Aaron Copland on the Joys of Listening

[paul secor]

Received this as part of an e-mail from Mosaic this morning. Most of us probably don't always listen this way, but there's much truth in what he wrote. (And I think that what he wrote about the concert hall applies to listening in other places, even at home.)

Listening - One Of The Great Joys!

The first prerequisite for listening to music is so obvious that it almost seems ludicrous to mention, yet it is often the single element that is absent: to pay attention and to give the music your concentrated effort as an active listener.

It is revealing to compare the actions of theater audiences to those of symphonic audiences. In the theater the audience listens with full attention to every line of the play, knowing that if important lines are missed understanding can be diminished-this instinctive attention is too often lacking in the concert hall. One has but to observe listeners at a concert to witness the distractions of talking or reading or simply staring into space.

Only a small percentage are vitally concerned with the essential role of active listening.

This lack is serious because the listener is essential to the process of music; music after all consists of the composer, the performer and the listener. Each of these three elements should be present in the most ideal way. We expect a fine composition brilliantly performed, but how often do we think it should also be brilliantly heard?

The destiny of a piece of music, while basically in the hands of the composer and performer, also depends on the attitude and ability of the listener. It is the listener in the larger sense who dictates the ultimate acceptance or rejection of the composition and performer...Unfortunately for music, many listeners are content to sit in an emotional bath and limit their reaction to music to the sensual element of being surrounded by sounds. But the sounds are organized; the sounds have intellectual as well as emotional appeal.

The adventure of learning how to listen to music is one of the great joys of exposure to this art...Your efforts to understand more of what is taking place will be rewarded a thousand-fold in the intense pleasure and increased interest you will find. - What To Listen For In Music, Aaron Copland

(The bold print was my emphasis.)

Edited November 23, 2013 by paul secor

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

Well, I thought it was bullshit. I don't deny that "the sounds have intellectual as well as emotional appeal," but that only applies to someone who can listen with the ear of a musician. So, for me, the whole thing was a self-serving exercise. Furthermore, he treats music as a thing in itself, but it isn't and it's at least as interesting to listen to music as an expression of a time and place. But is that something that musicians think of music? - that it's a thing in itself, without broader context?

MG

[John Litweiler]

There was a study some years ago that concluded nearly everyone's ability to concentrate on listening to music was limited -- that listening required some effort; maybe discipline is the right word. I'm assuming the difficulty to listen closely increases the more abstract the music become. That is, we have no problem in listening to short or repetititive songs in pentatonic scales. But the further the intervals or harmonies get from the sound waves that seem most pleasing to human ears, and/or the longer of the compositions we hear, the more difficult sustained listening becomes. For instance, I believe Bill Russo or somebody taught that seconds and fourths and such add tension, thirds and sixths calm.

Surely there is a book or a study that explains how human ears receive / respond to sound waves. What is that book or study?

This ability to concentrate deeply may have also affect musicians as they create. How often have you heard an improvisation that started beautifully and soon ran out of gas?

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

This ability to concentrate deeply may have also affect musicians as they create. How often have you heard an improvisation that started beautifully and soon ran out of gas?

Sometimes, but usually when the musician was trying to push his/her personal envelope and not quite making it, or not quite able to sustain it. I don't regard that as a bad thing. I never thought it was lack of concentration that made things drop off. But It might be sometimes and, hey? so what? What happens, happens.

MG

[jeffcrom]

Well, it's not bullshit, MG, although the approach Copland describes is only one way to listen to/approach music. I think we had a version of this argument when you visited.

Music is a lot of things, which are not mutually exclusive. It's an expression of its time and place, it's a thing in itself, it's a "product," it's an expression of the person who created it, and it has a social/cultural function.

I listen to music in all kinds of ways - with deep attention, with partial attention, as a background to work, and as a background for socializing. I get something different out of each. You said once that Jimmy Smith's The Boss album, recorded at the legendary Pascal's La Carrousel Lounge in Atlanta, made you realize that the purpose of the organ trio was to be the soundtrack for the party. Yeah, well.... Those happy partiers you hear in the background on the album are missing a lot of the music - they're getting the flavor and excitement, but Jimmy Smith is doing some amazing things that they are talking and laughing through. On the other hand, when I'm listening at home and shaking my head in amazement at Mr. Smith's playing, I'm certainly missing out on the atmosphere, the camaraderie, the context, and well, the fun that those folks were experiencing. But that doesn't make my way of approaching the music bullshit; it's just different.

And I don't think you need a musician's ear to be able to "follow" music in the way that Copland is talking about. One of my favorite pieces of recorded music is Charlie Parker's "Embracable You," take one. Even a casual listener will recognize that this is an exceptionally beautiful piece of music, but a close listening will reveal that it's also a brilliantly constructed improvisation, with the opening six-note lick serving as the basis for the whole thing. Bird repeats that lick, transposes it, turns it upside down, disguises it - but I think most people could follow what he's doing. This recording rewards listening with the kind of attention Copland describes.

And yes, I know that context of that three-minute recording - the circumstances of Bird's life at the time, what was going on in jazz at the time, the relationship between jazz and popular song, the currents of American society at the time, the fact that just minutes later Parker played another excellent (although not quite as brilliant) improvisation on "Embracable You." I can think about all, but mostly, this recording is a thing in itself to me. It's a beautiful, deeply moving (to me, anyway), incredibly well put-together piece of music, and it has given me lots of joy over the years.

I've got more, but jeez, that's enough for now.

Edited November 23, 2013 by jeffcrom

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

Yeah, you're right, Jeff. What's bullshit is that it's being put over as THE recipe. Any time anyone says they have the answer for you - whether it be shoe salesman, politician, priest, artist - you know it's a con, because a) there is no THE answer and b) they don't know you from Eric Dolphy.

MG

[JSngry]

I listen to music in all kinds of ways - with deep attention, with partial attention, as a background to work, and as a background for socializing. I get something different out of each. You said once that Jimmy Smith's The Boss album, recorded at the legendary Pascal's La Carrousel Lounge in Atlanta, made you realize that the purpose of the organ trio was to be the soundtrack for the party. Yeah, well.... Those happy partiers you hear in the background on the album are missing a lot of the music - they're getting the flavor and excitement, but Jimmy Smith is doing some amazing things that they are talking and laughing through. On the other hand, when I'm listening at home and shaking my head in amazement at Mr. Smith's playing, I'm certainly missing out on the atmosphere, the camaraderie, the context, and well, the fun that those folks were experiencing. But that doesn't make my way of approaching the music bullshit; it's just different.

I'd like to think that it's possible for both to happen at the same time, and that the partiers are still receiving and processing the "technical" information, just differently than the "dedicated listener", who I'd also like to think is receiving and processing the "social" information.

Of course, the more attuned one is to either/both of those elements, the more through is the conscious (and sub/unconscious as well?) processing that goes on, so for me the best of all worlds is for music - any music - to stimulate the brain, the body, and the spirit as thoroughly as possible - and for me to be in the right "place" to handle it all that way. Some days are better than others in that regard, but the really good ones, hey, life is good.

When we talk about people and places where "music is part of the fabric of everyday life", that may well be what we're talking about, a state where playing/listening/experiencing don't get separated out like ingredients in a recipe or science experiment. And to me, that's the ideal, if it ain't broke, don't take it apart...and if you do have to take it apart, maybe it's not working right in the first place.

No matter. I do not accept that "close listening" in an end unto itself. I do believe that it is a very important means to an even more important end, but only if you're not already there, in which case, hey, onward!

[paul secor]

Well, I thought it was bullshit. I don't deny that "the sounds have intellectual as well as emotional appeal," but that only applies to someone who can listen with the ear of a musician. So, for me, the whole thing was a self-serving exercise. Furthermore, he treats music as a thing in itself, but it isn't and it's at least as interesting to listen to music as an expression of a time and place. But is that something that musicians think of music? - that it's a thing in itself, without broader context?

MG

I'm not an apologist for Aaron Copland. I just passed on part of an e-mail from Mosaic Records because I read it as something interesting and thought provoking. To call something "bullshit" and self serving just because it doesn't correspond exactly to your mode of listening strikes me as very odd. The quote I passed on is obviously a very small portion of Copland's book and I doubt he intended it as "THE answer", as you put in a later post.

I'm not a musician and I find that if I listen more carefully and more openly, I experience music more completely. And I should say that I listen to music in different ways at different times - often in different ways at the same time. I'm sure you listen to music as more than "as an expression of a time and place." If I'm wrong about that, you're missing out on a lot.

Edited November 23, 2013 by paul secor

[paul secor]

Per the change I made in the thread title, it's Copland, not "Copeland."

Thanks Larry - My bad. And I've edited my posts.

[A Lark Ascending]

I read Copland's book back in the 70s as I was starting to listen to classical music. I think it gave me a guilt complex if I wasn't sitting up straight and paying attention.

I don't doubt for a minute what he is saying about the increased understanding and ultimately pleasure that can come from close attention. BUt music has a way of getting at you that is different from speech or the written word. It's amazing what can be absorbed with only partial attention. I often play new recordings whilst doing other things as a way of getting a general feel; then I'll sit and do a 'proper' listen at another time.

As someone who only listens to music - I don't have to study it, write about it, prepare it for recordings etc - I find just listening quite difficult. What do you do with your hands? (No rude comments please). It's as if the act of sitting and listening only engages part of your brain and you have to put other elements into suspended animation. Maybe I should take up something automatic like knitting.

I suspect this is why - outside the concert hall experience - most music is enjoyed whilst doing other things - dancing, socialising etc; or becomes particularly popular when accompanied by visuals - opera, musicals, pop videos etc. I think this is also why the 'live' experience can be so involving. Even with something as relatively staid as a classical concert, if you are in the right seat and don't have a tall bloke in front of you you can get to visualise the way the different elements of the orchestra are working. I remember a performance of Beethoven 3 a few years back that had me gripped. I'm not sure it was so much the power of the performance as being able to see how the different sections of the strings were used in the musical architecture.

Agree with MG on his comment about Copland putting over his approach as 'THE recipe'.

Edited November 24, 2013 by A Lark Ascending

[David Ayers]

Copland is one in a line of American democratic popularisers - think Bernstein, Previn, Marsalis. What's wrong with trying to communicate your art?