# The People Who Really Understand Music?



## Xavier (Jun 7, 2012)

Since I've already met more than a few individuals who were very emphatic in saying that the ability to read music and being conversant in theory 'drastically' alters one's experience of music I need to ask this question:

Have you ever met anyone who believes that music is for music theorists, that _ultimately_ only people with advanced degrees (i.e. musicologists) really understand music?


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Music is for people with brains and ears. No advanced degrees necessary for the enjoyment.


----------



## Piwikiwi (Apr 1, 2011)

starthrower said:


> Music is for people with brains and ears. No advanced degrees necessary for the enjoyment.


The only theory bit that improved my listening pleasure is learning about form, especially sonata allegro, and what counterpoint is.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Piwikiwi said:


> The only theory bit that improved my listening pleasure is learning about form, especially sonata allegro, and what counterpoint is.


If I find a piece of music particularly baffling, I try to find an article, or read some liner notes that explain the structure and details of the work.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Well... there are a few here who have come close to suggesting as much.


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

Over the years, I recall reading the occasional comment from a composer, conductor or performer about how you really need to appreciate every detail in the score.

I don't really blame them for thinking that way. If I were so deeply involved creating music, I might think the same way. It's not that I (or they) would really blame audiences, but I can understand feeling "Hey, I agonized over what to do with the next note! Didn't you notice it?" Novelists, poets and painters probably feel the same way at times.


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

WARNING! non sequitur ahead

Only those who are dancing understand the music.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

I've read Aaron Copland's book and it has improved my listening skills. I think being better able to read music would deepen my understanding of what is going on, musically, and this would add another dimension to my appreciation. Otherwise, I agree with Starthrower (both posts above).


----------



## Guest (Oct 31, 2014)

No one would claim the latter, I hope. As for what you are referencing from the past, I would stand by the notion that such knowledge _can_ improve or alter one's experience. Is it necessary to have _an_ experience? No one ever said that.

If my memory serves correctly, you are probably referencing your old thread in which you claimed that such knowledge _cannot_ improve one's experience, despite massive amounts of evidence to the contrary, including but not limited to replies such as "...but it _has_ improved my experience."


----------



## Guest (Oct 31, 2014)

Xavier said:


> Have you ever met anyone who believes that music is for music theorists, that _ultimately_ only people with advanced degrees (i.e. musicologists) really understand music?


No, I've never met anyone who believes this, though, as Stlukesguildohio says, there have been one or two posting here who seem to have suggested as much - though I can't call anyone to mind.

Have I met anyone who believes "that the ability to read music and being conversant in theory [...] alters one's experience of music", yes (though not 'drastically') and it is of course true that it can and does. It doesn't make that experience more or less valid than the experience of the musical ignoramus.

Why 'must' you ask the question? It does seem to be something that troubles you.


----------



## tgtr0660 (Jan 29, 2010)

Piwikiwi said:


> The only theory bit that improved my listening pleasure is learning about form, especially sonata allegro, and what counterpoint is.


I agree with this. A little bit of harmonic knowledge helps understand some things more, and definitely knowing more about form has greatly expanded my listening experience especially with my favorite type of work (the symphony).

But other than helping, theory is not essential for enjoyment. Just a couple (and maybe some people even just one) of working ears


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

I think knowledge and understanding changes ones perspective on music but does not radically alter the actual listening experience. The only way to get the most out of listening to music is to listen, listen and listen again. If I've listened to a piece that I like many dozens of times, you can bet I've experienced the music to its full potential. No professor in music is going to have a more rewarding experience with the same piece, just because he knows more about music. I don't buy that.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

starthrower said:


> Music is for people with brains and ears. No advanced degrees necessary for the enjoyment.


Good point. Enjoyment is easy. Understanding is not necessary. I may get a totally different feeling and/or impression listening to a particular work than was the feeling/impression the composer meant to convey--if the composer indeed meant to convey any particular feeling/impression at all.

But another question springs to mind: Do dogs enjoy music? Though not people, they do have brains and ears.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

_No, man,_ you don't need a degree to dig music! Here, take a hit off this joint...wwwhhhhhtt!!!!!


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

to answer the OP - no.

But, the more I know about music and the more I understand music, the more I enjoy it .... but that knowledge and understanding has largely derived from lots of listening and plenty of enjoying music. Its an iterative process 


Ps - I don't read music and have no music qualifications


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

I don't think so. I think that understanding here conflates a few concepts: the understanding of how a piece works, the understanding of the way a piece is put together, and the verbalization of that understanding.

Only the third of these requires any technical terminology, and the majority of this can be picked up by the enthusiastic and interested amateur.

The question of whether any background in music is "required" for fully understanding a given piece is an odd one. It's certainly not required for enjoyment (of any piece that I know of). I found that after I became able to better read music and gained an awareness of technical terminology and how this correlates with what is heard (that's the really important part), I was able to come to understand more music more quickly, and that in a way my listening became more focused and I could "hear" more (meaning I was able to process more at once), but I am not sure that the same could not come to one who merely listens intently.


----------



## Guest (Oct 31, 2014)

DeepR said:


> No professor in music is going to have a more rewarding experience with the same piece, just because he knows more about music. I don't buy that.


Nor do most of us, though we're waiting with baited breath for a professor to post that he does (have a more rewarding experience).

However, "really understanding" music and "having a rewarding experience" are not quite the same thing...are they?


----------



## MagneticGhost (Apr 7, 2013)

Knowledge can enhance appreciation of the skill and thought that have gone into a composition.

The End


Love and appreciation of music is in the listening.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> ...(3) the verbalization of that understanding...Only the third of these requires any technical terminology...I found that after I...gained an awareness of technical terminology and how this correlates with what is heard (that's the really important part), I was able to come to understand more music more quickly...


Yes, the same thing could apply to people who have perfect pitch: even if they don't know the names of the notes, they still recognize the pitches instantly, even though they can't prove it. :lol:


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

Xavier said:


> Since I've already met more than a few individuals who were very emphatic in saying that the ability to read music and being conversant in theory 'drastically' alters one's experience of music I need to ask this question:
> 
> Have you ever met anyone who believes that music is for music theorists, that _ultimately_ only people with advanced degrees (i.e. musicologists) really understand music?


I haven't met a real music lover who believes music is only for those who live in ivory towers. I guess they're out there, but if I have, I haven't let them intimidate me.

As to the statement that being conversant in theory drastically alters one's experience of music, I pretty much agree. (I don't know if I would use the term "drastically.")

Sure, you can just sit back and let the music wash over you, but if you want to really get what is happening, you need to learn the forms/structures of the classical genres. This isn't advanced-degree material; this can be learned from a basic music appreciation class or a good music appreciation book. Learning music theory will get you deeper into what is occurring, and I believe the more knowledge you obtain will enhance your listening experience.

Also, reading music is not necessary, but it will definitely enhance your experience. Classical music in particular is an art form which rewards repeated listening, but for me, I can't remember everything that's happening; if I have a marked-up score in front of me and continue to annotate it as I hear new things in it, I get a lot more out of the piece.


----------



## muzik (May 16, 2013)

Xavier said:


> Since I've already met more than a few individuals who were very emphatic in saying that the ability to read music and being conversant in theory 'drastically' alters one's experience of music I need to ask this question:
> 
> Have you ever met anyone who believes that music is for music theorists, that _ultimately_ only people with advanced degrees (i.e. musicologists) really understand music?


The first human beings who invented music weren't music theorists. If they didn't understand the essence of music then who does?

Being able to just read music didn't change my understanding or perception of it. What changed my perception though is when I learned to play instruments: I realised how difficult it is to make a piece sound OK let alone sound great. Since then my admiration for great musicians has no limits.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

"Musicologists - people who can read music but can't hear it!" (Sir Thomas Beecham)


----------



## satoru (May 29, 2014)

Perception of music and the mechanism how it captures us emotionally is not known yet. There can be theories on music structure or harmony, but it doesn't explain why we enjoy music and get moved by it, really the reason why we listen to it.

On the other hand, knowledge on music theories can change one's perception of particular pieces. For example, my way of listening to Bach's "The Art of Fugue" changed forever after I learned about the idea that Bach left it unfinished intentionally: the completion of the last fugue is up to the person who is studying the scores and the clue is in the organization and order of the fugues.

Furthermore, there are ideas like following, which makes the music listening more complex...
WorldNews: Bach's Cryptic code imbedded in his music uncovered


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

Definitely not needed, but it certainly enhances the appreciation for the composer's ability. It's impressive when you take a look at the restrictions of the respective theory they're working in and how they maneuver in it to express themselves. 

I hardly ever do that so stringently, but when I do, I prefer Dos Equis... hold on a second.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

There is a certain benefit to blissful ignorance about the technical parts of music. I often hear people talking about repeats in Beethoven symphonies, either the repeats are there or they are not I guess, but I would not have any idea what is repeated or where in the symphony. Further, it is something that just never interested me. Yet I do enjoy the symphonies immensely. Maybe I just got the right cycle (Gunter Wand).

I do think the ability to "hear" the music in your head from reading the score would be amazingly wonderful, but doubt I could ever achieve that in the rest of my lifetime, which is surely more than half over unless I live well past 100.


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

DavidA said:


> "Musicologists - people who can read music but can't hear it!" (Sir Thomas Beecham)


YAWN. Ever met a musicologist? I have, lots. I'm sure you'd be dismayed to find that they're all extremely passionate about music (surprise surprise - they've devoted their careers to it) and that many of them have deeply conservative tastes! But it would be a shame to disrupt your uninformed generalisation, wouldn't it. As you were!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

The thread is asking who understands music best, not who enjoys it most, but that's also an interesting question. Enjoyment isn't dependent on theoretical understanding, but theoretical knowledge can add its own pleasure, and can alert us to things in the music we might not have noticed without concepts to name them. 

I suspect, though, that intellectual understanding can, if we are not careful, actually interfere with enjoyment by tempting us to think about and judge a piece of music based on less than a full experience of it, causing us to experience it through the filter of our judgments and expectations and so not give it a fair hearing. I find it best to listen to a new work as if I knew nothing about it, and try to keep thinking to a minimum. It's fine to say to oneself "here is the beginning of the development section"; it may be unwise to be thinking "I wonder why he chose to begin it with non-thematic material." But I have to admit that I'd probably be thinking both and more besides! With experience it's possible to do a good deal of thinking very quickly and almost unconsciously while listening, and still have a full experience of the music.

As for whether only people who have studied music really understand it - well, let's just say they understand more about it. It doesn't hurt.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

There seem to be 3 ideas in the OP. 

First, the ability to read and understand music theory, significantly alters one's experience of music. Based on those I know who do read and understand theory, I can only say this appears to be obviously true as long as experience refers to the entire mental response to the music. 

Second, music is for music theorists. I have never heard anything remotely similar to this belief, and I would be shocked if anyone honestly felt this were true.

Third, only people who have studied music extensively really understand music. That depends on what "really understand music" means. Obviously those who study music will know more about it. They will recognize musical techniques used by the composer, better understand the effect of the composer's life experiences on particular works, identify relationships between various parts of pieces, and generally know more details of given compositions. Whether these people then understand music while others do not is not clear.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

I sincerely think taking counterpoint and harmony classes made my ears more sensitive to those aspects of music.


----------



## Guest (Nov 1, 2014)

There are plenty of members here willing to explore the subtle differences in meaning in the terms we use to describe our encounter with and comprehension of music. More importantly, most are anxious not to disparage anyone else's experience and understanding in that exploration. Besides, TCers share more than they differ - and difference is interesting, not threatening.

So why do one or two members persist in not only seeing slights where there are none, but go to the extreme of suggesting that a technical understanding brings no additional value to the rewards of musical experience? And launching more than one thread on the subject?


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

MacLeod said:


> So why do one or two members persist in not only seeing slights where there are none, but go to the extreme of suggesting that a technical understanding brings no additional value to the rewards of musical experience?


Oh, it's this! Some sort of weird panic - if you know how it goes together, you can't possibly like it with the same sincerity as me. One member counsels caution with knowledge lest you ruin your enjoyment!!!!

Question - do you think Mozart enjoyed music? What about Stravinsky? More tricky now - how about Schoenberg? What about Pierre Boulez? Does he enjoy music? Did/Do any of these guys "really understand" music?

Those last two, eh. Does anyone want to go out on a limb here and say Arnie and Pierre just didn't/don't enjoy music in the same uncluttered and pure way you do? That they didn't/don't feel it in their hearts? I want some honest answers here ladies and gents!


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Florestan said:


> Good point. Enjoyment is easy. Understanding is not necessary. I may get a totally different feeling and/or impression listening to a particular work than was the feeling/impression the composer meant to convey--if the composer indeed meant to convey any particular feeling/impression at all.
> 
> But another question springs to mind: Do dogs enjoy music? Though not people, they do have brains and ears.


I'd say that dogs *can* enjoy music. Hens certainly do!
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/lat...gs-when-listening-to-soothing-classical-music

I agree with the general trend of the posts, that knowing more doesn't necessarily mean enjoying more. If you are a person who likes to know - like me - then knowledge certainly does enhance enjoyment, but I'd never make that into a principle.

In particular, I agree with :tiphat: quack's comment on dancing - *dancing* to music,* singing* it, and *playing* it on my fiddle, definitely enhances my understanding of it in a way that also enhances my enjoyment. Listening with one's body as well as one's mind is like *living in* the music, a much more intense experience.

But I am passionate about dancing, singing and playing; if a musicologist is passionate about understanding theory and structure, then that too must make listening a more intense experience.

I also agree with :tiphat: satoru's post that points out that knowing can change the way one listens.

It's like any sensory perception. The game where you look for the colour red makes you look at and notice colours in an intensely enjoyable way; and if you've learned how a piece is put together, it helps you to notice it as you listen more than you might have done.

That would enhance the enjoyment of many, including me - but again, I don't erect it into a general principle. Enjoyment and appreciation depend on so many personal factors. Which means that I think that musicologists may well appreciate music more because of their *knowledge* - and people without musical knowledge who are passionate listeners (myself, I don't listen *enough*) ditto, on account of their *experience*.

I've never met anyone who thought that *only* musicologists could truly appreciate music, & I wouldn't like to, either.


----------



## Giordano (Aug 10, 2014)

The questions is: "really understand?", not "appreciate more?" or "bring additional value?"

One could also ask if only literary critics/professors "really understand" literature, or if only art critics/professors "really understand" art (the visual kind, that is).

Actually, I would ask if anyone on the planet "really understands" Art. I know I don't.

In any case, as quack and Ingélou suggest, these elephants (at below link) seem to "understand" music. Whether they "really" do or not, I don't know.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

There is a lot of music that requires effort to understand, including many 19th and 20th century symphonies, quartets and sonatas. Sometimes it is important to hear inter-movement thematic connections to really appreciate the overall trajectory of such a work — to hear, for example, that the fugue subject of the finale in Bartok's Concerto for Orchestra derives from the fugue of the first movement, that every theme in the finale of Rachmaninoff's Third Concerto comes from the second theme of the first movement, or that there is an intimate relationship between the principal themes of the opening movement and the finale in Shostakovich's Fifth Quartet. But this understanding requires no special knowledge or training. It does, however, require attentive listening. it might also require a good set of ears, which would allow one to sing back a theme in a different tempo or manipulate it in ones head in order to match it with elements of another theme. Reading music can make this sort of understanding easier for those who can't do it by ear, but it is not necessary. Bottom line? I'd say good ears really help. Education can train ones ears and reading can confirm and refine the impressions ones ears are gathering.


----------



## Skilmarilion (Apr 6, 2013)

quack said:


> WARNING! non sequitur ahead
> 
> Only those who are dancing understand the music.


Seriously mate ... LMAO.


----------



## Guest (Nov 1, 2014)

EdwardBast said:


> There is a lot of music that requires effort


_Pleasurable _effort, I hope? It's not supposed to be 'work'!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

EdwardBast's remarks on having a good set of ears bring back a memory of myself at around 17, prior to any education in music theory, listening to a leitmotiv in Wagner's _Parsifal_ and finding a certain chord progression to be sheer magic. My ears told me that something astonishing was happening, but my mind had no words to describe or identify the source of what I felt. I soon learned that the magic was merely the effect of a passing chord, a transitional harmony between two quite ordinary chords, and that with that passing chord removed the overall progression became as common as dirt. When I realized this I felt both elated and deflated! I loved the fact that I now had a name for what was happening in the music; I had the sense of power and competence that comes with knowledge, and the pleasure of participating in the thinking of a great composer. But there was also the vague feeling that a little of the "magic" was gone, that the incomprehensible miracle was "just an ordinary progression with a passing chord added."

Decades later, I can reflect on that slight loss of "magic" as characteristic of the way the experiences of youth, unmediated by conceptual knowledge, are often affected by the overlay of that knowledge which comes with age. Conceptual understanding brings its own rewards, certainly, and enhances the enjoyment of things by pointing to things we might have missed if we couldn't name them. But having names for things is not perception, which in listening to music is the ability to hear - having "a good set of ears." I have friends who know much less about music than I do; they can only listen politely when I "get technical," and might say something like "you must get so much more out of music than I do, knowing theory and such." But I've watched these friends responding to Mozart and Bruckner and Sibelius, and it's clear to me that they have excellent ears, really do perceive and feel what's happening in the music, and understand, without having the vocabulary to express it, what makes the music great. Their reaction, when I sit down at the piano, play a passage, and say "this is a passing chord between this chord and this one," is likely to be "oh, so that's what you call that." Of course they're not likely to remember the terminology, since they have no context in which to place it. But they don't need to remember it. They're hearing it and responding to it, as I heard and responded at the age of 17. And that basic ability to hear and respond is a kind and quality of "understanding" that no amount of technical knowledge can induce or replace.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I'll assume what holds true in literature (which I know a bit about) also holds true in music (which I don't): the greatest works get better the more you understand their technical (~technique) details, but on the other hand understanding that stuff sometimes makes really fine works seem a little less wonderful.

So, along those lines, I guess there would be four sorts of works of art:

1. Works that please both the naive (generally speaking) and the cognoscenti (generally speaking). 
2. Works that please the cognoscenti (generally speaking) but not the naive (generally speaking). 
3. Works that please the naive (generally speaking) but not the cognoscenti (generally speaking). 
4. Works that please neither the naive (generally speaking) nor the cognoscenti (generally speaking).

Accounting for degrees of pleasure (and perhaps of displeasure), we could map a conceptual space in which we could locate various works of art according to their populism/elitism.

I've got fairly good insight into literature - not to overstate it, but some insight at least - but basically no insight into any other form of art, including music, though I love music. I don't mind very much that a lot of people know a lot more than I do about whatever, I don't really want to do the hard work (even if I had time) of making myself an expert on everything. A lot of people here are going to get a lot more out of a Sibelius symphony than I am, no matter how much I enjoy it, because they know a lot more about what is going on. On the other hand, perhaps I am able to enjoy a Rubinstein piano concerto more than those people, because they know a lot more about what is going on.

Maybe there is something like an ethical flaw there, something that can be legitimately looked down on. Well, sometimes I feel driven to find out more about the technical details so that I can rid myself of a little bit of that scorn; sometimes I just don't care, since, after all, the scornful are not usually people whose approval I'd value anyway.

But that is all to do with other people's perceptions. In terms of how I judge myself, I think I value the education of listening more than the pleasure of listening. I feel pleasure from Sibelius as from Rubinstein. But what I really want in either case, what really makes the experience pleasing, is if I feel like I'm learning something as I listen.

So far, perhaps because my knowledge is still so limited, I don't think I've experienced a diminution of pleasure as a result of knowledge about any particular work of classical music; in literature, on the other hand, it happens all the time that I re-read something and enjoy it less the second time because I find elements that seem like flaws to me (according to my own internalized values). In both realms of course I have occasionally multiplied my pleasure in some works by finding out more about them, and I think that would be the normal experience for almost everyone because so few people know much about the technical aspects of any form of art except, if they practice one, _perhaps_ the one they practice.


----------



## GGluek (Dec 11, 2011)

Reading music (which I do badly) or reading about music enhances my appreciation for or understanding of how a piece or passage I already enjoy was achieved, and the analytical part of me that likes to understand how things work derives pleasure from that -- but it does little for my liking or disliking a work. So I think the answer to your question is no.

Mark Twain wrote that once he had mastered everything he needed to know to "read" the Mississippi to be able to pilot it, he could no longer enjoy just a beautiful view down the river for it's intrinsic beauty without breaking it apart into all the subtle things the river was telling him as a pilot. So while he gained a lot, he also lost in the process. Kind of reinforcing the "no" answer.


----------



## sarah joyful (Oct 29, 2014)

Hi all

Isn't that what is so wonderful about music, it can transport both those that have a great technical understanding and those that do not. True, he more one understands something, the more one might enjoy it. But that understanding doesn't have to be intellectual, it can be emotional, and that doesn't need technical instruction.

Just a thought...


----------



## senza sordino (Oct 20, 2013)

Xavier said:


> Since I've already met more than a few individuals who were very emphatic in saying that the ability to read music and being conversant in theory 'drastically' alters one's experience of music I need to ask this question:
> 
> Have you ever met anyone who believes that music is for music theorists, that _ultimately_ only people with advanced degrees (i.e. musicologists) really understand music?


No is my quick response. But as many of the posts written indicate, some academic knowledge of music would help the listener really understand music. I also think that if you do a lot of serious and careful listening you're probably going to gain some of that knowledge yourself independently of an academic setting.

I also wonder about too much knowledge. Is there a kind of paralysis by analysis? You stop listening to music's beauty because you're too busy analyzing the parts. I don't know, it's just a random thought.

I'm also sort of intrigued and flattered by some of my colleagues who have no knowledge of music whatsoever. They hardly ever listen, so they don't know anything about music or anyone. I'm the so called one eyed king in the land of the blind. Or the one eared king in the land of the deaf. Whenever a question of music does arise, I'm the first person people go to for questions. They all think I really understand music, when I have very little musical training.

Here on TC, I feel like my "deaf and blind" colleagues. I look up to you one eared and one eyed kings who know more about music than I do. I feel many of you really understand much more than I.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> EdwardBast's remarks on having a good set of ears bring back a memory of myself at around 17, prior to any education in music theory, listening to a leitmotiv in Wagner's _Parsifal_ and finding a certain chord progression to be sheer magic. My ears told me that something astonishing was happening, but my mind had no words to describe or identify the source of what I felt. I soon learned that the magic was merely the effect of a passing chord, a transitional harmony between two quite ordinary chords, and that with that passing chord removed the overall progression became as common as dirt. When I realized this I felt both elated and deflated! I loved the fact that I now had a name for what was happening in the music; I had the sense of power and competence that comes with knowledge, and the pleasure of participating in the thinking of a great composer. But there was also the vague feeling that a little of the "magic" was gone, that the incomprehensible miracle was "just an ordinary progression with a passing chord added."
> 
> Decades later, I can reflect on that slight loss of "magic" as characteristic of the way the experiences of youth, unmediated by conceptual knowledge, are often affected by the overlay of that knowledge which comes with age. Conceptual understanding brings its own rewards, certainly, and enhances the enjoyment of things by pointing to things we might have missed if we couldn't name them. But having names for things is not perception, which in listening to music is the ability to hear - having "a good set of ears." I have friends who know much less about music than I do; they can only listen politely when I "get technical," and might say something like "you must get so much more out of music than I do, knowing theory and such." But I've watched these friends responding to Mozart and Bruckner and Sibelius, and it's clear to me that they have excellent ears, really do perceive and feel what's happening in the music, and understand, without having the vocabulary to express it, what makes the music great. Their reaction, when I sit down at the piano, play a passage, and say "this is a passing chord between this chord and this one," is likely to be "oh, so that's what you call that." Of course they're not likely to remember the terminology, since they have no context in which to place it. But they don't need to remember it. They're hearing it and responding to it, as I heard and responded at the age of 17. And that basic ability to hear and respond is a kind and quality of "understanding" that no amount of technical knowledge can induce or replace.


Science to a savage is undistinguishable from magic; and so the Wagner chord is likewise to blondes with no theoretical understaning of the music.

Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha.

--- Only this post is put with such suavity of manner, with that carefully-cultivated charm and consciosuly-employed smoothness that only a Woodduck could chuck.

No, really, it was flattering and delightful to know that looks aren't the only thing I have going for me.

You're mind's beautiful.

I love it.

(Almost as much as I love myself.)


----------



## shangoyal (Sep 22, 2013)

When you need a degree to enjoy the music, it means you don't really enjoy the music.  :tiphat:


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

But getting the degree might add a bit of intellectual enjoyment to music you already enjoy on an emotional level. 
I am by nature loyal to experiences of my youth. I still love Purcell's Rondeau as much as the day I first played it in the York Schools Strings Orchestra. I now know quite a bit more about the baroque and about Purcell's life and other pieces that he wrote. So I have an extra source of enjoyment. 
I accept that some people find the 'magic' is destroyed by analysis - but I don't find it happens for me. I feel very lucky in that regard.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

dgee said:


> Oh, it's this! Some sort of weird panic - if you know how it goes together, you can't possibly like it with the same sincerity as me. One member counsels caution with knowledge lest you ruin your enjoyment!!!!
> 
> Question - do you think Mozart enjoyed music? What about Stravinsky? More tricky now - how about Schoenberg? What about Pierre Boulez? Does he enjoy music? Did/Do any of these guys "really understand" music?
> 
> Those last two, eh. Does anyone want to go out on a limb here and say Arnie and Pierre just didn't/don't enjoy music in the same uncluttered and pure way you do? That they didn't/don't feel it in their hearts? I want some honest answers here ladies and gents!


:lol: :lol: :lol:
______________________________________________


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

dgee said:


> Oh, it's this! Some sort of weird panic - if you know how it goes together, you can't possibly like it with the same sincerity as me. One member counsels caution with knowledge lest you ruin your enjoyment!!!!
> 
> Question - do you think Mozart enjoyed music? What about Stravinsky? More tricky now - how about Schoenberg? What about Pierre Boulez? Does he enjoy music? Did/Do any of these guys "really understand" music?
> 
> Those last two, eh. Does anyone want to go out on a limb here and say Arnie and Pierre just didn't/don't enjoy music in the same uncluttered and pure way you do? That they didn't/don't feel it in their hearts? I want some honest answers here ladies and gents!


What I find off-putting about any and all of the sort of posts with the tone as is in this OP or in a similar vein and tone is some underlying subtext which comes off as, _"I am more, yeah-- even supremely more-- *sensitive* than thou."_

I just don't have the time of day for that, and won't make time for it, ever.

If I took the time and 'won' or made the point with enough point that it pierced that particular vanity bubble, all that would end up happening is the one who speaks in such terms of being more profoundly sensitive than just about anyone else would be disabused of their self-conceit.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

dgee said:


> Oh, it's this! Some sort of weird panic - if you know how it goes together, you can't possibly like it with the same sincerity as me. One member counsels caution with knowledge lest you ruin your enjoyment!!!!
> 
> Question - do you think Mozart enjoyed music? What about Stravinsky? More tricky now - how about Schoenberg? What about Pierre Boulez? Does he enjoy music? Did/Do any of these guys "really understand" music?
> 
> Those last two, eh. Does anyone want to go out on a limb here and say Arnie and Pierre just didn't/don't enjoy music in the same uncluttered and pure way you do? That they didn't/don't feel it in their hearts? I want some honest answers here ladies and gents!


I think there are certain sacrifices classical musicians/composers likely make when it comes to music enjoyment, but they would never make the 'sacrifices' if they didn't have a profound enjoyment of music to begin with. Two simple points in regards to this:

1) Practicing a piece of music for countless hours can start to (even if just temporarily) decrease some enjoyment of the piece _even though it increases understanding_.

2) Once all the different elements of a composition are known and understood - some of the mystery is removed and I would argue some of the enjoyment - this is one of the main reasons classical music evolves and changes - if musical enjoyment stayed precisely the same regardless of the understanding of a piece then there would be no need to evolve, change and branch out into different styles. Composers like to reach out into new and unexplored sound worlds and I think the fact that these new worlds are initially harder to understand is part of the appeal.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

science said:


> I guess there would be four sorts of works of art:
> 
> 1. Works that please both the naive (generally speaking) and the cognoscenti (generally speaking).
> 2. Works that please the cognoscenti (generally speaking) but not the naive (generally speaking).
> ...


Congrats ~ That ^^^^ is really pretty wonderful, in those four completely cover it _all_!

The rest-- is personal tastes -- depending upon your tastes and which persons you are


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

*This issue has been addressed in other threads.*

This issue has been addressed in other threads.

For example: http://www.talkclassical.com/33787-how-many-you-musically.html#post710193


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Xavier said:


> Since I've already met more than a few individuals who were very emphatic in saying that the ability to read music and being conversant in theory 'drastically' alters one's experience of music I need to ask this question:
> 
> Have you ever met anyone who believes that music is for music theorists, that _ultimately_ only people with advanced degrees (i.e. musicologists) really understand music?


Those trained in music obviously know more about music than those who don't have that training. I'm talking about the inner workings of music, in terms of technique. That's a givens, I mean if I go to a concert of Brahms' Violin Concerto, I do expect the soloist to know how to play the piece. Just as I don't go to my dentist if he doesn't know how to do a filling.

In terms of appreciation and enjoyment of music, there are many ways to go about it, and many aids to do this. This is why I like to read about music, I always learn something from this. I don't think there's one way, whether it be for trained musicians or others, there are many ways to appreciate and enjoy music. Everyone develops their own methods and areas of focus or expertise, because its a vast area.

Perhaps music can be broken down into:

1. Those who perform it
2. Those who listen to it
3. Those who write about it

There are levels within these too, from amateur to professional, from beginner to intermediate and advanced. However its all interlinked, because some people are part of all these groups, and they have a symbiotic relationship. One can't exist without the others.

In the old days, being a musician meant that you would compose, perform, write about and teach music. Today, most universities or conservatoriums teach both the practice and theory of music. Students have options to specialise in certain areas, but the aim is to also have a broad base that supports this. This is like in any degree or industry, things are more specialised than they where.

Having said all that, no one musician, writer on music or listener knows everything, nobody does. I really like this quote by Andre Previn making that point: "There are a million things in music I know nothing about. I just want to narrow down that figure."


----------



## Richannes Wrahms (Jan 6, 2014)

Well, not so long ago I created a thread where the starting (rather platonic) point was that it is possible to 'know' all the theory and practice in the world and still be unable to understand a thing. That's all I'll say for now.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Richannes Wrahms said:


> Well, not so long ago I created a thread where the starting (rather platonic) point was that it is possible to 'know' all the theory and practice in the world and still be unable to understand a thing. That's all I'll say for now.


And there is certainly enough 'academic music' which is usually not heard much further than the confines of a campus or a near circuit -- which more than proves your thesis!
 :tiphat:


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Richannes Wrahms said:


> Well, not so long ago I created a thread where the starting (rather platonic) point was that it is possible to 'know' all the theory and practice in the world and still be unable to understand a thing. That's all I'll say for now.


Understand what?


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I've realised what I think is an important thing related to this topic since my last post. Call it obvious, but the owner of this website Frederick Magle is a composer (so, a qualified musician, most likely with postgraduate qualifications). Obviously he set this forum up mainly to encourage discussion of classical music, and anyone can participate. So that itself indicates that there are many angles from which a person can perceive (or "understand") classical music. My dilineation was between practitioners, listeners and writers, but as I said its not meant to be a prescriptive one. I wouldn't be without any of those, they all add to the mix. 

I think its obviously wise to take part in a discussion if you have some experience or knowledge of it, but nobody should be arbiter of the level of such requirements or credentials because its an open forum.

Furthermore, especially if a topic is controversial, even qualified experts will most likely have different opinions about it (particularly with regards to matters of taste, aesthetics, views of history, interpretation, etc.). We all make our choices, and so do the experts. Nobody is unbiased or fully objective, although overall those are good things to aim for. 

Diversity entails choices being made, based on various levels of experience and knowledge. It applies to many things, not only music. Whether among musicians or listeners, I would hate that diversity to be lost for some bland homogenous way of thinking, the equivalent of Henry Ford's "You can have any colour car as long as it's black." I'd hope we've gone beyond that.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

What's there to understand? Stop analyzing. Enjoy. Thank me in the morning.

Read my signature.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

hpowders said:


> What's there to understand? Stop analyzing. Enjoy. Thank me in the morning.
> 
> Read my signature.


Well I am aware of that approach, and I made a thread about what Vladimir Ashkenazy said in recent years (its similar to your quote from Lenny) -

http://www.talkclassical.com/24082-vladimir-ashkenazy-not-talking.html

What I'm saying though is that there is room here for many approaches. The more diversity, the better. There's enough sectarianism and tendency for cliques within music as it is (not least of all, classical music). I'm not saying deny or reject it, just be aware of it (maybe even accept it to a certain point).


----------



## Dupamplont (Nov 2, 2014)

The author of a music book I have-with plenty of notated music inside-wrote in the introduction, _"Remember, people played music long before they notated it."_


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

hpowders said:


> What's there to understand? Stop analyzing. Enjoy. Thank me in the morning.
> 
> Read my signature.


Bernstein also said that knowing the form of a piece turns one into a real music listener. I can see how at least learning the basics of sonata form can be beneficial to the listener.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

tdc said:


> I think there are certain sacrifices classical musicians/composers likely make when it comes to music enjoyment....


Any arts professional 'gives up' that naive impression of the magic of whatever the import the art has for a laymen, simply by learning all the technical aspects of 'how it is done' -- performance or creation, the magic tricks are revealed.

As you said, the knowing of all that does not, I think, diminish their enjoyment one iota, though it changes from the naive to the canny.


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

PetrB said:


> Any arts professional 'gives up' that naive impression of the magic of whatever the import the art has for a laymen, simply by learning all the technical aspects of 'how it is done' -- performance or creation, the magic tricks are revealed.
> 
> As you said, the knowing of all that does not, I think, diminish their enjoyment one iota, though it changes from the naive to the canny.


Yeah. It's not like music is some cheap fairground sleight of hand trick. I, and many others, know it's just dots on a page (mostly) and performers having done a great deal of gruelling practice and thought painstakingly through interpretations (mostly) and the magic is still there.


----------



## Clairvoyance Enough (Jul 25, 2014)

Well, all of the enjoyment I get from classical music now is derived from the very little that I do understand about how it is put together, so I can only imagine that knowing more would just bring me more enjoyment.

When I air conduct during exciting passages I'm essentially expressing my love for the way all of those passages flow and fit; it is an expression of my awareness of what is happening, and so if I knew more of what was happening it would be like having a solid chocolate bunny instead of a hollow one, even though hollow ones are still delicious. Do I say that the people with solid bunnies are the only ones who truly understand the joy of chocolate? Well I don't know that I'd say that, and I've never met anyone who did, but then again I don't really meet people... what was I saying again..

I guess to me it is not a matter of_ really_ understanding something. I don't know where that divide is or what it means. You understand as much as you can, and I probably only understand like 30 percent of what is happening in a lot of what I like, and people who understand more understand it more. That's just what it is.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Different people hear music different ways. Often when I have difficulty "getting" a work, I'll look to the formal structure, which helps me a lot. An example is Bartok's Sonata for Two Pianos and Percussion. It sounded mostly like noise until I noticed that it was labeled a sonata. Guess what: It is! Suddenly all became clear; now it's one of my favorite Bartok works.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

PetrB said:


> Any arts professional 'gives up' that naive impression of the magic of whatever the import the art has for a laymen, simply by learning all the technical aspects of 'how it is done' -- performance or creation, the magic tricks are revealed.
> 
> As you said, the knowing of all that does not, I think, diminish their enjoyment one iota, though it changes from the naive to the canny.


I agree with you and dgee that - as understanding in music increases, our ability to appreciate music is not decreased, (I think perhaps it is even increased), but my own experience has been that I'm no longer moved by as many different pieces as I used to be. A lot of older music that used to seem amazing to me doesn't quite reach me in the same way, this is possibly the main reason I seek out new music and contemporary composers. So, does understanding music increase enjoyment? For me the answer is "yes" and "no".


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

tdc said:


> I agree with you and dgee that - as understanding in music increases, our ability to appreciate music is not decreased, (I think perhaps it is even increased), but *my own experience has been that I'm no longer moved by as many different pieces as I used to be. A lot of older music that used to seem amazing to me doesn't quite reach me in the same way*, this is possibly the main reason I seek out new music and contemporary composers. So, does understanding music increase enjoyment? For me the answer is "yes" and "no".


Sometimes we just tire of things we've been hearing for fifty years. I never seem to put on a Beethoven symphony any more. On the rare occasion when I hear one I enjoy it, but I tend now to go for something that's fresher to me. Other people I know have said the same thing. We can get tired of anything, even things we love and admire.

How do married people, for example, stay untired of each other? (Oops. A lot of them don't.)


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> Sometimes we just tire of things we've been hearing for fifty years. I never seem to put on a Beethoven symphony any more. On the rare occasion when I hear one I enjoy it, but I tend now to go for something that's fresher to me. Other people I know have said the same thing. We can get tired of anything, even things we love and admire.
> 
> How do married people, for example, stay untired of each other? (Oops. A lot of them don't.)


It depends on whether marriage is a word or a sentence.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Marschallin Blair said:


> It depends on whether marriage is a word or a sentence.


"The pleasure of love lasts but a moment, the pain of love lasts a lifetime." --Unknown (not Wilde)


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

KenOC said:


> "The pleasure of love lasts but a moment, the pain of love lasts a lifetime." --Unknown (not Wilde)


For some it can be a matter of wife and debt.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

A sentence... Hmmm.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> A sentence... Hmmm.


. . . a 'life' sentence.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Sid James said:


> Well I am aware of that approach, and I made a thread about what Vladimir Ashkenazy said in recent years (its similar to your quote from Lenny) -
> 
> http://www.talkclassical.com/24082-vladimir-ashkenazy-not-talking.html
> 
> What I'm saying though is that there is room here for many approaches. The more diversity, the better. There's enough sectarianism and tendency for cliques within music as it is (not least of all, classical music). I'm not saying deny or reject it, just be aware of it (maybe even accept it to a certain point).


Of course there are! But for the novices who are just getting into classical music and find it intimidating as in "What am I supposed to listen for?" "What should I study?" "Where do I begin?" I'm simply saying "Relax!" " Enjoy it." "Feel the music".


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

Marschallin Blair said:


> For some it can be a matter of wife and debt.


This was exceptionally clever. Haha.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Xavier said:


> Since I've already met more than a few individuals who were very emphatic in saying that the ability to read music and being conversant in theory 'drastically' alters one's experience of music I need to ask this question:
> 
> Have you ever met anyone who believes that music is for music theorists, that _ultimately_ only people with advanced degrees (i.e. musicologists) really understand music?


Music is as accessible as the air we breathe. Open your nose and let it in. Pure and simple. Take me for example, I let whatever 18th century music fill me with bliss.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

It's easy to say "just enjoy music", but to do this is not always an obvious thing for many, especially if the music is modern. I'll use Elliott Carter as my example.

Carter does not claim to be a serialist _per se_, but his materials are the same. He devised his own set of possible chromatic note sets, just like the Forte sets, but he labels them differently. But they are essentially the same "every possible combination" index.
So, my point is, that Carter has the same aesthetic material as serialists, and is "working the same territory." His goals are therefore somewhat the same; an objective approach to the materials, based on what he wants the result to sound like. He's more interested in rhythm than most, and there are idiosycracies to his style.

So, in a nutshell, this is modern music, based on modern ways of approaching the materials (notes, rhythms, instruments).
Unless a listener is able to at least* know* this much, it will be difficult to accept the music.

This isn't much to know; anyone can look at an Alexander Calder mobile, or a late Picasso painting, and know that this art is not depictive or realistic except in the loosest sense.

Elliott Carter is not concerned with constructing Rossini-like melodies, or in writing Beethoven-like symphonies; it's just sound, highly chromatic, not tonal, rhythmically complex, and featuring traditional orchestral instruments in various settings of interplay.

That's all it is, really, just pitches and rhythms, played (hopefully, beautifully) by highly trained classical musicians.

It's up to the listener to overcome whatever supposed "knowledge barrier" is keeping him from accepting and engaging with the music. It is possible, even if you know nothing.

Of course, there are reasons behind the music, which makes it this way, and perhaps some rudimentary awareness of this is helpful, but not necessary. Like a Picasso painting, you either like it or you don't.


----------



## Guest (Nov 5, 2014)

Learning about music history, form, and being able to recognize basic harmonic changes (major to minor, for example), recognizing polyphonic vs. homophonic music, really adds to listening pleasure. In opera, knowing the story is also important to get the most out of a listening session.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> Sometimes we just tire of things we've been hearing for fifty years. I never seem to put on a Beethoven symphony any more. On the rare occasion when I hear one I enjoy it, but I tend now to go for something that's fresher to me. Other people I know have said the same thing. We can get tired of anything, even things we love and admire.
> 
> How do married people, for example, stay untired of each other? (Oops. A lot of them don't.)


Perfect 

To the main issue, though. Sure, an engineer knows full well what went into making that suspension bridge, the nuts 'n' bolts and physics of it, but that does not stop the engineer from appreciating the aesthetic beauty of the bridge itself.

I've said it before: the added gloss of intellectual understanding of music _can not really add a thing to the visceral / emotional pleasure one gets from a work_... all it does is "add that gloss," that gloss another layer which affects what one thinks of a piece, _but not "how one feels."_


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> We can get tired of anything, even things we love and admire.
> 
> How do married people, for example, stay untired of each other? (Oops. A lot of them don't.)


There must be as many reasons why married people stay untired of each other as there are married people. Speaking personally, I stay untired because I try to know my spouse in depth and am constantly both discovering new things and finding delight in recognising older traits and seeing them in a different light. I imagine the same can happen with music. It's not so much down to the music, as to the listener's approach. Not that there's anything wrong with seeking something new - but some listeners prefer to know more about what they like - deeper, not wider.

If a listener is of that disposition, then I think more knowledge could bring more appreciation.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Ingélou said:


> *There must be* as *many reasons why married people stay untired of each other *as there are married people. Speaking personally, I stay untired because I try to know my spouse in depth and am constantly both discovering new things and finding delight in recognising older traits and seeing them in a different light. I imagine the same can happen with music. It's not so much down to the music, as to the listener's approach. Not that there's anything wrong with seeking something new - but some listeners prefer to know more about what they like - deeper, not wider.
> 
> If a listener is of that disposition, then I think more knowledge could bring more appreciation.


It's quite simple really: the bigger the house, the more untired of each other one becomes.


----------

