Classical Music Forum banner

The Expert Compared with the Enthusiastic Listener

16K views 186 replies 28 participants last post by  bigshot 
#1 ·
I assume the vast majority of people who post on TC are enthusiastic listeners of classical music. The term expert is not trivial to define, but for the purposes of this thread I will assume something along the lines of the following.

A person is an expert in a field if:
1) she has spent a significant amount of time both studying the field and interacting with others who study the field, and
2) others who have spent a large amount of time studying the field recognize her as having attained a superior level of knowledge and understanding of that field.

I am decidedly not a classical music expert. For a long time I have wondered why the works I love are almost always considered "great" works by experts. I think that is true of many/most listeners. While I can imagine reasons why that might be so, I believe it is far from obvious why it should be so. Some works I love such as Tchaikovsky's Violin Concerto or Schubert's Piano Quintet are, apparently not especially well composed; nevertheless, they are considered "great". I have always believed this relationship is much less true in popular music.

Why should so much classical music loved by enthusiastic listeners also be considered "great" by music experts?

There are reasons to develop lists of great works and composers (if only for music history classes). While I think such lists ought to be created by experts, do you think it would matter if they were created by large groups of enthusiastic listeners?
 
See less See more
#3 ·
Classical music is not just a "subjective" art form. It starts out "objective" because the composer has to use objective standards that would be known by all who know music. That is notes have to be written down to convey what is in the composer's mind. Those notes can be studied objectively and analysed and formalized. Those notes have to be played as written. An F minor chord has to be played as an F minor. It cannot be a C minor or anything else. A quarter note is not played as a half note etc. etc. So music as art is NOT always subjective in fact just the opposite. The subjective cannot come before the objective. Now obviously arguments about tempo etc. can cause a piece to be performed slightly different than another performance but that is a matter of "interpretation". Once the objective notes have been understood, analysed and formalized into a performance then the subjective element comes into play. It cannot come before. We the listeners partake in the subjective side and allow the music to move us but we can also participate in the objective side by reading the score as the music is performed and following along. In any case I hate it when people say music or art is subjective. It is subjective but only in submission to what is objective first. The exception I would make would be improvisation as that is dependent on the subjective state of the artist.

Kevin
 
#23 ·
I have heard from numerous people that Tchaikovsky is not considered a good orchestrator. I tried to find the place where I read that the Trout was not "well written", but now I realize that I might have been mistaken. The bottom line, of course, for this thread doesn't depend on those two works.
 
#7 ·
"Expert" is a tricky notion to pin down. I would personally define it as:

-Having extensive knowledge of facts in a given subject
-Having UNDERSTANDING of a given subject (esp. important for music)
-Having experience in a given subject (i.e. listening to works, not merely absorbing facts about them)
-Garnering this knowledge/experience through a systematic/academic approach.

Being accepted by existing experts or having interaction with them may or may not be relevant. Most people are not experts in classical music per se, but in a specific composer to such a degree that they could write a book on the information they know. I would also say that the criteria for expertise should be knowledge and understanding, not acceptance into any informal club of acknowledged experts. These acknowledged experts are only deemed as such because they have written on a given subject and are percieved as being knowledgable by the general public that have relatively little knowledge. One can become an expert in total isolation, but the only way of testing it or being formally recognised as such is to provide proof to the outside world.

An enthusiast, by comparison, lacks one or more of the above. They might still be very knowledgable and seem like an expert to anyone outside of the field, but are not deemed such by those within the field. I think that, depending on approach, an enthusiast will nonetheless be likely to become an expert over time, especially in more specific areas.
 
#25 · (Edited)
"Expert" is a tricky notion to pin down. I would personally define it as:

-Having extensive knowledge of facts in a given subject
-Having UNDERSTANDING of a given subject (esp. important for music)
-Having experience in a given subject (i.e. listening to works, not merely absorbing facts about them)
-Garnering this knowledge/experience through a systematic/academic approach.

Being accepted by existing experts or having interaction with them may or may not be relevant. Most people are not experts in classical music per se, but in a specific composer to such a degree that they could write a book on the information they know. I would also say that the criteria for expertise should be knowledge and understanding, not acceptance into any informal club of acknowledged experts.
In general I agree with your comments. My definition was an operational one. A non-expert has no way to verify that someone has extensive knowledge or understanding, for example. If I'm interested in finding experts on radioactive dating, Babylonian theology, or Renaissance instruments, I have to use a functional definition similar to mine rather then a theoretical one.

To those discussing to what extent a degree helps one become an expert:

When I received my Ph.D., I did not consider myself an expert because there were many who knew far more than I. Becoming an expert generally requires significantly more research/experience/interaction with others after one's degree. There are also people who get a degree in one field and become experts in a different field. A music expert many not need a music degree, but she must somehow become proficient in music theory and other necessary areas.

But for the purposes of this thread people should use whatever definition of expert they are comfortable with.
 
#8 · (Edited)
I would say an expert is someone whose profession is music - someone who has at least a BA in music and has a deep understanding of every aspect of musical theory. There is more to it of course but I think that would be the starting point for a definition.

Someone who does not understand, for example - the complex subject of harmony - but at the same time has a massive knowledge of repertoire and the history of music - is not an expert - but rather an enthusiast.
 
#11 ·
I would say an expert is someone whose profession is music - someone who has at least a BA in music and has a deep understanding of every aspect of musical theory. There is more to it of course but I think that would be the starting point for a definition.
I don't believe that it takes that much study to understand musical theory - its only a matter of deciphering the coded terms and learning to read music. I studied engineering at university level and find that what I know of harmonic theory is very logical and mathematical. This is not challenging to students of sciences, but what is challenging is being able to read a score and recognise those same patterns in musical notation or, even more difficult, to do so by ear. Music notation is a very messy language in that regard, but this ability is also not pertinent to the understanding of harmony, IMO. Another difficulty I find when reading about more modern works is the increasingly technical terms used to describe it. I have browsed academic papers on music and they are quite similar to papers on engineering that I have also read. Taking the time out to learn the terminology is a relatively minor task, however, when compared to becoming familiar with the thousands of works that constitute 'the repertoire' or the hundreds of composers and their relative significance over the history of music. The former is rather less 'fun', however.

Professional musicians have an instinctive feel for music through performance. A BA in music isn't a vey good indication, IMHO, since there are literally thousands of music graduates in the UK every year and there are not thousands of experts in (classical) music. Many of those graduates also don't have a deep knowledge of repertoire, never mnd listening experience of that repertoire, and prob won't ever attain it. I agree that it is a start, since it is a provides a level of understanding that anyone claiming to be an expert should possess. Ouside of the world of classical music, there are probably lots more 'experts' who are musicians and don't have any qualifications.
 
#14 ·
There are reasons to develop lists of great works and composers (if only for music history classes). While I think such lists ought to be created by experts, do you think it would matter if they were created by large groups of enthusiastic listeners?
It depends on your feelings about the word "great". If "great" means something that has enormous impact or that leaves a lasting impression, any sizable group of enthusiastic listeners can come up with a list that can be quite valid.

If "great" has reference, however, to the compositional skills of the composer, say, her mastery of all the tools of her trade, and her ability to add something significant to the already large body of music available to the world, I suppose I would leave that to the "experts".

I would personally be interested in both types of list, because no one's list dictates anything to me - it either simply satisfies my curiosity (at the least) or gives me some ideas of something else to try (at the most).

One advantage of being an enthusiastic listener is that your judgment isn't swayed as easily as someone's who is brand new to the field.
 
#16 ·
Of course one can understand virtually anything with home study - and if you have the skill and knowledge - it does not matter if you have the degree or not. I agree with that. Neither though can you dismiss graduate level education.
Having years of playing an instrument behind you does not give as much as you would think - in my son's case he went to advanced theory having gone to a high level in piano and violin - as his theory teacher said to him - he can do a lot by instinct - having mastered two instruments - but in terms of the level of musicianship expertise he was looking for - it was nowhere near enough and hence lengthy formal study was necessary. He also found the rules of harmony so complex that when he attempted to learn things himself - he invariably made errors - sometimes small - but still needed the teacher to clarify. Of course there may be those who don't even play instruments and have no formal study that could "pick it up" themselves - though I never met anyone. Maybe somebody has that I don't know of. I am quite certain that Mozart was not born a composer - Haydn said of him "he has the most profound knowledge of the art of composition" - M father was a composer and there is no doubt he schooled Wolfgang in all the necessary fundamentals.
 
#18 ·
I would say an expert is someone whose profession is music - someone who has at least a BA in music and has a deep understanding of every aspect of musical theory.

By that theory a great many of the greatest artists in every field are less than "experts" as many were taught outside the confines of academia... and a great many were essentially self-taught.
 
#19 ·
I was waiting for someone to pick up on that.
Yes, it's a question of knowledge, passive and active - in that field - it doesn't matter how you get it although I would still maintain that formal training does have some advantages over being self taught. For example - arranging an Elgar march for brass band would take a certain amount of expertise that a self taught composer might find a bit tricky.
 
G
#21 · (Edited)
I think Science's point is that the key of a fairly simple traditional tonal work can be objectively identified - by looking at the distribution of notes/frequencies. You could write a computer program to determine which key best fits a particular piece of music.

More recently composers have been writing passages and works which don't follow the traditional rules. As a result, some examples can be interpreted in multiple ways.

I would argue that the above counter-examples are cases of ambiguity, not subjectivity. Subjectivity should be reserved for questions of how we experience and/or feel in reaction to works of music.
 
#22 ·
I would argue that the above counter-examples are cases of ambiguity, not subjectivity. Subjectivity should be reserved for questions of how we experience and/or feel in reaction to works of music.
I was mentally fumbling around trying to find a way to say this. My response to emiellucifuge was so short because I couldn't figure out how to do it!
 
#27 ·
Crmoorhead, I dont think the analogy you have used is valid.

The analyses I posted, and in general (at least, as far I have learnt), stem from the manner in which the music is heard by the analyst - this being an entirely subjective excercise. An analyst doesnt just look at the notes on the page as he would the number 100, and arbitrarily decide which mathematical operations he can use to build this number, the analyst is trying to explain an artistic aural effect produced. For example I was taught to play through these things on the piano when analysing.

The varying analyses are evidence that each analyst has experienced the small progression in a different manner. I will once again use the example of Pelleas:



Now, personally, when I heard this phrase It is quite obvious that the first bar feels secure and stable, looking at the notes I would then explain this being due to the lack of dissonance, and that all the notes can belong to a D chord - perhaps I will label it as such though whether it is minor or major is unclear. Once we enter the 2nd bar, the feeling I get personally is that the downward motion in the bass line concretizes the first chord too much for it to be consistent of auxiliary notes or an appogiatura for example, I will label it as a C major given the notes written. On the 2nd beat the G is moved back to an A, on paper It would quite clearly look like an A chord; in the context of D the C# leading note is missing but to my ear it still feels as if it resolves onto the next chord which is again a D. Now I think about it, the entire second bar feels unstable and as if it resolves onto D, harmonically this does make sense to attribute a dominant function to the entire bar because that is how it sounds to me. IN doing all this I have interpreted these notes have a I-V-I progression, which is functional harmony.

I heard the first beat in the 2nd bar as a chord unto itself, whereas for example (see my previous post) Laloy hears the G as a melodic ornament which resolves into the A chord, thereby giving the entire bar the label of A or (D:)V. Both Appeldorn and Christ ended up labeling the 2nd bar with a VII chord (C) which demonstrates that they heard this bar as sounding in a slightly different way in relation to its context.

These are all functional analyses, but there are scores of analysts who have heard these two bars in a non-functional way, and there are many different ways to do so.

Obviously I do not assume that every listener will hear the sound in one of these ways, but we are talking about 'experts' after all who listen in a certain way. Each one hears the music differently and tries to explain it with the notes on the page, but in the end it has produced slightly different effects for each of them. Even for the experts it is subjective.
 
#28 ·
And further, I have used the example of Debussy which is relatively modern, but I believe the same applies to all music including Bach, Mozart, etc...

Even if it may become 'simpler' to look at a Haydn symphony, and the vast majority of analysts will reach the same conclusions - this is not evidence that the music is objective. On the score, the things they are looking at in Haydn is just the same as it is in Wagner or Debussy.
 
#60 ·
Probably best for me just to surrender the the point with respect to chords. There is no point in the discussion; it doesn't matter whether to my original point whether the interpretation of chords happens to be subjective. There are facts of some kind involved, and we can objectively investigate them.

But whether it sounds good or not certainly remains subjective, which is the point I actually intended to make.
 
#29 ·
I'm somewhat mystified by what this thread is supposed to be all about.

The OP first asks why so much classical music which is loved by enthusiastic listeners is also considered “great” by music "experts". Secondly, it then asks whether it matters if lists of great works and composers are created by "enthusiastic listeners" rather than by "experts" who, so it is alleged, ought to be better at this task than groups of enthusiastic listeners.

At one level, I would have thought that if the first proposition is correct then the second question doesn't need asking since the answer to the second is implied by virtue of the fact that the group of enthusiastic listeners would arrive at much the same answer as the "experts".

That aside, I wouldn't accept the notion that "experts" are best placed to assess the greatest classical works or composers. What is expertise? There are so many different aspects of the subject which could be relevant, and hardly anyone possesses all the relevant skills. The amount of expertise anyone has in any single area is relative anyway, and experts often disagree among themselves in most spheres, not just music but across many other areas. I would have thought that it's especially highly unlikely that a large group of music experts would agree among themselves over the greatest classical works or composers. There would be a spread of opinion ranging far and wide, and the only way to make any sense of their deliberations would to take majority verdicts on rankings.

Even then I would rate the combined opinions of music experts as being of any greater significance than that of a group of enthusiastic listeners. This is because it's completely unnecessary to know anything about the formal construction of music in order to appreciate the way it sounds and impacts on ones' emotions. To give an analogy, one doesn't need to know anything at about the way motor cars are constructed to decide which models you like the best. You can read up on any technicalities that may be of interest if forming an overall judgement.

An alternative example is how many people would take notice if some expert chemist had analysed all the main brands of ice cream commercially available and reached the conclusion that the "best" brands are X, Y, Z etc in that order. Such an opinion wouldn’t impress me at all, as I don't consider his opinion to be any better than mine on the broad issue of quality. It's much the same issue with classical music. "Experts" can inform you about various technical aspects of the music but they can't tell you which are the "greatest" works or those most worth listening to which you enjoy best of all. That's entirely a matter of personal judgement, guided perhaps partly by the advice of others.
 
#30 ·
I'm somewhat mystified by what this thread is supposed to be all about.

The OP first asks why so much classical music which is loved by enthusiastic listeners is also considered "great" by music "experts". Secondly, it then asks whether it matters if lists of great works and composers are created by "enthusiastic listeners" rather than by "experts" who, so it is alleged, ought to be better at this task than groups of enthusiastic listeners.

At one level, I would have thought that if the first proposition is correct then the second question doesn't need asking since the answer to the second is implied by virtue of the fact that the group of enthusiastic listeners would arrive at much the same answer as the "experts".
The first proposition could be true, but there could still not be a close correlation between expert and enthusiastic listener choices. Experts could feel there are many "great" works that many enthusiastic listeners do not love. I think that might happen more in modern works.

Even then I would rate the combined opinions of music experts as being of any greater significance than that of a group of enthusiastic listeners. This is because it's completely unnecessary to know anything about the formal construction of music in order to appreciate the way it sounds and impacts on ones' emotions. To give an analogy, one doesn't need to know anything at about the way motor cars are constructed to decide which models you like the best. You can read up on any technicalities that may be of interest if forming an overall judgement.

..."Experts" can inform you about various technical aspects of the music but they can't tell you which are the "greatest" works or those most worth listening to which you enjoy best of all. That's entirely a matter of personal judgement, guided perhaps partly by the advice of others.
I think experts can't tell me which works I will enjoy the most, but I'm not sure they can't say which works are most worth listening to. That depends, of course, on what is meant be "worth listening to".

I agree that "one doesn't need to know anything at about the way motor cars are constructed to decide which models you like the best." But experts may know things that are clearly relevant to the question of which are the best cars. Suppose a non-expert believes that she likes cars A and B about the same after spending a long time reading about them, driving them, and talking to friends about them. Further, experts know that consumers generally like the cars the same, but these experts know that car A has serious recycling problems and that car B allows engineers to cheaply and easily design other models using the same platform. The experts then say car B is better.

The only way the experts' views do not matter is if the only criteria for determining "greatness" involve general user (enthusiastic listener) enjoyment. There are many TC posts that explicitly call on music theory in determining a work's "greatness". I do not know enough about music theory or history to definitively claim that music theory arguments have little, if anything, to do with the "greatness" of a work. I think that is the crux of my second question.
 
#31 ·
An expert in the context of your thread might be a professional musicologist and or a performer. That I have no problem with. There are numerous musicologist who are experts in their field. Take a look at this new website dedicated to publishing and researching the entire surving works of CPE Bach, and notice the editorial committee. For example, many do consider Christoph Wolff as an expert on JS Bach, and musiciologist and conductor Christopher Hogwood an expert on historically informed performance practice. In the usual understanding of the term "expert", I doubt many would have difficulty in agreeing with that these folks are experts in their fields.

http://www.cpebach.org/description.html
 
#32 ·
But, there is a clear separation between the expert and the regular schmucks including myself here at TC :D , who are not musicologists by training, just as you have described, the enthusiastic listener/"fans of classical music". The enthusiastic listeners have different levels of experience, a simple fact; hence the subject of my recent poll about how experienced as a listener does one think one is. From the fresh newbie to the Lord of the all, the Ultimate Zen Guru ...

http://www.talkclassical.com/20560-listening-hierarchy-where-you.html
 
#34 ·
Christoph Wolff and Hogwood - both products of the musical establishment with full formal training.

I would challange your statement that there is no clear separation between that pair and well informed enthusiasts.
As I said, I was trying to be clear on separating out the musicologist and the non-musicologist who are enthusiastic listeners (i.e. many of us here at TC); the "fans of classical music". Many of the latter may be well informed; music lessons/students, or like me by general reading/experience, hence leading to my next post above suggesting that the enthusiastic (non-musicologist) listeners, which has different levels of experience.
 
#35 ·
I started off studying music in highschool and ended up studying Music in University, But just because I studied it in university doesn't particulary mean I know more than someone who didn't study music (even if it is more likely so) but I did notice a difference between how people who've studied music (people you consider experts) and how they perceive certain classical composers to those who are classical enthusiasts do.

And generally those I've studied with tend to know a lot more about classical music, but I would also like to add that one of my friends who has never studied music formally knows way more information and has a way better understanding of classical music than all the people I have studied with in my university.

So, I really do think it depends on the person and the situation.
 
#37 ·
but I would also like to add that one of my friends who has never studied music formally knows way more information and has a way better understanding of classical music than all the people I have studied with in my university.
That's quite a statment to make and does not recommend well the institution where you studied - or the people you studied with. But what do you mean "better understanding"? You mean technical understanding to the point where he would be able to hold analytical discourse with a musicologist? Or do you mean appreciation?
 
#36 ·
@ emillucifuge

Thanks for the great reply. :)

My analogy was not just of single numbers, though I did give that as a way to illustrate how the same thing can be viewed in many different ways. This can also be applied to a series of numbers, though I spared you the mathematical example of how to do this for convenience's sake. This is quite easy to do with numerical analysis especially, as in this case, there is the option to leave some notes/numbers out and count them as 'adornments'. In essence, I think we are on the same page here. I understand that clusters of notes can signify different chord progressions when seen from different perspectives and that this may signify a different intention by the composer (what these intentions are have not yet been touched upon, but I will assume that this makes sense). That it can be interpreted in different ways, I do not dispute, but I am also saying that I think that the composer's intention is the only objective way to see it and, at the end of the day, they are using it to communicate their intentions via the ear rather than via the written score. I think that we'll have to agree to disagree on the merits and relevance of differing musical analysis. Once I learn more, I might change my mind. ;)
 
#43 ·
crmoorhead;343102That it [I said:
can[/I] be interpreted in different ways, I do not dispute, but I am also saying that I think that the composer's intention is the only objective way to see it and, at the end of the day, they are using it to communicate their intentions via the ear rather than via the written score.
This is where our opinions differ. I believe the only thing of importance in art is how it is perceived, in this case by the listener.
 
#45 ·
We can categorize three groups here:

- Those who have academic learning and can use (some) instruments. [Experts]
- Those who know to play an instrument or two, but don't have much knowledge about the Music. [Enthusiastic initiate]
- Those who have listened much to Music but don't know much about its structures. [Enthusiastic Listener]
 
#52 · (Edited)
"...do you think it would matter if they were created by large groups of enthusiastic listeners?"

It matters very much, and you see it in action in the many lists made up by Talk Classical members.

While generally 'well-informed,' i.e. most bases will be covered, those lists made up by the enthusiasts have both the most 'usual suspect' composers and their 'most usual suspect' pieces. They are 'popular' classical music lists... which are not a bad thing, especially to recommend composer 'X's' music to a neophyte.

I saw a blog / zine (Amazon 'critic?') list of the world's "Ten Greatest Piano Concerti." On that list of ten, two were by Beethoven, One by Mozart(!) Two were by Rachmaninoff, and the Grieg piano concerto had made the list - which is not at all right in a real 'musical experts' lexicon.

There you have the perfect illustration of enthusiastic listener compiled lists and those compiled by more 'responsible' experts. Musically, the Grieg, popular as it is, should not be on such a top ten list at all - there are too many others which are just musically superior, period. To be responsible, one would not allow more than one concerto by one composer, trying to get the most representative list of varied composers and styles. So ... a list of what is popular from enthusiastic classical listeners is what that was, and, like the adequate lists on talk classical, is most often what you get.

P.s. participation in making these lists seems to include some feeling of empowerment, the ability to 'influence' or an idea of contributing to part of an 'authoritative' work, and I'm told people just love making lists and participating. I've yet to see one which is 'earth shakingly good' or comes but close to competing with say, those Guides to classical listening compiled by music pros. Shows they are more a collective sport than anything else.
 
#53 · (Edited)
I saw a blog / zine (Amazon 'critic?') list of the world's "Ten Greatest Piano Concerti." On that list of ten, two were by Beethoven, One by Mozart(!) Two were by Rachmaninoff, and the Grieg piano concerto had made the list - which is not at all right in a real 'musical experts' lexicon.
Personally, I would list more than one Mozart. But I think Grieg is totally undervalued, especially as a composer for piano. The piano concerto is truly great, but Lyric Pieces and other solo piano works are pure genius. Grieg did not compose virtuoso pieces, but his compositions are often simplicity distilled into genius.

I see a lot of people repeating the bull that elitest critics have repeated so many times it's become "common hive think". A lot of this stuff isn't true. Chopin isn't just lace doilies and Mozart isn't empty filligrees. Grieg was a great composer and Rachmaninoff wasn't a hack. This stuff isn't in the music at all. It's in the words of a bunch of bull shiest artists.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top