Understanding Music
 

Hello,

I joined the forum to try to understand music better. I enjoy listening to music but don't understand what would make it good. I can understand the lyrics and that different genres will have different types of lyrics, but I don't understand the other parts. So how would a music reviewer go about judging a record/album.

Thanks for any and all help.

Everyone has their own way of judging, relating to and if they want to, reviewing music. I can only tell you how I do it. First and foremost, it's about how the music makes me feel. Then I try to put that into words, not always easy:sometimes you just want to say "this song rocks!" when what you might end up saying, after thinking about it, might be "this song makes me feel like I'm walking on a sunny country lane in summer", or " this song brings back memories of childhood" or even "I just wanted to play this so loud!" It's about an emotional connection with the music, which is why most pop music does nothing for me.

You ask questions like what images does this music evoke for me? What do I think the artiste was trying to say? How does it make me feel? How do I communicate that feeling to another person? Does the music stick in your head long after you've switched it off? Did it surprise or disappoint you? Would you listen to it again, or go looking for more from that artiste?

And so on.
Well, that's me, anyway.

So, it is totally subjective. I guess I rate music in the same way without knowing it; I listen to the mood of it and the general sound and if I like it, I will listen to it again.

Thanks for sharing your opinion!

You can also judge on more individual things like lyrics, originality, songwriting/execution, vocals, production, riffs/melodies, etc.

Kinda like what you can do with a film. (Plot execution, pacing, characters, sound, visuals, acting, wether a comedy is funny or a horror movie is scary and such, originality, dialogue, etc)

Welcome to Music Banter! Just out of curiosity, what kind of music do you like?

Thanks for the ideas!

I like a lot of different types of music. Some albums I have enjoyed include but are in no way limited to the following: Halcyon - Ellie Goulding | Pure Heroine - Lorde | Songs For Swingin' Lovers - Frank Sinatra | Led Zeppelin - Led Zeppelin | Alright, Still - Lily Allen.

I also listen to a lot of random songs by various artist, and a lot more by bands such as Spoon, Areosmith, The Strokes, The Smiths, The Clash, The Cure, Tears For Fears, No Doubt, etc.

That's not a half bad list there, big points for the Sinatra.

When I get some sleep and can properly express my thoughts on your question, or purpose of this thread, I will do just that, express them.

In my experience, there are three basic subsets of music reviewers:

1. The trained musician who knows some basic theory, and some impressive terminology, and likes to discuss music as though the end result should be appreciated the same way a municipal building is. Structural integrity, adherence to theoretical norms while simultaneously being innovative- these are analyzed and dissected and snobbed about. Minimal consideration to the beauty, interesting or any meaningful result of music is given. Don't be this guy. He's a jerk. Nobody likes him.

2. The guy with little-to-no musical experience, who just talks about "connection," "symbolism," "speaking to me," "transcending norms," and the rest, but really tells you absolutely nothing about the music aside from whether or not he enjoyed it. Also, the music he reviews is almost certainly relatively bland, just out of the mainstream pop that disguises itself as high art through excessive use of reverb, or through out-of-fashion clothing. You can be this guy, but most people won't take you seriously.

3. The working musician who has played a variety of genres, knows at least basic music theory and so can really talk about what's going on in the music, gets around the music scene, isn't bored by Beethoven and yet also isn't affronted by Lady Gaga, and has a touch of knowledge about most genres. Most importantly, he or she remembers that the theory and form and structure and symbolism and compositional techniques used are extremely important, but that what listeners care about is the effect. His or her reviews tackle music with the language of someone who CAN dissect music, and who DOES know the theoretical and formal terminology, and who WILL use it when appropriate and necessary for descriptive purposes, but the main focus of each review will be detailed description of the aural effect and evaluation of the overall musicality, musicianship, innovation, and accessibility of the music. Be this guy.

So, my personal requirements for a good review:

a. A good music reviewer should be a musician. It's just hard to say much that's very meaningful of you have to say "sounds sad," when what you mean is, "extended minor harmony." Or worse, to say "in minor" when the song or piece actually is just a subdued sounding kind of major. And yes, I have seen that. If you can't identify the most basic of musical elements, and don't even realize that you can't, I have limited faith in the rest of your review.

b. Just because you KNOW the theoretical concepts in the music, doesn't mean you need to prove it to us. Remember that your audience is (hopefully) less musically versed than you. Anyone that will understand what you mean when you say "understood best as a neo-classical, modal interpretation of Schoenberg's concept of roving harmony, mixed with multi-timbral drones in just intonation," will appreciate the info (and if someone told me that, I'd be one that track in a second!) but if most of your readers have to wikipedia five terms and a name to understand your sentence, you'll lose their attention reaaaal fast. Use terminology that explains what's going on in the music, but keep it reader-base appropriate.

c. Draw comparisons to familiar musics by way of explanation, but don't name-drop. The best way to convince someone they'll like some piece of music, is to compare it favorably to something they know and like. The inverse is also true. However, going on and on about niche artists and niche recordings that most people haven't heard, but which make you sound intellectual and well-versed is not going to get you anywhere with readers who have no idea what you're referencing.

d. Remember that the most important components of a review are these:

d1. While remaining accessible, describe the music so that readers get a clear sense of what it might sound like.

d2. Evaluate who well the music achieves whatever it's meant to achieve. If that goal is complex conceptual innovation, fine, talk about that. If it's a dance album, talk about that.

Don't forget these two goals. If you know what you're talking about, and you keep in mind that your readership do not, then in my book, you're on your way to writing good reviews.

Just don't get too caught up in your personal, spiritual connection to the music. That can be part of it, but it tells us zip, aside from whether or not you liked it.

Also, don't use reviews as an excuse to demonstrate your immense technical knowledge. While your vocabulary may be enormous, to use all of it is an enormity.

That was a great post! Thank you so much for writing it!

I take exception to that.
I am not a musician, never will be, but I know that and don't try to pretend I am. Nevertheless, I think I'm a decent reviewer and talk about what the music means to me, what I think the musician is trying to say and also try to put their work in context.
Your opinion comes across to me as VERY elitist, right down to the kind of music you claim "non-musicians" review, on which you are totally off base, at least with me and others I know who do not play. To say you have to be a musician to be a proper reviewer is quite an insult to those of us who can't play, but certainly know our stuff.

Reverse kudos to you. Consider me insulted. After almost five years of reviewing, and twenty-plus of writing on other subjects, I resent your claim that I do not know what I'm writing about or can't be trusted just because I can't play a musical instrument. Not everyone can, you know, and it's a very snobby thing to claim no reviewer is worth his or her salt if they don't play.

My apologies, Troll heart. I definitely did not mean to piss anyone off so much. I aslo didn't mean that it's impossible to be a decent music reviewer without playing an instrument.

In my defense, my number one, worst reviewer, listed at the top, was the very elitist, highly educated in music guy...

My number two guy was a list of a whole bunch of qualities that personally bug ME in music reviews, which is basically when someone who knows nothing about music rants or raves about the vibes they got, leaving you knowing nothing about the actual music. This guy could just as easily be a musician, it's just more likely that a musician would want to talk about the actual music, and less about the personal connection, at least in my experience.

Aslo, I didn't mean that ALL non-musicians are this guy. or that all non-musicians listen to indie Coldplay-wannabes. I have lots of non-musician friends, almost none of them listen to that stuff. And if they did, that would be fine, too. I was talking about a stereotypical, and I thought humorous group that people might pick up on.

Again, apologies if that is insulting.

My number three guy, the one I think is the best, yes, I said should be a musician. Now, it's, I suppose, possible to know a ton about music, know some theory, have had great ear training so you can pick up on and correctly identify details of the music that an untrained ear simply cannot.

Also, at least around here, the musicians tend to all be friends with each other, and constantly exploring and letting each other in on their discoveries. That's undeniably helpful, or so I would guess. And sure, a non-musician can wiggle into those circles and get that experience too. It just isn't as likely, I would assume, so I didn't include it in my broad description of what makes the best reviewer.
But, if you read carfeully, I several times said that basically, what is neccesary are these two things:
So, no, I wouldn't say that being a musician is absolutely neccesary, but I do think it's an instant leg up. If you have experience doing what you're talking about, if you have the training to really hear and understand what you're talking about, if you know the behind-the-scenes theory or whatnot to describe what you're talking about, that's got to be a leg up. Now, can you have developed a very skilled ear, able to identify the component parts of music, without being a musician? Can you learn theory and its compadres without being a musician? Can you get a good understanding of how it is to create music without being a musician?

Sure, you can do all that, but at that point, I would call you a musician. Or at least a true student of music...

Now, If you don't have any of that knowledge, experience, or skill, can you still write a good review? Sure, but I think you're immediately playing catch up. Now, are there musicians who lack decent ear-training, know no theory, and have limited experience? Heck yeah. Tons of 'em. I don't think they probably write what, to me, are the best reviews. And they're musicians.

So, if you're a decent reviewer, and you can talk about your personal connection to the music, guess the musician's intended message, compare their work well to other works, and know enough about music to explain what it is that they are doing, then yeah, I'd say you probably fullfil my two ultimate criteria.

You're probably a great reviewer.

Who am I to say no?

But finally, this was an explanation of what *I* like to see in a review. It's not necessarily what everyone else wants to see. So yeah, my ideal reveiwer is a musician who can talk to me about the music like a musician. A lot of people don't want that.

Again, sorry to offend.

That's all perfectly fine. Maybe I overreacted. Thanks for qualifying what you said.
Friends? (I do not do hugs --- oh all right! C'mere you!) :)

D'aaaaw, I love hugs! Have a big one!

I especially like it when females hug me.

That's gay.

If you're also female...

I'm so proud of you guys, making up with a hug like that!

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-gxDId7c5fM...+Hug+gif+1.gif

Not really, I'm straight male.
But there's nothing wrong with being gay anyways :). Plus, hugs are always nice.

Ah, you opt for the patented "Frownland" approach to musical taste. Admirable.

I really hope you know I was joking.:)

Yes, I know, I just like to answer very autistically :3

I was going to patent it but Goofle stole it out from under me.