# Systematic Way of Approaching New Music



## edge (Nov 19, 2011)

I have been a casual listener for many years. I’ve been buying “Greatest Hits” CD’s and listening to them for comfort and relaxation without paying much attention to the details. 

Only recently have I taken a more proactive approach to learning a new piece (not to perform, just to appreciate). I recently finished “The Great Courses – Learning to Understand and Appreciate Great Music” (highly recommended). He spends quite a bit of time on Beethoven’s 5th and Berlioz’s Symphony Fantasique. My appreciation of these two pieces went up exponentially after learning more about them and what the composer was doing in each of the movements.

I was just wondering if others had a systematic way to approach an unfamiliar piece of music. What process do you go through to “learn” to appreciate this new work?

Thank you for your time.


----------



## GGluek (Dec 11, 2011)

The best way is simply repeated listening. The technical details are okay for learning why a piece works the way it does, but the "working" is a matter of how it affects your ear and brain as you listen to it -- and that has to come first.

That said, a good start is being able to recognize form as you listen -- variations, sonata, binary, scherzo (or minuet) and trio, rondo, etc. That at least lets you know where in a piece you are, or how it's organized.


----------



## Guest (May 30, 2013)

1) Make sure your sound system is plugged in and turned on.
2) Place LP on platter or CD in tray or open sound file.
3) Turn turntable on and lower needle onto outer edge of LP or close CD tray and press "Play" or click on "Play."
4) Take a seat.
5) Pay attention.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I disagree with the "just listen" responses. While this does work initially, there will come a point (or perhaps not) that a deeper understanding of music, as an art, will be required in order to intelligently listen, read about, write about, speak about, or compose music. Know the composer, know some technical details, history, materials, and whatever you can soak up. Read liner notes, read books and interviews, and keep on learning more, more, information, filing it away in your brain.

When first listening to an unfamiliar composer, go to WIK and read about him. Look up the specific article on the work, if one exists. Look up any terms you do not fully grasp. Go to Amazon and see what recordings are available, and read the description and reviews, and listen to any sound clips.

This is serious "art music," so you can't approach it like popular music, which is designed for easy assimilation. "It's got a good beat, and you can dance to it," as they used to tell Dick Clark on American Bandstand.


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

I agree with GGluek an millionrainbows: listen and pay attention. Analyze how the music reacts with your mind. Read some books about music theory to learn what others have said on the subject, learn a little about the composer's life, and listen again.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Google is the greatest substitute for liner notes ever. Listen, read, think. That is all.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

I too enjoy more of a "Cliff's Notes" approach. I like to have at least a few annotations on hand to give me a head's up on what to listen for. The reason for this is that we have become so accoustomed to innovations in music, they no longer sound innovative and we may just pass over them unappreciated. With a few annotations availaible on Wikipedia, AllMusic, or even the CD liner notes, I can hear a modulation to a new remote key or whatever and have an "Aha!" moment. This only works for my attentive listening sessions of course. 

I also listen to a lot of abscure works for which annotations are scarce. I can still enjoy these too, just differently, perhaps more in ignorance.


----------



## Guest (May 30, 2013)

Dear liner note lovers,

I read liner notes voraciously when I was first starting out. It was frustrating. What they were saying didn't often match with what I was hearing. And I never liked being told what to listen for/to. (All of my favorite bits were never the things that I was being told to listen for, anyway.)

Eventually (around age 11), I just stopped reading them.

Otherwise, I would never modify the word "listen" with the word "just." Listening means paying attention, means concentrating on everything going on. Maybe for having conversations with other people, it is useful to know some terms. Well, not "maybe." It is certainly useful. But not so much for listening.

Music is something magical. Theory is not magical. It's interesting, more so for some than for others, but still, pretty interesting. It's just not magical. And it cannot account for the magic. Only listening can do that. Careful, knowledgeable, sympathetic listening.

And what do I mean by "knowledgeable"? Familiar with lots and lots of different pieces. Not with lots and lots of theory. Not with lots and lots of biographies. Familiar with other pieces.

Best,

A listener


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

some guy said:


> Dear liner note lovers,
> 
> I read liner notes voraciously when I was first starting out. It was frustrating. What they were saying didn't often match with what I was hearing. And I never liked being told what to listen for/to. (All of my favorite bits were never the things that I was being told to listen for, anyway.)
> 
> ...


Rats. I am forced to agree with _some guy_ *again!* I'm pretty sure this makes three times in 2013. Not about the liner notes, I usually read them - _after _listening to the music. And maybe not 'knowledgeable' listening, because that suggests thinking about the music while listening, and I can't manage both at once.

... Hey, maybe I'm OK here.


----------



## Guest (May 30, 2013)

Pretty soon we'll be putting back pints in the local establishment and swapping war stories.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

some guy said:


> Pretty soon we'll be putting back pints in the local establishment and swapping war stories.


You've been in Europe too long, some guy. They discourage that sort of thing in Amerika these days. We still have to drive everywhere, you know.


----------



## Guest (May 31, 2013)

Whose "we"?

I've been in Portland, OR for seven years now.

I haven't had a car for over eight years. It's delightful!

(P.S.-I could not decipher these words: "in Europe too long." They seem to be English, but I cannot make them make any sense. Pls clarify.)


----------



## Guest (May 31, 2013)

To enjoy a rainbow, you look at it.

You might like to know how it works, separate it into component parts, read about rainbows, take pictures of them...

...but there's nothing quite like looking at them, whole, in the sky.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I agree with what people have said above. My way is a combination of:

- listening.

-reading/researching about the piece, the composer, his era from various sources - liner notes, program notes, wiki, books, documentaries on dvd, everything like that.

- hear the piece, or just music of the composer you like, live in concert.

- make connections between the piece and other pieces. Eg. with Berlioz, the final movement of Symphonie Fantastique incorporates the 'Dies Irae' plainchant, and other composers slightly later did this (eg. Liszt in Totentanz, Saint-Saens in the finale of his Symphony #3 'Organ' - which was actually dedicated to Liszt - also other composers, esp. Rachmaninov in many of his works). So doing this I get the context of a piece or composer in the history of music, looking ahead to more recent times. That's what fascinates me a lot. Its a view of music that sees the links, not just the differences, not as isolated incidents with no past or present.


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> I disagree with the "just listen" responses. While this does work initially, there will come a point (or perhaps not) that a deeper understanding of music, as an art, will be required in order to intelligently listen, read about, write about, speak about, or compose music. Know the composer, know some technical details, history, materials, and whatever you can soak up. Read liner notes, read books and interviews, and keep on learning more, more, information, filing it away in your brain.
> 
> When first listening to an unfamiliar composer, go to WIK and read about him. Look up the specific article on the work, if one exists. Look up any terms you do not fully grasp. Go to Amazon and see what recordings are available, and read the description and reviews, and listen to any sound clips.
> 
> This is serious "art music," so you can't approach it like popular music, which is designed for easy assimilation. "It's got a good beat, and you can dance to it," as they used to tell Dick Clark on American Bandstand.


Consistency is a a good thing. On another thread we had:



millionrainbows said:


> You're OK! Don't worry! I wonder, too. What is Taggart talking about, with those Friggian cadences? What is that? They're thinking too much! They should simply "turn off" their brains, and lie back and enjoy the pure sensuality of sound!
> 
> You're OK, I'm OK; we know what sounds good! And we don't need no stodgy old professor to strut in and fill our minds with all this intellectual gobbledygook!


Which is it?


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Taggart said:


> Consistency is a a good thing. On another thread we had:
> 
> Which is it?


You are taking _million_ out of context. He is adequately consistent _within a thread_. When one's goal is to 'hold the ground' of the _adversarial position_, inter-thread flip-flopping has no significance.

[_million_ is an Official Friend. It is necessary that I 'have his back'.]


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

Hilltroll72 said:


> You are taking _million_ out of context. He is adequately consistent _within a thread_. When one's goal is to 'hold the ground' of the _adversarial position_, inter-thread flip-flopping has no significance.
> 
> [_million_ is an Official Friend. It is necessary that I 'have his back'.]


No problem with sticking up for friends.

This is not about _adversarial position_ but about discussion of music and "truth". It would be nice to know whether MR is a genuine supporter of serious study or a Noddy Holder fan. (Slade - Come on Feel the Noise - polite spelling)


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Taggart said:


> No problem with sticking up for friends.
> 
> This is not about _adversarial position_ but about discussion of music and "truth". It would be nice to know whether MR is a genuine supporter of serious study or a Noddy Holder fan. (Slade - Come on fell the Noise - polite spelling)


No no, you are _misconstruing_*** the sense of my message. You will probably never know what position _million_ 'genuinely supports', is what I'm trying to tell you.

*** Isn't that a fairly ugly word? Just plain 'missing' would serve, and it both sounds and looks better.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Listening and comparing is definitely worth more than just reading a lot. Of course some classical basics such as a rudimentary understanding of structure in general (different themes and movements, development, variations..) will help, some of that might be picked up directly through listening eventually but would be helped along quicker by a quick read. But beyond the basics of the classical style I think listening and a lot of it is the main thing. And reading up on a specific piece shouldn't be that necessary for initial enjoyment if it is really that good.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Hilltroll72 said:


> No no, you are _misconstruing_*** the sense of my message. You will probably never know what position _million_ 'genuinely supports', is what I'm trying to tell you.
> 
> *** Isn't that a fairly ugly word? Just plain 'missing' would serve, and it both sounds and looks better.


'Missing' would serve, but it would have a different meaning - that Taggart omitted to notice your sense; 'misconstruing' means he is analysing the sense & came up with the wrong answer*. And no, it's not an ugly word; it's a technical word about analysing the case-endings of Latin sentences.

'Possess' a nice day, however. 

(* in your opinion, which I do not share.)


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Taggart said:


> No problem with sticking up for friends.
> 
> This is not about _adversarial position_ but about discussion of music and "truth". It would be nice to know whether MR is a genuine supporter of serious study or a Noddy Holder fan. (Slade - Come on Feel the Noise - polite spelling)


I advocate careful study, except on the issue of tonality. Tonality should be treated as a no-brainer.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Ingenue said:


> 'Missing' would serve, but it would have a different meaning - that Taggart omitted to notice your sense; 'misconstruing' means he is analysing the sense & came up with the wrong answer*. And no, it's not an ugly word; it's a technical word about analysing the case-endings of Latin sentences.
> 
> 'Possess' a nice day, however.
> 
> (* in your opinion, which I do not share.)


Dear lady, you are too close to the ugliness - and no, I don't mean Taggart.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

That reminds me of a song on _Thingfish..._you know, that album where the _Central Scrutinizer _keeps appearing...


----------



## edge (Nov 19, 2011)

Thanks to all for your thoughtful responses. I didn’t realize that there would be this much debate. I won’t take sides other than to say that I’m an engineer and that I tend to be a little left-brained. It will only add to my enjoyment to know specific details about the piece and the composer. I now have some guidance in that direction.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

millionrainbows said:


> That reminds me of a song on _Thingfish..._you know, that album where the _Central Scrutinizer _keeps appearing...


You probably did that intentionally, but the Central Scrutinizer is from _Joe's Garage_, not _Thing-Fish_.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Crudblud said:


> You probably did that intentionally, but the Central Scrutinizer is from _Joe's Garage_, not _Thing-Fish_.


You're correct...yeah, that's the ticket! I meant to say that! But seriously, the fear of moderation/scrutinization distracted me. Why, one even responded to a post of mine! (shudder!)


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

What I would add to my post earlier here is that being "systematic" doesn't necessarily being rigid and inflexible. Let me explain. Say you are listening to and focussing on one composer, and you set yourself the task to listen to all his string quartets, symphonies or concerto (whatever). During that time you might read about a composer who influenced this composer, or taught him. & you might also read about composers he taught and influenced. So with this info in hand, you might interrupt your tight focus on the first composer and branch off into the other composers who impacted on him, or who he impacted upon. Its up to you. But maybe this is like a fork in the road type moment. One bit of info leads to one fork in the road. Then when you go up that direction, you might reach another fork, and so on. 

This is what I find quite interesting and has guided me to some extent.

For example, reading about composers of string quartets who Beethoven influenced (primarily with his late quartets), I came across Elliott Carter, Michael Tippett and Bela Bartok, all writing important works in the genre in the 20th century. This being a favourite era of mine, it was obvious I wanted to hear the guys who Beethoven influenced. & more recently, I've gone back to Beethoven's roots more and more, to guys like Haydn and Mozart, but also Handel and Bach.

So that's an example of his this can work. Its a combination of things, not rigidly systematic, but going with things according to what interests and exites you. When I do that, I get more rewards in terms of enjoyment and engagement with the music.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Sid James said:


> So that's an example of his this can work. Its a combination of things, not rigidly systematic, but going with things according to what interests and exites you. When I do that, I get more rewards in terms of enjoyment and engagement with the music.


Yes, I agree. That reminds me of initiates who say "I'm gonna sit down and listen to every Haydn symphony in numerical order!"


----------



## Guest (Jun 1, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> Yes, I agree. That reminds me of initiates who say "I'm gonna sit down and listen to every Haydn symphony in numerical order!"


And there's something wrong with that? Admittedly, I'd struggle to do it with Haydn, but I do it with Beethoven...and Debussy!


----------



## Guest (Jun 1, 2013)

Wait a minute!

Haydn wrote a hundred and six symphonies.

Beethoven wrote nine.

Debussy wrote zero.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

Being a pedant, I´d like to emphasize that he wrote a symphony, existing in a version for 2 pianos & recorded by the Kontarsky gang.


----------



## Guest (Jun 1, 2013)

Well, being a precisionist, I have to say that you can't listen to one symphony in a row.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

some guy said:


> Well, being a precisionist, I have to say that you can't listen to one symphony in a row.


Not in a row, but it can be done in numerical order... well sort of.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I'm going to listen to Feldman's String Quartet No. 2, after I attach my catheter.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

> Well, being a precisionist, I have to say that you can't listen to one symphony in a row.


These people would disagree:


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

joen_cph said:


> These people would disagree about that possibility:
> 
> View attachment 18935


lol, that's a rather singular... and _small_ concert hall!.


----------



## Guest (Jun 2, 2013)

some guy said:


> Wait a minute!
> 
> Haydn wrote a hundred and six symphonies.
> 
> ...


And your point is...? I mean, your point in setting out the numerical comparison?



joen_cph said:


> Being a pedant, I´d like to emphasize that he wrote a symphony, existing in a version for 2 pianos & recorded by the Kontarsky gang.


Well, that may also be true, but it's the Symphony in B that I've got a CD of - Jun Markl conducting The Orchestre National de Lyon - and I note that in the same series of orchestral works, Pelleas and Melisande is entitled 'Symphonie'.

View attachment 18940


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

The "Pelleas & Melisande" symphony must be the one arranged by Marius Constant?

Checking you-t, there is indeed an orchestral version of the Symphony in B too, orchestrated by an American composer. Am listening to it now.


----------



## Guest (Jun 2, 2013)

joen_cph said:


> These people would disagree:
> 
> View attachment 18936


Hahahahaha!! Well, so much for my so-called precisionism.:tiphat:


----------

