# How do you listen to classical music



## Michael122 (Sep 16, 2021)

This thread is meant not in the sense of sound equipment, rather what do you look for as you’re listening be it counterpoint, or harmonies, or specific orchestra sections.
On my part, the first aspect to catch my attention is a pleasant ear-wash of sound.
After that my attention is drawn to the melody and rhythm and ascertaining what emotion the composer is portraying. 
On successive play-throughs, my focus is on structure of the piece, builds or swells the music has, and enjoy hearing the soloist.
Do you have difficulty picking out a specific instrument type in a specific section, I.E., the cellos in the string section?
What’s your experience with listening for mistakes?
For me, don’t seem to find many.


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

The harmonic skill of the composer. That's first. Back in the day (baroque and classical period) calling a composer "a master of harmony" was arguably the highest compliment a composer could be paid. 

"If only the whole world could feel the power of harmony." ~ Mozart
"Melody is the essence of music." ~ Mozart

“The Germans have always been the greatest harmonists, and the Italians the greatest melodists. But from the moment that the North produced a Mozart, we of the South were beaten on our own ground, because this man rises above all nations, uniting in himself the charm of Italian melody and all the profundity of German harmony. He is the only musician who had as much knowledge as genius, and as much genius as knowledge.” ~ Rossini

If the composer's harmonic gifts aren't equal to his or her melodic gifts, I quickly lose interest.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

There are so many abstract things we enjoy about Classical music that I tried to make a thread called 'favorite short moments' so we could zero in on what those were, but even there people are too vague to post any, so I don't think this thread question is answerable, unless you can use real language like I do. Musical language, I will post some very short moments that I enjoy, and you'll hear what I listen for in music:

Here is dissecting one favorite movement of mine, in order:
The finale begins by cutting abruptly in with the melody 



Soon, to instill a feeling of building up pizzicato patterns, it's just a cleverly disguised off-beat melody 



A lovely ode at 9:56, as if Brahms suspends the symphony momentarily to sing us a song. It is what you call a recapitulation. See Beethoven building in to recap.
Here begins the end breakdown. Brahms creates a dissonant complication of the rhythmic motif at 11:06 



The fanfare now sounds in solo to bring our attention in (11:25) then Brahms shortens it up to pace through the next part 



(Although I can criticize that he didn't shorten it enough.) Brilliantly, Brahms takes the melody into a stormy rococo rhythm here (11:43) 



Then immediately he brings it into major key (11:47)
One of the most amazing things ever to send a last message, Brahms sprawls out and decays his earlier harmonic motif 



Then again at 12:00 builds up and sprawls out the decay, shreiking flutes and rising the bass this time into:
Setting up a series of epic rhythmic punches and arpeggios to close it 



Brahms 4th, Carlos Kleiber, Live Concert, Wiener Musikverein, 1979

Here is dissecting another favorite of mine:
6 seconds in (9:10 - 9:13) you hear probably one of the greatest Classical-style transitions ever rhythmized 



Some top tier harmonic series sprawled throughout 



This is called a rococo settling, where you hear a beautiful fade out to rhythmic pulses <3 (also at 10:00) 



Following from the first repeat, this is where things get the most ethereal and whimsical (till about 5:40) you can hear the setting winding around and opening up! 



Then cleverly, by using the same melodic mechanism you hear the same setting _close_ by straightening out the punches 



Absolutely amazing.
Glazunov's 5th, Evgeny Svetlanov, USSR State Symphony Orchestra

Overall, Brahms is fairly rhythmic and melodic to string together patterns. His harmony is rather traditional.
Glazunov is more harmonic and slightly rhythmic to bring these patterns out. Overall both works are pretty great.


----------



## Michael122 (Sep 16, 2021)

Ethereality said:


> Musical language, I will post some very short moments that I enjoy, and you'll hear what I listen for in music


Outstanding post. You appear to be on a different level, from me at least, in your appreciation of classical music. Very well done. This was educational. You render some fine insight and the use of sheets while the music plays underscores {no pun intended} the points you made. You present this in such clarity and simplicity, that you might want to consider teaching a class in music appreciation or writing an essay, or even a book on the subject.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

Essentially, one's expectations upon hearing a work depend upon a variety of factors.

Of course, a lot depends upon whether one is encountering the work for the first time, listening for a second or third or even fourth time, or revisiting an old familiar friend for the hundredth time.

Too, much depends upon the precise performance -- the players, the orchestra, the conductor. Even an old favorite may sound new in a new interpretation. Which is why my collection has so many versions of such and such.

And the type or style of the work brings about its own expectations. I wouldn't necessarily approach listening to an unfamiliar composer's 18th century symphony with the same mindset I would apply to hearing a concerto written in this 21st century by a known avant-gardist of whom I have some familiarity, or a 20th century string quartet by a composer I have never heard of. You see, the time period changes things. The nature or form of the work changes things. The _known_ quantities v. the _unknown_ quantities of the work change things. A lot to consider.

If it's a completely new work by a previously unknown composer (and I encounter many of these since I seek out music, especially contemporary serious music) one must be prepared to encounter practically anything. In such a circumstance it seems rather impractical to speculate upon the form involved, how instruments are used, harmonies, counterpoint, experimental techniques. The unfamiliarity tends to overwhelm on such first visits, but that leads to pleasures and excitements of their own.

Though I like to explore, sometimes I'm of a mind to revisit a performance I've heard dozens of times and sometimes even know by heart -- every nuance of the music making. A comfortable listen. This, too, can prove a pleasure and excitement of its own.

So, there isn't any one thing every single time upon encountering a work. A lot depends upon ....


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

Sometimes I listen analytical - at times with score in hand, but most of the time I listen non-analytical, concentrating on the overall effect of the music. I always concentrate upon the listening and don't do other things at the same time. I try to submerge as much as possible into the sound, and as to different recordings I don't do comparisons while listening, only afterwards.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

When I find a composer I am interested in I will systematically go through his entire oeuvre, listening to bits and pieces of the works until I find something that really clicks. Then I will find more works like that, e.g. if it's chamber, more of that. Then expand to smaller and larger ensembles, lieder is a big thing for me, also stage works, if they wrote any.

I listen closely, and will spend a week with a composer, then file the saved works away, and come back to them from time to time. I've probably got about 50-75 composer folders with the available works in several recordings saved to my Spotify account.

I then find composers of his same style and period and do the same.

Today I was collecting the works of *Max Bruch* and *Carl Reineke*.


----------



## Musicpro (Nov 4, 2021)

Mine is melody first. Once the melody is good, then the harmony follows


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

I am not sure I can even explain counterpoint, or harmonies, or specific orchestra sections if I looked it up on Wikipedia. So I merely seek music that I enjoy enough to keep coming back to it.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

I can't separate what I listen for from what I listen on. The equipment makes for very different experiences, and for very different focus. My headphones (Sony MDR-Z1R) put me "in the middle" of the music and their bass reproduction has me really keyed in on percussion, cellos, contrabass. It's a very sensual experience. Not that I can't appreciate composition, but I get swept away in the sensations of the sounds.

My kitchen speakers (Bose Soundtouch 20) put me more in an "audience" sort of position, and so it's much more about melodic line while I'm cooking. It fills the room and sounds nice to be sure, I just feel further from the music and instrument groups blend more.

As far as exploring material, I used to listen to symphonic cycles in rotation by composer. Lately I've been listening to complete quartet cycles and various concerto cycles. Mendelssohn, Schubert and Haydn have impressed me greatly with their output. Especially on the headphones, quartets are very transporting and sensuous. I'm sure I will get back to symphonies sooner or later.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I think it would be a mistake to use a theoretical construct (_what music should have or do to be worthwhile to me_) to filter what music you spend time with.


----------



## Ganz Allein (Mar 26, 2021)

Interesting question! It's hard to think about, let alone articulate, what I look for in music, but here's my best try: I think on the first listen, I gravitate towards music that is attention-grabbing, which tends to be quick tempos, big orchestral sound, and unusual or dissonant harmonies. I think that's why my first favorite classical pieces were the Beethoven & Tchaikovsky symphonies and then some of the more aggressive-but-still-melodic 20th century stuff like the Rite of Spring, Shostakovich 10, and the Bartok string quartets.

What keeps me coming back is when I listen for (or read about) the structure of the piece, and start to understand how the composer worked with themes to build them into a larger whole. I think that's why Mahler and Wagner are the composers who really brought me into more seriously listening to (and collecting) classical music. They both have the big orchestral sounds and complex harmonies to draw me in initially, and they weave their themes into structures so huge and complicated that I don't think I'll ever fully understand them! That type of engagement has helped me come to better appreciate other composers that I initially neglected, as well as less initially-attention-grabbing repertoire like chamber music.


----------



## Sondersdorf (Aug 5, 2020)

This is an interesting question. I think I approach a new piece of music by trying to find something there of interest. It doesn't really have to be something new or innovative, just something that lifts the piece out of the millions of recordings available. If I detect an iota of the composer following the strictures of a weak formula or, worse, writing something to make themselves popular with their audience or contemporaries, to the detriment of the music, I am out of there.

I suppose that harmonic structure gets my attention more than other elements. If a composer does something innovative, I am listening closely. Poor rhythmic structure and execution can put me off a piece, definitely, but it is not going to draw me to a piece, only put me off. For me, beautiful melodies are probably at the bottom of the list. Play a single note ostinato and if there is decent harmony marching or even stuttering, I'm listening.

Beyond the composition, there of course is the performance and for classical music, I am having trouble imagining a performance turning a bad composition into something worth listening to. In popular music it is easier to do it seems. Maybe performers have enough freedom beyond the score to turn it into good music.

There seems to be a related question here: how do you discover and appreciate new music? Some posters have some innovative ideas, such as focusing on composer's oeuvre. It is always good to learn how to appreciate something new.

Music might be beyond analysis. We all bring a lot of past experience to it, musical and otherwise.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Different period or composer styles focus or bring to fore different things. In the Renaissance, it's polyphony. In Bach it's counterpoint. In the Classical era is melody combined with the harmonic movement and structure. In Chopin it's melody. In Debussy it's exotic sonorities. In Webern it's register, attack. In a lot of Contemporary it's rhythm and timbres. 

I started out, probably like most, with focusing on melody. I think that is what we were taught first as kids, with Twinkle Twinkle, or Row, Row, your Boat, etc. That's why Mozart appealed first to me, who is a master of melody. 

After getting familiar with different styles, I listen to whatever stands out. I think every composer's intent becomes clear given some familiarity with their style.


----------



## eljr (Aug 8, 2015)

Michael122 said:


> This thread is meant not in the sense of sound equipment, rather what do you look for as you're listening be it counterpoint, or harmonies, or specific orchestra sections.
> On my part, the first aspect to catch my attention is a pleasant ear-wash of sound.
> After that my attention is drawn to the melody and rhythm and ascertaining what emotion the composer is portraying.
> On successive play-throughs, my focus is on structure of the piece, builds or swells the music has, and enjoy hearing the soloist.
> ...


I listen for the aesthetic melding of the music to produce endorphins. None of the micro elements you speak to mean much to me as I do not analysis music, I enjoy it.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Michael122 said:


> what do you look for as you're listening be it counterpoint, or harmonies, or specific orchestra sections.


Some of the things you've cited, though it varies between composers and between and within 'listens'. I rarely just sit back and let it wash over, as my mind tends to wander restlessly from the music to today's shopping and back to the trombone solo and the interplay between clashing harmonies/chords.

I do like to sort out complete melodies or voices in my head, to be able to follow it from beginning to end. One of the more irritating things about this is when you know the instrument is still playing, but it's disappeared behind massed violins or blaring brass, or it's playing so softly that it's hiding behind my tinnitus.


----------



## Shea82821 (Nov 19, 2021)

It can vary from composer to composer, but on rare occasions from performer to performer.

In general, I mainly look towards the quality of melody. A very simple test indeed: if I like it, I like it. If I don't, I don't. And then there's concern of rhythm too, to flow, to it's progression, and structure at times. Though the last of those I'm willing to reject if the rest seems up to par. 

But even if it gets all of those right, the recording could ruin all of them. Like in one recent occasion, I found on YouTube what seems to be the only extant recording, of Peter Mennin's Symphony no.2. Conducted by the venerable Howard Hanson. It's a lovely performance of what seems like a lovely work, but the quality is in a very sad state. Half the percussion seems to vanish at times, the winds often get distorted almost to sound like plastic recorders, and the brass reminds me of someone blowing raspberries through a tin-can. The strings are ok though, they survived relatively well in the recording. 

As to recordings, I keep it simple. Find one I like (if a choice is available) and stick with it. If I get bored of it, or maybe find one that's better somehow, then I'll get another. But I'm not the kind of guy who has like a dozen recordings of...say Mahler's 3rd or Beethoven's 5th or Bruckner's 8th. I stick to one - at best two that I like. Or in the case it's all that's available, well so be it.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I have never been interested in what a composer is doing technically. For me it is all a question of whether the music delivers - whether it transports me. But I am not sure what I do subconsciously when I listen to music. Certainly, when music is very new (contemporary and by a composer I have little experience with) I often listen a couple of times without a feeling that I understand it and then return after a period of weeks or months to find that it is talking to me. For the music of more familiar eras I know the language but I am not sure how. Either way it is its ability to transport me and how rewarding that transport is that adds up to my own feeling about the music.

I do think - and feel I have seen many examples in this forum - that approaching a piece in a technical and analytical way tends to represent a closed mind or prejudice. But I do respect and admire those who analyse the how _after _they have experienced the wow.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

vtpoet said:


> [quotes about Mozart and harmony]
> If the composer's harmonic gifts aren't equal to his or her melodic gifts, I quickly lose interest.


If a listener's ability to recognize them is questionable, I quickly lose interest (in the things he says). 










vtpoet said:


> Inasmuch as Mozart can be said to have written mediocre music-for Mozart-it was by in large in his liturgical music





vtpoet said:


> Mozart's choral works are his weakest compositions





vtpoet said:


> Mozart ~ His masses and liturgical works. Up until the Great Mass, all his works are as close as he comes to mediocrity in my blasphemous opinion.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

hammeredklavier said:


> If a listener's ability to recognize them is questionable, I quickly lose interest (in the things he says).


Come on vtpoet, come out from behind the disguise - we all know it's you and not hammered!


----------

