Bryan Thorpe writes:

>Let me throw this on the table:  After I've purchased a new CD
>(unfortunately, I'm not in a position to take care of LP's yet), I
>listen to it carefully.  To the best of my abilities I follow the musical
>arguments (this could mean a lot of things).  I try to be conscious of the
>effect the music is having on me.  I feel for structure, for tension, for
>motion -- and yes, for beauty too.  After I've gained some familiarity with
>the piece, I read the liner notes.  I also do a bit of research on the
>piece and the composer -- maybe over the web or just using my Oxford, etc..
>Then I listen to the music again.  And the music changes.

I do that too, but I don't think that one should have to put too much work
into listening.  I find that 20th CM (some) requires that kind of in depth
study, where I find the 19th century music is more imeadiately obvious
(most at least).  I mentioned in a recent, sure to be controversial post,
that music should be entertaining rather than an academic exercise.
Rigged for depth charges.

>Sometimes it's the trivia of a composer's life -- how he/she was divorced
>-- that affects me.  Maybe their dying last words stick with me.  Or, this
>is the obvious case, the "story" of the music (in program music) is present
>to me.  Whatever the case, the music is colored; I am emotionally and
>intellectually inclinded towards the music in a new way -- usually a better
>way.

I once asked the list to rate the "value" in CM and offered 1)the music
itself 2) the composer,3) the performance 4) the historical times as
criteria.  Most responded rating the music itself as high.  I admit that
knowing something about the composer is high on my list - knowing that
Beethoven was deaf when he wrote this, knowing that Chopin was depressed,
etc.  When I listen to my software's generated music I think "Incredible
that this was written by a computer applying some rules of music", but of
course, I am a computer freak.  But is is a lot like appreciating a piece
of music knowing it was written by a five year old (all obvious jokes aside
that my generated music sounds like it was written by a five year old)

>I'd like to hear the case for pure listening -- if I can call it that.
>What is the ideal way to approach a piece of music?

There will be little agreement on that on this list of wide backgrounds
and interests.  For me, I want it to take me away but in an organized way.
For me, the themes must be clearly recognizable, and I must hear something
that I've heard before so that the composition folds back on itself and
takes on a structure.  I do not like to have to search for this as I am not
intending to make a study of it as if the composer and I are playing "hide
and go seek" or he is giving me a puzzle to solve.  I get enough of that in
real life looking for the truth.  When I hear something new, is this really
new or a transformation of something I've already heard.  Presenting an
inverted melody is a cute trick, but if its not obvious to the mind, it
comes across as something new and unrelated - "where does this fit in the
grand scheme of things?" I should not have to study the score to get the
point.

>How do you find good music?

Entertaining.

>How should you listen to music? -- other than with an open heart?

My approach is to say to the composer "Here I am.  I am giving you some of
my valuable time.  Astonish me"

Bill Pirkle