# How do I translate music to information?



## Boychev

Okay, so after years of fruitless attempts to intuitively "get" classical music I was finally informed that it all just revolves around cadences. And since cadences are pretty much the easiest thing to hear, including for an untrained listener like me, this was a revelation. I can finally tell where a musical thought begins and ends. It's not much but it has definitely brought actual structure to what I hear.

I figure I just need to do this for every other possible permutation of chords, learn to recognize those along with their meanings and over time the music should get more transparent - like learning to listen to and read in a foreign language, basically.

So right now I can tell different musical thoughts apart but I don't know what the thoughts themselves mean. There isn't something like a "dictionary" for what common chord progressions mean so how do I pick that up? I understand roughly how the music is structured, but how do I get to the meaning of the structure?


----------



## Bwv 1080

Boychev said:


> So right now I can tell different musical thoughts apart but I don't know what the thoughts themselves mean.


They dont mean anything. Music has no meaning, just try to listen attentively without thinking about it

You cant think too much about music while you listen, because then you are out of time - thinking about what you just heard and missing what is currently happening.


----------



## Boychev

Bwv 1080 said:


> They dont mean anything.


I often think that but then if it doesn't mean anything, what's the point of creating it and listening to it at all? And classical music of all things is the result of quite an elaborate thought process, right - all those years studying theory and training one's ear in order to produce it...? Surely all those people who literally devoted their entire lives to composing it can't have thought it doesn't mean anything, so there must be some kind of meaning invested in it. I'm just bad at decoding it like I'm bad at decoding French.


----------



## Bwv 1080

Boychev said:


> I often think that but then if it doesn't mean anything, what's the point of creating it and listening to it at all? And classical music of all things is the result of quite an elaborate thought process, right - all those years studying theory and training one's ear in order to produce it...? Surely all those people who literally devoted their entire lives to composing it can't have thought it doesn't mean anything, so there must be some kind of meaning invested in it. I'm just bad at decoding it like I'm bad at decoding French.


Its just art, what do other works of art 'mean'? No one sees a dance and asks 'what does that mean', what does a still life painting mean?


----------



## sharik

Bwv 1080 said:


> Music has no meaning,


it does, a lot really, and is all about meaning, in fact.

Richard Strauss, for example, as he takes on the book Thus Spoke Zarathustra, firstly does a presentation of this literary piece to its future readers in the poem suite Overture that represents not what is in the book (which follows next) thus far but the book itself, so this is a world premiere of a book portrayed by the means of music; the score comprises two relating themes, where 1st one represents the Author proffering his book to the universe of Readers, while 2nd represents the yet reluctant Reader:

1st theme melody calls - 'read. This. BOOK.'

2nd theme snaps back - 'NO way!'

(the timpani show resentment)

1st theme second try - 'read. This. BOOK.'

2nd theme eyebrows indignantly raised - 'you WHAT?!'

(the timpani show resentment)

1st theme persists - 'read. This. BOOK.'

2nd theme now gets it - 'all RIGHT!' and then continues 'i will GIVE. this Book A TRY.'

1st theme relaxedly - 'GOOD. Luck. on. that. etc.'

(the timpani show approval)

and then our Reader opens this great Book to read:


----------



## sharik

Bwv 1080 said:


> No one sees a dance and asks 'what does that mean'


everyone does, take for instance Swan Lake, if they ask 'why dance so?'

the answer is 'for swans representation':


----------



## Boychev

Bwv 1080 said:


> Its just art, what do other works of art 'mean'? No one sees a dance and asks 'what does that mean', what does a still life painting mean?


It provides insight on aspects of experience by providing a direct representation of those aspects - basically philosophy in a form aimed at the uneducated like me. I already have concepts to think about shapes, colours, light, etc, etc though. What are the concepts necessary to process music and how do I acquire them?


----------



## Bwv 1080

sharik said:


> it does, a lot really, and is all about meaning, in fact.
> 
> Richard Strauss, for example, as he takes on the book Thus Spoke Zarathustra, firstly does a presentation of this literary piece to its future readers in the poem suite Overture that represents not what is in the book (which follows next) thus far but the book itself, so this is a world premiere of a book portrayed by the means of music; the score comprises two relating themes, where 1st one represents the Author proffering his book to the universe of Readers, while 2nd represents the yet reluctant Reader:


Overblown German romanticism trying to literally interpret a crappy book not withstanding

what does a Bach fugue mean?

Certainly within a (sub)culture people can attach connotations to certain items. Its kind of cool to know that the D-Eb-C-B is Shosty's initials, Hindustani ragas have connotations with the time of day that completely escape me, etc. But the OP seemed to be struggling with a much more basic issue of being unable to listen to absolute music, so thought the best remedy would be to just listen and stop thinking about it so much


----------



## Boychev

Bwv 1080 said:


> Overblown German romanticism trying to literally interpret a crappy book not withstanding
> 
> what does a Bach fugue mean?
> 
> Certainly within a (sub)culture people can attach connotations to certain items. Its kind of cool to know that the D-Eb-C-B is Shosty's initials, Hindustani ragas have connotations with the time of day that completely escape me, etc. But the OP seemed to be struggling with a much more basic issue of being unable to listen to absolute music, so thought the best remedy would be to just listen and stop thinking about it so much


How can you understand it if you don't think about it? It's a series of notes organized in a way. If you don't recognize the notes and the relations between them, how do you listen to it? How do you read a book without knowing the language?


----------



## Bwv 1080

Boychev said:


> How can you understand it if you don't think about it? It's a series of notes organized in a way. If you don't recognize the notes and the relations between them, how do you listen to it? How do you read a book without knowing the language?


Can you hear the relations (without trying to label them)in the two pieces here?






Great thing about music is that its suggestive, but ultimately a blank canvas on which you can put your own meaning on to if you like


----------



## Boychev

I don't know what I'm hearing - only the form, arpeggiated chords, counterpoint, etc, etc, but nothing when it comes to content. I just hear music, like listening to a language without understanding it. How do you learn to interpret the music and derive something more than just emotions from it?


----------



## Bwv 1080

Boychev said:


> I don't know what I'm hearing - only the form, arpeggiated chords, counterpoint, etc, etc, but nothing when it comes to content. I just hear music, like listening to a language without understanding it. How do you learn to interpret the music and derive something more than just emotions from it?


There is not anything more than that, what do you expect there to be?


----------



## sharik

Boychev said:


> I don't know what I'm hearing - only the form, arpeggiated chords, counterpoint, etc, etc, but nothing when it comes to content.


chords may represent gladness or sadness, be they major or minor and (when arpeggiated) they can show the course the mood unfolds... counterpoint, as opposed to melody unique line, which stands for _unity of views_ in one person, denotes _variety of beliefs_ in many... a higher register would mean _close to heavens_ and further _into space_, while lower note's - _standing on earth_ or _going deeper underground_.


----------



## EdwardBast

Boychev said:


> I often think that but then if it doesn't mean anything, what's the point of creating it and listening to it at all? And classical music of all things is the result of quite an elaborate thought process, right - all those years studying theory and training one's ear in order to produce it...? Surely all those people who literally devoted their entire lives to composing it can't have thought it doesn't mean anything, so there must be some kind of meaning invested in it. I'm just bad at decoding it like I'm bad at decoding French.


Have you seen the mosaics and arabesques inside the Alhambra palace in Granada Spain? They have no particular meaning but one can stare at them for hours. Some music is like that -- graceful abstract form that is rewarding to contemplate.

The "content" of much Romantic music is expressive. Many short piano pieces of that era make sense because they have the same form as common sequences of human emotional life. The most common pattern for such short pieces is ternary, that is ABA. Imagine you are in a tranquil, happy mood, call it A, and then some disturbing thought or event intervenes and you become agitated, a completely different emotional state (call it B). After the agitation runs it course the original tranquil state returns and one is happy again (A). As an example listen to the Db major prelude of Chopin. It doesn't mean anything specific, but it has resonance with human emotional life because so many chapters in our lives are like that. The same ABA pattern can have the opposite resonance as well. One can begin in a state of enormous stress (A) but find brief solace in prayer or in the memory of happier times (B). But the relief is fleeting and one ends in frenzied exhaustion (A). In responding to this music one enjoys the musical patterns for their own sake, but with the added layer of realizing: "Yes, life is like that: there are storms and troubles but eventually peace returns.

Hope this helps.


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

Boychev said:


> - like learning to listen to and read in a foreign language, basically.


Very rarely, certain people (for genetic or other reasons) end up with alternate ways of perceiving sound, which makes them (among other things?) unable to hear music the way others do - say, they can't hear the difference between "consonance and dissonance", or maybe they don't even have the octave perception etc.

However for regular people, the ones who listen and respond to anything from folk/traditional to film scores that are aimed at the broad masses, the so called "classical music" should be just as accessible and intuitive - since it's mostly the same style (like the movie scores), or derived from the same folk influences as most "pop" genres etc.

So if you don't find any of those other categories to be some kind of cryptic foreign language, if you have a standard hearing perception with all the octaves and intervals etc., then this shouldn't be "like a foreign language" either?

I'm quite confused by this post overall; however alternate perceptions and qualia are generally a fascinating topic imo.


----------



## Boychev

EdwardBast said:


> Have you seen the mosaics and arabesques inside the Alhambra palace in Granada Spain? They have no particular meaning but one can stare at them for hours. Some music is like that -- graceful abstract form that is rewarding to contemplate.
> 
> The "content" of much Romantic music is expressive. Many short piano pieces of that era make sense because they have the same form as common sequences of human emotional life. The most common pattern for such short pieces is ternary, that is ABA. Imagine you are in a tranquil, happy mood, call it A, and then some disturbing thought or event intervenes and you become agitated, a completely different emotional state (call it B). After the agitation runs it course the original tranquil state returns and one is happy again (A). As an example listen to the Db major prelude of Chopin. It doesn't mean anything specific, but it has resonance with human emotional life because so many chapters in our lives are like that. The same ABA pattern can have the opposite resonance as well. One can begin in a state of enormous stress (A) but find brief solace in prayer or in the memory of happier times (B). But the relief is fleeting and one ends in frenzied exhaustion (A). In responding to this music one enjoys the musical patterns for their own sake, but with the added layer of realizing: "Yes, life is like that: there are storms and troubles but eventually peace returns.
> 
> Hope this helps.


This sounds like it's just entertainment... But we're talking about music that requires a lifetime of training and practice to compose, serious art. It can't just boil down to feelings. I don't care about feeling anything, I want to understand it _rationally_. I want to be able to think my way through it while disregarding how I feel about it as much as possible.

Otherwise what separates classical music from all other forms of music? Why would anyone think it's superior if it's just the same pointless fulfilment of emotions as everything else?


----------



## Boychev

YusufeVirdayyLmao said:


> Very rarely, certain people (for genetic or other reasons) end up with alternate ways of perceiving sound, which makes them (among other things?) unable to hear music the way others do - say, they can't hear the difference between "consonance and dissonance", or maybe they don't even have the octave perception etc.
> 
> However for regular people, the ones who listen and respond to anything from folk/traditional to film scores that are aimed at the broad masses, the so called "classical music" should be just as accessible and intuitive - since it's mostly the same style (like the movie scores), or derived from the same folk influences as most "pop" genres etc.
> 
> So if you don't find any of those other categories to be some kind of cryptic foreign language, if you have a standard hearing perception with all the octaves and intervals etc., then this shouldn't be "like a foreign language" either?
> 
> I'm quite confused by this post overall; however alternate perceptions and qualia are generally a fascinating topic imo.


Folk and pop aren't systematic, they're just for dancing and having fun, expressing emotions, etc. You get them intuitively because there's nothing to get. I don't even know _what_ I'm supposed to be getting from classical music let alone being able to get it intuitively and without actually studying it. I don't care about having fun, I want to learn about the arts because supposedly there is something to be learned from them, but while it's relatively clear how certain paintings or novels embody philosophical ideas and arguments, I don't get how music gets at those.


----------



## Forster

Boychev said:


> I often think that but then if it doesn't mean anything, what's the point of creating it and listening to it at all? And classical music of all things is the result of quite an elaborate thought process, right - all those years studying theory and training one's ear in order to produce it...? Surely all those people who literally devoted their entire lives to composing it can't have thought it doesn't mean anything, so there must be some kind of meaning invested in it. I'm just bad at decoding it like I'm bad at decoding French.


The point *is* the music.


----------



## Boychev

Forster said:


> The point *is* the music.


I don't understand what that means. I understand that the music by itself is _pleasurable_ but what does that have to do with its meaning?


----------



## Forster

Boychev said:


> I don't understand what that means. I understand that the music by itself is _pleasurable_ but what does that have to do with its meaning?


The music is the meaning. Music doesn't have a meaning conveyed by the notes, unlike language which conveys meaning in its assemblage of letters, words and sentences.


----------



## Boychev

Okay, so what do you get out of it after all? If it's just entertainment it seems crazy to think that so much effort should be devoted to it. It can't just boil down to that.


----------



## Forster

Boychev said:


> Okay, so what do you get out of it after all? If it's just entertainment it seems crazy to think that so much effort should be devoted to it. It can't just boil down to that.


"Entertainment" can be a convenient broad term to cover the range of things one gets out of listening to music. It is not to be disparaged.

I find music offers fun, intellectual stimulation, urge to move and dance, join in - in harmony or unison - emotional intensity and release...etc.

And then, because I don't listen to music in a void, it offers the revisiting of and reflection on the various "meanings" I bring to it. For example, Sibelius Symphony No. 6 is the one I associate with the death of my dog Jenny, my visit to relatives in Dorset (UK), and my niece's wedding.

That's what I get out of music.


----------



## EdwardBast

Boychev said:


> This sounds like it's just entertainment... But we're talking about music that requires a lifetime of training and practice to compose, serious art. *It can't just boil down to feelings.* I don't care about feeling anything, *I want to understand it rationally. I want to be able to think my way through it while disregarding how I feel about it as much as possible.*
> 
> *Otherwise what separates classical music from all other forms of music? *Why would anyone think it's superior if it's just the same pointless fulfilment of emotions as everything else?


Overall, it just sounds to me like you have some fundamental misunderstanding of what music is about. The very notion of translating music into information is … well, eccentric. Thinking this is an appropriate response to music is missing the point.



Boychev said:


> Okay, so what do you get out of it after all? If it's just entertainment it seems crazy to think that so much effort should be devoted to it. It can't just boil down to that.


You're the one using the word entertainment. For me music is a system of metaphor for reflecting the most profound depths of human life and experience. Listen to the slow movement of Shostakovich's tenth string quartet. That movement well played can shake me to my core. Either you get it or you don't.


----------



## Forster

It can be difficult to compare the experiences of different listeners who may use different language to describe their response. I nevertheless suspect that EdwardBast and I actually have similar reactions, but profundity isn't part of my vocabulary.


----------



## SanAntone

Boychev said:


> This sounds like it's just entertainment... But we're talking about music that requires a lifetime of training and practice to compose, serious art. It can't just boil down to feelings. I don't care about feeling anything, I want to understand it _rationally_. I want to be able to think my way through it while disregarding how I feel about it as much as possible.
> 
> *Otherwise what separates classical music from all other forms of music?* Why would anyone think it's superior if it's just the same pointless fulfilment of emotions as everything else?


Your opinions are full of what I see as false assumptions:

1. That Classical music is superior to other kinds of music
2. That Classical music is the only kind that requires a lifetime of training and practice
3. That "entertainment" is not enough of a payoff from "serious art"
4. And that Classical music is separate in quality from all other forms of music

I reject all of these assumptions.

I think all kinds of music can rise to the level of serious art and the only thing that separates them are stylistic attributes.


----------



## Boychev

EdwardBast said:


> Overall, it just sounds to me like you have some fundamental misunderstanding of what music is about. The very notion of translating music into information is … well, eccentric. Thinking this is an appropriate response to music is missing the point.
> 
> You're the one using the word entertainment. For me music is a system of metaphor for reflecting the most profound depths of human life and experience. Listen to the slow movement of Shostakovich's tenth string quartet. That movement well played can shake me to my core. Either you get it or you don't.


But metaphors function according to rules and you can analyze them and explicitly show how and why they work. You don't need to "feel" metaphors, only understand them. Therefore if music is metaphorical there must be a system of rules explaining how those metaphors work. I don't even get how it could be metaphorical because metaphors rely on having two objects available so that certain features of theirs can be compared; with music all you have available is the music, there is no "this chord progression is like X" unless there are lyrics but we aren't talking about lyrics here. How is the metaphor supposed to work?


----------



## Boychev

SanAntone said:


> Your opinions are full of what I see as false assumptions:
> 
> 1. That Classical music is superior to other kinds of music
> 2. That Classical music is the only kind that requires a lifetime of training and practice
> 3. That "entertainment" is not enough of a payoff from "serious art"
> 4. And that Classical music is separate in quality from all other forms of music
> 
> I reject all of these assumptions.
> 
> I think all kinds of music can rise to the level of serious art and the only thing that separates them are stylistic attributes.


I mean if it's just entertainment, it's a waste of effort and resources to take it seriously and develop it. It would be more utilitarian to engage with something more simple and straightforward because the end result is the same - a few hours spent unwinding. Why would music be necessary at all if that was the case, especially something as elaborate as classical?

Say for example, what would necessitate going from the more straightforward style of CPE Bach to Beethoven and then to the incredibly complex romantic and modernist styles that followed in the 19th and 20th centuries? Clearly different composers want to express different things with their different music, I'm just bad at the language. It shouldn't be different than any other area of knowledge.


----------



## Forster

Boychev said:


> How is the metaphor supposed to work?


It's EdwardBast's metaphor, so I won't explain for him, but it does work, as he explained it.



Boychev said:


> I mean if it's just entertainment, it's a waste of effort


"Just" entertainment? What is "entertainment" that it should be treated so disparagingly?


----------



## Shea82821

Unhelpful as I may sound, I don't believe there's an exact "how-to" method, as to how you translate music into a form of submelodic image. We all perceive these things in different ways - minor or major in variance. And this varies not only by person, but by style or the time they listened to it or just by the work itself.

But that won't refrain me from giving a word of advice. I say don't worry about it. Forget on trying to concentrate, and attempt to speak to the music. Let _it_ speak to you. Whatever comes, comes. And whatever doesn't...well doesn't. And even if nothing does, still don't worry about it. Enjoy the music for what it is, however you think already. Leave the rest alone until you switch it off or something, it isn't worth the effort. Fretting about what the music is "speaking" within the notes, in my mind, only serves to ruin and lessen it. It's okay if it arises some image of anything, but don't stress it - especially when listening to it.


----------



## Boychev

Forster said:


> What is "entertainment" that it should be treated so disparagingly?


Do we need to talk about this...? I really just want to know how the form of music relates to actual content, where that content comes from, how I can work at getting it, etc. - how to get at what's substantial about the music and isn't just personal and down to pure emotion. Say, if the music states "I vi IV6 ii6/5 V7 I" - that means I 1) need to train to hear that while listening to music without having to refer to the score (which, I guess, would be achievable), and 2) need to learn what "I vi IV6 ii6/5 V7 I" actually means, what the music is trying to communicate by it, how I can be sure about what the music is trying to communicate, how I can prove it if my perspective is put under scrutiny, as well as what it would mean for someone to prove that my perspective is invalid.


----------



## SanAntone

Boychev said:


> I mean if it's just entertainment, it's a waste of effort and resources to take it seriously and develop it. It would be more utilitarian to engage with something more simple and straightforward because the end result is the same - a few hours spent unwinding. Why would music be necessary at all if that was the case, especially something as elaborate as classical?
> 
> Say for example, what would necessitate going from the more straightforward style of CPE Bach to Beethoven and then to the incredibly complex romantic and modernist styles that followed in the 19th and 20th centuries? Clearly different composers want to express different things with their different music, I'm just bad at the language. It shouldn't be different than any other area of knowledge.


"Entertainment" makes people happy: Entertainment is from the Old French word entretenir meaning hold together or support. It was associated with hospitality--when you entertained a guest, you were keeping them happy.

I get the feeling you have a Victorian hangup with the idea of something meant to be pure enjoyment. There is no greater priority, IMO, other than bringing people enjoyment, happiness, or joy.

Mozart does it; Bach does it; Wagner does it; and The Beatles and Beach Boys do it.

I don't mean to imply that these names I listed are the only ones, IMO - _all good music_ is entertainment, first. If music does not entertain, then people will stop listening to it and the music of Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, and the rest, would not have survived.


----------



## Forster

Boychev said:


> Do we need to talk about this...?


Well no, not if you don't want to, of course, but you are the one who keeps making an issue of "entertainment".



Boychev said:


> I really just want to know how the form of music relates to actual content, where that content comes from, how I can work at getting it, etc. - how to get at what's substantial about the music and isn't just personal and down to pure emotion.


Music isn't _just _"personal and down to emotion." If you'd read the list of things I posted that I get out of music, you'll have noticed "intellectual stimulation" for example. It's also a shared activity, not just about me and my response.



Boychev said:


> Say, if the music states "I vi IV6 ii6/5 V7 I"


I can't help you there - I've no idea what that means, but I'm not convinced, given the rest of what you've written, that I need to. Obviously I need to be able to read music if I want to understand what instructions the conductor has given the players, but that's nothing more than a set of codes that have no meaning other than what they represent.



Boychev said:


> how I can prove it if my perspective is put under scrutiny, as well as what it would mean for someone to prove that my perspective is invalid.


Even if you were listening to "the storm" in Beethoven's Pastoral Symphony, no one could invalidate your response if you tell us that you heard 3 cats fighting with a food mixer.


----------



## Boychev

I guess there's no point in listening to music after all...


----------



## sharik

Forster said:


> Music doesn't have a meaning conveyed by the notes, unlike language


it does, and it is a language, to convey an info no tongue dares to speak.

take for example 'tritone' which bears the connotation of "the devil nearby" etc.


----------



## sharik

Boychev said:


> if music is metaphorical there must be a system of rules explaining how those metaphors work.


need no system, its on the surface, like in a movie. Brahms 1st symph 1st mvt portrays war and genocide, in that we hear the military timpani which pound a beat for "troops march into attack" and then 'slaughter begins' even though with breaks for 'peace negotiations' but resumes to end up in 'dans macabre' -


----------



## Bwv 1080

sharik said:


> it does, and it is a language, to convey an info no tongue dares to speak.
> 
> take for example 'tritone' which bears the connotation of "the devil nearby" etc.


Which it never did for anyone prior to Black Sabbath


----------



## sharik

Bwv 1080 said:


> Which it never did for anyone prior to Black Sabbath


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tritone#Historical_uses


----------



## Bwv 1080

sharik said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tritone#Historical_uses


The Tritons was never banned and people never tied it with satan - otherwise every dominant 7th chord is somehow demonic? The devil phrase in counterpoint treaties refer to how the dissonance had to be handled carefully.

Medieval and Renaissance sacred music is full of tritones
http://www.medieval.org/emfaq/harmony/tritone.html


----------



## sharik

Bwv 1080 said:


> The Tritons was never banned and people never tied it with satan


'people' were not supposed to see... music as a language is only for the initiated.


----------



## Forster

sharik said:


> 'people' were not supposed to see... music as a language is only for the initiated.


You're initiated I suppose?


----------



## EdwardBast

Boychev said:


> But metaphors function according to rules and you can analyze them and explicitly show how and why they work. You don't need to "feel" metaphors, only understand them. Therefore if music is metaphorical there must be a system of rules explaining how those metaphors work. *I don't even get how it could be metaphorical because metaphors rely on having two objects available so that certain features of theirs can be compared*; with music all you have available is the music, there is no "this chord progression is like X" unless there are lyrics but we aren't talking about lyrics here. How is the metaphor supposed to work?


According to several musical aestheticians, including Anthony Newcomb, music metaphorically exemplifies expressive and other states by parallels to "human gesture, posture, and utterance" (Peter Kivy). The parallels to utterance were explored in great depth by Baroque Era theorists who believed music functioned like rhetoric. Johann David Heinichen and Johannn Matthesson, for example, found parallels between the melodic vocabulary of then contemporary musicians and the figures of speech cataloged in classical rhetorical treatises by Aristides Quintilianus, Cicero, and others. A simple example of how musical metaphor works is the musical sigh, an accented and often dissonant tone falls to a quieter, consonant one by step. It sounds like a sigh and means the same thing as the human gesture, meaning composers wrote them intentionally to be heard in light of the human gesture. How these sort of metaphors contribute to larger structures and their meaning has been explored for the last five decades by the so-called musical narrative theorists. Depending on your level of theoretical knowledge I might be able to recommend some reading in this field.


----------



## Forster

Individual composers and individual compositions may attempt musical imitation, and musical codes (DSCH did it) but that doesn't mean that the listener is required to hear what may have been intended, or that these generalise to mean all music carries some meaning beyond the notes themselves.


----------



## mikeh375

EdwardBast said:


> According to several musical aestheticians, including Anthony Newcomb, music metaphorically exemplifies expressive and other states by parallels to "human gesture, posture, and utterance" (Peter Kivy). The parallels to utterance were explored in great depth by Baroque Era theorists who believed music functioned like rhetoric. Johann David Heinichen and Johannn Matthesson, for example, found parallels between the melodic vocabulary of then contemporary musicians and the figures of speech cataloged in classical rhetorical treatises by Aristides Quintilianus, Cicero, and others. A simple example of how musical metaphor works is the musical sigh, an accented and often dissonant tone falls to a quieter, consonant one by step. It sounds like a sigh and means the same thing as the human gesture, meaning composers wrote them intentionally to be heard in light of the human gesture. How these sort of metaphors contribute to larger structures and their meaning has been explored for the last five decades by the so-called musical narrative theorists. Depending on your level of theoretical knowledge I might be able to recommend some reading in this field.


Edward, can you also recommend any writing on this for those of us who have a lot of theoretical knowledge? Thnx.


----------



## Boychev

Forster said:


> Individual composers and individual compositions may attempt musical imitation, and musical codes (DSCH did it) but that doesn't mean that the listener is required to hear what may have been intended, or that these generalise to mean all music carries some meaning beyond the notes themselves.


Some resources aimed at casual listeners who have a limited grasp of theory (by which I mean scales, chord functions, figured bass, basic counterpoint, and the rudimentaries of form, etc) would be appreciated, yes.

I understand that music is gestural. What I don't understand is what it's gesturing _at_. If it's aimed purely at human emotional life, then it would be a great disappointment.


----------



## Woodduck

Boychev said:


> So right now I can tell different musical thoughts apart but I don't know what the thoughts themselves mean. *There isn't something like a "dictionary" for what common chord progressions mean so how do I pick that up?* I understand roughly how the music is structured, but how do I get to the meaning of the structure?


There can be no dictionary of meanings for chord progressions because chord progressions don't have fixed meanings. The meaning of any musical element depends on both its context in the music and how it's perceived by the listener.



> I don't know what I'm hearing - only the form, arpeggiated chords, counterpoint, etc, etc, but nothing when it comes to content. I just hear music, *like listening to a language without understanding it.* How do you learn to interpret the music and derive something more than just emotions from it?


Listening to music is not like listening to a foreign language. The elements of language - words and grammatical structures - have specific meanings which anyone can learn and all can agree on. The elements of music don't have such specific meanings, though there may be limits on what sorts of things they can suggest or evoke.



> It can't just boil down to feelings. I don't care about feeling anything, I want to understand it rationally. *I want to be able to think my way through it while disregarding how I feel about it as much as possible.*


There are ways of thinking about music - through music theory or music history, for example - but if you want it to communicate specific meanings the way language does you won't get your wish. People don't compose music to impart information, but to give pleasure and/or to represent certain kinds of feeling states (which representation is also to give pleasure). The attempt to disregard how one feels about music may be the oddest musical objective I've ever heard of.



> Otherwise *what separates classical music from all other forms of music?* Why would anyone think it's superior if it's just the same pointless fulfilment of emotions as everything else?


Fundamentally, nothing separates classical music from all other forms of music.



> Surely all those people who literally devoted their entire lives to composing it can't have thought it doesn't mean anything, so *there must be some kind of meaning invested in it.* I'm just bad at decoding it like I'm bad at decoding French.


There's plenty of meaning in music. It's just that musical meaning isn't precisely delimited and therefore can't be translated precisely into words or, in general, conveyed by means of them. This isn't so strange. Both emotional knowledge - how to read and interact with other people and ourselves - and physical knowledge - how to to tie our shoes or ride a bicycle - are acquired and perfected primarily nonverbally. If you had to put into words everything you know and do you'd be paralyzed, like the centipede who tried to decide where to put his feet. Music has more feet than a centipede.



> I don't care about having fun, I want to learn about the arts because supposedly there is something to be learned from them, but while *it's relatively clear how certain paintings or novels embody philosophical ideas and arguments, I don't get how music gets at those.*


Music doesn't embody philosophical ideas and arguments. It may express feelings associated with ideas, and do so strongly enough to evoke those ideas in listeners, but there is no certainty of that happening and no need of it.



> Okay, so what do you get out of it after all? If it's *just entertainment* it seems crazy to think that so much effort should be devoted to it. It can't just boil down to that.


It doesn't just boil down to entertainment, if you define that narrowly as something trivial. The feelings music can convey must entertain - i.e. keep us engaged, not bore us - but those feelings can be quite intense, serious or profound. "Entertainment" isn't something to disparage.



> But metaphors function according to rules and you can analyze them and explicitly show how and why they work. You don't need to "feel" metaphors, only understand them. Therefore *if music is metaphorical there must be a system of rules explaining how those metaphors work. I don't even get how it could be metaphorical because metaphors rely on having two objects available so that certain features of theirs can be compared*; with music all you have available is the music, there is no "this chord progression is like X" unless there are lyrics but we aren't talking about lyrics here. How is the metaphor supposed to work?


Music isn't metaphorical in the strict literary sense, but it contains very strong mimetic elements that represent and evoke meaningful patterns of human (and nonhuman) perception, thought, vocalization, and movement. That's largely how it manages to evoke feeling in people, and how it suggests the meanings it does.

Interesting that here you admit realizing that 'there is no "this chord progression is like X"', yet you're apparently asking music to give you exactly that kind of specificity.



> Say for example, what would necessitate going from the more straightforward style of CPE Bach to Beethoven and then to the incredibly complex romantic and modernist styles that followed in the 19th and 20th centuries? *Clearly different composers want to express different things* with their different music, I'm just bad at the language. *It shouldn't be different than any other area of knowledge.*


It's true that different musical styles and composer express different things. That doesn't mean that what they express need be either fixed in meaning or definable in words. Music is not an "area of knowledge."



> I really just want to know how the form of music relates to actual content, where that content comes from, how I can work at getting it, etc. - how to get at what's substantial about the music and isn't just personal and down to pure emotion. Say, if the music states "I vi IV6 ii6/5 V7 I" - that means I 1) need to train to hear that while listening to music without having to refer to the score (which, I guess, would be achievable), and 2) *need to learn what "I vi IV6 ii6/5 V7 I" actually means,* what the music is trying to communicate by it, how I can be sure about what the music is trying to communicate, *how I can prove it* if my perspective is put under scrutiny, as well as what it would mean for someone to prove that my perspective is invalid.


I vi IV6 ii6/5 V7 I doesn't necessarily mean anything, yet may mean a lot of things. You can learn all the music theory you want, but theory only describes the form of music, not what it means. To get at that you simply listen, observe your own feelings and (sometimes) thoughts, and, if you wish, supplement your listening by learning what other people have felt and thought about the music, its composer, its period, its style, its structure, etc. At every point in the process your "perspective" will be valid for you and not subject to proof by you or disproof by others. You are not a slave to any idea about what you hear and what it means.



> I guess there's no point in listening to music after all...


Apparently you need the security of definitions and propositions. That leaves out an awful lot of life.


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

Ok lol, gonna reply to the first few posts after mine and then read the rest of the thread lol... cause why not:



Boychev said:


> This sounds like it's just entertainment... But we're talking about music that requires a lifetime of training and practice to compose, serious art.


Being complex or technically difficult (which is NOT what all of "classical" music is) doesn't preclude it from existing primarily for entertainment; or cultural expression; the creation of religious feelings, pro-military or anti-establishment feelings etc.; even the act of showing off your complex composition skills can be seen as a form of "recreation" and often is exactly just that.



> It can't just boil down to feelings. I don't care about feeling anything, I want to understand it _rationally_. I want to be able to think my way through it while disregarding how I feel about it as much as possible.


Music is primarily based on how octaves and intervals etc. sound to our brains and the effects they create;

if you're looking for some way of arranging sounds on "purely rational basis", like their mathematical relations or sth, idk you should be looking for certain subtypes of experimental 20th century music probably; "fractal music", whatever Xenakis did with his "math", or idk I haven't much looked into that aspect as of now;

common practice like baroque, romanticism, even the "rationalist" classicism, and most of 20th century experimentation, are all built around the way the sound sounds, and not some "pure rationality"? Where did you get that notion.



> Otherwise what separates classical music from all other forms of music?


Nothing really, it's not a hard category and is, as far as I know, primarily defined as "the stuff that was done by the aristocracy / church / bourgeoisie and the crafty trained musicians working in those areas, who wrote their music down, wrote plenty of commentary and analysis and history, making it easier to precisely recreate in the present";

and in the 20th century, where everything's recorded / written down / transcribed, everything's taught in conservatories/colleges, etc., I'm not even sure it makes much sense as a category anymore.



> Why would anyone think it's superior if it's just the same pointless fulfilment of emotions as everything else?


The only potentially valid reasons for thinking that would be something about technique and complex skills, although I'm quite certain that such a monopoly doesn't exist today;

not some kind of exclusive focus on "being above pointless emotions" or "purely rational" or idk - maybe some small subset of it is done with that attitude, but not the broad category in general.

Baroque-ists liked to drink, celebrate and pray, Romantics were obsessed about love&death&transcendence, questioning state power and injustice etc., I'm not sure where in any of those primary motivations for their music creation you see any sort of tendency to be "above emotions" or "purely rationalist"?

Maybe the music created by some Vulcan Mithras Cult is like that lol


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

Boychev said:


> Folk and pop aren't systematic, they're just for dancing and having fun, expressing emotions, etc. You get them intuitively because there's nothing to get. I don't even know _what_ I'm supposed to be getting from classical music let alone being able to get it intuitively and without actually studying it. I don't care about having fun, I want to learn about the arts because supposedly there is something to be learned from them, but while it's relatively clear how certain paintings or novels embody philosophical ideas and arguments, I don't get how music gets at those.


I'm not aware of a single piece of "classical music" that is somehow supposed to exist beyond intuitive perception and be inaccessible to commoners;

the ability to spot all its patterns and fast notes and multiple voices etc. etc., sure, but then there is folk music that's also gonna make it hard for just anyone to keep up with all its details and rhythms etc.

Maybe what you're looking for does exist in some particularly "elitist" subset branch of it, but it doesn't apply to the broad category.


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

Boychev said:


> I mean if it's just entertainment, it's a waste of effort and resources to take it seriously and develop it. It would be more utilitarian to engage with something more simple and straightforward because the end result is the same - a few hours spent unwinding. Why would music be necessary at all if that was the case, especially something as elaborate as classical?
> 
> Say for example, what would necessitate going from the more straightforward style of CPE Bach to Beethoven and then to the incredibly complex romantic and modernist styles that followed in the 19th and 20th centuries? Clearly different composers want to express different things with their different music, I'm just bad at the language. It shouldn't be different than any other area of knowledge.


The end result is NOT the same because complex/virtuosos music has a particular way of overwhelming the senses that can't be achieved by "simple" music (which a lot of classical is btw);
also people enjoy showing off, competing, and looking up to others - so that covers it as well lol.

The primary, most important differences introduced by the romantics and those who followed, were harmonies & other elements that were discovered to produce more varied emotions, states of rush, etc.; on everyone, not just those spending 50 years on ear training lol;

and if you can perceive and derive entertainment from "Cotton Eye Joe" in the same ways most other people can, there shouldn't be anything blocking you from perceiving those things either (which are an equivalent of color vision, rather than some kind of "language").

I'm not aware of such a thing existing where sb has no trouble getting a major-key song, but a romantic juicy 79 chord confuses them lol; maybe some kind of "partial color blindness" equivalent idk?


----------



## YusufeVirdayyLmao

Boychev said:


> Some resources aimed at casual listeners who have a limited grasp of theory (by which I mean scales, chord functions, figured bass, basic counterpoint, and the rudimentaries of form, etc) would be appreciated, yes.
> 
> I understand that music is gestural. What I don't understand is what it's gesturing _at_. If it's aimed purely at human emotional life, then it would be a great disappointment.


Well lots of things in life turn out to be disappointments, but none of them anywhere as much as my son; however he did eventually hang himself in the bathroom of a gas station - music is to be around, unfortunately.

Anyway, I wanted to stay out of pointless (and in this case definitely pseudo-)"philosophical" threads like this, sry


----------



## hammeredklavier

sharik said:


> take for example 'tritone' which bears the connotation of "the devil nearby" etc.


----------



## Forster

Boychev said:


> Some resources aimed at casual listeners who have a limited grasp of theory (by which I mean scales, chord functions, figured bass, basic counterpoint, and the rudimentaries of form, etc) would be appreciated, yes.
> 
> I understand that music is gestural. What I don't understand is what it's gesturing _at_. If it's aimed purely at human emotional life, then it would be a great disappointment.


Boychev posted this in reply to me - I think it should have been a reply to EdwardBast - I can't offer what he can.


----------



## Boychev

Woodduck said:


> There can be no dictionary of meanings for chord progressions because chord progressions don't have fixed meanings. The meaning of any musical element depends on both its context in the music and how it's perceived by the listener.
> 
> Listening to music is not like listening to a foreign language. The elements of language - words and grammatical structures - have specific meanings which anyone can learn and all can agree on. The elements of music don't have such specific meanings, though there may be limits on what sorts of things they can suggest or evoke.
> 
> There are ways of thinking about music - through music theory or music history, for example - but if you want it to communicate specific meanings the way language does you won't get your wish. People don't compose music to impart information, but to give pleasure and/or to represent certain kinds of feeling states (which representation is also to give pleasure). The attempt to disregard how one feels about music may be the oddest musical objective I've ever heard of.
> 
> Fundamentally, nothing separates classical music from all other forms of music.
> 
> There's plenty of meaning in music. It's just that musical meaning isn't precisely delimited and therefore can't be translated precisely into words or, in general, conveyed by means of them. This isn't so strange. Both emotional knowledge - how to read and interact with other people and ourselves - and physical knowledge - how to to tie our shoes or ride a bicycle - are acquired and perfected primarily nonverbally. If you had to put into words everything you know and do you'd be paralyzed, like the centipede who tried to decide where to put his feet. Music has more feet than a centipede.
> 
> Music doesn't embody philosophical ideas and arguments. It may express feelings associated with ideas, and do so strongly enough to evoke those ideas in listeners, but there is no certainty of that happening and no need of it.
> 
> It doesn't just boil down to entertainment, if you define that narrowly as something trivial. The feelings music can convey must entertain - i.e. keep us engaged, not bore us - but those feelings can be quite intense, serious or profound. "Entertainment" isn't something to disparage.
> 
> Music isn't metaphorical in the strict literary sense, but it contains very strong mimetic elements that represent and evoke meaningful patterns of human (and nonhuman) perception, thought, vocalization, and movement. That's largely how it manages to evoke feeling in people, and how it suggests the meanings it does.
> 
> Interesting that here you admit realizing that 'there is no "this chord progression is like X"', yet you're apparently asking music to give you exactly that kind of specificity.
> 
> It's true that different musical styles and composer express different things. That doesn't mean that what they express need be either fixed in meaning or definable in words. Music is not an "area of knowledge."
> 
> I vi IV6 ii6/5 V7 I doesn't necessarily mean anything, yet may mean a lot of things. You can learn all the music theory you want, but theory only describes the form of music, not what it means. To get at that you simply listen, observe your own feelings and (sometimes) thoughts, and, if you wish, supplement your listening by learning what other people have felt and thought about the music, its composer, its period, its style, its structure, etc. At every point in the process your "perspective" will be valid for you and not subject to proof by you or disproof by others. You are not a slave to any idea about what you hear and what it means.
> 
> Apparently you need the security of definitions and propositions. That leaves out an awful lot of life.


But if it's all about introspection and coming to terms with personal emotions what's the point of listening to music at all when the same result could be achieved by meditation, or talking to someone, or just walking alone in the park or something? Why music _necessarily_? What makes it different? What value does it add that nothing else possibly could?

It can't just be about feelings, that makes no sense at all.


----------



## Boychev

YusufeVirdayyLmao said:


> The end result is NOT the same because complex/virtuosos music has a particular way of overwhelming the senses that can't be achieved by "simple" music (which a lot of classical is btw);
> also people enjoy showing off, competing, and looking up to others - so that covers it as well lol.
> 
> The primary, most important differences introduced by the romantics and those who followed, were harmonies & other elements that were discovered to produce more varied emotions, states of rush, etc.; on everyone, not just those spending 50 years on ear training lol;
> 
> and if you can perceive and derive entertainment from "Cotton Eye Joe" in the same ways most other people can, there shouldn't be anything blocking you from perceiving those things either (which are an equivalent of color vision, rather than some kind of "language").
> 
> I'm not aware of such a thing existing where sb has no trouble getting a major-key song, but a romantic juicy 79 chord confuses them lol; maybe some kind of "partial color blindness" equivalent idk?


Well... there has to be a reason why someone might play a C major chord instead of that juicy extended chord. They make a conscious choice between the two when composing or improvising. Clearly the two communicate different ideas. What are those ideas and how do you learn to recognize them?


----------



## Luchesi

Boychev said:


> But if it's all about introspection and coming to terms with personal emotions what's the point of listening to music at all when the same result could be achieved by meditation, or talking to someone, or just walking alone in the park or something? Why music _necessarily_? What makes it different? What value does it add that nothing else possibly could?
> 
> It can't just be about feelings, that makes no sense at all.


For me, much of what's to be the 'point' of listening is the appreciation of the human acheivement. Try composing a prelude. Or 20 of them.

But I don't hear this opinion in here.


----------



## Forster

Boychev said:


> It can't just be about feelings, that makes no sense at all.


It _could _just be about feelings - so, why would that make no sense?

Anyway, no-one here has said it's "just" about feelings. Whether you accept the shorter answers you've had or the longer, they all add up to much the same.


----------



## Forster

Luchesi said:


> For me, much of what's to be the 'point' of listening is the appreciation of the human acheivement. Try composing a prelude. Or 20 of them.
> 
> But I don't hear this opinion in here.


That's because you're not listening correctly. It's a known problem round these parts. 

The OP didn't ask why do we listen, but what is the meaning we are listening for. That takes answers in a slightly different direction. Having said that, you should realise that the opinion you want to hear is implied in the answers given.


----------



## Luchesi

Forster said:


> That's because you're not listening correctly. It's a known problem round these parts.
> 
> The OP didn't ask why do we listen, but what is the meaning we are listening for. That takes answers in a slightly different direction. Having said that, you should realise that* the opinion you want to hear is implied in the answers given*.


"....the opinion you want to hear is implied in the answers given. "

That would be helpful to me. Please give me examples or more of a hint of what you're talking about..

Life is short so why do we spend so much of our time in this pointless pursuit?

Here I'm talking about how much we (performers) had to learn and practice and then work (explore) to keep up our 'chops'. I played tennis for a while and then as I got older I definitely wasn't getting better so it was quite disappointing. Performing music is very different because you get better and better as you age (if you put in the effort continuously).

What other pursuit is like that? As far as I can tell only the arts will give you more and more rewards as you get up in years.


----------



## Boychev

Forster said:


> It _could _just be about feelings - so, why would that make no sense?


Because that makes no sense. If the same result of dealing with emotions can be achieved in a more simple and straightforward way, then music is unnecessary. But music _was_ deemed necessary by all those people who devoted their entire lives and efforts to making music, so it's highly unlikely that they just wasted their time for nothing. There must be something more to music than that that those people were conscious of and that I cannot get at because I am not at the necessary level of understanding and need to work to get there.

It's like literally everything else - I'm trying not to assume that I already know what's going on before I learn about what actually is going on. To just say "I know what this musical piece is about _because that's how I feel it_" is awful and wouldn't be acceptable in any other area of life. Music theory introductions that I've come across tend to provide the technical terms for _describing_ the music, but not for learning how to listen to music and understand it.

There is a system of rules that applies to dealing with absolutely everything. Music can't possibly be an exception.



> Anyway, no-one here has said it's "just" about feelings. Whether you accept the shorter answers you've had or the longer, they all add up to much the same.


Okay, what is it about then? How do I justify to myself the time spent listening to it? What makes it necessary?


----------



## SanAntone

Boychev said:


> Okay, what is it about then? How do I justify to myself the time spent listening to it? What makes it necessary?


I have no idea where this kind of idea comes from. It is completely foreign from my own response to music. But all I do is listen to it, and I feel no need to justify that activity to myself or anyone.


----------



## Luchesi

Boychev said:


> Because that makes no sense. If the same result of dealing with emotions can be achieved in a more simple and straightforward way, then music is unnecessary. But music _was_ deemed necessary by all those people who devoted their entire lives and efforts to making music, so it's highly unlikely that they just wasted their time for nothing. There must be something more to music than that that those people were conscious of and that I cannot get at because I am not at the necessary level of understanding and need to work to get there.
> 
> It's like literally everything else - I'm trying not to assume that I already know what's going on before I learn about what actually is going on. To just say "I know what this musical piece is about _because that's how I feel it_" is awful and wouldn't be acceptable in any other area of life. Music theory introductions that I've come across tend to provide the technical terms for _describing_ the music, but not for learning how to listen to music and understand it.
> 
> There is a system of rules that applies to dealing with absolutely everything. Music can't possibly be an exception.
> 
> Okay, what is it about then? How do I justify to myself the time spent listening to it? What makes it necessary?


I wish I could find that paper online wherein these young music theorists proposed that the dominants/subdominants in music became the engine for ever-increasing primitive interest in musical sounds and their physics relationships.

Your posts cry out for the need of some hands-on help for you. Do you have a musician who can play for you?


----------



## Forster

@Luchesi

You said, "the 'point' of listening is the appreciation of the human acheivement. [...] But I don't hear this opinion in here."

To which I said:

"....the opinion you want to hear is implied in the answers given. "

You said, "That would be helpful to me. Please give me examples or more of a hint of what you're talking about."

Take EdwardBast's post #14 where he says, "As an example listen to the Db major prelude of Chopin. It doesn't mean anything specific, but it has resonance with human emotional life because so many chapters in our lives are like that."

This _implies _- to me - that Chopin's Db major prelude is an example of human achievement in the musical field. It's worth listening to because it reflects "the meaning of life" (my paraphrase). Later, Edward says (#23)

"Listen to the slow movement of Shostakovich's tenth string quartet. That movement well played can shake me to my core"

Is this what you meant?

@Boychev

I asked you, "why would that make no sense?"

To which you replied:



Boychev said:


> Because that makes no sense.


Not sure I can go any further in the face of such circularity. But let's see. You also said, "*It's like literally everything else *- I'm trying not to assume that I already know what's going on before I learn about what actually is going on. To just say "I know what this musical piece is about _because that's how I feel it_" is awful and wouldn't be acceptable *in any other area of life. *Music theory introductions that I've come across tend to provide the technical terms for _describing_ the music, but not for learning how to listen to music and understand it.

*There is a system of rules that applies to dealing with absolutely everything*."

Is there? Perhaps you could point to an example from another area of life to illustrate.

Until then, all I can say is that "life" doesn't have any rules. The workplace does and football does. Driving on the roads in a car has rules. But none of these rules add up to some other meaning. There's nothing to "understand". As for human relationships, or our pondering of weighty matters like why we're here, people have ideas, and some even pretend they know the rules (religious, political) but there are none to which we are all bound.

People have created music and listen to it because it gives them pleasure to do so. That pleasure may come in different forms (intellectual, emotional, spiritual) and by way of informational accompaniment (such as music written to "tell" a story). And "pleasure" need not imply only some bland happiness, but also deep sadness, and every emotion on the spectrum.

I get pleasure from the intellectual, emotional and spiritual stimulation I get from engaging with something designed to elicit those responses. But any 'meaning' I get from it is mine - not yours, not the composers', not the Authorities Who Tell Us What We Must Like - and mine alone.


----------



## Woodduck

Boychev said:


> But if it's all about introspection and coming to terms with personal emotions what's the point of listening to music at all when the same result could be achieved by meditation, or talking to someone, or just walking alone in the park or something? Why music _necessarily_? What makes it different? What value does it add that nothing else possibly could?
> 
> It can't just be about feelings, that makes no sense at all.


I responded to particular statements of yours. I didn't say that music is "all about introspection and coming to terms with personal emotions." I don't introspect while listening to music; I'm too busy listening and enjoying the play of sounds. It would never occur to me to use music as a tool for "coming to terms" with personal emotions or anything else. Music isn't psychotherapy, although it can be therapeutic. Where do you get such notions? That's a serious question. I'm baffled by your ideas.

Music isn't "just about feelings." I never made that claim either (whatever it's intended to mean; is _anything_ "just about feelings"?). The complex sequences and combinations of melody, harmony and rhythm delight the mind as well as evoke and arouse feelings of immense variety and degrees of intensity. It's partly the fact that music can do these things without apparent - _apparent_ - reference to realities outside its abstract realm of sound that makes it seem magical, perhaps more so than any other aesthetic phenomenon.

There is no sense in which music doesn't "make sense," except the kind of "sense" you seem to think is the only kind there is. But a composer's ability to put sounds together in away that makes perfect sense to the perceiving brain is a miracle to which I, innumerable others, and the human race as a whole, never grow immune. Meditating, talking to people or walking in the park afford different experiences altogether - different from music and from each other - engaging mind and emotions in different ways.

It seems to me that you would like to detach mind from feeling and discover in music some meaning entirely cerebral and translatable into words as defined in Merriam-Webster. If that's what you're looking for, you'd best just stick with words - but watch out for connotations, ambivalent meanings, metaphors and euphony. They might let inexplicable feelings creep in and land you in poetry.


----------



## ollv

many words about nothing. Colleagues, I am not sure we able to discuss information until there is no understandig what it is .. iformation. In modern science (mostly computer science) we able to make AI investigation by data mining this question .. I am sure we can discuss .. If you want


----------



## Boychev

Woodduck said:


> I responded to particular statements of yours. I didn't say that music is "all about introspection and coming to terms with personal emotions." I don't introspect while listening to music; I'm too busy listening and enjoying the play of sounds. It would never occur to me to use music as a tool for "coming to terms" with personal emotions or anything else. Music isn't psychotherapy, although it can be therapeutic. Where do you get such notions? That's a serious question. I'm baffled by your ideas.
> 
> Music isn't "just about feelings." I never made that claim either (whatever it's intended to mean; is _anything_ "just about feelings"?). The complex sequences and combinations of melody, harmony and rhythm delight the mind as well as evoke and arouse feelings of immense variety and degrees of intensity. It's partly the fact that music can do these things without apparent - _apparent_ - reference to realities outside its abstract realm of sound that makes it seem magical, perhaps more so than any other aesthetic phenomenon.
> 
> There is no sense in which music doesn't "make sense," except the kind of "sense" you seem to think is the only kind there is. But a composer's ability to put sounds together in away that makes perfect sense to the perceiving brain is a miracle to which I, innumerable others, and the human race as a whole, never grow immune. Meditating, talking to people or walking in the park afford different experiences altogether - different from music and from each other - engaging mind and emotions in different ways.
> 
> It seems to me that you would like to detach mind from feeling and discover in music some meaning entirely cerebral and translatable into words as defined in Merriam-Webster. If that's what you're looking for, you'd best just stick with words - but watch out for connotations, ambivalent meanings, metaphors and euphony. They might let inexplicable feelings creep in and land you in poetry.


Okay, so music is an empty pleasure then. Thanks for the advice, I guess I should work on breaking the bad habit of listening to music.


----------



## Forster

I guess you could work on not being a wind-up.


----------



## Luchesi

Dr. Bast, "Imagine you are in a tranquil, happy mood, call it A, and then some disturbing thought or event intervenes and you become agitated, a completely different emotional state (call it B)."

I've always wanted to know how specifically a composer does this. And maybe Boychev does too.

..But with my heavy-handed approach I realize I must be careful about the artistic sensitivities involved here. See below.. Because art is always more than merely nature sounds coming out of instruments. Otherwise Boychev is right to be disappointed.

My violinist sent me this in an email, because we had a student playng this prelude.

________It is commonly known as *Raindrop Prelude* but Chopin didn't like this name at all. George Sand wrote of it in her *Histoire de ma vie:*He was even angry that I should interpret this in terms of imitative sounds. He protested with all his might - and he was right to - against the childishness of such aural imitations. His genius was filled with the mysterious sounds of nature, but transformed into sublime equivalents by musical thought, and not through slavish imitation of the actual external sounds._______
​


----------



## EdwardBast

mikeh375 said:


> Edward, can you also recommend any writing on this for those of us who have a lot of theoretical knowledge? Thnx.


I missed this. It's a really large and diffuse field without any good general texts, encompassing everything from biographical studies in search of hidden programs to musical semiotics and studies drawing on every branch of modern literary theory. I'll try to find some kind of bibliographical overview. I think Fred Everett Maus wrote such a summary article for the New Grove(?) That might be a place to start.

Anything I did off the top of my head would either be a long unannotated bibliography or a very biased selection of stuff I liked.


----------



## Forster

Would Anthony Storr's _Music and the Mind_ be useful to a non-expert, musically speaking?


----------



## Boychev

Forster said:


> I guess you could work on not being a wind-up.


I don't know what that means.


----------



## hammeredklavier

"He was the incarnation of the ideal of a great artist who creates because of an unconscious stirring of his genius. He wrote music as the nightingales sing, i.e. without pausing to think, without doing violence to himself. [...] Everyone loved him; he had the most marvellous, cheerful, and equable temperament. There was not a whit of pride in him. Whenever he met Haydn, he would express his love and veneration for him in the most sincere and fervent terms. The purity of his soul was absolute. He knew neither envy nor vengefulness nor spite, and I think that all this can be heard in his music, which has reconciling, clarifying, and caressing properties [...]"


----------



## Boychev

^So... Mozart's music is supposed to be a medium through which we get to know Mozart's character?


----------



## mikeh375

EdwardBast said:


> I missed this. It's a really large and diffuse field without any good general texts, encompassing everything from biographical studies in search of hidden programs to musical semiotics and studies drawing on every branch of modern literary theory. I'll try to find some kind of bibliographical overview. I think Fred Everett Maus wrote such a summary article for the New Grove(?) That might be a place to start.
> 
> Anything I did off the top of my head would either be a long unannotated bibliography or a very biased selection of stuff I liked.


Thanks Edward. Looking up the names you mentioned earlier has led me to being sorely tempted by this for an Xmas stocking filler, good time fella that I am....

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Theory-Musical-Narrative-Meaning-Interpretation/dp/025335238X


----------



## hammeredklavier

Boychev said:


> ^So... Mozart's music is supposed to be a medium through which we get to know Mozart's character?


What do you think?
"Johann Adolph Hasse, a famous German musician who had lived for long periods in Italy, had become the official composer of the court in Vienna in 1764. After examining Wolfgang, he wrote of him, "I took him through various tests on the harpsichord, on which he let me hear things that are prodigious for his age and would be admirable even for a mature man." Hasse adds, "The boy is moreover handsome, vivacious, graceful, and full of good manners; and knowing him, it is difficult to avoid loving him. I am sure that if his development keeps due pace with his year, he will be a prodigy."
<Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart: A Biography / Piero Melograni · 2007 / P. 30>


----------



## Boychev

Shouldn't there be a better way to express that then, one that leaves no room for ambiguity? What someone hears as "handsome, vivacious, graceful", someone else might hear as something entirely different - that tends to be the case in music discussions from my experience... How do you reference the music in order to prove your point of view is correct?


----------



## Boychev

I'm trying to listen to music under the assumption that it's amounts to a study of character now. I guess what I'm wondering now is how you get good at this? Mozart and Beethoven didn't have access to the knowledge provided by modern psychology and neuroscience, so how did they make sure that their music predictably produced precisely the results they intended? Also how can we verify that we're not making the wrong conclusions about the music?

If we're to take the idea of music as character further, you know if you've judged someone's character correctly by observing their actions. That doesn't seem to work with music though. How would someone prove my interpretation of the music wrong and force me to comply with a better, truer interpretation?

I mean... what must my analysis of music correspond to so that it's true? How do I know I'm not going about it wrongly and completely wasting my time?

The music theory instructions I come across online seem to be strictly focused on _describing_ the music but not on how to correctly listen to the music. Where do you learn this?


----------



## Forster

Boychev said:


> how did [Mozart and Beethoven] make sure that their music predictably produced precisely the results they intended?


We don't know that their music did produce precisely the results they intended, except to the extent that they report that they themselves were happy with the outcome (either their own satisfaction or audience satisfaction).

Given that neither of those two highly acclaimed composers are unanimously loved, one must conclude that for some audiences, M and B failed to achieve precisely what they wanted.


----------



## Luchesi

Boychev said:


> I'm trying to listen to music under the assumption that it's amounts to a study of character now. I guess what I'm wondering now is how you get good at this? Mozart and Beethoven didn't have access to the knowledge provided by modern psychology and neuroscience, so how did they make sure that their music predictably produced precisely the results they intended? Also how can we verify that we're not making the wrong conclusions about the music?
> 
> If we're to take the idea of music as character further, you know if you've judged someone's character correctly by observing their actions. That doesn't seem to work with music though. How would someone prove my interpretation of the music wrong and force me to comply with a better, truer interpretation?
> 
> I mean... what must my analysis of music correspond to so that it's true? How do I know I'm not going about it wrongly and completely wasting my time?
> 
> *The music theory instructions I come across online seem to be strictly focused on describing the music but not on how to correctly listen to the music. Where do you learn this?*


Where? Learn to play an instrument effortlessly. Along the way you'll probably answer all these difficult questions for yourself, which is the best way, because our personal views might change over time. They definitely slide around.

added:
In 3 years you'll be playing Mozart sonatas and you'll be on your way to teling others about music. (In a perfect world)


----------



## EdwardBast

mikeh375 said:


> Thanks Edward. Looking up the names you mentioned earlier has led me to being sorely tempted by this for an Xmas stocking filler, good time fella that I am....
> 
> https://www.amazon.co.uk/Theory-Musical-Narrative-Meaning-Interpretation/dp/025335238X


I wouldn't do it. That book is not any kind of overview of the field, despite what the title implies. If you want something using a semiotic approach, which the Almen is, get _Musical Meaning in Beethoven_ by Robert Hatten - from a library first. If you like that, then perhaps consider looking at the Almen.


----------



## Boychev

Luchesi said:


> Where? Learn to play an instrument effortlessly. Along the way you'll probably answer all these difficult questions for yourself, which is the best way, because our personal views might change over time. They definitely slide around.
> 
> added:
> In 3 years you'll be playing Mozart sonatas and you'll be on your way to teling others about music. (In a perfect world)


Okay, so I shouldn't be listening to art music at all unless I'm a musician? That seems strange. Novels aren't just written for other writers, they're made for the wide audience - I mean I don't think you need to be good at writing to appreciate Dostoyevsky's prose for example. What makes music different?

What about all those other people in the concert hall? Surely they can't all be musicians. Are they just pretending to get it? That also seems strange. Why are classical musicians putting up with those people at all then? Why aren't concerts just closed events strictly within the conservatory? I don't get it.


----------



## Boychev

Forster said:


> We don't know that their music did produce precisely the results they intended, except to the extent that they report that they themselves were happy with the outcome (either their own satisfaction or audience satisfaction).
> 
> Given that neither of those two highly acclaimed composers are unanimously loved, one must conclude that for some audiences, M and B failed to achieve precisely what they wanted.


I don't see that as a problem, I mean not everyone gets everything. I don't understand my friend's dissertation at all, but there is a clear step-by-step process of some 5-6 years of training to reach the point where it _would_ make sense, because it's a document written specifically with other specialists in mind after all.

The point is there's a correct interpretation and some precise thing to be derived from the piece that can be logically demonstrated, and if music is supposed to be written for a wider audience and not just professionals, then there's supposed to be a clear-cut process of learning to correctly listen to it and arrive at the point where the music stops being just music and turns into a clear idea in your mind. It's just... nobody I ask is willing to explain it for some reason, apparently.


----------



## Forster

Boychev said:


> I don't understand my friend's dissertation


But it is understandable because it is written in a plain language that converts readily into meaning on reading. As others have said, music is not a language that converts readily to meaning on listening.



Boychev said:


> nobody I ask is willing to explain it for some reason, apparently


That's because there is no "explanation" that will satisfy you while you continue to believe the following:



Boychev said:


> there's a correct interpretation and some precise thing to be derived from the piece


Says who? Where did you get this idea?


----------



## pkoi

EdwardBast said:


> I wouldn't do it. That book is not any kind of overview of the field, despite what the title implies. If you want something using a semiotic approach, which the Almen is, get _Musical Meaning in Beethoven_ by Robert Hatten - from a library first. If you like that, then perhaps consider looking at the Almen.


Hatten's book is excellent and its follow up _Interpreting Musical Gestures, Topics, and Tropes: Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert_ is also an interesting, albeit quite a challenging read (at least for me)

I think one field in current music analysis research closely related to music semiotics is the Topic Theory, first introduced by Leonard Rather in his 1980 Classic Music: Expression, Form & Style. The problem with most of the topic theory analyses is that the field focuses almost solely on the 18th century European music. However, at least for me it helped greatly in how to understand the musical narratives of Mozart, Beethoven, Haydn and their contemporaries.

Some books I've found useful from the topic theorists:

1) Wye Allanbrook - _Rhythmic Gesture in Mozart: 'Le Nozze di Figaro' and 'Don Giovanni' _ - an excellent book, which really opened my eyes in understanding the significance of different meters in 18th century music and how they reflect different social classes, events and so forth.

2) Kofi Agawu: _Playing with signs: a semiotic interpretation of classical music_ - a good basic work that helps to understand the basics behind the theory. Some knowledge in Schenkerian analysis is also useful, as Agawu occasionally justifies some of his interpretations based on that theory, if I remember correctly. Some of the terminology is a bit dated compared to modern literature but nevertheless it's a good read. Agawu also has a book about interpreting the music of the 19th century, but I haven't read it.

3) _The Oxford Handbook of Topic Theory_ - edited by Danuta Mirka. A very good collection of articles, covering all the current essential information in the field.

4) Raymond Monelle: _The musical topic: hunt, military, and pastoral._ - This book has more marked semiotic focus on the origins and meaning of the hunt, military and pastoral music in 18th and 19th century music. A very interesting read, and if one liked Hatten, one will surely enjoy Monelle's writings as well.

Also, as Edward mentioned earlier, theories of the language and 'grammar' of music can be found from the old composition manuals of 18th century writers such as Mattheson, Schubart, Kirnberger, Koch etc. Personally, I've only read Koch's manual _Versuch einer Anleitung zur Composition_ in English and I thought it was quite interesting.


----------



## Boychev

Forster said:


> Says who? Where did you get this idea?


What's the alternative? What would make listening to music necessary? What am I supposed to get out of it?


----------



## Forster

Boychev said:


> What's the alternative? What would make listening to music necessary? What am I supposed to get out of it?


You've not answered my questions, though your own questions imply that no one has advised you that there is a "correct interpretation"...you're just convinced there must be.


----------



## jewelbox81

It's interesting seeing someone try to understand the topic of classical music, in the broadest of terms, from an objective point of view. Trying to garner information from music alone as a sort of exercise of intellectual attainment is really missing the fundamental reason as to how/why many cultures developed music in the first place. (More recent cultures that is, as we can only guess why ancient humans did.) Applying only logic to try to understand art is an activity destined to fail.

What is any artform without human emotions? The world's most acclaimed works of fiction are just lies written on paper. Van Gogh's most famous paintings are just dried oil on canvas in varying pigments arranged in a way that vaguely resembles things that exist(ed). And so then music is just sound frequencies, arranged in patterns and/or pulses. You could of course appreciate the individual skill involved in reproducing written music, and if you were to dig deeper into the theory that we have applied to it, then you can appreciate the intelligence in the arrangements, in the way that certain frequencies interact with others; using different instruments and playing techniques to create interesting tonal variations, note velocities, intensity and rhythms.

There is a physics element to it too when you consider the shape, design and mechanics of the instruments and the auditoriums, and also in the development of temperament and how sound frequencies propagate. There's a biology part to it if you study how humans perceive different frequencies and amplitudes, and some of the theories behind how and why ancient humans developed music and how it has evolved over the millennia of recorded history is a fascinating topic to study. But ultimately, if you are not affected emotionally by the music itself, or you consider the way that it makes you feel to be of little or no importance in life, then most of the 'meaning' in the music will be lost to you.

There are people who would say that we only exist to experience and feel things and all other endeavours are pointless. Others might say that art achieves nothing that has any real meaning in the universe, so what is the point in creating it? Going down that train of thought though, you could argue that our entire existence is so insignificant in the scale and history of the universe that _all_ our endeavours are pointless, might as well just do the things you enjoy doing! So there we have a circle of thoughts that lead to nowhere. Who is to say who is right or wrong about these philosophical concepts?

The feelings that music stirs in people are important enough in our combined culture that some people have dedicated their lives to it, developing a theory with which to write down ideas that can be read and understood and so creating a body of work accessible to us all, and to which anyone can contribute if they feel so inclined. In a similar way, in science, some people have dedicated their lives to discovering how the universe works, developing mathematics in order to describe ideas and ultimately creating an understanding which is accessible to all and open to all to contribute.

Music is a language, but only in the broad term of it being a way to communicate something to somebody else. Not specific thoughts as such - as you can with spoken words - but something wider in scope. That's not to say that words do a better job overall, because describing Beethoven's 7th Symphony with written words to a person who was born deaf would be a shallow substitute. Does that mean that music is a superior form of art to literature? Of course not. (Although subjectively, I personally think that it is!)


----------



## Boychev

Forster said:


> You've not answered my questions, though your own questions imply that no one has advised you that there is a "correct interpretation"...you're just convinced there must be.


If all interpretations are valid, then none of them can be proven with absolute certainty and instead each interpretation depends on each listener's uniquely personal experience. But that means that not even the person having the experience can be convinced of the validity of their own point of view since, after all, everyone else has a different understanding, none of which can be scrutinized by anyone else, and so there isn't even a possibility of comparing my interpretation to anyone else's and judging it according to a general standard because if all interpretations are valid, there couldn't be such a standard.

So that just makes understanding music impossible. But people seem to be getting something from music, so it's silly to think that all of them are deluded, or pretending, or something else. So there has to be some way to approach something like a correct interpretation of what this or that piece of music.

I mean come on, you can't convince me this is all just a really elaborate way to kill time. You're getting something out of it. What is it?


----------



## Forster

Boychev said:


> If all interpretations are valid, then none of them can be proven


Music just needs to be listened to. It's certainly up to the individual to decide what else they might do - such as finding out about the creation of the piece and the composer who wrote it. Certainly, they might try to "interpret" what they're hearing, and many listeners might "interpret" the same or similar things. But nothing requires proving.

The rest of your post on this idea falls on that starting point.



Boychev said:


> But people seem to be getting something from music, so it's silly to think that all of them are deluded, or pretending, or something else.


Oh yes, quite silly. People are indeed getting something from the music.



Boychev said:


> I mean come on, you can't convince me this is all just a really elaborate way to kill time.


I'm not trying to convince you of that, so relax. Unless, or course, one subscribe's to the theory that we're all just killing time until we shuffle our our mortal coil.



Boychev said:


> You're getting something out of it. What is it?


This I already answered in #22. Others have said what they get out of it, but you've not said what you get out of it....

...apart from deep dissatisfaction.


----------



## Boychev

Forster said:


> This I already answered in #22. Others have said what they get out of it, but you've not said what you get out of it....
> 
> ...apart from deep dissatisfaction.


Nothing. I have no conceptual understanding of it, therefore I get nothing. All those things you mentioned:



Forster said:


> I find music offers fun, intellectual stimulation, urge to move and dance, join in - in harmony or unison - emotional intensity and release...etc.


are simply the sensory aspect of music. This is just the way music exists and its mechanics of causing certain sensations, stirring certain emotions, etc. The way music can _mean_ something would be through concepts, and I find it impossible to relate specific pieces of music to specific concepts - only music _in general_ to general concepts like space, time, life, teleology, finitude, etc. But you can't do much with general concepts alone, and it makes no sense that thousands wildly different of pieces of music, from medieval to postmodern, all with their particularities of style, all built on radically different frameworks of music theory, all exist for the sole purpose of expressing some completely abstract idea like space disappearing in time.


----------



## Forster

Boychev said:


> are simply the sensory aspect of music.


My list was not exhaustive but indicative, and included "intellectual stimulation" - not something usually dismissed as a sensory aspect.


----------



## Boychev

Okay, so what does music stimulate in the intellect? What do you learn?


----------



## Boychev

jewelbox81 said:


> It's interesting seeing someone try to understand the topic of classical music, in the broadest of terms, from an objective point of view. Trying to garner information from music alone as a sort of exercise of intellectual attainment is really missing the fundamental reason as to how/why many cultures developed music in the first place. (More recent cultures that is, as we can only guess why ancient humans did.) Applying only logic to try to understand art is an activity destined to fail.


Logic is the only way to understand anything. What non-logical ways of understanding are there?



> The feelings that music stirs in people are important enough in our combined culture that some people have dedicated their lives to it, developing a theory with which to write down ideas that can be read and understood and so creating a body of work accessible to us all, and to which anyone can contribute if they feel so inclined. In a similar way, in science, some people have dedicated their lives to discovering how the universe works, developing mathematics in order to describe ideas and ultimately creating an understanding which is accessible to all and open to all to contribute.


But... the results of scientific work mean things, they refer to reality somehow. And there are clear standards for what constitutes proof, what it would mean to disprove the results of a study, etc. Music has to refer to reality too somehow, it can't just be about music itself or stirring emotions or human beings observing themselves or something like that.


----------



## Forster

Boychev said:


> Nothing. I have no conceptual understanding of it, therefore I get nothing. All those things you mentioned.


No pleasure from listening to certain melodies or harmonies? None from exciting or unusual rhythms? None from the challenge of learning to follow voices, instruments, sections?

If you tell us what have you been listening to, we might be able to suggest what you could listen out for.


----------



## Boychev

Forster said:


> No pleasure from listening to certain melodies or harmonies? None from exciting or unusual rhythms? None from the challenge of learning to follow voices, instruments, sections?


I get pleasure but pleasure by itself is meaningless, and pleasure for the sake of pleasure obviously should not be pursued.



> If you tell us what have you been listening to, we might be able to suggest what you could listen out for.


Some art music pieces I like are Beethoven's symphonies, Brahms' symphonies, Rachmaninoff's piano concertos, Bach's WTK, Schoenberg's quartets, Glass' Einstein on the Beach, Feldman's For Philip Guston, Debussy's piano works, some of Cage's early works before he completely embraced indeterminacy, such as the Quartet in Four Parts and his piano works, Lucier's I Am Sitting in a Room. My taste is disorganized and nonsensical because I don't know where to start making sense of it and in what way to consciously shape it and discipline it.


----------



## hammeredklavier

EdwardBast said:


> Imagine you are in a tranquil, happy mood, call it A, and then some disturbing thought or event intervenes and you become agitated, a completely different emotional state (call it B). After the agitation runs it course the original tranquil state returns and one is happy again (A). As an example listen to the Db major prelude of Chopin. It doesn't mean anything specific, but it has resonance with human emotional life because so many chapters in our lives are like that. The same ABA pattern can have the opposite resonance as well. One can begin in a state of enormous stress (A) but find brief solace in prayer or in the memory of happier times (B). But the relief is fleeting and one ends in frenzied exhaustion (A). In responding to this music one enjoys the musical patterns for their own sake, but with the added layer of realizing: "Yes, life is like that: there are storms and troubles but eventually peace returns.


Very well put, Mr. EdwardBast! It's also baffling to see a person frequently say that musical form (and its mood contrasts) is so important, and also talk as if the perpetual canons of Josquin or sewing machines of C.P.E. Bach were never surpassed, and also say time and time again things like "Music in the minor mode just didn't sell as well in the Classical Era. That's why the ratio of works in the major mode versus the minor mode was about 8:1." (in response to comments like "Mozart's music is happy"), pretending like that's all there is to it. Is it "having double standards", or "getting lost in the shrubbery when one should at least be looking for trees." I don't even know. Anyway, good day to you, sir. =)







hammeredklavier said:


> I find this to be the most interesting work Mozart wrote at 20. It consists of 9 movements, but there are elements of contrast and connections between them:
> _"hostia sancta"_ (9:24), which comes after the dark, solemn _"verbum caro factum"_ (8:03) feels brighter by contrast, but it also has its dark elements of contrast constantly injecting a sense of tension, within itself:
> [10:55]: _"stupendum supra omina miracula"_,
> as if "darkness" hasn't been yet fully achieved, it naturally leads through a transition to the darkest movement of the work,
> [13:45]: _"tremendum ac vivificum"_.
> [21:48]: the diminished 7th that concludes _"dulcissimum convivium"_ leads to the diminished 7th that opens the 'otherworldly' _"viaticum in domino morientium"_.
> [24:04]: _"pignus futurae gloriae"_, an expansive double fugue styled distinctively unique from the Baroque tradition.
> [34:25]: _"miserere nobis"_ (the final movement) quotes _"kyrie eleison"_ (the first movement) and develops on the theme.





hammeredklavier said:


> For instance, this contains all the "traits of Classicism" I described earlier ("Mood shifts within a single movement, Classical style orchestration/instrumentation, sections/phrases cleanly-cut with cadences, and through-composition, etc"):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (listen to the mood shifts at 5:32, 5:47, 6:30; it even reminds me of Mozart's K.543/i)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (13:13, 13:55; the "patrem omnipotentem" is derived from the "quoniam" of the previous movement).
> Likewise, the concluding fugues also have their own "expositions" and "developments" in them;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (10:17; listen to the harmonies)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (19:52; actually the buildup to all this starts from 16:18)


----------



## jewelbox81

Boychev said:


> Logic is the only way to understand anything. What non-logical ways of understanding are there?


I could have been clearer with this point. I'm not saying that there is a better way of understanding music, rather, that music isn't supposed to be understood objectively, which is why you are struggling to find meaning in it that way.



Boychev said:


> But... the results of scientific work mean things, they refer to reality somehow. And there are clear standards for what constitutes proof, what it would mean to disprove the results of a study, etc.


To this I would just like to reiterate my point about there being different ways that people think and perceive the world around them. You place higher importance in things that are physical and seem to have disdain for anything that happens only in the mind, like emotion and imagination. There are other people too who would argue that reality only exists in the mind, and so emotions and feelings carry equal, or even more value than the physical. There is no single correct answer to this argument because who is there to judge these points of view as right or wrong?



Boychev said:


> Music has to refer to reality too somehow, it can't just be about music itself or stirring emotions or human beings observing themselves or something like that.


I think that this is the point that you are getting the most hung-up on. I think because you have such little regard for imagination and emotion, you find it hard to believe that really, all there is to 'get' from music is how the combination of sounds makes the individual listener feel. I think most people find emotion and imagination a very important part of their lives, and stimulating those aspects of life is important for their mental well-being.



Boychev said:


> I get pleasure but pleasure by itself is meaningless, and pleasure for the sake of pleasure obviously should not be pursued.


Why is it meaningless? As far as we are aware, we're the only living things in the universe capable of thinking about what the concept of 'meaning' actually is. If there are people alive who find meaning in something, then by definition, that thing is not meaningless. And why should pleasure itself not be pursued? Where did you learn this? Who set that rule for you and why do you follow it? Are you saying that you only do something that you enjoy as long as there is another purpose to it?


----------



## Boychev

I've asked similar questions here in the past and nobody had a problem. This stuff gives me severe anxiety, I really need to at least know in what direction to look for answers. Art music seems to be the best bet for something in the realm of music that would make sense.

I guess lock it if it's off-topic, it's more a question of more broader philosophy of music than it is of music theory in the strict sense.


----------



## Bwv 1080

Boychev said:


> I've asked similar questions here in the past and nobody had a problem. This stuff gives me severe anxiety, I really need to at least know in what direction to look for answers. Art music seems to be the best bet for something in the realm of music that would make sense.
> 
> I guess lock it if it's off-topic, it's more a question of more broader philosophy of music than it is of music theory in the strict sense.


At least a dozen people have given you very thoughtful answers and you don't interact with the answers. You can't ask philosophical questions about aesthetics and then expect concrete answers


----------



## Boychev

jewelbox81 said:


> To this I would just like to reiterate my point about there being different ways that people think and perceive the world around them. You place higher importance in things that are physical and seem to have disdain for anything that happens only in the mind, like emotion and imagination. There are other people too who would argue that reality only exists in the mind, and so emotions and feelings carry equal, or even more value than the physical. There is no single correct answer to this argument because who is there to judge these points of view as right or wrong?


Well, _reason_ is there as an objective, non-physical reality. Ultimately everything boils down to concepts and relations of concepts. That doesn't mean that reality only exists in the mind, it just means that everything out there has a rational structure. I really believe that.

So I think the standards of reason judge if a point of view is valid or not. But I don't even know what that point of view is until I've conceptualized it somehow - in practical terms this just means that whatever you understand about a piece of music, you should be able to explain somehow otherwise can you be said to really understand anything?



> I think that this is the point that you are getting the most hung-up on. I think because you have such little regard for imagination and emotion, you find it hard to believe that really, all there is to 'get' from music is how the combination of sounds makes the individual listener feel. I think most people find emotion and imagination a very important part of their lives, and stimulating those aspects of life is important for their mental well-being.


I see your point... Is there a way music has no substitute in providing for our mental well being in the specific way that music does then? Say, is someone's life somehow impoverished if they've never listened to music?



> Why is it meaningless? As far as we are aware, we're the only living things in the universe capable of thinking about what the concept of 'meaning' actually is. If there are people alive who find meaning in something, then by definition, that thing is not meaningless. And why should pleasure itself not be pursued? Where did you learn this? Who set that rule for you and why do you follow it? Are you saying that you only do something that you enjoy as long as there is another purpose to it?


This is completely unrelated to music at this point but yeah, that's the platonic ideal I think - to fill as much time as humanely possible with productive labor. It's ever going to happen and nobody has perfect self-control and discipline, I least of all, but it's a good goal to strive towards, I think.


----------



## Boychev

Bwv 1080 said:


> At least a dozen people have given you very thoughtful answers and you don't interact with the answers. You can't ask philosophical questions about aesthetics and then expect concrete answers


I guess that's the problem. I don't see how aesthetics relate to actually sitting and listening to piece of music and understanding what you're doing, how, and why, getting something concrete out of the whole experience. Something like Kant's concept of beauty is enlightening but it doesn't enlighten what exactly I'm to do with it when approaching distinct works. With literature and painting it's somewhat easier because it's clearer how mimesis works there, but music is just... utterly abstract.

Apologies if this bothered you or the other posters here.


----------



## Bwv 1080

Boychev said:


> I guess that's the problem. I don't see how aesthetics relate to actually sitting and listening to piece of music and understanding what you're doing, how, and why, getting something concrete out of the whole experience. Something like Kant's concept of beauty is enlightening but it doesn't enlighten what exactly I'm to do with it when approaching distinct works. With literature and painting it's somewhat easier because it's clearer how mimesis works there, but music is just... utterly abstract.


music is a universal human phenomenon and predates any philosophy of aesthetics, have you looked at anthropological explanations?


----------



## Woodduck

Boychev said:


> I'm trying to listen to music under the assumption that it's amounts to a study of character now. I guess what I'm wondering now is how you get good at this? Mozart and Beethoven didn't have access to the knowledge provided by modern psychology and neuroscience, so how did they make sure that their music predictably produced precisely the results they intended? Also *how can we verify that we're not making the wrong conclusions about the music? *
> 
> If we're to take the idea of music as character further, you know if you've judged someone's character correctly by observing their actions. That doesn't seem to work with music though. *How would someone prove my interpretation of the music wrong and force me to comply* with a better, truer interpretation?
> 
> I mean... *what must my analysis of music correspond to* so that it's true? How do I know I'm not *going about it wrongly* and *completely wasting my time?*


You _are_ wasting your time, and everyone else's, by repeating questions that have already been answered. You've been told over and over that music does not have specific meanings the way language does. It is not a thing subject to "proof." You've said that if this is true it must be waste of time. Fine. Don't waste your time. Or ours.



> The music theory instructions I come across online seem to be strictly focused on _describing_ the music but not on how to correctly listen to the music. Where do you learn this?


You learn to listen to music by listening to it. There is no correct way to do it.

Some people will never learn. You seem to be one of them.


----------



## jewelbox81

Boychev said:


> That doesn't mean that reality only exists in the mind, it just means that everything out there has a rational structure. I really believe that.


Perhaps music is the one unique thing in the universe that doesn't have a rational structure, and that, for me, would make it worthy of appreciation and study just the same as any physical phenomenon.

I don't actually think that reality only exists in the mind either, I just wanted to make a point that people think in different ways and one way isn't more or less valid than another. It was a poor example, so apologies for that. But speaking of thinking in different ways, I noticed your comment about feeling some anxiety about the topic, and it made me wonder if you know whether or not you are on the autism spectrum? I don't mean that in an offensive way, but it would be useful information to know since this topic seems to have started to cause some frustrations as the question of, how to rationalise music, is nonsensical to most people.



Boychev said:


> is someone's life somehow impoverished if they've never listened to music?


This is quite an interesting question to ponder. If you look through human history, all cultures that we have sufficient knowledge about developed music in some form or another. We can only really theorise as to why, but it does seem to be a natural trait of the human experience. I wonder whether a person deprived of music from birth would at some point make their own music, either by vocalising it or creating rhythms or both. I suspect that they would, but I suppose we can never know.
Here is an article that you might find interesting:
- Is Music a Universal Language?



Boychev said:


> that's the platonic ideal I think - to fill as much time as humanely possible with productive labor. It's ever going to happen and nobody has perfect self-control and discipline, I least of all, but it's a good goal to strive towards, I think.


That might be a fairly unique and somewhat arduous ideal to live by in this day and age I think, but I admire your tenacity. Personally, I hold joy as my number one priority. Both my own joy and that of other people around me. I enjoy my work, but only in moderation and I find my happiness in a variety of things and people. Music is a contributing factor in an array of experiences that make up my life.


----------



## Luchesi

Boychev said:


> I guess that's the problem. I don't see how aesthetics relate to actually sitting and listening to piece of music and understanding what you're doing, how, and why, getting something concrete out of the whole experience. Something like Kant's concept of beauty is enlightening but it doesn't enlighten what exactly I'm to do with it when approaching distinct works. With literature and painting it's somewhat easier because it's clearer how mimesis works there, but music is just... utterly abstract.
> 
> Apologies if this bothered you or the other posters here.


I was a little surprised to hear Bernstein saying (paraphrased) we musicians, we play. It's called "playing". It's a serious, intriguing, endlessly renewed game (for people in the know).


----------



## Forster

Boychev said:


> pleasure for the sake of pleasure obviously should not be pursued.


Obviously 

If you're into some self-denying ordinance, there's no way we can help.


----------



## Woodduck

Forster said:


> Obviously
> 
> If you're into some self-denying ordinance, there's no way we can help.


Evidently he requires a pregnancy with every ****.


----------



## Boychev

Okay, apologies to everyone then.


----------



## Luchesi

Boychev said:


> Okay, apologies to everyone then.


If you're a very confident person, and you have the time, you can approach music as a child would. Start playing around with intervals and clever pieces and then compare them to the famous works you find to be similar. From that point it's all about how much dedication and effort you invest. Ask any musician.

I understand Glenn Gould when he said he could teach someone HOW to play as he did, in one afternoon. His point was, it's all a huge effort ON YOUR OWN. It's logical to realize that what teachers teach and what people say are so small a part of the process of living a musical life.


----------



## Boychev

Luchesi said:


> living a musical life.


I don't understand what that means. I don't aspire to be a professional musician.


----------



## Luchesi

Boychev said:


> I don't understand what that means. I don't aspire to be a professional musician.


You might just enjoy pop music, because of all the gimmicks that those composers develop with. Evidently approaching CM can be boring if you don't have the facination with the fundamentals.


----------



## Luchesi

Boychev said:


> I don't understand what that means. I don't aspire to be a professional musician.


You want music, but it's not like enjoying a sport, watching men run after a ball and then do something with the ball, etc... You're not required to know anything beyond the human behavior in spectator sports..


----------



## Luchesi

Boychev said:


> Logic is the only way to understand anything. What non-logical ways of understanding are there?
> 
> But... the results of scientific work mean things, they refer to reality somehow. And there are clear standards for what constitutes proof, what it would mean to disprove the results of a study, etc. Music has to refer to reality too somehow, it can't just be about music itself or stirring emotions or human beings observing themselves or something like that.


You ask the right questions. Do you work in science?

We can say here are the frequency relationships. How would you use them for logical expressiveness? How did Bach do it? Chopin?


----------



## Boychev

Luchesi said:


> You ask the right questions. Do you work in science?
> 
> We can say here are the frequency relationships. How would you use them for logical expressiveness? How did Bach do it? Chopin?


I don't know. How?


----------



## Luchesi

Boychev said:


> I don't know. How?


You would gather up your materials and you would see what you could express with them.


----------



## Boychev

Luchesi said:


> You would gather up your materials and you would see what you could express with them.


You can't express anything until you have a system of rules on what you can express and the correct ways to express it available, and the public is familiar with that system (or at least the system is in principle able to be grasped by anyone).


----------



## Forster

Boychev said:


> You can't express anything until you have a system of rules on what you can express and the correct ways to express it available, and the public is familiar with that system (or at least the system is in principle able to be grasped by anyone).


Would you say there is a system of rules for this, able to be grasped by anyone?


----------



## Boychev

Forster said:


> Would you say there is a system of rules for this, able to be grasped by anyone?
> 
> View attachment 162079


I don't know. There has to be. At the very least it builds upon our ability to orient ourselves in space, upon familiar objects, upon common gestures and symbols and visual metaphors, it's easily related to a universally known historical context (the Spanish Civil war, fascism)... I don't know, strikes me as something that you can say a lot about regardless of what level of training you have in visual art.

What can you objectively say about a piece of instrumental music that isn't just a description of the music (e. g. such and such modulation occurs in bars so-and-so) or a description of how you felt?


----------



## Luchesi

Boychev said:


> You can't express anything until you have a system of rules on what you can express and the correct ways to express it available, and the public is familiar with that system (or at least the system is in principle able to be grasped by anyone).


Rules. For me, music consists mainly of rules. Physics and the somewhat predictable human response. Following the rules and breaking the rules in clever ways.

Take any low note around 60 hz. Triple the frequency and build a chord on that derived note. The rule for major triads is, a major third interval then a minor third (then another minor third if desired). That chord (for humans) will resolve to the key of the starting note. Every time. Very predictable, within the overall ambiguity of music (proximity and directionality, the big stimulative mysteries).


----------



## Forster

Boychev said:


> I don't know. There has to be.


Must there be? Why? You keep talking of these rules, but without offering an explanation. Are the rules for Guernica the same as for this one?


----------



## Boychev

Forster said:


> Must there be? Why?


Because otherwise what are you supposed to do with it? How do you know what you're even doing and why? What's the difference between someone sitting in the concert hall and just thinking about something entirely unrelated to the music all the time, and someone actively listening to the music? If there are no rules and no structured approach to the activity, then it doesn't really matter how you approach it and what you get out of it, and if that doesn't matter, then music in general doesn't matter - which is a possibility, but it's not helpful to just assume that from the get-go.


----------



## Forster

Boychev said:


> Because otherwise what are you supposed to do with it?


Listen to it. Enjoy it for what it is (to you). Explore it. Learn to play it. Research around it if you like. Make of it what you will.

That's it.



Boychev said:


> What's the difference between someone sitting in the concert hall and just thinking about something entirely unrelated to the music all the time, and someone actively listening to the music?


Er...one's listening and one isn't.



Boychev said:


> If there are no rules and no structured approach to the activity, then it doesn't really matter how you approach it


Well, no, it doesn't matter how you approach it.



Boychev said:


> if that doesn't matter, then music in general doesn't matter.


That doesn't follow. That is, music only matters to those to whom it matters. Otherwise, it doesn't matter.

Unlike oxygen.



Boychev said:


> it's not helpful to just assume that from the get-go.


I sense we're heading towards closing the circle here. If I ask why it's not "helpful", I suspect you'll say that as there's rules for music, it's not helpful to say that it doesn't matter.

I'm reminded of the child who says it's a good job she doesn't like cabbage, because if she did, she'd have to eat it, and that would be terrible, because doesn't like it.


----------



## Luchesi

Forster said:


> Listen to it. Enjoy it for what it is (to you). Explore it. Learn to play it. Research around it if you like. Make of it what you will.
> 
> That's it.
> 
> Er...one's listening and one isn't.
> 
> Well, no, it doesn't matter how you approach it.
> 
> That doesn't follow. That is, music only matters to those to whom it matters. Otherwise, it doesn't matter.
> 
> Unlike oxygen.
> 
> I sense we're heading towards closing the circle here. If I ask why it's not "helpful", I suspect you'll say that as there's rules for music, it's not helpful to say that it doesn't matter.
> 
> I'm reminded of the child who says it's a good job she doesn't like cabbage, because if she did, she'd have to eat it, and that would be terrible, because doesn't like it.


I've wondered what non-musicians get out of CM. It's old, it's no longer created like it was. But they seem to enjoy being carried away temporarily or they seem to enjoy following the narrative (if it can be followed).

A musician says, "Wow, how did he do that? I can learn that, I can use that. Where did it come from? What came after it as a result?"


----------



## Boychev

Forster said:


> Er...one's listening and one isn't.


Right, and you're sure of that when you make them explain what they just heard.

And likewise if I thought I was listening actively, but can't explain what I just heard, my listening is as good as not listening at all.



> I sense we're heading towards closing the circle here. If I ask why it's not "helpful", I suspect you'll say that as there's rules for music, it's not helpful to say that it doesn't matter.
> 
> I'm reminded of the child who says it's a good job she doesn't like cabbage, because if she did, she'd have to eat it, and that would be terrible, because doesn't like it.


It's not helpful in that it doesn't help me understand anything I don't already understand. I understand music is a bunch of pretty noises that sound pretty. Likewise, the Guernica is just a bunch of grotesque shapes. _Maybe_ that's really all there is to it, but I wouldn't know unless I explored the possibility that there's actually something to it.


----------



## Luchesi

Boychev said:


> Right, and you're sure of that when you make them explain what they just heard.
> 
> And likewise if I thought I was listening actively, but can't explain what I just heard, my listening is as good as not listening at all.*
> 
> It's not helpful in that it doesn't help me understand anything I don't already understand.* I understand music is a bunch of pretty noises that sound pretty. Likewise, the Guernica is just a bunch of grotesque shapes. _Maybe_ that's really all there is to it, but I wouldn't know unless I explored the possibility that there's actually something to it.


You can pick up a copy of Tovey's book on the Beethoven Sonatas. He puts into English words every phrase of every sonata. Words so that you understand exactly what's going on.


----------



## Forster

Boychev said:


> Likewise, the Guernica is just a bunch of grotesque shapes. _Maybe_ that's really all there is to it, but I wouldn't know unless I explored the possibility that there's actually something to it.


The point of the two paintings is simply to show that whilst there might be some "rules" for the Arnolfini, these were broken for the Guernica. Of course, the artists for each had some intent which may or may not have been understood by the audience, but the idea that each can only be "legitimately understood" by understanding the rules is, in my view, misguided.

The same goes for music. Whatever rules Hildegard Bingen followed for the construction of her music, the constant shifting and breaking of these rules by many subsequent composers showed that if music can be created with or without following the rules, the audience can certainly enjoy it without bothering with rules.


----------



## Forster

Luchesi said:


> I've wondered what non-musicians get out of CM. It's old, it's no longer created like it was. But they seem to enjoy being carried away temporarily or they seem to enjoy following the narrative (if it can be followed).


Why wonder? You make it sound as though it's surprising. I get emotional and intellectual pleasure from listening to music (not just CM) and, IMO, it's not just about getting carried away, or relaxing, or being moved to tears. Music, like cinema, literature, politics, family, school and college, friends, TV, nostalgia, football...all of these things have played an intricate part of my intellectual, emotional journey as a human. Music is not just some pastime for me. It's about who I am.



Luchesi said:


> A musician says, "Wow, how did he do that? I can learn that, I can use that. Where did it come from? What came after it as a result?"


And of course, a musician has a whole additional set of things to think about than the non-musician - from a technical point of view - but the non-musician can explore these things to some extent too, which I allowed for in my (not exhaustive) list of things to do when listening to music.


----------



## Boychev

Forster said:


> The point of the two paintings is simply to show that whilst there might be some "rules" for the Arnolfini, these were broken for the Guernica. Of course, the artists for each had some intent which may or may not have been understood by the audience, but the idea that each can only be "legitimately understood" by understanding the rules is, in my view, misguided.


Okay, how can it be legitimately understood then? How do you get to the right answer?


----------



## Forster

Boychev said:


> Okay, how can it be legitimately understood then? How do you get to the right answer?


In the case of the paintings, one can find these things out through study/research and discover that there are "answers" more right than wrong. But in both cases, the individual is entitled to their own response, whatever that may be.

In the case of music, it's more complicated. We are all entitled to listen to, say, Vaughan Williams Pastoral and mistake it for a pleasant sentimental journey through the English countryside. That isn't what VW intended, and if you listen for yourself, you might hear some of the things he did intend. By all means read around the symphony first, but it might be better to listen to it first and report back what you hear.


----------



## SanAntone

Boychev said:


> Okay, how can it be legitimately understood then? How do you get to the right answer?


There is no "right answer" - any or no understanding is legitimate.


----------



## Opisthokont

Have you ever been to a modern art museum? We can all get meaning out of very abstract things. Finding meaning is a fundamental human impulse, our views of the art at hand mediated in the dialectical fashion by our relationships to each other. Even if those relationships are subjective, the meaning we gain from them is objective: it's why we can all get out of bed in the morning!

What do you get from seeing a kandinsky painting?








There is nothing wrong with having trouble finding meaning here or in any work of art, but there is meaning there lurking. When I have trouble understanding a work of art I place them in relation together. It might be useful, while listening to music, to think of other art forms - listen to a piece of music and look at a work of visual art and ask "do they fit together?". How does the piece of music make you feel? Can you fit a narrative to it, imagine one in your head? Anybody that was a child is certainly skilled at the later. This all seems wishy washy, and it is, but the important point is that how we talk about meaning is objective: the conversations, jokes, arguments we have with each other and ourselves. This drawing of stravinsky my help illustrate my point:


----------



## Luchesi

Opisthokont said:


> Have you ever been to a modern art museum? We can all get meaning out of very abstract things. Finding meaning is a fundamental human impulse, our views of the art at hand mediated in the dialectical fashion by our relationships to each other. Even if those relationships are subjective, the meaning we gain from them is objective: it's why we can all get out of bed in the morning!
> 
> What do you get from seeing a kandinsky painting?
> View attachment 162149
> 
> 
> There is nothing wrong with having trouble finding meaning here or in any work of art, but there is meaning there lurking. When I have trouble understanding a work of art I place them in relation together. It might be useful, while listening to music, to think of other art forms - listen to a piece of music and look at a work of visual art and ask "do they fit together?". How does the piece of music make you feel? Can you fit a narrative to it, imagine one in your head?


According to neuroscientist Beau Lotto, human brains developed in a very interesting way. 
"Because our brain evolved to take what is meaningless and make it meaningful." 
It's quite a leap for large primates to develop. He argues that that tendency protects people from unseen risks in an uncertain world.

Is this relevant to art appreciation? It's a fundamental tendency, but it's too narrow I think.


----------



## Luchesi

Boychev said:


> Okay, how can it be legitimately understood then? How do you get to the right answer?


Interesting question. For me, the right answer would be your current interpretation or understanding of the work. And this conclusion arises out of the experience and time invested. It's difficult to put into words about music, into mere words. The subject matter reduced is a little bit arcane, in that few people can share what's difficult to share in this..

In one sense, music can be a game (games) to be learned and mastered. And since it's complicated artifice, it's always anew and endless for me. Why do all higher animals 'play'?


----------



## Luchesi

Forster said:


> Why wonder? You make it sound as though it's surprising. *I get emotional and intellectual pleasure from listening to music *(not just CM) and, IMO, it's not just about getting carried away, or relaxing, or being moved to tears. Music, like cinema, literature, politics, family, school and college, friends, TV, nostalgia, football...all of these things *have played an intricate part of my intellectual, emotional journey as a human*. Music is not just some pastime for me. It's about who I am.


We've heard it before from others, but it's quite vague. You say that straightforwardly and Boychev is trying to understand a little of what that means.


----------



## Forster

Luchesi said:


> We've heard it before from others, but it's quite vague. You say that straightforwardly and Boychev is trying to understand a little of what that means.


I'm pretty sure Boychev and you both understand what is meant by "emotional pleasure". What kind of more precise detail do you want? That I get an adrenalin rush listening to this or that composition, or am moved to tears? And intellectual pleasure? What do you _think _it means?

I already invited Boychev to listen to a piece of muisc and describe what they hear/feel/think, so we can find some common ground. They prefer to talk in generalities about music, but if only _they'd _stop being vague and ask what do people get out of, for example, _Eine Kleine Nachtmusik_, we'd have something to talk about.

I think if you look over the thread, people have been pretty consistent in offering a number of responses, some quite detailed, but Boychev offers little in return.

I take it you've listened to VW's Pastoral by now and can tell me what you think "the right answer is"?


----------



## Opisthokont

Luchesi said:


> According to neuroscientist Beau Lotto, human brains developed in a very interesting way.
> "Because our brain evolved to take what is meaningless and make it meaningful."
> It's quite a leap for large primates to develop. He argues that that tendency protects people from unseen risks in an uncertain world.
> 
> Is this relevant to art appreciation? It's a fundamental tendency, but it's too narrow I think.


I want to cIarify a bit - when I talk about our ability of find meaning, I really mean _our_ ability. Focusing on the individual human brain grants some insight certainly, but when we talk about art we have to think about the social: and the social by its very nature is the most subjective and objective thing we have - a unity of opposites in its most pure form of the one and the many.

The important thing is not to conceive of art interpretation as something that is static - the point of interpretation is the dialectical _process_ of interpretation. It is necessary that when we look at a piece of art that we think we have a _right_ interpretation of what it is. But it is not actually important _what_ the right interpretations are. Rather what is important is how we justify our interpretations: how we discuss our interpretations with each other, how we use our interpretations in our every day lives, the arguments we make for what we believe!

Getting caught up on whether we can ever find a right answer is a mistake. It's _how we decide to find the right answers_ that's important. Only when we get over our apprehensions about certainty can we start making progress - of course we actually just do this naturally, in the same way that it's natural for us not to question whether our bed really exists when we wake up in the morning. This is why music theory can exist and be an incredibly sophisticated discipline, in fact! Art makes our lives better precisely because it is our relationships to each other that makes life worth living in the first place.


----------



## Forster

Opisthokont said:


> I want to cIarify a bit - when I talk about our ability of find meaning, I really mean _our_ ability. Focusing on the individual human brain grants some insight certainly, but when we talk about art we have to think about the social: and the social by its very nature is the most subjective and objective thing we have - a unity of opposites in its most pure form of the one and the many.
> 
> The important thing is not to conceive of art interpretation as something that is static - the point of interpretation is the dialectical _process_ of interpretation. It is necessary that when we look at a piece of art that _we think _we have a right interpretation of what it is. But it is not actually important _what_ the right interpretations are. Rather what is important is how we justify our interpretations: how we discuss our interpretations with each other, how we use our interpretations in our every day lives, the arguments we make for what we believe!
> 
> Getting caught up on whether we can ever find a right answer is a mistake. It's _how we decide to find the right answers_ that's important. Only when we get over our apprehensions about certainty can we start making progress - of course we actually just do this naturally, in the same way that it's natural for us not to question whether our bed really exists when we wake up in the morning. This is why music theory can exist and be an incredibly sophisticated discipline, in fact! Art makes our lives better precisely because it is our relationships to each other that makes life worth living in the first place.


Thanks. I particularly like your 2nd para. I've just made a slight adjustment to it, italicising 'we think' rather than 'right'.

The issue here is that the OP insists that there are rules that must be understood first before any interpretation is even attempted.

How can we help them to get past that? They don't seem to know what rules they mean - not the "rules" of CPT, or serialism, or the doctrine of affections - only that these rules must exist because the rest of our life is organised by "rules".


----------



## Boychev

Forster said:


> I already invited Boychev to listen to a piece of muisc and describe what they hear/feel/think, so we can find some common ground. They prefer to talk in generalities about music, but if only _they'd _stop being vague and ask what do people get out of, for example, _Eine Kleine Nachtmusik_, we'd have something to talk about.
> 
> I think if you look over the thread, people have been pretty consistent in offering a number of responses, some quite detailed, but Boychev offers little in return.


I offer nothing, I know nothing, and understand nothing, that's why I'm asking for guidance on where to start to learn, and curious as to how music listeners learn to correctly process music. What I feel or think at this point is irrelevant, because _I don't know how I am supposed to listen and what exactly the phrase is supposed to mean, and if it's supposed to make me feel something - what exactly it's supposed to make me feel._ I am asking precisely because all I can speak is empty generalities and vague descriptions. I don't have the language to specifically describe what a piece of music means and don't understand how one would go from music to language in the first place. What do you expect me to tell you?


----------



## Forster

Boychev said:


> I offer nothing, I know nothing, and understand nothing, that's why I'm asking for guidance on where to start to learn, and curious as to how music listeners learn to correctly process music. What I feel or think at this point is irrelevant, because _I don't know how I am supposed to listen and what exactly the phrase is supposed to mean, and if it's supposed to make me feel something - what exactly it's supposed to make me feel._ I am asking precisely because all I can speak is empty generalities and vague descriptions. I don't have the language to specifically describe what a piece of music means and don't understand how one would go from music to language in the first place. What do you expect me to tell you?


Did you listen to VW's Pastoral? That would be a good starting point.


----------



## Boychev

Opisthokont said:


> I want to cIarify a bit - when I talk about our ability of find meaning, I really mean _our_ ability. Focusing on the individual human brain grants some insight certainly, but when we talk about art we have to think about the social: and the social by its very nature is the most subjective and objective thing we have - a unity of opposites in its most pure form of the one and the many.
> 
> The important thing is not to conceive of art interpretation as something that is static - the point of interpretation is the dialectical _process_ of interpretation. It is necessary that when we look at a piece of art that we think we have a _right_ interpretation of what it is. But it is not actually important _what_ the right interpretations are. Rather what is important is how we justify our interpretations: how we discuss our interpretations with each other, how we use our interpretations in our every day lives, the arguments we make for what we believe!
> 
> Getting caught up on whether we can ever find a right answer is a mistake. It's _how we decide to find the right answers_ that's important. Only when we get over our apprehensions about certainty can we start making progress - of course we actually just do this naturally, in the same way that it's natural for us not to question whether our bed really exists when we wake up in the morning. This is why music theory can exist and be an incredibly sophisticated discipline, in fact! Art makes our lives better precisely because it is our relationships to each other that makes life worth living in the first place.


Yes, and there's a right way to justify our answers. You don't attempt to know empirical truth a priori, and you don't attempt to learn about philosophy by way of the method of the natural sciences for example.

I think you've been reading Hegel's Phenomenology but nowhere does Hegel suggest that somehow all approaches to truth are simply a matter of discourse and reaching a point of agreement between agents. His presuppositionless Logic claims to in fact be the only proper way to get to philosophical truth.


----------



## Luchesi

Forster said:


> I'm pretty sure Boychev and you both understand what is meant by "emotional pleasure". What kind of more precise detail do you want? That I get an adrenalin rush listening to this or that composition, or am moved to tears? And intellectual pleasure? What do you _think _it means?
> 
> I already invited Boychev to listen to a piece of muisc and describe what they hear/feel/think, so we can find some common ground. They prefer to talk in generalities about music, but if only _they'd _stop being vague and ask what do people get out of, for example, _Eine Kleine Nachtmusik_, we'd have something to talk about.
> 
> I think if you look over the thread, people have been pretty consistent in offering a number of responses, some quite detailed, but Boychev offers little in return.
> 
> I take it you've listened to VW's Pastoral by now and can tell me what you think "the right answer is"?


 "That I get an adrenalin rush listening to this or that composition, or am moved to tears? And intellectual pleasure? What do you _think _it means?"

Is it that strong?
Women fainted when they heard Liszt play. Today while hearing the same works they don't faint.

In the VW, the right answer (for you) will be the notion you get during that short part of a piece.


----------



## Opisthokont

Boychev said:


> Yes, and there's a right way to justify our answers. You don't attempt to know empirical truth a priori, and you don't attempt to learn about philosophy by way of the method of the natural sciences for example.
> 
> I think you've been reading Hegel's Phenomenology but nowhere does Hegel suggest that somehow all approaches to truth are simply a matter of discourse and reaching a point of agreement between agents. His presuppositionless Logic claims to in fact be the only proper way to get to philosophical truth.


It's not about reaching agreement, it's about the process of disagreement. I've read the Logic, not the Phenomenology though - but my use of philosophical method here is more influenced by people like Adorno, Ilyenkov, and Banaji.

I did not mean to claim that truth is simply a matter of discourse! I meant to claim that truth in interpretation is not found in the interpretation itself, but rather how we talk about and justify our interpretations. Logic is the proper way to get at truth, but the point here is that Logic reflects what is important to us in each other (what else do we mean by 'consciousness'?). In some sense yes truth is a matter of discourse, but they key of the dialectical turn is that discourse as the consciousness of history, in its proper form, exposits Logic in its very structure. There is correct and incorrect discourse because there is _moral and historical truth._ The key point of understanding Adorno's critique of mass culture follows along these lines - it's not about the content of the art, what the art represents, it's about how the art represents, how the art expresses its content. One can have music that appears to be radical in content yet is fundamentally conservative because of how it chooses to represent that content.

If you really want a guide to understanding more abstract music, Adorno's writings on the subject might be a good start. I disagree with him on some stuff but it's pretty good. I don't think such a guide is necessary to enjoy the music, but if you're worried you can't do it innately then it's a good place to go.

Although you also said you seem to have trouble understanding tonal music too? I feel like the language there is more immediate: tension, resolution, movement coming from vertical harmony (and also color if there is more chromaticism), energy and rest coming from rhythm and dynamics, texture coming from timbre, multiplicty and unity coming from horizontal harmony. There is probably more there too, but you get the idea? But do understand that when we say a chord progression goes through tension and resolution, we're describing how the music functionally accomplishes a certain feeling - it is descriptive, not prescriptive.


----------



## composingmusic

Boychev said:


> I offer nothing, I know nothing, and understand nothing, that's why I'm asking for guidance on where to start to learn, and curious as to how music listeners learn to correctly process music. What I feel or think at this point is irrelevant, because _I don't know how I am supposed to listen and what exactly the phrase is supposed to mean, and if it's supposed to make me feel something - what exactly it's supposed to make me feel._ I am asking precisely because all I can speak is empty generalities and vague descriptions. I don't have the language to specifically describe what a piece of music means and don't understand how one would go from music to language in the first place. What do you expect me to tell you?


I'll start off by saying that there isn't one right way to listen to music - that's part of the beauty of it. Everyone will perceive things in their own way, with their own subjective experiences. This is something that I, as a composer, have to grapple with; however, it's always fascinating to see how people interpret what I've written. I've had people come up to me after a concert and tell me they've heard something in my piece, which I thought was very different from what I had personally perceived it to be. Sometimes people tell me they think of something like a sunset, or another very specific visual scene, for instance, when I had something much more abstract in mind.

However, there's many ways one can approach listening to a piece, at different levels. On a very broad level, what does the form of the piece feel like? Does it go somewhere? What are the proportions like?

At a more specific level - perhaps you can hear some kind of melodic structures, or this might be a piece where the focus is on, say, harmony, or timbre. First of all, what is the focus? Perhaps there's more than one focus; and if so, how is this focus articulated through the structure on both a local or broader scope? Which instruments are present in the piece, and how are they being used? What sort of colour combinations is the composer using, and how are they taking advantage of the properties of the instruments?

Some other considerations: What kind of mood or colour are you hearing? Is it dark, or light, or some blend of these? How is that being achieved? How would I characterize the gestures being used? Are the instruments working together as a unit, or are there many layers of activity - or maybe some instruments are working as units, and others aren't? These can be looked at in a very specific, local level, or on a much broader scale.

In any case, I don't personally look for a specific meaning - it's more of a character or mood that I end up thinking of. Other things I think of are whether the way the composer is treating compositional problems feels consistent, and does the rhetoric of the piece make sense to me. Hopefully this helps!


----------



## Forster

Luchesi said:


> "That I get an adrenalin rush listening to this or that composition, or am moved to tears? And intellectual pleasure? What do you _think _it means?"
> 
> Is it that strong?
> Women fainted when they heard Liszt play. Today while hearing the same works they don't faint.
> 
> In the VW, the right answer (for you) will be the notion you get during that short part of a piece.


Yes, it is that strong for me. That doesn't mean it must be that strong for anyone else. "Listening to music" isn't only about the music, but also about the context at the time of the listening, including all that the listener brings - their personal circumstances, mood, energy levels, attitudes - the whole shebang. There is no such thing as 'pure' listening, uncontaminated by matters outside the music itself.

But you didnt answer my question - you wanted precision, not the vague: have I given you enough? Do you want more?



Boychev said:


> I think you've been reading Hegel's Phenomenology [etc]





Opisthokont said:


> It's not about reaching agreement, it's about the process of disagreement. I've read the Logic, not the Phenomenology though - but my use of philosophical method here is more influenced by people like Adorno, Ilyenkov, and Banaji. [etc]


These discussions go over my head. For me, listening to music is a practical, visceral experience. Whilst I'm curious about what it is in music that causes humans to have real physical responses, I don't see how philosophy helps us listen to and enjoy music.

In the meantime, I'm waiting for Boychev to help us all by trying out an exchange over a specific piece of music. If they don't like the VW, let's pick something else we can agree to listen to and discuss.


----------



## FrankE

You don't have to "get" classical music.
Listen to it. Don't listen to it.
Enjoy it. Don't enjoy it. 
Look for meaning in it. Don't look for meaning in it.
Your choice.


----------



## Luchesi

Forster said:


> Yes, it is that strong for me. That doesn't mean it must be that strong for anyone else. "Listening to music" isn't only about the music, but also about the context at the time of the listening, including all that the listener brings - their personal circumstances, mood, energy levels, attitudes - the whole shebang. There is no such thing as 'pure' listening, uncontaminated by matters outside the music itself.
> 
> But you didnt answer my question - you wanted precision, not the vague: have I given you enough? Do you want more?
> 
> s.


I'm not understanding, could you re-word that thank you. I can't tell if you're being defensive or you're trying to help me understand.


----------



## Luchesi

FrankE said:


> You don't have to "get" classical music.
> Listen to it. Don't listen to it.
> Enjoy it. Don't enjoy it.
> Look for meaning in it. Don't look for meaning in it.
> Your choice.


Yes, that's what the older generations have been telling the young people for 50 or 60 years. It's no wonder that it's all gone downhill.


----------



## SanAntone

Luchesi said:


> Yes, that's what the older generations have been telling the young people for 50 or 60 years. It's no wonder that it's all gone downhill.


First, I don't agree that there was a monolithic message from "older generations" to their younger cohorts for 50-60 years. Secondly, and more importantly, I don't think Classical music has "gone downhill." It is vibrantly alive with wonderful music being written by talented young composers.

I am in total agreement with the post you responded to: Classical music is there or the taking, or not. Listen to it, or ignore it - it is up to each individual to decide.


----------



## Luchesi

composingmusic said:


> I'll start off by saying that there isn't one right way to listen to music - that's part of the beauty of it. Everyone will perceive things in their own way, with their own subjective experiences. This is something that I, as a composer, have to grapple with; however, it's always fascinating to see how people interpret what I've written. I've had people come up to me after a concert and tell me they've heard something in my piece, which I thought was very different from what I had personally perceived it to be. Sometimes people tell me they think of something like a sunset, or another very specific visual scene, for instance, when I had something much more abstract in mind.
> 
> However, there's many ways one can approach listening to a piece, at different levels. On a very broad level, what does the form of the piece feel like? Does it go somewhere? What are the proportions like?
> 
> At a more specific level - perhaps you can hear some kind of melodic structures, or this might be a piece where the focus is on, say, harmony, or timbre. First of all, what is the focus? Perhaps there's more than one focus; and if so, how is this focus articulated through the structure on both a local or broader scope? Which instruments are present in the piece, and how are they being used? What sort of colour combinations is the composer using, and how are they taking advantage of the properties of the instruments?
> 
> Some other considerations: What kind of mood or colour are you hearing? Is it dark, or light, or some blend of these? How is that being achieved? How would I characterize the gestures being used? Are the instruments working together as a unit, or are there many layers of activity - or maybe some instruments are working as units, and others aren't? These can be looked at in a very specific, local level, or on a much broader scale.
> 
> In any case, I don't personally look for a specific meaning - it's more of a character or mood that I end up thinking of. Other things I think of are whether the way the composer is treating compositional problems feels consistent, and does the rhetoric of the piece make sense to me. Hopefully this helps!


As a composer, because it requires so much interest in music, I suspect that you didn't learn to love music by the prescriptions that we offer to people who ask us, like Boychev. Some other coincidences resulted in your love of music - and this is the huge chasm that we can't easily cross. In fact it might be impossible to cross.. but since we have very similar upbringings (most of us) we can expect there will still be excellent outcomes. I'm not expecting fewer new devotees at this late date, so that's a nice thought.

I'm not being very clear I suspect. What I'm saying is you can't teach a LOVE of music, but you can teach ABOUT music and this increases the probability that those coincidences which resulted in your love of music will also occur, at the right time, in a young person's life (age 12 to 15).


----------



## SanAntone

composingmusic said:


> I'll start off by saying that there isn't one right way to listen to music - that's part of the beauty of it. Everyone will perceive things in their own way, with their own subjective experiences. This is something that I, as a composer, have to grapple with; however, it's always fascinating to see how people interpret what I've written. I've had people come up to me after a concert and tell me they've heard something in my piece, which I thought was very different from what I had personally perceived it to be. Sometimes people tell me they think of something like a sunset, or another very specific visual scene, for instance, when I had something much more abstract in mind.
> 
> However, there's many ways one can approach listening to a piece, at different levels. On a very broad level, what does the form of the piece feel like? Does it go somewhere? What are the proportions like?
> 
> At a more specific level - perhaps you can hear some kind of melodic structures, or this might be a piece where the focus is on, say, harmony, or timbre. First of all, what is the focus? Perhaps there's more than one focus; and if so, how is this focus articulated through the structure on both a local or broader scope? Which instruments are present in the piece, and how are they being used? What sort of colour combinations is the composer using, and how are they taking advantage of the properties of the instruments?
> 
> Some other considerations: What kind of mood or colour are you hearing? Is it dark, or light, or some blend of these? How is that being achieved? How would I characterize the gestures being used? Are the instruments working together as a unit, or are there many layers of activity - or maybe some instruments are working as units, and others aren't? These can be looked at in a very specific, local level, or on a much broader scale.
> 
> In any case, I don't personally look for a specific meaning - it's more of a character or mood that I end up thinking of. Other things I think of are whether the way the composer is treating compositional problems feels consistent, and does the rhetoric of the piece make sense to me. Hopefully this helps!


I think you are on the right track - everything in your post is valuable for both composers and listeners. Bravo! Keep the faith, don't get discouraged, and above all - KEEP WRITING.


----------



## Luchesi

SanAntone said:


> First, I don't agree that there was a monolithic message from "older generations" to their younger cohorts for 50-60 years. Secondly, and more importantly, I don't think Classical music has "gone downhill." It is vibrantly alive with wonderful music being written by talented young composers.
> 
> I am in total agreement with the post you responded to: Classical music is there or the taking, or not. Listen to it, or ignore it - it is up to each individual to decide.


We have different perspectives and experiences, I wonder how many people would agree with me about this instead of you?

I would like to see the money made available to teach children the language of music (at least as much support as learning Spanish or French). This way when they reach the age of 50 they will have a toolbox for personal creativity, should they ever want to use it.


----------



## composingmusic

SanAntone said:


> I think you are on the right track - everything in your post is valuable for both composers and listeners. Bravo! Keep the faith, don't get discouraged, and above all - KEEP WRITING.


Thank you! I try - actually, that comment about not getting discouraged is interesting; my teacher has said something very similar. (I suppose here I should mention I'm studying composition.) Instead, if one's feeling discouraged, that often comes about from being confused, and I think being confused is not a bad thing. Actually, allowing oneself to be confused is valuable, and it means you're not trying to force something, but instead are allowing yourself to really find what you want something to be. The bit about continuing to write is important too, even if it feels difficult a lot of the time.


----------



## SanAntone

composingmusic said:


> Thank you! I try - actually, that comment about not getting discouraged is interesting; my teacher has said something very similar. (I suppose here I should mention I'm studying composition.) Instead, if one's feeling discouraged, that often comes about from being confused, and I think being confused is not a bad thing. Actually, allowing oneself to be confused is valuable, and it means you're not trying to force something, but instead are allowing yourself to really find what you want something to be. The bit about continuing to write is important too, even if it feels difficult a lot of the time.


Stephen Sondheim tells (or used to tell ) a story of his first year at Williams College. Although he had a gift for mathematics he did not wish to pursue that as his major and instead chose English, a safe bet at Williams, a liberal arts school. As an elective took an introduction to music theory, which he thought would be a gut course.

His teacher was very good, a nuts and bolts kind of guy who taught Sondheim about diatonic scales, voice-leading, resolving suspensions, counterpoint, etc., and discovered he loved it. He could grasp the methodical working out of an idea and found it immensely more interesting and exciting than how he had previously thought of composing: a magical process where a little angel sat on your shoulder and sang in to your ear.

He discovered that music, or any art, is disciplined application, everyday - not waiting for "inspiration" - which will come in the form of a flash of insight, or a solution to a problem, which you needed those tools of discipline, a finely honed self-editor, and the steady daily work to turn into a completed work.

Good luck.


----------



## Luchesi

SanAntone said:


> Stephen Sondheim tells (or used to tell ) a story of his first year at Williams College. Although he had a gift for mathematics he did not wish to pursue that as his major and instead chose English, a safe bet at Williams, a liberal arts school. As an elective took an introduction to music theory, which he thought would be a gut course.
> 
> His teacher was very good, a nuts and bolts kind of guy who taught Sondheim about diatonic scales, voice-leading, resolving suspensions, counterpoint, etc., and discovered he loved it. He could grasp the methodical working out of an idea and found it immensely more interesting and exciting than how he had previously thought of composing: a magical process where a little angel sat on your shoulder and sang in to your ear.
> 
> He discovered that music, or any art, is disciplined application, everyday - not waiting for "inspiration" - which will come in the form of a flash of insight, or a solution to a problem, which you needed those tools of discipline, a finely honed self-editor, and the steady daily work to turn into a completed work.
> 
> Good luck.


That's a story I should use!

Oblige and press students to learn the language of music and who knows what will come out of it. It's likely better than not teaching them. But is it worth it? This is where you need a perspective from age to see what's valuable for people in their lives. The educators and the bean counters might be too young.


----------



## Forster

Luchesi said:


> I'm not understanding, could you re-word that thank you. I can't tell if you're being defensive or you're trying to help me understand.


I'm trying to help you understand.

In an earlier post, I repeated that what I get out of music is both intellectual pleasure and emotional stimulation. You responded:



Luchesi said:


> We've heard it before from others, but it's quite vague. You say that straightforwardly and Boychev is trying to understand a little of what that means.


I assumed you meant that "emotional and intellectual pleasure" was a vague description of what I (and others) get out of music. I expressed doubt that you didn't really know what it meant, but I nevertheless attempted to elaborate. (I'd already given some ideas back at #22 in this thread!)

Instead of confirming that I had now given sufficient detail of what it meant (to me, at any rate) you expressed surprise that I should have such a strong reaction to music, comparing me to women fainting at Liszt! So I asked whether what I had offered was less vague; had I made clear what music means to me and how it makes me feel (and more than that, how important music is to me).

So, have I elaborated sufficiently?

To be clear, what I had in mind to help Boychev (if they do actually want help, and are not just being difficult) was to explain how I listened to and came to "understand the meaning" of a specific piece of music, rather than talk in generalities. I chose Vaughan Williams' Pastoral Symphony because it is the most recent symphony which I have come to know (and love) from scratch. But if Boychev doesn't start listening to it, discussion will be fruitless.

I may be mistaken in assuming some practical rather than theoretical assistance would be of use. I see that others prefer the theoretical.


----------



## composingmusic

SanAntone said:


> Stephen Sondheim tells (or used to tell ) a story of his first year at Williams College. Although he had a gift for mathematics he did not wish to pursue that as his major and instead chose English, a safe bet at Williams, a liberal arts school. As an elective took an introduction to music theory, which he thought would be a gut course.
> 
> His teacher was very good, a nuts and bolts kind of guy who taught Sondheim about diatonic scales, voice-leading, resolving suspensions, counterpoint, etc., and discovered he loved it. He could grasp the methodical working out of an idea and found it immensely more interesting and exciting than how he had previously thought of composing: a magical process where a little angel sat on your shoulder and sang in to your ear.
> 
> He discovered that music, or any art, is disciplined application, everyday - not waiting for "inspiration" - which will come in the form of a flash of insight, or a solution to a problem, which you needed those tools of discipline, a finely honed self-editor, and the steady daily work to turn into a completed work.
> 
> Good luck.


Oh thanks for that story - a nice anecdote there. And yes, I agree that one has to be persistent in one's work. Music doesn't magically appear out of thin air. Sometimes I'll have ideas for how I want something to be, but those have to be refined and combined. Most of all, the piece itself has to be consistent within itself, without being boring or stale, and that's not an easy thing to achieve. Getting to that point takes a lot of hard work.

And usually if it's a flash of inspiration or insight, that's come about from mulling the problem over in my head for a while and trying out a variety of angles to find a solution. Then I also need to assess whether this solution is actually what I'm looking for in the context of the piece.


----------



## Opisthokont

Forster said:


> Thanks. I particularly like your 2nd para. I've just made a slight adjustment to it, italicising 'we think' rather than 'right'.
> 
> The issue here is that the OP insists that there are rules that must be understood first before any interpretation is even attempted.
> 
> How can we help them to get past that? They don't seem to know what rules they mean - not the "rules" of CPT, or serialism, or the doctrine of affections - only that these rules must exist because the rest of our life is organised by "rules".


Thanks for the compliment! I'm sometimes self-conscious about coming off as pretentious or annoying when I write things like that. I don't know how we get them past that to be honest. I think the only way is to just talk about art that you find interesting with other people you enjoy talking to? It feels so natural to us that I think we overlook how weird and complicated the process really is.

I don't understand the mindset to be honest, where one can't come to an interpretation in your head. Have you ever saw a tiled floor and pretended that the every other tile was lava?


----------



## composingmusic

Forster said:


> I'm trying to help you understand.
> 
> In an earlier post, I repeated that what I get out of music is both intellectual pleasure and emotional stimulation. You responded:
> 
> I assumed you meant that "emotional and intellectual pleasure" was a vague description of what I (and others) get out of music. I expressed doubt that you didn't really know what it meant, but I nevertheless attempted to elaborate. (I'd already given some ideas back at #22 in this thread!)
> 
> Instead of confirming that I had now given sufficient detail of what it meant (to me, at any rate) you expressed surprise that I should have such a strong reaction to music, comparing me to women fainting at Liszt! So I asked whether what I had offered was less vague; had I made clear what music means to me and how it makes me feel (and more than that, how important music is to me).
> 
> So, have I elaborated sufficiently?
> 
> To be clear, what I had in mind to help Boychev (if they do actually want help, and are not just being difficult) was to explain how I listened to and came to "understand the meaning" of a specific piece of music, rather than talk in generalities. I chose Vaughan Williams' Pastoral Symphony because it is the most recent symphony which I have come to know (and love) from scratch. But if Boychev doesn't start listening to it, discussion will be fruitless.
> 
> I may be mistaken in assuming some practical rather than theoretical assistance would be of use. I see that others prefer the theoretical.


Going off of your earlier point, I'll agree with what you said previously re. music being there for the taking. I don't think there's a right or wrong way to listen to it, although it can be interesting and useful to have some theoretical knowledge and training, if one wants to listen in an active, analytical sense (which I very much do).

Something I often start with re. helping people who are unfamiliar with classical music (both common-practice and contemporary) is to ask them what kind of music they listen to, and what types of things they enjoy. Based on that, I'll come up with pieces that I think they may particularly enjoy, which have something in common with these responses. And on that note, Boychev, if you're here - what sort of music do you usually listen to, and why?


----------



## Luchesi

Forster said:


> I'm trying to help you understand.
> 
> In an earlier post, I repeated that what I get out of music is both intellectual pleasure and emotional stimulation. You responded:
> 
> I assumed you meant that "emotional and intellectual pleasure" was a vague description of what I (and others) get out of music. I expressed doubt that you didn't really know what it meant, but I nevertheless attempted to elaborate. (I'd already given some ideas back at #22 in this thread!)
> 
> Instead of confirming that I had now given sufficient detail of what it meant (to me, at any rate) you expressed surprise that I should have such a strong reaction to music, comparing me to women fainting at Liszt! So I asked whether what I had offered was less vague; had I made clear what music means to me and how it makes me feel (and more than that, how important music is to me).
> 
> So, have I elaborated sufficiently?
> 
> To be clear, what I had in mind to help Boychev (if they do actually want help, and are not just being difficult) was to explain how I listened to and came to "understand the meaning" of a specific piece of music, rather than talk in generalities. I chose Vaughan Williams' Pastoral Symphony because it is the most recent symphony which I have come to know (and love) from scratch. But if Boychev doesn't start listening to it, discussion will be fruitless.
> 
> I may be mistaken in assuming some practical rather than theoretical assistance would be of use. I see that others prefer the theoretical.


What was vague was why and how you get those reactions. But it's not your fault, because it's probably not explainable at the macro level we experience.


----------



## Luchesi

composingmusic said:


> Going off of your earlier point, I'll agree with what you said previously re. music being there for the taking. I don't think there's a right or wrong way to listen to it, although it can be interesting and useful to have some theoretical knowledge and training, if one wants to listen in an active, analytical sense (which I very much do).
> 
> Something I often start with re. helping people who are unfamiliar with classical music (both common-practice and contemporary) is to ask them what kind of music they listen to, and what types of things they enjoy. Based on that, I'll come up with pieces that I think they may particularly enjoy, which have something in common with these responses. And on that note, Boychev, if you're here - what sort of music do you usually listen to, and why?


When we say we enjoy music, that has different meanings to different people. I don't like to use the word enjoy in music appreciation, because what actually matters in art is significance. And significance is one of those big words. Finding something significant to me is better than trying to find something I enjoy. It also has the added benefit of taking preferences out of the picture.


----------



## Forster

Luchesi said:


> What was vague was why and how you get those reactions. But it's not your fault, because it's probably not explainable at the macro level we experience.


What do you mean...why and how?


----------



## composingmusic

Luchesi said:


> When we say we enjoy music, that has different meanings to different people. I don't like to use the word enjoy in music appreciation, because what actually matters in art is significance. And significance is one of those big words. Finding something significant to me is better than trying to find something I enjoy. It also has the added benefit of taking preferences out of the picture.


I suppose it's true that the word "enjoy" has different meanings to different people. And yes, it's true one can appreciate music without enjoying it, or vice versa. I also try and look for significance, and try to appreciate different types of music, even if it's not my personal aesthetic preference.

On the subject of showing people music they're unfamiliar with, I find it can be useful to find similarities with music they enjoy or appreciate, and then expand from there. That's what I was trying to say.


----------



## SanAntone

Luchesi said:


> Finding something significant to me is better than trying to find something I enjoy.


Good luck with that. I listen to music, or read, or visit art museums in the hope I will experience enjoyment from the art, music, or book.

Significance is one of those words which people attach to something in which they wish to describe as more important than mere entertainment. IMO, if art or music does not at some level entertain, it is not worth much.


----------



## Luchesi

Forster said:


> What do you mean...why and how?


Exactly.

Does anybody know? Perhaps not, but we should have some ideas about it since it goes on in our own imaginary world. We construct that world, but it's still a foreign land.


----------



## Luchesi

SanAntone said:


> Good luck with that. I listen to music, or read, or visit art museums in the hope I will experience enjoyment from the art, music, or book.
> 
> Significance is one of those words which people attach to something in which they wish to describe as more important than mere entertainment. IMO, if art or music does not at some level entertain, it is not worth much.


I'm trying to picture you merely 'enjoying' music. Can you describe what I would see?

Are you one of those musicians who hears/analyzes a piece, whether you want to or not, pretty much against your will? You hear the big harmonic changes and the glimpse of a score flashes in your memory. Not precise or even correct, just an invountary habit of seeing music.


----------



## Luchesi

composingmusic said:


> I suppose it's true that the word "enjoy" has different meanings to different people. And yes, it's true one can appreciate music without enjoying it, or vice versa. I also try and look for significance, and try to appreciate different types of music, even if it's not my personal aesthetic preference.
> 
> On the subject of showing people music they're unfamiliar with, I find it can be useful to find similarities with music they enjoy or appreciate, and then expand from there. That's what I was trying to say.


When you talk to a student of music or an adult who's new to CM and you get around to saying here this is the greatest work of Beethoven. And they are impressed, momentarily. They put that under their hat and off they go. Later on, they hear the work and they remember. They might disagree with you or they might come into some kind of similar study. Enjoyment? It's never mentioned, but most busy things in music are enjoyable. Is there an unenjoyable part?


----------



## Forster

Luchesi said:


> Exactly.
> 
> Does anybody know? Perhaps not, but we should have some ideas about it since it goes on in our own imaginary world. We construct that world, but it's still a foreign land.


No, not "exactly". What do you mean by "how and why you get those reactions"? Are you asking about human physiological response? Are you asking what it is about the music that produces that response? What?


----------



## Forster

SanAntone said:


> Good luck with that. I listen to music, or read, or visit art museums in the hope I will experience enjoyment from the art, music, or book.
> 
> Significance is one of those words which people attach to something in which they wish to describe as more important than mere entertainment. IMO, if art or music does not at some level entertain, it is not worth much.


Quite. The constant dismissal of the "enjoyment" of music as if ut is in some way subordinate to, or inferior to "appreciation" or "understanding" is actually quite infuriating.


----------



## SanAntone

Luchesi said:


> I'm trying to picture you merely 'enjoying' music. Can you describe what I would see?


I am listening to the music. I might be doing something else, I might be reading, or I might be listening to the music very intently.



> Are you one of those musicians who hears/analyzes a piece, whether you want to or not, pretty much against your will? You hear the big harmonic changes and the glimpse of a score flashes in your memory. Not precise or even correct, just an invountary habit of seeing music.


No. If anything I resist that kind of thing. I prefer to experience music more intuitively, organically, and not intellectually or cerebrally. Unless I am planning on writing an article about a composer or work, I turn off my analytical brain when I listen to music.


----------



## composingmusic

SanAntone said:


> No. If anything I resist that kind of thing. I prefer to experience music more intuitively, organically, and not intellectually or cerebrally. Unless I am planning on writing an article about a composer or work, I turn off my analytical brain when I listen to music.


That's really interesting - and I always find it fascinating to hear how other people listen to music. Again, I don't think there's a superior or inferior way of experiencing things, just different ways. I do tend to listen quite analytically - this is both a result of training, and of having a tendency of listening to things in that way.

I've thought about what people have spoken about here, re. 'enjoyment' vs. 'understanding' or 'significance' of music. I think all three of these are valid, and while they can be interlinked, are separate things. Personally, it's fair to say that I enjoy the process of gaining an understanding of what I'm listening to, but I appreciate that this isn't the case for everyone. Some people seek enjoyment, others seek to find significance, or both.


----------



## SanAntone

composingmusic said:


> That's really interesting - and I always find it fascinating to hear how other people listen to music. Again, I don't think there's a superior or inferior way of experiencing things, just different ways. I do tend to listen quite analytically - this is both a result of training, and of having a tendency of listening to things in that way.
> 
> I've thought about what people have spoken about here, re. 'enjoyment' vs. 'understanding' or 'significance' of music. I think all three of these are valid, and while they can be interlinked, are separate things. Personally, it's fair to say that I enjoy the process of gaining an understanding of what I'm listening to, but I appreciate that this isn't the case for everyone. Some people seek enjoyment, others seek to find significance, or both.


It depends on the kind of music I am listening to. There is some music I listen to in order to study it. I am a songwriter so I listen to songs differently than Classical music. When I listen to a song I am listening to how it is put together, the rhyme scheme, how the words sit on the melody, all the craft related aspects.

I've also been a Jazz bassist and will listen to Jazz more critically: the note choices of the bass player, the swing, the interaction among the rhythm section, how a soloist develops his improvisation.

Although my degree was in music theory and composition, when I listen to Classical music I tend to not analyze.


----------



## composingmusic

Luchesi said:


> When you talk to a student of music or an adult who's new to CM and you get around to saying here this is the greatest work of Beethoven. And they are impressed, momentarily. They put that under their hat and off they go. Later on, they hear the work and they remember. They might disagree with you or they might come into some kind of similar study. Enjoyment? It's never mentioned, but most busy things in music are enjoyable. Is there an unenjoyable part?


Re. the enjoyment part, what I mean by that is that people have different preferences, and this may or may not correlate with significance. Personal significance and significance at large are not necessarily the same thing.


----------



## Luchesi

Forster said:


> No, not "exactly". What do you mean by "how and why you get those reactions"? Are you asking about human physiological response? Are you asking what it is about the music that produces that response? What?


Exactly, we don't know. Isn't that odd? Music's been around a long time and it's only been getting more effective (which makes logical sense).

We don't know, but we can chat about it and maybe some interesting ideas will arise.

By the way, we know the answer to why music is more effective (that's what musicians study).


----------



## Luchesi

composingmusic said:


> Re. the enjoyment part, what I mean by that is that people have different preferences, and this may or may not correlate with significance. Personal significance and significance at large are not necessarily the same thing.


Do other peoples' preferences influence your musical preferences? This has always been an extra-ordinary question for me, while watching my friends as if they were experimental lab animals.


----------



## Luchesi

SanAntone said:


> It depends on the kind of music I am listening to. There is some music I listen to in order to study it. I am a songwriter so I listen to songs differently than Classical music. When I listen to a song I am listening to how it is put together, the rhyme scheme, how the words sit on the melody, all the craft related aspects.
> 
> I've also been a Jazz bassist and will listen to Jazz more critically: the note choices of the bass player, the swing, the interaction among the rhythm section, how a soloist develops his improvisation.
> 
> Although my degree was in music theory and composition, when I listen to Classical music I tend to not analyze.


I guess we already knew that we couldn't be more different in this.

When listening to a new difficult work I need to have a score, because I don't have "good ears". I don't hear music as well as I think I should, with all my experience. I don't quickly hear what the composer is attempting as his 'spiritual' goal. I can see the new things in the score, before I hear what could follow. I don't know what other peoples' experiences are, because I've only had this experience.


----------



## Boychev

Forster said:


> Did you listen to VW's Pastoral? That would be a good starting point.


I don't know how to listen to it, so no, my listening to it doesn't really count as actually listening to it, the same way my reading of a book in French doesn't count as actually reading the book - because I don't understand French just like I have no understanding of music. All I have the right to say at this point is that I hear a bunch of pleasant sounds. Without knowing how the music connects to anything else, I can't possibly articulate anything more - or if I do, it will be purple prose and meaningless hypothesizing and some unwarranted claims.


----------



## composingmusic

Luchesi said:


> I guess we already knew that we couldn't be more different in this.
> 
> When listening to a new difficult work I need to have a score, because I don't have "good ears". I don't hear music as well as I think I should, with all my experience. I don't quickly hear what the composer is attempting as his 'spiritual' goal. I can see the new things in the score, before I hear what could follow. I don't know what other peoples' experiences are, because I've only had this experience.


That's really interesting. I'm quite an analytical listener - this comes as a result of having a bunch of training, and naturally tending to analyse everything I listen to. From the perspective of a composer, this is quite useful, as it means I can dissect what I'm listening to, and figure out what components make up what I'm hearing with a reasonable degree of accuracy.

Listening with a score is valuable regardless, as it can confirm what I'm hearing, or I might notice things I would otherwise have missed. It's also interesting to see how other composers have notated things, and compare that to how I might have approached writing something that would have sounded similar. Listening without a score can also be valuable, because I'm just focused on the sound itself and can't fixate on the notational aspect. But yeah, one fascinating aspect of this is how differently everyone seems to perceive what they're hearing.


----------



## composingmusic

Boychev said:


> I don't know how to listen to it, so no, my listening to it doesn't really count as actually listening to it, the same way my reading of a book in French doesn't count as actually reading the book - because I don't understand French just like I have no understanding of music. All I have the right to say at this point is that I hear a bunch of pleasant sounds. Without knowing how the music connects to anything else, I can't possibly articulate anything more - or if I do, it will be purple prose and meaningless hypothesizing and some unwarranted claims.


Well, being able to say you hear a bunch of pleasant sounds is good. If you're looking for a more analytical approach, I recommend learning some music theory and learning what these various concepts sound like. Some other things to pay attention to: how is the composer using the range of the instruments (and how are they using range in general)? If applicable, what sort of instrumental combinations are in use, and what is the effect? An orchestration book could also be really useful for thinking about timbre and instrumentation in this way - I'd also recommend studying scores and seeing what different composers do.

Aside from that, how is the composer using texture? Are they creating multiple layers - and if so, do these layers feel like they're working together in some way, or are they sharply juxtaposed against each other? If there's a single layer, how is that being created?

Considering issues like this is really helpful to developing a deeper understanding of music. Reading up on historical context and how composers influenced each other can be really useful and interesting too.


----------



## Luchesi

composingmusic said:


> Well, being able to say you hear a bunch of pleasant sounds is good. If you're looking for a more analytical approach, I recommend learning some music theory and learning what these various concepts sound like. Some other things to pay attention to: how is the composer using the range of the instruments (and how are they using range in general)? If applicable, what sort of instrumental combinations are in use, and what is the effect? An orchestration book could also be really useful for thinking about timbre and instrumentation in this way - I'd also recommend studying scores and seeing what different composers do.
> 
> Aside from that, how is the composer using texture? Are they creating multiple layers - and if so, do these layers feel like they're working together in some way, or are they sharply juxtaposed against each other? If there's a single layer, how is that being created?
> 
> Considering issues like this is really helpful to developing a deeper understanding of music. Reading up on historical context and how composers influenced each other can be really useful and interesting too.


Since hearing what Boychev has as questions I wouldn't advise all that heavy stuff above. It might seem heavy or burdensome.

I would advise enjoying melodic, higher quality Pop songs and then finding melodies in Chopin and then finding melodies in Mozart. Only finding melodies. Then on to LvB and Schubert (for romantic melodies, drama). Then when you think you've matured out of your youthful snap-judgements you go to JsB and Handel and Haydn. It's a journey (of high quality).


----------



## Luchesi

composingmusic said:


> That's really interesting. I'm quite an analytical listener - this comes as a result of having a bunch of training, and naturally tending to analyse everything I listen to. From the perspective of a composer, this is quite useful, as it means I can dissect what I'm listening to, and figure out what components make up what I'm hearing with a reasonable degree of accuracy.
> 
> Listening with a score is valuable regardless, as it can confirm what I'm hearing, or I might notice things I would otherwise have missed. It's also interesting to see how other composers have notated things, and compare that to how I might have approached writing something that would have sounded similar. Listening without a score can also be valuable, because I'm just focused on the sound itself and can't fixate on the notational aspect. But yeah, one fascinating aspect of this is how differently everyone seems to perceive what they're hearing.


Yeah, you can imagine me learning to jazz improvise with a tin ear (it's not that bad). I memorize good ideas in a few different keys and the rest is just 'rhythm' and reflecting and repeating. I force myself because I'm not naturally inventive but I want be.. 
Play around with F#7 to A9 to F#7, and then B7 to D9 to B7 etc. It's a refreshing one to me.

What's hot on Youtube now is Bdim7 giving us Db7 and Bb7 and E7 and G7 by moving only one note a half step for each. Quick ideas for improvising, but quite tricky to play resulting ideas smoothly.


----------



## Forster

@Boychev. From your earlier post where you list some of the composers you listen to, I had assumed that you did at least listen, and that it was some type of meaning that you were trying to find.



> Some art music pieces I like are Beethoven's symphonies, Brahms' symphonies, Rachmaninoff's piano concertos, Bach's WTK, Schoenberg's quartets, Glass' Einstein on the Beach, Feldman's For Philip Guston, Debussy's piano works, some of Cage's early works [etc]


How do I translate music to information?

If the actual business of listening is the barrier, I don't think I'm the one to help, since listening is what I do. But since you claim to like Beethoven, Brahms and Schoenberg, I'm not sure listening is the problem.


----------



## Boychev

Forster said:


> @Boychev. From your earlier post where you list some of the composers you listen to, I had assumed that you did at least listen, and that it was some type of meaning that you were trying to find.
> 
> How do I translate music to information?
> 
> If the actual business of listening is the barrier, I don't think I'm the one to help, since listening is what I do. But since you claim to like Beethoven, Brahms and Schoenberg, I'm not sure listening is the problem.


I like them but that doesn't amount to much. I like James Joyce's prose, but that doesn't mean I actually understand most of what he's trying to communicate. The other side of this is also true - you can understand something that brings you no joy, right?

I mean there's tons of cool music, classical or otherwise, anything from traditional folk to free improv and harsh noise, but so what? Most of it doesn't achieve anything other than... be music. I'm sure every listener out there feels in some way fulfilled by whatever their favourite music is and there's someone out there experiencing ecstasy by the sound of that one experimental album that's just 60 minutes of a single sinewave. So what?


----------



## Luchesi

Boychev said:


> I like them but that doesn't amount to much. I like James Joyce's prose, but that doesn't mean I actually understand most of what he's trying to communicate. The other side of this is also true - you can understand something that brings you no joy, right?
> 
> I mean there's tons of cool music, classical or otherwise, anything from traditional folk to free improv and harsh noise, but so what? Most of it doesn't achieve anything other than... be music. I'm sure every listener out there feels in some way fulfilled by whatever their favourite music is and there's someone out there experiencing ecstasy by the sound of that one experimental album that's just 60 minutes of a single sinewave. So what?


It might be that the old masters before 1950 etc. were composing for people who had music as a sufficient part of their education, and we just don't have that today.


----------



## Forster

Luchesi said:


> It might be that the old masters before 1950 etc. were composing for people who had music as a sufficient part of their education, and we just don't have that today.


Maybe they were, but I didn't have much music as part of my (school) education, and I seem to have made some progress with the old masters.


----------



## Luchesi

Forster said:


> Maybe they were, but I didn't have much music as part of my (school) education, and I seem to have made some progress with the old masters.


Yes, you might be a rare bird. You are the person whose experiences we should methodically cut up and spread out on the table to analyze.

I tend to hide behind my 'love' of analysis, but you have no such refuge. With you, it might be your whole emotional world. I don't know, I never get these answers (that's what's so helpful about a forum like this (if posters can be patient)).


----------



## SanAntone

> I mean there's tons of cool music, classical or otherwise, anything from traditional folk to free improv and harsh noise, but so what? Most of it doesn't achieve anything other than... be music.


But that is enough - music achieves what nothing else can.


----------



## Luchesi

Boychev said:


> I like them but that doesn't amount to much. I like James Joyce's prose, but that doesn't mean I actually understand most of what he's trying to communicate. The other side of this is also true - you can understand something that brings you no joy, right?
> 
> I mean there's tons of cool music, classical or otherwise, anything from traditional folk to free improv and harsh noise, but so what? Most of it doesn't achieve anything other than... be music. I'm sure every listener out there feels in some way fulfilled by whatever their favourite music is and there's someone out there experiencing ecstasy by the sound of that one experimental album that's just 60 minutes of a single sinewave. So what?


Sports are fun to watch. Progress? It's good for examples of exercise.

Listening to music forestalls the onset of dementia!
How does that work? What happens in your brain is there's a build up of proteins which become plaque and interfere with brain functions. When you use your brain for longer periods of time you need more of the essential proteins. The nearest source is right there - and your brain's clean-up system procures it from those dangerous drifting protein strands, Theoretically this reduces the amount of plaque buildup per unit of time.

This is a very small part of the dementia picture but I think it's interesting.


----------



## Forster

Luchesi said:


> Yes, you might be a rare bird. You are the person whose experiences we should methodically cut up and spread out on the table to analyze.
> 
> I tend to hide behind my 'love' of analysis, but you have no such refuge. With you, it might be your whole emotional world. I don't know, I never get these answers (that's what's so helpful about a forum like this (if posters can be patient)).


I might be...but I doubt it. However one comes to music - through formal education or happenstance - it's the music that keeps us here. This year, I've asked for a set of Schubert symphonies for Christmas. I've "done" Mahler, Shostakovich, Beethoven, Prokofiev, Roussel, VW, Sibelius...and comparable numbers of Haydn's 104. I though I'd try the poor man's Beethoven next.


----------



## Forster

Boychev said:


> I like them but that doesn't amount to much. I like James Joyce's prose, but that doesn't mean I actually understand most of what he's trying to communicate. The other side of this is also true - you can understand something that brings you no joy, right?
> 
> I mean there's tons of cool music, classical or otherwise, anything from traditional folk to free improv and harsh noise, but so what? Most of it doesn't achieve anything other than... be music. I'm sure every listener out there feels in some way fulfilled by whatever their favourite music is and there's someone out there experiencing ecstasy by the sound of that one experimental album that's just 60 minutes of a single sinewave. So what?


My only rejoinder to that is...so what? You claim to listen to music...but then that you don't. You say that there's lots of 'cool' music, but don't dare to name any _piece _that you actually like (we can all gesture towards 'some of Beethoven' without committing ourselves to anything.) You list a number of composers you like, but then expect us to believe that you get nothing out of listening to them - apparently persisting in a completely unrewarding activity. I offer the chance to share one way of exploring music, but you decline the offer.


----------



## Boychev

Forster said:


> My only rejoinder to that is...so what? You claim to listen to music...but then that you don't. You say that there's lots of 'cool' music, but don't dare to name any _piece _that you actually like (we can all gesture towards 'some of Beethoven' without committing ourselves to anything.) You list a number of composers you like, but then expect us to believe that you get nothing out of listening to them - apparently persisting in a completely unrewarding activity. I offer the chance to share one way of exploring music, but you decline the offer.


I mean it's just enjoyment, it's superficial and pointless.

I like Beethoven's 4th, 7th, and 8th for how vivacious and sober-minded they sound for example. That said, I can't _logically prove to you_ that you should _necessarily_ enjoy those pieces and enjoy them exactly the same way that I do. Also, I don't have the capacity to keep record of those pieces in my head so that I could point you to examples of _what_ exactly made me come to these conclusions, much less _why_ it is that they should necessarily be experienced that way. They're just something I hear, then it's over and that's that.

I just feel that I can't objectively justify the time spent listening to music. I can't explain to you why it was necessary to sit there for 1-2 hours and listen to music instead of doing literally anything else. It feels rather like a guilty pleasure.


----------



## composingmusic

Boychev said:


> I just feel that I can't objectively justify the time spent listening to music. I can't explain to you why it was necessary to sit there for 1-2 hours and listen to music instead of doing literally anything else. It feels rather like a guilty pleasure.


By this argument, can you justify reading books, or enjoying a painting? Must everything be utilitarian in order to not be a guilty pleasure?


----------



## Opisthokont

If listening to music is a guilty pleasure, then judge, I confess!


----------



## Luchesi

Boychev said:


> I mean it's just enjoyment, it's superficial and pointless.
> 
> I like Beethoven's 4th, 7th, and 8th for how vivacious and sober-minded they sound for example. That said, I can't _logically prove to you_ that you should _necessarily_ enjoy those pieces and enjoy them exactly the same way that I do. Also, I don't have the capacity to keep record of those pieces in my head so that I could point you to examples of _what_ exactly made me come to these conclusions, much less _why_ it is that they should necessarily be experienced that way. They're just something I hear, then it's over and that's that.
> 
> I just feel that I can't objectively justify the time spent listening to music. I can't explain to you why it was necessary to sit there for 1-2 hours and listen to music instead of doing literally anything else. It feels rather like a guilty pleasure.


Before this thread fades away I want to thank you for putting in the effort to carefully write about your situation. I've met one other person like you. He didn't even realize there were tone deaf people like him. Not that I'm concluding that you're tone deaf. I don't think my friend is tone deaf either but that's what we call it..


----------



## SanAntone

I've heard about people who don't listen to music, for whom it is of absolutely no interest. But it is hard for me to understand.


----------



## Luchesi

Forster said:


> I might be...but I doubt it. However one comes to music - through formal education or happenstance - it's the music that keeps us here. This year, I've asked for a set of Schubert symphonies for Christmas. I've "done" Mahler, Shostakovich, Beethoven, Prokofiev, Roussel, VW, Sibelius...and comparable numbers of Haydn's 104. I though I'd try the poor man's Beethoven next.


What's the poor man's Beethoven? I haven't heard of that.


----------



## Forster

Boychev said:


> I mean *it's just enjoyment, it's superficial and pointless.*
> 
> I like Beethoven's 4th, 7th, and 8th for how vivacious and sober-minded they sound for example. That said, *I can't logically prove to you that you should necessarily enjoy those pieces and enjoy them exactly the same way that I do*. Also, I don't have the capacity to keep record of those pieces in my head so that I could point you to examples of _what_ exactly made me come to these conclusions, much less _why_ it is that they should necessarily be experienced that way. They're just something I hear, then it's over and that's that.
> 
> *I just feel that I can't objectively justify the time spent listening to music*. I can't explain to you why it was necessary to sit there for 1-2 hours and listen to music instead of doing literally anything else. It feels rather like a guilty pleasure.


In response to the two points I've emboldened:

1. It's only pointless if you don't see any point.
2. You don't have to.
3. You don't have to (unless to someone else in your 'real' life)


----------



## Forster

Luchesi said:


> What's the poor man's Beethoven? I haven't heard of that.


I'm joking about Schubert, and his symphonies. They seem to fall in LvB's shadow, so I must find out if they do actually have a life of their own.


----------



## Luchesi

SanAntone said:


> I've heard about people who don't listen to music, for whom it is of absolutely no interest. But it is hard for me to understand.


Yes, so many paths of life.

And I've been meaning to ask you, can you remember the breakthrough year in which the understanding of music came easier to you? For me it was 10 or 11 and I can still remember the feelings of before and after. I realize that not everyone is like me.


----------



## Luchesi

Forster said:


> I'm joking about Schubert, and his symphonies. They seem to fall in LvB's shadow, so I must find out if they do actually have a life of their own.


Later Schubert is so much better. We talk about spending enough time to appreciate music, but Schubert took a long time to be able to create his later works. Even for a very highly intelligent individual, it takes a lot longer to produce new and important works. For me, this is another area of study which is so fascinating. Youthful works vs mature works of a famous creator.

To me the early symphonies of Schubert are mostly just fun. And I imagine that's how he looked back at them.


----------



## composingmusic

Luchesi said:


> Yes, so many paths of life.
> 
> And I've been meaning to ask you, can you remember the breakthrough year in which the understanding of music came easier to you? For me it was 10 or 11 and I can still remember the feelings of before and after. I realize that not everyone is like me.


That's really interesting! Would you care to elaborate more on these feelings? I can't remember such a thing in my own experience, although I also have some recollections of how my perception of things changed as I learned things like theoretical concepts. It's always really interesting to hear how different people hear things.


----------



## Luchesi

composingmusic said:


> That's really interesting! Would you care to elaborate more on these feelings? I can't remember such a thing in my own experience, although I also have some recollections of how my perception of things changed as I learned things like theoretical concepts. It's always really interesting to hear how different people hear things.


 I fondly remember simple versions of Liebestraum and Moonlight Sonata in F major and in D minor respectively. And these continue to give me a reference for the time and place. And all the standard fare, clever little pieces every kid struggles with to strengthen their muscle memory. 

Then from the local library this small world of mine changed when I heard the left hand of Schnabel in the early Beethoven sonatas. Wow I could actually do that someday!?

And then Glenn Gould dissecting the Mozart sonatas! - I started playing through them, imitating his finger popping and his eccentricities/dismissiveness. 

Then I was working a long time on the Rach 2. It's so full of sweeping, melodic phrases for impressing people (kids are like that). Next, the power of the LvB concertos and finally the endlessly clever Mozart concertos. I was hooked. That's the sequence I remember most clearly, after that it gets very complicated. From my small allowance I had acquired recordings of all the mature Mozart concertos from bargain labels by the time I was 12. What a ride that was!

As I look back now, I'm quite sure that I wouldn't be a pianist today if I had been subjected to a 'formal' education in music, including the endless presentations and measurements and opinions from authority figures in my life back then (teachers). I wanted to learn everything slowly on my own from the fundamental intervals and their relationships - and I did end up eventually with a career in research meteorology. I knew from a young age from my parents that it would be difficult to pay the bills in a music career.

Since I don't have an excellent ear (getting started so late) I can sympathize honestly with people who haven't had a lot of exposure to music, and don't have a lot of time for it, because the challenge of the game isn't there..


----------



## composingmusic

Luchesi said:


> I fondly remember simple versions of Liebestraum and Moonlight Sonata in F major and in D minor respectively. And these continue to give me a reference for the time and place. And all the standard fare, clever little pieces every kid struggles with to strengthen their muscle memory.
> 
> Then from the local library this small world of mine changed when I heard the left hand of Schnabel in the early Beethoven sonatas. Wow I could actually do that someday!?
> 
> And then Glenn Gould dissecting the Mozart sonatas! - I started playing through them, imitating his finger popping and his eccentricities/dismissiveness.
> 
> Then I was working a long time on the Rach 2. It's so full of sweeping, melodic phrases for impressing people (kids are like that). Next, the power of the LvB concertos and finally the endlessly clever Mozart concertos. I was hooked. That's the sequence I remember most clearly, after that it gets very complicated. From my small allowance I had acquired recordings of all the mature Mozart concertos from bargain labels by the time I was 12. What a ride that was!
> 
> As I look back now, I'm quite sure that I wouldn't be a pianist today if I had been subjected to a 'formal' education in music, including the endless presentations and measurements and opinions from authority figures in my life back then (teachers). I wanted to learn everything slowly on my own from the fundamental intervals and their relationships - and I did end up eventually with a career in research meteorology. I knew from a young age from my parents that it would be difficult to pay the bills in a music career.
> Since I don't have an excellent ear (getting started so late) I can sympathize honestly with people who haven't had a lot of exposure to music, and don't have a lot of time for it, because the challenge of the game isn't there..


That's a great story - and the dedication to acquire all of those recordings! Sounds like quite a journey indeed. I initially got interested from listening to my father practice (he's not a professional musician, but is quite a good pianist), and then started on lessons fairly young, partially as a result of this. My path has been quite formal, but ultimately the important thing is finding a personal relationship with music, which will be different for everyone. Having the flexibility of something else to rely on to pay the bills is probably quite freeing, I can imagine.

Anyway, that's really quite an interesting path you have there - thank you for sharing!


----------



## Luchesi

composingmusic said:


> That's a great story - and the dedication to acquire all of those recordings! Sounds like quite a journey indeed. I initially got interested from listening to my father practice (he's not a professional musician, but is quite a good pianist), and then started on lessons fairly young, partially as a result of this. My path has been quite formal, but ultimately the important thing is finding a personal relationship with music, which will be different for everyone. Having the flexibility of something else to rely on to pay the bills is probably quite freeing, I can imagine.
> 
> Anyway, that's really quite an interesting path you have there - thank you for sharing!


It sounds like you started at a younger age than 9 or 10. In my experience with teaching youngsters and adult beginners I can say that timing is everything. I was so lucky that the timing was very good for me.


----------



## composingmusic

Luchesi said:


> It sounds like you started at a younger age than 9 or 10. In my experience with teaching youngsters and adult beginners I can say that timing is everything. I was so lucky that the timing was very good for me.


Yes, I started quite early. My dad initially began teaching me piano, but decided it was better to get someone else to teach me, and I began taking lessons through a conservatoire preparatory school not too long after. Things snowballed bit by bit from there, and now this is the main thing that I do (composing, that is).


----------



## ollv

Hello Sorry for my english but what do you thing about translation to information ? 
Firstly I would like to inform you to new concepts of AI
I propose use it for count of power of AI, I am not sure you know russian but I'll translate nearly time 
https://rsdn.org/forum/ai/8159791.1

And I as a writer language for AI (one of) just imaging ability to ask about details of information 
We can guess you mean that's some strange sounds ? It is does not meater. Who able to talk which sound is not able to write or formalize ?

E.g/ do you know that music notes it is not the language ? The music is not able to be formalized through language undertanding there are no information which covered by formal gramatic. And also we are not able to say what is really important for the music. 
As I able to understood you would like to write some sound which is not covered byt current technologies

I able to propose some approaches just explane me formal bounds of this information ))


----------



## Boychev

Forster said:


> It's only pointless if you don't see any point.


How am I supposed to see the point of something I don't understand? You don't just feel your way through things and arrive at something meaningful.



Luchesi said:


> Before this thread fades away I want to thank you for putting in the effort to carefully write about your situation. I've met one other person like you. He didn't even realize there were tone deaf people like him. Not that I'm concluding that you're tone deaf. I don't think my friend is tone deaf either but that's what we call it..


What does tone deafness have to do with it? If I recall correctly, tone deafness has to do with being able to differentiate between pitches. I guess that would make the experience of music impossible in principle for them because the concept of different pitches occurring in various combinations in time would be incomprehensible to them. But that's just not being able to listen to music altogether, not _having no understanding_ of the music that you _do_ experience.


----------



## Luchesi

Boychev said:


> How am I supposed to see the point of something I don't understand? You don't just feel your way through things and arrive at something meaningful.
> 
> What does tone deafness have to do with it? If I recall correctly, tone deafness has to do with being able to differentiate between pitches. I guess that would make the experience of music impossible in principle for them because the concept of different pitches occurring in various combinations in time would be incomprehensible to them. But that's just not being able to listen to music altogether, not _having no understanding_ of the music that you _do_ experience.


Again, these are good questions. A musician understands a work of music, from the physics, also its place in history, also other similar works etc., and the ideas (comprised of the combinations of notes so familiar to us) which make the work so successful in moving us, emotionally, logically and inspirationally/philosophically. And then we're inspired to do it too, or at least participate in the process of active listening (paying attention and thinking along).
So, learn the physics (it's very basic), learn the history of music and categories of similar works, learn what the relevant combinations of notes are, learn enough to be inspired by this huge subject (this huge achievement of people down through the centuries).

It's true that we don't appreciate Portuguese poetry unless we first learn a lot about Portuguese and poetry as art. Its history, the combinations of letters and words so familiar to us, the philosophy (awareness and outlook of Portuguese poets).

You know all this, but I wanted to write it out.


----------



## Luchesi

ollv said:


> Hello Sorry for my english but what do you thing about translation to information ?
> Firstly I would like to inform you to new concepts of AI
> I propose use it for count of power of AI, I am not sure you know russian but I'll translate nearly time
> https://rsdn.org/forum/ai/8159791.1
> 
> And I as a writer language for AI (one of) just imaging ability to ask about details of information
> We can guess you mean that's some strange sounds ? It is does not meater. Who able to talk which sound is not able to write or formalize ?
> 
> E.g/ do you know that music notes it is not the language ? The music is not able to be formalized through language undertanding there are no information which covered by formal gramatic. And also we are not able to say what is really important for the music.
> As I able to understood you would like to write some sound which is not covered byt current technologies
> 
> I able to propose some approaches just explane me formal bounds of this information ))


here's a translation by Google

First of all, I would like to note that etymologically the word language comes from pagans, peoples, but in a more detailed form, in a more detailed form, this is a kind of flow of texts over people. Which can be topologically represented as a directed graph with directed human reasoning. If we imagine Chomsky's idea of some kind of global knowledge carried by people in a language, then it matches well with parables in tongues, and it is precisely parables in tongues that are logically more integral. so An AI task is considered in the context of NLP structurally, we can immediately represent the code, pseudo template <typename _Namespace = AI_Boost> struct oriented_graph { using native_oriented_grapth = typename _Namespace :: oriented_grapth; }; Or we'll change it later. Let's introduce an abstract type of numbers - abstract expression result - which can be a number in the usual sense, a syntactic expression that covers "numbers in the usual sense". And by the "undefined class" that there is already a syntactic expression or a minimized syntactic expression that has the ability to be indivisible, but deducible, word? With type w-type, w-typing?

Yes, it is assumed that w-typing will be probabilistic in one-way calculations, and rigidly deduced when calculating in the opposite direction, abstract expression result is countable. Sigma will determine whether the aer-counting output is received. Under aer-counting we will consider here the value obtained by calculations (in any formal systems based on modern European science, including G). The class of aer-countable AI is considered. We will consider it as an approximation AI. Further a-II.

And, now let us denote by w-type sigma the limit of achieving a certain collegial solution within the framework of a directed graph and the concept of movement of a linguistic form distributed in this structure. This limit must be even in the area already completely covered by a-AI, even the rules of chess were not written immediately. There is an etymology of the origin of chess rules. And let's call the fact of reaching this limit - the fact of achieving sigma completeness. This is already some kind of computability.

At the expense of adaptability, tape-dependent algorithms allow you to do whatever you want with a tape. Play in any reasonable directions. And since compilation is often - the computational process can be ajointized.


----------



## ollv

Luchesi said:


> Again, these are good questions. A musician understands a work of music, from the physics, also its place in history, also other similar works etc., and the ideas (comprised of the combinations of notes so familiar to us) which make the work so successful in moving us, emotionally, logically and inspirationally/philosophically. And then we're inspired to do it too, or at least participate in the process of active listening (paying attention and thinking along).


 Have you ever feel why engarmonisme is conflicted practice ? So I would like to say that it is not proved at least /



> So, learn the physics (it's very basic), learn the history of music and categories of similar works, learn what the relevant combinations of notes are, learn enough to be inspired by this huge subject (this huge achievement of people down through the centuries).


 This answers is not covered the question about music information. Because the music information it is not the computing information at least it is not equalent information about discursive intellegent activity. And what we shoud know about sounds ?



> It's true that we don't appreciate Portuguese poetry unless we first learn a lot about Portuguese and poetry as art. Its history, the combinations of letters and words so familiar to us, the philosophy (awareness and outlook of Portuguese poets).
> 
> You know all this, but I wanted to write it out.


What is philosophy and poetry ? It is different things, in russian we able to speak in poetry


----------



## Luchesi

ollv said:


> Have you ever feel why engarmonisme is conflicted practice ? So I would like to say that it is not proved at least /
> 
> This answers is not covered the question about music information. Because the music information it is not the computing information at least it is not equalent information about discursive intellegent activity. And what we shoud know about sounds ?
> 
> What is philosophy and poetry ? It is different things, in russian we able to speak in poetry


My thinking is, art is created by a human to reflect aspects of his reality. Humans understand each other about the many aspects of reality, from the natural world to human psychology. He hopes other people will appreciate his artifice. To build the artifice he uses metaphors and helpful ambiguities. Engarmonism is one type of ambiguity. 

If you and Boychev want information (data) from what music can project, then as you know, you need to convert the musical data into the on and off switches of binary computing. The computer will produce the sounds, and we animals will interpret them as human animals interpret any other music or sounds.


----------



## ollv

Luchesi said:


> My thinking is, art is created by a human to reflect aspects of his reality. Humans understand each other about the many aspects of reality, from the natural world to human psychology. He hopes other people will appreciate his artifice. To build the artifice he uses metaphors and helpful ambiguities. Engarmonism is one type of ambiguity.


 1. we are human and we have natural intellegence. but not only one. We have few intelegent interfaces 
a/ emotional intellegence
b/ discusirved intelegence
c/ feeling and intuitive 
etc ...

2. We are sociality and we are able to get information as quentecense 
It is human natural intellegence had a desigion in intuitive points of hyper graph (logical structure which used in AI)

And you (I don't remember who certainly) are told that we know physics but engarmonism is not proved. Did you try to use not "true notes"/ Currently I am practice in controbas improvisation, and I fill that it is not true .. I'll try to show later



> If you and Boychev want information (data) from what music can project, then as you know, you need to convert the musical data into the on and off switches of binary computing. The computer will produce the sounds, and we animals will interpret them as human animals interpret any other music or sounds.


 Currently I just asking about which type of information do you want to save 
It should be principal question because of music notes is not lang


----------



## Forster

Boychev said:


> How am I supposed to see the point of something I don't understand?


The only "point" to music is what _you _make of it. It's not pointless for me; I make of it what I do.



Boychev said:


> You don't just feel your way through things and arrive at something meaningful.


_You _may not, but it's exactly what I do. I'm not reading some code book that gives me secret insights (though I might read some of the same stuff that most of us have access to - liner notes giving some background to a piece, for example.)

I listen, then I listen again, and again, feeling my way through the sounds, seeking (and usually finding) patterns in the melodies, harmonies and rhythms, groping for a sense of the shape of a movement, then a whole symphony. Eventually - after about 8-10 listens - I'm familiar enough with it to be able to follow a melody, which I find a satisfying trick, and then I can get enjoyment out of the expectation, the anticipation, of what I know is coming next.

I have acquired a rudimentary knowledge of some of the terminology that musicians use to talk about the technical side of things, but I'm not a musician except in the sense of being an experienced consumer. I've not yet come across any musician who has said that I'm in some way missing the "point" of music, though they have added to my appreciation of the way a piece is constructed.

You really should give up implying that others' approaches to music must be wrong if all they're getting out of it is "enjoyment". It's tedious and rude.


----------



## ollv

Luchesi said:


> here's a translation by Google
> 
> .


Luchesi sorry I skept your post, I have tried to translate by google, but I am not sure that it is correctly/// some fraces is not correct. It is not trivial for me ) but w-typing it is sciense of languages and human intelegence. It is not only AI


----------



## composingmusic

On the subject of time deafness, I suppose that would have an effect on music perception – and theoretically, that could have an effect on performance, although trying to chart this somehow numerically could be quite difficult. But as far as enjoyment or appreciation goes… the only thing I can say is that peoples’ experiences of music will be different, although being able to say one person enjoys music more than another is a really difficult judgment to make. Someone who is more sensitive to differences in pitch will be more sensitive to differences in pitch, and there’s not much more I can say apart from that. 

In Oliver Sacks’ book Musicophilia, Sacks cites some examples of people with profound tone deafness, whose enjoyment of music is impaired. He also cites examples of people with less profound tone deafness, who do enjoy music. So I suppose that also depends on person to person – there’s probably also people who aren’t tone deaf, but don’t particularly enjoy music.


----------



## Luchesi

composingmusic said:


> On the subject of time deafness, I suppose that would have an effect on music perception - and theoretically, that could have an effect on performance, although trying to chart this somehow numerically could be quite difficult. But as far as enjoyment or appreciation goes… the only thing I can say is that peoples' experiences of music will be different, although being able to say one person enjoys music more than another is a really difficult judgment to make. Someone who is more sensitive to differences in pitch will be more sensitive to differences in pitch, and there's not much more I can say apart from that.
> 
> In Oliver Sacks' book Musicophilia, Sacks cites some examples of people with profound tone deafness, whose enjoyment of music is impaired. He also cites examples of people with less profound tone deafness, who do enjoy music. So I suppose that also depends on person to person - there's probably also people who aren't tone deaf, but don't particularly enjoy music.


I've also heard that people who have perfect pitch have the opposite problems. So I have to be careful for what I wish for..


----------



## Luchesi

ollv said:


> Luchesi sorry I skept your post, I have tried to translate by google, but I am not sure that it is correctly/// some fraces is not correct. It is not trivial for me ) but w-typing it is sciense of languages and human intelegence. It is not only AI


I wish I could speak Russian -- or any second language like many people in this forum.


----------



## composingmusic

Luchesi said:


> I've also heard that people who have perfect pitch have the opposite problems. So I have to be careful for what I wish for..


Opposite problems? How so?


----------



## Boychev

Forster said:


> You really should give up implying that others' approaches to music must be wrong if all they're getting out of it is "enjoyment". It's tedious and rude.


My sincere apologies, I didn't mean to insult anyone. Happy holidays to all!


----------



## Luchesi

composingmusic said:


> Opposite problems? How so?


I mean they hear so well that equal tempering actually irritates them sporadically.


----------



## SanAntone

There is no need to "translate" music into information. Music has plenty of meaning.

I just finished watching a documentary about Shostakovich under Stalin. There was a section describing the siege of Leningrad in 1941 by the German army under Hitler. People were starving, no potable water, no working sewer system, no heat. People would collapse on the street during the winter. Stalin did mount a response to the German invasion, and Shostakovich did his part. 

His 7th symphony somehow was performed despite many of the orchestral musicians having perished.

A member of that audience said that this music was their nourishment. Just listening to the music provided them with badly needed encouragement, sustenance, and resilience.

This is the meaning of music.


----------



## Luchesi

Boychev said:


> My sincere apologies, I didn't mean to insult anyone. Happy holidays to all!


We're sorry that we haven't been able to help you. I don't think you've been rude.

To me there are no tedious questionings. If a person doesn't get an answer that helps them, they ask the question in different ways.

I admire Forster as a poster, but if he can't specifically tell what in music gives him something so elusive (I mean I don't appreciate music like he does) then I could see how he can become irritated. You're asking exactly what he can't tell you.

I can offer more succinctly what I get out of music. A specific list of things, physics mysteries, a fascinating history of development and achievement, music theory and what each great composer uses from the music theory toolbox they inherited (and specifically how they used it for such superlative results). I've studied music for many years and I know I can't do what they did.


----------



## Luchesi

SanAntone said:


> There is no need to "translate" music into information. Music has plenty of meaning.
> 
> I just finished watching a documentary about Shostakovich under Stalin. There was a section describing the siege of Leningrad in 1941 by the German army under Hitler. People were starving, no potable water, no working sewer system, no heat. People would collapse on the street during the winter. Stalin did mount a response to the German invasion, and Shostakovich did his part.
> 
> His 7th symphony somehow was performed despite many of the orchestral musicians having perished.
> 
> A member of that audience said that this music was their nourishment. Just listening to the music provided them with badly needed encouragement, sustenance, and resilience.
> 
> This is the meaning of music.


I think we would have to show him at a piano examples of what we get out of music. It's surely not an easy question to answer.


----------



## composingmusic

Luchesi said:


> I mean they hear so well that equal tempering actually irritates them sporadically.


That's quite interesting. I guess that probably would depend a lot from person to person. One thing I have heard consistently is that it makes sight transposition when singing difficult, as you're reading one set of notes and having to actively sight transpose on the fly. This is something that can be learned though. I suppose the temperament issue is something that people can also learn to adjust to.

I guess there's a potential tendency to analyse everything one listens to, but that's not necessarily a bad thing - perhaps it's just a different way of listening, neither inherently better nor worse.


----------



## ollv

Luchesi said:


> I've also heard that people who have perfect pitch have the opposite problems. So I have to be careful for what I wish for..


I also heard that peoiple with perfect pitch have other problem
and I means that it is not only for our classic undertsnading. I have one question and, I am not sure that in science and music we have equal opinion about "music information" it is first question I wish to discuss, if your want ..And most interesting - some intuitical opinion about - Well-Tempered Clavier. I guess this situation make problem with peoples with a long term and humen can lost his perfec pitch, and why differencies in this case is possible ? Because it is not _true_ notes - hypotese.


----------



## ollv

Luchesi said:


> I think we would have to show him at a piano examples of what we get out of music. It's surely not an easy question to answer.


m/b we are unable to show it on piano ? m/b it is possible only for controlbas or celle ?


----------



## Forster

Boychev said:


> My sincere apologies, I didn't mean to insult anyone. Happy holidays to all!


I appreciate your apology. Thank you.



Luchesi said:


> if [Forster?] can't specifically tell what in music gives him something so elusive (I mean I don't appreciate music like he does) then I could see how he can become irritated. You're asking exactly what he can't tell you.


Since Boychev isn't clear about what he wants me to say, and you too, in this post, haven;t asked me a direct question so I can explain more precisely, it makes the discussion constantly oblique.

Note that while Boychev gave an apology, a considered response to what I actually said about music was missing. My fault I guess for my ending on a complaint. Never mind - I'll repeat the substance of that post here for convenience.



Forster said:


> The only "point" to music is what _you _make of it. It's not pointless for me; I make of it what I do.
> 
> _You _may not, but it's exactly what I do. I'm not reading some code book that gives me secret insights (though I might read some of the same stuff that most of us have access to - liner notes giving some background to a piece, for example.)
> 
> I listen, then I listen again, and again, feeling my way through the sounds, seeking (and usually finding) patterns in the melodies, harmonies and rhythms, groping for a sense of the shape of a movement, then a whole symphony. Eventually - after about 8-10 listens - I'm familiar enough with it to be able to follow a melody, which I find a satisfying trick, and then I can get enjoyment out of the expectation, the anticipation, of what I know is coming next.
> 
> I have acquired a rudimentary knowledge of some of the terminology that musicians use to talk about the technical side of things, but I'm not a musician except in the sense of being an experienced consumer. I've not yet come across any musician who has said that I'm in some way missing the "point" of music, though they have added to my appreciation of the way a piece is constructed.


I think this post, and some others I've given in this thread have set out how I listen, what I listen for, what I understand and what effect the music has on me. I don't think I can be much clearer or more detailed, but if there's still something missing, tell me what it is and I'll try to answer.



SanAntone said:


> There is no need to "translate" music into information. Music has plenty of meaning.
> 
> I just finished watching a documentary about Shostakovich under Stalin. There was a section describing the siege of Leningrad in 1941 by the German army under Hitler. People were starving, no potable water, no working sewer system, no heat. People would collapse on the street during the winter. Stalin did mount a response to the German invasion, and Shostakovich did his part.
> 
> His 7th symphony somehow was performed despite many of the orchestral musicians having perished.
> 
> A member of that audience said that this music was their nourishment. Just listening to the music provided them with badly needed encouragement, sustenance, and resilience.
> 
> This is the meaning of music.


This is a perfect example of how "extra-musical" information about a composition _can _add to the enjoyment of _some _listeners.

There is, IMO, no doubt that some music presents itself with such a strong identity that it can't easily be interpreted any other way. DSCH's 7th symphony is full of typical 'martial' sounds that it's no wonder that Russians report the effect it had on their population in 1941. Listening to it now, it's difficult not to find parts of it as stirring as they did, and, it adds to the interest of the piece _for me_. In the same way, there is a story behind the 2nd movement of VW's Pastoral Symphony which adds to my enjoyment of the whole. (A bugler in WW1 struggling to hit his top notes). In the same symphony, the wordless female vocal that opens and closes the final movement can be interpreted in different ways, and I find that speculating about what its purpose is in the work is in itself an added point of interest.

But that is my _personal _response. Listening to these pieces without knowing of these stories might lead another listener somewhere else altogether, and if I understand Luchesi right (post #219 and earlier), in his case it's an appreciation of the skills of the composer and performers that is most prominent.

As SanAntone says, there is no "translation" of either of these symphonies from musical notation, to performance, then to some specified, objectively demonstrable meaning or "information" (as Boychev puts it). Even if a composer sets out to convey something specific to the audience, there is no rule that says the audience _must _hear (if only they understood the code being used by the composer) or _will _hear what was intended. I can hear a storm in Beethoven's Pastoral, and even the sun coming out afterwards, and that is what he intended, but another listener might hear a battle, or an argument, and who's to say they're wrong?


----------



## Luchesi

For me, here's the basic question. Shostakovich had 12 notes (from nature). How did he achieve his goal to move you - with just those 12 notes?


----------



## ollv

As for me, because of theme. Not only, but mostly


----------



## Luchesi

ollv said:


> As for me, because of theme. Not only, but mostly


Which theme? The theme of this thread? Well, in music, I think the data from the scores is useful information, obviously. It's useful for studying, appreciation and performing and composing etc.. Apart from hearing the music we precisely describe and talk about the music in terms of that information. It's the information about how the notes are assembled to get the desired effect. It's a very human activity, quite mysterious (to me), but it is information which is succinct, objective and repeatable (in the sense that there's repeatable evidence in science).

So how do you translate music into information? The information comes out of the score and you commingle it with the information you already have from your musical knowledge and experience. If you have really good ears you can accurately hear the data, but the magical thing is, you can get the feelings and effects of music without knowing about the data (but when you listen to nursery songs as a child your brain is hearing and learning the integer relationships, so most people grow up with at least that knowledge).


----------



## Forster

Luchesi said:


> For me, here's the basic question. Shostakovich had 12 notes (from nature). How did he achieve his goal to move you - with just those 12 notes?


I'm not quite with you. Is this "basic question" one you pose to yourself out of wonder at what DSCH achieves?

Or are you asking me to explain how DSCH moves me personally, using only 12 notes? If so, I can't explain in any technical sense what he does. (Odd that you choose DSCH as we hadn't been discussuing his music before.)


----------



## ollv

Luchesi said:


> Which theme? The theme of this thread? Well, in music, I think the data from the scores is useful information, obviously. It's useful for studying, appreciation and performing and composing etc.. Apart from hearing the music we precisely describe and talk about the music in terms of that information. It's the information about how the notes are assembled to get the desired effect. It's a very human activity, quite mysterious (to me), but it is information which is succinct, objective and repeatable (in the sense that there's repeatable evidence in science).
> 
> So how do you translate music into information? The information comes out of the score and you commingle it with the information you already have from your musical knowledge and experience. If you have really good ears you can accurately hear the data, but the magical thing is, you can get the feelings and effects of music without knowing about the data (but when you listen to nursery songs as a child your brain is hearing and learning the integer relationships, so most people grow up with at least that knowledge).


I dare say that, since this topic was created, not all people are satisfied with the current state of affairs with information based on scores. Or not? But I hardly have an opportunity to talk to you about this, I do not write scores, I am looking for themes and motives. Concerning music, regarding information, we can say that humanity has approached a certain technological ceiling that we are about to break through to the top.

I would like to split this message to 2 parts


----------



## ollv

I just would like to say that we will able to improvise more than two hands like of directly dreaming


----------



## Luchesi

ollv said:


> I just would like to say that we will able to improvise more than two hands like of directly dreaming


Yes, that's what future technology will enable us to do. 20 years from now? But many people who play by ear are limited by their imagination, it sounds like VR will present the same problems.


----------



## Luchesi

Forster said:


> I'm not quite with you. Is this "basic question" one you pose to yourself out of wonder at what DSCH achieves?
> 
> Or are you asking me to explain how DSCH moves me personally, using only 12 notes? If so, I can't explain in any technical sense what he does. (Odd that you choose DSCH as we hadn't been discussuing his music before.)


It's an unfair question. It's like asking how modern French poetry is constructed so that it can help me in my poetry writing. I don't even know many French words, no experience with the abundant and recurring metaphors.


----------



## ollv

> Yes, that's what future technology will enable us to do. 20 years from now? But many people who play by ear are limited by their imagination, it sounds like VR will present the same problems.


Oh, I was waiting for such questions and how a practitioner who realized language in the field of artificial intelligence weighed words.
I can think about a topic in terms of near and future prospects. in terms of a closer perspective, it will certainly be more difficult, but what if we really try to make music out of music - a language, in our understanding. yes - imperative music, play metamusic for AI


----------



## ollv

it is clear that this has not been done at all. Only on the basis that the manor has no purpose. And this is the reason for the lack of formalization and at least some kind of imperative in the notes. AI cannot understand, relatively speaking, what to do, what you ask, as they say. Everything else is transmitted through people, and always (as I understand it, correct if I'm wrong) not in the way we would like. Well, you can extend the midi protocols to a disgrace, and that will not be the same either. Not that motive, because the music is logical in rial time.


----------



## ollv

it is consistency in realtime that gives a sense of form and a touch of absolute logic. which will show the musicmotive through touching similar forms understandable to a person, where there is a quintessence of another form - a motive, and it will have a more ideal form, people will add


----------



## ollv

there is a quintessence of improvisation, and I would like to add it can be workable for players. We'll study new musitions like of metamusicants )) it is not very difficult


----------



## Luchesi

ollv said:


> Oh, I was waiting for such questions and how a practitioner who realized language in the field of artificial intelligence weighed words.
> I can think about a topic in terms of near and future prospects. in terms of a closer perspective, it will certainly be more difficult, but what if we really try to make music out of music - a language, in our understanding. yes - imperative music, play metamusic for AI


I'll never be much interested in AI music, because it's churned out by sheer trial and error, no creative human involved. To me, it's less interesting than a room full of chimpanzees typing out random notes, - and then a human decides if there's anything musical in it.

added;
AI is an extremely interesting subject. I did some programming for an observatory in Athens Greece (in the early days of computing). AI is so helpful in my field of meteorological research, because they put in volumes of data about patterns of systems and then we can see what the likely patterns will be, and how they will change with global warming.


----------



## ollv

Happy New Year! you know, I absolutely agree with you about AI, it is not even discussed in our expert discussions on AI. discussion of ideas about the very fact of the scientific attitude of the subject matter of composition to some of its quintessence. What is proposed to be calculated, then the scientific fact of metamusics and its one of the first authors, Thelonius Monk, will be proved. why fact? and I propose for now to continue on the Russian-language site here, but ... probably they will argue with me there too) I will broadcast my messages and the message of one of the specialists, from whom we will now try to interview about the question - whether he considers the topic to be metamusic. if so, can we calculate the difference in meaning between an ordinary work and a thematic one?


----------



## ollv

https://guitarplayer.ru/guitar-theory/muzyka-i-iskusstvennyj-intellekt


----------



## ollv

Luchesi said:


> added;
> AI is an extremely interesting subject. I did some programming for an observatory in Athens Greece (in the early days of computing). AI is so helpful in my field of meteorological research, because they put in volumes of data about patterns of systems and then we can see what the likely patterns will be, and how they will change with global warming.


 Oh I am listened that AAD is used in meteorological extremely deap


----------



## ollv

here https://guitarplayer.ru/guitar-theory/muzyka-i-iskusstvennyj-intellekt/msg11897563/#msg11897563


----------



## John O

Boychev said:


> How can you understand it if you don't think about it? It's a series of notes organized in a way. If you don't recognize the notes and the relations between them, how do you listen to it? How do you read a book without knowing the language?





Bwv 1080 said:


> Which it never did for anyone prior to Black Sabbath


The Tritone has been called _diabolus in musica_ (“devil in music”) since the Middle Ages. It is used in for example Saint Saens Danse Macabre for that reason. 
ps Saw Black Sabbath at Reading in 83 : with Gillan rather than Ozzy


----------



## bagpipers

Boychev said:


> What does tone deafness have to do with it? If I recall correctly, tone deafness has to do with being able to differentiate between pitches. I guess that would make the experience of music impossible in principle for them because the concept of different pitches occurring in various combinations in time would be incomprehensible to them. But that's just not being able to listen to music altogether, not _having no understanding_ of the music that you _do_ experience.


Tone deafness only pertains pitch perception,the TD person can't tell which pitch has the higher or lower frequency.

But music also has rythmn and has overall tone color and feel and songs have lyrics.So if the chord progressions have a bright feel and the drums a strong beat and the lyrics are fun or poetic why wouldn't a TD person enjoy music as much as the next person.Tone deafness really more pertains to singing ability than music appreciation.


----------



## Bwv 1080

John O said:


> The Tritone has been called _diabolus in musica_ (“devil in music”) since the Middle Ages. It is used in for example Saint Saens Danse Macabre for that reason.
> ps Saw Black Sabbath at Reading in 83 : with Gillan rather than Ozzy


Cool, saw the original Sabbath lineup in 1999 w/ Pantera, only time

The devil in music thing is a Romantic myth, the term did not mean exclusively the tritone - the tritone was just another dissonance that had to be treated properly:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tritone#Historical_uses


The name _diabolus in musica_ (Latin for 'the Devil in music') has been applied to the interval from at least the early 18th century, or the late Middle Ages,[22] though its use is not restricted to the tritone, being that the original found example of the term "diabolus en musica" is "Mi Contra Fa est diabolus en musica" (Mi against Fa is the devil in music). Andreas Werckmeister cites this term in 1702 as being used by "the old authorities" for both the tritone and for the clash between chromatically related tones such as F♮ and F♯,[23] and five years later likewise calls "diabolus in musica" the opposition of "square" and "round" B (B♮ and B♭, respectively) because these notes represent the juxtaposition of "mi contra fa".[24] Johann Joseph Fux cites the phrase in his seminal 1725 work _Gradus ad Parnassum_, Georg Philipp Telemann in 1733 describes, "mi against fa", which the ancients called "Satan in music"—and Johann Mattheson, in 1739, writes that the "older singers with solmization called this pleasant interval 'mi contra fa' or 'the devil in music'."[25] Although the latter two of these authors cite the association with the devil as from the past, there are no known citations of this term from the Middle Ages

Adam Neely did a good video on this a few years back


----------



## SanAntone

The interesting thing about the tritone is that is occupies the center of the chromatic scale and is the last unique interval (the sixth is an inverted third and the seventh is an inverted second). But the tritone is the most important interval in diatonic tonality since it is the primary interval of the dominant seventh chord, which is the most unstable and has the strongest urge to resolve to the tonic in two directions: the seventh upward to the tonic and the fourth downward to the third.

So, on the one hand it has been described as ugly, highly dissonant, and even somewhat undesirable (usually melodically), but at the same time it is the necessary interval for CP music.


----------



## Luchesi




----------



## Boychev

Ew.

2021 was a bad year. What a horrid question to ask - how to reduce music to non-music so that you can safely discard the actual music because you finally got "the information"... Genius!

Please delete this, and I apologize for this piece of idiocy. I'm a moron.


----------



## Luchesi

Boychev said:


> Ew.
> 
> 2021 was a bad year. What a horrid question to ask - how to reduce music to non-music so that you can safely discard the actual music because you finally got "the information"... Genius!
> 
> Please delete this, and I apologize for this piece of idiocy. I'm a moron.


Don't apologize. You encourage thinking about this. Reducing scores into words (agreed-upon terms from musicology) is fun, and of course educational. It's a strict description of what's going on, as it is in any other technical subject. Try it.


----------

