What is Musicality?
"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! |
Frogman, The recording is "The Wes Montgomery Trio". Wes and Melvin along with drummer Paul Parker formed this trio in Wes's hometown of Indianapolis, IN. Frogman I'd suggest the recording "Bags meets Wes". Bags is Milt Jackson(vibraphone) and this is also a Riverside label recording. Sabai, sorry for briefly straying from your original topic. Charles, |
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 |
Hello Frogman, I completely agree with your take on T. Monk,"swung like mad somehow" absolutely right! When I first developed an interest in jazz, Oscar Peterson was a major portion of my listening.As my exposure.knowledge and involvement grew ever deeper into jazz, my admiration for Monk increased. I find Monk far more interesting,emotional enjoyable and engaging than Peterson. This is by no means a knock on Peterson but Monk's playing(and compositions) just move me to a higher degree. Pure subjectivity I realize. Charles, |
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 |
I have seen many clips of Monk, saw him live once, though I had no idea what I was seeing . Art Tatum was great, I just think Tristano must of went to school on Bach because he had that same quality of balance is which first thing I notice, or try to, in musicianship. It seems to me, as lowly listener, music is like most things in life, talent is great but for most of us its a question of whether you do/did your homework or not. |
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me, that Monk was more interested in chord structure and chord changes, which he hammered out with aplomb, whereby his timing often made for a desired tension between his playing and his rythm section. An effect which to me always seemed an essential part of his "musicality". Yes, he could be very fast indeed, but when he was, to me he did not seem to care much for his phrasing usually. As I said, to my understanding his emphasys were on his timing and his chords, which he put beneath the melodic lines provided by his co-players. |
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. |
Detlof and Frogman, Monk created a unique style -- according to his wife, due to his small fingers (especially his baby finger which was nearly half the length of his middle finger). His compositions became classics. Peterson composed very little. He had a huge reach. His command of the keyboard, his virtuosity and his beautiful arrangements and renditions of the "classics" were breathtaking. Monk and Peterson are two of my favorite jazz pianists. |
Uberdine, first and foremost the Bach solo cello suites. Dvorak and Elgar Cello concertos. One of the most haunting pieces in all music is the Solo Cello Suite Opus 8, by one of the greatest of modern composers, Zoltan Kodaly. There is s good performance on Naxos but IMO the one by Janos Starker, a Hungarian like Kodaly is one of the greatest recordings ever made.Came out on Delos. Haydn wrote 2 enjoyable cello concertos , as did Max Reger. One of Yo-Yo Ma's finest efforts was the Robert Schumann's Cello Concerto on Sony. Beyond all doubt one of the finest works in all of music is Schubert' Quintet in C which uses two cellos, many fine recordings of this. |
Sabai, REgarding those two artists you mention, I could not agree more. Not to forget, that Monk was also a composer and a great teacher in his own way. All the jazz greats of his time came to him, seeking his advice. His genius was behind and formed the way jazz music was being played then. At least that's what I have been told...... |
Schubert, agreed, the mid bass is crucial for classical music. I mainly listen to alternative rock/ska/punk but love your namesake's first and second piano trios, as well as Mahler and St Saens' cello concertos. With live classical the cellos both envelop and lift up the other instruments, which our systems should be able to replicate. Can you recommend any other cello-based music I might like based on the above? I like Beethoven's cello concertos as well but not as much as Mahler's or St Saens'. My knowledge of classical is however VERY limited, so I'm open to suggestions. |
It doesn't matter how technically proficient a musician is, if their soul isn't intertwined with what they're doing there is no “musicality”, which is also why recording music is such a challenge in the first place, i.e. getting musicians to reproduce the magic after twenty five takes caused by technical issues, and by which time they're bored and hungry and officially over it, or if there was no soul-intertwining possible from the outset, as is the case with, say, The Dave Matthews Band, who have an extremely high level of technical proficiency but are impossible to listen to without intuiting that they'd rather be at home cleaning out their golf bags because that's the only place their lost sweater could possibly be. Assuming there's musicality in the source, then, the next challenge is to reproduce that through a stereo in such a way that there is involuntary toe-tapping, head/torso-swaying etc, symptomatic of musicality in both live and recorded music, and the reproduction of which probably has something to do with a fast attack and a slow decay, a lively but lush sound that doesn't skimp on the mid-bass rhythm section and is so crucial to an amplifier that it's dumbfounding why so many high end products don't possess them. Are they doing it on purpose? It's possible that the nimble, bone dry sound of a fast attack/fast decay is necessary for the spec sheet, or is a sound that some people associate (incorrectly) with neutrality. |
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. |
Frogman, just the way it seems to me as a non musician. Only thing I THINK I've seen is both a jazz quartet and a 90 member symphony can have somebody SO good the whole group seems to "ride on" them at times As an example the great Chicago SO oboist Ray Stills seemed to be the conductor at times. From Jazz i don't know. |
They do not "live" their music but just use their score or theme to show off how good they are. Ingwie Malmsteen is known for that(dare to say)... No musicality there either. In fact hardly anyone(no matter classical jazz or even rocker) who live their music just to show off was ever successful. Public knowledge or apearances would also often put little to no weight in terms of musician's success or musicality. Success in business often in conflict with success in music or musicality as well. According to my judgements on musicality in terms of musician's qualities, the classical music and jazz requires substantially more training efforts as well as studyings vs. pop or rock, hence the end product certainly values substantially more in terms of music. |
Detlof and Frogman, I don't think that Thelonious Monk was at a level of "technical perfection" -- which is what Oscar Peterson alludes to in his comments about Monk. Nevertheless, I feel Monk was a very great artist. He was technically good whereas Peterson was technically great. Which did not make Peterson a greater artist than Monk, in my books. They were both great in their own individual ways. IMHO. |
Frogman, I fully agree. I would even go as far as to say, that technical perfection, both in classical as well as in jazz music is the prerequisit of a great artist. This alone does not necessarily makes his playing "musical". There are performes in both fields with stupendous technicality, whose performances are "dead", without life, do not take you in and in the end just bore you. They do not "live" their music but just use their score or theme to show off how good they are. |
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. |
Detlof, I mostly listen to jazz, but nevertheless, in general, classically trained musician is able to retrieve the best possibilities of instrument one plays. There are lots of classically trained musicians in jazz with improvisational talents and there are also pure talents in jazz who started just playing(Joey DeFrancesco), but still seeking the ways to improve either taking lessons or enrolling into the higher musical education which mostly not the case with garage and rock(XSmall to Small in terms of musicality:-)) |
Czarivey, what about Jazz? I love classical music, but I find musicality in many other forms and cultures as well and I don´t think, that I am alone in this. Menahem Pressler, world famous pianist and leader of the Beaux Arts Trio had the highest respect for Oscar Peterson for example. Friedrich Gulda loved and played jazz, just to name two who were classical musicians. |
Let musicality be a measuring factor of Music. You can't define any units of measure similar to kilogram or meters per second, but rather find it as a combination of scales, notes, rhythm(s) intervals, chords, harmonic maneuvers, sophistication, level of challenge of performer or band or orchestra. In general as an example, we can subdivide to three sizes just like we often used to see t-shirts in the department store: Small, Medium, Large, XLarge, XX, etc. Size will depend on most of factors mentioned and combined above. The largest musicality usually found in classical music and the best musicians usually classically trained. |
****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. |
Learsfool, Yes of course. I do not discount what you point out. As in all art, in poetry, in painting, and in music, which we talk about here, there can be emotion transmitted from artist to recipient. What fascinates me is, that the medium of transmission per se is dead. It is our mind, soul, psyche, "us", which in a sense put our emotion back into what we hear, see or read. We then call the medium emotional, because it triggers something in us, which you rightly say, may be intended by the composer as well as the interpreter of his/her score. You put the emphasis of this process on the medium, I on "us". We're probably both half right. But I'll stop now flogging a horse which is half dead. We're already way out of what this thread intended. Geoffkait, I am at a perdition. I ever motorise Google's translator. My nativity mouthing is a subdialekt of Klingonian. Many Cheerleaders to you too. detlof Sabay, apologies, won't do it again. At least it's not intellektual, I think, probably not even particularly funny, but I just could not help myself. The music was too emional and I too full of good wine. |
In my original OP from 2010 I was not so concerned about the quality of reproduction. Since then, my system has evolved to a much higher level. It provides much more listener satisfaction than it did back then. As a result, I have come to appreciate how much the quality of a good audio system adds to enjoyment of the music. Learsfool, But, of course, music is far more than a language. It is processed by the brain in a unique way. For instance, lyrics are not processed by the brain as words. They are processed as part of a musical whole. And, of course, there is an intellectual side to music. But that is not what most of us are concerned about when we listen. Frogman, As you rightly point out, much of what we perceive musically is dictated by our own personality. To that we can add our mood at the moment and our personal memories. What is felt and evoked in one person may not be the same as what is felt and evoked in another. Just as we cannot know how each person feels when he tastes vanilla we cannot know how each person reacts under the skin to any given musical piece. Detlof, When all is said and done, music does indeed remain a mystery. As it should. |
Detlof, I think I see where you are coming from now. What I think you mean is that music, on the page, is nothing without the performer(s) to bring it to life, and you are also saying that it is the performer who imparts emotion to it. Yet, you also say that the composer can translate emotion into his score. Here is where I am not certain you can have that both ways. I think it is clear that very often a composer is intending to project a definite, specific emotion through the music. So in this sense, emotion is indeed part of the music, and this is what Frogman is saying in his post. |
Frogman, with all due respect and fully agreeing with the distinction you make between perceived emotion and emotion that is felt as well as apologies for being a nitpicking old curmudgeon, I still insist, that emotion is NOT in the music. It may be in the composer, who translates it into his score, it may be in the interpreter, who through his training, his artistry, his concept of the score and perhaps, but by no means always, by his being moved emotionally by the composer's score, translates it into sound, which again in the listener may or may not cause emotions. In a way, I don't like what I am saying, I love music, but I also try to stand for what I at least think is precise. To be honest, it is only when I envisage this amazing chain of events, of how the magic of what is music evolves, that I stand in awe of the mystery what music is and what it can do to us. |
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. |
Hi Detlof - I think you misunderstood me slightly. I did not mean to equate music exactly with emotion. What I meant is that almost all music is expressive of some emotion, which is not the same thing. In fact, music can be much more expressive of emotion than words. Also, a great deal of musicality can be quantified, but one has to be somewhat versed in music theory to do so. Music is a language, that has a great deal of logic and "grammar", and all musical compositions have some sort of form, whether it is a simple song form, or a complex very large scale work. Mastery of all these things is fundamental to creating music, and therefore must be a part of "musicality." To speak to Sabai's comments - almost all music is highly intellectual, though you are certainly not alone in not wanting to think about it in that way. One of the major criticisms of Schoenberg, to pick one of the composers Detlof named, was that his music was too intellectual, despite much of it being very emotionally expressive. He was accused of composing by the mathematical tables, filling in notes according to a formula. |
I think Mapman is right, when he says, that it is impossible to quantify musicality. That is also the reason that psychology generally shies away from this problem. Learsfool, I think, makes several excellent points, although I disagree, that "emotions are part of the music". Humans, also higher forms of mammals have emotions. Music per se has not. It is sound, which however composers as well as their interpreters can shape cleverly, if they so chose, to arrange in such a way, that they can evoke all sorts of feelings, images and emotions in the listener. Maler and Richard Strauss were masters in this about 200 years ago, Prokofiev and Shostakovich in the last century just to mention a few. Strauss in fact was famous for saying, that if need be, he could put a glass of beer into music. There is a whole bag of tricks, as musicologists will point out, which by clevery arranging notes and the voicing and combination of instruments, by which you can evoke almost any state of mind you wish for in the listener. You might say, that music is able to manipulate us, as for example Stalin and Hitler very well knew. However, it seems to me,that there is more to it: Bach's music is basically pure mathematics and with a bit of a jump in time also Schoenberg's. But they can and do evoke deep emotions in a listener, if he has the ear for their music. I also fully agree with Learsfool, that what we call PraT and phrasing, are used to evoke something in the listener, who then, listening to a given piece, if he likes it would probably call "musical". Bascially though, I think that Mapman has hit the nail on the head: As little as you can quantify what makes up a human being, you cannot quantify what makes for musicality. You can certainly identify parts, as we try to do here, you can examine the question through musical education, historically, aesthetically, sociologically, psychologically, musicologically, but the whole is always more than all the parts and at least for me it remains a mystery. |
Mapman, one answer to your question might be that emotions, while a part of music, are not all of it. Otherwise, we wouldn't talk about "musicality" as something separate from "emotion." Sometimes a composer wants a completely non-emotional effect, and there are many different types and ways to create them. The ability to create these effects would also be considered pre-requisite for having good musicality. So while the latter part of your question is a big part of the initial attraction to any given piece of music, ultimately I think the former part of the question is actually closer to what constitutes musicality. I didn't go back and reread the rest of this thread, by the way, so this may have been already mentioned, but generally when musicians use the word musicality they are referring to phrasing, or one's ability to make nice musical phrases - again, not necessarily an emotional thing, though of course it often is. Having a good sense of rhythm would also be a very obvious pre-requisite for musicality. Ultimately, music is the organization of sound in time. Just some thoughts on your question. By the way, most certainly the bells would be considered music, and musical. |
