Did you hear the entire piece? — Moliere
But I wonder if there's some conceptual dimension here -- — Moliere
-- like, is there something that spells out what a complete work is? — Moliere
I've never experienced a musical piece being aired on TV being interrupted by ads. [irony]Maybe they're too short[/irony] or [understatement]maybe[/understatement] the producers intuit that any interruption to a piece of music amounts to altering it. — TheMadFool
No — Noble Dust
yes you did hear the entire piece. That is to say every audible bit of it did reach your eardrums and your brain did process it. — Outlander
Often people differentiate between hearing and listening. — Outlander
Did you hear the entire piece? — Moliere
What if you drift off for half a second during the piece? What if you're at a classical concert and you're occasionally distracted by someone coughing such that you lose concentration for a few seconds. What if the performance you're listening to contains a non-obvious mistake by one of the musicians, like a wrong note? Would anyone then say it's not actually the piece it claims to be? — jamalrob
What then? — jamalrob
You listen to a recording of a symphony (or any other "complete" piece of music). You push pause to grab some water, then come back and push play. You finish listening to the recording.
Did you hear the entire piece? — Moliere
I wouldn't have noticed this pattern on listen 1? — ztaziz
Any clue what I'm on about? — ztaziz
I guess I don't understand the significance of the question to you. So I'll offer a deflationary response.
If it is required to hear the entire thing in one go to count as listening, you didn't listen.
If it isn't required, you did.
I can see a few intuitions regarding continuity of the piece in the background, but I dunno how they relate. — fdrake
The obvious question is: why is this important? — jamalrob
First, this is more of an errant thought on my part -- a musing. — Moliere
It's interesting to me to think of music in these two different categories - the notational vs recorded — Moliere
someone who has an ear for a particular orchestra or conductor likely has more narrow limits to someone who is just passingly familiar with some orchestral work. — Moliere
Did you find the article on his aesthetics, specifically? — bongo fury
Sure, but for me the crucial insight is that musical artworks are sound-events: or, usually, sets or classes of sound-events, identified either through notation or recording or both. — bongo fury
Often people differentiate between hearing and listening. — Outlander
I've never experienced a musical piece aired on TV being interrupted by ads. Maybe they're too short or maybe the producers intuit that any interruption to a piece of music amounts to altering it. :chin: — TheMadFool
Yeah, you heard the entire piece but not in one setting, so it's different if you heard it in one setting. It's probably an irrelevant distinction, but I suspect if you took 800 breaks so that it was so disjointed and so much time elapsed that you couldn't formulate it as a single piece in your head, it'd be relevant.
It's like if I watched the entire Game of Thrones over a few days versus if I watched 20 seconds a week for several years and then declared I had seen the whole thing.
I knew a guy who told me he hiked the entire Appalachian trail, which seemed less impressive when he explained he had done it over the course of many years, taking a different section each time. It was still a feat, but much less than someone who set out for many months and finished without a break. — Hanover
What if you didn't hear the entire piece, and yet you loved it, you were able to analyze it and understand it and be inspired by it and other good things? I'd say in that case that you did appreciate the piece aesthetically. — jamalrob
Taking this to its natural conclusion: we never listen to the entire piece. What then? — jamalrob
Decide whether the question is about whether or not we have encountered a complete and genuine instance of the artwork, or is instead one of any number of related questions about our processing of and response to whatever it is we have actually encountered. — bongo fury
I'll tell you what I was more interested in for this topic...
I listen to a song once, it leaves a different imprint than twice, but the second time makes a pattern, subsequently third and fouth are different but still make a pattern, and then a different pattern emerges in tries 5 - 8, after that a pattern is possible but it's not as strict as 1-8.
1. The First Imprint.
2. (with partial memory)The Imperfect Judge.
3. (with a semi good memory)The Crossing.
4. (with good memory)The Perfect Judge.
Without going on to 8, I just want to highlight again that the 2nd listen is a different resound than the 1st and subsequently 3-8, and there's a rather strange pattern to it.
I have called this previously, mathematically, a nexus but I won't build on that just yet.
Any clue what I'm on about? Anyone? — ztaziz
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.