Jump to content


Please note: You can easily log in to MPN using your Facebook account!

Disappointed with Oliver Sacks' music documentary


FunkKeysStuff

Recommended Posts

I recently caught part of the Oliver Sacks documentary "Musical Minds," a companion piece to his new book Musicophilia. I haven't yet read the book, but I'm familiar with some of his other work and am generally a fan. However, I was deeply disappointed by the one segment of the documentary I saw. It was a profile of a 29-year-old with severe autism, who functions at about the level of a 4-year-old -- except that he's an incredibly gifted pianist. It showed him improvising in various pop, classical and jazz styles, with great technique and musicality, and it really was an amazing thing to behold.

 

But then they went and blew it. As another example of how unbelievably gifted the guy is, they played him a recording of a tune he had (apparently) never heard before, and then, after hearing it only once, he played it back "note for note." The tune was a trio performance of "Oleo." If I had to guess, I'd say it was Phineas Newborn Jr., but I'm not certain. At any rate, they played the tune (just the head in), the guy played it back on the piano, and everyone started gushing about how how he had played it back "exactly like the recording."

 

Now, I don't mean to take anything away from this person's clearly extraordinary ability, or whatever inspiration people might take from it... but it was patently obvious that he did not play it "exactly like the recording." In fact, while it was certainly a credible and recognizable attempt, it really wasn't any closer than a typical pro-level jazz musician (me or my colleagues or any number of you reading this) would come after one hearing of a 32-bar, AABA, diatonic bebop head (with a chord progression that almost certainly was familiar).

 

So why did this bug me so much? Because by overstating their case and exaggerating this guy's abilities, they devalued the very real and remarkable abilities he actually does have, not to mention damaging the credibility of their own research. The things this guy can do on a piano are amazing enough. By attempting to credit him with things he can't really do and make him seem "superhuman," they made it seem like the things he actually can do weren't good enough on their own, and needed to be padded. Either that, or else they honestly didn't have anyone on hand who was able to evaluate and point out the difference -- which, for a scientist of Dr. Sacks' caliber, known for doing solid and credible work, would be highly surprising and disappointing. I was really shocked that they would glaze over something so obvious and so easy to check; so much so, that I couldn't be bothered to watch the rest of the program.

 

So, did anyone else see this and react similarly? Or am I really just that much of a curmudgeonly bastard?

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Replies 8
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I have this on my TiVo, but haven't seen it yet. I can imagine having a similar reaction given your description. One thing it points out to me is that people who aren't experts, or at least fairly knowledgeable in an area, are often not aware of what they don't understand, and may not feel they need an expert to help them assess something. If it was solving differential equations, maybe, but somehow, when it comes to the arts, they often figure they understand it.

 

I also think people would be totally surprised if they learned enough about what a good jazz musician can do, like playing a song in a different key without having to practice it for hours, or just sight reading a chart and soloing, composing an intro on the spot, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or am I really just that much of a curmudgeonly bastard?

I think you could work that up some more. You seem surprised that you got hype and BS from your TV set.

 

"Exactly like the recording" is always a poor choice of words.

 

I just watched a different five minute clip of that documentary. Sounds like a guy with too much time on his hands slinging it.

 

 

--wmp
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The book is a great pleasure to read. Oliver Sacks writes well and exercises a wonderful sense of curiousity.

 

I haven't seen the documentary--didn't know there was one--but why would anyone express surprise when supremely untalented nonmusicians gush over a musician's performance, especially an autistic one? Look at how people gush over mediocre talent, the number of folks here who devote hours to Am Idol, and the mediocre talents that rise to the top in music. I say, yes, you're just being a curmudgeonly bastard--or at least starting the voyage to the vast Desert of Curmudgia. Welcome to the club. When you reach the point where you know with absolute certainty that you can expect only raw, unfiltered, live, and uncut fecal extrusia from the boob tube, you'll have graduated from curmudgeonly bastard to bastardly curmudgeon. And that will be another win for the bright side of the force.

 

And you--guy with the Tivo--shoot that thing and get a library card. Harrummph!!

 

Bastardly, curmudgeonly, & skeptically yours,

VLH

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a local band that does Beatle covers, and they won this year's Best Cover Band award with the most fan votes held by the local weekly.

 

I've heard these guys, and they are not terrible, and they put on a fun show, covering Beatles songs from the beginning to the end, but they are far from note-for-note perfect. But generally, the crowd goes crazy for this, and I have a theory about that.

 

If you play a familiar song close enough, especially in the arrangement (don't throw people off by rearranging the song structure, do the tempos closely, etc.), people will "fill in the blanks" with the rest. I'm sure there's a fine line between that and "that's not how the song goes," which our friends who do a lot of covers or 80s tributes can attest to, but overall, I think there's room to get away with something.

 

I think what FKS discusses is similar. Most people can't tell the difference between what the autistic guy played and the original, he nailed the tempo, the changes, and the feel. It is disappointing, as he says, that Sacks didn't evaluate it or state simply, "that was amazing, it was close enough that most of us couldn't tell" or something similar, but I don't find it hugely surprising given what I've described.

 

BTW, was this the NOVA PBS episode or something else?

"I'm so crazy, I don't know this is impossible! Hoo hoo!" - Daffy Duck

 

"The good news is that once you start piano you never have to worry about getting laid again. More time to practice!" - MOI

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw the NOVA episode that I think you are talking about, I thought they said the tune was Bud Powell, but I might be wrong. I agree that he didn't nail the tune, as the commentary implied, he straitened out a lot of the chromaticism and simplified the changes. But, he got the overall arc of the melody and the general harmonic motion, which I have to admit I couldn't do as well on my first hearing of a bop head. But yeah, the reactions of Sachs and everyone else was a little misleading.

 

I really enjoyed the part about the guy with Tourette's who played the drums. The sheer joy that playing music brought him was really beautiful.

 

The guy who was struck by lightning and became a new age pianist was pretty annoying, though. I knew lightning was dangerous, but not that way!

Turn up the speaker

Hop, flop, squawk

It's a keeper

-Captain Beefheart, Ice Cream for Crow

Link to comment
Share on other sites

why would anyone express surprise when supremely untalented nonmusicians gush over a musician's performance, especially an autistic one?

In a word, context. If it had been an Oprah interview, a clip on USAToday.com, or even a piece on the Discovery Channel, I wouldn't have given it a second thought. But Sacks is not a pandering, simpering TV personality; he's a real scientist who's known for actually getting stuff right. As such, part of his job was to be more discerning and more observant than the average untalented nonmusician. Similarly, NOVA is one of the few credible science programs left, also known for that pesky "getting it right" thing. So while I'm certainly not surprised at the initial reaction, I am surprised (in this particular, rare instance) that it made it from raw footage to final broadcast unchecked.

 

Welcome to the club.

Right then. Who do I talk to about changing my title from "Senior Member" to "Curmudgeonly Bastard"?

 

I thought they said the tune was Bud Powell, but I might be wrong.

They very well might have. I don't recall them mentioning who it was, so I probably just missed that bit.

 

The guy who was struck by lightning and became a new age pianist was pretty annoying, though. I knew lightning was dangerous, but not that way!

Oh man, now I wish I would have seen that part, just to laugh at the irony!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

why would anyone express surprise when supremely untalented nonmusicians gush over a musician's performance, especially an autistic one?

In a word, context. If it had been an Oprah interview, a clip on USAToday.com, or even a piece on the Discovery Channel, I wouldn't have given it a second thought. But Sacks is not a pandering, simpering TV personality; he's a real scientist who's known for actually getting stuff right. As such, part of his job was to be more discerning and more observant than the average untalented nonmusician. Similarly, NOVA is one of the few credible science programs left, also known for that pesky "getting it right" thing. So while I'm certainly not surprised at the initial reaction, I am surprised (in this particular, rare instance) that it made it from raw footage to final broadcast unchecked.

 

Yeah I was a little disappointed in Sachs response, especially since they showed him (Sachs) playing some Chopin very nicely, he's definitely a non-nonmusician. But I also feel a little curmudgeonly for criticizing this, I mean, the guy is autistic and barely functional, yet he can clearly play circles around me.

 

I've read Sach's other books, but not the music one yet. I'm also a fan of the NPR show RadioLab, and he is a frequent guest. There are several RadioLab shows about music, including one that takes a neural pathway approach to explaining the riot at the premier of "Rite of Spring." Interesting stuff. Click here.

Turn up the speaker

Hop, flop, squawk

It's a keeper

-Captain Beefheart, Ice Cream for Crow

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right then. Who do I talk to about changing my title from "Senior Member" to "Curmudgeonly Bastard"?

quote]

 

Well, like all Great Stages of Enlightenment, only you will know when you've set foot upon the vast, dry desert. Here's a hint, though: you will no longer be surprised when a normally reputable thinker such as Oliver Sacks acts like an a$$ when the camera is on.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...