Musicality" in a system? What IS that ?

Dynamic resemblance to live music. Gordon Holt said: "A personal judgment as to the degree to which reproduced sound resembles live music. Real musical sound is both accurate and euphonic, consonant and dissonant." (Stereophile, Aug. 1993) By euphonic he meant "pleasing to the ear," not necessarily sweetened. (Id.)

So why dont we just say "accurate?" Because, I think, we usually use the term accuracy to refer to tonality, but when we judge a component or system to be musical we are responding to its faithfulness to real life dynamics, more than tonality. The ability to track large and small, even tiny, changes in amplitude that give us the impression we are present at a musical event. As Jeffl implies, timing has a lot to do with it.

"Don't play the notes, play the meaning of the notes".- Pablo Casals. The ability of a performer to communicate the MEANING of the notes is what defines a musical performer; not all performers are musical. MUSICAL: 1. Of, relating to, or capable of producing music. MUSIC: 2. Vocal or instrumental sounds with RHYTHM, MELODY, and HARMONY.- Webster's II. Let's look at those two definitions for a moment. Melody alone, can and does imply harmony, at the same time we know that rhythm alone can in the loosest sense create melody, albeit implied, due to the tuning of the rhythm instruments and the creation of cadences and rhythmic progression. So, what can we deduce from all this? You can have music without melody (harmony) in the usual sense; but you can't have music without rhythm. All music, if it is to qualify for that definition, must have rhythm; not necessarily of the 1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4 variety, but rhythm nonetheless. Rhythm, IMO is where the soul or meaning of the notes lies. The things that define a performer's phrasing, the subtle or not so subtle inflections and feelings of tension and release that make a performance moving are found in the areas of dynamics; micro and macro. If an audio system cannot do justice to the rhythm of a performance, it cannot be musical. This area is where most systems fall short IMO. I have heard systems that are actually quite accurate, transparent, whatever you want to call it, TONALLY, and still don't covey the message; still don't quite let the music move the way that the performer(s) intended. In my experience most audiophiles (reviewers) tend to use the term musical to define tonal issues, such as wether the system sounds pleasantly smooth and lacking in harshness or not; obviously not necessarily a bad thing. But the system must be able to not only actually sound tonally harsh if that is what the music calls for, but at all times do justice to the rhythm. So, as much as I dislike most electronic music; I can't get around the fact that comparison to "real instruments in a real space", to use that old H. Pearsonism is NOT the only valid test for musicality. Clearly, electronic music created in a studio environment can have the necessary ingredient(s) for musicality; regardless of what I or any other listener might think about the artistic value of the music itself. Did I just defend electronic music? I better go take my temperature.

Paulwp, amazing ! I posted the above comments what must have been only seconds after yours. I could not agree more. Obviously. Cheers.

Frogman, we were both thinking the same thing at the same time. When I saw your comments, I thought, "rhythm, yeah that's the word I was missing."

Great thread Detlof. Defining this is sort of like trying to unscrute the unscrutable, or nail jello to the wall. There are some really excellent posts above and much to agree with on my part.

This months issue of TAS magazine re-states the original goal(s) and philosophies of the magazine as put forth by H. Pearson about 30 years ago, and some of it specifically addresses what the abosolute "sound" is-- the whole article is 11 pages long. I'd just like to quote a short, but germane to this thread, paragraph, as TAS is trying, IMO, to get at the core of musicality.

Quote: "The Absolute Sound' is the sound of unamplified music occuring in a real space, usually a large room or concert hall (small or large). That music can be bluegrass, jazz, folk, big band or classical. (Nor need intrumental music be our only reference: The human voice will serve as well.) Such is "the real thing", and provides us with a philosophic absolute, which means that our descriptions of variations from that absolute are not based on subjectivity, but rather upon observation. That is to say, the basic description of any component's "sound", if scrupulously attended, will be objective, based on perceivable data, rather than that originating from "taste" or "subjectivity".

I don't think I can totally "buy into" HPs philosophy as I don't seem to be able to eliminate such considerations as "taste", and as some other have noted above, "mood". Still, TAS has a lot of influence in high end audio, and HP states his belief and philosophy well. I just don't know if I have the kind of discipline that HP has. I recommend the whole article to all interested in high end audio. Cheers. Craig