DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
General => General Discussion => Topic started by: jammindude on March 20, 2018, 04:43:17 PM
-
I brought this up because of something Stads brought up in another thread.
But honestly, if listening is a “skill” (and I believe it is) then it stands to reason that you must LEARN how to do it, and furthermore, it would be possible to reach higher “skill levels” as you learn more and grow.
I’m not claiming that it is necessarily quantifiable...most likely it isn’t. But I think that claiming that some level of learned skill isn’t involved in really *listening* is ludicrous.
-
Yes.
Just like running, or walking, or speaking.
Most of us can do all of these things naturally. But we can learn and study and practice to do them much better.
-
So listening to certain types of music may then require a greater degree of skill than others?
-
So listening to certain types of music may then require a greater degree of skill than others?
Oh, music? I have no idea. I thought you meant attentive listening.
I guess listening to music more attentively, being able to notice certain things (etc) might be a skill, as opposed to passive listening. I was referring to listening in general though.
And I don't think "type" of music matters. You can actively listen to any type of music. Complexity would just give you more to distinguish.
-
Of course listening is a skill.
So listening to certain types of music may then require a greater degree of skill than others?
No. One can passively or actively listen to any kind of music. No skill is required to hear music.
-
You mentioned speaking. Wouldn’t most of us admit that those with extremely poor grammar are at the very least “uneducated”?
I was speaking generally and wanting to focus on music particularly. I don’t view them as separate subjects. Listening to music is one of the things that you can utilize the skill of listening in.
-
Of course listening is a skill.
So listening to certain types of music may then require a greater degree of skill than others?
No. One can passively or actively listen to any kind of music. No skill is required to hear music.
I can “hear” my wife, and still not listen. I don’t see any difference just because the subject is music.
Just because I can hear music doesn’t mean I’m listening to music.
-
You mentioned speaking. Wouldn’t most of us admit that those with extremely poor grammar are at the very least “uneducated”?
Well yes, but there's more to speaking well than proper grammar. In fact, it's not even necessary. Speaking well can involve rate of speech, fluidity, ability to connect thoughts to verbalized words, etc.
-
If we're talking about listening to people, like Adami, then I have to go with yes. My initial thought was that it was simply a trait that some people possess more than others. My boss is the world's worst listener. Without effort I'm not very good, either. However, if it were a trait there'd be nothing one could do about it. I can listen attentively to people if I think to do it, despite my inherent tendencies.
As for music, that's tough. I'm not particularly good at it, despite loving music a great deal. I can listen to a song I've known for 30 years and suddenly hear what the lyrics are. Or hear a fantastic keyboard layer or drum fill that I hadn't noticed. I'm not honestly sure if that's something I could change or not. I suppose my ability to listen to music is shallow. I drawn to specific bits and then lock in on them, but have trouble hearing the deeper bits. After a while I will, and that's when I really grow to appreciate something. I don't think that's something I could change.
-
You mentioned speaking. Wouldn’t most of us admit that those with extremely poor grammar are at the very least “uneducated”?
Well yes, but there's more to speaking well than proper grammar. In fact, it's not even necessary. Speaking well can involve rate of speech, fluidity, ability to connect thoughts to verbalized words, etc.
I don’t see anything that you stated here that couldn’t be applied to music as well.
-
When I was in 9th grade, when my geometry teacher was doing the syllabus on the first day he said "there's a difference between listening and paying attention"
I was one of the few people that noticed he had his middle finger in the air, flipping off the class. Point well taken :lol
-
I'd say it has to do with the generics and biological lottery as well. If you're born with piss poor hearing, you're obviously not going to be hearing as well as someone that has perfect hearing and has "trained" to listen to quieter sounds to discern them better. Speaking? Absolutely. I'd argue that a man who speaks five languages fluently "speaks" better than someone who hardly has a full grasp on their own. Like Adami mentioned, it's also how you speak that overlays the actual words you're stringing together. I'm pretty loud-mouthed at times since I'm used to yelling over drunken patrons and a band while I'm bartending, and sometimes I'll notice how people mumble and speak softly a lot more than I noticed it before I had to listen to people over a lot of other sounds as well as having to enunciate my words while yelling. :lol
Music wise...I hesitate to get into because holy shit we all know where that will lead, but without stepping on the ever sensitive toes of others, I'd say it would pertain more to actually sussing out the individual notes of specific instruments being heard and discerned. I've had those moments where I'm listening to a song I've heard a few times before (and sometimes with those bands that use tons and tons of instruments, my example specifically is in reference to The Mars Volta), I'll hear a cool beat underlying the other, more prominent instruments and think how cool it is that you can effectively make yourself hear it over the other instruments if you try. That in itself, I think at least, is "hearing better" to an extent.
-
I guess there are different levels of listening for music and speech. Listening to music at a party is different than listening to music for the purpose of learning how to play it for example ( stop , rewind , play on a cassette player ). I suppose listening to speech is the same for me now thinking about it. I need to focus to really understand what you are saying if I hope to retain it.
I was listening to Murders in the Rue Morgue today on the radio and the bass parts under the solo are really cool. I've heard the song a million times over the years but today that section really caught my attention ( Steve Harris was a beast on that early stuff ). So I guess I was in the right state of mind to listen to something familier and perceive something a little different , just to throw that into the mix.
-
You mentioned speaking. Wouldn’t most of us admit that those with extremely poor grammar are at the very least “uneducated”?
Well yes, but there's more to speaking well than proper grammar. In fact, it's not even necessary. Speaking well can involve rate of speech, fluidity, ability to connect thoughts to verbalized words, etc.
I don’t see anything that you stated here that couldn’t be applied to music as well.
I have no idea what that even means. In this case you asked about speaking and related it to grammar. I was just clarifying.
It seems you want us to say that listening to certain types of music takes more skill. To what end? I am not sure what your overall point is.
-
To the OP, I believe that listening is a skill and it is a skill one can hone and improve upon.
In high school and college I was very involved in choirs both large and small. I honestly feel at that time my listening abilities as it pertains to music was at its apex. Much of it was very likely because while participating with the choirs, not only did I have to pay attention to the music but I also had to pay extremely close attention to the voices around me. To pitch, to syncopation, to inflection, to breath. It takes effort and practice - lots and lots of practice.
I'm sure I suck at it all now. But only because my hearing is for shit and I'm way out of practice. But I definitely believe some people are born better at it and some people just aren't. But all of us have the potential to BE better listeners if we want to put in the time and effort.
As far as every day listening, I'd also argue that the more we listen to music the more discerning we become. That doesn't mean the same thing as saying one band or artist is "better" than another because that is simply a matter of personal preference and taste.
-
Of course listening is a skill.
So listening to certain types of music may then require a greater degree of skill than others?
No. One can passively or actively listen to any kind of music. No skill is required to hear music.
I can “hear” my wife, and still not listen. I don’t see any difference just because the subject is music.
Just because I can hear music doesn’t mean I’m listening to music.
Point taken. But, it doesn't take anymore skill on your part to listen to your wife speak than say, for you listen to my wife to my wife speak. I don't see any difference just because the subject is music.
-
That depends on what she’s saying. She might be telling me something very simple, or she might have to sit me down and explain a much more in depth concept.
-
That doesn't mean the same thing as saying one band or artist is "better" than another because that is simply a matter of personal preference and taste.
That's where I fear The Dude is trying to lead us...back into horse corral to resurrect the poor old bones of objectivity vs. subjectivity.
-
LOL! I’m just trying to invoke discussion that is designed to help anyone and everyone to think outside linear concepts.
-
That depends on what she’s saying. She might be telling me something very simple, or she might have to sit me down and explain a much more in depth concept.
Now your talking about your ability to comprehend what either woman is saying. That doesn't mean you are listening any less carefully, one to the other or that your skill is any less, one to the other.
-
While there is definitely overlap, the purpose of active listening for people and music are generally different.
For people, we're not really listening for complexities and so forth, we're listening for meaning, subtext, and emotional nuances. With music, it's more about layers, the intricate relationships between notes, rhythms, etc.
Though, as I said there are overlaps. With people you're often listening to repeated motifs, and so forth.
It would be more akin to listening to a whole group of people talking and trying to focus on how what they're all saying works together or focusing on one or two people at a time.
-
One is an attempt to focus on another while one is an attempt to focus on oneself. I find focusing on somebody else as per hearing them is a lot harder than focusing on myself and listening to music.
-
That depends on what she’s saying. She might be telling me something very simple, or she might have to sit me down and explain a much more in depth concept.
Now your talking about your ability to comprehend what either woman is saying. That doesn't mean you are listening any less carefully, one to the other or that your skill is any less, one to the other.
Excellent point. But then by extension, that would lead me to reason out that one can acquire musical "comprehension"...but, it's a skill.
-
I think Jammin is on to something, but like Adami said, I think he's trying to lead us to a conclusion as well.
Lsitening is absolutely a skill. I've taken too many negotiation classes and endured too much therapy to say otherwise. But you can apply "listening skills" to just about anything. I probably use as much of that skill with my 10 month old grandson than I do with some of the smartest people I know, simply because THEIR intelligence helps the communication by "helping" me listen.
I think Jimmy Page is a musical genius. He makes it easy to listen to Zeppelin. For all their bombast, their records are pristine, with wonderful balance, wonderful dynamics and a shit ton of space to let each instrument breathe. Hell, when you can hear the squeak of Bonham's kick drum pedal (as you can on "Since I've Been Loving You") you know that the recording is top notch. "Beat" era Crimson is the same way. Contrast that with mid-Gabriel-period Genesis that is by and large a soggy mess at times, and it gets to be a challenge.
Personally, I think the genre of the music (or the length of the piece) are not key factors in this discussion.
-
Sometimes people think I'm trying to create objectivity where there is none. But that's not quite it. I'm not trying to quantify "intelligence" or "intellect" or "feel" into a mathematical equation for enjoyment of the musical experience.
I'm trying to say that both "objectivity" and "subjectivity" are themselves linear definitions. I don't view any of this as being "purely objective" or "purely subjective". It's a blend of both, and yet it's neither. There isn't a line, but there isn't NO line either.
Savvy?
-
Yes, listening is absolutely a skill. Hearing is not the same as listening.
-
That depends on what she’s saying. She might be telling me something very simple, or she might have to sit me down and explain a much more in depth concept.
Now your talking about your ability to comprehend what either woman is saying. That doesn't mean you are listening any less carefully, one to the other or that your skill is any less, one to the other.
Excellent point. But then by extension, that would lead me to reason out that one can acquire musical "comprehension"...but, it's a skill.
I don't disagree, J-Dude, but in the immortal words of Richard Dawkins, "So what!"
You still haven't established that any particular genre or type of music necessarily requires particular level of listening skill. And even if you do, that's an unfinished proposition, right? You need the listening skill to do what? Identify each instrument? Be able to play the drum parts?
Appreciate or love it as much as Jammindude?
So listening to certain types of music may then require a greater degree of skill than others?
I'll concede up front that you are quite likely to have superior listening skills to me when it comes to music. But even if we had the exact level of listening skill, Super's Ready would still be mediocre to me because... tastes! Who knew?
-
Yes. And most people are born with it. They lose it in the course of their lives through addictions, distractions, constant thinking/worrying and an incapability of being in the present moment.
-
People are asking for a point, and I feel like they are missing the point. The point is to engage in discourse that frees the mind. To introduce ideas that encourage growth.
Are we as a society no longer capable of breaking down abstract thoughts?
Is there a Yoda smilie around here? :biggrin: :angel:
-
No, you implied there was a point. Again, I quote:
So listening to certain types of music may then require a greater degree of skill than others?
This wasn't in the OP but you wasted no time interjecting it into the original question as a kind of gotcha to Adami. If you want to Trump your way out now, that's fine. We'll drop it. But the original question, by itself, isn't that compelling.
[edit]
Sorry Jammin, that was a bit trollish of me and quite unfair. All apologies! I'll have a nice shower and some more coffee before I respond next time.
-
My first interpretation of the question was about listening to music, so I'll give my opinion on that. I don't know if 'skill' is the right word, but it's certainly something which others seem to have a kind of instinct or 'talent' for, and a knowledge of what it is they're listening to. The American composer Aaron Copland wrote a book called 'What To Listen For In Music', and it's fascinating. I still don't have anywhere near the level of 'understanding' of music that he and other musicians/composers/musicologists have, but it did make me realise that I'm not 'hearing' around 90% of what's going on in, say, a Beethoven string quartet.
A similar thing seems to be the case in cinema. I'm constantly amazed how certain reviewers or critics can notice details in films which I simply don't catch. I'm not talking about improbable theories about 'what the film-maker meant by this or that', I mean actual details on screen (I recently watched an analysis video of The Big Lebowski, and the guy was highlighting all the 'subliminal' castration imagery used in the paintings behind Maude when she meets Jeff Lebowski for the first time. I've seen that film maybe 50 times, never even paid attention to that stuff before).
So yeah...I'd say we can roughly call listening a skill, and it's not one I have, though I try to develop it by learning about the things I'm listening to.
(If the question is about listening to people, then yes, no doubt that's a skill requiring empathy, awareness, experience, self-perception etc).
-
Ah, that's better.
Okay, J-Dude. On the subject of music, I've thought of an argument that illustrates my position.
Take our own beloved Wolfking. He can listen to any piece of Judas Priest music and pick out which guitar parts (rhythm or lead) that are played by Glen Tipton! I can't do that nor will I ever be able to. We can easily say that Wolfking has superior listening skills without any difficulty and that he has spent a great deal of time developing them.
I don't think one is required to have WK's level of skill to listen to Judas Priest.
-
DM is spot on.
I try to offer arguments that challenge standard thinking. Not out of any sense of “I’m right” or “gotcha”...I challenge others in the same spirit with which I am constantly challenging myself.
-
My first interpretation of the question was about listening to music, so I'll give my opinion on that. I don't know if 'skill' is the right word, but it's certainly something which others seem to have a kind of instinct or 'talent' for, and a knowledge of what it is they're listening to. The American composer Aaron Copland wrote a book called 'What To Listen For In Music', and it's fascinating. I still don't have anywhere near the level of 'understanding' of music that he and other musicians/composers/musicologists have, but it did make me realise that I'm not 'hearing' around 90% of what's going on in, say, a Beethoven string quartet.
A similar thing seems to be the case in cinema. I'm constantly amazed how certain reviewers or critics can notice details in films which I simply don't catch. I'm not talking about improbable theories about 'what the film-maker meant by this or that', I mean actual details on screen (I recently watched an analysis video of The Big Lebowski, and the guy was highlighting all the 'subliminal' castration imagery used in the paintings behind Maude when she meets Jeff Lebowski for the first time. I've seen that film maybe 50 times, never even paid attention to that stuff before).
So yeah...I'd say we can roughly call listening a skill, and it's not one I have, though I try to develop it by learning about the things I'm listening to.
(If the question is about listening to people, then yes, no doubt that's a skill requiring empathy, awareness, experience, self-perception etc).
Kubrick's The Shining is legendary for that. The guy in the dog suit?
Jammin', you don't have to apologize; I love that you put that question out there (not least of which because I don't have to hijack that other thread to make a point!). But I liken this subject to politics; people have a need to self-justify. We as humans are REALLY shitty about being honest with ourselves. We can all point to conservatives that feel they are morally superior for the fact that they believe in a God. We can all point to liberals that feel they "are on the right side of history" for the fact that they hold certain political opinions. I think we probably all know someone like Ritchie Blackmore, who feels that the last "great" composer was Beethoven and he died, what, 50, 60 years ago? :) How many people here think that bro-country and rap are not "music"? That's EXACTLY the same thing as saying "classical music is a higher form, requiring superior listening skills and an elevated intelligence." Which, of course, is bullshit*.
I love your question, not because of the specifics of the question, but because it asks us to be honest with ourselves and asks us to be more cognizant of what we say (and how we say it).
* There is some evidence that people that listen primarily to classical music generally have a higher intelligence, but there is absolutely no cause and effect relationship that I have ever heard, so there are likely other factors - environment, economics, culture - at play).
-
I was thinking more about this today....and I was thinking that IMO, the intelligence factor in music is where we are trying to put definitions on abstract concepts. But there are some things that just cannot be defined in such concrete definitions....but that doesn't mean they don't exist.
It's like "the flow of traffic"...have you ever stopped to think about that? What is "the flow of traffic"? Most of us accept that there *is* such a thing. But if you were to try and define it in the strictest terms, would it be adequate at covering all the bases? If you asked 1000 experienced drivers what "the flow of traffic" means, would they all come up with the same explanation? It seems that we all know what it is, and we all know when some idiot is interrupting or hindering or in some other way messing with "the flow of traffic" but even if you went out and found someone's technical definition of "the flow of traffic", would it be something that everyone would agree with? Would some people just claim that because we can't define it, it becomes something that doesn't truly even exist?
EDIT - and if you think this conversation is about "the flow of traffic", then you're missing the point. The point is that we have things that *DO* exist in every day life that we cannot pinpoint an exact definition that everyone agrees with....but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
-
I get what you're saying.....you're talking about traffic, right?
Really though, here's the issue. The idea of music and intelligence, etc whatever may exist but not be definable. However, pointing to other, unrelated things that exist but are difficult to define does not equate the original argument.
You can't simply remove "definition" from anything just because you're having a hard time defining it, and then point to something else where that applies.
Ya know?
-
So how is it different? I mean, you have something undefinable, but when some people don't know what it is or don't obey the rule we can't define, the word "idiot" gets thrown around by those that claim to "know better" but then others could just claim that "flow of traffic" is a completely subjective term that has no real meaning....
I mean, I fail to see how it's really that much different.
-
So how is it different? I mean, you have something undefinable, but when some people don't know what it is or don't obey the rule we can't define, the word "idiot" gets thrown around by those that claim to "know better" but then others could just claim that "flow of traffic" is a completely subjective term that has no real meaning....
I mean, I fail to see how it's really that much different.
How is music different from traffic? Very very different.
First, traffic is definable. Flow isn't as much.
Music is pretty definable. Intelligence less so.
So what do you mean by intelligence?
-
Following this thread is a fucking skill!
-
So how is it different? I mean, you have something undefinable, but when some people don't know what it is or don't obey the rule we can't define, the word "idiot" gets thrown around by those that claim to "know better" but then others could just claim that "flow of traffic" is a completely subjective term that has no real meaning....
I mean, I fail to see how it's really that much different.
How is music different from traffic? Very very different.
First, traffic is definable. Flow isn't as much.
Music is pretty definable. Intelligence less so.
So what do you mean by intelligence?
This is why I tried to put a disclaimer at the end of that post. I knew people would get too hung up and overly focused on the traffic comparison. But traffic is a McGuffin. If I thought about it long enough, I could have inserted no less than a dozen other examples of things in every day life that we are not able to define in strict black and white terms....but we don't deny their existence just because we can't strictly define them.
-
Well that was my entire point. You can't compare random things. They have to be equivalent.
Of course musical intelligence is quantifiable. Just like mass or distance.
See? It doesn't work if I just compare random things. It's assuming from the beginning that the comparison is correct, when we don't know that it is.
-
If they are things we seek to define, and yet can't define, and yet we don't deny they exist because we can't define them....then they all share that trait. That is the commonality that I am trying to highlight.
-
If they are things we seek to define, and yet can't define, and yet we don't deny they exist because we can't define them....then they all share that trait. That is the commonality that I am trying to highlight.
We can't define a wibble wobble either. Because I made it up. That doesn't mean it exists just because I can compare it to the flow of traffic.
I am mostly pointing out a flaw in your argument. Not necessarily that whatever we're talking about doesn't exist.
.....what is it we're talking about again?
-
*SIGH* :rollin
I think you're just being contrary now.
-
*SIGH* :rollin
I think you're just being contrary now.
No I’m not.
:P
-
What is the point of this topic?
Not being snarky, I'm honestly having a hard time understanding what we're actually trying to discuss here.
-
The more I try and simplify it, the less people understand. So I'm having an extremely difficult time just trying to define it. Which I suppose is the point. Things we take for granted that we can't necessarily define, but that we are sure they exist. And how I believe that is exactly the same as intelligence relating to music.
-
What? Someone say something???
-
The more I try and simplify it, the less people understand. So I'm having an extremely difficult time just trying to define it. Which I suppose is the point. Things we take for granted that we can't necessarily define, but that we are sure they exist. And how I believe that is exactly the same as intelligence relating to music.
Jammin, I'm sorry you're frustrated; I think the topic is a good one, but with all kinds of respect (and you know there's respect there, we go back) I think where I sort of have grief is the idea that "we take for granted that [which] we can't define"... I think even with things we take for granted, we CAN define them. You used a bunch of other examples, like "traffic"; the lay person may not be able to, but we CAN define traffic. We can quantify it. We can model it. We can forecast it. We can predict it. See the discussions we have periodically about the "merger lane". There's always someone that comes in and says "common sense" or "manners" says to merge early, but almost all science and data says use both lanes to their maximum extent if you want to a) minimize traffic from a merge, b) provide a safer merge, and c) get all cars through the merge as quickly as possible. Most of the lack of ability to "define" it is simply that we don't have the vocabulary to do so, much like most of us don't have the vocabulary to understand or define why we piss (beyond the simplistic "to get rid of waste").
I think "listening as a skill" has a real answer, but as it applies to "music" it calls on us to question so many things that are intangible and yet important to us that it is a hard problem to confront. I saw The Musical Box last night, so I got two hours and 15 minutes of solid Genesis live (including your favorite song, Supper's Ready) and while I was sitting there it was a transcendent experience. I found I knew every note and every word, even though I haven't really listened to much Genesis in the past couple years. I was "actively" listening, for sure. Then on the ride home I was listening to Alice Cooper, most of which I have literally never heard even once before. It was also "active" listening, but in a very different way. Sitting in my car, by myself, I had no reason to "self-justify", or quantify the difference (or qualitatively compare "Genesis" to "Alice Cooper"). I think - and I'm sorry if I offend anyone here - people have a vested interest in having the music THEY like be something special; no one wants to be part of the great unwashed masses. "I'm 45! I listen to prog! I have pieces of VINYL! Of COURSE I'm better than that 16 year old that listens to Cardi B on a streaming service! WTF! I can't DEFINE why, but I know I am!"
-
Except I never said “traffic” as an isolated word. Instead, I was addressing the common term “flow of traffic” as a concept. Traffic can be defined....but I was never talking about that.
-
I'm glad you are enjoying thinking about these things, JD.
-
I’m just trying to get people to think beyond linear constructs.
-
Following this thread is a fucking skill!
Not even a joke. :lol
I’m just trying to get people to think beyond linear constructs.
Why? (And I'm not asking for a nonsensical answer not in relation to the thread like "because I'm a nice guy"; but truly wondering what the point of this is in relation to why you created the thread)
And what does all this actually mean? You keep speaking in these extremely oxymoronic terms like "definable but not defined" and a whole lot of other very vague idioms that end up (at least seemingly, to me) being empty and not really relating to anything that's been said.
I mean really, what's the actual point of the thread aside from the already beaten to death answer of what you just posted above. If the point is just to get people to "think beyond linear constructs" (which as a line on it's own, doesn't really mean much) then there has to be a point beyond that. If that was just the point then you got way too specific in the original post pertaining to listening (and even more so in an aforementioned one that related to music specifically).
Again, apologies if any of that comes off as hostile, I'm not meaning to be but I'm having a very hard time grasping what the thread is meant to do not just for you but what others are meant to discuss...beyond this extremely empty line:
I’m just trying to get people to think beyond linear constructs.
Because to be very frank, that's a glorified phrase that's specific to nothing, explains nothing and ultimately means nothing. It's extremely blurry and sounds fancy but it's totally void. Unless there is a point, which is why people keep asking what the point is, and you keep saying...that line (or something very similar), which explains nothing, and promotes no actual discussion other than people wondering what the fuck is going on. :lol I feel like the intention is good but so far it's been chickens with their heads cut off.
If I've missed something huge then so be it but I feel like the answer to my post will just be "just think abstractly about it!" :P
-
You keep speaking in these extremely oxymoronic terms like "definable but not defined" and a whole lot of other very vague idioms that end up (at least seemingly, to me) being empty and not really relating to anything
Sorry to derail this for a moment but THANK YOU Tio!!!! you just constructed the perfect explanation of how I feel about 99% of what I see/read online...social media etc etc. All the "self help".....high brow quotes tacked to these "movements" and social initiatives......these quips and proclamations that are really just a bunch of nonsensical wording tactfully stacked together in a sentence that seems like sage 'advice' but really means jack dookie.
OK....carry on
-
.
-
Hey, shut up everybody and listen. :hat
-
Listen.......you smell that?
-
It's definitely a skill, as well as being able to filter out the BS.
-
Hey, shut up everybody and listen. :hat
I DON'T KNOW HOW
-
I think listening is a skill, for many reasons... but there's also different types of listening... Musically? Well, from my years of lessons with my piano professor, one of the biggest things I learned from him was how, exactly, to listen... to pay attention, to listen critically, to 'learn something' from what you're hearing: it's more than just hearing a note played, it's how that note is played, how it plays with another note, all that. The most important part of my warm-ups is to just drop my fingers onto the keys until I achieve 'the sound' - that perfectly balance of striking and bringing out the note, not too loud, not too soft, not too sharp, not too flat.
Many times I would play, especially in my first year or so with him, and it would always sound good to me. But he would comment that it wasn't, and slowly over time, I listened, and he would record me, and as I listened to the music and warm-ups played back, I would learn from them: and eventually I developed the ability to listen to myself playing in real time, adjusting as I play the piece instead of thinking everything sounds great. It's why I have a hard time listening to my old recordings, because I know I wasn't paying attention to the sounds I was making, at least not as much as I should have.
I dunno... I think it is definitely a skill in the context of being a musician, or analyzing a recording. It's also a skill conductors have to have, that is their job, to listen and find the tiniest faults.
With people? Conversation? I'm not a good listener. I don't have the skill to focus, in real time, face-to-face, on someone's problems, whatever they're talking about. I have a very big problem with in person discussion because I am a poor listener. This is why I can't be a sales person, customer support, etc. - they require great social skills, great listening skills, and I can't do that.
-
Thank you.
I suppose this is meant to be an exercise in objectivity vs subjectivity and how it can never be fully either one. If it was purely objective, it could be measured. But if it were purely subjective, there is no difference between Mangini and a 2 yr old beating pots and pans with wooden spoons. There IS a line, but it’s not possible to define that line or objectively state where it is. But to deny it exists at all just because no one can measure where it is is silly. There are many things in every day life that we know exist, but can’t explain is absolutely concrete terms.
It’s about not being neither subjective nor objective and yet being both.
-
Thank you.
I suppose this is meant to be an exercise in objectivity vs subjectivity and how it can never be fully either one. If it was purely objective, it could be measured. But if it were purely subjective, there is no difference between Mangini and a 2 yr old beating pots
What is "it"? The OP talked about listening, but now it seems like you're just talking about music itself.
If "it" is musical skill, sure, I think we could measure that (within reason). Mangini vs. two year old: Obviously Mangini has more skill. The things he's doing are more difficult than the things the pot-banging kid is doing.
If "it" is musical quality, though, then we have a problem. Does more skilled musician = (objectively) better music? Is the sole deciding factor in the absolute quality of music the skill of its creators? I think it's fairly obvious this isn't the case, otherwise the entire world would listen to nothing but Spiral Architect on an endless loop.
There IS a line, but it’s not possible to define that line or objectively state where it is. But to deny it exists at all just because no one can measure where it is is silly.
See, to me this doesn't sound like you're saying it's both subjective and objective. It sounds like you're saying it is objective, you just can't prove it. And I'm assuming the thrust of this entire thing is supposed to get at some music being objectively better than other music, since that's the direction it's taken in the past. Which is an idea I think is very silly.
And, I don't mean offense by this and maybe I'm off base, but it doesn't really seem like you want to discuss this, it just seems like you want to say your opinion and have everyone agree with you.
Then again I could just be completely misunderstanding everything that's going on here. Who knows.
-
It’s a philosophical discussion. I have a philosophy. Am I attempting to introduce a new take on an old framework? I suppose that would be true. But philosophy is more fluid that facts. So I’m not trying to state anything as a fact that I’m trying to convince others is absolute.
-
I think we're all just a little confused. From my insignifcant perspective, the course of thread went like this...
Jammin: Is listening a skill?
Everybody: It is, indeed a skill.
Jammin: Does certain music take more skill to listen to than others?
Everybody: I have no idea what you're asking
Stadler: Something incorrect
Jammin: I'm trying to get you guys to open your minds and move away from linear constructs
Everybody: Huh?
-
I didn’t read what everyone said so I apologized if it has been mentioned already. But in my view there is a difference between “Hearing” and “Listening” to music. So listening is certainly a skills as it requires a certain level of attention not everyone has or is able to provide.
-
I didn’t read what everyone said so I apologized if it has been mentioned already. But in my view there is a difference between “Hearing” and “Listening” to music. So listening is certainly a skills as it requires a certain level of attention not everyone has or is able to provide.
Yes!!
-
I didn’t read what everyone said so I apologized if it has been mentioned already. But in my view there is a difference between “Hearing” and “Listening” to music. So listening is certainly a skills as it requires a certain level of attention not everyone has or is able to provide.
Yes!!
That is literally what everyone has said thus far.
-
I didn’t read what everyone said so I apologized if it has been mentioned already. But in my view there is a difference between “Hearing” and “Listening” to music. So listening is certainly a skills as it requires a certain level of attention not everyone has or is able to provide.
Yes!!
That is literally what everyone has said thus far.
Yes! This is the starting point we all agree on. It's once we start elaborating that the confusion comes in.
I just said this was a philosophical discussion. I don't understand why everyone is being so adversarial when I'm just trying to have a philosophical discussion about the blurred lines between what we can define and what we can't...
(https://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r47/jammindude/pepesilvia_zpsbxad4sdv.jpg~original)
EDIT - In posting this pic, I'm trying to show that I'm not *REALLY* taking myself that seriously. But I honestly don't understand why there can't be a joy in waxing philosophical about where the lines may possibly blur between the extremes of objectivity and subjectivity.....between the tactile and the metaphysical....
-
........BUT!!!! Just like Pepe Silvia up there, I *am* claiming that everything that I have said so far is not unrelated.
*It's all connected, man!!*
:rollin
-
The Wisdom of Jammin (https://wisdomofchopra.com/)
-
Thank you.
I suppose this is meant to be an exercise in objectivity vs subjectivity and how it can never be fully either one. If it was purely objective, it could be measured. But if it were purely subjective, there is no difference between Mangini and a 2 yr old beating pots and pans with wooden spoons. There IS a line, but it’s not possible to define that line or objectively state where it is. But to deny it exists at all just because no one can measure where it is is silly. There are many things in every day life that we know exist, but can’t explain is absolutely concrete terms.
It’s about not being neither subjective nor objective and yet being both.
Again, respectfully, I think you're missing a component here. EVERYTHING is judged versus a frame of reference. Even your "Mangini/2 year old" comparison. If the criteria is just "do I like it" - the purest form of "subjective", since not only is it different for every person, but perhaps it's different for EACH person depending on when, where, and what - then sure, there is no difference between the "Mangine" and a 2 year old. But if you move to the "Objective", you HAVE to assign a criteria against which we assess that objectivity. Is "Stairway To Heaven" better than "Supper's Ready"? I don't know. What's the criteria? SUBJECTIVELY you say SR, I say STH (though, aside, I just saw the Musical Box play SR in it's entirety and man oh man was it good). OBJECTIVELY, what? Number of copies sold? Neither were singles, but Zep IV outsold Foxtrot, so STH. Radio plays? Stairway is on every year end best song list, without fail. So STH. Length? Stairway is 8:02 and Supper is 22:57. So Supper. You get the point. You can't say most of what you are saying without some qualifier, some frame of reference that is missing. I think that's why the reception may not be what you had hoped.
I'm all for the idea of ditching "linear thinking" (it's not worth going into, except to say I can document this, but I do tend to think differently than most people, much more conceptually than most, and it is both a blessing and a curse at times), but for those that are wired to think that way (and there's no detriment to that) you can't just shatter the mold like piece of glass. You still have to provide the road map from A to G.