My journals are random collections of miscellaneous tidbits. Sometimes there are actual entries, sometimes there's fictional prose, sometimes there's poetry, sometimes there's random pretty pictures that I liked. And sometimes there's to-do lists. I read through one tonight, and something on it struck me in a new way:
"Listen to scores and determine your questions about them."
I definitely did not have the ability to hear orchestral scores, on the page, in my mind when I wrote that in my journal; what I would have meant is "listen to a recording of a piece while looking at the score, and determine questions."
But, really, as a music scholar, I actually do need to listen to the score, and what the score itself implies (assuming the score in question is as authentic as possible) as opposed to what the recording does. That's where it gets interesting and where the real questions come in! What, as far as we know, was the original compositional intent? Why do different conductors and performers have different opinions and interpretations? Where and how do the two differ, if they do? What could all these different ideas collectively say about the piece?
This probably seems quite basic, but it's fascinating to me!