I dunno...I think it loses the fun when you get into analysis. I think the question is really what's worth analysis and why? If something draws you in, you become curious about it.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Ambient/Post-Rock/Textural bass playing thread
- Thread starter ttasselm
- Start date
I see it a bit differently. I think about music quite a bit, when I'm not playing it. It's on my mind during work, on walks, etc. I enjoy thinking about it, I think it's fun, as far as things one could think about. I see these conversations as an extension of that. Thinking about it is different that doing it, and that's why it doesn't take away from it for me.
I think that thinking about it cuts both ways. It can be too much or never enough. It probably depends on what aspects you think about, and why/how you think about them. It’s easy to get into a tailspin with analysis, but it’s also good to keep the gears turning. Ah, the duality of man.
I spend a lot of time listening to the Penn’s Sunday School podcast (the tall half of Penn & Teller). They cover a variety of topics, including bass playing, and often tie most things back to concepts in juggling and magic, identifying what the “trick” is. It’s not unlike dissecting punch lines to investigate why something works. A lot of music is about setting up patterns and then deviating from them to get the listener to think about what’s happening. A turnaround can be a bit like a punch line.
I find myself getting lost in thought about the subtleties of certain Misfits tracks (hard to believe, but there are some). I’m fascinated by how a simple mechanism can keep a seemingly simple song moving without becoming boringly repetitive. I see this in older country tracks, too. Sometimes a simple 1/4/5 can feel more interesting when the band starts half way through. I can identify the changes when looking at the sheet music, but still stumble executing them despite knowing where they are, because of where the melody kicks in. Those are the little things that get my focus these days.
I spend a lot of time listening to the Penn’s Sunday School podcast (the tall half of Penn & Teller). They cover a variety of topics, including bass playing, and often tie most things back to concepts in juggling and magic, identifying what the “trick” is. It’s not unlike dissecting punch lines to investigate why something works. A lot of music is about setting up patterns and then deviating from them to get the listener to think about what’s happening. A turnaround can be a bit like a punch line.
I find myself getting lost in thought about the subtleties of certain Misfits tracks (hard to believe, but there are some). I’m fascinated by how a simple mechanism can keep a seemingly simple song moving without becoming boringly repetitive. I see this in older country tracks, too. Sometimes a simple 1/4/5 can feel more interesting when the band starts half way through. I can identify the changes when looking at the sheet music, but still stumble executing them despite knowing where they are, because of where the melody kicks in. Those are the little things that get my focus these days.
Once again, I’m not skilled enough to write down my exact thoughts about such complex questions.
I admire people who can articulate in a clear and concise manner complex ideas and concepts.
Cool conversation.
Enjoyed reading it all. Now I gotta catch up on some tunes you guys posted.
@lordradish dope ambient track. My favorite « patch, texture » is right at the start. From 0.00 to about 0.38
Awesome windy, haze type sound. I dig.
Reminiscent of How to Disappear Completely. But I think that collective uses tape manipulation (including spliced vhs tapes) a lot and as well as synths.
I admire people who can articulate in a clear and concise manner complex ideas and concepts.
Cool conversation.
Enjoyed reading it all. Now I gotta catch up on some tunes you guys posted.
@lordradish dope ambient track. My favorite « patch, texture » is right at the start. From 0.00 to about 0.38
Awesome windy, haze type sound. I dig.
Reminiscent of How to Disappear Completely. But I think that collective uses tape manipulation (including spliced vhs tapes) a lot and as well as synths.
right there with you. and it’s been a good read.
Solid points and I largely agree. Thinking and doing are totally different and a lot of times thinking can help to open up new possibilities for when you are doing.
When I talk about analysis, the struggle for me is why does it matter? If I really enjoy listening to some artsy noise thing from a person who had no idea what they were doing it doesn't invalidate that I enjoyed the happy accident I heard. I feel like a lot of people get into the intellectualizing part of analyzing art and going down the path of intentions. I've seen people invalidate something because it was not deliberate or intended...kinda like "yeah, well anyone can do that so therefore it is not worth anything" -- think of painters whose techniques are really focused on chance like they throw paint at a canvas or something. On the flip side, you might see / hear some art from someone who meticulously placed each paint drop or sound, but the result is a similar end product as the by chance artist.
I guess that's my point...that it's all about the end "product" and who cares how you got there? My kids coming and twisting some knobs (or even just initializing a patch and hitting the random key until I get something I like) and making a really cool sound on my synth is still a cool sound even though they had no idea how they got there, whereas I have about 3 decades of musical training under my belt, but I maybe couldn't get to the same end state or I can, but I did it by design. I don't see the difference other than repeatability and deep understanding of what went into it, but hitting random, getting a crazy awesome sounding patch and then hitting save is a method.
I think the reason that "analysis" and other intellectual [sic] or academic investigations/conversations about music-making are so appealing to me is that *if* all the brilliant music out there was in fact simply arrived at by "chance" then the only key to making exquisite art is pure luck. And if that were true...why bother attempting at all? We all know the odds of winning a lottery...
Whereas if at least some of the brilliant music out there was arrived at by a process or organization or architectonic construction that required rigorous, disciplined command of [some] material(s), then at the very least there's a sense that Putting In Some Work may yield gratifying results. So I wanna know which methods worked for which pieces of music.
...and before anyone suspects that means I embrace this particular peccadillo: I detest musicians who claim a particular piece's worth is because it was constructed using [insert name or description of some technique]. No, the process, organization and/or architectonic construction are just the tools; it's still your responsibility to actually create engaging music from the tools & material(s).
Now that's what I call clear concise and articulate.
Damn!!!!
This is more my level of putting complex ideas and philosophy into words........
I care about how I got there, as I may want to get there, again. I care how others got there, because it may provide me another way to get there.
bob are smart.
to his and cosmicevan's points.
musings . . .
seems to me that analysis can go a few ways: "what am i hearing?" and "how is it made?"
the "why is it being made?" is always a little dicier for me . . .
the "how is it made?" kind of gets into the theory/architectural biz: what you read
the "what am i hearing?" might be more the emotional/sensation biz: what you hear
tbh, if the "what" doesn't really grab me, i may not care about the "how" or the "why" . . . for me, music is about *aural* experience.
anywho, the chance thing is interesting. i think there's something to be said for happy accidents . . . but you need to be able to catch them and investigate (analyze
) why they worked the way they did. this is one reason i like to practice when i haven't quite woken up—all sorts of mistakes, free associations and subconscious stuff can be possible.
of course, you have to put yourself in the position to have those . . . and you might have to trust a subconscious process at times
pure luck? music has often been an *oral* (aural) tradition—handed down over time by people hearing it . . . so i feel sure it's not *pure luck* . . . it's many, many millennia of aggregated human experience . . . that being said, if we're lucky, we get a semi-original idea once or twice in our lives.
when i'm listening to music, i'm going for gesture/contour/thematic, form, counterpoint, harmonic/timbral information and kind of analyzing it in real time (as much as i can). [i wish i could do this way better.]
to his and cosmicevan's points.
musings . . .
seems to me that analysis can go a few ways: "what am i hearing?" and "how is it made?"
the "why is it being made?" is always a little dicier for me . . .
the "how is it made?" kind of gets into the theory/architectural biz: what you read
the "what am i hearing?" might be more the emotional/sensation biz: what you hear
tbh, if the "what" doesn't really grab me, i may not care about the "how" or the "why" . . . for me, music is about *aural* experience.
anywho, the chance thing is interesting. i think there's something to be said for happy accidents . . . but you need to be able to catch them and investigate (analyze
) why they worked the way they did. this is one reason i like to practice when i haven't quite woken up—all sorts of mistakes, free associations and subconscious stuff can be possible.of course, you have to put yourself in the position to have those . . . and you might have to trust a subconscious process at times
pure luck? music has often been an *oral* (aural) tradition—handed down over time by people hearing it . . . so i feel sure it's not *pure luck* . . . it's many, many millennia of aggregated human experience . . . that being said, if we're lucky, we get a semi-original idea once or twice in our lives.
when i'm listening to music, i'm going for gesture/contour/thematic, form, counterpoint, harmonic/timbral information and kind of analyzing it in real time (as much as i can). [i wish i could do this way better.]
Steu ain’t no dummy either.bob are smart.
to his and cosmicevan's points.
musings . . .
seems to me that analysis can go a few ways: "what am i hearing?" and "how is it made?"
the "why is it being made?" is always a little dicier for me . . .
the "how is it made?" kind of gets into the theory/architectural biz: what you read
the "what am i hearing?" might be more the emotional/sensation biz: what you hear
tbh, if the "what" doesn't really grab me, i may not care about the "how" or the "why" . . . for me, music is about *aural* experience.
anywho, the chance thing is interesting. i think there's something to be said for happy accidents . . . but you need to be able to catch them and investigate (analyze
of course, you have to put yourself in the position to have those . . . and you might have to trust a subconscious process at times
pure luck? music has often been an *oral* (aural) tradition—handed down over time by people hearing it . . . so i feel sure it's not *pure luck* . . . it's many, many millennia of aggregated human experience . . . that being said, if we're lucky, we get a semi-original idea once or twice in our lives.
when i'm listening to music, i'm going for gesture/contour/thematic, form, counterpoint, harmonic/timbral information and kind of analyzing it in real time (as much as i can). [i wish i could do this way better.]
I need to go woodshed, listen to records and read about 674560823456 books now.
At least I got the listening thing going for me, my player calculated about 6 weeks worth of music listened from January till yesterday.
^^^this. fwiw that's the point that to my mind separates the brilliant serialists of the 20th Century from the 12-tone hacks, dabblers, and second-rate composers. Folks like Milton Babbitt, Roger Sessions, Ruth Crawford Seeger, Luciano Berio, and (late-period) Igor Stravinsky understood that the row was a tool towards an end, not the end itself...something that a vast number of post-Schoenberg disciples and academics failed to recognize.
Regardless of whatever mechanism, device, process, idea, blah-blah-blah serves as the kernel of your musical idea, that kernel is not the music. And if the auditory experience of your music doesn't sound "of a part" no amount of pointing to its origins will overcome that failure to communicate.
About the "Why" music is made: A guitarist buddy of mine I used to be in a band with would put notes in the bandcamp releases explaining what his lyrics meant. I told him that was a mistake. An artist explaining the meaning of his art is like a comedian explaining why his joke is funny.
I think the "why" behind music should be subtle and mostly left up to the listener's interpretation. I think about Yes's music; many of the lyrics are almost poetic nonsense, but they flow properly. Last thing I would want would be for Jon Anderson to have printed what they mean on the album sleeve. Much better to have let 14-year-old me figure it out for myself, to preserve the magic.
And that's not just lyrics, it's everything about music. I can think of quite a few songs or pieces that can be listened to by three different people in isolation who all come up with different meanings and all like it for different reasons, often quite personal. The more abstract the music or sound, the more so.
I think the "why" behind music should be subtle and mostly left up to the listener's interpretation. I think about Yes's music; many of the lyrics are almost poetic nonsense, but they flow properly. Last thing I would want would be for Jon Anderson to have printed what they mean on the album sleeve. Much better to have let 14-year-old me figure it out for myself, to preserve the magic.
And that's not just lyrics, it's everything about music. I can think of quite a few songs or pieces that can be listened to by three different people in isolation who all come up with different meanings and all like it for different reasons, often quite personal. The more abstract the music or sound, the more so.
Funny you should mention that. If we're talking about the classic period of Yes before they became 80's sellouts like most of their peers, part of the allure was just hearing JA's lyrics as yet another instrument. I've read the lyrics, I don't really care what they mean, but they sound nice. No explanation needed of his post 80's stuff, as they're so twee and obvious a Katy Perry fan could figure them out.
But yeah, if you have to explain lyrics, you're doing something wrong.
