
The sounds that shape us
At some point in the unreconstructed noughties, I read an article about the differences in the way men and women listen to music. I recall it very well. It suggested that men listen to melodies and women listen to lyrics; that men had huge record collections and women had fewer albums, which they loved more; that men liked to argue over 'boring things' like time signatures and key changes, while women had a more instinctive connection with the way music made them feel. If I could print that green, puking emoji here, I would.
Within these ideas, unmistakable to me then, was the inference that men understood music better, and cared about it more, than women. I was a young rock journalist at the time, in what was still a male-dominated world, and the suggestion that listening was gendered made my cheeks glow in fury. After all, I knew boys who seemed only to feel through music, each millennial whoop their direct line to sentiments apparently unspeakable. What are tribalism and competitiveness, qualities traditionally associated with male music consumers, if not expressions of deep feeling? The first music fan(atic)s were women: the notion that they fell in love with the Beatles because they wanted to be their girlfriends was missing the point: that music was putting them into a state of transcendence.
Alice Vincent, once music editor on the arts pages of the Telegraph, spent years of her life 'setting the measure of a pop star's performance in 450 words and a few tiny stars… leaving shows halfway through because I was bored or arrogant'. In the world of music journalism she was 'silently lobbying for access to the boys' club. I still don't know if I ever gained entry'. Vincent was an obsessive music lover who listened to so many records, and went to so many gigs as a teenager, that she damaged her hearing: 'There was a time in my life when sound felt like it was everything to me because it moved my body and it smoothed my brain and elevated my being into higher planes.' In Hark, Vincent has set out to think about listening and gender – but also to answer questions that, like her, haunts so many of us in adulthood. Why do we stop listening in the same way as we get older? Why is our relationship with music, as she puts it, withering?
Vincent is viscerally reminded of the intensity of her youthful relationship with sound when, at 35, a sonographer jellies up her belly and plays her baby's heartbeat through an ultrasound. It is the only noise that has properly moved her in a long time. From that point on, in pregnancy, she seeks out experiences of increasing sonic intensity, standing in a sound-bath in the Mojave Desert, and entering an anechoic chamber, a room soundproofed to absorb all echoes in which people are often left hearing nothing more than their own heartbeat – and often freak out.
After Vincent's baby is born, she explores other phenomena: phantom crying and the condition misophonia (the acute oversensitivity to sound). The parent's ear is retuned to a child's breathing or distress, usually for a short period but, for an unlucky few, long-term after giving birth: the wail of your own child 'bores' into you from 30 metres away, pumping your blood faster and thicker through your veins, turning your body into a 'kind of emergency'. I recognised Vincent's descriptions of attending gigs as a newish mother and finding it overwhelming on a sensory level. I also recognised her music-loving parents who, when asked what they were listening to in 1985, said, 'Oh, the charts totally passed us by for years because we were busy having you.'
The change in our relationship with music as we grow older is about far more, I think, than distraction and the atomisation of your previous listening habits. When adolescents listen to music they are actively seeking an intensity of experience. In adult life there is plenty of that. Ageing parents, encroaching death, the 4am fears for your child's future – these are the big feelings you push away, rather than pull towards you, when you're grown up. After having my daughter five years ago, I couldn't watch TV: even now, I find films 'too much' and sit there reacting as though the people are real, full of outrage when bad things happen ('He wouldn't do that!') and exhausted when the credits roll.
The last major musical obsession I had, with the American songwriter Bruce Hornsby, was in 2014. Now, the idea of an intense experience listening to a song in the middle of my average day feels physically daunting, like jumping into a cold lake. These exhilarating moments still happen, but they tend to take place after three pints with the volume turned up too high in the tube carriage, heart racing, then running up the hill towards home when no one is about. It is fascinating to think that feeling this way was the norm, for many of us, for years and years, when we only had ourselves to think about: an adrenalised solitary communion, in many ways incompatible with everyday adult life.
Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe
Shortly after the birth of her son, trying to keep her hand in with some music writing, Vincent attends a gig at the Outernet, the modern venue beneath the hellish giant screens on the junction of Charing Cross Road and Oxford Street in Central London, not far from where the Astoria once stood. She watches a singer-songwriter doing a 45-minute set. 'Between him leaving the stage and returning for the encore, two QR codes appear on the full-bleed screens he'd stood in front of. We are urged to scan them; they take us to a website to buy his album. I give him three stars.'
I recognise the dystopian, sanitised experience of modern gig-going, but a certain detachment from what's on stage goes hand-in-hand with reviewing gigs for a living. Vincent's changing relationship with sound also stems from post-natal depression: after her baby becomes seriously ill she develops a new internal monologue 'that made sense to me, but was increasingly challenging to keep company with': a 'constant soundtrack' to her day.
When we are able to listen – and when we can't – is a mysterious process. Generally when something massive happens to you, like a shock bereavement, music is too much. When you're depressed, it is also very difficult, because depression is essentially a broken connection with oneself. Music is, at best, a direct line to the self, so when it fails to move you, it makes the depression more painful.
Having a child is a loss of selfhood too, in a way, as one becomes two – though it is a loss you would never reverse. In the course of this meditative book, Vincent learns that she is craving a more participatory version of music and sound, even if this just means singing to her child. She starts to think big – in terms of landscape, ice-fall and waves: she calls up a Cambridge scientist investigating whether the aurora borealis can be heard. I am not sure that listening is gendered – something about me will always bridle at that. But it certainly changes as we grow. Once we have others to care for, we listen to connect – and we work to clear the channel to ourselves.
Hark: How Women Listen
Alice Vincent
Canongate, 320pp, £18.04
Purchasing a book may earn the NS a commission from Bookshop.org, who support independent bookshops
[See more: The second birth of JMW Turner]
Related

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
‘The King Lear in I Am the Walrus? That came from John Cage': Paul McCartney on the Beatles' debt to great avant-garde composers
It is a sunny October afternoon and I am sitting in a long wood-panelled hallway in an old converted townhouse in London waiting to be called into the office of Paul McCartney. I am dressed in my best clothes and trying not to let nerves get the better of me. I am here to ask him about an aspect of his career that is rarely discussed but which, I believe, helped cement his reputation as a world-conquering compositional force and which made the Beatles the most interesting and influential band of all time. In the mid-1960s, as well as topping the charts, turning a generation of teenage girls hysterical and finding themselves the focus of obsessive media attention, the Beatles were also engaged with, and educating themselves about, the work of classical music's most audacious and important composers. McCartney watched the communist and free improviser Cornelius Cardew play the prepared piano at the Royal College of Art in London. He saw Karlheinz Stockhausen deliver an address about the development of synthesised sound. And he went to meet Delia Derbyshire ('She was in a shed at the bottom of her garden full of machines') to ask if she wanted to write an electronic score for Yesterday. He attended a lecture by the Italian composer and electronic experimentalist Luciano Berio, who later arranged a series of songs by the Beatles for his first wife, the mezzo-soprano Cathy Berberian. The Beatles, McCartney tells me, also took their cue from the 1956 piece Radio Music by John Cage for one of the band's most famous songs: 'Cage had a piece that started at one end of the radio's range,' he says, 'and he just turned the knob and went through to the end, scrolling randomly through all the stations. I brought that idea to I Am the Walrus. I said, 'It's got to be random.' We ended up landing on some Shakespeare – King Lear. It was lovely having that spoken word at that moment. And that came from Cage.' On a purple velvet sofa in his office, McCartney talks to me with the same irrepressible energy that has driven his contribution to music for more than 60 years. He also has a very endearing way of never assuming knowledge and very politely checks, for instance, that I know about his friend, John. 'You know, John Lennon?' (I do.) And did I know the Beatles had 'this song called Yesterday?' (I did). He seems delighted to talk less about his own achievements and more about the people who helped broaden his scope. Two men who certainly did that were French composer-engineers Pierre Henry and Pierre Schaeffer who, in the late 1940s and early 1950s, pioneered a style of composition called musique concrète. Working in Parisian studios set up for propaganda broadcasts during the second world war, the pair used turntables and tape machines to forge an entirely original method of composing which, in line with French movements in art and philosophy at the time, sought to deconstruct established ideas and build from scratch a new means of making music. This was iconoclasm driven by an erosion of trust in a ruling class that had led millions to their deaths during two brutal international conflicts. Schaeffer and Henry recorded natural or found sounds on to magnetic tape – the bark of a dog, the whistle or chugging of a train, a cackling voice – and then, using tape machines to slow down, speed up or reverse the original sound, they created collages of altered or 'manipulated' recordings that are completely bewildering and mesmeric. Our ear is lured by that which is familiar and then unsettled by its abstraction. The suggestion is that all is not what it seems – the very essence of psychedelia. 'Not everything we see is clear and figurative,' McCartney says to me, pointing to a Willem de Kooning painting next to us on the wall. 'Sometimes when you're asleep or you rub your eye, you see an abstract: your mind knows about it. We know about this stuff. It was the same with music. We were messing around, but our minds could still accept it because it was something that we already kind of knew anyway. Even though we were in another lane to more classical composers, we were kind of equal in that we also wanted freedom.' After buying a pair of his own Brenell tape machines, McCartney set about looping and spooling these ideas into the work he had to do for 'his day job'. He describes the recording of Tomorrow Never Knows, 'which was shaping up to be kind of a far-out Beatles song'. McCartney remembers carrying a plastic bag full of tape loops – on which he'd recorded various sounds at home – to Abbey Road during sessions for Revolver. 'I set up the tape machines to create popping, whirring and dissolving sounds all mixed together. There could have been a guitar solo in it – straightforward or wacky – but when you put the tape loops in, they take it to another place because when they play, you get all these kind of happy accidents. They're unpredictable and that suited that track. We used those tricks to get the effect we wanted.' The result is a myriad of strange musical textures and meditative drones, a sonic vacuum into which all our troubling thoughts and feelings are swallowed up and disappear. It's a big part of what made the Beatles as colourful as the recreational substances that were so popular at the time. It's also the alchemical element in their work that helped put them in a different league, in terms of their legacy and influence. Eventually John Lennon also procured a pair of Brenell machines and entered new realms of experimentalism. This produced the hypnotic track Revolution 9: 'John was fascinated and he loved the craziness of it,' McCartney says. He, meanwhile, preferred to use these new studio gadgets 'in a controlled way', working within the pop-song format, cherrypicking interesting stylistic elements and twisting them into the Beatles' established song-writing template. Together the pair fashioned a new, intelligent and avant garde-informed kind of pop music – a reminder, as if we need it, of the magic of the Lennon-McCartney partnership. The push and pull of two genius creatives working together to upend the status quo. 'You think, 'Oh well our audience wants a pop song,'' McCartney says. 'And then you might read about William Burroughs using the cut-up technique and you think, 'Well, he had an audience, and his audience liked what he did.' And eventually we decided that our audiences would come along with us, rather than it being down to us to feed them a conventional diet.' My quest into the roots of this trippy magic in the Beatles' music is just one of many explorations I made into the way the 20th century's most innovative pop musicians borrowed from the classical avant garde, for my book Everything We Do Is Music. In it, I draw a line from John Cale's drone in the Velvet Underground to the extraordinary Indian classical-inspired sounds in music by La Monte Young; and connect the blistering microtonality of Polish sonorism to the angst-ridden rock of Radiohead. The feminist philosophies of Pauline Oliveros formed a blueprint for techno, meanwhile, and US composers such as Edgard Varèse, John Cage, Steve Reich and Philip Glass found ways to reflect the energy and freneticism of the urban metropolis in their work. In each case, I found that artists on both sides of the pop/classical divide reached across it, disregarding those things that usually separate us – education, class, nationality, gender – to do something epochal. At the end of our conversation, I ask McCartney if he ever felt restricted by the expectations of fans, or limited by his schooling and background. Actually, he says, he always felt a real sense of freedom to engage with the open-minded atmosphere of the time. This was largely thanks to his late wife Linda. 'She used to say, 'It's allowed.' And that lit up the skies for me. I'd think, 'Yeah, it's allowed.'' Everything We Do is Music by Elizabeth Alker (Faber & Faber, £20) is published on 28 August. To support the Guardian, order your copy at Delivery charges may apply.


Scottish Sun
3 hours ago
- Scottish Sun
EastEnders fans predict a show legend will be Ravi's drug lord in surprise return – with two iconic faces in the mix
Both of these stars had a criminal past on Albert Square WALFORD RETURN? EastEnders fans predict a show legend will be Ravi's drug lord in surprise return – with two iconic faces in the mix Click to share on X/Twitter (Opens in new window) Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) EASTENDERS viewers are predicting a show legend will be revealed as Ravi Gulati's drug lord in a surprise return to Walford. So far two iconic faces are in the mix to return, according to soap fans. Sign up for Scottish Sun newsletter Sign up 4 EastEnders fans think they have worked out who Ravi's drug lord is Credit: BBC 4 Fans think Vincent Hubbard could return as a drugs kingpin Credit: BBC 4 It came after Kim Fox recently mentioned Vincent Credit: Handout 4 Fans also think Aunt Babe (right) could be the drug lord Credit: Handout EastEnders viewers have watched as Ravi's drug scam has become under threat, as he tries to reignite his romance with Priya Nandra-Hart. Added to this, the police are now hot on his trail. Fans are now predicting that a show legend could return to the soap as Ravi's druglord, as the storyline escalates. Two names have been thrown into the hat by viewers and they are Vincent Hubbard and Aunt Babe. Fans will remember how Vincent disappeared from Walford in 2018, after getting on the wrong side of local gangster Aidan Maguire. It was then understood that he was killed by Aidan - but viewers never saw him murdered. Fans now have a theory Vincent could be heading back to Albert Square as part of Ravi's drugs scam storyline. It all started when the former Albert Square bad boy was mentioned on the soap. It came after Howie Danes recently overheard Kim Fox comparing their relationship to how life was when she was with Vincent. Meanwhile, Aunt Babe left the soap the year before Vincent. Richard Blackwood reveals he could still return to EastEnders as Vincent Hubbard at the Dancing on Ice launch and Gemma Collins is the one to watch She fled Walford after her thieving ways caught up with her when she tried to steal from the Queen Vic, and pub landlord Mick Carter threw her out. EastEnders fans have now been speculating that one of these former Albert Square crooks could be Ravi's kingpin. Taking to X/Twitter one said: "When Babe is revealed as the drug lord in this Ravi/Harry story and it ends with her becoming the new owner of Walford East." Another added: "The drug lord will be the one that got away with all her crimes. Ms Babe Smith." This fan is backing Vincent, and said: 'What if Vincent is running the drug operation?" Another viewer agreed: 'That would a great twist" "We get the duff duff after he steps out of a dark alley way and his face is then illuminated by the street light to reveal an older, hardened and scarred Vincent." EastEnders airs Monday to Thursday at 7.30pm on BBC One.


Daily Mirror
9 hours ago
- Daily Mirror
Perrie Edwards suffered heartbreaking miscarriage at 22 weeks during Little Mix rehearsals
Little Mix star, Perrie Edwards, has bravely spoken out about losing a baby she shared with fiancé, Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain, less than a year after their son, Axel, was born Perrie Edwards has revealed she tragically suffered a miscarriage at 22 weeks while she was rehearsing for Little Mix's tour. The X Factor star, who is engaged to footballer, Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain, recalled the day she was given the heartbreaking news on Paul C. Brunson's We Need to Talk podcast. Perrie, 32, who shares Axel, four, with Alex, also 32, explained that she fell pregnant less than a year after their son was born. However, after revealing that she "didn't feel very good" while rehearsing with Little Mix, Perrie told the Married At First Sight star her heartwrenching news. Revealing the results of her devastating 22-week scan, the singer shared: "We went for what was a 20-week scan, but we were actually 22 weeks, and that was just the worst day of my life. Like horrendous. And I just knew something was wrong in the scan, and he [the doctor] just kept going over the same thing, over the same thing... I've never experienced an out-of-body experience where everything goes in slow motion." It comes as Perrie opened up about her mental health in a new interview. Revealing that Alex was "struggling to drive" on the way home from the hospital, Perrie tearfully continued: "So yeah, we basically lost the baby at like 24 weeks." The star also sadly suffered a miscarriage before Axel was born, very early on into her first pregnancy. Explaining that her son was her "rainbow baby", Perrie shared: "It's weird because the first time it happened, I think because it was so early, I was like, oh, that's hard. But I think when you're fully, like carrying in your 24 weeks and you've planned out like that room and all these things, it's really hard. "And nobody knows other than, like, immediate friends and family. And I remember, like, shortly after, like, friends would message and be like, 'how's the bump?' And I'll be like, there is no bump." Perrie has been speaking candidly about her personal life recently after bravely revealing she suffered from such severe agoraphobia, she was scared to leave the house last year. She shared an update in an interview released this week in which she admitted she has a tendency to "catastrophise" a situation and struggled to leave the home she shares with her fiancé and their son in 2024. Speaking to the Telegraph, Perrie pointed out that she's "in her element" on stage, describing herself as "empowered". However, when she gets home it's a different story as she continued: "But as soon as I'm back home behind closed doors, that's when the anxiety kicks in and I'm just me again." She told the outlet that she can't help but "catastrophise" over "everyday things," such as getting into her car and driving to London, revealing: "At the end of last year my agoraphobia got so bad I could barely leave the house." According to the NHS, agoraphobia is "a fear of being in situations where escape might be difficult or where help wouldn't be available if things go wrong". It further states that the condition can lead to symptoms of a panic attack, and the NHS adds that it can itself develop from panic disorder.