playing with feeling

[JonPR]

Originally Posted by mr. beaumont

I think attempting to play with feeling or evoke a feeling in others is overrated.

I think the player should relax and convey the music, let the emotion happen if it does. I don't like the idea of playing music as "acting." I like truth.

For me, it's not "I'm going to play sad." That's contrived. It's more "I'm sad today, I'm going to play."

Exactly. Any relevant "emotion" is in the music, not in the player.
If you're feeling sad, you play to make yourself feel better, not to communicate sadness to an audience. You have to get past your own emotional state and allow the music to speak.

[JonPR]

Originally Posted by FrankHudson

I agree with much of what has been said above, even Jeff's post just above that I'm going to sound like I'm 180 degrees from.

All art, including music, is about communicating/transferring experiences between the artist to the audience. This includes, but is not limited to, things we call emotions. If music couldn't communicate emotions it'd be a much more limited art, perhaps not an art at all.

Well, I think we have to define what we mean by "emotions". I'm 100% with Stravinsky when he said "music expresses nothing but itself."

Of course that doesn't mean "music expresses nothing"! But I do take it to mean that it's nothing to do with the things we call "emotions", which are usually things that can be adequately expressed in ways other than music.
E.g., if we are feeling sad, then crying is the most direct way of expressing that. If we are happy, then smiling or laughing expresses that. Those methods are effective precisely because we don't control them (other than sometimes to inhibit them for various reasons.)
For more subtle (or less strong) variations of those feelings, we have words, verbal language. We have poetry, which can approach less easily expressed emotions - and in that way comes close to music, in that there can be meaning there beneath what the words are actually saying.

When you say "All art, including music, is about communicating/transferring experiences between the artist to the audience", that's debatable, but obviously hinges on what you mean by "experiences". Those are mental or emotional experiences, of course (perceptions or revelations), which - by definition - can't be communicated as effectively any other way. If they could, then we wouldn't need the art.

The art is partly about an attempt to express that experience, to realise it in some form (visual, musical, poetic) for oneself, but also with the hope that it will be recognised in the viewer/listener/reader.

IMO, this goes way beneath what one usually means by "emotion". I think "feeling" is a better word, because "emotion" is too loaded, too superficial and precise in its normal meaning. Certainly things lke "sadness", "happiness", "anger", "fear", etc. are too prosaic, too clearly defined, for the business of music.

Music does mimic verbal language in some ways (vocabulary, grammar, syntax, phrasing, accent), but I see it as pre-verbal. Verbal language is a kind of refined outgrowth of the oral utterances early humans would have used. Music preserves the syntax of that early non-verbal instinct, and refines it in other directions.

"Emotions" - as I would define them - are to do with interaction with other humans, our responses and feelings towards them, which are adequately expressible in words, as well as in primal instinctual responses like laughing or crying.
The kinds of feelings music expresses are not about any of that. They are "transcendent" in the sense of seeming unattached to anything recognisable in human relationships, anything translatable to verbal language. They seem more to do with sensations about the world itself - or simply enjoying the act of communication using sound, without needing to have any external meaning or relevance attached.

I like to think of music as an "Art of Time", in that it persuades to think closely about the present moment, how it relates to the immediate past and the immediate future. This is happening now, and is a result of what just happened then, and is going to lead on to .... let me guess... Music mediates time, you could say, makes us aware of what it is and how we perceive it, by making us focus on it so closely.

In that, it's like abstract painting - which deals with perception of the visual world in the same way, making us think about how we see. Abstract art has no meaning or translatabe relevance to anything beyond itself. It may spring from (or evoke) some sensation the artist felt about some aspect of reality (or visual perception), but it's not designed to connote or represent anything. It is just what it is, to be enjoyed as a thing in its own right.
E.g., it would be a mistake to look at a big blue canvas and think "oh yeah, he means the sky", or "oh yeah, he means "blue" as in "sad"". Nope, it's just blue. Enjoy the blue for its blueness, for the way it excites your retina. You're welcome to infer "sad" or "sky" if you want, but that's up to you - and you're missing out if that's all you get from it.

Music is the same, IMO. Its "meaning" is all in the sounds themselves. There is nothing else, and they represent nothing but themselves. If a piece of music makes you feel "sad", that's OK, but either you're missing the point, or (perhaps more likely) you simply can't find the words to express what it's "saying" to you, beyond that feeble little 3-letter word.

[Arthur Blake]

Originally Posted by JonPR

Well, I think we have to define what we mean by "emotions". I'm 100% with Stravinsky when he said "music expresses nothing but itself."
...
Music is the same, IMO. Its "meaning" is all in the sounds themselves.

That's OK, I guess. But then why listen to music?

True, happy and sad are emotions, but there are more sublime feelings that music can evoke. It's in the dynamics, the timing, the expression of the note.

A great guitar has a special ability to create tone that varies with the fingers. The way you move the string with the right hand fingers, perhaps lifting up slightly. Also the way you press on the fret - how close, how the finger moves with the sound.

There's tension and resolution in music that one can "feel" in the mind beyond happy or sad. I call it sublime.

[rick-slo]

Different pieces of music can have different levels of "yourself" that are appropriate to insert into the interpretation. It can be easily over done.
For example some things are open to liberal use of rubato and dynamic volume alterations, others are not. Sometimes it is effective to play to
your instrument (I call that "guitar centric" playing), other times it just sound affected to do so. Of course the choice to not over interpret is an
interpretation itself.

[FrankHudson]

Originally Posted by JonPR

Well, I think we have to define what we mean by "emotions". I'm 100% with Stravinsky when he said "music expresses nothing but itself."

Of course that doesn't mean "music expresses nothing"! But I do take it to mean that it's nothing to do with the things we call "emotions", which are usually things that can be adequately expressed in ways other than music.
E.g., if we are feeling sad, then crying is the most direct way of expressing that. If we are happy, then smiling or laughing expresses that. Those methods are effective precisely because we don't control them (other than sometimes to inhibit them for various reasons.)
For more subtle (or less strong) variations of those feelings, we have words, verbal language. We have poetry, which can approach less easily expressed emotions - and in that way comes close to music, in that there can be meaning there beneath what the words are actually saying.

When you say "All art, including music, is about communicating/transferring experiences between the artist to the audience", that's debatable, but obviously hinges on what you mean by "experiences". Those are mental or emotional experiences, of course (perceptions or revelations), which - by definition - can't be communicated as effectively any other way. If they could, then we wouldn't need the art.

The art is partly about an attempt to express that experience, to realise it in some form (visual, musical, poetic) for oneself, but also with the hope that it will be recognised in the viewer/listener/reader.

IMO, this goes way beneath what one usually means by "emotion". I think "feeling" is a better word, because "emotion" is too loaded, too superficial and precise in its normal meaning. Certainly things lke "sadness", "happiness", "anger", "fear", etc. are too prosaic, too clearly defined, for the business of music.

Music does mimic verbal language in some ways (vocabulary, grammar, syntax, phrasing, accent), but I see it as pre-verbal. Verbal language is a kind of refined outgrowth of the oral utterances early humans would have used. Music preserves the syntax of that early non-verbal instinct, and refines it in other directions.

"Emotions" - as I would define them - are to do with interaction with other humans, our responses and feelings towards them, which are adequately expressible in words, as well as in primal instinctual responses like laughing or crying.
The kinds of feelings music expresses are not about any of that. They are "transcendent" in the sense of seeming unattached to anything recognisable in human relationships, anything translatable to verbal language. They seem more to do with sensations about the world itself - or simply enjoying the act of communication using sound, without needing to have any external meaning or relevance attached.

I like to think of music as an "Art of Time", in that it persuades to think closely about the present moment, how it relates to the immediate past and the immediate future. This is happening now, and is a result of what just happened then, and is going to lead on to .... let me guess... Music mediates time, you could say, makes us aware of what it is and how we perceive it, by making us focus on it so closely.

In that, it's like abstract painting - which deals with perception of the visual world in the same way, making us think about how we see. Abstract art has no meaning or translatabe relevance to anything beyond itself. It may spring from (or evoke) some sensation the artist felt about some aspect of reality (or visual perception), but it's not designed to connote or represent anything. It is just what it is, to be enjoyed as a thing in its own right.
E.g., it would be a mistake to look at a big blue canvas and think "oh yeah, he means the sky", or "oh yeah, he means "blue" as in "sad"". Nope, it's just blue. Enjoy the blue for its blueness, for the way it excites your retina. You're welcome to infer "sad" or "sky" if you want, but that's up to you - and you're missing out if that's all you get from it.

Music is the same, IMO. Its "meaning" is all in the sounds themselves. There is nothing else, and they represent nothing but themselves. If a piece of music makes you feel "sad", that's OK, but either you're missing the point, or (perhaps more likely) you simply can't find the words to express what it's "saying" to you, beyond that feeble little 3-letter word.

If I understand you correctly, I think we agree on these things. Stravinsky's quote goes overboard in order to stress a point, that music isn't just an inferior and abstract way to express something. But if one thinks music can't express an emotional state, around three minutes of listening to Willie Johnson's recording of "Dark Was the Night, Cold was the Ground" or John Coltrane and his Quartet playing "Alabama" would be my contra-argument.

Emotions are not the only thing that art can convey, as you point out. Sometimes it's just trying to point and say "BLUE!" or "Look how I felt that subdivision of time, just so."

[vindibona1]

Originally Posted by Arthur Blake

Here's an example of a fairly simple piece, played technically well but also with feeling.
Without a sense of the music being expressed, seems to me it comes off uninspired and uninteresting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRUaQIy_H6M

Thank you for that Arthur. I loved the piece so much I printed out the music and intend to learn it.

This particular performance demonstrates the subtleties of expression. The music doesn't always maintain a robotic tempo nor the same dynamic. It ebbs and flows. The phrase creates tension- then releases it; again until the musical statement is resolved, then repeated, then another statement made.

And sometimes expression trumps perfection. A singer's voice, in the middle of an emotional song cracks from emotion. There is often perfection in the imperfection. And THAT is expression.

[Al Acuff]

Originally Posted by Silly Moustache

I'm not going to tell anyone what or how they should perform, but I'll share my approach if it is of interest:
I've done some acting in my past,and for me it is much the same - for a limited time, you play a role.

One of the best books ever written about performing was written by Constantin Stanislavsky and it's called "An Actor Prepares". I heard about it from a singer songwriter friend. Stagecraft is important whether you are an actor, musician or politician. Highly recommended!

Folklorist Mike Luster once said to me that Ramblin' Jack and Jerry Jeff were east coast intellectuals who created characters to go with their music. He added they they both lived those characters so fully that they grew into them. It's a safe bet that Woody, Jack and Bob were exposed to Stanlislavsky's teachings back in the 1950s.

There's a lot more to performing music than just playing the correct notes.

[JonPR]

Originally Posted by FrankHudson

If I understand you correctly, I think we agree on these things. Stravinsky's quote goes overboard in order to stress a point, that music isn't just an inferior and abstract way to express something. But if one thinks music can't express an emotional state, around three minutes of listening to Willie Johnson's recording of "Dark Was the Night, Cold was the Ground" or John Coltrane and his Quartet playing "Alabama" would be my contra-argument.

I kind of agree, but I'd want to ask what kind of "emotional state" you mean. There's certainly personal associations involved, beyond what the music contains, which muddy the picture.
E.g., I get plenty of "effect" of some kind from "Dark Was the Night", but very little from "Alabama". The former "speaks" to me in a way the latter doesn't.
The feeling (whatever it is) in Willie Johnson's recording seems more direct, unvarnished - "from the heart" if you like - while the Coltrane seems intensely controlled, opaque, obscured. I.e., it just sounds like "jazz" to me. Pleasant enough (I like it more than some Coltrane), but I couldn't say I get any "meaning" from it. I can sense that maybe it is supposed to contain some kind of meaning (from the intensity with which they play), but I'm not getting it.

At the same time, although Johnson's recording is less sophisticated in many ways, there's amazingly subtle touches which I think give it its power. It's almost like there's too much going in the Coltrane for there to be any room for that kind of subtlety.

Naturally, that's all about my own experiences and tastes. (YMMV obviously.) Those are great examples in that respect, exposing how much of what we seem to get from music is what we bring to it. We have to be tuned to the right wavelength to pick up the signal!

In terms of the thread, both those tracks achieve their effects through control. Blind Willie was not just moaning randomly, gripped by emotion; he was controlling his pitching to get just the right note, or embellish the note in just the right way, for the effect he wanted. He was as much in control - not subject to emotion himself - as Coltrane was. That obviously doesn't mean no room for improvisation, and much of it was intuitive in each case. Musicians of that quality have plenty stored in their subconscious - which is generally what we mean by playing "from the heart"; allowing ideas to flow without undue editing.

One of my favourite examples of intense "feeling" or "meaning" in music is this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWrn2tiuBmk&t=140
I haven't a clue what it's all about (something to do with an "evening gathering"), but it communicates something powerful, at least to me. I'm sure whatever the lyrics are saying (even if about some kind of tragedy) is trivial and narrow compared to what the music is saying. (I really don't want to know what the words mean, because I'm sure it would detract from the effect of the music.)
"Sublime" - in the aesthetic sense of "producing an overwhelming sense of awe or other high emotion through being vast or grand" - is the word I'd use; a similar sensation to what certain landscapes can evoke.
Obviously, in the case of a landscape, that's entirely something we bring to it. There is no "expression" contained in rocks! And yet the feeling is something we can't easily express or explain. We just have that word "sublime" or maybe "awe" to label it with.
For me, that piece is an example of how music can do something similar - partly I think because these are human voices, not instruments, which adds a certain charge, but mainly in the incredible subtlety of the shifting harmonies. Again, the level of control is literally awesome, nothing left to chance
(I get nothing like this from any classical choral music I've ever heard.)
It may not mean that to you, and (at the same time) you could probably quote examples of music that do mean that for you, but might not for me.

Again, there's a distinction between merely recognising the feeling (intellectually), and actually feeling the feeling, as it were.
E.g., with the Coltrane, if you were to explain the feeling you get from it, I'm sure I'd recognise what you were saying, and understand what it is about the track that produces that effect. But it would be purely intellectual recognition, not a feeling (emotion) as such.

A crude example of that distinction is recognising a sentimental ballad for what it is, but feeling no sentiment about it - at least not the sentiment that seems to be intended. Like a joke that isn't funny. You can tell it's supposed to be funny, but it doesn't make you laugh.

[adaw2821]

I have really gotten into playing fingerstyle tunes with the melody incorporated. I can sing and I can play but I can't really do both at the same time. Anyway I feel like I can add a lot more expressiveness this way than if I don't do the melody at all.