What makes music 'good' for you?

Setun

How do you recognise 'goodness' in music? Or, when you hear a new collection of sound waves pulsing from your hi-fi speakers and begin to tickle your eardrum, what makes your internal monologue say "this is damn fine music!" and listen, captivated, to the whole track/album from start to finish?

Obviously it's very subjective, I'm just interested to know if people are aware why they listen to the music they listen to, or do they find it's more of a subconscious thing?

I have a tendency to listen to a lot more instrumental music than music with vocals, and I don't really know why, which I find interesting. I also tend to listen to more improvised music and music that is quite different every time it is performed rather than carefully composed music that is constant.
Some of my mates would raise one or sometimes both eyebrows if I played them a piece by Eric Dolphy, for example, and they'd proceed to recommend me Mindless Self Indulgence, for eg, in which case my eyebrow(s) would be very much raised.

I can't quite put my finger on why one type of music can stimulate the mind on such a positive level, where another type is like an aural version of eating faeces. :eek:

Scubadevils

Good question, and one I have been pondering of late too. This book looks very interesting to read up on the subject, picked it up and stupidly put it back the other day in Waterstones -

http://www.amazon.co.uk/This-Your-Brain-Music-Understanding/dp/1843547163/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1217774762&sr=8-1

I must pick it up again during the week. :pac:

HalloweenJack

I just know when I hear a song if I like it or not.

I can't explain.

Setun

Felixdhc wrote: »

Good question, and one I have been pondering of late too. This book looks very interesting to read up on the subject, picked it up and stupidly put it back the other day in Waterstones -

http://www.amazon.co.uk/This-Your-Brain-Music-Understanding/dp/1843547163/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1217774762&sr=8-1

I must pick it up again during the week. :pac:

That book surely looks good, I've seen it in the bookshop where I work and have been meaning to pick it up. This one is great also: http://www.amazon.com/Musicophilia-Tales-Music-Oliver-Sacks/dp/1400040817
One of Dr Sacks' patients in musicophilia is described as experiencing a great interest bordering on obsession for piano music after suffering a stroke that affected the auditory cortex of the brain. Interesting to remember that there's a part of our brain that tells us what we like to listen to.

Rigsby

Daddio wrote: »

How do you recognise 'goodness' in music? Or, when you hear a new collection of sound waves pulsing from your hi-fi speakers and begin to tickle your eardrum, what makes your internal monologue say "this is damn fine music!" and listen, captivated, to the whole track/album from start to finish?

Obviously it's very subjective, I'm just interested to know if people are aware why they listen to the music they listen to, or do they find it's more of a subconscious thing?

I have a tendency to listen to a lot more instrumental music than music with vocals, and I don't really know why, which I find interesting. I also tend to listen to more improvised music and music that is quite different every time it is performed rather than carefully composed music that is constant.
Some of my mates would raise one or sometimes both eyebrows if I played them a piece by Eric Dolphy, for example, and they'd proceed to recommend me Mindless Self Indulgence, for eg, in which case my eyebrow(s) would be very much raised.

I can't quite put my finger on why one type of music can stimulate the mind on such a positive level, where another type is like an aural version of eating faeces. :eek:

I also listen to a lot of instrumental music, mainly jazz/improvised music. One of the reasons I think I like non vocal music (though I'm also a big blues fan) is that the mood or message is left to you to interpret. With vocals the message is there from the start. With jazz it's like a conversation when each musician plays off the other with no one - listener or musician - sometimes knowing what is coming next. It's this feeling of unexpectancy that draws me to jazz, especially free jazz. When two friends go out for a drink and a chat they dont plan what they are going to say, it just happens. One person says something, then the other reacts by answering. The conversation keeps changing with new ideas and topics coming along. To me, jazz is the exact same.

Kold

I don't think I can come up with anything that unifies what I listen to. The hip hop I listen to I'd enjoy for different reasons than the rock and same with the electronic.

I suppose I really like when my music is innovative and intelligent. I like to know that the artist is really passionate about their craft rather than how much money they're going to make. That and grimy grimy filthy bass and broken up beats...

Mr.Nice Guy

Good music is in the ear of the beholder.

Latchy

Good music is not nessacarly popular with the mass's . I never went out and bought a record cuz it was no 1 in the charts .Same with an album or cd .There have being some horrendous no 1 chart records over the years ,and i do know some people who would buy the thing simpley cuz it was no 1 in charts .By the same token if you were to pick your most favorite piece of music that never charted and played it for sombody unfamilier with it ,they might say ' oh that's crap' or ' shyte ' and they would be entitled to their opinion .But should that song make it to no 1, then those same (fickle) people just as i described, will go out and buy it .As if they have to have a charted song to make their minds up what is good, and what's worth buyin .

Maybe it's not like that now

Rigsby

Kold wrote: »

I like to know that the artist is really passionate about their craft rather than how much money they're going to make.

That certainly narrows things down a lot. :pac:

Setun

latchyco wrote: »

Good music is not nessacarly popular with the mass's . I never went out and bought a record cuz it was no 1 in the charts .Same with an album or cd .There have being some horrendous no 1 chart records over the years ,and i do know some people who would buy the thing simpley cuz it was no 1 in charts .By the same token if you were to pick your most favorite piece of music that never charted and played it for sombody unfamilier with it ,they might say ' oh that's crap' or ' shyte ' and they would be entitled to their opinion .But should that song make it to no 1, then those same (fickle) people just as i described, will go out and buy it .As if they have to have a charted song to make their minds up what is good, and what's worth buyin .

Maybe it's not like that now

I'd agree with some of what you're saying, I dislike the vast majority of music that's in the charts at the moment aswell, because to me, it's a mindless product that doesn't suit me. That, and it feels like there's broken glass on my brain when I hear it. :rolleyes: I think that where I find fault with modern manufactured pop is the predictablilty and sameness of each hit. The excitement instead is generated by images of naked gyrating in said popstar's video/album cover.

This thread isn't about what I don't like, which I can be clear about. But when trying to describe how my mood changes - and why it changes - when I listen to Machine Gun by Hendrix, I become stumped. Why have I become attentive all of a sudden? Why am I hanging on every line Hendrix plays? Is it something that is decided in the depths of the auditory cortex of your brain, or is it something that you have a direct decision over? Hmmm...

/And henceforth endeth this rambling post!

St Bill

I like music that has lots of delicate layers in it. Each layer might have their own agenda (so to speak ), but they all manage to merge to make music/a song that always existed and just needed someone to catch it and get it down on paper.

Waffle waffle waffle

John

There is not one objective quality about all the music I enjoy that allows me to say why I want to listen to any of it. There are no styles that I don't enjoy at least some music from and I have no preference for instrumental over vocal over accapella music. It can be fast or slow. It can be loud, quiet or very ****ing loud indeed.

The only thing that links them all is the very subjective quality of taste. For some reason I can listen to some music and thoroughly enjoy it and have another artist in a similar style that leaves me completely cold.

I suppose what I cherish most in music are the following qualities:
1) Originality: If an artist is doing something new, I'm interested. If they're only putting a new spin on an old idea, I'm still interested. If they're just trudging the boards and re-hashing ideas from the past with no innovation or input, I'm not interested.

2) Emotion: If I can feel something from the music that is worthwhile (i.e. frustration from listening to bad music is not a worthwhile emotion) then I'm interested. The song could be the simplest blues standard ever but once it is done with conviction and feeling it is worth my time.

After that, the qualities depend on the genre or artist.

Latchy

Daddio wrote: »

I'd agree with some of what you're saying, I dislike the vast majority of music that's in the charts at the moment aswell, because to me, it's a mindless product that doesn't suit me. That, and it feels like there's broken glass on my brain when I hear it. :rolleyes: I think that where I find fault with modern manufactured pop is the predictablilty and sameness of each hit. The excitement instead is generated by images of naked gyrating in said popstar's video/album cover.

This thread isn't about what I don't like, which I can be clear about. But when trying to describe how my mood changes - and why it changes - when I listen to Machine Gun by Hendrix, I become stumped. Why have I become attentive all of a sudden? Why am I hanging on every line Hendrix plays? Is it something that is decided in the depths of the auditory cortex of your brain, or is it something that you have a direct decision over? Hmmm...

/And henceforth endeth this rambling post!

I agree to a point .The technology used in the recording process in a lot of todays stuff is so bland predictable and as you say 'sameness' and there is no soul but into the recordings .Intresting to think that the beatles first LP 'please please me ' was recorded in one day over 3 ' 3 hr periods .Most tracks were one take but LP feels like a good live session .

I think somehow we freeze in time and get transported back to a time and place when we first heard a certain track ,sax /guitar /bass /vocal solo.I remember a few years ago i wanted to find a classical piece of music i had going around in my head for years, but had no idea of the title. So i went into the calssical section of HMV and feeling a bit sheepish ,whistled the tune to the guy behind counter. Whitin a few seconds he pulled out the cd on which the track was on and it was a very '' dr livingston i presume '' type feeling . I had found it .:)

Blisterman

I'm not too fussed with regards to Lyrics. It has very little bearing on whether or not I like a song.

Musicallly, I think the key a good tune, is not so much the notes themselves. Its the gaps between the notes.

I've no understanding of musical theory, so it's hard to explain in words, but for example, the opening riff in Back in Black by AC/DC, there's a strum, (Pause) Strum Strum Strum (Short Pause) then a lick.

If it weren't for the pauses, the riff wouldn't be half as good.

It especially applies to funk music. It's not about what you put in, but what you leave out.
That's one thing I don't like about a lot of indie and punk music. Too much of it is just constant, non stop strumming. No room to breathe.

lordgoat

John wrote: »

There is not one objective quality about all the music I enjoy that allows me to say why I want to listen to any of it. There are no styles that I don't enjoy at least some music from and I have no preference for instrumental over vocal over accapella music. It can be fast or slow. It can be loud, quiet or very ****ing loud indeed.

The only thing that links them all is the very subjective quality of taste. For some reason I can listen to some music and thoroughly enjoy it and have another artist in a similar style that leaves me completely cold.

I suppose what I cherish most in music are the following qualities:
1) Originality: If an artist is doing something new, I'm interested. If they're only putting a new spin on an old idea, I'm still interested. If they're just trudging the boards and re-hashing ideas from the past with no innovation or input, I'm not interested.

2) Emotion: If I can feel something from the music that is worthwhile (i.e. frustration from listening to bad music is not a worthwhile emotion) then I'm interested. The song could be the simplest blues standard ever but once it is done with conviction and feeling it is worth my time.

After that, the qualities depend on the genre or artist.

I agree with loads of this.

But where you say emotion passion is what woks for me. Possibly the same thing.

Neil Young's Are you passionate? is a song that sums up alot of stuff for me. Not just with music but in everyday life.

corkstudent

I believe strongly in the objective quality of music. Music nowadays in the mainstream at least has become utter ****e. I hate when people argues "well someone must like it", because it's all marketting.

I think the objective mesaures of music would involve the creative effort going into it, how much it can inherently connect people with experiences, and how much, without any hype and marketting and social conditioning(hypothetical situation that never exists), the audience will appreciate and feel it.

John

But no art is experienced in a vaccuum, commercial music is just as viable an art form as the latest free improv from Norway. Just because it is marketed does not mean it is because no one would like it if it wasn't marketed (and clearly it is marketed at people who do like music like that because as poor as the mass majority's tastes are, people do actually like this stuff that the minority turn their noses up at). What I look for in music is not necessarily what others look for, most people don't want creativity or innovation, they want something recognisible and in-keeping with their tastes. This is not a good or bad thing, it is just a thing.

Earthhorse

There are many qualities I look for in music some of which, I guess, must be present for me to find myself attracted to a piece.

Melody would be first and foremost when it comes to the music itself. Whether it's punk rock, classical, jazz, whatever, if there isn't an underlying melody to the piece I doubt it will stay with me. Atonal, purposely de-tuned instruments, each vying for attention with the other, doesn't do it for me. That isn't to say there's no place for such things but I don't want them to dominate.

As an ancillary to that I prefer music that flows over music that stops and starts. If each piece emerges naturally from the last then there's a coherence and harmony that can make music almost ethereal at times. Obviously, other elements need to be present but I don't think it ever reaches this state without flowing.

Unlike a few posters in this thread I place a high premium on a good lyric. Imagine is a lovely piece of music on its own but with that lyric, man, it is something else entirely. Without the music of course it would be a lovely, if quaint, sentiment with some nice imagery. This is part of the problem when it comes to describing why we like music. If we focus in on one constituent part we realise we're dealing with a house of cards. What's Imagine without that lyric? Then again, what's the lyric without the music, or Lennon's vocal?

And vocals matter to me too. The human voice is a pretty unique instrument and one that, when used correctly, even on its own, can really strip a situation down to the bone. Would Nirvana's Unplugged performance really be what it is without Cobain wailing on Where Did You Sleep Last Night? Listen to Cantrell and Staley harmonise on their Unplugged and tell me it would be the same without either, or that you could swap Staley out for say, Bill Corgan, and still take it seriously.

Speaking of unpluggeds, another preference of mine is for simplicity over complexity. Paul McCartney once said that he does most of his writing on an acoustic, because if something can sound good stripped down like that then it really is good. That's not to say the opposite can't work too. Some even have a talent for it. Prince can do it. Mike Oldfield can do it. If you aren't of this ilk though I'd strongly question your motivation for adding another track to a song. It's like an author trying to show off their vocabulary, doing their best to fit as many obscure words into a sentence when they really aren't needed.

Hand in hand with simplicity goes brevity. Get in, do what you need to do and get out. Don't waste my time dicking about because you think the song needs a solo or a middle eight or a bridge because hey, songs have these things. Buddy Holly didn't do it so why are you?

Finally, (and hey, fair play to you if you are still reading) passion and sincerity matter most. If you don't have these two things, forget it. I'd rather listen to someone play an Em, G verse and mean it than listen to the innovative, original, ground breaking and completely hollow opus you spent days thinking about and working on, instead of feeling your way through it.

Kold wrote: »

I suppose I really like when my music is innovative and intelligent.

What do you meant by intelligent?

Rigsby wrote: »

That certainly narrows things down a lot.

It eliminates almost all of rap and hip hop.

Daddio wrote: »

Why have I become attentive all of a sudden? Why am I hanging on every line Hendrix plays? Is it something that is decided in the depths of the auditory cortex of your brain, or is it something that you have a direct decision over?

I don't know if it's the book that was linked above but there is some book that deals with the theory that the music we listen to reflects the sounds we are exposed to in the world. So I guess birdsong, and the sound of the leaves through the trees or running water, are all reflected (rather than perfectly emulated) in music. Don't ask me to explain any more than that, I'm out of my depth here having only ever read a review.

I've often wondered though, why it is that say, Indian music, which sounds permanently out of tune to me, sounds so good to them. Is it just the music they were exposed to growing up or is it a better reflection of the sounds in their environment?

Blisterman wrote: »

Musicallly, I think the key a good tune, is not so much the notes themselves. Its the gaps between the notes.

I've no understanding of musical theory, so it's hard to explain in words, but for example, the opening riff in Back in Black by AC/DC, there's a strum, (Pause) Strum Strum Strum (Short Pause) then a lick.

If it weren't for the pauses, the riff wouldn't be half as good.

It especially applies to funk music. It's not about what you put in, but what you leave out.

I guess you might call that anticipation. Give the listener a chance to build expectancy. This overlaps a little with what I was saying about simplicity. When Neil Young jammed with Pearl Jam he said one thing he liked about them was they knew when not to play. Stone Gossard actually said he wasn't so sure they'd perfected that skill yet but so many bands feel the need to fill the space, afraid of silence, like someone who won't shut up for fear you'll disagree with them.

John

Earthhorse wrote: »

I've often wondered though, why it is that say, Indian music, which sounds permanently out of tune to me, sounds so good to them. Is it just the music they were exposed to growing up or is it a better reflection of the sounds in their environment?

You're brought up listening to western scales whereas Indian music uses a different form of intonation (just intonation instead of our equal temperament) which means that notes being played in Indian music are not the same as the notes played in western music. Case in point, I wanted to buy a shruti box in London (a very small pump organ) and the shop owner pointed out that it would sound dissonant when played with our band's gutairs, bass, etc. unless he retuned it to equal temperament.

Kold

Earthhorse wrote: »

It eliminates almost all of rap and hip hop.

That's not incredibly pretentious of you at all.

Earthhorse

John wrote: »

You're brought up listening to western scales whereas Indian music uses a different form of intonation (just intonation instead of our equal temperament) which means that notes being played in Indian music are not the same as the notes played in western music.

But why did the two develop differently? Was it just a matter of the instruments they invented being different? Why is equal temperament not a feature of Indian music? Did they just not think of it? Or did they just not have a perference for it?

Kold wrote: »

That's not incredibly pretentious of you at all.

Yeah, I know, it's true too!

What did you mean earlier by music that's intelligent?

Kold

Earthhorse wrote: »

What did you mean earlier by music that's intelligent?

I left it open purposely due to the scope of things to take into account. Intelligent lyrics, intelligent composition, it's really all quite open. I try to look for something that sparks my interest, appeals to my intellect.

There's quite a lot of intelligent hip hop out there, I wouldn't be so dismissive.

Earthhorse

Kold wrote: »

There's quite a lot of intelligent hip hop out there, I wouldn't be so dismissive.

I was being facetious.

Kold wrote: »

Intelligent lyrics, intelligent composition, it's really all quite open. I try to look for something that sparks my interest, appeals to my intellect.

Intelligent lyrics I get. How can a composition be intelligent though? Do you mean something that a lot of thought went into?

John

Earthhorse wrote: »

But why did the two develop differently? Was it just a matter of the instruments they invented being different? Why is equal temperament not a feature of Indian music? Did they just not think of it? Or did they just not have a perference for it?

Equal temperament is much newer than just intonation and was developed in the west. It just caught on here for practical and aesthetic reasons I think (easier to keep in tune) and didn't really spread east for who knows what reasons.

Earthhorse wrote: »

Intelligent lyrics I get. How can a composition be intelligent though? Do you mean something that a lot of thought went into?

By the same way lyrics can be intelligent. A simple three chord song in 4/4 timing is a simple structure, just like clichéd lyrics are simple. On the other hand, say a piece of classical music is far more complex with references to other works and themes developing within the piece. Music is not always completely abstract or just a vehicle for lyrics, it is as much a varied and meaningful artform as poetry.

mike65

Dynamics is what makes music good for me most of the time, the dynamic does not have to be dramatic (like say the changes in Owner of a Lonely Heart) but the music does need to induce that tingle of anticipation ("oh I like this bit that starts...NOW!") and/or develope its intenal momentum until the resolution is reached.

Mike.

Earthhorse

John wrote: »

By the same way lyrics can be intelligent. A simple three chord song in 4/4 timing is a simple structure, just like clichéd lyrics are simple. On the other hand, say a piece of classical music is far more complex with references to other works and themes developing within the piece. Music is not always completely abstract or just a vehicle for lyrics, it is as much a varied and meaningful artform as poetry.

Complexity isn't intelligence though, just like simplicity isn't stupidity. Lyrics can be intelligent because they can communicate ideas, something which music never really can; it can communicate moods, emotions etc. but not ideas. Music doesn't become more intelligent because more instruments are involved just like a poem won't become any more intelligent if you use more words.

Latchy

Thinking about this a bit more ,although it's not somthing that's hard to do on a daily basis , going back a bit to what OP said about were in our being is the music reaching to ,as in were hearing it with our ears but our brains are dissecting various parts of the song in anticapation of what's to come .

A simple way for me to explain this joy we all share is two pick two songs that have a little magic (for me)

The first one is do it again . The track opens up with a very deliberate, slowed down, snare drum effect that last about 9 seconds and was another stroke of late 60's genius by brian wilson .The whole song is a classic but it's that open snare drum effect and wilsons use of his voice like a woodpecker that still, no matter how many times i hear , makes hairs on back of neck stand up .

The other is the night before .When McCartney hits and warbles with the word lies ....ies ....ies at 2.07. It's just a 'Zing' moement in the song and adds to it's exellence

I am only using these two as examples of how a piece of music can hit that spot ,and we all have that in many many songs regardless of the Category and genere of our musical tastes .

John

Earthhorse wrote: »

Complexity isn't intelligence though, just like simplicity isn't stupidity. Lyrics can be intelligent because they can communicate ideas, something which music never really can; it can communicate moods, emotions etc. but not ideas. Music doesn't become more intelligent because more instruments are involved just like a poem won't become any more intelligent if you use more words.

I wasn't implying that more complex = more intelligent but that more thought can go into music than just what sounds pretty. Just like lyrics can do more than just rhyme and go with a melody. They don't have to be complicated but surely you can see that something like The Cheeky Girls is not intelligent per se whereas a song by Nick Drake or a requiem by a master composer is crafted carefully and with a lot of thought?

Earthhorse

That's what I asked though. Whether intelligent meant something that a lot of thought went into. Coulda just said yes.

Rigsby

I think we are getting a bit bogged down ( and a little condescending might I say ) here talking about "intelligent" music.

Music means different things to different people. If any piece of music, be it anything from Stravinsky to the "Spice Girls" means something to or moves someone emotionally then it is good and has served it's purpose. Some people prefer instrumental music, some like lyrics. Some is more complex and some is simple, but one is not better than the other for being so.

Kold

Rigsby wrote: »

I think we are getting a bit bogged down ( and a little condescending might I say ) here talking about "intelligent" music.

Music means different things to different people. If any piece of music, be it anything from Stravinsky to the "Spice Girls" means something to or moves someone emotionally then it is good and has served it's purpose. Some people prefer instrumental music, some like lyrics. Some is more complex and some is simple, but one is not better than the other for being so.

Stravinsky is better than the Spice Girls.

brow_601

Earthhorse wrote: »

Complexity isn't intelligence though, just like simplicity isn't stupidity.

I think knowing when not to over-complicate something or over-simplify a song, or part of a song, shows someones intelligence when it comes to writing music.

Earthhorse wrote: »

Speaking of unpluggeds, another preference of mine is for simplicity over complexity. Paul McCartney once said that he does most of his writing on an acoustic, because if something can sound good stripped down like that then it really is good. That's not to say the opposite can't work too. Some even have a talent for it. Prince can do it. Mike Oldfield can do it. If you aren't of this ilk though I'd strongly question your motivation for adding another track to a song. It's like an author trying to show off their vocabulary, doing their best to fit as many obscure words into a sentence when they really aren't needed.

Hand in hand with simplicity goes brevity. Get in, do what you need to do and get out. Don't waste my time dicking about because you think the song needs a solo or a middle eight or a bridge because hey, songs have these things. Buddy Holly didn't do it so why are you?

+1

I really enjoyed the entire post, but i thought it was best i didn't quote the whole thing, considering its length...

Earthhorse

brow_601 wrote: »

I really enjoyed the entire post, but i thought it was best i didn't quote the whole thing, considering its length...

Aw cheers, glad you liked it.

Latchy

Originally Posted by Rigsby
I think we are getting a bit bogged down ( and a little condescending might I say ) here talking about "intelligent" music.

Music means different things to different people. If any piece of music, be it anything from Stravinsky to the "Spice Girls" means something to or moves someone emotionally then it is good and has served it's purpose. Some people prefer instrumental music, some like lyrics. Some is more complex and some is simple, but one is not better than the other for being so.

I know some people who like a certain piece of muisc which i find horrendous but who am i to tell them so if it brings meaning to there life ? . The beatles were once described as the greatest songwriters since Beethoven but it was said in the context of the times, as in what's popular now . If our grandparents are listening to Al Jolson, Glen Miller or Alexanders ragtime band ,it's because that was what was hip in there day just as the Rolling stones, Eagles and Spice girls were to other generations

Rigsby

Kold wrote: »

Stravinsky is better than the Spice Girls.

Try telling that to a 15 year old girl.

chin_grin

The tune has to grip me. The beat (being a drummer), would be the defining piece. The rhythm of the track and how it plays out. I'm big in to the musical soundscapes of Sunn O))). They just take you on a trip!

Other fast tracks, such as those from eg: High On Fire, would elevate me and leave me feeling elated and a rush of catharsis through me.

John

chin_grin wrote: »

The tune has to grip me. The beat (being a drummer), would be the defining piece. The rhythm of the track and how it plays out. I'm big in to the musical soundscapes of Sunn O))). They just take you on a trip!

Heheh, beats and Sunn O))), a bit of a contradiction there!

chin_grin

John wrote: »

Heheh, beats and Sunn O))), a bit of a contradiction there!

I'm listening to the beats between the beats

Setun

Earthhorse wrote: »

There are many qualities I look for in music some of which, I guess, must be present for me to find myself attracted to a piece.

Melody would be first and foremost when it comes to the music itself.

As an ancillary to that I prefer music that flows over music that stops and starts.

Unlike a few posters in this thread I place a high premium on a good lyric.

And vocals matter to me too.

Speaking of unpluggeds, another preference of mine is for simplicity over complexity.

Hand in hand with simplicity goes brevity. Get in, do what you need to do and get out.

Finally, (and hey, fair play to you if you are still reading) passion and sincerity matter most.

I agree with very little of the above tbh! But isn't that interesting? Obviously we hear music very differently. One of my favourite bands at the moment play instrumental music that is completely improvised, and they often play in the hour long song form. They use quite complex rhythms and have interesting philosophies behind their music - it's essentially a kind of repetitive minimalist style of music where melodic and rhythmic patterns are repeated and are developed organically.

Needless to say, you'd hate them

I think that when I listen to vocals I don't hear the words by default, to me it sounds like abstract tones coming from an instrument until I actually concentrate on what the singer is saying. If that makes sense, maybe my ear is lazy... I do enjoy specific vocal music, but I don't think I enjoy it for the lyrics if you know what I mean, more the sound of the voice. I probably am missing a lot of the intended meaning of the song, but what the heck, I much prefer interpreting what's going on in a piece of music in relation to my direct surroundings.

Earthhorse wrote:

I've often wondered though, why it is that say, Indian music, which sounds permanently out of tune to me, sounds so good to them. Is it just the music they were exposed to growing up or is it a better reflection of the sounds in their environment?

Eastern music is interesting because it grew up around a different aesthetic - completely different scales than western classical music, drones, completely different instruments etc. Yet a lot of people who weren't heavily exposed to it growing up still enjoy it - people who may for the first time hear it by chance and realise they think it's pretty damn good!

Has anyone studied perceptual psychology?

nyarlothothep

for me its atmosphere, honesty and intelligent lyrics.

I am weak for unusual key/scale/chord changes and arrangements.

And multi layered complexity with some parody and theatricalism thrown in, I really like that which is why I really like Queen

Latchy

I once had a Ravi Shankar LP ,even listened to it a few times .He does a great version of ' jumping jack flash '

John

Daddio wrote: »

I agree with very little of the above tbh! But isn't that interesting? Obviously we hear music very differently. One of my favourite bands at the moment play instrumental music that is completely improvised, and they often play in the hour long song form. They use quite complex rhythms and have interesting philosophies behind their music - it's essentially a kind of repetitive minimalist style of music where melodic and rhythmic patterns are repeated and are developed organically.

Sounds deadly, who are they?

corkstudent

John wrote: »

But no art is experienced in a vaccuum, commercial music is just as viable an art form as the latest free improv from Norway. Just because it is marketed does not mean it is because no one would like it if it wasn't marketed (and clearly it is marketed at people who do like music like that because as poor as the mass majority's tastes are, people do actually like this stuff that the minority turn their noses up at). What I look for in music is not necessarily what others look for, most people don't want creativity or innovation, they want something recognisible and in-keeping with their tastes. This is not a good or bad thing, it is just a thing.

Most people don't know what they want. They're told what they want which is why marketing is an issue.

Earthhorse

Daddio wrote: »

Obviously we hear music very differently.

I use my ears. What are you using? :eek:

Daddio wrote: »

Needless to say, you'd hate them

Probably, but probably not for the reasons you'd think.

Mike Oldfield has a lot of long compositions that revisit and repeat a theme in different ways, playing around with it in different formats. But most people don't have the talent to make that a worthwhile experience. Heck, half the time even he doesn't.

Daddio wrote: »

I think that when I listen to vocals I don't hear the words by default, to me it sounds like abstract tones coming from an instrument until I actually concentrate on what the singer is saying.

That's what I meant by a good vocal though. Sometimes you don't need to distinguish individual words for the emotion behind them to be expressed. I even enjoy vocals that have no real meaning, like the chanting on Pearl Jam's Aye Davinata.

Daddio wrote: »

I much prefer interpreting what's going on in a piece of music in relation to my direct surroundings.

Now that is interesting. I don't even know what that means.

Setun

Earthhorse wrote: »

I use my ears. What are you using? :eek:

Well to phrase it differently, we interpret the vibrations produced by these instruments differently. For instance, many people argue that the colours you see are different from the colours I see e.g my idea of 'blue' could correspond to your idea of 'green'. The argument for this being that the brain is interpreting the lightwaves, not the eyes, and everyone's brain is different. So why not the same with audiowaves?

Earthhorse wrote:

Now that is interesting. I don't even know what that means.

Well basically, I like to listen to music that suits how I'm feeling/where I am at a given time. I don't think that that's so unusual.

Earthhorse

Daddio wrote: »

Well to phrase it differently, we interpret the vibrations produced by these instruments differently. For instance, many people argue that the colours you see are different from the colours I see e.g my idea of 'blue' could correspond to your idea of 'green'. The argument for this being that the brain is interpreting the lightwaves, not the eyes, and everyone's brain is different. So why not the same with audiowaves?

Ah, I knew what you meant, though I don't think that's what's happening in the brain. We are hearing the same thing, processing it the same but then, the final piece, valuing it differently. My red is your red is everyone elses' red. But not everybody likes red.

Daddio wrote: »

Well basically, I like to listen to music that suits how I'm feeling/where I am at a given time. I don't think that that's so unusual.

No, it's not. There's certain music I'll listen to when tidying my room, certain music I relax to, certain music I dance to. But my interpretation of it is almost always the same. The song doesn't change that significantly from listen to listen. Your original post gave the impression that where you are were at any time would effect how you interpreted the song. That happens a little to me but is significantly different from selecting a soundtrack to suit your environment.

Royale with Cheese

Hmmmm

Needs to rock. Fill me with energy, make me want to bang my head a bit. Suppose not for every song, but a lot of them.

Needs to display good musicianship. I hate crappy bands that just have a few chords and a nice melody. Guitars need to be good, rhythm section needs to be good. I hate minimalism too.

Lyrics can't be god awful but not really that important to me.

Singer... can't have an awful English accent. I'd say that they can't have an annoying voice but I like Smashing Pumpkins so maybe I'm not so fussy.

Most of all, cannot value style over substance. A good song is a good song. A lot of the music now is shíte but that 'sound' is in right now. Think of shít like the ting tings. Oh my fúcking god, who likes that shít. Fúck originality if that's the kind of shít people come up with.

DenMan

Definitely originality plays an enormous part in my tastes. Also the direction of the song is so important. Does it have a hidden meaning?, does it follow the life of the person(s) performing it? Mood can also play a huge role in tastes. Depending on how I am feeling will determine what I will listen to. I love songs that play out like a story because you can picture the images in your mind as it plays out. And finally how they relate to you as a person. Knowing what you were doing at a point in your life when you first heard it and what you are doing right now is an amazing experience, a lifelong journey.

Setun

John wrote: »

Sounds deadly, who are they?

They're called The Necks, you should purchase Townsville next time you're in Tower

Earthhorse wrote: »

Your original post gave the impression that where you are were at any time would effect how you interpreted the song. That happens a little to me but is significantly different from selecting a soundtrack to suit your environment.

Well yep that is part of it, but I suppose what I was really trying to get at is choosing a piece of music to change the way I interact with my environment, if you know what I mean.

John

Daddio wrote: »

They're called The Necks, you should purchase Townsville next time you're in Tower

I've been meaning to get into these guys for a while, every review/message board that mentions them paints them in a very favourable light.

GhostInTheRuins

It's a difficult question for me to answer, depending on the day of the week or the time of day my answer would be different.

I used to think technicality and virtuosity was the most important element, but, as crazy as it might sound, looking back I'm fairly sure I was trying to convince myself that was the case. Foolishly dismissing artists because of their simple song structures or lack of complexity and completely disregarding a need for 'good' lyrics. Just immaturity I suppose.

I think more than anything else, what makes me keep coming back to certain bands/artists is emotion. The type that draws you in, that you can almost see the emotion oozing from the speakers. You know that chill you can get when a song touches you (Yeah, yeah, cheesy I know) emotionally? I love that.

Lyrics are often important to me too, the type that actually have meaning (To me at least)

Having said that though, you just can't beat a good tune (Even if it's mindless noise with gibberish lyrics )