This is something really weird I've been thinking about. People listen to music in many different ways because there are many different kinds of people who listen to music, simply put. However, I think the way I listen is kind of retarded and stupid.
I assume most people listen to music just as-is. They take it as it comes, and are probably able to enjoy it the most that way. They feel every dynamic, every change in tempo, etc.
Then there are the educated...they are the ones who will time out the time signature while listening, name the key and scales used, and in the end tell you if they're technically remarkable or not. As they listen, they observe and analyze the overall composition of the song, I guess.
Those are just two that came to mind.
I'm somewhere in between those two extremes. I have some education in music, but nothing really worth mentioning. I can't name keys (aside from C... -_- ), scales or chords or anything like that. At the same time, I find it hard to just listen to a song as-is...I like to try to figure out why it's interesting or bad in addition to declaring it as such.
One thing I really like to do is pick apart every individual instrument used in a recording. I like to figure out how many guitars a band is really using, how many backgrounds effects are going on, etc.
This is the part of my music listening that drove me to write this. I've realized I don't really treat vocals the same way most people do, and probably the way they should be treated. A singing or growling or screaming voice, to me, is just another melodic line or tone, usually the lead. I don't pay attention to the lyrical content in direct relation to the song, but instead just see how the vocalist's tone fits into the song, the voice's overall quality, and the way the words are strung together rhythmically/syllabically/however-you-want-to-put-it.
The lyrics themselves are unimportant until later, should I choose to look them up. I can't understand lyrics in songs worth shit, be it pop, rock, metal, hip hop or whatever. It's just not something I pay attention to.
I realized this as I was trying to update a small music review blog I write on occasionally (mostly just for self-fulfillment. I really don't give a shit about traffic for it). I've written reviews most for metal albums on it, but today, while procrastinating on studying for a midterm, I decided to try my hand at a Japanese pop album I really like, and am completely fucking stuck.
I can't write shit about it, and really don't have anything to say.
I dunno...do you guys get what I'm saying? How do you listen to music? Particularly when listening to more vocally-oriented music, how do you listen? What do you listen for? ...and so on and so forth.
i hate how a lot of jpop songs add in multiple instances of the artist singing to make some parts of the song fuller or richer when in fact her voice is fine without adding in more of the same. this ends up making me think about voice-enhancements and other editing. personally, i dont care about voice-enhancements like some people complain about. i listen to the song for how good it sounds to me so i can enjoy it. if using voice enhancements makes it sound better then great. however, i do recognize and appreciate it when a singer can sound just as good live as he/she sounds in the album. i also end up noticing the skill needed in playing some songs. la campanella and paganini's 24 caprices seem more enjoyable just because they take more skill/dexterity to play than a song that sounds great but is easier to play.
eh, just some thoughts. i dont really have any points to make.
I probably fit into your first category of "I assume most people listen to music just as-is. They take it as it comes, and are probably able to enjoy it the most that way. They feel every dynamic, every change in tempo, etc."
I also agree with you that I really couldn't care less about the actual lyrics (and I always suck at making them out as well), I think I do the same as you, listen to the vocalist's tone fitting into the song, the quality of it and how it works out rhythmically/whatever.
Unless vocalist has exceptional voice or can write some kickass lyrics, I pay no attention to vocals. In fact, I'm mostly into non-vocal bands, because it's rare to see some good lyrics these days.
Example of a song, for which vocals are essential and worth listening:
Well I'm a huge hip-hop fan. You could call me an underground elitist, I guess I am a bit. But lyrics mean a lot to me, anything witty, clever or with real depth and meaning can grab my attention paticularly if I can relate to it. Hip-hop also has a huge emphasis on lyrical content. Of course a nice beat always helps.
I guess I fall in to the category of people who just appreciate the simpler things in Music. I did a Music course for 2 years and sucked at it.
But as you said, there are so many different forms of music. So to each his own. To answer your last questions, I listen to hip-hop all day, so I usually have an emphasis on the lyrics. But generally beats in hip-hop are simple in nature with a bit of melody added in. And the main emphasis isn't really on the instrumental content, and the beat is fairly repetative.
Other genres- I don't really know much about. I used to be a massive rock fan about 5 years ago, still always got a soft spot for Metallica and Iron Maiden, but I just grew tired of it all!
On November 03 2009 21:10 ieatkids5 wrote: i hate how a lot of jpop songs add in multiple instances of the artist singing to make some parts of the song fuller or richer when in fact her voice is fine without adding in more of the same. this ends up making me think about voice-enhancements and other editing. personally, i dont care about voice-enhancements like some people complain about. i listen to the song for how good it sounds to me so i can enjoy it. if using voice enhancements makes it sound better then great. however, i do recognize and appreciate it when a singer can sound just as good live as he/she sounds in the album. i also end up noticing the skill needed in playing some songs. la campanella and paganini's 24 caprices seem more enjoyable just because they take more skill/dexterity to play than a song that sounds great but is easier to play.
eh, just some thoughts. i dont really have any points to make.
You're going to get vocal layering anywhere you go in popular music, from death metal to hip hop. Jpop is not unique in that at all and by any means. Autotune is an industry standard just to get a cleaner sound out. EVERY band with a production budget will have those kinds of enhancements done.
BTW, classical music is incredibly different from popular music. Listening to that has nearly no relation to popular music, in my opinion. They're entirely different worlds of music, and I'm focusing solely on popular here.
On November 03 2009 21:19 Dr.Lettuce wrote: Well I'm a huge hip-hop fan. You could call me an underground elitist, I guess I am a bit. But lyrics mean a lot to me, anything witty, clever or with real depth and meaning can grab my attention paticularly if I can relate to it. Hip-hop also has a huge emphasis on lyrical content. Of course a nice beat always helps.
I guess I fall in to the category of people who just appreciate the simpler things in Music. I did a Music course for 2 years and sucked at it.
But as you said, there are so many different forms of music. So to each his own. To answer your last questions, I listen to hip-hop all day, so I usually have an emphasis on the lyrics. But generally beats in hip-hop are simple in nature with a bit of melody added in. And the main emphasis isn't really on the instrumental content, and the beat is fairly repetative.
Other genres- I don't really know much about. I used to be a massive rock fan about 5 years ago, still always got a soft spot for Metallica and Iron Maiden, but I just grew tired of it all!
Hip hop really is very different from rock or metal, which is where most of the music I listen to lies in.
I can definitely see that the lyrical content is very much so the meat of the music, which is probably why I have a hard time listening to it... ):
One thing I really like to do is pick apart every individual instrument used in a recording. I like to figure out how many guitars a band is really using, how many backgrounds effects are going on, etc.
This happens to me when I'm listening to a music alone on a long, one-hour bus ride.
I slowly feel the rhythm, the beats, the drums, and then slowly, I hear the other softer sounds, like the triangles. And while all that is happening, the lyrics just slowly blend in together.
well i listen to jazz (mostly) so of course theres always the element of academia and theory lurking behind the music for me, but for me enjoyment is always the most important part. although, when i listen to something, like a certain cadence or chord that doesnt resolve well, or has a passing tone or avoid note or something and it stands out, you can hear it sound bad, and then you know why it sounds bad. so i guess they are kinda hand in hand for me
Aesop rock. I paticularly recommend his song Daylight. Not sure if you'll like it. I also encourage everyone who sees this post to go to youtube and listen to Aesop Rock - Daylight!
I listen to the melodies mostly, and if I'm really into the band i get into the lyrical part of the songs. Also most bands can't write lyrics, at least not what i like. An example of good writing would be Pink Floyd, Neurosis, Isis, Tool and Nevermore (bands that first popped into my head). Also I enjoy a lot of purely instrumental music, mostly post rock and sludge with a small degree of jazz
On November 03 2009 21:20 PH wrote:BTW, classical music is incredibly different from popular music. Listening to that has nearly no relation to popular music, in my opinion. They're entirely different worlds of music, and I'm focusing solely on popular here.
As a listener to essentially only 'classical' music, I disagree entirely. It doesn't matter if you're listening to the simplest ABABA or if you're listening to a serial, polyrhythmic, aleatoric piece composed Klangfarbenmelodie style ending in a 15-voice, 5 subject fugue. All you need to do is make sure you're listening to every element and examine the effect on yourself.
Aesop Rock is well known in underground hip hip; I'm sure PH and others will discover him if they undertake the journey.
Hip hop was one of the first genres I began listening to as a child along with classical, new age, and metal. Coming from a piano background, I found vocals in most music to be absolutely fascinating as they were new and mysterious to me. I have paid close attention to any and all lyrics ever since. Lyrics will make or break a song for me. However I admit I don't analyze the technical aspects of most music. I only know one person in real life who analyzes... everything. He is a music major and a true audiophile.
I get a record: -1st couple of months: the whole thing -after these months: all nice piano,guitar,saxophone drum parts hit me, OMG cool stuff I didnt even notice -then time signatures, key changes, mood changes -back to whole -??? - repeat
Of course if I dont like the music in first place after giving it a try many times: i dont listen to it BUT I might find the cd again after months/years AND like it then or not.
On November 03 2009 21:38 JohnColtrane wrote: well i listen to jazz (mostly) so of course theres always the element of academia and theory lurking behind the music for me, but for me enjoyment is always the most important part. although, when i listen to something, like a certain cadence or chord that doesnt resolve well, or has a passing tone or avoid note or something and it stands out, you can hear it sound bad, and then you know why it sounds bad. so i guess they are kinda hand in hand for me
That's good. I know people studying music who come to a point where they just can't listen to music the same way anymore.
Personally, I think the point you're at is ideal. It's nice to have that technical understanding, but to look at it only after the actual listening will probably get you the most out of both worlds.
On November 03 2009 21:41 Dr.Lettuce wrote: PH, try this really unique guy I'm a fan of.
Aesop rock. I paticularly recommend his song Daylight. Not sure if you'll like it. I also encourage everyone who sees this post to go to youtube and listen to Aesop Rock - Daylight!
His talent must be known!
I'll give it a try. Could you link some songs (in addition to "Daylight") in here?
On November 03 2009 21:20 PH wrote:BTW, classical music is incredibly different from popular music. Listening to that has nearly no relation to popular music, in my opinion. They're entirely different worlds of music, and I'm focusing solely on popular here.
As a listener to essentially only 'classical' music, I disagree entirely. It doesn't matter if you're listening to the simplest ABABA or if you're listening to a serial, polyrhythmic, aleatoric piece composed Klangfarbenmelodie style ending in a 15-voice, 5 subject fugue. All you need to do is make sure you're listening to every element and examine the effect on yourself.
Wow. Just wow.
I'm really curious...why did you feel it necessary to link a grip of random musical theory terms into a relatively simple topic? Does it really make you feel that much better? You could have easily made the same point with much less effort and much more modesty/decency, but for whatever reason you absolutely had to take a shockingly elitist route about it.
Your point is valid, but I can't get over the fact that you had to make it in such a dumb way, I'm sorry.
On November 03 2009 21:20 PH wrote:BTW, classical music is incredibly different from popular music. Listening to that has nearly no relation to popular music, in my opinion. They're entirely different worlds of music, and I'm focusing solely on popular here.
As a listener to essentially only 'classical' music, I disagree entirely. It doesn't matter if you're listening to the simplest ABABA or if you're listening to a serial, polyrhythmic, aleatoric piece composed Klangfarbenmelodie style ending in a 15-voice, 5 subject fugue. All you need to do is make sure you're listening to every element and examine the effect on yourself.
Wow. Just wow.
I'm really curious...why did you feel it necessary to link a grip of random musical theory terms into a relatively simple topic? Does it really make you feel that much better? You could have easily made the same point with much less effort and much more modesty/decency, but for whatever reason you absolutely had to take a shockingly elitist route about it.
Your point is valid, but I can't get over the fact that you had to make it in such a dumb way, I'm sorry.
Uh, maybe because this could be common knowledge to him? Seriously, he wasn't even saying stuff like "lol modern music sux its 4 simpletons who don't know shit about music" and you have to call him out? Jesus, don't blame others for your ignorance.
On November 03 2009 21:20 PH wrote:BTW, classical music is incredibly different from popular music. Listening to that has nearly no relation to popular music, in my opinion. They're entirely different worlds of music, and I'm focusing solely on popular here.
As a listener to essentially only 'classical' music, I disagree entirely. It doesn't matter if you're listening to the simplest ABABA or if you're listening to a serial, polyrhythmic, aleatoric piece composed Klangfarbenmelodie style ending in a 15-voice, 5 subject fugue. All you need to do is make sure you're listening to every element and examine the effect on yourself.
Wow. Just wow.
I'm really curious...why did you feel it necessary to link a grip of random musical theory terms into a relatively simple topic? Does it really make you feel that much better? You could have easily made the same point with much less effort and much more modesty/decency, but for whatever reason you absolutely had to take a shockingly elitist route about it.
Your point is valid, but I can't get over the fact that you had to make it in such a dumb way, I'm sorry.
Uh, maybe because this could be common knowledge to him? Seriously, he wasn't even saying stuff like "lol modern music sux its 4 simpletons who don't know shit about music" and you have to call him out? Jesus, don't blame others for your ignorance.
Spinfusor's post didn't sound ostentatious to you in the least? I skipped over half of what he said because he was dancing around his point with musical terms. His post was less effective to me because of how he wrote it and I am less inclined to read up on those links because of it.
I spend way too much time with music haha. I have like over 60g of trance and I could tell you the artist/name of the track + the best/most known remixes for about 80% of the tracks
I however suck hard @ composing or even understanding chords, lol.
edit: I put a lot of emphasis on lyrics usually, I feel they give the song an entity or something. I feel a song w/o lyrics sounds way different compared to if it had lyrics + Show Spoiler [deadmau5 - Ghosts n Stuff] +
It really depends on what kind of music I'm listening to. With pop music I'm obviously not going to really give a big damn about what's going on and just listen to it as simple entertainment. In general though, I tend to give a lot of focus on the texture of the music as a whole, probably because I'm a big fan of minimalism.
On November 03 2009 21:20 PH wrote:BTW, classical music is incredibly different from popular music. Listening to that has nearly no relation to popular music, in my opinion. They're entirely different worlds of music, and I'm focusing solely on popular here.
As a listener to essentially only 'classical' music, I disagree entirely. It doesn't matter if you're listening to the simplest ABABA or if you're listening to a serial, polyrhythmic, aleatoric piece composed Klangfarbenmelodie style ending in a 15-voice, 5 subject fugue. All you need to do is make sure you're listening to every element and examine the effect on yourself.
Wow. Just wow.
I'm really curious...why did you feel it necessary to link a grip of random musical theory terms into a relatively simple topic? Does it really make you feel that much better? You could have easily made the same point with much less effort and much more modesty/decency, but for whatever reason you absolutely had to take a shockingly elitist route about it.
Your point is valid, but I can't get over the fact that you had to make it in such a dumb way, I'm sorry.
Uh, maybe because this could be common knowledge to him? Seriously, he wasn't even saying stuff like "lol modern music sux its 4 simpletons who don't know shit about music" and you have to call him out? Jesus, don't blame others for your ignorance.
You really think he wasn't being ostentatious (great word for it, Chromyne) and showy?
I think there's something wrong with your understanding of English, then.
Lyrics are important to me. If I don't like the lyrics then I probably won't listen to the song. If the lyrics are bearable and the music itself is good, then I can take it. Other things I look for:
- Quality of vocals. I am by no means trained to critique vocals, but I am still very picky! No support/pitch issues please. - Chord progressions and melody lines. I love hearing progressions and musical ideas that I have never heard before. It is very refreshing! (Since I'm a newbie to jazz, it's not that hard to find.) - The little details. Hearing fingers hit the piano keys, the guitar strings buzzing, or someone moving in their chair makes the experience more life-like. Also, repeated listenings that reveal more stuff you didn't heard before such as those soft timpani parts or counter-melodies that are harder to hear.
In short, music is awesome, and it's great to listen to the same song again and hear new things!
I agree with PH, 90% of that post was pointless piss.
I dont really know much about music other than what I like to listen to. I listen to hip hop, metal, rock and about everything I think sounds good. Im an instrumental guy, I rarely listen a lot to the lyrics unless its something really good. Eminem is actually one of the few rappers' lyrics I listen too, but Im mostly into the hip hop genere couse of all the cool beats, Stoup makes a lot of good beats, so do the wu tang clan.
I think weed really enhances the musical experience, I havent smoked in 6 months now but I remember how great it made music
On November 03 2009 22:47 PH wrote: I'm really curious...why did you feel it necessary to link a grip of random musical theory terms into a relatively simple topic? Does it really make you feel that much better? You could have easily made the same point with much less effort and much more modesty/decency, but for whatever reason you absolutely had to take a shockingly elitist route about it.
Your point is valid, but I can't get over the fact that you had to make it in such a dumb way, I'm sorry.
You're being ridiculously oversensitive. I used those terms to enforce what I thought was comical exaggeration. I would have thought the "it doesn't matter if" was more than sufficient to indicate it wasn't neccesary to read each article except as a matter of curiosity.
I'm curious, does using both "ostentatious" and "showy" make you immodest, indecent or a shocking English elitist?
On November 03 2009 22:13 JohnColtrane wrote: aleatoric music sounds very interesting spinfusor, could you recommend any musicians?
The main composers that come to mind would probably be John Cage, Witold Lutoslawski, Pierre Boulez and Karlheinz Stockhausen. Lutoslawski's 'Venetian Games', Cage's 'Concert for Piano and Orchestra' and 'Music of Changes' (all can be found on youtube) were my first experiences, but they're also quite exotic in other ways that might put you off. If you're more lax with the definition, Mozart's dice game composition is a fun thing to play around with.
On November 03 2009 22:47 PH wrote: I'm really curious...why did you feel it necessary to link a grip of random musical theory terms into a relatively simple topic? Does it really make you feel that much better? You could have easily made the same point with much less effort and much more modesty/decency, but for whatever reason you absolutely had to take a shockingly elitist route about it.
Your point is valid, but I can't get over the fact that you had to make it in such a dumb way, I'm sorry.
You're being ridiculously oversensitive. I used those terms to enforce what I thought was comical exaggeration. I would have thought the "it doesn't matter if" was more than sufficient to indicate it wasn't neccesary to read each article except as a matter of curiosity.
I'm curious, does using both "ostentatious" and "showy" make you immodest, indecent or a shocking English elitist?
If you were trying to be funny, it didn't work out. No one's laughing.
Saying "using both 'ostentatious and 'showy'" makes you bad at English.
Being ostentatious and showy makes you immodest. Being a musical elitist makes you indecent and immodest. You're not an English elitist. You apparently don't have a strong enough grasp of the language to pass that off.
how involved i am with a particular song depends on my mood; sometimes the lyrics will really stand out for me, and i'll focus on them and the vocals. other times the instruments do it for me, and i focus on them. then there's a mix of both, but generally the vocals tend to blend into the music for me and it feels like another instrument.
when i was younger i didn't listen too much music, and usually ignored the lyrics/vocals. than i went completely the other way after listening too a lot of music, and became obsessive over the lyrics. at one point i had a huge folder of lyrics, every band that had lyrics, i put into it. broke down by band, with their albums.
On November 03 2009 22:47 PH wrote: I'm really curious...why did you feel it necessary to link a grip of random musical theory terms into a relatively simple topic? Does it really make you feel that much better? You could have easily made the same point with much less effort and much more modesty/decency, but for whatever reason you absolutely had to take a shockingly elitist route about it.
Your point is valid, but I can't get over the fact that you had to make it in such a dumb way, I'm sorry.
You're being ridiculously oversensitive. I used those terms to enforce what I thought was comical exaggeration. I would have thought the "it doesn't matter if" was more than sufficient to indicate it wasn't neccesary to read each article except as a matter of curiosity.
I'm curious, does using both "ostentatious" and "showy" make you immodest, indecent or a shocking English elitist?
If you were trying to be funny, it didn't work out. No one's laughing.
Saying "using both 'ostentatious and 'showy'" makes you bad at English.
Being ostentatious and showy makes you immodest. Being a musical elitist makes you indecent and immodest. You're not an English elitist. You apparently don't have a strong enough grasp of the language to pass that off.
This is really just a farce.
If you want to screw up your own blog, fine I'll address this post if you insist on continuing to make specious attacks on me.
spinfusor, PH just thinks you went a bit over the top in listing all those different styles of composition. He thought you could have said it without so many examples and just the main point.
On November 03 2009 22:11 EchOne wrote: Aesop Rock is well known in underground hip hip; I'm sure PH and others will discover him if they undertake the journey.
Hip hop was one of the first genres I began listening to as a child along with classical, new age, and metal. Coming from a piano background, I found vocals in most music to be absolutely fascinating as they were new and mysterious to me. I have paid close attention to any and all lyrics ever since. Lyrics will make or break a song for me. However I admit I don't analyze the technical aspects of most music. I only know one person in real life who analyzes... everything. He is a music major and a true audiophile.
Aesop Rock is too good, I've been listening to his stuff for so long I actually remember a lot of the songs. And this is hard to do with aesop.
On November 04 2009 11:42 JohnColtrane wrote: spinfusor, PH just thinks you went a bit over the top in listing all those different styles of composition. He thought you could have said it without so many examples and just the main point.
Certainly I can accept that point. I don't care to be wildly accused of elitism, indecency etc however.
Though I'll explain why used all those terms: Serial = difficult melodically and harmonically Polyrhythmic = difficult and complex rhythmically Aleatoric = difficult to comprehend in formal terms Klangfarbenmelodie style = diverse with respect to tone color Fugue = complicated texturally
Idk, I mean the music that I listen to most is metal, but some of my favorite drummers play in genre's that I don't really like. Idk how to explain it.
i try my hardest to listen to the sound of the bass
It became a habit because like a lot of people i talk to music with or just what people say on the internet they always say like how the bassiest is the core of a band without it you cant have a band and i can never hear it. And being insecure i started after that trying to listen only to the bass in like all the songs.
Depends on what type of music it is and in what situation. But in general I tend to analyze and dissect as much as possible. Probably due to the fact that I have studied music for three years.
On November 04 2009 12:57 Ilikestarcraft wrote: when i listen to metal
i try my hardest to listen to the sound of the bass
It became a habit because like a lot of people i talk to music with or just what people say on the internet they always say like how the bassiest is the core of a band without it you cant have a band and i can never hear it. And being insecure i started after that trying to listen only to the bass in like all the songs.
i think they mean the rhythm section is the core of the band, which i agree. if you have someone playing a lead part, and the comper switches the chords hes playing or the bassist outlines different notes, it sounds wildly different
if you are trying to listen to bass guitar maybe metal isn't the ideal choice
On November 04 2009 12:57 Ilikestarcraft wrote: when i listen to metal
i try my hardest to listen to the sound of the bass
It became a habit because like a lot of people i talk to music with or just what people say on the internet they always say like how the bassiest is the core of a band without it you cant have a band and i can never hear it. And being insecure i started after that trying to listen only to the bass in like all the songs.
i think they mean the rhythm section is the core of the band, which i agree. if you have someone playing a lead part, and the comper switches the chords hes playing or the bassist outlines different notes, it sounds wildly different
if you are trying to listen to bass guitar maybe metal isn't the ideal choice
On November 04 2009 12:57 Ilikestarcraft wrote: when i listen to metal
i try my hardest to listen to the sound of the bass
It became a habit because like a lot of people i talk to music with or just what people say on the internet they always say like how the bassiest is the core of a band without it you cant have a band and i can never hear it. And being insecure i started after that trying to listen only to the bass in like all the songs.
It took me such a long time to be able to pick the bass out of metal songs... ):
And didn't you tell me Opeth was one of your favorite bands??
Actually, I recall having a discussion with you, JohnColtrane, about why Opeth was rather mediocre sometime last year...haha. I think it was on a blog I put up after seeing them live.
On November 04 2009 12:57 Ilikestarcraft wrote: when i listen to metal
i try my hardest to listen to the sound of the bass
It became a habit because like a lot of people i talk to music with or just what people say on the internet they always say like how the bassiest is the core of a band without it you cant have a band and i can never hear it. And being insecure i started after that trying to listen only to the bass in like all the songs.
It took me such a long time to be able to pick the bass out of metal songs... ):
And didn't you tell me Opeth was one of your favorite bands??
havent listened to their recent stuff but yeah i really like them
On November 05 2009 01:39 koreasilver wrote: lol Opeth is overrated as fuck.
I hear its popular to say this these days, but I dont really understand why, a lot of their compositions are insane, and before someone starts talking about John Petrucci and Dream Theater, sure the guy knows how to play, but the music sounds like an endless stream of piss to me.
There is nothing wrong with good-natured, "naive" appreciation of music at the aesthetic level. Of course, people like to claim that they know much about music...when they really don't. That is more annoying, but forgivable. What is truly annoying is when they take a rubbish piece of music (really most non-classical stuff falls under this category unfortunately) and assume stubborn and entirely misguided elitism -- that their trash is less rubbish than other trash.
Another thing that is annoying: when someone claims that everything is subjective and there is no good music or bad music, just different musical tastes. How laughable.
I'm actually the same way with lyrics. I don't really pay attention to them at all, and don't consider them that important in general until later when I know that I like the music. The stuff that always appeals to me most is how dynamic/inventive a band can make a song while keeping it still pleasing to the ear and staying catchy. That and just sheer technical skill of the musicians, like guitar/bass/drum complexity in solos and stuff. I don't mind screaming/growling vocals at all because just like you I also consider it just another layer of the music, and if it fits well, then that's fine with me.
On November 05 2009 01:39 koreasilver wrote: lol Opeth is overrated as fuck.
I hear its popular to say this these days, but I dont really understand why, a lot of their compositions are insane, and before someone starts talking about John Petrucci and Dream Theater, sure the guy knows how to play, but the music sounds like an endless stream of piss to me.
Its all personal opinions though.
Oh god by all means Opeth is much better than Dream Theater, but I really don't think Opeth is some kind of band from the heavens like a lot of Opeth fans seem to think.
On November 06 2009 05:01 phosphorylation wrote: There is nothing wrong with good-natured, "naive" appreciation of music at the aesthetic level. Of course, people like to claim that they know much about music...when they really don't. That is more annoying, but forgivable. What is truly annoying is when they take a rubbish piece of music (really most non-classical stuff falls under this category unfortunately) and assume stubborn and entirely misguided elitism -- that their trash is less rubbish than other trash.
Another thing that is annoying: when someone claims that everything is subjective and there is no good music or bad music, just different musical tastes. How laughable.
On November 06 2009 06:43 sumi wrote: I'm actually the same way with lyrics. I don't really pay attention to them at all, and don't consider them that important in general until later when I know that I like the music. The stuff that always appeals to me most is how dynamic/inventive a band can make a song while keeping it still pleasing to the ear and staying catchy. That and just sheer technical skill of the musicians, like guitar/bass/drum complexity in solos and stuff. I don't mind screaming/growling vocals at all because just like you I also consider it just another layer of the music, and if it fits well, then that's fine with me.
Actually it's not so much that I don't consider lyrics important, I just can't stand bad ones. Rock and metal in general have such shitty lyrics that I've pretty much stopped caring. I have MUCH respect for bands that have good or great lyrics, but just try to let it go when a band doesn't.
On November 05 2009 01:39 koreasilver wrote: lol Opeth is overrated as fuck.
I hear its popular to say this these days, but I dont really understand why, a lot of their compositions are insane, and before someone starts talking about John Petrucci and Dream Theater, sure the guy knows how to play, but the music sounds like an endless stream of piss to me.
Its all personal opinions though.
Oh god by all means Opeth is much better than Dream Theater, but I really don't think Opeth is some kind of band from the heavens like a lot of Opeth fans seem to think.
I wouldn't go so far as to say that...then again, I don't really get why people put so much personal stock into their musical tastes that they get offended when one of their favorite bands is offended...
I listen to it awesomely. Also, at first I'm drawn in by how good the actual music is put together. After that lyrics are important to me, but I can listen to shitty lyrics if the music is put together really well.
On November 07 2009 11:16 JohnColtrane wrote: listening to classical music is like watching a bus crash
bach had no swing
Can you explain your analogy? I totally don't get it... O.O
swing, its a jazz/blues whatever rhythm. the first note is augmented whilst the 2nd is diminished. its got a bouncy kind of sound, youll know it when you hear it, just listen to any jazz (real jazz, not fusion) and youll know what it is
this is huge disrespect these are the forefathers of music as we know it without them, there is no jazz or ...anything (besides world music)
"one of the better at harmony"? that is a very ignorant statement bach is known for polyphony and contrapuntal complexity (as well as structural concerns among other many things)..certainly harmony wasn't one of his main concerns; his music is more concerned about, to put it in words you will understand, "horizontal lines" as opposed to the "vertical fabric"
looking for those who are "one of the better at harmony"? look into bruckner, mahler, schoenberg etc (much of the late romantics) they will make your most complex jazz harmonic concoctions look like child's play
overall, i must say i am thoroughly disappointed by someone who so proudly dons the name of a good jazz musician
classical musicians will earn johncoltrane's respect when he hears nice altered harmony and tritone subs. oh also, when classical learns how to be emotive. contrapuntal and structural complexity does not make grooving music
overall i must say, i dont really care what you think of me or john coltrane
few fatal flaws there you say classical music will earn your respect when you hear these specific techniques (altered harmony, tritone subs.) and then you follow it up by pointing out that techniques used by the classical medium -- which happen to be even more general than the ones you mentioned -- do not "make grooving music" a pretty ridiculous bias is present
addendum: i will provide you with classical counterparts of your aforementioned technqiues that is, oh so, unique to jazz altered chords: LOL this shit has been done way back in the 18th century augmented 6ths, neopolitan chord, german sixth, french sixth, italian sixth etc all used to sublime effect, in music of classical and, more prominently, romantic era
tritone subs: this is just the italian sixth loll
all of these techniques have been used to great effect by none other than wolfie mozart (talking 18th century here); in no way, however, was he the pioneer of harmonic language -- this implies it was in use even earlier
of course, the context in which these techniques are used may be different in jazz, but.... i think i dismantled your argument pretty bad
because it is superior and ultimate (so far) music
are you looking for musical titillation without any substance? then you are better off with the top 40 rubbish that is on the radio
of course, i also believe classical trumps other music even in the purely aesthetic sense listen to the rachmaninoff concerto 3 with some concentration (in full) and tell me you did not feel anything
On November 10 2009 19:49 phosphorylation wrote: because it is superior and ultimate (so far) music
are you looking for musical titillation without any substance? then you are better off with the top 40 rubbish that is on the radio
of course, i also believe classical trumps other music even in the purely aesthetic sense listen to the rachmaninoff concerto 3 with some concentration (in full) and tell me you did not feel anything
i felt like suicide
superior lol? give me blues all day before you give me sleep inducing classical
i dont see how you think classical trumps the blues. the blues is all about emotion. classical music is unfeeling and lame
the piece is 40 minutes long, friend i posted that 4 minutes ago... your attention span seems bit short
ok, i overestimated your intelligence you are truly hopeless (or trolling) you definitely lost a slight bit of credibility when you made ridiculous generalizations like "blues is all about emotion" and "classical is unfeeling and lame" "unfeeling and lame" are as opposite of a description as i can think of to characterize music of chopin, schumann, brahms, mahler, bruckner etc etc (these romantic masters defined emotion in music)
Richard Feynman commented on a walk he took with one of his artistic friends. The artist was trying to tell him that he wasn't able to see the trees and colors for what they are because he didn't study in the arts like the artist had. Feynman countered by saying that he could see more than the artist could not because of what he saw, but because he knew the structure, and mechanics of the trees.
In one corner you have the folk music of Bob Dylan preaching about the life of his time, while using standard chord progression, and in the other you have Rachmaninoff's 2nd piano concerto conveying the depression he fell into while he created it. It's like comparing to emotions to each other and claiming one is superior.
If you don't have a favorable song in every genre, your probably doing something wrong.
EPT
