I would say yes, but then I'd sound like a douchebag..

I think you have to have at least some kind of ear for music.

No.

>inb4 theoryfags everywhere who don't know what "appreciate" means

Threads like these always suck shit.

I think you just have to know the essentials of music theory and structure.

Absolutely not, and this is coming from somebody who plays piano and guitar.

No. You need an ear, and a damn good one.
The ability to play an instrument will further your understanding and appreciation of the music - but it's the ear that matters.
It's your ability to sort through all the sounds and pick out the ones you (dis)like - then go the next step, maybe, and determine why you (dis)like them.

I don't think you need to be able to play an instrument to fully appreciate music, but you certainly need to know how they work.

Depends on what you mean by appreciate. Appreciate in the scholarly sense, yes you do, because it's in the definition. Appreciate in the general sense, not really.

I find it kinda helps to know an instrument, but it's really just a different way to look at music. Not better, just different.

>>21705552
But there are highly skilled instrumentalists who dont "know" any of that, they just have an intuitive understanding of it.

Do you have to be a writer to appreciate a book?

No, clearly not, but if you are you can be a douche about disliking it without sounding dumb

I don't have to be a chef fully appreciate food.
I don't have to be a director to fully appreciate film.
I don't have to be a programmer to fully appreciate vidya.
I don't have to be a porn star to fully appreciate sex.

etc.

>>21705577
>they just have an intuitive understanding of it.
Intuitive implies untaught skills, I'd disagree.

They can perform well, that doesn't take too much theory.

>>21705600
>I don't have to be a programmer to fully appreciate vidya.
Being a programmer, you have no idea the joys of playing snake for hours... simply because you programmed it.

>>21705577

I'll rephrase it; for MOST people, a basic understanding of music theory helps to appreciate music. And I mean basic as in the stuff you pick up from discussing music with others.

>>21705632

Isn't that because YOU personally created it more than you understanding how to create it.

>>21705685
Well... yeah, but I really was having a blast playing snake.

I also make music and you just can't appreciate music as I do straight after writing it.

Had the same argument with a friend; I was saying you don't, I have only just started learning the piano and I feel that I can already appreciate music for what it is. He's been playing for some time now and claims I'll begin to appreciate it properly once I begin to play properly. Maybe he's right, but I'm pretty sure I appreciate talent already.

>>21705600
lol pornstars dont enjoy sex.

>>21705600
>I don't have to be a chef fully appreciate food.
>I don't have to be a director to fully appreciate film.
>I don't have to be a programmer to fully appreciate vidya.

>he thinks these aren't true

If that is true then that automatically leads to the fact that you need to play EVERY instrument that you are listening to, to fully appreciate what you are listening to.

>>21705751
In terms of that picture

Appreciation is not necessarily understanding and in most cases, they never correlate.

>>21705751
You don't though. "Fully appreciate" is a meaningless term.

>>21705774
Oh, you!

>>21705751

Appreciation =/= Understanding

>>21705774
You cannot appreciate what you do not know, to fully appreciate something you need to completely understand it otherwise you are missing aspects of it.

>>21705785
That's not really clever, all you're doing is abusing a humourless meme without backing up your statements.

>>21705785
Imagine if you found out that all of your favorite artists music is actually plagiarized or really lazily created. You'd understand it, but you wouldn't appreciate it.

Appreciation is something borne from misunderstanding something. Ignorance is bliss and all that shit.

>>21705794
I guess no one is allowed to appreciate life then.

>>21705813
They can appreciate it but they cannot fully appreciate it.

>>21705813
>I guess no one is allowed to appreciate life then.
No one understands life.

>>21705822
What does fully appreciate mean? It doesn't mean anything, how would you quantify "appreciation?

You don't need to, but I'd say it sure as fuck helps.

>>21705832
Yes, that was my point.

>>21705751

>Using piss poor memes to try and get point across. Understand isn't appreciate.

I'm a baker, it doesn't mean I appreciate bread because I make the shit. I couldn't get two shits about it either way tbh. Jobs a Job

/badass.

>>21705839
This is called Loki's wager, and it is a logical fallacy.

explain?

>>21705751
None of those are actually, especially the last one.

>>21705839
>What does fully appreciate mean?
To have a positive feeling about, if you feel positively about something, you appreciate it.

Understanding something will almost always lead to a neutral feeling towards something. Neutrality is not understanding, neutrality is being neutral.

>>21705871
Way to misuse a logical fallacy.

>>21705873
Yeah, can you both stop tripping?

Also #ismokeweed

>>21705839
Appreciate means to know the worth of and be grateful for.
It isn't something like quantifying, it is more about recognising the aspects you know, and what you don't.

>>21705873
Patrician Council #ismokeweed
Now you too can be a CLT rip-off. Also, back to /b/, newkid.

I think music theory, while facilitating the creation of music, hinders its enjoyment. Conscious intellectual process should be minimal while listening to music, otherwise the emotional impact is dulled. Sure, there's pleasure to be had in appreciation of hearing theory in practice but if you want the experience the artist intended tell your head to shut up for a while.

>>21705839
i was considering appreciation as realising the depths of skill and unique beauty behind the music.

>>21705899
So what is "full appreciation?"
There is no such thing, there's just appreciation, and appreciation.

>Fuck you, Patrician Council!
>I appreciate music just as much as you do!
>It doesn't matter that you have knowledge that I don't, and therefore I can't actually know whether that knowledge (and consequent understanding) leads to greater appreciation and enjoyment!
>It is just as valuable to be ignorant!

>my face when furious plebeians

>>21705932
What an inconsequential post.

>>21705922
>I think music theory, while facilitating the creation of music, hinders its enjoyment.
I can turn my head off and just listen, whilst focusing on the moment. I don't need to think in terms of theory, but sometimes I transcribe melodies in my head that I'm listening to.

>>21705926
Are you seriously going to argue that there aren't degrees of appreciation? Oh, mercy...

>still trying to use Loki's wager even after I called him out on it

no, but you need to have an understanding of the history of music and have an idea of how music is crafted.

>>21705955
Sure there are, but what is "full appreciation?"

>>21705922
nicely put sir, probs most worth while comment ITT.

>>21705963
>have an understanding of the history of music
Why?

>>21705963
>have an idea of how music is crafted.
I don't think many classical listeners understand 4 part harmonies, bro.

>>21705947
It's funny how all patrician music sucks and the only reason people listen to it, is because some stuck up internet superhero tells your bad for not listening to it....

>>21705964
A phrase I never used.

However, by your own tacit admission there is "fuller appreciation", so my points stand.

>>21705982
Your point was that understanding music theory leads to "more appreciation" or music, which it doesn't.

No but it helps. Been playing the geetar for about 6 years and it helped me understand composition.

>>21705982
>>21705993
>that feel when no one but these two know who's who

I wouldn't say that you would have to play an instrument. You would have to understand theory (those two things usually go hand in hand, though). However, at that point you're usually just looking at music from a dry, academic perspective which arguably takes some of the fun out of it.

No you absolutely don't.

Appreciating something because you know what goes into it is false appreciation and it adds some bias.

It's like saying a super technical metal song is good just because it's hard to play.

Nabokov (who ironically disliked music) says in his essay about good readers and good writers that a good reader does not need to be a budding author to appreciate a book, but instead needs to have a dictionary, an artistic sense, a memory, and an imagination.

We might be able to translate the dictionary into our terms as music theory, but that's debatable.

>>21705481
K, everybody. Listen up. What comes first? Chicken? Or the egg? Wait.. that's a different story.

1. You have to love music enough to pick up an instrument, and even more to dedicate time into learning it. And more to get really good.

2. Musicians are listeners first, players second. Read above.

3. I can say that about 95% of /mu/ don't appreciate music enough simply due to their close-mindedness. Yes, bold statement. But how many times do you see the '/mu/core essentials' showing up on this board? All i get here is rotten air.

4. In return, learning to play an instrument is rather a humbling experience. You learn about the hardships, you get the experience of the first moments of a growing musician, rather than a glance; admiration towards those you look up to build strongly, feeding you the motivation you need to grow more as a player and a human being; your philosophy on music and life grows.

I think it's safe to say, OP. Yes.

>>21706016
>no one but these two knows or cares who's who
ftfy

>>21706018
You can appreciate the same thing from different perspectives, but neither is greater than the other. How much you appreciate something is decided by you, not by some faggot on the internet.

>>21706027
None of your points are actually valid.

>>21706038
I'm not arguing you on that. I'm saying that understanding theory can allow you to appreciate music on a different level by giving you a better idea of what is going on within the piece.

>>21706077
Cold hard case of "Well, that's just, your opinion, man."

Viscious circle. How bout that radiohead? Shit sucks.

>>21706100
But they aren't.
3 has nothing to do with anything,
2 and 4 aren't necessarily true
and 1 is just wrong.

>>21706038
>You can appreciate the same thing from different perspectives, but neither is greater than the other
This entire 'it's subjective!!!!!' mindset is what's killing music criticisms. If one guy discusses the structure, time signature, melody etc of the piece it's far more appreciative than a person simply stating 'it sucks because there's no groove'.

>>21705993
It does. How can you appreciate a piece like, say, Fantasia in A Minor by Mozart if you aren't able to understand what makes it so unique and incredible?

You may be able to enjoy it, and therefore appreciate it to a certain degree, but your enjoyment will be grounded in well-intentioned ignorance and neither as comprehensive nor as fulfilling as a person who possesses the requisite knowledge.

How do I know this? Because I've actually been in both positions, unlike the majority of you.

>>21705922
I think often an understanding of theory does just the opposite.
Theory is fundamentally descriptive, it creates a typology for sounds and gives names to patterns that exist independently of that theory.
But if I understand the theory behind something, just because I know the minute details doesn't mean I can't appreciate the big picture. In fact, more often than not, it will show me just how all those details come together to create the big picture.

Telling your head to shut up, in my opinion, is one of the stupidest things you can do while approaching music, or any art for that matter. It doesn't have to betray the artist's intent, and often that kind of individual, intense experiencing of an artist's work is just what they want.

When I go to the museum, I can look at this painting and see an apparently peaceful scene. The colors are unprovoking, there are only two people - it's a lonely scene, but a calm one.

Or perhaps we can take the Sylvia Plath approach and rip into every detail of the scene - looking at the contrast of their attire, the broken landscape, their positioning, and examining every element to come out with a different appreciation for the picture (http://www.angelfire.com/tn/plath/catr.html) - that's not to say either approach is more correct than another, but it certainly changes the handling of the art, and it wouldn't be that much of a stretch to say that Plath's getting more out of the piece, both technically and emotionally.

But both appreciations can still be valid, and they can still be "good" - despite the fact that neither party is himself a painter.

Music is analogous.

>>21706137
One is not greater than the other, they are different perspectives of the same piece.

>>21706136
This post is 100% correct.

pic related, and even worse

>>21706136
You're arguing something completely different. Of course the first guy is going to appreciate it more because the second guy in your example doesn't even like the song.

Music is such an amazing form of expression that so many people cease to appreciate. Like all forms of art, the beat of the drum and the boom of the voice
have one great thing in common with all the actions we make. From the stomps of our feet to the tears that shed from our inspired eyes, stress, being one of the many components in art, goes to show that every one of us wields a powerful instrument of our own.

You niggers are all walking artists. APPRECIATE LIFE!!!!!!!!

>>21706148
>>21706137
>>21705993
>tripcode

>>21706202
Fine then 'I like the song because it has groove'.
Now you can't nitpick.

Yeah, there's something cathartic about playing music

>>21706232
Patrician Council#ismokeweed
Trip all you want, this is a shitty trip.

Do you have to be able to write to fully appreciate literature?

>>21706148
"Greater" is an inherently nebulous term, and not one which I used. If you must continue to resort to straw men arguments, please discontinue this debate.

>>21706236
How does that make the "more ignorant" guy less appreciative than the first guy? Because you said so? lol

>>21706259
Namedropping logical fallacies doesn't make them true or prove a point.

>>21706261
Because he doesn't even know what he thinks he's appreciating.

This isn't rocket surgery.

>>21706261
Yes, because his criticisms are insubstantial and barely touch upon the song itself.
He barely recognises any of the song, and only focuses on a single insubstantial vague term.

>>21706253
http://www.en.utexas.edu/amlit/amlitprivate/scans/goodre.html

No.

He also says that when appreciating something you can't rely on your emotions to tell you whether or not a piece of art is good, which is something I see being done far too often on /mu/.

>>21706274
You employed a straw man fallacy (if you are unfamiliar with this term, it means you attempted to refute an argument which was distinct from any argument I made).

>>21706286
So because he can't articulate his thoughts on a song means he appreciates it less? That's wrong.

>>21706026
>>21706291
hey pplz u shud b lisztening to dis guy bc he actually has a pretty damn good case, and you'd benefit from reading his posts and linked essay.

>>21706136
>>21706166
This strikes me as an incredibly mechanical approach to appreciating music. It's as if I were to say that I enjoy driving my car more because I know the inner workings of its engine.

>>21706253
Again, you would be able to appreciate it without the knowledge of it's inner workings, but knowing them would allow you a completely separate type of appreciation of the subtleties of the work.

Serious suggestion here: maybe this thread would do better on /lit/ where all of the armchair philosophers congregate.

>>21706316
But I didn't and saying I did isn't proving a point.

>>21706321
>confusing cause and effect
*Because he appreciates the song less, he can't articulate his thoughts.

Something tells me your understanding of logic is as tenuous as your understanding of music.

>>21706321
It's not a choice, he cannot verbally expand on his ideas because he doesn't understand the piece and has almost no recognition of certain musical terms. Therefore he appreciates it far less than someone who recognises all these criteria.

>>21706349
>"Greater" is an inherently nebulous term, and not one which I used
>and not one which I used

Do please try to keep up.

>>21706356
Oh so you're telling me how a hypothetical person's mind works? Basically, it's not a good example and you have yet to prove your point.

>>21706339
Mechanical, artistic, and emotional are NOT incompatible values.

>>21706348
/lit/ would have more productive discussions of most of the shit that pops up on this board.

Do you guys even know what the fuck you're all talking about anymore?

I mean, i was just being a dick, but serious.

Like EVERYTHING, you have to engage with it to appreciate it. Like getting with a girl/guy and getting to know them better on a date. Or reading a book from an author you love. You're engaging with the thoughts that ran through their head when they wrote it.

You appreciate shit more when it has sentimentally affected you. SIMPLE. AS. THAT.

You fucking morons have to delve into THEORY. MUSIC. FUCKING. THEORY. That's just a NAVIGATOR for your musical mind to get your thoughts out onto paper or string.

I'm done, man. Fucking /mu/. This is why we can't have nice things.jpg.

>>21706371
That has nothing to do with the original point, I'm not going to argue minutia because you're too much of a faggot to deal with it.

>>21706377
My reasoning follows from basic logical principles. You're the one making sweeping assumptions.

>Something tells me your understanding of logic is as tenuous as your understanding of music.

>>21706414
Meaningless post.

>>21706395
>That has nothing to do with the original point
Then why would you have brought it up?

>faggot
pic

>>21706385
Mad and wrong.

>>21706379
>Mechanical, artistic, and emotional are NOT incompatible values.
No, of course not. I suppose it's what aspect you place value on most that takes precedence.

For me music is largely about an emotional connect. That's not to say I don't appreciate the mechanics of it; I play several instruments and compose (poorly). But knowing those mechanics doesn't really change my connect with the music. I suppose I'm a bit of a commoner in that respect.

>>21706395
Shut the fuck up. Everything on this board is invalid to you. Show us your record collection in a 3x3 grid. Come on, faggot.

>>21706439
Stopping this part of the "conversation" because you're just going to bring up small details that don't matter.

>>21706421
>reads a post that soundly refutes him
>HURRRRR THAT'S MAENINGLESS NO I WON'T BACK MYSELF UP

You're disgracing the trip you're wearing.

>>21706460
More meaningless posts.

>>21706453
>small details that don't matter
You mean small details that render your arguments groundless? Duly noted.

>>21706442
Yeah, man. You enjoy me being mad? Is that what this whole thread is about? Getting someone mad and feeling good about having an influence on someone's emotions?

Glad you feel good. But please... tell me how you appreciate something -- ANYTHING -- more. You can simply listen to something. But digging deeper into what it's about can increase the value at which you appreciate it.

/simpleshit, dudes.

>>21706489
No they don't. You just nitpick because you can't come up with a better rebuttal. Don't bother replying, I don't care.

OP didn't say "appreciate", he said "fully appreciate".

Yes you do need to have a deep technical understanding of something to fully appreciate it. People who say otherwise probably don't have a deep technical understanding of anything.

I don't know what's more pathetic, the original CLT, or the several people pretending to be him on the Internet.

Makes sense that someone would play make believe with trips given the cosplay types that inhabit 4chan.

>>21706503
>>21706471
lol talking to yourself

>>21706137
>You may be able to enjoy it, and therefore appreciate it to a certain degree, but your enjoyment will be grounded in well-intentioned ignorance and neither as comprehensive nor as fulfilling as a person who possesses the requisite knowledge.

So as far as I can tell this hasn't been successfully refuted by anyone? Does that mean the argument is over?

>>21706523
>can't enjoy something because you don't understand it
It's been refuted countless times, read the thread.

Here's my two cents:

Looking at music from a pure listener's perspective is something completely different from dissecting music on an academic level. I'm not trying to say that one is inherently greater than the other. They're two different things.

With the academic approach we have terms to categorize and label the music. This is in 4/4. This is a I IV V I progression. It's a good way of discussing music because it uses defined terms to describe it.

At the same time, you can have no knowledge of how music works, but still enjoy it simply because you think it sounds good or because it connects with you on a personal level in some way. This is no less valid than the academic way. It's arguably one of the most important aspects of the music. It is however completely intangible and varies greatly from person to person.

I suppose you could say they're two sides of the same coin.

>>21706510
>People who say otherwise probably don't have a deep technical understanding of anything.
This is my theory. This thread reeks of inferiority complexes.

>>21706503
>You just nitpick
My dear child, "nitpicking" IS how logic works! You put forward a flawed premise, and I drew attention to the flaws. Instead of sulking and being stubborn, why not revise your premise and try to make it correct?

>>21706571
I agree, and I've attempted to say this before but I guess the point didn't come across well over the faggotry.

>>21706552
"no u" is not a rebuttal.

>>21706552
>You may be able to enjoy it
Turns out that people who think you don't need to understand something to fully appreciate it also don't understand or appreciate the English language.

>>21706385

Emotional appreciation of art is the most shallow appreciation.

It's like you're expecting the artist to cater to you personally. By doing this you take away all credit from the artists as a creator. This type of individualism is the downfall of music criticism.

That's not to say you can't appreciate emotion in music. Take for example the song "Strange Fruit." Do I need to be Black to identify the pain the song is trying to convey? Of course not.

>>21706585
lol owned

>>21706602
>Emotional appreciation of art is the most shallow appreciation.
No it's not.

>>21706571

This, totally. This thread is dumb.

>>21706571
You are literally arguing that being ignorant is no worse than being informed.

>>21706571
>two cents
>coin

dohohohohohoho

>>21706622
Nope, the argument is pertaining to "enjoyment" and "appreciation," not who is more or less informed.

>>21706614
>this is a sad song and i'm sad so it's a good song

ok

>>21706510
YES! Exactly!
Can't speak the language of music? Want to? Learn!
-insert question regarding the inability to do something-? Want to? Fucking learn. Do it.

That's how you can appreciate it. Digging deep into it, soaking in everything about it so you can understand as much as you desire to.

Like some cunt saying "French is such a beautiful language" and never learns it. How can you appreciate something if you don't have that yearn to embrace it fully?

>>21706614

I'd say the most shallow appreciation is stuff like, "Well The Beatles sold the most music so they are the best band ever and are great."

>>21706636
>that feel when puns acknowledged

>>21706643
Oh wow man, someone enjoys a song because it makes them feel something, how shallow of them!

>>21706649
But sales has nothing to do with artistic appreciation. Perhaps historic appreciation, but not artistic.

>>21706663
yeah that's why it's shallow.

>>21706622
protip: knowing music theory and judging music on an academic level doesn't mean that you're more "informed" than someone who appreciates music on a non academic level, because there is a chance that they know music theory as well but chose not to judge music based on that.

>>21706571
This man speaks the truth

ITT: Ignoratio elenchi and petitio principii everywhere, on both sides of the argument.

>>21706571
The only trouble with this is that you seem to be drawing a faulty distinction. Namely, that a reasoned, theoretical approach to enjoying a piece of music precludes or is separate from a base, "emotional" (to use /mu/ vernacular) approach.

This is simply untrue. In fact, in many cases a scholar of music will have been moved emotionally by a piece and have been driven by his enjoyment to "take it apart to see how it works". Anyone who's read the sheet music of a symphony will understand what I am talking about.

Is one "better" or "greater" than the other? This is ambiguous terminology, which is why I haven't used it.

Is one deeper, more complete, and - wait for it - fuller than the other? Obviously. By definition, someone who appreciates music on both levels has a fuller appreciation than someone who is only capable of one.

This is logical and irrefutable, which is why it has not been refuted.

>>21706622
It's not because we're talking about something that has the ability to affect anyone regardless of how informed they are. Becoming informed allows you a different kind enjoyment that's separate from the kind previously mentioned.

>>21706662
Yeah, it's completely prostituting the music.

There's nothing wrong with music making you feel something, but when the feelings stem from personal experiences the appreciation becomes shallow.

>>21706686
since this thread is little more than semantic juggling i'll suggest that what you're describing is not an appreciation of music, but of composition.

>>21706643
>In Which /mu/ Is Made Slightly Uncomfortable, Because They Realize That This Is Why They Listen To All That Shitty Indie Rock

>>21706645
This guy gets it.

>>21706641
>"enjoyment"
Dependent on appreciation.
>"appreciation,"
Dependent on knowledge.

QED

>>21706679
>protip: knowing music theory and judging music on an academic level doesn't mean that you're more "informed" than someone who appreciates music on a non academic level, because there is a chance that they know music theory as well but chose not to judge music based on that.

You can't just shut off your understanding of something, not that you would know that seeing as you probably don't understand anything of interest.

>>21706686

>This is logical and irrefutable, which is why it has not been refuted.

No it isn't. You haven't even made an argument.

I don't understand why people on this board think you are smarter than you make out. You do this ALL THE TIME. You make several statements, but they aren't arguments. Arguments have premises, conclusions, and inferences. You've made none. You ask rhetorical questions, and then give answers in the forms of statements. That's not a fucking argument, neither is it logical. It's not logical because statements aren't arguments.

No one can attack what you are saying, because it is DAMN HARD to attack single propositions considered by themselves.

You do this all the time, and quite frankly I'm sick of your shit. You are a phoney, who pretends to be smart, but gets by on slick rhetoric, and shitty arguing skills.

>>21706675
But it's not even related to artistic appreciation so someone who only likes the beatles because of their sales would have to be deluded to think they were identifying with their artistic output.

>>21706764
You do realize that you do everything you accuse him of in this post.

>>21706759
>You can't just shut off your understanding of something

but I never said that you could.

>>21706733
Can you elaborate on this?

I don't draw a distinction, personally. When I enjoy a fine meal, I am really appreciating the cook's craft. When I enjoy a film, I am really enjoying the director, actors, and other personnel.

When I am enjoying a piece, I am enjoying the composer's craft. Because I understand a good deal more of this than I do of cooking or film-making, I can say I appreciate the music on a - here it comes again - fuller scale than I do the meal or film, and this fullness of appreciation (and consequent enjoyment) proceeds directly from my knowledge.

I don't see why some people (not referring to you, anon) find this logical progression so inflammatory.

>>21706764
>premises, conclusions, and inferences
>You've made none
Are you actually illiterate? Did you read the post you replied to?

>>21706781

How?

If CLT understands logic, he should understand how an argument is formed.

Arguments consist of premises, conclusions, and inferences.

Single statements are the atoms of logical arguments. Considered by themselves, they aren't an argument. This is what he does. He comes into a thread, offers several statements, but no inferences, and then sits back to bat down whatever he feels like.

Look at his post above. He asks a question, then posts a statement. That isn't a logical argument. But he thinks it is. Questions aren't arguments. Neither are single statements. This is logic 101 stuff.

>>21706686
Hm ok. I have been be diverted by of the previous posts into arguing that knowledge of theory isn't a prerequisite to be able to enjoy music. I see now that the debate is actually about whether or not it is needed to 'fully' appreciate music.

By looking the argument from the correct angle I'm able to see your logic very well. One does stand to reason that being able to appreciate both the technical and emotional aspects of the music would grant them a more rounded, or "fuller" appreciation.

>Patrician Council
>Douche chills

Eloquent phrasing there bro.
A little thin on the facts, though.

I tend to focus on how the piece on a whole affects me emotionally rather than zoom in and nitpick specific sounds. So no.

>>21706785
>but chose not to judge music based on that.
It was rather strongly implied. Otherwise there wouldn't have been any purpose to the comment.

>>21706785
If you understand something you cannot help but think about it to the extent of your understanding.

I know this because there are things that I understand and I am unable to "choose" to ignore my knowledge when passing judgement.

>>21706834
I'm glad we were able to reach the same conclusion. I didn't think I was being unreasonable.

>2011
>still arguing with Patrician Council

appreciating music purely on a simple "emotional" level makes music nothing more than stimuli. One who appreciates music only in an emotional reaction seeks music for nothing more than the resulting chemical changes in their brain.

If one can draw a new thought, idea, or perspective or otherwise is able to articulate something out a piece (beyond a basic emotional response) than that person is able to appreciate the piece in a fuller way.

the idea of playing an instrument or knowing theory really doesn't even apply.

>enjoy listening to music
>fucking hate learning music
I tried learning the guitar so many times and I just get bored. Shit man, music theory is the most uninteresting bullshit

>>21706863
thank you

No, you don't HAVE to play an instrument to fully appreciate music. As others have said, you can respond to music on a purely emotional level, and understanding the music from a technical standpoint sometimes takes the mystery out of it.

That being said, if you can listen to really technical music like bebop or jam band improvisations and hear it from a musician's analytical standpoint, then trust me - you're in the zone. You can appreciate it so much more than somebody who can't comprehend that shit. Every little note matters; every decision made by the improviser strikes you as interesting, amusing, beautiful, jarring, etc...

what is patrician and how do i avoid being it

>>21706874
Theory autodidact here. I kind of agree with you. It can be a little dry and abstract to wrap your head around unless you're able to practice it by applying it to a real instrument. That's when it starts really getting enjoyable.

>>21706849
I can see how this can apply to better to music, yeah, but I've been on a swim team since I was 11, and I don't look at little kids playing in the pool and thing "Hmph these kids have terrible mechanics, they can't fully appreciate swimming like I can."

what pisses me off about these threads is that everyone posts what they think is deep stuff when it is just obvious shit that doesn't even bear discussion. plus all the trolling/people still falling for PC (morons)

>>21706922
>That's when it starts really getting enjoyable.
That's what I always figured. I never got further than trying to make myself remember what notes are on what frets without counting them.

Have a terrible sense of beat as well (much worse than average), guess everything isn't for everyone. All guitar I do know is because of repetition

>>21706863
I don't altogether disagree with your post, but am curious about your opinion.

>the idea of playing an instrument or knowing theory really doesn't even apply.
In and of themselves not necessarily, but would you say that they are common pathways toward attaining the vocabulary you mention?

For instance, rather than saying "the middle section is different and gets really emotional" a person would say "when the minor-key piece modulates to III here it is striking and provokes an emotional response", or so on.

>>21706949
That's interesting. I'm a runner, and when I see someone out jogging and their elbows are all splayed I can't help but want to tell them how much energy and momentum they'd stop wasting if they'd only alter their posture.

>>21706863
>implying that new thoughts or ideas popping in your brain aren't results of chemical changes in your brain

>>21706975
Do you make music? you seem to know theory, any chance I could hear it?

>>21706922
This. People who say theory is bland and boring (myself included many years ago) are those who are too lazy to practice their scales.

Musicianship can be a natural talent, yes, especially when you have a parent to guide you as a young kid. Those people have the best sort of advantage. But more importantly, musicianship just takes a lot of WORK WORK WORK. You need to practice scales, melodic exercises, harmonic series, etc...and then learn how to improvise (unless you're a classical musician...pfft)

Too many beginners give up too quickly and are too quick to say "theory suxxx blahhg" just because they haven't discovered how fucking incredible the interrelationships between intervals and chord voicings are. Practice, learn to improvise, and you will all discover how truly rewarding music can be. It changed my life...

>>21706949
But you probably don't watch little kids play in pools very attentively.

I'm not saying that everybody goes around passing judgement on everything they survey(though some people do), but if you focus your attention on something, I don't believe you can ignore details that you understand.

>>21706800
music is the stuff that floats in the air. the physical manifestation of the composition (or not).

the sound on a recording (or in a live setting) is quite distinct from the notes on a staff.

terrible interpretations of good compositions are bad music.

>>21707012
And thoughts are more complex chemical changes than emotions.

>>21707016
I'm a composition student, but I'm afraid I don't have anything online yet.

I might post some recordings of my band soon, but when I do it'll be anonymous.

>>21706958
Well, you can learn theory by applying the same technique: repetition. That's what I did and I'm pretty sure 90% of other people do as well. It just requires tenacity. Print off some diagrams of a guitar fretboard and fill one out with the correct notes of all the frets every day for a week or two. You'll have them memorized in no time. You can try practicing along with a metronome for an hour or so a day to develop natural rhythm. Music is like most anything else in that your returns are similar to your investments.

>>21707066
What type of music do you make with your band?

>>21707009
Well, the kids in my story are more like the people described in >>21706863 who enjoy music for stimuli, while the joggers in your story are like those learning music theory, albeit struggling.

>>21706957
>everyone posts what they think is deep stuff
I protest. Nothing I posted was "deep", and in most cases was entirely self-evident. That is why I was so disappointed when the ersatz PC stuck his fingers in his ears and refused to try to understand.

>>21707041
Thing is practising scales is beyond fucking terribly boring. Forcing myself to do something boring repeatedly for hours upon hours because it might get fun later is tricky.

Oh well, could always learn it later if I find motivation under a bed somewhere.

define the word appreciate and then define the word fully and then maybe you'll get an actual answer. right now the way you posed it makes it sound like you're asking "Do you need to play an instrument to be the most music?" grammar and all intentional

>>21706686
I agree with this and I think that people who stress the importance of a "purely emotional" reaction fail to realize that musicians, of course, respond with emotion to music as well. These people (not to sound like an elitist) simply haven't experienced that sensation of emotional investment that comes with a heightened understanding of the technical intricacies of the music.

>>21707060
okay and how does it apply to music theory?

>>21706975

if both phrases refer to the same section in the piece then the only difference is obviously how they articulate their enjoyment of said section.

Using language to show how you feel about a anything, much less a musical piece, is actually an extremely limited way of communication in of itself. That is way we have creative arts in the first place. So going back to your point, one person is able to use a better sense of vocabulary to articulate what is happening be he hasn't necessarily communicated why said section is so effective.

Theory is merely a language to articulate the mechanical ideas behind the music. It is invaluable to those who seek to study, play, and write music, but it really has no connection to how a piece affects in the deepest ways.

>>21707160

*That is why

sorry I kinda rushed a half assed response since I have to leave anyways. I was interested in going further but oh well :/

>>21707080
We're fairly eclectic, but we have one principle songwriter who's most inspired by keyboard-based pop and digital electronic music, one who is most inspired by 20th-century classical music and singer-songwriters, and then me.

The things we perform end up sounding in the middle of all that. Someone once said we sounded like "the Velvet Underground playing Stereolab covers", which I enjoyed and remembered.

>>21707110
It's not because it "might get fun"

It's because it will become the most exhilarating and spiritually liberating thing you will ever experience...

1. Practice.

2. Learn how to improvise over whatever type of music it is you listen to. For those of you who like the blues / classic rock, that's always a good place to start.

3. Smoke a doobie

4. Play along to the music and improvise

5. Realize that there's nothing better in the world (except playing with other people)

>>21707110
Being a musician (or anything else really) requires first and foremost that you have the drive to work towards it. If you don't then it's not meant for you.

>>21705633
You don't learn to understand music theory in casual conversations with others. You learn it by taking college courses and/or private lessons and by practicing and applying it.

I doubt anybody named "drop it like skrillex" knows the first thing about it.

>>21707160
>the only difference is obviously how they articulate their enjoyment of said section
But one person understands why the section sounds different, whereas to the other it is a mystery. You're saying this is inconsequential?

You're entitled to this opinion if you do, but I don't agree with it.

Well, it's rather problematic because how can you measure appreciation from one person to another?. With that problem solved (being able to measure appreciation), having more tools to "appreciate" something doesn't guarantee that other person without those tools won't "appreciate" a piece of art more. So, I don't know how we could measure appreciation (emotional stimuli?). We could gather scientific data if we had a correct definition of what to measure when we talk about this.

The short is answer is no. playing music compliments listening to it, but it isn't required.

>>21707066

>but when I do it'll be anonymous

lol scared?

Knowing how to play an instrument helps me appreciate it more, but it's not like it's required. Because I know how to play, I can hear something and be like "woah that's a really technical passage" or "holy shit polyrhythms everywhere"

>>21707188
>drive to work towards it
Obviously, used to have it but a lot of time wasted doing the same thing over and over without competent teachers or any incentive of my own to learn beyond looking up tabs.
>>21707183
Yeah, eh, going to give it another go eventually. Time spent on /mu/ could be better spent doing anything, might as well use a few minutes for godawfully terribly boring music theory.

Moving to a city soon, will find some music theory course maybe. Better at learning in class like atmospheres for whatever reason

>>21706975
I know we're all trying to come to a scientific approach to music appreciation, which I commend.

But the fact of the matter is that music, and all art, will always remain partly subjective. We can only aid ourselves in defense of false appreciation.

So knowing music in composition terminology is all fine, but it doesn't lead to a fuller appreciation.

People seem to forget that music theory isn't just notes on a scale and stuff. There's plenty of other thoughts such as harmelodics, and autophysiopsychic music which add very unpredictable traits to perceived music.

>>21707223
Answers like this sound like they're coming from kids who only know how to play a C chord and a G chord on guitar, not accomplished musicians.

Not to be a snob...but if anybody else here is a jazz musician or an accomplished classical musician then their opinions would probably be more legitimate than this sort of oversimplification.

For musicians such as these who can hear EVERYTHING that's going on in the music...that's totally different.

>realize that there's nothing better in the world
What about skydiving? Raising a child? Heroin?

I know. All of these things require money which subsequently requires a job, something you likely don't have as you prefer to smoke that motivation sucking gypsy weed and play your bongos to Pumped Up Kicks all day long. Therefor you would know nothing of real joy.

>>21707208

not sure someone needs to know why a section sounds different (IE associating the music being played to theory terms and vocab) when they can just hear the change in real time and focus on how that section change the direction of the piece in a purely sonic and abstract way.

The person experiences the same thing either way.

There needs to be a instrument board,/mu/ is a bunch of bitches who can't play a single instrument

>>21707285
>chastise someone for 'smoking gyspy weed'
>why don't you try heroin?

how to logic

>>21705481
Simple answer: No.
Moreover, I do hate when people who DO play instruments act like they're some type of musical authority.

Do you have to be a faggot to post on /mu/?

Yesterday, I was listening to Led Zeppelin, and thinking about how fast John Bonham's foot is. I was like, "Damn, the dude has a fast fuckin foot."

That's kind of like appreciation I guess?

>>21707321
>I also hate people with science degrees acting as if they are some serious snobby scientists

>>21707285
HAH... Motivation sucking gypsy weed? so you would advocate earning money to spend it on heroin before smoking weed?

Also, I just graduated from a prestigious college (Music performance/Biochemistry double major) with a 3.91 GPA. I've already got a professional job and I play gigs on the side for extra money. How is that lazy? Also...no bongos...I play guitar, piano and bass. And no kicks...I wear boots bitch.

Go back to /b/ where stereotyping is expected. You sound like a fucking neoconservative..."blah blah blah dirty pot-smoking hippies...blah blah"

Also, if you think raising a child is as liberating as playing an instrumental solo...You're sadly mistaken. You have been turned upside on your head. Not to say that raising a child isn't rewarding, but it's also the most constricting thing you can ever do. They are opposites. You clearly aren't a musician.

>>21707321
>Moreover, I do hate when people who DO play instruments act like they're some type of musical authority.
This, fuck. Mom used to be a concert pianist so met quite a few very much accomplished musicians and they never went on any bullshit about "fully appreciating music by knowing scales".

It's like that always comes from small time musicians who just got into college or played a gig or two locally. Like damn

>>21705600
>>21705600
>>21705600
>>21705600
>>21705600

this

>>21707242
>lol scared?

I won't get unbiased opinions if I post from this trip. I am a polarizing personality.

>>21707362
>>21707315

>>21707321
They pretty much are though. And you wouldn't understand unless you were well-versed in music theory and knew how to play and instrument.

This isn't meant to be exclusionary. I'm hoping you do put the time in to practice and to share in the joy that is being a musician. But it's simply a fact that musicians would understand and nonmusicians wouldn't. So don't get mad.

>>21707348
>Yesterday, I was listening to Led Zeppelin, and Bonzo was like fucking heavy artillery

>>21707285

Heroin doesn't require money. Just a good mouth.

>>21705600
The key word is "fully," though...of course you can appreciate music, even be an avid music fan if you're not a musician. But musicians possess something else that allows for a heightened sense of appreciation.

>>21707410
Speaking of which, how'd those noise albums I recommended you go down?

>>21707386
You must not have read the thread. You are wrong and I think this point has been properly settled.

>>21706571
>>21706686
>>21706834

Music paints beautiful images in my head.

I also play the guitar and piano, but i play both since i was a very small child so I don't know of enjoying music any other way.

I'd say at least trying to learn to compose will take your appreciation to another level.

>>21707470
I flew home yesterday and it's hectic here so I haven't gotten through them all, but on the whole I was pleasantly surprised. Thank you.

>>21707384
Well those musicians you met also weren't provoked with the question that OP posed. And they weren't faced with all of these oversimplifications from halfwits who outright deny the idea that musicians can appreciate music more than nonmusicians simply because they feel left out.

Music theory is not the same thing as "knowing scales." I'm talking about an understanding of all of the underpinnings of musical functions, many of which I have yet to grasp myself. (There's always room for improvement)

Beginner musicians see scale practice as tedious and write off the study of music theory as tedious and useless as a result. They quit too early. Scale practice is the FIRST of MANY steps toward the sort of understanding which I'm talking about.

You don't need to know music theory to appreciate music, but anyone who says it can't help you further appreciate music is just clueless and bitter and make their claim on the basis of self-dignification and insecurity about their hobby.

You can appreciate anything with a greater understanding, this is true for anything - ranging from art forms like oil painting to technological appreciation like programming and whatnot. To act like this isn't true is to embrace arrogance and ignore universal trends.

>>21707577
Yep. /thread

>>21707577
Fucking this. Everyone go home.

/thread

>>21707513
Think I might start namefagging. Thoughts?

>>21707577
Now why didn't everyone agree when I said the same thing?

>>21707695
I don't stigmatize tripfags or namefags. I appreciate them because they help me to know immediately whether or not a given counsel is valuable.

>>21707698
Anon took what you originally did and made it marketable by cutting out the filler and dumbing it down. Welcome to the music industry.

>>21707698
Because you made an overly long, pretentious rambling bout of verbal masturbation out of that point.

>>21707805
But his post was a lot more detailed and compr-

No wait, it has the same content with 400x as many words.

>>21707805
>pretentious
This word doesn't mean when you think it means.

>>21707866
1. Claiming or demanding a position of distinction or merit, especially when unjustified.
2. Making or marked by an extravagant outward show; ostentatious. See Synonyms at showy.

Nah, he used the word right

>>21707866

you're so pretentious you're trying to give someone a lesson on what the word pretentious means

>>21707866
Nah, I used it exactly right. You are trying to make yourself more important than you actually are and you are doing it even now.

>>21707941
>You are trying to make yourself more important than you actually are
[citation needed]

I'd just like to thank everyone who contributed thread: I've read through it all and although I don't agree with all the arguments, it has been one of the most interesting and eloquent threads on /mu/ in a long time. Special thanks to the guy who was going on and on about how you practice a lot to become a good musician - I know this is the most obvious point ever but it has given me motivation to keep going with learning music theory and how to play my instrument so thank you.

>>21705481

Appreciate? No. Critique? Yeah.