# Science, aging, and the appreciation of music



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

I have no answers to the questions I'm about to pose. I'm really just floating a few observations that puzzle me - observations that may or may not be related - and I just wonder how my experiences compare with others?

1. I'm a professional scientist (physicist/radio astronomer). From the first, my mind had a built-in curiosity about the way the universe works, coupled with enough of a mathematical/analytical/philosophical/logical turn to it to be able to tackle some of those tough scientific and mathematical questions. So far, so good. But put a music score in front of me, and I'm utterly lost. I can of course painstakingly transcribe the musical notes into letters - A, G, C#, etc - and transfer those (with painful slowness) to a keyboard or guitar. But I know now (I have decades of depressing experience behind me) that I will never be able to learn to read and play from a score. I can play guitar by ear with reasonable fluency, but it's entirely intuitive; my brain simply isn't wired up to be able to read a score. So my question is: is this inability related in any way to my naturally 'scientific' mental habits? Is there any known inverse correlation between those things? Is there anyone else out there who shares my 'disability', and if so, do they have any idea why we have it? 

2. In my twenties, I was swept away by Wagner, and swallowed whole Ring listening sessions, evening after evening with ease. I found Mozart trivial - simply couldn't get on with him at all. But now, decades later, I'm smitten by Mozart almost to the point of obsession and find Wagner somewhat overblown and tedious. And I'm wondering if this is some kind of natural progression which was bound to happen because of a gradual extension of listening experience? Or is it rather a physiological thing? In other words, is there any evidence to suppose that our brains physically change so that we tend to be attracted to the big sprawling composers like Wagner in our youth, but respond more deeply to the more delicate delights of Mozart in our later years?

I don't know if these two issues (scientific mind and age) are related. They might be. I seem intuitively to want to put them together for some reason. And of course I may have phrased them with such a lack of clarity that no one knows how to respond at all. Well, let's find out.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly (Apr 21, 2007)

Hmmm... a premise that comes dangerously close to the assertion "I matured my way out of Wagner." I don't disagree with you that often- but you can imagine what I think of _that_ statement forwarded as a possibility.

Of course, I can suggest the counter-possibility that one can mature one's way _into_ Wagner- e.g.: the youth who claims that he can enjoy the overture-bits, but doesn't have the attention-span to deal with those long sections with that narrative singing- and too often, there are lengthy parts where the singers don't even carry the melody. What kind of madness is that?!

Then, as an adult, and with an adult-type attention-span it comes together, and a Wagnerian is created.

(I guess we could look at an audience that's letting out of the Opera House after a Wagner opera... does it look any younger than the audiences for other operas?)


----------



## tenor02 (Jan 4, 2008)

as for reading a score: no, it has nothing to do with your analytical abilities. infact, they "should" be helping you (as a few studies suggest). that being said: with the right help im sure you could learn how to do it; it just takes a decent teacher who knows the instrument well, and some good practice. just do what you are doing with that, keep "pain-painstakingly" banging through notes, but once you get them down -- play them a little faster. eventually you'll get it. Also, Robert Shaw once said: "learning music should not be a painful thing. by learning the notes you are also learning how the music works." 

and for wagner:
no, the development doesnt have anything to do with it imo. i think you just tune to some things at different points. for instance: when i was a little younger, 14-16, somewhere in there, i LOVED mozart...specifically the requiem; i wouldnt listen to anything else for a long time and learned a lot about the requiem. However, i hated a lot of the romatic composers...they were all just fluff and their music seemed to just be way to overdone for me. i'm now 20 and i've almost totally strayed away from the classical composers...the music is just not what i'm looking for...now IT seems like it's all fluff, no substance. 

so no, i dont think it has to do anything with our brain developing as a result of age, but more so a developing of the ear and what it favors. I'm sure at some point you're going to get bored of the minute parts of mozart, and want something flashy and engrossing; at which point, HELLO WAGNER!


----------



## Guest (Jan 26, 2010)

When I first started listening to classical music intently, about a year ago, a friend of mine that was helping me get started had some thoughts on this. He studied music in college. This is what he had to say on the matter:
"Mozart is a tricky composer. He's not as light as you'd think. While in college, all of my music professors lauded Mozart, and I couldn't figure out why. I was constantly told by the head of the department that you "begin with Mozart and end with Mozart". During my senior year, I began to see what the fuss is with Mozart. Keep listening to him - as you become more analytical and experienced with the genre, you'll surely realize why he's so great. I still prefer Beethoven, though."

I am finding that I appreciate Mozart more through HIP recordings. I like the cleaner sound of it all, leaner, meaner. I still have several non-HIP recordings of his that I love, but I am appreciating him more through the HIP recordings (same goes for Haydn).


----------



## Stunt21 (Jan 22, 2010)

Hi Elgarian =)

Radio astronomer, that's amazing... 

I'm not a scientist, but I'm an engineering student, so I think I get what you mean by "scientifically" structured brain.
At least if it's like when I come back home (50Km) driving on the road, and I try to find the places between the cars to overtake one; when I do this, I see cars like systems of equations with variables like the model of the car, which will allow me to model the driver's behaviour (sporty bmw - will go fast, expensive mercedes - will not look before turning, etc...) and tell me when will the optimal moment to overtake. (Well, some racing experience I have might help too...  ).
I do this in all the faces of my life. In traffic jams, I see people around me like signals (if you're into radio you must be familiar with this systems we use to study signals when we apply FFT or filters to them), whose life is a complex system: getting up, working, that work will feedback money and stress, which will feedback again into etc etc...

But then comes music 
Aaaaah, my friend, here this all is impossible to me.
It's true that I have only a basic knowledge about harmony and analysis, as I have self taught myself all I know, and have no time and/or money to start on a conservatory. But probably if I had an extreme level of music theory, I would be able to "calculate the Fourier transform of the music (not sounds, music  ) and watch at its spectrum", I mean, see it scientifically.
Fortunately, I can't =)
I somehow do (like 99.9% of the rest of this forum, I guess), but in other way, using "musical sense", the dress of the science of music inside us.

About reading, I have always thought that the writing method we use is not the most correct one in order to be able to read it and play, whether thinking about "paper" economy or ease to read. That's because the writing method suits perfectly with another thing: music theory. Otherwise, what would be the point of a double # ?
But anyway, music theory is no more than science itself, so it has a scientific basis, and your scientific mind WILL, at some point, start to get familiar with it.
I don't have too much time to read right now, but when I've had, I've noticed how fast the progression was growing. I couldn't scientifically tell why I could read *relatively* fast, but I just know that somewhere in my brain, there was an interface doing the tough work 

In summary, someone like you knows that everything in life (and beyond), everything we can experience, is science. Sometimes it's easy to explain (like when we have drugs and enjoy), and sometimes it's harder.
I guess music must be the hardest thing to explain.
Well...Better: Do we know any thing at all about its working inside us?

I'm extremely sorry about the boring message, too much to talk also about the second point, hehe.
Good luck hearing up there, ignore my waves in HF 

Greetings!


----------



## Taneyev (Jan 19, 2009)

I'm 67 now, I have been listening to classical since I was 13, and I hate Wagner (as all opera) since that time.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Elgarian said:


> I have no answers to the questions I'm about to pose. I'm really just floating a few observations that puzzle me - observations that may or may not be related - and I just wonder how my experiences compare with others?
> 
> 1. I'm a professional scientist (physicist/radio astronomer). From the first, my mind had a built-in curiosity about the way the universe works, coupled with enough of a mathematical/analytical/philosophical/logical turn to it to be able to tackle some of those tough scientific and mathematical questions. So far, so good. But put a music score in front of me, and I'm utterly lost. I can of course painstakingly transcribe the musical notes into letters - A, G, C#, etc - and transfer those (with painful slowness) to a keyboard or guitar. But I know now (I have decades of depressing experience behind me) that I will never be able to learn to read and play from a score. I can play guitar by ear with reasonable fluency, but it's entirely intuitive; my brain simply isn't wired up to be able to read a score. So my question is: is this inability related in any way to my naturally 'scientific' mental habits? Is there any known inverse correlation between those things? Is there anyone else out there who shares my 'disability', and if so, do they have any idea why we have it?
> 
> ...


As for number 1, I've had the same problem as well. You may just have some traits of autism to account for this. I was diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome when I was born, and they monitored me a little further to confirm it. As a result, it was incredibly difficult for me to read music fluently. I've been working at it for decades, and it still isn't all that great. When I was about 16, they did a study on me, and said that this was because the sheet and the keyboard/fretboard/whatever were two different mediums of information to me. It would never be natural, and I'd have to put two and two together constantly (this also soaks into many other thought processes).

So, if you have a similar problem with reading music, and other similar thought processes, you should check for autistic syndromes. If you do indeed have Asperger's, or something similar, you will have to tackle learning this skill in an entirely different way.

As for number 2, yes. In my experience, less seasoned listeners get swept away by dramatic composers who work on a large scale. It's nothing against Wagner, or other similar composers, for it's not as if they wrote music you could call immature. It simply takes a lot of study to get the emotional content. My guess is that, eventually, you will return to loving Wagner also. It's very possible I could just be blowing smoke, but that is my well-educated guess.

Edit: Also, if you did have a kind of autism, it would very easily support your field of work. Many autistic people (not all) have a highly magnified ability to focus on one thing at a time.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

In my life I don't think I've really gone off music that I really liked. It's been more about expanding my horizons.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

No, it's not natural progress, as you call it. The only progress that comes with age and experience is when you throw up bad composed music, when you begin to see that it's less complex and interesting and you enjoyed it because you had untrained ear. 

Life experiences and your personality makes you like and dislike music. I put Wagner among my favs because I'm Wotan, his spirit that Wagner caught in his music is also mine spirit, I place Ludwig Van on this very list because if I would meet him I would puch him in face and he would repay me, we are the conquerors of the world and if you doubt in you courage, knight, then come no further, because death awaits you with it's nasty, pointed teeths. I mean that if your soul doesn't stand on the cliff and gazes into raging sea under it and your blood isn't burning with the same flame that burned in their blood then you simply won't completely understand and enjoy their music. There is someone else that wrote music that suits you. 

I didn't get old yet, and I listen to classical since about... one year, but my tastes have changed all the way. And not only for once. I started with classicism and baroque, I despised more modern stuff because I belived that modern composers lack talent if they can't write kewl tunes. 

Then I've turned to romantic music and at first listened only to guys like Mendelssohn and Schubert. I found Wagner, Mahler etc as you do now, Elgarian, overblown. And now I can't even think of putting someone like before above both of them.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

Elgarian said:


> 1. I'm a professional scientist (physicist/radio astronomer).


I am in awe.

[Long irrelevant question about brown dwarfs snipped. This is not the venue for that.]

Anyway not to sidetrack the thread - I don't think moving from Wagner to Mozart is inevitable. I think its just broadening your horizons. And perhaps you binge on things as I do. I know with the slight decrease in testosterone with age I don't need all the crashing and banging all the time, so I do enjoy more intimate chamber works than I used to. Sadly very little Mozart yet.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Even though I'm still very young, I've gone the other way. I was brought into music by Mozart et. al. and couldn't listen to anything else. Now, I don't like it; I much prefer Romantic excess. If it's of any further relevance to your question, I was previously always known as the mathematical 'whiz' and I wanted to be an astrophysicist, but then I took a major turn towards the arts, and with that change in life and attitude, so my tastes went from Mozart to Brahms (to summarise).


----------



## yoshtodd (Sep 6, 2009)

Perhaps it's just the novelty of discovering something new. Classical music is so multi faceted that it's possible to miss things even after many listens. Maybe you're hearing something new in Mozart and it is exciting and novel. I suspect that if you return to Wagner later on you might hear something new and then your enjoyment would return. Just a guess, I'm not knowledgeable enough to compare their music.


----------



## nefigah (Aug 23, 2008)

Everybody's pendulum swings from time to time. Mine does a heck of a lot, at least. I get into periods where I'm especially into a certain composer, piece, or genre. But I imagine _maturity_ is achieved when you can see and appreciate the brilliance and individuality of all meaningful works. (For whatever definition of "meaningful" we eventually come to.) Wagner and Mozart are very different, but equally amazing in their own way. I wouldn't dismiss the possibility of that pendulum swinging again


----------



## Andy Loochazee (Aug 2, 2007)

Similar thread:

http://www.talkclassical.com/6539-shifts-musical-taste.html

And this one is very recent, with the last contribution only a couple of weeks ago.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

i dont think the scientific mind necessarily inhibits musicality, and i dont mean to brag. but im doing all science A levels and hope to study physics, while i also study piano, conducting, composition and undergraduate level music theory.


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

Chi_townPhilly said:


> Hmmm... a premise that comes dangerously close to the assertion "I matured my way out of Wagner." I don't disagree with you that often- but you can imagine what I think of _that_ statement forwarded as a possibility.


Ah, I can see why you might interpret what I said in that way, but I didn't mean it like that. I wasn't suggesting that 'X is better than Y' and that as we age we grow wiser and know better so start to prefer X. My passion for Wagner lasted a long time and has played a crucial part in making me the person I am now, so I'm not going to knock it. No, I was just reporting on the subjective experience of a preference for Wagner changing to a preference for Mozart, and wondering about why it happened (or indeed, if it's permanent). It feels as if I 'see' something now that I couldn't 'see' before. The change has been very fast - not a gradual thing. That's what makes me suspect there's a physiological cause for it (though I do generally operate in obsessive bursts of enthusiasm where the arts are concerned, I must admit, and obviously I'd be foolish to rule out a further swing of the pendulum at some point - as nefigah suggests.)

*From DrMike*


> I am finding that I appreciate Mozart more through HIP recordings. I like the cleaner sound of it all, leaner, meaner. I still have several non-HIP recordings of his that I love, but I am appreciating him more through the HIP recordings (same goes for Haydn).


Yes, that's a significant part of the equation that I should have mentioned. My Mozart resurgence has all occurred through listening to HIP recordings, so that's another uncontrolled variable. In fact I very much doubt if the transformation would have occurred through conventional recordings of Mozart, and it may be that I need to look no further for an explanation - in which case it might have nothing to do with having a scientific mind, or with ageing, at all!

*From Lukecash12*


> You may just have some traits of autism to account for this.


The barrier (for me) is so formidable that you may be right, though as far as I'm aware it's a notably isolated disability. However, your description of the two separate media being two separate channels of information that can't be linked does sound very close to my experience of trying to read music. It feels as if there's a fundamental confusion at the heart of it. Incidentally, I've observed a similar disability in some (few) people with regard to mathematics. No matter how often they're shown, or learn to repeat certain processes, there's a basic intuitive understanding that's always missing. My musical notation disability seems very like that.

*From Weston*


> I think its just broadening your horizons. And perhaps you binge on things as I do.


Well yes, like you I am a terrible binger when it comes to the arts. I follow each new avenue to the point of exhaustion - but usually I succeed in carrying the old favourites along with me. This feels different. But maybe that's because I'm still immersed in it. Maybe in a couple of years I'll look back and see it all as part of my usual headlong bingeing cycle! [Incidentally, my radio astronomy days are long behind me - I included that information because it formed a crucial part of my intellectual and imaginative development at a seminal time - more or less when I discovered Wagner, come to think of it! I was 'thinking big'!)

I've run out of time for now, but thanks to everyone who's contributed their thoughts so far.

*Footnote*
Whatever might lie behind this change, it hasn't affected my love of Elvis....


----------



## Guest (Jan 28, 2010)

I was an Engineer and semi pro musician which worked OK together
I must say that after a lifetime of listening I still have no appreciation of Wagner, the orchestral I do like but the opera I just don’t like at all. Then again opera is not a form of music that I go mad over, the popular ones I find easy to listen to but the rest no. 
I do think your tastes change all the time and eventually you find the genre and composer that seems to fit your personal inner self.
I started off a Mozart Fan but eventually other composers surpassed him
Chamber and Choral have emerged as my chosen elite of music.


----------



## xuantu (Jul 23, 2009)

> My passion for Wagner lasted a long time and has played a crucial part in making me the person I am now, so I'm not going to knock it. No, I was just reporting on the subjective experience of a preference for Wagner changing to a preference for Mozart, and wondering about why it happened (or indeed, if it's permanent). It feels as if I 'see' something now that I couldn't 'see' before.


I've loved Wagner, and now I am kind of moving in the same direction of preferring Mozart more .

I'm a graduate student in engineering but I adore music, to the extent that I've seriously thought about becoming a half-time singer (perhaps only doing art song recitals). In any case, I'm very proud that I'm part of the scientific world; I'm even more proud that I am a music-loving engineer!


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Elgarian said:


> I have no answers to the questions I'm about to pose. I'm really just floating a few observations that puzzle me - observations that may or may not be related - and I just wonder how my experiences compare with others?
> 
> 1. I'm a professional scientist (physicist/radio astronomer). From the first, my mind had a built-in curiosity about the way the universe works, coupled with enough of a mathematical/analytical/philosophical/logical turn to it to be able to tackle some of those tough scientific and mathematical questions. So far, so good. But put a music score in front of me, and I'm utterly lost. I can of course painstakingly transcribe the musical notes into letters - A, G, C#, etc - and transfer those (with painful slowness) to a keyboard or guitar. But I know now (I have decades of depressing experience behind me) that I will never be able to learn to read and play from a score. I can play guitar by ear with reasonable fluency, but it's entirely intuitive; my brain simply isn't wired up to be able to read a score. So my question is: is this inability related in any way to my naturally 'scientific' mental habits? Is there any known inverse correlation between those things? Is there anyone else out there who shares my 'disability', and if so, do they have any idea why we have it?
> 
> ...


I think it's mainly down to the individual, just like we all choose different favourite colours, and even that may change as one gets older with life's experiences.

I started listening to HIP of Baroque and Classical music during my mid-teens, and have been fixated by HIP to say, over 95% of my listening and CD purchases. It simply works for me; the sounds are cleaner/clearer, and the elegance and form of the music are entirely transparent; in a word, uplifting (my sole criteria for determining good art). I seldom go into anything beyond early Romantic, which doesn't seem to click with me much at all.

Has that to do with type of education/training, mind, up bringing? For many, it may do, but that is not the case with me. Neither of my parents nor immediate relatives listens to any classical music. None are particularly musical. I don't have any formal musical training. I don't play any musical instruments (although a goal in life is indeed to learn the piano/keyboard), but I do read as widely as I can on Baroque and Classical musicology (HIP CD sleeve notes are indeed excellent). I'm an actuary by profession (maths/statistics/economics/finance). So I guess, in my case, I was simply born into loving these strangely beautiful sounds. Amongst my very favourite pieces that I listened to over and over again during the first year of discovery was Bach's Brandenburg no.3 (which I recall was in fact a modern instrument performance that I no longer have on cassette due to over use - Raymond Leppard/The English Chamber Orchestra, because Reinhard Goebel/Music Antiqua Cologne's version swept me away completely when I heard it on radio and was my first set of classical CD's bought).


----------



## KaerbEmEvig (Dec 15, 2009)

Andante said:


> I was an Engineer and semi pro musician which worked OK together
> I must say that after a lifetime of listening I still have no appreciation of Wagner, the orchestral I do like but the opera I just don't like at all. Then again opera is not a form of music that I go mad over, the popular ones I find easy to listen to but the rest no.
> I do think your tastes change all the time and eventually you find the genre and composer that seems to fit your personal inner self.
> I started off a Mozart Fan but eventually other composers surpassed him
> Chamber and Choral have emerged as my chosen elite of music.


Chamber and Choral for the win!


----------



## GraemeG (Jun 30, 2009)

Elgarian said:


> The barrier (for me) is so formidable that you may be right, though as far as I'm aware it's a notably isolated disability. However, your description of the two separate media being two separate channels of information that can't be linked does sound very close to my experience of trying to read music. It feels as if there's a fundamental confusion at the heart of it. Incidentally, I've observed a similar disability in some (few) people with regard to mathematics. No matter how often they're shown, or learn to repeat certain processes, there's a basic intuitive understanding that's always missing. My musical notation disability seems very like that.


From the perspective of a musician (amateur - I'm actually an accountant), I've got to say - it comes with practise. It's not that you can't remember that middle line of the treble clef is a B, or where that note is on the piano, it's that it's a painstaking effort to see one, and instantly press the other.
Well, my friend, that's how you learn to play an instrument. You practise, an hour a day. It's not intuitive for anyone.

[When you say "a score", I wasn't sure whether you meant simply music written for an instrument, or to actually read (and hear in your head) an orchestral "score".
One is just an evolved form of the other, really, although I'm in awe of someone who can pick up an orchestral score they've never heard before, look at the score, and 'hear' it in their head. That's impressive.]

And even sight-reading - which I guess is what you're describing - needs to be practised. After all, you can only sight-read something once! (Well, within 'timing' reason). It's one thing to use the music as a sort of memory prompt while you're playing, quite another to just sight-read anything that's put in front of you. But really, it's just practise, practise, practise...
cheers,
Graeme


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

GraemeG said:


> Well, my friend, that's how you learn to play an instrument. You practise, an hour a day. It's not intuitive for anyone.


Yes I know. I play guitar (not classical, and purely by ear) with reasonable fluency, and I acquired that fluency by practice (a lot more than an hour a day, actually) over many, many years.

But on this other problem practice has made never made any impact at all. For me, the 'notes' seen as blobs on the page remain, stubbornly, mere blobs on the page, and indeed I can't perceive them as having anything to do with a musical sound at all (that is, there's no sound in my head equivalent to what I see on the page). It doesn't matter how many times I look at the music, find the right position on the guitar, and play the note - every time remains like the first, painstaking, deliberate, calculated fumble. My brain simply can't link what I see on the page directly with what my finger is doing.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

Elgarian said:


> Yes I know. I play guitar (not classical, and purely by ear) with reasonable fluency, and I acquired that fluency by practice (a lot more than an hour a day, actually) over many, many years.


Before I took up classical guitar I couldn't sight read at all and didn't really need to. Standard notation is not really very good for styles like rock an blues with lots of guitar specific techniques, like string bends and then there's the improvisatory nature of a lot of non-classical music.

However, after less than a year of classical guitar I can sight read pretty much anything a prima vista as long as it's not in a key where you have lots of flats, like Gb. It's my ears that I have trouble with. I, like most beginner guitarists, started out with tab before learning to read properly, so I never really learned to pick out guitar parts by ear. I can work out melodies and phrases but complex polyphonic/contrapuntal works I really struggle to work out whats going on at all.

If you have no wish to learn classical guitar, or any other orchestral instrument for that matter, then good ears are far more useful than sight reading skills. Those guys with advnced audiation abilities are the most impressive though.

If you really wanted to learn to sight read then I'd say just never (well _almost_ never) play through the same piece twice. Then the memory factor is not part of the equation and all you are doing is converted the notes in your mind.

As for the Wagner/Mozart part of the question, I just plain disagree.


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

Argus said:


> As for the Wagner/Mozart part of the question, I just plain disagree.


But ... disagree with what? There are several different viewpoints expressed in this thread; and I haven't put forward any actual argument myself - I'm just asking questions about purely subjective changes that have puzzled me.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

Elgarian said:


> But ... disagree with what? There are several different viewpoints expressed in this thread; and I haven't put forward any actual argument myself - I'm just asking questions about purely subjective changes that have puzzled me.


I was typing that post at work and it was getting very close to the time I go home so I just ended that point abruptly. But now I have some more time so I'll elaborate even though that part of the OP didn't really pique my interest . I was more interested in why some people are more naturally able in different aspects of musicality.

Naturally, tastes change and expand as we get older. I'd say there it's more a voyage from the simple and accessible towards the confusing and difficult. Not to say you can't still appreciate the simple but it takes no knowledge/experience to understand some music compared to others. 5 years ago I never expected to like classcal, jazz, folk, even heavy metal as I was in a nice pop and rock bubble. Maybe it's just me, but I get bored of most things after a while and need a change. That's not to say I won't come back to them in the future but after a certain amount of exposure I need something different. So I search for something new and fresh until that avenue is exhausted. Then I return to best that you have found. Tastes certainly change but not in any set direction.

I don't think the music itself matters. It's just what is new.

So, in summary, people like stuff.


----------



## Guest (Jan 29, 2010)

Elgarian said:


> .
> 
> It doesn't matter how many times I look at the music, find the right position on the guitar, and play the note - every time remains like the first, painstaking, deliberate, calculated fumble. My brain simply can't link what I see on the page directly with what my finger is doing.


Maybe the Guitar is the problem if you are trying to play notated chords as opposed to written chords C7 - Cmin etc etc, as a *suggestion only* why not try a single line instrument the Flute is a good one even a Treble recorder, and even the Clarinet if you want to be ambitious this way you will quickly find your way around.


----------



## xuantu (Jul 23, 2009)

Argus said:


> I was more interested in why some people are more naturally able in different aspects of musicality.
> 
> Naturally, tastes change and expand as we get older. I'd say there it's more a voyage from the simple and accessible towards the confusing and difficult. Not to say you can't still appreciate the simple but it takes no knowledge/experience to understand some music compared to others. 5 years ago I never expected to like classcal, jazz, folk, even heavy metal as I was in a nice pop and rock bubble. Maybe it's just me, but I get bored of most things after a while and need a change. That's not to say I won't come back to them in the future but after a certain amount of exposure I need something different. So I search for something new and fresh until that avenue is exhausted. Then I return to best that you have found. Tastes certainly change but not in any set direction.
> 
> I don't think the music itself matters. It's just what is new.


Very true! From the few truths that you've told, I quickly recognized the phenomenon called _aesthetic fatigue_. It happens to me also. When I'm loving a composer (or a certain genre), I normally focus on listening to his works (or that genre), during which period the music stays with me no matter what I do or where I go, even if I try to divert myself from its deadly attraction. But then when the saturation point is reached, I would switch to some other composers I knew or go music hunting or simply not listen to anything. Hopefully by the time my ears want to pick up something familiar again, my love for this particular composer is renewed. There are of course composers I love consistently throughout. That, I presume, is a matter of longer time scale (my engineer instincts kicks in).

For now I am not warm to any composer (my choices of music shows no pattern), nor am I in the mood to explore anything new (I've comfortably reached a steady state). However, I know that anytime my rabid interest in a certain composer or my insatiable appetite for new musical voices could be reactivated. My next obsession is certainly open to a lot of the possibilities posted on this forum.


----------



## KaerbEmEvig (Dec 15, 2009)

xuantu said:


> Very true! From the few truths that you've told, I quickly recognized the phenomenon called _aesthetic fatigue_. It happens to me also. When I'm loving a composer (or a certain genre), I normally focus on listening to his works (or that genre), during which period the music stays with me no matter what I do or where I go, even if I try to divert myself from its deadly attraction. But then when the saturation point is reached, I would switch to some other composers I knew or go music hunting or simply not listen to anything. Hopefully by the time my ears want to pick up something familiar again, my love for this particular composer is renewed. There are of course composers I love consistently throughout. That, I presume, is a matter of longer time scale (my engineer instincts kicks in).
> 
> For now I am not warm to any composer (my choices of music shows no pattern), nor am I in the mood to explore anything new (I've comfortably reached a steady state). However, I know that anytime my rabid interest in a certain composer or my insatiable appetite for new musical voices could be reactivated. My next obsession is certainly open to a lot of the possibilities posted on this forum.


Same. I think the only who don't experience that are people that are either narrow-minded or ignorant towards music in general. And I don't mean to insult anyone by the narrow-minded comment. What I mean is - they are not the explorer kind of person. They've found something they like and have settled for it.


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

Andante said:


> why not try a single line instrument the Flute is a good one even a Treble recorder


Believe it or not Andante, even though I hate the sound of a treble recorder, I did try that in order to get things as simple as possible. But the problem doesn't lie in the instrument, it lies in me.

I'm not really seeking a _solution_ to this, actually - I long ago accepted the situation for what it is; I was just curious about why it might occur. Lukecash's suggestion seems as good as any, I think.


----------



## nefigah (Aug 23, 2008)

Do you touch-type by any chance? (That is, can you type something you are reading while keeping your eyes on the source and not the keys?)


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

nefigah said:


> Do you touch-type by any chance? (That is, can you type something you are reading while keeping your eyes on the source and not the keys?)


No. I can type reasonably quickly, but I need to look at the keys for every single keystroke.


----------



## KaerbEmEvig (Dec 15, 2009)

I can 'touch-type', but not how it's usually done. I still type with the two of index fingers, use left pinkie to hold alt and either of my thumbs to press the space bar. I look at the keyboard from time to time, though.


----------



## Welsh Classical Fan (Jan 31, 2010)

Elgarian said:


> 1. I'm a professional scientist (physicist/radio astronomer). From the first, my mind had a built-in curiosity about the way the universe works, coupled with enough of a mathematical/analytical/philosophical/logical turn to it to be able to tackle some of those tough scientific and mathematical questions. So far, so good. But put a music score in front of me, and I'm utterly lost. I can of course painstakingly transcribe the musical notes into letters - A, G, C#, etc - and transfer those (with painful slowness) to a keyboard or guitar. Is there anyone else out there who shares my 'disability', and if so, do they have any idea why we have it?


Snap! I have GCSE's in Maths, Physics, Chemistry, IT and English and can note the differences between musical notes with no problems at all, but place a score in front of me and I have to physically count Every Good Boy Deserves Football and FACE!


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Elgarian said:


> Believe it or not Andante, even though I hate the sound of a treble recorder, I did try that in order to get things as simple as possible. But the problem doesn't lie in the instrument, it lies in me.
> 
> I'm not really seeking a _solution_ to this, actually - I long ago accepted the situation for what it is; I was just curious about why it might occur. Lukecash's suggestion seems as good as any, I think.


Really, it might not have to be all that hard for you. Have you ever tried taking a course in Solfege?


----------



## GraemeG (Jun 30, 2009)

Elgarian said:


> Yes I know. I play guitar (not classical, and purely by ear) with reasonable fluency, and I acquired that fluency by practice (a lot more than an hour a day, actually) over many, many years.
> 
> But on this other problem practice has made never made any impact at all. For me, the 'notes' seen as blobs on the page remain, stubbornly, mere blobs on the page, and indeed I can't perceive them as having anything to do with a musical sound at all (that is, there's no sound in my head equivalent to what I see on the page). It doesn't matter how many times I look at the music, find the right position on the guitar, and play the note - every time remains like the first, painstaking, deliberate, calculated fumble. My brain simply can't link what I see on the page directly with what my finger is doing.


Poor excuse! True, playing by ear will do nothing for your reading skills. No, you've got to practice the reading. Is it just pitch that is the problem? How about rhythm? Can you clap the rhythm of printed music?
'Pretending' to read the music of something you already know won't do. No, you have to practise the reading. There are fewer shapes to deal with than letters of the alphabet. Unless you have a serious cognitive disability (ie. the note is printed on the middle line of the stave and you see it on the top or something) you can do it!

This is half the trouble with learning instruments by ear - you don't know what the notes are. If I ask you to play an f#, can you do it? Two Gs then an E?
Try working just on the printed page. Leave the guitar in its case. Read the names of the printed notes aloud. Goodness, there are only 8; less than the alphabet. 
Practise, practise, practise...
cheers,
Graeme


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

After a lifetime of teaching, I do understand how, for someone for whom a particular skill is attainable with effort, the inability of another person to master that same skill can seem incomprehensible. But in any case, just to reiterate:


Elgarian said:


> I'm not really seeking a _solution_ to this ... I was just curious about why it might occur.


----------



## Guest (Feb 1, 2010)

You are a professional scientist and teacher wow how do you find the time ?


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

Welsh Classical Fan said:


> Snap! I have GCSE's in Maths, Physics, Chemistry, IT and English and can note the differences between musical notes with no problems at all, but place a score in front of me and I have to physically count Every Good Boy Deserves Football and FACE!


Do you mean you have perfect pitch or relative pitch?

And the mnemonic is:












> This is half the trouble with learning instruments by ear - you don't know what the notes are. If I ask you to play an f#, can you do it? Two Gs then an E?
> Try working just on the printed page. Leave the guitar in its case. Read the names of the printed notes aloud. Goodness, there are only 8; less than the alphabet.
> Practise, practise, practise...
> cheers,
> Graeme


There are 12 notes in the octave and the guitar has about 3.5 octaves, making 42 notes on the stave. I agree with your sentiment though that reading music on it's own is helpful, but more than that learning basic theory is very useful. Just learning things like triads and keys should help connect things in your brain.


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

Andante said:


> You are a professional scientist and teacher wow how do you find the time ?


You do one first, and then the other. (Although they're not necessarily disconnected from each other.)


----------



## Krummhorn (Feb 18, 2007)

nefigah said:


> Do you touch-type by any chance? (That is, can you type something you are reading while keeping your eyes on the source and not the keys?)


Yup ... I learned to touch type during a summer school class in 1961 ... and that was on one of those old mechanical monsters .

For a job interview, I was "clocked" (during a typing/data entry test) at 55 wpm ... I can also do data entry on a 10 key calculator by "touch".

I suppose I owe some of this manual dexterity to being a keyboardist for 56 years.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

> Do you mean you have perfect pitch or relative pitch?
> 
> And the mnemonic is:


Actually, I was taught that Every Good Boy Does Fine, Face, Good Boys Do Fine Always, All Cows Eat Grass, and for the orders of sharps and flats:

Boys Eat All Da Good Chicken Food
Fat Cats Go Down Alleys Eating Birds


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Lukecash12 said:


> Boys Eat All Da Good Chicken Food
> Fat Cats Go Down Alleys Eating Birds


I was told:

*F*ather *C*hristmas *G*ot *D*ad *A*n *E*lectric *B*lanket
*B*lanket *E*xploded *A*nd *D*ad *G*ot *C*old *F*eet

I liked that one


----------



## Guest (Feb 1, 2010)

Elgarian said:


> You do one first, and then the other. (Although they're not necessarily disconnected from each other.)


I am sorry my misunderstanding, I thought you were superman  or part time at one or the other. Which did you prefer?


----------



## GraemeG (Jun 30, 2009)

Elgarian said:


> After a lifetime of teaching, I do understand how, for someone for whom a particular skill is attainable with effort, the inability of another person to master that same skill can seem incomprehensible. But in any case, just to reiterate:


I didn't mean to sound hectoring. But "I just can't" only really works if you can't read words as well, and that's obviously not the case!
cheers,
Graeme


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

Andante said:


> I am sorry my misunderstanding, I thought you were superman


More like Minorman, I think.



> Which did you prefer?


Hard to answer the question. I found I wasn't clever enough to be a topnotch research physicist, though that's what I really wanted. I found I had more talent as an educationalist, though that wasn't quite what I wanted. But on the whole I've been very lucky, and have enjoyed both, in different ways.


----------



## GraemeG (Jun 30, 2009)

Argus said:


> There are 12 notes in the octave and the guitar has about 3.5 octaves, making 42 notes on the stave. I agree with your sentiment though that reading music on it's own is helpful, but more than that learning basic theory is very useful. Just learning things like triads and keys should help connect things in your brain.


Well, yes, although D flat, D and D sharp are all written in the same place. The stave's only got five lines. I was suggesting that if someone has to keep counting up e-g-b-d-f, then just practise reading the notes without playing an instrument. Heck, sing!
I struggle to read the bass clef because I play violin, so I only see it when I'm trying to sing something, or look at a score. And so I'm slow & clumsy with it. But all it takes is practise...
cheers,
Graeme


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

GraemeG said:


> But "I just can't" only really works if you can't read words as well, and that's obviously not the case!


Perhaps we could just drop this particular aspect of the discussion, which isn't getting us anywhere, I think.


----------



## Welsh Classical Fan (Jan 31, 2010)

Argus said:


> Do you mean you have perfect pitch or relative pitch?


Not a clue! All I do know is that when I hear a piece of music I can tell more or less whether the previous note by comparsion is higher or lower that the next one.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

GraemeG said:


> I didn't mean to sound hectoring. But "I just can't" only really works if you can't read words as well, and that's obviously not the case!
> cheers,
> Graeme


Actually, no. "I just can't" can be very relevant. This is not a lack-luster excuse. Reading music is very different from reading words for many people. No two people process information exactly the same way.

We are stepping into territory that Elgarian doesn't want to discuss any further, and neither of us is enough of an expert to really discuss different mental profiles. I'm not even sure how exactly it works for me. Enough said...


----------



## Scott Good (Jun 8, 2009)

Hi Elgarian,

Aside from the peculiarities of autism and/or dyslexia and/or tone deafness or other kinds of conditions as such, I think one of the strongest arguments for your "problem" is what others have been saying - simply that you have not put the time in to be able to do these things.

Yes, this is an easy out, but the reason I support this idea is that since it is impossible to measure the strengths and weaknesses towards such a skill. Everyone hears music differently, just as we hear words differently. Fact is most people can learn to read words, no matter what their pre-disposition towards such skill are - reading (the task of interpreting graphic symbols to represent words) is not an easy task, but one for which we are tremendously motivated to do.

I was very motivated to learn to read music and hear it in my head. I guess what bothered me slightly about your statements is that it pre-supposes a kind of inherent ability to be able to read a score. But the reality for me is I have studied this art for 11.5 years at University (similar to a scientist), and have used extensive, multi-year long systematic techniques to develop the ability to be able to hear an orchestral score in my head. For instance, I spent 1.5 years with the WTC I and II without recording or piano, and step by step, voice by voice, learned each fugue entirely in my head - this was specifically to advance my skills to hear multiple lines, and to advance the "projecting" one must do to hear scores in their head - much like the skills learned in speed reading. And it is still a struggle (and I'm certainly not the best nor the best I could be - there are other things one must do with ones time!) - I have to practice all the time, and so does anyone I know who can do it.

In other words, it's bloody hard!

There are some issues in the realm of synesthesia that should be taken into account - some people "see" music in colours. I don't. Most only do to a small amount. Some people develop it over time due to exposure, and some people are born with it - something to do with the optic and aural nerves having slightly thinner membranes and that sort of thing. These kinds of biological issues certainly have an effect on certain parameters to be able to have these kinds of skills, but only an effect.

I recently was looking at some math problems, and realized how completely inept I am at advanced mathematics. It appears to me as mostly incomprehensible gibberish. Yet, in my high school daze, I was good at this stuff - so much so that I never paid attention in class, as I'd rather be staring at Shostakovitch scores - studying intensely and awaiting the chance to go home and compare what I was hearing in my head to what was on my recording.

As I like to say, desire rules the world. Simply put, if you really wanted to learn this skill, you could (but you don't...), just as if I really wanted to learn advanced mathematics, I could (and...well I must admit I'd like to know more! time...).


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

Scott Good said:


> you have not put the time in to be able to do these things.


I agree. 40-odd years of trying simply isn't enough. I must try harder.

[At this point, I'll leave this thread to those who understand my limitations so much better than I do.]


----------



## Scott Good (Jun 8, 2009)

No need to be defensive.

40 years of ear training, or just playing music? Did you get any outside help with sight singing specifically? You could have one of many "afflictions" - mine is a mild case of dyslexia, which made learning certain skills more difficult, like writing and especially spelling. Some people have tone-deafness, and have a very difficult time discerning pitch. This is like colour blindness. But this is quite rare. Luke was mentioning autism, which if true, might mean with the right kinds of prompting, you could become good at these skills (as he was suggesting). I know some autistic people that have absolutely remarkable skills in tone recognition and sight singing. But, this is a vast field for which I know very little.

But come on, how in the world could someone over the internet determine any particular affliction? You would need testing.

I mentioned math as I think there are parallels. Skills with numbers is often framed as a "born with" skill, and there is obviously some truth to this. But, under the right learning environments, most people can learn these skills, just like most people can learn how to read. These are all difficult tasks, but for ones like reading, one is very motivated.

Music skills are like this as well. And as I have taught this very subject, and math as well, I can personally attest to this. What it takes most often is one on one instruction, and a kind of re-framing of the problem to find what kind of logic each person needs to use. I remember having a math student who was failing terribly, and had been his whole life - but he was very smart. We spent quite a bit of one on one time together, and that by re-framing the problems, he found a series of connections that led to the right answers - in essence, he wasn't framing the problems logically, but trying to go by memory. Once he figured out how to do this - to use logic over memory, he became a very strong math student. All of our brains work differently - this has been shown in a variety of ways - for instance, firing neurons can be measured, but it seems that when the same verbal stimuli are given to different people, the reactions within the mind are vastly different. This is interesting, and shows to a degree that we all think differently.

There are many different kinds of ear training techniques - have you tried all of them? 40 years doesn't make much difference if you don't try different angles. Perhaps you should try from the synesthesia angle, and use colours to associate with sounds, or visual images. My wife uses this for not only music, but generally as well. I find it fascinating as it is just not how my mind seems to work. There are singing exercises, interval training, pitch recognition exercises. There care ways to develop perfect pitch, by training to hear the specific sounds or timbre of each note. There is memorizing instrumental register timbre and creating a mental map of sounds through this.

But you said that you don't care anymore, so I assumed you were not interested in hearing how you might be able to learn these skills...which is fine. But maybe you are. And there are professional people who could help you as well.

Here is a site with some good advice:

http://www.vocalist.org.uk/pitching_exercises.html

Playing music does not necessarily help learning these skills, just as the person who cannot read can continue through their entire life talking up a storm - they are separate skills, and require special and specific attention. Yes, the brain does change. Just like how one determines direction - perhaps by direction or perhaps by landmarks or perhaps by instructions. Each will get you to the destination, yet uses the brain very differently. Here is an article I read recently about this (very interesting, btw!, even if a bit off topic):

http://www.walrusmagazine.ca/articles/2009.11-health-global-impositioning-systems/2/

Another angle could be simply approaching it from the wider perspective of ear training - to learn to focus on sounds - to hear into sounds, and hear space - this is more about awareness and focus of attention on the "soundscape" rather than music. One book I'd recommend that opened me up to this way of thinking is "Tuning of the World" by R.M. Schafer.

http://www.patria.org/arcana/arcbooks.html

(notice a recommendation from Carl Sagan! Might be right up your alley, if you like his style)


----------

