How do you define Musical?

[rachlisztchopin]

I have a question? What is the definition of musical? I was looking at the argument going on in the "Liszt post" saying that Grand Galop Chromatique wasn't as musical as other Liszt (like sonata in B minor). So are fun, jumpy, and jolly pieces not as musical as for say, more serious pieces of music? Are atonal pieces not musical at all? I think that would be BS. Though then again, wouldn't musical mean pleasing to the ear? So atonalism may not be as musical. I don't know. This subject is either contradictory or just plain confusing. Thank you.

[Daevren]

Read my reply in "What constitutes the musical merit of a composition? "

[lostinidlewonder]

Musical means: To be able to control volume and tempo effectively. That is what I have thought always anyway. Some people may consider the actual quality of sound produced to be a measure of something musical, the types of notes/chords used. I feel music is hard to generalise in that way because things become very very subjective, even more so than just considering the volume and tempo controls.

[Sketchee]

I think the answer to this question will very for everyone.  Also, as we learn more about music, one's idea of musicality will evolve and grow to become more effective. 

Rather than invalidating our earlier views though, I think our ideas can just become more complex.  From the point of view of the musician, if I can take an earlier simple piece that I learned and apply those ideas to a new piece, that application provides a new musical ideas.  If I just learned to apply a crescendo to a phrase while practicing Fur Elise for example, I now can find places in each subsequent piece I learn where I can apply a crescendo.  In doing this, I may find places where I feel a crescendo is shouldn't be used.  With this, I may rethink my placement of crescendos in the first piece improving it's musicality.  However practical or linear as that may seem, it's not that easy.  Even just phrasing and placing a crescendo in thu examples is complicated and that takes a lot of reading, learning from our teachers, listening, studying the music, etc.  We also must manage and balance many of these elements at once to create our overall musicality.

For composition, I think the composers ability to express their ideas is what makes something musical.  They do this in the context of a form, key, constraints of the instrument, and any number of other elements.  For some works, a composer may make something incredibly obviously deep and musical.  Some may feel that a minor key and deep lyricism makes a piece musicality,  others love strict counterpoint, some composers found shaping their music into a form helped them express their ideas.  In some periods of history, freedom from form was an innovation.  It's something incredibly difficult to place in a general sense.

To say that all compositions must comply to a single view, would severely limit my views I think.  So instead, rather than defining my musicality and then finding compositions that fit a single view, I think it's much simpler to look at a piece and ask myself why it is or isn't musical.  I think it's in part because I'm an art major and we're taught this method of critiquing art; the method has us (1) look at what the work of art is of in nonobjective terms--if it's a red line, then say it's a red line and not what that line may represent, (2) point out each of the basic elements the artist used--such as a strong sense of color, (3) see what the message of the work--this part is up to interpretation (4) look at the emotional impact of the work and finally (5) decide whether we like it using these elements to discuss the opinion.

Even critiquing the same work of art, different people will come with different opinions as they'll note different elements.  For example, some people may find emotional impact is important while others may appreciate the use of contrast.  In the case of art, both appreciating the use of constrast and emotional impact is artistic;  for music, effective use of various elements would still be musical.  This is similar to the earlier example in that as one's understanding elements grows, they may appreciate a work differently.  Certain elements in a piece that you used to appreciate, you might later decide you no longer like.  In a piece you once loved, the harmony may now seem bland.  You might not have noticed something's in a piece you used to hate that now makes you love it.


These are just some thoughts.  I'm sure other people here will have good ideas on what is musical that I'll agree with and add to my understanding.  My understanding of musicality will hopefully continue to grow for life.  Should I ever insanely come to the conclusion that my musical growth has reached the ultimate level possible, I'll still hopefully continue to search and somewhere there will be a new idea or point of view I couldn't have considered.  It's impossible for any individual to experience everything; even everything within the scope of music would be incredibly difficult.  Reading about Beethoven or even the great pianists of today, they always continued to innovate and create new things.  With each composition they wrote or piece they played, they learned something.  I think to say that one person understands or defines all that is musical would be like that person claiming they were better than Beethoven and all other greats.  That would be a bit off, imo.

[Daevren]

I don't see why one would think control of volume and tempo is the essence of musicality. Of course it is an important element. But what about music that was meant to be at one volume or tempo?

Of course art is subjective. It is something created by humans, who are absurdly subjective.

But compared to language? Music has a partial universal meaning, the same to everyone. Language is so subjective. If you take poerty. The writer can never control the way he reader will read it. Poetry can never really mean anything. Its different for everyone because everyone has different concepts linked to the same words. So the more abstract poerty gets, the more meaningless it becomes. A poet was once asked what his poems meant, because there was alot of discussion and confusion. "Meaning?" He said, "How can it mean anything, its made of words, of language. How can the reader know how I feel about all those words? This is pointless."

With music it is different. Language is not controlled by an universal law. Sound is.

Musical doesn't mean something that is pleasing to the ear. Sometimes a dictionary says that music is "sound used as entertainment" or something like that, "pleasing sound" could also do. But that is wrong. Music is sound ordered in terms of harmony, melody and rhythm. Concepts like harmony, melody and ryhthm can be explained by phyics. What does this mean? This means that sound ordered is more musican than sound not ordered. This means music which is very much ordered is more musical than music that isn't.

The comment of lostinidlewonder comes in here. The fact that it is ordered doesn't mean it needs to be ordered in a very logical or natural way. Something can be ordered in a chaotic way. When lostinidlewonder talks about "the control of volume and tempo" then that means that a musical piece that has some plan, variation, structure or order in terms of volume is more musical than a piece that doesn't have that. If the composer or performer gave thought to this and worked it in his art is has more musical elements then when the piece has a monotome volume.

Same goes for tempo, for chords, for melody, for sound quality, for anything.

Now, another important element in art in general is that it has to have several layers of complexity. It needs very simple things, things you notice right away without much effort. And it also needs hard to find details. And as much layers as possible inbetween.

Before anyone gets offended, of course this is just my opinion. People that disagree with me are still perfectly perfect human beings.

If anyone wants to hear it I could compare the Bm sonata with Grand Galop to give some more insight. But its kind of pointless because the works are so different in purpose and scale. Its kind of obvious why the Bm sonata is more musical. I think most non-musicans would recognise, even if they like the Grand Galop more.

[Daniel_piano]

With music it is different. Language is not controlled by an universal law. Sound is.

Musical doesn't mean something that is pleasing to the ear. Sometimes a dictionary says that music is "sound used as entertainment" or something like that, "pleasing sound" could also do. But that is wrong. Music is sound ordered in terms of harmony, melody and rhythm. Concepts like harmony, melody and ryhthm can be explained by phyics. What does this mean? This means that sound ordered is more musican than sound not ordered. This means music which is very much ordered is more musical than music that isn't.

The comment of lostinidlewonder comes in here. The fact that it is ordered doesn't mean it needs to be ordered in a very logical or natural way. Something can be ordered in a chaotic way. When lostinidlewonder talks about "the control of volume and tempo" then that means that a musical piece that has some plan, variation, structure or order in terms of volume is more musical than a piece that doesn't have that. If the composer or performer gave thought to this and worked it in his art is has more musical elements then when the piece has a monotome volume.

Same goes for tempo, for chords, for melody, for sound quality, for anything.

Yes, so true
Physics, acoustic and anatomy can explain why certain sound frequencies ordered in a certain manner are "musical" and why others are not musical
And if we utilize as the main meaning of musical the way musicality was born and is universally "similar" all over the world, then again we can say that Musical are those sounds row that follow the mathematical orders of their most audible subfrequencies
As a matter of fact music was born out of the pleasure the mind get from the ear stimulus of following a series of audible frequencies within a given frequencies, from most audible to more audible
The most audible the frequency is, the most the ear stimulus is plan and direct and it reaches the brain in a flat uncomplexed manner resulting on a harmonious, unmeditative manner, the most the unaudible the frequency is the, most the ear stimulus is complex and obscure and it activate a meditative, sad, nostalgic mood in the brain because of the complexity of the stimulus
The more the ratio of vibration is complex the more the ear feels pain in earing this discordance of harmony
Now the pain is very subtle and you can't feel it, but it though send a emotional wider signal to the ear
If we then look at how any culture has organized its music according to the contrast between sadness/pain and pleasure moving for discordance and pure assonance we can further state that not only music is any sound that follow a certain order mathematical and natural ordered established by our acoustic and our ear anatomy but it's also the creation of pleasure from moving from the most audible subfrequencies and the most audibles frequencies creating a sense of continuing dipleasure/pleasure, answer/question, stress/relax, tension/response 

Since even "noises" can be pitched like music and you can make music using several "noises" the quality that make music musical is not in its pitch and sound itself but in the musical organization of the sounds
A single note is not musical per se as a single sound of a broken glass is not noise per se, but the row and order of this sounds can be "noisy" or "musical"
In fact even "noise" can be "musical" while even "music with an instrument" can be "noise"

Daniel