# Confusing Understanding With Love



## Xavier (Jun 7, 2012)

Hello everyone,

Recently I came across this comment by an opera blogger named Zerbinetta:

_"But yes, I DO think that musical background matters. Basic aural skills, the ability to read music, and time spent playing in ensembles drastically alters your experience of music"_

Drastically?

I am very skeptical about this. I mean what does being a musician have to do with the psychology of aesthetics?

A while back Bernard Holland wrote about a similar topic:

_The leap from "understand" to "appreciate" is long and blind. Respectful cognizance and enlightenment through diligent listening tell me that Ralph Shapey was a brilliant composer, but at the end of a long day, how many of us take home his string quartets to cuddle with affection?_

[......]

_The word "understand" remains elusive. I don't understand an elm tree, but give me the right one, and I like to sit under it. Knowing its biology may help, but the heart is not a biologist. An implicit contract has been signed but is not necessarily being honored. It states that if I understand a piece of music, I'm likely to like it, too. This is not true. No amount of experience and analysis can by itself induce the stab of communication between art and its beholder._

[......]

_The downside of music education is not only that it confuses understanding with love; it threatens an arrogance that classical music can ill afford._

RTWT here

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/25/a...t-learn-to-like-it.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

Any thoughts about this?

I think Holland makes some excellent points and is absolutely right on. These things should be obvious but they are sometimes forgotten by musicians and critics who don't realize all of the incredibly complex factors involved in the aesthetic response.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Thanks for the article. He raises a lot of issues there. In response, I think education about music is important, but ultimately its up to the individual to follow up on whatever education he/she gets. If the individual is interested about something, they are halfway there (so to speak) to kind of learning more and educating themselves about the given topic. & of course, it goes along with enjoyment of this whole process. Enjoyment and learning are interrelated. But if a person gets engagement and meaning out of something, that is the most important thing, imo. Its about things like motivation and developing self efficacy (in terms of psychology).

Bottom line is attitude. If a person thinks classical music is like spinach, not pleasant to eat but good for you, there's no use in emphasising that its good, no use to do that at all. That's what the title of the article says to me: _Music; why you can't learn to like it_.

I see this as another matter from one of us on this forum say, starting from a base of the core 'basic' repertoire and wanting to get into something more complex or esoteric like _atonal _music or things some people find daunting for other reasons, like Wagner's operas or stuff like that. People who have some basis are already well beyond the first few steps. They already like classical music of some sort.

So I think the article is thought provoking. Has a bit of a _highbrow_ undertow at times, but hey, that's how most classical music writers are, they can't help it (unfortunately?).


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

I work with artists. One of them (a well known one and very talented) once said to me that I could show him any drawing by an accomplished artist that he had never seen before, and he could speak for an hour solid about the drawing and the decisions the original artist made in creating it. He wasn't exaggerating. Artists can not only discern what a piece is saying, they can tell how it's accomplishing its point. Artists have a whole level of understanding beyond even the most perceptive layman.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

I don't see atonal music as being more complex than popular classical music. I hear things in Tchaikovsky ballets that are extremely complex and sophisticated, and it desn't get more popular than that.


----------



## Xavier (Jun 7, 2012)

bigshot said:


> I work with artists. One of them (a well known one and very talented) once said to me that I could show him any drawing by an accomplished artist that he had never seen before, and he could speak for an hour solid about the drawing and the decisions the original artist made in creating it. He wasn't exaggerating. Artists can not only discern what a piece is saying, they can tell how it's accomplishing its point. Artists have a whole level of understanding beyond even the most perceptive layman.


But music works on a completely different sphere.

Music, of all the arts, is the one that does not and should not require explanation or education. If it works at all it should talk directly to *the inner listener*, beneath the layers of pretension or persona.

A person doesn't need to know anything to love and appreciate music. Please understand what I'm saying here: I'm NOT talking about instant gratification, nor am I saying that the experience cannot be deepened or improved with time, but you do sometimes hear people criticizing those who don't "understand" certain strands of music where the suggestion is that they lack the intellectual capacity or taste (whatever that is) to appreciate it.

The point I am trying to make is that music ultimately should be able to transcend education, intellect and culture in a way that literature, for instance, cannot.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

^^Talking to that, I've come across at least some people whose parents didn't like classical, or it wasn't their main musical 'diet.' But they ended up liking classical, loving it actually. It only takes limited exposure to some people who have some type of sensitivity to classical music, and they take it and go with it. & on the reverse to that, there are people who grow up with classical around them, and they don't come to like it. Even people who do piano lessons for years, stuff like that, they won't necessarily grow up an be into classical music. Actually, quite a few rockers of today grew up learning their scales on piano, and Beethoven's _Moonlight sonata _and all that, but when they came to a certain juncture, they chose rock, not classical, as their career.

So what I'm saying is understanding vis a vis certain 'hard knowledge' things about classical may not necessarily lead to people liking classical music. It can, but it ain't necessarily so, as the song goes. Then again, people on this forum have said that a kind of coincidental or subliminal exposure to classical music really got them big time into classical music (eg. that's why they came to this forum, to be exposed to more, to learn more).

I grew up with classical music playing in the house, my parents liked it (and also other musics). But I'd like to think that even without that early impetus or kind of 'home advantage,' I would have found out about it and accessed it in my own way. I really don't know, but anyway.

I hope what I'm saying is relevant & on topic.


----------



## Chopinator (Jun 12, 2012)

My parents (at least my dad) appreciated classical music, but, like Sid James said, it wasn't their main musical "diet". Yet still, I prefer it among all other genres. While others my age are listening to Nicki Minaj and Lady Gaga, I appreciate the technicality and beauty of Chopin and Liszt. I'm lucky I associate with others in the performing arts who can respect that.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

What I saw in the original article was a distinction between the musician and the listener, and the question of how the two of them appreciate music.

I think there is a big difference for two reasons: perspective, and experience.

First, perspective - I have very little appreciation for any aspect of performance because I have almost no experience performing music. It is not as easy for me to appreciate how well Argerich or Pogorelich handle Ravel's _Gaspard de la nuit_ as it would be for Hamelin or Aimard, because I've never tried to play it, and I don't know the work from the perspective that they do. Certainly they'll have much more _critical_ insight than I ever will.

Examples could be multiplied indefinitely, and I have one experience that is relevant: I've arranged Mozart's "Eine Kleine Nachtmusik" for a high school band (this was the final project in my high school music theory class). As a result of this experience, small and insignificant as it was, I have a greater idea of what an arranger has to think about, and it does affect my appreciation for the art of orchestration. If I had a lot more experience of that sort, I'd probably have even more appreciation for some arrangements and transpositions (and probably less for others).

Also, though the art is a different one, I write fiction as a hobby. Believe me, a few years of this will totally change the way you think about [works of fiction]. In order to appreciate, say, a composer in a deep way, I'd bet it helps to _be_ a composer for awhile.

Second, experience - In an ordinary week I can spend at most 40 hours paying close attention to music, and in practice I rarely get more than 10. But I once knew a professional musician well, and she'd have ten hours in some days, no day _ever_ with less than six hours practicing. Besides that she attended a conservatory for many years, her parents were professional musicians, and with many of her friends she talked about music constantly. (Let me mention once again that Hilary Hahn was her friend, and came to my house once, and my father was confident that Ms. Hahn had a crush on me. I personally don't think so, but you can imagine how loathe I am to disagree with so respectable and insightful a man as my father.)

There is just no substitute for that kind of time put into an activity. With luck, when I'm 60 I'll know as much about music as she did when she was 15.

With the analogy to fiction, you can imagine how much more insight into the art I'd have if only I were a professional editor or critic, obligated to spend at least 40 hours per week thinking carefully about it.

HOWEVER

In the tradition of classical music, the audience has a role, and it is to listen to the music. We don't have to think like the pianist or the conductor or the composer, and maybe it's even fair to say we shouldn't bother to try. We can allow ourselves to experience the music as listeners - most of the time it has actually been written and performed _primarily for our sakes *as listeners*_.

We don't have to - and shouldn't necessarily expect ourselves to - think things like, "Oh my, what an unusual modulation." The composer and performers usually hope we will think things like, "Oh, I liked that. That really hit me." Maybe sometimes they really want us to be conscious of the theory behind their work, but that is an exception rather than the norm, and even so, just because they want us to doesn't mean we have to... just as we're allowed to watch _Hamlet_ without preparatory study of 16th century theology.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Harumph.

I find it annoying that _Bernard Holland_ has expressed my thoughts on the subject - better than I have managed.

I would appreciate it if Mr. Holland stops reading my mind.


----------



## KRoad (Jun 1, 2012)

Whether the listener's appreciation of music is enhanced by musical cognizance is a mute point. It depends on the purpose with which one approaches listening to a piece I suppose. One can listen in a state of analytical awareness only lose the "beauty" of the music itself. If I listen to Schoenberg with a diagram of the 12 tone method going forwards, backwards, up-side-down and inside-out in my mind - I'm not really hearing the music in a way Schoenberg intended us to. It is his composing modus operandi that is dominating my musical consciousness and not the sound and aesthetics of the piece itself... Or take sex. Enjoying a jolly good romp in the hay does not require an in-depth understanding of biology. Of course it can, like serialism, add another dimension to our pleasure.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Xavier said:


> A person doesn't need to know anything to love and appreciate music.


That's true. But a musician can understand music on that level AND on a totally different level as well. Just because you don't need any experience to appreciate classical music, it doesn't mean that experience doesn't bring additional appreciation. A composer and performer is going to see things in music that the layman can't.


----------



## Merve (Jun 7, 2012)

I think the article should have been "Confusing Hate With Lack of Understanding" instead of "Confusing Understanding With Love". Indeed just because you understand something doesn't mean you will love it, and you don't have to understand it to love something. But I think the article has got this backwards, the issue is rather that, if you DON'T understand something, you will most likely dislike it.

I believe this is basically about predictability. Not that the music is predictable, but that your brain has the experience to be able to predict what kind of tones will come up next. This is a basic gratification in the brain no matter who you are. Conversely, if the music is so unusual for you that you can't make any sense of it/recognize any patterns or structure in it (going back to the "when does music become noise" thread) then you will most likely dislike it. But it's not that you actually hate that music, it's just that you don't understand it. 

I have no formal musical education and only a bit here and there that I've taught myself. My parents never listened to classical music, I got into it on my own because one day I felt like buying a "best of the best-compilation" classical disc set and from that moment on, I've always loved it. And while I understand the music enough to enjoy it, I don't understand it like a trained musician would, there is no way I can analyze it. But I want to be able to tell more from it, to analyze it, not just be satisfied with empty listening. 

I wonder what it means for enjoyment if you know nothing about music theory. Since all we have are "interpreted" recordings for most classical works, not the composer's own performance, (as listeners) what does it mean if the recording we enjoy the most is actually one of the "worst" recordings by theoretical criteria? Does that make the uneducated listener stupid, deaf? Or the composer actually lacks talent? Of course not, but I always wonder about this when I'm trying to decide on a recording of some piece to buy and there are 50 options. 

Sometimes I feel like classical music is completely inaccessible to outside its musically educated circle because of this. What are you supposed to do when there is a "right" and "wrong" to playing something and you enjoy the "wrong" ones? You can't even tell if they're "right" or "wrong"! This is the problem of constantly performing a piece composed years ago... Lady Gaga only plays her own music and only Lady Gaga plays that music. You like it or you don't. There is in-between level of "educated evaluation" in there.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

The visceral hit you speak of is a product of many complex receptors + the individuals personal pschology / pathology + that individuals 'semiotic bank' and what is, or is not, in it.

But, sorry, it should be no surprise that a pilot is more 'in' flying than any passenger, regardless of the depth of their amateur knowledge of flight or aircraft.... 

One is a lifetime love affair, the other more a lifetime long marriage....

This following statement does not exclude any from a profound enjoyment of music, but... 
You are inside it -- or outside of it; it is that basic.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Sorry. I should withdraw this post.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

KRoad said:


> Whether the listener's appreciation of music is enhanced by musical cognizance is a mute point. It depends on the purpose with which one approaches listening to a piece I suppose. One can listen in a state of analytical awareness only lose the "beauty" of the music itself. If I listen to Schoenberg with a diagram of the 12 tone method going forwards, backwards, up-side-down and inside-out in my mind - I'm not really hearing the music in a way Schoenberg intended us to. It is his composing modus operandi that is dominating my musical consciousness and not the sound and aesthetics of the piece itself... Or take sex. Enjoying a jolly good romp in the hay does not require an in-depth understanding of biology. Of course it can, like serialism, add another dimension to our pleasure.


That is a great metaphor.


----------



## Xavier (Jun 7, 2012)

Petr,



> But, sorry, it should be no surprise that a pilot is more 'in' flying than any passenger, regardless of the depth of their amateur knowledge of flight or aircraft....
> 
> One is a lifetime love affair, the other more a lifetime long marriage....
> 
> ...


I'm not even sure I agree with the above comment.

Here are the words of Charles Rosen, eminent musicologist, pianist and critic.



> Listening with intensity *for pleasure* is the one critical activity that can _never_ be dispensed with or superseded. Each individual listens carefully to a piece so that they get more pleasure out of it through enhanced understanding. Basically, there is *no difference* between understanding and pleasure.




Very well said.

What are your thoughts on this?


----------



## JCarmel (Feb 3, 2013)

I don't feel sufficiently competent to express anything except a very simple opinion....so I hope you will forgive this. Listening for pleasure is the primary purpose of listening intensely to music, which can then be enhanced & enlightened by further study by those who are fortunate enough to possess the golden gift of curiosity. 
I was fortunate in being brought-up in a home where my father was a passionate lover of classical music & out of his love & enthusiasm for it, my mother, my brother & I developed an eager appreciation & _need_ for music. Both I & my brother inherited our father's intense interest in the world of knowledge & learning, so our inherited curiosity took us from there, to illuminate our listening with knowledge about the art form. But my mother failed to learn more about the music she too enjoyed, because she lacked that vital essence of curiosity to the same degree but also because her particular passion was a different art-form & she had very strict limits on leisure time....basically, she had very little of it!
I've been fortunate in being able to pass on my love of classical music to several people in my lifetime, who were amazingly quite ignorant of the beauty, power & solace that listening to music provides. It cannot be underestimated what lies at the increasing marginalisation of classical music....it is essentially pure ignorance. People are intimidated by the whole subject & have no spur to conquer their appalling lack of knowledge about it. I remember hearing a programme about quizzes & quiz questions...._the_ least popular subject & that which contestants actively avoided the most, was Classical music! How very depressing!
If someone cares enough to pass on how wonderfully enhancing it is to our mind, spirit & existence, then virtually anyone will come to love classical music. I believe this most sincerely & from my personal experience, know it to be true. 
There are so many easy options on-tap for the pursuit of pleasure, nowadays...that unless someone cares enough to pass on the good fortune of serious music appreciation...then folks just will never know what they are missing. There is little 'out there' to create enthusiasm for it & for the love of Knowledge, for it's own sake. 
That's the most powerful of tools against ignorance...enthusiasm?!


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Xavier said:


> Hello everyone,
> 
> Recently I came across this comment by an opera blogger named Zerbinetta:
> 
> ...


Well, yes, she is 100% right, and I think if you just read that for what it is without projecting or feeling the need to self-defensively argue about any non-trained person's depth of response or aesthetic sensibility (yawn), it needs little if any elaboration at all.

You're either very on the inside, the builder of the plane, the pilot or a crew member, or you are on the outside, a passenger.

Point made.

Emended: The fact that after that formal training and experience is, even if the listening is 'just for pleasure,' that what and how you listen will never be the same as without that training and experience. 
I somewhat agree on the uselessness of comparing the experience of trained party A to the untrained but knowing fan B, but there IS a difference, in fact.

(And still, "love -- just love on its own -- is not enough"


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

the _fact_ that one experience is drastically different from the other does not belittle either experience, so there's really no need for people to get defensive. It is useful, though, to accept the reality of one's position.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

science said:


> What I saw in the original article was a distinction between the musician and the listener, and the question of how the two of them appreciate music.
> 
> I think there is a big difference for two reasons: perspective, and experience.
> 
> ...


It appears that June 2012 was my talkclassical peak.


----------



## Xavier (Jun 7, 2012)

PetrB said:


> Well, yes, she is 100%


100%

Are you kidding?

Didn't you read the Rosen quote above?



> Listening with intensity *for pleasure* is the one critical activity that can _never_ be dispensed with or superseded. Each individual listens carefully to a piece so that they get more pleasure out of it through enhanced understanding. Basically, there is *no difference* between understanding and pleasure.




As I said before, I am extolling the virtues of patient, repeated listenings that take one deeper into a work and make the sensitive listener aware of the workings of the music... Just because a person doesn't know the nomenclature of the harmonic patterns or other technical matters does *NOT* mean he or she is not *aware* of these goings-on.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Xavier said:


> As I said before, I am extolling the virtues of patient, repeated listenings that take one deeper into a work and make the sensitive listener aware of the workings of the music... Just because a person doesn't know the nomenclature of the harmonic patterns or other technical matters does *NOT* mean he or she is not *aware* of these goings-on.


You're right, in that putting a name to something may make it easier to spot and recognize (the musician's point of view), but it doesn't mean that it suddenly changes whatever it was before you could describe it. It can certainly help to speed up the process, though. On the other hand, this doesn't mean that things like bias disappear. Musicians can be as biased and short-sighted as lay-listeners, although it may play out somewhat differently.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

science said:


> What I saw in the original article was a distinction between the musician and the listener, and the question of how the two of them appreciate music.
> 
> I think there is a big difference for two reasons: perspective, and experience.
> 
> ...


PERFECT. Thanks. It should not be mistaken, though the experience is going to be radically different for those steeped in training or for whom it is a full time profession, that music _is_ for audiences and they can truly love it.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

I agree with the Rosen quote 100%.

_"Listening with intensity *for pleasure* is the one critical activity that can never be dispensed with or superseded. Each individual listens carefully to a piece so that they get more pleasure out of it through enhanced understanding. Basically, there is *no difference* between understanding and pleasure."_


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

PetrB said:


> You're either very on the inside, the builder of the plane, the pilot or a crew member, or you are on the outside, a passenger.
> 
> Point made.


Interesting analogy. The jet might fall within the amount of technology you could imagine a single expert really mastering.

If we jump up to, say, mobile phones, there's no way. They guy who knows the tech behind the touchscreen and how it is manufactured doesn't know how the antenna works or how it is manufactured, and those two couldn't write a speech recognition program.

Even with a jet, the guy who knows the how the fuel is produced probably doesn't know much about the aerodynamics involved in landing the plane. Etc....

The idea that all of us are supposed to understand everything should've been given up a long time ago.


----------



## Xavier (Jun 7, 2012)

science said:


> In the tradition of classical music, the audience has a role, and it is to listen to the music. We don't have to think like the pianist or the conductor or the composer


Wait, what?

Why are you giving so much importance to the 'technicians' involved in the process? Ultimately, all music is about pleasure.



> Is the work of music to be identified as the written text or its performance? Is a symphony of Beethoven the printed score or the sound in the concert hall when it is played?


Rightly or wrongly, I quite clearly come down on the side of the latter resoundingly and categorically.


----------



## kelseythepterodactyl (Sep 5, 2013)

Isn't this one of the greatest things about music - that we can absorb and appreciate it at any level?

As a classically trained musician, I am blessed with the (learned) ability to differentiate between interpretations in performances, and appreciate many well-thought-out subtleties in composition. But sometimes I choose to forget all of that and just take in the raw beauty of a piece.

I take "non-classical" friends to see operas all the time, and we all get much enjoyment out of it. Sometimes they notice things I don't, and vice versa, which really enriches the experience for all of us.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Petwhac said:


> I agree with the Rosen quote 100%.
> 
> _"Listening with intensity *for pleasure* is the one critical activity that can never be dispensed with or superseded. Each individual listens carefully to a piece so that they get more pleasure out of it through enhanced understanding. Basically, there is *no difference* between understanding and pleasure."_


Much as I love the guy, Rosen is sometimes apt to make strange statements. I can think of quite a few pieces that bring pleasure without understanding (especially to newbies), and others that are easily understood but bring little pleasure. In fact, I'm sure we all can!


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

KenOC said:


> Much as I love the guy, Rosen is sometimes apt to make strange statements. I can think of quite a few pieces that bring pleasure without understanding (especially to newbies), and others that are easily understood but bring little pleasure. In fact, I'm sure we all can!


I think what he is saying is that to receive pleasure from intense listening _is_ understanding. What else do we listen to music for? 
I also do not understand the concept of 'newbie' when it comes to music. My mother used to play a little of the opening of the Moonlight sonata on our piano when I was a child. I loved it then and I love it now. Now I know all about how it is constructed, I know harmony and classical sonata form, I can view it in it's historical position and appreciate it's originality and genius but do I love it more now than when I was six? I don't think so.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Xavier said:


> _The word "understand" remains elusive. I don't understand an elm tree, but give me the right one, and I like to sit under it. Knowing its biology may help, but the heart is not a biologist. An implicit contract has been signed but is not necessarily being honored. It states that if I understand a piece of music, I'm likely to like it, too. This is not true. No amount of experience and analysis can by itself induce the stab of communication between art and its beholder._


Bad analogy. The purpose of elm trees is not for people to sit under them.

Also, "the heart is not a biologist"? Tell that to a biologist.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

JCarmel said:


> I don't feel sufficiently competent to express anything except a very simple opinion....so I hope you will forgive this. Listening for pleasure is the primary purpose of listening intensely to music, which can then be enhanced & enlightened by further study by those who are fortunate enough to possess the golden gift of curiosity.
> I was fortunate in being brought-up in a home where my father was a passionate lover of classical music & out of his love & enthusiasm for it, my mother, my brother & I developed an eager appreciation & _need_ for music. Both I & my brother inherited our father's intense interest in the world of knowledge & learning, so our inherited curiosity took us from there, to illuminate our listening with knowledge about the art form. But my mother failed to learn more about the music she too enjoyed, because she lacked that vital essence of curiosity to the same degree but also because her particular passion was a different art-form & she had very strict limits on leisure time....basically, she had very little of it!
> I've been fortunate in being able to pass on my love of classical music to several people in my lifetime, who were amazingly quite ignorant of the beauty, power & solace that listening to music provides. It cannot be underestimated what lies at the increasing marginalisation of classical music....it is essentially pure ignorance. People are intimidated by the whole subject & have no spur to conquer their appalling lack of knowledge about it. I remember hearing a programme about quizzes & quiz questions...._the_ least popular subject & that which contestants actively avoided the most, was Classical music! How very depressing!
> If someone cares enough to pass on how wonderfully enhancing it is to our mind, spirit & existence, then virtually anyone will come to love classical music. I believe this most sincerely & from my personal experience, know it to be true.
> ...


Curiosity, yes some have and some don't. Maybe those who aren't curious are also fearful and conservative. Those who are curious perhaps also aren't satisfied with what they already know, they can't keep still. The internet perhaps feeds this restlessness more than anything previously.

I'm not sure you can really fully create curiosity in someone, I think it needs to come from within. When people make their own discoveries they can grow to understand and like something. Just being fed something is likely a more passive and temporary pleasure.


----------



## JCarmel (Feb 3, 2013)

I think self-knowledge can increase one's curiosity...so many people learn in later-life that they wished that they had taken the opportunity to increase their knowledge in their youth. And if people had a deeper 'objective' view about themselves, that might cause them to look at the challenge that life brings & make more of it. But with reference to classical music...people just don't know until someone with enthusiasm or something that can create it in them...reveals how simple it is to listen-to & love, serious music. Personally, I find listening to today's 'Pop Music' so tiring & unrewarding.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Knowledge and curiosity will go hand in hand, but without real curiosity I think knowledge is unlikely to go to much depth.


----------



## Xavier (Jun 7, 2012)

Mahlerian,



> Putting a name to something may make it easier to spot and recognize (the musician's point of view), but it *does not* mean that it suddenly changes whatever it was before you could describe it. It can certainly help to speed up the process, though.
> 
> On the other hand, this *does not* mean that things like bias disappear. Musicians can be as biased and short-sighted as lay-listeners



[bold type mine]

This is the essential point. Thanks.

And just to reiterate:

*"No amount of experience and analysis can by itself induce the stab of communication between art and its beholder"*


----------



## Xavier (Jun 7, 2012)

This has been a great discussion.

Personally, when it comes to subjects like opera and classical music I really couldn't care less what the academics have to say.

Generally speaking, academics commenting on opera / classical music - or on anything having to do with matters *aesthetic* - are pretty much a horror show and to be avoided whenever possible.


----------



## Piwikiwi (Apr 1, 2011)

I don't see how people can put down skills such as music theory, score reading and knowing the background of pieces. It only increases the pleasure I have in listening to pieces. I haven't been listening to classical music for long but I was really exited when I finally figured out the sonata form. I suddenly heard more. The same goes with score reading, my ear for counterpoint and just getting the subtle parts of a piece are much more clear to me now.


----------

