Hearing or Listening to Music

If I were to sit my Music History class down next Monday and say "Now we are going to listen to Haydn's Trumpet Concerto.", and then proceed to play a recording of it - they wouldn't actually listen to it.  Sure, they would sit still, not make noise, maybe even close their eyes as if that heightens their awareness (or helps them snooze...).  What went wrong?  Is Haydn's Trumpet Concerto a "boring" piece to listen to?  Certainly not -- but it may not be all that stimulating to hear.  What's the difference you say? 

Hearing...

Hearing is the raw data your brain receives.  The man who neglects to listen to his wife often has perfectly functioning ears.  With our students, the main issue is not typically whether or not they can hear - which can be diagnosed and helped if needed.  Rather, it is the connection between their ears and brain which creates the listening.

Listening...

Listening is the act of consciously processing that which we perceive.  Notice that listening is not limited to our ears - it's limited to our perception.  In this case, we often listen with not only our ears, but often with our eyes and brain (understanding social contexts) as well.  Since much of what we say is contextually specific we often automatically sync our perceptions.  Additionally, it is often the case that we say more with our body language and actions than we do with our words - which can make listening all the more visual or mentally engaging.

Listening to music

Our students hear music all the time.  It has become a common trend in my school to simply leave headphones draped around one's neck at all times so that they are easily accessible at a moment's notice.  But the reality is with my example at the beginning that my students would not listen to Haydn's Trumpet Concerto because I did not help them with how to listen.  For one, what is the body language of the piece?  In the case of that particular piece, it is significant that Haydn wrote very few concertos (and only one for trumpet).  It was written for a good friend of his and for his brand new invention - the keyed trumpet.  The cadenza wasn't even written out - Haydn just assumed his friend would fill it in to show off the prowess of his new, impressive chromatic range.  It is easy to believe that the audience was impressed by the novelty of the instrument, even if it was only a partial success.

The above story creates a lot of "body language" for Haydn's trumpet concerto.  Setting this stage with my students - of an audience giddy with anticipation of this new phenom - is an important footnote in the context of the piece.  Knowing that Haydn was a fairly non-showy, humble man also contributes to the significance of the piece.  This was indeed a special occasion piece - and all the more reason to pay special attention to it's compositional worth.

Among the various ways I might encourage my students to "listen" is also with visual aids.  A listening map (either created by them or prepared by me ahead of time) would offer them keen and critical insights to what Haydn was doing in the piece.  For instance, the introduction is obscenely arpeggiated - even the orchestra is mostly relegated to what is typical of the brass limitations at the time.  It is not until the trumpet boldly enters that we are treated to the first hints at what this novel instrument can do.  A visual map of the piece might show a sort of staircase movement jumping between all the arpeggiated movement.  All of a sudden, the trumpet part enters and the jumpiness changes to scalar motion as we envision the delight of the audience.  The visual cue that the musical style has changed is a critical element to listening - in this case with the eyes.

Other options, like following the score (public domain and freely accessible) or letting the students draw pictures that represent each section of the music would be great ways to engage multiple of their senses in order to help them listen on multiple planes, and not simply hear.