What do you listen for in music?

Well, I must have misunderstood you then. Here are the salient points from earlier in the thread:

So LiloLee is principally interested in rhythm. And an interest in rhythm in combination with an interest in classical music...

...is something you find surprising. From the fact that you were surprised I inferred (apparently mistakenly) that you believed an interest in rhythm to be incompatible with an interest in classical music; I trust you can see how my misunderstanding arose.

Mainly there's just rhythm - and if you have to ask, you'll never know.

 

In reality I have a hard time listening to classical.

I'm trying to think exactly what it is about various styles that I just can't get into. As I said Baroque I find very straight forward, but put something like 'Rites of String' in front of me and I think it s a confusing mess and my brain shuts down.

And of course what is wierder is that I can listen to avante garde Jazz and Electronica, where neither need have a definate rhythm.

But the moment I latch onto a rhythm my legs are tapping, I pretend to play the bass or drums, I actually have waved my arms trying to put my head in the same place as the conductor to try and feel what he may be doing, and generally I fail.

 

Graham N is a black belt 5th dan at Air conducting, world finialist I believe

 

Is there any other type?

 

Electrical conducting as in cables.

 

Lee, by "definite rhythm", do you mean one that remains more or less constant throughout a piece of music? This is a characteristic of most jazz pieces I would imagine, ditto the individual movements of most baroque pieces. "The Rite of Spring", on the other hand, changes rhythm all the time, a feature that arrived with the romantic movement, with its attempts to capture changing moods and emotions , and to present pictorial concepts in musical terms.

Or do you mean "pronounced rhythm", one that is clearly discernible? Again, this was typical of baroque in the days before conductors - a small group of instruments (organ/harpsichord/cello) would play what was called the "continuo", to anchor the music in rhythmic terms. All Bach's musical direction of his ensembles would have been from the harpsichord. As orchestras grew bigger, this method became more impractical, and a man with a stick was needed. It also allowed for a freer interpretation of rhythm by the man with the stick.

 

I'd suggest it comes back to harmony, would you believe . I find the Rite pretty heavy going too, and I think most people probably do (the audience at the opening night certainly did, famously) - it's simply the lacerating chromatic dissonances which make it difficult to listen to, whereas the (relatively simple) diatonic harmony of Baroque music is much more familiar and 'easier' to Western ears. The Rite certainly isn't short on intensely rhythmic sections - let's not forget it is dance music, after all. As tones says it's fairly fluid on the whole, but I don't really think this is what makes it "difficult" to listen to.

It's precisely the fact that harmony defines music's intrinsic character that makes certain 20th-century music difficult to listen to for many people, myself included. Composers were trying to break away from "traditional", familiar ideas of consonance and diatonic harmony, which produced results that were rather variable and at times downright ugly.

 

Pete
I think you are correct with the harmony thing. I listen to a large amount of Prog Rock and Fusion, both of which are known for their odd and frequently changing time signatures, and yet I don't have anyproblem.
I also find it odd how I am also able to find listening to late 20th century composers easier, and it probably comes down to them not throwing everything includig the kitchen sink in. Of course the like of Reich is obviously very rhytmical.

 

Pete, to avoid confusion, can we replace the term rhythm with any or all of riddim, swing, da funk or groove. And if you have to ask....

 

lee

your ''not throwing the kitchen sink in'', descibes trane and i suppose miles even better.
who care's about rythum - you either like it or you don't.

mrs johnh maintains claud francios moves to a good beat. god bless her .Say beat with a strong sw france accent, translate it and you're there

 

... and I thought I was pushing the envelope with 'texture'!

 

'Texture' does have a useful meaning in music, describing - loosely speaking - "vertical" structure (as opposed to the term "structure", which usually describes horizontal structure ). Texture encompasses orchestration / instrumentation - which instruments are playing, what they're doing, how they relate to each other, that kind of thing. To continue with The Planets by way of example: Mercury is quintessential gossamer-light texture, all flickering, lightly scored arpeggios (see also Mendelssohn); contrast with the dense scoring, heavy brass, organ and pounding ostinatos in Mars.

I don't know what "texture" means as applied to hifi though.

 

Now, some of these terms I can relate to.

 

I'm going to step in and suggest that what Dev is struggling to describe is not rhythm but in fact pulse!, rhythm is really a duration thing how long various notes are, and the patterns made thereof. Pulse is for want of a better description the 'beat.' The way it is pointed out in different genres of music, ie thudded out in rock, subtly twisted in Jazz, or sometimes twisted beyond belief in classical is one of the essential differences between genres.

 

Thank you Richard. In fact in one of my posts above I did say that perhaps beat is a better word to use for what I thought was rhythm. I must admit I never thought of rhythm in the way you've described. I thought rhythm meant a regularly repeated pattern. Some of the Classical music I listen to doesn't have any obvious repeated patterns or they are very complex. Anyway, I'll shut up now to stop myself from digging deeper and deeper. I'm sorry for wasting everyone's time, particularly Lee's who started what I thought was an interesting topic.

 

I listen to different music for different reasons, i love Tori for her melodies and strong lyrics but also enjoy NIN energy and excitement (strange Trent (NIN) has done backing vocals for Tori) I guess they all have to be creative

 

I live to music for that emotive 'being there' experiance, not everyone cup of tea, however it does it for me.

 

"Past the mission behind the battle tower" etc etc (great track!).

Yeah, one hell of an interesting thread; me, I'm VERY MUCH rhythm based, and this is why the majority of classical leaves me bored. Sure, it HAS rhythm, but not usually in the driving forceful way of decent dance or rock.

I listen out for the whole thing (with drums and bass first, since I sort-of play bass). I do listen to lyrics too - but most pop is crap lyrically. The Smiths are one of those interesting bands with good music, groove AND lyrics - the title track from "The queen is dead" is a good example

Anything that progresses and builds usually interests me too - stuff like "in the hall of the mountain king" and a lot of psychadelic trance and some techno - that kind of thing.

Standard cut'n'paste manufactured chart music turns me off blatantly though - as does the "let's sound all twee and whiney in the vocals like everyone else" Keane/Coldplay/Athlete rash of paint-drying tat that's out at the mo.

 

Production/recording is important, some great tracks spoiled by this.

 

?I think I know what you are getting at, but at the risk of being pedantic, should that be:

a) "I look to music ...
b) "I live for music ...
c) "I love music for ...

Personally, I certainly go with (a) & (c) but have not (yet) got to (b).

[buckets of smilies ...]

That brings me back to [the metaphor of] Dick Gaughan's Aran sweater <http://www.galway1.ie/faq/sweater.htm>. I dont look to hifi components/systems to actually materialise the texture of his sweater, nor to manufacture the texture in his voice, but even by the definition of texture offered by PeteH, I do look to music for some quality of texture and to hifi components/systems {and prior to that, to the recording/production} to reveal that - or at least not obscure that.

btw, I appreciate the comments of those who are seemingly more practised, and perhaps more expert, at listening to a wide variety of music, especially that which makes it into the 'classical' category - whereever it first emerged. More please.