Music: Expression vs Imperfection?

[KuruPrionz]

Please feel free to split hairs or leave smoldering craters glowing orange in the night!

 

A couple of current threads inspired this but the topics will covered will be more universal in nature so I started my own thread. I will attempt to keep each post to a single aspect so it's easy to quote and respond.

It would be nice if others wanted to do the same.

 

There are many tools for expression with music. One of them is tempo. Intentional variations in tempo range from very subtle to unmistakeable, there is a long history of tempo expression.

 

My band had a Bar Mitzvah gig, the drummer's girlfriend is great on clarinet so we did an instrumental version of Hava Nagila. Traditionally, that starts at a moderate tempo and slowly speeds up until the dancers cannot keep up the pace.

 

I've seen/heard conductors lead tempo changes during symphonies at concerts.

 

It certainly exists in popular music, here is a great example by the Rolling Stones:

 

In the threads mentioned above, adhering strictly to a single tempo is being touted as a "perfection". Modern MIDI based sampling technology is capable of tempo changes but it is "not part of the new style".

The Roland 808 was made from 1980 to 1983 so it is hardly new. The Fairlight came out in 1979 and I will concede that it was insanely expensive and completely out of reach for most musicians.

 

Now we have affordable options to trigger loops, play one-offs and orchestrate sampled instruments. THAT is fairly new.

 

Yes, it can be considered to be more perfect, it is more perfect than a sloppy performance. It can also be considered a "lack of expression", simply a matter of perspective and what the Artist is trying to say.

[timwat]

Yes, and no.

 

I feel strongly both ways.

[KuruPrionz]

Pitch is another basic component of musical expression. European Classical Tradition led to the evolution of the equally tempered 12 tone scale. This allows a an instrument to play in any of the 12 keys.

That works well for many kinds of music that we are accustomed to hearing but there is more to the story.

 

American music is a unique blend of traditional musics, some were hear when Europeans invaded this continent. Some came with the European invaders. Some was brought by the slaves from Africa. The blend of Native, European and African music is the basis for American music. There are tinges here and there of Middle Eastern and Asian musics.

 

The ingrediients in the Melting Pot are diverse and the evolution is coincidental in nature. I saw Bill Evans present a show - The Banjo In America. His theme was that a banjo was simple to make and accessable to many. The blending of African and European musics may well have it's foundations in early banjo music. Up until the 1880's, most of these instruments were fretless.

 

As American prosperity spread, more instruments became available and styles began to develop. Ragtime, Dixieland, Mandolin Orchestras. Blues.

 

The true father of the modern Blues would have to be Charlie Patton, who was influenced by Henry Sloan and in turn influenced Robert Johnson, Howlin Wolf and many others. He had Native blood and the melodies of the Cherokee people were part of his upbringing. Sadly the records that remain are not in very good condition. The 13 bar blues style is easily discerned.

 

Most importantly, both Dixieland and Blues use notes that are not contained by the equally tempered 12 tone scale. Singing these notes was not restricted but playing them on the piano was not possible. The bottleneck guitar styles handed down from the past were a way of being able to play those notes and also a way to overcome the heavy strings and high action typical of steel string guitars from that era.

 

Those notes are an improtant aspect of American music and part of the expression. They are not errors, they are very intentional. We have to listen to artists like Billy Holiday and Muddy Waters in that context.

 

When we auto-tune everything it is a style but it is also a loss of the expressive nature of American Music. Certainly is it s style as well.

Point being that not comforming to that style does not mean there is an error, it is simply another avenue of expression.

[KuruPrionz]

Yes, and no.

 

I feel strongly both ways.

 

So do I, please feel free to elaborate. I do not want any restrictions on expression here.

 

And I do understand that it can take time to formulate one's thoughts, it has for me.

 

So I hope to see another post from you as your thoughts come. Cheers, Kuru

[KuruPrionz]

I'll be back.

[CEB]

Pffffft! Such sophomoric simplifications. It"s all child"s play after Rachmaninov.

 

Scriabin"s Sonata No. 9.

(FWIW the performance below is Horowitz who was a big advocate of leaving human error in his recordings but .... I wish I made errors like Horowitz. Probably the finest pianist of the 20th century ... except for Rachmaninov. ð)

 

[video:youtube]

[timwat]

Well, there's sloppy and there's intentional variation. Sloppy can happen for all sorts of reasons, including inability, lack of preparation, not caring about accuracy, rebellion against a prior aesthetic (I'm thinking about punk here), and a whole host of other things. And I suppose forensically we're not really sure of the reasons unless the performer is willing to be honest after the fact.

 

Intentional variation is another thing. Every classical pianist strives for perfection - and personal interpretation comes from intentional variation from robotic consistency (in the name of dynamics, tempo variation, etc). There is a whole line of thinking that tempo needs to breathe to feel human, and great effort went drum programming to humanize the end result. Same with human voice and expression.

 

The advent of technology and its consistent evolution (better tools at lower prices) makes it possible to remove all variation in...well...everything. And some genres celebrate that as stated intent.

 

What's better or worse? Don't know, and I choose not to weigh in with a judgement. I know what touches me and what doesn't, and I figure if it doesn't touch me, then is wasn't intended for me. Hope it reaches someone it touches.

 

What I really don't want to do (which isn't what you were saying at all either, I think), is impugn something about the musician. Which is a temptation I have from time to time. I have to remind myself if they're trying to 'say' something through music, well, that's what we're all trying to do, and good on them.

[KuruPrionz]

OK, smoldering crater #1, that's mildly amusing.

 

I suppoose we could rate each other based on our preferences and how we rate those.

 

A random child in somebody's shopping cart sees me and smiles all big. That is expression, it's pure and it's hard to beat.

If we get the kids dancing when we play we figure we've done well. You can't fool a kid.

 

Someone saying "Everything you've typed is drivel because Russian composer?"

 

Meh...

 

On to the next.

[KuruPrionz]

Well, there's sloppy and there's intentional variation. Sloppy can happen for all sorts of reasons, including inability, lack of preparation, not caring about accuracy, rebellion against a prior aesthetic (I'm thinking about punk here), and a whole host of other things. And I suppose forensically we're not really sure of the reasons unless the performer is willing to be honest after the fact.

 

Intentional variation is another thing. Every classical pianist strives for perfection - and personal interpretation comes from intentional variation from robotic consistency (in the name of dynamics, tempo variation, etc). There is a whole line of thinking that tempo needs to breathe to feel human, and great effort went drum programming to humanize the end result. Same with human voice and expression.

 

The advent of technology and its consistent evolution (better tools at lower prices) makes it possible to remove all variation in...well...everything. And some genres celebrate that as stated intent.

 

What's better or worse? Don't know, and I choose not to weigh in with a judgement. I know what touches me and what doesn't, and I figure if it doesn't touch me, then is wasn't intended for me. Hope it reaches someone it touches.

 

What I really don't want to do (which isn't what you were saying at all either, I think), is impugn something about the musician. Which is a temptation I have from time to time. I have to remind myself if they're trying to 'say' something through music, well, that's what we're all trying to do, and good on them.

 

Nice. Thanks for posting! I like what I like too. Not everybody does and that's fine. I would like to distinguish between sloppy playing and intentional tempo changes. I posted the Stones playing Midnight Rambler live because Charlie and Keith are pretty damn tight with their tempo changes. I am certain that the visual aspect of standing next to each other is a factor. That and how long they've played together.

[Tom Williams]

Back when I was sequencing all my backup bands (need to resume that in these sequestered times), I occasionally programmed ritardandos into some songs -- ELPowell's "The Score" comes to mind -- but most sequenced backup was done in strict unwavering tempo. Being a keboardist and not a kazooist, I was also limited to 12 tone equal tempered scale.

 

So, to make things less mechanical, I made sure that there were lots of dynamics -- not only terrace dynamics from patch selection, but also dynamics even with drum grooves, so you could tell that someone was feeling something.

 

In live performance, all instruments have their own expressive strengths and weaknesses -- part of the fun. As expressive as a cello or violin is, neither will generate the sheer power (when needed) that a pipe organ or 9' grand will produce, let alone something as simple as a cymbal crash. As synthesists, we are given a rare -- but rarely used -- opportunity to play more expressively than pianists or organists.

[KuruPrionz]

Back when I was sequencing all my backup bands (need to resume that in these sequestered times), I occasionally programmed ritardandos into some songs -- ELPowell's "The Score" comes to mind -- but most sequenced backup was done in strict unwavering tempo. Being a keboardist and not a kazooist, I was also limited to 12 tone equal tempered scale.

 

So, to make things less mechanical, I made sure that there were lots of dynamics -- not only terrace dynamics from patch selection, but also dynamics even with drum grooves, so you could tell that someone was feeling something.

 

In live performance, all instruments have their own expressive strengths and weaknesses -- part of the fun. As expressive as a cello or violin is, neither will generate the sheer power (when needed) that a pipe organ or 9' grand will produce, let alone something as simple as a cymbal crash. As synthesists, we are given a rare -- but rarely used -- opportunity to play more expressively than pianists or organists.

 

True, I really like what I see musicians do with synths. The Roli Seaboard looks fun, so does the Keith McMillan thingie and the Linnstrument.

I've got a Korg Wavedrum, another form factor but a synthesizer rather than a sample trigger.

 

I think it's great where things are headed. Great minds are working on making tempo changes easier, it will happen and people will gravitate in new directtions. We've always gone through changes, it keeps things fun.

 

I love going into my DAW and transforming sounds into other things. I've made tons of loops.

 

You left out Strat and Mesa Halfstack but you included kazoo so kudos!!!! Cheers, Kuru

[CowboyNQ]

Someone saying "Everything you've typed is drivel because Russian composer?"

 

Meh...

 

On to the next.

I interpreted Ed's comment as being tongue-in-cheek. Although he's definitely not being tongue-in-cheek about his admiration for Rachmaninov and Horowitz.

[CEB]

Sort of. This argument of perfection v expression is as old music ... JS Bach who was largely forgotten until the 19th had firm a mathematical basis and design behind his compositions. Bach maybe as close to perfection I. musical that has ever existed. Then you take something like Scriabin"s later works like the 9th Sonata (... that you should try to listen to at least in parts) he attempts to perfect imperfections both totally and rhythmically. I can"t play Scriabin. I can"t get it. It hard for me to play right, something that sounds wrong to me. It freaking difficult. It helped that Scriabin was insane.

 

Horowitz would leave imperfect play on records because he liked the way the song breathed. But playing mistakes and chalking it up to expression is a bullshit cop out. So like Tim said ..... Both.

[MAJUSCULE]

I like Quincy's goosebumps method.

[Outkaster]

I love this explanation. Go to around the 2 minute mark:

 

[video:youtube]

[Jazz+]

Par for the course in jazz.

[CEB]

I asked myself a Jazz question on Sunday while mentally reviewing Jazz theory. I wondered if early Bee Bop giants like Coltrane or Miles knew much Jazz Theory or did they just do it? Bill Evans seemed pretty cerebral so he was probably formulating structured theory as he grew.

 

Not being a Jazz guy this is probably a 1st grader question.

[KuruPrionz]

Sort of. This argument of perfection v expression is as old music ... JS Bach who was largely forgotten until the 19th had firm a mathematical basis and design behind his compositions. Bach maybe as close to perfection I. musical that has ever existed. Then you take something like Scriabin"s later works like the 9th Sonata (... that you should try to listen to at least in parts) he attempts to perfect imperfections both totally and rhythmically. I can"t play Scriabin. I can"t get it. It hard for me to play right, something that sounds wrong to me. It freaking difficult. It helped that Scriabin was insane.

 

Horowitz would leave imperfect play on records because he liked the way the song breathed. But playing mistakes and chalking it up to expression is a bullshit cop out. So like Tim said ..... Both.

 

Both indeed.

I didn't start this thread to discuss why mistakes are "good" and it isn't what I think.

That said, I've certainly learned a great deal by making mistakes. I've been the primary soloist (electric guitar) in bands for decades - rock, country, blues, pop etc. Always a mixture of covers and originals.

I've learned or faked tons of "signature licks" but I never copy the solos. In my explorations, I've had some spectacular failures. Some of those were so wrong that they created tension and I remembered and refined them.

It may be the only reason I have a distinguishable style, I'll own that. Spontaneous improvisation is part of who I am. Some love that, some don't. Just doing ME.

 

Part of the discussion in both of the Neon Vines threads touched on "perfect" being "perfectly boring" which is certainly not a given. Others were touting the new tech and "style" by pointing out that older records have mistakes and lack perfection. We all like different things and there will not be agreement.

 

All I was trying to say was that i didn't think the song we were reviewing was a good song. Another matter of taste.

 

As always, there are exceptions. Merry Clayton's voice breaking up on her third and final solo line in Gimme Shelter comes to mind. That is an excellent mistake, it serves the song.

 

CBS, I am nowhere near as far into classical music as you apparently are but I do LOVE it. I've seen Artur Rubenstein in concert, a solo show in a great room. It was fantastic, I wouldn't trade that experience for anything. 56 years later I still remember it. My brother and I learned the "dress rehearsal" trick and went to those often. I especially enjoyed when the conductor would stop and explain what he was trying to accomplish and how to get there.

We bought 4 or 5 versions of Beethoven's 9th, seeking the best sounding one.

 

I also love Jazz - not conversant on a legitimate level, can do a bit of fluffy faking which has even fooled a few friends who are much better at it than I am.

As a songwriter, I am a pop music artist in the most general terms. Meaning I have a good handle on rock, reggae, blues, country, disco, worldbeat etc.

 

I don't write music notation in the European tradition. Being considerably visually impaired has certainly been a factor, a music stand large enough to hold 11x17 or better yet 18x24 sheets of music is pretty unweildy. I didn't go there.

Add in that guitar is difficult to notate - there are 5 different locations for Middle C on a Strat and yes, I am musically illiterate in the European tradition.

 

That is a niche, I respect it and I enjoy the results. I've a brother who is a Lummi Nation Elder. He was mentored by the last remaining Lummi who could pass down the traditions. He knows the traditional Lummi songs in the original language. He teaches them, wants to pass them down. Without him, they would have been lost. They are not written, they are not recorded (he won't allow me to do this).

 

I've been to sacred ceremonies, was only allowed by the invitation of an Elder. They have a beat - 1-2-3 1-2-3 1-2-3 1-2-3-4-5-6-7 (repeated twice) then 1-2-3 1-2-3 1-2-3 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9.

I asked him where that beat came from. He said it is the pattern of the waves on the ocean. The Lummi had the largest fishing fleet of any tribe in the world, they fished from Mexico to Alaska.

They spent their lives on the water and the music comes from there.

 

Yes, I diverge. Just letting you know a little bit about who I am and what makes me tick. It is a big world - music is infinite.

So I will listen and respect your opinions and fit them in with all of the other fascinating things that are there for us to enjoy.

 

Here are Siberians playing selected chunks of ice together. LOVE this!!!

 

Cheers, Kuru

[Jazz+]

I asked myself a Jazz question on Sunday while mentally reviewing Jazz theory. I wondered if early Bee Bop giants like Coltrane or Miles knew much Jazz Theory or did they just do it? Bill Evans seemed pretty cerebral so he was probably formulating structured theory as he grew.

 

They studied and practiced very hard.

[Steve Nathan]

This discussion reminds me of the old worn out claim by some that the so-called A-team or Wrecking Crew type Studio Musicians are "Too Perfect". It's often framed in "authenticity", or geographically. Austin vs. Nashville or Seattle vs. LA.

What I've observed in decades of Studio work is that it's a lot easier to get Pro musicians to "play loose" than it is to get "Authentic" musicians to play tight!

[KuruPrionz]

This discussion reminds me of the old worn out claim by some that the so-called A-team or Wrecking Crew type Studio Musicians are "Too Perfect". It's often framed in "authenticity", or geographically. Austin vs. Nashville or Seattle vs. LA.

What I've observed in decades of Studio work is that it's a lot easier to get Pro musicians to "play loose" than it is to get "Authentic" musicians to play tight!

 

Would love for you to elaborate, not sure why this thread reminds you of the above?

 

I agree that great players will have the experience and the chops to lock a groove and to jump in when the groove is more complex.

We all have plenty of friends who've been playing for a LONG time and somehow never got past a certain level. Early plateau.

 

That's really not what I want to discuss at all. I am happy to attempt to clarify once I understand which points need clarifcation.

I will point out that Glen Campbell played entirely by ear and he was certainly an A Team player.

[Steve Nathan]

I will point out that Glen Campbell played entirely by ear and he was certainly an A Team player.

I'm also an "Ear" player. Not sure what your point is there, but apparently neither of us clearly gets what the other is saying.

[KuruPrionz]

I will point out that Glen Campbell played entirely by ear and he was certainly an A Team player.

I'm also an "Ear" player. Not sure what your point is there, but apparently neither of us clearly gets what the other is saying.

 

Hopefully we will understand each other better as this progresses. I play by ear but survival in gig world has led me long ago to learn where I am. I know every note on the fingerboard, I know how chords are built and a good variety of voiciings everywhere on the fretboard, I know where all my useful scales, riffs and shapes are and I can transpose on the fly, most of the time without even thinking about it.

 

Most importantly I understand - Serve The Song and - Whatever I Do, Don't Do That. I am also not afraid to lay out even if I know the song well. Sometimes it needs parts without my guitar, I'll be there when needed.

Northing worse than everybody playing all the way through everything, it makes all the songs sound the same. Ugh.

 

Stringed instruments are much simpler than keyboards in that respect. The shapes are all the same, only the positions change. Playing in C# on keys requires a completely different set of shapes than playing in C. I can just move everything up one fret and go if I need to, or find a different voicing in a different spot.

 

One time I was playing bass at a pickup gig and the singer/strummer said "Do you know the Achy Breaky?" I didn't but I heard it in my head and said "It's a 1-5 in A, right?" He said "We don't know what you mean when you say stuff like that." I said, "I'm good, count it off."

 

It was a 1-5 in A but you probably knew that as soon as I mentioned the title. Cheers, Kuru

[timwat]

An honest question, Kuru - you do know who Steve is, right?

[KuruPrionz]

An honest question, Kuru - you do know who Steve is, right?

 

 

I don't but that reflects more on me than on him. Have I said something offensive? That is not my intention.

 

I just googled him, impressive!

 

Not shining light on myself but I sold Rick Neilson of Cheap Trick a 53 Fender Deluxe backstage once and also played bass for Bo Diddley for one gig.

Point being they were regular guys and we just hung out a bit. If I had to guess I would say that Steve is a nice guy as well. I'm certain his stories are far more interesting than mine.

 

Cheers Kuru