Should music challenge you?

[Entre_Perpetuo]

I was reading through another thread and one post struck me. It was about a particular album being the more challenging to listen to than some others. This seemed to be cited as a pro of that album in comparison to the others. It raised this question.

 

As an avid listener of music, do you need or prefer music to challenge you in some way? I definitely don't mean just with technical virtuosity or complexity or anything like that. Think of it this way. How Close To The Edge challenges you with its symphonic complexity, Weezer's The Blue Album might challenge you with it's overt amateurish simplicity (and irresistible ear candy vibes). Any aspect of music may challenge your preexisting understanding of it, or it may strike you as bland and derivative. Certainly many fans of classical music (sorry to speak so generally) are't challenged by Yes' symphonic complexities (though the instrumentation may intrigue them).

 

What do you think?

 

 

 

Another thought came to mind for me. If I'd been introduced to Nirvana, specifically Nevermind, as great music right as I was getting into music (rather than being introduced to them as the unwanted successor of the "classic rock" I loved), I think I'd like them a whole lot more. They'd have likely challenged my understanding of the ability to mix heaviness and catchiness and angst and such into one style if I'd given them a fair chance before so many of the bands they influenced (Muse, Foo Fighters, etc.).

[EagleMoon]

I think it just depends on what you are in the mood for.

[Lucas]

Music for me is much more than simply the sound I hear ..

 

I feel that there is a mindset and set of experiences that links the artist and the listener - a bond - and the best can transport you to this great place that will evoke all kinds of emotions ..

 

Time signatures and complexity are irrelevant as far as being a necessity - it is the gift of the artist that takes me - the sound is just the end result of the meaning, and their way of communicating ..

 

If I chose my friends based on the notion of being challenging or having a big vocabulary, I'd probably be a very unhappy person

[ReRushed]

What exactly is amateurish about Weezer's Blue Album?

[cygnify]

I prefer challenging music - I don't particularly care for predictable music (In the same way, I don't care for predictable movies.) That's not to say that things can't be simple; just not in a predictable way. Things that are too predictable just come across as derivative and unoriginal. It is possible to have relatively simple parts that are put together in an original way that keep it fresh. Sometimes it can be these simple (yet original) things that are the most satisfying.

 

That being said, I've devoted 35 years of my life to learning an instrument. It is very hard for me to listen to somebody that clearly never made any effort to improve or generate an original work and get enjoyment from that.

 

Your example of Nirvana is interesting; I remember when they exploded on the scene - there was this attitude and angst and production that just sort of hits you on the side of the head. At the same time, I found all of the parts of the song construction pretty damn boring. I already had bands in place that satisfied my aggressive appetites and for simpler type rocking out (each of which were infinitely more interesting). Thus, I would say Nirvana didn't really move me at all.

[ReRushed]

One good thing about music, when it hits you, you feel no pain. Thank you, Bob Marley. If I feel pain, I don't like it. Edited April 25, 2017 by ReRushed

[ReRushed]

Funny, Nirvana doesn't get a lot of respect here, but I find their songs extremely well crafted and arranged. Their music still thrills me after 25 years or so.

[cygnify]

nother thought came to mind for me. If I'd been introduced to Nirvana, specifically Nevermind, as great music right as I was getting into music (rather than being introduced to them as the unwanted successor of the "classic rock" I loved), I think I'd like them a whole lot more. They'd have likely challenged my understanding of the ability to mix heaviness and catchiness and angst and such into one style if I'd given them a fair chance before so many of the bands they influenced (Muse, Foo Fighters, etc.).

 

to clarify my earlier statement regarding this; in 1991, I was really getting into King's X, Alice in Chains, Soundgarden, Pantera. Each of which I found infinitely more interesting than Nirvana. I guess Nirvana had the cooler video and appealed to more "in" crowds

[Fordgalaxy]

As seen in this thread, it seems people who are musicians of some sort, are less likely to listen to music just for the enjoyment. I'm aware of a person who said a whole Rush album was ruined and made unlistenable because of some guitar glitch either in the recording or actual playing. I don't get it. I used to want to play the guitar and actually took a few lessons but I'm kind of glad that I wasn't able to continue because I enjoy listening to various kinds of music more than I think I would if I was an accomplished guitar player.

[Fordgalaxy]

Funny, Nirvana doesn't get a lot of respect here, but I find their songs extremely well crafted and arranged. Their music still thrills me after 25 years or so.

 

A lot of people dismiss it because of the type of music it took over for. Like many bands, Rush included, Nirvana had some very intense and meaningful lyrics, and they had some much more lighthearted ones.

[ReRushed]

nother thought came to mind for me. If I'd been introduced to Nirvana, specifically Nevermind, as great music right as I was getting into music (rather than being introduced to them as the unwanted successor of the "classic rock" I loved), I think I'd like them a whole lot more. They'd have likely challenged my understanding of the ability to mix heaviness and catchiness and angst and such into one style if I'd given them a fair chance before so many of the bands they influenced (Muse, Foo Fighters, etc.).

 

to clarify my earlier statement regarding this; in 1991, I was really getting into King's X, Alice in Chains, Soundgarden, Pantera. Each of which I found infinitely more interesting than Nirvana. I guess Nirvana had the cooler video and appealed to more "in" crowds

Snotty. Some people just like the songs more.

[ReRushed]

For some, Trout Mask Replica is challenging to listen to and Abbey Road is not. For others, it's the opposite.

 

Didn't Elvis Costello say writing about music is like dancing about architecture?

[cygnify]

As seen in this thread, it seems people who are musicians of some sort, are less likely to listen to music just for the enjoyment. I'm aware of a person who said a whole Rush album was ruined and made unlistenable because of some guitar glitch either in the recording or actual playing. I don't get it. I used to want to play the guitar and actually took a few lessons but I'm kind of glad that I wasn't able to continue because I enjoy listening to various kinds of music more than I think I would if I was an accomplished guitar player.

 

ha - yeah, that's an extreme example. But I totally get your point. Not that I regret it, but I do find that I cannot listen to music without my musician mind trying to find some way to relate to it (how would I play that? how is his snare sound? is that all programmed? will he use that same fill again? etc.) My wife thinks I am cursed by that; I suppose I do lose that zen sort of letting the sound wash over me, but on the other hand I can be "inside" the music in some way. (truth be told, I do enjoy classical, and some trancy sort of electronica that my drum set brain doesn't enter into!)

[cygnify]

nother thought came to mind for me. If I'd been introduced to Nirvana, specifically Nevermind, as great music right as I was getting into music (rather than being introduced to them as the unwanted successor of the "classic rock" I loved), I think I'd like them a whole lot more. They'd have likely challenged my understanding of the ability to mix heaviness and catchiness and angst and such into one style if I'd given them a fair chance before so many of the bands they influenced (Muse, Foo Fighters, etc.).

 

to clarify my earlier statement regarding this; in 1991, I was really getting into King's X, Alice in Chains, Soundgarden, Pantera. Each of which I found infinitely more interesting than Nirvana. I guess Nirvana had the cooler video and appealed to more "in" crowds

Snotty. Some people just like the songs more.

yes, like Rolling Stone. Enjoy

[ReRushed]

nother thought came to mind for me. If I'd been introduced to Nirvana, specifically Nevermind, as great music right as I was getting into music (rather than being introduced to them as the unwanted successor of the "classic rock" I loved), I think I'd like them a whole lot more. They'd have likely challenged my understanding of the ability to mix heaviness and catchiness and angst and such into one style if I'd given them a fair chance before so many of the bands they influenced (Muse, Foo Fighters, etc.).

 

to clarify my earlier statement regarding this; in 1991, I was really getting into King's X, Alice in Chains, Soundgarden, Pantera. Each of which I found infinitely more interesting than Nirvana. I guess Nirvana had the cooler video and appealed to more "in" crowds

Snotty. Some people just like the songs more.

yes, like Rolling Stone. Enjoy

Why do so many have a chip on their shoulders over Rolling Stone? And don't assume.

[Fordgalaxy]

As seen in this thread, it seems people who are musicians of some sort, are less likely to listen to music just for the enjoyment. I'm aware of a person who said a whole Rush album was ruined and made unlistenable because of some guitar glitch either in the recording or actual playing. I don't get it. I used to want to play the guitar and actually took a few lessons but I'm kind of glad that I wasn't able to continue because I enjoy listening to various kinds of music more than I think I would if I was an accomplished guitar player.

 

ha - yeah, that's an extreme example. But I totally get your point. Not that I regret it, but I do find that I cannot listen to music without my musician mind trying to find some way to relate to it (how would I play that? how is his snare sound? is that all programmed? will he use that same fill again? etc.) My wife thinks I am cursed by that; I suppose I do lose that zen sort of letting the sound wash over me, but on the other hand I can be "inside" the music in some way. (truth be told, I do enjoy classical, and some trancy sort of electronica that my drum set brain doesn't enter into!)

 

Classical is a great type of music, with many styles to choose from. I get what you're saying about your "musician mind" because I sort of deal with that when I watch movies. I notice errors or changes that shouldn't be there from one scene to the next. The difference being, I haven't trained myself to do it, it just happens. Luckily it doesn't completely ruin the movies.

[cygnify]

nother thought came to mind for me. If I'd been introduced to Nirvana, specifically Nevermind, as great music right as I was getting into music (rather than being introduced to them as the unwanted successor of the "classic rock" I loved), I think I'd like them a whole lot more. They'd have likely challenged my understanding of the ability to mix heaviness and catchiness and angst and such into one style if I'd given them a fair chance before so many of the bands they influenced (Muse, Foo Fighters, etc.).

 

to clarify my earlier statement regarding this; in 1991, I was really getting into King's X, Alice in Chains, Soundgarden, Pantera. Each of which I found infinitely more interesting than Nirvana. I guess Nirvana had the cooler video and appealed to more "in" crowds

Snotty. Some people just like the songs more.

yes, like Rolling Stone. Enjoy

Why do so many have a chip on their shoulders over Rolling Stone? And don't assume.

 

No chip - for most of the time when I was growing up, their reviews were panning the type of music that I liked. They represented the "fashion rock", the cool crowd, what was "in" (and often what was most calculated, derivative, boring.)

[cygnify]

As seen in this thread, it seems people who are musicians of some sort, are less likely to listen to music just for the enjoyment. I'm aware of a person who said a whole Rush album was ruined and made unlistenable because of some guitar glitch either in the recording or actual playing. I don't get it. I used to want to play the guitar and actually took a few lessons but I'm kind of glad that I wasn't able to continue because I enjoy listening to various kinds of music more than I think I would if I was an accomplished guitar player.

 

ha - yeah, that's an extreme example. But I totally get your point. Not that I regret it, but I do find that I cannot listen to music without my musician mind trying to find some way to relate to it (how would I play that? how is his snare sound? is that all programmed? will he use that same fill again? etc.) My wife thinks I am cursed by that; I suppose I do lose that zen sort of letting the sound wash over me, but on the other hand I can be "inside" the music in some way. (truth be told, I do enjoy classical, and some trancy sort of electronica that my drum set brain doesn't enter into!)

 

Classical is a great type of music, with many styles to choose from. I get what you're saying about your "musician mind" because I sort of deal with that when I watch movies. I notice errors or changes that shouldn't be there from one scene to the next. The difference being, I haven't trained myself to do it, it just happens. Luckily it doesn't completely ruin the movies.

 

I don't feel like the musician mind ruins music for me - but it certainly guides me towards certain aspects of music. Also, don't assume that means perfection either - I got bored with alot of blingy players that are just too mechanical. It led me more to the jazz/fusion type influence and some really funky drummers, as well as some technical monsters. It did drive me away from alot of stuff that was played on the radio (back when that was a thing.) :codger:

 

I play in alot of cover bands, and have had to play alot of music that I wouldn't listen to otherwise. I viewed it in a positive way and made it a challenge to make it feel as good as possible. I still wouldn't listen to that in my spare time.

[ReRushed]

nother thought came to mind for me. If I'd been introduced to Nirvana, specifically Nevermind, as great music right as I was getting into music (rather than being introduced to them as the unwanted successor of the "classic rock" I loved), I think I'd like them a whole lot more. They'd have likely challenged my understanding of the ability to mix heaviness and catchiness and angst and such into one style if I'd given them a fair chance before so many of the bands they influenced (Muse, Foo Fighters, etc.).

 

to clarify my earlier statement regarding this; in 1991, I was really getting into King's X, Alice in Chains, Soundgarden, Pantera. Each of which I found infinitely more interesting than Nirvana. I guess Nirvana had the cooler video and appealed to more "in" crowds

Snotty. Some people just like the songs more.

yes, like Rolling Stone. Enjoy

Why do so many have a chip on their shoulders over Rolling Stone? And don't assume.

 

No chip - for most of the time when I was growing up, their reviews were panning the type of music that I liked. They represented the "fashion rock", the cool crowd, what was "in" (and often what was most calculated, derivative, boring.)

Like what? What music isn't calculated? What music isn't derivative? And isn't something being boring subjective? Rolling Stone has the reputation it has for reasons both deserved and not deserved, but what magazine doesn't? Sometimes I find the criticism Rolling Stone gets a bit ironic. And predictable.

[Lucas]

As a musician, I find it essential to challenge myself, as far as creating and learning ... Listening and enjoying music is different ..

 

But as far as the creative spirit, challenging yourself, learning and pushing forward is what drives me

[Entre_Perpetuo]

What exactly is amateurish about Weezer's Blue Album?

 

Instrumental virtuosity versus Yes. Just a reference point. I was about to cite AC/DC but felt that had been overdone. When considering the whole of The Blue Album I don't think it's amateurish at all, but there's certainly nothing from a technical standpoint that's going to boggle my mind in a "how is that possible" kind of way, or even a "that song sounds pretty tuff to play" kind of way.

 

Not trying to dis The Blue Album, one of my favs.

[Entre_Perpetuo]

Funny, Nirvana doesn't get a lot of respect here, but I find their songs extremely well crafted and arranged. Their music still thrills me after 25 years or so.

 

I think they're great examples of great songwriting. I don't dislike them as I used to. My issue with them is their music to me sounds like bottled water tastes when I'm not particularly thirsty or hot.

 

That's great and all, but nothing I'm really wanting.

 

Truth be told, most of the reason I revisit Nirvana on occasion is to try and pinpoint why I'm so meh about them, or maybe (hopefully) find something there I hadn't noticed before and come to like them more (a "maybe this time it'll work" kind of idea).

[Entre_Perpetuo]

Music for me is much more than simply the sound I hear ..

 

I feel that there is a mindset and set of experiences that links the artist and the listener - a bond - and the best can transport you to this great place that will evoke all kinds of emotions ..

 

Time signatures and complexity are irrelevant as far as being a necessity - it is the gift of the artist that takes me - the sound is just the end result of the meaning, and their way of communicating ..

 

If I chose my friends based on the notion of being challenging or having a big vocabulary, I'd probably be a very unhappy person

 

I hope to emphasize here that I really don't mean to limit "challenging" to "technically complex" and the like. Challenging can be turning "boring" musical ideas and super generalized lyrics into pure emotional sappy cathartic gold in most Coldplay songs. It may be challenging to you because you've never thought music could move you in that way using those elements before. Or it may not challenge you because you think is bland and derivative and too sappy and pandering to emotionally unstable teens and trash.

[Hatchetaxe&saw]

Anything that stretches your musical boundaries and gets you out of your comfort zone has to be a good thing.

[Blue J]

There are so many different types of music that I listen to that I don't think I can give a concise answer to the question. I like a lot of music that would generally be considered challenging, but I listen to a lot of things that are not, also. Different things fit different moods.

 

One thing I can say for sure- I can't just have music on 'in the background' and be happy that way. Music listening is an event, for me...when I have music on, it is the focal point of whatever else is around me. I guess that's the best way I can say it.

 

'Should' it be challenging? I don't know. I guess I can't answer that.