Bryan Thorpe writes:

>I understand that I bring to music my cultural dispositions, that is, a
>propensity for popular Western harmonics, etc..  But in the scenario I've
>outlined aboves, I'm adding something else: circumstial knowledge -- the
>circumstances of the composer's life, or his motives, or is theory, or
>the circumstances of the piece, its story or purpose.  I think there is a
>group of people who want to protest this.  For them, a piece of music must
>audibly present a case for its being taken seriously.  No other factors can
>have influence, particularly concerns revolving around theory.  I'm mildly
>sympathetic to this.  But the fact is, I *do* enjoy a piece more when I
>allow myself to be informed of its circumstances and its makers
>circumstances -- even if such informatioin is trivial.

I think that Bryan makes an important point, although I might not go down
the line with him completely.  Music is part of human culture, and as such,
it has a context and a history.  These elements are not to be ignored, and
knowledge of them can contribute to enjoyment and understanding.

Music is not simply a grab bag of techniques.  This is why a contemporary
composition completely in the style of Bach or Haydn would be of marginal
interest at best.  The classical style, filtered through a contemporary
sensibility, is something else again.  Music is, among other things, about
other music.  Hindemith and Shostakovich revisited the Well Tempered
Clavichord as twentieth century composers, not as copiers.

Professor Bernard Chasan
Physics Department, Boston University