Listeners or Analysts ?

aydee

Platinum Member
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"?


.............................
 
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?"
 
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.
 
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?
 
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?
 
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".

......
 
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?
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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..."
 
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.
 
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.
 
..... 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.
 
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.
 
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..
 
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 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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Back
Top