I advocate a deaf ear
On 7/12/10 1:56 PM, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: > > There's a big danger to that idea though. When you put too much into music, > you put a big old box around it. You limit it. > > One of the smartest people I've ever met asked us once in an orchestration > class what music was. The correct definition is 'organized sound'. That's it. > Your interpretation, your emotion, your 'feelings' or 'gut' or whatever is not > part of that definition. A lot of music was composed programatically. Some was > composed out of form only. Why should we be forced to attach emotions to music > at all when some music was not composed to trigger a response from the > audience at all. > > You can have an emotional response. You may not have one. That's your call. > However, when you start bridging into the realm of 'spiritualism' in music > then you're getting into a realm that, again, is indistinguishable from > make-believe. > > In other words (and I've said this how many times now?) you can have that > feeling all you want, but it does no good to teach it because you can't teach > it, and it does no good to really progress playing and progress music because > you might as well be talking about magic purple monkeys or the ether theory or > something. > > If you are able to analyze and figure out what Perlman or Domingo or even Ravi > Shankar was doing then you are able to learn it yourself, you become able to > teach it, and more people can figure out how to be just as great. They are > human, too. What they are doing is nothing magical. They aren't invoking Thor > and Loki and an army of Frost Giants. They aren't using a magic ring. They > don't have a spear and magic helmet. > > I advocate figuring it out. Some advocate a blank stare. > > -William > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Steven Mumford <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Mon, Jul 12, 2010 1:45 pm > Subject: Re: [Hornlist] About those brass playing robots... > > > Of course you can study all the things that can be defined about music and > > that's a good start. When I was in school, other students would complain "I > > don't know why I have to study all this theory, I'm a performance major". > > HaHa! > > Can musicality be taught? Of course. You can teach all the mechanics of > > phrasing, which notes get emphasis and why and that's a good start, but I'm > sure > > we've all heard playing that was embarassingly "over musical" so that doesn't > > always work. So can you specifically define exactly what perfectly sublime > > music would be? Well, I suppose so. You could take a performance by Heifetz > > and put an exact value on the loudness, duration, timbre etc. of each note and > > there you'd have it. But what if Perlman comes along and plays it, also > > sublimely, but differently? Oh dear, now we have to start over. Could > Heifetz > > give you the exact parameters of each note played? I think he would have > given > > you a quizzical look if you had asked. Anybody trying to analyze while > playing > > would not be giving a very interesting performance. You analyze before > > playing. > > You could try to teach a student by putting specific values to every > > parameter... or you could just play. It's a VERY interesting experience to > > teach a lesson without saying a single word. Shut the hell up and play! You > > define music by playing it, not by measuring it or talking about it. > > > > - Steve Mumford > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > post: [email protected] > unsubscribe or set options at > https://pegasus.memphis.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/options/horn/jasoncat%40aol.com _______________________________________________ post: [email protected] unsubscribe or set options at https://pegasus.memphis.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/options/horn/archive%40jab.org
