In defence of the speaker in question, (no names, to protect the guilty) I imagine what she was thinking was this: "You understand music once it stops being an undifferentiated mass of sound and you can 'pick out' the melodies". So she was, I imagine, equating "understand" in the case of music with a kind of 'catching on' - to the melodies and maybe, I guess, certain musical effects.
But even if that is what she was thinking, I think it squibs the matter. It misses the point. We know what we mean when we talk about understanding an argument: following and agreeing to a series of logcial steps. But this obviously can't be what we mean with music - or any art. So when we use the word about music - or any art - what *do* we mean? Is 'understanding' a work of art an impossibilty in fact? Is talking about understanding in this context a misleading idea? (as Monet's statement implies)? If it just means 'catching on' (as above) aren't we in fact misusing the word? And most importantly, shouldn't we at least *think about* the problem since it seems to point to something special about works of art? (The speaker in question, I should say, didn't seem at all interested in thinking about it and didn't even seem to see it as a problem...). DA On Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 4:32 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm content to repeat it: It's a mistake to believe there is a "the" meaning > of 'understand', and certainly when "appreciating" "art". The notion that > being able to sing the tune is a good guide to when to use the phrase > 'understanding the music' strikes me as ludicrous. I don't know who that > speaking > aesthetician was, but she sounds dismally uninformed, or, more likely, > irremediably > stupid. > > One of the running giggles in my family -- including giggles from my wife -- > was the way she has never been able to sing a note or hold a tune or repeat a > tune -- but no one was more appreciatively seized by Pavarotti at his best. > If the aeshetician had ever been in a hall and experienced the moments when, > at the last note of one of Pavarotti's good arias, 99% of the audience would > spring exultantly to their feet, levitated and throbbing with what his voice > had > just done to them. It had noting to do with THEIR being ble to hum the > "tune". In truth, the word 'understanding' would never have come to my mind to > describe my feelings at those times. It's not a word that I would expect to > stir in > someone else's mind anything like what was in mine, but such stirring is what > using words aims at. > > I WOULD -- and did -- use the word to convey my sense of what was in > Pavarotti's mind (and I found that the other music professionals around him > agreed): > Luciano "understood" "where the music is" in a given passage. I sat in on some > of his one-on-one teaching sessions as he led students to where the "music" > was. His accompanist once said this to me of Luciano, who was mediocre at > reading scores: "'Musicianship'? -- not so much. But musical, musical, > musical!" The > accompanist and I were, so to speak, "talking about the same thing", and we > both knew we were, and yet it wouldn't occur to him to use the word " > understands". That 's not because there is any right or wrong about the > usage. Where I > might say Luciano "understood" where the "music" is, the accompanist would > say, > "Luciano SEES where it is, he HEARS it!" > > > ************** > Get trade secrets for > amazing burgers. Watch "Cooking with Tyler Florence" on AOL Food. > > (http://food.aol.com/tyler-florence?video=4?&NCID=aolfod00030000000002) > > -- Derek Allan http://www.home.netspeed.com.au/derek.allan/default.htm
