musicslug
hi Martin,

I think it's precisely because of what you wrote about audiences applauding quickly in response to pyrotechnics that the delay may be a good indicator.

beyond that, this issue is so thorny and nebulous that any genuine resolution of the question seems utterly unreachable, the topic being better suited to an hour or three with a bottle of wine or a pot of tea...

but I do appreciate your bringing it up and trying to keep things 'on topic'. .....pause... ........applause!

Daniel
Reply 0 0
martin spaink
As we say also " the proof of the pudding is in eating it " which implies also that when we taste something, we instantly compare among previous experiences and determinate what it is we are tasting, and also whether we like it or not. Some tastes are acquired, you have to grow to it.
This, by way of analogy, seems to be applicable to music as well.
Therefore connoisseurs are able to say when they listen to something on the radio, this must be pianist so and so, some others may be able to add to that, playing a 1897 Erard parallel strung grand piano. Likewise, if you have a lot of listening experience in ICM you may be able to recognize an artist, even if you have never heared before this particular recording.
But as interesting this all might be, it does not help much in understanding where our private preferences come from. Any thoughts on this anyone?
Reply 0 0
povster
But how, and by what acquired sense do we differentiate between truely spiritual music and mundane music?

To my mind, a problem with this question is that "spiritual" and "mundane" are human attributes being applied to a non-human entity (in this case, music). And to further compound the conundrum, the terms "spiritual" and "mundane" are highly subjective within each individual. As Lex Luthor said in the first Superman movie: "Some people can read War and Peace and come away thinking it's a simple adventure story. Others can read the ingredients on a chewing gum wrapper and unlock the secrets of the universe."

The answer lies within each individual: what is spiritual to that individual and what is mundane to that individual.

I get the feeling that the music itself is not really awaiting an answer to this question. :wink:
...Michael
Dasani - the official bottled water of ICM
Panini - the official sandwich of ICM
Reply 0 0
Aanaddha
povster wrote:
I get the feeling that the music itself is not really awaiting an answer to this question. :wink:
Voila!!
If he could sing, and nature to accompany him, what need would he have for an instrument?
Reply 0 0
jaan e kharabat
But the difficulty lies describing why one piece of music is sublime and another not. I mean, it is difficult to do even on a subjective level let alone on objective criteria.

Surely it has nothing to do with the "tempo" of a piece.

Is it a combination of notes? If so, why are many combination and clusters of notes that are so different to each other are all viewed as sublime while some that maybe comparable in structure are dismissed as insipid?
If there are just ''six tones'' in an octave [sic] then why have frets for tones that don't exist?
Reply 0 0
Aanaddha
“The sublime and the ridiculous are often so nearly related, that it is difficult to class them separately. One step above the sublime makes the ridiculous, and one step above the ridiculous makes the sublime again.”

~ Thomas Paine

If one has truly witnessed the sublime what point is there in describing the experience or analyzing its criteria other than in attempt to proffer an un-sublime and insipid substitute? Sublime discovery is often the result of much mundane and unremarkable observation.
If he could sing, and nature to accompany him, what need would he have for an instrument?
Reply 0 0
jaan e kharabat
...hence the retort:

"one who tastes, knows."
If there are just ''six tones'' in an octave [sic] then why have frets for tones that don't exist?
Reply 0 0
The Rover
Quote:
povster wrote:

I get the feeling that the music itself is not really awaiting an answer to this question.


Voila!!
And niether are serious musicians.
theRover
Reply 0 0
martin spaink
I do admit it is more of a philosoper's question having to do with aesthetic perception and values, and not of much practical importance to workaday musicians. Seriously, I could not explain REALLY why I like performance A of a piece by Bach more than performance B or C or.. why one musician touches my soul as it more poetically put, which may not be too far from what is maybe really happening - remember, this music of ours is soulful stuff!
Reply 0 0
martin spaink
The wrote:
Quote:
povster wrote:

I get the feeling that the music itself is not really awaiting an answer to this question.


Voila!!
And niether are serious musicians.

Hmm... I am a serious musician and am interested to ask these questions to ponder my own aesthetic values so I have to disagree. I am not saying it follows that then YOU must be the un-serious musician, rather that the quote as such is perhaps invalid...
Reply 0 0
martin spaink
jaan wrote:
But the difficulty lies describing why one piece of music is sublime and another not. I mean, it is difficult to do even on a subjective level let alone on objective criteria.

Is it a combination of notes? If so, why are many combination and clusters of notes that are so different to each other are all viewed as sublime while some that maybe comparable in structure are dismissed as insipid?
There is a story of, who was it, Nasiruddin Khan Dagar? singing rag Marwa at one occasion. He must have had a wonderful time and was expounding upon ni, sa, re only for about half an hour, moving his audience to tears. Now most folks would not even call it 'music' if you use only three notes and it would be the silliest thing . Still, Dagarsab was able to make it not only interesting but moving. In my book, that's some feat of musical wizardry, no less. JSBach , to come up with a different example, in his 6 cello solo suites, wrote one sarabande (5th) that is one single stark naked line. There is not a single chord in it, but it is rife with harmonic implications and implied counterpoint. Though every cellist can easily play the notes, it is an extremely difficult piece of music on an interpretative level. On the same plane of wizardry in ICM again, some musicans play or sing their smallest, simplest opening phrase and with one single move they establish the rag, or at least a foreboding of it, a premonition. Even in how they approach Sa from initial silence some magic can happen. I'm very interested in these moments, what exactly happens there? I don't want to analyze it to death , I just want to be sharp enough to catch its glimpse whenever it happens. Since it it seems a mystery, I wonder and all the rest follows..
Reply 0 0
musicslug
my teacher - and I am a student of Dhrupad - says that one good measure of the quality of a performance is the pause between the end of the music and start of the applause; a longer pause would suggest that the performer has successfully cast some sort of 'spell' on the audience

whether this has anything to do with spirituality is another matter, but I think it's relevant

Daniel
Reply 0 0
martin spaink
While what you describe will be familiar with many musicians and listeners alike, what it reflects is only a relative level of appreciation on the part of the audience and the kinf of energy raised by the concert. If its been very virtuoso and pyrotechnical, people seem not to be able to start applauding soon enough, sometimes even before it's really finished.
Might you have some other idea's, or maybe your teacher?
martinuddin
Reply 0 0
Reply