Understanding Music

[NatBalance]

I asked this question many years ago but it still puzzles me, the term 'understanding' music. I keep hearing it used and eventually it gets to a point where I just have to have another blast at it. What is this business of understanding music?

The last straw this time was here on Essential Classics soon after 1:11:30:- https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000lmh0 Parts of the Faure he doesn't understand. What does that mean? I cannot see that that is the right word. What is there to understand?

I have never ever used that word to describe my feelings about music. I like, dislike, or am indifferent to certain music, or certain parts of music, but as to why I like, dislike, or am indifferent has nothing at all to do with any kind of understanding of the music. To me it's like saying I don't understand a piece of cake.

The reasons for feelings towards music I think are down to our biology and psychology. Over time nostalgia plays a part aswell. Certain pieces of music have meaning behind them, they tell a story, many don't. Whether or not you know what that story is, or why the piece was composed should not alter whether you like or dislike it. I have never found it does.

The nearest I get to using that word is when there are certain parts of a piece that I don't like I therefore do not understand why the composer has done that, but to say I don't understand those parts of the piece is bit of a funny way of putting it. I would say "I don't understand why the composer has done that there because it doesn't sound good". It's all about the sound in the end after all. To compare with my 'cake' analogy, it's like if there was something about a piece of cake I didn't like, instead of saying "The cake's nice but I don't like the jam" I say "The cake's nice but I don't understand the jam".

Is that what the fella meant in my link above? There were certain parts of the Faure that he wasn't too keen on and didn't understand why the composer had done it that way.

Rich

[Rjw]

It all depends on how big the piece of cake is.

[Dave2002]

Or whether you want to have your cake and eat it.

[Pulcinella]

Or maybe he should read Antony Hopkins' book, Understanding Music:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Understanding-Music-Antony-Hopkins/dp/1849550336

[Richard Barrett]

It's perfectly possible to appreciate music without understanding it. Another way of saying that is that it's perfectly possible to understand music on such a superficial level that one doesn't get as far as articulating (even to oneself) how and why one is attracted to it. What I find hard to understand is the idea that understanding somehow doesn't apply to music, as to so many other things! To take an example of from the shelf in front of me, Susan Youens's Retracing a Winter's Journey is a 350-page book about Schubert's Winterreise. What is it that motivates the writing of such a book? The author could have just said "I like this piece although there are some bits of it I like more than others, which are..." etc., but what she actually wanted to do was express her understanding of this work so that others might understand it better, and in so doing, appreciate it more deeply.

[Quarky]

The reasons for feelings towards music I think are down to our biology and psychology. Over time nostalgia plays a part as well. Certain pieces of music have meaning behind them, they tell a story, many don't. Whether or not you know what that story is, or why the piece was composed should not alter whether you like or dislike it. I have never found it does.


Rich

Yes, totally agreed Natters

Currently I'm restarting my Music mental processor, after a long period exploring music that was previously unfamiliar to me, and I find there are one or two basic home truths about enjoying music that it's easy to overlook, when the mind is tied up with the continuity or sequence of sounds, logical or otherwise, falling upon the ear. So I'm enjoying lots of music that was previously rejected.

However looking at professional composers through the centuries, e.g. Beethoven, how on earth did they compose all those wonderful works without imposing a very strict internal structure on the composition, which often times requires from the listener an appreciation of the structure or logical sequence before getting to one's basic like/dislike criteria??

[french frank]

What is this business of understanding music?

Let's give one very simple example: variations. To me it's fascinating to "understand" what the composer has done with the theme to arrive at what I'm listening to, to hear what they've done. But that is my personal reaction, my personal interest, and almost certainly dictates the kind of music i enjoy listening to. And probably the kind I'm not interested in. That example is very obvious because it definitely links what the composer was doing technically with what the listener can hear.

But judging from what other people say, my general relationship with music may be quite rare And I'd be fairly sure it isn't what other people mean by "understanding" music if that has some sort of universal meaning. I could cite aspects of Beethoven's A minor string quartet where I try to identify the sections inspired by what we know about Beethoven's intention.

Why do I even bother? Because it interests me. No one else has to do it. I could give other examples, but don't have a coherent philosophy. I am interested in why I like things and why I don't.

[Dave2002]

Having now listened to the programme which sparked off this thread, I find I'm in ways in agreement with Tom Poster - there is something very special about that Fauré piece. Hearing the opening of it produces an almost immediate reaction - very strong. A following work in the programme - Rossini's overture to La Cenerentola is "merely" pleasant and well put together, in comparison. Whether the word "understand" is appropriate - perhaps not. The question for me is really one of "I don't understand my own reaction to that piece" - and something which repeats over and over. My reaction to it will be different each time I hear it of course, but in essence the basics are the same every time. Other people will have their own personal questions, to raise about their own "understanding" of any musical work.

It is possible to understand different music in different ways - different ways of understanding, such as noticing Beethoven's use of numbers in lengths of phrases in his symphonies - but that's not a form of emotional understanding, rather an observation of a curiosity. I'm sure that many composers used a variety of tricks, and they were no doubt amused by them. Listeners to their music may have no understanding at all of what those tricks were, and probably don't care either.

I don't know why some music seems to have a much stronger emotional effect than others.

[rauschwerk]

I love the string quartets of Haydn and have listened to all of them many times from Op 20 onwards. Reading about the first movement of Op 50/1, I felt moved to try to understand it at a deeper level (beyond the fact that it's a sonata entirely based on the first four bars). I got hold of a score and the relevant Cambridge Music Guide. I read the essay several times and listened with the score but still found myself unable to grasp Haydn's compositional logic as expounded in the essay. I don't suppose he would have minded for a moment. If I were a composer or a quartet player it might help!

But I can still understand the music emotionally and at a basic structural level.

I shall listen to Tom Poster's programme with interest.

[NatBalance]

Or maybe he should read Antony Hopkins' book, Understanding Music:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Understandi.../dp/1849550336

Yes, maybe I should, thanks. I have often come across people who are not into classical music and they say it's because they "don't understand it". I say "What! You don't have to understand it anymore than you have to understand pop music. Do you like it?". I ask them what they feel when they hear certain classical music. Do you see any pictures in your minds eye? A place, an action. Classical music can paint pictures, it can depict a busy bee, a galoping horse, war, a peacefull sunny day in the countryside, dripping cathedrals of ice, menace, that's why it's used a lot as background music in films.

It's perfectly possible to appreciate music without understanding it.

Let's take a Chopin walze for example. What is there to understand about a Chopin walze? It's interesting to know his thinking as he was composing it, something about its structure perhaps, but as far as your appreciation of the piece is concerned if you said "I don't understand it" or "I do understand it", what does that mean?

I do not know Susan Youens's book on that Shubert music but it sounds like she is describing her understanding of how and why the piece was composed. That is a different thing, and yes it can add to your appreciation of the music or perhaps take away, although I think it would have to be pretty severe to alter whether I liked or disliked a piece. I am referring to when someone hears a piece of music and says they don't understand it, or parts of it. Apparently Holst said it of Vaughan Williams' Flos Campi on first hearing it. I think he said he liked it but did not understand it. It seems an odd thing to say. I can imagine saying "Mmmm, great piece, I'd like to know more about it". Yes, in order to understand how and why the piece was composed, and any meaning behind if there is one, always very interesting, and trying to understand why we like or dislike certain pieces, all very interesting, but that is a different subject, just like it is interesting to know what's behind the making of a certain cake recipy, and even understanding why our taste buds like some and not others, but as I've mentioned above, to say you do not understand a piece of music to me sounds just as odd as saying you don't understand a piece of cake.

[Pulcinella]

My posting was not meant to be as dismissive as it now comes across, and was certainly not meant as a slight on you, but more a 'happy coincidence' of book and thread title.

That said, I think you'll find much in the Hopkins that is of interest.

[rauschwerk]

Apparently Holst said it of Vaughan Williams' Flos Campi on first hearing it. I think he said he liked it but did not understand it. It seems an odd thing to say.

As I understand it, when composers discuss music among themselves, they tend to talk about technique. So maybe Holst was just saying he didn't get how the piece was put together. In any case, although Holst and RVW were close friends, their musics were not at all alike.

[rauschwerk]

The last straw this time was here on Essential Classics soon after 1:11:30:- https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000lmh0 Parts of the Faure he doesn't understand. What does that mean? I cannot see that that is the right word. What is there to understand?

... Is that what the fella meant in my link above? There were certain parts of the Faure that he wasn't too keen on and didn't understand why the composer had done it that way.

Rich

You can love a person and yet not fully understand them. Isn't it the same with music?

[edashtav]

It's perfectly possible to appreciate music without understanding it. Another way of saying that is that it's perfectly possible to understand music on such a superficial level that one doesn't get as far as articulating (even to oneself) how and why one is attracted to it. What I find hard to understand is the idea that understanding somehow doesn't apply to music, as to so many other things! To take an example of from the shelf in front of me, Susan Youens's Retracing a Winter's Journey is a 350-page book about Schubert's Winterreise. What is it that motivates the writing of such a book? The author could have just said "I like this piece although there are some bits of it I like more than others, which are..." etc., but what she actually wanted to do was express her understanding of this work so that others might understand it better, and in so doing, appreciate it more deeply.

That's illuminating and helpful. Thank you, Richard.

[Rolmill]

Seems to me that 'understanding' a piece of music essentially boils down to i) understanding the context (when and why was it written) and ii) understanding the technique (how was it written). These two aspects of understanding affect different listeners in different ways, so some are particularly interested in the circumstances of a piece's composition to enhance their appreciation, whereas others find the technical features (structure, key relationships, musical form etc) more helpful. No doubt an over-simplistic analysis!

Ref. Richard's mention of a book about Winterreise, as it happens I am working my way through Ian Bostridge's fascinating book about this song cycle - he attempts to cover both aspects of understanding, though with more emphasis on the context.