Jay is not downloading music from the web, but from his head

[VicDiesel]

Educate me: can you show me 2 mp3's of the same piece of music, and tell me no.1 has "feelings" and no.2 is "mechanistic" one? And they are so not because of the properties I listed: timbre, dynamics, tempo/division and harmony.

Right. They should be exactly the same, but different.

Look, people can play the same notes, dynamics as indicated by the composer, same tempo, and still be very different.

I own at least half a dozen recordings of the Bach Cello Suites, of which two even by the same performer, but made some years apart, and they are all different. One (Rostropovitch) I'd describe as boring, another as austere (Bylsma), a couple more romantic (Fournier, Ma), or sometimes overly romantic (the other Ma)).

It's all in tiny diferences in phrasing, timbre, dynamics, but it adds up. With a good performer it becomes a performance that is worth listening to. There is a reason that people pay $50 or more per ticket to see one guy play piano for an hour.

But I don't get the impression that you're terribly interested.

V.

[Armadillo]

Sascha FranK:
Yes, that makes perfectly sense to me. Now if you'd excuse me, I'm gonna go and make some music....with loads of feelings in it

[VicDiesel]

Ok, just for the roadkill animal.

I've chosen three performances on modern instruments (which rules out Bylsma) and made in modern times (which rules out Casals), so that you wouldn't be distracted by extreme differences in secondary qualities.

Listen for yourself.

(I was starting to upload this when I realized that they are Apple's format, so you'll have to listen in iTunes. Sorry. I don't feel like re-extracting this over again.)

V.

[Armadillo]

It's all in tiny diferences in phrasing, timbre, dynamics, but it adds up. With a good performer it becomes a performance that is worth listening to. There is a reason that people pay $50 or more per ticket to see one guy play piano for an hour.

But I don't get the impression that you're terribly interested.

V.

That's ok. You have now stated what I have said all along. "Feelings" can be defined within these properties. But I do agree that small timing changes and changes in dynamic can be done by the performer as the notation does give a bit of freedom for "improvisation" there.

But thanks for making the effort regarding the music files anyway.

[VicDiesel]

You have now stated what I have said all along.

Well, I had the impression that you were being deliberately obtuse. How did you phrase it "you play pianissimo when it says fortissimo"?

"Feelings" can be defined within these properties.

Not really. Objectively speaking these properties are there, but the gap between them and "feelings" is really big.

Compare it to saying that what happens in your brain "only voltages between neurons". True, but the stuff you care about, words, feelings, can barely be desribed that way. Same way with music.

But I do agree that small timing changes and changes in dynamic can be done by the performer as the notation is does give a bit of freedom for "improvisation" there.

I don't think we disagreed about that. However, these small differences (in the opinion of most everyone in this thread) add up to creativity, making music, as opposed to reproducing like (as you put it) a "copycat".

Anyway, hope you can take a listen to those tracks.

I'm off, making music, playing 3 or 4 centuries old stuff from paper, as accurately as we can, and having a blast in the process.

V.

[lanark]

math.
math.
math
math

math is for analyze the world, man
math is a model
math doesn't create nothing, it only measure it

or -analogycally- may be you can write a book following the syntax rules?

[lanark]

Educate me: can you show me 2 mp3's of the same piece of music, and tell me no.1 has "feelings" and no.2 is "mechanistic" one? And they are so not because of the properties I listed: timbre, dynamics, tempo/division and harmony.

You're right, that's not into the music itself, it is in the intention of the interpreter (who is a human being, btw) and the listener (who is... guess what?, correcto, a human being) and both of them use the (very complex) combination of the parameters that you simplify to comunicate such feelings each other.
ok, I'm simplifying also, but my point is clear, isnt it?