»

[Hogisbald]

Originally Posted by Swingin' Ryan

I'm tempted to say that very heavy music with screaming vocals is literally just noise to me and I can't listen to it. However, I've just been listening to some of The Casualties (Hardcore Punk/Street Punk) older stuff, and it's just struck me that it's probably some of the least melodic music ever, but I think it's fantastic, so I can't really generalise.

I think the reason I can listen to heavy Punk but not heavy Metal is because I always feel like with a band like The Casualties they're trying to communicate something (I'm not saying metal bands don't always do this, it just doesn't often connect with me). So I suppose that's what I look for in music, songs that try and communicate something more than just songwriting ability.

There are a few metal bands who might be more your thing but maybe it is a genre of music that just doesnt click with you.

I could be wrong.

[GraemeC]

Originally Posted by HairyScaryMark

Before you start reading this post, I would like everyone to know I don't concider anything to be better music than anything else.

I am a music student and I usaully like music that I wish I could play (or was playing right now).

I rarely care for much that I would never want to play. I also know people who like music becuase it is within their ability to play it.

I also like music to sound beautiful to my ears. Many chords in jazz are very beautiful, I can make beautiful sounds with my guitar and my keyboard. I don't care for a sound that suggests someone is being tortured in some way. I do like some dark sounding music but it is usually at the same time also beautiful.

Music is nothing without beauty, in my opinion. This can be developed and experssed more efficently through learning.

More notes does not make music any less expressive in itself. Being able to express yourself through music is something which can be achieved to a higher level through musical education. Whether it be training your ears so you can play and sing melodies you hear in your head or learning about harmony so you can achieve particular sounds at particular times. Top of the range professional musicians often are far more focused on their playing than amatuer ones. If you watch a concert pianist they often look like they are in a differnet world from everyone else. Many will actaully loose weight during a concerto.

There has been a huge emphasis on songs in this thread. Not all music comes in song format. Songs have a way of connecting with people who don't necesserily understand what has been done to create the music. I think music connects with musicians at a differnet level compared with those who cannot play an instrument.

Learning about music can also take away from the novelty value of more simple forms of music. It does not always work this way for everyone though. I know some great musicians who like some very simple forms of music.

The fanbase of differnet types of music is also made up of entirely differnet sets of people.
Some styles of music have far more musicians as fans than other types. Musicians are far more likely to listen to instrumental music than non musciains.

Some types of music gain most of their fans from people who jam with their acoustic guitars and only play chords.

Some types of music are particularly popular with computer nerds also.

Other's have larger amounts of fans within certain social groups;

For example, instrumental music is particaulrly popular with middle class people. Possibly becuase there are more middle class musicians.
Dance and Harcore are more working class styles of music as is brit pop type stuff. I doubt Oasis are very popular at Eton, or Gordons for that matter (i might be wrong about this though).

Rock N' Roll has been the first type of music to really get widespread acceptance by the masses. This has been a mixed blessing as it has meant that anyone can start a band even if they don't know how to play or express anything musically.

I believe your theory to be horseshit.....
I'm affraid I would loose all faith in human nature if you could describe in detail what music someone will like just by knowing their background and what musical ability they have.....Oasis wont be popular at Eton or Gordons......what tosh!!

"Rock N' Roll has been the first type of music to really get widespread acceptance by the masses. This has been a mixed blessing as it has meant that anyone can start a band even if they don't know how to play or express anything musically"

God help us....those nasty working class fellows the beatles and rolling stones have learned three chords and have started rock and roll bands when they dont know how to express themselves musically.....flee for your lives.....Ahhhhhhhhhh!!!

Music student eh? I have subsidised you to come to these conclusions....I want my money back.

[Swingin' Ryan]

Originally Posted by thurisaz

i think that what you just said.....was actually quite cool.

Thank you

Originally Posted by Stripey

What I really like is not strictly melody, but more like a mix of rhythm and the textural qualities of sounds and so on

I've been listening to an instrumental band called the Bell Orchestre recently, and some of their stuff has no real structure, but is just a progressive build-up of instruments and noises and it's incredible. Most of the music I listen to has vocals and prominent melodies, but I was amazed at how powerful just the sounds alone could be.

Originally Posted by Hog

There are a few metal bands who might be more your thing but maybe it is a genre of music that just doesnt click with you.

I could be wrong.

I think it all depends on what's classed as Metal. Broadly speaking, Metal is a genre of music I've never really been into, and of the many styles of music that fall under the 'rock' banner, it's probably the style that communicates with me least. There's some stuff though, like Metallica's earlier more Thrashy stuff that I really like, I quite like some Pantera stuff aswell. It's just a genre that doesn't really speak to me on the whole, I think it's probably all either too technical and clinical, or just too abrasive to my ears.

If it comes down to the choice between simple straight-up Metal and 'Screamcore' or whatever I'm supposed to call it, Metal wins every time.

[HairyScaryMark]

I didn't say that all musical taste can be determind by background. I just thought some of it can be. The thing about posh people not liking Oasis was probably taking my theory too far. This is also reflected by the fact you get neds in dance clubs but not in exodus or moshulu. Social class can have a baring on music tastes, it dosen't ultimately decide them but it does have a baring.

Jazz has become an overwhelmingly middle class style in the UK. Starting off with working class American routes, it has been adopted by the middle classes of the UK.

I stated that I thought no music was better than another.

I never spoke out against the beatles and the rolling stones.

My point was, you don't have to have studied music to be a musician anymore. Musician is a perfectly valid job and I sort of feel people should be qualified to do it properly. They don't necesserily have to have studied it at a university or have any qualifications but people who have dedicated their life to music tend to make music which connects with me on a higher level than those who have not.

I may sound like an elitist snob for saying this and I suppose in some respects I am. I just wish to achieve brilliance in my line of work. I have not achieved anywhere near this so far and it will be some time before I do. I do not believe it is fair to be overly critical of others until I do.

[Old Gold]

Originally Posted by HairyScaryMark

I didn't say that all musical taste can be determind by background. I just thought some of it can be. The thing about posh people not liking Oasis was probably taking my theory too far. This is also reflected by the fact you get neds in dance clubs but not in exodus or moshulu. Social class can have a baring on music tastes, it dosen't ultimately decide them but it does have a baring.

Jazz has become an overwhelmingly middle class style in the UK. Starting off with working class American routes, it has been adopted by the middle classes of the UK.

I stated that I thought no music was better than another.

I never spoke out against the beatles and the rolling stones.

My point was, you don't have to have studied music to be a musician anymore. Musician is a perfectly valid job and I sort of feel people should be qualified to do it properly. They don't necesserily have to have studied it at a university or have any qualifications but people who have dedicated their life to music tend to make music which connects with me on a higher level than those who have not.

I may sound like an elitist snob for saying this and I suppose in some respects I am. I just wish to achieve brilliance in my line of work. I have not achieved anywhere near this so far and it will be some time before I do. I do not believe it is fair to be overly critical of others until I do.

What a shower of namby pamby shite. You're entire theory is generalised for a start. You seem to be dreaming up some scenario involving toffs whipping the manservant to a spot of Stravinski, and working class scallywags listening to Blur in their draughty slum. Class does have a bearing huh? Says you and who's army?

The thread did ask for an account of you personal taste. You seem to have attempted to sum up a nation's preferences. That makes me want to vomit, especially when I haven't had some seriously delicious coffee yet.

[Frosty Jack]

Originally Posted by HairyScaryMark

I just wish to achieve brilliance in my line of work. I have not achieved anywhere near this so far and it will be some time before I do.

So, how long, d'you think? What's your schedule?

Originally Posted by Frosty Jack

So, how long, d'you think? What's your schedule?

A lifetime, or more, but even then...

[Larsen B]

Originally Posted by Stripey

Yeah, most of my favourite songs/albums are instrumentals, that have some level of communication that I can identify with or otherwise appreciate. What I really like is not strictly melody, but more like a mix of rhythm and the textural qualities of sounds and so on, so it creates a sort of atmosphere that communicates a general feeling. It's like a level of communication, a description of a state of mind that transcends the too literal nature of lyrics. I think in that sense I'm not a big fan of stuff which is like a melody a riff and a lyric because I find it childish like a nursery rhyme or something. I expect something deeper than that from music.

I don't see how a melody being less obvious and more abstract sounding makes it anymore profound in meaning than a catchy riff. This is a mistake people like you have been making for years. To me it just seems like a way of convincing yourself that you can enjoy music in a manner in which most people cannot in order to make yourself better.

I'm glad to see a unanimous slating of Hairyscarymark's theory too.

[Stripey]

Originally Posted by Larsen B

I don't see how a melody being less obvious and more abstract sounding makes it anymore profound in meaning than a catchy riff. This is a mistake people like you have been making for years. To me it just seems like a way of convincing yourself that you can enjoy music in a manner in which most people cannot in order to make yourself better.

I'm glad to see a unanimous slating of Hairyscarymark's theory too.

It's not that difficult to understand. To use the analogy of visual art, some people prefer the abstract.

[Spoonie]

but that doesn't mean that the abstract is more meaningful, just because less people get it.

/x