how do you hear music?
- Thread starter luka
- Start date
And I've never really been sure about it, but 4/4 is just the time signature of the beats right? I mean people use it to refer to kinds of beats, like a straight house beat or something compared to like a weird grime beat that hangs in some fucked up place with the snares somewhere other than the 2 and 4, but the syncopated stuff's all 4/4 too anyway isn't it? Or at least usually? Never been sure if my understanding of this stuff's all wrong or if people just use the term to mean something other than what it technically means.
Interesting point here -
I've become increasingly 'trained' through listening over the last 8-9 years, without any musical education. When I was a kid, my fave bands were Ace of Base and the Pet Shop Boys - because the melodies were so infectious, although I didn't recognise them as that - as an example of the untrained, emotional listener, I was very pleased when I reached the realisation that the later PSB stuff had more synths and less real instruments.
My real switch to 'trained' listening came with my first listen to Autechre's EP7, still my favourite piece of music ever. Now, I find it easy to fall into 'technical' appreciation without enjoying the music emotionally, eg Aphex, mu-ziq, a lot of grime etc. I've relatively recently made the decision that I'll try not to buy music that is good but doesn't engage me - and I find no music truly great without both elements. Nonetheless, ultimately music that appeals emotionally is far more likely to stand the test of time.
Now heres the interesting thing - I tend to listen to trackier, electronic, hiphop type music with the 'trained' ear, while I listen to song-based music with the 'emotional' ear. Anyone else feel this divide?
I've become increasingly 'trained' through listening over the last 8-9 years, without any musical education. When I was a kid, my fave bands were Ace of Base and the Pet Shop Boys - because the melodies were so infectious, although I didn't recognise them as that - as an example of the untrained, emotional listener, I was very pleased when I reached the realisation that the later PSB stuff had more synths and less real instruments.
My real switch to 'trained' listening came with my first listen to Autechre's EP7, still my favourite piece of music ever. Now, I find it easy to fall into 'technical' appreciation without enjoying the music emotionally, eg Aphex, mu-ziq, a lot of grime etc. I've relatively recently made the decision that I'll try not to buy music that is good but doesn't engage me - and I find no music truly great without both elements. Nonetheless, ultimately music that appeals emotionally is far more likely to stand the test of time.
Now heres the interesting thing - I tend to listen to trackier, electronic, hiphop type music with the 'trained' ear, while I listen to song-based music with the 'emotional' ear. Anyone else feel this divide?
Yeh it sounds as if you have it right. 4/4 just means that you have an even count (in mainstream house music this is marked by the kickdrum) where you go '1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4' etc and the 1 is where it feels like the 'unit' or section of music starts.jd_ said:
A case in point is Nomad's '(I Wanna Give You) Devotion' - if you start the record and count 1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4 you'll reach a point where the music comes in on beat 3 rather than beat 1. This is because there's an extra bit that comes in from time to time which is just solo kick and snare going 'boom-bip' instead of 'boom-bip-boom-bip'. In time signature terms this is a 2/4 bar - you count 1,2 and then straight back in, so '1,2,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4' etc.
Yes you can syncopate in 4/4 or in any other time signatures. Syncopation is basically where you get a beat or a note coming in the space between the main count (ie, in 4/4, '1,2,3,4') - say on what would be 1.5 or 4.75 or 3.875. So say in 'Lady Madonna' - the line 'wonder how you manage to make ends meet' starts off with each word beginning on the beat - '1wonder 2how you 3manage 4to' but then goes syncopated - 'make', 'ends' and 'meet' all start in between the beats.
Rambler said:Some people reckon heart beats are actually 6/8. You still count that in two, but it goes
1-and-a 2-and-a 1-and-a 2-and-a ...
instead of 1-and 2-and 1-and 2-and ...
Just an aside
but it's maybe like cutting the 14 or whatever commandments down to ten, we work within that meter of odds and evens so its easier to be 4/4 because things sit tidily within that system.
then you've got the whole issue and history of temperance as in the 8 notes of a western scale , and all its secrets and rules.
aren't rhythms in the classical sense illustrated by different (usually aristocratic) acts as well?
rambler? speeds as well..
my heart is a bit fucked so i get random heatbeats thrown in, the docs thought it was palpitations at first but it's some other weird harmless thing.
hamarplazt
100% No Soul Guaranteed
Rambler said:
I feel pretty much this way, and I've had practically no formal training whatsoever. But then, how do I know I understand it? Do I have to know what the composer meant, or wanted me to feel? I don't necessarily understand how something is made, technically, but I never find any music difficult. Which isn't to say that I like it all. I always react on the gut level first, but then I can apply the analytical (if not "classically" trained) ear if I have to. I often do this when the gut level reaction is negative - if the music doesn't give me any immediate pleasure, I still find it interesting to see how it fits in the bigger picture. A useful way of coping with really dull or, to my ears, awful music that I might be exposed to against my will.
hint
party record with a siren
an interesting thread indeed.
I think the bottom line that everybody hears music differently. in fact, I know that people hear music / sounds differently. I'm not talking some kind of wishy-washy "we all connect differently on an emotional level with different artists blah blah blah" kind of variation here - I'm talking variation in the chain: sounds -> ears -> brain = music.
I'll start a new thread with a little experiment (which might go horribly wrong!).
it's interesting to hear people talk about how little they understand, or want to understand, the mechanics of song writing, arrangement and recording. of course, it'd be naiive to assume that everybody listens to a song and can pick out the bassline, or notice a shaker dropping in and out of the mix, but it's good to be reminded in clear terms that for the vast majority of people this is not the case.
I suppose I take it for granted - I can remember listening to simon and garfunkel at a very early age and thinking "hey - they're singing the same words, but different notes. that's pretty cool". I can remember seeing Black Box on TOTP or whatever and thinking "hey - that woman's not really singing that! and they must have used some kind of machine to make her voice go all stuttery"... I never really had any proper musical training (stopped having instrument lessons before my teens, never really got into theory or grades). but I've been learning about the art and the science of music-making and recording ever since those early days - the concept of multitrack recording, the art of arrangement, the concept of sampling.... the list goes on. I find this stuff fascinating, magical and useful.
as far as having a "trained ear" goes, I think it's wrong to assume that understanding how sounds are played, recorded and mixed decreases your basic enjoyment of a recording, just as it's wrong to assume that not understanding these things means you appreciate music less. both opinions carry with them some kind of ignorance or arrogance.
the best way for me to break it down is like this - it's all about accepting and appreciating the lines that can be drawn between:
the instruments
the musicians
the songwriter
the song
the production
the recording
so, to clarify - whilst my appreciation of the production of a recording might be greater than that of someone who knows little about these things, my appreciation of a song (or to be even more anal, a particular recording of a song) is exactly the same - either I like it or I don't. that's the stage where it comes down to sounds -> ears -> brain = music.
I'm sure everyone could name certain recordings of certain songs that they believe are better than other recordings of the same songs (cover versions / alternate takes / remixes / live versions). you might not be able to describe why in any kind of technical terms, but that doesn't matter - the technical terms are for those interested in the technical side of the process. most people aren't interested in this side. but as I point out above, I see that as crossing a line into a whole new area of music.
perhaps it's most like following the mic cable from the stage to the sound desk - you're still at the gig, and can still be listening to the same things as everybody else, but perhaps you now have something different to think about the next day.
I think the bottom line that everybody hears music differently. in fact, I know that people hear music / sounds differently. I'm not talking some kind of wishy-washy "we all connect differently on an emotional level with different artists blah blah blah" kind of variation here - I'm talking variation in the chain: sounds -> ears -> brain = music.
I'll start a new thread with a little experiment (which might go horribly wrong!).
it's interesting to hear people talk about how little they understand, or want to understand, the mechanics of song writing, arrangement and recording. of course, it'd be naiive to assume that everybody listens to a song and can pick out the bassline, or notice a shaker dropping in and out of the mix, but it's good to be reminded in clear terms that for the vast majority of people this is not the case.
I suppose I take it for granted - I can remember listening to simon and garfunkel at a very early age and thinking "hey - they're singing the same words, but different notes. that's pretty cool". I can remember seeing Black Box on TOTP or whatever and thinking "hey - that woman's not really singing that! and they must have used some kind of machine to make her voice go all stuttery"... I never really had any proper musical training (stopped having instrument lessons before my teens, never really got into theory or grades). but I've been learning about the art and the science of music-making and recording ever since those early days - the concept of multitrack recording, the art of arrangement, the concept of sampling.... the list goes on. I find this stuff fascinating, magical and useful.
as far as having a "trained ear" goes, I think it's wrong to assume that understanding how sounds are played, recorded and mixed decreases your basic enjoyment of a recording, just as it's wrong to assume that not understanding these things means you appreciate music less. both opinions carry with them some kind of ignorance or arrogance.
the best way for me to break it down is like this - it's all about accepting and appreciating the lines that can be drawn between:
the instruments
the musicians
the songwriter
the song
the production
the recording
so, to clarify - whilst my appreciation of the production of a recording might be greater than that of someone who knows little about these things, my appreciation of a song (or to be even more anal, a particular recording of a song) is exactly the same - either I like it or I don't. that's the stage where it comes down to sounds -> ears -> brain = music.
I'm sure everyone could name certain recordings of certain songs that they believe are better than other recordings of the same songs (cover versions / alternate takes / remixes / live versions). you might not be able to describe why in any kind of technical terms, but that doesn't matter - the technical terms are for those interested in the technical side of the process. most people aren't interested in this side. but as I point out above, I see that as crossing a line into a whole new area of music.
perhaps it's most like following the mic cable from the stage to the sound desk - you're still at the gig, and can still be listening to the same things as everybody else, but perhaps you now have something different to think about the next day.
mms said:
Does that mean you have a prog heart, beating in 17/4?
mms said:
Yeah, kind of. The different dances come out of different rhythms (a waltz is the obvious one), and the dance steps that go with them fit to that rhythm. (But I don't know if the rhythm comes first, or the steps.) It's not just aristocratic though - folk music uses loads of different beats too; a lot of stuff from Eastern Europe is in 5s or 7s, and that in turn influences the rest of the musical culture (Bartok etc.).
hamarplatz said:
I don't think so. It's only part of the equation, and personally I don't find it that interesting. It's more interesting to look at how what a musician has done makes other people feel. Trying to reconstruct a composer's intentions is either really easy (go up and ask them), or impossibly hit and miss if they're not there/alive to ask, and in the end how much does it matter?
hamarplazt
100% No Soul Guaranteed
Not much I think, but it makes me wonder if I understands music at all, or I'm just being very tolerant.Rambler said: