Submitted by timepass on 16 February 2007 - 6:35am.
I like your thoughts on listening and clarity in expressing the same.
I agree with the Background and Foreground listening characterisation. These express the contribution of the music to the overall experience of the moment.
I would, however, prefer it if you'd not tried linking listening with 'easy' or 'difficult' music in the context of this article.
If I follow your usage of 'easy' and 'difficult', I'd say that 'easy' and 'difficult' music would primarily relate to the depth (or intensity) of experience of the composer; where 'easy' would be the result of a more frivilous compositional inspiration. This 'classification' is independent of the listener. One cannot comment conclusively on which of these types of music would suit a background/foreground listening experience. It would, however, be the primary factor limiting the experience of the listener. Another factor which would limit the experience of the listener would be the inspiration of the musician(s) presenting the music to the listener; the audio system used etc., etc...
It might (but not conclusively) be assumed that the foreground listener would be inclined to have the capability of experiencing music to greater depths, thus having a tendency to appreciate 'difficult' music. I wouldn't necessarily say that 'difficult' music is very irritating to the background listener. She might listen to any music, but (probably) not at the depth to which it could be exploited.
Let me sight an example or two:
Hard Rock music from groups like Deep Purple or Led Zeppelin might be fine for the background listener in a night club environment where there's talking, drinking and dancing all happenning within an elbow's distance. It might even enhance the experience of the night-club outing. No special attention is being given to the music per se.
In a lounge room, while reading a book, Deep Purple might still appeal (albiet at a different volume, etc.) as 'background' listening as long as it contributes to the overall experience. Else, the reader might decide it's 'distractive' and listen to some other music which he'd classify as conducive to the moment -- could be classical.
A foreground listener might sit in a dark room and listen to the same music and experience a different state of being.
In a way, it's the same 'script' being experienced differently.
I guess the same applies to classical music. Chopin could be played in the 'background' at a cocktail party, in an upper-end restaurant or a hotel foyer. This definitely contributes to the ambience/experience of the guests. Chopin could be experienced differently to the foreground listener in a quiet room. Same 'script' different experience. The 'background' listener is not having a 'musical' experience on the same lines as the 'foreground' listener.
music muses
I like your thoughts on listening and clarity in expressing the same.
I agree with the Background and Foreground listening characterisation. These express the contribution of the music to the overall experience of the moment.
I would, however, prefer it if you'd not tried linking listening with 'easy' or 'difficult' music in the context of this article.
If I follow your usage of 'easy' and 'difficult', I'd say that 'easy' and 'difficult' music would primarily relate to the depth (or intensity) of experience of the composer; where 'easy' would be the result of a more frivilous compositional inspiration. This 'classification' is independent of the listener. One cannot comment conclusively on which of these types of music would suit a background/foreground listening experience. It would, however, be the primary factor limiting the experience of the listener. Another factor which would limit the experience of the listener would be the inspiration of the musician(s) presenting the music to the listener; the audio system used etc., etc...
It might (but not conclusively) be assumed that the foreground listener would be inclined to have the capability of experiencing music to greater depths, thus having a tendency to appreciate 'difficult' music. I wouldn't necessarily say that 'difficult' music is very irritating to the background listener. She might listen to any music, but (probably) not at the depth to which it could be exploited.
Let me sight an example or two:
Hard Rock music from groups like Deep Purple or Led Zeppelin might be fine for the background listener in a night club environment where there's talking, drinking and dancing all happenning within an elbow's distance. It might even enhance the experience of the night-club outing. No special attention is being given to the music per se.
In a lounge room, while reading a book, Deep Purple might still appeal (albiet at a different volume, etc.) as 'background' listening as long as it contributes to the overall experience. Else, the reader might decide it's 'distractive' and listen to some other music which he'd classify as conducive to the moment -- could be classical.
A foreground listener might sit in a dark room and listen to the same music and experience a different state of being.
In a way, it's the same 'script' being experienced differently.
I guess the same applies to classical music. Chopin could be played in the 'background' at a cocktail party, in an upper-end restaurant or a hotel foyer. This definitely contributes to the ambience/experience of the guests. Chopin could be experienced differently to the foreground listener in a quiet room. Same 'script' different experience. The 'background' listener is not having a 'musical' experience on the same lines as the 'foreground' listener.