What type of music do you all prefer?

[Anura]

I like most genres but i really like folk and jazz.

 

 

[CaptainPanic]

I always struggle to put the music I like into a category... and so do modern artists.

 

For example,

, what's that? Her own website says:

[...] a mix of 1950's inspired ballroom jazz, cinematic tangoes, groovin' jazz tracks, infectious mambo's and banging beats.

 

But I like a lot of other music too.

[imatfaal]

Current favourite album on ipod -> Becoming a Jackal - Villagers. Longterm favourites (per itunes playcount) i am kloot/dylan/rem/billy bragg

[zapatos]

I love blues. I notice a real difference in how I 'feel' when I listen to it. I was always curious about what was happening in my body when I listened to it.

[ajb]

Manowar, Judas Priest, Iron Maiden, DIO, Motorhead,... that kind of thing. \m/

[Rhiaden]

I like most stuff, but my preference is for rock/metal of most genres. I tend to go in phases, had a big rock opera moment recently, where I was into Avantasia etc, I am writing my project at the moment, so busy reading loads of papers, so listening to Vivaldi as I find it helps me think, and then Linkin Park, Metallica and Iron Maiden to let off steam between writing sessions.

 

I also have a thing for really cheesy power ballads, and a bit of an addiction of Alice Cooper "Last Temptation" (This comes under Rock Opera addiction I think)

 

I am a lyrics person, the melody is less important. I do have a thing for Trance for relaxing, which explains my interest in vivaldi apparently My boyfriend told me to listen to Mozart to study, but I never liked him, even when I used to play the piano, so went for Vivaldi, which my boyfriend claims is "Classical Trance or Techno"

[Mr Skeptic]

I'm not much of a music person, but I do occasionally enjoy having quiet-type music in the background, especially classical music.

[Anura]

I also like Blind Blake, Rev. Gary Davis, Big Bill Broonzy, Johnny Cash, The Beatles and Led Zeppelin. Lets not forget about the late great Chet Atkins. I will stop there..

Edited December 8, 2010 by Anura

[dragonstar57]

why just like one kind of music when whatever it is at least ³/₄ of it is lame anyhow?

there are many good songs in all kinds and if u just listen to one you will miss allot of good songs.

[mississippichem]

Hardcore Bebop Jazz from the 1940's (especially Charlie Parker), various classical musics (preferably Baroque), Bob Dylan, The Beatles, Johnny Cash, Squarepusher, Opeth, Mastodon, Jaco Pastouris, Bela Fleck and the Flecktones. I could continue but they only get more obscure...

 

EDIT: Can't leave out Metallica, that would be rock n' roll blasphemy .

Edited December 3, 2010 by mississippichem

[rigney]

why just like one kind of music when whatever it is at least ³/₄ of it is lame anyhow?

there are many good songs in all kinds and if u just listen to one you will miss allot of good songs.

I like songs that say something, not just words. If that's what it was all about, "rap" would do just fine. But here's a guy that says it like it is. You can even disregard the portrait of Bush if you wish, but he was there when everything fell in on us.

Quote: All mountains have steep slopes that give us pause to rest and look back and think of the things we may have left behind. It's the only true method of letting each of us see our journey, and balance its worth.

 

This guy expresses it very well!

 

Edited December 3, 2010 by rigney

[ajb]

I'm not much of a music person...

 

I used to be like you, until I discovered heavy metal B)

[Marat]

Since my mother was a concert violinist, as a child I never heard any music other than classical music, so I never developed a taste for anything but that. However, I think classical music is objectively better, because it is the only music that seems able to provide anyone with that sense of shivering and goose bumps during the most moving passages. When I ask people who like jazz, rock, country and western, etc., if they ever get that feeling while listening to music, they never seem even to know what I am talking about, yet for me that is the main enjoyment of music.

 

Most modern music simply seems unintelligent compared to classical music. For example, in modern music, the repetitions are endless, driving, boring, and monotonous. But anyone accomplished in classical music knows that it is always a carefully calibrated balance between the artistic force of repetition and the interruption of that repetition by strategic variations. Thus if you consider for example Beethoven's famous 5th Symphony, the familiar 'knocking' signature of 'da-da-da-daah' is never heard twice in the same form, but is often repeated in a similar form. To get this balance right requires considerable skill, so when it is contrasted with popular music which goes on forever with no appreciation that its endless repetitions will sound oppressively machine-like without some variation, it doesn't sound so much like a different musical taste as just a less intelligent one.

[zapatos]

Since my mother was a concert violinist, as a child I never heard any music other than classical music, so I never developed a taste for anything but that. However, I think classical music is objectively better, because it is the only music that seems able to provide anyone with that sense of shivering and goose bumps during the most moving passages. When I ask people who like jazz, rock, country and western, etc., if they ever get that feeling while listening to music, they never seem even to know what I am talking about, yet for me that is the main enjoyment of music.

But as I mentioned in post #4, I get a similar feeling from the Blues.

[A Tripolation]

Hardcore Bebop Jazz from the 1940's (especially Charlie Parker), various classical musics (preferably Baroque), Bob Dylan, The Beatles, Johnny Cash, Squarepusher, Opeth, Mastodon, Jaco Pastouris, Bela Fleck and the Flecktones. I could continue but they only get more obscure...

 

I had a ten-minute long discussion with two guys today in which I was ridiculed for not knowing who Mastodon is. Apparently they're the most amazing band in the world.

 

I like bands such as, We Came as Romans, Isles & Glaciers, Coldplay, MewithoutYou, ect ect.

[Marat]

Another thing about the experience of classical music which I think is special is the delightful sense of the mind being drawn in by the vast complexity of everything going on simultaneously in a good symphony and then held captive, helpless in the overwhelming sense of intricate structure filling the mind from every direction. When I listen to popular music I simply can't understand how people can enjoy it since it is just too thin to produce this interesting sensation of the paralysis of thought and sensation. Just the constant drumbeat of the same thin melody supported by an overly loud and invariable rhythm in the background repeated over and over again with no comprehension of the need to play repetition off against variety. Instead of the experience being like listening to complexity and intelligence in motion, as it is with classcial music, with popular music the experience is like being in a boiler factory where some loose handle keeps banging against the side of a pipe.

[ajb]

However, I think classical music is objectively better, because it is the only music that seems able to provide anyone with that sense of shivering and goose bumps during the most moving passages. When I ask people who like jazz, rock, country and western, etc., if they ever get that feeling while listening to music, they never seem even to know what I am talking about, yet for me that is the main enjoyment of music.

 

I get that when I hear DIO or Rob Halford sing. So maybe it is a trait shared by classical and heavy metal. I don't think I am surprised by that, metal done right has a lot of elements to it, both poetically and musically. (But of course, it is not always done right!)

[mississippichem]

I get that when I hear DIO or Rob Halford sing. So maybe it is a trait shared by classical and heavy metal. I don't think I am surprised by that, metal done right has a lot of elements to it, both poetically and musically. (But of course, it is not always done right!)

 

Yeah, metal is often not done right. However, when it is done right, metal and classical music share a lot of similarities music theory wise. If Bach were to come back and here today's metal, he would probably cringe because of all the parallel fifths, the biggest no-no in classical music harmony before Igor Stravinsky famously did away with that. So all you metal heads out there, go listen to the Fire Bird Suite by Igor Stravinsky, I doubt you will be disappointed.

Edited December 8, 2010 by mississippichem

[zapatos]

Another thing about the experience of classical music which I think is special is the delightful sense of the mind being drawn in by the vast complexity of everything going on simultaneously in a good symphony and then held captive, helpless in the overwhelming sense of intricate structure filling the mind from every direction. When I listen to popular music I simply can't understand how people can enjoy it since it is just too thin to produce this interesting sensation of the paralysis of thought and sensation. Just the constant drumbeat of the same thin melody supported by an overly loud and invariable rhythm in the background repeated over and over again with no comprehension of the need to play repetition off against variety. Instead of the experience being like listening to complexity and intelligence in motion, as it is with classcial music, with popular music the experience is like being in a boiler factory where some loose handle keeps banging against the side of a pipe.

Sounds like what my dad used to say to me. And what I think about my son's music (although I try not to say it out loud). While there is some classical music I enjoy, whenever I go to the symphony I invariably feel as if I am going to doze off. Not that I think my music is better than classical. It's just that different things affect people in different ways. I saw some girl moved to tears by some singer on American Idol. He sounded like a howler monkey to me.

 

And I assume way back when, some dad said to his son, "Who is this Mozart guy?! Sounds like he can't make up his mind on which instrument to feature!!".

[the tree]

Since my mother was a concert violinist, as a child I never heard any music other than classical music,

That doesn't seem to follow - there are some amazing examples of jazz violin playing and well, the fiddle is basically the foundation of all modern folk music.

 

so I never developed a taste for anything but that.

That definitely doesn't follow. I'm pretty sure everyone I know has at some point brought music just to piss off their parents, that's a rather essential phase in musical appreciation IMO.

 

However, I think classical music is objectively better, because it is the only music that seems able to provide anyone with that sense of shivering and goose bumps during the most moving passages. When I ask people who like jazz, rock, country and western, etc., if they ever get that feeling while listening to music, they never seem even to know what I am talking about, yet for me that is the main enjoyment of music.

Really? Perhaps you're the only one amongst your friends that appreciates music to the extent that you do.

 

Most modern music simply seems unintelligent compared to classical music.

This seems horribly biased to me. There is absolutely no way one man could listen to 'most' modern music, or for that matter think of all classical music as being at one level of intelligence.

 

For example, in modern music, the repetitions are endless, driving, boring, and monotonous. But anyone accomplished in classical music knows that it is always a carefully calibrated balance between the artistic force of repetition and the interruption of that repetition by strategic variations.

Everyone needs some more dubstep in their lives, the variation on repetition there is often incredibly subtle look up more or less anything by Netsky for an example of that.

 

Another thing about the experience of classical music which I think is special is the delightful sense of the mind being drawn in by the vast complexity of everything going on simultaneously in a good symphony and then held captive, helpless in the overwhelming sense of intricate structure filling the mind from every direction.

Personally, I've always felt that symphony was the weakest facet of classical music. Many composers were perfectly capable of an "overwhelming sense of intricate structure" on a single instrument (Beethoven's Für Elise being one of the most obvious examples) . And a lot of symphonic classical music it well, it reminds me very much of heavy metal being done wrong: lots of power chords and amps at 11 - but still with predictable dynamics and somewhat of an absence of poetry.

 

When I listen to popular music[...]

I think you're drawing a bit of false dichotomy between 'classical' and 'popular', there are many artists who are certainly neither. Not to mention the slightly post and pre classical periods of music such as Baroque and Romantic. There is an awful lot of music out there.

 

Instead of the experience being like listening to complexity and intelligence in motion, as it is with classcial music,

I really don't like the idea of there being a correlation between complexity and intelligence. Compare John Cage's 4'33" with Queen's Bohemian Rhapsody for instance - I'd say there is significantly more intelligence in the composition of the much simpler former.

 

In terms of my listening habits, I do of course, have a last.fm account. And somewhere or other there is an SFN group. edit oh it's in my signature.

Edited December 8, 2010 by the tree

[Marat]

For a while the Governor of Georgia was giving out free tapes of classical music to all pregnant women in the state on the theory that by listening to classical music in utero, their children's IQ would increase. This issue has been debated extensively with some arguing that test-taking ability improves after listening to classical music but not after listening to non-classical music. If this is empirically confirmed, it would make sense to me, because it seems that the pleasure of classical music is that the listener's mind is induced to follow the complications of musical structure and is then enjoyably overwhelmed by them, which is certainly mentally stimulating in a way that 'Raindrops Keep Fallin' on My Head' isn't.

[Bignose]

Marat,

 

I wonder how much of the classical music written in years past has disappeared because it wasn't good. Such as being too repetitious, or simple. The really good pieces have survived the test of time.

 

There is a whole sub-genre of rock called progressive rock that essentially specializes in rock music that is more complex, and not just a typical chorus-driven rock song. It is filled with infrequently heard time signatures (like 13/16) and other "classical" influences. Some of the originators are popular, some are not. Yes, King Crimson, Emerson Lake & Palmer, Jethro Tull, and Pink Floyd are some of the originators. Rush is a progressive band that has released numerous albums and is still going today. More modern bands are Dream Theater, Opeth, Tool, and Porcupine Tree. Tool and Porcupine Tree in particular have a wide range of sounds and some very complex tunes.

 

As is the word "progressive" it is tough to nail down an exact definition -- and many of even the most popular bands have a few songs where they just explore and create instead of pumping out "arena-rock". And, most of the above progressive bands have several tunes that are more "pop" and mainstream.

 

Beyond just progressive rock, there are innovators in many areas. Two more I think are worthy of mention are Kings of Leon, a fairly innovative Southern Rock band, and then the UK's Mumford and Sons, a "progressive" or "new" folk band. Both have many songs that really don't follow the usual verse-chorus-verse-chorus-chorus pattern.

 

In particular, I have been really, really impressed with Mumford and Sons. The four of them have an amazing harmony in their voices, are incredible instrumentalists, but most impressive is the song writing. One of the band members owns a bookstore, and their debut (and only full length) album has songs based on the works of Shakespeare and Steinbeck, for example. Not content to sit on their laurels, they just released an EP where they worked with an Indian group and the combination put out 4 folk-Indian songs.

 

The bigger point is that there are complex and unique songs in most every genre. Like most gold, you just have to dig for it. And, it isn't always the most popular songs -- in fact it rarely is. The only truly popular progressive album I can think of is Pink Floyd's Darkside of the Moon. But, the complex deeper stuff is out there, and can be very rewarding when found.

Edited December 9, 2010 by Bignose

[Samm]

The bigger point is that there are complex and unique songs in most every genre. Like most gold, you just have to dig for it. And, it isn't always the most popular songs -- in fact it rarely is. The only truly popular progressive album I can think of is Pink Floyd's Darkside of the Moon. But, the complex deeper stuff is out there, and can be very rewarding when found.

 

I would dispute that last paragraph there, Pink Floyd's The Wall was, I believe one of the better selling double albums.

 

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best_selling_albums#Best-selling_albums_by_country

@Marat:

 

Blanket statements about modern music being all poor is a little presumptious. It's not all repetitiuous mush, there are some very interesting rock songs, that seem to be original and for want of a better word, brilliant. Take, Pink Floyd's Echoes for example, yes there is repetition there, but it's not boring. It actually goes somewhere; it soars. And furthermore, go listen to The Host of Seraphim by Lisa Gerrard, just do it.

 

If you want my opinion on classical music, I think it's overrated. Why is that period so special? Were people smarter then? Why can't we have musical geniuses arising in the present or the recent past? They didn't have the technology as we had; the range of sounds available to us now, is far greater. We now can achieve more in the present musically than we could in the past. Sure, plenty of it is rubbish, but I'm sure that plenty of Classical music back in the day was rubbish as well. We just don't hear that junk, because everybody left it behind.

 

As for my preferred music, I enjoy Pink Floyd, Muse, Coldplay, The Dead Can Dance, Coldplay, The Beatles and Iron Maiden.

Edited December 11, 2010 by Samm

[Marat]

I think the main objective distinction between modern and classical music consists in the different degrees of complexity. An intellectual property attorney I know always complains that intellectual property infringements constantly recur in modern music since it has such limited variety and depth of structure. I can't imagine that ever happening in classical music, aside from deliberate homages such as Brahms occasionally inserted into his work to honor Beethoven's compositions.

 

If the peak aesthetic effect of music is the sensation of the mind being drawn hypnotically into a composition by trying to follow and keep track of all of its complex structural elements unfolding at the same time, but then becoming transfixed and paralyzed within their meshwork, then the complexity of a composition gives us an objective criterion to judge that some music has more aesthetic power than other music. But I read somewhere that Paul McCartney couldn't even read music, yet he had no problem performing those thin tunes.

[mississippichem]

I think the main objective distinction between modern and classical music consists in the different degrees of complexity. An intellectual property attorney I know always complains that intellectual property infringements constantly recur in modern music since it has such limited variety and depth of structure. I can't imagine that ever happening in classical music, aside from deliberate homages such as Brahms occasionally inserted into his work to honor Beethoven's compositions.

 

If the peak aesthetic effect of music is the sensation of the mind being drawn hypnotically into a composition by trying to follow and keep track of all of its complex structural elements unfolding at the same time, but then becoming transfixed and paralyzed within their meshwork, then the complexity of a composition gives us an objective criterion to judge that some music has more aesthetic power than other music. But I read somewhere that Paul McCartney couldn't even read music, yet he had no problem performing those thin tunes.

 

I'm quite trained in music theory and I'll say that even though classical music has the superficial appearance of greater complexity, this is not the case. Yes, most modern pop music is very simple and even boring to those with academic ears. However, as Bignose stated there is a menagerie of non-classical music out there that has the same level of complexity.

 

There are only 12 notes in the western tonal system. The odds of a repeat sequence amongst different songs is quite high. Upon analyzing the music from the Baroque and Classical eras (not so much the Romance era) one will find sequences of chords that are common denominators throughout the period. The I, vi, ii, V, vii harmonic sequence appears in almost every Bach concerto for strings or piano as well as many of the more prominent Mozart symphonies. The V7, vi "false dominant cadence" almost always happens before the "B section" in most of Beethoven earlier and Mozart's work.

 

Take it a step further into the world of Jazz improvisation...my specialty. The minor ii, V, i turnaround sequence is almost always treated with "lydian flat seven and mixolydian flat six" modal triad pairs by the improvising soloist. This is true for Wes Montgomery, John Coltrane, and Dizzy Gillespie.

 

There was actually a move in the early twentieth century among "classical" composers to add complexity to music by ignoring the traditional harmonic sequences that had been used so often in the past. This spawned the compositional trend of atonal serialism. In these compositions, there is no harmonic root and tonalities are grouped by interval from the previous harmony rather than by tonal function. The metal band Dillinger Escape Plan used serialism on there second album on multiple occasions. Given, they probably didn't realize it, but the complexity works out just the same. I was in a band for six years that played progressive rock with no vocals. We were all music theory nerds and our compositions all evolved out of the desire to blaze new theoretical territory like strict parallelism, odd time signatures like the dreaded 13/16 (practice, practice, practice!!), and concepts like sustained drone notes over radically changing harmony (the same bass note taking different harmonic functions under different chords).

 

So yeah, classical music is complex but other styles can posses the same level of intellectual "snobbery" if enough time and effort is devoted.