Welcome to one of the most active flamenco sites on the Internet. Guests can read most posts but if you want to participate click here to register.
This site is dedicated to the memory of Paco de Lucía, Ron Mitchell, Guy Williams, Linda Elvira, Philip John Lee, Craig Eros, Ben Woods, David Serva and Tom Blackshear who went ahead of us.
We receive 12,200 visitors a month from 200 countries and 1.7 million page impressions a year. To advertise on this site please contact us.
|
|
|
What makes a music "good"?
|
You are logged in as Guest
|
|
Users viewing this topic: none
|
|
Login  | |
|
   
szvarga
Posts: 58
Joined: Mar. 11 2019
|
 What makes a music "good"?
|
|
|
Guys, i'm wondering a lot about this question:
What makes a music "good"? Why i'm listening a music, and say, whoooaa, that's awesome, and why bores me another.
Not talking about PdL, who impress me, and David Guetta, who's not.
Talking about the genres i like, the flamenco guitar players. One is impress me, the other bores me...
Well, I came up with this, i'm curious, what are you thinking:
First, what is music? For me, as a musician, it is unity of melody, harmony, and rhythm after all. That's the bottom line.
But all the guitarists plays melodies, harmonies and rhythms. Moreover, if I play only an EMaj chord quarters, and add high E note sixteenths for five minutes, I played five minutes of music. No one can tell the opposite. There is melody with sixteenth, there are harmony with an EMaj chord, and there are rhythm. But that will bore you to death.
So, i came up to think, the melody+harmony+rhythm definition is not the point.
Variation. That's what i think the point is.
Look, the melody is nothing but sequence of notes. A melody contains one note, or a melody contains same repeating notes, is a boring melody - but that is still a melody. What makes it interesting, is the variation of the notes.
And so, the harmony is a sequence of chords. And an interesting harmony is the variation of that sequence. A one chord harmony, or a repeated but constant sequence of chords is boring.
Rhythm is the same. The variation, what makes it interesting, not the pure presence, even it is a complex one.
And, if I look at it this way, the music i like, where the quality and quantity of variation is fits my taste. Not the technique, how the melody has played, but how interesting the variation of the notes? Not the amount and complexity of cords and changes, or the rhythm played. But the freshness and the surprise of the variations.
So, variation.:)
And that makes me thinking, not to learn notes, chords, or rhythm patterns.
But learn how to variate them...
What are you thinking about that?
Sz
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date May 27 2019 10:47:35
 |
|
szvarga
Posts: 58
Joined: Mar. 11 2019
|
|
RE: What makes a music "good"? (in reply to Ricardo)
|
|
|
Nothing is wrong with modal music. Or any music, where the whole point is to NOT variate. (Well, with any music at all...) Personally, one of my favorite is René Aubry, whose music is as simple and monotonic as it can be. And I find it everything else than boring.
I'm looking for the element, what makes the flamenco guitar playing interesting. (I mean flamenco music, or any music where the variation is an important element). Because I want to focus on that element. I want to focus my practicing time on it, and build my playing on it.
quote:
If it is predicable then perhaps it’s boring
Yes, I find this element my be the amount of predictability. Not the technique, or the complexity, or the phrasing, or anything else.
And of course, there aren't a right amount of it. It's all depends on a personal taste. One needs more, one needs less, and all of them are just fine.
Sz
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date May 27 2019 17:58:54
|
|
Piwin
Posts: 3559
Joined: Feb. 9 2016
|
|
RE: What makes a music "good"? (in reply to szvarga)
|
|
|
You could dig into some works on the aesthetics of music, but I don't know how much of it would be applicable to actual practice. Until recently, most of it seemed to focus on Western "classical" music. Thinkers otherwise strongly opposed like Adorno and Scruton found agreement in their distaste for popular music. In more recent times there have been some thinkers in analytic philosophy who have tackled the aesthetics of music and opened up more to popular forms of music. The focus (at least in the case of Peter Kivy and Stephen Davies, who are the only two I know of) seems to be mainly about expressiveness, expression, etc. (so, not beauty proper).
The difficulty is in bridging the gap between physics and metaphysics. All the tools you can use to make "good" music fall in the realm of physics. Yet, the result you're creating will be judged in the realm of metaphysics. For instance, you can create a sense of yearning or reaching for something with a well-placed ascending scale (say you go a bit but stop before reaching the top, then a next run you go a bit higher, etc. building up that anticipation until you get to the climax). The physical part doesn't tell you much and you don't get a straight correlation like "repeat use of ascending scales=sense of yearning or reaching for something". The resulting feeling is a matter of metaphysics.
So you won't be able to point to one single physical element as responsible for what makes good music. "Variation"? A tool among others. Used in the wrong place or at the wrong dosage, it might be counter-productive. Anyways, that's my long-winded way of saying basically that I agree with @gerundino63. Music is about using aural tools to communicate feelings. Whether the music is good or not will depend on the quality of those feelings and the ability of the musician to use those tools to express those feelings.
_____________________________
"Anything you do can be fixed. What you cannot fix is the perfection of a blank page. What you cannot fix is that pristine, unsullied whiteness of a screen or a page with nothing on it—because there’s nothing there to fix."
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date May 27 2019 21:41:18
|
|
szvarga
Posts: 58
Joined: Mar. 11 2019
|
|
RE: What makes a music "good"? (in reply to szvarga)
|
|
|
Whoa, guys, these are a lot of interesting toughts!
This philosophical line is very interesting, and truly worth some time to spending on it.
But this really not the point, I like to discuss with you. (Maybe my topic subject wasn't clear enough.)
My question is not about "which genre is good music" or "what makes a genre good, or better than others" which is of course meaningless.
I thinking on a much more simple thing. In a same music genre (in this case flamenco), playing the same instrument (guitar), why I say hearing one guy "whoa, what the hell is he doing?" and skip another guy, as they both play the same music on the same instrument. And not about the subjective things like sense of taste, which is meaningless also.
What is the objective thing, what we can learn, what we can focus on that makes the difference?
Am I clear enough now?
Lets say, i'm looking for some solea falseta to learn. There are a lot of them available. But i will skip the majority of them, and say "o.k., but it isn't impress me". Even if it has some flashy technique, (or on the contrary it's balanced and relaxed), or some complex thing on notes or chords or whatever.
But there will be one, when i say "hey, it's interesting! How can I play like that?" And this will be the one I want to learn.
What makes the difference between the skipped ones and the picked one?
And yes, the final answer for music is to express emotions (well, we all know the final answer is 42, but move on:) ), and the instrument is a tool for that. When I practice, I learn to use this tool. I have to learn it, it will never get used by itself. And to learn, i have to set a goal. A focus.
One can't focus on everything. It's the same focus on nothing.
My goal is to sound as interesting, as the players i found interesting.
Where do I set the focus? On scales? On technique? On feeling? On...
That is, what I'm wondering on...
Sz
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date May 28 2019 7:36:11
|
|
Piwin
Posts: 3559
Joined: Feb. 9 2016
|
|
RE: What makes a music "good"? (in reply to szvarga)
|
|
|
That's what I was getting at. There is no one thing you can point to say "this is what makes it good". You just won't find anything. It's like trying to figure out why you like one book instead of another and then saying "I wonder if it was because of the grammar, the choice of words, the pace, the theme, etc. etc." You just won't find any one thing to answer that question.
What you can do is zoom in on one composer/player, and attempt to learn his style in the most minute detail so you can then reproduce it in your own playing, but that's it. There's no magic bullet. So if you need a focus, focus on a player or a piece you like, listen to him/it again and again, break it down, learn it all by rote until you've internalized it. That'll get you closer to sounding and composing like him IMHO.
@kitarist
Thanks for the reading material. Cheers!
_____________________________
"Anything you do can be fixed. What you cannot fix is the perfection of a blank page. What you cannot fix is that pristine, unsullied whiteness of a screen or a page with nothing on it—because there’s nothing there to fix."
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date May 28 2019 12:31:40
|
|
szvarga
Posts: 58
Joined: Mar. 11 2019
|
|
RE: What makes a music "good"? (in reply to gerundino63)
|
|
|
quote:
1 play good, without mistakes etc. Master the piece.
2 play beautiful. This is a different commando to your brain. So you have to study that too.
Once you manage to “play beautiful” and leave the worry for “play good” out, you can express your feelings freely.
In my oppinion that is what you hear with “wow!” Guitarists..
That's all true.
We have to do our job as a musician, and practice what we play, to play correct. And find a way to put emotions into the notes, and express it, to play beautiful.
I'm sure, if you have a dime you won't put on a guy's gig, who plays incorrect, and sounds bad. And you bet, me neither! :)
But, if you have to choose between to guys, one who plays perfectly correct and sounds perfectly good, but play the exactly same notes night by night, and one who's not perfectly correct, and sounds sometimes imperfect, but can surprise you night after night with unpredictable variations, which one you choose?
You put your dime on me, i'll choose the latter guy. And I think, i'm not the only one.
So, where do i put my focus on my practicing time then? On correct playing, on the expression of emotions, or on the ability to variate things? (Not the whole practicing time, but the main focus)
My answer is variation, so far.
I'm really curious about yours.
Sz
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date May 28 2019 15:05:36
|
|
szvarga
Posts: 58
Joined: Mar. 11 2019
|
|
RE: What makes a music "good"? (in reply to Piwin)
|
|
|
quote:
There is no one thing you can point to say "this is what makes it good". You just won't find anything.
No, I'm not looking for the "one" thing that works. It's clear, it doesn't exist. I never say that.
I'm looking for one (or more) component of music to aid by the others, to achieve my goal, which is to play interesting. Not to name one important, and the others unnecessary. All of them are necessary. As in a sport like Formula-1 racing. One guy is in focus (the driver), the others are supporters. To achieve they goal, which is to win the race. But all of them are important, one by one.
quote:
What you can do is zoom in on one composer/player, and attempt to learn his style in the most minute detail so you can then reproduce it in your own playing, but that's it. There's no magic bullet. So if you need a focus, focus on a player or a piece you like, listen to him/it again and again, break it down, learn it all by rote until you've internalized it. That'll get you closer to sounding and composing like him IMHO.
That is what exactly i did. Zoom on the players i find interesting, and try to figure out, why i find them interesting.
But not with the aim, to sound like them. Then I became a hundredth copy to them at best. And that is the opposite, what I found common in them. They not sound like a hundred other people. Nor ten others. (Why would I choose a goal as a musician, to be someone else's copy?)
They sounds like themselves.
They all flamenco guitar players. All of them plays music with same roots. But in a variation, I never heard before. And I say: "oh, what was that? I hear, this is a solea, but i didn't expect this. What did he play? And what will he plays next?" (I can imagine, when people first heard PdL playing, they can't stop listening because of this question: what will he plays next?)
And I found, it's not because of any elements of music, not technique, not timing, not phrasing, but the ability (and courage) to make variations. And all the other elements are supporting this one. That's why they sound different, because they play the same thing - but with a different variation.
Or am I wrong?
Sz
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date May 28 2019 15:32:06
|
|
kitarist
Posts: 1715
Joined: Dec. 4 2012
|
|
RE: What makes a music "good"? (in reply to szvarga)
|
|
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: szvarga
And I found, it's not because of any elements of music, not technique, not timing, not phrasing, but the ability (and courage) to make variations. And all the other elements are supporting this one. That's why they sound different, because they play the same thing - but with a different variation.
Or am I wrong?
Sz
I think what you call variation is broadly the same concept as (just the right amount of) unpredictability, surprising the listener; which itself is related to exposing the listener to new experiences.
The problem is that this will vary depending on who is listening, as we all have different musical histories and experiences, so I don't think you can find a truly objective way to determine "what is that amount of variation I need".
Also, variation (or surprise) does not have to mean variation in melody; it could be other musical qualities.
And it is never quite the same on repeated listening, isn't it. It would be amazing if we can feel again in the same way we did, perhaps as kids, when something completely new hits as for the first time. Or maybe it is good that we cannot truly feel as if hearing something new over and over - it will diminish the tender fragile beauty and meaningfulness of that very first time.
_____________________________
Konstantin
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date May 28 2019 16:06:42
|
|
szvarga
Posts: 58
Joined: Mar. 11 2019
|
|
RE: What makes a music "good"? (in reply to kitarist)
|
|
|
quote:
I think what you call variation is broadly the same concept as (just the right amount of) unpredictability, surprising the listener; which itself is related to exposing the listener to new experiences.
Exactly. The point I found is surprise. The presence of unpredictability.
quote:
The problem is that this will vary depending on who is listening, as we all have different musical histories and experiences, so I don't think you can find a truly objective way to determine "what is that amount of variation I need".
I'm not looking for the right amount of it, because it doesn't exist. The right amount depends on personal taste of everyone of us, i agree with that fully.
I think it's not the right amount. It's the presence of surprise.
For me, free jazz has too much surprise. Gregorian chants has too little. But that is only my taste. Who loves free jazz, loves it for the large amount of surprise. Who loves chants, loves it for the opposite. But the presence of unpredictability (in the amount what one likes) what they prefer that music, I think. Without that, without the presence of surprise, sooner or later it will be a boring stuff.
And where the surprise comes from? What the musician do, to surprise me? I think, he/she make some unexpected variation.
quote:
Also, variation (or surprise) does not have to mean variation in melody; it could be other musical qualities.
Yes, it hasn't be in the melody. It can be in any elements of music. Rhythm. Phrasing. Dynamics, articulation. Any element can works for it.
quote:
And it is never quite the same on repeated listening, isn't it. It would be amazing if we can feel again in the same way we did, perhaps as kids, when something completely new hits as for the first time. Or maybe it is good that we cannot truly feel as if hearing something new over and over - it will diminish the tender fragile beauty and meaningfulness of that very first time.
As a listener point of view, it is right. I myself didn't dig deeper. I like a kind of music, because it makes me feel good. And it is a valid answer, no matter what is exactly makes me feel good.
But as a musician, it can't be an answer: "I play this, because it makes me feel good" (o.k., this can be an important element in one way). As a musician, I have to play what makes the audience feels good. That's what they listen to. And I found, the audience listen to the surprise. As a listener, that what makes me pop up my head.
And listen to the player. What will he plays next...?
Sz
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date May 28 2019 17:41:30
|
|
szvarga
Posts: 58
Joined: Mar. 11 2019
|
|
RE: What makes a music "good"? (in reply to szvarga)
|
|
|
ok guys, i thought things over a little while, and i came to think, that you all gives appropriate answers - the wrong question i'm putting to you...
In my defense, i try to figure out some blurred feelings of mine, about how to play and sound as i imagine it. And the first concept i can grab was as simply as "good".
But yes, it was a concept too universal (especially in relation to music). I tried to clarify my thoughts in my first post, but it seems without success...
So, it's still an interesting question, and a lot of interesting posts already, but now (thanks for this thread) i can word more precisely than "good", what's makes me choose one player instead of another. And it's not the presence of variation, i see now. It's just another element of a more universal quality of playing (which is, as it would seem, my personal favorite "thrill maker").
It takes me closer what i'm looking for, if i say it is some sort of "freedom over technique". When the player not struggling with the material, the technique not limits him to express feelings, no matters how complex or how simply the technique is.
And it can be the freedom of variation over the piece, and bring more music than the original contains, yes. But it can be also, to bring space, silence too, and play less.
When one have freedom over technique, the playing has driven by the feelings, not the technical limits or abilities.
And a practice schedule, or a main musical focus can build on (as i imagine) to get as more freedom as it possible. Not to practice, how to play a technique - but how to use that technique anywhere, and in any context of music, freely, driven by the momentary feelings, not by learned patterns.
Is this makes more sense?
Sz
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Jun. 4 2019 9:28:03
|
|
Ricardo
Posts: 14797
Joined: Dec. 14 2004
From: Washington DC
|
|
RE: What makes a music "good"? (in reply to szvarga)
|
|
|
quote:
And a practice schedule, or a main musical focus can build on (as i imagine) to get as more freedom as it possible. Not to practice, how to play a technique - but how to use that technique anywhere, and in any context of music, freely, driven by the momentary feelings, not by learned patterns.
See now you are adding all this background context to the artist, rather than judging solely on the performance. I remember a few years back all these folks going crazy for this homeless guy bashing out on 4 or 5 strings. Turned out to be Niño Miguel, a decent player from the past, nothing close to the league of PDL, but decent position in the pantheon of tocares. Probably would have gotten lost to everybody’s memory if not for the emergence of his tragic story, which added all this background context such watching the guy with no teeth hack his way through some PDL falsetas actually gets you choked up with emotion. If a rich spoiled kid had been playing like that on a Reyes his dad bought him, the response might have been quite different.
_____________________________
CD's and transcriptions available here:
www.ricardomarlow.com
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Jun. 4 2019 11:17:54
|
|
Mark2
Posts: 1868
Joined: Jul. 12 2004
From: San Francisco
|
|
RE: What makes a music "good"? (in reply to Ricardo)
|
|
|
I think in his day Nino Miguel was more than a decent player. Much more. I agree the reaction would definitely be different if it was an unknown kid but shouldn't it be? Doesn't one's history mean anything?
quote:
ORIGINAL: Ricardo
quote:
And a practice schedule, or a main musical focus can build on (as i imagine) to get as more freedom as it possible. Not to practice, how to play a technique - but how to use that technique anywhere, and in any context of music, freely, driven by the momentary feelings, not by learned patterns.
See now you are adding all this background context to the artist, rather than judging solely on the performance. I remember a few years back all these folks going crazy for this homeless guy bashing out on 4 or 5 strings. Turned out to be Niño Miguel, a decent player from the past, nothing close to the league of PDL, but decent position in the pantheon of tocares. Probably would have gotten lost to everybody’s memory if not for the emergence of his tragic story, which added all this background context such watching the guy with no teeth hack his way through some PDL falsetas actually gets you choked up with emotion. If a rich spoiled kid had been playing like that on a Reyes his dad bought him, the response might have been quite different.
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Jun. 4 2019 16:45:28
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts
|
|
|
Forum Software powered by ASP Playground Advanced Edition 2.0.5
Copyright © 2000 - 2003 ASPPlayground.NET |
0.09375 secs.
|
Printable Version
Good luck! 
