How deep does the orchestra pit go?

October 30, 2005 2:37 PM

Help me understand classical music, if that makes sense.

I had a wonderful experience the other night listening to a string trio playing somewhat non-standard stuff, but while I certainly enjoyed the music and the surroundings, I didn't really understand it. I have a good understanding of jazz, bluegrass, modern music, food, wine (a little less so), and so on. I know what makes something good in these areas and how to get enjoyment out of lesser-known works. But at classical music, I draw a blank. I enjoy Beethoven's 9th, for instance, but I don't know why all of the movements are worth listening to. I like Bach's cello concertos, Mahler, Mussorsky, Vivaldi, and so on, but what do people who play the music find in the parts that don't get famous or produce obvious emotion (like the end of Mahler's 2nd)? What should I have been listening for, for instance, when the string trio played this Strauss fragment that was only being recorded for the second time? What is happening that is interesting when the group (orchestra, trio, etc) is not playing the major theme of the piece? I know it can't be just filler.

There have been a number of questions asked for classical recommendations, but I'm not really looking for that. This thread almost gets there, but I'm not looking for what I like or for an answer like "whatever you get out of it" is what there is to understand. Clearly the musicians and non-pretenders are getting something much deeper out of a performance than I have been able to so far, especially in the parts that to me just sound like "filler" between returns to the major theme. I know I should have taken Music Appreciation in college. But I want to learn... please help me.

posted by ontic to media & arts (37 comments total)

And while you're at it: are all works designed to express or evoke emotions or are there other purposes I'm missing?
posted by ontic at 2:39 PM on October 30, 2005

Classical music is essentially Abstract Expressionism for the ears; sometimes the title of a work provides a clue, but "it's whatever you get out of it" is basically true. It's about evoking feelings, or abstract "places".

Cultural context is also important; I doubt that a typical westerner could tell a morning raga from an evening one, but on the whole, take from it what you want.
posted by interrobang at 2:50 PM on October 30, 2005

What should I have been listening for, for instance, when the string trio played this Strauss fragment that was only being recorded for the second time? What is happening that is interesting when the group (orchestra, trio, etc) is not playing the major theme of the piece? I know it can't be just filler.

It's not filler, it's tension-building, foreshadowing, and so forth. It may reference other work, or reference things that are going to happen later. It may be there to relax you so that you're surprised later. You said you're familiar with Mussorgsky; he does this all the time in "Pictures at an Exhibition".
posted by interrobang at 2:58 PM on October 30, 2005

From what I understand from your question, you don't get what's enjoyable about the bits that aren't major tunes.

In an attempt to answer this, I present to you: a hypothetical 1st movement of a classical (Haydn, Mozart etc) string quartet. Obviously this answer will not cover all of your question - it is fairly limited to classical works, but if you like this I could whip up a similar framework for some romantic stuff as well.

The first thing you will hear will be a tune, simple, and balanced in a way that will make you think "yes, this is a nice tune, and I would recognise it if it was played again in a few minutes."


Next will be another tune, but one which is probably a contrast to the first. It may be more lyrical, or in a different key, possibly even minor where the first one was major. This you would also be able to hum after you came out of the concert hall.

What happens next may be where you start to think "what's so great about this then?" This is the development section. Here, the harmony will stop being so strictly in one key, and the composer will play around more with melodic and rhythmic ideas, probably modulating through various keys. If you want to enjoy this beyond thinking "la la la nice noises", try to recognise the patterns that are being played with - some may be taken from the earlier tunes. Having a score whilst you listen is also helpful. Obviously if you can't read music less so, but I imagine it's possible that you could still recognise repeated patterns. I can't imagine not being able to read music, so YMMV.

Once the development section is done, the original tune will return, followed by the second tune. Hopefully, at this point you will think "Aha! I've heard this before! Fantastic!" Once they have both played out, the movement will end, either suddenly or with a coda to wrap things up.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is called sonata form. It was used for most first movements of symphonies and chamber music in the classical period, and really does follow that strict a structure (most of the time).

I have no idea if that's remotely helpful, but let me know.
posted by Lotto at 3:00 PM on October 30, 2005

are all works designed to express or evoke emotions or are there other purposes I'm missing?

It's not really different between classical, jazz, pop, rock. SOME pieces are meant to evoke emotions, but others are just something fun that was written for whatever reason.

Shostakovich once wrote an orchestral arrangement of the song "Tea for Two" on a bet, a lot of other pieces by many composers are exercises for themselves in writing and for playing, Benjamin Britten wrote with the orchestras that were to play it first in mind (he was also conductor) so he would give them something he thought they could do. Bach's son wrote purposely different from his father because he didn't want to BE his father.

There are stories behind everything, just like with any other form of music. It's really not that big a deal.
Similarly, why are some popular songs more popular than others? Why do artists have a "Greatest Hits" album that might not have your favourite piece on them?
Some pieces are more commercially driven in pop music, but the SAME is true for classical pieces. For example Barber's Adagio for Strings was played at Kennedy's funeral, and people recognize it from that occassion.
posted by easternblot at 3:05 PM on October 30, 2005

I'm not qualified enough to talk about the structure and form of "classical" music -- which would address your comments about the bits in between the major themes; i.e. "the filler" -- but I'd like to make a suggestion regarding your approach to classical music generally.

Your question and comments indicate that you're trying to listen to classical music in a manner different to other forms of music that you enjoy. Remember that at one point, all the pieces to which you refer were simply the music of the day (albeit for a select class of people) and not the put-on-a-pedastal museum pieces they are today.

What I'm trying to stay is drop the artificial barrier you're placing between yourself and the music. You ask what should you be listening for? Whatever you damn want.

Remember also, that inverted-commas "classical" music is actually a whole bunch of different forms and not a homogenous whole. I am a Baroque fan (Bach, Vivaldi), and dislike most Romantics (Brahms, Strauss). So if the music doesn't speak to you, then move on.

That said, the substance of your question goes to the structure of the music. Sorry for the obligatory Wikipedia links, but you'll want to read up on the sonata and concerto forms (and how they relate to the evolution of the symphony), which account for a great deal of classical pieces.

For contrast, read up on the baroque fugue form, and then just cherry-pick from this list. It's a starting point, at least. Best of luck.
posted by bright cold day at 3:06 PM on October 30, 2005

It's like sex. It sounds as if you're looking for an orgasm in foreplay, during sex, and in the afterglow---when you could enjoy each part for what it adds to the experience.
posted by SybiL at 3:12 PM on October 30, 2005

Some people, like my brother and ZenMasterThis, want the immediate experience and find analysis a distraction; others, like me, find that analyzing and "intellectualizing" music (as I'd put it, finding out what's going on) adds immeasurably to the experience. If you think you might be the latter type, I urge you to try Charles Rosen's The Classical Style: Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, the single most informative thing I've ever read on what's happening in a piece from that era. You'll have to learn some harmonic terms, though, because it's all built on harmony (moving from one key to another and back in an interesting way).
posted by languagehat at 3:23 PM on October 30, 2005

A coherent semantic structure.

Think of an essay. Division into paragraphs with a singgle topical focus. Introduction, thesis, illustration, elaboration, reflection, conclusion. Now, we don't have quite the same shared objective grammar of meaning of (classical) music, as we do of language, but the underlying similarity holds.
posted by Gyan at 3:26 PM on October 30, 2005

[self link] review of audio course on appreciating classical music
posted by andrew cooke at 3:26 PM on October 30, 2005

Listen to Robert Greenberg's lectures on Beethoven's symphonies. He goes through each of the nine, movement by movement, and explains how they work and what you should be listening for.

For a more philosophical and scientific answer, read Robert Jourdain's Music, the Brain, and Ecstasy. It's ostensibly about music in general, but it's really about classical music.

The book by Rosen that languagehat recommends is very challenging and requires a lot of background knowledge—more than just learning a few terms. It's probably the best thing of its kind, if you're up for it. But if you want an analysis of the basic components and forms of classical music for the layperson, read Aaron Copland's What to Listen for in Music. It contains the famous passage: "This whole problem can be stated quite simply be asking, 'Is there a meaning to music?' My answer to that would be, 'Yes.' And 'Can you state in so many words what the meaning is?' My answer to that would be, 'No.' Therein lies the difficulty. Simple-minded souls will never be satisfied with the answer to the second of these questions."

As to your second question, the great classical composers generally agree that the purpose of music is to express emotion. Even when it serves other purposes too (e.g. stories, intellectual games, exercises for musicians), I think the overarching purpose is still to express emotion. For someone in your situation, the emotion is what you should be focusing on.

"I do not know how to guide listeners other than to advise them to listen not once but repeatedly." —Stravinsky
posted by Jaltcoh at 3:43 PM on October 30, 2005

Adding to Gyan's point, you could also think of classical music as similar to -- or even a kind of -- rhetoric. Both use a communal vocabulary of tropes and techniques to invoke precise and particular emotional and aesthetic responses in the audience.

Most of us no longer 'get' classical music or classical rhetoric because we're no longer taught their languages, or even given an awareness that such languages once existed.
posted by Sonny Jim at 3:44 PM on October 30, 2005

I consider myself even less cultured than you especially in regards to wine and classical music. What really helped me gain at least a partial understanding was watching Amadeus. I mean, people have varying impressions of it, but I found that after watching that movie (oh, and The Red Violin), and seeing the effect that music can have on people, kind of made me understand the effect it has on me.

I'm not sure if this makes any sense, or even answering your question. Just my two cents.
posted by ruwan at 3:44 PM on October 30, 2005

Lotto: but if you like this I could whip up a similar framework for some romantic stuff as well.

I am not the OP, but I would like it very much, Lotto.
posted by dame at 3:54 PM on October 30, 2005

dame: in here, at risk of (slight) derailment, or would you prefer I emailed?
posted by Lotto at 3:56 PM on October 30, 2005

Classical music rewards repeated listening. That's why people are still listening to it hundreds of years after it was written. The more you know about it and the more you've listened to it, the more you will get out of the first listening to a new piece, but you will still get more out of listening to it the second and third time and the twelfth and the hundredth (if it becomes one of your favorites).

This is true to an extent of any complex music such as jazz or even pr*gressive r*ck. The trouble is, classical music has such listenable and recognizable and, yes, familiar themes that it is easy to assume that it is not really that complex. It is. Especially symphony-length works because, well, they're long, and we're not used to keeping the entirety of pieces that long in our minds. I find it's kind of required to know, at least in a vague sense, what's coming next before you can really enjoy a piece. Just getting to that point will require several listens.

Pick a piece that you like pretty well at first listen and listen to it a half dozen times over a week. Read some stuff on it and start listening for the things they point out and see if you can hear them. If not, no biggie, just give it a break for a week and then try again. Try another piece and see how it compares to the first one in overall structure and listen to it repeatedly too. You'll slowly start to get into it, even the "boring bits."
posted by kindall at 4:19 PM on October 30, 2005

Instead of comparing a classical piece to an album of music in another genre, think of it in comparison to a the experience of watching a good film. Some passages will affect you strongly, immediately, and be instantly memorable (like particular lines or scenes do) but these bits wouldn't have any meaning or reason to exist or impact without the context and fabric of the rest of the piece.
posted by desuetude at 5:02 PM on October 30, 2005

i find it a great help to listen to my classical music LOUD - turn it up so it can't be background pleasantness! make it boom and sweep you away.

if you can, also go see things performed live -- as with jazz there's so much that comes streaming out of the real performance that can't get caught in microphones.
posted by Marquis at 5:33 PM on October 30, 2005

I second the suggestion to listen loud. It makes no sense to play orchestral music quiet. Chamber music (string quartets, etc.) can be nice loud or quiet. Piano music is the most likely to be effective quiet, though you'll still miss out on nuances that way.

I hate to say it, but I think listening at home is generally a lot more valuable than going to concerts. You can guiltlessly stop listening when you get bored, and you can easily listen to the same pieces repeatedly and regularly.

The fact is that with classical music, there's much less of a sense than there is with jazz or rock that the live performance is really what it's all about and that the recording is a pale imitation of the real thing. That's not necessarily a downside to classical music.
posted by Jaltcoh at 5:46 PM on October 30, 2005

There are many excellent pieces of advice above, but I'll add one more angle. Often it helps to listen to different recordings of the same piece. I've had several experiences where I thought that a particular part of a piece was boring, despite repeated listening and even some understanding of how it contributed to the whole. Then I'd listen to a different recording of the same piece and all of a sudden "get it". It's an amazing thing when you feel that you, the performer, and the composer are all on the same wavelength.
posted by epimorph at 1:02 AM on October 31, 2005

kindall: "Classical music rewards repeated listening. That's why people are still listening to it hundreds of years after it was written."

Exactly. As a classical musician myself, my favorite thing about the genre is how much depth there is to it, and how you can still discover things on the 50th listening to a particular piece.

So with that in mind, if you want to appreciate a piece of music the way classical musicians do (or at least the way this classical musician does), pick a piece (I think Stravinsky's Firebird Suite is great for this, but YMMV) and listen to it 25 times. I figure, in an average concert cycle, I listen to piece we're playing at least that much, so that threshold is a great one to shoot for if you want to get classical music a little more. (And if this sounds like a lot, think about how many times you listened to that new [insert name of cool band] song. 25 is nothing.)

At this point, you'll probably be able to hum along with parts of the piece, and you'll start to notice background stuff that wasn't apparent at first listen. You may also notice that there are themes that are repeated through the piece; wasn't there a rhythmic (or melodic) figure like that earlier? You'll also probably have some parts of the piece you really like; as you listen to the piece, now, ask yourself, "what do I see when I hear this?" The orchestra is full of many unique instruments, but most of the time, we're not all playing; begin to pay attention to the color of the sound.

Those are just some pointers; I'm sure you'll find your own ways to deepen your appreciation of the music, too, but the most important thing is to listen to the pieces often. The trade-off, generally, to rewarding repeated listening is to not be quite as accessible at first, so if you're serious about really appreciating a piece of music, listening to it a lot is absolutely the way to go.
posted by joshuaconner at 2:18 AM on October 31, 2005

Oh, and if you're not familiar with the orchestra's different instruments, pick up a copy of Britten's Young Person's Guide to the Orchestra. Yes, it's written for younger folks, but it's an excellent and very accessible introduction for anyone interesting in learning more about the orchestra.
posted by joshuaconner at 2:23 AM on October 31, 2005

When I listen to music I find that I am mostly creating my own metaphors rather than relating what I hear to formal structures, even though I am a formally trained professional musician.

My metaphors are from the visual world (colours, brightness, layering, depth of field), the kinesthetic world (dancing, softness, heartbeat, pressure), the audio-digital world (rhetoric, logic) and the world of thought and emotions (anticipation, surprise, humour, horror).

I suppose these metaphors act as hooks in my conscious self - they are part of my enjoyment of it but they also help me remember it and make sense of it.
posted by suleikacasilda at 3:45 AM on October 31, 2005

For me, classical music is enjoyable just on its own sake as music, first and foremost. Don't ever forget: some classical music is absolute shit. So is Ashlee Simpson. As it was, so it will always be. As others have said, don't overthink it- if the piece doesn't grab you without "understanding", then it's not worth investing the time to get some greater understanding.

All art has to first be approachable from the perspective of sheer entertainment. Beethoven's 9th gets me every time, whether I listen to one movement, or settle in for the experience of the whole thing. Same with Mozart's Requiem, and many other pieces. Some, I find so tiresome I can't stand to hear them. But the ones I like have in common that they grab me on some level- I get pumped up with energy, or feel like someone's expressing my sadness, etc. The same way you wanna rock out to a good driving beat rock tune, or how "Sad Songs Say So Much"... well you can get that same thing from a good classical music tune.


Now. Beyond that, yes, a well-written classical music piece will reward repeat listenings. I compare it to "Arrested Development", the tv show. Most sitcoms, they are "single-threaded"; they have one joke at a time, clearly obvious, not much going on. Fun, but a little cotton-candy. Most modern pop music is like that: simple riffs, simple melodies, often catchy but an inch deep. A comedy show like AD has multi-threaded jokes. There are background jokes, subtle recurring jokes, callback jokes, etc. In any given scene, there are often different things going on that you don't catch right away, or puns/double entendres that you miss at first, or background action that is delightfully clever but completely missed because you were focused on some foreground dialogue. It's a tour de force of clever comedy writing, such that it's devoted fans scurry to message boards to dissect the latest episode like fanatical yeshiva students.

You can laugh at it just watching it straight, but repeated viewings, and discussing the "clever" elements, can add a layer of enjoyment as you feel like you're beginning to understand the broader show as a structure, and not just individual bits and pieces.


When you compare the "great" works like Beethoven's symphonies to mere "trifles" of classical music which are akin to commercial jingles or pop songs, to me the "greatness" that isn't always apparent at first often lies in the cohesiveness of the music. I think one of the most ready examples of this is the full 1st movement of Beethoven's 5th Symphony. The first thing to listen for is how he uses, so cleanly and crisply and fluidly, that same motif over and over and over and over again. You can't help it- it's a captivating piece on its own, and as you listen for and start to hear the famous dah-dah-dah-dum line echoed in various keys, passed between instruments, you feel like you're "getting" some great joke between you and Beethoven.

What I think it's like is when a great interior designer or architect will utilize a simple color palette and small set of shapes in a room in such a way that it is also cohesive: patterns repeat on large and small levels, colors and shapes and shadows echo, and the overall impression appreciated on a semi-conscious level is that the whole room just "works". The untrained eye will just feel the room is "right", while the trained eye will appreciate the technique and detail and tricks used to convey that feeling of "rightness". A great piece of classical music just "works"- it ties together so seamlessly you can't imagine how it would be different. This appreciation of a fundamental rightness can occur to a novice or to a conductor with decades of experience.


By comparison, turn on a classical radio station some time, and listen to the less quality stuff that sometimes acts as filler, from forgettable composers. To me, the overwhelming thing that makes some of these pieces annoying is the simple lack of cohesiveness- the piece rambles around, arbitrarily changing direction and style at the drop of a hat. It's clear when you hear the dross how good the Mozarts and Beethovens were.
posted by hincandenza at 4:42 AM on October 31, 2005

Jaltcoh said exactly what I was going to say: Robert Greenberg has a great series of lectures on how to listen to classical music. He is a fabulous speaker/lecturer -- I haven't heard these tapes, but he was one of my professors when I did my master's in music, and his class was the most interesting, compelling, enjoyable class I took in grad school.
posted by youarejustalittleant at 6:47 AM on October 31, 2005

Listen to Schickele Mix if it's playing where you are (which it can be if you find an audio stream.)
posted by Zed_Lopez at 7:59 AM on October 31, 2005

This is all very wonderful and helpful! It's going to take me a while to sort it all out (had to go to sleep before the site came back online last night).

I hadn't thought about lectures online, and actually didn't know that sonatas and concertos were forms (which makes it more like poetry that I know well!) For some reason I thought that it had to do with how many instruments played the piece.

I am unfortunately someone who does enjoy intellectualizing these things, and now I know the question I should have been asking was "what should I listen for when I'm not familiar with a piece?" Lots of answers here that will go far towards making me a better listener. Keep it coming by all means, but thanks AskMefi!
posted by ontic at 8:34 AM on October 31, 2005

Oh, and by all means, Lotto -- the romantic framework would be great. It looks like my question should even be "what should I listen for in a symphony/sonata/minuet/concerto/fugue/etc?" And then, of course, I'll want to know when I learn to listen better, what differentiates the good from the bad from the better.
posted by ontic at 8:42 AM on October 31, 2005

There are some good answers here, but I don't think anybody's paragraph on AskMe is going to give you what you need. If you want to increase your understanding of music, you need to learn its language. Right now it's as though you're listening to French poetry without speaking more than a few words of French; sure, you can appreciate the pretty sounds, but you don't really know what's going on.

You need to study a little theory and composition. Learn to read music, if you don't already know how. Learn about rhythm, key signatures, chord construction, modulations, etc. It can sound rather daunting, but if you stick with it you'll find that many musical concepts are very inter-connected and it will all begin to fall into place the more you study. Learn about instruments and forms. And, most importantly, listen to the music while following the score.

This works well on a piece-by-piece basis; find a piece that you find interesting and would like to study. Get a copy of the score. Do a little research on the piece, the composer, the instrumentation, and the form. Listen to the piece and follow along with the score. Do this several times. If you hear a section that seems particularly interesting or difficult to you, try to analyze the score and figure out what's happening at that point. Obvious points for scrutiny (in Classical music at least) will be sections where accidentals start appearing in the music, indicating a departure from the key signature, and often a modulation. Understanding how these are accomplished will be a major step.

It's important that you are able to follow the score without getting lost, and that you can see on the page what you're hearing from the music rather than just staring at some abstract dots on a page without connecting them to the sounds hitting your ears. This can be difficult for complex pieces, so start simple. Solo instrumental pieces will be the simplest because they have the least number of staves. I'd recommend beginning with Classical piano sonatas by Mozart or Haydn. All of this will help develop your ears and understanding of musical structures, which will be a big payoff in the long run.

Do as much or as little of this as you want, but if you're serious about it, I think you'll find that it will increase your understanding and appreciation many times over. I could give you some bullshit answer about not thinking and just enjoying it (oh how I hate those insidious "dancing about architecture" quotes), but that doesn't sound like what you're looking for. If you want to experience music as a musician does, which is the fullest way to do it, you need to learn to think (and hear) like one.
posted by ludwig_van at 9:05 AM on October 31, 2005

To go one step further, here is a short list of basic concepts which one can study to begin an understanding of music theory/composition/structure. All of these things are best approached as music, as in notes on a staff, rather than abstract ideas, although they can be understood as both.

-Notation (reading notes on different clefs, understanding accidentals, time signatures, rhythmic values, musical directions like crescendo and ritardando, articulations like slurring and stacatto)
- Keys (major/minor, key signatures, naturally ocurring chords in a given key)
-Chords (how chords are built, major/minor/augmented/dimished, seventh chords)
-Scales (major scale, natural/melodic/harmonic minor scale)
-Melody (harmonic tones vs. non-harmonic tones)
-Analysis (Roman numeral analysis, common chord progressions, common modulatory techniques)
-Forms (binary, ternary, sonata, rondo, symphony)
-Instruments (strings, winds, brass, percussion)

The Flash-based lessons at musictheory.net will get you started on a lot of this stuff.
posted by ludwig_van at 9:20 AM on October 31, 2005

If you can afford it, get Leonard Bernstein's Young People's Concerts (a 9 DVD set, $130). Bernstein was a great educator, and in this series of televised NY Philharmonic concerts for children (1958-1973) he does a wonderful, no, amazing job of explaining why "classical" music is great. (Great audience shots of the kids, too.)
posted by phliar at 1:18 PM on October 31, 2005

You should do everything ludwig_van suggests if you want to become a classical musician. But as I understand it, you just want to be an enthusiastic, intelligent listener. In that case, it is not important for you to go through some kind of arduous training regimen. Ludwig is right that the "dancing around architecture" quote is overstated, but, my god, you do not need to follow along with the score while listening!
posted by Jaltcoh at 2:26 PM on October 31, 2005

You should do everything ludwig_van suggests if you want to become a classical musician. But as I understand it, you just want to be an enthusiastic, intelligent listener.

I didn't tell him to learn to play an instrument or write music. I gave him advice on how to learn to hear music like a musician, which seems to be what he wanted. Everything I recommended had to do with listening and understanding, not creating or performing. If you want to understand the music, you need to look at the score, unless you have some amazing ears.

It seems like he wouldn't have asked the question if he didn't want to do a bit of studying to enhance his appreciation. Otherwise the answer would seem to be "listen harder" or "don't worry about it if you don't like it," which seems silly to me.
posted by ludwig_van at 10:54 AM on November 1, 2005

This book, Developing Musical Intuitions, might help.
posted by Gyan at 11:02 AM on November 1, 2005

I think focusing on a piece you really like, listening to it complete and without interruption at least 10 times (and consciously trying to parse its structure and contrasts) is an excellent start.

It will help you to bring musical language into the foreground of your mind a little more. Obviously, if the music helps to do that itself (Beethoven's strange little pauses and half-repetitions for example), even better. You'll find yourself thinking "Hey, that wasn't quite right, but he must've done it for a reason" and even if you've never read a line of music theory in your life, you'll start to get your own answers. Emotion is the key to that.

At that point, get a basic guide to music theory and notation and while you're in the music shop, buy the full ensemble score of your chosen work. If you have a piano or keyboard, picking out a favourite theme from the score might give you some 'ownership' and you'll instantly realise that the orchestra playing it sounds so different to the way you play the theme. And that will clue you into yet another layer of the fascination: performance variation.

Don't get too involved with exactly how many flats and sharps there are in whatever key. That doesn't matter. But if you have a friend who can sit with you and hit pause every so often for 30 seconds of enthusiastic dissection with some mention of theory, that would be great.

Something just occurred to me: if you have $ or a good library, do try to get hold of some CDs that lead you through classical music from gregorian chant to Steve Reich. And listen through quickly. Very quickly, so you remember the growth and contrasts. That'll do more for you than hours meditating on the circle of fifths. Take a look here to start you off. Happy listening.
posted by paperpete at 5:28 PM on November 1, 2005

Listen to Kevin Drumm's Sheer Hellish Miasma and work your way back.
posted by corpse at 3:42 PM on November 4, 2005

Well, I know I'm the latest of the late-comers, but here are my two cents as a music professor:

Perceiving form is the key to a meaningful musical experience. Once you understand and can hear the architecture of a piece of music (any kind, classical or otherwise), you can apprehend the whole in your imagination. That abstraction is the context in which meaningful listening can then take place.

The reason that it is most important to be aware of form in so-called classical music is scale--most classical music is conceived in a much larger scale than a 3-4 minute song, and the architecture is proportionately more complex.

So I suggest some lay sources on form: as recommended, the Bernstein Young People's Concerts and Copland's book are the best two of which I'm aware.

Then, when you see the word "fugue" in a title, you will have a specific expectation of how the musical material will be organized, and can delight both in the quality of the material as well as the cleverness with which it is presented and manipulated.

Form is what makes an intangible medium tangible to the mind. Learn to perceive form.
posted by LooseFilter at 10:27 PM on January 7, 2006