Thread: I'm not a musician!

Interesting points there and I absolutely agree with you. While education, theory, history and even performance experience aids in the appreciation of music, it is not some standardized requirement in order to fully enjoy and analyze the music. I'm afraid this instrumental nonsense you're talking about, where we're all supposed to be "musicians" is a plague on the system. And don't believe a word of it. Before I begin, let me clarify that understanding the history, theory and terminology of music is vital only if the music is your life. If you're a casual listener, or even a semi-passionate listener, understanding sonata form and fugues and basso continuo are not required. However, in my experience, they are invaluable and can really add to the enjoyment of music.

Understanding the development of styles, the emergence of opera, the influence of the Baroque composers, the entire 19th century... it's all exciting and should be explored to get that extra, some might even argue essential, flavor from the music. But don't let anyone tell you that you can't appreciate the music without it. Aural experience and aural interpretation is usually shunned by the academia, and I think their dismissal of it is wrong. Amateurs can hear inner voices and the structure of music, too; it's not just some high-brow circle of learned professors who have such advanced ear training.

I want to take your sentiments in a different direction, though, by adding my own frustrating experience to your thread; it's certainly related to the topic. I have a personal issue with this narrow-minded philosophy that all classical music fans and in my specific case, students, MUST play an instrument. I'm actually encountering the very attitude you describe right now because I'm trying to apply to colleges as a music major. However, I'm trying to find a Bachelor's in Music History (very rare), as history and theory are my sole passions in classical music. Unfortunately, and quite frustratingly, most music schools I've looked at seem to want cookie-cutter music students who wish to play an instrument and perfect their technique. Although I play piano, I have no interest at all in being a performer, and I see it as a waste of time when I wish to reach the bottom of the barrel of music history research. I understand that keyboard proficiency and theory are necessary, and I was prepared to give them their dues. These colleges, though, stress performance to the extreme.

Most of these Bachelor's in Music require an audition with theory tests, sight-reading and a varied repertoire in order to be admitted. Then once admitted, the student must take a hefty handful of ensemble, choral, and other instrumental classes. Senior recitals, multiple instrumental proficiency classes, and various genres of vocal study are the overwhelming majority of music classes; and this is just the general studies major. This kind of performance bias is just agitating, especially for me, when I spend all my time reading music history books and wish to delve as deep as I can into the literature and exhaustive history that classical music has gone through. Why would I want to distract myself with performing in a choir or in front of a music faculty every semester? I guess they forget about those who have ambitions for Master's degrees in Music History. It just seems that, in my experience at least, the prevailing mindset in these colleges is that all music students must play an instrument not only proficiently, but as if they were hoping to be stellar performers. The field of music history is just not embraced as it should be; it's a vast and expansive field, but most (not all) music departments want outstanding performers with only a rudimentary, even jack-of-all-trades, knowledge of the music history.

You're absolutely spot on with your film analogy that if one watches movies, one must also create them? Art history students are not required to draw and literature students don't have to write literature. But Art history students can still learn the painting techniques, the influence of history on the artists, and the styles that developed. They have no need to paint in order to become knowledgeable. Literature students can study and analyze every line of Shakespeare, but do they have to write a sonnet in order to appreciate Shakespeare? No. So why isn't music considered in the same category? I frankly don't know.

Perhaps the music schools, then, are the cause for this elitist outlook that classical music is a genre that can only be appreciated by performers. That's, at least, how I gauge it after my dispiriting experience.

Originally Posted by Hexameron

Interesting points there and I absolutely agree with you. While education, theory, history and even performance experience aids in the appreciation of music, it is not some standardized requirement in order to fully enjoy and analyze the music. I'm afraid this instrumental nonsense you're talking about, where we're all supposed to be "musicians" is a plague on the system. And don't believe a word of it. Before I begin, let me clarify that understanding the history, theory and terminology of music is vital only if the music is your life. If you're a casual listener, or even a semi-passionate listener, understanding sonata form and fugues and basso continuo are not required. However, in my experience, they are invaluable and can really add to the enjoyment of music.

Understanding the development of styles, the emergence of opera, the influence of the Baroque composers, the entire 19th century... it's all exciting and should be explored to get that extra, some might even argue essential, flavor from the music. But don't let anyone tell you that you can't appreciate the music without it.

I don't mean to suggest that I have no interest in studying the history and structures of music, but I only do so for the love of it and wanting to understand contexts and meanings behind it, and such--not because I'm learning to play it. I do the same with movies. I'll read books containing analyses of directors' work, such as I love the films of Antonioni so I have a bunch of books on him. It only seems natural to me, for one to desire knowing more about what he is impassioned about. But, I don't do it as a means to anything but my further enjoyment of it.

By the way, I read a fascinating little book some years ago by the musicologist, Hans Moldenhauer, called "The Death of Anton Webern: a drama in documents." It's not much more than a hundred pages long, and it's a really touching story. If you haven't read it already, I thought you might want to check that one out.

Hexamoran, I agree with the points that you are making, there are several different aspects of music that one can get into and study and being a non musician, historian, composer etc does not stop anyone enjoying music. however to understand what is going on in the particular piece makes it more enjoyable IMO.
I think a musician will approach it through the eyes of his instrument and appreciate the technical side of it, a historian will be able to tell how time has evolved the genre, a composer will appreciate the form and structure etc.
So orquesta tipica you are right, not being a musician does not stop enjoyment, but can add to it.

Originally Posted by orquesta tipica

Something that has always bothered me is the general attitude I find amongst many in the classical music world, that if I listen to and enjoy classical music, then I must be a musician of some sort, or if I'm not a musician then I can't really "appreciate" classical music. Maybe you can tell me that I'm just perceiving this, that it is not really true of most people who love classical music. But I haven't found much to the contrary to change my perceptions. Okay, I'm paranoid. But read on, anyway, you might find it amusing...

I agree with you, as it is my idea that to enjoy (or understand partially) classical music being a musician yourself is not a prerequisite. However, I think we should all agree that if you happen to learn to play an instrument in a profficient level, and acquire general or in-depth knowledge in the fields of theory, harmony, orchestration, etc you can enjoy and understand music a zillion times more than without that musical education. If you play piano you notice a lot of resources pianists use whenever you attend a concert or listen to a cd. I've been playing the violin for 9 months now and I can't really explain how much it helps me when listening orchestral music.

On the other side, it's true that if educated, your appreciation of music can turn to be a bit technical, and the most you know, the most quirurgical the listening process tends to be.

As an anecdote... when I was 9 I listened to Tchaikovsky's first piano concert a lot. And for me, the arpeggios played by the woods in the middle section of the first movement looked like bubbles ascending from the bottom of the sea. Now for me they are just arpeggios.

Originally Posted by Manuel

..... I think we should all agree that if you happen to learn to play an instrument in a profficient level, and acquire general or in-depth knowledge in the fields of theory, harmony, orchestration, etc you can enjoy and understand music a zillion times more than without that musical education. .....(

A zillion times, ay? Are you sure? That's like saying if you don't meet these standards you may as well not bother listening.

Originally Posted by Topaz

A zillion times, ay? Are you sure? That's like saying if you don't meet these standards you may as well not bother listening.

Not really. My point is that you an always enjoy music, but that enjoyment can be multiplied many times if you have a formal musical education. This will allow you to understand orchestration, the way the motifs are developed by the composer, inversions, contrapunctual staff, retrogads. There are many things you lose if you are unable to read a score, for example. And even if you can read it on a basic level, there's more you can get from it with a complex musical background.

Does this argument only apply to classical music, or to all music?

Originally Posted by Topaz

Does this argument only apply to classical music, or to all music?

Non classical western music usually complies with the traditional ABA standard. Heavy musical training is not, IMO, necessary in this case.

Even if you can read orchestral scores, I don't think it would be a great help approaching Hip-Hop.

Does it apply to all classical music? If not where do you draw the line?

johhnyx: As you will see, I am trying to tease out the arguments from Manuel to clarify this kind of thinking. I'd like to know whether his view applies across all classical music or only to certain parts of it, and why it doesn't apply to non-classical music. Let's see what the answer is.

Originally Posted by Topaz

Does it apply to all classical music? If not where do you draw the line?

I think you're trying to make to much of this. I only support that with formal music education you can enjoy music the most. If you can handle to use the training to comprehend what you hear, and not just use it in a quirurgical and technical process, disecting what you hear in cold analysis. What you do with your knowledge, and the way it affects how you feel the music, depends on everyone.

IMO, pop music is off because is a lot simpler: simple structure, simple lyrics, simple tonalities and development of the motifs, if any.

It's also other way to appreciate how great some composers were. Take a look at the image I attach.
He composed the whole movement from the three notes in red. Just three. And it's almost ten minutes long.