Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!aplcen!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!udel!princeton!pucc!ROGER
From: ROGER@pucc.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Newsgroups: comp.music
Subject: Re: Do you have to be a Musician to enjoy Music?
Message-ID: <11243@pucc.Princeton.EDU>
Date: 6 Jul 90 15:43:00 GMT
References: <2340@mindlink.UUCP>
Reply-To: ROGER@pucc.Princeton.EDU
Organization: Princeton University, NJ
Lines: 111
Disclaimer: Author bears full responsibility for contents of this article

In article <2340@mindlink.UUCP>, a739@mindlink.UUCP (Brad Couch) writes:

>> hm0w+@andrew.cmu.edu writes:

>> I don't think someone has to be a musician to "derive pleasure" from
>> music, nor to say "I like that music" or "I don't like that music."
>> But I do think one has to be a musician to try to rate the value of
>> music or to try to rate how good the musicians are.

>The only advantage in listening to music as a musician, is that you can
>appreciate how difficult the piece is to play.

True in the narrowest sense, but not otherwise.  Musicians tend to
have a great deal of experience listening to music, too; as a class,
they are perhaps more experienced than any other.

Also, difficulty is not the only thing one learns from playing a
piece.  (And besides, you don't need to be a pianist to know how
tough _Scarbo_ is.)  By MAKING the music, one gets a QUALITATIVELY
different listening experience out of it -- hearing other parts in
relation to one's own, if it's not soloist music, and gearing one's
whole body to the progress of the piece in time, in any case.  The
act of listening is forced into a much more active mode when one
plays and listens at the same time.

>A producer can appreciate the
>quality of the production, a songwriter can appreciate the craftsmanship in the
>songwriting and arrangements. An "uneducated" ear just hears music.

Or not, as the case may be.  Uneducated ears very often DON'T hear a
lot of the music, and DON'T recognize the relationships between parts
of a piece, for instance, or the relationship between words and sounds.

Musical education (done right, that is) is the sensitization of the
listener to these aspects.  Playing and singing is a good way to learn
this.

>What is the preoccupation with "the value of music"? Is there a general
>consensus that the more complex the piece or the more finely crafted the music
>is, the more value it holds?

No, and I don't think that's been claimed here.  I think what's been
said about experience and training refers to listening to ANY music.

>Is the opinion that musicians like complex music
>because of their advanced knowledge a common one?

No.  Musicians like GOOD music, i.e., music that holds their attention
through repeated playings.  It's a living, you know.

Well-written music is more likely to hold their attention.

If you think playing 300 Beethoven's 5ths in a lifetime is bad,
try 300 of a Dittersdorf symphony.

>I'd be inclined to say that
>some of the more intricate pieces of music around can only be appreciated by
>musicians, because the music is just not appealing on any other facet other
>than its complexity.

Name a few!  In fact, name some pieces that ARE only apreciated by
musicians.

>In short, the piece is appreciated less on aesthetic
>grounds and more because the player has to be a virtuoso.

Gee, and I always thought those pieces were the crowd-pleasers.  You
know, Liszt operatic transcriptions; the Vieuxtemps fiddle concerto;
Sarasate's Zigeunerweisen.

>Is this really
>desirable? Personally I don't think so, but there are obviously people who
>disagree with this...which is of course their opinion. They're entitled to it.

Well, perhaps you could make your opinion a little clearer.  I think
you've got several things confused.

>The bottom line is that whether or not you are a musician, you are still
>constrained by your personal opinions as to what music is good and what is
>crap.

"The only bad music is boring music."  -- Rossini

.... and musicians have much greater opportunities to get bored.
Moreover, experience and education will teach you to listen to pieces
that, without the proper preparation, you might find boring, simply
because you did not know the assumptions behind the piece.  If you
don't like a piece, make sure you've given the piece a chance, and
not just turned it off because you didn't immediately understand it.

You see, listening is not all of one quality either, just like music.
There are degrees of involvement, of activity.  Like playing, listening
is learned.  And getting musical training is often a good way to learn
to listen.

>Just because you might be able to play an instrument does not mean that
>you are any better at judging music because it all comes down to comparing it
>against your opinion....and absolutely everybody has one of those.

Well, so much for experience, for education, for learning background
information, for getting different points of view.  All opinions have
the same value, you say; not only do we start out naive, we STAY that
way.  I think you're going a little far with that assertion.

Do all OPINIONS really have the same value?  Is that true, say, in
politics?


Roger Lustig (ROGER@PUCC.BITNET roger@pucc.princeton.edu)

Disclaimer: I thought it was a costume party!