I am fairly certain I have a better sense of rhythm than of harmony. I get high on music that has great rhythmic play. I like vigorous, technical strumming, great drummers. I love a walking bass. Any melodic play or improvisation has to show a good rhythmic sense behind it. The timing has to be real good. That’s how it is for me.
What’s your experience this way or that?
Tough question.
I’d say for me, it’s about equal. On the one hand, musicians who have no sense of timing are the bane of my existence. A good sense of rhythm is important to me, and I like stuff that does interesting things rhythmically. On the other hand, I’m not very interested in stuff that’s only rhythm and nothing else. I like some music in my music too.
I’m more attracted to melodic stuff. Enough so that sometimes I would suddenly realize this fantastic rhythm/beat that I had no clue it was there at all. This is not always the case though as I absolutely love good drum, bass/ tight rhythm section.
Good lord, rhythm. Harmony is best showcased in a foundational groove. Groove comes first.
Rhythm, absolutely. I’ve had a nearly perfect sense of rhythm (and pitch) since I was a wee bairn. I remember wondering what was wrong with people when they clapped on the 1 & 3 on the old TV shows of the 50s, and was mystified by the way people “danced”. It wasn’t until I was a teen that I realized that most people have to learn rhythm.
Great poll question. I went with rhythm, because I’ve learned through experience that rhythm “carries” better than harmony. For me, IME, harmony is a nearly abstract exercise, of enormous interest, but not very much practical impact upon a given audience. I’m sure there are psychoacoustic studies to cite, but I no longer have an academic subscription, so I can’t look them up.
Why is it that an Ornette tune or some other atonal (Webern…Webern…Webern?) piece “works”? I loved (hated his politics, but loved his music theorizing) Adorno’s book on Berg, subtitled “The Master of the Smallest Link” – a melodic fragment may be described perhaps by it’s relation to other fragments, through TIME. I don’t believe Adorno had any notion of this reified notion of time, but we phenomenologists have thought our whole little lives out about what it means for an ideal object to have an existence described through time. Obviously, too imprecise, but maybe you get the drift.
I’m not learned enough to thoroughly understand the question, but…I prefer a good, strong rhythm in my listening music. A good example is Adele’s latest CD: the songs I really like on there are the ones with a solid percussion going on somewhere in the background. When she starts a melodic piano piece, I get antsy and switch over to another with a strong background. However…I cannot keep rhythym on drums myself; it’s like my wrists and arms just want to spaz out after about two minutes; they’re ADD or something. 
And vocally, I adore a strong singer so that I can sing harmony in and around and above and below their middle, if that makes sense.
So…um…both, I guess?
Rythm, unless you include dancing. Making my body work in time with itself without looking like an idiot is near impossible for me. And my hips don’t bend. I can only do it if I stick with very simple music.
People say dancing is all about feeling the music. These people inevitably have never seen me attempt to dance.
It is my rhythm that sets me apart from other people who play by ear. For harmony, I can handle consonance and non harmonic tones, but jazz-style harmony requires a lot of effort, and often involves just modifying consonant harmonies with sevenths and other extra-triads.