The Muscian's Experience vs the Enthusiast

[Bill McCloskey]

I wonder if the musicians on the forum feel that they have a different experience of jazz than those who are primarily listeners and enthusiasts. For me, as a musician, there is a physical aspect to playing music that certainly changes the way I appreciate and listen to music. For instance, I've found my appreciation and understanding of someone like Bird is different once I've tried to play their solos myself. For one thing, I can physically slow the solo down, alter the rhythm and the inflection to gain more indepth understanding of what is being played than if I just listened to it. Also understanding the degree of difficulty by having to do it myself I think can only be truely understood by walking in the musicians shoes, so to speak. I also think this type of knowledge may be limited to the type of instrument you play. I don't play piano, and while I certainly appreciate piano players, I don't feel that I have a real understanding of what makes one pianist different than another: that is not to say I can't appreciate Wynton Kelly, vs Monk, vs some other unique stylist. And I certainly appreciate and like certain keyboard players better than others. But someone like Tommy Flannagan. Do I really appreciate the way he plays over someone like Earl Gardner the way a pianist would? I'm not sure I do.

Guitarists and horn players are different, since I play those instruments. I have a much more intuitive understanding of a players differences and my true appreciation for them as artists really begins when I try and play their solos or in their style. Plus there is something about doing the same thing with your fingers that they are doing with their fingers to make you understand just how special (and better) they are than you, and other players. I'm also, naturally, drawn to horn players over other instrumentalists, who hold less interest for me.

I'm not sure I've expressed properly what I'm trying to say, but I'll leave it there for other, wiser people's opinion.

[Noj]

From the opposing perspective, I've never played an instrument outside fiddling around with a guitar a few times. So, my perspective on listening to music is strictly based on comparing songs. I know when I like music, and I know when I don't like music. Obviously it isn't based on understanding technique, but with listening mileage I do have a sense of what virtuoso instrumental talent sounds like. In my opinion, there is a universal beauty present in good music which everyone has the intrinsic ability to appreciate, so long as the willingness to listen is there. That said, it's no accident that my tastes lean toward music which is heavy on melody and rhythm as opposed to music which abandons those aspects. I do not allow extraneous aspects such as popularity or genre barriers to influence what I choose to enjoy.

[Hot Ptah]

I am quite sure that the musicians appreciate and understand jazz at a much more advanced level than enthusiasts like me. I often feel that I am missing some level of understanding of what I am listening to. It is often frustrating.

One tiny example--there was a transcription of Ornette Coleman's trumpet solo on the Charlie Haden duets albums on A&M/Horizon, in the liner package for the album. Before then, I had never thought that Ornette was that great on trumpet. When I viewed that transcription, I realized that although I had played trumpet for several years in school, that there was no possible way that I could ever play anything that difficult.

It hit me at that moment-I have no idea what I am listening to, when I listen to jazz. Everything is much more advanced and difficult than I ever imagined.

I also have no way to explain what Roscoe Mitchell is really doing, for one example. I am left with vague, incoherent thoughts about what it "seems like." If I had a musical background I would know how creative he is, and why.

[AllenLowe]

well, I've done both - only thing I can say is that, in my old age, with few gigs and opportunities to play, I constantly hear music in my head and it's making me a little crazy; kind of like being all dressed up with nowhere to go -

some people hear voices - I just see chord changes and melodies constantly - this may be one difference of spectator vs player, the point of obsession - not necessarily beginner vs advanced, but want vs need -

Edited March 7, 2008 by AllenLowe

[JSngry]

Having never listened to jazz before I became a musician, I honestly can't say if what I hear now, is the same is what I would have heard if I hadn't have been one. Maybe I've heard things "sooner", and I've definitely been able to "identify things by name", but as to whether or not I'm either hearing and/or feeling actual things that I'd otherwise not, I honestly couldn't/wouldn't want to begin to speculate.

If, however, that was the case, would the opposite not also be likely? That a non-musician would hear/feel different things/things differently than a musician? And then, who's to say who's "getting it right"? I mean, I know plenty of musicians who don't have a clue how "average people" hear their music.

[AllenLowe]

yes, and musicians are often the world's worst judges of other musicians (me an JSngry excepted, of course) -

[Noj]

I am quite sure that the musicians appreciate and understand jazz at a much more advanced level than enthusiasts like me. I often feel that I am missing some level of understanding of what I am listening to. It is often frustrating.

One tiny example--there was a transcription of Ornette Coleman's trumpet solo on the Charlie Haden duets albums on A&M/Horizon, in the liner package for the album. Before then, I had never thought that Ornette was that great on trumpet. When I viewed that transcription, I realized that although I had played trumpet for several years in school, that there was no possible way that I could ever play anything that difficult.

It hit me at that moment-I have no idea what I am listening to, when I listen to jazz. Everything is much more advanced and difficult than I ever imagined.

I also have no way to explain what Roscoe Mitchell is really doing, for one example. I am left with vague, incoherent thoughts about what it "seems like." If I had a musical background I would know how creative he is, and why.

I've definitely felt the same way, wondering what I might be missing. I imagine there are certainly moments for musician listeners where the audio experience combined with the knowledge of what was required to produce those sounds results in a level of pleasure which I am unable to attain.

[seeline]

Having never listened to jazz before I became a musician, I honestly can't say if what I hear now, is the same is what I would have heard if I hadn't have been one. Maybe I've heard things "sooner", and I've definitely been able to "identify things by name", but as to whether or not I'm either hearing and/or feeling actual things that I'd otherwise not, I honestly couldn't/wouldn't want to begin to speculate.

If, however, that was the case, would the opposite not also be likely? That a non-musician would hear/feel different things/things differently than a musician? And then, who's to say who's "getting it right"? I mean, I know plenty of musicians who don't have a clue how "average people" hear their music.

Amen to all of this - and I honestly don't believe there's some sort of hierarchy re. "musicians" hearing or understanding things in a "better" way than "non-musicians." My hearing is affected by all kinds of things - including my cultural background and upbringing. I can hear pieces from Brazil that seem - to me - to have come from North American jazz entirely. And Brazilians will (and have) told me, "Well, not exactly..." and have very politely proceeded to explain that X chart or Y recording is really samba played Rio-dance hall style (samba gafieira) and - they're right. Yes, some of the ideas for charts come from North American jazz, but apart from that - it's samba, played in a way that I'd never heard before (not being from Rio and so on).

So things like this do occasionally make me aware of the fact that I might not have the slightest idea of what I'm talking about ; further, that playing an instrument (any instrument) is no guarantee that I'm going to understand what someone else might be doing with the same instrument, or a similar one.

there's always more to hear, and more to learn - for everyone, no matter who they are.

[seeline]

I am quite sure that the musicians appreciate and understand jazz at a much more advanced level than enthusiasts like me. I often feel that I am missing some level of understanding of what I am listening to. It is often frustrating.

One tiny example--there was a transcription of Ornette Coleman's trumpet solo on the Charlie Haden duets albums on A&M/Horizon, in the liner package for the album. Before then, I had never thought that Ornette was that great on trumpet. When I viewed that transcription, I realized that although I had played trumpet for several years in school, that there was no possible way that I could ever play anything that difficult.

It hit me at that moment-I have no idea what I am listening to, when I listen to jazz. Everything is much more advanced and difficult than I ever imagined.

I also have no way to explain what Roscoe Mitchell is really doing, for one example. I am left with vague, incoherent thoughts about what it "seems like." If I had a musical background I would know how creative he is, and why.

I've definitely felt the same way, wondering what I might be missing. I imagine there are certainly moments for musician listeners where the audio experience combined with the knowledge of what was required to produce those sounds results in a level of pleasure which I am unable to attain.

Maybe - it depends on who's listening, and the music they know/play/whatever. There's a lot to do with context that we tend to push aside, but it's real nonetheless.

[JSngry]

It's also worth pondering how the whole "hearing the specifics" vs "feeling the whole" thing breaks down, if in fact it does.

Bottom line for me - I think it would be rare for any two people to hear/feel anything exactly the same way, so it's all really "points along the way", and vive le difference more often than not.

[A Lark Ascending]

I've a lot of time for those musicians/musicologists who use their insider understanding to try to inform those of us who don't understand the technicalities, without losing us in jargon.

I owe a great deal to Anthony Hopkins in opening my ears to many areas of classical music - he has a way of explaining what is going on harmonically and structurally that doesn't lose the non-musician.

Those who rabbit on in articles aimed at the general public with pure musicological jargon have a circle reserved in hell for them, shared with those who quote passages in a foreign language and don't offer a translation ('you mean you don't read French?').

[Indestructible!]

Bottom line for me - I think it would be rare for any two people to hear/feel anything exactly the same way, so it's all really "points along the way", and vive le difference more often than not.

Those who rabbit on in articles aimed at the general public with pure musicological jargon have a circle reserved in hell for them, shared with those who quote passages in a foreign language and don't offer a translation ('you mean you don't read French?').

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

Bottom line for me - I think it would be rare for any two people to hear/feel anything exactly the same way, so it's all really "points along the way", and vive le difference more often than not.

Those who rabbit on in articles aimed at the general public with pure musicological jargon have a circle reserved in hell for them, shared with those who quote passages in a foreign language and don't offer a translation ('you mean you don't read French?').

But if Brownie were lurking around, he might put in

It's "vive la difference"!

MG

[WorldB3]

I think the more I know the more I try to learn the more I realize how hard it is. While I think a bit of knowledge helps with the appreciation of what is going on I don't think musician's have an huge advantage if it moves them emotionally.

I don't gig anymore but when I did I always found it interesting how it never mattered how I felt about it. I would have some shows where it felt like a disaster and people thought it was good and others where I nailed something I thought to be complex, people were eh, it was ok.

[Hot Ptah]

As an enthusiast who has listened a lot to jazz for over 30 years now, I feel that sometimes I am fairly well equipped to evaluate what is going on, on a certain level. If I am hearing a mainstream jazz quintet playing a commonly played song, I can tell if the solos are routine or if the musician is adding some personal expression that takes the solo into another area. I do not know how to describe what the more creative musician is doing technically, but I can tell that it is more creative than someone just playing something hum-drum, because I am comparing it mentally to what I have heard other great musicians play in the past on that song.

When the music becomes more complex or unusual, I am just left with trying to appreciate and feel it. I often think, a musician could explain what is going on. A musician could explain whether this is an inspired, brave step beyond convention or just some musicians noodling around with no particular intrinsic value to what they are doing. I don't have a clue in those cases. I usually give the musicians the benefit of any doubt and think that it's all great.

Edited March 7, 2008 by Hot Ptah

[seeline]

Technical vocabulary only goes so far - and then what?

Here's an example:

12 12 12 123

That's the beat pattern for a rhythm used in a lot of Middle Eastern music - it was used by Dave Brubeck in "Blue Rondo a la Turk."

Those numbers don't really convey *anything* of how this pattern sounds when played - I'd have to use some sort of tablature and symbols for that. And even then, it would *still* just be an approximation of this pattern.

Shifting the accented beats around would completely change the sound and feel of this rhythm.

Maybe I can write that all out, but... far better to learn it via hearing it than by reading it on the page.

Not only that, those numbers are a 2-D, visual attempt to approximate sounds.

See where I'm going with this?

Trust your ears.

Edited March 7, 2008 by seeline

[JSngry]

Bottom line for me - I think it would be rare for any two people to hear/feel anything exactly the same way, so it's all really "points along the way", and vive le difference more often than not.

Those who rabbit on in articles aimed at the general public with pure musicological jargon have a circle reserved in hell for them, shared with those who quote passages in a foreign language and don't offer a translation ('you mean you don't read French?').

But if Brownie were lurking around, he might put in

It's "vive la difference"!

MG

Hey, that's not French, that's TEXAN!

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

AAAAARRRRGGGGGGHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!

MG

[Larry Kart]

My take is roughly that there are some things that the right musicians know that I'll probably never know and/or be able to spell out adequately (not that these are the same thing, but you probably know what I mean), while some times there are some fairly important things that a non-musican like me is going to discover or grasp more readily than a lot of musicians will because I'm not as wrapped up in the doing/don't have my nose as close to the grindstone as they often have to be. Also, just by following my un-ground nose for 53 of my 65 years, I've heard a whole lot of jazz (and lot of other kinds of music) of many styles and eras; a lot of very fine jazz musicians either don't have the inclination or just don't find it practical to do that, though of course some do. BTW, when I wrote "be able to spell out adequately," I almost wrote "properly." There's a potentially important difference there: for instance, all (or almost all) of us have lived through times in the music where the existing "proper" (and commonly used) technical vocabularies could not adequately spell out what, say, Ornette, or late Coltrane, or Roscoe Mitchell et al. were doing.

[seeline]

[papsrus]

My take is roughly that there are some things that the right musicians know that I'll probably never know and/or be able to spell out adequately (not that these are the same thing, but you probably know what I mean), while some times there are some fairly important things that a non-musican like me is going to discover or grasp more readily than a lot of musicians will because I'm not as wrapped up in the doing/don't have my nose as close to the grindstone as they often have to be. Also, just by following my un-ground nose for 53 of my 65 years, I've heard a whole lot of jazz (and lot of other kinds of music) of many styles and eras; a lot of very fine jazz musicians either don't have the inclination or just don't find it practical to do that, though of course some do. BTW, when I wrote "be able to spell out adequately," I almost wrote "properly." There's a potentially important difference there: for instance, all (or almost all) of us have lived through times in the music where the existing "proper" (and commonly used) technical vocabularies could not adequately spell out what, say, Ornette, or late Coltrane, or Roscoe Mitchell et al. were doing.

Yeah, each probably has its advantages and disadvantages. The musician hears music and may reflexively begin to dissect and analyze it as he or she is listening, whereas the listener with little or no formal knowledge of music may hear a piece of music in a more pure or unfiltered form, tapping into its emotional impact, for instance, without being distracted by counting the bars (or whatever).

Not to say a musician wouldn't tap into this as well, but just through a different path.

[Larry Kart]

I'm the kid in the middle.

[seeline]

Yeah, each probably has its advantages and disadvantages. The musician hears music and may reflexively begin to dissect and analyze it as he or she is listening, whereas the listener with little or no formal knowledge of music may hear a piece of music in a more pure or unfiltered form, tapping into its emotional impact, for instance, without being distracted by counting the bars (or whatever).

Not to say a musician wouldn't tap into this as well, but just through a different path.

Analysis has its place, but hey... I like to enjoy music, too. I think the analytical thing can be switched on or off (at least, I know that that's true for me), and I think (again) that there's a bit of a false dichotomy being set up here, re. musicians vs. non-musicians. Our brains are processing what we listen to, sometimes in very analytical ways, regardless of whether we've got formal training in music or not. We can all recognize pitches and intervals and many, many other elements of music. To say that people who aren't musicians *cannot* hear subtleties in music is (to my mind) a lot like saying that only painters can recognize red, blue, yellow... right down the line.

We might not be conscious of the fact that our brains are, in fact, organizing and evaluating what we hear, but the processes go on nonetheless.

I've seen adults who swear they can't play a note be able to pull off highly complex rhythmic patterns *if* those things are presented in a way that doesn't look like theory or notation. (following the stresses and weak beats in a nonsense rhyme, for example.) If you were to tell these folks what time signature they're playing in (or whatever), I think they'd freeze like the proverbial deer in the headlights. It's not a matter of tricking people in this case, but of using avenues that seem less charged - and less associated with some sort of professional competence.

So all of you attentive, thoughtful listeners out there had better stop going on about how your perceptions must be somehow innately less insightful than those of so-called "professionals." 'Cause I think you're all wrong about that - of course, who the heck am I to act like some kind of authority, eh?!

[papsrus]

Yeah, each probably has its advantages and disadvantages. The musician hears music and may reflexively begin to dissect and analyze it as he or she is listening, whereas the listener with little or no formal knowledge of music may hear a piece of music in a more pure or unfiltered form, tapping into its emotional impact, for instance, without being distracted by counting the bars (or whatever).

Not to say a musician wouldn't tap into this as well, but just through a different path.

Analysis has its place, but hey... I like to enjoy music, too. I think the analytical thing can be switched on or off (at least, I know that that's true for me), and I think (again) that there's a bit of a false dichotomy being set up here, re. musicians vs. non-musicians. Our brains are processing what we listen to, sometimes in very analytical ways, regardless of whether we've got formal training in music or not. We can all recognize pitches and intervals and many, many other elements of music. To say that people who aren't musicians *cannot* hear subtleties in music is (to my mind) a lot like saying that only painters can recognize red, blue, yellow... right down the line.

We might not be conscious of the fact that our brains are, in fact, organizing and evaluating what we hear, but the processes go on nonetheless.

I've seen adults who swear they can't play a note be able to pull off highly complex rhythmic patterns *if* those things are presented in a way that doesn't look like theory or notation. (following the stresses and weak beats in a nonsense rhyme, for example.) If you were to tell these folks what time signature they're playing in (or whatever), I think they'd freeze like the proverbial deer in the headlights. It's not a matter of tricking people in this case, but of using avenues that seem less charged - and less associated with some sort of professional competence.

So all of you attentive, thoughtful listeners out there had better stop going on about how your perceptions must be somehow innately less insightful than those of so-called "professionals." 'Cause I think you're all wrong about that - of course, who the heck am I to act like some kind of authority, eh?!

Well put. ... And I would guess many people here are musicians of one level or another anyways. Play a little guitar, piano, sax or trumpet ... or took music lessons at some point. ... Not to say we're all musicians of course, but rather have some familiarity with written music and an instrument or two. So it's not as if it's a completely foreign concept. ... As usual, a lot of mixing around the edges.

[seeline]

I'd throw that whole "written music" bit out the window, but that's just me... However, here's what someone else has said about that (for trying to notate a lot of percussion music):

"The feeling, or the manner in which the rhythms get their specific characters or "signatures," is not covered by this notation. Countless additional symbols would have to be included, which would significantly compromise the readability of the notation lines. Here, we probably reach the limit of writing notation for African music in general."

- Mamady Keita (with Uschi Billmeyer) in A Life for the Djembe

The advice is really to trust your ears... in this book, but also in just about any decent source re. Afro-Cuban, Afro-Brazilian and African music. And it's true of so much more music, from all over the globe.

You didn't have to know phonics (or how to spell) when you started learning to talk, right?! And you didn't learn how to speak by reading words from a page... (and so on).

Edited to add: I think notation, theory, etc. etc. are great - but in some ways, they're a bit beside the point (if they become something that's the sole or main focus of trying to learn and/or discuss music).

Edited March 10, 2008 by seeline