# I don’t understand…



## 2122argos (Jun 14, 2021)

Hello. This is my first post!
I suspect that this may seem a really weird question, but a very large proportion of music leaves me baffled. I simply don’t get it. Conversely, there are pieces I love - Beethoven (especially. The symphonies and late piano/chamber music), Tallis, some Sibelius (a new discovery- the violin concerto and 5th symphony sort of get through to me) etc etc. But generally, while I might like the sound, I have no idea what the composer is getting at. 

I get frustrated by programme notes, and even detailed analysis of pieces, which talk about their history, and describe them in musical terms (‘The piece opens in B-flat major, but the horns introduce a dark theme in G minor…’). That doesn’t really help. 

I feel that there is a whole world which somehow I can’t access. Maybe I am going this in the wrong way, but I would love to hear what other people hear in most of the classical repertoire.

Can anyone help?


----------



## Coach G (Apr 22, 2020)

2122argos said:


> Hello. This is my first post!
> I suspect that this may seem a really weird question, but a very large proportion of music leaves me baffled. I simply don't get it. Conversely, there are pieces I love - Beethoven (especially. The symphonies and late piano/chamber music), Tallis, some Sibelius (a new discovery- the violin concerto and 5th symphony sort of get through to me) etc etc. But generally, while I might like the sound, I have no idea what the composer is getting at.
> 
> I get frustrated by programme notes, and even detailed analysis of pieces, which talk about their history, and describe them in musical terms ('The piece opens in B-flat major, but the horns introduce a dark theme in G minor…'). That doesn't really help.
> ...


Keep doing what you're doing, but go slow and digest the knowledge one piece at a time. When you try a piece out like the Sibelius _Violin Concerto_, live with it for a while. Sometimes it takes more then one or two or even three or four listens to understand the composer's musical vision. What you don't understand today, will make sense tomorrow and every time a piece that is new to you begins to make sense to you, that will be part of the of enjoyment.

Classical music is not like popular music. I like popular music but even if I were to play one of my favorite popular songs over and over again, eventually it would begin to grate and become annoying. Classical music is just the opposite, and I can listen to one of my favorite symphonies, concertos, piano or chamber works over and over again, because every time I hear it, I hear something new in it. The trade off is that with classical the work often has to be put into it as if you were planting a garden and you have to wait for fruit to emerge after you've treated the soil, planted the seeds, allowed the rain and sunshine to nourish the plants, etc.

While I imagine that a formal training in music would greatly enhance one's ability to grasp classical music on a deeper level, my own knowledge of the inner workings of music, key signatures, counterpoint, theory, etc, is very limited. Even so, I still can enjoy classical music and am able discuss my favorite composers with professionals, and you can do it to, eventually.

The one book that I'd like to recommend is Harold Schonberg's _Lives of the Great Composers_, it is a comprehensive guide to classical music that spans the entire repertoire, is explained without getting into complicated music theory; and is very well written. Schonberg has strong opinions, some of which I disagree. He's critical of Richard Strauss, Jean Sibelius, and Dmitry Shostakovich (though he revises his view on Shostakovich to a more favorable in the third and final edition). The chapters are arranged more-or-less chronologically and can be read in sequence but alternately in random order.

So again, keep up the good work, and remain steadfast and patient.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

So, do you get the works that you love?


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

I recommend trying to find some of Robert Greenberg's courses (audio or video), from The Great Courses. Here's are a few examples that I've found particularly worthwhile:

https://www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/symphonies-of-beethoven
https://www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/bach-and-the-high-baroque
https://www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/how-to-listen-to-and-understand-great-music-3rd-edition
https://www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/the-30-greatest-orchestral-works
https://www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/music-as-a-mirror-of-history

They contain both biographical information and some analysis, but the latter doesn't require an particular musical sophistication, or even the ability to read music. Don't be scared by the price of some of these courses - they go on sale frequently (I don't believe that I've ever paid full price for any of the dozens of courses I've bought from this company). They also show up on eBay more and more frequently (I just searched there, and there are plenty of them available). I don't know where you're located, but if in the USA, most libraries have, or have access to some of these courses.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

2122argos said:


> I feel that there is a whole world which somehow I can't access. Maybe I am going this in the wrong way, but I would love to hear what other people hear in most of the classical repertoire.
> 
> Can anyone help?


Don't worry about the technical stuff. You have a brain and two ears so the way you access the world of classical music is to simply listen to it. And the more you listen, the more you will absorb and start hearing the music.


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

starthrower said:


> Don't worry about the technical stuff. You have a brain and two ears so the way you access the world of classical music is to simply listen to it. And the more you listen, the more you will absorb and start hearing the music.


That's true, of course. But knowing a little bit about the composer, the circumstances around a composition, and musical structures expands one's enjoyment considerably.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

In terms of particular works (or composers if you want to think that way), I advocate just doing anything you want. Enjoy what you enjoy, try new things when you want to, whatever. 

In terms of how to listen, some music has been written exclusively for the enjoyment of people who enjoy analyzing it in highly technical terms, but even with such music, there is really no need to think about the technical analysis unless you want to. 

I think what distinguishes many -- not all and probably not even most, but many -- classical listeners from listeners of more popular genres is how much conscious attention we enjoy paying to the music. Even if that's what you enjoy, you don't have to do it in terms like "the main theme has returned but transposed blah blah jargon blah blah jargon blah" unless that's how you want to do it. 

Just do what you want is the theme. People will judge you no matter what you do, and you'll never win everyone's approval, so do what you want. What I try to practice is achieving the things (i.e. the ability to do certain kinds of analyses, or having a wide range of knowledge, and so on) that people will judge me for not doing and then letting them know that I consider their values worthless, arbitrary, and generally classist nonsense. But you might not be burned with my particular set of resentments, so you should definitely do your own thing!


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

starthrower said:


> Don't worry about the technical stuff. You have a brain and two ears so the way you access the world of classical music is to simply listen to it. And the more you listen, the more you will absorb and start hearing the music.


That's what I do, and it works great for me. Some want something different though!


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

wkasimer said:


> That's true, of course. But knowing a little bit about the composer, the circumstances around a composition, and musical structures expands one's enjoyment considerably.


That's fine as long as these are separate activities. If you put on a record and start reading liner notes or a book like many of us do, the music won't get full attention.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

2122argos said:


> Hello. This is my first post!
> I suspect that this may seem a really weird question, but a very large proportion of music leaves me baffled. *I simply don't get it.* Conversely, there are pieces I love - Beethoven (especially. The symphonies and late piano/chamber music), Tallis, some Sibelius (a new discovery- the violin concerto and 5th symphony sort of get through to me) etc etc. *But generally, while I might like the sound, I have no idea what the composer is getting at. *
> 
> I get frustrated by programme notes, and even detailed analysis of pieces, which talk about their history, and describe them in musical terms ('The piece opens in B-flat major, but the horns introduce a dark theme in G minor…'). That doesn't really help.
> ...


Could you clarify what you mean by "I have no idea what the composer is getting at?" If by getting at you mean embodying content that can be translated into words or encoding meaning with significance for human affairs, then composers aren't necessarily getting at anything at all. Sometimes (or for some people, most of the time) just liking the sound is the point, by which I mean recognizing patterns that are beautiful and interesting, with internal connections and self-references that are rewarding to grasp. It's like looking at manuscript illuminations in the Book of Kells or mosaics and arabesques in the Alhambra Palace. One doesn't ask what did the monks mean by these elaborate knots or what were these architects saying when they built those honeycomb filigrees. One just recognizes brilliantly balanced and executed patterns whose aesthetic beauty directly assaults the senses and mind without the need for thought. The elaborate musical knots that are Bach's fugues and Debussy's Arabesques are of this nature, albeit unfolding in time rather than space.

On the other hand, there is an enormous body of music composed according to the expressive aesthetics of the Romantic Era in which the musical patterns, in order to be fully appreciated, should be understood as analogous to sequences of emotional experience. Works of this kind derive some of their coherence from their resemblance to dramas of internal life. Among the simplest examples are thousands of works in ternary form (ABA) in which an initial state or condition is challenged or disturbed and then restored, like Chopin's Db major prelude or the slow movement of Prokofiev's Seventh Piano Sonata. When one reaches the end one feels like one has been through something (or that some unspecified fictional persona has). In these cases a miniature quasi-plot has unfolded or been lived through - if you will, another layer of "meaning" within the abstract patterning. Quasi-plots of this kind can get pretty involved when they are embodied in more complex forms like the first movement of Beethoven's Eroica or Appassionata. But "meaning" of this kind is only vaguely translatable into the terms of human experience.

Just as there are some who love vocal music like opera and songs who don't get the point of pure instrumental music, there are some who expect a sense of plot-like expressive content (as in the second paragraph above) from their instrumental music, who find more abstract music (first paragraph) kind of empty and unsatisfying. The music you have loved (Beethoven and Sibelius - not sure what's up with the Tallis) many people approach from the perspective of Romantic expressive content.

Anyway, I'm not sure if any of the above relates to your situation.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

A lot of this music was made for public consumption, and not only that, but made with the assumption that listeners would only be hearing it a few (in some cases, one) time in their lives. Although there's some stereotype that you have to e.g. listen to a work intently and repeatedly to "get" it (and there's certainly some works like this, even by classical-era composers- e.g. the late Beethoven quartets), it's worth noting that unless you were highly educated, this sort of analysis wasn't really practical to an enormous amount of the audience until recordings existed- and yet the music was still highly popular. 

I would recommend a few things for context - sonata form in symphonies, for instance, isn't too hard to grasp and is definitely worth spending some time on (and is a nice hook to get into the likes of Haydn and Mozart symphonies) - but just like you can get into film without knowing the specifics of Soviet montage theory, the nice thing about the methods the composers used for emotional affect is that they tend to work even if you aren't aware of them.


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

fbjim said:


> it's worth noting that unless you were highly educated, this sort of analysis wasn't really practical to an enormous amount of the audience until recordings existed- and yet the music was still highly popular.


True enough - but in the days before recordings (not to mention the Internet, YouTube, and streaming services), many (perhaps even most) members of the audience played music in their homes. Now most audience members don't, and I suspect that the majority don't even know how to read music.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

I think it's all based on musical structures at the most fundamental level. Probably the easiest (and not in any way less) sort of Classical to get is music based on themes, and next variations on a theme. That's the sort that is usually played on Classical radio. Motivic development was harder at least for me to follow, but over time when you've heard that sort of thing done over and over in different works by even different composers that follow the same sort of development, it can be easier to follow, and maybe even predict. Even music that don't follow any sort of formal structure (like John Cage) are still based on contrasts in sonorities, rhythms, etc. 

I think when you get into the extramusical references in the music, like pertaining to a story, narrative, or image, it's just up for interpretation.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

I started listening to CM and collecting recordings in my early 20s. I didn't get Shostakovich, Mahler, Stravinsky and many other well-known, top composers for years.

I was almost 60 before I "got" Shostakovich and that was after reading two books about him.

I was retired and in my 60s before I ever got the Sibelius 4th, 6th and 7th symphonies.

Anyone can get Beethoven's 5th symphony or Bach's Brandenburg concertos or Vivaldi's Four Seasons, Handel's Messiah, Eine Kleine Nachtmusik or just about any of the top 100 compositions. The rest take the rest of your life. 

That's the greatest thing about CM -- an endless font of opportunity.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

Welcome to the Forum.

I get the feeling, from reading your opening title -- "*I don't understand…*" -- that you'll be all right if you just continue listening. After all, you wrote a great title line that practically guarantees we members will take a look at your post. This shows me we're dealing with an intelligent fellow who has savvy awareness.

Coach G puts it well early in this thread: "Keep doing what you're doing, but go slow and digest the knowledge one piece at a time." Don't worry so much about what the composer may be "getting at." Consider that the composer may not be "getting at" anything other than to compose a piece of music for people to hear. After all, if there was something to "get at" the composer should be an essayist and explain what it is in plain worded language. The whole point, after all, of music is that it speaks things that cannot be said by words. What it "speaks", of course, is often so highly individual that each of us as listeners comprehends a new and unique "truth". And that's good enough.

If you like certain music styles or the music of certain composers, keep pursuing those areas. Occasionally branch out to, say, a work of similar genre and era or a composer who was an influence upon or who influenced one you like and whose music you feel you "understand." I love so much music and understand so little of it, but that doesn't keep me from pursuing new sounds. And even music that I'm comfortable with, having listened to it and even studied it for years, such as the Beethoven late piano sonatas and string quartets, still befuddles me. Which is all the more reason to keep listening to it.

If you chance upon something so obviously dense that you just don't like it (and a lot of contemporary serious music provides that opportunity for so many) then just put it aside and move on. You never know when you may be ready for the piece. I suspect that if you keep moving forward, listening, and then maybe researching (reading about) some of the pieces you especially like, you'll eventually arrive in a place distant from where you started, but you'll recognize it somehow. Music is like that. It educates, it informs, it provides us the opportunity to grow.

And that's all you need understand for now.

Now, keep listening.

And again, welcome to the forum.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

I have been listening to classical for over 10 years and really don't understand all the discussion, but just enjoy what I like. One advantage I have I guess is that I listen to a LOT of opera and there you have something to understand in the libretto you can read the actual dialog that is being sung and have the whole story, though there are certainly operas out there that even then are hard to understand. The bottom line is to enjoy the music no matter what the composer's intent. If it does not do that for yout, move on to another composer's work and perhaps come back to that one later as it may click at a later date. As far as program notes or liner notes, I usually try to read them and some bits will bet me more interested in a work, and other parts are Greek to me so I just move on.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

Wikipedia and the notes that come with the music is a good start.
Also, you can just google a particular work and see what's there.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

Listen to Beethoven's symphonies and you'll learn about the forms used in the standard symphony.

The first movement is generally in sonata form, where themes are introduced (often with a repeat). Then the piece develops those themes by modulating to different keys. Then the themes are played again in a different key, before a coda that ends the piece. Sometimes, the movement has a slow introduction before the faster exposition; an example is the first movement of LvB's Fourth Symphony.

The slow movement is often in sonata form. If not, it is often in theme-and-variations, where a theme is varied several times in sequence.

One of the middle movements of a symphony is usually a dance form movement. Minuets are stately; scherzi are quirky. Trios are sandwiched between minuets/scherzi and offer a contrast.

And the finale of a symphony is often very fast. It is often in sonata form.

Learn that structure, and you will be able to appreciate symphonies and string quartets from Joseph Haydn all the way to the end of the Romantic era.


----------



## david johnson (Jun 25, 2007)

Some ideas to learn: AABA form means (melody 1) (melody 1 again) (melody 2) (back to melody 1 to end), or ABA (melody 1) (melody2) (melody 1 again), and Theme and Variations - one melody taken through all types of development: different rhythm, new keys, different tempo. To address your example from Sibelius: G and Bb minor keys are related in that the share identical key signatures (2 notes are played flat , Bb and Eb). Swapping between relative keys gives you more variety to pick from regarding the boundaries you have set for your composition.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

Try THIS thread.

Take it slow.

A Beginner's Guide to Classical Music


----------



## Bruckner Anton (Mar 10, 2016)

I would say that some fundamentals knowledge on music theory cound be helpful for your listening.


----------



## 2122argos (Jun 14, 2021)

Goodness! So much valuable advice here! Thanks all.

Edwardbast- I think that what I meant by ‘what is the composer getting at’ is, very approximately, ‘why did he or she write this piece?’ More specifically, for example, why, 15 minutes into the first movement of Schubert’s quintet D956, do the cellos suddenly become very agitated? What is Schubert saying? But in asking that, I am reminded of when an interviewer asked John Fowles why one of his characters had behaved in a certain way. ‘I don’t know,’ said Fowles, ‘you’d have to ask him that.’

And it does seem to me that the great majority of literature on this sort of subject - such as Aaron Copland’s ‘What to Listen for in Music’, offers vey little guidance. It would be like a book on Turner telling me how he mixed his paints, or pointing out that he uses red against blue because they contrast each other. All very interesting, but it doesn’t help me understand the picture.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

Oh; you could try some tone poems (symphonic poems) and other programatic music, where the composer is VERY clear on what he is illustrating musically.

Sorcerer's Apprentice
Appalachian Spring
An American in Paris
Grand Canyon Suite (especially the movement titled "Cloudburst")
Pictures at an Exhibition
Pini di Roma (Pines of Rome) 
The Carnival of the Animals
Symphonia Domestica ("Domestic Symphony")
1812 Overture (technically, The Year 1812 Solemn Overture, Op. 49)
The Lark Ascending 
On Hearing the First Cuckoo in Spring


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

2122argos said:


> Goodness! So much valuable advice here! Thanks all.
> 
> Edwardbast- I think that what I meant by 'what is the composer getting at' is, very approximately, 'why did he or she write this piece?' More specifically, for example, *why, 15 minutes into the first movement of Schubert's quintet D956, do the cellos suddenly become very agitated?* What is Schubert saying? But in asking that, I am reminded of when an interviewer asked John Fowles why one of his characters had behaved in a certain way. 'I don't know,' said Fowles, 'you'd have to ask him that.'
> 
> And it does seem to me that the great majority of literature on this sort of subject - such as Aaron Copland's 'What to Listen for in Music', offers vey little guidance. It would be like a book on Turner telling me how he mixed his paints, or pointing out that he uses red against blue because they contrast each other. All very interesting, but it doesn't help me understand the picture.


If you are talking about a performance in which the exposition was repeated, then I imagine 15 minutes would get us to the recapitulation, in which case the agitated passage to which you're referring is likely the reprise of the principal theme(?) Does the same agitated music occur in the first couple of minutes of the movement? Anyway, if it is indeed a reprise of the principal theme, then the most obvious, albeit superficial, answer would be that this is a movement in sonata form and that's precisely where one would expect a reprise of the principal theme, by formal convention.

This is what's tricky about these explanations of why a passage is where and as it is. Sometimes the answers are superficial and formal, while at other times a good explanation requires hearing a passage as an event in kind a psychological/dramatic plot. There's a world of difference between the two kinds of explanation and it's often difficult to decide which makes more sense for a given work or passage. The best advice I can give is just to refer you to the less esoteric posts of others above - those who have advised you to familiarize yourself with the standard forms and conventions for music of different eras. That's the only way to get a good sense of when something is expected and conventional versus something that violates stylistic norms in a way that demands a narrative or psychological/dramatic interpretation.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I don't really know what it means to ask what the composer is saying ... or, rather, how such a question might be answered. But I can relate to the question in some way. To really get on with a piece of music (and a composer more generally) I find I form a sort of "image" in my mind. Like the music it cannot be summed up or even described in words that mean something and is not a wholly visual image. It's more like a feeling. For some music the feeling comes fast (= understanding?) and for others it can take some listening. When it does take time it seems to be a result of approaching the music expecting something different to how it is.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

2122argos said:


> Goodness! So much valuable advice here! Thanks all.
> ...


You've been pointed towards overt programmatic music -- music which is designed to relate a story line. Perhaps this is a good place to begin in attempting to "understand" the music. The more abstract compositions -- those with no overt story line -- may be less accessible to conventional understanding; they may provoke a deeper, more personal, intuitive or more subjective interpretation, one based on philosophical issues or mere feeling. Some of us actually prefer such abstraction in music.

But to turn briefly back to program music.... One of the great doctrines of art, I believe, is that "form is meaning". Music which tells a known story often is easy to follow in such a manner. Take, for instance, the Tchaikovsky tone poem titled "Francesca da Rimini." At first listen this may seem confusing. Someone has already pointed out to you ABA form. This Tchaikovsky music follows that form, and a story line out of the literary work that inspires it, Dante's _Inferno_ from his three part _Divine Comedy_. The first part of the music is a clear introduction, that seems to take one on a descent into low notes on low instruments: it's a journey into Dante's Hell. Then the music picks up with a sound like wind. It is wind -- the violent wind storm of the second circle of Hell. The intensity of the music builds as the wind storm gets more and more violent. Dante's Second Circle of Hell is reserved for illicit lovers -- those who could not control their emotions, adulterers and such. Dante punishes sinners with a punishment that reflects their sin. Illicit lovers are out of control during their lives on upper Earth, so in Hell they suffer another loss of control as their bodies are constantly buffeted about by the violent winds which sweep them through the dark sky of Hell, never ending.

The B part of Tchaikovsky's tone poem is a quiet, lyrical moment with a very beautiful woody clarinet theme. This is the actual story of the lovers that Dante singles out in his story, which is Canto or Chapter 5 of the _Inferno_ book. The Italian maiden Francesca, married against her will to a deformed but powerful merchant, falls in love with her husband's handsome brother, Paolo, and begins an affair. Discovered by the husband who slays the two, Francesca and her lover Paolo are condemned to reside in the Second Circle of Hell together forever, though blown by the violent winds. But Dante allows them a moment of respite. a moment of relief from their punishment, when they are set down on the ground of Hell and Francesca (the clarinet of part B of the Tchaikovsky music) tells her sad tale. The theme is one of the most beautiful in all of Tchaikovsky, and at one point in his life the composer remarked that this was his favorite pieces of his own music.

In the return to part A of the ABA form the winds again pick up and the lovers are again thrust into the violent storm, their bodies flung through the air out of control for all of eternity. And thus the music ends.

Subtleties abound, of course. And the more one knows of the story, the more focus one may get from the music. One thing I notice is that the initial part A wind music seems excessively long. But this may be Tchaikovsky's way of hinting at the very experience of the two lovers, blown about relentlessly in this never ending wind. And the choice of a clarinet for the theme is remarkable. Why not an oboe or English horn, instruments which may sound more sensuous. It seems the composer wants the less warm sound of the dry, harder edged clarinet to reflect more the character of these particular sinners. This is not just a story of sensuality, but also one of transgression. One that is dark and cold.

So ... that "form is meaning" can help one to understand a musical work. Again, program works may be comprehended more readily. The abstract forms need more imaginative reflection, but one should always let the music be the initial guide, not the imagination. The music will suggest ideas, but for the ideas to be sound they must have a sense or a grounding in the music. This is tricky business, of course, and personal opinion ultimately reigns supreme. I simply caution about going too far "off the wall" in attempting to interpret organized musical sounds of an abstract nature. Still, even the most far-fetched interpretations are not "wrong", as they remain personal interpretations -- and that's all the music is asking of us to provide, if we wish. The alternative is simply to listen and hear what is there to hear. And that's perfectly okay, too.

Hope this helps.


----------



## Enthalpy (Apr 15, 2020)

Welcome, 2122argos!



2122argos said:


> [...] a very large proportion of music leaves me baffled [...]


That's an absolutely normal part of any creation. You're not expected to like everything, not even everything from one composer, your excellent right. Neither is a composer expected to write only things you like, his excellent right too.



2122argos said:


> [...] while I might like the sound, I have no idea what the composer is getting at [...]


Absolutely normal too. What we like in music isn't described in words, just like we can recognize a face but be unable to describe it from memory with words.

Even if, after some studying, someone can put a formal description on a piece, this description does not tell why he likes a piece or not.

Some of the most genial composers (JSBach, Ysaÿe...) had not studied composition. They decided by taste, not according to conventions, and it's much what we like from them.



2122argos said:


> I get frustrated by programme notes, and even detailed analysis of pieces, which talk about their history, and describe them in musical terms ('The piece opens in B-flat major, but the horns introduce a dark theme in G minor…'). That doesn't really help.


100% of the musicians, or very nearly so, think like you do. Such analysis is just pointless.



2122argos said:


> I feel that there is a whole world which somehow I can't access. [...]


Don't imagine musicology would help you that little bit. You're missing zilch in that direction.

You can discover new music, but only by listening at it. It often takes several hearings, and the path may go through other pieces before. I believe maltreating yourself would be counter-productive.

The music you cite offers nice and clear themes (and Sibelius 1 isn't easy, so you're on the best way). In addition to the Pictures at an exhibition and other titles in that post, maybe you could try the Polovtsian dances, the sorcerer's apprentice, the danse macabre, the firebird, the carmina burana. Early works by Bartók might be an access to less consonant music, for instance the 6 Romanian dances.

Prokofiev is a complete world like JSBach is, but note quite easily accessible neither. The orchestral suites from Romeo and Juliet and from Cinderella are easier, as is the love for three oranges. If you access the 1st violin concerto in the future, it's a marvel.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

You dont need to understand anything! Just enjoy the music. If it's really floating yer boat you will naturally try to learn more about it. Music is for listening and enjoyment, primarily. Understanding its purpose is secondary for me.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

2122argos said:


> I get frustrated by programme notes, and even detailed analysis of pieces, which talk about their history, and describe them in musical terms ('The piece opens in B-flat major, but the horns introduce a dark theme in G minor…'). That doesn't really help.


I've been listening to Classical for 20+ years, studied piano for 10, as well as formal study of harmony and history, even writing music myself, and I absolutely *do not* think of classical music in these terms. I simply listen and enjoy it. Nothing more is required. It's like driving over a bridge. You drive over it, maybe even marvel at the beauty of a well-constructed one, all while knowing nothing of the engineering stress calculations that went into its design. You can enjoy the music while not understanding the musical machinery. Sure some may find that level of investigation worthwhile, but frankly I never have. The problem for music critics, who write such nonsense, is that they must put music into words... which is a fool's errand. Music communicate to us something deeper than what words can ever hope to express.

I don't believe in forcing anything. Listen to what appeals to you and you will find your tastes develop over time. People on this forum know me as a Wagner freak, but I didn't touch Wagner for the first 10 years of my listening. He resided in the shadows waiting for me, until I was ready. My first love was actually Chopin, (probably universally true for pianists), while today I can't stand him. I hated Debussy and Prokofiev at first, now I adore them. I have always loved Beethoven and Bach, and though I have tried my best to listen to them to death, I still do enjoy Beethoven's 9th on the 1000th listen. I didn't see the appeal of Mozart at all at first, but he has solidly increased his appeal to me as I age. Don't overthink it... just feel.


----------



## Boychev (Jul 21, 2014)

You won't get an answer, it's all a sham. Nobody can explain to you systematically and in precise terms what a piece of music means. Focus on philosophy. The arts are a lie.


----------



## Johann Sebastian Bach (Dec 18, 2015)

Well put, Couchie.

Not only are words relatively useless in defining feelings, they belie the fact that we interpret with nuance. Therefore, my "beautiful Brahms, titanic Beethoven, elegant Bach" will mean something different to everyone. Like red. My eyes are not your eyes, so our visual perception may be different.

I have a number of friends who are painters. A few of them subscribe to the "florid, pompous art-speak school" which will have a picture of a yellow blob described as "the artist, reaching into the fragments of memory, closes the gap between 'this worldliness' and 'other worldliness' by exploring the motion of time and its passing fragrances." Bullsh*t is the correct response to this (and may also be apposite to the yellow blob. Just enjoy, or dislike.

40 years ago, my composition prof told me to forget written descriptions - "music is its own language, it's universal because no-one needs a translation" she said.


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

2122argos said:


> Goodness! So much valuable advice here! Thanks all.
> 
> Edwardbast- I think that what I meant by 'what is the composer getting at' is, very approximately, 'why did he or she write this piece?' More specifically, for example, why, 15 minutes into the first movement of Schubert's quintet D956, do the cellos suddenly become very agitated?


This is the sort of thing that Robert Greenberg does pretty often in his Great Courses. Another source that's easily accessible is Joshua Weilerstein's podcast "Sticky Notes".


----------



## That Guy Mick (May 31, 2020)

There were times when I too became mindful that my level of music appreciation might be improved. Vaguely I recall attending a University Music Appreciation class at the age of 19. The course of instruction consisted almost entirely of Classical listening. While I had greatly enjoyed music for many years at that young age, I had little interest in the Classical genre. Subsequently, very little fascination and music appreciation developed.

It was not until a decade later that I began investing attention to Classical, and a few years later began participating in Internet music forums. The latter event was the point at which I recognized that a somewhat unsupervised scholastic approach to music might be beneficial. A few forum participants goaded others concerning the importance of a music theory education for a fuller appreciation, but more so it occurred to me that forum communication with others was hampered by the ability to speak about music. It became obvious to me that explaining why I appreciated or liked or disliked a particular piece was hindered by lack of ability to do so. Elevation of music discussion to a higher level required something more than listening. 

At that juncture, I assessed what had been learned and what might be useful to learn...


----------



## Pat Fairlea (Dec 9, 2015)

pianozach said:


> Oh; you could try some tone poems (symphonic poems) and other programatic music, where the composer is VERY clear on what he is illustrating musically.
> 
> Sorcerer's Apprentice
> Appalachian Spring
> ...


And Isle of the Dead. And Night Ride and Sunrise.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

That Guy Mick said:


> There were times when I too became mindful that my level of music appreciation might be improved. Vaguely I recall attending a University Music Appreciation class at the age of 19. The course of instruction consisted almost entirely of Classical listening. While I had greatly enjoyed music for many years at that young age, I had little interest in the Classical genre. Subsequently, very little fascination and music appreciation developed.
> 
> It was not until a decade later that I began investing attention to Classical, and a few years later began participating in Internet music forums. The latter event was the point at which I recognized that a somewhat unsupervised scholastic approach to music might be beneficial. A few forum participants goaded others concerning the importance of a music theory education for a fuller appreciation, but more so it occurred to me that forum communication with others was hampered by the ability to speak about music. It became obvious to me that explaining why I appreciated or liked or disliked a particular piece was hindered by lack of ability to do so. Elevation of music discussion to a higher level required something more than listening.
> 
> At that juncture, I assessed what had been learned and what might be useful to learn...


Yes. A "somewhat unsupervised scholastic approach to music" will eventually lead to an osmosis of music theory and music education.


----------



## Oldhoosierdude (May 29, 2016)

2122argos said:


> Hello. This is my first post!
> I suspect that this may seem a really weird question, but a very large proportion of music leaves me baffled. I simply don't get it. Conversely, there are pieces I love - Beethoven (especially. The symphonies and late piano/chamber music), Tallis, some Sibelius (a new discovery- the violin concerto and 5th symphony sort of get through to me) etc etc. But generally, while I might like the sound, I have no idea what the composer is getting at.
> 
> I get frustrated by programme notes, and even detailed analysis of pieces, which talk about their history, and describe them in musical terms ('The piece opens in B-flat major, but the horns introduce a dark theme in G minor…'). That doesn't really help.
> ...


Yeah man. The B flats and G minor talk does nothing for me. My choice was learn all that jazz or just listen and appreciate. I chose the second.

Sometimes you just have to let art flow over you, man.


----------



## AlexD (Nov 6, 2011)

If you can access it - BBC radio 3 has a "building a library" as part of the record review show. 

In it, someone discusses and chooses the best recording of a particular piece of music.

Through the discussion, they reveal the effects and interpretations of different pieces which help a lot.

I had a similar experience with jazz. It's only when I stumbled onto Humphrey Littleton's Jazz show that where he discussed the tracks he and his listeners had chosen that I "got" it.


----------



## Nawdry (Dec 27, 2020)

2122argos said:


> I suspect that this may seem a really weird question, but a very large proportion of music leaves me baffled. I simply don't get it. Conversely, there are pieces I love - Beethoven (especially. The symphonies and late piano/chamber music), Tallis, some Sibelius (a new discovery- the violin concerto and 5th symphony sort of get through to me) etc etc. But generally, while I might like the sound, I have no idea what the composer is getting at.
> 
> I get frustrated by programme notes, and even detailed analysis of pieces, which talk about their history, and describe them in musical terms ('The piece opens in B-flat major, but the horns introduce a dark theme in G minor…'). That doesn't really help.
> 
> ...


As a general rule, I think "over-intellectualizing" great works of music is not helpful as a means of truly "understanding" the music. If you're a nascent composer, or a musician seeking a deeper comprehension of the "nuts & bolts" of a work, an intellectual deep dive might be warranted. But merely as a listener, for you the music itself, simply auditorily, either communicates sounds that unlock a kind of "door" in your spirit, or you must see if you can make that happen by becoming more familiar with its sounds (not its construction, or reasons for being composed, etc.). (In a previous post, I provided my personal definition of one's "spirit" as "the rather amazing complexity of cognitive and emotional functioning, and motivating animus, that seems to define and constitute each of us as a sentient being.")

I used to conceive of great works of music as "telling a story", but I believe now that a better metaphor is that they "take us on a journey" - a journey in a relatively brief period of time that is both transcendent and transformative. The composer does not expect you to even have the score open before you as you listen to his or her music, much less to have to delve into technical analyses, history, etc. of the work in order for the music to "unlock" that "door" and carry you on that transcendent/transformative "journey".


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Merl said:


> You dont need to understand anything! Just enjoy the music. If it's really floating yer boat you will naturally try to learn more about it. Music is for listening and enjoyment, primarily. Understanding its purpose is secondary for me.


Right!! the composer is going to take you on a journey...you don't have to know anything about the journey or the destination, or where it will end up....just hop on and go for the ride.....you don't have to over-analyze or over-think it....let it take you where it goes....


----------



## Animal the Drummer (Nov 14, 2015)

Absolutely. I like to think I have a fair understanding of the technicalities and that helps when I read about music, but it doesn't come into the picture at all when I'm listening.


----------



## FrankinUsa (Aug 3, 2021)

A lot of great responses to the OP. I get the sense you are fairly new to CM. If that is the case,first try to get just who were the major composers and JUST listen and see what you like or don’t like. If you contact to listen to CM,even your preferences may change over time. Right now,I would not get into anything beyond. You will just drive yourself crazy.


----------



## FrankinUsa (Aug 3, 2021)

I’m going to get in trouble. 

Start looking at David Hurwitz videos on YouTube


----------



## Bruce Morrison (Mar 8, 2010)

One suggestion: rather than listening to CDs or radio performances, try watching some classical music performances on YouTube. There are numerous performances of all the great works of classical music, and you might find watching a concert performance more involving than just listening. You can also get a better appreciation of the various instruments of the orchestra and how they sound.

When I was just getting into classical music in my late teens, I quickly found that it was "exciting" orchestral sound that turned me on, rather than highly structured music based on musical forms like fugues or sonatas. For that reason, I tended to start with works composed around the first part of the 20th century, for example those of Sibelius, Stravinsky, Richard Strauss, etc. I can remember being obsessed by Stravinsky's Rite Of Spring, and I was constantly playing an LP of it at home and driving my mother crazy with this "discordant row"! In those days, I probably thought, for example, Mozart's music was quite dull by comparison! And I still don't find the baroque composers (Bach, Handel and so on) do much for me (heresy!). 

Anyway, I hope you will find your way into this wonderful world of classical music. It's well worth the investment. Good luck!


----------



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

The OP writes an excellent first post. I remember getting into Classical Music about 40 years ago as a non musician and being equally bewildered. I loved most of what I was hearing but it seemed so impenetrable intellectually. And from a technical standpoint I know have a better understanding but not to the point where I could successfully explain it to someone else.
It isn’t necessarily required to learn much to enjoy it. Certainly people go to Art Museums and enjoy pictures without understanding any of the technical concepts involved.
Personally I have found that having at least a limited understanding helps. In my case I checked out a humongous book on music appreciation from a library for a school project. I only read a few chapters, concentrating on the Classical Period (Haydn-Mozart-Beethoven-Schubert, with the last two sometimes considered transitional figures into the Romantic era that followed the Classical Era). The Classical era for me is like the High Renaissance era in painting. Think of a work by Raphael that has the subjects in perfect symmetry on the canvass, and with beautiful figures that seem to convey emotion under a veneer of placidity. Subsequent generations of painters would then alter the perspective, viewing the same scene from a different angle, the characters being more graphic. However the later painters owe a clear debt to structure of the earlier generations, and in the same way the Romantic generation of composers built their art on the foundations of the Classical Period. Then subsequent styles were a rebellion against the Romantics and on it goes.
The problem in all of the above is it leaves out the Baroque (Bach, Handel, Vivaldi, etc) which preceded the Classical Period, and the periods prior to the Baroque, but I think the Classical Period is a good starting point.
The Greenberg lectures are a good place to start, but the book I read I remember taking Hayd’s Surprise Symphony and giving a “play by play” analysis of each movement that was easy to follow. From there it was easy to learn the rudiments of Sonata, Concerto, etc.
I should mention that I don’t know much about Opera and for simple beginnings hopefully some else can advise you


----------

