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
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
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