What is Musicality?

Wow. What a ride! Philosophy to the bitter end along with a little psychology. Nice goin' Sabai! Lol!

I think musicality applies to the person. Not the gear. Again, in addition to my above post... It's a persons ability to connect with the music. (Agreeing with Jax2 here to a point) The gear can not connect anyone with music. It can only reproduce it. Its up to the listener to take what he/she can from that experience.

On another note, if you haven't seen the movie "Once", you should really look into it.

http://www.yourbrainonmusic.com/

I can't describe it but I know when I hear it.

OK, I am again reminded of why I became a musician instead of a writer. Kijanki and Jax2, my statement "as professionals our much deeper knowledge of the music gives us much more pleasure in listening to a great performance" was not at all intended the way you and some others here took it. It was not at all meant to be read as a comparative statement that musicians take more pleasure from music than others do. Onhwy61 put it much better than I did. I was simply referring to the fact that the greater understanding and comprehension add to our own pleasure when we listen. I guess I see how you could take it the way you did, but that is not at all what i meant, I assure you. I was not trying to engage in oneupsmanship. While on this topic, I should add that much of this knowledge and understanding is easily acquired by non-professionals if they want to take the time required. I have often advocated on this site for more audiophiles to take a formal ear-training course, or study some basic music theory. It will only add to anyone's enjoyment of the music, no matter what type of music it is that you listen to.

Newbee also put my main point very well, as he so often does: "But folks, music, soul, whatever you want to call it, is only found in the composition and the performance, not in your audio systems!"

To Bryon's excellent comments I would only add that expertise and appreciation are not mutually exclusive, not that you were suggesting they were. Sometimes it is difficult for professionals to enjoy recordings of their own playing for some of the reasons you suggest. Some orchestral musicians have a hard time listening to orchestral music at home for pleasure after a hard day's or night's work (it is indeed hard to "turn off" the critical ear), and only listen to jazz or rock at home. Others get burned out on the standard rep that we all have to practice so much. We very rarely have any control at all over what we are paid to play, so it can at times seem like drudgery. One of the main reasons I listen, in fact, is to keep my sanity, and keep my love for music alive and well, which in turn makes me a better musician. I truly appreciate and am grateful for the fact that I am making my living doing what I most love to do.

As far as Kijanki's statement that "quality of gear is inversely proportional to musical education and involvement," this cannot be taken seriously. I'm sure there are many who decide only to have their iPod (I personally do not know a single professional that only relies on a boom box, this would usually only be true of students, and just about all of them have iPods nowadays as well). There are many more musicians that do care about high-end audio than you imply, however. In fact, the very best two or three systems I have ever heard were assembled by professional musicians, and I would also say that the percentage of musicians with at least some high-end audio equipment is probably higher than almost any other profession, despite the fact that most of us don't make a whole lot. Economics is another big reason more musicians don't have the best equipment - the vast majority of us simply can't afford much of the gear talked about/sold on this site, even at used prices. But just because many do not personally own high-end gear does not mean they do not appreciate it when they hear it. We just would never place gear above the music, as many calling themselves audiophiles do.

Kijanki and Jax2, my statement "as professionals our much deeper knowledge of the music gives us much more pleasure in listening to a great performance" was not at all intended the way you and some others here took it.

I was not responding specifically to your statement, but yes, generally to that sentiment being discussed. I had read yours as well as several others that followed it. I did not mean to single anybody out in particular as several folks made comments on the same subject.

As a further comment on some of what you've added here;

I was simply referring to the fact that the greater understanding and comprehension add to our own pleasure when we listen.

It could most certainly add to it, and I do understand you are speaking from direct experience. But, depending on the individual and the circumstance, it could just as easily distract from it or detract from it. I've known a a few folks over the years who took something they had tremendous passion for, that they did simply for the love of it, and then turned that thing into a career. In many cases they lost the passion they once had for it in shifting their motivations. That is just one simplistic example, which you touch upon yourself indirectly in your further statements. I definitely do not think that a deep understanding of any particular subject will necessarily mean the capacity to enjoy that pursuit is enhanced. It could just as easily detract from something as primal as the enjoyment of music. I find that when it comes to things that are highly emotionally charged, like music, the more my 'head' comes into play, the further I get from being in the moment and enjoying the emotions that do arise. I expect such things are as individual as fingerprints though. I do appreciate hearing about your own personal experience and observations of others in your field. BTW - your writing skills are just fine - I've certainly enjoyed your posts.

Onhwy61, "understand/comprehend" connote an intellectual or cerebral attitude toward music appreciation. I am not using the word appreciation in this way at all. I use the word appreciate to mean the ability to enjoy. Different people enjoy music in different ways. Men are naturally more cogitators than women. This is a psychologically observable fact that has been noted by many famous people in the field of psychology and psychiatry including Carl Jung. Have you noticed how your sister, mother, girlfriend, female friends or wife often appreciate music differently? Because women function primarily on the "feeling level" and not on the "thinking level" they tend to appreciate music on the feeling level, not on the cerebral level -- in most cases, unless they are musicians or unless there is a specific aspect of the music's reproduction that stands out and cannot go unnoticed, such as harshness in the high frequencies or a boom in the bass frequencies that may grate on the ears and "interfere" with one's ability to appreciate the music as a whole. Dissecting a musical piece and focusing on one or more of its constituent parts is not the same kind of listening that I am referring to when I use the word appreciate. For me, understanding or comprehending a piece of music technically is not at all the same thing as appreciating it or feeling it in its wholeness.

Tiggerfc, I agree with you completely.

Sabai

Tiggerfc - I loved "Once" and would heartily second your recommendation to see it. What do you think of their recent release together under "Swell Season"? I have yet to warm up to it vs the soundtrack which I do really enjoy.

One more film that speaks to the some of this, in some way (there are certainly many, but indulge me this one more because upon seeing it I would rank in my top 10 films of all time): The Swedish film, "As it is in Heaven". Ten stars is not enough for this film - this one goes to eleven! That's one more than ten! If you love music, do not pass go, run, don't walk, see this movie!

One of the interesting bits brought up in the great book pointed out by Hellofidelity (This is Your Brain on Music) is about the history of music in civilization. Briefly, and paraphrasing, he points out that it is only a very modern day development where musicians are considered another breed, and talent in music has become a matter of elevated (arguably distorted) prestige in society. He goes on to point out in days long past, in most cultures, music was a given as common and expected as perhaps ones ability to drive a car might be today. Much like in some tribal cultures, a few that still survive today, music (and dance) are tightly interwoven into the culture and enjoyed and practiced practically from birth to death. For one to not participate in that, to those people, is completely shocking. So it was more common in western civilization hundreds of years ago - or at least much closer to that model. Elevating musicians (and performers) to levels of celebrity is a recent manifestation of modern culture, says Levitin. Anyone who's spent any time with "celebrities" knows that, in spite of their talents, they are simply ordinary people with both good qualities and bad, just as flawed as any of us, and who put their pants on one leg at a time just like any of us do. Some are extraordinary people and some are rather plain, and some are complete A%$holes (and everything in between)....just like the rest of the population. I really resist any statements that infer such things as, "most zookeepers love dogs." Really, what's the point, even if it were true?

What I was awkwardly trying to get at in some of my remarks was that I really do enjoy when people share their personal experiences - it's fascinating to see how widely varied we all are. But I do find that I am pushed away when I get the sense that someone sees the world through blinders and tries to fit everything into pigeon holes, and especially when judgments become involved elevating one person above another, or making broad generalizations about some particular group whether it be professional musicians or women, or audiophiles (I'm not saying that's what anyone IS trying to do here, but I have got that sense from some of the conversation, whether deliberate/intended or not). There is nothing to be gained in such a scenario, from my perspective. Again, I am not pointing to any one person's comments here... but these are general responses to the (ridiculous) sub-topic that seems to have arisen here of who appreciates music more, and what ways can one appreciate music more. To me, that's like someone telling me that they have a way that I can enjoy chocolate cake even more by learning about the way it is made, or by standing on my head while I eat it, or by eating only one particular kind, etc. Hey, I don't mind hearing what works for you - I rather enjoy it, and I do revel in your passion shared, and do very much appreciate that you take the time and energy to share them. But when someone else assumes that something that works for them will necessarily work for me and everyone else....well, it's kind of like having some religious belief shoved down your throat. For me personally, I really don't want to question why I enjoy music, or wine, or cake. I don't need to understand or comprehend it on any other level than I already do...I'd just like to continue to enjoy it without my head getting in the way (as I mentioned, it is prone to do that once in a while). I admit, I'd consider myself a simple kind of person in this way. For me my head does not add to my enjoyment of such things, to the contrary, it gets in the way. Musicality ends when my head becomes involved - I realize that's just one experience among many and that there are other possibilities.

Jax2 - "What do you think of their recent release together under "Swell Season"? I have yet to warm up to it vs the soundtrack which I do really enjoy."

I surprisingly wasn't very happy with the Swell Season album either. But the soundtrack, definitely. I downloaded quite a few of the soundtrack songs I liked.

I'm not a huge movie buff so I don't see very many. Unfortunately, I have not heard of "As it is in Heaven" and can not comment on it but I will put on my list of things to do. Any movie about music is always interesting to me. "Ray" was fantastic though it was more about his life. "August Rush" or was it just "August"???...that was more based on music itself and I thought it was great. The theme song from "Schindler's List" is one of my favorite violin pieces to play. Of course I put my own twist on it. But I digress... a little off topic there.

One thing that most people agree on here is that music speaks to each person on an individual level. Some may get more dopamine action than others but I don't think that is the final piece in musical enjoyment or appreciation or comprehension or whatever word you want to throw at it.

There is definitely a fine line because each has been debated together and seperately. And I don't think anyone could possibly have a solid and definitive answer here since indivuality will ultimately define the listening experience and ability to attain the amount of enjoyment from it.

The best answer here regarding musicality has already been stated by others here as well... it's you.

Jax2 - People became more practical in last 50-70 years and tend to learn only skills that have some market value. It was different before. Generations of our fathers or grandfathers were learning often useless skills believing that life is not practical (has no purpose) to start with. People used to learn singing just for the pleasure of it. My father was learning Greek and Latin etc.

Music role was also different. In many cultures (China for instance) music was on such high pedestal that was breaking social divisions. Peasant was allowed to perform with noble man or even emperor if he possessed required skills. Music and dance ability was subject of an exam for higher government positions. In modern India, every movie has dance and singing sequence every 10 min. - if it doesn't it means it was made for US. In many countries (whole Europe) there is a a special government department in charge of culture (music art etc).

In western culture government was involved in promotion of art and music for centuries - not so much today, at least here. We're closing music and art programs in schools calling it a waste of taxpayers' money.

It is interesting that economic crisis in our country makes it worse for the art and music but same conditions in India produced world best musicians like Ali Akbar Khan (at least Yehudi Menuhin called him that) who had been learning music 18 hours a day for 20 years because competition is so strong that only the best are successful.

I just wonder if he, having no equal, could enjoy music played by others as much as I do.

Jax2, I was not trying to elevate women or audiophiles in my comments. I was just trying to point out the different ways different people experience music. For me experiencing music in its wholeness is what musicality is all about. I believe that more men than women are doing the buying and selling on Audiogon as well as participating in its forums. Does this have any meaning? I believe it does. I believe it means men think more about audio systems than women do. Both may be able to appreciate the music deeply but I believe more men than women have a tendency to become concerned about specific aspects of the music and the equipment it produces unless the latter are musicians or are in the music industry. Women have a more innate and natural ability to just sit down and enjoy the music without letting their brain interfere with their appreciation of it. Not that women may not notice a particular shortcoming in the sound reproduction. On the contrary, they may pick up on it faster than their partner. But because their partner may be more involved in the technical side of things he may be more worried about how to upgrade or tweak to get things just right and may spend a lot more time on Audiogon trying to figure things out.

Sabai

I was not suggesting that you had "elevated" anyone, Sabai. I'm sorry, I reread what I wrote and realize that I was not clear. I included it in the same sentence which might have implied that, qualifying it with the phrase, "..OR, making broad generalizations..." The inference of elevating a group was more around the discussion of those with a more thorough knowledge of music having the capacity to enjoy music more, as well as the idea of elevating celebrity, both of which I think are absurd notions myself. My comment around what you said about women, is more about generalizing about any group of people - sure, you can generalize, but I was trying to point out that generalizations are most certainly not a rule. For instance, I do not fit your general descriptions of men and women that you've set forth as based on fact, and on Carl Jung's studies. I am not at all a cogitator and operate far more on feelings than I do on thinking. I also have known many men and women who are the exception to these generalizations. I have no doubt the studies exist as you say they do. Again, I don't see the point in the same way I don't see the point of implying something like; more caucasians are audiophiles than African-Americans. That may be one person's experience, and there may actually be studies to back this statement up, but really, what's the point? What does this information serve to do? In some contexts far more harm than good. Perhaps it's that I'm not a cogitator (though I guess these tomes require a bit of reflecting, so there's certainly some element of that in me). I'd rather just experience people, and the world, at face value than try to predict everything ahead of time. But I digress, as usual. Just my .02 Lincolns on the subject.

Music appreciation and the audiophile are mutually exclusive. Aquiring the electronics and building a sound system to reproduce sound is a materialistic hobby. Sure the basis for an audiophile is the love of music but when many of us have stereos costing many times that of our music collections, our priorities become obvious. My wife is perfectly happy walking around the house playing her music out of the tiny speaker built into her cellphone. Of course, she can hear the difference with my nice stereo, but it does not matter to her. I know people with music collections far exceeding the value of the stereo they play them on. btw- some are musicians, and some are not.

Why do we keep upgrading/tweaking our systems? Simple, we get bored with the music side of it and need a change to spice things up. I liken it to the day I got an HDTV and HD Cable. I was sitting there mesmerized by the detailed, crisp picture of a baseball game. My wife walked in and asked why the sudden interest in sports? I said, it's not about the game, it is about the picture quality. She just shook her head and left.

"Simple, we get bored with the music side of it and need a change to spice things up"

Tonywinsc - do you think that listening thru better equipment doesn't offer better overall experience? People get better TVs to see games better not just for the sake of having larger TV. I had a choice of listening to music with poor sound or with good sound. What do you think I chose.

I know I enjoy the music more through a better sounding system. That's why we are here. The rest of the world doesn't care. Perhaps the live music experience is more preferred by others. I enjoy both, but I enjoy listening at home more.

Well, you're all making very good points today, IMHO. Jax2 no apology needed. I think we're talking about the same thing in different ways, like a diamond with different facets. I think that the "studies" over a period of quite a few decades confirm that there are very real differences between men and women in a generalized sense. Of course this does not apply to everyone. It is just a broad stroke with the psychological paintbrush. I like what Tonywinsc observed. My wife is the same way. She has her little battery-powered mini radio in the kitchen and carries it all over the house with her to listen to her favorite music. I gave her my back-up system that now occupies center stage in the living room but she rarely ever turns it on even though it is a darn good system and she has a lot of CDs she enjoys when she does turn it on. When she comes into my small listening/computer room upstairs and I ask her what she "thinks" of the latest tweak or component she simply says "good" and then gets on with whatever she happens to be involved with at the moment. But sometimes a special song does elicit her request for a dance together. She appreciates the improvements in my system -- that I know -- but she is not obsessed with audio matters like I am -- and like I have been for many decades. My wife is very musical. I sleep in in the mornings and I am very often awakened by her lovely voice singing A Cappella or accompanying a song on her little radio. Our musicality is different but we both appreciate music in very much the same way -- as non-cogitators. Her appreciation of music does not depend on a "system". To reflect on one of your comments, I am not upgrading because I am bored. I am upgrading because this is the first time in my life that I have been able to afford a quality music system. I have a budget for it now, I have made most of my purchases and I am enjoying music in a way that I never thought I would be able to. The improved equipment makes a big difference to me. Music appreciation and audiophile live happily under the same roof in my modest listening room. I am very happy about each upgrade and tweak. I have my list and once it's all in place later this year then that will be about it -- except for maybe a plug here or an IC there -- but I'm not even sure if that will be necessary. Nothing major remains to be done. IMHO, The trick is to be happy with the best you can afford -- and I certainly am. I am very happy with my system and I am neither bored with it nor motivated to tweak it to death. On the video side, I am not a TV watcher although I do enjoy watching the occasional movie. So video upgrading and tweaking are not concerns for me. My wife enjoys watching TV a lot but since she is very happy with our TV set video upgrading or tweaking is not an issue for either of us.

Sabai

Does this really need to be defined??

I used the word bored for lack of a better term. I do not mean it in a negative sense. I would venture to say that most of us in this hobby are highly motivated, driven to excel. This hobby, a mixture of electronics and music is a way to express ourselves. We are driven to reproduce music the best ways that we can. It is not all about buying either. Some parts of this hobby require great effort, time and patience. How many of us have spent weekends under the house running dedicated powerlines, or hours cleaning every connection? This is not my only hobby but it is my favorite way to forget about the stresses of the day and unwind. Distortions, lack of bass or other such issues causes me distraction that drives me to make changes.

Tonywinsc, I agree. I am the same way -- running lines and looking for small ways to improve the sound -- a silk pillow under the CDP helped a lot. I made a couple of plug changes a few days ago and the enjoyment factor went into the stratosphere. This morning my wife surprised me. I put on some of her favorite music -- Neil Sedaka remastered -- when she brought my favorite brew up to the listening room. She was so taken with the beauty of the music that she couldn't leave. She kept saying "I can't leave the room the music is so beautiful now. What you did makes such a big difference." We are now appreciating the music in the very same way. That's what I call really special. I can't wait till the new components arrive.

Musicality is SO subjective. Sabai, you've made some interesting points and the beauty of all this is....when your new components arrive, yr wife MIGHT not think them to be as involving as yr current gear. But this doesn't change one iota of HER inate musicality!

Chazro, I will take a line from Steely Dan. "I'm learning how to meditate. So far so good." I'm learning how to improve my system. So far so good. Once I add the Merlin speakers and the EMM I think my new system will be far more "involving" than my current system. We'll have to wait till September when everything is in place to hear how it all fits together.

Hellofidelity, very nice page and musical tune too. I really appreciated the fact that among all the greats you also have Ludacris's pic. Shows musically how open minded you are!

Sorry for the off topic but may be the tune demonstrates that the musicality is IN you.

Nilthepill, your comment is not off topic. It is exactly what the topic is all about. I also feel that musicality is IN you. The quality and/or synergy of your system creates the technical side of musicality. Most people find they enjoy their music more if they can afford better equipment. Each of us has to define what it means to have a musical system and I think that a short look around Audiogon will show that there are almost as many opinions about what makes a system musical as there are Audiogon visitors. Much depends on what you can afford. Some people are in the position of wishing they had a "more musical" system but they just cannot afford it -- yet. Others make poor choices when they purchase equipment -- I have done this myself in the past -- or are unaware of the value of certain choices that might make for a more "musical" system. One example of this is a friend of mine who "doesn't believe" in cords, cables, plugs and receptacles. He has a modest budget and "doesn't believe" that one choice over another could make a dramatic difference to the sound his system produces. He is a very musical person but has not yet discovered the value of this side of the audio world. But he wants to test one of my cords in his system to see if it will improve the sound. So at least he is open to the possibility that this kind of change could have a positive effect on the musicality of his system. I have found that even small changes can have a dramatic effect on the quality of sound. Change a plug and it can sound like you changed a component. This is very much a process of trial and error. The goal is to minimize error along the way -- not always an easy task.

Hello everyone, In my last posting I forgot to add a comment made by my friend -- the one who doesn't believe in cords, cables, plugs and receptacles -- about my speakers. I have the Totem Rainmakers but they will be soon replaced by the latest Merlin TSMs. When he heard the Rainmakers in my system he felt they were a very poor speaker because of the mid-bass "boom/bloom". Well, the "boom/bloom" was there alright but it was not the fault of the speakers. After he headed home I did a bit or research. I top-loaded each of the Rainmakers with about 30 lbs. of sand and replaced the stock plugs on the end of the Master Couplers with Oyaide plugs. My system was transformed with the "boom bloom" completely gone. The Rainmakers are actually an excellent speaker in their class if they are paired with the "right" equipment and tweaked appropriately. This goes to show how much we have to experiment to find that elusive synergy that will allow our systems to produce the most musicality they are capable of producing.

Musicality - the term, since you asked, is a description of human characteristics (applied to persons not components). Persons of greater musicality however, typically will possess the ability to discern musical nuances (and possibly component nuances) better than persons of lesser musicality (or at least, easier than persons with lesser musicality). This is not to suggest that a person of superior musicality can, should, or will enjoy or appreciate music and equipment any better than persons of lesser musicality. Now this only applies if you want to use the (word) in its proper context. I am not suggesting that when the (word) is used out of context that the "intended hypothesis" is lacking or incorrect. In that case, the wrong word was selected to convey the given hypothesis. That doesn’t mean the hypothesis is invalid…I’m just saying!

Oh, and by the way, using the word in proper context, I am not a person of great musicality. With that said, music is a significant part of my life, I am an audiophile and I appreciate all faucets of the industry. Mozart was a man of great musicality; to a lesser degree so was Michael Jackson. Anyway, “musicality” is not a great word for describing audio components. How about simply using the word, “musical” since I believe that is what people actually mean anyway. Again, I’m just saying…!

2chnlben, This is exactly it, IMHO. Musicality refers to the human characteristic. Musicality is often used erroneously to describe equipment but as long as we understand this then we know that people mean musical when they are talking about the musicality of their system. And, of course, this does not mean that a person who is less musical will enjoy music any less than a person who is more musical.

Sabai - One factor is missing in this discussion. It's passion for music. I think it accounts for 99% of music appreciation. I know people who are interested in one genre of music like Opera or Classical and don't care for the rest of it. At the very beginning of Jazz many musical people refused to even call it music. Generation of my parents was not much into Rock and Roll. I would say that interest in music is everything while musicality is far second. There is also a lot of music that has no melody at all (or melody has secondary importance). I know few people who are very musical (remembering phrase and singing or humming in tune) but not really into music (wasted gift?). They enjoy music, but not enough to buy CD/LP. Again - passion for music is everything.

Kijanki, I agree. Without a passion for music then what's there to talk about here? But I have never given a thought to passion for music that is not accompanied by musicality. People who are musical but not into music? I guess it's possible. But for me the two go hand in hand. Like Frank Sinatra used to sing in "Love and Marriage". They go together like a horse and carriage.

The sound of Chamber or Large Orchestra at CARNEGIE HALL!

Carnegie Hall live classical concert chamber etc!

it's whatever emotion YOU feel at the time your listening. Music stimulates the brain which intern makes us happy,sad, angry,etc. If it has no musicality to YOU, the listener then either change the music and or the system your listening to it on.

Tvad,

You cannot not convince me that you are not an audiophile!

Dump your system and go with an Ipod and then we can talk.

Asthetic language is often used to describe the musical elements we hear. Musicality can exist in some aesthetic way even if it is not recognized. Soloists often describe how they find something new within a work each and every time they play it. As we develope, our standards and tastes change however the more we develope, the less significant ( on average ) these changes become. As far as audio is concerned, I prefer to hear recordings as identical as possible to the original way it was sonically engineered. John Cage said 'a recording of Beethonen's 5th ain't Beethoven's 5th' and philosophically, I belong to that same camp.

Recently I made some improvements that have been quite rewarding. When you make improvements in amp and speaker at the same time, it's impossible to tell "who is doing what". Since the sound is much more "musical", I began to ponder that word.

"Musicality" in regard to components is a misnomer. This new music I was hearing, was on the CD before I got the new components. This new "nuance" was the musicians "musicality" that I had not heard before. Audio components are not musical instruments, consequently they possess no "musicality".

Since my system is "ultra neutral", there is nothing about it that can be termed "musical".

IME, how well the musicians and instruments gel with one another.

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.

Frogman,
That`s a beautiful definition of musicality. Natural being the all important term.

Charles1dad I like the part

"If the equipment adds "musicality" to the signal, that is a distortion."

This equates to the "better than real" comments that is occasionally mentioned, kind of like a drug but one thing for sure, over time it becomes increasingly obvious, its always there when sometimes you know it shouldn't be. The thing is that we all hear differently and we have our preferences but unless you spend a lot of time listening to live acoustic performances it can become a bit tricky determining where that line lies. Again great observations Frogman.

Tubegroover,
Good points, I use live jazz venues as my template. The closer the components approach that sound the more I like them. It`s become very simple for me now to choose or reject equitment.

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.

I haven't been to the Vanguard but do have both vinyl and cd of Waltz for Debby and most of Evan's recordings for that matter. I can CERTAINLY hear that low ceiling, very typical of a lot of jazz venues I've been to, one place quite close to us in Florida that has since closed Dino's for anyone that has been to that place in Cocoa Beach, FL. Had some really good local jazz here in the day along with Wolfies, oh well probably no one on this site is familiar with these obscure places but that Village Vanguard recording does remind me of the acoustic space of Dinos.

Put your favorite record on the player.

Set the volume.

Sit in your favorite chair

Close your eyes

Does it honestly sound live - that is musicality for better or worse.

Musicality is neutrality in the extreme in regard to high end audio set up to perfection, it's when that record or CD that you've heard a thousand times, sounds brand new.

Musicality is a subjective term that describes natural sounding music. You can't break it down into a technical description because the whole point is to describe the sum total of technical specs. Musicality means the system sounds right. The tone and timbre is correct. The frequency balance is not artificially augmented, but naturally flat. There are no shortcuts like huge negative feedback, yet the music is not distorted.

It is easy to measure one spec, but the brain is a much more sophisticated analyzer. We perceive everything at once, and if the music sounds like Julia Fisher is in the room playing the Bach Concerto, the system has musicality. I'll put it another way- try going back to an all-in-one-box system, and you will know what "musicality" is not!

I think musicality has to do with the ability to express heart and soul, the ability to express a certain feeling and convey it in a way that listeners feel or relate to that same feeling. Musicality is expression of what is within one's self through the medium of melody and harmony, and different musicians have different levels of accomplishment, as well as simply having different interpretations of a piece, that is all subjectively enjoyed by each audience member. No person in the audience perceives the performance the exact same way, with some preferring other artists, techniques, or styles, none of which is right nor wrong, simply preferred.

I believe that the most 'musical' system is that which does not lose any information from the media it obtained it from, since the system itself is not expressing anything in and of itself, but simply reproducing that which was provided. Still, technique to an artist is not necessarily musicality (though it does provide better ability to express it), and likewise detail, soundstaging and perfect frequency response does not guarantee a 'musical' system.

I have heard live performances that were technically flawless, but inspired no emotion from me, and have heard performances where notes were missed but I still cried. The same has happened for me with systems, some sounding great in technical regards yet I am unmoved, while others may not accomplish all the 'audiophile' requirements but still grip me. I believe that this is the conundrum we all discuss, and all try to solve in our own systems with our own list of priorities of what makes up 'musicality'. Everybody's lists are most assuredly ordered differently, judging by the systems put together here!

I think for most audio enthusiast, musicality is LOVING what you hear without getting tired or fatigued by it where it moves you with emotion. Maybe I should attach a SHIATSU massager on my audio system, I just might find MUSICALITY out of that!

Musicality starts when you seek new music material and enjoy it.

Musicality stops when you seek new equipment because you are unable to enjoy the music.

In terms of audio components, it seems as though many but not all audiophiles are attempting to create a live atmosphere and an emotional experience that is dependent on the quality of certain chosen electronics. So that in itself negates the argument of recreating a sonic moment in time, when and where the musician/s played his or her instrument. I can take a high quality photograph which will communicate a feeling or an understanding but it will never be more than a photograph. Hi end audio is a great thing and achieving higher standards will never end but have you ever tried having a conversation with your amplifier?
Musicality is also a language but I still believe that it's better where there is flesh and blood. That's my standard.

Musicality naturally evolves from familiar musical scales and familiar sounding instruments. Instruments in turn mimick our voices and other interesting natural sounds, emotionally.

My "objective" music system allows me to access and to reach much further into the "subjective emotional performance". The moving emotional drive within the performance is the holy grail of musicality.

Delivering music at home is a triad to me. It starts with the musician's emotional performances, then, the engineers' recording quality, and then onto a well-matched audio system.

Musicality is something like driving a great sports car and feeling one with the roads, or, feeling one with the music, verses admiring the car parked away at a distance. The true holy grail is the changing emotional connections to the road only felt best from behind the wheel. Great musicality is a emotional connection to music that draws me to modern short tunes, or a longer journey like a great album or a jaw-dropping fabulous symphony.

What is the meaning of life?

There's 7 billion answers to that question, and just as many interpretations of what musicality is.

Really, it's all about personal preference.

And it will change as you age and gain experience.

Musicality is not an absolute, it's in flux, intangible, and mostly elusive.

It's the butterfly we can't catch, the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

It's in a system cobbled together costing a few dollars to one's costing the GNP of a third world country.

It comes in all sizes shapes and colours,and just when you think you have it , you hear something that has even more of it than what you have.

Musicality will haunt you for all the days of your life in this hobby.

It's all around you,yet you can't capture it and put it in a jar, or a tube, speaker etc.

You can get a taste of it now an then, but you'll never drink the cup dry.