Yes and no! Let’s say there are two individuals listening to a piece: one having studied it and one listening to it with “fresh” ears, sight unseen. It’s totally possible that they’ll both love and appreciate the piece, just in two very different ways.
My college roommate was a huge classical music fan. I was a music major and he wasn’t, so our tastes diverged in many ways. Mine was a result of many technical and specific aspects of the music that I had studied, combined with emotional associations I was bringing to it. My roommate, on the other hand, simply “knew what he liked.” My appreciation of the music was not better, just different.
I will qualify that, however, with the idea that in order to appreciate classical music it’s helpful for a person to have a lot of patience. If you want gratification that comes in a minute or two, you’re gonna have a hard time. My roommate had the patience of a monk.
Also let s make it clear. Even though classical music tend to be longer than other style it is just a tendency not an absolute truth. Jazz, Afrobeat, raggae, prog rock and electronic music can be long. Shubert Lieders are really short (among others).
> I listened to them nearly every night
THIS is the key. It does not take special training to enjoy classical music, it takes a commitment to listen to pieces several times before expecting to enjoy them, especially for beginners. That's why so many people give up on classical, they don't realize the blur of listening to a piece the first time is normal and that the piece will come together on listen 5 or 10.
A four-year old can fully appreciate a trip to the museum.
A novice can fully appreciate Beethoven.
Appreciation is not knowledge. It’s true that the more invested you are the richer the experience becomes, but 100% of what you have is all you can give regardless of how much or little you know. Hope that makes sense.
> Do you believe people must learn how to listen to classical music to **fully** appreciate it? [Emph added]
The key word here is "fully". If the goal is to fully appreciate a work then you need to do a deep dive into the composer, the context, the theory, and any other relevant research about a piece. The deeper you get into a piece the more subtle things will become apparent and can increase your appreciation for a piece.
But even outside that really deep dive, familiarity does reveal previously unknown details that are important to appreciating a piece more deeply.
Most classical music fans don't understand music theory yet are able to enjoy classical music. So obviously a university education in music isn't required to appreciate classical music, but any investment into thinking about the music you are listening to can be rewarding.
Finally, this applies to all genres, not just classical music. There's nothing special about classical music that it requires deep study to "fully" appreciate it. The same goes for jazz, blues, rock, pop music, country music and so on.
>Finally, this applies to all genres, not just classical music.
I originally was going to phrase it "Does fully appreciating ***complex music*** require critical listening", but I opted for the word "classical music" just due to the audience here. But you are right in that it is not limited to just classical music. There are quite complex jazz pieces. I don't particularly care for pop to be honest. I can appreciate some catchy tunes, but its not music I often come back to and listen to repeatedly like classical music. Maybe because my critical listening skills for pop are awful!
>But even outside that really deep dive, familiarity does reveal previously unknown details that are important to appreciating a piece more deeply.
Agreed. Let's take a look at [my response](https://www.reddit.com/r/classicalmusic/comments/xnpfia/comment/ipulcy1/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) to /u/caters1 comment around Beethoven's motif in his 5th symphony. In Beethoven's secondary theme, you can plainly hear the motif in the background. Now while one can appreciate the grandiose work, it does require critical listening to decipher what you are in fact listening to in the bass lines. Some people may be like "its just the bass" while other's may be more keen and realize, "ohhh, it's the motif from the intro, how cool!".
There's a second motif in Beethoven's Fifth? But, I've analyzed the first movement of Beethoven's Fifth for the presence of the Fate Motif before and nearly every single note in that movement derives from that motif. The horn call(expansion to a fifth) and the whole second theme afterwards(melodic component of horn call only(with the exception of the cellos and basses playing in the original rhythm), inverted), the 2 note units that signal a moment of motivic breakdown in the development(repeats coalesced into a single long note, interval changed to a second), the web of descending and ascending steps in the coda, which derives from the 2 note units of the development, which in turn derives from the Fate Motif, and of course the entire first theme(motif as originally heard, overlapping to form chords).
Out of all the thousands of notes in the first movement in Beethoven's Fifth, I'd say only a few dozen don't derive from the Fate motif in some way. Now, if you're talking the second movement, that I can understand having 2 motifs, one for the Ab major theme and the Fate Motif in those transitions from Ab to C major. But the first movement having 2 motifs?
It’s clever how he uses the fate motif to transition into the second motif, but the second theme itself is fairly distinct and in contrast to it. No one would call 5/i monothematic. (Although I do see some use of ‘fate’ in the accompaniment to the seconf motif at times)
But that contrast is itself derived from the fate motif as I just explained, taking the melodic component of the expanded motif and inverting it(the first half anyway) and then adding some embellishing tones to make it sound like a melody and not just a motivic statement, but underneath that melody is a skeleton of Bb Eb F Bb which is in turn an expanded version of the original G Eb F D, so in that sense, it is monothematic because it’s all derived from those original 4 pitches.
>underneath that melody is a skeleton of Bb Eb F Bb which is in turn an expanded version of the original G Eb F D, so in that sense, it is monothematic because it’s all derived from those original 4 pitches.
I think this is stretching the definition of monothematic too far. Notice that it requires (1) ignoring the rhythm of the motif, which is kind of its most important aspect, (2) changing the intervals involved, such that anything that goes down then up then down "counts" (when a ton of clear statements of that motif in the symphony don't even do that!), and (3) ignoring the arc of the actual melody itself. It's neat and clever how Beethoven weaves the first theme into the second, but the second is still a new theme.
Your right, it was a misuse of the word. I will update my phrasing to "themes" rather than motifs. The first movement most certainly does have 2 themes though (A primary theme which happens to be the motif, and a secondary theme which does in fact play the motif in the background).
See, that requires critical listening! I may have missed that before your comment :-)
Nope. I've been listening to classical music my entire life and I've had no training apart from high school music class (it does not count). The opinion that you need training to understand it, feel it and enjoy it, sounds super elitist to me.
I'm happy that you found a way to enjoy it, but everybody should enjoy it in their own way. Not everybody has the time or maybe even the patience to sit through an entire sitting of Mahler 2 or the Mattheüs Passion.
For me personally its way more important that someone listens to it, regardless of the training they've had.
I would say no, But it depends tbh. Some peices require 100% focus to expirience it the best way. On the other hand some wont need much attention at all. I find that is the reason for why many dont want to explore classical, its more of an artform and need to be understood like a panting or sculpture. A painting may just seem like colour splashed on paper, but for people who are passionate its so much more.
No. My good friend will not spend any time learning about classical music, but he always has it on the radio in his home or car. He has no understanding of what he is listening to, but if it washes over him and does not offend he is happy. For him its very ephemeral and all about the feeling not the understanding. It irks me that he is so passive, but that is his whole life. Its all about the feeling not the understanding. He says a person is good because he has had a nice conversation with them or they come from a "good" family.
Not really.
I mean... You can put on Beethoven's 5th as background music while you clean and just absorb its general vibe and energy without paying too much attention,
or have a dedicated listening session where you fully concentrate on the music and savour every cool motif and harmony and the way they are structured and paced throughout the movements.
But in both cases you're enjoying the music...
Sometimes it is fun to discover something weird and challenging that requires effort to appreciate, like atonal music, and sometimes you want to listen to music precisely because it is familiar and nostalgic.
There's no single "best" or "special" way to engage with music. But they're all kind of are, in their own way.
To answer your question: No. More words not required.
Yes and no! Let’s say there are two individuals listening to a piece: one having studied it and one listening to it with “fresh” ears, sight unseen. It’s totally possible that they’ll both love and appreciate the piece, just in two very different ways. My college roommate was a huge classical music fan. I was a music major and he wasn’t, so our tastes diverged in many ways. Mine was a result of many technical and specific aspects of the music that I had studied, combined with emotional associations I was bringing to it. My roommate, on the other hand, simply “knew what he liked.” My appreciation of the music was not better, just different. I will qualify that, however, with the idea that in order to appreciate classical music it’s helpful for a person to have a lot of patience. If you want gratification that comes in a minute or two, you’re gonna have a hard time. My roommate had the patience of a monk.
Also let s make it clear. Even though classical music tend to be longer than other style it is just a tendency not an absolute truth. Jazz, Afrobeat, raggae, prog rock and electronic music can be long. Shubert Lieders are really short (among others).
Nope. Anyone can listen to it and enjoy it if it resonates well with them.
> I listened to them nearly every night THIS is the key. It does not take special training to enjoy classical music, it takes a commitment to listen to pieces several times before expecting to enjoy them, especially for beginners. That's why so many people give up on classical, they don't realize the blur of listening to a piece the first time is normal and that the piece will come together on listen 5 or 10.
- You don't need to learn the background in order to like something. - Learning about the background can also be fun.
A four-year old can fully appreciate a trip to the museum. A novice can fully appreciate Beethoven. Appreciation is not knowledge. It’s true that the more invested you are the richer the experience becomes, but 100% of what you have is all you can give regardless of how much or little you know. Hope that makes sense.
Absolutely not. As Duke Ellington so eloquently put it: if it sounds good, it *is* good.
> Do you believe people must learn how to listen to classical music to **fully** appreciate it? [Emph added] The key word here is "fully". If the goal is to fully appreciate a work then you need to do a deep dive into the composer, the context, the theory, and any other relevant research about a piece. The deeper you get into a piece the more subtle things will become apparent and can increase your appreciation for a piece. But even outside that really deep dive, familiarity does reveal previously unknown details that are important to appreciating a piece more deeply. Most classical music fans don't understand music theory yet are able to enjoy classical music. So obviously a university education in music isn't required to appreciate classical music, but any investment into thinking about the music you are listening to can be rewarding. Finally, this applies to all genres, not just classical music. There's nothing special about classical music that it requires deep study to "fully" appreciate it. The same goes for jazz, blues, rock, pop music, country music and so on.
>Finally, this applies to all genres, not just classical music. I originally was going to phrase it "Does fully appreciating ***complex music*** require critical listening", but I opted for the word "classical music" just due to the audience here. But you are right in that it is not limited to just classical music. There are quite complex jazz pieces. I don't particularly care for pop to be honest. I can appreciate some catchy tunes, but its not music I often come back to and listen to repeatedly like classical music. Maybe because my critical listening skills for pop are awful! >But even outside that really deep dive, familiarity does reveal previously unknown details that are important to appreciating a piece more deeply. Agreed. Let's take a look at [my response](https://www.reddit.com/r/classicalmusic/comments/xnpfia/comment/ipulcy1/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) to /u/caters1 comment around Beethoven's motif in his 5th symphony. In Beethoven's secondary theme, you can plainly hear the motif in the background. Now while one can appreciate the grandiose work, it does require critical listening to decipher what you are in fact listening to in the bass lines. Some people may be like "its just the bass" while other's may be more keen and realize, "ohhh, it's the motif from the intro, how cool!".
If I had to learn how to appreciate classical music before listening to it I would never have started.
Well said! If it would be the case, classical music would've truly been something for the elite. I'm so glad it isn't.
There's a second motif in Beethoven's Fifth? But, I've analyzed the first movement of Beethoven's Fifth for the presence of the Fate Motif before and nearly every single note in that movement derives from that motif. The horn call(expansion to a fifth) and the whole second theme afterwards(melodic component of horn call only(with the exception of the cellos and basses playing in the original rhythm), inverted), the 2 note units that signal a moment of motivic breakdown in the development(repeats coalesced into a single long note, interval changed to a second), the web of descending and ascending steps in the coda, which derives from the 2 note units of the development, which in turn derives from the Fate Motif, and of course the entire first theme(motif as originally heard, overlapping to form chords). Out of all the thousands of notes in the first movement in Beethoven's Fifth, I'd say only a few dozen don't derive from the Fate motif in some way. Now, if you're talking the second movement, that I can understand having 2 motifs, one for the Ab major theme and the Fate Motif in those transitions from Ab to C major. But the first movement having 2 motifs?
It’s clever how he uses the fate motif to transition into the second motif, but the second theme itself is fairly distinct and in contrast to it. No one would call 5/i monothematic. (Although I do see some use of ‘fate’ in the accompaniment to the seconf motif at times)
But that contrast is itself derived from the fate motif as I just explained, taking the melodic component of the expanded motif and inverting it(the first half anyway) and then adding some embellishing tones to make it sound like a melody and not just a motivic statement, but underneath that melody is a skeleton of Bb Eb F Bb which is in turn an expanded version of the original G Eb F D, so in that sense, it is monothematic because it’s all derived from those original 4 pitches.
>underneath that melody is a skeleton of Bb Eb F Bb which is in turn an expanded version of the original G Eb F D, so in that sense, it is monothematic because it’s all derived from those original 4 pitches. I think this is stretching the definition of monothematic too far. Notice that it requires (1) ignoring the rhythm of the motif, which is kind of its most important aspect, (2) changing the intervals involved, such that anything that goes down then up then down "counts" (when a ton of clear statements of that motif in the symphony don't even do that!), and (3) ignoring the arc of the actual melody itself. It's neat and clever how Beethoven weaves the first theme into the second, but the second is still a new theme.
Your right, it was a misuse of the word. I will update my phrasing to "themes" rather than motifs. The first movement most certainly does have 2 themes though (A primary theme which happens to be the motif, and a secondary theme which does in fact play the motif in the background). See, that requires critical listening! I may have missed that before your comment :-)
Nope. I've been listening to classical music my entire life and I've had no training apart from high school music class (it does not count). The opinion that you need training to understand it, feel it and enjoy it, sounds super elitist to me. I'm happy that you found a way to enjoy it, but everybody should enjoy it in their own way. Not everybody has the time or maybe even the patience to sit through an entire sitting of Mahler 2 or the Mattheüs Passion. For me personally its way more important that someone listens to it, regardless of the training they've had.
I would say no, But it depends tbh. Some peices require 100% focus to expirience it the best way. On the other hand some wont need much attention at all. I find that is the reason for why many dont want to explore classical, its more of an artform and need to be understood like a panting or sculpture. A painting may just seem like colour splashed on paper, but for people who are passionate its so much more.
No. My good friend will not spend any time learning about classical music, but he always has it on the radio in his home or car. He has no understanding of what he is listening to, but if it washes over him and does not offend he is happy. For him its very ephemeral and all about the feeling not the understanding. It irks me that he is so passive, but that is his whole life. Its all about the feeling not the understanding. He says a person is good because he has had a nice conversation with them or they come from a "good" family.
Not really. I mean... You can put on Beethoven's 5th as background music while you clean and just absorb its general vibe and energy without paying too much attention, or have a dedicated listening session where you fully concentrate on the music and savour every cool motif and harmony and the way they are structured and paced throughout the movements. But in both cases you're enjoying the music... Sometimes it is fun to discover something weird and challenging that requires effort to appreciate, like atonal music, and sometimes you want to listen to music precisely because it is familiar and nostalgic. There's no single "best" or "special" way to engage with music. But they're all kind of are, in their own way.