How We Listen Aaron Copland Analysis

Discourse 1
17 February 2014
Richelle Mott
Interpretation of Aaron Copland, “How We Listen”. If you find yourself spending more time with your I-pod than your television, have a large hard drive for your computer devoted solely to music files, or make like the kids in the popular television series “Glee” and randomly burst into song, then you most likely consider yourself quite the music aficionado. An article entitled “How We Listen” by Aaron Copland suggests otherwise. In it, he breaks down listening to music on three separate planes simultaneously and how doing so increases one’s awareness and understanding of it. The three planes he describes are the sensuous- hearing without listening, the expressive- meanings and emotions
behind or derived from the music, and the sheerly musical- forms and technicalities of music. The article proposes that only a particular sort of audience achieves this type of critical listening with any degree of success. Overall, I find the article well written, easy to follow and am even inspired to try and think more critically about my own listening experiences through its suggestions. There are several instances in the piece, however, where I find the author to be overbearing and pompous toward the average person or listener and am left curious as to his intended audience. While I clearly understood the aim of Mr. Copland’s writing, the article fails to drive his point home due to the inappropriate tone used throughout. This attitude is consistently seen in the language he uses while describing each plane and the listeners’ relation to it. As he delves into the article, Mr.
Copland makes remarks such as “simplest”, “absentmindedly”, “without thinking”, and even “brainless” to describe how most people listen to music. (Copland, 1-2) He accuses them of using and abusing music to escape to a place “where one doesn’t have to think about the realities of everyday life” so of course they “aren’t thinking about the music either”. (Copland, 2) Though I agree that music can be used as an escape and people do hear without really listening, the chosen language shows a disregard, almost contempt, for the average person and causes one to wonder if being a professional musician might constitute a more polite dialogue. Moving into the next, deeper, level of listening the author tends to draw lines between what he views as “qualified music listeners” and “simple minded souls” deemed incapable of listening to music without trying to attach meaning to it. (Copland, 3) He even goes so far as to demand that those who do find an expressivity they can familiarize with be immediately discouraged “wherever and whenever they are met.” (Copland, 3) The plane Copland discusses here is all about the meaning of music and how very subjective it is, yet he ostracizes the habit of looking for said meaning. On the other hand, his tone changes to one of praise when mentioning “professional musicians” who “do not feel the need of finding it.” (Copland, 3) I’ll re-iterate here that while looking at many of Copland’s beliefs, I find them well
within my scope of understanding and comprehension. I can easily follow his logic and see how he arrived at various conclusions. Where he loses me, however, is his continued criticism of and pretentious observations toward those who do not have some type of professional musical background. Take his treatment of Beethoven vs. Tchaikovsky in the following excerpt, for example: “...whatever the professional musician may hold, most musical novices still search for specific words with which to pin down their musical reactions. That is why they always find Tchaikovsky easier to “understand” than Beethoven. In the first place, it is easier to pin a meaning-word on a Tchaikovsky piece than a Beethoven one. With the Russian composer, every time you come back to a piece of his, it almost always says the same thing to you, whereas with Beethoven it is often quite difficult to put your finger right on what he is saying. Any musician will tell you that is why Beethoven is the greater composer.” (Copland, 3) Not only does Copland assume the reader knows who these composers are, he makes further presumptions about the composers’ works themselves that are largely clouded by his own opinions and interpretations.
Perhaps Copland derives the same feeling or meaning from a Tchaikovsky piece each time he hears it, however, that hardly gives cause to assume it will be the same for anyone else. What Mr. Copland fails to take into account is that some folks may simply prefer Tchaikovsky over Beethoven for a myriad of reasons aside from their “understanding” or lack thereof. That someone could listen to the same piece by any composer several times and continue to find something new or feel something different each time is another point which seems to be blatantly ignored until further into his text. Eventually, he endorses a much more appreciable idea. “If it is a great work of art don’t expect it to mean exactly the same thing to you each time you return to it.” (Copland, 4) This idea is much more appealing in that it leaves things open to interpretation for oneself, which as far as I’m concerned is necessary for the enjoyment of music on any
level. To the composer’s credit, he does occasionally, if rarely, draw comparisons between musicians and the average listener in a clear cut manner, never stating that one’s way is better than the other while illustrating their differences. That note of disdain for the average person, however, is still plenty apparent in comments such as “Now, perhaps the reader will know better what I mean when I say that…” or “The nonprofessional is only too anxious to…” which again leaves me questioning whether I’ve come to the party uninvited since I have no musical background. (Copland, 4) Finally, he discusses the sheerly musical plane – dealing with the form and technicalities of music and how it’s important that the audience strive to listen for each element of the piece. Again, he illustrates his point well, but with an underlying tone of condescension toward the layman. He offers that when the “man in the street listens with any degree of concentration, he is most likely to mention melody. Either he hears a pretty melody or does not. Rhythm is likely to gain his attention next but harmony and tone color are taken for granted if thought of at all. Music’s having a definite form seems never to have occurred to him.” (Copland, 4) Once more, we see presumptions seemingly based on the fact that he isn’t discussing music professionals or theorists. Using an otherwise well stated and appropriate analogy to describe how the three planes are unconsciously listened to all at once, Copland chooses to open it with “Perhaps an analogy will make this instinctive correlation clearer.” (Copland, 5) Yet again, the author presumes that the reader would not have understood to begin with. While Copland’s logic remains sound and his points are usually very clear, his way of presenting the information tends to leave the average reader feeling inadequate.
As he wraps up the article, urging the readers to listen more deeply and critically to music, there are just a few more examples of that pretentious air. He talks about how the “intelligent” or “ideal listener” should know something about the principal elements of music’s form to achieve that critical aspect. (Copland, 5) I don’t entirely disagree, but I wonder if he ever considered that the audience, after so many attempts of listening as he suggests, would themselves become “intelligent listeners”. Suppose, now, that someone is a true aficionado – a music lover in their own right- and though they have no professional background in composition or music theory, they still understand all the forms, technicalities, elements, and manipulation of notes therein. Perhaps the intended audience, then, falls somewhere between the well-established professional musician and the “average Joe”. In conclusion, Aaron Copland’s article is well written with a concise view of the points he’s making. He demonstrates a deep passion for the topic as he implores his readers to listen to music at a deeper, more analytical level. Furthermore, the article definitely gives one pause and could persuade them to not only listen on that deeper level but to really think about the music being heard and what can be drawn from it. His use of language shows that he is an intellectual and I will even concede that this is where some of his arrogance comes in, though I do not believe it constitutes speaking down to one’s audience as Mr. Copland has done throughout his entire piece. While the intentions behind it are clearly lain out and understood, the article doesn’t quite hit the mark due to that very habit of condescension.
Works Cited BIBLIOGRAPHY Copland, Aaron. "How We Listen." n.p., n.d.