What is Musicality?

I think you have hit on a very important point, Learsfool, and so has Byroncunningham. Music is a whole, not a collection of parts or the sum of those parts. But musicians may be listening in a very different way. They may be able to appreciate a bad recording of a good performance in a way that others cannot. For many of us, if the recording is bad or the quality of the sound that our equipment produces is unimpressive or "problematic" (meaning harsh or veiled or another of the many problems that may detract from our ability to enjoy the music) then we will have a hard time calling that piece of music "musical". It does not speak to us. Which goes back to my original point that so much of what each of us perceives as being "musical" depends on the inner person and how he or she perceives musicality. For many of us here, purchasing equipment that we hope will improve the quality of sound makes a big difference to our enjoyment of the music. I know this makes a big difference for me for most of the music that I play. There is some music that I play that speaks to me no matter how bad the recording and no matter what equipment it is played on. But good quality recordings played on good equipment are such a pleasure to listen to that I cannot deny the importance of the improvements I have made to my system. I should preface my remarks by stating that I am not associated with any manufacturer or any dealer and have no friends in the trade. So my comments are my personal opinions only. I recently added Oyaide plugs to my system and they have made a world of difference. I used the "revealing" P-037 for the CDP and I found the sound resolved yet lacking -- it was "thin" and "lean". Then I added the "warm" P-079 to the amplifier and I now have a revealing AND warm sound emanating from my speakers with a much larger sound stage and a much "fuller" and more "musical" sound. So yes, for me the equipment I use makes a big contribution to the "musicality" of my system and my ability to enjoy the music. But without the inner sense of musicality I doubt all this would make any difference to me. I have friends over who enjoy music but not in the same way I do. Their response is "it sounds very nice" no matter what changes have been made to my system since their last visit. Musicality means different things to different people.

Sabai

Musicnoise...LOL! Aside from that obvious statement...

I've glanced through most of the posts so far and took a day to really think about this before posting. Some came close to what I wanted to say. But here's my point. You could throw me in a beat up car with ratty speakers close to blown and as long as I have my music and have some volume to it I can completely immerse myself. If I'm away from home or at the park or wherever and I don't have my headphones, I can turn on my iPhone or touch and put my head down and listen to those crappy little itty bitty speakers and I can still forget the world exists outside my dreams.

Now don't mistake that for me saying I don't care about sound quality. I love it. But even for my mid-fi, modest, built on a budget 2-channel setup, I find myself oddly detracted from the music as I delve into the world of analysis. I find it awe-inspiring to hear what comes out of these speakers but it takes a lot more effort to immerse myself in my own little world because, well maybe its ADD, but every time I hear something really neat or something I've not heard before, I'm like... wow! Crap! I'm awake again.

Now if that truly holds any weight, then I should sell all my stuff and get a Bose system. (don't kill me.. it was a joke) Maybe this simple idea is going to be as controversial as digital vs. analog sources and which one has "soul". But then this idea has completely lost all ground since the idea of hi-fi is to get as close to the original recording as possible. I'm a violinist of 17 years and a drummer of 18 years. I know live music. I listen more than I play. Only way to know that what you play sounds good to others. But live music doesn't distract me from the music. Are we so utterly bound by the concept of true reproduction that when we finally sit down and listen we forget about the music and simply overwhelm ourselves with the capabilities of the equipment we use?

So that means I need to stop being happy with my gear, sit down, shut up, and enjoy. But I already do so I guess its getting back to learning how to get lost again in the music and forget the components. I guess it all goes back to whatever gets you rockin' regardless of how expensive or cheap it is. Bose not included as it is still a travesty to the audio industry. >-D

Tiggerfc, you're as close to what I am saying as I am. Musicality, the music, is inside us. Getting lost in it and really enjoying the musical experience does not depend on the gear. But good gear sure can enhance the experience.

Sabai

Based on my own experiences with musician friends and family (and that's pretty extensive), I would draw absolutely no hard conclusions about their appreciation of high-end components. In this way they vary probably just as widely as the general population in that most don't get the investment, while there are a few who share a great passion about the high-end, as demonstrated by many members here being musicians. I think the inference that because folks have made a career out of music means they necessarily should appreciate what a high-end system is capable of, is not as obvious as one may suppose.

As far as the notion of someone appreciating music MORE than someone else simply because they hear and understand it differently...I'm not even going to go there, except to say that actually understanding how anyone else perceives, experiences, and or enjoys virtually anything is completely impossible for any of us. If you enjoy music, well, then you and I have something in common and I'd much rather enjoy that aspect of our connection than trying to one-up each other. That kind one-upmanship only serves to alienate others. If someone wants to limit their connections with the rest of the world that way, that's their business, but I think it very sad. One of the fundamentally beautiful things about music is that it is a universal language that is capable of connecting with everyone. I find that pretty amazing. Anyone see the film, "The Visitor"? One of my favorite films of all time, and such a beautiful illustration of a similar connection through music between two people. I'd highly recommend it to anyone. That suggests something to me in reflecting on this film. I can draw a parallel to watching a really great film, where you get so caught up in the film, so connected to the emotions and the events you are watching unfold on the screen, so involved with the characters, with such a level of suspension of any disbelief, so much so that you almost entirely forget the fact that you are watching a movie... Musicality, for me is much like that.

Sabai wrote in the OP:

Appreciating good music is not only a matter of how good your equipment is. It is a measure of how musical a person you are. Most people appreciate good music but some people are born more musical than others…

I think Sabai is right about this, and that the same thing could be said of appreciating novels, plays, movies, painting, or any other art form. Appreciation says as much about the appreciator as it does the thing appreciated. This raises the question:

Who are the best appreciators of an art form (in this case, music)?

One possible answer is that the best appreciators of an art form are the artists themselves. So musicians are the best appreciators of music, writers of writing, painters of painting, and so on. If that is true, then a person's APPRECIATION of an art form is directly proportional to his EXPERTISE with that art form. At least one poster, Kijanki, is extremely skeptical about this:

Are you suggesting that musicians are better listeners? Nothing can be further from the truth…Performers are not the best receivers of music, composers are not the best performers etc…

But Learsfool describes this statement as…

…completely absurd on the face of it. One cannot become a professional musician without VERY highly developed critical listening skills...

I think the conflict between Kijanki and Learsfool here is attributable to the fact that Kijanki is talking about listening APPRECIATION, and Learsfool is talking about listening EXPERTISE. That is an inherent ambiguity is the phrase “better listener” throughout this discussion. Here are the two possible interpretations:

1. Better listener = greater APPRECIATION.
...or...
2. Better listener = greater EXPERTISE.

I think that Learsfool is correct when he points out that professional musicians are better listeners in the sense that they have greater listening EXPERTISE than non-musicians. But I also think that Kijanki is correct when he points out that having greater listening expertise does not guarantee greater listening APPRECIATION.

I have expertise with an art form (not music), having spent nearly ten years devoted to it, and I can say from personal experience that the relationship between expertise and appreciation is not simple or linear. For example:

i. Expertise, particularly in its early stages, promotes analytic perception, which can be an obstacle to the appreciation of an art form. However, expertise, in its later stages, promotes holistic perception, which enhances the appreciation of an art form.

ii. Expertise raises a person’s standard for “good” art, which can be an obstacle to the appreciation of works that do not meet that personal standard. However, expertise, by raising a person’s standards for “good” art, can intensify a person’s appreciation of works that do meet that personal standard.

These are just two examples of how the relationship between expertise and appreciation is complicated, changing, and sometimes unpredictable. To be sure, artists know far more about their art form than others, but that knowledge can be both a blessing and a curse, when it comes to appreciation.