Don’t Speak: musicality
This is the first in a series of articles from Bryan Hooten, a Richmond-based trombonist, composer and music educator, that seek to streamline the way people, musicians and non-musicians included, talk about music.
This is the first in a series of articles from Bryan Hooten, a Richmond-based trombonist, composer and music educator, that seek to streamline the way people, musicians and non-musicians included, talk about music.
Words cut. Words divide our sensory perceptions into “this and not that.” If words do not cut in this way, they are useless. Words are powerful tools that give us specificity. However, when we apply language to the densely tied knot of subjectivity that is The Arts, our words often loose some of their sharpness. I shall begin my streamlining mission with the word ‘musicality.’ This word, typically said with deep affectation and furrowed brow, is often used to praise or deride a performer or particular performance. Some usage examples include:
“Her playing wasn’t that technically proficient but she played with such musicality!”
“His playing was so mechanical. There was very little musicality.”
“I’ve been working really hard on my musicality.”
Saying someone played music with musicality is tantamount to saying someone ate eatingly or ran runningly, as if it were possible to do these things in any other way. To fully eviscerate this term, we must first decide what it means.
The Merriam Webster dictionary defines music as “the science or art of ordering tones or sounds in succession, in combination, and in temporal relationships to produce a composition having unity and continuity” and musicality as “sensitivity to, knowledge of, or talent for music.” Let us discard both of these definitions, starting with the root word. The “ordering of sounds” occurs equally in the listener and the composer/performer. This is a truth that, when followed to it’s logical conclusion, asserts that when we perceive any set of sounds (car horns, wind, cell-phones going off in the middle of Mahler 9) happening simultaneously or in order, music is occurring. Even as a musician, I have no problem with such a broad definition, but I’m a “the tree does not make a sound if no one is there to hear it” kind of person. In short: no listener, no sound. Listener creates music. According to the above definition, everything we hear is music. Also, as we will discuss later, not all music is designed to convey “unity” and “continuity.” The above definition of musicality also does not express the degree to which one must have sensitivity, knowledge or talent for music in order to be musical. I suppose being able to hear at all counts as sensitivity, being able to sing ‘Happy Birthday’ counts as ‘knowledge of’ and ‘talent-for.’ Having established that the definitions for music and musicality are hopelessly broad, allow me to state what I think people think they mean when they speak this way.
“Musicality means the expression of emotions through music.”
This definition is warm and fuzzy but doesn’t work because it is too broad. We are never “emotionless” and therefore every performance occurs at an equal level of emotionality. Perhaps people think that a performer ‘moved’ them in some way, whatever that means. However, if you intensely disliked something, you were moved. If you intensely liked something, you were moved. If you felt nothing, you were still feeling. If we take emotion to mean a state of being, it is impossible to play music without expressing an emotion.
“Musicality means expressing a wide range of dynamics, timbres and tempos.”
I think we are getting closer to something but this definition doesn’t work because it is too specific. Some music, especially Baroque (despite the way most people perform the Bach Cello Suites) and minimalist does not always ask for a wide rage of dynamics, timbres and tempos. Antonio Carlos Jobim doesn’t sing about the apocalyptic battle of the Norse gods and a fat lady with a Viking helmet and accompanied by a massive orchestra doesn’t sing about lounging on a Brazilian beach. If James Brown’s drummer played Sex Machine with the rhythmic push and pull of a Rachmaninoff Piano Concerto, no one could dance to it. For every specific element we throw into the ‘musicality’ basket, some piece requires the opposite element, therefore destroying this definition.
Here’s what I think some people really mean when they use the word musicality:
“I’m a smarter and more astute listener than you.”
Obviously, this attitude doesn’t do anyone any good. Here we have a prime example of jargon as a dividing line between the initiated and uninitiated. I said earlier that words must cut, that they must convey “this and not that.” Words must do this, however, so that people can have a common experience, so we can be specific about places, times and things. We must use words to divide our experience into logical pieces, but not to divide ourselves.
There are two things I ask of you, dear reader. One: In the comments below, please suggest alternatives for the word musicality. Two: There may be some holes in my argument so please don’t hesitate to point them out. However, if you must criticize, please do so critically.
Bryan Hooten is a Richmond, VA based trombonist, composer and educator. He performs and records with No BS! Brass, Fight the Big Bull, Ombak, Spacebomb Records and recently released his debut solo trombone album, Richmond Love Call. Hooten teaches music at VCU, James River High School and Hanover High School.
-
Recommend this
on Facebook -
Report an error
-
Subscribe to our
Weekly Digest
Bryan Hooten
Bryan Hooten performs with No BS! Brass, Matthew E. White, and other Richmond-based groups. He teaches Music Theory and Jazz Orchestra at VCU.
Notice: Comments that are not conducive to an interesting and thoughtful conversation may be removed at the editor’s discretion.
It is impossible to capture music adequately in words. The very best that can be hoped for is to create a kind of parallel narrative, a string of text that echoes and amplifies aspects of the melodic, harmonic and rhythmic musical lines.
There are a number of strategies to accomplish this. For writers with a reasonably deep knowledge of music there is always the temptation of sophisticated description- calling-out specific meters or modulations, identifying chords, keys and intervals, making comparisons to similar moves by other musicians. This can be incredibly erudite and, at the same time, boring.
For writers who know a bit less, or who merely want to gesture in the direction of erudition, the word “musicality” is useful. It doesn’t really say anything, except that a performance either works or it does not.
I have heard some pretty exceptional musicians and educators use the word. It is vague, but inoffensive. For the poseurs, it is not an argument for superiority but a plea for acceptance.
Writing is writing and playing is playing. One missed note flashes by, lost in a torrent of others. A mistaken word just sits there in the text and softly sucks forever. Have pity on those who cannot write with writercality.
If the author’s mission is to correct those who incorrectly use the word “musicality” as Webster defines it, then he succeeded. But the author failed to “eviscerate” the term. It is not necessary to “discard” Webster’s definitions of “music” and “musicality.” Taking these definitions together in their entirety provides a complete definition of the word.
Many people misuse the word, but Webster’s definition is accurate and complete. No alternative is neccessary. If the reader wishes to streamline the way he or she speaks about music, they should disregard the above article in lieu of memorizing Webster’s definition of “musicality” and striving to use it correctly.
Please let me know if you still think an alternative to Webster’s defintion is needed.
This article is mellifluent.
Try not to over think it. Good music speaks for itself.
I like where the author is going with this. I’ve been getting annoyed with people who make fun of other people’s music or think their tastes suck, etc. Who am I to say that someone’s positive feelings for a Katy Perry song aren’t legitimate. I think she’s awful. I think her music is created purely for profit. I also have a relatively comprehensive background in music theory and many years worth of performing and listening. Does that mean that the negative feelings I get from listening to Perry’s “Firework” are more accurate or legitimate than someone else’s? As of right now, I don’t think so. While I know this argument/issue doesn’t exactly tie in to the above article, I’d love to see the author discuss this aspect of music/music quality. As far as another definition for musicality, I don’t have one. That word doesn’t mean shit.
Everyone’s feelings are legitimate but we always err when we equate personal taste with objective truth. When discussing a piece/performance of music we should stick to articulating the technical aspects of it OR how we subjectively react to it. We can and should do both in the same article or review but not with the same word.
I do think alternatives to the Webster’s definitions are needed and I’m interested in hearing what you all think before I offer mine.
“Emperor’s New Clothes” syndrome. Especially likely to happen between two or more “educated” musicians post-performance.
Even if etymologically speaking, it does present a lot of problems, I think not every use of the word is totally full of shit.
In the classical world, I think “musicality” is just the antithesis of “technicality” or at least “very musical” is the exact opposite of “very mechanical.” Someone who “plays musically” to me means someone who is saying something, someone who is operating at a high artistic level.
This may not be a commonly accepted definition, but when I have employed the term musicality, it’s been in reference to an individual’s approach to music, for example I might argue that Kurt Elling relies heavily on Mark Murphy’s musicality (that’s my own opinion). Now I am not sure this was an appropriate use of the word.
I think this article is cool, but people can’t use words that don’t exist yet. “Musicality” is used to describe emotional content as that person sees it. ……. Some kind of artistic quality that isn’t mechanics….. This seems like the perfect opportunity to invent a word Bryan! My vote is for Hootenistic. “Reggie has such a Hootenistic quality to his playing today.” It’s got a nice ring to it!
Alex: the whole mechanics/technique thing might be the subject of another article so I’ll leave that one alone except to say that we can both agree that holding a single note in-tune with a good sound requires a a serious amount of technique.
Reggie: I seriously couldn’t agree more. We need some new words. Let’s get back to “Paceics” and get our “Chapmannerisms” together.
I’m inclined to agree, Bryan. The notion of ‘musicality’ entails a kind of circular reasoning that presupposes an unwarranted restriction of what constitutes music. And it seems to have mostly to do with the values of Romanticism — spontaneity, originality, uniqueness, and socially unconditioned individual authenticity — all of which are, of course, repeatedly simulated to achieve particular social/conventional effects.
I’m doing some academic writing on generative music now, which gives me cause to wrestle with the closely related (and similarly vague) notion of expression.
John P: Please hip me to your research when you’re done!
Technical proficiency?
@Bryan- the appreciation of art is inherently both objective and subjective. There is no clear delineation between the emotional response to a passage of music and the technique employed to create it. There is room for a very general word that straddles the two..
The problem with “musicality” is that by itself it does not say much. When accompanied with something else- as in Peter Solomon’s example, where it is used to encapsulate aspects of an artist’s approach- it has merit.
But the essence of writing is communication. If someone is unfamiliar with Mark Murphy, Peter’s description is just so many words.
Ultimately, for communication to be valuable, there has to be an insight worth communicating. For example, there is little practical difference between “Hooten’s solo lacked musicality” and the more sophisticated ” Hoot’en’s 7/4, multi-phonics-laden deconstruction of the main theme was undercut by flat-footed syncopation.”
Both say the same thing: the bastard who was writing about you didn’t get it.
musicality?
should define as listenability….some music may be technically profound in composition but in listenability none…
also danceability….
sessionability…
music moves people or is meant to or not meant to. it is emotional, it is non emotional, it is the world and sometimes out of this worl.
it is what you make of it. If you wanna critique a muscian based off of his skill or what you believe his sill lacks of theirs then so be it..
most of it comes off as hate, or hating on that person for what they have done or not done, profitable or not.
music like beauty is in the eye of the beholder….either from the musician, venue, audience, listener or non listener
all you have to do is listen, partake or not, but appreciate positively or negatively. or not at all, tis your call
When a person or group of people come together and make/recreate/pair up sounds that may originate or have inspiration in our day to day life but cannot be directly found in day to day life then they are making music. When these musicians are playing exactly what they want how they want it with enthusiasm that an audience can tell then they are playing with musicality. Music is a very objective art. The adjectives to decribe the art are equally objective. The musicality depends on the performer. If the performer happens to share tastes with people and gain a following then props to them. And if the musician can speak to what sets him or her apart from other musicians, why their ideas inspire them, and how the sounds they make are different from day to day life then we should accept they are playing with what they believe is “mucicality” even if we dont agree with that idea.