The whole thing with not "getting" contemporary works

Whenever someone says they don't like contemporary music people who do like it always seem to jump on them with the argument that they don't "understand" it, like enjoying it requires some kind of insight into the structure behind it. I really love dissonant modern works by Bartok, Takemitsu, Ligeti, Leo Brouwer and more but I really don't think I "understand" them at all. I am not musically experienced enough to perceive the underlying structures and I imagine that I do miss a lot of the more esoteric ideas contained within these works. I don't really know if I "get" them, I just enjoy listening to these types of thing a lot for whatever unknown reason. So uh... am I enjoying them wrong?

Yes. You can't enjoy something unless you fully understand it. This is true in everything. In fact, get off your computer. You can't use the internet until you understand exactly how the power from the wall is converted in your computer and the various pathways that connect to form picture on the screen.

This was obviously not a jab at you, but at 'they'.

I'm not going to say there's nothing to get, because there is, and having an understanding of what exactly is going on almost always gives a greater appreciation for the music, but is by no means necessary. It's all about liking what you like and trying to understand what you don't like, I think.

I guess I'm trying to say that I'm living proof that atonal/dissonant music isn't some purely intellectual matter because I love it and I don't know much about the technical side :toothygrin:

Or, on the other hand, not "understanding" they theory and ideas behind the music doesn't invalidate the fact that you dislike how the music sounds.

While an understanding of the music you listen to certainly enriches the experience, if it sounds bad to you...it straight sounds bad. Understanding or not.

~Christian

Or, on the other hand, not "understanding" they theory and ideas behind the music doesn't invalidate the fact that you dislike how the music sounds.

While an understanding of the music you listen to certainly enriches the experience, if it sounds bad to you...it straight sounds bad. Understanding or not.

~Christian

I completely agree with this.

I do not like it when people say that you cannot have a like or dislike or an opinion on something becuase you do not know everything about it.

I love Lord of the Rings music. I think it is the best score. It is my personal favorite. I have never been through music school. I do not have a degree. I cannot tell you about every aspect of the orchestration and the notation. Still, I can enjoy it. It can still be my personal favorite. I can still claim that it is the best. It may or may not be but who cares. I still like it.

Or, on the other hand, not "understanding" they theory and ideas behind the music doesn't invalidate the fact that you dislike how the music sounds.

While an understanding of the music you listen to certainly enriches the experience, if it sounds bad to you...it straight sounds bad. Understanding or not.

~Christian

I'm not really sure that is accurate. I can speak from experience on this, I used to dislike certain 'rough' sounds from bands in the early 90's. After forcing myself to listen to the music repeatedly.. I really got into it - appreciated it for what it was as opposed to whether or not it was 'easy listening' or not. In a sense, I also began to understand why those songwriters did what they did - including the harder sound - without picking up a textbook and delving into their song construction, etc. Perhaps there is a name for this sort of thing?

Or, on the other hand, not "understanding" they theory and ideas behind the music doesn't invalidate the fact that you dislike how the music sounds.

While an understanding of the music you listen to certainly enriches the experience, if it sounds bad to you...it straight sounds bad. Understanding or not.

~Christian

Not true. I disliked the sound of much classical music before I understood the concepts of form and development. Now granted, it didn't lead to instant transformation from hate to love once I did start to understand these concepts but it did inspire a gradual change. After I listened to certain pieces enough, I began to feel like I really understood them intimately and appreciated their beauty. Sort of like getting to know a romantic partner. You may not instantly love or even like things about them but with time, you can really grow attached.

My point is that one of the greatest appeals of art music is its depth. It's not meant to be instantly likeable and certainly not for those with a close or lazy mind. It really breaks my heart to see a lot of people (myself included) going into a piece with a pop music mentality of "If I don't like how it instantly sounds then it is not good music!!!" Now, I'm not trying to begrudge anyone of their opinions and I maintain that it is fully possible to simply just not like something and no amount of understanding will help that. But often times, I feel that people are just more apt to dismiss something that is outside of their general listening pallette and not give it a fair shot. I find that a lot of people simply don't want to be challenged too much when it comes to finding new and unfamiliar music.

EDIT: Not trying to come off as pious here by the way. As much as I try not to be, I'm sure I'm just as guilty of close-mindedness at times. It's part of human nature and development really so it's useless to try and claim "Nuh uhh!!! I respect all music! I have no preferences!!"

I'm listening to more and more "contemporary" music styles lately. Lots of Ligeti, Boulez, Cage, Varese, Stockhausen, Xenakis, Berg, Webern, Schoenberg... all those kinds of styles. I'm listening to it BECAUSE I don't like it, and I want to give it a try. However... I'm still not liking it any more. Is this because I don't understand it? Because I really don't most of the time. I usually read an article in a book I have on each piece as I listen, but it doesn't help me to like it or personally appreciate it any more. Do you think understanding helps? Does it make a difference? I still can't stand Schoenberg, even when I KNOW what the tone row is and what he was doing with it, following the score... so what gives?

I'm listening to more and more "contemporary" music styles lately. Lots of Ligeti, Boulez, Cage, Varese, Stockhausen, Xenakis, Berg, Webern, Schoenberg... all those kinds of styles. I'm listening to it BECAUSE I don't like it, and I want to give it a try. However... I'm still not liking it any more. Is this because I don't understand it? Because I really don't most of the time. I usually read an article in a book I have on each piece as I listen, but it doesn't help me to like it or personally appreciate it any more. Do you think understanding helps? Does it make a difference? I still can't stand Schoenberg, even when I KNOW what the tone row is and what he was doing with it, following the score... so what gives?

No, you either like it or you don't.

Understanding it might help you appreciate it more and you may eventually like it more over time. But, if you don't like it and then you studied it to try and understand it more and you still do not like it that much then you just don't like it. It is not your taste in music. That is perfectly fine.

No, you either like it or you don't.

Yes and no.

Studying the score and studying the piece will give you a greater understanding and appreciation of the piece. This is true in almost all cases.

Since we are talking about Schoenberg, part of it is a matter of how you listen to it. One way is to put it on while you do something else. Another is to listen to it while following the score carefully. Yet another is to listen to it with complete abandon, focusing only on the sound produced and nothing else in the world. The first way will not work for Schoenberg, for me. It is not background music, nor is it supposed to be **. The second way is the best way to start to fully appreciate the music, but if I really try, and focus on just the sound and just listening, I can really enjoy this music. It goes against my nature, and my inherent response would be negative, but once I really get into the zone I can dig it.

So, part of it may be how you are listening to it. Or, you may just really not be able to get into it. I maintain, however, that with proper study, personal exploration and an open mind, it is possible for anyone to ENJOY any kind of music.

**(this is a generalization of course. I am assuming we are talking about some of the twelve-tone stuff, and I actually am saying this about Schoenberg, Webern, and Berg, as though they are all three different, they require the same approach for much of their repertoire)

Christian - In my experience it is ignorant to say that any one thing is the best. It's definitely fine to have an opinion, but even if you feel like you don't need to back it up, keep in mind that just because you feel or think a certain way does not make it correct, and thinking so will make others harm you physically.

Let me muddy the water a bit more:

An important aspect in music appreciation is composer's intent, which is usually difficult to ascertain unless made explicitly so. Intent covers the whole gamut from ornamentation ad libitum to the whole objective behind a piece of music. For example, Mozart's Ein musikalischer Spa

Let's not muddy the water and call it like it is... (extra-musical? what the hell man?) :)

In my opinion, the most important thing a composer can develop is an intuitive process for the kind of music s/he writes. So, it is important to be able to understand what is happening in a given work you listen to - as a composer, you should know what is happening in almost any piece because of the basic theory background you gain in studying music.

But by the very nature of this subjective approach, this also means that you're free to "not like" a piece. The technical argument that understanding ALWAYS yields appreciation is just a bit absurd to me. Understanding just opens doors for you to encounter more forms of music. You don't have to like those other forms of music, and you don't have to call those composers geniuses or develop any sort of respect for them. You are as free to think Wagner sucks as I am free to think Stockhausen sucks. We can probably both back that up with our own reasons, but it doesn't matter.

I'm not a musical "evangelist" on a mission to convert anyone to religiously loving any composer, musical style, or specific piece. Honestly, there are better things to do with your time than try to like something that you've studied and still... don't like. Move on and stop dwelling on the idea that because you don't like it, there must be something wrong with you. You're being fed a bunch of nonsense if you're led to believe that you're supposed to like every kind of music you hear. You are free to like or dislike any type of music, as long as you understand it.

I'm not really sure that is accurate. I can speak from experience on this, I used to dislike certain 'rough' sounds from bands in the early 90's. After forcing myself to listen to the music repeatedly.. I really got into it - appreciated it for what it was as opposed to whether or not it was 'easy listening' or not. In a sense, I also began to understand why those songwriters did what they did - including the harder sound - without picking up a textbook and delving into their song construction, etc. Perhaps there is a name for this sort of thing?

My point was more that if you don't like something (meaning: if you don't like how something sounds), it's not necessarily a fault in understanding. Perhaps learning more about it, or listening to the style enough to become accustomed to the sounds you dislike, or otherwise "understanding" the music better can bring about an appreciation where there was at one point a dislike. But it is entirely possible that it won't.

My point was that if you dislike a style/type of music, it shouldn't automatically be labeled as "a fault in understanding," which I see happen so often. Instead, people should recognize that each individual has certain likes/dislikes, and no amount of understanding is guaranteed to change that.

My point is that one of the greatest appeals of art music is its depth. It's not meant to be instantly likeable and certainly not for those with a close or lazy mind. It really breaks my heart to see a lot of people (myself included) going into a piece with a pop music mentality of "If I don't like how it instantly sounds then it is not good music!!!" Now, I'm not trying to begrudge anyone of their opinions and I maintain that it is fully possible to simply just not like something and no amount of understanding will help that. But often times, I feel that people are just more apt to dismiss something that is outside of their general listening pallette and not give it a fair shot. I find that a lot of people simply don't want to be challenged too much when it comes to finding new and unfamiliar music.

I agree that perhaps I am slightly closed-minded, and so I won't claim that I respect all music. But I listen to "pop" music, hip-hop, rap, metal, rock, classical/opera, and almost everything in between, so I do at least try to approach most music with an open mind. It's just that, I've never been able to enjoy the atonal pieces that I have heard. Maybe I haven't heard the right ones, or enough of them, but I just don't enjoy them.

Understanding why they chose the notes/whatever else is in the piece is probably not going to change the fact that I just dislike how the music sounds. There's many a classical piece that I'll listen to and shrug and go "meh, not really a fan," but will then subsequently grow on me - but in my experience, if I really dislike how something sounds, it's generally not going to change.

[frustrated rant]Perhaps I'm just tired of being told that I only dislike a piece because I don't understand the musical genius behind it. I certainly respect the composers of the pieces I dislike - I just don't like how they sound...[/frustrated rant]

Yes and no.

Studying the score and studying the piece will give you a greater understanding and appreciation of the piece. This is true in almost all cases.

...

I maintain, however, that with proper study, personal exploration and an open mind, it is possible for anyone to ENJOY any kind of music.

Christian - In my experience it is ignorant to say that any one thing is the best. It's definitely fine to have an opinion, but even if you feel like you don't need to back it up, keep in mind that just because you feel or think a certain way does not make it correct, and thinking so will make others harm you physically.

I don't remember attaching a generalized value judgment in my statement - I in no way meant to imply that simply because I personally dislike a style of music, it is somehow inferior to the music I do enjoy listening to. As I said above, I respect almost all composers for creating music that others can relate to and enjoy...I don't necessarily have to like their music to respect it. I very rarely make any comment that "X music is the best" or "Y music is the worst," simply because stating subjective opinions as fact is stupid.

What I disagree with is the middle section of your post that I quoted above. I very firmly think that people, even with "proper exploration and an open mind," can dislike a piece, or style, etc. Sometimes, the music just doesn't resonate with them. Again, I raise the distinction between enjoying (i.e. listening to a piece, taking pleasure in listening to it, and wishing to listen to it again) and appreciation (i.e. respecting the composer and the piece for what it is and the meaning behind it, but not necessarily enjoying how the piece sounds).

Enjoyment coupled with appreciation is to me, the most valuable way of listening to music. There is music I appreciate but don't enjoy, and even a few pieces of music that are so simply made and basic that I don't fully appreciate, but I still enjoy listening to them. Am I making sense? I'm trying to explain a concept in my head and doing a rather poor job of it.

Let's not muddy the water and call it like it is... (extra-musical? what the hell man?) :)

In my opinion, the most important thing a composer can develop is an intuitive process for the kind of music s/he writes. So, it is important to be able to understand what is happening in a given work you listen to - as a composer, you should know what is happening in almost any piece because of the basic theory background you gain in studying music.

But by the very nature of this subjective approach, this also means that you're free to "not like" a piece. The technical argument that understanding ALWAYS yields appreciation is just a bit absurd to me. Understanding just opens doors for you to encounter more forms of music. You don't have to like those other forms of music, and you don't have to call those composers geniuses or develop any sort of respect for them. You are as free to think Wagner sucks as I am free to think Stockhausen sucks. We can probably both back that up with our own reasons, but it doesn't matter.

I'm not a musical "evangelist" on a mission to convert anyone to religiously loving any composer, musical style, or specific piece. Honestly, there are better things to do with your time than try to like something that you've studied and still... don't like. Move on and stop dwelling on the idea that because you don't like it, there must be something wrong with you. You're being fed a bunch of nonsense if you're led to believe that you're supposed to like every kind of music you hear. You are free to like or dislike any type of music, as long as you understand it.

I agree wholeheartedly with everything in this post. Word :P

~Christian

I don't remember attaching a generalized value judgment in my statement - I in no way meant to imply that simply because I personally dislike a style of music, it is somehow inferior to the music I do enjoy listening to. As I said above, I respect almost all composers for creating music that others can relate to and enjoy...I don't necessarily have to like their music to respect it. I very rarely make any comment that "X music is the best" or "Y music is the worst," simply because stating subjective opinions as fact is stupid.

What I disagree with is the middle section of your post that I quoted above. I very firmly think that people, even with "proper exploration and an open mind," can dislike a piece, or style, etc. Sometimes, the music just doesn't resonate with them. Again, I raise the distinction between enjoying (i.e. listening to a piece, taking pleasure in listening to it, and wishing to listen to it again) and appreciation (i.e. respecting the composer and the piece for what it is and the meaning behind it, but not necessarily enjoying how the piece sounds).

Enjoyment coupled with appreciation is to me, the most valuable way of listening to music. There is music I appreciate but don't enjoy, and even a few pieces of music that are so simply made and basic that I don't fully appreciate, but I still enjoy listening to them. Am I making sense? I'm trying to explain a concept in my head and doing a rather poor job of it.

~Christian

Heads up, I made a mistake: That stuff was supposed to be directed at Ravel's Raunchy Rival, or whatever his name is. I misdirected my paragraph to you. My bad.

But since we're on the subject :D I understand how you could disagree with me saying that everyone can enjoy any piece. It's a personal theory, not based on an evidence or anything, just a hunch I have. But I do feel that with time, study, exploration and an open mind you can actually derive enjoyment of anything. There's a reason that someone likes what you're listening to, it's just a matter of finding that reason. Take, for instance, club music. I don't really like the drums-and-bass-only music with unintelligible lyrics on top. But people don't usually listen to that because it's great, they listen to it to dance, and get the club vibe going. So if I take it like that, and not in a "How do I feel about what I'm hearing?" way, then I can actually enjoy it, as it is meant to be enjoyed: background music while I'm clubbing. That's not a great example but you get my drift.

Fair enough. However, what really annoys me is when people dislike a work only because it's atonal, without actually listening to it. I've tried this with the Berg Piano Sonata on a few people; I've told some people it's tonal, others, atonal. The people who were told it's tonal usually liked it much better than those to whom I told it was atonal. And of course, you've got the people who are flat-out against atonality in general. It doesn't really make sense, considering there's no solid black line separating atonality and tonality. If you don't like all the atonal music you've heard, that's fine. That's still no reason to bash atonality in general.

Sorry, that's really only tangentially related to this discussion, but I just needed to get that out.

I bought a wonderful book a week ago called Emotion and Meaning in Music, Leonard B. Meyer. The book deals with the psychology of music and the understanding of it (to dumb it down to basics). QM, your comments made me think of this, in the book Meyer states that listeners like to have a sense of completion to music - with various other factors. Perhaps, to tie in this with your comment, people are told that atonal music is unorganized.. therefore when they listen to it - they don't see any organized due to prior conditioning?

I hope that makes sense.

As far as I'm concerned, "getting" music means knowing how to listen to it in such a way that the listening experience is enjoyable. Given this definition, I just "got" Takemitsu a couple of days ago for the first time. Prior to then, his music always seemed unnerving and put me in an uncomfortable zone. But now I enjoy the tranquility and serenity by which so many others have described his music.

The argument "you only don't like it because you don't understand it" has always annoyed me. Not only do I find it flat out wrong that you have to "understand" a piece of music in order to enjoy it (and this applies for Boulez as much as for Bach or Pink Floyd), it also implies that one actually can "understand" a piece of music - and that the person who uses this argument does so her- or himself.

Saying one can "understand" music, implies that there is some sort of "encoded information" in it, a "core" that is the actual meaning of the piece and which is hidden behind the surface. This is nonsense. There is always only just so much meaning in a piece of music that a listener derives from it.

People who think they are seeing beyond the surface of the music to the "true core" are deluding themselves. They are merely seeing a different surface. A more complex one maybe, but it's still just a form. It's quite like cutting open a fruit: You never get the "content", because as soon as you cut an apple in half, what used to be in the middle of the apple has become the surface of two new pieces, again hiding their "content", only showing outer form.

You can say "well, understanding a piece of music is understanding the mindset in which the composer wrote it". Fine, but that first implies that the composer her- or himself consciously understood the piece totally in the first place (which I don't think ever happens) and it also implies that the composer's perspective is the only valid, the "correct" one (which I don't believe either).

It gets worst though when "understanding a piece" is actually reduced to "understanding the techniques used to write it". Understanding how to write a 12-tone piece doesn't mean you have "understood Webern" and understanding how to write a Fugue without any parallel fifths doesn't mean you "understand Bach".

The most annoying thing about this is however that it's an argument that effectively manages to keep people at distance from more foreign forms of music. It just reinforces the common misconception that "atonal" music, serial music etc. are purely intellectual constructs that only can speak to people who "understand the language" and can draw cerebral satisfaction from studying it.

I really have absolutely no clue about how most of Xenakis' music is constructed. It would certainly be nice to understand more about it, to learn from it, to get another view on this music - but despite all this I really enjoy listening to most of his pieces, simply because I enjoy the sound. Yet somehow, because Xenakis used mathematical models to create his music, the idea that Xenakis wrote "mathematical music" is so dominant, that people forget that those mathematical models are a mere tool and not the "meaning" of the music. This whole pseudo-learnedness of approaching every music as a proponent of some technique, style or school does nothing but fuel preconceptions and make an open approach to such music almost impossible.

Of course it's good to learn about music, about backgrounds, connections etc. But it should always be kept in mind that an approach from such a theoretical side is merely one aspect of the thing. There is never just one single way of listening to some music. You can listen to Sch

The argument "you only don't like it because you don't understand it" has always annoyed me. Not only do I find it flat out wrong that you have to "understand" a piece of music in order to enjoy it (and this applies for Boulez as much as for Bach or Pink Floyd), it also implies that one actually can "understand" a piece of music - and that the person who uses this argument does so her- or himself.

Saying one can "understand" music, implies that there is some sort of "encoded information" in it, a "core" that is the actual meaning of the piece and which is hidden behind the surface. This is nonsense. There is always only just so much meaning in a piece of music that a listener derives from it.

People who think they are seeing beyond the surface of the music to the "true core" are deluding themselves. They are merely seeing a different surface. A more complex one maybe, but it's still just a form. It's quite like cutting open a fruit: You never get the "content", because as soon as you cut an apple in half, what used to be in the middle of the apple has become the surface of two new pieces, again hiding their "content", only showing outer form.

You can say "well, understanding a piece of music is understanding the mindset in which the composer wrote it". Fine, but that first implies that the composer her- or himself consciously understood the piece totally in the first place (which I don't think ever happens) and it also implies that the composer's perspective is the only valid, the "correct" one (which I don't believe either).

It gets worst though when "understanding a piece" is actually reduced to "understanding the techniques used to write it". Understanding how to write a 12-tone piece doesn't mean you have "understood Webern" and understanding how to write a Fugue without any parallel fifths doesn't mean you "understand Bach".

The most annoying thing about this is however that it's an argument that effectively manages to keep people at distance from more foreign forms of music. It just reinforces the common misconception that "atonal" music, serial music etc. are purely intellectual constructs that only can speak to people who "understand the language" and can draw cerebral satisfaction from studying it.

I really have absolutely no clue about how most of Xenakis' music is constructed. It would certainly be nice to understand more about it, to learn from it, to get another view on this music - but despite all this I really enjoy listening to most of his pieces, simply because I enjoy the sound. Yet somehow, because Xenakis used mathematical models to create his music, the idea that Xenakis wrote "mathematical music" is so dominant, that people forget that those mathematical models are a mere tool and not the "meaning" of the music. This whole pseudo-learnedness of approaching every music as a proponent of some technique, style or school does nothing but fuel preconceptions and make an open approach to such music almost impossible.

Of course it's good to learn about music, about backgrounds, connections etc. But it should always be kept in mind that an approach from such a theoretical side is merely one aspect of the thing. There is never just one single way of listening to some music. You can listen to Sch

Too often, I find that with understanding something, it destroys the effect for me. Something magical gets lost when I figure out what's going on.

I think that's really dumb.

I had a friend who said this to me. She is no longer my friend. She isn't musical at all though.

I don't think you meant it in the same way as her though... Ahahaha.

She was just an idiot.

Drunk posting for the win!

As a follower of the contemporary school, I find it shocking that people sometimes stray away from contemporary music, for the sake of its "contemporary-ness." I asked a friend of mine to do a duet with me by Jennifer Higdon, a marvelous modern piece called "running the edgE". She listened to it, and said "Wow! That was cool! But I won't play it." I asked her why?! and she said "It's MODERN." As if it was like....taboo. To play modern music.

I played her Barber's Canzone. She said "THAT'S SO PRETTY! I WANNA PLAY IT. " I told her "But you don't play modern music, do you." I did the same with Syrinx and Density 21.5, which are surprisingly similar.

But, the way it is, as I see it, is that with contempo music, you either like it, or you don't. Some of that stuff is really hard to listen to! (Freaking Stockhausen...) But a lot of that stuff is absolutely fantastic...it's just a matter of taste. It's not like if you understand it, suddenly you enjoy it a lot more. (Again, Stockhausen.)

The argument "you only don't like it because you don't understand it" has always annoyed me. Not only do I find it flat out wrong that you have to "understand" a piece of music in order to enjoy it (and this applies for Boulez as much as for Bach or Pink Floyd), it also implies that one actually can "understand" a piece of music - and that the person who uses this argument does so her- or himself.

Saying one can "understand" music, implies that there is some sort of "encoded information" in it, a "core" that is the actual meaning of the piece and which is hidden behind the surface. This is nonsense. There is always only just so much meaning in a piece of music that a listener derives from it.

People who think they are seeing beyond the surface of the music to the "true core" are deluding themselves. They are merely seeing a different surface. A more complex one maybe, but it's still just a form. It's quite like cutting open a fruit: You never get the "content", because as soon as you cut an apple in half, what used to be in the middle of the apple has become the surface of two new pieces, again hiding their "content", only showing outer form.

You can say "well, understanding a piece of music is understanding the mindset in which the composer wrote it". Fine, but that first implies that the composer her- or himself consciously understood the piece totally in the first place (which I don't think ever happens) and it also implies that the composer's perspective is the only valid, the "correct" one (which I don't believe either).

It gets worst though when "understanding a piece" is actually reduced to "understanding the techniques used to write it". Understanding how to write a 12-tone piece doesn't mean you have "understood Webern" and understanding how to write a Fugue without any parallel fifths doesn't mean you "understand Bach".

The most annoying thing about this is however that it's an argument that effectively manages to keep people at distance from more foreign forms of music. It just reinforces the common misconception that "atonal" music, serial music etc. are purely intellectual constructs that only can speak to people who "understand the language" and can draw cerebral satisfaction from studying it.

I really have absolutely no clue about how most of Xenakis' music is constructed. It would certainly be nice to understand more about it, to learn from it, to get another view on this music - but despite all this I really enjoy listening to most of his pieces, simply because I enjoy the sound. Yet somehow, because Xenakis used mathematical models to create his music, the idea that Xenakis wrote "mathematical music" is so dominant, that people forget that those mathematical models are a mere tool and not the "meaning" of the music. This whole pseudo-learnedness of approaching every music as a proponent of some technique, style or school does nothing but fuel preconceptions and make an open approach to such music almost impossible.

Of course it's good to learn about music, about backgrounds, connections etc. But it should always be kept in mind that an approach from such a theoretical side is merely one aspect of the thing. There is never just one single way of listening to some music. You can listen to Sch