Do people hear the music or the sound?

[Ozzy the dog]

I was at a gathering last night and as the first three notes of ABBA’s ‘Dancing Queen’ rang out over the PA, all the women jumped up and made for the dance floor. The song was recognised by all instantly.

However, later that evening, I was handed a guitar and asked to play something. Judging from the earlier reaction to the ABBA song I started playing an instrumental version of ‘Mama Mia’ (not my usual thing but you need to keep these things in reserve just in case). I was about 12 bars in before the same women from earlier recognised the tune.

It occurred to me that even though I was playing all the right notes (and in the right order), people don’t actually hear what you’re playing. Is it possible they hear and recognise the sound of the song rather than the music? Although the music is the same, the different instruments and arrangements from the original recording imprint that distinct sound on the song. When played on a solitary instrument the sound is different and people don't process it so quickly.

Either that or my playing is rubbish.

[Pitar]

Happens >>>>>>>>>> the time. You can nail the lyrical melody but that doesn't always work like you'd think. many times you actually have to let enough bars and/or measures go by before it sinks in. I play an instrumental version of Fernando and I've seen the lights on but nobody home in the audience at the opening of the melody so many times I now use it to entertain myself. That song had more air play and popularity at the USO clubs when it aired than any other. It's like a mental tattoo in my age group.

[FrankHudson]

Yes, as your experiment shows, it's both factors. Which is the greatest percentage? Depends.

If, in your "test" it was a wedding band or the like striking up a decent approximation of the recording I suspect the live band would have at least as much reaction as the recording. Particularly for dance music, that sort of full-band arrangement is part of what drives the feet to step out and dance or signals "party time".


Oddly enough, we're only about 100 years into the recorded music age. Would 19th Century ears have been more attuned to the exact melody top line, played on another instrument and recognized it as "that tune." That feels likely, though of course none of us are old enough to remember those days.

[Earl49]

Remember that old TV game show "Name That Tune"?

[DCCougar]

Originally Posted by Ozzy the dog

Either that or my playing is rubbish.

Well, that's out of the question. It may be that the beginning to Mama Mia is just less recognizable than Dancing Queen. Besides, all the girls clearly thought they were dancing queens.

[Mr. Jelly]

First of all I think it's the sound. Often when someone plays a well produced catchy song they have an impression in their mind of the whole production. That isn't what people hear. They hear a guy playing acoustic guitar and may not recognize the song even after the chorus. Besides there are a billion crappy hits that wouldn't have gone anywhere if it wasn't for the production and the brand.

[Ozzy the dog]

Originally Posted by FrankHudson

Oddly enough, we're only about 100 years into the recorded music age. Would 19th Century ears have been more attuned to the exact melody top line, played on another instrument and recognized it as "that tune." That feels likely, though of course none of us are old enough to remember those days.

Interesting point. When I play 'Ode to Joy' from Beethoven's 9th everyone recognises that instantly but ironically, most of them wouldn't be able to name it or say who wrote it.

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by Ozzy the dog

I was at a gathering last night and as the first three notes of ABBA’s ‘Dancing Queen’ rang out over the PA, all the women jumped up and made for the dance floor. The song was recognised by all instantly.

However, later that evening, I was handed a guitar and asked to play something. Judging from the earlier reaction to the ABBA song I started playing an instrumental version of ‘Mama Mia’ (not my usual thing but you need to keep these things in reserve just in case). I was about 12 bars in before the same women from earlier recognised the tune.

It occurred to me that even though I was playing all the right notes (and in the right order), people don’t actually hear what you’re playing. Is it possible they hear and recognise the sound of the song rather than the music? Although the music is the same, the different instruments and arrangements from the original recording imprint that distinct sound on the song. When played on a solitary instrument the sound is different and people don't process it so quickly.

Either that or my playing is rubbish.

Don't know why that situation would be a surprise given that Dancing Queen was simply a much bigger hit particularly here in the US where DQ hit no. 1 on Billboard and MM made it only to 32
I think perhaps your question is perhaps founded on a false premise ( being that Mamma Mia is as universally recognized as Dancing Queen.)

For example from my perspective just reading the words "Dancing Queen" in your post the song immediately started plying in my head, where as I actually had to Google "Mama Mia" and play the video to realize I had either never heard it or if I had so few times I had completely forgotten it

In any case In answer to your question I think people hear both, but how that will affect them is subject to their experience with the song . And it should be noted (I was not there so I don't know ) but in general terms " playing the right notes in the right order" is only 1/2 the equation---- the same or similar enough interval timing and expression is just as important (if not more) as to how were perceive "music"

[MikeBmusic]

You do Abba songs on acoustic guitar? Remember when Belushi comes down the staircase in Animal House and the guy is singing 'I gave my love a flower' .....

[PorkPieGuy]

Originally Posted by Ozzy the dog

I was at a gathering last night and as the first three notes of ABBA’s ‘Dancing Queen’ rang out over the PA, all the women jumped up and made for the dance floor.

However, later that evening, I was handed a guitar and asked to play something. Judging from the earlier reaction to the ABBA song I started playing an instrumental version of ‘Mama Mia’ (not my usual thing but you need to keep these things in reserve just in case). I was about 12 bars in before the same women from earlier recognised the tune.

It occurred to me that even though I was playing all the right notes (and in the right order), people don’t actually hear what you’re playing.

You, my friend, are underestimating the the value of the rhythm section (bass and drums). I can get up and play a flawless version of "Brick House" on the keyboards, but that song is nothing without the bass and drums for getting people to move.

[bigreddog]

I think this is a really interesting post. I do believe that some people just "listen" to music while those of us who are musically gifted listen in a completely different way. One example is maybe your hear a song that immediately you can tell it's been reproduced by another artist or group to sound much like the original. While most people would not even notice, a very few of us will pick up on in just the first few notes or bars.

Another example is let's the say the difference between Kenny Wayne Shepherd and Stevie Ray Vaughan. I remember when Kenny broke the scene a lot of people were saying he was another Stevie Ray but to me the similarities were few. Just something about Stevie that took him to another level. Same way with Jimi Hendrix--some people just don't hear the magic but others (like myself) see the genius in his playing.

[Earl49]

One time I was listening to the radio somewhere, and about halfway through suddenly realized that I was hearing a punk-rock version of Gordon Lighfoot's classic "If You Could Read My Mind". Whoa! I just barely recognized a song that I've been playing for decades, because it was a totally different arrangement, pace, instrumentation, etc.

[Bob Womack]

I can't tel you how many times one of my favorite bands or performers has gone into the intro of a song and by the third note I know what it is but the rest of the audience seems to catch on much slower. I think it might have something to do with a couple of things:

1) the number of times I've listened to or played it to learn it
2) what, exactly, the audience's minds grab onto and remember

I got started in the early '70s, when the guitarist usually had the intro. I caught on to this early on and realized that when I had the intro, the crowd only immediately recognized my intro if the timbre of my guitar was in the ballpark of the original recording's guitar, right down to echo times. They seem to hear the whole thing as a "gesture." If you omit enough of the clues they eventually can't identify the "gesture."

For example, The Doobie Brother's song, "China Grove." The original has a quarter-note echo on the intro that makes the intro of two stabs on the Emajorover open E into four on the 4/4 beats. Guitarist Tom Johnston brushes the strings on beat three and four as well. Without the echo and the scratches, the crowd can be unsure what you are playing because the same two stabs on an Emajor first inversion chord over open E, with only an echo, form the intro to Joe Walsh's "Rocky Mountain Way." With the echo and scratches, the crowd immediately know it is "China Grove." Both songs came out the same year. But if you give the crowd a complete "gesture," they can identify the song from the first measure.

Bob

[Big Band Guitar]

If the majority of people listened to "music" they would shut up during live performances.

[PorkPieGuy]

Once again, people are going to react differently to dance music played through a PA system as opposed to someone playing an acoustic version of a dance song (or ANY song for that matter). You are comparing apples and oranges.

Don't beat yourself up.