The forum about the ukulele is not the ukulele itself

This thread is inspired by some of the recent discussion of notation on the Beginners board.


In Zen, we say that the all the written teachings about Zen are "the finger pointing to the moon not the moon itself."

Is this somehow like written music? Is written music not actually music in and of itself?

There was talk in the other thread that written music is only a sort of guide and will never be able to exactly capture a piece of music. One of the given examples was that it would be next to impossible to notate music by BB King; there are simply too many minuscule expressive articulations and play style which simply cannot be written down.


This got me to thinking: could we compare music, written and performed, to literature? Is the paper and ink version of a novel not actually the novel itself because it isn't being read aloud? If so, who needs to be the reader for it to be the 'real' thing? The author?

But yeah, i know that novels aren't quite the same as music.

Here's another thought for those convinced that music is not the paper and ink written stuff but is, in fact, the actual sounds we hear.
What about Beethoven? For a portion of his life, he could not hear the music that he wrote. Does this mean that he couldn't hear what the music sounded like? even if only in his head?

I was thinking too about how the advent of recording technology has totally changed what we define as music and how we name/identify music. Back to Beethoven for an example: I think we would all recognize Beethoven's Fifth Symphony from the first couple of notes; it wouldn't matter whether it was the New York Philharmonic or The Boston Pops or the Easter Island High School Orchestra, we would all say "that's Beethoven's Fifth" no matter which group we heard (except the last one which doesn't exist - or, at least, I don't think it exists). But what would happen if I played Thriller for everyone - first the original by MJ then the Jumpin Flea version. Which one is the real thing? We'd probably say the MJ version is the "real" one. But how does this jive when you have a piece of music which was never recorded by the first performer/composer?


Sorry for this rather random and broadly philosophical topic, but I am interested in hearing what everyone thinks.

I think the benefits of written music are huge. I wish I could read better. However, I don't think that until it is transfered through the soul and interpreted does it come out as "music"

I disagree that it would be impossible to notate a song by the King. He could notate it himself and say "that's how I play it". But you could look at that same piece of sheet music, play the notes perfectly in time, and with all the right articulations, and still not sound any bit like him. You can't notate how somebody's brain tells their fingers to play the 8th fret on the E string and put vibrato on it. Nor will you ever have the same shaped fingers. Both those factors equal: touch. You hear people say "it's in the fingers". Absolutely. That is the reason you can't sound like BB. Your touch is different than his. It's also the reason nobody can sound like Jake. They get really close (some unnamed people), but no dice. That is why I'm convinced that it is a stupid (if I may be blunt) endeavor to try and sound like anybody but yourself. Always have you idols and learn as much as you can from them, but don't throw away your soul to try and steal theirs.

I don't know if that is along the lines you were looking for, but anyways, that's my opinion on that tangent.

Written notation is to music as a dictionary and grammar text are to literature. Some would say, however, that they not only have similar benefits, they have had similar delitorious effect as well. Just as music preceded notation, literature preceded dictionaries and standardized grammar. Music has suffered to a certain extent from the introduction of notation because some unimaginative individuals (often, unfortunately, in educational institutions) come to the point that they perceive anything that is not recorded as notation as being "wrong." Similarly while dictionaries and grammar texts have undeniably been a huge boon to improving ordinary communication they have had a similar delitorious effect on literature, where many, especially in academia once again, have erroneously concluded that the "rules" must be followed to produce art.

However, if one wants to assign blame for the decline of music as a common form of expression, at least in the "modern" world, one need look no further than the invention of recording devices. Prior to the introduction of recorded music the making thereof was a pasttime enjoyed by many, perhaps even so many as to be almost all. Every household had someone who played something, even if nothing more than a simple home made instrument. Every pub had its regulars playing music, every town its orchestra, and so on. Regional variations on songs were great, but that was much of the charm. Often a tune would begin in one region and by the time it had migrated a few hundred miles it was so changed that it was almost unrecognizable, yet it was still an enjoyment and no one worried too seriously about what was "right."

Then, recorded music came along. Suddenly, the local boy who had been the toast of the village wasn't "good" because he didn't play it "as good" as the radio, or the record. Suddenly, every song had a "right way" to be played and everything else was wrong - unless one was already famous enough and confident enough to produce their own "arrangement" of another song.

The next step, of course, was for huge corporations to come in and, first, decide who would and who would not get to produce music and, second, to lock said music up in vaults of legalise.

For decades, music became very much a business, and the "musicality" of individuals became almost non-existent. If someone dared play an instrument they'd better be good enough to do it exactly like the various recordings or they'd be ridiculed and discouraged.

We've seen some return to "musicality" among individuals because digital recording and distribution has loosened the death grip that huge companies had on the music industry as a whole. Those corporations have tried very hard to stifle any innovation and retain their hold, but it's hard to do when anybody can make music and distribute it.

Now, we see a resurgence in popular interest in "easy to approach" instruments like the ukulele. I hope this will continue and spread, and that we might again see a day when music is taught in schools as something more than a way to have a marching band for the football games, when small towns once again have volunteer orchestras, and so on.

One can hope,
John

I might be off topic, sorry in advance...

In my very modest opinion, music like any other art form, is a form of expression, whether it be written, sung, read, hummed, painted... Whatever the form. This art form is meant to express what the composer/writter/musicain/painter (...) feels. Then this feeling or expression is directed toward the public. Then it "belongs" to the public.

You take the song "Halleluja" written by Cohen, for example. That song has been rewritten, recomposed so many times. And every single time, the public will read something into the song that another won't. I have seen people say that the song is a metaphor for an orgasm, others stating that on the contrary, it is a song about accepting God...
There are those, who will say that since Cohen wrote the song, his version is the "right" one. Others will prefer Buckley's version and state his is the "right" version.

When is music really created? When recorded? played? written? thought of? or all of the above? I think all of the above.
You compare it to a novel, but it's the same process: you have a thought, you write it down, you publish it and people read it. When was the real birth of the novel????

Of course, you also have to convey a message that will be understood; we still can't read people's thoughts. So you have "standards" or languages. If used correctly, then the message will be passed. But if used poorly, then you might not understand what I'm trying to say.

For example, if I say that it's raining like pissing cows (Il pleut come vaches qui pissent, in French). You'll probably look at me with wide eyes like I'm a crazy person. But if I say, it's raining cats and dogs, you'll understand what I was trying to say better.

What is wonderful with any type of language (except maths,ggrrr hate that language!) is that there are nuances, colors, emotions - things that cannot be written.
I would mostly compare music to a movie. You have a script, but what you do with it, what is seen or not seen is up to you. Look at the different versions of Romeo and Juliet. Or Pride and Prejudice BBC version, film version or Bridget Jones - same story, but yet different.

There will always be "purists" and "non purists". Neither one is bad, it's just a preference people have. (Les goûts et les couleurs ne se discutent pas, meaning, tastes and colors need not be discussed - I say tomatoe, you say tomatô)

I doubt music or any form of expression/art has declined. It's just less obvious or perhaps too obvious. The means of conveying music isn't the same. Instead of people playing at their local pub, they'll record themselves on YouTube. Don't know if it's good or bad - but it is.

Well, these were my thoughts on the matter. Hope I didn't bore you too much. Hope I wasn't out of topic...

Maybe I just hung around a lot of very musical people while growing up. We'd all just sit around and jam all the time.

As for musical notation. I believe it's not music until it's played, but one can always play it in their own minds. Back to Beethoven, he was deaf when he wrote his 7th symphony but just like I can dance to a beat in my head, he was able to listen to some of the world's greatest pieces of music in his head. It's just like reading a book. It doesn't have to be audible to get the full effect of it. Written text is not much different than musical notation. You can play the music yourself or read a book to yourself. You can also listen to music or a poem performed by someone else.

JamieFromOntario said:

This thread is inspired by some of the recent discussion of notation on the Beginners board.


In Zen, we say that the all the written teachings about Zen are "the finger pointing to the moon not the moon itself."

Is this somehow like written music? Is written music not actually music in and of itself?

There was talk in the other thread that written music is only a sort of guide and will never be able to exactly capture a piece of music. One of the given examples was that it would be next to impossible to notate music by BB King; there are simply too many minuscule expressive articulations and play style which simply cannot be written down.


This got me to thinking: could we compare music, written and performed, to literature? Is the paper and ink version of a novel not actually the novel itself because it isn't being read aloud? If so, who needs to be the reader for it to be the 'real' thing? The author?

But yeah, i know that novels aren't quite the same as music.

Here's another thought for those convinced that music is not the paper and ink written stuff but is, in fact, the actual sounds we hear.
What about Beethoven? For a portion of his life, he could not hear the music that he wrote. Does this mean that he couldn't hear what the music sounded like? even if only in his head?

I was thinking too about how the advent of recording technology has totally changed what we define as music and how we name/identify music. Back to Beethoven for an example: I think we would all recognize Beethoven's Fifth Symphony from the first couple of notes; it wouldn't matter whether it was the New York Philharmonic or The Boston Pops or the Easter Island High School Orchestra, we would all say "that's Beethoven's Fifth" no matter which group we heard (except the last one which doesn't exist - or, at least, I don't think it exists). But what would happen if I played Thriller for everyone - first the original by MJ then the Jumpin Flea version. Which one is the real thing? We'd probably say the MJ version is the "real" one. But how does this jive when you have a piece of music which was never recorded by the first performer/composer?


Sorry for this rather random and broadly philosophical topic, but I am interested in hearing what everyone thinks.

Click to expand...

i just hear blah blah blah. sorry. No idea what you are trying to say. I only have two pieces of paper that say i'm smart, even though I really ain't.

Just pick up a uke and strum. that is all you need.

OldePhart said:

Now, we see a resurgence in popular interest in "easy to approach" instruments like the ukulele. I hope this will continue and spread, and that we might again see a day when music is taught in schools as something more than a way to have a marching band for the football games, when small towns once again have volunteer orchestras, and so on.

One can hope,
John

Click to expand...

I agreed with everything you said, except for the line about marching bands. Some of the most emotional and talented musicians I have seen have been a part of a group called Drum Corps International. These musicians started in a high school marching band and in most cases still are a part of it as these amazing, professional musicians are all under the age of 21. The amount of passion and artistry that goes into the performance is astonishing and that is what music is all about. John, I really respect your opinion as many schools view the marching band as exactly what you said, but I guarantee those students that are putting their everything into preparing for competition, spending their nights and the end of their summer perfecting their show do not view it as such. They will put as much passion and soul into their performance as any other musician out there. This fits into this topic because of the idea of soul and passion being more important than written notation and the other way around. If you want to hear a passionate, soulful performance and watch an amazing piece of art, search for the Phantom Regiment Drum Corps on youtube. When you watch it, keep in mind that EVERY member of the group is under the age of 21, they are all kids.

To fit into the topic of this thread as music as written in sheet music form versus emotion and soul, any form of music can fit into this. I am approaching this from the stand point of a classically trained orchestra musician. For me, without written music or a guideline as to the piece, I am lost. I minored in music and was a music major for half of my bachelors before I changed my major to Anthropology. The dependency on written music is taught and fostered and the dependency is part of the reason I picked up the uke. It was an attempt to break away from the dependency on written music and to enjoy music as just that, music. There was no passion in the music department I belonged to when the directors and the professors believe that you are not a good musician because you cannot play the piece exactly as it is written in the page.

In a way I feel like I am relearning how to insert passion into my playing rather than being a robot. I guess I can be used as an example of why music notation should not be viewed as law and why improvisation and passion is much more important to playing music.

The yellow bird is neither yellow nor a bird. Art is an emotional experience. Yet it is impossible to for two people to have the same emotional experience while listening to a piece of music. I believe the value of music is the experience rather that the sheet music. However, the sheet music becomes necessary for a particular piece to carry on to future generations. So no, its not the same music now as it was before, but that is not because of the sheet music, but rather because it is a different listener. Even if you listened to a particular recording of Beethoven's 5th at age ten and again at age fifty, you would have a different emotional experience. The music didn't change, you did. Some long dead philosopher said "You can't step in the same river twice." Then some other wise-ass philosopher retorted with "You can't step in the same river once."

JamieFromOntario said:

..."the finger pointing to the moon not the moon itself."

Click to expand...

An apt metaphor. The written form is the skeleton we clothe in our own interpretation.

You can play some music note for note, tempo for tempo, as the composer intended it. Many classical orchestras and performers do just that. Those performances are aided by centuries of performance starting from the original writer, so we know pretty much what was intended. But the most famous versions are those by gifted interpreters and conductors who subtly alter the music for their own sensibilities or changing contemporary tastes. Glenn Gould's Bach, for example, is not exactly what Bach wrote, but it's brilliant nonetheless. In a more popular form, the versions of Tchaikovsky's 1812 with the Russian chorus and bells is not what the composer wrote, but it succeeds marvellously.

Cover versions, from classical to pop, are artistic interpretations and their delight is in hearing how the performers change and interpret the original. The Beatles did it. The Rolling Stones did it. So did the Animals, Cream, and even Jimi Hendrix. George Michaels does it. I do it every time I try to play a song from the 1920s or 30s on my uke. Whether a better or worse version results is mere personal taste.

PS.
Beethoven was, however, not deaf for all of his career. He suffered hearing loss, sometimes complete deafness, but it seems to have been erratic for many years. He first wrote about hearing loss in 1798. By 1801, he had, by all accounts, lost about 60% of his hearing and suffered from what we call tinnitus today. In 1804, he wrote about having problems hearing the wind instruments during a rehearsal for the Eroica. It seems that he was losing his ability to hear high frequency sounds first. I can relate, because I suffer from both that loss and tinnitus. In 1814, he started using an ear trumpet (I got a hearing aid two weeks ago...)

By 1817 he could not hear music, and visitors communicated with him by writing. By 1821, at age 50, he was totally deaf in terms and could not comprehend speech. Even so, he could still detect low-frequency sounds in his left ear. Despite his deafness, in those latter years, he finished the Missa Solemnis, the Ninth Symphony and wrote six string quartets and piano sonatas.

He could always, despite his physical limitation, hear the music in his head.

Too much thinking, just get Uking!!!!!

Just a sidenote. I teach music in England. No marching bands. Music. Music from around the world. Music history. Music theory. Old songs. New songs. Singing.

And yes, lessons on ukuleles.

It's not marching bands everywhere...

The music written down in notation is just a guideline for the tempo and pitch. However, there is so much more to music such as playing with a emotion and your ability to plhrase a piece well or getting a grip on the dynamics of the piece.

Every musican will hear music diffrently and will have their own interpritation of a piece. This is what makes music beautiful, we can have one piece changed slightly a thousand times and yet it will always be familiar. So in my opinion notation is just a start point of piece, but that does not mean you have to copy the composers style but you can simply make it your own style.

HoldinCoffee said:

The yellow bird is neither yellow nor a bird. ....

Click to expand...

Interesting style. Any idea how that cartoon-ish image is created? Is is a template or overlay for some movie program? I'm using Corel Video Studio X4 and it has similar features, but not uite this sharp.

ichadwick said:

Interesting style. Any idea how that cartoon-ish image is created? Is is a template or overlay for some movie program? I'm using Corel Video Studio X4 and it has similar features, but not uite this sharp.

Click to expand...

I think it was by hand, like back in the days of Snow White. The basic footage was just regular handheld cameras, and then each frame was animated one at a time. They spent like 250 hours on one minute of footage! Classic technique, but it looks new and innovative. Go figure.

JamieFromOntario said:

Is this somehow like written music? Is written music not actually music in and of itself?

Click to expand...

That's how I see it. Written notation is the "script". The actual music is the "play". Both are important and interrelated, but they are not equivalent.

One of the given examples was that it would be next to impossible to notate music by BB King; there are simply too many minuscule expressive articulations and play style which simply cannot be written down.

Click to expand...

Current standard music notation would fail to communicate every single subtle nuance of BB King (or any other player who has even a modicum of unique expressiveness). But that's not what notation is for. You might as well blame the CD format for not capturing the expression on the musician's face.

I think we would all recognize Beethoven's Fifth Symphony from the first couple of notes; it wouldn't matter whether it was the New York Philharmonic or The Boston Pops or the Easter Island High School Orchestra, we would all say "that's Beethoven's Fifth" no matter which group we heard [...] But what would happen if I played Thriller for everyone - first the original by MJ then the Jumpin Flea version. Which one is the real thing? We'd probably say the MJ version is the "real" one. But how does this jive when you have a piece of music which was never recorded by the first performer/composer?

Click to expand...

Well, this might not be the best comparison. Your orchestral examples are all doing new performances of the exact same arrangement, whereas your versions of "Thriller" are unique arrangements. Maybe you could compare the NY Phil's Beethoven 5 with Walter Murphy's "A Fifth of Beethoven".

But I get your point. With music that has become popular primarily via recorded media, we think of the recording as the "correct" and original version. Kinda like how we see a version of a Hollywood movie as being the "real" version.

However it's interesting to note that not all music of the modern recording era is like that. In particular, music that has become popular due to live performance. (This would be more like a video recording of a play rather than a movie. There's an understanding that your hearing a documented instance of just one of many potential performance.)

Jazz is one big example. What is the "real" version of a jazz tune? There might be certain definitive versions (which are not always the first version), but even then listeners are more apt to view that as merely one interpretation of a song. Other recordings by the same or different artists are seen as just as legitimate.

Jam bands like Phish and the Grateful Dead are sort of that way too. Actual recordings tend to be viewed more as a sort of record of one performance of a song, but not necessarily "the song" itself. Again, that's because the songs are seen more as things to be performed live rather than created in a studio.

I guess the key is figuring out when the creator of the art sees his/her art as being "done". What is the intent of the art? When is the creative act over?

For Beethoven and Cole Porter, it's over when the song is written--when the instructions for creating what is in the composer's head are finally nailed down. So that's the real thing... the written piece.

For Miles Davis and Jerry Garcia, it's over when the song is done being performed live. The real thing is the live performance at that point in time--the inspired interpretation of a written piece (not the written piece itself). The fact that it might be documented for reproduction later is irrelevant.

For Michael Jackson, Steely Dan, Lady GaGa, etc., the creative endeavor is over when the record is finished. The reproducible document is the desired end product. Writing and performing are not end goals, but merely steps toward it. So the "real thing" is that recording.

JJ