How to hear/write a music story

Play middle C on a piano. What do you hear? Is it good? Why does it sound like that? Like what?

Oh yes. Middle C.

Originally Posted by Rkmajora

Play middle C on a piano. What do you hear? Is it good? Why does it sound like that? Like what?

Oh yes. Middle C.

I can't answer if you don't give me the exact tuning in Hz, the length of the note in milliseconds, and the exact curves of amplitude development for every overtone. Oh, and an analysis of the acoustics of the room I'm in.

But jokes aside: I can sort of understand the concern with forcing a subjective interpretation of a piece onto others. I do see that sometimes in newspaper critiques and the like, and it annoys me too. I just can't understand why everyone who hears birds in a piece is "nuts". Of course, if you hear birds in a Bach fugue, that is most unusual and probably something that Bach didn't intend at all. But as much as you don't have to hear the program in programmatic music (as has been mentioned), you don't have to hear "absolute music absolute". While music may not be able to accurately tell a story, that doesn't mean you can't hear a story.

And well, then there's pieces where the references to actual sounds are so clear that it's hard not to connect them. Take Messiaen's bird calls, or "La poule" (the chicken) by Rameau. And especially in electroacoustic music you will often be reminded of real life sounds, whether that was intended or not, because we try to order the sounds in our minds, and because we can't connect them to instruments we "invent" other connotations.

The point is not that you make these associations but that you assume, if you do, that everyone else does or should. I have no problem except when you try to force others to hear the same or expect them to. Music is sound and since it is ambiguous there is potential for "confusion" with other sounds. This does not mean every other human being will associate the same things with the same sounds.

The point is that when someone demeans another because they don't hear the same thing then its wrong and thats all. Let each person hear what they want. Also, who gives that person the absolute ability to determine what music is "saying" and if someone else feels something different then they must be wrong or unsophisticated or a savage?

I feel that if your listening to music trying to find the story in it then you have no clue what music is about and have no clue how to enjoy it. (well, you are enjoying it in your own way I guess but it is a non-musical way and IMO contradictory)

Originally Posted by JonSlaughter

I feel that if your listening to music trying to find the story in it then you have no clue what music is about and have no clue how to enjoy it. (well, you are enjoying it in your own way I guess but it is a non-musical way and IMO contradictory)

the only problem with this statement is that you are doing exactly what it is you don't want others to do. YOU are now telling others how to listen to music, and if they aren't doing it your way, they're wrong somehow.

if someone seeks imagery to go with the music he listens to, then that is his choice, his way of listening to music. Who are you to say that it is the "wrong" way to listen to music?

Play middle C on a piano. What do you hear? Is it good? Why does it sound like that? Like what?

Oh yes. Middle C.

Actually middle C could be B or C# or D depending on which type/time period keyboard you're playing it on.

or... maybe it's not middle C, but rather B# or Dbb?

Originally Posted by QcCowboy

Who are you to say that it is the "wrong" way to listen to music?

exactly. The debate between 'program' music and 'art' music (personally I see no difference) has raged for hundreds of years, and frankly I doubt anyone has proven either side of their argument. So, why bother worrying about how someone else hears music... go listen for yourself.

Originally Posted by JonSlaughter

The point is not that you make these associations but that you assume, if you do, that everyone else does or should.

You say that everybody that makes associations necessarily thinks of them as universal?
I can quite certainly hear music in a specific way without thinking that everybody else should hear it like that...
Nobody here disagreed with you about forcing others to "hear music your way", only on the "extra-musical thoughts about music are bad" statement.

And well, others have already pointed out the obvious contradiction between "Let each person hear what they want." and your rejection of any non-musical thoughts.

Originally Posted by MidtownTraffic

Ok, this might sound a little strange, and I'm having trouble finding the right way to put this, but how do you hear the story in music? I look at videos and I hear people saying that you have to hear the story to understand, and it seems that they have story that everyone agrees with. I can formulate visions in my head, but how do you write and hear a music story? Do you have to know the background story or do you guys just understand the music like you understand words?

Hopefully, after my question is answered a discussion will arise because other wise this is a pretty pointless topic.

Hearing a story in any piece of music is a highly individualistic experience. The "story" of a piece you may hear in a certain programmatic piece (let's say for example Mussorgsky's Night on Bald Mountain) may be different from my story. Even if the composer intends certain themes to represent certain characters, if you have no access or you have not read the program or if you have no knowledge of the title at all, it is highly probable that you'll end up with a different story altogether than that of the composer.

Or to put it in another light, let's say you hear "Bald Mountain" for the first time and you don't know the title. Probably, you'll get the impression that the piece is somewhat scary but would you for certain identify which motives represent Chernabog or which measures would play out the chatter of the witches? You might think that those tremolandi, trills, and certain fast passages in that piece could sound like flies or insects buzzing instead of chattering witches. This is the reason why composers associated with program music needed to include a programme for their audiece to read so that these listeners would know what the music is all about (this to account for, as stated earlier, highly individualistic perceptions and interpretations).

I think some composers had the goal of being able to put in concrete ideas to their audience with their music (I for one am guilty of that goal but have yet to realize it, which could be something impossible). If I can recall things correctly, I think that Debussy once had the idea of having his pieces played out without the audience knowing the title or programme to see if the audiece could figure out what his pieces were all about. I would assume that it could have been a failed effort (unless his audience had some idea about it one way or another).