Schmüdde

On Listening and Music

In a speech delivered by Benjamin Britten in 1964 he astutely pointed out that going to listen to music before the invention of the wax cylinder required a special level of investment:

It demands some preparation, some effort, a journey to a special place, saving up for a ticket, some homework on the programme perhaps, some clarification of the ears and sharpening of the instincts. It demands as much effort on the listener’s part as the other two corners of the triangle, this holy triangle of composer, performer and listener.

Listeners would have to invest themselves in a composition nearly to the level of a composer or a performer.  Of course the old adage applies as well: the greater the level of investment, the greater the level of return. 

Furthermore, Bob Shingleton, from whom much of the inspiration of this post was drawn, proposes that listening, like meditation and learning, are even more fulfilling when experienced as a group.  Listening cannot happen casually.  Unfortunately, the majority of music listening does.  The simple accessibility of it makes this the case.  Compressed music, portable music systems, digital music libraries, satellite radios, streaming web-based music; this amounts not to a condemnation but a simple statement of fact that we listen differently now than we did roughly 100 years ago.  At that time, if you wanted to hear music in your home, someone would have to play it.  There simply was no personal music listening unless you were also the performer - again another level of investment.

I’m not sure what the end result of this is.  I do know that music is more often played like sonic wall-paper rather than something we’d normally think of as music.  Just as we don’t think of manufactured linoleum as art, much of what exists merely for ubiquitous aural mood-setting might not be thought of as music.  In the very least, it is perhaps less-so than John Cage’s 4’33”, a famous composition of “silence”.

It’s much less of an academic discussion than it seems.  If aesthetics are important then we need another word for this so as to never confuse the two.  These words are also the first step towards listening with intention.  For example, it’s not the existence of Muzak that is the problem - it is the listener’s acceptance of it as music that is at the root of our everyday negligence.

As pointed out on another blog, I really love the idea of generative identity.  In this case - a distinct and compelling shape that can take on many different personalities but remain essentially itself.

In urban areas such as Melbourne or Chicago, if you walk a mile you’ll see many different faces of the same city.  So why should city identities be staid and uncompromising?