questions, thinking silently out loud
01/11/12 19:39
Today I am rolling around questions that have arisen of late. The main thing on my mind is the question of pure, open-minded listening and the listening favored, encouraged, taught in the world of classical musical analysis. We’re so accustomed to what one might call active listening -- listening for things... things to criticize, to comment upon, be delighted about, to like, to dislike, technical items -- that it seems as though the kind of pure listening I commented upon in a recent post is at odds with it. I certainly see problems with many facets of the standard active-listening paradigm, for we are very aware nowadays that we perceive what we know, what we expect to find. Much of the critical listening that occurs reinforces elitist notions of musical value, finds ways to express fixed ideas of what is good compositional practice, simply offer up a person’s musical prejudices. So what role does a total-awareness sort of listening have to play in a musician’s life or training?
First, it seems to be a reality check, an attempt to hear music holistically. The realization from quantum physics that the instrument of measurement affects that which is measured is equally apt for listening to music, so it seems self-evident that choosing another approach regularly will serve musicians well. It is important, I think, allow oneself to fully hear what is, and not just the patterns we already know and value. After all, if we do fully hear, we have our memories to work with, and if we don’t interfere with the listening, our memories may just hold a more accurate version of what we’ve heard. And if we’re analyzing music, we can always listen again. In my class, Contemplating Music, we talk extensively about what we’ve heard in an open listening session. Given what we hear, or what we think we hear, we then listen again, primed with questions. At that point, no one would really claim that our listening was completely open, unfettered by concepts (if it ever was!)
The issue seems to be, as is often the case, one of balance. Balance between the active sort, trained listening, and the total-awareness sort, holistic listening. It would almost fit to say listening vs. non-listening, like the unity of doing and not doing at the heart of Zen. But I can’t bring myself to say that what I am advocating is not listening, at least not just yet.
First, it seems to be a reality check, an attempt to hear music holistically. The realization from quantum physics that the instrument of measurement affects that which is measured is equally apt for listening to music, so it seems self-evident that choosing another approach regularly will serve musicians well. It is important, I think, allow oneself to fully hear what is, and not just the patterns we already know and value. After all, if we do fully hear, we have our memories to work with, and if we don’t interfere with the listening, our memories may just hold a more accurate version of what we’ve heard. And if we’re analyzing music, we can always listen again. In my class, Contemplating Music, we talk extensively about what we’ve heard in an open listening session. Given what we hear, or what we think we hear, we then listen again, primed with questions. At that point, no one would really claim that our listening was completely open, unfettered by concepts (if it ever was!)
The issue seems to be, as is often the case, one of balance. Balance between the active sort, trained listening, and the total-awareness sort, holistic listening. It would almost fit to say listening vs. non-listening, like the unity of doing and not doing at the heart of Zen. But I can’t bring myself to say that what I am advocating is not listening, at least not just yet.