Intellectual Music vs Emotional Music?

CONTRADICTION:

Jazz is highly -extemporaneous- music which very rarely *focuses* on complexity but is more-so intrinsically complex because of its nature (which essentially throws the argument about improvised music being strictly emotional and intelligent music being often very structured out the window.)

But I understand there are no exclusively 'black' or 'white' terms when discussing music and that jazz could be considered the math major's music by certain people whereas the Grateful Dead, which primarily works on the same principles, could be considered the stoner/homeless guy/criminal's music by certain people while there are still endless shades and tints between the two (just clearing things up - this is a misconstrued idea by OTHER PEOPLE, not you and I; suggesting these people say these things but don't really realize there are differences between the two as well as similarities). If anything, because its listeners tend to analyze it into obscurity, most classical music tends to be the 'thinking man's' music...and if we're considering little nuances and musical subtleties as appraisers of musical 'intelligence', I think this could apply most 'comfortably' to classical music; whereas prog would generally appeal more-so to the pseudo-intellectual as opposed to the actual intellectual, who's probably just a close-minded ****** who hates any music that doesn't have all those ridiculous subtle musical nuances that only an orchestra composed of dozens can correctly convey (according to him). Assuming that this is how we should judge peoples' intelligence, by their level of snobbiness/close-mindedness. Of course, this is all stereotyping based on cliches which are probably hardly grounded in the truth whatsoever, but continuing....

Call me nuts, but wouldn't poets, free thinkers, and artists be -more- concerned with the 'why things are' than...whoever they're being contrasted with in this comparison (heh)?

Iunno, Kp. I just unno.

MA:

Emotional, I guess, but there are so many exceptions I un even no where to begin.

MA2:

Uh, Radiohead? Brian Eno?

...Or is this intelligent music? The line is TOO blurred, KP.

MA3:

I can't discern one extreme from the other. I mean, I can see the differences between Robert Fripp and Joey Ramone, but it isn't nearly as self-evident after that.

MA4:

NO. (Nah, dun worry bro, you actually made plenty of sense)

BA:

Well, assuming the ends justified the means and I had my own well-being as well as the well-being of others in mind in ending this person's LIFE, I'd put it in his cup. I'm not masochistic enough to kill myself.

Edit:

Alright, calm down, crazy. I've never heard any structured jazz, but maybe I'm just sheltered.

Edit TWO:

Hm. Interesting.

And yes, I've heard all of them, but, besides the MahOrch, I wouldn't really consider them 'jazz' as much as I'd consider them 'rock with jazz influences', which is why I don't like 'em so much. They take that intrinsic jazz complexity and sometimes jazz instrumentation but often completely ignore the jazz idiom - which is just improvised soloing (lots of it), essentially. It's too well-constructed to be 'jazz'.

FURTHER edit:

Wait, I think you mistook my Grateful Dead/stoner quote.

I wasn't suggesting that artists or poets or free thinkers were stoners, I was just suggesting that I can see how a lot of people might easily mistake those particular demographics as all stoners and ****. And I can see just as easily how people could consider jazz or prog or classical the 'thinking man's music', which is, of course, bullshit, but probably has -some- truth to it....

...I think. Man, I don't even know what I was saying.

EVEN FURTHER ******* EDIT:

Actually, Radiohead tends to focus quite a bit on production, composition, arranging, poeticism, and all that - I doubt they're trying to come off as geniuses, they just write and play what they think and what they feel, and they try to make it sound good. The level of, uh, 'deepness' a certain band/song/album has is individualized, as are whatever emotions people draw from them. Don't see why that's such a crime, or why everyone who enjoys certain music/thinks it has interesting ideas (lyrically or musically) is a 'pseudo-intellectual'. None of them -are- geniuses, just great songwriters. Anybody who'd even mention Radiohead and Mozart in the same breath concerning genius/inherent musical talent is a moron, but that doesn't mean Radiohead blows.

This better be the last god-amn edit:

Ah, got it. Sorry, I get defensive sometimes.

3:

^

That's my response to your bewildering but probably deeply hurtful comment. An emotionally static sequence of characters which can be understood as countless different emotions.

Intellectual Music

MA: Emotional, for sure. Ionno, I took a music appreciation course, and while I loved it and found it very interesting to find out why a musician might have made a certain piece sound a certain way, I found that when I tried listening to music from such an analytical standpoint, it detracted from listening at an emotional one. Maybe I'm just shite at multitasking. At any rate...sometimes I feel very ignorant because while I enjoy knowing why things work, at some level, when given the choice, I'd rather just do/enjoy the thing. Like...guitars. I'd rather play them then modify them, even if I find tinkering with them interesting at some level. Same goes for music. I could listen to David Bowie, who does often put some thought into his compositions, and wonder about why he chose a certain technique or instrument, but more often than not, I'm content to sit back and enjoy whatever effect it creates.

I'm not at all very opposed to those who like more intellectual music; I admire them for their ability to hold interest in a whole other side of music that I'll honestly never be hugely involved in.

MA2: Johnny Thunders, because even though he basically recycles the same handful of chords in every song, and even though he's not really a technical player, the way it flows is just...you can -feel- the emotion in his playing, whether it be sad and lonely or alive and ecstatic. Huge accomplishment for someone usually so stoned he couldn't keep his eyes open.

And then..the Dead Boys, Richard Hell, New York Dolls, Alice Cooper, The Clash, PiL, Ramones, Shangrilas, Iggy Pop etc because, again, I feel more of a connection to them, more of a life than a band/artist that focuses solely on the composition from an intellectual point.

MA3: I like King Crimson, Camel, several Thrash Bands, but I dunno if those count as intellectual. If not, I like some Classical music and some Jazz.

MA4: I..think so.

BA: I KNOW WHERE THE POISON IS!

In the best music, both intellect and emotion are satisfied, and I find they are very intertwined. Beethoven has a huge emotional impact on me, and also my intellect is stimulated by the music, and partly *because* of how amazingly successful the music, constructed as it is, is able to arouse such an emotional response from me.

Other than that I'll just say that I don't agree with how you are filing certain things under "intellectual" and "emotional"; there could be some song which is incredibly complex and emotional, or one which is simple but stimulates the intellect somehow (hey, John Cage's 4'33!), so it's just not so easy to define.

Oh, also, as captain is mentioning with "skill without soul"... that's what I'd say guys like Victor Wooten and pretty much every metal shredder has. Their appeal is more like that of a great sports player than a great musician... not sure if the pleasure derived from sports is intellectual or... well, either way it's not a musical appeal.

MQ: I think that music is about expressing yourself...so I like emotional music better, or emotional lyrics at least. But I don't want totally dumb lyrics...some intelligence in the wording is nice...punk lyrics are usually very good. I don't have a problem with "intellectual" music, I just don't like the superior attitude that some of the fans of that type of music have.

MQ2: My favorite artists that write emotional music with somewhat intellectual lyrics are Rise Against and Arcade Fire, and REM. I also like All That Remains and Killswitch Engage...

MQ3: I don't listen to much of that, but I do like some New Age type music and jazz.

MQ4: Yes, you make sense; this is one of the best questions that I've seen on Y!A.

My personal preference: Intellectual lyrics, emotional music. To paint with broad strokes, if a song is just 'oh baby baby' (emotional lyrics) or 'look how many notes I can hit' (intellectual music), I tend to tune out. Smart lyrics played in a visceral style will appeal to me.

MQ: I think my lyrical preference is genuinely more well-written, but not necessarily superior (there are a lot of great 'oh baby baby' songs, although they tend to be written and performed by smart people.)

MQ 2: Trying to come up with someone I haven't yet mentioned who fuses smart lyrics with simple music. How about one-hit wonders Timbuk 3? Devilishly clever lyrics set to a very simple song:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qrriKcwvlY (The Future's So Bright, I've Got to Wear Shades)

MQ 3: I like jazz and classical, but I am not sure how much of that is personal preference and how much is the fact that I play piano. Would I still have as much of an appreciation of intellectual musicianship if I didn't know what the musicians were doing? Honestly, I'm not sure.

MQ 4: Yes, you did.

BQ: Both goblets. I have spent the past few years building up an immunity to iocaine powder.

This Site Might Help You.

RE:

Intellectual Music vs Emotional Music?

I find for all it's myriads of possibilities, music (like most art) tends to fall into 2 camps, the intellectually based, and the emotionally based.

INTELLECTUAL:tends to focus on technique, and be extremely complex, with a lot of consideration given to skill, musical theory, etc. A lot of...

I don't think this is a black and white question.

The bands that I find the most interesting are the ones that can combine styles and do it well. Bands like Opeth, Nachtmystium, Enslaved, Dillinger Escape Plan, and Between the Buried and Me. I would argue that those bands do have alot of feel.

I like punk too, but I generally prefer more hardcore or crossover punk. Music that has an aggressive attitude. Bands like Converge, Cancer Bats, The Exploited, DRI, or The Accüsed. I think these bands have an aggressive feeling.

I've been listening to a band called Black Breath recently. They are properly heavy, but I get a real charge out of listening to their music.

Pop-punk or glam metal is just boring to me. If I hear it, it just makes me bored. It's an opiate for the masses. I question how that music is supposed to make you feel, if you feel anything at all.

MQ: It depends on the mood. Even for which styles of music I want to listen to, like as if I wanted to listen to some rap and hip hop, I'd prefer something more lyrically complex. But I still have times where I want to bump some #swag just to get into the music instead of having a deep thought studing the music carefully. When It comes to the "rock and pop" area, I usually see myself lying in the more emotional side of things. I enjoy colorful blends of creative, unheard sounds, that usually don't take much intellectual lyricism, but more "fitting the mood" feels. Overall, I'd say I'm along the middle of this, but I might say I listen to more 'emotional' music if there was a choice to choose from.

MQ2: Something that take precise technical talent to perform with instruments..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iaHUBoqmE4Y&feature...

-and-

something that takes an intelligent mind to write complex witty lyrics..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hChKXNpoPI8

Something that's more emotionally creative than 'intelligent'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNYFIR1LEdA

MQ3: ^^

MQ4: Yes sir you did.

MA: I prefer intellectual. I enjoy keeping my brain entertained and listening to all of the little nuances in the complexities of it all. At the same time, intellectual can cause powerful euphoria, at least it can with me.

MA2: John 5, Liquid Tension Experiment, Sybreed. As stated above, the complexity of it. I like keeping my mind entertained and I sometimes like to give the music a visual form in my mind. It's quite entertaining.

MA3: Well, does Billy Joel count? Maybe Roy Orbison? I really can't think of too many that embody this style that I enjoy. eh.

MA4: Yes, crystal to me.

BA: What's that over there?!

(Man, I LOVE that movie.)

interesting, i traded part of my life for money as a draftsman for the decade of the 80's and i could care less about overly "technical" music....even back then before i turned off the highly analytical mind i possess.

to infer that "technical" music is somehow intellectual because it is considered more technical is bunk. those that like it get just as emotional as anyone else does about music that they hear right, be they players or fans. you don't have to be part of the intelligentsia to enjoy mozart.

to infer that emotional or improvisational music is somehow less intellectual because it follows no set pattern or form is even more bunk. at one time improvisational was considered intellectual music. i've seen the dead play time signatures and go through key changes that would leave many considered technical players behind.

however, i do understand the left brain right brain thing as far as music fans go.

ma: music is an art form that is fraught with emotion, if it doesn't move you emotionally you're not going to make a regular habit of listening to it.

ma2: charlie parker

herb alpert and the tijuana brass

george jones

leo kotke

the grateful dead

ma3: the bangles

asleep at the wheel

wes montgomery

james brown

stevie nicks

ma4: yeah

ba: as you wish