What makes music 'good' for you?

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 )