# How much does music theory matter for your enjoyment?



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

Probably been asked before but - how much do the "theoretical" elements come into _active_ enjoyment of a piece for you?

Generally my listening is on a fairly instinctual, "does this move me, or affect me" level - though I will certainly keep track of things like key changes which seem particularly emotionally affecting, or the general dramatic structure of exposition/development, it's a bit rare where I do things like, say, keep track of an entire symphony movement's "journey" around-and-back-to the home key, or pour into a score to see how a piece I like "works" (this is probably part of why I find classical-period stuff prior to Mozart a bit tough).

I do know though that for some, pouring into a work and dissecting it to see how it "works" is a big appeal of music generally- I'm wondering how common this is, or if others go with their guts and emotional affect.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

It's always puzzled me when I read really old reviews of what was then new music, how critics and audiences were upset by things such as the Mahler 7th begins in B minor and ends in C major. How would they know that? How many people could possibly be aware of the tonic shifting up? Were audiences then more attuned and educated? I will admit that sometimes I have taken scores along - but never use them during the performance. With unfamiliar music I listen for the big picture and emotional appeal. I rarely sit down and work out what was the harmonic process the composer used? I just don't care, really. But when there's a particularly interesting bit of orchestration I try to analyze best I can to see how the composer got that effect.


----------



## Animal the Drummer (Nov 14, 2015)

I enjoy reading about all sorts of musical subjects and would include music theory in that. When I'm listening (or playing), though, it plays no role whatsoever in my enjoyment of what I'm hearing.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

To me the question makes no sense. The specific technical features of a work are inextricably tied to its aesthetic effects. I almost never listen with a score but comprehending the overall structure and thematic processes is a natural and enjoyable part of hearing a work — is often the essence of hearing it.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

EdwardBast said:


> To me the question makes no sense. The specific technical features of a work are inextricably tied to its aesthetic effects. I almost never listen with a score but comprehending the overall structure and thematic processes is a natural and enjoyable part of hearing a work - is often the essence of hearing it.


I suppose the question is how interested you are in knowing how the machine works. For a film example, we "know" montage theory, cross-cutting, the Kuleshov Effect, etc- but someone doesn't need to actually know what these things are, or that they even exist to experience the emotional affect they provide.

(similarly, sonata form can communicate narrative drama, even to someone who doesn't know what "recapitulation" means)


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

I care for the recipe only if what I've eaten is good, in that case I'm curious to know what was the secret ingredient, if I can put it this way.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

I'd bring scores to concerts, but I don't go to concerts.


----------



## cheregi (Jul 16, 2020)

mbhaub said:


> It's always puzzled me when I read really old reviews of what was then new music, how critics and audiences were upset by things such as the Mahler 7th begins in B minor and ends in C major. How would they know that? How many people could possibly be aware of the tonic shifting up? Were audiences then more attuned and educated? I will admit that sometimes I have taken scores along - but never use them during the performance. With unfamiliar music I listen for the big picture and emotional appeal. I rarely sit down and work out what was the harmonic process the composer used? I just don't care, really. But when there's a particularly interesting bit of orchestration I try to analyze best I can to see how the composer got that effect.


I've read some interesting research measuring (highly musically-educated) audience response to musical form and structure, which concludes basically that audience's sense of enjoyment or satisfaction with a performance/piece is much, much more dependent on small moment-by-moment gestures than on larger structure, many of the nuances of which, as you describe, are basically inaudible to anyone without score in hand. So certain assumptions in musicological criticism come to seem almost pseudo-scientific, like assertions that audiences are affected in a specific emotional way by the piece beginning in B minor and ending in C major. I guess, in summary, it is not that previous generations of audiences were more attuned, it really is a fanciful narrative always.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

I am a number of those options depending on the circumstance. Sometimes I do read a score to spot and to learn things "ah ha, there it is, I see now". Other times, it is no score but just pure listening pleasure. Both of these on separate occasions in concerts and elsewhere have served me well.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern (Jul 29, 2020)

Like others have said, I don't intellectualize the music rather enjoy the final product. But that might be because even though I know theory, it's all self taught and limited up until a certain point. 

For example, not only do I not go "Wow, look at how Beethoven used an Italian Sixth Chord as a predominant to set up a deceptive cadence into the relative minor!" but I wouldn't be able to detect that without looking at the score anyway.

I like listening while reading the score to follow the lines, but not to conduct any formal analysis.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

I can follow a score and have quite a few scores on my shelves but I have almost no clue about harmonic analysis beyond the crudest basics and I usually cannot detect anything but obvious/shocking harmonic shifts when only listening. Nevertheless I have some interest in musical forms and analysis and I think it does help with listening. E.g. I could hardly believe that the finale of Brahms' 4th was really 32 times 8 bars somehow containing the passacaglia theme (+ coda) before I saw it in the score; of course now many years later I know it well enough that I could count along with the variations.
And there are many other more subtle things I would never have spotted had I not read analytic comments and looked at scores.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

For me music theory is a performance tool.

It sometimes may effect how I hear a piece.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

arpeggio said:


> For me music theory is a performance tool.
> 
> It sometimes may effect how I hear a piece.


Would it also affect your performance of the work?


----------



## cybernaut (Feb 6, 2021)

I took music theory in high school. Forgot most of it. I don't need it to enjoy music.

I grew up playing classical guitar and knew no theory. Didn't need it. I just read the notes and played them.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

I read about composers I like and learn some about their craft that way. I might start to pick out things related to theory after hearing a work many times. Also playing through pieces on an instrument can provide some interesting insights. In general I don't find this kind of thing increases my enjoyment. I like the element of mystery, I suppose, of magic, of not having all of the answers in the intellect. I will put music on in the background sometimes (as was common in the time of Bach and Mozart) for me music speaks to the part of me that is not so rational or logical. Sometimes I like hearing just certain sections of works without the beginning or ending because I enjoy the lack of context, it creates something that feels less structured, forced or contrived. It can allow me to hear the work in a fresh way that seems different than listening in the 'proper' order, and the experience can be different, one might gain an idea of where else the music could have gone or what else it could be.

Sometimes I just sit and listen to complete long works. It depends on my mood.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

tdc said:


> Also playing through pieces on an instrument can provide some interesting insights. In general I don't find this kind of thing increases my enjoyment.


I should clarify that often playing through things _does_ increase my enjoyment, but I don't think it is because of anything directly related to the theory.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

New pieces almost always with the score, since it enables me to listen for details I would have otherwise missed.


----------



## Portamento (Dec 8, 2016)

cheregi said:


> I've read some interesting research measuring (highly musically-educated) audience response to musical form and structure, which concludes basically that audience's sense of enjoyment or satisfaction with a performance/piece is much, much more dependent on small moment-by-moment gestures than on larger structure, many of the nuances of which, as you describe, are basically inaudible to anyone without score in hand. So certain assumptions in musicological criticism come to seem almost pseudo-scientific, like assertions that audiences are affected in a specific emotional way by the piece beginning in B minor and ending in C major. I guess, in summary, it is not that previous generations of audiences were more attuned, it really is a fanciful narrative always.


Are you familiar with Levinson's concatenationism? It's exactly what you're describing. In his words: "Musical understanding centrally involves neither aural grasp of a large span of music as a whole nor intellectual grasp of large-scale connections between parts; understanding music is centrally a matter of apprehending individual bits of music and immediate progressions from bit to bit."


----------



## SeptimalTritone (Jul 7, 2014)

fbjim said:


> I suppose the question is how interested you are in knowing how the machine works. For a film example, we "know" montage theory, cross-cutting, the Kuleshov Effect, etc- but someone doesn't need to actually know what these things are, or that they even exist to experience the emotional affect they provide.
> 
> (similarly, sonata form can communicate narrative drama, even to someone who doesn't know what "recapitulation" means)


I think that you are right that you don't need to know what "recapitulation" means to perceive the drama, and I think that EdwardBast would agree. I also want to add that music is a much more abstract form than film, so the impact of technical elements is not quite on the same level.

In the case of instrumental music, the content is entirely abstract. When watching a film, we can concretely dissect (aka consciously think about) the plot while the abstract "Kuleshov effect" stuff serves as artistic delivery. For music though, the material to digest is 100% abstract* so it's, as EdwardBast said, inseparable from technical aspects.

That doesn't mean that you need to know what those technical features are. However, the only content you are receiving are precisely those technical features. These "theoretical" features aren't in service of some aesthetic principles that the experts declare to be important but the public wouldn't, rather, they _are_ the very content of music! All musical content is theoretical content, because music is an abstract art form!

*Even if the musical textures recall human gestures or human tropes, or the musical trajectory follows some human goal/desire/resolution, it's still abstract. Even in vocal music, the synergy of the text/plot and the abstract musical trajectory transcends the text itself.



fbjim said:


> Generally my listening is on a fairly instinctual, "does this move me, or affect me" level - though I will certainly keep track of things like key changes which seem particularly emotionally affecting, or the general dramatic structure of exposition/development, it's a bit rare where I do things like, say, keep track of an entire symphony movement's "journey" around-and-back-to the home key, or pour into a score to see how a piece I like "works" (this is probably part of why I find classical-period stuff prior to Mozart a bit tough).


I think you, as everyone else, are digesting more than just (a.) emotions and (b.) particular key changes or particular sectional divisions. You are picking up on notes/harmonies/textures/lines/contrasts themselves measure by measure, page by page. All that abstract content may not one-to-one translate to a general emotion (this part is humorous, nostalgic, or passionately desirous) or a conscious music-theoretic recognition that you are knowledgeable enough to think (look at this new theme or this motivic transformation) but you are _still_ subconsciously picking up on all of the abstract goodness, even if you can't directly file it into emotion or conscious recognition.

The more you know music theory, the greater the quality and quantity of conscious thoughts you can have, but it doesn't unlock any greater perceptual ability because the content is so much more complicated than what one could consciously think of while listening to the piece anyway. The best thing one can do to perceive more in a piece is just to listen to it a lot and remember what you listen to. Then any (good) analysis that you read will be a joy to read, and you'll feel lots of "Oh, of course that's what makes the piece tick!"


----------



## Aurelian (Sep 9, 2011)

I like to follow with the scores because I can see how the melodies are written. I can also see the key and time signature changes.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Following the score is also interesting because a lot of the times different versions of the music score are used, so you might be able to spot small or significant differences in passages.


----------



## SeptimalTritone (Jul 7, 2014)

mbhaub said:


> It's always puzzled me when I read really old reviews of what was then new music, how critics and audiences were upset by things such as the Mahler 7th begins in B minor and ends in C major. How would they know that? How many people could possibly be aware of the tonic shifting up? Were audiences then more attuned and educated? I will admit that sometimes I have taken scores along - but never use them during the performance. With unfamiliar music I listen for the big picture and emotional appeal. I rarely sit down and work out what was the harmonic process the composer used? I just don't care, really. But when there's a particularly interesting bit of orchestration I try to analyze best I can to see how the composer got that effect.


I don't think this indicates that theory has nothing to say - I just think that the critics' argument here isn't very good. It's wrong both empirically and a priori. It's wrong empirically because a good handful of Mahler symphonies exhibit progressive tonality (ending in a different key from the opening), among them the 2nd that was well-received in Mahler's time. It's wrong a priori because in any piece of music, let alone a large symphony, there's always a complex set of factors and conditions that provide impetus for the key change.

The progressive tonalities in some of Mahler's symphonies alone are each motivated differently. There's no single effect. However, that doesn't mean that the effect in each case is inaudible or doesn't affect the ordinary listener. We do feel like we've arrived at a different place at the E flat major ending of the 2nd, even if subconsciously and even if we don't know that the progressive tonality is a substantial theoretical element.

So I think it's fine to evaluate or criticize harmonic issues, despite the critics in this particular case presenting a weak argument. People do hear harmonic effects even if they can't name them, otherwise why would we bother... modulating to a different key in a piece of music! Thankfully, we don't need to listen _for_ a modulation, as if there are theoretical brownie points for one, but just listen to and experience the ebb and flow of the music as it sounds, of which the modulation is an integral component in the experience, whether a listener consciously names it or not.

Finally, to add more generally - there is _no_ musical perception that's inaccessible without knowing theory. People who know more theory or analysis are not perceiving things that those who don't can't, rather they either (a.) tend have more experience listening to music, or remember more music, or put it on themselves to listen more sensitively or (b.) can describe/evaluate the music with greater detail and fluency because they know the elements behind the music and thus make comparisons that are more than pure taste or pure gut reaction. But they don't have any magical perceptual ability unlocked by the knowledge of theory! There's nothing to listen _for_, other than to try to pay attention to all the sounds and remember what you hear. So, as per the OP's poll, "I'm an active seeker of theoretical elements" does not represent how those who know theory or analysis hear music.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

^^ For me, knowing theory can awaken curiosity and give me tolerance and maybe even stamina on a first listen to an unknown work.


----------



## Chilham (Jun 18, 2020)

Interesting discussion. I'm considering studying a (very) short course in music theory.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

Someone who is supremely musical and has a very fine ear will probably recognize a lot without any technical knowledge in a narrower sense. And of course it is not the vocab, one has to perceive some patterns and events as special, which can be easier if one knows the technical vocabulary. 
(The vocab and even the "theory" was actually often different at the time the music was written. The post-Czerny textbook version of "sonata form" with its lingo was not known to Mozart and Haydn and even late 18th century theorists who wrote about it called the sections differently and differ in other ways from the 19th century model...) But to miss certain large scale patterns seems to miss something. Of course, conversely, it is also dubious to perceive, as I did not some extent as a 15 yo newbie, the Eroica first mvmt. as some great passages containing the "main theme(s)" with strange noodling in between, i.e. perceiving only a simplified version of the macrostructure and little of detail and development.

It seems dubious to assume that Brahms would have expected listeners to pedantically count along with the 8 bar sections of the 4th symphony's finale. Obviously some of this pattern is quite directly perceivable for a moderately experienced listener and some recap-like events are also clearly marked by instrumentation and dynamics. And the unity is to a certain extent probably also perceived without realizing the fact that it are 32 variations according to a fairly strict pattern. 
But if someone listened to these or other sets of variations without ever knowing or realizing at all that these are variations on a common theme/bass/pattern, he would certainly miss something compared to the person who does know and perceive this structure. (There are always borderline cases, I found and still find after decades of listening to the pieces some variations quite hard to perceive as such; e.g. I had not realized for ages that the slow movement of Beethoven's op.135 was a set of variations. I also listen to the Goldberg variations far more as "individual pieces" than as "variations")


----------



## Malx (Jun 18, 2017)

Chilham said:


> Interesting discussion. I'm considering studying a (very) short course in music theory.


I tried that a while back and soon realised that I was probably too old to take it in and if anything the little knowledge I was gaining was detracting from my enjoyment as I was straining to hear things - I gave up and now listen for pleasure. 
I still like to compare recordings and know what I prefer but I remain blissfully ignorant of the technical reasons why I prefer them. I'm sure there are some recordings I prefer that don't adhere to the score, but I can't tell - the only time I regret not having a better understanding of theory is when I try to express my thoughts on a piece/recording and lack the technical vocabulary to do so effectively.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

^Malx, if you enjoy or hate the music, that's all you need. For me, being knowledgeable about the inner gubbings of music can be a nuisance to the sheer pleasure of just simply listening at times. The other pros amongst us might also have the same problem as me in that often, it's hard to switch off the analytical and the wanting to know. Even at my most relaxed, I will mentally note something interesting in any genre of music I'm listening to.
There's no doubt in my mind that a different, heightened sense of appreciation is to be found in knowing, but not being able to switch off can also be a pain in the a** at times.


----------



## Chilham (Jun 18, 2020)

Malx said:


> I tried that a while back and soon realised that I was probably too old to take it in and if anything the little knowledge I was gaining was detracting from my enjoyment as I was straining to hear things - I gave up and now listen for pleasure...


That's my concern. The OU has a range of free courses covering music theory. They start with an 8-hour introduction, through intermediate study of Schubert's lieder, to 60-hours of advanced musical analysis. I'll likely give the first one a try and see if it tickles my fancy.


----------



## Coach G (Apr 22, 2020)

My knowledge of music theory, counterpoint, and the inner workings of music is very limited to just the basics. I always thought that a deeper knowledge of how music is composed makes the experience even more interesting for reasons some people here have already mentioned. It's like watching a really amazing magician. When you're not a magician it really seems like magic, as if the person is defying the laws of physics and then you say "wow". But if you are a magician yourself and you know how the really amazing magician did the trick you may say "double wow" because your saying to yourself, it's amazing how he/she made the switch so fast and so smoothly; the deflection was really creative and original; or he/she took an old trick and really made it look fresh and new. And you appreciate and enjoy the magician more because you know how hard it is to do these things.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

'A tonic is something you drink, right?'

I was never taught music theory at school and am now too old to get my head round it. But I know from my erstwhile job teaching English that enjoyment of (say) poetry can be boosted by knowing how to analyse the technical tricks used, even though my students usually started out by protesting how much they hated taking literature apart. 

So it's my loss, and I respect people who use their knowledge of theory to understand and appreciate a piece of music. I even quite enjoy reading their technical analyses, my jaw falling open in admiration.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

I've had some musical education both at elementary school and also high school and I think once I even knew what a musical key was, but I have long forgotten it.


----------



## SeptimalTritone (Jul 7, 2014)

Kreisler jr said:


> But if someone listened to [the finale of Brahms's fourth] or other sets of variations without ever knowing or realizing at all that these are variations on a common theme/bass/pattern, he would certainly miss something compared to the person who does know and perceive this structure.


I don't agree, especially because some of these variations are not obvious and not even intended to be consciously perceived. The motto pattern in question - E F# G A A# B B E is often quite disguised and not in a continuous voice or even continuous octave register, particularly the mid section beginning with the flute solo and then switching from E minor to E major with the brass chorales, and particularly with the C major section later in the movement after the obvious recapitulation but before the coda. In these variations, you _have_ to look at the score to account for the notes of the motto.

Thus, if we had to know that every variation is accounted for by the motto pattern to "not miss anything", then the piece wouldn't stand on its own terms. The point of the motto pattern, of course, is a subconscious unity in the harmony that is felt even if you don't know the motto. Sometimes this motto is very directly obvious, but those obvious occurrences shouldn't need explanation because if you just listen to the piece you'll pick up on it. And the non-obvious occurrences are not expected to be consciously perceived.

Also, beyond accounting for the motto pattern, there are many other subtleties in this movement that are essential to the trajectory of the movement and of the entire symphony, yet we can't expect the listener to consciously perceive. For example, Brahms is able to tie-in the stepwise ascent of the 4th movement motto to the descending thirds of the 1st movement at several points in the 4th movement - in the development and just before the coda. This connection is essential for the integration of the symphony and perhaps even more important than the existence of the fourth movement motto itself, and yet, we can't expect the listener to consciously perceive this or declare the listener to have "missed something" if he doesn't realize this. It's just a subtle connection that makes the entire symphony feel like it has unity, even if we don't know why. And knowing why doesn't change the experience, it merely explains why the experience feels the way it does.

Also essential for the fourth movement and the entire symphony is the role of the note C as both a note a key area within E minor, and how the note C is eventually integrated and resolved. Again, this is as critical as the notes of the motto, and yet, is too subtle to consciously perceive. But it has a huge subconscious effect.

In conclusion, the value of or need for conscious perception is vastly overrated. Certain reprises or obvious developments are consciously perceived, but there is always more going on and the mechanics are often subtle. And there's no magical perceptual abilities unlocked by knowing these mechanics - you'll feel the effect of them if they are indeed important. Knowing things is valuable just for the knowledge. Careful, repeated listening and remembering what you listened to is enough for a full musical experience.


----------



## progmatist (Apr 3, 2021)

My high school music teacher had to listen to jazz to relax. If he tried listening to classical, he'd constantly analyze it.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

I actually meant something a little different. Not that one hat to recognize the motto/bass notes in *each single variation*, but that one should be aware that the *whole thing is a series of variations on a theme/bass*. Which is considerably less detailed analysis/perception. I also did never claim that one would "get everything" (not miss anything) by merely getting the variations, just that something is missed, if one does not perceive them as variations.

As I wrote myself, there are some variation sets where even after decades and looking at the score I struggle to perceive some section as the variations they are.

As I think that there are several levels of perception and appreciation I certainly assume that a piece can "stand on its own" even for a rather imperceptive listener. But I often wonder what composers would expect. Apparently there is an exchange of letters between Schoenberg and Kolisch before a performance of Schoenberg's 3rd or 4th quartet where Kolisch basically asks some technical questions whether he had identified and tracked the mutations of the main 12 tone rows correctly and Schoenberg tells him not to bother as it was not necessary for a good performance. Apparently Schoenberg was surprised that Kolisch would try such a meticulous analysis in the first place and only assumed the "subconscious workings" of the structure, even for the performers.

But I also think the musicians or musically trained people tend to underestimate how "badly" some listeners are at getting things because for them it is all so obvious.


----------



## SeptimalTritone (Jul 7, 2014)

Kreisler jr said:


> I actually meant something a little different. Not that one hat to recognize the motto/bass notes in *each single variation*, but that one should be aware that the *whole thing is a series of variations on a theme/bass*.


I also disagree with that, because if we needed to know that, then the work wouldn't stand on it's own. But of course it does, and I think people get the full experience without knowing the variation thing because the effect is subconscious anyway.



Kreisler jr said:


> I also did never claim that one would "get everything" (not miss anything) by merely getting the variations, just that something is missed, if one does not perceive them as variations.


But there's so much to "miss" if one doesn't realize this analytical fact, or this other analytical fact. As I wrote above, why not argue that if one doesn't perceive the descending thirds in the fourth movement as both a variation of the fourth movement motto and a recollection of the first movement that something is missed? Or why not argue that if one misses the polarity/role of C or C major that something is missed? Those are equally as analytically important to the symphony as the motto itself. Or what about the first movement itself - the opening main theme's descending thirds/ascending sixths reappear in tons of locations in melodies/countermelodies throughout the first movement that are essential for its integrity yet I can guarantee you don't result in conscious recognition unless you analyze them. We don't want to be in a position where we would say that the non-theoretically informed listener is missing bucket loads of things!

I'd prefer to argue there's nothing to miss.



Kreisler jr said:


> But I also think the musicians or musically trained people tend to underestimate how "badly" some listeners are at getting things because for them it is all so obvious.


Any perceptual advantage that musically trained people have comes from them having listened much more carefully and repeatedly, just because they are the sort of people who would do so. I would argue, to the contrary, that non-musically trained people underestimate how good they are at listening! I think they assume that so much perception is revealed by theory, and I'm just trying to argue that that's not the case. And I think, as you wrote, that Schoenberg recognized this but Kolisch did not.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

I think it is obviously wrong that there is nothing to miss. You just enumerated loads of possible things to miss. didn't you? Almost nobody will hear everything and one can probably debate what is more important and what is more subtle, but that's secondary. Analogies are always difficult because music is both among the most abstract and the most immediate arts. There is usually no obvious "content" to miss like someone who would not recognize the sujet of a painting (because it is some obscure mythology)

The problem with people who lack the rudiments of the technical lingo is that it is virtually impossible to find out what they perceive and what they miss.
Maybe it works if one had them stop a recording at certain spots they find special and let them talk about it. But otherwise it is very difficult to tell if they perceive a lot without being able to name it even roughly or if they experience a "cloud of sound" wallowing over them. The only person I can really talk about is myself and how much I think I have gained (sometimes, sometimes it was more like "interesting but so what...") by often rather superficial and rough parsing and "analysing" stuff or reading analysis on an introductory level (I am lost as soon as it gets more complicated harmonically). From my own experience your stance seems very optimistic...


----------



## SeptimalTritone (Jul 7, 2014)

Kreisler jr said:


> I think it is obviously wrong that there is nothing to miss. You just enumerated loads of possible things to miss. didn't you?


No! If that's what you got out of my post, you've misunderstood it. I'm saying that anyone can, and does, with reasonable listening and familiarity, pick up on the effects of all these things subconsciously, even if they can't put a name to it or even realize that it is a phenomenon. So people get these things subconsciously, even if they miss these things consciously. But being able to figure out these things consciously is hardly the point of music anyway - the subconscious part is the point of music. The conscious parts are too complicated anyway to be expected to be perceived, which is what I was trying to demonstrate by enumerating things.

Have you ever seen someone (an ordinary listener, not a critic) say that Brahms is thoughtful and intricate? That's because they're picking up on this stuff, even if they can't name it.



Kreisler jr said:


> The problem with people who lack the rudiments of the technical lingo is that it is virtually impossible to find out what they perceive and what they miss... But otherwise it is very difficult to tell if they perceive a lot without being able to name it even roughly or if they experience a "cloud of sound" wallowing over them.


I think that if you attentively listen to it a lot, and like it and remember it, then you "get it". That's how you tell, without having the technical lingo, if you are picking up on things.

If you really, really want to learn why the music works then you need to know enough harmony to understand say, Charles Rosen's The Classical Style. Then you'll realize that all this theoretical stuff you knew in your bones anyway, but just couldn't intellectually parse, and that there's no need to be intimidated by the terminology as if it gains one access to a higher plane of perception.


----------



## BeatriceB (May 3, 2021)

I think most of the great composers wrote music to impress their audience without assuming the audience needed any kind of special music training (except for didactic works, theoretical works etc. that are obviously for that purpose).


----------

