A Lark Ascending

No, it's because you've never seen Dr Lonnie Smith live, Bev MG Oh, I shout, whoop and whistle in the privacy of my own house (or car) to Lonnie Smith. But in public? Certainly not!

Dude, the way you kick in on those Canterbury bands, I think you might be underestimating your tribalness! I mean, it's a good thing. Own it with pride! That's nostalgia, not tribalism!* And I enjoy them in isolation! I do have one fellow traveller but two do not a tribe make. (*though maybe I'm longing to return to a tribe I once belonged to!!!)

Non-English speaking vocalists singing in English (especially Brazilians). Sing in your own language. I like the mystery of being clueless about what you are saying. Even if they're making fun of all the stiff upper lips in the audience? Can't understand them so they can be singing about what they like. Actually, it tends to be worse when the translate lyrics from the native language into English! I'm sure Stacey Kent singing in French sounds awful to the French.

I'm not tribal, I'm afraid. I'm a perfect example of the post-industrial detached from any community person! Clearly how far subconscious or attentive listening takes you will depend on the music. Most music can be enjoyed to a degree by letting it seep in from the sidelines; but I can think of some music that simply does not penetrate that way. A fair bit of contemporary classical is so concept based or structurally dense that you can't find a way in without doing the homework. A perfectly legitimate way to make music - but I don't think that makes it better even though it is often presented that way.

Would Focus be your Platonic example of the latter? A while since I heard it. Seem to recall it being more 20thC in its approach. ********** People at jazz concerts (or any concert) who seem to need to let everyone know they are there by shouting, whooping or whistling. But that's probably my British stiff upper lip talking. Non-English speaking vocalists singing in English (especially Brazilians). Sing in your own language. I like the mystery of being clueless about what you are saying.

Jazz that sets out to be relevant to young people today (as opposed to jazz that set out to be good and tries to engage young people today). Jazz cannot possibly be good for you. 1. It bankrupts you. 2. It ensures you spend long periods in a sedentary position instead of taking exercise. 3. It leads you to spend far to much time in rooms (or chat rooms) filled with other men.

In most cases, strings and orchestras. They are nearly always arranged like Tchaikovsky when jazz is better arranged like Stravinsky or Bartok.

No, at some point it's an imperative if you want to "go to the next level of understanding" as a listener as well. True. But most people get along fine enjoying music without ever needing to go to that next level of understanding. The subconscious thing does the job. I've no problem with people enjoying music on the level of just enjoying it. I've no problem with people so engrossed they have to listen really carefully to understand how it all works. I get a bit miffed by people who do the first but talk like they've done the second.

scowls

Tunes with single word titles that allude to physics; seems to be a quick way to add gravitas. Tunes with single word titles that allude to Eastern religion or philosophy; seems to be a quick way to add spirituality. Tunes (or album titles) with apostrophes.

Ritualistic clapping of solos (rising from a patter to a roar at the drum solo). (on the other hand, I love soprano and flute!)

Very true. When you think of those long examples of African music - maybe involvement is sustained there from dancing or ritualistic participation. But I'd imagine people drift in and out. Or for listeners, when we think we should be analysing it rather than feeling it. Which, as you say, does not mean there is nothing to be gained by listening attentively and closely. But, unless you are a musician or a scholar, that's an option not an imperative. Insisting that listening attentively at length is the mark of true appreciation strikes me as another way that those who need to feel part of a select clique exclude everybody else.

Drum machines and polyphonic synths that fill in all the gaps. Mouth organ. Guitars put through polyphonic synths to make them sound like a mouth organ (yes, Pat, I mean you!)

And yet... Maybe it was coming to music in the 70s when guitar solos on rock albums could go on for weeks, but I've always loved long tracks and long albums. The first three Chicago albums, Soft Machine 'Third', Centipede's 'Septober Energy', 'Tales of Topographic Oceans' - I loved the way you could lose yourself in that music for a couple of hours. When I started exploring classical I made a beeline for Mahler and Bruckner because their symphonies were long. Can even remember coveting 'unaffordable' box sets of Wagner (that had to wait 20 years). And with jazz the long track was a commonplace. One of the things that lured me in. My eyes still light up when I see 8 minutes (or more) on a tracklist yet I tend to think twice about a record of 3 min tracks (daft I know - Ellington, Parker etc). Just because I like music long does not mean I'm listening all the time or furrowing my brow. There's just something about the way a collection of music conceived as a common piece or set of pieces can create a mood that I want to wallow in. The impact of music striking you with a glancing brush rather than a head on blow is greatly undervalued - agree entirely with Jim's observations in that last post.

"Art"

I still recall the good old days when we had the attention span to listen to the bard reciting Beowulf for hours on end. And we had to be up early the next morning to fight off the bloody Vikings who were out to burn and pillage us. The mead was stronger too. Young people today just don't know they are born.

What is 'serious music'? And what isn't? A phrase I associate with my schooldays when we were encouraged to abandon our dalliance with ephemeral pop and learn to 'appreciate' 'serious music'.

Surely that should be 'Thank Lucifer'?

Lucky man ! They were playing locally to me last week but unfortunately I missed it. Isn't that Swananage Tent No. 2? Probably - the chap who introduced them last night described their gig at Swanage as his highlight of the festival. Wish I could get to Swanage. A few years time when I retire I'll hopefully be able to get there ( hopefully from Cornwall!).

Love the last few lines from Graham Griffiths:

The Kate Williams Septet in Sheffield (not in a tent!). Kate Williams (p) Gareth Lockrane (flutes) Steve Fishwick (t) Ben Somers (ts) Julian Siegel (ts, ss, bcl) Oli Hayhurst (b), Tristan Mailliot (d) Excellent evening of Kate's compositions and arrangements from a crack British team. Apparently she's John William's daughter (the guitarist).

None. I only buy cylinder discs. I'm that cool.

Most of my listening is peripheral - I'm often reading, working, driving, walking or typing nonsense on this board. Clearly not conducive to analytical listening but I don't have to do analytical listening. I do sometimes do the 100% concentration thing, though not nearly as much as I used to do (back in the 80s I had my BBC Music books, trying to trace the architecture of the symphony or sonata - something I'd recommend, but don't feel is essential as the everyday way to listen. I've frequently found peripheral listening - which often amounts to bursts of short span intensive listening mixed with bursts of inattention - a very effective way of connecting with unfamiliar music - it can seep in subconsciously. I know I got nowhere with Shostakovich 30 odd years back by sitting and concentrating; he started to eat into me when I was using him as a backdrop to work. I'm sure my peripheral listening does nothing for my understanding of music; but I certainly find it a very enjoyable way to take in music. The one type of music I have to listen to with close focus is opera, simply because I can't follow the plot without the libretto. Agree that there are multiple ways of listening to music. Agree that the idea that young people have short attention spans is a case greatly overstated. Ever seen a teenager with a computer game? They can keep going for hours because it's an 'active' experience, not passive.

Abigail Washburn has been doing an Old Time/Bluegrass meets Chinese folk music collaboration for a while.

But why do I need to do that? Because we've been told that's what you do. Find out 'who's best?' Or at least decide 'who's best?' and get into a lather when someone suggests someone else is best. I can see why it matters to the scholar or a performer wanting to develop their style. But the ordinary listener? There's more than a dash of the Niles Crane in it. Accept all you say about the versatility of modern music gadgets - I've not got beyond downloading and the iPod. The thing I find exciting is the random functions - though I've yet to try that on the iPod I keep classical music on!