How do you listen to music?

[BLUMENKOHL 1,110]

....So how exactly do YOU personally listen to music?

Do you listen to the music...and let it carry you....letting it produce images and emotions in your mind. [spatially]

Or do you listen to the music and analyse, going "wow that's cool how the brass does that" etc.  Imagining how the insturments are playing, how the conductors baton is moving, imagining dicussions between director and composer, and going wow that's cool. [Analytically]    

And even if you have a mixture of both, just vote for whichever is predominant to your brain.  

I know the definitions are a bit hard to articulate, but I think most of you know what I'm describing.

[Henry B 51]

Little of both.

[SomeNewGuy 0]

Mostly spatial, but I've found that the more I listen and learn, the more I can think of music in technical terms. Still pretty much a noob at both, though.

[Trent B 354]

A little more spatially for myself.

[Datameister 2,586]

Now there's an interesting question! Kudos to you, blumenkohl, for creating what very well could be the best thread idea I've seen around here in a while.

Hmmm...well, I voted for analytical. I know exactly what you're talking about, blumenkohl, because I used to be very much a spatial listener. My understanding of the music was very abstract, raw, and technically uninformed. At that point, I was a pretty undeveloped musician and had very limited technical knowledge of how music "worked." As I've studied music theory, composition, orchestration, etc., my ears have re-oriented themselves toward why the music works, and not so much what it's doing to me.

If you've any interest in writing or arranging your own music (as I have), the analytical listening skills are far more "useful." However, I can honestly say that I enjoyed music more back when I was a spatial listener--at least in some ways. I developed very surreal and non-literal perceptions of the music, transcending the instrumentation choices and melodic contours and such.

EDIT: By the way, I really do have a spatial element to my listening even now. I doubt that there is a single person in this world (with the exception of the very young) who is wholly consumed by either category. I know you weren't trying to say that, blumenkohl.

[BigKenLittle 6]

I must say one of the most interesting poll questions in quite some time. Well done.

Musically, I tend to listen spatially, though, it depends on what I am listening to, what I am doing at the time or where I am. For example, when at home much of my time is spent cleaning my apartment or taking care of something and I am rarely able to just sit and allow the music to envelope me. When I am riding a bus or have a rare moment to just sit and enjoy then I do just that and lose myself in the moment.

Interestingly enough, though, that has changed over the years. When I was much younger and listening to music was just for sheer pleasure, I was very interested in the actual performance of a piece of music and tended to be quite critical. I think that doing that is what developed my ear for music and also shaped my listening habits. I realized that certain orchestras had a certain sound and that made them identifiable. I also learned how to find a specific conductors style of performance and that also dictated choices to me. I realized early on that as a conductor, Jerry Goldsmith was much better than John Williams. Though I think, in the last 15 or so years, has Williams improved greatly. However, it was John's style of composition and orchestration that gave him the slight (very slight) edge in my books. Things I might never have sat down and given serious thought to unless I spent all those late night hours listening and re-listening to my LPs. Ahhhh, those were the days...

BKL

Introduction to Act III; "Lohengrin"; Metropolitan Opera Orchestra, cond. by James Levine

[Henry B 51]

An interesting trend I've noticed as a student of music is that my spacial response to music is not diminished by the increasing prevalence of my analytical response. In other words, knowing what is going on in music does not make it less "mystical" ... however, I suspect that there is a discovery curve to the enjoyment of music, and that once the peak is reached, music in general feels more stale and unoriginal because one has heard and absorbed so much of it. I hope I don't reach that peak anytime soon.

[Datameister 2,586]

I know what you mean about that "peak," Cerrabore. Sometimes I feel like I've reached it, though I never feel like I should have, considering how relatively little I've heard. I mean, come on...here's a guy who doesn't own a single Goldsmith soundtrack! (Don't flame me...I want to change my ways. )

[Damo 0]

....So how exactly do YOU personally listen to music?

Do you listen to the music...and let it carry you....letting it produce images and emotions in your mind. [spatially]

Or do you listen to the music and analyse, going "wow that's cool how the brass does that" etc.  Imagining how the insturments are playing, how the conductors baton is moving, imagining dicussions between director and composer, and going wow that's cool. [Analytically]    

And even if you have a mixture of both, just vote for whichever is predominant to your brain.  

I know the definitions are a bit hard to articulate, but I think most of you know what I'm describing.

I am a mixture of both. So can there been a third option in poll for a mixture of both????

[Farawyn 0]

Wonderful thread idea ! Thanks, Blumenkohl !

Personnally, I would probably be a spatial listener. I know quite little about the technical aspects of music, though I'm compelled to learn more about scales and quavers...

An interesting analogy could be drawn with reading. Here, for instance, I definitely am analytical, due to my majoring in literature probably. Hence perhaps our intellectual "frame of mind" determines our type of reading/listening ; yet I don't think spatial and analytical experiencing can really be entirely separated. As in literature, music has formal (how things are expressed) and "material" (what is being said) aspects ; perhaps the difference between analytical and spatial boils down to this dichotomy. If one changes a word in a poem (or at lest a good one...), i.e. a formal modification, one changes the meaning of the work, inevitably. Likewise for notes.

So, I suppose, when we think we are listening with an analytical perspective, we are in fact only considering how the musical form produces the beauty (or ugliness !) of the musical matter itself ; and vice-versa, when we are carried away with this matter, we marvel at the construction that made it, and want to understand it. Both ways of listening seem to be interlinked ; when one dominates the other, we seem to subtly move towards the "opposite" way of listening.

This is why I can't really agree with Cerrabore and the very interesting idea of a "discovery curve to the enjoyment of music" ; if there is such a curve, IMO it just continues going up, never declining. If analytical experiencing "runs out", making the music sound stale, we are lead to spatial experiencing. There is always more wonder to be found, especially with JW music. An infinite number of images and interpretations is possible because we each have our own infinity of images and interpretations. I always found that when I think I'm really through with a cue I've listened to too much, it always has a new flavor a week after that... and so I listen to it again.

[Olivier 5]

What you call "spatially"-- or emotionally.

I am musically illiterate, so I cannot analyze the technical aspects.

I can, and do, spot some technical aspects I like or that are remarkable (the way such instrument or melody counterpoints another, the layering of rhythmic passages, ...), but I do not (because I cannot) deconstruct the music; my reaction is thus mostly emotional, aesthetic, with a hint of analysis-- primitive in a slightly educated way, in a sense.

As noted above, even without any music education, with years of attentive listening, thanks to liner notes and message boards, you do get to evolve toward the analytical.

[Richard P 5,303]

Mostly spatially. I know almost nothing about the technical aspects of music, so if I haven't seen the film I'm 'listening' to I tend to make up my own imagery depending on the emotions or amount of action the music invokes. Even if I have, I sometimes make it up anyway as the music's so beautiful or powerful

[AI 0]

The 2nd option. I listen analytically and have for years, no matter what kind of music it is. I hear the components, how they work together to make the whole.

But I also have a visceral response to it overall, and can sense the emotional impact, the mood of it.

So knowing how the music is operating doesnt lessen the effect of it for me. It either affects me or doesnt.

[Quintus 6,495]

What a shit thread idea.

A voted for Analytically, though that only comes when I've heard a piece many, many times. For the first few listens of a new piece I just sit back and enjoy.

[Ollie 1,375]

While I may analyze music from time to time I prefer spatially.

I find if one tends to analyze things they become less enjoyable. I'd rather sit back and enjoy the music for what it is.

[Greg1138 3]

Good thread....

I have voted for Spatially, though in reality it is predominantly spatially with some analytical thrown in for good measure when I need it.....

I would suggest - and please don't jump down my throat for this, it is purely a personal point of view - that anyuone who listens from a predominantly Analytical stand-point is missing the entire point of the music. Music is pure 100% communication - I don't analyse how people vocalise things, I just listen to the way it is said and what is said in the first place....I don't think "Wow - that vowel-sound was nice" or "I don't like the way that person pronounces their "K's".....so why is music any different?

Greg

[Red 75]

Spatially.

Sometimes I'll analyze music, but I find the ability to "feel" the music much more rewarding.

[Datameister 2,586]

I would suggest - and please don't jump down my throat for this, it is purely a personal point of view - that anyuone who listens from a predominantly Analytical stand-point is missing the entire point of the music. Music is pure 100% communication - I don't analyse how people vocalise things, I just listen to the way it is said and what is said in the first place....I don't think "Wow - that vowel-sound was nice" or "I don't like the way that person pronounces their "K's".....so why is music any different?

::gets on diving board, gets ready to make big esophagal leap:: That's a very good point--music is mostly intended to evoke visceral responses, so focusing entirely on the analytical, cerebral, contemplative aspects of it kind of defeats the purpose. However, I don't think there's anything wrong with approaching music very analytically as long as the emotional response isn't neglected.

I understand your analogy to spoken communication, but I think it breaks down when you consider that we are all more or less on the same playing field verbally. When you listen to someone else speaking, you know you could pretty much say the exact same thing, even with the same inflection, at a moment's notice, without even thinking about it. The two of you have equal verbal skill. But when a listener puts on a CD of masterful music, this is a sonic universe opening up in which most of us can only be observers. If you want to develop the ability to make (sound) waves in this whole other universe, you have to study the way others do it. I guess what I'm saying is: yeah, we don't sit around consciously analyzing each other's speech patterns, but as infants, we spend every waking moment listening and trying to mimic. That's a form of analysis, and it's how we learn to speak like each other. I would argue that it's entirely possible to analyze music the same way, while not losing sight (hearing?) of the emotional content.

BTW, thank you for not snobbishly presenting your opinion as absolute fact, Greg. I've grown so weary of a few key members around these parts doing just that.

[tuneman_21 0]

Depends on the situation.

If I'm at work - which is being a band director - I have to listen to analyse. I have to look at whats going to be difficult for the kids to play, how difficult, in what way difficult, etc. But, part of the analysis envolves the spatial. Are they communicating emotion, will it move the audience, etc. And, of course, fix it.

If I'm just kicking back at a concert, than its spatial. Although, I have to admit, the teacher in me does tend to come out. I try to surpress it.

I don't analyse how people vocalise things, I just listen to the way it is said and what is said in the first place....I don't think "Wow - that vowel-sound was nice" or "I don't like the way that person pronounces their "K's".....so why is music any different?

Greg

Shoot - my wife does that ALL THE TIME!!! And, it drives me up the wall! She can't just sit back and enjoy, she has to critique all the way down to the how the person pronounces their words when they sing. I can not watch the movie of ALW's The Phantom of the Opera without her ripping on Emmy Rossum! I don't care how she pronounces her vowels. She's hot!!!

I guess that what I get for marrying a choir director.

[Datameister 2,586]

I'm not going to say as much as I'd like to about you being annoyed by your wife because she's bothered by the inferior vocals of a woman you feel is hot, tuneman. What I will say, though, is that I know what you mean about the analytical side trying to peek through when you're trying to enjoy something on a purely visceral level. Happens to me, too.

[John Crichton 4]

Despite my music illiteracy, mostly analytical for me. In addition to the things mentioned in Blumenkohl's definition, I spend a lot of time thinking about thematic relationships. I also really enjoy the connection of picture and music (one of the reasons Indy's First Adventure is one of my favorite cues, beyond the music itelf the technical precision with the on screen action is amazing) so I'm often "viewing" the movie in my head along with the music.

[SturgisPodmore 0]

I'm gonna have to go with spacially. Just today I was listening to "Charades" from Lady in the Water while driving in the rain, and it was quite magical . . . I imagined myself being followed by a mysterious car in a scene scored by that brilliant cue.

~Sturgis

[tuneman_21 0]

I'm not going to say as much as I'd like to about you being annoyed by your wife because she's bothered by the inferior vocals of a woman you feel is hot, tuneman. What I will say, though, is that I know what you mean about the analytical side trying to peek through when you're trying to enjoy something on a purely visceral level. Happens to me, too.

hehehehehe....nicely not touched. Bravo

I do find though, sometimes turning on the analytical side during a concert can enhance the experience. I find I can appreciate the music on a higher level. Everyone in the theater hears a difficult passage played brilliantly, but I realize just HOW difficult a passage is and HOW brilliantly it was performed. The analytical side hinders when the easy passage gets cacked on, though.

Hey, has anyone noticed that the first part of analytical is anal. Coincidence? I think not.

[nightscape94 968]

A combination of the two, simultaneously.

Tim

[Henry B 51]

What's really funny is that Emmy Rossum was sixteen when she filmed Phantom.

[Red 75]

It is.

[bondo 33]

Good poll! I listen to music both ways, obviously, but I tend to find myself analyzing the music more often, listening to and recognizing specific instrumentation.

[Datameister 2,586]

hehehehehe....nicely not touched. Bravo

Well, I'll leave the touching to you and your wife and Emmy Rossum. I'm here to talk about music.

Hey, has anyone noticed that the first part of analytical is anal. Coincidence? I think not.

No, I hadn't noticed. No, it ain't a coincidence.

The analytical side hinders when the easy passage gets cacked on, though.

Not true for me. My analytical side is definitely impressed by technically difficult or complex passages, but I derive plenty of pleasure--visceral and analytical--from the sublimely simple, too.

It's interesting...over the last few years, I've developed my playing-by-ear abilities to the point where I can play a reasonably simple piece at the piano without ever having tried in the past and without seeing sheet music. As this has happened, the analytical side of my listening skills has gotten better and better about doing this subconsciously, to the point where I occasionally find myself imagining fingerings unintentionally. The orchestrator in me also starts pondering how the composer created this tonality, or whether or not the second and third trumpets are playing the same melody in unison with the firsts, or if the bassoons are currently doubling the cello parts...stuff like that. It's a simultaneously fun and annoying internal dialogue.

[hornist 1,261]

70% Spatial

40% Analytical

First it's more analytically , when I know the piece more , I try to enjoy it , spatially.

(I try to keep that little mathematics genious inside me away)

The biggest problem with the modern music is that they make them too analytically, looks good

on the paper(score) but sounds like a shit.

[Mr. Breathmask 624]

70% Spatial

40% Analytical

I didn't think that was possible.

[Ollie 1,375]

Well you've heard of the dumb saying; "Give me a 110%".

[Datameister 2,586]

How I loathe that phrase. That along with:

"I'm doing my best!"

"Well, you'll just have to do better!"

The spirit of it is good...but person B should be saying, "No, you only think it's your best. Do better!"

[tuneman_21 0]

What's really funny is that Emmy Rossum was sixteen when she filmed Phantom.

But she's legal now

hehehehehe....nicely not touched. Bravo

Well, I'll leave the touching to you and your wife and Emmy Rossum. I'm here to talk about music.

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. That'll hold me for a while

[Delorean90 47]

Wow.

[Morlock 12]

What's really funny is that Emmy Rossum was sixteen when she filmed Phantom.

Seventeen actually. And she was not very good. Only role where she is even slightely momerable in is Mystic River (and only decent movie she's been in).

[Delorean90 47]

I only saw her in that Disney TV movie "Genius." It was actually a pretty funny little movie as I recall. It has Charles Fleischer (A.K.A. Roger Rabbit) in it as a scientist.

And you know, I haven't actually answered the question. I think I tend to listen more spatially, although there's definitely a decent amount of analytical listening. My technical knowledge is not incredibly high, although I'm working at it, but I can pick out some things. And a lot of times the analytical listening isn't so much related to theory, but relations and usages of themes, for instance. Occasionally, I'll go to the piano and figure out what the difference is in a variation, or figure out what the interval is between two chords that sound cool together, and later on I can point out, "Man, that inversion is so cool!" Stuff like that. Also, a lot of times I sort of "spacially analyze," like, picking out certain phrases that sound good and thinking about what kind of instruments are being used and stuff like that.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 12,386]

While I may analyze music from time to time I prefer spatially.

I find if one tends to analyze things they become less enjoyable. I'd rather sit back and enjoy the music for what it is.

[Maglorfin 219]

Or do you listen to the music and analyse, going "wow that's cool how the brass does that" etc. Imagining how the insturments are playing, how the conductors baton is moving, imagining dicussions between director and composer, and going wow that's cool. [Analytically]

A fantastic description, I could't have written a better one myself. It all comes from being "professionally deformed" as a musician. Of course, there's also a percentage of spatiality present, but a lion's share of my listening is definitely analitical, even with a printed score, if available.

[andrea 0]

spatially....sure!

[Morlock 12]

It varies. Generally, it's spatially, although with the really great composers (in film, I'm talking Williams and Shore), I am spatially awed by the analytical stuff going on. Like 'there's so much going on there, I can make only a tiny bit of it out each time...but wow, this stuff is amazing music, and amazingly well-written music'.

[Elmo Lewis 7]

Like 'there's so much going on there, I can make only a tiny bit of it out each time...but wow, this stuff is amazing music, and amazingly well-written music'.

Do you have time to listen to the music while you think all that?

[Morlock 12]

Such a thought takes about split second.

[King Mark 3,975]

Definately spacially.

k.M.

[Jacck 23]

I really can't vote because I do both depending on my mood.

[Jacob 1]

Most definitely spatially. I'm a complete dunce on the technical side.

I took piano lessons from my Mom several years ago, but I barely got passed the stepping-up-the-keyboard exercises.

However, I do find myself from time to time comparing thematic and other similarities in different pieces, usually by the same composer. Such as Belly of the Steel Beast, Trade Federation March, and The Arena. But that mostly amounts to "Oh yeah. Those sound similar." That's pretty much where my analytical non-skills begin and end.

[JWfangirl1992 18]

At first I'm a spatial letting it carry me. Then after I have the piece memorized I analyze it and then come up with my own way or conducting the piece pretending I'm accompanying Johnie at the NY philharmonic.

[Panthera 1]

I listen with my ears.

[pixie_twinkle 60]

Great question. I've always been a spacial listener, which is, ultimately, the best way to hear music. Unfortunately as time went on and I started studying music theory it became more and more difficult to stop the theory geek in me to do the more analytical listening and get in the way of the pure musical experience. I'm a Ph.D. music theorist (or I will be when I write my bloody dissertation) and a composer. It is vital that I have the knowledge of music theory in order to write the music I want. However, it is also vital that I then distance myself from the workings of the music in order to hear my own music as a purely spacial experience. Only then can I tell if the music works or not. No matter how good it looks on the page only a mind uncluttered by the theory can hear if the music is gold or shite.

The same applies to listening to other composers' music. It's all too easy for me to listen analytically and find all sorts of clever compositional techniques in what is otherwise quite awful music. It takes the simpler, more child-like spacial aspect of my ear to correct me and remind me that the music is, in fact, a load of crap. Of course this works both ways. When I listen to the music of Delius the theory side of me hears simply written, expressionistic music with few clever compositional devices beyond the colourful harmonies and orchestration. Then the spacial side of me steps in and I lose myself in the beauty of Delius's musical world.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 12,386]

I feel sorry for you.

[pixie_twinkle 60]

I thought you might.