Knowledge and music (was: Re: pita, fennesz. . . Patches in general)

[Guillaume Grenier <gollum@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 20/11/00 15:39, Michal Seta said in living color:

>> 
>> *why*?  do i need to understand granular
>> synthesis in order to use it?
> 
> euh...  it will help if you want to use it to your advantage.
> 
> do i need to follow a luthery class to
>> understand the guitar?
> 
> No.  But knowing the physical and acoustical properties of the
> instrument you will end up writing better for it.  I don't mean better
> music.  I mean, you will make better choices in terms of use of
> registers, playing techniques and the such.  Also, hopefully you will
> make it more playable.

I was beginning a reply to David and started saying similar things...

Knowledge of your instrument and of afferent matters (of varying nature
depending on the instrument in question) really helps making you a better
musician. Almost goes without saying, most would agree... But it seems to
often be forgotten or even denied when you look at the actual discourse of
some musicians (somewhat exemplified in the granular synthesis example
above).

Of course, you need not to be aware of the enormous amount of parameters
related to the musical activity in order to produce a musical statement. But
will knowledge help you to produce musical statements that more closely
resemble your mental conceptions of the music you wish to create and will it
help broadening the scope and the sophistication of those very conceptions?
I say a resounding "Yes!", of course.

I am not involved in the creation of "this-listy" music... but I think the
concepts and situations in stake here translate well across all musical
genres. I am a (classically-[being] trained) pianist and I clearly see what
repercussions the music-related (and even non music-related) knowledge I
continually acquire have on my playing. The larger the reservoir of
knowledge I can draw from either before, during or after a performance, the
more means I have to communicate musical ideas (and in turn, emotions,
sensations, ideas, etc.).

To give a simple-single example...: I am currently following a fantastic
course titled (free translation) "Analysis of the common practice tonal
harmonic discourse". It is a fabulous exploration of the structure of the
harmonic discourse from Bach to Wagner. I'm learning to identify harmonic
formulas and sequences commonly used by the composers, in which way they are
laid out, etc., etc. It gives me a fabulous comprehension [well, not yet,
but it's coming along very well... ;)] of musical works of the tonal
tradition. Since I've been working with the teacher giving this course, I've
been hearing music in a very different way. And I know this will
considerably affect the way I play. One interesting thing is that some
things I "knew" and did instinctively but a bit randomly, and not always
efficiently and in a coherent manner, I can now accomplish in a much more
satisfying way.


I should probably add for good measure that, of course, I don't think that
knowledge, developed abilities, method, etc. == talent, inspiration, energy,
musicality whatever... But the items on the left of the inequation certainly
give you more means to serve the items on the right.

g. (wishing he had a greater knowledge of the English language to
communicate in a clearer fashion...)

-- 
Guillaume Grenier - gollum@xxxxxxxxxxxx

in space there is no north  in space there is no south
in space there is no east   in space there is no west