What do you like most about songs ?

[Gamma-UT]

well, I wonder if anyone likes Kenny G less than do I.

Pat Metheny?

I think that people who buy that shit think it's real music but just haven't heard very much of it to get any perspective on (instrumental) music.

I think it's just a product of musical development: people stop at different points. You can see it in the development of childrens' musical tastes: nursery rhymes, chirpy TV songs, Britney and boybands, and then separation into rock, R&B, trance etc.

Western music itself has been right through that evolution in something like 1500 years. It's gone all the way from pentatonic (probably first discovered about 10,000 years ago) through tonal music to atonal and jazz and into microtonal. Some don't really get that much further than the pentatonic melodies of nursery rhymes.

I think our disagreement per necessity of lyrics is a matter of degrees rather than a fundamental one.

I think a good melody stands a better chance, regardless; which would support your point more than mine. But I could be SO wrong in that thought, so I'm sticking with skepticism and my broad stroke of, 'they need lyrics, most of 'em'. "Commercial music biz exists because of lyrics" fits that. And I think that's a harder one to argue against.

It's the word 'lyric' that I can't get behind. Human voice, yes. Lyric per se, I'm sceptical. I can't help thinking that if it were really about lyrics, poets would be a lot richer than they are (and most of them can't write successful lyrics for toffee). Where a lyric really works, then yes, it plays a key part. But as pointed out above, a lot of people can't remember more than a few lines at most. I bet if you recited Smells Like Teen Spirit to a bunch of 30-40 year-olds as though it were a poem, hardly anybody would recognise the lines. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't and yet I can hear Kurt Cobain in my head right now singing "Here we are now, entertain us." (Actually, looking at the lyrics with the "hello, hello, hello, how low?" passage, I'm thinking it might be a bad example but I'm going to stick with it).

But our hearing is very well attuned to the human voice: it's probably why our hearing is so sensitive in the 1k-3kHz region. Two of three main formants in the voice are in that region. Vowels have most of their energy below 1kHz, but the percussive consonants will come through loud and clear in that range. And with a voice you can convey a lot of rhythmic information - that's arguably the secret of rap's success.

I think David Byrne is right: songs generally need singers. And you can certainly get away with a simpler melody with a vocal. But I think that has a lot to do with the way that the voice works and how it's used in music, and how we hear the voice.

[griels]

My gut feel is that skilled and casual listeners differ most in their perception of harmony much more than melody.

I concur... I'm a sucker for surprises, but they seem to be a in pop...

Lyrics... Not bothered about them mostly. There are some honourable exceptions though - Lily Allen being a case in point. Rhythm is almost as important as harmony/melody for me though.

[Gamma-UT]

But as musicians, especially here at kvr, isn't it natural to listen to "type of reverb" or "how's the mix" or "ooooo, I like how those instruments are panned" /etc????

It's all part of the package. Some people just like listening to the sounds. But novelty does sell music: would Believe have been such a hit without that vocal effect? It's not fundamental to the song but it got it noticed. But soon the T-Pain version of the effect will have gone the way of the gated snare.

A lot of reverb effects are deliberately unnatural because they mess with the listener's perceptions, which makes that instrumentation stand out. So, these things are worth studying if only to realise that no-one can ever successfully use that effect again.

I remember there was a company that claimed to have written a software program to analyse songs for their hit-worthiness. I was the stupidest idea ever. Most songwriters have a very good idea of what makes a hit. The trouble is that what often makes a hit is the novelty factor, except in the rare case where it's a genuinely brilliant bit of songwriting that coincided with some event to push that song to the front of the public mind.

[jancivil]

well, I wonder if anyone likes Kenny G less than do I.

Pat Metheny?

I think that people who buy that shit think it's real music but just haven't heard very much of it to get any perspective on (instrumental) music.

I think it's just a product of musical development: people stop at different points. You can see it in the development of childrens' musical tastes: nursery rhymes, chirpy TV songs, Britney and boybands, and then separation into rock, R&B, trance etc.

Western music itself has been right through that evolution in something like 1500 years. It's gone all the way from pentatonic (probably first discovered about 10,000 years ago) through tonal music to atonal and jazz and into microtonal. Some don't really get that much further than the pentatonic melodies of nursery rhymes.

I think our disagreement per necessity of lyrics is a matter of degrees rather than a fundamental one.

I think a good melody stands a better chance, regardless; which would support your point more than mine. But I could be SO wrong in that thought, so I'm sticking with skepticism and my broad stroke of, 'they need lyrics, most of 'em'. "Commercial music biz exists because of lyrics" fits that. And I think that's a harder one to argue against.

It's the word 'lyric' that I can't get behind. Human voice, yes. Lyric per se, I'm sceptical. I can't help thinking that if it were really about lyrics, poets would be a lot richer than they are (and most of them can't write successful lyrics for toffee). Where a lyric really works, then yes, it plays a key part. But as pointed out above, a lot of people can't remember more than a few lines at most. I bet if you recited Smells Like Teen Spirit to a bunch of 30-40 year-olds as though it were a poem, hardly anybody would recognise the lines. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't and yet I can hear Kurt Cobain in my head right now singing "Here we are now, entertain us." (Actually, looking at the lyrics with the "hello, hello, hello, how low?" passage, I'm thinking it might be a bad example but I'm going to stick with it).

I think David Byrne is right: songs generally need singers. And you can certainly get away with a simpler melody with a vocal. But I think that has a lot to do with the way that the voice works and how it's used in music, and how we hear the voice.

that's a good argument which I'm not wholly convinced by. I think it's words and music. Poetry doesn't sound like anything on a page. It is the voice but people want some words to hang the whole thing on.

I have someone who helps me write fiction. He's not a bad poet when half a mind to be, but doing this one, bubblegum lyric, he had a tough time getting the idea of where the downbeat was, and syncopation. Poetry isn't music really. It can imply it.

[jancivil]

I'll tell ya one thing, when the lyrics are presentable I listen, when they are "willy-nilly" or blah, I couldn't care less.

But as musicians, especially here at kvr, isn't it natural to listen to "type of reverb" or "how's the mix" or "ooooo, I like how those instruments are panned" /etc????

i'm with yuga on this, no, it isn't anything I care about apart from the whole. If someone asks me what I think about production I'll listen for sonics, but no, the mix means nothing outside the arrangement of a composition. I don't listen for attributes but for the whole.

one of my alltime favorite singers is Ella Fitzgerald who sang 'scat', which is euphemistically, 'shit' or nonsense, syllables with no meaning other than the shape of the melodic line, which was extempornaneous in such a case.

Lyrics are important to convey a sentiment. as important as a melody, hell_no.

[Gamma-UT]

I have someone who helps me write fiction. He's not a bad poet when half a mind to be, but doing this one, bubblegum lyric, he had a tough time getting the idea of where the downbeat was, and syncopation. Poetry isn't music really. It can imply it.

That's not a big surprise. Rhythm isn't a big feature of modern poetry. Ironically, Cooper & Meyer's book Rhythmic Structure of Music (probably still the only one on the market that deals with the theory of rhythm in an in-depth way) uses poetic terms to describe rhythmic features: trochees, iambs, anapests etc.

[bronxsound]

Have picked option 4 as none of the others even touches the subject.

In songs I like the most attractive and young females

[hibidy]

Have picked option 4 as none of the others even touches the subject.

In songs I like the most attractive and young females

See, this is what is wrong with music The song should have a certain vibe that helps you want to be with the ladies.....but for some "diva" to be the reason to listen to a song.............shame..........shame........ect..

Ok, I'm getting sleeeeepy

[bronxsound]

Have picked option 4 as none of the others even touches the subject.

In songs I like the most attractive and young females

See, this is what is wrong with music The song should have a certain vibe that helps you want to be with the ladies.....but for some "diva" to be the reason to listen to a song.............shame..........shame........ect..

Ok, I'm getting sleeeeepy

who talks about listening to the song? recording is what i'm talking about

[robogone]

well, I wonder if anyone likes Kenny G less than do I.

Pat Metheny?

[debra1rlo]

Have picked option 4 as none of the others even touches the subject.

In songs I like the most attractive and young females

See, this is what is wrong with music The song should have a certain vibe that helps you want to be with the ladies.....but for some "diva" to be the reason to listen to a song.............shame..........shame........ect..

Ok, I'm getting sleeeeepy

who talks about listening to the song? recording is what i'm talking about

Yeah! Then it's orgy time! w00t!

[jancivil]

I have someone who helps me write fiction. He's not a bad poet when half a mind to be, but doing this one, bubblegum lyric, he had a tough time getting the idea of where the downbeat was, and syncopation. Poetry isn't music really. It can imply it.

That's not a big surprise. Rhythm isn't a big feature of modern poetry. Ironically, Cooper & Meyer's book Rhythmic Structure of Music (probably still the only one on the market that deals with the theory of rhythm in an in-depth way) uses poetic terms to describe rhythmic features: trochees, iambs, anapests etc.

that's a good book. I was ignorant of the old time ways for a long time. That is an objective look at rhythm which could apply to any kind of music. It was kind of odd to look at meter in terms of including the next downbeat, pentameter meaning four to the bar then lands on one, but I found iambic trochaic etc clarified my thought for poetry, and then as far as music, the idea of "long/short" at all levels, is essential IME.

I am not real interested in poetry that isn't rhythm-based, it seems wrong. This person had gone in the whole direction of form on a page, pictorial form where the words make a design, which is fun to look at but takes you out of spoken rhythm too much maybe.

I used to listen to chinese speak on the bus in SF just for rhythm, which was easy as it had no other meaning to me. an exotic effect I like a lot to this day.

[ozmoz2008]

Singing is a trick to get people to listen to music for longer than they ordinarily would." - David Byrne
...I agree with a previous poster that musicians and "consumers" experience music differently. I remember a study that claimed that every purchased CD got listened to (on average!) 1.2 times. For most people, music is something that is part of the background in their lives, like their couch, or their coffee machine...

It's true, a pop song just need lyrics to make people feel in a comfort zone, even if the lyrics don't mean much (it could be pretty much crap in fact).

A voice that is on pitch is also a good way to not bother people when they "listen" to the music in the background. In many circumstances, the voice in the song is perceived like if it was some kind of people chatting in the background, it fills-up the silence. Since there is less room for imagination because the space is used by lyrics, it also help the listener to feel more comfortable (in a live room circumstances mostly, couch, bars etc.)

I rarely listen to music, that way. I rather have silence. Even when I'm playing games, I take the music off (unfortunately there is too many games that use "fillers", compare to those who actually care about a "real" soundtrack). In general I feel that there is too much music "fillers" out there, but that's my own opinion.

I also agree with a poster here about the use of voices. The human voice is probably one of the most useful instrument to touch people, even without lyrics.

[Xanavi]

For me nothing hits me like details layered in such a way to complement each other, like a team of people working together in their own unique ways.

Something where details that lets say are labeled a,b,c,d,e,f if heard in combinations of ag, cd, bde, ab, bcf, etc are almost unique songs in and of themselves.

In other words, brain candy.

[hibidy]

well, I wonder if anyone likes Kenny G less than do I.

Pat Metheny?