Understanding Music

[Joseph K]

Doesn't Hopkins really mean what is known as 'sprung rhythm' (my partner tells me!)?

Wouldn't that be Gerard Manley Hopkins?

[Pulcinella]

Wouldn't that be Gerard Manley Hopkins?

That's what he said might be a response when I posted the comment.

[Joseph K]

[Serial_Apologist]

Doesn't understanding always involve some kind of act of containment? Inability to understand usually (to me at any rate) implies that that which one does not understand lies outside (or beyond in terms of learning) my terms of reference - the terms by means of which I am enabled to understand whatever it is. And by phenomenon we are always isolating whatever we are examining/considering, and seeing/sensing/appreciating it in accordance with the co-ordinates supplied by consciousness, which is itself informed by a combination of instinct, experience, and the mediations of language, which we have to be taught, by which what is (or is not) commonly understood is accepted or is not.

We think in terms of categories; this may be why the question of understanding music is in itself difficult to define for purposes of its understanding. Compared with spoken and written language, where we may say, I don't understand this, because of the way in which it is expressed, or because it includes words and concepts I've not come across before, or used in those ways before, music is sounds placed at our disposal as music by virtue of their context, being heard in the street, music venue, on radio, rather than unintended as such and randomly encountered; and it is not subdivided grammatically as is language, to present ideas logically hopefully, or at any rate ideas it may or may not be important to understand.

So here we are speaking of what is or is not important to understand, as compared with what it is possible on its own terms to understand in the way in which we understand understanding. And here it may be argued that art, in whichever field, is important to understand, because art is one way we can present reality in order to confirm that the phenomenal world is the same world, or the way I am perceiving the world is the same as the way that you are perceiving it, otherwise the possibility of communication, on which mutual understanding in general depends, would otherwise be made more difficult. Art helps, or should help us to appreciate what we have and are in common.

It is as beneficial as it can possibly be that ways to understanding be as direct and uncluttered as possible, to avoid the equivalent of royal commissions being appointed to achieve any sort of clarification, by which time the issue in question may no longer be of relevance. This does not however imply that the matter for understanding in question need be drastically simplified in order to achieve harmony and consensus, i.e. that music be reduced to the simplest of musical procedures, but that which defintions of understanding need be brought to the table for discussion are salient to what needs to be understood, and, if so, why, along with which parts of which definitions.

[Richard Barrett]

One of the difficulties in grasping what "understanding" might mean in music is the fact that it seems to involve both intellectual and emotional faculties in a way where it's difficult or impossible to distinguish between them. One can analyse exactly how a piece of music is constructed (whether or not this was what was in the composer's mind during composition, which is in any case not possible in principle to be sure about), without comprehending how those features engender the visceral response that they do (if they do). One can on the other hand be attracted to or emotionally affected by a piece of music without knowing anything about which characteristics of the music are producing that reaction. "Understanding music" might be outlined as having something to do with seeing both of these sides, with seeing them as in fact two different ways of describing the same thing.

[Padraig]

What a difficult question. My inclination is to run, but my own limit of understanding lies in my attempt to add to the discussion:

I see music as an abstract phenomenon.

In the song -
"There was music there in the Derry air,
In a language that we all could understand..." -
there is a clue - a language.
The words of the language differ to explain various components of 'music', like melody harmony rhythm (or the lack thereof), and enable discussion to happen, if discussion is required. But 'music' announces itself - it's in the air.

[Richard Barrett]

I see music as an abstract phenomenon.

In the song -
"There was music there in the Derry air,
In a language that we all could understand..." -
there is a clue - a language.
The words of the language differ to explain various components of 'music', like melody harmony rhythm (or the lack thereof), and enable discussion to happen, if discussion is required. But 'music' announces itself - it's in the air.

I think you've hit on something important there. Music can be described both in terms of being an "abstract phenomenon" and in terms of language, to the point that some composers insist that music is a language, while others equally emphatically insist that it isn't. (I can name names and give chapter and verse if necessary.) But then, for the listener, it obviously isn't necessary to know whether composer X thinks of music as a language or not when listening to their music. And this has, I think, quite profound implications (as well as some potential for confusion) for what might be meant by "understanding" music.

[Quarky]

Getting a little out of my depth here, but according to Wiki, there is a very general definition of Understanding:

Understanding is a psychological process related to an abstract or physical object, such as a person, situation, or message whereby one is able to think about it and use concepts to deal adequately with that object. Understanding is a relation between the knower and an object of understanding. Understanding implies abilities and dispositions with respect to an object of knowledge that are sufficient to support intelligent behavior.

It seems to follow, if Tom Poster is to be believed, that he was unable to apply his intelligence to the Faure composition (was it that difficult?)

[Nick Armstrong]

One of the difficulties in grasping what "understanding" might mean in music is the fact that it seems to involve both intellectual and emotional faculties in a way where it's difficult or impossible to distinguish between them. One can analyse exactly how a piece of music is constructed (whether or not this was what was in the composer's mind during composition, which is in any case not possible in principle to be sure about), without comprehending how those features engender the visceral response that they do (if they do). One can on the other hand be attracted to or emotionally affected by a piece of music without knowing anything about which characteristics of the music are producing that reaction. "Understanding music" might be outlined as having something to do with seeing both of these sides, with seeing them as in fact two different ways of describing the same thing.

This states very precisely how I see the issue too. I also think that the way the balance between the two kinds of response (or the two sides of the same response) varies between individuals goes a long way to accounting for musical ‘tastes’.

Taking myself as an example, I have some inkling of musical structure &c. from piano lessons since the age of 5, ‘O’-level music and so on, but am hopeless at understanding all but the most obvious harmonic constructions of music (nor am I that interested) - my principal response to music is definitely emotional, appreciating the progressions of emotion, psychological states (call them what you will) expressed in the music and induced in the listener.

I think this accounts for much in defining the sort of music that appeals to me and the sort that doesn’t. For instance it seems to me that much very recent music appeals to those whose response is much more intellectual (‘analytical’ maybe) than mine.

An example of ‘understanding’ being significant for me is Mahler’s 6th. I remember when I first tried listening to it (already very much into his 5th - I’d have been 18 or 19 at the time), I found it almost completely unappealing apart from the slow movement, and certain isolated sections in the rest of the piece. They were enough to keep me returning to it, and gradually the isolated sections I ‘got’ widened and joined together. It was like islands emerging from the sea and gradually forming a continent. I think this was a process of growing ‘understanding’ (in my typical proportions - grasping bit by bit the emotional ‘meaning’ plus an element of grasping the structure). So that now it’s one of my ‘key pieces’ which I feel I know like the back of my hand....

[rauschwerk]

What Mr Poster said was (roughly): "I've played this piece a lot and there's plenty I still don't understand about it. It's music where nothing quite begins or ends. It's almost like we're opening a window on to something which has been happening already, and which will still be happening long after we leave its spell." Whatever 'understanding' means here, I'm sure it's not a straightforward cognitive process - more a matter of following an emotional progression which is hard to describe in words.

Incidentally, he is talking of Faure's first piano quintet, but the music that follows is from the first piano quartet, an early and quite different piece! Oh dear. I'll bet he wasn't too thrilled about that. It completely undermines his point.

[Richard Barrett]

my principal response to music is definitely emotional, appreciating the progressions of emotion, psychological states (call them what you will) expressed in the music and induced in the listener.

... although I'm bound to say that I think that "very recent music" doesn't necessarily privilege the intellectual side of listening any more than music ever has, even if composers and others often talk as if it did - of course Stravinsky is an example of a not even very recent composer who was at pains to point out how little he considered his work to have to do with emotion, and yet it often (for me at least) has a more immediate emotional effect than that of many other superficially less abstract musics. Speaking personally, I often think that if I'm hearing music (especially when it's for the first time) and being distracted by thoughts about its construction in what might be called an "analytical" way, I tend to think this is the result of the music not drawing me into itself sufficiently for those aspects not to be a focus of attention.

[Richard Barrett]

there's plenty I still don't understand about it. It's music where nothing quite begins or ends. It's almost like we're opening a window on to something which has been happening already, and which will still be happening long after we leave its spell.

That comes across to me as understanding, rather than a lack thereof!

[Quarky]

What Mr Poster said was (roughly): "I've played this piece a lot and there's plenty I still don't understand about it. It's music where nothing quite begins or ends. It's almost like we're opening a window on to something which has been happening already, and which will still be happening long after we leave its spell." Whatever 'understanding' means here, I'm sure it's not a straightforward cognitive process - more a matter of following an emotional progression which is hard to describe in words.

Incidentally, he is talking of Faure's first piano quintet, but the music that follows is from the first piano quartet, an early and quite different piece! Oh dear. I'll bet he wasn't too thrilled about that. It completely undermines his point.

Thanks to this thread, I now have a new item of music I can enjoy (if not understand it....)

[Richard Barrett]

Thanks to this thread, I now have a new item of music I can enjoy (if not understand it....)

Yes, I'm looking forward to investigating that quintet for myself after such an introduction.

Mind you, I'm often attracted to music because I find it so difficult to understand. I had that experience not so long ago with Ben Johnston's 7th Quartet, which I've listened to a few times and really can't make head or tail of except that the sound of it is so strange and fascinating.

[Pulcinella]

Yes, I'm looking forward to investigating that quintet for myself after such an introduction.
...

The opening sentence of the Gramophone Classical Music Guide review of the Domus release (the first one listed on the Presto site):

This isn't music that yields its secrets easily.