The Muscian's Experience vs the Enthusiast

[Hot Ptah]

I still think that musicians have another level of understanding that I wish I had.

[seeline]

Based on reading many of your posts elsewhere over a long period of time, I think you're selling yourself short, Ptah. Really!

Edit: Now, this is coming from someone whose sight-reading skills are in need of a brush-up, and who isn't able to sit and do in-depth analysis of chord structures, etc. I'm a drummer (no jokes, please! ), and don't play any chordal instruments. So I'm at a definite disadvantage in some ways, but - since the stuff I'm studying isn't something that can be learned except by hearing and doing - not in others.

Also, I'm admittedly not a professional in the somewhat limited sense in which that term is used routinely on some other board... Whether that even matters is another thing!

Edited March 8, 2008 by seeline

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

In a sense, I'm not interested in the music at all.

Does it matter to me whether I'm reading these posts as a result of electrical impulses coming down wires or through a satellite dish? No. Music's a method, that's all.

So when I read people talking about, for example, Bop players inventing new bits to tack onto chords, or chord inversions, I think, "OK, I can see that there's a historical process that's not unimportant to discover going on, but what was it that made these players think these ideas were essential to getting their message over?" And I don't get an answer to that, particularly for Bebop - though I can feel the message. So I'm really content that the process of converting a person's life and experience and skill into music messages should remain a mystery. To me, at any rate.

MG

[A Lark Ascending]

You don't have to be a student of architecture to get the message of a cathedral.

Of course, if you are a student of architecture you can enjoy it in a way the average visitor or worshipper will never understand. And if you are within the cultural context of the cathedral, then it's likely to speak to you more quickly.

But the architecture is the means, not the end.

I'm suspicious of music that requires the architectural understanding in order to get the message. In some cases, I wonder if it is there at all.

Edited March 8, 2008 by Bev Stapleton

[papsrus]

To add some clarification of my original post:

The way I intrepret many of the posts, there seems to a focus on a musicians's ability to read music or understand theory that may or may not give them insight into what they HEAR as opposed to what enthusiasts hear and then a side commntary whether one is BETTER than the other.

In my original post, I was much more focused on the physical act of playing the notes providing insight, not necessarily some theoretical concept. As an example: I sit down and learn a Charlie Parker solo. naturally I can't play it with the facility that Bird can, or the speed. But I'm learning it either by reading a transcription or by slowing it down. I go over a specific passage over and over again. I play it at my speed, or vastly slowed down. I can physically feel what it takes to make a specific run work and the adjustments I need to make to my fingers and embroshure. I can now take that phrase and apply it other pieces, in fact, I may change it a minor run from a major run, or visa versa. Part of Bird's vocabularly is now part of me, and I may start to recognize that vocabulary when other musicians start using it, and all of that gives me a more profound respect for Bird. A single bar that might be part of a larger phrase and go by so fast that the enthusiast might miss it is now part of my DNA so to speak and can be used as I like in a way that would most likely not be recognized by the person who has not undergone this process.

My appreciation of great artists often starts from this standpoint: the physical act of imitation and study, absorbtion, and incorporation into my own playing. Not that I'm a great player by any means.

I still think it comes down to the difference between "studying" the music and simply "listening" to the music on its own terms. And this is not to put a relative value on either, nor to deny that there is a physical aspect to playing (and studying) music that enhances your own experience, as you describe.

You could conduct a little experiment for yourself by listening to a piece of music that you are intimately familiar with. How do you listen and react to it? Then put on a piece of music you have no familiarity with at all -- it might be a piece of classical music or free jazz, something you have no idea how to play. Gauge your response to that. How do the two listening experience compare?

[seeline]

I still think there's something of a false dichotomy here - because someone who plays alto (jazz alto, to be specific) is going to hear things in Bird that I never will. By the same token, I might hear things in the playing of someone like Max Roach or Tata Guines (Cuban conguero) that will slip right by someone who has no experience playing percussion - and *both* of these players are somewhat lost on *me* (in terms of appreciation and analysis) because I haven't studied set playing, or Afro-Cuban music.

Everyone hears as an individual. (As has been said earlier, by others.) There's no way around that.

What you might admire in a painter - like Velasquez or Degas or Jan Van Eyck - is something that could not have been duplicated by any other painter. Copied, sure - but not duplicated.

We all hear differently, due to our backgrounds, the music we're familiar with, and the music that we don't know.

If you (or I) were to start taking guitar or piano lessons today - and to stick with them - 3-6 months down the road, there *will* be a difference in how you (or I) hear those instruments in *any* genre of music. But I doubt that knowing lots and lots about piano or guitar technique is going to help much when it comes to understanding what reed or bowed string or brass players are doing per se....

It's very difficult to draw analogies to the visual arts (something i did study, back in the day), but here's a rough one:

ability at working with oil paints does NOT guarantee that you're going to be able to know how to carve wood or marble, or throw beautiful pots and vases, or.... These are all media used in art, but beyond that, they require *very* different kinds of skills and knowledge.

Not only that: some people are very gifted at understanding how color works. Those same people might not be able to sculpt worth a damn. Skill at one artistic discipline/medium doesn't confer skill at all of them. It will probably allow for a greater appreciation (in some ways) of work in other media, but only in certain respects.

I think there are parallels in the other arts, music very much included.

Edited March 8, 2008 by seeline

[JSngry]

Why are people always looking for ways to "prove" their "difference"?

[seeline]

That's a very good question!

FWIW, i once knew a very accomplished musician who could *only* demonstrate technique by playing excerpts from pieces where specific techniques were used. To my mind, that's not how music actually works, but... he was/is excellent at what he does.

I do think some folks hew so closely to the notion of being different or special because they can do X (play jazz, for example) that they more than half convince others that their observations and insights are, by default, superior. Well, probably "yes" on certain subjects, but not on *everything*!

That brings us to a good definition of "expert," which is (I think) someone who is readily able to say that there's so much that they don't yet know, and probably never will.

Edited March 8, 2008 by seeline

[Hot Ptah]

Based on reading many of your posts elsewhere over a long period of time, I think you're selling yourself short, Ptah. Really!

Edit: Now, this is coming from someone whose sight-reading skills are in need of a brush-up, and who isn't able to sit and do in-depth analysis of chord structures, etc. I'm a drummer (no jokes, please! ), and don't play any chordal instruments. So I'm at a definite disadvantage in some ways, but - since the stuff I'm studying isn't something that can be learned except by hearing and doing - not in others.

Also, I'm admittedly not a professional in the somewhat limited sense in which that term is used routinely on some other board... Whether that even matters is another thing!

Thanks for that nice comment. I especially feel that I wish that I had a musical background when listening to Roscoe Mitchell, Henry Threadgill, Art Ensemble of Chicago, Muhal Richard Abrams, Sam Rivers, George Lewis, Cecil Taylor, Anthony Braxton--with them, I am left with thinking, "hey this is really interesting. I have no idea what they are doing, but it is intriguing on some level. Is it good musically-I guess it must be. I don't know. But it's very interesting, and often enjoyable. I will consider it to be great, and keep listening."

If I was a musician, I would know exactly what they are composing and playing, instead of that inadequate response.

[JSngry]

That's not an inadequate response, unless you really feel the...need to know the technicalities. Why you'd have that need if not a composer, player, whatever, I can't say, but if you really do have it, then that's to be respected.

Otherwise, you've been reached, moved, stimulated, and captivated by prime artistry. It don't get a helluva lot better than that!

[jimi089]

Thanks for that nice comment. I especially feel that I wish that I had a musical background when listening to Roscoe Mitchell, Henry Threadgill, Art Ensemble of Chicago, Muhal Richard Abrams, Sam Rivers, George Lewis, Cecil Taylor, Anthony Braxton--with them, I am left with thinking, "hey this is really interesting. I have no idea what they are doing, but it is intriguing on some level. Is it good musically-I guess it must be. I don't know. But it's very interesting, and often enjoyable. I will consider it to be great, and keep listening."

If I was a musician, I would know exactly what they are composing and playing, instead of that inadequate response.

Well, I don't think that's an inadequate response at all, FWIW.

Also, just because you're a musician does not guarantee an ability to parse Roscoe Mitchell or Cecil Taylor - even if you transcribed and gave their music a thorough theoretical analysis, it would still be based on music theory, which is just one way to explain why music behaves the way it does. When you get musicians like Roscoe or Cecil, who were not only knowledgeable of traditional theory, but also autodidacts whose individual explorations created unique theories of their own, we have to come up with our own theories and ideas about how their music "works."

[danasgoodstuff]

To paraphrase Lester Young, I play a little butnot enough to affect my listening pleasure. Or not much and to the extent that it does I think that what I lose in magic is at least was great as what I gain...

[seeline]

Well, I don't think that's an inadequate response at all, FWIW.

Also, just because you're a musician does not guarantee an ability to parse Roscoe Mitchell or Cecil Taylor - even if you transcribed and gave their music a thorough theoretical analysis, it would still be based on music theory, which is just one way to explain why music behaves the way it does. When you get musicians like Roscoe or Cecil, who were not only knowledgeable of traditional theory, but also autodidacts whose individual explorations created unique theories of their own, we have to come up with our own theories and ideas about how their music "works."

Exactly! And Ptah, I don't know "what's going on" when these guys play. It's about so much more than being able to transcribe or use technical terms... And i can guarantee you that if you ask these people what they just played, they will more than likely have a very difficult time telling you! It's not as if anyone is sitting there saying, "And I'm gonna play *this* run (solo, whatever) next." (Unless they're playing from sheet music, or unless they've memorized a certain solo phrase/whatever.)

I'm sure there are some folks who *can* take a mental snapshot of what they just played, but I have yet to meet one.

it's certainly not something I can do!

The *only* way I would be able to tell you what I just played is if:

1. I'm studying a particular rhythm/pattern and am playing it over and over

2. I've been playing accompaniment parts that don't fluctuate or change (very normal for me)

If I'm taking a rhythmic pattern and improvising - adding ornamentation, fill, etc. - forget it!

Edited March 9, 2008 by seeline

[kenny weir]

As I think about this thread more and my own listening habits, I have to admit that my listening is pretty much dictated by what I'm trying to learn at the moment. ... I find I have little patience listening to things that are outside of what particular genre I'm trying to learn at the time.

I think this probably boils down to the fact that I like playing much more than I like listening. I noticed this when I was learning to play Dobro. I pretty much listened to nothing but dobro players and while I would never listen to Bluegrass for enjoyment ... most of my musical activities are centered around playing.

What a revealing post!

If I was a player who had posted the above, I would I suspect reflect on whether whatever I said on the relative dynamics of being a muso and/or a listener were worth the space they took up.

As it is, I'm inclined to think that while you may be a fine/great/good/ musician, you sound like a piss poor listener!

If your listening is so overwhelmingly dictated by your current playing needs/wants, it seems you're likely ill-placed to pass comment on the art of listening. It also strikes that it may be somewhat insulting to the art of your fellow players.

[papsrus]

As I think about this thread more and my own listening habits, I have to admit that my listening is pretty much dictated by what I'm trying to learn at the moment. For instance, I'm very focused on cornet right now and my listening is pretty much focused on the great cornet players: Bix, Hackett, Braff, Vache, Nick Decarlis, Bill Davison. Cullum. Usually when I am in a phase like this, my listening is pretty restricted to what ever style I'm trying to absorbe. I find I have little patience listening to things that are outside of what particular genre I'm trying to learn at the time.

I think this probably boils down to the fact that I like playing much more than I like listening. I noticed this when I was learning to play Dobro. I pretty much listened to nothing but dobro players and while I would never listen to Bluegrass for enjoyment, I found I loved playing it. I don't know if others are like this or not, but for me I feel I need to totally emerse myself in whatever I'm trying to emulate and that eventually it pays off with me getting better. But most of my musical activities are centered around playing. Maybe this has something to do with the fact that while I might enjoy playing sports, I find it boring to watch sports.

Curiously, in my own listening habits (and I suppose this is quite common) I enjoy purposefully bouncing around different kinds of music. Not a particularly broad palate, I suppose, as it's almost entirely jazz and related creative musics, and lately blues. But within jazz, I certainly veer off in one direction, then another -- for example from Ellington to the Schlippenbach Trio to Chet Baker, back to Basie and off to Braxton, etc. This enhances my appreciation for each of these different kinds of musics. They each sound fresh when set against the others.

I would find a more predictable approach unsatisfying, I think.

... Something like that ...

[seeline]

I guess I view listening for the purpose of learning something to be a whole different ballgame than listening for the sake of listening... Much like the difference between practicing an instrument and playing an instrument for the sake of enjoyment. I try to put both things into my "practice" time, but the boundaries get blurry - if I'm playing accompaniment at a dance class, for example, I'm both playing for the fun of it *and* learning at the same time.

And - like papsrus - I tend to listen to a wide variety of things. Part of that comes from reviewing (back when I did that on a regular basis), but mostly it's because I enjoy doing it. (Which is one of the main reasons I quit writing reviews - too much work involved!)

Edited March 10, 2008 by seeline

[GA Russell]

Many years ago I saw Harry Blackstone, Jr., on Larry King. He said that as a professional magician he could appreciate what another magician does, but he does not have the thrill of wonder that the general public has when it sees a good magic trick. (For that reason, I have always avoided reading how to do a magic trick.)

I have long suspected that Blackstone's feeling is often true for many professional jazz musicians, although maybe not so thoroughly.

Like Noj, I am attracted to melody and harmony. I still enjoy bossa nova very much after more than forty years. I suspect that many jazz musicians don't play simple but excellent music because they don't appreciate it and find it boring to play. They apparently find difficult music more interesting, and I'm guessing it is because they understand it much more than the general public jazz fan.

[crabgrass]

I am not a musician at all... I do however, play the radio quite well.

Also, I have done light shows for a band and am quite good at it. It's weird that I can't play a note, but I can play along using light very well.

I guess that at times when I'm listening, I'm thinking (or rather mentally seeing)... "dark... flash white then slow decay... low yellow with ceiling shadow... shadow movement then profile... full up... slow red pan... smoke and glow... pulse... pulse... pulse... fade to black"

I agree with whoever said that everyone brings their own experience to how they hear music.

[John L]

I think that I understand where Bill is coming from. Musicians who do it themselves have a whole different sort of appreciation of what it takes to really master the craft: to navigate difficult changes, to always hit appropriate notes, to be versatile enough to play fluently in lots of different musical contexts. Those types of musicians will usually earn higher respect from their peers than from the overall listening public that lacks this deep appreciation, and might care much less if a musician makes a few mistakes or falls back on something simple in a challenging environment.

As others have noted, I think that this perspective has its advantages and disadvantages. For example, in many ways, the listening public was more willing to accept Ornette Coleman in the late 50s and early 60s than was the jazz community. The listening public had the advantage of being more able just to let the music flow in without having to contemplate continuously the degree to which Ornette was riding roughshot over everything that was expected of a jazz soloist.

Edited March 10, 2008 by John L

[JSngry]

...a lot of magicians make a living performing for other magicians.

Making a living performing for your peer, hell that's magic right there...

[seeline]

Like Noj, I am attracted to melody and harmony. I still enjoy bossa nova very much after more than forty years. I suspect that many jazz musicians don't play simple but excellent music because they don't appreciate it and find it boring to play. They apparently find difficult music more interesting, and I'm guessing it is because they understand it much more than the general public jazz fan.

Bossa nova is very sophisticated, though - the chords, the rhythms, what's not played, etc. - at least, that's true of the best work in the genre. It might seem simple on one level, but on others, it's not - and it's awfully hard to create something "simple" that works so well!

There's a very real place for that. Now, my personal taste runs more toward João Gilberto than Art Tatum, which is probably one of the reasons bossa nova appeals to me more than the kind of pyrotechnics Tatum was into. (Someone I know described his style of playing as "All the notes, just for me" - not meant in a derogatory way.)

At any rate, all this to say that less often is more, from my pov, at least.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

I am not a musician at all... I do however, play the radio quite well.

Also, I have done light shows for a band and am quite good at it. It's weird that I can't play a note, but I can play along using light very well.

I guess that at times when I'm listening, I'm thinking (or rather mentally seeing)... "dark... flash white then slow decay... low yellow with ceiling shadow... shadow movement then profile... full up... slow red pan... smoke and glow... pulse... pulse... pulse... fade to black"

I agree with whoever said that everyone brings their own experience to how they hear music.

That's a really interesting post, Crabgrass. Thanks.

MG