Dots on a Page?

I played the flute in my high school band, and I feel like I learned a lot about music from my band director.  One of the things he always used to say to us was "Stop playing the music as if it were just dots on a page".  He meant that we were playing all the right notes and rhythms, but that's all we were doing.  Even when you play a piece perfectly as far as mechanics go, there is still more that you need to add to it.  Hitting the correct notes, playing to appropriate tempo, and following the correct dynamics are all very important, but that is not all music is about.  I could probably sight read an easy song perfectly, but if I didn't really connect with the song or know what it was about, then it isn't quality music making.  When the performer is really feeling the music, and feeling the emotion behind the song, then it sounds better.  I know that at a concert, I would rather the musician be really into the song and make a few mistakes than play it perfectly but emotionlessly.  Even computers that can create "perfect" rhythms are manipulated to sound more human-like, as Levitin pointed out in chapter six.  Music is not about perfection-although that can help.  It is about human involvment.  Just playing "dots on a page" is not enough.  A performer has to truly understand and connect with the song he or she is playing.  So my question is, how can  we hear the difference between simply playing  "dots on a page" and something by a more emotionally connected performer?  We know it's there, but how does emotion translate into something audible?

Response to Abby

Abby asked," Is it is preferable to have music or no music during a crucial scene in a film?  Is it better for the music to be internal or external to the film?"  I personally feel that the music is the most interesting part of a film.  As Abby pointed out, the soundtrack of a movie can reinforce feelings of fear, love, sadness, etc.  It makes a scene more emotional or intense.  But why?  In real life, intense or emotional moments are not often accompanied by a mood appropriate song.  In fact, that would seem silly to us and probably ruin the mood.  So why do we accept this in movies?  Because movies are not often trying to portray real life.  Filmmaking is an art, not an imitation of life.  Filmmakers are trying to manipulate our senses to make us feel a certain emotion.  

Like Abby pointed out, the absence of music can be even more effective then a great soundtrack.  In a scary scene, music can help build suspense, but it can also remind you that this is a polished work of art, not real life.  If you watch the scene without music, it becomes more real.  Similarly, I think a really emotional scene can be even more emotional without music.  Music in film is sometimes used to distract the audience from bad acting.  If the acting is well done than music might just be getting in the way of the emotion in the scene.  I'm not saying that I don't think movies should have music in them.  Some of my favorite songs come from movie soundtracks/scores.  However, if the filmmaker is trying to achieve a realistic portrayal of life, than I think it can be very effective to not use music.

Abby also mentioned that sometimes, music unrelated to the scene can be used to enhance the emotion of the scene.  I love it when they do this in movies.  One of my favorite scenes from any movie is the library scene from the movie Se7en.  In this scene, a detective played by Morgan Freeman is researching the seven deadly sins and Brad Pitt's character (also a detective), is reviewing pictures and evidence of a gruesome murder scene.  The visuals in this scene are gory and disgusting, but the song "Air On the G String" by August WIllhelmj (it is an adaption of Johann Sebastian Bach's "Air") is playing.  It is such a beautiful, calm song; you wouldn't expect to find it in a scene like this.  However, I think it works so well.  We are visually seeing one emotion and hearing another.  The two opposite emotions compliment and reinforce each other.  You can watch the scene here if you're interested.  

So to answer Abby's question, whether the movie should have music depends on what the director is trying to achieve.  If you are trying to create a work of art that manipulates the viewer's emotions, then yes, music can enhance the film tremendously.  However, if you are going for realism, then sometimes leaving music out can also be beneficial.

Question:  Music is used to enhance the emotion of a scene in a movie, but do you think that music can enhance real life situations?  For example, does sad music at a funeral make you more sad, or is it just background noise?

Response to Krystal Maynard

Question - Is your favorite song lyrical or instrumental? If it is a lyrical song, would it mean the same to you if the lyrics did not exist? Why or why not?

I think that our society tends to focus more on the music than the lyrics in a song. Many people listen to songs without ever really hearing the lyrics; they don't even know what message the musician is trying to communicate. While I do value the lyrics in a song a lot, I have to admit that if the song doesn't sound good musically, I probably wont listen to it much. A combination of both well written lyrics and pleasing sounds make a song great. However, a catchy song with little meaning in the lyrics will probably be more commercially successful than a song with well written lyrics but musically boring or unpleasant. A lot of songs played on the radio or on TV have very little meaning as far as lyrics go.
A lot of times the may the music is composed compliments the lyrics. For example, by manipulating things such as timbre, tempo, loudness, etc, you can make a song sound happy sad, or any other emotion. This is usually used to match the lyrics. However, as we spoke about in class, sometimes the sound of the song creates a mood that contradicts the lyrics to be ironic. I like it a lot when artists do this because it is makes the lyrics really stand out.
Lyrics mean a lot to me, and I like a lot of my favorite songs because of the lyrics. However, the sound of the song means a lot too, and it can actually enhance the lyrics.
Question: Do you prefer certain moods in a song? (Example: do you prefer happy songs over sad songs?)

Response to Amy Rosvally

Amy asked the question "What makes a song special?"  Well, what's special to one person is not necessarily special to another.  In her entry, Amy suggests that songs that are innovative and revolutionary are special.  While I agree that this is true, I feel that it only matters if the song is new and different to the person listening to it.  For example, Amy mentioned in class and in her blog that she likes the song "Lemon Tree" because it uses a tuba for the bass line and it was the first song she heard that did this.  Hearing something different for the first time is special to us; it doesn't matter if it is actually something new or it is just new to you.  I still remember the first instrumental songs I ever liked, I remember the first country songs I ever liked, the first rap songs I ever liked.  These songs are all special to me because they mark a period of discovery.  I think most people start out with a very narrow, rigid taste in music, limited to one or two genres.  (I know I did, at least)  When you start to branch out and venture into new genres that you never thought you would like, it's exciting.  That is what makes a song special to me.  Then, of course, you have to take into consideration other things, like how the song makes you feel, or how well it is performed or written.  But I believe that most people don't care if a song is considered innovative for it's time; they care about how it seemed creative and new to them in the context of their own past experiences with music.  

Question:  If we value breaking the rules and being innovative in music, then how can we ever define what music is? 

Response to Kyle O'Leary

Kyle asked the question, "Does the viewing of a music video enhance or hinder a listener's experience?"  I would have to say it hinders the listener's experience.  Although the music video may portray the artist's interpretation of the song, it might be very different from the listener's interpretation.

Music videos are usually supposed to show the audience the meaning of the song.  The problem with this is, the song means something different to everyone.  I believe that the artist's interpretation of the song is no more valid than anyone else's.  It is better to let the audience decide for themselves what the song means to them.  On the other hand, a music video can simply show you a new way to interpret the song, which isn't always a bad thing. 

I believe that music video's often hinder the listener's experience, because it is forcing them to accept an interpretation that they might not agree with.  However, it can also open their eyes to something they had never noticed before.

Question:  Do you think the artist has more authority over the meaning of the song?

Response to Michelle Webb

In Michelle Webb's entry, she asked "Can we call degrading music 'real music'?  And since anger is a popular emotion in today's music, what does that say about today's society?"  Just because a song can be considered offensive does not make it any less of a song.  If you feel that musicians are driven by their emotions while creating music, then you have to accept all types of songs, including angry, mean, or degrading.  It isn't always fun to hear an offensive or angry song, but it is still a legitimate piece of music.  

While some people can't bear to listen to angry, screaming, offensive music, others wont listen to anything else.  Why is this?  It might simply boil down to how sensitive you are.  In our society, we are encouraged to express our emotions as long as they are positive emotions.  You should tell someone you're in love with them, you should hug your friends, you should smile and laugh a lot.  But we are actually discouraged to show negative emotions.  Starting fights, getting physically aggressive, and yelling at people are all seen as undesirable behaviors; things that we would be ashamed of and probably feel like we should apologize about afterwards.  The fact that we are forced to repress our aggressive feelings could be why there is a lot of angry music.  Music is one of the few outlets that will accept these negative feelings.  When we are constantly expected to maintain a happy attitude all the time, our negative feelings don't just go away.  They linger, and they nag at us until we release them.  Music is a great way to release these feelings.  If it seems like music today is more angry than it should be, maybe it's because our society won't allow these emotions to be expressed in any other form.  

Degrading music can be offensive, but it is still music nonetheless.  It is no less "real" than something by Mozart or Bach.  We can't let our personal preferences interfere with our ability to judge music.  A song can be offensive and still a really great song.  I know there are songs that I was personally offended by, but I could still acknowledge that they were good songs.  It all comes down to personal preference, and when you take that into consideration, you are no longer judging the music objectively.

It is true that there is a lot of angry music out there.  This may seem negative, but I believe it is actually positive.  Everyone feels angry sometimes, and unfortunately, our society doesn't allow us to express this.  Music is a way to release certain emotions that aren't socially acceptable otherwise.  

Question:  Why is it more acceptable to express anger through music than in real life situations?