Take a look at this;

http://ukpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5iD...yzWOwAmUfB_eFeA


Interesting - responses?

I seem to remember a piece of research a few years ago that said that young heavy metal (esp extreme metal) fans tended to be more intelligent than their peers ...

nick

Interesting that heavy metal people are gentle and mild; my daughter's partner leads a heavy metal group (it's actually doom metal but I don't know what the difference is) On the CDs he sounds really rough and aggressive and the sort of person you'd cross the road to avoid, but he's actually the nicest, gentlest, mildest man who wouldn't say boo to a goose. As for being more intelligent - my daughter also performs with the band and she's certainly very bright - proud mum talking there

I'm not that surprised, compared to pop and indie, metal is often much more complicated and challenging music. Take Dream Theatre, Tool or 65daysofstatic (technically post-rock rather than metal), it can be incredibly involved music!
Thats not to say simple music can't be good, after all most people would agree that Ferneyhough is more highbrow than Mozart but they're both world renowned composers!

Sorry - inadvertent post deleted!

nick

Well:

1. Talented and creative as he is I would not put Ferneyhough in the same league as Mozart. (And as for world-renown, outside of nutters like us who are obsessed with music, few people have heard of Ferneyhough. Everyone has heard of Mozart).

2. The apparent simplicity of Mozart's music is superficial - as I am learning in a deep and practical senses as I work on taking his Piano Sonata in D, K576, from something that I can play the notes, at the right speed, in the right order, to a piece of music fit for public performance.

So what about me? I listen to all of the types of music in that article!

In my experience it's true about heavy metal listeners though, one of my friends is in a heavy metal band, he's about six foot four, with long straggly hair, and piercings, and looks absolutely terrifying, but he's one of the most gentle people I know!

The survey is all well and good, but what about people who like lots of different types of music, like myself? I like classical, jazz, blues, soul, heavy metal, reggae, punk, easy listening, folk, world... Does that make me a schizophrenic?

What about obscure or cultish musical comedy, that doesn't seem to get a mention.

I like jazz, classical, folk and pop. Must be an alley cat then
Bev.

I used to listen to Iron Maiden because they really did 'compose' their music. Additionally, their lead singer Bruce Dickinson is a pretty clever bloke, he's a commercial pilot. (Slight digression, but his sister Helena is a showjumper. She now rides for Germany because she married a German rider).

Yes, I'm one of those. My mood will often dictate what I want to listen to at any given point, but on the whole I'm one of those who is happy to listen to music of all genres. And there is good and bad music in all genres.....

I'd be interested in finding out what the 104 musical styles were...

And this study actually illustrates the discussion about the Ben-Tovim book - these are observations, and you can't argue with observations. It's only when those observations are used to try to pre-judge/pigeon-hole people that the trouble starts. What was found in the group cannot necessarily be applied to an individual; like if a reggae fan started working hard, he would then be into soul - it doesn't work like that.

The results from academic research are always popularised and generalised by the Press. What I imagine the report shows is that there is a statistically significant link between those who express a strong preference for some types of music and who have certain traits in their personality. This doesn't mean that there aren't exceptions, or that people who like certain types of music must exhibit the traits associated with that type of music. It's showing that, over a large population, the links are greater than those explained away by chance.

Interesting? Certainly! Useful? Not so sure.

I'm inclined to think good and bad are the only two real categories of music. My collection goes from (John) Adams to (Frank) Zappa and all stops between.

I can't say I ever liked Iron Maiden though - but the Foo Fighters and Queen's of the Stone Age, oh yes.

And what about music that is so bad it becomes unmissable?
Cue William Shatner's Hey Mr Tambourine Man
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrMTWfjPdIU

Hmm, maybe there are some special categories. I think I would put Cap'n Jim's offerings in "Shat".

I was going to write something rather scathing about tabloid journalism, until I read:



As someone who loves to mow the lawn with Deff Leppard on the mp3, but who also loves classical music, I have to admit that's true of me.

However, perhaps this research could go a bit further by asking which music people can't stand, and why.

It's the 'why' question that interests me.

I like all music except:

C & W .. after 10 mins it all sounds the same.

Rap... sounds great for a while, then... yawn.

Pop... er... mainly rubbish..you can almost smell the managers, advertising, PR people etc behind them.

But I would be wary of anything from the press. They only want to sell newspapers or air-time.

Steve

I agree that Fernyhough is not in the same league as Mozart, I was just picking two of the extremes of musical style!
I disagree that Mozart's simplicity is superficial, I think it is the poise, clarity and economy of his music that make it so remarkable - I would argue that most of Mozart's music IS superficial, but constructed so perfectly that it doesn't matter. Leaving out pieces like the last symphonies, requiem, clarinet quintet and stuff like that, pieces like the oboe quartet for example don't really contain much deep, powerful emotion, but they are so well put together that they speak for themselves. Simplicity is something to strive towards in music, I've always felt as a composer the goal is to make your point with as little fuss as possible, not that fuss isn't sometimes necessary!
In the same way Fernyhough's ultra-complex music isn't bad, just that what he is saying requires more notes! In some ways they are similar composers, every note is where it is intended to be, whether through calculation on Fernyhough's part, or innate understanding on Mozart's, there's no mucking about.

sorry, got a bit off topic there..

for once, I am speechless

I appear to have stirred up some controversy here.

Like I said, I'm not talking about the big involved works, but the hundreds of pieces we almost never hear. We did a concert aria, I forget its name, on tour a few months ago - nothing really memorable, it didn't take you on a journey or to the depths of sorrow or anything like that, but it was beautiful, beautiful music.

OK, let's add myself to the pariahs.

I don't know about superficiality, but in a certain mood I can find a fair amount of Mozart's music irritating. It's the Salzburg/Vienna in it, I think. On the other hand, just to be perverse, I like the oboe quartet very much.

I know that many people agree with the sentiment (I forget whose) that 'Mozart tells us about humanity, whereas Beethoven tells us only about Beethoven', but to my mind this is entirely the wrong way around. Mozart (brilliant, of course) seems very much of his time; Beethoven I suggest transcends his.

nick

Mozart was writing to survive. He had to keep his patrons happy. Beethoven was a lot luckier and also lived later, at a time when music was becoming more adventurous. Both him and Schubert are good examples of composers where their later works are miles removed from their earlier efforts. I guess he did seem to transcend his time.

Of course, some more modern composers try to 'transcend' their time by several million years!

Steve