improving technique
James
really tried to improve my technique. I just wanted to play the pieces
I liked. As a result I can play pieces from albeniz, granados etc, but
not very well. I have developed many bad habits over the years
(tension in the right are being a major one) and I would like to
correct them. I understand that I may need to start from the very
basics and that it may take a while. Unfortunately, I'm stuck in Japan
with very little japanese and it would be difficult to find a good
qualified instructor. Does anybody recommend any worthwhile books or
videos I can order online or offer any other advice.
Thanks for your help
Lutemann
killia...@gmail.com (James) writes:
>Does anybody recommend any worthwhile books or
>videos I can order online or offer any other advice.
Get Shearer's book. Get Berg's book. Watch my vidios. To do that go to
stringdancer.com and do a search for Murdick.
*****************************************************
Kent Murdick
Free Guitar Instruction CD/Video: Go to http://stringdancer.com/
and search for Murdick--also "Hear Lutemann Play (a little)"
http://members.aol.com/lutemann/NO.mp3
Joseph Raymond
Since you've been playing for 10 years, and assumining in all that
time you've already bought at least one instruction book, and since
you recognize certain bad habits which your unable to correct them on
your own, you really ought to get a teacher. Imo, you're reason for
not getting a teacher because you are in Japan and know little
Japanese is lame. It's a fair bet that any Japanese teacher can manage
some English, and you should put in the effort to learn some Japanese
to meet him part of the way. Lastly, don't underestimate the value of
pantomime. Even in English it is not enough to say, "Relax!"
Good luck,
Joe
GIMME
But it would be a big help if you could visit his 5-day July
Masterclass in Montana and have it explained by a human.
killia...@gmail.com (James) wrote in message news:<78da8b40.04102...@posting.google.com>...
Lutemann
gimme_this...@yahoo.com (GIMME) writes:
>I'd recommend the Christopher Parkening Guitar method books.
>
I just ordered the two Parkening methods. There are tons of used ones on
Amazon for about $8. Also. there is one Berg book there, but it will cost you:
$35. Shearer books are there too but you can't save any money on the used ones.
Jeff Carter
>Amazon for about $8. Also. there is one Berg book there, but it will cost
>you:
>$35. Shearer books are there too but you can't save any money on the used
>ones.
>
Hmmm, makes me wonder if the handouts Shearer gave us back in the early 80's
(at NCSA), when he was editing the new books would be worth anything on eBay...
--Jeff Carter
Lutemann
(Jeff Carter) writes:
>Hmmm, makes me wonder if the handouts Shearer gave us back in the early 80's
>(at NCSA), when he was editing the new books would be worth anything on
>eBay...
>
>--Jeff Carter
You should try. I wish I had gotten Shearer to autograph a few of his books.
I have several proto Sherarer books somewhere. I also have a proto Berg book.
Bob Ashley
> In article <3f12b4fb.04102...@posting.google.com>,
> gimme_this...@yahoo.com (GIMME) writes:
>
> >I'd recommend the Christopher Parkening Guitar method books.
> >
>
> I just ordered the two Parkening methods. There are tons of used ones
> on Amazon for about $8. Also. there is one Berg book there, but it will
> cost you: $35. Shearer books are there too but you can't save any money
> on the used ones.
I guess the unwashed masses you've railed against for so many years have
finally seen the Shearerean light.
Your mission may be ready to wind down.
:-)
******************************
rib
Lutemann
<Pine.GSO.3.95.iB1.0.104...@halifax.chebucto.ns.ca>, Bob
Ashley <ax...@chebucto.ns.ca> writes:
>I guess the unwashed masses you've railed against for so many years have
>finally seen the Shearerean light.
>
>Your mission may be ready to wind down.
>
It has wound down considerably. I agree, at least in principle, with most of
what is said about technique on this list. Every once in awhile the metronome
method will pop up, but not as often. Nobody (in his right mind) thinks that
the Segovia scales are particularly valuable - at least you don't hear them
defended with much gusto. The biggest problem that still exists is the lack of
musicality. Hardly anybody plays music on the guitar, they play a type of disco
beat and call it music.
sycochkn
Segovia scales appear to be helping me. Are there scales that you think are
particularly valuable. I am asuming you consider yourself to be a person "in
his right mind".
Bob
"Lutemann" <lute...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041023100537...@mb-m05.aol.com...
Lutemann
<syco...@earthlink.net> writes:
>Are there scales that you think are
>particularly valuable. I am asuming you consider yourself to be a person "in
>his right mind".
Yes, Bob, I do assume that I am in my right mind. Here's what's wrong with the
Segovia scales.
1) They feature only one type of scale, the long (longitudinal) scale. There
are several other types that are equally important.
2) The scales always stop at the tonic instead of utilizing the full practical
range of the fingerboard in the key. In other words they are incomplete long
scales.
3) He leaves out the harmonic minor scale.
4) The fingerings are ill-conceived (he wrote these when he was 12 years old)
The Segovia scales are better than no scales, but not much better. To see a
Shearer comprehensive scale, go to my web site. The G comprehensive scale
connects a series of across the the fingerboard scales into one big scale.
sycochkn
position and then back up to the first. the Segivia scales unlike most do
deal with changing positions. I am using the Segovia scales as a first set
of scales. Then I think my teacher wants me to deal with modulation in terms
of changing keys. Changing keys and other forms of modulation are of
interest to me. I think improvisation on the pieces would be neat. Arranging
in real time.
Bob
"Lutemann" <lute...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041023234148...@mb-m20.aol.com...
Bob Ashley
> In article
> <Pine.GSO.3.95.iB1.0.104...@halifax.chebucto.ns.ca>, Bob
> Ashley <ax...@chebucto.ns.ca> writes:
>
> >I guess the unwashed masses you've railed against for so many years have
> >finally seen the Shearerean light.
> >
> >Your mission may be ready to wind down.
> >
>
> It has wound down considerably. I agree, at least in principle, with most of
> what is said about technique on this list. Every once in awhile the metronome
> method will pop up, but not as often. Nobody (in his right mind) thinks that
> the Segovia scales are particularly valuable - at least you don't hear them
> defended with much gusto. The biggest problem that still exists is the lack of
> musicality. Hardly anybody plays music on the guitar, they play a type of disco
> beat and call it music.
If the mission has indeed "wound down considerably", how does that affect
the status of the Great Myths?
******************************
rib
Lutemann
<Pine.GSO.3.95.iB1.0.10...@halifax.chebucto.ns.ca>, Bob
Ashley <ax...@chebucto.ns.ca> writes:
>If the mission has indeed "wound down considerably", how does that affect
>the status of the Great Myths?
The great myths still apply but are generally accepted and therefore arouse
little anger. But let's see. I've included them for the new people on the
list.
THE 23 GREAT MYTHS OF THE CLASSICAL
GUITAR
1) That planting is useful beyond the first stages of learning the guitar.
2) That self-teaching works, it just takes a little longer (but it's worth the
journey).
3) That the closer you hold left hand fingers to the fingerboard, the faster
you will be able to play. Also, the more you restrict the movement of the right
hand fingers, the faster they will move.
4) That the best tone comes from completely relaxing the right hand finger
tips.
5) That emotion and individual personality are the main ingredients of a
musical performance. To quote one sage, "The analogy of lovemaking is entirely
appropriate to how one prepares a piece of music on the guitar."
6) That if you can't play, you can't teach.
7) That 'p' should rest on a bass string most of the time, hopping from string
to string as the fingers cross. (an old myth)
8) That the right hand knuckles should be parallel to the strings.
9) That the angle of the finger joints for rest stroke and free stroke should
be the same.
10) That one should work toward having rest stroke and free stroke sound alike
so you can easily mix them. (This one has always baffled me.)
11) That the method books of the "old masters" are really the best.
12) That spending $500 on a master class is really going to help you.
13) That the reason that classical guitarists can't sight read as well as
pianists is that they haven't worked at it hard enough.
14) That Segovia's scale system is useful for something other than lining the
bottom of the bird cage.
15) That, since no two individual's hands are alike, everyone must learn a
technique that works for them.
16) That the left hand finger tips should be kept perpendicular to the
fingerboard as much as possible.
17) That the the best way to master just about any technique on the guitar is
to begin slowly with a metronome and gradually speed up.
18) That there is a single, correct playing position for the left hand which
remains static for all playing situations.
19) That the ability to formally analyze music can, and often does, stifle ones
ability to interpret music.
20) That learning or memorizing a piece is somehow easier if you don't
start with the first measure, but instead start in the middle or at the end of
the piece.
21) That there is far too much analysis in guitar technique. After all, we are
just plucking a string, a movement no more complicated than tying a shoelace.
22) That one should completely avoid looking at the guitar neck while playing.
23) That the careful filing and sandpapering of the nails is the essence of a
good tone.
Lutemann
<syco...@earthlink.net> writes:
>Why do you think that the Segovia scales are not particularly vlauable. The
>Segovia scales appear to be helping me. Are there scales that you think are
Let me go a little further here. Below are the "Seven Indications". See
number three.
"The Seven Indications That You Need To Dump Your Guitar Teacher."
1) Your teacher thinks John Williams is a great (or even a good) musician.
2) Your teacher's favorite guitar method book was published before 1970.
3) Your teacher's primary scale system is the Segovia Scales, or worse, Richard
Pick's scales.
4) Your teacher believes that Romanza is an elementary piece.
5) Your teacher believes that the more relaxed your hands are, the better
you'll play.
6) Your teacher believes that playing the guitar is natural.
7) Your teacher says that until you can "feel" the music, you will never play
well.
Richard F. Sayage
> In article <y1Fed.5431$KJ6....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> "sycochkn"
> <syco...@earthlink.net> writes:
>
>>Why do you think that the Segovia scales are not particularly vlauable.
>>The
>>Segovia scales appear to be helping me. Are there scales that you think
>>are
>
> Let me go a little further here. Below are the "Seven Indications". See
> number three.
>
>
>
>
> "The Seven Indications That You Need To Dump Your Guitar Teacher."
>
> 1) Your teacher thinks John Williams is a great (or even a good) musician.
>
> 2) Your teacher's favorite guitar method book was published before 1970.
>
> 3) Your teacher's primary scale system is the Segovia Scales, or worse,
> Richard
> Pick's scales.
>
> 4) Your teacher believes that Romanza is an elementary piece.
>
> 5) Your teacher believes that the more relaxed your hands are, the better
> you'll play.
>
> 6) Your teacher believes that playing the guitar is natural.
>
> 7) Your teacher says that until you can "feel" the music, you will never
> play
> well.
>
>
>
> *****************************************************
> Kent Murdick
Hi Kent,
I'm not sure I've got a real problem with anything above except #7.
First, #1....John is a great guitarist with some great moments as a
musician. Not consistent enough to be a great musician so there I'll agree.
I've heard some whacked things by him but I'll leave it there. On the flip,
his Bach Chaconne performance has to be one of the best for classical
guitar, so go figure? :-) All the other stuff I'll leave to the blowing
breeze. But...!!!! ...
#7 is a bit schticky no? How do you manage to play well without the
feel of the music? Technical issues are one thing, so let's assume that
technically we're sound. Now it's time to play something..let's say
Bach...Go....what, you don't know how the music flows, pulses, breathes,
interpretive issues, period issues?
This is simply too broad-based a statement and may need some
clarification on your part to avoid inaccuracy and inconsistency.
The implication is that we can be somewhat technically perfect, albeit
robotic, and play/interpret well. Well guess what...that sounds a lot like
#1 on his bad music days. Or the old Japanese players/orchestras that were
technical wonders but no soul (this is a general statement based on my
broader observations way back when, so everybody take it easy...if you don't
know to what I'm referring then you have no business slamming this
statement).
Rich
--
Richard F. Sayage
www.savageclassical.com
Remove ZEROSPAM to reply...thx
http://www.orphee.com/rmcg/album-rmcg/album.html
http://www.savageclassical.com/rmcg/album-rmcg/album.html
sycochkn
"Richard F. Sayage" <rsay...@ZEROSPAMoptonline.net> wrote in message
news:%MOed.65659$YM4.22...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
>
> "Lutemann" <lute...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20041024094315...@mb-m11.aol.com...
> > In article <y1Fed.5431$KJ6....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> > "sycochkn"
> > <syco...@earthlink.net> writes:
*****************************************************
> > Kent Murdick
>
>
> Hi Kent,
A Bach Chaconne performance played with very little feeling, 15 minutes of
hoping it will be over soon.
Lutemann
Sayage" <rsay...@ZEROSPAMoptonline.net> writes:
>How do you manage to play well without the
>feel of the music? Technical issues are one thing, so let's assume that
>technically we're sound. Now it's time to play something..let's say
>Bach...Go....what, you don't know how the music flows, pulses, breathes,
Ultimately, you must feel the music, but this is not an approach to teaching
interpretation. I paint with a broad brush with this list. Also, I did hear
JW play a piece on radio (I don't buy guitar CDs) that showed some concern with
muscial interpretation. Unfortunely, it is too little, too late.
Larry Deack
> Ultimately, you must feel the music,
Ultimately, your posts are just trolls.
Years and years of wasted jealousy and bitter resentment for people like
Angelo who have given RMCG more than all your posts and mine put together -
but you can't even see that, can you?
You deserve what you have helped create.
Stephen Wolfe
Lutemann wrote:
> Hardly anybody plays music on the guitar, they play a type of disco
> beat and call it music.
That's pretty good Lutemann. Do you know why that is? The unbroken tradition of the
guitar is newer than say the violin. Our tradition is not built upon simple
knowledge that, for example, a mediocre freshman violin student at a mediocre
college takes for granted.
SW
Stephen Wolfe
What are you babbling on about *now*?
SW
Joseph Raymond
> >
> >
> > "The Seven Indications That You Need To Dump Your Guitar Teacher."
> >
> > 1) Your teacher thinks John Williams is a great (or even a good) musician.
> >
>
>
> Hi Kent,
>
> I'm not sure I've got a real problem with anything above except #7.
>
> First, #1....John is a great guitarist with some great moments as a
> musician. Not consistent enough to be a great musician so there I'll agree.
> I've heard some whacked things by him but I'll leave it there. On the flip,
> his Bach Chaconne performance has to be one of the best for classical
> guitar, so go figure? :-) All the other stuff I'll leave to the blowing
> breeze. But...!!!! ...
>
>
But Luteman qualified that statement with "(or even a good)." Now is
there a _sane_ CG player who would not consider John Williams to be at
least, or even just, a "good musician?" Luteman sometimes says useful
things. But statements like the above are absurd. And the fact that
he adheres to these ridiculous statements, like his teacher whose name
I won't say but is like Montana, is lunacy!
Joe
Richard F. Sayage
"Joseph Raymond" <Experien...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:60ee8a91.04102...@posting.google.com...
I think I understand what Kent is saying in brief, and most times I have
to agree. Williams is one of the great technicians, flawless technique, and
great sight reading. This does not qualify him as a great musician. A
great player, yes. The music stuff goes beyond the notes on the fretboard
and RH technique. I won't quibble about good or great, if you don't mind.
I'll concede that he may in fact be an adequate musician.
There are myriad examples of the latter where he is concerned.
Something close to me is the Violin Concerto in E, Bach. The playing is
superb, but that is all. His ability to discern the correct path,
arrangement or otherwise, is highly suspect, at least at key moments. Bear
in mind that these things, recordings and such, are a frozen moment in time.
He may have improved on this or other issues, but I personally have no
evidence of such.
Lastly, this is my taste and is not meant to lessen anyone else's
opinion or thoughts regarding his musicianship. I think he's a great
player, have listened to much of his mainstream material, have questioned
certain things (sometimes many things) along the way, and have strived to
improve upon them. If this isn't what it's all about for any of us as
guitarists/players/musicians, then what's the point? I would venture that
he himself might agree minus the great musician thingie! :-)
Bob Ashley
I disagree, Larry. I think Kent is one of the group's
uncrumbleable, if incorrigible, pillars.
And so are you!
:-)
******************************
rib
Lutemann
<syco...@earthlink.net> writes:
>A Bach Chaconne performance played with very little feeling,
Played with feeling? And what is that? A great performace is a great
performance; how you feel while playing has just about nothing to do with it.
It's how the audience feels after listening to you play that's important.
Bob Ashley
Lutemann tests the bold thesis. He doesn't copy the crowd. It's very
useful because it wakes people up, gets them thinking critically, maybe
even to point of pissing them off sometimes. His function is also to serve
as a convenient repository upon whom the group has always projected its
own individual or collective anxieties. A troll cannot serve this function
because the troll poses no perceived threat to received wisdom. Kent, by
contrast, is an iconoclastic expert/critic of received guitar wisdom.
Most times counterarguments to Kent's arguments aren't all that robust.
Mostly they wail and whine, go indignant, then invoke Kent's scapegoat
function. Most rely on the uncritical acceptance of oatmealed platitudes.
The bandwagon effect. Imputing "insanity" to anyone who doesn't think JW
is "good musician" is not exactly a sterling example of a shut-down
counter-argument.
I disagree with Lutemann, like you, but I will grant that there is no such
thing as reliable performance 'metric' which "prooves" he's wrong. In the
end, it's all taste, all subjective-centric. (Now he'll come back and let
me know in no uncertain terms that I'm wrong about this!)
MO, along with a few others, do the same thing, 'cept their bold theses
are all different.
All of the truly innovative contributors to this ng share this: all have
been maligned at one time or another, scapegoated as a menace to rcmg
society. It's simple, really; they all take risks. I guess that's why we
lose so many of them. Kent, on the other hand, combines creativity with an
iron constitution. No contributor, none, has a thicker skin than Kent.
He's non-plussed no matter what. It's uncanny, really.
Creativity is cancerous. That why I think general society repulses those
afflicted with it.
I think Kent is a very creative person, this notwithstanding his cleverly
constructed online identity as a wholly uncreative, dastardly dogmatic
curmudgeon.
:-)
******************************
rib
Steven Bornfeld
I couldn't agree more. That is, except for the "non-plussed" part.
I'd go with "unabashed". ;-)
Steve
Paolo
This is silly. When did baseless hyperbole become insight
and narrow-mindedness become creativity?
sycochkn
Bob
"Paolo" <darw...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.10.24....@yahoo.ca...
Lutemann
writes:
>Our tradition is not built upon simple
>knowledge that, for example, a mediocre freshman violin student at a mediocre
>college takes for granted.
Exactly.
Lutemann
<cg...@mindspring.com> writes:
>Years and years of wasted jealousy and bitter resentment for people like
>Angelo who have given RMCG more than all your posts and mine put together -
>but you can't even see that, can you?
>
Your posts are always so uplifting, Larry, it's too bad you don't have the
slightest idea what you are talking about. My posts neither add to, nor detract
from anything Angelo has ever done. It was his choice to leave, not mine. I
have little interest in what Angelo is doing except for his compositions, and I
never entered into any discussions with him that I can recall.
Lutemann
<darw...@yahoo.ca> writes:
>his is silly. When did baseless hyperbole become insight
>and narrow-mindedness become creativity?
I think it was around 1993, about the time I started posting rmcg.
Bob Ashley
>
> I couldn't agree more. That is, except for the "non-plussed" part.
> I'd go with "unabashed". ;-)
Thanks Steve. Your diction here is better, closer to the mark.
An aside: Is it true that the inventor of the electric chair was a
dentist.
You can be nonplussed or unabashed in your reply, or neither.
:-)
******************************
rib
Bob Ashley
> This is silly. When did baseless hyperbole become insight
> and narrow-mindedness become creativity?
When irony entered. It's been here, unassumingly seated in the same chair,
every day, for a decade.
******************************
rib
Steven Bornfeld
Bob Ashley wrote:
>
> Thanks Steve. Your diction here is better, closer to the mark.
>
> An aside: Is it true that the inventor of the electric chair was a
> dentist.
>
> You can be nonplussed or unabashed in your reply, or neither.
>
> :-)
>
> ******************************
> rib
>
Hadn't heard that, but it sounds more than plausible. Supposedly Welch
of grape juice fame was a dentist though, IIRC.
Hope this helps,
Steve
PS. I think Miles Davis' dad was a dentist too.
Joseph Raymond
>
> I disagree with Lutemann, like you, but I will grant that there is no such
> thing as reliable performance 'metric' which "prooves" he's wrong. In the
> end, it's all taste, all subjective-centric.
If you are talking about whether someone is a great Artist or Musician
with a capital A or M, then I agree. However, if you are talking
about whether someone is good musician with a small g then I would say
there a many reliable metrics that can be applied to qualify someone
as a good musician. Surely JW is at least a good musician.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, I am latching on to the literal meaning of Luteman's
words which he has hammered over the years. Perhaps I should have
simply told Luteman that he ought to say what he means.
Joe
Aryeh Eller
<Pine.GSO.3.95.iB1.0.104...@halifax.chebucto.ns.ca>,
Bob Ashley <ax...@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote:
> Lutemann tests the bold thesis. He doesn't copy the crowd. It's very
> useful because it wakes people up, gets them thinking critically, maybe
> even to point of pissing them off sometimes. His function is also to serve
> as a convenient repository upon whom the group has always projected its
> own individual or collective anxieties. A troll cannot serve this function
> because the troll poses no perceived threat to received wisdom. Kent, by
> contrast, is an iconoclastic expert/critic of received guitar wisdom.
>
> Most times counterarguments to Kent's arguments aren't all that robust.
> Mostly they wail and whine, go indignant, then invoke Kent's scapegoat
> function. Most rely on the uncritical acceptance of oatmealed platitudes.
> The bandwagon effect. Imputing "insanity" to anyone who doesn't think JW
> is "good musician" is not exactly a sterling example of a shut-down
> counter-argument.
>
> I disagree with Lutemann, like you, but I will grant that there is no such
> thing as reliable performance 'metric' which "proves" he's wrong. In the
> end, it's all taste, all subjective-centric. (Now he'll come back and let
> me know in no uncertain terms that I'm wrong about this!)
>
> MO, along with a few others, do the same thing, 'cept their bold theses
> are all different.
>
> All of the truly innovative contributors to this ng share this: all have
> been maligned at one time or another, scapegoated as a menace to rcmg
> society. It's simple, really; they all take risks. I guess that's why we
> lose so many of them. Kent, on the other hand, combines creativity with an
> iron constitution. No contributor, none, has a thicker skin than Kent.
> He's non-plussed no matter what. It's uncanny, really.
>
> Creativity is cancerous. That why I think general society repulses those
> afflicted with it.
>
> I think Kent is a very creative person, this notwithstanding his cleverly
> constructed online identity as a wholly uncreative, dastardly dogmatic
> curmudgeon.
>
> :-)
Wow! That's one of the most insightful and eloquently written posts I've
ever encountered here on the RMCG.
Great stuff Bob, glad to have you here. You have a gift for describing
in a clear, articulate and entertaining way the complex dynamics and
personalities of this NG.
Thanks and take care,
Aryeh
John Wasak
Hopefully. they haven't transmogrified into the "Great Mirths"!...
jw
PS. Rebutalist's, please note that I wrote "hopefully"....
John Wasak
> In article <7tPed.5650$KJ6....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
"sycochkn"
> <syco...@earthlink.net> writes:
>
> >A Bach Chaconne performance played with very little feeling,
>
> Played with feeling? And what is that? A great performace is a great
> performance; how you feel while playing has just about nothing to do with
it.
> It's how the audience feels after listening to you play that's important.
Written like a truley clueless person about the Art of Music. Music is the
greatest abstraction of all the Arts and therefore itself comes closer than
anything to nothing more than feeling. 'Feeling', as in the abstract
imaginings and intellectualisms of our time. 'Feeling' of an indivuduated
sort. Any performer who cannot impart the feeling of music to an audience is
no more than a marionette pulled this-a-way and that-a-way by the strings of
a "supposed to sound like". "Feeling" is the life force in music. A
performer of music who does not 'feel' the music might as well be a plumber
opening that clogged sink drain. Same old, same old.
jw
John Wasak
> This is silly. When did baseless hyperbole become insight
> and narrow-mindedness become creativity?
When George W. Bush became President?...
jw
PS. Okay, okay ...it might have been Herbert Hoover.
Lutemann
<mr...@earthlink.net> writes:
> 'Feeling', as in the abstract
>imaginings and intellectualisms of our time. 'Feeling' of an indivuduated
>sort. Any performer who cannot impart the feeling of music to an audience is
>no more than a marionette pulled this-a-way and that-a-way by the strings of
>a "supposed to sound like". "Feeling" is the life force in music. A
There is no doubt that a good performer playing a well written piece evokes
emotions in the listener, but the craft of composing and performing is just
that, a craft. No matter how much emotional depth a person my posess, he will
never be a good composer or player unless he has talent and is well trained.
This why most concert guitarists do sound like "marionettes" giving rather
wooden performances.
Lutemann
<mr...@earthlink.net> writes:
>Music is the
>greatest abstraction of all the Arts and therefore itself comes closer than
>anything to nothing more than feeling.
Only to the uneducated. If you had ever come in contact with a knowledgable
musican, you wouldn't be saying this.
Bob Ashley
> Bob Ashley <ax...@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote in message news:<Pine.GSO.3.95.iB1.0.104...@halifax.chebucto.ns.ca>...
> >
> > I disagree with Lutemann, like you, but I will grant that there is no such
> > thing as reliable performance 'metric' which "prooves" he's wrong. In the
> > end, it's all taste, all subjective-centric.
>
> If you are talking about whether someone is a great Artist or Musician
> with a capital A or M, then I agree. However, if you are talking
> about whether someone is good musician with a small g then I would say
> there a many reliable metrics that can be applied to qualify someone
> as a good musician. Surely JW is at least a good musician.
Yes, okay, sounds reasonable. We do have pretty good metrics up to a
certain level.
> Yeah, yeah, yeah, I am latching on to the literal meaning of Luteman's
> words which he has hammered over the years. Perhaps I should have
> simply told Luteman that he ought to say what he means.
Ha!
The only answer available to him would be, "I ALWAYS say what I mean".
Anything else and the irony is lost.
By times, irony liberates, by times it entraps.
And the ironic entreaty might go, "Perhaps I should have simply told
Lutemann that he ought to loosen up, not get so upset so easily, take a
chance on making a bold statement, inject some levity now and then."
I don't know. Irony usually flops in Usenet, but Kent is an exception. For
him, irony is a near totality, not a selective device reserved for
occasional use.
Can you imagine his non-ironic real life were it anything like his
constructed life online? His wife would have shot him, then hung him. His
kids would have poisoned his goulash, his students would have stabbed him
multiple times, and his mother would have had him committed to an asylum.
All evidence hints that he lives a rather unspectacular life as regular,
probably likeable, middle-class citizen who hugs his kids, pulls weeds,
and smirks, but feels bad when one of his students isn't getting it.
But I'll bet his kids laugh their heads off whenever Dad makes a mistake.
******************************
rib
Bob Ashley
> In article <hejfd.2561$kM....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>, "John Wasak"
> <mr...@earthlink.net> writes:
>
> > 'Feeling', as in the abstract
> >imaginings and intellectualisms of our time. 'Feeling' of an indivuduated
> >sort. Any performer who cannot impart the feeling of music to an audience is
> >no more than a marionette pulled this-a-way and that-a-way by the strings of
> >a "supposed to sound like". "Feeling" is the life force in music. A
>
> There is no doubt that a good performer playing a well written piece evokes
> emotions in the listener, but the craft of composing and performing is just
> that, a craft. No matter how much emotional depth a person my posess, he will
> never be a good composer or player unless he has talent and is well trained.
> This why most concert guitarists do sound like "marionettes" giving rather
> wooden performances.
The "marionette" figure works for me. On the other hand, it suggests a
blind adherence to conformity, to mere imitations of handed-down
conventions.
So, are you suggesting that most guitarists are basically just following
conventional 'orders' (like puppets), or rather, that they just don't know
what they're doing (not well-trained)? Probably both, I suspect.
Does your criticism answer to why it seems to me that classical guitarists
tend to clump together in the ways they phrase things? Like they're
almost predictable, from one to the next? Or, maybe it's just because the
tonal, dynamic, technical capacities of instrument is so constrained that
performers can hardly help sounding like each other.
One thing that makes me sick is the 'ponti-tasto' switchback thing. I want
to wretch when that one comes out. It is so, so, painfully contrived! A
few times per decade, well, okay, but not 50 times on one record!
I don't know why, but ponti-tastaroo thing reminds of the sixtyish guy who
still kinda swaggers, thinking that young women find him attractive...in
his white loafers, unbuttoned shirt, fat gold chain, and robin-egg blue
slacks. He swaggers down the street giving young women 'the eye'. The
women scurry away from him, thinking, "Ick, that guy is so 'ponti-tasto'.
Disgusting."
Can a marionette be icky?
******************************
rib
JonLor Pro
>From: lute...@aol.com (Lutemann)
>Date: 26 Oct 2004 10:51:25 GMT
>...the craft of composing and performing is just
>that, a craft....
This is a closed and limited view in which the entire practice is consigned to
mediocrity. Excize the word "just" from your statement and at least you have
an open, partial truth.
JonLorPro@aol
David Kotschessa
On Sun, 24 Oct 2004, Lutemann wrote:
> In article
> <Pine.GSO.3.95.iB1.0.10...@halifax.chebucto.ns.ca>, Bob
> Ashley <ax...@chebucto.ns.ca> writes:
>
>> If the mission has indeed "wound down considerably", how does that affect
>> the status of the Great Myths?
>
> The great myths still apply but are generally accepted and therefore arouse
> little anger. But let's see. I've included them for the new people on the
> list.
The myths, at least some of them, contain some truth if you are familiar
with the concepts they are referring to to begin with. But they would be
seriously misleading for a beginner. They are phrased in such a way that
reminds me of a campaign speech. In general they are not very useful to
anybody but their author as an instrument of angst.
sycochkn
performance. Sometimes it works sometimes it does not. For example G.W.
Bush.
Bob
"Lutemann" <lute...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041026065126...@mb-m04.aol.com...
Stephen Wolfe
John Wasak wrote:
> A
> performer of music who does not 'feel' the music might as well be a plumber
> opening that clogged sink drain. Same old, same old.
You absolutely, 100% have no idea what you are talking about. Stick to your
usual off topic crap.
SW
Stephen Wolfe
sycochkn wrote:
> A performer/actor tries to *express* a particular emotion in his/her
> performance. Sometimes it works sometimes it does not. For example G.W.
> Bush (emphasis mine).
Well said.
SW
Lutemann
(JonLor Pro) writes:
>This is a closed and limited view in which the entire practice is consigned
>to
>mediocrity. Excize the word "just" from your statement and at least you have
>an open, partial truth.
Bad choice of words. "Art" would have been better although there is an aspect
of craft as well.
Lutemann
<syco...@earthlink.net> writes:
>A performer/actor tries to express a particular emotion in his/her
>performance. Sometimes it works sometimes it does not. For example G.W.
>Bush.
I think a better way to say what you are saying is that a performer tries to
evoke a certain emotion in the listener by interpreting the music. There is
psychology to performance. The breaths between phrases and the intelligent
handling of the notes within the phrase is part of that.
What made me understand this is when a pianist told me that every note has a
function in interpretation and you should be able to describe that function.
Sometimes a note has an active function like a suspension or a member of a
dissonant chord, and sometimes it is moving toward or away from an active note.
Or sometimes its function is to just be static. Every type of function and
every note deserves an intelligent and/or intuitive response from the
performer.
John Wasak
> In article <hejfd.2561$kM....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>, "John
Wasak"
> <mr...@earthlink.net> writes:
>
> >Music is the
> >greatest abstraction of all the Arts and therefore itself comes closer
than
> >anything to nothing more than feeling.
>
> Only to the uneducated. If you had ever come in contact with a
knowledgable
> musican, you wouldn't be saying this.
Maybe you need to make the contact of an Artist.
jw
John Wasak
news:417EF8DB...@nowhere.net...
SW, I'd say that the "nowhere" in your address tells us exactly where you're
at.
jw
John Wasak
Well, to be fair, as well as Bush, Kerry too is an actor, both have moments
that work or not in trying to act like "Regular" guys who are interested in
something other than winning the presidency. Of course, Bush already had
his turn on the world stage and has given consistently bad performances
/decisions. Time to change the lead and hope for the best since the show
surely goes on...and on...and on...
jw
Bob Ashley
You know what, David? Your post would have been impossible 5 or 7 years,
especially expressed so serenely! No flaming invective!?
The bandwagon back then held that Lutemann was a nothing short of Satan's
own spawn. Attempted exorcisms were routine. Many were ragingly violent.
I'm not so sure the Myths were composed to be "useful". I think your close
with "campaign". I'll risk I'm closer with "manifesto".
Wouldn't it be nice to have one's own manifesto? I think so. I don't
really have one myself, feeling somewhat shortchanged as a result.
:-)
******************************
rib
Lutemann
<da...@somewhere.com> writes:
>The myths, at least some of them, contain some truth if you are familiar
>with the concepts they are referring to to begin with. But they would be
>seriously misleading for a beginner. They are phrased in such a way that
The myths were wrttten to poke holes in all the bullshit out there that passes
for real information. Guitar pedagogy is where medicine was in the 19th
century.
David Kotschessa
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004, Bob Ashley wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Oct 2004, David Kotschessa wrote:
>
>>
>>> In article
>>> <Pine.GSO.3.95.iB1.0.10...@halifax.chebucto.ns.ca>, Bob
>>> Ashley <ax...@chebucto.ns.ca> writes:
>>>
>>>> If the mission has indeed "wound down considerably", how does that affect
>>>> the status of the Great Myths?
>>>
>>> The great myths still apply but are generally accepted and therefore arouse
>>> little anger. But let's see. I've included them for the new people on the
>>> list.
>>
>> The myths, at least some of them, contain some truth if you are familiar
>> with the concepts they are referring to to begin with. But they would be
>> seriously misleading for a beginner. They are phrased in such a way that
>> reminds me of a campaign speech. In general they are not very useful to
>> anybody but their author as an instrument of angst.
>
> You know what, David? Your post would have been impossible 5 or 7 years,
> especially expressed so serenely! No flaming invective!?
>
> The bandwagon back then held that Lutemann was a nothing short of Satan's
> own spawn. Attempted exorcisms were routine. Many were ragingly violent.
Bob, I am one of those naive souls that tries to find the good in people.
The phrase "signal-to-noise" ratio comes to mind when thinking about most
of Lutemann's posts. But I happen to agree with certain ideas of his such
as his "controversial" views on tremolo.
>
> I'm not so sure the Myths were composed to be "useful". I think your close
> with "campaign". I'll risk I'm closer with "manifesto".
Sounds about right.
> Wouldn't it be nice to have one's own manifesto? I think so. I don't
> really have one myself, feeling somewhat shortchanged as a result.
No, i wouldn't want one. Whenever I write stuff like that I just end up
changing my mind and regretting it later.
>
> :-)
>
> ******************************
> rib
>
>
David Kotschessa
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004, Lutemann wrote:
> In article <2004102615...@meniscus.d0nuts.org>, David Kotschessa
> <da...@somewhere.com> writes:
>
>> The myths, at least some of them, contain some truth if you are familiar
>> with the concepts they are referring to to begin with. But they would be
>> seriously misleading for a beginner. They are phrased in such a way that
>
> The myths were wrttten to poke holes in all the bullshit out there that passes
> for real information. Guitar pedagogy is where medicine was in the 19th
> century.
It's ok Kent, I actually agree with the sentiment, just not some of the
particular myths and the way they are expressed. They come across as
close minded, which is ironic, since close-mindedness is the root of the
fuddy-duddy, stale smelling academic nonsense that passes for pedagogy.
Larry Deack
> The phrase "signal-to-noise" ratio comes to
> mind when thinking about most of Lutemann's posts.
The phrase "troll" come to my mind.
Why does he have to take shots at people like Williams? My bet is he
doesn't have the courage of his convictions and would turn to jelly if he
had to get on stage with Williams at a GFA and explain to Williams and the
audience why he thinks he knows more than Williams about guitar and music.
Kent is clueless as to how clueless he is. So he just keeps on posting as
if it matters, missing what matters entirely.
Bob Ashley
> > The bandwagon back then held that Lutemann was a nothing short of Satan's
> > own spawn. Attempted exorcisms were routine. Many were ragingly violent.
>
> Bob, I am one of those naive souls that tries to find the good in people.
> The phrase "signal-to-noise" ratio comes to mind when thinking about most
> of Lutemann's posts. But I happen to agree with certain ideas of his such
> as his "controversial" views on tremolo.
Then bless naive souls!
"Signal-to-noise" ratio? Well, really, the communicative context you've
parachuted yourself into, as you well know, you must, is noise-to-signal
ratio defined. In fact, bombarded as we are everyday by clean, terse
signals, billions of them, the descent into this near-pure noise offers
leisurely relief. This is to honor noise, not disparage it!
What bores me in usenet, by contrast, is priestly fidelity to the topic.
For that, I go to Berg or Shearer or even Lutemann, in books. No noise at
all.
Funny, but even Lutemann says that most of his myths are controversial
any more. I'm sure part of it must GREAT MYTH fatigue on the part of
others, maybe part on the exit of many of Kents most mortal enemies, and
maybe, yeah, maybe some more people actually swung his way.
> > I'm not so sure the Myths were composed to be "useful". I think your close
> > with "campaign". I'll risk I'm closer with "manifesto".
>
> Sounds about right.
>
> > Wouldn't it be nice to have one's own manifesto? I think so. I don't
> > really have one myself, feeling somewhat shortchanged as a result.
>
> No, i wouldn't want one. Whenever I write stuff like that I just end up
> changing my mind and regretting it later.
Yeah, come to think of it, you're right. Oh well, it was good for a
minute.
That's what I don't like about usenet. A moment's whim, a passing crave,
if typed, gets monumentalized, like King Tut's pyramidal tomb. My grain of
sand manifesto becomes a Great Pyramid in usenet. Nothing's permanent,
yeah okay, but in mortal proportions, the Great Pyramids, feel pretty
permanent, at least from my fallible distance.
And that was the architect's idea, eh? Immortality. Persuasive, but still
rhetoric, I know.
:-)
******************************
rib
Bob Ashley
>
> On Wed, 27 Oct 2004, Lutemann wrote:
>
> > In article <2004102615...@meniscus.d0nuts.org>, David Kotschessa
> > <da...@somewhere.com> writes:
> >
> >> The myths, at least some of them, contain some truth if you are familiar
> >> with the concepts they are referring to to begin with. But they would be
> >> seriously misleading for a beginner. They are phrased in such a way that
> >
> > The myths were wrttten to poke holes in all the bullshit out there that passes
> > for real information. Guitar pedagogy is where medicine was in the 19th
> > century.
>
> It's ok Kent, I actually agree with the sentiment, just not some of the
> particular myths and the way they are expressed. They come across as
> close minded, which is ironic, since close-mindedness is the root of the
> fuddy-duddy, stale smelling academic nonsense that passes for pedagogy.
If I might, let me contextualize Kent's apparent close-mindedness. He
doesn't see guitar mastery as an art so much as a craft. He has likened
the discipline to guilds of the Renaissance. Some of those we call the
most brilliant artists of western civilization, were actually more closely
seen as skilled craftsmen in their own day.
And in those days, there was a right and wrong way to do things.
Relativism, that ameliorating balm we slather onto near everything
debatable these days, had no role to play.
Kent has a guild mentality, then. It's anachronistic, to be sure, but his
precepts has a kind of precedence, a ground in history. Summary dismissal
is the usual response, because in our age the guild mentality sounds
arrogant and contempuous. You have transcended the summary dismissal, a
definite leap towards wider tolerance.
Any errors in representing Kent should be attributed solely to me. It's
just that I remember a post of his a couple years back where he drew upon
the logic of craft. It's a very creative perspective if you ask me. It
imparts a deeper historical sweep to attitudes about what we do. Right
or wrong? I don't care about that part of it. I'm no judge.
******************************
rib
Stephen Wolfe
John Wasak wrote:
Good job getting back to your off topic posts; I should have snipped that part I
quoted . I was commenting on a performer *expressing* a particular emotion and
not getting caught up in it.
SW
Stephen Wolfe
Larry "the 'suck ass" Deack" wrote:
> Why does he have to take shots at people like Williams?
For the same reason so many others do. His interpretation is dry, and leaves
much to be desired. Now, I would give my left nut to have the technical prowess
of Williams, but that doesn't mean I can make music. Heck, a hi end software
program can "narrate" practically any text you throw at it, but I don't want to
hear it read a good story.
SW
Bob Ashley
I can maybe understand why you might be pissed off.
It sorta sounds, though, like you're pretty sure it only makes good sense
that everyone else oughta be just as pissed off as you are. Like it's so
plain that everybody should just see "how clueless he is".
Maybe I'm wrong. If so..
...should your personal, private angs be of general, public concern?
And the third possibility...
...you don't need to provide any reasons to any poster, least of all,
me...It's usenet, after all.
So why go to all the trouble in the first place?
Maybe you're just plain pissed off and so, okay, well, vent if you must..
I don't mind, really. I'm not without sin.
******************************
rib
Larry Deack
> Maybe you're just plain pissed off and so, okay, well, vent if you must..
Maybe you should ask Kent why he is so pissed off. I'm not pissed off but
I sure am not going to hold back when Kent is being stupid because of his
anger. He gets what he creates. He's a big boy now and doesn't need you as
an apologist for him.
Bob Ashley
> Good job getting back to your off topic posts; I should have snipped that part I
> quoted . I was commenting on a performer *expressing* a particular emotion and
> not getting caught up in it.
Detachment. Killing the ego, letting just the emotion get through unmarred
by histrionics. I agree.
Didn't JW characterize music as the most abstract of arts. I'd like to
know how any performer could convey a 'particular' (we assume specifiable)
emotion.
Doesn't that reduce to blunt programmatic symbolism, like Peter and the
Wolf? Abstraction, to me, suggests ambiguity, the non-specifiable
emotion. Which is why the musician exerts a generalized sway of posture,
an undecipherable brow furl.
How does one communicate an approaching bemusement of sentimental
forgiveness for one's former tendency to impetuousness?
I'm sure music can do it, but how, who could say? Ambiguity, not
particularity, overstands. Perhaps, the "getting caught up" part has
something to do with the performer feeling compelled to fill the vacuum
left by ambiguity, with specificity.
As if, part of interpretation is specification or particularization. That
would qualify under your 'getting caught up' rubric. Not getting caught up
might be the comfort and confidence to leave ambiguity alone, to step
back, detach and watch whatever human quality happens to emerge...from the
music itself, not the ego.
Just an expendable idea.
******************************
rib
Bob Ashley
I agree. Kent doesn't need me as an apologist. What I wrote was just
something that happened to interest me at the time, a kind of leisurely
diversion. I'm not making any uppity pretension intended to be read as a
serious defense mission for Kent.
Well, I hope you get whatever it is you're trying to do, done.
******************************
rib
Lutemann
Deack" <cg...@mindspring.com> writes:
>My bet is he
>doesn't have the courage of his convictions and would turn to jelly if he
>had to get on stage with Williams at a GFA and explain to Williams and the
>audience why he thinks he knows more than Williams about guitar and music.
>
I'd be glad to give Williams a lesson in front of an audience. I'd take some
simple piece like the Sor B minor or the E minor etude and have him play it
through. Then we'd do an analysis and talk about what could be done to improve
it . I guarantee I could improve his playing by 100%, which is not saying
much.
Stephen Wolfe
Larry Deack wrote:
>
>
> Maybe you should ask Kent why he is so pissed off. I'm not pissed off but
> I sure am not going to hold back when Kent is being stupid because of his
> anger. He gets what he creates. He's a big boy now and doesn't need you as
> an apologist for him.
Well, I would hate to see *you* mad. You are the biggest grumpy grouch around
here.
SW
Larry Deack
> I'd be glad to give Williams a lesson in front of an audience.
It can be arranged but I bet you won't be at the next GFA Williams plays
and you won't say the things you post to his face. You can't play well so
you have to put down others who can play better than you. Your are clueless
about how pathetic your shtick is after all these years and how little
you've contributed compared to just one post of one piece by Angelo.
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
Really, Larry--he (and almost everyone here) can play better than I,
and he's never put me down--not once. Nor have I heard him putting down
the more well-known players here--not Stanley, nor Angelo, nor Mark, nor
David Starobin...etc. Do you think there's a reason for this?
I think there is, but it has nothing about being afraid to say
something to another's face.
Steve
--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001
Larry Deack
> the more well-known players here--not Stanley, nor Angelo, nor Mark, nor
> David Starobin...etc.
You must have missed some posts, especially about David's tone. Nor do you
and I know who reads this NG nor who posts here under what screen names.
Kent's comments about Angelo's RMCG contributions are also a put down but
you must have missed that too. Many other little digs of others are implied
with crap like when to replace your teacher but that may mean little to
those who are not friends with those teachers and know they are not the
idiots Kent says they are.
I'm sick of Kent's negative rants about people like Williams, Isben,
Tennant, Kanengiser... and on and on... so... once in a while I vent and he
gets some of the negative crap he gives others. Kent's just a local CG
player and teacher like me but he sure can't seem to understand when to shut
up and listen to those who know something he doesn't. I don't think you and
I have that problem and we understand that people like Stanley, Angelo, Mark
and David are the folks who really do the work to create a world for the
rest of us to enjoy. Kent is not a player nor a composer any more than I am
but I know the difference.
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
I really don't want to get further into this with you. I fail to
understand just why Kent gets under your skin like that. I doubt he's
convinced even one person not to listen to Isbin, JW, Tennant,
Kanengiser, etc.
Neither has he ever claimed (that I know of) that he is a virtuoso or a
composer. He has strongly held beliefs on technique and performance,
and he's not afraid to name names. I can't recall him ever reacting as
if his feelings have been hurt by anything posted about him. I also get
no sense that he is a troll in the sense of wishing to provoke more heat
than light.
I can understand your offense at his making his technical points by
making it personal. I don't think I'd do it that way were I in his place.
But I'm not. And I can't remember him making any gratuitous insults,
which you know at least as well as I happens all the time around here.
Mostly, I'm saying this because I respect your contributions to this
newsgroup, and wish you wouldn't get so worked up over it.
Steve
--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
Matanya Ophee
>I can't remember him making any gratuitous insults,
>which you know at least as well as I happens all the time around here.
But I do, and painfully so, which is why the jerk is number one in my
kill file.
Matanya Ophee
Editions Orphe'e, Inc.,
1240 Clubview Blvd. N.
Columbus, OH 43235-1226
614-846-9517
fax: 614-846-9794
http://www.orphee.com
http://www.orphee.com/rmcg/album-rmcg/album.html
http://www.savageclassical.com/rmcg/album-rmcg/album.html
http://www.livejournal.com/users/matanya/
Joseph Raymond
> In article <%8Vfd.8953$KJ6....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>, "Larry
> Deack" <cg...@mindspring.com> writes:
>
> >My bet is he
> >doesn't have the courage of his convictions and would turn to jelly if he
> >had to get on stage with Williams at a GFA and explain to Williams and the
> >audience why he thinks he knows more than Williams about guitar and music.
> >
>
> I'd be glad to give Williams a lesson in front of an audience. I'd take some
> simple piece like the Sor B minor or the E minor etude and have him play it
> through. Then we'd do an analysis and talk about what could be done to improve
> it . I guarantee I could improve his playing by 100%, which is not saying
> much.
Well Luteman, we are still waiting for your rendition of the Sor Bm
Study. And there is no need for you to meet with John Williams
personally for this competition since he has already recorded it.
Let's hear you give big John a guitar lesson. <gg>
Joe
Joseph Raymond
Sorry Luteman, I really screwed up in my last post. Dang! Now please
excuse me while I run for cover!
Joe
Philip Smith
JW certainly has the technique to play what he wants - this summer in
Dundee I heard him demonstrate a crescendo for Greg Smallman's talk
with at least fifteen discernable levels!
Philip
Lutemann
<Pine.GSO.3.95.iB1.0.104...@halifax.chebucto.ns.ca>, Bob
Ashley <ax...@chebucto.ns.ca> writes:
>Kent has a guild mentality, then. It's anachronistic, to be sure, but his
>precepts has a kind of precedence, a ground in history. Summary dismissal
>is the usual response, because in our age the guild mentality sounds
>arrogant and contempuous. You have transcended the summary dismissal, a
>definite leap towards wider tolerance.
Music is an "old-world" discipline, and it's demands are "old-world". Teaching
kids music today is quite a challange because their modern perspective is so
antagonistic to this phiosophy. The view of the list reflects this antagonism
as well. Modern people have a highly romantic perception of what it means to be
an artist and are scared shitless that it really might be different than what
they believe.
Robert Firestone
I have had similar feelings to the ones you do, Larry, so it seems.
The main problem that I have with Kent is that he always uses the
"argument from authority", (and it seems to be nearly always his own
authority!). And he hasn't really *earned* said authority. It
doesn't bother me much these days, and I don't hold it against him any
more, but I can relate to your reaction.
Robert
Paolo
quite good in that they can play the notes correctly and produce a nice,
balanced tone, but who can't phrase. The reason, at least in this case, is
because their sense of rhythm is mediocre - they are tethered to an
unwavering pulse because if they let go, they are lost. Have any of the
other teachers on the list ever had a student with lousy technique but a
keen sense of phrasing? I never have.
I absolutely don't buy the idea that technique and musicality
are dissociable. This is why I find Lutemann's contention that John
Williams is unable to phrase so ridiculous. Assuming Lutemann doesn't
possess some insight into CG technique that JW doesn't, I think all he can
criticize with any credibility are JW's musical decisions.
sycochkn
Bob
"Paolo" <darw...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.10.29....@yahoo.ca...
Scott Daughtrey
>I have a student playing advanced repertoire whose playing is technically
>quite good in that they can play the notes correctly and produce a nice,
>balanced tone, but who can't phrase. The reason, at least in this case, is
>because their sense of rhythm is mediocre - they are tethered to an
>unwavering pulse because if they let go, they are lost. Have any of the
>other teachers on the list ever had a student with lousy technique but a
>keen sense of phrasing? I never have.
>
Yeah, many. Especially beginners, unhampered by expectations of a demanding
teacher or methodology. Ask them to sing the piece for you and the phrasing is
quite different than what comes out of their unskilled hands. Sometimes it's
the ability to physically reproduce the phrasing that trips up students and
not their conception of what they wish it sounded like. This is why I prefer
to teach them to play what they hear -before- they get dogged down by the
myopic approach of physical perfection ie. making them feel every note must
come out perfectly rounded and expecting a balanced tone. A student can create
a nice flowing phrase even with several mistakes intertwined if they can
conceive the phrase in their minds like they would sing it as opposed to
striving for technical perfection: musical versus physical integrity (and a
big thanks to someone for giving me the tools to express that sentiment). Some
current methods may be actually encouraging the opposite by focusing primarily
on the aspect of "consistant" performance from square one at the expense of
any opportunity for self expression.
Of course just my $0.02
Scott
Bob Ashley
> Well Luteman, we are still waiting for your rendition of the Sor Bm
> Study. And there is no need for you to meet with John Williams
> personally for this competition since he has already recorded it.
> Let's hear you give big John a guitar lesson. <gg>
Do you think that international repute renders one impervious to
improvement?
Probably not. If not, how can we be so sure which particular person JW
might or might not learn something from?
Should only other famous and adoring people apply?
I guess I'm saying it may be bogus that Lutemann could teach JW anything,
but it's equally bogus to summarily dismiss the possibility. One side
says, "How do you know you can do that?". The other, "How do you know I
can't?"
Perhaps the best, the one and only true judge would be JW himself. Maybe
he should see if Lutemann isn't too booked up already. Maybe he's got an
opening in his timetable where he could slip JW in?
Maybe Kent should suggest a couple of times to JW right here on the ng?
:-)
******************************
rib
Bob Ashley
> In article
> <Pine.GSO.3.95.iB1.0.104...@halifax.chebucto.ns.ca>, Bob
> Ashley <ax...@chebucto.ns.ca> writes:
>
> >Kent has a guild mentality, then. It's anachronistic, to be sure, but his
> >precepts has a kind of precedence, a ground in history. Summary dismissal
> >is the usual response, because in our age the guild mentality sounds
> >arrogant and contempuous. You have transcended the summary dismissal, a
> >definite leap towards wider tolerance.
> Music is an "old-world" discipline, and it's demands are "old-world".
> Teaching kids music today is quite a challange because their modern
> perspective is so antagonistic to this phiosophy. The view of the list
> reflects this antagonism as well. Modern people have a highly romantic
> perception of what it means to be an artist and are scared shitless that
> it really might be different than what they believe.
I agree. The romantized archetype of the artist as a semi-divine,
untouchable prophet or visionary or genius is literal for many people, not
a cinematic overexaggeration.
Thinking of guitar-playing as a craft instead of an art sends most people
into fits, as it the very thought is an abomination. Personally, I don't
see it as being any more complex or difficult than the craft of quilting,
jewellery making, or pottery.
Naturally, of course, those crafts, too, are under the modern thrall of
the 'Creator/Artist' myth.
Maybe that would be another myth to add? Of course, you'd have to figure
out a way to square your claim of this 'old-worldliness' against your
criticism that pedagogy is still stuck in the 'dark ages'. Can't really
have it both ways, if you know what I mean.
******************************
rib
Lutemann
<cg...@mindspring.com> writes:
> It can be arranged but I bet you won't be at the next GFA Williams plays
>and you won't say the things you post to his face. You can't play well so
>you have to put down others who can play better than you. Your are clueless
>about how pathetic your shtick is after all these years and how little
>you've contributed compared to just one post of one piece by Angelo.
I doubt it could be arranged. I can't attend the GFA meeting since, as a
teacher with a family, I have no disposable income. Years ago I was invited to
sit on a panel at one of these things but then I found out that not only
wouldn't I get paid, but I'd have to pay my own transportation and pay my way
in! I didn't even bother to tell them I wasn't attending.
And, no I wouldn't say these things to his face. Why should I? He seems like a
nice person and he can read my posts on this list if he's interested. Perhaps
he does.
Lutemann
fine, I just wasn't overly interested in many of the things he had to say.
Stanley is a fine player and editor. I notice that Yates advocates the use of
precise barring notation which I feel is necessary - MO could take a lesson in
editing from him.
In article <6fae554a.04102...@posting.google.com>,
rof...@hotmail.com Larry writes:
> You must have missed some posts, especially about David's tone. Nor do you
>> and I know who reads this NG nor who posts here under what screen names.
>> Kent's comments about Angelo's RMCG contributions are also a put down but
>> you must have missed that too. Many other little digs of others are implied
>> with crap like when to replace your teacher but that may mean little to
>> those who are not friends with those teachers and know they are not the
>> idiots Kent says they are.
>>
>> I'm sick of Kent's negative rants about people like Williams, Isben,
>> Tennant, Kanengiser... and on and on... so... once in a while I vent and he
>> gets some of the negative crap he gives others. Kent's just a local CG
>> player and teacher like me but he sure can't seem to understand when to
>shut
>> up and listen to those who know something he doesn't. I don't think you and
>> I have that problem and we understand that people like Stanley, Angelo,
>Mark
>> and David are the folks who really do the work to create a world for the
>> rest of us to enjoy. Kent is not a player nor a composer any more than I am
>> but I know the difference.
>
>
Lutemann
<darw...@yahoo.ca> writes:
>Assuming Lutemann doesn't
>possess some insight into CG technique that JW doesn't, I think all he can
>criticize with any credibility are JW's musical decisions.
Or lack of them.
Lutemann
<p...@chance.com> writes:
>Yeah, many. Especially beginners, unhampered by expectations of a demanding
>teacher or methodology. Ask them to sing the piece for you and the phrasing
>is
>quite different than what comes out of their unskilled hands.
This happens becasue the student is playing pieces that are beyond his ability.
As a teacher you should work toward having your students play at a level of
diffficulty that allows them at least some leeway to express themselves
musically. Every published method on the market that I have seen is designed to
accelerate the student beyond his ability to perform musically. They all go too
fast.
Lutemann
<Pine.GSO.3.95.iB1.0.104...@halifax.chebucto.ns.ca>, Bob
Ashley <ax...@chebucto.ns.ca> writes:
>I guess I'm saying it may be bogus that Lutemann could teach JW anything,
>but it's equally bogus to summarily dismiss the possibility. One side
Don't kid yourself. Williams version of the B minor, as I recall, is
absolutely dead. He completely ignores all the key elements in the piece.
Lutemann
Why not?
Lutemann
Experien...@excite.com (Joseph Raymond) writes:
>Well Luteman, we are still waiting for your rendition of the Sor Bm
>Study. And there is no need for you to meet with John Williams
>personally for this competition since he has already recorded it.
Yea, someday I'll download his absolutely terrible version of the B minor and
go over it one phrase at a time. I don't own many guitar records and really
can't afford to buy any. I'm trying to get a setup for recording Mp3's.
Everything you try to do on the computer takes a bunch of hours and/or a bunch
of money. I'd love to do a series of recordings of some of the student
repertoire since there is very little out there for students to hear and most
teachers don't even know what's out there.
Stephen Wolfe
Larry Deack wrote:
> I'm sick of Kent's negative rants about people like Williams, Isben,
> Tennant, Kanengiser... and on and on...
And I am sick of reading your grumpy posts. Let me spell it out for you so there
is no confusion. One doesn't have to have mastered a musical instrument to give
intermediate advise. Your reservations imply a fanaticism, a lack of understand
of what I have explained, and a refusal to allow for criticism. Kent has earned
a pretty good musical education and that certainly qualifies him (and many
others) to discuss *basic* musical concepts that a 10 year old child with a few
months of lessons would be held accountable for.
Save your hero worship and stop being so grumpy. Better yet, why don't you find
the first piano player you can find at the closest church to you. Or, maybe pull
the first violin student you meet out of a local college. Chances are, these
people (heaven forbid their teachers) could teach many "guitarists" a great deal
about music. If many guitarists could play with the amount of musicality as a
typical theory teacher hacking his way through an example at the piano, it would
be a far better world. Your beef with Kent implies that you don't understand
what I have written.
SW
Stephen Wolfe
Scott Daughtrey wrote:
>
> Yeah, many.
Come to think of it, so have I.
SW
Stephen Wolfe
Paolo wrote:
> Have any of the
> other teachers on the list ever had a student with lousy technique but a
> keen sense of phrasing? I never have.
>
No, but one performer comes to mind. Out of respect, I am not going to name this
person. Let me just say so, that the technique not only limits the *potential*
but it also creates some very different sounds that are, honestly very rough to
listen to. But, man oh man, once you get past that, I hear one of the most
musical guitarists I have ever listened to. This person's limitations have also
become part of the pallete of color and it is used to the extreme. What a great
guitarist.
>
> I absolutely don't buy the idea that technique and musicality
> are dissociable. This is why I find Lutemann's contention that John
> Williams is unable to phrase so ridiculous. Assuming Lutemann doesn't
> possess some insight into CG technique that JW doesn't, I think all he can
> criticize with any credibility are JW's musical decisions.
Now I think you have a point here. In fact, I think you are right on the money.
And I am still dumbfounded and asking...why?!?!
SW
Larry Deack
> Personally, I don't see it as being any more complex
> or difficult than the craft of quilting,
> jewellery making, or pottery.
Your playing reflects your view.
Paolo
> Every published method on the market that I have seen is designed to
> accelerate the student beyond his ability to perform musically. They all go too
> fast.
I agree with this.
Larry Deack
> > Every published method on the market that I have seen is designed to
> > accelerate the student beyond his ability to perform musically. They all
go too
> > fast.
"Paolo"
> I agree with this.
I don't agree. The books are just fine if you have a teacher and you don't
limit yourself to one stupid method as if it's the only way to learn.
The majority of what we learn about music is by studying music itself.
I good teacher does not even need a method book and a good student will
have more than one.
Scott Daughtrey
>In article <vuj3o0d2vm3pdscev...@4ax.com>, Scott Daughtrey
><p...@chance.com> writes:
>
>>Yeah, many. Especially beginners, unhampered by expectations of a demanding
>>teacher or methodology. Ask them to sing the piece for you and the phrasing
>>is
>>quite different than what comes out of their unskilled hands.
>
>This happens becasue the student is playing pieces that are beyond his ability.
I don't agree. First, Kent I said beginners. Of course "beginners" are trying
to play things beyond their ability. This is human nature, to want to learn
faster. A beginner may sing "Mary Had A Little Lamb" smoothly but be unable to
actually play the melody smoothly.
Beyond that, many "advanced" players have the same limitations despite thier
technical ability. I don't believe it would be a surprise to find many would
sing a phrase different than they played it. This problem is more severe in
classical music than other styles in my opinion, very likely a result of the
dogmatic approach many classical methods use The Shearer method is a great
example here, with it's unmusical constant repetition of dull pieces for rest
stroke with the plodding A minor undertone. Yawn! Talk about a method designed
to alienate musicality from technique!
The brain should be trained from an early stage, musically, to regard playing
the same as singing with the same freedom from the imposed limitations of a
specific method towards technique. Jazz methods like Aebersold which deal with
improvisation have long ago recognized this serious hole that exists in
classical pedagogy (Dogma...) and have found remarkably effective ways to help
musicians think more musically than technically.
>As a teacher you should work toward having your students play at a level of
>diffficulty that allows them at least some leeway to express themselves
>musically. Every published method on the market that I have seen is designed to
>accelerate the student beyond his ability to perform musically. They all go too
>fast.
No, I don't agree, not at all, I think you're really missing the point.
Shearer again as an example. A fast moving method? Rest stroke in A minor,
rest stroke in A minor, rest stroke in A minor, rest stroke in A minor...the
method is hardly moving fast and provides a flatulent uninspiring set of
non-melodies. Who would even want to sing the uninspired drivel? Can you tell
me which section of Shearer book 1 deals with playing as you would sing?
About developing creativity? How about a checklist of over a dozen
considerations that a student can make before they begin to play a "phrase?
No, no such intelligent consideration, just the plodding i-m alteration over
an unchanging minor I-IV-V bassline, quite pathetic really. How about a few
dozen mental considerations that can be addressed while playing? Nope, nada.
How about discussing what it really means to "hear"? No. What about ear
training, a very necessary step to tuly being able to release the inner music
from the mind to the body? Nope. How about a good discussion of musical
development of a piece thru tension-release and some of the more basic
elements either help create tension or release? No, not in the Shearer method.
It is irrelevant how fast a method moves if it ignores basic musicianship!
That is the relevant point, Kent.
Scott
Joseph Raymond
> On 28 Oct 2004, Joseph Raymond wrote:
>
> > Let's hear you give big John a guitar lesson. <gg>
>
>
> Do you think that international repute renders one impervious to
> improvement?
Of course not.
>
> Probably not. If not, how can we be so sure which particular person JW
> might or might not learn something from?
Of course not.
>
>
> I guess I'm saying it may be bogus that Lutemann could teach JW anything,
> but it's equally bogus to summarily dismiss the possibility. One side
> says, "How do you know you can do that?". The other, "How do you know I
> can't?"
I agree with you. But this is not the essence of Luteman's trolls.
Let me explain.
Luteman has made some very broad negative statements, which are only
his opinions, about John Williams the musician and others for that
matter. He has gone much, much further than simply saying that a
particular rendition by JW is not his cup of tea. He actually gone so
far as to say that any teacher who thinks JW is a good musician should
be fired! Now, perhaps it is foolish to respond to such trolls. But,
I for one, do not want to give tacit approval to Luteman's statements.
To stand by and let this go by is an error of commission.
Do the vast majority of CG players think that JW is a good musician?
Probably. If so, then the onus falls on Luteman to show why he is
not. So far he has not delivered. And even promising to play a piece
at the level of the Bm Sor Study will hardly do. Let him play
something more substantial such as Leyenda. Until he does that he is
merely blowing hot air.
Joe
John Wasak
news:Pine.GSO.3.95.iB1.0.104...@halifax.chebucto.ns.ca.
..
Oh boy! Where does one even start here?... Probably the best way would be
to lasso that ever evasive animal - the question of just what is Art.
Because without a definitive answer to what Art is, and hence what are the
differences between craft and art, we are left with yet another rudderless
navigation of the same old sea. Just one salty sailor telling the other
salty sailor he/she knows the true direction of north.
Now, one proposal would be that Art is something that occurs beyond the
usual experience, beyond the everyday happenstance. If we accept that Art is
something beyond everyday happenstance then why would it be incorrect to
suggest that the creation of Art is in fact a visionary experience? Or even
possibly prophetic? And surely, if it fits either of those two categories
then "genius" wouldn't be inappropriate, either, no?
Craft on the other hand suggests an implicit relationship with study and
with repetition. The idea of a graduated development in order to do
something consistently well. The apprenticeship of the Guild is perfectly in
keeping with this suggestion.
In this then it seems one can study Craft but not Art!
What then does Art seem to call for, even demand, that Craft doesn't?
(Some possibilities could be such things as the development of sensitivity,
imagination, originality.)
We hear it here in RMCG all the time, the complaint about those guitarists
who can play like demons, who can run circles around the old guard
guitarists in their possesion of technique - brilliant jugglers of fingers
and notes, of time and rhythm - who are perhaps lacking in the capacity to
relate something other than their well-crafted technical abilities.
Maybe that is the difference between Craft and Art.
jw