Tough Practice Days
Joe Cunningham
I tend to practice about 1-2 hours a day and more on weekends. Some days it
seems like my hands are just gliding along on their own, every through the
more difficult sections of a piece - I don't want to get metaphysical here,
but I tend to get a tunnel vision in a way on these days - people come into
my room and I don't even notice them. Other days I seem to have hoofs
attached to my wrists (keeping the barnyard theme) - I can't get good tone,
I keep making silly mistakes, etc ...
So my question is ... what would you suggest on those hoof-days? Should I
continue struggling or put down the instrument and calmly walk away and read
a book or go for a walk? Is it better to practice through a piece or switch
to exercises?
Thanks,
JC
William Jennings
Joe Cunningham wrote:
" So my question is ... what would you suggest on those hoof-days?"
Find a filly.
Sam Culotta
Just yesterday I had what you so aptly characterised as a "hoof day".
Everything sounded like crap. Nails were clattering against adjacent
strings, buzzes were appearing where buzzes had never been before, overall
tone had an underwater quality. At times like this I tend to become
belligerent, dogged...I'm going to make this SOB sound good if I have to
kill myself trying!!! -sort of thing. I probably did the very thing one
_shouldn't_ do. I suspect it would be better to take a deep breath, slow
down and turn to some easy, surefire pieces to reclaim your sanity.
The good news, from my perspective, is that I've been through this enough
times to know that like a kidney stone this too shall pass, albeit less
painfully. Pick up your guitar today and you may find that it was all a bad
dream and now the sun is shining and the birds are chirping and your hand
has shed it's cloven mass.
On the other hand (no pun intended)..there may be something to be learned
from the experience. For that I, with you, await the suggestions of our
resident sages.
Sam
"Joe Cunningham" <joseph_c...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8l2ijl$3...@journal.concentric.net...
chu...@alltel.net
John Sloan <jsl...@telusplanet.net> wrote:
> We all use our hands for many complex, intricate tasks every
> day. Assuming you're not the victim of arthritis or some other
> condition which might affect the use of your hands, do you also
> have "off days" when it comes to using eating utensils, tying
> your shoelaces, buttoning your shirt, putting the keys in the
> ignition of your car, using apen to write a letter. Do your
> hands, for example, feel natural and relaxed using a fork one
> day, while on other days you can barely avoid stabbing yourself
> in the chin as you use the fork to trasnfer food to your mouth?
> For most peole the answer is no. We perform complex tasks easily
> with our hands everyday that we don't even think about.
>
Well, we always called it "the droppsies" in my family. There do seem
to be times when you drop things a lot. Just like days when you screw
up speaking and get tongue tied. Don't know if it's related or not.
Karen
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
larry...@my-deja.com
> A good book which illustrates what I'm talking about, albeit
> in another field, is "The Inner Game of Golf" by Timothy Gallwey.
Nice post John. I'm not sure I completely agree that tying ones shoes
is as complex and demanding as playing CG :-) Your point of
overanalyzes is consistent with _gesture_ that Stanley talked about
recently. I'll be interested in what more he will say about this but my
understanding of gesture is that you group a lot of very complex
movements into one simple concept, movement... gesture. I tend to run
the spectrum from the micro view where I may examine a minute detail
then back out to get the _feel_ of the gesture with the new found
changes from the close up analytical view. Micro and macro views must
be balanced for the musical relation to be clear for me. I like the
term gesture since it is also used in other arts and means much the
same thing. Peter used the term _ballistic_ but that sounds like a
military term and I view the military as too rigid for an idea like
gesture that implies more feel and less analysis.
I'm going to have to get that book on golf some day :-)
John Duncan
You know there are definately times when everything you do doesn't sound right,
etc. The only thing i would question though is: on the days when everything is
going "right" and you sound great.....is this truly the case? Or are we less
critical on these days and in a good mood or not listening as carefully? Maybe
the hoof days really represent where we are but we just don't notice it becuase
we go into automatic pilot through much of our practice time.
I'm just saying hypothetically speaking here. So on your next great day, ask
yourself...is it that i am playing well or am i not listening carefully? It
seems we only question what we sound like when we think it sounds "bad"....
just food for thought,
jd
Joe Cunningham
Yeah, I'm not sure about that ... I'll have to listen a little more closely
when I feel like I am in that zone. I am also considering taping some of my
practice sessions so I can listen to them and hear the mistakes I don't
catch when I am playing.
I suspect it is a bit of an Ostrich-like response on the great days - "Na na
na na na I don't hear you silly mistake I am having WAY too much fun" and
also a bit of what John Sloan mentioned in his post - that on my "hoof-days"
I am thinking about my technique too much.
I am hopeful that taping will allow me to judge such things a little more
critically.
JC
"John Duncan" <jd...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:39760EC8...@aol.com...
Joe Cunningham
"John Sloan" <jsl...@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
news:2E2CE4...@telusplanet.net...
> Studies have shown that if you place a wastebasket in the corner of
> a room, stand about 10 feet away and simply throw wadded up pieces of
> paper into it, you'll hit the basket far more times and with far
> more ease than if you think about and try to control the motions your
> arm and hand are making as you throw the paper.
John,
This is an interesting post.
I just had a thought though about tying the shoes and throwing wads of
paper - I can vaguely recall being a little rugrat terrorizing the neighbors
and trying to learn to tie my shoes (not necessarily at the same time). For
a while I just couldn't get it and would have to get my mom or dad to tie
them. Then I would watch and try and eventually I got it, no problem. I am
sure the same can be said about throwing wads of paper - little kids don't
have the accuracy that an adult has in this regard, but most of us have
thrown stuff for long enough that it isn't much of a problem (I suspect
there is some evolution going on here as well ... being that we are
descendants of brachiating apes, the motion of over-hand throwing is
comparatively easy for us to master - might be tough for other critters.
Not sure if the stufy you mentioned was specifically over-hand throwing or
not).
So not having grown up playing guitar or having a long evolutionary
background of very intricate finger motion, I am in some sense a small
child, struggling across the strings ... sometimes doing quite well other
times being rather crude and inaccurate. Could this struggling with the
technique might be needed to get to the point that you suggest - just
letting go and playing?
Thanks for the post, it got me thinking some ...
JC
J. Hanson
Joe Cunningham <joseph_c...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I wanted to get some advice from the more experienced CGers here ...
>I tend to practice about 1-2 hours a day and more on weekends. Some days it
>seems like my hands are just gliding along on their own, every through the
>more difficult sections of a piece - I don't want to get metaphysical here,
>but I tend to get a tunnel vision in a way on these days - people come into
>my room and I don't even notice them. Other days I seem to have hoofs
>attached to my wrists (keeping the barnyard theme) - I can't get good tone,
>I keep making silly mistakes, etc ...
>
>So my question is ... what would you suggest on those hoof-days? Should I
>continue struggling or put down the instrument and calmly walk away and read
>a book or go for a walk? Is it better to practice through a piece or switch
>to exercises?
>Thanks,
>JC
I think that this is a tough question because there is no one
right answer and some of the answers are difficult to explain,
but I will try . . .
The key here may be to find the REASON behind why one is playing
badly.
I would suggest in general to become playful, explorative, and
search for the answer. I don't know how to be more specific than
that except to say follow your instincts. Yes, you might
concentrate more on exercises, or do something different with a
simple piece. Perhaps exaggerate something.
. . . or maybe you are burnt out and you need a day off . . .
Do you perform? You might use a bad day to practice performing on
a bad day. Run though a performance without stopping and do the
best that you can. The mark of a great artist or performer in any
field is the ability to do a competent job even on a bad day.
. . . or maybe just take a walk . . .
chu...@alltel.net
John Sloan <jsl...@telusplanet.net> wrote:
> chu...@alltel.net wrote:
> >
All I am saying is that there are days when the synapses are not
necessarily functioning together smoothly. What you are describing is a
complete breakdown.
We also automatically amplify our perception of "performance" at times.
I don't know how many times I have performed vocally or on the stage and
felt that "it" just wasn't there only to have critical comrades really
feel it was a special or particularly good performance. We are not
always our own best judges.
Karen
> > Well, we always called it "the droppsies" in my family. There do
seem
> > to be times when you drop things a lot. Just like days when you
screw
> > up speaking and get tongue tied. Don't know if it's related or not.
>
> I doubt it. For instance, how long do the droppsies last?
> Are you dropping things for hours at a time? After flubbing
> a few words are you then unable to speak properly again for
> several hours or days? This is what guitar students are
> complaining about.
>
> John Slo
JamieWG
As with many athletic activities, consistency is always the last thing to come.
My advice: stick to the plan. Stay on the train and you will eventually arrive
at your destination. Don't let a bad day throw you off track and result in a
change of game plan. Record yourself once a week, and formulate your plan for
the following week by listening to your tape, not basing a practice routine on
a bad day.
When I hit a bad day, I just practice a little slower to minimize mistakes and
keep my hands relaxed. The next day things are usually vastly improved.
Best wishes,
Jamie
Jamie W. Grossman
Intermediate Classical Guitar Repertoire Favorites Homepage:
http://www.maui.net/~rtadaki/intcgrep.html
Julian Lewis
> bringing it up. Very important point. It raises an interesting
> question: if our technique is not as objectively bad as we subjectively
> believe on some days, what interferes with our ability to perceive
> it objectively? I'm not sure I have a clear answer. Perhaps
> there are many reasons.
That's an easy one, for me to answer. I don't listen to what I am
playing
properly. The word "listen" is a very loaded word. Its more akin to feeling
ahead of what you are going to play before playing it. When I do this I
have a good day, when I just move my finger around I have a bad day.
Sometimes I get very depressed and wonder if there is enough music in
me, to come out, it feels like the well has gone dry. I guess I will never
be a really good player, but can I be content with my limited talent. Yes
if I am having fun, I don't want to earn money from guitar playing.
William Jennings
John Duncan wrote:
"Maybe the hoof days really represent where we are but we just
don't notice it because
we go into automatic pilot through much of our practice time."
"Automatic Pilot !!!!". This equals kamikaze pilot with
the guitar. It's about raising you're awareness and not killing it.
We know what we sound like more or less. It's that sound that brought us
here to begin with. The more aware and intune you are the better
you sound. This gives you energy to work more and better, but it is work.
Hello there,You know there are definately times when everything you do doesn't sound right,
etc. The only thing i would question though is: on the days when everything is
going "right" and you sound great.....is this truly the case? Or are we less
critical on these days and in a good mood or not listening as carefully? Maybe
the hoof days really represent where we are but we just don't notice it becuase
we go into automatic pilot through much of our practice time.
I'm just saying hypothetically speaking here. So on your next great day, ask
yourself...is it that i am playing well or am i not listening carefully? It
seems we only question what we sound like when we think it sounds "bad"....
just food for thought,
jd
chu...@alltel.net
tribute all week to a retired piano professor. He had an interesting
story/theory I think applies here. He had a student playing a Beethoven
sonata, perfectly noteworthy but very square. He gave them a lecture
about feeling the music from the heart etc. The student commenced again
and actually came to have tears of emotion feeling the music but the
music still sounded square. He said it was then he began to realize that
you can feel all the "music" in your soul that you want, but you must
know how to use the fingers to communicate it. I have a feeling that
this is somewhat another grey area. Some people can automatically
"translate", if you will, to their fingers the sense of the music and
others may have to go through a separate process and teach the fingers
what to do to convey the sense and emotion of music. Thoughts?
Karen
In article <8l9o3h$bjf$1...@sunnews.cern.ch>,
Rui Prior
<chu...@alltel.net> wrote in message news:8la68v$q2p$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> I heard a most interesting piece on Public Radio today. They are doing a
> tribute all week to a retired piano professor. He had an interesting
> story/theory I think applies here. He had a student playing a Beethoven
> sonata, perfectly noteworthy but very square. He gave them a lecture
> about feeling the music from the heart etc. The student commenced again
> and actually came to have tears of emotion feeling the music but the
> music still sounded square. He said it was then he began to realize that
> you can feel all the "music" in your soul that you want, but you must
> know how to use the fingers to communicate it. I have a feeling that
> this is somewhat another grey area. Some people can automatically
> "translate", if you will, to their fingers the sense of the music and
> others may have to go through a separate process and teach the fingers
> what to do to convey the sense and emotion of music. Thoughts?
This is very true. I would say even more: feeling too much the music in your
soul while you're playing may negatively affect your performance.
IMO, a player should first have a perfect understanding of what the music
has to say, and then how to play (mechanics) the piece in order to
communicate that to the audience. When performing, a musician shoul be a bit
like an actor: it's not what he feels, but what the audience feels that
matters.
Rui Prior
Kilian
> I have a feeling that
> this is somewhat another grey area. Some people can automatically
> "translate", if you will, to their fingers the sense of the music and
> others may have to go through a separate process and teach the fingers
> what to do to convey the sense and emotion of music. Thoughts?
>
And then there are the poor souls like me who can feel it, can hear it
in their heads, but cannot get the fingers to play it. Very
frustrating, especially when I *know* what needs to be done.
Sr. Kilian
Julian Lewis
"Kilian" <srki...@juno.com> wrote in message news:397A84...@juno.com...
why I have tough practice days, I am convinced even more that the problem
is about listening. People train their ears to accept horrible noises like
squeaks, buzzes, poor tone, bad phrasing etc etc etc. It seems to me that
guitar players are very guilty of ignoring the horrible noises they make.
To practice correctly, we must listen to what we are playing, and not
tolerate mistakes, rather than the common practice of "masturbation with
guitar".
What drives me into depression is the endless circle of repeated mistakes.
Julian
Sam Culotta
mistakes<<
I feel (and share) your pain, Julian.
But I sometimes I feel we are too hard on ourselves.
This is, after all, a devilishly difficult undertaking.
Consider the many variables involved in producing one scintillating note
anywhere on the fingerboard: the multitude of locations within even one fret
upon which the fickle fingertip might land, the variety of angles at which
it might address the string, the almost infinite variations of pressure it
might apply, the dynamics its slightest movement might impart.
And then there's the right hand; the nail/flesh thing, the "attack" issue,
the articulation, knuckle...etc.
Not to mention the mechanical attributes or delimiting characteristics of
the instrument itself.
I know for a fact that it is very difficult to play _any_ instrument well,
but there are times when I envy the pianist who, to produce one beautiful
note must only choose one variation between piano and forte and plunk. Ah!
I live for those moments, those transcendent moments, when it comes out
right. The important thing is that you care enough to continue. The process
itself is much of the reward.
Regards,
Sam
"Julian Lewis" <Julian...@cern.ch> wrote in message
news:8lh0ct$h4o$1...@sunnews.cern.ch...
Joe Cunningham
Yes I agree. Despite having a hoof-day on Saturday, I came back on Sunday
and tried to relax more and follow John Sloan's advice and let go of the
technique. It wasn't a magical moment, but I really played much better. I
made fewer of the silly, repeating mistakes - especially when I didn't
mentally tense up about a difficult section (Oh no here it comes!). When it
happened, I just let the fingers go and they seemed to do much better than
when I concentrated too hard the previous day.
I think Sunday made the difficulty of Saturday all the more worth it. So
I'll keep calmer and try to increase the number of decent days and keep the
technique focus to a few days a week - I feel I still need to struggle to
make sure the technique is there when I need it.
JC
"Sam Culotta" <culot...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:v13f5.131$JX4....@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net...
John Wasak
check out Madeline Bruser's insightful book, "The Art of Practicing" .
JW
Bob Ashley
> Anyone interested in more reading on the subject of practicing might want to
> check out Madeline Bruser's insightful book, "The Art of Practicing" .
John, is there anything in particular in Bruser's book that you found
especially helpful or surprising? I ask this because I leafed through her
book last summer and I was rather disappointed with my interpretation that
she was rehearsing platitudes. No bold theses, no lights came on for me.
What does this interpretation overlook or underestimate?
Regards,
Rib
John Wasak
Well Rib, I suppose that there are any number of different views about this
book, but I thought that I'd mention it since it's very possible that some
in this NG or thread might not be aware of it.
I found it to be worthwhile because I believe that the underlying theses of
the book is about turning what many see as a task, ie., daily practice, into
a more joyful, contemplative, and even creative experience. I think that
you're correct in your estimation that the book presents nothing really new
but I think it serves as a source book, a collection of thoughts about the
physical and psychological aspects of practicing coalesced into one easily
readable book. I felt that the book has the power to inspire where other
books on this subject have seemed, to me, to fall short of this.
I just feel that anyone questioning their current practice habits, which is
what seems to be going on in this thread, might find the book useful to
varying degrees.
JW
Bob Ashley
> Bob Ashley wrote:
> > On Mon, 24 Jul 2000, John Wasak wrote:
> >
> > > Anyone interested in more reading on the subject of practicing might
> want to
> > > check out Madeline Bruser's insightful book, "The Art of Practicing" .
> >
> > John, is there anything in particular in Bruser's book that you found
> > especially helpful or surprising? I ask this because I leafed through her
> > book last summer and I was rather disappointed with my interpretation that
> > she was rehearsing platitudes. No bold theses, no lights came on for me.
> > What does this interpretation overlook or underestimate?
> >
>
> Well Rib, I suppose that there are any number of different views about this
> book, but I thought that I'd mention it since it's very possible that some
> in this NG or thread might not be aware of it.
Right, good idea. I wouldn't want my complacency to steer anyone clear
from this book.
John Wasak wrote:
> I found it to be worthwhile because I believe that the underlying theses of
> the book is about turning what many see as a task, ie., daily practice, into
> a more joyful, contemplative, and even creative experience. I think that
> you're correct in your estimation that the book presents nothing really new
> but I think it serves as a source book, a collection of thoughts about the
> physical and psychological aspects of practicing coalesced into one easily
> readable book. I felt that the book has the power to inspire where other
> books on this subject have seemed, to me, to fall short of this.
Yes, you've jogged my memory. Indeed, Bruser's attempt does aim for an
attitudinal shift in her readers, from viewing practice as work or
willpower application to something more 'contemplative', borrowing your
word for it. Still, I wonder sometimes if we in the west have
over-embraced what might be called the 'Zen Industry'.
John Wasak wrote:
> I just feel that anyone questioning their current practice habits, which is
> what seems to be going on in this thread, might find the book useful to
> varying degrees.
I suppose each of us is aware 'to varying degrees' of some deficiency in
our practice habits. Me, I've tried almost everything, some approaches
more assiduously than others. But if could distill my own personal
conclusions about this into a two-word rubric it would be:
Show up.
Millions of people 'start' learning the guitar, but few keep 'showing up'
for practice. I find the attrtion rate staggering, destabilizing. The
normative presciption of 'show up' implies that time invested, recurrently
and consistently, is more central to success than any other factor. Like
accumulating pennies, the vessel of savings, or in our case, the
methodology one puts one's stock into is secondary to the actual showing
up to make the daily deposit. Sadly, most people are more concerned about
the container than the thing contained and so they stop showing up when
the container's novelty wears off. Fortunately, most participants here
don't have this problem, but in a wider perspective which takes in the
general population we are a few grains of undissolved sand.
And in Zen, showing up for meditation overstands any delusory caprice
about what it's objective might, should, or worst of all, must be.
So, let me echo your sentiment which encourages others to find inspiration
wherever they will. Bruser's might well be an open gate for some.
Regards,
Rib
chu...@alltel.net
How true. When I am having difficulty, particularly with a new piece
that has big stetches or awkward shifts for me, before I get too
disgusted I go back and play "Guardame..." and think back to when parts
of that just seemed impossible. But day by day, wonder of wonders, it
got better! Not only did it get better, it got fluid and lovely and I
didn't even see it coming. So I use it as a reminder that someday, this
blasted, bloody, damn barre leading into a run, or this impossible shift
etc. will flow like honey - if I just show up and work on it. (of
course, this implies not wanting to be there, but that is not true.
Practicing is my reward most days for being a good girl and going to
work work).
On a slightly different vein, but something I feel like sharing, my cats
are my true "barometer". If I am playing lousily, they leave the room in
complete disgust. If I am playing well, they settle down by my chair or
even play nearby. The minute I start buzzing, it's like I'm hitting them
with an electric shock and they look like cartoon characters as they
leave the room, vibrating each time I buzz a fret. It's pretty
hysterical and it usually indicates I need a break. I wonder who they
were in a former life?
Karen
Like
> accumulating pennies, the vessel of savings, or in our case, the
> methodology one puts one's stock into is secondary to the actual
showing
> up to make the daily deposit. Sadly, most people are more concerned
about
> the container than the thing contained and so they stop showing up
when
> the container's novelty wears off. Fortunately, most participants
here
> don't have this problem, but in a wider perspective which takes in the
> general population we are a few grains of undissolved sand.
>
> And in Zen, showing up for meditation overstands any delusory caprice
> about what it's objective might, should, or worst of all, must be.
>
> So, let me echo your sentiment which encourages others to find
inspiration
> wherever they will. Bruser's might well be an open gate for some.
>
> Regards,
>
> Rib
>
>
chu...@alltel.net
mastered "Guardame" by any means, but it is the Ephiphony piece for me
where I went, "Oh! I CAN do this."
Karen
In article <8lkbgq$o45$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
John Wasak
>
> Yes, you've jogged my memory. Indeed, Bruser's attempt does aim for an
> attitudinal shift in her readers, from viewing practice as work or
> willpower application to something more 'contemplative', borrowing your
> word for it. Still, I wonder sometimes if we in the west have
> over-embraced what might be called the 'Zen Industry'.
>
Yes, the "Zen Industry", as you call it, has a definite foothold in the
self-help section of bookstores. Even Bruser's subtitle, "A Guide to Making
Music from the Heart", has a definite tang of "New Agey-ness" about it.
But I'm not so sure if this "over-embrace" is to most people like a Bear
Hug, or, more possibly, an occasional caress, a nice idea to brush up
against from time to time when the self seems to need some help.
> But if could distill my own personal
> conclusions about this into a two-word rubric it would be:
>
> Show up.
>
> Millions of people 'start' learning the guitar, but few keep 'showing up'
> for practice. I find the attrtion rate staggering, destabilizing. The
> normative presciption of 'show up' implies that time invested, recurrently
> and consistently, is more central to success than any other factor.
>
Absolutely. Like Woody Allen said, "Eighty percent of success is showing
up." I've found that, even if it's a day that I may not be so much in the
mood to practice, once I sit down with the guitar in my hands, it's like
I've just raised the sails and the winds are suddenly blowing out of the
Northwest, carrying me through for hours. That simple act, showing up and
putting the guitar in my hands, has taken me along farther in my guitar
playing than any other.
JW
Sam Culotta
> mood to practice, once I sit down with the guitar in my hands, it's like
> I've just raised the sails and the winds are suddenly blowing out of the
> Northwest, carrying me through for hours. <<
IMO that spotlights the issue exactly. To second what Bob and you have
already proffered, much of the challenge of practice is getting oneself to
sit down and begin. If I can just open the case and get a whiff of that
aromatic cedar and pick up my guitar and cradle it in my arms, I'm well on
my way.
I too read the Bruser book and found the "Zen" aspect a bit overdone, but
did find some new and helpful insights in her "enjoyment of practice"
approach. The point for me is that since I seldom perform for anyone but
myself, "practice" really is "playing" and must provide both training and
pleasure.
Sam
"John Wasak" <mr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:uijf5.9030$ga2.2...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Jeff Gower
> The
> normative presciption of 'show up' implies that time invested, recurrently
> and consistently, is more central to success than any other factor. Like
> accumulating pennies, the vessel of savings, or in our case, the
> methodology one puts one's stock into is secondary to the actual showing
> up to make the daily deposit.
I can't overemphasize how much I agree with this statement.
If you are a performer (have a regular gig schedule), you simply can NOT
afford to have those horrible "off days" - yes, like another wise poster
wrote, one of the signs of a topnotch performer is to be able to work
through those inevitable now-and-then bad nights and make the performance
effective anyway. Still, who wants to have to worry about such things?
I used to have those mysterious off-today, on-tomorrow type of practice
sessions, and they'd plague me with worry that I'd have one on a gig night
- until I decided to focus on the most important thing of all:
CONSISTENCY. Daily practise, even if it is nothing more than an hour of
improvisational doodling, is essential to overcoming those miserably
confusing and frustrating off-days. Almost without fail, if I "show up"
on a daily basis, my performance level will at least be very satisfying
and oftentimes I will have those "like-butter" days where everything just
glides along like magic. I rarely have to worry about bad-gigs anymore,
so long as I adhere to the consistency model I have set up for myself.
But sure enough, go a few days without "showing up", and dangit if I don't
have to spend twice as many days getting back up to speed.
Consistency is the key.
My very humble personal opinion,
Jeff
--
Jeff Gower - Quality Individual
http://www.jeffgower.com
Bob Ashley
_snip_
> I too read the Bruser book and found the "Zen" aspect a bit overdone, but
> did find some new and helpful insights in her "enjoyment of practice"
> approach. The point for me is that since I seldom perform for anyone but
> myself, "practice" really is "playing" and must provide both training and
> pleasure.
One thing I like about Aaron Shearer is that he is unequivocal,
unswerving, and succinct about what he argues is the purpose of learning
the guitar--that is, to share its music with others.
Aiming for performance, even if it's modest, like say playing something at
your grandmother's 50th wedding anniversary party or at the old folks home
or in the backyard with neighbours behind the fence, seems to enact a
positive transmogrification. The 'closet' guitarist 'coming out' is like
having the great stone entombing Jesus rolled away. The next step is
ascension.
I know about this because I was a guitar masterbator for many years and
only in the last year or so started to play a little publicly. The first
few times playing socially is like those first few cigarettes; they'll get
you hooked on the habit. I never get tiring of saying also that our own
Paul McGuffin was an important lever for me, encouraging me, sending me
music by the great Howard Heitmeyer, my personal musical transmogrifier.
Encouragement is gold. We need give away more gold.
"Attention: The Surgeon-General warns that playing the guitar in
performance is addictive"
Easier said than done, this performance stuff, I realize. A minimum level
of expertise is demanded for even the most modest venue. And too, even
trying to reach that first floor, for some, it is a long, long climb from
the beginner's basement.
I can't imagine anyone who has performed complaining that they should have
been better off had they remained in the beginner's basement, damp, cold,
low-ceilings, playing with and by themselves in the dark.
Shearer has a cogent thesis, to my mind.
Regards,
Rib
Bob Ashley
> I can't overemphasize how much I agree with this statement.
Gee, most often my suggesions are met with (proper) incredulous
bewilderment! I shall 'bask' in your light today.
Jeff Gower wrote:
_snip_
> I used to have those mysterious off-today, on-tomorrow type of practice
> sessions, and they'd plague me with worry that I'd have one on a gig night
> - until I decided to focus on the most important thing of all:
> CONSISTENCY. Daily practise, even if it is nothing more than an hour of
> improvisational doodling, is essential to overcoming those miserably
> confusing and frustrating off-days. Almost without fail, if I "show up"
> on a daily basis, my performance level will at least be very satisfying
> and oftentimes
Yes, this idea of the efficacy of 'improvisational doodling' finds a
friendly analogy among writers who 'free-write' or poets who 'doodle' in
words endlessly just get their discursive engines primed. Too, it is
prescription of some writers to wanna-be writers to write something,
anything, every day.
>I will have those "like-butter" days where everything just
> glides along like magic. I rarely have to worry about bad-gigs anymore,
> so long as I adhere to the consistency model I have set up for myself.
> But sure enough, go a few days without "showing up", and dangit if I don't
> have to spend twice as many days getting back up to speed.
> Consistency is the key.
Well said. Perhaps, in this place, consistency often falls indistinct in
the shadow of technique because for many participants consistency is one
those supposedly self-evident platitudes, a presumed, but tacit requisite.
It goes without saying, so to speak.
But one of the reasons the same posters keep 'showing up' here day in,
year out, then, is maybe that the habitus of consistency has been firmly
established. We don't read threads entitled "How do I motivate myself to
practice". Many of us do show up consistently in both places--the practice
studio *and* the barnyard. No cobwebs there or here. Although 'websites',
like yours, Jeff, index the idea that some of just can't get enough
'showing up' for anything to do with guitar. It's a good thing too.
If little else, I think most individuals in this RMCG group share this
habitus in varying degrees from intense committment to more relaxed but
still regular routines. By contrast, if one loses desire and interest in
practice, in showing up, it follows that motivation to discuss of our
common pursuit of improved practice will also fall into abeyance. These
posters take holidays in the barnyard, then leave to return to their usual
habitat of habits. Some leave their litter, kill the trees and fish.
We have a consistency here of consistent player/posters and also a
transient migrant population guitar 'tourists'. It's like here, in Nova
Scotia, we get millions of tourists enamoured of those quaint, little,
fishing villages dotted along our coast. They love it, but 99.9.% could
never 'live' it. Snapshot encounters is all.
But like good guitarists, I imagine, good fishermen work hard, work
consistent, everyday, in weather foul or fair. Loving it, the life, all
the while.
Regards,
Rib
Julian Lewis
> I suppose each of us is aware 'to varying degrees' of some deficiency in
> our practice habits. Me, I've tried almost everything, some approaches
> conclusions about this into a two-word rubric it would be:
>
> Show up.
>
Hmmm,
surely one of the (my) problems, I speak as a beginner, is over showing up.
My teacher says better to practice 5 minutes a day with full concentration
than all day without it. The longer we practice, the more tired we get, the
more we tend to make mistakes, the more we practice mistakes...... the
more we train our ears to accept poor playing.
To acquire new skills, and make progress, there is a counter intuitive
attitude, don't practices too much, don't grit your teeth and dig in, be
content
with VERY short correct sessions. Having a tough day is nothing short of
practising when it would be better to stop. Overpractising is bad. Sometimes
its better not to show up.
Julian
Bob Ashley
Well, Julian you point to another spoke in the wheel opposite 'quantity'
or time invested, that is, the 'quality' of practice.
There is some wisdom, I think, in your teacher's caution about
'overpracticing', especially for a beginner. In weight-training, too,
beginners are urged to 'go easy' else run into the brick wall they call
'overtraining'. It's effect, besides enormous fatigue, is retrogression,
not progression, of muscle development. As a beginner you are trying to
establish the habit moreso than trying to elaborate upon or expand an
existing routines. Elaboration, experimentation, elevated musical demands,
curiosity about new music or techniques takes up practice time. Better
developed skills in partnership with solid foundational experience allows
the seasoned player to practice much longer than most beginners could hope
to do profitably and enjoyably.
So, yes, as you suggest, "the longer we practice the more tired we get",
but endurance, I'd offer, is a permanent resident in the experienced
player, but a fragile house guest in the beginner student. This veers from
my point, however, and the point of your teacher, that we have to at least
'show up' consistently, if but for 5 minutes. Quantity and quality of
practice seem to me be something a little different from the simple rubric
just 'showing up' everyday.
You also mention days off as a good thing. I agree. But the very notion of
'days off' implies its opposite, that is, the establishment of a regular,
routinized 'work week'. The former is a day, maybe two, but the latter is
5 or 6 days. Let us raise the ante now.
A day off, from my perch, is punctuation. Practice days are all the runs
of nouns, verbs, prepositions, and phrases. We call it a 'sentence', a
voluntary and happy entry to the line-up at 'death row'. Now and then
experienced inmates take a day-pass, but mainly our lives are lived behind
those barres.
...moan
Regards,
Rib
Bob Ashley
> Bob Ashley wrote:
> >
> > One thing I like about Aaron Shearer is that he is unequivocal,
> > unswerving, and succinct about what he argues is the purpose of learning
> > the guitar--that is, to share its music with others.
John Sloan wrote:
> Telling people *why* they should play the guitar, for what
> purpose they should learn it, goes beyond Mr. Shearer's
> pedagogic prerogative, IMO.
Well, in the narrowest, most democratic sense of individual freedoms and
tolerance, your point, John, is unassailable. Of course, no one should
tell anyone *why* they should play the guitar. My (mis)representation is
probably to blame for the unsavory 'tone'.
In the broader sense, though, whose perspective takes in the recurring
features of our musico-historico-cultural landscape, Shearer's rhetoric
carries some force. The principle of charity should permit us to assign
genuine, well-meaning intentionality to Shearer's philosophical urgings.
I don't think he's just being 'bossy'. I think that is a false imputation
of motives.
My position on this is admittedly partisan because I'm one of those who
believes that my own sense of purpose playing the guitar found itself
positively elevated, no, elated, by discovering the experience of
performance. It holds that I may someday find reconciliation between both
my needs as a private individual and my needs as a social creature, a
member of a community. Performance, for me, approaches the idea of a
fusion, a merger, between these poles between self and other.
As inarguable as your criticism of Shearer's retailing the performance
purpose is in one sense, it is likewise an overarching reality that music
has always been a *social* fact, a *public* possession, a *cultural*
endowment, a *communal* resource of communication. It lends cogency to his
argument, if not congeniality points. I don't claim we should not
ventilate other purposes apart from performing, only that among the array
of *possible* purposes, performance should occupy the pole position. I
failed to make that clear in the post your are responding to.
Regards,
Rib
Jeff Gower
<jsl...@telusplanet.net> wrote:
> Sometimes, though, it helps to take a break. When I
> have a bad day, feeling tired or whatever, I just put
> my guitar away and do something else. I find that when
> I come back to it later, rested, I often play as well
> as or better than I did before.
>
> Now that I'm doing a weekly gig I can't stand to practice
> every day or I go stale. I only do about one or two long
> practice sessions (2 hours) a week now and I think it
> helps me to be fresh every Wednesday night.
Wow, that just shows how different we are, I guess. I WILL say this,
however: as I get older, the consistency thing is all the more important -
I just don't have the physical precision and strength I had 20 years ago
and need to work harder to keep in shape. When I was younger, I seemed to
be able to manage better with less practice. But these days, I REALLY
notice when I miss a day. If I only practiced one or two days per week,
my gig performances would suffer dramatically - perhaps no one else would
notice, but I sure would! Ha! And while bad performances are a struggle,
nothing beats a rip-roaringly smooth and right-on performance - these are
my goal.
But each person will have his/her own recipe for practicing - the key is
to find out what each of us needs to do to avoid or at least minimize the
occurrance of those dreaded off-days.
Jeff Gower
<Pine.GSO.3.95.iB1.0.100...@halifax.chebucto.ns.ca>,
Bob Ashley <ax...@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jul 2000, Jeff Gower wrote:
>
> > I can't overemphasize how much I agree with this statement.
>
> Gee, most often my suggesions are met with (proper) incredulous
> bewilderment! I shall 'bask' in your light today.
Well, Bob, I often have to read your posts a coupla times just to get what
you're saying! Sometimes I just give up.
And I am a frequent reader of symbolist poetry, too!
So, when your prose does occasionally break through, and I agree with it,
I will continue to let you know.
;-)
Frivolously yours,
Jeff Gower
<Julian...@cern.ch> wrote:
> surely one of the (my) problems, I speak as a beginner, is over showing up.
> My teacher says better to practice 5 minutes a day with full concentration
> than all day without it. The longer we practice, the more tired we get, the
> more we tend to make mistakes, the more we practice mistakes...... the
> more we train our ears to accept poor playing.
> To acquire new skills, and make progress, there is a counter intuitive
> attitude, don't practices too much, don't grit your teeth and dig in, be
> content
> with VERY short correct sessions. Having a tough day is nothing short of
> practising when it would be better to stop. Overpractising is bad. Sometimes
> its better not to show up.
Perhaps these are good points - I certainly understand where your teacher
is coming from. But from my own experience, I've had MANY practice
sessions that began as "off-day" struggles and after a half hour or so of
sticking with it, ended up as "on-day" rewarding and beneficial sessions.
Sometimes, for me, gritting my teeth and digging in are exactly what I
need to snap out of it.
Of course, I also see the value of getting up and trying again later.
My main input in this discussion is related to people who gig frequently
enough to not have the luxury of being able to just walk away from
off-days, and how to overcome them.
John Wasak
Julian Lewis wrote:
> Hmmm,
> surely one of the (my) problems, I speak as a beginner, is over showing
up.
> My teacher says better to practice 5 minutes a day with full concentration
> than all day without it. The longer we practice, the more tired we get,
the
> more we tend to make mistakes, the more we practice mistakes...... the
> more we train our ears to accept poor playing.
> To acquire new skills, and make progress, there is a counter intuitive
> attitude, don't practices too much, don't grit your teeth and dig in, be
> content
> with VERY short correct sessions. Having a tough day is nothing short of
> practising when it would be better to stop. Overpractising is bad.
Sometimes
> its better not to show up.
>
It seems to me that it's always a good thing to show up for practice. Until
you actually sit down with the guitar in your hands and start to play you
can't really be sure whether you're going to have a "bad day" or not. There
have been any number of times that I thought I wasn't in the mood to
practice but when I sat down with the guitar and began to play I realized I
actually was in the mood and found myself playing for far longer a time than
I initially thought I would.
I think the 'having a tough day' phenomenon is nothing more than the
physical manifestation of the unfocused mind. Attention is paramount to
good practice. In this sense, when attention wanders, yet we still play on,
this could very well be seen as 'overpractice'. Practice sessions are more
likely to yield better results when split into certain alotments of time
rather than doggedly continuing to play for hours upon hours even though
attention has waned. The length of time that attention can be focused will
vary from person to person, but awareness of, and experience with, the idea
of focused, attentive practice will have something to do with just how long
that time can extend.
JW
larry...@my-deja.com
>I don't claim we should not ventilate other purposes apart from
> performing, only that among the array
> of *possible* purposes, performance should occupy the pole position.
> I failed to make that clear in the post your are responding to.
No Rib, You are very clear and this was a very nice post. I just read
something very similar about art in a textbook called Artforms by Duane
Preble. I think he talked of much the same thing that art can be
personal and also social. I highly recommend this book to anybody
seeking a good book on art and its place in our world. A partial list
from Amazon.com of the table of contents is revealing:
The Nature of Art
What Is Art?
Is Art a Necessity?
Purposes and Functions of Art
Biography: Jazz, Memory, and Metaphor Romare Bearden
Awareness, Creativity, and Communication
Visual Thinking
Perception and Awareness
Looking and Seeing
Aesthetics, Art, and Beauty
Art and Experience
Creativity
Essay: Early Encounters with the Artist Within
Untrained and Folk Artists
Trained Artists
Visual Communication
Art and Appearances
Form and Content
Seeing and Responding to Form
Doc was right that there is much about our eyes and vision in our
music. The book is about the visual arts but it does address the
relation of visual arts to music and other arts including some comments
about the written word.
Julian Lewis
> I think the 'having a tough day' phenomenon is nothing more than the
> physical manifestation of the unfocused mind. Attention is paramount to
> good practice. In this sense, when attention wanders, yet we still play
on,
> this could very well be seen as 'overpractice'. Practice sessions are
more
> likely to yield better results when split into certain alotments of time
> rather than doggedly continuing to play for hours upon hours even though
> attention has waned. The length of time that attention can be focused
will
> vary from person to person, but awareness of, and experience with, the
idea
> of focused, attentive practice will have something to do with just how
long
> that time can extend.
>
> JW
>
You have hit the nail on the head. I find the way to increase my
attention
and focus the mind is to actively to listen to myself playing, with a
musical
judgement, even if I am only practicing scales.
Last night I had a very good practice session, although I made many mistakes
I didn't let them BOTHER me, I was concentrating on the piece (Dowlands
Preludium)
which is very beautiful, and on the music. As I did this I found myself
making
less mistakes because I was more relaxed, infact before the difficult fast
sections
I actively listened and paid extra attention to relaxing before entering the
section
rather than tensing up as I usually do... (Oh no here comes the difficult
bit, tense tense.. )
I must admit that thinking about the problem of practice, and this thread in
particular,
has had the effect of producing a revelation in me, some Penney has dropped.
I think also that we should try not to be so hard on ourselves, its non
productive,
and in my case self criticism has often destroyed my practice sessions
completely,
and even made matters worse than they were already.
1) Be confident and relaxed and calm.
2) Listen
3) Concentrate
4) Relax some more
5) Don't MIND making mistakes as long as you make music
6) Don't swear at yourself
7) Work on difficult sections by relaxation as well as repetition
8) If you cant hear the music, its certain no one else can
9) ... well perhaps Kent Luteman should start a new list...
Julian
Sam Culotta
This is a tough one for me.
As where Karen has her cats to evaluate
performance, I have my dogs, both of whom slink out of the room the moment I
begin swearing.
My wife just comes into my study room and threatens to yank the guitar out
of my hands.
This has led to some interesting face-offs :-)
But the point is very well taken. Once I grow angry I become belligerent
with myself and what should be pleasure becomes a duel to the death. I
should know enough to put down the guitar at that point but my compulsion to
win (win what, over whom???) usually ruins the session.
I don't bring this up to expose another of my all too numerous character
flaws, but to support the notions expressed here regarding the need to relax
and enjoy the practice process. The term is "play" the guitar, not "work"
the guitar.
Sam
"Julian Lewis" <Julian...@cern.ch> wrote in message
news:8loq12$hp4$1...@sunnews.cern.ch...
Julian Lewis
angry and pissed off and tense, then you almost certainly will
sound like you feel for others listening to you.
Music has to come from inside you, and negative emotions block
the process turning off the tap. Sometimes I simply have nothing
musical to give because I feel empty. Hell knows how a professional
musician can give what he or she doesn't have on an off day, I
guess that they play like machines in this case, emotionally empty,
and their music might be technically correct, but it would be
as empty as they feel.
I have another one ...
10) After each practice spend a couple of minutes evaluating
the session. Good or bad ? If bad then what did you do wrong
and why, if good why was it and how can you do it again ?
Julian
"Sam Culotta" <culot...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:_a%f5.53$NE2....@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net...
chu...@alltel.net
"Julian Lewis" <Julian...@cern.ch> wrote:
> Yes I would guess that if you feel bad while you are playing,
> angry and pissed off and tense, then you almost certainly will
> sound like you feel for others listening to you.
> Music has to come from inside you, and negative emotions block
> the process turning off the tap. Sometimes I simply have nothing
> musical to give because I feel empty. Hell knows how a professional
> musician can give what he or she doesn't have on an off day, I
> guess that they play like machines in this case, emotionally empty,
> and their music might be technically correct, but it would be
> as empty as they feel.
>
> I have another one ...
>
> 10) After each practice spend a couple of minutes evaluating
> the session. Good or bad ? If bad then what did you do wrong
> and why, if good why was it and how can you do it again ?
>
> Julian
>
Here we go with good/bad again. We do not best evaluate ourselves
especially in those terms. Maybe ask only, what can I improve on next
time or what should I concentrate on next time.
Karen
Joe Cunningham
I think this is good advice and why I am beginning to record a few practice
sessions here and there ... at the very least I can listen to it and see
what needs improvement more objectively than when I am actively engaged in
making music - where Julian I think rightly says that the music comes from
inside myself. Even in practice sessions, some of that emotion is carried
over to my evaluation of how I did, and in reality I might be like that
piano student someone mentioned earlier who was weeping with emotion by the
end of the piece, but his teacher could discern no difference in the
playing. By recording, I am able to also take the listener's perspective
and get a sense for how the music comes across.
JC
hipstar
you got to get on the right wavelenght for what you want to do,
go to your album collection and put on some John Mayall, sit back, do
whatever and you'll be suprized as to what comes out of it,
Trippy
hipstar
>You know there are definately times when
> everything you do doesn't sound right, etc.
> The only thing i would question though is: on
> the days when everything is going "right" and
> you sound great.....is this truly the case?
It depends on who is listening and the wavelenght they are on! Alot of
the time your mind is above and beyond most, like your in a band, you
take off into your own realm, think your doing great, get a great big
smile inside of yourself, look up with this grin from ear to ear and the
rest of the band goes, what in the fuck are you doing!!!!
>Or are we less critical on these days and in a
> good mood or not listening as carefully?
> Maybe the hoof days really represent where
> we are but we just don't notice it becuase we
> go into automatic pilot through much of our
> practice time.
The oppisite is also true, on days you think your doing shit, your
actually doing the best you ever did, for instance, after a 4 or 5 day
drunk with some old time friends I havent seen in years, playing music,
eating or drinking is all we did, well to make a long story short, I was
beat, tired and had enough playing as my fingers burned, but the one
friend insisted we record a tune, he drove all that way to eat drink and
be merry, LOL and wanted something to remember the time, so I hooked up
some mics and played with him, it sucked, it sucked real bad, I could
not wait for the song to end, I didnt even try, haphazzardly I just
plucked anything if it was close, by the end, I was so glad it was over,
Others listening said, WOW, that was great, I was like, yea, it sucked,
you should hear me on the days Im on, anyway, about 5 years later, I
went and visted him, and he threw on the tape, Jesus, man was it
great!!!!
just some more food for thought,
>I'm just saying hypothetically speaking here.
> So on your next great day, ask yourself...is it
> that i am playing well or am i not listening
> carefully? It seems we only question what we
> sound like when we think it sounds "bad"....
>just food for thought,
>jd
Trippy
PS, be carefull what you throw in the trash heap, ones mans trash is
anothers treasure, and sometimes, true treasures are thrown away by
accident not knowing the true value at the time,
hipstar
>All I am saying is that there are days when the
> synapses are not necessarily functioning
> together smoothly. What you are describing is
> a complete breakdown. We also automatically
> amplify our perception of "performance" at
> times. I don't know how many times I have
> performed vocally or on the stage and felt that
> "it" just wasn't there only to have critical
> comrades really feel it was a special or
> particularly good performance. We are not
> always our own best judges.
>Karen
I see someone else knows what few do, :-) The hard part is controlling
it.
Trippy
hipstar
>I heard a most interesting piece on Public
> Radio today. They are doing a tribute all week
> to a retired piano professor. He had an
> interesting story/theory I think applies here.
> He had a student playing a Beethoven
> sonata, perfectly noteworthy but very square.
> He gave them a lecture about feeling the
> music from the heart etc. The student
> commenced again and actually came to have
> tears of emotion feeling the music but the
> music still sounded square.
No Comment, surprized? LOL
>He said it was then he began to realize that
> you can feel all the "music" in your soul that
> you want, but you must know how to use the
> fingers to communicate it. I have a feeling that
> this is somewhat another grey area. Some
> people can automatically "translate", if you
> will, to their fingers the sense of the music
> and others may have to go through a
> separate process and teach the fingers what
> to do to convey the sense and emotion of
> music. Thoughts?
>Karen
See my post to Doc in this thread, I dont think I could repeat what I
said there again here, LOL
BTW, yes anybody can learn it, as Doc always said, guitar is a mind
game, more so imo, music is all in the mind, guitar is our choice to
implement it
Trippy
hipstar
>Anyway, getting back to when technique really
> *is* poorer than it was the day before (which, I
> think, is the actual focus of the original post) I
> do believe that over-analyzing and trying too
> hard are things which contribute to this kind of
> inconsistency.
>John Sloan
Let the mind go blank and go from there, your sub-conscious will take
over, another words, dont try hard, you just do it,
and it you cant do that one a moments notice, put on some John Mayall,
:-)
besides, the mind can only hold waves for 90 minuets tops, then it will
move to another wavelenght reguardless for little bit.
Gabbie, LOL
hipstar
>Automatic Pilot !!!!". This equals kamikaze
> pilot with the guitar. It's about raising you're
> awareness and not killing it. We know what
> we sound like more or less. It's that sound
> that brought us here to begin with. The more
> aware and intune you are the better you
> sound. This gives you energy to work more
> and better, but it is work.
what I have found is Automatic Pilot is ok if you are consciously aware
of your sub-conscious, another words, your in full control of the
automatic mode, Letting the mind make the desicion for you but you have
your consciousness implement it
but it is alot of work to get to this level as that hard work which is
implanted into the brain that the sub-conscious uses in the end
LOL, I dont know if that can even be understood what I just said, maybe
thats what you said, interesting concept looking through anothers eyes
none the less, :-)
Trippy
hipstar
>How true. When I am having difficulty,
> particularly with a new piece that has big
> stetches or awkward shifts for me, before I
> get too disgusted I go back and play
> "Guardame..." and think back to when parts of
> that just seemed impossible. But day by day,
> wonder of wonders, it got better! Not only did
> it get better, it got fluid and lovely and I didn't
> even see it coming. So I use it as a reminder
> that someday, this blasted, bloody, damn
> barre leading into a run, or this impossible
> shift etc. will flow like honey - if I just show up
> and work on it. (of course, this implies not
> wanting to be there, but that is not true.
> Practicing is my reward most days for being a
> good girl and going to work work).
>from karen I think
believe it or not, your training your sub-conscious, think about it, :-)
Trippy
hipstar
>This is very true. I would say even more:
> feeling too much the music in your soul while
> you're playing may negatively affect your
> performance. IMO, a player should first have
> a perfect understanding of what the music
> has to say, and then how to play (mechanics)
> the piece in order to communicate that to the
> audience.
No Comment
>When performing, a musician shoul be a bit
> like an actor: it's not what he feels, but what
> the audience feels that matters.
>Rui Prior
Well sorta, but you must be more like the writter more so then the actor
IMO, in the end, get the audience more to your level in mind, get them
to your wavlenght, if they are in your mind set, you can take them on a
journey
the actor is just the medium for the writter to audiance, just as the
guitar is to the music, more so the musician is to the comoser for the
audiance
This doesnt sound right to really what I wanted to say but its close
enough as this is close to a totally another subject line on this
matter.
mind expanding on a thought
Trippy
chu...@alltel.net
mean.
Thanks
Karen
In article
<22493-39...@storefull-158.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
Mark R
If you were stranded on a desert island with your guitar knowing full well you would die soon, with no one ever to hear you play again, would you pick it up and play? Or better yet, would you practice? I'm not sure what my motivations are sometimes, but I know what it feels like to get lost in a piece as I practice it. I love to perform, but I also love to just play. I just can't remember which came first. I believe it was you who said that it was only after you had performed that you appreciated the importance of sharing. Now dig down deep. From the performers point of view, is it really sharing? Can sharing be the "purpose" if it is not the motivation?
Mark
Bob Ashley wrote:
argument, if not congeniality points. I don't claim we should not
ventilate other purposes apart from performing, only that among the array
of *possible* purposes, performance should occupy the pole position. I
failed to make that clear in the post your are responding to.
Regards,
Rib
hipstar
>Please expand on your thought. I am not sure
> I see what you mean.
>Thanks
>Karen
sure thing, about this;
>>believe it or not, your training your
>> sub-conscious, think about it, :-)
>>Trippy
chu...@alltel.net first wrote;
>How true. When I am having difficulty,
>particularly with a new piece that has big
> stetches or awkward shifts for me, before I
> get too disgusted I go back and play
>"Guardame..." and think back to when parts of
> that just seemed impossible. But day by day,
> wonder of wonders, it got better! Not only did
> it get better, it got fluid and lovely and I didn't
> even see it coming. So I use it as a reminder
> that someday, this blasted, bloody, damn
> barre leading into a run, or this impossible
> shift etc. will flow like honey - if I just show up
>and work on it.
the mind knows no limits except what are self imposed,
From reading the above, its your way of lifting any mental barrior from
your sub-conscious, You know you "will" be able to do it, its only a
matter of time and it will flow like honey. Your lifting the block from
your mind.
if you would think, you will never get it, well you never would get it,
but thinking you will, you will
see learning "anything", what you are really doing is teaching your
mind, more so, teaching your sub-conscious, its where all information is
stored to call apon use at anytime you need it, once you truly learn
something, you can allways do it, like riding a bike, or picking a Am
chord,
if you would teach your sub-conscious, you will not ever be able to get
it, well, when ever you try, it you would fail
this is the first basic stages of teaching your sub-conscious, telling
yourself you "will" and can succeed, this lifts most barriors to
learning anything, and allows a place for new info to be stored in the
brain. removes a block or a "I can't" from the sub-conscious and
replaces it with a "I can" or "I will".
>if I just show up and work on it. (of course, this
> implies not wanting to be there, but that is not
> true. Practicing is my reward most days for
> being a good girl and going to work work).
>from karen
Now working is more complex, each of us learns a little differently,
(working=learning how to achive your goal and implementing it at a
moments notice)
lots of great advice goes through this group on how to learn something,
each persons way, is no better or no worse then the others way as long
as the result is the same, truly learned and stored to be called apon at
any time you need it, Like the next song or piece you come apon in the
future with the same type of move, it will come to you naturally once
learned.
Just some ways appear to work more quickly at learning then anothers
way, it can be learned fast or slow, some people learn real fast, others
it takes months to achive the same thing,
but one thing to remember, you can learn things right and learn things
wrong, its whatever you teach yourself in your own mind that will be
used. (like if you learned 2+2=5, well, thats what will be used through
out your life unless replaced with 2+2=4 at a future time,
also, it is just as easy to learn something right as it is wrong, and
also, the longer you do something wrong, the harder it is to replace
with the right way, repetition makes habits sorta if learned to be a
habit, the true goal of it all, making something a habit makes it feel
natural.
if you get in the "habit" of doing a shift, scale, chord or whatever,
golf swing, ect... (right or wrong) then anytime that comes up, it will
just flow like honey from your subconscious, it will be natural
So Karen, you will be a natural, :-)
Trippy
PS, sorry I cant run my spell checker, I lost 2 posts trying and I wont
loose this 3rd one, LOL
chu...@alltel.net
of bed and pick up the guitar immediately, are my BEST practice
days. It is like butter. Talk about flow. I can only assume that this is
because my mind is not cluttered with the workday clap trap that
accumulates, even when I do not feel the day has been stressful at
all. I do believe I will try taking this one step farther now and see if,
when I cannot fit a practice in first thing, I take an amount of time to
clear my mind before I try practicing in the evening, I can achieve
the same thing. I would be interested in anyone elses experiences
this way. (I am sure I am letting myself in for some broadsides on
those who hate the zen and yoga "crap" as they call it, but I had to
share and ask about other experiences. The loins are girded.)
Karen
hipstar
chu...@alltel.net wrote;
>I have noticed another interesting thing. On
> days when I bound out of bed and pick up the
> guitar immediately, are my BEST practice
> days. It is like butter. Talk about flow. I can
> only assume that this is because my mind is
> not cluttered with the workday clap trap that
> accumulates, even when I do not feel the day
> has been stressful at all.
Probably true for you, its also in your mind this way.
>I do believe I will try taking this one step
> farther now and see if, when I cannot fit a
> practice in first thing, I take an amount of time
> to clear my mind before I try practicing in the
> evening, I can achieve the same thing.
Can't hurt, :-)
>I would be interested in anyone elses
> experiences this way.
Ready for some more trippy stuff?, :-) LOL
No, for real though, I have to explain some physics first to understand
what Im about to say, dont worry its real basic stuff
1) speed of sound (slow)
2) speed of light (fast)
3) speed of thought (instantaneous)
And now a quote from your first post on all this
>>it got fluid and lovely and I didn't even see it
>> coming
There is a reason for why that happens, the hard part is controllng it
at will. thats another chapter. :-)
Problem solving works at the speed of thought
See, right now your mind is trying to solve a bunch of problems in your
life, and your not even awhere of it, just one day a answer to a problem
will go Bing!!! And pop into the brain. and alot/most of the times you
were not even thinking of the problem you got your answer to. (you may
have been trying to work on a problem and gave up to make a sandwitch
and counldn't find the Mayo, and the answer came to you) LOL, funny but
true, see you had your mind go blank for that dam Mayo, :-) See, your
mind didn't give up on the original problem, it was still in action, you
just were not awhere of it, reason its called "sub"-conscious.
Now with learning music, this happens all the time, everytime you
pratice a piece, your mind is trying to solve all the problems you have
been having with it, each time if fixes a little bit of it, alot of the
times you were not awhere it even fixed a part, real hard parts, you
catch yourself and try to figue out how you really did it
alot of the times I go into a ozone trance, alot of the times its by
accident Im in this trance, hell, I don't hear anything really, I hear
it but it isnt registering, (Ask my wife, LOL, she says she told me all
kinds of things and I never heard it, LOL) Selective hearing she calls
it, LOL
anyway, back to the program, well, if Im in a piece, with a real hard
part that has been driving me nuts, and I go into one of these ozoned
states, (most of the time I dont even try to, it just happens) for like
30 seconds or so before and during, maybe 10 seconds, could be minuets,
(I have no need for actual time, and dont even know what day it is most
of the time) and next thing you know, hearing the part played right
snaped me out of it, (selective hearing, maybe she has a point, :-) now
I just got to figure out how I did it so I always can do it and move
onto another problem.
alot of the time, the mayo syndrum will happen while Im in the music
mode, I'll be concentrating so hard on a passage that some other
bullshit problem in my life got solved, LOL, the mind didn't give up on
whatever problem you gave it from where ever, it just choose that time
to give you the answer.
So, from my experance and IMO, its not so much clearing the mind of
everything, just clearing the mind at the part or problem area (weather
it be a change, shift, new part Im writting, how to get to the new part,
ect...) most of the time its by accident it gets solved, but in reality,
its not by accident, the sub-conscious solved it for me, and it used all
I learned from my entire life to solve it
>(I am sure I am letting myself in for some
> broadsides on those who hate the zen and
> yoga "crap" as they call it, but I had to share
> and ask about other experiences. The loins
> are girded.)
>Karen
screw them if they do, "do what you like" But im not into the Yoga crap,
LOL then again, I don't see a use for paying guitar with my legs bent
around my head and looking like a pretzel, LOL
But seriously, clearing the mind does work, it is how problems get
solved, its up to you what level you take it to and for what reason and
when to clear the mind and when not to
Im happy not hearing my wife most of the time, sooooooo,,, LOL, and it
works for music, sooooooo...... Im happy, :-)
The ultimate goal from above is to be consciously awhere of your
sub-conscious,
in the end, its all about sub-conscious habits doing what you need on
demand, consciously awhere of what your really doing
Trippy!!!
PS. for stuff faster then the speed of light
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/FTL.html
Oh, and if your driving at the speed of light, and you turn on your
headlghts, what happends?
William Jennings
You noticed something important here:
Art starts when we wake up, if we are artists. If not when
does it start?
It's not like we are just artistic four or five hours a day.
I don't much care for the word artist but can't think of a good replacement
at the moment.
This was the significance of my friend painting his bedroom ceiling. How may of us go to bed and wake up, looking up at a blank canvas.
doc
chu...@alltel.net wrote:
I have noticed another interesting thing. On days when I bound out
of bed and pick up the guitar immediately, are my BEST practice
days. It is like butter. Talk about flow. I can only assume that this is
because my mind is not cluttered with the workday clap trap that
accumulates, even when I do not feel the day has been stressful at
all. I do believe I will try taking this one step farther now and see if,
when I cannot fit a practice in first thing, I take an amount of time to
clear my mind before I try practicing in the evening, I can achieve
the same thing. I would be interested in anyone elses experiences
this way. (I am sure I am letting myself in for some broadsides on
those who hate the zen and yoga "crap" as they call it, but I had to
share and ask about other experiences. The loins are girded.)
Karen
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
chu...@alltel.net
different ways. In fact, this also somewhat applies to my post in
Volume! tonight. It's that "on command" part that takes time in
coming. Athletes call it in "the zone", actors call it "in the moment".
It is the commitment to the idea also that takes the sacrifice and
even when you KNOW that it is there, for many, there is still some
niggling fear that if you DO that, it will be wrong and you have to
start all over. This is where the "stop sign" that doc talked about
comes in. And it is so ingrained in many of us (me included :)) that
we are not even aware when we are thinking of right and wrong,
bad and good. Well, that all made sense to me even if some of you
are thinking I'm a nut! (and let us please skip the entymology of
THAT expression, hee, hee).
chu...@alltel.net
OOPS. etymology. I really should preview these things before I
send them.
K
Sam Culotta
:-)
Sam
<chu...@alltel.net> wrote in message news:8m5bpd$tpb$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
chu...@alltel.net
jou...@texas.net wrote:
>
> --------------4D6D6A78F62656EB0A922B31
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> Chupie,
>
> You noticed something important here:
>
> Art starts when we wake up, if we are artists. If not when does it
start?
> It's not like we are just artistic four or five hours a day. I don't
much
> care for the word artist but can't think of a good replacement at the
moment.
>
> This was the significance of my friend painting his bedroom ceiling.
How may
> of us go to bed and wake up, looking up at a blank canvas.
>
> doc
I was going to tell you and forgot. My dad put stars on my ceiling when
I was growing up. It gives you something to reach for.
Karen
>
> chu...@alltel.net wrote:
>
> > I have noticed another interesting thing. On days when I bound out
> > of bed and pick up the guitar immediately, are my BEST practice
> > days. It is like butter. Talk about flow. I can only assume that
this is
> > because my mind is not cluttered with the workday clap trap that
> > accumulates, even when I do not feel the day has been stressful at
> > all. I do believe I will try taking this one step farther now and
see if,
> > when I cannot fit a practice in first thing, I take an amount of
time to
> > clear my mind before I try practicing in the evening, I can achieve
> > the same thing. I would be interested in anyone elses experiences
> > this way. (I am sure I am letting myself in for some broadsides on
> > those who hate the zen and yoga "crap" as they call it, but I had to
> > share and ask about other experiences. The loins are girded.)
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > Before you buy.
>
> --------------4D6D6A78F62656EB0A922B31
> Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> <!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
> <html>
> <body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFC0" link="#0000FF" vlink="#800080"
alink="#FF00FF">
> <b>Chupie,</b><b></b>
> <p><b>You noticed something important here:</b><b></b>
> <p><b>Art starts when we wake up, if we are artists. If not when
> does it start?</b>
> <br><b>It's not like we are just artistic four or five hours a
day.
> I don't much care for the word artist but can't think of a good
replacement
> at the moment.</b><b></b>
> <p><b>This was the significance of my friend painting his bedroom
ceiling.
> How may of us go to bed and wake up, looking up at a blank
canvas. </b><b></b>
> <p><b>doc</b>
> <p>chu...@alltel.net wrote:
> <blockquote TYPE=CITE>I have noticed another interesting thing. On
days
> when I bound out
> <br>of bed and pick up the guitar immediately, are my BEST practice
> <br>days. It is like butter. Talk about flow. I can only assume that
this
> is
> <br>because my mind is not cluttered with the workday clap trap that
> <br>accumulates, even when I do not feel the day has been stressful at
> <br>all. I do believe I will try taking this one step farther now and
see
> if,
> <br>when I cannot fit a practice in first thing, I take an amount of
time
> to
> <br>clear my mind before I try practicing in the evening, I can
achieve
> <br>the same thing. I would be interested in anyone elses experiences
> <br>this way. (I am sure I am letting myself in for some broadsides on
> <br>those who hate the zen and yoga "crap" as they call it, but I had
to
> <br>share and ask about other experiences. The loins are girded.)
> <p>Karen
> <p>Sent via Deja.com <a
href="http://www.deja.com/">http://www.deja.com/</a>
> <br>Before you buy.</blockquote>
>
> </body>
> </html>
>
> --------------4D6D6A78F62656EB0A922B31--
Vivienne McLaughlin
> Art starts when we wake up, if we are artists. If not when does it
> start?
It doesn't start there. It goes on in sleep, too. I could write epic
novels based on my dreams. Gilgamesh and such.
> It's not like we are just artistic four or five hours a day. I don't
> much care for the word artist but can't think of a good replacement at
> the moment.
I hate that word too. It makes it seem like there are regular folks, and
then there are *dun-du-daaah* --- "ARTISTS"! I never see that much
difference between playing a good set of tennis, writing a good essay,
cooking a good dinner, cleaning a good toilet, or playing a good Villa
Lobos. What makes it good is not me being artsy, it is taking care and
being tender - sympathetic.
Art is sympathy with the thing being done. Everyone can do it, but how
many people have developed this ability? The tendency in human life is
to be cold to a world which treats everyone coldly. That is anti-art.
> This was the significance of my friend painting his bedroom ceiling.
> How may of us go to bed and wake up, looking up at a blank canvas.
My ceilings have popcorn.
V.
chu...@alltel.net
It is also in the way we see everything. I used to be made fun of as a
teenager by my peers, because I would see so much around me that filled
my imagination. I remember watching a very big thunderstorm roll in
towards us over a hill at sunset. It was so magnificent and I burst
out "Oh, can't you just hear bagpipes and sees armies roiling over that
hill!" Well, of course, they thought I was nuts, but it was like being
thrust backwards in time. I could understand, at that moment, why
painters paint and sculpters sculpt and writers write. This has always
happened with me, seeing the past or the impossible in my ordinary
midwest surroundings. It is a true marker of the people who became my
true friends that while they looked at me sideways anytime I pointed
things out like this, THEY finally came to see at least a little of
what I saw. Art is the ordinary taken to the extraordinary.
areiher
your guitare!)
Well ... no government is going to tell us what is beautiful. The
word Artist is a tricky one. In my reading I found this that
might be of interest to the discussion. "By etymology the word
poet means "maker". Artist comes by way of latin from a greek
verb (artuo) which mean to "devise" or "arrange". A composer is
a"putter-together". Evidently the root-idea is human activity
upon material."
.."the fate of this word is strange, for it has, in our usage,
narrowed itself so far as to signify a person who paints or draws
or sculpts. It occasionally refers to performing musicians, When
they shoe exceptional quality; but I think I have never seen it
to composers."
"I do not know whether this etymologically absurd result issued
from a competition among creators, with some groups victoriously
possessing the name and other groups being rebuffed. In any case,
we are sadly lacking a single noun by which to signify every
practitioner of every fine art. "Artist" would have done (if I
dare say so) beautifully."
What are the substitutes? practitioner (beurk!)
Alain
-----------------------------------------------------------
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
areiher
It is from and old book "the Artist in society"
by Barrows Dunham page 67
$1.65 ah! ah! must be a 1960 price
(!)
John Wasak
The term "Art" has developed into an incredibly ambiguous and vague term,
this has made it very innefficient, in terms of language. Everyone, it
seems, has a different answer or perception as to just what exactly Art is.
It's no surprise that many people hate using the words "Art" and "Artists".
Karen's right, I think, to suggest that Art is in the way we see everything.
Maybe Art is Vision. Certainly there have been visionary artists.
JW
larry...@my-deja.com
> It doesn't start there. It goes on in sleep, too.
> Art is sympathy with the thing being done. Everyone can do it, but how
> many people have developed this ability? The tendency in human life is
> to be cold to a world which treats everyone coldly. That is anti-art.
Ah Viv, nice to see you post and nice post it is.
> My ceilings have popcorn.
My mother is an artist and all my life I heard things like "Look at
how that periwinkle looks like a waterfall of powder blue cascading
over the fence between the palms." All 3 of us kids got to paint our
rooms any way we wanted. When my sister had her child she did the same
thing and his room ended up mostly black with splatters of florescent
paint that looked like a weird galaxy. For me, my mother and 2 sisters
the whole world was art. My sister has a gallery in Morro bay. I have
played CG for a lot of artists in return for a work of theirs. I am
blessed to have many original drawings, paintings, photographs, pottery
and even a chess set made of bronze with lost wax. Art has been the
central part of the way I view life even though I now find myself
working in an industry that is mostly devoid of this perspective.
Regor3
>> It doesn't start there. It goes on in sleep, too.
>
>> Art is sympathy with the thing being done. Everyone can do it, but how
>> many people have developed this ability? The tendency in human life is
>> to be cold to a world which treats everyone coldly. That is anti-art.
>
>Ah Viv, nice to see you post and nice post it is.
>
Larry has it right...good to hear from you Viv...I've missed you. I am sure you
have noticed Karen's posts...she seems to be a very capable writer and
thinker...she fits the mold of the better posters..you,RIB, MO,Doc, Sloan and
the ever moral Larry . :-)
Anyway good to see ya!
Roger Laird
Roger Laird
hipstar
>Whew! No, I get what you are saying and I
> think we are saying it in different ways.
with what you just said, I dont know if you do or don't, from scanning
the bottom part, I think you missed some key words in my original post
on this matter, besides, there is all kinds of levels to take what I
said to and any # of directions.
>In fact, this also somewhat applies to my post
> in Volume! tonight.
I will go read it then
>It's that "on command" part that takes time in
> coming.
hmmmmm, sorta of in one way, but really its natural, you do it all the
time and dont even realize it.
Tell you what, get up and go walk over to your refridge and get a beer
and come back, or make a bourbon and coke, go to the bathroom or
something, then at the end of this post I'll finish explaining,
For real, get up and do it now, it will be the only way you will truly
understand.
>Athletes call it in "the zone", actors call it "in
> the moment".
Now Im lost, but then again, Im not an actor and havent been an athlete
since I was grade school, so I can't relate to them, maybe it is, maybe
not, I cant relate to it on their terms
>It is the commitment to the idea also that takes
> the sacrifice and even when you KNOW that it
> is there, for many, there is still some niggling
> fear that if you DO that, it will be wrong and
> you have to start all over.
true, if you don't learn something right for what you need
>This is where the "stop sign" that doc talked
> about comes in.
True, as I said in my first post to you, alot of great advice comes
through this group on learning something, and Docs avoidance of the stop
sign effect and failing you is no exception, Remember, it is just as
easy to learn something right as it is wrong, it is work though, What I
have been getting at is this is the next level, to be a natural at
anything, the part Doc left out, :-)
>And it is so ingrained in many of us (me
> included :)) that we are not even aware when
> we are thinking of right and wrong, bad and
> good. Well, that all made sense to me even if
> some of you are thinking I'm a nut!
Yes you do get it, cool!!!! and I am nuts, but Im not stupid, :-)
>(and let us please skip the entymology of
> THAT expression, hee, hee).
>Karen
Ok, now for the answer to walking for something, it is no different for
the guitar of what you just did earlier.
first off, when you walked across the room,
1)did you think of every footstep?
2)Did you watch every footstep?
3)did you think of how your knees bent?
4)did you think of how your ankles bent?
5) ect....
that is your sub-conscious, you didnt have to think of any of that,
walking is natural
now, what were you thinking of while you were walking? all kinds of
things I bet!
1) Where you aware of where you were walking?
2) you didnt run into any obsticals did you?
3) if you changed your mind and turned left or right and did something
else, did you fall?
4) you could of walked anywhere you wanted to without thinking about
your legs movements?
Well this is being consciously aware of you are walking
Like some people can walk goofy, and some can walk gracefully, that is
how they taught their sub-conscious to do it, from then on, goofy or
gracefull, its a habit, its how they learned
well this is the same with playing and creating on the guitar, Yes you
can teach your fingers and knuckles move and how the tips hit the
strings, but once learned, and a habit is formed, you dont have to think
about that part anymore, same is true with the other hand, a C chord in
the open position should form with no problem from any other chord or
what ever level of playing you are at and have your fingers trained to
move subconsciously if you want to go there,
That is your legs while you are walking on the guitar.
Just as you can walk anywhere fine, you should be able to walk anywhere
on the fretboard fine, if you were walking and had to jump over
something, it should be no problem, all you should have to think of is
jump and land where? and the sub-conscious would do the rest, same on
the fret board.
Now your outer mind on the guitar is not unlike what you were thinking
of when you walked for your beer, you were in full contol of your legs
without thinking about them other then you are walking while you did
whatever you wanted to accomplish, you may of done anything you wanted,
another words, you didnt hit a stop sign
now, what will confuse people, but during sleep walking, (pure muscle
memory on the guitar) you can do just fine most of the time, but one day
you will fail because you were not watching where you were going, or
wake up and have no Idea where you are, to me, thats the stop sign to
avoid of which this group taught me to watch out for,
But without muscle memory, you would not be able to play anything
really, if you had to watch every footstep, every knee bend, hell, youd
forget you were even going for a beer, probably hit a door with your
head as you were not watching where you were going, you wouldnt step in
a hole but you wouldnt know any paths to take either, youd be oblivious
to the world around you. not e able to se ahead
Well, Im tired, Im going to the lake and play
I'll deal with the volume thread latter, from the last time I read the
thread, the only one who had a clue and truly trying to understand was
the one who followed Docs link, Still, the transfer of energy from
finger to string was not answerd, bummer, for now I know the theory,
just dont know how to implement it, more so, learn it in my
sub-conscious to be a natural, Oh well, I'll just dial it in till I do,
:-)
Maybe Doc will teach me one day, Till or if he does, all I know is the
theory behind it, thats all. He does like his secrets, :-) I keep some
to myself also, besides, some on this group are not worthy till they
learn respect, more so, they just plain piss me off,
Trippy
hipstar
it, great, explore the deepest depts, work it and use it to your
advantage,
just remember, it can be learned to be a natural, and thats where the
work comes in
But also remember, once the work is done, you dont even have to think
about it, you then can do whatever you dam well please :-)
Cool fucken beaners!
Douglas S White
http://hipstar.tripod.com/mind.html
William Jennings
There's no secret here, I remain vigilant 80% of the time. Most often here
at night and sometimes with good friends
I forget everything and just dream, but I don't count on it. The guitar is
a lot of manual labor. There are times when you think you can do anything
you want, and that's when I do a quick self check. There are times when I
kick back with a few friends
and just jam and let it all hang out, like I do here.......so what ;-)
doc
chu...@alltel.net
<11835-39...@storefull-156.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
Hip...@webtv.net (hipstar) wrote:
> chu...@alltel.net wrote;
> >Whew! No, I get what you are saying and I
> > think we are saying it in different ways.
>
> with what you just said, I dont know if you do or don't, from
scanning
> the bottom part, I think you missed some key words in my
original post
> on this matter, besides, there is all kinds of levels to take what I
> said to and any # of directions.
I was not at my most eloquent pushing that post out between a
couple of software problems at the day job, but really truly I do think
we are on the same page, as it were.
>
> >It's that "on command" part that takes time in
> > coming.
>
> hmmmmm, sorta of in one way, but really its natural, you do it all
the
> time and dont even realize it.
OK. On command, consistantly, on the guitar!
> >Athletes call it in "the zone", actors call it "in
> > the moment".
>
> Now Im lost, but then again, Im not an actor and havent been an
athlete
> since I was grade school, so I can't relate to them, maybe it is,
maybe
> not, I cant relate to it on their terms
I can relate to at least acting and music, and trust me, zone, ozone,
moment, they certainly feel the same. The point being, it is, most
likely a state that can be achieved universally. Most people only
achieve it, as you point out, in ordinary tasks.
>Remember, it is just as
> easy to learn something right as it is wrong, it is work though,
What I
> have been getting at is this is the next level, to be a natural at
> anything, the part Doc left out, :-)
I agree, but it is sometimes easier for the novice to overlook the
right in disgust at the wrong, even if the wrong is smaller. Then
"Wrong" becomes a huge boogey monster who may be disguised
as "Right". THAT is the real reason behind stopping judgemental
self criticism before it becomes paradoxical madness and they
find you drooling in the corner, petting the petunia and crooning.
> Ok, now for the answer to walking for something, it is no different
for
> the guitar of what you just did earlier.
>
> first off, when you walked across the room,
>
> 1)did you think of every footstep?
only some of them
>
> 2)Did you watch every footstep?
It would be physically impossible.
>
> 3)did you think of how your knees bent?
only when they hurt.
>
> 4)did you think of how your ankles bent?
see above.
>
> 5) ect....
>
> that is your sub-conscious, you didnt have to think of any of that,
> walking is natural
>
> now, what were you thinking of while you were walking? all kinds
of
> things I bet!
>
> 1) Where you aware of where you were walking?
>
> 2) you didnt run into any obsticals did you?
well....
>
> 3) if you changed your mind and turned left or right and did
something
> else, did you fall?
only once, and it was after the beer and bourbon.
>
> 4) you could of walked anywhere you wanted to without thinking
about
> your legs movements?
only within reasonable distance.
>
No, I seriously do get it and it is a very apt analogy. If only they had
thrust a guitar in my hands the moment I started to walk! As for the
group, exasperation is just one kind of spice and it takes all
kinds.... besides what else would anyone have to say if everyone
agreed?
Have fun at the lake!
Karen
Vivienne McLaughlin
> The term "Art" has developed into an incredibly ambiguous and vague term,
> this has made it very innefficient, in terms of language.
Well, I think the 'modern art' culture has broken down the distinction between
fine art and just, well, stuff that folks do. Fine arts had included of course
"good music" (read: classical), fine painting (the last I heard, that was the
pre-raphaelites), sculpture, poetry, and so on. Modernity effectively lowered
the bar of what is "fine" to what is "finished", and usually only nominally so.
Fluxus, an art movement from Europe in the early 60's, proved that art,
activism, and spare stuff in your closet could be combined to make
"installations" - a multimedia combination of scultpure, poetry, philosophy,
painting, and, to quote Jennifer Bartlett's idea: "An art which includes
everything." This notion was expanded to include intentionally "bad" painting,
automatic drawing, and music which sounds like cats having bouts of
constipation.
It is not that the word lost its meaning in the sense of misuse or
misappropriation, it is that the notion of what art is has been expanded, and to
my understanding, can no longer be applied in an accurate, historical sense. I
am thinking of Duchamp and the toilets, Cage and the random piano noises, forks,
and pins (he made some neat prints, too), Basquiat and the graffiti on
refrigerators.
> Everyone, it
> seems, has a different answer or perception as to just what exactly Art is.
> It's no surprise that many people hate using the words "Art" and "Artists".
This is because it is now all inclusive, and includes each person's individual
stamp.
People, when they find out I paint, always ask the same thing: "What style do
you do?". This is a question I can never answer. There is only one style of art
for / from everyone - it is as individual as their personality, and comes from
it. The rest are copycats - they like being called 'artists'.
V.
Vivienne McLaughlin
> HI! Vivienne, good to see you (where have you been? I bet with
> your guitare!)
Good food, wine, a new set of strings and some oil paint is all I need.
> Well ... no government is going to tell us what is beautiful.
Then you don't know the NEA!
> Artist comes by way of latin from a greek
> verb (artuo) which mean to "devise" or "arrange". A composer is
> a"putter-together". Evidently the root-idea is human activity
> upon material."
It is interesting that most of our linguistic terms describing the more
nebulous of human activities and studies comes from a language and
culture (ie. Greco - Roman) which has appropriated all of their own
culture, religion, and ideology from other societies. Ironic that the
terms they steal, they themselves don't really understand. Ironic too,
that the terms we took from them, we don't understand either.
> What are the substitutes? practitioner (beurk!)
For guitarist: Bard? Muse? Somnambulist? (I like that one - the best
works are performed half asleep)
Magician?
V.
Vivienne McLaughlin
> It is also in the way we see everything. I used to be made fun of as a
> teenager by my peers, because I would see so much around me that filled
> my imagination. I remember watching a very big thunderstorm roll in
> towards us over a hill at sunset. It was so magnificent and I burst
> out "Oh, can't you just hear bagpipes and sees armies roiling over that
> hill!" Well, of course, they thought I was nuts, but it was like being
> thrust backwards in time. I could understand, at that moment, why
> painters paint and sculpters sculpt and writers write.
99% of people are not willing to see the faces in the floorboards. Those who
do, paint them.
V.
Vivienne McLaughlin
> Larry has it right...good to hear from you Viv...I've missed you. I am sure you
> have noticed Karen's posts...she seems to be a very capable writer and
> thinker...she fits the mold of the better posters..you,RIB, MO,Doc, Sloan and
> the ever moral Larry . :-)
> Anyway good to see ya!
Tanks too yoo! Thanks Larry, Doug, and everyone for the kind words. I've been
reading the list as a lurker lately. Nothing has changed here. It is hard to digest
everything, though, especially from that new guy Ashley. He writes so strange! Is
he speaking the same language as me?
(kidding, Bob - come back, quick so we can have some fun)
V.
Keith Erskine
: John Wasak wrote:
: > The term "Art" has developed into an incredibly ambiguous and vague term,
: > this has made it very innefficient, in terms of language.
: Well, I think the 'modern art' culture has broken down the distinction between
: fine art and just, well, stuff that folks do. Fine arts had included of course
: "good music" (read: classical), fine painting (the last I heard, that was the
: pre-raphaelites), sculpture, poetry, and so on. Modernity effectively lowered
: the bar of what is "fine" to what is "finished", and usually only nominally so.
: Fluxus, an art movement from Europe in the early 60's, proved that art,
: activism, and spare stuff in your closet could be combined to make
: "installations" - a multimedia combination of scultpure, poetry, philosophy,
: painting, and, to quote Jennifer Bartlett's idea: "An art which includes
: everything." This notion was expanded to include intentionally "bad" painting,
: automatic drawing, and music which sounds like cats having bouts of
: constipation.
And this, imho, was the beginning of the downfall of modern "art".
I thought art & music were on a great track until somewhere after
impressionism, in the early 1900's. Then, some blame on the horrors
of WWI & WWII, holocaust, or urbanization & industrialization, came
a movement in art characterized by obfuscation (Schoenbergs 12 tone
rows), surrealism/distortion (Picasso/Dali), etc. It seems, in
the inevitable artistic drive to create something new, people felt
they needed to eschew "pretty", "pleasing", in favor of "shocking",
"disturbing". Not too surprisingly, the public quickly lost
interest as the music and art lost any obvious immediate aesthetic
appeal. Sure, you had some exceptions - romantic hold outs such
as Rachmaninoff, geniuses such as Stravinsky - but to me, the satire,
cynicism, dada-ism, randomness of much of modern art is simply unattractive.
I struggled to try to enjoy a 20th century violin concerto videtaped on
PBS - I watched it once in entirety, hated it. Thought ok, maybe some
of it was lost on me the 1st time - watched again, could not complete it.
Don't get me wrong, there are certainly modern masterpieces I adore -
Britten's "Nocturnal", for example. But as I've said before, I think
the future of serious music lies in incorporating unique cultural
components into mainstream musical tradition - such as the Turkish
element in Koyunbaba, or the American folk idiom of Copland, or
the jazz idiom in the concerto for bass performed by John Patitucci
or works by Ellington.
: It is not that the word lost its meaning in the sense of misuse or
: misappropriation, it is that the notion of what art is has been expanded, and to
: my understanding, can no longer be applied in an accurate, historical sense. I
: am thinking of Duchamp and the toilets, Cage and the random piano noises, forks,
: and pins (he made some neat prints, too), Basquiat and the graffiti on
: refrigerators.
To me, art is almost like religion - and to the religious, religion is a
pillar in the universe, a monument to order, symmetry, purpose, beauty.
When art loses that facet, I have no more need for it. I can find enough
random beauty in my every day world, right alongside the every day random
ugliness, I can get just as much enjoyment from looking at the shadow cast
by a fire esape as I can by paying to view a modern art exhibit - why should
I bother to pay to see modern art? If it has an entropy level just as
great as the rest of the world, why should I spend precious energy ($$)
for it?
"Sometimes there is so much beauty in the world I just can't stand it" -
American Beauty , the movie
Good to see you back, Viv!
Keith Erskine
I don't speak for HP.
John Wasak
>
> And this, imho, was the beginning of the downfall of modern "art".
> I thought art & music were on a great track until somewhere after
> impressionism, in the early 1900's. Then, some blame on the horrors
> of WWI & WWII, holocaust, or urbanization & industrialization, came
> a movement in art characterized by obfuscation (Schoenbergs 12 tone
> rows), surrealism/distortion (Picasso/Dali), etc. It seems, in
> the inevitable artistic drive to create something new, people felt
> they needed to eschew "pretty", "pleasing", in favor of "shocking",
> "disturbing". Not too surprisingly, the public quickly lost
> interest as the music and art lost any obvious immediate aesthetic
> appeal.
>
But Keith, visual art is not just about creating pretty pictures, and music
not just about creating smooth and tranquil sounds. Another view of art is
that it can also be seen as visual or aural philosophy. Maybe not always
pretty but certainly some meat to chew on for those that are so inclined.
It's a great irony that some of the most popular art ever created, what we
think of today as some of the 'prettiest paintings', that is, the style of
Impressionism, was considered a shocking effrontery to the the academy
painters of the day. Today a large Monet exhibit draws crowds of immense
proportion.
As for "Modern Art" itself, today the trend seems to be swinging back in the
direction of realism. Maybe this will, in time, abate the shunning of
Modern Art by the general public.
Keith Erskine wrote:
> To me, art is almost like religion - and to the religious, religion is a
> pillar in the universe, a monument to order, symmetry, purpose, beauty.
> When art loses that facet, I have no more need for it. I can find enough
> random beauty in my every day world, right alongside the every day random
> ugliness, I can get just as much enjoyment from looking at the shadow cast
> by a fire esape as I can by paying to view a modern art exhibit - why
should
> I bother to pay to see modern art? If it has an entropy level just as
> great as the rest of the world, why should I spend precious energy ($$)
> for it?
>
You shouldn't. This of course doesn't mean that no one else should be
entitled to find their joy or beauty, or enlightenment in what you see as
just a barren field.
JW
Klaus Heim
"Keith Erskine" <k...@fc.hp.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:8mev9c$c1a$1...@fcnews.fc.hp.com...
> Vivienne McLaughlin (vah...@bellsouth.net) wrote:
> : John Wasak wrote:
>
> : > The term "Art" has developed into an incredibly ambiguous and vague
term,
> : > this has made it very innefficient, in terms of language.
>
> : Well, I think the 'modern art' culture has broken down the distinction
between
> : fine art and just, well, stuff that folks do. Fine arts had included of
course
> : "good music" (read: classical), fine painting (the last I heard, that
was the
> : pre-raphaelites), sculpture, poetry, and so on. Modernity effectively
lowered
> : the bar of what is "fine" to what is "finished", and usually only
nominally so.
> : Fluxus, an art movement from Europe in the early 60's, proved that art,
> : activism, and spare stuff in your closet could be combined to make
> : "installations" - a multimedia combination of scultpure, poetry,
philosophy,
> : painting, and, to quote Jennifer Bartlett's idea: "An art which includes
> : everything." This notion was expanded to include intentionally "bad"
painting,
> : automatic drawing, and music which sounds like cats having bouts of
> : constipation.
>
>
> I thought art & music were on a great track until somewhere after
> impressionism, in the early 1900's. Then, some blame on the horrors
> of WWI & WWII, holocaust, or urbanization & industrialization, came
> a movement in art characterized by obfuscation (Schoenbergs 12 tone
> rows),
Strangely, Schoenberg envisoned normal, everyday people whistling
dodecaphonic melodies.
> surrealism/distortion (Picasso/Dali)
>, etc. It seems, in
> the inevitable artistic drive to create something new, people felt
> they needed to eschew "pretty", "pleasing", in favor of "shocking",
> "disturbing". Not too surprisingly, the public quickly lost
> interest as the music and art lost any obvious immediate aesthetic
> appeal. Sure, you had some exceptions - romantic hold outs such
> as Rachmaninoff, geniuses such as Stravinsky - but to me, the satire,
> cynicism, dada-ism, randomness of much of modern art is simply
unattractive.
> I struggled to try to enjoy a 20th century violin concerto videtaped on
> PBS - I watched it once in entirety, hated it. Thought ok, maybe some
> of it was lost on me the 1st time - watched again, could not complete it.
> Don't get me wrong, there are certainly modern masterpieces I adore -
> Britten's "Nocturnal", for example. But as I've said before, I think
> the future of serious music lies in incorporating unique cultural
> components into mainstream musical tradition - such as the Turkish
> element in Koyunbaba, or the American folk idiom of Copland, or
> the jazz idiom in the concerto for bass performed by John Patitucci
> or works by Ellington.
Art can only comment on the times it lives in. Sure there is always escapist
stuff, music for the masses. Making it a bit simple, Beethoven and Mozart
were also modern at their time, and they were not always loved. Probably
people said, why don't you listen to Haendel or Bach. An artist reflects
what he sees and hears. That is why I don't condone historically correct
interpretations. Nobody really has an idea what Beethoven wished his music
to sound like, I have even heard discussions that our modern Andante is much
faster than Beethoven's.
The problem is, if you see Art as being mainly a sensual experience, or an
intellectual one. Obviously most people choose the first. Cats, Hollywood
films, Boy Groups, classical potpourri relaxation CDs. And why? The answers
I get all go like this: in my free time I want to relax, I want something to
uplift my spirits, I want something to take my mind of my sorrows. Shiny
happy people. Elevator music. (Around the corner from where I work is a
company called Muzak, undertitle Functional Music, need I say more.)
Let us take a look at great artists and their works. First comes
Shakespeare, "Is this a dagger I see before me,/ The handle toward my
hand?", "Now is the winter of our discontent", "Banquo: It will be rain
tonight,/ 1st Murderer: Let it come down." (Macbeth, Richard 3, Macbeth);
Goethe, ""Habe nun, ach! Philosophie/ Juristerei und Medizin,/ Und leider
auch Theologie/ Durchaus studiert, mit heissem Bemuehn./ Da steh' ich nun
ich armer Tor!" (Faust 1); Dante "Nel mezzo camin di nostra vita/ Mi
ritrovai per una selva oscura,/ che' la diritta via era smaritta" (La Divina
Comedia); Baudelaire "Tu marches sur des morts, Beaute, dont tu te moques;/
De tes bijoux l'Horreur n'est pas le moins charmant,/ Et le Meutre, parmi
tes plus cheres breloques,/ Sur ton ventre orgueilleux danse amoureusement."
(Hymne a la Beaute); T.S. Eliot "April is the cruellest month, breeding/
Lilacs out of the dead land, mixing/ Memory and desire, stirring/ Dull roots
with spring rain." (The Waste Land). Literature is my field, you will know
these works. Music? Take Gesualdo, take Beethoven's Late String Quartets,
take Berlioz Symphonie Fantastique, take Shostakowitsch's String Quartet
No.8, take Barber's Adagio for Strings.
It is these works that have endured the ages. It is not the elevator music.
And why? Because Art is always a searching, a seeking, and in the end it is
always a discourse with our own mortality. Of course there is pleasure
derived from a surface aesthetic, but what really touches us is something
like Bach.
To leave you on a lighter note, here the beginning of Ovid's Amores
(translated, excellently if I may add, by Peter Green. Ovid, The Erotic
Poems, Penguin, 1982).
Arms, warfare, violence - I was winding up to produce a/
Regular epic, with verse-form to match - /
Hexameters, naturally. But Cupid (they say) with a snicker /
Lopped off one foot from each alternate line./
'Nasty young brat,' I told him, 'who made YOU Inspector of Metres? /
We poets come under the Muses, we're not in your mob./
...
I'd got off to a flying start, clean paper, one magnificent/
Opening line. Number two brought me down/
With a bump. I haven't the theme to suit your frivolous metre:/
No boyfriend, no girl with a mane of coiffured hair -'/
When I'd got so far, presto, he opened his quiver, selected/
An arrow to lay me low,/
Then bent the springy bow in a crescent against his knee, and/
Let fly. 'Hey, poet!' he called, ' you want a theme? Take THAT!'/
His shafts - worse luck for me - never miss their target:/
I'm on fire now, Love owns the freehold of my heart./
So let my verse rise with six stresses, drop to five on the downbeat - /
Goodbye to martial epic, and epic metre too!/
Come on then, my Muse, bind your blonde hair with a wreath of/
sea-myrtle, and lead me off in the six-five groove!
--------------
Cool stuff, ain't it. You see, problems haven't changed over 2000 years.
Klaus
P.S. I am not quite sure if accents appear on American computers, so, if I
may say so, pardon my French.
chu...@alltel.net
k...@fc.hp.com (Keith Erskine) wrote:
> And this, imho, was the beginning of the downfall of modern "art".
> I thought art & music were on a great track until somewhere after
> impressionism, in the early 1900's. Then, some blame on the horrors
> of WWI & WWII, holocaust, or urbanization & industrialization, came
> a movement in art characterized by obfuscation (Schoenbergs 12 tone
> rows), surrealism/distortion (Picasso/Dali), etc.
You are swinging an awfully wide brush here now. There is a very fine
line between art and garbage sometimes. Your own use of the quote from
"American Beauty" is rather a point in the opposite direction. You can
perceive beauty in even the mundane and even the hideous. Was Medusa so
ugly, or so beautiful that it drove the observer insane?
All art is not necessarily beautiful or pleasing and like love and hate
there are very fine differentials between beauty and things the shock us
or appear distorted. Art is passionate, it stirs something within the
viewer, listener etc. whether that is love, pleasure, hate, frustration.
Art makes you feel and that is why it is SUCH a subjective thing.
It seems, in
> the inevitable artistic drive to create something new, people felt
> they needed to eschew "pretty", "pleasing", in favor of "shocking",
> "disturbing". Not too surprisingly, the public quickly lost
> interest as the music and art lost any obvious immediate aesthetic
> appeal.
How can we perceive how music or art was seen by people who have never
been exposed to say, the romantics? There is no way that any of us alive
now and exposed from babyhood to all manner of "commercial" art and
music can perceive what a 17th century person felt as aesthetic. Or what
wild, odd and shocking thing that upstart composer is doing now. Not to
mention that radio, television and other "modern" media have severely
curtailed the publics appetite for what is beautiful or artistic. They
have skewed the spectrum, as it were.
Sure, you had some exceptions - romantic hold outs such
> as Rachmaninoff, geniuses such as Stravinsky -
You will recall there were RIOTS at the premiere of the Rite of Spring
because of his genius. People were NOT necessarily pleased or impressed.
However, it certainly stirred their emotions, did it not? Now YOU
consider him an exception to the aspersions you are casting. See what I
mean?
but to me, the satire,
> cynicism, dada-ism, randomness of much of modern art is simply
unattractive.
> I struggled to try to enjoy a 20th century violin concerto videtaped
on
> PBS - I watched it once in entirety, hated it. Thought ok, maybe some
> of it was lost on me the 1st time - watched again, could not complete
it.
I certainly applaud you for trying twice. Many would not even try a
second chance.
> Don't get me wrong, there are certainly modern masterpieces I adore -
> Britten's "Nocturnal", for example. But as I've said before, I think
> the future of serious music lies in incorporating unique cultural
> components into mainstream musical tradition - such as the Turkish
> element in Koyunbaba, or the American folk idiom of Copland, or
> the jazz idiom in the concerto for bass performed by John Patitucci
> or works by Ellington.
>
And isn't it funny that I have read critiques and reviews that consider
the incorporation of such things as trite or cliche? The wind of favor
blows fickle and fast.
.
>
> To me, art is almost like religion - and to the religious, religion is
a
> pillar in the universe, a monument to order, symmetry, purpose,
beauty.
Well, I don't know about that definition. Most religion is not orderly,
it can be the cause of wars and death. People do many ugly and hateful
things in the name of religion. The converse can also be said for it,
although personally, I would say that most things beautiful and
good connected with religion have much more to do with faith than the
religion attached to it. Yes I would say that a more apt definition of "
pillar in the universe, a monument to order, symmetry, purpose,
beauty." is the term faith.
> When art loses that facet, I have no more need for it. I can find
enough
> random beauty in my every day world, right alongside the every day
random
> ugliness,
and yet, this was part of the point of the movie, that ugliness can be
beautiful too.
I can get just as much enjoyment from looking at the shadow
cast
> by a fire esape as I can by paying to view a modern art exhibit - why
should
> I bother to pay to see modern art?
That is true, so don't. But does that mean that it is NOT art?
Just my opinion.
Sam Culotta
A point made here is that "Art" that ineffable, protean, quicksilver term,
is organic and has a leading edge and leading edges always disturb the
medium through which they slice.
We tend to forget how controversial most (all?)great art was when it was
first encountered.
I still chuckle at the scene in Amadeus when Mozart is rehearsing and the
Duke is sitting in the audience perplexed by what he is hearing and can't
articulate his concern. His lackey offers: " too many notes Sire" or
something to that effect.
All else aside, art remains, imho, subjective. In fact the old tree in the
forrest question has been asked about it. If a work of art were produced and
no one ever saw/heard it....etc. You could say that the person who produced
it satisfied that requirement.
But this leads to the next question: does art require validation by others
to qualify as art?
Questions without answers make the world go 'round do they not? Does art
reflect society, or society reflect art? What came first, the chicken or the
egg? ( I have this one figured out but only if you accept a scientific
approach :-).
Sorry, it's a slow afternoon. It's approaching 100 outside and the hum of my
airconditioner has induced somnolensce .
Yawn,
Sam
"Klaus Heim" <klh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8mf4nc$1eh4$1...@f1node01.rhrz.uni-bonn.de...
John Wasak
> The problem is, if you see Art as being mainly a sensual experience, or an
> intellectual one.
>
This would be a problem. I don't think art is an either/or situation. Not
all pictures, not all music, not all literature, need to aspire to
Demoiselles D'Avingon, Black Angels, or Ulysses.
>Obviously most people choose the first. Cats, Hollywood
> films, Boy Groups, classical potpourri relaxation CDs. And why? The
answers
> I get all go like this: in my free time I want to relax, I want something
to
> uplift my spirits, I want something to take my mind of my sorrows. Shiny
> happy people. Elevator music. (Around the corner from where I work is a
> company called Muzak, undertitle Functional Music, need I say more.)
>
Interestingly, Eric Satie wrote a piece he called "Musique d'ameublement
destinee a etre ignore" or "Furniture music destined to be ignored".
>Because Art is always a searching, a seeking, and in the end it is
> always a discourse with our own mortality.
>
"Ich bin der Geist, der stets verneint!" - Mephistopheles (Faust)
JW
Klaus Heim
"Sam Culotta" <culot...@gte.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:0RFi5.507$Rz1.1...@paloalto-snr2.gtei.net...
>
> I still chuckle at the scene in Amadeus when Mozart is rehearsing and the
> Duke is sitting in the audience perplexed by what he is hearing and can't
> articulate his concern. His lackey offers: " too many notes Sire" or
> something to that effect.
Hasn't changed to the day.
Klaus
Klaus Heim
"John Wasak" <mr...@earthlink.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:s0Gi5.12244$Z6.4...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> Klaus Heim wrote:
> > The problem is, if you see Art as being mainly a sensual experience, or
an
> > intellectual one.
> >
>
Not
> all pictures, not all music, not all literature, need to aspire to
> Demoiselles D'Avingon, Black Angels, or Ulysses.
Argumentation along these lines often can be countered by a charge of
elitism. I have not reached a conclusive stand-point, I don't think I ever
will. After all, there is nothing wrong with somebody liking Britney Spears.
What is wrong though, is that mostly these decisions are made due to a lack
of education. It is like acquiring a taste for good wine. Experience, the
experience of knowing, of evaluating what one is tasting, influences how one
thinks about the product. Strangely, I respond sensually to a piece like
Black Angels. I heard it in a concert once, some people in the audience
reacted with laughter, I was enthralled. And I do listen to such
"superficial" bands like Blink 182, Offspring, or Bad Religion. I just like
this music, without much intellectual contemplation. So I cannot really
condemn that others ONLY listen to this kind of music.
> >Obviously most people choose the first. Cats, Hollywood
> > films, Boy Groups, classical potpourri relaxation CDs. And why? The
> answers
> > I get all go like this: in my free time I want to relax, I want
something
> to
> > uplift my spirits, I want something to take my mind of my sorrows. Shiny
> > happy people. Elevator music. (Around the corner from where I work is a
> > company called Muzak, undertitle Functional Music, need I say more.)
> >
>
> Interestingly, Eric Satie wrote a piece he called "Musique d'ameublement
> destinee a etre ignore" or "Furniture music destined to be ignored".
I do not really know what to think of Satie. On the one side we have the
"Vexations", on the other such a beautiful piece like the Gnossienne No.1
(Dyens plays an incredible transcription on his CD Nuages).
>
> >Because Art is always a searching, a seeking, and in the end it is
> > always a discourse with our own mortality.
> >
>
> "Ich bin der Geist, der stets verneint!" - Mephistopheles (Faust)
Exactly, great. Faust the intellectual is confronted by the poodle, at
which's core we find Mephisto; this spirit, a part of the that, which wants
evil, but achieves good; this spirit, which says that everything which comes
into being, is worthy of being ruined. And what do we have to oppose this?
Our intellect. Our Art. An Art to endure the ages, Shakespeare, Villon,
Homer, Lascaux. This is how we transcend Mephisto's opinion that nothing is
worth building.
Klaus
larry...@my-deja.com
> And this, imho, was the beginning of the downfall of modern "art".
The eye cannot see what the mind doesn't know.
Much of modern art is an exploration of our preconceived ideas of what
art is. What you see is what your mind can understand. A car is not a
car if you do not know what it is. Try to imagine for a moment what the
world would look like without knowing what you know. Imagine a plane
flying overhead making that big jet engine sound and all your mind
knows is birds. Try to imagine it without even knowing that anything
can fly and just see its form in time and space and how it changes.
Picasso and others, even today, are trying to find out how we have
been brainwashed into thinking certain ways that are partly due to our
innate wiring and partly due to culture. It is for each of us
personally to find how our provincial view distorts the world, if we
want to. Many choose to remain comfortably provincial and this is
understandable. Others are uncomfortable with having thoughts that were
placed there by their culture and seek to find those blind spots and
see what lies in those other lands much as you have done with your
explorations of Indian music.
For you to see what others have done in their hearts as a "downfall"
is in essence to deny that there is anything there. You imply that it
is the Emperor's clothes. If you don't like it you can lament the loss
of a form that you prefer but to label other's sincere effort
as "downfall" is insulting even though I know you did not intend it
that way. If I were to say that the introduction of Indian music into
classical music started its downfall you might get some idea of how
that statement of yours feels from my perspective. Just because we
don't "get it" does not mean that there is nothing there. I didn't get
jazz when my friend kept dragging me off to clubs but one day (many
more than 2 tries) I heard a drum solo and could keep the tune in my
head as I followed the complex rhythm and I was hooked. Once I got the
game I loved it. Chess is boring to those who don't know the rules and
can't see the patterns but I know of few activities that can raise my
heart rate as fast as seeing a fatal error in my last move when it's my
opponent's turn.
My dad thought sitar music was drug music and hated it. He said it
never went anywhere and sounded out of tune. I love my dad but it hurts
when we do something that makes sense to us and others reject it in
this negative tone of dismissal. I hope that you will continue to be
open to the idea that others are sincere in their art even when it does
not seem to work for you. I'm very happy that you like the idea of
introducing other cultural ideas.
My friend, P.Q. Phan, uses multiple pentatonic scales in a mix of
western and eastern musical ideas that I just love but many dismiss as
noise. He has a small piece on the Kronos 25 year CD collection. There
are pieces in that collection that I have not connected to yet but I do
not see my failure to understand as an indication of the "downfall" of
any music or art and hope you can find this perspective in your own
explorations.
I was so surprised to see you post this since you seem so much more
open to non-provincial musical ideas than most CGist, with your
explorations of Indian music and other forms. I hope my post will
encourage you to remain undecided about forms that others like but you
find no connection to. I hope your language will change so that no
artist gets credit for the "downfall" of any art.
For reference try the book Artforms by Duane Preble which has a
wonderful collection of essays on art that may help you see Picasso in
a new more favorable light. A partial list of the contents follows:
The Nature of Art
What Is Art?
Is Art a Necessity?
Purposes and Functions of Art
Biography: Jazz, Memory, and Metaphor Romare Bearden
Awareness, Creativity, and Communication
Visual Thinking
Perception and Awareness
Looking and Seeing
Aesthetics, Art, and Beauty
Art and Experience
Creativity
Essay: Early Encounters with the Artist Within
areiher
Well I just found Art in the "yellow hat"
a poem by Louis Jenkins,
"Nobody knows what will happen, what catastrophes, what
miraculous transformations. In order to maintain faith, to
plan for the future, the world must be simplified. Here is
the window out of which you can see a tree, a bright red
flower, green grass extending over the hill. On top of the
hill, yes, there I am ... two legs, two arms, ten fingers like
sausages and a smile on my big round face. And just six inches
above my yellow hat the blue sky begins."
I agree with you all! Life is beautiful and long live Art.
I just cannot understand why when people are walking downtown
their faces are always looking side ways at the store windows.
Art...a product to be sold ... maybe...
areiher
>
>Good food, wine, a new set of strings and some oil paint is all
>I need.
And a good space for sound and light.
>
>> Well ... no government is going to tell us what is beautiful.
>
>Then you don't know the NEA!
The NEA? the NEA? he! I am not a civil servant ... what is the
NEA?
>
>It is interesting that most of our linguistic terms describing
>the more
>nebulous of human activities and studies comes from a language
and
>culture (ie. Greco - Roman) which has appropriated all of their
own
>culture, religion, and ideology from other societies. Ironic
that the
>terms they steal, they themselves don't really understand.
Ironic too,
>that the terms we took from them, we don't understand either.
So we are loosing meaning in the retransmission?
I do not mind the Nebulous! It is when I try to get everything to
match the vibes of my chaos that I should worry. And If only I
could see it it would be easy! This mean this and that is that!
this kind of imperative loosen my sense of order and give me the
Q for reconsidering.
>
>> What are the substitutes? practitioner (beurk!)
>
>For guitarist: Bard? Muse? Somnambulist? (I like that one - the
best
>works are performed half asleep)
>
>Magician?
OK! good but for all discipline? not only guitarist. An include
all type of word,a giant umbrella word, just nebulous enough to
satisfy the entire consortium.
Alain
>
>V.
Vivienne McLaughlin
> And this, imho, was the beginning of the downfall of modern "art".
Downfalls of high things is always usually mostly sometimes largely a good thing.
> I thought art & music were on a great track until somewhere after
> impressionism, in the early 1900's. Then, some blame on the horrors
> of WWI & WWII, holocaust, or urbanization & industrialization, came
> a movement in art characterized by obfuscation (Schoenbergs 12 tone
> rows), surrealism/distortion (Picasso/Dali), etc.
I think surrealism and dada are the first signs of emergence of an intellectual
approach to art. It seems the good thing produced in the 20th century was the notion
that the human mind had more potential to appreciate beauty in an abstract sense - a
metaphysical approach to the levels of what is beautiful. The beauty of modern art,
seen in its ugliness, its shock, its lust for the new, is in its expanding of the
conceptual and in the simultaneous application of the human mind to tear down any veil
between the artists' subject and the 'thing in itself'. This is the ideal. It is not
to make pretty paintings and so on, but to find a deeper mode of communication.
> It seems, in
> the inevitable artistic drive to create something new, people felt
> they needed to eschew "pretty", "pleasing", in favor of "shocking",
> "disturbing".
Most modern art is conceptual. The beauty of de Chirico's early metaphysical
paintings, for instance, is in their metaphysical concepts. Visually, the style of de
Chirico is spare and bland.
> Sure, you had some exceptions - romantic hold outs such
> as Rachmaninoff, geniuses such as Stravinsky - but to me, the satire,
> cynicism, dada-ism, randomness of much of modern art is simply unattractive.
I felt this way in college, when after years of studying formal paintings and
sculpture - up to Monet and French Impressionism, I stumbled on a few modern artists
like Motherwell, Nauman, Haring, Kiki Smith.
As I grew as a painter, I realized that freedom was what this was. Freedom to let
creativity run wild, like when we were children. That is important.
> To me, art is almost like religion - and to the religious, religion is a
> pillar in the universe, a monument to order, symmetry, purpose, beauty.
> When art loses that facet, I have no more need for it.
I don't think modern art has lost any of this. In fact, it has become more religious.
The root of religion is in the personal experience of the individual divested of the
ornaments of the institutions. Art has only become more personal, in its genuine form
(as opposed to the hated copycats and frauds, which pollute and corrupt it), and
praised for this. It is not that there is a real rush for new and more shocking art,
there is a rush for including more individual motifs, so we can appreciate more and
more profound personal experience through the arts.
> If it has an entropy level just as
> great as the rest of the world, why should I spend precious energy ($$)
> for it?
And art is ultimately useless, because you can't eat it. With that attitude, we should
never have left the cave.
V.
Vivienne McLaughlin
> >Then you don't know the NEA!
>
> The NEA? the NEA? he! I am not a civil servant ... what is the
> NEA?
National Endowment for the Arts. It is a government sponsored (tax
dollars help) consortium that supports modern art that Keith hates. It
is very liberal, and is seen as supporting degenerate art, at least
Jesse Helms and Pat Robertson say so.
> So we are loosing meaning in the retransmission?
Yes and yes.
V.
edchait
"Vivienne McLaughlin" <vah...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:398B9792...@bellsouth.net...
> areiher wrote:
>
> > >Then you don't know the NEA!
> >
> > The NEA? the NEA? he! I am not a civil servant ... what is the
> > NEA?
>
> National Endowment for the Arts. It is a government sponsored (tax
> dollars help) consortium that supports modern art that Keith hates. It
> is very liberal, and is seen as supporting degenerate art, at least
> Jesse Helms and Pat Robertson say so.
>
That's true, most people find a figurine of Jesus in a jar of urine to be
perfectly acceptable art.
Ed Chait
areiher
and Politique. It is OK to have a general conception of the world
but often you will find out that it does not equal the methods or
the way art is created, or move, or grow. This being said I hope
that the compassion, the intention of compassion from the people
toward their culture, toward their artists, is not purely
economic. Every strata of society has it's own artistique and
political criterium. The = sign is to be put between art and
freedom.
Art = Freedom.
Alain
larry...@my-deja.com
> I think artists should be free to produce whatever
> garbage they want to and call it art. I just object
> to an organisation like the NEA deciding on my behalf
> that it's worth paying for, and then using my money to
> pay for it.
And I object to how the US government uses MY money to pay for all
kinds of things but that's not how it works John. What makes you think
I want my money supporting your idea of what government should be? How
about we all just vote and divvy up the money that way... oh wait...
isn't that how this works and why we both don't like how OUR money is
spent. And yes, it's OUR money, not YOUR money John. I get some say in
this too.
OK, I'm off my soap box - how about you John? Back to CG or do you
want to continue this useless debate?