What do you listen for in music?

ditton said:
I think that you meant " you listen [for] rhythm when classical music doesn't have it [...] in the repetive way that pop does"

There is rarely a simple rhythm in anything but the most mindless of pop. Its the complexity of the cross-rhythms that delights.
Click to expand...
You've summed up what I wanted to say far better than I did:D. Yes I was referring to "simple" rhythms, eg percussions.
 
Rory said:
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.
Click to expand...
Is it illegal to think 99.9% of jazz is total wank?
 
I can't help but here all of the modern reference to 'The Planets' when I here it. I guess that shows what a powerful piece of music it is.
 
Annie Lennox was born near me but I cannot stand her. Just thought I'd say in case anyone thought I did like her.
 
I live in Edinburgh, so lots of very fine people were born near me: its just that I don't know all their names.

Saw one of the Proclaimers (who were born near one another in Leith - I think) in local Safeways. Apparently he had walked a long way.
 
The Devil said:
Is it illegal to think 99.9% of jazz is total wank?
Click to expand...
Not illegal, just stupid. Why can't we ever stay on a thread, :rolleyes: which IIRC was about how we all hear music in different ways.
 
The Devil said:
Is it illegal to think 99.9% of jazz is total wank?
Click to expand...

So, I take it that you don't like it? I have trouble with Techno and a lot of that Korean Oh stuff. And I'm not sure that the fault is entirely mine with Techno but if it makes some people happy then it can't all be too onanorous.
 
Dev, you're right. Stick with the topic ...

Clearly, the 'what do you look for in music" question reveals why we have problems reconciling viewpoints, and we could re-write the question as 'why we cannot be expected to agree':

1. because we look for different things in music
2. because we listen to different music
3. because we listen differently
4. because we use descriptive terms about our preferred music as labels for the differential effect of hifi components/systems
5. because we own different hifi kit, that we have sunk money, time and effort into
6. because we attach different value in the £-per-SoundQuality equation
7 because we have different amounts of dosh, and/or competing demands on that dosh
8. because some just like to argue (no they don't; yes, they do ...)

Personally, I like to find out what others' like, buying new and s/h CDs outside my usual taste range. So-called 'world music' opens the ears, and there is a whole lotta classical and jazz stuff to explore. That all makes new demands on what's important to listen for.
 
Dev said:
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."
Click to expand...
Well, not quite, no, but the way you've used a comma and the words "at least" mean that your qualification is rather weak, ie. that you're giving the impression that you essentially stand by the original statement.

I think the most interesting thing that happens the odd time threads of this nature come up is the negative reaction you get in some quarters. It appears that to some people music is a fragile kind of magic which will stop working if you try to ask too many questions about it - hence the resistance to any kind of analytical understanding of what is going on.

To clarify and expand on my earlier statement, namely that harmony and structure are what makes music interesting, even at the expense of rhythm and melody. It should be obvious that different music appeals in different ways and makes different demands upon the listener. The example of Jupiter which has been brought up here is a case where the irresistible onward rhythmic drive provides a lot of the attraction (and Uranus even more so), and then of course there's the "big tune" in the middle; yet without the exuberant, brightly primary-coloured harmony in the outer sections, or the rich, noble restraint of the harmony in the middle bit, the music would be lost altogether. And when we move forward to Saturn (my favourite of the Planets FWIW), we find another of those streamlined exercises in harmony I was talking about earlier - very little melody to speak of, and simple, slow pounding rhythms for the most part, but the harmonic progression gives an inevitable, inexorable sense of forward motion all the same.

Or to look at it another way, compare the Scissor Sisters' weird version of Comfortably Numb with the Pink Floyd original - very little melody to speak of, and the Bee Gees-esque disco rhythm certainly wasn't there when Waters and co did it, but it's still unmistakably the same song because of the characteristic chord sequence.

There's plenty of visceral, elementally kinetic music where the rhythm assumes a very important role - Bartok would be the exemplary case, though for example a lot of Bach has the same earthy, physical feel to it - but without the harmonic and structural elements the music would have no onward drive or sense of progression.

Edit: oops, hit "submit" before I'd finished :D .
 
Last edited by a moderator:
the music I like usually contains some element of surprise, small (sometimes large) discontinuities, so just when you can predict what come next, you can't.
 
Ok Pete, let me try again.

Lee likes to listen to rhythm and likes Classical and Jazz more than Pop. Yet Pop has a much more obvious rhythm than Classical and Jazz, both of which may often be improvised and without any obviously repetitive pattern. Film soundtracks being one example where the flow of music is contantly changing. So it doesn't have the rhythm in the way that Pop does.
 
Dev said:
Yet Pop has a much more obvious rhythm than Classical and Jazz, both of which may often be improvised and without any obviously repetitive pattern.
Click to expand...
This is the crux of the difficulty I have I think - it's certainly fair to say that the rhythm is typically presented in a more obvious way in pop music (ie it's usually a guy hitting some drums) and also that it's typically more repetitive in that you'll get something like four minutes of exactly the same beat. This is categorically not the same as saying that the rhythm isn't there in classical music, it's just not usually shoved in your face to quite the same extent, and it's more prone to subtle variation. Your position appears to be that somebody who is mainly interested in rhythm will automatically not be interested in classical music; I'd beg to differ, unless by "rhythm" you mean "extended periods of metronomic regularity", and even then you'll find particular classical artists to suit.

Dev said:
Film soundtracks being one example where the flow of music is contantly changing. So it doesn't have the rhythm in the way that Pop does.
Click to expand...
Depends on the soundtrack :) . I'd refer the honourable gentleman to the soundtrack for Being John Malkovich, which includes the Allegro from Bartok's Music for strings, percussion and celeste, one of the most vitally rhythmic movements ever written - and absolutely streets ahead of any pop music I've ever heard in terms of raw energy and physical excitement. Or if you're going to raise the objection that the Bartok wasn't intended as a film score, we could turn to Prokofiev's score for Alexander Nevsky, with the famously fearsome (and poundingly rhythmic) Battle on the Ice scene.
 
PeteH said:
Your position appears to be that somebody who is mainly interested in rhythm will automatically not be interested in classical music; ...
Click to expand...
Not what I'm saying at all. I like some of the music that Lee likes as well, but probably not for the same reason. Where he hears rhythm, I don't. We all hear differently. I just found it interesting that he listens to rhythm and dislikes Pop. I suppose there is rhythm and rhythm. I was hoping for someone to say "ah that's because of x y z", not to be asked if I have a soul or even a pulse:).
 

Latest posts

Back
Top