What is Musicality?


Hello fellow music lovers,

I am upgrading my system like a lot of us who follow Audiogon. I read a lot about musicality on Audiogon as though the search for musicality can ultimately end by acquiring the perfect music system -- or the best system that one can afford. I really appreciate the sonic improvements that new components, cables, plugs and tweaks are bringing to my own system. But ultimately a lot of musicality comes from within and not from without. I probably appreciated my Rocket Radio and my first transistor radio in the 1950s as much I do my high-end system in 2010. 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 and appreciate singing in the shower as much as they do listening to a high-end system or playing a musical instrument or attending a concert. Music begins in the soul. It is not only a function of how good a system you have.

Sabai
sabai
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.
Jax 2, Just love your posts, I wish that I had posted them myself. :-)

Bryoncunningham, I think you have touched on something important as well!

Understanding musical theory doesn't make one particularly creative, as a composer must be, nor reading Ansel Adams books make one a 'great' photographer. But it sure doesn't hurt those that are looking to expand their knowledge and utilizing their inherent and learned skills, especially if they can accept their limitations.

Years ago I bought a book about 'how to fish'. While I didn't really catch many more or bigger fish, I sure learned all of the excuses for why I was unsuccessful, when I was. :-)

In that respect I think audio shares much with photography. We have a lot of 'picture' takers who fantasize that their photos rise to an art form, when they are in fact nothing more that personal expressions of a common experience.

Personally, I love audio most when it doesn't get in the way of a performance. And when it seems to, I just listen to that recording from the 'next room' which devalues the audio enhancements that serve the needs of an audio system to be heard as intended.

But folks, music, soul, whatever you want to call it, is only found in the composition and the performance, not in your audio systems!

FWIW
Byroncunningham, you make some very astute observations here. IMHO it is very important to differentiate between expertise and appreciation. It cannot be an a priori assumption that expertise necessarily means a greater sense of appreciation. The appreciation of an "expert" may be different from a "non-expert" but the former is not necessarily deeper or felt with greater intensity or sensitivity than by the latter. The appreciation of the "expert" may have a different perspective superimposed upon it because that is what happens when one becomes an "expert". There are meanings that emerge for "experts" that may not emerge for "non-experts". But not appreciating those "special meanings" that influence the "expert" does not mean that the experience of the "expert" is on higher level than that of the "non-expert". It simply means that they may be experiencing the music differently.

Sabai
Appreciate is the wrong word. I think understand/comprehend is better. When viewing a movie, another film director would better understand how the film is made, but it doesn't mean he/she would appreciate it any better than a non-director. I can enjoy a Bill Evans recorded performance as much as anyone else, but another jazz pianist is in a much better position to fully understand the technical and musical elements Mr. Evans is working with. It stands to reason that a musician is in a better position to judge the sound of an instrument. Who's opinion about a cello's sound carries more weight, Yo-Yo Ma's or some audiophile with a 6 figure plus system? It's not that the audiophile can't have an informed opinion, but why would it be better than someone who has lived and breathed the instrument for the past 50 years?

Musicality is a word used by audiophiles that can mean any number of things. It's a vague concept. Personally I don't see how any component can add musicality to a performance. Some components mangle what is already there less than others.
Wow. What a ride! Philosophy to the bitter end along with a little psychology. Nice goin' Sabai! Lol!

I think musicality applies to the person. Not the gear. Again, in addition to my above post... It's a persons ability to connect with the music. (Agreeing with Jax2 here to a point) The gear can not connect anyone with music. It can only reproduce it. Its up to the listener to take what he/she can from that experience.

On another note, if you haven't seen the movie "Once", you should really look into it.