 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: stuart
Date: 1999-05-20 19:17
What does it mean to be "musical"? This term surrounded me in school and I hated it. Up to now, I had forgotten about it.
I hate it because it implies a difference between technique and interpretation and expressiveness that I don't find usefull at all. I know this is semantics, but still important.
"He plays clarinet, but he's not very musical." Doesn't it seem like a vague and redundent adjetive?
I can't pretend like I don't know what people mean when they use this word, or that I never used it myself- but since I've escaped institutional music everyone I deal with is about MUSIC. Everything pertaining to music is MUSICAL. This whole technical/emotional division really screwed things up for me. Everyday I realize more and more that it's all united as one entity: me.
Another reason the term bothers me is it somehow judges what is and isn't music which is not the job of any of us. If I performed a piece by John Cage, how could I be musical? Is it the same musical as Brahms? Does musical means dynamics, rubato, vibrato, etc.?
What is musical and why is the term used only in these school/"classical" settings?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 1999-05-20 20:05
stuart wrote:
-------------------------------
What does it mean to be "musical"? This term surrounded me in school and I hated it. Up to now, I had forgotten about it.
----
Wow, Stuart - you must have had a heck of a time in school when it came to music - you've hated eveything so far.
----------
"He plays clarinet, but he's not very musical." Doesn't it seem like a vague and redundent adjetive?
----
Not to me.
e.g.;
"He can drive a car, but he can't race worth a darn."
"I can operate a sewing machine, but don't let me sew your clothes."
--------
Everything pertaining to music is MUSICAL. This whole technical/emotional division really screwed things up for me.
------
I think most of us don't have any real problem with the difference. There has to be some level of technical competence to play music, and to be "musical", but not all of us are up to playing the Corigliani concerto.
------
Everyday I realize more and more that it's all united as one entity: me.
-------
Another reason the term bothers me is it somehow judges what is and isn't music which is not the job of any of us.
-------
No - it's the job of _all_ of us. We have different interpretations of what's music - but there's no "absolute" and I don't think anyone I know pretends there is.
---
What is musical and why is the term used only in these school/"classical" settings?
-----
It isn't. Where did you get that idea? I made a partial living playing jazz and CW along with pop music, and while the term "musical" may not have been used verbatim, the meaning was used. "You're really with it tonight" was a bit more common, but it meant exactly the same thing. Is it describable? I'm not sure, unless it is in terms of something that the listener can realte to.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: steve
Date: 1999-05-20 20:14
excellent topic...I've thought that _being_ "musical" or _expressing_ "musicality" is using the tools of a musician, e.g. operating your instrument with technique, informing your brain with study of the instrument, its history, its literature, and the entire corpus of what we call "music" as it relates to you and your instrument, then combining all of this into a "musical performance", which I define as communicating the most basic, intense emotions that you see or feel expressed by/in your chosen music (composed by you or someone else) and intrepreted by you _to one or more people_. This emotional connection to one or more people, to me is musicality.
As to what is "musical", I'm not sure.....I sat through all of Cage's lectures at NU in the mid seventies when he was in residence...he expanded my vision, but I'm still not sure what is "musical", outside of what I decide for myself...of course, this has no bearing on anybody else's definition...am I making sense?...s,
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ginny
Date: 1999-05-20 20:16
I think (if I understand you) I disagree.
For me expression in music is why I play, to lend sound to my emotion. I do not play difficult pieces and I do not play to be sucessful, only for myself. I practice technique as the servant of my ideas. I am no longer a pro, and care nothing for competitions and ranking.
I can hear when someone just plays the pitches and rhythms and when someone is able to play music and speak. Often people do not have enough where with all to get beyond notes and get to the sentances and ultimately the architecture of the piece. They don't have the grace to see beyond this. Some folks think of playing as opera or staying in character and rehearsing the lines for a play. You can use many inflections on the phrase "too be or not to be" and to me this is the joy in playing music written by others. Some have the ability to hear (inside) what they have to say before they have the where with all to say it.
Pablo Casals, the cellist, made many note errors, misbows but had such wonderful ideas and thoughts that he rose above the perfect note players to my mind.
I gave one of my kids the assignment of making a phrase from a simple piece say many different things. Play it cute, angry, in love, with joy, trudge... and he used the tools of staccato, slur, dynamics etc. to make each rendition of the phrase say a different thing. He'd risen beyond mere notes.
If you'd prefer another name for this particular ability, that's fine. But it is real and very important and different from the where with all to play the ideas one has.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: steve
Date: 1999-05-20 20:24
ginny said...
Pablo Casals, the cellist, made many note errors, misbows but had such wonderful ideas and thoughts that he rose above the perfect note players to my mind
++++
that's funny...I was never aware he made mistakes...I was so moved by what he was saying...hearing a recording of him play a bach unaccompanied suite sort of redefined music for me at ate 17...
s
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: stuart
Date: 1999-05-20 20:30
You all are great! I love this site! When I recall my musical education- I remember all sorts of people not recognizing certain musics and putting down a lot of musicians and styles I really enjoy and respect. These were people supposedly educated in music. Ideas like "what is real music" and such got to me. But with the more adult analogy of sex vs. making love-I think everyone agrees.
Ginny, those activities sound wonderful, I've done similar things with my students. What I'm trying to understand is: if we pass music along as something always emotionaly/mentaly/spiritualy/physicaly engaging, what need would we ever have to consider something non-musical?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mario
Date: 1999-05-20 22:01
To be "musical" is to be able to create beauty, emotions, pleasure, sorrow, excitement in the minds of others. You can have a lot of fun playing notes by yourself. The real acid test is when the listener is touched by one's music.
We can all play music stricly for ourselves and be quite content with it. We cannot play music for others without being musical. You cannot be musical without a proper technical base.
You need a superior command of the technical requirements of the piece (read me well here, I do not say a superb technic, I say a superb command of the piece - achievable with limited technic if the piece is well chosen) in order for the "music" to come through. Young people (who often rebel at the effort of growing technically and like to say things like "let me express myself, my feelings are paramounts", etc.) do not understand that without technique, they vocabulary will be limited. It is through in all walks of life: to express complex things you need deep mastery of the tools of your trade: you can build simple furniture and be happy with yourself; for others to be happy, the workmanship requirements demand advanced techniques. The same holds for music and musicality.
So, again, work hard and grow, both technically and musically...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: paul
Date: 1999-05-20 22:33
There is a difference here that many novices like me may not thoroughly understand. Perhaps an example may bring the thought to light a little better.
Musicality means to me the following situation between my professional tutor and me, playing "Georgia On My Mind". It's such a simple tune that most novices can pick it up and play it, at least in a sterile kind of way.
With a novice playing tune exactly as written, there is an emotional feel there, but it's quite distant. The most you will get out of the audience is a "so what?". Now, take the consummate pro playing the same song with inflections, ornaments, and the like...
Suddenly, you are walking through a very steamy Southern town on a hot summer afternoon. You can feel the heat and you begin to sweat. It's just dripping from you. You can smell the musty moss from the trees. You can feel a slight warm breeze on your skin....
But wait, it's the middle of another cold and wet winter night and you're sitting on a very uncomfortable folding chair listening to an 80 something man play a tune on a clarinet right next to you.
Now, that's musicality!
It's the ability to transfix the audience from music, to emotion, to an almost psychotic near out-of-body experience
through the art and magic of music. The audience's imagination just takes off. When that's done, I believe that you have achieved the height of musicality.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: stuart
Date: 1999-05-21 16:32
If a bird can sing a beautiful song, can't that be musical? What kind of technique do think a bird has?
If I improved by playing constantly for the joy or need of playing I would be a better musician than if I played to improve to a point where I could be musical. A point that woouldn't exist unless I clocked x amount of hours or worked up the tempo to 140 or whatever. I would like to ask again: what is the real advantage of separating the concept of technical facility with the more mysterious magical "musicality"?
Does anybody have any comments as to how other cultures might respond to these notions of musicality?
As for me, I say "It's all music, of course it's music, what else would it be?"
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Don Poulsen
Date: 1999-05-21 17:15
stuart wrote:
-------------------------------
If a bird can sing a beautiful song, can't that be musical? What kind of technique do think a bird has?
-------------------------------
Birds aren't trying to be musical. They are communicating, usually staking out their territory, trying to attract a mate, warning others of the hawk flying over,etc. We may find their "songs" pleasant to listen to, but are they music?
-------------------------------
If I improved by playing constantly for the joy or need of playing I would be a better musician than if I played to improve to a point where I could be musical. A point that woouldn't exist unless I clocked x amount of hours or worked up the tempo to 140 or whatever. I would like to ask again: what is the real advantage of separating the concept of technical facility with the more mysterious magical "musicality"?
----------------------------------
I don't want to belabor a point made by others, but perhaps a few more examples from other areas might help.
One example might be a person who learned all the techniques of oil painting to the point he could duplicate masterpieces so closely that only an expert could distinguish them. Is this being artistic? No.
How about the person who just picks up a brush and canvas and is able to create something that successfully conveys a feeling to others. Is this being artistic? I think so.
I can write a computer program or create a MIDI file that plays a song with extremely precise pitches and note lengths. When I play the program or file, is the computer playing music? Yes. Is it displaying musicality? No, not in the sense we are talking about.
Can a new clarinetist who can't reach the notes above the staff or tongue sixteenths at 100 beats per minute display musicality? Yes, if she "feels" the music that she can play and conveys that feeling to others.
Being able to reach the highest notes in the altisimo register and playing tongued 16ths precisely at 160 beats per minute are useful tools to a musician, but they don't make one a musician.
A real-life example might be the pianist that they made a movie about a few years ago (sorry, I can't think of his name or that of the movie). He could play the most demanding pieces, which impressed many people, but critics felt that his renditions were more machine-like than musical.
------------------------------------
Does anybody have any comments as to how other cultures might respond to these notions of musicality?
As for me, I say "It's all music, of course it's music, what else would it be?"
------------------------------------
Of course, the opinion of what is music is going to differ from person to person, but unless the musician adds something of his own interpretation to it and conveys something other than notes to his audience, it isn't necessarily musical.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Don Berger
Date: 1999-05-21 19:29
What a textbook![above] on what I think of as "interpretation" where a near-infinite variety of expression is possible and acceptable, just consider the many recordings of the great Mozart and others.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: stuart
Date: 1999-05-21 19:31
Sorry I keep flogging this-but I think it's very interesting. Is the movie your talking about is 32 Short Film About Glen Gould? He is my favorite. He seemed to somehow remove himself from the creative procces and allow Bach's music to flow right through him. I've heard so many people try to be expressive by closing they're eyes and seemingly squezing the emotion out, filling the music with overindulgence. This can screw things up for the audience.
Gould never did this, in my opinion. I should mention that I only listen to his recordings of Bach. If you haven't seen this movie and are talking about another one-you gotta check this out, it's fantastic!
Back to the birds. Speaking of birds: are you going to tell me that Messian's Quartet for the End of Time was a product of his mind without the Holy Spirit? (just curious)
Birds-I wish I could sing for hunger, for territory, for pain, for sex---wait a minute......I DO!
The Birds don't even bother with interpretation, they just do. When I'm in that zone (usually for 5 seconds once a month) dewscribed by Gallway in "The Inner Game of Tennis" I am not the least bit concerned with anything. My conscious mind is OFF. I am playing the same way I breath and eat and walk etc.. That is the ideal state for creativity. Why do think so many good ideas happen in the 3 B's (bus, bed, bathroom)?
Would you consider a marching band territorial? What about a drummer boy? The MC KRS-One (hip-hop legend) regularly stakes him claim to territories both physical and meta-physical, as does Guru of Gangstarr.
Charles Mingus stked out and expanded his territories, and he used to music to get sex, and to warn our country of dangerous evils.
This may sound like either confusing/obscure or just ridiculous garbage but I think it's time Americans get back to reality and start living from the heart.
Birds aren't trying to be expressive? Ofcourse not. Trying is only going to prevent the flow of truth.
PS: Sorry about preaching, I don't mean to offend anyone.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 1999-05-21 20:37
stuart wrote:
-------------------------------
Is the movie your talking about is 32 Short Film About Glen Gould?
---
I think he meant Shine, about (more or less) David Helfgott.
-------
This can screw things up for the audience.
Gould never did this, in my opinion. I should mention that I only listen to his recordings of Bach. If you haven't seen this movie and are talking about another one-you gotta check this out, it's fantastic!
-------
If Gould didn't hum so incessantly out of tune, and had that blasted double striking hammer fixed on his highly modified Steinway (you breathe on a key, it strikes a string! I played on it once over in Toronto) I'd enjoy his playing much more. Those two things are horribly distracting.
I don't think Gould liked Beethoven - he attacks the music viciously - but his Bach was divine.
-------
Back to the birds. Speaking of birds: are you going to tell me that Messian's Quartet for the End of Time was a product of his mind without the Holy Spirit? (just curious)
-------
Depends if you believe in the "holy spirit". Messaien did - and that's all that really matters. Whether or not there is a "holy spirit" is best left up to religion.
----------
PS: Sorry about preaching, I don't mean to offend anyone.
=======
No offense taken.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Lelia
Date: 1999-05-21 21:42
Re. the birds, they're probably a lot more into technique than we are. Suppose you're the watch-crow sitting on the fence. Suppose you want to warn the other crows, busy yanking bugs out of the lawn, that you've sighted a cat or a hawk. Suppose you sing a wrong note.
Re. muscality vs. technique, one of my favorite performances is Nathan Milstein's first recording of Bach's sonatas and partitas for solo violin. He plays them with clean, perfect technique and in a rather severe style. To me that restrained style of playing has a great dignity that if anything brings out the emotion of the music better than some of the more romanticized recordings by other violinists. But another of my favorite violin recordings (also an old LP) is almost the opposite: the violinist Zino Francescatti playing Henri Vieuxtemps's Violin Concerto No. 4. This is a virtuosic showpiece. Francescatti gives a hair-raising performance, right on the edge of crashing and burning. Some of the notes are out-of-tune shrieks. Francescatti had the technique to give a much cleaner performance than this, but he plays the music, not just the notes--and the music calls for wildness, for a sense of abandon and even danger that raises the level of tension and excitement in the audience. The first time my violin-playing husband and I listened to that record, Kevin said at the end of it, "That swirling noise you hear is every other violinist on the planet flushing himself down the toilet!"
I think it wouldn't kill clarinetists to take more interpretive risks. I'd like to hear more clarinet recordings that really differ from each other. There's not just one right way to play. At my own amateur level of playing, I do work on the most precise technique I can manage, because I've got a lot of room to improve there and I think musicianship in the sense of interpretive individualism just sounds like noise if it isn't served by technical mastery. Or vice-versa, if it comes to that! IMHO, they're equally important.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 1999-05-21 21:55
Lelia wrote:
-------------------------------
[snip]
Nicely said, Lelia.
You know, some people equate technique with speed. It's not the same at all. B.B. King doesn't often play very fast, but he has gobs of technique. All you have to hear is one note - and you know it's B.B..
But ...
I've heard B.B. warming up. Doing scales and changes. And guess what - he plays them <b><i>very</b></i> precisely. I think that since he can do them so precisely during a practice/warmup, he can then allow his impeccable timing to take over onstage (if you want to listen to a lead line stand out without extra volume, listen to B.B.'s rubato during a set of fast changes into a lead riff. You never lose the guitar - it's subtly off-time so it stands out).
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tim2
Date: 1999-05-23 02:50
Suppose you're the watch-crow sitting on the fence. Suppose you want to warn the other crows, busy yanking bugs out of the lawn, that you've sighted a cat or a hawk.
-------------------------------------------------
I just have to say where I live, it's the crows that attack the other animals. (squirrels/rabbits) A crow being stalked makes me a chuckle.
----------------------------------------------------
I think it wouldn't kill clarinetists to take more interpretive risks.
------------------------------------------------------
David Pino aludes to this in his book, "The Clarinet and Clarinet Playing." He talks about "musicality." That's the chapter.
I think even with the analogies being drawn, it can be sometimes difficult to understand the word "musicality" and what it take to materially make it happen. It took a teacher, for me, to literally spell out, not just the phrasing, but the slight accel. or descel. that might make up a phrase, all the things to do, note for note, to create the "musicality" he wanted. The rise and fall of a phrase, having it reiterated on the paper and to me many times. I always knew that making music was like painting your own picture. I just needed someone to _teach me how_ to paint what I wanted to paint. I owe that teacher a debt of gratitude for opening my mind to be able to be the musician I am today. By painting his picture, I became able to paint my own.
Stuart, I hope you are able to find the answer you are looking for.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Erik Doughty
Date: 1999-05-25 21:01
Fascinating conversation! My understanding of musicality is based on my experience with two performers I know (neither of whom is a clarinetist, but I am, so I hope it's allowed). One is the organist at my home church, who's only a "performer" on weekends during our church services. The other is a woman who supposedly was good to hear because she had her doctorate in organ performance. My impression was that her playing was technically superior, but musically far inferior. It did sound mechanical and dead, when it didn't have to.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
