posted
I wonder if psychoacoustics is responsible for the thing that every Pink Floyd song I've ever heard does to me. As a kid I could tell if a song was Pink Floyd or not by how crazy I felt after 30 seconds or slightly less.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Not all well executed music sounds good, and not all good sounding music is well executed. Most of the time I don't particularly care about the subtleties of execution as long as it manages to sound good to me.
You may not care about perfection, but you care that the music is executed well enough that it sounds good. Poorly executed music may sound good, but it sounds better if it isn't poorly executed. I'm not talking about personal preference in what kind of music you like or don't like, but that you care about the execution of what you do like.
Posts: 1314 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
In my opinion, different music is properaly evaluated different ways. The criteria for judging a Mozart symphony is different from that of a folk song. What combination of technique, interpretation, soul or what-have-you is appropriate to the piece, the circumstance, the venue, the listener. I know brilliant musicians who have stunning technique but can't read a note. There are folk singers that can't even hold pitch, yet are national treasures.
In my opinion, music is far too diverse an art for any "expert" to be making general value judgments.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Psychoacoustics tries to explain how our brain perceives and interprets sound in general--and it gets much deeper when you look into the psychology of music, which is also a study of culture. I only took one class on it, (and it was a while ago), but I enjoyed it immensely--especially the parts about music's relationship with memory (something OSC touched on in one of his recent articles).
Also, I agree with what you just said, KM. Why the eyeroll?
Posts: 1314 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Orincoro wrote: "If I were really going out of my way, I'd watch the video you're talking about. But I haven't. I have know way of knowing what's in it- other than watching it, which I doubt I'll do."
I am trying very hard to make sense of this, but I just can't do it.
Are you afraid I will be angry if you don't like my(then) ten year-old's music? Are you being stubborn and just digging in your heels? Honestly, I don't get it.
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Launchywiggin: In order to be able to identify that you like "distorted guitar texture" instead of just being able to say "I like THAT--it sure sounds cool"--that took a certain amount of education in musical vocabulary and ideas. Now if you studied it further, you'd be able to find out what specifically ABOUT distorted guitar textures appeals to you.
Just a point of clarification, it isn't that I like all distorted guitar textures, it's specifically that I like some distorted guitar textures in particular over others. Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: [QUOTE] Nowadays he spends seven months writing something that is deliberately unmemorable, calculating the wavelengths of a given interval so that he can express a waveform as part of a larger symbol that might be addressed in a later movement. When he attempts to write something actually worth listening to, however, he is crippled by his desire to make his music "artful."
I have no doubt that he will someday overcome this, but it makes everything he writes at the moment unpleasant to experience. If he intends to make a living as a songwriter or teacher -- and he does -- he will need to get over the "art" he is currently being taught.
This simply doesn't match my experience. It's of course possible that you're brother is misguided, maybe he is poorly taught, maybe he is involved in a program that is not helping him to establish a useful artistic process. The things you talk about him doing shouldn't be taking him months to do anyway- if he studies music programming and sequencing, for instance in MAX/MSP or PD, he should be learning languages that increase his musical versatility and the accessability of his work to his own artistic intentions. And maybe he's not really a very good artist- I can't know that.
I can tell you that we write music for many different reasons, and some of the music of the 20th century is very deeply concerned with being inaccessible. Composers who chose this route did so for valid reasons, they were concerned with the nature of music and the effects that the public ear was having on art in general. For me that period is interesting but possibly regrettable.
That is not the current prevailing culture, in my opinion. And I still think your perception of your brother's work is going to be too biased for you to present it as a valid assessment, much less a representative example as you are trying to do.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:EVERYONE cares about how well executed music is.
Not all well executed music sounds good, and not all good sounding music is well executed. Most of the time I don't particularly care about the subtleties of execution as long as it manages to sound good to me.
I'm reminded of a brilliant recording of an ostensibly non-singer performing "Oh holy night." Someone please post a link if you have any idea what I mean, I can't find the thing myself at the moment (low battery).
The performance is the epitomy of poor execution. It's unmusical, uncomfortable, ugly, and hilarious. The funny thing is that I am absolutely convinced that the person who recorded it is brilliant musically. What seems like poor execution is, in the end, highly effective. Why do people love the Beatles to death even though alot of their music is technically quite rough? The roughness in it is part of their sound, and it works, it's GOOD execution. The ultimate judge is how effective the music can be, and how lasting. I would argue that if you really enjoy something, its execution is good by definition. If you dislike it musically but still appreciate the execution for some reason, then it's also well executed.
How does this apply to the recording we're talking about? In my opinion the piece is not well executed, it is annoying, it is tiresome, and it is insincere. I don't think it's good, but considering alot of the people here like it, I would concede that its execution has been effective in that way. I hold however, that this appeal is bought at the price of taste, and this price ultimately defeats the piece for me, and quickly. So there is wiggle room here, but I think my view is borne out when one explores the repertoire further, and reflects on the piece again- they will find it to be artistically bereft.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
(to Orincoro) Now you are saying what many people have been saying, that musical taste is subjective. And you are stating your dislike of this child's performance as your opinion, not The Truth.
You have epicurean taste in music. Your palate does not allow for the country style macaroni and cheese. You want fondue.
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's because macaroni & cheese is disgusting, and fondue is delicious!
Unless the macaroni and cheese is made with gruyere, fontina and cheddar, in which case it's basically like good fondue anyway. Plus noodles. And who doesn't like noodles? No one worth knowing, that's for sure.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You snob! You probably put the butter in the fridge, instead of on the counter where it belongs. Or worse, you don't use butter, you use...olive oil.
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elizabeth: (to Orincoro) Now you are saying what many people have been saying, that musical taste is subjective. And you are stating your dislike of this child's performance as your opinion, not The Truth.
You have epicurean taste in music. Your palate does not allow for the country style macaroni and cheese. You want fondue.
I would say I recognize why macaroni is enjoyable to some people. Those people are mostly children... but macoroni doesn't make a healthy diet. Eating it all the time makes you fat and lazy, and it serves a crutch when you could be expanding your palette.
I still don't think that's a subjective judgement- scientists have pretty effectively proven that some things are more healthy for your body than others, and I would like people to consider that some things in music are macaroni, and some are sushi. Kids also hate sushi because it's "yucky fish," but grown ups develop a taste for it.
Besides ultimately it would be deeply silly for me to believe in my heart of hearts that I possess "The Truth." But I feel I use judgment that should be accessible to anyone, I just require that people have reasons for thinking what they do. What I'm pretty consistently presented with in topics like this one, are stupid reasons.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
And Elizabeth, I'm not going to watch your son's video, at least in this topic, because I don't think it fits with the discussion to involve someone you know, mixing your understandably personal feelings in- I couldn't be fair to myself or you if I did talk about it. When it's someone who will be affected by what you say, and you have the potential of discouraging them from trying to do well, then you have to be more careful.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elizabeth: Olive, Radiohead does that to me for some reason. I am assuming it was not a good crazy?
Radiohead is one of the more psycho acoustically adventurous bands. If you've seen "There will be Blood," Johnny Greenwood, who started out as Radiohead's lead guitarist, is the composer of the original material on the soundtrack. The music he generated for the movie is deeply effective on that level of "I think I'm as crazy as the movie." It's wonderfully involving that way.
If you listen to "In Rainbows," which I highly recommend, you'll kind of see how a persistent tone and aesthetic sense is presented through the first disk (the free one). If you want to hear a really obvious example of psychoacoustic manipulation, listen to the last track "Videotape," and pay attention to the ambient sound on the track, and how tense and taught the music is because of it. Imagine how it would sound without the interference and semi-transparent dissonance of the two sound objects, the piano and the background, and you'll see how four dimensional the music becomes as they interact. This really sets Radiohead apart in popular music- even more than the Beatles.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I would say I recognize why macaroni is enjoyable to some people. Those people are mostly children...
Your ignorance is showing.
quote:but macoroni doesn't make a healthy diet. Eating it all the time makes you fat and lazy, and it serves a crutch when you could be expanding your palette.
And eating fondue all the time does what, exactly? Moreover, basing a food's impact on what happens when it's eaten all the time is a ridiculous way to look at the issue.
quote:I still don't think that's a subjective judgement- scientists have pretty effectively proven that some things are more healthy for your body than others, and I would like people to consider that some things in music are macaroni, and some are sushi. Kids also hate sushi because it's "yucky fish," but grown ups develop a taste for it.
Again - we're comparing to fondue here, not sushi, and we're comparing taste, not healthfulness.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I still don't think that's a subjective judgement- scientists have pretty effectively proven that some things are more healthy for your body than others, and I would like people to consider that some things in music are macaroni, and some are sushi. Kids also hate sushi because it's "yucky fish," but grown ups develop a taste for it.
Again - we're comparing to fondue here, not sushi, and we're comparing taste, not healthfulness.
I don't like the fondue analogy, that's why I suggested sushi. And I believe that musical "taste" is related to healthful eating. It's a twisted set of metaphors, but please don't hold me responsible for something I didn't say.
It was Elizabeth who said fondue, I countered with sushi. My point is that I think "taste" in music is similar to taste in healthy eating. That is not to compare the word "taste" in music with the word "taste" as in "this tastes sweet."
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:This is especially applicable to the discussion about Tom's brother, because what he's doing might very well be changing how society hears music in the future
posted
Yeah, God forbid we should ever evolve. I feel bad for your brother. He probably senses your disgust with his work the way I do with my dad. And my music is described by a lot of people as being very pretty. It's unfortunate and discouraging to have family members unwilling to be supportive.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
First, eating sushi all the time isn't particularly healthful, either. Second, there's no particular reason why someone has to stop liking macaroni and cheese when they start liking sushi. Third, there are plenty of macaroni and cheeses that kids don't prefer. Fourth, it's still based on a mistaken assumption about macaroni and cheese and who likes it.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag you haven't offered a single substantive element into this discussion as far as I can recall. Apparently your wheelhouse extends only far enough to lazily snipe at me without demonstrating any will to form your own alternative suggestions. I hope you enjoy it.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
I think the observation that tastes evolve is of course perfectly valid. I think it's even inevitable. This does not mean, however, that I would want the kind of music my brother is currently composing to become popular at any point within my lifetime.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dag you haven't offered a single substantive element into this discussion as far as I can recall. Apparently your wheelhouse extends only far enough to lazily snipe at me without demonstrating any will to form your own alternative suggestions. I hope you enjoy it.
I substantively addressed your analogy. How exactly is that not an alternative suggestion?
It seems all you can do is bitch about the fact that I disagree with you rather than actually address the substance of the disagreement.
Perhaps you can explain how my addressing of the food analogy - to which YOU responded to ME first, remember - is somehow "lazier" than yours.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:He probably senses your disgust with his work the way I do with my dad.
So that's where you get it from.
My dad has suffered several strokes over the past 8 years, and his personality has altered significantly in that time. He's become rigid, unknowable, withdrawn, and unhappy. So I'd thank you to be sensitive if I reveal that this a source of a lot of worry in the family and tension between myself and my dad. It's possible I object to your tone so often because you sound a lot like him (both lawyers too) and I apologize for that. But I hope you won't find my relationship with my dad to be an irresistible target for your comments- it's a sensitive area.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
However, my comment was meant to reflect that it is very easy to sense your disgust concerning other people's tastes. Perhaps you could remember how it feels before expressing that disgust.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would like to submit one thing I think we can all agree on. That is that
Metal Machine Music by Lou Reed is impossible to listen to in one sitting. While this may not be the worst piece of "music" ever written (if it was indeed "written") it does serve as a sign-post we can all point to in order to say that, differing tastes aside, anything past this line is just plain "bad."
Now, here's the point (you knew there had to be one, didn't you), I submit that there is no way to similar stick a flag in the ground at the opposite end of the spectrum. That is, you can't say "anything beyond this point is "good" (unless, of course, you use Lou Reed's Metal Machine Music as the one and only dividing line and simply assert that anything short of MMM is at least not as bad as that, and therefor "good" for some value of good).
Now, can we all just relax to some PDQ Bach?
You music majors can appreciate all the inside technical jokes.
posted
Bob, I will agree to your terms only if macaroni and cheese is served, made with butter that has been left out, and which does not touch any other food on the plate. I would also prefer the facilities to be stocked with toilet paper that rolls under, not over.
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: ... but macoroni doesn't make a healthy diet. Eating it all the time makes you fat and lazy, and it serves a crutch when you could be expanding your palette.
I still don't think that's a subjective judgement- scientists have pretty effectively proven that some things are more healthy for your body than others, and I would like people to consider that some things in music are macaroni, and some are sushi. Kids also hate sushi because it's "yucky fish," but grown ups develop a taste for it.
The food metaphor is not a very good one. You're essentially conflating two different things. True, scientists have discovered that some foods are healthier than others (in certain contexts BTW, not as an absolute). However, this kind of analysis can be based on quantifiable and scientifically verifiable procedure which can be replicated across cultures, since we're really basing our analysis on concrete molecules such as carbohydrates, saturated fats, proteins, etc.
The problem is when you conflate the idea of scientific "healthiness" with the idea of human taste and then relate that to musical taste. Those are two non-trivial leaps.
Musical taste as you have described is not scientific, is not quantifiable, and is not even really cross-culturally applicable. There are some aspects to what other people have responded to that may be, TomDavidson's anecdote about his brother experimenting with waveforms, but even then his judgement was based on fundamentally subjective grounds, "it does not sound good."
Thus, I believe that at least some of the frustration in this thread comes from your blanket proclamations "this is good" or more often "this is bad/cheap/bad taste" and then backing up those rather subjective statements with the claim that with a music degree, you're more qualified to make that kind of judgement.
Well, a music degree doesn't really give you the same type of expertise when judging music that a doctor can draw upon when assessing the healthiness of a certain piece of food. Music is art, usually not a social science, and certainly not a real science. Pretending like it is and that you're tapping into concrete measures of taste is not really going to help the perception of well ... "snobbiness" Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
you mean a metaphor conflates two ideas in order to make a point? Oh man, I need to take a good long hard look in the mirror.
Just because you don't understand what about music is quantifiable doesn't mean it isn't there. I an LW agree pretty strongly on why this isn't, and we've sighted pretty concrete reasons, i.e. It's derivative, the playing is dynamically static (don't know if I did say that), the scales are unoriginal and by-the-book, the arrangement is uninteresting, the sound is unrefined, and to add a further observation, the sound of the guitar is very flat and unappealing- I know very concrete and executable ways of making it better- I could make it better, in a limited way, in about 5 minutes in Logic. That wouldn't change all the other fatal flaws, and it's overall lack of interest.
Really, it's such a silly and obvious example of a generic nothing. I'd be buoyed a bit more if there was even a question in my mind about it.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mucus, I don't like the implication that social science is not "real science," but otherwise I agree with everything you've written in that post.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mucus, I've responded to that assertion not only in this thread but in many others, and I would imagine from you as well. So I don't have anything else to add. You want to dismiss my view of it without showing an actual understanding of that view- that doesn't hurt me very much.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Out of curiosity, is there a phrasing for the distinction that you find unoffensive, Bob, or do you disagree with the entire distinction between sciences such as chemistry and physics and sciences such as sociology and psychology? (Not trying to be offensive here, it's a genuine question.)
(If there is a distinction, where do biology and anatomy fall within it? Climate science?)
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Soft sciences" is the term I'm used to. (With physics, chemistry, etc. thus called "hard sciences.")
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
The eyeroll was an indication of how silly I felt it was to list my "credentials" before participating in a conversation about musical tastes.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bob_Scopatz & Rivka: Sorry, soft/hard science rather than social/real if you prefer. Actually, I think its better because it captures the idea of differing degrees of absoluteness (can't think of a better word) and differing use of concepts like the scientific method, rather than a more binary view that I accidentally implied.
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Just because you don't understand what about music is quantifiable doesn't mean it isn't there. I an LW agree pretty strongly on why this isn't, and we've sighted pretty concrete reasons, i.e. It's derivative, the playing is dynamically static (don't know if I did say that), the scales are unoriginal and by-the-book, the arrangement is uninteresting, the sound is unrefined, and to add a further observation, the sound of the guitar is very flat and unappealing ...
Obviously we have very different ideas about what the word "quantifiable" means. What is the unit of "originality"? How do you measure "interest" in a way that is reproducible for someone in a different culture? What does the SI have to say about the measurement of "refinement" or "appeal"?
These are very qualitative and subjective judgements, not quantitative.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
)and:![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
