You could too, with a little practice!

Andy, I see where you are coming from, but for me understanding (or poorly attempting to understand) these nitty-gritty little musical details is absolutely fascinating. I don’t think they are necessary for the appreciation of music at all — after all, I can enjoy the section without knowing the details of it’s construction — but for me these snippets of theory are fascinating and add a layer of intrigue to it all.

cswingle, nice review. I’ll keep my eye out for the Copland book in particular. I think I remember reading a recommendation of that somewhere else as well. It’s a bit frustrating “sort of” understanding the theoretical ideas (forms, keys, dissonances, etc.) without really being able to read through a score quicker than about a measure every five minutes. For me anyway.

Good ear!

I don’t mean to criticize - but for me, I’ve attained a level of general knowledge of the forms and history of music, and have reached the point of diminishing returns in trying to go any deeper. I still always read the booklet notes, though.

I’m struggling with the same things you are: I’m trying to “understand” classical music, and without much of a music education, it’s difficult to say more than “I like this” or “I don’t like this”. I recently bought Aaron Copland’s book “What to Listen for in Music”, as well as a couple Bernstein books. Copland’s book is really good, and even though I can’t read music, I understood a lot of what he was trying to explain. Less so in the Bernstein books, but there’s still a lot of good material that I did understand even though I felt like I was only scratching the surface of what he was explaining. All of these books are quite old, so are easy to find used, or in cheap reprints. I’ve got a review of the Copland book on my blog, if you’re curious.

Cheers,

cswingle