What is the point of intellectually analysing music?

Slightly different are books like "England's Dreaming" or "Energy Flash" which are about the social context of the music as much as they are about the music itself. Sociology is inherently interesting.

What kind of thngs would you call "intellectual analysis" of music though DV?

Most of the stuff on the indiephilia thread IS amateur sociology it seems to me.

For me it goes like this:

I like a piece of music. I like it generally on an intellectual and emotional level - it is doing something to me, I'm aware of what it's doing, I'm interested in why.

I want other people to like this music too because I think it's good. Lots of people don't reach this stage or aren't arrogant enough to want to tell others what they think. At this point I can either say "It's great" or I can say "It's great and here's why". Doing the latter makes me think about i) what I like about the music, and ii) how to describe what I like about it in a language that will make someone else interested.

Meanwhile reading music I've found that a good music review or commentary or mention on a forum either makes me want to hear the music or makes me hear new things in the music. So it is worthwhile for me, and so I can hope that some things I write might have the same effect on other people. (Or on myself).

Most people can't do it. Reason enough.

It's not going to make anyone listen to new music. And it probably gets in the way of their enjoying the music they already like, by superimposing an irrelevant intellectual superstructure over the whole thing. It's interesting (to me) to apply this thinking in relation to "classical" compositions, particularly contemporary stuff working outside 'traditional' chords or melodies. Here, it's often the case that you cannot 'get' the music unless you are prepared to understand how it works. Once you've done that, the question still remains, does it actually work? In many cases, the answer could still be no. And it might be regarded as a pose to pretend otherwise. It is a valid response to say, yes I can appreciate the idea(s) here, but I still don't like it. One reason you still may not like it is because it still doesn't trigger any emotional response. (More likely, however, if that were the case, I wouldn't have bothered to investigate it further in the first place. BUT IMHO there are some pieces - to pick a random example, Shostakovich's 11th - that struck me hard on an emotional level on first hearing, but now I've investigated the musical ideas, and the socio-political background, further, I have no hesitation in caliing it a masterpiece).

This is a timely question, for me, as I am in the process of writing a post on ILM Listening Chamber 18, where precisely this, and other questions, are relevant.

eh - It gives ya something to do. Why do people talk about sports?

If a piece of music affects me its mostly on a gut level. A murderous bass-line, a scintillating rhythm, the grain of a voice, the music’s texture. Then, and only then, do I start asking questions about why I like it.

As I see it we are surrounded by music, drenched in the stuff, and most of it is insufferably bad. When something pleases me my curiosity is pricked. Far from getting in the way thinking about *why?* adds to my enjoyment.

Few things are more stimulating than an articulate, intelligent piece of writing throwing new light on a piece of music. Or a writer so able to capture his/her enthusiasm and make you share it that you skip meals to buy the damn thing unheard. Reynolds did that for me with ‘You Made Me Realize’. Ian Penman’s mind-bending essay on ‘Maxinquaye’ was almost as powerful as the album itself.

Some on ILM can shake me up, make me listen to things I’d otherwise ignore, challenge my pre-conceptions about good taste, genres, high/low brow. That’s why my phone-bill is so high.

Most people can't do it. Reason enough.
You think? I don't actually.I think they consider it a waste of time. Music is for most just there to fill some empty space.

I agree with Helen. Most people don't do it because music often allows people to shut everything off around them. Scooter comes home from the auto plant and cranks Bob Seger 'cause it makes him feel good. Why do you like the Steve Miller Band, Scooter? "I don't fuckin' know, man -- I can party down to him or feel his pain during 'Turn the Page.'" Most people don't get swallowed hole by music the way complete music freaks do. Even more of them would hardly think of turning on their computer to post thoughts about music on a message board, let alone pick up a magazine to read about it.

It appears I just confused Steve with Bob.

And that's 'whole' not 'hole.' Ehh...

Taking Sides: Bob Seger vs. Steve Miller

Ack: was taken to bar last night where acoustic guitar performer's repertoire included both of them, plus "It's Been a While," a coffeehoused version of "Blister in the Sun," "Brown Eyed Girl," and good god forgive me Guns and Roses' "Patience." I like at least two of the abovementioned songs, but this is not an acceptable solo-acoustic repertoire unless you are playing those songs really interestingly. (It was "Against the Wind" and "The Joker," obviously.)

Intellectually analyze music: Because it's as fun as intellectually analyzing any other thing that you're interested in the workings of. Because you want to talk about it with other people, and beyond "that's good / that's bad" there's no way of talking about it without intellectualizing it into communicable forms. Because if it's inherently interesting to intellectually analyze people (sociology) or languages (linguistics) or visual art (visual art), then why not music? And as Dave so perfectly says, isn't it basically the same thing as talking about sports or talking about coin collecting or talking about anything else that you happen to get into?

OH AND MOST IMPORTANTLY: because analyzing music intellectually and then comparing your results with how you feel about music non- intellectually teaches you as much about yourself as it does about the music.

So, what is the point of intellectually analysing music?

The same point that's behind any analysis: to understand.

(And or those of us who make music, it's not an idle diversion, but rather an attempt to come to grips with the technical material of what we do, so that -- among other things -- we can say the things we want to say, rather than be hamstrung by ignorance and inarticulateness.)

My impression is that most people, including people who post here, just like the music they like unanalytically, without sitting around pondering what it is about it that they like

Why come to a music message board then?

The same point that's behind any analysis: to understand.

Ah, but to understand what? (Note I did not say 'what's to understand?')

*weird croaky scared voice*
he-e-e-lp me! i agree with phi-i-i-l! i'm me-e-lting oh wadda world

Mark: he-e-e-lp me! i agree with phi-i-i-l!

Gooble, gobble, one of us! Gooble, gobble, one of us!

Ned: Ah, but to understand what?

One answer:

The technical materials of music -- everything from pitch, rhythm, timbre, to orchestration and instrumentation and sound-selection, to form and structural consideration, to recording and mixing techniques -- and their role in the work, and effect upon the listener.

All of which, at the very least, helps us to identify what we like, and how best to find more of it -- something that's particularly useful to those of us who have specific veins of interest, and wish to mine them as much as possible.

"To understand what?" What a funny question.

You know, I didn't even make the connection until now that Mark S and I just quoted 1930s movies at each other. That's significant information, but I've no idea how to interpret it.

i intellectually analyze music because it helps me distingush what i am thinking about, by analyzing it, it gies me a better sence of who i am, makes me think for myself... i used to spend so much time watching TV, i felt like a thoughtless drone, zombie, when i started reading alot, it helped me realize what my purpose was.

The technical materials of music -- everything from pitch, rhythm, timbre, to orchestration and instrumentation and sound-selection, to form and structural consideration, to recording and mixing techniques -- and their role in the work, and effect upon the listener.

You could just take some undergraduate music classes and learn the same things. If the whole point of intellectually analyzing music is THIS, then why do it at all? You seem to think that intellectually analyzing music is an empirical endeavor, and that we are going to arrive at real truths and see real connections in doing so, but I don't think that's the case at all.

"effect upon the listener": you wouldn't learn this in undergraduate music classes

To give Phil his due, Clarke, I think he's trying to say that as a musician himself he wants to get a greater technical sense of why/what causes him to react the way he does to music and if he can then find ways to replicate and expand on that. That's his own personal take on why to analyze, see, and it fits in with what he's said elsewhere. To note the phrase Mark S has quoted, the 'listener' being affected here is initially and ultimately himself, but others can be equally affected. And that raises a good question, of course -- why does someone's work connect and another does not for a listener when they use the same technical approaches/elements/etc.? I find the answer to that question ultimately impossible to pin down, it really is something decided upon by the individual mind, as our reactions would otherwise be uniform...

How else are you going to prove beyond a resonable doubt that you are the ultimate pretentious jackass?

It seems to me that the majority of pop music critics aren't musicians themselves, so they are unable to explain why certain melodies/chord progressions/techniques etc have certain effects on them. I see this as both good and bad: good, because if they did get all technical it might end up as pretty boring reading; bad, because often the technical aspects play a very important role in the effect of the music and the critic ends up talking about something irrelevant. I imagine that things are very different for classical and jazz critics, but I wouldn't know.
In the old days of rock&roll and rock criticism there were always the lyrics to latch onto when critics didn't know how to talk about the other stuff, and reviews often concentrated on them far too much. With the more recent rise of techno and other non-vocal musics, things have had to change. Great critics like Simon Reynolds, while still no good at discussing melody, are much better at talking about rhythm & texture/timbre and their effects. But I think there's still a lot more mere description going on than actual analysis, because most critics are just critics and can't understand how it really works, while most musicians can't articulate it in words.
Good music reviews can be good reading for their own sake, not intellectual analyses but attempts to convey similar effects through words, or something to ponder while listening, or even something completely different that's entertaining and thought-provoking anyway.

How else are you going to prove beyond a resonable doubt that you are the ultimate pretentious jackass?

That gets my vote as best answer thus far.

Keith, why should being a musician allow a person to explain music's effect on us any better, in principle? Yes, having technical or practical knowledge of how music works might give them some insight. But the kinds of explanations critics give, or are expected to give, and the kind that musicians can give in the technical jargon of their field, don't always coincide or even work well with one another. And the technical information is quite impoverished, as far as telling us why is concerned.

Josh - not always

I did say "quite".

There isn't any point. What activity has a point? Intellectual analysis at random is more amusing than many other activities. (For example, sticking vanilla ice cream labels on ice cream boxes.) Analysing things which provide sensual pleasure gives one a double thrill. Although I doubt that you can separate intellectual pleasure from sensual pleasure that way.

Perhaps you're frightened that you'll squash what you like by looking at it. Don't imagine you're so powerful. Or maybe you will. Maybe you don't know how to create an airy castle.