# Do other genres of music more readily elicit a "rush" for you?



## Clairvoyance Enough (Jul 25, 2014)

I've seen this brought up several times before in discussions about pop music and other non-classical genres. A poster will admit that something like folk or rock is easier to use for a quick "caffeine" hit, whereas they prefer classical for more in depth listening, whatever that is.

I do relate to that on some level. I'm coming off a couple of years of almost exclusively classical listening habits, and frequent listening at that, and it's harder for CM to get the adrenaline pumping through me these days. With a few exceptions I do have to look elsewhere for that.

To not beat around the bush, this all sounds like an elaborate excuse/defense mechanism to not admit that, at least at the moment, I prefer a lot of "pop" and so-called inferior music to many masterpieces in the CM canon. I suppose I'm calling myself out along with everyone else I've seen admit this. There is definitely a part of me that doesn't want to admit that Nine Inch Nails gets my blood going more than Mozart. I think that's a silly part of me, but it is there.

To me that "rush" or "caffeine hit," whatever you want to call it, is just a synonym for the actual enjoyment of music. After all, when I really like a piece of classical music it does provide me that coveted rush. If you find that pop music provides this more readily, doesn't that mean you're selling it short to disparage it (not that we all disparage it, but I notice the praise of pop is usually punctuated by some condescending qualifier), or that *gasp* perhaps it does do something, perhaps not everything, better than whatever respected symphony you're listening to?

If you've encountered this phenomenon what do you think it is about the other genres of music that afford them this quality? Why does CM sometimes lack that quality?

And obviously I'm not insinuating that everyone has in fact experienced this. I'm sure we've all gotten more goosebumps in ten seconds of insert-famous-composer than anything any pop-artist ever wrote; respectfully, I'm not looking for responses like that.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

No. Or, to comply with the minimum character limit: No.


----------



## juliante (Jun 7, 2013)

Tantric s3x vs a quickie? They both hit the spot for me, all depends on what mood I'm in.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Pop music is not "inferior" to classical music. Either genre at its best can elicit a wide range of emotional responses.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

hpowders said:


> Pop music is not "inferior" to classical music. Either genre at its best can elicit a wide range of emotional responses.


Sure pop music is inferior, musically speaking. As far emotional responses being elicited, they have more to do with the listener than the quality of the music itself.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

You just have to find the right classical music, and you'll be "jiving" to it as if it were any pop song. _Believe me._ 

Take the section that starts around 2:35 ...


----------



## Clairvoyance Enough (Jul 25, 2014)

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Sure pop music is inferior, musically speaking. As far emotional responses being elicited, *they have more to do with the listener than the quality of the music itself*.


In what way? Are you referring to people empathizing with lyrics, or...?


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

Clairvoyance Enough said:


> In what way? Are you referring to people empathizing with lyrics, or...?


A listener must be able to understand the music first in order to have an emotional response to it. It requires no knowledge of music or any prior listening experience to understand lyrics or to respond to a primal rhythm (much of pop, for example).

Contrast this with a symphony, for example. There is a lot going on musically and our brains must first comprehend that before forming an emotional response. I remember the first time I heard the great dissonant section in the development section of the Eroica. I had no emotional response whatsoever to it. Now, having understood it after hearing it countless times, I find it one of the most moving sections in all of symphonic literature.


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

Emotion is just emotion. Great music is something else, something more. (Of course it's nice when both emotion and aesthetics combine to create a great experience, but even there surely the aesthetic part is what matters more.)

edit: I guess there's three aspects at play here, the music as it is, the perception of it, and the emotional response it may or may not elicit depending on your mood or other factors. The emotional part seems the least fundamental, the least central and important. An emotion alone is not that much, an emotion in the wrong context can even be annoying.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Rock and pop (well, the songs I like, at any rate) certainly gives me a quicker and stronger "hit" than most classical music, but the hit wears off quickly too unless I _really_ like it. The two kinds of music serve rather different purposes - even short classical pieces have a much greater interest in the long form than do equivalently timed pop songs - and I find the claim that rock/pop is inherently inferior to classical to be really tedious. Pop music has never produced anything as good as the "Eroica", but classical has never produced anything as good as "Baggy Trousers".


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

I would not be without either classical or pop/rock music in my life. In my opinion, neither is superior, sometimes I'm in the mood for one, sometimes for the other. Nothing to do with getting a quick buzz or something.


----------



## Richard8655 (Feb 19, 2016)

Recently watched Bye Bye Birdie, and "One Last Kiss" elicited that rush. Almost as much as 4th movement of Beethoven's 9th.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Sure pop music is inferior, musically speaking. As far emotional responses being elicited, they have more to do with the listener than the quality of the music itself.


I couldn't disagree with you more.


----------



## Varick (Apr 30, 2014)

Nereffid said:


> Rock and pop (well, the songs I like, at any rate) certainly gives me a quicker and stronger "hit" than most classical music, but the hit wears off quickly too unless I _really_ like it. The two kinds of music serve rather different purposes - even short classical pieces have a much greater interest in the long form than do equivalently timed pop songs - and I find the claim that rock/pop is inherently inferior to classical to be really tedious. Pop music has never produced anything as good as the "Eroica", but classical has never produced anything as good as "Baggy Trousers".


Excellent summation! I would say that "structurally" rock/pop is inferior, however, it doesn't mean overall it's inferior.

There is nothing in pop/rock that elicits such a strong emotion in me that hearing the Laudate Domine from Mozart's Vesperae Solennes De Confessore, K 339.

And then again, when I'm at a wedding or some other kind of party and this comes on:






There is no way, I'm staying seated. I am up and on that dance floor in a flash. And there is NOTHING in classical music that elicits THAT response either.

V


----------



## Clairvoyance Enough (Jul 25, 2014)

Varick said:


> Excellent summation! I would say that "structurally" rock/pop is inferior, however, it doesn't mean overall it's inferior.
> 
> There is nothing in pop/rock that elicits such a strong emotion in me that hearing the Laudate Domine from Mozart's Vesperae Solennes De Confessore, K 339.
> 
> ...


See, that's weird to me. That Mozart piece is meant to be beautiful, and that rap song is meant to be danceable. I'm assuming you don't find, say, Mozart's rondo finales danceable? Why do you think that is? Something to do with the percussive element in Hip Hop maybe? The more consistent "beat?"

For me baroque era fast movements affect me much the same way Jump Around affects you.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

hpowders said:


> I couldn't disagree with you more.


Try harder 

But I'm not sure why it is difficult to relate emotional response to music (which has everything to do with our brain's ability to understand the stimulus) with having to first understand the music.

Or perhaps you were referring to my belief in the inferiority of pop music?

Let's put this in very concrete terms and use prominent examples of both genres?

Eroica symphony vs. Baby one more time.

Shall we discuss the *musical *merits of these two works?


----------



## Clairvoyance Enough (Jul 25, 2014)

Nereffid said:


> Rock and pop (well, the songs I like, at any rate) certainly gives me a quicker and stronger "hit" than most classical music, but the hit wears off quickly too unless I _really_ like it. The two kinds of music serve rather different purposes - even short classical pieces have a much greater interest in the long form than do *equivalently timed *pop songs - and I find the claim that rock/pop is inherently inferior to classical to be really tedious. Pop music has never produced anything as good as the "Eroica", but classical has never produced anything as good as "Baggy Trousers".


Equivalently timed but less dense, I guess you're saying. Often times 3 minutes of classical music is 3 minutes of original, developing material, whereas pop music is more like 30 seconds of original material with a few spices here and there to get you through the loop-arounds. Weighing material against material rather than running time against running time, I very much agree that pop music doesn't come off looking very bad at all.

But I'm still curious - why do you think it is that classical music, even if it keeps your interest for a more extended period, does not produce that same adrenaline effect with as much power? Is CM better suited to live performance when it comes to visceral reactions? Something to do with the instrumentation? Or is it a purely stylistic thing?


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

The effects classical music has on a person I do think are generally deeper, less obvious in terms of an immediate sensory rush but actually more powerful in terms of having a deep impact on the psyche. This is why in most movies where a powerful scene is occurring there is more often classical(ish) music playing in the soundtrack (or music very similar to classical) and not Michael Jackson or Metallica. 

Keep in mind this post uses generalities. I don't think all classical music is high quality and all pop music poor quality.

An analogy is McDonalds food. It gives a person a sugar rush and sensory pleasure that is much more obvious in some ways than eating a banana. But the latter food is actually far more nourishing and has a more powerful impact in terms of boosting one's health. (Even though when in the midst of a junk food rush one might feel very strong and powerful and full of energy. Its longer term effects are actually a weakening and aging of the body.)

My point is it can be easy to be deceived if we make decisions based on our immediate sensory reaction to things in this life. 

No, music is not exactly the same as food, but there are similarities. No I am not saying all pop music is equivalent to junk for our bodies. This is just a rough analogy. If someone eats just junk food everyday they may eventually start to value food with a higher nutritional value. If they make this discovery they may notice an improvement to their quality of life in a profound way, even though the effects from eating that healthy food may not be immediately noticeable - the effects are still profound.

I try to eat mostly healthy but I also like to eat junk food sometimes in moderation. Each kind of food is good for a different thing. 

But it is not the right approach in my opinion to think "This chocolate bar gives me a bigger rush than that asparagus, how can I make the asparagus more like the chocolate bar". We can drench the asparagus in chocolate syrup, but we have now destroyed the nutritional value. In other words enjoy each thing for what it gives you, but I don't think it is the right approach to try to make classical music more like pop or vice versa.


----------



## Varick (Apr 30, 2014)

Clairvoyance Enough said:


> See, that's weird to me. That Mozart piece is meant to be beautiful, and that rap song is meant to be danceable. I'm assuming you don't find, say, Mozart's rondo finales danceable? Why do you think that is? Something to do with the percussive element in Hip Hop maybe? The more consistent "beat?"
> 
> For me baroque era fast movements affect me much the same way Jump Around affects you.


Some of Mozart's Rondo finales may well be danceable, but it's a different kind of dancing. It will never propel my body the way Jump Around or Latin music does. It affects us all differently. I have posted this many times and will continue to do so. My favorite quote about music is from Beethoven: _ "Music is a higher revelation than all wisdom and philosophy."_

How it will affect us is purely individual. How wonderful!

V


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Varick said:


> Some of Mozart's Rondo finales may well be danceable, but it's a different kind of dancing. It will never propel my body the way Jump Around or Latin music does. It affects us all differently. I have posted this many times and will continue to do so. My favorite quote about music is from Beethoven: _ "Music is a higher revelation than all wisdom and philosophy."_
> 
> How it will affect us is purely individual. How wonderful!
> 
> V


Try the rondo finale of Mozart's early Piano Concerto No. 6 in B Flat, especially in the performance by Jos van Immerseel, fortepiano with Anima Eterna.

Oh you will dance alright, just as if you found out that TC became a free-speech website overnight.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> *A listener must be able to understand the music first in order to have an emotional response to it.*It requires no knowledge of music or any prior listening experience to understand lyrics or to respond to a primal rhythm (much of pop, for example).
> 
> Contrast this with a symphony, for example. There is a lot going on musically and our brains must first comprehend that before forming an emotional response. I remember the first time I heard the great dissonant section in the development section of the Eroica. I had no emotional response whatsoever to it. Now, having understood it after hearing it countless times, I find it one of the most moving sections in all of symphonic literature.


I have no clue what this means. I have been having emotional responses to music for scores of years without "understanding" the music first. That includes my first hearing the Eroica--loved every note of it as soon as/while I was listening to it. I also remember a friend, back when I was a teen, lending me an LP of the Shostakovich PC #2, saying, "Listen to this--you'll love it!" And I did.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

Strange Magic said:


> I have no clue what this means. I have been having emotional responses to music for scores of years without "understanding" the music first. That includes my first hearing the Eroica--loved every note of it as soon as/while I was listening to it. I also remember a friend, back when I was a teen, lending me an LP of the Shostakovich PC #2, saying, "Listen to this--you'll love it!" And I did.


A complex score like the Eroica takes repeated hearings to fully grasp. If your emotional response to it was the same the first time you heard it as the 10th or later then I think you're missing much of the music.

Not sure why some find this a difficult concept: emotional response is controlled by the brain; the brain needs to make sense of the incoming information in order to formulate an emotional response(unless we're talking primal response, which is not the case here); in the case of information that is not simplistic, repeated exposure to it is needed for the brain to grasp it.


----------



## jailhouse (Sep 2, 2016)

Depends on the piece end of discussion. Bartoks piano concerto no 1 will give me an "immediate rush" while a classical era minuet wont.

Baby one more time wont give me an immediate rush but yes' close to the edge will. Its all relative


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> *A complex score like the Eroica takes repeated hearings to fully grasp. If your emotional response to it was the same the first time you heard it as the 10th or later then I think you're missing much of the music.*
> 
> Not sure why some find this a difficult concept: emotional response is controlled by the brain; the brain needs to make sense of the incoming information in order to formulate an emotional response(unless we're talking primal response, which is not the case here); in the case of information that is not simplistic, repeated exposure to it is needed for the brain to grasp it.


This is, of course, obviously true. It also in no way contradicts the fact that an emotional response to music does not require "understanding" the music.

Your assertion that the brain needs to make sense of the incoming information in order to formulate an emotional response is one of those "can't argue with it, but what does it mean?" statements, though I see you immediately disregard "primal" responses, whatever they are. I think it is more accurate to say merely that people are different in their responses to different sorts of music, and let it go at that.


----------



## jenspen (Apr 25, 2015)

_Do other genres of music more readily elicit a "rush" for you?_

You want an honest answer? "No".

I have to say "No" because the mind-blasting, heart-racing highs I've experienced have been from *some* classical music - and that's how it's been since I was about eleven and had got to the stage of being able to play the piano fairly well.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

I have often had the experience of reacting strongly and delightedly to a piece of popular or folk music, and had that reaction wear off in a matter of a few minutes. There are musical effects which are pretty "sure fire," and popular music trades in such effects. They are rarely subtle or complex, and ultimately I want something that appeals to a wider range and depth of experience. That usually means classical music. 

I don't live for a "rush," but for something that nourishes and enlarges me by sending my imagination to unsuspected places in the universe and in my own being.


----------



## Bettina (Sep 29, 2016)

I generally find that classical music moves me more than other genres, particularly with regard to the intellectual stimulation that it offers me. 

However, popular music is often more blatantly sexual than classical music, and it can give me more of a rush in that sense (I apologize if I've overstepped the boundaries of the Terms of Service...).


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> I have often had the experience of reacting strongly and delightedly to a piece of popular or folk music, and had that reaction wear off in a matter of a few minutes. There are musical effects which are pretty "sure fire," and popular music trades in such effects. They are rarely subtle or complex, and ultimately I want something that appeals to a wider range and depth of experience. That usually means classical music.
> 
> I don't live for a "rush," but for something that nourishes and enlarges me by sending my imagination to unsuspected places in the universe and in my own being.


While I have had the same experience of a quick "affair" with a bit of popular or folk music, I also have found that, to a far greater extent, after two or three hearings, many such pieces I initially like become lifelong favorites. Perhaps it's because I'm a sucker for those sure-fire musical effects referred to. I read a paper somewhere on the chills/gooseflesh response, and it was reported that half the population tested experienced such and half didn't. I belong well over in the half that do, much to my delight and gratitude, but I also have convinced myself that I can and do appreciate subtlety and complexity in music, and find it much more often in (some) classical music. My overall experience in music and the arts, though, is that I have a wide aperture for enjoying incoming material/experience by genre, but a small one for allowing incoming material/experience high and meaningful personal status. As an aside, one of my very favorite bits turned up in research studies regards the near-total failure of oenophiles to accurately identify or rate wines in blind taste-tests. The moral? _de gustibus....._


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Depends, some genres give me a good rush. Some genres just give me a "rush" of cringe.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

Some non-classical music gives me a kind of rush I can't get from classical music. Then again, some classical music gives me a kind of rush that I can't get from other music. Long live diversity.


----------



## MadMusicist (Jan 14, 2017)

I respect your musical tastes because they are yours. However, in terms of whether your reason for preference is indicative of pop music possibly being "better", I do want to say that the "caffeine high" of some pop music, though often desirable, is not something I see as a direct measurement of how "good" the music is (which you seem to be implying). This is because food, sex, and drugs can do much better than music in this respect, but they are not necessarily "better art". When I appreciate music for being "good", I'm not simply referring to it as being the quickest shortcut to neurotransmitters flying in my brain, although that can certainly be a desirable and enjoyable quality in music or any human experience. Also, I get more "high" out of looking at a lot of funny GIFs online than I do from watching Oscar-winning movies, but I wouldn't say those GIFs are "better".

At the end of the day, it's about what role you want music to play in your life.


----------

