Re: What we listen for
- From: "Steve Latham" <llatham@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2006 16:14:38 GMT
"Michael Mossey" <michaelmossey@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1138396914.221130.190360@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Has anyone else thought about investigating what people listen for in
> music.. or asking a composer what his "purpose" is.. and then maybe
> classifying things a bit?
I'm sure there are clinical/psychological studies on this.
But how many people do you want? I think people will listen for various
things. I know when I listen to a pop record, I listen to the harmonies, the
lines, the individual instruments, their timbres, the text (which is the
thing I pay the least attention to), the structure of the song, the
porduction techniques, the effects being used, and so on. hundresd of things
I would say. I think the average person on the street probably listens to
the lyrics and vocal melody, maybe the beat.
Being Mozart's birthday and all, our local symphony with chorus performed
the Requiem. The sound was horrible. I'm not talking about the performance,
but I'm talking about the audio broadcast. It was unlistenable to me. I
turned it off. As an engineer/recordist, I tend not only to listen to the
music, but I tend to listen to the way it was recorded in recordings too.
Plus I listen for bow noise, breath, and stuff like that in live
performances (I don't listen FOR them, but maybe I'm inclined to notice them
more than others). So I think it would vary greatly depending on the person.
[snip]
>
> In other words, does the music evoke a giant mechanical device, or does
> it evoke a jaguar running or a human dancing? Often this is a matter of
> how it is performed.
Or, and I think Matt would agree, how (or by whom) it is perceived.
>
> I HATE when people perform Bach like a machine. To me, Bach's little
> mechanical parts evoke dance or animal movement, or the flow of river,
> or the flow of wind, so they are living bones and muscles, or swirling
> currents in a river.
>
> If I distilled my purposes down, they would be two part
>
> (1) heartful expression of emotions
> and
> (2) fun
>
> Recently Mozart has come to my attention more and more, for these two
> reasons. I also think that the Brandenburg Concertos are tremendous
> fun, like the finale of number 5. Those lightly separated quarters are
> so dancy, and then when the triplets on the recorders play over them..
> OMG what fun! (Neville Marriner conducting)
You realize that Brandenburg's are Bach, not Mozart? You may have meant that
but put the two sentences in close proximity - little confusing.
>
> But then I heard Hillary Hahn and Los Angeles Chamber Orchestra playing
> one of the Brandenburgs... ugh! arrf! ick! Like a machine. No dance in
> it, just a display of technique.
Well, I think what you're experiencing is the various levels at which a
performed piece operates. There's the composer's intent, the performer's
interpretation, potentially the recording engineer's decisions, and the
listener's perception. Since all 3 or 4 of those steps all have subjective
considerations, what people think is "right" will vary greatly.
Steve
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: What we listen for
- From: Michael Mossey
- Re: What we listen for
- References:
- What we listen for
- From: Michael Mossey
- What we listen for
- Prev by Date: Re: Easy process
- Next by Date: Re: New Composer
- Previous by thread: Re: What we listen for
- Next by thread: Re: What we listen for
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
