Does analyzing miss the point in music?

[larry graves]

I don't know how one could ever expect to play jazz and not spend some time sitting down and analyzing what they're doing.

There's no need to be delicate, and if you get flamed in this thread, it's by someone who just doesn't know how.

Spot on, it's good to know what your doing ,in anything...

[mike walker]

Music has a point? Did the OP define what this point is?

There's an OP?

[mike walker]

Now that I've woken up......

Doesn't the confusion/disagreement come from the fact that as musicians we have to analise in order to learn and expand our skill/creativity/palette, but, as a listener, it's a different situation.

A non-musician will listen to a performance without any thought of analising what is going on and, consequently, will accept what the composer/performer is presenting them with without the distraction of trying to work out what is happening or how it is being achieved. A musician listening to the same performance has to turn off a large part of the brain to achieve this same effect. Consequently, it's quite possible for the musician to analise a performance to death and "miss the point of the music".

Was it worth the wait? Nah, didn't think so.

Yep i agree... this is where analyzing can get in the way of enjoying the music just for what it is. Obviously i meant from a learning perspective.

But you're right, it's important to know when to stop with all that and just enjoy it.

[Goofsus4]

I read or heard this somewhere. And i really don't understand it.

I sometimes feel, that instructions are given, but these instructions are not followed by the instructors.

I see it with many issues. You don't need this, you don't need that.

How do they know what i need?

What they mean is, 'this doesn't seem to work for me, therefore you should leave it too'.

This is more like 'If i don't understand it, you shouldn't use it'.

I understand this is delicate, but i have my flame suit on.

I am a rock climber and I have mastered that sport. I've taught a lot of folks to climb.

I show them the technically correct and safest method of rigging an belay anchor and I make sure they follow those rules every time. But then I proceed to break every one of those rules when I climb with an experienced climber. I know from nearly three decades of climbing exactly what I can leave out or substitute for something else and not compromise my safety. But if I let a newbie do it that way, he'd kill us both in 10 minutes.

It's all about that old adage - you have to learn the rules before you can break them. It applies to all disciplines.

[musicalbodger]

Yep i agree... this is where analyzing can get in the way of enjoying the music just for what it is. Obviously i meant from a learning perspective.

But you're right, it's important to know when to stop with all that and just enjoy it.

Well, from a learning perspective, I guess the it's down to the old adage from Bird "Analise when practicing — on the bandstand, forget it all and just play" (apologies for my paraphrasing)

If you don't analise, how are you going to develop — by reinventing the wheel every generation?

[mike walker]

Thanks, man.!

I don't really think this equates to what i'm talking about.

There are many roads into music. And hopefully none, up to this point, have been life threatening (ok, maybe trying to get thru 24 Preludes and Fugues under water without breathing apparatus).

Analysis is an important part of learning. For a teacher to advocate a student shouldn't do it, is bonkers. And even more bonkers, when they themselves have patently done it.

[mike walker]

Well, from a learning perspective, I guess the it's down to the old adage from Bird "Analise when practicing — on the bandstand, forget it all and just play" (apologies for my paraphrasing)

If you don't analise, how are you going to develop — by reinventing the wheel every generation?

Eggs actly.

[Goofsus4]

Thanks, man.!

I don't really think this equates to what i'm talking about.

There are many roads into music. And hopefully none, up to this point, have been life threatening (ok, maybe trying to get thru 24 Preludes and Fugues under water without breathing apparatus).

Analysis is an important part of learning. For a teacher to advocate a student shouldn't do it, is bonkers. And even more bonkers, when they themselves have patently done it.

Oh, I thought from your original post that you were wondering why instructors tell you to do something, then don't follow that advice themselves.

But if an instructor is telling someone that they shouldn't analyze music, we'll then that's just plain ignorant. That's just ear-playing which is laudable, but hardly practical for composing, arranging, and communicating with others in musical terms.

To go back to my climbing analogy - that would be like not learning your basic knots, or understanding the physics of dynamic forces and being able to estimate load factors and force vectors. Again, you end up dead in 15 minutes.

[mike walker]

Oh, I thought from your original post that you were wondering why instructors tell you to do something, then don't follow that advice themselves.

But if an instructor is telling someone that they shouldn't analyze music, we'll then that's just plain ignorant. That's just ear-playing which is laudable, but hardly practical for composing, arranging, and communicating with others in musical terms.

To go back to my climbing analogy - that would be like not learning your basic knots, or understanding the physics of dynamic forces and being able to estimate load factors and force vectors. Again, you end up dead in 15 minutes.

Totally.

Unrelated. Climbing is scary. As a kid, without ropes, i'd climb anything. Total idiot. Now I watch you guys, and i almost have to look away. Just scary. Kudos.

[Michael Henry]

There seems to be a difference in responses between 'enjoying' a piece of music and 'getting' a piece of music. I'm researching O Magnum Mysterium right now, a high Renaissance motet by Victoria. I've always 'enjoyed' this piece, but not until I started analyzing it do I feel like I have any concept of 'why'. I can use amorphous terms like 'mystical', 'deep', 'beautiful', 'poetic', etc., but what do those terms mean in any quantifiable way? When instead I can now say 'this modal line which begins with the leap of a fifth, and upon resolution sees the entrance of a second voice which imitates and then elaborates on is quite gorgeous.' Now I have a specific musical concept to take with me, possibly use in my own improvisations or compositions, and also when I hear similar things in other works, I can think, 'ah, there's that idea I once learned about while studying Victoria.'

Analyzing doesn't 'miss' the point of the miss, rather, analyzing finds it. Whether or not you enjoy the music itself is something else entirely - I can listen to a genre of music I truly dislike and grind my teeth the whole time. That doesn't mean that upon analysis I won't learn something - possibly very illuminating about the piece, or about music in general.

My two cents.

[JohnRoss]

"Does analyzing miss the point in music?"

Yes, it does, totally. And most of the previous answers illustrate why. Although, as BDLH has indicated, you can't identify one, single point to music, there is one thing we can say:

Music is not for musicians. Music is for listeners.

Some listeners may explore the extra insights analysis offers, and may amplify their enjoyment in that way. But that isn't "the point." The point may be something to dance to, something to sing along with, something to intensify the enjoyment of an evening out, something to manipulate advertising consumers with, something to fall in love to, something to accompany an esoteric magic ritual, even something to enjoy as a group activity like playing in a band or singing along with the congregation or the rest of the crowd in the football stadium.

Millions of things, absolutely none of which is to make the musician a better musician.

I feel this is kind of important, in a way, it's something to do with how modern jazz has totally lost contact with the general public.

And analyzing should be spelt with an 's', as well.

My feelings on the matter.

[ksjazzguitar]

"Does analyzing miss the point in music?"
...
Music is not for musicians. Music is for listeners.
...

Why can't musicians be listeners? Must artists dumb-down their art so that the least sophisticated palate in the room can appreciate it?

OK, John, I half agree with you. I do agree that jazz has left the bulk of its audience behind. But I also think that there is nothing wrong with playing to a more sophisticated audience.

The problem is when players want to just play what they wanna play and are surprised when no one wants to listen (or at least pay.) If you want a big audience, play to the general taste. If you want "artistic purity" then get used eating Top Ramen in your room rented over someone else's garage. The world needs both.

As to "Does analyzing miss the point in music?" - that is up to you. I find it actually helps my enjoyment. Additionally, it has been a fundamental learning tool in all art forms. Bach used to copy score by hand to learn them. Mozart used to borrow scores from the Emperor's library to study (through his friend Salieri, contrary to what the movies tell you), Beethoven analyzed Bach and Mozart, Chopin studied everyone. In jazz, Charlie Christian memorized Armstrong solos, Miles and Diz used to analyze Stravinsky scores, and Wes got his first job because he could play Charlie Christian solos note for note. In painting, Picasso started out by sitting in the museum and copying the masters stroke for stroke, trying to unlock there secrets. If you go somewhere to study poetry, you don't just sitting around reading poems and saying, "Wow, that was pretty." No, you analyze - meter, rhythm, alliteration, allusion, imagery, etc. If you want to become a wine expert, you don't just sit around drinking wine, thinking, "Wow, that tastes good." No, you study and learn.

Analysis isn't supposed to replace your ears, it opens and trains them. I don't think that the taste experience of the wine expert is hampered by the knowledge, but is enhanced by it - I think that he feels sorry for all those who can't taste the subtleties that he tastes.

But if you don't like to analyze, then don't.

Peace,
Kevin

[Michael Henry]

"Does analyzing miss the point in music?"
Music is not for musicians. Music is for listeners.

The point may be something to dance to, something to sing along with, something to intensify the enjoyment of an evening out, something to manipulate advertising consumers with, something to fall in love to, something to accompany an esoteric magic ritual, even something to enjoy as a group activity like playing in a band or singing along with the congregation or the rest of the crowd in the football stadium.
My feelings on the matter.

I understand the sentiment, I think, but there seem to be two different 'the point's here - there is a point to how one spends their time with music as a background (or a framework, like dance), and a point to what a composer or performer wants to say with any given music, regardless of the style or genre. The more I think on it, the more it seems that my performer/composer friends are likely to just 'listen' rather than needing some other activity to be the 'point' of the music - they are listening for the point within the music itself, rather than having to find some secondary reason for turning on the music at all.

I guess the question is, is a listener only to make the determination whether they like a piece, and never to ask 'why'? For instance, if I hear split thirds, I cringe and change the cd. Am I missing the point?

[JohnRoss]

I guess the question is, is a listener only to make the determination whether they like a piece, and never to ask 'why'? For instance, if I hear split thirds, I cringe and change the cd. Am I missing the point?

Dunno, do you cringe because split thirds set your teeth on edge or because you have an ideological stance with regard to them? You're entitled to your own tastes (though I do find that a slightly odd aversion for a professed jazz enthusiast).

I'm not, in any case, saying that analysis is to be avoided, it has its place, in terms of both enjoyment, as Kevin has pointed out, and understanding. But (posers aside) those people who read the score while they are at a concert or the opera are not listening with all their attention, are they? They probably don't need to, it could be a work they have heard hundreds of times before, but they can't be fully absorbed in the actual music with their eyes on the score, and even less if they are thinking about which cadences are being used at the same time. That's what I understand by 'missing the point.' It doesn't mean they would be better off as musical ignoramuses.

[ecohen]

Thanks, man.!
Analysis is an important part of learning. For a teacher to advocate a student shouldn't do it, is bonkers. And even more bonkers, when they themselves have patently done it.

Analysis is critical. I've spent the last year and a half self-learning jazz guitar and spent a substantial amount of time learning music theory and analyzing the standards. The time spent on analysis has paid off with being farther ahead in my knowledge base that if I listened to teachers that said "just play, don't worry about why." Initially, my technique suffered as I spent as much time reading as playing. But I now practice technique with far more enjoyment as I'm able to easily experiment with different chords, scales/arpeggios and improvise off of standards in interesting ways. I also have a faster learning curve for new tunes and music genres as I can more easily learn new types of scales, patterns, chords etc as a result of understanding what I'm doing.

In other words, you can learn by copying, in which case you are practicing what you have been shown and not much more (maybe years later after you develop a raw ear for music). Or you can learn by analyzing, in which case you can practice what you create.

[ksjazzguitar]

...I guess the question is, is a listener only to make the determination whether they like a piece, and never to ask 'why'?...

Some people do and they are fine for that. Some people can go into restaurant and try a fabulous chocolate mouse and be content that it tastes good. Some of us might think that knowing what goes into it might make it easier to detect the undertones of amaretto and therefore be able to enjoy it on different level. Others of us insist on getting the recipe so we can try and do it ourselves and hopefully unlock some deeper secrets of mooseology.

All the forms of appreciation are legitimate. You just have to decide what works for you.

Peace,
Kevin

[FranticRock]

I think it depends on the individual.

Let's compare Joe Pass and Pat Martino for example.

Joe Pass really likes to play what he hears and keeping things simple. To try to sing a melody line, and keep it coming from the heart.

Pat Martino probably does the same, just on a different level. Probably after all his years of experience, he hears everything he plays in his head first too.. But Pat's approach is so different. He derives things, superimposes them, uses a lot of geometry, symmetry and theory. He is my favorite player, and I am a very theoretical player too. I like to know all the modes of the melodic minor by name, and which exact notes make them different from any other scale. So knowing the "role" of each interval in any scale and what it's called can go hand in hand with playing that note by ear.

I think the theoretical and the artistic should never be viewed as contentional. They are one and the same. John Mclaughlin says this too: that playing from the heart and being super technical is one and the same.

I love analyzing things, but I acknowledge that sometimes the "magic" of a particular tune is just there, because of the way it sounds, and not because it's 7/8, played with a harmonized scale, inverted chords, or uses altered tones....

I think - if it feels good, DO IT.

I like Scott Henderson for this stuff.

[ksjazzguitar]

...Joe Pass really likes to play what he hears and keeping things simple. To try to sing a melody line, and keep it coming from the heart. ...

Hmm, I really don't think of Pass as "keeping things simple."

And Pass did a lot of study and analysis, he just did it on the fretboard instead of a piece of paper.

Peace,
Kevin

[musicalbodger]

I think that this thread is entitled "Does analising miss the point of music?" It doesn't say, "Does analising music enhance the enjoyment?" nor "Does analising music enhance your capabilities playing music?"

Makes many of the above posts redundant, methinks.

[ksjazzguitar]

I think that this thread is entitled "Does analising miss the point of music?" It doesn't say, "Does analising music enhance the enjoyment?" nor "Does analising music enhance your capabilities playing music?"

Makes many of the above posts redundant, methinks.

If the purpose of listening to music is not enjoyment or learning to play better, then what is it?

Peace,
Kevin

[musicalbodger]

If the purpose of listening to music is not enjoyment or learning to play better, then what is it?

Peace,
Kevin

The expression of being a human being?

[ksjazzguitar]

The expression of being a human being?

Is it music if no one listens? Does the "self" count as a listener? Is it an "expression" if it does not communicate to others, to whom is it "expressing"?

I'd need to take up weed again to answer those questions. unfortunately, pro 19 failed.

If you don't mind, I like to do my "expressions" to other people and with as much skill as I can muster.

Peace,
Kevin

[musicalbodger]

Is it music if no one listens? Does the "self" count as a listener? Is it an "expression" if it does not communicate to others, to whom is it "expressing"?

Don't you ever sing for the sheer pleasure of it, or play your guitar for the joy of it? Other people listening has nothing to do with it, although if others join in it makes it a communal expression. I think, possibly, performing music for others to listen to is a modern development, i.e. in the past few thousand years. Music is the expression of being human, that is why it has never, and will never, go away, in any culture or in any form. Why is it one of the first activities banned by the authorities in repressive religions/regimes?

I'd need to take up weed again to answer those questions. unfortunately, pro 19 failed.

That's because you're too wrapped up in the theory. Weed has nothing to do with it, just throw out the bullshit and get back to the basics. What is the point of music, not in 21st century USA, but worldwide and throughout history?

Bodge

ps

If you don't mind, I like to do my "expressions" to other people and with as much skill as I can muster.

Peace,
Kevin

You're welcome to do it any way you like, Kevin but what has that (especially the skill bit) to do with the point of music? A child can create music, albeit often in a primitive way, that can be magical to listen to. I'm not knocking skill, if you knew me you'd know how farcical that would be. I'm just saying that it isn't a necessary prerequisite for making music. I accept it is for making sophisticated music but that's another argument.

Bodge

ps Someone had to create music before anyone decided they wanted to listen, now why do you think they did that?

[docbop]

I think that this thread is entitled "Does analising miss the point of music?" It doesn't say, "Does analising music enhance the enjoyment?" nor "Does analising music enhance your capabilities playing music?"

Makes many of the above posts redundant, methinks.

Everyone looks/listens from there perspective. Go to an art museum and look at a painting. If not a painter yourself you look and like or dislike that's it. If amateur artist then looking a little closer to see if you can pickup some ideas or basic techniques. If you are a fine artist yourself they you study the painting. you look both closely and backup to absorb artists feeling/message/statement. A fine artist probably also looks around to see others reaction.

Music the same scenario from audience, amateur player, to musician studying a peer or master.

Any career people study/analyze/learn from those who came before them even if just to not have to reinvent the wheel.

[musicalbodger]

Everyone looks/listens from there perspective. Go to an art museum and look at a painting. If not a painter yourself you look and like or dislike that's it. If amateur artist then looking a little closer to see if you can pickup some ideas or basic techniques. If you are a fine artist yourself they you study the painting. you look both closely and backup to absorb artists feeling/message/statement. A fine artist probably also looks around to see others reaction.

Music the same scenario from audience, amateur player, to musician studying a peer or master.

Any career people study/analyze/learn from those who came before them even if just to not have to reinvent the wheel.

docbop, apart from quoting me from an earlier post (#32) re. reinventing the wheel, you miss the point of what I said in the post you conciously quote. Please, do me a favour and go back and read all the posts I have made on this thread and then comment. It won't take you long.
Bodge