# understand / appreciate / enjoy / get



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Someone says, "I don't understand this work." 

Someone says, "I don't appreciate this work." 

Someone says, "I don't enjoy this work." 

Someone says, "I don't get this work." 

Are they all saying the same thing? If not, what are the differences? 

Should any of those be our goal(s) as listeners?


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

If I said those 4 statements, I would mean exactly the same thing - I listened and don't enjoy the work. I imagine that many listeners would not distinguish between those either (although most would probably not use all those different statements). I think there are people who both enjoy and try to understand what the composer is doing with the music. The "understand" and "get" would probably be used for the latter aspect. Appreciate can mean different things - enjoy, understand musical aspects of the work and find them good in some sense, generally view the composer or the work as significant in classical music.

I don't feel listeners need to have any goals. Everyone wants to listen to music they enjoy and finding such music is, of course, a joy. Some people do get more out of a work when they understand it better. For those it makes sense to listen or read the score with that goal in mind.


----------



## dsphipps100 (Jan 10, 2016)

science said:


> Someone says, "I don't understand this work."
> 
> Someone says, "I don't appreciate this work."
> 
> ...


I don't understand what you are trying to say. I also don't appreciate what you are insinuating, I don't enjoy having to deal with it, and I most especially don't get what the point of all this is!

Oh, wait....








(Sorry, I just couldn't resist.







)


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

dsphipps100 said:


> I don't understand what you are trying to say. I also don't appreciate what you are insinuating, I don't enjoy having to deal with it, and I most especially don't get what the point of all this is!
> 
> Oh, wait....
> 
> ...


Do you like/appreciate/enjoy cigars?

As for the OP, I think for most people they just say what they think of at the time and so yes for the majority of people saying any of that it is yes they are all the same. Sometimes I think people can appreciate a work but not really enjoy it, so "appreciate" is the only one I think someone actually puts a bit of thought into before they say "I appreciate..." but the other words you said probably are all the same to most people.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

science said:


> Someone says, "I don't understand this work."
> 
> Someone says, "I don't appreciate this work."
> 
> ...


If understanding is the sort of thing musicologists do, then I don't understand any music.

I appreciate Schubert, I can see what he did was very fine, but I don't enjoy his music much.

I enjoy listening to Ciconia, but it feels like an alien world, I don't get it at all. I enjoy the uncomfortable feeling.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

I tend not to say "I don't understand this" or "I don't get this", though I might fall back on those if the music is in an unfamiliar idiom _and_ I don't enjoy it. When people say "I don't get this", I assume they mean "other people enjoy this, and I don't, and I haven't identified what it is that the other people enjoy". In those of us lacking a musical education, we might not technically speaking "understand" a piece of music we love.

Some people seem to say "You don't understand it" as an explanation (or also a criticism) when someone expresses a dislike of some music. Increased understanding can produce increased enjoyment, but the two don't go hand in hand.

I avoid "appreciate" because sometimes I hear a whiff of snobbery in it - I _appreciate_ this, while you merely _enjoy_ it.

As for goals - this is all a voluntary enterprise, so I guess my goal is to enjoy the music I listen to, and find more music to enjoy. But I'm interested in other people's opinions, and if there's something I don't like that many others do, I'll make some effort to "get it", but not to to the extent that it will significantly reduce my time spent enjoying something else.


----------



## dsphipps100 (Jan 10, 2016)

Fugue Meister said:


> Do you like/appreciate/enjoy cigars?


Honestly, I've never smoked in my entire life - not even once. (Being a clarinet player, I like my lungs the way the are.







)

But it sure is a great-lookin' smiley, ain't it?


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

dsphipps100 said:


> Honestly, I've never smoked in my entire life - not even once. (Being a clarinet player, I like my lungs the way the are.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


But most people don't inhale cigars... It's more a taste/aromatic thing. Not to mention pretty damn sexy when a woman smokes one. I hope I'm not mistaken that you are of the female persuasion...


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

science said:


> Someone says, "I don't understand this work."
> 
> Someone says, "I don't appreciate this work."
> 
> ...


If music is a language, then they all have specific meanings. If music is simply something to enjoy then they can be (basically) identical.

I don't understand Bach's Crab Canon. I can see what he's trying to do, but can't follow it at speed.

I don't appreciate Bach's Crab Canon. It's an interesting conceit but it isn't good music.

I don't enjoy Bach's Crab Canon. It's too dry / complex / uninteresting.

I don't get Bach's Crab Canon. I can't see the point of it, why not just a simple tune? What is he trying to say?

If we see music as a language and are trying to extract meaning and assume some form of authorial intent then they differ.

If music is something to enjoy without authorial intent then they are similar.

Depending on our view of music, they could be our goals.


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

Sorry to slightly derail the OP, science but I have to add...


----------



## dsphipps100 (Jan 10, 2016)

Fugue Meister said:


> I hope I'm not mistaken that you are of the female persuasion...


That "dphipps" in my user name stands for my real name, which is David Phipps. Hope that doesn't burst any bubbles for you. (And since this is a "classical" forum, that means there is undoubtedly going to be somebody who is going to wonder, so I will go ahead and tell you that I'm as straight as an arrow.)

Now, I've distracted this thread enough from "science's" OP, so....


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

Nereffid said:


> When people say "I don't get this", I assume they mean "other people enjoy this, and I don't, and I haven't identified what it is that the other people enjoy".


That's what I mean when I say it.

Technical understanding - how the music is put together - is a separate thing. For example I understand the basics of common practice form and harmony, but who cares?

Similarly I might be able to understand, through painstaking analysis, how a piece like Babbitt's _Philomel_ is put together, but it's irrelevant to my enjoyment of it.

I suppose there is a category of music where I do "get" what other people like about it, but I don't like it myself.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Seems as though the first and last statements are the same. "I don't understand" implies the same meaning as "I don't get".

And there are varying degrees of the first two depending on how much study and knowledge one posesses. And it can work both ways as far as appreciation is concerned. An ignorant listener may love an appreciate a derivative work full of cliches because it gives him/her pleasure, where an educated listener may show disdain for the same work for the reasons cited, even if the piece remains a popular favorite with a large listening audience.

And enjoyment is contingent on a number of factors and circumstances present at any one listening session. There are some pieces we love unconditionally, unless the interpretation really throws us off, and others depend on being in the right frame of mind, mood, concentration, etc...

And then there's the reasons and motives people invest large chunks of time listening to music in the first place. Sometimes we want to be challenged listening to bold, unfamiliar new music, and other times listeners just want to relax and feel the pure pleasure of listening to a favorite piece of music. So these are different states or degrees of enjoyment.


----------



## GioCar (Oct 30, 2013)

science said:


> Someone says, "I don't understand this work."
> 
> Someone says, "I don't appreciate this work."
> 
> ...


I'm possibly the less fit to say something on that, being English not my native language, nevertheless I'd say that they are not saying the same thing.
The first two sentences imply the concept of Learning which is often very undervalued imo. I don't mean technical learning only, but I mean all the hard work/process one has to do to acquire "knowledge" of the musical piece (technical, historical, social, aesthetical, etc.). I "learn" how to "understand" this work in order to "appreciate" it.
This doen't mean I "enjoy" or "get" this work or, at least, this could happen after a good period of time, of familiarity with this work.
On the contrary, I immediately can "get" or "enjoy" a work but this doesn't imply I have a deep understanding or appreciation for it since I haven't gone throught the process of Learning.

Finally, as listeners we should pursue the first two (understand, appreciate), imo.

My two cents. not sure it isn't all ********. Sorry about that.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

dsphipps100 said:


> Honestly, I've never smoked in my entire life - not even once. (Being a clarinet player, I like my lungs the way the are.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't appreciate or enjoy this thread making me want to light up another cigar! Ah well, I'll have a pipe and a sherry as a compromise...


----------



## Klavierspieler (Jul 16, 2011)

To me, it seems like sentences 1 and 4 both mean the same thing: "I don't understand authorial intent, cultural influence, technique, etc."

Sentence 3 just means "I don't like this music."

Sentence 2 seems like a combination of the others.


----------



## mstar (Aug 14, 2013)

science said:


> Someone says, "I don't understand this work."
> 
> Someone says, "I don't appreciate this work."
> 
> ...


If I don't understand this work, then I don't get this work. The converse is also true - "get" is synonymous to "understand".

If I don't get a work, then I'm likely not to enjoy it.

From there, it is up to me to consider the aspects of the work that could be pleasing to others, innovative, etc. I can then decide whether or not I appreciate the work.

If I enjoy the work, then I appreciate it. If I do not get/understand the work, then I can still enjoy and/or appreciate it.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

I think if we enjoy works, then we must "get" them on some level, at least sub-consciously, but that doesn't mean we have to understand every nuance of the work. I can't honestly say I "get" a lot of Boulez and some Schoenberg, but I enjoy the challenge they have created. Something within them resonates with me.

Other than that I think they are synonymous with only subtle nuances of meaning depending on the context.


----------



## Guest (Feb 16, 2016)

Taggart said:


> If music is a language, then they all have specific meanings. If music is simply something to enjoy then they can be (basically) identical.
> 
> I don't understand Bach's Crab Canon. I can see what he's trying to do, but can't follow it at speed.
> 
> ...


^^What _he _said!

Though I would add that if language is worth anything, then of course each term means something slightly different.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

science said:


> Someone says, "I don't understand this work."
> 
> Someone says, "I don't appreciate this work."
> 
> ...


To me those are the same things. But I understand they aren't the same things to other people.

Honestly, there isn't a lot of nuance in my classical music tastes. I usually either really love a piece, really hate a piece or haven't given something the proper time to know either way.

The only thing this doesn't really apply to is all those random short harpsichord works written by early-mid Baroque composers. I usually feel a little indifferent towards those.

EDIT: I just read the whole OP with the word "don't" omitted from everything. I swear I'm half dyslexic sometimes.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

"I don't understand it". My SO says this all the time when I ask for her opinion on a classical piece. Could be Bach, Mozart, Beethoven or Schoenberg. Doesn't matter.

For me, she could have just as well said, "hpowders, I just don't get it, enjoy it or appreciate it."

Of course, if she did exclaim the latter sentence, I would have changed the lock to the front door during one of her frequent shopping expeditions to the mall.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

I feel your pain, hpowders. I recently asked my SO to get me a Bach cd and she said "get it your d***ed self."


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

mmsbls said:


> If I said those 4 statements, I would mean exactly the same thing - I listened and don't enjoy the work. I imagine that many listeners would not distinguish between those either (although most would probably not use all those different statements). I think there are people who both enjoy and try to understand what the composer is doing with the music. The "understand" and "get" would probably be used for the latter aspect. Appreciate can mean different things - enjoy, understand musical aspects of the work and find them good in some sense, generally view the composer or the work as significant in classical music.
> 
> I don't feel listeners need to have any goals. Everyone wants to listen to music they enjoy and finding such music is, of course, a joy. Some people do get more out of a work when they understand it better. For those it makes sense to listen or read the score with that goal in mind.


The best answer of them all :tiphat:


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

There's music that I understand and I don't like it, and there's music I don't understand and I don't like it.
But I'm not sure if it's possible to like something without understanding it.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Blancrocher said:


> I feel your pain, hpowders. I recently asked my SO to get me a Bach cd and she said "get it your d***ed self."


OUCH! Mine would never do that! She just remains blessedly bewildered by classical music and takes refuge in pop culture.


----------



## Guest (Feb 16, 2016)

norman bates said:


> There's music that I understand and I don't like it, and there's music I don't understand and I don't like it.
> But I'm not sure if it's possible to like something without understanding it.


We need Donald Rumsfeld in on this.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

hpowders said:


> OUCH! Mine would never do that! She just remains blessedly bewildered by classical music and takes refuge in pop culture.


Mine has diverse tastes in classical music, but some huge blind spots--Prokofiev, for example. The last time I put on the 2nd Piano Concerto she said, "what is this crap? Prokofiev?" The fact that her taste seems so good to me in other respects makes it even more aggravating.

You might consider yourself lucky.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

My wife is indifferent to music.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Morimur said:


> My wife is indifferent to music.


Sounds like my SO. Whenever we go to the cinema, when the actors stop talking and a beautiful musical interlude takes over, that is always the signal for her to start talking. If I shush her, she gets upset and accuses me of "verbal abuse".

Now you know why I am on TC 24/7. :lol:


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Blancrocher said:


> Mine has diverse tastes in classical music, but some huge blind spots--Prokofiev, for example. The last time I put on the 2nd Piano Concerto she said, "what is this crap? Prokofiev?" The fact that her taste seems so good to me in other respects makes it even more aggravating.
> 
> You might consider yourself lucky.


After 29 years of being together, she has managed to tune out all of my music. That's not easy to do, but she makes it look easy.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

hpowders said:


> After 29 years of being together, she has managed to tune out all of my music. That's not easy to do, but she makes it look easy.


I'm really good at tuning out my own music--that's why I'm able to post in Current Listening so much.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I know so little about music. I have studied a little bit of music theory, so I do know keys, I basically know chords (though I wouldn't venture to offer an analysis of anything complex or ambiguous), I can "read" music well enough to follow ordinary scores, and I read a bit about this and that, but that's only a little bit of knowledge. I could never offer my own analysis of a work; I do well to understand other people's analyses. I can usually follow a classical or romantic work's basic structure, but pretty much anything from Mahler forward puts me back to thoughts almost as stupid as, "I remember hearing something like this earlier." I have also never had an ear training course and I believe I would suck at it even if I tried really hard.

Therefore, I believe, most of my enjoyment of music is illegitimate. I do not believe that we are supposed to just feel it or whatever, and if that's all a composer wanted us to do I don't think we should consider that composer very "great."

The thing is, I really _enjoy_ listening to music, and I enjoy knowing what I do know about it, and I enjoy learning about it, but I don't think I'll ever know enough about it to legitimize my enjoyment. Which makes me sad. But I am going to die ignorant of so many things, this is just one more.


----------



## SeptimalTritone (Jul 7, 2014)

science said:


> Someone says, "I don't understand this work."
> 
> Someone says, "I don't appreciate this work."
> 
> ...


If the experts like the composer/work, then those are the same thing.

If the experts don't like the composer/work, then those are all different things.


----------

