Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Radio & Music >

Songs you like to hear v.s. Songs you like to play

Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero

20:17 / 30.01.06

I've been idly wondering about this for a few years now. One might think that performing and hearing a song would produce the same feeling, but often that is just not the case. For me, anyway.

On the one hand, it makes sense: it's hard to enjoy a classical piece when you're gearing up for the key change that always, always fucks you up. Or the triplet sixteenth run that you really need to concentrate for.

On the other, back in the days when I messed around with orchestras and chamber groups, one of my favorite pieces to play was "Three Israeli Dances" and "Four Gypsy Dances". They both required at least a moderate level of concentration (depending on what part you were), but I could still enjoy hearing them as I was playing them.
So I don't think concentration is the key here. I don't have to really concentrate to play blues or rock, but I still enjoy it. Matter of fact, I enjoy playing the blues far more than just listening to a blues record. Same with bluegrass, actually. Whenever I hear good bluegrass I don't want to hear more of it, I want to play it.

Some pieces (one in particular that I can't name. I played it as part of an all-saxophone symphony ((sounds like a terrible idea, right? It sorta worked though)) and I've never been able to remember the title) I had a near-ecstatic experience playing but upon listening to, even a recording of the same performance that provided me with strong feelings of "the musical experience", I discovered it left me cold.

This is normal, right? For some people, certain music is more fun to make than listen to. That makes sense to me. Does this hold true for other artistic expressions? Why or why not?

I am limited in my ability to answer this. I enjoy pencils and charcoal, but to me this has never felt similar to playing a musical instrument. The act of doodling and the finished doodle are nearly the same in terms of my enjoyment. I've never thought "god, this is boring" while sketching but upon viewing the finished piece said to myself "that's awesome!". I've done that with music. I've been bored or downright angry while performing, but the finished piece was worth it 'cause it was great. Or just the opposite, I have a great time making the music but feel little towards the recording.

I'm wondering why this should be.

21:59 / 30.01.06

I like this thread.

I probably come from a bit of a different background than you, Mr Ghost, but I often find myself wondering the same thing. I play bass in what I suppose you'd call a metal band (although I just call it a rock band), and I love playing the music we do. It's full of time changes and complicated bits, and bits that rock that like bastards. It's great.

However, I usually listen to anything but really heavy music. At the mo I'm mostly into the indie-folk or emo genres, and listen to quite varied artists, but I have no interest in playing that sort of music. Every time I (or we, the band) get into playing a quiet song, I just think of all the awesome riffs we could be playing, rather than this maudlin minor-key shit.

I think it's the physical sensation of playing rocking music that I love so much. I mean, yeah it's fun to play the blues, or a funky piece, or a subtle acoustic piece, but it's far more fun to turn it up to eleven and handbang like your life depends on it. I've said it a few times to my fiends (often to bemused looks), but there's no feeling on earth like dropping into a filthy chunk loud-as-fuck riff. It feels like your heart is going to explode. We've actually just played a show tonight (excuse my typing, btw, I've had a few too many snakebites for a monday...), and there was this one bit that made my eyes water, just from how fun it was. we'd just ome out of a longish build, that creats tension with a walking/running line and is broken by a massive octave drop, and pure four-to-the-floor hammering away and it fels like I'm a giant, stamping on tiny villages and roaring like an old god. It's fucking awesome.

However, I have no way of knowing what this is like for the audience. For all I know, it sounds like a big distored mess, but dammit, it's better than sex to play. Seriously. (I could go on about the sex/music comparison, but I won't, as people may be squeemish...).

That said though, once I got home, al I wanted to hear was soothing, clam beats and soft vocals, not more blasting rock music.

How about other 'lithers? Do you play a show of slowly strummed acoustic goodness, then get home and listen to Dimmu Borgir? What is there about quiet music that I, as a musician, am missing out on?

Withiel: DALI'S ROTTWEILER

00:13 / 31.01.06

This is very interesting, as I used to be the complete opposite to you, Tuna, in that I really used to enjoy playing ridiculously difficult and virtuosic music from the Classical period, particularly, which I'd very rarely choose to listen to for pleasure. However, I think that's something to do with the physical sensation of playing complex music (especially fast runs) on something like a clarinet - there's a very particular feeling in the fingers that goes with the regular patterns of movement and high speeds that's incredibly satisfying. However, at the moment I'm getting great pleasure from playing old english folk tunes - the regular chord patterns are somehow soothing, and there's a wonderful feeling of playing and singing (a skill that took me a long time to learn) tunes that are sometimes a hundred years old, and that (say) my great-uncle played at my age. By contrast, I tend to listen to what I would describe as *my* folk music - people like Hawkwind and its satellite groups, Nick Cave, Rasputina and the like, all of whom play music that has a certain connection to British folk music, but that is also recognisably modern. Although the more I think about it, the more this crosses over, in that for me, Hawkwind, for example, is sort of a tradition thing, in that it's this music that way made (in part) before I was born, and that I play, say, "Spirit of the Age" with the same sort of "reverence" or feeling of continuity I get when I play the "Gypsy Rover". So it seems that there's music as therapy and music as tradition (and various other things, of course). Hmm. More on this later - I'm also very interested in the idea of "convenience", in that it's (for example) very hard to play in a full orchestra if you're of intermediate standard or unable to afford the instruments required...therefore making, say, the blues a more inherently democratic form.

Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero

05:43 / 31.01.06

-there's a very particular feeling in the fingers that goes with the regular patterns of movement and high speeds that's incredibly satisfying.

As a sax player I can understand that easily.

Another example: guitar rock of the jam band variety. I don't listen to the Allman Brothers or Government Mule anymore, but I still miss being in a blues rock band. Fun stuff to play. Sometimes I think that sort of music is intended primarily for the band's enjoyment only...

I'm wondering if artists deal with this sort of thing. Do painters and sculptors look at their work and say "I had a great time making that" or "that looks great, but god damn I was bored out of my fucking skull chiseling all that marble." I imagine it must have something to do with the...what's a good word...transience, I guess, of the medium.

I'm reminded of a friend's argument with his girlfriend about wether or not she could get the same feeling when she paints that he does when he makes music.

Orrin's Prick Up Your Ears

14:13 / 08.02.06

Interesting. Regarding Tuna Ghost's point, I suppose, for non time-based visual art, such as sculpture or painting, appreciation & the act of making inhabit different timeframes. With time-based media, such as music, there's never a moment when the entire work is present. Both the musician & the audience are involved in the same present.

So, playing music and listening to music would be correspondent experiences (even though, obviously, the musician's mind may be a little distracted by the technical challenges of playing), whereas carving a block of marble & viewing the completed sculpture, are not.

Is that right?

Scrambled Password Bogus Email

15:41 / 08.02.06

As far as performance goes, arguably yes, but as far as recording, mixing and production goes, no, more like the sculpting / painting really.

Orrin's Prick Up Your Ears

22:34 / 08.02.06

Would recording, mixing and production count as 'playing'?

Scrambled Password Bogus Email

00:05 / 09.02.06

If you're doing all four, then yes! Or if you are playing as part of the process of making a rekkid.

12:26 / 09.02.06

I hate recording though. If you wanna suck all the fun and spontenaity out of a song, so you're not going to want to play it again, go spend some time in a studio. I find the recording itself bearable (apart from waiting around for the others to finish their stuff), but the mixing afterwards is just pure tedium. I hate it.

But, it's most definitely worth it once you've finished and have the CD in your hands, or on the stereo. That's one of the best feelings ever, so yes I would certainly compare recording with the more visual media.

Professor Silly

21:21 / 17.02.06

Let's not forget that the act of playing music over an extended period of time will shape and refine one's appreciation of other musicians. Musician's don't tend to listen to all the same bland boring stuff than non-musicians listen too (obviously i'm generalizing a little).

As the years have passed I find myself appreciating musicians I hated when I was young--like Tom Petty, Neil Young, Supertramp, Cream, Hendrix,. As my tastes have changed, I find myself listening to extremes--Bjork (who sooo many people loathe) to Melvins (ditto) BECAUSE they do things I, as a musician, find (subjectively) interesting.

So I find myself listening to music very unlike what I play, but I also find myself listening to stuff very similiar (whether in approach, or lyrically--whatever).

Refocusing back on what is fun: this would seem very subjective...but I like rock for its volume and intensity, and jazz for the satisfaction of "nailing it." Combining the two seems obvious in retrospect. I have no trouble imagining others finding such satisfaction in other genres.