Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!emory!mephisto!gatech!artsnet!mgresham
From: mgresham@artsnet.UUCP (Mark Gresham)
Newsgroups: comp.music
Subject: Re: Do you have to be a Musician to enjoy Music ?
Message-ID: <889@artsnet.UUCP>
Date: 3 Jul 90 14:14:56 GMT
References: <586@sdl.scs.com> <522@quad.sialis.mn.org> <4307@milton.u.washington.edu>
Reply-To: mgresham@artsnet.UUCP (Mark Gresham)
Organization: ARTSNET  Atlanta, GA  USA
Lines: 73

In article <4307@milton.u.washington.edu> allyn@milton.u.washington.edu (Allyn Weaks) writes:
>I hear many more details now, after a few years of reading about music
>history, learning to play an instrument, starting figured base realization,
>and whatever my teacher comes up with this week.  True, music that I used to
>like a lot a few years ago I mostly don't care for any more.  But that's
>because I've been spending lots more time _listening to details_ instead of
>just enjoying the surface reaction.

Orin Moe, one of the world-authorities on Haydn (look up his
articles in the Haydn yearbooks pointed out how many accomplished
listeners who enjoy very contemporary music miss out on a great
deal in Eliott Carter's music because the focus so much on the
details and completely miss the broad musical gestures).

>Now that I'm beginning to know in some
>detail what I really like, my tastes have changed drastically, from
>classical-romantic to a strong preference for early and modern music; I no
>longer feel the same emotions as I used to when I hear Beethoven.  Sure
>enough, knowledge makes you look at things differently.

Knowledge isn't the only thing that makes you look at things
differently.  However, Dan Adler's assertion was that a listener
is *INCAPABLE* of enjoying or appreciating music except through
intellectual activity.

>Some people want
>things to be, feel, sound, the same always.  So easy; so safe; so dull.  (Ah,

I would say that's true especially for the "pure intellectualist"
who wants all pieces of music to fit into one convenient set of
rules.  The problem, I think, is not one of development and use of
intellect while listening, but one of using "pure" intellect for
the purposes of "aesthetic enforcement," which, in Dan's case
appears to be more of a social issue than an aesthetic one, with
music as the scapegoat.

>The important part is indeed the _totality_; the emotional effect alone is not
>all there is to a piece of music.  The best thing about music is how big that
>totality is, and how many places it leads you to: harmony and form; history;
>physics and acoustics; building an instrument; coordinating with other people
>in an ensemble; typesetting; psychology and perception; snazzy synthesis
>algorithms; semantics arguments :-)  Even while I'm thinking about that stuff,
>I have no trouble 'getting lost' in Monteverdi, or Ligeti.  And it's all so
>much more fun now.

I agree with totality, and as much as that means not only
"emotional" it also means not only "intellectual." 
Nor does it mean primacy of intellectual knowledge, either.

I must say that over the last 15 years I've moved AWAY from
a highly intellectualized point of view, so I feel I can
justifiably argue against the primacy of the god Intellect the All-Holy.
I've been there before, and since moving away from it I've had a
much better time with music, and much deeper, richer, and more
meaningful musical experiences.  (No, that doesn't mean I think
music has semantic value! :-))  But then, I also have a different
concept of what constitutes "knowledge" nowadays.

Cheers,

--Mark

He was a physicist and computer-composer in his spare time.
Why was he so stupid?  Because he was of the opinion that the
only thing that will engage the intellect is measurement of
the relations between things?  When told his mind could change,
his response was, "How? Why?"
                             --John Cage
========================================
Mark Gresham  ARTSNET  Norcross, GA, USA
E-mail:       ...gatech!artsnet!mgresham
or:          artsnet!mgresham@gatech.edu
========================================