Coming up on Tuesday, October 8th, a discussion of “Fall for Dance” and Gould pp. 137-157 will be informed by your questions and comments on the following pieces:
- Aaron Copland, What to Listen for in Music, Chapters 1-3;
- Lawrence Kramer, “Classical Music and Its Values”
- Francis Sparshott, “Aesthetics of Music—Limits and Grounds” (Part 1, pp. 33-49)
Because this is a heavy reading week, you get to decide whether to respond to these texts or those for Thursday, which will be in another post. Technically speaking, I believe groups 2 and 4 are responsible for kicking off the conversation by posting questions (in either place) this week — but if you have ideas or thoughts that you’re ready to post, don’t let the technicalities stop you!
See you in one place or the other,
Ben
Aaron Copland highlights the components of “true listening” to music in “What to Listen for in Music.” The key to listening to music, according to Copland, is listening itself. He believes that people don’t really listen to music that they just hear it rather. He categorizes our listening to three planes: sensuous, expressive, and sheerly musical. He associates unique flaws with each plane. In the sensuous plane he says “we hear music without thinking.” The expressive plane causes us to “read different meanings.” We basically get “carried away” with trying to define music when it is really difficult to give it a concrete definition. Lastly there’s the sheerly musical plane in which we “chain” music to “terms of the notes themselves and of their manipulation.” Here we tend to focus a little too much on the technicalities. Now let’s bring ourselves into this “realm” of planes. Do we as individuals tend to just listen to music from the aspects that arise from the planes Copland discussed? Which one of these plane or planes do you see yourself under at least most of the time? How do you listen to music in general? Through any of the ways mentioned above or in a different way?
Through “Classical Music and Its Values” Lawrence Kramer ponders upon the issue that classical music is “disappearing” in current society. He contrast this to the past, citing that “You would never guess that fifty years ago the music was flourishing on the strength of a recent invention.” What seemed so popular and long lasting in the past is just an “endangered species” now. He goes on to wonder why. One of the key causes that Kramer pointed out is that “people are generally less knowledge-able about it than they were even a generation ago.” To be fair he also acknowledges the possible causes rooted within classical music itself. One reason Kramer cited was “that classical music really supported condescending and authoritarian and pompous and moralistic attitudes.” He agreed that if such attitudes were promoted through music he would stay away too. This lead me to think: “why don’t I and most people in my generation listen to classical music?” Although that is a valid question the general factors that cause us to listen to or not listen to a certain type of music is more important. For those who don’t listen to classical music (or listen to it on a minimum) do the negative attitudes mentioned above influence your choice? Can you put yourselves into any of the scenarios Kramer mentioned? And for those who listen to classical music, what makes you listen to it? What do you think supposedly makes classical music “extinct” in your generation and current society as whole?
In “Aesthetics of Music—Limits and Grounds” by Francis Sparshott explores the idea of music being categorized under aesthetics. He branches on to various issues that may result from considering music aesthetics but his most standout point (in my opinion) seemed to be his opinion that the concept of music under aesthetics promotes the notion that music exists solely for pleasure. According to Sparshott, “the general aesthetics of music is a study of the forms of perceptible order available to music in terms of which works of music can be understood, appreciated, and enjoyed… It assumes that music exists to be appreciated.” This brings us back to our discussions based off of many other readings on whether art is meant to be appreciated by the viewers. Although our previous discussions revolved around art, the points that came up can be used here. Does music really fall under the category of aesthetics? Can calling music a form of aesthetics ruin it’s meaning or value? Ultimately does music have to be appreciated “aesthetically” in order to be considered music?
I agree that people listen to music in the territory of these three planes; he is right in saying we “correlate them–listening in all three ways at the same time. It takes no mental effort, for we do it instinctively.” Though I am of course under all three planes, I am usually leaning more towards the second, expressive plane. Although I have been trying to keep myself in check as of late, I used to only look at music with an almost practical attitude. I would always ask myself, “what does this mean? How does it relate to my life?” I’m starting to try and intermix more of a sensuous attitude. Not in which I am passively or inattentively listening, but rather in which I’m not so concerned over finding some sort of meaning. If you simply listen to the music for the music’s sake, the meaning will come to you.
I listen to classical music because I believe it has much more to offer than today’s pop music. There is something about classical music that once you really start listening to it or learning about it, it’s difficult to just forget about it. Besides, it is so diverse over the various styles and periods. It can appear dauntingly intricate at first, but upon further insight, it completely simplifies. Also, as a guitarist, there’s something almost otherworldly about connecting with a piece that I simply can’t reach when playing the chords to a song on the radio. I don’t believe classical music is extinct at all; I just think it’s not as pervasive in all sects of society as it once was when there weren’t so many options of music out there. Of course one reason that people choose pop music over classical is, as I’ve already explained in another comment, that it’s simply easier to listen to. Pop music provides cheap entertainment while doing menial chores and tasks such as laundry, or patching up holes in clothes. One’s view on classical music and its popularity really depends on the sort of people he associates himself with. For instance, I went to an arts high school and spent my Saturdays in a preparatory program at a conservatory; therefore, it comes as a surprise to me that some people think classical music is on the decline. However, if I consider the people I know from outside high school or my music school, none of them really listen to classical music, which makes sense because they’ve never really been exposed to it.
I think that anything that can be appreciated aesthetically can indeed fall under the category of aesthetics. I do not think that this title ruins music in any sense. If anything, it enhances it and protects it from such notions like it being wholly based on that which is more concrete and closed to interpretation, such as mathematics. Music does not have to be appreciated aesthetically in order to be considered music, but aesthetically appreciating it makes it worthwhile music. Otherwise, what is separating it from our scholarly pursuits in which there are always right and wrong answers?
Like Eve, I also appreciate classical music, but in a different light. I don’t appreciate classical music through listening to it as much, but through how I dance. To briefly explain, there are two types of belly dancing: Modern and Classic. Modern belly dancing usually has hints of other dance styles and uses more props while Classical belly dancing is much more improvisational and focuses more on the dancer “connecting” with the music rather than just doing it for purely entertainment value.
The same can be seen with modern pop music versus classical music. The “props” would be, like Eve said, the autotune and other tools that make a song more “fake” in a sense. I know that when I listen to modern music, I almost always find a connection to another song (usually 80’s music), which shows the lack in originality that classical music seemed to emphasize.
To compare the “connection” aspect, you only need to think of the lyrics of modern day music. Most of it focuses on a club, bedroom, or other setting in which the singer is either trying to pick up a guy/girl or breaking up with said guy/girl. Where have the songs gone that focus on actually serenading someone instead of simply wanting to “get” with them? To be honest, it’s sad that music has seemed to downgrade as the years go by.
To truly appreciate the art of music, “nothing is more important than [to] listen to it,” according to Aaron Copland. In this piece, Copland writes that people nowadays have more opportunities to hear music than ever before, and although some people may feel a sense of “inferiority” when considering their musical reactions, Copland reassures us that most people (besides those who are tone-deaf) have the capability of appreciating music. According to Copland, to truly appreciate a musical composition you have to hear it multiple times, “because music which always says the same thing to you will necessarily soon become dull music, but music whose meaning is slightly different with each hearing has a greater chance of remaining alive.” To what extent do you agree with Copland? Do you think that because a piece of music relays the same message or experience to you each time you hear it makes it dull over time, or is this something that you might enjoy about a composition (it’s consistency and clearness, arguably)? Copland also highlights the barrier that language creates in speaking of our musical reactions, stating that even “most musical novices still search for specific words with which to pin down their musical reactions” and also goes on to warn us that we will also soon ”realize that the more beautiful a theme seems to [us] the harder it is to find any word that will describe it to [our] complete satisfaction.” Do you agree with Copland that unlike with reading a novel or with watching a play, our experience with music covers a different dimension of response to which words and thoughts aren’t satisfactory to explain our experiences with music?
The article that Lawrence Kramer wrote titled: “Classical Music and Its Values” initially paints a more pessimistic environment on the world of classical music, going on to compare it to a dying species. Considering that classical music is so rarely given attention to by mainstream media outlets, this comes as no surprise. What do you think the reasons are for this? Do you think that classical music is dying? Do lyrics and a human voice in a song make a musical experience more enjoyable? Kramer seemed to develop a hopeful tone for the revival of classical music in the future; this may seem very possible because of the idea that Copland mentioned in his writing that more people have access to music than ever before. So, if nowadays we have such a wide range of songs to listen to, why do we not look to classical music as a popular music genre? Kramer blames this on the media and the shifting of history since the 18th century. Kramer’s hopeful tone suggests that classical music can have a place in the future. Do you agree with this notion? Do you think that classical music can be “revived” as a popular form of music, if yes, how?
I agree with Copland in the sense that music which relays the same message each time you hear it makes it almost insignificant in the grand scheme of things. I’m not saying that good music will dramatically change each time you hear it, but there will always be something small which shifts; there will always be at least one new nuance you’ve never heard before. This is something I love about music: a composition may be hundreds of years old, but you can hear a performer taking a totally different approach to the piece that you wouldn’t have thought of, and suddenly everything shifts. Consistency is nice, but it becomes stale very easily.
I also agree with Copland in his description of the way music often renders us unable to produce an accurate description of it as the feeling evoked is often too complex to be put into words. However, I believe that this can happen with a great play or novel as well. I find it very difficult to describe a lot of the good literature I’ve read beyond “it was amazing,” for how can one ever specifically convey that particular feeling of sparks for every sublimity one may reach in connecting with art?
I think that the advent of technology is to blame for the decreased interest in classical music. With auto-tune and EDM, people are being bombarded with so much music that is simply pleasing to the ear on a superficial level. No one has to think very hard or even pay very much attention in order to get out of this music its full potential. It is the same thing as comparing reading a summertime novel to Pushkin. People aren’t looking for enrichment but rather something to occupy their brains while waiting in a doctor’s office. In fact, that is why games like candy crush are so appealing. They provide instant gratification of moving onto another level, similar to a catchy tune in the latest pop hit-single, and one can easily put it down in order to immerse themselves in that which they consider more important, like their careers or social lives. It is a shame that these people most likely just don’t know what they’re missing. That being said, I certainly do not think that classical music is dying. From my experience, there is still a huge population that appreciates and enjoys it. At the very least, even if people haven’t been exposed to classical music, they are at least open to the idea of exploring it.
I don’t think that classical music will ever be on the level of popularity as the music which one can hear on z100 today, simply because of the increased effort it demands. In order to truly take everything that a classical piece has to offer, one must be totally immersed in it. I, for one, cannot shop for groceries while listening to Bach. I can, however, shop while listening to the radio. With the fast-paced world that we live in, the radio is simply the fastest, easiest way to get one’s fix of music. Like all things that are fast and easy, however, it is also of the lowest quality. I do think that keeping classical music alive is simply a manner of taking an evening off and just listening to it, or attending a concert. At the very least, one can perpetuate it by playing it around the house so one’s kids can get accustomed to it.
To what extent do you agree with Copland? Do you think that because a piece of music relays the same message or experience to you each time you hear it makes it dull over time, or is this something that you might enjoy about a composition (it’s consistency and clearness, arguably)?
I completely agree with Copland that music that relays the same message to you often becomes dull after repetitive listening, whereas a piece that makes you feel differently every time seems to reach you on a higher level. I believe these pieces that reach you on a higher level are what we often call “classics.” These songs seem timeless and affect us no matter how old we are or what we are going through. What we find in these songs is not a clear and consistent message but a message that is flexible and molds to our situation, comforting us or lifting us. These are usually the songs that we remember years later and chose to play at important events.
Do you agree with Copland that unlike with reading a novel or with watching a play, our experience with music covers a different dimension of response to which words and thoughts aren’t satisfactory to explain our experiences with music?
I also agree with Copland that music often reaches us on a level or makes us feel things that we cannot find words for. However, naturally as humans we attempt to express these emotions or something close to them anyway. I believe this is what we can refer to as sublimity, an emotion so unlike any other that we cannot describe it. It is perhaps because music unlike literature does not state anything, it is merely the use of sound to attempt to make a statement, nothing is said explicitly. Therefore, what we feel is not always an explicit feeling but one we reach implicitly perhaps because of our own experience or emotional state.
“because music which always says the same thing to you will necessarily soon become dull music, but music whose meaning is slightly different with each hearing has a greater chance of remaining alive.”
To what extent do you agree with Copland? Do you think that because a piece of music relays the same message or experience to you each time you hear it makes it dull over time, or is this something that you might enjoy about a composition (it’s consistency and clearness, arguably)?
-I disagree that because a piece of music relays the same message or experience to you each time you hear it makes it dull over time; I feel the “dullness” attributed to the music is a result of the listener’s disengagement rather than the quality of the music. If Copland’s statement that music with flexible meaning holds true, then why is it that the ever redundant and simplistic (that is compared to the grand symphonic compositions of classical music) pop music is so popular in today’s society? My personal opinion is, once again, that it is the listeners that change the importance and dynamic of a piece of music. The utilitarian value of art is what shifts it’s popularity in society. Because art is always reflective of the current society and its emphasis on what is most important at the time, it is no surprise that our music has evolved to serve our need of instant gratification, that of which we find infesting our art, ethics, and life style. Where decisions are made with a horse-blinder focus on immediate results lacking discipline to seek greater fulfillment.
Do you agree with Copland that unlike with reading a novel or with watching a play, our experience with music covers a different dimension of response to which words and thoughts aren’t satisfactory to explain our experiences with music?
I agree that sometimes we can be at awe with a work of art, be it visual or audio, but that is because you are dealing with an entity that is absent of words. The subjective element of expressing personal experience with music is in and of itself something arbitrary, thus, it is true that “our experience with music covers a different dimension of response to which words and thoughts aren’t satisfactory to explain our experiences .” HOwever, that is not to say that after a great novel or play, our thoughts and intellect isn’t as stimulated to the same extent. It is merely a issue of what is being stimulated and how they trigger different expression mechanism.
1. According to Aaron Copland in What to Listen for in Music, “You can’t develop a better appreciation of the art merely by reading a book about it…you can do nothing more important than listen to it.” My question is: Is having a better knowledge of music allow for one to be able to listen to music, for lack of a better word, better? In the sense of having background knowledge to base your listening experience on.
2. Kramer states that classical music “gives us a vision of authentic subjectivity,” and “gives us an ideal vision of what we may be.” Do you believe that this goal is only attainable by listening to classical music alone or can it be achieved by listening to any music in general?
3. Francis Sparshott describes that “works of music can be understood, appreciated and enjoyed,” and “that music exists to be appreciated.” Do you agree with this statement or not and why?
1.My question is: Is having a better knowledge of music allow for one to be able to listen to music, for lack of a better word, better? In the sense of having background knowledge to base your listening experience on.
I do agree with Copland that we must listen to music to better appreciate music, and not just read about it. I think having background knowledge is beneficial to understand music however, Copland also says that listening to music requires talent and the ability to open oneself up to musical experience, the ability to open oneself up to musical experience. Learning about music does allow people to understand music, but it is more important to be able to able to enjoy the music and also analyze it at the same time.
3.Francis Sparshott describes that “works of music can be understood, appreciated and enjoyed,” and “that music exists to be appreciated.” Do you agree with this statement or not and why?
I do agree with Sparshott that “works of music can be understood, appreciated and enjoyed” however, I do not agree “that music exists to be appreciated.” Although most music now a days exists to please people and is more visually appealing than is musically, there are music that are made to send messages to people. Music ignites different feelings in people and some may like it and some may not, but the intention of the artist is not to create something that is appreciated by others.
I like what Kramer writes on page 24: “Because we always hear the music in transition between its ideal and its actual sound, everything we hear is full of a specific potentiality that the music makes actual as it goes along.” This quote reminds me of Plato’s Theory of Forms, in that it makes a distinction between the “ideal” and the “actual.” The stand that Kramer makes is that the system of classical music is constructed so that there exists a “metaphorical space that the music and the listener can occupy together” in which the listener can absorb all of the benefits of classical music. It has been argued that free will is making the choice when your earthly self and your soul conflict – if so, if we extend this notion (the soul being ideal and the earthly self being actual), we could contest the Theory of Forms which states that the ideal is a higher reality. In fact, the humanness of our liminality, and humanity’s and individuals’ places between the two, the conflicts between earth and heaven, body and soul, ideal and actual, and the culminated synthesis of the two, is the only reality that should be.
Bringing it back to classical music, this means that the difference between the ideal performance and the actual performance, the space of “specific potentiality,” is the tool we use examine and change ourselves.
Copland discusses the “question of inspiration” in regards to composing. He answers that most the man who asks this “forgets that composing to a composer is like fulfilling a natural function… it is something that the composer happens to have been born to do… and, because of that, it loses the character of a special virtue in the composer’s eyes.”
Since I am not a composer and cannot assess the validity of Copland’s statement, I’ll have to take it as fact. In this case, I was wondering what everyone else thought about this. When you are doing something that you were “born to do,” does partaking in it not have a special significance? Copland wrote the composer asks not “Do I feel inspired?” but “Do I feel like composing?” Do you ask yourself the same types of questions when you draw, or compete athletically, or whatever it is that you do? These questions also beg the question, how different is the creative process of composers when contrasted with those of scientists, painters, and architects? If at all, that is.
I must agree with Copeland and you on this assertion that “composing to a composer is like…something that the composer happens to have been born to do…and, because of that, it loses the character of a special virtue in the composer’s eyes,” based on what I have learned so far in psychology about the subconscious and the conscious. When a person expresses a routine behavior, it eventually moves from the conscious to the unconscious, that is, it becomes almost instinct. When this happens, it does lose out on its special quality for the person conducting this behavior. However, that is not to say that it is not special at all. For a person who is not a composer – or a scientist, artist, or architect, for that matter – it is truly amazing to see how these people go about their work.
If you take this concept of the subconscious and say that the creative process for a composer is no different than those of painters and architects, then you would be correct. However, you cannot say the same for scientists. The sciences are different in that the non-routine happens in science all the time. Even for a scientist, it is amazing to discover new things.
Sparshott says that the “whole system [of music] is artificial.” If I understand correctly, he is saying that choosing what frequency of sound is “A” is completely arbitrary, and since the whole system of notes is based on their separation in frequencies from each other, the whole system is arbitrary. Thus, music “is made from the materials the very nature of which is derived from the principles of the art.” I find this fascinating, since, as Sparshott mentions, no other art operates like this. What I don’t understand is why there is a saying that “all art aspires to the condition of music.” I understand the attraction in an art which is based entirely on human arbitration, but why should painting or sculpting aspire to the same basis? Is there not something in a painting of a still life that equals that, or is on the same level of that of a symphony? Or for that matter, a theatrical performance? Or a work of literature? Or poetry?