What do you listen for in music?

[PeteH]

Strange that you listen to rhythm when classical music doesn't have it

:yikes:


I was typing a list of things you could try listening to, but to be honest on the evidence of the above statement I'm not sure if you've got a soul, or a pulse for that matter...

A repetitive rhythm (or perhaps beat is a better word) in pop music makes it appropriate to dance to (assuming one can dance, I can't to save my life).

An awful lot of classical music has its roots in dance of various sorts. In particular, if you listen to music intended for dancing to, you'll find it's mostly not too hard to dance to (ie not the slow movement of Beethoven 9).

I seem to remember Graham N having a damned good stab at [dancing to Beethoven 9]

IIRC it was Wagner who famously described Beethoven 7 as "the apotheosis of the dance" and allegedly attempted to dance the whole thing at a party once .

On the subject of the thread: in most cases it's harmony and structure that make music interesting in the first instance, and even melody and rhythm are often not so important by comparison sometimes (hence there's lots of wonderful music written without much melodic or rhythmic interest - the first movement of the Moonlight Sonata springs to mind off the top of my head).

 

[lhatkins]

ya it depends of the mood, but with fast rock, pop, dance, trance, I like to hear rhythm , deep bass, clear vocals, but its not just about listening, I think you have to "feel" it too, (probably doesn't make sense) like through your feet or chest, a good punchy rhythm always gets me going.
But then when I need to "chill" and put the slower stuff on, again I like to hear and feel the lower notes but calmer, again good detailed vocals and instruments.

 

[Dev]

Guys, if you are going to quote me, at least use the whole sentence, :grrr: like Bub did.

"Strange that you listen to rhythm when classical music doesn't have it." is not the same as "Strange that you listen to rhythm when classical music doesn't have it, at least in the repetitive way that pop does." I obviously meant rhythm in a more literal sense.

I admit it didn't quite come out the way I intended but...

BTW, can I use the "my first language is not English" excuse?

 

[The Devil]

Rhythm is repetitive, otherwise it's not rhythm.

I suggest you should listen to some 'classical' music. Address any rhythm-related enquiries to the guy at the front waving his arms about.

 

[bottleneck]

In jazz, they say you should listen to the silence between notes.

I listen to the silence in between notes.

This has become more important in recent weeks, and at the moment I'm listening to a long silence that's gone on for several weeks.

Deep man.

 

[ditton]

as with theatre, the listener brings something to the party, so those periods of silence are filled ...

 

[The Devil]

In the case of jazz, the spaces are filled with: "zzzzzzzz" .... "zzzzzzzzz" ....

 

[LiloLee]

If your not going to listen to the words then your not gonna dig Dylan (e.g.)

You're not wrong there. I never did get Dylan and all people kept saying is 'Listen to the words' and all I kept saying is 'I might if they get a singer to sing them'. His voice has no qualities that appeal to me. I'm sure I came across a list of Dylan song which are better by other people and somebody wrote ' Any that have have been performed by other people' and that is how I feel.
Mind you I am a huge Yes fan and love how Jon Andersons voice fits with the music. The words are utter nonsense though.

if your only going to listen for rhythm then you'll miss out on other things, experimental electronic stuff which just uses 'pretty' sounds to make the music for example, if your just listening for certain instruments you'll miss out on other types of music that don't use them.

And this is the strange thing. I do listen to 'bleep' music, going back to early Eno, Riley and a some 20th Century composers, so maybe it's more the flow of the music than the rhythm.
Also Fusion probably takes up the largest percentage of my collection, and that genre is know for it odd time signatures.
I'll still say that I find long exposure to the likes of Stravinsky, Tchikovsky, Wagner sleep inducing

 

[wadia-miester]

In the case of jazz, the spaces are filled with: "zzzzzzzz" .... "zzzzzzzzz" ....

James,

Sadly with that statement, you will never be a fully paid up member of the Music snobbery society Sir

 

[merlin]

Address any rhythm-related enquiries to the guy at the front waving his arms about.

I think that might be the first time I have physically laughed whilst looking on the internet. Well done that man. Class.

 

[Rory]

Dev, do you regard minimalist music as classical or popular? I'm talking Philip Glass, Steve Reich here


Music is extremely subjective. I don't think putting people's choices of music down is very constructive

 

[Anex]

I hadn't really noticed anyone putting peoples choice of music down?

 

[titian]

Whatever the music I tended to go for the rhythm of it, whilst Titian went for the melody.

Based on the few examples we discussed about, you are right.
I think my way of listening to music is far more complicated then just listening to a melody. When I hear a piece of music for the first time, yes, I try to identify the melody. Further on I start to hear what each (or group) player plays, then the combination (harmony between them).
With music I know well (classical) I also get aware of the expression how each player plays.
At last when I know all these "variables" and hear the piece again, it is quite a lottery to know what exactly I listen to. This depends very probably on my mood at that time.
It just could be the power of the orchestra which involves me, for example.

But yes I must admit if there isn't any melody, I wouldn't listen to that music for a long time.

 

[Dev]

I hadn't really noticed anyone putting peoples choice of music down?

I think Rory is referring to one of Bub's posts about Jazz. I certainly did not intend to knock classical music as I like it. I guess I don't hear a regular/repetitive pattern in the sort of classical music I listen to. It may have it but I don't hear it as repetitive or "rhythmic". A lot of the Indian classical music for example is improvised. Like western classical music it builds up and has a climax (or several) but does it have a rhythm? Another examples where I don't "see" a rhythm is film sound tracks (eg Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, Gladiator etc.).

Anyway I hope you guys realise I wasn't taking the wee wee.

 

[Dev]

Dev, do you regard minimalist music as classical or popular? I'm talking Philip Glass, Steve Reich here

It can be either IMV.

Music is extremely subjective. I don't think putting people's choices of music down is very constructive

Agreed.

 

[ditton]

Our music tastes and collections differ widely, but I would guess that one work in most people's collection is The Planets by Holst. I've just been listening to Jupiter (Rattle/Philharmonia/HMV).

What do you listen for in that piece of music?

 

[Dev]

Energy and emotion (or should that be emotional energy), the dynamics, scale?

 

[Rory]

Our music tastes and collections differ widely, but I would guess that one work in most people's collection is The Planets by Holst. I've just been listening to Jupiter (Rattle/Philharmonia/HMV).

What do you listen for in that piece of music?

well in Mars especially there is a huge dynamic range ...the series as a whole is, as Dev says, full of energy. Great work

 

[Rory]

I think Rory is referring to one of Bub's posts about Jazz.

I was, and I was also hoping not really to name names per sé. He only said 'jazz' too, which is tarring Ragtime, Fusion, Traditional and Contemporary jazz as well as elements of soul and the early r & b with the same brush.

 

[johnhunt]

lee

i know that from what i want/get from music has travelled a long way over the last 20 years or so. up until say 10 years ago the expressiveness of a human voice had been the thing that realy did it for me. these days i'm less reliant, maybe i've met too many of them

John