Listeners or Analysts ?

[aydee]

Anytime I've ever listened to a great piece of music, I find myself reacting to a bass line, or a guitar riff, a horn solo, or a little drum thing at the end of a chorus, a harmonic structure, or groove that's happening just so...

The 'music' within the music.

...I listen to a soloist, and I'm analyzing his choice of notes where he going with it etc.. I marvel at the drummers sophistication of the subdivisions...

I also find a lot of other musicians doing the same thing when they listen to music.

Often when I've tried to share this excitement with friends or family who might not be musicians, I go " hey, isn't that bass line incredible!!!!? and they have no idea what I'm getting so worked up about.

Which leads me to wonder if musicians listen differently from normal people ? ( cough.. )

Are we fated to not just simply enjoy music in a wholesome way? Are we destined never to ever utter the words, " that's a nice song" ? Are we doomed to either love or hate every piece of music that we ever "scrutinize"?


.............................

[trkdrmr]

I used to spend time locked between two very expensive loudspeakers listening to every nuance of music. I have long since abandoned that fruitless and expensive pasttime.

The average listener does seem to heavily favor dancible music. Does it have a good beat? They don't seem to read into anything, except they get wrapped around lyrics. Sometimes they get too wrapped up in lyrical interpretation.

When I hear a tune I evaluate it on many levels. First and foremost:what did the drums contribute? How do they sound? Did he overplay? What is the drummer doing to support or elevate the music?

Once I get past that, I go into the structure, lyrics and so on. I have a tendency to categorize and score efforts.

The bottom line with any of it is how the music makes me feel. The gut reaction that says "What am I getting out of this?"

[jjmason777]

I tend to listen to a song at face value, that is, the song as a whole the first time I hear it. If it really grabs me, that's when I start breaking it down, listening to the different parts, and dissecting WHY it grabs me. It's the songwriter part of me. I tend to reverse engineer the song, how the parts (different instruments) fit together, the arrangement, etc. That helps me write better songs. Don't think of it as a curse, I think it helps us enjoy music more, and on a deeper level than the average non-musician listener.
Interestingly, when I ask the average non-musician listener why THEY like a song, 9 times out of 10 they will say they like the lyrics. That's usually the last thing I listen to. I will hear the vocals as a melody first, before I listen to what the words actually are.

[drummerchick435]

I listen to just about every style of music: jazz, funk, r&b, blues, every type of rock (hard rock, southern rock, classic rock, etc), metal, pop, gospel, Christian, and the list goes on.

Firstly comes the groove that the bassist and drummer provide. Are they communicating well with each other? Then comes the other instruments and vocalist(s), if any. Are the drummer and bassist communicating well with the rest of the band?

[VedranS]

I find that I tend to have a visceral reaction to music first, and continue to listen to it in that way repeatedly, trying to just take it in. I start to notice different parts and particulars of the song, but on the first listens I'd never describe it as "analysis". Rather, I happen to have these subdivisions and sense of dynamics, of tension and release, and other "technical" aspects of the music already engrained in my mind, and so I notice them naturally, without trying to pick apart the song conciously. Once I start picking up on these nuances, they lead to other, deeper emotional reactions to the song.

Now, sometimes after I've already had a strong emotional response to some part of a song in particualar that I can pinpoint, then I may try to disect it to see how it was played, or what it was specifically that turned me on to it in the first place. I don't just go analyzing music willy-nilly, rather I only conciously try to do that only after it affected me on some gut level, or if I need to learn something if I'm going to play it myself.

However this also works in reverse for me, which I think can cause me to dislike certain songs because of some small nuance. Because the depth of my listening into a cerain song causes me to have emotional reactions to tiny details of it, I'll sometimes dislike something because of some dynamic shift nobody may have noticed, or some phrase or figure that sounds trite to me, but only because of how much music I've listened to. For example, Bonham triplets (or Jones triplets for you nit-picking historians) sound done to death, but only because we conciously recoginze the influence when we hear someone play them. Does that make any sense??

Anyway, great thought Aydee, definitely something I've wondered about... What about you, do you think the fact that you can pick apart the music causes you to not be able to enjoy it on a less technical level?

[aydee]

What about you, do you think the fact that you can pick apart the music causes you to not be able to enjoy it on a less technical level?


Perhaps if when I've listened to a piece a 100 times and know it inside out, I can lay back and just let the music soak into me.
But 9 times out of ten, if the music is something that tickles my fancy, I tend to get all microscopic and am drooling at some little piece of magic happening somewhere in the track and missing the larger picture.
I also find this disease afflicts most musicians ( the ones I know anyway ), because when we get together and listen to something, we're are all doing the same thing!

" Did you hear that, what chord is that? "What an awesome lick, Did you notice what he did there? Check out that diminished 7th he played there... whats he doing on the hi hats".

......

[VedranS]

Perhaps if when I've listened to a piece a 100 times and know it inside out, I can lay back and just let the music soak into me.


Cool, see I find I'm just the opposite. My emotional response to the song as a whole definitely goes down the more I listen to it, and after many many many listens it even becomes hard for me to try to imagine the gut reaction I had when I first heard it. I'm always a bit sad about that. At that point, little nuances like some sweet piece of dissonance or a clever dynamic shift start to cary way more emotional weight, and I start having to get off on those. Ultimately, what I want out of my music is an emotional kick, and like an addict, I start searching for it in deeper nooks and crannies of a song, 'til I've drained it of any freshness it had in my mind. I guess I can see what you're saying in a way. Kinda sad, huh?

[aydee]

Cool, see I find I'm just the opposite. My emotional response to the song as a whole definitely goes down the more I listen to it, and after many many many listens it even becomes hard for me to try to imagine the gut reaction I had when I first heard it. I'm always a bit sad about that. At that point, little nuances like some sweet piece of dissonance or a clever dynamic shift start to cary way more emotional weight, and I start having to get off on those. Ultimately, what I want out of my music is an emotional kick, and like an addict, I start searching for it in deeper nooks and crannies of a song, 'til I've drained it of any freshness it had in my mind. I guess I can see what you're saying in a way. Kinda sad, huh?

I see what you saying too : )..... at one level we're saying the same thing. The emotional connect is a given, which makes us musicians. What I'm taking about, I guess is the difference between saying " what a great evening we had last night at the restaurant", vesus saying " man, that lasagna was awesome last night, wasn't it.

sorry its all getting a bit esoteric, the emotion & gut is all there. It just begins with a narrower focus, which gradually broadens as the initially novelty, curiousity wears off.

[Deltadrummer]

Well, I think that you just put your finger on why Brittney is number one.

One of the things is that you can get emotional response because something is so technically perfected it is just beautiful. and you know as a musician the hours and hours and months and months and years and years and lifetimes and lifetimes of work that went into it and it just makes you well up. You know the LOVE of craft that the musicians had to perfect it, and that is true emotion

[tbmills]

i was talking (at length) with my friend crimson about this. she says that she hears music while i listen. i find myself constantly studying whatever i am listening to, even if there arent drums. (i have been getting into lots of string bluegrass) but, i have found that i can kind of turn it all off and just absorb the music. i can listen to the instrumentation or observe the emotion of the song. crimson says that she feels the music more than anything else. like art, she doesnt now how its made. she just looks and admires, reflecting on how piece affects her.

over the past year my playing has become much more groove oriented and less focused on technicality. i am finally beginning to play music. its all about feel now. i try to let myself just melt into the groove of the song and forget about trying to amaze myself with different licks. i think i am hearing my drumming now instead of listening.

[caddywumpus]

I, too, catch those little nuances that lead me to listen to a song and marvel at its wonders over and over again. (Ever listen to Jimi Hendrix through headphones?) Just the smallest little things can make a song magical and worthy of repeated listens.

The flip side of this is true, too. This is my curse--when I hear a song that is way too predictable or "cookie-cutter", I'll start saying in my head, "Man, this song is terrible. That IV chord would have been better as a vi7 chord, or if the melody was different, a VI7 chord, or if....". When a song like this comes on, my non-musician friends will ask me just what the heck I'm doing as I sing, "One, four, one, fiiiiiive..."

[Late Bloomer]

I definately listen to music in depth. I think most musicians hear much more from a piece of music than non musicianns. As far as lyrics go, they are among the last thing I listen for.

[Mediocrefunkybeat]

The trick is to learn both. Right now I've got the second Portishead album - now if that's not nuanced, nothing is. But I'm sitting here functioning quite normally with a large pair of speakers pointed at me. On the other hand, if I wanted to hear all the nuances, I could - I do aural training at University - it's a course requirement. As a guy who's going into some kind of industry-related profession, it's vital that I CAN hear these things. Phase being a great example. Even with all the nuances you guys are picking up - I would still find it hard to believe that a majority of you can detect a phase cancellation; be it in the song or as a result of playback. There's one skill that needs to be specifically learned. On the other hand, I can't transcribe drum parts to save my life. I can see how they work, I can see how they interact, I can even play them most of the time, but I cannot transcribe. I suspect a mental block.

[aydee]

..... On the other hand, I can't transcribe drum parts to save my life. I can see how they work, I can see how they interact, I can even play them most of the time, but I cannot transcribe. I suspect a mental block.

You recording engineer types take this whole thing to a different level. I have very often been left totally bewildered by sound men, who listen to something that I think sounds perfect... and they say "give me a couple of minutes" & they tinker... and tinker... and voila... its even better than before.

[Mediocrefunkybeat]

That's why there aren't many real engineers out there. I want to be a mastering engineer - I think I've got the ears for it (a few months ago I could still hear 19.5K - apparently it's hereditary - my Grandad was a research physicist/electronic engineer for the BBC for 35 years and had the same thing) but whether or not I get there is another matter. I'll find a career eventually.

The other thing I have to be able to do, though, is perspective listening. I listen to a song as myself and work out things - but I also have to be able to listen to it from the standpoint of a layperson. What would they hear? What should I maybe adjust to fit their ears rather than mine?

But like I said, I'm not there yet - I've still got a few years.

[aydee]

That's why there aren't many real engineers out there. I want to be a mastering engineer - I think I've got the ears for it (a few months ago I could still hear 19.5K - apparently it's hereditary - my Grandad was a research physicist/electronic engineer for the BBC for 35 years and had the same thing) but whether or not I get there is another matter. I'll find a career eventually.

The other thing I have to be able to do, though, is perspective listening. I listen to a song as myself and work out things - but I also have to be able to listen to it from the standpoint of a layperson. What would they hear? What should I maybe adjust to fit their ears rather than mine?

But like I said, I'm not there yet - I've still got a few years.

Good luck, MFB, I've a good feeling you'll get there..AND good ears are hereditary. Some of the best engineers I know are sons of good engineers.

One of them has this eccentric habit of always running his final mixdown through the crappiest 2in1 boom box he can find at a very very low volume.

Not sure what that tells him, but he does it unfailingly. Ask him had he says just checking..

[Mediocrefunkybeat]

He's probably checking for mono compatibility - or just to see how the mix sounds on a bad system if it IS stereo. Every time I've done anything I take it to my car and listen to it in there just to see. If my car is not on the other side of the country as it has been until last Friday.

It's very important to check commercial mixes on lower end systems. Monitor speakers are generally very good for a more objective analysis, but home systems are actually very coloured and tend to flatter the sound more than monitors, which can sound very cold. The problem there is two fold, but the same. What sounds good on monitors might not sound good on a home system, but also, commercial mixes are often played on the radio - which a lot of people listen to in mono. Think shower radios and even some commercial stations still. That and the radio habit of adding a LOT of compression and limiting to broadcasts means that an engineer can never be certain of what a mix will sound like when it's actually played, but they can try to work out whether it'll 'work' on lower end systems.

[The Keith Moon]

The first thing I listen is the drum sound, does it sound the way i like (70's sound), how clear it is, how well it was produced.

[Deltadrummer]

The trick is to learn both. Right now I've got the second Portishead album - now if that's not nuanced, nothing is. But I'm sitting here functioning quite normally with a large pair of speakers pointed at me. On the other hand, if I wanted to hear all the nuances, I could - I do aural training at University - it's a course requirement. As a guy who's going into some kind of industry-related profession, it's vital that I CAN hear these things. Phase being a great example. Even with all the nuances you guys are picking up - I would still find it hard to believe that a majority of you can detect a phase cancellation; be it in the song or as a result of playback. There's one skill that needs to be specifically learned. On the other hand, I can't transcribe drum parts to save my life. I can see how they work, I can see how they interact, I can even play them most of the time, but I cannot transcribe. I suspect a mental block.

I think the reason why you can't transcriber may be because you are too creative a person. Therefore, when you listen to something it is hard to be objective and not impose your own creativity on the subject. It is actually quite a debated subject as too whether one can be perfectly objective in such a project, and even the best transcription books tend to have many errors. Transcription is also a learned technique, and the more you understand what a musician is doing, the better you will be able to transcribe it.

That's why there aren't many real engineers out there. I want to be a mastering engineer - I think I've got the ears for it (a few months ago I could still hear 19.5K - apparently it's hereditary - my Grandad was a research physicist/electronic engineer for the BBC for 35 years and had the same thing) but whether or not I get there is another matter. I'll find a career eventually.

The other thing I have to be able to do, though, is perspective listening. I listen to a song as myself and work out things - but I also have to be able to listen to it from the standpoint of a layperson. What would they hear? What should I maybe adjust to fit their ears rather than mine?

But like I said, I'm not there yet - I've still got a few years.

There are often many nuances to a film or a play or a piece of music that only those "in the know' will get. The best children's entertainment is full of such references to keep the adults that come along interested in the entertainment. The only example I can think of with my perverted mind is that from School of Rock where Jack Black tells the girl to keep fingering that 'g' and keep it coming all day long. But even as such, there can be a quote or reference to another piece of work that only the literary minded would understand.

[Mediocrefunkybeat]

Dangermouse is a great example of the 'nuanced' referencing. It's an 80's British Cartoon that's full of really stupid (but hilarious) jokes, but at the same time it references a lot of British Politics and the like throughout. Like Family Guy - but more aimed at kids with a different story. Family Guy does the same thing even more obviously.

Transcription is a learned skill - admittedly - and it isn't something that I've spent much time on; but again, I seriously doubt any transcription I would do would be even remotely objective. I listen to all sorts of music and I really don't like covers where the part has to be 'exact'. Tool and Led Zeppelin are good examples - I won't learn the covers because I'll always get called if I change it. I like re-arranging for different instruments. Right now I'm re-arranging 'Astronomy Domine' by Pink Floyd onto 'piano and 'Everything in its Right Place' by Radiohead onto guitar (it's an electric piano track). I don't like doing straight covers and the same goes for people with transcription. I just don't see the point in learning songs exactly a lot of the time - surely the right feel of the song is more important - to mindset yourself rather than simply replicate the notes. Simple replication often just doesn't interest me.

[intooder]

I used to spend time locked between two very expensive loudspeakers listening to every nuance of music. I have long since abandoned that fruitless and expensive pasttime.

The average listener does seem to heavily favor dancible music. Does it have a good beat? They don't seem to read into anything, except they get wrapped around lyrics. Sometimes they get too wrapped up in lyrical interpretation.

When I hear a tune I evaluate it on many levels. First and foremost:what did the drums contribute? How do they sound? Did he overplay? What is the drummer doing to support or elevate the music?

Once I get past that, I go into the structure, lyrics and so on. I have a tendency to categorize and score efforts.

The bottom line with any of it is how the music makes me feel. The gut reaction that says "What am I getting out of this?"

Great point on lyrics. I feel so many layers can be conveyed through music where lyrics don't stand a chance - I'm guessing it's the subtlety of good music that causes this. In my mind, music is always king.

My typical reaction listening to any band is more why a musician played a part to a given musical context (especially a drummer's choice for a particular fill or groove for a song since I'm more conversant with drums). Along the same lines, I tend to find myself wondering how I would play to song differently and other possible permutations.

[Deltadrummer]

I don't like doing straight covers and the same goes for people with transcription. I just don't see the point in learning songs exactly a lot of the time - surely the right feel of the song is more important - to mindset yourself rather than simply replicate the notes. Simple replication often just doesn't interest me.

Transcriptions are valuable in a teaching situation; but even there again, I would rather have my students realize the value of interpretation and learning to interpret a chart than to "cover" a song. Where I live, in NY as well I be in parts of England I am sure, the tribute thing has gotten so out of hand. There is infinitely more value in learning how to put your own creative spin on a piece of music than transcribing and playing a Bonham solo note for note.

[drumhead61]

Anytime I've ever listened to a great piece of music, I find myself reacting to a bass line, or a guitar riff, a horn solo, or a little drum thing at the end of a chorus, a harmonic structure, or groove that's happening just so...

I have found myself doing the same thing all my life and others at times think I am nuts at how excited I get over the nuances of certain pieces.[/COLOR]
The 'music' within the music.
...I listen to a soloist, and I'm analyzing his choice of notes where he going with it etc.. I marvel at the drummers sophistication of the subdivisions...

I also find a lot of other musicians doing the same thing when they listen to music.

Often when I've tried to share this excitement with friends or family who might not be musicians, I go " hey, isn't that bass line incredible!!!!? and they have no idea what I'm getting so worked up about.

I hear the yeah, all right thing a lot! But to me it is marvelous

Which leads me to wonder if musicians listen differently from normal people ? ( cough.. )

Are we fated to not just simply enjoy music in a wholesome way? Are we destined never to ever utter the words, " that's a nice song" ? Are we doomed to either love or hate every piece of music that we ever "scrutinize"?

I always thought I was enjoying music in a wholesome way...it is to me anyway and to you as well.
.............................


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[Mediocrefunkybeat]

Transcriptions are valuable in a teaching situation; but even there again, I would rather have my students realize the value of interpretation and learning to interpret a chart than to "cover" a song. Where I live, in NY as well I be in parts of England I am sure, the tribute thing has gotten so out of hand. There is infinitely more value in learning how to put your own creative spin on a piece of music than transcribing and playing a Bonham solo note for note.

It's not so bad over here (and I'm near London at the moment) but I agree. Transcription is important as a technical exercise, I understand that - but I think 'mindset playing' is far more important. Working out 'why' things were done rather than necessarily note-for-note playing is far more valuable to me. It gives you much more insight into the music and the motivations behind it rather than just blind note-playing. Tribute bands are great once in a while and it is lucrative as a career for many musicians - but constant retrospection gets us nowhere.

[Deltadrummer]

Working out 'why' things were done rather than necessarily note-for-note playing is far more valuable to me. It gives you much more insight into the music and the motivations behind it rather than just blind note-playing.

That's exactly the reason why I use them, to ask, why does this fill work so well. How does it relate to the rest of the song? to the groove? And once you get into that kind of detailed nuance of analysis you are becoming a musician, and I think that is what Abe is referring to.

But I for one, do like simple songs, and as a writer myself, I know how deceptively simple a song like The Eagles Love Will Keep Us Alive or Brittaney's Womanizer can be. When I first heard that I thought, man that is a #1 hit. If I could write hits like that, I most certainly would do it. :)

[what the funk of it]

Great thread Aydee.

This analyst way of listening is definately no curse. It allows musicians to fully appreciate the music and inspires us to create as well. Although overlistening can sometimes take away from the initial emotional reaction to a certain peice of music, I bet non musicians get bored of songs much quicker than the rest of us.

Reminds me of a fight with my ex at an Incubus concert some time ago. She asked me why I wouldn't sing along with her. I told her I go to shows to listen. Bad move - it's the truth, it just came out all wrong.

By the way MFB, how can you train your ear to hear such low frequencies? Pretty impressive..

[Ian Williams]

An interesting topic to discuss. My personal opinion is that Listening and Analysing are both important to apply. We listen to learn, remind, enjoy and We analyse to assess, evaluate every minimum detail of each musical instrument been played, including vocals.

All the Best,

[Mediocrefunkybeat]

WTFOI; it was 19.5KHz. Not 19.5Hz. I'd be incredibly surprised if I heard 19.5Hz!

[jcdrum14]

well for me i tend to analyze songs and often say to family members (non-musicians) did u just hear that fill how it complemented the music? and they just look at me because they just dont understand.. or just certain inflections that denote the feel of a song will keep me coming back and just studying it.

Even in pop music there can be something that catches your ear, i recently heard a song by Paramore (thats what you get) and it seemed to me that the guitar is playing a polyryhthm to what the drummer is doing..he was playing in 3 and the drummer was doing a simple rock beat in four since we're drummers i just think o that's pretty cool and i try to explain it to a non-musician and they look at me like I have three heads.

Also, i think analyzing is really important to growing as a musician. i have been listening to so much Jeff Porcaro lately and his fills complement the song perfectly and are just so musical its mind blowing, ive been trying to emulate his approach to groove in my drumming and playing simpler and tastefully can garner so much more reaction than busting out every lick you learned...

[TheGroceryman]

Unfortunately, i always feel the first time i listen to a song is the best enjoyment i get out of listening to it. Because after the first time or first couple of times, i know what's coming next, i know where the song is going. I get enjoyment when during a song, i think (or say, if it really strikes me) "oh snap!" It is just so unexpected, and thats what i like about it. I guess that's why i like jazz a lot, because half the time i dont know what's gonna happen next, there's always that excitement factor. Jazz is like a box of chocolates, you never know whatcha gonna get.

As i listen to songs that strike me more, i want to find out what they're doing, although the song is less enjoyable to listen to. This is when i really get the urge to play the song. to get that enjoyment, you know?

eh, i would go on, but i gotta go, jazz band!!! woooo!!!!!!

[bobdadruma]

True; Musicians who play different instruments definitely listen to music in different ways. As a drummer I always find myself gravitating toward the bass notes. If you are a drummer you always follow the low notes to see where the beat is going. I almost never remember lyrics. I hear them as a melody in the background. I listen for key words that depict a change in the rhythm. I listen to lead instruments but I get distracted by the bass and I find that I am only listening to the lead to detect the changes in the song also. This is what makes a drummer, a drummer! We are tuned in to 19.5KHz and not 19.5Hz

[what the funk of it]

MFB: Well that explains alot. For a minute I thought you might be superhuman.

Too bad, you may have been humanity's only hope in defending us against that 'brown note' I've heard so much about. Pretty sure the mythbusters solved that one though.

[Mediocrefunkybeat]

MFB: Well that explains alot. For a minute I thought you might be superhuman.

Too bad, you may have been humanity's only hope in defending us against that 'brown note' I've heard so much about. Pretty sure the mythbusters solved that one though.

Great episode. Since we cancelled our Sky subscription I haven't seen it. I think I'd seen all the episodes at least once anyway...

[awesometastic]

As a music theory geek, I actually listen to the overall arrangement and song structure first, and while I do take in the rhythm, my attention is captured or lost by the melody and harmonic structure.

I seem to be the only one here though.

[Steamer]

As a music theory geek, I actually listen to the overall arrangement and song structure first, and while I do take in the rhythm, my attention is captured or lost by the melody and harmonic structure.

I seem to be the only one here though.

Nope. That's always been the way my ear has functioned too in regards to listening to music as well as also focusing how the rhythmic element fits into the overall mix.

Can be very helpful particularly when given the task of working with a composer on an arrangement in the shaping original music with a drum concept or rhythmic approach and how it can relate to the overall structure of the music {melody, harmony, sense of mood etc...} as my "ear" hears it in a general "overview" musical listening approach.

[Jeff Almeyda]

This reminds me of a show I saw on Discovery Channel.

When a human walks into McDonald's they smell McDonald's. When a dog walks in they smell: beef, special sauce , lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions, the cleaner used on the floor, a woman's perfume, a kid's bad breath etc.

Being a musician or engineer is a little like having a dog's sense of smell.

The trick for us humans is maintaining perspective and being able to go from the "macro" view to the "micro" view and back at will.

I noticed this first when all my guitar player friends started getting into Yngwie Malmsteen years ago. They heard entire songs in his solos while most people just heard too much guitar. So one can go too far with the Micro view.

[Deltadrummer]

I noticed this first when all my guitar player friends started getting into Yngwie Malmsteen years ago. They heard entire songs in his solos while most people just heard too much guitar. So one can go too far with the Micro view.

The guy who I work for was always fighting with me about this. He would ask, "who are you to make these judgments about music?" To which I would respond, "I've been studying it for 35 years, if I can't make valid value judgments about it when do I actually get to start." One thing he's right about is that he says, "people don't listen to music. For them it's just background noise." People just want to be able to say anything is music and there are really no values of musicality that can be upheld. My argument about that has always been if music is exclusively about taste, then you could never make a positive value judgment about music that you didn't like. But we musicians do all the time. you can value something but not really enjoy listening to it. You can say I don't like Mozart or Beethoven, or Elvin Jones or Tony Williams; but you cannot say that these musicians did not radically change their world of music. I think it takes a certain sophistication to understand that distinction in itself, which most people don't have. Let 'em listen to Brittaney Spears.

I think in the USA where, unfortunately this type of approach to music is not as valued as it should or could be. And you even find this among people who talk themselves as musicians, like my employer. And I really think that this is a problem, and a significant problem; that might be my bias as a musician. But music is the food of the soul.

[Jeremy Bender]

Cymbals...that's all I hear is cymbals. Seriously though, I read Aydee's original post and thought about this. I started out first gravitating towards the music that I liked (naturally). Then as time went on, and I tried to learn the actual drum or percussion parts, I focused on analyzing them seperatley. This may have been mentioned already but I don't have time to read every post, because most of my time is spent listening to Paiste soundfiles !

[spleen]

As has been mentioned, I favor doing both. However, for me, developing the skill to not analyze, to just enjoy and respond to it on an emotional level, took some doing. I still struggle sometimes when I want to listen to something for the purpose of having an emotional or cathartic experience (catharsis in the classical sense of being "moved" or "transported" to become other than we were) and I find myself getting caught up in analyzing.

What's even more difficult for me is when the analysis moves beyond curiosity and travels to the realm of judgment (e.g., comparing myself to the musicians playing, evaluating the performance, maybe thinking about how I would have played something differently, evaluating the production qualities, etc.). In any case, I've found that the ability to respond to and be moved by music spiritually and emotionally (and not letting analysis get in the way of this) is imperative in order for me to play the way I want.

Does this fit with anyone else's experience?

spleen

[zambizzi]

Anytime I've ever listened to a great piece of music, I find myself reacting to a bass line, or a guitar riff, a horn solo, or a little drum thing at the end of a chorus, a harmonic structure, or groove that's happening just so...

The 'music' within the music.

...I listen to a soloist, and I'm analyzing his choice of notes where he going with it etc.. I marvel at the drummers sophistication of the subdivisions...

I also find a lot of other musicians doing the same thing when they listen to music.

Often when I've tried to share this excitement with friends or family who might not be musicians, I go " hey, isn't that bass line incredible!!!!? and they have no idea what I'm getting so worked up about.

Which leads me to wonder if musicians listen differently from normal people ? ( cough.. )

Are we fated to not just simply enjoy music in a wholesome way? Are we destined never to ever utter the words, " that's a nice song" ? Are we doomed to either love or hate every piece of music that we ever "scrutinize"?


.............................

You always start the most interesting threads, Abe. I thought about this too because I think I'm both an analyst an a listener. I think a great piece of music takes years to enjoy, internalize, deconstruct, study, etc. A good song can last a lifetime...each listen giving you some new piece of insight or even ideas of your own. Listening to a broad range of music both complex and simple helps me to keep a balance. I can listen to a Beatles tune and turn my brain off or pop in some Tool and pick apart the time signatures, polyrhythms, and all the other tiny gears that make the machine move.

I did this to an extent before drumming but now I definitely analyze as much (or more) now. I didn't understand the communication between the members of the band like I do now...which has added a whole new dimension.

Yeah, it's all good!