As you continue to read through his lecture, Copland states that in order to listen with skill, you need to be open-minded and reflect on the experience you felt. While closely paying attention to the experience, nothing should be telling the listener what they are going to hear. They should be able to comprehend the art and feel the, Floodlight of ones imagination,(Paragraph two, Copland).
While maintaining this ability to keep and open mind, a listener should be professional. However, at the same time retain an amateur status. This allows for a dual perception. It creates a lack of judgment and innocence, allowing for a more emotional interpretation. Copland believes that all artists alike find listeners pivotal in the artist community. This spiritual lending of ones self to art should concentrate the sentiments, not physically distance it self.
Generally speaking, Copland finds the reaction of music intriguing. He ponders what this talented listener absorbs in art. Does he/she understand? If so, what in particular do they understand? He approaches the meaning of music or art, which he decides that it is many sided and will always be debated. This is because there are simply to many interpretations to consider. Music has become to, professionalized. A listener sees the natural beauty of such art, not the origins, and exercise of it. They rely on, instinctive comprehension.(Paragraph 12, Copland) They simply dont weigh the personalization of music.
Above all else, Copland says we all listen on a, elementary plane of musical consciousness.(Paragraph 13, Copland). However intuitively we all listen, it should always revolve and come back to the personal experience felt at the time. The primal impulse felt that feeds our evaluation and perception. Concluding that Copland believes we all hear, listen, enjoy or dislike and art piece based on emotion. The way it was originally suppose to be perceived. For this is all fundamentally we hear music Copland states.
In addition to Coplands theory of listeners, I pose my own question on the professionalism of music itself. I believe that the death of creativity in music is dripping away, in particular to mainstream, popular music. This brings a major significance considering that this is what the, masses deem okay. The great amounts of skill and precision have almost completely eroded away in artist. Everything has become digitalized, simple, and what seems as if its mindless. Aside from, I find this problematic because back in 50s, 60s, and 70s, writing and creating music took skill. The artist took time to perfect their instruments, learn them, and appreciate them. Because of these processes, I firmly believe this is why GOOD music was created. Actual work went in to it.
Now days anyone can simply hop onto a computer, lay down a beat in 4/4, and fulminate about nonsense. I am not stating there is no skill in ALL digital forms of music; for example, an artist of the name Big Chocolate creates music with extreme time signatures, which takes musical skill to pull off correctly. To conclude, the main reason I pose this question is because I find it interesting that the death of the artist is happening. It is no longer art, but just mere product at that point, which I find depressing. When I listen to the radio, and only hear the beat and rhythm of a girl saying banana, in 4/4, and a man rapping with no fluency, or even sense, I ponder why this is acceptable.