Question to A. Hinton

[ahinton]

You, Kentaro Noda, Michael Habermann, author of this thread, most Sorabji as­sholes on here, et al.

I cannot comment about Mr Noda and have never met him. I prefer not to comment about Mr Habermann. Do you know the author of this thread personally and are thus able to provide evidence of your assertion insofar as it allegely relates to that person. You do not know me personally either, so your contention here is not backed up by the evidence I asked you to offer. I have no idea what a "Sorabji a*s*o*e" may be, but your mention of this term suggests that you are already predisposed against both Sorabji's work and those who are interested in it, which in turn suggests that you have decided for yourself in advance that neither he nor they are other than "weirdos" despite your having no personal experience of any of them and therefore no evidence with which to support your assertion. That seems pretty clear. You are evidently therefore talking through your - er - oh, well, you know which part of the anatomy to which I allude, since you referred to it yourself.

Perhaps, once again, we can now look forward to a return to the subject...

Best,

Alistair

[edwardweiss]

Pies-your comment is baseless foolishness. For a start you can count me out of any right-wing clique that may exist in the realms of some people's Anti-Sorabji fantasies. I doubt that Pace ever  said this anyway. I can see no evidence whatever that it is true-in my experience persons with beards are rarely fascists! In the nineteen-thirties Sorabji himself was apparently a supporter of the Social Credit theories of C.H.Douglas and was pro-abortion. These ideas are hardly a part of any right-wing or fascist political persuasion. It never ceases to amaze me how those who are unfavourably disposed to Sorabji's music will search for any small twig to belabour him with.

[ahinton]

For a start you can count me out of any right-wing clique that may exist in the realms of some people's Anti-Sorabji fantasies.

I venture to suggest that one could just as easily count the other 99.999+% of Sorabji's admirers out of any such thing, frankly.

I doubt that Pace ever said this anyway.

I rather fear that you are on somewhat unsteadier ground there, since Ian Pace has indeed made remarks of this nature on more than one occasion; the fact that he has done so does not, of course, confer upon them a shred of credibility and one might well wonder at his agenda and motivation in making them.

I can see no evidence whatever that it is true-in my experience persons with beards are rarely fascists!

That's not so much feeding the troll as feeding the Thal! Of course there is no evidence of any truth in these absurd statements, but then there is equally none that one has not to be clean-shaven to appreciate Sorabji. Has Donna Amato, Margaret Kampmeier or any of the sopranos who have sung Sorabji's songs ever sported a beard? Has anyone ever done a beard count in the audience at a Sorabji performance? More importantly still, has anyone ever seen a photograph of Sorabji with a beard (now no doubt some wisecracker will see that as a cue to post one on which a beard has been superimposed). At least the beard stuff is a joke; Mr Pace's remarks as alluded to by pies, however risible, are most decidedly not so, especially to one who has on occasion been accused by him of fostering and supporting such nonsense (though on quite what grounds he has never made clear).

In the nineteen-thirties Sorabji himself was apparently a supporter of the Social Credit theories of C.H.Douglas and was pro-abortion. These ideas are hardly a part of any right-wing or fascist political persuasion. It never ceases to amaze me how those who are unfavourably disposed to Sorabji's music will search for any small twig to belabour him with.

It's a ruse a good deal older than the most ancient of trees from which such twigs might be snapped; it ceased to amaze (or interest) me long ago. Somehow, I think it can be said that Sorabji and his work will manage to survive the emptily noisy lucubrations of those who can't and won't see the wood for the trees; indeed, his own well known observation that "insects that are merely noisome like to think that they can also sting" seems most apposite in this context...

Best,

Alistair

[daniel patschan]

You, Kentaro Noda, Michael Habermann, author of this thread, most Sorabji as­sholes on here, et al.

A..h..e, only because i am interested in Sorabji ? Unbelievable.

[thalbergmad]

That's not so much feeding the troll as feeding the Thal!

I hardly need feeding and neither do you, as your ability to regurgitate Powell, Carter and the next performance of your works into the most unrelated of threads, clearly demonstrates.

Thal

[gep]

**digs hole to have a crap**
**Gets attacked by Grizzly Bear**

** savours the picture **
** has pleasant dreams....**

Quote from: ahinton on Today at 05:35:01 AM
That's not so much feeding the troll as feeding the Thal!

I hardly need feeding and neither do you, as your ability to regurgitate Powell, Carter and the next performance of your works into the most unrelated of threads, clearly demonstrates.

I'm sorry to say this, but it seems that on the subject of regurgitating, or perhaps one should say barfing up, things, you are the rather unchallenged king around here. I almost feel sorry for the Grizzly bear, their stomach has it's limits too, I fear...

[ahinton]

I hardly need feeding

You don't? Because you are already over-fed. perhaps? Who can say?

and neither do you, as your ability to regurgitate Powell, Carter and the next performance of your works into the most unrelated of threads, clearly demonstrates.

Perhaps you can demonstrate the alleged irrelevance of any of these items in specific threads in order to clarify what you are talking about for those who, like most if not all others of us here, do not know; to take just one example, the citing of Mr Powell in a thread about Sorabji does not seem to me to be especially wide of the topic...

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

I'm sorry to say this, but it seems that on the subject of regurgitating, or perhaps one should say barfing up, things, you are the rather unchallenged king around here.

You have only been here a few days, but who knows, in time you might steal my crown.

Initial impressions are promising.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

Who can say? Perhaps you can demonstrate the alleged irrelevance of any of these items in specific threads in order to clarify what you are talking about for those who, like most if not all others of us here, do not know; to take just one example, the citing of Mr Powell in a thread about Sorabji does not seem to me to be especially wide of the topic...

Mr Powell has appeared in a lot of unrelated threads, but probably not as many as Mr Carter.

I would not waste time trawling through your squillion words to illustrate my point, as i am satisfied it has happened.

Could be a good job for gep.

Thal

[ahinton]

You have only been here a few days, but who knows, in time you might steal my crown.

Initial impressions are promising.

Oh, I am quite sure that no one would want to unseat you from that position around here!

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Mr Powell has appeared in a lot of unrelated threads, but probably not as many as Mr Carter.

Unrelated to what, exactly? I do not suppose that Mr Powell has appeared in very many threads (and don't forget that he is himself an occasional contributor here) and I doubt that Mr Carter has either - at least not in terms of the overall number of threads on this forum. The extent of the relevance of either to this or that thread is in any case to some extent a subjective matter. Some people might, for example, suggest that writing about you in a thread on 19th century piano concertos would be unrelated to the topic; I would disagree.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Fascinating.

Thal

[daniel patschan]

I still can´t believe what´s the result of a simple question: Does Mr. Hinton know Artur Cimirro or not. I simply wanted to know whether this guy who claims to have about 100 piano concerts in his repertoire (after studying for only 5 years) really exists. That´s all- If so, he would be twice as impressive as Sgouros. And now... everybody is throwing things at each other. Very sad.

[thalbergmad]

You only have to mention the word Sorabji and this sometimes happens.

Your question was completely harmless, but perhaps in future if you have a Question for A Hinton, it might be wise to send him a pm.

That would mean you don't have to put up with geeks like me, pompous windbags and stuck up intellectuals.

Thal

[pies]

My post was a half-joke at best.  I'm sorry.  I actually like Sorabji's music.  I have most of the recordings and plan on learning one of his works eventually.

Just wondering: What exactly has Pace said about Sorabji and his admirers?

[ahinton]

I still can´t believe what´s the result of a simple question: Does Mr. Hinton know Artur Cimirro or not. I simply wanted to know whether this guy who claims to have about 100 piano concerts in his repertoire (after studying for only 5 years) really exists. That´s all- If so, he would be twice as impressive as Sgouros. And now... everybody is throwing things at each other. Very sad.

Very sad indeed - but I think that I did actually answer your question before the rot set in. If you remain in any doubt, I do not personally know Mr Cimirro but, since I have had some correspondence with him and know a couple of people who have ostensibly heard him play, I have had no cause to doubt his existence. I cannot, however, vouch for what he has in his repertoire as I have not heard him perform any of it, although I have seen the website on which he shows this repertoire. I think that this is all that I can say about the matter except to emphasise that Sorabji's Fifth Piano Sonata is an immense challenge to anyone and not the kind of piece to consider preparing for performance from a copy of the composer's manuscript; a new typeset edition is in preparation.

Best,

Alistair

[daniel patschan]

Maybe one more thing: if it was just that simple with Sorabji nobody would care to discuss him again and again. There must be at least something with his compositions that attract people. Otherwise...we could just ignore him. But we don´t.

[thalbergmad]

Maybe one more thing: if it was just that simple with Sorabji nobody would care to discuss him again and again.

There are those that think he is a genius and those who wonder what the fuss is all about and probably a lot who occupy the middle ground.

His name usually appears in "wot is da ardest song evva writtan" type threads where 10 year olds can discuss the difficulties of his 4 hour long dirge called Opus Whatsitsname.

The intellectuals then arrive to remind us of all the beautiful shorter pieces he wrote and the fact that said 4 hour long dirge has never been satisfactorily recorded.

Hinty then turns up, lets us know when the next concert is, reminds us all of what can be obtained from the Sorabji Archive and that is it until the next time.

It is a never ending circle.

Thal

[ahinton]

There are those that think he is a genius and those who wonder what the fuss is all about and probably a lot who occupy the middle ground.

I think that you are right about that, even though similar positions could be claimed for various people in their responses to many other composers (albeit some more than others, perhaps).

His name usually appears in "wot is da ardest song evva writtan" type threads where 10 year olds can discuss the difficulties of his 4 hour long dirge called Opus Whatsitsname.

Yes, indeed there are such 10-year-olds of all ages and none and all sexes and none (as Sorabji himself would have put it) who do this kind of thing - we've all seen it happen all too often - but to suggest that Sorabji's name "usually" appears only in such contexts is nonsense; on certain kinds of internet forum that may well be the case, but there are so many other places in which his name appears that your suggestion that discussion of his work is largely limited to such 10-year olds is, frankly, unsupportable.

The intellectuals then arrive to remind us of all the beautiful shorter pieces he wrote and the fact that said 4 hour long dirge has never been satisfactorily recorded.

It doesn't take an "intellectual" to do this, one has only to examine the catalogue of his works on www.sorabji-archive.co.uk to get a perspective on their various durations and, as long as anyone who does so accepts the cited durations as correct within reason, then anyone can ascertain this fact for him/herself.

Hinty then turns up,

If that's supposed to be me, I will have been here all the time rather than "then turning up".

lets us know when the next concert is,

Rarely so - and what in any case is wrong in principle with telling people interested in Sorabji when they might next be able to attend a performance of one or more of his works?

reminds us all of what can be obtained from the Sorabji Archive

Not so; I do draw attention on occasion of the fact that a catalogue of works and plenty of other information is available on The Sorabji Archive website (and, again, what is wrong in principle with telling people interested in Sorabji about that?)...

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Not so; I do draw attention on occasion of the fact that a catalogue of works and plenty of other information is available on The Sorabji Archive website (and, again, what is wrong in principle with telling people interested in Sorabji about that?)...

Oh, so you don't sell anything then?

Thal

[ahinton]

Oh, so you don't sell anything then?

Did I say so? No. It is true that we do not sell anythying? Again, no. Again, however, in principle, what exactly is the problem that you appear to have with the presence of a website dedicated to conveying information about the music and literary writings of Sorabji, including information on how to obtain material from us - and what is the problem in mentioning its presence in certain circumstances?

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

It it true

You must try and find help for your stutter.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

what exactly is the problem that you appear to have with the presence of a website dedicated to conveying information about the music and literary writings of Sorabji, including information on how to obtain material from us - and what is the problem in mentioning its presence in certain circumstances?

I do not recall saying it was.

I was simply illustrating to another member the cyclical nature of Sorabji threads.

Thal

[ahinton]

I do not recall saying it was.

I was simply illustrating to another member the cyclical nature of Sorabji threads.

But whose responsibility might that be? And, perhaps more importantly, why do you draw attention to our website and the fact that, although nothing is sold directly therefrom, it helps people to find out how to purchase items that they might want, as though there might be something either wrong with that or that otherwise for some reason or none fails to meet with your approval? And what in any case might any of this have to do with the alleged "cyclical nature of Sorabji threads" of which you write without giving any evidence for your assertion about them in that or any other context?

Has it ever occurred to you to consider leaving well alone when there might not actually be a problem to which attention needs to be drawn?

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Has it ever occurred to you to consider leaving well alone when there might not actually be a problem to which attention needs to be drawn?

I do not know why you are throwing your toys out of the pram about this. I did not say there was a problem, i was just giving an illustration which being thus, requires no evidence.

Thal

[ahinton]

I do not know why you are throwing your toys out of the pram about this. I did not say there was a problem, i was just giving an illustration which being thus, requires no evidence.

Having neither toys nor pram (nor need for either) at my disposal, the question, dear Thal, is mine, not yours; what are you seeking to illustrate? My suggstion that you appeared to have a problem was based entirely on what you yourself had written rather than any thoughts that Ior anyone else might have had about it. Do please re-read the relevant exchanges if that seems to make insufficient sense to you.

Best,

Alistair

[rabbity baxter]

I am rather interested in a topic that was touched on a while back in this thread, namely: is intelligence required to appreciate any music, given that there are many ways of appreciating a single piece of music?

I would be interested to read your thoughts.

I am of the impression that when I listen to a piece of music, I do not use my intelligence. If I possess any, that is. I just take it in. All sorts of different faculties are at play, but I'm not thinking an awful lot. I just feel I don't have to. It simply detracts!

When I try to study a piece of music, on the other hand,  I try to use my intelligence, and by intelligence, I mean finding a way of trying to empathise with the composer, i.e.: 'what did Schubert really want me to do here, in order to make best sense of the line, or the structure, and the particular emotive character of this phrase'; all of which, inevitably, we can only guess, but I think intelligence (which must only serve as an umbrella term for all nuances of sympathies, experience and understanding) is what ought to be used here.

What do you all think (if this is the right word) about this?

R. Baxter

[ahinton]

My post was a half-joke at best.

And not a partiucularly good one.

I'm sorry.

Accepted.

I actually like Sorabji's music.  I have most of the recordings and plan on learning one of his works eventually.

Good luck with that!

Just wondering: What exactly has Pace said about Sorabji and his admirers?

Wonder away - but if you want to know the answer/s to that, I recommend that you ask him! In the meantime, what has been suggested here is not far short of the mark...

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

I am of the impression that when I listen to a piece of music, I do not use my intelligence.

Well, I feel the same way, but some Sorabji snobs appear to think differently.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

Do please re-read the relevant exchanges

No.

It is not worth the effort.

Thal

[ahinton]

Well, I feel the same way, but some Sorabji snobs appear to think differently.

I cannot comment on what Sorabji snobs might think, since I do not know any, but I think that where you may be misunderstanding the situation is that, if the music draws you in sufficiently and commands your attention, you will give it some concentrated effort when listening, even if that concentration may be partly or wholly subconscious. Think of the question rather as one of the extent of attention that you feel any piece of music might draw from you (some will do this more than others, of course) rather than whether you consciously bring your intelligence to bear upon the listening experience.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

No.

It is not worth the effort.

Then why "make the effort" to post remarks that you either cannot or do not feel inclined to support by evidence? If people do not hear about Sorabji's work, they cannot be expected to develop any interest in it; the same goes for all those 19th century composers in whose work you are so interested and on which you have expended so much valuable time and energy in scanning and making available.

Best,

Alistair

[gep]

I am rather interested in a topic that was touched on a while back in this thread, namely: is intelligence required to appreciate any music, given that there are many ways of appreciating a single piece of music?

I would be interested to read your thoughts.

I am of the impression that when I listen to a piece of music, I do not use my intelligence. If I possess any, that is. I just take it in. All sorts of different faculties are at play, but I'm not thinking an awful lot. I just feel I don't have to. It simply detracts!

When I try to study a piece of music, on the other hand,  I try to use my intelligence, and by intelligence, I mean finding a way of trying to empathise with the composer, i.e.: 'what did Schubert really want me to do here, in order to make best sense of the line, or the structure, and the particular emotive character of this phrase'; all of which, inevitably, we can only guess, but I think intelligence (which must only serve as an umbrella term for all nuances of sympathies, experience and understanding) is what ought to be used here.

What do you all think (if this is the right word) about this?

R. Baxter

Interesting subject! I think you do use your intelligence both when listening to or when reading/studying music, but perhaps in different ways. I think that when you study a piece of music you are perhaps more conciously using your intelligence, but when you listen to a piece of music you're doing so more unconciously. (Like when you're writing you use muscles in a concious way, but when you're breathing you use them inconciously). Because when you're listening you must be able to make sense of what you are listening to, how things develop, relate, interact, and so on. And if you are familiar with the piece you're listening to, you're interacting with what is in your memory. So you could say that listening to a piece of music is a way of studying it, but in a different way than when studying it on paper, or by playing it yourself. Listening can be hard work, I've been to a series of three concerts in two days thisn weekend, in which the complete late string quartets of Beethoven were played. Taking it all in (or trying to, at least) was pretty exhausting, because you must (try to) mentally follow, in all meanings and at all levels, what is going on, which is a pretty hefty job.
When you're doing a crossword puzzle, you must use your intelligence with all things attached. Likewise, you must work mentally when you're listening to music, or appreciate any art for that matter.
In short, I think that if you would not use your intelligence when listening to music, you not listening at all, but merely hearing. You need your senses to experience the world around you, and use your intelligence to make sense of it.

[Petter]

What would you classicfy Sorbjis music as? Postmodern?, Neoclassicism? Maybe that's up to the musicologists... Is he regarded a British composer? Where did his family originally come from? India?

[gep]

What would you classicfy Sorbjis music as? Postmodern?, Neoclassicism? Maybe that's up to the musicologists...

That is an extremely hard question, since his music is so very unique. Like how would you classify Beethoven's late quartets, as Classic or Romantic? Sorabji's music certainly isn't "Modernistic" in the sense that it doesn not use any of the "modern" techniques (12-tone, serial, whatever). Perhaps the term "organic impressionism" comes closest in some pieces in the sense that they seem to grow from the inside and with their own internal logic, rather than from an outside logic (such as sonata-form). His music traverses the gamut from the utter simplicity to the staggeringly complex, and from the unparralelled serene to the utmost violent. Think like late Scriabin, Medtner and Szymanowksy mixed with Bachian (Baroque) formulae (like passacaglia and fuga, but also as in the Fantasias), but in a unique and personal way. If you would want a sample, I'd suggest the "Un Nido di Scatole", since it contains within a piece some 30 minutes long almost all styles and techniques Sorabji used.

Is he regarded a British composer?

Not by himself, I'd think! But he was born in England, and lived there all his life.

Where did his family originally come from? India?

On his father's side. His mother was English.

Over to Alistair Hinton, who can tell you so much more!

[thalbergmad]

if the music draws you in sufficiently and commands your attention, you will give it some concentrated effort when listeneing, even if that concentration may be partly or wholly subconscious.

Personally, i have never found listeneeeeing an effort, apart from when my mother decides to use the vacuum cleaner at the same time.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

Then why "make the effort" to post remarks that you either cannot or do not feel inclined to support by evidence?

I do not need evidence for what was a simple illustration.

[ahinton]

Personally, i have never found listening an effort, apart from when my mother decides to use the vacuum cleaner at the same time.

At the same time as what? Don't bother to tell us!

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

I do not need evidence for what was a simple illustration.

You might not - but I had thought that you posted for the benefit of other readers here; in any case, what were your remarks supposed to "illustrate" to anyone?

Best,

Alistair

[gep]

Personally, i have never found listeneeeeing an effort, apart from when my mother decides to use the vacuum cleaner at the same time.

Thal

If listening to a piece of music isn't an effort, this would suggest that your mental capacities are enough to process the incoming music fully at full speed without you conciously having to do anything. . The same applies when you're speaking with someone, your brain can process the incoming talk at fast enough speed to give the impression of no effort at all. But of course any listening does need a mental effort, because your ears "merely" register variations in air pressure. It is your brain that prosesses it into sound (music, speach, whatever). So you may not be actually aware of an effort going on, but it is going on nontheless.
The fact that you say listening never needs an effort from you , therefor not even when hearing a piece of music for the very first time, would seem to suggest a musical intelligence some orders of magnitude greater than that of any composer alive or dead. Since any composer must make quite a mental effort to write his music it would logically require the need of at least an equal mental effort to take it in, at least at a first hearing. And probably beyond that first time too. At least, I find it quite a mental challenge to listen to a piece like Mahler's 9th, even though I've heard it quite a few times now. But perhaps you are so much smarter than any of us....

[thalbergmad]

At the same time as what?

Obvious to all but the most simple of minds.

[thalbergmad]

Since any composer must make quite a mental effort to write his music it would logically require the need of at least an equal mental effort to take it in, at least at a first hearing.

It takes a lot of effort to run the London Marathon, but i do not remember getting tired watching it on the television.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

But perhaps you are so much smarter than any of us....

I have said a few times on this forum that i am only a part time hack. I have had but little formal musical education. Therefore i am probably one of the thickest members.

This however, does not mean that i just sit back and read posts by jumped up pompous little twonks, without putting my view forward.

I hope reading this has not mentally exhausted you.
 

[ahinton]

Obvious to all but the most simple of minds.

The straight answer would indeed be so; the joke involved might arguably be less so, or so it may seem...

Best,

Alistair

[gep]

It takes a lot of effort to run the London Marathon, but i do not remember getting tired watching it on the television.

Thal

You are equating apples with pears here. The London Marathon is mainly a physical effort, and quite not the same as watching it on the telly. Your remark would make more sense if you would compare the effort in running the marathon with walking it yourself. Perhaps listening to a composition can be even harder than writing it, since the composer knows what he wants, while the (1st time) listener has to find out.

I have said a few times on this forum that i am only a part time hack. I have had but little formal musical education. Therefore i am probably one of the thickest members.

Well, I've had little formal education also, but this doesn't mean one cannot study onself. Most if not all of what I've learned about music has been the result of ongoing self-study, as is the case with you I think. That you have had no formal education does not make you "thick" one bit! You could perhaps even say that no formal education has saved you from preset opinions and whatnot.

This however, does not mean that i just sit back and read posts by jumped up pompous little twonks, without putting my view forward.

And you would describe your posts as....? Genteel? Friendly? Unprejudiced? Openminded? Tactful?

I hope reading this has not mentally exhausted you.

I'll live.

[hansscherff]

First of all, thank you both ahinton and thalbergmad for the amusement. In order to not mentally exhaust myself i did not read it all, but i now understand why you both have that many posts.

Gep, i already suspected you were dutch after your remark about André Rieu, but with the so called 'dutchism' about apples and pears may i conclude you are?

About rabbity baxter's question, of course you dont need intelligence to listen to music, i can imagine however that you need some intelligence to be able to identify it as being music. This minimum intelligence level is however very low since babies are already known to appreciate music.

What perhaps is more interesting is the fact that music (and classical music in particular) is known to enhance some of your cognitive abilities. Especially your spatial visualization ability is enhanced by listening to and making music.

I'm no brain expert but i can imagine this has to do with the fact that music usually has a logical structure. If one (unconsciously) identifies this logical structure, u put your brains at work. You get expectations of whats coming next based on what you've heard beforehand. This is probably one of the reasons why Mozart is often mentioned in this context. His music always sounds logical to me (probably one of the reasons i start to find it boring not long afterwards).

So concluding i do think you need a certain intelligence to identify music, but i think every human is capable of doing so. Classical music is known to enhance your intelligence in some ways, but luckily that does not mean all those pompous pricks are smarter than metalheads .

[thalbergmad]

This minimum intelligence level is however very low since babies are already known to appreciate music.

So are tulips, so unless there are any tulips with a degree, I agree with what you say.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

but luckily that does not mean all those pompous pricks are smarter than metalheads .

Unfortunately, there are some here who appear to think they are.

Thal

[gep]

Gep, i already suspected you were dutch after your remark about André Rieu, but with the so called 'dutchism' about apples and pears may i conclude you are?

Referring to André Rieu might mean I could be German, American, Japanese or Australian too, but I plead guilty....
Assuming you are Dutch too (since you recognise my Dutchism), shal we agree on still writing in English, for the amusement of the rest (insofar as they are non-Dutch)?

About rabbity baxter's question, of course you dont need intelligence to listen to music, i can imagine however that you need some intelligence to be able to identify it as being music. This minimum intelligence level is however very low since babies are already known to appreciate music.

I must say I'm a bit surprised that so many people insist that listening to music does not require (much) intelligence. True, you only need working ears to listen to it, but what I meant (and mean) with listening is something on the line line "fully appreciating/understaning/being able to follow/etc. that what you are listening to". Babies are quite fond of music in the sense that they respond rather strongly to music that is rhythmically pronounced (more Orff than Wagner, say). But the more you are able to understand the music the more fully you can appreciate what the composer has done. A small black-and-white photograph of a Rembrandt painting gives you some idea about the painting, a colour version more so, a full-sized one even more, standing in front of said picture to look at it yet more still and if you were able to actually touch the painting in order to feel the texture perhaps still more, although in the last case you might find you got a really good understanding of jail-life in a hurry. And if you are a painter yourse you will be able to understand even more
Likewise, the more concentrated you listen to a piece of music, the more you hear. Listening more concentrated means using more brainpower. Listening fully concentrated means using your intelligence (i.e. mental capacity) to its limits. And I fully acknowledge having limits in my intelligence when it comes to Listening (not the L!) to music, if only because I lack the ability to play music myself. It can be quite frustrating when you have to struggle and strain in order to try to fully hear everything (how/what/why/etc). As said earlier, I was at a concert featuring the complete late Beethoven Quartets, and listening to them was quite exhausting hard work, mentally.

This minimum intelligence level is however very low since babies are already known to appreciate music.

They do indeed, but babies don't have low intelligence! They learn to speak a language quite quickly, try to do so that quick later in life in school!

What perhaps is more interesting is the fact that music (and classical music in particular) is known to enhance some of your cognitive abilities.

I've heard about that too, listening to a piece by Mozart (whom you refer to too) seems to enhance (temporarly?) ones abilities in math. So perhaps I should put Mozart on when doing my tax returns...

Especially your spatial visualization ability is enhanced by listening to and making music.

This is intriguing, never heard that before, do you have a link to some more info on this?

I'm no brain expert but i can imagine this has to do with the fact that music usually has a logical structure. If one (unconsciously) identifies this logical structure, u put your brains at work.

This sounds logical(!). Turn that around and you get that putting your brains at work you might better "see" that logic in music. So it may be a self-enhancing mutual benefit.

You get expectations of whats coming next based on what you've heard beforehand. This is probably one of the reasons why Mozart is often mentioned in this context. His music always sounds logical to me (probably one of the reasons i start to find it boring not long afterwards).

Now this is quite funny, because Mozart for me isn't the musical god he seems to be for so many. Of course, he was a musical genius, but for some reason I don't respond to his music so much. I like Haydn more, perhaps in his music your expectations get not always (quite often, actually) fulfilled. And I like the humour he put in.

So concluding i do think you need a certain intelligence to identify music,

True, but I was talking about appreciating (which is not necessarily the same as liking, by the way) music.

but i think every human is capable of doing so.

Almost, there is a condition called something like "amusa" (don't know the correct term), in which people cannot distinct different pitches, or percieve a rhythm. Tonedeafness so to say. But besides that, you're probably correct.

Classical music is known to enhance your intelligence in some ways,

I think it does, and that it works the other way round too, as said. But training your brain is always a good thing, and listening to (classical) music quite a good one in general.

but luckily that does not mean all those pompous pricks are smarter than metalheads .

True. In fact, I think I read somewhere that "metalheads" have are, of all pop-lovers, most likely to appreciate classical music, perhaps because some of that type of music can be quite complex. Besides that, smarting pricks are to be avoided whenever possible!

Quote from: hansscherff on Today at 09:34:09 AM
but luckily that does not mean all those pompous pricks are smarter than metalheads .

Unfortunately, there are some here who appear to think they are.

Thal

Only if you are determinded to understand those "some" in that way. Whatever music you like or not has nothing to do with whether you are smart or not. But I will and do stand by my opinion that you need (to use) a certain level of intelligence to (fully) appreciate a certain music. Britney Spears requires less than Anton Bruckner, even though Madam Spears may be more pleasing to the eye....

[hansscherff]

I will give a reply to this later this week when i'm not at work and will see if i can find any literature you requested.