# emotional listening??



## klqdc (Mar 25, 2012)

hi, i've been enjoying classical music for a few years now [and fwiw i think i particularly like the horrible stuff - schoenberg and that].

so i emailed a blogger who had written something about adorno. here is a c+p of our conversation so far. i wwondered if anyone can help answer my question - give an alternative view 



> when i listen to classical music i like, i experience a lot of
> different emotions but am not aware of what connections are being
> made. only that i seem to be making some connections or other, which
> makes me feel the music differently. is this an example of good
> ...





> Now, I cannot know for sure what is going on in your head, but from the words that you use ("emotions," "feel") it very much sounds that you would fit into Adorno's category of the "emotional listener."
> 
> The "good listener," as Adorno describes him, is someone who is at least somewhat cognizant of the structure of the music. That is, for example, he can hear clearly the primary theme and then the secondary theme in the first movement of a symphony. Then he can - to some degree - hear that the primary theme is fragmented and then subjected to rhythmic augmentation in the development section, etc. However, he doesn't know the technical terms, "primary theme," "secondary theme," "rhythmic augmentation," "development section," etc.
> 
> ...





> You say:
> 
> > he doesn't know the technical terms,
> > "primary theme," "secondary theme," "rhythmic
> ...


so might i be cognizant in some way of the structure of music, or does the strongly emotional quality of my experience suggest that i am, like i suggested, just enjoying listening to something _i have already decided is "good"_? even though i am almost certainly not conscious of _what_ connections i am making, might i be making connections none-the-less?

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR ANY REPLY  !


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I'd guess that subconsciously you are without a doubt aware of many aspects of the structure of the music. You sort-of "know" what the key is; even if you can't identify it (i.e. can't say "this is in the key of C major") and even if you don't know what a key or a I chord is, you can feel whether or not a particular chord is the I chord of the key.

A lot of elementary music theory, in my humble opinion at least, is basically explaining what we subconsciously know about music. It's fairly directly analogous to grammar: just as few listeners think about keys or chords, few native English speakers consciously think about "countable" or "uncountable" nouns, but we all subconsciously know what they are, and the study of grammar amounts to a conscious exploration of what we know subconsciously.

But if you'll let me continue the analogy with language (at some point it has to break down, and I hope it hasn't done so already), there are some things of which I doubt anyone can be subconsciously aware: a well-crafted extended metaphor, for example. If an author or a speaker constructs such a metaphor over the course of several sentences, there are two possibilities: either you are consciously aware of it (even if you miss some aspect of it), or you are not aware of it at all. (Or so I'd guess.) That might be going on with musical structure. You'll not (I'd guess) feel that a composer is re-using a theme from the first movement in the coda of the final movement. I'd guess there is no subconscious awareness of it. You are either consciously aware of it, or not.

This gets us to one of the great debates raging on the board right now. There is a kind of expertise in listening, or reading. If you study (say) plot structure, or musical structure, you'll become _more_ aware of things going on in a novel or a symphony. That is undeniable. Sometimes that awareness will lead to a greater appreciation of a work, and other times it will lead you to a criticism that a less-aware reader/listener wouldn't appreciate. Right there we've crossed a fine line: the awareness is objective - the work either does or does not have a certain structure, but the evaluation of that structure as good or bad is at best intersubjective, if not outright subjective.

So what should you do? With this question we obviously find ourselves in the realm of "ought" rather than the realm of "is." There is, as far as I can tell, no moral obligation for any of us to make ourselves aware of things like extended metaphors or keys and chords. People with such knowledge have no moral superiority to people without it - snobbery is as it ever has been the dung of male domesticated ungulates. But if you want to know more about it, it's a hobby approximately as rewarding as any other. And if you want to create works that impress people with that kind of consciousness - if you have the ambition to be a highly respected author or composer or performer or critic - then that kind of knowledge is required. Like almost any field, there is kind of expertise in music, and you probably can't fool the experts as to whether you possess it.


----------



## klqdc (Mar 25, 2012)

hi,

first of all: thanks for the reply. i'll just jump on a couple of your comments.



> there is kind of expertise in music, and you probably can't fool the experts as to whether you possess it.


nothing i have ever taken from music is substantial enough to fool someone with; bar perhaps a fondness for schoenberg? the question of course is whether that is also an _appreciation_. also: this comment for some reason reminded me of discussion in zen buddhism 



> This gets us to one of the great debates raging on the board right now. There is a kind of expertise in listening, or reading. If you study (say) plot structure, or musical structure, you'll become more aware of things going on in a novel or a symphony. That is undeniable. Sometimes that awareness will lead to a greater appreciation of a work, and other times it will lead you to a criticism that a less-aware reader/listener wouldn't appreciate.


i don't disagree with this - at all. the last sentence here, seems more bullish but i wouldn't for a second think that the appreciation of experts is not qualittatively more _pure_ than that of someone like me. i might add that i don't aspire to being any kind of admired music critic. for now, i'd be happy enough just to know what my limits are.



> But if you'll let me continue the analogy with language (at some point it has to break down, and I hope it hasn't done so already), there are some things of which I doubt anyone can be subconsciously aware: a well-crafted extended metaphor, for example. If an author or a speaker constructs such a metaphor over the course of several sentences, there are two possibilities: either you are consciously aware of it (even if you miss some aspect of it), or you are not aware of it at all. (Or so I'd guess.) That might be going on with musical structure. You'll not (I'd guess) feel that a composer is re-using a theme from the first movement in the coda of the final movement. I'd guess there is no subconscious awareness of it. You are either consciously aware of it, or not


here i both agree, and disagree. 
i agree that if you can't consciously parse a sentence then you can't understand it. however, i also think that [well it seems like] i am familiar enough with my own language to intuitively understand its use without doing so, that there's some implicit processing even of more complex things going on, at least if it's not _misleadingly_ written.
also, it seems to me that this extends to the sort of connections that one makes in appreciating [the poetics of?] language: intuitively hearing the clashing of words that comes from unusual conjunctions.

both of these experiences seem very similar to my experience of classical music. intuitive, implicit, emotional. now i have found myself arguing for something that isn't necessarily my opinion. oh well; i guess that in lieu of anyone else posting..................... i will try to clarify your position i mean.


----------



## Guest (Mar 25, 2012)

Intersubjectivity. Yes, I've run across that word before in my own reading. Very useful term.

Anyway, klqdc, here are my questions:

Are Adorno's categories valid?
Are they universally applicable (either to music or to listeners)?
Regardless of what they are or are not, do you have to fit yourself into those categories?

I say, after over fifty years of listening to and thinking about music, that if you like listening to music, then you should probably listen to some music.

[N.B., I always worry whenever I see the word "structure." I'm inclined to sympathize with Feldman in the anecdote about one of his students coming to him with a composition and a concern about its structure. "Structure?" Feldman is supposed to have said, as he placed sheets of the student's work on the floor and began walking on them. "Structure? Bridges have structure. This is a piece of music."

It's not that pieces don't have structure or that composers don't think about structure. But there's often a hidden meaning to it: that "structure" means "forms that we already know from the past, forms we can impose on the material," whereas any artist worth her salt knows that organic "structure" grows up from the inside and will be more or less unique to every piece.]


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

klqdc said:


> hi,
> 
> first of all: thanks for the reply. i'll just jump on a couple of your comments.
> 
> ...


The main clarification that I want to make is that I intended to validate both your way of listening to music, and the other ways Adorno mentions. I hope that was clear. To me, you are legitimate, just sitting there and soaking up the music in your own way, and so is the guy who's relentlessly analyzing every note's relation to the other notes.

Beyond that, I don't understand a lot of the things in this post, and I'm not sure we've understood each other. Still, I've enjoyed the conversation so far, and you've inspired to find out what Adorno was talking about.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

some guy said:


> ... Feldman ... one of his students coming to him with a composition and a concern about its structure. "Structure?" Feldman is supposed to have said, as he placed sheets of the student's work on the floor and began walking on them. "Structure? Bridges have structure. This is a piece of music."


That reminds me of Zen Buddhism. If Feldman had struck the guy with a stick, he probably would've been instantly enlightened.


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

He trampled on what could have been the greatest piece of work ever.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Since I strongly dislike Adorno's notions on music, I probably shouldn't post here... but of course I am anyway. Feldman probably should have used the stick instead of his feet, but the general idea is good. ***And I agree with _some guy_! ***

To the OP - My plan has always been to just listen to the music. If it works there's probably 'structure' in there somewhere.


----------



## Guest (Mar 25, 2012)

science said:


> That reminds me of Zen Buddhism. If Feldman had struck the guy with a stick, he probably would've been instantly enlightened.


Well, a joss stick, yes.


----------



## klqdc (Mar 25, 2012)

science said:


> The main clarification that I want to make is that I intended to validate both your way of listening to music, and the other ways Adorno mentions. I hope that was clear. To me, you are legitimate, just sitting there and soaking up the music in your own way, and so is the guy who's relentlessly analyzing every note's relation to the other notes.
> 
> Beyond that, I don't understand a lot of the things in this post, and I'm not sure we've understood each other. Still, I've enjoyed the conversation so far, and you've inspired to find out what Adorno was talking about.


validate in what sense though? my question was: are my emotions to music just "projections" or in some sense real?

i am not conscious of pretty much everything except my feelings! does adorno say that that means i am just "projecting"? is so, is he right to?

maybe these quotes will help clarify:



> the adequate listener too hears beyond musical details, makes connections spontaneously, and judges for good reasons... but he is not fully aware of the technical and structural implications. having unconsciously mastered its immanent logic, he understands music about the same way we understand our own language, though he is virtually or wholly ignorant of its syntax or grammar





> without an affective factor adequate listening is not conceivable either. only, here the factor is the thing itself, and the psychological energy is absorbed by the concentration in it, while the emotional listener considers music a means pertaining to the economy of his own drives. he does not give himself up to the thing, which thus cannot reward him with feelings either; instead, he refunctions it into a medium of pure projection


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

klqdc said:


> validate in what sense though? my question was: are my emotions to music just "projections" or in some sense real?
> 
> i am not conscious of pretty much everything except my feelings! does adorno say that that means i am just "projecting"? is so, is he right to?
> 
> maybe these quotes will help clarify:


I misunderstood your question, it seems.

I don't know the answer to this one; haven't even a clue. I can't contrast "real" emotions to "projections," or at least, if I have a sense of what you're saying, wouldn't use those terms to do it - but for now I have to let the nature of emotion in music remain a mystery, as I have no insight into it.


----------



## klqdc (Mar 25, 2012)

ok. what did you mean and is my way of listening to music still valid?

let me go into a bit more detail? there's not so much to say [sorry if i was unclear!]. i looked at the first few pages of a music theory book, the very basics. and maybe i have an intutive understanding of local structure - that's what you meant by



> You sort-of "know" what the key is; even if you can't identify it (i.e. can't say "this is in the key of C major") and even if you don't know what a key or a I chord is, you can feel whether or not a particular chord is the I chord of the key.
> 
> A lot of elementary music theory, in my humble opinion at least, is basically explaining what we subconsciously know about music. It's fairly directly analogous to grammar: just as few listeners think about keys or chords, few native English speakers consciously think about "countable" or "uncountable" nouns, but we all subconsciously know what they are, and the study of grammar amounts to a conscious exploration of what we know subconsciously.


isn't it?

but there's something more going on. maybe it's literally something as silly as how loud it is being played, but ontop of [what i think?] is an understanding of "local structure" there's something else going on - a sensous feeling. now, whatever that is, it makes my intuitive understanding of the "local struicture" [and i'm not convinced it is that] seem quite special, exquisite even. does that make sense? i should probably clarify that i have no musical knowldege or training... which is probably why i'm expressing myself poorly.


----------



## klqdc (Mar 25, 2012)

> Anyway, klqdc, here are my questions:
> 
> Are Adorno's categories valid?
> Are they universally applicable (either to music or to listeners)?
> Regardless of what they are or are not, do you have to fit yourself into those categories?


no i don't mean to fit myself into categories exactly. more - like i said - know my limits. i.e., whether i like schoenberg because i have understood and appreciated something of his work, or it's just that i think i like schoenberg.


> I say, after over fifty years of listening to and thinking about music, that if you like listening to music, then you should probably listen to some music.


 sure, i will do. but you don't think it's an issue, whether i am my love of X Y or Z is completely arbitrary??


----------



## samurai (Apr 22, 2011)

I'm with some guy on this; just enjoy whatever it is you like listening to, and don't get so hung up in the analysis of *WHY. *After all, I think this the main attraction--and mystery--of music and the emotional heights or depths to which it can bring its listeners.


----------



## klqdc (Mar 25, 2012)

samurai said:


> I'm with some guy on this; just enjoy whatever it is you like listening to, and don't get so hung up in the analysis of *WHY. *After all, I think this the main attraction--and mystery--of music and the emotional heights or depths to which it can bring its listeners.


not "why" though.... more an if?


----------



## samurai (Apr 22, 2011)

klqdc said:


> not "why" though.... more an if?


I'm not sure I understand your allusion here; i.e.,* if *is in reference to* what*, exactly?  {this is starting to sound like an Abbott and Costello routine!} :scold:


----------



## klqdc (Mar 25, 2012)

yeah i wasn't clear was i









just saying that it's not so much "why" i am enjoying music, but "if" i am enjoying it... am i enjoying the music because i know that this is schoenberg and i think i like schoenberg's music, or do i actually like schoenberg's music for what it is - do i understand enough to make any kind of judgment about liking it for what it is.


----------



## Guest (Mar 27, 2012)

klqdc, you need to just CALM DOWN!!

CALM DOWN!!!

Not to derail the thread or anything, but I'd be interested to know a "why" myself.

Why are these questions important to you? Will answering them increase your enjoyment?


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

The job of an artist is to be directly connected to his feelings. He has to be able to channel that into his art. They pay a price for that- artists often suffer self doubt or depression because they have no wall between them and their feelings to protect them.

The average person has more distance between their conscious self and their emotional core. This makes them a bit more stable, but it also means that complex and conflicting emotions can be baffling. Music offers a safe way to explore and release those emotions. The closer you get to your feelings, the more intensely you feel them. Not really a bad thing overall as long as your feelings are constructive.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I am not a musician but when I got into classical, I listened naturally, without thinking of more concrete things like thematic development, orchestration or even differences of style. I just took it in like a sponge (still do with composers/music new to me).

This had advantages - eg. I never thought, as many do, that Schumann was a poor orchestrator (& I still don't).

But bottom line is that you can take in both the structure and emotion in a piece of music. EG. structure, even in simple things like the overall tempo of movements. In a concerto, it's often moderately fast (1st movt.) - slow (2nd movt.) - fast/vigorous (3rd movt.). & of course, different emotions can be felt from these changes.

That's one way, but there are many ways. Basically it comes from experience, and it's ongoing, I never stop learning by listening to music (listening for the first time, or re-listening).

I have "heard" or perceived new things in pieces of music that I've known for ages. I sometimes out of the blue gain big connection with a piece that a while before had felt didn't click with me. I think that reading about music and musicians is also useful, and cd liner notes are more than a very good start, I learn a lot from them. Also, live concerts.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

When I first started listening, I was a sponge too. As I went along and learned more, I became more discerning. But the funny thing is, as my approach refined vertically following quality, it didn't end up boiling own to a smaller pool of musc. My tastes also expanded horizontally into different genres of music. Now, I'm more selective, but there's more to listen to as well. A good thing.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Personally, I don't find myself getting more selective. Of course I don't like the same stuff I liked in middle school, but I don't think there's anything I liked in college that I don't like now. 

There is (or at least, there used to be) a journal named "Most Art Sucks." If I were to found a journal of music, it would be something like "Most Music is Pretty Darn Good or Better."


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

One of the points the OP raised hasn't really been addressed yet. Does our mind sometimes fool us into thinking we like something that we really don't? It sounds silly, I know. But, I'm convinced it happens with me a lot. 

On the basis of one or two experiences with a given composer's music, or one or two experiences with a given musician's performances, I begin to fancy myself as a fan. I start thinking to myself that this composer or performer is superior to others I've heard and that I'm just going to love everything they put out. I'll even get into more and more of their material with that construct still in place. Sometimes it isn't until much later that I realize that my construct is kind of a pipe dream.

Case in point - on the basis of recordings of the Barber Violin Concerto and the Brahms Violin Concerto (and an after-concert interview with her I once attended), I was convinced that Hilary Hahn was my favorite violinist (and I still do like her a lot). But, I can still remember how disappointed I was, and how long it actually took me to admit that 1) I didn't like her version of the Bach Violin Concerti; and 2) that James Ohnes' version of the Mendelssohn e minor was in every way more to my taste than hers.

Second case: On the basis of the symphonic works I convinced myself that Carl Nielsen was my favorite composer, and I held onto this view for a long time after my mind was clearly indicating to me that a lot of his solo piano and chamber music was not really to my liking at all. But, I can still remember defending it to myself for months before finally breaking down and being honest with myself.

So, the OP's fascination with Schoenberg might be real, but there is probably no way for him/her to be sure unless someone were to give him a "blind taste test" so-to-speak. 

The course of wisdom would seem to be what a lot of people on this site do - make up your mind on the basis of random individual works and don't let predisposition carry you too far.


----------



## klqdc (Mar 25, 2012)

some guy said:


> klqdc, you need to just CALM DOWN!!
> 
> CALM DOWN!!!
> 
> ...


i don't think i'm worked up, at all :-| too much pepsi makes me hyper :devil::lol:??


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

I can't say I've done such a thing Vesteralen. This may have to do with the fact that I don't really take concrete favorites, and if I do it is usually in reflection, after I've listened to it for a long period of time to know that it truly is something that I do not tire of and feel a great connection to. I think the neural high of experiencing new music can bias some people, as it does to a lot of people when they experience something new that excites them, such as visiting a new city, finding a new love, etc. Also, just because one happens to be one of your favorites doesn't mean you have to love everything they do.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Vesteralen said:


> On the basis of one or two experiences with a given composer's music, or one or two experiences with a given musician's performances, I begin to fancy myself as a fan. I start thinking to myself that this composer or performer is superior to others I've heard and that I'm just going to love everything they put out. I'll even get into more and more of their material with that construct still in place. Sometimes it isn't until much later that I realize that my construct is kind of a pipe dream.


That's kind of like what I call "stamp collecting". That's when you're more interested in the CDs as objects than you are the music on them. I used to always want to "collect the whole set" when I became interested in something. Now, I try to avoid that and focus on quality instead.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

bigshot said:


> That's kind of like what I call "stamp collecting". That's when you're more interested in the CDs as objects than you are the music on them. I used to always want to "collect the whole set" when I became interested in something. Now, I try to avoid that and focus on quality instead.


Yes. That's a much better way. (It's less expensive, too. )


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

It's very hard to resist the siren song of every "Puccerdibeer" opera lined up neatly on the shelf in chronological order.


----------



## klqdc (Mar 25, 2012)

hi,

can i explain myself a tiny bit more - to see if anyone relates?

let's talk about schoenberg. well when i listen all i can really tell is when it's louder and quieter and when higher and lower. however, i do seem to "see" [i do mean see - i have overactive mental imagery just generally speaking] every note. and also they do seem to kinda, touch me. you know?

so must i be understanding *nothing* about the structure?


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

klqdc said:


> hi,
> 
> can i explain myself a tiny bit more - to see if anyone relates?
> 
> ...


I'm sorry man, I genuinely don't understand. You don't hear pitch?


----------



## Tero (Jun 2, 2012)

It's just some kind of brain orgasm.

I listen to all kinds of music. When the musicians jam and all kinds of rhythms and melodies come and go and THEN the piece comes back to the normal part of the song, that is the orgasm. Blind Faith. The orgasm is at 4:10


----------

