What is Musicality?
Musicality is the measure of a piece of equipment's ability to let the natural elements of the recorded PERFORMANCE pass through it without so much editorialization that it loses the musician's intent. If the equipment adds "musicality" to the signal, that is a distortion. Simply put, musicality IS accuracy; not the opposite of it. |
Thanks, Charles1dad and Tubegroover. On a related note, Tubegroover, Bill Evan's "Walts For Debby" (all of the Village Vanguard sessions, actually) does a great job of capturing the sound of the recording venue. If you ever have the opportunity to visit the Village Vanguard in NYC, you will hear what a remarkable job that recording does of capturing the sound of that space; the low ceiling, well dampened sound. Not a particularly attractive acoustic, but unique, and easily identified; for all those that say a recording's sound cannot be used as a reliable reference. |
Excellent posts and refreshing to see musicality discussed as it relates to the music and not just some abstract, and usually mistaken, description of the sound of equipment. A couple of thoughts re some recent comments: I think that it's important to remember that music affects our emotions in two different ways. There is an important distinction between perceived emotion in music and emotion that is felt. For instance, sometimes a performance is so rapturous and heart-felt, or so in-synch with what the composer intended, that the listener cannot help but be moved by it; it is felt. Then there are works and/or performances that are intended to evoke a certain emotion (fear, for instance) and the listener can understand this, or perceive this without actually feeling that emotion. I do agree that, as Learsfool points out, emotions are part of music. Once a work leaves the printed page (in the case of non-improvised music), the performer's emotions are an integral part of it; it is not simply organized sound. At that point listener personality becomes an important component of the "mix". Listeners of certain personality types react to certain music and certain performance styles differently than other listeners; and react (or not) differently to the expressed emotion in a performance. |
****I stand in awe of the mystery what music is and what it can do to us.**** I think that says it all. It is mysterious; and certainly re what (and how) it does to us. ****What fascinates me is, that the medium of transmission per se is dead.**** I suppose; and we are probably saying much the same thing. Music, in a score or recorded in some medium needs a recipient (listener) with some degree of intellect and capability of feeling emotions. I will say that I was always amazed when my pet parakeet would sing along only to Mozart :-). I personally like the mystery of it all and sometimes our search for precise answers causes us to lose a little bit of the romance and emotion of it all. |
While reasonably good technical command of the instrument is necessary in order to be musical, musicality is not dependent on having the very best technical command. Priorities are different for jazz and classical players. While a top classical musician may work at developing a tone with ultimate purity and control, and the kind of flawless technique that is required to execute ever-more-difficult material composed for his instrument, the jazz player puts the emphasis on developing a tone that is highly individualistic and rhythmic flexibility that not only is what is needed for jazz, but would be inappropriate for most classical music. While classical players may in many cases have an exceptional technical command of the instrument, they are not, as a group, more musical than jazz players. |
Schubert, you're exactly right. And what a great example of what you talk about! Ray Still was one of, perhaps THE, defining voice of that orchestra; aside from the brass section, of course. Anyone interested in what you talk about should listen to their recording of Rossini Overtures on RCA; Ray Still was a monster player. In the jazz world a great example is Sonny Rollins, a player with such a strong musical stamp that the rhythm section always seemed to be subservient to HIS rhythmic core. |
Excellent recommendations by Schubert. I would add Heitor Villa Lobos' "Bachianas Brazileiras" No. 1 for eight cellos and No. 5 for orchestra of cellos and soprano. Villa-Lobos was the greatest of the Latin-American composers to, like Kodaly, blend the native music of his country (Brazil) with European Classical tradition. In this case, "Bachiana" refers to the influence of Bach; subtle, but easily heard in these pieces particularly in the fugue. The EMI recording of these pieces with the glorious Victoria De Los Angeles singing No. 5 is the one to have. Music not quite of the depth of Schubert's recs, but beautiful by any standard and showcases the cello. |
Monk was a true genius. A true original; and like many geniuses, he was eccentric and this was reflected in his music. Underneath the eccentricism was a bipolar disorder that would eventually lead to his withdrawal from performance altogether. The genius of Monk's playing was in his ability to somehow make so many of the usual "musical taboos" swing and be musical. Like Detlof said, he often hammered chords on the piano instead of aiming for tasteful and well balanced voicings. The voicings he used were often very dissonant and he loved to lace his improvised melodic lines with dissonant major and minor seconds. Rhythmically, he didn't play with the usual smooth and suave sense of swing of many players and instead played with a rather "square", angular and fragmented rhythmic sense with accents in unexpected and unusual places in a phrase. Yet, it all swung like mad somehow. The subject of his technical ability was equally eccentric. He studied classical piano and could play Liszt and Chopin so one can assume that he had some real chops in spite of whatever physical limitations he may have had. He loved Stravinsky and Bartok and I think this influence was reflected in his playing. However, his musical vision was not about technical flash. His musical compositions are unquestionably some of the greatest in the "Standards" repertoire and like his playing it is easy to recognize them as Monk tunes for their originality and individualistic stamp. Oh, and like his music, he was original in the way he dressed :-) http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xAz_t2Ybvmc |
Speaking of Monk compositions, unorthodox playing technique and MUSICALITY, this is about as good as it gets; imo: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MOm17yw__6U |
"Bags Meets Wes" is one of my favorite redords; thanks! Milton Jackson is another "high-musicality" players; to stick to the OP's theme. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=K1Xozvcf0FA Beautiful! |
