Do you play a musical instrument?

Most respected and dear maker of tea,

This forum has two purposes. Firstly it is about music appreciation, and secondly about appreciating quality replay equipment from a great company.

Those who are more interested in the equipment than the music replayed will confine their posting [usually] to the Hifi Corner.

Those whose interest resides in the musical aspect will tend to post here in the Music Room, and in the Hifi Corner so far as their equipment allows for superb enjoyment of music.

In the Music Room the posts will range between trite postings on what you are listening now with only the artwork posted [a lazy style and fairly useless if ever there was but never mind] to quite philosophical threads such as this, which threads may well bore some to death. If listening to something is interesting it is helpful to know what the listener thinks is worth the attention of someone else!

If you are not interested in making positive posts on a serious thread, then read it once and don't post pointless, replies such as you last.

All IMHO, of course.

ATB from George

Again, I'll state right from the front that I agree especially with George and many others who are eloquently presenting logical arguments in the defense of the position that you do not need to play a musical instrument in order to understand or appreciate music.  This is clear to me on all levels but it does not end here.

What I do not understand though is the somewhat cranky sentiments from those who seem offended by anyone suggesting that it does strengthen ones understanding and enjoyment of any activity (not just music) to pursue a higher education or involvement in any form for whatever interests you.  It is easy to enjoy someone else's photography but developing this skill and showing what you can do takes you to another level.  Otherwise, talk is cheap.

I'll take bluedog's reference to Fred's example of the Cohen song.  Of course, anyone can enjoy a piece of music immensely without knowing these interesting facts and all enjoyment of music usually starts naturally as a child with an intrinsic quality that you cannot teach anyone.  But one should grow from here, no?  Knowing this technical theory of the piece’s construction really reinforces why the piece is so wonderful to begin with.  I disagree that this is "clearly evident to any listener".  

The music of Bach, from a layman's view just works and you need not question it but as one grows in knowledge while pursuing this music you realize that this greatness just did not happen by chance.  The complexity of this music is so fascinating below the surface and yet it can be so simple and straightforward to connect with.  My love for this music grew and continues to grow following the stage of just getting familiar with it on the surface (ie. learning just notes).  It really takes off to new levels once you start learning the nuts and bolts and what’s below the surface and simply not evident to most unless you do work at it and continually seek to educate yourself. 

I mentioned in my earlier post about respect and for me this is the key and what carries me forward and above just enjoying the musical listening experience.  It has nothing to do with the fact that I also play an instrument as I believe this philosophy and apply it in general in my life too.  Why in this world today are people not willing to give respect to those who are skilled professionals?

Compare the individual who has gone through 10 years of training to become a doctor with someone today who does a google search to cockily spout out some diagnosis like they are so smart.  The former person IS a doctor and the latter person (the majority) THINKS he is a doctor.  To me, while the latter person may even be quite intelligent and even capable of being a doctor, they are not and it is simply a matter of respect to acknowledge the doctors position.  They earned it.  The argument from the non-players sounds to me to be similar as they are implying equality with something they are not.  I’m just stating the obvious?

Countless examples could be illustrated.  Most experts on food or wine tasting possibly may not be trained chefs or have ever made wine.  Does this invalidate their opinion?  I think not but again my point falls back to respect.  Even if someone without training could be considered equal to the one with training I feel the upper hand should still fall to the professional out of respect.  With this philosophy, I myself fall to the bottom of the heap in every area of interest I have.  It is important for me to be humble and I look up to those who can do and who i can learn much from.

Speaking of those whose skill proves they can do I refer back to the cooking example.  I may be able to appreciate flavors or even assess what herbs or spices or processes were used in a fine meal and talk about this for hours on end but this is rather pedestrian and meaningless but acceptably for what it is in its own right.  But it is subjective and my view is just an opinion whether it tastes good or not.  Someone else will also have different tastes.  What matters is that the skill is in with those who can create and demonstrate their talent.  In other words, I can compliment the chef and tip my hat to them (knowing I could not have done better) or I can criticize (as if I know better).  Well, if I know better then I should very well get in the kitchen and prove myself and stand up to the scrutiny of arm chair critics everywhere.

Again, I want to just clarify that I think the above really is two distinct and separate arguments.  First position is that I agree that one does not need to be a musician or play an instrument to enjoy music.  Second is that at the same time one should not think of themselves higher than they are.  If one does not play an instrument, why does this cause so much bitterness and criticism toward those who do?  You either play an instrument or you do not.  You are either an actor or you sit in the audience.  In all cases, the ones who "do" have experience as viewed from on stage and as viewed from the seats in the audience.

My arguments are based on my own experiences and opinions.  My listening experiences are clearly different to me than my overall experiences while at the helm of an instrument.  I believe different areas of the brain are required or affected with either activity and different senses are heightened or required.  As a result, the same piece of music is experienced differently to me based on whether I am a passive listener or an active practitioner.

So, I do both – big deal. I do not hold one higher than the other.  Both activities serve a purpose for me and it is as simple as that, however, as I said previously, the two are connected.  In my case, the cause is that I play an instrument and the effect is that this has driven my interest in listening to recordings.  While I can listen on any level of replay device I have noticed that the closer this replay gets to emulating what I hear in real life and on the stage the more I enjoy the listening sessions (the music) and more importantly the more it inspires me to move over to an instrument.  I need to clearly hear the counterpoint and harmony.  This is difficult if everything is muddled.

Again, for me, listening is about enjoying the music itself but it does not end there.  As I have aged I have discovered that there is so much joy to be discovered in the details and in that, which is not apparent on the surface.  I really doubt that I would have sought a higher level of replay like I have or pursue recordings like I do if I did not play an instrument.

Regards,

Doug

I wonder where that guy (on this forum) that used to listen to music whilst following the scores went to. He seemed to repeatedly insinuate that his was the only true way to appreciate music, and that the rest of us were listening in significantly inferior fashion.

I often follow the 'football scores' whilst listening to music .

Graham.

But one should grow from here, no?  Knowing this technical theory of the piece’s construction really reinforces why the piece is so wonderful to begin with.  I disagree that this is "clearly evident to any listener". 

Thanks Doug, you have succinctly expressed what I was trying, somewhat inarticulately to communicate!

The music of Bach, from a layman's view just works and you need not question it but as one grows in knowledge while pursuing this music you realize that this greatness just did not happen by chance.  The complexity of this music is so fascinating below the surface and yet it can be so simple and straightforward to connect with.

And again! I have sung hymns ever since I was a boy. I love choral music, but I still can't fathom how to sing the bass line. If I understood how to read music and the correspondence between treble and bass then I would not only be able to sing it, but also appreciate the music (written and performed) at a deeper level.

As a result, the same piece of music is experienced differently to me based on whether I am a passive listener or an active practitioner.

Now, that is intriguing. Of course your listening position changes, but are you saying that because the activities are different and you are using different parts of the brain , and body, that your reactions to the music differ? Rather like the difference, say, between the lead violinist or the second flautist's listeningpoint (as opposed to viewpoint), or that of the conductor: each is involved in bringing the music alive, but has a different perception because of their location.

the closer this replay gets to emulating what I hear in real life and on the stage the more I enjoy the listening sessions (the music)

Ah, precisely the point I'm querying in this post, or at least a significant facet thereof. It's the point I was making earlier about hearing cymbals for real and then identifying the degree of life-likeness on a recording. Experience of one, enhances the perception and overall enjoyment (fidelity assumed) of the other. And an interesting point about how such real life experience can drive us to seek higher fidelity in the equipment we use for replay. Should every lover of music play an instrument in order to maximise their listening experience ?

Yes, I believe a whole host of physiological processes are going on when one plays as opposed to just listens.  The one that pleases me a lot is the tactile experience.  On the piano, for example, you learn to move your body in order to affect the sound.  You have micro and macro muscular movements to control in your arms and weighting etc. The connection between your finger tips and the instrument is really where it is all at though ultimately.  Everything happens with thousands of different ways to touch the keys.  To connect and feel the vibration in your bones or in your gut from within the floor or the room is really awesome.  Feeling the clearer upper registers against the rich tonality of the lower register of a 9' grand piano is quite an extraordinary experience, in my opinion.

I regularly pull out my cello simply to experience the vibration through my body and the room / floor (especially the lower register on the C string).  I love my Bach Cello Suites recordings mostly because I cannot play these like a professional musician and so I can live vicariously through the recording.  This serves a purpose but frankly, I realize at some level that the musician here is the only one experiencing this music at the most intimate, even sensual level actively with there instrument.

Sorry, but in my opinion recordings do provide lots of satisfaction but even the best do not come close to the actual experience of playing.  

Next is the aural connection.  You might say that a passive listener uses their aural abilities too and this is true to an extent but it is not the same totally on all levels.  What can you affect by listening to a static recording?  You simply accept what you are fed.   A proficient string player, for example, is constantly comparing what they hear and instantaneously adjusting the pitch to remain perfectly in tune.  A pianist as well is constantly assessing the quality of the harmony and counterpoint and voicing accordingly as well as to making non-stop judgements about the outcome.

Again, a big difference in accepting what someone else is doing to you yourself having to learn how to communicate to a listener what you want to tell them musically.

I think it was said earlier in this thread that listening to music is more like a two way conversation and a musician is essentially talking with themselves.  I'm not sure I totally agree with that.  In my view, playing is where a real relationship with music actually takes place.  The more you put into this relationship, the more you get out.  An instrument is not some inanimate object but one where a musician who spends time with it learns the character of the instrument.  It becomes like a good marriage.  My favourite music other than solo is chamber music (especially with one other person but less than say six people usually) and this is really the most fulfilling experience to play with others. 

Most musicians appreciate high end (or at least competent replay) but other than not always being able to spend huge money on this equipment or it being a priority I believe it is really telling that most would rather put all there resources into a fine instrument.  I doubt many would trade their instrument for replay (unless they were not able to physically play anymore) and have better replay than the instrument they spend hours with each day?  One invests in areas that bring the greatest returns.  

My heart of course wants to say yes to this but I know realistically it is not possible that 'every lover of music play an instrument.'    I think it is reasonable to believe that if music really plays an important part of your life then one would naturally pursue this avenue and have a relationship with an instrument on some level.  Don't forget, we all were also all born with an instrument being that of a singing voice.  

One hundred years ago, the evidence of western societies showed us that it is not impossible for the vast majority to learn an instrument.  I look at my own grand parents and relatives a century ago.  None would have had opportunities to take lessons but the majority learned some instrument, somehow.  Every community or church had an orchestra of some sort and definitely a choir.  People were also more social.  Musical evenings in the home after a meal were also commonplace activities.  

A concise answer to the question of the topic:

Drum lessons at the age of 5.

Then the cello.

Then in high school double bass and electric bass and tuba.

Then in college added guitar, and continued with tuba.

Now-a-days, a little guitar, and a little tuba still.

One side issue this (fascinating) thread has uncovered I think.

Recorded music and live performance are  two different things. I do not look to my system to mimic recorded live music.  I look for a presentation of music that is involving and engaging, entertaining but ultimately it is a 'HiFi' presentation, a controlled and carefully calculated one. My room is small, it has a comfy sofa and a nice fire. The music cannot be, and crucially for me does not have to be, the same as a live performance. Is that heretical-or just realistic?

Remember I have no personal experince of 'domestic' live music-and fair proportion of live events I attend are actually pretty dreadful sound-wise. They have at their best contained a vital element of performance and energy but the sound-give me a record every time.

Bruce 

Dear Bruce,

I would say that this is the overall conclusion that may be drawn.

Of course recordings are different from the live performance even when the recording is actually made of a live performance.

In reality the main point about a live performance is that is is heard in a unique moment in time, and the reproduction of a recording of it will yield a quite different response!

Half a century ago recordings tended to be formed from complete or very long takes, and editing used only to rescue an otherwise worthy recording from failure. 

Nowadays the editing is so comprehensive that many studio recordings do not even have a sense of complete performance at all, but merely a presentation of a selected series of nearly perfect sections joined together!

The recording industry has led to expectations of perfection in the live setting that can never be met, because the performers are human and prone to human fallibility.

I find very few recordings made in recent times bring that sense of swing and complete sweep that charactersied recordings made with little or no post production editing.

In light of this, it is a fools errand to imagine that any replay set can ever create a sense of a live and complete performance from recordings of music making that are not continuous in real time. 

ATTB from George 

But people do this comparison all the time.

It is the leading cause of upgrading so as to try to make the listening to replay experience the same as listening to a real performance as live!

And strangely there is no end to it.

This should be no surprise to anyone who thinks about it, as the one is not the same as the other at a fundamental level.

It is probably true that those who have played an instrument are less likely to fall into the mistake of trying to make the two experiences similar though.

Is this the sole advantage of having played music as well as listing to it?

ATB from George

Many years ago I started a thread called something like 'Show us what shite musicians you are' where people unapologetically provided soundbytes of their amateur(ish) musical attempts. Some of them were actually pretty good. Mine wasn't. Maybe it time for another throwdown. In a new thread. 

Dear Ron,

That could be fun.

I have some quite nice recordings in which I make a contribution, but have no idea how to put them into a post though!

ATB from George

Dear Char,

I used to play the double. I had two lovely instruments. First was a 1780 London made bass of the first quality by any standard, and that would be worth in the six figure bracket today. The second was even better, but made new for as a five stringer ...

I have photos of both and have no difficulty discerning that these images are a nice representation, but not the real thing!

I also know that no recording represents what one would hear live with any greater accuracy than a photograph would of the performers!

I would not want it otherwise, not least because wanting something impossible is a fast route to unhappiness, but also because I think there is something very special about live music making that elevates it above any reproduction could ever manage. Albeit that it can also be much worse when things go wrong ...

ATB from George

I really enjoy playing musical instruments.. I wouldn't say i am hugely able, but is it is hugely satisfying and relaxing. Currently enjoying playing my 96 bass musette tuned Weltmeister accordion, and my trusty folk  'D' tin whistles.

i think playing an instrument does tend to encourage you to listen and appreciate music in a certain way.

Making music is so very different to listening to music however, I guess if nothing else it's the interactivity and expressiveness that makes it rewarding, but as I say it helps you appreciate how others make music and what they are wanting to achieve.

Simon

Listening to music is something you give to yourself.

Making music is something that you can give to others.

The "flawlessness" concept that George and others have discussed is truly an anathema in modern music.  I will speak about the guitar world only because I am most familiar with it, but this same mindset may also affect other genres.  In many cases, guitarists are not playing to make music for people to enjoy any more, but rather they are playing to show off to other guitarists.  It has become "Look how fast I can play all the right notes without making any mistakes."  That is not making music.

Just yesterday I was watching an instructional video of the late, great, Emily Remler.  She mentioned that when she graduated from Berklee, she was a pretty good guitarist and could "play a lot of notes."  But she said it wasn't until later that she learned how to "swing" - to communicate the groove of the music and make it truly musical.

So I think while knowing how to play can create an appreciation at one level, at another level it does not matter at all.  As I think Bruce mentioned he enjoys music at a purely emotional level, being not in possession of musical making skills.  (If I have the wrong person I apologize.)  At the end of the day, the "cash value" of music is to bring emotion out of people.  This is true whether listening live or on hi-fi.  And as a performer, it should be the goal of the performance...much more so than only getting the "'right notes".

All that said, being able to play music even at the low level that I do does enhance my musical listening experience in a number of ways.  It is not in any way requisite, but for me I feel it expands my appreciation and enjoyment.

"After silence, that which comes nearest to expressing the inexpressible is music." - Aldous Huxley

DrMark, I guess music doesn't have to be emotional.. When I was younger I used to make what I call expressive music of timbres and rhythms with home made instruments, some electronic ... It was deliberately completely devoid of emotion but it felt very expressive.

The chap I made some of this music with, has gone on and made a career as an avant   garde musician amongst other things, and you can now buy his CDs (Richard Youngs).. I guess he has become more emotional with age, but I would still put more as being expressive rather than emotional. If you read his page on Wikipedia, the reference of the use of the home made synthesizer used in some early recordings was built by yours truly... and it used to drift terribly 

So I guess to try and summarise music is a way of communicating without relying on oral language whether that be emotions or another expressive characteristics.

Simon

Hi Simon: That's an interesting distinction you make between "emotion" and "expression"; I personally would conflate them, but this is about music, not semantics! 

This has been a most interesting thread.

I'd contribute to that....

Me too...

Char Wallah - I think I agree - have you got some examples you wouldn't mind sharing of music that invokes a bathetic response in you?

I think such effects are not uncommon in many art forms - and I suspect it was always so. I guess in such cases you could say the musician, author, artist, actor, photographer, director, sculptor etc just doesn't 'get it' and as you say is probably down to lack of artistic experience, interpretation  or maturity - you could perhaps argue that the art of what ever medium it is has then become formulaic.

Simon

Hmm. I do that. I don't think I've ever mentioned it here though, and I certainly wouldn't claim that is was a necessarily superior way to listen to music. Having said that, I have repeatedly found that it really helps me appreciate pieces I find difficult. Often, it's pieces which are structured on a large scale, or are quite abstract, or have especially slow tempos that I find become much easier to understand and appreciate if I can follow the score whilst listening. Examples for me have been Strauss's Tod und Verklarung, and Messaien's Quartet for the End of Time.

Is it just me? (I'm not bothered if it is, just interested)

Mark

I do agree with George -- I *think* that musicians are perhaps less likely to conclude that hi fi in the home "ought to" sound like a live musical performance.  I say this because those who play instruments have heard a lot of live music (a lot of their own making) and "ought to" know the difference. 

For me, playing an instrument uses and pleases a part of my brain that listening to music does not hit.  Both are very enjoyable to me, but seem rather unrelated mentally.  Playing an instrument, to me, is more akin to running or cycling; it gets my brain into a rhythm.  I am not saying this very eloquently. (But I will note that I am not the first to relate making music to running and cycling, all of which are very rhythmic in nature.)

And I fall into Simon's category of enjoying playing, but not claiming to be hugely able.  Which is fine.  The benefit I get from playing is rather unrelated to my journeyman talent.

When I was younger, I really wanted to play an instrument (actually I wanted to jump around on stage playing a guitar like Jimmy Page, basking in the wealth, adulation, drugs, booze and groupies ). I tried guitar, bass, keys and trumpet. It turned out -as I perhaps suspected all along - that I had no discernable talent. So I gave up (how I wish Sting had followed my example).

The fact that I have no ability as a player makes me appreciate music even more, and appreciate talented musicians and composers even more.

Spot on Doc, great post.

There is a certain kind of musician - and you're right, it seems to afflict guitarists more than anyone, but bass players and drummers certainly aren't immune - who delights in impressing other guitar players, rather than playing for simple pleasure, or for love, to to express something (or even for money). I guess one would put fretwanking hacks like Vai, Satriani and Bonamassa in this category.

You are kidding right?  Effected ponsy / posing  piano players and violinists etc not trying to impress their peers or neophytes? Everyone seems to think that these so called serious musicians are above such thoughts, but I guess /know that the same thoughts go through their minds too.

They are are all actors in a way and who are they acting for them selves?

Page/ Townsend / Lifeson etc all pull one off the wrist for their fans and other players, it's part of the game, I'm sure there is a classical keyboard or finger board equivalent. 

I will concede that some performers will take it too far.