I play a few musical instruments - guitar, flute, saxophone, Scottish bagpipes and drums. I can read music, including full orchestral scores, and I have read extensively about my favourite artists including both volumes of Cosima Wagner's diaries when I first got into Wagner (there's a bunch of hours I'll never get back). But I would have to say that I can't think it's enhanced my enjoyment of the music I love at all. It has increased my understanding and appreciation of the technical side of things but the music I love, I loved before I knew how to follow it on a score. Personally I'm not sure it is essential to understand the technical side of music to enjoy the visceral and emotional impact of it.

 

I have found knowledge of music theory very useful for composing, however when it comes to appreciating music it's more of a double-edged sword.

 

Personally, knowing how to read music and being able to mark up scores enhances my listening experience tremendously. I can't remember all the little details without having them written down. And theory also helps; these composers are working within a system which they are either using or breaking down, and it helps to be familiar with their language to appreciate what they're doing.

 

For myself, I guess I would say it doesn't affect my enjoyment of music while I'm listening, but it does afford me an additional, separate pleasure of figuring out how music works.

 

The fact that I know I like the color purple helps me pick out other items that are purple, and be safe to assume I will like those items. Purple flowers, purple clothes, etc. That's how I feel with theory. For me it's about identify what I like so much about the piece, and then I go out there and find features in other pieces of music that are similar. Chord progressions? Yes, I have favorite chord progressions that the moment I hear it it hits the spot for me. I happen to know the technical term for these chord progressions, and that simply helps me in talking about it with other people. "Contrary-motion melody against passing chord between a V4/2 and a V4/3" that sounds uber technical, but it's ultimately something simple, a voice leading thing.

 

I fell in love with classical music very early in life. And in my teens, I began a lifelong mission to understand theory so that I could understand how the great masters wrote such marvelous music. As my knowledge grew, so did my enjoyment of great music.

I suppose it is similar to someone who really loves cars, sooner or later that person is going to want to learn more about how an engine works, starting working on cars, perhaps restore or rebuild a car, or make it their profession.

 

I know very little about music theory or mechanics, just as I know very little about painting theory or mechanics. Yet I regard myself as a "perfect" audience upon which composers and painters can try out their various creations to see whether or not I'll like them or learn to like them. That's the goal; that's the question; that's what it's all about: will it resonate with me? So I'm not aware that a deep knowledge of music theory or practice will improve my enjoyment-- we know many examples of composers who loathed one another's works; Brahms and Tchaikovsky spring to mind; yet I love both. Think Brahms and Hugo Wolf, or Prokofiev and Debussy. Maybe ignorance is bliss (Orwell in 1984 told us Ignorance is Strength, but that's another topic).

 

You make some really great points. It is amazing isn't it how some of the very best composers just could not see the beauty in the work of some other composers. Brahms in particular seems to have been a lightning rod for this sort of controversy. Is there any composer other than Beethoven that was universally admired by his contemporaries? If so, I do not know who it is.

 

I will admit that, even though I can't dissect the music theoretically, I get pleasure from practicing the piano, reading the music and discovering how a piano piece is constructed in detail. I discover little things that I could not have known from listening only. However, when I've listened to a piece that I really, really like many, many times, I'm pretty sure my enjoyment has already achieved its maximum potential and I don't believe any amount of theoretical insight and knowledge is going to enhance my enjoyment further.
I think listening analytically and understanding the methods of creation give a different kind of appreciation that must be seperated from the bare listening experience.

 

I have addressed this before in other threads. For example: http://www.talkclassical.com/26254-what-have-you-learned.html#post728197

 

Being able to identify features of music by name can make us more alert to them and aware of their relationships. It improves our ability to perceive and enjoy form. On the other hand, it may rob us slightly of the sense of mystery and wonder at hearing things we have no words for. But while I'm listening to music I'm not likely to be naming chord progressions, so most of that wonder remains. On balance I'd say knowing something is better than not.

 

I can appreciate the technical aspects of any type of craftsmanship- but I don't think not knowing how to create a work of art is going to fundamentally change my aesthetic response to it in the least.

I don't know Newton's Opticks or how Vermeer mixed his paint or how he executed his brushstrokes- but I can appreciate the beauty of his chiaroscuro composition all the same.

Mutatis mutandis for musical compositon.

 

Is this a question or a complaint?

Having a map does not add or detract from my basic aesthetic enjoyment of Yellowstone Park, except in the sense that it it allows me to navigate, get into, grasp and understand the experience more efficiently. The same with music; music theory is not the art itself, but only a reference.

I suspect that this question is being asked somewhat defensively. It's the sort of question that a person already knowledgeable in music theory would probably have no motivation to ask. It's an insecure person wondering, "Am I missing something? Is my simple enjoyment of music 'as good' or 'as deep' as somebody who knows music theory?"

Well remember, the theorists had to learn it. They too were at one time clueless, and simply enjoyed music. So stop broadcasting such insecurities, get off the fence, and read a theory book. Otherwise, it sounds either insecure, or as if it is a snipe at being knowledgeable.

All aesthetic experiences are created from the same place, out of the 'stuff' of our experience. Ultimately, what makes one experience 'more valid' than any other is the person, and their accumulated experience. If you want to put this on some sort of scale, or in an arena, then you have to use certain criteria to judge this, and this criteria, while it may reflect accurately some sort of 'optimal' experience or 'optimal' person, many people will feel slighted or left out, like the suburban blues player who wants to be like Son House. An unrealistic and rather bizarre aspiration.

 

L

Is this a question or a complaint?

Having a map does not add or detract from my basic aesthetic enjoyment of Yellowstone Park, except in the sense that it it allows me to navigate, get into, grasp and understand the experience more efficiently. The same with music; music theory is not the art itself, but only a reference.

I suspect that this question is being asked somewhat defensively. It's the sort of question that a person already knowledgeable in music theory would probably have no motivation to ask. It's an insecure person wondering, "Am I missing something? Is my simple enjoyment of music 'as good' or 'as deep' as somebody who knows music theory?"

Well remember, the theorists had to learn it. They too were at one time clueless, and simply enjoyed music. So stop broadcasting such insecurities, get off the fence, and read a theory book. Otherwise, it sounds either insecure, or as if it is a snipe at being knowledgeable.

Suggestion: why not just treat it as a question?

 

Aside from the more abstruse subjects, that are at times debated pretty hotly here, I have found that music theory opens my mind to developments during a piece, examples of entertaining mathematical wizardry, etc.

 

This is not meant to be contentious but it seems to me that the only way to really answer the question is if you have had a strong interest and love of classical music for a long time in adult life and then learned theory.

 

If I enjoy the universe, I'll like learning about the Milky Way.
Else reading on the cosmos will seem boring.
So I must enjoy the universe.

 

I think it helps me appreciate the fine detail of phrases, and how the composer managed to write it. On the other hand it makes some music dull

 

As a musician you will appreciate the technical difficulties of a piece also the phrasing these would not be noticed by a none musician, as to some one that knows the theory but may not be a musician I can only guess.

 

If you have a decent grasp of music theory, how does this affect your enjoyment of music?

And if you don't, how does it affect your enjoyment?

I have a rudimentary grasp of music theory (I'm sure there's people here who've tracked my ignorance long enough to be able to say how rudimentary that is!) I believe that as I've listened to music over the last 50 years, I've also acquired more knowledge about its construction, but as this has been a simultaneous activity, it's difficult to separate their influences. How can I now say that my enjoyment is 'worse' (or better) than it would have been had I remained in splendid ignorance?

There is an enjoyment in the acquisition of knowledge in itself that sits alongside the 'enjoyment' of the mere experience of listening. However, my current tendency is that it is not enough just to listen, I must also find out about, and grow my understanding of, for example, what it is that marks the changes in music over time - that lead, dare I say it, to some people's unease at the increase in what they call (rightly or wrongly) 'atonality'.

What I'm not interested in is now learning theory for its own sake. I doubt I will go and learn to play an instrument or join a choir either.

 

Well Macleod, if we all liked chocolate cake you guys would eat all of my chocolate cake, I guess :lol: What do I mean? I mean that I look at other people's thoughts at times and say to myself "wow, how do you arrive at that", but it's a good thing because our mutual mental space would be quite crowded and boring if not for that.

You apparently look around and say "well, there is this and that that I could do/learn, but it doesn't add to my enjoyment of the 'mere' experience". I find myself looking at the same thing and saying "well, there is the 'mere' experience and all of these other experiences I could have at the same time; I think I'd like to try and dip my toes in each pond, what could it hurt". There is so much beyond the 'mere' experience that comes into play for me in order to complete the whole picture of "how do I think and feel about music".

There is also this part of me, the intellectual and emotional adventurist, that is confused by the immediate walls that people often erect with the question "why should I care". I've been wonderfully surprised enough times for this to sound a little nutty to me when I hear it.

 

Analytical listening does not equate with pleasure, like knowing the recipe of something I'm eating doesn't increase my pleasure eating it.

 

Analytical listening does not equate with pleasure, like knowing the recipe of something I'm eating doesn't increase my pleasure eating it.

For you, perhaps not.

However, the recipe/eat analogy is not, IMO, a good one. Knowing that one is eating vitamins and minerals that are good for one might enhance your pleasure in a different way from eating sugar-and-fat comfort foods.

 

Some of you are convincing me my answer was wrong!

Becca makes a very good point. I don't know what it's like to hear music with no theoretical knowledge at all because I don't remember, so I have no basis for comparison.

I may have been imagining an artificial wall in my mind between listening and reading/thinking/analyzing.

 

One thing I remember from my early days of listening was having it explained to me that the transition from the 3rd to the 4th movement of Beethoven's 5th symphony was achieved simply by a minor-to-major switch. I already really liked the music, but just receiving that little piece of information allowed me to put a name to what I was hearing. If not exactly a "eureka" moment, the increased understanding definitely increased my enjoyment. Other, more complicated examples followed later - one in particular that I recall was Britten's use of a tone row for The Turn of the Screw, which certainly improved the drama for me. But those tend to be exceptions; I have no desire to know the mechanics of everything I listen to, and I can't think of any instance where greater technical understanding of a work that simply didn't appeal to me on "naive" listening has significantly altered my opinion of the work.

 

This issue of enjoyment/knowledge is tricky. As a general rule, knowledge of anything is good in itself, but whether or not such knowledge alters or markedly enhances one's enjoyment is another matter. Does knowledge of the physics (refraction, optical light paths, etc.) of rainbows make them more beautiful? Are committed oenophiles more likely to appreciate a particular vintage if they are familiar with exactly how it has been grown, harvested, fermented, fine-tuned? Double-blind taste tests routinely expose massive discrepancies between what connoisseurs think they are savoring v. what's actually in the glass. Let's look at earthquakes--certainly not beautiful in themselves but when considered in the context of a good working knowledge of plate tectonics, earthquakes become our most immediate evidence of the rather awesome, slow yet relentless convection of earth's mantle, and there is more than a hint there of what Burke considered the Sublime. So I personally would surely love to be familiar with the workings of music, and also able to skillfully play an instrument--knowledge being intrinsically a good thing. But I still feel fully confirmed in my enjoyment of music or any of the arts despite lacking such knowledge or skill.

 

Does knowledge of the physics (refraction, optical light paths, etc.) of rainbows make them more beautiful?

For me it totally does.

So I personally would surely love to be familiar with the workings of music, and also able to skillfully play an instrument--knowledge being intrinsically a good thing. But I still feel fully confirmed in my enjoyment of music or any of the arts despite lacking such knowledge or skill.

This whole post was poignantly expressed.

 

This is a tough question because I am not sure what activities to call analysis and what to call normal attentive listening. Since before I had any theoretical training whatever I broke down the thematic processes in musical works enough to understand how the developments derive from the themes in individual movements and how the themes of one movement relate to another. I also tended to fit the various parts into an overall narrative scheme and to prefer works with a comprehensive overall structure. All of this, to me, is just normal attentive listening.

Detailed analysis of harmony, voice-leading and the like is for me, as isorhythm describes in #5, another activity that isn't directly related to the enjoyment of listening.

 

...... double post

 

I read a book once that talked about the piano and how the keys are weird with part steps, that is the scale is not even steps all the way up and that somehow that affects how a piece comes across depending on what key (starting point?) you use. But even my last sentence is probably all mixed up which shows how little I remember from reading that book. Anyways, I enjoy music and am not sure how knowing the theory behind it would help. So I vote Other as I don't know.

 

Two things I've listened to in recent days that maybe illustrate where I was coming from: Mozart's piano concerto in G, K453, and Stockhausen's Mantra.

The first theme of the slow movement of the Mozart is extraordinarily expressive, and achieves this mostly by repeatedly emphasizing a totally standard appoggiatura, underlining the resulting minor-major harmony. At the climax of the theme there's an equally standard deceptive cadence. That stuff is all simple enough that if you know what it is, you can't help but be aware of it on some level as soon as you hear it; it's not something you figure out later looking at the score.

I've never seen the score of Mantra or tried to analyze it. The basic structure is that each section is built around one pitch of the row, which is obvious to the listener because the central pitch is repeated frequently while other stuff happens around it. But beyond that I really have no idea at all what's going on. Each section has a different texture; some places sound kind of like Debussy, some almost Romantic. There's what sounds like triadic harmony in various places, but it's so far removed from any normal context that I can't really tell what it is. The central pitch of each section also has something to do with how the ring modulator is used, and I think that contributes to the sense of a local "tonic." But the point is I don't know how this piece works.

Anyway, I think my enjoyment of both pieces is fundamentally the same phenomenon. As far as I can tell, my understanding or lack of it makes no difference.