adjectives: "musical" vs. "affected"...??

[Donn]

But I didn't actually stand up and start marching in place, or even bob up and down in my chair (though I have done that just a bit when playing certain latin music). As you say, it has to be controlled. If the music I'm playing doesn't provide me an opportunity to assume those emotions and attitudes, it's ultimately unsatisfying to play.

How about `objectified', where you said `controlled'?

These are in a way not real emotions. You aren't going to need grief counselling after that Vaughan Williams, because whatever you felt - player or listener - it wasn't connected to your life and you can walk out into the sunshine a half hour later. The performer has already worked this out, and won't be experiencing any grief whatever, subjectively.

[Rick Denney]

These are in a way not real emotions. You aren't going to need grief counselling after that Vaughan Williams, because whatever you felt - player or listener - it wasn't connected to your life and you can walk out into the sunshine a half hour later. The performer has already worked this out, and won't be experiencing any grief whatever, subjectively.

Probably going too far to try to pin this down. As the leader of Bloke's band might say, "Ya just gotta feel it, man."

If the emotions were that powerful and our skills that strong, people would need that same counseling after listening to our performance. Thus, the difference between objective and subjective is no different for the audience than for the performer. But the line between objective and subjective is not distinct.

Music (and other art) is meant to represent concepts that are important to us in ways that allow us to exercise our emotions productively. We should not confuse the representation of emotion with the emotion itself. But we have to feel a little of the emotion before we can know what to represent. The difference between preachment and propaganda is that the preacher actually believes what he says, while the propagandist only cares whether the reader believes it.

Rick "who would rather be a preacher than a propagandist" Denney

[KevinMadden]

But I didn't actually stand up and start marching in place, or even bob up and down in my chair (though I have done that just a bit when playing certain latin music). As you say, it has to be controlled. If the music I'm playing doesn't provide me an opportunity to assume those emotions and attitudes, it's ultimately unsatisfying to play.

How about `objectified', where you said `controlled'?

These are in a way not real emotions. You aren't going to need grief counselling after that Vaughan Williams, because whatever you felt - player or listener - it wasn't connected to your life and you can walk out into the sunshine a half hour later. The performer has already worked this out, and won't be experiencing any grief whatever, subjectively.

But every person has different reactions to these 'fake' emotions. I'm usually not one to be affected by a piece of music for much time longer than the time it took to perform/listen to said piece. However, after a recent performance of Maslanka 4 at my school, I had a serious adrenaline high from the performance, and wanted to party all night, others who played with me were affected more deeply by the emotional message buried in the piece, and spent the night in catharsis.

[tubatooter1940]

Back in my rock band days I never realized how much or how often I jumped up and down onstage until I used a P.A. amp with a cheap spring reverb on a sloppily built band stand. The resulting crashing sounds kept my feet planted firmly in place and put a real crimp in my performance.

[sloan]

making the assumption that "pure music" is an art form that should primarily appeal to the aural sense:

- Could two reasonably aurally-similar performances be correctly analyzed whereas one performance (where Musician A is gyrating and flailing - distractingly so) is "affected" and the other acceptably similar-sounding performance (where Musician B keeps their body motion to a minimum) is "musical"?

- If the answer to the question above is "yes", could many of the Berlin Philharmonic's performances be classified as "affected" whereas most of the San Francisco Symphony's performances would be considered "musical"?

If we accept your assumption, your question seems moot.

Perhaps you offer the question in order to cast doubt on your assumption?

[SplatterTone]

Kylie Minogue gyrates. Works fine for me (even if I don't particularly care for the music).

[rocksanddirt]

My experience (and church choir director's view) is that in rehearsal/practice is when you the performer feel the emotion of a piece. and then through rehearsal you figure out how to produce that music to the audience. In the performance if you are really 'feeling the emotion' it sounds affected, and is often emotionally flat. When you give yourself to the technical presentation of that emotion, you present it to the audience and they feel it and it is 'musical'.

That is the exact opposite of my experience. My worst performances resulted from being analytical about trying to evoke emotion. My best performances resulted from feeling the emotion I was trying to evoke.

You can't convey emotion. You express it, and the audience receives it and feels it empathetically, it seems to me.

Rick "who would have been a method actor" Denney

My point is that in order to express the emotion in a way that an audience can understand, you must understand and repeat what you did technically during rehearsal to evoke that response in yourself. If you give yourself to that during a performance it comes of as 'self indulgent' (imo).

Slightly off topic example....in the 'dancing with the stars' tv series various celebreties and performers do ballroom dancing with professional dancers....when the celebreties and the pro's develop a 'personal relationship' (at least one couple each 'season' has ended up sleeping together) it shows in thier dancing. The ones who keep it fully professional are clearly presenting the audience with a performance that the audience feels. The 'lover' couples get so wrapped up in themselves that the same performance comes across as self indulgent.

[tubatooter1940]

There comes a point when you have to end discussion and anylisis and play your show.
Great points have been made here. Too much emotion creeps people out. Too much thinking by the performer can inhibit his or her performance.
The audience can play a large role in how well things go along. Audience feedback can motivate or completely distract a performer.
When everybody winds up on the same page, things really get moving and the magic happens.

[Donn]

Within this specific topic - a subset of a subset of a subset of a subset of a subset of a topic: "music", I've read a lot of discussion "about" music here, but not really any discussion directly to the subject of the music itself. (ie: absolute definitions/answers/explanations) So far, I'm seeking refuge with Art's statement.

You picked the topics, and we have pretty much obliged you. Emotion in art, including `affected' emotion. We're not going to really go very far in this direction without a sound grasp of the psychology of emotion as used in this context, but that hasn't stopped us.

If you want to talk about music, I'm sure you can find some takers. I'm not sure you will find it very interesting. Me neither, probably. Scales, modes. Bleah.

Hey, I used to listen to a Marian McPartland (sp?) radio show some years back, and she would regularly comment on the distinctive quality of this or that key signature. I forget the details, but like, ``Oh, I love Db, it's so dark!'' Does this apply only to the piano and instruments like it whose pitch is strictly fixed?

[sloan]

I think we can talk "about" music, and I've enjoyed the comments/opinions very much.

I still believe that Art's observation is more accurate than sloan's:

Only "music" can explain/describe/define "music".

Can you please explain this using only music, and no words?

[Rick Denney]

Slightly off topic example....in the 'dancing with the stars' tv series various celebreties and performers do ballroom dancing with professional dancers....when the celebreties and the pro's develop a 'personal relationship' (at least one couple each 'season' has ended up sleeping together) it shows in thier dancing. The ones who keep it fully professional are clearly presenting the audience with a performance that the audience feels. The 'lover' couples get so wrapped up in themselves that the same performance comes across as self indulgent.

With all due respect, this analogy does not seem to me to fit the situation.

If one pair of dancers has romantic feelings and lets them show, then the emotion they are showing is NOT the story they are telling. Even the latin dances are not about sex--they are about flirting. If the couple is expressing emotion beyond being flirtatious, then they are undermining the story. I submit that this is what you are seeing.

And it applies to other performances. There are those who feeling strongly emotional about a particular work not because of what the composer wrote but because of some external reference. Maybe that was the music that was played at a love-one's funeral, or the music being played when they fell in love. Maybe it was the music being rehearsed by a beloved conductor who died before it could be performed. The music itself did not generate those emotions, external events did. The music may not be able to carry that emotional load, and that may be what you are hearing as self-indulgent. Church music is especially vulnerable to that problem, in that much music is about how we react to God, and that can be a profoundly emotional experience. The music is intended to be worshipful, but it's the glory of God and not our own emotional responses that are the real story, it seems to me.

These are not cases of excessive emotion. They are cases where the emotions being expressed are not really part of the emotional story of the music. Thus, they undermine the music and come off as self-indulgent. The musician is allowing himself to feel that emotion instead of feeling the emotion central to the music.

We need to move beyond the notion that feelings just happen to us. As musicians, we really should control our feelings to support the music being performed. When we don't, it doesn't take much sensitivity on the part of the audience to realize it. It isn't always easy, of course. Many experienced pros won't play funerals for people they know, or for children or other truly tragic victims, because the emotion of grief with the emotion of reverence and respect that funeral music should display. But grief is a hard emotion to set aside.

Rick "who has heard too much music with no emotional drive whatsoever" Denney

[sloan]

Can you please explain this using only music, and no words?

I do just that most every time that I perform.

It's interesting that you would ask that question:

When I've attended concerts and the conductor/band leader walks up to the edge of the stage to "explain" a piece, I nearly always react by thinking, "OMG !...I trapped ! I'm NOT in an isle seat. "

I know how you feel. I feel like that *right now*.

[adam0408]

Music is like selling a product. In essence, that is what you are doing every time you play your horn in front of someone. You are selling your sound and your interpretation of the music to the audience.

If you can sell the level of "interpretation" as bloke put it, it will come across very effectively to the audience. Whereas if you overly schmaltz it up beyond what is natural to you, the audience WILL catch on and most people won't buy it.

I used to go into this radio shack and there was this one salesperson that was quite friendly and helpful, but he was SO overtly friendly and helpful that it totally creeped me out. I think this happens with wait staff a lot too. We have all had that waiter that hovers around the table and asks if everything's all right 25 times throughout a meal.

The problem with music is that the interpretation on both ends is completely subjective. What one audience member loves, another may absolutely loathe.

Furthermore, professional musicians, although passionate about their art, probably wander into the "affected" zone of music making quite a bit. Think about those popular rock bands playing 200-300 shows a year of the same 12-14 songs. They get out there every night and jump around and deliver, because that is their job. They are probably showing emotion that isn't there a large majority of the time.

As musicians, we must manufacture something from ourselves that the audience wants to hear. We have to sell this product, and some people may not buy it. The subjectivity of the performer/listener relationship is where the problems lie.

[Rick Denney]

Think about those popular rock bands playing 200-300 shows a year of the same 12-14 songs. They get out there every night and jump around and deliver, because that is their job. They are probably showing emotion that isn't there a large majority of the time.

As one who has been in this position (not a rock band, but playing the same tunes in front of a crowd hundreds of times), I can say that when I didn't feel it, neither did the audience. I thought going into that experience that I would have trouble staying focused, but it turned out not to be the case. Each crowd brought enough energy to feed us, it seemed. There were times when I was too tired or whatever, and the other members of the group filled the gap. And there were times when we were all too tired, and soon the audience was too tired as well. Fortunately, that didn't happen very often at all.

It's surprising that one does not get bored playing the same tunes show after show. The music becomes automatic, but the connection to the audience remains fresh.

Rick "who came to love how easily those tunes flowed" Denney