"visceral" is a good term even if it is sometimes portrayed as "anti-intelectual" and as if people who enjoy music on a visceral/emotional level do so only because they can't understand it on a "higher" level.
Putting aside the arrogance and snobbery of those that believe that "oh, you don't like it because you don't understand it" it misses the point of "popular" music completely.
I love the visual arts. Often I'm drawn to paintings painting 100s of years old using references that I don't know. I can look them up, study the painting and find other meanings but what attracted me to it in the first place is its visceral/emotional hit, the pleasure of it not the now arcane clever bits.
yes, as you say that can add to it but if the initial hit isn't there then "understanding" it isn't going to help, not for me at least.
You like jazz, I don't. I love blues and soul and they are obviously closely related but free form, modern jazz doesn't do for me. I've tried coltrane, davies and others and it just leaves me cold and thinking "when does the song start?"
If I may step sideways from the visceral, or emotional, or intellectual, is there another kind of engagement (not the only kind) that draws you in because of the virtuosity of the musician? For example Moon and June lyrics might leave one cold, but the sheer awesomeness of the vocal might engage you. A classical concerto, or a musical solo in more modern stuff can draw me in with yes a sense of admiration, but also the exhilaration of the playing. There is probably an argument to say that virtuosity is masturbatory, but I am afraid I enjoy the hand gestures of air drumming or air guitar alongside listening to great playing. My point is, am I amongst many who admire sheer musicianship, or is it a minority taste?
I think the line between enjoying music on an purely emotional and intellectual level is quite blurry. If you look at the comments on the music threads, a lot of posters will praise the innovations of the likes of the Beatles and Pink Floyd. I don't see that as being solely an emotional response, but an appreciation for the work on an artistic level. which is surely intellectual?
I think the line between enjoying music on an purely emotional and intellectual level is quite blurry. If you look at the comments on the music threads, a lot of posters will praise the innovations of the likes of the Beatles and Pink Floyd. I don't see that as being solely an emotional response, but an appreciation for the work on an artistic level. which is surely intellectual?
But is it any good? For me the emotion comes first and any technique very much second. I can admire opera singers and accept that they have fantastic technique but opera rarely, if ever, moves me.
As the great Lou Reed said "One chord is fine. Two chords is pushing it. Three chords and you're into jazz."
I think the line between enjoying music on an purely emotional and intellectual level is quite blurry. If you look at the comments on the music threads, a lot of posters will praise the innovations of the likes of the Beatles and Pink Floyd. I don't see that as being solely an emotional response, but an appreciation for the work on an artistic level. which is surely intellectual?
But is it any good? For me the emotion comes first and any technique very much second. I can admire opera singers and accept that they have fantastic technique but opera rarely, if ever, moves me.
I think that's what @PaddyP17 was saying re God Only Knows. I've got to be honest, I cannot remember what my point in the discussion was, but it's very interesting to talk about how we all respond to music.
I'm searching my brain to see if I've ever been drawn into a piece of music out of admiration for the musicianship alone. I think at best I've been intrigued by what is my favourite example, Trout Mask Replica. I don't think I'm 'musical enough' to have appreciated it initially, but I was definitely intrigued and the eventually led to me actually enjoying it.
I think the line between enjoying music on an purely emotional and intellectual level is quite blurry. If you look at the comments on the music threads, a lot of posters will praise the innovations of the likes of the Beatles and Pink Floyd. I don't see that as being solely an emotional response, but an appreciation for the work on an artistic level. which is surely intellectual?
But is it any good? For me the emotion comes first and any technique very much second. I can admire opera singers and accept that they have fantastic technique but opera rarely, if ever, moves me.
I think that's what @PaddyP17 was saying re God Only Knows. I've got to be honest, I cannot remember what my point in the discussion was, but it's very interesting to talk about how we all respond to music.
I'm searching my brain to see if I've ever been drawn into a piece of music out of admiration for the musicianship alone. I think at best I've been intrigued by what is my favourite example, Trout Mask Replica. I don't think I'm 'musical enough' to have appreciated it initially, but I was definitely intrigued and the eventually led to me actually enjoying it.
Please let me try and help (or mess it up even more see how i go) I repeat my comment about playing bebop Jazz in which I pointed that learning it feels like cycling on the Freeway (feeling inadequate like i need to catch up) and when you finally master it (Donna Lee for example) you first feel great about yourself being able to play so many notes so fast, but when you finally ask yourself 'does it move me or takes me anywhere beautiful..? The answer may be 'yes'. In my case it was: "driving Porsche round the car park"...
I think the line between enjoying music on an purely emotional and intellectual level is quite blurry. If you look at the comments on the music threads, a lot of posters will praise the innovations of the likes of the Beatles and Pink Floyd. I don't see that as being solely an emotional response, but an appreciation for the work on an artistic level. which is surely intellectual?
But is it any good? For me the emotion comes first and any technique very much second. I can admire opera singers and accept that they have fantastic technique but opera rarely, if ever, moves me.
As the great Lou Reed said "One chord is fine. Two chords is pushing it. Three chords and you're into jazz."
Because you lack the sensibility to be moved emotionally by jazz, or to simply dislike it, is fair enough.To render it 'masterbation' [sic] because of your dislike is unthinkingly crass.
All this talk about jazz. I've been trying to get it for the last few years, my partner's uncle died and I cleared a lot of his records, which included a lot of jazz. Very eclectic and I've not approached it in any sort of systematic way. There's far too much "making funny noises with a saxophone" in a lot of it, which is obviously something he enjoyed but leaves me unmoved. Likewise there's some trad stuff which I also find a bit dull. When I'm in the right mood some of the smooth almost funk stuff works for me (SpyroGyra for example) and I positively like this one Benny Carter CD (Further Definitions). I'm working on some of the Coltrane and Miles Davis. It's taking a long time - I'm kind of there with A Love Supreme. I think some of this is that I respond differently to music with lyrics I can understand and music either in a foreign language or instrumental and need much more of that visceral connection for the latter.
All this talk about jazz. I've been trying to get it for the last few years, my partner's uncle died and I cleared a lot of his records, which included a lot of jazz. Very eclectic and I've not approached it in any sort of systematic way. There's far too much "making funny noises with a saxophone" in a lot of it, which is obviously something he enjoyed but leaves me unmoved. Likewise there's some trad stuff which I also find a bit dull. When I'm in the right mood some of the smooth almost funk stuff works for me (SpyroGyra for example) and I positively like this one Benny Carter CD (Further Definitions). I'm working on some of the Coltrane and Miles Davis. It's taking a long time - I'm kind of there with A Love Supreme. I think some of this is that I respond differently to music with lyrics I can understand and music either in a foreign language or instrumental and need much more of that visceral connection for the latter.
Not that you need my affirmation, but I'll give it anyway... As long as you stay away from fashion and hype any observation you make is as valid as any 'expert's'.
Dark side of the moon. Boring. In fact all pink Floyd. I just find it dull.
It's a funny feeling when everybody else seems to like something and you just don't get it! It's like you're in a band and they keep playing different tunes.
This emotion v technique argument is interesting. I have never learned an instrument and how music 'works' is a total mystery to me, but I like it that way. If a magician performs an incredible trick and you're also a magician, you can think about it, work out what he did and think, 'Yes, I see what he did there and it was very clever and impressive'. However, if you're not a magician you just think 'Holy shit! That was incredible!' That might be an oversimplification and maybe a musician can tell me that it doesn't work like that, but I like being in the latter camp.
I'm a drummer and I do think, 'Holy shit! That was incredible!' about drum grooves, but then immediately break them down and work them out. But then I'm talking about soul and funk grooves, which I listen to, rather than Elvin Jones.
This emotion v technique argument is interesting. I have never learned an instrument and how music 'works' is a total mystery to me, but I like it that way. If a magician performs an incredible trick and you're also a magician, you can think about it, work out what he did and think, 'Yes, I see what he did there and it was very clever and impressive'. However, if you're not a magician you just think 'Holy shit! That was incredible!' That might be an oversimplification and maybe a musician can tell me that it doesn't work like that, but I like being in the latter camp.
I definitely don't speak for all musicians, but let me see if I can articulate my thoughts on reconciling emotion and technique.
The reason I play music is to try and invoke emotion. That's what drives my love of music, and what propelled me to take my study of music to uni. NB I'm not trying to say there is any particular secret or formula, whereby if you do this/that/the other, you make people feel happy, or sad, or angry, by the way - music is a complete abstract, and the same piece can make different people feel completely different emotions.
However, when I'm playing, I am trying to convey my thoughts/emotions and my interpretation of a piece. In order to do this sufficiently (I studied jazz and, to a lesser extent, classical piano), I need a fairly wide-ranging knowledge of my instrument; the requisite musical vocabulary; repertoire; technique; and a few other things. This is where the "technical" has to reconcile with the emotional.
I am trying to reach the point where I never have to think about the technical in order to convey the emotional. At times, I still have to consider technique, but a lot of the time, I don't - thankfully.
As for listening to music - I try and divorce the technical part of me from the emotional, and it usually works (unless I'm brought back down to earth by a trope in the music or something). My first consideration is, and always will be, "how does this make me feel"? There is a lot of emotional investment in music, and I *want* it to impact me. If I find something that does so, then I'll try and listen to how it's constructed, so I might have a "building block" to add to my repertoire when I'm articulating something myself.
This is a bit of a ramble, but I hope there's some sense in there.
I think the line between enjoying music on an purely emotional and intellectual level is quite blurry. If you look at the comments on the music threads, a lot of posters will praise the innovations of the likes of the Beatles and Pink Floyd. I don't see that as being solely an emotional response, but an appreciation for the work on an artistic level. which is surely intellectual?
But is it any good? For me the emotion comes first and any technique very much second. I can admire opera singers and accept that they have fantastic technique but opera rarely, if ever, moves me.
I think that's what @PaddyP17 was saying re God Only Knows. I've got to be honest, I cannot remember what my point in the discussion was, but it's very interesting to talk about how we all respond to music.
I'm searching my brain to see if I've ever been drawn into a piece of music out of admiration for the musicianship alone. I think at best I've been intrigued by what is my favourite example, Trout Mask Replica. I don't think I'm 'musical enough' to have appreciated it initially, but I was definitely intrigued and the eventually led to me actually enjoying it.
Please let me try and help (or mess it up even more see how i go) I repeat my comment about playing bebop Jazz in which I pointed that learning it feels like cycling on the Freeway (feeling inadequate like i need to catch up) and when you finally master it (Donna Lee for example) you first feel great about yourself being able to play so many notes so fast, but when you finally ask yourself 'does it move me or takes me anywhere beautiful..? The answer may be 'yes'. In my case it was: "driving Porsche round the car park"...
Very interesting. You hit the Miles Davis position. In 1945, he said to theorist George Russell that he "wanted to learn [how to play] all the [chord] changes". This, of course, was a fairly throwaway comment. He knew how to play them, and how to solo over them. He was just looking for a different way to play jazz. He was bored with the apparent stagnation in bebop that focused on endless hurdles of constantly changing chords to navigate as furiously quickly as possible.
This led to Russell's seminal Lydian Chromatic Concept, which was basically the first text to codify chord-scale relationships and improvisation, rather than "what scale fits over a sequence"-style thinking.
That changed Davis' car park to a whole road network - the biggest result of which, I suppose, was Kind of Blue.
I think the line between enjoying music on an purely emotional and intellectual level is quite blurry. If you look at the comments on the music threads, a lot of posters will praise the innovations of the likes of the Beatles and Pink Floyd. I don't see that as being solely an emotional response, but an appreciation for the work on an artistic level. which is surely intellectual?
But is it any good? For me the emotion comes first and any technique very much second. I can admire opera singers and accept that they have fantastic technique but opera rarely, if ever, moves me.
I think that's what @PaddyP17 was saying re God Only Knows. I've got to be honest, I cannot remember what my point in the discussion was, but it's very interesting to talk about how we all respond to music.
I'm searching my brain to see if I've ever been drawn into a piece of music out of admiration for the musicianship alone. I think at best I've been intrigued by what is my favourite example, Trout Mask Replica. I don't think I'm 'musical enough' to have appreciated it initially, but I was definitely intrigued and the eventually led to me actually enjoying it.
Please let me try and help (or mess it up even more see how i go) I repeat my comment about playing bebop Jazz in which I pointed that learning it feels like cycling on the Freeway (feeling inadequate like i need to catch up) and when you finally master it (Donna Lee for example) you first feel great about yourself being able to play so many notes so fast, but when you finally ask yourself 'does it move me or takes me anywhere beautiful..? The answer may be 'yes'. In my case it was: "driving Porsche round the car park"...
Very interesting. You hit the Miles Davis position. In 1945, he said to theorist George Russell that he "wanted to learn [how to play] all the [chord] changes". This, of course, was a fairly throwaway comment. He knew how to play them, and how to solo over them. He was just looking for a different way to play jazz. He was bored with the apparent stagnation in bebop that focused on endless hurdles of constantly changing chords to navigate as furiously quickly as possible.
This led to Russell's seminal Lydian Chromatic Concept, which was basically the first text to codify chord-scale relationships and improvisation, rather than "what scale fits over a sequence"-style thinking.
That changed Davis' car park to a whole road network - the biggest result of which, I suppose, was Kind of Blue.
Fuck me!!! 'Seminal Lydian Chromatic concept' !!! On C.L. forum..? Makes you wonder what modes are being explored on the Millwall forum (Augmented Phrigian probably...) I'm (obviously) enjoying this discussion and maybe for that reason... Anyway, to continue the transport analogy, I propose the following ways to enjoy/judge music: 1. 'The vehicle' (sophistication of composition) 2. 'The driver' (quality of execution) 3. 'Destination' (Subject, message) 4. 'Landscape' (arrangement, style, colour, gimmicks )
Every one of them is fine by itself. For me, the magic is how all these elements (or a few of them) are working together. In all music styles from time to time we find music that is written 'about music' and for 'music sake' which may limit its appeal.
This emotion v technique argument is interesting. I have never learned an instrument and how music 'works' is a total mystery to me, but I like it that way. If a magician performs an incredible trick and you're also a magician, you can think about it, work out what he did and think, 'Yes, I see what he did there and it was very clever and impressive'. However, if you're not a magician you just think 'Holy shit! That was incredible!' That might be an oversimplification and maybe a musician can tell me that it doesn't work like that, but I like being in the latter camp.
I definitely don't speak for all musicians, but let me see if I can articulate my thoughts on reconciling emotion and technique.
The reason I play music is to try and invoke emotion. That's what drives my love of music, and what propelled me to take my study of music to uni. NB I'm not trying to say there is any particular secret or formula, whereby if you do this/that/the other, you make people feel happy, or sad, or angry, by the way - music is a complete abstract, and the same piece can make different people feel completely different emotions.
However, when I'm playing, I am trying to convey my thoughts/emotions and my interpretation of a piece. In order to do this sufficiently (I studied jazz and, to a lesser extent, classical piano), I need a fairly wide-ranging knowledge of my instrument; the requisite musical vocabulary; repertoire; technique; and a few other things. This is where the "technical" has to reconcile with the emotional.
I am trying to reach the point where I never have to think about the technical in order to convey the emotional. At times, I still have to consider technique, but a lot of the time, I don't - thankfully.
As for listening to music - I try and divorce the technical part of me from the emotional, and it usually works (unless I'm brought back down to earth by a trope in the music or something). My first consideration is, and always will be, "how does this make me feel"? There is a lot of emotional investment in music, and I *want* it to impact me. If I find something that does so, then I'll try and listen to how it's constructed, so I might have a "building block" to add to my repertoire when I'm articulating something myself.
This is a bit of a ramble, but I hope there's some sense in there.
I can see that or should I say hear that.
As a very poor ex-guitarist I just want to enjoy the music although the singer's voice is often the key factor for me in enjoying music. Tracey Thorn is excellent on this in her book "Naked at the Albert Hall". Music that is done as Lenny says " that is written 'about music' and for 'music sake' which may limit its appeal." is self indulgent and about self gratificitation imo hence the onanism comment. Fine for people do that but not sure other people want to listen to or watch that (apart from Dave Mehmet of course)
I really want to like this record, but jazz music isn't good for my equilibrium.
Isn't good for your equilibrium? How do you mean? I'm genuinely intrigued - as a huge jazz fan and practitioner, I always wonder why people can't get into it.
Because it's tuneless musical masterbation
spelling !!
Give him a break. He's typing one handed and going a little blind!!
Comments
Putting aside the arrogance and snobbery of those that believe that "oh, you don't like it because you don't understand it" it misses the point of "popular" music completely.
I love the visual arts. Often I'm drawn to paintings painting 100s of years old using references that I don't know. I can look them up, study the painting and find other meanings but what attracted me to it in the first place is its visceral/emotional hit, the pleasure of it not the now arcane clever bits.
yes, as you say that can add to it but if the initial hit isn't there then "understanding" it isn't going to help, not for me at least.
You like jazz, I don't. I love blues and soul and they are obviously closely related but free form, modern jazz doesn't do for me. I've tried coltrane, davies and others and it just leaves me cold and thinking "when does the song start?"
My favourite so far:
'feel it rather than hear it'
Spectacular.
Special mention to @PaddyP17 you were close to a full house with jazz 'practitioner', but actually your passion comes through convincingly.
For example Moon and June lyrics might leave one cold, but the sheer awesomeness of the vocal might engage you. A classical concerto, or a musical solo in more modern stuff can draw me in with yes a sense of admiration, but also the exhilaration of the playing.
There is probably an argument to say that virtuosity is masturbatory, but I am afraid I enjoy the hand gestures of air drumming or air guitar alongside listening to great playing.
My point is, am I amongst many who admire sheer musicianship, or is it a minority taste?
As the great Lou Reed said "One chord is fine. Two chords is pushing it. Three chords and you're into jazz."
I'm searching my brain to see if I've ever been drawn into a piece of music out of admiration for the musicianship alone. I think at best I've been intrigued by what is my favourite example, Trout Mask Replica. I don't think I'm 'musical enough' to have appreciated it initially, but I was definitely intrigued and the eventually led to me actually enjoying it.
I repeat my comment about playing bebop Jazz in which I pointed that learning it feels like cycling on the Freeway (feeling inadequate like i need to catch up) and when you finally master it (Donna Lee for example) you first feel great about yourself being able to play so many notes so fast, but when you finally ask yourself 'does it move me or takes me anywhere beautiful..? The answer may be 'yes'. In my case it was: "driving Porsche round the car park"...
I think some of this is that I respond differently to music with lyrics I can understand and music either in a foreign language or instrumental and need much more of that visceral connection for the latter.
As long as you stay away from fashion and hype any observation you make is as valid as any 'expert's'.
If a magician performs an incredible trick and you're also a magician, you can think about it, work out what he did and think, 'Yes, I see what he did there and it was very clever and impressive'. However, if you're not a magician you just think 'Holy shit! That was incredible!'
That might be an oversimplification and maybe a musician can tell me that it doesn't work like that, but I like being in the latter camp.
The reason I play music is to try and invoke emotion. That's what drives my love of music, and what propelled me to take my study of music to uni. NB I'm not trying to say there is any particular secret or formula, whereby if you do this/that/the other, you make people feel happy, or sad, or angry, by the way - music is a complete abstract, and the same piece can make different people feel completely different emotions.
However, when I'm playing, I am trying to convey my thoughts/emotions and my interpretation of a piece. In order to do this sufficiently (I studied jazz and, to a lesser extent, classical piano), I need a fairly wide-ranging knowledge of my instrument; the requisite musical vocabulary; repertoire; technique; and a few other things. This is where the "technical" has to reconcile with the emotional.
I am trying to reach the point where I never have to think about the technical in order to convey the emotional. At times, I still have to consider technique, but a lot of the time, I don't - thankfully.
As for listening to music - I try and divorce the technical part of me from the emotional, and it usually works (unless I'm brought back down to earth by a trope in the music or something). My first consideration is, and always will be, "how does this make me feel"? There is a lot of emotional investment in music, and I *want* it to impact me. If I find something that does so, then I'll try and listen to how it's constructed, so I might have a "building block" to add to my repertoire when I'm articulating something myself.
This is a bit of a ramble, but I hope there's some sense in there.
This led to Russell's seminal Lydian Chromatic Concept, which was basically the first text to codify chord-scale relationships and improvisation, rather than "what scale fits over a sequence"-style thinking.
That changed Davis' car park to a whole road network - the biggest result of which, I suppose, was Kind of Blue.
'Seminal Lydian Chromatic concept' !!!
On C.L. forum..?
Makes you wonder what modes are being explored on the Millwall forum (Augmented Phrigian probably...)
I'm (obviously) enjoying this discussion and maybe for that reason...
Anyway, to continue the transport analogy, I propose the following ways to enjoy/judge music:
1. 'The vehicle' (sophistication of composition)
2. 'The driver' (quality of execution)
3. 'Destination' (Subject, message)
4. 'Landscape' (arrangement, style, colour, gimmicks )
Every one of them is fine by itself.
For me, the magic is how all these elements (or a few of them) are working together.
In all music styles from time to time we find music that is written 'about music' and for 'music sake' which may limit its appeal.
As a very poor ex-guitarist I just want to enjoy the music although the singer's voice is often the key factor for me in enjoying music. Tracey Thorn is excellent on this in her book "Naked at the Albert Hall". Music that is done as Lenny says " that is written 'about music' and for 'music sake' which may limit its appeal." is self indulgent and about self gratificitation imo hence the onanism comment. Fine for people do that but not sure other people want to listen to or watch that (apart from Dave Mehmet of course)
Had a load of pals in secondary school who loved them. Never got it then and never wanted to since.