Richard Ujvary writes:

>I tend to agree with the composer Allen Shawn who writes in today's WSJ
>on Schoenberg that "an analytical account will tell us nothing about this
>music if we have not already grasped it intuitively as we do any other
>music at first hearing".  Shawn seems to want listeners to have a more
>"superficial", i.e non-analytical approach to the music.  He's a fan so
>maybe he's onto something not only for Schoenberg but for other atonal
>music.

I certainly agree.  It seems to be characteristic of the arts that
works can be approached in various ways.  One way is the non-analytical
or intuitive approach- another involves more study and relies more on
expertise - either the "approacher's" or someone else's.  The latter
approach undoubtedly can enrich the first, but the first represents the
existential confrontation between the work of art and the approacher.

Steve Schwartz has mentioned from time to time the benefits of actual
participation in music making as a powerful path to understanding.  Based
on my brief career as a chorister twenty five years ago I can see his
point.  A good amateur violinist of my acquaintance assures me that he can
appreciate and understand a Bartok Quartet as a performer on a far deeper
level than I can- a mere listener.  But Bartok, or any other composer,
surely had warm bodies in mind, over and beyond the four warm bodiesplaying
his work.  Of course all of those those warm bodies need to be equipped
with ears and receptive minds.

Getting back to atonal music, I can suggest a little exercise which I
intend to perform as soon as I can.  Listen to a good recording of the Berg
Violin Concerto, then read Michael Steinberg's essay on the work in his
collection, " The Concerto", then listen again.

Bernard Chasan