why is it hard to write good music?

[IncarnateX]

Yes, what characterize good music? Do you remember this one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCud8H7z7vU
Oh haven't we been here before again again. Just give any characterization you like: Good music is complex, simple, played in major and happy, played in minor and sad, played in triads and classic, played in tetrads and modern, it contains beautiful harmonies, it contains beautiful melodies, it is intelligent, it appeals to the body etc. Yet the formula to get instantly famous by appealing to 7 billion on Earth simultaneously haven't been found yet.

What I have noticed is that these discussions often put everything into stimulation as if a certain cluster of musical stimuli imprint some universal laws of enjoyment. There are context and culture arguments against these universalities but more seldom do people take the dynamics of the brain into consideration.
When I was very young and listened to ABBA, rock sounded like noise to me. Then I got into heavy metal and now rock sounded wonderful, while ABBA was unbearable. Then I paid attention to the new synth music and rock became noise again. When I entered music school, a lot of Jazz sounded somewhat dissonant to me. Then I learned about tetrads and began working with them and now Jazz sounded wonderful on its own terms. The brain reacts to continual exposure of stimuli in many different ways, it learns to listen and find structure (and the brain loves recognition of structures), it values these structures for a period but can as easily be fatigued and decline these values again. There are several neuropsychological and cognitive scientific terms for such reactions but I will spare you the usual wiki bombardment and just appeal to your own experience. If you find some auditory stimuli that will work on every brain, at every time, in every possible context, be sure to hide your finding until you have published, because you are in for some world fame that is beyond what you could ever dream of within music and is nothing less than a candidate for a Nobel price.

[Jace-BeOS]

This is the tail end of a longer post I've been writing for this thread:

As I've suggested before, the declaration of what's good and bad music isn't something to be decided purely by taste, but it's unavoidable that how we each rate things is heavily dependent on our taste.

Our tastes are formed from various things. Some people's tastes are heavily influenced by formal training (or the effort it took to get that training, or the rigorous work involved in completing said training). These people often view music through the lens of formal language and have a strong sense of value behind that language (and can be deeply affected by people who disregard that formality). That's no surprise. I have very strong opinions on things that have shaped my life, caused me to exert great effort, or cost great amounts of money (even stronger when it's all three).

Other people's tastes are formed from a desire for fun, comfort, and pure enjoyment. Yet other people's tastes are shaped purely by what they were exposed to (or by a lack of exposure).

Most people have tastes shaped by variations of all the above, and more.

The only way to talk about music without getting into battles of opinions is to avoid attempting to objectively define good or bad music in the first place. It's even hard to objectively declare what is and is not music.

We can talk about what it is that we like about the music we do like. There's no harm in describing our likes, but it's best to leave all music we dislike as "that's just not for me". At best, we can analyze what doesn't work for us in music we don't like, but it's inevitable that we will shit on someone if we declare that music to be "bad".

If we use language that allows other people to enjoy what they enjoy, if we avoid implying that we believe ourselves and our tastes to be the ruler by which all music and musical taste should be measured, we can have more discussions about the amazing variety of music and fewer battles over absolutes (which are probably rare in music when not discussing math).

Ultimately, the answer to this thread's question is: "music is complex, taste is entirely subjective; redefine your question".

[vurt]

Ultimately, the answer to this thread's question is: "music is complex, taste is entirely subjective; redefine your question".

or my egotistical answer

"its not, i just do it."

[Jace-BeOS]

And related to what IncarnateX said above, here's the rest of the text I've been typing for the last two hours...

Please forgive my verbose monomaniacal dissertation, but the following was inspired by the content of this thread:

Good music or bad music depends on so many variables. One qualitative variable I find very interesting is recording technique. I wish it wasn't such a big deal, but it necessarily has to be. You can make interesting and well-crafted music unlistenable with bad recording techniques, or you can take a pile of noises and make cool music out of them, even when intentionally using some "bad" techniques.

A friend once had me listen to Guided By Voices' first three(?) albums. I complained about the poor recording making it extremely difficult for me to even listen to the songs (though I listened to them all). My friend, in his typical hipster elitism, declared that I didn't understand that the value was the music itself, not the recording.

In fact, I recall it as a mini tirade about how the band wasn't at all interested in studio production techniques or audio fidelity, and therefore I shouldn't be either. I should respect the artists and appreciate their work the same way they/he did. Otherwise I must be intellectually inferior.

This wasn't the only case of this type of elitism being demonstrated by this friend. He had great taste overall, and I respect the many things he introduced into my life, but he had some insecurity-driven elitism issues.

A few years later, he reminded me about that discussion to inform me that Guided By Voices had finally succumbed to the pressure to do a proper studio recording with a real producer, engineer, etc. I asked "how is it?" He replied "it's f**king awesome!" He acknowledged the results were superior to the prior albums. I got some minor validation.

Was this a failing of mine? Should I have subjected myself to this music repeatedly until I appreciated it? This is something I will do for the new work of musicians I already know I like.

Actually, I appreciated the music itself quite a lot. It was fantastic music. Great instrumentation, melodies, lyrics, singing... great songs except for their sonic quality. It was painful to listen to and it felt to me like that pain was entirely due to financial, or laziness factors. It was a bad recording, not an artful expression. All the sonics did was obfuscate the music.

What was the problem? I can't really say. I've never looked into it. I can easily imagine the band just recorded their live playing into a tape recorder.

So, all that said, here's the converse:

I greatly enjoy some other music that's challenging to listen to due to sonics. In this case, it's mostly because of the way the studio itself is intentionally used as an instrument. This music contains lots of distortion, intentionally rough recording techniques (used judiciously), and lots of experimentation (using a tool for something not intended), with various types of noise/noises, and strange mic-ing/environment choices (my favorite drumming was recorded by playing drums in someone's bathroom & hanging a stereo mic through the skylight)... etc.

I like noise, aggressive and "broken" sounds, especially when used next to the opposite type of sounds (check out Photophob's "Your Majesty Machine"). I'm also a fan of mixing acoustically recorded instruments with electronic sounds (probably why I love physical-modeling synthesis). Adding the imperfect to the perfect... but putting much more weight on the imperfect.

This is a taste I've acquired (quite the opposite of my original childhood tastes), mostly due to my fascination with Nine Inch Nails (and some associated acts). NIN introduced me to "the studio as the instrument" kind of music making, and it fit my fascination with synths and sonic experimentation (I was by that point making 8-bit-sample-heavy music in trackers because I was a kid whose parents couldn't afford to buy him professional audio equipment).

Side note: There are other artists and producers who have furthered my appreciation for "sonic candy" (and "sonic abuse"), but NIN was my primary doorway. The NIN discography runs the gamut between synth-pop and inaccessible industrial noise. If you only listen to one release, you can be forgiven for presuming NIN is "this one sound/thing". Most bands/acts I've rejected have been because they're pretty much the same thing from song to song, album to album.

My taste today is a combination of starting at something I liked, and following the growth of certain musicians as they themselves changed over time. If not for the decades of studying the releases of NIN and Trent Reznor's collaborations with other musicians (and other unrelated artists, like Fad Gadget), I wouldn't enjoy what I like today... including current NIN.

Much of the latest NIN release, "Bad Witch", has some intentionally hard to listen to sounds going on. Yet, I do like these songs. They're hard to listen to (and sound like shit on the highway), and that's one of the things I actively like about them: they're sonically complex and challenging to my sound-interpreting brain. The listening difficulty isn't due to them being "badly recorded". I imagine the actual studio work was just as obsessive and complicated as is typical for Trent Reznor. Specific parts sound recorded in various intentionally rough ways for the purpose of crafting a very specific tone/atmosphere.

I'm fully aware that average listeners are apt to hate this album/EP, call it "bad music", and I might've disliked it myself when I was 16. Still, it's far more interesting to my brain today than NIN's 2013 release "Hesitation Marks", which has a few fantastic songs but is way more accessible and I wouldn't have objected to it much as a 16-year-old (I'm making no statement about 16-year-olds; just about my tastes over time).

It greatly helps to repeatedly listen to a new piece of music to develop familiarity with it, especially if the content is different from our expectations, all the more so if it is complex. A pop song needs repetition to learn to sing along to it, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about when you acquire an appreciation for the individual components of a song by repeat exposure, and, even better: when you notice new elements in a song after numerous listens.

I love finding things I hadn't noticed before in a song. I may somewhat need this in music to really enjoy it. Meaning, if I don't find new things in a piece of music on the fifth (and sometimes 50th) listen, I'm less apt to appreciate that music and return to it less frequently. Music is a space I like to focus on and live within, not just a thing I use to kill silence (I don't understand those people). An ability to keep getting new value out of existing familiar material is important to me.

However, it's not necessarily the notation/song structure that needs to be complex. If it's the sound that's complex, I'm often even more interested in the music. I live for sonic complexity. Depending on what part I'm focusing on, I can have a very different experience listening to one song multiple times. I think it is sound I like more than anything else, but it has to be shaped and crafted, not just thrown at me rhythmically.

This facet of "musical quality" I'm discussing is not simply recording fidelity. It's also composition choice. The selection and use of sounds is as important to me as the selection of notes, the shapes of melodies, the patterns, or rhythms.

Used intentionally, creatively/artfully, noise is a very interesting texture to me. People argue about "analog warmth" all the time, and likely the reason is similar to my appreciation of distortion, and I don't want to go down that rabbit hole, but I'll mention this anecdote:

Remember that I said I hate the radio? I also don't like tape (or vinyl). This is all because of unwanted noise/distortion. So...

...My first exposure to Larry Fast was via radio. Three pieces from "The Jupiter Menace" was played on a college radio show one night. I hit record on my tape deck because I realized I LOVED what I was hearing. I never caught the name. Many decades later, someone at the radio station identified that recording for me and I bought the soundtrack on CD. I like it a lot, but I actually miss the distortion imparted by the radio and tape recording I spent years listening to. The proper recording is almost too sterile.

The music is excellent. It feels to me like classical composition on classic synthesizers, without being a cheesy "Switched on Bach" thing (which I enjoyed as a kid too). Still, to my tastes, it lacks something I feel it needs. Does that make it "bad music"? Heck no. It is a perfectly acceptable studio recording of excellent music. I just want some... dirt. It would be perfectly fine to anyone that doesn't have my preference for distortion and "broken, struggling sounds".

It's taste.

I've acquired a love of the use of noise, disharmonious sounds, and intentionally rough recording techniques as an artistic tool. This change in taste happened over my lifetime. I still hate unintentional sounds and still refuse to listen to the radio or badly compressed audio, but, I now cannot be comfortable creating music without adding some type(s) of distortion to nearly everything in the piece. Subtle distortion is all that's needed sometimes, but I also now appreciate the use of harsh sounds (especially in contrast to clean and soft sounds).

Seemingly opposite to my dislike of Guided By Voices' early albums, I have long desired to play with re-recording some parts of my own music over the air to impart a room sound (my room sucks for "proper sound" but might be useful for "shitty sound"). I don't get to these experiments much because of how cramped my space is and how much unwanted noise from outside there is. Because that's the key: unintended sounds are NOT wanted, even though I'm all about utilizing noise in my music. If it violates my sense of control, I'm not being left to exercise musical choice. Making music involves a lot of decision-making, if you think about it. Control is often where we complement instrumentalists.

It used to be hard to do quality recordings. You'd have to hire a studio and someone else's hard-won and expensive expertise. We now have access to inexpensive tools (and access to information) to enable us to create quality recordings (of inexpensively accessed instruments). We theoretically should have a very easy time creating perfectly "recorded" music... to the point where we have to artificially add noise and distortion to impart some "life" to our in-the-box "recordings", especially if we're not recording any actual audio via microphones or pickups. What was once a thing to avoid is now a thing to intentionally put back. I've come to appreciate when this is done to extremes, for musical purposes, not just to produce a "natural" recording.

There are many musicians posting their work online that I think could improve their material by introducing some distortion and microphone-recorded elements (and far too few people even try to sing or work at their vocal technique). Their music is "good" but it falls flat to me without these outside-the-box elements. I'm reminded of MIDI compositions played back on generic sound cards...

The most complex and thoughtfully orchestrated music, with all the best music theory training in the world, can still fail to gain my interest because of sound choices and sonics. Is their music not "good"? In many enough cases, it's certainly good on a compositional level, but it doesn't suit me because of how it is presented.

[Jace-BeOS]

Ultimately, the answer to this thread's question is: "music is complex, taste is entirely subjective; redefine your question".

or my egotistical answer

"its not, i just do it."

That's certainly one way to go

[Harry_HH]

Yeah, "taste" is not "entirely subjectice" - on the contrary, its very much collective, sociological concept.

This is well condenced in the book called "Distinction", by Pierre Bourdieu.
In 1998 the International Sociological Association voted Distinction as one of the ten most important sociology books of the 20th century.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distinction_(book)

[IncarnateX]

Well for the brain to like anything at all, it need to be exposed to it continually in the first place and since culture are in charge of what we expose the brain to, it has an impact on what we will like. However, do not delude yourself into the fallacy that taste is but a social convention, e.g. your gustatory reaction to fish is not going to change over night because some politicians decide it should be your national dish. Changes in taste happens gradually and are not unlimited, e.g. it will be very hard to train your brain to fancy constant levels of white noise because it has no evolutionary potential to do so.

[Harry_HH]

Well for the brain to like anything at all, it need to be exposed to it continually in the first place and since culture are in charge of what we expose the brain to, it has an impact on what we will like. However, do not delude yourself into the fallacy that taste is but a social convention, e.g. your gustatory reaction to fish is not going to change over night because some politicians decide it should be your national dish. Changes in taste happens gradually and are not unlimited, e.g. it will be very hard to train your brain to fancy constant levels of white noise because it has no evolutionary potential to do so.

Too much sun bareheaded...

[IncarnateX]

Too much sun bareheaded...

Ouch! It has been a tropical pain in Denmark too. I miss my cold and stormy scandinavian weather. This heat surely is a Viking killer.

[jancivil]

The only way to talk about music without getting into battles of opinions is to avoid attempting to objectively define good or bad music in the first place. It's even hard to objectively declare what is and is not music.

Well, that's you and I'm not you. I don't mind discussing it, and while I feel bashful at times about getting shirty (I love this expression, only at KVR, you know) with it, I get over it.

I think this is an important discussion and I'm bold enough to think I have something to say. There is no way on earth I'm going to not endeavor towards evaluating music as an object. That's what it is. the subject of me is not crucial. Earlier in the thread I posted something I don't really even want to listen to as *the* object for the argument "good" vs something that is not_good.

SO:

We can talk about what it is that we like about the music we do like. There's no harm in describing our likes, but it's best to leave all music we dislike as "that's just not for me".

Well, I just said as much at the Music Cafe. I am not even going to go into a thread where there is music I don't like (and I can identify a lot of it from the topic title) to say so, to criticize. Here's the thing there: I don't expect people need to hear it from me. There is music I don't think is good but who cares about that opinion? If the person making it got off on making it and may continue to get off on having made it and on hearing it, that's absolutely great. It's good for the world.

BUT!

At best, we can analyze what doesn't work for us in music we don't like, but it's inevitable that we will shit on someone if we declare that music to be "bad".

NB: the thing I posted back there as *the* argument for "not good" is in my estimation basically cynical pandering. I don't respect it. Someone likes being a cynical asshole, f**k 'em. But, I'm def not going into Youtube comments for that battle, there is no fun in it for me. Where I live and have lived for some time now, there is absolutely atrocious music that can't be defended on musical or artistic grounds at all that I am more than passing familiar with. Let's be real about this; there is some real shit in this world and it's shit by design.

If we use language that allows other people to enjoy what they enjoy, if we avoid implying that we believe ourselves and our tastes to be the ruler by which all music and musical taste should be measured...

To reiterate what I said up top: I would never in a million years do this.

My assessment of music is objective. Taste may be too subjective. A lot of Beethoven's music isn't my flavor. I get tired of JS Bach before a lot of people do (I came to practically major in performance of JS Bach before I dropped out.). I get tired of the dominant/tonic paradigm music, for that matter, very tired of it before very long, even with the twists and turns of the baroque masters.

But, I have enough information and experience as a musician, and technical expertise in the mechanics of that music to grasp why eg., Bach or Beethoven is, objectively, great music.

Ultimately, the answer to this thread's question is: "music is complex, taste is entirely subjective; redefine your question".

Hon, I had my definitions ducks in a row long before I opened my mouth. I'm going with 'taste may be too subjective', exactly as I said it. Not entirely subjective, because reasons. Which I have gone into, it looks like.

[Mike777]

... Good music to me is the music I think is good and want to make, not what everybody else define as such...

I like to make what I like too but I want people to hear sometimes what I wrote, and I accept their honest opinion, good or bad. And I listen to what is considered good, just for ideas. I once wrote a short fanfare for 3 trumpets and when we played it, a guy came up to me with a look of amazement. Didn't say a word, didn't need to. I was glad he liked it. I thought it was a good piece. Was satisfying someone else thought so to. That's a satisfying experience. It doesn't matter at all if they like it, it's just satisfying when they do.

Another time I was in a music store in San Fransisco and a little keyboard was on the shelf so I started to improvise, and there was a lady nearby who could hear me play, so I actually tried to play something I liked and what others nearby if listening would like too. After a minute or two, the lady said that was nice.

Another time I tried to play 'good' music. I was at Disney World Contemporary Hotel and there was a piano in the relaxing area. Just a few people around. I sat to improvise, and play something 'good'. Two girls came up and listened. They wanted to meet me.

... but the music I make is for me and nobody else.

So every song you make you play back just for you and make sure no else hears it. Ok

.... Today I fuse it all anyway I like. Is it good music? Hardly by any public or academic definition people can come up with but it is entirely mine and to me true artistic freedom is exactly that I don’t have to give a fvck.

On American Idol tv show they audition excellent singers but also some very unskilled singers. Those unskilled singers thought they were good. They didn't give a fvck what anyone else thought, even a million $ record producer sitting in front of them.

If no one is allowed to critique your music except you, that's fine, call it good. You like it, then it's good.

[IncarnateX]

... but the music I make is for me and nobody else.

So every song you make you play back just for you and make sure no else hears it. Ok.

Now you are misinterpreting. Never said it was a secret, just that I really do not care whether people like it or not. Only opinion that would have an impact is my own.

Actually my music is not necessarily meant to please me as listener as much as it is fun for me to compose. There goes a lot more music theoretical experimentation into it than meets the ear.

Here it is FYI:

https://soundcloud.com/incarnatex

[Mike777]

A melody sticking around one or two notes too much becomes tiring, that's not good.

Except when it is. Solo begins at 55 seconds...

I'm still right. In the Ramones the solo guitar gets off that one note (there is another note quickly played) after 8 bars, then the guitar plays around that note for two bars. They know it's getting tiring after 8 bars. They followed my 'rule' of avoid "sticking around one or two notes too much". They got off it. At this high tempo it time goes by faster and it's not tiring in 8 bars. Slow the tempo and it will be. Another 8 bars at the tempo would have been tiring.

In the Ligeti piece I'm still right. I said sticking around one or two notes. In the dynamic intro it's the same note for only 3 bars, that's not too long. The intro is basically a short fanfare.

In the next 2 minutes Ligeti left hand is one note drone but in octaves. Octaves provide some relief from tiredness. A repeated note in octaves over and over sets up a 'drum beat' feel, the note almost is not musical.

If you just played the left hand part of the piece and not the right hand part, that repeated drone octave will get listeners tired. Fast too.

So what Ligeti does above the drone octaves is yes the same note, but at different accents, and more octave changes. With only one note the piece has no harmonic creation, but is progressing an developing RHYTHMICALLY.

Remember my 'rule' says "A melody sticking around one or two notes too much becomes tiring" and by "melody" I imply the common use of that word, a sequence of notes creating a theme or tune.

So Ligeti's right hand is not a melody in the common use of "melody" and his piece doesn't even apply to my 'rule', as my 'rule' requires a melody.

However, even Ligeti here attempts to follow my 'rule' of "too much becomes tiring" by use of creative rhythmic & accent changes. You don't know when the octave will jump, or when an accent will hit, and that provides interest to the listener.

In the Bob Dylan piece I'm right again. Vocal melody stays on one note as long as he can, which is 8 bars, and then changes note. At this fast tempo it's ok, does not become tiring, but he knows to change note after 8 bars, and does so. 10 seconds on one note in this song is about the max before becoming tiring. The complete verse also has a 3rd note. Even he knew he could not write a compete verse using just 2 notes even at a fast tempo. When singing on the one note for 10 seconds, to get to that end of 10 seconds and help avoid tiring, he uses choppy rhythmic accents and provocative rhyming lyrics, almost a rap style.

My 'rule' is valid in this piece as his 3 note 'melody' is again not my use of melody as commonly thought. When an instrument or vocal melody, like rap, stays on one note, it does get musically tiring because you want to hear melodic development.

Rap and songs like you posted purposely avoid musical development and are in essence minimalist experiments, like Ligeti and Dylan. Dylan and Ramones are early movements towards rap where melody is purposely undeveloped, and a few notes, if any, or even used.

Your examples prove my point. Try this, announce a piano recital with 12 pianists performing 12 new major piano works. Sell tickets. The first pianist plays "Concert in C" and then plays middle C over and over in one rhythm, no accents for 10 minutes. The 2nd pianist plays "Concerto in Db" and plays Db over and over in one rhythm, no accents for 10 minutes. And so on with the other 10 pianists. See what happens.

Enjoyed the vids, nice finds.




If you don't like that, there's this, one pitch class though...bending the rules on one note.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIs3jechQ_E

The vocal melody in this song stays on one note for a long time, is it too long? What if it were longer, what's too long?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGxjIBEZvx0


Back to one pitch class, here's a three hour long album using a single pitch class.

https://recordings.irritablehedgehog.co ... ansas-city

I found it in the online New York Times, FWIW

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/16/arts ... -note.html

From the article:

Reviewing a 2015 performance of a three-and-a-quarter-hour Gibson drone epic for The New York Times, Corinna da Fonseca-Wollheim noted his debt to Mr. Young, as well as his ability to create a mighty effect out of the simplest materials. A cello’s switch from single notes to a double-stopped fifth, she wrote, “registered as a gesture of monumental significance.”

Then there's this sort of thing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=td4N0DofOMI

Whether something is tiring or not is completely context dependent. You have described a subjective response to a musical property, not an objective measure of music.[/quote]

[Mike777]

A melody sticking around one or two notes too much becomes tiring, that's not good.

Except when it is. Solo begins at 55 seconds...

I'm still right. In the Ramones the solo guitar gets off that one note (there is another note quickly played) after 8 bars, then the guitar plays around that note for two bars. They know it's getting tiring after 8 bars. They followed my 'rule' of avoid "sticking around one or two notes too much". They got off it. At this high tempo it time goes by faster and it's not tiring in 8 bars. Slow the tempo and it will be. Another 8 bars at the tempo would have been tiring.

In the Ligeti piece I'm still right. I said sticking around one or two notes. In the dynamic intro it's the same note for only 3 bars, that's not too long. The intro is basically a short fanfare.

In the next 2 minutes Ligeti left hand is one note drone but in octaves. Octaves provide some relief from tiredness. A repeated note in octaves over and over sets up a 'drum beat' feel, the note almost is not musical.

If you just played the left hand part of the piece and not the right hand part, that repeated drone octave will get listeners tired. Fast too.

So what Ligeti does above the drone octaves is yes the same note, but at different accents, and more octave changes. With only one note the piece has no harmonic creation, but is progressing an developing RHYTHMICALLY.

Remember my 'rule' says "A melody sticking around one or two notes too much becomes tiring" and by "melody" I imply the common use of that word, a sequence of notes creating a theme or tune.

So Ligeti's right hand is not a melody in the common use of "melody" and his piece doesn't even apply to my 'rule', as my 'rule' requires a melody.

However, even Ligeti here attempts to follow my 'rule' of "too much becomes tiring" by use of creative rhythmic & accent changes. You don't know when the octave will jump, or when an accent will hit, and that provides interest to the listener.

In the Bob Dylan piece I'm right again. Vocal melody stays on one note as long as he can, which is 8 bars, and then changes note. At this fast tempo it's ok, does not become tiring, but he knows to change note after 8 bars, and does so. 10 seconds on one note in this song is about the max before becoming tiring. The complete verse also has a 3rd note. Even he knew he could not write a compete verse using just 2 notes even at a fast tempo. When singing on the one note for 10 seconds, to get to that end of 10 seconds and help avoid tiring, he uses choppy rhythmic accents and provocative rhyming lyrics, almost a rap style.

My 'rule' is valid in this piece as his 3 note 'melody' is again not my use of melody as commonly thought. When an instrument or vocal melody, like rap, stays on one note, it does get melodically tiring unless something is overwhelming it, like a vocalist shouting out a 'message' in a frustrated tone of voice really more speaking then singing, and spitting out clever or provocative rhyming words. With that, a sense of melody is really not present anyway. Not my use of the word melody, as commonly used. If you asked a rap artist about one of their songs, "hey how does the melody go in your song?" They will say there is no melody you idiot.

Rap and songs like you posted purposely avoid melodic development and are in essence minimalist experiments, like Ligeti and Dylan. Dylan and Ramones are early movements towards rap where melody is purposely absent, and a few notes, if any, or even used.

Your examples prove my point. Try this, announce a piano recital with 12 pianists performing 12 new major piano works. Sell tickets. The first pianist plays "Concert in C" and then plays middle C over and over in one rhythm, no accents for 10 minutes. The 2nd pianist plays "Concerto in Db" and plays Db over and over in one rhythm, no accents for 10 minutes. And so on with the other 10 pianists. See what happens.

Enjoyed the vids, nice finds.

[Mike777]

And related to what IncarnateX said above, here's the rest of the text I've been typing for the last two hours...

Please forgive my verbose monomaniacal dissertation, but the following was inspired by the content of this thread:

Good music or bad music depends on so many variables. One qualitative variable I find very interesting is recording technique. I wish it wasn't such a big deal, but it necessarily has to be. You can make interesting and well-crafted music unlistenable with bad recording techniques, or you can take a pile of noises and make cool music out of them, even when intentionally using some "bad" techniques......

very interesting how you came to enjoy 'noise', not just random noise but deliberate created with a purpose so that you hear 'new' things because of it.

I'm nowhere near your appreciation but I can relate to old classical records I would listen to way back. Most classical orchestra recordings remove any noise made by chair squeak, non musical instrument sounds, etc. Then I heard an orchestra recording without any noise removed and heard all those noise sounds, and it really was like turning on a light- now I'm hearing a real, organic, orchestra playing with all the noises intact and I like it. I felt almost cheated from the others.

Just one example, but noise used purposefully is neglected. Especially in any live music, be it acoustic instruments or electric guitars, or electronic. And the noise from amps.