Do you believe that a technical knowledge of poetry (analyzing

I don't think so. Personally I do like good rhymes or flow.

That said, many of the poems I love(Dulce et Decorum est for example), doesn't include that much rhyming, and instead has this incredibly well-made narrative structure.

>>9055274
Knowing that a poem was written in a certain meter or rhyme scheme makes you appreciate the effort put into the poem. However, it should sound nice regardless of whether you know what specific meter it is using. The rhythm should be mostly instinctive, especially if you have listened to any music.

What I like about poetry is that it's possible to read it all without much reflection or to it reflecting about every single word and still enjoy it. I think that a deep reflection, about things like figures of speech or sometimes even single words, is required to fully understand what a poet wanted to express with his work. But a poet's skill is even to make it enjoyable without that effort, since a technical analysis can sometimes be boring if you're not particularly interested about what you're reading.

>>9055274

Having the technical knowledge is what you need to fully appreciate a work of art.
it becomes more evident in classical music. A Bach contrapuncti may sound nice to the average joe listener, but knowing what is actually happening will magnify your appreciation for the art itself. That's where you can see true genius.

The same applies to poetry. Dante may give you weird, nice feelings with his poetry, but if you don't know what he's doing you're missing 99% of his effort.

>>9055433
What's your grounding for that sort of elitism though?

I'm fully able to understand that classical music requires some serious artisanship to create, but my limited knowledge of music theory doesn't stop me from loving Dvorak with every fiber of my being.

And the same goes for poetry. I have rudimentary knowledge of metre and stuff like that because I studied Greek philology, but it's not like poetry doesn't move me any less.

>>9055449
>I'm fully able to understand that classical music requires some serious artisanship to create, but my limited knowledge of music theory doesn't stop me from loving Dvorak with every fiber of my being.

I'm not saying that you can't appreciate it, I'm saying that you're missing most of what Dvorak is doing.
Your aesthetic experience is extremely limitted when compared to mine, and this is not an elitist statement. To think that the great composers weren't planning in this way every single aspect of their music is naive: the truth is that most people in our repertoire wrote for conoisseurs.

Again, don't feel threatened. I'm not trying to offend you, instead I'm trying to inspire you, by showing you that there is a deeper form of appreciation that you're missing. The good news is that you can amend for it by studying theory, composition and by training your ears.

>>9055468
Fair enough. Thanks for your thoughts.

>>9055468
The danger is that with technical appreciation comes detachment. You could be so busy admiring art that is doesn't move you like it should. You're asking your brain to work on two levels at the same time. Neither can have the full share of your attention.

It helps one read the poem, yes.

>>9056119
Is this why I mostly listen to jazz now? I've been studying and composing for near a decade.

Yes, absolutely. You should be ashamed if you don't know them. In Brazil, we learn to scan at school. At least I did so. (Actually I already knew it, but the teachers taught it nonetheless.)

I agree English versification can be very tricky, and I myself make mistakes sometimes. However, you should try your best. In the very least, you should be more or less familiar with the major meters and forms.

There are some taught things (meter, rhyme, whatever) that help to appreciate poetry.

There are other things to appreciate (imagery, sonics, rhythm, the "internal music of the words" so to speak), that will be noticed by readers either naturally or by having read enough poetry already.

>>9055468
>>9055433
>>9056182
Do you have a suggestion as to how to approach understanding the underlying principles and such of classical music?

>>9055274
How is it possible to read poetry without knowing this?

>>9055468
How do I into music theory?

>>9056402
How much do you want to know? Just take online courses.

Sight-reading music to a complex level is kind of like learning a language. The typical instrument to accompany sight-reading is a piano. Those two together and you'll be able to really analyze a piece of music.

Singing is probably cheaper than learning to play piano, but it's pretty much impossible to sing a lot of music whereas with a piano one can go through a piece by phrase.