| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Dayvenkirq 
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 25 2011
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Status: Offline
Points: 10970
|
 Posted: February 22 2013 at 16:03 |
 Tapfret wrote:
Dayvenkirq wrote:
Tapfret wrote:
^You've been around since 2006. I'm sure you have seen this discussion repeatedly and it always contains a throng that marginalizes musicians talent for the sake of the listeners subjective "feeling". Its absurd to declare that being able to play four bars of 64th triplets in the middle of 3 key changes precludes the player from emotion. |
Absurd? How did that come about? |
Because it is. It would be like me telling someone that you did not really "feel" like getting groceries during your last trip to the grocery because you drove really fast in a really nice car. |
I'm sorry, but this analogy doesn't make sense. You said:
"Its absurd to declare that being able to play four bars of 64th triplets in the middle of 3 key changes precludes the player from emotion."
..., and I would say:
"No, it's not. The hypothetical musical idea you've described here sounds like too many notes, too much information to deliver a single emotion. Obviously, this goes beyond cars and groceries."
Tapfret wrote:
You are making implications about the player/composer's motivations based on your own preconceived notion of what defines emotion. The emotion or feeling derived from music listening is 100% subjective and only the performer/writer knows what his/her motivations are. Lots of people got emotional about the movie Titanic. Not me. Should I suggest that the writer/director/production crew did not impart any emotion into their work because they used too much technique and skill in the production? It must be so, I didn't "feel" it.
Now that would be BLOODY ABSURD! |
This analogy doesn't work either. Now we are talking films. This isn't music. Technical proficiency to music-making is what to film-making?
Edited by Dayvenkirq - February 22 2013 at 16:04
|
 |
aldri7
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 09 2013
Status: Offline
Points: 114
|
Posted: February 22 2013 at 16:18 |
Repetition deadens the emotions and that is why all art is so subjective. Technical proficiency in anything requires a lot of rote or repetitive learning, and so that is where the connection gets made between technical proficiency and emotionless playing.
Take a guy schooled on piano and give him a guitar. Let him fool around with it for a month or so, and then hook him up with some other musicians. BEcause he has perhaps really good ears, he will pick stuff out but not be able to play it very proficiently. HIs excitement though at the newness of what he is doing mixed with trial and error will probably result in some fresh sounds and really emotional playing.
But every artist has the ability to make that distinction between repetitive, emotionless playing and playing with "feeling". Technical proficiency doesn't preclude you from being able to do the latter, you just sometimes have to work a bit harder and not let your fingers dictate to your brain and ears how to play.
aldri7
|
|
Tapfret
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin
Joined: August 12 2007
Location: Bryant, Wa
Status: Offline
Points: 8571
|
Posted: February 22 2013 at 16:22 |
Dayvenkirq wrote:
"No, it's not. The hypothetical musical idea you've described here sounds like too many notes, too much information to deliver a single emotion. |
The key word is hypothetical. You are hypothesizing based on your own personal tastes. Nothing else. I don't know how many ways I can tell you that. Its subjective. Do you understand subjective? Regardless of what analogy I am using, the point is you can not make blanket statements about other people's, particularly artist's emotions based on what your feeling is. You are trying to objectify the subjective. Attempting to apply a tangibility to the intangible. What you feel is not what the composer feels.
|
|
|
|
aldri7
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 09 2013
Status: Offline
Points: 114
|
Posted: February 22 2013 at 16:26 |
Dayvenkirq wrote:
"No, it's not. The hypothetical musical idea you've described here sounds like too many notes, too much information to deliver a single emotion. Obviously, this goes beyond cars and groceries.
|
can't say as I agree. I could probably get pretty excited about it emotionally in the right context. It wouldn't have to be delivered flawlessly either. Proficiency doesn't matter so much. But I don't agree that "too many notes" in music somehow renders it unable to produce a single emotion. It is not too much information as the brain is going to simplify it and extract its essence which is still tone, harmony etc within the broader context of the music. Certainly that can evoke emotion and not a lot of little, conflicting emotions either. An insect beating its wings a hundred times a second still produces a single pure tone, not a thousand little notes, each for the brain to interpret and decipher. The result is one emotion (irritation, right?).....
aldri7
Edited by aldri7 - February 22 2013 at 16:31
|
|
Dayvenkirq
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 25 2011
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Status: Offline
Points: 10970
|
Posted: February 22 2013 at 16:30 |
aldri7 wrote:
Repetition deadens the emotions and that is why all art is so subjective. Technical proficiency in anything requires a lot of rote or repetitive learning, and so that is where the connection gets made between technical proficiency and emotionless playing. |
You think repetitive learning enforces emotionless playing, and that is why people conceive a link between technical proficiency and lack of emotion? From the performer's point of view ... maybe; from the listener's point of view ... I don't think so. I thought that all this time we discussed the listener's perception of emotion and virtuosity ... but maybe I was wrong all this time.
aldri7 wrote:
Take a guy schooled on piano and give him a guitar. Let him fool around with it for a month or so, and then hook him up with some other musicians. Because he has perhaps really good ears, he will pick stuff out but not be able to play it very proficiently. HIs excitement though at the newness of what he is doing mixed with trial and error will probably result in some fresh sounds and really emotional playing. |
That is very probable.
aldri7 wrote:
Technical proficiency doesn't preclude you from being able to do the latter, you just sometimes have to work a bit harder and not let your fingers dictate to your brain and ears how to play. |
I keep asking for an example of that, but no one has committed to this so far.
aldri7 wrote:
... you just sometimes have to work a bit harder and not let your fingers dictate to your brain and ears how to play. |
Now you've lost me there. How can fingers dictate?
|
|
Dayvenkirq
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 25 2011
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Status: Offline
Points: 10970
|
Posted: February 22 2013 at 16:34 |
|
|
|
Dayvenkirq
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 25 2011
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Status: Offline
Points: 10970
|
Posted: February 22 2013 at 16:37 |
Tapfret wrote:
Dayvenkirq wrote:
"No, it's not. The hypothetical musical idea you've described here sounds like too many notes, too much information to deliver a single emotion. |
The key word is hypothetical. You are hypothesizing based on your own personal tastes. Nothing else. I don't know how many ways I can tell you that. Its subjective. Do you understand subjective? Regardless of what analogy I am using, the point is you can not make blanket statements about other people's, particularly artist's emotions based on what your feeling is. You are trying to objectify the subjective. Attempting to apply a tangibility to the intangible. What you feel is not what the composer feels. |
... or maybe you are subjectifying the objective, as millions of other confused people (musicians or not, thinking of themselves as artists ) on this globe probably do. Guess we'll never know the truth of who is right here, eh? One may think he is coming up with something meaningful whilst just deceiving himself; I happened to be one of those people (sorry if you think I'm painting a really bleak picture for you). ... Which brings us to the use of the word "pretentious", and, of course, different people have different ideas of what this word means in the context of music criticism. The reason I brought up this word is because it means something very specific to me (that kept missing my head for so many months): saying some things you don't really mean as an artist. I used to experiment with my instruments and sound-processing software a lot, thinking I was actually making something, taking it all pretty seriously. Breaking news: 90% of it wound up as garbage (that just keeps storing the memory space of my laptop).
I guess what I'm hinting at is that I'm really focused on the idea that some people tend to confuse entertainment (technical proficiency) with art (emotion). I could be one of those people.
Edited by Dayvenkirq - February 22 2013 at 16:59
|
|
aldri7
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 09 2013
Status: Offline
Points: 114
|
Posted: February 22 2013 at 16:47 |
Dayvenkirq wrote:
aldri7 wrote:
Repetition deadens the emotions and that is why all art is so subjective. Technical proficiency in anything requires a lot of rote or repetitive learning, and so that is where the connection gets made between technical proficiency and emotionless playing. |
You think repetitive learning enforces emotionless playing, and that is why people conceive a link between technical proficiency and lack of emotion? From the performer's point of view ... maybe; from the listener's point of view ... I don't think so. I thought that all this time we discussed the listener's perception of emotion and virtuosity ... but maybe I was wrong all this time. |
Its easier to see it from the performers point of view, because there are only one set of ears to worry about. From the listeners point of view, reactions will vary enormously. Some may feel it, some may not. I didn't say that repetitive playing is not going to connect with listeners because to the listener it may not seem repetitive at all. Its all based on your experience.
I just said that some make the connection between technical proficiency and emotionless playing because of the role that repetition plays in becoming technically proficient. But repetitive learning doesn't "enforce emotionless playing", it just makes it statistically more likely, IMHO :) And again, to the listener, what is emotionless will vary from one person to the next. You may be bored playing that same tune or lick over and over again, but to fresh ears, it might be the greatest thing their ears ever heard. It might make them cry. Age can play a big role too. I don't respond as a listener emotionally to things I used to respond emotionally to years ago. There is no way that the performer can predict or control listeners prior "ear training" and so he/she just has to do the best that they can.
aldri7
|
|
aldri7
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 09 2013
Status: Offline
Points: 114
|
Posted: February 22 2013 at 16:58 |
Dayvenkirq wrote:
aldri7 wrote:
Dayvenkirq wrote:
"No, it's not. The hypothetical musical idea you've described here sounds like too many notes, too much information to deliver a single emotion. Obviously, this goes beyond cars and groceries.
|
can't say as I agree. I could probably get pretty excited about it emotionally in the right context. It wouldn't have to be delivered flawlessly either. Proficiency doesn't matter so much. But I don't agree that "too many notes" in music somehow renders it unable to produce a single emotion. It is not too much information as the brain is going to simplify it and extract its essence which is still tone, harmony etc within the broader context of the music. Certainly that can evoke emotion and not a lot of little, conflicting emotions either. An insect beating its wings a hundred times a second still produces a single pure tone, not a thousand little notes, each for the brain to interpret and decipher. The result is one emotion (irritation, right?)..... |
Not everyone's brain works that way. Not everybody's brain can simplify ... |
some people may hear it as simply too many notes. Maybe you are like that. I can't say truth be told that what you perceive is not what you say it is. But the brain simplifies things just like when it watches a movie and all those still frames get mashed together to produce a moving image. You don't see each individual frame and so your brain doesn't construct emotional responses to each one individually. So I'm just saying that if you sit down and play 100 fast notes on the piano, how does that preclude it from evoking a single emotional response? Why suddenly does the high number of notes make the brain feel multiple emotions as though each note has a separate emotional receptor in the brain or something..
aldri7
|
|
Dayvenkirq
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 25 2011
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Status: Offline
Points: 10970
|
Posted: February 22 2013 at 17:05 |
^ That's not what I was talking about - the quantity. OK, maybe I didn't phrase it right, though I didn't even imply that an author would use a multitude of notes to project a multitude of emotions. My point is: why use so many notes when you can use just a few to project that emotion? ... Because if the author does use a multitude of notes to project an emotion, I will (I seriously will) take it as a bit of entertainment, not as a bit of resonance. Feel the difference?
aldri7 wrote:
Dayvenkirq wrote:
aldri7 wrote:
Repetition deadens the emotions and that is why all art is so subjective. Technical proficiency in anything requires a lot of rote or repetitive learning, and so that is where the connection gets made between technical proficiency and emotionless playing. |
You think repetitive learning enforces emotionless playing, and that is why people conceive a link between technical proficiency and lack of emotion? From the performer's point of view ... maybe; from the listener's point of view ... I don't think so. I thought that all this time we discussed the listener's perception of emotion and virtuosity ... but maybe I was wrong all this time. |
Its easier to see it from the performers point of view, because there are only one set of ears to worry about. From the listeners point of view, reactions will vary enormously. Some may feel it, some may not. I didn't say that repetitive playing is not going to connect with listeners because to the listener it may not seem repetitive at all. Its all based on your experience.
I just said that some make the connection between technical proficiency and emotionless playing because of the role that repetition plays in becoming technically proficient. But repetitive learning doesn't "enforce emotionless playing", it just makes it statistically more likely, IMHO :) And again, to the listener, what is emotionless will vary from one person to the next. You may be bored playing that same tune or lick over and over again, but to fresh ears, it might be the greatest thing their ears ever heard. It might make them cry. Age can play a big role too. I don't respond as a listener emotionally to things I used to respond emotionally to years ago. There is no way that the performer can predict or control listeners prior "ear training" and so he/she just has to do the best that they can.
aldri7
|
I'm not quite sure how this conversation took a turn into something about repetition on a thread that is about virtuosity.
Edited by Dayvenkirq - February 22 2013 at 17:09
|
|
Tapfret
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin
Joined: August 12 2007
Location: Bryant, Wa
Status: Offline
Points: 8571
|
Posted: February 22 2013 at 17:32 |
Dayvenkirq wrote:
Not everyone's brain works that way. |
This! We have a cognitive complexity that prevents a conventionality to emotional response to anything. We all experience things differently. In a broader sense, and my psychology education is admittedly the most basic to accomplish my job functions, our emotional responses in any context can foster an endless "nature vs. nurture" discussion.
Dayvenkirq wrote:
Tapfret wrote:
Dayvenkirq wrote:
"No, it's not. The hypothetical musical idea you've described here sounds like too many notes, too much information to deliver a single emotion. |
The key word is hypothetical. You are hypothesizing based on your own personal tastes. Nothing else. I don't know how many ways I can tell you that. Its subjective. Do you understand subjective? Regardless of what analogy I am using, the point is you can not make blanket statements about other people's, particularly artist's emotions based on what your feeling is. You are trying to objectify the subjective. Attempting to apply a tangibility to the intangible. What you feel is not what the composer feels. |
... or maybe you are subjectifying the objective, as millions of other confused people on this globe probably do, musicians or not. Guess we'll never know the truth who is right here, eh? One may think he is coming up with something meaningful whilst just deceiving himself (sorry if you think I'm painting a really bleak picture for you). |
This is where our main cognitive
dissonance is with this discussion: separating what is meaningful to the
listener from what is meaningful to the composer/performer. Only he/she knows what that is and no amount of ridicule or attempts to enlighten relating our experience will change that. He might say "derp" later on, but that does not change his intent at the genesis of the concept. Does it matter that they are fooling themselves regarding its implicit meaning? This could be said of any music, complex or otherwise and relates more to originality versus derivation.
The only meaningful thing for the purposes of this discussion is what that idea means in our minds. We can see very clearly that what illicits emotional response to each of us has a very broad scope. Keep in mind that the majority of the Earth's population would find the entire PA library to be technical and emotionless.
Dayvenkirq wrote:
I guess what I'm hinting at is that I'm really focused on the idea that some people tend to confuse entertainment (technical proficiency) with art (emotion). I could be one of those people.
|
I had to think about this one for a minute. I am not convinced that the 2 are mutually exclusive, but I get what you are saying. Enjoyment is an emotion of entertainment. I know not of any empirical data on the subject, but I would be surprised if the majority of "entertainers" did not consider themselves artists.
Edited by Tapfret - February 22 2013 at 17:40
|
|
|
|
Tapfret
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin
Joined: August 12 2007
Location: Bryant, Wa
Status: Offline
Points: 8571
|
Posted: February 22 2013 at 17:36 |
aldri7 wrote:
Dayvenkirq wrote:
aldri7 wrote:
Repetition deadens the emotions and that is why all art is so subjective. Technical proficiency in anything requires a lot of rote or repetitive learning, and so that is where the connection gets made between technical proficiency and emotionless playing. |
You think repetitive learning enforces emotionless playing, and that is why people conceive a link between technical proficiency and lack of emotion? From the performer's point of view ... maybe; from the listener's point of view ... I don't think so. I thought that all this time we discussed the listener's perception of emotion and virtuosity ... but maybe I was wrong all this time. |
Its easier to see it from the performers point of view, because there are only one set of ears to worry about. From the listeners point of view, reactions will vary enormously. Some may feel it, some may not. I didn't say that repetitive playing is not going to connect with listeners because to the listener it may not seem repetitive at all. Its all based on your experience.
I just said that some make the connection between technical proficiency and emotionless playing because of the role that repetition plays in becoming technically proficient. But repetitive learning doesn't "enforce emotionless playing", it just makes it statistically more likely, IMHO :) And again, to the listener, what is emotionless will vary from one person to the next. You may be bored playing that same tune or lick over and over again, but to fresh ears, it might be the greatest thing their ears ever heard. It might make them cry. Age can play a big role too. I don't respond as a listener emotionally to things I used to respond emotionally to years ago. There is no way that the performer can predict or control listeners prior "ear training" and so he/she just has to do the best that they can.
aldri7
|
Well said. My ultimate injection to the conversation is that we can only validate our own emotions (sometimes) and not those of any other listener and certainly not the composer/performer.
|
|
|
|
aldri7
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 09 2013
Status: Offline
Points: 114
|
Posted: February 22 2013 at 17:44 |
Dayvenkirq wrote:
That's not what I was talking about - the quantity. OK, maybe I didn't phrase it right, though I didn't even imply that an author would use a multitude of notes to project a multitude of emotions. My point is: why use so many notes when you can use just a few to project that emotion? ... Because if the author does use a multitude of notes to project an emotion, I will (I seriously will) take it as a bit of entertainment, not as a bit of resonance. Feel the difference?
I'm not quite sure how this conversation took a turn into something about repetition on a thread that is about virtuosity.
|
Since I'm not as proficient as you in responding to quotes individually (darn computers...:))....I'll just give a blanket reply.
I guess your first reply is perplexing to me because I don't necessarily connect fast or multiple notes with entertainment vs real music. Pianos in particular do not lend themselves to playing single notes that sustain for over four bars! So you can't necessarily trim all those notes - you may have to play them over and over again or they will die out and you will just be left with silence (not resonance)
OK, I know you know that. :) Anyway, I think I understand the point you are trying to make, but if the bottom line is projecting an emotion and you feel that a single note will do so why use multiple notes. I say - why NOT use multiple notes if in doing so you inject motion, excitement, rhythm, the urge to dance maybe. I don't know. I mean who can say what purpose a given piece of music has, what its role is. It is more than just about stripping it down to its barest essence though and only playing as many notes as you need to get the emotional message across. Do we have to pace ourselves for fear of wearing our fingers out?
BUt yeah, we've drifted off topic. The topic was virtuosity and I guess, whether virtuosity if it comes in the form of lots of notes (too many maybe, you say) is a good thing. I myself said it wasn't necessarily a good thing, and that fewer notes (a la Weather Report and Wayne Shorter) is often advised. So I tend to agree with you in spirit a lot of times, just not in how you connect all of this with what seems like some sort of an litmus test that music must pass in order that it be considered emotionally valid and not "just" entertainment. In China, they had that one child only policy. Makes sense, but I wouldn't want to live in a society where it is required. :) And I also like chilling out to pure resonance sometimes, but as a keyboardist I know you have to resort to repetition sometimes in order to keep the sound alive!
aldri7
Edited by aldri7 - February 22 2013 at 17:52
|
|
Tapfret
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin
Joined: August 12 2007
Location: Bryant, Wa
Status: Offline
Points: 8571
|
Posted: February 22 2013 at 17:56 |
aldri7 wrote:
And I also like chilling out to pure resonance sometimes... |
Yeah, I tend to not listen to Spastic Ink while practicing Yoga.
|
|
|
|
aldri7
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 09 2013
Status: Offline
Points: 114
|
Posted: February 22 2013 at 18:09 |
When it comes to prog though - and maybe this relates more to the argument about technical proficiency vs art (emotion). We (I do at any rate) tend to view prog rock as having a higher "artistic value" or merit than other genres of rock. And why is this? Is it because of the virtuosity factor? No, it shouldn't be. Virtuosity in prog (I'm talking playing, not composing) is IMHO not related to a prog song's artistic/emotional content. But I can see where others might see it differently and respond very emotionally to technical wizardry for its own sake regardless of anything else. Anyway, but I was always a Yes fan but not a Rick Wakeman fan because, even though I am a keyboardist, the former packed emotional content while the latter was more just about technical proficiency to me. And when thats the case, I often go outside of prog entirely to get my emotional "fix". And like I said before, i don't like the soloing in "The Underfall Yard" (Big Big Train) because the technical wizardly distracts from the emotional power of the song. It leaves me feeling cold and emotionless, and I wish I could fast forward past it every time i listen to it (actually, I can....mmmm....but I just don't like to have to do it...)
Edited by aldri7 - February 22 2013 at 18:12
|
|
Dayvenkirq
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 25 2011
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Status: Offline
Points: 10970
|
Posted: February 22 2013 at 18:47 |
Tapfret wrote:
Dayvenkirq wrote:
I guess what I'm hinting at is that I'm really focused on the idea that some people tend to confuse entertainment (technical proficiency) with art (emotion). I could be one of those people.
|
I had to think about this one for a minute. I am not convinced that the 2 are mutually exclusive, but I get what you are saying. Enjoyment is an emotion of entertainment. I know not of any empirical data on the subject, but I would be surprised if the majority of "entertainers" did not consider themselves artists. |
I think it's this premise of mine that is the root of all "evil"/confusion/whatever in this discussion. You phrased your response in such a manner that it can be inferred that entertainment and art do not have different purposes. All these years I never thought about them the way you do. Of course, it can still be argued that it is not a universal truth.
Edited by Dayvenkirq - February 22 2013 at 18:48
|
|
Guldbamsen
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin
Joined: January 22 2009
Location: Magic Theatre
Status: Offline
Points: 23098
|
Posted: February 22 2013 at 19:20 |
|
Some of this is like astrophysics to me.
Maybe it's because I just ate a little cheese...
|
|
“The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.”
- Douglas Adams
|
|
Dayvenkirq
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 25 2011
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Status: Offline
Points: 10970
|
Posted: February 22 2013 at 19:21 |
|
|
|
Kati
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 10 2010
Location: Earth
Status: Offline
Points: 6253
|
Posted: February 22 2013 at 19:31 |
Guldbamsen wrote:
Some of this is like astrophysics to me.
Maybe it's because I just ate a little cheese... |
Guldbamsen  I will differ to disagree with you here, astrophysics is too predictable for virtuosity I would say r etrograde compared to astrophysics.Another
Edited by Kati - February 22 2013 at 19:38
|
|
The Dark Elf
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: February 01 2011
Location: Michigan
Status: Offline
Points: 12695
|
Posted: February 22 2013 at 20:27 |
|
Getting back to wherever it was in the discussion that folks were actually commenting on the role of virtuosity in Progressive music, I think it is a necessity, an uncommon component that separates the genre from baser rock models. That is not to say there isn't virtuosity to be found in 12 bar blues, because I could rattle off many amazingly gifted blues musicians; however, the symphonic and jazz elements in prog require a more disciplined approach and a greater background in musical theory..
Aside from the usual rhetoric one hears, I sometimes think the punk backlash in the mid-70s was propagated by musicians who just couldn't excel in competition with Yes, Crimson, Tull, ELP, Genesis, etc. The whole "getting back to the roots of rock" with a bunch of snarling, 4-chord, safety-pinned cheeked street urchins, leaned heavily on bravado and definitely not on musical ability. Simplistic, I know, but musical virtuosity had actually achieved mainstream success by 1975, yet ever since the ability to really play an instrument has been peripheral to the Billboard Top 100. Prog rock is a niche now, as is jazz and symphony (musical forms which had their heyday in the mythical past).
Edited by The Dark Elf - February 22 2013 at 20:28
|
|
...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined
to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology...
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
The Role of Virtuosity in Progressive Music
