want to take your sentiments in a different direction, though, by adding my own frustrating experience to your thread; it's certainly related to the topic. I have a personal issue with this narrow-minded philosophy that all classical music fans and in my specific case, students, MUST play an instrument. I'm actually encountering the very attitude you describe right now because I'm trying to apply to colleges as a music major. However, I'm trying to find a Bachelor's in Music History (very rare), as history and theory are my sole passions in classical music. Unfortunately, and quite frustratingly, most music schools I've looked at seem to want cookie-cutter music students who wish to play an instrument and perfect their technique. Although I play piano, I have no interest at all in being a performer, and I see it as a waste of time when I wish to reach the bottom of the barrel of music history research. I understand that keyboard proficiency and theory are necessary, and I was prepared to give them their dues. These colleges, though, stress performance to the _extreme_.

Most of these Bachelor's in Music require an audition with theory tests, sight-reading and a varied repertoire in order to be admitted. Then once admitted, the student must take a hefty handful of ensemble, choral, and other instrumental classes. Senior recitals, multiple instrumental proficiency classes, and various genres of vocal study are the overwhelming majority of music classes; and this is just the general studies major. This kind of performance bias is just agitating, especially for me, when I spend all my time reading music history books and wish to delve as deep as I can into the literature and exhaustive history that classical music has gone through. Why would I want to distract myself with performing in a choir or in front of a music faculty every semester? I guess they forget about those who have ambitions for Master's degrees in Music History. It just seems that, in my experience at least, the prevailing mindset in these colleges is that all music students must play an instrument not only proficiently, but as if they were hoping to be stellar performers. The field of music history is just not embraced as it should be; it's a vast and expansive field, but most (not all) music departments want outstanding performers with only a rudimentary, even jack-of-all-trades, knowledge of the music history.

You're absolutely spot on with your film analogy that if one watches movies, one must also create them? Art history students are not required to draw and literature students don't have to write literature. But Art history students can still learn the painting techniques, the influence of history on the artists, and the styles that developed. They have no need to paint in order to become knowledgeable. Literature students can study and analyze every line of Shakespeare, but do they have to write a sonnet in order to appreciate Shakespeare? No. So why isn't music considered in the same category? I frankly don't know.

Perhaps the music schools, then, are the cause for this elitist outlook that classical music is a genre that can only be appreciated by performers. That's, at least, how I gauge it after my dispiriting experience.


----------



## orquesta tipica (Jan 17, 2007)

Hexameron said:


> Interesting points there and I absolutely agree with you. While education, theory, history and even performance experience _aids_ in the appreciation of music, it is not some standardized requirement in order to fully enjoy and analyze the music. I'm afraid this instrumental nonsense you're talking about, where we're all supposed to be "musicians" is a plague on the system. And don't believe a word of it. Before I begin, let me clarify that understanding the history, theory and terminology of music is _vital_ only if the music is your life. If you're a casual listener, or even a semi-passionate listener, understanding sonata form and fugues and basso continuo are not required. However, in my experience, they are invaluable and can really add to the enjoyment of music.
> 
> Understanding the development of styles, the emergence of opera, the influence of the Baroque composers, the entire 19th century... it's all exciting and _should_ be explored to get that extra, some might even argue essential, flavor from the music. But don't let anyone tell you that you can't appreciate the music without it.


I don't mean to suggest that I have no interest in studying the history and structures of music, but I only do so for the love of it and wanting to understand contexts and meanings behind it, and such--not because I'm learning to play it. I do the same with movies. I'll read books containing analyses of directors' work, such as I love the films of Antonioni so I have a bunch of books on him. It only seems natural to me, for one to desire knowing more about what he is impassioned about. But, I don't do it as a means to anything but my further enjoyment of it.

By the way, I read a fascinating little book some years ago by the musicologist, Hans Moldenhauer, called "The Death of Anton Webern: a drama in documents." It's not much more than a hundred pages long, and it's a really touching story. If you haven't read it already, I thought you might want to check that one out.


----------



## Guest (Feb 1, 2007)

*Hexamoran*, I agree with the points that you are making, there are several different aspects of music that one can get into and study and being a non musician, historian, composer etc does not stop anyone enjoying music. however to understand what is going on in the particular piece makes it more enjoyable IMO. 
I think a musician will approach it through the eyes of his instrument and appreciate the technical side of it, a historian will be able to tell how time has evolved the genre, a composer will appreciate the form and structure etc. 
So *orquesta tipica* you are right, not being a musician does not stop enjoyment, but can add to it.


----------



## Kurkikohtaus (Oct 22, 2006)

To take this discussion to a funnier place, consider the following (true/legendary) story.

*Sibelius* was asked why he keeps company mostly with businessmen and not musicians. "What on Earth do you talk to them about?"

Sibelius replied...

"Music, of course. The only thing musicians ever want to talk about is money."


----------



## Manuel (Feb 1, 2007)

orquesta tipica said:


> Something that has always bothered me is the general attitude I find amongst many in the classical music world, that if I listen to and enjoy classical music, then I must be a musician of some sort, or if I'm not a musician then I can't really "appreciate" classical music. Maybe you can tell me that I'm just perceiving this, that it is not really true of most people who love classical music. But I haven't found much to the contrary to change my perceptions. Okay, I'm paranoid. But read on, anyway, you might find it amusing...


I agree with you, as it is my idea that to enjoy (or understand partially) classical music being a musician yourself is not a prerequisite. However, I think we should all agree that if you happen to learn to play an instrument in a profficient level, and acquire general or in-depth knowledge in the fields of theory, harmony, orchestration, etc you can enjoy and understand music a zillion times more than without that musical education. If you play piano you notice a lot of resources pianists use whenever you attend a concert or listen to a cd. I've been playing the violin for 9 months now and I can't really explain how much it helps me when listening orchestral music.

On the other side, it's true that if educated, your appreciation of music can turn to be a bit technical, and the most you know, the most quirurgical the listening process tends to be.

As an anecdote... when I was 9 I listened to Tchaikovsky's first piano concert a lot. And for me, the arpeggios played by the woods in the middle section of the first movement looked like bubbles ascending from the bottom of the sea. Now for me they are just arpeggios.


----------



## Topaz (Oct 25, 2006)

Manuel said:


> ..... I think we should all agree that if you happen to learn to play an instrument in a profficient level, and acquire general or in-depth knowledge in the fields of theory, harmony, orchestration, etc you can enjoy and understand music a zillion times more than without that musical education. .....(


A zillion times, ay? Are you sure? That's like saying if you don't meet these standards you may as well not bother listening.


----------



## Manuel (Feb 1, 2007)

Topaz said:


> A zillion times, ay? Are you sure? That's like saying if you don't meet these standards you may as well not bother listening.


Not really. My point is that you an always enjoy music, but that *enjoyment* can be multiplied many times if you have a formal musical education. This will allow you to understand orchestration, the way the motifs are developed by the composer, inversions, contrapunctual staff, retrogads. There are many things you lose if you are unable to read a score, for example. And even if you can read it on a basic level, there's more you can get from it with a complex musical background.


----------



## Topaz (Oct 25, 2006)

Does this argument only apply to classical music, or to all music?


----------



## Manuel (Feb 1, 2007)

Topaz said:


> Does this argument only apply to classical music, or to all music?


Non classical western music usually complies with the traditional ABA standard. Heavy musical training is not, IMO, necessary in this case.

Even if you can read orchestral scores, I don't think it would be a great help approaching Hip-Hop.


----------



## Topaz (Oct 25, 2006)

Does it apply to all classical music? If not where do you draw the line?


----------



## johnnyx (Jan 3, 2007)

"Enjoyment" is in the ears, mind, and heart of the listener. You may enjoy music because of how it makes you feel, the structure of the composition, the memories it evokes, the emotions it evokes, the sound of a certain instrument(s), the skills of the performers, the history behind it, the sense of community you get in relation to others who enjoy the same music, etc., etc., etc. I disagree that your "enojyment" of music, generally speaking, necessarily increases based on your knowledge of theory and/or you ability to play an instrument. I would even go so far as to suggest the opposite could be true in some cases, where a highly skilled, highly knowledgable musician (say a pianist), might experience a decrease in his/her enjoyment of some music (say symphonies) over the years. 

I am a guitar player. I can say from my experiences that the knowledge I have gained as a musician has increased my appreciation and enjoyment of some music, and decreased my appreciation and enjoyment of some music, but many other factors play a large part in my "enjoyment" of music.

I do, however, enjoy this discussion very much!


----------



## Topaz (Oct 25, 2006)

*johhnyx:* As you will see, I am trying to tease out the arguments from Manuel to clarify this kind of thinking. I'd like to know whether his view applies across all classical music or only to certain parts of it, and why it doesn't apply to non-classical music. Let's see what the answer is.


----------



## Manuel (Feb 1, 2007)

Topaz said:


> Does it apply to all classical music? If not where do you draw the line?


I think you're trying to make to much of this. I only support that with formal music education you can enjoy music the most. If you can handle to use the training to comprehend what you hear, and not just use it in a quirurgical and technical process, disecting what you hear in cold analysis. What you do with your knowledge, and the way it affects how you feel the music, depends on everyone.

IMO, pop music is off because is a lot simpler: simple structure, simple lyrics, simple tonalities and development of the motifs, if any.


----------



## Manuel (Feb 1, 2007)

It's also other way to appreciate how great some composers were. Take a look at the image I attach.
He composed the whole movement from the three notes in red. Just three. And it's almost ten minutes long.


----------



## Topaz (Oct 25, 2006)

I'm not making too much of this. It's you who is making vast claims about the advantage of musical training. I am simply hoping to discover from you which branches of classical music you think this claim applies to, and why it doesn't apply to the more complex varieties of other music, say Jazz or perhaps some styles of electronica, or Metal.


----------



## johnnyx (Jan 3, 2007)

Manuel said:


> IMO, pop music is off because is a lot simpler: simple structure, simple lyrics, simple tonalities and development of the motifs, if any.


I don't know, man, given that far more people seem to enjoy "pop" music, perhaps it's us that are off. LOL.


----------



## johnnyx (Jan 3, 2007)

Hey Topaz,
Jazz is a great example. Miles Davis is one of my all-time favorite musicians. His music it much "simpler" than, say, Coltrane, but Miles music is so much more enjoyable to me. In fact, his lack of notes, or as he'd say the space between notes, is an essential part of his music. It certainly doesn't require musical training to enjoy silence.
x


----------



## orquesta tipica (Jan 17, 2007)

I like the analogy of someone who is illiterate but yet understands a language. He can't read or write it, but yet you speak to him, and he knows what you said. Hypothetically, he could even learn to speak the Queen's English without ever learning how to read it.

Which is easier, reading a score without hearing the notes in your head, or hearing music without reading the score?


----------



## johnnyx (Jan 3, 2007)

"Ah, that shows you the power of music, that magician of magician, who lifts his wand and says his mysterious word and all things real pass away and the phantoms of your mind walk before you clothed in flesh." - Mark Twain


----------



## Guest (Feb 3, 2007)

*Topaz*, I take it that you do not agree with the concept that musicians see a lot of music through their instrument, but all of the people that I know of that took up an instrument later in life purely for the pleasure of it and not to make it a career, are surprised by the extra enjoyment found by understanding it a little bit more.


----------



## Manuel (Feb 1, 2007)

> I don't know, man, given that far more people seem to enjoy "pop" music, perhaps it's us that are off.


Join them if you want. Something's popularity should not be used to make an idea of its _goodness_

Nobody seems to get my point. I'm saying here that *everybody *can *enjoy *music. *Formal education* in the subject *is in no way a prerequisite*. But the more you know of this matter, the more you will enjoy it.



> Hey Topaz,
> In fact, his lack of notes, or as he'd say the space between notes, is an essential part of his music.


I must confess I'am not into jazz very much, but when I read this, Toru Takemitsu came to my mind. It's with his works that I really started to consider silence as an integral part of the music.



> It certainly doesn't require musical training to enjoy silence.


I don't agree at all. As I just said, the silence is not just the absence of music, it's a way in which the music is written. In every work, the silence is as important as any quaver.
The musical training will help you to enjoy the silence as written in the score, just as important as the motifs you really hear.

If you can, try to get some music by Takemitsu. The first work I heard from him was _From me flow what you call time_. It's awsome.

To conclude with this idea, try to think in the creepy silence at the begining of Beethoven's Coriolan overture. How would it sound if they were shortened?
The final chords in Sibelius fifth symphony also make a good example.

Manuel


----------



## Topaz (Oct 25, 2006)

Andante said:


> *Topaz*, I take it that you do not agree with the concept that musicians see a lot of music through their instrument, but all of the people that I know of that took up an instrument later in life purely for the pleasure of it and not to make it a career, are surprised by the extra enjoyment found by understanding it a little bit more.


With respect, I think that you and Manuel are confusing knowledge *deepening* and knowledge *widening.*

Take a few examples:

•	The pleasure of motoring (i.e. driving a car); and Car DIY (i.e. doing all the oily jobs, repairs etc)

•	The pleasure of reading a novel; and writing a novel

•	The pleasure of watching a ballet; taking up ballet as an activity

•	The pleasure of listening to a piano; taking up playing the piano​In each case, most people do not engage in the second activity in order to improve their appreciation of the first. They do it mainly for other reasons. The benefit they obtain from a widening of their interest - from the first into the second - means that they are likely to obtain more overall enjoyment. However, this greater enjoyment results mainly from the *widening* effect, not the *deepening* effect. It follows that people who choose not to pursue the second activity will not lose out to any great extent in their enjoyment of the first.

I am still awaiting a reply to my question about why this extra knowledge and experience is considered relevant only for classical music and not for non-classical music. There is clearly something highly dubious about this proposition, given that classical music varies in complexity as does non-classical music. There must be a big overlap area in terms of complexity, in which case the argument is invalidated even on its own terms.


----------



## johnnyx (Jan 3, 2007)

Manuel said:


> But the more you know of this matter, the more you will enjoy it.


It wasn't that way for me with sausage. 



Manuel said:


> If you can, try to get some music by Takemitsu. The first work I heard from him was _From me flow what you call time_. It's awsome.


I had this piece at one point. As I recall it was very atmosphermic and emotional.

Manuel, I agree with your points to a certain degree, and think that to some extent these points do apply to other genres of music. For example, since I started teaching myself to play guitar with a bottleneck slide, I certainly am listening to more old blues music like Son House, Hounddog Taylor, Mississippi Fred McDowell, etc. I also appreciate and enjoy this type of music much more than I did before I started playing it. However, that is me, and while I may appreciate things about this music based on my musical knowledge, I don't think I can say that I enjoy it more than someone who does not play it. Perhaps the semantics are where we disagree.

As a side note, this discussion is the most I have enjoyed this forum since I signed up last month.


----------



## Kurkikohtaus (Oct 22, 2006)

Manuel, I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that C-G-G comprises the "whole piece"... the phrase goes on into the 4th bar, doesn't it?


----------



## Manuel (Feb 1, 2007)

Topaz said:


> •	The pleasure of motoring (i.e. driving a car); and Car DIY (i.e. doing all the oily jobs, repairs etc)
> 
> •	The pleasure of reading a novel; and writing a novel
> 
> ...


----------



## Manuel (Feb 1, 2007)

Do you see what I mean now? 

And those are just easy examples that can be discovered with a bit of an education and dedication.

There are others that are harder, like inversions, and some you can not get unless you read from the score (and use your imagination too).

The last two come from the sonata Op.31 Nº 2. The red theme in tempest2.jpg can be considered as a rephrasing of the red one in tempest1.jpg. Upside down, inverted.

If getting a hold of this few I mention seems to be hard in a piano solo work. How hard do you think it can be to do the same in an orchestral work like... Sibelius' seventh.


I truly hope this explains my point for you Topaz.


----------



## Topaz (Oct 25, 2006)

Manuel said:


> I'm sorry to tell you this chap, but you missed the point again. Is what I write so hard to understand? Am I writing in finnish?
> 
> I will not rephrase what I said before. At least not now. Take your time and read my previous posts carefully. You don't seem to really get what I put there.


I am afraid your point is hard to understand, old chap. I am simply asking you to:

1. Explain why you think a through musical education and high proficiency in a musical instrument will provide a "zillion-fold" improvement in one's enjoyment of classical music.

2. Say which branches of classical music you think this vast improvement applies to.

3. Say why it doesn't apply to any branches of non-classical music.​
Unfortunately you keep evading these questions. Here is your chance to answer them. It's the "zillion-fold" improvement that particularly intrigues me. I mean, a zillion is quite a large number isn't it? If that is true it must mean that those unfortunates who do not possess such skills can hardly begin to appreciate music. Would you not agree with that interpretation?


----------



## Manuel (Feb 1, 2007)

Topaz said:


> It's the "zillion-fold" improvement that particularly intrigues me. I mean, *a zillion is quite a large number *isn't it?


This forums usually suffer of too literal readings. And yes, with zillion I mean = a lot.



> If that is true it must mean that those unfortunates who do not possess such skills can hardly begin to appreciate music. Would you not agree with that interpretation?


It is my idea that yes, they can enjoy it. But there's even more they could get from what they hear if they had the ability/knowledge to analyze it.

And the most clear example of this is this post by Kurkikohtaus



> Manuel, I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that C-G-G comprises the "whole piece"... the phrase goes on into the 4th bar, doesn't it?





> 3. Say why it doesn't apply to any branches of non-classical music.


Again, it's my impression that classical is the most complex type of music you will find out there (with all that Mahler, Stravinsky, Koechlin, Henze... this is not something that can be refuted). I do accept, however, there's a lot of highly developed styles marked as non-classical (like jazz and blues). But my knowledge on this other types of music is just basic:
- I tryed it.
- I didn't like.
- I don't give a cr*p for it.

That's why, IMO, *it doesn't apply for non-classical music*. There's so much good classical music out there that I'm not ready to waste my time with Hip-Hop, jazz, blues, pop, country et al. I'm trying to embrace all the classical music I can, and I'm sure I'm doing well. Take a look at this thread, the works I list there as rarities are completely unknown (so are the composers) for almost every fellow member here.


----------



## robert newman (Oct 4, 2006)

I think this is an interesting argument/debate. Those who have the knowledge to analyse music and to become familiar with musical scores, music theory, orchestration etc. seem to have a good point in saying that we do not appreciate music as well if we do not have such knowledge. But I think that Topaz has a very good point. Those who can do all of the above things may get great pleasure from their knowledge, from their analytical ability. But surely the pleasure that is MUSIC comes from music just as powerfully, whether we are knowledgeable or analytical. 

And, so, though I respect Manuel's argument I think that the pleasure obtained from music by its study and analysis is a different thing completely from actually listening to the music itself. 

I do not discourage the study of music. It brings great pleasure to many students. But the pleasures it brings vary from student to student. To analyze things is itself a pleasure to some people but not to others. The pleasure of analyzing a thing or learning it scientifically should not be confused with the pleasure of simply LISTENING to music. I do not believe that those who KNOW music necessarily enjoy music more than those who do not. Therefore, I believe, SOME people may get greater pleasure by studying the science of music, but others get just as much pleasure by NOT studying it. 

Finally, there is no scientific way to become a composer, or to teach people HOW to compose music. Once again, such a thing is intuitive. To suggest that nobody can be a composer unless they play the piano, or unless they have a degree in music is, of course, wrong. Sometimes education can be an obstacle to art. It can make us dogmatic. 

I know of theological students who, after graduation, no longer believed in God. Students who analyzed the bible (from one point of view) to the point where they believed 'scientifically' that it was wholly unreliable. So much for education ! 

We do not approach music by learning its mechanics. We listen to examples of its dynamics. We never stop listening. Such a listener is as qualified as anyone who has merely studied its mechanics. We learn/appreciate from the inside out and not vice-versa. 

So I tend to agree with Topaz.


----------



## Manuel (Feb 1, 2007)

robert newman said:


> I think this is an interesting argument/debate. Those who have the knowledge to analyse music and to become familiar with musical scores, music theory, orchestration etc. seem to have a good point in saying that we do not appreciate music as well if we do not have such knowledge. But I think that Topaz has a very good point. Those who can do all of the above things may get great pleasure from their knowledge, from their analytical ability. But surely the pleasure that is MUSIC comes from music just as powerfully, whether we are knowledgeable or analytical.
> 
> And, so, though I respect Manuel's argument I think that the pleasure obtained from music by its study and analysis is a different thing completely from actually listening to the music itself.


My point is based in the fact that I've been in both sides of this argument. Before I knew any musical concept I really liked music, just as a listener and experiencer (intuitive, as you mentioned). Now I have a bit of a knoledge in the matter and I can assure you I feel it helps me a lot to get more from the same music.

It works this way for me and many music lovers I know. But I recognise it's not what everybody feels. However, I do not happen to know anybody who after getting a wide education in music feel he had more enjoyment at his previous uneducated condition, regreting from it.


----------



## robert newman (Oct 4, 2006)

Manuel, 

I really appreciate what you wrote. Thanks

Robert


----------



## Topaz (Oct 25, 2006)

*Robert*

You accepted all that a bit easily didn't you?

As I have said, I think the argument that a musical training greatly enhances one's appreciation of listening to music is entirely wrong, although I seem to be the only one left making the point. The argument is wrong because it confuses three mainly separate types of pleasure: (i) that resulting purely from listening to music, (ii) that resulting from knowing more about the theory/history of music, (iii) that resulting from playing a musical instrument.

I fully accept that the three types of pleasure are not completely independent. My point is that there comes a point where additional knowledge of theory and practice is virtually irrelevant to enhancing listening appreciation. This point comes very early with some types of music, and a bit later with classical music. However, even with classical music, it does not require more than a bit of self-study to gain pretty full enjoyment. After that, I maintain that for most people further study is likely to be subject to rapidly diminishing returns with respect to improving one's listening enjoyment.

To illustrate my point very simply, consider the following two questions:

1. Does the sound from a hi-fi system improve if you investigate the theory and practice of the relevant electronics, and train to become a sound engineer and hi-fi installer?

2.	Does the appreciation of birdsong improve greatly (or at all) if you carry out a detailed physiological study of ornithological larynxes?​
If the answers are "yes" I will concede that I am wrong. If the answers are "no" then why should the sound of Beethoven's Ninth (or anything else) improve merely because one can read music and play a violin? To argue that it does is intellectual arrogance or self-delusion, probably a bit of both.


----------



## Manuel (Feb 1, 2007)

Topaz said:


> *Robert*
> 
> You accepted all that a bit easily didn't you?
> 
> ...


May I ask what is your musical education and what instrument you play?


----------



## Hexameron (Oct 7, 2006)

Manuel said:


> May I ask what is your musical education and what instrument you play?


What does "musical education" mean to you? A music degree? Having integrated the knowledge from reading over two hundred books? Instrumental experience? Having taken 10+ college level music classes?

I wonder what orquesta tipica would think of your question. For all the support you gave him in this thread, I hope you're not going to become the anti-hero now. You're asking the very question, that irrelevant and provocative question, which prompted the author to create this thread in the first place: "what instrument do you play?"


----------



## Manuel (Feb 1, 2007)

Hexameron said:


> What does "musical education" mean to you? A music degree? Having integrated the knowledge from reading over two hundred books? Instrumental experience? Having taken 10+ college level music classes?
> 
> I wonder what orquesta tipica would think of your question. For all the support you gave him in this thread, I hope you're not going to become the anti-hero now. You're asking the very question, that irrelevant and provocative question, which prompted the author to create this thread in the first place: "what instrument do you play?"


I'm sorry I wasn't clear. But my question was directed to Topaz. He states musical education doesn't help to understand or enjoy music. It's clear to me that he must have any type of formal musical education (to this I was referring), so that after it, he can despise it.

Then, if he has no formal musical training, it makes no point to discuss this subject with him, as he can not possibly know what he is talking about.

This is my point:
*A. *without formal musical education: you can only speak how you feel about music, bla bla bla.
*B. *With formal musical education: you can speak how you feel about music, AND what you feel about YOUR formal musical knowledge changing the way you appreciate music.


----------



## Hexameron (Oct 7, 2006)

Manuel said:


> I'm sorry I wasn't clear. But my question was directed to Topaz. He states musical education doesn't help to understand or enjoy music. It's clear to me that he must have any type of formal musical education (to this I was referring), so that after it, he can despise it.


I know you weren't asking me this question. But I was hoping you could define "musical education" because this can mean a variety of things: having a Ph.D in Music or reading one music appreciation text book. Let's make a distinction; in your experience, what is "musical education?"


----------



## robert newman (Oct 4, 2006)

Well Topaz, I felt that Manuel deserved credit for saying that learning about a thing (which in this case is born out of love for it) does indeed intensify the pleasure of the person. It certainly brings her/him closer to the workshop in which it was created etc etc etc. 

But yes Topaz, I agree strongly with you - that the PLEASURE (rather than knowledge) of music comes wthout analysis in its simplest and most direct sense. Beethoven wrote not for academics but for lovers of music. 

I also believe it is healthy to set to one side all that we may have learned from books and schools to consider what intuition may teach us naturally. Such an education is real. And in this modern world we as music lovers have this ocean of recordings and concerts in which to be truly more familiar with these masterpieces than many men nearer the time when they were written. Listening is perhaps the single greatest way to get close to music. As such, it is a method of gaining as much, if not more, pleasure, than those who analyse it as a science. It is natural to listen. It is closer to nature. The same is not true of musical analysis. And what is closer to nature is, by definition, more musical.


----------



## Guest (Feb 5, 2007)

You can enjoy music and not know or even ask why, but I would bet that the majority of music lovers that do not play an instrument wish that they did, and a lot do infact take up an instrument purely to have the experience of making music if only in an amateur way, which far exceeds the enjoyment of music than merely listening.

*Quote Topaz*

With respect, I think that you and Manuel are confusing knowledge deepening and knowledge widening.

Take a few examples: 
• The pleasure of motoring (i.e. driving a car); and Car DIY (i.e. doing all the oily jobs, repairs etc)

One of my hobbies is motoring, and I understand how a car works, as a result I appreciate a quality car, knowing all the things that go into making a really good car my enjoyment and appreciation of motoring is increased.
If someone is passionate about music surly they would want to learn all they can about the art and even have a go at learning an instrument.


----------



## robert newman (Oct 4, 2006)

It's a curious paradox that the sciences exist to obtain more knowledge of the world in which we live but the science of music (such as we learn about in our textbooks and in our colleges) does little and has always done little to teach us anything of nature or of nature's music. In this sense music, (as the science we know today), is of questionable value and it iseems only right to doubt whether analysis or knowledge of instruments is as 'musical' an activity as we might suppose. 

Musicality is intuitive and it's interesting that landmark works in music history have often anticipated those in other sciences. In astronomy for example the 'music of the spheres' etc. Musical temperament was established (e.g. in Bach's 48 Preludes and Fugues) like a sort of atlas, mirroring the mapping of the physical world by the great explorers of the 18th century. Music is so much more than academic study that I doubt whether much of what we learn is really knowledge at all but convention and cultural norms. I believe the great music still to be written will hardly be composed at all, but will be more the result of discovering the music of nature and expressing it in ways that transcend the conventions of five lines and spaces. 

The task of getting us from 5 lines and spaces to the music of nature is in my view the challenge of the modern composer. He becomes, in the end, a skilled orchestrator.


----------



## Manuel (Feb 1, 2007)

Hexameron said:


> I know you weren't asking me this question. But I was hoping you could define "musical education" because this can mean a variety of things: having a Ph.D in Music or reading one music appreciation text book. Let's make a distinction; in your experience, what is "musical education?"


Any formal course from a more or less respectable institution. From the local teacher who lives in the neighborhood to a major university degree. A course in which you learn basics of harmony, theory, history, etc; which will make you discover what I pointed out in this post by yourself.



> Beethoven wrote not for academics but for lovers of music.


That applies to the three sonatas in the Op.2; as he was trying to impress the aristocrats to make his living. But then he wrote the *Archiduke *trio, the Hammerklavier and the 4th piano concerto in dedication to the Archduke Rudolf. Through the complexity of this works we can elucidate Rudolf must have been a very good musician.



> Music is so much more than academic study that I doubt whether much of what we learn is really knowledge at all but convention and cultural norms


A lot of disciplines and sciences study just conventions. Consider Literature for as an example. Neither Economy is a more natural thing.


----------



## Topaz (Oct 25, 2006)

I simply cannot understand the mentality of people who think that by studying an aesthetic pleasure like listening to music the appreciation level will increase a "zillion fold". It's this alleged enormous increase in utility that I am questioning, not the fact that additional knowledge may be useful up to a point. Beyond that point, the extra utility gained from such further study is mainly in a separate area of want satisfaction.

To take another example, suppose someone enjoys a country walk, or horse-riding, or some other such recreational activity. How do you think they would react if they were told that their enjoyment level would increase a "zillion" fold by studying climatology, geography, ecology, arboriculture, ornithology, zoology, or whatever. They would laugh at you. I enjoy both of these activities, but my knowledge in these areas is sufficient only to enable me to get by. My enjoyment level of these recreational activities, per se, certainly would not increase substantially further by pursuing any of these disciplines more rigorously.

In this context, I am merely trying to seek enlightenment to Manuel's statement at post 6,

_I agree with you, as it is my idea that to enjoy (or understand partially) classical music being a musician yourself is not a prerequisite. However, I think we should all agree that if you happen to learn to play an instrument in a profficient level, and acquire general or in-depth knowledge in the fields of theory, harmony, orchestration, etc you can enjoy and understand music a *zillion times *more than without that musical education._ (My bolding)​
It's clear from the above what he really thinks, namely that those without such skills and knowledge are well short of fully appreciating music. This is the language of an elitist snob who tries but fails to conceal it. In trying to clarify this thinking further, all I have had is the usual tricks of the defeated, namely failure to answer pertinent questions and allegations that his posts have been misunderstood.

The latest is that I am asked for my qualifications. As Hexameron perceptively commented, this proves that he is exactly like the snobs that _orquesta typica _was referring to. It is like someone saying "I think pigs fly", and when challenged it receives the response "Tell me your qualifications to discuss whether pigs fly or I won't discuss it since you aren't qualified to express an opinion". Crazy!

Oh well, enough said, except perhaps to suggest that people should not assume that only once they can play a violin, and own 1700 classical music CDs, will they then only obtain full music enjoyment. This is utterly preposterous.

*P.S*. I am not sure what the reference to "Economy" means in the last post, and in a previous one. I guess it might be "Economics". If it is, perhaps I could be informed as I have more than a little in the way of formal qualifications here, plus much working experience in various senior Academic, Governmental and Commercial positions. Mind you, it's as irrelevant as whatever qualifications I may have in music.


----------



## Manuel (Feb 1, 2007)

Topaz said:


> I simply cannot understand the mentality of people who think that by studying an aesthetic pleasure like listening to music the appreciation level will increase a "zillion fold".


Let me say again that this forums tend to suffer from literal readings. I was expecting you could understand what I meant with this, not needing any additional help to elucidate it. Is that how you work and develop ideas? As seen in other threads, you seem to stuck in a certain step where you request a lot of minimalist definitions.



> The latest is that I am asked for my qualifications. As Hexameron perceptively commented, this proves that he is exactly like the snobs that orquesta typica was referring to. It is like someone saying "I think pigs fly", and when challenged it receives the response "Tell me your qualifications to discuss whether pigs fly or I won't discuss it since you aren't qualified to express an opinion". Crazy!


Not really. How do you know having qualifications will not improve your enjoyment of music if you don't have any? You just heard of it? Is that something you feel?



> P.S. I am not sure what the reference to "Economy" means in the last post, and in a previous one. I guess it might be "Economics". If it is, perhaps I could be informed as I have more than a little in the way of formal qualifications here, plus much working experience in various senior Academic, Governmental and Commercial positions. Mind you, it's as irrelevant as whatever qualifications I may have in music.


Is this a tacky attempt to redirect the thread to a field in which you apparently feel more comfortable? You deliberately show your credentials here, something which was not by any means requested*, and you avoid making any mention to your musical background, that will prove me you're not talking just because. My idea up to this point is that your labeling of _snobbish _derives from unilateral and self inflicted feeling of deception, as you realise not everybody shares your taste for ignorance. You may prove me wrong, put your uncalled credentials back in your wallet, and show what your musical background is _(don't worry, this is a web forum, you can lie to put an end to this and nobody will be able to rebate it)._

*neither it can come from a bad or partial reading on how the thread has developed.


----------



## Hexameron (Oct 7, 2006)

Manuel said:


> Let me say again that this forums tend to suffer from literal readings.


Such a slanderous remark on this forum needs proof. Please list the threads and/or posts where members of this forum have "suffer[ed] from literal readings."



> Not really. How do you know having qualifications will not improve your enjoyment of music if you don't have any? You just heard of it? Is that something you feel?


This is not what Topaz is arguing. Any one can see that having an education in a field will improve the enjoyment and understanding of all the aspects in that field. Courses in art history will improve the appreciation of art; learning how to analyze sonnets will boost the enjoyment of Shakespeare. Topaz is addressing your exaggerated post that a musical education will enhance the apprecation of music by a "zillionfold," as if having no musical education at all makes one completely inadequate in the art of enjoying music or listening to the depths of a symphony. If you had said, "doubly" or "tenfold," I don't think we would be having this argument.

Perhaps Topaz and I _are_ making a "literal reading" of your posts, but for such a serious debate, how can we not take issue with a haphazardly hyperbolized word like "zillion?" What we cannot discern from your argument is if "zillion" is merely a careless overstatement, or your actual passionate belief. For me and probably for Topaz as well, "zillion" conjures up the image of infinity. After all, I'm assuming zillion comes after trillion, quadrillion and however many others there are (octillions?). Therefore, if music appreciation increases a zillionfold after a rudimentary understanding of harmony and theory, I would indeed feel sorry for the average folk who pops in a Mozart symphony; he must be hard-pressed to find a single melody.

By the way, having known and been one of those with no musical education, I can vouch for amateurs who are "ignorant" as you suggest Topaz is. Amateurs who do not know what sonata form is can still hear the themes and understand when the development is occuring. Those who have never studied fugues can hear the entrance of new voices and understand that a systematic use of imitative polyphony is involved; they may not be able to label all of the episodes, counter-subjects etc., but through aural experience alone, the average listener can distinguish forms and even motifs in music.



> Is this a tacky attempt to redirect the thread to a field in which you apparently feel more comfortable? You deliberately show your credentials here, something which was not by any means requested*, and you avoid making any mention to your musical background, that will prove me you're not talking just because...You may prove me wrong, put your uncalled credentials back in your wallet, and show what your musical background is _(don't worry, this is a web forum, you can lie to put an end to this and nobody will be able to rebate it)._


Again, you're dangerously over the mark; Topaz has engaged you intelligently and without making one insulting comment. Topaz stated that his "Economic" credentials that you find so repulsive are indeed irrelevant, just as a musical qualification is. Assuming that Topaz can only answer you by lying about himself is not only rude, but immature. Persistence in a debate is one thing, but taking personal shots at someone does you no credit.


----------



## Manuel (Feb 1, 2007)

Hexameron said:


> Such a slanderous remark on this forum needs proof. Please list the threads and/or posts where members of this forum have "suffer[ed] from literal readings."


As I said before, I'm using _zillion_ to mean "a lot". Let me now explain myself.



> Perhaps Topaz and I are making a "literal reading" of your posts, but for such a serious debate, how can we not take issue with a haphazardly hyperbolized word like "zillion?" What we cannot discern from your argument is if "zillion" is merely a careless overstatement, or your actual passionate belief. For me and probably for Topaz as well, "zillion" conjures up the image of infinity. After all, I'm assuming zillion comes after trillion, quadrillion and however many others there are (octillions?). Therefore, if music appreciation increases a zillionfold after a rudimentary understanding of harmony and theory, I would indeed feel sorry for the average folk who pops in a Mozart symphony; he must be hard-pressed to find a single melody.


English is not, as you may have already realised considering my location, my mother tongue, neither is easy for me to fully express my ideas in, let's say, clear concepts. When I have to write here I carefully choose my words and get assistance from several web tools as translators and dictionaries. Then each post means a lot of dedication, as I'm trying to transmit my ideas in a foreign language in a way that anybody can understand them. In this particular case, my idea was that _zillion _means *a lot*; and not being sure of this, I consulted the vocable at dictionary.com*, this is wat I got then:

*zillion *
-noun 1. *an extremely large*, indeterminate number.
-adjective 2. of, pertaining to, or amounting to a zillion.

My bad. As it seems, I was lost in translation and the quotidian use of the word doesn't mean just *a lot *as I tought, but almost an infinite (indefinite actually) number.

With this new conceptualization in mind I think I understand Topaz's points as from my previous posts, in my words the understanding of music for the educated listener is inmensely huge and superior to the uneducated one (zillion, infinite times). Making the latter one completely despisable after the comparison. But now that I see the more pragmatic or real use of the word I was using (not completely what the dictionary points out), I discern my remarks sound exagerated.

I do believe, however, that musical training and education (from lectures on works to advanced courses in harmony; from basic conservatoire sonata form classes to a formal seminar in contemporary music) boosts your perception, and allows the listener to decode a wider content from the music. But I can not say if its two, three or six times more. Of course not a _zillion _times D ).

**zillion. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Retrieved February 05, 2007, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/zillion*



> Again, you're dangerously over the mark; *Topaz has engaged you intelligently *and without making one insulting comment. Topaz stated that his "Economic" credentials that you find so repulsive are indeed irrelevant, just as a musical qualification is. Assuming that Topaz can only answer you by lying about himself is not only rude, but immature. Persistence in a debate is one thing, but taking personal shots at someone does you no credit.


No he hasn't. He has you to come and deffend him. I insist in that I have a strong point here:
- with no musical education (in the ways I mentioned before), you can only feel and enjoy music.
- With the musical education, you can feel it and also understand the form and concepts (harmony, progressions, development of music cells and ideas, etc).

Only by having a musical education, and after experiencing it's support to the enjoyment of music, you can tell how it works, it it helps, if it gives you a technical and cold approach. Someone that hasn't experienced this has no valid point in declaring it's lack of use. It's like making comments of a place you've never visited.
Let's rephrase it. If you have never spent a weekend in a cottage near a lake in southwestern Canada, your considerations on how it feels to _spend a weekend in a cottage near the lake in SW Canada_ are of no validity.



> Topaz stated that his "Economic" credentials that you find so repulsive are indeed irrelevant, just as a musical qualification is.


They are not irrelevant... in the field of economics. But as this is a music forum, they're absolutely uncalled for. Musical qualification is indeed important here, as it is the matter of discussion in this three page thread.

I'm starting to believe the point Orquesta Típica mentioned is more like self inflicted. The guy that knows a lot, just knows a lot. But the ignorant one wishes he knew as much as the educated (considering the formed one a snob is how he builds his self inflicted discrimination). As most amateur music lovers, when in presence of a good instrumentist say they wish the could play an instrument. This is not something I made up. That's how it happens, and was pointed out in previous posts (not being refuted then).

As the fellow poster stated the motiv in the Waldstein sonata is present only in the first 4 bars, vanishing later. It doesn't matter if you like it and make you feel better listening to this sonata. A perception like that is false: erroneouse and incomplete. I don't support this kind of biased approach to music as many of you do; claiming is the amateur way to enjoy music and find happiness in it. I don't want to cheat myself as many of you do getting entertainment from this misrepresented appreciation of music.


----------



## Frederik Magle (Feb 17, 2006)

Manuel said:


> Let me say again that this forums tend to suffer from literal readings. I was expecting you could understand what I meant with this, not needing any additional help to elucidate it. Is that how you work and develop ideas? As seen in other threads, you seem to stuck in a certain step where you request a lot of minimalist definitions


Unfortunately I did not see the development of this thread until just a few minutes ago.
The discussion ends here. Generalization about the members of this forum and personal attacks is not acceptable on this forum!

I have been trying to enforce a minimalist approach to moderation, allowing discussions to evolve even if they contain strong contention, which this thread surely does. However, the line is drawn when matters get personal.

This thread is closed.


----------

