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

[VicDiesel]

I'll readily agree that more classically trained musicians need to learn to loosen up and improvise. Jam. Boogie. Cook.

The only type of classical musician that regularly improvises are organ players. Comes from having to be adaptable in church: "Oh, could you fill this place in the mass with a minute of something meditative?". In fact, there are competitions for improvising on church organ.

Did I mention that I used to play organ?

V.

[Armadillo]

Don't worry about common ground. We're not twins after all

I suppose I mostly listen to cold, heartless, non-feelings based music cause I don't see it that way.

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.

[Meffy]

The only type of classical musician that regularly improvises are organ players. Comes from having to be adaptable in church: "Oh, could you fill this place in the mass with a minute of something meditative?". In fact, there are competitions for improvising on church organ.

Did I mention that I used to play organ?

:-D

You're right about organic organism. One of the things I like about Orgelmusik.

But plenty of classical musicians play not just in formal concerts but in more relaxed settings too, and get to let their hair down. Not nearly as many as should, but the ones who're good at it tend to be the creme de la creme de l'orchestre.

Now, if we'd just revive the concept of performer-written cadenzas, emphasizing the importance of being able to improvise based on thematic materials borrowed from the rest of a piece, maybe that would encourage a richer musical vocabulary. And it would make concerts more interesting -- both for the audicence and the performer.

Meffy

[Meffy]

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.

No, because I have no interest in going to that level of effort for this thread. If you're so inclined you can find them yourself. It's your education, after all.

My impression is that either you're pulling my leg and playing at semantics, or (I sincerely hope not) you really don't feel the music. If the former, I'm sorry to have misinterpreted your intent. If the latter, I'm still sorry.

Meffy

[Meffy]

Quoted in entirety, because you have hit the nail on the head.

This whole thread sounds like a great example of chaos theory - complexity versus generalisation.

What makes a great performance could be analysed and documented very objectively down to the last detail, but the effort required to do so is incredibly significant, consequently it is easier to generalise and talk about "feelings".

As to the discussion about composer versus performer. I believe they are both worthy of respect. My personal preference is for the person who put the music into form, but as a very average performer I have enormous respect for people who can play their instrument well at the same time as "interpreting" sheet music.

Exactly so. Thank you. *bow*

Meffy

[donkey tugger]

Don't worry about common ground. We're not twins after all

I suppose I mostly listen to cold, heartless, non-feelings based music cause I don't see it that way.

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.

I think you have the proverbial cart afore the horse there somehow. Surely, the desire to create a mood/feeling etc creates the timbre/notes/dynamics/harmony etc? Even if you're entering notes step time?

Do you not feel anything when composing your music?

[Armadillo]

What makes a great performance could be analysed and documented very objectively down to the last detail, but the effort required to do so is incredibly significant, consequently it is easier to generalise and talk about "feelings".

Funny that you agree with that Meffy, as that's what I've been saying all along showing you the properties which could be analyzed.

Anyway, I don't have an example for classical music but if you think that the same "feelings" can be applied to James Brown, Here is an analyses of "I feel good".

[Armadillo]

Don't worry about common ground. We're not twins after all

I suppose I mostly listen to cold, heartless, non-feelings based music cause I don't see it that way.

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.

I think you have the proverbial cart afore the horse there somehow. Surely, the desire to create a mood/feeling etc creates the timbre/notes/dynamics/harmony etc? Even if you're entering notes step time?

Do you not feel anything when composing your music?

Am I not explaining myself properly or something.
It was claimed that a piece of music could be empty and soul less OR exciting and uplifting (or whatever words was used).
I simply stated that for that to happen you would need to change those properties, THEREFORE changing the notation / arrangement.
But you/Meffy/TennesseeVic stated that those properties weren't changed, the notation/arrangement was just played with a different "feeling".

[Meffy]

Armadillo, how about this: "feeling," as I use the term to apply to music, is a combination of the factors you mention, plus a great many other more subtle ones, combined in so complex a configuration that to attempt to analyze it would be futile.

If you really want to hear feeling and the lack of it, pick any piece of music. Listen to it as performed by good musicians. Then listen to an amateur MIDI version.

Yes, I've seen analyses of pieces of music. They strike me as potentially useful but hardly definitive. Very unsatisfying.

IMO, if you dissect James Brown, you end up with a tableful of organs and bones and muscles. And you're no wiser concerning what makes James Brown tick.

Meffy

[machinesworking]

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.

No, because I have no interest in going to that level of effort for this thread. If you're so inclined you can find them yourself. It's your education, after all.

OK this is where I agree with Armadillo, classical is great, but saying that you can hear a difference in the feel of two different orchestras playing the same piece, recorded identically in the same setting, well that's just a little silly IMO.

you're talking about more than 20 people playing at once, multiple violin players etc. It's their job to play the piece exactly the same way every time. Multiply that by the number of players all playing the same instrument as you........

Maybe with small quintets and such there is room for subties in players to come through, but with large orchestras it's my opinion that you're hearing the difference in recording techniques on record, and your own mood coupled with other factors when you see one perform live.

BTW authorship is the heart of creativity, that anybody would argue different, well I'm stunned.
Unless you really change the song into something different with your interpretation, I can't say that's creative, it's an art for sure, but more like a fine craftsman, not at the level of creation.

[Sascha Franck]

Take e.g. the word "groove" - a "feelings" based word. No, it's about how soon or late you are on a certain bar and tempochanges - math.

So, what are all these properties that can be defined as "feelings". I might be missing something here, but "feelings" is just so vague.

IMO you're mixing things up a bit.
Almost anything musical can be analyzed once it's performed and recorded. Pure math - fine with me.

But it's about the moment of things actually happening when "feelings" or "groove" or whatever come into the game.
What you will find on a score is "strict" musical values. Usually there's not much of interpretation marks to be found (OK, there's exceptions, but that's less important for now).
Yet, as Meffy said, even in classical music there's quite some room between a literal, "mechanistic" performance and one with the appropriate amount of variations or "feelings" applied.

I would even take that a but further.
In Pop, but especially in Jazz, you got quite some freedom of "on the spot" interpretation. In case there's some F7 chord symbol, I may, depending on the functional context, come up with at least 30 versions to voice that chord.
Sure, not possible with most classical stuff as it's not coming as lead sheets but as concrete notation.
But (!): While doing all my F7 interpretations I may lose all the possible "finetunings" - and that's what classic music is all about.
Apart from gaining high quality technical skills, what those classical musicians do most of their time is to concetrate on those finetunings.
The very first thing the local classical guitar professor is doing (for a month or so) is to practice all sorts of nail filing (and restoring!) techniques. You just need to know how to get that mellow dark tone out of that guitar. Or the more attacking timbres. Or more overtones. And so on. It's exactly the same for all sorts of classical players.

These are the things that may in the end define as "sweet" or whatever.

And believe me, it's a virtue that is often lost (or overlooked) by jazz/rock/pop musicians.
Just have a look at the average guitarists pick. It's scratched all over the place, especially at the tip. How would you get a really mellow sound out of it? And no, our average guitar player won't change it any day soon, let alone file it into perfect shape with some 1500 sand paper.

So much about technique and the possible amount of "feeling" behind it.

Then there's "groove". Again, in jazz/rock/pop, even on relatively fixed arrangements, I would have quite some options to throw in occasional notes or rhythmic hits. Most of the time it's even expected to do that. Sparsely, but do it!
You may again lose contact to some "finetunings".
Which is what the classic folks will again do.
There's expressions such as "lento" (which could be something like "laid back"), and believe me, good conductors, working with high class orchestras are practising that like mad!
There's no room for the occasional note to be added, so they need to concentrate on the fine tunings again. They will practice, say, crescendos in all sorts of "curves". The same goes for vibratos, portamentos and whatever.
And again, do you know of a single band doing it like that? Yes, ok, there's some - but it's defenitely no common sense.

As a long time teacher, I often asked my students to get their timing right. Ususally to no avail. "Hey teacher, my 16ths are all correct, what are you arguing?". No way to talk to them about articulation, timing or phrasing.
But that's common sense in classical practice.

Bottomline: There *might* be less room for your own "feelings" and interpretations in classical music, but IMO it's not less but just happening on quite another level.

[donkey tugger]

Am I not explaining myself properly or something.

No, you wern't, but now you've clarified it, I see your point. But I still think it's rather anal to try and catalogue, notate and reproduce that effect. Why not just play it again; with feeling.

[Meffy]

Am I not explaining myself properly or something.

No, I think you're putting words in others' mouths to make points. Either you get it or you don't. I think you do get it, and are playing at sophistry. I'm uninterested in participating in that game.

My previous replies will have to do, as I'm finding this line of thought isn't going anywhere. Search within yourself for answers... or don't. It's not my concern.

Meffy

[Sascha Franck]

OK this is where I agree with Armadillo, classical is great, but saying that you can hear a difference in the feel of two different orchestras playing the same piece, recorded identically in the same setting, well that's just a little silly IMO.

you're talking about more than 20 people playing at once, multiple violin players etc. It's their job to play the piece exactly the same way every time. Multiply that by the number of players all playing the same instrument as you........

Sorry, but that's nonsense. Read my last reply and you might have an idea why.
To get things happening with 20+ people (which would be a mediocre amount, btw) there's a conductor. That's why those are the most famous when it comes to orchestras. And those conductors expect the musicians to follow their (sometimes admittedly subtile) signs.
There even is a difference between one and the same high class orchestra recording the same take twice, just with the conductor changed.
If there wasn't, you wouldn't need a conductor but a metronome only (ok, a metronome with variable tempo).
But that certainly won't yield the same proper results.

[Meffy]

saying that you can hear a difference in the feel of two different orchestras playing the same piece, recorded identically in the same setting, well that's just a little silly IMO.

*SIGH*

1) I agree, it would be silly. Two orchestras can't possibly play a piece identically.

2) I didn't say that.

3) Armadillo attributed that position, or one like it, to me.

4) And now, before the distortions cascade further, I shall bid this thread farewell.

5) Meffy
mathematical