IME people who know about music in a technical sense often have quite poor taste in an aesthetic sense (huge generalisation, I know). -- Ian
Absolutely, but I personally think considering how the piece creates its emotional impact or why it 'simply rocks' is an interesting and worthwhile question - there's not likely to be an answer any time soon AFAIK as to the fundamental question of 'why music is enjoyable', but you can begin to understand how particular moods are created or how particular effects work, that sort of thing. You can then also begin to make an enlightened comparison between different pieces of music, which puts you in the position of being able to make a more informed value judgement (which was how this branch of the discussion began). That's interesting. FWIW I'd say a technical understanding probably doesn't actually affect your musical taste much, with the proviso that it might make you a bit more receptive to 'difficult' music (whatever that may mean) and a bit less tolerant of music devoid of any technical merit. It probably makes you enjoy music more overall too, because it doesn't detract any from the 'instinctive' response to music, but perhaps allows you to appreciate music on another level as well and at the same time; and it would allow you to begin to understand and appreciate said 'instinctive' response to a greater degree. And of course, anyone motivated and capable enough to acquire said skills is likely to possess a fairly heightened aesthetic awareness in the first place. It is of course the case that we're talking about two separate things here: technical knowledge and understanding of music, which in principle could be applied only to notes on a page, and the related but different skill which musicians call 'a good ear', which boils down to the ability to apply one's technical knowledge to music heard rather than read. Sorry to drag the thread off topic BTW
I know plenty of musicians who fetishise technical virtuosity over creative imagination, oftentimes that applies to what they listen to as much as what they themselves play... I wonder where RdS is, he always used to jump in at this point. -- Ian
A technical understanding of how music works is an issue entirely separate from being a virtuoso-fancier though - the former is an appreciation of how a piece of music fits together and creates its effect, and the latter is simply admiration of a performer's dexterity. The one neither implies nor prescribes the other. I'm not sure what 'virtuoso composition' would be or if there's anyone who fetishises that particularly - perhaps the music of the really flamboyant orchestrators would qualify, like Resp*ghi or B*rlioz? (names censored as it's the "pop" forum ) Is RdS aware of the existence of the pop forum BTW?
True, it's a purely empirical observation on my part. I might add that, the worse the musician, the more likely they are to listen to muso noodling of the worst kind. I'll have to come up with a theory to explain it. Good point! -- Ian
some great arguements and data I'd love to know what those original 25 songs were that were narrowed down. It would be very contentious I'm sure. I often get called a music snob when I criticise Robbie Williams - to my eyes on stage he is an egotistical ponce, and Im convinced his stage antics and bad-boy image are as much a part of his appeal as his music. 'The best song' is a silly concept though isnt it?? - I mean what a silly question. The topic of musicianship changing/altering perspective on music is interesting too I think... WM likes to listen out for the drums in particular, I like to listen out for the guitars.. yet in rock, I'd say WM is a bigger fan of the virtuoso guitarist - the likes of joe satriani. I dont know if that means anything at all really. On the otherhand we have RDS who (I think) listens to lots of organ music and plays the Organ. I cant see any relationship there sometimes.. I definately dont think being able to play an instrument (badly in my case) gives me any better appreciation of music. I think listening to a diverse selection of music is more likely to give you that - which is why personally for me the opinions of people like SCIDB (soul/funk), Sideshowbob (jazz), Grahamn (classical)... each to their own though. NB I just asked my five year old son what band he likes ''Busted" I then asked what band he doesnt like ''the cheeky girls'' I then said why do you like Busted more? "because they are cool and funny, and the cheeky girls are yukky" puts it in context!
And did you see that docu on Channel 4 about him - bad boy ? More sad little boy - I wonder how much this guys image is down to being what his advisers tell him ??? I'm sure in real life he may well be a decent bloke but when a camera points at him.... I particularly dislike pop music and feel it's getting worse all the time but think I have a fairly diverse taste in music - indie/alt/classical/blues/jazz/rock and even the odd pounding dance album - I own all 3 Basement Jaxx albums and think they are fantastic and thoroughly enjoy DJ Shadows stuff but if I go into a dance music shop feel (and look) competely lost - but if I slag U2 off at work (something I do a lot) I'm told I'm a music snob. I'm sure if I was around in 60's/70's era I'd enjoy pop music a lot more but it is now mainly down to crass commercialism rather then genuine musical talent - at least bands like the Stereophonics write and play their music - and can do it live as well.
Au contraire, a traditional Civil Service definition of a *very* clever person is one who can "ring fence" and NOT descend into some shadowy state of Hamlet-like indecision. Think O'Brian. I'm with Ian on musicianly taste. Best not to go there ;-)
Depends on the instrument and the music. In the classical field it's possible to develop a very intimate, very powerful relationship with a piece of music through playing it which is near-impossible to achieve in any other way - literally knowing it inside out, in a sense living the work at least for a short time. With difficult-to-approach and emotionally very complex music, one's understanding often benefits immeasurably IME from the rehearsal process of unravelling it and figuring out how all the strands fit together. Very visceral, physical music (Bartok springs to mind) often just needs to be felt to be really appreciated properly, and I mean through playing it rather than just turning the volume up. There's also quite a lot of music which is just much more enjoyable for players than for listeners IMO - there's a fair amount of chamber music in particular which falls into this category, such as the likes of classical-era string quartets IME, and I'm told that much the same holds for free jazz and a lot of keyboard music (RdS take a bow ). If you're listening to these kinds of "players' music" as one who really knows what it's like to play, that helps you identify with the performers you're listening to and adds enormously to the experience, again IMO. Vaguely on topic ( ), I'd say that I was quite a severe musical snob ten years ago or so, but since discovering Radiohead I've found that there's actually some pretty good stuff in the "pop" domain and my CD collection now stands at about 3% non-classical. Jazz I intend to work out some day BTW, but it hasn't happened yet.
Jazz is hard work I find. I keep trying to buy stuff, but I don't know what to get. I've thought we ought to start up a recomended list of recording people could buy, perhaps taking note of special offers on at places like Amazon and MDT. When Cookie recomended Rhythm and Blues I bought that and loved it. Trouble was I bought some others that were on special offer and they were nowhere near as good!
Interesting I don't think music necessarily has to be technical, mathmatical, or any of that to be good on the first place. Never mind does the listener have to be able to understand it on that level. Good music is good music regardless. Saying that, part of what makes good/great music that, can be these things. Experience of having heard a lot of music, and also an understanding of what's being done with the instruments, can make the music MOre *rewarding* IMO. However, I think it's also possible to just appreciate music, rather than truly enjoying it. For example, with some guitar music especially, I'll be able to appreciate that it might be technically very good, or clever. But that doesn't mean it'll necessarily be a good song to me. Also, I think a lot of our impressions of music can be from experiencing it live. In particular I'd think this is true with jazz, where there's often a lot of improvising going on. Seeing how players react and take leads off each other. Having an understanding of what's going on can help as you can't see this when you're just listening. But you'll be better able to get what's going on.
Hi Chris, Here are the 25 songs. 'The Best Song Award' shortlist: * 'Heroes' - David Bowie * 'We Are The Champions' - Queen * 'Wuthering Heights' - Kate Bush * 'Night Fever' - Bee Gees * 'London Calling' - The Clash * 'Love Will Tear Us Apart' - Joy Division * 'That's Entertainment' - The Jam * 'I Don't Want To Talk About It' - Rod Stewart * 'Look of Love' - ABC * 'Golden Brown' - The Stranglers * 'True' - Spandau Ballet * 'Careless Whisper' - George Michael * 'Holding Back The Years' - Simply Red * 'Sledgehammer' - Peter Gabriel * 'Sacrifice' - Elton John * 'Unfinished Sympathy' - Massive Attack * 'Why' - Annie Lennox * 'Fields of Gold' - Sting * 'Kiss From A Rose' - Seal * 'Wonderwall' - Oasis * 'Angels' - Robbie Williams * 'Yellow' - Coldplay * 'Babylon' - David Gray * 'Leave Right Now' - Will Young * 'Dry Your Eyes' - The Streets The last five were BRITs25: The Best Song Award Joy Division - Love Will Tear Us Apart Kate Bush - Wuthering Heights Queen - We Are The Champions Robbie Williams - Angels Will Young - Leave Right Now SCIDB
...and an understanding of what's being done with the notes and how they relate to each other. Personally I find that music written with some kind of mathematical 'code' or whatever in mind often doesn't really make a lot of sense when you listen to it - conversely, often the most satisfying music of all is that which has layers of complexity which aren't necessarily immediately apparent, with the consequence that you get hooked initially then keep discovering new things. A lot of the standard musical theory about harmony and structure is basically a description of what people have tended to find usually works well, and there's no great mystery to it, but IMO it could often add a lot to the pleasure you get from a piece of music if you can appreciate to some extent, for example, just how elegantly and economically it achieves its effect. Absolutely, and instrument-torturing for its own sake, or rather that of the ego of the player, is often impressive in a sense but still just downright annoying (again if you play the same instrument yourself you might identify more with what's going on here). There are also a few pieces of music which I admire in some way but don't actually like much (Beethoven's Missa Solemnis springs to mind here). That's a very good point - seeing a good group playing off each other like that is really great . You sometimes get a similar effect with a really good string quartet, albeit arguably to a lesser extent because they're not actually improvising as such, just taking inspiration from each other on the fly.
Try jazz record requests on radio 3 Sat afternoons, been listening to it of and on since I was at school. Generally 'straight ahead' stuff (ie a bit real ale for some here I suspect) details here Jazz file after it can also be very good. They did a series recently on Coleman Hawkins, personal bias here as he is my all time favourite sax player, but I think it's fair to say that he was the man who had the biggest impact on the sound of the tenor in the 20th century; and to return to topic at hand, a lot of very fine jazz happened before 1960 that doesn't have the cachet of be-bop and so gets less of an airing. Moving on, hearing things live also makes a huge difference. Have heard (and enjoyed) Cecil Taylor live (twice) but have no desire to listen to him at home. Went to a string quartet recital this week and enjoyed Szymanowski and Ligeti niether of which have made sense previously but within the interaction of live players were wonderful. I have very little understanding of what any of the above were up to, but am more than happy that they were.
On the subject of musicianly taste, I've found (almost in agreement with SideshowBob) that when a player reaches a certain level of competence they start to appreciate music only for its technical virtuosity. Check out the universal worship of Joe Satriani et al on internet guitar fora! But when, or if, that level is passed and the viruosity doesn't seem quite so out of reach, the player may like a wider spread of music, simply because it sounds like good music to them, rather than the maximum number of notes in the shortest possible time period.. It's not always true, however! My mother was a concert pianist, and has taught for nearly 50 years, but as far as she's concerned amplified music, without exception, is rubbish.
Stewarts cover sounds only pale in comparison to Danny Whitten's original. Thanks for the survey, SCIDB.
That top 25 isnt as bad as Id imagined. Classics by the Jam and the Clash. You've got to shake your head in wonder with people like Will Young and The Streets in there though. Also, why have Sting instead of the Police? The Police had more varied output I felt. Lots of huge ommissions IMHO. Perhaps we should make our own Zerogain top 25 and have a poll!!
Woah there, don't knock the streets. The guy is fantastic. Well produced too. Not my favourite track by a long way though. Agree on sting, police were miles better.
Agreed on The Streets. Mike Skinner's a brilliant lyricist. I'd take The Streets over most of the rest of that list any day. -- Ian
