Educated vs uneducated listeners.

[lostinidlewonder]

The emotional response we get from listening to music whether we are an educated listener or not is always a profound one and is the most important part of music appreciation. Some argue if a listener knows How the piece was composed they might have a better appreciation of the work. If you know the composer or the exact reason why they wrote a particular piece for instance then you might find you get more out of your listening experience.

Some educated listeners have a whole list of greatest performances and any that are not on that list are constantly compared to their most treasured experiences. Is this healthy for our appreciation of music? Can being an educated and picky listener be in fact detrimental to our future listening experience? Or maybe it is just the hurdle that we want to see others overcome so we can replace our top dogs and raise the bar?

Music is a language that transcends all verbal language and can be observed and appreciated without even knowing what you are exactly listening to. So is it necessary to be an educated listener or should we simply rely on our own musical tastes and instincts when we want to appreciate music? Is music more effective and emotionally stirring when we are educated listeners?

As a professional musician who is more educated in music than most my first reaction was that of course the more educated listener experiences more compared to those that just rely on their hearing sense. But thinking more carefully I would have to say that the emotional feeling you get as an educated listener is neither heightened or improved.

I have to think back to when I first listened to Beethoven on my parents cassette tapes. I loved the sound. I wanted to learn how to play these works. I didn't know who Beethoven was or what his pieces where about, all I knew is that the pieces moved me so much so that my first works by Beethoven was his sonatas. Now I know all there is to know about the works I play from him, but the emotional connection is not increased. The knowledge appreciation is improved and this can allow me to appreciate the music on different levels (connecting sound to history, art, dramatic themes, etc) but essentially my emotional response is no better or not heightened compared to my first time uneducated listening.

I have had people come up to me after concerts telling me how wonderful it is to get knowledge about the composer and pieces before listening to them. I think in the age of technology we live in people appreciate not being left in the dark and to have some education attached to their listening experience is empowering. It is good to guide people toward the emotions that the music creates but we are not showing them what they did not already know just telling them to pay attention and consider.

When one can visualize a story or know about a composer or performer or conductor etc, then hear it in sound, it allows some to emotionally connect with sound more readily. But is this necessary? As a performer I feel that it is my duty to have an educated group of listeners, but not so educated that I lecture them like a classroom. Is it important to know that a famous Orchestral recording was done under the Nazi regime? Would that effect how you listen to it? Is it important to know how a fugue is exactly constructed to appreciate a fugue? Is it useful to know that a piece was written through the inspiration of other art forms?

I think that each time you gain insider knowledge of a work you can appreciate different things in a work. However, it does not make you like the work any better. The emotional response you get as an uneducated listener is first and foremost the most important thing.

So I bite my thumb at elitists who say that one needs more education to appreciate certain works. I say all we need is our own ears and willingness to allow ourselves to be moved emotionally. Of course if you agree/disagree with me I'd love to hear your views.

[davidjosepha]

In general, I actually thing uneducated listeners might get a better emotional response since educated listeners are often too caught up with hearing details. I know people who say they can't just listen to music anymore because they are constantly analyzing the chord progression and all that. Luckily, I am not one of these people. I know that when following along in a score to a piece of music, I miss something in the music. A note becomes an eighth note or a 16th, not a unit of time in sound. Sometimes, I think an uneducated listener gets a better response since the magic is still there for them. They don't know what's happening, they don't know how it's happening, they just know that it is happening. I don't get that feeling too much with piano music anymore. I get it with orchestral music still though, but I don't like most orchestral music as much as piano music.

So, there I talk about one who is educated on how music happens. Knowing all that can take away some of the beauty of it for me. But being educated in that you are familiar with the style of music, that increases the beauty. To someone who doesn't listen to classical music, Mozart, Beethoven, Bach, they're all the same. Knowing the differences there and being accustomed to classical music is an important part of appreciating and enjoying the music, I think. I've listened to albums (of non classical music) numerous times before and hated it the first listen. I didn't get why anyone would like it. Then, after 10 or so listens, it became not just okay, average, or good, but excellent, one of my favorite albums ever. Good music takes time to sit in, whether it be a single piece or a genre. So yes, I think one who listens to classical music at least somewhat regularly and has acquired a taste for it and has an understanding of many of its nuances, from a listener's perspective, definitely helps you enjoy the music on an emotional level. But I don't think that's what you're talking about, is it?

The one thing studying music has really helped for me is hearing a lot in a piece that most people wouldn't hear up to tempo. Playing through a piece very slowly, hearing every chord switch, every harmony, every inner melody...that's a beautiful thing, and I think the fact that I have done that with a piano piece helps me hear all those things in a piece I've never even heard before, much less played. Things like that really do make music beautiful to me in a way I don't think it would be if I hadn't done that.

There have been times I'll be listening to a piece with others and I'll be nearly in tears, and they seem oblivious to the beauty that I'm hearing. I don't know if that's related to their state of mind, a "classical music is dumb" mentality, a lack of exposure (so it all sounds the same), or what, but I do find it disheartening. However, there are times I've listened to a piece I like, but don't get choked up over, and I'll see someone I'm with is really overcome with emotion from it. I think a lot of it is taste, too. Not everyone finds the same things beautiful. Also, I think a person's natural inclination towards intense emotion affects it. I guess I'm not even sure if that varies from person to person, but I think it does. I know a lot of people, myself included, who don't wear their heart on their sleeve, but still obviously have very high feelings, apparent when they try to put their feelings into words. Then I know people who might even be visibly very emotional but seem to have the emotions of a toddler, like "I didn't get my way and am sad/mad" or "I got my way and am happy." I guess I don't know if their emotions are actually shallower than other people's but I think there is at least some variance in that. I try not to make judgments like that though, since obviously I have no idea what these people are actually feeling.

[outin]

There have been times I'll be listening to a piece with others and I'll be nearly in tears, and they seem oblivious to the beauty that I'm hearing. I don't know if that's related to their state of mind, a "classical music is dumb" mentality, a lack of exposure (so it all sounds the same), or what, but I do find it disheartening. However, there are times I've listened to a piece I like, but don't get choked up over, and I'll see someone I'm with is really overcome with emotion from it. I think a lot of it is taste, too. Not everyone finds the same things beautiful. Also, I think a person's natural inclination towards intense emotion affects it. I guess I'm not even sure if that varies from person to person, but I think it does.

I have noticed that there's a difference in the way music affects me and the way it affects many other people I know. I don't so much get an emotional response, what I get is more of a primitive sensation in my brain, a feeling that is very difficult to explain. The music kind of resonates somewhere deep in my brain and gives me pleasure that is almost physical in nature. It also has a calming effect. I guess for me music works like a drug and I admit I am pretty much addicted, since I cannot be that long without either listening to it or playing/singing myself

If I am learning a piece myself of course I listen to it in a different way (how is that sound achieved) but in general I don't see any difference in the way I enjoy music now than before I started playing myself. I guess I am not educated enough and I wish I never will be.

Also whatever theory of music I have studied has never affected the way I listen to music, I think I get most enjoyment of music because while listening to music I am able to suppress the more intellectual part of my brain and actually NOT think as much as normally. I have never cared much for program music or words, it is the sounds and rhythm that is the essence of music for me. The piano has the most beautiful sound for me, so that's why I am so drawn to it.

[kristoffer]

I really enjoyed reading your post which I found mightily interesting!
However, my opinion as a half quasi educated listener is that music is far to relative to say anything definite about in general, since "beauty is in the eye of the beholder".
But in some special cases my own experience has been that some pieces have become more enjoyable after acquiring a little music theory and others have become a little less exiting.
And in my opinion it is not really relevant if the question is possible to answer or not since the discussion and what it brings often is the goal.

[williampiano]

Can being an educated and picky listener be in fact detrimental to our future listening experience? Or maybe it is just the hurdle that we want to see others overcome so we can replace our top dogs and raise the bar?

I believe it is different for everybody, but for me as musician I've learned to appreciate more music as I've become a more educated listener. Back when I was in my first few years of piano, my first private teacher had me listen to music by composers such as Prokofiev, Shostakovich and other great composers of that musical era. Back then you could say I was a very "uneducated listener" and thought it all sounded like rubbish, I suppose mainly because of the dissonance. Listening to the same music several years later after having heard heaps of repertoire and having become a more educated listener, my opinion has changed completely and I find that music to be quite interesting, as I listen to it all the time. Same with Classical and Baroque composers. When I was younger I only found Romantic music worth listening to, like pieces by Chopin and Liszt. Now I find it just as interesting to listen to pieces by Mozart, Haydn, Scarlatti etc. as I've learned to appreciate I wider array of repertoire. Right now I'd say I have a much more emotional connection with the music of Scarlatti then I did several years ago, as back then I would've said it is boring. I wouldn't say its like this for everyone, some people may be more open from the start. Others may not, it seems it really depends. Just as many people could have the opposite reaction and enjoy a much smaller span of repertoire as their musical experience grows.

[ted]

I would be very reluctant to disparage any sort of musical education. In a certain sense it is a case of the more the merrier. It is just that it is neither necessary nor sufficient to the process of transporting oneself through the listening experience. It's a bit like trying to capture the beauty of a rose by knowing the precise measurements of its petals. Speaking for myself, I treat every listening as a new, primitive revelation. Well, I try to anyway. Of course it is mostly impossible, but that is my ideal, and I'm getting better at it with age.

I say learn everything you possibly can by all means, but have the common sense to realise it cannot define or circumscribe that magic, mystical effect, which is the reason we listen to music.

[forte88]

It depends what the epithets educated and uneducated stand for. When I look at the title I would probably go for educated LISTENERS since the more you've educated yourself to listen the richer the listening experience becomes and since IMO hearing=feeling(i.e emotions) the more you hear the more of an impact you'll experience emotionally.
Of course when educated means more analytical then it's obvious the uneducated that only listen will get more out of the experience

[joel_w]

We have to remember that music is an art form. Whether the listener is educated about the music or not, it shouldn't effect the emotional part of the experience. I think it would only effect the analytical side of things.

[lostinidlewonder]

Nice responses all some thoughts that popped up when I read them (sorry I didn't quote).

I think although I know the ins and outs of learning and perfecting a piece I feel I can turn that off when listening to a performance (or even myself play). When you hear an entire phrase of music you can always still be captured by the emotion it stirs up from within you and forget about the process to produce it. But you are right, usually the educated listeners still have that part of the mind which knows how to analyze and breakdown what they are listening to.

Even if someone doesn't play exactly how I like it or how it might be written you still can take away something from their playing, emotional reactions. Who says our emotional reaction always has to be that the performance was the greatest thing you ever heard or was almost as good as "so an so" who makes you feel "butterflies"... or something

Our emotional response to music no matter what level of perfection, difficulty level etc, is always easily accessible and known by instinct. Some music might be like strong whiskey and first time drinkers might cough and splutter, some music might be as ordinary as water because they have been a part of some listening experience in the past, eg: Beethoven Symphony, da da da Daaaaaaaaaa........da da da Daaaaaaaaaa. You know which one I am talking about right? The well known classical phrases cause emotional responses to even the uneducated classical music lowers because they have some past experience of it. Even though they might not like classical music they cannot help but have an emotional response to what they hear (even if they can't put it into words).

Sure someone who listens to ANYTHING BUT CLASSICAL will often wave away listening to classical music saying it all sounds the same etc, but if they really took the time to explore classical music, they would find they react emotionally to it very similarly to those who are avid classical music listeners.
     Play a sad and then happy piece on the piano ask which one is which, almost always people will get it right. There is a lot of Classical musical tradition and history passed onto each generation without them even knowing it, movies, computer, television have had a huge impact on the modern perspective of Classical musical appreciation whether we are lovers of that genre or not. The music when someone dies on screen or there's a passionate romance, or when something funny happens or stupid, we all can feel that in the music that supports what we are viewing. A big part of this movie/classical music connection I find was in Walt Disney who found it so important to enhance what people saw in his cartoons in terms of sound, countless Hollywood movies also did the same. But we can go further back to silent films where the pianist would improvise music to suit what was happening on the screen and back to where the orchestra supports an opera production etc etc. There is even classical music tradition in nursery rhymes or your national anthem etc so it is hard to avoid having this classical music tradition imprinted upon you. I guess I am trying to say that we all have had experience with classical music enough to be ready to appreciate what might be thrown at us.  Even if it is something confusing to the ear first, second, umpteenth time.

Strangely enough I can't say there is much music I didn't like before that I like now. The only person is JS Bach (but it is most probably because I found part playing when younger tricky), but I can't say I had a broad classical listening experience when I was younger, just usually the usual famous composers. I still can't stand overly complicated random sounding music and there is a huge deal of that in the 20th/21st century. I know I DO NOT need more education to enjoy it, I really don't care how clever it might be composed. Some I like immediately, others I know I will never like. I guess I have a very fast acquisition of musical taste (or extraordinary slow) because I know what I like immediately, but this is not to say that everyone is the same. Sure there are some who after education can appreciate listening to a piece more so that it occupies their listening time. I found playing pieces which I don't like the sound of a lot more enjoyable than just listening to them, so the mechanical procedure itself can add to the enjoyment but this is not really just listening.

[proklover]

I think the educated listener is just in general more enlightened, and it doesnt really have anything to do with emotional connection. You are right, music is a language that transcends all others, and therefore it shouldnt need to be understood academically in order to be enjoyed. However, some people may not understand the works of composers like Stravinsky, Schoenberg, or Hindemith, but the educated listener understands and knows what to "listen for"(-Copland)..yeah

[outin]

Some I like immediately, others I know I will never like. I guess I have a very fast acquisition of musical taste (or extraordinary slow) because I know what I like immediately, but this is not to say that everyone is the same.

I am just like you, I immediately can tell if the music has a chance or if it is doomed to be disliked by me forever. Of course there have been a few exceptions. But I can develope a more stronger liking after listening for a while or it can get lame. I think music is at it's best when it doesn't wow me immediately, but becomes something really special after a while.

I don't know music theory enough to properly analyse why I usually know immediately if it's worth to continue listening or not. It is more of intuitive knowledge. But I think the 3 most important elements in music for me are (not necessarily in this order):
- Rhythm, the piece must be interesting rhytmically.
- Tonality, if there's nothing more than just the normal major/minor thing and no chromatism or something else that makes it interesting, I usually just get bored with it.
- The flow or drive of the piece, it must change and move forward and there must not be too much repetition or obvious working on the same theme. I think this is why I am usually drawn to shorter works. When the idea is used, it's used and one should just go on. I am not at all interested in structural analyses of the longer works. Maybe it's because I just tend to live in the moment

EDIT: Forgot one thing, the mood of the piece. I don't like "happy" music. It annoys me. I am not an unhappy or depressed person, so I don't know why it is so, but I just get happier when the music is really melancholic or "depressing"

[thalbergmad]

Uneducated listeners either enjoy or dislike what they hear. Educated listeners seem to need to write posts not less than 5,000 words to describe why.

Thal

[rachmaninoff_forever]

Well it's kinda awesome to listen to a performance and be able to distinguish mistakes.  I remember this scenario when I went to a concert with my sister.

*after moonlight sonata*

Sister:  wow that was absolutely flawless!

Me:  almost...

Sister:  really where?

Me:  near the very end he hit a stray note on those four really dramatic chords

*after Scriabin's 5th sonata*

Sister:  now THAT was flawless

Me:  almost. 

Sister:  where?   

Me:  somewhere in the really slow intro after the weird scaly thing.

Sister:  Well this next piece is his own piece and you said you've never heard it before.  So we can't tell if he hits any wrong notes or not! 

Me:  yes we can. 

Sister:  how?   

Me:  trust me...  You can just tell

Sister:  whatever dude...   

[suniil]

Educated listeners will look for mistakes
Un-educated listeners will enjoy the moment, cheer up and support

[m1469]

I actually don't think emotion is what music is about.

[outin]

I actually don't think emotion is what music is about.

If we differentiate between "emotion" and "feeling", then I agree. But if you suggest that music should only be processed on the "intellectual" level then I couldn't disagree more.

[m1469]

But if you suggest that music should only be processed on the "intellectual" level then I couldn't disagree more.

I believe music has meaning and that musical experience is enhanced with greater understanding.

[outin]

I believe music has meaning and that musical experience is enhanced with greater understanding.

OK. In general I don't think anything has "meaning" in the sense that things have a higher purpose.

[m1469]

OK. In general I don't think anything has "meaning" in the sense that things have a higher purpose.

I guess you assume that I am talking about a "higher purpose" at all, and that this is somehow not something you agree with.  Just for the record, I didn't mention that and my comments would fit perfectly well into the same words excluding that.  However, since you brought it up  , I suppose it depends on how you define "higher purpose."  As a point of reference, the principles of mathematics have a higher purpose than numbers, but sure, what that is seems subjective.

[outin]

I guess you assume that I am talking about a "higher purpose" at all, and that this is somehow not something you agree with.  Just for the record, I didn't mention that and my comments would fit perfectly well into the same words excluding that.  However, since you brought it up  , I suppose it depends on how you define "higher purpose."  As a point of reference, the principles of mathematics have a higher purpose than numbers, but sure, what that is seems subjective.

Since we have not defined what we mean with all these concepts, we might be talking about exactly the same thing or not

Yes, certainly music (and everything else) has meaning, if we define meaning to be subjective. I did assume that you meant meaning as something objective.

[m1469]

Yes, certainly music (and everything else) has meaning, if we define meaning to be subjective. I did assume that you meant meaning as something objective.

Well, a reasoning, thinking person's subjective perceptions eventually filter down to their own, objective standpoints.  Through experience and process, we develop a bottom line with regard to what and how we value life, whether that bottom line has room to grow and evolve or not.

[outin]

Well, I guess a reasoning, thinking person's subjective perceptions eventually become objective standpoints - we reach a bottom line in what and how we value life through experience and process, whether that bottom line has room to grow and evolve or not.

 

Since we are talking about listening to music, I think I should clarify what I meant originally: I do not want to use my intellect when I listen to music. I just listen and it either works or not (which I would decribe as feeling something). But I wanted to separate the concepts feeling and emotion. I can feel hungry/cold etc. but I wouldn't call those emotions. So for me music is not about emotions either, but I do think it is about feelings.
Whether music has meaning for me or not, is entirely dependent on the definition of the word...

[m1469]

Since we are talking about listening to music, I think I should clarify what I meant originally: I do not want to use my intellect when I listen to music. I just listen and it either works or not (which I would decribe as feeling something). But I wanted to separate the concepts feeling and emotion. I can feel hungry/cold etc. but I wouldn't call those emotions. So for me music is not about emotions either, but I do think it is about feelings.
Whether music has meaning for me or not, is entirely dependent on the definition of the word...

OK.

[Petter]

a bit off topic..
to me it seems the emotional response is alot stronger if I hear something by chance.. pieces used in films or even in commercials, street musicians ...putting on a cd - nothing happens

[jakev2.0]

The emotional response we get from listening to music whether we are an educated listener or not is always a profound one and is the most important part of music appreciation.

Not true.  Some people don't have much of an emotional response to music, at all.  It's something called amusia and it seems like 4% of the population suffers from it.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amusia

Some argue if a listener knows How the piece was composed they might have a better appreciation of the work. If you know the composer or the exact reason why they wrote a particular piece for instance then you might find you get more out of your listening experience.

Sometimes less of an appreciation.

Some educated listeners have a whole list of greatest performances and any that are not on that list are constantly compared to their most treasured experiences. Is this healthy for our appreciation of music? Can being an educated and picky listener be in fact detrimental to our future listening experience? Or maybe it is just the hurdle that we want to see others overcome so we can replace our top dogs and raise the bar?

Performances are judged with some kind of perspective and context.   Our enjoyment is also shaped by this on some level.   I think it's also possible to assess the quality of a performance independently of how much we like it or the person making it (I'll explain in the last paragraph).

Suppose I'm told that Professor Doofus McGoofus, (PhD) from the Keyboard Department at the internationally esteemed Greendale Conservatory is one of the world's leading experts in Baroque performance and is playing the 6th Bach Partita at Carnegie Hall.  

Am I going to judge Dr. McGoofus's performance differently than I would my friend (an amateur) who is learning the same piece?  Of course.  You bet I'm comparing McGoofus to Glenn Gould, which would just be a silly and mean comparison to make of your amateur friend. My actual enjoyment of the music will also be shaped by the context.  It's possible that I'll enjoy my friend's performance a lot more, even though McGoofus's is much more precise and exhibits a lot more skill.  This is due to the context of the two performances which are just inescapable for us.

I think it's fair.  The professor's reputation gives him a responsibility that the amateur isn't expected to have; i.e., that his performance is at a certain level.  

Assessing art in an honest way:

I have an emotional bias against artists like Alfred Cortot (who was a Nazi sympathizer).  Not to mention artists like the film director Roman Polansky who committed absolutely horrible crimes.  But I force myself to listen to the art and judge it divorced from my opinion of the artist.  It's a good exercise.  It focuses you, forces you to be honest, and forces you to deal with difficult and paradoxical conclusions;  i.e., that Nazis can be genius interpreters of Chopin, and a rapist can direct movies that truly move me.    

[lostinidlewonder]

Not true.  Some people don't have much of an emotional response to music, at all.  It's something called amusia and it seems like 4% of the population suffers from it.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amusia

I guess if you have no emotional/feeling response then you are like a dead person. If listening to music annoys or confuses you then it is a response, if you have absolutely zero response then this is very weird IMO and certain not normal. They obviously have no musical appreciation if there is no emotional/feeling response or that response if clouded by confused processing.

I met many tone deaf people who can't sing a note in key at all but they think they are, but even these people are keen on music, sme even prove that by their terrible but joyful singing lol. Interesting abnormal condition however thanks for pointing it out.

Sometimes less of an appreciation.

How? You might like a work less but I think one appreciates how a piece may cause a response within themselves with more intensity once gaining more insider knowledge of the piece/composer/performer. I am yet to know more about a piece and appreciate it less myself. Appreciate means to me to find the worth of a work and my opinion of if I like it or not does not contribute to the majority of this.  Enjoyment is the "like" part of the appreciation and the icing on top of the appreciation for me Most people only like the topping both the educated and uneducated listeners.

Performances are judged with some kind of perspective and context.   Our enjoyment is also shaped by this on some level.   I think it's also possible to assess the quality of a performance independently of how much we like it or the person making it (I'll explain in the last paragraph).

Suppose I'm told that Professor Doofus McGoofus, (PhD) from the Keyboard Department at the internationally esteemed Greendale Conservatory is one of the world's leading experts in Baroque performance and is playing the 6th Bach Partita at Carnegie Hall.  

Am I going to judge Dr. McGoofus's performance differently than I would my friend (an amateur) who is learning the same piece?  Of course.  You bet I'm comparing McGoofus to Glenn Gould, which would just be a silly and mean comparison to make of your amateur friend. My actual enjoyment of the music will also be shaped by the context.  It's possible that I'll enjoy my friend's performance a lot more, even though McGoofus's is much more precise and exhibits a lot more skill.  This is due to the context of the two performances which are just inescapable for us.

I think it's fair.  The professor's reputation gives him a responsibility that the amateur isn't expected to have; i.e., that his performance is at a certain level.  

Assessing art in an honest way:

I have an emotional bias against artists like Alfred Cortot (who was a Nazi sympathizer).  Not to mention artists like the film director Roman Polansky who committed absolutely horrible crimes.  But I force myself to listen to the art and judge it divorced from my opinion of the artist.  It's a good exercise.  It focuses you, forces you to be honest, and forces you to deal with difficult and paradoxical conclusions;  i.e., that Nazis can be genius interpreters of Chopin, and a rapist can direct movies that truly move me.    

An interesting perspective one which is shared by a lot of people. Don't you find it mysterious, how once we know more about a performance it changes the dimension of our listening experience in so many ways and can indeed challenge us. Would it a good practice however to be able to turn this thinking process off at will? I have attended international pianist concerts and had to do this because my expectations went too high and ruined my listening experience because of the comparisons. When we can just listen without any preconceived notions it can allow us to enjoy instead of appreciating.I feel I get more enjoyment when I do that at least. However one can't help but be impressed when you hear a performance that changes your perspectives on music in a positive way and that can only occur when comparing to our past musical experience (and if there is no experience to draw from, the current performance will add to it instead).