Why we all hear different music

I can hear it all of a piece, or focus on individual elements.

One way of looking at harmony encompasses both your and your daughter's view ... harmony isn't really vertical, it's just the momentary coincidence of moving lines.

Best,
Fred

quote:

Originally posted by fred simon:
harmony isn't really vertical, it's just the momentary coincidence of moving lines.

well that all depends on how you play it. some performers seem to have a special aptitude for bringing out the lines. i mean orchestras too.

and it sure looks vertical :-)

quote:

Originally posted by mikeeschman:

quote:

Originally posted by fred simon:
harmony isn't really vertical, it's just the momentary coincidence of moving lines.

well that all depends on how you play it. some performers seem to have a special aptitude for bringing out the lines.

Absolutely, and the more the players bring out the lines, the richer and more alive the resulting harmony.

Fred

In a general sense, I agree with the underlying premise here that we do all hear music differently (rather than "hear different music?"). The question is why is this so? Maybe it's the same with any topic and more than one person involved; you might say one word to somebody and it always surprises me how even one word can be misinterpreted.

Within the context of music though, I'm with Fred on this one. When listening, depending on my mood or more so, my desire, I can appreciate the whole or the parts. Sometimes I look for the details (generally the perspective from when I am learning a piece) and sometimes I look for the emotion or the intellect (the big picture). Having said this, it is usually the emotional or intellectual value that grabs me first, meaning, I can't think of any piece of music that I've spent 100's of hours learning where the details had attracted me first. It is always something that words cannot describe that attracts me (and connects with my soul) and then I am enriched further by the details as I spend more time with the piece. Eventually the two aspects become one.

The other reason I believe we all hear music differently is that we are all at a different place in our lives with it at any given point in time. It may depend on your life's experiences/upbringing, your age, your sex, your race, your social surroundings, your education, your personality, your circumstances etc. By saying this, I do truly mean that their is no wrong way but merely that we are all special and have a unique fingerprint and our inherited characteristics along with our environment shapes each one of us differently. Therefore, if a piece of music affects me in a certain way, I cannot expect someone else to have the exact same response (as much as I wish that they would). We may share the bond of mutual love for music and that is maybe all we should expect.

Mike, if your daughter hears harmony first and you hear melody first, I wonder if you would elaborate a little on the differences in your musical educations. If I were a betting man, I would wager that your daughter does play an instrument(s) and that they are not the same instrument(s) that you play (she's a pianist, perhaps and not a wind player)? Growing up in a musical home such as yours, I'd be very surprised if musical values didn't rub off somehow though : )

Regards,
Doug

quote:

Originally posted by Florestan:
Mike, if your daughter hears harmony first and you hear melody first, I wonder if you would elaborate a little on the differences in your musical educations. If I were a betting man, I would wager that your daughter does play an instrument(s) and that they are not the same instrument(s) that you play (she's a pianist, perhaps and not a wind player)? Growing up in a musical home such as yours, I'd be very surprised if musical values didn't rub off somehow though : )

Regards,
Doug

I am a trumpet player. Kristen is a pianist and violinist. We both studied music theory and history, but I also studied orchestration and counterpoint. We are both quite curious about this.

I don't think I always listened the way I am listening now. Over the past three or four years articulation has drawn more of my attention. Articulation was a particular focus of my practice the last several years I played.
I still believe that for a trumpet player the articulation is the root of all music making.
It is the hallmark of a great player to have an articulation that is both beautiful and unique. It is easy to identify a trumpet player by his or her articulation. It defines your musical speaking voice.

I think there are many different ways to hear music, and hope to hear more variations on this thread.

I am hopeful someone will say something I don't expect :-) If that happens, I will try that "new" perspective on for fit.

Later today, Kristen is going to look through my CDs to take home some that she likes and doesn't have. We do that every time she visits. When she's away from me it will be another lifeline between us :-) She doesn't have any Brahms, so a set of symphonies
(Jochum / Berlin) and the Gould Intermezzi are definitely going home with her. We'll she what else she picks :-)

When I listen to music, I aim my focus at the object of my attention like a gun. It is enjoyable to inspect things closely. It's just the way my mind works. This obsession with the qualities of articulation is making me hear things I never noticed before. It has made a lot of familiar music fresh and inviting. Still, it will end up being a passing fancy.

quote:

I don't think I always listened the way I am listening now.

Looking back through the years I believe the same thing is true in my life. I think age, maturity, education, desire can all be thanked for this. By my recollection, I believe as a child/teen I was focused more so on the notes and learning them. And this is understandable as a player since your whole beginning life is focused on developing skills and training your body to perform something. You can't really "make music" until you have some level of training / skill / proficiency. So this naturally becomes your means to an end. A very definite shift began happening around age 35. In the last decade, I now seem to approach music by first addressing the context or meaning. Maybe even looking at a score first and trying to determine what this will sound like before I start to practice. What is the composer trying to convey?

As for listening, the same thing is true. I now try to understand what and why a certain performer or conductor is choosing to do something rather than another thing. Another thing is that as a youngster, virtuosity was more interesting and now meaning seems to be more interesting. I now prefer slower, more reasoned interpretations etc.

I have a question to ask, if I may, about if their might be an actual physiological difference in the brain concerning the way we perceive music as a listener(musician or non-musician) or as a player? The reason I ask is that I've often wondered why my perceived level of satisfaction/enjoyment is clearly different between just listening to someone else playing music and listening to myself while actually playing? Do the two activities draw upon different regions of the brain? Do they release different chemicals in the body? Is it because listening might only involve one sense (hearing) and sometimes the visual (sight) whereas playing could involve hearing, touching, seeing, and possibly smell (I love the smell of wooden instruments). Given a choice I would prefer to actually experience the joy I derive from playing (even imperfectly) to the sense of pleasure I seem to receive from hearing someone else play everything perfectly. I do collect recordings so I obviously enjoy this aspect but I am just reflecting on the fact that my body reacts differently to the two and that playing provides more pleasure than just listening (or just a different kind of pleasure.

Mike, I actually was initially going to guess your daughter played piano and a "stringed" instrument but in the end I opted to just assume more than one instrument, including the piano. I suspected the piano for sure because pianist, whether they are aware of it or not, are really training themselves to listen for melody and harmony. No other instrument that I can think of can play harmony on their own that well. This is why I believe the way we listen to music has a lot to do with many factors as listed previously.

Regards,
Doug

If you can, get to see a BBC documentary from 'who do you think you are' on Vanessa Mae.
She wanted to see whether her training had helped her become what she is, or was she born with it.
The hearing tests in the program were awe inspiring to me, showing just how many tones she could hear compared to a non playing person.
She never claimed that this made her better, but it did explain to me why some need more from their music than others.

quote:

Originally posted by Florestan:

quote:

I don't think I always listened the way I am listening now.

Looking back through the years I believe the same thing is true in my life. I think age, maturity, education, desire can all be thanked for this. By my recollection, I believe as a child/teen I was focused more so on the notes and learning them. And this is understandable as a player since your whole beginning life is focused on developing skills and training your body to perform something. You can't really "make music" until you have some level of training / skill / proficiency. So this naturally becomes your means to an end.
Doug

i think this is the case for all of us on this end. when i get focused on some one aspect, it draws me in. later that criteria is relaxed, but it stays with you.

hopefully, over time you draw back and hear the bigger picture. but those little fixations somehow focus you, so you end up hearing the bigger picture.

quote:

Originally posted by Florestan:

Given a choice I would prefer to actually experience the joy I derive from playing (even imperfectly) to the sense of pleasure I seem to receive from hearing someone else play everything perfectly.

While of course I love to play music (on a good day, that is), I'd say that I'm most grateful for my ability to hear music ... if forced to choose I'd choose to listen ... as much pleasure as playing my own music, or that of others, with or without others, brings me, the greatest pleasure is from listening to the best of the best, of any era or genre.

All best,
Fred

quote:

Originally posted by fred simon:
I'd say that I'm most grateful for my ability to hear music ... if forced to choose I'd choose to listen ... as much pleasure as playing my own music, or that of others, with or without others, brings me, the greatest pleasure is from listening to the best of the best, of any era or genre.

All best,
Fred

so good to hear someone else say that fred. i stopped playing about a year ago and had forebodings about the effect that would have on my love of music.

i find it is only growing, and i think my understanding is growing as well.

I'll take listening to music in preference to playing it any day of the week. But would hate to not have the option of either.

None of the above modes for me. The first question is 'how does it make me feel' if it makes me feel angry, sad, happy, calm or euphoric etc, It'll pique my interest. Second level listening may then focus on what the bass player is doing relative to others, how the various pieces fit together, how many layers I can hear, if it's a vocal piece - has this person got anything interesting to say, are they sharp, funny, obnoxious etc...but I soon tire of that, and focus on emotion again.

Music is about emotion for me, for mental exercise, I'll pick up a book or find somebody to engage down the pub.

I hear the 'timbre' of the music initially, which is probably why certain periods of music appeal to me and others not.

This probably most evident in the changes brought in through electric and electronic music over the last four decades. I like the sounds of 1970s rock music (Mellotrons, real drums, clear, if sometimes distorted, electric guitar). I find it very difficult to listen to any rock/pop from the 1980 as the digital drum and synth sounds grate on me.

With classical music I am drawn to the rich string sounds of English early 20 Century music.

Rhythm is also important, since I play drums, I can be put off music by simple repetitive rhythms, (although I like complex repetitive rhythms).

I do appreciate, harmony, melody is less important to me. Arrangement is also important.

The first thing I hear is if the music has a quality of sound that appeals, so definitely 'timbre' is the initial trigger for my appreciation of music.

Speaking of the smell of an instrument, one joy of playing drums is the smell when you change a head/skin when the air that has been trapped inside comes out, the rick smell of wood and lacquer (the small vents tend not allow in fresh air, just allow the pressure release when played).

i have another question to ask.

sometimes i will buy multiple recordings of a work i consider fatally flawed, just because i want to hear what a particular group of performers will do with it.

most recent was a purchase of mahler symphony no. 2 by boulez and vienna. the music is just too long. mahler could have cut it to 45 minutes and not hurt a thing. it meanders.

at the same time, that is 45 fabulous minutes! music making the equal of any ever written.

boulez and vienna knock me out!

so has anyone else bought music for the performance, even if the music might disappoint?

quote:

Originally posted by mikeeschman:
i have another question to ask.
...
so has anyone else bought music for the performance, even if the music might disappoint?

If by that question you mean 'Have people bought a of a piece of music for the performance, that otherwise they would not like?', then the answer is yes for numerous performances by jazz musicians interpreting popular songs. I was listening to a short section of 'The Wedding March' being played by Charles Mingus' band earlier.

For jazz performance the song is a loose term, often giving a starting point from where the musician develop ideas through improvisation, with classical music I am sure the question is far more subtle.

quote:

Originally posted by JamieL:
with classical music I am sure the question is far more subtle.

not really.

orchestras have different sounds, as do their halls. conductors see the score in different ways.

and a standard binds a jazz musician like a score does an orchestra. not an exact fit, but close enough.

quote:

Originally posted by fred simon:

While of course I love to play music (on a good day, that is), I'd say that I'm most grateful for my ability to hear music ... if forced to choose I'd choose to listen ... as much pleasure as playing my own music, or that of others, with or without others, brings me, the greatest pleasure is from listening to the best of the best, of any era or genre.

All best, Fred

I could not live without music and learned to play [to a professional standard sufficient to allow for both playing and teaching], but will definately say that I am glad that a problem with my left hand caused me to stop playing.

It would not be false to say that however pleased with my work others certainly were [they kept fixing me for more concerts], that I was not even once satisfied with my own contribtution.

I very much prefer to listen to others who are very much better than I was!

For me the music has far more significance than who plays it.

But I certainly listen differently for the experience of having played in the white heat of concert performances ...

As a bass player it may be no surprise perhaps that I listen equally to harmonic progressions [so often first apparent in the bass line] and the melody [or contrapuntal combinations], which must invariably be most carefully accompanied by those making the bass line.

ATB from George

quote:

Originally posted by mikeeschman:
and a standard binds a jazz musician like a score does an orchestra.

Sometimes, sometimes not. I have performances of songs where a recognisable theme is played for the first few bars, but then an improvisation can last ten minutes or more going so far from the original starting point that there is no recognisable connection by the end.

I have several versions of Beethoven symphonies, but although tempo, emphasis and ambience all vary, the notes played are predominantly the same.

That said, when a largely improvised piece of music is given a name, or starting point from a standard, it is more akin to a 'variation on a theme', so it is probably more down to the norms of labelling within different types of music than the actual variation of performance of the actual theme. I would not expect to see a jazz album with a title such as 'Variations on the theme of 'Round Midnight' in live performance by XXXX', just as a classical musician would not expect to see a note on the score saying '16 bars improv'.

quote:

Originally posted by JamieL:
Sometimes, sometimes not. I have performances of songs where a recognisable theme is played for the first few bars, but then an improvisation can last ten minutes or more going so far from the original starting point that there is no recognisable connection by the end.

I have several versions of Beethoven symphonies, but although tempo, emphasis and ambience all vary, the notes played are predominantly the same.

That said, when a largely improvised piece of music is given a name, or starting point from a standard, it is more akin to a 'variation on a theme', so it is probably more down to the norms of labelling within different types of music than the actual variation of performance of the actual theme. I would not expect to see a jazz album with a title such as 'Variations on the theme of 'Round Midnight' in live performance by XXXX', just as a classical musician would not expect to see a note on the score saying '16 bars improv'.

nevertheless, when you go out to hear jazz, or get a new album, it is rare indeed to hear truly "new" improvisations.

and Beethoven is the master of theme and variations.

Hi Fred,
I do understand what you are saying but it almost sounds like turning something enjoyable (as a hobby) like playing music into a job has some downside to it? I guess it's like how I dread / hate performing yet when I don't have any pressure or nothing immediate coming up I often enjoy imagining myself playing on stage in concert halls around the world (the very nerve racking thing I dread). This is the fun part for me because I am motivated by listening to cd's or going to concerts and this drives me to want to work hard(er). Maybe I'm lucky that I don't have to make my living from it.

And I too occasionally go through periods where I would sooner listen than play but ultimately their is something special about being able to do something that doesn't just happen by itself. Something that forces you to create and be creative. I'm talking about the active participation as opposed to passive osmosis. It's like creating something as a skilled chef and then savoring your creation as opposed to just looking at the picture of it in a recipe book. In the same way I'd rather "be" with a woman than to only look at a beautiful woman from afar or just in a photo. All of these things involve actively using many of your 5 senses as opposed to just imagining the outcome. I think that is what draws me back again and again to experience the blood, sweat, and tears.

I listen to music probably on average of between 2-4 hours per day. While this motivates me and and it is far easier to do I find that then going to practice / play keeps me humble and brings home a more rewarding outcome.

Regards,
Doug

quote:

Originally posted by Florestan:

I'm talking about the active participation as opposed to passive osmosis. It's like creating something as a skilled chef and then savoring your creation as opposed to just looking at the picture of it in a recipe book.

Listening isn't passive for me. It's not looking at the picture in the recipe book, but rather, eating a fantastic meal by a world class chef.

When playing one's best, the ideal is to actually be able to listen as a listener would. Keith Jarrett said it eloquently in talking about listening to what his hands had to say.

That said, I would only choose listening if forced. I live to play music, I need to play music, both live and on recording, and it's as elemental for me as eating and breathing.

The great composer/bassist Steve Swallow said that he discourages students who think they want to become professional musicians, but to those students who say they need to make a life of music he tells them that's the greatest life imaginable. And he's absolutely right on.

What I'm really talking about with the choice of listening is to paraphrase something Paul McCandless said along the lines of being grateful for being able to hear what the music is saying, that he can hear it, that he gets it.

Best,
Fred

quote:

Originally posted by fred simon:
I live to play music, I need to play music, both live and on recording, and it's as elemental for me as eating and breathing.

I'm not a pro but i think i can understand the whole thing you say here.

i always loved playing, but it takes 90 minutes a day just to maintain, and at age 59 new opportunities to play with groups are non-existent (at least to play with good groups).
so i am reduced to being a full time listener.

quote:

Keith Jarrett said it eloquently in talking about listening to what his hands had to say.

I really liked your response, Fred. Especially the Keith Jarrett quote as this is essentially what I was trying to say in a far less eloquent way.

Firstly, I want to clarify that by comparing listening (to a CD or a live concert) and "playing" that the underlying implication of "playing" does clearly involve the listening aspect but just that they are slightly different. In fact, I was trying to show that, depending on skill level and knowledge etc., this could be a reason why we all hear music differently. Again, to me it would be like comparing a wine taster to being a wine maker. In both cases knowledge and experience and skill make either activity more fulfilling. Both require tasting skills (compare to listening skills) but the latter requires a different set of skills and knowledge because you are responsible for the outcome.

Concerning listening to someone else play I would still argue that this can only be a passive activity. By definition, I mean that you have to accept what's given and you can't change one thing about it. That's really what I meant about the passive part. But that doesn't stop one from analyzing or assessing or being emotionally involved with what you are hearing. This part of the listening is not passive. A small distinction but their lies the difference for me.

Skilled listening is essential and very beneficial whether you listen or play but with playing your listening skills will determine the outcome.

Best Regards,

quote:

Originally posted by Florestan:
Skilled listening is essential and very beneficial whether you listen or play but with playing your listening skills will determine the outcome.

Best Regards,

i think with playing hearing it before you play it is the critical skill.

On the playing listening balance - does it depend on why you play? I play to be creative, like you'd write or paint. I couldn't live without it, but I could happily live without playing other peoples music...just a thought?