!!ixFboNvY7Y1 12/23/11(Fri)12:21 No.21706141|
File1324660870.jpg-(69 KB, 500x688, 6a00d83517555253ef01310f6bece4(...).jpg)
I think often an understanding of theory does just the opposite.
Theory is fundamentally descriptive, it creates a typology for sounds and gives names to patterns that exist independently of that theory.
But if I understand the theory behind something, just because I know the minute details doesn't mean I can't appreciate the big picture. In fact, more often than not, it will show me just how all those details come together to create the big picture.
Telling your head to shut up, in my opinion, is one of the stupidest things you can do while approaching music, or any art for that matter. It doesn't have to betray the artist's intent, and often that kind of individual, intense experiencing of an artist's work is just what they want.
When I go to the museum, I can look at this painting and see an apparently peaceful scene. The colors are unprovoking, there are only two people - it's a lonely scene, but a calm one.
Or perhaps we can take the Sylvia Plath approach and rip into every detail of the scene - looking at the contrast of their attire, the broken landscape, their positioning, and examining every element to come out with a different appreciation for the picture (http://www.angelfire.com/tn/plath/catr.html) - that's not to say either approach is more correct than another, but it certainly changes the handling of the art, and it wouldn't be that much of a stretch to say that Plath's getting more out of the piece, both technically and emotionally.
But both appreciations can still be valid, and they can still be "good" - despite the fact that neither party is himself a painter.
Music is analogous.