"This is precisely the unique thing about music: it speaks a language that is understood without learning, understood by everyone, not just by the so-called musical people. If this were not so, folk music would not be the universal phenomenon it is. Fundamentally, Bach and Beethoven speak no other language than the folk song."
-p. 4, The Sense of Music by Victor Zuckerkandl (former professor at St. John's College of Annapolis)
4 comments:
Hmmm. Nice and democratic sounding, but I'm not sure I totally agree. Certainly there is a level at which anyone, educated or not, can enjoy music. But like any discipline, learning its language can increase both understanding and enjoyment.
Compare your quote with one from Dr. Robert Greenberg (instructor with the Teaching Company, music historian, composer):
“Music, like any pseudoscience, requires an adjectival palette by which we can isolate events that without proper terms we might not even be able to notice. It’s an interesting question to what degree language allows us to perceive things that are not language-associated. I’m a strong believer that if you’ve got the right word to identify something, you can perceive it. I think my favorite pseudoscience when it comes to this kind of thing is wine-tasting, where one has to come up with an adjectival palette that is almost a cartoon unto itself. But silly as these phrases may be—‘Oh, this has a hint of young tobacco, and old oak fragrant with raspberries’—silly as these terms are, they allow us to draw distinctions without which we may not be able to draw at all. So we will create a useful vocabulary.”
Sure, anyone can drink a glass of wine and think, "Yummy." But an experienced sommelier may well be able to distinguish nuances and flavors that Joe Beer couldn't possibly discern. Perhaps it sounds elitist, but it's true!
At one level, what you are saying, as you admit, is elitist, and therefore it is wrong.
But really, beyond that, I can't disagree per se with what you say and neither would Zuckerkandl. I just think you have the wrong focus.
It seems to me that the fruit of music is the enjoying of it, not the understanding of it. Obviously someone who has studied music will be in a better position to enjoy the music than someone who has not, but I think it would be a rather unfounded statement to try and say that only those who have studied music truly enjoy it. In fact, everything points to the contrary, and I think this is Zuckerkandl's point, and also why music is so important and good.
Take poetry for example. Modern poetry. I think the biggest criticism of modern poetry is that it has become so wrapped up in its own ivory tower forms and images that it doesn't make sense to normal, everyday people anymore. Honestly, it isn't really considered to be good. I'm sure that the elitist poets who wrote them could explain all the complexities and references to you, but go and read them. They're awful.
Compare to Billy Collins, former poet laureate of the US. Anybody can read it and understand it and love it. This doesn't make it dumb and simple, someone who has studied poetry will be able to pick out his use of form and subtle use of rhythm, the poetical puns he makes and references he drops, and it just makes his poetry better. You don't need any of that though to love it. And I think that is what makes his poetry great and really separates him from most modern poets.
Take your example of wine. Wine isn't great because of wine connousieurs. Wine is something the common man enjoyed long before there were wine connousieurs developing their taste and appreciation of it.
So now enter Bach, Beethoven, and folk music. I got to be honest with you, music isn't great because of Bach. Music is great because of folk. Every culture in the world has its own folk music. Its own styles of music that every man can dance to and sing to and play along with. Europe was enjoying and developing its music for many hundreds of years prior to Bach. Bach simply took what could be described without much difficulty as the folk music of 18th century Europe to its pinnacle. And everybody back then (truly everybody a few years after his death) loved Bach. You didn't need to study music to enjoy Bach in the least. Thats a big part of what made Bach great. And I would argue that complexity on no level made him great. He used the skills and techniques he had to make his music lovely, he didn't make it lovely by making it elitist.
So, really, I can't outright disagree with you if all you are saying is that someone who has studied music will understand Bach better and probably enjoy him even more. Sure. But I think that is largely missing the point.
>>is elitist, and therefore it is wrong.<<
Well, I was sort of kidding when I called it elitist. It is no more elitist (or wrong) than having a vigorous, biblical classical education as opposed to a ho-hum education. "It" being a deeper, more disciplined study of ____ (fill in the blank...music, wine, art, literature, whatever) than simple enjoyment.
>> I think it would be a rather unfounded statement to try and say that only those who have studied music truly enjoy it.<<
Agreed. I wasn't suggesting that someone who hasn't studied music can't enjoy it--only that he can enjoy it on many more levels.
By the way, even though I brought it up, your original quote said nothing about enjoying, but about understanding music. My main "beef" with the quote was this snippet: "it [music] speaks a language that is understood without learning."
Enjoyed without learning, sure. But understood without learning? Well, at some level. But to study Bach's techniques, his masterful use of counterpoint, his beautiful and at the same time, mathematical approach to composition is to be able to appreciate it far more. By studying the political climate and situation in which Shostakovitch wrote his symphony no. 8 makes it far more fascinating (was it praising Stalin or was it an overwrought caricature?). If you listen to Berlioz' March to the Scaffold without studying it, you'll hear a certain section simply as cymbals and pizzicato violin. But after studying it, you'll hear a guy being guillotined, his headed bouncing down to the ground after the blade crashes down.
I have now listened twice to Dr. Greenberg's wonderful 48 lecture series, "How to Listen to and Understand Great Music." (http://www.teach12.com/ttcx/CourseDescLong2.aspx?cid=700) I can say without a doubt that his course will change the way you hear--and yes, enjoy--concert music.
>> music isn't great because of Bach. Music is great because of folk....[snip]...And everybody back then (truly everybody a few years after his death) loved Bach. <<<
No, I don't think so. As I understand it, his much was considered by many (including his sons as they grew up and became composers) as fuddy-duddy, outdated, overly-ornate, and overly-virtuosic. Everybody, unfortunately, did not love Bach during his time. It took awhile before his was rediscovered and appreciated.
>>someone who has studied music will understand Bach better and probably enjoy him even more. <<
We agree, then.
>>But I think that is largely missing the point.<<
Which was?
My point is simply that Bach was essentially the folk music of his day. Zuckerkandl’s point is that anyone who hears Bach and is stirred by him is fundamentally understanding Bach, and that that is the first seed to cultivating a better more indepth understanding.
Post a Comment