Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 17:32:28 -0500 From: "Douglas C Ponte" Subject: Cheese and crackers (Re: classical
Interesting post...have a few comments though:
>>>>>>>>>>Douglas Tate writes>>>>>>>>>>
(...snip) >You ain't no cleverer, nor do you have any greater capacity for musical >appreciation or performance than people from, say 1400 (or from 2000BC for
>that matter) the thing which divides us from the past is history not human >ability and emotions.
Not sure if I agree completely here, though, we may never really know. What we do know is that we evolve. Albeit, not an extreme amount since 1400, but we do and continue to do so as our enviornment changes constantly. They were not fortunate enough to have recorded the music of their time (nor are we fortunate enough to have copies of it) thus, it would be hard for the majority of the people of those pre-audio-recorded era's TO evolve capacity unless they were musicans or involved in music, etc. Also, we are in a time where many keystones set upon foundations of music are abundantly clear. They did not...a simple matter of historical logic. But, I'm sure that the many people from 1400 would have just as much of a tolerance for Britney Spears as people from this era...IF they started with a clean slate (e.g. were brought here as babies etc.) So, no, I don't really think that it's very much genetic unless you go back to pre-historic times.
Douglas has a point regarding emotions and history. In general this is more true than the "capacity" part. Although, knowledge of history and living through said history is very different. Nowdays, especially with an abundance of information and the desensitization of many people within each larger generation (due to movies, tv/news pushing the envelope, etc.), we are clearly seeing this. As a growing, worldly society, we use history in hopes that we aren't surprised by future events. Society is undoubtedly becoming more of a whole each day...but, people can still be individuals with individual emotions in reaction to similar experiences.
>Oh... just one more thing. Just because a person is not jumping up and >down, whistlin', stompin' and shouting does not mean that there has not >been deep emotion generated in her/him.
Of course :) And they are sometimes really off, rhythm-wise. But, I know, at least in my own experience, that I've had deep musical attachment standing still and groovin' to the music. From what my friends tell me and from my own personal standpoint, I can get deeply attached and involved in just about any music I hear (ok, except Barry Manilow...seriously ;) so maybe there's some unfair advantage there. But, either way, I would say that moving to the music in a serious manner can be like a meditative state, if not that it IS a variation of one. Thusly, so is playing air guitar/instruments, air conducting, and probably doing a bunch of things that I haven't even considered yet :)
(...snip) >I actually doubt if there is a human being alive who, without trying really >hard could produce an exact replica of something they have just played.
Right, my last post on Jon Gindicks' thread regarding improvisation covered this...it would be very tough, for the majority of the people I know at least, depending on the complexity.
...(snip) >Even on the best day in any genre is the music totally improvised. It >consists of stuff you have played before in the main or alterations to a >set of stock phrases and approaches. The better the musician the larger the >pool of built in info (licks?) to draw from.
Right...and once again, I hear musicians play their own note patterns more than they seem to realize. I do to, when I listen to my own recordings. These are foundations, sometimes stemming back to when we first started playing...perhaps altered, as you said. Regarding the "pool" (or, a phrase that is used too much by congitive psychologists, "expert system") it is not so much "the better the musician" as it is the musician with the most experience.
>OK, so take a jazz guy coming to town, end of a tour of 53 cities... what >you hear is something amazing and intricate and fresh... and you can bet >your bottom dollar that the majority of it was played at the last >town. There will be some freshness if the musician is an honest one not >just phoning it in.
depends on the musician and if they play the same tunes, or most of the same ones, each show (blech!)...but, alas, you are generally correct b/c I hear a lot of musicians, whom if they had played a solo in the same key as a prior song I heard them play that day or some previous day, playing the SAME notes in the same phrasing/riffs or damn similar alterations of those phrasings (especially on the same tour, but that is a memory/brain effiency thing of couse)
>OK... so let's just think of the classical musician now.
But why? I like to treat every musician as such...
>Remember the cheese analogy... think ofit in the following. >Stylistic changes have been vast over the centuries, complexit has risen >and waned with each new era... each new style has gradually got more >complex until at last there has been a drastic change back to something new >and simple (Each of the eras exhibits this.)
Exactly...as today's POP music is much simpler in general these days (and as they tend to re-make so much, so often...but, recording is *relatively* new, historically). The change to new and simple is apparent today, within each genre as well, since there have been so *many* in the 20th -> 21st century scope. So much has been done already, it's more efficient for the majority to copy and alter what is out there already (especially in the current, mainstream, competitive, money making music industry)...the minorty will continue to try and innovate. Here is where the next genre or original style will come from.
>SO, anything said here has to be understood as trying to cover the many big >stylistic changes.
(...snip) >Playing classical music is no different in it's emotional content to that >of any other musical genre... there are just as many posers in classical as >in any other as well I think that if 10% of what you hear in any genre is
>emotionally stimulating to a high degree then you are indeed fortunate.
thanks, I was feeling rather unfortunate at work today :)
>So... finally. Learn you medium, love what you are playing and let it all
>hang out. >See... no mention of subtle bends, overlapping phrases, microtonal slides
>REALLY finally. It takes time to taste the subtlety in different >cheeses... same with music :)
>Douglas t
REALLY? Gee, I've been trying to get people to taste the complex subtleties of Phish...same with fish ;)
