Due to the weather I did not attend two good (classical) concerts in Portland on Sunday. There was the concert featuring violinist Ronald Lantz accompanied by Laura Kargul at Woodfords Church and the Portland Symphony concert at Merrill Auditorium. While both can be described as “classical” there is a world of differences between them. The former has but two performers and can best be described as being an example of chamber music, that is music for a few performers intended to be heard in a relatively small space, i.e. a chamber. The latter involves an instrumental group upwards of around 30 performers to well over 100.

The word classical may be used these days to describe music that, for want of a better definition, implies that it is serious and also probably boring. This may be true but only if you tend regard all music only as sound, preferably loud and involving electric guitars.

Imagine, if you will, taking someone to a football game who has never played football, never seen a football game. Is it reasonable to expect that person to get as much enjoyment as one who may have played himself and is aware of the finer points of the game.? Of course not. Just because one has eyes does not mean that one understands what one sees. The same is also true of music. Just because we have ears, we do not always understand and thus enjoy what we hear (or do not hear.)

For the record, the term classical refers to music composed from approximately the last third of the 18th century until about the first quarter of the 19th century. The emphasis in this music is primarily on the architecture or structure of music, where balance and the lack of overt emotion is emphasized. In the music of most of the 19th century the emphasis is on the communication of emotion assisted by an emphasis on color, which in music means the imaginative use of the instruments of the orchestra. Another factor in Romantic Music is also an emphasis on displaying the technical dexterity of the performer and less or little emphasis on form or structure.

Whereas the Second Symphony by Rachmaninoff was composed in the 20th century, it can accurately be described as a Romantic work. This is one of the reasons that it is a favorite work by audiences all over the world. (OK, audiences where there are symphony orchestras and orchestral concerts held.)

Regarding chamber music, up until the classical period, most chamber music was composed for performers of modest technical ability. From the 19th century on, more often than not, the performers had to be virtuoso performers. If the work was for a string quartet, for example, the second violinist had to be just as good as the first violinist. The terms “first” and “second” refer to the parts they played and not to their ability. The lower voiced instruments (viola and cello) were not there to be “backup” instruments but rather those who have their own ideas to put into the whole. With music for violin and piano, it would be an error to regard the piano part simply as window dressing or “backup” for the violinist. More often than not each may bounce ideas off the other. It surely sounds like I am putting across the idea that listening to “classical” music involves work. The answer is that indeed I am.

However, it seems to me that if one can’t tell the color yellow from the color green, for example, it would be challenging to understand what the artist was doing or trying to do in a painting. In the same way, if one can’t distinguish between a cello and an oboe, any discussion about timbre or color in music would truly be falling on deaf ears. There would be little difference in the way that your dog or cat hears music and you do. Nor does music have to tell a story either for that matter, even though it can do just that. It can also create a mood, a fact that composers of music for film know only too well.

OK, you know the theme from Star Wars. Question: which instrument is playing the tune? Don’t know? Gotcha. Can you enjoy it anyway? Sure. But so can your cat, and you are so much smarter than your cat. Aren’t you? It is really a matter of using your brain to enhance the understanding of the arts.

Initially that does mean study. The more you study, the more you will hear. Trust me.

— Dr. Gold is a composer/conductor, retired educator and an arts reviewer from the Journal-Tribune.