5 ms·

The state of music commentary on this thread is low enough to be insulting and pretty much validates the article. I find it humorous that a website that draws p

The state of music commentary on this thread is low enough to be insulting and pretty much validates the article. I find it humorous that a website that draws people dedicated to abstract thought can have such a mediocre understanding of music and music history. Do yourself a favor, find a piece of music that you think you don't like. Sit down and listen to it 50 times without distraction so that you know all the changes, turns, asides, tensions, contractions, contradictions, and undulations. If you still don't like, fine. But I say 9 times out of 10 with this approach you'll realize you know so little about music and there is much more to know and you'll be practically giddy to expand your knowledge. The distance between Arnold Schoenberg and Lady Gaga is less than you think.

araneae 17y ago
For most people, music is entertainment, just like literature, art, television, etc. It seems like you (and the author of this article) take it much more seriously than that. That's fine for you, but I think what many of us are expressing is that it's silly to claim that you're superior because of it. Musical skill is certainly to be admired, but condescension isn't.
CWuestefeld 17y ago
Sit down and listen to it 50 times without distraction so that you know all the changes, turns, asides, tensions, contractions, contradictions, and undulations. In college I had a minor in electronic art. We'd sit through each other's performances and then comment on all the various artistic work that went into them. The elephant in the room was that it was all BS. I couldn't count the number of times that someone told me "I appreciated the way you used X to emphasize Y". In truth, nothing had been farther from my mind; it just worked out that way. So I think that a huge portion of what you're interpreting in the changes, turns, etc. are just happenstance. It's just that our minds are such incredible pattern-recognizing machines, and are so malleable, that it's trivially easy to spot some pattern and rationalize a whole lot of noise (in the information processing sense) into spurious meaning. How else to explain someone deciding that Ursa Major looks like a bear?
- seabee 17y ago
  It's valid to recognise a pattern, a technique that you used. Name it if you like. The mistake is only made when they believe the pattern was made intentionally. More often than not, the only thought entering your mind as you compose is 'this is pleasing, so I will keep it'. However, even if those facets of the music you interpreted exist by chance rather than by design, they still have value and are a source of inspiration. Conversely, bad designs exist. It's the outcome that matters; that's what you learn from. Not from intentions.
- ShardPhoenix 17y ago
  I think that's also part of the reason why distortion can sound good - it can add a lot of fake depth to the music.
CWuestefeld 17y ago
The state of music commentary on this thread is low enough to be insulting and pretty much validates the article. This seems rather contrary to the kinds of talk normally heard on HN. It's quite typical for us to take ourselves as developers to task when we build an application that users fail to appreciate, or have difficulty in using. How is it, then, that when listeners fail to appreciate the greatness in some piece of music, that it's the listener's fault? By analogy, shouldn't we look at this as a failure of the musician?
- nerme 17y ago
  Phil·is·tine (fĭl'ĭ-stēn', fĭ-lĭs'tĭn, -tēn') n. 1. A member of an Aegean people who settled ancient Philistia around the 12th century B.C. 2. a. A smug, ignorant, especially middle-class person who is regarded as being indifferent or antagonistic to artistic and cultural values. b. One who lacks knowledge in a specific area. Dude, there is a WORLD of a difference between a computer application that is made for the purpose of doing business and a work of art... Art is about communication. Art is a conversation. Do you expect, when having a conversation with someone, that it is going to be a one-sided affair, where the other person is completely responsible for the outcome of the interaction, and you, yourself, have no bearing nor responsibility on the course of events? Is someone "failing" at conversation because they are speaking to you in Korean and you don't understand it? Is that their fault? Or is it yours? Is one person failing and the other person triumphantly succeeding in this situation?
  - talvisota 17y ago
    Where did you learn that? To me, art is about experiencing things, not "conversation". Art mostly just sits there to be seen or heard, and it will not care about my saying or thinking. Art may "talk" to me, but I can't talk to art. To your language analogy: what if I invent a language of my own and try to use it anywhere, how much the failure of communication is divided between me and the receivers? Many times "art" seems to be exactly this. It's not "Korean", it's just some gibberish the artist came up with.
    - 17y ago
ajscherer 17y ago
Why in the world would someone spend 6-8 hours listening to a piece of music they dislike just so they can like it? If I already have thousands of pieces of music I enjoy listening to, why should I put any effort into liking even more music? I don't buy the article's conclusion that people should listen to jazz because otherwise they are "missing a huge chunk of what life has to offer". Everyone is missing out on a huge chunk of what life has to offer! Time spent gaining appreciation for music is not spent doing something else. Who is anyone to tell anyone else what chunks of life they should be exploring? I have an alternate theory for why Americans don't like jazz. They don't like jazz because they don't hear a lot of jazz. They do like lyrical forms of music because they are exposed to a lot of it in the course of their daily lives. Why is a purposefully acquired taste superior to one that didn't require effort?
- alaithea 17y ago
  > Why is a purposefully acquired taste superior to one that didn't require effort? Some songs are instantly likable, often because they are simple and their hooks are easily grasped. I would compare them to children's songs. You know the tune and words, and may find it fun to sing along with once in a while, but as an adult, you're not going to get anything deep out of "Row Row Row Your Boat" over the long run. Enjoyment tends to decrease with time and exposure. Other songs are not instantly likable, but as you get to know them, they reveal wonderful, joyous tidbits and layers, and your enjoyment grows with time and discovery. They are not so simple as to be grasped immediately; they must be learned and examined, just like any other advanced subject. There is nothing wrong with popular, easy art, and it's not really a matter of acquired tastes being superior, just that acquired tastes can ultimately be far more rewarding to the individual, as they provide lasting, increasing reward in exchange for your effort and attention.
  - eru 17y ago
    Deep and easy to get into are not mutual exclusive.
    - Niten 17y ago
anigbrowl 17y ago
What you say is true. But how you say it reminds me of heroin junkies' syringe aesthetic. No insult intended; rather an observation of how people favor different paths to the common destination of a satisfying endorphin experience.
CodeMage 17y ago
The funny thing about music theory is that the best musicians/composers always seem to break the rules. I've had some serious classes when I was younger and had more time, because I was genuinely interested. A lot of definitions were vague and/or rather complicated and were invariably followed (at some point) by a statement along the lines of "except that Mozart didn't really do it that way". Not that I'm trying to say that analyzing music is useless -- far from it, it's always good to analyze and recognize patterns -- but it does put things in their perspective.
- cynicalkane 17y ago
  A lot of people teach music theory as a kind of musical analysis. This is wrong, both as a practical matter and a historical one--for instance, harmonic theory was first exposited by Hugo Riemann well after the classical period was over, and voice-leading by Fux long after the death of Palestrina, the greatest of the 'voice-leaders'. Analyzing music makes about as much sense as analyzing food. You can't describe musical deliciousness, you just taste it, and certain talented people can make new kinds, so long as they are well versed in the ingredients. That's what music theory is--being able to think about ingredients, so you can create and/or execute musical recipes. I hope that analogy wasn't too silly.
  - Goladus 17y ago
    The analogy isn't silly, it's very apt and I've used it before. The problem is that there's nothing wrong with associating analysis with music theory. Music theory is not merely analysis, but it's still an important component just as being able to identify the different spices in a dish is an important component of being a cook.
talvisota 17y ago
Well, I find it insulting when somebody comes and tells people how they should enjoy their music. I think your comment pretty much validates my image about the people who think they are better in listening to music than others. What has abstract thought to do with music history anyway? I am a software designer, and I truely appreciate useful abstractions that make creating good software a bit easier. But for music, I don't give a damn about the intentions of the composer or the history of the musical style of the composition, if I don't like it or the way how it is performed. Just like the users of my software don't care the slightest bit of how well-crafted the thing is, if it doesn't do what they want. I rather sit down to listen through the music I like 50 times to learn all its twists and turns than to waste my time on something I genuinely couldn't care less. And how do I tell the music I like from the music I don't? The music I truely like gives me shivers, physically, the first time I hear it. That is the music that gives me joy when I listen to it. That is the experience I hope to get from music every now and then. And that really does not happen too often. I play guitar as a hobby, and mostly suck at it. That's because I don't have the drive to really study hard and learn it properly. (And probably I don't have that much talent, either.) I would have all the time if I wanted, but I don't, because I want to enjoy playing music - not to have it as yet another burden to bear. So I go and learn new stuff only when I feel I need some new kick to maintain the interest in it. And this is what I want to say: go and learn, but above all, find enjoyment. Life is short, and everything has its price - so don't waste your (free) time on anything you don't find personally rewarding. Studying music is waste of time - unless you happen to enjoy studying music! ;)
- jacobolus 17y ago
  > I would have all the time if I wanted, but I don't, because I want to enjoy playing music - not to have it as yet another burden to bear. You’ve completely swapped cause and effect.
  - talvisota 17y ago
    I thought I wasn't clear enough about that part, and so it seems. So I'll clarify. Earlier, when I was learning to play guitar, I really really wanted to become a good guitar player. So, I spent countless hours to practice, but I wasn't advancing that much. And all the time I knew what the problem was, although I didn't admit it to myself. It did not come from the heart. I thought that it is only a matter of decision, and a matter of how much time and effort I put into it. But at the end it is a matter of motivation, and as you all know, motivation is not something you just pick and choose; it is something you look for, but you cannot force it. My motivation for playing guitar was shallow, but I tried not to face it, because becoming a good guitarist would have been so cool. Eventually I started to hate it, gave up and got rid of the whole instrument. Only years later I got a new "bite" to the hobby, and this time I was wise enough to admit that I am not willing to practice hard to become a good player - and never have been. Instead, I just warmed up the old stuff, and started inventing my own music. Composing. Just trying out things, seeking for something that sounds good and then developing on that. Nothing too complicated or special. And boy, have I enjoyed playing guitar since then! I don't push a schedule, I don't push any targets, I just play exactly how I feel like and when I like. And time to time I feel like learning something new, borrow a couple of music books and have a sprint of actually practicing on something. But only as far as I find enjoyment in learning itself. So, that is what I mean that I would have all the time I wanted, but I just don't (want). Anything more than I currently happen to put on it, would be waste of my time because I wouldn't enjoy it.
nostrademons 17y ago
It's interesting that you use Lady Gaga as an example, because before she got famous, she was a...jazz musician! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_hHc7TZjyY&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_hHc7TZjyY&feature=relat...

araneae 17y ago

For most people, music is entertainment, just like literature, art, television, etc. It seems like you (and the author of this article) take it much more seriously than that. That's fine for you, but I think what many of us are expressing is that it's silly to claim that you're superior because of it. Musical skill is certainly to be admired, but condescension isn't.

CWuestefeld 17y ago

Sit down and listen to it 50 times without distraction so that you know all the changes, turns, asides, tensions, contractions, contradictions, and undulations. In college I had a minor in electronic art. We'd sit through each other's performances and then comment on all the various artistic work that went into them. The elephant in the room was that it was all BS. I couldn't count the number of times that someone told me "I appreciated the way you used X to emphasize Y". In truth, nothing had been farther from my mind; it just worked out that way. So I think that a huge portion of what you're interpreting in the changes, turns, etc. are just happenstance. It's just that our minds are such incredible pattern-recognizing machines, and are so malleable, that it's trivially easy to spot some pattern and rationalize a whole lot of noise (in the information processing sense) into spurious meaning. How else to explain someone deciding that Ursa Major looks like a bear?

seabee 17y ago
It's valid to recognise a pattern, a technique that you used. Name it if you like. The mistake is only made when they believe the pattern was made intentionally. More often than not, the only thought entering your mind as you compose is 'this is pleasing, so I will keep it'. However, even if those facets of the music you interpreted exist by chance rather than by design, they still have value and are a source of inspiration. Conversely, bad designs exist. It's the outcome that matters; that's what you learn from. Not from intentions.
ShardPhoenix 17y ago
I think that's also part of the reason why distortion can sound good - it can add a lot of fake depth to the music.

CWuestefeld 17y ago

The state of music commentary on this thread is low enough to be insulting and pretty much validates the article. This seems rather contrary to the kinds of talk normally heard on HN. It's quite typical for us to take ourselves as developers to task when we build an application that users fail to appreciate, or have difficulty in using. How is it, then, that when listeners fail to appreciate the greatness in some piece of music, that it's the listener's fault? By analogy, shouldn't we look at this as a failure of the musician?

nerme 17y ago
Phil·is·tine (fĭl'ĭ-stēn', fĭ-lĭs'tĭn, -tēn') n. 1. A member of an Aegean people who settled ancient Philistia around the 12th century B.C. 2. a. A smug, ignorant, especially middle-class person who is regarded as being indifferent or antagonistic to artistic and cultural values. b. One who lacks knowledge in a specific area. Dude, there is a WORLD of a difference between a computer application that is made for the purpose of doing business and a work of art... Art is about communication. Art is a conversation. Do you expect, when having a conversation with someone, that it is going to be a one-sided affair, where the other person is completely responsible for the outcome of the interaction, and you, yourself, have no bearing nor responsibility on the course of events? Is someone "failing" at conversation because they are speaking to you in Korean and you don't understand it? Is that their fault? Or is it yours? Is one person failing and the other person triumphantly succeeding in this situation?
- talvisota 17y ago
  Where did you learn that? To me, art is about experiencing things, not "conversation". Art mostly just sits there to be seen or heard, and it will not care about my saying or thinking. Art may "talk" to me, but I can't talk to art. To your language analogy: what if I invent a language of my own and try to use it anywhere, how much the failure of communication is divided between me and the receivers? Many times "art" seems to be exactly this. It's not "Korean", it's just some gibberish the artist came up with.
  - 17y ago

ajscherer 17y ago

Why in the world would someone spend 6-8 hours listening to a piece of music they dislike just so they can like it? If I already have thousands of pieces of music I enjoy listening to, why should I put any effort into liking even more music? I don't buy the article's conclusion that people should listen to jazz because otherwise they are "missing a huge chunk of what life has to offer". Everyone is missing out on a huge chunk of what life has to offer! Time spent gaining appreciation for music is not spent doing something else. Who is anyone to tell anyone else what chunks of life they should be exploring? I have an alternate theory for why Americans don't like jazz. They don't like jazz because they don't hear a lot of jazz. They do like lyrical forms of music because they are exposed to a lot of it in the course of their daily lives. Why is a purposefully acquired taste superior to one that didn't require effort?

alaithea 17y ago
> Why is a purposefully acquired taste superior to one that didn't require effort? Some songs are instantly likable, often because they are simple and their hooks are easily grasped. I would compare them to children's songs. You know the tune and words, and may find it fun to sing along with once in a while, but as an adult, you're not going to get anything deep out of "Row Row Row Your Boat" over the long run. Enjoyment tends to decrease with time and exposure. Other songs are not instantly likable, but as you get to know them, they reveal wonderful, joyous tidbits and layers, and your enjoyment grows with time and discovery. They are not so simple as to be grasped immediately; they must be learned and examined, just like any other advanced subject. There is nothing wrong with popular, easy art, and it's not really a matter of acquired tastes being superior, just that acquired tastes can ultimately be far more rewarding to the individual, as they provide lasting, increasing reward in exchange for your effort and attention.
- eru 17y ago
  Deep and easy to get into are not mutual exclusive.
  - Niten 17y ago

anigbrowl 17y ago

What you say is true. But how you say it reminds me of heroin junkies' syringe aesthetic. No insult intended; rather an observation of how people favor different paths to the common destination of a satisfying endorphin experience.

CodeMage 17y ago

The funny thing about music theory is that the best musicians/composers always seem to break the rules. I've had some serious classes when I was younger and had more time, because I was genuinely interested. A lot of definitions were vague and/or rather complicated and were invariably followed (at some point) by a statement along the lines of "except that Mozart didn't really do it that way". Not that I'm trying to say that analyzing music is useless -- far from it, it's always good to analyze and recognize patterns -- but it does put things in their perspective.

cynicalkane 17y ago
A lot of people teach music theory as a kind of musical analysis. This is wrong, both as a practical matter and a historical one--for instance, harmonic theory was first exposited by Hugo Riemann well after the classical period was over, and voice-leading by Fux long after the death of Palestrina, the greatest of the 'voice-leaders'. Analyzing music makes about as much sense as analyzing food. You can't describe musical deliciousness, you just taste it, and certain talented people can make new kinds, so long as they are well versed in the ingredients. That's what music theory is--being able to think about ingredients, so you can create and/or execute musical recipes. I hope that analogy wasn't too silly.
- Goladus 17y ago
  The analogy isn't silly, it's very apt and I've used it before. The problem is that there's nothing wrong with associating analysis with music theory. Music theory is not merely analysis, but it's still an important component just as being able to identify the different spices in a dish is an important component of being a cook.

talvisota 17y ago

Well, I find it insulting when somebody comes and tells people how they should enjoy their music. I think your comment pretty much validates my image about the people who think they are better in listening to music than others. What has abstract thought to do with music history anyway? I am a software designer, and I truely appreciate useful abstractions that make creating good software a bit easier. But for music, I don't give a damn about the intentions of the composer or the history of the musical style of the composition, if I don't like it or the way how it is performed. Just like the users of my software don't care the slightest bit of how well-crafted the thing is, if it doesn't do what they want. I rather sit down to listen through the music I like 50 times to learn all its twists and turns than to waste my time on something I genuinely couldn't care less. And how do I tell the music I like from the music I don't? The music I truely like gives me shivers, physically, the first time I hear it. That is the music that gives me joy when I listen to it. That is the experience I hope to get from music every now and then. And that really does not happen too often. I play guitar as a hobby, and mostly suck at it. That's because I don't have the drive to really study hard and learn it properly. (And probably I don't have that much talent, either.) I would have all the time if I wanted, but I don't, because I want to enjoy playing music - not to have it as yet another burden to bear. So I go and learn new stuff only when I feel I need some new kick to maintain the interest in it. And this is what I want to say: go and learn, but above all, find enjoyment. Life is short, and everything has its price - so don't waste your (free) time on anything you don't find personally rewarding. Studying music is waste of time - unless you happen to enjoy studying music! ;)

jacobolus 17y ago
> I would have all the time if I wanted, but I don't, because I want to enjoy playing music - not to have it as yet another burden to bear. You’ve completely swapped cause and effect.
- talvisota 17y ago
  I thought I wasn't clear enough about that part, and so it seems. So I'll clarify. Earlier, when I was learning to play guitar, I really really wanted to become a good guitar player. So, I spent countless hours to practice, but I wasn't advancing that much. And all the time I knew what the problem was, although I didn't admit it to myself. It did not come from the heart. I thought that it is only a matter of decision, and a matter of how much time and effort I put into it. But at the end it is a matter of motivation, and as you all know, motivation is not something you just pick and choose; it is something you look for, but you cannot force it. My motivation for playing guitar was shallow, but I tried not to face it, because becoming a good guitarist would have been so cool. Eventually I started to hate it, gave up and got rid of the whole instrument. Only years later I got a new "bite" to the hobby, and this time I was wise enough to admit that I am not willing to practice hard to become a good player - and never have been. Instead, I just warmed up the old stuff, and started inventing my own music. Composing. Just trying out things, seeking for something that sounds good and then developing on that. Nothing too complicated or special. And boy, have I enjoyed playing guitar since then! I don't push a schedule, I don't push any targets, I just play exactly how I feel like and when I like. And time to time I feel like learning something new, borrow a couple of music books and have a sprint of actually practicing on something. But only as far as I find enjoyment in learning itself. So, that is what I mean that I would have all the time I wanted, but I just don't (want). Anything more than I currently happen to put on it, would be waste of my time because I wouldn't enjoy it.

nostrademons 17y ago

It's interesting that you use Lady Gaga as an example, because before she got famous, she was a...jazz musician! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_hHc7TZjyY&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_hHc7TZjyY&feature=relat...