Musical Consumption Variances

The title of this blog "Musical Consumption Variances" (MCVs) sort of sounds like something from some marketing analysis company, but it's something I've been thinking about a lot because I've been observing the different ways people I know listen to music, and not just in a practical, "iPod or cd player" sort of way, but rather the way they respond to it.

Some people seem to have a deep connection to the lyrical content of songs, others are solely concerned about the technical aspects of the music, some just want a strong beat. Most people are a mish-mash of all these things, but everyone favors something.

I think I'm more of a technical guy, though at times I'm a sucker for a well-spun lyric. I like hearing clever voicings on the keyboards or guitar or vocal harmonies. I like cleverly-structured songs and odd time signatures. I think it's partly because I was raised on classic and progressive rock and far more concerned about putting all the music together than the end product, necessarily.

But then I was also raised on punk rock and hip-hop, so the songs, the lyrics, the energy, and the beat are a big part of my musical experience. And beyond that music, let's not forget to include the oldies from my parents - the British Invasion bands (Beatles, Zombies, etc.) and Motown (which taught this white boy how to groove). "The Music Of My Life" (ah, memories of WPDQ)

But I guess that's part of the reason I'm such a schizo - there isn't much I don't like.

I'll be honest, though. I get really tired of "super-extra-dramatic" music, like slower U2 stuff, some Bruce Springsteen, almost all of Coldplay's music, and all those cheesy "extra-deep" new bands like Snow Patrol and The Fray. Don't get me wrong, I like a well-written pop song. I LOVE a well-written pop song.

I just can't understand the appeal of their music...which I think goes back to my different MCV than many people.

Their music does nothing for me, because though it's well-produced, it's not interesting in its production. It's a lot of the same textures, and very "perfect" in a bad way.

I like dirty stuff that sounds like it was made by people. None of that "dreamy" new stuff sounds that way to me - the vocals all sound autotuned, the dynamics on the recordings are completely SLAMMED so that even quiet parts sound sort of loud.

Heather (my lovely wife) was just saying the other day how she finds it interesting how I listen to music, because it's nothing like how she does it or how anyone else she knows listens. It's very clinical - almost as though I'm diagnosing the song by looking at its symptoms: the chord progression, the timbres used, the instrumentation, the beat, the overall vibe it gives, the way the song is structured and the lyrics and melody composed.

I never realized that I listened to music like that, but I do. I can recall one time when my little brother was sharing some of his music with me, and he pointed out something I used to do all the time, which was to immediately relate what I was hearing to other music I've heard. Of course, this was the wrong answer for Rob, because he just wanted me to listen to it for what it was, which was truly an excellent lesson for me to learn at the time. I needed him to be a little offended by my automatic pigeonholing of his music. It was unfair, because I wasn't really letting it settle in and move me.

So I guess you can even learn things in situations where you wouldn't expect to - like when your little brother, ever the nascent songwriter, decides to share some tunes with you.

Regardless, I've decided that my MCV is fluid. Sometimes I like a piece of music purely because of how visceral it is, and other times I'm enamored with the way it's constructed. I suppose that might be the problem I have with that new moody music - it does neither thing well enough for me. It's not powerful enough (kind of drab), and not interesting enough (often simplified to convey the not-strong-enough emotion).

Just some things to ponder...