# "Gateway" composers/pieces to the Second Viennese School?



## musicrom (Dec 29, 2013)

With all of the threads on atonality, twelve-tone music, and the Second Viennese School, I'm assuming there has been a thread on this somewhere, but I'm surprised that I'm having trouble finding exactly what I'm looking for.

Anyways, there was a time when I couldn't stand this music (in fact, it was less than 2 years ago). I just couldn't listen to it, and didn't want to try. It simply didn't appeal to me at all. And still, although I often struggle with it, I can usually at least handle it and get something out of it. I know there are others out there that are in a similar position as I am, and I hope that those who are can possibly gain something from this thread.

What personally helped me out, I think, was listening to other early 20th century music by composers such as Hindemith, Reger, Stravinsky, and Walton, with whom I could find some similarities with both Romantic era music and twelve-tone music. I'm not familiar enough with music theory to say what the exact similarities are, but I'm just comparing with my ears.

Well, since I started listening to early 20th century music, I have slowly begun to listen more and more to it, and it's now one of my favorite periods of music. I believe that this has helped me to appreciate works such as Schoenberg's String Quartets, Webern's Passacaglia, and Berg's Violin Concerto, which I might not have liked before. And while Schoenberg's early period had works such as Verklarte Nacht and Pelleas und Melisande, both of which I found decently accessible, I still struggle a bit with his works from the 12-tone period. 

I also think listening to more late 20th century music has helped a bit as well. Schnittke's polystylism, Feldman's indeterminism, and the minimalism of composers such as Arvo Part have taught me more about the philosophy of music, and what it's actually about, which has helped me a bit in appreciating 12-tone music. 

What I'm wondering is if you struggled with this music at first, and if so, how did you come to appreciate and enjoy it? What specific pieces or composers do you think led you to understand the music of the Second Viennese School?

I don't want this thread to be in any way controversial, so please try to minimize any negative comments! Thanks!


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

I pretty much jumped in head first :tiphat: I was young and clueless and it was just the right thing at the right time :lol: I've been hooked ever since.

Reading your list of preparatory listening, I say you've done very well indeed. I would definitely add Mahler to the list! And I think Brahms wouldn't be so obtuse a suggestion, either. Both composers seem to have had a significant influence on the development of the Neue Wiener Schule.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

For me it was Mahler's music. Schoenberg and Berg just seemed a single step away after I really got a grasp on what Mahler was doing. Whether it was 12-tone or not really never made much of a difference; some of the more difficult pieces are non-12-tone and some of the easier pieces are 12-tone.

Some of the pieces that I connected with immediately or quickly:

Schoenberg
- Verklarte Nacht
- Lieder Opp. 1 and 2
- String Quartet No. 2
- Book of the Hanging Gardens
- Four Pieces for Choir
- Begleitmusik zu einer lichtspiel Szene
- Moses und Aron
- Violin Concerto
- Op. 50 choral works

Berg
- Seven Early Songs
- Piano Sonata
- Three Pieces for Orchestra
- Violin Concerto

Webern
- Passacaglia
- Lieder Op. 3
- Five Movements for String Quartet
- Cantata No. 1
- Cantata No. 2


----------



## Tedski (Jul 8, 2015)

I found the series of 5 YouTube posts of a Leonard Bernstein lecture on Schoenberg very helpful in gaining an appreciation of his music, starting with this one:


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

In general I took to the music of Berg and Schoenberg quite easily - for Berg it was the String Quartet, Wozzeck and the Violin Concerto and in the case of Schoenberg it was Erwartung, Pierrot lunaire, Variations for Orchestra and the String Quartets which led the way. 

Not being an academic (or even an informed enthusiast) I didn't worry too much about the theory side but I thought I should digest what little I actually could understand in order to try and appreciate further what Schoenberg, Berg and Webern were individually and collectively aiming for as the 2nd VS seemed to be a 'special case', for want of a better expression. Krenek came later.

Webern was always a more difficult nut to crack - whether it was what I perceived to be his uncompromising austerity and fierce sense of control or not I don't know, but I've never had a 'lightbulb' moment with him as such, despite admiring his work.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

musicrom said:


> What I'm wondering is if you struggled with this music at first, and if so, how did you come to appreciate and enjoy it? What specific pieces or composers do you think led you to understand the music of the Second Viennese School?


What got me into these composers wasn't music but other people. I had learned of the 2nd Viennese School when I studied music, and it was explained so technically, I came out of there feeling like I had just dissected a frog, but now that I understood its innards, I wasn't able to see it get up and walk.

With Webern, I had the good fortune to briefly correspond with the cellist with the Artis Quartet. He had just recorded Webern string quartet pieces and was enthusiastic about it, so he encouraged me to dive in, giving me hints on what to listen for.

As far as Schoenberg, I was at a job talking to an attorney who, it turned out, went to Berklee Music School and was a big fan of the composer. He spurred me to exploring Schoenberg through Gurre-Lieder.

Unfortunately, my introduction to Berg was Jarman's book The Music of Alban Berg, and it is filled with so much arcane details that I thought I'd never understand this music, so to this day I don't seek out his music like the others.

As far as gateways, it was Anton Webern's music that opened up Renaissance polyphony. Suddenly Isaac, Obrecht and Ockeghem made sense.


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

The Berg Violin Concerto was a big hit for me early on, but I don't know if it was a "gateway" to others. I've grown to other works, but can't say the Berg VC lead me into them, which often sound completely different. It's easy to fall into the post hoc fallacy.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Tedski said:


> I found the series of 5 YouTube posts of a Leonard Bernstein lecture on Schoenberg very helpful in gaining an appreciation of his music, starting with this one:


I do enjoy Bernstein and this series in general, but I feel he's very unfair to Schoenberg here and elsewhere. I also don't like the fact that he points out the nonsensical nature of the idea of atonality and still keeps the idea as meaningful.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

It was opera which made me first appreciate this music. The big thing was in the 1980s when for some reason in London Lulu became very fashionable, probably through Andrew Davies's advocacy. Anyway I remember hearing it maybe four times in a couple of years, in a prom, in Oxford I think, at Glyndebourne, maybe a concert performance in the Festival Hall, and of course, by the third time, it felt as natural as anything by Mozart or Beethoven. I was curious to find more, so I listened to Solti's Moses and Aaron and felt immediately attracted both to the music and the serious ideas therein.

As far as the instrumental music is concerned, I'm absolutely convinced that the important thing is to wean yourself off music that works through melody. If your diet is 19th century and Mozart, then you're going to listen to Webern looking for a tune to hum, and you're bound to be disappointed. For me, learning how to listen to early keyboard music, Frescobaldi ricercare for example, or Sweelinck Fantasias, was, I'm sure, helpful for approaching a thing like a Babbitt quartet. Now my problem's reversed, I find it a real challenge to listen to Schubert and Liszt!


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

I got started with the Dorati CD, thanks to a good friend. After that I started picking up the Boulez Schoenberg CDs on Sony, and the Berg 2 disc set on EMI. And then I picked up the Webern, Carter, Berio, Varese box.










I'm pretty sure this is deleted by now.










Speaking of Carter, you might enjoy this one?


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

I don't think I had a gateway work or composer. I immediately liked Schoenberg's early works including Verklarte Nacht and the first couple of quartets and think some of Webern's works might have worked early if I had given enough of them a chance (Passacaglia and Langsamer Satz). But I struggled with the other works. I eventually learned to enjoy (and fully love) Berg's Violin Concerto, but other works were slow to come. They seemed to require a lot of listening until I started to get a feel for them.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

At first I too did not like Schoenberg, Webern, Berg and the like, but I started collecting it anyway and these pieces would sometimes come up on random play on my iPod. When this happened at home I would often hit the skip button, but at work I just sort of tuned it out and let it play in the background, not trying at all to like it.

Then one magical day the Schoenberg Op. 29 Wind Septet Suite started speaking to me.

Well, not exactly "speaking," but communicating somehow. It was like being in the middle of a conversation between the instruments, a conversation I could just almost grasp. I cannot really describe the sensation in words, but it was wonderful. I decided that the way to enjoy these pieces is to avoid trying. I just played them and let the language of this idiom wash over me and become immersed in it. A bit later Messiaen's _Quartet for the End of Time_ was the next to sway me over into appreciating and very nearly understanding it. I realize this is probably not a 12 tone piece, but it is at least difficult for someone mired in common practice. Many other pieces have followed until there are now very few things I find uncomfortable to listen to.

In summary, for me there was no gateway. It was inattentive listening that did the trick.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

Weston said:


> In summary, for me there was no gateway. It was inattentive listening that did the trick.


Wow. I'm thinking of all the tons of books, lectures, and articles trying to make this music accessible, and you got it by not paying attention. I think you're on to something; take off the lab coats and just jump in the pool.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

If you think about it, that is how we first encounter music. No one tells a three year old, "This is now modulating from the tonic to the former subdominant, and then to the remote key of Q sharp minor." They just enjoy the music for what it is. Theory comes later.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Weston said:


> In summary, for me there was no gateway. It was inattentive listening that did the trick.


This was exactly how I "learned" to enjoy Ligeti's piano etudes. I was listening to all the things I nromally listened for and nothing sounded right. As I focused eslewhere, i started hearing the rhythms. When I focused back on the music, I heard them in a while new way.

Now I listen to new music whiolly differently than I used to listen. I purposely listen to the rhythms, timbres, and other features.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Take the more popular/accepted pieces in general, such as Berg's opera _Wozzeck_.

Some string quartets by Mieczysław Weinberg are not too bad either, maybe after Bartok's string quartets too.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> For me it was Mahler's music. Schoenberg and Berg just seemed a single step away after I really got a grasp on what Mahler was doing. Whether it was 12-tone or not really never made much of a difference; some of the more difficult pieces are non-12-tone and some of the easier pieces are 12-tone.


Are you saying that Mahler is easier and "more tonal" than the Second Viennese boys?

That makes a lot of sense to me. It seems that music was gradually moving away from a firm sense of tonality at this point, "evolving" towards a new kind of music with a different hierarchical structure. I can hear it.

Of course, like you said, this weakened sense of tonality was not really dependent on whether it was 12-tone or non-12-tone.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

musicrom said:


> With all of the threads on atonality, twelve-tone music, and the Second Viennese School, I'm assuming there has been a thread on this somewhere, but I'm surprised that I'm having trouble finding exactly what I'm looking for.
> 
> Anyways, there was a time when I couldn't stand this music (in fact, it was less than 2 years ago). I just couldn't listen to it, and didn't want to try. It simply didn't appeal to me at all. And still, although I often struggle with it, I can usually at least handle it and get something out of it. I know there are others out there that are in a similar position as I am, and I hope that those who are can possibly gain something from this thread.
> 
> ...


I see; so the Second Viennese music is more difficult to listen to until you have gotten your "sea legs" by listening to other 20th century music.

That makes sense to me, since the early 20th century was an era when the main dialectic was tonality, "versus" other alternative ways to make music which were non-tonal.

This was the era when "geometric" thinking began to assert itself, and as a natural consequence, was at odds with the "harmonic" structures of tonality; but not so much at odds, so that the two methods often fed-off of each other, creating new hybrid forms.

Yes, as in "drug" terms, a "gateway drug" such as marijuana is a lighter, more harmless drug which can lead to "heavier" drugs, like heroin.

So, the other 20th century "hybrid" forms of tonal/geometric musics, such as Debussy, Hindemith, and Bartok, lead us as "gateway forms" into "heavier" forms of music such as Schoenberg and Webern, where the music is no longer tonal at all but is constructed by geometric ideas which do not use the tonal hierarchy or way of thinking.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> Are you saying that Mahler is easier and "more tonal" than the Second Viennese boys?
> 
> That makes a lot of sense to me. It seems that music was gradually moving away from a firm sense of tonality at this point, "evolving" towards a new kind of music with a different hierarchical structure. I can hear it.


To be frank, I don't think the issue of "atonality" and "12-tone music" is really the primary issue at all. The primary difficulties people have with the works of Schoenberg and Berg especially are the density and lack of repetition, *combined with* a non-triadic harmonic idiom. This is where the difficulty of their music lies, and the focus on these other things at the expense of the real issues seems to give rise to many of the misunderstandings that surround these works.

Like the Second Viennese School, Mahler's later works are denser and freer of literal repetition, so that a full understanding of the transformations in his work can only aid one's understanding of the transformations throughout the works of Schoenberg and Berg (Webern I came to later, and in part by working backwards through the composers he inspired, including the later works of Stravinsky).

Of course I would add that I am mostly speaking of my own experience. Others who understand Mahler may still struggle with Schoenberg (or vice-versa).


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> To be frank, I don't think the issue of "atonality" and "12-tone music" is really the primary issue at all. The primary difficulties people have with the works of Schoenberg and Berg especially are *the density and lack of repetition, combined with a non-triadic harmonic idiom. *This is where the difficulty of their music lies, and the focus on these other things at the expense of the real issues seems to give rise to many of the misunderstandings that surround these works.


I see. The tendency towards polyphony and/or increasing chromaticism makes for denser textures which are not bound by triadic structures. Polyphony was what Schoenberg was heading for, with increasing chromaticism.

Where do you stand on the issue of increasing chromaticism? Do you see this as a "gateway" factor in Mahler's music at all, or was he firmly in the realm of traditional tonality and harmony? How is Mahler's music "non-triadic," and how is this achieved? Through polyphony? Through melodic means such as motives?



Mahlerian said:


> Like the Second Viennese School, Mahler's later works are denser and freer of literal repetition, so that a full understanding of the transformations in his work can only aid one's understanding of the transformations throughout the works of Schoenberg and Berg.


Lack of repetition is an obvious consequence of increasing chromaticism. When you say "lack of repetition," do you mean this as "not repeating phrases" in an otherwise very diatonic and tonal environment, or as "increasing chromaticism?"



Mahlerian said:


> Webern I came to later, and in part by working backwards through the composers he inspired, including the later works of Stravinsky).


I see; this coming later to Webern implies that he might be even more difficult. If this is so, why? Was Webern's music more chromatic, less triadic, less repetitive?



Mahlerian said:


> Of course I would add that I am mostly speaking of my own experience. Others who understand Mahler may still struggle with Schoenberg (or vice-versa).


What is the difference that some people might hear in Schoenberg which is not in Mahler, which might cause them to struggle?


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

I did not say that Mahler's music is non-triadic. I agree with those who say that his music is fundamentally rooted in common practice tonality from first work to last. I am speaking for myself that the lack of literal repetition on the *formal and thematic* level was an aid to understanding the parallel lack of such repetition in the works of the Second Viennese School, wherein repetition is replaced with constant development.



millionrainbows said:


> I see; this coming later to Webern implies that he might be even more difficult. If this is so, why? Was Webern's music more chromatic, less triadic, less repetitive?


To a good extent, the difficulty of music is subjective and dependent on our individual experiences. I do not dare to say that my experience of this or that music as more difficult is some reflection of its innate difficulty or lack thereof.

With Webern, the problem was first and foremost the extreme concision and the distance of the mode of expression from that to which I was accustomed.



millionrainbows said:


> What is the difference that some people might hear in Schoenberg which is not in Mahler, which might cause them to struggle?


Schoenberg's later music especially is more formally compressed than Mahler's and even more texurally transparent. His songs and operatic works have texts that help to clarify the musical/formal aspects more than any work by Mahler (consider the oft-misunderstood Eighth Symphony, which is conceived and worked out on a purely symphonic/developmental level more than as any sort of dramatic setting).

There are any number of reasons I could imagine.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> I did not say that Mahler's music is non-triadic. I agree with those who say that his music is fundamentally rooted in common practice tonality from first work to last. I am speaking for myself that the lack of literal repetition on the *formal and thematic* level was an aid to understanding the parallel lack of such repetition in the works of the Second Viennese School, wherein repetition is replaced with constant development.


So you see the problem in comprehension as formal and thematic, both of which are horizontally-oriented events in time. You seem to exclude the harmonic factors, except as they are absent in Schoenberg & Co as "non-triadic" harmony. Could you expand on this?



Mahlerian said:


> To a good extent, the difficulty of music is subjective and dependent on our individual experiences. I do not dare to say that my experience of this or that music as more difficult is some reflection of its innate difficulty or lack thereof.


Of course, I am speaking on this individual level as well.



Mahlerian said:


> With Webern, the problem was first and foremost the extreme concision and the distance of the mode of expression from that to which I was accustomed.


Again, extreme concision is a cognitive, time-based experience. You see no harmonic difficulties?



Mahlerian said:


> Schoenberg's later music especially is more formally compressed than Mahler's and even more texurally transparent. His songs and operatic works have texts that help to clarify the musical/formal aspects more than any work by Mahler (consider the oft-misunderstood Eighth Symphony, which is conceived and worked out on a purely symphonic/developmental level more than as any sort of dramatic setting).
> 
> There are any number of reasons I could imagine.


But all of them seem to view music as an exclusively horizontal, time-based experience, without harmonic dimension.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

I see no especial harmonic difficulties in the music of these composers for those to whom other music of the era is familiar, except insofar as the music uses more uncommon than triadic harmonies and these in rapid combination.

But I don't think you can find any harmonies in Schoenberg or Berg which cannot be found in many other "accessible" works of the era. Their music is not "absent" anything, but on the contrary contains a richness of harmony that is rare elsewhere.

No, I stick to my point that while the harmony presents some difficulties, they are not nearly as important as the density and non-repetition.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Mahlerian said:


> No, I stick to my point that while the harmony presents some difficulties, they are not nearly as important as the density and non-repetition.


Obviously I speak only for myself. I immediately enjoyed all of Mahler's works. I also immediately enjoyed Schoenberg's Verklarte Nacht. It took me a rather long time to eventually begin to enjoy Schoenberg's later works such as string quartet 3 and 4 and piano concerto. Do you feel that the density and non-repetition was significantly different in the works I immediately enjoyed compared to those that too a much longer time?


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

mmsbls said:


> Obviously I speak only for myself. I immediately enjoyed all of Mahler's works. I also immediately enjoyed Schoenberg's Verklarte Nacht. It took me a rather long time to eventually begin to enjoy Schoenberg's later works such as string quartet 3 and 4 and piano concerto. Do you feel that the density and non-repetition was significantly different in the works I immediately enjoyed compared to those that too a much longer time?


Verklarte Nacht is certainly more repetitive in several ways than Schoenberg's later works, and less dense (meaning contrapuntally and harmonically) as well.

As for Mahler, his works vary significantly. A rule of thumb is the later into Mahler's career, the more dense and less repetitive he became. Certain movements of his works are very difficult in this regard, particularly in the Seventh Symphony or the Ninth, while others, such as Das Lied von der Erde or the Second Symphony, are not nearly as difficult (though Das Lied is certainly more harmonically complex than the Second).

It is true that certain works by Schoenberg are probably more difficult to the average listener than anything by Mahler, but I did not immediately enjoy all of Mahler's works, while certain of Schoenberg's later works I found myself getting into at the first listen.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

I immediately found works by Schoenberg, Berg and Webern I enjoyed, and they felt really fresh and new to me, like I craved hearing tones arranged in this way though I didn't realize it. All 3 composers also have some pieces I don't care much for either.

I liked these right away:

Schoenberg: SQ's 3,4
Berg: Lyric Suite, Wozzeck
Webern: 6 Pieces for Orchestra


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

tdc said:


> I immediately found works by Schoenberg, Berg and Webern I enjoyed, and they felt really fresh and new to me, like* I craved hearing tones arranged in this way* though I didn't realize it. All 3 composers also have some pieces I don't care much for either.
> 
> I liked these right away:
> 
> ...


"Tones arranged this way" seems to imply that the "sound itself" of the tones was new and novel to you. Is this what you are saying, or do you mean the lack of repetition of otherwise similar music?


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> Verklarte Nacht is certainly more repetitive in several ways than Schoenberg's later works, and less dense (meaning contrapuntally and harmonically) as well.


I'm having problems with my posts being erased.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> This is the first mention you have made of the harmonic aspects of these works.


I should have thought my description "non-triadic" in an earlier post was mentioning the harmonic aspect, or speaking of the richness of harmony present.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> *Verklarte Nacht is *certainly more repetitive in several ways than Schoenberg's later works, and *less dense *(meaning contrapuntally and harmonically) as well.


 This is the first mention you have made of the harmonic aspects of these works. What do you mean by "harmonically less dense"?

Verkarte Nacht contains lots of seventh and ninth chords. Are these not "more dense" than simple triads? They sound 'richer and denser' to me.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

millionrainbows said:


> "Tones arranged this way" seems to imply that the "sound itself" of the tones was new and novel to you. Is this what you are saying, or do you mean the lack of repetition of otherwise similar music?


The sound of the tones as a result of the way they were arranged and organized, presented fairly new and novel musical ideas to me, but - how _new_? I had probably heard something similar before and hadn't fully processed it, and hearing it again allowed me to get a better appreciation.


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

My gateway into the 2nd Viennese School composers (and those that followed close behind them), was not other classical music at all. It was the avant-garde side of prog-rock. 

Bands like Henry Cow, Universe Zero, Art Zoyd, Aksak Maboul, Thinking Plague, and many other bands were highly influenced by classical music of the 20th century. These bands regularly use dissonance and atonality, extremely complex and unpredictable song arrangements, polyrhythms and highly complex time signatures.

Moving from listening to these types of bands to the 2nd Viennese school was not much of a stretch for me. It came naturally.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

I came to the Second Viennese School via Schoenberg's _Pierrot Lunaire_.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

millionrainbows said:


> This is the first mention you have made of the harmonic aspects of these works. What do you mean by "harmonically less dense"?
> 
> Verkarte Nacht contains lots of seventh and ninth chords. Are these not "more dense" than simple triads? They sound 'richer and denser' to me.


Of course, what was meant was that the harmony in VN is less dense compared to Schoenberg's later works, not compared to Stamitz.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

tdc said:


> *The sound of the tones *as a result of the way they were arranged and organized, presented fairly new and novel musical ideas to me, but - how _new_? I had probably heard something similar before and hadn't fully processed it, and hearing it again allowed me to get a better appreciation.


"The sound of the tones" seems to imply to me an instantaneous reaction to the sound itself, which I would call 'harmonic' and does not require much cognitive processing through time; it is immediate. This is contrary to what Mahlerian is saying, that it all takes place over longer stretches of time. That is, unless I am misreading him, or what he means by 'density.'

My reaction to music is always pretty much immediate, in one sense.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

violadude said:


> Of course, what was meant was that the harmony in VN is less dense compared to Schoenberg's later works, not compared to Stamitz.


Carl or Johann Stamitz? But I am still not clear on what Mahlerian means by saying that Verklarte Nacht is "less harmonically dense" than his later works. The String Trio op.45 seems quite spare to me in places, as it is a trio, vs. the sextet of Verklarte Nacht. What is "harmonic density"? Is it the number of pitches which are stacked vertically?


----------



## Autocrat (Nov 14, 2014)

I came to this music via a book of Schoenberg's personal correspondence I picked up at a second hand bookshop. 

True story.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

millionrainbows said:


> "*The sound of the tones" seems to imply to me an instantaneous reaction to the sound itself*, which I would call 'harmonic' and does not require much cognitive processing through time; it is immediate. This is contrary to what Mahlerian is saying, that it all takes place over longer stretches of time. That is, unless I am misreading him, or what he means by 'density.'
> 
> My reaction to music is always pretty much immediate, in one sense.


This is pretty much the case, and is with all the music I enjoy listening to. My appreciation and enjoyment can be enhanced by what happens vertically, but harmonic language I find very important. With the music I enjoy there is a more or less instantaneous appreciation of the textures, and for me to rate a piece highly those textures and/or harmonic language need to stay convincing for the duration of the piece. I'll add that a piece does not have to have multiple lines to have this effect.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

tdc said:


> This is pretty much the case, and is with all the music I enjoy listening to. My appreciation and enjoyment can be enhanced by what happens vertically, but harmonic language I find very important. With the music I enjoy there is a more or less instantaneous appreciation of the textures, and for me to rate a piece highly those textures and/or harmonic language need to stay convincing for the duration of the piece. I'll add that a piece does not have to have multiple lines to have this effect.


That's the way I am, too. Music hits me immediately. I never was much of a long-term cognitive listener.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

millionrainbows said:


> That's the way I am, too. Music hits me immediately. I never was much of a long-term cognitive listener.


What were we talking about again? J/K

I think it is great to be able to listen to pieces "long-term", and understand the over-all structure, its a skill one can develop and it increases understanding of the music (this may or may not lead to increased enjoyment). I think it is possible to have both qualities in a piece, and to listen in both ways. But, yes music I like pretty much instantly takes me to a certain "space", and I can enjoy the textures and the atmosphere it evokes at any given moment in the piece. I can even enjoy it whether or not I'm consciously paying attention to it.

Sometimes too much thinking can be a hindrance.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

I am fortunate in that some music hits me immediately while other music takes a while to sink in, so there is always the potential for another chance.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

tdc said:


> This is pretty much the case, and is with all the music I enjoy listening to. My appreciation and enjoyment can be enhanced by what happens *vertically*, but harmonic language I find very important. With the music I enjoy there is a more or less instantaneous appreciation of the textures, and for me to rate a piece highly those textures and/or harmonic language need to stay convincing for the duration of the piece. I'll add that a piece does not have to have multiple lines to have this effect.


Too late to edit - that word was supposed to be 'horizontally'.


----------

