Tubular.net :: Mike Oldfield Forums Discussion, news, reviews, fan music, and more.
	Search :: Members :: Help :: Guidelines

Pages: (3) < [1] 2 3 > [ Track this topic :: Email this topic :: Print this topic ]

Korgscrew Group: Super Admins Posts: 3511 Joined: Dec. 1999 Posted: Nov. 10 2005, 19:29 For some reason that I can't quite recall, I have a few thoughts in my mind relating to how music affects us, which I think some of the other members might find interesting. It's a massive topic, as some of you know, and I think it's easy to get tangled up in theory. What happens in the real world? I think for a start, it's fair to say that there is music for different purposes. An album like Incantations was clearly not made for the same purpose as the latest Britney Spears offering. Incantations was clearly produced with thought in mind. Whether Mike intended it to be thought about deeply or not, he spent a lot of time playing with the patterns within it, basing most of the sections on the same set of intervals that we hear in the opening (Mike says it's all based on one chord, which is sort of true, but I'd say it's confusing - a chord is a set of notes played at the same time, and yes, the notes at the beginning of Incantations are played to form a chord, but that's not the only chord in the album, which some might think Mike meant). That takes a while to unravel completely which is of course a great thing, but clever use of patterns and variations on themes might not grab someone's attention on the radio, or get people dancing in a club. Like I said above, this is a vast topic, and I'm not going to claim that this post contains even all the important factors I can think of, let alone all that exist - perhaps, if anyone feels like joining the discussion, we can uncover some more. It would be nice to keep this all as clear to understand as possible, so I respectfully suggest that we try and avoid using our own constructed terms, keeping instead to things which we're either all clear about already, or can be looked up in a good dictionary, encyclopedia or other trusted reference work. I'd like to start though, by suggesting the importance of sound. Considering a lot of the discussion on this forum is about albums, and so recorded music, I think it's an interesting one to examine. I would argue that the overall sound of a recording is an important factor in how much we like an album, but that it also depends on that recording's purpose, and here we go back to Mike and Britney. A clear memory of mine from a few years ago is a car driving past me, windows shut, doors naturally all closed. On the car radio, a Britney Spears song was playing and even through the shell of the closed-up car, and above the noise of the engine, the song came through amazingly clearly. Why do I mention that, and what do I think it has to do with the music's intended purpose? Well, the Britney Spears song is a commercial pop song. It's meant to grab the listener's attention quickly, even if only heard on a small radio in a noisy place...or even through the closed doors of someone else's car. It needs immediate impact. Would Incantations have grabbed my attention so much if I'd heard it under the same circumstances? I suppose we'd have to do an experiment to see, but I'd suppose not. Its whole production style would mean that its sound wouldn't have cut through the car's body nearly so well, and its slowly evolving style would have meant that the short snippet I heard wouldn't have had a great deal of impact. Why not produce Incantations like a Britney Spears song then? There's a tradeoff. All of the production tricks used in the Britney song make it come through great under adverse conditions, but it can make the sound tiring to listen to over long periods. Also, though the short, snappy pop song works great for immediate impact (some people here might disagree with that! I would say though that it still has an impact, even if the outcome of it is the listener thinking "How awful!"), it might not be so enjoyable to explore (depends on the song of course). A work like Incantations, if you like it, has plenty to explore, and I think it becomes more enjoyable once you know about the pattern. Listening to it then becomes like a game of 'I spy' (though without the involvement of letters..."I hear with my little ear, something beginning with U F D T" "Is it up a fifth, down a tone?" "Yes, it is!"). I would say the difference between the two really relates to the buyer's reasons for buying the album. With pop music, they're hoping for a quick sale - they want it to get a good chart position, after all. They want you to hear it on the radio, think "Wow, that was great" and rush out to buy it. The fact that you may get bored of it after a few weeks doesn't worry them, though maybe it should, considering falling sales (I suspect people might be less likely to pay for an album if they're only going to like a few songs, and only for a few weeks). Something like Incantations is pretty difficult. Those who like it may not have liked it immediately, but were intrigued enough to explore it further - possibly, for one reason or another, because they had enough experience to know that there's something worth looking for amongst it all, and that it might be enjoyable once that's been found. I think I'll leave it at that for now, though I kind of feel I haven't really begun to even address the one point I said I'd focus on! There are other things, like the arrangement, choice of sounds, and those sorts of things, all of which influence how a recording sounds and which affect how much initial impact it has. We can try to look at those later if anyone's interested - for now, I'm going to get myself a drink and have fun playing I spy with Elgar (he likes those sorts of games...). Back to top

arron11196 Group: Members Posts: 826 Joined: April 2005 Posted: Nov. 11 2005, 02:22 Hmm yeah, what I find interesting about this subject is how my opinion keeps changing the goalposts. For example, Discovery was mostly a mediocre album, but just recently I can't get the title track out of my head. It's just so brilliant - perfect for the moment. And then we add another level of experience - the association of the sound with your current situation, state of mind, and how that deforms or inteprets what your hearing for you. Supposition: So Sound - > Emotional State - > Subconscious - > Feeling Is this right do you think? I'm not telling you, I've thought this up purely on the hoof. Let's develop the idea, and not argue about it please. Also expanding upon Korgscrew's previous point - why do we buy an album - I would stipulate that it doesn't only depend upon what type of music you are looking for, but also what kind of CD's you are likely to buy. If we restrict the purchasing process strictly to standing in a queue in HMV for a moment, then without ever hearing it, you are going to pick up a CD and take it to the counter, possibly spend good money on it. So you would either need previous experience (as previously stated) or you would just be buying on a purely superficial level - you liked the look of the names in the track lisiting and the front cover looked cool. Now how often does that happen? I mean honestly, we only usually buy stuff that we've heard about. So to finish this point, the selection process almost always includes an element of previous knowledge about either the artist or the music contained on the CD - i.e. I bought TSODE and TB2003 after liking TBII - I did so because i thought, "well if i liked that, i might like this" As for the experience, there are a host of other influences. It has already been mentioned elsewhere how memories are stored over one another, causing memory association. Why, for instance, do I remember things like Republica when I think of my early high school years? Well, they came out at the time and I listened to them alot, but the two experiences aren't necessarily connected. Previous knowledge can also lead to prejudice (and, we often forget that there are two sides to prejudice as well, negative and positive) So i could hear a thrash metal band playing, and because I don't happen to like screaming lyrics, I'll think 'hmm, get them off the stage!' but If i pick up the latest Oldfield I'll think 'Oh my god! I can't wait to get home and put this in the CD player!!!!!' I think that's enough for now. -------------- Arron J Eagling Everyone's interpretation is different, and everyone has a right to that opinion. There is no "right" one, I am adding this post to communicate my thoughts to share them with like-minded souls who will be able to comment in good nature. (insert the last 5 mins of Crises here) Back to top

Korgscrew Group: Super Admins Posts: 3511 Joined: Dec. 1999 Posted: Nov. 11 2005, 03:52 Quote (arron11196 @ Nov. 11 2005, 07:22) Is this right do you think? I'm not telling you, I've thought this up purely on the hoof. Well, that's really all I'm doing! Of course I think about it in certain ways when I'm putting music together, but I don't get as far as putting the thoughts into a form that makes sense to someone else until someone asks me about it. I think the sound is part of what catches the attention. That's at least what the record companies hope, pushing mastering engineers to make tracks sound louder and brighter (of course, anyone who knows about digital audio will tell you that you can't go beyond 0dBFS - that is, right at the top end of the scale - but that doesn't stop some people wanting to make things louder!) - that of course ends up with the whole thing getting horribly squashed and distorted and sounding lifeless...but the idea is to attract attention (the theory goes that if you make something a little louder, people will think it sounds better than a quieter version of the same thing - you can try it if you like and see what you think, I'd certainly agree). I do think there are other things which attract the attention too, and I think the goal in the end is to get something that's comfortable to listen to, but yet also surprising. Emotional state...yes, I'd agree that's going to shape opinion an awful lot, and I think it's going to affect what attracts attention. Someone moping around a bar in a depressed mood might not pay attention to the music playing at all. I'd say it's also going to affect how someone reacts to an album even just listening to it at home - I might think about this one a bit more before I put forward too many ideas, but I'd think that someone in a delicate mood is mostly not going to respond too well to music that's really provocative, but would appreciate something more gentle...but I'm not sure that's always true. I'll have a think about that when I'm not so eager to rush off and examine the goodies the postman has brought me (and perhaps someone less preoccupied can come up with something in the meantime!). I think the question of what makes people buy an album is pretty interesting - that's of course why record companies pay big money to get sellers to put certain albums on prominent display, and why there's all the effort put into packaging and marketing. I think it influences at least the initial impressions of the album too. I'm thinking of Peter Gabriel here, and the way his recent albums have had a piece of original artwork in the booklet for each track - I like that, it gives an impression that the whole thing is a well thought-through creation. That's something to be enjoyed after buying the album of course - it all starts with having an eyecatching cover that will make people want to take it off the shelf and look at it. I'm actually perhaps quite rare in buying albums that I know nothing about, if the price is right - when there's a sale on, or when I find a good second hand shop, I like to just go through and pick out things which look interesting (based on information given on the sleeve, mostly). I know that it's rare that I'll find something that I don't get anything from at all - I think if I was more picky about what I find interesting, I'd not have the confidence to do that. Still, I think I'd agree that it normally starts with some kind of previous knowledge - in fact, even in my case of 'random' album buying, I'm still basing it on previous knowledge (I'll often look at things like what kinds of instruments might be mentioned, or what kind of performers are involved - because I know other music, that gives me a clue about what the album might be like. If I had no previous knowledge of music at all, then I'd really not have a clue what I was buying). That of course then gives an expectation, a prejudice as you said. What I actually think really interesting with that is how things work in communities like this one. People will of course be buying new albums from Mike because they know his previous albums...but maybe there's more to it than just that. Some people will have bought Light + Shade thinking "Well I loved Tr3s Lunas, so I'm sure I'll love this" (or even "Well I loved all of Mike's other albums, so I'm sure I'll love this"), and of course there's going to be "He seems to have gone really downhill recently, but maybe this one will be better", but maybe most interestingly "I don't think I'll like it, but everyone else is going to be talking about it and I don't want to be left out". We can of course only really measure opinions by what people tell us, and that's where things get yet more interesting (or more confusing, depending on your point of view!). What if we take someone from the last group, who not only thinks (s)he won't like it, but has already been saying that...isn't there then a possibility that the person won't be giving his/her true opinion after having heard the album, but will be saying something which proves that he/she was right all along? If that person has bought the album just because everyone else is going to be talking about it (presuming that such people exist...and I'm going to stick my neck out and say they do - I've certainly gone out and bought releases of Mike's sooner than I might otherwise have done, because I've known people are going to ask me something about them), could that person maybe also feel that (s)he wants his/her money's worth and therefore wants a good debate about it...what better way to get that than to voice a strong dislike of something amongst a group of people who are likely to really like it (i.e. a group of fans)? Controversy is of course an instant way for someone to get attention, of course...and with that we start going into yet another area. I'll stop there for the monent - I'm trying to keep this short and quick and not ramble all over the place! Some of that might not be directly related to why we like an album (though of course the opinion of one might influence another), but I think it is related to why we might seem to like an album... More fun and frolics will no doubt come in a later instalment (I've actually got some stuff about acoustics and their influence which I salvged from something I never posted to another thread, but it'll just get scary if I post that all at once along with this). Back to top

Alan D Group: Members Posts: 3670 Joined: Aug. 2004 Posted: Nov. 11 2005, 04:34 What a huge topic! I hardly know where to start. In your discussion of 'sound' and its initial impact, Korgscrew, I was reminded of something you said somewhere else - about how you try to listen to a new piece of music on a wide range of playing systems. I can't quite recall the context, but I think you were talking about your own compositions? That in turn reminds me of a Bob Dylan story. He made a (pretty dire) album with The Grateful Dead sometime in the 80s; and shortly afterwards one of the members of the Dead called to see Bob and found him listening to the new album on a really cheap - I mean rock bottom - player. 'There isn't enough bass,' commented Bob. The guy from the Dead (I can't recall who it was - not Garcia, I think) seemed to think this was ludicrous - but it always seemed to me that Dylan was actually doing something extremely sensible - pretty much the kind of thing you talked about, Richard? The character of an album can change enormously - and the response can even swing from 'like' to 'dislike' - according to what you're listening to it with. I remember my enjoyment of 'Platinum' being transformed when I bought my LS3/5A speakers back in the 80s. The sound of the album became so sensual and attractive that I was drawn back to it time and again purely for the physical pleasure of the sound. It was like being seduced by sirens! This kind of thing makes it enormously complicated to pin down the nature of our enjoyment. I presume that the transparency of the LS3/5As was allowing me to get closer to the 'true' music that Mike had recorded - but I can't actually know that. And besides, most people choose speakers on a completely different basis (eg for a nice warm bass sound) - or even don't choose them at all, relying perhaps on an ill-founded assumption that it won't make much difference. I'm not sure where I'm going with this - except to say that when person X says he loves Light and Shade, and person Y says he hates it - one of the first questions we may need to ask is 'What are you using to listen to it?'. If anyone thinks I'm exaggerating this - here's an extreme example. I love Steeleye Span, and in particular Maddy Prior's singing. Through LS3/5As at home, she sounds so good that I have no words to describe it. But my car stereo system (which is normally perfectly adequate) makes her voice sound so screechy and thin that I hardly ever choose to listen to Steeleye in the car. That's the level of difference we may be having to accommodate when we compare our opinions. Back to top

raven4x4x Group: Members Posts: 1535 Joined: Jan. 2002 Posted: Nov. 11 2005, 04:56 Very interesting topic Korgscrew, and the answer depends on which album I'm listening to. I've noticed that my various responses to music fall into a few catagories. The first is what I get when I listen to most of Mike's music; the emotion. Whether it's joy, sadness or anything else, music that makes me feel some sort of emotion is the sort that I generally prefer. A great example is Amarok, which contains a whole range of different emotions. It isn't my favourite album for nothing. The second catagory is the one that applies to The Who and all those other rock bands; the sheer energy and power they generate. Mike also does this quite frequently, Far Above the Clouds is a good example. The third is perhaps the least profound and applies to tracks like pop songs. I listen to an album like the Pet Shop Boy's Very and I don't get much emotional content, and they certainly don't have the energy of The Who, but I just really like the tunes. This does seem the simplest form of enjoyment, but I don't feel it's any worse than the others. Of course there are pieces of music that don't fit into these catagories, with my most notable example being TSODE. This is one of my very favourites because of the wonderful sci-fi feel and imagery that it gives me, as well as the emotional content. And this isn't about the album bringing up images from the book (I read the book after I heard the album), and anyway the album and the book give me quite different pictures. Alan makes a good point that the quality of the sound system can make a big difference, a case in point being David Bowie's Reality Tour DVD. The surround sound mix is pretty much perfect, and on our nice system it sounds great. The problem is when I listen to it anywhere else and use the stereo mix; it seems to have some nasty compression on it and whenever the music starts to get loud the volume just falls and it all sounds flat and terribly dissapointing. Listening to music on dodgey speakers is never good. On a related point, I'm sure many agree with me when I say that The Who is only great LOUD.   -------------- Thank-you for helping us help you help us all. Back to top

Korgscrew Group: Super Admins Posts: 3511 Joined: Dec. 1999 Posted: Nov. 11 2005, 05:26 Quote (Alan D @ Nov. 11 2005, 09:34) I was reminded of something you said somewhere else - about how you try listen to a new piece of music on a wide range of playing systems. I can't quite recall the context, but I think you were talking about your own compositions? Yes, exactly. It does go straight back to the thing with the Britney Spears track too, getting it to sound good in the place where it's most important for it to be heard. There's really not a lot of point in working on intricate interweaving melody lines in different registers if they're going to all disappear when the listener plays the album at home! So yes, if it's something I'm really concerned about getting right, I'll listen to it on various different things and in various different places. There's normally a way of getting it to work well whatever it's played on.  I'd also say that what Bob Dylan was doing was quite sensble (as long as that's not all he was using, of course - you can usually guarantee that someone is going to listen to an album on the highest quality stuff out there, and it's nice to get things so they'll sound good for those people as well, if possible). There have been bands who've gone as far as running cables out from the studio into their cars in the car park so they can listen on their car stereo systems while the music's being mixed. Actually, an interesting thing is the 1979 concerts that Mike did - topical at the moment, with the Exposed DVD having just come out. Take a look at all the microphones on stage. Mmm...big, shiny, silver. Nice. More than that though, you might notice that they're mostly not the typical kinds of microphone used on stage, but are the higher quality kind used in studios. You can also see the speakers used as monitors on stage and, if you look at pictures of Mike's studio at the time, you'll see that they're exactly the same. I believe they also used those speakers for the main PA system. That's I think almost as close as it gets to Mike showing the audiences exactly what he wanted the album to sound like - basically taking his studio on the road. Of course, the venue acoustics would have stopped him from really achieving that, and using studio equipment on stage isn't necessarily the best way of getting the best live sound (mostly in the case of microphones and loudspeakers...I have good reasons for saying that, but I won't go there unless anyone's particularly interested in what I have to say about that), but it was an admirable attempt. The advantage of something like that is that the artist has (in theory...) complete control over the experience, so the listeners hear the music exactly as the artist wants it to be heard. I definitely agree about how Light + Shade (or any album) gives a different impression depending on what it's played on. I don't want to make too big a thing of the specifics, as enough negative has been said about Light + Shade already, but I find that on some systems an awful lot of flaws jump out (much more so than usual with Mike's albums) while it works fine on others. I'd say most of the problems are in the high end, which is why it works fine when played back on things which are a bit more forgiving (or just lacking!) in that region. That's the kind of thing that I think it's good to aim to avoid, and I think Mike generally manages that well - his albums usually sound fairly good on any system (though of course there are loads of things that could be nitpicked over - that's the case with anything, we can aim to get it perfect, but actually getting it there is a different thing). Back to top

Piltdownboy on horseback 22 Group: Members Posts: 1548 Joined: Sep. 2005 Posted: Nov. 11 2005, 09:14 Quote (Korgscrew @ Nov. 10 2005, 19:29) I think for a start, it's fair to say that there is music for different purposes. I'd like to start though, by suggesting the importance of sound. Considering a lot of the discussion on this forum is about albums, and so recorded music, I think it's an interesting one to examine. The purposes of music... well, you did mention one aspect of it yes and I think this is more the aspect of a musician/record company with a feeling for commercialism. A song can grab you immediately or not... when something grabs you in a complex song, you start exploring... Another thing is, I think, music with a deep meaning that still grabs you but that has no real opportunity to explore (in the way you could explore Incantations)... One of those records could be Yesterday by Paul McCartney/Beatles... There is only voice and guitar and a simple string section. Yet still it has continued to grab people everywhere in the world for the last 40 years. I can call myself one of them. But I never found out what it is exactly that I like about it. Maybe that's even more strange, because I know exactly why I like incantations (the sounds, chord progression and time signatures). Just some thoughts this... no intellectual talk from me -------------- "And now we're going to play Platinum!" Back to top

Sir Mustapha Group: Musicians Posts: 2802 Joined: April 2003 Posted: Nov. 11 2005, 11:45 I suppose people will recognise me as the guy that dislikes stuff, but that's mostly because of the reasons I have to discuss music in this space. The albums I dislike are the ones I tend to talk the most about, but not because I like flaming - the people who disagree with me are the ones that are most prone to make me think, not the ones who agree! That's the motivation. Why am I saying that? Because, as odd as it might seem, it's very easy for me to like music. Very easy. Really. I guess it all boils down to one, important factor: I'm always ready to pay attention to different aspects of the music I hear. If I get one Autechre album to listen, one that I never heard before, of course I'm not going to listen to it the same way I listen to a Beatles record, or Bob The Builder. As such, I always try to judge music according to its own merits, not according to other music. It's all a matter of enjoying music for what it is, not for what I want it to be. I feel that's the main factor for why there are those "groups" of people who, for example, love "rock", and are absolutely unable to enjoy any other kind of music - and worse - think it's cool! Those people want their music to rock, and it doesn't, it's bad. Well, good for them, I say. I don't like heavy metal, anyway... But I'm not joking when I say I can enjoy very different kinds of music. I mentioned Autechre because, yes, lately, I've been listening to their stuff. And guess what? I think I like it! Through the year, I've dipped my ears on lots of different kinds of stuff: Faust, Os Mutantes, Mogwai, Sigur Rós, Nick Drake, Slint, NEU!, Milton Nascimento, David Bowie... and I like it. Maybe I'm not deep enough into those artists, or maybe I don't understand yet their REAL value, but I like that stuff. I'm not trying to show off, mind you. After all, I do have my limits: I don't dislike those late-period Mike Oldfield albums for nothing. And here's why: There are a few factors that I consider crucial in any kind of music, be it Northern or Southern, Eastern or Western. They are simple, basic, and very flexible factors, but I consider them important. They're, not coincidently, the factors I use for rating albums in my own website, but they're here in a more succint manner. Here they are: Originality. I like music when it sounds different, unique, creative, new, original, fresh. I'm bound to really like music that's innovative and revolutionary, because it shows EFFORT from the musician. But I also value a pop album that's creative and fresh - i.e., not plainly recycled from old clichés and formulas. Believe it or not, I DO value that when I hear an album for the first time. I have no use for a pale Beatles copy, for example, that adds nothing to the original formula. Why listen to immitations when there's the real thing? Richness. In short, melodies. But then again, there are kinds of music that don't focus on traditional "melodies", e.g. the aforementioned Autechre, industrial, experimental stuff a la NEU! or Faust, or ethnic music that comes from a very different background. But a song that has no melodies has to have something that I can sink my teeth to: be it original instrumentation, convincing performances, thoughtful lyrics, a REALLY GOOD idea, an infectious rhythm, a tangible atmosphere... SOMETHING, you know? And that SOMETHING depends on the kind of music. It just has to be there, be it very apparent (in case of Pop music, for example), or hidden. If it's hidden, great! I'll have a good time trying to find it. Fun factor. What I just said: having a good time trying to find it. Of them all, Fun factor is the most flexible, because "Fun" is used in a very generic way. I have "fun" listening to those moody, melancholic Cure album, or those insanely intellectual Faust albums, or, of course, the stunningly infectious Bob the Builder album. It's all about having a good, rewarding time, spending effort in something worthwhile. Enjoying it. Fun. I suppose, also, that "Fun factor" is the only thing related with emotions, but not quite. Fun is just a consequence of the two first factors. Yes, emotion isn't a cause; it's a consequence. To me, emotion is overrated. Why? It's subjective. What exactly makes a song or album "emotional"? If one says an album is "emotional", how can I be sure it's true? Maybe the listener is making emotions up in his mind, uncounsciously, or the artist is - very cleverly - just pretending to be playing with "emotional". It might all be fake, but the listener thinks it's true. Likewise, if a listener says the music is "unemotional", how can I believe it? Maybe he just refuses to accept the song for what it is, or he's listening to Kraftwerk, where the lack of "emotion" is intended and purposeful (and executed with skill). I refuse to take the "emotional" aspect as a criteria for judging an album. The "resonance" factor in my website actually relates to what the song MEANS, or what it's trying to transmit - not how "emotional" it is. Sound has amplitude, frequency, timbre... and emotion? No, it hasn't. It music causes emotions in me, it's because it's creative, or rich, or fun. Emotions don't write music. Emotions don't play instruments. Emotions don't write posts like these. And smileys aren't emotions: they just transmit emotions that might as well be fake. (in this case, it isn't) -------------- Check out http://ferniecanto.com.br for all my music, including my latest albums: Don't Stay in the City, Making Amends and Builders of Worlds. Also check my Bandcamp page: http://ferniecanto.bandcamp.com Back to top

Sir Mustapha Group: Musicians Posts: 2802 Joined: April 2003 Posted: Nov. 11 2005, 11:49 I'm sorry that the whole post above turned on a big essay about me. The whole point of that is to give a defence to the idea that there are a few objective factors that define music's quality, and in the end, it doesn't boil down completely to subjectivity. What I defend, though, isn't that there is good and bad: there is intention and success. Britney Spears isn't bad: it has a commercial intention and succeeded. Whether that's good or not, it's ANOTHER discussion. And it is possible to judge Britney on the grounds of Originality, Richness and Fun Factor, for example - if you restrict Fun Factor a bit, that is. -------------- Check out http://ferniecanto.com.br for all my music, including my latest albums: Don't Stay in the City, Making Amends and Builders of Worlds. Also check my Bandcamp page: http://ferniecanto.bandcamp.com Back to top

Inkanta Group: Admins Posts: 1453 Joined: Feb. 2000 Posted: Nov. 11 2005, 18:10 Woohoo! Interesting topic indeed, Korgscrew! A topic of discovery and exploration! IMHO there are many factors, including our experience/background, recommendation, packaging, mood, purpose, memory, adventure, and connection--which are all inter-mingled and I haven't broken them out very effectively. Experience/Background Environment: I wonder if experience/background is a crucial element?? If you hear Britney wailing from the car next to you, your reaction is based on experience—some would think, “Oohh! Wow! She’s out with something new! Gotta pick it up!” Another person might think, “Ohmigood. Her again—what is this world coming to?” Someone who has no experience listening to Britney or maybe to music in general might treat it as background noise—or could be interested, but wouldn’t know what they were hearing or how to find out. (If Incantations were threading through the airwaves and I had never heard it, I might have chased down the driver to find out what (s)he were playing. No, I don’t do this on a regular basis.) And why would I think about doing that? Because it has captured the imagination—it has intrigued or connected in some way. Humans are curious and we explore stuff that interests us--if that has been cultivated in us and not been squashed in us as children. Not everyone notices or appreciates music--it seems to play a minimal role in some people’s lives, probably a result o the background/environment in which they grew up. My parents did not have a record collection, but my mother played piano, an uncle was a conductor, and I took piano and eventually guitar, and had lots of albums. I was influenced by older cousins, who introduced me to the Beatles at a very young age. There was also exposure to classical music in dance, I sang in choir, and somehow became seriously into music. I’m thinking that for me, the major shaping influence that has affected me ever since was the Beatles. Not that I’ve spent my life looking for artists that sound like them, but their music may have set a standard, bringing a freshness and sense of discovery and exploration that seems to be what I seek in albums to this day. *removes large sidebar on children and musical exposure [for now]* Recommendation: We may initially buy an album because someone we respect has recommended it. I’ve bought items this way and have had a real disconnect—they weren't what I expected and failed to reach my soul. But most of the time, conversations with friends lead to deeper appreciation because they’ve seen things in that I’ve missed. Packaging: Maybe the cover jumps out, we’re browsing in a favorite genre, we pick up the cover, read, are intrigued, and buy. Alan mentioned Peter Gabriel’s covers and the last few are precious—IMHO they enhance the experience of the music. Even at home I may notice a CD I’ve not played in awhile and give it a whirl, attracted by its spine. Mood: “Hmm….what am I in the mood to listen to today?” (or to workout with, dance to?) I suppose that depends on my emotional state. I might be in the mood for Robert Mirabal, something Celtic, Amarok, quiet, etc. Some things I like but cannot always listen to, e.g., Gorecki’s 3rd--one of the most moving, beautiful works in my collection. I cannot listen to it without ending up in tears—tears over the music, tears of frustration over humanity, so I have to be careful about playing it. I tend to listen when I’m already feeling a bit depressed or am in a pensive, contemplative mood.  I suspect that I have bought albums when in a bad or sad mood as an anecdote or remedy. Once again, depending on our background/environment, we may find great comfort in music when we are down. When we are ha-happy, we may automatically use it as an expression/enhancement. I am not sure if my emotional state changes the way that I hear a work—that will be a good one to think about! Purpose: Is there a special reason you need to buy an album over and above sheer musical enjoyment? Do you need holiday music for an open house? A dance program? Music to use while on a treadmill? A kids' program? The perceived appropriateness of an album for a specific purpose may lead us to liking it--at  least for that purpose.   Memory: Cognitive psychologists say that our sense of smell is the scent most tied to memory. Music may not be a scent, but I would argue and I think you would too, that there is an incredible link between music and memory. IIR, they even use a type of music therapy with Alzheimer’s patients aimed at triggering memories. It would be interesting to look at both smell and music and see how they compare re: memory induction. Probably such studies exist. When it comes to buying an album, I might buy one because it reminds me of something. I may listen to specific music to connect with a piece of the past—makes the past more accessible. Adventure Sometimes I end up buying music that I’ve not heard or hasn’t been recommended by a friend. Some of it I’ve fallen in love with; only once and awhile do I find nothing redeemable (to my brain). For example, I stumbled across the Afro Celt Sound System while looking for dance program music. Although I did not use it, have fallen in love with them, for reasons already stated. Connection: Once we have it home, have removed it from the package, and popped it on the CD player, whether we bought it because it’s our favorite artist, or we’ve stumbled on, or it was recommended to us by friends, that’s where the real relationship with the music begins.  If it is going to be a sustained relationship, we have to connect with it on some level, whether it is a pop one or something deeper. I liked what Alan said someplace about the connection with the artist and transcending ourselves. Music that can do that for us is going to be with us for the journey. Finally—Re: playing CDs on different equipment that Alan and Korg mention—this is very true, and I’ve certainly had that experience. Ultimately, I wonder if equipment makes the difference in the long run? Although it may sound better on some equipment, can it make us like something that for whatever reason has fallen flat, or, likewise, can bad equipment completely interfere with our grooving it? Another piece to ponder. -------------- "No such thing as destiny; only choices exist." From:  Moongarden's "Solaris." Back to top

Korgscrew Group: Super Admins Posts: 3511 Joined: Dec. 1999 Posted: Nov. 11 2005, 19:54 Quote (raven4x4x @ Nov. 11 2005, 09:56) On a related point, I'm sure many agree with me when I say that The Who is only great LOUD.  :D And preferably with accompanying windmill-arm motions ;) Interesting one that though, energy, and playing music loud. Everyone knows how we hear music with our ears. Put on a nice pair of headphones and in it all goes, almost direct into the ears. Pure unadulterated music...and yet something's missing. You can turn up The Who loud in your headphones but, aside from the fact that you might get tangled in the cable whilst windmilling around the room (and if you swing them round by the cable, you can't hear anything any more...), it's just not quite as fun as putting it on a big fat pair of speakers and cranking it up until the ceiling starts to loosen. Some things have to be felt rather than heard. Playing a really low bass note through headphones doesn't have anything like the effect it does if it's played through speakers. There are parts of the body like the chest and the skull where those notes are felt. Really loud bass at rock concerts can be like a kick in the guts, actually. There's also the way the sound waves interact and mix together once they're in the air, which doesn't happen with headphones. I think the really important part of any band is the rhythm section, actually. The drums and the bass are I think what really hold rock groups (and bands playing pretty much all other popular styles) together, driving them along. I think the rhythm is one of the things which makes a track really infectious and attention-grabbing. Of course, it cam be totally the opposite too... I've talked about making things louder and giving them more impact, but sometimes I think the things which really grab attention are totally the opposite - the quiet, haunting tracks which creep up slowly on you and take you by surprise. Quote (Piltdownboy on horseback 22 @ Nov. 11 2005, 14:14) Just some thoughts this... no intellectual talk from me ;) That's the important thing though! I don't think there's any point in making something more complicated than it needs to be, and I think your thoughts are very interesting (and I don't think there's any need for you to feel that they're less valuable than anyone else's here...as a songwriter yourself, I bet you know a thing or two!). Perhaps that mystery of something like Yesterday is what makes it interesting to you. It has an effect on you...you like it...that's cool. It's a simple melody, easy to follow, easy to identify with. There's lots of space in there...space to feel. The lyrics are easy to identify with too, they must mean something to just about everyone who hears them and understands them. Back to top

raven4x4x Group: Members Posts: 1535 Joined: Jan. 2002 Posted: Nov. 11 2005, 20:10 Quote (Korgscrew @ Nov. 12 2005, 08:54) I think the really important part of any band is the rhythm section, actually. The drums and the bass are I think what really hold rock groups (and bands playing pretty much all other popular styles) together, driving them along. I think the rhythm is one of the things which makes a track really infectious and attention-grabbing. I have no doubt that this is why The Who is my favourite band of their type. Moon and Entwistle are just unbelievable when it comes to my earlier discussion on energy. In a way this also links to Sir M's points on originality; I love Moon and Entwistle because they do interesting things. I especially love bassists who aren't prepared to just go 'dum dum dum dum', bassists like Entwistle, Peter Hook, Chris Squire and Paul McCartney. I really do enjoy an interesting bass riff. -------------- Thank-you for helping us help you help us all. Back to top

TubularBelle Group: Members Posts: 1487 Joined: April 2004 Posted: Nov. 12 2005, 04:15 This topic of discussion still seems to me to float around the difference between listening to music intelligently or not and 'the young are more open minded' opinion blends in very well as well. I consider myself an intelligent person intuitively but I am certainly not verbose or educated. How much does this have an effect on my listening pleasure or perception of music. Well I first heard Mike when I was 12, and before that I had only heard stuff coming out of my older sisters bedrooms, Jimmi Hendrix, Rick Wakeman, Cat Stevens, Gary Glitter, Suzi Quatro, Bay City Rollers, Abba, these are all artists that spring to mind as very early experiences. But without a doubt, when I first heard that snippet of TB on the Exorcist commercial, that was the first time that I heard music. I have no doubt that my age was a huge influence on why I craved this music and stuck with it all my life. I didn't understand the technology or even the brilliance of it, just that it was like nothing else. I left home at 16 and raised 3 kids and couldn't even afford a stereo until 1991, when I was 31. Up until then I had listened to Mike, the radio, other peoples records, party music, and I never developed a love for any other music because of this lack of opportunity which I very greatly regret. When cds came out it was an excuse for me to start my music collection and in 14 years I have bought over 200 which rounds out to about one every 3 weeks. Not that impressive but because it was always considered a luxury for me I suffered guilt every one of those times. I can't say I even developed a real taste for music until after I had collected of all of Mikes albums up to that time and then wanted to experience more and delved into other artists. I did not have a lot of influences, simply, what my kids were listening to, and stuff other MO fans listened to, and occasionally I bought something I had never heard of just because it looked interesting. God Speed you Black Emperers 'Lift you skinny fists like antennas to Heaven' is certainly one of those. I was also drawn to old and new forms of music blended together or different genres of music combined, anything that was different and unusual. I got the Exposed dvd yesterday and what an intense experience watching Mike play Incantations, so simple and repetitive on a surface level but so incredibly articulate and well thought out. Layer upon layer of sweet music, all connecting and complimenting and accompanying each other. Nothing else compares to this, not even some of Mikes own work. It is all about emotion and mood, NEVER NEVER listen to Mike unless you are prepared to give it your full attention, don't eat, don't talk, don't vacuum, don't sit at the computer. You MAY dance! What is it that makes us like an album? The enjoyment of it! -------------- I hate getting up early. I didn't even realise there were two 6 o'clocks in one day! Back to top

Alan D Group: Members Posts: 3670 Joined: Aug. 2004 Posted: Nov. 12 2005, 04:15 Quote (Sir Mustapha @ Nov. 11 2005, 16:49) What I defend, though, isn't that there is good and bad: there is intention and success. Aren't they just as difficult to gauge, though, except on a superficial level? The whole notion of what an artist intends is a very contentious issue, because the subconscious intention may be very different to the conscious one, and we're not in any position to know what the subconscious intention is - yet often it's the most important aspect. And success? How do you assess that? Was Van Gogh's work successful? In terms of contemporary response, emphatically no. In terms of today's response, emphatically yes. In terms of his own personal response - well, maybe! Sometimes! Thinking about this, I fancy 'good' and 'bad' might actually be easier to handle! I think I'm straying from the main issue though - except of course to observe that if I'm responding powerfully to a piece of music, then I'd conclude the artist's work was successful. And that puts the ball back in the subjective court. Back to top

arron11196 Group: Members Posts: 826 Joined: April 2005 Posted: Nov. 12 2005, 06:14 Hmm, but what about music that is not meant to have a lasting impact? Throwaway manufactured music? Where does that fit into this ideal? TubularBelle: You state that enjoyment makes us like an album, but what are the constituent elements of enjoyment? Is it possible to ratify the enjoyment process? I think so, and whilst I have not fully formed a theory yet, it will come. I've always thought of humans as just a huge, very complex basic input/output system, or BIOS, which is a frontend for your subconscious, which is the real you. -------------- Arron J Eagling Everyone's interpretation is different, and everyone has a right to that opinion. There is no "right" one, I am adding this post to communicate my thoughts to share them with like-minded souls who will be able to comment in good nature. (insert the last 5 mins of Crises here) Back to top

Alan D Group: Members Posts: 3670 Joined: Aug. 2004 Posted: Nov. 12 2005, 11:15 Quote (TubularBelle @ Nov. 12 2005, 09:15) Theis topic of discussion still seems to me to float around the difference between listening to music intelligently or not I don't think - but doubtless someone will disagree - that the issue of intelligence comes into it all that much. It's to do with receptiveness; attentiveness; openness; intuitive pattern-recognition. Things like that. Of course you can also analyse the music (which is where the intelligence would come in) but would you actually be listening to it, then? I think there are several layers here that get tangled up in our discussion. Also I wonder if there's some confusion between the way we listen and the way we talk about our listening. They aren't the same thing. Quote NEVER NEVER listen to Mike unless you are prepared to give it your full attention, don't eat, don't talk, don't vacuum, don't sit at the computer. You MAY dance! This tells us an enormous amount about the way you listen, Tracy. This is real listening (as opposed to merely hearing). Frankly I should forget any concerns you might have (as you expressed somewhere else) about not listening 'properly' and being worried about missing something. This is 'proper' listening. Also it tells us an enormous amount about Mike's music - because as I've observed several times, music that can sustain this kind of entranced listening, over time, simply must have some merit, regardless of what anyone else may say about it. Quote What is it that makes us like an album? The enjoyment of it! I'm not absolutely certain, but I think this means that we like music because we like it. Undeniably true, of course .... Back to top

Piltdownboy on horseback 22 Group: Members Posts: 1548 Joined: Sep. 2005 Posted: Nov. 12 2005, 11:33 Quote (Korgscrew @ Nov. 11 2005, 19:54) I've talked about making things louder and giving them more impact, but sometimes I think the things which really grab attention are totally the opposite - the quiet, haunting tracks which creep up slowly on you and take you by surprise. That's true for sure... The great thing about some music is that it just comes across really when you are alone and feeling a bit depressed. I can remember sitting in the living room with all the curtains closed and no lamps on... just sitting there in the dark and then put on the Ommadawn LP. You then get the feeling that you could never ever 'feel' the music more intense than at that moment. I can remember that then sometimes my parents would come home, switch on the lights immediatly and saying: 'What are you doing, for goodness sake?' and then all the magic was gone. As I'm writing songs (mainly lyrics) myself for my band, I do try to write these emotional songs sometimes and then I really talk deeply about it when giving the lyric to our guitarist who usually writes the tunes. I recently wrote: 'Sometimes I see you in my dreams Sometimes I dream that you're with me In silent beauty, as you are Far away and beautiful like a star' We're now practising the song that came out of it (I ended up writing the tune myself, as I played something that fitted the mood perfectly), and it really means a lot to me. Now coming back to the subject (or better, another angle of it): some other thing about music is that it can also make you feel more powerful/strong, certainly when being in a group, be it bandmates or other friends. The same happens at some concerts... sometimes you just feel connected to everybody in the audience, because you feel that everybody feels the same deep emotions when listening to the music and has the same experience as you have.   When I'm walking the streets to the pub or whatever with my bandmates, on a saturday night, I almost feel invincible... That feeling then also comes across in some of our music, some punk tracks for example, which has the kind of rebellion thing about it. Then the lyrics are not so introvert. So what I meant was that music can make people come together. And arron, keep thinking of your theory and spit it out when it's ready, because I'm curious to what it is! Tubular Belle: you also got to hear Tubular Bells when you were very young. I as well, I was 10. That's a great age for that kind of music. People, and a lot of young people certainly, just buy what they're told. From the latest hit, to the latest new toy. At some points in their lives then some kids or teenagers may feel that they're through with that and have to listen to something with a bit more meaning. That's the time when they should be introduced to Tubular Bells, or The Wall, or Rubber Soul for example. This can be really a revelation (discovery) to them which has much value. I'm glad my dad gave me Tubular Bells at ten! Before that I never really listened to kids songs... I listened to Stones at 7, Beatles at 8 and ELO when I was 6! -------------- "And now we're going to play Platinum!" Back to top

Inkanta Group: Admins Posts: 1453 Joined: Feb. 2000 Posted: Nov. 12 2005, 13:43 I suspect we also have to look at what makes up personality, brain structure, and individual differences. Seems to me that for the same reasons that some folks are drawn to nursing  and others to engineering;  some like red some like blue; some have the patience to learn an instrument and others do not; we are going to like some albums and not others, and will be drawn to them for different reasons, as well. I posed this question to two of my daughters this morning. Rather than writing 1,000 essays on the topic like I did, Chelsey (13) said, “I can relate to it and also the voice.” Lindsay (11) replied, “Tempo, oh and also the voice.”  Neither of them said “friends.” I do not know how I would have answered at that age. Maybe those were it for me, too—maybe that is why I fell in love with the Beatles—tempo, voice, “being able to relate” (what I meant by connection, earlier). But then, why not country-western? That was all around, too.  I realize that it was the strength of friendships that may have introduced me to various music, but liking an album is a very individual thing. (You can lead a horse to water…). Guess it gets back to being exposed to lots of music, and certain stuff fires the neurons depending on the individual. No one can make me like the Kronos Quartet, and no one can make me dislike Incantations. When I ended up with mononucleosis and in an altered state—tired, spacey, totally zoned, and heard Inc in its entirety on radio, it reached in and injected me with an ancedote and it became part of my recovery process. So….beyond loving it because of its musical structure, the chant, the excerpt from Cynthia’s Revels, its inner connections, I love it because of its role in recovery. That was also the turning point for me, when I started a more individual exploration of music—wondered what else I had been missing. An answer to this question is still elusive, but perhaps other ingredients are the ability to be inspirational and mood-changing (I sort of mentioned this before, but maybe not the change-element), and energizing. When I listen to music I like, I can get so blown away that I am left with new-found hope, inspiration to get out there and do stuff--to make a difference. I gain energy! Lots and lots of energy. And...I like to feel that way, so will gravitate to music that brings it out. Quote (TubularBelle @ Nov. 12 2005, 03:15) It is all about emotion and mood, NEVER NEVER listen to Mike unless you are prepared to give it your full attention, don't eat, don't talk, don't vacuum, don't sit at the computer. You MAY dance! Gee, Tracy, thanks! Actually, Amarok is one of my all-time favorite housecleaning albums—I get into the music, cleaning is rote, and suddenly, it’s a fete accompli! If I have to do something dull, I need all the help I can get. -------------- "No such thing as destiny; only choices exist." From:  Moongarden's "Solaris." Back to top

Alan D Group: Members Posts: 3670 Joined: Aug. 2004 Posted: Nov. 12 2005, 16:31 Quote (Inkanta @ Nov. 12 2005, 18:43) Amarok is one of my all-time favorite housecleaning albums For heaven's sake don't tell Mike. He'll be making another version with extra vacuum cleaner noises in it. Seriously though folks... I'm increasingly fascinated by the idea of the TSOL (Tracy System of Listening). Imagine that you're listening to, let's say ... Ommadawn part 1. You're doing nothing else - you're fully engaged with the music, which is coming towards its climax; it's like an extension of yourself. Then suddenly someone says 'How are you enjoying this?' What will you answer? Well obviously you're not enjoying it now; possibly you've just thrown your cup of tea over the enquirer. But suppose you think about the question. Could you answer it? Could you describe what was happening as that crescendo of guitar playing drives to its conclusion? I don't think I could. I might describe feeling flushed, with a flutter in my stomach, but they are only the physical accompaniments; they're trivial in comparision with the deep engagement of your soul that you were involved in. OK now rewind the video. You're in there again, 3 minutes before the end. Then you stop and ask yourself how you're enjoying this. The question is just as unanswerable; and all you know is that you're not enjoying it now thank you very much. OK rewind the video one last time... Ommadawn ... three minutes from the end.... and now imagine yourself asking 'where have I heard this tune before in this piece?' Now the moment you do that, you've disengaged. The music sweeps inexorably on, but it left you behind wondering about the tune. It begins to look as though the injection of rational thought about anything (even including the music itself) breaks the all-important intuitive link between you and the music. I've noticed this myself looking at paintings. If I'm looking at a Monet waterlilies, say, and start remembering little facts about Monet in his later years, I'm no longer properly attending to the painting. Does this mean we have to throw out rational thinking then? No - but I think I'm persuading myself that the rational thought needs to be done separately to the listening to the music. You can do it as preparation - so that then the memory of what you contemplated can feed your intuitive response; but if you try to do it at the same time as listening to the music, then it actually interferes. You can't have your cake and eat it at the same time. Back to top

Korgscrew Group: Super Admins Posts: 3511 Joined: Dec. 1999 Posted: Nov. 12 2005, 20:36 Quote (Alan D @ Nov. 12 2005, 21:31) Seriously though folks... I'm increasingly fascinated by the idea of the TSOL (Tracy System of Listening). But this has no place in the theory! The studies mention no Tracy! I'm meeeeeeeltingggggggggg! *snigger* But...er...seriously... Quote Imagine that you're listening to, let's say ... Ommadawn part 1. You're doing nothing else - you're fully engaged with the music, which is coming towards its climax; it's like an extension of yourself. Then suddenly someone says 'How are you enjoying this?' What will you answer? I think it might be something like: "Woooooooohoooooooo!" maybe followed by "Sorry, did you just say something?" But...if you were to force me to describe it within a few seconds (rather than giving me time to put together a full answer), I'd probably just say something like "Great feel" and then...then I'd somehow demonstrate musically (depending on what was to hand at the time) exactly what I meant. I think I'd at the very least have to run the music over in my head before I could translate it into words. In my head, I know what's going on in the music - all the parts are there, all the individual bits laid out. In that closed world of music, I'm unravelling the whole thing, but is the question "What's happening here?" running through my head? No, it's not something which is that easy to describe. It's like if I turn a cardboard box over in my hands. The box doesn't exist in words, and I don't need it to...but after a short look, I could draw you a 'net' of that box onto card for you to cut out and make another one (probably now I've said that, one of you is going to call my bluff and get me to do it, and either it'll turn out as an origami swan instead or I'll find myself making boxes all night, probably shaped curiously and inexplicably like the hard-to-wrap gifts that everyone's bought their relatives for Christmas). Party tricks aside, somehow I find music a more intricate form of the same thing. I think some of the sounds exist in the same place in my head as shapes (hey, put that straitjacket away!). That's really only the beginning of an explanation though. Maybe with a bit more time, I'll be able to work out the rest. Back to top

[ Track this topic :: Email this topic :: Print this topic ] Pages: (3) < [1] 2 3 >

Forums | Links | Instruments | Discography | Tours | Articles | FAQ | Artwork | Wallpapers
Biography | Gallery | Videos | MIDI / Ringtones | Tabs | Lyrics | Books | Sitemap | Contact


Mike Oldfield Tubular.net