Musicality" in a system? What IS that ?

"Don't play the notes, play the meaning of the notes".- Pablo Casals. The ability of a performer to communicate the MEANING of the notes is what defines a musical performer; not all performers are musical. MUSICAL: 1. Of, relating to, or capable of producing music. MUSIC: 2. Vocal or instrumental sounds with RHYTHM, MELODY, and HARMONY.- Webster's II. Let's look at those two definitions for a moment. Melody alone, can and does imply harmony, at the same time we know that rhythm alone can in the loosest sense create melody, albeit implied, due to the tuning of the rhythm instruments and the creation of cadences and rhythmic progression. So, what can we deduce from all this? You can have music without melody (harmony) in the usual sense; but you can't have music without rhythm. All music, if it is to qualify for that definition, must have rhythm; not necessarily of the 1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4 variety, but rhythm nonetheless. Rhythm, IMO is where the soul or meaning of the notes lies. The things that define a performer's phrasing, the subtle or not so subtle inflections and feelings of tension and release that make a performance moving are found in the areas of dynamics; micro and macro. If an audio system cannot do justice to the rhythm of a performance, it cannot be musical. This area is where most systems fall short IMO. I have heard systems that are actually quite accurate, transparent, whatever you want to call it, TONALLY, and still don't covey the message; still don't quite let the music move the way that the performer(s) intended. In my experience most audiophiles (reviewers) tend to use the term musical to define tonal issues, such as wether the system sounds pleasantly smooth and lacking in harshness or not; obviously not necessarily a bad thing. But the system must be able to not only actually sound tonally harsh if that is what the music calls for, but at all times do justice to the rhythm. So, as much as I dislike most electronic music; I can't get around the fact that comparison to "real instruments in a real space", to use that old H. Pearsonism is NOT the only valid test for musicality. Clearly, electronic music created in a studio environment can have the necessary ingredient(s) for musicality; regardless of what I or any other listener might think about the artistic value of the music itself. Did I just defend electronic music? I better go take my temperature.

Paulwp, amazing ! I posted the above comments what must have been only seconds after yours. I could not agree more. Obviously. Cheers.

Detlof, it is we who are honored to have you on this board. Thank you. I find it interesting that it was someone (you) in an environment that is "close, introvert, and lonely" as you describe, that initiated a discussion on a topic that is if not the most important, then certainly one of the most important considerations pertaining to this hobby. All the best.

I'm game Gregm. I'll check in shortly. Regards.

I wish you a speedy recovery Detlof. I too will be tied up over the holiday, but will check in shortly afterwards.

Katharina, you make a great point, and precisely the point that I made recently in the "Music to test systems" thread. You also provide a great segue to a "second chapter" in the discussion of musicality; as suggested by Gregm. In the stated thread I pointed out that I tend to avoid using "audiophile quality" recordings to audition equipment, but use instead recordings of great performances of perhaps mediocre, or worse, sound quality. These performances should have clearly identifiable musical traits. The reasoning here is that a great sounding recording is probably going to sound at least OK on any but grossly flawed systems. A truly great piece of equipment, or system, however, will let the music come through in spite of the inferior sound quality; that is, assuming that there is great music in that recording to begin with. Those are the systems that are truly musical and satisfy in the long run. Sounds to me that your system is indeed musical, as it certainly honors the music. But this brings up some interesting points. You state: "So it seems, it's not only the system, it's also the performers". I would qualify that comment in that the performers are never secondary to the system. As I'm sure you would agree, great sound without a great performance is pretty pointless. Also, let's ask ourselves this question, eventhough it may be just a matter of semantics: Can a system really BE musical? To be musical implies a kind of active role in the resulting sound; that is the last thing that a sound system should do. A sound system should get out of the way as much as possible, and simply let the music through as originally performed, as much as possible. This is why I have a lot of trouble with the way that the term "musical" is used by audiophiles. The misuse of the term was well covered in the first round of this discussion. But what about a system that enhances dynamics or is very "alive" sounding and makes one "tap our toes"; as was suggested as criteria for the label "musical". How do we know that this is not really a distortion? There is in fact equipment that distort in this manner, just as some seem to decrease dynamics and make recordings sound bland and lifeless. The real answer to this question is a tough one. The easy answer is "If the music moves me, then it's musical". Hard to argue with that; and in fact we tend to get too involved with the "why's" and "what if's" of this hobby. But hi-fi is a hobby; music listening is far more than just a hobby. I have trouble calling something that can move me to tears, or make me feel joy or anger, a hobby. So the only conclusion I can come up with is that intimate familiarity with the sound of live music is the only way to be able to honestly assess a system's musicality. By sound I don't just mean issues of timbre but more importantly, of rhythm and dynamics. Just as many audiophiles are able to distinguish between small gradations in the "brightness" or "darkness" of a system, as exemplified by the way that say the VTA of a phono cartridge is adjusted; there are just as many fine gradations in the way that a system let's the rhythmic energy of a musical moment develop. One of my favorite recordings for this is Sonny Rollins' "The Bridge". This recording, in mono, is not particularly noteworthy as concerns most audiophile criteria; but man does it swing. Rollins has such a powerful and commanding rhythmic thrust that it is obvious that he sets the pace, not the rhythm section, as is usually the case. On a great system you can hear this clearly. When Rollins turns up the heat in a particular phrase, the rhythm sections needs a moment to catch up. On a lesser (less musical) system, this is blurred; and while you might be able to hear the increase in intensity, it's too uniform, too general. A very important musical detail is lost. But going back to Katharina's point; and this is IMO crucial to this discussion. Wonderful musical energy in a performance might be diminished by a less than great recording or playback system, but it is unlikely that it will be destroyed. That is the power of music.

I would like to up the ante in this very interesting discussion. Haven't we all experienced being in the presence of a very gifted artist or of an otherwise very gifted individual and felt a very powerful force or presence about them? This force is evident even when they simply walk into the room, or speak, or just stand there. I am not talking about the feelings of being "star-struck" that we all experience on occasion; I'm talking about an almost palpable sense of that person's spirit. This feeling may also be the sense of the collective feeling of anticipation, excitement or even fear in a room full of people; as suggested by Gregm. Of course, of most interest to us is how this force manifests itself while that individual(s) is performing. Now, we audiophiles in the "subjectivist" camp like to point out that one of the reasons that certain audible (to us) phenomena is difficult to explain or justify is that the proper, and/or sensitive enough, measurement tools have not been devised yet. In addition, most of us (I think) accept the fact that musical subtlety is so delicate and fine that we will probably never be able to completely quantify and justify it's make up, as relates to sound reproduction. Throughout the history of audio design there has been the steady discovery of design considerations that are at least, "perceived" to make a difference in the "sound" of a component. Why then, would it be so far fetched to think that on some level, however fine, a bit of the spirit of a performer or the collective "vibe" of a room could be captured and subsequently reproduced by audio equipment? Certainly on some level that we don't quite understand yet, the parameters related to "sound" as we understand it, being that these sounds are being produced by the individuals in question, are very much connected to the "spirit". So why couldn't some of this be reflected in a recording/reproduction. Makes sense to me. Thoughts?