HOW should I listen to music?...and with *what*?
LookingGlass
performance.
Does the *good* performance of a *bad* song make for great music?
Does listening to a variety of musics necessarily translate into a
better understanding of that art? How does this affect the *expert* in
classical music? or the Blues? or The Beatles?
There is so much music...so many disciplines to hear. Should I listen
to music I don't care for?
Why should I care?
I await enlightenment...though a comment will do! Even just one hand
clapping.
Nil
rec.music.beatles:
> Does the *good* performance of a *bad* song make for great music?
I think it's pretty hard to identify a "bad" song. "Good" and "bad" are
pretty subjective, especially regarding composition. A song can break
any and all conventional rules yet still be evocative and have
emotional impact, which is the ultimate goal of all music IMO. An
involved, committed, sympathetic performance could give an otherwise
weak or bad song enough weight to be effective.
> Does listening to a variety of musics necessarily translate into a
> better understanding of that art?
Of course. Doesn't "better understanding" mean more experience, more
time, more commitment, etc.? That's not to say that those who stay
within a narrow subset aren't getting much of enjoyment out of it, but
I do think they're missing out on much good stuff and more importantly,
missing much of the context of what they ARE listening to. I have to
concede, though, that many (most?) people don't care about music as
much as I do.
> There is so much music...so many disciplines to hear. Should I
> listen to music I don't care for?
I think it's always good to push your taste past its current boundaries
- there's a good chance that, with time and effort, you'll find new
ways to appreciate stuff that you didn't understand before.
> Why should I care?
No reason you should... but don't let that stop you.
LookingGlass
>
> On 09 Oct 2009, LookingGlass <goldencocke...@gmail.com> wrote in
Thanks for your response.
I pretty much knew what the answers to my questions would be. Except
the subject question...HOW? I know I enjoy music. I know I enjoy the
mechanics of music...writing, playing, performing. I know I enjoy the
emotional release music affords to the listener. But how am I to
*percieve* music? WHAT am I listening for? Do I listen just because I
*like* it? What are the *finer* points of Music Appreciation?
Not sure if I'm being clear enough with my questions. How can I *hear*
better?
BLACKPOOLJIMMY
> *percieve* music? WHAT am I listening for? Do I listen just because I
> *like* it? What are the *finer* points of Music Appreciation?
>
> Not sure if I'm being clear enough with my questions. How can I *hear*
> better?
Become a dog...or enjoy what you hear or don't. How can that be
answered? Pick a food item you just hate. Eat it anyway. Does it
change your mind or would you say no thanks...plenty of other foods I
do enjoy.
Your question does make a good screenplay....DeNIro wants to become
the music rather than just loving the listening experience. Slow close
up of his leg becoming a guiitar neck, his eyes become cymbals,
fingers a keyboard.....
LookingGlass
>
> Become a dog...or enjoy what you hear or don't. How can that be
> answered? Pick a food item you just hate. Eat it anyway. Does it
> change your mind or would you say no thanks...plenty of other foods I
> do enjoy.
>
> Your question does make a good screenplay....DeNIro wants to become
> the music rather than just loving the listening experience. Slow close
> up of his leg becoming a guiitar neck, his eyes become cymbals,
> fingers a keyboard.....
I enjoyed the *novelization* better. Much clearer on the concept.
BLACKPOOLJIMMY
novel
JohnB
It's complicated but I think you do have to just listen and not ask
how or why too much. There are no answers to some of those questions.
So, listen to whatever you want whenever you can, and sometimes if you
get the chance to listen to something you've not heard before, take
it. And sometimes if you get the chance to hear again something you
didn't really get first time round, take it. Or not.
What you get out of music depends on so much, not just the quality of
the music. Your mood, your emotional state, where you are, who you're
with, what you just heard before "now" - all these things (and more)
can alter the way you hear something. But don't try too hard. If it's
going to work sometime, it will.
And it goes beyond that. Sometimes I find that listening to something
new, whether I like it or not, will alter the way I appreciate
something old later on. And vice versa. And so on.
It's magic. I doubt any scientist will ever explain why it is that a
person can cry at a Mozart aria and yet be unmoved by a traditional
folk song; be totally absorbed by a piece of free form jazz, yet be
bored silly by a piece of Schubert; be unable to keep still when
listening to the Supremes, yet doze off when Ali Farka Toure comes on.
The magic is the one thing that keeps me from being an atheist. It
makes me think there is something that can't be explained by science:
music - oh, and love.
JohnB
It's complicated but I think you do have to just listen and not ask
Alex
Music is inner gesture. Just as you may perceive an outer gesture
(such as a beautiful movement of a dancer) and appreciate its beauty,
you can perceive an inner gesture performed by a musician, and can
appreciate the beauty and elegance of another human being.
For example, when Cannonball Adderley, as recorded on the track "So
What?" from Miles Davis's album "Kind of Blue", played certain alto
saxophone phrase, or flourish, you can experience the irresistible
elegance and beauty, and an almost animal magnetism of that inner
gesture. If you listen to it with your heart open, you can almost see
him gesticulating in front of you, and that may give you a heightened
appreciation and infatuation of the beauty of being in the presence of
another human being.
A gesture, be it inner or outer, is nothing other than means of
communication. Being human means constantly communicating, being in
communion with others, with nature, with reality. Music may very well
the most advanced, the most intoxicating way of communication known to
man.
Alex
The Arranger
> Not the mechanics or the technology, but the *qualities* of musical
> performance.
>
> Does the *good* performance of a *bad* song make for great music?
I think I can categorically say "yes" to this. There a countless
examples of this in jazz, as the theme is usually secondary to the
improvisation. See "C Jam Blues" by Ellington, "A Tisket, A-Tasket" by
Chick Webb featuring Ella Fitzgerald, etc.
> Does listening to a variety of musics necessarily translate into a
> better understanding of that art? How does this affect the *expert* in
> classical music? or the Blues? or The Beatles?
I don't think you can say always, but as a rule, yes. Classical music
is often informed by folk forms, jazz, even popular music. The Beatles
were influenced by almost every modern Western musical form and a few
Eastern ones, too. The blues is even a combination of African and
European music, and modern blues drags in a bunch of different forms.
> There is so much music...so many disciplines to hear. Should I listen
> to music I don't care for?
Some music rewards repeated listening more than others, and some forms
don't as readily give up their charms as others, but the payback is
significant. When I first heard much of the music that is now closest
to my heart, it was just noise to me. If you feel you've listened to
music, understand it, and still don't care for it, I would discard it.
But I have often given music that is highly regarded, but had earlier
left me cold or worse, another chance, and was richly rewarded.
> Why should I care?
Hey, you asked the question!
> I await enlightenment...though a comment will do! Even just one hand
> clapping.
Enlightenment is way beyond my pay scale. But if you have an interest
in jazz (you may already be expert), I could probably steer you in
some directions, based on your interest in other music.
The Arranger
Nil
rec.music.beatles:
> I pretty much knew what the answers to my questions would be.
> Except the subject question...HOW? I know I enjoy music. I know I
> enjoy the mechanics of music...writing, playing, performing. I
> know I enjoy the emotional release music affords to the listener.
> But how am I to *percieve* music? WHAT am I listening for? Do I
> listen just because I *like* it? What are the *finer* points of
> Music Appreciation?
I know you're a conscientious listener, and I think you already know
most of the tricks.
For pop and rock music, I usually listen to a album a couple of times
casually, letting the general sound soak in a bit. Then I like to sit
down in my comfy chair front of my good stereo when I can listen to the
whole thing undistracted. I get some good listening done in the car,
too - even though it's not ideal sound-wise, I'm a captive audience. I
drove about 90 miles a day during my commute, and I got more listening
done then than I do now.
Listening to alternate takes, mixes, live performances, etc. helps
appreciate a recording. I collect live bootlegs of my favorite artists,
and it's a hobby but it also contributes to my appreciation of a piece
of music.
Learning to play or sing a song helps to get the most out of it. If you
know some music theory, you can discover some thrilling details in the
construction of a song that you might not notice when just listening.
Beatles songs are chock full of those cool little features.
For orchestral/classical music, I like to try to get the score from the
library and read along with the performance. That really helps me get
the most of some very dense and (for me) hard to crack music.
For jazz standards I like to familiarize myself with the basic song by
finding simpler vocal versions. When listening, if the harmony and
rhythm get a little wild and I start to lose my place in the song,
focusing on the bass is a good way to get my ears's feet back in touch
with the ground.
I'm not someone who absorbs music easily. I have to listen to most
things a lot before I get a good sense of what's going on. Some people
I know can listen once or twice they've pretty much got it all, or at
least, as much as they're going to get. Not me - I've got albums that
I've had for years, decades, that I'm finally appreciating now. I'm an
inefficient music critic.
Fattuchus
LookingGlass
I *double-y* thank you.
I ask the question because I am intrigued by the perception of some
listeners to discern qualities in music that I have not heard. When I
read a review or listen to a critic speak, I am always surprised by
what I have missed in the listening experience. I want to know HOW to
hear what others hear.
I do know one thing...LIVE music is always *magic*. The interaction of
the audience and the moment of musical creation will NEVER be
bettered...in my estimation. I listen to many recordings, but when I
walk down the street and stop to listen to a street musician
*busking*...I am enraptured. I listen, but I also observe the other
folks listening. It is magic! Are they *hearing* something I am not?
Why are some moments transfixing and transfiguring?
LookingGlass
>
> Music is inner gesture. Just as you may perceive an outer gesture
> (such as a beautiful movement of a dancer) and appreciate its beauty,
> you can perceive an inner gesture performed by a musician, and can
> appreciate the beauty and elegance of another human being.
>
> For example, when Cannonball Adderley, as recorded on the track "So
> What?" from Miles Davis's album "Kind of Blue", played certain alto
> saxophone phrase, or flourish, you can experience the irresistible
> elegance and beauty, and an almost animal magnetism of that inner
> gesture. If you listen to it with your heart open, you can almost see
> him gesticulating in front of you, and that may give you a heightened
> appreciation and infatuation of the beauty of being in the presence of
> another human being.
>
> A gesture, be it inner or outer, is nothing other than means of
> communication. Being human means constantly communicating, being in
> communion with others, with nature, with reality. Music may very well
> the most advanced, the most intoxicating way of communication known to
> man.
>
> Alex
Thanks for sharing your insight.
I am reading Oliver Sack's MUSICOPHILIA. A wonderful book with some
extraordinary stories and revealing insights. There was a PBS Nova
recently...Music and the Mind. Very enlightening observations, based
partly on the investigation of Mr. Sacks.
I have difficulty speaking the right words when I try to communicate
my feelings when I listen to music. I wanted to be a dancer when I was
a child...I had the motivation to *express* the "inexpressible".
LookingGlass
> On 09 Oct 2009, LookingGlass <goldencocke...@gmail.com> wrote in
Thanks Nil. I know you have an appreciation for Music...with a capital
*M*.
I listen to many recordings of many styles of music...many times. For
different reasons. Sometimes to just revel in the performance,
sometimes to discern the *music*, sometimes to try and *understand*
what is being communicated. I often wonder, is it The MUSIC I am
listening to, or is it the *idea* behind the music that I find
intriguing. I can enjoy the *art* of the musician and respect the
talent needed to produce the music, but there are qualities that
escape me.
The famous quote by Stravinsky (paraphrased)..."Music doesn't *mean*
anything"...is understandable, and yet it is not satisfying. It does
suggest *meaning*, and it motivates the listener...transports the
listener to places other than what reality dictates. "Magic"...as
JohnB states.
LookingGlass
>
> Nowadays I listen to about 95% music I don't enjoy, but I know I'm
> unusual like that. ;)
How is it you came to this endeavor?
LookingGlass
> I think one main key to listening to music is listening with a sense of
> gauging what the artist is trying to accomplish in his given style,
> rather than entering with a rigid demand that the artist perform in a
> style which you prefer. That's how you learn something, rather than just
> reinforcing your prejudices.
I remember listening to a recording of a famous piece of orchestral
music transcribed and played on piano. A *knowledgeable* critic panned
it...ripped it to shreds for its performance. I was captivated by the
performance. While the interpretation may not have been what the
composer wrote down *exactly*...I mean all the notes were there and no
glaring revisions or liberties were taken with the music (beyond some
tempo choices)...the *storytelling* was engaging.
WHY is *his* opinion more valid than mine? I am very familiar with the
original version of the music by the way...I know its history and its
performance standard. Are the performance choices made by the
interpreting musician more valid/less valid than those as percieved by
the critic?
I understand that there are *traditional* performance practices that
need to be recognized and adhered to in order to convey the ideas of
the composer...is it just a matter of justifying those performance
*choices*? How do I *know* what the artist is trying to say? Isn't
that *subjective* on my part without being inside his/her head? How
would I know if the interpreter of the music is successful in
performance?
Not easy questions,perhaps.
LookingGlass
>
> I listen to music with my ears. The other body parts don't work well.
You are absolutely correct.
LookingGlass
...I accept *credit*.
Thank you for addressing my questions. I realize the *proof is in the
listening*, so to speak. Too much analyzing is not the way to go, but
I am puzzled as to how others can perceive qualities in music that I
am not aware of. There are times when I listen I get
*goosebumps*...enthralled in the unfolding reveal. I can't put it into
words though. If I can't express my perceptions with any clarity, are
my feelings about a particular performance still valid?
RichL
For me, listening to music is primarily an emotional and visceral
experience, not an analytical one. I can't put into words what gives me
goosebumps, but there are lots of different types of music that do.
And though I have sufficient musical background to take apart music,
break it down into its parts, and recreate it, what I find most
difficult is *generalizing* from the best music that I've heard to
attempt to create music that will give someone else goosebumps. The
goosebump thing can't be reduced to a single identifiable element or
combination of elements that I can add to my own stew.
RichL
>> Does listening to a variety of musics necessarily translate into a
>> better understanding of that art?
>
> I would say so, yes.
>
>> There is so much music...so many disciplines to hear. Should I listen
>> to music I don't care for?
>
> Nowadays I listen to about 95% music I don't enjoy, but I know I'm
> unusual like that. ;)
I find myself hearing something to *like* in most musical genres. I
also get enjoyment incorporating elements of certain genres into other
genres where those elements don't usually appear.
Nil
rec.music.beatles:
> I find myself hearing something to *like* in most musical genres.
> I also get enjoyment incorporating elements of certain genres into
> other genres where those elements don't usually appear.
There is really not that much music that I can honestly say I totally
hate. I can usually find something interesting or appealing on some
level in almost anything.
I just like the idea of music in general. I'm so glad it exists and
that people make it, even if I don't like the actual product much. If
it doesn't tickle my fancy, I find it pretty easy to disregard it and
just move on to something else. It rarely upsets me. But when it hits
The Spot, I can hardly get enough.
The Arranger
> LookingGlass <goldencocke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I remember listening to a recording of a famous piece of orchestral
> > music transcribed and played on piano. A *knowledgeable* critic panned
> > it...ripped it to shreds for its performance. I was captivated by the
> > performance. While the interpretation may not have been what the
> > composer wrote down *exactly*...I mean all the notes were there and no
> > glaring revisions or liberties were taken with the music (beyond some
> > tempo choices)...the *storytelling* was engaging.
>
> > WHY is *his* opinion more valid than mine? I am very familiar with the
> > original version of the music by the way...I know its history and its
> > performance standard. Are the performance choices made by the
> > interpreting musician more valid/less valid than those as percieved by
> > the critic?
>
> > I understand that there are *traditional* performance practices that
> > need to be recognized and adhered to in order to convey the ideas of
> > the composer...is it just a matter of justifying those performance
> > *choices*? How do I *know* what the artist is trying to say? Isn't
> > that *subjective* on my part without being inside his/her head? How
> > would I know if the interpreter of the music is successful in
> > performance?
>
> > Not easy questions,perhaps.
>
> another, I wouldn't really worry about it. Now, if I had one opinion and
> LOTS of critics had the opposite view, then I'd be more likely to seek
> out some sort of explanation.
>
> If you read that critic's ideas about the piece, gave them serious
> consideration and didn't find them convincing then, hey, be content with
> your own opinion. Just don't fall into that trap of feeling like the
> negative review threatens your "pride" and thus must be brutally shot
> down.
Please don't read this as a "rip"...but I've always relied more on
recommendations from musicians than from critics...although musicians
can often overvalue technical competence.
The Arranger
The Arranger
> The Arranger <recur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > although musicians can often overvalue technical competence.
>
> music twists my guts like nothing else. The Steely Dan/Toto muso ethic.
> "Yeah man, they're great players. Those guys really play in the pocket."
> Brrrr. That attitude of democratic, seamless slickness being the
> ultimate goal. Songs for upscale mulletheads. Studio cats. People who'd
> rather listen to Weather Report than Miles Davis. People who dig Chic
> based not on the hooks, but on the players' instrumental skills. That
> whole world really makes me flinch. It's Kryptonite to me. ;)
>
> See past quarrels where "O'Leary" turned terribly belligerent with me
> for being cold to Kevin Gilbert....
My beef with critics is they oftentimes try to romanticize what can be
just as much a craft as an art. I loved the exchanges between Uma
Thurman, playing a breathless socialite slumming with jazz guitarist
Sean Penn in "Sweet and Lowdown."
"What do you THINK of when you're playing? What goes through your
mind?"
"How I'm underpaid. I thibnk about that sometimes."
This one is a poor paraphrase?
"What is it you love about trains? Is it the raw power, or the
penetrating..."
"You sound like you want to fuck the train."
The Arranger
RichL
> The Arranger <recu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> although musicians can often overvalue technical competence.
>
> music twists my guts like nothing else. The Steely Dan/Toto muso
> ethic. "Yeah man, they're great players. Those guys really play in
> the pocket." Brrrr. That attitude of democratic, seamless slickness
> being the ultimate goal. Songs for upscale mulletheads. Studio cats.
> People who'd rather listen to Weather Report than Miles Davis. People
> who dig Chic based not on the hooks, but on the players' instrumental
> skills. That whole world really makes me flinch. It's Kryptonite to
> me. ;)
>
> See past quarrels where "O'Leary" turned terribly belligerent with me
> for being cold to Kevin Gilbert....
Gee, do you think you dredged up enough stereotypes?
Personally, I find that there's merit to technical competence, but it's
far from the overriding factor.
LookingGlass
>
> I've been occupied with other projects and a bit slack this year, and
> haven't heard more than maybe 75 or so releases from 2009 as yet. I feel
> like I'm hopelessly behind. I'd like to punch a magic button, and hear
> about 300 albums within the next 10 minutes.
>
> My friends know that I'm rather addicted to what I often sardonically
> call "the Amazon game".... I've been whittling away at Amazon's
> recommendation system pretty ferociously for four or five years now.
> They recommend CDs -- I investigate them and eliminate (or sometimes
> embrace) them. And then the system generates more picks. I've rejected
> over 10,000 releases in all, at this point. For me nowadays, hearing a
> close-but-no-cigar new band is usually more interesting than hearing
> another familiar album by some established favorite where I pretty much
> know what I'm going to get and what range of entertainment value the
> album will have.
>
> So many albums streamed for free nowadays. Free Napster is loaded with
> albums, and MySpace's catalog is growing by leaps 'n' bounds. Last.fm,
> Pandora, iMeem, label sites, band sites.... The "Don't have money to
> investigate music" excuse doesn't fly anymore. It's just a case of
> laziness, or having other priorities. And the latter is fine...as long
> as one doesn't pretend to have an expert take on the subject all the
> same.
LookingGlass
>
> I've been occupied with other projects and a bit slack this year, and
> haven't heard more than maybe 75 or so releases from 2009 as yet. I feel
> like I'm hopelessly behind. I'd like to punch a magic button, and hear
> about 300 albums within the next 10 minutes.
I am intrigued by the *why*. What is it that compels you to hear so
much music? Is it love or necessity? I am aware that you have written
reviews of some releases...without becoming personal, is this a
vocational thing or do you just really like to hear music that you
have not heard before?
You have an insight that I cannot approach, but perhaps understanding
what *pulls* you would go a long way to understanding the fascination
and the need to taste so much music. Does composition interest you?
LookingGlass
>
> For me, listening to music is primarily an emotional and visceral
> experience, not an analytical one. I can't put into words what gives me
> goosebumps, but there are lots of different types of music that do.
>
> And though I have sufficient musical background to take apart music,
> break it down into its parts, and recreate it, what I find most
> difficult is *generalizing* from the best music that I've heard to
> attempt to create music that will give someone else goosebumps. The
> goosebump thing can't be reduced to a single identifiable element or
> combination of elements that I can add to my own stew.
Me too. Music was never something I "analyzed"...I just listened and
was swept away, or was bored. Some music *grabs* me, some doesn't
interest me. It is astonishing the *power* music has over a
listener...particularly when the music is engaging. And while not all
music has a *lyric* component, words are not necessary for the story-
telling to become evident. I always get caught up with the
*inexpressable*, though there is always a definite path to be
followed...though at times that path is overgrown with elements that
are unfamiliar.
But I always wanted to create my own music (among other things!). So I
listened a great deal...still do. But I don't have the time others
have to invest in listening to the overwhelming amount of music that
is available, and still have time for *a life*. I will never approach
anything close to *proficiency*, but I have stuck my toe into the
tidal pool, and have at times, been swept away with the tide.
I wrote a poem many years ago which personified Music as my only
friend. Music is an intimate experience.
LookingGlass
LookingGlass
>
> The Arranger <recur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> music twists my guts like nothing else. The Steely Dan/Toto muso ethic.
> "Yeah man, they're great players. Those guys really play in the pocket."
> Brrrr. That attitude of democratic, seamless slickness being the
> ultimate goal. Songs for upscale mulletheads. Studio cats. People who'd
> rather listen to Weather Report than Miles Davis. People who dig Chic
> based not on the hooks, but on the players' instrumental skills. That
> whole world really makes me flinch. It's Kryptonite to me. ;)
I know that I respond to the *emotional* content of music rather than
the *skill* that is used to convey that emotion. If a piece of music
doesn't *touch* me, I am left cold no matter the skill of the artist.
I *can* be impressed by a musician who knows his/her instrument.
Technical prowess is important *in service* to the music. I am not
interested in showy displays of pyrotechnics of musical proficiency. I
want *content*.
LookingGlass
>
> There is really not that much music that I can honestly say I totally
> hate. I can usually find something interesting or appealing on some
> level in almost anything.
>
> I just like the idea of music in general. I'm so glad it exists and
> that people make it, even if I don't like the actual product much. If
> it doesn't tickle my fancy, I find it pretty easy to disregard it and
> just move on to something else. It rarely upsets me. But when it hits
> The Spot, I can hardly get enough.
Yes.
I don't find myself "hating" most anything...least of all any piece of
music. I have heard music that I don't appreciate, but I don't *hate*
it. That seems a terrible waste of psychic energy.
I find too, that when a performance *delivers*, I can hardly get
enough. Sort of like a *Snoopy dance* when Schroeder plays a tune on
his toy piano.
"Heaven...I'm in heaven...
And my heart beats so that I can hardly speak..."
LookingGlass
>
> Err...well, if I had one opinion on a piece of music and a critic had
> another, I wouldn't really worry about it. Now, if I had one opinion and
> LOTS of critics had the opposite view, then I'd be more likely to seek
> out some sort of explanation.
>
> If you read that critic's ideas about the piece, gave them serious
> consideration and didn't find them convincing then, hey, be content with
> your own opinion. Just don't fall into that trap of feeling like the
> negative review threatens your "pride" and thus must be brutally shot
> down.
How does this influence judging a music/song/performance worthiness?
If a music/song/performance is *popular* with the public, does this
not validate the value of the music? And yet that same music/song/
performance can be *critically* received negatively by critics. If a
music/song/performance is *popular* does that mean it is praise-
worthy? If not, why not? The fact that it *communicates* with the
audience seems to verify its *worthiness*.
Dale Houstman
>
> The famous quote by Stravinsky (paraphrased)..."Music doesn't *mean*
> anything"...is understandable, and yet it is not satisfying. It does
> suggest *meaning*, and it motivates the listener...transports the
> listener to places other than what reality dictates. "Magic"...as
> JohnB states.
>
Yet Stravinsky's comment is still more compelling (I think) than to
merely assign the word "magic" to this or that musical performance. When
Stravinsky says that "mean doesn't 'mean' anything" he isn't precluding
that a listener might not invent a meaning for it, but merely stating
that music (in the abstract and divorced from the lyrics) does not carry
any innate ideas beyond its mathematical structure. This allows - of
course - for an "assignment" of ideas by any listener. For my money, the
reason why much "great" art is great is due to an evocative ambiguity
which resists easy paraphrase and thus the absorption that is called
"comprehension": once we feel we've sucked the meat from the crab leg,
it's over. So I would say (in the case of "pure music") that music
doesn't mean anything, but is a potential vehicle for ideas.
Of course, a semiotician (or Wittgenstein, or McCluhen) could go at this
with a philosophic and linguistic fervor which would dissolve the entire
debate in a colloid of pointed vagueness. What does 'meaning' mean? What
is the meaning of magic? Is motivation a meaning? If a musician has an
idea in mind as he composes, and the listener has a different idea in
mind while he listens, what is the music conveying? Etc.
dmh
The Arranger
I guess the difference is that I can sometimes be engaged by music on
an almost completely intellectual level, but there is no doubt that
music that combines emotional content with intellectual stimulation
goes to the top of the list. Many an old jazz musician has been quoted
along the lines of: "When I was young, I used to play a lot of notes,
but I realized I wasn't telling a story." One of the faults I most
frequently find with guitar players is that they can tend to "ramble
on" because they don't need to breathe. Even beginning horn players
are forced to create phrases, because they need to breathe. The best
guitar players, of course, phrase as well as any horn player. The
worst tend to fill out their solos with patterns...
The Arranger
The Arranger
The Arranger
I've always felt that most people don't enjoy instrumental music as
much as vocal music because they require lyrics to be told about what
they are supposed to be feeling. Instrumental music, with rare
exceptions, is the equivalent of abstract art....too many people are
stuck on "what's this supposed to be about." For every "Harlem Air
Shaft" or "Haitian Fight Song," there's a "Main Stem" or a
"Ezzthetic," which the bulk of people can't connect to because they
aren't told what they're supposed to be feeling...Think about popular
instrumental hits of the Beatles era..."You've got "Telstar" and "Wipe
Out" (neither of which, I guess, are strictly instrumental), which
impart their topic through the title and sound effects, etc.
The Arranger
RichL
> maybe I should have added further images.
> Also: I don't think you can call anything I wrote a stereotype except
> for the "mullethead" part. If I said prog-rock fans like Yes, would
> you call that a stereotype too?
Well, since you were directly commenting on The Arranger's "technical
competence" phrase, I thought you were illustrating it, not narrowing
your reaction to it.
>
> PS That "I liked you a lot better before you lost your mind" quip was
awesome.
I have my moments.
RichL
technical competence and creativity aren't necessarily mutually
exclusive.
The Arranger
> The Arranger <recur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> music twists my guts like nothing else. The Steely Dan/Toto muso ethic.
> "Yeah man, they're great players. Those guys really play in the pocket."
> Brrrr. That attitude of democratic, seamless slickness being the
> ultimate goal. Songs for upscale mulletheads. Studio cats. People who'd
> rather listen to Weather Report than Miles Davis. People who dig Chic
> based not on the hooks, but on the players' instrumental skills. That
> whole world really makes me flinch. It's Kryptonite to me. ;)
I always thought of you more as Braniac than Superman. ;)
I don't think the distinction between Weather Report and Miles Davis'
groups is technical proficiency, unless we're talkingh about very late
Miles, when his chops were obviously shot. The jazz analogy would be
Oscar Peterson over Monk.
The Arranger
The Arranger
If a music is popular, it is incumbent on those who enjoy it to praise
it; it needs no praise from the rest of us, unless we're compelled to
analyze music as Bentham would.
The Arranger
LookingGlass
>
> I guess the difference is that I can sometimes be engaged by music on
> an almost completely intellectual level, but there is no doubt that
> music that combines emotional content with intellectual stimulation
> goes to the top of the list. Many an old jazz musician has been quoted
> along the lines of: "When I was young, I used to play a lot of notes,
> but I realized I wasn't telling a story." One of the faults I most
> frequently find with guitar players is that they can tend to "ramble
> on" because they don't need to breathe. Even beginning horn players
> are forced to create phrases, because they need to breathe. The best
> guitar players, of course, phrase as well as any horn player. The
> worst tend to fill out their solos with patterns...
>
> The Arranger
Great point! How much does the *instrument* affect the music?
Somewhere it was remarked upon that the flute was the ONLY instrument
Debussey had in mind when he wrote L'APRES MIDI DU FAUNE. Recently I
have been exploring music for a *single* instrument. The Bach Cello
Suites are a well of invention...and profound emotional depth.
LookingGlass
>
> > PS That "I liked you a lot better before you lost your mind" quip was
>
> awesome.
>
> I have my moments.
More than a few.
LookingGlass
>
> And the modern R&B singers who ridiculously embellish
> the melodies of awful love ballads.
I was watching an episode of The Simpsons the other night...Lisa sings
a lullaby for the rest of the family to soothe their nerves. The
family thinks she is awsome and should enter a contest. She does and
is pitted against another contestant who sings the same lullaby (Hush!
Little Baby)...though she sings her version of the song in the overly
embellished fashion currently used by some *divas*. It gave me pause
to think.
I long for the return to a simple melody. Though not necessarily a
lullaby.
LookingGlass
> LookingGlass <goldencocke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I've been occupied with other projects and a bit slack this year, and
> > > haven't heard more than maybe 75 or so releases from 2009 as yet. I feel
> > > like I'm hopelessly behind. I'd like to punch a magic button, and hear
> > > about 300 albums within the next 10 minutes.
>
> > I am intrigued by the *why*. What is it that compels you to hear so
> > much music?
>
> major rush, when it happens. And if I investigate an act who turns out
> to be blah, that's still a win. It's a relief to remove them as a
> question mark from my head...like doing some housekeeping and finally
> putting out some overdue trash.
>
> There was a time five or so years ago when I started feeling a bit weary
> and jaded, like "Gee, there aren't many good new bands lately...I just
> keep liking the new albums by my established favorites." I guess this is
> where a lot of other people would have started griping about music going
> downhill since such-and-such year, etc. We've all seen THAT complaint.
> Instead, I started thinking that maybe it was MY fault -- that I wasn't
> trying hard enough. So, I started digging deeper. And sure enough, I
> started finding more music again. Even found some fresh '60s music --
> sorta reappraised Nick Drake, the Left Banke and Blind Faith...also was
> freshly turned onto Dillard & Clark, the International Submarine Band,
> Les Fleur de Lys, the Misunderstood, the Monks, Montage, Sagittarius,
> the Yellow Balloon, Turquoise.... Maybe someone else I'm forgetting.
> Always exciting to find something new, though I listened to a huge pile
> of mediocre psychedelia to pull out those few gems (when it comes to the
> '60s, I find the forgotten acts are usually forgotten with good reason).
Thanks!
RichL
Good and bad, I'd imagine ;-)
RichL
> LookingGlass <goldenc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> How does this influence judging a music/song/performance worthiness?
>> If a music/song/performance is *popular* with the public, does this
>> not validate the value of the music? And yet that same music/song/
>> performance can be *critically* received negatively by critics. If a
>> music/song/performance is *popular* does that mean it is praise-
>> worthy? If not, why not? The fact that it *communicates* with the
>> audience seems to verify its *worthiness*.
>
>
> But...I'd say there's a important distinction between being *durably*
> popular with the masses, and being trendy-popular for a short time. I
> think a lot of people overlook this (just take a glance at those
> reactionary "rock-pop-r+b.1950s/1960s" newsgroups sometime, where
> folks seem to rate an artist's success solely based on initial peak
> chart positions).
>
> Like, if Neil Diamond only had been popular for a couple of years
> during the '70s, he'd be easy to write off as adult-contemporary
> schlock. But come on, you've gotta respect the dude's staying power.
> As for Morris Albert? Mmmmm...maybe not. ;)
>
> It's not easy to think of long-term popular artists who never
> justified their success at all. The first name which comes to mind is
> Cher. ;)
I never thought of Cher as someone with enduring popularity in *music*
but rather as someone who is famous for being famous, sort of like Paris
Hilton. Musically I think she reached a popular peak and faded to cult
status rather quickly.
I agree with your view toward *long-standing* popularity, however; in
fact I was engaged in a rather tedious discussion of it in another
newsgroup.
abe slaney
> It's not easy to think of long-term popular artists who never justified
> their success at all. The first name which comes to mind is Cher. ;)
And Kenny Rogers.
abe slaney
> Of course, a semiotician (or Wittgenstein, or McCluhen) could go at this
> with a philosophic and linguistic fervor which would dissolve the entire
> debate in a colloid of pointed vagueness. What does 'meaning' mean? What
> is the meaning of magic? Is motivation a meaning? If a musician has an
> idea in mind as he composes, and the listener has a different idea in
> mind while he listens, what is the music conveying? Etc.
Free Bird!!!!!!!!!
LookingGlass
>
> I never thought of Cher as someone with enduring popularity in *music*
> but rather as someone who is famous for being famous, sort of like Paris
> Hilton. Musically I think she reached a popular peak and faded to cult
> status rather quickly.
>
> I agree with your view toward *long-standing* popularity, however; in
> fact I was engaged in a rather tedious discussion of it in another
> newsgroup.
I always thought of her as a personality rather than a singer. I loved
her reparte" with Sonny on the show. I like her as an entertainer,
though not specifically as a singer...and not just as a personality. I
wish she had taken on more roles in film. She's good.
There is a *quality* to longevity...something that delivers to the
audience even though there may be a lack of artistry. Something
undefinable.
RichL
Arrgghhh! Shades of marriage #2. Dragged off to a concert. "The
things we do for love."
The Arranger
I can pinpoint the end of one brief college dalliance to the moment
she raved about REO Speedwagon.
The Arranger
BlackMonk
"poisoned rose" <pros...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:prose1235-0C78B...@news.eternal-september.org...
> abe slaney <abes...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> > It's not easy to think of long-term popular artists who never justified
>> > their success at all. The first name which comes to mind is Cher. ;)
>>
>> And Kenny Rogers.
>
> smoky quality...is he any more worthless than a multitude of other
> comforting country stars who were never innovators and mostly sang
> material written by others?
>
I thought he wrote his own material, though I never was too interested in
him.
I wouldn't be surprised if you have a few of my favorites in that list of
multitudes, so I'll point out that neither not being an innovator nor mostly
singing material written by others precludes making great records.
Freddie Fender and seventies Charlie Rich come to mind.
> Cher doesn't even have a dependable sense of pitch. Even "I Got You,
> Babe" makes me cringe in the bridge. She just
> doesn't...quite...nail...that one crucial, dramatic note in "And when
> I'm SAAAAAAAD, you're a clowwwn".....
Someone once pointed out that Cher starts the last note in every line flat
and slides up to the note. Ever since then, I haven't been able to listen to
her without listening for that. And finding it frequently.
LookingGlass
>
> Even "I Got You,
> Babe" makes me cringe in the bridge. She just
> doesn't...quite...nail...that one crucial, dramatic note in "And when
> I'm SAAAAAAAD, you're a clowwwn".....
Those bad notes are forever engrained in my heart. One of my
favorites. It's just so sappy. The *perfect* wedding song!
Dale Houstman
Avis liberatus!
(muck latin)
dmh
abe slaney
> You seem to be forgetting that I wasn't the one who said Rogers' success
> is unjustified.
I think that he is, as you said, comparable in talent to many other
competent country singers. I don't think his success is *wholly*
unjustified. I just can't figure out why he lasted as long as he did
and became as iconic as he did. Like Cher, he's not famous for being a
"singer" as much as he is for being himself. See http://www.menwholooklikekennyrogers.com/
Fun Fact: when I was a kid, you could tear off the side of a "Milk
Duds" package, and mail it in to win a personal visit to your school
by The First Edition. Even as a sixth grader, I thought that was kind
of pathetic. We may have been 10, but we weren't stupid!
BlackMonk
> "BlackMonk" <Blac...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>
>> > Hrm. Well, I suppose one could argue that his voice has a distinctive,
>> > smoky quality...is he any more worthless than a multitude of other
>> > comforting country stars who were never innovators and mostly sang
>> > material written by others?
>>
>> I thought he wrote his own material, though I never was too interested in
>> him.
>
>
> http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=10:dnfwxqyaldje
>
> Not too many "Rogers" appearances in the Composer column.
>
>> I wouldn't be surprised if you have a few of my favorites in that list of
>> multitudes, so I'll point out that neither not being an innovator nor
>> mostly
>> singing material written by others precludes making great records.
>>
>> Freddie Fender and seventies Charlie Rich come to mind.
>
> is unjustified.
>
No, but you seemed to imply that he was worthless, but no more so than other
country singers who fit that description. I realize you're not responsible
for what I infer from your posts, though.
>> > Cher doesn't even have a dependable sense of pitch. Even "I Got You,
>> > Babe" makes me cringe in the bridge. She just
>> > doesn't...quite...nail...that one crucial, dramatic note in "And when
>> > I'm SAAAAAAAD, you're a clowwwn".....
>>
>> Someone once pointed out that Cher starts the last note in every line
>> flat
>> and slides up to the note.
>
> That's probably true, yeah.
Someone recently posted the link to a clip on YouTube of her singing a
Beatles medly with Tina Turner and Kate Smith. I'll spare you, but it's
there if you want it.
Lizz Holmans
Why do you hate me? What have I ever done to you?
Lizz 'Kill that song. Kill it with fire' Holmans
--
Whatever happened to linoleum floors, petroleum jelly and two world wars?
http://www.fannation.com/blogs/show/826793-cricket-she-wrote
Dale Houstman
> abe slaney <abes...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>> It's not easy to think of long-term popular artists who never justified
>>> their success at all. The first name which comes to mind is Cher. ;)
>> And Kenny Rogers.
>
> smoky quality...is he any more worthless than a multitude of other
> comforting country stars who were never innovators and mostly sang
> material written by others?
>
> Babe" makes me cringe in the bridge. She just
> doesn't...quite...nail...that one crucial, dramatic note in "And when
> I'm SAAAAAAAD, you're a clowwwn".....
Cher's nasal voice is essentially a shrill disaster. Seems many people
appear to think she was a bright shining star hobbled to a dwarf, but -
apart from her bohemian good looks - it was really Sonny's material
(essentially imitative but culture-wise) and production skills that
floated her for so many years. She's been mainly smart about her career,
angling a sometimes outrageous style sense and a snide toughness and a
kitschy following into a cultural permanence. But one is hard-pressed to
recall many of her songs, and she certainly has not popped out even a
signature "comeback album (as Tina Turner managed). She's scarcely a
musical act at this point.
Kenny has a cozy voice, and whatever one may think of his material over
the years (I still take perverse delight in his purely synthetic
psychedelic crumpet "I Just Dropped In..." etc - but that was a long
time ago), it remains at least relatively distinctive, and he was part
of some real albums. I won't walk three feet to get one, but that's a
strictly personal matter...
dmh
JohnB
> Dale Houstman <d...@skypoint.com> wrote:
> > But one is hard-pressed to
> > recall many of her songs, and she certainly has not popped out even a
> > signature "comeback album (as Tina Turner managed). She's scarcely a
> > musical act at this point.
>
> except for "I Got You Babe." That song was *everywhere*. Everyone viewed
> that as a major comeback. And that was a lot more recent than Turner's
> "signature comeback."
>
> Cher hasn't released a new album in several years (looks like the last
> one was in 2003?) but, jesus, she *is* 63 years old now....
Was she perhaps more popular in the UK than she was in the US, as a
singer at least? I have a Cher Best Of from a few years back and there
is, at least IMO, good stuff there:
Love And Understanding
Gypsies, Tramps And Thieves
Just Like Jesse James
Bang Bang
The Shoop-Shoop Song
If I Could Turn Back Time
as well as I Got You Babe.
I agree with the general assessment of her as "entertainer" rather
than just "singer"; he acting career wasn't exactly a disaster and
she's not exactly dull off stage/screen either. There are a few
aspects of her that I'm a little uncomfortable with (the suggestion
that she dare not stand too close to a heat source, for instance :-)
but, for me, she has more substance than the likes of Mariah Carey.
Dale Houstman
> Dale Houstman <dm...@skypoint.com> wrote:
>
>> But one is hard-pressed to
>> recall many of her songs, and she certainly has not popped out even a
>> signature "comeback album (as Tina Turner managed). She's scarcely a
>> musical act at this point.
>
> except for "I Got You Babe." That song was *everywhere*. Everyone viewed
> that as a major comeback. And that was a lot more recent than Turner's
> "signature comeback."
>
> Cher hasn't released a new album in several years (looks like the last
> one was in 2003?) but, jesus, she *is* 63 years old now....
You're right about "Believe" (although I think it's generic Euro-trash
glitz that could have been done by any singer plus a room full of sound
engineers and a disco ball designer), but you had to remind me of that,
and - besides that piece of popular but hollow product - all I cam
recall is her posing on a battleship's guns in an embarrassing slut's
costume. Despite the presence of "Believe" I think - as a strictly
musical career goes - that's fairly shoddy.
Tina Turner cranked out a nicely memorable album replete with a besotted
producer (Knopfler) a bevy of great covers and originals, and a entire
wig closet of talented guest players. Cher cranked out a small sequinned
handkerchief.
I think my point is still valid, pr.
dmh
Nutella
> Not the mechanics or the technology, but the *qualities* of musical
> performance.
>
> Does the *good* performance of a *bad* song make for great music?
>
> Does listening to a variety of musics necessarily translate into a
> better understanding of that art? How does this affect the *expert* in
> classical music? or the Blues? or The Beatles?
>
> There is so much music...so many disciplines to hear. Should I listen
> to music I don't care for?
>
> Why should I care?
>
> I await enlightenment...though a comment will do! Even just one hand
> clapping.
>
> www.Shemakhan.com
It's a Music Critics job to decide what is quality and what lacks
quality based on a "Standard" that was set years ago. For example, I
would say the
standard set for good Rock and Roll music was set probably by guys
like Elvis, Jerry Lee, and the like. But, there are records that have
had great reviews and are considered quality music, but that I just
don't care for, so I don't listen to it. For example, Robert Cristgau
gave an "A" rating to the Rolling Stones' "Dirty Work" album. I just
don't see it. I think most of the album is unlistenable, and would
give it a "D". So, I only listen to a couple tunes from it.
About "so much music, so many disciplines".......May you live a long
life to slowly enjoy experiencing many different musical styles. It's
all for the enjoyment.
globular
> Not the mechanics or the technology, but the *qualities* of musical
> performance.
>
> Does the *good* performance of a *bad* song make for great music?
>
> Does listening to a variety of musics necessarily translate into a
> better understanding of that art? How does this affect the *expert* in
> classical music? or the Blues? or The Beatles?
>
> There is so much music...so many disciplines to hear. Should I listen
> to music I don't care for?
>
> Why should I care?
>
> I await enlightenment...though a comment will do! Even just one hand
> clapping.
>
>
> www.Shemakhan.com
The listening experience can vary with what kind of sound quality you
are used to. If you listen on a very good system, then listen on one of
less quality, it might not sound very good.
I think people can get used to the sound system they have and appreciate
that. Mono can sound too centred, but this cannot matter once you
appreciate the sound you have.
CDs are innately limited in their sound quality and I think this makes
these differences more likely. People have to adapt to what they are
listening to.
I just wanted to say something on those matters, looking at comments by
some that they don't hear much that is impressive sometimes.
I've done the above.
globular
> Not the mechanics or the technology, but the *qualities* of musical
> performance.
>
> Does the *good* performance of a *bad* song make for great music?
>
> Does listening to a variety of musics necessarily translate into a
> better understanding of that art? How does this affect the *expert* in
> classical music? or the Blues? or The Beatles?
>
> There is so much music...so many disciplines to hear. Should I listen
> to music I don't care for?
>
> Why should I care?
>
> I await enlightenment...though a comment will do! Even just one hand
> clapping.
>
>
> www.Shemakhan.com
I'd like to comment on the feel of a sound.
I like the feel of 60s recordings. When they completed the Smile album
in 2004, they used equipment from the 60s to get that sound.
I think the sound of pop is important in liking it, rather than what a
jazz listener might hear.
I've commented on this kind of thing before. 60s analog reverb is
preferred to the sound of digital reverb. Equipment that fixes the key
of vocals is another problem.
I'm trying to explain why I can barely listen to a lot of recent pop music.
The Nice Mean Man
> Not the mechanics or the technology, but the *qualities* of musical
> performance.
>
> Does the *good* performance of a *bad* song make for great music?
>
> Does listening to a variety of musics necessarily translate into a
> better understanding of that art? How does this affect the *expert* in
> classical music? or the Blues? or The Beatles?
>
> There is so much music...so many disciplines to hear. Should I listen
> to music I don't care for?
>
> Why should I care?
>
> I await enlightenment...though a comment will do! Even just one hand
> clapping.
>
> www.Shemakhan.com
"Think about MUSIC"
http://homepage.mac.com/m5comp/trekbits/trekpics/changeling/changeling11.jpg
topaz
> Not the mechanics or the technology, but the *qualities* of musical
> performance.
>
> Does the *good* performance of a *bad* song make for great music?
>
> Does listening to a variety of musics necessarily translate into a
> better understanding of that art? How does this affect the *expert* in
> classical music? or the Blues? or The Beatles?
>
> There is so much music...so many disciplines to hear. Should I listen
> to music I don't care for?
>
> Why should I care?
>
> I await enlightenment...though a comment will do! Even just one hand
> clapping.
>
> www.Shemakhan.com
I believe that there are so many aspects of music that we can enjoy
individually. One I have become aware of is does the song fit the
person singing it? I do not believe artists think of this consciously
however whenthe right song with the right artist occurs, it just
feels right. For example I cannot envision Mick Jagger singing the
song Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band; I am not saying he
could not physically do it but it just would not fit. As far as how
you "should" to music, I think it depends where you are emotionally
and spiritually. Sometimes it is best to listen to a song mainly for
the lyrics, do they move you? Do they allow you to understand
something in your life you did not understand before? Other times just
listening to a great drum solo, or the notes of a certain song can be
very moving. To me, a great song crosses cultural barriers.
topaz
> LookingGlass <goldencocke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 9, 10:36 am, The Arranger <recur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> On Oct 9, 9:51 am, LookingGlass <goldencocke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> I await enlightenment...though a comment will do! Even just one hand
> >>> clapping.
>
>
> > ...I accept *credit*.
>
> > Thank you for addressing my questions. I realize the *proof is in the
> > listening*, so to speak. Too much analyzing is not the way to go, but
> > I am puzzled as to how others can perceive qualities in music that I
> > am not aware of. There are times when I listen I get
> > *goosebumps*...enthralled in the unfolding reveal. I can't put it into
> > words though. If I can't express my perceptions with any clarity, are
> > my feelings about a particular performance still valid?
>
> >www.Shemakhan.com
>
> For me, listening to music is primarily an emotional and visceral
> experience, not an analytical one. I can't put into words what gives me
> goosebumps, but there are lots of different types of music that do.
>
> And though I have sufficient musical background to take apart music,
> break it down into its parts, and recreate it, what I find most
> difficult is *generalizing* from the best music that I've heard to
> attempt to create music that will give someone else goosebumps. The
> goosebump thing can't be reduced to a single identifiable element or
> combination of elements that I can add to my own stew.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Creating music that allows someone to feel something really deeply
even in a foreign language or across a cultural divide , to me, is one
sign of greatness.
I like this one, very sad, but even in the foreign language, you know
it is a very sad and heartfelt song
topaz
> performance.
>
> Does the *good* performance of a *bad* song make for great music?
>
> Does listening to a variety of musics necessarily translate into a
> better understanding of that art? How does this affect the *expert* in
> classical music? or the Blues? or The Beatles?
>
> There is so much music...so many disciplines to hear. Should I listen
> to music I don't care for?
>
> Why should I care?
>
> clapping.
>
Perhaps in our fast paced world of microwave meals, text messaging,
double tasking etc we have forgotten just how to listen. I know it
sounds so basic but hearing something and really listening are not the
same thing. People are not really communicating anymore at times
because of this. I once met someone who intentionally spoke in an
almost whisper when addressing a group. He did that to force people to
cock their heads in his direction and make themselves listen to his
every word. I found it annoying at times but it worked. Perhaps you
should listen to music at a very low level of sound intentionally then
the second or third time around turn up the volume just a bit.