I've got a point to make, but I'm going to start with a tangentially related story.
Tonight we went to the symphony. Other than the gig we caught in Manchester, I haven't been to a live symphony in years. It was great. The headlining piece was Mussorgsky's Pictures at an Exhibition, a long-time favorite of mine.
We took some friends, and during the intermission before Pictures was about to start, I was giving them a little of the background. Just the basics: where Mussorgsky was from, when he wrote it, the structure of the piece and so on. I don't think they cared too much, but they humoured me.
The performance was electrifying. Everyone was on the edge of their seats throughout the entire piece. Finally they knew what I was raving about.
As we were walking out to the car, talking about how fantastic it was, one of our friends said, "I know part of that. The little bit they kept playing (the Promenade) is on a CD we bought for our daughter. One of those albums that is supposed to help them become smarter, with all the little pieces of classical music on them."
I didn't know how to feel about that. On one hand, her daughter is going to grow up with some passing familiarity with one of the greatest pieces of music ever. On the other hand, she's going to have no idea what it means. It's a little piece of music, taken completely out of context. It's nice that she has some exposure to the classics, but thinking that you have an appreciation for these works based on these sampler CDs is like thinking you can know what Shakespeare was all about by reading a pamphlet that says, "to be or not to be" on one page, and "a horse, a horse, my kingdom for a horse" on the next.
And these CDs aren't just for kids. There are loads of these discs for adults too. You know the kind. Classics for Relaxation, Mozart's Greatest Hits, or Classical Music for People Who Hate Classical Music. No continuity. No actual works. Just the first movement of Eine Kleine Nachtmusik followed by the Halleleujah Chorus, a snippet from the last movement of Beethoven's Ninth, and three minutes of the 1812 Overture.
So is the glass half full or half empty on this one? Is it good that people are able to get a bit of culture without too much investment? Or is this nothing more than a mockery of the finest moments in Western musical civilization? If someone has such a short MTV attention span that they absolutely will not listen to these works in any other format, do you think they should get these CDs, or do you think they should give up and go back to their Black Eyed Peas albums?
Posted by Epictetus (Member # 6235) on :
I can't speak for everyone, but my introduction to classical music came from Loony Tunes. I personally say it was a great way to be introduced to it. At 14 years old, I found "Hungarian Rhapsody" very, very boring, until suddenly, at the end, I began to hear something very familiar. It made me smile and caused me to start the song over again to hear what I had only partially been listening to before.
*Edited to be readable -Sam.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
If it was "Pictures at an exhibition" for orchestra then it was probably the Ravel orchestration- so its Mussorgsky/Ravel iirc.
Just sayin Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Baron Samedi: As we were walking out to the car, talking about how fantastic it was, one of our friends said, "I know part of that. The little bit they kept playing (the Promenade) is on a CD we bought for our daughter. One of those albums that is supposed to help them become smarter, with all the little pieces of classical music on them."
I didn't know how to feel about that. On one hand, her daughter is going to grow up with some passing familiarity with one of the greatest pieces of music ever. On the other hand, she's going to have no idea what it means. It's a little piece of music, taken completely out of context. It's nice that she has some exposure to the classics, but thinking that you have an appreciation for these works based on these sampler CDs is like thinking you can know what Shakespeare was all about by reading a pamphlet that says, "to be or not to be" on one page, and "a horse, a horse, my kingdom for a horse" on the next.
Absolutely, i agree with you. The funny thing is, the parent says: "I know that, that's one this CD I bought!" and yet he doesn't know anything about it, so how is the kid going to learn anything from it? The "mozart effect" is a myth based on wishful thinking: I don't have to put in any effort to talk to or culture my kids through conversations and new experiences, I can just put on this CD and its gonna leach into their brain. Doesn't work though. An appreciation of classical music comes from a variety of experiences, talking about it, going to concerts, learning to play, learning some of the conventions, history and theory behind it all help.
Funny, I think many parents conflate the idea that one can learn languages with little effort as a child, with the idea that one can learn music more easily as a child. I think though, that listening to music and understanding what you are hearing is more like reading-- it takes some guidance and some helping along beyond simple osmosis just to learn to read. Plus, even if a child could read shakespeare, how could the child understand the themes and topics involved without talking about them with someone? People treat music like its the same thing as a language, but they forget that even languages SAY things and impart meaning in every phrase. You have to be guided toward that meaning, and the intricacies of expression in a social environment. Listening to a CD is fine, but it isn't going to create all that knowledge, instinct and experience that the experienced music listener and musician has. My first two years as a music major were spent learning HOW TO listen, then going back and re-hearing things in new ways, talking about them, and then doing it again with different recordings or versions and playing them myself. I grew up listening to some of this music, like for instance Beethoven's 9th, and I still I had to learn as much about it as foreign students who had never heard it before.
Posted by Epictetus (Member # 6235) on :
I would argue that the child doesn't need to learn from that brief sample of classical music in order to benifit from the exposure. I agree that learning to listen to Music takes some guidance, but I think (and I am acting on a total presumption here, feel free to correct me) that most parents introduce children to classical music because they don't want them to grow up deprived of exposure to the arts. The parents themselves may have little knowledge of that music, but I think that some people look at their life and say, "Wow, I didn't know how cool Classical Music could be, I'd sure hate for my kids to grow up without this." And thus CDs are sold and played for children and no guidance is given.
That being said, I don't see any harm in it. Does it improve the mind of a child? I don't know. Does it make them more intelligent later in life? I don't know. Does it expose them to what I think is a vastly underappreciated Art in our society? Yes it does, and I believe kids and adults both could benifit from a little more Music in their lives.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
There is probably no harm in it. On the other hand, I think people need to realize that classical music, like all types of music, is based on taste and the development of a certain esthetic. It is not, as I think I have said before in similar discussions, a music-math pill to be taken like medicine, it simply doesn't work that way.
The idea that it does work that way also gets in the way of meaninful discussion about it, and genuine enjoyment of it. The kid who's parents play "Baby Beethoven" is exposed to the currently popular (not necessarily the best or the most important) short peices of classical music, but in a vacuum, and without any context for what the music is or what else is out there. The popularization of the music is double-edged, because it exposes (exposure is not enough imo, but that's another discussion) people to a certain portion of the music, and necessarily exludes much of the meat and perspective of the different genres. Mahler, for instance, is rarely used anywhere but in film because his music is mostly symphonic, and thus he is generally ignored by the popular recordings. Same goes for Berlioz, and these are issues which have seriously effected the number of people who even know those names, much less listen to their music.
edit: It also occurs to me that if a parent simply treats the classical music like a task or a "treatment" they are applying to the child, then the kids will pick up on that attitude and treat it the same way. Its the same thing that makes teeth brushing so hard for kids, despite the flavors of toothpaste and all the attempts made to make brushing fun, parents still treat it like a task, and kids still find it unpleasant (granted, not an ideal analogy). If the parents express enthusiasm, and better, if that enthusiasm is genuine, and encourages the parents to get different recordings and learn about music with the kids, then that is going to a postive thing. Likely as not though, these recordings will be treated by some parents as the treatment they give their kids at bedtime, and will garner all the negative associations involved with that.
Popularization also overexposes certain peices and composers to ill-effect. The legendary example is Johann Pachelbell, but there are many others, and many peices which have been overused in film, pop arrangments, etc, until the music becomes so ubiquitous as to be meaningless. There is no real sense of balance in commercial recordings, they simply do whatever sells, until it stops selling; no matter what effect that has on the public consciousness. It has been the work of modern musicology and ethnomusicology, over the last century to attempt to establish some kind of perspective and cannon in western music which is not so much affected by popular fancies and short term fads. There are fads, a ton of them, even in the popularity of long dead composers, both inside and outside academic circles, and these fads can be instructive as well as destructive.
Interestingly too, I think the impression I have had over the past few years is that people believe their taste in music is unquestionably individual and irreproachable. Attitudes that would never be accepted towards literature or film are accepted with music because it has been long mystified by association with philosophy, religion and mysticism. I think i would have an easier time criticizing someone's choices in movies and books than I would in music. People read bad books and watch bad movies, and admit that they are bad, but they are often unwilling to say that their music is also popcorn and cotton candy entertainment. This makes it difficult for me to say, and difficult for others to hear, that this particular recording of a peice, or this peice is really subpar or inferior in comparison with something else. I really have absolutely no qualms about saying that a recording of Pachelbel's "Cannon in D" rendered into a cheesy pop tune is really sad, and yet I have known people to defend it as a matter of taste. I would say fine, take your crappy psuedo-classical knock-offs and go away, but really music depends on people to listen to it and keep it alive. Performance practice and listening skills are still very much a tradition not well preserved in books or film, still passed from the hand of the teacher to the student. A CD isn't going to replace that, and though I don't think the idea of exposing the kids to some classical music is bad, I think the idea needs some work. Talk to your kids about it and learn about it yourself, and that will be the best way for them to learn. It is not difficult for your children to surpass you when you don't try to engage and challenge them by setting a standard in yourself, and music is no different from anything else in that regard. Play it for them AND for you.
another edit: You know I always sound crochety when I talk about this, because I am basically shutting down this idea that music is this magical mystical and special power that cannot be explained but is uplifting. I believe some of those things, but I believe that as appealling as the popular attitude toward classical music can be, IT is what shuts down real discussion and growth in our knowledge and appreciation of the music. I wouldn't be saying these things if I didn't believe my way would get people to appreciate and enjoy music even MORE. Frankly I think the popular releases of classical music are as distasteful as they are beneficial. They do introduce a number of people to certain peices of music, but for me its rather like introducing people to a few stanzas of "Prufrock," or a few inches of the Mona Lisa. Englightening, maybe, but also misleading. I don't know, there is no perfect solution to this, its been a problem for centuries.
[ September 10, 2006, 03:02 AM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
What the heck is "Prufrock"? I think you sort of invalidated your own argument, there, and proved mine (which I hadn't made yet). As a lit guy, may I say: I think if you were really familiar with "Prufrock" and had the respect for it you seem to be indicating by using it as an example as (whatever), you might've called it by its proper name. (I don't think you *know* its proper name, for the record.)
-- But you know what? That's perfectly fine.
My argument is this: Quit being music snobs. It's perfectly fine for people (such as myself) to listen to classical samplers. I don't need to be educated about the music to "get the benefit". I don't care that much about classical music at large. But if I had developed that interest, sampler discs might have served as a pretty decent gateway to further exploration.
But they didn't... I just want the hits.
I'm not interested in the same things you're interested in. No big deal. Everybody's different. Leave me alone to enjoy my samplers. And I won't give you too hard a time for, apparently, trying to float that T.S. Elliot thing past us.
(It's "The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock" by the way.)
Posted by Baron Samedi (Member # 9175) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: If it was "Pictures at an exhibition" for orchestra then it was probably the Ravel orchestration- so its Mussorgsky/Ravel iirc.
Just sayin
I know, I know. If encyclopedic accuracy is what you're after, watch out. The next time you reference Rhapsody in Blue as a Gershwin piece, without crediting Ferdinand Grofé, I'm going to lay the smack down on your candy @ss, too.
(interesting responses, BTW )
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
quote:Originally posted by Epictetus: I can't speak for everyone, but my introduction to classical music came from Loony Tunes...
I imagine. Mine came from movies. I only own four classical music CDs: 2001, Clockwork Orange (which provides a sufficient dose of Beethoven), Fantasia and Fantasia 2000. And in my MP3 collection I have Ride of the Valkyries from Apocalypse Now and the Indiana Jones march.
The only non-movie themed classical music I have is Vanessa Mae, which I don't think qualifies as "classical" in the sense everyone else is talking about here. How classical can you be with an electric violin?
Posted by Libbie (Member # 9529) on :
I LOVE classical, and I think it's great to introduce kids to it any way you can. In fact, it's probably better to introduce kids to little bits and pieces of it while they're young. Most children won't have the attention span to appreciate an entire piece all together. I know my introduction to classical was "Jupiter, Bringer of Jollity" by Gustav Holst. I wouldn't have loved it nearly so well if I'd have to listen to all the movements in "The Planets" at that age.
As for what a piece "means," as with all art, interpretation is ultimately up to the viewer or listener. What child is going to want to hear a spiel about what "Pictures At an Exhibition" means and what was going on when Mussorgsky wrote it? Why would a 7-year-old care? They might find it interesting if you're lucky, but would they have the mental sophistication to connect that information with the music? Probably not - they'd probably enjoy the music for the emotinoal effect it has on them, which is ultimately what the composers wanted anyhow. I think the "most exciting" pieces of some of the great classical works are fantastic for kids.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Hrm. There actually IS a well documented effect on the ability to reason logically in children who are exposed to the mathematical structures of classical music. ENJOYMENT of the music takes more then hearing snippets out of context.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I have a CD collection called 100 Classics (or something like it). Four CDs of important classical works, or bits of important classical works.
Having bits of classical music is no different from listening to a bit of anyone's album that's meant to be heard as a whole. It's perfectly fine to have only the first movement of Beethoven's Fifth, or the Promenade from Pictures at an Exhibition just as it's perfectly fine to listen to the Beatles 'Here Comes the Sun' without the rest of the songs. There's nothing particularly more sacred about classical music than any other type of music.
Nighthawk's comment that the Indiana Jones theme is classical brings up another point. My immediate reaction was "that's not classical, that's pop played by an orchestra!" but in truth it is modern classical music.
When I teach music, I do play modern orchestral music (soundtracks) because I think it is so much more familiar. Also begins an interest in much older music intended to be played in the same style; classical music.
I do believe that listening to a variety of music (just like reading a variety of books or playing a variety of games) can help make your growing child "smarter". Being open to classical music and understanding of it is a huge bonus in a world where many people don't listen to orchestral music except when watching movies just as being open to older books and writing as well as newer ones, and older movies as well as newer ones, can give you an edge over others.
quote:At 14 years old, I found "Hungarian Rhapsody" very, very boring...
I think it is important that people when they are growing up understand that classical music is no less boring than modern music. It is just interesting in a different way.
Many of these greatest hits pieces are the most exciting ones. Others can be very children-friendly, such as Peter and the Wolf or Carnival of the Animals (Saint-Saens), or even Beethoven's Sixth.
I strongly believe that children and adults should be exposed to all kinds of music however possible and therefore it doesn't matter one bit whether (like me) they have a dissarayed MP3 collection on their computer or a alphabetized CD collection organised by artist.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
quote:Nighthawk's comment that the Indiana Jones theme is classical brings up another point. My immediate reaction was "that's not classical, that's pop played by an orchestra!" but in truth it is modern classical music.
Is "modern" classical music differentiated from normal classical music simply because of the passing of time?
How is some of the work of John Williams different than that of Beethoven, Mozart or the like? Compare the Indiana Jones march to the William Tell Overture or Beethoven's Ninth Symphony; how truly different are they?
Posted by Baron Samedi (Member # 9175) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: Hrm. There actually IS a well documented effect on the ability to reason logically in children who are exposed to the mathematical structures of classical music.
Really? I'd like to see that documentation.
It wouldn't surprise me if there were studies demonstrating a correlation between listening to classical music and children who can, by some arbitrary standard, reason better. (Of course, it wouldn't surprise me if there weren't studies like that either. I've never personally seen any.)
Unfortunately, most studies on matters such as these have a fatal flaw when trying to extrapolate a cause-and-effect relationship from a correlation. In other words, if kids that listen to classical music can reason better, did the classical music cause their increase in brain power? Or are kids who can naturally reason better more likely to be able to sit through Beethoven's "Eroica" without taking a hammer to the CD player?
Anyway, if you have some studies, please share. I'd love to be proven wrong.
[edit: I'm saying all this under the assumption that the "documentation" you're referring to isn't those ridiculous "Mozart Effect" studies. I have enough respect for you personally, Paul, to assume your info isn't coming from there. If I didn't know you better, this post would have a somewhat different tone. ]
[ September 10, 2006, 01:04 PM: Message edited by: Baron Samedi ]
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:Is "modern" classical music differentiated from normal classical music simply because of the passing of time?
This is what I mean. I re-examined my own reaction as wrong. It's just "modern" classical music- different only because of the passing of time.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
[QUOTE]Originally posted by TL: [QB] What the heck is "Prufrock"? I think you sort of invalidated your own argument, there, and proved mine (which I hadn't made yet). As a lit guy, may I say: I think if you were really familiar with "Prufrock" and had the respect for it you seem to be indicating by using it as an example as (whatever), you might've called it by its proper name. (I don't think you *know* its proper name, for the record.) [QUOTE]
Listen to a recording of Elliot reading it sometime. He called it "Prufrock." It has been perfectly acceptable in every lit class I've taken to call it that. Please, look before you shoot.
BTW TL, thanks for going ahead and ignoring my entire point, and my concession that it IS OK to listen to classical samplers. You seem to have the right idea, except that you believe you are hearing "the hits." You would treat music this way, but you are appalled when I reference Elliot as a by-the-way, because you believe I don't know anything about him. I am an English major as well, almost done with my degree, and I appreciate American poetry as much as I do classical music.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Libbie: As for what a piece "means," as with all art, interpretation is ultimately up to the viewer or listener. What child is going to want to hear a spiel about what "Pictures At an Exhibition" means and what was going on when Mussorgsky wrote it? Why would a 7-year-old care? They might find it interesting if you're lucky, but would they have the mental sophistication to connect that information with the music? Probably not - they'd probably enjoy the music for the emotinoal effect it has on them, which is ultimately what the composers wanted anyhow. I think the "most exciting" pieces of some of the great classical works are fantastic for kids.
Not all classical (and I am using kind of inclusive language to describe the baroque through modernism and impressionism), is an emotional appeal. Nor is all classical meant to be exciting. Some of it is intricate, introspective and demanding of alot of reflection; at the same time it is something children CAN learn if they want to and are guided into it. I just want to demystify the music by pointing out that we shouldn't look at it as this unnaproachable magic thing that we only experience and don't even want to understand. I am not saying analysis of the music is related to the history of the music neccessarily, so you misunderstand me if you think my idea of understanding it is to see what the composer was going through during that period of his/her life. That CAN be important and it is the subject of many books and papers and speculations, but it is also only a small part of what can be found in a great piece of music. Children, for example, can learn an appreciation of form, tone color, etc, at a very early age. You don't have to lecture them and drill them, but just learn something about it yourself and talk about it with them.
Its just strange to me that people I've known to be interested in learning and understanding will actually ague that they don't have to, or even shouldn't learn anything about music. People excuse themselves from it by saying that they don't have the natural talent, or an ear, or whatever, and I just think that's silly. So yeah, listen to those "greatest hits" if you want, but keep exploring and don't start thinking that they really ARE the greatest hits, because there is no way a CD or even 100 is going to be sufficient. You never will have "heard them all" fortunately, but you ought to know that you can certainly give it a go.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: Hrm. There actually IS a well documented effect on the ability to reason logically in children who are exposed to the mathematical structures of classical music. ENJOYMENT of the music takes more then hearing snippets out of context.
If you're talking about the "Mozart effect" then it is a short term effect on COLLEGE AGE kids. I think too that this study pointed out that the practice of simple concentration had more to do with the increased abilities than the absorbtion of mathematical principles through osmosis. I shy away from simply saying that music is a tool for making people smarter, because I haven't seen the evidence, and I don't think it should be used with that as the soul intent anyway.
I'll look for the study, but I don't think there really is one.
edit: Ok, some quotes from Wikipedia, the references are at the bottom of that page
quote: First, popular presentations of the "Mozart effect" almost always tie it to "intelligence;" thus, as noted above, Alex Ross's comment that "listening to Mozart actually makes you smarter," and Zell Miller's asking the Georgia legislature whether they "felt smarter" after he played them some Beethoven. Rauscher herself, one of the original researchers, has disclaimed this idea. In her 1999 reply to Chabris and Steele et al. she wrote (emphasis supplied): Our results on the effects of listening to Mozart’s Sonata for Two Pianos in D Major K. 448 on spatial–temporal task performance have generated much interest but several misconceptions, many of which are reflected in attempts to replicate the research. The comments by Chabris and Steele et al. echo the most common of these: that listening to Mozart enhances intelligence. We made no such claim. The effect is limited to spatial–temporal tasks involving mental imagery and temporal ordering. Second, it is frequently suggested or stated that exposure to the right kind of music in childhood has a lasting, beneficial effect. (Circa 1999 the state of Florida created a regulation requiring toddlers in state-run schools to listen to classical music every day). On programs like these, Rauscher commented in 1999: I don't think it can hurt. I'm all for exposing children to wonderful cultural experiences. But I do think the money could be better spent on music education programs.
It looks like was right, however the popular book by Don Cambell claims that the "Mozart Effect" does make children more intelligent. This followed by his own series of products... how convenient. On the same page:
quote:No researchers have claimed such wideranging effects, and even the existence of the far more limited effect claimed by e.g. Shaw and Rauscher (see below) is disputed. Rather, careful research by William Forde Thompson, Glenn Schellenberg, and Gabriela Husain (University of Toronto) suggests that the Mozart effect can be attributed to temporary changes in mood and arousal that result from prolonged exposure to music (e.g., 8-10 minutes). Not all music generates the Mozart effect, however. The music must be perceived as having an energetic and positive emotional quality (see Thompson, Schellenberg, & Husain, 2001, Psychological Science).
It seems quite clear that the most convincing research in favor of "mozart makes you smarter" comes from someone who sells his books and Cds to trusting parents. Listening=good, but not a cure-all.
[ September 10, 2006, 07:17 PM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
I have no time tonight... but out of curiosity, who are you baron semedi? I get the impression you are someone who I should know, but have changed your screen name?
Posted by Baron Samedi (Member # 9175) on :
Just a lurker/occasional poster. I've read your posts and you seem a decent fellow. If a newbie or a known troll had made the claim that came up in your last post, I might have assumed they were talking some trash or repeating an urban legend, but I'm inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt. Hence the addendum in my response.
That's all the mystery there is to it. Sorry to burst your bubble. Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
My music theory professor always likened music to food. He said learning theory/history and most of all listening to the WHOLE PIECE of whatever you were studying was imperative to to the experience. Kind of like only eating a slice of bread instead of making a whole sandwich. What I think he was trying to say is that people who actually study music and understand it can appreciate and enjoy it like 1000 times more (than passive listeners). No fault against them, they're just missing out.
He also likened (only listening) to a piece to just smelling your food. You have to actually ingest the music (multiple listenings)...AND digest it(score study)...in order to make it a part of you.
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
Verdi is lasagne. Beethoven is hamburger. Bach is tough, dry chicken. Mozart is a creampuff dessert. Berlioz is a strong stew. Mahler is a huge steak. Debussy is rich ice cream. Wagner is a roast pig.
Posted by Baron Samedi (Member # 9175) on :
quote:Originally posted by Launchywiggin: Bach is tough, dry chicken.
Which Bach? I know you're not talking about Johann Sebastian.
quote:Originally posted by Launchywiggin: Debussy is rich ice cream.
I tend to think of him more as maybe an herbal tea.
Interesting analogies, anyway. Nice to taste these composers with someone elses' tongue. Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
As a piano major, JSB is totally some tough meat.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
Orincoro- I'm afraid I'm completely missing your point. As far as I can tell you're upset that people listen to classical music purely for enjoyment, without devoting their lives to studying it. Is that correct?
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
quote:BTW TL, thanks for going ahead and ignoring my entire point, and my concession that it IS OK to listen to classical samplers. You seem to have the right idea, except that you believe you are hearing "the hits." You would treat music this way, but you are appalled when I reference Elliot as a by-the-way, because you believe I don't know anything about him. I am an English major as well, almost done with my degree, and I appreciate American poetry as much as I do classical music.
Treat music what way? What gave you the impression that I was appalled? Look where? Shoot what?
The point I made was very simple: It's okay for people to listen to samplers. If you agree with that, why, that's terrific.
We find ourselves in agreement.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
quote:So yeah, listen to those "greatest hits" if you want, but keep exploring and don't start thinking that they really ARE the greatest hits, because there is no way a CD or even 100 is going to be sufficient. You never will have "heard them all" fortunately, but you ought to know that you can certainly give it a go.
Snob.
Posted by OSTY (Member # 1480) on :
I dunno saying that I have to appreciate music in its whole is like saying I have to look at all of DiVinci's paintings to appreciate them. I mean I can gain appreciation for an artists work by looking at a part of it now and maybe if I decide I like it well enough, go back and look at the whole later. I mean giving someone a partial appreciation for something is better than giving them no taste at all.
Don't get me wrong, I love classical music and often listen to it in its complete form, but I also listen to snipits here and there too.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Well, I think its closer to looking at a whole painting, even if its just one. In some cases all we have to go on with a composer is ONE piece, or even a resetting of that piece by an ostensibly superior composer who's work is preserved- rather like Sapho being preserved in the writings of Aristotle and Horace, but not in her own collections, which were lost for lack of interest or, by chance.
This is what really gets me exploring other works by a single composer, the idea that I got as a young kid reading Carl Sagan's "Cosmos," in which he pointed out that Sophoclese wrote over 100 plays, of which a handful survive, but among those are Oedipus Rex, and Antigone, and in some cases we know only the names of his other works. I came to understand much much later, that it would be like having Beethoven's 5th, and 3 of the Bach cello partitas, and knowing that similar works were produced around the same time, but that we know only that there was once a 9th symphony, and that it was wonderful. In a way, this is near the truth, because many works from Bach and Beethoven and others were lost or destroyed at the hand of the composer or some careless collector. Brahms claimed to have burned 20 piano quartets before publishing one, and I imagine what it would have been if he had burned that one as well.
TL- There was something interesting in the afterword to "Farenheit 451" by Ray Bradbury that I still remember 7 years after reading it for the first time: a hypothetical scene in which the captain and Montag are standing a library of books hidden in the Captain's house, and the captain is reaching into a book and lighting each page individually, and saying, "it doesn't matter that I have these books, I have commited no crime... because I don't read them!" Proudly proclaiming that you know nothing, and wish to learn nothing, and what is more, you despise and deride those who do adore the pursuit of more than you are willing or interested in looking for. Go ahead and call me a snob, because obviously a snob is someone different from you, and that's all I could ask for considering your attitude towards learning- at least from what I can see here. Dear god, he's telling me that my universe is a small and limiting thing! THIS will show him! "Snob!" How about this: quit the name calling and bullying and discuss something.
:end rant:
Posted by Baron Samedi (Member # 9175) on :
There appears to be a bit of misrepresentation of ideas going on here. I don't think anyone here has expressed the belief, or even the possibility, that people who listen to sampler discs are evil, stupid, or in any way less worthy than people who listen to entire works. The most radical opinion I've heard expressed here is that maybe it's a shame.
Taking 3 minutes from a 25-minute symphony isn't like only looking at one painting. It's like looking at a fragment of a painting. Who here would walk into a print store, pick up The Persistence of Memory, and say, "do you have one that just has the bit with the clock draped over the tree? That's the part everyone knows, I don't want all that other junk cluttering up my wall."
Who here would chose to introduce a friend to the works of Orson Scott Card by opening up Ender's Game and tearing out the chapter where Ender's toon wins their first battle? "That book would take you hours to read, but the real good part is where he tells his friends that the enemy's gate is down. There's no reason to go through the whole rest of the book for that one scene."
There's nothing immoral or even stupid about doing something like that. But I don't think anyone would do it. And yet there are people here actually calling other people snobs for daring to suggest that it might be in their best interest to sit through the last three movements of Eine Kleine Nachtmusik. If someone told you to rent Taxi Driver and just skip to the scene where DeNiro says, "are you talkin' to me?" and then return it, people might find that a bit odd. But if there's any suggestion that perhaps the Presto Agitato from Beethoven's "Moonlight" sonata goes nicely with the Adagio Sostenuto, suddenly you're being elitist and taking away peoples' rights.
To sum up, I don't think anyone here is demanding TL or the people like him change their listening habits. No one is calling anyone stupid or perverse. But some people here are suggesting that if you like the first three minutes of a work, it might be worth your time to keep listening. That doesn't seem very snobbish to me.
Posted by Avin (Member # 7751) on :
I HATE those classical sampler CDs. TL if you or anyone else have them and enjoy listening to them, that's fine, I have no problem with that. But I cam still hate them myself, and if you have a problem with my dislike then you seem to have as much of a snobbery issue as that you accuse others of.
The reason I hate them is the reason people have mentioned in this thread: it is like taking a snippet from a story out of context. So I can't stand to listen to them because if I haven't heard the full thing before, then I get annoyed at not understanding where it's coming from, and if I have heard the full thing, I get annoyed at getting some sort of climax (usually) without any of the background. What really annoys me about all this though is the prevalence of these CDs, and how sometimes when I am searching for something I will have a hard time filtering out all these snippet CDs to get to one that actually contains the full composition, or sometimes I will hear snippets as a friend plays such a CD.
I blame contemporary music for this, where people have become used to songs that are essentially always verse-chorus-verse-chorus etc with maybe a bridge or two and minor variations. Sometimes I will enjoy listening to that sort of thing but I get tired of it so easily.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
quote:Originally posted by Launchywiggin: Verdi is lasagne. Beethoven is hamburger. Bach is tough, dry chicken. Mozart is a creampuff dessert. Berlioz is a strong stew. Mahler is a huge steak. Debussy is rich ice cream. Wagner is a roast pig.
Lists like this tend to show the lister's biases more than anything else, I think. I disagree with most of this list, but it's entirely a matter of personal taste.
Posted by Baron Samedi (Member # 9175) on :
quote:Originally posted by Megan: Lists like this tend to show the lister's biases more than anything else, I think. I disagree with most of this list, but it's entirely a matter of personal taste.
Nicely punned, Megan.
"Biases" might be too loaded a word for it. It's definitely a personal perspective. I don't know if this is how I'd have described these people either, but it's interesting to see how others percieve them.
By the way, how would you make this list better? If you disagree with the list, what do you think would be more appropriate comparisons?
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
Orincoro- I know you're addressing TL, but I disagree with what you're saying. No one can know everything about the things they enjoy. There are just too many things in the world to know. What I'm hearing you saying is that I shouldn't listen to Beethoven's Nineth just because it's gorgeous. I should only listen to it if I have a proper understanding of the musical theory that went into it and the context in which it was written. It's completely unrealistic to expect everyone to have that kind of background. It takes years of study and a passion for music that most people don't have.
I don't blame you for having all of those things, but I think expecting everyone to have those things is a little unrealistic.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
By biases, I mean that certain people tend to favor some time periods over others, and that favoritism (favoring?) shows up in how they assign foods to composers. For example, describing Bach as "tough, dry chicken" implies that the person who wrote the list originally doesn't care for Bach, and by extension, lots of Baroque music. Mozart as a creampuff implies that the person who made the list believes there isn't much substance to Mozart. The Verdi and Beethoven references appear to national associations, while the others appear to assign the most substance to Romantic composers. Based on that list, I'd say the listmaker was a brass player.
I wouldn't necessarily feel the need to make the list "better," as it's someone's personal likes and dislikes, to which they're completely entitled without needing to know my opinion on the subject.
I would hesitate to assign foods to composers, particularly since a composer's work can change so much over the course of his or her life. The Beethoven of the Op. 18 quartets is not the Beethoven of the Ninth Symphony. The Mozart of the K. 333 Sonata is not the Mozart of the Requiem.
As for the topic of the thread, well, I know as little about "popular"* music as most folks know about "classical"* music. To my mind, I don't think enjoying greatest hits CDs is anything to be ashamed of. I do get frustrated when people believe that those CDs give them equal knowledge as someone who's actually studied the music in depth. I also get frustrated when people refer to "classical" music as "relaxing," because I think they're missing the emotional range that's possible in music (implying that emotional variation can come only with text). However, I don't think there's anything particularly wrong about it.
Bear in mind that music, for the vast majority of humanity, is very much a leisure activity. How someone spends their leisure time is, in my opinion, entirely up to them, and not open to my criticism, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else.
* By "popular," I mean basically everything that isn't "classical." By "classical," I mean western art music between roughly the Renaissance and present-day. These are very broad categories, I know, but they make discussion easier.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nighthawk: Is "modern" classical music differentiated from normal classical music simply because of the passing of time?
How is some of the work of John Williams different than that of Beethoven, Mozart or the like? Compare the Indiana Jones march to the William Tell Overture or Beethoven's Ninth Symphony; how truly different are they?
There is more than just the passing of time that differentiates the periods of orchestral music. I'm not going to get into it too deeply because there are a lot of people in this thread that know much more about music than me (and I don't want to be called a snob)
There are many differences in say, a piece from the Baroque period as opposed to modern day composers. Baroque was more than just a music style, it was a way of life. Architecture, painting, and music all reflected a trendy feeling of excessiveness. Ornamation, such as the trill was used extensively. Counterpoint was huge, and used differently than it has been since. The doctrine of affections was used then, which was more integrated into the piece than the idea of mood we use now. There's many many more differences. The Baroque period certainly influenced and has remenants in modern music, however, much more seperates the styles than simple passage of time.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I am in the midst of reading "The View from the Center of the Universe". It is about cosmology and philosophy and physics. I am finding it fascinating. I am learning something about the universe. Should I stop reading it until I have the time and inclination to understand all the depths and complexity of astrophysics?
My only caveat regarding the "Greatest Hits" albums is that they be good recordings.
Posted by Baron Samedi (Member # 9175) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I am in the midst of reading "The View from the Center of the Universe". It is about cosmology and philosophy and physics. I am finding it fascinating. I am learning something about the universe. Should I stop reading it until I have the time and inclination to understand all the depths and complexity of astrophysics?
No. But I hope for your sake that you can at least eventually finish that one book.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I do usually finish books.
I think you may be mistaking my analogy. The book samples or introduces many different cosmological ideas. It doesn't entirely explain them. It is sort of a "sample CD" of cosmology.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
I think it's a bit different than art though kmb. Part of education is necessarily learning simpler, broad ideas first, and then continuing to get more depth. Baron's POV with music sampling is that it's like sampling the Mona Lisa by only viewing a rectangle that includes her smile and nothing else, and feeling like you've got the best part of it without examining the whole. It's a subtle difference and I'm doing a poor job articulating what I think the difference is, but one that I think is valid.
That being said, I don't think I necessarily agree with that POV, since I personally have no objections at all to sampler CDs. It would be cool if the CDs led people to sample the richer tapestry of music out there, but if they don't then at least they can enjoy what they did hear.
Posted by Ithilien (Member # 9474) on :
Being a 16 year old whose MP3 has more Classical music than anything else, I can't understand why there is all this bias towards Classical music or why my friends give me wierd looks when I say that I like it. Simply put, its pretty. And you don't need to be sophisticated and well-educated in music to appreciate and enjoy it.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
quote:Simply put, its pretty.
I kind of put this in the same category as calling it "relaxing," but I suppose that depends a lot on what you mean by "pretty."
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
It is pleasing to the ears? It makes one happy to listen to it? Listening to it is an enjoyable experience?
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
I agree with all those.
I guess I'm just thinking of music like Rite of Spring, which I would call powerful and wonderful, but not pretty. I think of pretty as being sort of "sweetness and light," a descriptor that I wouldn't apply as a blanket term to music of any category.
Posted by Baron Samedi (Member # 9175) on :
I took Ithilien's statement to mean that much of the music in this category isn't as mysterious or mystic as people expect it to be. A lot of people are scared off of classical music because they think you need a degree to understand it, or that they won't be able to appreciate pieces they're not already familiar with from movies and cartoons and commercials and the like. When in fact, most of the best of it was written, above all, to just sound good. Hopefully in unique and interesting ways, but I think very few of the music that survives was written in a deliberate attempt to irritate or confound people. And although you may gain new levels of appreciation and understanding by learning about the pieces, you don't have to know much at all to thorougly enjoy them.
Even Stravinsky, as challenging as his music is, was made to be enjoyed. I remember the first time I heard The Rite of Spring, when I was about Ithilien's age. It wasn't like anything I'd heard before, and it blew my mind. I knew very little about music, and almost nothing about that particular piece, but I loved it all the same. And as many times as I've listened to it since then, and as much as I've learned about its structure and history, a great deal of the enjoyment I experience when I listen to it today comes at the same level as it did when I was 16 years old.
Maybe "pretty" wasn't the absolute best word to use. But I think I understand where she's coming from, and I agree.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think of pretty and beautiful as different things. For a person to be "pretty" requires a certain regularity of features; it is pleasant. "Beautiful" evokes some emotion or truth. Someone with scars or wrinkles, for example, may not be likely to be pretty, but could very well be beautiful. Beauty is more real and deep and powerful than pretty. Sort of like the difference between "kind" and "nice".
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
Well said, kmb. That's what I was trying to say, very poorly. Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
My dad did a good job exposing me to Classical Music. He had cd's in the car that he played frequently. He quizzed me on composers Domenico Scarlatti "The Demon of the Harpsichord" is one of my favorites.
Looney Tunes DEFINATELY helped me to enjoy classical music. It help me see the brighter side of classical music. Alot of that music is honest to God FUN. I have to think that Mozard had fun while writing some of his music just as he was likely somber when he was writing Requiem.
I think those CD's are good just as I think child literature is good. Sure you could argue that little childrens books cheapen the English language as it ignored some of more beautiful words and compositions, but they also help people develop an appreciation for reading, and if that person so chooses encourages them to move on into deeper territory.
At best, somebody hears those CD's finds a song they REALLY like, and explores that composers other works. At worst they are in a limited way exposed to the music, can at least recognize the tunes if played later, and become more cultured.
edit: 1685 was a GREAT year for music! JS Bach, GF Handel, and Domenico Scarlatti!
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by blacwolve: Orincoro- I know you're addressing TL, but I disagree with what you're saying. No one can know everything about the things they enjoy. There are just too many things in the world to know. What I'm hearing you saying is that I shouldn't listen to Beethoven's Nineth just because it's gorgeous. I should only listen to it if I have a proper understanding of the musical theory that went into it and the context in which it was written. It's completely unrealistic to expect everyone to have that kind of background. It takes years of study and a passion for music that most people don't have.
I don't blame you for having all of those things, but I think expecting everyone to have those things is a little unrealistic.
I certainly never intended to say THAT. I do intend to say that you should listen to the whole thing, and that is something I am firm on. Now, you pick up on my definition of "listening" and see that I am demanding more than simply hearing the music. As music students tend to learn (hopefully) after a few classes is that hearing and listening are different things- like looking and reading. You don't look at a book, you READ it, but you look at a magazine, and that's different; it probably isn't the same type of material.
I am asking that you LISTEN. For me, listening involves a good deal of analysis and absorption and reading for ME to be satisfied. There are composers and musicians and conductors who can listen to a peice ONCE, and know more about it that someone like me who has listened a hundred times, because they have that ability, that knack. I tend to believe that the more you learn, the easier it is to learn and to listen, so that you can appreciate music more and more easily. I have found through study of music, that I can now listen and learn with a greater ease and comfort than I ever felt before, rather like I have learned enough words to understand a difficult book without going to my dictionary. By extension, my attitude towards those who turn away from learning at least a little about theory and form is the same as it would be towards people who refuse to learn new words, and simply skip over them while reading. Children do that, and they have to be taught that they can understand and enjoy the work more if they look up the words and understand the meanings.
On the whole, I don't think I am asking anything unreasonable, but I can see why that would seem to much for some people. It takes as much work as it takes to learn to read or to paint- but I think you have to be something of an artist to really enjoy other people's art. That is a matter of opinion, but you can look at the language here and see why I think it is a reasonable one.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Megan: By biases, I mean that certain people tend to favor some time periods over others, and that favoritism (favoring?) shows up in how they assign foods to composers. For example, describing Bach as "tough, dry chicken" implies that the person who wrote the list originally doesn't care for Bach, and by extension, lots of Baroque music. Mozart as a creampuff implies that the person who made the list believes there isn't much substance to Mozart. The Verdi and Beethoven references appear to national associations, while the others appear to assign the most substance to Romantic composers. Based on that list, I'd say the listmaker was a brass player. .
Anyone who includes Berlioz in one of these lists either goes to UC Davis, or is a brass player... maybe viola. Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Megan: I agree with all those.
I guess I'm just thinking of music like Rite of Spring, which I would call powerful and wonderful, but not pretty. I think of pretty as being sort of "sweetness and light," a descriptor that I wouldn't apply as a blanket term to music of any category.
And your running up against the cliched terms for classical music. You say classical and you could mean orchestral, piano, baroque, strictly Mozart, or Beethoven, or anything instrumental and non-electronic and non-folksy. You could mean virtually anything, and rarely do people actually mean neo-classical in the sense that musicologists or students would use it. I get tired of this constant push and pull, so I just preface any discussion by saying that I am simply talking about ALL music from Dowland to Debussy or Stravinsky. A risky assumption, but maybe necessary.
edit: I mean, this is a culture where people ask me if my Leonin/Perotin Cds are mozart.... there is a what, 500 year distance between those composers?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Baron Samedi: I took Ithilien's statement to mean that much of the music in this category isn't as mysterious or mystic as people expect it to be. A lot of people are scared off of classical music because they think you need a degree to understand it, or that they won't be able to appreciate pieces they're not already familiar with from movies and cartoons and commercials and the like. When in fact, most of the best of it was written, above all, to just sound good. Hopefully in unique and interesting ways, but I think very few of the music that survives was written in a deliberate attempt to irritate or confound people. And although you may gain new levels of appreciation and understanding by learning about the pieces, you don't have to know much at all to thorougly enjoy them.
Even Stravinsky, as challenging as his music is, was made to be enjoyed. I remember the first time I heard The Rite of Spring, when I was about Ithilien's age. It wasn't like anything I'd heard before, and it blew my mind. I knew very little about music, and almost nothing about that particular piece, but I loved it all the same. And as many times as I've listened to it since then, and as much as I've learned about its structure and history, a great deal of the enjoyment I experience when I listen to it today comes at the same level as it did when I was 16 years old.
And not surprisingly, given enough reflection, exposure and contemplation of later composers, even Stravinsky can begin to feel simplistic and dated. I think audiences will continue forever to proclaim that music has gone too far THIS TIME, but everything new will become old, and everything novel will become commonplace. Stravinsky, especially among academics, and eventually among the general public, will become and has become enough of a part of the common heritage that his contribution to our artistic constiousness will be completely absorbed into the works of later composers. At this point, like every revolutionary who gains success, he will be pass into the twilight of music history, when his direct effect no longer seems quite as alive. Some would say he already has, and if you go to a progressive new music concert, you'll see that its at least true in part already.
Its pretty comforting too! There will never be an end to history or an end to evolution and re-evolution... no matter how adamently every century insists that it is the last one.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
In every book I read, every movie or tv show I watch, every song I listen to my requirement is that it makes me feel something. That's my criteria for what makes something great in my mind. To fulfill that criteria I don't have to understand every word an author chooses, or the goal of every camera angle the director uses. It is the whole of the thing, not the bits and pieces that make something great.
Don't think I'm discounting the usefulness of music theory. I'm not at all. If I want to be a writer or a director, or a musician, it is imperative I understand the bits and pieces. Without out them the whole can never be created.
I'm not trying to create classical music, I'm just trying to enjoy it.
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
I was just having fun making that list of composer-foods. Sorry for not being very intellectual about it. Also note my cultural bias in only mentioning foods I know. Mozart just tastes sweet and creampuffy to me. Bach tastes tough. Berlioz tastes like Beef and potatoes and carrots and onions in a stew. Beethoven makes the BEST hamburgers.
I love listening to JS Bach. Especially the choral stuff.
I.....HATE playing Bach preludes and fugues. For me, it's twice as much work for half the payoff. (I just don't have the chops to pull it off).
And yes, I have a bias towards the Romantic composers.
Schubert is veal. Schumann is salad. (Clara's the dressing) Brahms is potatoes. Grieg is shrimp. The Russians (big 5) are big Turkey dinners. Liszt is cake.
Shoenberg is grass. Webern is sticks. Berg is dirt.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
"Shoenberg is grass"
.... What kinda grass?
Copland is sunshine
Posted by Luet13 (Member # 9274) on :
Copland is sunshine?
Really?!!!!!!
To each his/her own.
As someone with an instrumental performance degree in piano, all I have to say is this: Music is extremely personal. ALWAYS.
I don't like Copland. Ever. Or Bartok. I've got a lot of crap for this as a pianist. I don't care.
Just because someone else thinks something is great doesn't mean I do. Or ever will. This does not make me less musically intelligent.
Music is an intensely personal thing, like art. I don't like a lot of modern art. Does that mean it's not good? No. All it means is that I don't like it. If you like it, rock on you! Enjoyment of any art by anyone is an awesome thing.
When you talk about art in absolutes, I am sorry, but you are a fool. Art reaches some people, but not others. Should we look down on these people for only liking one movement of a Beethoven Sonata? (i.e. 1st mvmt. "Moonlight", when IMHO the 3rd Mvmt is the best)
NO!!!
Let people enjoy what they enjoy, how they enjoy it. Shut up being a "Classical" snob. WAAAAAAHHHH! I'm so much smarter than you, so you don't really get "Classical" music.
Music is to be enjoyed. Music is to be interpreted. Music is not black and white.
P.S. "Classical" is not a real genre. That's right. I'm a pseudo snob. <Sarcasm ensues> Don't you dare put Bach in the same category as Beethoven. Or Gershwin. <End Sarcasm> Grofe just helped with arrangements by the way, he didn't write Rhapsody in Blue, TYVM. Though without him, Rhapsody would not exist in its present form.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
HI! HERE IS WHERE I WILL RESPOND TO SOME QUOTES!
quote:Proudly proclaiming that you know nothing, and wish to learn nothing, and what is more, you despise and deride those who do adore the pursuit of more than you are willing or interested in looking for. Go ahead and call me a snob, because obviously a snob is someone different from you, and that's all I could ask for considering your attitude towards learning- at least from what I can see here. Dear god, he's telling me that my universe is a small and limiting thing! THIS will show him! "Snob!" How about this: quit the name calling and bullying and discuss something.
Orincoro: You know, you are really coming across in this thread (to me at least) as a bizarre individual. I called you a snob (and shouldn't have - sorry) because you seem to have this draconian all-or-nothing approach to the people and the world around you. Your response here, for instance. Someone (in this case me) telling you that I don't share a particular interest with you is interpreted as: I proudly proclaim that I know nothing and wish to learn nothing, and that I deride those who do... know.. things. It couldn't possibly be that I'm a smart human being with diverse interests and a great deal of knowledge about a wide variety of subjects... If I fail to share *one* interest with you, I'm some kind of know-nothing, and a perfect example of your superiority, and the superiority of your interests, and the superiority of your knowledge.
I called you a snob because, frankly, I don't *need* you to tell me that my universe is a small and limited thing just because I listen to classical music samplers. It's ridiculous for you to take the position that my universe is a small and limited thing. You don't know anything about my universe. And if you're judging the size of my universe based on whether or not I like to listen to classical musical samplers, you *are* a snob.
A snob is not someone who has knowlegde. A snob is someone who thinks he is better than someone who doesn't have the same knowledge. I mean, good lord, it's not as if I couldn't pick up a few books and learn about classical music. It's just not a hobby of mine, it's not an interest. There is no need for you to mourn over the lack of riches in my life, or whatever you're doing... (And I know you were never directing anything at *me* -- just *my kind*).
So ... I hope I'm misinterpreting you. Because there have been threads in the past where I have admired your point of view and thought you had interesting things to say. We've agreed a time or two on a thing or two, and I have a friendly outlook towards you. Which is part of maybe why I thought I could get away with calling you a snob.
But, of course, that was a bad move on my part. I was only half-serious. I did mean it, though, to be honest.
I'm also not sure where the accusations of bullying come from. I mean... Bullying?
quote:I HATE those classical sampler CDs. TL if you or anyone else have them and enjoy listening to them, that's fine, I have no problem with that. But I cam still hate them myself, and if you have a problem with my dislike then you seem to have as much of a snobbery issue as that you accuse others of.
I have no problem with your dislike, as long as you have no problem with me and my kind (those who listen to samplers with no further interest in learning about classical music.) Therefore I am no snob. No, indeed.
By the way I love music. Love, love, love, love music. Music is an absolutely enormous part of my life. I do my best writing, somehow, when I write about music.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Well TL, I think you do assume ONE fact not in evidence. I say that your universe is a small and limited thing because I think ALL of our universes are small and limited. I don't like it when people assume that they have experienced the best of or the majority of or the bulk of anything or feel that they have mastered it, or that it isn't worth delving into.
I know we've agreed on things before, and I will say, I think I have said, that your point here is not badly taken either. I have called myself a snob, but for far different reasons than you did. You responded to a belief I hold very strongly, that its a wonderful thing that no-one can know everything about classical music- or mostly anything for that matter- and that that is a good thing, by calling me a snob. It doesn't feel like a joke to me because I can't see how that is at all snobbish. If anything, its an amplification of the popular beliefs about classical music, but with the effort and interest put back into it, which gives me the refreshing feeling that my work is slow and steady, and won't be rushed. Frankly I think the mysticism and the popularization of classical music go hand in hand, and convince people, even convince people to convince each other, that knowing more, experiencing more, is just not for them. I want to live in a world where music is taken a little more seriously sure, but I would settle for a world where people didn't actively sabotage each other's comprehension of it.
You should know about me that my approach is certainly not all or nothing, or draconian. Well, in a way it is, but not in the way that counts. I am one to constantly remind friends and fellow students to have some perspective, to examine each interaction and each reasoning with an eye for the source and the object. I have found for this debate that no answer you've given has adressed the argument I and others made, and that makes me think you either haven't seen it, understood it, or more likely, you simply ignored it.
The argument I made was: you wouln't argue that you need not not know the meanings of every word in a book in order to fully enjoy that book (you woudn't at least be very likely to argue that), and yet when you say that you KNOW you can enjoy music as fully as anyone without learning its underpinnings, that is what you are doing. That is, at least, what it appears to me you are doing. This is the reaction I have to most arguments which are met with "I don't need to, I don't want to, its not for me, etc." My reaction is: if you love the music, how can you NOT want to pick up an instrument and play? How can you not want to understand something about the nature of a minuet, so that when you hear Ravel's take on it, you will see its interplay with that of couperin or Bach, or Mozart, and be delighted by that perspective. I believe there IS something substantive to be learned of music by learning the application of theory, and I believe that those who don't attempt to understand theory on any level whatever, are cheating themselves of the experience.
As you say, I don't particularly need YOU individually to change your mind.. but I would like "your kind" as you say, to stop positing the inane belief that it is desirable to not know. In a way, and not all the way of course, your defense of ignorance is a seeking of that ignorance. In a discussion of music, when a theory problem comes up, do you avert your eyes? I doubt it, but you are advocating, in part, that kind of modus operandus. That is where I AM draconian- that kind of a lie, that kind of lying attitude, as I see it, is simply not acceptable. You'll find that what I mean to say is that the position I feel you've advocated, if unconsciously or uninentionally, is one you can't possibly hold, nor one that you would really wish on anyone-- at least I hope not.
Bullying: using a loaded term to put the opposition to your argument in a double bind. How does one defend himself from an attack that makes no logical sense? I was bullied often as a child, and I can tell you that bullies are the ones that don't have good reasons, they just do it, and that's the confounding part- that makes them successful at it. Ironically, if I am fair minded and even tempered through all discussions, a bully can pick me apart by accepting all my entreaties and concessions, then denying all my conditions and reconsiderations. Saying- HA! we agree! That's bullying- its a little mean.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Luet13: Just because someone else thinks something is great doesn't mean I do. Or ever will. This does not make me less musically intelligent.
Music is an intensely personal thing, like art. I don't like a lot of modern art. Does that mean it's not good? No. All it means is that I don't like it. If you like it, rock on you! Enjoyment of any art by anyone is an awesome thing.
When you talk about art in absolutes, I am sorry, but you are a fool. Art reaches some people, but not others. Should we look down on these people for only liking one movement of a Beethoven Sonata? (i.e. 1st mvmt. "Moonlight", when IMHO the 3rd Mvmt is the best)
NO!!!
Well that was very pleasant. Say, now that you've burned down the library and fired all the people who study this stuff, good luck learning anything or even finding music published with any semblence of conscienscious editing. Academics, not just telling eachother they are brilliant-- but occassionally proving its true! Thematic catalogues, difinitive editions, reconstructions, all based ultimately on the opinion that one thing is better than the other, and worth working on.
Music is not to be taken in absolutes.... EVER!!!!! How can you not see that post as terribly ironic?
Ps of my own. Why am I responding to the troll? Eek. I could use a good bath.
Posted by Mathematician (Member # 9586) on :
Orincoro,
Earlier, you said:
"As music students tend to learn (hopefully) after a few classes is that hearing and listening are different things- like looking and reading. You don't look at a book, you READ it, but you look at a magazine, and that's different; it probably isn't the same type of material."
I must confess, most of the classical music I own is on sampler CDs (mostly because I can buy sampler cds for like 1$ at yard sales). I own only one or 2 complete symphonies.
Here's the thing: I have a good ear for music, but it's not trained. To keep your analogy up, it's like I'm looking at a book almost as if it was a magazine, except that I catch occasional glimpses that tell me "hey, this a book and I'm approaching it wrong". The problem is that I don't really know how to read.
So, how does one learn to read?
On an unrelated note, I tend to enjoy dark, fast moving piano pieces (for instance, Beethoven's 3rd movement of "moonlight sonata", Beethoven's 1st movement (and to some extent the 3rd) of "sonata pathatique", the only piano stuff I've heard by Rachmoninov (sorry, heard it on the radio), etc.
Could you recommend other works which have the same flavor?
Thanks...
Posted by Baron Samedi (Member # 9175) on :
quote:Originally posted by Luet13: P.S. "Classical" is not a real genre.
We've covered this in great detail in a different thread and touched on it several times in this thread. But I guess you skipped those parts.
quote:Originally posted by Luet13: Grofe just helped with arrangements by the way, he didn't write Rhapsody in Blue, TYVM. Though without him, Rhapsody would not exist in its present form.
I love it when people restate exactly what I said in a way that sounds like they're correcting me. Makes me feel special.
quote:Originally posted by Luet13: When you talk about art in absolutes, I am sorry, but you are a fool. Art reaches some people, but not others. Should we look down on these people for only liking one movement of a Beethoven Sonata? (i.e. 1st mvmt. "Moonlight", when IMHO the 3rd Mvmt is the best)
NO!!!
Let people enjoy what they enjoy, how they enjoy it. Shut up being a "Classical" snob. WAAAAAAHHHH! I'm so much smarter than you, so you don't really get "Classical" music.
Once again, gotta love how someone comes in here late, quickly skims bits of a conversation, fills in the blanks with whatever their imagination can come up with, then calls everyone on the thread a fool for saying exactly the opposite of what they actually said. Thanks for your contribution. Posted by Baron Samedi (Member # 9175) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mathematician: On an unrelated note, I tend to enjoy dark, fast moving piano pieces (for instance, Beethoven's 3rd movement of "moonlight sonata", Beethoven's 1st movement (and to some extent the 3rd) of "sonata pathatique", the only piano stuff I've heard by Rachmoninov (sorry, heard it on the radio), etc.
Could you recommend other works which have the same flavor?
Thanks...
I don't have as encyclopedic a knowledge of music as some others here, but I can tell you some of my favorites.
If you're looking for solo piano, you can't go wrong with Chopin. Alternately, I just bought this disc with some Schubert sonatas on it, and it's fantastic.
If you don't mind a little orchestra with your piano, you really can't do much better than Tchaikovsky's Piano Concerto no 1. There's another album I just replaced from vinyl to CD with List's piano concertos that I can never get enough of. Finally, a personal favorite of mine has always been Grieg's Piano Concerto in A minor.
Oh, and if you don't already have a good copy of Rhapsody in Blue, as long as it's just been mentioned, that's guaranteed to rock your socks off.
Those are the first things that came to my mind. I'm sure others here will have other suggestions as well.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
I would certainly argue that I can read a book and fully enjoy it without knowing the meaning of every word within. I have, several times. Do you really believe that not knowing the meaning of one word in a book of several thousand is going to diminish someone's enjoyment of that book?
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
quote:Well TL, I think you do assume ONE fact not in evidence. I say that your universe is a small and limited thing because I think ALL of our universes are small and limited.
For the record, it sure didn't sound like you meant it that way.
quote:I don't like it when people assume that they have experienced the best of or the majority of or the bulk of anything or feel that they have mastered it, or that it isn't worth delving into.
What is the ONE fact that I'm assuming? You think I was saying that I've mastered classical music or that it isn't worth delving into? That would be a strange (draconian) interpretation of my words, so I'm asking for clarification. Is that what you've been responding to all this time? Something I never said, intended to say, and that most people would never interpret that way?
quote:You should know about me that my approach is certainly not all or nothing, or draconian.
Okay.
quote:The argument I made was: you wouln't argue that you need not not know the meanings of every word in a book in order to fully enjoy that book (you woudn't at least be very likely to argue that), and yet
I'm sorry, but your argument makes no sense. I mean, from an English-language perspective. I don't understand what you're saying. It's indecipherable to me. What exactly does "you need not not know the meanings of every word" mean? Are you saying you DO need to know the meaning of every word in order to enjoy a book, or that you DON'T need to know the meaning of every word?
If you're saying you DON'T need to know the meaning of every word in order to fully enjoy a book, I agree with you whole-heartedly. The meanings of many words can be understood from the context in which they are placed.
If you're saying you DO need to know the meaning of every word in order to fully enjoy a book....Why? I have a large vocabulary so I don't often find words in books I don't know the meanings of.... But if somebody else were to read the same book, I wouldn't confront them with "Do you know what the word 'verdant' means? How about 'niveous'? 'crepuscular'? Then you really didn't understand this book, and it's a pity that your thirst for knowledge is so limited." I would certainly acknowledge that they may well have perfectly understood the book. Why not?
quote:when you say that you KNOW you can enjoy music as fully as anyone without learning its underpinnings, that is what you are doing.
I never said that. Until this moment I never even considered that. But now that I'm considering it, sure, I think I can enjoy music just as much as someone who studies performance, or music theory. Sure. Why not? I might enjoy it in a different way, for different reasons, but that certainly wouldn't necessarily make my appreciation of music a lesser thing, a thing to be insulted and pitied. I'm sure you can agree with that.
quote:That is, at least, what it appears to me you are doing. This is the reaction I have to most arguments which are met with "I don't need to, I don't want to, its not for me, etc." My reaction is: if you love the music, how can you NOT want to pick up an instrument and play? How can you not want to understand something about the nature of a minuet, so that when you hear Ravel's take on it, you will see its interplay with that of couperin or Bach, or Mozart, and be delighted by that perspective. I believe there IS something substantive to be learned of music by learning the application of theory, and I believe that those who don't attempt to understand theory on any level whatever, are cheating themselves of the experience.
This would be like saying that if you enjoy hamburgers, how could you not go to culinary school? How could you not want to study the history of McDonald's? How could you do anything but pepper your beef patty and cook it with mushrooms? If you enjoy boxing, how could you truly appreciate boxing without getting punched in the face? If you don't get yourself punched in the face, you can never appreciate the true art of the sweet science. If you enjoyed reading 'War and Peace' how could you do anything other than devote your life to the study of Russian novels? How could you fail to pick up a quill and turn off your heat and sit in the dark and the cold and attempt to compose a novel of equal importance? How can you fully enjoy candy without understanding the process by which sugar is refined, or the chemical processes used in creating the artificial flavoring?
Obviously I'm exaggerating to make a point.
quote:Bullying: using a loaded term to put the opposition to your argument in a double bind. How does one defend himself from an attack that makes no logical sense?
You weren't doing that when you called me a bully? And there was no attack. And what there was made perfect logical sense.
Posted by Luet13 (Member # 9274) on :
Baron, I apologize. I misunderstood what you said. I was not trying to correct you, or insult you, or anything of that nature.
I was not trying state that the people in this thread are fools. It was more of a gross generality applying to people I've been dealing with all my life who like to look down on other people for not being as well versed in a specific area as they are.
I have a problem with music snobs. As I stated earlier, I have a degree in music. (Which those who responded chose to ignore) I have been playing the piano for almost 19 years. I love theory. I could probably spew out some reductive analyses of Wagner if I cared to. Having been surrounded by music snobs for years, I think I have a right to my negative opinion of them.
Orincoro, thank you for calling me a troll. That was not my intent. I don't understand how you interpreted my post in the way you did. I was not trying to say that people who study music should stop. I was trying to say that people who study music should not act like only they are entitled to listen to it. It really gets on my nerves when musicians say that only the people who understand music in all of its theoretical glory should be allowed to listen to it. My point is that music (and all art) is highly interpretive. And just because someone doesn't want to go through the process of learning all the details about music, doesn't mean they can't enjoy it just as much.
And you're right, I didn't read all of the thread. I read all of it in the afternoon yesterday, but didn't have a chance to respond until much later. I didn't read everything that came later because I didn't have time. Apparently this is a cardinal sin. <--sarcasm
I apologize to those who were inadvertantly offended by my previous post. Please note the sarcasm, and don't jump me because you disagree with what I have to say. I thought this was a community that valued different opinions and wouldn't be so hostile to someone who's obviously new at this.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
Oh, actually I see that you didn't call me a bully until after I called you a snob.
So let me amend that. I was wrong about that.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
quote:I apologize to those who were inadvertantly offended by my previous post. Please note the sarcasm, and don't jump me because you disagree with what I have to say. I thought this was a community that valued different opinions and wouldn't be so hostile to someone who's obviously new at this.
For the record, I thought your posts were great. Although... People are thinking I'm being a prick in this thread, too. So I might not be your best company.
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
What's the point of having my music degree if I can't look down on other people for not being as smart as I am?
If they can't tell a symphony from a sonata, I will ridicule.
I will always laugh when someone says "GOSH, Pachelbel's canon is my FAVORITE song."
And! I'll also make the claim that if you don't like Aaron Copland, YOU HATE AMERICA.
Gershwin is coffee in the morning. Berstein is spicy. Copland is sunshine :-)
Posted by Architraz Warden (Member # 4285) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mathematician: Orincoro,
Earlier, you said:
"As music students tend to learn (hopefully) after a few classes is that hearing and listening are different things- like looking and reading. You don't look at a book, you READ it, but you look at a magazine, and that's different; it probably isn't the same type of material."
Here's the thing: I have a good ear for music, but it's not trained. To keep your analogy up, it's like I'm looking at a book almost as if it was a magazine, except that I catch occasional glimpses that tell me "hey, this a book and I'm approaching it wrong". The problem is that I don't really know how to read.
So, how does one learn to read?
I do like the direction you two are taking this analogy. There is indeed a difference between reading a book and looking at a magazine, just as there is a difference between seeing the notes for a single instrument, or readin the deeper melodies and chords in the piece as a whole. To extend it one step farther, there is a difference between reading music (or a book) or listening to recorded music (or a book-on-tape). Are they different? Undoubtably. Is one better than the other? Depends what you're wanting out of the expirience. If you simply want to listen to and enjoy a story, then there is nothing wrong with actually listening. If you're interest lie in finding a deeper understanding, odds are you're going to be better off actually reading into the piece on your own. You can stretch this all the way into reading works or poety (or performing music). There are professionals, and there are novices. Again, both have their merits, their priorities, and the goals they're seeking in such performances.
Alright, now that that is out of my head, I'll happily bow out.
Feyd Baron, DoC
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
quote:Originally posted by Launchywiggin: What's the point of having my music degree if I can't look down on other people for not being as smart as I am?
The only person I've ever personally known to have a music degree ended up being a programmer.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Do I count? I am so not a programmer!
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
Maybe I should rephrase that to "the only person I've ever personally MET..."
Posted by Architraz Warden (Member # 4285) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nighthawk:
quote:Originally posted by Launchywiggin: What's the point of having my music degree if I can't look down on other people for not being as smart as I am?
The only person I've ever personally known to have a music degree ended up being a programmer.
True story. I know (in real life) three people with music degrees (I know two were music performance majors, I honestly don't know if the third had such specificity). Two are now teaching (not music), and one is working for Apple at the moment, but it rapidly becoming self-sufficient with his own business.
Then again, the above is true of many who major in the fine arts.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
<--Music degrees
<--Definitely not a programmer.
Yeah, I know you already qualified, but I do know lots and lots of people with music degree(s) who are still in music as a career.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I do not like classical samples and greatest hits albums. They annoy me. First of all, they usually have the most popular stuff, not really intense stuff that I love and they just have only one movement. I want to hear more hardcore classical music. More choral pieces and intense romantic stuff so I can learn more about the full range of classical music.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I dislike those classical music samplers as well, although not as much as some here obviously.
Then again I learned 9 insturments, and was fairly accomplished at playing flute (no band camp jokes please....it was only that once, and I think the flute enjoyed it ).
I think theat they can serve as a good introduction to classical music for children, but from a musical standpoint they are the cotton candy of music. You see it, want it, get it...but when you are done with it you have cavities and are still hungry.
Has anyone here read Copland's essay of the three styles of listening to music? I thought it was brilliant, and it discusses most of the points brought up here, at least indriectly. It isn't long, about four pages long IIRC. I will try to find a link.
I would be interested in hearing what people here think of it.
Kwea
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
I thought pop music was the cotton candy of music?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Luet13:
quote: Orincoro, thank you for calling me a troll. That was not my intent. I don't understand how you interpreted my post in the way you did. I was not trying to say that people who study music should stop. I was trying to say that people who study music should not act like only they are entitled to listen to it. It really gets on my nerves when musicians say that only the people who understand music in all of its theoretical glory should be allowed to listen to it. My point is that music (and all art) is highly interpretive. And just because someone doesn't want to go through the process of learning all the details about music, doesn't mean they can't enjoy it just as much.
Whoaaa there.... I said nothing, absolutely nothing to that effect. I never said anything AT ALL about who should be allowed to listen to music. I don't know where that's coming from, its totally divorced from my viewpoint. The fact that you think I actually said that kinda proves that you didn't really read my posts, so I think I was right for calling you a troll on this one. Please prove me wrong and think before you leap next time.
TL: Alright, if you want to let a typo, "not not," get in the way of you trying to understand what I have to say, I can see this is not a good faith discussion, so you've lost my ear completely. Sorry.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Megan: <--Music degrees
<--Definitely not a programmer.
Yeah, I know you already qualified, but I do know lots and lots of people with music degree(s) who are still in music as a career.
Hmm. As a senior I am kind of on that knife edge where I am really not sure what I want to do when I graduate. I will probably do my fifth year abroad plan, studying to finish my English degree after my music degree is done, but after that? I guess what I've learned in college has sometimes been different from what I studied, and who knows what opportunities will arise in the next few years, that are completely unpredictable now? I have learned that I am NOT the type of person to have a career in performance-- I don't have the talent or the patience, but I have found that my writing and in class work has been well recieved. I recently met an English proff. for his office hours at a local cafe; he read three paragraphs of my latest essay, and asked if I was considering grad school. He told me I should keep him apprised of my plans so that he could advise me, and he invited me onto his campus radio show (on poetry) for next quarter- and who can say what other chance occurences generate opportunities like that? I wouldn't even want to know what I will be doing in two years, because I'd like to think I will reach places that I couldn't plan out for myself in advance.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
quote:TL: Alright, if you want to let a typo, "not not," get in the way of you trying to understand what I have to say, I can see this is not a good faith discussion, so you've lost my ear completely. Sorry.
I wonder if you read the rest of my post? If there's any bad faith here, it's on your part, not mine. I wasn't quibbling over a typo, I was asking for clarification of your point.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Luet13:
quote: Orincoro, thank you for calling me a troll. That was not my intent. I don't understand how you interpreted my post in the way you did. I was not trying to say that people who study music should stop. I was trying to say that people who study music should not act like only they are entitled to listen to it. It really gets on my nerves when musicians say that only the people who understand music in all of its theoretical glory should be allowed to listen to it. My point is that music (and all art) is highly interpretive. And just because someone doesn't want to go through the process of learning all the details about music, doesn't mean they can't enjoy it just as much.
Whoaaa there.... I said nothing, absolutely nothing to that effect. I never said anything AT ALL about who should be allowed to listen to music. I don't know where that's coming from, its totally divorced from my viewpoint. The fact that you think I actually said that kinda proves that you didn't really read my posts, so I think I was right for calling you a troll on this one. Please prove me wrong and think before you leap next time.
TL: Alright, if you want to let a typo, "not not," get in the way of you trying to understand what I have to say, I can see this is not a good faith discussion, so you've lost my ear completely. Sorry.
You might not have meant to say it, but you've definately implied it on this thread several times. Why on earth did you think everyone was arguing with you?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Ori, that IS how you came off, to be honest. You may have not meant it to sound that way, but it did, at least indirectaly.
And just because someone disagrees with you, or doesn't get your point, or even misreads your intent, it doesn't make them a troll. Trolls wouldn't bother with offering ANY opinion except for ones that stir up trouble. I think that that word is bandied about a little too much, to be honest. There are few true trolls here at Hatrack, and most of them have been blessedly quiet recently.
No big deal....I already told you I agree on a basic level with your original post, at least.
But I got the sarcastic tone of Leut's first post too, so perhaps I am just weird.
Yep. That's it. Me = weird. Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I got the sarcasm too, but I couldn't tell which side of the argument he was satirizing... it was just kind of cobbled together and unpleasant, and I didn't react well to it.
Blacwolve- I would like you to quote the parts of what I've said which might lead you to believe that people shouldn't be ALLOWED to listen to anything they want. I've consistently said that people should listen to MORE, not less. I certainly don't think that only educated people or "qualified" people should be allowed to listen. What in my posts could even remotely lead you to that conclusion?
I'm having a hard time with this because what Luet13 wrote: "It really gets on my nerves when musicians say that only the people who understand music in all of its theoretical glory should be allowed to listen to it," is nothing related to my argument or my beliefs. If you would like a record of how I feel about this: I believe that everyone should be allowed to listen to everything.
This is the only way I can see my point being confused: if I said that only certain people can enjoy certain types of music, I meant "able to" not "are allowed to." People are certainly allowed and encouraged to do whatever they are able, but pointing out that some people may not have the ability to appreciate something fully is different.
If you think that I am advocating the abolition of a certain aspect of the popular recording industry, then you're right, I am. But that abolition would have to be at the will of the market- I want people to stop buying these CDs so they'll go away, I don't want them to go away so that people won't buy them. As long as people do buy them, I can only encourage them not to, because I know that as long as we consume inferior products, we will encourage their continued production, like summer movies or mcDonalds, or alot else. This is a perfectly reasonable aim- to change people's minds, or try, by arguing for a different way of looking at music. What is wrong with that?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mathematician: So, how does one learn to read?
On an unrelated note, I tend to enjoy dark, fast moving piano pieces (for instance, Beethoven's 3rd movement of "moonlight sonata", Beethoven's 1st movement (and to some extent the 3rd) of "sonata pathatique", the only piano stuff I've heard by Rachmoninov (sorry, heard it on the radio), etc.
Could you recommend other works which have the same flavor?
Thanks...
What a great question. I didn't really consider that when I was analogizing. I suppose it begins by looking at something. Check out a score or buy it at a bookstore and get the recording, and sit down and look at the pages. If you don't read ANY music, start with something relatively simple, and just follow the shape of it on the page. Look for instance, at a Bach cello suite, or your favorite Beethoven piano sonata, and listen to the recording. Maybe check out one of the many many instructional books, or early college harmony books, and pour over that for as long as you can bear it. Walter Piston's "Harmony" is the gold standard. Also, look up some collections of program notes from famous conductors or composers, or collect the program notes from a local concert and then go and listen to the music on your own with the score.
Its a bit hard for me to recommend- "the best" to begin with, because then I am doing the same thing I hate. These that I will give you are only things I have been paying particular attention to LATELY- they are not the best. The only Beethoven I have been listening to lately is the Eight symphony, which is rather pervese of me, but i recomment you just listen to all of them. That should only take you a year.
I've been told, when looking at a symphony score with an eye for orchestration, like Berlioz's Romeo Et Juliete, or Mahler's second or fifth, to ignore the notes and look at the shape of the pages- the layout. What does the conductor see (the teacher was a conductor) when he glances down at the page during a performance? Each page is distinctive in its feel, its shape, the closeness or the sparsness of the notes and the way they line up, so that you can get a feel for the sound just by looking at it. A Bartok string quartet LOOKS like it SOUNDS! These sort of strings looping around eachother and getting pulled tight and then being plucked at certain points, and music sounds just that way. Bach scores look like baroque period ornamentations in wood carving, transforming patterns on top of a thematic rythmn, or a set of notes repeating again and again, but with the rythms changing subtly every time, oscilating.
I would listen to the Glenn Gould recordings of The Goldberg variations, and the two/three part inventions (all bach). Legend has it that Gould learned his controlled style of playing with the minutest intensity and attention to every dynamic aspect of the music by playing a room next to a loud vacuum cleaner, so that he had to imagine the sound of every note. His control over every aspect of the sound came from his ability to consider all these factors mentally, before playing, and execute them all the way they should be.
Then I would listen to Ravel's "Le Tombou De Couperin," in the piano and then the orchestral versions. Studying the piano first will give you an appreciation of Ravel's mind when the sound morphs into an orchestral arrangement. Plus, the piano version is simple and idiomatic, so it will make the more complex version more approachable: it is ravel at is best- lush and alive in every note, every sound just the right color.
Debussy- Trois Nocturnes. This is an incredible set of pieces, and it will turn you on to other Debussy works, like his songs and piano works- the preludes, or "Afternoon of a Faun" (not my favorite though).
Particularly fun for analyis is any piano work by Schoenberg, or string quartets or orchestra work (or piano too) by Bartok. You should even be able to learn to play Bartok's "For children" with relative ease, in at least the first leg of the journey.
If you want something that sounds LIKE Beethoven, then I can only really suggest his natural successors: Brahms symphonies and piano quintets (though they are very LIVELY!), and Chopin Preludes and Nocturnes.
If you want symphonies that are emminently listenable- its got to be Mahler, all 9 of them. Something a little more "intellectual" and ripe for analysis would be Bartok- "Concerto for Orchestra" or "Music for string and Celesta," or the duets for violin. To get a feel for the more modern, try listening to some minimalist works from the sixties- Terry Reich is very fun: "Clapping music" or "Electric Counterpoint" or "Desert music" (iirc). Anything newer and recordings/scores get harder to find in libraries.
edit: one very approachable minimalist peice would be Terry Reich: "In C" The score is such that ANYONE can read it with ease, since it is mostly written in prose. You'll find the trend towards explanatory scores in American compositions like that one. The trade off is of course, that EVERY performance will be wildly different from the next, but that is the nature of the piece.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
quote:This makes it difficult for me to say, and difficult for others to hear, that this particular recording of a peice, or this peice is really subpar or inferior in comparison with something else. I really have absolutely no qualms about saying that a recording of Pachelbel's "Cannon in D" rendered into a cheesy pop tune is really sad, and yet I have known people to defend it as a matter of taste. I would say fine, take your crappy psuedo-classical knock-offs and go away, but really music depends on people to listen to it and keep it alive.
This reads to me: "People shouldn't listen to Pachelbel's Cannon." Which you then completely contradict by saying that "but really music depends on people to listen to it and keep it alive." But you seem to feel like that is proof that people shouldn't listen to Pachelbel's Cannon, not that they should.
quote:Not all classical (and I am using kind of inclusive language to describe the baroque through modernism and impressionism), is an emotional appeal. Nor is all classical meant to be exciting. Some of it is intricate, introspective and demanding of alot of reflection; at the same time it is something children CAN learn if they want to and are guided into it. I just want to demystify the music by pointing out that we shouldn't look at it as this unnaproachable magic thing that we only experience and don't even want to understand. I am not saying analysis of the music is related to the history of the music neccessarily, so you misunderstand me if you think my idea of understanding it is to see what the composer was going through during that period of his/her life. That CAN be important and it is the subject of many books and papers and speculations, but it is also only a small part of what can be found in a great piece of music. Children, for example, can learn an appreciation of form, tone color, etc, at a very early age. You don't have to lecture them and drill them, but just learn something about it yourself and talk about it with them.
This quote demonstrated exactly what I feel you spent most of the first half of this thread saying: "Children shouldn't listen to classical music unless they are being taught form, tone color, etc either as a precursor to listening or during the act of listening."
quote: Its just strange to me that people I've known to be interested in learning and understanding will actually ague that they don't have to, or even shouldn't learn anything about music. People excuse themselves from it by saying that they don't have the natural talent, or an ear, or whatever, and I just think that's silly.
This implies that they do have to, and that they should
quote: TL- There was something interesting in the afterword to "Farenheit 451" by Ray Bradbury that I still remember 7 years after reading it for the first time: a hypothetical scene in which the captain and Montag are standing a library of books hidden in the Captain's house, and the captain is reaching into a book and lighting each page individually, and saying, "it doesn't matter that I have these books, I have commited no crime... because I don't read them!" Proudly proclaiming that you know nothing, and wish to learn nothing,
Comparing people who don't learn all about classical music to book burners seems to me to be a pretty strong moral judgement.
This is the money shot: Two quotes out of a post to me.
quote: I do intend to say that you should listen to the whole thing, and that is something I am firm on.
quote: I am asking that you LISTEN. For me, listening involves a good deal of analysis and absorption and reading for ME to be satisfied. There are composers and musicians and conductors who can listen to a peice ONCE, and know more about it that someone like me who has listened a hundred times, because they have that ability, that knack. I tend to believe that the more you learn, the easier it is to learn and to listen, so that you can appreciate music more and more easily. I have found through study of music, that I can now listen and learn with a greater ease and comfort than I ever felt before, rather like I have learned enough words to understand a difficult book without going to my dictionary. By extension, my attitude towards those who turn away from learning at least a little about theory and form is the same as it would be towards people who refuse to learn new words, and simply skip over them while reading. Children do that, and they have to be taught that they can understand and enjoy the work more if they look up the words and understand the meanings.
I think it sort of speaks for itself.
quote: As you say, I don't particularly need YOU individually to change your mind.. but I would like "your kind" as you say, to stop positing the inane belief that it is desirable to not know. In a way, and not all the way of course, your defense of ignorance is a seeking of that ignorance. In a discussion of music, when a theory problem comes up, do you avert your eyes? I doubt it, but you are advocating, in part, that kind of modus operandus. That is where I AM draconian- that kind of a lie, that kind of lying attitude, as I see it, is simply not acceptable. You'll find that what I mean to say is that the position I feel you've advocated, if unconsciously or uninentionally, is one you can't possibly hold, nor one that you would really wish on anyone-- at least I hope not.
"Simply not acceptable."
Now I can fully see how any one of these (except the one posted to me) can be taken out of context and not imply what I'm saying it does. But the combination of all of them with your phenomenally arrogant tone on this thread definately gives the impression that you believe people who don't understand theory shouldn't listen to music. Or, at the very least, you believe that they're morally bankrupt for doing so.
Why I find most amusing is that you state several times that you despise the "mysticism" of popular music. However, you completely support that mysticism by saying that only people who are properly qualified can enjoy it.
I doubt that you will acknowledge this post at all except to deride it. As this is the case, and as you have shown several times on this thread that you are completely opposed to any kind of constructive discussion, this is probably the last post I'm going to make here.
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
Sampler CD's encourage less listening and lazy listening. (my opinion)
All I've seen Orincoro advocate is more listening. I've seen nothing in his posts saying that people who don't understand theory "shouldn't listen to music".
Personally, what he's saying in regards to UNDERSTANDING music is that learning about all the aspects of music will ENHANCE your listening experience (making you enjoy it more). He's not saying that "only the properly qualified" are allowed to enjoy it.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
I think Orinoco's gripe about Pachelbel's Canon in D Major might be as follows:
Guy: So, what interests do you have Orinoco? Orinoco: I studied classical music for a while for one. Guy: Oh cool dude. I like that one piece, err, can't rememeber the name. Orinoco: So how does it go? Guy: *Starts to hum the first bars of Pachelbel's Canon in D* Orinoco: Oh, hey that's...
Orinoco trails off as Guy starts to insert the lyrics of "I'll CU When You Get There" between bars of the canon. Orinoco beats his own head senseless against the brick wall.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I love being cultured. I love learning. I like being geeky, and I'm all for esoteric knowledge.
This does not apply to music.
It isn't because music is worth less, but because it takes a great deal more work for considerably less payoff. I don't really have an ear for music. Heaven knows I've tried cultivate one half a dozen times in my life, but music simply DOES NOT click for me the way that words and art do.
Does that mean I'm not allowed to listen and have an opinion?
I've had season tickets to the symphony. I've tried to play the flute and the piano. I've taken courses on Music Appreciation. I really have given it a shot. I'd rather put all the effort encouraged towards something that isn't a dead end.
Since I like listening to it, I'll listen to mixes people make for it and whatever I happen to run across. I also have an opinion, and I like having one. Music isn't a secret world that requires a code to get into. It isn't particle physics, where only the opinions of particle physicists are credible. It's more like archeology, where there's a caste system ranging from the uber-trained at the top to the hobbyist at the bottom. I think it's frustrating for the ubertrained because their existences depend on the hobbyists at the bottom. I'd rather have it that way than shut people out of it altogether.
By the way, I LOVE Pachelbel's Canon. Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Music clicks for me. All SORTS of music. I go from metal to blue grass to punk, funk, some folk, some gospel, a bit of classical... Anything that is good, anythign that has heart is what I love. Maybe I might get dragged into playing it. I have good pitch. By the time I'm 30 I want to know a ton of songs and who did them and when they were written.
Posted by Baron Samedi (Member # 9175) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: To get a feel for the more modern, try listening to some minimalist works from the sixties- Terry Reich is very fun: "Clapping music" or "Electric Counterpoint" or "Desert music" (iirc). Anything newer and recordings/scores get harder to find in libraries.
edit: one very approachable minimalist peice would be Terry Reich: "In C" The score is such that ANYONE can read it with ease, since it is mostly written in prose. You'll find the trend towards explanatory scores in American compositions like that one. The trade off is of course, that EVERY performance will be wildly different from the next, but that is the nature of the piece.
Did Terry Riley and Steve Reich get married? Posted by BandoCommando (Member # 7746) on :
Orincoro, as usual, you provide a deft and thorough summation of my point of view. Once again, my hat is off to you.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I mean Terry Riley... I also often conflate Steve Reich, Terry Riley, and Christopher O'Riley (the pianist of radiohead covers fame)
Wierdly enough, alot of the minimalist composers have simpler names than the non-minimals. Cage instead of Shastakovich, for example.
Blacwolve- Objecting to my tone, my arrogance, my elitism, whatever, is not the same as what I was defending in my posts. Look at this statement very carefully: I never said that anyone should NOT be ALLOWED to listen to anything. You can criticise my opinions and my positions all you want, but you certainly don't seem to be finding any supporting evidence for the idea that I want to censor anything. I don't. I want the market, the people, to decide not to listen to crap, and start listening more carefully in general.
Now, deciding what your children listen to is not censorship in the same spirit as it applies to grown people. We must decide what are bad and what are questionable influences on our own children, and I simply feel that though this music might be a good introduction, it also might be a double edged tool in teaching kids. You can introduce a kid to a certain peice, and that's fine, but I want people to be aware that by doing that, and by letting the company that sells the CDs decide what that peice will be, you are teaching the kids that this kind of treatment of the material is ok. I recommend MORE listening in general, and I recommend careful selection and preparation of the material you want your kids to hear. You do the same thing (hopefully) when you buy your kids movies, and you (again hopefully) don't simply trust that because something is "For kids 3-12," it will be a useful thing for your kids to spend time on.
I've made this point before, but I feel you've missed it or I've failed to present it understandably: I think that the fact that these CDs are marketed as the "best of" doesn't make them so, and though I think largely the music you will get on them will be really good, I worry that it will be limiting of your and your kids' perspectives and experience in different ways. This is a simple fact of the market, you aren't going to find some of the finest and most rewarding composers and peices of music in the Family Anthology section because they don't fit the stereotype of what the companies think you want to hear. As a result, the circulation of more challenging material suffers, and the public perception of that material is changed in the negative, all because its easier to sell Ice Cream to your kids than it is to sell something that isn't as comforting from the very first moment.
I see this problem extended far beyond music. Think of the movie "Supersize me" in which Morgan Spurlock delves into the menus of a few cafeterias and finds that the food being served to kids in many schools has no nutritional value whatsoever, and that no-one is looking out for these kids because the market has not required better quality control or more intelligent food choices. This isn't exactly a perfect comparison, because I am in fact saying that the majority of the CD sampler material is good. However, I am saying that it is terribly unbalanced, weighted towards the lighter and easier peices, or peices which have built a reputation based on movie associations, or some other pop fad. These associations are not only bad for these peices, but they are bad for the listener, who IMO, is left with little facility for understanding the depth of possible choices in music recordings. Despite all the market share that these anthologies get, they sample a VERY small part of the repertory, and this is bad for the peices that are arbitrarily excluded because the composer's name is not household, as well as the people who listen, and are convinced falsely, that they are hearing "the best."
Do not mistake me- my solution is not to go and destroy all these anthologies or MAKE people stop listening to them or buying them. However, I do feel that increased awareness, through interactions similar to this one we are having right now, (perhaps skipping over the anti-intellectual, anti- "snob" nonsense), will eventually, or could eventually, make these Cds go away. If at that time they did go away, this would NOT cut people off from any of the works they feature, because the society that I am describing doesn't NEED them anymore, it would be listening to those works and MORE. The anthologies would be useless because people would be listening to the whole of the library, perhaps segmenting off into their favorite genres, but in a healthy way, not with an eye for the strictly "pleasing," because people in this society would simply have better taste. This is arrogant, and I AM saying I have better taste than some people; but then again given the things I've experienced as a musician and a concert-goer and a student, I've learned that our society doesn't really have very high standards to exceed.
Maybe- hey here's a thought! I could have learned more if I hadn't been a victim of the same culture as a child. I didn't escape it at all until I was at least 16, and I still suffer sometimes from the stereotyping and general laziness that was encouraged in my listening habits by friends, my parents, and the recording industry. They do good things, but they mess up sometimes, and I think this particular branch of the industry is a sad one.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by blacwolve:
Now I can fully see how any one of these (except the one posted to me) can be taken out of context and not imply what I'm saying it does. But the combination of all of them with your phenomenally arrogant tone on this thread definately gives the impression that you believe people who don't understand theory shouldn't listen to music. Or, at the very least, you believe that they're morally bankrupt for doing so.
Why I find most amusing is that you state several times that you despise the "mysticism" of popular music. However, you completely support that mysticism by saying that only people who are properly qualified can enjoy it.
I doubt that you will acknowledge this post at all except to deride it. As this is the case, and as you have shown several times on this thread that you are completely opposed to any kind of constructive discussion, this is probably the last post I'm going to make here.
BTW I am going to respond to this, mainly because you asked me to. "Properly Qualified" may be a bit strong. "Able" would be better. If I said "Properly Qualified," then I would ammend that to "able."
I object not to the "mysticism of popular music" but to the mystification of classical music which is a part of its popularization. I might have said "mysticism" when talking about our APPROACH to the music, but the music itself is or is not mystical, it doesn't matter. If music itself is mystical, that's fine, its a matter of personal taste, but I don't like the music being mystified by an outside source through sheer laziness or the culture which actively tells people that it is better, "more pure" to listen to music without knowledge of the underpinnings or the wider world. It takes time to learn, and nobody is perfect, but I think our culture is actively seeking to eradicate the need or love of learning, and I don't like that.
"I doubt that you will acknowledge this post at all except to deride it."
I hope that I haven't done that. Deriding the post would mean acknowledging your points and just calling you an idiot. I would be saying essentially, that your post is worthless, when really I think it isn't, its just directed at something i didn't even say. I don't think that your stupid, I just think that you have some basic misconceptions about my viewpoint, and I want to make it clear for you, if I can. No need here for an ad hominem attack- you can refuse to respond, but don't refuse to respond because of what you say I am GOING to do. If you already have reason to ignore me, so there's no need to tell ME what I am going to do or not do.
About this mystification: your argument hinges, I think, on the idea that the exclusion is from the top down: you say that I have asserted that only the chosen few may understand and appreciate music. That isn't right. I said that I believe that an understanding IS necessary to appreciate the music fully, but I include everyone here- anyone can learn. There is no elitism in that, because I am saying that this is a skill anyone can learn. I think people refuse, or choose not to learn, but I think its something anyone CAN do. Now just because you don't want to, or you THINK you can't isn't anyone's problem who already has learned something. Claiming that there is an elite looking down on you, when that "elite" as I describe is merely the segment of society that took the time to learn a skill that YOU COULD learn seems silly to me. There is no-one holding you back! There is a HUGE market for beginning music of all kinds- its the bane of my existance as a musician because it takes up so much shelf space in music stores, and I have a hard time finding things to match my skill level, since everything is for teaching people the first few steps.
I don't now what more you want from me than that. You say my post speaks for itself, as if you've made a point? I wrote it, so it reads about the same for me now as it did then; you need to tell me how you're reacting to it. Then, you simply drew the wrong conclusion about me. Let this last post be a landmark if you'd like to know how I feel, and ignore whatever you think I "really meant" back there. I said what I really meant, and I didn't subtly imply anything I wouldn't fess up to right away. If I was trying to imply it, then I would probably be comfortable with just saying it when asked. Looks like you got that part of it, and you acknowledged that you might be wrong about what I was "implying," but I can tell you, you are quite wrong on the impression you got.
Listen to more music! Everyone! More! More! I'm taking a very firm stand on this! More! And make good choices along the way! Listen to people! It makes a difference!
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Since I like listening to it, I'll listen to mixes people make for it and whatever I happen to run across. I also have an opinion, and I like having one. Music isn't a secret world that requires a code to get into. It isn't particle physics, where only the opinions of particle physicists are credible. It's more like archeology, where there's a caste system ranging from the uber-trained at the top to the hobbyist at the bottom. I think it's frustrating for the ubertrained because their existences depend on the hobbyists at the bottom. I'd rather have it that way than shut people out of it altogether.
By the way, I LOVE Pachelbel's Canon.
What's kinda interesting about the music community too is that "uber trained" is very subjective. There are violinists and pianists I know, for instance, with tremendous experience and technical skill who are woefully inept at analysis and know nothing about music history. Often that is more of a practice thing- the person really is a very skilled analyst, but they don't know the jargon, or they havea good feel for period music, but don't know names and places, or again, the jargon for period specific analysis.
Generally the great analysts and composers (less the historians, like me) are also extremely competent musicians, but not always. Stravinsky was a terrible musician, and like Brahms, Schumann and Beethoven, he was an embarassing failure as a conductor. His fame allowed him to continue doing it, but its generally regarded as a shame.
Then there is the part of the culture which insists that if you are a "music person" you must be equally proficient at all aspects of your trade, even when you aren't. This is what convinced promoters (at first) and record companies that Glenn Gould should be a conductor, because he was a legendary pianist. He was a disaster as a conductor, as is, some would say, the legendary cellist "Slava" Rastropovich. Often the composer is trusted as a competent interpreter of his own work- and I can tell you from VERY personal experience that that is simply wrong. I have composed songs and pieces which, on their performance by more competent players than I, took me completely by surprise. I never could have interpreted my own work so well!
As a classical guitarist, I am expected to be able to tick off ten names of the best guitarists who ever lived, as if that makes sense. Frequently, in fact nearly every time I have any kind of discussion about guitar, someone will start telling me, in vague terms, about an indescribably incredible guitarist. I nod and general slither around the accusatory questions "You NEVER heard of him?" I have heard of lots of guitarists, but I am expected, at one time or another, to have known them all.
The repertoire and the library of works and literature is big enough that I have read things by now that i know no one in my music department has ever even heard of. I enjoy going to the ML section of the library and just browsing through the music criticism and the magazines and dated editions, and checking things out with ink stamps on them, the latest check out being 1958, or 1979. Not all of it is good, but its stuff even my proffs have never read, or at least recommended to ME, and that always strikes me as funny- like going through their drawers at night and pilfering their forgotten secrets. Learning gets to be a little more fun that way, at least for me.
This heirarchy is pretty typical for anything that is academic. Classical music now depends largely on the patronage of the state or private schools, so the interesting work will be going on mostly in or around academic communities. Its the same generally with most artistic endeavors that aren't on the "pop" food chain, with the advertising money and all that. People still love the symphony, but its popularity hasn't grown in comparison with other genres in music. I don't think it will go away soon, but some of the tradition has already been destroyed. There are many many composers who already feel that the symphony format, the sonata, the orchestra, and all that is simply outdated and dead. It may eventually go the way of the church cantata, replaced by something more modern.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
]![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Well that was very pleasant. Say, now that you've burned down the library and fired all the people who study this stuff, good luck learning anything or even finding music published with any semblence of conscienscious editing. Academics, not just telling eachother they are brilliant-- but occassionally proving its true! Thematic catalogues, difinitive editions, reconstructions, all based ultimately on the opinion that one thing is better than the other, and worth working on.![[Eek!]](eek.gif)