How do you know what you're listening to?

[rasputin1963]

I know, a daft question.

 

But I'm serious: when you're listening to the work of an artist who is not yourself or affiliated intimately with you, really listening intently, putting forth all your hearing abilities and talents, how can you tell what's "You" and what's "Them"?

 

Sometimes I'll listen to the choices another band or artiste made, and I think, wow, I wouldn't have done that, but surely it made sense to them in the context of their creativity and their time and place.

 

Then you have to ask yourself: Are they "disobeying" rules (as though any such thing could occur) or is my particular worldview, my ken, my paradigm too limited, tired maybe, and in need of a change?.

 

I remember how Sir George Martin was always amazed with some of the choices the Beatles came up with (especially after their forays into mind-altering substances, but that's another story). Case-in-point: it freaked him out that, in their early hits, they liked to end their songs with a "stinger" chord that was a Maj6 chord... "like Big Band!" Martin mused.....

 

Eventually Martin realized he had some genuinely creative forces in his studio, and--- so wisely-- he gave them a certain amount of free rein.

 

Have YOU had that experience? I mean, of having someone in your studio who was "breaking all the rules" yet somehow "onto something" altogether novel? "Pushing the envelope", as it were?

[Dean Roddey]

I hear it all the time when listening to CDs. A great example that I really love is The Smashing Pumpkin's "Mellon Collie and the Infinite Sadness" album. The production and instrument selection and placement and voicings and so forth are just all over the place and so off the wall sometimes, but it sounds so great. I was also listening to some Zero7 tonight (trip-hop stuff), and again, lots of wierd choices instrumentation and mix, but it's really interesting and engaging and a complex sound scape that really sounds good.

 

Then I find myself continuing to do fairly pedestrian and conventional arrangements. In my defense, I'm just really getting going in this thing of ours, and it makes sense to try to do some convention stuff at first before getting more radical. But I really should stop thinking more in terms of a band playing on a stage and 'really explore the studio space' as they say. We have so many options available to us these days, even in a small studio, that we should take advantage of it.

[rasputin1963]

Thanks, Dean, for those two listening examples. I'm going to now go and give them a listen...

 

 

ras

[slight-return]

hell, it even happens within me on a regular, maybe constant, basis (maybe one of the hazards of being a divergent thinker trained in convergent methods - then again, I'm also right handed, but left eyed, so i'm used to it)

 

In a way, exploration is communication with set U (the universal set, the universe)

[rasputin1963]

 

In a way, exploration is communication with set U (the universal set, the universe)

 

 

Now you've opened the tin of worms, slight: tell us what exactly you mean by this?

[Dean Roddey]

Here's an example I like:

 

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15963472

 

Listen to Avalanche by Thea Gilmore on this page. It's all very low fi stuff, that I'd really have a hard time doing myself because I would be too uptight about the technical sound quality. But it sounds really great. The drums are these little el-cheapo drum machine sounding things, and the arrangement is very sparse. But if you listen to it on a nice system, it's a really beautiful soundscape spread out widely in front of you. This WMA version linked to above doesn't really do it full justice.

 

I'd like to do more stuff in this sort of vein, and it really proves that it's the song, stupid. Technical sophistication comes a distance second (though I do want to be technically sophisticated as well if I want to be.)

[slight-return]

 

Now you've opened the tin of worms, slight: tell us what exactly you mean by this?

 

 

pretty much what it says

 

that's a funny think - one quetionI always thought was strange in grade/high school - the lit teacher that woul ask aout a poem "what does the author mean... I would always think "exactly what he said, if there wre a more accurate way of expressing it, the author would have said that"

[Lee Knight]

...when you're listening to the work of an artist who is not yourself or affiliated intimately with you, really listening intently, putting forth all your hearing abilities and talents, how can you tell what's "You" and what's "Them"?

 

What's you and what's them. Are you refering to "you" getting in the way of your enjoyment of "thier" art?

 

Sometimes I'll listen to the choices another band or artiste made, and I think, wow, I wouldn't have done that, but surely it made sense to them in the context of their creativity and their time and place.

 

These are choices you don't like? Or are they choices they made that you like but would've never chose them yourself due to them being too outside? So you question your safe outlook? This applies to me for sure.

 

Then you have to ask yourself: Are they "disobeying" rules (as though any such thing could occur) or is my particular worldview, my ken, my paradigm too limited, tired maybe, and in need of a change?

 

The question is then, do you like what they're doing? If you do like it, I'm not sure why you (and me) would question your safeness as opposed to embracing what you like and adding it to your own paradigm.

 

I remember how Sir George Martin... ...it freaked him out that, in their early hits, they liked to end their songs with a "stinger" chord that was a Maj6 chord... "like Big Band!"

 

He found a way to make a bridge between his paradigm and theirs. One of his greatly overlooked skills if you ask me.

 

Eventually Martin realized he had some genuinely creative forces in his studio, and--- so wisely-- he gave them a certain amount of free rein.

 

More than likely he was working his paradigm bridging skills overtime. Looking for context. Looking for a way to communicate their brilliance to the world. He was hip. He new about experimental music. He got why distortion could be a beautiful thing. All due to his ability to see their paradigm and have it bridge to his.

 

Have YOU had that experience? I mean, of having someone in your studio who was "breaking all the rules" yet somehow "onto something" altogether novel? "Pushing the envelope", as it were?

 

Yes I have. The leader and songwriter of the band Manganista. They've done 2 albums with me. Every time I question a choice of his, 1 of 2 things happens. Either he gives me insight that helps me "bridge paradigms" or... he says, "I'm not sure what I was thinking. Let's scrap that."

 

Great question Ras. I had to read it 4 or 5 times to really get what you're saying and I'm still not sure. Have you been hitting the peyote? You're making me think.

[Lee Knight]

And if I don't like their art... I make it a given I don't get it. That's OK. I don't need to understand all art. I'd like to, but there are too many crops bearing fruit right now for me to lament not getting something.

 

Keeping an open mind, and saying I don't get it as opposed to saying "That sucks" makes it a lot more likely the light will be shed on something down the line that today is a mystery.

 

Like this millennium's hip hop for instance... I got Young MC, the Beasties, Flash, but Kanye? Only time will tell for me.

[veracohr]

I don't think I exactly know what the question is.

 

But you can think of it this way--what you're hearing is always you. Human beings do not live objectively. We can force our thinking into objectiveness (or as close as we can get), but our natural state is subjective, and I think that is especially strong when interpreting artistic endeavors.

 

And after saying that, I ask you: does it matter? Does it really matter if your interpretation of a song is close to the intent of the writers? Personally, I like music for the way it makes me feel, the way it makes me think, and the memories and imaginations it brings to mind. If I sat down with the writers of my favorite songs and grilled them about exactly what the song meant to them, it very well may not jive with what it means to me.

 

Does intellectually analyzing art enhance your enjoyment of it? I sort of make a conscious effort not to intellectually analyze art that I like. I think emotional reactions to art are much better than intellectual reactions.

[oldman2]

veracohr said it well !

Does intellectually analyzing art enhance your enjoyment of it? I sort of make a conscious effort not to intellectually analyze art that I like. I think emotional reactions to art are much better than intellectual reactions.

__________________

http://www.veracohr.com

I have to take apart/analyze things all day on my job. With what free time I have , i just want to relax and enjoy. When listening to a song I don't want to know analyze it to death. If the Blues are what I am listening to I just want it to sound good and make me forgit about a tough day.

When I read a book I want to be entertained. I don't give a damn about what the author had for breakfast.

I have to escape sometimes and am too old for the ways I did it in my younger/dumber daze!

Oldman2

[Dean Roddey]

Well, as in all things, moderation is key. It's best to be able to do both. Those who can both connect emotionally with what they are doing and understand it in a deep way intellectually are probably in the best position of all.

[Duddits]

 

Sometimes I'll listen to the choices another band or artiste made, and I think, wow, I wouldn't have done that, but surely it made sense to them in the context of their creativity and their time and place. Then you have to ask yourself: Are they "disobeying" rules (as though any such thing could occur) or is my particular worldview, my ken, my paradigm too limited, tired maybe, and in need of a change?.

 

Limited: yes; tired: maybe; in need of a change: that depends.

 

Limited: it could be that there are rules they understand that you don't, and so from your perspective it appears as though they are breaking them. IMHO most of us are too insulated in our own circumstances to appreciate the vast network of "rules" that guide choices in unfamiliar styles. I would guess that much of what seems like rule breaking is simply unfamiliar rules.

 

tired: If your music sounds tired to you or other people, than becoming either more expert in your own style or broadening your expertise into other styles can make it less tired. What some may call originality may actually be a greater mastery of, rather than a breaking of, the "rules."

 

Not that rule breaking in music shouldn't be encouraged! But IMHO, I think tiredness seeps into music more from lack of mastery than lack of fear.

 

In need of change: if you're happy, then no. If you're not, then yes!

[Duddits]

 

Does intellectually analyzing art enhance your enjoyment of it? I sort of make a conscious effort not to intellectually analyze art that I like. I think emotional reactions to art are much better than intellectual reactions.

 

 

I agree completely that intellectually analyzing art does not enhance your enjoyment of it.

 

However, whether it is a valuable thing to intellectually analyze art depends on whether you are a consumer or a producer of it. If you are a producer, there is nothing more important. If you are a consumer, there is nothing less important.

[Lee Knight]

 

I agree completely that intellectually analyzing art does not enhance your enjoyment of it.

 

 

Really? I don't expect others to intellectualize what they're listening to but for me... it's one of the many levels I listen to music. And yes, for me, hearing Bach and thinking about it, analyzing it even, absolutely furthers my enjoyment of it. Or XTC, or Beefheart or Cat Stevens 70's productions. All things I love even more through thought as well as feeling.

[Duddits]

 

Really? I don't expect others to intellectualize what they're listening to but for me... it's one of the many levels I listen to music. And yes, for me, hearing Bach and thinking about it, analyzing it even, absolutely furthers my enjoyment of it. Or XTC, or Beefheart or Cat Stevens 70's productions. All things I love even more through thought as well as feeling.

 

 

I'm loathe to get drawn into debates on HC other than, say, comparing tuna to chicken, and chicken to liver. I'm always up for that.

 

However, I think the ability for anyone to enhance their listening enjoyment to music through studying it is one of the Big Lies. I don't believe intellectual fortification influences the visceral process of listening. The most well-informed musicwonk and the least-informed musictard both hear the same thing. Being able to simultaneously identify underlying constructs lets educated music listeners pat themselves on the back (and more valuably helps music creators forage for ideas), but it doesn't alter the experience of listening. Everyone hears the same thing.

 

At the same time, I've never understand why so many people who want to create music are reluctant to study it, since there's no better way to get better.

 

[insert obligatory IMHOs as necessary]

[Lee Knight]

I think you've got a perfectly good point. And I won't debate it as I completely agree that internet debates are silly. You're an intelligent cat for sure. Meow to you and yours.

 

But trust me, for me, having analyzed some music, I do get a more intense sense of enjoyment from it. Not through back patting, but through seeing it for more than I first realized it was.

 

And I'd never suggest this is required to fully enjoy a piece of music. But for me, it has happened.

 

Like someone pointing out how the tide is timed and why. Then standing on a cliff looking over the ocean and grasping the beauty of its design... or wonderful accident, and questioning the presence of a god... or not.

[Extreme Mixing]

 

 

 

Some people do hear with much more detail and clarity than others. That's made obvious by the popularity of Brittney and Hillery Duff!!! Wish I could dumb it down a bit, and add some enjoyment to my life.

 

Steve

[Ernest Buckley]

Some of the most interesting stuff I have worked on and created happened because I was just letting the tape roll. With other artists, they were just so out there, it was interesting to work on. Not always good though. Had this girl one time who wanted to combine opera and hip hop. I pulled my hair out trying to get the two ideas to work especially with the opera piece she choose which was the most disturbing piece of music and in 3/4 no less. Aside from that, she had this really heavy German accent that did not go away when she sang in English so you could just imagine. Anyway, it was interesting and off the wall sort of stuff...

 

A mainstream band that I enjoy that always gets me wondering... The Killers. Their stuff is quirky but I enjoy it.

[Lee Knight]

 

Had this girl one time who wanted to combine opera and hip hop.

 

 

Nina Hagen with bling?

[nat whilk II]

Perhaps people analyze music more than they admit to themselves. There's no such thing as a pure perception taken in without any brain processing, comparing, tagging, metaphor-making etc.

 

It's OVERanalysis I would say is the objectionable thing. But it's rather silly to say "you cant get more from music by analyzing" when there are obviously people who get a ton out of their analytical process.

 

Sure there is boring, fruitless, dry, analysis that is to be shunned. But there are also boring, fruitless, dry brains on which the benefits of good analysis are lost....

 

There is no such thing as spontaneous music, for the same reason there is no such thing as spontaneous language.

 

nat whilk ii

[rasputin1963]

Great question Ras. I had to read it 4 or 5 times to really get what you're saying and I'm still not sure. Have you been hitting the peyote? You're making me think.

 

Yes, I was having a hard time articulating my thoughts as well. I wasn't on peyote.

 

But you guys are absolutely getting the jist: Can anyone ever truly listen to a recording objectively? I daresay I am prone to agree with veracohr: No. "It's always you."

[Duddits]

 

But trust me, for me , having analyzed some music, I do get a more intense sense of enjoyment from it. Not through back patting, but through seeing it for more than I first realized it was. And I'd never suggest this is required to fully enjoy a piece of music. But for me, it has happened. Like someone pointing out how the tide is timed and why. Then standing on a cliff looking over the ocean and grasping the beauty of its design... or wonderful accident, and questioning the presence of a god... or not.

 

 

I guess I would argue that intellectual fortification enhances intellectual appreciation. You understand something and you appreciate what you understand. Me too!

 

Where I draw the line, I guess, is distinguishing between intellectual and visceral pleasure. As much as someone can ever learn about the ocean, to use your example, a pleasurable intellectual exercise no doubt, at the moment you view it, it is just as beautiful for you as it is for someone who knows nothing about it. Understanding the science behind the waves may make them more compelling, but no more beautiful. I don't think a scientist looks at a wave and perceives any more visual beauty than would a caveman.

 

Similarly, I would agree that understanding all sorts of things about a work of art can make it all the more compelling. But in that instant when you're actually listening to a piece of music, and your brain is processing it in real time, I'm not sure that all the study in the world can change how you actually hear it. I'm all for studying music, but I honestly don't think anything I've ever studied about music has ever influenced my experience listening to it.

[Duddits]

 

Some people do hear with much more detail and clarity than others. That's made obvious by the popularity of Brittney and Hillery Duff!!! Wish I could dumb it down a bit, and add some enjoyment to my life. Steve

 

 

My music background's pretty intense, but there's some Brittany songs that I love! I don't think you have to dumb it down to appreciate them. Some are pretty good!

[philbo]

Like it or not, but everything anyone hears pass through their particular 'doors of perception'.

 

What I hear depends on the context - not only on what the music-maker expects me to hear, but also on what I'm used to hearing, what I expect to hear, what mood I'm in, what music I've decided I like in the past, what music I've decided I don't like, and maybe a few hundred other less significant factors.

 

Such is the nature of subjective truth...