Understanding Music

[Bryn]

Probably a good basis for a lot of things. I didn't take that (don't know that it was on offer), but having done French, German and Latin, I knew nothing of TS Eliot or Ezra Pound - as scientists I knew did. They also played musical instruments, often very well.

Your comment re scientists reminds me of my Uncle David, an optical physicist who was also a fine pianist and took guitar lessons from the late Julian Bream.

[cloughie]

A-level General Studies (does it still exist?) always seemed easier for scientists (we could still write an essay and have a stab at a foreign translation, remembering something from our O-level studies) than it did for artists. We were encouraged to read 'The Listener' while they got given "New Scientist', I seem to remember.

When I took it I think it was a bit of a bonus really. There was no real syllabus for it and the ability t9 string a few sentences on topics I knew something about and I was in full flow.

[Richard Barrett]

Probably a good basis for a lot of things. I didn't take that (don't know that it was on offer), but having done French, German and Latin, I knew nothing of TS Eliot or Ezra Pound - as scientists I knew did. They also played musical instruments, often very well.

If it's any consolation, I knew nothing about literature beyond English O level until some time after leaving school, nor would I have displayed any significant musical ability, apart from as a listener. I remember one of the questions in the exam involved choosing some machine or device and describing how it worked and I wrote about the internal combustion engine! (not sure I could do that now)

[rauschwerk]

Can the St Matthew Passion "ever completely reveal itself" to someone who isn't an early 18th century Lutheran from Saxony? Does any music ever "completely reveal itself" to anyone?

I happen to think that it can, to any Christian or ex-Christian with a smattering of Pauline theology. The text on its own reveals the full meaning, which is of course enhanced by the music.

Assuming that Lewanski is right about the medley in the Shos 4 finale saying 'Russia was better in the old days', then clearly the composer could not possibly have set a text expressing that sentiment, or he would have been shipped straight to the Gulag. So he had to encode his message in instrumental music. Perhaps that says a lot about the damage done to art by political repression.

I have been looking again at the Cambridge Music Guide to Brahms's first symphony (David Brodbeck) in which he links the piece with elements of Brahms's earlier life via the music of Schumann. It's all very interesting, but doesn't affect the fact the Brahms 1 stands very well on its own, written in accepted forms and therefore able to be understood as pure music, whatever might have been going on in the composer's subconscious as he put the notes on paper. Shos 4 (much as I like it) is a different kettle of fish, and harder to understand (at least for me).

[Old Grumpy]

Music can be appreciated at many levels. I agree, a modicum of knowledge about the background to a piece can be helpful to its appreciation (understanding if you like), but is not, in itself, necessary IMV. It depends on who is listening, I guess.

[french frank]

Music can be appreciated at many levels. I agree, a modicum of knowledge about the background to a piece can be helpful to its appreciation (understanding if you like), but is not, in itself, necessary IMV. It depends on who is listening, I guess.

Yes, having brought up Wittgenstein's comment about different sorts of 'understanding', I was just checking up on Paul Wittgenstein, quoting whom Wikipedia has: "Even a concerto Prokofiev has written for me I have not yet played because the inner logic of the work is not clear to me, and, of course I can't play it until it is."

That was what he as a potential performer needed to understand. It may or may not bother a listener. Depending.

[Quarky]

Attributed to Feynman is the quote, "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics." Another slant on the meaning of 'understand', not quite the same as when applied to music? Stephen Pinker noted, if I remember, as being on Private Passions and not including a single piece of classical music among his choices?

Reflecting on this, and the meaning of "Understand" in the context of science, I remember Uni. lecturers would often announce very seriously "I don't understand this" - meaning there's something wrong, not with the lecturer, but with the physical issue he was presented with, where he was unable to apply his physical intuition, and feel "comfortable". Einstein remains the king, when it comes to physical intuition and his ability to think very deeply about issues.

Quantum Mechanics is a theory devised to reconcile apparently contradictory experimental results (is light a particle or wave, etc, etc). To understand the theory, physical intuition has first to be suspended, and the mathematical structure has to be understood. When a working knowledge of the structure is obtained, then one can think about what it all means. Immediately one realises that chance plays a key role, and that nothing can be predicted with certainty (in the sub-atomic world). This is a main reason why Einstein fell off the wagon (God does not play dice), and there must be a better theory somewhere. However Quantum Mechanics has been tested and tested over the years, and it has proved effective at predicting experimental results to an extreme degree of accuracy. We have to live with the fact that the universe is ruled by chance.

The other issue with Quantum mechanics, is that going deeper into the subject, the mathematics becomes intractable, and huge efforts have been made over the past 100 years to devise better ways of analysing the subject. So Feynman's comments are understandable. Interestingly, although Feynman approaches Einstein in his ability to think deeply about scientific issues, his IQ rating was apparently not sky high, as one might have expected.

Going back to Artificial Intelligence, this is a latest offering from the Robotic Community: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JU0R4Zd2To