I've posted about different aspects of music here, from instruments, performance, vocals, and even music videos. I think all have the potential to move people, to touch people in ways that are impossible to describe in words. However, I had a very awkward realization when it was made apparent that I have not talked about dancing.
What made me realize this? This is even more embarrassing - the youtube video from "So you think you can dance", where all the judges were crying. I guess I will embed it here. The performance is supposedly extremely moving.
But I don't get it. Nada. I thought it was entertaining to watch, but in the same way that I am impressed with gymnastics. I felt nothing watching this. Believe me, I tried though. Hard.
So it is with this realization that I reflected upon my understanding of dancing, and came out wondering: Am I missing something here? Because I really don't think I get it. Perhaps the above video is just a bad example, but I still have yet to ever see a dance that moved me. Dances can look sexy, can look strong, can look impressive...but I can't imagine a dance that could make me feel something the way music can, the way a painting can, or the way that actors can (for me personally).
If anyone has any thoughts on this, please feel free to share! I would love to understand dance. It's so utterly tied with music, yet I am completely ignorant of it.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Monday, July 20, 2009
Screamology
I can understand that people have different tastes and preferences in music. So I can appreciate people not liking, or even hating certain styles of music. But it's a whole other thing to deny the musicality inherent in different genres just because you don't appreciate it. What do I mean? I'm sure you've heard people say things like this: "That stuff takes no musical talent. It's just computer bleeps." Or "They aren't playing music, they're just screaming."
It's an unfortunate, yet common statement. Unfortunate, because I think it's not that these people don't see the musicality of these genres, it's just that they don't understand it. It's a knowledge issue, and hopefully this blog contributes a little bit towards learning more about different types of music.
On that note, I want to focus on the screaming that is used in hardcore and death metal etc. Unlike what it might seem, screaming takes a lot of proper vocal technique, and is extremely difficult. It's not just pushing your vocal chords until they crack: in fact, that would be completely wrong! I found a great Discovery Channel video about Melissa Cross, who is essentially (from what I know) the only person who teaches the proper technique to screaming. This video goes through some basic motions of what it takes, and the difficulty involved in producing these sounds.
I've also added the video of when she was on Conan, because it's pretty hilarious.
It's an unfortunate, yet common statement. Unfortunate, because I think it's not that these people don't see the musicality of these genres, it's just that they don't understand it. It's a knowledge issue, and hopefully this blog contributes a little bit towards learning more about different types of music.
On that note, I want to focus on the screaming that is used in hardcore and death metal etc. Unlike what it might seem, screaming takes a lot of proper vocal technique, and is extremely difficult. It's not just pushing your vocal chords until they crack: in fact, that would be completely wrong! I found a great Discovery Channel video about Melissa Cross, who is essentially (from what I know) the only person who teaches the proper technique to screaming. This video goes through some basic motions of what it takes, and the difficulty involved in producing these sounds.
I've also added the video of when she was on Conan, because it's pretty hilarious.
Sunday, July 5, 2009
Seperating Performance from the Recording
I've debated for a long time about whether to talk about today's topic. I generally like to post things that I genuinely feel are really great aspects of music, but today's topic is something that I am fascinated by, but also quite uneasy about at the same time.
The video today is a lecture from TED.com again. It involves a project in which the performance of a song is separated from its recording. Confusing? It's a new way of thinking about music and what we mean when we refer to "music" (the ontology of music is a whole area of philosophy that I won't bother going into now, but maybe another post some time...). The idea is that instead of capturing a specific recording with mics, or writing down specific notes on paper, another way (and supposedly a better way) to capture music is to digitize the actual keystrokes, how hard a piano is struck, and how far the pedals are pushed down etc. In other words, it captures all the personal choices that performers make, and turns it into digital information.
With that information, an instrument, and a computer... theoretically you can make the computer play the instrument exactly like the original artist , thereby enabling the listener to truly experience the piece as it was played.
Now the question is: are you really listening to the original artist? Or anything resembling what musicians actually do when you listen to them play live? Or is it missing something?
I am torn about this. I think it's unfair to immediately dismiss this, because we have some precedent for this in the music world. When recordings came out, people were fascinated, but also scoffed at the idea. When CD's were invented and recordings shifted from analog to digital, people also thought it lost something. Finally, when mp3's further compressed the sound, some people were uneasy as well. While all these criticisms are totally correct in their points of argument, it's also true that the majority of the public has transitioned, and it has changed the way we experience and listen to music (I realize that just because lots of people are okay with it, it doesn't make it right...but if people enjoy it, then arguably it's still doing what music is supposed to do in the first place).
That being said though, I do feel like this still fails to capture what he claims - the "spirit" of the musician. Being a musician myself, I know that playing music in front of people involves more than just the notes I play, the strength and lengths of the notes I play.. in fact, it involves more than me, my music, and my instrument. Playing in front of people involves a dialogue with the audience, much like a conversation. Depending on the mood of the crowd, my mood, the room, the mood of those I am playing with... it all changes. The people conducting this project don't seem to understand that, and it frightens me that they are thinking ahead to the point where they think they can play/compose a piece of music in place of the actual composer/player.
Either way though, an interesting thing to ponder, lots to think about. Let me know what you think!
The video today is a lecture from TED.com again. It involves a project in which the performance of a song is separated from its recording. Confusing? It's a new way of thinking about music and what we mean when we refer to "music" (the ontology of music is a whole area of philosophy that I won't bother going into now, but maybe another post some time...). The idea is that instead of capturing a specific recording with mics, or writing down specific notes on paper, another way (and supposedly a better way) to capture music is to digitize the actual keystrokes, how hard a piano is struck, and how far the pedals are pushed down etc. In other words, it captures all the personal choices that performers make, and turns it into digital information.
With that information, an instrument, and a computer... theoretically you can make the computer play the instrument exactly like the original artist , thereby enabling the listener to truly experience the piece as it was played.
Now the question is: are you really listening to the original artist? Or anything resembling what musicians actually do when you listen to them play live? Or is it missing something?
I am torn about this. I think it's unfair to immediately dismiss this, because we have some precedent for this in the music world. When recordings came out, people were fascinated, but also scoffed at the idea. When CD's were invented and recordings shifted from analog to digital, people also thought it lost something. Finally, when mp3's further compressed the sound, some people were uneasy as well. While all these criticisms are totally correct in their points of argument, it's also true that the majority of the public has transitioned, and it has changed the way we experience and listen to music (I realize that just because lots of people are okay with it, it doesn't make it right...but if people enjoy it, then arguably it's still doing what music is supposed to do in the first place).
That being said though, I do feel like this still fails to capture what he claims - the "spirit" of the musician. Being a musician myself, I know that playing music in front of people involves more than just the notes I play, the strength and lengths of the notes I play.. in fact, it involves more than me, my music, and my instrument. Playing in front of people involves a dialogue with the audience, much like a conversation. Depending on the mood of the crowd, my mood, the room, the mood of those I am playing with... it all changes. The people conducting this project don't seem to understand that, and it frightens me that they are thinking ahead to the point where they think they can play/compose a piece of music in place of the actual composer/player.
Either way though, an interesting thing to ponder, lots to think about. Let me know what you think!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)