posted
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?
Posts: 563 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 681 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 681 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.)
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
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?
Posts: 3486 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1006 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 3486 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
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. ]
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.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
[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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
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 Mozarts Sonata for Two Pianos in D Major K. 448 on spatialtemporal 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 spatialtemporal 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.
posted
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?
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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. Posts: 563 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1314 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1314 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 224 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 563 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 142 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 563 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 563 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
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."
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is pleasing to the ears? It makes one happy to listen to it? Listening to it is an enjoyable experience?
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 563 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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".
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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!
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
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. Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
]
