Esther Sims wrote:

>If he/she needs to really focus on what they are hearing and completely
>digest the music (in an analytical way) before they can appreciate it,
>can it really be classified as music?

Serial or dodecaphonic music is not right at the top of my personal
music-listening diet (i.e., I don't find myself attracted to it very much),
but there are a few such works I have come across that I am impressed by,
for instance, Schoenberg's Piano Concerto and Rochberg's 2nd Symphony.  I
think I am attracted to these few works because the composers were able to
express something of musical importance that I can respond to, regardless
of the presence or absence of conventional tonality.  In other words, to me
tonality/atonality is not the issue, it's whether I can relate to what the
composer is saying.

As to whether music that requires analysis before it can be appreciated
is "really" music, I have a very broad concept of music--I'll even accept
the dreaded Mr.  Cage!  But there are certainly some pieces of music I feel
much friendlier to than others, and this is also independent of how much
analysis I need to "get" them.  Again, if a certain piece seems to be to be
really saying something (I grant that this is a rather vague expression),
I'll give it a lot of attention, even if I have to work hard at trying to
figure it out.  The same is true of poetry or other forms of literature:
some things you have to think about a lot, and other things appeal to the
heart rather than the intellect.  But both can be great art, in my book.

Jon Johanning // [log in to unmask]