Thread: The Expert Compared with the Enthusiastic Listener

Originally Posted by mmsbls

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?

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

But, there is a clear separation between the expert and the regular schmucks including myself here at TC , 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 ...

The Listening Hierarchy: Where Are You Currently?

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.

Originally Posted by stomanek

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.

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.

@ 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.

Originally Posted by Mun

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?

Originally Posted by mmsbls

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.

It would be helpful if you could quote a few examples of where you believe there is a divergence of opinion on the greatness of works between that of "experts" and "enthusiastic listeners".

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.

There was an inadvertent missing "not" in the first line of my penultimate paragraph after "... would", but I think you allowed for that. To clarify, I was saying that I don't believe that so-called experts' opinions are any better than those of experienced listeners in assessing the greatness of music or composers.

In the car example you reckon that the experts' opinion is better than that of the non-expert buyer because the experts may take into account various social benefits (like improved recycling opportunities) that are normally of no concern to non-expert buyers. Any such "externalities" might of course be picked up in the motor vehicle taxation regime, so that the more easily recyclable car would attract a lower tax rate, and if so this would be of relevance to the consumer in influencing their purchasing decision.

But even if externalities like this one are not reflected in the taxatiion regime it's not clear that "experts" (if by this you mean columnists who write about cars in magazines) would necessarily pick up the supposed "benefit" of the more recyclable car, as this is not not usually something they bother with all that much in comparision with other more obvious consumer-oriented benefits, like reliability, comfort, safety, economy, handling, performance etc.

Perhaps it's also rather stretching the point to suggest that "externality" arguments of any description may also be relevant to the matter of classical music selection. I can't think of any at all.

On the whole, I still maintain that experts' opinions on greatness in music should carry no more weight than that of experienced listeners. The latter, if they are truly "experienced", will be likely to have acquired information about the opinions of experts anyway, or all that they deem to be necessary in order to form a rounded view.

Originally Posted by Very Senior Member

It would be helpful if you could quote a few examples of where you believe there is a divergence of opinion on the greatness of works between that of "experts" and "enthusiastic listeners".

I don't believe that there is a divergence of opinion. I'm not sure, and I'm asking if others believe there might be. My comment simply pointed out that my first proposition could be correct and the second question is still reasonable to ask.

Originally Posted by Very Senior Member

But even if externalities like this one are not reflected in the taxatiion regime it's not clear that "experts" (if by this you mean columnists who write about cars in magazines) would necessarily pick up the supposed "benefit" of the more recyclable car, as this is not not usually something they bother with all that much in comparision with other more obvious consumer-oriented benefits, like reliability, comfort, safety, economy, handling, performance etc.

Perhaps it's also rather stretching the point to suggest that "externality" arguments of any description may also be relevant to the matter of classical music selection. I can't think of any at all.

First, I'm always thrilled to see someone who actually knows what externalities are! I wasn't really thinking of externalities though. I used this example because you used cars in an analogy so I thought I'd build on it. I was more thinking of scientists and engineers who spend decades studying vehicle technology and might view cars as both fun, reliable, and safe as well as well-designed, forward thinking, and environmentally more benign.

I don't disagree with you views. Since I am not able to view music in the way musical experts can, I was wondering to what extent their "technical" view of music affects their assessment of works.

For example, is it reasonable to believe many experts might view a work as great due primarily to music theoretical considerations when most enthusiastic listeners do not view the work as great?

Originally Posted by stomanek

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?

"better understanding" Simple, What kind of emotion the composition is trying to express etc.

I've noticed enthusiastic listeners tend to be able to tell what kind of emotions the composition is trying to express where as someone I've studied with in WAAPA would be able to tell me what kind of movement it is whether it'd be "Allegro assai" or "Romanze". They'd probably be able to also tell me what scale the composition is in where as someone who hasn't studied music but is an enthusiastic listener wouldn't be able to because trust me when I say that an intellectual studying music listens to and feels music very differently to someone who is simply an enthusiastic listener.

Does that help at all?

Originally Posted by Mun

They'd probably be able to also tell me what scale the composition is in
Does that help at all?

Don't you mean "What key"? Are you sure you've done a music degree? Recognising whether it is an Allegro or Romanze is quite a basic skill that I think most enthusiasts would be able to do. Quite a sweeping generalisation you make there about how "experts" listen to and feel music differently from enthusiastic listeners.

Originally Posted by mmsbls

I don't believe that there is a divergence of opinion. I'm not sure, and I'm asking if others believe there might be. My comment simply pointed out that my first proposition could be correct and the second question is still reasonable to ask.

First, I'm always thrilled to see someone who actually knows what externalities are! I wasn't really thinking of externalities though. I used this example because you used cars in an analogy so I thought I'd build on it. I was more thinking of scientists and engineers who spend decades studying vehicle technology and might view cars as both fun, reliable, and safe as well as well-designed, forward thinking, and environmentally more benign.

I don't disagree with you views. Since I am not able to view music in the way musical experts can, I was wondering to what extent their "technical" view of music affects their assessment of works.

For example, is it reasonable to believe many experts might view a work as great due primarily to music theoretical considerations when most enthusiastic listeners do not view the work as great?

I can't think of any such divergences of view and, so it would appear, nor can you. It would be very strange if any existed, except posslbly some very short-term ones, but it's not in the interests of either group to hold divergent views for long and so a way of resolving them would be found.

Originally Posted by crmoorhead;343102That it [I

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.

I'm just an expert in enthusiasm!

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]