Is classical music too isolated?

[MN Dave]

Not a math thing.  Basically the way I percieve it (this is one way, there are others), is an appreciation of how a classical composer makes a movement or entire work from small ideas, cells that become melodies or phrases by how he manipulates them and turns them into longer themes and sections of a work.   A good example is Beethoven's 5th Symphony.  The da-da-da-daaah is a short little melodic cell that becomes the basis for an entire movement, and then reappears throughout much of the rest of the work.  A seed that becomes a tree.

Pop doesn't really work this way - it is a melody with harmony underneath and its interest comes from the rhythm, or the beauty/catchiness of the tune, and the energy of the performance.  The song is complete with its performance of the tune and very little if any development takes place.

Both can be very very enjoyable - but they represent different kinds of creativity.

Okay, that stuff I knew. But how do you find deep levels in what seems to be nothing but random beeps and blips and fart noises?

[Franco]

Okay, that stuff I knew. But how do you find deep levels in what seems to be nothing but random beeps and blips and fart noises?

LOL

It's easy.  But, new music is useless as background music - you really have to devote your attention to it and accept it on its own terms, not trying to fit it in a sonic mold from another period.  Sometimes, it helps to imagine the piece as improvised instead of composed.  But, the same process is going on, the seeds becoming trees ...

[MN Dave]

LOL

It's easy.  But, new music is useless as background music - you really have to devote your attention to it and accept it on its own terms, not trying to fit it in a sonic mold from another period.  Sometimes, it helps to imagine the peice as improvised instead of composed.  But, the same process is going on, the seeds becoming trees ...

*pulls up Liszt on the iPod*  0:)

[Franco]

I just don't get Liszt

[MN Dave]

I just don't get Liszt

I'm surrounded by aliens. 

[Brahmsian]

I just don't get Liszt

Off topic but me neither. 

[starrynight]

I think you are unconsciously experiencing the deeper levels of classical music that distinguish it from pop.  Popular music, whether it is rock, or blues, or soul, or rap, or pure pop, is fairly shallow music, but its surface can be and often is very attractive, hence why the Beatles are so popular.  But classical music has an attractive surface as well as deeper levels of appreciation.  These deeper levels can be felt even if you do not know anything about what the composer is doing, and this is why I think you sense more going on.

But my point was that this same deeper level thing is also going on in new music, but its surface is so different from Mozart or Faure, that it appears very off-putting to a casual listener.

I think you are making some wide generalizations in here.

Not all popular music is necessarily shallow.  It really is a huge area. Of course it can be simpler than classical music (although there is some classical music that can be quite simple too, some shorter pieces).  Then again, it might not be so simple...jazz and experimental music at times for example.  Some pop music doesn't have beauty on the surface, though most does.  But then that's the same with classical.  As far as how deep music engages with a listener that can vary depending on all kinds of factors, however being simpler instead of very complex isn't necessarily a bad thing.  Didn't Beethoven praise Handel for using the simplest means to obtain the greatest effect?

[rappy]

When I said that people who shy away from new music because it sounded harsh and dissonant to them, but who liked other (older periods of) classical music, they were listening to classical music like they listen to pop - appreciating primarily the surface of it.

So, Eugene Jochum and Jascha Heifetz did only appreciate the surface of the music they conducted/played?

"I occasionally play works by contemporary composers and for two reasons. First to discourage the composer from writing any more and secondly to remind myself how much I appreciate Beethoven."
-Jascha Heifetz

"Das widerspricht allen meinen Vorstellungen von Musik"
-Eugene Jochum
("That contradicts all of my conceptions of music" ?? who can translate it better than me?)

I think it's all about taste. One can prefer old music to new music as well as he prefers vegetables to meat...

[Elgarian]

Another poster suspected that some of us had an agenda concerning getting people to listen more to new music.   I don't think I have that agenda; I am just trying to express my opinion about this topic - and one which I find very interesting.

For the record, I don't interpret your posts in terms of 'agendas', and I find this as interesting as you do as a discussion for its own sake. Issues of perception and intuition are always pretty tangled, but fascinating to swap ideas about.

These deeper levels can be felt even if you do not know anything about what the composer is doing, and this is why I think you sense more going on.

I'm still worried about this 'depth' issue, although I can see it might be one way of approaching these differences. But the difference I experience doesn't seem to be like that. When I first heard them, the first few bars of Sibelius's 1st symphony hit me like a coldly mysterious wind from the north, like nothing I'd experienced before. It was nothing to do with development (at least, I wasn't aware of any in such a short space of time), nothing to do with harmony or orchestration (there's only a clarinet playing). It was a new kind of perception - not like a new depth, but like a new window.

What I then discovered as I listened, is that the view through this window is intriguing, and makes me feel things I couldn't feel, unaided. This takes us into your territory of development and so on. But that first, crucial opening of the window - that's where the real perceptive leap is done. And it seems to me that some pop music can achieve it. The guitar introduction to 'Layla' has something of that 'What is that?!quality. So does the introduction to 'Like a Rolling Stone'. None of it has anything to do with 'liking the sound', but everything to do with blowing lids off things.

So I feel that the real distinction is between music that says 'here is a sound you might like', and music that says, 'Here is an enriching world I invite you to enter; I will show you something wonderful/amazing/beautiful/scary (etc)'. I'm not convinced yet that any one type (pop, or classical, or 'atonal honking') has a monopoly on either.

[jochanaan]

...I'm still worried about this 'depth' issue, although I can see it might be one way of approaching these differences. But the difference I experience doesn't seem to be like that. When I first heard them, the first few bars of Sibelius's 1st symphony hit me like a coldly mysterious wind from the north, like nothing I'd experienced before. It was nothing to do with development (at least, I wasn't aware of any in such a short space of time), nothing to do with harmony or orchestration (there's only a clarinet playing). It was a new kind of perception - not like a new depth, but like a new window.

What I then discovered as I listened, is that the view through this window is intriguing, and makes me feel things I couldn't feel, unaided. This takes us into your territory of development and so on. But that first, crucial opening of the window - that's where the real perceptive leap is done. And it seems to me that some pop music can achieve it. The guitar introduction to 'Layla' has something of that 'What is that?!quality. So does the introduction to 'Like a Rolling Stone'. None of it has anything to do with 'liking the sound', but everything to do with blowing lids off things.

So I feel that the real distinction is between music that says 'here is a sound you might like', and music that says, 'Here is an enriching world I invite you to enter; I will show you something wonderful/amazing/beautiful/scary (etc)'. I'm not convinced yet that any one type (pop, or classical, or 'atonal honking') has a monopoly on either.

Musical "depth," to me, means that much of my being responds to music.  If only my intellect is engaged, or only my body, either there is no "depth" present or I'm not sensing it--but if my intellect, emotions and even my physical body respond, that is depth, inherent or experienced.  You apparently responded to Sibelius 1 on a deep level, but you haven't responded to certain other music in that way--yet.

[Elgarian]

You apparently responded to Sibelius 1 on a deep level, but you haven't responded to certain other music in that way--yet.

That's clearly true - not just for me, but for most of us, I imagine. But what I was really hoping to highlight was not how I respond (within all those inevitable personal limitations), but how different types of music seem to invite me to respond in a certain way ('Hey! Look at this!'), and whether one particular kind of music has a monopoly on those invitations.

Those 'window opening' revelations I mention (such as the one I associate with the clarinet intro to Sibelius 1) don't seem to have anything to do with such things as 'complexity'. I don't actually know what gives them that perception-changing character. I do think, though, that when we compare notes like this we often imagine we're talking about the same thing when we're not. It's impossible to try to express these subjective 'felt' experiences without risk of misunderstanding - even though it's the essential and life-enhancing nature of those experiences that brings us here to compare notes in the first place.

[Franco]

Those 'window opening' revelations I mention (such as the one I associate with the clarinet intro to Sibelius 1) don't seem to have anything to do with such things as 'complexity'.

I don't know if complexity is a factor at all, for any revelation, understanding, or enjoyment of any music.  Some of the strongest "window opening" moments for me have occurred form hearing a singer and guitar.  I certainly do not think that it is complexity that I was describing in contrasting pop with classical music.  It is more about the different compositional techniques, and how in one case, there are different levels of writing and in the other really one level, possibly two with the lyrical aspect.

Music is able to convey emotion in a way that no other art form can.  There is a mysterious quality in hearing a series of chords, a timbre, or a melody, or even a single tone by a clarinet, e.g., that causes me to feel something, and associate the music with possibly a memory, or a landscape, but primarily a feeling.

I sure don't think that classical music is "superior" to pop music because of its different manner of composition, since both can invoke an emotional response in me, and sometimes the response to a pop song (by pop song I include all forms of pop music, jazz, blues, folk, rock, etc.) is more immediate or stronger than to a classical work.

But I am aware of a difference in how these styles of music are put together and can appreciate them both for different reasons.  I am also aware that classical music offers more variety than pop music and also does not tend to exhaust my interest as quickly.  I can only surmise that this is because of the multileveled way it is put together.

All this is extremely personal and we all listen and react differently to music and I do not expect anyone to necessarily agree with everything or even anything I wrote.  It is not a zero sum game, and because it it is different for you does not negate anything I am trying to express, or vice versa.

[karlhenning]

Well, that's one of the things I love about music.  On the one hand, it's an object, a thing created which is external and has genuine traits of its own.  On the other, each of us responds to that object in a way which to some degree or other is probably unique.

[Elgarian]

Well, that's one of the things I love about music.  On the one hand, it's an object, a thing created which is external and has genuine traits of its own.  On the other, each of us responds to that object in a way which to some degree or other is probably unique.

True of all art, I should say. It's Duchamp's thing about the artist only doing 50% of the work, and the observer (listener/reader) does the rest. As long as we have our personal 50% to supply, we're all going to have different experiences of the same work. The astonishing thing, perhaps, is not that we differ when we compare notes with each other, but that so often we seem to able to make ourselves understood.

[jochanaan]

That's clearly true - not just for me, but for most of us, I imagine. But what I was really hoping to highlight was not how I respond (within all those inevitable personal limitations), but how different types of music seem to invite me to respond in a certain way ('Hey! Look at this!'), and whether one particular kind of music has a monopoly on those invitations.

It seems to me the invitation is always open.  How we respond depends both on how it is constructed and factors within us.

Those 'window opening' revelations I mention (such as the one I associate with the clarinet intro to Sibelius 1) don't seem to have anything to do with such things as 'complexity'. I don't actually know what gives them that perception-changing character.

Well, that is one of the great mysteries, isn't it?

I do think, though, that when we compare notes like this we often imagine we're talking about the same thing when we're not. It's impossible to try to express these subjective 'felt' experiences without risk of misunderstanding - even though it's the essential and life-enhancing nature of those experiences that brings us here to compare notes in the first place.

And yet I'd venture a guess that our experiences, diverse as they may be, share much in common.  Humans are diverse, but not that diverse.

[Elgarian]

All this is extremely personal and we all listen and react differently to music and I do not expect anyone to necessarily agree with everything or even anything I wrote.  It is not a zero sum game, and because it it is different for you does not negate anything I am trying to express, or vice versa.

Certainly not. When it comes to trying to understand what happens when we contemplate a work of art, I (like the rest of the human race) have more questions than answers. It's not a matter of trying to find out who's right, but a matter of comparing notes in order, one hopes, to advance one's thinking a little. 'How do I know what I think till I see what I say?' was one of Alice's most insightful comments.

[MN Dave]

Is it too isolated? Is it too big? Is it too small? Will the girls like it?

Sex, sex, sex...

[Elgarian]

Is it too small?

I don't know.

[karlhenning]

True of all art, I should say. It's Duchamp's thing about the artist only doing 50% of the work, and the observer (listener/reader) does the rest. As long as we have our personal 50% to supply, we're all going to have different experiences of the same work. The astonishing thing, perhaps, is not that we differ when we compare notes with each other, but that so often we seem to able to make ourselves understood.

Excellently observed.

[jowcol]

Elgarian-- kudos for those last few posts. I've wanted to jump into this thread, but I've been insanely busy.  I will say, however, that I've really enjoyed reading this, as it touches on many issues that are near and dear to my heart.  I particularly like the trend in the last couple of days about objectively discussing subjectivity and the user experience.  My general experience on music forums has been threads where lots of passionate debating resembles the proverb about the six blind men and the elephant. (They each touch a different part of the elephant, and are angry when the others describe the elephant differently than they do.)   I think a lot of the more heated debates on this (and other musical ) forums would be a lot more productive for all if we were objective about our subjectivity, and devoted more to the "other 50%"

The Duchamp quote is great.  I've always felt that listening is not only a subjective experience, but also  that it is not a passive one.  When you listen, you need to have some sort of goal, and bring yourself into the equation.  I remember Copeland in his "Listening to Music" addressing how poorly developed "listeners" were.   it's a much more neglected art.  You should come out of listening to a piece of music with something more than you started with. 

I' ve been searching for common themes for "window opening" from my own experience.  One common theme for me is what I'll call "groove" music, for lack of a better name.   The music it put in this category is harmonically very simple (drones, vamps, etc) with more of an emphasis on modal exploration .  It often has repetitive elements.  It usually polyrythmic  or highly syncopated, but still has a clear pulst.  It fosters a general feeling more than any notion of development.  It typically stretches out for a long time, and is frequently improvised.

I've fallen for several different types of music that fits this pattern.

Hindustani classical blows my mind.  It lacks any real notion of harmony.  Yet, in some ways, it can take me much deeper than Beethoven. 

I've recently been on Fela Kuti binge-- (Afrobeat-- sort of like 10-30 minute James Brown meets pop and african drumming and jazz).  Almost all of his works follow the same pattern, but each time I listen to one I've heard before it sounds "new"

I had a major life changing experience when I heard John Coltrane's "Spiritual"-- in the first minute I knew this was a sound I'd always needed.  A lot of modal jazz moves me more than harmonically complex stuff (either bop or the really atonal free stuff)

I'm a big fan of Steve Reich's post phase stuff (like the music for 18 musicians).  Also like In C.

I had another Window opening experience when I first heard the West Side Chicago blues. Twelve bar chord patterns, 12/8 rhythm, endless possibilities. While you need to wade through a lot of garbage, I have about 100 hours of compilation material that is trance-worthy.

Yes, I'll confess I like some of the "jam bands".  It was a revelation to hear the Allman Brothers Elizabeth Reed, and some of their other instrumentals after not caring for their radio hits.   There improv portions have the same modal, rhythmic approach used in the Coltrane band (he was an influence) with heavy does of blues and psychedelia.

These all have something in common.   I read one book on the psychology of music where the author dwelt mostly on the cerebral and emotion responses to music, but he had one brief discussion on the "oceanic" response, where you felt engulfed by something much larger.  This response was not on the typical conscious or cerebral level.   The "groove" music examples I've cited above tend to create that response in me.

The one thing this music triggers in me the most is a feeling of freedom as a listener, to explore it differently each time, and make up my own melodic parts as I'm listening.   I believe it was Brian Eno who said that the minimalist music represented a shift from the narrative to more of a landscape.  It's like a BYOB party, or being able to explore yourself rather than sit through a guided tour.  When we speak about there being "added levels" of meaning to something like a Stravinsky composition, your still mentally traverse works like this in a more or less linear fashion, noting new relationships as you go along.  For Groove music, you have the feeling of infinite possibilities at each moment, and can traverse the work with a different approach each time. 

Is one better than the other? I can't make that judgement for anyone else, and I don't believe either is inherently better.  Sometimes you want hamburgers, sometimes you want Thai food.   Sometimes I'll put on some of my favorite groove music, get bored,  and turn if off.  If I'm not bringing what that music needs to the table at that point in time, it feels empty. And sometimes I'm in the mood to have a master composer take me on the guided tour.   

Oh well-- the meaning of this ramble was that when we discuss "depth" and added layers in music, this "depth"has many meanings. It is cerebrally rewarding?  Does it tap your emotions.  Or does it mess with the vary boundaries of your consciousness?  These are all flavors of "depth", and I strongly believe there is depth to be found and experience outside the "classical" designation.  (And that a lot of "deep" music has been developed and flourished outside the classical traditon.

The salt mines are calling.  I was going to respond to the initial discussion of the thread-- about the "isolation" between "classical" and "pop" and the goals of a composer-- but I'll need to table that for later.


Once again, Kudos to the Elgarian, for getting objective about subjectivity.   Something I've learned in the past is that you can really sharpen your listening skills (and experience) by hearing others talk about how they listen, even if the discussion is about music you can't stand!