How to understand music has always troubled me. It seems that music arouses some kind of intellectual imagination. In this imagination, music is materialized, because music can originally exist without external objects, such as the sound of nature, but human beings Playing music obviously does not allow us to perceive a certain instrument. The purpose of the performer is to convey some kind of information or to express something and convey it to others. Music needs listeners, and he is one of the listeners. Music can leave the performer but not the listener. So how do listeners hear or understand music? Is it possible for music to be understood? Obviously it must be possible, otherwise we cannot imagine that we can be fascinated or have completely similar experiences without understanding music at all. But how should we clarify this understanding?

One possible way to say it is that music prompts people to produce certain emotions. A thousand readers have a thousand Hamlets, but we can find some similarity among these Hamlets, but sometimes we find that language is unable to Explain this similarity, because these emotions may be contradictory when expressed in words, but we cannot deny any Hamlet. We cannot say that the Hamlet of the composer is the real person. Others are his changing shadows and are fake. This is not good. way of interpretation, because this is tantamount to saying that music understood by people other than the composer cannot be true. This is unacceptable, because the composer is also constantly changing in his time, so at which moment the composer understands The music is true?

To put it another way, music is full of repetitions, or patterns, which is its essential attribute. It is impossible to imagine a sound that unfolds over a period of time without repetition or at least repetition in a certain cognitive perspective. We accept sound as a feeling through sensibility. In essence, we have an overall understanding of music through the sound phenomenon within a limited period of time. Here comes the understanding of the subject - me, and the understanding of the object - the sound in a period of time. It can be said that this In the process of cognition, we claim that we understand music. Therefore, music phenomena must be related to people's cognition behavior, and the innate form of cognition is time. In time, we also understand the empirical self as the object of cognition, and this object is defined in time. What continues to exist is my history and my imagination of the future. When we draw an analogy between our persistence of objects and the repetition of music, we find that music exists as an object, as is our experiential self and a table, but music, unlike a table, can be a single sense The provided material forms an object in the form of time, and most of the objects that are usually understood have a variety of sense organs as providers. Therefore, we are innately or accustomed to giving music more kinds of materials, so music can have a sense of picture or arouse certain memories or imagination to enrich it. These all come from our knowledge or experience, that is, mine. Therefore, understanding music is more like an experiential process of self-participation, reflecting my participation everywhere.