# Passive Listening



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

This is a topic that just came to my mind when my thoughts were wandering slightly...

Do you _think_ that you're a passive listener? Is it detrimental? And where do we draw the line between passive and active listening?

My urge to ask this question largely comes about through having listened some time ago to Daniel Barenboim's Reith Lectures (I don't know why they suddenly came to mind again). Though it was not the focus of all of his lectures, he covered the issue of 'Muzak' - which is the notion of 'passive' listening; not appreciating the music; or even being completely unaware of it.

An example he gave was if one were to hear the Brahms Violin Concerto in a lift (or elevator for those across the Atlantic ), which would be made even more annoying if one had to then perform it the same evening. Other examples (which similarly annoy me) are when extracts of classical music are used for televised adverts. Barenboim told a funny anecdote about a woman who complained about the use of Mozart's _Requiem_ for an advert about toilet cleaner. Misunderstanding her point, the company apologised for not realising the religious connotations of the piece, and replaced the music with some from the overture to Wagner's _Tannhauser_.

Barenboim labelled this use of music as 'offensive', and I certainly agree that it is detrimental to the proper appreciation of classical music (though, conversely, hearing popular extracts of pieces - either snippets, or movements removed from a full work - can serve to draw people into the genre). I would further add that I despise radio stations that publicise classical music a medium of relaxation, and I couldn't listen to many radio stations because I'm terribly frustrated about only being able to hear the most popular movement of a symphony etc. If I want to listen to it, I have to listen to it all.

However, I'm still concerned that perhaps I am a passive listener in some respects... For example, listening to the music when I go out for a walk, and my mind wanders to other things. Or listening to music when I'm doing work. Does this count as passive listening? And is it a bad thing that detracts from the integrity of the music I'm listening to? I'm certainly aware of the fact that when my mind wanders to other things, I suddenly hear the piece of music again and realise that I missed my favourite bit. But, owing to the length of some classical pieces, there are few times that I could 'actively listen' in the sense of sitting down and doing nothing else. When listening to it while doing other activities, I know I'm kind of half-listening and still enjoy the emotional experience.

What do you think?


----------



## MusicalOffering (Sep 11, 2009)

I tend to drift off into passive listening when sitting in front of the computer, there are so many other things to do that I actually forget the music (reading on this board, playing a game and so forth). But when I'm on my way to work or going to buy groceries, I feel that I activally listen even better than when solely listening to music. Walking gives my body something to do, resulting in my not having to fidget with my fingers etc, that way my mind can concentrate on the music alot better.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

I generally only listen to classical music when I can give it my full attention. I would never put on a great master work just to make the house less quiet, for example.

I do listen to music when I drive, but I actually find that I can concentrate well when doing that.

If I am doing house work and I want some music to pump me up, I'll listen to one of the local rock stations or, on the computer, streaming audio of Radio FG (dance/house music) out of Paris.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

I don't think that classical music always require full attention. I listen to elegant piano/chamber music when eating a dinner, just like the counts and dukes had their own musicians to accompany them during meals. I can mention more of situations like this, but this one says it all. I'm such a dandy. 

So yes, I'm often a passive listener and I can't see anything wrong in this kind of listening. Some music is just like tea time in Vienna, so why sit down and focus on it when you can simply do your work/whatever with nice tunes flowing in the room.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

"Tea time in Vienna"...hahaha...

That's actually a good point. I have put on some good classical piano for dinner in the past, and I see nothing wrong with that.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

Our modern society encourages passive listening, but I see nothing really wrong with it. I listen to music, mostly classical, in headphones while at work to drown out the distracting banter around me. I am not focused on the music so I wouldn't use something that really moves me for this purpose. 

However once a week or so, I sit down with a lengthy piece I want to explore and just listen with as much focus as I can, as if I were watching a movie and becoming immersed in it. This I believe is how the listening public experienced a concert before there were movies, TV, and internet. I usually do this with annotations at hand to give me an idea of what to listen for, but I sometimes hear thematic connections not mentioned in the annotations too if I'm lucky. 

I think we can be both passive and active listeners without harm.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

I think one of the things I neglected to realise when I originally asked the question is that some people listen to more than one genre  The way that my musical taste has been cultivated means that I listen to classical music _exclusively_ (and I wouldn't want it any other way), but that means that I don't have 'light' alternatives for those passive moments. Nevertheless, dare I say it, I feel less guilty passively listening to a bit of 'light' Mozart than I do ignoring the depths of Brahms 

So, it seems that passive listening is not a detrimental thing, for it doesn't _remove_ our capacity to actively listen, and we don't do it to such an extent that it's equivalent to listening to a few phrases on a TV advert.

So, with that in mind, if we consider someone like Daniel Barenboim, when he was talking about 'Muzak', he didn't say what he what he thought of the culture of people almost constantly listening to music on MP3 players/iPods etc. Do you think he does it? Do you think, even if he doesn't, that listening to classical music in this way is 'OK', even if not the best method?


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

Weston said:


> I think we can be both passive and active listeners without harm.


That's how I feel too. For me there's a complete spectrum of listening activity, from fully engaged, highly focused attentiveness at one end, and mere awareness of ambience at the other - with an infinite number of variations of attentiveness in between. However, if I play a piece of music merely because I just want to be 'in its presence' without much effort, I do often find that I end up paying it a lot of attention simply because what's going on is too interesting to ignore. But then also, I sometimes play a piece of music intending to listen carefully, but find that my mind has drifted off somewhere else (for a variety of reasons), leaving the music merely as a backdrop. Mood and receptiveness aren't constant things.

So I don't see any reason for having any self-imposed rules as far as my own listening is concerned. One of the marvellous things about recorded music is that it gives us the freedom not only to listen _when_ we like, but also _how_ we like.


----------



## Cortision (Aug 4, 2009)

My opinion is that there as nothing wrong with passive listening, on this proviso; that that is not the _only_way that we listen. It is good to give a piece of music full attention, which I think becomes hard to do in this world that is saturated with glossy images, short sound-bites and vapid frivolity. But there are times when passive listening can be (dare I say it) a useful thing. I sometimes myself put on some gentle music to unwind to, such as the music of Faure or Debussy. This does not mean this music is not worthy of my attention - it most certainly is - but it can also serve a useful purpose in allowing the mind to meditate on other matters. I think Elgarian said it well when he or she said that 'mood and receptiveness aren't constant things'.

I think that active listening is necessary, however, to gain a true love and appreciation for the qualities of a piece of music. To be fair to a composer (if they are good) it is good to actively listen to their music at least _some_ of the time. Apparently Rachmaninoff didn't like the idea of radio broadcasts because the music would not be given full attention. However I have been to concerts where I did not pay full attention, and also listened to the radio with rapt attention. So he may not have been completely correct about radio. What would he have said about I-pods I wonder? Maybe he had a point...


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

It seems most people agree on the usefulness - or at least harmlessness - of passive listening.

But I'm still interested if you'd wish to draw the line anywhere. For example, would you say that, so long as we are aware that the music _deserves_ our full attention and that we _can_ actively listen if we want to, then it's OK for classical music to be used in snippets on TV adverts? Or do you agree with Barenboim that this use of music is 'offensive'? If so, then where does passive listening fall into bad listening?


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

Polednice said:


> .
> 
> But I'm still interested if you'd wish to draw the line anywhere. For example, would you say that, so long as we are aware that the music _deserves_ our full attention and that we _can_ actively listen if we want to, then it's OK for classical music to be used in snippets on TV adverts? Or do you agree with Barenboim that this use of music is 'offensive'? If so, then where does passive listening fall into bad listening?


This also gets into the parallel topic of classical stations feeling the need to "dumb down" their broadcasts to appeal to a wider audience or for budget reasons to the point of just playing single movements of symhponies, for instance. This I find to be more offensive than a snippet on a TV commercial. If I were to watch TV (which I don't) I'd rather hear a little Mozart snippet than some horrible jingle that gets stuck in my head.

I don't think snippets are that harmful. Many people are real Brahms fanatics on this forum. What is the first Brahms most people hear in their lives? The famous Brahms Lullaby. We Americans at least all heard it as kids in animated cartoons and TV commercials, etc. But I cannot honestly say I've ever heard the entire work it is excerpted from or even know it. But it hasn't ruined my appreciation of Brahms or my ability to focus on a Brahms symphony.


----------



## Isola (Mar 26, 2008)

Honestly, I don't quite understand how passive listening of classical music can be 'offensive' in any way. I don't mind hearing classical music in TV commercials, Hollywood films, supermarkets, hospital waiting rooms... It actually helps the general public acquainted with classical music. 

As for myself - I listen to classical music exclusively, when I am not doing active serious listening, I am passive listening, at least whenever I can: while doing housework, walking the dog, on the bus, waiting the queue, even when I am reading books - though that has to be Baroque or early Classical playing, Romantic are too emotionally disturbing! No, I don't feel slightest guilty for passive listening, I don't know why I should.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

I'm not quite sure, it has something to with my Aspergers Syndrome, but I simply can't listen to music without concentrating on it. I even concentrate on it when I'm not listening to it. Either that or some religious text or another. 

And then once you withdraw yourself enough, you really get a knack for noticing how silly people are. We really have the most unbelievable ideas of bad and good. What does a car, a house, money, sex, social standing, politics, everything physical even matter? The only things that really matter are god first, and then people. Personally, I think everything physical is only worth it's symbolism.

Sorry, but I digress. Music and religion really just hold my attention me in this sublime sort of way, while everything else bleeds in. It's not as if nothing matters to me, really all of the concentration just "evens me out". There's no such thing as stress any more, you just do. you have to realize it's just "doing", nothing more, and try to please people.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

Could anyone in here passively listen to their favorite symphony?


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Let's not digress into religious issues, or I shall unwittingly flare up and speak at great (thus, too much) length of the beauty of atheism!

My favourite symphony... I don't think I could 'passively' listen to it, simply because I couldn't help myself from being sucked into it and enjoying it. However, I could also listen to it _not_ 'actively', as I could quite easily listen to it for the sheer 'fun' of the experience... I don't know how I would class it!

However, I think my views seem to differ from most people's here with regards to the nature of music on TV. While Barenboim's use of the word 'offensive' is perhaps too strong or misleading, I agree that there is something inherently _wrong_ with abusing classical music in this manner. I _don't_ believe that it makes people acquainted with classical music - at least not in any significant number, or all these popular tunes would draw more people more _properly_ into the genre. So the only effect I can see it having is utterly trivialising one of the great Fine Arts. Due to this, people believe that classical music is 'just another genre' - equivalent to rock/pop/metal _etc_., but I would forever defend the notion that classical music is _intrinsically_ on a different level for the simple fact that it is Art, when other music is not.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

I'll fall asleep listening to the classical radio station, so I suppose that is fairly passive. But if a favorite work comes on (or anything by Sibelius) I am up and glued to the speakers. I cannot passively listen to my dear Sibelius!!!


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Quote for clarification: "However, I think my views seem to differ from most people's here with regards to the nature of music on TV. While Barenboim's use of the word 'offensive' is perhaps too strong or misleading, I agree that there is something inherently wrong with abusing classical music in this manner. I don't believe that it makes people acquainted with classical music - at least not in any significant number, or all these popular tunes would draw more people more properly into the genre. So the only effect I can see it having is utterly trivialising one of the great Fine Arts. Due to this, people believe that classical music is 'just another genre' - equivalent to rock/pop/metal etc., but I would forever defend the notion that classical music is intrinsically on a different level for the simple fact that it is Art, when other music is not."

I couldn't agree more (besides the bit on atheism). People tend to look at studying something like it's a chore that they're just too pampered to spend time on. So they go on worrying about car, money, sex, trivial animal urges (not to sound pessimistic, though; I really do love people).


----------



## World Violist (May 31, 2007)

Only if it's meant to be passively listened to... along with a good bit of Mozart...

With the same reasoning as Tapkaara.


----------



## nickgray (Sep 28, 2008)

I enjoy a sort of a semi-passive approach to music - it flows in the background, yet every now and then I divert my attention to it for some time, and then it goes into the background again. Such an approach is especially good with complex works, the pieces of the puzzle slowly connect together revealing the picture, but if a full attention is diverted to the music even a Mahler's symphony can be almost fully understood in a few listens. Though it is a satisfying experience, does one wants to get, for example, into Beethoven's symphonies so fast? After all, there are only 9 of them.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

nickgray said:


> Though it is a satisfying experience, does one wants to get, for example, into Beethoven's symphonies so fast? After all, there are only 9 of them.


Ah, that may be true, but with sooooo many recordings and the revolution of _Spotify et. al._, we can never acquaint ourselves too well with the full depth of Beethoven due to the variety of interpretations we can listen to.


----------



## Padawan (Aug 27, 2009)

I don't think passively listening is harmful but I find it easier to do that with most any genre except classical music. In fact, I can't listen passively to classical or dance music at home. Classical music is still new to me and I love to dance. Actually, I can multitask during television more easily than listening to music because I have to actively select something worth listening to. TV is easy to ignore because so much of it is garbage.



> I don't believe that it makes people acquainted with classical music - at least not in any significant number, or all these popular tunes would draw more people more properly into the genre. So the only effect I can see it having is utterly trivialising one of the great Fine Arts.


I disagree with this. While I cringe at classical music being used in to sell toilet paper or margarine, using classical music in advertising is still a refreshing change from the relentless pop/rock/rap music heard most often. Also, as a baby boomer just getting acquainted with classical music, it was pretty cool realizing I was more familiar with this genre than I thought. Far from trivializing a great Fine art, it just proves how wonderful it is that it endures hundreds of years later.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I only have a problem with people who are used to passively listening to the classics, which are easier to listen to than some modern music. But as soon as there isn't a tune, such people dismiss modern music as rubbish. I agree that there's no impediment to one enjoying some music passively, but when it comes to the more modern repertoire, which requires some level of concentration, passive listening is simply not good enough. If one wants to be a perceptive listener, one has to actively listen to these works, many times...


----------



## Cortision (Aug 4, 2009)

Andre said:


> I only have a problem with people who are used to passively listening to the classics, which are easier to listen to than some modern music. But as soon as there isn't a tune, such people dismiss modern music as rubbish. I agree that there's no impediment to one enjoying some music passively, but when it comes to the more modern repertoire, which requires some level of concentration, passive listening is simply not good enough. If one wants to be a perceptive listener, one has to actively listen to these works, many times...


You raise an interesting point here. However 'people who are used to passively listening to the classics' will miss more than modern music, IMO. They will also miss most of the subtleties of composers such as Mozart and Beethoven, even though they wrote tunes! I have heard the music of Mozart described as 'the most emotionless music ever written', which couldn't be further from the truth. Can they really have paid full attention to such masterpieces as his late symphonies or his Grand Partita, for example? Even with Beethoven, the melodies are by no means the main feature (except maybe in Fur Elise). If Someone listens to Beethoven the say way as as they do pop music, I have no doubt that it will sound like random, albeit not unpleasant, noise.

Contemporary music often has further barriers to overcome, in that it can sound unpleasant and even painful to the ears on first hearing. There is still a lot of music I find very difficult, but my tastes are slowly expanding. Even a heart-on-the-sleeve romantic like Bruckner requires active listening to come to appreciate, as I found for myself not so long ago. When you find yourself frustrated by people who reject modern music, try to have patience. I used to think the entire 20th century was a wasteland but I have changed my mind. Now I dislike only the Second Viennese school.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Cortision said:


> You raise an interesting point here. However 'people who are used to passively listening to the classics' will miss more than modern music, IMO. They will also miss most of the subtleties of composers such as Mozart and Beethoven, even though they wrote tunes!...


I agree. One can only listen to the classics & still be a very perceptive listener. On the other hand, one can also be superficial if one always listens to this music passively. The type of music is not the issue, but the mindset with which one approaches it...


----------



## Isola (Mar 26, 2008)

Yes, some people listen to classical music _only_ and _always_ 'passively', they would play it at their party, in their dinning room, or even go to the concerts - all for some superficial reasons that generally have nothing to do with the music. But I suspect such passive listeners don't usually hang out with this group.



Tapkaara said:


> Could anyone in here passively listen to their favorite symphony?


It's extremely difficult for me - imagine walking your dog and listening to Mahler's '_Resurrection_'? But sometimes when I can't spend quality time with my speakers at home, I still listen to my favourite pieces on MP3 player and it distracts me from whatever I'm doing, even though I can't appreciate it wholly and profoundly at that time, still a pleasure.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Padawan said:


> I disagree with this. While I cringe at classical music being used in to sell toilet paper or margarine, using classical music in advertising is still a refreshing change from the relentless pop/rock/rap music heard most often. Also, as a baby boomer just getting acquainted with classical music, it was pretty cool realizing I was more familiar with this genre than I thought. Far from trivializing a great Fine art, it just proves how wonderful it is that it endures hundreds of years later.


It might be a refreshing change for _us_, seeing as we are people who _truly_ recognise and appreciate the beauty of art music, but I think it's still a misuse. I stand by the idea that it trivialises it, because the entire point of including classical music in advertisements is _exactly_ to remove that which is artful about it in order to make it digestible by any and all viewers. Fine art is wonderful, and will always endure throughout history because it - along with the sciences - is the only thing that can talk to us about our place in the world. It certainly doesn't need to be spliced and diced and gobbled by consumerism for it to manage this.


----------



## Cortision (Aug 4, 2009)

One thing that worries me - sometimes I get the impression that snatches of Classical Music are used to give a veneer of 'culture' or 'elegance' or to provide a setting for a historical period, for example in documentaries. This seems to promulgate the image of Classical music as being stuffy and dated, which can only happen when the music is listened to passively and not understood.

Another thing - why in films are classical music lovers either the villain or else psychologically deranged?  Is this subtly conditioning some people to mistrust classical music?


----------



## Isola (Mar 26, 2008)

Cortision said:


> Another thing - why in films are classical music lovers either the villain or else psychologically deranged?  Is this subtly conditioning some people to mistrust classical music?


 Strange, but true! Dr. Hannibal Lecter sprang to mind first - he has to listen to Goldberg Variations played by Glenn Gould to nurture his blood thirst.


----------



## nimmysnv (Oct 1, 2009)

Isola said:


> Strange, but true! Dr. Hannibal Lecter sprang to mind first - he has to listen to Goldberg Variations played by Glenn Gould to nurture his blood thirst.


Ohh! That is something really different to hear, as passive listners have music around or I can say they have music in the background which is very good.

Thanks!!


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

An initial listen to a piece of music must be done actively so it can be properly assessed. After that a piece that someone likes and has listened to several times may become so familiar that they might on occasion slip into a more passive mode. Active initially I think means closely listening to the structure of the piece and the line of the music. Active can also mean - to an extent - an emotional involvement with the music, but this is probably more after a fuller acquaintance with a piece perhaps.


----------



## Saturnus (Nov 7, 2006)

For me passive listening somehow reduces the enjoyment of active listening. If I'm immersed with music all day long, music somehow loses it's edge and it becomes more difficult for me to listen with full concentration, so I try to avoid passive listening.
Using classical masterpieces, or any music not specifically composed for that purpose, for advertising purpose is offensive. This music is often means a lot to many people and to use it as an instrument of deception is degrading.



Starry said:


> Active can also mean - to an extent - an emotional involvement with the music, but this is probably more after a fuller acquaintance with a piece perhaps.


At my first acquaintance with a lot of pieces I have been more emotionally involved than when listening to the piece later, it happens often when I hear a piece for a first time in concert and I can't find a recording that's as good as the concert. I have to admit though that in every of those cases I'm acquainted with the composer's other music or music in the same or similar style.


----------



## Classical Review (Oct 1, 2009)

An excellent topic - I find myself in agreement in numerous places. But I'll confine my response to this from you:



Polednice said:


> However, I'm still concerned that perhaps I am a passive listener in some respects. For example, listening to the music when I go out for a walk, and my mind wanders to other things. Or listening to music when I'm doing work. Does this count as passive listening? And is it a bad thing that detracts from the integrity of the music I'm listening to? I'm certainly aware of the fact that when my mind wanders to other things, I suddenly hear the piece of music again and realise that I missed my favourite bit. But, owing to the length of some classical pieces, there are few times that I could 'actively listen' in the sense of sitting down and doing nothing else. When listening to it while doing other activities, I know I'm kind of half-listening and still enjoy the emotional experience.


There's no doubt that I wouldn't have heard even a tiny fraction of the mountains of classical music with which I'm now familiar had it not been for 'passive' listening experiences much like those you describe above. No, they're not ideal and they don't provide you with the 'best' conditions for appreciating art music. But we need to bear in mind that anyone serious about classical music won't ONLY be listening while working or doing the washing up.

Those of us who care passionately about this art form will also set aside time to actively listen. So, when we find our thoughts straying after the sixth hour of Wagner's Ring cycle whilst we're trying to cross a busy road on our way home, we shouldn't punish ourselves for not being present in every moment of the master's drama.

FK


----------

